The role of White was played here by Patrice Danzanvilliers of Gif sur Yvette, a community in the Paris, France metropolitan area. Thanks to his command of the English language, we discovered during our game that we are both avid gardeners, and that we share the problem of having too much shade.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.e5 d5 6.Bb5 Ne4 7.Nxd4 Bc5 8.Be3

Position after 8. Be3

The move recommended by current theory, and by the 1991 edition of Tim Harding's book, Evans Gambit: and a System vs the Two Knights Defense. 8.Nxc6 see last month's column; 8.0-0 see Maxfield-Morss.

8...Bd7 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.0-0

10.Nd2 Nxd2! 11.Qxd2 Qe7! (11...0-0 12.0-0 f6 13.Nxc6!) 12.Nb3 Bb6 13.Qc3 0-0 14.0-0 Rfe8! (14...Rae8 15.Bc5 is good for White) 15.f4 f6 16.Bc5 fxe5 17.fxe5 Qh4 and Black was fine in Rinkis-Poleschuk, USSR postal 1984. Harding claims advantage for White based on 18.Nd2 d4 19.Qa3 and "Black cannot play 19...Rxe5 because after 20. Bxb6 and 21. Nf3 winning the exchange." This is false in view of 19...Rxe5 20.Bxb6 Re3 21.Nf3 (21.Qa4 cxb6) 21...Qg4 with excellent play for Black. But ECO-3 joins in the incorrect judgement that the position after 17. fxe5 favors White.

In the foregoing line, White tried to batten down the d4 and c5 squares, fixing Black's weak c-pawns. Black's counter was to use ...f6 to rip the position open and gain play with his major pieces. This dynamic is typical of the whole variation with 4. d4 and 5. e5.

10...Qe7 11.Re1 0-0 12.f3 Ng5

Position after 12...Ng5

13.Qd2

13.Nd2 Bb6 14.a4 (Ljubojevic-Averbach, Palma de Mallorca 1972) 14...Ne6! with a slight advantage for Black according to Gligoric. I must confess that, to me, it looks as if White's space advantage roughly compensates for Black's two bishops.

13.f4 Ne6 14.c3 was played in Sax-Smejkal, Vrbas 1977. Here Gligoric, cited in ECO-3, recommends 14...Bb6 15.Nd2 f6 with a slight advantage for Black. Here again, to this commentator of much humbler rank, it looks roughly even.

13...f6 14.Nc3

This was a new move so far as I was aware at the time.

14.Kh1 h6 15.Bxg5 hxg5 16.Nb3 (16.exf6? Qxf6 17.Nb3 Bd6 18.Nc3 g4 19.fxg4 Qh4 with a powerful attack for Black in Olafsson-Cassidy, postal 1995.) 16...Bb6 was slightly better for Black, with his two bishops and central pawns in Schneider-Judovic, postal 1972.

14...Bb6 15.Rad1 Ne6

In the same section, I also contested a game with Alexander Nikolichev, of Nizhny Novgorod, Russia (formerly Gorky, USSR). Because of the slowness of the Russian postal system, I reached this point much later against him than against Danzanvilliers. I decided to try 15...fxe5 and after 16.Bxg5 Qd6 17.Be3 exd4 18.Bxd4 Bf5 19.Bxb6 cxb6 20.Ne2 Rae8 21.c3 I was entirely satisfied with the results.

Position after 21. c3

However, our game was so incredibly slow that my opponent and I decided on a draw.

16.Nxe6

16.Nf5 Qf7 is fine for Black.

16...Bxe6 17.exf6 Qxf6 18.Na4 Bf5

18...Qg6 19.Bd4 Rae8 20.Nc5 Bf5 21.c3 and White was making progress with his queenside blockade in Lanz-Kubasky, ICCF e-mail, 1998.

19.Bd4

I fail to understand how this pawn sacrifice can possibly lead to a White victory, though White may get enough play for the draw.

19...Bxd4+ 20.Qxd4 Bxc2 21.Rd2 Bxa4

I thought it was important to eliminate the knight, but a much better try for a win was 21...Rae8 22.Rxe8 Qxd4+ 23.Rxd4 Rxe8 and it is hard to see White's compensation for his pawn.

22.Qxa4 Rfb8 23.Rc1 Rxb2 24.Rxb2 Qxb2 25.Qxc6 Qb6+ 26.Kf1 Qxc6 27.Rxc6 Rb8 28.Rxc7

Position aftet 28. Rxc7

I don't see how to produce a point with the Black pieces from here. It seems to me that the activity of White's rook is enough to make up for the pawn. Black can only win the a-pawn by chasing White's king into the center.

28...Rb1+ 29.Kf2 Rb2+ 30.Kg3 Rxa2 31.Rd7 Ra5 32.Kf4 h6 33.g3

Position after 33. g3

The activity of White's rook and king fully compensate for his material deficit, and even for Black's outside passed pawn.

1/2-1/2