At Exeter Chess Club I was recently playing in a chess variants tournament. One of my favourites is the variant where if the king reaches one of the central squares (e4, d4, e5, d5) it is an automatic win for the player whose king reaches that square. Otherwise normal rules of chess apply. I was playing Black and reached the following position with White to move:
I had given up a queen for a rook in order to get my king out to d6. In normal chess this position would be a straightforward win for White, but in this chess variant White has to be extremely careful as Black is only one move away from bringing the black king to the central squares and winning.
In the game White played 1.Qxe4 and resigned immediately after 1...Re8!. In a normal game 2.Qxe8 would win, but in this chess variant, 2.Qxe8 would be met by 2...Kd5 0-1. And if 2.Qxf5, Black wins normally with 2...Re1#, exploiting the weakness of the back rank.
A question is whether White can save this position despite being a queen for a rook ahead - this is the sort of chess variant that wouldn't work with computer analysis. An obvious try is 1.Qb5, covering the central squares for the time being, but after 1...Nd4 2,Qg5 f5 or 2.Qa5 b5, White is struggling to keep the central squares covered and stop the black king from advancing. 1.Qa5 is probably best, but White has to watch out for ...Rc8-c5 and ...Re8-e5 ideas.
The opening saw me on the black side of a Four Knights Game (via an unusual move order, 1.Nc3 Nc6 2.Nf3 e5 3.e4 Nf6 I think). My opponent then played 4.Bc4, allowing 4...Nxe4. He remarked afterwards that in this chess variant the Halloween Gambit (4.Nxe5, the subject of my Halloween update to my website) would have been strong as in various variations it is difficult for Black to stop White from safely moving the king forward towards the centre.
I imagine that the Mason Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nc3!?) and the allied Steinitz Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.d4!?), inviting ...Qh4+, forcing Ke2, would also be good in this particular variant.
Now and then I return at the Von Henning-Milner-Barry Gambit (Von Hennig is more famous for another infamous gambit and Milner-Barry helped to crack the German Enigma code), often erroneously called the Ziegler (who?) Defense.
ReplyDelete-1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.f3
Von Hennig, 1920; Milner-Barry preferred the 4.f3 move order, but both did so well before a certain ex-nazi played this via 1.d4 d5 2.e4 etc.
-5...b5
Those who own IM Scheerer's excellent book may consult page 99.
-6.Bb3 exf3
Not mentioned by Scheerer.
-7.Nxf3
And now we have arrived at page 278, where Scheerer wants the bishop rather on d3. That's bad news, isn't it? Is this finally the refutation of the BDG and related stuff?
-7...b4
Other moves have been tried, but they seem less of a problem.
-8.Ne2
8.Na4 has been played too, but White would rather want to manoevre this knight towards Black's king.
-8...Ba6
"When White is in a bit of a mess" (Scheerer).
However the position reminds me of the so called Alchemy Variation. THere is no bishop on g6 and Black has weakened his/her queenside, so
9.Ng5!? (N) e6 10.O-O Bd6 11.Nf4
And White's attacking chances look sufficient for a forced draw at least.
Only a week ago I borrowed FM Henris' book on the Albin's He disagrees with GM Avrukh and IM Bronznik on some critcal analysis.
ReplyDelete1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.a3 Be6 6.Nbd2 Nge7 7.Nb3 Nf5 8.Qd3 a5 9.Bf4 a4 10.Nbd2 Be7 11.h4 Nxh4 12.Nxh4 Bxh4 13.Nf3 Be7 14.Rxh7 Peng-Middelveld, NEDchW Hilversum 2009, Rxh7 15.Qxh7 Qd7 16.Qxg7 O-O-O 17.Rc1 Na5 18.Nd2 (GM Avrukh) Qc6 with the idea 19..b5 or 19...Qb6. After quite some analysis FM Henris concludes that Black has enough compensation.
There still is 5.Nbd2 though.
I just found out that 5.Nbd2 Nge7 6.Nb3 Nf5 7.e4 dxe3 8.Qxd8+ Nxd8 9.fxe3 g6 may hold. It's practiced by Spanish corr IM JJ Remis Fernandez. Of 17 games (only one OTB, by FM Henris) 16 were drawn.
ReplyDeleteApologies, I haven't checked the comments for a while! My excuse is that 2020 has been a rather tricky year for many of us. I recently had a "thematic" Albin Counter-Gambit game on Chess.com, playing unusually with the white pieces (though I have been venturing 1.d4, 2.c4 more often in recent months), in that line ending in 9.fxe3, and rather misplayed it and lost (I recall that although I objectively got the better position, Black still had a fair amount of pressure for the pawn and cracked and lost the important pawn on e3). Yes, I think Black should be able to hold, although I'm not keen on playing a speculative gambit just to try and hold a draw!
ReplyDeleteRegarding your first post, indeed Christoph Scheerer doesn't mention 6...exf3, but I can find 15 games with it. I haven't had much time to look over it yet but I can confirm that Stockfish agrees with you and "sees" sufficient compensation after 9.Ng5.