Bosch J. (editor) SOS: Secrets of Opening Surprises. Volume 1

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Black has developed his kingside, but

'forgotten'

play hS.

1.g4!

tL.h4

l...lLlh6

can be answered

2.~h6 or even more

simply by 2.h3. 2.tL.h4 j_h4

3.~d3

llJc6

4.0-0 ~e7 5.f4 and White has a nice ad-

vantage. althnugh Black later won.

Rahls·Danerud

Travemunde

1989

The knight is badly placed on g6, and

While's

h-pawn

is itching

make

ca-

reer for himself. 1.h4 ttJa5 2.h5 tDt8

3."g5 1:1g84.1'16g61 4...lbg6 is stronger

hut White still holds a considerable ad-

vantage.

5.tbbd2 bS 6.~'6! 6J:tfa I

lbc4

7.~c4 bc4 and While is better but not

winning yet.

The text is

more devious.

6...

0c4 7.~c4 bc4 8.'iWg7

Black re-

signed.

V Tactics

In a sharp line as the Wing Gambit tactics

are very important of course. Direct

blows may be necessary to destroy solid

French positions. In the next four exam-

ples you can test your own ability.

Marten s-Krays

Sas van Gent 1996

While to move, should he retreat his

knight and lose time?

ViJf7!

~f7

2.• '3 wg7 3.~g6!

~f6

3...~e8(!) 4.Ad3

with

good

compensa-

tion. 4.~g3 1:1g85.ef6

"f6

6.h5 'i5>h8

6...lDb3

7.Af4+-. 7.~f4 .tg7 8.~2

tt';c4 9.tt)c4

dc4

10.l:la3

White

is better

and later converted his edge.

Bucker·Uhlmann

Bad

Neuenahr 1991

Black to move, can he take e5?

1...ttJe5 2.ttJe5 j£,b5 3.~f7I

~f7

4•• h5 96

139

5.'¥fb5 ftb6

6.Wc4

6.~b6 6...

~g7 7.ab4

!:De78.~\a3 l:lhc8 9.'i!i'b3 tbd5 10.b5 a6

1Ulfe1 ab5 I J...'it>g8°o. 1

Vi~b5

l:lal

. 13.~a1 l%c614.~b2 ~f615.~a3

15...~c7? 16."'b4 e5 17.'I'f8 ~6

18.'l!fc8 ~d5 19.~d7 ~c4 20kc3

20.tL:d6. 20..JifaS 21.QfB ~a8 22.t;~4

'efe8 22 ...'~f8 23.r.tbl+-. 23.~£jd6lId6

24.~d6 \\f¥c625.d3 Black resigned.

Pedersen·Laursen

Vejle 1991

White to move, a knight move?

1.'2:a7!lla7

2.0\e6

we8 2..

.'~'e6

1.~b6

140

wd7 4J~a7 0a7 S.'~b7+-.

3.na7 0a7

4.tl:.f8 and Black resigned because of

4...

;t>fR

5.'~a3.

Besch-Bergmann

Berlin 1991

Undoubtedly White is better after 1.'¥Pg7.

but is there something more forceful'>

1.tL:e6!

ke6

2.4'.b5 ~b6 3.lL.d6 <j;d7

3.....tdR 4Jla5 4.I:la5 4.~g7 is equally

good. Black resigned after the text since

4...'$'a_') 5.ttg7 ~c6 (5.....t>d86.t!Jb7)

6.'i'b7

mates.

I hope your appetite is whetted while we

move on to the theory section.

Theory

1. e4 e6

2. tLJf3 dS

2...c5 is a Sicilian of course, and other

moves make no sense.

3. e5 05

Clearly best, other moves are passive.

Thus, 3...b6 may be answered by 4.c3

(preventing ka6). and moves like 3.

..tZ::c

3...

Ad7 can be answered by 4.04 (with

a good French Advance) or 4.a3!?, keep-

ing the option of 4...c5 5.b4!?

4. b4!?

We will now investigate: 4...b6 (chapter 1);

4 d4 (chapter

II);

4...c4 (chapter

Ill);

4 cb4 (chapter

IV).

Chapter I

4. ... b6

A modest reply, yer Black has a sound po-

sitional idea in mind. He aims to ex-

change the white-squared bishops. hop-

ing

be better in the resulting French

Advance structures that will arise.

White's strongest option now is

5. e3!

This forces Black to make another prepa-

ratory move, because of

the

tactic

5....b6?

6.~a6lL:.a6 7."a4. Other moves

arc

less

convincing:

5.bc5?! bc5 6.c3 is sometimes played, bUI

the pawn exchange favours the second

player. If While insists on the exchange

he should try to change the pawn structure

with 6.c4

happened for instance in

Rahls-Bohrn, San Bernardino 1982. I

don't have much faith in this plan.

With 5.a3 White wants to tempt Black

into taking the pawn on b4 after aiL The

second player will of course refrain from

taking it once again, and simply carry on

with his positional plan 5...

L6.

Dovzik-Matlak,

Frydek

Mistek Open

1996.

Black was comfortable after 6.~a6

tDa6

7.~e2 [i;,c7 8.bc5 bc5 9.d4 c4

IO.~g5 0e7 11.0-0 h6':F.

Finally, Wind's recommendation of S.d4

is sometimes played. In my opinion,

S...'ttd7 (5...~a6 is not bad either) is too

srrong

an answer.

5.... ir'd7

Inconsistent is

5.Ji;,e7

6.d4 c4 7.a4 a6

8.h4 h5 9.~g5±

Barua-Naji,

Asian Team

Championship. Dubai 1992.

B3!?

New In Chess Yearbook

Bucker con-

demned the text with a '?!' sign, but

can-

not agree with {his harsh verdict. There is

141

an alternative available though in the

form of 6.lba3 (6.b5 and 6.bc5 are less se-

rious). The idea of 6.l'L2a3is that6 ...~a6 is

well answered by 7.b5, and

6...

cb4 7.~b5

lUc6

8.cb4 seems playable because

8...~b4failsto9.'ih4lbge7 IO.lbd4. Be-

sides White prepares lDc2, followed by

d4 with a slight edge. A fine example is

Reinderman-LBoersma,

Dutch Open

Championship. Dieren 1991: 6.0.a3 ~b7

7.tiJc2 0.e7 8...te2 tL\g6 9.d4 ..Q.a61O.h4

~e2

Uj'e2 h5;!;. However, there is a

problem in the line 6.0.a3

7..ib5 ttJc6

for after 8.cb4

think that Black can sim-

ply play 8...a6! with an edge. In

Heiberg-Sorensen, Naesrved 1988,

White therefore tried the forcing 7..ib5

lDc6

8.ttJd4 ..o.b79.iVa4 0.ge7 but saw

now nothing better than lO.cb4 when af-

ter

1O...

t.~c6 tLlc6

VtJc6 ..o.c6

13.'i!i'b3 i.a4! Black already had a

considerable advantage.

With 6.a3 While has fortitied b4 and is

now ready to play d4 moving the game

into the waters of the French Advance.

6. ... .ia6

Much more critical is

6...

d4?! to counter

White's positional plan. However, ac-

cording to an analysis of Mortensen this

move can be refuted. After 7.cd4! eb4

8.d5! "'d5 (Black cannot allow d6 of

course, and

R...cdS

9.ab4.ib4 is too small

a material gain for the initiative that

White is going to develop) 9.ab4 .ib4(!)

Otherwise simply 0.c3 with a huge edge.

1O.'i!i'a4 tLlc6 II.~b5 ~d7! (1l... ... e4

l2.c;PfI ~d7 and White has 13.tbc3; now

12.~c6failsto 12...'ffc6whencl is hang-

ing) 12.0-0 0.ge7, the game

Mortensen-Bjerring, Denmark 1986,

142

ended peacefully after 13.~a3 ~a3

14.tbc3 iWc5 15.tUe4 'it'b4 16.0.<16~f8

17.l:ta3

~a4 and so on. But, as Bjerring

pointed out to his opponent after the game

White could have played the remarkably

cool 13J%dl! when

is difficult to see a

playable move for Black in the face of

t4.ttJc3.

7. .ia6

Bad is 7.d3?! d4! as happened in

Bucker-Borngasser,

Heiden 1987. Be-

cause of this game Biickergave6.a3

'"!'

but it is his 7.d3 which is the culprit.

7. tile6

Although the white-squared bishops have

been

exchanged,

While

still slightly

better because of his space advantage.

Bosch-Krans, Amstelveen 1992, contin-

ued lL.tLle7 9.0-0 tDc7~.

Instead

9...tijc7 Black can try

9...%k8,·

when

10.• e2 improves upon

OJle

played

in Salrnensuu-Sakalauskas, Helsinki

2002. Hendriks-Eveleens, correspon-

dence Dutch Championship 1993, ended

in a quick draw after 8...cd4 9.cd4 0,c7

10.0-0 a5 II.ba5 l:ta5 12...o.d2 tla7

l3.llic3 li~e7

14.-'Lc3 tLJl:6

15.~b3 ~e7

16.'i'b60-0 17.'tIfb3 l:b8 18.'tIfl:2 l:ta3;

but Black's optimistic play

this game

could have been punished with

L4.'tIfb3!±.

Chapter II

4....

The idea of this line, and that of the next.

is to prevent White from forming the

powerfuL pawn chain c3-d4-e5. Though

hardly ever played, this line certainly de-

serves attention.

S. bcS .Q.cS

6. ~a3 ~aS

This move. although once played by

Kortchnoi, is not necessarily Black's best.

Mortensen gives 6...b6 7.~c5 bc5 8.lba3

which should certainly guarantee White a

slight edge. However, 6...<1':1.17needs

investigated. In

Los-Bosman,

Dutch

Team Championshi p 1992, Black quickly

gained an endgame plus after 7.c3?! dc3

8.dd 4ih6

9.~cS?! tilcS 1O.~d8 ~d8

II.LDa3~e7. An alternative on move 7 is

7.~b5 which should be answered by

7...~b6 and not by 7...~aJ?

8.tba3

~aS?

9.li\c4.

7. ~cS ~c5

8. c3!

(bc6

9. cd4 tDd4

10. 'fi'a4 tDc6

After the text Mortensen feels that White

gains the edge by II.ti"c3 planning

tt:.c4.

He. therefore. gives I0...gd7(?) an excla-

mation mark. only to refute it inhis subse-

quent analysis! So, 1O...~d7? (l.f¥d4

~cl 12.We2 xb5 13.d3! ~d3 (4.'itd3

'i'b2 15.ltJbd2 'ifal 16.~bS and White

should win.

11. 04.Jc3

tL',h6

Boersma- Konchnoi, Dutch Champion-

ship. Leeuwarden 1977. continued

II...'tWa5 12.'tIfa5l2Ja5 13.tbb5 and only

after a long game and several chances

missed Black won. Instead of

12:ih5

Boersma could have set his illustrious op-

ponent for serious problems with

12:.g4!

12. lLie4 '*b4

13. (LidS r:J;e7

We have been following

Bucker-Schmittdiel, German Champion-

ship. Bad Neuenahr 1991. That game

143

ended in a quick draw after 14.tfb4 tUb4

5J:lb

tlJd5 16.~c4 (I6.tDc8 l:thc8

17.l:lb7 ~fR~) 16...tUb6 17.~d3. White

cannot prevent the queen swap with

14.'ilfc2 (instead of J4.'ikb4) because of

14...ltXI4!.

In my opinion. White keeps a

pleasant endgame edge though with

14.~b5~ and now 14...'it'a4 l5.~a4 or

14...~d7 when there

are

several attractive

options available. Note that 14...'ilfb2 is

losing after 15.~c6~ 'ilfa 1 J6.~e2 'ffh 1

(or 16..:il'b2 I7.Q\c4) 17.'~a3.

Chapter III

4. ..• c4

Conceding

square d4 without

fight

looks bad. but Black intends to take on d3

after a future d3 or d4. thus forcing White

to cover e5 with his pieces. Moreover he

will lure the b4-pawn to b5 thus gaining

square c5 for his own pieces. Yet. in the

end I feel that Black's strategy should

prove insufficient.

5. c3

The alternative here is 5.a3.

Los- Vaisser,

Groningen Open 1991, there

followed 5...a5 6.b5 ~b6 7.d3 .Qc5?!

8.d4 ~e7 9.a4±. Thought-provoking is

the game Stripunsky-Moskalenko,

Ukraine Championship, Sirnferopol

1990. After 5...b5(!) 6.a4..tb4 7.ab5 'i'b6

8 ...Q_a3

~a3 9'cila3 lLlh6 White went for

the piece sac lO.~c4!? dc4 Il.tiJc4

'fie?

12.ltid6 We? 13.0-0 xb7 14.c4 tLJd?

15.d4~ (see the study material).

5.... a5

Other moves are Jess good.

For

instance:

A) 5...f6'!! 6.d4 cd3 7.~d3 fe5 8.lL~e5

144

lbf6 9.~g5 ~d6 lO.f4 0·0 11.0-0 ltX6

12J:l:eI

Kadas-Sugar, Tapolca 19R6.

B) 5.Jjje7 6.d3 cd3 7.~d3 tLxJ78.0-0

'iVc7

9.11el ttlg6

(9...

lbc6 10:.we2 ~e7

11.~f4 a6 12.a4± Day-Ackermann, Ot-

tawa 1966) 1O.'ir'e2 ~e7 II.h4~±

Kadas-Horgosi, Jaszbereny

1977.

6. b5

Variation A

6. ... ~b6

6...~c5 7.d3 cd3 8.~d3 lUd7 9.0-0 0.c7

1O.'it'e2 h6 II.a4;1; Herrnann-Libeau,

Germany Bundesliga 1992.

7. d3!

7.a4 should be answered by 7...~c5(!)

8.d4

cd3 9.l:I:a2

and

not

7 ...lC.d7

8.d4

cd3 9.~d3 ~c5,!! 10.0-0 f5 II.tLlbd2 CiJe7

12.t~b3 0-0 13.tbbd4 ~g6 14.'iVe2±

Bucker-Vavra, Prague 1991.

7. cd3

Now 7 ~c5

is bad of

course

view of

8.d4 ~e7 9.a4.

8. i.d3 ~d7

In Dovzik-Malar, Hlohovec Open 1996,

White gained

quick victory after

8...~c5 9.0-0 ~;,e7 lO.a4 t:jd7 I LtUbd2!?

(l1.'it'e2) II...0.g6 Now the following

double pawn sacrifice is forced. 12.lDb3

lbge5 13.tileS 0e5 14.tDc5 'e'c5

15 ..Q.a3

16'c3 16.~e2 lLle4 17.i.c4 ..we4 18.J:tc1

16'f4 19.93 'ffb8 20.:ael~/±.

9. a4 Ci:Je7

10. 0-0

~g6

11. tt'e2 ~e7

12. l:la2!?;t

Black has some problems because the

natural 12...

0-0'1

fails to

13.

h4 tLlh4

14.tDh4 .ih4 15.'it'h5.

Dovzlk-Ferenc

Portisch, Nagykanizsa 1994, therefore

continued with 12...f6, see the study ma-

terial.

Variation B

6. ...

!:tld7

my opinion this is stronger than

6...~b6. The queen is more usefully

placed on the diagonal b8-h2, and is still

useful on d8 as well often preventing h4.

7. d4

Or7.d3

7. cd3

8. ~d3

..t'iV~..t~:i

i ~ iii

The critical position

which it is

not

clear how Black should continue. Let me

cite a few examples:

A) 8..:~c7 Black intends to pressur-

izee5. but this fails due to brilliant play by

Mortensen. Her majesty should perhaps

keep an eye open for the march of White's

h-pawn. 9.'~e2 CiJe710.0-0 .!tJg6 I Ukl

~e7 12.h4! Qh4 13.ttjh4 CiJh4 14..Q.a3

with a very dangerous Initiative,

Mortensen- Hansen. Gausdal Zonal 1987.

8 ...tl2;c5

9.xc2 CiJe7

10.0-0

tDf5

Il.ttjd4

g6~,!

12.tbd2 i.d7 13.a4 lieS

14.tU2f3 $..e7 15.l,lel h5 16.g3 Wf8

17.h4,

Dovzik-Feher,

Budapest 1992.

and now instead of the incorrect

17 tlJe4'! Black should have played

17 ~g7 18.~f4~ (Dovzik).

C) 8...ttJe7 9.0-0 ttJg6 1O.'ife2 ~e5

II Jtc I 0-0 12.a4

is not a bad

try

for

Black, Martens-Romero Holmes, Wijk

aan Zee

1991.

Finally. what to make of the fol-

lowing? For 8...f6!? 9...wc2!? ltJe5

lO.ttJe5 feS Il.xh7 ~d6 12.~g8 Ag8

13.c4

"Wie7

14.ila3 .ib4 Naer-

Moskalenko, Moscow 1995, I also refer

to the section study material.

my opinion the

final

two examples de-

serve to be studied carefully. Still, the

only way to refute a gambit is hy accept-

ing it! Therefore we will now move on to

4...cb4.

Chapter IV

4.... cb4

Black lakes up the gauntlet. White can

continue 5.d4?~

(A)

or 5.a3(!) (B).

145

Vartation A

d4?!

This move is not advisable. The main rea-

son for including it here is that the dia-

grammed position often arises by transpo-

sition from the Sicilian Wing Gambit (l.e4

c5 VOf3 e6 3.b4 cb4 4.d4 d5 5.e5 or even

l.e4 c5 2.b4

cb4 3.d4

e6 4.lLlf3d5 5.e5).

5.d4 is less forcing than

5.a3,

and it weak-

ens the diagonal c l-a5. This means that

after a future

'¥fa5,

White will have diffi-

culties removing the b4 pawn (ba3 will be

check. and ab4 will never be a threat be-

cause of the pin anyway). Black seems to

have two equally good lines at his dis-

posal. In Variation Al (5...02:e7) Black

manages to complete his development,

and in Variation A2 (5...

Ad7)

he is able to

exchange the white-squared bishops

without compromising his position.

Variation A1

5.... C

Apart from 5...~d7 and the text there are

146

several interesting options available:

A) 5...Wa5 6.~b2 b3 7.c3 ba2 8.ltJbd2

i.d7

9.'¥i'b3 lDc6

lO.na2 "fi'c7and White

didn't have enough compensation

Rahls-Schulz,

Germany Bundesliga

1994.

5...

b6 is an immediate attempt to

gel rid of the French bishop. After

6.~h5

~d7 7.~d3

tLlc6 8.0-0

Ct2ge7 9.lbbd2

lOg6

10.g3

It.e7

11.1140-0 l2.tiJb3

Black was better in Rahls-Hodgson, Biel

Open 1992. Stronger is Heirning's sug-

gestion

of6.a3

..aa6 7.&a6lLa6

8.c3~.

Af-

ter 8...b3 9.~b3 'iVd7While possibly

has

a slight edge.

C) 5...~c6 6.a3 and now 6....£d7 will

transpose to 5.a3. However. 6...f6!? may

well be stronger. After7.ab4 both 7...~b4

8.c3 ~a5 and 7...fe5 8.b5 tL;d4come into

consideration. Also not bad is ~...

'¥i'a~

7.~d3 ba3 8...Q.d2.Q..b49.c3 $"e7 lO.lOa3

~a3

11.'i'b3~/=.

Cuartas-Hug,

Dortmund 1980.

~\ec6

This is the point. Black develops his

knights to c6 and d7 and his bishop to c7,

thus avoiding a cluttering of pieces on the

kingside. In the game

Stein-Bukal,

Dortmund II 1987 6..."ifa5 7.~d3 tDbc6

8.0-0 ~d7 9.ttJbd2 "ifc7 1O.l%el h6 turned

out to

be in

Black's

favour too.

7. ab4 jLb4

8. c3 fLe7

9. ~d3 ttJd7

The critical position. 10.0-0 tt:Jb6

11.tt:Jfd2 a6 12.....g4 g6 (Chapu-Radu,

Cappelle la Grande

)995)

is better for

Black, as was

10.0-0

0-0 I U:1el

~e8

12.fLf4 tL:flH (Wubs-Barsov, Zwolle

1993).

This means that White will have to play

more aggressive on the kingside with

iO.h4!'!.ln Rahls-Putzbach, Travernunde

1987. there followed 1O...f6'? I J.tbg5!

fg5 12.'ti"h5 Wtll13.hg511t'el$ 14.g6 h6±

(Bucker).

So.

Black

must improve

upon

10...f6.

Variation A2

s. ...

.id7(!)

6. a3

White can hardly do without this move. In

the game Barendregt-Bronstein, Euro-

pean Team Championship, Hamburg

1965, 6.~d3 was played. After 6...tt:Je?

(6...WaS!,!

planning

~b5)

7.a3

~bc6

R.ab4

tUb4

9..£e2 ~f5 1

0.c3

0.c6,

Black

was better.

6.... 'ifa5

6..:i!t'c7 7.ab4

~b4

8.d

~c3 9.lC.c3'tIt'c3

1O.~d2

'ftc?

11..Q.d3 tLlc6 12.0-0 ttJge7+

Helmig-Moller, Germany Bundesliga

1982.

7. ~d3 fJ..bS

With simple means Black is claiming a

material and a positional edge. Since

8.ab4 'ilVal 9.ii.b5

tUc6

10.~d2

.b2

1l.c3

gives insufficient compensation

for the exchange (Day-Hubner, World Ju-

nior Championship, Jerusalem 1%7),

White must allow the exchange of bish-

ops: 8.0-0 j(d3 9.~d3

tt'a6

1O.'ifb3

tbc6

11.'ir'b2

'ir'b6=l=1+,

Vedder-Poulton,

Gausdal

1990.

is possible that some improvement may

be found upon White's play in one of

these lines. However. since nearly all

variations are favourable for Black find-

ing one improvement is simply not

147

enough. Hence, my conclusion that 5.d4

is unplayable.

let us examine 5.a3.

Variation B

S. a3

The lines

now

diverge. The

main

lines are

Variation 84 and Variation 85 but

the

al-

ternatives are not

without interest.

Bl) 5...~h6

B2) 5...'~aS

B3) 5 d4

B4) S ti·,c6

6.ah4 ~b4 7.c3

B5) 5 ba3 6.d4ti\c6 7.c3

Qdn.~.d3

Variation 81

S. ...

ci;h6

Uncommon but not illogical. Black sim-

ply wants to develop

his

kingside. It turns

out that he is unable

consolidate his po-

sition in this way. although energetic play

required to prove this.

6. ab4

Less natural

Bucker's 6.h4. After 6...f5

148

7.ab4 ~b4 8.c3 ~e7 9.d4 ~f7 IO.~d3,

Black should continue

10...<1)c6(as

indi-

cated by Bucker). and after II.g4 g6

when

doubt

whether

White

has suffi-

cient compensation. Instead of

IO...1Dc6

the game

Bucker-Roblmann. Lengerich

1987 continued IO.....ad7?! II.g4 fg4

12.tbg5 ~gS B.hg5 with an advantage

for White.

6. ~b4

7. c3

8. d4

~e7

lLJf5

9. g4!

Also possible is Y..ad3

ttJc6

lO.g4 ttJh4

l.tLih4..Q.h4 12.0-0 which

transposes

to,

and was in fact the move order used in

Mortensen-Tisdall,

see

below.

9. ci;h4

10.

ltJh4 ~h4

11. Qd3

t'i;c6

Bad is J J...h5? as after J2.gh5 the move

J3.~g4 will be unpleasant 10 meet. In-

teresting is I l...f6!? which led to un-

clear play in the game

Salrncnsuu-Zilbcrrnan, Panormo

200

after 12.0-0 0-0 13.f4 feS 14.de5 JJ.e7

15.'iVc2 ~c5 16.!it>g2"h4.

12. 0-0