GIUOCO PIANO 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 c3 Nfé 5 d4 exd4 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 cxd4 e5(v) Bb4t d5 7 ~~ &Bad2.... eee ieaea Bbs Bxd2t(a).. «Nxe4 .. steeeeeseeee D5(Z) Net 8 Nbxd2 00 exd5 cxd4 d5(b) Bxc3(i) Nxd5 Bb6(w) 9 exd5 d5(j) 0-0 Nc3 Nxd5 Bf6(k).......Ne5 Be6(s) 0-0 10 — Qb3(c) Re1 ‘bxc3 Bgs Be3(x) Na5(d) Nev Nxc4 Be7 Nez 1 Qa4t Rxe4 Qd4 Bxd5(t) 0-0 Nc6= de(l) 0-0(0) Bxd5 c6 12 = -Bbs Bg5(m) Qxe4 Nxd5 Bd3 Qe7t Bxgs Nd6(p) — Qxd5 Nxc3 13° Ned Nxgs Qf Bxe7 bxe3 Bd7(e) h6(n) Ne8&(q) Nxe7(u) = BE5= (a) 7...Nxe4 is also reasonable here. After 8 Bxb4 Nxb4 9 Bxf7+ Kxf7 10 Qb3t Kfs (10... d5 can be played) 11 Qxb4t+ Qe7 12 Qxe7+ Kxe7 the game is equal, Wedberg-Korman, Sweden 1978. (b) 8... Nxe4 9 d5 Nxd2 10 Qxd2 Ne7 11 d6 cxd6 12 Qxdé is a promising gam- bit suggested by Keres. (c) 10 0-0 0-0 11 Ne5 Nxd4 12 Nb3 Nxb3 13 Bxd5 Qf6 (13... Nxal 14 Bxf7t Kh8 15 Qh5 h6 16 Rd1 +) 14 Bxf7+ Rxf7 15 Qxb3 =, Khasin-Zagorovsky, USSR 1955. (d) 10... Nce7 11 0-0 0-0 12 Rfel c6 =, van der Wiel-Karpov, Amsterdam 1980. (e) 14 0-0 (Zelcic-Mamedyarov, European Chp. 2001), now 14... Nxe5 = is sim- plest. (f) 7....Nxe4 8 d5 Ne7 9 Qd4 Nf6 10 Bg5 gave White a terrific attack in Marshall—Burn, Ostende 1905. (g) 10 Qb3 Na5 11 Qa4t Bd7 12 Bb5 Nxc3 + (Levenfish). (h) 14 Rc1 Qd7 ¥, Bartmansky—Butik, corr. 1910, since no good is 15 Bxd5 Qxd5 16 Rc5 Qxa2. (i) 8... Nxc3 9 bxc3 d5 (9... Bxc3 10 Ba3!.+ Keres) 10 cxb4 dxc4 11 Reit Ne7 12 Bg5 f6 13 Qe2 Bg4 (13... fxg5 14 Qxc4 + Keres) 14 Bf4 Kf7 15 Qxc4t + (Sakharov). 20(J 9 bxc3 d5 10 Bas dxc4 11 Rel Be6 12 Rxe4 Qd5 13 Qe2 0-0-0 14 Ne5 Rhes is good for Black, Steinitz—Lasker, St. Petersburg 1896. (k) Alternatives are: (A) 9. ..Ne7 10 bxc3 0-0 11 Re1 Nd6 12 Bd3 h6 13 c4 +, Demuth-Loonnides, Szombathely 1991. (B) 9... Ba5 10 dxc6 bxc6 11 Ne5 Nd6 12 Qg4 + (Mller). (C) 9... Nd6 and (D) 9. . . Na5 also fail to equalize. (1) 11... 0-0 is reasonable here. After 12 dé cxd6 13 Bg5 (13 Qxd6 Nf5 14 Qd5 Ne7 and now 15 Qdé Nfs repeats the position, otherwise White allows ...d5,) 13.,..Ng6 (13...Bxg5 14 Nxg5 d5 15 Bxd5 Nxd5 16 Qxd5 hé 17 Nxf7 Rxf7 18 Raei Qfé 19 Re7 Qxf2t 20 Kh g5 21 Rxf7 Qxf7 22 Re8t is drawn—Botterill) 14 Qd5 with roughly equal chances. (m) 12 g4 0-0 13 g5 Be5 14 Nxe5 Bfs 15 Re3 dxe5 16 Rxe5 Qd7, Rufenacht-Smit, corr. 1991. Black is better. (n) If instead 13 ... 0-0 14 Nxh7 Kxh7 15 Qh5t Kg8 16 Rh4 5 17 Be2!? Ng6 = (17... Bd 18) Qh7+ Kf7 19 Rh6! wins, Abdullah—Gokhale, Cainhill Open 2003). After 13 ...h6 there is: (A) 14 Qe2 hxg5 15 Rel Be6 16 dxe6 f6 (16 ... £5 17 Re3 g4 18 h3 d5 19 Bd3 6 20 hxg4 Qd6 =, L. Vega-de la Paz, Cuba 1996) 17 Re3 c6 18 Rh3 Rxb3 19 gxh3 g6 with perhaps a small edge to. Black, Hardarsson—Livshits, Olomouc 2001. (B) 14 Bb5t Bd7 15 Qe2 Bxb5 16 Qxb5+ Qd7 17 Qe2 Kf8 +, Zafirov-Masse, Quebec 2003. (0) (A) 11... Ned6 12 Qxg7 Qfé 13 Qufé Nxfé 14 Re1t Kfs 15 Bhét Kg8 16 Re5 Nfe4 17 Re1 +, Durao—Ferrara, Seville 1994. (B) 11. .. £5 12 Qxc4 d6 13 Nd4 0-0 14 £3 Nf6 =, Schlechter-Mertner, Vienna 1899. (p) 12....b5 13 a4 c6 14 axbs axb5 =, Dzindzichashvili-Karpov, Mazatlan 1988. (q) Leygue—Flear, France 2003, Now 14 Qg3 with the idea of 15 Bg5 will gain White almost enough compensation for the pawn. () 7....0-0 8 e5 Ne4 9 0-0 Bxc3 10 bxc3 d5 +. (s) Also reasonable is 9... Nxc3 10 bxc3 Be7 11 Re1 0-0 12 Ne5 Nxe5 13 Rxe5 BE6 14 Rh5 g6 =, (t) Also 11 Bxe7 Ncxe7 when both 12 Ne4 and 12 Qb3 give White an edge (Keres). (u) 14 Re1 £6 15 Qe2 Qd7 16 Rac1, Steinitz—Von Bardeleben, Hastings 1895; now 16 .. . Kf7 would have been unclear after 17 Ne5t or 17 Ng5t. Romanovsky suggested 16 d5, after which 16 . . . Kf7 17 Rad1 Rad8 18 Qe6t Qxe6 19 dxe6t Kg6 allows chances for both sides. (v) 6 0-0 Nxe4 7 cxd4 d5 8 dxc5 dxc4 9 Qe2 (9 Qxd8t Kxd8 10 Rd1t Bd7 =) 9...Qd3 10 Re1 f5 =, Biolek—Keitlinghaus, Ostrava 1993. (w) (A) 8... Be7 9 Nc3 0-0 10 Bd3 f5 11 exf6 +, Steinitz-Lasker, New York 1894. (B) 8... Bb4t 9 Nbd2 0-0 10 Bxc6 bxc6 11 Qc2 c5 12 0-0 +, Rayo-Yanez, Madrid 1989, (x) 10 Bxc6 bxc6 11 Be3 £5 12 exf6 Qxf6 13 Qb3 Qg6 =, Rowson-I. Sokolov, Self- oss 2002, The column is Macieja—Aronian, Anatalya 2003, 21GIUOCO PIANO 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 c3 Nf6 7 8 9 10 11 12 5 0-Dvesereeeees de 6 b4 b4 Ba7(b) Ba7 Bb6 Bb6 7 ~~ Bb3..........Re1(f) Bb3 a4 a4 0-0 d6 00 a6 a5(m) 8 = h3{c) Bb3 hs 0-0 bS d5 0-0 d5(h) dé Ne7 9 Nbd2 hs Qe2 Bgs 0-0 dxe4(d) 6 Res hé(j) 0-0 10 dxe4 Nbd2 Nf1 Bh4 Nbd2.. e5 Qe7 Beé Be6 g5(k) Ng6 Ng6(p) 11 -Nh2 Nf Nes Bg3 Ba3(n) = Nh4 Nda(e) Re8(g) Nas(i) Bga(l) Qe7(o) Nxh4(q) (a) The immediate 5... d5 is premature—6 exd5 Nxd5 7 Qb3 Nf4 8 Bxf4 exf4 9 Bxf7t Kfs 10 Bc4 Qe7t 11 Kf1 +, Godena—Crepan, Italy 1986. (b) 6... 0-0 allows 7 d4, and if then 7... Ba7 8 dxe5 Nxe4 9 Bd5 Nc5 10 Bg +, Petrienko-Miranovic, Novi Sad 1988. (c) (A) 8 Bg5 h6 9 Bh4 d6 10 Nbd2 g5 11 Bg3 b5 12 Rel Re8 =, Repkova— Stefanova, Croatia 2004. (B) 8 Be3 dé 9 Nbd2 Ne? =, Matwani-Short, Gibral- tar 2004, (d) 9...Re8 10 Rel b5 11 Qe2 Bb7 is also equal, A. Toth—-Vajda, Sozina 2005. (© After 11...Nd8 12 Rel Ne6 13 Ndfi h6 is about even, V. Nevednichy— Notkin, Yugoslavia 1996, (£) 7 Be3 0-0 8 Bxa7 Rxa7 9 Rei d6 10 a4 Ra8 11 Nbd2 Re8 =, Areschenko— Sorokin, Aeroflot Open 2006. (g) 12 Be3 d5 (delayed, but effective now) 13 Bxa7 Rxa7 14 exd5 Bxd5 =, Yudasin—Adams, Belgrade 1999. (h) A straightforward plan is 8... h6 9 Nf1 d5 10 Qe2 Be6 11 Ng3 dxe4 12 dxe4 Qd6 =, Gunnarsson—Fedorchuk, Czech Open 2003. (i) 12 Nxe6 Rxe6 13 Bc2 Qd7 14 Ng3 Rd8 15 0-0 Nc6 16 Qf3 Ne7 17 Re1 c6 =, Bologan—Adams, Internet 2004, (j) In an analogous position after 9 a5 Ba7 10 Bg5, Portisch played 10 . . . Ne7 11 Bxf6 gxf6 12 Nh4 Ng6 and had fine chances against Ehlvest, Skelleftea 1989. 22(K) 10... Bg4 11 a5 Ba7 12 h3 Bhd 13 g4 +, Belov—Landa, Chita 1987, (1) After 12 a5 Ba7 13 h3 Bh5 14 Nbd2 Bg6 Black has a fully equal position, Yudasin—Tseitlin, Moscow 1989. (m) 7... a6 8 0-00-0 9 Bed Bxe3 10 fxe3 d5 11 exd5 Nxd5 12 Qd2 Be6 13 Na3 Qe7 14 e4 Nb6 15 Bxe6 Qxe6 =, Yermolinsky-Anand, Madrid 1998, (n) Other ideas are: (A) 11 Bb3 c6 (11... d5 12 Ba3 Re8 13 exd5 Nxd5 14 Ne4 +, Ljubojevic-Korchnoi, Brussels 1987) 12 bxc6 (12 d4 Bg4 13 Bb2 d5 14 h3 dxe4 15 Nxe4 Bf5 unclear, Nunn—Winants, Brussels 1988) 12... bxc6 13 d4 Bg4 14 Qc2 Nf4 15 dxe5 dxe5 16 Nxe5 Be2 17 Ndf3 with sharp but equal play, Mestel-Greenfeld, Beersheba 1988. (B) Another plan (with a different lead-in) is 10 h3 Ng6 11 Re1 c6 12 Bb3 Re8 13 bxc6 bxc6 14 Na3 d5 15 exd5 Nxd5, which is probably a little better for Black, Tolnai-L Sokolov, Croatia 1993. (0) 12 Rel Bc5 13 Bxc5 dxc5 =, Yudasin—Mikhalevski, Beersheba 1993. Instead if 11...Nh5 12 d4 Nhf4 13 dxe5 Nxe5 14 Nxe5 Qg5 15 g3 Nh3t 16 Kg2 Qxes 17 Bd5 with advantage to White, Hjartarson-Short, Manila 1992. (p) 10... .c6 11 bxc6 bxc8 12 Ba2 Ng6 13 Nh4 Nf4 14 Bxf4 exf4 15 Nf3 Bg4 =, Sermek-Wehmeier, Groningen 1993. (q) 12 Bxh4 h6 13 Na3 g5 14 Bg3 h5 15 Qd2 Nh7 16 h3 Qf6 =, Macieja— Harikrishna, Bermuda 2005. 23GIUOCO PIANO 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 BcS 16 1” 18 4 Nes. Nfé. 5 a3 da de Bxda(t) 6 0-0fa) oxd4 d3 Bg Nxd4 d6 Bbe(d) dé DG oes eeeeeee Nad Nxd4 7 ha Nes(e) —0-0(i) Bxfé Bb3(r)——Bg(u) Nf6 Nfé Ne7(j) Qxfs 06 dé 8 Rel Bea(f) Nbd2(k) = Nd5 d4 f4 0-0(b) 0-0 6 Qd8{(n) Nxb3 Qe7(v) 9 a4 Bba3(g) Rei(l) c3 axb3 fxe5 a6 Bg4 0-0 Ne7(o) ex dxe5 10 Na3 Qd3 ad d4 Nxd4 c3 Khs Qe7 Ngo Nxd5(p) 6 Nes 11 (Ne2 Nd2 a5 dxc5 Bh4 Bxe6 Ng8(c) Be6(h) -Bo7(m) = Nf4(q)_—s0-0(s) Bxe6(w) (a) 6 d5 Nd8 7 a4 a6 8 dé Qxd6 9 Qxd6 cxd6 10 Bd5 Nc6 11 Na3 Be7 with chances for both sides, Rakié—Djurié, Vinjatka Banja 1979. (b) 8. . .h6 9a4a6 10 Na3 g5 11 Bfl g4 12 hxg4 Nxg4 13 Nc4 Bxd4 14 cxd4 Nxd4 15 Be2 favored White in Spassov—Kontié, Nik&ié 1991. (c) 12b4 {6 13 Ne3 &, Heidenfeld—Euwe, Johannesburg 1955, (d) 6... Bbat 7 Nc3 Nfé (7...Nge7 8 Ng5 d5 9 exd5 Bxc3t 10 bxc3 Nxd5 11 0-0 6, Stein-H. Hansen, Gausdal 1996) 8 Bg5 h6 9 Bxf6 Qxf6 10 0-0 Bxc3 11 bxc3 is slightly better for White. (©) 7 h3 Nfé 8 Nc3 0-0 9 Bg5 (9 0-0 Nxe4 10 Nxe4 d5 11 Bg5 Qd7 =) 9...h6 10 Bh4 g5 11 Bg3 Nxe4 12 Nxe4 Re8 ¥, Kovalenko—Romanov, Kiev 2004, (f) 8 0-0 Bg4 9 Be3 Qe7 with the idea .. . 0-0-0 is okay for Black. (g) 9 0-0 Nxe4 10 Nxe4 d5 11 Bxd5 Qxd5 12 Nc3 Qh5 was fine for Black in Rahman-Lodhi, Dhaka 1993. (h) 12 Nc4 Nb4 13 Qd2 Bxc4 14 Bxc4 Nxe4 15 Nxe4 d5 16 Nc5 Nc6 17 0-0 dxc4 18 Nxb7 Rab 19 Nc5 Rfd8 20 Qc3 Bxc5 21 dxc5 Qe4 =, Wekh—Barwinski, Warsaw 1993. (i) 7a4.a6 8 0-0 0-0 9 Nbd2 Ne7 10 Bb3 Ng6 11 Nc4 Ba7 =, S. Hansen—Adams, In- ternet 2003. 24@ 7...0-0 8 Nbd2 Ne7 9 Bb3 c6é 10 No4 Bc7 11 Bg5 Ng6 12 Nh4 Nf4 =, Macieja—Fontaine, Istanbul 2003. (k) 8 Bg5 Ng6 9 Nh4 Nxh4 10 Bxh4 g5 11 Bxg5 Rg8 was dangerous for White in Moroz—Podgaets, USSR 1986. @) 9 Bb3 0-0 10 Nc4 Bc7 11 Bg5 Ng6 12 d4 h6 13 Bxf6 Qxfé 14 Ne3 a5 F, Gomez Jurado-Martin, Andorra 1991. In this line 10 d4 Ng6 11 Ret h6 12 a3 Re8 13 Qo2 Nhs is also , Zhelnin—Dobrovsky, Odessa 1989, (m) 12 Bb3 d5. Now 13 exd5 Nxd5 14 Ne4 h6 15 Bc4 Bfs favors Black, Yudasin— Karpov, USSR 1988. 13 Nf1 has been played several times; 13 ... Be6 14 g3 hé 15 Qc2 Re8 =, Ljubojevic—Hjartarson, Tilburg 1989; 13...h6 14 Ng3 Be6 15 Be3 Qd7 ¥, Short-Salov, Linares 1990. (n) 8... Qg6!? 9 Qe2 Bg4 10 c3 Bb6 11 a4 f5 (Foltys—Keres, Munich 1936); now 12 b4 a5 is equal (Keres). (©) 9... a6 10 d4 Ba7 11 dxe5 Nxe5 12 Nxe5 dxe5 13 Qh5 0-0 14 Qxe5 Re8 15 Qf4 Qd6 16 Qxd6 Rxe4t 17 Ne3 cxd6 18 Bd5 (Short-Aleksandrov, Ismir 2004); now 18... Re7! 19 0-0-0 Bxe3t 20 fxe3 Bg4 is equal. (p) 10... exd4 11 cxd4 Bb6 12 Nxbé axbé 13 0-0 +, Timman-Nunn, Amsterdam 1986. (q) 12 g3 Nh3 13 cxd6 cxd6 14 Bb5t Kf8 =, Pollvanov-Shinkevich, Chigorin Mem. 2002. () 7 Nd5 Nxc4 8 dxc4 c6 9 Nxfét gxf6 10 Bh4 (10 Be3 Qh6 =) 10... Rg8 110-0 Bh3 =, Vlassov-Grischuk, Internet 2004. {s) 12 0-0 g5 13 Bg3 Re8 is about even, Morozavich-Kir, Georgiev, Tilburg 1994. (t) (A) For 5. ..exd4 6 e5 see the Max Lange Attack. (B) 5... Nxd4 6 Nxe5 +. (u) 7 £4 d6 8 fe5 dxeS 9 Bg5 Be6 10 Nd2 Qd7 (10... Qe7 11 .c3 Bxc4 12 Nxct No6 unclear, Minckwitz—Anderssen, Frankfurt 1878) 11 Bxfé gxf6 12 c3 Bxc4 13 Nxc4 Ne6 14 Qxd7+ Kxd7 = (Gufeld). (v) 8... Be6 9 Na3 Qe7 10 c3 Bxe4 11 Nxc4 Ne6 12 fxe5 dxe5 13 Bxf6 Qost 14 Rf2 +, Mestel-Smetan, Buenos Aires 1978. (w) After 12 Kh1 Qd7 13 Qe2 0-0-0 chances are roughly equal, Zelcic-Georgadze, San Sebastian 1991. 25EVANS GAMBIT 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bcd Bcs 4 b4 HIS BOLD GaMsIT immediately livens the game by offering a wing pawn to gain time for development and attacking the center. It was popularized in the 1830s by Captain W.D. Evans and used exten- sively by Morphy to score many brilliant victories. Yet by the twentieth century the verdict had been that the Evans Gambit was simply a tricky plan that allowed a good defence with equal chances at least, and proba- bly more. While the wins for Black in the endgames were not glamorous like White’s brilliant attacking victories, they were wins nonetheless and amore likely result. This verdict changed in 1995 when Kasparov took up the opening for two games and there was quite a revival of interest in it. Enterprising attacking players took it up and the Evans’ glory days re- turned for a while, The defenses now have been reviewed and Black is theoretically fine, but open and lively games result. Columns 1-4 cover the acceptance of the gambit and the retreat of the bishop to a5. White can choose between 6 0-0, column 1, allowing the Lasker Defense, and 6 d4 (columns 2-4), which includes the Compro- mised Defense, 7... dxc3, the Half-Compromised Defense, 7... Nge7, and 6...d6. If Black plays 5... . Be7, then he must reckon with the line revived by Kasparov—7 Be2 and 8 Qxd4. Column 6 is the gambit de- clined, a seemingly safer line that nonetheless has some pitfalls. 26EVANS GAMBIT 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 i. 2 3 4 5 6 tavaaaecenesaeseesananedeadecsnaacerenseecceseaseseneaten sen: ---Bb6. 5 a4 .»-Be7 a6(w) 6 d4(r) Nc3(x) + d6 NaS Nfs 7 Qb3 Be2(s) Nd5(y) Bb6(c) Nge7 «2.2.46 dxc3 Qd7{(n). exda(t) Nxd5 8 dxe5 cxd4(g) — Qb3 Nbd2(o) Qxd4 exd5 dxe5 d5 Qtek) Bb6(p) Nf6(u) Nda{(z) 9 Qb3(d) exd5 05 a4 e5 a5 Qfe Nxd5 Qgs NES Nc6 Baz 10 Bgs Ba3(h) Nxc3 a5 Qh4a d6(aa) Qes Beé Nge7 Nxa5 Nd5 exd6 11 «Bd Bbs Baz Rxa5 Qe3 0-0 f6(e) fo(i) 0-0(1) Bxa5 6 0-0 12 -Bxga Qa4 Rad1 dxe5: 0-0 Nxd4 Exg5(f) Bbe(j) Rbs(m) —Nga(q) Nbé{(v) Bxd4(bb) (a) 5... Be5 6 d4 exd4 7 0-0 d3 (7... d6 8 cxd4 +) 8 Ng5 Nes 9 Nxf7! Nxf7 10 Bxf7+ Kxf7 11 Qh5t and 12 Qxc5 +. (b) (A) 6... Qf6 (Steinitz) and (B) 6... Nge7 are not played any more as White gets an active game. (C)6.. : Nf6é 7 d4 Nxe4'8 Nxe5 0-0 9 Ba3 d6 is playable— Bilguier. The text leads to Lasker's Defense, (© 7... @xd4 8 cxd4 Bb6 is the old “normal position.” After 9 Nc3 (9 d5 was often played by Anderssen) both 9... Bg4 and 9... Na5 lead to sharp posi- tions where White's attack and central influence compensate for Black’s extra material. (4) 9 Qxdst Nxd8 10 Nxe5 Be6 11 Be2 Ne7 12 No4 Ndc6 13 Bf4 =, Anageliev— V. Ivanov, Ashgabat 1995. (e) 11... Nge7 12 Bxe7 Kxe7 13 Bxc6 Qxcé 14 Nxe5 Qe6 =, (£) 13 Nxg5 (13 Bd5 Qfé +) 13... Kf8! 14 Ne6+ Kxg8 15 Nxc7+ Kf8 16 Nxa8 Bh3 17 g3 Qxe4 wins, Kogan—Anand, Venaco Rapid 2005, White should avoid this old line if no improvements are found. (g) 8 Ng5 d5 9 exd5 Ne5 10 Bb3 0-0 11 cxd4 Ng4 , Morozevich—Adams, Wijk aan Zee 2001. 27(h) 10 Qb3 Be6 11 Qxb7 Ndb4 12 Bb5 Bd5 (12...0-0 13 Bxc6 Rb8 o, Anderssen-S. Mieses, Breslau 1867; 12... Bd7 13 Relt Kfé, Davis—Peters, USA 1983, now 14 Ne5 should give White the edge) 13 Ne5 Rb8 + (Botterill). @) 11... Bb4 12 Bxc6t bxc6 13 Bxb4 Nxb4 14 Qa4 Qd6 15 Nc3 Nd3 16 d5 Nc5 17 Qxc6t =, Valnio—Heino, Finnish Chp. 2000. () 13 Bxc6+ bxc6 14 Qxc6t Kf7 (Botterill) leaves Black slightly better. (kK) 8... Qe7 9 Nxc3 Qb4 10 Bxf7+ Kd8 11 Bb2 Qxb3 12 Bxb3 Bxc3 13 Bxc3 Nf6 14 Ng5 +, Hartoch-Eslon, Netherlands 1976. (1) 11... Bxc3 12 Qxc3 0-0 13 Rad1 +, Neumann—Anderssen, Berlin 1860. (m) 13 Bd3 Qo6 14 Bxh7+ Kh8 15 Nd +, Schoder-F, Polgar, corr. 1990. The Com- promised Defense is hard for Black. (a) 7... Nxd4 8 Nxd4 exd4 9 0-0 with a good attack (Christiansen), This is an im- provement on 9 Bxf7+ Kf8 10 0-0, Thomas—Unzicker, Hastings 1950; and now 10... Qf6. (0) A suggestion of Larry Christiansen as an improvement over 8 dxe5 Bb6 9 Nbd2 dxe5 10 Ba3 NaS 11 Qb4 c5 12 Qb2 Nxc4 13 Nxc4 f6 14 Rd1 Qc6 15 Nd8t Ke? ¥, Vovk—Malorov, Automark Open 2005. (p) 8... exd4, 8... Nf6, and 8. .. Nh6 are all good for White (Christiansen). (q) After 13 exd6 Bb6 14 h3 Nxf2 15 Rf1 0-0 16 Ba3 cxd6 17 Rxf2 Bxf2t 18 Kxf2 a weird material balance arises, which is probably slightly in White's favor. (x) 6 Qb3 Nhé 7 d4 Na5 8 Qb5 Nxc4 9 Bxh6 Nd6 10 Qxe5 Nxe4 11 Bxg7 Rg8 12 Qxe4 Rxg7> or 12 d5 NoS is okay for Black. (s) 7 Nxe5 Nxc4 8 Nxc4 d5 9 exd5 Qxd5 is about even. 7 Bd3 and even 7 Bxf7t have been played occasionally, but need not worry Black much. (t) Safer is 7... d6 8 Qa4t c6 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 Nxe5 Nf6 11 0-0 b5 12 Qc2 0-0 =, Jobava-Stefansson, Antalya 2004. (u) 8... d6 9 Qxg7 Bf6 10 Qg3 Qe7 11 Qf4 (11 0-0 Qxe4!) 11... Bd7 12 0-0 0-0- 0 is roughly equal, Karjakin—Beliavsky, Warsaw 2005. (v) 13 04 d6 (13... d5 14 cxd5 Qxd5 15 Nc3 oo; 13... Na4!? [Kasparov]) 14 Rd1 Nd7 15 Bh6 Nexe5 16 Nxe5 Nxe5 17 Nc3 f6 18 c5 and White had a good attack in Kasparov—Anand, Riga 1995. (w) 5... a5 6 b5 Nd47 Nxd4 Bxd4 8 c3 Bb6 9.d4 exd4 (9... Qe7 100-0 dé 11 f4 Be6 12 Na3 =, Nunn—Hecht, Buenos Aires 1978) 10 0-0 Ne7 11 Bg5 hé 12 Bxe7 Qxe7 13 cxd4 Qd6 14 No3 Bxd4 15 Nd5 +, Kasparov—Piket, Amster- dam 1995. (x) 6 Bb2 d6 7 b5 axb5 8 axb5 Rxal 9 Bxal Nd4 10 Nxd4 exd4 11 c3 Nfé 12 0-0 0-0 13 d3 d5 14 exd5 Nxd5 15 Qf3 Nfé 16 h3 Re8 17 Ndz +, Tartakower— Rhodes, Southport 1950. (y) 74 exd4 8 Nd5 Nxd5 9 exd5 Qe7t 10 Kf1 Ne5 11 d6 cxd6 12 Bd5 isa promis- ing gambit, Conquest-Winants, Amsterdam 1996. 28(2) 8... 04 9 dxc6 exf3 10 Qxf3 Qe7t 11 Kd1 dxc6 12 Rel Be6 13 Bxe6 +. Also 10 0-0 0-0 11 Qxf3 dxc6 12 Bb2 +, Perez—M.A. Gonzales, Havana 1995. (aa) 10 0-07! Nxf3t 11 Qxf3 d6 F, Miranovic—Leko, Hungary 1995, (bb) 13 c3 Ba? 14 Qf3 with compensation for the pawn (Leko). 29TWO KNIGHTS’ DEFENSE 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 LACK ISSUES A CHALLENGE With his/her third move when playing the Two Knights’ Defense. Already White is confronted with the choice of winning a pawn and entering complex play or allowing Black to get away with provocative play. This bold choice of opening can be psychologically motivated to draw the opponent into battle, as a state- ment that peaceful simple play will be avoided. The Two Knights’ is one of the oldest of openings, dating to 1580 when it was subjected to analysis by Polerio. Its reputation through his- tory has remained good with the leading masters. One hundred years ago the great Tarrasch called 4 Ng5 (the attempt to refute the opening) “ein stumper zug”—a beginner’s move, White has developed two pieces and proceeds to crudely attack with them—obviously not correct strategy. Yet Steinitz believed otherwise and modern theory respects the gain of a pawn, though likewise acknowledging the gain of development Black ob- tains in return. Thus the critical line has mixed reviews, but Black will be happy then if he/she is seeking a fighting, unclear game. Grandmasters of aggressive temperament have never been afraid to use this defense, but calm, positional players of all strengths would probably prefer to play the Giuoco Piano, The direct 4 Ng5 is the subject of columns 1-12. The most usual re- sponse is 4...d5 5 exd5 Na5 (columns 1-8). Columns 1-6 is the main line 6 Bb5t c6 7 dxc6 bxc6 8 Be2 h6, when White must decide on which square to retreat his knight to. 9 Nf3 (columns 1-4) allows... e4 with the initiative, while Nh3 (columns 5 and 6) is on the side of the board and al- lows Black the opportunity to double White’s pawns. Still, White is a pawn ahead and Black must show compensation for it. Columns 7 and 8 are lesser played lines after 5 ...Na5, Column 9 is the Fritz Variation, 4...d5 5 exd4 Ndé4 (the Fried Liver Attack is covered in note (k). The Ul- 30vestad Variation (5 .. . b5) is column 10. The fantastic Wilkes-Barre Vari- ation in which Black simply ignores the threat on £7 with 4... Bc5 is seen in columns 11-12. These lines are for the adventurous. White seeks development instead of material with 4 d4, the subject of columns 13-20. The Max Lange Attack, 4 . . . exd4 5 0-0 BcS is covered in columns 13-15, while 5... Nxe4 is columns 16-18. The Max Lange leads to more complicated play, while 5...Nxe4 tends to simplicity. White's attempt to avoid these lines with 5 e5 comprises columns 19-20. This line sees use from grandmasters, but Black’s chances are reasonable. Columns 21-23 are an attempt by White to quiet the position with 4 d3. This is really quite a reasonable move, even if it looks as if it is played just to avoid complexities. Play can either transpose into a positional game of maneuver, or Black can try to liven the game up with an early... d5— though this is a little risky. Column 24 covers 4 Nc3, which allows Black to equalize pretty easily with 4... Nxe4. 31TWO KNIGHTS’ DEFENSE 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 NaS 6 BbSt c6 7 dxc6 bxc6 8 Be2 h6é a 2 3 4 5 6 04 BeB(t) ......+ Bd6 10 Ned 0-0 d3(aa) Bd6....cscecseseeeesseeeees Bo5..........Qd4(n) 0-0(u) 0-0 WD dB sscsecceeesl f4 c3(k) £4(o) d3(v) Nc3 exd3(a) exf3(g) Bd6 Bes Nb7(w) Nd5(bb) 12 Nxd3 Nxf3 4 Rf Nc3 Ne4{(cc) Qc7 0-0(h) exf3(1) Qds(p) Nd5(x) Bc7 13 b3(b) d4 Nxf3 3(q) BES 4 0-0(c) Rea{i) oo Nds Bb6 Ne7 14 Bb2 0-0 d4 Qaafr) Qe2 0-0 Nea(d) Bg ReB 0-0 Re8 £5 15 Ned Nc3 0-0 Qxe4 Ret Nc3 f5(e) Be7 5 Reb Nc5(y) ry 16 h3 Ne5 Kh1 d4 Nfa Khi Ba6(f) Bxe2{j) cxd4(m) — Bbé{s) Nb4(z) ‘Ng6(dd) (a) 11... Qc7 12 Bd2 0-0 13 0-0 Nb7 14 Na3 Be6 15 Nac4 Bxc4 16 Bxc4c5 17 c3 it, Ernst-Kinmark, Sweden 2002. (b) (A) 13 g3 0-0 14 Bf4 Bxf4 15 Nxf4 g5 16 Qd4 Qe7 17 Nd3 Bg4 18 Nc3 Rads =, Ljubojevic-van der Sterren, Wijk aan Zee 1988. (B) 13 h3 0-0 14 0-0 BES 15 Nd2 Rfe8 16 b3 Rad& 17 Nf3 c5 F. (©) 13...c5 14 Na3 a6 15 h3 0-0 16 0-0 +, Priborsky—Jirka, Highlands Open 2005. (d) 14....Nd5 15 h3 Bf5 16 0-0 Rad8 17 Kh1.c5 18 Na3 +, Morozevich-Balashov, Novgorod 1997. (e) 15... BfS 16 h3 Rad8 17 0-0 c5 18 Bf3 +, Radjabov—Naiditsch, Warsaw 2005. (O) 17 0-0 Rad8 18 Qe1 + c5?7! 19 Nxe4 fxe4 20 Nf4! +, Swathi-Ganguly, Indian Chp. 2002. (g) 11... Qc7 12 d40-0 13 c3 c5 14 Na3 a6 with balanced chances, Suetin—Keres, USSR 1950. A footnote to this is 12 Nc3 Bxe5 13 fxe5 Qxed 14 0-0 0-0 15 d4 +, Valerga—Malbran, Argentina 2006. (bh) 12...Ng4 13 0-0 Qc7 14 h3 h5 15 d4 Bh2t 16 Kh1 Bg3 17 Nc3 Nf2t 18 Rxf2 Bxf2 19 Ne4 +, Usoki-Kluger, Hungary 1972. 32() 13...c5 14 dxc5 Bxc5 15 Qud8 Rxd8 16 Bd2 No6 17 Nc3 Ngé is equal (Timman). (j) 17 Nxe2 Bxe5 18 dxe5 Rxe5 =, Sutovsky—Beliavsky, India 2004. (k) 11 0-0 Qd4 (or 11... Qd6) 12 Ng4 Bxg4 13 Bxg4 0-0 =. @) 12..,.0-0 13 0-0 c5 14 d4 exd3 15 Qxd3 Bb7 16 Rd1 +, Chandler-Hebden, Wigan 1997. (m) After 17 Nxd4 Ne4, Riand-M. Mitkov, Geneva 1993; now 18 Bf4 is an edge to White. (a) 10... Qc7 is a decent alternative, when 11 d4 exd3 12 Nxd3 Bd6 would trans- pose to col. 1. After 11 £4 Bc5 12 d4 exd3 13 cxd3 0-0 14 Bd2 Nd5 Black has adequate play, Gilezedinov-Klovans, corr. 1969. (0) 11 Ng4 Bxg4 12 Bxg4 Bc5 13 0-0 e3 is a sharp alternative. Probably chances are even, (p) Also 12... Bd6 13 c3 Qb6 14 Qa4 0-0 15 b4 Nb7 16 Qxc6 Qd8 17 Na3 a5 with compensation for the material, Estrin—Leonidov, USSR 1972. (q) 13d4 Bb6 (13 . .. Bxd4? 14 c3 +) 14b4Nd5 15 bxa5 Qh4t 16 g3 Bxa5t 17 Bd2 Qxh2 18 Bxa5 Qxp3t is perpetual check (Geller). (©) 14 g3 Bh3 15 b4 (not 15 Qa4 Bxfl 16 Nxcé Nxc8 17 Qxcét Qd7 =, Shirov-Tominsh, Riga 1984) 15... Bxf1 16 Kxf1 Nxb4 17 cxb4 Qd4 18 bxc5. Qxal oe. (s) Black has play for the lost material according to Keres, though objectively White should be better. () (A) 9... Rb8 10 Nc3 Ndb (Psakhis—Beliavsky, USSR 1983) 11 d3 Bb4t 12 Bd2 Bxh3 13 gxh3 Qh4 14 Bf3 +. (B) 9... Qd4 10 d3 Qh4 11 0-0 Bxh3 12 gxh3 Bd6 13 Bf3 , Dolmatov-Fernandez, Barcelona 1995. (C) 9... g5 10 d3 Bg7 11 Nc3 0-0 12 Be3 Nd5 =, Gretarsson—Yemilin, Saint Vincent 2005. (u) 10... g5 11 Kh1g4 12 Ngi Ne4 13 Bxg4 Nxf2t 14 Rxf2 Bxf2 + (Gottschall). (v) 11 c3 Nb7 12 Qa4 Bxh3 13 gxh3 Qd6 14 d3 Nd5 3, Steinitz—Chigorin, Havana 1892. (w) (A) 11... Rb8 12 Khi Nd5 13 Ngi £5 14 Nc3 +, Malaniuk-Kruppa, Lvov 1984, (B) 11... Bxh3 12 gxh3 Qd7 13 Bf3 Qxh3 14 Nd2 Rad8 15 Bg2 Qfs 16 Qe1 +, Fischer—Bisguier, New York 1963. (x) 12... Bb6 13 Kh1 Re8 14 f4 Bc7 15 fxe5 Bxe5 is about even, Dolmatov—Ivkov, Moscow 1985. (y) 15...Nxc3 16 bxc3 Bd7, Nunn-Hardicsay, Budapest 1978; now White should play 17 Bg4 =. (z) 17 Nh5 Ne6 18 Be3 Bd7 19 Ne4 was just a little better for White in Chandler— Speelman, Hastings 1989, (aa) 10 d4 04 11 Nf4 Qc7 12 g3 0-0 13 c4 g5 14 Ng2 Bh3 15 0-0 Rad8 16 Be3 Nh7 =, Dolmatov—Ziatdinov, Moscow 1983. 33(bb) (A) 11... Rb8 12 0-0 Rb4 13 Khi Rh4 (13... Bxh3 14 gxh3 Rh4 15 Rgi 4) 14 Ngi e4 15 h3 +, Ivanchuk—Bayram, Saraybahoe 2002. (B) 11... Bf5 12 0-0 Qd7 13 Kh1 Radé 14 Ngi +, Tuesen—M. Hansen, Copenhagen 1991. (cc) (A) 12 Bd2 Rb8 13 b3 Nb7 14Ngi1 Nc5 15 Nf3 Nxc3 16 Bxc3 4 17 Nd2 exd3 18 cxd3 BfS 19 Nc4 Re8 20 0-0 Nxd3! =, Ivanchuk-Beliavsky, Dortmund 1998.. (B) 12 Bf3 Nxc3 13 bxc3 Qh4 14 Ngi f5 15 g3 Qf6 16 Ne2 e4 =, Tringov— Geller, Havana 1971. (dd)17 b4 Nb7 18 £3 Nd6 19 Be3 Be6 20 Rb1 +, Kamsky-Yusupov, Tilburg 1992. Black does not have quite enough compensation for his lost pawn. 34TWO KNIGHTS’ DEFENSE 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Boa Nf6 4 Ng5 7 8 9 10 11 12 Bc5 (Wilkes-Barre) Bxf7t(s) Nxf7 Ke7 Bxf2t 6 Bbst.. c3() Bf Bd5(t) Kfily) c6(a) bs. he Rfa(u) Qe7 7 ~~ dxcé Bfi(m) Nf3(q) Nf3{v) Nxh8 bxc6 Nxd5 Qxd5 Nd4 d5 8 Qf3 Qea2(f) Noe4(n) Nc3 Nxd4(w) — exd5 Rba(b) Nxc4 Qh4 Qe6 Bxd4 Nd4 9 Bd3{c) dxe4 Ngs Bxb5(r) 0-0 d6 he Bcs(g) Bb7(0) Bb7 6 Qxd6(z) 10.0 Ne4 h3(h) exd4 Qa2 3 Nf7 Nd5 0-0 0-0-0 0-0-0 Bb Qc5 11 ~——~bald) Nh2 Bez Bxc6 Bb3 d3 26 c6(i) Nia Qxcs Qes e4 12 Qgs dxc6 0-0 a3 Ret 3 Nfa(e) 63(j) Rxd4(p) 4 £Qg6(x) Bh4(aa) (a) Little tosted but interesting is 6... Bd7 7 Qo2 Bd6 8 Nc3 0-0 9 Bxd7 Qxd7 10 0-0 c6 11 dxc6 Nxc6 12 d3 Nd4 13 Qd1 Rac8 14 Be3 Ba3! with chances for both sides, Rausis—Islam, Commonwealth Chp. 2002. (b) Black has several other possibilities: (A) 8...Qc7 9 Bd3 Bd6 10 Nc3 Bg4 11 Nb5 Bxf3 12 Nxc7+ Bxc7 13 gxf3 =, van der Wiel-Beliavsky, Baden 1980. (B) 8... Be7 9 Bd3 0-0 10 Nc3 h6 11 Ngo4 Nd5 with compensation for the pawn, (C) 8... h6 9 Ne4 Nd5 (van der Wisl-Spassky, 1986) 10 Nec3 +. (D) 8... cxb5 9 Qxa8 h6 10 Ne4 Nd5 11 Nd6t +. (c) 9 Bxc6+ Nxc6 10 Qxc6+ Nd7 11 d3 Be7 12 Nf3 0-0 13 Nbd2?! Bos F, Hermann-Schaefer, DDR 1983. White can do better with 13 Qe4 Rb4 14 Qe2 e4 15 dxe4 No 16 Nc3 Ba6 when the oxtra material compensates for the White king being stuck in the center. (d) (A) 11 0-07! Nb4 =. (B) 11 Ng3 g6 12 b3 h5 13 0-0 Bg7 7, Honfi-Zagarovsky, corr. 1963. (e) 13 Bb2 Bg7 14 Qxf4! exf4 15 Bxg7 Kd7 16 Bf6, van der Wiel-S. Ernst, Nether- lands 2004. White has fine compensation for the queen. Objectively it may be equal, but it is easier to play White. (f) (A) Bronstein’s sacrifice 8 dxe4 Nxc4 9 Qd4 Nb6 10 c4 c6 11 0-0 cexd5 12 cxd5 35Be7 is probably somewhat favorable for Black. (B) 8 Nd4 Bc5 9 Be3 Ng4 10-Bb5t c6 11 dxc6 0-0 was roughly equal in Trapl—Smejkal, Prague 1986. (g) 9... Bg4 10 h3 Bhs 11 g4 Bg6 (Korchnoi-Suetin, USSR 1952) 12 Nes +. (h) (A) 10 BE4 g5 11 Nxg5 Qo7 12 Nh3 Bg4 is wild and unclear. (B) 10 Nfd2'0-0 11 Nb3 Bg4 12 Qi Bb4t 13 c3 Be? =, Salwe-Marshall, Vienna 1908 (and Popa-Godena, Verona 2005). (@ 11... 63 12 Bxe3 Bxe3 13 fxe3 Ne4 14 0-0 Ng3 is about even. (j) 13 Bxe3 Bxe3 14 fxe3 Ne4 with good compensation for the material (Kon- dratjev). (k) The old 5... Nxd5 is a rare thing these days, although not clearly refuted. (A) 6 Nxf (The Fried Liver) 6... . Kxf7 7 Qf3t Ke6 8 Nc3 Nb4 9 Qe4 (9 a3 is possible also) 9...c6 10 a3 Na6 is unclear—Keres, (B) 6 d4 Bb4t 7 c3 Be7 8 Nxf7 Kxf7 9 Qf3t Ke6 10 Qe4 b5 11 Bxb5 Bb7 12 £4 g6 is about even, Kalvach—Drtina, corr. 1986. () 6 Nc3 hé 7 Nf3 Bg4 =; 6 dé Qxd6 7 Bxf7t Ke7 8 Bb3 Nxb3 9 axb3 h6 10 Nf3 e4 +, Bogoljubow-Rubinstein, Stockholm 1919. (m) (A) 7 cxd4 bxc4 8 dxe5 Qxd5 9 0-0 Bb7 10 Q£3 Qxf3 11 Nxf3 Nd7 =, Capurro-Lanzani, Genoa 2005. (B) 7 Bd3 BES 8 Bxf5 Nxfs5 9 Qf3, Morozevich— Timman, Amsterdam 1996; now 9... Nh4 would favor Black (Timman). (n) (A) 8 h4 b6 9 Ne4 Ne6 10 Bxb5t Bd7 ©, (B) 8 cxd4 Qxgs 9 Bxb5t Kd8 10 0-0 Bb7 11 Qf3 Rb8 12 Qg3 =, Shabalov-A. Ivanov, USA 1996. (0) 9...Bg4 10 £3 64 11 cxd4 Bd6é 12 Bxb5+ Kdé 13 0-0 exf3, Estrin—Berliner, corr. 1965. Now Estrin says 14 Qb3 is clearly better for White and Berliner dis- agrees, but White is for choice. (p) 13 BES e4 14 Bg4t Kbe =, Ernst-Hijsman, Sweden 1978. (q) Promising is 7 Nxf7 Kxf7 8 dxc6 Bc5 9 Be2 Rf8 10 d3 Kg8 11 0-0 Qe8 12 Nc3 +, Hossain-K., Islam, Bangladesh 2003. (r) 9 Nxbs5 Bd6 10 Nxd6+ Qxd6 11 d3 Bb7 =, Prie~Tisdall, Debrecen 1992. (s) 5 d4 d5 6 Bxd5 Nxd4 7 Nxf7 Qe7 8 Nxh8 Bg4 is a messy alternative. (t) 6 Bb3 Qo8 (6 . . . Re8 is also possible) 7 0-0 Rf8 8 Nc3 dé 9 Nd5t Kd8 10 c3 hé 1 d4 &, J. Howell—Al. David, Groningen 1995. (u) 6... Qe8 7d3 d6 8 Bxc6 bxc6 9 Be3 +, Anand-Beliavsky, Linares 1991. (v) 7 0-0 dé 8 c3 Qe8 9 Qb3 Qhs with compensation for the pawn, Belov—Boiko, corr. 1991, (w) 8 Nc3 dé 9h3 c6 10 Bb3 Qe8 =, Bethmann-Leisebein, DDR 1989. (x) 13 d4 d6 14 £3 Bh3 15 Re2 +, Schlesing~Dovsden, corr. 1989. (y) 6 Kxf2 Nxe4t 7 Kgi (7 Ke3 Qe? 8 c3 d5 is another can of worms—unclear for 100 years) 7... Qh4 8 g3 Nxg3 9 Nxhs (9 hxg3 Qxg3t 10 Kf Rf8 11 Qhs d5 *, Shatunov—Gorin, corr. 1973) 9... d5 ©, (z) 9... exd6 10 Kxf2 Bg4 11 Qfi Ne4t 12 Kgi +, Ignatiev—Filipov, corr. 1990. 36(aa) Instead 12... Ne6? 13 Qe2 63 14 d4 Qfs 15 Ne5 Ng5 16 Bxe3 is winning for White, Blank—Pankratov, corr, 1993. After 12... Bh4 13 Be3 Bg4 14 Qa4t Bd7 15 Nd6t?! (White should take the draw with 15 Qd1 Bg4, etc.) 15... cxd6 16 Bi7t Kxf7 17 Qxd4 QfSt 18 Kgi Qgé 19 Bf2 Bg5 Black is somewhat better, Belov-Pankratoy, corr. 1993. 37TWO KNIGHTS’ DEFENSE 1 e4 e5 2 NF3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 d4 exd4 5 0-0(a) 15 16 17 18 + Nxed Re1(o) +Nga a5 Bf4(k) Bxd5(p) d6(l) Qxd5 exd6 Nc3 Bxd6 QaB(q) .oseesseseeseeseeee¢Qh5 9 Nps Bgs Rett Nxed(r) Nxe4 Qds(d) Be7(h) Kfs(m) Bebé Beé 10 No3 Bxe7 Bxd6t Neg5 «2... Bg Qfs Kxe7(i) Qud6 0-0-0 Qad(t) Bb4(w) 11 =Need(e) — Nbd2{j) 3 Nxe6 Bg5(u) 3 0-0-0(f) — Rxg7 Qes fxe6 hé dxc3 12 Nxc4 Nbd2 Rxe6 Bh4 ‘bxc3 ef Qed(g) Be6 F d3(n) Bdé{s) Bb4(v) Ba5(x) (a) 5 Ng5 d5 6 exds Qo7t 7 Kf1 Ne5 8 Qxd4 Nxc4 9 Qxc4 h6 10 Nc3!? (10 Nf3 Qc5 is equal) 10... hxg5 11 Bxg5 Qo5 12 Rett Kd8 13 Qf4 Be7 ¥, Carleton— Franzen, corr, 1991. (b) 6 c3 Nxe4 7 cxd4 d5 8 dxc5 dxc4 9 Qxd8t Kxd8 10 Rd1t Bd7 11 Be3 Ke7 12 Na3 Be6 =, S. Khasin—Bicciardini, corr. 1990. (c) 8... Kf8 9 Bg5 gxfé 10 Bh6+ Kg8 11 No3 Bfs 12 Nxd4 (12 Bxf8 Kxf8 13 Nxe4 £5 $) 12... Bxh6 13 Nxc6 Qxd1 14 Ne7+t Kf8 =. (d) 9...g6 10 Q£3 Qd6 11 BE4 Qd7 12 Rxobst! fxe6 13 f7t Kf8 14 Nes +, Miralles-Fontaine, French Chp. 2004, (e) 11 g4 Qg6 12 Nce4 Bb6 13 Nxe6 (13 f4 0-0 14 f5 BxfS +, Blackburne— Teichmann, Nuremberg 1895) 13 . . . fxe6 14 f7t Kd7 +. (£) (A)11... . Bf8 12 Nxf7 Kxf7 13 Ng5t Kg8 14 g4 Qg6 15 Rxe6 +. (B) 11... Bb6 12 fxg7 Rg8 13 g4 Qg6 14 Nxe6 fxe6 15 Bg5 +. (g) (A) 13 Nxe6 fxe6 14 fxg7 Rhg8 15 Bh6 d3 16 c3 Bb6 17 Kh1 Ne7 18 f4 Qd5 is roughly equal. (B) 13 £4 d3t 14 Kg2 Qd5 15 £5 gxf6 16 Nf3 Bd7 17 Nxf6 Qd6 is murky, Buehler—Smigulska, Oakham 1988. (h) (A) 9... Qd5 10 Nc3 Qf5 11 Ne4 Be? 12 Bxe7 +. (B) 9... f6 10 Re1t Kf7 11 Bhé +. 38(@ 10... Qxe7 11 Nxd4 Rxg7 12 Nxc6 +. () Not recommended is 11 Re1t?! Be6 12 Re4 d3 13 Nc3 Rxg7 14 cxd3 Qxd3 15 Nd5t K£8 16 Qxd3 cxd3 17 Nxc7 Bh3 ¥ (Lisitsin). (k) (A) 7 c3 d5 8 Bb5 dxc3 9 Nxc3 0-0 10 Qxd5 = (Euwe). (B) 7 Re1 d3 8 Bxf7+ Kf8 9 Qxd3 Bxf2t 10 Kf1 Bxe1 11 Qfs Nf6 12 exf6 Qxfé with obscure complica- tions in Garrilo—Perfillier, corr. 1951. () 7..,0-08h3 Nh6 9 Bxh6 gxh6 10 c3 d5 is nearly equal, Leygue—Flear, St. Af- frique 2001. (m) The alternatives 9... Be7 10 Bb5 0-0 11 Bxc6 and 9...Ne7 10 Bxd6 Qxd6 11 Qxd4 are not attractive for Black. (m) 13 Nd4 Nxd4 14 cxd4 Qxd4 15 Qf3 Qf6 16 Qg3 with good attacking chances for White. (0) 6Nc3 Nxc3 (6. . . dxc3 7 Bxf7t Kxf7 8 Qd5t Ke8 9 Rel Be7 10 Rxe4 dé 11 Bgs exb2 12 Rae1 + [Estrin]) 7 bxc3 d5 is fine for Black. (p) 7Nc3 (Canal) 7... dxc3 8 Bxd5 Be6 9 Bxe4 Qxd1 10 Rxd1 cxb2 11 Bxb2 f6 ¥, Blatny-Smejkal, Prague 1986. {q) (A) 8...Qd8 9 Bg5 £6 10 Nxe4 Be7 11 Bf4 0-0 +, Glyanets-Obukhov, Chelyabinsk 1989. (B) 8. ..Qf5 9 Nxe4 Be7 10 Bg5 £6 11 Nxd4 + (Keres). (x) The gambit 9 Nxd4 Nxd4 10 Qxd4 f fails after 11 Bg5 Kf7 12 Nxe4 fxe4 13 Qo4t Kg6 or 12 Bh6 Qos 13 Bxg7 Rgé +. (s) 13 Bg5 Rdfs 14 Qe2 a6 15 Bd2 Qd5 16 Qe4 Qh5 =, Mogranzini—Dervishi, Italy 2006. (t) (A) 10... Qf 11 Bg5 Bd6 12 Nxd4 Nxd4 13 Qxd4 0-0 14 Nxd6 Qxgs =, Sveshnikov-Geller, Sochi 1983. (B) 10...Qd5 11 Bg5 Bd6 12 Bf6 0-0 13 Nxd4 Nxd4 =, Zaitsev-Averbakh, USSR 1964. (u) 11 b3 Qa3 12 Neg5 0-0-0 13 Nxe6 fxe6 14 Ng5 Rd7 15 Nxe6 Bb4, draw-agreed, Glek—Sveshnikov, Tashkent 1984. (v) After 13 Re2 g5 14 Nf6t Kf6 15 Bg3 Be7 16 Ne4 Rd8 the game was even, Estrin—Zaitsev, USSR 1983. (w) 10... Bd6 11 Nxd6t cxd6 12 Bf Qd5 13 c3 Kd7 =, Mogranzini-Godena, Italy 2006. (x) After 13 Qc1 0-0 14. Ng3 Qg6 15 Nh4 Qd3 16 Ne4 Kh8 17 Qf4 Bxc3 18 Radi Qc4 19 Nxc3 Qxc3 20 Qxc7 White's lead in development balanced Black’s extra pawn, Kamsky-Kupreichik, Palma de Mallorca 1989, 39TWO KNIGHTS’ DEFENSE 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 19 20 21 22 23 24 BB eee essere OD iecseesecereasesnssesenenerenseerenses Nc3. exd4 Be7(h) Nxe4(s) 5 5 0-0 Nxe4(t) d5(a) 0-0 d5 6 Bbs Bb3.......... Re1.........5 3 Bd3(u) Nes ds d6 ds dxe4(v) 7 Nxd4 exd5(i) c3(m) exd5 Bxe4 BoS..........Bd7 Nxd5 Be6(n) Nxd5 Bd6(w) 8 0-0(b) Bxc6 Re1(j) Bb5 Rel d4 0-0 bxc6 Bg4 Bd7 Bg4 exd4(x) 9 Bxc6(c) 0-0 h3 Ba4 ha(p) Bxc6t bxc6 Bc5(f) Bh5(k) a6 Bhs ‘bxc6 10 Nxc6 Be3 gt Nbd2 Nbd2 Qxd4 Qb4(d) —Qe7 Bg6 bs NfA4(q) 0-0 11 ~Be3 Rel Nxe5 Bc2 Nf1 0-0 Ba6(e) 0-0(g) Nxe5(I) Re8(o) Na5(r) c5(y) = (a) Other moves are feasible here: (A) 5... Ne4 6 0-0 (6 Bd5 Nc5 7 0-0 Be7 8 Qe2 0-0 =, Khmelnitsky—Romanishin, Sibernik 1990) 6... d5 7 exd6 Nxd6 8 Bd5 NfS 9 Rett Be7 10 Bxc6t bxc6 11 g4 Nh6 (11... Nd6 12 Nxd4 Bd7 13 Qf3 0-0 14 Nxc6 +, Edelman—Kaidanov, New York 1994) 12 Bxh6 gxh6 13 Qxd4 Qxd4 14 Nxd4 Kfs with chances for both sides, A. Tzermiadianos— Agnos, Athens 1995, (B) 5... Ng4 6 Qe2 Qe7 7 Bf4 d6 (7... £6 8 exf6 Nxf6 9 Nbd2 +, Sveshnikov-Ehlvest, Helsinki 1992) 8 exd6 cxd6 9 Nbd2 Bfs =, Valvo-R. Lavit, Chicago 1992. (b) (A) 8 Be3 is an important alternative. After 8... Bd7 9 Bxc6 bxc6 10 Nd2 Qh4 11 0-0 Bb6 12 c4 0-0 13 Rel Nxd2 14 Qxd2 dxc4 chances were equal, Sarakauskas—Hebden, Isle of Man 2006. (B) 8 Nxc6? Bxf2+ 9 Kf1 Qh4 10 Qxd5 Bc& 11 g3 Qh3t is losing for White, Barolik—Malinin, corr, 1988. (c) 9 Nxc6 bxc6 10 BxcB Ba6 11 Qxd5 Bxfi (11...‘Qxd5 12 Bxd5 Rad8 13 c4 Nxf2 14 Rxf2 Bxe4 o, Pyda-Varavin, Lublin 1993) 12 Qxe4 Bb5 13 Nc3 is probably even. (d) 10.,,Qd7 11 Nd4 Qe7 12 Bf4 £6 (Rogers) gives Black compensation for the pawn. (e) After 12 g3 Qh3 13 Bxc5 Bxf1 14 Qxf1 Qxflt 15 Kxf1 Nxc5 16 Nc3 4, R, Song-van Riemsdijk, New Zealand 2006, 40() 9... Be7 10 £3 Nc5 11 £4 Ne4 12 Nc3 Nxc3 13 bxc3 c5 14 Nb3 c4 15 Nd4 c5 16 Ne2 +, Krutko—Fatkulin, Nojabrsk 2005. (g) 12 £3 Ng5 13 £4 Ne6 14 c3 +, Sax-Smejkal, Vrbas 1977. (h) 4... Bc5 transposes into the Giuoco Piano. (i) 7 Nbd2 dxe4 8 dxe4 Bc5 9 c3 Qe7 =, Frois-Ordaz Valdes, Havana 2005. Though some players will prefer the white side. () 8h3 Kh8 9 Rel £6 10 c3 Nb6 (better is 10 . . . Bf5) 11 d4 exd4 12 cxd4 with ad- vantage to White, Bologan-Gi. Garcfa, Wijk aan Zee 1996. (k) 9... Bxf3 10 Qxf3 Nd4 11 Qxd5 Qxd5 12 Bxd5 Nxc2 13 Bd2 Nxa1 14 Re1 Rad8 =, S. Dizdar-Mikhalchishin, Zenica 1989. (1) 12 Rxe5 c6 13 Qf Bd6 (13... Bf6?! 14 Re2 Kh8 15 Bxd5 +, Kramnik— Kasparov, Novgorod 1995) 14 Re2 f5 is unclear (Kramnik). (m) 7 a3 Kh8 8 Nbd2 Ngs 9 Nf1 f5 =, A. Horwath-Naiditsch, Frankfurt 2006. (n) Other possibilities are: (A) 7... Rb8 8 a4 Be6 9 Nbd2 a6 10 h3 Qd7 11 Bb3 Bxb3 12 Qxb3 Rfe8 =, Nevednichy-Zaitsev, Bucharest 1993. (B) 7...h6 8 Nbd2 Na5 9 Bb5 Bd7 10 Bxd7 Nxd7 11 Nf1 Re8 12 Ng3 Bf8 13 Be3 g6 14h4 +, Berzinsh-V. Zhuravlev, Riga 1993. (o) After 12 Nf1 Bf8 13 Ng3 g6 14 h3 Bg7 15 d4 White has a small advantage, Bologan—Murei, France 1994. {p) (A) 9 Nbd2 Kh8 10 a4 f6 11 a5 Rb8 12 Nf1 Be6 is about even, Yudasin- Ivanchuk, Riga 1991. (B) 9 Bb5 Bd6 10 Nbd2 Khs 11 h3 Bh5 12 Ncé f6 =, Jonescu-Kunze, Santiago 1990. (q) 10... Nbé 11 Bb5 Bd6 12 Ne4 Re8 13 Ng3 Bg6 14 a4 a6 15 Bxc6 bxc6 =, Lazié—Gligori¢, Yugoslavia 1990. () 12 Bxf4 exf4 13 Bb5 a6 14 Ba4 b5 15 Be2 c5 16 Nih2Nc6 17 d4 cxd4 18 Be4 Re8 19 Bxc6 Rxc6 =, Yudasin—Dreev, Lvov 1990. (s) 4... BcS transposes into the Giuoco Piano, (t) 5 Bxf7t Kxf7 6 Nxe4 d5 7 Nfgst (7 Ng3 ¥) 7... Kg8 8 Qf3 Qd7 +. (u) 6 Bb5 dxe4 7 Nxe5 Qg5 is good for Black. (v) 6...£5 7 Nc3 4 8 Bb5 exf3 9 Qxf3 Be6 10 0-0 Qd7 11 Ne2 Bd6 12 d4 and White is slightly better, Morovié-Sagalchik, North Bay 1996, (w) The odd 7... Ne7 8 c3 £5 9 Bc2 e4 10 Ne5 favors White. (x) 8... Nxd4 is duller. After 9 Nxd4 exd4 10 Qxd4 0-0 11 Be3 Qe7 the game was even in Tarrasch-Marshall, Breslau 1912. (y) White’s superior pawn structure is balanced by the bishop pair, Tartakower— Bogoljubow, Pistyan 1922. 411e4 d5 2 exd5 1 2 3 4 5 6 BcOwib vnc ase Nie 3 Nesta) Gan) sete ncsueercrcs Bbst Qa5(b) Nxd5(0) Bd7 4 dale) Nf3(p) Be2(v) Nfé Baia Bg4 Nxd5 5 c4 Be2 d4 c6(f) 6 Nb Neé(t) —_—BES! 6 hs Bea Bd2 Ne3 c4 Nf3 Bh5 Bf5(g) Bf5Gj) Bg7 Nbs 6 7 ga Nos(h) —-Nd5 c5(q) d5 a3(w) Bgé 6 Qas Nd5() —-Bxf3 Be7 8 Nos g4 Nxfet Bea exf3 ca 6 Bg6 gxf6(k) 6 Ne5 Nb6 9 Bgald) ha Bfa(l) 0-0 Nc3 Bo3 6 Nbd7 Qbs Be6 06 0-0 10 ha Nxd7 Bb3 Qbs Be3 Nc3 Be4(e) Nxd7(i) a5(m) =» Nxc3(s)_Bb4(u)~—BFE(x) (a) (A) 3 Nf3 is reasonable as 3. . . e57! 4 Nc3 favors White. Better is 3... Bg4 4 Be2 Nc6 5 0-0 0-0-0 6 h3 Bhd 7 Nc3 Qd7 =, Pucovski—Plenkovic, Croatia 2005. (B) 3 d4 allows the counter 3. . . e5! 4 dxe5 Qxd1t 5 Kxd1 Nc6 =, (b) 3... Qd6 is fashionable, though after 4 Nf3 Nf6 5 d4 c6 6 Ne5 Nbd7 7 Bf4 Nd5 8 Bg3 Nxc3 (8... Qb4 9.43!) 9 bxc3 Nxe5 10 Bxe5 Qg6 11 Rbi White is more active, L'Ami-Grotenhuis, Hilversum 2006. (c) It is best to take charge of the center. Wimpy is 4 Nf3 Nfé 5 Bc4 Ncé 6 d3. Bf = (d) 9 h4 Bb4 10 Rh3 Bxc3t 11 bxc3 Nbd7 12 Nxd7 Nxd7 13 h5 Be4 14 Re3 Bc6 15 Bd2 0-0-0 =, Arnason—Rogers, Bor 1984. (e) Better than 10...Nbd7 11 Nxd7 Kxd7 12 Bd2 h5 13 g5 Ng8 14 d5l +, Smirin-Asanov, Beijing 1991. After 10... Be4 11 Bxe4 Nxe4 12 Qf3 Nd6 13 Bf4 f6 14 Nd3 Nbs5 15 0-0 White has active play, Hossain—Bakhmatov, Larl Mala Mem. 2000, (f) (A) 5. . . Bf5 6 Bc4 c6 7 Bd2 transposes into note (g). (B) 5 .. . Nc6?! 6 Bb5 Bd7 7 Bd2 0-0-0 8 a4 +, Psakhis—Efimov, Lenk 1991, 379() 6... Bg4 7 h3 Bhd 8 Bd2 e6 9 Qe2 Bb4 10 0-0-0 (less accurate is 10 a3 Nbd7 11 0-0-0 Bxc3 12 Bxc3 Qc7 13 g4 Bg6 14 Ne5 Ne4! =, Wolff-Rogers, Honolulu 1998) 10 .., Nbd7 11 g4 Bg6 12 Kb1 0-0-0 13 a3 Bxc3 14 Bxc3 Qc7 15 Bd2 Ne4 16 Bc1 Nb6 17 Bd3 +, Dolmatov—Rogers, Tallinn 1985. (bh) 7Bd2 e6 8 Qe2 (8 Nd5 is similartocolumn 3) 8 . .. Bb4 9 Ne5 (9 0-0-0 Nbd7 10 a3 Bxc3 11 Bxc3 Qc7 12 Ne5 Nxe5 13 dxe5 Nd5 14 Bd2 is just a little edge for White) 9... Nbd7 10 Nxd7 Nxd7 11 a3 Bxc3 12 Bxc3 Qc7 13 d5 cxd5 14 Bxd5 0-0 15 Bf3 Rac8 16 0-0 Nb6 =. (i) 11 hs Be4 12 Rh3 Bd5 13 Bd3 0-0-0 =, Marsuura—Zarnicki, Mario Covas 2004. () (A)6... . Qb6 7 NF3 Qxb2 8 Ne5 e6 9 Rb1 Qa3 10 0-0 is fair compensation for the pawn, Degraeve-Tomczak, Capelle la Grande 2006, This may be Black’s best choice. (B) 6... Qc7 7 Nf3 Bg4 8 h3 Bxf3 9 Qxf3 +, Yemelin-Podinic, BIH 2005. (k) 8... exf6 9 Bf4! Bd6 10 Qe2t Kfs 11 Bxdét Qxd6 12 Qd2 +, W. Watson— Christiansen, Germany 1995. (@) 93 e6 10 Ne2 Nd7 11 0-0 (Georgiev-Babula, Romania 1995) 11... Bd6 », (m) 11 a4 Rg8 12 Ne2 Na6 (12... Rxg2? 13 Bg3) 13 0-0 Nb4 14 Bg3 e6 15 Nf +, 'W. Watson-Rogers, London 1987. (n) 3 c4 c6 4 dxc6 Nxc6 5 Nf3 e5 6 d3 Bc5 is good compensation for the pawn. (0) The Portuguese Variation, 3... . Bg4!? 4 £3 BES, is very entertaining. Now 5 c4 e6 6 dxe6 Nc6! 7 Be3 Bb4t 8 Nc3 Qe7 allows Black fine play for the pawn(s), de Firmian—Vescovi, Bermuda 1996. More testing is 5 Bb5t! Nbd7 6 c4 e6 7 dxe6 Bxe6 8 c5 c6 (Smirnov—Vlassov, Aeroflot Open 2003), now 9 Ba4 gives White some advantage. (p) 404 has little independent significance as White usually plays this soon. (q) 7 Be2 0-0 8 0-0 Nc6 9 d5 Ne5 10 c5 Nxf3t 11 Bxf3 Nd7 12 Be3 Ne5 13 Be2 +, Isaksen-Nielsen, Esbjerg 1994. (rt) 7... N6d7 8 Be4 0-0 9 0-0 b6 10 Ret! bxc5 11 Bg5 +. (s) 11 bxc3 Bxc4 12 Qxo4 Nd7 13 Rb1 +, Gallagher—Forster, Switzerland 2006. (0) 5... €6 6 0-0 Be7 7 c4 Nb 8 Nc3 0-0 9 Be3 Nc6 10 b3 #, Kovacs—Horvath, Hungary 1993, (u) 11 Qb3 Qe7 12 0-0-0 0-0-0 13 dxe6 fxe6 14 Ne +, G, Hernandez-Reyes, Mex- ico 2006. (v) 4 Be4 b5 5 Bb3 a5 6 a3 Bg4 7 £3 Bc8 8 Nc3 Ba6 with compensation for the pawn, Zukertort-Kenny, Southampton 1884. Black should now play... g6 and develop before trying to recapture the pawn. (w) 7 0-0 Be7 8 c4 Nb4 9 Na3 0-0 10 Bf4 c6 =. (x) 11 h3 Nc6 12 g4 Bg6 13 h4 e5! 14 dxe5 Nxe5 15 Nxe5 Bxe5 leaving Black with at least equality, Balashov-Smagin, Novgorod 1995. 380