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#

King's Gambit, Quaade and Rosentreter lines revisited

I've been busy settling into my new life and job at Exeter recently, so it's been a while without any updates, but I've finally got around to updating my coverage of the Quaade (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3) and Rosentreter (4.d4) Gambits.  The Quaade and Rosentreter approaches are discussed here:
http://tws27.weebly.com/kings-gambit--3nf3-g5-4nc3-4d4.html

I have also provided a separate page with discussion of the "Vienna Gambit" lines that arise from 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3 Nc6, where instead of playing 5.g3, White plays 5.d4 (the Pierce Gambit) or 5.h4 g4 6.Ng5 (the Hamppe-Allgaier Gambit).  Note that John Shaw does not cover either of these lines in his book on the King's Gambit.
http://tws27.weebly.com/kings-gambit-3nf3-g5-vienna-gambit.html
The more usual move-order into those lines is 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.Nf3 g5, which is why I have labelled them as part of the Vienna Gambit.  If you use that move-order you have to be ready for 2...Nf6 intending 3.f4 d5 (but not 3...exf4?!, since 4.e5 leaves the f6-knight without a good retreat square).  Michael Goeller's sadly-discontinued Kenilworthian blog has a discussion on the line ending in 3.f4 d5 for those who are interested.
http://kenilworthian.blogspot.co.uk/ (scroll down past the most recent article and there are a few posts on that Vienna Gambit declined line).

My opinion of most of the lines hasn't changed much since reading through John Shaw's book, but unfortunately he makes quite a strong case against the piece sacrifice line 4.d4 g4 5.Bxf4 gxf3 6.Qxf3 (6...Nc6 being the main antidote, counterattacking against d4, and if 7.Bc4 threatening sacrifices on f7, his suggestion 7...Qh4+ looks good).  I am also less convinced by White's compensation after 4.d4 g4 5.Ne5 Qh4+ 6.g3 fxg3 7.Qxg4 Qxg4 8.Nxg4 than in the analogous line starting with 4.Nc3.  However, to my mind the 4.Nc3 lines are currently holding up well.

One important line that I have not yet got around to looking at is the Fischer Defence (3...d6 intending 4...g5).  In my previous coverage I lumped this and the Becker Defence (3...h6) together with 3...g5, but for my updated coverage I plan to cover them separately (probably sharing the same section) because 3...d6 is particularly important and I need to examine Brabo's coverage of the line as it will probably improve on my earlier analysis.

King's Gambit 3.Nf3 g5 lines revisited- 4.h4 and 4.Bc4

After 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3, Black's most theoretically critical response is to hold onto the f4-pawn by playing an early ...g7-g5.  The most popular way of doing so is with the immediate 3...g5 although there is also a strong case for the Fischer Defence (3...d6 intending 4...g5) which I intend to take a closer look at in the near future.  I may also need to re-examine 3...Nc6 intending 4...g5, which I used to use quite a lot in my own games before being put off by certain lines where White plays a quick d2-d4-d5.  However, 3...Nc6 remains my favourite response to 3.Bc4.

For now my revisits to these lines have focused upon 4.h4 and 4.Bc4.

http://tws27.weebly.com/kings-gambit-3nf3-g5-4h4.html

http://tws27.weebly.com/kings-gambit--3nf3-g5-4bc4.html

Traditionally most often recommended for White during the 1990s was the Kieseritzky Gambit, 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5.

John Shaw has a very extensive analysis of some attractive possibilities for White in the line 5...Nf6 6.Bc4 (best, instead 6.d4 d6 7.Nd3 Nxe4 is difficult for White) 6...d5 7.exd5 Bd6, stemming from some of David Flude's ideas.  I have chosen to just give a few sample lines- those interested in a very extensive analysis would be advised to get his book.  

However, it hasn't added to my enthusiasm for the line because I have seen nothing to change my assessment that 5...Qe7, envisaging a quick queen trade on the e-file, leads to a rather sterile equality, where if anything Black's chances of getting a slight "nibble" (as Mark Hebden used to call it) are greater than White's.  I have seen further evidence of why 5...d6 6.Nxg4 Nf6 7.Nxf6+ Qxf6 is regarded as drawish at high levels of play, though I think that at club level, there is plenty of scope for both sides to go wrong early in the game, so I don't think 5...d6 should bother club players too much.  Finally, there is 5...Nc6!? intending 6.d4 Qf6, which is a good way for Black to get unbalanced and equal play and a fair share of the attacking chances.

Meanwhile the Allgaier Gambit, 5.Ng5, is still looking somewhat dubious, though I can see scope for some players to have a lot of fun with it in casual games, since White does get a strong attack if Black plays inaccurately.  Both 5...f3!? and 5...h6 are looking strong for Black.  Fans of this approach are well-advised to try the Quaade Gambit (4.Nc3) with the aim of reaching the Hamppe-Allgaier Gambit following 4...Nc6 5.h4 g4 6.Ng5, where the inclusion of Nc3 and ...Nc6 improves White's chances.

Then there is 4.Bc4, which often leads to a Hanstein Gambit.

The piece sacrifice line 4...g4 5.0-0 gxf3 6.Qxf3 is still looking quite attractive for White, as long as White meets 6...Qf6 with 7.d3, rather than the further pawn sacrifice 7.e5, which is looking dubious.

However, Black does better to set up the solid f4-g5-h6 pawn chain.  John Shaw has suggested a couple of improvements over my previous analysis of the line 4.Bc4 Bg7 5.d4 d6 6.0-0 Nc6 7.c3 h6 8.Qa4 (which has been recommended and analysed extensively by Stefan Bücker).  The idea of that line is to encourage 8...Bd7 so that 9.Qb3 cannot be met by 9...Qd7.  The main idea is that after 8...Bd7 9.Qb3 Na5 10.Bxf7+ Kf8 11.Qa3 Kxf7 12.Qxa5, Black plays 12...Ne7, completing development, rather than hitting out at White's centre with 12...c5.  While I think Shaw is too dismissive of the line from White's perspective (White does have a strong pawn centre and a safer king to offset Black's better development and bishop-pair) a closer look at the line does suggest that if anyone stands slightly better, it is probably Black.  Alternatively, White can hack around with h2-h4 and b2-b4-b5, raising questions about where Black should put the king, since it is prone to attack on either side of the board, but again with accurate play Black should be able to get the better chances.

A reasonable alternative for Black is 4...Nc6, which often arises from the Bishop's Gambit: 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.Nf3 g5, but it will usually transpose into the same variations.

Thus I am no longer convinced that 4.Bc4 leads to dynamic equality with best play- Black may well be able to eke out a theoretical edge.  However, as I know from experience of playing the black side of these lines, it is far from easy for Black to demonstrate this at club level.

The next area to be revisited will be the Quaade and Rosentreter Gambits with 4.Nc3 and 4.d4, respectively, which I tend to favour from the white side.

King's Gambit Modern Defence

I have been busy recently, away on holiday for two weeks and preparing to start a new job in mid-October (which will mean relocating to Devon from Yorkshire) so progress on my chess site has been quite slow recently.  However, as promised, I have been recapping on my King's Gambit coverage, revising it after taking a close look at John Shaw's enormous book on the opening.  My investigations have started with the Modern Defence: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d5.
http://tws27.weebly.com/kings-gambit-modern-defence.html

In general I think John Shaw may if anything be a little pessimistic from White's point of view in some of the variations, as reading through the book it is not clear if White can even reach equality.  I think that after 4.exd5 Nf6 (which clearly represents best play from both sides), White can get dynamically equal play with 5.c4!?, and that 5.Bb5+ and 5.Bc4 are both sufficient for dynamic equality.  After 5.Bc4 Nxd5 6.0-0 Be6 7.Bb3 c5 (Nakamura-Adams, London Classic 2011) I still think that 8.c4 and 8.d3 are probably good enough for equality, although I don't trust 8.d4 or Nakamura's 8.Kh1.  After 5.Bb5+ best play probably runs 5...c6 6.dxc6 Nxc6 7.d4 Bd6 8.0-0 0-0 9.c4 Bg4 with equal chances.

On the other hand, 5.Nc3 looks dubious (5...Nxd5 6.Nxd5 Qxd5 7.d4 Be7 8.c4 Qe4+, or 6.Bc4 Nxc3 7.dxc3 Qe7+) and I'm not sure that White gets enough for the pawn following 5.Be2!? Nxd5 6.c4 Ne7, intending ...Ng6 defending f4 (Shaw doesn't believe in White's compensation there).

In general though Shaw's coverage is impressively thorough, as he covers 5.c4, 5.Bb5+, 5.Bc4 and 5.Nc3 in considerable depth, and those who are interested in knowing about the ins and outs of the various sidelines would definitely benefit from his chapter on the Modern Defence.  My coverage is rather thinner by comparison but I hope that I have included the most important variations and ideas for both sides.

John Shaw's Kings Gambit book plus a look at the Halloween Gambit

A brief look at the Halloween Gambit

The Halloween Gambit is an aggressive but dubious piece sacrifice in the Four Knights Game, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5?!, which I have used about half a dozen times in casual games at the local chess club (though I would never use it in a serious tournament or match game).

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

White's idea is that after 4...Nxe5 White can strive to crush Black using the central pawns and force Black's knights to retreat to passive positions.  To my mind, the fact that White may objectively only be slightly worse after such a continuation reflects upon how rich in possibilities chess is.  If Black tries to hold onto the extra piece then White generally gets significant (though often not full) compensation for it.  One popular line runs 4...Nxe5 5.d4 Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 Ng6 8.e5 Ng8 9.d6 cxd6 10.exd6, which gives White an imposing pawn on d6.

If Black plays ...Qb6 or ...Qf6 and then plays ...Kd8 to prevent the loss of the a8-rook to Nb5-c7+, then White generally gets good compensation for the sacrificed knight, although there is a flaw in this variation (with 10...Qf6 11.Nb5 Nxf4!, sacrificing the rook on a8, Black gets very good attacking chances).  

The other main accepted line of the gambit is 4...Nxe5 5.d4 Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4.  Here the most critical response is probably Max Euwe's 7...d5 8.Bxd5 c6 (8...N8e7 is also good), where White maintains compensation for the piece but with best play Black should be slightly better.

Thus the Halloween Gambit can be successful in rapid games and is the sort of line that can provide fans of unorthodox openings with a lot of fun.  However, I don't recommend it for use in serious games because Black has various ways to return the piece and reach at least an equal game, the biggest problem being Jan Pinski's suggestion 5...Nc6 6.d5 Bb4, which generally results in Black getting the majority of the attacking chances.  Indeed, even 5...Bd6 6.dxe5 Bxe5 looks at least equal for Black.  I have seen people compare the Halloween Gambit to the Cochrane Gambit, but this issue represents the most important difference between the two- in the Cochrane Black has no way to return the piece early in the game and come close to reaching equality, let alone a better position, and so must hold onto the piece and withstand White's attempts to squeeze Black using the central pawns.

The King's Gambit and John Shaw's book

After this bit of light entertainment, some "heavier" stuff is in order.  I intend to return to the Evans Gambit soon with a look at the declined variations, but for now, I feel it is time to update my coverage of the King's Gambit, especially in view of the large book that came out on the opening by John Shaw, and to expand upon it, as I don't think I got around to covering the declined variations (notably the Falkbeer and 2...Bc5- I have faced 2...Bc5 a few times from the white side recently as well).

My general opinion of the book is favourable- it is an impressively thorough coverage, and Shaw has come up with a number of suggestions for both sides that I hadn't considered, so there is plenty to examine.  He also agrees with me that the Quaade Gambit approach vs. the ...g5 lines (with an early Nf3 followed by Nc3) is probably White's best way to generate unbalanced, open-ended and equal play.  However, on the downside, I think he is too dismissive of some sidelines that fall outside of his main repertoire, most notably the King's Bishop Gambit (I have used 3...Nc6 as my main antidote to 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 for about six years, but I feel that calling it a refutation is too strong- I think White should be able to reach equality in the 4.d4 lines and maybe 4.Nf3 also) and the piece sacrifice lines of the Rosentreter for instance.  

Another important source that I expect to be using is the Chess-Brabo blog, which contains an interesting discussion on the Fischer Defence vs. the Quaade Gambit.  I definitely need to revisit those lines, especially as I sometimes get them from both sides of the board (mainly White, but I've had a couple of games as Black which reached these lines via transposition also).