
the re-evaluation of the 'old' theory.
White starts an immediate attack on the
assumption that his stable centre legiti-
mizes this. He is not afraid to leave his
king in the centre for the time being.
In Dovzik-Schredder, Balatonbereny
Open 1994. 9.h4 (by transposition) also
worked out well for White after 9...a6
lO.lLlg5 lLlh6 I J.ttla3 $...e7 12."h5 g6
13.~h6 $...f8 14.tUe6! ~h6
15.tt';d8±;
9...a6 is of course too slow.
The preparatory 9.h3 gave White reason-
ably chances in Shashin-Naglis, Moscow
1970, after 9...g6 lO.g4 tZlh6 Il.ttJa3 a6
12.~g5 'iWc8 13.~f6 IIgS 14.~d2 tUt7
15.0-0. Keres' suggestion of 9...ttJge7
may well be stronger, but more important:
why waste a tempo on h3 when you can
play g4 in one go?
9•. ,. IUge7
Simply bad was 9...g6? 1O.gf5 ef5
Il.tlJa3 ~e6 12.~g5 ~d7 13.ti::b5 ~d8
14.'il'b3 h6 15Jba7!, Pedersen-Laursen,
Vejle 199I, see the section on general
ideas. 9...fg4? 10.tbg5 is even worse.
10. gf5 tL:f5
11. tf\g5
With ideas like 12.~f5 ef5 l3.e6.
11. ... .!C.ce7(!)
Fortifying the square f5, and better than
Keres' I 1..... e7. As we saw above,
12.toa3 0-0-0 13.~b5 (I3.~f3?
Cuartas-Padevsky, Siegen Olympiad
1970, is an unexplainable lapse; but
13.~f5 efS 14.~b5 probably transposes)
13..!~(b8 14..Qf5 efS JS.e6 is winning:
Hald-Jensen, Copenhagen 1990.
12.
.:!ba3
h6
13. tiJh3
'ii'c7
14. ~b5 ~b5
15. _Q_b5
~f7
16. i.d2
.!
~
~.i
i
i~~
t::.
~
ttJ
~
~ ~
l:t
iY~
l:t
Mortensen-Karlsson, Copenhagen 1985.
is still crucial for the evaluation of 9.g4.
White has enough compensation for the
pawn with his bishop pair and space ad-
vantage. Black need not despair, how-
ever: he is a pawn up and has a fairly solid
(though passive) position.
Conclusion
The Wing Gambit against the French is
fully playable. Even though White may
nOI always count on a;!; position from the
opening. he does get enough in return for
the sacrificed pawn. The defender's task
is not so easy. especially from a practical
point of view: nearly always he is con-
fronted with entirely new problems at the
board.