Alekhine-Chatard Attack coverage underway

I've been busy recently, but started coverage of the Alekhine-Chatard Attack in the French Defence, 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nfd7 6.h4!?.

I find that the 3.Nc3 lines of the French Defence often lead to crazy and rich positions, although of course 3.Nc3 is one of the main lines, and many of the variations are quite theory-heavy.  The various attempts to steer play into a sort of pseudo Blackmar-Diemer Gambit with 3.Be3 and 3.c4 are not convincing, although there is a subvariation of 3.Nc3, 3...Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 5.f3!?, which aims to transpose into a line of the Blackmar-Diemer (Euwe Defence) which probably gives White full compensation for the pawn.

The Alekhine-Chatard Attack is one of the soundest gambits that I've looked at so far; indeed French Defence guru John Watson considers that it is holding up well at high levels.  I've been a fan of this gambit for many years, and recall having quite a few nice wins with it as a junior in the late-1990s.

I have only got around to covering 6...c5 and 6...0-0 so far, but am trialing out a new way of displaying the coverage (sort of like a ChessCafe.com article but with the games still presented as replayable java games via ChessBase).

The coverage is here:
http://tws27.weebly.com/alekhine-chatard-attack.html
My overall assessments seem to broadly agree with Watson's comments on 6...c5 and also 6...Nc6, which I cover briefly as a sideline, although of course Watson will have gone into far more detail.

I had a recent game as White in the Alekhine-Chatard Attack but unfortunately lost the game score.  I managed to crash through on the h-file by putting rooks on h1 and h6 and a queen on h4, and breaking through on h7, and Black's counterattack ended up being a tempo too slow.  (If I remember rightly, Black met 6.h4 with 6...c5 7.Bxe7 Kxe7, and later moved the king over to the kingside to guard h7).

Meanwhile I've recently received my copy of Smerdon's Scandinavian.  It is refreshing to see a grandmaster frequently using and being enthusiastic about a line that is objectively of marginal soundness.  I'll be looking at his Caro-Kann transposition lines (1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.d4, involving an early ...g6) with some interest since I didn't look at those when I last covered the line.  Of course White should avoid 4.dxc6?! Nxc6 in that variation; I remember a few games when I tried that greedy variation as White at the local chess club just to see if it was really as bad as its reputation, and inevitably I got crushed every time.

Smerdon also recommends the Vienna Defence (1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 Bf5) against the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, and is quite dismissive of White's chances.  Personally I always thought 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5 was a more serious test of the gambit, but I'll be looking at his lines more closely shortly to see if he's found any major improvements for Black over what I know of.

A nice exchange sac in the Albin Counter-Gambit

I had a nice win (albeit in a simultaneous) with an exchange sac in the Albin.  This game is a good example of how White can go wrong despite playing a succession of "natural" moves.  Of course, White can do better.  5.a3 is the most popular response in my experience, but the move-order trick 5.Nbd2 may be more accurate as it takes the sting out of 5...Nge7 and 5...Bf5.  After 5.a3, I opted to put the bishop on f5.  I think it was 7.Qa4 where White started to go a bit astray; 5.a3 is nonetheless a very reasonable try for advantage and 7.Nb3 or the immediate 7.b4 would have maintained good chances of an advantage out of the opening.

"Real life" has been slowing progress down on my gambiteering site in recent months, but I'm still preparing new content for it.

The trick is that Black follows up with ...Nb2+ and picks up the queen on a4; the exchange sacrifice was to kill White's coverage of the important b2-square.  Were it not for this sneaky tactic, White may have been able to get away with Bb2xd4.

I note that I missed quite a deep "computer move" in this game: 11...Nd7!, intending 12...Nc5 with the idea of 13...Nd3+.

A win as Black in the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit

The next lot of openings articles will focus on anti-French gambits and another revisit of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit.  It may take a couple of weeks though as I have a lot of other stuff going on.

I had a recent game as Black where I unexpectedly faced the BDG.  I managed to win the game with the extra pawn, but as usual at club level, there were some mutual errors along the way.  I tried out the von Popiel Attack with 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 about 10-11 years ago, but soon replaced 4.Bg5 with the standard 4.f3.  White does get some compensation for the pawn but less chances of a quick attack developing in my opinion.  Indeed, early in the game, I was the first to go on the attack.

A look at the Latvian Gambit

Since the opening has many devoted aficionados, I don't think my site would be complete without some coverage of the Latvian Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5).

http://tws27.weebly.com/latvian-gambit.html

I've done a fair amount of research on the line, most notably various threads at the Chesspublishing.com forum.  "AMM", in particular, posted some fine analysis here:

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/chess/YaBB.pl?num=1262014233/90

Stefan Bucker had a good analysis on the gambit at Chesscafe.com but his articles went behind a paywall (and the site isn't looking healthy at present anyway).

I don't trust the gambit, but I can see why it is popular.  Like the similarly dubious Englund Gambit (1.d4 e5), it has the merit of leading to unusual positions in many of the variations.  The Svedenborg Variation (3.Bc4 fxe4 4.Nxe5 d5) often leads to considerable chaos with reasonable chances for Black.  The main line involves a surprisingly strong exchange sacrifice:  5.Qh5+ g6 6.Nxg6 hxg6 7.Qxh8 Kf7.  For this reason, I think White should avoid 3.Bc4, but it will be a natural reaction of many players who have not studied the line.

The variation with 3.exf5 e4 is probably theoretically better for White, especially in the case of 4.Ng1!?, where White argues that in this reversed King's Gambit, but Black can be satisfied with the attacking chances.  3.d4 is slightly better for White with accurate play, but Black has to watch out for a couple of dangerous piece sacs following 3...fxe4 4.Nxe5.

The problems are the simple 3.Nc3, which I think generally leaves Black a pawn down for just half a pawn's worth of compensation, and of course the main line, 3.Nxe5.  3...Nc6 4.Qh5+ and 3...Nf6 4.Bc4 are not looking too good, although 3...Nc6 might be worth a try in blitz games, since it generally leads to positions with insufficient compensation for an exchange.

3...Qf6 is probably best but it has a few problems.  I don't like Black's position after 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Be2 or 6.Nc3, although it is just about playable.  After 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3, the 5...Qf7 line leads to dangerous attacking chances for White after 6.Ne3 and 7.d3, so I suggest that aficionados of the black side should rather try 5...Qg6.  In general I think this is the hardest line for Black to face psychologically since it tends to be White who gets most of the attacking chances.   

Is the Latvian Gambit refuted?  It depends on how strong your definition of "refuted" is.  I don't think it loses by force, but White certainly has a choice of ways to get a significantly greater-than-normal advantage out of the opening, and there are a few variations where I really wouldn't be happy with Black's position.

The illustrative games and analysis are here.

Evans Gambit coverage completed, some words on the Declined

After a long "hiatus" I have finally completed the section on the Evans Gambit, including a good look at the Evans Gambit Declined: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bb6.

I think Mihail Marin was right to give the Evans a lot of respect in his book Beating the Open Games: Black has no simple way to decline the gambit and reach equality, or to accept the gambit, return the pawn and reach equality.  Until the early 21st century, it was considered for a long time that 4...Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 Nge7 was the fix, but Nigel Short demonstrated in his games that 7.Qb3 is harder to crack.  Of course, Black has theoretical equality, but typically White ends up with good compensation for a pawn, typically what White wants out of this opening.

In the Evans Gambit Declined, it seems that 5.b5, Captain Evans's original idea, with the idea of picking up the e5-pawn, is alright, but not a serious try for advantage, if White meets 5...Na5 with the clumsy-looking 6.Bd3.  6.Nxe5 is tactically flawed because White ends up with two pieces attacked following 6...Nh6 7.d4 (otherwise 7...Bd4 forks the knight on e5 and rook on a1) 7...d6.

Therefore White generally plays 5.a4 with the threat of trapping Black's bishop on b6 with a4-a5, and so Black usually pushes the a7-pawn to give the bishop an escape hatch on a7.  My investigations of 5.a4 support the consensus view that 5...a5 is inferior because White can kick the c6-knight away from covering d4 by playing 6.b5, and then get a strong centre with a subsequent d2-d4.

5...a6 is the strongest response to 5.a4.  6.Bb2, with the idea of playing b4-b5 and not falling into tactical trouble on the a-file because the a1-rook is defended by the bishop on b2, does not appear to promise White much.
The most aggressive way to continue is 6.Nc3 intending 7.Nd5, although given that Black equalises comfortably following 6...Nf6 7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Nd4, I suggest that White should defer the knight intrusion for another move, with 7.0-0, which makes it rather harder for Black to reach equality.  Black can generally grab the e4-pawn in these lines, but if so, White gets good compensation.

The most reliable route to a slight advantage is a slow build-up reminiscent of the closed lines of the Giuoco Piano, with 6.c3 followed by d3, Nbd2 and 0-0.  This is pretty risk-free and denies Black much in the way of counterplay, but may not appeal to some fans of this gambit, so I have devoted considerable coverage to both 6.Nc3 and 6.c3.

I think the biggest issue with the Evans Gambit is not the opening itself, but rather the fact that Black can avoid it with the Two Knights Defence, 3...Nf6.   Most in keeping with the aggression associated with the Evans are the 4.Ng5 lines (see here and here) and the 4.d4 lines (see here and here).  If any of these are suitable for you, then I can certainly recommend the Evans Gambit.  There's also the argument, if it works fairly well for Nigel Short at grandmaster level, it can't be bad at club level.

Evans Declined overview
In-depth coverage (illustrative games and analysis)