UGLY WHITE OPENINGS

1.e4 e5: Unusual 2nd moves (C20)

1.e4 e5

In this section we’re going to look at some irregular White second moves after 1.e4 e5. They aren’t bad moves (perhaps a bit ‘ugly’), and in fact some of them are surprisingly playable. Unlike the ‘bad’ openings, you might want to try one or more of these out from time to time, even against serious opposition.

1.e4 e5 2.Bb5

The Portuguese Opening. How bad can it be to develop a piece and prepare for castling? The most famous use of this opening came when the rock band Phish played a game of chess against the audience during their 1995 tour. They opened with this, thinking that it was their own invention, and were somewhat disappointed when Eric had to inform them that there was already a considerable amount of study of the idea, including a book extolling its virtues. For all that, it’s often the case that White immediately loses the advantage of the first move, and finds himself on the defensive.

Here are a few other unusual ideas:

A) 2.a3 is called Mengarini’s Opening.

Its main idea is to play certain 1.e4 e5 defenses with a tempo in hand. All Black has to do is find a system that White normally plays in which the move a2-a3 is of no particular help. One of these goes 2…Nf6 3.Nc3 Bc5 (the pawn on a3 prevents a reverse Ruy Lopez by 3…Bb4?? and 3…d5?! is marginal because of 4.exd5 Nxd5, which is the Scotch Opening reversed. White can use his extra tempo by playing 5.Qh5! since the already played a2-a3 stops …Nb4, which is a strong gambit with colors reversed. But it’s not easy for Black to defend or otherwise gambit his e-pawn effectively, in view of 5…Nc6 6.Bb5 Qd6 7.Nf3 Nxc3 8.dxc3, when Black must indirectly defend his d-pawn with 8…Bd7! but one would still rather be White after 9.0-0 g6 10.Qh4) 4.Nf3 (4.Bc4 d6) 4…d6 (4…Ng4 is a Two Knights Defense reversed. The extra move a2-a3 is handy in two lines after 5.d4 exd4: one is the move 6.b4, which is normally unsupported when Black plays it in the reversed position and the other is the main line 6.Na4, when 6…Bb4+ isn’t possible, as it is with colors reversed. On the other hand, 4…0-0 is fully playable. For example, 5.Be2 Re8 6.b4 Bb6 7.d3 c6 8.0-0 h6 with the idea 9.Na4 Bc7 10.c4 d5=)

After the move 4…d6, Black is actually threatening …Ng4, so White has to either stop that move directly or prepare 0-0. There are various ways to attempt this:

A1) 5.g3?! Ng4! 6.d4 exd4 is bad for White, especially after 7.Nxd4 Nc6;

A2) 5.Be2 is passive and harmless: 5…0-0 6.0-0 Nc6 7.d3 Bg4!? (a little illogical: 7…a6! to save the c5-bishop, is more ambitious, and any normal move such as 7…Be6 is also fine) 8.Na4 Nd7 (8…Bb6=) 9.c3 a6 10.Nxc5 dxc5!? (10…Nxc5 is only very slightly better for White) 11.Nxe5!? (11.Be3) 11…Ndxe5 12.Bxg4 Nxd3 13.Be3 c4 and Black’s strongpoint on d3 compensated for the bishop pair in Hofstetter-Dournes, corr. 1998;

A3) 5.d4 exd4 6.Nxd4 0-0 is a position in which a2-a3 is wasted. White is probably already worse in view of moves like …Re8 and …d7-d5: 7.Nb3 Bb6 8.Bg5 (8.Bd3? Ng4! 9.0-0 Qh4! 8.Be2 Re8 9.Qd3 Nbd7) 8…h6 9.Bh4 Re8 10.Qe2 (10.Bd3 Nxe4!) 10…Nc6 11.0-0-0 Be6 12.f3 Qe7 13.Nd5 Bxd5 14.Bxf6 Qxf6 15.Rxd5 Rad8, and Black was somewhat better in Knöppel-Reuter, Germany (email) 1999;

A4) 5.h3 prevents …Ng4. This can’t be too bad, but it’s hard to play for an advantage with both a2-a3 and h2-h3 ! Play can go 5…Nc6 6.d3 a6 (to preserve the c5-bishop after Na4) 7.g3 0-0 8.Bg2 Be6 9.0-0 h6 10.Kh2

10…d5 (natural and good enough, although Black could have also prepared this with Motwani’s suggestion 10…Ba7, when he has a nice game) 11.Nxe5! Nxe5 12.d4 Wahls-Brückner, Germany Bundesliga 1990/91, and now Black should have played 12…Nxe4!. For example, 13.Nxe4 (13.dxc5 Nxc3 14.bxc3 Nc4! when Black has a great outpost and White’s pawn structure is horrendous) 13…dxe4 14.dxe5 (14.dxc5 f5 with advantage) 14…Bc4!? (after 14…Qxd1 15.Rxd1 Bxf2 16.Bxe4 Rad8 17.Rf1 Bd4 18.Bxb7 a5 Black is better) 15.Qxd8 Raxd8 16.Re1 Bxf2 17.Rxe4 Bd5 18.Re2 Bb6. Here Black has the better game. White’s e-pawn is a bit weak and it’s not easy for him to develop his queenside;

A5) 5.Bc4 returns the game to normal paths: 5…Nc6 6.d3 Be6 (6…h6 is a reasonable idea, to prepare …0-0, and of course 6…a6 would be fully symmetrical) 7.Nd5 h6 8.b4 Bb6 9.c3 Bxd5 10.Bxd5 Nxd5 11.exd5 Ne7 12.c4 0-0 13.0-0 c6= Buscher-Dueball, Germany Oberliga 1989/90.

B) 2.c4

is called the Whale. It can be used as a transpositional device to get to various lines in the English Opening, including the Botvinnik system. It can also reach a King’s Indian or Modern Defense position. The important question is whether White can manage to get his pawn to d4. 2…Nc6 3.d3 Bc5 4.f4? Bxg1? (greedy. 4…d6! 5.Nf3 Nf6 favors Black’s rapid and active development) 5.Rxg1 Qh4+ 6.g3 Qxh2 7.Rg2 Qh3 8.f5?! (8.fxe5! Nxe5 9.d4! with excellent compensation) 8…g6 (8…Nf6=) 9.Qf3? (9.Nc3) 9…Nd4 10.Qf2 gxf5? (10…Nh6! with a clear advantage) 11.Be3 Nc6? (11…c5=) 12.exf5 Qg4 13.Nc3 a6?? (13…d6 14.Nd5 Kd8=) 14.Nd5 Kd8 15.Be2 Qg7 16.Bb6!? (16.f6! Qg6 17.Bb6) 16…Nd4?? (16…cxb6 17.Qxb6+ Ke8 18.Nc7+ Kf8 19.Nxa8 Nge7) 17.Nxc7 Rb8 18.Ne6+ 1-0, Frenklakh-Dimova, World Junior Championships, Duisburg 1992;

C) 2.c3

aims for 3.d4. It has the distinction of having been played by France’s GM Joel Lautier, and the great Paul Charles Morphy (1837-1884) won a number of quick games with this move, which is not completely innocuous, especially if Black thinks it is! Notice that this is different from, and probably won’t transpose into, the Ponziani (2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3). After 2.c3, play can go 2…Nf6 (2…d5! is an effective reaction; see the Pohl Gambit and the MacLeod Attack) 3.d4 Nxe4 (3…d5 is also fine, intending 4.dxe5 Nxe4 or 4.exd5 Qxd5) 4.dxe5 Bc5!? (4…d5 5.exd6 Nxd6= is safer, and not 5…Bxd6?? 6.Qa4+ Bd7 7.Qxe4+) 5.Qg4 (5.Nh3 d5) 5…Nxf2?? (5…Bxf2+! 6.Ke2 d5 7.Qxg7 Rf8 and Black stands clearly better. For example, 8.Bh6 Bc5 9.Nd2 Nc6 10.Ngf3 Bf5) 6.Qxg7 Rf8 7.Bg5

Morphy-Bottin, Paris 1858. This is already winning for White: 7…f6 (7…Be7 8.Bxe7 Qxe7 9.Kxf2 is also hopeless for Black) 8.exf6 (8.Bxf6 does the job too) 8…d5 (8…Nxh1 9.Be2 leaves Black helpless against the threat of 10.Bh5+) 9.Be2 Bg4 (9…Qd6 10.b4 Bb6 11.Bh5+ Kd8 12.Qe7+!) 10.Bxg4 Nxg4 11.f7+ Rxf7 12.Qxf7+ Kxf7 13.Bxd8 Nf2 14.Bh4 Nxh1 15.Nf3 Nc6 16.Nbd2 Rg8 17.Kf1 d4 18.cxd4 Nxd4 19.Nxd4 Bxd4 20.Nf3 Bb6 21.Re1 h6 22.Re7+ Kf8 23.Ne5 Rg7 24.Nd7+ Kg8 25.Rxg7+ Kxg7 26.Nxb6 axb6 27.g4 Kg6 28.Kg2 h5 29.h3 1-0.

D) 2.Ne2 is the Alapin Opening, discussed in a separate section.

E) 2.Qh5 Nc6 3.Bc4 Qf6 is equal, intending …g7-g6.

F) 2.Bc4 is the Bishop’s Opening. This is hardly an irregular move, but we want to show one strange response that is seen occasionally. If Black tries to play as he does in the Latvian Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5) with 2…f5?!, White has the aggressive move 3.d4! (or 3.d3, of course) 3…exd4 4.e5 d5 5.exd6 Bxd6 6.Ne2⩱. Black will have trouble castling and his central squares are weak.

2…c6

2…a6 3.Ba4 Nf6 is also fine.

3.Ba4 Nf6

3…d5 is another good solution.

4.Qe2

Superficially this move makes sense, because it defends the e-pawn without losing time. But White is running into central and developmental problems. Another main line goes 4.Nc3 b5 (or even 4…Na6!?, intending …Nc5 to deprive White of his bishop) 5.Bb3 b4 6.Nb1 (6.Na4 Nxe4 7.Nf3 d5 8.Nxe5? Qe7, and if White protects the knight, …f7-f6 follows. Drill-Schlamp, Frankfurt 2001) 6…Nxe4 (6…Bc5 7.Nf3 d6 is also reasonable) 7.Bxf7+? (7.Qe2 d5 8.d3 Nf6 9.Qxe5+ Be6) 7…Kxf7 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxe5 Bg7 is winning, since on …Re8 follows Qxe4, Sandström-Heinola, Postal 1982.

4…Bc5 5.Nf3

5.Bb3 gives Black the center: 5…d5 6.d3 Ng4 7.Nh3 0-0.

5…d5!?

Going for maximum central control and development, as is our wont versus these irregular openings.

6.exd5

This is risky, surrendering the center. The problem is that 6.d3 loses a piece to 6…Qa5+ and if 7.Nc3 d4. Here are two alternatives:

A) 6.Nxe5? 0-0 (intending …Re8) 7.Nc3 (7.exd5? Re8 transposes to our main line; 7.c3 dxe4 8.Bc2 Re8 9.Nc4 Bg4 10.Qf1 Nbd7 wins for Black) 7…Re8 8.f4 Nbd7! (development!) 9.Nxd7 Nxe4! 10.Ne5 (10.Nxe4 Bxd7) 10…Qh4+ 11.g3 (11.Kf1? Ng3+) 11…Nxg3 12.hxg3 Qxh1+ 13.Qf1 Qxf1+ 14.Kxf1 Bh3+ 15.Ke1 f6;

B) 6.Nc3 is perhaps the best move. Then Black still gets an edge from 6…0-0 (or 6…d4 7.Nb1 0-0 with advantage) 7.0-0 b5 (7…Nbd7 8.d3 d4 9.Nb1 Bd6 intending …Nc5) 8.Bb3 a5 9.a3 (9.a4 b4 10.Nd1 dxe4 11.Nxe5 Bd4! 12.Nc4 Bg4 13.Qe1 Re8) 9…d4 10.Nb1 Nbd7 11.d3 Bd6 12.Nbd2 Nc5 13.Ba2 Ne6 14.g3 Nc5, with advantage because White’s kingside light squares are weak.

6…0-0 7.Nxe5?

Greedy.

A) 7.0-0 e4 is extremely difficult for White: 8.Ne1 (8.Ng5 cxd5 9.d3 Bg4) 8…b5! (or 8…Bg4 9.Qc4 Qxd5! 10.Qxd5 Nxd5 threatening …Be2) 9.Bb3?? (9.d4! Bxd4 10.Bb3 cxd5) 9…Bg4 traps the queen, and 10.Nf3 exf3 11.gxf3 Re8 12.Qd1 Bh3 wins quickly;

B) 7.dxc6 e4 8.cxb7 Bxb7, with the idea 9.Nh4 Qd4! 10.Nc3 e3! (attacking h4) 11.f4 Nd5 12.Nf3 Nxc3 13.Nxd4 Nxe2 14.Nxe2 exd2+ 15.Bxd2 Bxg2, with a clear advantage.

7…Re8 8.c3

This fails pretty badly, but what else is White to do? On 8.0-0? Qxd5 wins a piece, and 8.dxc6? Nxc6 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.f4 Bg4! 11.Qd3 Nd7 12.Qe4 Nxe5 13.fxe5 Qg5 wins for Black.

8…Bxf2+! 9.Kf1

It’s too late to right the ship: 9.Kxf2 Rxe5! or 9.Qxf2 Rxe5+ 10.Kd1 Bg4+.

9…Bg4 10.Qxf2 Rxe5 11.Kg1 Qe7

White resigned in the game Vescovi-Sokolov, Malmö 1995. The move 12…Re1+ is threatened, and that leads to 12.h3 Re1+ 13.Kh2 Qe5+ 14.g3 Re2.

Okay, you won’t win many 11-move games against grandmasters as Black, but the game illustrates a straightforward and aggressive way to meet the Portuguese Opening, with no particular risk.

Alapin Opening (C20)

1.e4 e5 2.Ne2

The Alapin Opening is more ugly than bad. The awkward 2.Ne2 does develop a knight, after all, but obstructs White’s bishop on f1 and controls only one central square. Not surprisingly, Black equalizes easily with a normal move such as 2…Nf6. We’ll look at an unorthodox queen excursion as well.

1.e4 e5 2.Ne2 Qh4!?

This is the weirdest response. After 2…Nf6, White can of course play 3.Nbc3, but then 3…Bc5 or 3…Nc6 is fine. The most independent move is 3.f4,

but Black has good play then as well. For example:

A) 3…Nxe4 4.d3 Nc5 5.fxe5 d5 6.d4 Ne6 (or 6…Ne4, which has achieved equality many times over the years) 7.Nf4 c5 8.Nc3 cxd4 9.Ncxd5 Nc6 10.Bd2 Nxf4 11.Nxf4 Nxe5 12.Bb5+ Bd7 13.Qe2 Bd6 14.c3 0-0, and Black stood well in Alapin-Rubinstein, Vienna 1908;

B) 3…d5 4.exd5 e4 5.c4 Bc5 6.b4 Bd6 7.Bb2 0-0 8.Qb3 a5 9.a3 axb4 10.axb4 Rxa1 11.Bxa1 Na6 12.Bc3 Qe7 13.Na3 Bxb4 14.Bxb4 Nxb4 15.Nc1 Nd3+ 16.Nxd3 exd3+ 17.Kd1 Bg4+ 0-1 Avila-Kichinski, US Open, Concord 1995;

C) 3…d6 4.Nbc3 Bg4 5.h3 Bxe2 6.Bxe2 Nc6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Bc4 Nd4 9.d3 c6 10.Be3 Ne6 11.Ne2 a6 12.Ng3 exf4 13.Bxf4 d5 14.exd5 Nxd5, Charousek-Engländer, Kaschau 1894.

3.Nbc3 Bc5 4.g3 Qf6 5.d4

5.f4 Ne7 looks acceptable for Black.

5…exd4 6.Nd5

Aggressive stuff! Black should probably retreat to d8 here, but the players were clearly in a fighting mood.

6…Qe5 7.Bg2 Na6 8.Bf4 Qh5

9.Nxd4

White has two good paths here. The other is 9.Nxc7+ Nxc7 10.Bxc7 Bb4+ 11.Kf1! and Black’s game is going to fall apart quickly.

9…Qxd1+ 10.Rxd1 Bxd4 11.Rxd4 d6 12.Bf1 Ne7 13.Bxa6 Nxd5 14.Bb5+ c6 15.Rxd5 cxb5 16.Rxb5

And White went on to win in Alapin-Albin, Berlin 1897.

Pohl Gambit (C20)

1.e4 e5 2.c3 d5 3.Qh5

White’s opening involves a wrongheaded strategy, trying to combine slow occupation of the center with a rapid attack by the queen. This allows Black to adopt a vigorous gambit strategy.

1.e4 e5 2.c3

This intends 3.d4.

2…d5

2…Nf6 is analysed in the section ‘1 e4 e5: Unusual 2nd moves’ (note ‘c’ on 2.c3).

3.Qh5

This move looks clever, because Black can’t play …f7-f6 to defend e5, but the slow 2.c3 and ultra-time-wasting 3.Qh5 make for a bad combination. 3.Nf3 is the McLeod Attack, analysed in the next section. After the normal-looking 3.exd5 Qxd5, Black’s queen cannot be directly attacked by White’s knight on b1 and Black arguably stands better after only three moves! For example, 4.d4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Be3 Bf5 (6…exd4 7.cxd4 Bb4+ 8.Nbc3 Qa5 9.Qb3 Ne4 10.Rc1 0-0=) 7.Be2 exd4 with the idea 8.cxd4 Bxb1 9.Qxb1 Bb4+ 10.Kf1 0-0.

3…Bd6!

This move defines the Pohl Gambit, although it isn’t really a gambit because Black can recover the pawn immediately. The unprincipled activity of the queen is what makes this work. Note that 3…Nf6! 4.Qxe5+ Be7 also gives Black a wonderful attack, based on winning even more time with attacks on White’s queen.

4.exd5

4.d4 Nf6 (4…g6 5.Qe2 dxe4 6.dxe5 Bxe5 7.Qxe4 Qe7=, T.Schneider-Pohl, Postal 1993) 5.Qg5 0-0 gives Black a big lead in development: 6.dxe5 h6 7.Qh4 Bxe5 8.f4 g5 9.Qxh6 Ng4 10.Qh5 Bxf4 11.Bxf4 gxf4 12.exd5 Re8+ 13.Be2 Re5 14.Qh3 Nf2 15.Kxf2 Bxh3 16.Nxh3 Qh4+ 17.g3 fxg3+ 18.hxg3 Qf6+ 19.Nf4 Qb6+ 20.Kg2 Qxb2 0-1, Bendig-Pohl, Postal 1993.

4…Nf6

5.Qh4

5.Qg5 0-0 6.c4 (White tries to hang on to the pawn) 6…c6! 7.Nc3 Bc5 8.d3 cxd5 9.cxd5 Nxd5 10.Qxd8 Rxd8 11.Nxd5 Rxd5, and Black was clearly better in Simchen-Pohl, Postal 1993.

5…0-0!

5…Nxd5 6.Qxd8+ Kxd8 is at least equal, but Black looks for more by leaving the queens on the board.

6.Bc4 Be7

6…Bc5 and 6…e4! are good alternatives. 6.Qxd8+ Kxd8 Black controls the center and is better developed, while White has to deal with his weakness on d3.

7.Qg3 Ng4!

A surprising move, threatening the primitive 8…Bh4.

8.Nh3

A) 8.Nf3? e4;

B) 8.h4 e4! 9.Ne2 Bd6 10.Nf4 Qf6 11.d4 exd3 12.0-0 Ne5 with a healthy advantage.

8…Bh4 9.Qf3 e4 10.Qe2 c6! 11.dxc6 Nxc6

Black has distinctly better chances, especially since 12.0-0 Qd6 13.g3 Nge5 launches a deadly attack.

MacLeod Attack (C60)

1.e4 e5 2.c3 d5 3.Nf3

With 3.Nf3, White attacks e5 and tries to increase his central control. Sometimes the play will transpose into the Ponziani Opening or the Göring Gambit, but Black can also afford to play more actively, eliminating the transpositions. Nicholas McLeod was not a very good player, but he was persistent in his use of this opening. At the 6th American Chess Congress of 1889, he finished at the bottom of the crosstable with just 6.5 points out of 38 in this massive 20-player double round robin. His score with this line was +2 =0 -8.

1.e4 e5 2.c3 d5

Again, 2…Nf6 is analysed in the section ‘1 e4 e5: Unusual 2nd moves’ (note ‘c’ on 2.c3).

3.Nf3

This is MacLeod’s move. For alternatives, see the Pohl Gambit section.

3…Nc6

There are two other reasonable defenses:

A) 3…f6

This is quite playable. For example, 4.Be2 (4.Nxe5 fxe5 5.Qh5+ Ke7 6.Qxe5+ Be6 7.exd5 Qxd5 8.Qxc7+ Nd7 gives White three pawns for the piece, but as Steinitz notes, ‘his pawn superiority is divided on two wings and his pieces are, moreover, barely developed, White’s game would be much inferior’) 4…dxe4 5.Qa4+ Nc6 6.Qxe4 f5 7.Qa4 Bd7 8.Bb5 a6 9.Bxc6 Bxc6 10.Qd1 and White was in retreat, with Black holding the bishop pair and a better game, MacLeod-Gunsberg, New York 1889;

B) 3…dxe4 4.Nxe5 Qd5 5.d4 exd3 6.Nxd3 Nf6 7.Be3 Nc6 8.Nd2 Bd6 9.Qf3 0-0 10.Be2 Bf5 and Black stands well, MacLeod-Weiss, New York 1889.

4.Bb5 dxe4

4…f6 5.Qa4 Nge7 is an unusual variation of the Ponziani Opening. For example, 6.0-0 dxe4 7.Qxe4 Bf5 8.Bxc6+ bxc6 9.Qa4 Bd3 10.Re1 Qd7 11.c4? (‘A badly played opening further degenerates with this move which costs a piece’ – Steinitz) 11…e4 12.Re3 exf3 13.Rxf3 Qe6! and Black won easily in MacLeod-Pollock, New York 1889.

5.Nxe5 Qd5 6.Qa4

This position can also be reached from the Ponziani.

6…Nge7 7.Nxc6 Nxc6

7…bxc6?! 8.Be2 (8.Bc4 was stronger, according to Steinitz, but after 8…Qg5 Black has counterplay) 8…Ng6 9.0-0 Bd7 10.Re1 Bd6 11.Bc4 Qh5 12.Rxe4+ Kd8 13.h3 and now Black launched a speculative sacrifice with 13…Bxh3 but after 14.Qxc6 Bc8 15.Qxa8 Qd1+ 16.Bf1 Qxc1 17.Qb8, White had a winning position, which he managed to lose, MacLeod-Burn, New York 1889.

8.0-0

A pretty game followed 8.c4?! Qe6 9.0-0 Bc5 10.Nc3 0-0 11.Nd5 Qg6! 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.Nf4 Qf6 14.Nh5 Qe5 15.Qxc6

15…Qxh5! 16.Qxa8 Bd6 17.f4 exf3 18.g3 Bc5+ 19.Kh1 Bh3 20.Qxf3 Qe5 21.d4 Qxd4 22.Rd1 Bg4 23.Rxd4 Bxf3+ 24.Kg1 Bxd4+ 0-1 MacLeod-Showalter, New York 1889.

8…Bd6

8…Bd7 9.Re1 0-0-0 10.Rxe4 a6 11.Bxa6 Nb4 and Black should win in this line provided by Steinitz.

9.Re1 0-0 10.Bxc6 Qxc6 11.Qxc6 bxc6 12.c4 f5 13.Nc3 Rf6 14.Ne2 c5 15.b3 Bb7

And Black has the better game, MacLeod-Burille, New York 1889.

Danish Gambit (C21)

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3

The Danish Gambit is sound, but has become an opening used mainly by beginners and a few eccentric gambiteers. White offers two pawns for open lines and rapid development, a strategy which can easily succeed against players with weak defensive skills or inadequate knowledge of opening theory. If Black knows how to respond, however, White will achieve no more than equality.

1.e4 e5 2.d4

This move order doesn’t necessarily indicate that White wants to play an all-out Danish Gambit, but it avoids having to study and come up with solutions for openings beginning with 2.Nf3 like 2…d6 and 2…Nf6. For example, the Göring Gambit begins 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 dxc3 5.Nxc3, yet 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 will very often come to the same thing. See the note to 4.Bc4 below.

2…exd4 3.c3

The Danish Gambit once enjoyed the patronage of top players, but that was back in the 19th century. According to W. John Lutes, the chronicler of the gambit, the first two moves of the opening date back to the late 16th century manuscript by Polerio, but it had to wait a while to get serious attention, and the true double gambit was worked out only by Blankensteiner, a Danish jurist, about 1830. It took another three decades to become popular. By the end of the century, however, it had already lost popularity. White gambits one pawn, and his intention is to gambit yet another pawn and play for attack following 3…dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2. As it turns out, Black can either safely decline the gambit or accept it.

3…dxc3

Black has several ways to decline. Here are two good ones:

A) 3…d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.cxd4 Nc6 6.Nf3 (possibly a better winning try is 6.Be3, which Nigel Davies argues is more productive of complications. There are many lines, as usual, but an original placement arises after 6…Nf6 7.Nc3 Bb4 8.Nge2!? intending a2-a3. Black can preserve his bishop and attack White’s d-pawn by 8…Qd6 9.a3 Ba5 10.b4 Bb6 with at least equality) 6…Bg4 7.Nc3 Bb4 8.Be2

(This is a position that can arise from the Göring Gambit via 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 d5 5.exd5 Qxd5 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Bg4 8.Be2. Oddly enough, it can also come up in the Chigorin Defense to the Queen’s Gambit Declined, via 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nf3 Bg4 4.e3 e5 5.cxd5 Qxd5 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Be2 exd4 8.exd4.) The best-known solution was played by Capablanca: 8…Bxf3 9.Bxf3 Qc4, when White can’t castle and c3 hangs, so he needs to commit: 10.Bxc6+ (10.Qb3 Qxb3 11.Bxc6+ bxc6 12.axb3 transposes to 11.Qb3, and here 11.axb3 Nge7 has proven solid for Black in many games; Marshall-Capablanca, Lake Hopatcong 1926, went 10.Be3!? Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Qxc3+ 12.Kf1 Qc4+ 13.Kg1 Nge7 14.Rc1 Qxa2 15.Ra1 Qc4 16.Rc1 ½-½) 10…bxc6 11.Qe2+ (11.Qb3 Qxb3 12.axb3 Ne7 is considered equal, as all the weak pawns are equally vulnerable!) 11…Qxe2+ 12.Kxe2 Ne7 13.Be3 Nf5 14.Rhd1 0-0-0 15.Rd3 Rhe8 16.Rad1, with balanced play, Velimirovic-Ziatdinov, Kusadasi 1990. It’s hard for either side to make real progress;

B) The authors have previously recommended 3…Ne7. It isn’t played much, because Black seems to be cutting off his own pieces (the queen and bishop on f8), but a knight on the more natural square f6 would be subject to tempo-gaining e4-e5 attacks. With 3…Ne7, Black wants to continue …d7-d5 and gain control of key light squares after White advances the e-pawn. This proves to be enough for equality with good counterplay. After 3…Ne7, White will try to use his space, and the play flows naturally: 4.cxd4 d5

5.e5 (5.exd5 Nxd5 leaves Black with the ideal blockade of White’s isolated queen’s pawn, and faster development to boot; 5.Nc3 dxe4 6.Bc4!? offers a pawn; then 6…Nf5! 7.Nge2 Nd6 is a good solution) 5…Nf5 (or 5…c5 6.Nf3 Nec6! with pressure on White’s center; this looks like an immediate equalizer) 6.Nc3 c5! (6…Bb4 and 6…Be7 have also been played, but this is more direct) 7.dxc5 Bxc5 8.Qxd5 (8.Nf3 Nc6 9.Qxd5 Qb6) 8…Qb6 9.Ne4 Bb4+ 10.Bd2 Nc6! with at least enough play for the pawn: 11.Nf3 0-0 12.Qb5 Bxd2+ 13.Nexd2 Rd8 14.Qxb6 axb6 15.Be2 Be6 16.a3 Ra5=.

4.Bc4

White gives up a second pawn for space and development. 4.Nxc3 is the move mentioned above in the note to 2.d4. Then after 4…Nc6, 5.Nf3 is a Göring Gambit. Instead, 5.Bc4 avoids the Göring temporarily (White hasn’t played Nf3). Then 5…Nf6 6.Nge2!? is unique, but probably not very effective after simply 6…Bc5 7.0-0 0-0.

4…cxb2 5.Bxb2

White’s bishops are menacing, but Black can take appropriate action in the center and limit their effectiveness.

5…d5!

This is a sound, classical solution. Black returns the pawns to establish full equality.

6.Bxd5

6.exd5 Nf6 7.Nc3 Bd6 8.Nf3 0-0 9.0-0 Bg4 gave Black a comfortable game and an extra pawn in Opocensky-Réti, Baden bei Wien 1914.

6…Nf6!

6…Bb4+ is playable, but allows White to attack after 7.Nd2 (this is likely best, arranging a threat on g7; 7.Nc3 is also complicated) 7…Bxd2+ 8.Qxd2 Nf6 9.Qc3 c6 10.Bb3 0-0 11.Nf3 Be6!? and we’ve arrived at an unclear position. Instead, 6…Nf6! puts an end to White’s attacking chances, so it’s superior for our purposes.

7.Bxf7+

This seemingly devastating move only reestablishes a material balance. White remains a pawn down after 7.Nc3 Nxd5 (or 7…Nbd7) 8.Nxd5 Nd7, when Black has a pawn and some advantage. But not 8…c6?? 9.Nf6+! gxf6 10.Qxd8+ Kxd8 11.Bxf6+.

7…Kxf7 8.Qxd8 Bb4+ 9.Qd2 Bxd2+ 10.Nxd2

This simplified position was once considered to favor Black because of his queenside majority, but it’s probably about equal (after all, White has a kingside majority!).

10…Re8

Or 10…c5. For example, 11.Ngf3 (11.e5) 11…Nc6 (11…Rd8) 12.e5 (12.Ng5+ Kg6) 12…Nd5 13.Ne4 Nf4! with the idea 14.Nxc5 (14.0-0 b6) 14…b6 15.g3 bxc5 16.gxf4 Rf8! with sufficient counterplay.

11.Ngf3

A) 11.Bxf6?! gxf6 12.Ngf3 Na6 13.0-0 b6! intending …Bb7, …Rad8, and …Nc5;

B) 11.f3 is a solid option, although eventually White would like to get his kingside majority moving with f4. 11…b6!? with the idea …Ba6 is a good reply.

11…Nc6 12.0-0 h6

Versus Ng5+. 12…Bg4 is also playable.

13.Rfe1 Be6

With a balanced game.

Russian Game: Karklins Variation (C42)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nd3

This odd retreat was developed by American master Andrew Karklins. It is usually played in conjunction with a queenside fianchetto and queenside castling. Black may very well castle queenside as well.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nd3

The Karklins Variation. 4.Nf3 is nearly always played here, but 4.Nxf7!? the Cochrane Gambit, is quite dangerous and we examine it in two separate sections.

4…Nxe4 5.Qe2 Qe7 6.b3

Rather than bring the bishop out after moving the d-pawn, White prefers to keep his d3-knight where it is and occupy the long diagonal. This is the main idea of the Karklins Variation.

6…Nc6

6…Nf6 7.Bb2 Nc6 is the next note.

7.Bb2 Bf5

Here 7…Nf6 8.Bxf6 Qxe2+ 9.Bxe2 gxf6 is dynamically equal. Compare the note to 8.Nc3.

8.Nc3

8.f3 Nf6 (8…Nc5 is also fine) 9.Bxf6 Qxe2+ 10.Bxe2 gxf6 is optically appealing for White, but Black has the bishop pair and intends moves such as …Nd4, …0-0-0, and …d7-d5, and may even stand somewhat better.

8…Nxc3

Safest. Black has also tried 8…Nd4 9.Nd5 Nxe2 10.Nxe7 Bxe7. For example, 11.Bxg7 Rg8 12.Bb2 Nxf2?! (better 12…Bg5 13.Kxe2! 0-0-0; the alternative 12…Nc5 13.Kxe2 Nxd3 14.cxd3 Kd7 is also about equal, because Black is well developed and White’s extra pawn is isolated and doubled) 13.Nxf2 (13.Kxf2 Bxd3 14.cxd3 Nf4) 13…Nf4 14.g3 Ne6 15.0-0-0 and White has an edge, Karklins-Martinovsky, Illinois 1988.

9.dxc3

9.Bxc3 0-0-0= with the idea 10.Qxe7 (10.0-0-0?! Qd7!) 10…Nxe7 11.0-0-0 Nc6 12.Be2 d5=.

9…Qxe2+

Or 9…d5! 10.0-0-0 0-0-0=.

10.Bxe2 Ne5?!

10…0-0-0 11.0-0-0 g6! 12.c4 Bh6+ 13.Kb1 Rhe8 yields more positive prospects.

11.0-0-0 Nxd3+ 12.Bxd3 Bxd3 13.Rhe1+ Kd7 14.Rxd3

Karklins-Martinovsky, Chicago 1993. Now White’s advantage would be only a minor one after…

14…Re8 15.Rxe8 Kxe8 16.c4 f6

Nimzowitsch Defense: Marshall Gambit (B00)

1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.Nc3 Qxd4

White gives up a pawn in return for open lines and achieves decent attacking chances. His development is slowed down a bit if he wants to keep the queens on the board.

Clews-Ellison

Great Britain 1992

1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.Nc3

The Marshall Gambit.

4…Qxd4 5.Qe2

Avoiding the exchange. 5.Be3!? Qxd1+ 6.Rxd1 is in the spirit of the Schara Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 cxd4 5.Qxd4 Nc6 6.Qxd5 Be6 7.Qxd8+ Rxd8).

At this point Black has several roads to an advantage:

A) 6…Bd7 7.Nb5 (7.Nf3 a6 8.Nd5 0–0–0 9.Bc4 e6 is clearly better for Black, Martin-Bosch, Barcelona 1995) 7…Rc8 (7…0-0-0 8.Nxa7 Nxa7 9.Bxa7 with the idea 9…b6?? 10.Ba6#. 9…e5! is about equal) 8.Nxa7 (after 8.Nf3 a6 9.Nbd4 Nxd4 10.Bxd4, White has much better development, but still not enough compensation for the pawn) 8…Nxa7 9.Bxa7 b6 wins, according to Myers, but the trapped bishop has not been captured and isn’t all that easy to get at, e.g. 10.Nf3 Ra8?! (10…f6!) 11.Ne5 Nf6 12.Rxd7! Nxd7 13.Bb5 c6! 14.Nxc6, for example, 14…g6 15.0-0 Bg7 16.c3 with some advantage;

B) 6…Bg4 7.Nf3 (Kettner-Tischendorf, Wiesbaden 1988) 7…Bxf3 8.gxf3 a6 leaves White with nothing to show for the pawn. The bishop pair isn’t worth all that much, and the kingside pawns are weak;

C) 6…Bf5 is probably best. For example, 7.Nb5 Rc8 8.Nxa7 Nxa7 9.Bxa7 Bxc2 preserves the material advantage.

5…Bg4 6.f3 Bf5 7.Be3 Qb4 8.0-0-0

The play has been entirely sensible so far, but Black must be careful.

8…a6?!

A) 8…e6 is tricky. Then 9.a3 Qa5 10.Rd5 Qxc3! 11.bxc3 exd5 isn’t terribly clear, and 9.Rd5!? can be answered by 9…Qe7 (not 9…exd5? 10.Nxd5 Qa5 11.Bb6+!) 10.Rd2 Nf6 with an extra pawn, though it is difficult for Black to complete development and the chances can be assessed as about even. Apparently 9.g4! Bg6 10.a3 is best, since the bishop on g6 is distant from the defense following 10…Qa5 11.Rd5 Qxc3 12.bxc3 exd5 13.Bf4+;

B) 8…Nf6 keeps Black’s disadvantage to a minimum after 9.g4 Be6!.

9.Nd5 Qa5??

This loses immediately. 9…Qd6 is better but still not satisfactory due to 10.Nb6 (10.g4! is another good reply. Then 10…Be6 11.Bf4 forces Black to sacrifice his queen with 11…Qxd5 12.Rxd5 Bxd5, when White grabs another pawn with 13.c4 Be6 14.Bxc7 and his chances are preferable) 10…Nd4, and now White can get a meaningful advantage with 11.Nxa8! Nxe2+ 12.Nxe2 e6! (12…Qc6? 13.Nd4 Qd7 14.Bf4) 13.Rxd6 Bxd6 14.c4 Nf6! 15.g4 Bg6 16.h4! (16.c5 Be5 17.Bg2 Nd5 18.f4! Nxe3 19.Bxb7 Bf6 20.Nxc7+ Kd7 21.Nxa6 Bd3 22.g5!? and White has a small advantage) 16…h6 (16…0-0 17.c5 Be5 18.Bf4) 17.c5 Be5 18.f4 Nxg4 19.Bg1 Bf6 20.Bg2.

10.Bb6! Black resigned in the face of massive loss of material.

Nimzowitsch Defense: Nimzowitsch Gambit (B00)

1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.d5 4…Ne5

This isn’t much of a gambit, since White can recover his pawn, but he can also remain a pawn down while trying to get a lead in space and development.

Kudrin – Formanek

Reno 1994

1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.d5

White gambits a pawn for space and development.

4…Ne5

4…Nb8 is also played, when White has good attacking chances following 5.Bc4 Nf6 6.Bf4.

5.Qd4

White’s simplest course is to recover the pawn and try to benefit from his space advantage.

A) 5.Bf4!? is the spirited Heinola-Deppe Gambit, where White allows Black to keep his pawn on e4. After 5…Ng6 6.Bg3,

play can continue:

A1) 6…e5 7.dxe6 Bxe6 8.Nb5 Bd6 9.Bxd6 cxd6 10.Nxd6+ Ke7 11.Nxe4 Qb6 (Roza-Yadao, Canberra 2001) and here 12.Nf3 would keep the advantage, e.g. 12…Rd8 13.Bd3, followed by 0-0. White has an attack and the safer king, since castling is still possible;

A2) 6…f5 is ambitious. Then White gets good play by 7.Nh3 e5!? (7…a6 8.f3! is complex) 8.dxe6 Qxd1+ (8…Bxe6 9.Nb5) 9.Rxd1 c6 10.Bc4;

A3) 6…a6 may be best. Then 7.Bc4 Nf6 8.Qe2 gives White a small advantage according to Nunn’s Chess Openings, but this is extremely unclear after 8…Bf5.

B) 5.Nxe4 e6 6.f4? Qxd5! 7.Qxd5 exd5 8.Nc3 Ng6 9.Nxd5 Bd6 allowed Black to take the lead in development, Rasmussen-Toll, San Remo 2001.

5…Ng6 6.Qxe4 Nf6

6…a6 is slow, but White must play precisely to maintain an advantage: 7.Nf3 Nf6 8.Qa4+ Bd7 9.Qb3 Rb8

10.Bg5! e5 (10…b5!? comes into consideration) 11.dxe6 Bxe6 12.Bc4 Bxc4 13.Qxc4. Material is even, but White has control of greater space and will quickly bring both rooks to the center. Black is far from equality, although at least he has no serious structural weakness, Zelcic-Rossi, Montecatini 1997.

7.Qa4+ Bd7

7…c6!? 8.dxc6 bxc6 9.Qxc6+ Bd7 is unclear, according to Rolf Schwarz. We believe that White is better after 10.Qa6, with the queen on a safe square far from the enemy knights. White will continue by developing the dark-squared bishop and bring the rook to d1.

8.Qb3

White places the queen on a comfortable square and the pawn on d5 gains support. It is difficult to find a way for Black to equalize.

8…c6

A) 8…Rb8 9.Be3 b5!? is an interesting, but ultimately unconvincing, defense. 10.Bxa7 Rb7 11.Bc5 Qa8 12.Qb4 e6 13.dxe6 fxe6 14.Bxf8 Rxf8 was played in Toro Solis-De Mauro, Postal 1988. Had White simply castled queenside, his advantage would be indisputable;

B) 8…Qc8 is playable and comes close to equalizing versus 9.Nf3. For example:

B1) 9…e5 10.dxe6 (10.Bd3 Bd6) 10…Bxe6 11.Bc4 Bxc4 12.Qxc4 Be7 13.0-0 0-0 14.Be3 c6 Chachere-Tomescu, Bucharest 1993;

B2) 9…e6 10.Bg5 Nxd5 11.Nxd5 exd5 12.Qxd5 Bb4+ 13.c3 Be7 Vega Holm-Custodio, Ceuta B 1993;

B3) 9…c6 10.Bc4 cxd5 (10…b5 11.dxc6 bxc4 12.cxd7+ Nxd7 13.Qa4 gave White the upper hand in Gersov-Litus, Moscow 1996) 11.Nxd5 Ne4 Woldmo-Richards, Postal 1990; then 12.Nb6!? axb6 13.Bxf7+ K d8 14.Be3 Kc7 gives White compensation for the piece, but no more.

9.Qxb7 Rb8 10.Qxa7 cxd5

An important position in the evaluation of the gambit. White has to work to prove an advantage, despite the extra outside passed pawn. Black will advance his e-pawn to e5 and then pin the knight on b4 in many lines.

11.a4

The grandmaster choice, but it leads to an eventual loss.

A) 11.Bg5 is not convincing: 11…e6 (11…Rxb2 12.Bxf6 exf6 13.Nxd5 Bd6 14.0-0-0 gives White a strong attack, but 14…Rb8 may be playable) 12.0-0-0 Be7 13.Nf3 0-0 with balanced chances, Woldmo-Dunne, Postal 1990

B) 11.Nf3 e5 12.Bg5 may be best, but if Black boldly accepts the pawn the situation is unclear. 12…Rxb2 13.Bxf6 gxf6 14.0-0-0 and then 15.Nxd5. Neither king can feel secure.

11…Ra8

11…e5 might as well have been played right way, as White’s king may suffer after 12.Bb5 (12.Nb5!?) 12…Bb4 13.Bd2 Bxb5 14.Nxb5 Bxd2+ 15.Kxd2 0-0 when there is nowhere convenient to hide. This is still unclear, however, as endgames are heavily in White’s favor.

12.Qb7 Rb8 13.Qa6 e5 14.Nb5?!

Better 14.Bb5 Bb4 15.Bd2.

14…Ne4 15.Nf3 Nc5

15…Bc5! was also good, e.g. 16.Be3 d4!? (16…Bxe3 17.fxe3 0-0!?) 17.Nd2 dxe3! 18.Nxe4 exf2+ 19.Nxf2 Rb6! wins for Black.

16.Nd6+ Ke7 17.Qa7 Kxd6

A wonderful sight, real gambit play combined with a naked king. White simply does not have the development required to sustain an attack against it.

18.Be3

18.Ng5 Be6 19.Nxf7+ Bxf7 20.Qxf7 gives White two pawns for the piece and the enemy king may still be a target, but after 20…Qf6 White probably has nothing better than exchanging queens.

18…d4?!

18…Ne6! with the idea …Ra8; White has less than nothing for the piece.

19.Nxd4!

19.Ng5 Be6 20.Nxe6 fxe6 21.Bg5 Be7 ends the attack.

19…exd4 20.0-0-0??

20.Bxd4 maintains a very dangerous attack.

20…Rb7 21.Rxd4+ Ke5

White resigned. An exciting game which shows the potential of this unclear opening.

Sicilian Defense: Smith-Morra Gambit (B21)

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3

In the Smith-Morra Gambit, White sacrifices a center pawn in return for rapid development and attack. This is the opposite strategy from the Sicilian Wing Gambit, where White sacrifices a flank pawn to reduce Black’s influence on the center. The Smith-Morra is difficult to play and understand. Since White faces a central majority and has no pawn breaks, he is dependent on piece play alone for some time.

Chandler – Timman

Wijk aan Zee 1982

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3

This is the most ambitious move. A calmer solution for Black is to decline the gambit by 3…Nf6 4 e5 Nd5, with a variation of the Sicilian with 1.e4 c5 2.c3 (called the Alapin Sicilian). Another way to decline the pawn offer is 3…d3, and after 4.Bxd3 to develop by 4…Nc6 and …Nf6.

4.Nxc3

The Smith-Morra Gambit is a frequent visitor on the Swiss scene. It is a sound gambit – White has an extra tempo to begin with, after all, and can get away with more exotic moves than his opponent. But there also several ways for Black to gain good counterplay.

4…e6 5.Nf3 Bc5!?

This is a very unusual move which we suggested as a surprise weapon several decades ago. It never attracted much attention, but in our database it has a 58%-42% advantage for Black, with an 80-point performance rating edge. Furthermore, out of the first 10 top-rated games, Black scores seven wins and the other three are draws! The surprise value will apparently persist, since the main two recent books advocating the Morra Gambit for White either don’t mention 5…Bc5 at all or dismiss it without analysis. So this is a great opportunity to put your opponents on their own resources.

6.Bc4

This is the normal Smith-Morra move, but the alternatives are well worth examining:

A) 6.Bd3 Nc6 (6…d6=) 7.0-0 Nge7 (a typical spot for this knight, although 7…a6 leaves Black’s options open. For example, 8.e5 f5) 8.e5 d5 9.exd6 Bxd6 10.Ne4 Nd5 11.Nxd6+ Qxd6 12.Ng5 h6 13.Qh5 0-0 14.Nh7? Qe5! 15.Qh4 Rd8 16.Bxh6 gxh6 17.Qxh6 f5 with a clear advantage. Brumen-Sermek, Bled 1989;

B) 6.Bf4

6…d6 (6…Nc6 is another possibility, with the idea 7.Nb5 Bb4+, but 6…d6 prepares an early …e7-e5) 7.a3 (for example, 7.Nb5 e5 8.Be3 Qa5+ 9.Bd2!? Qb6 10.Be3! Qa5+ 11.Bd2 Qb6 repeats, and Black even gets an advantage from 10…Nf6! 11.Bxc5 dxc5 12.Nd6+ Ke7 13.Nc4 Qc7 14.Nfxe5 Rd8. Here 9.Nd2 Bxe3 10.fxe3 Nf6 is equal, with the idea 11.Nxd6+?! Ke7) 7…e5 8.Bg5! Nf6!? (8…f6 9.Be3! Bxe3 10.fxe3 Be6 11.Nb5 Ke7=) 9.Bxf6 (9.b4 Bb6 10.Nd5 Nc6 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Qd2 Be6=. Black’s control of d4 and his extra pawn compensate for White’s grip on d5 and the doubled f-pawns) 9…Qxf6 (9…gxf6 10.b4 Bb6 11.Bc4 a5! creates counterplay) 10.Nb5 Bb6! 11.Nxd6+ (11.Qxd6 Nc6 12.Qxf6 gxf6=) 11…Ke7 12.Nc4 Nc6 13.Nxb6 axb6 14.Qb3 Qf4!? 15.Be2! Qxe4 16.Qxf7+ Kxf7 17.Ng5+ Ke7 18.Nxe4 Rd8=;

C) 6.e5 threatens 7 Ne4, but Black shouldn’t have many problems: 6…d5 (perhaps 6…Nc6 is even better, with the idea 7.Ne4 Bb4+ 8.Bd2 f5!) 7.exd6 Qxd6 (or 7…Bxd6, with the idea 8.Nb5 Bb4+, as given by Burgess back in 1994!) 8.Bd3 Nf6 9.0-0 0-0 10.Qe2 Nc6=. Black’s extra pawn is worth at least as much as White’s initiative.

6…Ne7

This is played most often, but other moves have had success. In particular, 6…d6!? is an older and sound move order. It serves the dual function of discouraging a quick e4-e5 and Ne4 by White and meeting Bf4 with …e7-e5 (and after that, …Bg4) in some lines. After the normal 7.0-0,

Black can play two moves:

A) 7…Nf6. For example:

A1) 8.Na4!? Nxe4 9.Nxc5 Nxc5 10.Qd4 f6! leaves White with dubious compensation for two pawns;

A2) 8.Bf4 Nc6 9.Na4 Bb4 10.a3 Ba5 11.Bxd6 Nxe4 12.Bf4 Bc7 with equality.

B) Instead of 7…Nf6, Black usually plays 7…a6, when one idea is to stop Nb5, another to play …Ba7 in response to Na4. Finally, Black would like to expand on the queenside with …b7-b5. There may follow:

B1) 8.Qe2 Ne7 9.Rd1 is Burgess’ suggestion for White. Then 9…b5 10.Bb3 0-0 (10…Qc7 11.Bf4 0-0 12.Rac1 Nd7 is unclear) 11.e5 d5 12.Ne4 Ba7 13.Bg5 (13.Nd6 Nbc6 with the idea 14…Nxe5 15.Qxe5 Bb8 favors Black) 13…Nd7 14.Bc2 f6!? (14…Rb8) 15.exf6 Nxf6 16.Nxf6+ gxf6 17.Bh6 Rf7 and White’s compensation seems limited. But there are many possibilities here;

B2) 8.a3 has been met by 8…Ne7, but we prefer 8…Nf6! 9.b4 (9.Bf4 e5 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Qd3 Nc6 13.Nd5 Qd8 14.b4 Ba7 15.Rac1 0-0 16.Bxa6!? Kh8!? 17.Bb5 f5!=) 9…Ba7 10.Bf4 (10.Ra2 0-0 11.Rd2 Qc7!) 10…e5 11.Bg5 h6 12.Bxf6 Qxf6 13.Nd5 Qd8=.

7.0-0

A) 7.Bf4!? Ng6 (7…0-0! for example, 8.Bd6 Bxd6 9.Qxd6 a6 10.a4 b6 with the idea …Bb7 followed by …f7-f5 or …Nc8 and …d7-d6. 6…d6 prevents the Bd6 idea, but may not be necessary) 8.Bd6 Bxd6 9.Qxd6 Qe7 (or 9…a6) 10.Qd2 (10.Nb5 Qxd6 11.Nxd6+ Ke7 12.Rd1 b6 is satisfactory for equality, at any rate. For example, 13.0-0 Ba6 14.Bxa6 Nxa6 15.Rd2 Nb4 16.a3 Nc6 17.Rfd1 Rab8=) 10…Nc6 11.0-0 0-0 12.Nb5, H.Hughes-Conquest, England tt 2005/06. Here 12…a6 13.Nd6 b5 led to a double-edged game which Black ultimately won, but a neater solution is 12…d5! 13.exd5 exd5 14.Qxd5 (14.Bxd5? Rd8) 14…Nf4! or 14…Be6, with a fine game in both cases;

B) 7.Ng5 Ng6 8.f4 (no better is 8.Qh5 b6 9.0-0 h6 10.Nf3 Nc6) 8…Nc6 (8…h6 9.Nxf7 Kxf7 10.f5 Nc6! 11.fxg6+ Kxg6 is actually quite safe for Black) 9.Rf1 h6 10.Nf3 a6 11.Qe2 0-0 12.Bd3 Qc7 (12…d5!) 13.g3 Nd4 14.Nxd4 Bxd4 15.Bd2 b5 16.a3 Bb7 17.0-0-0 d5 with a clear advantage. Massy-Van Gerwen, corr. 1990.

C) 7.e5

This is logical, and it’s the move discouraged by 6…d6, but Black has plenty of ways to equalize or better:

C1) 7…0-0 8.Ne4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 (9.Kf1!? Ng6 and the e5-pawn is hard to protect. For example, 10.Bg5 Qc7 11.Rc1 Nc6) 9…Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 Ng6 11.0-0 Nc6 with advantage;

C2) 7…Ng6 8.Ne4 Be7 (8…Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 0-0 transposes to 7…0-0) 9.Nd6+ Bxd6 10.exd6 0-0 11.0-0 b6 and White still has to demonstrate sufficient compensation for the pawn;

C3) 7…Nbc6 8.Ne4 (8.Bf4 Ng6 9.Bg3 0-0 10.0-0 b6 11.Ne4 Bb7 and Black stands well, Conroy-Paaren, ICCF 1999) 8…Ng6 9.0-0 (9.Nxc5 Qa5+ 10.Bd2 Qxc5) 9…b6!? (or 9…Be7 10.Nd6+ Bxd6 11.exd6 b6) 10.Nxc5 bxc5 11.Be3 (11.Qe2 Qc7 12.Re1 0-0) 11…Ngxe5 12.Nxe5 Nxe5 13.Be2 d6 with advantage;

C4) 7…d5 8.exd6 Qxd6!? (8…Bxd6 9.Nb5 Nd5!? 10.0-0 0-0 is unclear but balanced) 9.Qxd6 Bxd6 10.Nb5 Nf5 11.Bd3 Bd7 12.Nxd6+ Nxd6 13.Bf4 Ke7 and White has some compensation, but Black’s position is sound.

7…0-0!?

7…Ng6 is also played and may be the most accurate move order. For example, 8.e5 (8.a3 0-0 9.b4 Be7 10.Be3 a5 11.b5 d6 with the idea …Nd7-c5) 8…0-0 9.Ne4 Be7 10.Bg5? f6 11.Be3 (11.exf6 gxf6 12.Bh6 d5 13.Bxf8 Kxf8 and Black stands much better) 11…fxe5 12.Nfg5? h6 13.Bd3 Qe8 (13…hxg5! 14.Nxg5 Nf4) 14.Qc2 d5 15.Rac1? (15.Nd6 Qc6 16.Nxc8 Bxg5) 15…hxg5 16.Nd6 Bxd6 17.Bxg6 Qd7 18.Bxg5 Nc6-+ Unko-Horvath, Tbilisi 1986.

8.Bg5

An interesting juncture.

A) 8.e5 tries to take over the dark squares. Black has adequate resources. For example, 8…Ng6 (or 8…d5 9.exd6 Bxd6 10.Nb5 Nd5! 11.Bg5 Be7 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.Bxd5 exd5 14.Qxd5 Nc6=) 9.Qe2 (9.Ne4 Be7 10.Nd6 Nc6 11.Re1 Ncxe5!? 12.Nxe5 Nxe5 13.Rxe5 Qc7 14.Nf5! Bf6! and Black has an edge) 9…Nc6 10.Bg5?! Nd4! 11.Nxd4 Qxg5 12.Nf3 Qh5 with a clear advantage. Sowray-Brenninkmeijer, Dieren Open 1989;

B) 8.Bf4 f5!? (8…a6 9.e5 Ng6 10.Bg3 b6 11.Ne4 Bb7=. 8…Ng6= transposes to Conroy-Paaren above, and 8…Nbc6 is also fine) 9.e5?! a6 10.a4 Ng6 11.Bg5 Qc7 12.Qe2 Nc6 13.Rfe1 Nd4 14.Nxd4 Bxd4 and Black has a big edge, Ebeling-Utasi, Ravenna 1983;

C) 8.Qe2

8…Nbc6 (or 8…d6 intending 9.Bf4 e5 – this theme is worth remembering. 8…Ng6 is another satisfactory move: 9.Rd1 Nc6 10.Bg5 Qc7 11.Rac1 h6!? 12.Be3 Bxe3 13.Qxe3 a6 14.Bb3 b5 15.Nd5 Hedke-Brenninkmeijer, Groningen 1992, and 15…Qb8! keeps a solid advantage) 9.Bf4 a6 10.e5 (10.a4 Ng6 11.Bg3 d6 12.Rad1 e5 and Black is on top, with the idea 13.Nd5 Bg4! or 13.h3 Be6) 10…b5 11.Bb3 Ng6 12.Bg3 Na5 (12…Nd4! 13.Nxd4 Bxd4 14.Rad1 Qb6 favors Black) 13.Bc2 Bb7 14.Ne4 Bb6 (14…Be7!?) 15.Rfd1 (15.Nd6 Bxf3 16.Qxf3 Bd4) 15…Rc8 16.b4?! (16.Rac1 Rc7 17.h4 Qa8=) 16…Nc4 17.Rac1 Qe7 18.Nd6 Nxd6 19.exd6 Qf6 with a clear advantage, Spiegel-Pohl, Postal 1989.

8…f6 9.Bf4 Ng6

Or 9…a6.

10.Bg3

10.Bd6 Bxd6 11.Qxd6 a6 12.Rfd1 Qe7 13.Qb6 Nc6 14.Rac1 Nge5=.

10…Nc6 11.a3 Nge5 12.Ba2 a6 13.b4

13…Ba7

13…Nxf3+ 14.Qxf3 Ne5 15.Qe2 Ba7 16.Kh1, G.Vogel-B.Knorr, corr. 1990; 16…d6 17.Rfd1 Qe7 18.f4 Nf7 with a solid defense.

14.b5?

But Black already had a definite advantage.

14…Nxf3+

Or 14…axb5! 15.Nxb5 Bc5.

15.Qxf3 Ne5 16.Qe2 Bc5 17.a4 Kh8 18.Kh1 axb5 19.Nxb5 b6 20.Bb3 Bb7 21.Rad1 Qe7

White has next to nothing for his pawn.

22.f4 Nf7 23.Bh4 Bc6 24.Rd3 g5! 25.Be1 gxf4 26.Rxf4 Ne5 27.Rh3 Rf7 28.Bc3 Rg8 29.Nd4 Bb7 30.Nf3 Ng6 31.Rg4 Rgg7 32.Qb2 Kg8 33.Qd2 Qd6 34.Nd4 Bxd4?

34…Ne5! with a winning position.

35.Qxd4 Qxd4 36.Bxd4 f5!? 37.Rg5??

37.exf5 Rxf5 38.Bc4 holds on.

37…fxe4 38.Bc4

38.Kg1 Nf4.

38…d5 39.Bb5 Rc7 40.Bxb6 Rc1+ 41.Bg1 d4

0-1

Sicilian Defense: Czerniak Variation (B20)

1.e4 c5 2.b3

This was played in Czerniak-Benko, Netanya 1969. The move 2.b3 has been heavily promoted in a well-known children’s chess book, but when it has been played on the grandmaster level, Black has scored well.

Kabanov – Navara

Khanty-Mansiysk 2011

1.e4 c5 2.b3 g6!?

This is a recent solution proposed by Peter Heine Nielsen and analyzed by him with Richard Palliser. It does to some extent frustrate White’s main idea, which is to rule unopposed on the long diagonal. Naturally, 2…d6 and 2…e6 are commonly played with success. Other moves:

A) In earlier works, we suggested 2…b6 3.Bb2 Bb7, hitting e4 so as to force White to place his pieces awkwardly. For example, 4.Nc3 (4.d3 creates serious weaknesses and gives up on d4).

Then play can continue 4…Nc6 (4…e6 sets up a Hedgehog formation). 5.f4 e6 6.Nf3 Be7 (6…a6 is also played, to take away b5 and help prepare …d7-d5) 7.Be2 (7.d4 Nxd4 8.Nxd4 cxd4 9.Qxd4 Nf6!) 7…Nh6! (avoiding 8.e5 and preparing an eventual …d7-d5 or …f7-f5) 8.0-0 (8.d4?! cxd4 9.Nxd4 0-0 and White can’t castle unless he plays 10.Nxc6 Bxc6 11.0-0, when 11…f5! 12.e5 Bc5+ 13.Kh1 Qe7 prepares to break with …Rd8 and …d7-d6) 8…0-0 9.d3 (White needs a plan) 9…d5 10.Qc1 (10.Qd2 dxe4 11.Nxe4 Nf5) 10…Nd4 11.Bd1 dxe4 12.dxe4 f5! and Black cracks open the long diagonal with the advantage;

B) A high-level example went 2…Nc6 3.Bb2 d6 4.Bb5 Bd7 5.f4 Nf6 6.Qe2 e6 7.Nf3 Be7 8.0-0 0-0=, Mamedyarov-Anand, Nice (rapid) 2008.

3.Bb2 Nf6 4.e5

The obvious move is 4.Bxf6 exf6, when Nielsen analyses 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.Nge2 d6 8.Ng3 Nc6 and Black will slowly activate the bishop pair, especially the bishop on g7, which is unopposed on a beautiful diagonal. Palliser gives 9.0-0 h5!, analyzing 10.h3 h4 11.Nge2 f5! which he says ‘undoubles the pawns while unfurling the unopposed dark-squared bishop’. Black is for choice, particularly since 12.d3 can be met by 12…f4!.

4…Nd5

5.Qf3

White has a variety of choices:

A) 5.Bc4 Nb6 6.e6 f6 looks aggressive, but now White’s center is disappearing after 7.Bb5 Bg7 8.Nf3 0-0 Short-P.H.Nielsen, Internet (blitz) 2004;

B) The strange-looking 5.e6?! f6 6.exd7+ Bxd7 7.Bc4 also cedes the center; Black stands better after 7…Bc6;

C) A grandmaster test went 5.g3 Bg7 6.Bg2 Nc7 7.f4 d6 8.Nf3 Nc6 9.0-0 0-0 and Black is breaking up the center while developing smoothly, Conquest-McShane, London League 2011.

5…Nb4! 6.Bc4 e6

Now Black threatens c2 and will be able to attack the pawn on e5 multiple times.

7.Na3

7.Qd1 is passive and runs into 7…Bg7 8.c3 N4c6 9.d4 d6! 10.exd6 Qxd6, with advantage to Black.

7…Bg7

8.Nb5

Palliser gives 8.Qe3 N8c6 9.Nf3, when we like 9…d6! and White can’t even equalize.

8…0-0 9.0-0-0

Giving up a pawn, but the alternative 9.Qd1 d5! 10.Be2 d4 obviously favors Black (Palliser).

9…Nxa2+ 10.Kb1 Nb4 11.Qe3

11.Nd6 looks nice, but White has no real plan after 11…N8c6, while 12.Qe2 Nd4! is nothing but trouble.

11…Qa5

11…d5 12.exd6 Qa5 13.Na3 N8c6 is also strong.

12.Nd6

12.Qxc5? a6 wins a piece for Black.

12…N8c6 13.f4 Nd4!

Strange to say, this is practically decisive. 13…b5! was also good.

14.c3

Palliser analyses 14.Bd3 f6! 15.Nf3 fxe5 16.Nxe5 Qa2+ 17.Kc1 Rxf4! 18.Qxf4? Nxd3+ 19.cxd3 Ne2+.

14…Qa2+ 15.Kc1 b5!

Opening more lines.

16.cxb4 bxc4 17.bxc4 Rb8 18.b5 Nf5 19.Qa3

19.Nxf5 Qxc4+ 20.Qc3 Qxc3+ 21.dxc3 exf5 22.c4 a6!.

19…Qxa3 20.Bxa3 Nxd6 21.exd6 Bb7 22.Bxc5?!

But 22.Nf3 a6 23.bxa6 Bxf3! 24.gxf3 Bd4 25.Kc2 Ra8 will win.

22…Rfc8 23.d4 Bxd4! 24.Rxd4

After 24.Bxd4 Rxc4+ 25.Kb2 Bxg2 26.Ne2 Rxb5+ is decisive.

24…Bxg2 25.Ne2 Bxh1 26.Ba3 Rxb5

White resigned. Quite a dynamic game in the context of such a ‘safe’ line for White!

Deferred Sicilian Wing Gambit (B40)

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.b4

White is often tempted to respond to the Sicilian Defense by thrusting forward the b-pawn as a gambit, with the idea that when Black captures then White will be able to establish a strong center much more easily.
That’s easier said than done.

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6

White’s other slightly crazy Wing Gambit idea is 2…Nc6 3.b4!?.

Now 3…cxb4 4.d4 d5 is fine, but 3…Nxb4 seems a little safer. White won’t get enough compensation for his pawn following 4.c3 Nc6 5.d4 d5! 6.exd5 Qxd5 7.Be2 (the recommended move) 7…cxd4 8.cxd4 e6 (or 8…Nf6 with the idea 9.Nc3 Qa5 10.Bd2 e6) 9.0-0 (9.Nc3 Bb4 10.Bd2 Bxc3 11.Bxc3 Nf6, when White is not only a pawn down, but his bishop on c3 is passive) 9…Bb4 (this prevents Nc3; also good is 9…Nf6 10.Nc3 Qa5 11.Bd2 Be7) 10.a3 Ba5 11.Be3 Nf6. Black has an extra pawn and few real problems.

3.b4

This is the deferred Wing Gambit, more logical after 2…e6 than 2…Nc6.

3…cxb4 4.d4

This version of the Wing Gambit allows a unique response:

4…Nf6!?

4…d5 5.e5 would be a type of French Wing Gambit in which Black has an extra pawn but is a little cramped. Arguably White has just enough compensation.

5.Bd3

5.e5 Nd5 and the centralized knight defends well, so White should aim to achieve c2-c4 by 6.a3 d6! (6…Nc6 7.axb4 Bxb4+ 8.Bd2 Be7 9.c4 Ndb4 is unclear) 7.exd6 Bxd6 8.axb4 Bxb4+ 9.Bd2 Be7! 10.c4 Nf6, and White doesn’t have enough for a full pawn.

5…d5 6.e5

6.Nbd2 dxe4 7.Nxe4 Nxe4 8.Bxe4 Nd7 with the idea …Nf6 keeps an edge.

6…Ne4

7.Qe2

7.Nbd2?? Nc3 is not what White bargained for!

7…Bd7! 8.0-0

8.Bxe4 dxe4 9.Qxe4 Bc6 gives Black two bishops and control of d5 as well as important queenside squares.

8…Na6 9.a3 Qb6

And White has queenside weaknesses that will get worse if he captures on e4.

French Defense Advance: Nimzowitsch (C02)

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.Qg4

An ambitious attempt to play on the kingside while reinforcing the e5-square, even at the cost of a pawn. White prevents the bishop on f8 from moving, and in the meantime prepares Nf3, Bd3 and Qg3. Unfortunately, White is allowing Black to break up his all-important center, first the pawn on d4 and then the one on e5.

Smyslov – Lisitsin

City Championship, Moscow 1942

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.Qg4

Nimzowitsch’s original idea.

4…Nc6

4…cxd4 5.Nf3 Nc6 amounts to the same thing.

5.Nf3

It’s too late for 5.c3, because 5…cxd4 6.cxd4 Qb6 7.Nf3 Nh6! 8.Qf4 (8.Bxh6? Qxb2) 8…Nf5 wins the d-pawn.

5…cxd4

6.Bd3

White temporarily gives up his pawn for development. 6.Nxd4 Nxe5 loses a pawn and the center.

6…Qc7

Attacking e5.

7.0-0

A) 7.Bf4 is well-answered by 7…Nge7, intending …Ng6. If you want a good line that has more tricks, then 7…Nb4! can give White fits.

For example, 8.0-0 (8.Na3?! Nxd3+ 9.cxd3 Qb6 10.Bc1 Nh6! 11.Qxd4 Bc5 12.Qa4+ Bd7 13.Qc2 Bb4+!? 14.Bd2 Rc8, Cornelison-Dirr, email 1994; and 15.Qb3! Bxd2+ 16.Nxd2 was the only good defense, but 16…Qa5 still gives Black a very big advantage; 8.Nxd4?! Nxd3+ 9.cxd3 Qb6 10.Nb3 Qb4+! has the idea 11.N1d2?? g5! winning a piece in view of 12.Qxg5 Bh6. But 11.Ke2 leaves White’s king exposed in the center) 8…Nxd3 9.cxd3 Qc2 10.Nxd4 Qxb2 11.Nb3 h5! 12.Qf3! Bd7 13.Rc1 Rc8 14.Rxc8+ Bxc8 15.Nc3! Bd7! with a pawn and a good game. For example, 16.d4 Bb4 17.Rc1 Ne7;

B) 7.Qg3 f6! (this is the key move to remember in these positions, breaking down the e5-square) 8.exf6 Qxg3 9.f7+ Kxf7 10.hxg3 Nf6, where we prefer Black. For example, 11.Ng5+ Kg8 12.f4 h6 13.Nf3 Ne4.

7…f6!

Black can also get a small advantage with 7…Nxe5 8.Nxe5 Qxe5 9.Bf4 Nf6 10.Qg3 Qh5, but that is riskier.

8.Bxh7!?

Playing for a trick. 8.Bf4 g5 9.Bd2 (9.Bg3 h5 10.Bg6+ Kd8 11.Bxh5 Qh7 wins a piece) 9…fxe5 10.Bb5 (10.Nxg5 Nf6 11.Qh4 Qg7! preparing …h7-h6 and …e5-e4; 10.Qxg5 e4) 10…Nh6! 11.Qxg5 Nf7 and Black’s center is too powerful: 12.Qh5 (12.Qg3? Bd6) 12…a6 13.Bxc6+ bxc6 14.Ng5 e4 15.Ba5 Qf4!.

8…Nxe5

8…Rxh7?! 9.Qg6+ Qf7 10.Qxh7, although even here Black’s center makes up for the material after 10…fxe5 11.Ng5 Nf6.

9.Nxe5 fxe5 10.Bg6+

10.Re1?! Bd6 11.Bg6+ Kf8 12.Nd2? Nf6 13.Qg5 e4 14.g3 e5 gives Black a winning advantage due to his central pawn mass and threat of 15…Be7, followed by trapping White’s queen.

10…Kd8

Black’s king is safe in the center, protected by four central pawns.

11.h3

Versus the threat of …Nf6 and …e5-e4. No better is 11.Qg3 Bd6.

11…Nf6 12.Qd1

At this point in the game, Black has several good moves, and he indeed obtained the advantage and ultimately won after 12…Bd6. But the easiest is

12…Bc5!

When Black threatens …e5-e4, either now or after developing further. For example,

13.Bg5

13.Nd2 Bd7 14.Nf3 e4! 15.Nxd4 Qe5 16.Ne2 Ng4! 17.Bf4 Qf6.

13…e4 14.Nd2 Bb6

White is also struggling after 14…Bd7.

15.a4 d3 16.cxd3 Rxh3! 17.Bxf6+

Black’s tactic is based on 17.gxh3 Qg3+ 18.Kh1 Qxh3+ 19.Kg1 Qg3+ 20.Kh1 Qxg5, which is overwhelming.

17…gxf6 18.gxh3 Qg3+ 19.Kh1 Qxh3+ 20.Kg1 Qg3+ 21.Kh1 Qxg6 22.a5 Qh6+ 23.Kg1 Qg5+ 24.Kh1 Qh4+ 25.Kg1 Ke7 26.axb6 Bd7

And …Rg8+ or …Rh8 follows.

French Defense: Irregular 2nd Moves (C00)

1.e4 e6

Here’s a bunch of other rare second moves for White. We’ve mostly used the solutions which John proposes in his book Play the French, 4th edition.

1.e4 e6 2.b3

The Horwitz Attack.

A) 2.Bb5 (stopping 2…d5) 2…c6 3.Ba4 d5 4.exd5 (4.Qe2 a5!? threatens …b7-b5. White has to be careful to avoid lines like 5.a3 dxe4 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Nxe4 Na6 8.Nxf6+ Qxf6 9.Nf3 Nc5 10.Bb3 Nxb3 11.cxb3, with a clear positional advantage for Black; 4.Nc3? b5 5.Bb3 b4 6.Nce2 dxe4) 4…exd5 5.d4 Nf6 6.Nf3 Bd6 7.0-0 0-0 8.c3 Bg4 9.h3 Bh5 10.Nbd2 Nbd7, with somewhat faster development;

B) 2.c4

2…d5 (2…c5 is a Symmetrical English Opening) 3.exd5 (3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qa4+ Bd7 5.Qb3 Nc6 6.Qxd5?! Nf6 7.Qc4 Be6 8.Qa4 Bc5 and Black has excellent play – ECO) 3…exd5 4.cxd5 (4.d4 is an Exchange Variation of the French Defense, which is equal) 4…Nf6 5.Nc3 (5.Bb5+ Nbd7 6.Nc3 a6 7.Ba4 b5 8.Bb3 Bb7=. For example, 9.Nf3 b4 10.Ne2 Bxd5 11.Bxd5 Nxd5 12.0-0 Bd6 13.d4 0-0; 5.Qa4+ Nbd7 6.Nc3 Bd6! 7.Bc4 0-0 8.d3 a6 9.Qd1 b5 10.Bb3 Nc5 with advantage) 5…Nxd5 6.Bc4 Nb6! (6…Nb4) 7.Bb3 Nc6 8.Nge2 (8.Nf3 Qe7+ 9.Qe2 Bg4!) 8…Bd6 9.d4 0-0 10.0-0 Qh4 with advantage, Masserey-Kindermann, Horgen B 1995;

C) 2.e5 (the Steinitz Attack) 2…c5 (or 2…d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 0-0=) 3.f4 Nc6 4.Nf3 Nh6 (or 4…d6=) 5.g3 (Steinitz-Mason, Vienna 1882) 5…Nf5 6.Bg2 d6, and Black ends up with the better central structure;

D) 2.f4 (the De La Bourdonnais Variation) 2…d5 (naturally, 2…c5 is also fine) 3.e5 (3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 and White’s pawn doesn’t really belong on f4) 3…c5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.c3 d4 (or 5…Nh6 6.d4?! Qb6!) 6.d3 Nh6=, Weiss-Maroczy, Budapest 1895;

E) 2.g3 d5 3.Nc3 (3.Bg2 c5= or 3…dxe4 4.Bxe4 Nf6 5.Bg2 e5 6.Ne2 Bc5 7.0-0 0-0 and Black stands better due to his central control and activity) 3…dxe4 (or 3…Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5= or 3…d4 4.Nce2 c5 5.d3 Nc6) 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ Qxf6 6.Bg2 Bc5 (or 6…e5) 7.Qf3 Qe7! 8.Ne2 e5=, Suttles-Uhlmann, Palma de Mallorca Interzonal 1970.

2…d5 3.Bb2

This is a gambit. Nothing else makes much sense. For example, defending the pawn is passive, and 3.exd5 exd5 simply frees Black’s pieces.

3…dxe4

It’s also possible to decline the pawn with 3…Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7.

4.Nc3 Nf6

After 4…f5, 5.f3 or 5.d3 gives White a lot of play for the pawn.

5.Qe2

White wants to recover his pawn. 5.g4?! falls short to 5…Nc6! 6.g5 (6.Bg2 e5! 7.g5 Bg4!) 6…Nd5 7.Nxe4

and Black has at least two good answers: 7…h6 (or 7…e5 8.Nf3 Bd6 9.Qe2 0-0 with advantage) 8.g6 f5! 9.Nc3 (9.Ng3 Qd6 10.Nf3 Bd7 11.d4 0-0-0 with a clear advantage, Chichirivichi-Pawntobewild, playchess.com 2007) 9…e5! 10.Bb5 Nxc3 11.Bxc6+ (11.Bxc3 Qd5) 11…bxc6 12.dxc3 Bb7! with …c7-c5 next (analysis by Moskalenko).

5…Be7

5…Nc6 is also fine. For example, 6.Nxe4 (6.g4? Nd4 7.Qd1 e5 is terrible) 6…Be7 (6…Nxe4 7.Qxe4 Qd5!?) 7.Nf3 0-0 8.0-0-0 a5!? 9.d4 (9.a4 Nd5!) 9…a4 with attack, Karasev-Farago, Polanica Zdroj 1974.

6.0-0-0

Again 6.g4 is bad in view of 6…Nc6 7.Nxe4 e5 or 7…Nb4.

6…0-0 7.g4

White should settle for 7.Nxe4, but Black has at least easy equality after 7…a5 (or 7…Nc6 8.Nf3 a5 with the idea 9.a4 Nd5) 8.a4 Nbd7 9.Nf3 b6! 10.Nxf6+ Bxf6 11.d4 Bb7 with, again, at least equality.

7…Nc6!

7…a5!? is also good, intending 8.a4 Nc6! 9.g5 Nd5 10.Qxe4 Bxg5 11.Nf3 f5!.

8.Nxe4

8.g5 Nd5 9.Nxe4 a5 (or 9…Bxg5 10.Nxg5 Qxg5 11.Nf3 Qf4) 10.a4 e5 and Black is better.

8…Nd4

9.Qe3

9.Qd3 e5 10.h3 Nd5!.

9…c5 10.Nxf6+ Bxf6 11.Nf3 b6 12.Rg1 Bb7

Black’s pieces are more active.

French Wing Gambit (C00)

1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4

This is called the ‘French Wing Gambit’. It’s an ugly way to proceed, although probably sound. Black can either take the pawn or play 4…d4, both of which are fine according to theory. But an easier solution requiring little preparation is to advance on the queenside.

1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4

White’s idea is to divert Black’s c-pawn from the center and then take charge there.

4…c4

A clever response. First, Black intends to play …Bxb4. In addition, Black’s c-pawn still plays a role in the central sector.

5.c3

The most popular move. 5.a3 has several answers such as 5…b5. The most thematic move is probably 5…a5, breaking up the kingside: (5…b5) 6.b5 (6.bxa5 Qxa5 pins White’s d-pawn and leaves him with an isolated a-pawn)

and here Black has two good moves:

A) 6…f6 7.d4 Nd7 is already equal. For example, 8.Bf4 (8.exf6 Ngxf6 9.Be2 Bd6 10.0-0 Ne4 with the better placed pieces. 8.Nc3 fxe5 9.dxe5 Bc5=) 8…Ne7 9.exf6 Nxf6 10.Nc3 Ng6 11.Bg3 Nh5!? (11…Bd6=) 12.Be2 (12.Be5 Be7 13.Be2 0-0 14.0-0 Bd7=) 12…Nxg3 13.hxg3 Bd6 14.Qd2 0-0 with advantage;

B) 6…Nd7 Black can attack the center now, and has the c5-square open for his pieces. For example, 7.d3

7…Qc7 (or 7…cxd3 8.Bxd3 Qc7 9.Bb2 Ne7 10.0-0 Ng6 11.Re1 Be7=) 8.Bf4 (8.Bb2 Nb6 9.a4 Nh6!? 10.Be2!? Bb4+ 11.c3 Be7 12.Nbd2 Ng4 13.dxc4 Nxe5 was complex and dynamically balanced, Emödi-Szilagyi, Hungary tt-2 1998/99) 8…f6 (or 8…Ne7 and …Ng6) 9.dxc4 (9.d4 Ne7!) 9…fxe5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Qh5+ Qf7 12.Qxe5 Be7, threatening …Bf6. Then 13.Qd4 Nh6! creates counterplay with …Nf5 (13…Qf5 14.Be5 Bc5! 15.Qf4 Qxf4 16.Bxf4 Ne7 and …0-0 is also reasonable), for example, 14.Be5 0-0 15.Nd2 Nf5 16.Qd3 Bf6=.

5…a5

This wins the c5-square for Black’s pieces.

6.b5

Again, 6.bxa5 Qxa5 leaves White with weaknesses along the open a-file.

6…Nd7

This is a main line. 6…Bc5 is also playable. For example, 7.d4 cxd3 8.Bxd3 Nd7 9.Qe2 Ne7 10.h4!? h5?! (10…Qc7 and 10…f6 are better alternatives, the latter with the likely continuation 11.exf6 Nxf6 12.0-0 0-0 13.Be3 Bxe3 14.Qxe3 Qd6=) 11.Nbd2 a4 12.c4 Nb6 13.0-0 Nf5 14.Bxf5 exf5 15.e6?! Bxe6 16.Bb2 Qe7 17.Bxg7 Rg8 18.Bd4 dxc4; Black’s position is preferable, Sedlak-Tratar, Zupanja 2008.

7.d3 cxd3 8.Bxd3 f6!

Black destroys the remainder of White’s center. 8…Ne7 is also good. For example, 9.0-0 Ng6 10.Re1 Qc7 11.Qe2 Be7= Rahls-Uhlmann, Dresden 2003.

9.Qc2

This used to be considered good for White, but in fact it’s not. Options:

A) 9.Qe2 fxe5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Qxe5 Nf6, with the idea …Bd6, gives Black two center pawns to none and nice activity, including f-file pressure. For example, 12.Bf4 Bc5 13.0-0 0-0 14.Bg3 g6 15.Nd2 Nh5! and Black stands better;

B) 9.Bf4 is White’s best move: 9…fxe5 10.Nxe5 (10.Ng5? exf4 11.Qh5+ g6 12.Bxg6+ Ke7 wins for Black; or 10.Bxe5 Nxe5 11.Nxe5 Qg5 12.Nf3 Qxg2 13.Rg1 Qh3) 10…Qf6 11.Nxd7 Bxd7 12.Bg3 Nh6 (or 12…Ne7 13.0-0 Nf5=) 13.0-0 Bc5=.

9…Nxe5 10.Nxe5 fxe5 11.Bxh7

So far this is the game Naer-Moskalenko, Moscow 1995. Now two moves that give Black the advantage are 11…e4! with the idea 12.Bg6+ Kd7, and Williams’ suggestion:

11…Qf6

… with the idea…

12.Bg6+ Kd8 13.Bd3 e4 14.Be2 Bc5

… when Black has more than enough compensation. For example, 15.0-0 Qh4 16.h3 Nf6 with the idea …Qg3, so 17.Qd2 Qg3 18.Qf4 is forced, but 18…Rxh3 19.Qxg3 Rxg3 20.Bf4 Rg6 gives Black a winning advantage because of his extra pawn, central pawn majority, and White’s weaknesses.

Diemer-Duhm Gambit (C01)

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.c4

The ‘Diemer-Duhm’ is a dubious adventure whose drawback is painfully obvious. White gives up a valuable center pawn without being rewarded with a lead in development. The acquisition of a bit of space doesn’t make up for this problem, and even if White recovers his pawn, it will cost him in time and position.

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.c4?!

The Gambit. Notice that this could also arise from a Queen’s Gambit Declined, i.e. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.e4?!.

3…dxe4 4.Nc3 Nf6

Even the weakening 4…f5 retains a small advantage in a line such as 5.f3 Nf6 6.fxe4 fxe4 where we prefer Black. But 4…Nf6 is more thematic.

5.Bg5

5.f3 (yet another non-developing move) is answered very well by 5…c5! 6.d5 exd5! (or 6…Bd6) 7.cxd5 Bd6! 8.fxe4 0-0 9.Nf3 Re8 10.Bd3 c4! 11.Bc2 b5! 12.Nxb5 Bb4+ and Black has a clear advantage.

5…Be7

Or 5…h6 6.Bxf6 Qxf6, when White should definitely avoid 7.Nxe4?! Bb4+ 8.Nc3 c5!.

6.f3

The familiar gambit idea. Instead, 6.Nge2 Nc6 is simply good for Black. For example, 7.Qd2 Nb4! 8.Ng3 Qxd4!.

6…Nc6!

7.d5

Black is obviously on top after 7.Nge2 exf3.

7…exd5 8.Bxf6

8.cxd5 fails to Nxd5.

8…Bxf6 9.cxd5 Ne5 10.fxe4 0-0 11.Nf3 c6 12.Be2 cxd5 13.Qxd5

13.exd5 Nxf3+ 14.Bxf3 Re8+ and White’s king will be stuck in the center.

13…Qb6!

With control of the dark squares, the initiative, and a substantial advantage.

Göring Gambit (C44)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3

The Göring Gambit can be scary for Black, but it’s also risky for White, who wants rapid development, open lines, and an attack in return for the pawn. Of course, giving up a center pawn can have bad long-term consequences if the attack doesn’t succeed.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3

This looks similar to the Danish Gambit (2.d4 exd4 3.c3), but the presence of knights on f3 and c6 results in quite unique variations.

4…dxc3

This is a case where acceptance is the best way to show that White is risking something by playing the gambit. He may end up permanently behind in material. As a safe alternative, 4…Nge7

is very much like 3…Ne7 versus the Danish Gambit, and the ideas are the same:

A) 5.Bc4 d5 6.exd5 Nxd5 can lead to tactical positions: 7.0-0 (7.Qb3 Na5 8.Qa4+ c6!? 9.Bxd5 Qxd5 10.0-0 Be6 is unclear, and here 8…Nc6 equalizes, with the threat of …Nb6) 7…Be7 (7…Bg4!? 8.Qb3 Bxf3 9.gxf3! Na5 10.Qa4+ Nc6, and Nb6 is threatened, so 11.Re1+ Be7 12.Qb3 Na5 13.Qa4+ Nc6 14.Qb3 Na5= might follow) 8.Qb3 Be6 (or 8…0-0! 9.Bxd5 Na5 10.Bxf7+ Rxf7 11.Qa4 Nc6! 12.Nxd4 Ne5, with the bishop pair and ideas of …Bd7 or …c7-c5) 9.Qxb7 (9.Nxd4 Nxd4 10.cxd4 0-0 is equal) 9…Na5 10.Bb5+ Kf8! 11.Qa6 c5, threatening …Bc8, gives Black active counterplay;

B) 5.Nxd4 Nxd4 6.cxd4 (6.Qxd4 can be met by 6…d5 or by 6…Nc6 7.Qd5 d6=) 6…d5 7.e5 Nf5 (trying to get …c7-c5 in) 8.Nc3 c6! presents White with the problem of what to do about the threat of 9…Qb6, winning a pawn. There might follow 9.Be3 Nxe3 10.fxe3 g6! intending …Bh6;

C) 5.cxd4 d5 6.e5 (6.Nc3!? dxe4 7.Nxe4 Be6 gives Black enough play because of the isolated pawn: 8.Bb5 Qd5 9.Nc3 Qd6 10.0-0 0-0-0 11.Be3 with a double-edged game) 6…Bg4 (6…Bf5!? is another approach, thinking about …Nb4 or …Be4) 7.Be2 Nf5 8.Be3 Be7 (8…g6!? has the idea …Nxe3 and …Bh6) 9.0-0 0-0 10.h3 Nxe3 11.fxe3 Be6 with equality. Black intends …f7-f6.

5.Nxc3

5.Bc4 isn’t quite as good as it is in the Danish Gambit, and Black has several satisfactory lines. For example, 5…cxb2 (or 5…d6 6.Nxc3 Nf6) 6.Bxb2 d6 (6…b5!? with the idea 7.Bxb5 Rb8 8.Qe2 Nf6) 7.Qb3 (7.0-0 Be6 8.Bxe6 fxe6 9.Qb3 Qd7; 7.Nc3 Be7!? 8.Qb3 Nh6, or simply 7…Nf6) 7…Qd7 (with the idea …Na5; 7…Nh6!?) 8.Bc3 Nf6 9.0-0 Qe7 10.Re1 Nd7 11.Nbd2 Nce5 and Black seems to be untangling. …g7-g6 and …Bg7 might follow.

5…Bb4 6.Bc4 d6

7.0-0

This is the most flexible move.

A) 7.Qb3 Bxc3+ 8.Qxc3 (8.bxc3 Qd7 has the idea …Na5) 8…Nf6 (bothering the e-pawn) 9.e5 Ne4! 10.Qe3 d5 can only favor Black with his extra pawn;

B) 7.Ng5 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Ne5 9.Bb3 h6 10.f4! hxg5 11.fxe5 Qe7 12.exd6 Qxe4+ 13.Kf2 Qf5+ 14.Qf3 Qxf3+ 15.Kxf3 cxd6 16.Bxg5 Be6 17.Rad1 Rc8=.

7…Bxc3 8.bxc3 Nf6 9.e5

Otherwise Black simply plays …0-0 with no weaknesses and White lacks sufficient compensation. For example, 9.Ba3 Bg4!. Prevents 10.e5, and if 10.Qb3 0-0 11.Qxb7? 11…Bxf3! (or 11…Na5 with advantage) 12.gxf3 Ne5! 13.Be2 Rb8 14.Qa6 Nh5, with the ideas …Nf4 and …Qf6, is very strong.

9…Nxe5 10.Nxe5 dxe5 11.Qb3 Qe7 12.Ba3 c5 13.Bb5+

This has been played in many games and has been assessed as unclear. In fact, Black stands a bit better.

13…Kf8!?

It’s easy for Black to equalize, but with two extra pawns, he is justified in this ambitious attempt to win, with ideas of …a7-a6 and …b7-b5 and/or …Kg8 and …h7-h5-h4.

A) An underrated option is 13…Bd7 14.Bxd7+ Qxd7 15.Bxc5 Ne4 16.Ba3 Nd2 17.Qb4 0-0-0 18.Rfd1 (18.Rad1 Qc6 19.Qe7 is close to equal) 18…Qc6 with an edge (or 18…f6, when Black stands somewhat better);

B) Black can also safely return some of his booty with 13…Nd7 14.Rad1 0-0 15.Bxd7 Bxd7 16.Qxb7 Rfd8. For example, 17.Rd5 (17.Bxc5 Qe8!? 18.Rfe1 Bc6 19.Rxd8 Rxd8 20.Qxa7 f6) 17…Qe8 18.Rfd1 Bc6 19.Rxd8 Rxd8 20.Qb3 Rxd1+ 21.Qxd1 c4 and Black has an extra pawn, although White should hold.

14.f4!?

A) 14.Rfe1 h5!? 15.Re2?! (15.c4! Rh6 16.Qe3 b6, when Black has a small edge) 15…h4 16.Rae1 e4! with a clear advantage (with the idea …Be6 and/or …Rh5);

B) 14.c4! looks odd, but at least brings White’s queen to a better position on the third rank. For example, 14…Be6 15.Rfe1 e4 16.Qe3 Rc8 17.Bb2 h5! 18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.Qxe4 Rd8, with the idea …Rd4, …h5-h4, …Kg7.

14…e4

14…Be6 is also fine. For example, 15.Bc4 (15.Qa4 exf4 16.Qxf4 h5; 15.c4 exf4 16.Rxf4 h5) 15…Bxc4 16.Qxc4 b6 17.fxe5 Qxe5 18.Rae1 Qd6 19.Bc1 h6 20.Qh4 Re8 21.Bf4 Qd5 22.Rd1, Ardelean-Tikhomirov, Bucharest 1999, and Black keeps a clear advantage by 22…Qe6 with the idea 23.Rfe1 Ne4.

15.f5 a6

Or 15…Kg8 or 15…b6 with advantage. Finally, 15…g6 forces matters: 16.fxg6 (16.c4 Bxf5 17.Rad1 h5 18.Bb2 Rh7 19.Qc3 Ne8) 16…hxg6 17.Rxf6 (17.Bc1 e3) 17…Qxf6 18.Bxc5+ Kg8 19.Bd4 Qe7 20.Bxh8 Kxh8 with an extra pawn.

16.Be2 b5 17.Rad1 h5 18.c4 b4 19.Bc1 Kg8 20.Bg5 Bb7

And Black has a pleasant advantage.

Ponziani Opening – Fraser Attack (C44)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3

The Ponziani is a rare visitor on the international scene, but it’s certainly playable. White intends to play d2-d4 with an ideal center. We recommend an aggressive response.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3

The Ponziani.

3…Nf6 4.d4

4.d3 d5 5.Nbd2 Be7 is a reverse Philidor Defense. Black has already equalized.

4…Nxe4

5.d5

A) 5.dxe5 Bc5 6.Qd5 (6.Be3 Bxe3 7.fxe3 d5! with the superior pawn structure) 6…Bxf2+ 7.Ke2 f5! favors Black. For example, 8.Nbd2 Bb6 (8…Ne7!? 9.Qd3 Bb6 10.Nxe4 fxe4 11.Qxe4 d5 12.exd6 Qxd6 is also good for Black) 9.Nxe4 fxe4 10.Qxe4 0-0, threatening …d7-d5 with a terrific attack;

B) 5.Bd3 d5 6.dxe5 Bg4, attacking e5, is also a little awkward for the first player. After 5.d5, 5…Ne7 and 5…Nb8 are considered correct. But there is a third possible move:

5…Bc5!

We recommend this as a surprise solution. This piece sacrifice was invented by G. B. Fraser in the 19th century, but it has been considered unsound (it is usually given a ‘?!’ in the books). Recently, Brian Wall has shown that, after over 100 years, Black can play this way after all! For a quieter life, Black can choose either 5…Nb8 or 5…Ne7 6.Nxe5 Ng6 7.Qe2 Qe7=.

6.dxc6

6.Be3?! Bxe3 7.fxe3 Ne7! 8.Nxe5 0-0 is very strong for Black, who has faster development and the better pawn structure.

6…Bxf2+

Strange to say, even 6…Nxf2 may be playable. It is supposedly refuted by 7.Qd5, when 7…Nxh1 8.Qxc5 is extremely strong, but as Brian Wall points out, this is not so clear after 7…Bb6! and:

A) 8.Rg1 dxc6 9.Qxe5+ Kf8 10.Nd4 Ng4 11.Qg5 (11.Qf4 Qe7+) 11…f6 12.Qd2 Qd6=;

B) 8.Qxe5+ Kf8 9.Rg1 Ng4 10.Qf4 Bf2+ 11.Kd1 dxc6+ 12.Kc2 Bxg1 13.Nxg1 g5! 14.Qxg5 Qxg5 15.Bxg5 Bf5+ 16.Bd3 Bxd3+ 17.Kxd3 Nxh2 with a complicated and apparently equal position.

7.Ke2 Bb6! 8.Qd5!

The only reasonable move, threatening e4, b7, and e5.

A) 8.Be3 Nd6 (or 8…Bxe3 9.Kxe3 Nf6) 9.Bxb6 axb6 favors Black: 10.cxd7+ Bxd7 11.Kf2 e4 12.Nd4 0-0, with the idea …f7-f5 and an attack. For example, 13.g3? (13.Be2? Qh4+ 14.g3 e3+ 15.Kxe3 Qh6+ 16.Kf2 Ne4+ 13.Na3 Qe7 14.Kg1 c5 15.Ndc2 f5, with a clear advantage) 13…Re8 (13…Qf6+ 14.Kg1 Rfe8) 14.Na3 Qf6+ 15.Kg1 c5 16.Ndc2 e3 17.Qe1 Bc6 18.Bg2 Bxg2 19.Kxg2 Ne4-+.

B) 8.cxd7+? Bxd7 9.Nxe5 Bb5+ 10.Ke1? (10.c4 Qf6! is completely winning for Black, as is 10.Nd3 Nf2!) 10…Bf2+, S Burns-Wall, Denver 2012.

8…Nf2

9.Rg1!

White gets the worst of things after each of:

A) 9.Nxe5? 0-0 10.cxd7 Bxd7 11.Qxd7 Qf6-+;

B) 9.Qxe5+?! Kf8 10.Rg1 dxc6, and;

C) 9.cxb7 Bxb7 10.Qxb7 Nxh1! Broekmeulen-Nieto, Belgium tt 2010/11.

9…0-0! 10.cxb7 Bxb7 11.Qxb7 Qf6! 12.Qa6 Rae8 13.Na3

No better is 13.Be3 e4 or 13.g4 Re6!.

13…Ng4 14.h3 e4 15.Nd4 Qf2+ 16.Kd1 Bxd4 17.hxg4 Re6 18.Qe2 Qxe2+ 19.Bxe2 Bxg1

This position isn’t at all clear, but Black has a rook and two pawns for the two pieces and it should be even. For example,

20.Bf4 c6

20…Rf6 21.Bxc7 Rf2 22.g3 Rg2.

21.Nc4 d5 22.Ne3 Bf2 23.Kc2 h6

Caro-Kann Defense: Von Hennig Gambit (B15)

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.f3

White offers a form of the Blackmar-Diemer gambit.

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.f3

Exciting, but probably not something you want to play against a master!

5…b5!?

A radical answer, and not a bad one. 5…exf3 6.Nxf3 is the Soller Gambit. Objectively, that position is probably better for Black, but sometimes one would rather not defend tough positions if there is a dynamic option at hand.

6.Bb3 e6

7.fxe4

7.Nh3 Nbd7 8.0-0 e3 9.Bxe3 Be7 10.Ne4 Nb6 11.c3 Nfd5 12.Qd2 0-0 13.f4 a5, with a queenside initiative, Marder-Jorgensen, Helsingor 2012

7…b4 8.Nce2 Nxe4 9.Nf3

9…Ba6

9…Nd7 10.Qd3 Nd6 11.0-0 Qb6 12.c3 Be7 13.Ng5 Nf6 14.Bf4 h6 15.Bxd6 hxg5 16.Bxe7 Kxe7 17.Ng3 Ba6 18.c4 Rad8. Black went on to win in Cornelison-Schiller, Los Angeles 1995.

10.0-0 Bd6 11.c4 bxc3 12.bxc3 Nd7 13.Qc2 Nef6 14.c4 0-0

Black has a comfortable game, Short-Bareev, Sarajevo 2000.

Caro-Kann Defense: Hillbilly Attack (B10)

1.e4 c6 2.Bc4 d5 3.Bb3

This hyper-aggressive gambit has been played almost 100 times in one large database. It has not scored particularly well when Black accepts the offer.

Williams – Jones

England tt 2011/12

1.e4 c6 2.Bc4 d5 3.Bb3 dxe4 4.Qh5

This looks merely like a primitive checkmating attempt, but White hopes that the queen will remain on the kingside to cause trouble later.

4…g6 5.Qh4

5…Bg7

5…Nf6 6.f3 exf3 7.Nxf3 Bf5 (or 7…Bg7) 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.Nc3 e6 10.d4 h6, with the idea 11.h3 Be7! 12.Qe1 g5, with an extra pawn and a solid defense.

6.Nc3

6.Qxe4 Nf6 7.Qe2 0-0 8.Nf3 8…Bg4 (8…c5! 9.0-0 Nc6 with central superiority) 9.0-0 (Stürmer-Bollmann, Bad Bevensen 1994), and again, 9…c5 with the idea …Nc6 secures an edge.

6…a5!? 7.Nxe4?! a4 8.Bc4 b5 9.Be2 Nh6 10.g4?! a3! 11.Rb1?? Qd5!

This attacks e4 and a2, winning.

12.Nc3 Qxh1 13.Kf1 Be5 14.Bf3 Qxh2 15.Nh3 Nxg4 16.Bxg4 Bf6 0-1

Caro-Kann Advance: Pawnstorm (B12)

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.h4 h6 5.g4

White sometimes tries to blow Black’s Caro-Kann out of the water by using a pawnstorm in the Advance Variation. This is perfectly sound, but Black should be able to equalize with a well-timed assault on the center.

Shumilina – Gunina

Moscow 2009

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.h4

This has always been a bit of a sideline, but a fairly successful one.

4…h6

4…h5 is a common and sound alternative.

5.g4

Shamelessly storming forward.

5…Bd7

6.Nc3

All kinds of moves have been played here. For example, 6.h5 and 6.Be3. White succeeded with this variation in the deciding game of the Kramnik-Leko World Championship, Brissago (m/14) 2004, when Kramnik tried 6.Nd2 c5!? (a good alternative is the modest 6…e6 7.Nb3 b6 with the idea …c6-c5) 7.dxc5, and here 7…e6 8.Nb3 Bxc5 9.Nxc5 Qa5+ 10.c3 Qxc5 was slightly better for White (bishop pair). Instead, 7…Qc7! attacks e5, when White’s position is rather loose after 8.f4 e6 9.Nb3 Bxc5 10.Nxc5 Qxc5, which is fair to assess as equal.

6…e6

The idea of undermining in gambit style doesn’t work out: 6…c5?! 7.dxc5 Nc6? 8.Qxd5! Bxg4 9.Qg2 Bf5 10.Be3 Tsydypov-Belous, Vladivostok 2012.

7.Be3

7…Qc7

Preparation for the undermining …c6-c5 is logical. A move with similar ideas is 7…Qb6!. For example, 8.Na4 Qa5+ 9.c3 b6! 10.b4 Bxb4 11.cxb4 Qxb4+ 12.Bd2 Qxd4 13.Nf3 Qxg4 14.Rg1 Qe4+ 15.Be2 (Kroes-Sciarretta, Lechenicher Schachserver 2010) and 15…Ne7 kept an edge, while 15…c5 16.Nc3 Qh7 gives Black a material and positional advantage.

8.Nf3

As Black has spent a tempo for the move …Qc7, White can examine a plan with pawns occupying space on the kingside. If 8.h5!? c5 9.f4, with an interesting game in store.

8…c5

8…a6 has also been played here, delaying …c6-c5 a move.

9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.Bxc5 Qxc5 11.Qd2 Ne7 12.0-0-0 a6 13.Nd4 Nbc6

A position with a pawn structure typical for the French Defense has appeared. White has some space advantage and a more active bishop. Nevertheless, Black has sufficient counterplay on the queenside, sometimes connected with the advance of the b- and a-pawns.

French Defense: Milner-Barry Gambit (C02)

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Bd3 6…cxd4 7.cxd4 Bd7 8.0-0

One of the greatest opening contributions from the World War II British spy and cryptographer, Sir Stuart Milner-Barry, was this vigorous pawn sacrifice in the Advanced French. It remains a sharp line to this day and is recommended by gambiteers such as Boris Alterman. In the end, however, Black will often retain his extra pawn and prevail.

Aryanejad – Potkin

Abu Dhabi 2005

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Bd3

This move is White’s most ambitious one, in that the bishop is posted actively on the b1-h7 diagonal. The only drawback is that the bishop interferes with the defense of the pawn on d4 by White’s queen. In fact, White plans to sacrifice that pawn.

6…cxd4 7.cxd4 Bd7

Here a famous trap is 7…Nxd4? 8.Nxd4 Qxd4?? 9.Bb5+ and Black’s queen is lost.

8.0-0

This is the Milner-Barry Gambit, in which White gives up a pawn for rapid development. There is no simple way to defend the d4-pawn anyway, since 8.Be3 loses the b-pawn to 8…Qxb2, and moving the d3-bishop again is a real waste of time:

A) 8.Bc2!? Nb4 9.Nc3 (not 9.Ba4? Qa6! 10.Bxd7+ Kxd7 and …Nd3+ follows, or 9.Bb3? Qa6) 9…Nxc2+ 10.Qxc2 Rc8 11.0-0 Ne7 12.Be3 Nf5, with advantage;

B) The move order 8.Nc3 Nxd4 generally transposes after 9.Nxd4 (9.Ng5?! Nc6! with a clear advantage. 9.0-0 transposes to 9 Nc3 below) 9…Qxd4 10.0-0, which is the main line gambit;

C) Also suspect is 8.Nbd2?! Nxd4 9.Nxd4 Qxd4 10.Nf3 Bb4+!.

8…Nxd4

9.Nxd4

The traditional gambit move. Black keeps some advantage against other moves:

A) 9.Nbd2 is Jiri Nun’s move. Black has a good answer in 9…Bc5! (theoretically, Black also stands better after 9…Nc6 10.Nb3 Nge7) 10.Nxd4 (10.Rb1 Bb5!) 10…Bxd4 11.Nf3 Ne7 12.Nxd4 (12.Rb1 Nc6) 12…Qxd4 13.Re1 Nc6 (or 13…Ng6! 14.Bxg6 Qxd1 15.Bxf7+ Kxf7 16.Rxd1 Rhc8) 14.Be3 Qxe5 15.Qd2, Smerdon-Akopian, Khanty-Mansiysk 2010, and here Moskalenko’s 15…Qd6! retains a nice advantage;

B) 9.Nc3 Nxf3+! 10.Qxf3 Ne7 11.Qg3 Rc8 12.a3 Ng6, with the idea 13.h4 Qd4;

C) 9.Ng5 is Sorensen’s Gambit. A strong response is 9…Nc6! 10.Re1 (10.Bf4? Qxb2 10.Qe2 Nb4) 10…Bc5 11.Qf3 Nh6 (or 11…0-0-0 12.Nc3 f6!) 12.Nc3 Nd4 13.Qh3 Nhf5.

9…Qxd4

The Milner-Barry Gambit main line.

10.Nc3

A) 10.Qe2 Ne7 11.Kh1 (11.Nd2 Nc6 12.Nf3 Qb6 13.Be3 Bc5 14.Bxc5 Qxc5 15.Rfc1 Qe7 with advantage) 11…Nc6 (11…Qh4 is also good) 12.f4 Bc5 (or 12…Nb4 13.Bb5 0-0-0) 13.a3 a6 14.Ra2 0-0 15.b4 Ba7 16.Nd2 Qe3, and Black stood clearly better in Brown-Hummel, Las Vegas 1997;

B) 10.Re1 Ne7 11.Nc3 a6 12.Be3 Qxe5 13.Qg4 h5! 14.Qb4 Nc6 15.Qxb7 Rb8 16.Qxa6 Nb4 17.Qa7 Nxd3 18.Bd4, Vazquez Torres-Moreno Ruiz, Madrid 2010, and Moskalenko points out the simple 18…Bc5! 19.Rxe5 Bxa7 20.Bxa7 Rb7.

10…a6

White had the idea of 11.Nb5.

11.Qe2

11.Kh1 Qxe5 12.Re1 Qd6 13.Qf3 Bc6 14.Bf4 Qd7 15.Qg3 Ne7. Black stands very solidly and White is two pawns down.

11…Ne7

11…Qh4!? with the idea …Nh6 and 11…Rc8 is also good, but more difficult to play.

12.Kh1

White can actually recover his pawn in the line 12.Rd1 Nc6 (12…Qh4! is also good) 13.Bxa6 Qxe5, but Black’s unopposed center gives him a clear advantage after 14.Qxe5?! (14.Bxb7 Qxe2 15.Nxe2 Rb8 16.Bxc6 Bxc6 17.Nd4 Bd7 18.a4 f6 19.a5 e5 20.Nc2 d4 21.a6 Bc5 22.b4 Ba7, with a clear advantage) 14…Nxe5 15.Bxb7 Ra7 16.Bxd5 exd5 17.Re1 f6 18.f4 Bc5+ 19.Kh1 d4 and Black has excellent winning chances, Mnatsakanian-Monin, USSR 1979 (and other games).

12…Nc6 13.f4 Nb4

A good alternative is 13…Bc5, stopping Be3, and preparing for …Qf2 in case of Rd1.

14.Rd1 Bc5!

Black threatens 15…Nxd3, especially since 16.Rxd3?? would allow 16…Qg1.

15.Bxa6

White hurries to get his pawn back. There’s no road to equality for him with other moves:

A) 15.Bb5 Qf2! 16.Bxd7+ Kxd7 17.Qg4?? Nd3 (threatening 18…Qg1+ 19.Rxg1 Nf2) 18.h4 Qg1+ 19.Rxg1 Nf2+ 20.Kh2 Nxg4+ 21.Kg3 Bxg1 and wins;

B) 15.Bxh7 Qf2 16.Qxf2 Bxf2 17.Bb1 0-0-0 (with the idea …Rxh2+!; 17…Nc6 intending …Rc8 also favors Black) 18.h3 Kb8, with very active pieces and a dangerous passed d-pawn;

C) 15.Bb1 Qf2 16.Qg4 h5!. For example, 17.Qxg7? 0-0-0 18.Qg3 Qxg3 19.hxg3 Rdg8 with the ideas of …h5-h4 or …Rg4 followed by …h5-h4.

15…Qf2 16.Qxf2 Bxf2 17.Bb5!

17.Be2 Bc6 18.a3 Nc2 19.Rb1 Nd4.

17…Bxb5

17…Nc2 18.Rb1 Bb6, but 19.Bxd7+ Kxd7 20.Rd3 is not so clear.

18.Nxb5 Rxa2 19.Rxa2 Nxa2 20.Bd2

Is Black’s knight trapped?

20…Kd7 21.Ra1

21…Rc8!

This tactic is necessary.

22.Na3

22.Rxa2 Rc2 and White loses his bishop.

22…Bc5! 23.Rxa2 Bb4! 24.Be3

24.Bc3! is better, although Black still has the advantage after 24…d4 25.Nb5 dxc3 26.bxc3 Bxc3! (an improvement over 26…Rc5 27.Rb2 Rxb5 28.cxb4 Rd5 29.g3 Kc6 30.Kg2 Kb5 31.Kf3 (Toufighi-Gonzalez Garcia, Khanty-Mansiysk 2010), and Black should play 31…Rd3+ 32.Ke4 Rc3 33.g4 Rc4+ 34.Kf3 Rxb4, although White has counterplay after 35.Rd2) 27.Nd6 Rc6! (threatening …Bxe5) 28.g3 f6 29.Ra7 (29.Nxb7 fxe5 30.fxe5 Bxe5, with a clear advantage) 29…fxe5 30.Nb5! exf4 31.Rxb7+ Kd8 32.Nxc3 Rxc3 33.gxf4 Rc7 with good winning chances.

24…d4! 25.Bxd4 Rc1+ 26.Bg1 Bc5 27.h3 Rxg1+ 28.Kh2 Rf1 29.g3 Rf2+ 30.Kh1 Rf1+ 31.Kh2 Rf2+ 32.Kh1 Kc6! 33.Nc4 Kd5 34.Na5 b6 35.Nb7 Bd4 36.Ra8 Rxb2 37.Nd6 f6

Effectively winning.

38.Rd8 fxe5 39.Nf7+ Ke4 40.Ng5+ Ke3 41.Rd6 h6 42.Nxe6 Kf3 43.Nxd4+ exd4

0-1

Lewitzky Attack (D00)

1.d4 d5 2.Bg5

With his radical bishop move, White is mainly trying to get out of the books. The opening is sound, but not particularly challenging.

Hodgson – Godena

Mondariz 2000

1.d4 d5 2.Bg5

White pins a knight that isn’t there! This oddball move stops the Queen’s Gambit Declined move 2…e6, at any rate. On the other hand, White is asking to be hit by …h7-h6 or …f7-f6, both of which can be useful moves.

2…h6

Black wants White to commit to a square before he proceeds. Others:

A) 2…f6 is considered perfectly playable (one idea is 3.Bh4 Nh6! followed by …Nf5);

B) 2…c6 resembles our main solution. For example, 3.e3 (3.Nf3 Qb6 4.Qc1 Bg4 5.Nbd2 Nd7 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Nxf3 e6 8.e3 Be7 9.h4!? Ngf6 10.h5 h6 11.Bf4 c5 and Black has better game, Adams-Lutz, Wijk aan Zee 1995) 3…Qb6 4.Qc1 (4.b3 weakens the queenside; compare the main line) 4…Bf5 5.Nf3 Nd7 6.c4 e6 7.Nc3 Be7=.

3.Bh4

3.Bf4 is a London System in which Black’s extra move …h7-h6 is potentially useful. One line continues 3…c5 4.e3 Nc6 5.Nf3 g5!? (or 5…Nf6) 6.Bg3 Bg7, with some pressure against White’s queenside; the position seems about equal after 7.Bb5 Bg4.

3…c6

With the idea …Qb6, which would force White into an awkward defensive move on the queenside.

4.Nf3

This protects the bishop on h4. Against others, Black can play natural moves:

A) 4.e3 can transpose. An independent line is 4…Qb6

5.b3 (5.Qc1 e5! has the idea 6.dxe5?? Qb4+ and 7…Qxh4, and Black keeps a slight edge after the better 6.c3 Be7!? 7.Bxe7 Nxe7 8.dxe5 Nd7 9.Nf3 Qc7 10.Bd3 Nxe5 11.Nxe5 Qxe5 12.0-0 Bf5, with a central advantage) 5…e5! (5…Bf5 is also fine) 6.Nf3 (6.dxe5?? Qb4+ and 7…Qxh4) 6…e4!? (6…Nd7! 7.dxe5 Nxe5! has the same trick in mind: 8.Nxe5 Qb4+ 9.c3 Qxh4) 7.Nfd2 Ne7 (or 7…Be6) 8.c4?! (8.f3) 8…Nf5 9.Bg3 Nxg3 10.hxg3 Be6 11.Be2 Nd7 12.a3 Be7 13.Nc3 Nf6, with advantage, Adams-Gelfand, Belgrade 1995;

B) 4.c4 dxc4 5.e4 b5 6.a4 a6 7.b3 cxb3 8.axb5 Nf6! (Cox).

4…Qb6 5.Qc1!?

This is actually a gambit, because Black now wins the d-pawn. The safer move is 5.b3, although it does weaken some dark squares. Then Black equalizes easily.

For example: 5…Nd7!? (5…Bf5 has been played by both Karpov and Kramnik; it is natural and also equal. One example went 6.e3 e6 7.Bd3 Bxd3 8.Qxd3 Be7 9.Bxe7 Nxe7 10.c4 Nd7 11.Nc3 0-0 12.0-0 Qa6! Morozevich-Kramnik, Astana 2001) 6.e3 e5!

7.dxe5 (7.Bg3 Qa5+!? 8.Qd2 Qxd2+ 9.Nbxd2 e4 10.Ne5 Ba3!) 7…Nxe5! 8.Nxe5 Qb4+ 9.Nd2 Qxh4 10.c4 Qf6 11.Nef3 Bf5 and Black has all the chances.

5…g5

Black makes the greedy choice. 5…Bf5 6.c4 e6 7.Nc3 Be7= has been played in several games.

6.Bg3 g4 7.Ne5

This is more active than 7.Nfd2 Qxd4 8.e3 Qb6.

7…Qxd4

8.c4

Weaker is 8.Nd2?! Nd7 9.c3 Qb6 10.Nxg4 h5 11.Ne5 Nxe5!? 12.Bxe5 f6 13.Bf4?! e5 14.Be3 c5 15.f3 Be6, with a clear advantage, Djurhuus-Borge, Reykjavik 1996. Here 11…h4 was also good.

8…Bg7

8…Nd7 9.e3 Qc5 10.Nd2 (10.Nxd7?! Bxd7 11.Qc3 Nf6 leaves Black better. 10.Nxg4? Bg7, intending …h6-h5, is also weak) 10…Bg7 transposes to the main line.

9.e3 Qc5 10.Nd2

10.Nc3 Nd7 11.Nxd7 (11.Nd3 Qxc4) 11…Bxd7 and White doesn’t have sufficient compensation.

10…Nd7

Perhaps 10…Nf6 is clearer, with the idea 11.Be2 (11.Nd3 Qa5 12.cxd5 Ne4!) 11…Ne4! 12.Nd3 Qa5 13.b4 Qb6 14.c5 Qd8, with advantage.

11.Nd3 Qb6

11…Qa5 12.cxd5 cxd5 13.Be2 h5 14.0-0 Qa4 is unclear.

12.a4 Nc5 13.cxd5 Nxd3+ 14.Bxd3 cxd5 15.Bb5+ Kf8

15…Bd7!? 16.Bxd7+ Kxd7 17.a5 Qb5 18.Qc7+ Ke8 and it’s anyone’s game.

16.0-0 Bf5

Or 16…a6. For example, 17.e4!? (17.Be2 h5) 17…Be6 (17…axb5? 18.axb5 has the idea 18…Rxa1? 19.Qxc8+) 18.exd5 Bxd5 19.Bc4? (but 19.Bc7 Qd4 20.Be2 h5 isn’t inspiring) 19…Rc8-+, Hodgson-Schandorff, Germany Bundesliga 2001/02.

17.Bc7 Qg6?!

The correct move is 17…Qe6!. For example, 18.Nb3 a6 19.Nc5 Qg6 20.Bd7 (20.Be2 Rc8) 20…Nf6 21.Bxf5 Qxf5 22.Qd2 Rc8 and Black stands better.

18.Qc5 Nf6 19.a5

Or 19.Rac1! with full compensation.

19…a6

19…Ne8 20.Bf4 Nd6 21.Qxd5 Be6 22.Qd3=.

20.Ba4 Ne8! 21.Bf4 Bxb2

21…Nd6 is a satisfactory option, perhaps about equal.

22.Rab1?!

22.Ra2! Bf6 23.Qxd5 Kg7 24.Qxb7 Nd6 25.Bxd6 exd6 and Black’s advantage is minimal.

22…Rc8 23.Qxd5 Bxb1 24.Qxb7 Rc1?!

24…Bf5 25.Qxb2 Nf6 with advantage.

25.Rxc1 Bxc1 26.Nxb1 Kg7 27.Be5+ Nf6 28.Qxe7??

28.e4!=.

28…Bb2!

This interference theme leads to a winning position.

29.Bc2 Rc8!?

29…Re8!! wins, in view of 30.Bxf6+ Bxf6 31.Qxe8? Qxc2.

30.Nc3 Qxc2 31.Qxf6+ Kf8 32.Qxh6+?

32.g3 Bxc3 33.Qh8+ Ke7 34.Qxc8 Qd1+ 35.Kg2 Qd5+ 36.Kg1 Qxe5, with a clear advantage.

32…Ke8 33.h4 Bxc3 34.Bf4 Qg6

0-1

Barry Attack: Czech Defense (D00)

1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 c6 4.Bf4

With the move 2.Nc3, White tries to develop rapidly, but violates the traditional rule that one shouldn’t block one’s own c-pawn (compare the normal 2.c4). One approach is to combine 2.Nc3 with Bf4 (the Barry Attack). Against this plan we recommend a safe setup with the move …c7-c6 or, in the next section, a formation with …g7-g6.

Rosen – Borbjerggaard

Stockholm 1996/97

1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3

This position can also arise from the move order 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3. White’s plan in the Barry is to bring his queen’s bishop to f4 and develop.

3…c6

In this first solution, Black simply defends the center and brings his pieces out, planning …Bf5 and …e7-e6. The alternative 3…g6 4.Bf4 transposes to our second solution.

4.Bf4

This combination of Nc3, Bf4, and Nf3 defines the Barry Attack.

4…Bf5 5.e3 e6 6.Ne5

Ordinary development makes things easy for Black. For example, 6.Bd3 Bd6! (6…Bb4!?) 7.Bxf5 (7.0-0 Bxf4 8.exf4 Bg4 9.h3 Bxf3 10.Qxf3 0-0=, M.Sanchez-B.Gonzalez, ICCF email 2011) 7…exf5 is a well-known pawn structure which is perfectly fine for Black because of his grip on e4 and open e-file.

6…Bb4

Black has ideas of …Qa5 and …Ne4. 6…Nbd7 is also fine. For example, 7.Be2 Nxe5 8.Bxe5 Bd6=.

7.f3!?

Stopping …Ne4 and perhaps dreaming of g2-g4 and h2-h4, but something like 7.Bd3 Nbd7 8.0-0 Nxe5 9.Bxe5 0-0= is safer.

7…Nh5! 8.Bg3 Nxg3 9.hxg3 f6

9…Nd7 10.g4! Bg6 11.Nxg6 Bxc3+ 12.bxc3 fxg6 13.Bd3 0-0= is a double-edged way to proceed.

10.Nd3 Bd6

10…Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Nd7 is also fine.

11.f4!? Nd7 12.Qf3 Bg6 13.g4

Now Black has good solid moves like 13…Qe7, but…

13…e5!

… makes direct threats and would actually give him the advantage.