GM#1 vs you: Wing gambit bombs, BC & history: 1

 GM#1 vs you: Wing gambit bombs, BC & history: 1  

   

(by Yury V. Bukayev) 

 

 

In this analytical  investigation we’ll consider the practical problem: how to play against WCC, World Standard and Rapid Chess #1 GM Magnus Carlsen or against World Blitz Chess #1 GM Hikaru Nakamura if he has White pieces and chooses 1.e4 e5 2.h3?. And we’ll consider the history of this problem, we’ll make our new view on the wide circle of problems of chess opening theory and history. This future great maestro Paul Morphy’s weak 2nd move (Morphy – NN, New Orleans, 1848) is normal for them in some cases: the chess world knows about the “scandalous grandmaster draw” in the game Carlsen – Nakamura, ‘Magnus Carlsen Invitational’ tournament, 2021, March 15 (1.e4 e5 2.Ke2?? Ke7?? 3.Ke1 Ke8 4.Ke2?? Ke7?? etc., 1/2-1/2), and about Mr. Nakamura’s practice of 2.Ke2??.  

While modern commentators argue about joke names of the joke opening 1.e4 e5 2.Ke2?? - “Bongcloud attack in C20”, or “Boungcloud attack…”, or “Bongcloud opening…”, or “BC (opening)…”, etc. - we suggest to call it also “e4e5 King’s joke opening” or “the Vidmar joke opening” - according to outstanding maestro GM Prof. Milan Vidmar’s published memoirs (“Goldene Schachzeiten: Erinnerungen”, Berlin, Walter De Gruyter & Co., 1961, p.227-228, and we can’t exclude that this story was published originally earlier than 60 years ago) about his funny win as White after 1.e4 e5 2.Ke2??. It is known that this descripted event isn’t a fake in contrast with several other “events” which can be found in other sources including Andrew Fabbro’s fake-based section “History” of his parody work “Winning With the Bongcloud: A Complete Repertoire for White” (2010) on the BC family, or the KJO family, as we suggest to call it (in fact, this family consists of all possible opening sequences where White makes a joke King’s move on the 2nd move and of the certain kind of ones where White makes it on the 3rd move). The latest of printed sources (which retells this Prof. Vidmar’s story) we could find is Peter Koehler’s book “Das grosse Schach-Allerlei: Verwegenes, Verrücktes und Verkorkstes auf 64 Feldern” (Göttingen, Verlag Die Werkstatt GmbH, 2016). Thus, its part “Düpiert” (“The Duped”) tells (p.11-12):  

“ Eine Pleite besonderer Art erlebte der slowenische Großmeister Milan Vidmar, als er sich – es war in den 1920er Jahren – in einem Kaffeehaus in seiner Heimatstadt Ljubljana zum Zeitunglesen niedergesetzt hatte. Am Nebentisch war eine Schachpartie im Gang, doch ein Blick genügte ihm, um festzustellen, dass es sich um zwei Patzer* [*German slang: amateur chess players who played the game without a skill – Note by Yu.B.] handelte. Enttäuscht wandte er sich wieder seiner Lektüre zu, als plötzlich einer der beiden aufstand und sich verabschiedete. Der andere blickte sich um, und weil er Vidmars Interesse bemerkt hatte, fragte er ihn, ob er Schach spiele. Vidmar gab zu, mit dem Brettspiel einigermaßen vertraut zu sein. <…> Vidmar beschloss, sich über den Schwachmaten lustig zu machen: <…> 1. e4 e5 2. Ke2 Sf6 3. Kd3 Sc6, und nach dem vollends tollkühnen 4. Kc4 provozierte Vidmar seinen Gegner zusätzlich, indem er auf den ungedeckten e-Bauern hinwies und verlautbarte, jetzt Gambit spielen zu wollen. „Die Antwort war verblüffend“, schreibt Vidmar in seinem Erinnerungsbuch Goldene Schachzeiten: „Mit einer energischen mähenden Bewegung seiner Rechten rasierte mein Gegner das Schachbrett, so dass die Figuren fast wegflogen, und erklärte mit schlecht zurückgehaltener Wut: ‚Mit einem solchen Stümper spiele ich nicht!‘“  ”.  

Thus, we can see that this unique won (abandoned) “super handicap” game which has 4 moves only is approximately 100 years old. We don’t know what real goal has Prof. Vidmar had here, and we can’t exclude that he has tried to cause opponent’s abandonment in fact. But we are thankful to Rick Kennedy who helped us kindly to find the pages of Prof. Vidmar’s book, to Mr. Koehler, to everyone who also told this story, and we hope that future chess literature will not forget this story if it writes about Bongcloud attack in C20, about above “immortal game Carlsen - Nakamura with Double Bongcloud”. But Prof. Vidmar’s game is important for history, not for future practice of handicap games. Below we’ll consider also our new serious analysis and the “psychology of a solid chess player” for Black for the possible treaty initial position (A02) 1.f4 Na6? 2.Kf2? (“f4Na6 King’s joke opening”) in your possible game with BC against WCC Magnus Carlsen: we’ll see that White (who stands worse after the 2nd move) can stand slightly better after the 4th move here in result of one Black’s chess mistake based on this “psychology”. 

Now we should return to 1.e4 e5 2.h3?. In this situation after the symmetrical response 2…h6?! AN (We don’t write the sign “?” here, because after the exact Black’s play Black can keep an equal position everywhere. For example, if White plays 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bc4, then you should go this way: 4…Nf6! 5.Nc3 Bc5! = , not the fork trick way of the Italian variation of Four Knights Game 5…Ne4 6.Ne4 d5 7.Bd3 de 8.Be4 Bd6! 9.Bc6! bc 10.d4 ed 11.Nd4 (or 11.Qd4!? 0-0 12.Be3) 11…0-0 12.Be3 or 12.Ne2: White stands slightly better everywhere, most probably.) you have a large temptation for an analogous “grandmaster draw” without your efforts and for a world scandalous fame: 3.Rh2?? (for example, he’ll choose this scandalous way) 3…Rh7?? 4.Rh1? Rh8?! 5.Rh2?? Rh7?? etc., 1/2-1/2. If tournament rules permit to write some words to your opponent, then you have also the alternative possibility – a memorable renunciation of this White’s present by 2…h6?! with your following words, for example: “Thank you, but I would like to not receive such presents by design from you in future, so 2…h6 is my polite diplomatic renunciation only”. In any case, White can start to play strongly after 2…h6?!. After 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bc4 be attentive, because after possible 4…Bc5 (C50) our new strong Wing gambit 5.b4! is what he wants: 5…Bb4 6.c3 Ba5 7.d4! d6 (7…ed 8.0-0 d6 9.cd Bb6 10.d5!) 8.de de? 9.Bf7!! Kf7 10.Ne5! with a win..  

Instead of these memorable possibilities, you can play strongly everywhere, for example: 2…Nf6! 3.Nc3 Bc5! (C26). If he plays here 4.Bc4, then the strong Wing gambit 4…b5! is what you want. And it will be also memorable. It’s easily to see that the 1st of these two gambits is a new part of the known opening family of strong Wing gambits. This family contains C50 Evans-Bukayev gambits and C26 gambits where Black uses the same idea (the most important of such other gambits in Vienna Game C26 is our invention in the Mengarini variation: 1.e4 e5 2.a3? Nf6! 3.Nc3 Bc5 4.Bc4 d6 5.h3 b5! AN (the Evans-Bukayev gambit reversed), it’s much more important than the same with 4…0-0 5.h3? b5 AN because Black has other simple ways to a win too). After 1.e4 e5 2.h3? Nf6! 3.Nc3 Bc5! your opponent should play 4.Nf3! Nc6 5.Bc4! d6 6.a3! AN, and White keeps an equal position: 6…Be6 7.Be2!, or 7.Ba2!?, or 7.Qe2!?.  

We’ll prove why this Black’s gambit (4…b5!) is really strong. There is a known game (Mead – Morphy, 1857) where this gambit appeared: 1.h3 e5 2.e4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Bc5 4.Bc4 b5 5.Bb5 c6 6.Ba4 0-0 7.Nge2 d5 8.ed cd 9.d4 ed 10.Nd4 Qb6 etc. (0:1). We can see the good way after 7.d3! (in fact, Mr. Mead’s move 7.Nge2! is good too, because 7…d5! 8.d3! AN is a good way too) 7…d5!: 

8.Nge2! AN de (8…d4?! 9.Nb1) 9.de Qd1 (9…Qa5 10.0-0 Ba6 11.Bb3. White stands better) 10.Nd1 Ne4 11.f3! (11.Be3 Bb6! with the idea 12…Nc5!) 11…Nf6 12.Be3. White stands better. 

That is why the great maestro Paul Morphy was lucky in this game. We can see that our move 6…d5! AN is much better than Mr. Morphy’s move 6…0-0. Thus, after 6…d5! AN 7.d3 (7.ed is also possible) 7…de 8.de? Bf2!! 9.Kf2 Ne4! Black wins (analogously to White’s winning way after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d3 h6 5.b4! (the Evans-Bukayev gambit) 5…Bb4 6.c3 Ba5 7.d4! d6 (7…ed 8.0-0 d6 9.cd Bb6 10.d5!) 8.de de? 9.Bf7!! Kf7 10.Ne5!). [Addition: It maybe everyone will call this not named gambit 4…b5! as “the Morphy-Bukayev gambit” and call its above variation 6…d5! as “the Bukayev first attack”. We agree to these names.]  

Analogously, in the Italian Game (C50) after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d3 h6 5.b4! Bb4 6.c3 Ba5 7.0-0 Black should play 7…d6 (or 7…Nge7 AN 8.d4 d6!) 8.d4 Nge7! AN 9.de de etc. with Black’s advantage.  

The above position 1.e4 e5 2.h3? (or 1.h3? (it was named later as ‘the Clemenz opening’) 1…e5 2.e4) was played by Mr. Morphy also as White, but only once. It was his early game against the unknown opponent. Our analysis of first moves of this game (Morphy – NN, New Orleans, 1848) shows that the future great maestro was lucky here too: 1.e4 e5 2.h3? d5 3.ed Bc5 [The way with 2…d5, 3…Bc5 isn’t very bad, although modern theory knows a lot of more strong ways, of course.] 4.Bc4? [4.Nf3!] 4…c6? [4…Bf2! 5.Kf2 Qh4 6.g3 Qc4 7.Nc3 (7.Nf3 Ne7! AN 8.Nc3 e4! with the advantage) 7…Qc5! AN 8.Kg2 Ne7!? with the advantage. {That is why White should play in the Baron von der Lasa gambit by the following way: 1.e4 e5 2.d4 ed 3.Bc4 Bc5? 4.Bf7! Kf7 5.Qh5 g6 6.Qc5 Nf6 7.Ne2! AN with the advantage; 6…Nc6 7.Qc4! AN Kg7 8.Ne2!? with the advantage.}] etc. (1:0). When Valery Golshev (the author of the classificator of chess opening sequences ‘ECO-gamma’) informed us about this game in the database, it was difficult for us to answer him surely why Mr. Morphy played here 2.h3, in my opinion. Thus, our early main version was the following: probably 11-year P.Morphy solved to give a handicap (by wasting a move) after the formation of his favourite position (1.e4 e5) only. But now our main version is the following: probably 11-year P.Morphy made his weak experiment, so it wasn’t a handicap. That is why we shouldn’t suggest to call it as “the Morphy’s Handicap opening”, we suggest to call it as “the Morphy’s Luck opening”: this name reflects our above analyses of both Paul Morphy’s games. 

        Now we can return to your possible game against WCC GM M.Carlsen with the above treaty initial position of the Bongcloud opening in A02 (1.f4 Na6? 2.Kf2?) where this treaty will be Mr. Carlsen’s handicap. If you have a “psychology of a solid chess player” then you’ll try to choose only “solid” moves. Thus, you’ll choose 2…Nc5!? AN because such “psychology” creates these thoughts: “If I keep my Knight on a6, then it can seem to be “not solid” to some commentators (such as the outstanding maestro of the past Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch). Further, 2…Nb8 (it isn’t also beautiful) and 2…Nb4? are not solid because I’m standing better now, only 2…Nc5 is solid here for each commentator”. Mr. Carlsen’s response will be probably the aggressive move 3.Nc3!? instead of the most careful 3.d3. Here your “psychology of a solid chess player” can create your new thoughts: “My position will not be “solid” probably for some commentators if my 3rd move isn’t an aggressive, natural and standard move 3…d5”. Thus, you’ll choose it, but it will not be the best move, although it keeps a material equality in the main variation: 3…d5!? 4.d4! (White stands slightly better.) 4…Ne4! [4…Ne6?? 5.f5 +-; 4…Nd7?? 5.Nd5 (White stands better.); 4…Na6 5.e4! de (5…e6 6.Ba6, and White stands better.) 6.Ba6 ba 7.Ne4 (White stands better.); 4…e5 5.fe (5.dc Bc5 with a sharp position where White wins after a complicated fight) 5…Ne4 6.Ne4 de (White stands better.)] 5.Ne4 de 6.e3 f5 7.c4 e6 8.Ne2 c5 9.Nc3 cd 10.ed Nf6 11.Be2, and White stands slightly better (although the advantage is very small). That is why you should be attentive always, even in the BC (KJO) opening family. 

In result, we should say that if GM#1 plays 2.h3? against you (after 1.e4 e5), then your choice of one of the above ways can make your game memorable.  

 

Note 1: Everywhere in the text the words “we” and “our” mean “author” and “author’s”. 

Note 2: Author’s theoretical novelties-moves are marked by the symbol “AN”. 

 

Contact the author:  istinayubukayev@yandex.ru  or  Facebook  

 

 

© 2021 Yury V. Bukayev (Copyright © Bukayev Yury Vyacheslavovich 2021). All rights reserved.  

[A legal using of this investigation with a reference to it is permitted  

and doesn’t require author’s consent.]