THE BLUMENFELD GAMBIT

PERGAMON CHESS OPENINGS

Executive Editor: PAUL LAMFORD

Technical Editor: JIMMY ADAMS

ADORJAN. A. & HORVATH. T.

Sicilian: Sveshnikov Variation

ASSIAC & O'CONNELL. K.

Opening Preparation

BASMAN, M.
Play the St. George

CAFFERTY. B. & HOOPER. D.

A Complete Defence to 1 e4

ESTRIN. Y. B. & GLASKOV. I. B.

Play the King·s Gambit
Volume 1 -King's Gambit Accepted
Volume 2-King's Gambit Declined

GLIGORIC. S.
Play the Nimzo-lndian Defence

KEENE. R. D.
The Evolution of Chess Opening Theory

KOVACS. L. M.
Sicilian: Poisoned Pawn Variation

MAROVIC. D.
Play the King's Indian Defence

NEISHTADT. I.
Play the Catalan
Volume 1 -Open Variation
Volume 2-Ciosed Variation

REUBEN. S.
Chess Openings-Your Choice!

SHAMKOVICH, L. & SCHILLER. E.

Play the Tarrasch

SUETIN. A. S.
Modern Chess Opening Theory

TAULBUT. S.
Play the Bogo-lndian

WATSON. J. L.
Play the French
 THE
BLUMENFELD GAMBIT
JAN PRZEWOZNIK
International Master

and

MALCOLM PEIN
International Master

PERGAMON CHESS
Member of Maxwell Macmillan Pergamon Publishing Corporation
OXFORD · NEWYORK · BEIJING · FRANKFURT
SAO PAULO · SYDNEY · TOKYO · TORONTO
U.K. Pergamon Press pic. Headington Hill Hall.
Oxford OX3 OBW. England
U.S.A. Pergamon Press Inc .• Maxwell House. Fairview Park.
Elmsford. New York 10523. U.S.A.
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC Pergamon Press, Room 4037, Qianmen Hotel.
OF CHINA Beijing, People's Republic of China
FEDERAL REPUBLIC Pergamon Press GmbH. Hammerweg 6,
OF GERMANY D-6242 Kronberg. Federal Republic of Germany
BRAZIL Pergamon Editora Ltda. Rua Eca de Queiros, 346,
CEP 04011. Paraiso. Sao Paulo. Brazil
AUSTRALIA Pergamon Press Australia Pty Ltd., P.O. Box 544.
Potts Point, N.S.W. 2011. Australia
JAPAN Pergamon Press, 5th Floor, Matsuoka Central Building,
1-7-1 Nishishinjuku. Shinjuku-ku. Tokyo 160, Japan
CANADA Pergamon Press Canada Ltd .• Suite No. 271,
253 College Street. Toronto. Ontario, Canada
M5T 1R5

Copyright © 1991 Malcolm Pain & Jan Przewoznik

All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may
be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or trans­
mitted in any form or by any means: electronic.
electrostatic. magnetic tape. mechanical, photocopy­
ing, recording or otherwise. without permission in
writing from the publishers.

First edition 1991

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication

Data
Przewoznik. Jan.
The Blumenfeld gambit I Jan Przewoznik and Malcolm
Pein.
p. em. - {Pergamon chess openings)
Includes bibliographical references.
1. Chess-Openings. 2. Chess-Collections of
games. I. Pain. Malcolm. II. Title. Ill. Series.
GV1450.2.P79 1990
794.1'22-dc20 B9-77317

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Przewoznik, Jan
The Blumenfeld gambit.- {Pergamon chess openings)
1. Chess. Openings
I. Title II. Pein. Malcolm
794.122

ISBN 0-08-037133-7

Printed in Great Britain by BPCC Wheatons Ltd. Exeter

Dedicated to the Memory of My Parents

JAN PRZEWOZNIK
 Contents

INTRODUCTION................................................................................... XI

I. Historical Sketch .......................................................................

2. A Few Ideas ................................................................................ II

ANALYSES

3. The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined

I . d4 lLJf6 2. c4 e6 3. lLJf3 c5 4. d5 b5 5 . ..t g5 .................. 26
A. 5 . . . 'ilfa5 + ... .. ... .... . . . ........ . . .... . . ...... . ... . ............ . .................. . .. ...... 26
I. 6. 'ilfd2 ............................................................................................ 27
2. 6. lbc3 ............................................................................................ 34
3. 6. ..td2 ·························································································· 35
4. 6. lLJ bd2 ························································································· 36

B. 5 . . . exd5 ................... .... .. .. ........ . ...... .... . ......................................

. 39
I. 6. cxd5 h6 ..................................................................................... 39
2. 6. cxd 5 'ilfa5 + ..... . .... ................ . ................................................. . 42
3. 6. cxd 5 d6 . ........ . ............................................ ........... ... ..... ......... ... 44
5. 6. cxd5 'ilf b6 ................................................................................. 45

C. 5 . . . h6 ....................... ........ ... . ... ...... ... . ....................................... ..

.. 46

D.
I. 5 . .. bxc4 .. ............................. .. .. .. ... .. .... .. .. ...................................
. 50
2. 5 . . . ..tb7 ..................... .. .. ... . .. . . ... ....... . .. . ....................... ........ . ....
. . 50
3. 5 . . . d6 ··························································································· 51
4. 5 . . . 'ilf b6 ······················································································· 52
vii
viii Contents
4. The Blumenfeld Gambit Accepted
I . d4 lll f6 2. c4 e6 3. lt:lf3 c5 4. d5 b5 5. dxe6 fxe6 6. 53
cxb5 d5
A. 7. e3 ................................................................................................ 53
B. 7. .tf4 ......................................................................... ................. . 57
C. 7 . .tg5 . .
......... ............................................ ................................... 58
D. 7. g3 ................................................................................................ 60
E. 7. lt:l c3 ............................................................................................ 61
F. 6. . . . .tb7 .................................................................................... 64

5. The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined. Other lines.

I . d4 lllf6 2. c4 e6 3. lll f3 c5 4. d5 b5 ................................. 67
A. 5. a4 ............................................. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...... .. . .. ... . ... .
... .. .. ... . . 67
B. 5. .tf4 ....................................... .. . ... . . . ..
. .. .. . .
.... ........ .............. ..... .. . 69
C. 5. e4 . . .. ... . ..... . .. . .
.................................................... .... ............. .. . . . . . . . 70
D. 5. lt:l c3 ............................................................................................ 71
E. 5. "ifc2 ............................................................................................ 72

6. Modern treatment of the Blumenfeld Gambit: version

3 . . . a6
I . d4 lll f6 2. c4 e6 3. lt:lf3 a6 4. lt:lc3 c5 5. d5 b5 6. .tg5 73
b4 7. lll e4 d6 ............................................................................... .

A. 8. .txf6 . ..... .. ..
. .... ..
.. .... .
............ ..................................................... 75
B. 8. "ifa4 + . .
............... .. ..... .. . . . .. . .. ... . ...... ...
.... . . . . .. . .
.................. .......... 75
C. 8. lll x f6 + . .. . ... ........ . .
............................................. .. .... ... . . ............. 76
D. 8. a3
................................................................................................ 79
E. 8. g3 ................................................................................................ 82
F. 8. "it'd3 . . ..
................................................................................... .. ... 82
G. 8. e3 ................................................................................................ 84
H. 7. .. . .te7 . . . . .. .
.. ........................................... ...... . . . .. ..................... . 85

EPILOGUE . ...... .. .... ... .. . ..

. . .. ..
.... . ............................................................ 87

APPENDIX: SELECTED GAMES . .. . .. . . . ..

.. ........... ... ... ..... .. . .
. . ........... .. 88

INDEX OF PLAYERS........................................................................... 1 02

LITERATURE . . .......
... .. . ........... .. ............................................................ 1 06
 Acknowledgments

I could not have finished this book without the help and support of
a few friends. First of all I pay tribute to the Editor, Mr Colin Crouch.
Also, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to International
Master Malcolm Pein for his scrupulous reading of the manuscript
and a number of very useful suggestions and amendments.
Thanks also to Malgorzata Jamroz, who translated the Introduction,
Chapter I and a part of Chaper II of the book. I would especially like
to thank my wife Danuta, whose love, encouragement, patience, and
understanding made this book possible.
 Introduction
I N THE 1 920s, Benjamin Blumen­
feld proposed a very interesting
method of counterplay for Black
involving the sacrifice of a pawn,
after the moves 1 . d4 l2Jf6 2. c4 e6
3. lLlf3 c5 4. d5 b5. For more than
sixty years this opening has had
varied fortunes in tournament
practice; the evaluations of it made
in current analyses of openings are
disadvantageous for Black, which
is why the opening is now played
relatively rarely. Some facts may
give evidence of its limited popu­
larity. First, it is hardly ever seen in
games at the highest level. Second,
very little space is devoted to it in
books on gambits, or it is not
mentioned at all! It is explicitly
evaluated in current studies of
openings as : worse position for
Black after 5 ..ig5 (Encyclopedia
. . . , 1 978, Taimanov, 1 980). How­
ever, the games played in recent
years seem to lead to the conclu­
sion that it is high time to question
such an evaluation. New ideas
of counter-attack have appeared,
particularly in variations with 5
�g5.
The present writer would like
to achieve several aims here. First,
xi
he aims at outlining the current
state of theory in the Blumenfeld
Gambit. The theoretical material
included here should be of interest
to a great number of chess players,
from less advanced ones to experi­
enced masters appearing in the
international arena. The author of
this work has tried to present not
only the latest state of theory, but
also perspectives on its develop­
ment. Moreover, his intention has
been to stress the significance of
positions that have not yet been
properly analysed. The author
hopes that such a way of present­
ing the theory will make it possible
for the reader to work further on
the creative analytical level. He
also hopes to encourage the reader
to try out his own innovatory,
original conceptions while playing
chess.
Second, the present writer tried
to illustrate a general methodology
of work on the opening, with Blu­
menfeld's Gambit as an example;
the method draws upon the results
of psychological research on chess
and on the experiences of num­
erous generations of theoreticians
working on the initial phase of the
xii The Blumenfeld Gambit
chess game. The method lays stress
on a few basic elements that
should be taken into account by
anyone who studies chess and who
wants to get to know a given
opening, to get to its core. The
main task for him, then, is to
know :
-the history of the development
of the opening,
-the most significant ideas, stra­
tegic plans, typical tactical
operations,
-games that are typical of the
opening, presenting the above
ideas, plans and operations,
-a wide repertoire of games
played in the opening.
Those who want to develop
their skill within the domain of
the opening struggle may follow
the example of the method of ana­
lysing the opening presented here.
Advanced chess players, on the
other hand, will have the oppor­
tunity to evaluate their own reper­
toire of openings; the opportunity
to make possible comparisons
between the material presented
here and their own methods of
work.
Third, the author's aim is to
highlight the phenomenon of the
so-called incorrectness of the
opening; the whole Blumenfeld
Gambit was usually regarded in
this way; as incorrect. However,
the analyses shown further on led
to the discovery of new ideas,
to the formulation of theoretical
problems in a new way. Perhaps
the illustration of the very process
of change in the theoretical evalu­
ation of the Blumenfeld Gambit
will draw the reader's attention to
some other "incorrect" openings
and will inspire him to look for
entirely new poss�bilities. Such an
attitude would be consistent with
a well-known recipe of Emanuel
Lasker, who claimed that those
who aspire to independent think­
ing in chess must avoid everything
that is not alive in them.
Especially, he continued, they
must avoid all theories that are
based on a few examples only; the
independently thinking chess­
player would not mechanically
repeat variations, plans, evalu­
ations, etc., of other players
(Lasker, 1 934). The strength of
Mikhail Botvinnik's play rested
on such independence of thought
and analysis. He would spend a
lot of time privately analysing his
favourite systems before ulti­
mately introducing them into
tournament practice. And
although, as it was often shown
later, many of his conceptions
were contradictory, his opponents
were not able to find any weak
points in his strategic plans for a
very long time; they very often
underestimated the danger of their
positions. The key to the puzzle of
Botvinnik's success lies in the fact
that he was generally ahead of his
time, in relation to his opponents,
when playing a given opening, a
given scheme of play, etc. (Suetin,
 Introduction xiii

1 984). an introduction to certain basic

The material is presented in this
study according to the assumed
objectives. Chapter I is a brief
presentation of the history of the
opening, from the very beginning
to the present day. Chapter II is
strategic and tactical nuances of
the opening. Chapters Ill to VI
will acquaint the reader with a set
of theoretical analyses. Chapter
VII includes model games for
independent analysis.
 Symbols
x-capture.
+ -check.
0-0-Kingside castling.
0-0-0-Queenside castling.
l -0-White won.
0- l -Black won.
+ - -White has a decisive advantage.
- + -Black has a decisive advantage.
± -White has the upper hand.
+ -Black has the upper hand.
;t -White stands slightly better.
+ -Black stands slightly better .
=-The position is even.
!-A very good move.
!!-An excellent move.
?-A mistake.
'!?-A blunder .
!?-A move deser ving attention.
?!-A dubious move .
.6.-White is to play in the position diagrammed
�-Black is to play in the position diagrammed.

xiv
 1

Historical Sketch

It is easier to understand the Tarrasch-Aiekhine

nature of all the current theoretical (Pistyan, 1 922)
arguments and disputes when one 1 d4 lt:Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:Jf3 c5 4 d5 b5
is aware of the historical develop­ 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5
ment of an opening. It very often
happens that the application of
theoretical novelties is a result of
recollecting some games or
analyses from many years ago; this
phenomenon is reflected in the
well-known saying that there is
nothing new under the Sun. Apart
from the advantages mentioned
above, knowledge of the history of
an opening enriches the general
culture of a chess player. For all
these reasons a brief sketch of the
development of Blumenfeld's idea
seems to be well justified and pur­
poseful here.
During the first years of the
gambit, its main idea was unusu­ A characteristic position in the
ally brilliantly and didactically accepted Blumenfeld Gambit.
presented by the future world Black has sacrificed a flank pawn
champion in the Tarrasch-Aiek­ in return for which he has built a
hine game. It illustrates the birth strong pawn centre; moreover, all
of the idea of Blumenfeld's Gambit his pieces have very good pro­
in the international arena. spects of development.
2 The Blumenfeld Gambit
7 e3 ..td6 8 lbc3 ..tb7 9 ..te2
0-0 1 0 b3 lbbd7 1 1 ..tb2 fle7 1 2
0-0 llad8
Here we have the logical result
of the variation. White has set
up a defensive formation with no
weaknesses, and Black has clearly
emphasised his two main trumps :
the strong pawn centre and the
activity of his pieces.
13 flc2 e5
Black intends to increase his
advantage in space. Thus, the
dynamic pawn centre makes poss­
ible a heightening of activity of
Black's pieces.
14 llfel
The attack 14 e4 would not stop
Black's pawns. After 14 . . . d4 1 5
lbd5 lbxd5 1 6 exd5 ..txd5 with
e5-e4 to follow, Black would have
had an overwhelming position.
White prepares a typical man-
oeuvre to defend the weak point
h 2 : ll el, lbf3-d2-fl. On the other
hand, the f2 point may be
defended, in case of emergency, by
move lbc3-d 1 .
1 4 . . . e4 1 5 lbd2 lbe5
In the direction of White's king!
1 6 lbd 1 lbfg4 17 ..t xg4 lbxg4
18 lbfl flg5!
White has reinforced the
defence of two squares around his
king-f2 and h2. Black finds the
third one! It is the g2 point-there
is the threat of the manoeuvre
lbg4-h6-f5-h4.
19 h3 lbh6 20 ..Phi lbf5 21 lbh2
d4! 22 .tel .
After 2 2 exd4 the pair of bishops
comes to life : 22 . . . e3! 23 lbxe3
lb xe3 24 fxe3 tt'g3 and Black
wms.
22 . . . d3 23 tt'c4+ ..t>h8 24
..tb2 lbg3+! 25 �gl ..td5 26
tt'a4 lbe2+ 27 �h1 ll f7 28
fla6 h5! 29 b6 lbg3+ 30 �gl
axb6 3 1 tt'xb6.
The first real achievement by
White on the queenside-a passed
a-pawn. The superiority estab­
lished on the wing by the move 6
cxb5 is only of symbolic value
now. The events on the other wing
are decisive.
31 . . . d2 32 ll fl lbxfl 33 lbxfl
Be6 34 ¢>hl ..t xh3! 35 gxh3 llf3
36 lbg3 h4 37 ..tf6 flxf6 38 lbxe4
ll xh3+ and White resigns.
Let us see how Black realised a
similar idea in the same year, in
 Historical Sketch
the game Kostic-Maroczy, Lon­
don 1 922.
I d4 ltlf6 2 ltlf3 e6 3 c4 c5 4
d5 b5 5 cxb5 ..tb7 6 dxe6 fxe6 7
ltlc3 d5 8 e3 ..td6 9 ..ie2 0-0 1 0
0-0 "ike7 I I "ikc2 ltlbd7 1 2 ..id3
c4 13 ..te2 ltlc5 14 ltld4 ltlfe4
1 5 ltlxe4 ltlxe4 1 6 f4 e5 1 6 ltlc6
..txc6 1 8 bxc6 exf4 1 9 ..t f3
(19
exf4 ..t c5+ 20 � h 1 "ikh4 - + )
1 9 . . . ..ic5 20 b4 ..txb4 2 1 l:tbl
..tc5 22 l:tb7 fxe3 with a decisive
advantage.
When recollecting the history of
Blumenfeld's Gambit, Reti wrote
that the game Tarrasch-Aiekhine
influenced contemporary chess­
players to such an extent that
hardly anyone elected to accept
the pawn. According to Reti,
though, there was a possibility of
defence with the moves: 5 dxe6
fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 ltlbd2 and then
8 g3, 9 ..ig2 with pressure on
the centre. With the benefit of
hindsight, we are not surprised
that Reti, who was a master of
the attack against an opponent's
strong pawn centre, should be
attracted to this position; the game
itself is regarded as a classic.
However, in the same year, the
new move 5 ..ig5 was suggested
instead of 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5.
According to Reti, chess theory
had not yet spoken its last word
about this move. Even so, the
move 5 ..tg5 challenged the cor­
rectness of Black's opening for a
great many years. The discoverer
of 5 ..tg5, a Russian master Dus-
3
Khotimirski, appreciated the
strength of the central black pawns
and criticised Tarrasch for having
a too perfunctory approach to this
sharp opening. Dus-Khotimirski's
assumptions were simple : what is
the sense of wearing oneself out
with a tiresome defence, just for
the gain of a pawn of doubtful
value, when it is possible to attack
with equal material! So the refu­
tation (!) of Blumenfeld's Gambit
. is possible only after the aggressive
5 ..ig5! ( Dus-Khotimirski, 1 953).
Let us see the reaction of Dus­
Khotimirski to the Gambit :
Dus-Khotimirski-Levenfish
Moscow, 1 922
I d4 ltlf6 2 ltlf3 e6 3 c4 c5 4 d5
b5 5 ..ig5 bxc4
Dus-Khotimirski recommended
5 . . b4, which limits the mobility
.
of White's knight on b l .
6 e4 ..ta6 7 ltlc3 "ika5 8 dxe6
dxe6
After 8 . . fxe6 9 ..txf6 gxf6 1 0
.
ltld2 intending both "ikh5 + and
ltlxc4 White would be clearly
better.
9 ltle5 ..ie7
It was not possible to take the
pawn : 9 . . . ltlxe4 10 "ikf3 f5 1 1
"ikh5 + g6 1 2 ltlxg6 hxg6 1 3
"ikxg6 + winning for White.
1 0 ..txc4 0-0 I I "ike2 ..tb7 1 2
0-0 "ikc7
4 The Blumenfeld Gambit
We can now sum up the results
of the opening. Instead of the
strong centre, Black has a weak
pawn on c5. The only possibility
of increasing its value may be
sought in the manoeuvre lLlb8-c6-
d4, occupying the d4 square, but
the lLle5 is an obstacle to this.
13 ..tf4 Wc8 14 .l:tad l
1 5 lLlxc6 Wxc6 16 ..tb5 Wb6 1 7
.ig5!
White's position is already won!
There is the threat of an attack
with e4-e5, .=. d 1 -d3-g3, lLlc3-e4-f6.
17 . . . a6 18 .ia4 .lh7
An indirect defence of the
bishop on e7, thus : 19 e5 lLld5 20
lLlxd5 .i xd5 2 1 .i xe7 .C.xe7
19 .C.d3 h6 20 .if4 .ic6 21 .C.g3
�h8 22 e5
As in the previous game, Tar­
rasch-Aiekhine, a pawn advance
in the centre, displacing the
knight which defends the king,
decides the result of the game. It
was 1 4 . . . e5-e4 before, whereas
now it is 22 e4-e5.
22 . . . lLlh7 23 .ic2 .ig5
Since four long-range white
pieces are involved in the attack,
Black wants to relieve the pressure
by means of exchanges. 24 .ixg5
hxg5 25 .ixh7 � xh7 26 'it'h5 +
�g8 27 'iix g5 and Black resigns.
lLlc6
In the above game Dus-Khot­
imirski indicated the crucial, prin­
cipal rule of the Blumenfeld Gam­
bit : the struggle for the strong
centre is the keynote for domin­
ation in this opening. Two further
attempts, by the great Polish
grandmaster Akiba Rubinstein,
were consistent with this rule.
After the moves I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6
3 tLJf3 c5 4 d5 b5, the moves 5 e4
and 5 a4 were introduced by him.
Both moves aim towards the
struggle for the centre. 5 e4 did
not work. Black is able to defend
himself against the attack-5 . . .
lLl xe4 6 dxe6 fxe6 7 .id3 lLlf6 8
tLJg5 We7 9 cxb5 d5 1 0 0-0 g6-
 Historical Sketch
� Black, on the other hand, has
r;:::;::;:::::r.;r.;;;;==:;;=;;;=:::=;:;;J
and we can see he has taken the
central pawn on his way.
On the other hand, 5 a4 aims
at clarifying the situation on the
queen's wing in order to enable
White to undertake appropriate
action in the centre. No doubt 5
a4 is better than 5 e4 but it is
rare ly played nowadays since
when Black reacts properly it does
not give any edge for White.
5
continually tried to crack a hard
nut-5 ..tg5. He sought equalis­
ing chances, among others, in the
variation 5 . . . exd5. According to
Voronkov ( 1 97 1 ), Black can rely
on this move only. The basis of
such an evaluation is to be found
in the pioneer game Kmoch­
Spielmann, Semmering 1 926 :
5 . . . exd5 6 cxd5 h6 7 ..t xf6
Wxf6 8 *cl d6 9 e4 a6 10 a4 b4
l l ttJbdl ..tg4 1 l .tel ttJd7 1 3
0-0 ..te7 1 4 � h 1 ..t x f3 1 5 ..txf3
ttJe5 1 6 .tel g5!
Black 's position is better! Note
the similarity between the idea of
g7-g5, with the arrangement of
pawns in the centre d 5-e4-f2 :
d6, and current variations of the
Benoni Defence with g6-g5! (For
example I d4 ttJf6 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3
c5 4 d5 exd5 5 cxd5 d6 6 ttJc3 g6
7 e4 ..tg7 8 ..te2 0-0 9 0-0 ttJbd7
6 The Blumenfeld Gambit
10 tZJd2 J:t e8 I I a4 lZJe5 1 2 'ilt'c2 Apart from Euwe's idea of e3-
g5-Ed.) As regards opening e4, another idea appeared, in the
theory, White's reaction to Spiel­ Kan-Goldenov, USSR 1 946, in
mann's plan was not that quick which White tried to limit the
but it was very effective. The attack mobility of Black 's kingside pieces.
came from two sides, both in the After 5 dxe6 fxe6 cxbS dS the move
variation 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxbS and 7 i.gS was played!
in 5 i.gS exdS.
Not until the 1 940s and 1 950s
did the old continuation with the
acceptance of the pawn sacrifice­
S dxe6 fxe6 6 cxbS regain the
favour of chess players. At that
time, M. Euwe drew the theoretic­
ians' attention to the possibility of
counter-attack on the centre with
e3-e4, for instance 5 dxe6 fxe6
6 cxbS dS 7 e3 i.d6 8 lZJc3 0-0
9 e4!

The plan of placing the dark

squared bishop on the kingside­
to defend the king and, especially,
to counteract the pressure of
Black's eventual i.d6, via i.g5-
h4-g3 -resulted in a number of
interesting games in which Black 's
attack did not develop easily, thus
making the fight more intense.
With time, White found the
antidote to Spielmann's plan in
On 9 . . . dxe4 White plans 10 the variation with 5 exdS. It
. . .

lZJgS, on 9 . . . lZJxe4 1 0 lZJxe4 dxe4 was found out that the exchange
I I lZJgS, and on 9 d4 he has an
. . . .�c8-g4xf3 is advantageous for
ideal reply : 10 eS!, with better Black. In Li pnitsky-Tolush,
play for White in all three cases USSR 1 950, instead of I I lZJbd2
(Voronkov, 1 97 1 ). the move I I tZJfd2! was played.
 Historical Sketch
Later on, White was able to
impose his own plan of play on
the centre : 6 cxd5 h6 7 �xf6 'lWxf6
8 'ilfc2 d6 9 e4 a6 1 0 a4 b4 1 1 tt:lfd2
J..e7 12 tt:lc4 tt:Jd7 1 3 tt:lbd2 0-0 14
�d3 a5 15 0-0 tt:le5 16 tt:lxe5! dxe5
17 tt:lc4! ttd8 18 ttacl 'lWg5 19
.!Hd 1 with a clear advantage.
Black received an even more
painful blow in a Chemin-Mi les
game, played quite recently in
Tunis 1985, where White rehabilit­
ated the move 1 1 tt:lbd2! and after
1 1 . . . .tg4, the move 1 2 e5!? was
played.
12 . . . dxe5 13 tt:le4 -.r4 1 4
tt:Jfd2 �f5 15 �d3 �xe4 16
tt:Jxe4 tt:Jd7 1 7 g 3 'W'g4 1 8 h3
'lWh5 19 d6 'lWg6 20 .!ld 1 b3 21
'lWe2 f5 22 g4!and White's attack
on the king decided the game.
In the course of further analysis,
however, it was decided that
Euwe's plan e3-e4 was not danger­
ous. The only thing that Black has
7
to do is to take good care of his
strong centre! That is why it is
necessary to answer 5 dxe6 fxe6 6
cxb5 d5 7 e3 �d6 8 tt:lc3 with 8
. . . �b7 before castling, to antici­
pate 9 e4, and have ready the
possibility of neutralising the
threat of e4-e5, namely by 9 . . .
tt:lbd7. I n case of 1 0 exd5 exd5 1 1
J..e2 0-0 Black keeps the balance
due to his strong central pawn
structure and actively placed
pieces, in particular his bishops.
As far as the question of 5 � g5
is concerned, it seems that a new
weapon against it has emerged : 5
. . . 'ilfa5 + ! This check was first
tried by Rabinovich but his subse­
quent play was not in accordance
with the requirements of the pos­
ition.
Griinfeld-Rabinovich
Moscow 1 925
5 �g5 'lWa5 + 6 'lWd2 'lWxd2 +
7 tt:Jbxd2 bxc4 8 �xf6 gxf6 9 e4
f5? 10 �xc4 �b7 1 1 0-0 �h6 1 2
ttfe1
8 The Blumenfeld Gambit
Black's central activity (f6-f5) :td2 �xg2 2 0 :tgl d5! 2 1 :txg2
was premature and White has dxc4 22 tt:Jxc5 .:hc8
gained the advantage; the idea was
soon forgotten. It was only in 1 978
that the Encyclopedia of Chess
Openings mentioned that the vari­
ation 5 �g5 1t'a5 + 6 1t'd2
W xd2+ 7 tZl bxd2 bxc4 8 � xf6
gxf6 9 e4 tt:Ja6!? followed by tt:Jc7
and �b7 is worth considering.
The games Kuligowski-Przewoz­
nik, Warsaw 1 980 and especially
Lukov-Przewoznik, NaJ�cz6w
1 98 1 showed that the
position contains various possi­
bilities of play for Black.
Lukov-Przewoznik And Black won. The above
Naf�cz6w 1 98 1 game includes some extremely
5 �g5 1t'a5 + 6 1t'd2 1t'xd2 + significant ideas in the variation
7 tt:Jfxd2 bxc4 8 �xf6 gxf6 9 e4 under discussion. It stresses the
tt:Ja6 10 �xc4 significance of early pressure along
the b-file (I 0 . . . .: b8), the strength
of counter-attack on the centre ( 1 4
. . . f5) and the possibilities of a
dangerous attack by Black upon
the white king's position after
castling long.
Although for a while Black's
future in the Blumenfeld Gambit
might have been viewed in an
optimistic light, new difficulties
have quite recently appeared for
him, namely in the variations : I
d4 tt:Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt:J I"J c5 4 d5 b5
5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 tt:Jc3 and
7 g3.

to . . . .:b8! I I tt:Jc3 .: xb2 1 2 (see .f(JI/owing diagram)

0-0-0 .: b8 1 3 tt:Jb5 �b7 1 4 tt:Jb3
f5! 15 dxe6 fxe6 16 tt:Jd6 + � xd6 In the first variation, White's
17 .:xd6 tt:Jb4 18 exf5 q;e7 1 9 idea is simple : to break up the
 Historical Sketch
Black pawn structure by means of
e2-e4 (without the loss of tempo :
e2-e3-e4), for instance 7 . . . .td6 8
e4 d4 9 eS! ± . It has been generally
assumed so far that Black may
fight on after: 7 . . . d4 8 ttJb1
'WaS + 9 .td2 ..WxbS 1 0 ttJa3 ..Wxb2
1 1 tt:lc4 ..Wb7.
And t hat is correct.
But t here is a move w hich has not
yet been played in any tournament
game, and t his move practically
refutes t he attack 7 . . . d4. The
move in question is 7 tt:lc3 d4 8
tt:la4! As we shall find out in the
theoretical chapters, Black is seri­
ously weakened by t he
d5-d4 move; he has insufficient
compensation for the pawn and,
moreover, he is not able to recover
the sacrificed material : 8 . . . ..WaS +
9 .td2 ..WxbS 1 0 e3 (the b2 square
is defended!) ± . So the move 8
tt:la4!, although it has not appeared
in actual play yet, influences the
evaluation of the variation 7 tt:lc3
to a significant extent. Also after
7 g3 the previously established
variation and evaluations must be
revised. In t he Lombardy-For­
manek game, New York 1 986,
W hite introduced an important
novelty: 7 . . . ..WaS + 8 tt:lc3! d4 9
..Wa4! 'iit' b6 10 tt:l b 1 .td7 1 1 tt:la3
a6 12 ttJeS! ..W b7 13 ttJ xd7 and
W hite soon won: 13 .. . 'thh l 1 4
tt:l xb8 J:[xb8 1 S bxa6 + �f7 16
ttJc4 ttJdS 1 7 ttJeS +
1 -0.
The aim of t he theoretical part
of this work is to try to find
improvements for Black, both
after 7 ttJc3 and 7 g3. However,
the improvements and new sugges­
tions need practical trials and,
moreover, they do not guarantee
success. There are still more ques­
tions for Black than ready
answers. That is why the present
writer suggests a new area of study
for all advocates of Blumenfeld's
Gambit. I nstead of 6 . . . dS t he
move 6 . .tb7 will be proposed
. .
in the t heoretical chapters. The
future will show w hether t he plans
bound up with the arrangement . . .
10 The Blumenfeld Gambit
..t b7, . . . ..t e7 . . . 0-0, . . sufficiently
compensate opportumttes by­
passed with the rejection of the
move 7 . . . d5.
Now the question is, whether
the move 6 . . . d5 should get the
sign '?'. It is difficult to answer
boldly, and without doubt 'Yes'.
For so many years Black moved
his d-pawn with great pleasure;
can this be doubted? At precisely
this juncture, after 6 . . . d7-d5,
Black would fully realise the idea
of master Blumenfeld, the idea of
the strong pawn centre, wouldn't
he?
A brand new opening set-up,
using the ideas of Blumenfeld's
Gambit has appeared in recent
years. After the sequence I d4 lL! f6
2 c4 e6 3 lL!f3 a6 4 lL!c3 c5 5 d5
the move 5 . . . b5!? has been played.
Alburt and Dzindzichashvili
played like that in the USA Cham­
pionship, 1 984. In every game
begun in this way, an interesting
and original struggle was in pro­
gress from the very beginning. The
following game may serve as an
illustration of Black's attacking
chances.
Browne-Dzindzichashvili
USA 1 984
I d4 lL!f6 2 c4 e6 3 lL!f3 a6 4 lL!c3
c5 5 d5 b5 6 ..tg5 b4 7 lL!e4 d6 8
..txf6 gxf6 9 e3 f5 10 lL!g3 lL!d7
I I ..td3 lL! f6 12 'iie2 ..tg7 13 0-0
h5 1 4 dxe6 fxe6 1 5 lL!h4 lL!g4 1 6
lL!g6 :th6 1 7 lL!f4 ..te5 1 8 h3 'iih4
19 lL!fxh5 :txh5 20 lL!xh5 ..th2+
21 �hi ..tb7 22 f3 'ii x h5 23 fxg4
'ii x h3 24 :tf3 'ii h 8 25 g3 fxg4 26
'ii x h2 ..t xf3+ 27 �gl 'ii x h2+
28 � xh2 �e7 0-1
And another question is: how
to evaluate the 6 dxe6 fxe6 7 cxb5
gambit version? The positions
arising after 5 ..tg5 'iia 5+, 5 dxe6
fxe6 6 cxb5 ..tb7, 3 a6 and 5 . . .
• . .
b5 have not undergone practical
trials by leading chess masters.
After all, it is characteristic of the
whole of the Blumenfeld Gambit
that a great number of areas have
still not been fully researched and
studied, thus leaving a multitude
of opportunities untested in prac­
tice. And so we conclude this his­
torical sketch by stating that the
question of the validity of Blumen­
feld's idea has still not been
resolved. Certainly the opening
invented by him will not fall into
oblivion j ust yet.
 2
A Few Ideas . . .
This chapter aims at mak ing
pract ical use of the results of
psychological studies on the think­
ing of chess players. It appears
that a consideration of the d is­
coveries of rule psychologists as
B inet ( 1 894), S imon and S imon
( 1 962), Chase and S imon ( 1 962), de
Groot ( 1 965), Tikhomirov ( 1 976),
and Krogius ( 1 976) can be
extremely helpful for the analyt­
ical work of chessplayers.
The studies dealing with com­
parisons between amateur and
master seem to be of particular
value. It is knowing the way that
chess masters think that can give
d irection to any self-educational
work in chess. So, what is the root
cause of the superiority of the
master over the amateur?
To begin with, in the course of
solving problems in a concrete
position at the chessboard, the
master is able to associate it with
a certain more general type of
position. Such positions have
accumulated in h is mind for many
II
years and are immed iately associ­
ated w ith appropriate strategic
plans, tactical operations, and
even w ith characteristic single
moves. The abil ity to put almost
any concrete position into a frame­
work of schemes and typical solu­
tions makes the process of solving
problems at the chessboard con­
siderably easier. It happens very
often that a s ingle glance at the
position is enough for the master
to form a reliable opinion about
it. While the amateur laboriously
works out the mechanisms behind
the posit ion the master knows
them almost subconsciously. In
the following position, for instance
the pawn formation h7-g6-f7 auto­
matically suggests the idea of the
pawn march h2-h 4-h5 and later
either h5xg6, or h 5 -h6, tak ing the
advantage of the weakness of the
g7 and f6 squares, especially if
Black has no dark squared bishop.
S imilarly the central pawn
structure in the next diagram auto­
matically draws attention to the
12 The Blumenfeld Gambit
plan f2-f4-f5xe6 and the Black
response b7-b5-b 4xc3.
The master does not have to
find all this out over the board
since he has it cod ified in his
memory. He automat ically
manipulates motifs, ideas, plans,
etc., j ust like a native speaker uses
his grammar when speaking, auto­
matica lly, and without realising it
at all.
Moreover, another significant
observation is that t he master per­
ceives a position as a sensible,
integrated whole and not as a sum
total of separate black and wh ite
pieces. The experience and know­
ledge of the master enables h im
to integrate and form an opinion
about the position very quickly.
When forming his opinion, he sees
the pieces in more complex combi­
nations of a spatial, functional and
dynamic nature. The amateur will
notice 6 pieces arranged in a row
on t he squares : <lo>g l , .l:l.fl, .i g2,
f2, g3, h2, whereas the master
will immediately see the integrated
whole: 'the position w it h the
fianchettoed bishop'. Naturally,
such an overall glance at positions
makes it easier to understand them
properly.
The observations of psycholo­
gists are consistent with the
recommendations of Kotov, the
author of several excellent books
on chess tra in ing. According to
h im, the comprehension of the stra­
tegic essence of certain basic pos­
itions is the main task that a chess
player, w ishing to learn a certain
opening, must cope with. Having
understood certain basic positions
of pieces and pawns on the chess­
board, a chess player can better
understand the derived positions of
the same opening. Moreover,
when speaking about basic posi­
t ions, Kotov does not mean
strictly the opening positions, i.e.
the position after 1 0-20 moves.
The statement that an analysis
of the opening must always be
accompanied by an analysis of
the middle and endgame positions
 A Few Ideas . ..
resulting from it, has become a
truism in the setting of chess train­
ing problems. The chess player
must know-for the pieces and
pawns typical of a given arrange­
ment:
-motives, i.e. positional bases of
combinations
-ideas, i.e. final positions of com ­
binations
-means, i.e. the sequence of
moves, from the initial position
through to the final one.
Let us make use of the above
mentioned remarks before passing
to a theoretical analysis of B lu­
menfeld's Gambit. The basic pos­
itions with typical solutions of the
Blumenfeld Gambit are gathered
in a later part of the chapter.
Exploring all the typical strategic
plans, tactical operations, traps.
etc., in one place should prepare
the mind of the reader to such an
extent that he will be able to cope
with any analytical inaccuracies in
the theoretical part of this work
that might have been committed
by the author.
I would like to make a digres­
sion here; the reader forgive me,
but rather a long digression.
Namely, the increasing number of
'open' tournaments is a specific
feature of modern chess life. One
of the particular characteristics of
such competitions is that they cre­
ate peculiar situations in which
weaker chessplayers have a chance
to play with stronger players-­
GM's or 1M 's. In such a situation
13
the problem arises how to pfar
against the stronger opponent? Of
course, every time this problem
occurs, it must be solved primarily
on the basis of both good pre­
match preparation and playing
like a GM or I M . But both during
preparation and during the game,
one may consider information
taken from psychological sources,
in part quoted here also. I wish to
call the reader's attention to these
sources, and their conclusions.
An article published in Chess
( 1 984, author unknown) deals with
the problem mentioned. An exper­
iment is described there in which
24 players participated, divided
into three groups :
I . High, with average rating 2022
( 1 78 B.C. F.);
2. Medium, with average rating
1 652 (1 32 B.C.F.);
3. Low, with average rating 1 3 1 6
(90 B.C. F.).
Every subject had to find mate
in one move in two positions. The
first position was natural, taken
from tournament play; the second
one was unnatural, with randomly
placed pieces. In both the posi­
tions five moves giving check were
possible, but only one was check­
mate. Consider the results in the
table below.
Group
Position High Medium Low
Natural 8.5 1 4.25 1 8. 1 1
Unnatural 36.3 35.0 33.4
14 The Blumerifeld Gambit
This indicates the average time
(seconds) for solving the mate in
one task.
Conclusion: even in tactica lly
simple positions (mate in one)
the chessplayer's performance
depends on the type of position!
This conclusion is consistent
with the investigations of de Groot
( 1 965), Chase and Simon ( 1 973)
and others. The authors men­
tioned above asked players to
reconstruct chess positions from
memory, after brief exposure to
them. They demonstrated middle
game positions and endgame pos­
itions, taken from chess books and
magazines, and, finally, random
positions (pieces placed on the
board "without sense').
In natural positions, accuracy,
being measured by the number
of pieces placed on the correct
square, depended on the strength
of the player. The stronger the
chessplayer, the better the per­
formance of the tasks. Grand­
masters performed these tasks
almost fau ltlessly. The pattern
changed with random positions­
there was no significant inter­
group difference in performance
between GM's, 1M's, experts, and
weaker players!
I observed such a systematic
phenomenon in my own research
(Przewoznik, 1 986b). In the exper­
iment, 60 players from Poland
solved the choice-of-move prob­
lem in four positions, I -IV. Firstly,
in positions I and III, they solved
the choice-of-move problem in
time trouble (90 seconds to choose
a move), and then all four pos­
itions without time limitations.
Players ranged from I st category
to I M :
The first group consisted of 20
players of 1 st category-Eio rat­
ing around 2000 (BCF 1 75).
The second group consisted of
20 players of candidate master
category- Elo rating around 2 1 00
(BCF 1 87).
The t hird group consisted of 1 4
national masters.
The fourth group consisted of 6
international masters.
An experimenter put the
emphasis strongly on the fact that
the task was not simply finding
the combination! Conceivable sac­
rifices might be right or wrong. In
complex positions all the subjects
had the choice between quiet
moves or moves leading to risky
and very complicated variants.
The results showed an interesting
interdependence: with increasing
strength, players preferred clear,
well defined positions and avoided
unclear, risky and uncertain ones.
One may well ask : are there any
practical conclusions? I think that
in the light of the results shown
above a heuristic recommendation
appears; if your opponent is
stronger than you are, try to create
untypical, unclear complications
on the board. Maybe in such a
case your opponent's advantage
in knowledge and experience (eru-
 A Few Ideas . . .
dition on strategical plans, schem­
atic solutions, tactical associations
etc.) will be minimised. For this
purpose, I think, the Blumenfeld
Gamhit is ideal, an opening with
which I have done very well in
tournaments. The Blumenfeld
Gambit, 'refuted' 'bad', forgotten,
little played, is better in just such
a case than tired and well k nown
lines in the Queen's I ndian or
Modern Benoni.
Of course, in this digression I
have only sketched the problem. I
am aware that the matter is much
more complex. However, in
answer to t he question of how to
play against a stronger opponent,
the most important role is played
by chess aspects, the essence of the
position. I hope t hat the material
given here will be useful for read­
ers. And . . . to the Blumenfeld
Gambit's advantage!
To begin with, let us make a
reconnaissance in t he direction of
. . . the Sicilian Defence. Let us
have a look at the variation : 1 e4
c5 2 tt:lf3 tt:lc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:lxd4
tt:lf6 5 tt:lc3 d6 6 ..tg5 e6 7 'iW d2
h6?! 8 ..txf6 gxr6 9 0-0-0 a6.
Theory is right in claiming that
White is better. In the game Sue­
tin- Botvinnik, Moscow 1 952,
there followed 10 f4 ..td7 1 1 ..tc4
h5 1 2 r;Pbl Wb6 1 3 .l:!.hfl? the
-
move after which Botvinnik is said
to "have sighed with relief"'. The
exchange of knights is advanta­
geous for Black.
White no longer has any possi-
15
�
bility of gaining the advantage;
Black has achieved complete
equality, as proved by t he latter
course of the game. Let us now
compare t he above position to
that after t he moves : I d4 tt:lf6 2
c4 e6 3 tt:lf3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 ..tg5
WaS+ 6 Wd2 'lhd2 + 7 tt:lbxd2
bxc4 8 ..txf6 gxf6 9 e4. Some
similarities are striking, aren't
they? In both positions Black has
doubled f-pawns and concedes
space to W hite, but on the other
hand, Black has a pair of bishops,
two half-open lines for the rooks,
and a pawn mass which is difficult
to break. Two critical questions
may be asked. Firstly, why is the
position from the Blumenfeld
Gambit regarded as worse than
that from the Sicilian Defence?
And secondly, is it not true that
certain analogies in the arrange­
ment in bot h positions are very
much consistent with an analog­
ous type of play, with an analog­
ous evaluation?
16 The Blumenfeld Gambit
For the reader who is going to
play the Blumenfeld Gambit in
the 5 � g5 'llt'a 5 + version it is
advisable, here, to study positions
of a similar type in the Sicilian
Defence.
Here is a very important pos­
ition from t he Blumenfeld Gambit.
Such positions may arise in the
variation 5 �g5 'llt'a5 +, in other
words, where White supposedly
refutes the Blumenfeld Gambit.
Let us enumerate the main bene­
fi of the White p osition:
ts
I. U ndeniably, he has a space
advantage.
2. White can press hard in the
centre, with his J:t e l, J:td l ,
�c4, !i:lf3, !i:ld2, � e4, d5.
3. He can increase his ad vantage
in space with the manoeuvres :
!i:ld2-b3-a5; !i:lf3-h4, f2-f4,
d5xe6, f4-f5.
4. In the nick of time he can
concentrate pressure on the d6
pawn, with the manoeuvre :
!i:ld2-b3-a5-c4, J:[ d 1 -d2,
ll e 1 -d t and d5xe6.
5. In the ending White can turn
the weaknesses on a7 and h7
to good account (see for exam­
ple the famous game Cohn­
R ubinstein, St. Petersburg
1909.).
Here are Black's perspectives.
1. Black has a pair of bishops in
an open position; these will be
his main trumps.
2. The g- and b-files may be used
by the rooks as very important
strategical routes, e.g. J:t g8-g4-
e4 or .l:!.a 8-b8-b4-c4.
3. Black can also successfully use
(even by a pawn sacrifice) three
important diagonals, i.e. a8-
h l, h8-al, h6-cl. Black p layers
have to keep these diagonals in
mind all the time!
4. The potential weaknesses on
d6, f7 and f6 may in fact prove
to be a source of power! In
modern chess strategy only the
dynamic evaluation of weak­
nesses is held in esteem. The
doubled f-pawns may gradually
wear down White's center with
f6-f5xe4, and in the case of a
preventive f2-f3, t hen once
more . . . f7-f5. The d6 pawn
after the exchange d5xe6 and
f7xe6 can advance effectively.
Broadly speaking, pawns are
the heart of t he matter in the
Blumenfeld Gambit. Adherents
of the gambit have to nurture
this in their memory constantly.
5. The weak pawns on a7 and h7
 A Few Ideas ... 17
can each be used as a 'desper­ �
ado': h7-h5-h4 or a7-a5-a4.

follows : 3. tt:ld6 + (also 3 i.xd5

i.xd5 4 tt:lf6 + �f8 5. tt:lxd5 ± is
possible) 3 . . . �f8 4 J:le8 + �g7
In t he above position White 5 tt:lf5 + �f6 6 J:lxh8 + - .
introduced a very dangerous stra­ This example gives a distinct
tegical plan with 1 tt:lb3! The t hreat warning: in the Blumenfeld Gambit
is 2 d6 followed by 3 tt:l xc5. 1 . . . pawn play must be coordinated with
d6 2 tt:la5! i.a6 3 i.xa6 tt:l xa6 4 piece play.
tt:lc4!. White's k night is splendidly In the next example coordi­
situated on one of the key squares nation was effective . . .
in the Blumenfeld Gambit. It
defends t he b2 pawn, and presses
on d6. I n addition, W hite has no
problems with his centre. 4 . . .
�d7 5 J:ld2 �c7 6 lHdl J:ld8.
Using his space advantage White
increases the pressure exerted by
his pieces.
The next position results from
a premature counterattack . . . f7-
f5. W hite threatens to break up
Black's centre with 2 exf5 or 2
dxe6 fxe6 3 exf5. Black is helpless
against White's pressure, even if
he builds a pawn centre by I . . . The moves . . . i.c8-b7 and . . .
fxe4 2 tt:lxe4 exd5. Typical solution J:lh8-g8 form a whole with: I .. .
18 The Blumenfeld Gambit
f5 !. With the move : h8-g8 Black
weakened the position of the
knight on f3, and the bishop on
b7 has become stronger, e.g. 2
dxe6 fxe6 3 exf5 ..txf3 - + . The
arrangement : gS, ..t b7 and . . .
f6-f5 works in many positions! It
is a classic case, where Black uses
the g-file, h l -aB diagonal and the
counterattack f6-f5.
The pawn on d6 may be a source
of power in Black's position, if it
can advance d6-d5-d4 etc. But it
is a potential weakness also!
After l lLic4! Black has serious
problems. The threat is 2 dxe6 fxe6
3 lLixd6 + . If l . . . �d7 then 2
: d3 and 3 : ed I and the threat
returns. Both I . . . e5 2 lLif3 -h4-
f5 and I . . . exd5 2 exd5 + �d7 3
l2:\f3-h4-f5 are a strategical fiasco.
A weakness of the c6 square is
sometimes only apparent. It seems
as though the knight on c6 is a
strong piece because it covers the
b4, d4 and b8 squares. In the
meantime, this piece has only
weak support : l . . . lLic7!. The
destruction of the d5 point creates
an unexpected threat against
lL\c6. 2 b3 : a3 3 : d l : eS! (3
. . . exd5? 4 exd5 lLixd5 5 : xd5
�xc6 6 : h5) 4 �fl exd5 5 exd5
: xe2 6 � xe2 lLixd5! 7 : xd5
� xc6 with won end ing for Black.
One of the most important
squares on the board-in pos­
itions w ith the pawn structure :
White e4-d5, and Black f7 -f6-e6-
d6-is precisely d5. Very often
both players concentrate on the
d5 point. There are a few pieces
involved in such a struggle : attack­
ing d5, a bishop on b7, knight on
c7 and pawn e6; and defending,
bishop on c4, rook on d l , pawn
on e4. The above-mentioned
pieces are the main factors beh ind
the central tension. Here are a few
variations on the theme of the d5
pawn.
 A Few Ideas .. .
I . . . i.b7! 2 lLJxa7 lLJc7 3 lLlb5
lLJxb5 4 ..t xb5 ..txd5! 5 ..t xd7+
�xd7 6 exd5 exd5 + . Another
interesting possibility is 3 lLJb3
n a8 4 lL! b5 lLJxb5 5 ..txb5 exd5
6 exd5 n xa2.
I . . . exd5! 2 exd 5 ..txd5 3
..txd5 l:txb5 and White has no
compensation for the two pawns.
In the next diagram, initially I
.. . exd 5 ! ? begi ns the fighting in the
centre. Now a Black bishop and
19
White k n ight are hanging.
2 exd5 l iquidates the aggressor,
but the defender of the b ishop
arrives: 2 . . . lL!xd5 3 lLlxf4! lLlxf4
4 lL!xd6+ �f8 5 lLJ xb7 lL!xd3.
Black, playing on the edge of a
precipice, is now almost lost in the
ending. Moral: one has to take
care of the dark squared b ishop!
The d5 pawn is inviolable : I . . .
exd5 2 exd5 lLl xd5? 3 l2Je4! f5 4
..hd5 i. xd5 5 t2Jf6 + �e7 6
20 The Blumenfeld Gambit
lZ:l xg8 + or 5 . . . �d8 6 lLl xd5
and White wins. By such means
White, in many variations of the
Blumenfeld Gambit, indirectly
protects his d5 pawn.
And another example, where
White protects the d5 pawn in a
roundabout way :
I : he I ! And now after I . . exd5
. White wants to keep his pawn
2 exd5 with check prevents 2 . . .
lL:l xd5. The position of the two
rooks is worth noting; both rooks
are involved in the defence of the
d5 pawn.
If Black can force White to
exchange the embarrassing d5
pawn, his own pawn mass d6, e6,
f6 becomes much stronger. Black
from the early opening wants to
set in motion this pawn mass and
. . . f6-f5 is often the way to achiev­
ing this.
In the next diagram I . . . f5! 2
lZ:la5 ..t a8 and now White has three
options, but the result is the same :
a) 3 d xe6 fxe4 4 e xf7 : g7 5 lL!f5
%1 g5 6 lL!e3 d5!
Black has crowned his pawn
strategy.
b) 3 exf5 exd5 4 ..td3 d4. In
t he pawn race Black is greatly
helped by a strong pair of bish­
ops.
c) 3 f3. The principal answer;
centre, leaving the bishop on
a8 imprisoned. Black's doubled
pawns are very useful; 3 . . . fxe4
4 fxe4 %1 g4 5 lL!g2 f5!. Once
again the 'pawn tank' d6-c5-
d5, with supporting artillery
from the two bishops, appears
on the board : 6 exf5 exd5.
(see following diagram)
The bishop on c4 may be har­
ried not only by the e6 pawn, when
the possibility . . . e6xd5 creates
continual tension, but also by the
rook on h8.
 A Few Ideas . . .
• Now let u s examine some
-=====
I . . . J:l g8 2 g3 fxe4 3 fxe4 J:l g4
4 J:l he l .hd5!? 5 exd5 J:l xc4 + .
Here is tlte mlue of open lines for
tlte rooks.
It is worth remembering some
positional nuances:
White is able to wall in the
knight on c7 : I d6! lLla8 2 a5!.
White has in effect one piece more.
We have finished our demon­
stration of ideas in the variation 5
�g5 �a5 + 6 �d2 �xd2 + .
21
examples from the Blumenfeld
Gambit Accepted.
Let us note five active Black
pieces : � g5, J:l f8, .i. b 7, .i.d6,
ltJf5. The queen and one bishop
bear down on g2, and also the
possibilities �g5 -g3-h2 and
.i.d6-h2 focus on another critical
square around the White king. In
an instructive way Black uses lines,
diagonals, and points : I . . . d4! 2
exd4 e3! 3 lLlxe3 (3 fxe3 �g3 4
ltJfl �xe I - + ) 3 . . . lLlxe3 4 fxe3
�g3 5 tUft (5 tLlg4 �xh3 + 6 �gl
�xg4 - +) 5 . . . J:l xfl + 6 J:l xfl
� h2 mate.
In the next diagram Black's
strong pawn centre seems reliable,
but . . . I e4! d4 2 e5! dxc3 3 exd6!
cxb2 4 .i.xb2 0-0 5 ..tc4. Black
has lost not only a pawn but his
position also. The puslt e2-e4-e5
is like a battering ram and must
be carefully watclted by Black in
the Blumenfeld Gambit Accepted!
22 The Blumenfeld Gambit

6
persistent advantage : 2 lLlcb l ..tf6
3 l2Jc4 �c7 4 l2J bd2 0-0 5 a5 .:. b8
6 f4 ± .

6
White has prepared the the­
matic 1 . e3-e4? But the undefen­
ded position of the bishop on d3
allows a tactical double attack.
I . . c4! 2 bxc4 l2Jc5! 3 �e2 dxe4
. Black threatens I . . . exd5 2
4 l2Jxe4 lLlfxe4 5 ..txe4 l2Jxe4 6 cxd5 ..tb7; also the exchange I . . .
�xe4 ..t b7 7 �e2 e4 8 l2Jd2 ..t c5 l2Jxg5 2 l2Jxg5 is favourable for
and White's king is in trouble. him. But White starts fighting on
And finally, a few examples from the queenside: I b4! �xb4 2 .:l. b l
other variations. 1t'c3 3 .:1. b 3 �a5 4 .:l. xb5 and
Black is not able to maintain his White controls the b-file.
pawn structure on the queenside. Such a review of the basic pos­
After I a4! b4 White takes pos­ itions could be continued much
session of the c4 square, with a longer. Similarly, one might con-
 A Few Ideas .. . 23
tinue a review of the typical plans, this method the reader can
combinations, manoeuvres. I hope improve his strategical and tacti­
that the reader will complete his cal intuition of positions from the
own register after studying the Blumenfeld Gambit.
theoretical chapters. Doubtless, by
ANALYSES
 3

The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined.

-5 .t g 5

( I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lLlf3 c5 4 d5 and directed the reader's attention

b5 5 ..ig5) to those areas where it would be
most profitable to seek reinforce­
ments. We shall investigate the
following replies :
A. 5 . . . W'a5 +
B. 5 . . . exd5
c. 5 . . . h6
D. 5 . . . bxc4, 5 . . . ..tb7, 5
d6, 5 . . . W' b6

A. 5 . . . it'a5 +

Of course, there is the

unpleasant move 5 ..ig5! White is
fighting not for a pawn but for
domination in the centre. By pin­
ning Black's knight, he prevents
the formation of the pawn mass.
For many years this move was
considered as the best. Through­
out, when necessary, I have
suggested improvements for Black
26
 T he Blumenfeld Gambit Declined 27
It must be borne in mind that Returning to the analysis, we
the variations considered in this have :
subsection are still relatively unex­
6 'ilfxd2 +
plored. The main possibilities for
with the further division: 7 tll b xd2
White are now :
or 7 tll fxd2.
I) 6 '1Wd2
2) 6 tll c3 7 tll b xd2
3) 6 .1d2
4) 6 tll bd2

1) 6 '1Wd2

( I d4 tll f6 2 c4 e6 3 tll f3 c5 4 d5
b5 5 .1g5 '1Wa5 + 6 '1Wd2)
Before we proceed further, let
us note two old games in which
Black did not play according to
the spirit of the variation :
-6 . . . '1W xd2 + 7 tll b xd2 bxc4 8
.1xf6 gxf6 9 e4 f5? 1 0 .1xc4 .1b7
1 1 0-0 .1h6 1 2 .l:tfel with a clear
advantage for White, Griinfeld­ After this move White has some
Rabinovich, Moscow 1 925. The advantage in space and develop­
move . . . f6-f5 was, of course, too ment, but from the square d2 his
early and Black had not knight doesn't control the key d5
prepared it adequately. White had square.
an excellent game using the d- and
7 bxc4
e-files, and the b3, c4, b5 and e5
Usually Black plays this move,
squares.
but he can still play in gambit
In the second game M arshaii­
style: 7 . . . tll a6!? 8 dxe6?! fxe6 9
Hanauer, New York 1 937, the
cxb5 tll b4 10 �dl a6 11 b6
structure of Black's pawns was
J: b8 + Wilder- Aiburt, New York
damaged :
1 986.
-6 . . . 'ilf xd2 + 7 tll b xd2 exd5 8 As we have already seen in the
-t xf6 gxf6 9 cxd5 -tb7 1 0 e4 a6 Marshall-H anauer game, Black
Let us dismiss the continuation 1 0 should avoid 7 . . . exd5?!
. . . f5? I I -t xb5 fxe4 1 2 tll xe4 8 e4
-txd5?? 1 3 tll f6 + + - . Of course, White may also play
I I tll h4 8 -txf6, but the difference is sig­
and White stood better. nificant only if after 8 e4 Black
28 The Blumenfeld Gambit
wishes to preserve his pawn struc­ 1 5 lL!h4 i.a6
ture. To that end, very interesting Black must always be careful
is 8 e4 i.e? 9 d6 i.xd6 (9 . . . i.d8 with this exchange! Which bishop
is bad because of the weakness on is better is an important question.
c5) 1 0 e5 i.xe5 1 1 lL!xe5 d5. We 16 i.xa6 lL!xa6 17 lL!g2 .ll b4
have an unusual position, and one 18 .ll el �d7 19 .ll e2 i.h6 20
which is in need of further practical lL!a5 .ll a4 2 1 lL!c6
tests. 9 i.xc4 is best met by 9 . . . Or 2 1 lLl b3 .ll b8 and Black's
exd5! 1 0 exd5 d6! ; 1 0 . . . i.b7 1 1 position is superior.
0-0-0 lL!xd5 1 2 .ll he 1 ! f6 1 3 lL!e4! 21 . . . lL!c7 22 b3 .ll a3 23 b4
is too risky. exd5 and Black has a winning
The sacrificial line 8 . . . i.b7 9 posttJOn, Kuligowski-Przewoi:­
i.xc4 lL!xe4 I 0 lL!xe4 exd5 also nik, Warsaw 1 98 1 .
leaves Black with problems after I n fact, the Black counterplay
l l lL!f6 + ! ( I I 0-0-0?! dxe4 1 2 on the queenside is not necessarily
lL!e5 f6 1 3 lL! f7 fxg5 is unclear) so strong, and it is possible for
I I . . . gxf6 1 2 i.xf6. White to neutralise it. Let us note
Going back to the position after here a very instructive game :
8 e4, and assuming an eventual -8 i.xf6 gxf6 9 e4 i.b7 10
exchange on f6, the most promis­ i.xc4 lL!a6 1 1 .ll d 1 ! lL!c7 1 2 0-0
ing plan at Black's disposal is .ll g8
probably . . . lL!b8-a6-c7, Too risky for Black would be
i.b7, . . . .ll g8, . . . .ll b8 or . . . 1 2 . . . exd5 1 3 exd5 lL! xd5 14 lL!e4.
0-0-0, . . . d6. White has two equally 13 lL!b3 d6 14 lL!a5 i.a6 1 5
playable alternatives, castling long i.xa6 lL!xa6 16 lL!c4 �d7 17
or castling short. Let's look at .ll d2 �c7 1 8 .ll fd 1 .ll d8 1 9 h3
some practical examples: lL!b4 20 a3 lL!a6
-8 e4 i.b7 9 i.xf6 gxf6 10
i.xc4 lL!a6 1 1 0-0 lL!c7 1 2 .ll fd 1
Better is .!l ad ! , then ll fe 1 ,
lLl b3.
12 . . . .ll g8 13 g3 .ll b8 1 4 lL!b3
d6
The basic plan and structural
development for Black is as fol­
lows: to attack on the b- and
g-files; meanwhile controlling d5
with a knight posted on c7, a
bishop posted at b7, and a pawn
on e6; and later to play . . . f6-f5
attacking White's centre.
 The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined
21 l:l d3
White holds sway over the
entire board, and moreover Black
is without counterplay;
Zivanovic-Ristic, Smederevska
Palanka 1 98 1 . For Black, better
would have been 1 2 . . . d6, instead
of 1 2 l:l g8, to solve some of
0 0 .
his problems on the queenside at
an early stage, e.g. : 1 2 . . . d6 1 3
ll'lb3 0-0-0! 1 4 ll'la5 .i.a8. Com­
pare 1 2 l:l g8? 1 3 lLl b3 0-0-0
0 0 •
1 4 d6 .i.xe4 1 5 dxc7 .i.xf3 1 6
cxd8• + <jo?xd8 1 7 g3 .i.xd I 1 8
l:l xd 1 + - .
Both 0-0 and 0-0-0 are satisfac­
tory alternatives, but after White's
0-0-0, the position is sharper with
approximately equal chances in a
difficult middlegame.
-8 .i. xf6 gxf6 9 e4 tt'la6
i.xc4 ..t b7 1 1 0-0-0 l:l g8 J 2 g3
ll'lc7 13 l:l he1
13 tt'lb3 is playable too, for
example 1 3 0-0-0 1 4 ll'la5 .i.a8
0 0 .
1 5 d6 ll'le8 1 6 .i.a6 + <jo?b8 1 7
l:l d3 ll'l xd6, or 1 3 0-0-0 1 4
0 0 .
tt'la5 ..ta8 1 5 l:l d3 f5 1 6 d6 fxe4
1 7 dxc7 exd3 1 8 cxd8• + <jo? xd8
and Black has a won game. But
better is 14 d6! tt'le8 1 5 tt'lxc5
tt'lxd6 16 ll'lxb7 <jo? xb7 1 7 .i.d3
and the position offers equal
chances to both White and Black.
l3 . . . d6 14 <jo?b1 0-0-0 15 tt'lb3
f5!
This is a very important part of
Black's strategic plan.
16 ll'la5 .i.a8 17 exf5
Because of the bad position of
the ll'lf3, after 1 7 dxe6 either 1 7
29
fxe6, or 1 7
0 0 . fxe4 1 8 exf7 l:l g7,
0 0 0
with the idea . . . d6-d5, would lead
to better play for Black.
17 . . . exd5 18 .i.ft .i.g7 1 9
ll'lg5
But not 19 g4 ..tf6 20 h3 h5
and Black stands better.
1 9 . . . .i. xb2 20 ll'l xf7 .i.c3 2 1
ll'lxd8 <jo?xd8 2 2 tt'l b 3 .i. x e 1 23
l:l xe l d4
10
A surprising position in which
White and Black will soon have
three passed pawns each! Gralka­
Przewoznik, Sopot 1 982.
A similar idea was tested in
the game Mazalon- Przewoznik,
Swieradow 1 983, which proceeded
as follows :
-8 .i.xf6 gxf6 9 e4 tt'la6 10
.i. xc4 .i.b7 l l 0-0-0 l:l g8 1 2 g3
ll'lc7 13 l:l he1 d6 14 ll'lh4
Instead of 14 <jo?b l . This inno­
vation looks better. White can
play f2-f4, ll'lh4-g2-e3.
14 . . . 0-0-0 15 ll'lb3?! fS! 1 6
30 The Blumenfeld Gambit
tt:laS ..ta8 17 dxe6 fxe4 18 exf7 Black gives up the option of
.l:t g7 19 f3! castling long. However, he gains
White plays against d6-d5; if 1 9 other options such as the possi-
tt:lf5, then 1 9 . . . .l:t g5. bility of playing . . . a6 followed by
1 9 . . . exf3 20 tt:lfS .l:t g6 21 . . . tt:lc7-b5-d4.
tt:le7 + ..txe7 22 l:txe7 .l:t f6 23 1 2 Rhe l Rg8 1 3 g3 Bb7 14 Nb1
..tfl f2 24 tt:lc4 ..idS Ba6
Once again an 'unnatural' pos- Black may play . . . d6, . . . �d7,
ition with passed pawns on f7 and . . . ..i.e? also.
f2. 15 ..ixa6 tt:l xa6 1 6 taa3 .l:t b4
25 .1:t xc7 + � xc7 26 l:txdS 17 b3 tt:lc7 1 8 tt:lc4 t0a8 19 �c2
.l:t xf7
Black has a won game. tt:lb6 20 t0 xb6 .1:t xb6 21 tt:ld2 h5
The main idea for Black is to 22 tt:lc4.
achieve the advance . . . f6-f5, after White's advantage is not sign­
which he can attack White's cen­ ificant, Bukic-Inkiov, Banja Luka
tral pawns with the aid of tactics. 1 983.
This plan appears to be Black's As elaborated before, Black's
strongest. Black can also in some basic plan is to play . . . f6-f5, but
lines continue without f6-f5. We this move may be double-edged.
now consider these two continu­ As an illustration of the dangers
ations : involved, here is the game Lukov­
-8 ..i x f6 gxf6 9 e4 tt:la6 10 Semkov, Bulgaria 1 97 7 :
..t xc4 tt:lc7 1 1 0-0-0 .l:t g 8 1 2 g3 - 8 e4 ..tb7 9 ..ixf6 gxf6 10
..tb7 13 .l:t he1 d6 14 tt:lb1 ..ixc4 rs 1 1 0-0-0 ..th6 1 2 � b 1
This knight remanoeuvres to 0-0 1 3 .l:t he1
control the d5 square. Pressuring the centre! White's
14 . . . 0-0-0 15 tt:lc3 fS! 16 pieces are very active.
tt:ld2?! 13 . . . aS 14 tt:lb3 d6 1S exfS a4
I nteresting variations arise after 16 dxe6! axb3 17 e7 bxa2 + 18
1 6 exf5, for example : 1 6 . . . .l:t g4 ..t xa2 .l:t e8 19 .l:t xd6 ..tf4 20
1 7 b3 ..tg7; 1 6 . . . .l:t g4 1 7 ..tb3 tileS ..ixeS 21 .1:t xeS t0c6 22
c4 1 8 h3 cxb3 1 9 hxg4 bxa2 20 .l:t xc6!!
tt:lxa2 ..txd5; 1 6 . . . ..tg7 1 8 fxe6 White has a won game!
..t xc3 1 8 exf7 .l:t g4. Kostic experimented in the next
16 . . . fxe4 1 7 tadxe4 fS! 18 taf6 game:
.l:t g6 19 tt:lxh7 ..th6 + 20 f4 e5 -8 e4 ..tb7 9 ..i xf6 gxf6 10
21 tagS ..txg5 22 fxg5 .l:t xg5
with ..t xc4 �e7 1 1 tt:lb3 rs 1 2 tt:l xcS
a slight advantage for Black, fxe4 13 tt:l xb7 exf3 14 gxf3 �f6
Kojder-Przewoznik, Chelm 1 982. IS 0-0-0 aS 1 6 dxe6 fxe6 17 tt:ld6
-8 ..txf6 gxf6 9 e4 tt:la6 10 ..txc4 ..txd6 18 .l:t xd6 .l:t c8 1 9 b3 .l:t a6
tt:lc7 1 1 0-0-0 .1:t b8 20 .l:t xa6 tt:l xa6 21 �d2 tt:l b4 22
 The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined
a3 ll:lc6 23 f4. White has the advan­
tage, Sahovic-Kostic, Vrnjacka
Banja 1 982.
7 ll:lfxd2
This move seems a good altern­
ative. The knight is better placed
here than on f3 and White may
wish to build up pressure on the
queen's wing with lLlc4 and lLlc3.
But at this moment the second
knight is still at b I , and time is
important . . .
-7 . . . bxc4 8 .txf6 gxf6 9 e4
ll:la6 I 0 .t xc4 l:t b8
This is the weak point in White's
position! How is he to protect the
b-pawn? I I .tb3 lLlb4 1 2 0-0
lLld3 1 3 lLlc4 .ta6; I I b3 lLlb4 + .
Instead :
I I ltJc3!? l:t xb2 1 2 0-0-0
Or 1 2 ll:lb3? lLlb4 1 3 0-0-0
l:t c2 + ; or 1 2 .tb3? ll:lb4 1 3
0-0-0 ll:ld3 mate!
12 . . . l:t b8 13 lLlb5 .tb7!
31
Very passive is 1 3 . . . l:t a8 1 4
d6! with pressure.
14 ll:lb3?!
Black is better after 1 4 ltJxa7
ll:lc7 1 5 lLlb5 ll:lxb5 1 6 .txb5
.txd5 1 7 .txd7+ �xd7 1 8 exd5
exd5, but 1 4 d6!? is playable.
14 f5!
15 dxe6
If 1 5 f3, then 1 5 . . . l:t g8 1 6
g 3 fxe4 1 7 fxe4 l:t g4 1 8 l:t he l
.txd5! +
15 . . . fxe6 16 lLld6 +
1 6 exf5 d5 is highly unclear.
16 . . . .txd6 17 l:t xd6lLlb4 18
exf5
Or 1 8 l:t hd l fxe4 1 9 l:t xd7
.td5 with advantage.
18 . . . r:J;e7 1 9 l:t d2
Very interesting would have
been 1 5 l:t hd 1 !? .td5 20 .txd5
rJ; xd6 21 .txe6 + �e5 22 l:t xd 7
ll:lxa2 + with an unclear position,
probably favouring Black.
19 . . . .t xg2! 20 l:t g l d5!! 21
l:t xg2 dxc4 22 ll:lxc5 l:t hc8!
32 The Blumenfeld Gambit
once the bishop is deflected, giving
chances for counterplay.
15 exd5 ..txd5 16 l:. he l +
�d8 17 lLlxa7 ..txc4 18 lLlxc4
l:. b7!
All White's pieces are attacking!
Black must be careful.
1 9 lLla5! l:. b6 20 lLl7c6 + �c7
2 1 lLle7 lLlb4! 22 a3

Lukov-Przewoznik, NaJ�czow
1 980. Black has successfully solved
his problems, for example 23
lLl xe6 c3 24 l:. e2 c2 - + ; 23
l:.d7 + �f6 24 lLlxe6 c3 (24 . . .
lLld3 + 25 �d I ? c3 26 lLld4
.1:. b2! - + ; 25 �d2! c3 + 26
'iti>xd3 c2 27 l:. gg7 c l "iW 28
l:. gf7 + �e5 29 f4 + ) 25 l:. gg7
22 . . . : e6! and Black has a
tt:Jxa2 + 26 �d I c2 + 27 �e2
won game, Przybylski-Przewoz­
l:. f8 - + .
nik, Bierutowice 1 98 1 .
Black also stands well after the
I n the next two games we will
following continuation :
see another idea : with lLlc4 White
-7 . . . bxc4 8 ..txf6 gxf6 9 e4
protects the b2 square and attacks
lLla6 10 ..t xc4
the important squares a5 and d6.
If 1 0 lLlxc4 tt:Jb4 with an attack
-7 . . . bxc4 8 e4 lLla6 9 a3 J: b8
on d5 and c2; but playable is I 0
1 0 ..t x f6 gxf6 1 1 lLlxc4 lLlc7 1 2
lLla3 .1:. b8 I I 0-0-0 with the idea
lLlc3
of lLlxc4 or .i.xc4.
10 . . . l:. b8 1 1 lLlc3 l:. xb2 1 2 (see following diagram)
0-0-0 : b8 1 3 lLlb5 ..tb7 1 4 f4
12 a6
A novelty, after which the game
is very sharp and original. Probably bad is an early 1 2 . . .
d6 because of 0-0-0, f4, .1:. d2, ..te2,
14 exd5
: hd I with pressure. So Black
The knight on b5 is unprotected prepares with . . . lLlc7-b5-d4.
 T he Blumenfeld Gambit Declined
� Black must now allow White to
F=iWiiir.=:::;;-='7==-;.r:===;;;;;il
13 a4
With the idea 14 d6! ll:la8 1 5
a5 and Black's knight will be stult­
ified.
13 . . . d6 14 �d3?!
14 0-0-0!? was worth consider-
mg.
14 . . . �b7 15 0-0-0 �h6 + 1 6
rt; c 2 � f4
This bishop is coming to e5,
another idea at Black's disposal.
17 CiJe2 exd5 18 ll:lxf4 dxc4 1 9
�xc4 �xe4 + 20 rt;c3 rt;d7
and Black has excellent attacking
threats, Jongsma- Przewoznik,
Haarlem 1 980. However, 1 8 exd5,
instead of 1 8 ll:l xf4, would have
caused some problems to Black.
-7 . . . bxc4 8 e4 ll:la6 9 a3 �e7
10 �xf6 �xf6 1 1 ll:lxc4 0-0 1 2
ll:lc3 �xc3 + 1 3 bxc3
An unusual situation for this
opening.
13 . . . exd5 14 exd5 ll:lc7 15 ll:le3
l:[ b8 16 �c4 d6 1 7 0-0 �d7
The position is even, Meduna­
Inkiov, Plovdiv 1 982.
33
damage his pawn structure. Let us
consider the following examples
if White plays e4 before � xf6
(without �xf6) :
-7 ll:lfxd2 bxc4 8 e4 �e7 9 ll:lc3
ll:lxd5 1 0 ll:l xd5 exd5 1 1 �xe7
rt;xe7 12 exd5 d6 13 0-0-0 �b7?!
14 ll:l xc4 ll:ld7 15 ll:la5 l hb8 1 6
�b5 ll:lb6 17 : he1 + rt;f6 18
ll:lc6 and White has gained the
advantage, Meduna- Horvath,
Trnava 1 98 1 . But according to my
analysis Black could play 1 3 . . .
:d8 1 4 �xc4 rt;f8 1 5 : he l
ll:ld7 1 6 � b 5 � b7 1 7 ll:le4 ll:lb6
1 8 ll:lc3 a6 with equal chances.
-7 ll:lfxd2 bxc4 8 e4 ll:la6 9 a3
CiJc7 1 0 ll:lc3 �b7 1 1 dxe6 fxe6
1 2 �xc4 d5 1 3 exd5 exd5 1 4 �d3
�d6 15 ll:lb5 ll:l xb5 16 �xb5 +
rt;f7 1 7 0-0 a6 1 8 �a4 : ab8 +
Redzepagic- Przewoznik, Na1vc­
z6w 1 986.
And finally, some sample
'games' from my own analysis :
-7 ll:lfxd2 bxc4 8 e4 �e7 9
�xc4 ll:lxd5 (9 . . . e5!?) 1 0 �xd5
exd5 1 1 �xe7 rt;xe7 12 exd5 d6
1 3 ll:lc3 l:[ d8 14 0-0-0 ll:ld7 1 5
l:[ he I + rt;f8 1 6 ll:lc4 lLl b6 1 7
ll:la5 �f5 1 8 ll:lc6 l:[ d7. The
position is balanced.
-7 ll:lfxd2 bxc4 8 e4 �e7 9
dxe6 fxe6 1 0 e5 ll:lg4 1 1 �xe7 ( 1 1
�f4 ll:lc6 1 2 ll:lf3 0-0 1 3 �g3
l:[ f5! + ) I I . . . rt;xe7 1 2 ll:lxc4
�a6 1 3 ll:lbd2 ( 1 3 f4? �xc4 1 4
�xc4 ll:le3 1 5 �d3 ll:lxg2 + and
ll:lxf4 + ; 1 3 h3 �xc4 1 4 hxg4
�xfl 1 5 l:[ xfl ll:lc6 1 6 f4 g5
34 The Blumenfeld Gambit
1 7 g3 gxf4 1 8 gxf4 l:t ab8 1 9 b3
l:t b4 + ) 1 3 . . . tZ:lc6 1 4 f4 l:t hf8 1 5
h3 tZ:lh6 1 6 g3 tZ:lb4 + .
In conclusion we can say that
the best plan for Black when White
plays 7 tZ:lfxd2 and refrains from
capturing on f6 is to play tZ:l b6
and �b7, attacking the d5 pawn
and, as is often useful, the a4
square.
Summary : After 7 tZ:lfxd2 and
7 tZ:l bxd2 Black equalises without
difficulty. There are many attack­
ing possibilities, such as f6-f5,
l:t g8, l:t c8 or tZ:lc7. Additionally,
Black's tight pawn structure is an
asset. Of course, we will have to
wait for more practical examples
because the positions which arise
are sometimes very complicated.
2) 6 tZ:lc3
( 1 d4 tZ:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 tZ:lf3 c5 4 d5
b5 5 ..ig5 WaS + 6 tZ:lc3)
I n this variation the play is
not so sharp as after 6 'iWd2.
Therefore, it is a good move for
'quiet' players.
6 . . . tZ:le4 7 �d2 tZ:l xd2
Let us examine illustrative
games:
-8 'ihd2 bxc4?!
Black must always be careful
with this move. Now White will
have very good control of c4 and
the better position.
9 e4 d6 10 e5! dxe5 1 1 �xc4!
Development!
1 1 . . . i.a6 1 2 i.xa6 'iW xa6 1 3
0-0-0 f6 14 dxe6 'iW xe6 1 5 'iWd8 +
�f7 1 6 �b1 l:t g8 1 7 Wd3 g6 1 8
tZ:ld5 tZ:la6 1 9 l:t he l .
White has a dangerous initiative
for the pawn, Akhmilovskaya­
Pihajlic, Tbilisi 1 982.
-8 'iW xd2 bxc4?! 9 e4 i.a6?
This was an experiment for only
one game.
10 tZ:le5 'iW b4 1 1 a3 W b3? 1 2
i.e2 d6? 1 3 i.d1 ! 'iW b6 14
..ia4 + + , Gralka- Przewoz­
-
nik, S wieradow 1 983.
-8 'iW xd2 b4! 9 tZ:ldl g6 10 h4 h6
I I g3 ..ig7 1 2 i.g2 i.b7, and
Black has full equality, Langeweg­
Fernandez, M arbella 1 982.
-8 'iWxd2 b4 9 tZ:ldl d6?! 10 e4
e5 I I h4 tZ:ld7 1 2 ..id3 tZ:lf6.
Better was 1 2 . . . g6 and 1 3 . . .
i.g7, or 1 3 . . . ..ih6, and 1 4 . . .
0-0.
13 tZ:le3 g6 1 4 a3 � h6 15 0-0
'iW b6 16 axb4 cxb4 1 7 c5!? 'iW xc5
1 8 : ret W b6 1 9 n c4 0-0 20
n xb4 Wd8 21 ..ib5! a5 22
l:t ba4 ± Hartston-Martin, Lon­
don 1 98 1 .
-8 'ihd2 b4 9 tZ:ld I d6?! I 0 dxe6!
i.xe6 1 1 g3 tZ:ld7 12 i.g2 l:t d8
 The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined 35

1 3 lOgS! .i.xc4 1 4 idS .i.xdS

15 'ihd5 l£Je5 1 6 f4 .i.e7 1 7 fxe5
.i.xg5 18 0-0 0-0 1 9 e6 h6 20 h4
.i.e7 21 exti + + - Jasnikowski­
Przewoznik, Sopot 1 986.
-8 W' xd2 b4 9 llle4 .i. b7 10 e3
.i.e7 1 1 .i.e2 0-0 12 0-0 W' b6 1 3
l:l fd1 a 5 1 4 a 4 d6 1 5 lll g3 e5 1 6
lll f5 .i.f6 1 7 e 4 .i.c8 1 8 g 4 h 6 1 9
�h1 W'd8 20 l:l g1 .i.g5 and
Black had equalised in Jasnikow­
ski-Przewoznik, Porabka 1 986.
-8 lt:lxd2 b4 9 lllc b1 d6?!
Better is 9 . . . .i. b7 with the idea
of . . . g6, . . . .i.g7, . . . lll a6. One fore, maybe 6 . . . W'd8!? is a clearer
possibility is 9 . . . .i. b7 l O e4 equaliser. Very risky for Black is
W'd8 I I a3 a5, and Black has no 8 . . . W' xb5, instead of 8 . . . d5, 9
problems. e4! W' xb2 lO .i.c3 W' b7 I I e5
10 g3 e5 1 1 e4 g6 1 2 lll b3 W'd8 lll d 5 1 2 lll g 5!
13 lll c l.
7 b4
In this amusmg position
chances are equal, Stempin­ Despite Black's eventual success
Przewoznik, N a1ycz6w 1 983. in the game Plachetka- Przewoz­
Summary : After 6 lll c3 White nik, Polanica Zdroj 1 980, 7 . . .
has no advantage if Black plays bxc4 8 e4 ia6 is not recom-
b5-b4, and then after due prep­ mended here.
aration, though not immediately,
8 lll a4 W'c7
d7-d6.
3) 6 .i.d2 -9 ig5 ie7 10 W'c2 0-0 1 1 e4
h6 1 2 ih4 d6 1 3 ie2 e5.
( I d4 lll f6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:lf3 c5 4 d5
We are following Rojek ­
b5 5 .i.g5 W'a5 + 6 .i.d2)
Przewoznik, Olkusz 1 983, in
(see following diagram) which it was demonstrated that
White radically limits the action Black has good prospects.
of Black's queen. But the bishop -9 l:l c 1 e5 10 W'c2 d6 1 1 a3 a5
is not well placed. 1 2 g3 g6 1 3 e4 .i.d7!? 14 id3
6 . . . W' b6 7 lt:lc3 .i.g7 15 0-0 0-0 16 lll h4 .i.h3
Interesting is 7 dxe6 fxe6 8 cxb5 17 l:l e 1 W'e7 18 ifl ixfl 1 9
d5 when the Black pawn structure �xfl lt:lbd7 20 b3 lll h5, Lahav­
is very nice, but a better position Przewoznik, Netanya 1 987, also
for the Black queen is at c7. There- with a good game for Black.
36 The Blumenfeld Gambit

Summary : 6 .i.d2 should not

trouble Black.
4) 6 ll'lbd2

( I d4 ll'lf6 2 c4 e6 3 ll'lf3 c5 4
d5 b5 5 .i.g5 W'a5 + 6 ll'l bd2)

A fantastic position! Black has

two pieces more but must lose,
Spassov-Manolov, Primorsko
1 975. However, Smagin and
Radovsky suggest 8 . . . : g8 10 g3
ll'la6 l l J.. xc4 ll'lc7 l l 0-0 d6 and
�e7!? as an improvement. But
with queens on the board it is hard
Some theorists analyse only the
to believe in it.
variations where Black plays 6 . . .
Coming back to 6 . . . ll'le4, we
ll'le4. For example : 7 W'c2 ll'l xg5
have to make a note of the tactical
8 ll'lxg5 J.. e7 9 ll'le4 d6. They
possibility 7 b4!
evaluate the position as balanced
(Encyclopedia 1 979, Taimanov
1 980). They rightly evaluate as bad
the move 6 . . . bxc4 :
-6 . . . bxc4 7 J.. xf6 gxf6 8 e4 f5
9 dxe6
Or 9 exf5 exd5 with an unclear
position.
9 . . . fxe4 10 exf7 + � d8 I I
J.. xc4! J.. b7
If I I . . exf3 1 2 W'xf3 with
.

possibilities of W' xa8 or W'f6 + ;

Minev.
1 2 ll'lg5 h6 1 3 ll'lxe4! J.. xe4 14
W'g4 d5 1 5 0-0 W' xd2 1 6 : ad1
 The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined
In an earlier article (Przewoznik
1 98S) I recommended 7 . . . cxb4!?.
I suggested that Black's pawns
may sometimes be strong, for
example: 8 lt:lxe4 bxc4 9 dxe6 fxe6
1 0 lLld6 + ..txd6 I I *xd6 b3 +
1 2 ..td2 c3 1 3 ..tgS c2 + 1 4 ..td2
b2 - + . But later I found the cor­
rect line for White; 7 . . . cxb4? 8
lLlxe4 bxc4 9 lLled2! f6 (9 . . . exdS
10 e4 ..tb7 I I exdS ..txdS 1 2
..txc4 + - ; I I . . . c3 1 2 *e2 +
+ - ) 1 0 ..t h4 exdS I I e4 ..t b7
1 2 eS ± with the idea exf6, and if
1 2 . . . fxeS, then 1 3 lLlxeS and
14 *hS + + - ; or 1 1 . . . dxe4,
instead of I I . . . ..t b7, 1 2 lLlxc4
*hS 1 3 lLld4 *xh4 1 4 lLlbS
lLla6 1 6 lLlcd6 + ..txd6 1 7
lLlxd6 + ..t>f8 18 *dS + - .
Instead of 1 4 . . . lLla6 Black can
play the heroic 1 4 . . . ..t>d8 or 1 4
. . . e l The position i s then very
complicated, but I feel that some­
where there is a refutation of
Black's sacrifice. (After I I . . . dxe4
1 2 lLlxc4 *hS, 1 3 lLld6 + ! seems
to give White a winning attack, the
continuation being 1 3 . . . ..txd6 1 4
*xd6 exf3 I S ..tg3! ..tb7 1 6 0-
0-0! and : e l + . I S . . . lLla6 is
a tougher defence, but 1 6 : c I !
rather than snatching the piece,
still looks very strong-Editor)
7 . . . -.xb4 was considered as
slightly better for White (Przewoz­
nik 1 98S): 8 : b l -.c3 9 : b3
-.as 1 0 : xbS (White has a draw
at least) 10 . . . *c3 I I * b l lLlxgS
( I I . . . exdS 1 2 cxdS and White
obtains the very good c4 square)
37
1 2 lLlxgS, or alternatively I I ..tf4
lLlxd2 1 2 lLlxd2. After 7 . . . *xb4
8 : b l lLlc3? 9 : xb4 lLlxd l
1 0 : b3 bxc4 I I lLlxc4 Black's
knight is trapped.
However, the position is still
complicated after 7 . . . *xb4 and
needs . . . another booklet of analy­
sis. Here are some of my analyses.
7 . . . *xb4 8 : b 1 *c3 9 : b3
•as 1 0 : xbS -.c3 1 1 : b3!?
(sometimes this eliminates a pot­
ential * c l mate.) I I . . . -.as 1 2
*bl
- 1 2 . . . lLlxd2? 1 3 lLlxd2 * c7
1 4 *e4! ..t b7 I S d6 *c6 1 6
: xb7 + - ; 1 4 . . . fS I S *f3 + - .
- 1 2 . . . lLlxgS! 1 3 : xb8 lLlxf3 +
1 4 exf3 : xb8 1 S -. xb8 -.a6 +
and . . . ..td6 or . . . ..te7 then . . .
0-0.
- 1 2 . . . lLlxgS 1 3 lLlxgS lLla6 1 4
lLlxh7 ..te7 I S : h 3 : b8 1 6
lLlf6 + ..txf6 1 7 : xh8 + �e7
1 8 *d3 d6 1 9 e4 : b2 with a
strong counterattack;
I S h4 g6? 1 6 hS : xh7 1 7 hxg6
: xh l 1 8 g7 + - ;
I S h4 fS! 1 6 e4 : xh7 1 7 exfS
: xh4 1 8 : xh4 ..txh4 1 9 f6
..txf6 or 1 9 : h3 ..tgS - + .
- 1 2 . . . lLlxgS 1 3 lLlxgS lLla6 1 4
lLlxh7 ..te7 I S : h 3 : b8 1 6
* d 3 (with the idea 1 7 lLlf6 +
..txf6 1 8 : xh8 + �e7 1 9 d6
mate!) 1 6 . . . d6 1 7 lLlgS ( 1 7 lLlf6 +
and variations as above) 1 7 . . .
: xh3 1 8 lLlxh3 *xa2 + .
- 1 2 . . . lLlxgS 1 3 lLlxgS lt:la6 1 4
dxe6 dxe6 I S g3 ..td7! and White's
threats disappear while Black's
38 T he Blumenfeld Gambit
remain.
There are some wild possibili­
ties after 1 2 . . . lt:lxg5 1 3 lLlxg5
lt:la6 1 4 -.e4 ll b8 1 5 ll xb8 lt:lxb8
1 6 -. f4 -.c3!
- 1 7 'ir'xf7 + �d8 1 8 f3 'ir'cl +
1 9 �f2 'ir'xd2 + ;
- 1 7 'ir'xf7 + �d8 1 8 e3 .i.e7 1 9
lLlge4 'ir' c l + 20 �e2 lH8 2 1
'ir' xg7 .ta6 with the idea 22 . . .
.i.xc4 + 23 lLlxc4 'ir'xc4 + 24
� e l 'ir'xd5 with a counterattack;
- 1 7 'ir'xf7 + �d8 1 8 e4 .te7 1 9
lt:lf3 .1:[ f8 2 0 'ir' h 5 .ta6 with a
counterattack;
- 1 7 e3!? .te7! 1 8 'ir'xb8 ( 1 8
'ir'xf7 + �d8 and as above) 1 8
. . . 0-0 1 9 'it'f4 .txg5 20 'ir'xg5
'ir' c l + 2 1 �e2 .ta6 22 'it'f4 exd5
and then . . . dxc4 with a counter­
attack;
- 1 7 e4 (d5 point!) 1 7 . . . J.. e 7 1 8
'ir'xb8 .i.xg5! 1 9 'ir'xc8 + �e7 20
'ir'xc5 + d6 2 1 'it'c7 + �f6 - + ;
- 1 7 e4 .i.e7 1 8 lt:lxf7 0-0!! 1 9
'ir' xb8 'ir' c l + 2 0 �e2 .ta6! 2 1
lt:lh6 + gxh6 2 2 'ir'g3 + .t g5 - + .
Let us take a rest. There are still
plenty of possibilities, there is still
room for improvements. We
should wait for more practical
tests.
Once I recommended for Black
6 . . . .te7 also, e.g. :
-7 dxe6 fxe6 8 cxb5 d5;
-7 e4 lLlxe4 8 .txe7 lLlxd2! 9
lLlxd2 �xe7;
-7 e4 lLlxe4 8 b4 'ir'xb4 9 .l:[ b 1
'ir'c3 1 0 .l:[ b3 'ir'a5 1 1 .l:[ xb5
'it' c3 1 2 .1:[ b3 ( Przewoznik, 1 985).
The move was tested in the
game Speelman-Aiburt, England
1 986 :
-6 . . . .te7 7 dxe6 fxe6 8 cxb5
a6 9 e4!? lLlxe4? 10 .txe7 �xe7
1 1 'ir'c2! d5 12 .td3 lLlxd2 1 3
'ir'xc5 + �f7 1 4 lt:le5 + ?
After 1 4 lLlxd2 White would be
clearly better! The game finished :
1 4 . . . 'it>f6 15 b4 lt:le4! 1 6 lt:lg4 +
�f7 1 7 .txe4 'ir'xb5 1 8 lLle5 +
�f6 1 9 lLlg4 + �f7 20 lLle5 +
H-
Speetman, in his comments in
I nformator 4 1 , suggested for Black
8 . . . d5, and on the next move 9
. . . axb5 (instead of 9 . . . lLlxe4?)
1 0 e5 lLld5 1 1 .td3 lLlc6 with
only a slight advantage to White.
Summary : 6 lLlbd2 is an inter­
esting move but one which is in
need of further practical tests.
In conclusion, 5 . . . 'ir'a5 + leads
to exciting and unconventional
play where Black has reasonable
prospects!
 The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined
B. 5 . . . exd5
( I d4 ttJf6 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 c5 4 d5
b5 5 .i. g5 exd5)
According to Voronkov { 1 97 1 ),
only this move gives Black equal
chances. Its main weakness will
appear very soon. Black will not
be able to hold his pawn on b5
and White will take over the c4
square.
6 cxd5
Now Black has a wide choice
of reasonable moves.
I ) 6 . . . h6
2) 6 . . . Wa5 +
3) 6 . . . d6
4) 6 . . . W b6
1 ) 6 . . . h6
( I d4 ttJf6 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 c5 4 d5
b5 5 .i.g5 exd5 6 cxd5 h6)
White has three options : a) 7
.i.f4 b) 7 .i.h4 c) 7 .i.xf6
a) 7 .i.f4
39
A very interesting idea, but not
dangerous for Black :
-7 .i.f4 d6 8 e4 a6 (8 . . . ttJxe4
9 .i.xb5 + ± ) 9 a4 b4 10 ttJbd2
.i.e7 1 1 .i.d3 0-0 1 2 h3 .l:!. e8 1 3
0-0 .i.f8 14 •c2 ttJh5 1 5 .i. h2
ttJd7 16 ttJc4 •r6 17 Wd2 g5
with approximate equality, Pre­
ise-Spielmann, Magdeburg 1 927.
Black controls the very important
e5 and f4 squares and this is
sufficient compensation for the c4
square.
-7 .i.f4 .i.b7 8 e4 ttJxe4 9 ttJc3
.i.d6 10 .i.xd6 ttJxd6 1 1 .i.xb5
ttJxb5 12 ttJxb5 We7 + 13 We2
W xe2 + 15 'it>xe2 .i.a6 15 a4 ;;!;; ,
Kozirev- Kozlov, USSR 1 975.
b) 7 .i.h4
White intends to play with the
bishop pair. The pioneering game,
Sakharov-Goldenov, Kiev 1 946,
went :
-7 .i.h4 .i.b7 8 e4 g5 9 .i.g3
ttJxe4? 10 •e2 •e7 1 1 .i.e5 f6
40 The Blumenfeld Gambit
1 2 'ihe4 fxe5 1 3 i.xb5 i.g7 14 Voronkov's assessment we should
lt:lc3 'ilff6 1 5 h4!. White stood dismiss 7 i.h4.
better.
c) 7 i.xf6
1 cannot agree with Voronkov's
This move is known to give
assessment, that after 9 . . . 'ilfe7
White better play.
(instead of 9 . . . lt:lxe4) 10 'ilfe2
7 . . . 'ilfxf6 8 'ilfc2
'ilfxe4 1 1 i.e5 'ilfxe2 + 12 .ixe2
Other moves are worse:
i.g7 l 3 lt:lc3 a6 14 h4 White is
-8 lt:lc3?! a6?! 9 'ilfc2 d6 10 e4
better. Encyclopedia ( 1 978) and
lt:ld7 1 1 a4 b4 1 2 lt:ld1 g6 Bukic­
Taimanov ( 1 980) evaluate the pos­
Bogdanovic, Yugoslavia 1 980,
ition as unclear. In may opinion
and now 1 3 lt:ld2! ..tg7 1 4 aS!,
after 14 . . . d6! Black is better, e.g. :
instead of 1 3 lt:le3, would have led
- 1 5 ..txd6 lt:lxd5 1 6 lt:l xd5
to White's advantage;
i.xd5 1 7 .i xc5 i.xb2;
-8 lt:lc3?! b4! 9 lt:le4 'ilf xb2 1 0
- 1 5 .ixf6 i.xf6 1 6 lt:le4 ( 1 6
d6 lt:la6! with the idea o f i. b 7 +
hxg5 hxg5 1 7 : xh8 + i.xh8 1 8
( Encyclopedia 1 978, Taimanov
lt:lxg5 i.xc3 + 1 9 bxc3 i.xd5)
1 980);
16 . . . i.xb2! 1 7 tt b 1 i.xd5 1 8
-8 lt:lc3 b4 9 lt:lb5 'ilfb6 1 0
lt:l xd6 + ..to>d7 1 9 tt xb2 ..to>xd6 20
'ilfc2!? ..tb7 ( 10 . . . 'ilf xb5? 1 1
hxg5 lt:lc6;
'ilfe4 + �d8 1 2 lLie5!) - +
- 1 5 hxg5 dxe5 1 6 gxf6 i.xf6 1 7
Balayan-Radovsky, Moscow
lt:le4 ..te7 1 8 0-0-0 f5 1 9 lt:l g3 e4.
1 982;
Less promising for Black is
-8 lt:lc3 b4 9 lt:lb5 'ilfb6 10 'ilfd3
7 . . . g5 immediately :
d6 I I :t e l ..td7 12 e4 a6 - + ,
-7 i.h4 g5 8 i.g3 d6 9 e4 a6 1 0
Gaprindashvili-Greenfeld, Sochi
a 4 b4 I I lLifd2 i.g7 1 2 i.d3 0-0
1 984 (Smagin, Radovsky)
1 3 lt:lc4 lt:le8 14 lt:lbd2 lt:ld7 1 5
-8 e4?! 'ilfxb2 9 lLibd2 c4 1 0
0-0 lt:lb6 16 lt:l x b6 'ilf x b6 1 7 lt:lc4
tt b 1 'ilfa3 I I tt xb5 ..tb4 1 2
'ilfd8 1 8 f4 g4 19 e5 ± , Geller­
'iii b I a S 1 3 i. xc4 i.a6 + Grigor­
Szabo, Stockholm 1 952.
ian-Arbakov, Moscow 1 982.
Smagin and Radovsky consider
7 . . . 'iii aS + as the best reply for 8 d6
Black. The reasoning behind this
evaluation is simple : in the vari­ This time this is the best way
ation 6 . . . 'iii aS + 7 lt:lc3 lt:le4 for Black. Let us compare:
the best answer for White is 8 -8 . . . c4 9 e4 i.b4 + 10 lLic3
..td2. From the h4 square the 0-0 1 1 i.e2 lLia6 12 0-0?
bishop cannot return to d2 . . . . Bukic-Lj ubojevic, Yugoslavia
Conclusion: Considering both 1 972, but after 1 2 e5! 'ilf b6 1 3 a4
the possibility 7 . . . 'iii aS + , and bxa4 1 4 0-0 (Bukic) White stands
also the improvement 14 . . . d6! to better;
 The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined
-8 . . . �a6?! 9 e4 .:t b8 1 0 �c3
c4 1 1 e5! 'Wf4 1 2 d6 .ib7 1 3 'Wd2
'W xd2 + ( 1 3 . . . g5 1 4 'Wxf4 gxf4
1 5 �d4 ;t Smagin, Radovsky) 14
�xd2 .ic6 15 a4 �b4 16 axb5!
�c2 + 17 �d1 �xa1 18 bxc6
dxc6 19 �xc4 ± Legky-Sher,
USSR 1 980;
-8 . . . c4 9 e4 .i.b4 + 10 �c3
0-0 1 1 .ie2 �a6 12 a4 �c5 1 3
e5 .ixc3 + 1 4 bxc3 'Wa6 1 5 0-0
�xa4 1 6 �d4 'WaS 1 7 �xb5
'ihb5 18 .:t fb1 'Wc5 1 9 .:t xa4 ±
Hulak-Nurkic, Tuzla 1 983.
-8 . . g6 9 e4 .ig7 10 e5 ( 1 0
. - 1 1 �bd2 �d7?! 1 2 .ie2 g5?! 1 3
�c3!?; 10 'W xc5 'W xb2 1 1 'W xc8 +
1;e7 + , Smagin, Radovsky) 1 0 . . .
'W b6 1 1 �c3 0-0 1 2 .ixb5? ( 1 2
� xb5 .:t e8 1 3 0-0-0! .i xe5 1 4
� xe5 .:r. xe5 1 5 d 6 and .ic4 ± ;
Smagin, Radovsky) 1 2 . . . d6! 1 3
0-0 dxe5 1 4 .:t fe1? ( 1 4 .ic4 ;t ) 14
. . . e4! - +, Kalinin-Radovsky,
Moscow 1 983.
9 e4 a6
10 a4
Or 1 0 h3!? g5 1 1 a4 .ig7? ( 1 1
. . . b4) 1 2 axb5! 'Wxb2 13 'Wxb2
.ixb2 14 .:t a2 .ig7 15 �bd2 �e7
16 �c4 .ic3 + 17 1;d1 a5 1 8
1;c2 ..tb4 1 9 e5! ± Honlinger­
Spielmann, Vienna 1 929.
10 b4
(see following diagram)
This is the logical result of the
variation. Now White will realise
a plan with .i d3 and �c4, but he
must do it carefully :
41
�c4 .ig7 14 �fd2! 0-0 1 9 .ig4 ±
Bobotsov-Szily, Biisum 1 969/70;
- 1 1 �bd2 �d7 1 2 �c4 g5 1 3
.id3 .ig7 14 0-0 'We7 1 5 e5! ±
Shashin-Bastrikov, USSR 1 967;
- 1 1 �bd2 .i.e7? 12 e5! dxe5 1 3
� e4 'Wf4 14 d6 f5 1 5 .id3! ± Czer­
niak-Pelikan, Buenos Aires 1 946;
- 1 1 �bd2 g5 1 2 .id3 �d7 1 3
0-0 .ie7 1 4 e5! dxe5 1 5 �e4
'Wb6 16 a5 'Wc7 1 7 .:t fd 1 .id6 1 8
�fd2 ± A lekhine-consultants,
Santiago 1 927;
- 1 1 �bd2 .ig4! 12 .ie2 .ixf3
13 �xf3 �d7 14 a5 g6 15 0-0 .ig7
16 .l:tab1 0-0 17 .ic4 �e5 1 8
�xeS 'Wxe5 Asztalos-Walter,
= ,
Bartfeld 1 926;
- 1 1 �bd2 .ig4 12 e5!? dxe5 1 3
�e4 Chernin-Miles, Tunis 1 985;
see section C below, p. 47.
- 1 1 �bd2 .ig4 12 .ie2 �d7 13
0-0 ( 1 3 �g l! ;t Pachman) 13 . . .
.ie7 1 4 �h 1 ? .ixf3 1 5 .ixf3
�e5 16 .ie2 g5! + , Kmoch-Spiel­
mann, Semmering 1 926;
42 The Blumenfeld Gambit
- 1 1 lLlfd2! i.e7 1 2 lLlc4 tLJd7 1 3
lLlbd2 0-0 1 4 i.d3 a S 1 S 0-0 lLleS
16 lLlxeS! dxeS 1 7 lLlc4! .:.d8 1 8
.:. ac t 'it'gS 1 9 .:. fd 1 ± Lipnitsky­
Tolush, USSR 1 950;
- 1 1 h3!? lLld7 1 2 i.d3 gS 1 3
lLl bd 2 i.g7 1 4 lLlc4 i.b7 1 S 0-0
'it'e7 1 6 .:. ae 1 lLleS ± Runstrom­
Nettori, Sweden 1 964.
- 1 1 lLlfd2 lLld7 1 2 g3!? ( 1 2 lLlc4)
1 2 . . . lLleS 13 i. g2 aS 14 0-0 i.a6
1S f4 i.d3 ( 1 5 . . . i.xfl? 1 6 fxe5;
1 5 . . . lLld3?! 16 e5 dxe5 1 7 lLle4)
16 'it'cl ( Maybe here 1 6 fxe5!?
'it'xfl + 1 7 i.xfl i.xc2 1 8 exd6
i.xb1 19 .:. x b l i.xd6 20 lLlc4;
White's unbreakable grip on the
light squares is worth more than
the exchange) 16 . . . lLlg4 1 7 eS
dxeS 1 8 .:.e1 e4 1 9 lLlxe4 'it'd4 +
20 �h 1 0-0-0 2 1 lLlbd2 'it' xdS
! -t Loffter-Ward, Ramstein­
Miesenbach 1 986-7. ( Editor)
On the basis of the material
presented above we can form an
opinion on the critical position.
The conclusion is as follows: if
White, playing I I lLlbd2, permits
i.c8-g4xf3, then Black can equal­
ise. Therefore, more accurate is I I
lLlfd2, or I I h3, fixing White's
advantage or the aggressive I I
lLlbd2 i.g4 1 2 e5. ( I I i.d3 lLld7
1 2 lLl bd2 has also been tried;
Tatai-0. Rodriguez, Skopje
1 972-Editor).
2) 6 . . . 'it'aS +
( I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lLlf3 c5 4 d5
b5 5 i.g5 exd5 6 cxd5 'it'a5 + )
Linking . . . 'it'a5 + with . . . exd5,
Black eliminates the possibility of
7 'it'd2 because the d5 pawn is
hanging. In spite of this, Black has
all the 'normal' troubles with the
b5 pawn.
7 lLlc3
On 7 i.d2 'it' b6 8 e4 c4! 9 'it'c2
i.c5 I 0 i.g5 lLla6 1 1 lLlc3 0-0,
Black had active play in M iles­
Ermenkov, Skara 1 980. See sec­
tion B in chapter 5 (Editor).
7
Much better than 7 . . . i.e7?:
-7 . . . i.e7? 8 d6 i.d8 9 a4 b4
1 0 lLldS lLle4 1 1 i.xd8 �xd8 1 2
lLld2! b3 1 3 e3 lLlc6 1 4 i.d3
lLlxd2 1S 'it' xd2 'it' xd2 + 16 � xd2
.:. b8 1 7 .:. hc1 ± Razuvaev­
Kozlov, USSR 1 975.
8 i.d2
By such a method White
immediately solves problems con­
nected with the pin along the a5-
e l diagonal. 8 'it'd3 is less accur­
ate :
-8 'it'd3 lLlxgS 9 lLlxgS i.e7 1 0
lLlge4 c4 1 1 'it'd4 0-0 1 2 d6 i.d8
13 'it'dS i.a6 14 g4 ( 1 5 'it' xa8 lLlc6)
14 . . . lLlc6 1S i.g2 b4 16 'it' xaS
i.xaS 17 lLldS lLld4 18 0-0-0
lLlxe2 + 1 9 �b1 c3 + Haik­
Barlov, Vrnjacka Banja 1 98 1 ;
-8 'it'd3 lLlxgS 9 lLlxgS i.e7 1 0
lLlge4 b4 1 1 'it' bS 'it'd8 1 2 d6
bxc3 13 dxe7 'it' xe7 1 4 lLlxc3 0-0
1 S e3 lLlc6 = , Meduna-Pedersen,
Trnava 1 985 (Bangiev suggests
that in this game White still stood
 The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined
slightly better after 1 6 0-0-0 .1: b8
1 7 •d3, and that 10 . . . c4 is to be
preferred to I 0 . . . b4- Editor);
-8 •d3 li:\xg5 9 li:\xg5 .i.e7 1 0
•e4 d 6 1 1 li:\e6? fxe6 1 2 dxe6
'Wb4! 13 • xa8 • xb2 14 li:\d5
( 1 4 .l: d 1 •xc3 + 1 5 .l: d2 .i.f6
1 6 e3 0-0 1 7 •xb8 •ct + 1 8
�e2 .i. xe6 - + ; 1 4 .l: b l • xc3
15 �d1 •d4 + 16 �e l
.i.d8! - + ) 1 4 . . . •xal + 15
�d2 • xa2 + 1 6 �cl •c4 + 17
�d2 •d4 + 1 8 �cl .i.xe6! 1 9
•xb8 + �f7 20 • xh8 •at +
21 �d2 • b2 + 22 �d3 .i.xd5
0-1 , Grooten-Johansen, Am­
hem/Amsterdam 1 983.
-8 •d3 li:lxg5 9 li:\xg5 .i.e7 10
li:\e4 c4 I I •d2 b4 1 2 li:\dl 0-0
1 3 li:\e3 c3 14 bxc3 bxc3 15 li:\xc3
.i. b4 16 li:\c4 •c5 17 e4 J: e8 +
Ermenkov-Barlov, Vrnjacka
Banja 1 979.
8 . . . li:\xd2 9 li:\xd2
Also, 9 •xd2 is playable :
-9 •xd2 d6 10 e4 b4 I I li:\dl
.i.e7 1 2 .i.e2 0-0 13 0-0 li:\d7 14
43
li:\e3 ;j;; , Gosin-Kuznetsov, Rostov
1 956.
Theory holds that White
emerges with a slight edge after
the text, but no more. Let us look
at a few examples :
-9 . . . d6 I 0 e4 a6 1 1 .i.e2 li:ld7
12 0-0 .i.e7 13 a4 b4 14 li:\cbl
.i.f6 15 li:\c4 •c7 16 li:\bd2 0-0
1 7 a5 .l: b8 1 8 f4 Kuligowski­
Ermenkov, Nis 1 979;
-9 . . . d6 10 e4 b4 1 1 li:lc4 •dB
12 li:\bl .i.e7 13 .i.d3 0-0 14 0-0
.i.f6 1 5 li:\bd2 li:ld7 16 li:\xd6
.i.xb2 1 7 .l: b1 .i.c3 1 8 li:\xc8
.1: xeS 19 li:\c4 !-J, Browne­
Lju bojevic, Buenos Aires 1 979,
Browne gives 1 9 . . . li:\b6 20 li:\xb6
axb6 21 .i.c4! .i.d4 22 �h 1 f5!
23 exf5 �h8 with the idea 24 g4?
b5! :t ;
-9 . . . b4 10 li:\cbl .i.a6 I I e4 g6
1 2 .i.xa6 • xa6 13 •c2 d6 1 4
li:\c4 .i.g7 1 5 li:\ bd2 li:ld7 1 6 0-0
.l: c8 1 7 a3 b3 18 li:\xb3 0-0 1 9
li:\bd2 .i.d4 20 � h i li:lf6 2 1 f3
li:\ h5 22 .l: ad l • b7 23 g3 •e7
24 �g2 f5 = T. Petrosian-Sax,
Niksic 1 983;
-9 . . . d6 10 e4 a6 1 1 a4 b4 1 2
li:\cbl .i.e7 13 .i.e2 0-0 1 4 0-0
•c7 15 li:\c4 a5 1 6 li:lbd2 .i.a6
17 li:\e3 .i. xe2 18 • xe2 li:\d7 1 9
li:ldc4 g6 20 .l: fel ! - ! Spassov­
Martinovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1 984;
-9 . . . b4 1 0 li:\ce4! (Smagin,
Radovsky) 10 . . . .i.a6 1 1 • b3!
f5 ( 1 1 . . . d6 12 •e3; 1 1 . . . .i.e7
1 2 d6 .i.d8 1 3 •d5 ± Smagin,
Radovsky) 12 li:\g3 c4 13 li:\xc4
• xd5 14 e4!? ( 14 e3 ± , Smagin,
44 The Blumenfeld Gambit
Radovsky) 1 4 . . . fxe4 1S .l::t d 1
'it'e6 16 <tJd6 + ! ..txd6 1 7
'it' xe6 + dxe6 1 8 ..txa6! <tJxa6
19 .l::t xd6 <tJc7 20 <tJxe4 ±
Radovsky- Kapitonov, Moscow
1 985.
In conclusion we can state that
White can evidently retain a slight
edge in the variations shown
above.
3) 6 . . . d6
( I d4 <tJf6 2 c4 e6 3 <tJf3 c5 4 d5
b5 5 ..tg5 exd5 6 cxd 5 d6)
As it is difficult to play without
this move, Black makes it at once.
7 e4
This has been the most common
reply, though the pioneering game
Honlinger-Spielmann, Vienna
1 929 continued :
-7 <tJc3 a6 8 a4 b4 9 <tJe4 ..te7
10 ..txf6 ..txf6 I I 'it'c2 0-0 1 2 e3
..trs 13 ..td3 ..txe4 1 4 ..txe4 g6
with a slight edge to White.
Also worthy of consideration is
7 a4 :
-7 a4 b4 8 e4 ..te7 9 ..tbS +
..td7 10 0-0 ..txbS 1 1 axbS 0-0 1 2
.l::t e l <tJbd7 1 3 <tJbd2 <tJb6 1 4
..tf4 .l::t e8 1 S 'it'c2 'it'd7 1 6 <tJc4
tL! xc4 17 'it' xc4 'it' b7 18 .l::t a6 ± ,
Gurieli-Levi tina, I vano-Fran­
kovsk 1 98 1 ; White's plan to liqui­
date the light squared bishops
looks very logical. Here is another
example:
-7 a4 b4 8 e3 ..te7 9 ..tbS +
..td7 1 0 ..tc4 0-0 I I h3 h6 1 2 ..tf4
..tfS 13 <tJ bd2 <tJbd7 14 aS <tJe8
IS 0-0 ..tf6 1 6 'it' b3 a6 1 7 .l::t a2
<tJeS 18 ..txeS dxeS 19 ..td3
..txd3 20 'it' xd3 <tJc7 21 d6 <tJbS
22 <tJe4 .l::t c8 23 lt:lfd2 g6 24 lt:lc4
..tg7 2S .l::t d1 �h7 26 'it'dS b3
27 .l::t aa1 'it' h4 1 -0 Kozlov­
Bykanov, U SS R 1 986. In the game
White in a very instructive way
utilised his strong c4 and e4
squares, and d5 pawn.
7 . . . a6 8 a4
This useful move White must
play very quickly, otherwise Black
just stands well :
-8 lt:lfd2 ..te7 9 ..tf4 (the threat
was . . . <tJxd5) 9 . . . 0-0 10 ..te2
<tJbd7 1 1 0-0 lt:lb6 12 tL!c3 b4 13
<tJcb1 aS 1 4 a4 lt:lfd7 1 S <tJc4 <tJxc4
16 ..txc4 lt:lb6 1 7 lt:ld2 ..tf6 1 8
'it'c2 ..td4 1 9 .l::t abl fS, Polnareva­
Levitina, Nikolaev 1 978
8 ..te7
Of two evils one must choose
the lesser. 8 . . . b4 spoils Black's
pawn structure too much :
-8 . . . b4?! 9 lt:lbd2 ..te7 10 ..tc4!
0-0 1 1 0-0 lt:lbd7 1 2 aS ± , Vor­
onkov-Makarov, Moscow 1 953;
-8 . . . b4 9 <tJfd2 (A prophylactic
against 9 . . . ..t g4-one has to
remember this idea from Kmoch­
Spielmann, 1 926) 9 . . . ..te7 1 0
..tf4 0-0 1 1 ..td3 <tJ bd 7 1 2 0-0
<tJe8 1 3 <tJc4 <tJb6 1 4 lt:lbd2
<tJxc4 1 S <tJxc4 aS 16 'it'c2 ..ta6 17
.l::t ad 1 ..txc4 18 ..txc4 ..tf6 1 9
..tg3 ± Plachetka-M natsakanian,
Czechoslovakia 1 979 .
9 ..txf6
 The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined 45
But not 9 axb5? where White 15 .:t xa8 ..t xa8 16 ..txb5
exchanges his central e4 pawn for
the less important b5 paw n :
- 9 axb5? lll xe4! 10 J.. xe7 'ii xe7
1 1 J.. e2 0-0 1 2 0-0 J.. b7 13 lll c3
axb5 14 .:t xa8 J.. xa8 1 5 J.. xb5
lll f6 + , Milev-Portisch, Moscow
1 959;
-9 axb5 lll xe4 10 J.. e3 0-0 1 1
J.. d3 lll f6 1 2 lllc3 J.. b7 1 3 0-0
axb5 1 9 .:t xa8 J.. xa8 15 J.. xb5
lll bd7 16 .:t e l lll b6 1 7 J.. c6 J.. xc6
1 8 dxc6 d5 + U hlmann-Cuellar,
Moscow 1 953.
9 . . . ..t xf6 10 axb5

There's no harm in waiting.

White can also play 10 'ii c2 :
-10 'ii c2 0-0 l l axb5 ..tb7 1 2
lll bd 2 axb5 1 3 .:t xa8 J.. xa8 1 4
..t xb5 'ii a5 1 5 'ii a4 'ii xa4 1 6
J.. xa4 J.. x b2 1 7 lllc4 ..tc3 + 1 8
..tr>e2 f5 19 lll xd6 fxe4 20 lll xe4
..t b4 21 .:t d 1 ± Bobotsov­
Drimer, Leipzig 1 960.
10 . . . ..txb2 l l .:t a2 ..tf6 1 2
lll bd2 0-0 1 3 ..td3 ..tb7 1 4 0-0
axb5
In Cerna- Poloch, Ruse 1 986,
Black carelessly played 14 . . .
'ii c 7?!, and after a few blows was
destroyed.
-14 . . . 'ii c7?! 15 b6! 'ii xb6 16
'ii bl 'ii c7 ( 1 6 . . . 'ii x b1 1 7 .:t xb 1
..tc8 1 8 lL!c4 ± ) 1 7 e5 ..t e7 ( 1 7 . . .
dxe5 1 8 ..txh7 + ..tr>h8 1 9
'ii f5 + - ) 1 8 exd6 ..txd6 1 9
.txh7 + ..tr>h8 20 .:t a4 g6 21
.txg6 fxg6 22 'ii xg6 and White
had a decisive attack.
We are following Vaganian­
Grigorian, USSR 1 97 1 . The strong
c4 square, the cramping of the
bishop on a8-these are the main
arguments for White's advantage.
His plan is simple : lL!c4, lL!fd2,
f2-f4, e4-e5 .
4) 6 . . . 'ii b6
( 1 d4 lll f6 2 c4 e6 3 lL!f3 c5 4 d5
b5 5 .i.g5 exd5 6 cxd5 'ii b6)
The moves 5 . . . cxd5 and 6 . . .
'ii b6 fit a common plan-Black's
queen can protect both the b5
pawn and the knight on f6.
7 lL!c3
Encyclopedia ( 1 978) and Tai­
manov ( 1 980) recommend also 7
a4!?, whereupon 7 . . . .tb7 should
be quite playable for Black .
7 c4
I n this way Black creates a third
46 The Blumenfeld Gambit
function for his queen-together
with an imminent ..tc5 it presses
on the f2 point.
8 e4 ..tc5 9 ..th4 d6 tO ..te2
l!J bd7 t t 0-0 0-0 t 2 b3!
Vorotnikov-Reshko, Lenin-
grad 1 964. This complicated vari­
ation needs more practical tests.
In the diagram position, White is
better as a result of his aggressive
action on the queenside.
c. 5 . . . h6
( 1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 l!Jf3 c5 4 d5
b5 5 ..tg5 h6)
(see following diagram)
The controversial move . . . h6,
which many players have advo­
cated, is still in dispute. After . . .
h6, and without . . . exd5, White
cannot make use of the c4 square
for his pieces. This facet is very
important for the strategic strug­
gle in the centre.
6 ..txf6
Avoiding 6 ..th4, which trans­
poses into a worse version of the
line 5 . . . exd5 6 cxd5 h6 7 ..th4,
which we have seen before. Let us
dismiss the continuation :
-5 . . . h6 6 ..th4 bxc4? 7 l!Jc3 d6
8 e4 ..te7 9 dxe6 ..txe6 tO ..txc4!
0-0 ( 1 0 . . . ..txc4 1 1 "it' xa4 + ) l l
..txe6 fxe6 t7 e5 ± Roessei­
Scheipl, A msterdam 1 9 6 1 .
I n Povah-Singh, Ramsgate
1 987, Black gained a big advan­
tage :
-5 . . . h6 6 ..th4 bxc4 7 l!Jc3
g5 8 ..tg3 exd5 9 l!Jxd5 "it'a5 +
t O l!Jc3 ..tg7 t t "it'd2 0-0 t 2 e4
.ct e8 + , but 1 2 ..td6 (instead of 1 2
e4) and next e3 should have
been played, with an edge for
White.
6 . . . "it' xf6 7 l!Jc3
If White plays 7 "it'c2, it seems
that he still manages to secure a
small edge :
 The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined
-7 'it'c2 ttJa6 8 e4?! (8 a3! ;t )
lLl b4 9 'ifd2 bxc4 1 0 ..txc4 'ifg6
1 1 0-0 'if xe4 1 2 lLla3 ..te7 +
Dzindzichashvili - Peresypkin,
USSR 1 972;
-7 'ifc2 exdS 8 cxdS d6 9 e4 a6
10 a4 b4 1 1 lLlbd2 ..tg4 12 eS!?
dxeS 1 3 ttJe4 'if f4 14 ttJfd2 ..tfS
1 S ..td3 ..txe4 1 6 lLlxe4 ttJd7 1 7
g3 'if g4 1 8 h3 'ifhS 1 9 d 6 'if g6
20 ll d 1 ± , Chernin-Miles, Tunis
1 985; 1 1 lLlfd2 or 1 1 h3 also seem
good; see section B( 1 ) above, into
which we have transposed.
-7 'it'c2 exdS 8 cxdS d6 9 e4 a6
10 a4 b4 1 1 lLl bd2 ttJd7 12 aS g6
13 lLlc4 ..tg7 1 4 ..td3 0-0 1S 0-0
ll e8 16 ttJfd2 gS 1 7 � h 1 ..tb7
18 ll ae 1 ll ad8 19 ..te2 ttJeS
20 lLle3 lLlg6 ;t , McCambridge­
Shirazi, New York 1 982;
-7 'ifc2 b4 8 lLlbd2 gS 9 e4 g4
10 ttJg1 ..tg7 1 1 ll b 1 hS 1 2 ..td3
d6 13 lLle2 lLld7 14 f4! gxf3 1 S
ttJxf3 ttJeS 1 6 0-0 ;t Nikolic­
Miles, Tunis 1 985;
47
-7 'ifc2 b4 8 e4 gS 9 ttJbd2 g4 1 0
lLlg1 ..tg7 1 1 ll b 1 d 6 1 2 ..td3
lLld7 13 ttJe2 ttJeS 14 0-0 hS 1S f4
gxf3 1 6 lLlxf3 'if h6 1 7 lLlxeS ..txeS
18 �h1 h4 1 9 lLlg1 'ifg7 20 lLlf3
..tf4 21 a3! aS?! (2 1 . . . bxa3 22
'ifa4 + ..t d7 23 'ifxa3 and b4 ;t .
22 axb4 axb4 23 ll a 1 ll xa 1 24
ll xa 1 ± Am. Rodriguez- Martin
Gonzalez, Biel 1 985;
-7 'ifc2 b4 8 e4 gS 9 eS!? 'ifg7 1 0
h 3 ..tb7 1 1 lLl bd2! exdS 1 2
cxdS ..txdS 1 3 lLle4 ..te7 1 4 0-0-0,
with White's strong pressure,
Baikov-Grushevsky, Moscow
1 986.
7 b4
Less logical would be 7 . . . bxc4,
increasing the scope of White's
pieces in the centre :
-7 . . . bxc4 8 e4 d6 9 dxe6 ..txe6
1 0 ..txc4! lLld7 1 1 ..txe6 'ifxe6
1 2 0-0 lLl b6 1 3 a4! ..te7 1 4 aS
lLlc8 1S lLldS ± Chukaev-Ches­
nauskas, Vilnius 1 96 1 .
8 lLlbS
8 lLle4 was refuted in S. Garcia­
Knaak, Tunja 1 984 :
-8 lLle4 'if xb2 9 ll b1 'it'a3 10
e3 fS 1 1 lLleS fxe4 1 2 'ifhS +
�d8 1 3 lLlf7 + �c7 1 4 lLlxh8
gS IS lLlf7 'it'c3 + 16 �d1 d6 1 7
h4 ..td7 0- 1 .
8 lLla6
White is also better after 8 . . .
�d8
-8 . . . �d8 9 e4 gS 10 h3 ..tb7?!
I I eS 'ifg7 12 'ifa4 aS 13 0-0-0
48 T he Blumenfeld Gambit
J:l. a6 14 .te2 hS 1S lLld6 ± De
Boer-Rogers, Wijk aan Zee I I,
1 985; Rogers suggests 1 0 . . . 'ilt' xb2
1 1 e5 a6 1 2 J::t b l 'ilt'xa2 1 3 J:l. a 1
axb5 as a n interesting possibility,
but White is still better in this line;
-8 . . . �d8 9 e4 gS 10 .td3 .tb7
1 1 eS ( 1 1 'ilt'a4 a5 1 2 'ilt'c2 ;t
Rogers) 1 1 . . . 'ilt'g7 12 'ilt'a4 aS 1 3
0-0 g 4 14 lLld2 'ilt'xeS 1 S 'ilt'c2
J:l. a6?! ( 1 5 . . . a4 leaves an unclear
position) 16 J::t fel 'ilt'g7 1 7 a3! ;t L.
Portisch- Rogers, Reggio Emilia
1 984/85;
-8 . . . �d8 9 e4 gS 10 eS! 'ilt'g7
1 1 dxe6? fxe6 1 2 .td3 .tb7 1 3
•e2 a 6 1 4 lLld6 .txd6 1 S exd6
.txf3 16 'ilt'xf3 lLlc6 17 0-0 J::t b8
18 a3 b3 1 9 'ilt'e3 •es 20 'ilt' xeS
lLl xeS 21 .te2 J:l. b6 + , Szym­
czak-K naak, Leipzig 1 984;
-8 . . . c;t;>d8 9 e4 gS 1 0 eS! 'ilt'g7
I I g4! .tb7 12 'ilt'a4 aS 13 0-0-0
f6?! ( 1 3 . . . l::t a6, 1 3 . . . �c8) 14
lLld6! .txd6 I S exd6 �c8 16
'ilt' bS lLla6 1 7 .tg2 ± Malaniuk­
Palatnik, Tallinn 1 985;
-8 . . . �d8 9 e4 gS 1 0 eS! 'ilt'f4
1 1 h3 .tb7 1 2 .td3 g4 1 3 hxg4
exdS 14 g3 'ilt' xg4 1S J:l. h4 'ilt'e6
16 'ilt'c2 dxc4? ( 1 6 . . . a6! 1 7 .tf5
'ilt'e8 1 8 cxd5 axb5 1 9 0-0-0 J:l. xa2
20 � b 1 J:l. a5 + , Smagin, Radov­
sky) 17 .txc4 dS 18 0-0-0 lLld7
19 lLlgS hxgS 20 J:l. xh8 •xeS
Now White brilliantly con­
cludes with an attack on Black's
king:
21 .txdS!! + Lagutkin- Kot­
-,
Jiar, Moscow 1 986. If 2 1 . . . .txd5,
22 'ilt'd2 and White wins.
-8 . . . �d8 9 a3!? 'ilt' xb2 1 0 e4
a6 I I axb4 exdS 1 2 cxdS .tb7 1 3
J::t bl 'ilt'f6 14 e S 'ilt'f4 I S lLlc3
cxb4 16 g3 'ilt'g4 1 7 .td3 d6 18
e6 fxe6 1 9 h3 'ilt' hS 20 g4 'ilt' ti 21
J:l. xb4 eS 22 0-0 aS 23 J:l. b6 .txdS
24 lLlxeS 1 -0, Naumkin-011,
USSR 1 985.
 The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined
-8 . . . �d8 9 'ii a4?! aS 1 0 e4 g5
1 1 i.d3 g4 1 2 tt:ld2 'ii xb2 1 3
.l:t bl 'ii g7 14 0-0 d6 15 a3 tt:ld7
16 f4 gxf3 17 .l:t xf3 .l:t g8 18 .l:t f2,
Lagutkin-Grushevsky, Moscow
1 986, and now after 1 8 . . . tt:le5!
then .l:t a6, Black i s O.K. accord-
ing to Smagin and Radovsky.
9 e4
Not strictly necessary, White
can also protect his b2 pawn, for
instance
-9 'ii c2 g5 10 dxe6 dxe6 1 1 .l:t d 1
i.g7 1 2 'ii e4 .l:t b8 13 'ii c6 +
�f8; Popov-Dieks, Wijk aan Zee
1 974;
-9 'ii d2 e5 1 0 d6! i.b7 1 1 e4 g6
1 2 0-0-0 i.g7 1 3 i.d3 0-0 1 4 h3
'it'e6 1 5 .l:t he1 ± Popov-Bilek,
Sinaia 1 964.
9 g5
This counter-offensive used to
be thought the most effective.
Black is swinging on the edge of
a precipice after 9 . . . 'ii x b2 :
-9 . . 'ii xb2 10 i.d3 'ii f6 1 1
.
e5! 'ii d8 1 2 dxe6 dxe6 1 3 i.e4!
'ii xd1 + 14 .1:!. xdl .1:!. b8 15
i.c6 + �e7 16 tt:lxa7 + , -
Gri.infeld-Bogolyubov, Vienna
1 922;
-9 . . . 'ii xb2 1 0 i.d3 d6 1 1 0-0
i.d7 1 2 'ii a4 ± Helling-Leon­
hardt, Berlin 1 928.
Also dubious is 9 . . . e5 when
Black shuts his own bishop out of
play :
-9 . . . e5 1 0 g3 g5 1 1 i.h3 i.g7
12 tt:ld2 ± Goldstein-Smith, Lon-
49
don 1 922.
1 0 e5 'ii f4 1 1 i.d3!
The less subtle I I 'ii d 2 leads to
unclear play :
- 1 1 'ii d2 'ii xd2 + 12 �xd2 .tb7
13 a3 �d8 1 4 d6 .tg7 15 .l:t e 1
.tc6, Vukic-Ljubojevic, Yugo-
slavia 1 972.
1 1 . . . g4 12 'ii d 2 'ii xd2 + 1 3
tt:l xd2 �d8
Or 1 3 . . . i.g7 1 4 f4 gxf3 1 5 tt:lxf3
0-0 1 6 i.e4 ± .
I nstead of 1 4 dxe6 fxe6 1 5 i.e4
.1:!. b8 16 tt:lxa7 .tg7, Polugay­
evsky-Ljubojevic, Manila 1 975,
14 .te4 .tb7 1 5 dxe6 .txe4 1 6
tt:l xe4 fxe6 1 7 0-0-0 .tg7 1 8 .1:!. d6
should have been played, accord­
ing to Polugayevsky.
In this position White stands
better, and this is the final evalu­
ation of the whole variation.
D. 5 . . . bxc4, 5 . . . .tb7, 5 . . .
d6, 5 . . . 'ii b6.
( I d4 tt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt:lf3 c5 4 d5
b5 5 i.g5)
50 The Blumenfeld Gambit
When talking about the devel­
opment and current situation of
the Blumenfeld Gambit it is indis­
pensable to refer to some of the
less well known continuations that
have been tested during earlier
tournament practice. In such a
way we can get a much better and
closer picture of the gambit. The
material presented here is not vast,
and further research is clearly
needed in this field.
I) 5 . . . bxc4
This exchange has the defect we
have talked about many times;
Black allows White control and
occupation of the c4 square;
especially, in the future, by his
knight. From the c4 point White's
knight has promising perspectives,
controlling the a5, b6 and e5
squares, defending the b2 pawn,
and increasing its horizons by the
manoeuvre tt:lc4-e3-f5.
-6 e4 -.aS + 7 ..-d2 ..- xd2 + 8
lLlbxd2 exd5 9 ..t xf6 dxe4 l O
ll:lxe4 gxf6 I I lLl xf6 + o r I 0 . . .
..tb7 I I ..txg7! ..txg7 1 2 lLld6 +
in both cases with advantage to
White.
According to Encyclopedia
( 1 978), after 6 ll:lc3 d6 7 e4 ..te7 8
..txc4, 8 . . . e5 equalises, but I
cannot agree with Encyclopedia's
assessment of such type of pos­
ition, since in Moiseev-Przewoz­
nik, NaJ�cz6w 1 979:
-6 lLlc3 d6 7 e4 e5 8 lLld2 ..te7
9 lLl xc4 0-0 10 ..te2 White stood
better.
Other examples :
-6 lLlc3 * b6 7 ..t xf6 gxf6 8
*d2 lLla6 9 e4 ll g8 10 g3 ll b8
I I ll b l * b4 1 2 a3 -. bJ 1 3 *cl
* b6 14 ..txc4 lLlc7 15 0-0 ± ,
Lein-Lombardy, Lone Pine 1 98 1 ;
- 6 e4 -.as + 7 ..td2! ( 7 lLlc3
lLlxe4 8 ..txc4 ll:lxc3 9 -.d2 -. b4
lO * xc3 *xc3 + I I bxc3 d6 with
an unclear position) 7 . . . * b6 8
lLlc3 ..ta6 9 lLle5 ± (Encyclo­
pedia 1 978, Taimanov 1 980).
A glance at those games is
enough to see that the outcome of
the variation is unfavourable for
Black. The early 5 . . . bxc4 is
premature.
2) 5 . . . ..tb7
The bishop presses on the cen­
tre; Black invites his opponent to
accept a gambit. But after 6 dxe6
fxe6 7 cxb5 d5 8 e4!? is worthy of
consideration.
If then 8 . . . dxe4? 9 ..-xd8 +
 The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined
<li>xd8 I 0 tt:le5 and all Black's
pawns in the centre are weak, thus
Black has not replied in the spirit
of the gambit! It would have been
better to continue 8 . . . ..te7! 9 e5
tt:le4 10 ..txe7 "i/xe7 I I ..td3
tt:ld7 and Black establishes
approximate equality. Therefore,
the most promising line for White
is connected with building a strong
pawn barrier against the bishop
on b7.
-6 e4 WaS + 7 "ild2 "i/xd2 + 8
tt:lfxd2! b4 9 ..td3 d6 10 0-0 tt:lbd7
I I f4 ..te7 1 2 tt:lf3 exdS 13 exdS
0-0 14 tt:lbd2 l:Ue8 IS : ael ..tf8
16 tt:lb3 aS 17 : xeS tt:lxe8 1 8
: e t f6 1 9 ..th4 tt:lc7 2 0 g4! g6
21 tt:lbd2 <li>fi 22 ..tg3 tt:lb6 23
fS ± Gri.infeld-M ichell, Margate
1 923.
-6 e4 "if aS + 7 ..td2 "i/ b6 8
tt:lc3 bxc4 9 ..txc4 tt:lxe4 1 0
tt:lxe4 exdS I I 0-0 dxc4 1 2 .=. e t
..txe4 1 3 .:. xe4 + ..te7 1 4 ..tc3
"i/ b7 IS : e3 <li>f8 16 "i/e2 <Zlc6
51
17 "i/ xc4 ± Eslon-De Ia Villa,
Linares 1 985.
Conclusion: The bishop on b7
cannot achieve anything useful,
and White is able to take advan­
tage of this.
3) s . . . d6
In such a way Black relinquishes
either a move (d7-d6-d5) or the
chance to form a strong pawn
centre. But I would like to draw
the reader's attention to a third
kind of compensation:
-6 dxe6 ..txe6 7 cxbS ..te7 8
tt:lc3 h6 9 ..th4 gS 1 0 ..t g3 g4 I t
tt:ld2 dS
Here it is. Black's pieces and
pawns have become more active.
12 e3 tt:lhS 13 ..td3 tt:lxg3 1 4
hxg3 <Zld7 I S tt:le2 ..tf6 16 "i/c2
<ZleS 17 ..tfS "i/ aS 18 0-0 "i/xbS
19 tt:lf4 "i/c6 20 tt:lb3 tt:lc4 21
..txe6 fxe6 22 e4! ± Zagorovsky­
Pokrovski, corr. 1 967-68.
52 T he Blumenfeld Gambit
4) 5 . . . 'iW b6
Black allows 6 .i.xf6 gxf6, and
this is a really brave decision,
because with queens on the Black
king can become exposed. We
should wait for more practical
tests of this position to find out
whether Black's structure d7, e6,
f6, 17 is strong.
As far as I know there was only
one game after 5 . . . 'iW b6:
- 6 t!Jc3?! bxc4?! 7 e4 d 6 8 .i.xc4
e5 9 0-0 .i.e7 10 'iWc2 0-0 1 1 t!Jd2
h6 1 2 .i.h4 g5 1 3 .i.g3 t!Jh5 1 4
.i.e2 ± Gereben-Balogh, Budap­
est 1 936.
Probably 6 . . . b4 7 .i.xf6 gxf6
8 t!Je4 .i.e7 would have mixed
things up better.
(A game Macht-Spielmann,
Kaunas 1 934, continued 6 .i.xf6
gxf6 7 e4 b4 8 .i.e2 d6 9 0-0 .i.h6
1 0 t!Je 1 ! e5 1 1 .i.g4! with a big
advantage for White. Editor)
Recapitulation of 5 .i.g5
Let us briefly summarize the
current state of theory and per­
spectives for both sides after 5
.i.g5.
Firstly, overall, I cannot agree
with the assessment that 5 .i.g5
refutes the Blumenfeld Gambit.
The position seems to offer Black
fairly good chances not only for
defence but also for counterattack.
Secondly, I would like to pay
special attention to the move 5 . . .
'iWa5 + . How should White fight
against the counter-action f6-f5,
how should he deal with Black's
pawn mass c5, d6, e6, 17, f6? Will
the continuation 6 t!Jbd2 remain
the most fashionable.
Thirdly, in many positions
Black must be very careful with
the choice : b5-b4 or b5xc4. The
question of the c4 square is very
important.
Fourthly, there are still less
investigated areas, for instance in
such variations as 5 . . . 'iW b6 or 5
. . . .i.b7.
Fifthly, why after all this is the
Blumenfeld Gambit not so popu­
lar? Maybe because chess vari­
ations and systems of development
are also a matter of fashion . . . .
 4
The Blumenfeld Gambit Accepted
In an earlier chapter I have tried
to show that it would be difficult
to find a clear-cut winning plan
for White in this opening. I
have tried to demonstrate all of
Black's chances after the most
unpleasant-for the time being!­
move, 5 J.. g 5. I think that this
opening is genuinely playable. The
purpose of this chapter is to sup­
port such an evaluation for the
Blumenfeld Gambit Accepted!
1 d4 li:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 li:lf3 c5 4
d5 b5 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5
Black has no problems if White
53
does not accept the pawn in this
line :
-5 dxe6 fxe6 6 b3 d5 7 e3 a6 8
J.. e2 J.. d6 9 0-0 0-0 10 J.. b2 J.. b7
1 1 J.. e5 li:lc6 1 2 J.. xd6 'it' xd6,
Jovanovic-Garda, Santa Fe 1 973.
In the diagram position White
has five main continuations :
A. 7 e3
B. 7 J.. f4
c. 7 J.. g 5
D. 7 g3
E. 7 li:lc3
But in subsection F we absolu­
tely must analyse Black's devi­
ation, 6 . . . J.. b 7!?, on account of
our remarks in Chapter 1 .
A. 7 e3
( 1 d4 li:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 li:lf3 c5 4 d5
b5 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 e3)
(see following diagram)
The Tarrasch variation; this line
creates a very passive configur­
ation for White's pieces without
however creating any weaknesses.
The simple plan of development
for White of e2-e3, J.. e2, 0-0,
54 The Blumenfeld Gambit

� -7 . . . ..td6 8 il'lc3 ..tb7 9 e4 d4?

rr:=:=:=;;;a;:=;=w;n;zr::::;:==iiiim;;=;;;;m�
il'lbd2, b3, .i b2, 'ii c2, and a rook
move, is not now to be recom­
mended.
A historically important game,
Tarrasch-Alekhine, Pistyan 1 922,
has been shown in Chapter I . In
the next few games of this section
the struggle will be similar. Maybe
the most promising plan for White
in this line is connected with
e3-e4.
-7 . . . .id6 8 tt'lc3 ..tb7 9 e4
dxe4?
Of course, 9 . . . il'l bd7, keeping
Black's pawns together, is the only
move, and Black is O.K .
1 0 il'lgS .idS 1 1 -.c2 il'lbd7
12 il'lgxe4 J.. eS 1 3 il'lxdS exdS
14 il'lxf6 + -. x£6 1 S .ie2 0-0 16
0-0 J.. d4?! 17 J.. e3 J.. xb2 1 8
ll adl il'lb6 1 9 -. xeS with a clear
advantage to White, Browne­
Quinteros, Buenos Aires 1 980.
Let us look at another example,
in which Black allowed some
weaknesses in the centre :
9 . . . lLl bd7! 1 0 exd5 exd5 I I
..te2 0-0 with equality, according
to Encyclopedia ( 1 979).
10 eS! .ixfJ 1 1 *xf3 ..txeS
12 il'le4! il'l bd7 13 lLlgS
And White had a considerable
advantage in Reti-Rellstab, Brno
1 93 1 .
Of course, sometimes i t i s poss­
ible for Black to leave weak points
in his ranks, but only if he obtains
good play for his pieces.
-7 . . . ..td6 8 il'lc3 il'lbd7 9 .ie2
0-0 10 0-0 *e7 1 1 e4 d4 1 2 lLla4
il'lxe4 13 b4
This is the move White wants
to play; it fights for control of the
d4 square and at the same time
weakens the e6 pawn.
13 . . . cxb4 14 * xd4 ..tb7 1 S
..te3 .I:US 1 6 ll ad 1 .idS
Black has a very dangerous
attack, but this does not necess­
arily mean that he is mating White,
 The Blumenfeld Gambit Accepted
Renman- Przewoznik, Ostrava
1 983.
The same strategic blow was
prepared by White in Ligterink­
van der Wiel, Hilversum 1 985 :
-7 . . . .td6 8 lLlc3 lLlbd7 9 .td3
.tb7 10 e4 d4 1 1 lLlb1 lLlxe4 1 2
'ir'e2 lLldf6 1 3 lLlbd2 lLlxd2 1 4
.t xd2
Or 1 4 'ir' xe6 + c;tf8 1 5 .txd2
.idS 1 6 'ir'e2 'ir'c7 with initiative
to Black
14 .td5
And now not
15 0-0? 0-0 16 b4 lLlg4!
as in the game, but at once 1 5 b4!
0-0 1 6 bxc5 .txc5 1 7 0-0 and lLle5.
White would be better.
Therefore, more in the spirit of
the Blumenfeld Gambit was 10 . . .
0-0, instead of 1 0 . . . d4. If White
still insists on I I 'ir'e2, then 1 1 . . .
c4 1 2 .i.c2 and Black is well
prepared for fighting in the centre,
as in Boersma-Rogers, Amster­
dam 1 984:
-7 . . . .td6 8 lLlc3 lLlbd7 9 .td3
.i.b7 10 e4 0-0 1 1 'ir'e2 c4! 1 2
.i.c2 lLlxe4!? 1 3 lLlxe4 dxe4 1 4
.i.xe4 .tb4 + 1 5 .td2 .i.xe4 1 6
.i. x b4 .i.d3! 1 7 'ir'xe6 + �h8 1 8
0-0-0
Too risky was 1 8 .i.xf8?! 'ir'xf8
19 'ir' xd7 'ir' b4 + 20 lLld2 'ir'xb2
2 1 l1 b 1 'ir'e5 + 22 �d l 'ir'e2 +
33 � c l c3 - + .
18 . : f6 1 9 'ir'e7 'ir'xe7 20
. •
.i.xe7 : f5 2 1 .tb4 : xb5 with
equal chances.
Whereas the game below saw
55
Black taking one gamble too
many :
-7 . . . .td6 8 lLlc3 lLlbd7 9 .i.d3
.tb7 10 e4 0-0 1 1 'ir'e2 lLle5 1 2
lLlxe5 .i.xe5 1 3 0-0 c4 1 4 .i.c2
d4!? 15 'ir' xc4 �h8 16 lLld1 l1 c8
1 7 'ir'e2 .i.xh2 + ? 1 8 lt xh2
: xc2 1 9 'ir' xc2 .i.xe4 20 'ir' b3
lLlg4 + 21 �g1 d3 22 'ir' xe6 .i.f5
23 'ir'c4 d2 24 .i.xd2 'ir' xd2 25
'ir'c5 1 -0 Kivlan-Agafonov, Riga
1 980.
1 7 . . . 'ir'c7 looks better: 1 8 f4
'ir'xc2 1 9 'ir'xc2 : xc2 20 fxe5
lLld7 2 1 : xf8 + lLlxf8 with
White in difficulties despite two
extra pawns.
Preparing e3-e4 with .i.d3 can
be met in a tactical way :
-7 . . . .td6 8 b3 0-0 9 .i.b2
lLlbd7 10 lLlbd2 'ir'e7 1 1 .i.d3 e5
12 e4 c4! 13 bxc4 lLlc5! 14 'ir'e2
dxe4 15 lLlxe4 lLlfxe4 16 .i.xe4
lLlxe4 1 7 'ir' xe4 .tb7 18 'ir'e2 e4
19 lLld2 .tc5 20 : n a6 21 0-0-0
axb5 with a powerful attack, S.
Larsen-Smagar, corr. 1 980-83.
-7 . . . .td6 8 lLlbd2 0-0 9 .td3
.tb7 10 0-0 a6 1 1 b3 e5 1 2 e4 c4
1 3 lLlxc4 dxc4 1 4 .i.xc4 + �h8
1 5 lLlg5 axb5 and Black is better,
Moiseev-Vaganian, USSR 1 970.
From these illustrative games
we can see that when White pre­
pares e3-e4 with b3, .i.d3, and
lLl bd2, he has to consider the
counter attack c5-c4 and the dou­
ble attack of lLlc5. But when the
bishop on d3 is protected, this
tactical play is not so dangerous :
-7 . . . .td6 8 b3 0-0 9 -'.b2
56 The Blumenfeld Gambit
lll bd7 1 0 lll bd2 fie7 1 1 ..td3
..t b7 1 2 fic2 l:tac8 13 0-0 lll b6
Or 1 3 . . . e5 14 e4! and now 1 1
. . . c4 is fruitless.
1 4 e4 c4 1 5 bxc4 lll xe4 16
..txe4 dxe4 1 7 lll e5 fi gS 1 8
lll xe4 fif5 19 lt:lc6
With a better position for White,
Keller-Epstein, Vladimir 1 979.
Coming back to the problem of
Black's damaged pawn structure
in the centre, one of the most
important themes of the Blumen­
feld Gambit is piece activity-not
j ust pawn power! The next game
is very instructive on this point:
-7 . . . ..td6 8 lll bd2 0-0 9 ..te2
..tb7 10 0-0 fie7 1 1 fic2 lll bd7
1 2 e4 lt:lxe4 1 3 lll xe4 dxe4 14
lt:lg5 lll f6 1 5 lll h3 lll d5 16 f3 e3
17 ..tc4 l:t ae8 1 8 b3 l:t f6 1 9 ..tb2
l:t h6 20 l:t fe1 fic7 21 �ft l:t f8
and the pressure of Black's pieces
led him to win, Sahovic-Barlov,
Vrnjacka Banja 1 98 1 .
Transposing White's move
order (7 lll b d2 and 8 e3) led to
very eccentric play in Furman-
Panov, Leningrad 1 947 :
-7 lll bd2 fia5 8 e3 ..td7!? 9
..te2
Or 9 a4 a6! 1 0 bxa6 lll x a6 1 1
..te2 c4 1 2 0-0 lllc 5 with good
chances for Black.
9 . . . ..txb5 1 0 0-0 ..txe2 1 1
fi xe2 fia6! 1 2 tiel lt:lc6 1 3 e4
lll b4 1 4 fidl 0-0-0!
and the position was even.
Black played according to 'Ale­
khine's pattern of attack' in the
following games. Despite a new
plan, White was defenceless :
-7 . . . ..td6 8 lt:lc3 ..tb7 9 ..te2
0-0 10 0-0 fie7 1 1 b3 lt:lbd7 1 2
..tb2 l:t ad8 1 3 fic2 e5 14 l:t ael
A new way. White wants to
play f2-f4 and take away any
possibility of trouble on the h2-
b8 diagonal. In this case (f2-f4),
the rook on e 1 would protect the
pawn on e3.
14 . . . e4 15 lt:ld2 lll e5 16 f4
exf3 17 lt:lxf3 lll fg4 1 8 ..td3
lll xf3 + 19 gxf3 lll xe3 20
..txh7 + �h8 21 �hl lll xc2 22
l:t xe7 ..txe7 23 ..txc2 d4
with Black having a winning
advantage, Sinadinovic-Sahovic,
Nis 1 98 1 .
-7 . . . ..td6 8 lll c3 0-0 9 b3 ..tb7
10 ..tb2 e5! 1 1 ..te2 e4 12 lll g5
We7 13 ..tg4 d4! 14 ..te6 + �h8
15 exd4 e3! + , Caracci- Maksi­
movic, Caorle 1 986.
I would like to draw attention
to a very important subtlety. After
 T he Blumenfeld Gambit Accepted 57
7 e3 lLlbd7 8 lLlc3 it looks as b4 cxb4 1 3 lLla2 ll:Je4 1 4 .ib2
though Black has at his disposal W'e7 1 S g3 .l:t ac8 16 lLld4 lLleS
two equivalent replies : 8 . . . .id6 17 f3 lLlxg3 18 hxg3 W'gS 19 W'e1
and 8 . . . .i b7. But only 8 W' xe3 + 20 �g2 .l:t f6 2 1 lLlxb4
.id6! is the correct move! lLlg6 22 .l:t h1 .ixb4 23 W'xb4
-8 . . . .ib7? 9 lLlgS! jje7 .l:t c2 24 .l:t a3 .l:t xe2 + , Minovic­
If 9 . . . W' b6 then 1 0 .id3 .ie7 Grave, USSR 1 974.
1 1 ll:Ja4! W'd6 1 2 .i xh7! lLlxh7 Summary : Tarrasch's idea of
13 W'h5 + �d8 1 4 lLlf7 + wins. building a passive pos1t10n
(But 10 . . . ll:Je5! would seem to without weaknesses is probably
be an important improvement for insufficient for equality and thus
Black-Editor) cannot be recommended!
10 .id3 eS 1 1 .ifS g6 12 .ih3
B. 7 .if4
e4 13 0-0 W'eS 14 f4 exf3 1S lLlxf3
W' hS 16 lLle2 .id6 17 lLlf4 W'h6, ( 1 . d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lLlf3 c5 4 d5
Zhuravlev-Arkhipkin, Riga 1 980. b5 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 .if4)
Now 1 8 lLlxd5! followed by
e3-e4 would have been decisive,
which White missed in the game.
In the position which is the
subject of our discussion, White
has one pawn more on the q ueen­
side. So, we may ask, is there a
chance for White to play for a
win? I think t hat the answer will
be in the negative, because Black's
dynamic counterplay on the king­
side and in the center, based on
e6-e5-e4, gives him sufficient
chances, e.g. :
-7 . . . .id6 8 lLlc3 .ib7 9 .ie2
0-0 1 0 a4 aS 1 1 bxa6 lLlxa6 1 2
lLl bS .ib8 1 3 .id2 ll:Je4 14 .ic3 In the classical attack of the
eS!, Wohner-Soler, Leipzig 1 960; Blumenfeld Gambit, Black plays
-7 . . . .id6 8 .ie2 0-0 9 lLlbd2 . . . .id6, . . . W'e7 and after . . .
.i b7 10 0-0 W'e7 1 1 lLlb3 aS 1 2 e6-e5-e4 (which elbows a very
a4 eS 1 3 g3 lLle4 1 4 lLlbd2 lLlxd2 important defender aside), . . . W'e5
1S .ixd2 e4 16 lLlh4 lLld7, or . . . lLlfg4 makes unpleasant
Ujtelky-Marszalek, Prague 1 956; threats on the h2-b8 diagonal.
-7 . . . .id6 8 .ie2 0-0 9 lLlc3 For this reason, White must take
lLlbd7 1 0 0-0 .ib7 1 1 a4 �h8 1 2 control of this important diagonal.
58 T he Blumenfeld Gambit
In practice Blac k generally
exchanges bishops with 7 . . . .i.d6.
Instead, Zak-Goldenov, Minsk
1 956 went :
-7 . . . W'a5 + 8 W'd2 W' xb5 9
tt:lc3 W'b7 1 0 e3 .i. e7 1 1 .i. e2 0-0
1 2 0-0 tt:lc6 1 3 ll fc l .i.d7
and the position is even.
Probably after 8 tt:l bd2 or 8
tbc3, which both look better than
8 W' d2, Black has practical
chances by offering the a-pawn
with . . . a7-a6.
Because of the variation :
-7 . . . .i. d6 8 .i. xd6 W'xd6 9
tt:l bd2 tt:lbd7 1 0 e3 0-0 1 1 .i.e2 a6
1 2 bxa6 .i. xa6 1 3 0-0 W' b6 1 4 b3,
Rossetto-Szabo, Buenos Aires
1 955 theorists claimed that 7 .i.f4
led to better play for White. But
Voronkov found 9 . 0-0 with the
. .
idea of developing the knight to
c6 : 9 . . . 0-0 10 e3 a6 1 1 bxa6
.i.xa6 1 2 .i.e2 tt:lc6 1 3 0-0 lHb8
1 4 b3 e5 1 5 e4 dxe4 1 6 tt:lg5 .i.xe2
1 7 W'xe2 W'd3! with an equal
position.
It was perhaps in view of this
that White chose a different plan
in Nikolic-Barlov, Vrsac 1 982:
-9 . . . 0-0 1 0 g3 a6! 1 1 bxa6
.i.xa6 1 2 .i.h3 tt:lc6 13 0-0 e5 14
tt:lg5 wh8! 1 5 tt:lde4 tt:l xe4 1 6
tt:lxe4 W'h6 + .
Summary : I t appears that 7
.i.f4 effectively stops Black's
attack on the kingside, but Black
has equality because of his active
piece play and stronger centre.
c. 7 .i.g5
(1 d4 tt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt:lf3 c5 4 d5
b5 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 .i.g5)
This is White's next dangerous
continuation, avoiding the poten­
tial pressure on the h2-b8 diag­
onal. White puts pressure on the
tt:lf6, hoping to induce Black to
make the passive move .i.e7. The
question is, if after 7 . . . .i.d6 Black
 T he Blumenfeld Gambit Accepted 59
is in difficulties, e.g. : 7 . . . ..td6 8 -7 . . . ..te7 8 e3 'Ll bd7 9 'Llc3
e4! 'Ll bd7 (8 . . . dxe4 9 'Llfd2 ..te5 ..tb7 10 ..te2 0-0 1 1 0-0 •e8?
1 0 tt:Jc3 ..tb7 1 1 ..tc4 and •e2 At first glance this move seems
with advantage to White) 9 exd5 logical in that Black involves his
exd5 1 0 tt:Jc3 ..tb7 1 1 ..td3. strongest piece in his attack. How­
ever, this thematic move is, in fact,
faulty.
12 •c2 ..td6

Black tries to build on 'Alekhine's

position'-but the g6 and h5
squares are under White's control!
Black's centre is practically immo­
bile, e.g. : 1 2 . . . e5 1 3 ..txf6! ..t xf6
1 4 e4! d4 1 5 ..tc4 + �h8 1 6 tt:Jd5
and White stands better.
13 .ll fe1 .ll c8 14 .ll adl ..tb8
15 ..th4 �h8 16 ..t fl e5 17 e4
with a better position for White,
K holmov- Portisch, Balatonfiired
This position, previously eval­ 1 959.
uated as better for White (Prze­ -7 . . . ..te7 8 e3 tt:Jbd7 9 tt:Jc3
woznik, 1 985, 1 986), needs more ..tb7 10 ..te2 0-0 1 1 0-0 •c7 1 2
practical tests, and is probably .ll c l .ll ae8 1 3 ..th4 ..td6 1 9
good for Black! In this context ..tg3 e5 1 5 b4 c4 1 6 a3 and the
M natsakanian's idea 7 . . . ..tb7!?, position is satisfactory for Black,
is interesting preparing, in spite Kan-Goldenov, Moscow, 1 946.
of everything, . . . ..td6;
-7 . . . ..tb7 8 e3 ..td6 9 'Llc3
0-0 1 0 ..te2 'Ll bd7 1 1 0-0 �h8
12 ..th4 •e7 13 ..td3 e5 14 e4
c4 15 ..tb1 d4 16 'Lle2 •e6 1 7
tt:Jg3 tt:Jc5 + Ivanov-M natsak­
anian, Ere van 1 977.
In addition, let us note that
much worse is 7 . . . •as + 8 'jjf d2
'jjf x b5 9 e4! •b7 1 0 ..txf6 gxf6 1 1
exd5 •xd5 1 2 'ilfe3! ± Kholmov's
analysis.
Usually Black has played 7 . . .
..te7.
60 The Blumenfeld Gambit
-7 . . . j.e7 8 e3 lLlbd7 9 ll:\c3
j.b7 10 j.e2 Wc7 1 1 J:[ c l eS 1 2
ll:\h4 g6 1 3 0-0 0-0 1 4 j.g4 d4 1 S
j.e6 + �h8 1 6 exd4 exd4 1 7
J:[ e l ! j.d6 1 8 j.xd7 W xd7 1 9
j.xf6 + J:[ xf6 20 ll:\e4 J:[ f4 2 1
ll:\xd6 W xd6 22 g3 WdS + ,
Junkie- Fatalibekova, Budapest
1 982.
Finally, I would like to call
the reader's attention to another
possibility, in which Black
employs a quite different style :
-7 . . . j.e7 8 e3 0-0 9 j.e2 a6!?
This move switches play to
another subject!
10 bxa6 j.xa6 1 1 0-0 ll:\c6 1 2 three games were played in this
ll:\c3 W b6 1 3 j.xa6 W xa6 1 4 h4 variation :
d4? 1 S exd4 cxd4 1 6 ll:\ xd4 J:[ fd8 -7 . . . W aS + 8 ll:\bd2 W xbS 9
17 ll:\xc6 J:[ xd 1 18 ll:\xe7 + �f7 j_g2 j. e7 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 e4 lLlc6
1 9 J:[ fxd1 �xe7 20 a4 ± Tavad­ 1 2 b3 aS 13 J:[ e 1 a4 1 4 exdS exdS
ian-Arkhipkin, Erevan 1 98 1 . 1S j.b2 a3 16 j_cl j_fS 17 lt:lfl
Quite satisfactory was 1 4 . . . J:[ a7 18 ll:\e3 j.e4 1 9 lLlgS j.xg2
J:[ fb8! with pressure on the a- and 20 ll:\xg2 ll:\b4 + , Gulko-Grigor­
b-IHes, in the spirit of the Benko ian, U SSR 1 974;
Gambit. -7 . . . WaS + 8 lt:l bd2 W xbS 9
Summary : The plan of 7 j.g5 j_g2 j.e7 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 e4 lLlc6
still has some interesting unansw­ 12 J:[ e 1 c4! 13 exdS exdS 14 b3
ered questions, but seems to be c3 1S ll:\fl j_fS 1 6 ll:\e3 j.e4 + ,
fine for Black. Zilberman-Kapengut, USSR
1 975;
D. 7 g3
-7 . . . j_b7 8 j_g2 WaS + 9
( 1 d4 ll:\f6 2 c4 e6 3 ll:\ f3 c5 4 d5 ll:\bd2 W xbS 1 0 0-0 ll:\c6 1 1 e4
b5 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 g3) dxe4 12 ll:\gS ll:\d4 1 3 lt:ldxe4
0-0-0 14 ll:\c3 Wa6 1S J:[ e 1 llJf3 +
(see following diagram)
1 6 j.xf3 J:[ xd 1 1 7 j.xd1 h6 1 8
White initiates threats on the J:[ xe6 Wd3 1 9 ll:\£7 Wd7 20
long diagonals; with such a con­ J:[ xf6 gxf6 2 1 ll:\xh8 with com­
figuration of White pawns, it is pensation for the queen, Osnos­
more difficult for Black to attack. Kozlov, USSR 1 975.
In the beginning the following So, everything looked pleasant
 The Blumenfeld Gambit Accepted 61
for Black but suddenly i n Lom­ has adequate resources.
bardy-Formanek, New York
E. 7 lt:lc3
1 986, a surprising novelty was un­
corked : ( l d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:lf3 c5 4 d5
-7 . . . 'lt'aS + 8 lt:lc3! d4 9 11t'a4! b5 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 lt:lc3)
11t' b6
Black follows theoretical rec­
ommendations. This position was
evaluated as slightly better for
Black . . .
1 0 lt:lbl .td7 1 1 lt:la3 a6 1 2
lt:leS! 11t' b7 1 3 lt:lxd7! 'lt'xhl 1 4
lt:lxb8 : xb8 I S bxa6 + � f7 16
lt:lc4 lt:ld5? 1 7 lt:le5 + 1 -0.
The blunder 1 6 . . . lt:ld5? had
no bearing on the result. After 1 6
. . . 11t'd5 1 7 a7, or 1 6 . . . .te7
1 7 lt:le5 + �f8 1 8 lt:lf3! White
would have won anyway. Conse­
quently, what can Black do?
That's quite a problem! Black may
set his hopes on ending: 1 2 . . . This is the best approach to
.txb5!? 1 3 lt:lxb5 11t'xb5 1 4 11t'b3 the battle for the central squares.
11t' xb3 15 axb3 .td6 and then White puts pressure on the centre,
�e7, lt:l bd7, tt hb8, but 1 4 11t'c2 threatening e2-e4.
shatters Black's illusions. Smagin Black has to play carefully to
and Radovsky ( 1 988) suggest a meet White's main idea.
typical plan : .td6, .tb7, lt:l bd7, -7 . . . .tb7 8 e4! dxe4?
0-0, but without concrete varia­ Better was, as Rogers suggested,
tions. In view of the remarks intro­ 8 . . . lt:lbd7 9 e5 lt:lg8 which is
duced in subsection F, I would also to White's advantage.
prefer to accept their second 9 11t' xd8 + �xd8 10 lt:le5! �e8
proposal : 6 . . . .tb7!? 7 g3 11t'a5 + 1 1 .tf4 .td6 1 2 tt d l .td5 1 3
8 lt:lc3 a6! 9 bxa6 : xa6! with lt:lg6 hxg6 1 4 .txd6 lt:lbd7 1 5
compensation for the pawn. ( Pres­ .te2 � f7 16 0-0 : ac8 1 7 b3
umably Black could also try 6 . . . tt hd8 18 .tf4 lt:lb6 19 .te3
d5 7 g3 11t'a5 + 8 lt:lc3 a6-Editor) White stands much better,
Summary : We conclude that 7 Ehlvest-Rogers, Tallinn 1 985.
g3, despite its earlier unpopularity, -7 . . . .td6 8 e4! d4 9 e5! ± ;
now looks very attractive for -7 . . . .tb7 8 e4! .te7 (8 . . .
White. However, Black probably lt:l bd7 9 e5 lt:lg4 I 0 .tf4 11t'c7 I I
62 T he Blumenfeld Gambit
h3! ± ) 9 e5! ll:lfd7 I 0 ..td3 ± (The
analysis thus far is Voronkov's in
Shakmatny Bulletin, 1 97 1 ).
Even worse is 7 . . . d4?. Black
stands moderately well after 8
ll:l b 1 ?
- 8 . . . ..td6? 9 e 3 ! e 5 1 0 exd4
exd4 I I ..tc4 ± ;
-8 . . . W aS + 9 ll:lbd2 ..td6 1 0
g3 .tb7 1 1 .tg2 + (Voronkov
1 97 1 )
- 8 . . . WaS + 9 ..td2 W'xb5 1 0
ll:la3 (With 1 0 ll:la3, followed by
ll:lc4, g3 and ..tg2, White adopts
a plan of rapid development to are difficult to assess;
compensate for the loss of the b2 - 1 5 e3 dxe3 1 6 fxe3 0-0 1 7 e4
pawn) 1 0 . . . W'xb2 1 1 ll:lc4 W' b7 ll:l b6 1 8 l:t ac l W'a6 1 9 ll:lfe5 and
1 2 g3 ll:lc6 1 3 ..tg2 ll:ld5! (This the position is also unclear.
is a very important position for In spite of these variations, I
the variation. The first question have a hitherto unpublished
for Black is: where is there a place novelty here : 8 ll:la4!!
for my Queen? Because of ..tg2
and l:t b 1 , the Queen cannot stay
on b7. Probably the best square is
a6. Black breaks the potential pin
on the h 1 -a8 diagonal and puts
pressure on c4 and a2.) 1 4 0-0 ( 1 4
W'a4 i s not dangerous after 1 4 . . .
W'a6!) 1 4 . . . ..te7
(see following diagram)

Now White has at his disposal

two main plans. The first is the
idea of blockading on the c4 and
e5 squares. The second is tied in
to the e2-e3 break. Let us consider
some possible variations :
- 1 5 W'c2 0-0 1 6 ll:lg5 ..txg5 1 7
..t xg5 W'a6 1 8 ..te4 h6 1 9 ..td2;
- 1 5 W'c2 ll:lcb4 1 6 W'e4 W' a6 1 7
l:t fc 1 ..tb7 and the complications
Black has problems in the face
of White's plan : e2-e3, b2-b3,
..tfl -c4, e.g. :
-8 . . . W'a5 + 9 ..td2 W' xb5 1 0
e 3 d 3 1 1 b3 and 1 2 ll:lb2 or 1 2
ll:le5 ± ;
 T he Blumenfeld Gambit Accepted 63
-8 . . . 'ii' d 5 9 e3 e5 10 exd4 cxd4 active play for Black- Editor).
( 10 . . . e4 I I lllc 3; 1 0 . . . exd4 Smagin and Radovsky offer
1 1 'ii' e 2 + ) 1 1 'ii' b3! 'ii' x b3 1 2 two other preventive measures
axb3 j; . against White's 7 lll c 3 and 8 e4,
So, how the Black's problem namely 7 . . . 'ii' c 7 or 7 . . . lll b d7.
can be solved? 7 . . . .i.b7, instead But without variations! I would
of 7 . . . d4, didn't help much in like to show my own analysis on
Browne-Formanek, Philadelphia this subject.
1 986:
7 'ii' c7
-7 . . . .i.b7 8 e4! lll xe4?! 9 lll xe4
dxe4 1 0 'ii' xd8 + �xd8 1 1 lll e5
�e8 1 2 .i.e3 .i.d5 13 b6! .i. d6
1 4 .i.b5 + �f8 1 5 lll c4 .i.e7 1 6
bxa7 ll xa7 1 7 a 4 lll c6 1 8 .i. xc6!
.i.xc6 1 9 b3 .i.d5 20 �d2! �f7
2 1 .l:[ hc l ± .
The game Zaltsman- Barlov,
New York 1 986 was a ray of hope :
-7 . . . .i.e7 8 e4! .i.b7 9 exd5?!
exd5 1 0 .i.e2 0-0 1 1 0-0 � h8 1 2
.i. g5 lll bd7 1 3 b4! cxb4 1 4 lll a4
lll e4 1 5 .i.e3? lll b6! 1 6 lll d4
'i'd6 1 7 ll c 1 lll c4 1 8 .i.xc4 dxc4
1 9 f3 lll f6 20 ll xc4 lll d 5 21 .i.f2
a6 22 lll c5 axb5!! 23 lll x b7 'ii' b6
24 ll c5 lll c3 25 'ii' d3 .i.xc5 26
lll xc5 'ii' xc5 27 lll e6 'ii' f5 0- 1 .
After 1 5 .i.xe7 'ii' x e7 1 6 'ii' d4 -8 e4 d4 9 e5 lll g4 10 lll e4 .i. b7
the position is still unclear, pro­ 1 1 lll fg5!? lll x e5 1 2 lll xe6 and it is
bably with better chances for difficult to suggest a good move
White. But it looks as though for Black; 1 1 . . . .i.xe4 1 2 lll xe4
Barlov's suggestion 9 e5 lll fd7 10 lll x e5 looks dubious to me from
lll g 5 .i.xg5 1 1 'ii' h 5 + g6 1 2 the positional point of view.
'ii' x g5 'ii' x g5 1 3 .i.xg5 0-0 1 4 -8 e4 d4 9 e5 lll g4 10 lll e4
.i.e7 ll f5 1 5 .i.d6 is more prom­ lll x e5 1 1 .i.f4!? (simple, avoids
ising for White. complications, and good) 1 1 . . .
(8 g3, instead of 8 e4, was less lll d 3 + 1 2 .i.xd3 'ii' xf4 1 3 0-0!
successful in Karolyi-Ward, .i.b7 ( 1 3 . . . c4? 1 4 'ii' c 2! ..t b7 1 5
Bergen 1 987; 8 . . . 0-0 9 .i.g2 a6 'ii' xc4 .i.xe4 1 6 'ii' x e6 + + - ) 1 4
1 0 bxa6 ll xa6 1 1 0-0 lll c6 1 2 b3 'ii' c 2!? or 1 4 'ii' d 2 with a light
e5 1 3 e4 d4 1 4 lll b 1 .i.g4 with square blockade.
64 The Blumenfeld Gambit
-8 e4 d4 9 eS �g4 10 �e4
�xeS 1 1 �xeS!? 11heS 12 'lfe2
c4 1 3 �gS! .i.b4 + 1 4 � d 1
'lfxbS 1 S �xe6 + -
-8 e4 d4 9 eS �g4 1 0 �e4
� xeS 1 2 �xeS 'lfxeS 1 3 'lfe2
.i.b7 14 f3 .i.xe4 1 S 'lfxe4
'lfxe4 + 16 fxe4 and the ending
looks better for White, e.g.: 1 6 . . .
.i.d6 1 7 ..ic4 �e7 1 8 .i.gS + .
-8 e4 dxe4? 9 �gS 'lieS
1 0. 'lfd8 + ! �xd8 I I �f7 +
� e8 1 2 �xeS ±
7 �bd7
-8 e4 d4 9 eS! �g4 (9 . . . dxc3
10 exf6 cxb2 I I f7 + �xf7 1 2
..txb2 ± ) I 0 �e4 �gxeS I I �xeS
�xeS 1 2 �xcS ( 1 2'1fhS + !- Editor)
..txcS 1 3 'lfhS + g6 14 'If xeS
.tb4 + I S �d 1 ! ( I S ..i.d2?!
.txd2 + 1 6 �xd2 'If aS + 1 7 �c2
0-0 1 8 f3 .td7 1 9 .tc4 : ac8 with
compensation for the pawn) 1 5 . . .
0-0 1 6 .i.h6 lH7 1 7 .i.d3 with
complications, but White's pos-
ition i s probably better. (Though
1 7 . . . 'lf h4 looks attractive for
Black here. White can of course
vary earlier-Editor)
-8 e4 d4 9 eS! �g4 1 0 �e4 .i.b7!
1 1 .i.d3 ( 1 1 �d6 + .txd6 1 2 exd6
0-0 with a strong initiative) 1 1 . . .
c4 ( 1 1 . . . �gxeS 1 2 �xeS �xeS 1 3
'lfhS + �f7 14 b3 ± ) 1 2 �xd4
1 2 . . . �dxeS 1 3 ..tc2 .t b4 +
1 7 �fl 0-0 with initiative. I n con­
clusion, 7 . . . � bd7 looks much
better than 7 . . . 'lfc7. But in such
a complicated position not only
every move by White, but also
every reply by Black has to be
verified by extremely precise cal­
culations. We should, therefore
wait for practical tests .
F. 6 ..i.b7
. . .
( I d4 �f6 2 c4 e6 3 �f3 cS 4 dS
bS S dxe6 fxe6 6 cxbS ..i.b7)
 The Blumenfeld Gambit Accepted
In modern tournament practice
it is not sufficient merely to keep
up to date on opening theory. For
successful results it is necessary
to keep ahead of theory, and to
anticipate what will become popu­
lar. With this line of reasoning I
present the following subsection
on the Blumenfeld Gambit to the
reader.
The Blumenfeld Gambit has
become modestly popular in the
last few years and players of the
Black pieces have tried many ideas
against 5 ..tg5 especially; success­
fully, I think. Now the shot has
been returned and it is up to White
to find something now. What will
it be? I drew attention to 1 d4
ttJf6 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 c5 4 d5 b5 5
dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 g3!? and
7 ttJc3!? I t is hard to predict
developments in the theory of
these variations, but maybe these
will represent the next dangerous
attempt by White to refute the
Blumenfeld Gambit.
65
Therefore, just in case, I offer
another way for Black : 6 . . .
..tb7!?, instead of 6 . . . d5.
If White plays Tarrasch's line:
e3, ..te2, 0-0, ttJbd2, b3, ..t b2,
Black can answer with the normal
'Aiekhine' development, i.e. : . . . d5,
. . . ..td6, . . . 0-0, where, as we have
seen before, his chances are better
than equal.
Of course, White can also play
7 g3, e.g. :
-7 g3 ..te7 (7 . . . e5!?-Editor) 8
..tg2 0-0 9 0-0 a6 1 0 bxa6 : xa6!
1 1 ttJc3 t0c6 1 2 e4 1W a8
And if 1 3 e5? ttJ xe5!
This type of position, ansmg
after 6 . . . ..tb7 7 g3, without . . .
d7-d5 will need more practical
tests in the future.
White may also choose 7 ttJc3,
setting up an e2-e4 advance. After
7 . . . ..te7 8 1Wc2 Black can
demonstrate the flexibility of his
chosen move order by playing 8
66 The Blumenfeld Gambit
. . . d5. In comparison with the 6 In summary : We should wait for
. . . d5 7 lll c 3 lines, Black has more material from tournament
inserted a useful developing move, practice, but 6 . . . ..t b7 is really
while the white queen does not worth considering seriously.
really belong on c2.
 5

The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined.

Other Lines.
5 a4, 5 J..f4 , 5 e4, 5 ltJc3

In this chapter we shall analyse

miscellaneous variations where
White declines Black's offer. As we
have seen before, the acceptance
of the gambit fits in with Black's
plan. On the other hand, the move
5 ..tg5, so far the main weapon,
leads to many complications,
sometimes unfavourable for
White. Maybe one has to look for
an advantage somewhere in less
popular variations?
A. 5 a4

( I d4 tt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt::J O c5 4 d5
b5 5 a4)
(see following diagram)
A. Rubinstein's idea. This way
White wants to clarify the situ­
ation on the queenside. In the first
game with this variation White
gained a small edge :
- 1 d4 tt:lf6 2 tt:lf3 c5 3 d5 b5 4
c4 ..tb7 5 a4 bxc4 6 tt:lc3 e6 7 e4
tt:lxe4?! 8 tt:lxe4 exd5 9 tt:lc3 d4
67
1 0 ..txc4 dxc3 1 1 ..txf7 + �xf7
12 -. b3 + c4! 13 tt:le5 + �g8 14
-.xb7 ;;t , Rubinstein-Spielmann,
Vienna 1 922.
In more recent games Black
followed Euwe's recommen­
dation-6 . . . exd5 instead of . . .
..tb7 :
-5 . . . bxc4 6 tt:lc3 exd5 7 tt:lxd5
..tb7 8 e4 ..te7 ( Euwe suggested
68 T he Blumenfeld Gambit
8 . . . lll xe4 9 ..txc4 "ii' a5 + 1 0 b4!
cxb4 1 1 0-0 with initiative) 9 ..txe4
0-0 10 0-0 lll xdS 1 1 ..txdS ..txdS
12 "ii' xdS lll e6 13 : d 1 "ii' b6 1 4
..tgS ..txgS 1 S lll xgS h 6 1 6 lll f3
: res 1 7 : ac t : a b8 1 S : xeS
"ii' xb2 1 9 h3, Rodriguez- Fernan­
dez, Cienfuegos 1 983. White is a
little better, but Black can survive,
even so.
- 1 2 . . . lll a6 (instead of 1 2 . . .
lll c6, in the game above) 1 3 : d t
"ii' b6 1 4 ..tr4 : adS 1 S aS "ii' e6
1 6 "ii' b7 lll b4 1 7 "ii' xa7 "ii' xe4 1 S
..td6 ..txd6 1 9 : xd6 llld3 ;;!; ,
Kuznetsov-Kotliar, Moscow
1 986.
(Another plan for Black is S . . .
bxe4 6 llle3 d6 7 e4 eS, e.g. S
..t xe4 ..te7 9 0-0 0-0 10 lll e l ?!
lll eS 1 1 r4 exr4 1 2 ..txr4 lll d7
13 lll f3 ..tr6 14 ..tbS 'jj e7 and
Black is comfortable; Wheeler­
Ward, Birmingham 1 987-
Editor)
According to some theoretical
analysis, 5 . . . exd5 6 cxd5 is poor
for Black, as White obtains the
c4 square for his piece. Here are
examples :
-5 . . . exd5 6 cxd5 b4 7 ..tg5 h6
8 ..t xf6 "ii' xf6 9 e4! 'ii' x b2 1 0
lll bd2 d6 1 1 ..tb5 + ..td7 1 2
0-0
(see following diagram)
White is clearly better after 1 2
. . . 'ii' f6 1 3 lll c4 ..te7 1 4 e5! or
1 2 . . . ..txb5 1 3 axb5 "ii' f6 14 lll c4
lll d 7 1 5 b6 a6 1 6 : e 1 (Taimanov
1 980; Voronkov 1 97 1 ).
-S . . . exdS 6 exdS ..tb7 7 e4!
lll xe4 S ..txbS ..te7 9 0-0 0-0 1 0
: e t llld 6 1 1 ..t n lll a6 1 2 lll e3
lll b4 1 3 ..tr4 lll rs 1 4 d6! ..tr6 I S
: c t a 6 1 6 lll e4 ..txb2 1 7 : xeS
: e8 1 8 • b l ! lll h 4 1 9 lll egS + ­
Ribli-G. Garcia, Leningrad 1 977;
-S . . . exdS 6 exdS ..tb7 7 e4
lll xe4 S ..txbS ..te7 9 0-0 0-0 10
: e t rs 1 1 lll e3 lll xe3 1 2 bxe3
..tr6 1 3 "ii' b3 �hS 14 ..tr4 lll a6
IS ..td6 ± Vorotnikov- Kudinov,
U SSR 1 963.
Only the vigorous 9 e4!, after 5
. . . exd5 6 cxd5 b4 7 ..t g5 h6 8
..txf6 "ii' xf6, would lead to White's
advantage, but not the quiet
defence of the b2 pawn :
-9 'ii' e2 d6 10 lll bd2 ..te7 1 1 e4
0-0 1 2 ..td3 lll bd7 1 3 0-0 : e8
1 4 : ret ..tf8 1 S ..tbS : e7 1 6
lll e4 a 6 1 7 ..te6 : bS 1 8 a S gS
1 9 h3 "ii' g6 20 : e3 ..t g7 with
good counterplay for Black,
Malich-Inkiov, DDR-Bulgaria
1 982.
 The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined. Other Lines
A very attractive option for
Black would seem to be normal
development with . . . d6, . . . ..te7,
. . . lD bd7. White would then have
to watch out for the blow lDf6xd5
for as long as the bishop on g5
is hanging. In Kozlovskaya­
Levitina, USSR 1 974 Black even
stood better, though only after a
blunder by the opponent :
-S . . . exdS 6 cxd5 b4 7 ..tgS d6
8 e4 ..te7 9 ..tbS + ..td7 10 e5?
( 1 0 fle2 ± ) 10 . . . dxeS 1 1 i.c4
e4 1 2 lDfd2 0-0 1 3 0-0 ..tfS + .
- 1 d4 lDf6 2 lDf3 c5 3 dS bS 4
c4 ..tb7 5 a4 bxc4 6 lDc3 e6 7 e4
exdS 8 exdS d6 9 ..txc4 i.e7 1 0
0-0 0-0 I I l h 1 l: e8 1 2 ..tf4
lDbd7 1 3 aS a6 14 h3 ..tf8 1 S
l: xe8 lDxe8 1 6 fld2 h6 1 7 g4!? ;!;
Spraggett-Qi Jingxuan, Taxco
1 985.
Voronkov recommends also 5
. . . b4, as a good solution. Black
tried this move in M use-Przewoz­
nik, Poznan 1 986:
69
-5 . b4 6 lDbd2 d6 7 e4 eS 8
. .
..td3 g6 9 ll)fl lDh5 10 g3 ..tg7
1 1 ..tg5 flc7 12 lDh4 ..tf6 1 3
..txf6 lDxf6 1 4 lDe3 fle7 1 S b3
lDbd7 16 aS lDh5 17 l h2 lDdf6
with an even game.
Finally, let us have a look at the
game Balashov-Platonov, U SSR
1 97 1 . By a different move order
they reached the position in ques­
tion :
- 1 d4 lDf6 2 c4 cS 3 dS bS 4 lDf3
..tb7 S a4 b4 6 lDbd2 d6 7 e4 eS
8 dxe6 fxe6 9 ..td3 e5! 1 0 fle2
lDc6 1 1 lDfl lDd4 + .
In summary we should pay
special attention on the game
Malich-Inkiov. The plan of . . . g5
and . . . ..tg7, instead of taking on
b2, is worthy of consideration.
Additionally, it seems like the
move 5 a4 is more suited to stra­
tegical players than tacticians.
B. S ..tf4
( I d4 lDf6 2 c4 e6 3 lDf3 c5 4 d5
b5 5 ..tf4)
70 The Blumenfeld Gambit
This move, introduced by Miles,
turned out well in Miles- Botterill,
England-Wales 1 978 :
-5 . . . exd5 6 cxd5 d6 7 e4 a6 8
lLJbd2 j_e7 9 a4 bxa4 10 ·�txa4 +
lLlbd7 I I lLJc4 0-0 1 2 lLJaS! .l:t e8
1 3 j_d3 lLlb6 1 4 'it'c2 ± .
But had he played 6 . . . 'it' a5 + ,
Black would have achieved
equality :
-5 . . . exd5 6 cxd5 'it'a5 + 7 j_d2
'it'b6 (The same position can be
reached after 5 j_g5 exd5 6 cxd5
'it' a5 + 7 j_d2 'it' b6) 8 e4! c4! (8
. . . d6 9 a4! ± Ermenkov) 9 'it'c2
j_c5 10 j_gS lLJa6 1 1 lLJc3 0-0 1 2
j_h4 ( 1 2 j_xf6 gxf6 and . . . d6, . . .
f5, Ermenkov) 1 2 . . . .l:t e8 1 3 j_e2
lLJb4 1 4 'it'bl lLJd3 + 15 j_xd3
cxd3 1 6 0-0 lLJxe4 1 7 lLJxe4 .l:t xe4
1 8 'it' xd3 .l:t e8 1 9 : ac t h6 20
lLld2 j_b7 2 1 W'f5 t-t. Miles­
Ermenkov, Skara 1 980.
So, 5 j_f4 leads to an even game
if Black replies 6 . . . 'it'a5 + .
C. 5 e4
( 1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lLJf3 c5 4 d5
b5 5 e4)
This sharp and tactically ori­
ented system has undergone few
changes in recent years. Probably
the best-known games with this
rare move are :
-5 . . . lLJxe4 6 dxe6 fxe6 7 j_d3
lLlf6 8 lLlgS 'it'e7! (8 . . . bxc4 9
j_xh7! lLJxh7 1 0 W'h5 + ± ) 9 cxb5
d5 10 0-0 g6 1 1 .�:t e l j_g7 1 2
'it'e2 c4! 1 3 j_c2 0-0 14 lLJxe6
.l:t e8 1 5 lLlf4?! 'it'f7! 1 6 'it' fl a6
1 7 .l:t xe8 + lLJxe8 1 8 lLJc3 j_b7
19 'it'el d4 20 lLJe4 axb5 21 lLJgS
'it'd7 + Rubinstein-Tartakover,
Toplitz-Schonau, 1 922; in two
places White could have played
better : 1 2 lLJc3 0-0 1 3 f4 c4 1 4 j_fl
a6! or 1 5 lLJd4! = .
-5 . . . lLJxe4 6 j_d3?! 'it' a5 + ?!
(6 . . . lLJf6! with a good position
for Black) 7 lLJbd2 lLlf6 8 0-0 d6
9 dxe6 fxe6 10 .1:1 e I j_e7 1 1 lLJgS
lLJc6 1 2 W'f3 'it'c7 13 cxb5 lLJeS
14 .l:t xe5! + , Yakhin-Popov,
-
Frunze 1 965.
There is a whole bunch of vari­
ations connected with 5 . . . bxc4 6
lLJc3 exd5 7 e5! d4 8 exf6 d5 9
lLJxd4 cxd4 10 'it' xd4 ± ,
Vukovic-Spielmann, Vienna
1 922. Smagin and Radovsky
analyse the position after 7 . . .
lLJe4!? (instead of 7 . . . .d4) 8 'it'xd5
lLJxc3! 9 'it'xa8 (9 bxc3?! j_e7 1 0
j_xc4 0-0 1 1 j_d3 lLJc6 1 2 h4
j_b7 1 3 'it'e4 g6 1 4 'it'f4 d6! + ) 9
. . . lLJc6 1 0 bxc3 j_e7 1 1 j_ xc4
0-0
 T he Blumenfeld Gambit Declined. Other Lines 71
that only acceptance of the pawn
sacrifice with S . . . lll xe4 can give
Black good play. Otherwise White
j ust stands better. Instead of 9 . . .
dS 1 0 0-0 g6, where White has
some pressure along the e-file
Black can play 9 . . . .tb7 10 0-0
g6, without d7-dS. In such a
position Black has two strong
bishops, and the problem of the
knight on b8 can be solved by
a7-a6. It seems that the move S
e4 has disappeared from practice
because of S . . . lll xe4.
D. 5 ll:lc3
According to Tartakover Black
is better here : 1 2 .idS ( 1 2 .ia6 ( 1 d4 lll f6 2 c4 e6 3 lll f3 cS 4 dS
-. c7; 1 2 0-0 -. b6!) 1 2 . . . -.as 1 3 bS S ll:lc3)
0-0 ( 1 3 .ixc6 •xc3 + 1 4 �d l
dxc6!; 1 3 .id2 .ia6 1 4 .ixc6
.llxa 8 1 S .ixa8 -. bs; 1 3 J:t b l
-. xc3 + 1 4 .id2 -. d3-and
every time Black is better) 1 3 . . .
.ia6 1 4 .i xc6 J:t xa8 1 S .i xa8
.ixfl 1 6 �xfl -. xc3 and Black
wins. But Smagin and R adovsky
have found 12 e6! and White is
almost winning! For instance :
- 1 2 . . . -. as? 1 3 exf7 + �h8 1 4
.td2 .ta6 I S -.e8 .ixc4 1 6
ll:lgS h6 ( 1 6 . . . ll:leS 1 7 -.xe7
lll d 3 + 1 8 �e2 lll f4 + + 1 9
�f3 + - ) 1 7 h4! ± ;
- 1 2 . . . fxe6 1 3 .ixe6 + �h8
14 .idS •as I S 0-0 .ta6 1 6 Steiner's move which does not
•xf8 + .ixf8 1 7 J:t e l lll e 7 ( 1 7 cause problems to Black, provided
. . . -.xc3? 1 8 J:te8! -.f6 1 9 that he does not open the center,
.tb2! ± ; 1 1 . . . -.d8 1 8 .tgS ± ; as he did in the game below :
1 7 . . . g6 1 8 .tgS -. xc3 1 9 -5 . . . b4 6 lll b l exd5?! 7 cxd5
J:t ac I ± ) 1 8 .tf7 ± . .t b7 8 .i g5 h6 9 .i xf6 • xf6 1 0
So, in conclusion, we have seen e4! (We have seen this s o many
72 The Blumenfeld Gambit
times . . . ) 1 0 . . . W' xb2 1 1 lt::l bd2
g5 1 2 :c1 .i.g7 l3 : c2 W' f6 1 4
.i.d3 0-0 1 5 h4 g4 16 lt::l g 1 d6 1 7
W' xg4 W' a 1 + 1 8 W' d 1 W'xd1 +
19 �xd1 ± Yudovich-Gusev,
Moscow 1 948.
M uch worse is 6 lt::l a4?! :
-5 . b4 6 lt::l a4?! exd5 7 cxd5
• .
d6 8 .i.g5 .i.e7 9 e3 0-0 1 0 .i.c4
lt::l bd7 1 1 0-0 .i.b7 1 2 h3 lt::l b6
13 lt::l xb6 axb6 Steiner-Siimisch,
Berlin 1 9 30.
The same idea was tested in
Anikaev-Vaganian, USSR 1 982,
with a different move order :
- I d4 lDf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 lt::l f3
.i.b7 5 l0c3 b4 6 lt::l a4 e6 7 J.g5
d6 8 e4 .i.e7 9 e5 dxe5 10 dxe6
W'c7! 1 1 exf7 + �xf7 1 2 .i.e3
: d8 13 W'c2 �g8 14 W' f5 W'd7
15 W' xd7 lt::l bxd7 16 .i.e2 .i.c6
17 b3 lt::le4 18 .i.d3 lt::l x f2 + .
Probably, in the Blumenfeld
move order, after 5 . . . b4 6 lO b i ,
Black should have taken his
chance with 6 . . . d6, or 6 . . . a5,
e.g. :
-6 . . . d6 7 .i.g5 .i.e? 8 .i.xf6
.i.xf6 9 W'c2 0-0 1 0 e4 lt:ld7 1 2
lt:lbd2 e5 with the idea lt:ld7-b6,
a5-a4-a3, and . . . exd5 or . . . e5,
. . . g6, . . . .i.g7, . . . f7-f5;
-6 . . . d6 7 a3 lt::l b d7 8 axb4 cxb4
9 dxe6 fxe6;
-6 . . . a5 7 a3 .i.b7.
The analyses mentioned above
lead to the conclusion that Black
is O.K. in Steiner's variation, 5
lt:lc3.
E. 5 W'c2
(section written by editor)
( I d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 lt::l f3 c5 4 d5
b5 5 W'c2)
This quite simply seems to be
weak; White loses his grip on the
light squares.
-5 W'c2? bxc4 6 e4 exd5 7 e5 (7
exd5 lt:lxd5 8 W'e4 + W'e7 - + )
7 . . . lt::l g8?! (Ward notes that 7 . . .
lt::le4 is probably better; Black is
simply two pawns up, and if 8
.i.xc4 W'a5 + ) 8 lt:lc3 .i.b7 9
.i.g5 and now instead of 9 • • •
W'a5? 1 0 0-0-0! lt:le7 1 1 .i.xe7
.i.xe7 1 2 lt::l xd5 ;;!;; F. Braga­
Ward, London ('Chess for Peace')
1 987, 9 . . . .i.e? I 0 h4 l0a6 +
(Ward).
 6

M odern Treatment of the Blumenfeld

Gambit :
3 . . . a6

There has been an apparent

evolution over recent years from
the classical approach to the
modern treatment of the Blumen­
feld Gambit. Nowadays some
ideas of the Blumenfeld Gambit
are linked with ideas of the Benko
Gambit. This new conception was
born in 1 984, during the USA
Championship. The characteristic
position arises after 1 d4 tt:l f6 2 c4
e6 3 tt:lf3 a6 4 tt:\c3 c5 5 d5 b5
(see following diagram)

There are some difficulties with

the classification of this variation.
Sometimes this system used to be
classed with the Benko Gambit­
AS?, more frequently as the Blu­
menfeld Gambit-E 1 0. The struc­
t ure of Black's pawns, arising here,
is similar to both the Benko
Gambit and the Blumenfeld
Gambit; therefore it looks sensible
to investigate the variation in
q uestion.
73
The position arising after 1 d4
tt:lf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5
a6 5 bxa6 e6 6 dxe6 fxe6 7 e3
i.. e 7 8 tt:\c3 0-0 9 tt:lf3 d5 1 0
i..e2 tt:\xa6 1 1 0-0 i.. b 7 i s evaluated
by theoreticians (Encyclopedia
1 978, Taimanov 1 980) as compli­
cated.
This is exactly the position
which can be reached by another
74 The Blumenfeld Gambit
move order, i.e. : l d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6
3 lt:lf3 a6 4 lt:lc3 c5 5 d5 b5 6
dxe6 fxe6 7 cxb5 ..tb7 8 bxa6
lt:lxa6 9 e3 i.e7 1 0 i.e2 0-0 I I
0-0 d5. Black can also deviate by
7 . . . axb5, instead of 7 . . . i. b7
but this is still the same kind of
position. In either case the charac­
teristic pawn structure gives Black
excellent prospects, in the Blumen­
feld line : d7-d5, i.d6, lt:l bd7,
..tb7, 0-0, 1t'e7, and the Benko
line: d7-d5, ..te7, i. b7, 1t'a5,
lt:la6, 0-0, l:t fb8 alike. Sometimes
Black can refrain from playing
. . . d7-d5, arranging his pieces
suitably: i.e7, l!Jc6, i. b7, 0-0,
1t'a5(b6, c7). I n this latter case
Black leaves an open diagonal for
his bishop on b7, on the one hand,
and deprives White of the possi­
bility e2-e4, on the other. If Black
has played . . . d5, there is a very
dangerous possibility that e2-e4
may effectively burst the chain
of Black's pawns e6, d5, c5, and
therefore this must be carefully
guarded against by Black. These
positions, in my opinion are
enough to justify 3 . . . a6 by mak­
ing the playing of the variation
mentioned above possible. Curi­
ously enough, in precisely such a
fundamental branch I have not
seen games in tournament practice
before.
So, let us come back to the
games which have been played.
Most often the positions after l
d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:lf3 a6 4 lt:lc3
c5 5 d5 b5 6 i. g5 b4 7 lt:le4
d6 have occurred. The pawn race
doesn't lead to White's advantage;
Christiansen-Alburt, USA (ch)
1 985 went : 6 e4 b4 7 e5 bxc3 8
exf6 1t'a5 9 bxc3 gxf6 10 i.d2 f5
1 1 i.d3 i. g7 1 2 0-0 d6 1 3 l:t e 1
0-0 and now 14 lt:l g 5 e5 1 5 1t'h5
h6 1 6 lt:lh3 e4 17 J:le3! exd3 1 8
l:t g3 �h7 1 9 l:t xg7 + �xg7 20
i.xh6 + would have been decis­
ive. But the correct continuation
for Black is 8 . . . cxb2 9 i. xb2
gxf6 and it is hard to believe
that right now the attack is more
important than a pawn .
(see following diagram)
An interesting psychological
phenomenon : this is the position
most frequently reached by White
players. Is it an effect of deep
analysis or maybe an effect of
reminiscence and thinking by
analogy? If for a very long period
5 i.g5 was considered as best in
the Blumenfeld Gambit after I d4
 Modern Treatment of T he Blumenfeld Gambit: 75

l2lf6 2 c4 e6 3 l2lf3 c5 4 d5 b5, time being) knight in the

is this why everybody is inclined centre also. But as we have
towards 6 ..ig5 in the 3 . . . a6 seen in our historical chapter,
system? in the game Browne-Dzindzi­
In the diagram position there chashvili, U SA (ch) 1 984, Black
are plenty of possibilities for took over and exploited his bishop
White : pa1r.
A. 8 ..ixf6
B 8 'ilt"a4 +
B. 8 'ilt"a4 +
C. 8 l2lxf6 + ( I d4 l2lf6 2 c4 e6 3 l2lf3 a6 4
D. 8 a3 l2lc3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 ..tg5 b4 7 l2le4
E. 8 g3 d6 8 'ilt"a4 + )
F. 8 'ilt"d3
G. 8 e3
A. 8 ..ixf6

( I d4 l2lf6 2 c4 e6 3 l2lf3 a6 4
l2lc3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 ..ig5 b4 7 l2le4
d6 8 ..ixf6)
(see following diagram)

If White takes on f6 with

the bishop here he doesn't lose
time by retreating ..tg5-h4 (in
comparison with 8 l2lxf6 + gxf6).
White keeps his strong (for the
76 The Blumenfeld Gambit
This move doesn't cause prob­
lems for Black.
8 . . . Wd7 9 Wc2
Exchanging the queens looks
more consequent, but 9 Wxd7 +
tt:J bxd7 10 lt:lxf6 + gxf6 or I I
. . . lLlxf6 would give Black an
excellent game.
9 . . . lt:lxe4 10 "ii xe4 f6
After the quiet I 0 . . . : a 7 Black
has some troubles with his devel­
opment, for example : 1 1 e3 e5? 1 2
lt:lxe5! o r 1 1 . . . J.. e7 1 2 J.. d 3 and
Black needs f7-f6 anyway. Playing
10 . . . f6 Black prepares to advance
e6-e5 and f6-f5. The immediate And this is the main conclusion
I 0 . . . e5 would be practically from the variation 8 Wa4 + .
refuted by 1 1 lt:lxe5! dxe5 1 2
C. 8 lLlxf6 +
W xe5 + J.. e7 1 3 Wxg7 : rs 1 4
J.. x e7 Wxe7 1 5 Wxh7 We5 1 6 ( I d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:lf3 a6 4
"ii c2 J.. f5 1 7 Wd2 lt:ld7 1 8 e3. tt:Jc3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 J.. g5 b4 7 lt:le4
d6 8 tt:Jxf6 + )
II dxe6
Eliminating the plan e6-e5 and
f6-f5.
II Wc6 1 2 W f5? fxg5 1 3
. . .

lt:lxg5 : a7! 1 4 tt:Jti : xti! 1 5

W xti + �d8 1 6 e3 "ilc7 1 7 W f5
We7 18 0-0-0 �c7 and Black
repulsed an attack, Blocker­
Dzindzichashvili, New York 1 984.
1 6 e7 + was no improvement,
e.g. : 1 6 . . . J.. xe7 1 7 W xg7 We8 1 8
e3 J.. f5 and then . . . : g8, . . . J.. f6,
with strong pressure. Also after
1 4 lLlxh7 : xh7! 1 5 Wxh7 J.. xe6
Black's pieces would be very
strong. But, of course, White could
have equalised with 1 2 Wxc6 + This is the principal reaction
lt:lxc6 1 3 ..tf4 ..txe6 1 4 e4 ..te7 against Black's slightly provoc­
1 5 : d I ( 1 5 0-0-0) lt:le5. ative play. Now the whole game
 Modern Treatment of The Blumenfeld Gambit: 77
will rest on the question of whether .l:!. ae1
Black's pawn structure f7, f6, e6, White's pressure is decisive, van
d6 will be a weakness or a power. der Sterren-Sosonko, Nether­
8 . . . gxf6 9 .t h4 (for 9 .td2, see lands 1 985/86.
end of section):
-9 . lbd7?! Black doesn't get to
. .

the heart of the matter. The

essence of the position is that
Black m ust answer e2-e4 with f6-
f5! Now, after 1 0 e4! .t e7 1 1 .td3
the programmed counterattack
fails : 1 1 . . . f5? 1 2 .tg3! fxe4 1 3
.txe4 lbf6 1 4 .tc2 with harmony
among White's pieces in the cen­
tre. White is clearly better. I nstead,
after 9 .te7! 10 e4 f5! 1 1 .tg3
0 0 •

is impossible because of the simple

1 1 . . . fxe4 + , and, as we will see
later, 1 1 .t xe7 is not so dangerous
for Black.
11 • • . lbf8 12 0-0 lbg6 13 .tg3
.td7
On 1 3 0 0 . e5 or 1 3 h5, 1 4
0 0 .
lb h4 ± is strong enough.
14 lbd2 h5 15 h3 �f8 16 f4 h4
17 .t h2
By natural play White has
gained a big advantage in space.
Now he threatens to increase it
with 1 8 f5 exf5 19 exf5 lbe5 20
.te4 or 20 lbe4, and Black pro­
bably loses because of the weak­
ness on h4. Seeing his position
deteriorate, Black makes a double­
edged move attempting to neutral­
ise the opponent's initiative on the
kingside.
-9 . . . .t e7 !
The correct move order, as men­
tioned above. If now 1 0 e4 then
10 0 0 . f5! 1 1 .t xe7 • xe7 1 2 *e2
( 1 2 exf5? exd5 + + ; 1 2 e5? dxe5 1 3
lb xe5 exd5 1 4 * xd5 .tb7 - + )
12 0 0 .e5 1 3 g3 fxe4 1 4 • xe4 f5
1 5 *c2 0-0 with sharp play. This
position needs more tests in the
future!
In H uss-Lau, Beer Sheva 1 985
Zonal White tried
10 e4 f5! 1 1 .t xe7 -. xe7 1 2
dxe6
Avoiding the possibility e6xd5.
The struggle has grown sharper.
12 fxe4 1 3 exfi + �f8
. . .

13 �xf7 is also possible: 1 4

0 0 .

17 f5
-.d5 + �g7 1 5 • xa8 exf3 + 1 6
But after �d2 .tb7 1 7 -.a7 lbc6 ( 1 7 0 0 .

18 *c2 .l:!. h5 1 9 lbf3 � g7 20 fxg2 20 .txg2!) 1 8 -.b6 .l:!. e8! with

78 The Blumenfeld Gambit
excellent play. the way, check on g6 is not so
14 tt:ld2 i.b7 IS 'iit' hS tt:ld7 1 6 dangerous.
'iit' h6 + �xf7 1 7 i.e2 16 i.h3 tt:lg6 17 e4 i.b7 1 8
If 1 7 'iit' h5 + then 1 7 . . . �g7 .:. re t i.c6 1 9 'ilt'e2 'ilt'c7 2 0 .l:l d3
1 8 'ilt'g4 + �17 1 9 'iit' h5 + with .:. bg8 21 �fl aS
perpetual check, or 1 7 . . . �g8 1 8
*'g4 + �f8 1 9 'ilt'f4 + tt:lf6 with
an unclear position.
17 . . . •r6 18 'ilt' xf6 +
The strong queen must be
exchanged because of the weak­
ness of b2.
18 . . . �xf6 1 9 tt:lfl lUeS 20
0-0-0 �e6 21 tt:le3 .l:l af8 with a
very good game for Black.
-9 . . . i.e7 10 g3
In such a way White protects
his king against all sorts of danger
along the g-file.
10 . . . tt:ld7 1 1 i.g2 .l:l b8 Black has a strong and dynamic
A big threat was 1 2 dxe6 fxe6 position, Tarjan-Aiburt, USA (ch)
1 3 tt:ld4 + - 1 984.
1 2 *'d2 hS 13 dxe6 fxe6 14 Editor's note.-Since the main
.l:ldl �f7 I S 0-0 lU I'S text of this book was written,
A signal for a n attack o n the attention has been drawn to the
kingside. The manoeuvre tt:l b8- possibility 8 tt:lxf6 + gxf6 9
d7-f8-g6 emphasises a weakness i.d2!?
of White's plan. Namely, the
knight on f3 has to look after
the bishop on h4, and this fact
prevents the thematic plan e2-e4,
tt:lfd2, f2-f4-f5. A question arises :
is White is able to win a race
with Black's knight? The answer is
negative : 1 2 tt:ld2 tt:lf8 1 3 f4 tt:lg6
14 tt:lf3 tt:lxh4 1 5 tt:lxh4 f5 1 6 tt:lf3
i.f6 and Black is O.K. Another
question is: whether 1 3 dxe6 is
premature? But after 1 3 'iit' c 2, with
the idea 14 dxe6 fxe6 1 5 'iit' g6 + ,
Black has time for 1 3 . . . tt:lf8. By
 Modern Treatment of T he Blumenfeld Gambit: 79
This is in fact a very logical 22 "ilt'c3 f4 23 ..tg2, but White's
move. Earlier experience has positional advantage was eventu­
shown that the White bishop is ally sufficient to win the game.
not doing very much on h4, so I would expect several practical
White simply retreats the bishop tests of 9 ..td2 in the future. 9 .
. .

to d2, leaving no targets on the f5 looks too slow. Maybe Black

kingside, and preparing to under­ should either try to stabilise his
mine Black's queenside pawns pawn structure on the queenside
with a3. and play 9 . . . aS, and if 1 0 a3
Chernin-Alburt, Subotica 1 987, lL!a6, or play 9 . . . e5, taking
continued : advantage of the knight's loss of a
-9 . . . f5?! 10 a3 bxa3 1 1 : xa3 retreat square on d2.
..tg7 1 2 ..tc3 ..txc3 + 1 3 : xc3 Maybe one should try to link
"ilt' b6 1 4 "ilt'cl lL!d7 15 lL!d2 : b8 1 6 the plan g2-g3 with the bursting
: b3 "ilt'c7 1 7 : xb8 "ilt'xb8 1 8 g3 of Black's chain by a2-a3. In this
exd5 1 9 cxd5 0-0 20 ..th3! case the struggle would be more
complicated, over the whole
board. Then, let us go on to inves­
tigate the possibility a2-a3 in the
next subsections D and E.
D. 8 a3
( I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lL!f3 a6 4
lL!c3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 ..tg5 b4 7 lL!e4
d6 8 a3)

White has successfully neutral­

ised both Black's queenside spatial
advantage and also any kingside
pressure by Black, while the Black
centre and kingside look very
ragged. For example, 20 . . . : e8
2 1 0-0! : xe2 22 lLlc4 with a big
attack. Black kept his pieces active
with 20 . . . lL!e5 21 0-0 "ilt' b4 8 . . . bxa3 9 : xa3
80 The Blumenfeld Gambit
White settles Black's pawn
structure. He can play 9 ..ixf6,
but after 9 . . . gxf6 I 0 l:l xa3 f5
Black is slightly better. After the
text Black has two main answers :
9 . . . ..ie7 and 9 . . . e5.
-9 . . . ..ie7 10 lLlxf6 + ..ixf6 1 1
... d2
Or I I dxe6 (with the idea I I . . .
fxe6 I 2 ..txf6 •xf6 I 3 • xd6
• xb2 I4 l:l d3 ± ; I 2 . . . gxf6!?)
I I . . . ..txe6 I 2 ..txf6 • xf6 1 3
• xd6 • xb2 I 4 l:l d 3 lLld7 with
equal chances.
11 . . . 0-0 1 2 g3
Better was I 2 e4, e.g. I 2 . . . l:l e8
I 3 .i. xf6 •xf6 14 l:l e3 exd5 1 5
exd5! l:l xe3 + I 6 •xe3 ..id7 I 7
•d2 .i.a4 1 8 ..ie2 lLld7 1 9 0-0
with an even game. The text gives
Black excellent play on the queen­
side.
1 2 . . . exd5 13 cxd5 lLld7 14
..ig2 l:l b8 1 5 0-0
And now I 5 . . . l:l e8! would
have preserved Black's advantage,
because of the pressure along the
b- and e-files, White's difficulties
with the e2-e4 advance, and his
d5 pawn. Instead, Black played 1 5
. . . l:l xb2 with equal chances :
15 . . . l:l xb2 1 6 •xb2 ..ixb2
17 ..ixd8 ..ixa3 18 ..ie7 l:l e8 1 9
..ixd6 .i.b7 20 l:l a 1 ..ib4 2 1
lLld4 lLlf6 2 2 lLlc6 l:l xe2 23
lLlxb4 cxb4 24 ..ixb4 .i.xd5 1-
! , Christiansen-Alburt, USA (ch)
1 984.
-9 . . . ..ie7 10 .i.xf6 gxf6
l O . . . ..t xf6 could become quite
sharp after I t dxe6 ..t xe6 t 2
lLlxd6 + �e7 t 3 l:ld3 •a5 + and
if t4 •d2 then t 4 . . . •a t + t 5
• d i •a5 + , or I 4 l:l d2 .i.xb2,
threatening ..ic3.
1 1 dxe6 fxe6 12 l:l d3 •as +
Only move. I f t 3 •d2 then t 3
. . . • a t + t 4 • d t •a5 + , White
has to block the d-file and thus
his pressure on the d6 pawn is
greatly reduced.
1 3 lLl fd2 ... b6 14 g4!
Too risky would have been I 4
lLl b3, e.g. : t 4 . . . d5! t 5 cxd5
c4 t6 d6 cxd3 t 7 dxe7 �xe7 =t ,
or t 5 lLled2 0-0!? t 6 cxd5 exd5 t 7
l:l xd5 ..ie6 with a strong initia­
tive for Black.
14 . . . lLld7 15 ..i g2 l:lb8 16 f4
•c7 1 7 0-0
If immediately t 7 f5, with the
idea of playing on the white
squares, then t 7 . . . exf5 ( t 7 . . . e5?
t8 b3 and lLle4-c3-d5 is hopeless
for Black) t 8 gxf5 lLle5 and ..ixf5
with sharp play and probably
better chances for Black.
17 . . . l:l g8 18 g5!?
t 8 h3 h5 I 9 e3 would also have
led to a very interesting game.
18 fxg5
After 1 8 . . . f5 1 9 lLlg3 .i.b7 20
e4 fxe4 2 1 lLldxe4 the domination
of White's pieces in the centre
would be decisive.
19 fxg5 ..ib7 20 e3 l:l g6
On 20 . . . lLle5 2 1 l:l b3 pre­
serves the attack, but not the line
given in lnformator: 2 I l:l xd6?
 Modern Treatment of The Blumenfeld Gambit:
.txd6 22 ttJf6 + when Black can
simply play 22 . . . �e7.
21 W'h5 lt:)f8 22 W'f3 l:t g7
The threat was : 23 -.n + �d8
24 ltJ xd6 .txd6 25 W' xf8 + + - .
23 ttJf6 + .txf6 24 W'xf6 l:[ f7
25 W'xf7 + W'xf7 26 l:[ xf7 �xf7
27 l:t b3 .txg2 28 l:t xb8 ltJd7
29 l:t c8 1 -0, Agzamov-Inkiov,
Calcutta 1 986.
One has to admit that White's
play in the game above is very
instructive. So, our conclusion
looks like Black should have taken
his chance with : I 0 . . . .txf6, with
active prospects.
-9 . . . e5
Another interesting possibility.
Black rids himself of trouble along
the d-file, and there is no danger
of a blockade on the f5 square, but
on the other hand a bishop on b7
would be ineffective.
10 W'a4 + .td7
Why not 1 0 . . . ttJbd7? After I I
81
W' c6 l:t b8 Black doesn't lose the
pawn on d6: 1 2 ltJxd6 + .txd6
1 3 W' xd6 l:t b6. Maybe I I l:t e3,
with the threat 1 2 ltJxc5 dxc5 1 3
l:t xe5 + .te7 14 d6, but then I I
. . . .te7 1 2 W' c6 l:t b8 1 3 ltJxd6 +
.bd6 1 4 W'xd6 l:t b6 1 5 l:t xe5 +
ltJxe5 1 6 W' xe5 + W'e7 and it is
hard to believe that White is
better. Probably better still for
Black is 1 2 . . . W'a5 + 1 3 � d l
l:t b8! and White has t o play 1 4
l:t a3. So, we see the failure o f the
tactical motif of an attack against
the d6 pawn. More sinister is the
positional I I ..txf6! gxf6 1 2 ltJg3.
If White has time for castling and
for blocking the f5 square ( ttJf5,
ltJ3h4, e4, .te2, 0-0), everything
will be clear for him. The only
chance for Black is quick counter­
attack along the b-file : 12 . . . l:t b8
1 3 l:t b3 l:t xb3 1 4 W'xb3 W'a5 + .
This position needs more practical
tests.
II Wc2 a5
Black controls the b5 square
with pieces, and by advancing the
a-pawn organises active play on
the queenside.
12 e3 a4 13 ttJfd2 ltJa6 14 .tel
ttJ b4 15 W'bl l:t a6
Now White has to decide: to
double Black's pawns or not?
Later it will be impossible, for
example: 1 6 0-0 .te7 1 7 .txf6
.txf6 (the pawn on d6 is protec­
ted) 1 8 ttJxf6 + W'xf6. In view of
the surprise which follows, White
would have done better to play 1 6
82 T he Blumenfeld Gambit

..txf6 gxf6 1 7 lt:lg3 with an edge.

16 f4 ..te7 17 lt:lxc5? dxc5 1 8
fxe5 lt:lfxd5! 1 9 cxd5 ..txg5 20
..txa6 lt:lxil6 2 1 lt:le4 0-0.
Black is better, van der Sterren­
Rogers, Wijk aan Zee II 1 985.
However, this is not the final
evaluation of the subvariation as
can be seen from the prevwus
note.
E 8 g3
( l d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:lf3 a6
4 lt:lc3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 ..tg5 b4 7 lt:le4
d6 8 g3)
1 1 . . . lt:l bd7 1 2 bxc5 dxc5 1 3
"it'a4 looks hopeless.
1 2 ..txf6! gxf6 13 "it'a4 + lt:ld7
The king's adventures lead to
mate after 1 3 . . . q;e7 1 4 c5 dxc5
1 5 d6 + q;e6 16 ..th 3 + f5 1 7
lt:lfg5 + q;d5 1 8 l:t d 1 + q;c4 1 9
lt:ld2 + q;d5 20 lt:l b 1 + q;c4 2 1
lt:lxa3 + q;c3 22 "it'c2 mate. If 1 3
. . . ..td7, then 1 4 "it'xb4 ..tf5 1 5
lt:lxf6 + "it'xf6 1 6 "it'xb8 + + - .
Only 1 3 . . . l:t d7 1 4 "it'xb4 ..tb7
lt:lh4 ± survives for a while.
14 "it'xb4 f5 1 5 lt:lxd6 + ..txd6
8 . . . l:t a7 9 ..tg2 e5?
16 "it' xd6 "it'a5 + 17 q;n l:t b7 1 8
This move will be refuted very
..th3 with a winning position for
quickly. In view of the surprise
White, Portisch-Miles, Tilburg
breakthrough which follows,
1 986.
Black would have done better to
play 9 . . . ..te7. F. 8 "it'd3
10 a3! bxa3 ( I d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:lf3 a6 4
(see followirlg diagram) lt:lc3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 ..tg5 b4 7 lt:le4
d6 8 "it'd3)
11 b4!
(see following diagram)
Just here! White throws into
The text gives White the oppor­
disarray Black's pawns.
tunity for pressure along the d­
11 cxb4 file, threatening to win a pawn :
 Modern Treatment of The Blumenfeld Gambit:
� ation is j ustified tactically since
rr=:=:::=;-r.:=;;;;;.;�=;;;=;,
l:t d I , dxe6, tt:lxd6 + . Let us see an
example where Black sacrifices
his d6 pawn.
8 ..ie7
On 8 . . . exd5 White has the
typical answer 9 ..ixf6! and after
9 . . . gxf6 10 cxd5 tt:ld7 1 1 e3
retains the edge with his strong
c4 square for bishop or k night.
The damaged Black's pawns are
also an important factor.
9 ..ixf6
Otherwise Black plays 9 . . . e5
without any difficulties.
9
Or 9 . . . gxf6 1 0 dxe6 fxe6 I I l:t d l
and 1 2 tt:lxd6 + ± .
1 0 dxe6 ..ixe6 1 1 tt:lxd6 +
But not I I 1fxd6 'ilfxd6 1 2
tt:lxd6 + <l;e7 1 3 tt:le4 ..ixb2 1 4
l:t b l ..if6 1 5 tt:lxc5 ..ixc4 + .
11. . . <j;f8 1 2 0-0-0?
1 2 tt:le4! is stronger, with clear
advantage to White. This continu-
83
..ixb2 is impossible (the queen is
hanging), and after 1 2 . . . 1hd3 1 3
exd3, the c4 pawn is much more
secure, e.g. 1 3 . . . ..txb2 1 4 l:t b 1
..if6 1 5 tt:lxc5 ± .
After the text Black played
1 2 . . . 1fa5
and gained a strong initiative,
Lukacs-Toshkov, Albena 1 985.
Well, it seems that because of
the improvement 12 tt:le4! Black's
pawn sacrifice is doubtful. Thus,
let us look at another idea connec­
ted with defending the pawn.
8 .. . l:t a7!
I nstead of 8 . . . ..ie7. Now on
9 ..ixf6 gxf6 10 dxe6 fxe6 I I l:td 1 ,
I I . . . l:t d7! is sufficient.
9 0-0-0 exd5!
Possibly the only move. After
9 . . . ..ie7 1 0 ..t xf6 ..ixf6 1 1 dxe6
..ixe6 1 2 tt:lxf6 + 1f xf6 1 3 1f xd6
tt:ld7 1 5 e3 Black has difficulties
with castling. However, there is
still unclear play after 1 5 . . . a5!
and a5-a4-a3.
10 ..ixf6 gxf6 1 1 cxd5
But not 1 1 1fxd5?! ..ie6! 1 2
1i'd3 l:t d7 1 3 e 3 d5! 1 4 cxd5
l:t xd5 1 5 1fc2 l:t x d 1 + 1 6 1f xd 1
1fxd1 + 1 7 <l;xd 1 ..txa2 1 8 tt:lxf6 +
<l;e7 1 9 tt:le4 ..ig7 and Black has
the initiative.
1 1 . . . f5 1 2 tt:lg3 1ff6 13 e3
(see following diagram)
And now not 13 . . . ..ig7?! as
was played in Naumkin-Kozlov,
USSR 1 986 where after 14 Wc2
h5 15 ..id3 f4 16 tt:le4 1f h6 1 7
84 The Blumenfeld Gambit
exf4 W'xf4 + 18 W'd2 ..ih6 1 9
� b t ..ig4 2 0 .l:l. de t ! .l:l. e7 2 1
W'xf4 ..ixf4 2 2 tt:lh4! White had
gained a winning position.
Black could complicate by 1 3 . . .
h5 immediately. To obtain chances
Black must keep the queens on
the board. Then the position is
still unclear, and this is our conclu­
sion from the 8 . . . .l:l. a7! analyses.
G. 8 e3
( I d4 tt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt:lf3 a6 4
tt:lc3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 ..ig5 b4 7 tt:le4
d6 8 e3)
(see following diagram)
Perhaps a little too slow,
although it does of course help
White's development. 8 . . . ..ie7 is
a reasonable move here, but Black
waits until White has committed
his bishop on fl .
8 . . . .l:l. a7 9 ..ie2 exd5?!
A tactical miscalculation. 9 . . .
J.. e7 should have been played,
with the main line running 1 0
..ixf6 ..ixf6 I I dxe6 ( I I tt:lxf6 +
W'xf6 1 2 dxe6 W' xb2!) I I . . .
..ixe6, and if now 1 2 W' xd6 W' xd6
1 3 tt:lxd6 + �e7 14 tt:le4 ..i xb2
1 5 .l:l. b l ..tf5! with good chances
for Black. This theme is repeated
on 1 2 W'a4 + .l:l.d7 1 3 tt:lxd6 +
�f8 14 tt:le4 ..ixb2 1 5 .l:l. b l J.. f5.
t O ..ixf6 gxf6 t t W' xd5!
For now the natural move I I
. . . f5 is answered by 1 2 tt:lxc5!
Black is therefore forced on the
defensive.
t t . . . ..ie6 1 2 W' h5! .l:l.d7 1 3
.1:1. d t..ie7 t 4 tt:lg3?!
After this the game gets
extremely double-edged. 14 0-0,
meeting 14 . . . W'a5 with 1 5 W' h6,
would have been more accurate.
After 1 4 . . . tt:lc6 1 5 tt:lg3 White
has a positional edge because of
his light square control.
14 . . . W'a5! 15 0-0 W' xa2 1 6
W' h6 W' xb2 1 7 W' g7 .l:l. f8 1 8
tt:lg5
 Modern Treatment of The Blumenfeld Gambit: 85

� lDc3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 j_g5 b4 7 lDe4

========"� j_e7)
To end this chapter, and in
counterpoint to the material
analysed here, I would like to draw
the reader's attention to another
interesting idea. Namely, instead
of 7 . . . d6, in Lerner-Gurgenidze,
Riga 1 985. Black tried 7 . . . j_e7

18 . . . 'ihe2!
Black must simplify; passive
defence is of little help, for example
1 8 . . . �d8?! 1 9 lDxh7 .l:t e8 20 f4
1 8 . . . ..We5 is interesting, meeting
1 9 lDxh7 with 1 9 . . . f5 20 ..W xe5
dxe5 21 lDxf8 j_xf8, and Black's
queenside pawns will be dang­
erous. White can improve with 1 9.
lDxe6! fxe6 20 f4! with a vicious
attack. This continuation is tactically
19 lDxe2 fxg5 20 :t e l f5 with acceptable, because if 8 d6, then 8
the two extra bishops and two . . . lDxe4 8 j_xe7 ..W b6 1 0 ..Wd3
passed pawns providing excellent j_b7 I I e3 f5 12 lDe5 with an
compensation for the queen in unclear position, or I I . . . lDc6!?
Pritchett-Crouch, Glenrothes 12 ..Wxe4 lDxe7 1 3 ..Wf4 lDf5 1 4
1 989. White won after 21 ..Wal .l:t d l j_xf3 1 5 ..Wxf3 0-0 1 6 ..Wf4
�f7 22 ..Wa4 .l:t a7? 23 f4! g4 24 WaS! and Black has a good game.
e4, but 22 . . . .l:t b7! would have After 8 ..Wd3 lDxe4 9 ..W xe4 j_b7!
been perfectly playable. 10 j_xe7 'iWxe7 I I .l:t d l d6 1 2 g3
Summary : 8 e3 does not e5 Black again stands very well.
threaten the viability of Black's 8 j_xf6 j_xf6! 9 ..Wd2
play. Of course, after 9 lDxc5 j_xb2
I 0 .1:t b I j_c3 + White has some
H. 7 . . . j_e7
troubles. But 9 ..Wd3!?
( I d4 lD f6 2 c4 e6 3 lDf3 a6 4 9 . . . d6!
86 The Blumenfeld Gambit
Very well done! Black solves all
his problems connected with the
d-file. If now 1 0 dxe6, then 10 . . .
..txe6 1 1 lLlxd6 + �e7 1 2 0-0-0
( 1 2 lLle4 -.xd2 + 1 3 lLlfxd2
..txb2 1 4 %1 b 1 ..tc3 1 5 lLlxc5
..txc4 = ) 1 2 . . . n a7!, here both 1 3
-.e3 nd7 1 4 lLlf5 + �e8 1 5
n xd7 lLlxd7 and 1 3 lLle4 %1 d7 1 4
-.c2 n xd 1 + 1 5 •xd 1 •xd 1 +
1 6 �xd 1 ..txc4 give Black good
prospects.
10 a3 bxa3 1 1 n xa3 0-0 1 2 e3 e5
13 h3 ..te7 14 g4 f5 15 gxf5 ..txf5
with even chances.
Conclusion: it looks like 7 . . .
..te7 is worth considering in the
future!
* * *
From the analyses mentioned
above one may draw a few conclu­
sions.
Firstly, White players obstin­
ately pursue the variation 1 d4 lLlf6
2 c4 e6 3 lLlf3 a6 4 lZ:Jc3 c5 5 d5 b5
6 ..tg5, while many impenetrable
possibilities are concealed in the
variation 6 dxe6 fxe6 7 cxb5. I
would like to draw the readers'
attention to this area.
Secondly, in the variation 6
..t g5, the continuation 6 . . . b4 7
lLle4 ..te7!? looks very attractive
for Black, as it reduces many poten­
tial possibilities for White. Chiefly
I mean these variations in which
White organises pressure along the
d-file.
Thirdly, it is worth considering
that after the exchange ..txf6 or
lLlxf6 and g7xf6 Black's position is
very dynamic and flexible. The
games Browne-Dzindzichasftvili
(see Historical Sketch), Tarjan­
Alburt (see Chapter 6, section C)
are very instructive in this respect.
On the other hand, games such as
van der Sterren-Sosonko (Chap­
ter 6, section C), Agzamov-Inkiov
(Chapter 6, section D) show how
the mobilisation of White's pieces
in the centre can muffle Black's
search for counterplay.
In conclusion, I would like to
emphasise that throughout the
variation analysed in this chapter
there is still room for improve­
ments both for White and Black.
Therefore, the move 3 . . . a6 may be
a strong alternative to the classical
lines of the Blumenfeld Gambit.
 EPI LOGUE
I n this book I have tried to
review developments and the pre­
sent state of affairs in the area of the
Blumenfeld Gambit. I have shown
almost all the most important con­
tinuations arising after l d4 lL!f6 2
c4 e6 3 lL!f3 c5 4 d5 b5 and l d4 lL!f6
2 c4 e6 3 lL!f3 a6 4 lL!c3 c5 5 d5 b5. On
the basis of this discussion it seems
that the Blumenfeld Gambit is still
playable, and may be an excellent
87
alternative to the tired variations of
the Queen's Indian or Modern
Benoni. I hope that this discussion
has cleared up many of the dark
sides of the Blumenfeld Gambit
and, additionally, that adherents of
the opening will bring in some cor­
rections to my analysis, some
improvements and innovations.
Only in such a way will the theory
of this interesting opening develop.
 APPENDIX :
SE LECTED GAMES

The material gathered here* may Zivanovic-R istic,

be used in different ways, depend­ Smederanska Palanka 1 98 1
ing on the reader's need.
1 d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:lf3 c5 4 d5 b5
First of all, it may be treated as
5 .i.g5 'ifa5 + 6 'ifd2 W xd2 + 7
an easily accessible 'card index' of
lt:l bxd2 bxc4 8 .i.xf6 gxf6 9 e4
the most important games in the
.i.b7 1 0 .i.xc4 lt:la6 1 1 .l:t d 1 lt:lc7
Blumenfeld Gambit.
12 0-0 .l:t g8 1 3 lt:lb3 d6 14 lt:la5
Second, as repetitio est mater
.i.a6 1 5 .i.xa6 lt:lxa6 1 6 lt:lc4
studiorum, it may be useful
..t>d7 1 7 .l:t d2 'it>c7 1 8 .l:t fd l .l:td8
for a general revision after reading
1 9 h3 lt:l b4 2 0 a3 lt:la6 21 .l:td3
this book.
.i.e7 2 2 'it>fl .l:t d7 23 lt:lgl .l:t g5
Third, such a review may be a
24 lt:le2 e5 25 lt:lg3 .l:t g8 26 .l:t b3
good occasion for independent
.l:t b8 27 .l:t dd3 .l:t dd8 28 lt:lf5
analysis, without any author's
.i.f8 29 .l:t xb8 .l:t xb8
suggestions.
Fourth, quoting many im­
portant games in extenso seems
very sensible. After all, a game
must be seen as an inseparable unit
formed by an opening, a middle
game, and an ending. A study of
complete games with the Blumen­
feld Gambit will enrich one's
intuitive feel for the special charac­
teristics and processes of this
opening.

• There have been omitted only those few games, which the reader can find in the historical
chapter.

88
 Appendix
30 :t g3 ..t>d7 3 1 :t g8 h5 32 :t h8
h4 33 :t h7 ..t>e8 34 :t xh4 t:i:Jc7 35
:t h8 t:i:Jb5 36 t?Jfxd6 + t:i:Jxd6 37
t:i:Jxd6 + ..t>d7 38 t:i:Jc4 ..t>e7 39
:t g8 :t b7 40 d6 + ..t>e8 41 h4
:t b8 42 h 5 1 -0
Bukic-Inkiov,
Banja Luka 1 983
I d4 t?Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 t?Jf3 c5 4 d5 b5
5 ..tg5 'jj' a 5 + 6 'jj' d 2 'jj' x d2 + 7
t:i:J bxd2 bxc4 8 ..txf6 gxf6 9 e4
t:i:Ja6 1 2 ..txc4 t:i:Jc7 I I 0-0-0 :t b8
1 2 :t he ! :t g8 1 3 g3 ..tb7 1 4 t:i:J b l
..ta6 1 5 ..txa6 t:i:Jxa6 1 6 t:i:Ja3
:t b4 1 7 b3 t:i:Jc7 1 8 t:i:Jc4 t:i:Ja8 1 9
..t>c2 t:i:Jb6 20 t:i:Jxb6 :t xb6 2 1
t:i:Jd2 h 5 22 t:i:Jc4 : b7 2 3 :td3
..t> d 8 29 f4 h 4 2 5 f5 hxg3 2 6 hxg3
�c7 27 :t h l :t b8 28 :t h7 :t g7
29 ll h8 exf5 30 exf5 :te8 3 1 :t f3
:t g4 32 �c3 :t d4 33 :t d3 :t g4
34 :t f3 :t d4 3 5 :td 3 :t g4 36 a3
:t g5 37 :t f3 :t g4 38 a4 :t d4 39
:t d 3 :tg4 40 a5 a6 41 :t f3 :t d4
42 :t d3 :t g4 H.
Gralka- Przewoznik,
Sopot 1 982
I d4 t?Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 t:i:Jf3 c5 4 d5 b5
5 ..t g5 'jj' a 5 + 6 'jj' d 2 'jj' x d2 + 7
t:i:Jbxd2 bxc4 8 ..txf6 gxf6 9 e4
t:i:Ja6 1 0 ..txc4 ..tb7 I I 0-0-0 :t g8
1 2 g3 t:i:Jc7 1 3 :t he ! d6 1 4 � b l
0-0-0 1 5 t:i:J b 3 f5 1 6 t:i:Ja5 ..ta8 1 7
exf5 exd5 1 8 .i.fl .i.g7 1 9 t:i:Jg5
..txb2 20 t:i:Jxf7
(see following diagram)
20 . . . .i.c3 2 1 t:i:Jxd8 �xd8 22
t:i:J b3 .i.xe I 23 :t xe I d4 24 .i.c4
89
�
:t e8 25 :t xe8 + �xe8 26 �cl
�e7 27 .i.d3 �f6 28 f4 ..td5 29
t:i:Jd2 ..txa2 30 t:i:Je4 + �e7 3 1
f6 + �d7 3 2 t:i:Jg5 h6 3 3 ..tf5 +
�e8 34 t:i:Je4 �f7 35 ..tg4 t:i:Jb5
36 ..td7 ..td5 3 7 t:i:Jxc5 dxc5 38
..txb5 � xf6 39 �d2 c4 40 g4 c3 +
4 1 �d3 .i.e4 + 42 �e2 a5 43
.i.a4 h5 44 gxh5 ..t>f5 45 .i.e8
� xf4 0- 1 .
Kuligowski- Przewoznik,
Poland 1 980
I d4 t:i:Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 t?Jf3 c5 4 d5 b5
5 ..tg5 'jj' a 5 + 6 'jj' d2 'jj' xd2 + 7
t:i:Jbxd2 bxc4 8 e4 .i. b7 9 .i. xf6
gxf6 I 0 ..txc4 t:i:Ja6 I I 0-0 t:i:Jc7 1 2
:t fd l ll g8 1 3 g3 :t b8 1 4 t:i:Jb3 d6
1 5 t:i:Jh4 .i.a6 1 6 .i.xa6 t:i:Jxa6 1 7
t:i:Jg2 :t b4 1 8 :t e l �d7 1 9 :t e2
.i.h6 20 t:i:Ja5 :t a4 2 1 t:i:Jc6 t:i:Jc7
22 b3 :t a3 23 b4 exd5 24 exd5
t:i:Jxd5 25 b5 a6 26 :t ae l axb5 27
t:i:Je7 t:i:Jxe7 28 :t xe7 + �c6 29
:txf7 :t xa2 30 f4 b4 3 1 :t ee7 b3
32 t:i:Je3 :t c8 3 3 ll b7 b2 34 t:i:Jfl
.i.xf4 0- 1 .
90 T he Blumenfeld Gambit
Lukov-Semkov,
Bulgaria 1 977
I d4 lL!f6 2 c4 e6 3 lL!f3 c5 4 d5 b5
5 ..tg5 'jfa5 + 6 'jfd2 'jfxd2 + 7
lL!bxd2 bxc4 8 e4 ..tb7 9 ..txf6
gxf6 1 0 ..txc4 f5 I I 0-0-0 ..th6 1 2
q;, b l 0-0 1 3 ll he l a5 1 4 lL!b3 d6
1 5 exf5 a4 1 6 dxe6 axb3 1 7 e7
bxa2 + 18 ..txa2 ll e8 19 ll xd6
..tf4 20 lL!e5 ..txe5 21 ll xe5 lL!c6
22 l:txc6 ..txc6 23 f6 h6 24 ll e3 c4
25 ..txc4 ll ec8 26 b3 ll a5 27 g4
..te8 28 f4 ll ca8 29 ll d3 q;, h 7 30
ll d6 ll c8 3 1 h4 l:ta7 32 q;,b2
ll d7 33 ll xd7 ..txd7 34 ..txf7
ll b8 35 g5 hxg5 36 fxg5 ..te8 37
g6 + 1 -0.
Lukov-Przewoznik,
Nal�czow 1 980
I d4 lL!f6 2 c4 e6 3 lL!f3 c5 4 d5 b5 5
..tg5 'jfa5 + 6 'jfd2 'jf xd2 + 7
lL!fxd2 bxc4 8 ..txf6 gxf6 9 e4 lL!a6
I 0 ..txc4 ll b8 I I lL!c3 l:Xb2 1 2
0-0-0 ll b8 1 3 lL!b5 ..t b7 1 4 lL!b3
f5 15 dxe6 fxe6 1 6 lL!d6 + ..txd6
1 7 ll xd6 lL!b4 18 exf5 q;,e7 1 3
lld2 ..txg2 20 ll g l
20 . . . d 5 2 1 ll xg2 dxc4 2 2 lL!xc5
ll hc8 23 f6 + �f7 24 lL!e4
lL!d3 + 25 q;,d I ll b I + 26 �e2
lL!f4 + 27 �f3 lL!xg2 28 ll d7 +
q;,g6 29 ll g7 + �h6 30 ll xg2 c3
31 f7 c2 32 lL!f6 c l 'jt' 33 lL!g8 +
�h5 34 lL!f6 + � h4 35 ll g4 +
q;,h3 36 ll g3 + �xh2 37 lL!g4 +
q;, h l 38 ll h3 + q;,gt 39 lL!e3
'jfc6 + 0- l .
Langeweg-Fernandez,
Marbella 1 982
I d4 lL!f6 2 lL!f3 c5 3 d5 e6 4 c4 b5
5 ..tg5 'jfa5 + 6 lL!c3 lL!e4 7 ..td2
lL!xd2 8 'jf xd2 b4 9 lL!d I g6 10 h4
h6 I I g3 ..tg7 12 ..tg2 ..tb7 1 3 e4
lL!a6 1 4 lL!e3 0-0-0 1 5 h5 �b8 1 6
..tfl ll hf8 1 7 ..te2 f5 1 8 hxg6 fxe4
1 9 lL!h4 lL!c7 20 lL!hg2 ..td4 2 1
 Appendix
ll xh6 exd5 22 cxd5 lLlxd5 23 ll h5
ll:Jxe3 24 fxe3 'Wc7 25 lLlf4 ..te5
26 0-0-0 ll g8 27 ..tc4 d5 28 ll:Je6
'We7 29 ll:Jxd8 ll xd8 30 'Wf2 'Wg7 3 1
ll h7 'W xg6 32 ll xb7 + ..txb7 33
ll xd5 ll xd5 34 ..ixd5 + ..tb6 35
"Wf7 !-! .
Hartston-Martin,
London 1 9 8 1
1 d 4 lLlf6 2 lLlf3 e6 3 c4 c 5 4 d 5 b5
5 ..tg5 'it'a5 + 6 lLlc3 lLle4 7 ..td2
lLlxd2 8 'W xd2 b4 9 ll:Jd I d6 10 e4
e5 1 1 h4 lLld7 1 2 ..td3 lLlf6 1 3
lLle3 g6 1 4 a3 ..th6 1 5 0-0 'Wb6 1 6
axb4 cxb4
1 7 c5 'W xc5 1 8 ll fc l 'W b6 1 9 ll c4
0-0 20 ll xb4 'Wd8 2 1 ..tb5 a5 22
ll ba4 ll:Jg4 23 ll xa5 ll xa5 24
'W xa5 'W xa5 25 ll xa5 ll:Jxe3 26
fxe3 ..txe3 + 27 >Pfl f5 28 ..td3
.id7 29 ..t>e2 .ib6 30 ll a6 ll b8
3 1 lLld2 .ic5 32 b3 ll f8 33 ..tc4
h6 34 ..id3 f4 35 lLlc4 ..tg4 + 36
..td2 f3 37 gxf3 ll xf3 38 lLlxe5
ll f2 + 39 ..t>c3 ..t h5 40 lL:ld7 1 -0.
91
Plachetka-Przewoznik,
Polanica Zdroj 1 980
I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lLlf3 c5 4 d5 b5
5 ..tg5 'Wa5 + 6 ..td2 'W b6 7 lLlc3
bxc4 8 e4 ..ta6 9 'Wc2 exd5 10 e5
'W e6 1 1 0-0-0 lLle4 1 2 lLl xe4 dxe4
1 3 'it' xe4 d5 1 4 ..tg5 h6 1 5 ll xd5
hxg5 1 6 lLlxg5 'Wg6 1 7 'Wg4 ..te7
1 8 f4 ..ixg5 1 9 fxg5 0-0 20 lld6
..ic 8 2 1 'W h4 'W h 7 22 'W xc4 .if5
23 'W f4 lLld7 24 ..tb5 lLlb6 25
ll fl .ie6 26 ..id3 'W h5 27 'We4
c4 28 ..ic2 'Wxg5 + 29 ..t b 1 g6 30
h4 'Wh5 3 1 'Wd4 'We2 32 ll f6
'We1 + 33 ..t d l ..tf5 + 34 >Pc1 c3
35 bxc3 ll ac8 36 ll c6 ll cd8 39
ll cd6 ll xd6 38 ll xd6 ll c8 39
ll d8 + ll xd8 40 'it'xd8 + ..th7
41 'it'd4 'We4 0- 1 .
Spassov-Manolov,
Primorsko 1 975
I lLlf3 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 d4 c5 4 d5 b5 5
..tg5 'Wa5 + 6 lLl bd2 bxc4 7 ..txf6
gxf6 8 e4 f5 9 dxe6 fxe4 1 0 exf7 +
 92 T he Blumenfeld Gambit
�d8 I I .ixc4 .ib7 1 2 tt:lgS h6 1 3
tt:lxe4 . be4 1 4 *'g4 dS I S 0-0
'iWxd2
(see diagram on previous page)
1 6 J: ad l hS 1 7 'iWe6 'iW h6 1 8
'iW xe4 �c7 1 9 'iW xdS tt:lc6 20
'iWd7 + �b6 2 1 J: d3 tt:l b4 22
'iWbS + 1 -0.
Chernin-Miles,
Tunis 1 98S
I d4 tt:lf6 2 tt:lf3 e6 3 c4 cS 4 dS bS
S .igS h6 6 .i xf6 'iWxf6 7 *' c2
exdS 8 cxd S d6 9 e4 a6 1 0 a4 b4 1 1
lLl bd2 .ig4 1 2 eS dxeS 1 3 tt:le4
*' f4 14 tt:lfd2 .ifS 1 S .id3 .ixe4
1 6 tt:l xe4 tt:ld7 1 7 g3 'iWg4 1 8 h3
'iWhS 1 9 d6 *'g6 20 J: d 1 b3 21
*'e2 fS 22 g4 c4 23 .i b 1 fxg4 24
• xc4 *' f7 2S *'c6 J:d8 26 hxg4
g6 27 tt:lcS : g8 28 .ie4 .ig7 29
tt:lxa6 *'f4 30 tt:lc7 + �f7 3 1
*' c4 + �f6 3 2 tt:ldS + 1 -0.
33 'iWe4 + J: g6 34 h4 *' xeS 3S
*' xeS .i xeS 36 tt:lc4 .ic3 37 J: e3
J: g4 38 .ibS .id4 39 J: e2 b3 40
a6 b2 4 1 tt:lxb2 .ixb2 42 J: xb2
J: d4 43 �fl �g7 44 J: a2 J: xdS
4S .ic6 J: d4 H .
Shashin-Bastrikov,
USSR 1 967
I d4 tt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt:lf3 cS 4 dS exdS
S cxdS bS 6 .ig5 h6 7 .ixf6 'iWxf6
8 'iWc2 d6 9 e4 a6 1 0 a4 b4 1 1 tt:lbd2
tt:ld7 1 2 tt:lc4 g5 1 3 .id3 .ig7 1 4
0-0 'iWe7 1 5 e 5 dxeS 1 6 d 6 *'d8 1 7
J: fe l 0-0 1 8 J: ad 1 J: e8 1 9 aS b3
20 *'xb3 J: b8 2 1 *'c2 J: b4 22
tt:lfd2 .i b7 23 .ie4 *'b8 24 b3
tt:lf8 2S .ixb7 *' xb7 26 *'f5 *'d7
27 'ilf f3 'iW b7 28 tt:le4 tt:ld7

Malich-lnkiov,
DDR-Bulgaria 1 982
1 d4 tt:lf6 2 tt:lf3 e6 3 c4 cS 4 dS bS S
a4 exdS 6 cxdS b4 7 .i gS h6 8 .i xf6
•xf6 9 *'c2 d6 1 0 tt:lbd2 .ie7 1 1 e4
0-0 1 2 .id3 tt:ld7 1 3 0-0 J: e8
1 4 J: fe 1 .if8 1 5 .ib5 J: e7 1 5
tt:lc4 a6 1 7 .ic6 J: b8 1 8 aS gS 1 9
h 3 *'g6 20 J: e3 .ig7 2 1 J: ae l
tt:le5 2 2 tt:lb6 h S 2 3 *'e2 �h7 24 29 tt:l b6 J: b8 30 tt:l xd7 *'xd7 3 1
tt:l xc8 J: xc8 2S *' xa6 J: g8 26 tt:l xcS *'bS 32 J: dS *' xaS 3 3
*'e2 g4 27 tt:lh4 *'gS 28 tt:lfS J: ed 1 J: d4 3 4 d7 *'b6 3S tt:lb7
tt:lf3 + 29 J: xf3 gxf3 30 *' xf3 .if6 36 J: 1 xd4 exd4 37 J: d6 *'c7
J: a7 3 1 tt:l xd6 .ixb2 32 eS .ic3 3 8 g3 .ieS 39 d8*' + 1 -0.
 Appendix
Haik-Barlov,
Vrnjacka Banja 1 9 8 1
I d 4 �f6 2 c4 c 5 3 d5 b 5 4 �0 e6
5 ..tg5 exd5 6 cxd5 'ii' a 5 + 7 �c3
�e4 8 'ii' d 3 �xg5 9 � xg5 ..te7
10 �ge4 c4 I I 'ii' d 4 0-0 1 2 d6 ..td8
1 3 'ii' d 5
93
�e4 8 ..td2 � xd2 9 � xd2 d6 1 0
e4 a6 I I ..te2 l0d7 1 2 0-0 ..te7 1 3
a4 b4 1 4 �cb l ..tf6 1 5 �c4 'ii' c7
1 6 �bd2 0-0 1 7 a5 ll b8 1 8 f4 ll e8
1 9 � h i ..td4 20 ..tg4 �f6 2 1
..txc8 ll bxc8 22 'ii' O ll cd8 23
ll ae l 'ii' d 7 24 h3 h6 25 �h2 �h7
26 �b3 'ii' b 5 27 'ii' d 3 ..txb2 28
�xb2 'ii' xd3 29 �xd3 c4 30
�xb4 cxb3 3 1 e5 dxe5 32 fxe5 b2
33 �xa6 b l 'ii' 34 ll x b l ll xe5 35
�c7 lle7 36 ll b7 ll c8 37 d6
ll d7 38 a6 ll xd6 39 a7 ll dd8 40
ll a l �g5 4 1 a8'ii' ll xa8 42
ll xa8 1 -0.

T. Petrosian-Sax,
NiHic t 983
I d4 �f6 2 �0 e6 3 c4 c5 4 d5 b5
5 ..tg5 exd5 6 cxd5 'ii' a 5 + 7 �c3
�e4 8 ..td2 �xd2 9 � xd2 b4 1 0
�cb 1 ..ta6 I I e 4 g 6 1 2 ..t xa6
'ii' x a6 1 3 'ii' c2 d6 14 �c4 ..tg7 1 5
13 . . . ..ta6 14 g4 �c6 15 ..tg2 b4 � bd2 �d7 1 6 0-0 ll b8 1 7 a3
1 6 'ii' x a5 ..txa5 1 7 �d5 �d4 1 8
0-0-0 � xe2 + 1 9 � b I c 3 20 b3
ll fc8 21 �e7 + �f8 22 � xc8
ll xc8 23 �c2 ..t b6 24 ll he I
ll e8 25 0 �d4 + 26 �cl ll e5
27 ..tfl ..tb7 28 ll xd4 ..txd4 29
..tc4 g6 30 ll d I ..te3 + 3 1 �c2
..t xe4 + 32 fxe4 ll xe4 33 ll e l ll e5
34 ll fl f5 35 gxf5 gxf5 36 ..td3 f4
37 ..txh7 ll h5 38 ..td3 ll xh2 + 39
� b l ll b2 + 40 � a t ll d2 0- 1 .

Kuligowski- Ermenkov,
Nis t 979
I d4 �f6 2 c4 e6 3 �0 c5 4 d5 b5
5 ..tg5 exd5 6 cxd5 'ii' a5 + 7 �c3
94 The Blumenfeld Gambit
I 7 . . . b3 I 8 tt::l x b3 0-0 1 9 tt::l bd2 5 ..tg5 h6 6 ..txf6 'it'xf6 7 'it'c2 b4
.id4 20 �h I tt::l f6 2 I f3 tt::l h 5 22 8 tt::l b d2 g5 9 e4 g4 10 tt::l g 1 ..t g7
l:l ad 1 'it'b7 23 g3 'it'd7 24 �g2 f5 1 1 l:l b 1 h5 1 2 .id3 d6 1 3 tt::le2
25 b3 tt::l f6 26 h3 f4 27 g4 'it'e7 28 tt::l d 7 1 4 f4 gxf3 1 5 tt::l xf3 tt::le 5 1 6
'it'd3 tt::l d 7 29 'it'e2 h5 30 l:l h 1 0-0 'it'h6 1 7 tt::l x e5 ..t xe5 1 8 � h i
tt::l f6 3 1 'it'd3 hxg4 32 fxg4 f3 + 33 .id7 1 9 tt::l g 1 h4 20 tt::l f3 .i g3 2 1
tt::l xf3 W' xe4 34 W'xe4 tt::l xe4 35 b4 e5 dxe5 22 dxe6 .i xe6 2 3 ..tf5
l:l be8 36 l:l he 1 .ic3 H . ..txf5 29 'it' xf5 'it'f4 25 'it'h3 �e7
26 l:l bd 1 l:l ad8 27 l:l xd8 l:l xd8
Kozlov-Bykanov, 28 hxg3 hxg3
USSR 1986
1 d4 tt::l f6 2 c4 e6 3 tt::l f3 c5 4 d5 b5
5 .ig5 exd5 6 cxd5 d6 7 a4 b4 8 e3
.ie7 9 .i b5 + .id7 10 .ic4 0-0
1 I h3 h6 I 2 .if4 .if5 1 3 tt::l bd2
tt::l bd7 14 a5 tt::l e8 I S 0-0 .if6 1 6
'it'b3 a6 I 7 l:l a2 tt::l e 5 1 8 .ixe5
dxe5 19 .id3 .i xd3 20 "ii xd3
tt::l c 7 2 1 d6 tt::l b 5 22 tt::l e4 l:l c8 23
tt::l fd2 g6 24 tt::l c4 .ig7 25 l:l d I
�h7 26 'it'd5 b3 27 l:l aa 1 'it'h4
1 -0.

Cerna- Poloch,
Ruse 1 986
I d4 tt::l f6 2 c4 e6 3 tt::l f3 c5 4 d5 b5 5
.ig5 exd5 6 cxd5 d6 7 e4 a6 8 a4
.te7 9 .txf6 .txf6 1 0 axb5 ..txb2
1 1 l:l a2 ..tf6 1 2 tt::l b d2 0-0 1 3 ..td3
..tb7 14 0-0 'it'c7 15 b6 'it'xb6 1 6
'it' b 1 'it'c7 1 7 e5 ..te7 1 8 exd6 ..txd6
1 9 ..txh7 + �h8 20 l:l a4 g6 2 1
..txg6 fxg6 22 'it'xg6 ..tf4 2 3 l:l e 1
'it' f7 24 tt::le 5 'it' xd5 2 5 tt::l df3 tt::lc6 26
'it'h5 + �g7 27 'it'g4 + �h7 28
tt::l g5 + 1 -0.
Nikolic-Miles,
Tunis 1 985
I d4 tt::l f6 2 c4 e6 3 tt::l f3 c5 4 d5 b5
29 'it'h7 l:l d6 0- l .
Am. Rodriguez-M. Gonzales,
Biel l 985
I d4 tt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt::l f3 c5 4 d5 b5
5 .ig5 h6 6 .i xf6 'it' xf6 7 'it'c2 b4
8 e4 g5 9 tt::l bd2 g4 10 tt::l g 1 ..tg7
1 1 l:l b 1 d6 1 2 ..td3 tt::l d 7 1 3 tt::le2
tt::l e5 I4 0-0 h5 1 5 f4 gxf3 1 6 tt::l xf3
'it'h6 1 7 tt::l xe5 ..t xe5 1 8 �h 1 h4
19 tt::l g 1 'it'g7 20 tt::l f3 ..tf4 21 a3
aS 22 axb4 axb4 23 l:l a l l:l xa 1 24
l:l xa i l:l g8 25 l:l a8 b3 26 'it' f2
�d7 2 7 tt::l x h4 'it' h 6 2 8 g 3 l:l h8
29 e5 �e7 30 'it'xf4 'it'xf4 3 1 gxf4
 Appendix 95

l:txh4 32 .l:l xc8 .l:l xf4 33 .l:l c7 + ll:ld6 .txd6 1 5 exd6 �c8 1 6 Wb5
�d8 34 exd6 .l:l d4 35 .tfl .:. d I ll:la6 17 .tg2 exd5 18 .l:l he l Wf8
36 �g l exd5 37 .l:l xc5 dxc4 38 I9 .l:le7 .tc6 20 Wxa5 Wd8 2 1
.l:l xc4 .l:l d2 39 .l:l c3 .l:l xb2 40 Wxd8 + �xd8 22 cxd5 .tb5 23
.th3 1 -0. .l:lf7 ll:lb8 24 � b l .te2 25 .l:l d 2
.l:l e8 2 6 .l:l xf6 c4
Portisch-Rogers,
Reggio Emilia 1 985
1 d4 ll:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 ll:lf3 c5 4 d5 b5
5 .tg5 h6 6 .txf6 Wxf6 7 ll:lc3 b4
8 ll:lb5 �d8 9 e4 g5 10 .td3 .tb7
I I e5 Wg7 1 2 Wa4 a5 I 3 0-0 g4 1 4
ll:ld2 Wxe5 1 5 Wc2 .l:l a6 1 6 .l:l fe i
Wg7 1 7 a 3 h5 I 8 axb4 cxb4 I 9 dxe6
fxe6 20 .te4 ll:lc6 2 I .l:l ad l h4 22
ll:lb3 a4 23 ll:l3d4 ll:lxd4 24 ll:lxd4
.txe4 25 Wxe4 �c8 26 �h i
.tc5 27 .l:l e2 .l:l f8 28 ll:lb5 g3 29
�g3 hxg3 30 h3 a3 3 1 bxa3 bxa3 32
W b 1 .l:l f2 33 .l:l a2 .l:l xa2 34
Wxa2 Wb2 0- l .

Naumkin-011,
USSR 1 985
1 d4 ll:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 ll:lf3 c5 4 d5 b5
5 .tg5 h6 6 .txf6 Wxf6 7 ll:lc3 b4
8 ll:lb5 �d8 9 a3 Wxb2 1 0 e4 a6
1 1 axb4 exd5 1 2 cxd5 .tb7 1 3 .:. b I
Wf6 1 4 e5 Wf4 1 5 ll:lc3 cxb4 1 6 g3
Wg4 1 7 .td3 d6 1 8 e6 fxe6 1 9 h3
Wh5 20 g4 Wf7 2 1 .l:l xb4 e5 22 0-0
a5 23 .l:l b6 .t xd5 24 ll:lxe5 1 -0.
Malaniuk-Palatnik,
Tallinn 1 985
1 d4 ll:lf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 ll:lf3 e6
5 .t g5 h6 6 .txf6 Wxf6 7 ll:lc3 b4
8 ll:lb5 �d8 9 e4 g5 1 0 e5 Wg7 I I
g4 .tb7 1 2 Wa4 a5 1 3 0-0-0 f6 1 4
27 ll:le5 .l:l xe5 28 .l:l f8 + .l:l e8 29
.l:l xe8 + �xe8 30 .l:l xe2 + �d8
31 .l:l e4 c3 32 .l:l xb4 cxb2 33 f4
�c8 34 fxg5 hxg5 35 .l:l e4 .l:l a6 36
.l:l e8 + �b7 37 .l:le5 .l:l b6 38
.tfl .l:l b4 39 .l:l xg5 .l:l f4 40 .tb5
.l:lf2 4 1 h4 �b6 42 a4 .l:l h2 43
.l:l g8 1 -0.
Lein-Lombardy,
Lone Pine I 98 1
I d4 ll:lf6 2 ll:lf3 c5 3 d 5 b5 4 c4 e6
5 .tg5 bxc4 6 ll:lc3 W b6 7 .txf6
gxf6 8 Wd2 ll:la6 9 e4 .l:l g8 1 0 g3
.l:l b8 1 1 .l:l b 1 W b4 1 2 a3 Wb3 1 3
Wet W b6 1 4 .txc4 ll:lc7 1 5 0-0
.l:l g6 1 6 .l:l d l .ta6 1 7 b3 .tc8 1 8
Wd2 Wa5 1 9 dxe6 fxe6
96 The Blumenfeld Gambit
20 lL!d5 'ihd2 21 lbxc7 + �d8
22 lL!xe6 + dxe6 23 .l:txd2 + �c7
24 .ll bd l i.e7 25 lL!h4 .ll g7 26
lL!g2 .1:1 b6 27 lL!f4 i.d6 28
lL!xe6 + i.xe6 29 i.xe6 i.xg3 30
.l:rd7 + .l:r xd7 3 1 .l:r xd7 + �b8
32 ..tc4 .l:r d 6 33 .ll xh7 .l:r d l + 34
�g2 ..te5 35 h4 ..td4 36 .l:r h5
.l:r d2 37 .l:r f5 1 -0.
Griinfeld-Michell,
Margate 1 923
I d4 lL!f6 2 lL!f3 e6 3 c4 c5 4 d5 b5
5 ..tg5 ..tb7 6 e4 'liaS + 7 'ii d2
'iW xd2 + 8 lL!fxd2 b4 9 ..td3 d6 1 0
0-0 lL!bd7 I I f4 ..te7 1 2 lL!f3 exd5
1 3 exd5 0-0 14 lL!bd2 .l:r fe8 1 5
.l:r ae l ..tf8 1 6 lL!b3 a5 1 7 .l:r xe8
lbxe8 18 .l:r e l f6 19 ..th4 lbc7
(see following diagram)
20 g4 g6 2 1 lL!bd2 �f7 22 .ig3
lbb6 23 f5 g5 24 lbe4 lL!e8 25 h4
h6 26 hxg5 hxg5 27 lL!fxg5 + fxg5
28 lbxg5 + <Otg8 29 .l:re6 lL!d7 30
.l:r g6 + .ig7 31 lL!e6 �f7 32
lL!xg7 lL!xg7 33 .l:r xd6 ..tc8 34
.l:r c6 lL!f6 35 g5 lL!fh5 36 .l:r c7 +
�g8 37 f6 .if5 38 f7 + �h8 39
.ixf5 lL!xg3 40 .l:r c8 + 1 -0
Eslon- De Ia Villa,
Linares 1 985
I d4 lL!f6 2 c4 e6 3 lL!f3 c5 4 d5 b5
5 .ig5 ..tb7 6 e4 'liaS + 7 ..td2
Wb6 8 lL!c3 bxc4 9 ..txc4 lll xe4
1 0 !Llxe4 exd5 I I 0-0 dxc4 1 2 .l:r e I
..txe4 1 3 .l:r xe4 + ..te7 1 4 ..tc3
'ii b7 1 5 .ll e3 �f8 16 'ii e2 lll c6
1 7 'ii xc4 h5 1 8 .l:r ae l d6 19 'ii d 5
.l:r b8 20 lll g 5 ..txg5 21 'ii xg5
.l:r h7 22 .l:r g3 g6 23 'ii f6 'Otg8 24
'ii xd6 lll b4 25 .l:r ge3 1 -0.
Sahovic-Barlov,
Vrnjacka Banja 1 98 1
I d4 e6 2 c4 lll f6 3 lll f3 c5 4 d5 b5
5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 e3 .id6 8
!Llbd2 0-0 9 ..te2 .ib7 10 0-0 'ii e7
I t 'ii c2 lll bd7 1 2 e4 lll xe4 1 3
ttJxe4 dxe4 1 4 lbg5 ttJf6 1 5 ttJh3
l2ld5 16 f3 e3 17 ..tc4 .l:r ae8 18 b3
 Appendix 97

l:H6 1 9 ..tb2 l:t h6 20 l:t fe l 'flc7 I I ..td3 e5 1 2 e4

21 �fl l:tf8 22 ..txd5 exd5 23'
: xe3 d4 24 ..txd4 : xh3 25 gxh3
cxd4 26 'fi xc7 ..txc7 27 l:te7
: xf3 + 28 �gl l:t c3 29 : fl h5
30 l:tfl7 l:t c l + 31 �f2 l:t c2 + 32
'it>fl ..tg2 + 33 �g I ..txh2 + 34
'it>xh2 ..td5 + 35 �g3 ..t xf7 36
l:t xa7 d3 37 b6 d2 38 l:td7 l:t c8
39 l:t xd2 l:t b8 40 l:t d6 �f8 41 a4
'it>e7 42 l:t c6 ..txb3 43 a5 ..ta4 44
l:t c7 + ..td7 45 l:t c5 g6 46 h4
'it>d6 47 l:t c2 ..tc6 48 : b2 ..tb7
49 l:t b5 l:t f8 50 l:t g5 l:t f6 5 1
: b5 :t f3 + 52 �h2 : r5 o- t .

Moisee\'-Vaganian, 1 2 . . . c4 1 3 bxc4 ll:lc5 1 4 'fi e2 dxe4

USSR 1 970
I d4 ll:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 ll:lf3 c5 4 d5 b5
5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 e3 ..td6 8
ll:lbd2 0-0 9 ..td3 ..tb7 1 0 0-0 a6
I I b3 e5 1 2 e4 c4 1 3 ll:lxc4 dxc4 1 4
..txc4 + �h8 1 5 ll:lg5 axb5 1 6
ll:lf7 + : xf7 1 7 ..t xf7 ll:lxe4 1 8
..tb2 ll:lc6 1 9 ..td5 ll:lf6 20 ..tf3 e4
2 1 ..te2 b4 22 'fic2 'flc7 23 ..txf6
gxf6 24 'fi xe4 ..t xh2 + 25 �h I
..te5 26 l:t ac l 'flg7 27 'flg4 ll:ld4 28
'fi xg7 + � xg7 29 ..td3 l:t xa2 30
: a t l:t a3 3 1 ..tc4 ..te4 32 l:t ae l
..tc2 33 f4 ..td6 3 4 l:t e 8 ..txb3 3 5
l:t g8 + � h 6 3 6 ..t xb3 l:t xb3 37
� h2 ll:lf5 38 g3 ll:le7 39 l:t g4
l:t b2 + 40 �h3 l:td2 0- 1 .
S. Larsen-Smagar,
corr. 1 980-83
I d4 ll:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 ll:lf3 c5 4 d5 b5
5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 b3 ..td6 8 e3
0-0 9 ..tb2 ll:lbd7 10 ll:lbd2 'fle7
1 5 ll:l xe4 lLlfxe4 1 6 ..t xe4 ll:lxe4
1 7 'flxe4 ..tb7 1 8 'fie2 e4 1 9 ll:ld2
..tc5 20 l:t fl a6 2 1 0-0-0 axb5 22
ll:lb3 ..ta3 23 cxb5 e3 24 f3 l:t fc8 +
25 � b 1 ..txb2 26 �xb2 'fle5 +
27 'it> b l ..td5 28 l:t xd5 'fl xd5 29
'fi xe3 l:t e8 30 'fid2 'fi xd2 3 1
lLl xd2 l:te2 3 2 l:t d 1 l:t a5 3 3 ll:lb3
l:t xb5 34 g3 l:t xh2 35 l:t d3 l:t b4
36 a3 l:t b8 37 a4 h5 0- 1 .
Ligterink-Van der Wiel,
Hilversum 1 985
I d4 ll:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 ll:lf3 c5 4 d5 b5
5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 e3 ..td6 8
ll:lc3 ll:lbd7 9 ..td3 ..tb7 1 0 e4 d4
I I ll:l b l ll:lxe4 1 2 'fie2 lLldf6 1 3
ll:lbd2 ll:l xd2 1 4 ..t xd2 ..td5 1 5 0-0
0-0 1 6 b4
(see following diagram)
1 6 . . . lLlg4 1 7 ll:lg5 ..txh2 + l 8
� h I ..tf4 1 9 'fi xg4 ..txd2 20
..t xh7 + �h8 2 1 f4 'flf6 22 ..te4
98 The Blumerifeld Gambit
T ..th6 g5 4 1 Wg8 + �d7 42
rr::====:;;iiii==;;;;:::::===o;;m;;�=aiiil
'i' h6 + 23 'i'h3 'i'xh3 + 24 gxh3
..txb4 25 ..txd5 exd5 26 lt:!e6 J:[ f6
27 f5 J:l e8 28 J:l ad l <3;h7 29 lt:!c7
J:l e5 30 lt:!a6 ..ta3 3 1 J:l f3 J:l e3
32 J:l d3 J:l xd3 33 J:l xd3 J:l xa6 34
bxa6 c4 0- 1 .
Browne-Quinteros,
Buenos Aires 1980
I d4 lt:!f6 2 lt:!f3 c5 3 d5 e6 4 c4 b5
5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 e3 ..td6 8
lt:!c3 ..tb7 9 e4 dxe4 I 0 lt:!g5 ..td5
I I 'i' c2 lt:! bd7 12 lt:!gxe4 ..te5 1 3
lt:!xd5 exd5 1 4 lt:!xf6 + 'i' xf6 1 5
..te2 0-0 1 6 0-0 ..td4 1 7 ..te3
..t xb2 1 8 J:l ad l lt:!b6 1 9 'ilf xc5
J:l ac8 20 'ilf b4 ..tc3 2 1 'ilfg4 'ilt'e5
22 ..tf3 J:l c4 23 'ilfh3 d4 24 .te l
J:l a4 25 a3 'ilfxb5 26 ..te4 g6 27
'ilfe6 + J: f7 28 ..tc6 'ilfc4 29 'iWd6
J:l a6 30 J:l de l ..txe l 3 1 J:l xe l
lt:!c8 32 J:le8 + <3;g7 3 3 'ilfe5 +
J:[ f6 34 'i'g5 J:[ f5 35 'i' h6 + <3;f6
36 'ilt' f8 + 'ilff7 37 'ilfh8 + 'ilt'g7 38
J:[ f8 + <3;e6 39 'ilt' xg7 : xc6 40
: d8 + <3;e 7 43 'iW e8 + 1 -0.
Nikolic-Barlov,
Yugoslavia 1 982
I d4 lt:!f6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:!f3 c5 4 d5 b5
5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 ..tf4 ..td6
8 ..txd6 'i' xd6 9 lt:!bd2 0-0 10 g3
a6 1 1 bxa6 ..txa6 1 2 ..th3 lt:!c6 1 3
0-0 e5 1 4 lt:!g5 <3;h8 1 5 lt:!de4
lt:!xe4 1 6 lt:! xe4 'ilf h6 1 7 'ilfxd5
'i'xh3 18 'i' xc6 ..t xe2 19 lt:!g5
'ilff5 20 J:[ fe 1 'ilf xf2 + 2 1 <3;h 1
..th5 22 'i'e4 ..tg6 23 'i'g2 'ilf f5
24 lt:!e4 ..t h5 25 <3;g 1 ..tf3 26
'i'c2 h6 27 J:l e3 ..t xe4 28 J:l xe4
J:l xa2 29 J:l ae l · : b8 30 J:l 4e2
'i' xc2 3 1 J:l xc2 ·: bxb2 32 J:l xb2
l:t x b2 33 : xeS J:l c2 34 h4 �g8
35 J:l e7 <:;f8 36 J:l c7 <:;g8 37 <:;fl
�h7 38 h5 <:;g8 39 J:l c6 <:;f7 40
g4 J:l c4 4 1 J:l c 7 + <:;f6 42 J:l c6 +
<:;g5 0- 1 .
Ehlvest-Rogers,
Tallinn 1 985
I d4 lt:!f6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:!f3 c5 4 d5 b5
5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 lt:!c3 ..t b7
8 e4 dxe4 9 'ilfxd8 + <3;xd8 1 0 lt:!e5
<3;e8 1 1 ..tf4 ..td6 12 J:l d 1 ..t d5
1 3 lt:!g6 hxg6 14 ..txd6 lt:! bd7 1 5
..te2 <3;f7 1 6 0-0 J:[ ac8 1 7 b3
J:l hd8 1 8 ..tf4 lt:!b6 19 ..te3 lt:!fd7
20 J:l d2 lt:!e5 2 1 J:l fd 1 J:l h8 22
..tf4 <3;f6 23 ..tfl <3;f5 24 ..t xe5
<3;xe5 25 J:[ e I J:[ hd8 26 lt:!xe4
..txe4 27 J:l de2 J:l d4 28 f3 J:l cd8
29 J:l xe4 + J:l xe4 30 J:l xe4 +
�f6 3 1 a4 J:l d l 32 �f2 J:l a l 3 3
 Appendix
i. c4 lll d 5 34 l:l. e2 g5 35 g3 l:l. h l
36 �g2 l:l. c l 37 �1'2 l:l. h l 38
� g2 l:l. c l 39 a5 l:l. a l 40 a6 l:l. a5
41 �h3 lll c7 42 �g4 e5 43 l:l. d2
� e7 44 �xg5 lll x b5 45 b4 lll d4
46 l:l. xd4 1 -0.
Miles-Alburt
World Open 1 989
1 d4 lll f6 2 lll f3 c5 3 d5 e6 4 c4 b5
5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 i.b7 7 lll c3
i.e7 8 e3 0-0 9 i.d3 d5 1 0 0-0
1fd6 I I l:l. e l lll b d7 1 2 b3 lll g4 1 3
h3 lll x f2 1 4 �xf2 i.h4 + 1 5 � g l
l:l. xf3 1 6 1fxf3 i.xe l 1 7 i.b2
l:l.f8 1 8 i.xh7 + �xh7 1 9 1fh5 +
�g8 20 l:l. xe l 1fg3 2 1 l:l. e2 d4 22
exd4 i.f3 23 lll e4 i. xe4 24 l:l. xe4
l:l. f2 25 1fe8 + lll f8 0- 1
Browne-Aiburt
US Open 1 989
1 d4 lll f6 2 lll f3 e6 3 c4 c5 4 d5 b5
5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 i.b7 7 lll bd2
i.e7 8 g3 1fa5 9 i. g2 1fxb5 t O
0-0 0-0 t t a4 1fa6 1 2 b 3 llle4 1 3
i.b2 lll x d2 1 4 1f xd2 i.e4 1 5
1fe3 1f b7 1 6 l:l. ad t a5 1 7 i.a3
l:l. c8 t 8 lll e t i.xg2 t 9 lll xg2
l:l. a6 20 lll f4 l:l. b6 2 1 l:l. d 3 lllc6
22 i.xc5 i.xc5 23 1fxc5 lll b4 24
1fxa5 lll x d3 25 lll x d3 l:l. a6 26
lll c 5 l:l. xa5 27 lll xb7 l:l. a7 28
lll d 6 l:l. c2 29 e4 l:l. a6 30 e5 l:l. b2
3 t lll e4 l:l. a5 32 lll d 6 l:l. xb3 33
l:l. c t h5 34 l:l. c7 l:l. xe5 35 l:l. xd7
l:l.d3 36 l:l.d8 + �h7 37 lll l7
l:l. ed5 38 l:l.e8 l:l. f5 39 l:l. e7 �g8
0- 1 .
99
Muse-Przewoznik,
Poznan 1 986
t d4 lll f6 2 c4 e6 3 lll f3 c5 4 d 5 b5
5 a4 b4 6 lll bd2 d6 7 e4 e5 8 i.d3
g6 9 lllf t lll h 5 t o g3 i.g7 1 t i.g5
1fc7 12 lll h 4 i.f6 1 3 i.xf6 lll x f6
1 4 llle 3 1fe7 1 5 b3 lll b d7 1 6 a5
lll h 5 1 7 l:l. a2 lll d f6 1 8 f3 i.d7 1 9
0-0 0-0 20 lll hg2 l:l. ae8 2 1 l:l. af2
i.h3 22 l:l. e l i.c8 23 1f c l 1fd8
24 1fa t l:l. e7 25 lll f t i.h3 26
lll fe3 lll d 7 27 lll h4 lll df6 28 i.ft
i.c8 28 i.d3 l:l. 7e8 30 lll h g2
lll d 7 3 t f4 exf4 32 gxf4 lll h f6 33
lll f t l:l.e7 34 e5 dxe5 35 fxe5 lll g4
36 l:l. fe2 l:l. fe8 37 e6 fxe6 38 h3
lll h 6 38 1fcl lll f5 40 dxe6 lll e 5
41 l:l. xe5 1fxd3 42 lll f4 1f d4 + 43
�h2 1f f2 + 44 � h l l:l. xe6 45
l:l. xe6 l:l. xe6 46 l:l. xe6 i.xe6 47
lll xe6 lll h4 48 llle 3 1ff3 + 49
� h2 1ff2 + 50 � h t 1ff3 + 5 1
� h2 1ff2 + t-t.
Blocker-Dzindzichashvili,
New York 1 984
t d4 lll f6 2 c4 e6 3 lll f3 a6 4 lll c 3
c5 5 d5 b5 6 i.g5 b4 7 lll e4 d6 8
1fa4 + 1fd7 9 1fc2 lll xe4 1 0
1fxe4 f6 t t dxe6 1fc6 1 2 1ff5 fxg5
13 lll x g5 l:l. a7 14 lll l7 l:l. xl7 1 5
1fxl7 + �d8 1 6 e3 1fc7 1 7 1ff5
1fe7 1 8 0-0-0 �c7 1 9 i.e2 1fxe6
20 1fc2 i.b7 2 1 i.f3 i.xf3 22 gxf3
lll d 7 23 1fe4 1fxe4 24 fxe4 lll e 5
25 b3 lllc6 26 l:l. d5 i.e7 27 l:l. f5
lll e 5 0- 1 .
1 00 T he Blumenfeld Gambit
Huss-Lau,
Beersheva 1 985

l d4 lLlf6 2 lLlO e6 3 c4 a6 4 lLlc3

c5 5 d5 b5 6 � g5 b4 7 lLle4 d6 8
lLlxf6 + gxf6 9 � h4 �e7 1 0 e4 f5
I I �xe7 -.xe7 1 2 dxe6 fxe4 1 3
exf7 + �f8 1 4 lLld2 �b7 1 5 -.hs
lLld7 16 -. h6 + �xf7 17 �e2
-.r6 1 8 -. xf6 + �xf6 1 9 lLlfl
lLle5 20 0-0-0 �e6 21 lLle3 .C. af8
22 .C. hfl .C. f6 23 lLlg4 lLlxg4 24
�xg4 + �e5 25 g3 d5 26 f4 +
�d6 27 cxd5 �xd5 28 �e2 �c6
29 b3 a5 30 �b5 + �xb5 3 1
.C. xd5 .C.e8 3 2 .C. e l .C. fe6 3 3 �d2 �h2 .C. a8 27 d6 -.ds 28 �e2
�c6 34 .C. h5 .C. d 6 + 35 �e2 .C. h8 29 �f3 .C. c8 30 �b7 .C. b8
.C.d3 36 .C. d l .C. 8d8 37 .C. xd3 3 1 �d5 -. r6 32 -.f2 .C. bc8 33
.C. xd3 38 .C.e5 .C. c3 39 �d2 a4 40 �b7 .C. b8 34 �d5 .C. bc8 35 .C. e2
bxa4 .C. a3 4 1 .C. xe4 .C. xa4 42 f5 .C. hf8 36 �b7 .C. b8 37 �d5
.C. xa2 + 43 �e3 �d5 44 .C. f4 b3 .C. bc8 38 b3 a5 39 �b7 .C. b8 40
45 �d3 .C. c2 46 f6 c4 + 47 �e3 �d5 .C. bc8 4 1 �e4 .C. fe8 42
b2 48 .C. f5 + �e6 49 f7 .C. c3 + 50 �xf5 .C. xe2 43 • xe2 �xf5 44
�d4 .C. d 3 + 51 �xc4 b l -. 52 -.f2 lLlf8 45 -.xrs -.xrs 46 .C. xf5
.c. r6 + �d7 53 rs-. -.b3 + 54 lLld7 47 .C. f4 .C. e8 48 �f2 lLlf6 49
�c5 .C. d 5 mate 0- l . .C. xh4 a4 50 .C. f4 �g6 5 1 .C. f3
lLle4 + 52 � g l lLlc3 53 d7 .C. d8
Van der Sterren-Sosonko, 54 .C. d 3 lLlxa2 55 �c7 .C. xd7 56
Netherlands 1 985/86 .C. xd7 axb3 57 .C. d2 �f5 58 �d6
lLlc3 59 .C. b2 lLle4 60 g4 + �g5
l d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lLlf3 a6 4 lLlc3
6 1 �e7 + �f4 62 .C. xb3 lLld2 63
c5 5 d5 b5 6 �g5 b4 7 lLle4 d6 8
.C. d 3 l -0.
lLlxf6 + gxf6 9 � h4 lLld7 l O e4
�e7 1 1 �d3 lLlf8 1 2 0-0 lLlg6 1 3
�g3 �d7 1 4 lLld2 h 5 1 5 h 3 �f8
Agzamov-lnkiov,
16 f4 h4 17 �h2 f5 1 8 -.c2 .C. h5 1 9
Calcutta 1 986
lLlf3 �g7 20 .C. ae l .C. a7 2 1 exf5
exf5 l d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lLlf3 a6 4 lLlc3
c5 5 d5 b5 6 � g5 b4 7 lLle4 d6 8
(see following diagram)
a3 bxa3 9 .C. xa3 �e7 l O �xf6
22 lLlg5 �xg5 23 fxg5 .C. xg5 24 gxf6 I I dxe6 fxe6 1 2 .C. d 3 -.as +
�xd6 -.b6 25 -.d2 .C. h5 26 1 3 lLlfd2 .. b6
 Appendix
1 4 g4 t2Jd7 1 5 i.g2 l:. b8 1 6 f4
'fkc7 1 7 0-0 l:. g8 1 8 g5 fxg5 1 9 fxg5
i.b7 20 e3 l:. g6 21 'fkh5 t2Jf8 22
'fkf3 l:. g7 23 t2Jf6 + i.xf6 24
'fkxf6 l:. f7 25 'fk xf7 + 'fk xf7 26
.1:. xf7 �xf7 27 .1:. b3 i.xg2 28
l:. xb8 t2Jd7 29 l:. c8 1 -0.
Van der Sterren-Rogers,
Wijk aan Zee II 1 985
I d4 t2Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 t2Jf3 a6 4 t2Jc3
c5 5 d5 b5 6 i.g5 b4 7 t2Je4 d6 8 a3
bxa3 9 n xa3 e5 10 'fka4 + i.d7
1 1 'fkc2 a5 1 2 e3 a4 13 t2Jfd2 t2Ja6
1 4 i.e2 t2Jb4 15 'fkbl l:. a6 16 f4
i.e7 1 7 t2Jxc5 dxc5 1 8 fxe5 t2Jfxd5
19 cxd5 i.xg5 20 i.xa6 t2Jxa6 2 1
t2Je4 0-0 2 2 0-0 .1:. e 8 2 3 t2Jd6
l:. xe5 24 t2Jxf7 'fke8 25 t2Jxe5
'fkxe5 26 e4 t2Jb4 27 � h l i.e7 28
'fk e l i.b5 29 l:. f5 'fkxb2 30 l:. af3
h6 3 1 h3 a3 32 .1:. f2 t2Jc2 33 'fka5
a2 34 l:. xc2 0- 1 .
101
Naumkin-Kozlov,
USSR 1 986
I d4 t2Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 t2Jf3 a6 4 t2Jc3
c5 5 d5 b5 6 i.g5 b4 7 t2Je4 d6 8
'fkd3 l:. a7 9 0-0-0 exd5 1 0 ..txf6
gxf6 1 1 cxd5 f5 1 2 t2Jg3 'fkf6 1 3 e3
..t g7 14 'fkc2 h5 1 5 ..td3 f4 1 6
t2Je4 'fkh6 1 7 exf4 'fk xf4 + 1 8 'fkd2
..t h6 19 �bl i. g4
20 .!:. d e l l:. e7 2 1 "ihf4 i.xf4 22
t2J h4 .1:. h6 23 g3 ..te5 24 f4 ..td4
25 f5 t2Jd7 26 h3 t2Je5 27 f6 l:. d 7
2 8 ..txa6 ..tf3 2 9 t2Jxf3 t2Jxf3 30
t2Jxd6 + �d8 3 1 l:. e8 + �c7 32
t2Jc4 t2Jd2 + 33 t2Jxd2 .1:. xf6 34
l:. c8 + �b6 35 t2Je4 l:. g6 36
i.c4 f5 37 t2Jd2 l:. xg3 38 l:. c6 +
�b7 39 t2Jb3 f4 40 t2Jxd4 cxd4 4 1
l:. f6 f3 4 2 l:. fl l:. xh3 4 3 l:. l xf3
1 -0.
 Index of Players

Page numbers printed in bold type indicate the player with White.

Agafonov 55 Caracci 56
Agzamov 81, 1 00 Cerna 45, 94
Akhmilovskaya 34 Chernin 7, 47, 79, 92
Alburt 27, 38, 74, 78, 79, 80, 99, Chesnauskas 47
99 Christiansen 74, 80
Alekhine l , 41 Chukaev 47
Anikaev 72 Consultants 4 1
Arbakov 40 Crouch 8 5
Arkhipkin 57, 59 Cuellar 45
Asztalos 41 Czerniak 41

Baikov 47 De Boer 48
Balashov 69 De Ia Villa 5 1 , 96
Balayan 40 Dieks 49
Balogh 52 Drimer 45
Barlov 42, 43, 56, 58, 63, 93, 96, Dus-Khotimirski 3
98 Dzindzichashvili 1 0, 47, 76, 99
Bastrikov 4 1 , 92
Bilek 49 Ehlvest 61, 98
Blocker 76, 99 Epstein 56
Bobotsov 41, 45 Ermenkov 43, 43, 70, 93
Boersma 55 Eslon 5 1 , 96
Bogdanovic 40
Bogolyubov 49 Fatalibekova 59
Botterill 70 Fernandez 34, 68, 90
Braga 72 Formanek 9, 60, 63
Browne 10, 43, 54, 63, 98, 99 Furman 56
Bukic 30, 40, 40, 89
Bykanov 44, 94 Gaprindashvili 40
102
 Index 1 03
Garcia G 68 Kapengut 60
Garcia R. 53 Kapitonov 44
Garcia S. 47 Karolyi 63
Geller 40 Keller 56
Gereben 52 Kholmov 59
Goldenov 39, 58, 59 Kivlan 55
Goldstein 49 Kmoch 5, 4 1
Gonzalez 47, 94 Knaak 47, 48
Gosin 43 Kojder 30
Gralka 29, 34, 89 Kostic, B. 3
Grave 57 Kostic, 3 1
Greenfeld 40 Kotliar 48, 68
Grigorian 40, 45, 60 Kozlov 39, 42, 44, 60, 83, 94, 1 0 1
Grooten 43 Kozlovskaya 69
Griinfeld 7, 27, 49, 5 1 , 96 Kozirev 39
Grushevsky 47, 49 Kudinov 68
Gulko 60 Kuligowski 28, 43, 89, 93
Gurgenidze 85 Kuznetov 43, 68
Gurieli 44
Gusev 72 Lagutkin 48, 49
Lahav 35
Haik 42, 93 Langeweg 34, 90
Hanauer 27 Larsen S. 55, 97
Hartston 34, 91 Lau 77, 1 00
Helling 49 Legky 4 1
Horvath 33 Lein SO, 95
Honlinger 41, 44 Leonhardt 49
H ulak 4 1 Lerner 85
Huss 77, 100 Levenfish 3
Levitina 44, 44, 69
Inkiov 30, 33, 68, 81, 89, 92, 1 00 Ligterink 55, 97
Ivanov 59 Lipnitsky 6, 42
Ljubojevic 40, 43, 49, 49
Jasnikowski 35, 35 Loffier 42
Johansen 43 Lombardy 9, 50, 60, 95
Jongsma 33 Lukacs 83
Jovanovic 53 Lukov 8, 30, 32, 90, 90
Junkie 59
M acht 52
Kalinin 41 Makarov 44
Kan 59 M aksimovic 56
1 04 The Blumenfeld Gambit
Malaniuk 48, 95 Popov 49, 49, 70
Malich 68, 92 Portisch 45, 48, 59, 82, 95
Manolov J. 36, 9 1 Povah 46
Maroczy 3 Preise 39
Marshall 27 Pritchett 85
Marszalek 57 Przewoznik 8, 28, 29, 29, 30, 32,
Martin 34, 9 1 32, 33, 33, 34, 35, 35, 35, 35,
Martinovic 43 35, 35, 50, 55, 69, 89, 89, 90,
Mazalon 29 9 1 , 99
McCambridge 47 Przybylski 32
Meduna 33, 33, 42
Michell 5 1 , 96 Qi Jingxuan 69
Miles 7, 47, 47, 70, 70, 82, 92, 94, Quinteros 54, 98
99
Milev 45 Rabinovich 7, 27
Minovic 57 Radovsky 40, 4 1 , 44
Mnatsakanian 44, 59 Razuvaev 42
Moiseev 50, 55, 97 Redzepagic 33
M use 69, 99 Rellstab 54
Renman 55
Naumkin 48, 83, 95, 101 Reshko 46
Nettori 42 Reti 54
Nikolic P. 47, 58, 94, 98 Ribli 68
Nurkic 4 1 Ristic 29, 88
Rodriguez A., 47, 68, 94
Oll, 48, 95 Rodriguez, 0. 42
Osnos 60 Roessel 46
Rogers 48, 48, 55, 6 1 , 82, 95, 98,
Palatnik 48, 95 101
Panov 56 Rojek 35
Pedersen 42 Rossetto 58
Pelikan 4 1 Rubinstein 67, 70
Peresypkin 47 Runstrom 42
Petrosian T. 43, 93
Pihajlic 34 Sahovic 31, 56, 56, 96
Plachetka 35, 44, 91 Sakharov 39
Platonov 69 Samisch 72
Pokrovski 5 1 Sax 43, 93
Polnareva 44 Scheipl 46
Poloch 45, 94 Semkov 30, 90
Polugayevsky 49 Shashin 41, 92
 Index 1 05

Sher 4 1 Uhlmann 45
Shirazi 47 Ujtelky 57
Sinadinovic 56
Singh 46 Vaganian 45, 55, 72, 97
Smagar 55, 97 Van der Wiel 55, 97
Smith 49 Van der Sterren 77, 82, 100, 101
Soler 57 Voronkov 44
Sosonko 77, 000 V orotnikov 46, 68
Spassov 36, 43, 9 1 Vukic 49, 73
Speelman 38 Vukovic V. 70
Spielmann 5, 39, 4 1 , 4 1 , 44, 52,
67, 70 Walter 4 1
Spraggett 69 Ward 42, 63, 68, 72
Steiner 72 Wheeler 68
Stempin 35 Wilder 27
Szabo 40, 58 Wohner 57
Szily 41
Szymczak 48 Yakhin 70
Yudovich 72
Tarjan 78
Tarrasch 1 Zagorovsky 51
Tartakover 70 Zak 58
Tatai 42 Zaltsman 63
Tavadian 59 Zhuravlev 57
Tolush 6, 42 Zilbennan 60
Toshkov 83 Zivanovic 29, 88
 Literature

Binet A.-Psychologie des grands calculateurs et joueurs d'echecs. Paris

1 894.
Chase W. G., Simon H. A.-'Perception in Chess'. Cognitive Psychology,
Vol. 4, No. I , Jan. 1 973, pp. 55-8 1 .
'Chinks in their armour. A research from Northern I reland'. Chess,
Vol. 48, Nos. 9 1 9-920, April 1 984, pp. 289-290.
Dus-Khotimirski-Selected Games, Moscow 1 953.
Encyclopedia of Chess Openings.-Vol. 4, Belgrade 1 978.
de Groot A. D.- Thought and Choice in Chess. The Hague 1 965.
Kotov A.- Think Like a Grandmaster, London 1 970.
Kotov A.-Play Like a Grandmaster, London 1 978.
Krogius N.-Psychology in Chess, New York 1 976
Lasker E.-Lasker's Chess Primer, London 1 934.
Pachman L.- Moderne Schachtheorie, Geschlossene Spiele Berlin 1 967.
Przewoi:nik J.-'The Blumenfeld Gambit'. Players Chess News, No. 3,
Jan. 1 985, pp. 8-9; No. 32, April 1 985, pp. 4-6.
Przewoi:nik J.-Gambit Blumenfelda. Warsaw 1 986a.
Przewoi:nik J.-'0 podejmowainu decyzji w szachach' (On decision
making in chess). Szachy, 1 986b, No. 6, pp. 56-58.
Reti R.-Masters of the Chess Board, London 1 933.
Simon H. A., Simon P. A.-Trial and error search in solving difficult
problems : evidence from the game of chess'. Behavioral Science, Vol.
7, No. 4, October 1 962, pp. 425-429.
Smagin S., Radovski-'The Blumenfeld Gambit' Shakmaty v USSR
1 988.
Suetin A. S.-Outstanding Soviet Chess Players, Minsk 1 984.
Taimanov M ., et al.-Damengambit bis Holliindisch. Berlin 1 980.
Tikhomirov 0.-Structura czynnosci myslenia czowieka. Warsaw 1976.
Voronkov V.-'The Modern Treatment of the Blumenfeld Gambit',
Shakmatny Bulleten, No. I , 1 973, pp. 1 -3.
1 06
 Literature 1 07

The author of this book also used :

Ceskoslovensky Sach, Magyar Sakkelet, New in Chess, Sakkelet,
Szachy, Shakhmatny Byulleten, Shakhmaty v USSR, Shakhmaty,
Sahovski lnformator, Tournament Chess.