Unorthodox Openings Newsletter
Issue N. ° 3 – June 2001
Dear
Chessfriends,
Just
a few days after I sent the last issue I began to receive games and analisys from
subscribers and I started working on this new issue. I’m asking all the contributors
to send me the games in pgn so I can attach them to the Newsletter. This is probably the
best innovation of this issue: more pgn games than ever before! Also from now on I’m
sending the Newsletter as zipped file only, according to many subscriber’s request.
Feel free to send your own unorthodox games and analisys to be published in the
Newsletter. As I wrote in issue N° 1 I can’t/don’t want to copyright the
material herein contained. I just ask that if anyone wishes to copy games and analisys
please quote the author of the analisys and the source. Of course if there is an express
request of the writer of the article or if we’re quoting part of a book there’s
a copyright! If you missed any past issue please e-mail me at rozzoni@libero.it
I
wish to thank the following contributors to this issue:
· Andrew
Sutton: He submitted the NOD1.pgn file and analisys and the games you will find in
nodvog.pgn attached. He said he is “On nodvog, Danger UXB and FunnyHaHa. Can Not Lose
was rated 2300 and was Andreii.”
· Earl
Roberts for sending the attached Unoth and unoth2 pgn files;
· Giorgio
Codazza and Lev Zilbermits for their columns;
· Giorgio
Ruggeri Laderchi because he sent me a database about 1.Nh3 and 1…Nh6;
· Johnny
Becker, Frank Bendig and Bernd Graefrath for submitting their games. You’ll see them
in this issue.;
· Hugh
Myers: He sent me some games I’ll put in the next issue. He also outlined my mistake
in the last issue. Contrary to my statement, the variation 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4
4.d5 Ne5 5.f4!? was dealt at page 35 of his ’93 book on the Nimzovich’s defence. Chessfriend Rick Kennedy copied it and you’ll
find it in this issue as well.;
· Stefan
Buecker for sending me 2 copies of his “Kaissiber”. Although it’s a
magazine written in german, it’s a well done work and I recommend it to all
chessplayers. Check www.kaissiber.com
· John
Elburg for reviewing positively the UON in his June books review at his site www.chessmail.com/books
· AJ
Goldsby for his friendship and his great book reviews at his own site www.geocities.com/lifemasterAJ
·
Eric
Schiller. He is a chesswriter and master. You can also find unorthodox games at his site www.chessworks.com
He’s
also the writer of the large book “Unorthodox
Chess Openings”…is there any
reader who wishes to review this book in the next issue? (My friend Hugh…if
you read this…..J
There’s
still a lot of material I’m putting together and I’m including it in the next
newsletter. I’m planning to send it in September, so I’m asking all those who
wish to contribute to send me their games, columns and articles before Aug. 20th
Thanks in advance.
Enjoy
it!!
Davide
Rozzoni
News Section
26) Otto Gombkötö, Ungern (2513) - Johnny Becker, Sverige (2350)
– 2000/2001
Corr. VI European Team Championships/Preliminary Round - Section 2 - Board 5.
1.e4 g6 2.d4 Sf6 3.Sc3 d5 4.e5
Sh5 5.Le2 Sc6 6.Sf3 Lg4 7.h3 Lxf3 8.Lxf3 e6 9.Se2 Sg7 10.c3
h5 11.c4 Dd7 12.cxd5 exd5 13.Sc3 Se7 14.Lg5 c6 15.0-0 Se6
16.Lf6 Lg7 17.Lxg7 Sxg7 18.Se2 Se6 19.Sg3 Dc7 20.Dd2 0-0-0 21.b4
Kb8 22.Tac1 Db6 23.Tfd1 Td7 24.a4 Tc8 25.a5 Dd8 26.a6 b5
27.Ta1 Db6 28.De3 Ka8 29.Ta2 Kb8 30.Dc3 Ka8 31.De3 Draw
Now a few games by Frank Bendig
from the Nimzovich Defense ICCF Thematical Tournament TT 9/99/1,
27) White (Hansson/SWE) - Black (Bendig/D)
1.
e4 Sc6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Lf5 4. Sf3 e6 5. c3 f6 6. Lb5
Dd7 7. 0-0 a6 8. La4
Sge7 9. Te1 Sg6 10. Sbd2 fxe5 11. dxe5 b5 12. Lb3 Lc5 13. a4 La7 14. Lc2 Lxc2 15. Dxc2 0-0
16. axb5 axb5 17. Sb3 Txf3 18.
gxf3 Df7 19. Le3
Scxe5 20. Lxa7 Sxf3+ 21. Kf1 Sf4 22. Le3 Sxh2 23. Kg1 Sf3+ 24. Kf1 Tf8 25. Lxf4 Dxf4 26. De2 Sh2+ 27. Kg2 Sg4 28. Th1 Dg5
29. De6+ Kh8 30.
Kf1 Df4 31. De2 Sxf2 32. Kg2 Dg5+ 33. Kh2 h5 34. Tag1 Dh4+ 35.
Kg2 Sxh1 36. Tf1
Txf1 37. Dxf1 De4+ 38. Df3 Dxf3+ 39. Kxf3 h4 40. Sd4 c5 41. Sxb5 Sg3 42. b4 Se4 43. Kg4 d4
44. cxd4 cxb4 45. Kxh4 Kg8 46. Kg4 b3 47. resigned
(0 - 1)
28) White (Fodor/HUN) - Black (Bendig/D)
1.
e4 Sc6 2. d4 d5 3. Sc3 dxe4 4. Lb5 Dd7 5. d5 a6 6. Lxc6 bxc6 7. Sxe4 cxd5 8. Sc5 Dd6 9.
Le3 e5 10. Sd3 d4 11. Ld2 e4 12. De2 Sf6 13. f3 e3 14. 0-0-0 De6 15. Le1 Dxa2 16. c3 Ld7 17. cxd4
Sd5 18. resigned (0 - 1)
29) White (Bendig/D) - Black (Fodor/HUN)
1.
e4 Sc6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Lf5 4. c3 e6 5. Sd2 Dd7 6. Sf3 Sce7 7. Sh4 Sh6 8. Sb3 Lg4 9. f3 Shf5 10. Sc5
Dc6 11. Db3 0-0-0 12. fxg4 Sxh4 13. Lb5 Db6 14. 0-0 a6 15. La4 Seg6 16. Dxb6 cxb6 17. Sd3 f6 18. exf6 gxf6 19. Txf6 Td6 20. Tf7 resigned (1 - 0)
30) White (Johnsen/DK) - Black (Bendig/D)
1.
e4 Sc6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 Dxd5 4. Sf3 Lg4 5. Sc3 Da5 6. d5 0-0-0 7. Ld2 Sb4 8. Le2 Sf6 9. 0-0 Sbxd5
10. Sb5 Db6 11. Sg5 Le6 12. c4 Sf4 13. Lxf4 Txd1 14. Tfxd1 Ld7 15. Lxc7 Da6 16. Sxf7 De6 17. Sxh8 Lxb5 18.
cxb5 Kxc7 19. Tac1+ Kb6 20. Lc4 Df5 21. Ld3 Dd5
22. Tc8 Dh5 23. Te1
Dd5 24. Lc4 Dd4 25. Te6+ Ka5 26. b6 a6 27. Lf1 Dd5 28. b4+ Kxb4 29. Te3 Sd7 30. Td8 Dc6 31. Ted3 Sc5 32. a3+ Ka5 33. Tc3 Kxb6 34. Txf8 Dd5 35. Tf7
Dd8 36. Tf5 Se4 37. Te3 Dc8 38. Tf7 Sd6 39. Txg7
Dxh8 40. Texe7
Kc5 41. Txh7
Da1 42. Th6 Dxa3 43. Tc7+ Kd5 44. Td7 b5 45.
Thxd6+ Dxd6 46. Txd6 Kxd6 47. Lxb5 axb5 48. Kf1 b4 49. Ke2 resigned (1 - 0)
31) White (Bendig/D) - Black (Johnsen/DK)
1.
e4 Sc6 2. d4 d5 3. dxe5 Sxe5 4. Sf3 Df6 5. Sxe5 Dxe5 6. Ld3 d5 7. De2 dxe4 8. Lxe4 De6 9. 0-0 Sf6
10. Te1 Sxe4 11. Dxe4 Dxe4 12. Txe4 Le6 13. Sc3 Lc5 14. b4 Lb6 15. Sa4 0-0 16. Lf4 Tad8
17. h3 h6 18. Tae1 g5 19. Sxb6 cxb6 20. Le3 Tc8 21. a3 Txc2 22. h4 Tfc8 23. hxg5 hxg5 24.
Lxg5 Kg7 25. Lh4 T2c4 26. Txc4 Txc4 27. Lg3 draw
(½ - ½)
32) White (Decallone/FRA) - Black (Bendig/D)
1.
e4 Sc6 2. d4 d5 3. Sc3 dxe4 4. d5 Sb8 5. Lc4 Sf6 6. Lf4 Lf5 7. Sb5 Sa6 8. Se2 e6
9.
dxe6 Lxe6 10. Lxe6 fxe6 11. Dxd8+ Txd8 12. Sxc7 + Sxc7 13. Lxc7 Tc8 14. Le5 Sg4 15. Lc3 Lc5 16. Sf4 Ke7 17. 0-0 Thf8 18. Sh3 e3 19. Kh1 exf2 20. Lxg7 Tf5 21. Lc3 e5
22. resigned (0 - 1)
33) White (Bendig/D) - Black (Decallone/FRA)
1.
e4 Sc6 2. d4 e5 3. dxe5 Sxe5 4. Sf3 Df6 5. Sxe5 Dxe5 6. Ld3 Lc5 7. De2 Sf6 8. f4 De7 9. e5 Sd5 10.
a3 d6 11. De4 De6 12. c4 f5 13. Dxd5 resigned (1 -
0)
34) White (Bendig/D) - Black (Lim/AUS)
1.
e4 Sc6 2. d4 e5 3. dxe5 Sxe5 4. Sf3 Lb4+ 5. c3 Sxf3+ 6. Dxf3 Lc5 7. Dg3 Sf6 8. e5 Sh5 9.
Df3 g6 10. Lh6
Lf8 11. Lc4 De7 12. Lxf8 Txf8 13. 0-0 Dxe5 14. Sd2 Df6 15. Tfe1 Kd8 16. De3 Sf4 17. Se4
De5 18. Tad1 h6 19. g3 Sh3+ 20. Kg2 Sg5 21. Sxg5 Dxg5 22. Dd4 f5 23. Te6 resigned (1 - 0)
35) White (Lim/AUS) -
Black (Bendig/D)
1.
e4 Sc6 2. Sf3 e5 3. Lb5 De7 4. 0-0 Sd8 5. Sc3 c6 6. Lc4 d6 7. d4 Lg4 8. Lg5 f6 9.
Le3 exd4 10. Lxd4 Se6 11. Le3 Sg5 12. Lxg5 fxg5 13. Le2 Lxf3 14. Lxf3 g6 15. Te1 Lg7 16. Dd3 Sh6 17. Tad1 Sf7 18. Le2 0-0 19. Dc4 Kh8 20. Td2 Se5 21. Db3 g4 22. Sb1 Tf4 23. Lf1 Taf8 24. Ted1 Tf3 25. Db4 c5 26. Da5 Df7 27. Txd6 Txf2 28. De1 Df4 29. resigned (0 - 1)
Frank explains: “This last game against the Australian has changed into a
"Spanish Opening (Ruy Lopez)" with the not often used move 3. …De7!?
inspired by an idea which
I`d found in Schlenker’s "RANDSPRINGER". I had played this variation twice,
and both successful (a third one was withdrawn by the White player from
Russia after six moves and the fourth one have just started in the European
Tournament EU/H/1326). Here is the second one played at the BdF-Tournament
I/246 E in 1994:
36) White (Kellner/D) - Black (Bendig/D)
1.
e4 e5 2. Sf3 Sc6 3. Lb5 De7 4. 0-0 Sd8 5. Sc3 c6 6. La4 d6
7. h3 g6 8. Lb3 Lg7 9. c3 Sh6 10. Le3 f6 11. c4 Sf7 12. Re1 0-0 13. Sc3 Le6 14. c5 dxc5
15. d5 cxd5 16. exd5 Ld7 17. d6 De8 18. Lxc5 Se6 19. Le3 Lc6 20. Sd5 Kh8 21. Se7 Lxf3 22.
Dxf3 Sxd6 23. Sxg6+
Dxg6 24. Dd5 Sg5 25. Dxd6 Sf3+ 26. Kh1 Sxe1 27. Txe1 f5 28. Db4 b6 29. Lc2
Tad8 30. a3 Tg8 31. Tg1 Df6 32. Tb1 f4 33. Lc1 Td4 34. De1 f3 35. g3 Tc8 36. Lb3 Df5 37. Le3 Dxh3+ 38. resigned (0 - 1)
1.g4 d5 2.h3
c6 3.Bg2 e5 4.d3 Ne7 5.Nf3 Qd6 6.Nc3 Ng6 7.e4 d4 8.Ne2 Be6 9.Bd2 h6 10.Ng3 Na6 11.Nf5 Qd7
12.h4 f6 13.h5 Ne7 14.N3h4 0-0-0 15.0-0 Rg8 16.f4 exf4 17.Bxf4 g5 18.hxg6 Nxg6 19.Nxg6
Rxg6 20.Kf2 Re8 21.Rh1 Qd8 22.Bf3 Nc5 23.a4 Nd7 24.a5 Ne5 25.a6 b6 26.Rh5 Qc7 27.Ke2 c5
28.Qh1 Qd7 29.Bxh6 Bxh6 30.Rxh6 Rxh6 31.Qxh6 Bxf5 32.gxf5 Qxf5 33.exf5 Ng4+ 34.Kd2 Nxh6
35.Rh1 Rh8 36.c3 Nf7 37.Rxh8+ Nxh8 38.Bd5 dxc3+ 39.Kxc3 Kd7 40.Kc4 Kd6 41.Be6 ½-½
Now
some unorthodox games from Bernd Graefrath
39)
Arnaud Lafolie - Bemd Gràfrath (1999-2000) -ICCF-TT 14/99/1
1.
g4 e5 2. Lg2 h5 3. gxh5 Dg5 4. Lf3 Dh4 5. Sc3 Sf6 6. e4 Lc5 7. d4 Lxd4 8. De2
Lxc3+
9. bxc3 Sxh5 10. Le3 Sc6 11. Le3 Sc6 12. Dd3 d6 13. Se2 Lg4 14. Lxg4 Sxg4
15.
f4 Sxe3 16. Dxe3 exf4 17. Sxf4 0-0-0 18. Kb2
Tde8 19. Td5 g5 20. Sg2 Dxe4 21.Dxe4 Txe4 22. Txg5 Th3 23. Tg3 Txg3 24. hxg3 Tg4 25. Th3
Se5 26. Se3 Sc4+ 27. Sxc4 Txe4 28. Th7
Tg4 29. Txf7 Txg3 30. Th7 Tg4 31. Tf7 b5 32. Th7 Kb7 33. resigns 0-1.
40)
Ludwig Rover — Bemd Gràfrath (1998-1999) [BdF-AK 16221:
1.
b4 c6 2. Lb2 a5 3. a3 axb4 4. axb4 Txa1 5. Lxa1
Db6 6. c3 e5 7. d3 d5 8. Sf3 Ld6
9.d4
e4 10. Sd2 e3! 11. fxe3 Sf6 12. Sf3 Dc7 13. Se5 Sbd7 14. Sd2 Sxe5 15. dxe5 Lxe5
16.
Sf3 Lg3+! 17. hxg3 Dxg3+ 18. Kd2
Se4+ 19. Kc1 Sf2 20. Dd4
Sxh1 21. c4 Sf2
22.cxd5
cxd5 23. Dxg7 Dxg7 24. Lxg7
Tg8 25. Lf6 Se4 26. Lh4 Sg3 27. Lxg3 Txg3
28.b5
Ld7 29. Sd4 Tg6 30. Kd2 Tf6! 31. Ke1 Tb6 32. e4 Lxb5 33. e5 Lc4 34. g4 Tb1+
35.Kf2
b5 36. Lg2 b4 37. e4 Tb2+ …(White resigned much later!) O-1.
In
the following game, Bernd played against one of the most famous Sokolsky-players of all
time :
41)
Bernd Gràfrath - Rudolf Diener (1999) [SOK-99/133]
1.
b4 e5 2. Lb2
f6 3. e4 Lxb4 4. Lc4
Sh6 5. c3 La5 6. Dh5+ Kf8 7. f4 d6 8. f5 De8 9. De2 Ld7 10. Sf3 b5 11. Lb3
Sa6 12. La3 Sc5 13. 0-0 Lb6 14. Kh1 Lc6 15. Lc2 g6 16.
d4
exd4 17. e5 d3 18. Lxd3 Sxd3 19. Dxd3 Sxf5 20. Sd4
Lxd4 21. cxd4 b4 22. Txf5
gxf5
23. Lxb4 Le4 24. Dh3 Db5 25. Sc3 Dxb4 26. Sxe4 Dxd4 27. Dh6+ Ke8 28. Sxf6+
Kf7
29. e6+ Kxe6 30. Te1+ Kf7 31. Sxh7
resigns 1-0.
If
you are interested in 1.b4 you should visit Marek Trockenheim’s web site at www.algonet.se/~marek
There you can find almost everything about the
Sokolsky.
Just a few days before sending this issue I received this e-mail from Rick Kennedy:
I was looking at your Newsletter #2, in the article on the Nimzovich Defense. I have 3 of Hugh Myers' books on that defense, the latest from 1993. On page 35 I notice that it _does_ have coverage of the line 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 de 4.d5 Ne5 5.f4
He gives
*
5...Ng6
6.Bb5+ (6.Nxe4 e6 7.Bb5 Bd7 8.Qe2 e5, Rawlings - Wisham; seem GAME #44; 6.Nh3 Nf6 7.Nf2
a6, Englund - Leeners, corres ICCF-Cup III. I suggest 6...Bxh3 7.gxh3 a6, then e5 or e6,
or 8.f5 Nh4 and Nf3+ or Nxh5) 6...Bd7 7.f5 (Povah) 7...Ne5 (7...Nh4!? 8.Qg4 Nxf5
9.Qxf5 c6 unclear; 8.g4 h5) 8.Qd4 (8.Bf4 Bxb5 9.Nxb5 a6 10.Nc3 Nc4 11.Nxe4 +/-)
8...Bxb5 9.Nxb5 (9.Qxe5) 9...a6 10.Nc3 Nd7 +/unclear. The preceeding is mainly an
abridgement of an analysis by Adam Raoof, whou highly recommends 5.f4. Looking for a
similar answer to it, I suggest 5...Nd7 6.Nxe4 (6.Bb5 a6 7.Bxd7+ Qxd7 8.Nse4 e6; 6.Be3
Ngf6 7.g4 Nb6 8.Bxb6 cxb6 9.g5 Nd7 10.Qd4 nc5 11.b4 Na6 +/- [1-0, 35] Schenning - de Kort,
corres, Netherlands 1982. That's a dangerous gambit, so I suggest 6...Ndf6, then Nh6-f5)
6...Ngf6 (Kapitaniak) 7.Nxf6+ (7.Nc3 Nb6 -/+) 7...Nxf6 8.Bc4 Bg4 (8...c6!?) 9.Nf3 Qd7 with
the idea of 0-0-0.
*
The
reference to Kapitaniak may be to Kapitaniak's 1982 book Nimzovich Defense.
GAME
#44 (which you included in your Nimzo pgn file) is given in the back of Myers' book, with
Myers' notes:
*
B.Rawlings
- C Wisham, Canada-Japan corres 1984
1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.d5 Ne5 5.f4 Ng6 6.Nxe4 e6 7.Bb5+ Bd7 8.Qe2 e5! 9.f5 [9.fxe5
looks better, e.g. 9...Qh4+ 10.g3 Bxb5 11.Qxb5+ c6 12.Qe2! Steve Gordon] 9...N6e7 10.d6
Nc6 11.Bg5 Nf6 12.dxc7 Qxc7 13.Nxf6+ gxf6 14.Bxf6 Rg8 15.Bxc6 Bxc6 16.Bxe5 Rxg2 17.Qe3?
Bh6! 18.Bf4+ Qe7 19.Qxe7+ Kxe7 20.Nh3 [20.Bxh6 Rxc2 21.Nf3 Bxf3-/+ B] 20...Bxf4
0-1 [ 21.Nxf4 Rxc2 with the idea Rxh2 Rad8-d2]
*
I
do not know anything more about the Englud - Leeners game. Of couse, you have the
Schenning - de Kort game in your pgn file, too.
Hope
this helps your study of this line.
Rick
Thank
you Rick. I was wrong indeed when I said in the previous issue that the above mentioned
line was not contained in Myers’ 1993 book on the Nimzowitch defense. Hugh Myers
(whom I’m sending a printed copy of the Newsletters) also highlighted it. I’m
sorry. Also I must say that the above mentioned analysis are copyrighted by Hugh Myers.
In
issue N° 2 I anticipated a column/article on the Hippopotamus or the Krazy Cat (Not Crazy
Cat as Hugh Myers corrected me). I’ve been quite busy in these months so…these
are just a few thoughts:
The Hippopotamus and the Krazy Cat
See also MOB Vol. 2
Number 2 (N° 14) February - March 1981.
E.J. Diemer e il gambetto Herrstrom
1.Nf3 g5 ?! di Giorgio Codazza |
Per chi gioca aperture non ortodosse il nome di Emil Josef Diemer nonché papà del gambetto Diemer (accoppiato al nome di Blackmar il primo a giocare il tratto 2.e4 dopo 1.d4 d5 ma che proseguiva dopo 2…de con 3.f3? e5!) da lui impostato correttamente con il tratto 3.Nc3! con l’idea 4.f3! non ha bisogno di presentazioni. Per la precisione il tratto corretto 3.Nc3! fu introdotto dal giocatore tedesco Von Popiel con l’idea dopo 3…Nf6 4 Bg5 come lo stesso Diemer ci segnala nel suo bel libro “Vom Ersten zug an auf Matt” Più o meno tradotto: dalla prima mossa fino al matto. Nel 1984 E.J.D. rispose per ben quattro volte a 1.Nf3 con il tratto che definire azzardato è forse poco 1…g5?!. Lo scompiglio che Diemer creò fu notevole, visto il risultato ottenuto di tre vittorie e una sconfitta per il nero. E’ inutile e di nessun interesse impostare una discussione sulla correttezza o meno del gambetto, sta di fatto che sicuramente un pregio come fattore sorpresa deve averlo avuto contro i suoi avversari. E’ interessante notare che il tratto 1…g5?! Taglia la testa al toro, il nero prendendosi dei rischi notevolissimi (non ultimo quello di eventuali commenti poco carini in caso di sconfitta) imposta la partita sul proprio terreno, senza possibilità di ritorno.
Penso inoltre di soddisfare (parzialmente) una domanda che ogni ammiratore di Diemer si è posto. Cosa giocava Diemer con il nero?
Un ciao a tutti alla prossima.
Streng-Diemer Cham Bayerwald Open 1984
1.Nf3 g5?! 2.Ng5 e5 3.d4 h6 4.Nf7(una possibilità interessante per il bianco che
distrugge il lato di re avversario) Kf7
5.e4 (ha compenso il bianco per il
pezzo?) Qh4!(credo di no, dopo questa mossa che difende il nero da
eventuali escursioni della donna nemica nel lato di re) 6.Bc4 Ke8 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Nc3 (8.d5 Nb8=+ se 8…Qe4 9.Qh5 Kd8 10.Nd2 Qc2
11.dc6 e il bianco sta bene) Nd4 9.Nd5 c6?(un errore serio dopo 9…Ne6 10.Re1 h5 o 10…c6 con l’idea di attivare
i pezzi, è duro per il bianco dimostrare che esiste compenso per il materiale
sacrificato) 10.Nc7
Kd8 11.Na8 d5(se 11…Nf6 12.c3 Nb5
13.Bb5 cb 14.f3 +-) 12.c3,Bg4
13.f3,Nf3 14.Rf3(vinceva 14.gf3 con
idea 15.Bd5 dopo il tratto del testo il nero rientra in gioco)Bc5 15.Kh1 Bf3 16.Qf3(migliore era 16.gf Bf6 17.ed Qc4 18.dc Ke7)Qe1?!(16…Nf6! 17.ed Ng4 18.Bf4 Nf2 19.Kg1 ef 20.b4 con
vantaggio nero)17.Qf1
Qh4?(un’altra imprecisione,
comunque anche dopo 17…Qf1 18.Bf1 Nf6 19.ed cd il bianco sta bene)18.Bd2 (buona anche 18.Be3 Be3 19.Qf8 Kd7 20.ed Qc4 21.Qf5 Kd8
22.dc Qc6 23.Rd1 Bd4 24.Qf8 Qe8 con netto vantaggio del bianco)dc4 19.Be3 Be3?(19…Bd6 20.Rd1 Ke7 21.Qc4 Nf6 +-)20.Qf8 Kd7 21.Rd1 Bd4 22.cd4 Qg4 23.Rf1!
Rh7(la presa in d4 prende matto
23…ed4?? 24.Rf7 Ke6 25.Nc7[si sveglia il cavallo dormiente!]Ke5 26.Qe8 Kd6 27.e5 Kc5
28.Qf8 Ne7 29.Qe7 Kb6 30.Qb4 matto!)24.de5 Ne7 25.Qb8 Rf7 26.Qd6 Ke8 27.Nc7
Kf8 28.Qd8! Kg7 29.Rf7 Kf7 30.Qe8 il nero
abbandona 1-0
Stengelin-Diemer Oberndorf
1984
1.Nf3 g5 2.Ng5 e5 3.d3(una possibilità interessante) d5 4.e4 d4 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 h5(chiarendo subito, se ancora ce ne fosse bisogno,
che il nero non starà a guardare!)7.h4 f6 8.Nh3 Be6 9.Bf3 Bf7 10.0-0 Qd7
11.Kh2 0-0-0 12.Bg2 Be6 13.f4 Nh6(con
idea: Ng4-e3)14.f5
Ng4 15.Kh1 Bf7 16.Bf3 Ne3 17.Be3 de 18.Be2 Rg8 19.Kh2 Nd4 20.Rg1(se 20.Bh5 Bh5 21.Qh5 e2 con il nero che vince),Bh6 21.Bf1(non va neanche 21.Bh5 Bh5 22.Qh5 Rh8 con
prevalenza del nero)Rg4 22.c3 e2 23.Be2 Ne2 24.Qe2 Qd3
25.Qd3 Rd3 26.Nf2 Be3 27.Nd3 Bg1 28.Kg2 Bb6 29.Kf3 c6 30.Na3=(il bianco stava leggermente meglio dopo 30.Nd2!? +=) Re4 31.Re1?!(il bianco manteneva l’equilibrio dopo 31.Nc5!
con idea 32.Ne4=)Rg4
32.c4 Bc4 33.Nc4 Rc4 34.Ne5 (non
salvava neppure 34.Re4 Rc2 35.b4 -+)fe5 35.Re5 Rc5 il bianco abbandona 0-1
Stohr-Diemer Grisbach
1984
1.Nf3 g5 2.Ng5 e5 3.d4 h6 4.Nf7(4.Nf3 e4 5.Nfd2 d5) Kf7 5.e4 (5.de!? Qh4 6.Qd5 Kg7 7.e4),Qh4! 6.Bc4 Ke8 7.0-0 d6 8.de (8.f4
Nd7),Cc6!=(8…de!?9.Qd5 Nd7) 9.g3
Qg410.f3 (10.ed Bd6 11.Bb5 Nge7+=)Qh3 11.ed Bd6 12.e5?!(migliore era 12.Qd5 Ne5 13.Bb5 Ke7 14.Bf4=)Ne5 13.Re1 Ne7 14.Bb5 c6 15.Bf1
Qh5 16.Be2?!(16.Bg2 Bc5)Bc5 17.Kh1 Be6(17…Bf2 18.Rg1 Bg1 19.Kg1 Be6)
18.Bf4
Rd8 19.Nd2 Rd2!!(19…Bd5 20.Be5 Qe5 21Bd3-+)20.Bd2
(20.Qd2? Nf3 21.h4 Bd5 22.Bf3 Qf3 23.Kh2 Bf2-+)Bd5
21.Kg2 Rf8 22.Bf4 Rf4! 23.gf4 Qg4(23…Nf3 24.Bf3 Qg4 25.Kf1 Bc4 26.Qd3 Qf3
matto!)24.Kh1 Nf3! Il bianco abbandona 0-1
NN-Diemer
Baden-Baden 1984
1.Nf3 g5 2.Ng5 e5 3.d4 h6 4.Nf3 e4 5.Ne5 d6 6.Nc4 b5(una caccia spietata al cavallo) 7.Ne3 d5 8.c4 (8.c3!?) bc4 9.Nc3 c6 10.g3 Ne7 11.Ng2 f5 (11…Bg7 12.Nf4 Rg8 13.Bg2=) 12.Bf4 Bg7 13.f3? (13.e3!?) Qb6! 14.e3? (14.Rc1-+) Qb2 (14…ef315.Nh4 Qb2) 15.Rc1?? (15.Qc1 Qc1 16.Rc1 ef3 17.Nh4 il nero sta meglio) ef3 16.Nh4 f2 matto! 0-1
Blackburne’s Shilling Gambit
1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4?!
|
Chapters:
· Introduction
· Miscellaneous moves after 4.Nxe5 Qg5
· White gets greedy 4.Nxe5 Qg5 5.Nxf7?
· White Tries 5.Bxf7+
· Tartakower’s 5…Kd8!
· White declines the gambit
· Conclusion
Chapter 1
I expect most of you have seen the 3.Nd4-move, and probably remember that 4.Nxe5 is not such a good idea. The purpose of this paper is not to argue that’s Black’s third move is sound, merely giving some useful lines for beginners and coffeehouse players. So if your not going to play this as Black, then there is no reason for you to continue reading.
As for the rest of you, who have nothing better to do, here goes:
The current state of this gambit is as follows: Black gets at least a clear advantage if White accepts the gambit pawn, and the opposite is the case if White declines the gambit…hence the “?!”-mark. This is why this opening is considered more of a trap than a gambit.
I’ve got hold of 292 games (not counting my own). Black won 45% of these! The problem is that the gambit seems to be declined in 77% of the games, in these games black has an uneasy game. In the Accepted lines however White won 80%, but after reading this, your score should be 100%!
Another problem with this gambit is that it’s
usually employed by weak players, so it’s hard to find any interesting games to base
any analyses on.
I would like to comment on one other thing, the numerous names of this gambit:
· “Oh My God!-Trap” G.
Burgess gives this funny name his “The Mammoth Book of Chess”. Black should
burst out “Oh my god! You can take my pawn!” after his third move, and then hope
for the best.
· “Blackburn-Schilling Gambit” This
seems to be the accepted name of the Gambit. In some books, this name refers to the entire
seven-move mate. One gets the impression that the origin of this gambit is from a game
between B. and S. Where S. played it on the
Great B.
· “Blackburn Schilling Gambit” Maybe both B. and S. worked on this Gambit?
· “Schilling Gambit” Or maybe S. is the inventor?
· “Schilling-Kostic Gambit” What happened to B.?
· “Shilling Gambit” How does one spell S. again?
By now you probably think: “Oh my
god, this entire Gambit is just a pile of BS”, …and your
probably right. Anyway the correct name of
this Gambit (IMHO) should be
·
“Blackburne’s
Shilling Gambit” The
inventor of Black’s strange third move was Joseph Henry Blackburne (1941-1924), who
used to trap café visitors with this line for a shilling a stake.
Chapter 2
After 4.Nxe5 Qg5, White has tried (with no success):
· 5.c3 Qxg2 6.Rf1 Qxe4+ 7.Be2
Nc2+ 0-1 Kozelek, K – Holzmann, H. Germany. 1929.
· 5.Nd3?? Qxg2 6.Rf1 Qxe4+ 7.Qe2 Qxe2# Choate, E.-Moceri, P. Detroit. 1994.
· 5.Ng4 d5!
A) 6.Be2 Nxe2 7.Qxe2
Bxg4 8.f3 Bd7
9.ed+ Qe7 with a clear advantage to Black Pirinen-Aarnio.
Finland. 1993.
B)
6.Bxd5 Qxg4
7.Qxg4 Bxg4 8.Bb3 Be7 with a clear
advantage to Black Leite, C.-
Benaissa, I. Bratislava WchJW-U10. 1993.
C) 6.h3 dc -+ Vaupotic,
M.-Samaganova, A. Szeged. 1994.
D) 6.d3 Qxg4 -+ Boyer,
M.-,Moceri, P. East Lansing. 1993.
Chapter 3
Here is what might happen if White gets greedy, with 4.Nxe5 Qg5 5.Nxf7?
Qxg2!:
· 6.d3 Qxh1+ 7.Kd2 Qg2 8.Nxh8 Qxf2+ 1- 0 Kozelek, K.-Holzmann, H. Germany. 1929.
· 6.Nxh8 Qxh1+ 7.Bf1 Qxe4+ 8.Be2 d5 9.d3 Nf3+ 10.Kf1 Bh3# Mueller, D-Pieper, S. Eppingen. 1988.
· 6.Rf1 Qxe4+ 7.Be2 Nf3# This is the famous mate, witch many players have fallen for, the first known game is: Mühlock-Kostitsch. Cologne. 1912.
· 6.Nd6+ (a rather desperate move) 6…Bxd6 7.Qh5+ g6 8.Bf7+ and now according to Schiller, Black should have played 8…Kf8 -+, in Bjerke, S.-Vaideslaver, O. Rimavska Sobota. 1992.
Chapter 4
After 4.Nxe5 Qg5, White’s best try is 5.Bxf7, and after 5…Ke7?! White has
· 6.f4? Qxg2 7.Rf1 Qxe4+ 8.Kf2
Qxf4+ 9.Kg2 (9.Kg1? Qxe5) 9…Qe4+ 10.Nf3 Kxf7
11.Nc3 Qc6
-+
· 6.0-0! Qxe5 7.Bxg8 Rxg8 8.c3 This seems to be the only way for white to accept this gambit, and after 8…Nc6 9.d4 Qf6 The position is unclear according to Schiller. Keres on the other hand seems to think White has adequate compensation. The problem with this line is that there is only one known game (not counting my own) played in this line: Chandler, G-some schoolboy (11 or 12). Simul. Stockbridge. 1983. (Need I say more?).
Chapter 5
In Kaissiber 7, Stefan Bücker gives some interesting lines from Tartakower’s “Hypermoderne
Schachpartie”. It seems like the lines in the previous chapter are irrelevant,
because Back can play the simple 5…Kd8! (after 4.Nxe4 Qg5 5.Bf7+), and get a clear
advantage:
· 6.0-0 Qxe5 7.c3 Nc6 8.d4 Qf6 9.Bxg8 Rxg8 10.e5 Qg6
· 6.Ng4 Nh6! 7.c3 Nc2+! 8.Qxd2 Qxg4 9.Bc4 Qxg2 10.Rf1 Ng4 11.f3 Ne3!
Chapter 6
As we have seen in the previous chapters, grabbing the e5 pawn is actually loosing for White! The best, safest and easiest way to meet this gambit is by declining it with the simple 4.Nxd4! (4.0-0 and 4,c3 are also playable) 4…ed, play might continue with:
· 5.c3!? dc (5…Bc5? 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Qh5+ +-) 6.Nxc3 d6 7.d4 with a slight advantage to White, Unzicker
· 5.0-0 with a clear advantage to white according to NCO, play might continue 5…d6 (5…Bc5? 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Qh5+ Kf8 8.Qxc5+ d6 9.Qxd4 +-) 6.f4 Nf6 7.d3 with the plan of playing c3.
Please excuse me for not having time (Rozzoni’s deadline is to day!) to look into 4.Bxf7+, although I doubt White has enough for his piece after 4…Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke6
Chapter 7
Here is a quote from Schiller
(http://www.chessworks.com/): “The Shilling Gambit (aka Blackburne - Shilling Gambit)
is a waste of a pawn. Unlike the Bird Variation of the Spanish Game, Black here gives up a
pawn in addition to wasting time with the knight…”
After playing thru the lines given in this
paper, I’m sure you would conclude otherwise. Black may be wasting a tempo, but the
pawn on the other hand, is another story. Schiller
also seems to forget to mention that there are other moves for White than 4.Nxe5, this is rather strange as the lines in the
above chapter seem to back his view on this gambit , more than the lines he give himself!
Although there are no forced wins for white in the declined variations, it’s a
hard to play with the black pieces. Well…what can I say, don’t try this in
tournaments, it’s fun to try once in while in Internet blitz games, and I’ve
actually beaten a couple of 2000+ rated
players with it... but that’s about it.
I hope I gave all you “2.Qh4-internet-blitz-patzers” something new to toy
around with, as for the rest of you, I apologise for wasting your time… I just hope
you think twice about eating that pawn if someone ever offers it to you.
If you have any comments or questions, please contact me at vallepaul@hotmail.com
If you’re interested in exploring
this gambit further, there are serious thematic tournaments going on at: http://public.kubsu.ru/~usr03384/tgt040en.html
I would also like to thank Stefan Bücher, John Elburg, Davide Rozzoni and Thomas Stock for bothering to supply me with games,
lines and analyses.
I’m also grateful for Henri Muller & William Palmkoek decision to
publish my “Fegatello Attack”-paper in “L’Echiquier Belge”,
nr.594. The same goes for Franco Pezzi, who is
going to use it on the next Gambitingly CD Rom.
Paul Valle
| You can download games in PGN here |
 |
|
- |
