BAD BLACK OPENINGS
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 d5
An over-optimistic offering from the Hawaiian lair of Clyde ‘the Evil One’ Nakamura. White can cope with it easily enough.
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 d5?
A dubious gambit. Black gets very little for the pawn.
3.Bxd5
Or 3.exd5 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nbd7 5.Nf3.
3…Nf6
Black wants to win the bishop pair.
4.Nc3
4.Bb3 is also good: 4…Nxe4 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Qe2 with the idea 6…Nf6 7.Ng5! (or simply 7.Nxe5).
4…Bg4 5.Nge2!?
Not bad, but 5.Nf3! is better still, in view of lines like 5…Nxd5 6.Nxd5 Nc6 7.c3 Be6 8.Qb3! with the idea 8…Na5?! 9.Qa4+ Nc6 10.Nxe5.
5…Nxd5 6.Nxd5 Nc6 7.0-0
7.c3 Be6 has the idea 8.Qb3 Na5! 9.Qa4+ Nc6.
7…Nd4 8.f3
White is definitely better, although not by that much after
8…Be6 9.Nxd4 Bc5 10.Kh1
But 5.Nf3! is more active and effective, casting 2…d5 into serious doubt.
King’s Gambit: Nordwalde Variation (C30)
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Qf6
The Nordwalde Variation is an unorthodox defense to the King’s Gambit. The idea of 2…Qf6 is simply to capture the f-pawn with the queen. If White is familiar with the line, however, it clearly falls short of equality for Black.
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Qf6 3.Nc3 Qxf4 4.d4
The Schubert Variation, a good practical choice. 4.Nf3! is probably closer to a refutation, but involves a lot of tactics which, to some, may not be worth memorizing. Here’s a very abbreviated look, ignoring many sidelines: 4…Bb4 (4…Qg4!? is perhaps Black’s last chance to bail out of complications, but White stays on top with 5.Bc4 Nc6 6.0-0. For example, 6…Bc5+ 7.d4! Nxd4 8.Bxf7+ Kd8 9.Kh1) 5.Bc4! Bxc3 6.0-0! Ba5!? (6…Qxe4 7.Bxf7+ Ke7 8.dxc3 d6 9.Bxg8 Rxg8 10.Bg5+! Ke8 11.Nxe5; on 6…f6!? 7.dxc3 is good, but 7.bxc3 is simpler. For example, 7…Qg4 8.Bf7+! Kd8 9.d4 d6 10.dxe5 fxe5 11.h3 Qg3 12.Bxg8 Bxh3 13.Ne1 Rxg8 14.Qd5, etc. Finally, White stays on top following 6…Qf6 7.dxc3 Qe7 8.Nxe5! Qxe5 9.Bxf7+ Kd8 10.Bxg8 Rxg8 11.Rf5 Qe6 12.Bg5+) 7.d4 Qxe4 8.Bxf7+! Kd8 9.Bxg8 Rxg8 10.Bg5+ Ke8 11.Nxe5 h6 12.Qh5+! g6 13.Qxh6 Qxd4+ 14.Kh1 Qxe5 15.Qh7 and Black has no defense, Sanchez Almeyra-Lugo, Havana 1992.
4…Qh4+
After 4…Qf6 5.Nf3 Bb4 6.dxe5 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Qe6 8.Bf4 Nc6 9.Bd3 f6 10.Nd4 Nxd4 11.cxd4 fxe5 12.Bxe5 Nf6 13.0-0 White has a very strong center, better development, and the bishop pair, Anderson-Standig, 1994.
5.g3
The enemy queen must return either home or back to its transit point at f6.
5…Qd8
5…Qf6 6.Nd5 Qd8 7.dxe5 c6 8.Nc3 d6 9.Bc4 Be6 10.Bxe6 fxe6 11.Qg4 Qd7 12.Nf3 and White has the more promising position, Frink-P.Simon, Balatonbereny 1996.
6.dxe5 d6
6…Nc6 is a modest improvement: 7.Nf3 d6 8.Bg5 f6 9.exf6 gxf6 (9…Nxf6?! 10.Bb5! with advanced development, useful pins, and a lot more space for White) 10.Bf4 Bg4 11.Be2 Qd7 12.Nh4 Bxe2 13.Qxe2 0-0-0 14.0-0-0 and Black’s kingside weakness and White’s control of d5 combine to give White the better game, Berthelot-Bücker, Eger 1989.
7.Bf4! g5
This is best according to Bücker. Other moves:
A) 7…dxe5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.0-0-0+Nd7 10.Bxe5 c6 11.Nf3 Ke8 12.Bc7 Be7 13.Nd4 g6 14.Bc4 h5 15.e5 Nc5 16.Bd6 with a better position for White in Spassky-Alb.David, France 1993;
B) 7…Nc6 8.exd6 Bxd6 9.Bxd6 cxd6 10.Nb5 Nf6 11.Qxd6 Qxd6 12.Nxd6+ Ke7 13.0-0-0 Rd8 14.Nxc8+ Raxc8 15.Rxd8 Kxd8 16.Bd3 and White is a little better in the endgame, which he went on to win in Berthelot-Bricard, Pau 1988.
8.Be3!
White has a strong game and Black is unlikely to achieve equality by any means.
8…Nc6 9.exd6 Bxd6 10.Qd2
10.Nf3 and 10.Bb5 Bd7 11.Nf3 also secure significant advantages.
10…h6 11.Bg2
11.0-0-0 is more flexible.
11…a6?!
11…Bg4 gives Black the advantage, according to Bücker, but we don’t agree: 12.Nf3 Nf6! (12…Qd7 13.0-0-0 0-0-0 14.Qf2! and White stands much better; 12…Bxf3 13.Bxf3 Bb4 14.0-0-0 Qxd2+ 15.Bxd2 Ne5 16.Rhf1 or here 16.Be2 gives White a clear positional advantage) 13.0-0 Bxf3 (the knight at f6 is loose in many variations) 14.Bxf3 0-0 15.Nd5 Ne5 16.Bd4, and Black’s loose kingside is more important than White’s weak e-pawn.
12.Nf3 Nge7 13.0-0 Be6
(Backman-Heinola, 1984) Here 14.Nd5! would have given White a substantial advantage. In conclusion, 4.Nf3 is a more convincing refutation of the Nordwalde, but 4.d4 is a practical choice which requires little memorization.
King’s Gambit: Sénéchaud Countergambit (C30)
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nf3 g5
What madness is this? When I (Eric) first saw this game I was sure that it would be accompanied by some rational explanation, such as an error in correspondence notation, a coffee stain, a move made by extraterrestrials… In other words, something plausible. But no, the player of the Black side committed this move intentionally, perhaps with premeditation. Let’s see if we can figure out the reasoning here. Black’s pawn at e5 was under attack by two pieces, the pawn at f4 and the knight at f3. Does Black defend the pawn? No! Does Black capture the White pawn? No! Instead, Black offers another pawn to be captured by either pawn or knight.
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nf3 g5? 4.Nxe5
Two can play at this game: 4.d4 is also strong. For example, 4…exd4 (4…Bxd4 5.fxe5 Bc5 6.Bxg5… ugh!) 5.Nxg5 puts an awful lot of pressure on f7, with Bc4 and Qh5 in the air.
4…gxf4 5.Qh5 Qe7 6.Nxf7!?
6.Bc4! Nf6 7.Qxf7+ Qxf7 8.Bxf7+ Kf8 9.Bc4 is simple and strong.
6…Nf6 7.Nd6+ Kd8
8.Qxc5!!
The pretty way. After 8.Nf7+ Ke8, Giraud-Sénéchaud, Postal 1992, was agreed drawn, but White had 9.Nd6+ Kd8 10.Qxc5
.
8…cxd6
8…Qxd6 9.Qxd6 cxd6 10.d3 is simply hopeless for Black.
9.Qc3! Nc6
9…Qxe4+ 10.Be2 Rf8 11.Qf3 and Black’s pawn structure is a disaster.
10.d3
Black has nothing to show for the pawn. For example,
10…d5 11.Bxf4 dxe4 12.Be2 exd3 13.cxd3 Re8 14.Qd2 d5 15.Bg5 Bg4 16.0-0!
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5
The Philidor Counter-Gambit is a 19th century attempt to grab the initiative as early as possible. Unfortunately, it loosens Black’s position and exposes him to attack.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5
Black attacks e4 and hopes to dissolve White’s center, even at the cost of a pawn.
4.exf5
White has other good solutions. We recommended 4.dxe5 fxe4 5.Ng5 d5 6.e6 in Big Book of Busts. It stood up well to challenges and we still believe that White retains an advantage, but it is also rather complicated. An excellent alternative is 4.Nc3! which is straightforward and consistent with our emphasis on rapid development. There can follow:
A) 4…exd4 5.Qxd4! (the most direct mode of attack, although 5.Nxd4 is advantageous as well. Just an example: 5…fxe4 6.Nxe4 Nf6 7.Bd3! Be7?! 8.Ng5! hitting e6, with a huge advantage, one example going 8…c6 9.0-0 Bg4 10.Qe1 g6 11.Bd2!? Rg8 12.h3 Bd7 13.Qe2 c5 14.Nde6 Qb6 15.Rfe1 and Black can resign, Rytshagov-Pyhälä, Tampere 1992) 5…Nc6 (5…Nf6 6.e5!? Nc6 7.Bb5 dxe5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.Nxe5; 5…fxe4 6.Bg5 Nf6 7.Nxe4 Be7 8.0-0-0 0-0 9.Nxf6+ Bxf6 10.Bc4+ Kh8 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Qxf6 gxf6 13.Nd4! Tseshkovsky-Inkiov, Minsk 1982. In both of these lines White has a clear advantage) 6.Bb5 Bd7 7.Bxc6 bxc6 (Black can’t like 7…Bxc6 8.Bg5 Nf6 9.exf5! Bxf3 10.gxf3 Be7 11.0-0-0) 8.Bg5 Nf6 9.e5 dxe5 10.Nxe5 Bd6 11.0-0-0 and White is simply winning;
B) 4…Nf6 5.dxe5 (the move that is almost always played; in fact, 5.exf5 also looks good, since 5…e4 6.Ng5! is our main game with 4.Nc3) 5…Nxe4 6.Bc4 (6.Nxe4 fxe4 7.Ng5 is also known to be advantageous) 6…c6 (6…Nxc3 7.bxc3 c6 8.exd6 Qxd6 transposes) 7.exd6 Nxd6 (7…Nxc3 8.bxc3 Qxd6 9.0-0 and Black is too exposed. For example, 9…Qxd1 10.Rxd1 Be7 11.Re1 Kf8 12.Bg5 Bxg5 13.Nxg5, winning. 7…Qxd6 8.Qe2! Qe7 9.Nxe4 Qxe4 10.Bf7+! Ke7 11.Be3, etc.) 8.0-0! Nxc4 9.Qe2+ Be7 10.Qxc4, and White wins;
C) 4…fxe4 (the only real chance) 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Neg5! h6 (6…e4 7.Ne5, when Motwani gives the fun line 7…Nh6 8.Nxe4! dxe4 9.Bxh6 gxh6 10.Qh5+ Ke7 11.Qh4+ Ke8 12.Bb5+! c6 13.Qh5+ Ke7 14.Qf7+ Kd6 15.Nc4+; 6…exd4 may be best, but 7.Qxd4 is strong, as is 7.Nxd4 Bd6!? 8.Nge6 Bxe6 9.Nxe6 Qe7 10.Qxd5 Nf6 11.Qb5+ c6 12.Qe2, and White is a clear pawn ahead) 7.Nf7!! Kxf7 8.Nxe5+. White is winning. The rest of the analysis is based on Motwani’s: 8…Ke6 (8…Ke7 9.Bd3! is devastating) 9.Qg4+ Ke7 (White also wins following 9…Kd6 10.Nf7+ Ke7 11.Qh4+ g5 12.Bxg5+ hxg5 13.Qxg5+ and 9…Kf6 10.Qg6+ Ke7 11.Qf7+ Kd6 12.c4+– dxc4 13.Nxc4+ Kc6 14.Na5+ Kb6 15.Qb3+) 10.Ng6+ Ke8 11.Qe2+ Be7 12.Nxh8 and Black can resign.
4…e4
4…Bxf5 5.dxe5 Qe7 6.Nc3 dxe5 7.Bd3 Bxd3 8.Qxd3 controls e4 and threatens Qb5+.
5.Ng5! Bxf5
5…Nf6 6.Ne6 Bxe6 7.fxe6 d5 is pretty depressing for Black: 8.Bg5 (8.g4!? h6 9.f4! is unnecessary but also very promising) 8…Be7 (8…Nc6 9.c4 Bb4+ 10.Nc3 0-0 11.Be2 with a clear advantage) 9.c4!, planning simply Nc3, Qb3 and the like.
6.Nc3
6…d5
6…Nf6 7.f3 is pretty awful. For example, 7…Qe7 (7…exf3 8.Qxf3 Qc8 9.Bc4) 8.fxe4 (or 8.Bc4 exf3+ 9.Kf2) 8…h6 (8…Bxe4 9.Ngxe4 Nxe4 10.Bb5+ c6 11.0-0!) 9.Be2 Bg6 10.Nf3 Nxe4 11.0-0, with the much better game.
7.f3 e3!?
Tony Kosten’s suggested line. What else can be tried? 7…exf3 8.Qxf3 Ne7 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.cxd3! gives White a winning position.
8.Bxe3 h6 9.g4! hxg5
9…Bc8 10.Nh3.
10.gxf5 Bd6 11.Qe2 Kf8 12.0-0-0 c6 13.Qd2
White has a huge advantage. For example,
13…Rh4
13…Rh5 14.Bd3.
14.Ne2 Rxh2 15.Bxg5 Nf6 16.Rxh2 Bxh2 17.f4!
The bishop on h2 is trapped, among other problems. Some of this analysis stems from the work of Antii Koponen, who recommended this subvariation.
Russian Game: Symmetrical Variation (C42)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4
The Symmetrical Variation is a cheeky challenge, and can’t be refuted outright, but Black has to suffer through defending positions in which he has no positive prospects.
Nisipeanu – Varga
Baile Tusnad 2005
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4 4.Qe2 Qe7
If 4…Nf6?? 5.Nc6+ wins the queen.
5.Qxe4 d6
The point: Black regains his piece, although he will still be still a pawn down.
6.d4 dxe5 7.dxe5
7.Qxe5 Qxe5+ 8.dxe5 Bf5 9.c3 Nd7 10.f4 0-0-0 gave Black plenty of compensation (…f7-f6 is coming) in Kos-Potapov, Ceske Budejovice 1995.
7…Nc6
8.Nc3!?
Not the only good move, but it’s a simple and effective strategy: let Black recover his pawn, since he’ll have to go on the defensive. Objectively, it may be even better to hang on to the material by 8.Bb5 Bd7 9.Nc3! Qb4!? (played in two top games) 
(9…Qxe5?? 10.Bxc6; 9…Nxe5?? 10.Nd5 Qd6 11.Bxd7+ Kxd7 12.Bf4 Re8 13.0-0-0; 9…0-0-0 10.Bf4 with advantage. For example, 10…g5 11.Bg3 Re8 12.Qe3 Nxe5? 13.0-0-0!) 10.Bc4! (10.Qf4 0-0-0 11.0-0 with an edge for White) 10…0-0-0 11.a3 Qa5 12.Bxf7 (or 12.0-0 Qxe5 13.Bxf7 with an edge) 12…Nxe5 13.b4! Bxb4 14.Qxb4 Qxb4 15.axb4 Nxf7 16.Rxa7 Rhe8+ 17.Be3 Bf5 18.Ra2 and White was still a pawn up and went on to win in Naiditsch-Volkmann, Istanbul Ech 2003.
8…Qxe5 9.Qxe5+ Nxe5 10.Bf4 Bd6 11.Bg3 f6
11…Bd7 12.Ne4 Bc6 13.Nxd6+ cxd6 14.0-0-0⩱ is obviously better for White in view of his bishop pair and Black’s d-pawn, Sivuk-Ipatov, Paleochora 2011. It’s true that this might be drawn with perfect defense, but that’s hardly an attractive proposition for the second player.
12.0-0-0
12…a6
Nisipeanu gives 12…Bd7 13.Nb5 Bxb5 14.Bxb5+ Kf7 15.f4⩱.
13.Ne4 Be7 14.Bxe5 fxe5 15.Rd5
15.Bc4 Bf5 16.Ng3 Bg6 17.Rhe1 also favors White because of Black’s weak isolated e-pawn, but such a position is terribly difficult to convert.
15…Bf6 16.f4! Be6
Nisipeanu analyses 16…exf4 17.Nxf6+ gxf6 18.Bc4 and 16…c6 17.Rd2 Be6 18.Nxf6+ gxf6 19.fxe5 fxe5 20.Bd3 with the idea Re1.
17.Rc5 0-0-0
17…exf4 18.Nxf6+ gxf6 19.Rxc7 Bd5 20.Bd3 Bxg2 21.Re1+ Kd8 22.Ree7 (Nisipeanu).
18.Nxf6 gxf6 19.fxe5 Bd5 20.exf6 Rhf8 21.Bd3?!
Better was 21.c4! Be4 22.Re5 Rd4 23.Be2! Rxf6 24.Rf1 Rxf1+ 25.Bxf1, giving White an extra pawn almost for nothing.
21…Rxf6 22.Rd1! c6
22…Rf7 23.c4 Bc6 24.Bf5+ Bd7 25.Rxd7 Rdxd7 26.Rd5 Rxf5 27.Rxf5 (Nisipeanu).
23.Bxh7 Bxg2 24.Rxd8+ Kxd8 25.Rg5 Rh6! 26.Rxg2 Rxh7
This may be formally drawn, but White ultimately brings home the point in instructive fashion:
27.Kd2 Rh3 28.Ke2 Ke8 29.Kf1 Kf7 30.Re2 Rh5 31.Kg2 Kf6 32.Kg3 Rg5+ 33.Kf4 Rh5 34.Rf2! Ra5 35.a3 Ra4+ 36.Kg3+ Kg5 37.Rf7 Rg4+ 38.Kf3 Rc4 39.c3 b5 40.h3 a5 41.Rg7+ Kf6 42.Rg4 Rc5 43.Rf4+ Kg6 44.h4 Kh5 45.Ke4 Kg6 46.Kd3 Rh5 47.c4 b4 48.axb4 axb4 49.Kc2 Ra5 50.Kb3 c5 51.Rg4+ Kh5 52.Re4+– Kg6 53.Re5 Kh6 54.h5 Kg7 55.Re6 Kh7 56.Rb6 Ra7 57.Rc6 Ra5 58.h6 Kg8 59.Rc7 Kh8 60.h7 1-0
A nice example. In addition, 8.Bb5 provides reason enough to avoid this line for Black.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Qf6
What is the queen doing on this square? Well, making the classic mistake of coming into play too early. When Greco analyzed this defense back in 1620, he discovered that it was an invitation to some fantastic quick kills by White, and we can’t resist showing them.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Qf6 3.Bc4
A great solution for White is to play with forcing moves that gain time: 3.Nc3 c6 (versus Nd5 and Nb5) 4.d4 exd4 5.Bg5! (5.e5 Qg6 of Morphy-McConnell, New Orleans 1849, is best met by 6.Qxd4, when White is way ahead in development) 5…Qg6 (5…Qd6 6.Nxd4 g6 7.Qd2) 6.Qxd4 d6 7.0-0-0 and White is miles ahead in development, with space and a potential attack in the center.
3…Qg6?
A terrible waste of a tempo.
A) 3…Nh6 tries to justify Black’s plan. The knight at h6 is usually vulnerable to capture by the White bishop, but here the knight is protected by the queen, avoiding any disruption to the pawn structure. 4.0-0 (unfortunately, 4.Nc3! c6 5.d4! exd4 6.Bg5 Qd6 7.Qxd4 gives White a wonderful game) 4…Bc5 5.Nc3 c6 6.d4! Bxd4 (6…exd4 7.e5 Qg6 8.Bd3 Qh5 9.Ne4 Be7 10.Re1 with the clearly better position) 7.Nxd4 exd4 8.e5 Qg6 9.Qxd4 gave White a similar advantage to that noted in the 3.Nc3 line, Paulsen-Von dem Busch, Düsseldorf (blindfold simul) 1863;
B) Black’s best try might be trying to curl up with 3…d6, intending to strongpoint the e5-square: 4.Nc3 c6 5.h3 (5.0-0 Bg4; 5.d4 Bg4) 5…Nd7 6.d4 h6 7.0-0 Ne7 8.Be3 Ng6 and White is better, but not devastatingly so.
4.0-0 Qxe4??
An awful move, but Greco is trying to show the reader some tactics. Although it’s too late for Black to fully recover, he should try to defend with 4…d6. For example, 5.d4! Be7 (5…Bh3? 6.Ng5; 5…Bg4 6.h3! Bxh3 7.Ng5! Be6 8.Bxe6 fxe6 9.d5 exd5 10.exd5 with Ne6 next) 6.Nc3 Nc6 7.Nd5 (7.Re1 Bg4) 7…Bh3 8.Ne1 0-0-0 9.Nxe7+ Ncxe7 10.Qd3 Bd7 11.f3, with a moderate advantage.
5.Bxf7+! Ke7
5…Kxf7 6.Ng5+ forks the king and queen.
6.Re1 Qf4 7.Rxe5+
7.Nxe5 is immediately devastating.
7…Kd8?
7…Kxf7 8.d4 intending 8…Qf6 (else the queen is lost) 9.Ng5+ Kg6 10.Qd3+ Kh5 11.g4+ Kxg4 12.Qh3+.
8.Re8#
Elephant Gambit: Wasp Variation (C40)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nxe5
The Elephant Gambit, popular on the club level, has recently received a fair amount of theoretical attention. Black’s counterattack on e4 is easy to underestimate, and the play can become very complicated, so we’ll give a couple of different answers and a lot of analysis. With proper play, White is able to achieve some advantage in every line.
In the Wasp Variation, Black answers 3.Nxe5 with 3…dxe4, a radical way of playing for broke. Unfortunately for Black, the wasp hasn’t enough sting and White can swat it away.
Lob – Eliskases
Postal 1932
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5
The Elephant Gambit is not as bad as most of the openings in this section, but in the end, Black allows White a greater advantage than he deserves out of any opening.
3.Nxe5
3.exd5! is the safer option, which we feature in the following Elephant Gambit section. But 3.Nxe5 should also give White the better game.
3…dxe4
This is the Wasp Variation. 3…Bd6 is well answered by 4.d4 dxe4 5.Bc4 Bxe5 6.Qh5! Qe7 (best) 7.Qxe5 and White stands better: 7…Qxe5 (7…Nf6? 8.Nc3 Nc6 9.Qxe7+ Nxe7 10.Bg5 Bf5 11.0-0-0 with the idea Rhe1 and Bxf6) 8.dxe5 Nc6 9.Nc3! Nxe5 10.Bb3. White is temporarily a pawn down, but has the bishop pair with ideas of Nd5, Nb5, Bf4, and/or Nxe4, depending on how Black plays it. Even if he only recovers the pawn, the bishop pair will be ideally suited for an open position like this.
For example, 10…Ne7 (10…f5? 11.Nb5 Kd7 12.Be3 with the ideas of 0-0-0+ and Bd4; or 10…Bf5?! 11.Bf4 Ng6 12.Bxc7) 11.Nb5 Kd8!? (11…0-0 12.Nxc7 Rb8 13.Bf4 N7g6 14.Bg3 Bd7 15.0-0-0 clearly favors the bishops) 12.Bf4 N7g6 13.0-0-0+ or 13.Bxe5 Nxe5 14.0-0-0+. This position shows how the power of the bishop pair and connected rooks is usually worth more than a pawn, even when the opponent has no weaknesses.
4.Bc4 Qg5
Here we have one of the most fun lines of the Elephant Gambit complex. Gambit players should enjoy this sort of firefight. 4…Qd4? 5.Bxf7+ Kd8 6.f4! exf3 7.Nxf3 Qe4+ 8 Kf2 or 8.Qe2. In both cases, White is a pawn up for nothing. On 4…Nh6, 5.d4! threatens Bxh6.
5.Bxf7+!
The Wasp betrays the Elephant! 5.Nxf7? is much worse after 5…Qxg2 and now there are some entertaining examples:
A) 6.Rf1 Bg4 and White cannot salvage the position: 7.Nxh8 (7.f3 exf3 8.Rf2 Qg1+ 9.Bf1 Kxf7 10.Qe2 Nc6 11.Qc4+ Ke8 12.d3 Kd7 13.Be3 Re8 14.Kd2 Rxe3 15.Kxe3 Nf6 16.Nc3 Be6 17.Bh3 Qg5+ 0-1 Kehl-Rasmussen, Tacoma 1989; 7.Be2 Bxe2 8.Qxe2 Kxf7 9.Qc4+ Ke8 10.Qxc7 Nd7 11.Qxb7 Rb8 12.Qxa7 Qxh2 and Black has an extra piece for two pawns, a clear advantage) 7…Bxd1 8.Bxg8 Nc6 9.Nc3 Bxc2 10.Bf7+ Kd8 11.Ne2 Bd3 12.Rg1 Qf3 0-1, Strand-Jensen, Denmark 1986;
B) 6.Qh5!? (a crazy attempt which miraculously works out well) 6…Qxh1+ 7.Ke2 Qxc1?? (7…Nf6! wins in several ways: 8.Nd6+ Kd7 9.Qf5+ Kxd6 10.Qxc8, and now 10…Nbd7! will win brilliantly but it’s a lot easier to stay up a rook by 10…Qf3+ 11.Ke1 Qg4 12.Qd8+ Qd7) 8.Nd6+ Kd7 9.Qf7+?? (9.Qf5+ Kxd6 10.Qd5+ Ke7 11.Qf7+ Kd6 12.Qxf8+ Kd7 13.Qf5+ Kd6 14.Qd5+ Ke7 15.Qf7+ draws) 9…Kxd6?? (such greed! With so much extra material, Black should have played more defensively with 9…Ne7! 10.Nxc8, after which Black cannot capture the knight because of Qe8, but the king really has nothing to fear. 10…Qxb2 or 10…Nc6 wins easily) 10.Nc3!? (10.Qd5+ Ke7 11.Qf7+ draws again) 10…Qxa1?? (10…Bg4+ 11.Ke3 Nf6! 12.Rxc1 Nbd7 is very messy. White’s queen is getting trapped, so 13.Be2 Bh3!? 14.Nb5+ Kc6 15.Nd4+ Kc5!? might follow, with a wild fight in store) 11.Nxe4+ Ke5 (11…Kc6 12.Qd5+ Kb6 13.Qb5+) 12.Qd5+ Kf4 13.Qg5+ Kxe4 14.d3+ Kd4 15.Qe3#, Lange-Anonymous, Erfurt 1855.
5…Ke7 6.d4!
6.Qh5?! Qxg2 7.Bxg8 Qxh1+ 8.Ke2 Rxg8 (8…Nd7!) 9.Qf7+ Kd6 10.Qxg8?? (10.Nc4+! is wildly complicated. For example, 10…Kc5 11.b4+ Kc6 12.b5+!? Kxb5 13.Qd5+ Bc5 14.Ne5! Bg4+ 15.Nxg4 Qf3+ 16.Ke1) 10…Kxe5 11.Qxf8 Bg4+ 12.Ke3 Qe1+ was Anonymous-Bronstein, USSR 1954.
6…Qxg2 7.Rf1
A critical position. It seem that White has the advantage regardless of what Black does.
7…Bh3
This sets up a deadly threat at f1, but White has resources. 7…Nd7 is considered best in Jensen, Purser and Pape’s book on the Elephant Gambit. It can lead to entertaining play, but doesn’t change the basic assessment that White stands better: 8.Bxg8!? (after 8.Bc4! Ngf6 9.Bf4 Nb6 10.Qe2, White has a big advantage, Jepson-Miskulin, Växjö 1992, and here 10.Nd2! was even stronger) 8…Nxe5 9.dxe5 Rxg8 10.Qh5?! (10.Nc3) 10…g5!? (10…Bg4! 11.Qxh7 Kf7 with a clear advantage) 11.Be3! (11.Nc3 Bh3 12.Nd5+ Ke6 13.Ne3 Qf3 14.Qxh7? Bb4+ 15.c3 Bxf1 16.Nxf1 Bxc3+ and Black went on to win in Mayer-Motta, Montana 1989. And after 11.Qxh7+ Rg7 12.Qh6 Bh3 13.Qf6+ Ke8 14.Nd2 Rd8, White has run out of moves, with Black threatening to capture at d2 and then on f1) 11…Bg4 12.Qxh7+ Rg7 13.Qh6 Kf7 14.Nc3? (14.Qf6+ Kg8! 14.Nd2! is at least equal and perhaps better for White) 14…Rg6 15.Qh7+ Bg7 16.e6+ Rxe6 17.Bd4 Rg6 18.Bxg7 Rxg7 19.Qh6 Rd8 20.Rd1 Bxd1 21.Nxd1 Rxd1+ White resigned, Graves-Hall, England 1987. This is fun stuff, showing the appeal of the Elephant Gambit.
8.Bc4
Eric advises his students: when you steal the f7-pawn with your bishop, get out of town quickly so the bishop does not get caught by the police!.
8…Nf6
8…Nd7 9.Nc3 Ngf6 10.Bf4 Nb6 11.Be2 Nbd5 12.Nxd5+ Nxd5 13.Qd2 e3 (13…Ke8 14.0-0-0 Nxf4 15.Qxf4 Bd6 16.Qf7+ Kd8 17.Rg1 wins immediately, in view of 17…Qxh2 18.Rxg7 or 17…Rf8 18.Rxg2 Rxf7 19.Nxf7+ Ke7 20.Rxg7) 14.fxe3 g5 15.Bg3 Qe4 16.Rf7+ Kd8 17.Bf3! Qxe3+ 18.Qxe3 Nxe3 19.Kd2 and the game did not last long: 19…Ng2 20.Bxb7 Rb8 21.Nc6+ Ke8 22.Rxc7 and Black resigned, Brinckmann-De Agustin, Madrid 1943.
9.Bf4!
White continues to develop quickly, and Black’s game rapidly collapses.
9…Nbd7 10.Qd2
10.Nc3 is also good.
10…Nb6
10…e3 11.Qxe3 Qe4 12.Qxe4 Nxe4 13.Rg1 c5 14.Nf7 Nb6 15.Nxh8?! (15.Bb3! c4 16.Nxh8 cxb3 17.axb3 Nd5 18.Be5 is killing) 15…Nxc4 16.b3. White is up the exchange and a pawn, and even with his knight trapped he still had the advantage in a game Matsenko-Lefebr in Cheliabinsk (year unknown).
11.Be2! Nbd5 12.Nc3 Be6
12…Nxf4 13.Qxf4 Be6 14.h4 (14.d5!) 14…Rg8 15.Nc4 Rd8 16.0-0-0 and White was winning in Von Feilitzsch-Keres, Postal 1932.
13.Nxd5+ Nxd5 14.0-0-0 Qh3 15.Bg5+
Black resigned.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5 3.exd5
Here’s another answer to the Elephant Gambit. With 3.exd5, White gains time and in some cases a pawn or two. Black achieves interesting play, but not enough to equalize.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5 3.exd5
This is the best known move, although 3.Nxe5, which is examined in the section ‘Elephant Gambit: Wasp Variation’, also yields White the advantage. In both cases the play can become quite complex and dangerous, so we’ll analyze in depth.
3…e4
The most obvious move, but Black has two very interesting alternatives:
A) 3…Qxd5!? 4.Nc3 Qe6 is a strange sort of Scandinavian Defense (1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nf3 e5 4.Nc3 Qe6). Black has discouraged d2-d4, but on the other hand he is behind in development and has committed to …e7-e5, creating a potential target for attack (4…Qa5 5.Bc4 is very risky due to the ideas of Ng5 and 0-0 followed by Re1). White has at least two promising continuations:
A1) 5.g3!? isn’t in the databases, but looks promising, intending to just fianchetto, castle and play Re1. For example:
A1.1) 5…Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 and Re1;
A1.2) 5…Be7 6.Bg2 e4 7.Nd4 Qe5 (7…Qc4 8.Ndb5!? a6 9.d3! exd3 10.Bd5 Qc5 11.Be3 and White is winning) 8.Nb3 Nf6 9.0-0 Bg4 10.Qe1 (10.d4!? Qh5) 10…Nc6 11.d4 Qh5 12.Nxe4 with a small advantage;
A1.3) 5…e4 6.Ng5 Qe7 (6…Qe5 7.Ngxe4 f5 8.d4 Qe7 9.Bb5+ c6 10.Bg5 Qf7 11.Qe2! fxe4 12.Nxe4 with a killing attack) 7.Nd5!? Qxg5 (7…Qe5 8.Bc4) 8.Nxc7+ Kd8 9.Nxa8 Qd5 (9…b6? 10.d3; 9…Bg4 10.d4) 10.Bg2 b5 11.d3 Qxa8 12.dxe4+ with a clear advantage.
A2) 5.Bb5+ (rapid development!) 5…c6 (5…Nc6 6.0-0 when Re1 and/or d2-d4 is very depressing for Black; 5…Bd7 6.0-0, and Re1 is again a problem, whereas 6…Bxb5 7.Nxb5 Bd6 8.d4! opens up the play against Black’s underdeveloped position) 6.Ba4 (intending Bb3, 0-0, Re1 etc.) 6…Qg6! (the most challenging try, hitting g2. If 6…Nf6 7.0-0 Bd6 8.d4 e4 9.Ng5 Qe7 10.Re1 Bf5 11.Ncxe4 Bxe4 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Qf3 and White comes out a pawn up; 6…e4 7.0-0! is also bad) 7.Qe2 Be7!? (7…Bd6 8.d4 Qxg2 9.Rg1 Qh3 10.Bb3! intending Bxf7 – Bücker; 7…Qxg2 8.Rg1 Qh3 9.Qxe5+ Qe6 10.Bb3!) 8.Bb3 Nh6 (8…Qxg2? 9.Rg1 Qh3 10.Rg3 Qh5 11.Rxg7) 9.d3 and White maintains his lead in development while the knight on h6 is awkwardly placed. Bücker gives the following interesting try for Black: 9…Nf5! (9…0-0 10.Qxe5; 9…f6 10.Bxh6! Qxh6 11.d4 and White’s development and powerful bishop on b3 give him the advantage) 10.0-0 Nd4 11.Nxd4 exd4 12.Re1 Be6 13.Nb1! Kd7! 14.Nd2 (14.Bxe6+ Qxe6 15.Qxe6+ fxe6 16.Nd2 Na6 17.a3 also maintains an advantage, due to the weak squares along the e-file and White’s better bishop) 14…Re8, when I think that after 15.Nc4 Bf6 (15…Bxc4 16.Bxc4 Na6 17.Qf3 gives White the bishop pair and ongoing pressure) 16.Bf4 Na6 17.Nd6 Re7 18.Qf3 Black has insurmountable difficulties.
B) 3…Bd6 is the modern and perhaps most important version of the Elephant Gambit, simply trying to develop quickly while hoping for an attack based on …e5-e4. But White is getting his pieces out too, and has two good solutions:
B1) 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.d3! intends simply Bg5 and either Be2 with 0-0, or g2-g3, Bg2, and 0-0. It’s awkward for Black to recover the d5-pawn. Elephant Gambit expert Stefan Bücker continues 5…Nbd7 (5…h6 can be met by 6.g3 and 7.Bg2 or just 6.Be2 0-0 7.Be3 with Nd2 and Bf3 in mind) 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bh4 Qe7 8.Qe2 0-0 9.0-0-0 and White plans a strong attack by g4-g5;
B2) 4.d4 is the most ambitious move, when Bücker recommends 4…e4 5.Ne5 and now:
B2.1) 5…f6?? loses to the standard 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Nxg6;
B2.2) But 5…Ne7 is very logical, hitting d5 and threatening …f7-f6 in some cases. Jonathan Rogers, author of a book on the Elephant Gambit, considers this inferior due to 6.Nc3! giving some remarkable analysis. Critical is 6…f6 (6…Bf5 7.Nc4 Bb4 8.Ne3; 6…Bb4 7.Bb5+ c6 8.dxc6 Nbxc6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Bc4 Nd5 11.Bd2 Nb6 12.Nxe4! Qe7 13.Be2! Qxe4 14.Bxb4 with the idea 14…Qxg2? 15.Bf3 – Rogers) 7.Bb5+ Kf8, and here Rogers finds the beautiful solution 8.Qh5! fxe5 9.dxe5 Bb4 10.e6 g6 (10…Ng6 11.Bg5) 11.Qe5 Kg8 12.Qf6! Qf8 13.Qxf8+ Kxf8 14.Bh6+ Kg8 15.Be8! B23) 5…Nf6 6.Bb5+ Bd7 (6…Nbd7 7.Bg5; 6…c6!? 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Nxc6 Qb6 9.Nc3! Nxc6 10.d5 and Black lacks compensation, regardless of whether he recovers one of the pawns) 7.Nxd7 Nbxd7 8.0-0 (NCO also likes 8.c4 with the idea 8…a6 9.Ba4 b5!? 10.cxb5 Nxd5 11.Nc3) 8…a6 (8…Nxd5 9.Nd2! f5 10.Nxe4 and 10…fxe4 11.Qh5+ or 10…Bxh2+ 11.Kh1 fxe4 12.Qh5+; 8…0-0 9.c4) 9.Bxd7+ Qxd7 10.c4 0-0 11.Nc3 b5 12.Bg5 (NCO). Then 12…b4 13.Ne2 Ng4!? looks plausible, but 14.h3 Nh2 15.c5 Nxf1 (15…Nf3+ 16.gxf3 Qxh3 17.cxd6 exf3 18.Nf4) 16.cxd6 f6 17.Bc1 leaves Black short of compensation.
4.Qe2 Nf6
The most common reply, sacrificing a second pawn. None of the other moves suffice for equality:
A) 4…Be7 5.Qxe4 Nf6 6.Bb5+ Bd7 7.Qe2 Nxd5 8.Bxd7+ Qxd7 9.d4 and White is clearly better, Morphy-Paulsen, New York (blindfold) 1857;
B) 4…f5 5.d3 Nf6 6.dxe4 fxe4 7.Nc3 Be7 (7…Bb4 8.Qb5+ c6 9.Qxb4 exf3 10.Bg5 cxd5 11.0-0-0 Nc6 12.Qa3 Be6, Tal-Lutikov, Tallinn 1964, and here Tal gave 13.gxf3! with a clear advantage) 8.Nxe4 0-0 9.Nxf6+ Bxf6 10.c3 Re8 (no better is 10…Qxd5 11.Qc4 Be6 12.Qxd5 Bxd5 13.Be2) 11.Be3 and White is obviously on top;
C) 4…Qe7 5.Nd4 is an important theoretical line. Black can play:
C1) 5…Nf6 6.Nc3 Qe5 7.Nf3 Qe7 8.Ng5 (with a clear advantage – Pachman) 8…Bg4 9.Qc4 (or 9.Qb5+ c6 10.dxc6 Nxc6 11.Bc4) 9…a6 10.Ngxe4 Nbd7 11.f3 Bf5 12.Be2 Nb6, De Groot-Paul, corr. 1987, and now simply 13.d6! cxd6 14.Qb3 would have destroyed Black’s coordination and position;
C2) 5…f5 6.Nc3 g6 7.Qb5+ (or 7.d3 Bg7 8.Ndb5 with the idea 8…a6 9.d6! cxd6? 10.Nd5) 7…Kf7 8.Bc4 Kg7 9.Ne6+ Kf6 10.d6! Qxd6 11.Nxe4+ fxe4 12.Qg5+ Kf7 13.Nxc7+ Kg7 14.Ne8+, O’Kelly-Frank, Belgian Championship 1959;
C3) 5…g6 is Platz’ suggestion. The simplest solution is 6.Nc3 (6.d3!?) 6…Bg7 7.Ndb5! with the idea 7…a6? (7…Nf6 8.b3 a6 9.Ba3) 8.d6!;
C4) 5…Qe5 6.Nb5 Bd6 (Black gets too far behind in development after 6…a6 7.d4! Qe7 8.N5c3 or 6…Na6 7.d4! Qxd5 8.N1c3 Bb4 9.Bd2 Bxc3 10.Nxc3 Qxd4 11.Nxe4 threatening Bc3 with a large advantage – Bücker. Here 11.0-0-0 is also good) 7.d4 Qe7 (7…exd3 8.Qxe5+ Bxe5 9.Bxd3 a6 10.0-0 axb5 11.Re1 f6 12.f4 Nd7 13.Bxb5, winning) 8.c4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Nxd2 a6 11.Nc3 f5 12.0-0-0 Nf6 13.Re1 0-0 14.f3. White is winning a second pawn. Morphy-Mongrédien, Paris 1859, continued 14…b5 15.fxe4 fxe4 16.Ncxe4 bxc4 17.Qxc4 Kh8 18.Bd3 Bb7 19.Nxf6 Qxf6 20.Rhf1 Qd8 21.Rxf8+ Qxf8 22.Qb4! 1-0. White wins due to the weakness of Black’s back rank. A Morphy masterpiece!.
5.d3
5…Qxd5
Again, Black has tried a lot of moves here, none successfully:
A) 5…Be7 6.dxe4 0-0 7.Qd3! (T. Breyer’s move, considered a refutation by Bücker) 7…Na6 8.Be3 Nb4 9.Qc4 b5 10.Qb3 Nxe4 11.Bxb5 De Smet-Rehfeld, corr. 1989-91;
B) 5…Bb4+ 6.c3 0-0 7.dxe4! Be7 8.Qc2! Re8 9.Be2 and Black hasn’t achieved anything substantial for his two pawns;
C) 5…Bc5 6.Bg5 (or 6.dxe4 with the idea 6…Ng4 7.Bg5! f6 8.Bh4) 6…0-0 (no better is 6…h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6 8.Nc3 0-0 9.dxe4) 7.dxe4 Re8 8.Nc3!? (or 8.Nbd2) 8…Nbd7 (8…Bb4 9.0-0-0!? Bxc3 10.bxc3 and Black, still two pawns down, can’t exploit the queenside weaknesses. For example, 10…c6 11.e5! Qa5 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Qe4!) 9.0-0-0 h6 10.Bf4 Bb4 11.Qc4 Bxc3 12.Bxc7 Qe7 13.Qxc3 Nxe4 14.Qd4, with a winning game.
6.Nfd2!?
6.Nbd2 and 6.Ng5 are also good.
6…Nc6
6…Be7 7.Nxe4 0-0 8.Nbc3 and White is a pawn ahead without serious problems, Keres-De Augustin, Madrid 1943.
7.Nc3 Qa5 8.Nb3
White also stands better after 8.Nc4 Qa6 9.Nxe4.
8…Qb4!?
After 8…Qe5 9.dxe4 Bb4 10.Bd2, Black has failed to recover his pawn.
9.Bd2 Be6 10.Nxe4
10.dxe4! may be even better.
10…Qa4
Rukhaia-Skatchkov, Yerevan 2004. Now White’s 11.Nc3 wasn’t bad, but 11.Ng5! leaves Black nothing for the pawn. For example, 11…0-0-0 12.Nxe6 Re8 13.g3 Rxe6 (13…Kb8 14.Bg2 Rxe6 15.Be3) 14.Bh3 Ng4 15.Be3 h5 16.d4, threatening both d4-d5 and Bxg4.
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 Be7 4.Nf3 0-0
An unsound and unmotivated gambit. It has been played more often than it deserves.
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 Be7 4.Nf3 0-0
Black offers the e5-pawn…
5.Nxe5
… and White doesn’t hesitate!
5…d5
5…d6 is too slow. For example, 6.Nf3 Bg4 (6…a6 7.0-0 b5 8.Bb3 a5 9.a3 c5 10.Re1 1-0 Filipovic-Ljikar, Bosnjaci 2009) 7.0-0 a6 8.Be3 c5 9.h3 Nc6 10.hxg4 Nxg4 11.Nc3 b5 12.Bd5 Qc7 13.Bxc6 1-0 Salazar-Roman-Pivirotto, Lechenicher SchachServer, 2010.
6.exd5 Bd6 7.d4 c6 8.0-0 cxd5 9.Bd3 Nc6 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.Bg5
With a clear advantage, Hergott-Schiller, Kitchener 1984.
Spanish Game: Brentano Gambit (C60)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g5
A wild stab. Black doesn’t have many gambit options against the Spanish, although an early …d7-d5 or …f7-f5 is available in some lines. The Brentano Gambit may be crazy, but amateurs sometimes like to try such things.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g5 4.d4!
White strikes in the center. Sometimes the refutation is all too obvious!
4…Nxd4
A) 4…exd4 5.Bxg5 f6 6.Bh4 Bb4+ 7.c3 dxc3 8.bxc3 Be7 9.0-0 Siemms-Persitz, World Junior Championship, Copenhagen 1953;
B) 4…g4 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.dxe5 c6, Lindvall-Söderman, corr. 1986, and here White should play 7.Be2! (7.Bc4 Qa5+ 8.Nc3 Qxe5) with the idea 7…Qa5+? 8.Bd2 Qxe5? 9.Bc3.
5.Nxd4 exd4 6.Qxd4
An ancient example: 6.0-0 Bg7 7.c3 Nh6 8.cxd4 (8.Qh5!) 8…c6 9.Bc4 d6 10.Nc3 with a large advantage, Pillsbury-De France, 1900.
6…Qf6 7.e5 Qb6 8.Qd3!
Keeping the queens on for the attack, rather than opting for the lesser advantage with 8.Qxb6 axb6 9.Nc3.
8…c6 9.Bc4 Qa5+ 10.Kd1!
Why not? Black has multiple weaknesses and no pieces out! Elbers-Welling, Eindhoven 1987, went 10.Nc3?! Qxe5+ 11.Kd1 Be7 12.Re1 Qg7, and here Welling suggests 13.Be3, which offers a nice attacking position, but 13…Kf8, with the idea of …d7-d5, would put up a good fight. After 10.Kd1 Black is in extreme difficulties. For example:
10…d5
10…Qxe5?? 11.Re1 is bad, as is 10…Be7 11.Re1 Nh6 12.Bd2 Qd8 13.Nc3 0-0 14.Ne4+–.
11.exd6 Bxd6 12.Re1+!
12.Qxd6? Bg4+ 13.f3 Rd8.
12…Be7 13.Bd2 Qf5 14.Bc3 Nf6 15.Nd2!
15.Qxf5? Bxf5 16.Bxf6? 0-0-0+.
15…Qxd3 16.cxd3 Kf8
Or 16…Be6 17.Ne4 Nxe4 18.Bxh8.
17.Ne4 Nxe4 18.Bxh8
And White is winning. A sample line is:
18…Nxf2+ 19.Kd2 b5 20.Bb3 Bd8 21.Rf1 Bb6 22.Rxf2! Bxf2 23.Rf1 Bc5 24.Rxf7+ Ke8 25.Rxh7
And wins.
French Defense: Franco-Hiva Gambit (C01)
1.e4 e6 2.d4 f5
This is a silly move, because it creates weaknesses and White gains time to develop with tempo.
1.e4 e6 2.d4 f5 3.exf5 exf5 4.Bd3
Attacking f5.
4…d5
4…g6 5.Nf3 Bg7 6.0-0 Ne7 7.Re1 0-0 8.Bg5 Nbc6 9.Qe2 Re8 10.Nc3 h6 11.Bc4+ Kh7 12.Bh4, and the threat of Nd5 wins.
5.Nf3 Nf6 6.0-0
White has more rapid development and the outpost on e5 in his favor.
6…Be7
6…Bd6 7.Re1+ Kf7 8.c4! c6 9.Nc3 Rf8 10.cxd5 cxd5 11.Nxd5! Nxd5 12.Bc4 Be7 13.Qb3 and wins.
7.Re1 0-0 8.c4! c6
8…dxc4 9.Bxc4+ Kh8 10.Nc3 Nc6 11.Ng5!.
9.Nc3 Kh8 10.Bf4 Nbd7 11.cxd5 Nxd5
11…cxd5 12.Nb5 Ne8 13.Rc1 a6 14.Bc7 Nxc7 15.Nxc7 Rb8 16.Ne6.
12.Nxd5 cxd5 13.Rc1 Nf6 14.Bc7 Qe8 15.Qb3
Black can hardly move and, among other threats, Bd6 followed by Bb5 and Rc7 will tend to win material.
1.e4 f5
The Fred is not a reversed From’s Gambit, make no mistake! Perhaps the single worst defense at Black’s disposal, it should never be used by a serious chess player.
Pillsbury – Magagna
Paris 1902
1.e4 f5 2.exf5 Kf7?
Black is cruising for a bruising, and Pillsbury turned his opponent into a doughboy after this mistake. Black may as well stop 3.Qh5+ with 2…Nf6, but 3.d4 (or 3.g4) 3…d5 4.Bd3 leaves White with an extra pawn and Black with bad weaknesses down the open e-file.
3.d4
3.Qh5+!? g6 4.fxg6+ Kg7 5.gxh7 Rxh7 6.Qg5+ Kh8 is known in Russia as the Mao Tse Tung Attack. This seems to be a bit revisionist, and more likely than not a subtle psychological trick to discredit a political opponent. Or maybe someone was very drunk. In any case, Black has no compensation for the two pawns.
3…d5?
3…Nf6 avoids immediate death.
4.Qh5+ g6 5.fxg6+ Kg7 6.Bd3! Nf6 7.Bh6+ Kg8 8.gxh7+ Nxh7 9.Qg6+ Bg7 10.Qxg7#
Borg Defense: Troon Gambit (B00)
1.e4 g5
The Borg is primarily an opening played by Star Trek fans, using a little wordplay, as it is the Grob spelled backwards (the Grob, which we deal with elsewhere, is 1.g4). The Borg is even worse than the Grob because Black does not have the advantage of the first move.
Giulian – Basman
Troon 1986
1.e4 g5 2.d4 h6
This is analogous to the Grob line 1.g4 d5 2.h3.
3.h4
A good way of meeting the Borg. Naturally, something simple like 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.h4 g4 5.Be3 is also strong, because Black’s kingside pawns are weak.
3…g4!?
The Troon Gambit, a bold if foolhardy try. Players who are crazy enough to play 1…g5 may be inclined to offer up a pawn just to draw the queen out. 3…gxh4 4.Rxh4 leaves Black’s kingside exposed. For example, 4…Bg7 can be met by 5.e5!, preparing Qh5 without allowing …Nf6 in reply; and 4…d5 5.exd5 e6 6.Nf3 exd5 7.Nc3 establishes a big lead in development with a superior pawn structure.
4.Qxg4
Alternatively, 4.Nc3 and 5.Be3 is a simple way to make Black’s opening look bad.
4…d5 5.Qf3
This is playable but loses time. Returning the pawn with 5.Qf4! dxe4 6.Nc3 keeps an obvious advantage.
5…dxe4 6.Qxe4 Nf6 7.Qd3 Nc6
8.c3?!
Too slow. If White develops his pieces, he’s simply got the better game. For example, 8.Be3! when 8…e5 9.dxe5 Qxd3 10.Bxd3 Nxe5 11.Be2 leaves White a pawn to the good.
8…Qd5!?
8…e5! 9.dxe5 Qxd3 10.Bxd3 Nxe5 11.Be2 Bf5 gives Black rapid development and an outpost on d3. This is almost equal.
9.Nf3
The game has settled down a bit. Black has some compensation for the pawn, since White is not castled and isn’t likely to head to the kingside with the g-file open. 9.Qb5! looks better, since 9…Qe4+ 10.Ne2 a6 11.Qb3 Be6!? 12.Nd2 forces Black to exchange queens, as leaving e4 would make it possible for White to grab the pawn at b7.
9…Rg8 10.Nbd2
This move has a number of problems. Perhaps most importantly, it shuts in the bishop, making it impossible for White to castle quickly on the queenside. 10.c4 is stronger, seizing the initiative and preparing Nc3.
10…Bg4?!
10…Bf5 may be more accurate, since 11.Qb5 Qe6+ isn’t very clear.
11.Nc4
A) 11.Qe3 threatens 12.Bc4: 11…0-0-0 12.Bc4 Qh5 13.Ne5 Nxe5 14.dxe5? (14.Qxe5 Qg6!?) 14…Nd5 and Black has the advantage;
B) 11.Qb5! 0-0-0 (11…Qe6+! 12.Qe2 Qf5 13.Nc4! with advantage) 12.Bc4 Qxb5 13.Bxb5 favors White because Bxc6 and Ne5 is threatened. If 13…Nb8, 14.Ne5 Be6 15.0-0 leaves Black no compensation.
11…0-0-0
Black has achieved the complications he sought. White has an extra pawn, but no obvious way to simplify.
12.Ne3 Qd6 13.Nxg4 Nxg4 14.Qf5+ Kb8 15.Bf4
After 15.Qxf7, Black can launch an attack by 15…Rg7 (15…Rg6 16.Bf4) 16.Qf5 e5!.
15…e5!
White is beginning to regret leaving the king in the center!.
16.Nxe5?
16.Bg3 is a sounder choice.
16…Nxd4! 17.Nxg4!
This ensures at least an equal game, which is more than he gets otherwise:
A) 17.cxd4 Qxd4 is winning for Black: 18.Nxg4 (18.Nd3 Bb4+ 19.Ke2 Rde8+ 20.Kf3 Bd6!) 18…Rxg4 (or 18…Qxb2! 19.Bxc7+ Ka8), and White has nothing better than 19.Bxc7+ Kxc7 20.Be2 Re4 21.Kf1 Qxb2 and the end is near!;
B) 17.Qe4 Nxe5 18.Qxd4 Qxd4 19.cxd4 Bb4+ (or 19…Rxd4 20.Be3 Bb4+ 21.Ke2 Rd6) 20.Bd2 (20.Ke2 Nc6! with a clear advantage) 20…Bxd2+ 21.Kxd2 Rxd4+ 22.Kc3 c5 23.Re1 Nc6 24.g3 Rgd8 with advantage.
17…Nc2+??
A blunder. 17…Nxf5 comes close to full equality after 18.Bxd6 Rxd6 (18…Rxg4? 19.Bxf8 Re4+ 20.Be2 Rde8 21.Kf1 Rxe2 22.Ba3 leaves White with the better game. After 18…Bxd6!? 19.Be2 h5 20.Nf6 Rxg2 21.Rd1, White keeps a very small edge) 19.Ne5 Be7 (19…Re6? 20.0-0-0!) 20.Nxf7 Re6+ 21.Kd2 Rg7 22.Bc4 Rb6 23.Bb3 Rxg2 (23…Rxb3 24.axb3 Rxf7) 24.Rag1 Rbg6 25.Rxg2 Rxg2 26.Ke1 Bc5.
18.Qxc2 Qxf4 19.Ne3 Bc5
20.g3??
This is too much of an invitation! 20.Rh3! and Black is completely lost.
20…Rxg3! 21.fxg3? Qxe3+
0-1
Nimzowitsch Defense: Neo-Mongoloid (B00)
1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 f6
The Neo-Mongoloid Defense was assigned its politically-incorrect name in Europe, but unlike many European fads, it hasn’t caught on in North America. The move …f7-f6 just weakens the kingside, and deprives Black of the most favorable square for his g8-knight, which now must move to one of the inferior squares h6 or e7.
1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 f6 3.Nf3 e5 4.Bc4
Remarkably, this position has arisen about 250 times in one of our large databases, with White’s winning percentage over 85%. 4.Bc4 is a very strong move for White, reaching a type of Scotch Game where Black’s center is under tremendous pressure, and the threat of 5.dxe5 fxe5 6.Ng5, or simply 5.Bxg8, is nothing to sneer at. A sample line would be:
4…Nxd4 5.Nxd4 exd4 6.Qxd4 Ne7 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.Qd1
8.Qd5 Ne5 9.Bb3 c6 and 10.Qd1 followed by f2-f4 is also good.
8…d6 9.0-0 g6 10.Be3 Bg7 11.a3
And Black can’t even get castled
1.e4 h6
This opening is even worse for Black than 1.h3 is for White! Black really can’t afford to give up a valuable tempo, as well as concede the entire center to White. Blacks only purpose in making this move is to keep enemy pieces off g5, but at the start of the game it’s not even clear whether this will be a part of White’s strategy.
Morphy – Carr
Blindfold Game, Birmingham 1858
1.e4 h6 2.d4 a5
Now we see what Black is up to. A time-honored strategy when playing against a blindfolded opponent is to adopt an obscure and often absurd opening, in the hope of creating confusion. It is a bad idea, and it rarely works.
3.Bd3 b6 4.Ne2 e6 5.0-0 Ba6 6.c4 Nf6 7.e5 Nh7 8.f4
White has superior development and complete domination of the center. Morphy hardly seems to be confused by his opponent’s ridiculous opening strategy.
8…Be7 9.Ng3 d5 10.Qg4 0-0
This is known as ‘castling into it’.
11.Nh5 g5
Black has little choice but to create this major weakness on the kingside. Worse still is 11…g6 12.Bxg6 fxg6 13.Qxg6+ Kh8 14.Qg7#.
12.fxg5 hxg5
The Black king has only a single defender, which is easily removed.
13.Bxh7+ Kh8
13…Kxh7 14.Nf6+ Bxf6 15.Rxf6 and checkmate will follow shortly.
14.Nf6 dxc4 15.Bc2
We hope that you will never, ever, be in such dire straits as Black is here, even if your opponent is blindfolded. Black now uses a combination to exchange queens, but loses material.
15…Qxd4+ 16.Qxd4 Bc5 17.Qxc5 bxc5 18.Bxg5
Black’s position cannot be said to be much improved. Fortunately, Morphy does not allow Mr. Carr to live long enough to suffer greatly.
18…Nc6 19.Rf3 Kg7
Now Morphy forces checkmate in 6 moves.
20.Bh6+ Kxh6 21.Rh3+ Kg5 22.Rh5+ Kf4 23.Kf2 Rg8 24.g3+ Rxg3 25.hxg3#
This is a good example of how to play against a bad opening.
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Ne4
This is Stefan Bücker’s crazy invention, which he dubbed the ‘Mokele Mbembe’. Black exposes his knight to all sorts of time-gaining pawn attacks, hoping that White merely exposes his center to counterattack as a result. Hypermodernism to the hilt!
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Ne4!?
For years, the vast majority of players chose 2…Nd5 automatically, with a few eccentrics preferring 2…Ng8. No one took 2…Ne4 seriously, because Black’s knight is not only subject to attack with loss of time, but lacks decent retreat squares. Bücker showed that things are not so easy, and Black even won some wild games when the move first appeared. Now that analysts have explored it more, we can pretty much prove that 2…Ne4 is objectively inferior. But over the board in a real game, maybe it’s worth a whirl?
3.d4
A matter of taste. 3.d3 Nc5 4.d4 Nca6 (4…Ne4?? 5.f3) 5.Nf3 is also good. For example, 5…d6 6.c3 Bg4 7.h3 Bh5 8.Nbd2 e6 (White also has a great game after 8…dxe5 9.Qb3 Bxf3 10.Nxf3 Qc8 11.Nxe5 e6 12.Bd3) 9.Qb3! Qc8 10.exd6 Bxf3 (10…Bxd6?? 11.Qb5+ Nc6 12.Qxh5) 11.Nxf3 Bxd6 12.Bd3 0-0 13.0-0 Nd7 14.Re1 with a clear advantage.
3…f6
White was threatening 4.f3, and this is the best try to complicate. Alternatives:
A) Black’s knight gets stranded following 3…e6 4.Nh3! h6 5.Qg4 d5 6.f3 h5 7.Qf4 g5 8.Nxg5 Nxg5 9.Qxg5;
B) 3…h6 4.h4! (or 4.f3 Ng5 5.h4 Nh7 6.Nc3 d6 7.f4) 4…c5 (4…d5? 5.Ne2 and 6.f3; 4…e6? 5.Qg4 d5 6.f3) 5.d5 e6 6.dxe6 dxe6 7.Qxd8+ Kxd8 8.Bd3 f5 9.f3 c4 10.Bxc4 Nc5 11.Nc3 and White stands clearly better.
4.f3
A) 4.Qh5+ g6 5.Qh4 d5 (5…f5?? 6.f3) 6.Bd3 is Nunn’s Chess Openings’ suggestion. Then White only gets a small advantage from 6…fxe5 7.f3 Nd6 8.Bxg6+ hxg6! 9.Qxh8 Nf7. For example, 10.Qh7 Bf5 (10…exd4 11.Qxg6 e5 12.Ne2 Nc6 13.Ng3) 11.dxe5 Qd7 (11…e6 12.Na3!) 12.Na3 Nc6 13.Ne2 Ncxe5 14.Nd4;
B) 4.Bd3 is another good move: 4…d5 5.Nc3 and now:
B1) 5…Nxc3? 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Bxg6+ hxg6 8.Qxh8 Nb5 9.Bh6 Nxd4 10.Qxf8+ Kd7 11.Qf7! (11.Qxd8+ Kxd8 12.exf6 exf6 13.0-0-0 wins less prettily) 11…Nxc2+ 12.Kd1 Nxa1 13.exf6 c6 14.Nf3 Na6 15.Bf4 and Ne5+;
B2) 5…f5 6.Nh3 (or 6.Nce2 e6 7.Nf4 g6 8.Nge2) 6…e6 7.Nf4 g6 8.0-0 c5 9.Nxe4 dxe4 10.Bb5+ Kf7 (10…Nc6 11.d5 exd5 12.Qxd5 Qxd5 13.Nxd5 Rb8 14.Bf4) 11.d5 exd5 12.Bc4!.
4…Ng5 5.f4
5…Nf7
5…Ne4 6.f5! with the idea Qh5+.
6.Nf3 e6 7.Bd3
With a dominant center and superior development. Assuming that you haven’t just seen 2…Ne4 for the first time, it’s hard to go wrong with these lines.
1.d4 Nc6
The move 1…Nc6 can be used as a so-called ‘Dark Knight System’ versus 1.e4, 1.c4, 1.Nf3, and 1.d4. In the latter case, however, White has a response which forces Black on the defensive. Perhaps the Lundin isn’t outright ‘bad’ in the worst sense, but it fails to equalize and offers fewer positive prospects than the openings in our ‘ugly’ sections.
1.d4 Nc6 2.d5! Ne5
This is rather like the Alekhine Defense (1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5). Black’s hope is to lure White’s center pawns forward and then force White to exchange them. Most players and theoreticians are skeptical of whether this can be achieved without damage.
3.f4
3.e4 is White’s most common and natural move, when 3…e6 4 f4 Ng6 5 dxe6 transposes to our main line. A similar variation is 4.dxe6 fxe6 (4…dxe6 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 6.Nf3!? Nxf3+ 7.gxf3 followed by Be3, Nd2, and 0-0-0 is, at any rate, easier for White to play than Black. If 7…Bc5, then 8.Rg1 g6 9.Nd2 Bd7 10.Nb3 Bb6 11.a4 a6 12.a5 Ba7 13.Bg5+ f6 14.Be3 might follow) 5.Nc3! waiting for Black to commit. For example, 5…b6!? (5…Bc5?? 6.Qh5+ picks up a piece) 6.Bf4 (White could also try 6.Nf3, with advantage or 6.f4 Nf7 7.Bd3 Bc5 8.Qe2) 6…Ng6 7.Bg3 Bb7 8.h4!⩱ Burmakin-Ulko, Moscow 1995.
3…Ng6 4.e4 e5!
Preparing …Bc5.
5.dxe6!
5.f5? fails to 5…Qh4+ 6.Kd2 Nf6! 7.Qf3 (7.Bd3 Nxe4+ 8.Bxe4 Qxe4 9.fxg6 Qxg2+ 10.Ne2 Qxd5+ with four pawns for the piece) 7…Nxe4+ 8.Ke2 Nf4+ 9.Bxf4 Qxf4 10.Qxf4 exf4 11.Kf3 Nf6 with a clear advantage.
5…fxe6
5…dxe6 6.Qxd8+ Kxd8 resembles the lines above. White has space and can develop more easily. This is a limited advantage, but it can grow if Black isn’t careful. A sample line is 7.Nc3 Bb4 8.Bd2 Nf6 9.0-0-0 Bd7 10.Nh3 Ke7 11.e5 Bxc3 12.Bxc3 Nd5 13.Bd2 c5! (13…b5 14.Bd3) 14.Be2 Bc6 15.Rhg1 Rad8 16.g3 b6 17.Nf2 Rd7 18.c4 Nc7 19.Bc3 Rhd8 20.Rxd7+ Rxd7 21.h4! Ke8 22.h5 Ne7 23.g4. White’s pawns restrict the knights and the bishop pair will start to assert itself.
6.h4!?
A very direct attack, threatening 7.h5. According to James Schuyler, it ‘has never been played, but it’s a venomous move’.
6…Bc5
Probably as good as anything. For example,
A) 6…h5?! 7.Be2;
B) 6…Nxh4? fails to 7.Qg4 Ng6 8.Rxh7! Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Qxf5 exf5 11.Rxh8 Nxh8 12.Nf3 with a big advantage. For example, 12…d6 13.Nc3 c6 14.Be3 Nf7 15.0-0-0 dxe5 16.Nb5! cxb5 17.Bxb5+ Ke7 18.Bc5+ Kf6 19.fxe5+ Nxe5 20.Bd4, etc.;
C) 6…Qf6 7.e5 Qf7 8.Nh3! Be7 9.g3! d6 10.exd6 cxd6 11.Nc3 Bd7 12.Ng5 Bxg5 13.hxg5.
7.h5 N6e7 8.h6
Or 8.Qg4 Kf8 9.Nc3 d5 10.Qe2, when Black’s king placement hurts his position badly.
8…g6 9.Nf3 d5 10.Nc3 Nf6 11.Ng5!
White will play e4-e5 next, unless Black tries to open things up with…
11…e5 12.fxe5 Ng4 13.Nxd5! Nxd5
13…Nf2?? 14.Nf6+ and 13…Bf2+ 14.Ke2 are winning for White.
14.Qxd5 Bf2+ 15.Ke2 Qe7 16.Rh3! Bb6 17.Bf4
and White has much the better game.
1.d4 e5
Black’s gambit on the first move leads to a variety of opening strategies, none of which are sound. It is a crazy pawn sacrifice. But there are a lot of crazy people out there…
1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6
The Englund Gambit. Believe it or not, there have been small books and lengthy articles written about it. An even weirder version is 2…d6 3.exd6 Bxd6, giving up a center pawn for no discernible reason. After the simple 4.Nf3, White is a pawn ahead and has already equaled Black’s development. A logical continuation would be 4…Nf6 5.Bg5 0-0 6.Nc3 h6 7.Bh4 Re8 8.e3 Bg4 9.Be2 followed by 0-0.
3.Nf3
3…Qe7
Black tries to recover his pawn. Some other fairly pathetic moves simply keep him a pawn down for nothing. For example:
A) Even worse than 2…d6 is 3…d6?, the Hartlaub Gambit, when one convincing answer is 4.Bg5! Qd7 (4…f6 5.exf6 Nxf6 6.Nc3; 4…Be7 5.Bxe7 Ngxe7 6.exd6 cxd6 7.Nc3) 5.exd6 Bxd6 6.Nc3 h6 7.Bh4 Nge7 8.e4 0-0 9.Bd3. Black: ‘What happened to my pawn?’;
B) If Black tries to develop quickly with 3…Bc5, one way for White to get a big advantage is 4.Nc3 (or 4.Bf4) 4…Nge7 5.Ne4 Bb6 6.h4! (the idea is to discourage …Ng6 due to h4-h5. Of course, 6.Bf4 is also fine) 6…0-0 (6…Ng6 7.Bg5!) 7.h5 h6 8.Bf4 and Black is not only a pawn down, but is also struggling to find a reasonable move!;
C) We’ll take Valeri Bronznik’s word for it and borrow his analysis on 3…Nge7, the Zilbermints-Englund Gambit. This is very slow. For example: 4.Nc3 Ng6 (4…h6 5.e4 Ng6 6.Bb5 Ngxe5 7.Nxe5 Nxe5 8.Qh5 Ng6 9.0-0 with a big lead in development and central control) 5.Bg5 Be7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.Nd5 Qd8 8.Qd2! (this is Petri’s move, based on 8…Ngxe5?? 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 10.Qc3) 8…h6 (8…0-0 9.Qg5) 9.0-0-0 0-0 10.Qc3 Re8 11.e3 Ngxe5 12.Nxe5 Rxe5 13.f4 Re8 14.g4! d6 15.Rg1 and Black has recovered his pawn, but can’t stop g4-g5 with a huge attack (analysis by Bronznik);
D) 3…f6? doesn’t offer much compensation if White accepts the pawn, but he can also play 4.e4! fxe5 5.Bc4, when Black will have trouble castling. Then 5…Nf6 6.Ng5 (or 6.0-0) 6…d5 7.Bxd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.0-0 Bd6 10.c3 Nf5 11.Qh5+ g6 12.Qe2 leaves White with a clear extra pawn.
4.Bf4
Now Black will have to go running around with his queen to regain the pawn. 4.Bg5 Qb4+ 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Nc3 leads to the same position. White also has a fairly simple option that gains a smaller but definite advantage: 4.Nc3 Nxe5 5.Nd5 Nxf3+ 6.gxf3
6…Qd8 (6…Qc5 7.b4! Qc6 8.b5 Qc5 9.e4, threatening Be3 and Bf4. Black is already lost) 7.Qd4 (or 7.Bf4 d6 8.Qd4) 7…d6 (after 7…Ne7 8.Nxe7 Qxe7 9.Bf4, the exchange of queens still doesn’t let Black off the hook in view of 9…Qb4+ 10.Qxb4 Bxb4+ 11.c3 Ba5 12.a4! and to save his bishop and his c-pawn, Black must try 12…c6, creating a big hole on d6. For example, 13.Bd6 Kd8 14.0-0-0 Bc7 15.Bh3 Re8 16.e4 Bxd6 17.Rxd6 Kc7 18.Rhd1 and Black is struggling to develop) 8.Bg5 f6 (8…Qd7? 9.Bh3! Qxh3 10.Nxc7+ was winning in Kortchnoi-Koning, Deurne 1978) 9.Bd2 Ne7 10.Rg1 Nxd5 11.Qxd5 Qe7 12.0-0-0 c6 13.Qd4 Be6 14.e4⩱. Black still hasn’t developed or castled.
4…Qb4+ 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Nc3
Not 6.Bc3?? Bb4 7.Qd2 (7.Bxb4 Nxb4) 7…Bxc3 8.Qxc3 Qc1 mate!
6…Bb4 7.Rb1 Qa3
8.Rb3
The queen is going to be chased around for the rest of the game. 8.Nd5 threatens Nxc7+ and is also a nightmare for Black, who is forced into contortions: 8…Ba5 (on 8…Bxd2+? 9.Qxd2 Qxa2 10.Rd1 Kd8 11.Ng5 Nh6 12.e6! is strong, with the idea 12…fxe6? 13.Nxe6+ dxe6 14.Nc3+. You can work out the details of 12…d6 13.exf7) 9.Rb5 (9.e4 develops quickly and also gives White the advantage) 9…Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 Kd8 11.e4 (or 11.Ng5. Black simply doesn’t have enough pieces out) 11…h6 (11…a6 12.Rb3 Qxa2 13.Nc3 Qa1+ 14.Rb1 Qa5 15.Bc4) 12.Bc4 Nge7 13.0-0 Ng6 14.Nf4! Nxf4 15.Qxf4 Qe7 16.Rd1 a6 17.Rbd5, with a complete bind.
8…Qa5 9.a3
9.e4 Nge7 10.Bb5 is also good.
9…Bxc3
Not 9…Bxa3? 10.Rb5 Qa6 11.e4.
10.Bxc3 Qc5 11.e3 Nge7 12.Bd3 Ng6
12…0-0? runs into the standard attack 13.Bxh7+ Kxh7 14.Ng5+ Kg6 15.Ne4, with the win of a queen or mate. 15…Qc4 16.Qg4+ Kh7 17.Ng5+, winning the queen on c4.
13.0-0 Ngxe5 14.Nxe5 Nxe5 15.Be2
White has the bishop pair and every piece is active. By contrast, look at Black’s pieces on his first rank. A sample line is:
15…d6 16.Bd4 Qd5 17.e4! Qa5
17…Qxe4 18.f4 and Re3.
18.Rb5 Qxa3 19.Qd2!
Threatening 20.Ra1.
19…Qa2 20.Bxe5 dxe5 21.Rxe5+ Be6 22.Qc3
Winning Black’s queen with the triple threat of Ra1, Ra5 and Bc4. This sort of thing is typical when your opponent has his queen out without much else.
1.d4 c5 2.d5 Na6
This drunken knight on a6 has a hazy idea that it can operate well from c7, but this is not the Modern Benoni, and White can dominate the center. This would be an example of the ‘transboard knight’ if it could travel from c7 to e6; however, that’s not possible with a White pawn on d5. We show a cute miniature for fun:
Karosh – Jaffe
New York 1936
1.d4 c5 2.d5 Na6 3.Nf3
A) 3.e4 can also be played right away. For example, 3…Nc7 4.c4 (4.f4!?) 4…d6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Nf3 Nf6 7.Bd3 Bg4 8.h3 Bxf3 9.Qxf3 Bg7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Bg5 with a limited but definite edge;
B) 3.c4 d6 (3…Nc7 4.Nc3 a6 5.e4) 4.Nc3 Nc7 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.h3 g6 7.Bf4 Bg7 8.e3 0-0, Kavutskiy-Sevian, Los Angeles 2011, and White has an advantage after 9.e4+/=.
3…d6 4.e4 Bg4?
4…Nc7 is better, or 4…Nf6. But Black should avoid 4…f5?! 5.exf5 Bxf5 6.Nh4 e6 7.Bb5+ Kf7 8.Nxf5 exf5 9.0-0 Nf6 10.Nc3 Nb4 11.a3 Qa5 12.Bg5 Nbxd5 13.Bc4 Kg6 14.Nxd5 Kxg5 15.Qc1+ Kg6 16.Nf4+ 1-0, Digalakis-Saghaei, LSS 2007.
5.Ne5!!
An old theme in a new setting.
5…Qa5+?
A) 5…Bxd1 6.Bb5+ Qd7 7.Bxd7+ Kd8 8.Nxf7+ Kxd7 9.Kxd1 and White wins;
B) The best move is 5…dxe5, although 6.Qxg4 Nb8 (versus 7.Bb5+) 7.Bb5+ Nd7 8.Qf5! wins the e-pawn with a clear advantage. For example, 8…Nf6 9.Qxe5 Qa5+ 10.Nc3 Qxb5 11.Qxf6!.
6.Bd2 dxe5
After 6…Bxd1 7.Bxa5 e6 8.Bb5+ Ke7 9.Bxa6 bxa6 10.Nc6+ Kd7 11.Kxd1, White remains a piece ahead.
7.Bxa5 Bxd1 8.Bb5#
An original mate!
English Opening: Myers Defense (A10)
1.c4 g5
The late Hugh Myers devoted himself to explorations of bizarre openings, including the outlandish 1…g5. Black’s first move is the subject of a recent book of reprints in German from Randspringer Verlag, so we have updated Eric’s previous analysis of this opening.
1.c4 g5 2.d4
Having played 1.c4, White can’t set up the standard blocking structure with d2-d4 and c2-c3. Naturally White gets the advantage, but some adventurous souls have managed to exploit the slightly weakened a1-h8 diagonal anyway.
2…Bg7?!
The Myers Gambit is going a bit far. Black weakens the kingside and gives up a pawn, for what? A bit of central pressure and a long diagonal. The safer 2…h6 is a reverse Macho Grob approach (that is, the reverse of 1.g4 d5 2.h3), that refuses to give up a pawn. After 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 (4.h4 is also strong), White has a big center which Black will try to break down:
A) 4…c5 5.dxc5 (5.Nge2 Qa5 is a ‘pterodactyl’ approach. One solution is 6.dxc5! Qxc5 7.Be3 Qa5 8.Bd2 Nc6 9.Nd5 Qd8 10.Bc3 with a significant positional advantage, and this may be even stronger if White plays h2-h4 on move 8 or 9) 5…Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Qa5 7.Ne2, intending 7…Qxc5 (7…Nf6 8.h4 g4 9.e5 Ne4 10.Qd5!) 8.Qd4 (8.h4 is good but complicated) 8…Qxd4 9.cxd4;
B) 4…Nc6 (Rainer Schlenker’s choice, the editor of the German magazine Randspringer) 5.Be3 (5.d5 Ne5 6.h4 g4 7.Nge2 d6 8.Ng3 also yields an edge) 5…e5 6.d5 Nd4 7.d6! (7.Nge2?! c5 with a strongpoint at d4, Ehmaen-Schlenker, 1992. But 7.h4! is very strong as well) 7…cxd6 8.Nge2! and Black doesn’t have …c7-c5, while 8…Qb6 9.Qd2! Ne7 10.h4 g4 11.Rd1 will eventually win two pawns along the d-file;
C) 4…d6 5.Be3 Nc6 6.Nge2 Nf6 7.f3 a6 8.Qd2 Rb8. We have arrived at precisely a King’s Indian Sämisch Variation, but with …g7-g5 and …h7-h6 substituted for …g7-g6 and …0-0 – 9.h4 (or 9.Nc1 Bd7 10.Nb3) 9…g4 10.0-0-0 b5 11.cxb5 axb5 12.d5 Nxe4 13.Nd4 b4 14.Ncb5 and White has a big positional advantage on the queenside.
3.Bxg5!
There is no compelling reason to decline. After 3.Bxg5, Black will get pressure on d4 and the long diagonal. But a pawn is a pawn, and Black’s weakened kingside is cause for concern. 3.Nc3 is also good. For example, 3…c5 (3…h6 4 e4 transposes to the note on 2…h6) 4.dxc5! h6 (4…Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 Qa5 6.Bxg5! Qxc3+ 7.Bd2 Qa3 8.g3 Qxc5 9.Bg2 Nc6 10.Bc3 Nf6 11.Nh3! d6 12.Nf4) 5.Be3!? (5.h4!, intending 5…g4 6.e4) 5…Nc6 6.Nf3 Qa5 (6…Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Nf6 8.g3) 7.Qd2+/= Benjamin-Heinola, Honolulu 1996.
3…c5 4.Nf3
Simple and good. 4.Nc3!? cxd4 5.Nd5 has also been played. For example, 5…Nc6 6.Nf3 h6 7.Bh4 d6 8.Qd2 with an edge. Hagesaether-Verduyn, World Boys Under-16 Championship, Duisburg 1992.
4…cxd4
A) 4…Nc6 can be met in two convincing ways:
A1) 5.e3 cxd4 (5…Qb6 6.Nc3 Qxb2 7.Nd5 Rb8 8.a4! is close to winning, because 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.Nc7+ Kd8 11.Nb5 Qa2 12.Nc3 Qa3 13.Rb3 wins Black’s queen, and Black has to make a serious concession to stop this. For example, 8…Kf8 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.Be2 d6 11.0-0 Bf5 12.Rb3 Qxa4 13.dxc5 dxc5 14.Bf4+– with the idea 14…e5? 15.Nxe5 Nxe5 16.Rxb7! Qe8 17.Nc7 Qd8 18.Rxb8 Qxb8 19.Qd6+ Ne7 20.Ne6+, etc.) 6.exd4 Qb6 7.Nc3! Nxd4 8.Nxd4 Bxd4 (8…Qxd4 9.Bd3!) 9.Qd2 and White develops quickly, while Black’s position is a structural mess;
A2) 5.d5! is at least as strong but more complicated: 5…Bxb2 6.Nbd2 Bxa1 7.Qxa1 Nd4 8.Nxd4 cxd4 9.Qxd4 f6 10.Bf4 and Black has serious problems untangling: 10…d6 (10…e5? fails to 11.Bxe5 fxe5 12.Qxe5+; 10…e6 11.e4!) 11.e4 Qb6 12.Qc3 Bd7 13.Be2 with a substantial advantage, especially in view of 13…0-0-0? 14.Be3 Qc7 15.Bxa7! b6 16.c5! winning outright. For example, 16…Qxc5 17.Nc4.
B) 4…Qb6? 5.Nc3! Qxb2 6.Na4 Qb4+ 7.Bd2 Qa3 8.Nxc5 Bxd4 9.Nxd4 Qxc5 10.Bc3 Nf6 11.Nb5 with a virtually winning position. If 11…a6?! then 12.Bxf6 exf6 13.Qd6! is positionally crushing.
5.Nxd4 Qb6 6.Nb5
This is the critical position for White’s 4.Nf3 line. Myers claimed it was good for Black, but White is a pawn up and will get a terrific attack if Black tries to recover it:
6…Bxb2?!
Unfortunately, 6…d5 gets clobbered by 7.N1c3, with the deadly threat of Nd5, and 6…a6 (best) can be met by 7.Be3 Qa5+ 8.N5c3, when White has a standard positional advantage. For example, 8…Nc6 9.g3 d6 10.Bg2 Nf6 11.h3 (versus …Ng4, and discouraging …Qh5) 11…Bf5 12.0-0 0-0 13.Nd2 Bg6 14.a3, with an advantage in the center and on both flanks.
7.Nd2
In fact, 7.N1c3! is better still. Black may as well capture the rook, but will end up in a mess: 7…Bxa1 (7…Na6 8.Nd5 Qa5+ 9.Bd2 Qd8 10.Rb1 Be5 11.f4 Bg7 12.e4 with a huge advantage, Fitzian-Blankenberg, DESC email 2000) 8.Qxa1 f6 (8…Qc6 9.Nc7+! Qxc7 10.Nd5 Qxc4 11.Qxh8, winning) 9.Nd5 Qc6 (9…Qc5 10.Nbc7+ Kd8 11.Nxa8 Qxc4 12.Nac7 fxg5 13.e3 Qc6 14.Qxh8 Qc1+ 15.Ke2 Qc2+ 16.Kf3 Qf5+ 17.Kg3+– Kasabasic-Tittarelli, Lechenicher SchachServer 2010) 10.Nbc7+ Kf7 11.Nxa8 Na6 12.e4 b6 13.Naxb6 axb6 14.Be2, with too much pressure.
7…Bxa1 8.Qxa1
White is far ahead in development and is attacking the dark squares.
8…f6
On 8…Nf6 9.Ne4! wins in view of 9…Qa5+? (but if 9…0-0 10.Bxf6 d5 11.Bxe7 is winning) 10.Bd2 Qb6 11.Nbd6+!.
9.e4
Now White has more than enough for the exchange.
9…d6!
A) 9…Nc6 10.Bf4! e5 11.Be3 Qa5 12.Be2;
B) 9…e5 10.Be3 Qc6 11.c5! and Nd6 is killing.
10.Be3 Qd8 11.Qd1! h5 12.Be2 Nc6 13.Bxh5+ Kf8 14.0-0
White has a pawn and the bishop pair for the exchange. In the meantime, Black’s king is exposed and he is underdeveloped. The Myers Defense isn’t completely misguided, but if White plays accurately Black will have a very hard time of it.
English Opening: Drill Variation (A20)
1.g3 e5 2.c4 h5
A shocking move once seen in a United States Championship. The uncompromising Kamran Shirazi seems to be dreaming of an attack on the kingside. Unfortunately, it’s really just a nightmare for Black. What about the name? We decided to name it after the Drill, a primate that likes to go out on a limb.
Dzindzichashvili – Shirazi
United States Championship, Durango 1992
1.g3 e5 2.c4 h5
This is a variation of the English Opening, that is, 1.c4 e5 2.g3 h5. Black wants to force through …h5-h4.
3.Nc3
By far the most common reply is 3.h4, when Larsen-Shirazi, New York Open 1986, went: 3…d5 4.cxd5 Nf6 5.Nf3 Ng4 followed by 6…Bc5.
3…h4 4.g4 h3
Extreme chess by any standard. This sacrifice doesn’t give Black enough activity to be worthwhile. In Tikkanen-Rapport, Malmö 2013, Black was not successful either with 4…Bb4.
5.Bxh3 Qh4 6.d4 d6 7.Nd5 Na6 8.b4 Qd8 9.a3
Now White is simply a pawn up. Although the play that follows is not perfect, he retains an advantage throughout.
9…Ne7 10.Bg5 f6 11.Be3 Be6 12.Nxe7 Bxe7 13.Bg2 Qc8 14.h3 Bxc4 15.Rc1 Bf7 16.Nf3 c6 17.b5 Nb8 18.bxc6 bxc6 19.dxe5 dxe5 20.0-0 Qa6
20…Bxa3 is well met by 21.Ra1 Bb4 22.Qa4! a5 23.Ne1! 0-0 24.Nd3 Bd6 25.Rfc1.
21.Rc3 Bd5 22.Qc2 Nd7 23.Qg6+ Kf8 24.Ng5 e4 25.Qf5 Ne5 26.Bd4 g6 27.Qf4 Kg7 28.Nxe4 Rae8 29.Bxe5 fxe5 30.Qxe5+ Kh6 31.Ng3 Rhf8 32.Bxd5 cxd5 33.Qxd5 Bf6 34.Rc6 Re5 35.Qd2+
And Black resigned.
Bird’s Opening: Hobbs Gambit (A02)
1.f4 g5?
The Hobbs Gambit is a particularly foolish way of meeting Bird’s Opening (1.f4). Black hopes to deflect White’s pawn from the center, in the manner of other wing gambits. Alas, he can pay a heavy price for weakening his kingside in such a reckless manner. The opening has a deservedly terrible track record..
1.f4 g5? 2.fxg5 h6
As in the Benko Gambit or the Sicilian Wing Gambit, but on the other side of the board. There’s a huge difference. Instead, 2…e5 tries to take over the center, but White’s gets his fair share: 3.d4! e4 (3…Nc6 is hardly an improvement after 4.d5 Na5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Qd3 Qe7 7.a3 e4 8.Qd4 Bxc3+ 9.Qxc3 b6 10.Qxh8 1-0 Leclerc-Maziarz, Internet 2010) 4.d5 Bc5 5.Nc3 f5 6.b4! Bb6 (6…Bxb4 7.Qd4) 7.d6 h6 8.Nd5 hxg5 9.dxc7 Bxc7 10.Bxg5 Qxg5 11.Nxc7+ Kf8 12.Qd4 and Black was busted in Wolf-Kuge, Internet email 2011.
3.d4! hxg5 4.Bxg5 Bh6
Again, Benko Gambit-like. But Black can’t use the g- and h-files for attack as he does in that opening. Things are bad anyway, of course; for example:
A) 4…Bg7 5.Nf3 d6 6.c3 a6 7.Nbd2 b5 (Black doesn’t seem to care about the center or development) 8.e4 Bb7 9.a4 c6 10.Bd3 Nd7 11.Qe2 with a big positional advantage to go with the extra pawn, Ledger-Walker, London 2004;
B) 4…c5 5.dxc5 (or 5.c3) 5…Qa5+ 6.c3 Qxc5 7.Nf3 d6 8.e4 Bg4 9.Qd4! with material and a healthy center.
5.Bxh6 Nxh6
6.d5
This retains the advantage, but 6.e4! is stronger, taking over the center.
6…d6 7.Nc3
And here 7.Qd4! improves.
7…c5 8.e4 Qb6 9.Qd2! Qxb2?
Far too greedy.
10.Rb1 Qa3
Atzmon-Sales, Sydney 2007. Here White can win with 11.Nb5! Qxa2 12.Rc1, threatening both Nc7 (winning a rook) and Qc3 (which attacks the rook on h8 and prepares Ra1, trapping Black’s queen).
Modern Defense: Randspringer Variation (A42)
1.d4 g6 2.c4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.e4 f5
The fundamental flaw of this opening is that it weakens important light squares. Unlike the Dutch Defense, where White has difficulty getting his pawn to e4, here he can immediately capture on f5 and gain an advantage.
Polugaevsky – Bilek
Lipeck 1968
1.d4 g6 2.c4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.e4 f5 5.exf5! Bxf5
5…gxf5 is risky and positionally problematic: 6.Qh5+ (or 6.Nf3 Nf6 7.Bd3) 6…Kf8 7.Bd3 (7.Nf3 Nf6 8.Qh4 Nc6 9.Be2 e6 10.0-0 Ne7 11.Bh6 Ng6 12.Bxg7+ Kxg7 13.Qg5 and White is only a little better, Contoski-Gerzadowicz, Postal 1987) 7…Nc6. Here White has two good paths:
A) 8.d5 Nf6 (8…Ne5 9.Qe2 Nxd3+ 10.Qxd3 Nf6 11.Nf3) 9.Qd1 Ne5 10.Nf3 c6 11.0-0, and White stands much better;
B) 8.Nge2 e6?! (8…Nf6 9.Qh4 e5 10.dxe5 dxe5 11.0-0! 8…Nxd4! 9.Nxd4 Bxd4 10.Ne2 Bg7 11.Bxf5 with advantage) 9.Bg5 Nf6 10.Qf3 (10.Qh3!) 10…Qe8 11.0-0-0 Qf7 12.Rhe1 Bd7 13.h3 Rb8 14.a3 Ne7 15.Nf4 Ng6, Le Gore-Gerzadowicz, Postal 1986; and White should play 16.Qe3 Re8 17.Kb1, with a clear advantage.
6.Nf3
An easy solution we would suggest for White is 6.Be3, with the idea 6…e5 7.Nf3 Nd7 (7…Nc6 8.d5 Nce7 9.Ng5!) 8.c5! Ne7 9.cxd6 cxd6 10.Qb3, with advantage.
6…Nh6
This is an unorthodox post, but the knight will stand well at f7.
7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0 Na6
9.d5!?
This is unconvincing. Other tries:
A) 9.Bg5 Nf7 (9…Qd7 10.Nh4!) 10.Be3, Dobosz-Fries Nielsen, Esbjerg II 1988, requires vigorous action by Black: 10…c5! 11.Rc1 b6 12.a3 Nc7, and White has only a small advantage;
B) 9.Qb3! is probably best, with a small but definite advantage.
9…c5
Or 9…Nc5.
10.Ng5
Or 10.h3 Nc7 11.Bd3.
10…Nc7 11.Bd3
11.Be3 Nf7 12.Qd2 Nxg5 13.Bxg5 is Turner-Copley, Postal 1990, when 13…Rf7, with the idea …a7-a6, is fairly solid.
11…Bd7
11…Qd7! is better. For example, 12.Nb5?! Nxb5 13.cxb5 Ng4 14.h3 Ne5 15.Bxf5 Rxf5 (or 15…Qxf5 16.Ne6 Nd3! 17.Nxf8 Rxf8 with attack) 16.g4 Rxg5 (16…h6! 17.gxf5?! hxg5) 17.Bxg5 Rf8?! (17…Qxb5! 18.Bxe7 Qd7 19.Bg5 Qf7) 18.f4 with a nice advantage, Scheeren-Van Wijgerden, Dutch Championship, Leeuwarden 1980.
12.Ne2!?
12.Qe2! keeps an eye on e6.
12…Nf7
Here instead of 13.Nxf7?!, White should play 13.Nc3, when he would stand slightly better.