I've had a significant operation recently and been recovering, so haven't had much time to concentrate on chess (though I did get the coverage of the King's Gambit completed earlier).
I have a couple of deeply annotated games in the Sicilian Najdorf with 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.Nf3 d6 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 that I played recently.
http://www.viewchess.com/cbreader/2015/6/1/Game22003379.html
Note the fairly unusual move-order. This move-order probably won't be right for most players: it works well if you're happy to play the White side of the Morra Gambit or the ...d6 lines of the Open Sicilian (while side-stepping lines like the Kan, Taimanov and Lowenthal). The main issue with it is that after 3...a6, 4.c3 is probably best, leading to a Morra, since after 4.Nxd4, after a subsequent ...e7-e5, White doesn't have the b5-square available for the knight on d4, and that after 3...d6 (as played in these games), 4.c3 Nf6 is awkward since 5.e5 (probably best) is now met by 5...dxe5, rather than a transposition into normal c3-Sicilian lines.
These two games highlight the downside of getting involved in these sort of highly theoretical tactical lines- at club level most of us don't really know what we're doing! But they do tend to produce pretty interesting games.
Of course, 6.Bg5 is one of the most "theoretical" responses to the Najdorf and there are plenty of ways of playing the Open Sicilian with White that are not as theoretical, though constructing a full Open Sicilian repertoire that both avoids heavy theory and maintains good attacking chances is quite tricky- some compromises will be needed one way or another against certain lines. For those who are interested, Michael Goeller at his Kenilworthian blog, back in January 2010, suggested a relatively aggressive and low-theory approach, mostly involving early f2-f4 advances, but also see the comments section at the end of the article for an illustration of the challenges involved.
Sunday, 31 May 2015
Thursday, 23 April 2015
King's Gambit coverage completed
It's been somewhat quiet on here recently, but I've managed to get the King's Gambit coverage at my site completed:
This includes coverage of the three most important ways of declining the gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5, 2...d5, and 2...Nc6. Until a few months ago I had not really examined 2...Bc5 and so didn't really know what I was doing when I had it a few times from the White side.
Some comments on individual lines
2...d5
The line 2...d5 3.exd5 e4 appears to be slightly better than I had previously thought. Some of Boris Alterman's ideas, e.g. in the lines 4.d3 Nf6 5.dxe4 Nxe4 6.Be3 Bd6!?, and 6.Nf3 c6!?, appear to offer Black reasonable practical chances, although I agree with John Shaw that White should be able to get an advantage with accurate play in all lines. White also appears to be slightly better against 3...c6, so Black's objectively best follow-up to 2...d5 is 3.exd5 exf4, which usually leads to a Modern Defence (2...exf4 3.Nf3 d5) but without allowing 3.Bc4 d5 4.Bxd5. My latest examinations of that line suggest that Black might be able to equalise with accurate play but I find the positions more appealing for White than after 3.Nf3 d5.
2...exf4 3.Bc4
The most critical test of 3.Bc4 remains 3...Nc6. The most critical line runs 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Nge2 f3 7.gxf3 d5 8.exd5 Nxd5 9.0-0 Nxc3 10.bxc3 Bd6.
White has the inferior pawn structure and an exposed king, but has plenty of open lines for the bishops and rooks. As White I would be tempted to play Kh1 and Rg1 and make use of the half-open g-file, but it is questionable whether White can make much of this. Probably objectively best is Stefan Bucker's suggestion 11.Qd2 intending to encourage a queen exchange with Qg5, and thus making White's exposed king less of a problem, My analysis then runs 11...0-0 12.Qg5 Qxg5+ 13.Bxg5 Bf5 14.Bb3 Na5 15.Ng3 Nxb3 16.axb3. The queenless middlegame gives approximately equal chances and the rival pawn majorities ensure that there is plenty of play left. In view of this, I disagree with John Shaw's claim that 3...Nc6 is a refutation of 3.Bc4, but I think that the resulting positions are generally easier for Black to play than for White.
2...Bc5
The assessment of this line lies somewhere in the grey area between "=" and "+=" and White tends to get most of the attacking chances, although it is probably Black's best way of getting a fairly closed position with level material against the King's Gambit. If Black's aim is rather just to reach dynamically equal positions with level material then the Modern Defence is a better bet, and if Black has a problem with 3.Bc4 d5 4.Bxd5 then there is 2...d5 3.exd5 exf4.
There is one line recommended by Mihail Marin which has left me wondering:
3.Nf3 d6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Bc4 Nc6 6.d3 Bg4 7.Na4 0-0 8.Nxc5 dxc5 9.0-0 Qd6 10.f5 Nd4 11.a4 a6 12.c3 b5 13.cxd4 Bxf3
Fedorov-Marin, Eforie Nord 2000 continued with 14.Qxf3 bxc4 here and the game was soon agreed drawn, but why not 14.Bxf7+ followed by 15.Rxf3? I have to admit that Fritz spotted this before I did. It looks quite promising for White.
The sideline 4...Nc6 intending 5.Bc4 Bg4 looks like it may improve slightly over the main line for Black, but White has the option of changing plans with 5.Bb5, whereupon Black's best seems to be to sacrifice a pawn for compensation with 5...Nge7 6.Na4 Bg4 7.fxe5 0-0 8.exd6 Bxd6.
White can avoid all of this with 4.c3, which works well unless Black finds 4...Bb6! The line appears to offer equal chances in a double-edged position after 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bg4 7.Be3, with the idea of h2-h3 and meeting ...Bg4xf3 with the daring g2xf3, hoping to use the impressive pawn centre to compensate for long-term issues with king safety. 4.c3 thus remains playable but less likely to provide a theoretical edge for White than 4.Nc3.
Friday, 20 February 2015
An outing in Lev Gutman's line of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
My next update to my Gambiteers Guild site will hopefully result in a near-complete coverage of the King's Gambit, as I am currently examining the Falkbeer Counter-Gambit and the Declined, with 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5. It appears that Boris Alterman in his gambit series has come up with some interesting ideas for Black in the "true" Falkbeer (with 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 e4) which, though not bringing Black close to full equality, ensure that the line is worth taking more seriously than I thought.
Indeed, a few months ago I had quite an embarrassing loss as White in that variation where I played 4.d3 Nf6 5.dxe4 Nxe4 6.Nf3, the most critical response, but then lost my way.
But while my site continues to get updated slowly, in the meantime I will discuss some of my own practical encounters.
Remarkably, Lev Gutman's recommendation against the critical Ziegler Defence to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.Bg5 e6 8.Nh4!? Bg6 9.Nxg6 hxg6 10.Qd3) still hasn't been tested according to the Chesslive.de database. But I managed to reach it via transposition in a very recent game of my own. Although I lost the game, I felt that I had decent chances out of the opening.
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Bc4 Bf5 5. f3 exf3 6. Nxf3 e6 7. Bg5 Nf6 8.
Nh4 Bg6 9. Nxg6 hxg6 10. Qd3 Be7 11. O-O-O Nbd7 12. h4
12...Nb6 13. Bb3 Nbd5 14. Ne2 b5 15. Rhf1 a5 16. c4 bxc4 17. Bxc4 O-O 18. Nf4 Nxf4 19. Bxf4 Nd5 20. Be5 Bf6
21. g4 Bxh4 22. Rh1 Bg5+ 23. Kb1 Ne3 24. Rdg1 Nxc4 25. Qh3 f6 26. Qh7+ Kf7 27.
Bxf6 Bxf6 28. Rh6 Qxd4 29. Qxg6+ Ke7 30. Rh3 Qxb2# 0-1
http://www.viewchess.com/cbreader/2015/2/21/Game29996246.html
The move-order from the Caro-Kann was pretty unusual- normally Black plays 4...Nf6 and then 5.f3 exf3 6.Nxf3 is a straight transposition to the Ziegler Defence. With the move-order 4...Bf5 5.f3 exf3 6.Nxf3 e6, Black can consider meeting 7.Bg5 with 7...Be7!?, which appears to be completely unexplored. My preliminary suggestion is 8.Qd2 intending 9.0-0-0, and if 8...Bxg5 9.Nxg5.
With the retreat 14.Ne2 I began to go astray, but the computer suggests that 14.Kb1 would have given White decent compensation for the pawn, and after 14...b5 (the problem with 14.Ne2 is rather 14...Ng4) 15.Nf4 White would also have been doing fine. The final straw was the wildly over-optimistic 25.Qh3?, when I failed to realise that Black could simply create a secure escape hatch for the king with 25...f6. The idea of Qd3-h3 works for White in some lines following the natural recapture with 25.Qxc4. I also missed a "shot" with 24.Bxe6!.
An interesting fighting game and not particularly discouraging for White's cause, despite the loss. However, I still believe that the most critical line of the Blackmar-Diemer complex is the Gunderam Defence with 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5, rather than 5...c6 6.Bc4 Bf5.
Indeed, a few months ago I had quite an embarrassing loss as White in that variation where I played 4.d3 Nf6 5.dxe4 Nxe4 6.Nf3, the most critical response, but then lost my way.
But while my site continues to get updated slowly, in the meantime I will discuss some of my own practical encounters.
Remarkably, Lev Gutman's recommendation against the critical Ziegler Defence to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.Bg5 e6 8.Nh4!? Bg6 9.Nxg6 hxg6 10.Qd3) still hasn't been tested according to the Chesslive.de database. But I managed to reach it via transposition in a very recent game of my own. Although I lost the game, I felt that I had decent chances out of the opening.
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Bc4 Bf5 5. f3 exf3 6. Nxf3 e6 7. Bg5 Nf6 8.
Nh4 Bg6 9. Nxg6 hxg6 10. Qd3 Be7 11. O-O-O Nbd7 12. h4
12...Nb6 13. Bb3 Nbd5 14. Ne2 b5 15. Rhf1 a5 16. c4 bxc4 17. Bxc4 O-O 18. Nf4 Nxf4 19. Bxf4 Nd5 20. Be5 Bf6
21. g4 Bxh4 22. Rh1 Bg5+ 23. Kb1 Ne3 24. Rdg1 Nxc4 25. Qh3 f6 26. Qh7+ Kf7 27.
Bxf6 Bxf6 28. Rh6 Qxd4 29. Qxg6+ Ke7 30. Rh3 Qxb2# 0-1
http://www.viewchess.com/cbreader/2015/2/21/Game29996246.html
The move-order from the Caro-Kann was pretty unusual- normally Black plays 4...Nf6 and then 5.f3 exf3 6.Nxf3 is a straight transposition to the Ziegler Defence. With the move-order 4...Bf5 5.f3 exf3 6.Nxf3 e6, Black can consider meeting 7.Bg5 with 7...Be7!?, which appears to be completely unexplored. My preliminary suggestion is 8.Qd2 intending 9.0-0-0, and if 8...Bxg5 9.Nxg5.
With the retreat 14.Ne2 I began to go astray, but the computer suggests that 14.Kb1 would have given White decent compensation for the pawn, and after 14...b5 (the problem with 14.Ne2 is rather 14...Ng4) 15.Nf4 White would also have been doing fine. The final straw was the wildly over-optimistic 25.Qh3?, when I failed to realise that Black could simply create a secure escape hatch for the king with 25...f6. The idea of Qd3-h3 works for White in some lines following the natural recapture with 25.Qxc4. I also missed a "shot" with 24.Bxe6!.
An interesting fighting game and not particularly discouraging for White's cause, despite the loss. However, I still believe that the most critical line of the Blackmar-Diemer complex is the Gunderam Defence with 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5, rather than 5...c6 6.Bc4 Bf5.
Thursday, 11 December 2014
More on the King's Gambit- Fischer and Becker defences looking OK for both sides
Apologies for lack of updates- I haven't been doing quite as much with the online articles since taking up my new job (although I have joined Exeter Chess Club).
The latest update on the King's Gambit has involved increasing the amount of verbal explanation for the early moves of the game in the annotated games sections, while I have had a closer look at the lines discussed at Chess-Brabo.
The latest articles are here:
Modern Defence
3.Nf3 g5
3.Nf3 d6 and h6
Vienna Gambit lines
"Vienna Gambit lines" refers to the Hamppe-Allgaier and Pierce Gambits that normally arise from 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.Nf3 g5 5.h4 and 5.d4 respectively. The King's Gambit move-order to those lines is typically 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.h4 or 5.d4, while 5.g3 is most consistent with a Quaade Gambit-based repertoire.
In the Fischer Defence, 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d6, Black intends to play 4...g5 but without allowing the white knight on f3 access to e5, and thus preventing the Kieseritzky Gambit (3...g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5).
White can continue with 4.Bc4, which normally leads to a Hanstein Gambit after 4...h6! intending 5...g5 (rather than the immediate 4...g5?! which is met by 5.h4 and if 5...g4 6.Ng5 and White's knight and bishop both hit f7).
Instead 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1 is the traditional main line but I don't think White gets enough development there to give much compensation for the pawn.
I am inclined to agree with John Shaw that continuing in Quaade Gambit style with 5.Nc3 with g2-g3 to follow. Then "brabo" recommends 5...h6, which is at least as good as anything else that Black has. 6.g3 Bd7!? is an interesting suggestion of his, not allowing White the standard development plan of Be3, Qd2 and 0-0-0, and White probably does best to switch plans with 7.Bc4 and 8.0-0. While I don't quite agree that "it is very difficult for White to keep the balance", Black certainly doesn't stand worse. Instead, 6...fxg3 7.hxg3 allows Black to flick in ...Nf6-g4, whereupon White can allow the exchange of knight for bishop by playing Be3, Qd2 and 0-0-0, or meet ...Nf6-g4 with Be3-g1, which leaves White's pieces bottled up on the first rank but White still appears to get reasonable compensation for the pawn.
This is also relevant to the Becker Defence, 3...h6, which aims to avoid the Kieseritzky Gambit, since after reinforcing the g5-pawn, Black does not have to meet h2-h4 with ...g5-g4, and the interesting idea 4.b3, discouraging 4...g5, is well met by 4...d5 (or 4...Nf6- Shaw).
White again has the option of the Hanstein Gambit with 4.Bc4, but probably best is the Quaade Gambit style line 4.d4 g5 5.Nc3, and then Black's best is probably 5...d6, leading to the same position as I discussed earlier under the Fischer Defence.
This certainly appears to be one of the most critical positions in the early ...g5 lines of the King's Gambit at the moment. White's better development counterbalances Black's extra pawn.
So, in conclusion, both 3...d6 and 3...h6 are probably about equal in value with 3...g5, though they narrow down Black's good options against the Quaade Gambit approach since if White plays 3...g5 4.Nc3 then Black has other good options besides playing 4...d6 5.d4 h6. One significant advantage of 3...d6, however, is that it tempts White into the line 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1, which is inferior to the Kieseritzky Gambit with 3...g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5.
The latest update on the King's Gambit has involved increasing the amount of verbal explanation for the early moves of the game in the annotated games sections, while I have had a closer look at the lines discussed at Chess-Brabo.
The latest articles are here:
Modern Defence
3.Nf3 g5
3.Nf3 d6 and h6
Vienna Gambit lines
"Vienna Gambit lines" refers to the Hamppe-Allgaier and Pierce Gambits that normally arise from 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.Nf3 g5 5.h4 and 5.d4 respectively. The King's Gambit move-order to those lines is typically 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.h4 or 5.d4, while 5.g3 is most consistent with a Quaade Gambit-based repertoire.
In the Fischer Defence, 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d6, Black intends to play 4...g5 but without allowing the white knight on f3 access to e5, and thus preventing the Kieseritzky Gambit (3...g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5).
White can continue with 4.Bc4, which normally leads to a Hanstein Gambit after 4...h6! intending 5...g5 (rather than the immediate 4...g5?! which is met by 5.h4 and if 5...g4 6.Ng5 and White's knight and bishop both hit f7).
Instead 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1 is the traditional main line but I don't think White gets enough development there to give much compensation for the pawn.
I am inclined to agree with John Shaw that continuing in Quaade Gambit style with 5.Nc3 with g2-g3 to follow. Then "brabo" recommends 5...h6, which is at least as good as anything else that Black has. 6.g3 Bd7!? is an interesting suggestion of his, not allowing White the standard development plan of Be3, Qd2 and 0-0-0, and White probably does best to switch plans with 7.Bc4 and 8.0-0. While I don't quite agree that "it is very difficult for White to keep the balance", Black certainly doesn't stand worse. Instead, 6...fxg3 7.hxg3 allows Black to flick in ...Nf6-g4, whereupon White can allow the exchange of knight for bishop by playing Be3, Qd2 and 0-0-0, or meet ...Nf6-g4 with Be3-g1, which leaves White's pieces bottled up on the first rank but White still appears to get reasonable compensation for the pawn.
This is also relevant to the Becker Defence, 3...h6, which aims to avoid the Kieseritzky Gambit, since after reinforcing the g5-pawn, Black does not have to meet h2-h4 with ...g5-g4, and the interesting idea 4.b3, discouraging 4...g5, is well met by 4...d5 (or 4...Nf6- Shaw).
White again has the option of the Hanstein Gambit with 4.Bc4, but probably best is the Quaade Gambit style line 4.d4 g5 5.Nc3, and then Black's best is probably 5...d6, leading to the same position as I discussed earlier under the Fischer Defence.
This certainly appears to be one of the most critical positions in the early ...g5 lines of the King's Gambit at the moment. White's better development counterbalances Black's extra pawn.
So, in conclusion, both 3...d6 and 3...h6 are probably about equal in value with 3...g5, though they narrow down Black's good options against the Quaade Gambit approach since if White plays 3...g5 4.Nc3 then Black has other good options besides playing 4...d6 5.d4 h6. One significant advantage of 3...d6, however, is that it tempts White into the line 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1, which is inferior to the Kieseritzky Gambit with 3...g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5.
Wednesday, 12 November 2014
Two queen sacrifices on a6
I recently managed to get in an attractive queen sacrifice in an online "thematic" game in the Steinitz Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.d4). The game was not without mistakes but the end result was very satisfying.
It was vaguely inspired by a similar queen sacrifice that I once pulled off in the French Defence, Winawer Poisoned Pawn variation at my local chess club some years ago, admittedly in a well-known theoretical line:
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5
I like the line 4.a3 intending 4...Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.Qg4, which leads to dynamically equal play and sometimes leads to Black coming under pressure on f6 after Bc1-g5, but on that occasion decided to take my opponent on in the main line.
4...c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Ne7 7.Qg4 Qc7
I was involved in reading through some analysis of 7...0-0 at the local chess club a couple of months ago. Although objectively Black is probably OK, I much prefer White in that line, for White gets reasonable long-term attacking chances against the black king. My results as White against 7...Qc7 have been mixed. I have also tried it out a couple of times from the black side in online games, with success.
8.Qxg7 Rg8 9.Qxh7 cxd4 10.Ne2 Nbc6 11.f4 Bd7
11...dxc3 12.Qd3 d4 is most popular nowadays according to John Watson.
12.Qd3 dxc3 13.Nxc3
To my knowledge 13.Qxc3 is considered more critical, but the text move sets up a trap.
13...a6 14.Rb1 0-0-0?
Black needed to play a preparatory move like ...Na5 before castling queenside. White wins material with 15.Qxa6! because if 15...bxa6 16.Bxa6+ Black's only legal move is to block with 16...Qb7. I can't remember how the rest of the game went, but it was a fairly comfortable win due to the extra material and Black's exposed king.
Now onto the game in the Steinitz Gambit, which went as follows:
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.d4
This was a "thematic" game. I would not normally play 2.Nc3 because of 2...Nf6 intending 3.f4 d5. The only way the Steinitz Gambit can be reached via a 2.f4 move-order is 2.f4 exf4 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.d4, or 3.d4 Nc6 4.Nc3, but in both cases Black does better to play 3...Qh4+ immediately.
4...Qh4+ 5.Ke2 d6
This move isn't too bad but White should be able to get full compensation for the pawn against this. More critical is 5...b6 intending ...Ba6+.
6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Bxf4 O-O-O 8.h3
The move played isn't clearly bad, but 8.Kd2 and 8.Ke3 are probably stronger here.
8...Bxf3+ 9.Kxf3
Steinitz would have been pleased with White's king position, reinforcing the centre. However Black could have caused White a few problems here with 9...Qf6, pinning the bishop on f4 and attacking d4.
9...Nf6 10.Qd2 Qh5+ 11.Ke3
Probably a bit too bold. 11.Kf2 is fine for White.
11...Ng4+ 12.hxg4?!
Not objectively best (it may well be deserving of a question mark), but I sensed that it was probably White's best practical choice, especially for an online game. 12.Kf3 g5 leaves Black with slightly the better of a messy position.
12...Qxh1 13.Nb5 a6 14.d5 Ne5 15.Qa5
Objectively best was 15.Na7+ Kb8 16.Nc6+ Nxc6 (Not 16...bxc6? 17.Qb4+ followed by 18.Bxa6) 17.dxc6 with some attacking chances on the queenside, although Black stands better.
15...Nxg4+?
Best was 15...Qg1+ intending 16...Qc5 and Black should be winning with accurate play.
16.Kd2 Rd7 17.Na7+ Kb8?
17...Kd8 was best although White has the upper hand after 18.Qb4.
18.Nc6+ Kc8
If 18...bxc6, 19.Qb4+ followed by 20.Bxa6+ wins for White.
19.Qxa6 Qxg2+ 20.Kc1
The computer points out that 20.Kc3 actually forces checkmate because Black cannot exchange off the queen for White's bishop on f1. 20...Qf3+ 21.Kb4 Qxe4+ 22.Ka3 Qf3+ 23.c3 and Black runs out of checks. Steinitz would certainly have been proud of White's king boldly marching onto the fourth rank. However, the move played in the game wins comfortably because Black's only way to stop checkmate is to give up the queen. In the game, Black allowed the checkmate.
20...bxa6 21.Bxa6#
It was vaguely inspired by a similar queen sacrifice that I once pulled off in the French Defence, Winawer Poisoned Pawn variation at my local chess club some years ago, admittedly in a well-known theoretical line:
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5
I like the line 4.a3 intending 4...Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.Qg4, which leads to dynamically equal play and sometimes leads to Black coming under pressure on f6 after Bc1-g5, but on that occasion decided to take my opponent on in the main line.
4...c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Ne7 7.Qg4 Qc7
I was involved in reading through some analysis of 7...0-0 at the local chess club a couple of months ago. Although objectively Black is probably OK, I much prefer White in that line, for White gets reasonable long-term attacking chances against the black king. My results as White against 7...Qc7 have been mixed. I have also tried it out a couple of times from the black side in online games, with success.
8.Qxg7 Rg8 9.Qxh7 cxd4 10.Ne2 Nbc6 11.f4 Bd7
11...dxc3 12.Qd3 d4 is most popular nowadays according to John Watson.
12.Qd3 dxc3 13.Nxc3
To my knowledge 13.Qxc3 is considered more critical, but the text move sets up a trap.
13...a6 14.Rb1 0-0-0?
Black needed to play a preparatory move like ...Na5 before castling queenside. White wins material with 15.Qxa6! because if 15...bxa6 16.Bxa6+ Black's only legal move is to block with 16...Qb7. I can't remember how the rest of the game went, but it was a fairly comfortable win due to the extra material and Black's exposed king.
Now onto the game in the Steinitz Gambit, which went as follows:
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.d4
This was a "thematic" game. I would not normally play 2.Nc3 because of 2...Nf6 intending 3.f4 d5. The only way the Steinitz Gambit can be reached via a 2.f4 move-order is 2.f4 exf4 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.d4, or 3.d4 Nc6 4.Nc3, but in both cases Black does better to play 3...Qh4+ immediately.
4...Qh4+ 5.Ke2 d6
This move isn't too bad but White should be able to get full compensation for the pawn against this. More critical is 5...b6 intending ...Ba6+.
6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Bxf4 O-O-O 8.h3
The move played isn't clearly bad, but 8.Kd2 and 8.Ke3 are probably stronger here.
8...Bxf3+ 9.Kxf3
Steinitz would have been pleased with White's king position, reinforcing the centre. However Black could have caused White a few problems here with 9...Qf6, pinning the bishop on f4 and attacking d4.
9...Nf6 10.Qd2 Qh5+ 11.Ke3
Probably a bit too bold. 11.Kf2 is fine for White.
11...Ng4+ 12.hxg4?!
Not objectively best (it may well be deserving of a question mark), but I sensed that it was probably White's best practical choice, especially for an online game. 12.Kf3 g5 leaves Black with slightly the better of a messy position.
12...Qxh1 13.Nb5 a6 14.d5 Ne5 15.Qa5
Objectively best was 15.Na7+ Kb8 16.Nc6+ Nxc6 (Not 16...bxc6? 17.Qb4+ followed by 18.Bxa6) 17.dxc6 with some attacking chances on the queenside, although Black stands better.
15...Nxg4+?
Best was 15...Qg1+ intending 16...Qc5 and Black should be winning with accurate play.
16.Kd2 Rd7 17.Na7+ Kb8?
17...Kd8 was best although White has the upper hand after 18.Qb4.
18.Nc6+ Kc8
If 18...bxc6, 19.Qb4+ followed by 20.Bxa6+ wins for White.
19.Qxa6 Qxg2+ 20.Kc1
The computer points out that 20.Kc3 actually forces checkmate because Black cannot exchange off the queen for White's bishop on f1. 20...Qf3+ 21.Kb4 Qxe4+ 22.Ka3 Qf3+ 23.c3 and Black runs out of checks. Steinitz would certainly have been proud of White's king boldly marching onto the fourth rank. However, the move played in the game wins comfortably because Black's only way to stop checkmate is to give up the queen. In the game, Black allowed the checkmate.
20...bxa6 21.Bxa6#
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)