Update on the Urusov

It's been a while, but I finally completed my update of the Urusov Gambit coverage at http://www.ianchessgambits.com/urusov-gambit.html 
I've managed to get the ChessBase dynamic diagrams working, which allow viewers to move the pieces.  The new ChessBase game replayers is, I think, a significant improvement over the old one but I found that having multiple instances of the replayer on one web page caused glitches, so I have chosen to provide links to the annotated examples that are published using the One Click Publishing feature.

As for the assessment of the gambit, the accepted lines still seem to be holding up well, but of the declining lines, 4...Bb4+ does, as Michael Goeller suggested a while ago, appears to be the main problem at high levels, if Black aims for equality by striking out in the centre with a well-timed ...d5.  However, in the Chesslive.de database, Black tends to follow up 4...Bb4+ poorly, and so the move is scoring only 41% for Black.  The highest-scoring reply for Black is the more well-known 4...Nc6 transposing to the Two Knights Defence (where Black is scoring 49%).  Black is scoring 44% after grabbing the bait with 4...Nxe4.

For White, if faced with a prepared opponent, there are some ideas for unbalancing the position after 4...Bb4+.  There is 5.c3 dxc3 6.0-0 0-0 (6...cxb2 7.Bxb2 and as in many such lines, it is unclear if White has two pawns' worth of compensation, but White's initiative is extremely dangerous) 7.a3!? (7.bxc3 d5), which gives some compensation, though I'm not sure if it is objectively enough.  More definitely sound but less in the gambit-style are 6.bxc3 d5 7.cxb4!?, and 6...Bc5 7.e5 d5 8.exf6 dxc4 9.Qxd8+.

I don't expect to be giving up the Urusov anytime soon, having had a lot of fun with it in practice, but in view of 4...Bb4+ as well as 4...Nc6, I don't expect it to catch on among grandmasters either.

Updates, especially on the Staunton Gambit

I have updated/expanded my coverage of the Staunton Gambit (1.d4 f5 2.e4, which I have played occasionally in casual games) with analysis of three illustrative games which contain notes on the various deviations for both sides.

This can be seen as a sounder relative of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.e4) since 1...f5 weakens the kingside and does not develop anything.  However, after 2...dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6, White should start by putting pressure on the f6-knight with 4.Bg5 (which was Staunton's original preference) waiting for a better moment to play f2-f3.  White does indeed get an improved version of the Blackmar-Diemer after 4.f3 exf3?! 5.Nxf3, but 4...d5! gives Black easy development, envisaging ...Nc6, ...Bf5, ...Qd7 and ...0-0-0, and if anything is probably less sound for White than the Blackmar-Diemer.

After 4.Bg5, most critical is 4...Nc6 since, for example, 4...g6 and 4...c6 are well met by 5.f3, and Black does not get the easy development plan that arises after 4.f3 d5, and White consequently gets sufficient compensation for the pawn, even if Black hits out in the centre with 5...d5.

Of particular importance is the third game, A. Bezemer - H. Froeyman, played in 2013, in the exchange sacrifice line with 5.d5 Ne5 6.Qe2 c6 7.0-0-0 Nxd5 8.Nxd5 Nf7 9.Nf4 Nxg5 10.Qh5+ Nf7 11.Bc4 g6 12.Bxf7+ Kxf7 13.Nxg6 hxg6 14.Qxh8.  At first sight, Black doesn't appear to have much, but in fact Black has sufficient compensation for the exchange because of White's undefended queenside, which can quickly be attacked with ...Qa5 and ...Bg7 before White gets the chance to work up an attack on the black king or consolidate the material advantage.

 There is also an interesting discussion of the line at http://chess-brabo.blogspot.be/2013/10/iccf.html The main downside of this line is that, if played accurately, it is hard for either side to avoid draws by perpetual check.

But the whole line with 4.Bg5 Nc6 5.d5 Ne5 6.Qe2 still offers interesting and equal play (from both sides' point of view) for both sides have reasonable deviations.  White's most promising deviation is probably at move 9 with 9.Nh3, while Black can consider 6...Nf7 or 6...d6.   In conclusion, the Staunton Gambit is less likely to give White a theoretical edge than the positional main lines against the Dutch Defence with c2-c4, but it appears to be fully sound and is pretty dangerous.  At the same time, it does not prevent Black from getting the sort of tactical, attacking/counterattacking play that attracts many players to the Dutch.  I think the main reason why it doesn't score as well for White in databases as the Blackmar-Diemer is because it has gained more support at grandmaster level, where such gambits are often less effective than at club level, and most repertoire books tend to cover the line from Black's point of view.  At club level I see no reason why the Staunton Gambit shouldn't score very highly in the hands of a player who knows what he/she is doing.

In the meantime I have done minor updates to the Danish and Urusov Gambit coverage to reflect recent discussions on those openings with Mark Nieuweboer.  In the critical Urusov Gambit line with 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Nc6 7.Qh4 Bb4, it seems that White can continue with the standard 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.bxc3, and if 9...0-0, then his suggestion 10.Re1 looks pretty good, saving a tempo with the c1-bishop compared with 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bxh6 which leaves White with some problems proving full compensation for the sacrificed bishop.

The Urusov Gambit

The Urusov Gambit most often arises from the Bishop's Opening: 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3, but Scotch/Göring Gambit aficionados can also enter the line via 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nf3, or 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Bc4.

White's idea is to meet 4...Nxe4 with 5.Qxd4, and if Black retreats the knight to f6, to put pressure on Black's kingside with Bg5 and Qh4 (hence Black does not really gain time on the queen by playing ...Nb8-c6).  The ideal setup for White is indicated here:

White continues with Bc4-d3, threatening Bxf6 and Qxh7 mate, and if Black plays ...h7-h6, then a strong Bxh6 sacrifice follows.  This position demonstrates the dangers of castling early against the Urusov Gambit.  Black may have formed the solid "Hungarian Defence formation" but it doesn't work against this sort of attacking setup and Black needs to improvise in order to distract White from getting the white pieces onto these squares.

At the Urusov Gambit section of my site I have chosen to give more of an "outline" type of coverage, highlighting the key lines and deviations and suggesting what I believe to be best play for both sides, while again offering some annotated illustrative games.  For those after a thorough analysis I recommend that readers have a browse of Michael Goeller's Urusov Gambit site, while Danish Dynamite contains some good analysis of the accepted lines of the gambit.

Some brief comments on the declined variations:

1.  Black's most reliable way to decline the gambit is with 4...Nc6 transposing to the Two Knights Defence, but 4...Bb4+ is also quite critical.  Here I recommend that White boldly sacrifices two pawns with 5.c3 dxc3 6.0-0, since 6.bxc3 d5 is strong for Black and I don't trust the line 7.Qa4+ Qd7 8.Qxb4 dxc4 9.Ba3 Nc6 10.Qxc4 Qe6.

2.  I am in strong agreement with Goeller that 4...d6 should be met by heading for a line of the Antoshin Variation of the Philidor Defence, with 5.0-0, followed by Re1 and Nxd4 in most cases.  My investigations into this line have suggested that it is promising for White.  4...c5 should also be met by 5.0-0, and if 5...Nc6 then 6.Ng5 intending f2-f4, and 6.Re1 intending c2-c3, are both sufficient to give White a theoretical edge and attacking chances.  However, 4...c5 is not as bad as it looks and should not be underestimated.  Finally, 4...Bc5 should be met instead by 5.e5 intending 5...d5 6.exf6 dxc4 7.Qe2+ Be6 8.fxg7 Rg8 9.Bg5 as recommended at Goeller's site.

3.  I don't think 4...d5 5.exd5 Bb4+ equalises.  My main recommendation against this is 6.c3 Qe7+ 7.Be2 dxc3 8.Nxc3 rather than the more popular 8.bxc3.  Estrin and Panov's recommendation against this, 8...0-0 9.0-0 c6, does not appear to equalise after 10.a3 forcing the b4-bishop away to an inferior square.  White can also get an edge with 6.Kf1, which wins a pawn in most lines, but White's king ends up misplaced and holding onto the extra pawn at d5 can be tricky, so it is probably not as easy to play.

And onto the accepted variations:

1.  After 4...Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Black has no good alternative to retreating the knight with 5...Nf6.  Then, I am in agreement with Goeller and others that 6.Bg5?! is inaccurate as it fails to cover the d5-square and thus runs into 6...Nc6 intending 7.Qh4 d5.

2.  6.Nc3 Nc6 7.Qh4 Bb4 is a tricky sideline as the threat of shattering White's queenside pawn structure forces White to change plans and castle short, and this gives Black greater scope to play ...h7-h6, inviting a Bxh6 sacrifice, without suffering an immediate disaster.   See D.Grobler-J.Antal, email 2011.

3.  The main lines all seem to be holding up well for White.  The main line of the Urusov Gambit Accepted is probably 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 9.0-0-0 Be6 10.Rhe1! Bxc4 11.Qxc4 0-0.

Surely this position should be good for Black, who has castled, has no weaknesses, has almost completed development, and has an extra pawn, and has forced White's queen away from its aggressive post on h4?  Upon close inspection, apparently not.  White has several attractive attacking options, and the one that appeals to me the most is Max Burkett's innovation 12.h4, while 12.Rd3, 12.Re3 and 12.Qh4 also offer fair attacking chances. 

A key idea in many lines is the Rxe7 exchange sacrifice which undermines the protection of the knight on f6.  Carlos Torre (best known for beating Emmanuel Lasker with the Torre Attack, using 1.d4, 2.Nf3 and 3.Bg5) tried this sacrifice immediately at move 12 and won a fine attacking game with it, though it is probably better for White to defer the sacrifice until a better moment (e.g. after 12.h4 h6?! 13.Rxe7! and if 13...hxg5 then 14.hxg5!)

The Two Knights Defence with d4

Michael Goeller at his Kenilworthian blog has posted an article covering the line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.e5 Ng4!?.  The position after Black's fourth move is important as it can also arise from the Scotch Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Nf6) and the Urusov Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Nc6).

http://kenilworthian.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-two-knights-anti-modern.html

In my most up-to-date coverage of the 5.e5 line, I also regarded 5...Ng4 to be a good response for Black, and Goeller's coverage, based on seven annotated games, has continued to reinforce that view.

But all is not lost for fans of the 4.d4 Two Knights lines or the Scotch or Urusov Gambits.  I feel that 5.0-0 gives White rather better practical chances at club level, and many of the 5.0-0 lines have been revived by Stefan Bücker and Lev Gutman.  For example see the article "A Rook With a View" which covers an interesting pawn sacrifice idea for White in the famous line 5...Nxe4 6.Re1 d5 7.Bxd5 Qxd5 8.Nc3.  Another important point is that the line of the Max Lange Attack with 5...Bc5 6.e5 d5 7.exf6 dxc4 8.fxg7!, with Re1+ and Bg5 to follow, is doing well for White.  My most up-to-date coverage of the 5.0-0 lines is available here.