[...] 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 ¤e4 4.a3
4.¤f3 ¥b4+ 5.¤bd2 d6 6.exd6 £xd6 7.a3 ¥xd2+ 8.¤xd2 ¤c5 9.¤f3 £xd1+ 10.¢xd1 ¤b3 11.¦a2 ¥e6 12.e4 ¤c5²4...¤c6 5.¤f3 d6 6.£c2 d5 7.e3 ¥g4 8.cxd5 £xd5 9.¥c4 £a5+ 10.b4 ¥xb4+ 11.axb4 £xa1 12.£xe4 ¥xf3 13.gxf3 £xe5±
Powered by Aquarium
While the Fajarowicz is a fun gambit for Black to study - I went through Tim Harding's book The Fighting Fajarowicz with great interest - ultimately it doesn't work out as well as Black would like, unless White cooperates by not playing the main lines with 4. Nf3 or 4. a3. It's not necessarily a loser for Black, but with some rather simple White play, Black's otherwise fascinating tactical possibilities and initiative can be neutralized, which are really the only reasons to play the gambit. I have to give Harding a lot of credit for not over-selling Black's prospects and providing valuable, candid analysis in the book. Harding also took another look at the opening after the book was published, if you are interested in his commentary. (Of course he's not the only writer on the Fajarowicz, you can look up others. The short version would be the Wikipedia article, the long version the Budapest Fajarowicz (A51) webliography posted at the Kenilworthian blog.)
Having somewhat regretfully put away the Fajarowicz as a possible weapon in my opening repertoire, I was surprised and a little fascinated by the following game from Hellsten's book. It is classified as ECO E37 - Nimzo-Indian Classical, Noa Variation.
Bareev, Evgeny (2675) - Ivanchuk, Vassily (2695)
[...] 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¥b4 4.£c2 d5 5.a3 ¥xc3+ 6.£xc3 ¤e4 7.£c2 c5 8.dxc5 ¤c6 9.¤f3 £a5+ 10.¤d2 ¤d4 11.£d3 e5 12.b4 £a4 13.¦a2 ¤xd2 14.¦xd2 ¥f5 15.£e3 O-O-O 16.g4 £c2 17.¦xd4 exd4 18.£d2 £xd2+ 19.¥xd2 ¥e4 20.f3 ¥g6 21.cxd5 ¦xd5 22.¥g2 f6 23.¢f2 h5 24.¥f4 ¥c2 25.h4 ¦e8 26.¦c1 ¥a4 27.gxh5 ¦xh5 28.¥g3 ¦e3 29.¦c4 ¦d5 30.¥d6 ¦c3 31.f4 ¦xd6
Powered by Aquarium
The key gambit characteristics for Black arise from his 6th and 7th move choices. With the first, the "Fajarowicz" knight appears on e4 and with the second, Black looks to undermine the White center for quick development. If you look at the position on move 8, it seems like a classic Fajarowicz structure, with the benefit of White not having any minor pieces developed (just the Queen on c2, which has already been kicked once from c3). By move 14, the thematic ...Bf5 tactical motif in the Fajarowicz has appeared, with the idea that Black's minor pieces are playing in the center, targeting key squares in White's camp and White's queen. Could it be that this Nimzo-Indian variation is actually an improved version of the Fajarowicz? Something to think about for both Fajarowicz fans and players who want a rock-solid opening that still has gambit possibilities.
It's fascinating to see some of these ideas for Black appear across different openings and at high levels, which reinforces several different training ideas for improving players:
- Studying and annotating master games
- Varying your opening study and looking outside your current repertoire for ideas
- Studying everything - nothing you do is wasted time, if you approach the material with a critical eye and look to better understand chess principles and patterns. I doubt I'll ever actually play the Fajarowicz, but having studied the opening I can now recognize key themes about development advantages resulting from gambits, along with particular tactical ideas for Black in related structures.