6. Comentario histórico
6.4. Indíbil y Mandonio. Los celtíberos aliados y traidores de Roma
1 d4 tt:'lf6 2 tt:'lf3 c5 3 d5 e6 4 c4 b5 (D)
We have now reached the basic po
sition of the Blumenfeld Gambit. It's named after the Russian master Benia
min Blumenfeld. The greatest adher
ent of the gambit in its early years was Rudolf Spielmann (author of the fa
mous book The A rt of Sacrifice in Chess), who used it successfully in nu
merous games. Later on, Lev Alburt (who has played almost all the varia
tions featured in this book) scored some high-profile victories with the gambit that considerably increased its popularity. Nowadays you can find the Blumenfeld Gambit in games by Ehsan Ghaem Maghami, Yuri Krivor
uchko, Liviu Dieter Nisipeanu, Fran
cisco Vallejo Pons, Andrei Volokitin
and other strong grandmasters. It' s notable that scrutiny with modem com
puter engines has, it seems, suggested that this speculative-looking gambit has a good deal more substance than tended to be thought for much of its earlier history.
In common with the Benko Gam
bit, Black sacrifices a pawn by ... b5.
But in the Blumenfeld it is more com
mon for White to refuse this gift and focus on securing his central foothold.
Also, the aims of Black's pawn sacri
fice are different. In the Benko, Black seeks play on the half-open a- and b
files using the power of the g7 -bishop;
in the Blumenfeld Gambit, if White accepts the gambit pawn, Black plays in the centre, setting up a powerful pawn-centre. Thus, the inclusion of the moves tt:'lf3 and ... e6 (compared with the Benko Gambit) changes a lot;
most significantly, the fact that Black has played ... e6 means that there is far more tension in the centre, and this can work for or against either side, de
pending on the specific features of each position.
The next chapter deals with the main line, 5 i.g5, which aims to exert positional pressure on Black. In this chapter we shall analyse all the rare moves White can play on move 5, to
gether with lines where he accepts the
BLUMENFELD GAMBIT 43
gambit pawn. This chapter therefore divides into the following sections:
A: 5 a4 43
B: 5 lt::lc3 44
C: 5 dxe6 47
Other moves can be dealt with more briefly:
a) The odd-looking 5 cxb5 can be met by the natural 5 ... lt::lxd5 or 5 ... exd5 6 .ltg5, transposing to the note to White's 6th move in Chapter 5.
b) 5 'i!Vc2?! does not look like a correct pawn sacrifice. 5 ... bxc4 6 e4 exd5 (D) and then:
b l ) 7 e5 ? ! lt::lg8 8 lt::lc3 i.b7 9 i.g5 (Braga-Ward, London 1 987) 9 .. .'ii'b6 +. White's main target here is the d5-pawn, so Black should think first of it.
For now, Black has two defensive ideas: to push back the g5-bishop by ... h6 and ... g5 and to play ... lt::le7 or ... lt::la6-b4. Two pawns look like too large a sacrifice for White's relatively modest compensation.
b2) 7 exd5 lt::lxd5 8 i.xc4 'iie7+! ? (this unpleasant check disrupts White's
plans) 9 �dl (or 9 i.e2 lt::lb4 10 'i!Vdl i.a6 1 1 i.e3 'i!Vd6 +) 9 ... lt::lc7 ! 10 l:.el lt::le6 +. The knight on e6 looks like a great defensive piece; Black is still a pawn up and White needs to prove he has sufficient compensation.
c) 5 e4 lt::lxe4 and now:
c 1 ) 6 i.d3 lt::lf6 7 dxe6 fxe6 trans
poses to line 'c3 ' .
c2) In the case of 6 cxb5 i.b7 7 dxe6 fxe6 8 i.d3 Black needs to be precise. 8 ... i.e7?! allows White an ad
vantage after 9 'ifc2 lt::lf6 10 lt::lg5 ! ;l;, so 8 ... a6 ! is best. Now 9 ll¥c2 lt::lf6 10 lt::lg5 can be met by 10 ... axb5 1 1 i.xh7 ( 1 1 lt::lxh7? 'i!fc7 ! +) l l ...l!Vc7 with a complicated and unclear position.
c3) 6 dxe6 fxe6 7 i.d3 lLlf6 and then:
c3 1 ) The aggressive 8 lt::lg5 bxc4 9 i.xh7 (D.Paulsen-Krause, 2nd Bun
desliga 200112; 9 i.xc4? lt::lc6 +) can be met with 9 .. .'�'c7 ! (a new move) 10 i.g6+ <Ji;e7 l l lt::lf3 lt::lc6 12 0-0 i.b7, which is somewhat unclear but Black is too well centralized for him to be worse.
c32) 8 cxb5 d5 9 0-0 i.d6 10 lt::lc3 0-0 1 1 :el l:te8 12 b3 (B.Rytov
Vaganian, USSR Army Ch, Lenin
grad 1970) 1 2 ... lt::lbd7 ! ? with an un
clear position. Black has a centre like in the Blumenfeld Gambit Accepted but here the material is level.
A) 5 a4
This is a reasonable choice if White simply wants to reach an interesting position with little theory.
5 ... bxc4 6 lt::lc3 exd5 7 lt::lxd5 (D)
44 AITACK WITH BLACK
7 . • . lt:lc6!?
This is a new move that I am pro
posing. Black always used to play 7 ... i..b7 but after 8 e4 lt:lxd5 9 exd5 it's not clear to me what the bishop is do
ing on b7. In Pham Minh-L.Vajda, Bu
dapest 2002 Black won the d5-pawn by 9 .. .'�e7+ 10 i..e2 'ile4 1 1 0-0 'ii'xd5 12 'ii'c2 J..e7 but I don't like the posi
tion that appears after 1 3 l:tel !?, when 1 3 ... 0-0? is no good because of 14 i..xc4 'ii'd6 1 5 lt:le5 ! ± with multiple threats. That's why I propose another natural developing move that also al
lows Black to hold on to the c4-pawn (temporarily, but usefully).
8 e4 i.a6 9 lt:lc3!
White creates the threat of e5. The slow 9 i.e2?! i.e7 10 0-0 0-0 + leaves Black better.
9 ... 'ii'b8!
A nice square for the queen - it stops White's e5 advance and controls important squares on the b-file. Also, on c7 it could be attacked by lt:lb5.
Black is OK here; for example, 10 b3 ! (the most critical; otherwise Black plays ... .i.e7 and ... 0-0) 10 ... 'ii'xb3 ! 1 1
'i!Vxb3 cxb3 12 .i.xa6 lt:lb4 (a double attack on a6 and c2) 1 3 e5 lt:lg8 14 .l:.b 1 lt:lxa6 1 5 l:txb3 (White is a pawn down, but Black needs to hurry with his kingside development) 1 5 ... c4 1 6 .l:!.b5 i.b4 1 7 i.d2 li!.c8 ! (supporting the c4-pawn) 1 8 lt:ld5 ( 1 8 lt:le4 ? ! c3 19 .i.e3 .l:tc4! 20 lt:ld4 lt:le7 + and ... 0-0) 1 8 ... .i.xd2+ 19 lt:lxd2 lt:le7 20 lt:le4 lt:lxd5 2l lt:ld6+ �e7 22 lt:lxc8+ .l:!.xc8 23 Ihd5 c3 and, with his strong passed pawn, Black is fine.
B) 5 lt:lc3
Although this move strikes me as ugly, some care is needed, so we should examine at least one way for Black to get a comfortable position. In some of the practical examples, White has failed to make the most of his chances, so we need to go well beyond 'prepa
ration by database' here!
5 ... b4 6 lt:la4
Here the knight can easily find it
self out of play. White's main active idea is to attack the b4-pawn by play
ing a3, and in order to reply correctly, Black needs to respect the possibilities that the queenside pawn-tension will introduce.
Retreating by 6 lt:lbl ?! does not ap
pear to have much logic, although proving an advantage for Black is not quite as simple as one might expect, as the knight can quickly be 'recycled' if a promising post opens up:
a) 6 ... exd5? ! is not too good since it gives the white knight the important c4-square, and White can make good use of this; e.g., 7 cxd5 i.b7 8 i.g5 h6
BLUMENFEW GAMBIT 45
9 .ltxf6 'ii'xf6 10 e4! g5 ( 1 0 ... 1i'xb2 1 1 tt:lbd2 .lte7 12 .l:.c 1 appears to give White decent compensation) 1 1 lLlbd2 g4 1 2 tt:\g 1 'ifxb2 1 3 i..b5 and tt:\e2 with obvious compensation.
b) 6 ... i..b7 ! avoids giving White the c4-square. Then:
bl) After 7 dxe6 fxe6 Black gets the better position; e.g., 8 i..f4 i..e7 9 e3 0-0 10 i..e2 d6 1 1 a3 a5 and here:
b1 1 ) 12 0-0 (Yakimenko-J.Friedel, Pardubice rapid 201 1 ) 12 ... tt:\h5 ! 1 3 i..g3 lLlxg3 14 hxg3 tt:ld7 +.
bl2) 12 h3 preserves the bishop but does not maintain equality either:
12 ... e5 ! ? 1 3 i..h2 e4 14 tt:lfd2 (14 tt:\g5 'ii'd7 15 h4 h6 16 tt:lh3 tt:\c6 +) 14 ... tt:\c6
+ and ... tt:\e5.
b2) 7 i..g5 h6 8 i..h4 (8 .ltxf6?
�xf6 9 �d2 exd5 10 cxd5 g5 ! +) 8 ... g5 9 i..g3 exd5 10 cxd5 .ltxd5 +
with a useful extra pawn for Black.
6 • • . i..b7!
Once again, taking on d5 opens up both the c4-square and the a6-fl diag
onal. After 6 ... exd5? ! 7 cxd5 d6 8 a3 a5 (D) there are some instructive vari
ations:
Black has the simple plan of ... i.e 7, ... 0-0, ... tt:lbd7, etc. However, White is able to seize the initiative by 9 e4 ! (improving over 9 i..g5? ! , as played in Kekki-Postny, Caleta 2005), a move that my editor Graham Burgess brought to my attention. Now none of the moves we analysed helped us to find a safe position for Black:
a) 9 ... tt:\xe4? ! is met by 10 .ltb5+.
Then 10 ... tt:\d7?! 1 1 'ii'e2 f5 ( l l ...'iie7 1 2 tt:lb6 l:tb8 1 3 tt:\xc8 l:txc8 14 axb4 and 14 ... axb4 fails to 1 5 .ltxd7+ +-) 1 2 lLlg5 gives White a decisive attack, while 10 ... i..d7 1 1 i..xd7+ lLlxd7 12
�e2 'ii'e7 (or 1 2 ... f5 1 3 ltJg5 �e7 14 tLle6 with excellent compensation) 1 3 0-0 ± gives White more than enough compensation due to Black's uncastled king.
b) 9 ... g6 does not help to evacuate the king: 10 e5 ! dxe5 1 1 lLlxe5 and then:
b1) l l ...i..g7? 12 i..b5+ i..d7 (or 1 2 ... tt:lbd7? 1 3 tt:lc6 'ilc7 14 d6 �b7 1 5 'ii'e2+ �f8 1 6 'i!Ve7+ �g8 1 7 'ii'd8+
i..f8 18 i..h6 +-) 1 3 ltJxd7 lLlbxd7 14 'ile2+ �f8 (14 ... 'ii'e7 1 5 tt:\xc5 +-) 1 5 0-0 +-.
b2) 1 l . .. .ltd6 12 .ltb5+ �f8 1 3 .lth6+ 'itg8 14 ltJc4 ;!; with a poor po
sition for Black.
c) 9 ... i..e7 10 i..b5+ (causing a traf
fic-jam for Black over the d7-square) 10 ... .1td7 (the knight wants this square, but 10 ... liJbd7? fails to 1 1 e5 ! dxe5 12 d6 i..f8 1 3 tt:\xe5 +-) 1 1 .ltd3 0-0 12 0-0 ;!; intending moves like .ltf4, h3 and tt:ld2, with a normal sort of posi
tion where White has pleasant pros
pects.
46 ATTACK WITH BLACK
Thanks to these variations, we un
derstand that Black needs to leave the white pawn on c4, as it blocks lines that White could otherwise put to good use.
7�g5
7 d6? ! is too self-confident. I rec
ommend 7 .. . lli'a5 ! 8 Ji.f4 tbe4 (intend
ing ... b3+) 9 b3 �c6 + with threats of ... �xa4 and ... b3+ or ... f6 and ... e5 winning the d6-pawn. 7 ... tbe4?!, as played in Rossetto-R.Garcia, Buenos Aires 1972, is less convincing because White can exploit the vulnerability of the c5-pawn by 8 tLld2 ! .
7 dxe6 fxe6 8 �g5 (after 8 e3, as seen in Orzech-Shilov, Katy Rybackie 2009, 8 .. .'il+'c7 ! ? intending ... .id6 and ... tbc6-e5 deserves attention; e.g., 9 b3 Ji.d6 10 �b2 0-0, when Black's pieces are ready for kingside action) 8 .. .'jWa5 9 b3 (D) (9 e3 �c6 10 b3 transposes to line 'b2' ) and now:
a) 9 ... tbe4 was tried in Gokhale
Zhang Pengxiang, Mumbai 2003 but it seems that ... tbxg5 is not much of a problem for White, who could have
simply ignored this 'threat' by 10 e3 !?, since the exchange on g5 leaves the black king in trouble because most of his pieces are on the queenside. As 10 ... tbxg5 1 1 tbxg5 gives White the initiative, Black should try 10 .. .'�c7 !?, with unclear play.
b) 9 ... �c6 ! ? attacks a different white piece, aiming to destroy his pawn-structure. Then:
b1) 10 tDb2?! makes 10 ... tbe4 more effective: 1 1 'ii'c2 ( 1 1 e3 is now met by 1 l ...'iVa3 ! 1 2 'iVc2 tbxg5 1 3 tbxg5
�e7 14 f4 �f6 15 l:!.bl h6 16 tbf3 'ii'xa2 + with a useful extra pawn)
1 1 ... g6 + intending ... Ji.g7.
b2) 10 e3 �xa4 1 1 bxa4 tbc6 fol
lowed by ... �e7, ... 0-0 and ... d5, when Black's chances are higher.
7 • . • h6 8 Ji.xf6
According to my database White has never tried 8 Ji.h4, presumably scared of losing the d5-pawn, but in fact it's not a reason to avoid this move. Then:
a) 8 ... g5 9 �g3 exd5 10 cxd5 �xd5 1 1 h4 gives White good compensation since Black's position has become vulnerable. That's why I propose to refuse this gift.
b) The main idea of 8 ... d6 ! ? is slowly to create a threat of capturing on d5 without playing ... g5. White will then be forced to do something him
self, i.e. take on e6 or on f6. After 9 a3 aS 1 0 e3 Jl.e7 (the d5-pawn is at
tacked) 1 1 dxe6 fxe6 + the a4-knight is out of play, while Black has a quantita
tive advantage in the centre and all his pieces have good prospects.
8 • • Ji'xf6 9 e4 d6 10 a3 (D)
BLUMENFELD GAMBIT 4 7
Black can either give the b4-pawn additional support or ignore his oppo
nent's last move:
a) 10 ... lLld7 gives rise to a compli
cated situation: 1 1 axb4 cxb4 12 'i!Vd2 a5 was unclear in Bt:insch-Votava, Mitropa Cup, Bad Wt:irishofen 1993.
b) 1 O ... a5 ! is a solid move strength
ening Black's pawn-chain. Then 1 1 i..d3 lbd7 1 2 0-0 i..e7 leaves Black better, while after 1 1 axb4 axb4 12 lbb6 l:hal 1 3 'iVxal lbd7 the lone white queen can't create many prob
lems for Black on the queenside:
bl) 14 'ii'a4? ! 'ied8 +.
b2) 14 lbxd7?! is natural but inef
fective: 14 .. .'�xd7 1 5 i..d3 ( 1 5 ii'a4+?
c:J;;c7 1 6 'ii'a5+ Wc8 +; the b2-pawn is undefended) 15 ... i..e7 + followed by ... I:ta8.
b3) 1 4 'i!Va7 'iYd8 1 5 'i¥xb7 'ii'xb6 1 6 'ii'c8+ We7 intending ... g5 and ... i..g7 gives Black a pleasant game.
C)
5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5
White accepts the gambit pawn.
This is obviously a critical test of the
Blumenfeld, and quite often occurs in practice. But as mentioned earlier, White more often declines the gambit, since Black's basic compensation is rather obvious - he gets total control of the centre. However, it would be a big lie to say that Black easily proves his compensation. Precision is as im
portant here as it is in the main lines of the Benko Gambit.
6 ... d5 (D)
Black has taken control of the cen
tre. A standard plan here is ... i..d6, . .. 0-0 and ... a6. Then the queen's knight moves to c6 or d7, and the queen's bishop is deployed to b7 or a6. Mean
while, White has plenty of set-ups to choose from. The most crucial idea that Black should watch out for is the e4 ad
vance.
Now:
C l : 7 i..f4 48
C2: 7 e3 49
C3: 7 lbc3 50
C4: 7 g3 52
Or:
48 A ITA CK WITH BLACK
a) There are no problems for Black if White plays 7 a4 a6 8 e3 (Rodkin
E.Rotstein, World Seniors Ch, Glad
enbach 1999) 8 ... c4 ! ? (a new move, sealing in White's king's bishop) 9 l2Jc3 axb5 10 l2Jxb5 l2Je4! intending ... .tb4+. Black has good compensa
tion.
b) 7 .tg5 .te7 (7 ... .td6 invites 8 e4 ! , when 8 ... dxe4? is strongly met by 9 l2Jfd2 .tb7 10 l2Jc3 ±; in my opin
ion it's better to play more slowly in this case) 8 e3 0-0 9 l2Jc3 (9 .td3? is a poor square for the bishop because of Black's tempo-gaining ... c4 advance:
9 ... a6 10 bxa6 c4 1 1 .te2 'i!Vb6 12 'i!Vc l .tb4+ 1 3 l2Jc3 l2Je4 + Vasilev-Mirosh
nichenko, Izmir 2006) 9 ... a6 10 a4 .tb7 1 1 ..te2 axb5 12 .txb5 ( 1 2 axb5?
.l:txa1 13 'i!Vxa1 d4 ! gives Black a strong initiative, while in the case of 1 2 l2Jxb5 lL\e4 1 3 i..xe7 'i!Vxe7 14 0-0 lL\c6 1 5 .td3 l2Jf6 his compensation is clear) and then:
bl) An instructive miscalculation occurred in Matuszewski-Olszewski, Grodzisk Mazowiecki 2007: 12 ... l2Jbd7 1 3 0-0 l2Jg4?! 14 .tf4 d4?. White could now have exploited the weak
ness of e6 and d7 by 1 5 l2Jxd4! cxd4 1 6 �xg4 l:!.f6 ( 1 6 ... dxc3? 1 7 \\!Vxe6+
'iith8 1 8 :ad 1 ±) 1 7 :fd 1 l:tg6 1 8 'ife2 :xg2+ 19 'iitfl ±.
b2) Now is a good moment for 1 2 ... .td6. After 1 3 0-0 lL\c6 1 4 'ife2 'i!Vb6 Black has arranged his pieces well for the ensuing middlegame struggle.
Cl)
7 .tf4 i..d6
It makes sense to exchange off the f4-bishop since otherwise it exerts too much pressure on Black's position.
8 .txd6 'ili'xd6 (D)
9 l2Jbd2
Or: a) 9 l2Jc3 0-0 10 e4 should not scare Black since he is better developed.
I O ... l2Jbd7 I I .tc4 ?! (Dreev-Volokitin, Internet blitz 2004) 1 l ...l2Je5 ! +.
b) 9 e3 0-0 10 l2Jc3 l2Jbd7 1 1 .te2 .1b7 1 2 0-0 e5 1 3 a4 occurred in Milov-Tregubov, Ajaccio rapid 2008 (they even played two games from this position). After the natural (but un
tried) 1 3 ... d4! ? 14 .tc4+ 'iith8 Black's compensation looks good.
9 . . . 0-0 10 e3 l2Jbd7 11 .1e2 l2Je5 12
l2Jxe5 �xeS 13 'i!Vc2 a6! ?
This is a new move (deviating from Andreikin-Alekseev, Russian Team Ch, Dagomys 2008). Black's main idea is to distract the e2-bishop from the g4-square to weaken the oppo
nent's kingside. Then:
a) 14 bxa6?! .1xa6 15 i..xa6 Itxa6 and 1 6 0-0?! is not good because of
BLUMENFELD GAMBIT 49
16 ... tt:lg4 17 g3 c4 + with ideas such as .. .'ii'h5, ... tt:le5-d3 or ... :b6 and .. .l�tb8.
b) 14 'ii'xc5 'ii'xb2 15 'it'd4 ( 1 5 l:tc 1 ? axb5 + ) 1 5 .. .'�xd4 1 6 exd4 axb5 1 7 �xb5 �a6 = . Due to the weakness on a2, White's extra pawn is not valu
able at all.
c) After 14 0-0 axb5 1 5 ..txb5 ( 1 5 'fixeS 'iixb2 =) 1 5 ... tt:lg4 1 6 g3 'ifh5 1 7 h4 g5 1 8 'it'xc5 gxh4 Black clearly has enough activity.
C2)
7 e3 �d6 8 tt:lc3 tt:lbd7
Now it's time for White to decide on a square for his king's bishop. In practice he has tried all the possibili
ties: d3, e2 and g2.
9 ..td3
Or: a) 9 i.e2 0-0 10 0-0 �b7 1 1 b3 fiie7 12 i.b2 e5, Vitiugov-Nemtsev, St Petersburg 2002. Black has built up a strong centre and has obvious com
pensation for the pawn.
b) 9 g3 is possible, but frankly, I don't believe that a pawn-structure such as e3-f2-g3-h2 can be good, es
pecially considering Black's prospects on the a6-fl diagonal. That's why I propose a variation based on ... a6:
9 ... 0-0 10 ..tg2 a6 ! ? (I like this new move; I could not find a direct way to blow up Black's centre in case of
I O ... ..tb7 1 1 0-0 'ii'e7 1 2 a4 e5 1 3 a5 a6 14 bxa6 i.c6, as in A.Brown-Smerdon, Rotorua Zonal 201 1 , but I nevertheless find it a bit risky to stake everything on such a centre) 1 1 0-0 axb5 12 tt:lxb5 and now the unhurried 1 2 ... �e7 (D) promises Black good compensation.
The idea is ... ..ta6. Then:
b1 ) 1 3 tt:lg5 seeks a tactical hole in Black's set-up, but it is not really dangerous: 1 3 .. .'itb6 14 tt:lc3 h6 1 5 tt:lxd5 ! ? ( 1 5 tt:lxe6? 'i!Vxe6 1 6 tt:lxd5 ltb8 +; 1 5 tt:lf3 �a6 1 6 l::tel c4 ! ? in
tending ... tt:lc5-d3 gives Black a nice position) 15 ... exd5 16 �xd5+ tt:lxd5 17 'iiV xd5+ �h8 and now both 1 8 'ii'xa8 ..txg5 and 1 8 tt:lf7+ :xf7 1 9 'ii'xf7 'ii'd6 are unclear.
b2) 1 3 a4 i.a6 14 i.d2 tt:le4 1 5 ..th3 l:H6 should be fine for Black. The crazy 1 6 ..ta5 ! 'iixa5 1 7 ..txe6+ lhe6 1 8 'ili'xd5 tt:lf8 19 'ili'xa8 .ltf6 leads to an unclear situation.
9 . • • i.b7 10 e4
An instructive attack was executed by Black in the following game: 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 :e1 'it'c7 12 h3 tt:le4 13 'ii'c2?! :xf3 ! 14 gxf3 tt:lg5 15 'itg2 tt:le5 1 6 �e2 :f8 1 7 f4 d4+ 1 8 e4 d3? ! ( 1 8 ... 'ili'f7 ! -+ would win even faster) 1 9 fxe5? ( 1 9 i.xd3 tt:lef3 + and ... tt:ld4) 1 9 ... dxc2 20 exd6 "illf7 and Black wins, G.Orlov-Sawyer, Se
attle 1993.
10 ... 0-0
50 AITA CK WITH BLACK
1 o ... dxe4? 1 1 i..xe4 ltlxe4 1 2 ltlxe4 i..xe4 1 3 'ii'xd6 ;!; leaves Black with no real compensation for the pawn.
11 'ii'e2
Black has great attacking chances after 1 1 exd5 exd5 1 2 0-0 d4.
l l . . . d4!
This is a new move (improving over the 1 1 .. .c4 played in Boersma
Rogers, Amsterdam 1 985). After 1 2 ltlb1 ltlg4 ! ? intending ... ltlde5, Black seizes a strong initiative.
C3) 7 ltlc3
White prepares the e4 advance. A precise response from Black is essen
tial, as some of the tactical lines that now follow are rather intricate.
7 ••. ltlbd7 (D)
Black prepares an active response to White's intended pawn-thrust. He avoids 7 ... i..d6? 8 e4! .
w
8 e4!?
This is the most logical follow-up to 7 ltlc3, but there are of course other moves:
a) 8 e3 i..d6 transposes to Line C2.
b) 8 i..f4?! does not make any sense here. 8 ... d4 9 ltlb1 ltld5 10 i..g3 a6 1 1 e4 dxe3 1 2 fxe3 (Milov-Tregubov, Ajaccio rapid 2008) 12 .. ."ii'a5+! (White gets unpleasant compensation if Black takes on e3: 12 ... ltlxe3?! 1 3 'ii'b3 ltlxfl 14 :xfl ) 1 3 ltlc3 ltlxc3 14 'ied2 axb5 1 5 bxc3 ltlf6 + followed by ... i.e7, ... 0-0 and an attack on White's weak
nesses by ... ltle4 (or ... ltld5) and ... i..f6.
c) 8 g3 is an idea that was first used by Turkish GM Suat Atalik, but no strong players have tried it since.
White provokes Black into the varia
tion 8 ... d4 9 ltla4 �aS+ 1 0 i..d2 'ii'xb5
1 1 i..g2 i..b7, when 12 b4! reveals the point of Atalik's idea: White tries to make use of his superior development.
Then I recommend l 2 ... 'ii'a6 ! (rather than 12 ... ltle4, which was played in Atalik-Erdogan, Turkish Ch, Istanbul 2006), sidestepping the attack on the queen by ltlxd4. After 1 3 0-0 ( 1 3 ltlxc5 ltlxc5 14 bxc5 i..xc5 1 5 0-0 0-0 is also equal; Black has no problems in this middlegame) 13 ... cxb4 14 ltlxd4 iLxg2 1 5 'iitxg2 ltJc5 1 6 ltlxc5 i..xc5 17 ltlb3 iLe7 = Black's piece activity compensates for his greater number of pawn-islands.
8 •.• d4 9 e5
That's the point! The e-pawn can look after itself.
9 .•. ltlg4 10 ltlg5
Attacking the g4-knight and the e6-pawn. This is better than 1 0 ltle4?!
i..b7, as the following lines demon
strate:
a) Black gets the better position af
ter 1 1 h3 ltlgxe5 1 2 ltlxe5 ltlxe5 1 3
BLUMENFELD GAMBIT 51
'ii'h5+ lt:Jf7 14 lt:Jg5 (14 lt:Jxc5 i.d5 15 ti:Jd3 'ii'f6 1 6 i.d2 i.d6 1 7 i.b4 e5 + Gozzoli-Maze, French Team Ch 2008) 14 ... g6 15 'i¥g4 lt:Jxg5 16 i.xg5 'i¥d5 + Komarov-Doncea, French Team Ch, Guingamp 201 0.
b) 1 1 lt:Jfg5 lt:Jdxe5 1 2 f4 i.xe4 ! (a typical idea - Black brings an unde
fended knight to e4 in order to win a tempo) 1 3 lt:Jxe4 'ii'd5 and then:
b1) 14 lt:Jg5? c4 ! (Black simply ig
nores the f4-pawn) 1 5 i.d2 d3 ! + Malakhatko-Babujian, St Petersburg 2009.
b2) 14 lt:Jg3? is a poor retreat, as 14 ... c4 ! 1 5 fxe5 i.b4+ 1 6 i.d2 'ilkxe5+
is a strong reply. 17 'ii'e2? loses by force to 17 ... i.xd2+ 1 8 'iii>xd2 'iff4+
19 'ifi>el ( 1 9 'iii>d1 0-0 and ... lt:Jf2+ is coming soon) 19 ... 0-0 -+, while 17 i.e2 lt:Je3 1 8 i.h5+ g6 1 9 'ii'f3 i.xd2+
20 'iii>xd2 .:l.b8 + greatly favours Black.
b3) 14 lt:Jf2 lt:Jxf2 1 5 'iii>xf2 i.e7 ! (simply ignoring the threat of fxe5;
White's pieces are unprepared for the ensuing complications) 1 6 fxe5 0-0+
17 'iii>g 1 c4! leaves Black a whole piece down but just look at the state of the white army ! Only the king has relo
cated, while the others are still on their starting blocks.
10 . • • lt:Jdxe5 11 f4
After 1 1 lt:Jce4? h6 ! 1 2 lt:Jf3 'ii'd5 Black gets a position that is analogous to the lines after 10 lt:Je4 but without any material sacrifice. 1 3 lt:Jfd2 i.b7 1 4 h3 lt:Jf6 1 5 lt:Jxf6+ gxf6 1 6 f4? ! lt:Jd3+ ! 17 i.xd3 'ii'xg2 1 8 'ii'h5+ 'iii>d7 -+ Malakhatko-Vallejo Pons, Caleta 2010.
ll ... i.e7 (D)
12 fxe5
1 2 lt:Jce4? ! and now:
a) In case of 1 2 ... 'ilkd5? 1 3 fxe5 lt:Jxe5 14 '(Wh5+ g6 1 5 'ilkh3 White gets an advantage: 1 5 ... lt:Jf7 1 6 lt:Jxf7 'ii'xe4+ 17 i.e2 0-0 1 8 'i¥f3 i.b7 19 0-0 d3 20 't!Vxe4 i.xe4 2 1 i.f3 i.xf3 22 lt:Jh6+ 'iii>g7 23 gxf3 l:tfd8 24 i.d2
± M.Pavlovic-Parligras, Kavala 2008.
b) With the new move 12 ... 0-0!, Black continues developing rather than worrying about material. His initiative
b) With the new move 12 ... 0-0!, Black continues developing rather than worrying about material. His initiative