The Club Player's Modern Guide to Gambits

By Nikolai Kalinichenko

This is no ordinary opening book. This practical guide describes only such openings in which White or Black sacrifices material at an early stage of the game. They are called gambits (in Old Italian, gambetto means tripping).
The justification for such sacrifices can differ quite a lot. In most cases, the side that sacrifices material tends to get ahead of the opponent in development and/or opens lines to attack the enemy king. However, there are also gambits aimed at the occupation of the center (Blumenfeld Gambit), depriving the opponent of castling (Cochrane Gambit or Traxler Variation), weakening the opponent’s pawn structure (Anti-Moscow Variation), luring an opponent’s piece to an unfavorable position (sacrificing the b2-pawn), obtaining a certain positional compensation (Volga Gambit), etc.
Gambits are often associated with the romantic chess of the 19th century. Indeed, that was the heyday of such sharp openings as the King’s Gambit or Evans Gambit, but even nowadays, many games begin with one of the well-known or even innovative gambits. This should come as no surprise: gambits help to reveal the true essence of chess, “the triumph of spirit over matter.”
The concept of this book is to examine practical games and give theoretical insights in the notes rather than in stand-alone articles. Practice has shown this to be the most effective way of mastering new material. More often than not, recent games by the world’s top players have been chosen as an illustration, played in the last few years in particular. However, the most important classic games are mentioned as well. The present book analyzes almost 50 of the major gambit lines and systems. Almost 140 games are given in full, with many game fragments selected to illustrate the important deviations. And there is a special section about types of sacrificial themes, such as sacrificing the b2-pawn, sacrificing on f7, etc.
Readers who may wish to employ one of the examined gambit variations on a regular basis should, no doubt, study the specific books on that very opening, although in most cases the lines and ideas given are sufficient for a beginner or club player to include the system in his or her opening repertoire and give it a try.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Russell Enterprises, Inc.
• Release date: Oct 4, 2019
• ISBN: 9781941270776

Book preview

Adhiban-Rapport

Introduction

This is no ordinary opening book. This practical guide describes only those openings in which White or Black sacrifices material at an early stage of the game. They are called gambits (in Old Italian, gambetto means tripping).

The justification for such sacrifices can differ quite a lot. In most cases, the side that sacrifices material tends to get ahead of the opponent in development and/or opens lines to attack the enemy king, but there are also gambits aimed at the occupation of the center (Blumenfeld Gambit), depriving the opponent of castling (Cochrane Gambit or Traxler Variation), weakening the opponent’s pawn structure (Anti-Moscow Variation), luring an opponent’s piece to an unfavorable position (sacrificing the b2-pawn), obtaining a certain positional compensation (Volga Gambit), etc.

Gambits are often associated with the romantic chess of the 19th century. Indeed, that was the heyday of such sharp openings as the King’s Gambit or Evans’ Gambit, but even nowadays, many games begin with one of the well-known or even innovative gambits, especially if we include all the games starting with 1.d4 d5 2.c4. On the professional menu, the Marshall Gambit in the Ruy Lopez or the Catalan Queen’s Gambit are no less important than the fire-proof Berlin Defense or Anti-Meran Variation. This should come as no surprise: gambits help to reveal the true essence of chess, the triumph of spirit over matter (although matter often gains the upper hand if it is based on solid grounds!). The clash of ideas and approaches in a genuine chess struggle are also typical of gambits. One could even say that the 21st century, after the more arid era of the late 20th century, shows a certain renaissance of gambits and a surge of interest in them on the part of chessplayers of all levels, including the world champion Magnus Carlsen.

The present book analyzes about 50 of the major gambit lines and systems. Almost 135 games are given in full, with many game fragments selected to illustrate the important deviations. Of course, not all the gambits are listed here. We do not examine some uncommon lines or those unequivocally disadvantageous for the side employing the gambit, or certain variations that have not yet received a widely accepted name (for example, the variations with an early advance of the g-pawn in the closed and semi-open games developed by Alexey Shirov and other attacking players). The analyses of these and other opening variations can be found in the relevant opening manuals.

The concept of this book is to examine practical games and give theoretical insights in the notes rather than in stand-alone articles. Practice has shown this to be the most effective way of mastering new material. More often than not, recent games by the world’s top players have been chosen as an illustration, played in the last few years in particular. However, the most important classic games are mentioned as well.

The theoretical conclusions are generally valid as of early 2019. The readers who may wish to employ one of the examined gambit variations on a regular basis should, no doubt, study the specific books on that very opening, although in most cases the lines and ideas given are sufficient for a beginner or club player to include the system in his or her opening repertoire and give it a try. If, upon studying the book, you enrich your arsenal with even one gambit variation and thus widen your general chess understanding and probably gain some brilliant victories, the author will consider his mission accomplished.

In conclusion, the author would like to thank FIDE trainer Kirill Kuznetsov for his significant help and cooperation.

Nikolai Kalinichenko

April 2019

Part I

Open Games

White Gambits

Belgrade Gambit

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5

Instead of the usual 5.Nxd4, thus switching from the Four Knights to the Scotch, White sacrifices two pawns with one move while acquiring a strong knight on d5 and some dangerous threats in return. This gambit was first played in Yugoslav tournaments in the middle of the 20th century. In over-the-board games, Black tends to decline the sacrifice, although accepting the gambit is also possible.

(1) Starostits – R.Berzinsh

Riga 2012

Belgrade Gambit C47

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7

The most popular move, although White shall be aware of other possibilities as well.

(1) The move 5…Nxd5 is better than its reputation, however, after 6.exd5, not 6…Bb4+?! 7.Bd2 Qe7+ 8.Qe2 Bxd2+ 9.Kxd2 Qxe2+ 10.Bxe2 Nb4 11.Bc4 and the b4-knight is obviously misplaced, or 6…Bb4+?! 7.Bd2 Bxd2+ 8.Qxd2 Qe7+ 9.Be2 d3!? 10.Qxd3 Ne5 11.Nxe5 Qxe5 12.d6! when White has clear advantage (Starostits-Kantans, Tallinn 2018). Correct is 6…Nb4, after which White can play 7.Bc4 (fans of super-sharp chess may be advised to reply with 7.Nxd4 Nxd5 8.Nf5!? Ne7 9.Bg5 f6.

10.Bxf6! gxf6 11.Qh5+ Ng6 12.0-0-0, as in Hoffmann-T.Balogh, Leipzig 2000, and White has compensation for the sacrificed material) 7…Qe7+ 8.Kf1! (risky is 8.Kd2?! Qc5 9.Qe2+ Be7 10.Re1 b5! 11.Bb3 Bb7 12.Qe5 Nxd5 13.Qxg7 0-0-0 with the better prospects for Black, Polovodin-Rusakov, Jurmala 1980), e.g., 8…Qe4 9.Bg5 Be7 10.Qd2 0-0 11.Re1 Bxg5 12.Qxb4 Qf4 13.Bd3 Bf6?? (correct is 13…d6 with approximate equality) 14.Bxh7+ 1-0 (Repkova-Harvan, Trencin 1995).

(2) Taking the second pawn, 5…Nxe4, leads to sharp play. After 6.Bc4!?, the game continues in the spirit of great masters of the past: 6…Bb4+! (or 6…Be7; see 5…Be7) 7.c3 (after 7.Nxb4?! Nxb4 8.Nxd4 d5, Black keeps the extra pawn and protects himself from any direct threats) 7…dxc3 8.0-0 0-0 9.a3! with a dangerous initiative for White (Bednar-Virostko, Czechia 2005), however, it is not completely clear if it is worth the sacrificed pawns.

After 5…Nxe4, the most popular continuation is 6.Qe2 f5 and then:

(a) 7.Bf4 d6 (better is 7…Bd6! 8.Bxd6 cxd6 9.b4 – on 9.0-0-0, 9…Qa5 is annoying – 9…0-0 10.Qc4 Kh8 11.Be2 with a wild game, Piskur-Pavasovic, Ljubljana 2001) and White has a strong initiative, e.g., 8.0-0-0 Be7 9.Nxd4 Nxd4 10.Rxd4 Bf6.

11.Rxe4+ fxe4 12.Qxe4+ Kf8 13.Bc4 Bg4 14.f3 Bh5 15.Rd1 Bg6 16.Qe2 Bf7 17.Nxc7 Bg5 18.Nxa8 Bxf4+ 19.Kb1 (Prié-Pliester, Charlton 1983) and Black cannot play 19…Qxa8 in view of 20.Bxf7 Kxf7 21.Qc4+.

(b) 7.Ng5 used to be quite popular for quite a while, but it was later established that Black can get the advantage with precise play: 7…d3! 8.cxd3 Nd4 9.Qh5+ (9.Nxe4 loses to 9…Nxe2 10.Bg5 Nf4!) 9…g6 10.Qh4 c6! 11.dxe4 cxd5 12.exd5 Bg7, and White is deprived of any good move.

(3) 5…Nb4 is recommended by many opening books, after which White may choose between 6.Nxd4, followed by 6…Nxe4 (6…Nfxd5 7.exd5 Nxd5 leads to the game Hoffmann-T. Balogh, see above) 7.Nb5 Nxd5 8.Qxd5 Nc5 9.Be3 Ne6 10.0-0-0 (10.Nxa7!?) with compensation for the pawn (Ochoa de Echaguen-Rohde, Alicante 1978), and 6.Bc4 Nbxd5 7.exd5 Bb4+ 8.Bd2 Qe7+ 9.Qe2 Bxd2+ 10.Kxd2 Qxe2+ 11.Kxe2 c5 12.dxc6 bxc6 13.Nxd4 with approximate equality (L.Ilic-Mitkov, Gevgelija 2002).

6.Bc4

Also possible is 6.Bf4 d6 7.Nxd4 0-0 (or 7…Nxd5 8.exd5 Nxd4 9.Qxd4 Bf6 10.Qb4!? – 10.Qe3+ is also playable – 10…0-0 11.0-0-0 Bf5, Bellon Lopez-Szmetan, Wijk aan Zee 1977) 8.Nb5 Nxd5 9.exd5 Ne5 10.Be2 and 6.Nxd4 Nxd5 7.exd5 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 0-0 9.Be2 Bf6 10.Qd3, with approximately level play in all lines.

6…0-0

A somewhat risky pawn-grabbing approach is 6…Nxe4!? 7.0-0 0-0 8.Nxd4 Nd6 (8…Nf6 is also possible) 9.Bb3 Bf6 10.Nf3 Nf5 11.c3! d6 12.Re1 Nh4!? 13.Nxh4 Bxh4 14.Qh5 Be6 15.Re4! (Mareck-Schwenk, Deizisau 1998) and White has compensation for the sacrificed material.

7.0-0 d6 7…Nxe4 leads to the line mentioned in the previous note. 8.Nxd4 Nxd4 9.Qxd4 Nxd5 10.Bxd5 Bf6

The immediate 10…c6 is also playable.

11.Qd3

The material balance has been restored. However, White maintains microscopic pressure as he has a slight space advantage.

11…c6!? An understandable decision. Black creates a temporary weakness on d6, but he hopes to get rid of all the problems whatsoever by preparing a quick …d6-d5.

11…Qe7 is also played: 12.c3 c6 13.Bb3 Be6 14.Bc2 g6!? 15.Bh6 Rfe8 16.f4 Rad8 17.Rae1 Bc8 18.Qf3 Bg7 19.Bg5 Bf6 20.Bh6 (after 20.Bxf6 Qxf6 21.f5!, White has somewhat better chances) 20…Bg7 21.Bg5 Bf6 22.Bh6 with a draw by repetition (Chuprov-Frolyanov, Taganrog 2011).

Another logical possibility is 11…Re8 when White, in addition to equally logical 12.c3, has 12.Rb1!? a5 13.a4 Qe7 14.Bf4 Be5 15.Bxe5 and Black, after any capture, still has to equalize, Musovic-Sekulic, Belgrade 2019.

12.Bb3 Be6 13.c4!?

White opposes his opponent’s plan. In Robson-Onischuk, St. Louis 2012, White opted for the modest 13.c3. There followed 13…Bxb3 14.axb3 Qe7 15.Bf4 Rfe8 16.f3 Be5 17.Be3 d5 18.exd5 Bxc3!? 19.bxc3 Qxe3+ 20.Qxe3 Rxe3 21.dxc6 bxc6 22.Rfe1 and the game soon ended in a draw without deviating from equality at any point.

13…c5?! A dubious move. It is simply bad from a positional viewpoint; however, Black’s hopes lie with the occupation of the d4-square. Even in this case, however, White would be able to exchange the bishop or even sacrifice the exchange, after which Black would have to settle for a tedious defense.

If 13…Qe7 14.Rb1 Rfd8, White would find it difficult to increase his subtle advantage without undertaking too much risk, although f2-f4 could have followed after due preparatory work. If 15.f4 at once, then after 15…b5! 16.cxb5 Bxb3, the exposed position of White’s king could tell.

14.Bc2 Bd4 15.Rb1 f5?!

Another reckless decision by Black. He wants to exchange the light-square bishops and increase his pressure against f2, but all this is hardly possible.

16.Be3 f4!? 17.Bxd4 cxd4

18.f3!

White does better to avoid the complications resulting from 18.Qxd4 f3.

18…Rc8 19.Bb3!

If 19.b3, the bishop would stay imprisoned for a long time.

19…a5 20.Rfd1 a4 21.Bxa4 Bxc4 22.Qxd4

White has won a pawn, and besides, he stands better. The result of the game can be predicted with certainty.

22…Kh8 23.Rbc1 b5 24.Bb3 Qa5 25.Bxc4 bxc4 26.Rxc4 Qxa2 27.Rxc8 Rxc8 28.Qxd6 h6 29.Qxf4 Qxb2 30.h4 1-0

Illustrative Games

(2) Svidler – Morozevich

Moscow 2002

Belgrade Gambit C47

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bf4 d6 7.Nxd4 (D)

7…0-0

Black could have reached a completely equal position with

7…Nxd5 8.exd5 Nxd4 9.Qxd4 Bf6, e.g., 10.Qe4+ Qe7 11.Qxe7+ Kxe7 12.0-0-0 Bf5 (Cernousek-Kholmov, Olomouc 2005).

8.Nb5 Nxd5 9.exd5 a6?!

Pushing the envelope. A more reliable continuation is 9…Ne5 10.Qd2 c5 11.Bxe5 dxe5 12.d6 Bg5 13.Qd5 Qa5+ (G.Garcia-Aleksandrov, Turin 2006).

10.dxc6 axb5 11.Bxb5 Bg5 12.cxb7 Bxb7 13.Qg4 Qe7+

13…Bxf4 14.Qxf4 Bxg2 15.Rg1 Qe7+ 16.Kd2 Qe4 deserves attention.

14.Kd2 Bf6 15.Rhe1 Qd8 16.c3 Rb8 17.Kc2 Bc8

17…Bxg2!? is perhaps better.

18.Qe2 c6 19.Bd3 Be6 20.Qd2 g6 (D)

21.Kc1

21.b3 looks stronger, after which Black does not have enough for the pawn.

21…Qa5 22.Bxd6 Rxb2!? 23.Qxb2

If 23.Kxb2 Rd8 24.Rxe6 fxe6 25.Bg3 Qb4+ 26.Kc2 Qa4+ 27.Kc1 Qa3+, White cannot escape the perpetual.

23…Bxc3 24.Qa3 Qxa3+ 25.Bxa3 Ra8 26.Rxe6 Bxa1 27.Rxc6 Rxa3 28.Bc4 Bd4 29.f4

White would have kept the better prospects with 29.Kd2!? Kg7 (or 29…Bxf2 30.Rf6 Be3+ 31.Ke2 Kg7 32.Rxf7+ Kh6 33.Rd7) 30.Ke2 Ra5 31.Bb3. After the text move, Black exchanges rooks and attains a draw with precise play.

29…Ra5 30.Kd2 Rc5 31.Rxc5 Bxc5 32.a4 Kf8 33.Kd3 Bb6 34.Ke4 Ke7 35.f5

White had obviously no desire to advance the f-pawn, however, no win was in sight after 35.g4 Ba5 36.h3 Kf6 37.Kd5 Bd2.

35…g5 36.Kd5 g4 37.Kc6 Bg1 38.h3 gxh3 39.gxh3 Kf6 40.Bd3 Kg5 41.a5 Kh4 42.a6 f6 43.Kb7 Kxh3 44.a7 Bxa7 45.Kxa7 Kg4 46.Kb6 Kf4 47.Kc5 Ke5! ½-½

A draw was agreed upon in view of 48.Kc4 h5 49.Kc3 h4 50.Kd2 h3 51.Ke3 h2 52.Be4 h1Q 53.Bxh1 Kxf5.

(3) Ramiro Ovejero – A.Marjanovics

Arad 2014

Belgrade Gambit C47

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nb4 6.Nxf6+

Yet another possibility for White.

6…Qxf6 7.Bc4

7…d5

Strange as it may seem, 7…Bc5 hardly equalizes because of 8.0-0 0-0 9.e5 Qg6 (9…Qd8 10.Bg5) 10.a3 Nc6 11.b4 Bb6 12.b5 Na5 13.Bd3! Qh5 (Polovodin-Korelov, Leningrad 1978) 14.Bf4 and White stands better. The text move results in a quick draw.

8.exd5 Bg4 9.a3

Also possible is 9.Qe2+ Qe7! (9…Be7 10.a3 Bxf3 11.gxf3 plays into White’s hands) 10.Qxe7+ Bxe7 11.Nxd4 0-0-0 with equal chances.

9…Bxf3 10.gxf3 Qe5+ 11.Kd2! Qf4+ 12.Ke2 Qe5+ 13.Kd2 Qf4+ 14.Ke2 Qe5+ 15.Kd2 Qf4+ ½-½

(4) Antoli Royo – Beliavsky

Hoogeveen 2014

Belgrade Gambit C47

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Bc5!?

A new try.

6.Bc4

Black’s idea is to answer 6.Bg5 with 6…Be7 7.Nxe7 Qxe7 8.Bxf6 Qxf6 9.Bb5 0-0 or 9…Ne5 and he has the upper hand. That is why after 6.Bg5 Be7, White is well advised to play 7.Bf4! and the game transposes to the main lines of the Belgrade Gambit.

6…h6! 7.0-0 d6 8.a3 a5

With a healthy extra pawn for Black. The game continued as follows:

9.Ba2

9.h3 0-0 10.Re1 Ne5 11.Bf1 Re8 is by no means a promising line for White.

9…0-0 10.Re1 Re8 11.h3 Nxd5 12.Bxd5 Qf6 13.Kh1 Ne5! 14.Nxd4 c6 15.Ba2 Ng4!?

15…Qxf2 is also good.

16.Be3

Or 16.hxg4? Bxd4.

16…Nxe3 17.fxe3 Qe5

Black has given back his extra pawn, obtaining in return a sizeable positional advantage.

18.Rf1 Be6 19.Nxe6 fxe6 20.Qg4 d5 21.exd5 exd5 22.c4 Bd6 23.Qf4 Qxf4 24.exf4 Re2 25.cxd5 c5!

White has an extra pawn, however his position hardly inspires confidence. That being said, he still retains certain drawing chances thanks to the opposite-color bishops.

26.Bc4 Rxb2 27.Rab1 Rc2 28.Bd3 Rd2 29.Bf5 c4 30.Rxb7 Rf8 31.Be6+ Kh8 32.g3?

He had no time to protect the useless f-pawn. It was necessary to transfer the rook to the c-file with 32.Rb6 as quickly as possible.

32…c3 33.Rb3 c2 34.Rc3 Be5! 35.Rc4 Bb2

It is all over now.

36.Kg1 Bxa3 37.f5 a4 38.Bd7 c1Q 0-1

King’s Gambit

Steinitz Gambit

1.e4 e5 2.f4

One of the oldest openings, known since the 16th century. At the cost of a pawn, White comes close to forming a strong pawn center at e4 and d4, gets a semi-open f-file at his disposal and prepares to launch an attack on the kingside aimed primarily at the f7-square.

In the good ol’ days, many brilliant games had started with the King’s Gambit, with White getting the upper hand in most cases. One of the reasons for the semi-open games to appear on stage was that Black feared White’s onslaught in the King’s Gambit (while in the King’s Gambit proper, the Falkbeer Counter-Gambit was invented).

Today, the defensive technique has improved significantly and the King’s Gambit is not considered to be dangerous any more. Moreover, some GMs even mark White’s second move with a ?! sign (a dubious move). However, the gambit can still be formidable if White plays it skillfully, at the master and, in particular, especially at the club level.

The theory of the King’s Gambit has been developed to extreme depths. Certain lines of the King’s Gambit Accepted (for example, the classical variations of the Knight’s Gambit arising after 3.Nf3 g5) are among the sharpest in chess, often involving additional material sacrifices. In this chapter we will look into the lines that do not fall in any of the other sections cited below.

(5) Shirov – Alekseev

Lublin 2011

King’s Gambit C34

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4

If Black opts for the King’s Gambit Declined, e.g., by 2…Bc5 3.Nf3 d6 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.d3 Bg4 7.Na4!, then White’s initiative will develop fluently and at no price.

3.Nf3 h6!?

A logical move. Black is planning …g7-g5 and does not want to hide his intentions. In addition to the variations discussed below, including the main move 3…g5, Black has a number of other options, four of which are highly popular.

(1) 3…d6 was favored by Bobby Fischer. Black makes a useful developing move while keeping the option to support the f4-pawn with …g7-g5.White, in turn, has two interesting possibilities in his disposal.

(a) The old line runs 4.d4 g5 (after 4…Nf6 5.Nc3 Be7 6.Bxf4 0-0 7.Qd2 a6 8.0-0-0 d5 9.e5 Ne4 10.Nxe4 dxe4 11.Ng5 Bxg5 12.Bxg5 Qd5 13.c4 Qc6 14.d5, White won quickly in Ivanchuk-Szivek, Mainz 2007) 5.g3 g4 6.Nh4 f3 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.Be3 Be7 9.Qd2 (Zvjaginsev-Akopian, Mainz 2009).

This type of structure may appear in various lines of the King’s Gambit. An exciting struggle is ahead with chances for both sides; White has full compensation for the material. He can castle on either side and then start operations in the center.

If, instead of 5.g3, White opts for the passive 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1, Black has the strong counter 6…f5!, e.g., 7.Bxf4 (or 7.Nc3 fxe4 8.Nxe4 Qe7 9.Qe2 Nc6 10.c3 Bf5 11.Nf2 Bh6, with a big advantage for White, Alex.Sokolov-Vrana, Czech Republic 2019) 7…fxe4 8.Nc3 Nf6 9.Bg5!? Bg7 10.Bc4 c6 11.Qd2 d5 12.Bb3 h6 13.Be3, Hanley-Lane, Gibraltar 2019. (D)

Here Black went wrong with 13…Be6?! which soon allowed White to take the e4-pawn utilizing the pin and finally win the game. Instead, he should

have gone for 13…Nh5! 14.Nge2 Nd7 not allowing the opponent’s knights to safely occupy the blockading g3- and f4-squares. White would then have only partial compensation for the pawn.

(b) A modern continuation is 4.Bc4 g5? (better is 4…h6 5.0-0 g5, see below) 5.0-0 (even stronger is 5.h4! g4 6.Ng5 Nh6 7.d4 Qe7 (or 7…f6 8.Bxf4 Nc6 9.0-0 Qe7 10.Nc3 Qg7 11.Ne6 Bxe6 12.Bxe6 Ke7 13.Nd5+ Kxe6 14.Bxh6 Qxh6 15.Qxg4+ Kf7 16.Rxf6+ Qxf6 17.Nxf6 Kxf6 18.Rf1+ Ke7 19.Qg5+ Kd7 20.Qf5+ Ke8 21.Qf7+ Kd8 22.Qf6+ Ne7 23.Qxh8 Ng6 24.Rxf8+ 1-0, Morphy-Tilghman, London 1859) 8.Nc3 c6 9.Bxf4 f6 10.Qd2 b5 11.Bb3 b4 12.Ne2 fxg5 13.Bxg5 Qxe4 14.0-0 Kd7 15.Ng3 Qg6 16.h5 Qg7 17.Bf6 Ba6 18.Bxg7 Bxg7 19.Nf5 1-0, Sang Tian-Shen Yang, Las Vegas 2014) 5…h6 6.d4.

The correct way is now 6…Nc6! 7.c3 Bg7 8.Qa4! (or 8.h4!? transposing to Nakamura-Ivanchuk, see the Greco-Philidor Gambit) 8…Bd7 9.Qb3 with complicated play, e.g., 9…Na5 10.Bxf7+ Kf8 11.Qa3 Kxf7 12.Qxa5 c5 13.Qa3 Qb6 14.Nbd2 Qb5 (Zvjaginsev-Akopian, Rijeka 2010) and here 15.e5! would have been strong.

The position in the diagram was also reached in Vachier-Lagrave– Ipatov, Dubai 2014. There followed 6…Bg7? 7.c3 Ne7 8.g3! c6 (or 8…g4 9.Nh4 f3 10.Nxf3! with excellent compensation) 9.gxf4 d5 10.exd5 cxd5 11.Bb5+ Bd7 12.Bxd7+ Qxd7 13.Ne5 Bxe5 14.fxe5 Nbc6 15.Nd2 0-0-0 16.Nb3 b6 17.Be3 f5 18.exf6 Nf5 19.Qd3 Nd6 20.Bf2 Ne4 21.Bg3 Rhf8 and now after 22.a4, White would have an extra pawn combined with the more realistic attacking prospects.

(2) 3…Nf6 (Schallopp Defense) 4.e5 Nh5 5.Be2! d6 (for 5…g5, see the Illustrative Games) 6.0-0 dxe5 7.Nxe5 Bc5+ (or 7…Qd4+!? 8.Kh1 Qxe5 9.Bxh5 Qf5 10.d4 Bd6 and now both 11.c4 and 11.Re1+ leave White with the better prospects) 8.Kh1 Nf6 9.c3 (9.Nd3 Bd6 10.Nxf4 is not bad either) 9…0-0 10.d4 Be7 11.Bxf4 with good play for White (Chueca Forcen-Jimenez de la Torre, Linares 2013).

(3) 3…Ne7 4.Nc3 (or 4.Bc4, see Robson-Bacrot, game 7) 4…Ng6?! (stronger is 4…d5 5.d4 dxe4 6.Nxe4 Nd5 7.Bd3 Be7 8.c4 Ne3 9.Qe2 Bb4+ 10.Kf2!? 0-0 11.Bxe3 fxe3+ 12.Qxe3 Be7 13.Rae1, with complicated play, Renet-I.Sokolov, Eupen 1997) 5.h4 h5 (D)

6.Qe2 Be7 7.Qf2! Nc6 8.d4 d6 9.Bb5 Bg4 10.d5 a6 11.Ba4 b5 12.Nxb5 axb5? (12…0-0!) 13.Bxb5 0-0 14.Bxc6 Bxf3 15.gxf3 Bxh4 16.Rxh4 Qxh4 17.Bxa8 Rxa8 18.Qxh4 Nxh4 19.Kf2 and White managed to convert

his better ending to a win, Smerdon-Ostrovsky, Internet 2015.

(4) For 3…d5, see Spassky-Bronstein (game 8).

4.Nc3

If 4.Bc4, the game will often reach other known variations, while 4.d4 g5 5.Nc3 leads to the text with a transposition of moves.

4…d6 5.d4 g5 6.g3!

White abandons the idea of regaining the pawn, however, he gets abundant compensation thanks to the weakening of his adversary’s kingside.