Chess Wiki
Advertisement

LightPawnThis article is a stub. Please help us by improving or adding on to it.

a b c d e f g h
8 a8 r b8 n c8 b d8 q e8 k f8 b g8 n h8 r 8
7 a7 p b7 p c7 p d7 p e7 f7 p g7 p h7 p 7
6 a6 b6 c6 d6 e6 f6 g6 h6 6
5 a5 b5 c5 d5 e5 p f5 g5 h5 5
4 a4 b4 c4 d4 e4 P f4 P g4 h4 4
3 a3 b3 c3 d3 e3 f3 g3 h3 3
2 a2 P b2 P c2 P d2 P e2 f2 g2 P h2 P 2
1 a1 R b1 N c1 B d1 Q e1 K f1 B g1 N h1 R 1
a b c d e f g h
The King's Gambit. [365chess]

The King's Gambit is an opening played by white, to gain control of the center and have the better position leading into the middle game. This Gambit has two main variations - Accepted and Declined. It starts with

  1. e4 e5
  2. f4

There are many variations to deal with. Here are the most known ones, that are the most played:

King's Gambit Declined[]

The second most popular response to the King's Gambit, in which black doesn't take the sacrificed pawn. It responds with

2... Bc5

And the game usually continues with 3. Nf3 d6 4. Nc3 ...Qf6 5. Bc4 Nc6 6. d3 Bg4 7. h3 - variant of Svenonius.

King's Gambit Accepted[]

The most popular response to a King's Gambit, in which black plays exf4, taking the pawn and accepting the gambit. Here is a variation of the continuing the game:

  1. Nf3 ; g5
  2. Bc4 ; g4
  3. O-O ; gxf3
  4. Nc3 ; fxg2
  5. Bxf7+ ; Kxf7
  6. Rxf4+ ; ...Ke8
  7. Qh5+ ; Ke7
  8. Qe5#

Strategy[]

The King's Gambit seeks to clear away Black's central pawn to build his (her) own dominating center. The possibilities on the open f-file and mating attacks against f7 have resulted in many brilliant victories for the White side. In the early 1600s Gioacchiono Greco won many wonderful games, giving the opening a strong reputation. The view that the King's Gambit was a bold, courageous, and sound opening persisted for more than two more centuries. The mid-nineteenth century brought a dawning awareness that some gambit lines were probably unsound, more likely to lead to a forced loss than a forced win. Players then began to seek positional rather than tactical benefits from an opening. By the time of the first official World Championship match between Steinitz and Zuckertort in 1886 the King's Gambit was already in eclipse; the six World Championship matches played between 1886 and 1896 featured only a single King's Gambit. In the twentieth century chess saw a great leap in positional understanding, such as seen in the rigorously sound play of the great World Champion José Capablanca. Capablanca and others were disdainful of the speculative King's Gambit and regard for the opening sank further. Bobby Fischer’s famous article from the 1960s “A Bust to the King’s Gambit” should have put the opening to rest, yet the opening has refused to die. There are always adventurous tactical players who revel in the wild positions that occur. Many of the greatest players of the twentieth century found occasion to use it—Alekhine, Keres, Tal, Fischer (despite his article) and Spassky, who scored truly brilliant victories with it. In the early twenty-first century most grandmasters use the King’s Gambit only as a surprise weapon, though Fedorov still makes regular use of it. Players cannot count on an opening advantage with the King’s Gambit, but they can certainly count on a lively game where often both kings come under fire, Black has four ways to react to 2 f4: (1) accept and hold the pawn; (2) accept and return the pawn; (3) decline the pawn; (4) offer a countergambit.

Columns 1—24 deal with 2...exf4. The first six columns cover 3...g5, supporting the f4 pawn and taking kingside territory. These columns include the Kieseritzky, Philidor, Hanstein, and Muzio lines, of which the Kieseritzky Gambit sees more use today.

Black's less usual third moves are the subject of columns 7—12. They include 3... d6 (the Becker Defense), 3... Ne7, and 3... Nf6. The first two of these are particularly reasonable choices.

Black returns the pawn immediately with 3 ...d5 4 exd5 (columns 13-16). With 3...Be7 (columns 17—18) Black prepares to deliver check on h4.

Moves other than 3 Nf3 are covered in columns 19-24, including the King's Bishop Gambit, 3 Bc4 (columns 19-20). In these lines White allows .. . Qh4t, but the check is double-edged since the black queen may lose time retreating.

Black refuses the pawn and gambits one himself with the vigorous 2...d5, the Falkbeer Counter Gambit (columns 25-30), see above diagram. The reasoning is to quickly develop and highlight the weakening of White's kingside from 2 f4. Both 3... e4 and Nimzovich's 3... c6 are investigated. The choice of this countergambit may be for psychological or stylistic reasons. Some players love to have the initiative, and it can be unsettling to have to defend a pawn up instead of attacking a pawn down.

The King's Gambit Declined is covered in columns 31—36. The usual move to decline the gambit is 2...Bc5, see above diagram (columns 31-35), as White would lose immediately after 3 dxe5? Qh4t. Declining the gambit avoids wild tactics and complications, but gives White more chances for the advantage than the gambit accepted lines.

Games[]

1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 З МЗ g5[]

(a) 5 Ng5 is Allgaier’s piece sacrifice. The line 5 . . . d5 (5 . . . h6 6 Nxf7 Kxf7 7 d4 f3 8 Be3 d5 9 Nc3 is not so clear) 6 d4 f6 7 Nh3 f3 8 Nf4 dxe4 is good for Black, Monin-Korolev, corr. 1986—88.

(b) (A) 6 Bc4 d5 7 exd5 Bd6 8 d4Nh5 (8 . . . 0-0 9 Bxf4 Nh5 10 g3 =) 9 0-0 (9 Bb5t Kf8 7) 9...0-0 (9... Qxh4 10 Qe1 =) 10 Nxg4 Qxh4 11 Nh2 Ng3 12 Re1 Bf5 =, Brenninkmejer—Hoeksema, Groningen 2002. (B) 6 Nxg4 Nxe4 7 d3 Ng3 8 Bxf4 Nxh1 9 Qe2t Qe7 10 Nf6t Kd8 11 Bxc7t Kxc7 12 Nd5t Kd8 13 Nxe7 Bxe7 with chances for both sides, Hebden-Littlewood, Hastings 1982.

(с) 8... Bg7 9 c3 0-0 10 Nd2 Re8 11 Be2 Bf5 12 Nxe4 Bxe4 13 0-0 Qxh4 14 Bxg4! - (14 .. . Bxd3 15 g3!), Ligterink-S. Ernst, Groningen 2002.

(d) 9 Qe2 Nc6 10 c3 Bf5 11 Nd2 0-0-0 12 0-0-0 Re8 +, Hurt-Baca, corr. 1988.

(e) After 12 Na3 Nd7 13 Nb5 chances are about even, Wortel-Jenni, Slovakia 1996.

(f) 6...d6 7 Nxg4 Bxg4 8 Qxg4 Bxd4 9 Nc3 £ (Euwe). (g) 8... Ng3 9 Bxf4 Qe7t 10 Kd2 Nxhi 11 Nd5 Qxh4 12 Qe1t + (Corde).

(h) After 12 Qh5 Qf6 13 Bg5 Qg6 14 Qxg6 hxg6 15 Bc4, White has a big edge (Glazkov).

(i) 7 Nf2 Rg8! 8 d4 Bh6 9 Nc3 Nc6 10 Nd5 Nxd5 11 exd5 (Qe7t 12 Be2 Nb4 13 c4 Bf5! 14 Qa4t Kf8 15 Qxb4 Re8 16 Qd2 Rxg2 17 Kf1 Rg3 18 Qd1 Be4 7, Fedorov-Shirov, Poland 2000.

(j) 8... c6 9 Qf3 Rg8 10 Qf2 Bg4 11 d3 Bh6 12 Ne2 is roughly equal, NunnTimman, Amsterdam 1995.

(k) 12 Qf3 Bh6 13 Qf2 Rb8! 14 Ne2 Rxb2 15 Bxb2 Qxb2 16 0-0 Qxc2 =, Fedorov-M. Carslen, Dubai 2004.

(1) It is too slow to halt Black's kingside advance with 4 h3. Murey—Kosashvili, Tel Aviv 1999, continued 4... Nc6 5 Nc3 Bg7 6 d4 d6 7 Bc4 h6 8 a3 Nf6 9 0-0 0-0 10 Re1 Nh5 =.

(m) 7 hxg5 hxg5 8 Rxh8 Bxh8 9 Nc3 Nc8 probably favors Black.

(n) There are other tries here: (A) 8...g4 9 Nh2 (9 Bxf4 is also interesting) 9...f3 10 gxf3 Qxh4 11 f4 is even. (B) 8... Bd7! 9 Qb3 Qe7 10 Qxb7 Rb8 11 Qa6 g4 12 Nh2 f3 +, Dimitrevic-Abramovic, Belgrade 2002. White should try 12 Nfd2.

(o) 12 Qxa5 Bxf3 13 Rxf3 c5 is an equal position (Malich). (p) 7 g3?! Bh3 8 Rf2 Nc6 9 Bb5 fxg3 7 (Levenfish).

(q) 7... Nf6 is quite playable here. After 8 e5 dxe5 9 Nxe5 0-0 10 (Qb3 Qe8 11 Ng6 b5 12 Bxb5 Qeé4 there are chances for both sides, Blackburne—Mason, London 1892. I

(r) 8 g3?! Bh3 (8... g4 9 Nh4 f3 10 Na3 Bf6 11 Nf5 Bxf5 12 exf5 d5 «») 9 gxf4 Bxf1 10 Qxf1 gxf4 11 Bxf4 Qf6 12 Bg3 0-0-0 +, Di Paolo~Dervishi, Genoa 2000.

(s) The game Halasz-Groszik, Poland 1986 proceeded 12 Bb2 Rad8 13 Rae1 Nd7 14 b5 Nb8 15 e5 Rfe8 16 Ba3 and White had compensation for the pawn in a sharp position; А

(t) Other moves are possible here. 5 Ne5 (The Salvio Gambit) is interesting. After 5...Qh4t 6 Kf1 Nc6 7 Bxf7t (7 Nxf7 is too dangerous) 7.... Ke7 8 Nxc6t dxc6 9 Bb3 Nf6 10 d3 the position is approximately even. 5 Bxf7t, 5 Nc3, and 5 d4 have all been played in the past but are now relegated to the dustbin of history.

(u) 8 Bxf7t Kxf7 9 d4 Qf5 10 g4 Qg6 11 Bxf4 Nf6 F.

(v) After 12 Nd5 Kd8 13 Qe2 Qe6 14 Qf2 Qf5 it's a draw. Black can try to deviate on move 13 with either 13... b5 or 13... Ng6, but White's resources are adequate to hold the balance.

1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 З МЗ[]

(a) On 4 Bc4 h6 5 d4 (5 h4 Nf6 6 Nc3 Be7 7 d3 Nh5 +, Westerinen—Thinius, Gausdal 2003) 5...g5 6 g3 g4 7 Nh4 f3 8 Nc3 (Jonkman-Pegorari 2002); now 8... Be7 is complicated, probably favoring Black.

(b) 6... Nf6 7 Bxf4 Nxe4 8 Bd3 Qe7 9 Ne2 Bf5 10 0-0 Qxh4 11 Nbc3 Nxc3 12 Nxc3 Be6 13 g3 Qh5 14 Bb5t Kd8 =, Eames—Thipsay, London 2001. White has play for the two pawns.

(c) 9 Qd3 Na6 10 e5 dxe5 11 Ne4 Qd8 offers equal chances, Day-I Ivanov, Canada 1986.

(d) 9... £3 10 Nf4 Qe7 11 Bd3 Bg7 12 Be3 +, Gallagher—Sh. Jackson, Blackpool 1988.

(e) 11 Rxc1 Ne7 12 Qd2 h5 13 Bg2 Qh6 is roughly equal, Henris-Revesz, Budapest 2006.

(f) 9d5 Bg7 10 Bc4 Nbd7 11h5 0-0 F, Fedorov-Gyimesi, Pula 2001. The position is quite confusing though, which gives both sides chances.

(g) 10 Be5?! c6 11 Nge2 Be6 12 Nf4 Bf7 led to a big edge for Black in Hector-Leko, Copenhagen 1995.

(h) 11 Nc3 c6 12 Bxa8 bxa6 13 Nge2 (Leko) is a murky position with chances for both sides.

(1) 3... f5 is sometimes played. After 4 e5 d6 (4... d5 5 h4 Be7 6 da Nh6 7 Bxf4

Ng4 8 Nc3 +, Gunsberg-Swiderski, Vienna 1903) 5 Qe2 Be7 6 d4 Nc6 7 Bxf4 White is clearly better, Bronstein—Drozov, Riga 1986.

(j) 5 Qe2 Ng6 6 h4 h5 7 Nc3 dxe4 -, Gallagher-Gunnarsson, Istanbul 2000.

(k) This is better than the older 6...Ng67 h4 h5 8 Bc4 Qe7 «e, NadyrkhanovNenashev, Tashkent 1988.

(1) 7 Bd3 Be7 8 c4 Ne3 9 Qe2 Bg4 10 Bxe3 fxe3 11 0-0-0?!.(11 (Qxe3 Bxf3 12 gxf3 Nc6 13 d5 Bh4t 14 Ng3t (e7 is about equal) 11... Nc6 12 d5 Ne5 13 Qxe3 Nxd3t 14 Rxd3 0-0 15 Ne5 Bf5 7, Gallagher-Malaniuk, Elista Ol. 1998.

(m) 11 Nd3 N7f6 12 Nxf6t Bxf6 13 c3 =, Zelic-Ciganovic, Croation Chp. 2006.

(n) 4... Ne45 d3 Ng5 6 Bxf4 Nxf3t 7 Qxf3 46 8 Be2 +, Arnason-L Zaitsev, Sochi 1980.

(o) 5... g6 6 d4 Bg7 7 0-0 d6 8 Nc3 0-0 9 Nd5 dxe5 10 dxe5 Nc6 is equal according to Korchnoi.

(p) 7...Qd4t 8 Kh1 Nf6 9 Nd3 Bd6 10 c3 +. (q) 9... Nbd7 10 Nxd7 Bxd7 11 d4 Bd6 12 Bxf4 Bxf4 13 Rxf4 0-0 14 Bd3 + (Zak).

(r) (A)5...g56 24 when6... fxg3 7 Qg2 and6...Ng7 7 h4 led to murky positions in which White has compensation for the lost material. (B) 5 . . . g6 6 d4 Be7 7 g4 fxg3 8 Nc3 0-0 9 Bh6 is similar. (C) 5... d5 6 exd6t Be6 7 Qb5t +.

(s) Another promising line is 6 Nc3 Bh4t 7 Kd1 0-0 8 Qe4.

(t) 6... Bh4t 7 Kd1 0-0 8 g4 fxg3 9 Qg2 Be7 10 hxg3 with a huge White advantage, Randviir-Tepaks, Tallinn 1946.

(u) Possible is 7 Nc3 d6 8 Bd2 dxe5 9 dxe5 Be6 10 0-0-0 Nc6, Malinin-Razvalyaev, corr. 1992, which is slightly in White's favor.

(v) Risky is 8 hxg3 Nxg3 9 Qh2 Nxh1 10 Bd3 f5. (w) 10 Nh2 Nxg3 11 Rgi1 Bf5 12 Nf3 Nh5 is unclear.

(x) After 11 Nxe5 Qxd4 12 Bf4 the position is much better for White (Klaus Junge).

(y) 6c4g6 7 cxd5 Qxd5 8 Nc3 Bb4 9 Bd2 Bxc3 10 bxc6 Nc6 =, Feleter—Sasikiran, Dos Hermanos (blitz) 2005.

(z) 6... Bg4 7 0-0 Nc6 8 c3 g6 9 Ne1 Bxe2 10 Qxe2 z, Bhend-Pachman, Kecskemet 1964.

(aa) 11 Qd3 Rg6 12 e6 Nc6 13 Ne5 Nxe5 14 Qb5t c6 15 Qxe5 is wild though should favor Black, Iuldechev-Sasikiran, Penta 2000.

1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 NÍ3[]

Neither 6 Bc4 Nxc3 7 bxc3 Bd6 nor 6 Bb5t c6 7 Qe2t Be6, nor 6 Qe2t Be7 7 Qe4 lead to anything for White.

(b) Alternatives here tend to favor White, e.g. 7... 10 Bg3 Re8t 11 Kf2 +, Barle—Mariotti, Portorož 1975, ог 7.. 9 Kf2 Qd8 10 c5 +, Provotorov—Svirin, Moscow 1980.

(c) 8c4 Qe4t 9 Kf2 Bf5 10 c5 Nc6 11 Bb5 (Bednarek-Godena, Warsaw 2005); now 1... Bg4lisaslight edge for Black.

(d) 9 c4 Qe6t 10 Kf2 0-0 11 Re1 Qf6 - (Sokolsky). (e) White has compensation for the pawn, but no more. (f) 5... Bd7 6 Bxd7T Qxd7 7 c4 Bd6 8 Qe2t +, Matuka—Cleemann, corr. 1989.

(g) 6...bxc6 may be playable, but 7 Bc4 Nd5 8 Nc3 Nog 9 Bb3 Bd6 10 0-0 gives an edge for White (Glazkov).

(h) 7... Qa5t 8 Nc3 Bb4 9 0-0 0-0 10 Bxc6 Bxc3 11 bxc3 bxc6 12 Bxf4 Qxc3 =, Moger-Godena, Calvia Ol. 2004.

(i) 11 Bxc6 bxc6 12 0-0 (12 Qxe6t? Kh8 13 0-0 £3 14 Rxf3 Re8 +, Holzvogt—Schreiber, corr. 1968) 12 ... Qc7 is equal.

(j) (A) 6 dxc6 Nxc6 7 44 Bg4 8 d5 Bxf3 9 Qxf3 Ne5 10 Qxf4 Bd6 =, Zlabari— Hammermeister, Leverkusen 2001. (B) 6 Nc3 cxd5 7 cxd5 Bd6 with an easy game for Black.

(k) 6... cxd5 7 cb Nc6 8 Bxf4 Be7 9 Nc3 0-0 10 Bb5 Ne4 = (Keres).

(l) 8 Bd3 Qe7t 9 Kf2 Bxc3 10 bxc3 Ne4t is advantageous for Black, Kristiansen— Pachman, Eckenfjerde 1974.

(m) 9 c5 Ne4 10 Qc2 Re8 11 0-0-0 Qa5 gave Black à strong attack in Gabers-Truta, Yugoslavia 1978.

(n) After 11 Bxd5 (Qxd5 12 0-0 Bxc3 the game is level.

(o) (A) 5 Bb5t c6 6 dxc6 Nxc6 7 d4 Nge7 -, Ree-Short, Wijk aan Zee 1986. (B) 5 Nc3 Ne7 6 dà Nd7 7 Bd3 Nb6 8 0-0 Nbxd5 9 Nxd5 Nxd5 10 c4 Nb4 11 Re1t Be6 12 Bf5 0-0 - (Shirov).

(р) 5... Nf6 6 c4 Bg4 7 Bd3 0-0 8 0-0 b6 9 Qc2 c5 10 b4! +.,

(9) 7 Bd3 is an excellent alternative. After 7... 0-0 8 0-0 c5 9 b4 b6 10 bxc5 bxc5 11 Nc3 Bg4 12 Ne4 White held an edge in Hebden-Johansen, London 1982.

(r) The game Gallagher-Ballard, Paris 1990, continued 11 Nb5 Be7 12 d5 with White having a small advantage.

(s) The other way is 4... Bh4t 5 Kf1 (5 g3 is an adventurous alternative) 5... d6 6 d4 Bg4 7 Bxf4 Qf6 8 Be3 Ne7 =, Taddel-I. Sokolov, France 2006.

(t) (A) On 5 Nc3 Nxe4 is. more than adequate for Black. (B) 5 d3 d5 6 exd5 Nxd5 =. (C) 5 Qe2 0-0 6 d4 d5 =.

(u) 6 Nc3 d6 7 exd6 Bxd6 8 Qe2t Qe7 9 Qxe7t Kxe7 10 0-0 f6 and White has play for the pawn (Lepeshkin).

(v) 11 Ng5 0-0 12 Bxf4 Nf5 =, Fedorov—Radulski, Linares Open 2002.

(w) 4... Nf6 is again the alternative. White then has (A) 5 e5 Ng4 6 d4 Ne3 7 Bxe3 fxe3 8 Bc4 +, Spassky-Kholmov, Moscow 1964, or (B) 5 d4 d5 6 Bd3 dxe4 7 Nxe4 Nxe4 8 Bxe4 Bd6 9 0-0 Nd7 10 c4 c6 - (Lepeshkin).

(x) 5...c66d4 d5 7 Bxf4 dxe4 8 Nxe4 Qe7 9 Qd3 Bf5 10 Be5 Bxe4 11 Qxe4 Bf6 12 Re? is a slight pull for White.

(y) 8 e5 Qa6t 9 d3 Bg4 10 Bxf4 Nc6 is about even (Euwe).

(z) After 11 Kd1 0-0-0 12 Kc2 Rhe8 13 Bd3 Bxf3 14 pxf3 Nxd4t 15 cxd4 Rxd4 16 Qc3 the position was approximately even in Gallagher—Klovans, Oberwart 1993.

Falkbeer Counter Gambit - 1 e4 e5 2 f4 d5[]

(a) White has several reasonable but little-played choices here. (A) 4 Bb5t c6 5 dxc6 bxc6 (5 .. . Nxc6 is possible) 6 Bc4 Nf6 7 d4 Bd6 8 Ne2 0-0 -, ChigorinPillsbury, Vienna 1898. (B) 4 Nc3 Nf6 5 Bc4 Bc5 6 Nge2 0-0 7 d4 exd3 8 Qxd3 Ng4 9 Qf3 Re8 is unclear, Spassky~Tumurbator, Leningrad 1960.

(b) 4... Qxd5 5 Qe2 f5 6 Nxc3 Bb4 7 Bd2 = (Keres).

(c) Other choices here, such as5...Qxd5,5...¢63,5...Bf5,and5...Bc5, are weaker.

(d) 7 Ne4 Nb4 8 Bb5t c6 =, Damjanovié—Pachman, Sarajevo 1966.

(e) (A) 6 Qe2 Bb4t (6... Qxd5 7 Nd2 f5 8 Nxe4 fxe4 9 Qb5t + [Tartakower]) 7 c3 0-0 8 cxb4 Re8 is wild and unclear (Estrin). (B) 6 Be3 Bd6 (6... Qh4t 7 g3 Nxg3 8 Nf3 Qe7 9 hxg3 +, Spassky—Matanovié, Belgrade 1964) 7 Nf3 0-0 =, Bronstein—Unzicker, Moscow 1976.

(f) 6 ...c6 7 Bc4 Bc5 8 Qe2 cxd5 9 Nc3 +, L. Day—Krnan, Southam Mem. (rapid) 2004. Also inferior are 6 . . . Bf5, 6 . . . Bg4, and 6 . . . Be7.

(g) 7 Bd3 Nf2 8 Qe2t Qe7 9 Rf1 Nxd3t 10 cxd3 is equal, Chesnokov—Korotkova, Siberia 2002.

(h) 7...Bf2t 8Kd1 Qxd5t 9 Nfd2f5 10 Nc3 Qd4 11 Nexe4 +, Duc—Son, Vietnam 2006.

(i) 8 g4? 0-0 9 gxf5 Re8 +, Spielmann—Tarrasch, Moravska Ostrava 1923.

(j) 11 Qxe7t Kxe7 12 bxc3 Be4 13 Ng5 Bxd5 14 0-0-0 Rd8 15 c4 +, GravelO. Rodríguez, Spain 1992.

(k) (A) 6...0-0 7 Nxe4 Re8 8 Bxb4 Nxe4 9 dxe4 Rxe4t 10 Be2 Rxb4 11 Nf3 =, Spassky-Bronstein, Moscow 1971. (B) 6... exd3 7 Bxd3 +, Loser—Zakharov, Moscow 1975.

(1) 8... Re8t 9 Be2 Nxd5 10 Nxd5 Qxd5 11 Nf3 Bc5 12 b4 +, Lu Yanjing—Wang Yu, China 2001.

(m) 9... Re8t 10 Be2 Bg4 gives Black play for the pawn. This is probably superior to the column continuation. (n) 11 Be2 Nf6 12 Nf3 +, Razhdestvensky—Estrin, Moscow 1943.

(о) 4 dxc6 Nxc6 5 Nf3 exf4 6 d4 Bd6 7 Bb5 Nge7 2, Flouzat-G. Flear, St. Affrique 2001.

(p) 6 Qf2 Nxe5 7 d4 Ng4 8 Bbst Bd7 9 Qe2t Qe7 10 Bxd7t Kxd7 11 Охе7ї =, Arnaudov-Donev, Plovdiv 1989.

(q) (A) 6...d4 7 Qe4 Bc5 8 b4 Nxb4 9 Ba3 +, Reprintsev—Vasiljev, corr. 1990. (B) 6...Bg4 7 Nc3 Nge7 8 Qf2 Bxf3 9 Qxf3 +, Reprintsev—Tsyplakov, corr. 1991.

(r) 7... Bg4 8 Qb5 Bxf3 9 Qxc5 Qh4t 10 Qf2 * (Lepeshkin).

(s) 4... cxd5 5 fxe5 d4 6 Ne4 Nc6 7 Nf3 Qd5 8 Nf2 Bf5 9 Bd3 Bg6 10 0-0 +, Teichmann-Marshall, Mannheim 1914.

(t) 5... Nf6 6 da Bd6 7 Qe2t Qe7 8 Qxe7t Kxe7 9 Bc4 Re8 10 0-0 z, Piber-Jovan, Bled 2001.

(u) (A) 8 Bd3 0-0 9 Ne2 Bg4 10 0-0 +, Day—Mercurl, St. John 1988. (B) 8 d5 Nb4 9 Вса Ві5 10 ВЬЗ ОЪ (10... 0-0 11 0-0 Bg4 12 Ne4 zc, Spassky—Zsu. Polgar, Wellington 1988); now 11 Ba4 (instead of 11 a3 in Gallagher-Nunn, London 1987) would be even.

(v) 8... 0-0 9 Nxd6 Qxd6 10 c3 leaves White with a small edge. (м) 11 0-0 Bg4 12 h3 Bh5 13 Qb3 Bb6 14 Kh1 +, Westerinen-Marin, Manila 1992.

(x) If 3 Nc3 Black has the choice of 3... Nf6 transposing to the Vienna Game, or 3.... d4 4 Nce2 Nc6 (4... d3!? [Bronstein]) 5 Nf3 Bd6 with probably equal play.

(y) A bizarre continuation is 3... Nh6 4 exd5 e4 5 Qe2 Be7 6 Qxe4 0-0 7 Ваз Bh4t 8 Kf1 Bf5. 9 Qc4 Bg4, when Black has play for the lost material, Hort-Miles, Germany 1983.

(z) 4... Nd7 5 Nc3 Nxe5 6 fxe5 Qd4 7 Qe2 Qxe5 8 d4 Qxd4 9 Be3 Qe5 10 0-0-0 with compensation for the pawns, Hermez—Rouzaud, Paris 2001.

(aa) 8... Bxe5 9 fxe5 Ng4 10 Bf4 Qd4t 11 Kh1 Nf2t 12 Rxf2 Qxf2 13 Qhs h6 14 Rf1 with a good attack (Alapin).

(bb)9 Nxd7 Qxd7 10 Qf3 Rb8 10 f5 b6 was about even in Chigorin-Waldbrodt, Hastings 1895.

(cc) 9... Nc5 10 Nxd6 Qxd6 11 Bc4 Bf5 = (Korchnoi).

Gambit Declined - 1 e4 e5 2 fA[]

(a) Not 3 fxe5? Qh4t! (b) (A) 3... Nc6 4 fxe5 +. (B) 3...d5 4 Nxe5 Nf6 5 d4 Bb6 6 exd5 + (Glazkov).

(c) 4... Nc6 5 Bbs Bd7 6 d3 Nd4 7 Bxd7t Qxd7 8 fxe5 Nxf3t 9 Qxf3 dxe5 10 Rf1 f6 =, Londyn—Sodoma, Prague 2006. Instead 5 Bc4 is like the column.

(d) On5...exf46 d4 Bb4 7 e5 Ne4 8 0-0 Nxc3 9 bxc3 Bxc3 10 exd6 Qxd6 11 Qd3 Bxa1 12 Ba3 White has attacking chances for the lost material, HebdenGeorgadze, Cappelle la Grande 1995.

(e) (A) 6... Ng4 7 Ng5 0-0 8 f5 Bf2t (8... Nf6 9 g4 h6 10 h4 +, Hellers-Bjarnsson, Reykjavik 1984) 9 Kf1 Ne3t 10 Bxe3 Bxe3 11 h4 g6 12 Nxf7 Rxf7 13 Qf3 +, Grabarczyk—Jirka, Griesheim 2003. (B) 6... Be6 7 Bb5 a6 8 Bxc6t bxc6 9 f5 +, W. Adams-Jackson, Boston 1944.

(f) 7 h3 Bxf3 8 Qxf3 Nd4 9 Qg3 is the old line. After 9... Nxc2t 10 Kd1 Nxa1 11 Qxg7 Rf8 12 fxe5 dxe5 13 Rf1 Be7 14 Bg5 +, Faulks—Kabera, Turin Ol. 2006. Black could try 9... Qe7 or 9... exf4 with fair chances.

(g) 7... Bxf3 8 Qxf3 Nd4 9 Qd1 b5 10 Bxf7t Kxf7 11 Nxc5 +, Balashov— Matanovié, Skopje 1970.

(h) 7 f5 is a major alternative. Neither 7 ...Na5 8 a3 Nxc4 9 dxc4 h6 10 Qe2 + Hartston-Richardson, Southport 1983, nor 7...h6 8 Qe2 b5 9 Bb3 £, Lepeshkin—Terteriants, Moscow 1982, quite equalizes.

(i) 7... Bg4 8 h3 Bxf3 9 Qxf3 Nd4 10 Qg3 +, McShane—Koneru, Esbjerg 2003. (j) 10 c3 Nxf3t 11 Qxf3 Nd7 12 Qg3 £ (Glazkov).

(k) (A) 4... Bb6 5 Na3 Nf6 6 d3 Ng4 7 d4 &, Hector—Hjelm, Politiken Cup 2005. (B) 4... Bg4 5 fxe5 dxe5 6 Qa4t Bd7 7 Qc2 x. (C) 4... f5 5 fxe5 dxe5 6 d4

exd4 7 Bc4 Nf6 (7... fxe4 is unclear, Schmedders—Frelse, Suder Sommer 2000) 8 e5 + (Glazkov).

(1) 7 ө5 Ма5 8 cxd4 Bb4t 9 Bd2 Nc6 =, Marshall-Vidmar, 1923.

(m) Black is worse after both 7... Nxe4 8 dxc5 Qxd1t 9 Kxd1 Nf2t 10 Kel and 7... Bb6 8 Nc3 Bg4 9 Bg5 +, Borovsky—Bukhman, Helsinki 1975.

(n) 10 Bxe4 Qxe4t 11 Kf2 Bxd2 12 Nbxd2, So. Polgar-Flear, Brussels 1987, now 12... Qd5 13 Re1t Be6 is equal.

(о) 6... Qe7 7 d4 Bd6 8 Nf3 Nxe4 9 Be2 0-0 10 0-0 c5 11 Bd3 =.

(p 5... Bb6 6 fxe5 (6 dxe5 Ng4 7 Ng5 h6 8 e6 Bf2t 9 Kd2 Be3t 10 Kc2 hxg5 11 Qxg4 о, Nevednichy—Vivanov, Sebastopol 1985) 6... Nxe4 7 Bd3 f5 8 exf6 Nxf6 9 0-0 +, Maidla—Sifrer, Debrecen 1992.

(q) 6...Bb4t 7 Bd2 Bxd2t 8 Nbxd2 Qe7 9 Bd3 Nxe4 10 Nxe4 d5 11 0-0 dxe4 12 Bxe4 0-0 13 Qd3 +, Charbonneau-Christiansen, USA 2002.

(r) Also 7 e5 Nd5 8 Bc4 Ba5t 9 Bd2 Bxd2t 10 Qxd2 Nb6 11 Bb3 +, ZelevinskyBerezin, Moscow 1959.

(s) 8 eb Ng4 9 Nd5 Babt 10 b4 c6 is unclear, Lepeshkin. (t) 10 fxe5 Nd5 11 Bg5 Nxc3 12 bxc3 +, Karker—Lie, corr. 1987.

(u) (A) 2... Qh4t 3 g3 Qe7 4 Nc3 exf4 5 d4 fxg3 6 Bf4 d5 7 hxg3 +, GallagherBerezovsky, Berne 1993. (B) 2... Qf6 (Bucherl) 3 Nc3 Qxf4 4 Nf3 Bb4 5 Bc4

Bxc3 6 0-0 Ba5 7 d4 Qxe4 8 Bxf7t with a mighty attack, Sanchez-Lugo, Cuba 1992.

(у) If 3 Nf3 Black can either transpose into a main line with 3... exf4, or play

3...d5 4 fxe5 Nxe4 5 d3 Nc5 6 d4 Ne4 7 Bd3 z, So. Polgar-Selles, San Sebastian 1991.

(w) 4... Be7 5 d4 0-0 6 Bd3 d5 7 0-0 c5 8 c3 &, Nelson—Parveen, England 1991.

(x) 5 Nc3 Nc6 6 d3 Nxf3t 7 Qxf3 d6 8 exd6 Bxd6 9 Be3 Ne5 =, Heuer—Wade, Bad Worishofen 1992.

(y) 10 Nd2 Bf5 11 c3 Æ+, Sherzer-G. Hernández, Santiago 1990.

Advertisement