Unorthodox Openings Newsletter

News About Hugh Myers

Chess friend Rick Kennedy received the following news from Hugh Myers. What follows is the content of Hugh’s letter as Rick sent it to me:

"I have always replied to inquiries, so the first part of this letter will be known by many of you. To others who haven't heard from me since at least 1996, I apologize for that -- and I'll explain the Myers Openings Bulletin's disappearance, which was also almost my own.

The last MOB was New MOB #9, 12/96. Right after that, in 1/97, I had a heart attack. Heart trouble had been a problem for several years, but 1997 was the worst. I had three more attacks that year, all requiring paramedics and emergency ambulance rides. In 11/97 I was finally persuaded to have a quadruple bypass operation. It was successful but in 1998, as in 1997 I wasn't mentally or physically able to work on the MOB's which are owed to most of you. By late 1998, thanks to cardiac rehabilitation, I was again in good shape, and that has continued. However, I was financially wiped out, living hand to mouth. To finance an MOB rebirth, all I could think about doing was to write an updated and expanded AN edition of my 1978 book Exploring the Chess Openings, which people had been requesting for years.

I worked on the new book in all of 1999, on into 2000. It turned out to be a bigger and better job than Exploring. This book, A Chess Explorer, has twice as many games, half of which were in Exploring, and otherwise its contents are very different.

Details: (1) 242 pages, 130 annotated games, AN, 130 diagrams.

(2) Notes to
games make this an openings textbook. 36 games with 1.e4 Nc6 should recommend this to anyone who plays that, and the Opening Index has 46 other named openings (How many games collections of individual players have more than that?) plus six unnamed irregular openings

(3) Middle game quality that's high enough to confound the critics. Some instructive endings too.
(4) Chronological autobiography: a/ Over 50 years of chess competition. First places in Swiss systems in six straight decades. First place in several State Championships. Played first board for a national team in two Chess Olympics. Author of eight published chess books. Editor/publisher of 48 chess magazines. b/ Thorough non-chess autobiography pulls no punches.
Chess and non-chess anecdotes cover experiences in Chicago, other cities in
the Midwest, New York City, and nine years in foreign countries. The only
American to write about FIDE from inside FIDE. Controversial writing about
Fischer, Kasparov, Campomanes, Schiller... and others, based on direct contact. Travels in Israel, Arabia, Europe, and the Caribbean.

An early draft of this book was seen by Edward Winter (Switzerland), the toughest of all chess book critics. He called it the best of all chess memoirs. So where is it?

During 199-2000 it was accepted by six publishers. All backed out before signing a contract, giving a variety of excuses. I suspect fear of controversy -- or my lack of a FIDE title -- even though my other books sold out. And even if Winter's evaluation was excessive, I'm sure that this is my best book. If you have liked Exploring, any of my 1.e4 Nc6 books, or my writing in the MOB, I don't think you'll regret buying this one.

I gave up on chess book publishers. The way to get it published is on a subscription basis, and I've worked this out with my former MOB printer. If I get fifty paid orders by mid-February, it will go to the printer (sooner, I hope). If I don't, all payments will be refunded in February, and the MOB will definitely be a memory. LImited "specialty" editions cost a lot for printing and binding; I'm setting a price of $25.00 (plus $3.00 for shipping inside the USA). Copies from the first printing will be signed by me, and/or inscribed on request.

Happy New Year!
(signed) Hugh Myers"

Now chessfriends, if you want to support Hugh in his effort, send him the money at his address: 1605 E. 12^th Street Davenport, IA 52803-3801

As you probably would like a taste of Hugh’s book, I must say Hugh kindly sent me copy of a few copyrighted pages of it with some games. Here you will see 2 of these games with Hugh’s notes. Hugh says that criticism of them is welcome.

51) Vujovic,M - Myers,H [B00]

Il Ciocco, 1976

1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Ne2 e6 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4 (This is the main line variation. Following game No.37, see my comments on 6.f4, the variation which awoke my interest in 1.e4 Nc6.) 6...h5 (Also main line, but a good case can be made fo 6.--f6 as better.) 7.Be2 (7.Ne2 Nb4 is similar--but worse) 7...Nb4 8.Na3 c5 9.Bg5?! (Better 9.c3 See game No. 97) 9...Qb6 10.Bb5+ Nc6 11.dxc5 Bxc5 12.0–0 Bxa3 13.Bxc6+ Qxc6 14.bxa3 f6!? (Now it really opens up. And my King goes where? Good old b8.) 15.exf6 gxf6 16.Qd4 e5 17.Qb2 Ne7 18.Rfe1 d4! 19.Bd2 0–0–0 20.c3 d3 21.Be3 Kb8 22.c4 Rhg8 23.f4?! d2! 24.Bxd2 Bh7 25.fxe5 Rxg3 26.Bf4 Qc5+ 27.Kh2 Rg4 28.exf6+ Rxf4 29.Rxe7 Rxh4+ 30.Kg3 Qg5+ 31.Kf3 Rf4+ 0–1

52) Myers,H - Computer "Designer Mach III/Master 2265,

Davenport - 20 min. for each player, 1991

1.g4 d5 2.Bg2 c6 3.h3 e5 4.d3 (Basman preferred 4.d4 but I didn't.) 4...Bb4+ (In old MOB No 3, 1980, I analyzed S. Sloan's 4.--Bd6 5.Nc3. This ordinarily questionable check did at least avoid this variation.) 5.c3 Bd6 6.Nd2 Ne7 7.c4 0–0 8.Ngf3 Qa5 9.Kf1! Na6 10.a3 Be6 11.b4 Qd8 (She should have stayed at home. 11.--Nxb4?? 12.Nb3.) 12.Ng5 Bd7 13.Bb2 f6 14.Ngf3 Qb6 (She just wouldn't do it.) 15.Qb3 Bc7 16.e4! Be6 17.c5 Qb5 18.Kg1! Bf7 19.d4! dxe4 20.Qc2 exf3 21.Bf1 (The Queen is trapped??) 21...Nxb4 (No!.) 22.axb4 Qxb4 23.Bc3 (Yes!.) 23...Bg6 (No!.) 24.Qc1 (Yes!.) 24...Qxc3 25.Qxc3 1–0

Grob Adventures by Davide Rozzoni

Either I or Frank Bendig will participate in the next ICCF thematic Grob final. We tied for first in our semifinal drawing our 2 games.

My pet line in the Grob was 1.g4 d5 2.h3 e5 3.Bg2 c6 4.d3!? instead of the main line 4.d4

I scored rather well against all Black's moves until Italian Corr. Master Salvatore discovered 4....h5!? a new move which gave me troubles. I played 5.gxh5 and I lost as you can see:

53) Rozzoni,D - Salvatore,C [A00]
Semi-Italia Scacchistica e-mail, 2000

1.g4 e5 2.h3 d5 3.Bg2 c6 4.d3 h5!?N 5.gxh5 Rxh5 6.Nf3 Be7 7.Nbd2 Be6 8.Nf1 Nd7 9.Ng3 Rh8 10.c3 Nh6 11.Qc2 f5 12.e3 Nf7 13.Bd2 Qc7 14.0-0-0 c5 15.h4 e4 16.dxe4 dxe4 17.Ng5 Nxg5 18.hxg5 0-0-0 19.Qa4 Rxh1 20.Rxh1 Ne5 21.Be1 Qd6 22.c4 Bxg5 23.Bf1 g6 24.Qa5 Qa6 25.Qb5 Qxb5 26.cxb5 b6 27.Bc3 Ng4 0-1

In the ICCF Corr. Grob Semifinal another player played 4....h5 again. This time I tried 5.g5 and I lost again!! If I'm not wrong this is the only game I lost in that semifinal. This is the game:

54) Rozzoni,D - Goedhart,W [A00]
cr TT/14/99/1, 2000

1.g4 d5 2.h3 e5 3.Bg2 c6 4.d3 h5 5.g5 Bd6 6.Nf3 Ne7 7.c4 0-0 8.Nc3 Be6 9.b3 Nd7 10.Bb2 Ng6 11.e3 d4 12.Ne4 Bb4+ 13.Ke2 Nc5 14.Nxc5 Bxc5 15.Qd2 Bf5 16.b4 Be7 17.Rag1 Qb6 18.a3 dxe3 19.fxe3 Rad8 20.Ne1 Bxg5 21.c5 Qb5 22.Qc3 Bh4 23.Bf1 b6 24.cxb6 axb6 25.Rh2 c5 26.bxc5 bxc5 27.Kd1 c4 28.Qb4 Qc6 0-1

As the final will probably start in 2002 or 2003 I'd like to find improvements on white's play...is there anyone who has any suggestions? If positive please e-mail me at rozzoni@libero.it Thank you!

Rozzoni – Napoli Costa (Grob match)

As promised in the past issues, here are the remaining games of my Grob match with Italian Corr. Master Napoli Costa

55) Rozzoni,D - Napoli Costa,A [A00]

Cr, 2000

1.g4 d5 2.h3 e5 3.Bg2 c6 4.d3 Ne7 5.Nf3 Nd7 6.Nc3 Ng6 7.e4 d4 8.Ne2 Nh4 9.Nxh4 Qxh4 10.Bd2 Bd6 11.0–0 h5 12.f3 Nc5 13.Qe1 Qe7 14.g5 Ne6 15.h4 f6 16.f4 exf4 17.gxf6 gxf6 18.Nxf4 Nxf4 19.Bxf4 Rg8 20.Bxd6 Qxd6 21.Kh1 Bd7 22.Qf2 0–0–0 23.Qf4 Qe5 24.Qxf6 Qg3 25.Qf2 Qxf2 26.Rxf2 Rg4 27.Raf1 Rxh4+ 28.Kg1 Be6 29.a3 Kd7 30.Rf8 Rxf8 31.Rxf8 Rg4 32.Kh2 Rg5 33.Bh3 Bxh3 34.Kxh3 Rc5 35.Rf2 a5 36.b4 axb4 37.axb4 Rb5 38.Kh4 Ke6 39.Rg2 Rxb4 40.Kxh5 Rb5+ 41.Kg4 Rb1 42.Kf3 Rf1+ 43.Ke2 Rh1 44.Rg6+ ½–½

56) Napoli Costa,A - Rozzoni,D [A00]

Cr, 2000

1.g4 e5 2.Bg2 h5 3.gxh5 Qg5 4.Bf3 Qh4 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.d3 Bc5 7.e3 d6 8.Bd2 c6 9.Ne4 Nxe4 10.dxe4 Be6 11.Ne2 Nd7 12.Ng3 0–0–0 13.Qe2 d5 14.Ba5 Bb6 15.Bxb6 Nxb6 16.exd5 Nxd5 17.0–0–0 Nf6 18.e4 Qf4+ 19.Kb1 Kb8 20.Rhg1 Rd4 21.Rxd4 exd4 22.Qd3 c5 23.h3 Nd7 24.Ne2 Qh4 25.Bg4 Bxg4 26.Rxg4 Qxf2 27.Rxg7 Qe1+ 28.Nc1 Ne5 29.Qg3 Qxg3 30.Rxg3 Rxh5 31.Nd3 c4 32.Nxe5 Rxe5 33.Rg8+ Kc7 34.Rg7 Rxe4 35.Rxf7+ Kc6 36.Rf1 Rh4 37.Rf3 Kd5 38.a4 Ke4 39.Rf7 Rxh3 40.Rc7 Rh1+ 41.Ka2 Kd5 42.Rd7+ Ke4 ½–½

57) Rozzoni,D - Napoli Costa,A [A00]

Cr, 2000

1.g4 d5 2.Bg2 Bxg4 3.c4 e6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Qb3 c6 6.Qxb7 Nd7 7.d4 Bd6 8.h3 Be6 9.Nf3 Ne7 10.e3 0–0 11.Qa6 Qb6 12.Qxb6 axb6 13.Nc3 Rfe8 14.b3 Bf5 15.Bb2 Bd3 16.0–0–0 Bg6 17.Nh4 Bh5 18.Bf3 Bxf3 19.Nxf3 Bb4 20.Kb1 Ra6 21.Rhg1 Rea8 22.a4 b5 23.axb5 cxb5 24.Ne5 Bxc3 25.Bxc3 Nf6 26.f3 Nf5 27.Rge1 Nh4 28.Rg1 Ne8 29.Rdf1 Ra3 30.Kc2 Nf5 31.Bd2 f6 32.Nd7 Kf7 33.Nb6 Ra2+ 34.Kd3 R8a3 35.Rb1 Ne7 36.Rgc1 Ke6 37.Nxd5?? (Note by D. Rozzoni: I had set up the wrong position at the chessboard....after 37.e4 White is still slightly better) 37...Nxd5 38.e4 Ndc7 0–1

From Bill Wall:

I have enjoyed your Unorthodox Openings Newsletter. I try to play unorthodox openings as much as possible and have written several unorthodox opening chess books. Here are some of my supplemental games from the unorthodox openings from your first 4 newsletters.

Bill Wall

Norwegian or North Sea Defense (1.e4 g6 2.d4 Nf6)

58) 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Nf6 3.e5 Ne4? 4.f3, trapping the Knight
Bill Wall - Roberson, Los Angeles 1969

59) 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Nf6 3.f3 h5 4.Bc4 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Bg5 f6 7.Bd2 Nb6 8.Bd3 Bh6 9.Bxg6+ Kf8 10.c3 Bxd2+ 11.Nxd2 Rg8 12.Qc2 f5 13.Bxf5 Rg5? (13...Rxg2) 14.Bxc8 Qxc8 15.Ne4 and Black resigned 0-1 Bill Wall - Gamit, Internet 2000

60) 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.Bc4 e6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.c3 Ba5? (6...Be7) 7.Bxd5 exd5 8.Bg5 1-0 Bill Wall - Wicked Moon, Internet 2001

The Grob (1.g4)

61) 1.g4 d5 2.Bg2 c6 3.h3 h6 4.c4 Nf6 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.d4 e5 7.dxe5 Bb4+ 8.Bd2 O-O 9.Nf3 Bxd2+ 10.Nbxd2 Nf4 11.O-O Nxg2 (11...h5) 12.Kxg2 c5 13.Qc2 b6?? (13...Qe7) 14.Qe4 1-0 Bill Wall - Alberto Carlosa, Internet 1997

62) 1.g4 d5 2.Bg2 e5 3.h3 h5 4.g5 Qxg5 5.Bxd5 Nd7 6.Nf3 Qd8 7.Nc3 c6 8.Bb3 Ngf6 9.d3 Be7 10.Ng5 O-O 11.e4 b5 (11...Nc5) 12.f4 exf4 13.Bxf4 Nc5 (13...b4) 14.Bxf7+ Rxf7 15.Nxf7 Kxf7 16.e5 Nd5 17.Qxh5+ Kg8 18.Nxd5 Bh4+ 19.Kd2 cxd5 20.Rag1 Ne6 21.Bh6 Qe7 22.Rg4 g5 23.Qxh4 1-0 Bill Wall - Gambiteer, Internet 2000

63) 1.g4 d5 2.Bg2 e5 3.h3 c6 4.c4 f6 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3 Ne7 7.Nc3 e4 8.d3 Na6 9.dxe4 Nc5 (9...d4) 10.Qb5+ Nd7 11.exd5 a6 12.Qd3 Qa5 13.Bd2 Qb6 14.Na4 Nc5 15.Nxb6 Nxd3+ 16.exd3 1-0 Bill Wall - Brian Soltz, San Antonio 1994

64) 1.g4 d5 2.Bg2 Bxg4 3.c4 c6 4.cxd5 Nf6 5.Qb3 Qb6 6.dxc6 Qxb3? (6...bxc6) 7.cxb7 Qc2 8.Nc3 1-0 Bill Wall - J. Kubasek, Thailand 1973

Nimzovich Defense (1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 f5)

65) 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 f5 3.exf5 d5 4.Nh4 e5 (4...Nf6) 5.Qh5+ g6 6.fxg6 Nf6 7.g7+ Nxh5 8.gxh8=Q Qxh4 9.Qxh7 and Black resigns 1-0 Bill Wall - Telewiz, Internet 1998

66) 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 f5 3.exf5 d5 4.Bb5 Bxf5 5.O-O a6 6.Bxc6+ bxc6 7.d4 Nf6 8.Nc3 e6 9.Re1 Qd6 10.Bg5 Ng4 (10...Be7) 11.h3 h6 12.hxg4 Bxg4 13.Bh4 g5 14.Qd3 gxh4 15.Qg6+ Kd7 16.Ne5+ 1-0 Bill Wall - Change, Internet 1998

Nimzovich Defense (1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5)

67) 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Nf3 Qd7 5.Bb5 a6 6.Ba4 f6 7.O-O g5 7.O-O g5 8.Nc3 h5 9.Re1 h4 10.exf6 Nxf6 11.Bxg5 O-O-O 12.Ne5 1-0 Bill Wall - Steven, Internet 1996

68) 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.d5 Nb4 5.Bc4 Nf6 6.Bg5 b6 7.Bxf6 exf6 8.a3 Ba6 9.Bb3 1-0 Bill Wall - Bill Geer, San Antonio 1991

69) 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Bb5 Nf6 5.d5 a6 6.Ba4 Bg4 7.dxc6 Bxd1 8.cxb7+ c6 9.Bxc6+ Nd7 10.bxa8=Q Qxa8 11.Bxa8 1-0 Bill Wall - Joss, Internet 1996

Englund Gambit, Zilbermints Variation (1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6)

70) 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 f6 4.exf6 Nxf6 5.Nc3 Bc5 6.Bg5 Ng4 7.Bxd8 Bxf2+ 8.Kd2 Be3+ 9.Kd3 d6 10.Bh4 Bf5+ 11.Kc4 Bc5 12.Qd2 a6 13.a4 Na5+ 14.Kd5 c6 mate 0-1 C. Campelli - Bill Wall, Dayton, Ohio 1984

71) 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Bg5 Qb4+ 5.c3 Qxb2 6.Nbd2 Qxc3 7.Rc1 Qa5 8.e3 h6 9.Bh4 Ba3 10.Rc4 Nb4 11.Qb3 g5 12.Bxg5 hxg5 13.Nxg5 Nd5 14.e4 Bb4 15.Rxb4 Qxb4 16.Qxb4 Nxb4 0-1 Brian Soltz - Bill Wall, San Antonio, Texas 1991

72) 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.f4 Bc5 4.Nf3 d5 5.exd6 Nf6 6.h3 Ne4 7.Qd5 Bf2+ 8.Kd1 Ng3 and Black wins 0-1 Fanny - Bill Wall, Internet 1996

73) 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Bf4 Qb4+ 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Nc3 Nb4 7.Na4 Nxc2+ 0-1 Darkside - Bill Wall, Internet 1997

74) 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Bf4 Qb4+ 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Bc3 Bb4 7.Qd2 Bxc3 8.Qxc3 Qc1 mate 0-1 Frybee - Bill Wall, Internet 1998

75) 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 d5 4.exd6 Bxd6 5.a3 Nf6 6.Bg5 O-O 7.g3 Re8 8.e3 Bg4 9.h3 Bb4+ 10.axb4 Qxd1+ 11.Kxd1 Bxf3+ 12.Be2 Bxh1 13.Bf4 Nxb4 0-1 Savvy - Bill Wall, Internet 2000

76) 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.f4 Bc5 4.e3 d6 5.exd6 Bxd6 6.Qd5?? Bb4+ 0-1 Chigik - Bill Wall, Internet 2001

English (1.c4 g5)

77) 1.c4 g5 2.Nc3 Bg7 3.d3 h6 4.f4 gxf4 5.Bxf4 Nc6 6.Nd5 d6 7.Rb1 e6 8.Ne3 Bxb2 9.Rxb2 Qf6 10.Rb3 Qxf4 11.Qd2 Nd4 12.Rb4 Ne7 13,Qc1 Nef5 14.Nh3 Qxe3 0-1 Ken Jennings (Sweden) - Bill Wall (Florida), Correspondence 1996

78) 1.c4 g5 2.Qa4 Bg7 3.Nf3 g4 4.Ng5 Nc6 5.c5 f5 6.Qf4 Nd4 7.Kd1 e5 8.Qe3 f4 0-1 Minstrel - Bill Wall, Internet 1998

79) 1.c4 g5 2.Nc3 Bg7 3.g3 Na6 4.Bg2 d6 5.d4 Nf6 6.Bxg5 Nh5 7.Nf3 O-O 8.Nd5 Bg4 9.Nxe7+ Kh8 10.Nf6+ 1-0 Bill Wall - JFC, Internet 2001

Dunst (1.Nc3)

80) 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.Nce2 e5 4.Ng3 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.d3 Bc5 7.Bg5 Kf8 8.Qxf3 Nc6 9.Qxf3 Nc6 10.Nf5 Nb4 11.Kd1 h6 12.Nxh6 gxh6 13. Bxf6 1-0 Bill Wall - Julio Reyes, San Antonio 1991

81) 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.Nce2 e5 4.f4 f6 5.fxe5 fxe5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Ng3 Nf6 8.Bc4 a6 9.O-O Bg4 10.h3 Bd7 11.Ng5 Nd5 12.Nf7 1-0 Bill Wall - Pragmatist, Internet 1999

82) 1.Nc3 c5 2.d4 d5 3.dxc5 d4 4.Ne4 Qd5 5.Qd3 Bf5 6.c4 Qxe4 7.Qxe4 Bxe4
8.f3 Bf5 9.e4 dxe3 10.Bxe3 e6 11.g4 Bc2 12.Rc1 Ba4 13.Bg2 Na6 14.f4 Bxc5 and Black wins 0-1 Ross - Bill Wall, Internet 2001

1.e4 Nh6

83) 1.e4 Nh6 2.Nc3 g6 3.Bc4 Bg7 4.d3 O-O 5.Nh3 Nc6 6.Bxh6 Bxh6 7.O-O d6 8.g4 Ne5 9.g5 Bxh3 10.gxh6 e6 11.Re1 Qg5+ 0-1 Notorious - Bill Wall, Internet 1998

Queen Pawn Counter Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5)

84) 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5 3.exd5 Bd6 4.c4 Ne7 5.Qe2 Bg4 6.g3 Nd7 7.Qe3 O-O 8.Ng5 Nf5 9.Qe4 Qxg5 0-1 Peacemaker - Bill Wall, Internet 1999

85) 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5 3.exd5 Bd6 4.d4 Bg4 5.dxe5 Bxf3 6.Qxf3 Bxe5 7.Bb5+ c6 8.dxc6 bxc6 9.Bxc6+ Nxc6 10.Qxc6+ Kf8 11.O-O Rc8 12.Qe4 Qc7 13.f4 Qb6+ 14. Be3 1-0 Bill Wall - Camac, Internet 1996

86) 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.Nc3 Qe6 5.Qe2 Bd6 6.Nb5 Nc6 7.d3 Nf6 8.Nxd6+ Qxd6 9.Bd2 O-O 10.O-O-O Bg4 11.h3 Be6 12.Re1 Nb4? 13.a3 Na2+ 14.Kb1 Nd7 15.c4 b5 16.Kxa2 1-0 Bill Wall - David Green, Guam 1974

Blackmar Diemer Gambit (1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 Nxe4)

87) 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.e4 Nxe4 4.Nxe4 dxe4 5.Bc4 e6 6.Be3 Bb4+ 7.c3 Ba5 8.Qh5 Nc6 9.Qg4 e5 10.Qxg7 Rf8 11.Bh6 Kd7 12.dxe5 1-0 Bill Wall - Speer, Internet 1996

88) 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 Nxe4 4.Nxe4 dxe4 5.Bc4 Nc6 6.c3 Be6 7.Bxe6 fxe6 8.Nh3 Qd5 9.Nf4 Qf5 10.Qb3 Na5 11.Qxe6 Qxe6 12.Nxe6 c5 13.Nc7+ 1-0 Bill Wall - Mark 76, Internet 1998

89) 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.e4 Nxe4 4.Nxe4 dxe4 5.Bb5+ c6 6.Bc4 g6 7.f3 Bg7 8.c3 exf3 9.Nxf3 h5 10.O-O Bg4 11.Qb3 e6 12.Qxb7 Nd7 13.Ng5 Ne5 14.Nxf7 1-0 Bill Wall - Yurmaster, Internet 2000

Fegatello Attack (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Nxf7)

90) 6.Nxf7 Kxf7 7.Qf3+ Ke6 8.Nc3 Nd4 9.Bxd5+ Ke7 10.Qf7+ Kd6 11.Ne4 mate 1-0 Bill Wall - Perry Dickerson, North Carolina 1976

91) 6.Nxf7 Kxf7 7.Qf3+ Ke6 8.Nc3 Nb4 9.O-O c6 10.d4 Nxc2 11.Rb1 Nxd4
12.Qd3 Kf7 13.f4 Bc5 14.fxe5+ Ke8 15.Kh1 Be6 and Black wins 0-1 Dennis Davidson - Bill Wall, North Carolina 1975

92) 6.Nxf7 Kxf7 7.Qf3+ Ke6 8.Nc3 Nd4 9.Bxd5+ Qxd5 10.Qxd5+ 1-0 Bill Wall - Tietz, Dayton 1980

93) 6.Nxf7 Kxf7 7.Qf3+ Ke6 8.Nc3 Nd4 9.Bxd5+ Kd6 10.Qf7 Nxc2+ 11.Kd1 Nxa1 12.Ne4 mate 1-0 Bill Wall - Lane Kilpatrick, Palo Alto 1990

94) 6.Nxf7 Kxf7 7.Qf3+ Ke6 8.Nc3 Be7 9.Bxd5+ Kd6 10.Bxc6 bxc6 11.Ne4+ Kd7 12.Qg4+ Ke8 13.Qxg7 1-0 Bill Wall - Sonc, Internet 1996

95) 6.Nxf7 Kxf7 7.Qf3+ Ke6 8.Nc3 Ne7 9.O-O c6 10.Qe4 Kf7 11.Qxe5 Ng6
12.Qd4 Be6 13.Nxd5 cxd5 14.Bb3 Bd6 15.d3 Be5 16.Qb4 Qc7 17.h3 a5 18.Qe1 a4 0-1 Joe Schmo - Bill Wall, Internet 1998

Ruy Lopez, 3...Qe7

96) 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Qe7 4.c3 Nf6 5.O-O Nxe4 6.Re1 Nxf2 7.Kxf2 Qc5+ 8.d4 Qxb5 9.Nxe5 Be7 10.Nxf7 O-O 11.Kg1 Rxf7 0-1 Famlee - Bill Wall, Internet 1996

Polish Opening (1.b4)

97) 1.b4 c6 2.Bb2 a5 3.a3 axb4 4.axb4 Rxa1 5.Bxa1 Qb6 6.c3 Nf6 7.Nf3 d5 8.e3 Bf5 9.Nh4 Bg4 10.Be2 Bxe2 11.Qxe2 Qa7 12.Bb2 Qa2 0-1 Bill Wall - Chelvan, Internet 2001

98) 1.b4 e5 2.Bb2 f6 3.b5 a6 4.bxa6 bxa6 5.e3 Bc5 6.Bc4 d5 7.Bb3 d4 8.exd4 exd4 9.Qh5+ g6 10.Qxc5 1-0 Bill Wall - Chuck Hatherill, Dayton 1980

99) 1.b4 e5 2.Bb2 f6 3.e4 d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.Nc3 Qf7 6.b5 Nh6 7.Nge2 Be7 8.Ne4 O-O 9.f4 exf4 10.Nxf4 Re8 11.Be2 Bb4 12.Ng3 Qc4 13.O-O Rxe2 14.Qxe2 Qxc2 15.Qe8+ Bf8 16.Qxc8 Qxb2 17.Qxb7 Qd4+ 18.Kh1 Ng4 19.Nh3 and White wins 1-0 Bill Wall - Ed Beech, Okinawa 1972

100) 1.b4 d5 2.Bb2 Qd6 3.a3 e5 4.e3 Nf6 5.c4 c6 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.Nc3 e4 8.Nd4 Ne5 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.Rc1 a6 11.Qa4+ Bd7 12.Ncb5 Qb8 13.Nc7+ Qxc7 14.Rxc7 Bxa4 15.Rxb7 Nfd7 16.Be2 g6 17.f4 exf3 18.Nxf3 f6 19.O-O Bd6 20.Nd4 Ke7 21.b5 Bxb5 22.Bxb5 axb5 23.Nc6+ Nxc6 24.Bxf6+ Ke6 25.Bxh8 Rxh8 26.Rxb5 Bxa3 0-1 Bill Wall - Walter Lewis, Postal 1988

Paris Opening (1.Nh3)

101) 1.Nh3 e5 2.g3 Qf6 3.f3 Bd6 4.Bg2 Ne7 5.Nc3 Nbc6 6.Ne4 Qe6 7.Nhg5 Qg6 8.d3 b6 9.O-O Bb7 10.f4 O-O-O 11.Nxf7 Qxf7 12.fxe5 Bxe5 13.Rxf7 1-0 Bill Wall - Plague, Internet 1998

102) 1.Nh3 e5 2.g4 d5 3.f3 e4 4.Nc3 Qh4+ 5.Nf2 exf3 6.Nxd5 Bxg4 7.Nxc7+ Kd7 8.Nxa8 1-0 Bill Wall - J. Cripp, Internet 1999

103) 1.Nh3 d5 2.Nc3 Bxh3 3.gxh3 e5 4.Bg2 c6 5.d4 Qf6 6.dxe5 Qxe5 7.f4 Qf5 8.e4 dxe4 9.Nxe4 Qe6 10.O-O Nf6 11.Re1 Qd7 12.Nxf6+ 1-0 Bill Wall - Spooky, Internet 2000

104) 1.Nh3 e5 2.g3 d5 3.f4 Nc6 4.fxe5 Nxe5 5.Bg2 Nf6 6.O-O Bc5+ 7.d4 Bxh3 8.Bxh3 Neg4 9.dxc5 O-O 10.e4 dxe4 11.Bxg4 Qxd1 12.Bxd1 1-0 Bill Wall - Science Writer, Internet 2001

1.Nf3 g5

105) 1.Nf3 g5 2.Nxg5 e5 3.Nf3 e4 4.Nd4 Bg7 5.Nf5 Bf6 6.c3 d5 7.Ng3 h5 8.e3 h4 9.Ne2 h3 10.gxh3 Nc6 11.Qa4 Ne7 12.Rg1 Bxh3 13.Bxh3 Rxh3 14.Rg3 Rxh2 15.Qa3 Bh4 16.Kf1 Bxg3 17.fxg3 Qd7 0-1 Justin - Bill Wall, Internet 1998

Blackburne Shilling Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4)

106) 4.Nxe5 Qg5 5.Nxf7 Qxg2 6.Qh5 Qxh1+ 7.Bf1 Qxe4+ 8.Be2 g6 9.Qg4 Qxg4 10.Bxg4 Kxf7 0-1 R. Kramer - Bill Wall, Washington State 1969

107) 4.Nxd4 exd4 5.c3 dxc3 6.Nxc3 Qg5 7.d3 Qxg2 8.Rf1 Bb4 9.Qb3 Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 Qg6 11.Bf4 c6 12.O-O-O b5 13.Rg1 bxc4 14.Qxc4 Qf6 0-1 Bill Wall (Ohio) - Cliff Aker (Indiana), Postal 1981

108) 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.Nxe5 Nxe4 6.Bxf7+ Ke7 7.Nc3 Ng5 8.Nd5+ Kd6 9.f4 Nxf7 10.Nxf7+ 1-0 Bill Wall - Sublink, Internet 1996

109) 4.O-O Nxf3+ 5.Qxf3 Qf6 6.Qc3 Ne7 7.f4 exf4 8.Qxf6 gxf6 9.Rxf4 Bg7 10.Nc3 Rg8 11.Nb5 Kf8 12.Nxc7 Rb8 13.d4 d6 14.Nb5 Nc6 15.c3 a6 16.Nxd6 1-0 Bill Wall - Deaky, Internet 1998

110) 4.c3 Nxf3+ 5.Qxf3 Qf6 6.Qe3 Ne7 7.O-O c6 8.f4 Ng6 9.fxe5 Qxe5 10.Bxf7+ Kd8 11.d4 1-0 Bill Wall - A. Maury, Internet 1999

Latvian Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5)

111) 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Nc3 Qg6 7.Ne3 Nf6 8.Bb5+ c6 9.Be2 Be7 10.O-O Bh3 11.f3 Nh5 12.fxe4 Bg5 13.Bxh5 Bxe3+ 14.Bxe3 1-0 Ken Greer - Bill Wall, Palo Alto, CA 1989

112) 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nf3 h6 6.e5 dxe5 7.dxe5 Qe6 8.b3 b6 9.Bc4 Qe7 10.Bxg8 Rxg8 11.Qd5 Bill Wall - Actionizer, Internet 1996

113) 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qb5+ c6 8.Qb3 Qxd4 9.Be3 Qf6 10.Nbd2 d5 11.Na5 b6 12.Nxc6 Nxc6 13.Qxd5 Nge7 14.Qxe4 Bf5 15.Bd4 Qxd4 0-1 Brujo - Bill Wall, Internet 1999

Caro Kann (1.e4 c3 2.Nc3 d5 3.Qf3)

114) 1.e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Qf3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 g6 5.Bc4 f5 6.Qb3 fxe4 7.Bf7+ Kd7 8.Qe6+ Kc7 9.Qe5+ 1-0 Bill Wall - 15Two, Internet 1998

Vienna (1.e4 e5 2.Nc3)

115) 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 d6 3.h3 Be6 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Bb5 a6 6.Ba4 Nh6 7.d4 exd4 8.Nxd4 Qd7 9.Bxh6 gxh6 10.Nxe6 fxe6 11.Qh5+ Kd8 12.O-O Rg8 13.Rad1 Bg7 14.Nd5 exd5 15.exd5 Na5 16.Bxd7 1-0 Bill Wall - War Machine, Internet 2001

French Defense, Becker Variation (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3/d2 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Qd5)

116) 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Qg4 Ne7 7.Qxg7 Rg8 8.Qe5 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qc6 10.Bb5 1-0
Ken Greer - Bill Wall, Palo Alto, CA 1990

French Defense, Marshall Gambit (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 c5 4.exd5)

117) 4.exd5 cxd4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Bb5+ Nc6 7.dxc6 Qxd4 8.cxb7+ 1-0 Bill Wall - Jack Lippert, Dayton, Ohio 1980

1.d4 Nc6 2.c4 e5

118) 1.d4 Nc6 2.c4 e5 3.d5 Nd4 4.e3 Nf5 5.a3 Nf6 6.Nc3 Nh4 7.e4 d6 8.g3 Bg4 9.f3 Bxf3 10.Nxf3 Nxf3+ 11.Qxf3 and White wins 1-0 Bill Wall - Cowboy Rock, Internet 1999

1.d4 d5 2.e4 e5 3.dxe5

119) 1.e4 e5 2.d4 d5 3.dxe5 dxe4 4.Qxd8+ Kxd8 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Bg5+ f6 7.O-O-O+ Ke8 8.Nd5 Nd7 9.Nxc7+ Kf7 10.e6+ 1-0 Bill Wall - Maria Luisa, Internet 1998

Bill Wall

wall@iu.net

http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lab/7378/chess.htm

**********************************************************

Errata corrige from Master Codazza:

Cari amici scusate l’errore riguardante la data di nascita di Diemer, erroneamente indicata nel 1^ numero di "BDG LA SCELTA" nell’anno 1912??? Diemer è nato nel 1908 come tutti i suoi fans sanno. Mi ero accorto dell’errore e pensavo di averlo corretto prima di dare l’articolo per la pubblicazione nella rivista. Evidentemente mi sono dimenticato di farlo. Scusatemi tanto e segnalate sempre eventuali errori.

Un grandissimo saluto a tutti

Giorgio Codazza

Errata corrige from Master Codazza – unofficial English translation by D. Rozzoni:

Dear Friends,

My apologies for the mistake about Diemer date of birth as contained in BDG La scelta n°1 (as contained in UON n° 4). The correct date is 1908 and not 1912 as all Diemer fans know. I was aware of the mistake before I sent the article but I realize I forgot to correct it. Please let me always know other mistakes you might find in my articles.

Best regards.

Giorgio Codazza.

And now Codazza’s new article:

Gambetto Blackmar Diemer

La scelta

n.2 settembre 2001

Alla memoria di Emil Josef Diemer (1908-1990)

Variante 1.d4 d5 2.e4 e5 3.de5

La variante:

Come nella variante trattata nel numero precedente (1.d4 d5 2.e4 c5) anche in questo caso il nero rifiuta il gambetto e impegna il bianco in un immediato contrattacco al centro con la mossa aggressiva 2…e5. Il tempo in meno però non consente al nero di attuare con prospettive positive una simile strategia. Il tratto 3.de5 evidenzia concretamene tutto questo.

Le ragioni della scelta 3.de5

La ragione della scelta del tratto 3.de5 è essenzialmente di carattere pratico. Il tratto 3.de5 (oltre ad essere effettivamente buono, vedi partite nel file allegato) costringe il nero ad operare una scelta immediata: prendere in e4 a sua volta e consentire al bianco di cambiare le donne entrando in un finale (ma forse è meglio chiamarlo centro partita con cambio immediato delle donne) altamente favorevole (vedi la possibilità d’immediato sviluppo Ag5+ seguito dall’ 0-0-0)

oppure giocare 3…d4 cercando di giustificare il gambetto (Controgambetto). Anche quest’ultima possibilità non è favorevole al nero come vedremo.

Si può affermare che il tratto 3.de5 confuti efficacemente il tratto 2…e5 del nero.

Il rientro

La variante presa in esame non si presta a nessun rientro importante da parte del nero.

Se il bianco al posto del tratto forzante 3.de5 giocasse invece 3.Nc3 (buona, ma a mio avviso non come 3.de5) si potrebbe rientrare in una difesa Nimzovic dopo 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 e5!?, ma questa possibilità non è oggetto del presente studio. Infatti 3.de5 taglia ogni possibilità di rientro al nero.

Va osservato per correttezza che le mosse 1.d4 d5 2.e4 e5 si possono raggiungere anche dal gambetto del centro 1.e4 e5 2.d4 d5?! E dal gambetto Englund 1.d4 e5 2.e4 (rifiutando l’Englund e passando ad un gambetto del centro) d5?! Ed ecco la nostra posizione!

Image70.gif (13768 byte)

n "game 1" there are three variations...

5....... Qe5

7.Ne3

7.Nxf3

Game 1

4... e4

20 min game

Svenne vs Jerry

4... e4 5.Nc3! exf3 6.Nxd5 Bd6 (If 6.... Bxg4? then 7.Nxc7+!) 7.Ne3 Nc6 (7.Nxf3 is playable to, but I don’t recommend it, see game 2 below ) 8.Nxf3 Be6 9.d4 Nge7 10.Bd3 0-0 11.Bd2... = (What a mess.. but both have fine attacking possibilities)

Game 2

time 5 min 7.Nxf3?

1.g4 d5 2.e4 e5 3.exd5!? Qxd5 4.Qf3 e4 5.Nc3! exf3 6.Nxd5 Bd6 7.Nxf3? Bxg4 8.Be2 Be6 9.c4 Bxd5 10.cxd5 Nf6 (Shit! I gonna lose a pawn) 11.D4 Nxd5 -++

Well. My pawn structure is garbage, I have no place to castle to hide my king... There is one variant more...

Game 4 5... Qe5

Jerry vs micke

time 20 min

1.g4 d5 2.e4 e5 3.exd5!? Qxd5 4.Qf3 e4 5.Nc3! Qe5 6.Qxe4 Qxe4+ 7.Nxe4 Bxg4 8.f3 Bf5 9.Ne2 Nc6 10.d4 Nf6

Hard to decide... Is white better, or is black better...

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

______________________________________________________________________

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

Game 4 4...Qxf3

Time 20 min..

1.g4 d5 2.e4 e5 3.exd5!? Qxd5 4.Qf3 Qxf3 5.Nf3 e4 6.Ng5 Bxg4 7.c4 Nh6! 8.Rg1 Bf5 9.Nc3 Nc6 10.Nge4 0-0-0 =

This variation also has good attacking possibilities for both side...

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

___________________________

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

Game 5 4...Qc6

This is a game against an old "Mephisto" machine. I know this game should not be in my analysis but i’ll look at it anyway... I know that machines and mankind are not on the same playing terms.

Time ??? Place: in a big hobby shop..

1.g4 d5 2.e4 e5 3.exd5!? Qxd5 4.Qf3 Qc6

(What?? Does the stupid machine beleive that I will leave the c2 pawn unprotected or does he think that I will give him a lead in development by 5.Qxc6 Nxc6.

No way!! Hmmmm...two posibilllities.Bxg4 or e4..)

5.Nc3 Bxg4

Ok... I thought about the next move a couple of mintues...

6.Qxg4! Qh1?

(Bad move indeed... Silly machine.... Making 6.Qxg4 a very good sacrifice...

7.Qc8+ Ke7 8.Qxc7+ Kf6?? (Nd7!)

Here Ii get confused... why did the machine do such a silly move... Enyone who knows???

9.Qd8+ Kf5? (9.Kg6 is better, or perhaps Be7!) 10.Bh3+ Kf4 11.d3#

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

----------------

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Game 6 4.... Qe6

time 3 min

Me against Jerry

1.g4 d5 2.e4 e5 3.exd5!? Qxd5 4.Qf3 Qe6!? 5.h3 Nc6 6.Bb5 Bd7 7.Nc3 0-0-0 8.Nge2 Nf6

Black is better... hard to prevent 9 ... Nd4! threats Nxf3 (Queen) and Nxc2 with a nice fork as result.

__________________________________________________________________

This is a rework of an article submitted by chess friend Sven-Erik Zetterström. At NO time was any analysis changed or add to, it is entirely the work of Mr. Zetterström.

Earl Roberts

"All Is New That Has Been Forgotten"

or

"A Well-Prepared Deviant Is A Dangerous Enemy!"

by Rick Kennedy

Benjamin and Schiller divide the openings they study in their Unorthodox Openings (1987) into The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. It is to the last category that they relegate the Becker variation of the French Defense, 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3/d2 de 4.Nxe4 Qd5, so it is important to read what they have to say about Ugly-ness.

The openings covered in this chapter are all, in our opinion, playable, but they either give away the opening advantage customarily associated with the white pieces or entail a certain degree of risk for players of the black pieces. In our discussion of these lines we try to pinpoint the weakness of the opening and suggest reasonable measures to take against it. Do not expect to be guaranteed a decisive advantage, however, just because your opponent plays one of these weird lines. A well-prepared Deviant is a dangerous enemy! We suggest that if the reader wants to add some of these lines to his repertoire, he should employ them against opponents who enjoy following the main paths of theory. In addition, some of these variations work well against players who do not strive to make the most out of the opening. Often an equal position can be reached through lack of spirited play on the part of the opponent.

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Qd5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Nf3 Nf6

This position can be reached in 5 moves from the Exchange Variation (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ed Qxd5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Nf3 Nf6) and the Winawer Variation (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4. ed Qxd5 5.Nf3 Nf6), or in 6 moves from the Rubinstein Variation (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3/d2 de 4. Nxe4 Qd5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Nf3 Nf6).

Samarian, in his Tactics for the Club Player (1980), notes "This position is similar to the Center Counter (Scandinavian Defense) except that the black QB is shut in. On the other hand, his Queen has not been made to relinquish her central position. The few games played have shown that Black's prospects are much better than one might think."

7.Bd3 Ne4 8.0-0 Nxc3 9.bxc3 Bxc3 10.Rb1

Image71.gif (5902 byte)

Opening tomes attribute this line to a couple of games in the mid ‘60s: Kotkov - Bukhman, USSR 1966 and Makarov - Dubinsky, USSR,1966. The sac was actually first offered in the early ‘60s - the early 1860’s - as in Paulsen - Schwenkenberg, Dusseldorf 1862, (given in Max Lange's Jahrbuch des Westdeutschen Schachbundes).

White’s compensation for his pawn is clear: an open line for his Rook; play against Black’s Bishop on c3, Queen on d5, and pawn on b7; central control after c2-c4, followed by a possible breakthrough in the center; and open lines for attack on the King after ...0-0. Nunn’s Chess Openings (1999) assesses the position as being ², which seems consistent with Minev’s assessment, a few moves further, in French Defense New and Forgotten Ideas (1988, 1998), that White has the initiative.

10...Nc6

This move is given a "!" by Samarian and others.

Schwenkenberg self-destructed against Paulsen with 10...a6?! 11.Rb3 Bxd4? 12.Nxd4 c5 (12...Qxd4 13.Bb5+ wins the Queen)13.Nb5 (stronger still was 13.Nf5) axb5 14.Bxb5. White’s development (and Black’s lack) and open lines give a clear advantage. We will see, in a minute, what he was guarding against.

Gnirk, more recently, "castled into it" instead with 10...0-0?!, only to blunder a piece after 11.Rb3 Ba5 12.c4 Qh5? 13.Rb5 1-0 Warzecha - Gnirk, corr 1977. Perhaps he retreated the Bishop and then protected the Kingside with his Queen to avoid the "classic bishop sacrifice" after 11...Qa5 12.Bxh7!?+ Kxh7 13.Ng5+ Kg6 14.Qd3+ , winning.

As you might guess, ECO frowns on the pawn-grab10...Qxa2 11.Rb3± This is no time to listen to your chess program: it will still like Black even after White gives up another pawn with 11...Qa5 12.d5 when White will, however, have the upper hand.

11.Be3

According to Samarian, "This position was considered by Keres to be better for White. A game Kapengut - Dvoretsky, Odessa 1972 does not confirm this opinion... In a game Kotkov - Buchman, Krasnodar 1966 White played 11.Rb5!? Qd6 12.Be3 and scored a fine victory after 12...Nb4 13.Ng5 c6 14.Ne4 Qd8 Qg4! Kf8 16.Rg5 Bxd4 17.Bc4! etc. Black, however, could have very well replied 12...Nxd4! 13.Nxd4 Bxd4 14.Bxd4 Qxd4 15.Rxb7 Qd6 16.Bb5+ Ke7 with an equal game."

As we will see, Samarian is not quite right.

11...Bd7 12.Bb5

We have arrived at the heart of the position: which piece goes to b5, and when?

Minev prefers 12.Rb5 Qd6, nudging the Queen off of the a8-h1 diagonal, before capturing the b-pawn with13.Rxb7. (Not 12.Rxb7 right away 12...Nxd4µ ECO). He gives the line 13...Nxd4 14.Nxd4 Bxd4 15.Bxd4 Qxd4 16.Rxc7 with initiative for White, (1-0, 51) Romanishin - Dvoretsky, Odessa 1972.

How can Samarian have one 1972 Dvoretsky Odessa game (vs Kapengut, the main line text), but not the other (vs Romanishin, with 12.Rb5, not 12.Bb5, mentioned by Minev)? Perhaps he overlooked it. Perhaps he confused the latter game with Kotkov - Buchman (the second game Samarian quotes), which would have transposed into the Romanishin - Dvoretsky game, had Buchman played 12...Bd7 instead of 12...Nb4. But, move order is important! In Samarian’s improvement on Buchman’s play (above), Black gets to capture on d4 with his Knight, while his Bishop still guards b7. In Romanishin’s game, White shores up the center with Be3 first, allowing Black time to "unprotect" b7, before he captures the pawn.

Thus, Romanishin’s move order - 11.Be3 Bd7 12.Rb5 Qd6 13.Rxb7 Nxd4 - is superior to Samarian’s -11.Rb5 Qd6 12.Be3 Nxd4 - and leads to an intiative for White.

Crouch’s solution for Black is to follow Romanishin - Dvoretsky, but, instead of capturing on d4, he re-align his pieces on the Queenside with 13...Nb4 14.Ne5 0-0 15.Be4 Ba4 16.Bf4 Nd5 (Wall - Crouch, New Castle 1995 0-1, 30). Black’s win is not convincing, however, as early on White missed chances for a forced draw (15.Bxh7+ Kxh7 16.Qh5+ Kg8 17.Bh6 etc.) or even an advantage (16.a3, pushing around the jumbled pieces).

Does this, in turn, cast a shadow on 11...Bd7? Black’s alternatives include the untested 11...0-0 (however, the classic bishop sacrifice is still lurking about), the direct 11...b6 (promising, but tested unsuccessfully, in a U16 game), and 11...a6 (Black suffered after 12.Rb3 Ba5 13.c4, but he had alternatives). Minev suggests (without further analysis) the cold-blooded 11...Kf8, apparently planning to win the pawn at d4. A good response is 12.Qe2, when Black should give up ideas of pawn-grabbing.

Or did Schwenkenberg have the right idea about protecting b5 in the first place? (Ignoring it with 10...c5 cannot be right.) A couple of late 1990s games looked at 10...c6 (instead of 10...a6), but the delay in Black’s development met a strong attack, as in: 11.Rb3 Bxd4 12.Nxd4 Qxd4 13.Bb2 (1-0, 35) Woller, Roland - Kliewe, Germany, 1999.

My database has 20 games with this pawn sac variation, sometimes only one or two games in critical lines. It is still too early to do other than let Minev modify Samarian - admit White has an edge but that Black is by no means lost - and keep studying!

In the meantime, let us finish up the fascinating game, Kapengut-Dvoretsky, Odessa sf USSR-ch 40, 1972.

12...a6 13.Bxc6 Bxc6 14.Qd3 Qa5

ECO notes 14...Ba5 15.c4 ±

15.Rb3

Or 15.Ne5 0-0 16.Nxc6 bxc6 with equality, according to Samarian.

15...Bxf3 16.gxf3

If 16.Rxc3? Be2! Samarian

16...Bb4 17.c4

"Favorable for Black" is 17.Rfb1 Bd6 18.Rxb7 0-0 Samarian.

17...Be7 18.c5 0-0 19.Rxb7 Qxa2 20.Rxc7 Bf6

"The game is equal" Samarian

21.Rb1 Rad8 22.Rb6 a5 23.Ra7 Qd5 24.c6! Qxf3 25.c7 Rxd4! 26.Qxd4! Bxd4 27.Rb8 1/2 - 1/2 .

(If sacrificing one pawn is good for White, and offering two pawns is better, he might try giving up "2 1/2" pawns - that is, a pawn plus the exchange - as in the line I met on the Internet: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Qd5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Nf3 Nf6 7.Bd3 Ne4 8.0-0 Nxc3 9.bxc3 Bxc3 10.Ba3!?)

(My work on the Becker variation is a lot like that of the wood carver who, wanting to produce a figure of a horse, started with a block of wood and began chipping away anything that didn’t look like a horse... Readers who have played games with this variation, or who are aware of articles or analysis, are invited to forward them to richardfkennedy@hotmail.com)

IS THE MYERS DEFENSE PLAYABLE?

By Lev D. Zilbermints

The defense 1 c4 g5 has been around for quite some time, but it had no single advocate. The oldest game I could find in both the Internet Chess Club 2 million games database and the ChessBase database is Gedeon Barcza - Dirk Van Geet, Amsterdam 1964. That first game went 1 c4 g5 2 d4 Bg7 3 Nc3 Nc6 4 d5 Ne5 5 Bg5 Nxc4 6 Rc1 c6 7 e4 b5 8 dc6 Nb2 9 c7 Qxc7 10 Nxb5 Qa5+ 11 Qd2 Qxd2 12 Bxd2 Rb8 13 Be3 Bb7 14 Bxa7 Rd8 15 f3 f5 16 Rb1 fxe4 17 Bd4 e5 18 Bxb2 d5 19 Ba3 Bc6 20 Rc1, 1-0.

After this game, it would be another four years before another game would be played with this line. The game Friedgood - Myers, Lugano 1968, went 1 c4 g5 2 d4 Bg7?! 3 Bxg5 c5 4 Nf3 Nc6 5 e3 cxd4 6 exd4 Qb6 7 Qd2 Nxd4 8 Nd4 Qd4 9 Nc3 d6 10 Nd5?! . Eric Schiller, who cites this game in both Unorthodox Openings (1987) and Unorthodox Chess Openings (1998) says that 10 Bd3! Is better. I agree with him in that. My opinion is that (after 1 c4 g5 2 d4) 2...Bg7?! is a risky but interesting continuation. Myers probably decided to use an approach similar to the Grob (1 e4 g5). That he got away with it must be ascribed to his opponent’s unfamiliarity with this line. Now, this does not mean 1 c4 g5 is bad! It means that 2 d4 Bg7 is risky. However that may be, the line 1 c4 g5 was named the Myers Defense by Eric Schiller after Hugh Myers started playing it in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Myers also analyzed 1 c4 g5 in his publication, Myers Opening Bulletin. Because he was an avid advocate of this line, the defense bears his name.

Anyhow, the best move after 2 d4 is 2...h6, strengthening the g5-pawn and preparing a hypermodern formation. Let us see how 1 c4 g5 2 d4 h6 works.

NM G. Krips (2260) - Zilbermintz, Thursday 4 Rated Games, New York 1996:

2...h6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 c5 Hitting from the left flank. 5 d5 d6 Black has the dark squares. This is a consistent theme in the Myers Defense. 6 Be2 Nf6 7 f4 Qa5 8 Bd3 Nbd7 9 Nf3 gf 10 Bxf4 Ng4 11 00 Nde5 12 Nxe5 Bxe5 13 Qf3 Bxf4 14 Qxf4 Ne5 Centralizing the Knight. 15 Be2 Bd7 16 a3 000 17 Rfb1 Rdg8 18 b4 Qb6 19 b5 Rh3 20 g3 h5 21 Na4 Qa5 22 Bd2?? A blunder. Had a realized it, I could have mated in two moves: 22...Qe1+ and mate next. As it was, the game continued for another eight moves. 22...Bg4? 23 Bc2 23 Bc2 Nf3+ 24 Kf2 h4! 25 Rh1 Nd4 26 Qc1 hxg3 27 Ke3 gh2 28 e5 Rh3+ 29 Kf2 Rf3+ 30 Kg2 Bh3+, 0-1.

NM Michael Shahade (2271) - Zilbermintz, Insanity Open, New York, 1996:

(moves 1-5 as above) 6 Be2 Qa5 7 Bd2 a6 8 a4 Qc7 9 h4 gh 10 Bh4 Nf6 11 Bc8 Qc8 12 Nf3 Qg4 13 Nh4 Qd8 14 Rd1 e6 15 fe fe 16 Bf4 e5 17 Nf5 Bf8 18 Bg5 Nbd7 19 BxN NxB 20 Nd6 Bd6 21 Rd6 Ke7 22 Rb6 Rb8 23 Nd5 Nd5 24 ed h5 25 Re6+ Kd7 26 Re5 b5 27 cb ab 28 ab Rb5 29 g4 h4 30 Re2 Kd6 31 00 Kd5 32 Rd1+ Kc4 33 Re4+ Kb3 34 Rd2 Ra5 35 Kg3 Ra2, DRAWN.

Zemanian (2055) - Zilbermintz (2026) 4 Rated Games Tonight!, New York 1999:

1 c4 g5 2 d4 h6 3 e4 Now the game transposes into a Grob after 1 e4 g5 2 d4 h6 3 c4 d6. 4 Nc3 Bg7 As in the previous games. 5 Be3 Nd7 6 Nge2 Ngf6 I use a Grob approach here: get counter-play on the dark squares. 7 Qd2 Ng4 8 f4 Nxe3 9 Qxe3 c5

Having the two Bishops, I strike from the flank. 10 g3 cxd4 11 Nxd4 Qb6 12 000 e5 13 Nf5 Qxe3 14 Nxe3 ef 15 gf? Bxc3! 16 bc3 Nf6 17 fg hg 18 Nd5 Nd5 19 Rd5 g4 20 Rd6 Be6 21 a3 Rc8 Best was 21...b5! 22 Rd4 Ke7 23 Kc2 Rh5 24 Kb3 R8h8 25 Kc2 Rxh2+ 26 Rxh2 Rxh2 27 Rd2 g3 28 c5 f5 29 Bg2 fxe 30 Re2 Bf5 31 Kd1 e3? Time pressure, for 31...Bg4! wins on the spot. 32 Rb2 Kf6 33 Ke1 Bh3! 34 Kf1 Rxg2! 0-1.

B.D. Watson (2030) - Zilbermintz, New York 2000:

3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 Nfe2 Nf6 6 g3 Nbd7 7 Bg2 c5 8 d5 Ne5 Black dominates on the dark squares. 9 b3 Bg4 10 f4 gf 11 gf Nf3+ 12 Kf2 Nd4 13 Bb2 Nxe4 14 Nxe2 Nxe4 15 Be4 Bb2 16 Rb1 Bf6 17 b4 Qb6 18 b5 Bh4+ 19 Ng3?? Bxd1! 0-1

D. Toolsidas (1338) - Zilbermintz, New York 1996:

3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 c5 A Grob. 5 d5 d6 6 Be2 Qa5 7 Bd2 a6 8 Bg4 Qc7 9 Bc8 Qc8 10 h3 Nd7 11 Nf3 Ngf6 12 00 Rb8 13 a4 b6 14 Re1 Nh7 15 Qc2 00 16 Ne2 Ne5 17 Ne5 Be5 18 Bc3 Nf6 19 Ng3 e6 20 de fe 21 Rad1 Qc7 22 Rd3 Rbd8 23 Red1 Rd4 24 f3 h5 25 Ne2 Rxd3 26 Rd3 Rd8 27 Qd2 Rxd3 28 Qd3 Kf7 29 g4 h5 30 Kf2 Qd7 31 Ke3 Qxa4 32 b3 Qd7 33 Qc3 Qd4+! 34 Qxd4 ed 35 Kd3 e5 36 Nc1 Nd7 37 Kc2 Ke6 38 Nd3 39 b4 cb 40 Nxb4 Kc5 41 Kb3 a5 42 Nd3+ Kd6 43 Nb2 Nc5+ 44 Ka3 e3 45 Nd1 Ne6 0-1.

Some of my opponents tried the move 4 h4 , trying to open up the Black Kingside. The following three games illustrate how this move should be handled:

Sam Barsky (2171) - Zilbermintz (2038) G/10 Tournament, New York 1996:

4...g4! Clamping down on the White Kingside. 5 h5 c5 6 e3 Nc6 7 Qxg4 Kf8 8 d5 d6 9 Qd1 Ne5 10 f4 Nd7 11 Nf3 Qa5 12 Bd2 a6 13 Nh4 Ndf6 14 Be3 Qc7 15 00 Rb8 16 Rc1 b5 17 cb c4 18 Bc2 ab 19 e4 Bg4 20 Qe1 Nh5 21 Nf5 Bf6 22 Qf2 Ng7 23 Nd4 Bd7 eventually 0:1 . To me, this winning this game was important, as Barsky had deliberately chosen 1 c4 to avoid facing 1 d4 e5!

In the next game, time pressure prevented me from winning with a nice combination.

NM K. Khaburzania (2277) - Zilbermints, Leslie Braun Memorial, 1998:

3 Nc3 Bg7 4 h4 g4! 5 Bf4 Developing and clamping on the dark squares. d6 6 e3 More commonly seen is 6 e4, transposing to the Grob. The text move keeps it a Myers Defense. 6...c5 7 d5 Qa5 8 Qd2 Nf6 9 h5 Nbd7 10 Nfd2 a6 11 Ng3 Nb6 12 Bd3 Na4 13 Nxa4 Qxa4 14 Be2 b5 15 b3 Qa3 16 Rd1 b4 17 00 Bd7 18 Qc2 000 19 Bd3 Qa5 20 Bf5 Qc7 21 Bxd7 Qxd7 22 a3 a5 23 ab ab 24 Ra1 Kb7 25 Ra5 Ra8 26 Rb5+ Kc8 27 Nf5 Bf8 28 Qb2 Qxf5 29 Ra1 Ra3 30 Rxa3 ba3 31 Qxa3 Qb1+ 32 Kh2 g3+ 33 Bxg3 Ng4+ 34 Kh3 The decisive moment. Qh1+?? In tight time pressure, I blunder. Correct was 34...Nxf2+! which either draws or wins. Now the White attack crashes through. 35 Kxg4! Rg8+ 36 Kf4 e5+ 37 de Kd8 38 Qa7 Rg5+

39 Kxg5 f5+ 40 Kf4, Black resigns.

Against the talented and beautiful Elizabeth Vicary, I had to watch my step, as she played a strong game.

3 Nc3 Bg7 4 h4 g4! 5 e4 d6 A Grob. 6 Nge2 Nc6 This is an alternative to C.Wells-Basman, City Chess Quickplay, London 1988. That game continued 5...c5 6 Be3 Qa5 7 Nge2 d6 8 f4 Nf6 9 Qc2 Nc6 10 a3 Nh5 11 000 Bd7 12 d5 Nd4 =+, 0-1/ 31. As can be seen, the motif …c5 - …Qa5 - …Ne5 is very consistent with allowing Black to obtain counter-play on the dark squares. In my game with Vicary, I played 6...Nc6 with the purpose of developing my Nb8. 7 Be3 As in Zemanian-Zilbermintz, above. These moves tend to repeat themselves. 7...e5 8 d5 When White pushes the pawn forward, Black gets excellent play. 8...Nce7 9 Ng3 h5 10 Qc2 Ng6 11 Qd2 Nf4 12 Bf4 exf4 13 Nge2 Bf6 14 Nxf4 Bxh4 15 000 Bg5 16 Kb1 Qf6 17 Nce2 Bd7 18 g3 000 19 Qa5 Kb8 20 Rd3 Ne7 21 Ra3 Nc8 22 Nc3 Bxf4 23 gf4 Qxf4 24 Bd3 Qxf2 25 Nb5 Bb5 26 cb5 Qb6 27 Qc3 g3 28 Bf1 h4 29 Bh3 Rhg8 30 Qf6 Rdf8 31 Qh6 Rh8 32 Qg7 Rfg8 33 Qf6 Rh7 34 Rf3 g2 35 Bxg2 Rxg2 36 a4 Rg1+ 37 Rf1 Rxf1 38 Qxf1 Qe3 39 Qf5 Rh5 40 Rh3?? Up until here the game was pretty much even. But, with time pressure, Elizabeth blunders. I did the same against Khaburzania. 40...Qe1+! 41 Ka2 Rf5 0-1.

Having looked at the line 1 c4 g5 2 d4 h6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 h4 g4! I feel it is important to look at other continuations on Black’s second move. First, let me look at Hugh Myers’ original 2...Bg7?! The idea is not as stupid as it looks. If White captures via 3 Bg5, he risks weakening the b2-square. Space considerations limit me from looking at this in more depth. However, I will publish an article on this in the next issue of UON.

An important alternative to 1 c4 g5 2 d4 h6 is the Zilbermints Gambit, 2...e5!? .

This move offers a pawn for development and takes White away from well-known theory. I invented this gambit in 1996, but after playing one game, forgot all about it. After rediscovering the gambit in 2000, I played some games with it. I present all of them here.

Ralph Cilento (2025) - Zilbermintz, West Orange (NJ) Swiss, 1 March 1996:

3 de5 Nc6 4 Nc3 h6 5 e4 Bg7 6 f4 gf 7 Bxf4 Nxe5 8 Nf3 Ng6 9 Bg3 d6 10 h3 Be6 11 Be3 Nge7 12 Qc2 Nc6 13 Ne2 Qd7 14 a3 a5 15 Nf4 Nxf4 16 Bxf4 Ne5 17 Nxe5 Bxe5 18 Bxe5 de5 19 Qc3 Qd4 20 Qxd4 ed4 21 Ke2 Ke7 22 a4 ab

23 ab b6 24 Rhb1 Rhg8 25 Kf2 Kf6 26 c5 Ke5 27 g3 Rxa1 28 Rxa1 Bh3 29 Rh1 Be6 30 Rh6 Ra8 31 Rh5+ Kf6 32 cb cb 33 e5+ Ke7 34 Rh4 Rd8 35 Rh1 Bd5 36 Re1 Ra8 37 Be4 Ra2+ 38 Kf3 Ke6 39 g4 Kxe5 40 Bxd5 Kxd5 41 Re7 f6 42 Rb7 Ra3+ 43 Kf2 Ke5 44 Rxb6 Rf3+ 45 Ke2 d3+ 46 Ke1 Rf4 47 b5 Kd5

48 Rc6 Kd4 49 b6 Re4+ 50 Kd1 Rxg4 51 b7 Rg1+ 52 Kd2 Rb1 53 Rxf6 Rb2+ 54 Kd1 Rb1+ 55 Kd2 Rb2+ 56 Kd1 eventually DRAWN.

Elizabeth Vicary (2031) - Zilbermintz (2023), August Grand Prix, New York 2000:

3 de5 Nc6 4 e6?! Why give up a perfectly good pawn?? fxe6 5 e4 Ne5 6 Qh5+ Nf7 7 e5 Bg7 8 Nf3 h6 9 Bd2 d6 Best was 9...Kf8! 10 Bc3 Qe7 11 Nbd2 de5? 12 Qg6 Qf6 13 Qxf6 Bxf6 14 Ne4 Bg7 15 000 Ne7 16 Be3 b6 17 Bc2 Bb7 18 Rhe1 Rd8 19 Ned2 g4 20 Nxe5 Nxe5 21 Bxe5 Bxe5 22 Rxe5 Bxg2 23 Rxe6 Kf7 24 Rde1 Rd7 25 R6e5 Rhd8 26 Ne4 Nc6 27 Rf5+ Kg7 28 Ba4 Bxe4 29 Rxe4 Rd6 30 Rxg4 + Kh8 31 Bxc6 Rxc6 32 Rf7 Rg8 33 Re4 Rg7 34 Ree7? Rxc4+ 35 Kd2 Rxf7 36 Rxf7 Kg8 37 Rd7 a5 38 b3 Rh4 39 Rxc7 Rxh2 40 Ke3 Rh3+ 41 Kf4 Rh5 42 a4 b5 43 axb5 Rxb5 DRAWN.

Elizabeth Vicary - Zilbermintz, Match, game 1, New York 2000:

1 c4 g5 2 d4 e5!? 3 de5 Nc6 4 e6?! fxe6 5 e4 Ne5 6 Qh5+ Nf7 7 e5 Bg7 8 Nf3 h6 9 Be3 Kf8 10 00 Nxe5? A mistake. 11 Nxe5 Bxe5 12 f4 Bd4+ 13 Kh1 g4 14 Qxg4 Nf6 15 Qh4 Qe8 16 f5 Be5 17 Nc3 Here 17 Bf4! was much stronger. Ke7 18 fxe6 dxe6 19 Ne4? Again 19 Bf4! was very strong. Qh5! 20 Qxh5 Nxh5 21 Be3 b6 22 Rf2 Bd7 23 R1f1 Raf8 24 Rxf8 Rxf8 25 Rxf8 Kxf8 26 Bxh6+ Ke7 27 g3 Bc6! 28 Kg2 Bxb2 29 Kf3 Kf7 30 Kg4 Nf6+ 31 Nxf6 Bxf6 32 h4 e5 33 Kf5 Be7+ 34 Ke4 Kg6 35 Bd2 Bf5+ 36 Ke3 Bxd3 37 Kxd3 Kf5 38 Be1 e4+ 39 Ke3 c6 40 g4 Kxg4 41 Ke4 b5 42 cxb5 cxb5 DRAWN.

F. Gisondi (2020) - Zilbermintz (2023), Grand Prix, New York 2000:

(Moves 1-3 as above) 4 Nc3 h6 5 h4 g4 6 Bf4 Bg7 7 h5 Nxe5 8 e3 d6 9 Be2 Be6 10 Bxe5 Bxe5 11 Bxg4 f5 12 Be2 Qg5 13 Nf3 Bxc3 14 bc3 Qf6 15 Qd4 c5 16 Qd2 000 17 Rb1 Rh7 18 Rb5 Rg7 19 Nh4 d5?? I blundered here. Any reasonable move would do. Now, the pawn gone, the defenses quickly collapse. The conclusion was: 20 Rxc5+ Kb8 21 d5 Qe7 22 Qd4 b6 23 Rb5 Bd7 24 Rxb6 axb6 25 Qxb6+ Ka8 26 d6 Qe4 27 Qxd8 Ka7 28 Qa5+ Kb8 29 Qc7+ Ka8 30 Bf3 Qxf3 31 Nxf3 Rf7 32 Rf7 Rh4 … eventually 1:0.

Having looked at 2 d4, it is only fair that I look at alternatives for White. The most common alternative is 2 Nc3, developing the Nb1 to a good square and aiming for the center. I will first look at two miniatures, and then, at my games against two masters.

.Alex Mitchell (1431) - Zilbermintz (2038), New York 1996:

2 Nc3 h6 Notice how I always play 2...h6 to strengthen the g5-pawn? 3 b3 Bg7 4 Bb2 d6 5 d4 c5 6 dc5 Qa5 7 Qc2 dc 8 000?? Nc6 9 Kb1 Nb4 10 Qd2 Bf5+ 11 e4 Bc3! 12 Bc3 Bxe4+ 13 Bd3 Bxd3+ 14 Qxd3 Qxa2 15 Resigns 0-1.

Galliard (1054) - Zilbermintz (2094), Newark, New Jersey, 1999:

2 Nc3 h6 3 g3 Bg7 4 Bg2 d6 5 e3 Nc6 6 Bxc6 bc6 7 Nge2 c5 8 00 Nf6 9 Qa4+ Bd7 10 Qd1 h5 11 a3 Bc6 12 Qc2 Qd7 13 d4 Bf3! 14 d5 Qh3, 0-1.

And now, I present two games against masters:

FM Ilye Figler (2290) - Zilbermintz (1975), New York 2000:

1 c4 g5 2 Nc3 h6 3 h4 Thinking my opening is unsound, Figler tries to immediately open up the game. However, as I showed earlier, the move 3 h4 is not to be feared.

3...g4! 4 g3 His ploy beaten back, Figler chooses a hypermodern formation. d6 5 Bg2 Bg7 6 d4 Nc6 7 e3 e5 Hitting at the center. 8 Nge2 exd4 9 exd4 Nf6 10 Be3 Bd7 11 00 Qe7 12 d5? Closing the long diagonal. Ne5 13 Qb3 b6 14 Nd4 a6 Preventing tricks. 15 Rae1 00 16 Nce2 Nh5 17 Qc2 f5 18 b3 Qf6 19 Rfd1 Ng6 20 Ne6 Bxe6 21 de6 Rab8 22 Bd4 Ne5 23 Bd5 Qe7 24 Rfe1 Rbc8 25 Bxe5 de5 Controlling f4 and d4 26 Bb7 Rcd8 27 Rxd8 Qd8 28 Rd1 Qf6 29 Rd7 f4! Black starts attacking. 30 e7 Rb8 31 Bd5+ Kh8 32 Qf5 Qxf5 33 Rd8+ Rxd8 34 exd8/Q+ Qf8 35 Qc7 fxg3 36 Nxg3? Nxg3 37 fxg3 e4! 38 Bxe4?? A blunder. After 38 Qf4! , the game is probably drawn. Bd4+ 39 Kg2 Qf2+, White resigns. 0-1. .

NM Oliver Chernin (2233) - Zilbermintz (2038), Saturday Action, New York 1996:

1 c4 g5 2 Nc3 h6 3 g3 Bg7 4 Bg2 c5 5 e3 Nc6 6 Nge2 e5 7 d3 Nge7 8 a3 d6 9 Rb1 a5 10 00 Be6 11 Nd5 Bd7 12 Bd2 Nxd5 13 cd Ne7 14 b4 ab 15 ab b6 16 Nc3 Bf5! This tempts White to play 17 e4, closing the long h1/a8 diagonal. 17 e4?! Bd7 18 bc bc 19 Rb7 Rb8 20 Qb3 Rxb7 21 Qxb7 Qc8 22 Qa7 00 23 Rb1 Ng6 24 Rb7 Bh3 25 Rc7 Qg4 26 f3 Qh5 27 Nd1 Bxg2 28 Kxg2 g4 29 fg Qxg4 30 Nf2 Nh4+??! I blundered here, as in my analyses, I completely missed the text move. 31 Kf1! Qh5? Perhaps 31...Qf3!? 32 gf Bf6 33 Be1! Bxh4 34 Qa2 ( 34 Qa3 Bxf2 35 Bxf2 Qe1+ 36 Kg2 Kh8 with good drawing chances) Bxf2 35 Bxf2 Qd1+ 36 Kg2 Qxd3 37 Qa4 Kh7 offered Black better chances. 32 gh Qxh5 33 h3 Qg3 34 Qb7 Bf6 35 Rc8 Bh4 36 Rxf8 Kxf8 37 Qc8+ Ke7 38 Qf5 Qh2 39 Bxh6 Bxf2 40 Bg5+ Kf8 41 QxB Qxh3 42 Qg2 Qxd3+ 43 Kf2 … Here, with two pawns for the piece, I continued playing. Eventually I drew the game -- with my opponent’s flag falling two moves away from mating me!
Excerpts of Letters to the Editor

From Rick Kennedy:

"Davide,

I got UCON #4 last night, played it over and read all of it. (I could not get the diagrams to load into Microsoft Works, but that was only a small problem.)

I like it a lot. The article on Claude Bloodgood was a great way to start off. I think you will get some interesting letters for the new "letters" part of the newsletter. The games are interesting, as usual.

………….

Paul Valle's Halloween Gambit game was great fun, as was Zilbermint's game against Irina Krush. Codazza's article on the BDG, especially the transposition to the Marshall Variation of the French, was particularly eye-catching.

The Belka-Zenner BDG game was very, very Diemer-like. The master would have been proud to play it!!!

I've looked through Schiller's gambit list a number of times. Some really odd lines and names there!

I will be happy to continue writing for the UCON. …………

Please keep up the good work - your readers enjoy it!"

Thank you Rick for your support and please continue to send us your nice articles!

From Hugh Myers:

Nov. 2 2001

Dear Davide,

You have done a good job with your bulletins; I liked n° 3 (June), e.g. the Du Chattel games. By the way, the "Crazy Cat" correction should be Krazy Kat, not "Krazy Cat". But I didn’t like the recent issue. Bloodgood wasn’t as strong an analyst or player as that made him seem but that’s not the reason. The explanation should be obvious if you have access to MOB n° 39 (1988); it also shows why I won’t look at any Schiller book! I’m still trying to get my latest book published – the only hope for more MOB’s

Hugh Myers

Dear Hugh,

you’re one of my favourite chess writers. You know I love MOB and I think your 1993 (last edition 1995) book on 1.e4 Nc6 is the BEST book on the subject. I’m really sorry you had problems with Eric Schiller. Concerning UON n° 4, I must say I accept everybody’s contribution if:

it’s related to unorthodox openings;

it’s not offensive;

In my opinion Schiller’s list of gambits fitted both requirements. I also thought chess players would have liked to know a bit more about Bloodgood’s life. That’s the main reason I put the article about Claude. I hope this clarifies my thought and pls. feel free to write me/us again. Thank you for all you’ve done and given to the chess world and thank you for all you will do. I really hope in next UON I’ll be able to say that the new book has been published! Please keep me updated about further developments on that project.

***************************************************************

From Tim Rutledge :

September 28, 2001

Buongiorno Davide,

I received UON n° 4 a few days ago. Grazie. The UON is exactly what I have been looking for! Games, with little or no commentary or "politics" accompanying them. Games, with moves in them that no sane Grand Master would play………….

Dear Tim,

I’m glad you like UON the way it is. A subscriber suggested me to remove all the unannotated games part. I think the unannotated games have their own right to stay in UON. Sometimes people do not have neither the time nor the will to annotate a game. Chess friends…have you just played an interesting unorthodox e-mail blitz game and you think others might like to see it? E-mail it to me with no comments at rozzoni@libero.it and you’ll see it in next UON. It’s not important to be a master to submit your own games!!

Well my friends,

Enough for this issue. With 29 pages this is the largest UON ever published! One last piece of News. There a new Yahoo group about Unorthodox Openings. I’m the owner of the group and it’s un-moderated at the moment. The group won’t replace UON. The group is just a place to share own games/analysis/piece of news related to Unorthodox openings. If you wish to subscribe you are invited to write an e-mail at UnorthodoxChessOpenings-subscribe@yahoogroups.com No subject or message is required and ….see you there!

I wish you a Happy New 2002!

Best regards

Davide Rozzoni