|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Chessville
Advertise to Single insert:
|
2.e4 d5! is at least equal for Black, but possible is also 2.-e5!?, when 3.Nf3 transposes to our second mainline 1.f4 Nc6 2.Nf3 e5 3.e4. This could be reached also by the move order 1.f4 e5 2.e4 Nc6!? 3.Nf3, but then Black must be prepared to meet 3.Bc4 and 3.Nc3, which are avoided by our move-order 1.f4 Nc6 2.Nf3 e5.
This move-order avoids some problems of the normal Neo-From move-order like 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 Nc6 3.Nc3!? Nxe5 4.d4! Ng6 5.e4, which is recommended by the IM Timothy Taylor. Now White's main options are: 1) 3.fxe5 and 2) 3.e4!? Other moves are no problem from Black's point of view: 3.d3 exf4 4.Bxf4 d5 is at least equal: 5.Qd2 Nf6 6.Bg5 {6.Nc3} Be6 7.Nc3 8.e4 d4 9.Nb5 Bb4+ 10.c3 dxc3 11.bxc3 Be7 12.Bf4 Rc8 13.Be2 0-0 14.0-0 a6 15.Nbd4 Bc5 16.Kh1? Nxd4 -+ Kangas – Jalas, LauttSk Open 1998. 3.Nxe5?? Nxe5 4.fxe5 Qh4+ 5.g3 Qe4 and White can resign. 1) 3.fxe5 Neo-From Gambit 3...g5!
This is best and constitutes the basic element of Neo-From, but there are playable alternatives: 3.-d6 4.exd6 Bxd6 is more regular form of From´s Gambit: 5.d4 Bg4 6.e3 += is theoretical assessment. 3.-f6 is probably unsound, but could appeal to Blackmar-Diemer players: 4.exf6 Nxf6 5.Nc3 d5! needs testing; weaker was 5.-Bc5? 6.e4 0-0 7.Bc4+ Kh8 8.d4 Bb4 9.Bd3 and White got upper hand in the game Hayward – Berg, Dover 1974. 4.d4! This is best by the test, other moves are no problem for Black: 4.h3 d6 5.d3 h6 6.exd6 Qxd6 =+ (Shcoening – Leusch, Berlin 1997) 4.g3 g4 5.Nh4 Nxe5 6.d4 Ng6= 4.e3 g4 5.Ng1 d6 6.exd6 Bxd6 7.Ne2 Ne5! 8.d4 Qh4+ 9.g3 Nf3+ 10.Kf2 Qe7 is at least =+ (Pimmingstorfer – Howell, Monarch 2004) 4.d3 g4 5.Bg5 Be7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.Nfd2 Nxe5 =+ 4.-g4 5.Ng5
5.-d5 Main line and threatening to trap Ng5 with –h6. There are two alternatives, of which only 5.-Bh6!? looks playable: 5.-f5? loses almost by force: 6.e4 h6 7.Nh3 gxh3 8.Qh5+ Ke7 10.Bc4 and now both 10.-Rh7 and 10.-Qe8 are faced with 11.Bg5+ , and 10.-d5 11. Bxd5+ Be6 12.Bxe6 Kxe6 13.d5 +- is unappealing. (Dimitri Oleinikov) 5.-Bh6!?---6.Qd2 Nxd4 7.Qxd4 Bxg5 8.Nc3 with equality ; 6.Nxf7!? is suggested by Dimitri Oleinikov. 6.exd6 Practically forced, now Black has two alternatives: 1a) 6.-Qxd6 7.d5
1a1) 7.-Nb4 8.Nc3: 8.-Nf6 9.a3 an now 9.- Nbxd5? loses to 10.Nge4 Nxe4 11.Nxe4 Qe6 12.Qxd5 Qxd5 13.Nf6+ 8.-f5 9.a3 Na6 10.Qd4 Qf6 11.Qxf6 Nxf6 12.e4 h6 13.e5 +- (Oleinikov) 8.-Qg6 9.Nge4 Bf5 10.a3 Bxe4 11.Nxe4 Qxe4 12.axb4 Bxb4+ 13.c3 Bd6 12.Ra4 Qg6 13.g3 Ne7 16.Bg2 0-0 17.0-0 += as demonstrated by Keith Hayward. 1a2) 7.-Nce7 looks modest, but has some venom: 8.Qd4 Nf6: 9.Nge4? Nxe4 10.Qxh8 g3 11.h3 Nxd5 -+ 9.Nc3 Nf5 10.Qf4 and White has solid edge. 1b) 6.-Bxd6!
More natural way to develop pieces and better than 6.-Qxd6. 1b1) 7.Ne4 is natural, but gives only equality: 7. – Nxd4 8.Nxd6+ Qxd6 9.c3 Nf5 10.Qxd6 Nxd6 =. 1b2) the winning attempt for White is 7.c3!? f5
Natural and best - try to trap Ng5, other moves are weaker: 7.-Bf5? 8.e4 Bg6 9.Qxg4 +- Jalas – NN, ICC blitz 2005, but even stronger is 8.Qb3! 7.-Nf6 8.Qd3 Qe7 9.Nd2 and Ng5-e4 +- 7.-Qe7!? 8.Qd3 f5 9.h3 Nf6 10.hxg4 Nxg4 11.Na3 +- (Hromadka – Danielson 1936) 8.e4 h6 9.e5, when Black has two alternatives: 1b21) 9.-Be7?! 10.Nh3 gxh3 11.Qh5+ Ke8 12.Bc4 gives White too much compensation for the piece: 12.-Rh7 13.Qg6 Rg7 14.Bxh6 Nxh6 15.Qxh6 +- 12.-Qe8 13.Qxh3 Qg6 {13.-f4 14.Qf3} 14.0-0 h5 15.Nd2 Bg5 16.Ne4 Kg7 17.Nc5 Bxc1 18.Raxc1 Nh6 19.Rce1 Re8 20.Nd3 Qg4 21.Qe3 Ne7 22.h3 Qg6 24.Nf4 Qb6 25.Nxh5+ Kg6 26.h4 and Black resigned in the German correspondence game Popp – Zastrow 1961. This is only one example of many games, which Black has lost in this variation. 1b22) better is 9.-Qe7!, which is recommended by the IM Timothy Taylor. 10.Ne4 Bxe5 11.dxe5 fxe4
This can be considered as the main line of the Neo-From. 1b221) 12.Be2 Qxe5 13.0-0 Be6 =+ (Taylor) 1b222) 12.Bf4!? – is suggested by the computer-program Fritz and it might be best try for White in this position: 12.-Nxe5 13.Qd4 and we get quite exciting positions, where White seems to get upper hand: 1b222a) 13.-Ng6! 14.Nd2!? Nxf4 15.Qxh8 Nd3+ 16.Bxd3 exd3+ 17.Kd1 Qe2+ 18.Kc1 Be6 19.Qd4
and now: 19.-Nge7 20.Qe4 0-0-0 21.Qxe2 dxe2 23.Rhe1 Nd5 and now simplest for white is 24.g3! securing the f4-square and after 25.Rxe2 White is better. 19.-Rad8 20.Qa4+ Rd7 21.Rd1 and White seems to better, for example 21.-Qxg2? 22.Re1 Qd5 23.Qxg4. 1b222b) 13.-Nf7 14.Nd2 Nf6 15.0-0-0 0-0 16.Bc4 Rfd8 17.Bxf7+ Kxf7 18.Qf2 Kg6 19.Rhf1 Nd5 20.Rde1 and White is better. However, this is only a start for further analysis, which will probably reveal improvements for both sides. Now let's go back to starting position 1.f4 Nc6 2.Nf3 e5 and look White's other main option: 2) 3.e4!? transposition to King's Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nf3.
2a) 3.-exf4 This is called “Nameless Defence” by Thomas Johansson, who has written an excellent book about The King's Gambit [Editor: The King's Gambit for the Creative Aggressor!] 4.d4! natural and best, other tries: 4.Bc4 g5 5.0-0 Bg7! 6.c3 d6 7.d4 h6 is the Hanstein Gambit; which is =+. 4.Nc3!? g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng5 h6 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.Bc4+ is the best try in the Hamppe-Allgaier-Gambit, which is nowadays considered unsound. But there are always some practical chances for White in this kind of position as demonstrated by the following game (Shulman – Marciano, Ubeda 1997): 8.-d5 9.Bxd5+ Kg7 10.d4 Nf6 11.Bxf4 Bb4 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.0-0! Rf8 14.Qd2 Ng8 15.Be5+ Kh7 16.Rxf8 Qxf8 17.Rf1 Qe7 18.Qf4 Be6 19.Nd5!! Bd2 {19.-cxd5 20.exd5 Bf7 ---20.-Bc8? 21.Qf7+ Qxf7 21.Rxf7+ Kg6 22.Rg7+ etc ---21.Qf7+ Qxf7 22.Rxf7+Kg6 23.Rxc7 Kf5 24.c4 +-} 20.Qxd2 cxd5 21.Qf4 c6 22.exd5 cxd5 {22.-Bxd5?? 23.Qf5X} 23.c4 Qd7 {23.-dxc4 24.Qe4+} 24.h5 Ne7 25.Qf6 Rg8 26.Qf7+! and Black resigned because of 26.-Bxf7 27.Rxf7+ Rg7 28.Rxg7X. 4.-g5!? ---not to be found in theoretical manuals, for example Thomas Johansson´s “Fascinating King´s Gambit” does not consider this attempt to hold f4, but gives only 4.-Nf6 and 4.-d5, which both give White some advantage. Is 4.-g5 uncharted territory after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d4 – does anyone know, if it is theoretically okay? Is the 4.-g5 thematic “g-pawn push” for the prospective Neo-From player? Maybe not, because White can play solid and dull: 5.d5 g4 6.dxc6 gxf3 7.cxd7+ Bxd7 8.Qxf3 Qh4+ 9.g3 fxg3 10.hxg3 Qf6 11.Qxf6 Nxf6 {diagram} which looks pretty boring? or White is an Allgaier Gambit expert, when Black will face: 5.h4!? g4 6.Ng5!?
This is best practical try and seems to be almost thematic move in our theoretical survey of Neo-From / King´s Gambit! 6.-f6!? 7.Qxg4 fxg5 {7.-Nxd4?? 8.Qh5+ etc.} 8.Qxg5+Ke8 9.Qh5+ Ke7 10.Bc4 Qe8 11.Qg5+ Nf6 12.e5 Qg6 13.exf6+ Qxf6 14.Qxf6+ Kxf6 15.c3 is at least += for White. 6.-h6 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.Bc4+ is similar to Hamppe-Allgaier Gambit (above). If the variations after 1.f4 Nc6 2.Nf3 e5 3.e4 exf4 (=1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nf3 exf4) do not appeal to Neo-From player, there is another way to play against King's Gambit: 2b) 3.-f5!?
This is Adelaide Counter Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nf3 f5!? which was analyzed intensively in 1990´s and recommended by the GM´s Anthony Miles and Matthias Wahls. Now this counter-gambit is well-booked (?) territory, but it is still useful weapon against King´s Gambit. In my opinion this is better option to Neo-From player than to defend positions arising after 3.-exf4. 2b1) 4.exf5 e4! ---the main line of Adelaide Counter Gambit. 5.Ne5 Nf6!
A recommendation of German GM Matthias Wahls. 5.-Nxe5!? is also playable and was favoured by the late GM Anthony Miles. I like more of Wahl´s approach, which is simpler to learn than positions rising after 5.-Nxe5!? 6.fxe5 Qe7 7.Qh5+. 2b11) 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.d3 exd3 8.Bxd3 Bc5 9.g4 Qe7+ transposes below. 2b12) 6.d3 exd3 7.Bxd3 Bc5 8.g4 d6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.g5 Qe7+ 11.Qe2 Ng4 12.Nc3 Nf2 = 2b13) 6.Nc3 Nd4! 7.Bc4?! d5 8.Nxd5 Nxd5 9.Qh5+ g6 10.fxg6 Nxc2+ 11.Kf2 {11.Kd1 Nce3+} 11.-Nf6 12.g7+ Nxh5 13.gxh8Q Nf6 14.b3 Qd6 15.Rb1 Bf5 16.Rb2 0-0-0 17.Rxc2 Bh6 18.Qxd8 Qxd8 -+. Quite fascinating! 7.Be2! Nxe2 8.Qxe2 d6 9.Ng4 Nxg4 {9.-Bxf5? 10.Qb5+} 10.Qxg4 and White has slight advantage according to Thomas Johansson, but we can continue his analysis with 10.-g6!? 11.Nxe4 Bxf5 12.Qe2 Qe7 13.Nf6+ Kf7 14.Nd5? Qxe2+ 15.Kxe2 Re8+ 16.Kd1?? Bg4X! 2b2) 4.d4!? --this looks sharp, but is less critical than 4.-exf5. 2b21) 4.-fxe4 5.Nxe5 d6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 is worth a try, and Black has scored well. 2b22) 4.-exd4 5.Nxd4 fxe4! 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Qh5+ Ke7 8.Qe5+ Kf7 and Matthias Wahls gives following continuation: 9.Qxe4 Nf6 10.Qc4+ d5 11.Qxc6 Bb4+ 12.c3 Re8 -+. Other tries of White lead to Black's advantage or very easy equality: 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe5 Nf6 6.Ng4 Nxg4 7.Qxg4 g6 8.Qe2 d5 =+ 4.d3 d6 5.Be2 Be7 = or 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.fxe5 dxe5 7.Bg5 Bb4 9.Be2 fxe4 =+ 4.Bc4 fxe4 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.fxe5 Qe7= 4.Bb5 fxe4 5.Bxc6 dxc6 6.Nxe5 Nf6 7.0-0 Bc5+ = (De Saint Bon – Dubois, London 1862 – this can be regarded as the first recorded example of Adelaide Counter-Gambit!) 4.fxe5? fxe4 -+ 4.Nxe5?? Nxe5 5.fxe5 Qh4+ 6.Ke2 Qxe4+ 7.Kf2 Bc5+ 8.Kg4 f4+ 9.Kh3 d5+ 10.g4 fxg3+ 11.Kxg3 Qg6+ 12.Kf4 Qf5+ 13.Kg3 Qf2X {diagram} was played in Perez Costa – Mitkov, Balneario 1999.
And this is a good way to end our theoretical survey of
Neo – From and King's Gambit! Further Reading: Johansson, Thomas: The Fascinating King´s Gambit. Oleinikov, Dimitri: The Bird´s Opening. Chessbase 2000 (CD-ROM). Taylor, Timothy: The Bird´s Opening. Everyman 2005. Keith´s Krap – games of CC-master Keith Hayward, to be found at drawyah.geocities.com Le Gambit du Roi refuse par,....2…Cc6!? to be found at www.mjae.com/roi-refuse-04.html Last Rites for the Allgaier Gambit? (Tim Harding, ChessCafe.com: Kibitzer 12.8.2002).
|
| |||
