A Correction

In my email comments to Yury Bukayev about the line we were discussing, 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.Nf3 Nd4, 5.Bf7!?, I did not show much enthusiasm. In short order, I got a very bright email, enlightening me.

How do you do, dear Mr. Kennedy!

Dear Rick, thank you very much for your 2 letters! But I disagree with your appraisals of 5.Bxf7 and of 5.Nxe5. I suggest you discuss with me or publish (it will be better) my following analysis (5.Bf7! Kf7 6.Ne5 Ke6 7.Qh5+- ) and my words about 5.Ne5 Qg5-+:

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 (Vienna game: Max Lange variation) 4.Nf3 (Italian game/ Three Knights game) …Nd4?

Paragraph 1. 5.Bf7! Kf7 6.Ne5 Ke6 7.Qh5!? (White stands better.)

I)  7…Nc2 8.Kd1 Na1 9.Qf5 Kd6 (9…Ke7 10.Ng6 Kd6 11.Qd5 mate) 10.Nc4 Ke7 11.Nd5 Ke8 12.Qg6 mate;

II) 7…Qg5 8.Qf7 Kd6 [8…Ke5 9.d3 (with the idea 10.Bf4 mate) …Nc2 10.Kf1!?+-] 9.Qd5!? Ke7 10.Qd4 Qg2 11.Nd5 Kd8 12.Rf1 White stands better.

III) 7…Qf6 8.Ng6!? (White stands better.)

     A)    8…Nc2 (8…Rh7 9.Qd5 mate) 9.Kd1 Na1 10.Qd5 mate;

B)   8…Qg5 9.Nf8!? Ke7 10.Ng6 White stands better.
C)   8…c6 9.Qg4!? Kf7 10.Nh8 Ke8 11.0-0!? Nc2 12.Rb1 Nge7 13.e5 White stands better.

D)  8…d6 9.Nf8 (or 9.Nd5) …Qf8 (9…Ke7 10.Nd5!? Kf8 11.Nf6+-) 10.Qd5 White stands better.

E)  8…Ne7 9.Nd5 Qg5 (9…Qg6 10.Nf4+-; 9…Qf7 10.Ngf4+-) 10.Qg5!? White stands better.

IV) 7…g6 8.Qg6!? (White stands better.)

A)  8…Ke5 9.f4 Kf4 10.0-0+-;

B)  8…Nf6 9.Qf7 Ke5 10.f4 Kd6 (10…Kf4 11.0-0 Ke5 12.d3+) 11.e5 with the very strong attack;

C)  8…Qf6 9.Nd5!? Qg6 10.Ng6 (White stands better.) …Nc2 11.Kd1 Na1 12.Nc7 (or 12.Nh8) …Kf6 (12…Kd6 13.Na8 Rh7 14.Nf8 White stands better.) 13.Nh8 Rb8 14.b3 (with the idea 15.Bb2) +-

V) 7…Nf6 8.Qf7 Ke5 9.f4 Kd6 [9…Kf4 10.0-0 Ke5 11.d3 (with the idea 12.Bf4 mate) …g5!(11…Nc2 12.Bf4 Kd4 13.Qc4 mate) 12.Rf6!? c6 (12…Qf6 13.Qd5 mate; 12…Qe7 13.Rf5+-; 12…Bg7 13.Rg6!? White stands better.) 13.Be3 White stands better.] 10.e5 with the very strong attack.

Paragraph 2. 5.Ne5?! Qg5.

Probably, Black stands better both after 6.Nf7 and after 6.Bf7, because Black has a very strong attack in both cases: Qg2, Nf3, d5, Bg4.

Do you agree with me, dear Rick? I suggest you to discuss with me or to publish (it will be better) my analysis.

Best wishes! Yury V. Bukayev (“Bruno’s Chess Problem of the Day”)

Looking Deeper: The Reversed BSG

After yesterday's discovery of a reversed Blackburne Shilling Gambit game (see "Through the Looking Glass: A Reversed BSG") I decided to check in with a couple of Bishop Opening experts and see what they had to say about it.

I emailed Dr. Timothy Harding, a Senior International Master of Correspondence Chess and author of over 30 chess books, including the classic Bishop's Opening, the still-referred-to Italian Game (with George Botterill), and Vienna Opening.

His interest in unorthodox openings, as well, is reflected in such titles as Counter Gambits, Irregular Openings for the 1990s, Dynamic White Openings and Dynamic Black Defenses.

By the way, Dr. Harding has written extensively on correspondence chess, having been editor of the Chess Mail magazine and compiler of the MegaCorr CD-ROM database series of correspondence games (for many years a "secret weapon" used by stronger players).

His newest book title is  Correspondence Chess in Britain and Ireland, 1824-1987 (see picture above) and it is really quite a great read. I will be reviewing it for Chessville.com.

Anyhow, to my dismay, but not to my surprise, Dr. Harding was not familiar with the reversed Blackburne Shilling Gambit, and the one game he sent me shows that White, who initiated the gambit, was not, either.

 Stormtrooper - Tofik
HCL-C1126 PlayChess.de, 2002

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Bc5 4.Nd5

4...Nxe4 5.Ne3

A lackluster reply.

A BSGer would fire out 5.Qg4 immediately. As Tim McGrew has written about the regular BSG: Only [the Queen] move gives Black’s idea any punch.

Sadly, the rest of the game is not very exciting, either, until the second player engineers a breakthrough and advances a pair of connected passed pawns...

5...d6 6.d3 Nf6 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Ng5 d5 9.Bb5 Bd7 10.Nf3 Bd6 11.0-0 0-0 12.a4 a6 13.Bxc6 Bxc6 14.d4 e4 15.Ne5 Bxe5 16.dxe5 Ne8 17.c3 f5 18.f4 g6 19.b3 Ng7 20.Ba3 Re8 21.Qd2 b5 22.a5 Bb7 23.Rfd1 c6 24.b4 Ne6 25.g3 Rc8 26.Bb2 Re7 27.Kg2 Rd7 28.Ra3 c5 29.h4 cxb4 30.cxb4 d4 31.Kg1 Rcc7 32.Ng2 d3 33.Rc3 Nd4 34.Ne1 Ne2+ White resigned

That's how it goes: sometimes the beginning of a research project moves along slowly... Tomorrow's post shows how quickly the pace can pick up!

Through the Looking Glass...

I was playing my way through some of Bill Wall's chess games when I suddenly felt like Alice must have felt, after moving through the Looking Glass. What I found on the other side was not quite a Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and I wasn't sure quite what to call it.

Wall,B - Danyum
Chess.com, 2010

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6

So far, we have a Petroff Defense.

3.Bc4 Bc5

Okay, maybe this is a symmetrical Bishop's Opening.

4.Nc3 

A Vienna Game? A Russian Three Knights Game headed toward an Italian Four Knights Game?

4...Ng4

And what is that? A Jabberwocky?

5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.Qh5+

This looks remarkably like a Jerome Gambit, only Black has a Knight at b8, not g8; and White has a Knight already on c3.

7...Ke6

Or, as in the only other example that I have been able to find of this line: 7...g6 8.Qxe5 d6 9.Qf4+ Ke8 10.0-0 Rf8 11.Qh6 Bxf2+ 12.Rxf2 Rxf2 13.Kxf2 Qf6+ 14.Kg1 Nd7 15.Qxh7 Nf8 16.Qxc7 Ne6 17.Qxd6 Qg5 18.d4 Qg4 19.Bd2 Ng5 20.Qe5+ Kf7 21.Bxg5 Qh5 22.Qf6+ Ke8 23.Qe7 checkmate Jeng, - Hatcher, San Jose, 1994.

8.d4 Bxd4

9.Nb5 Nbc6

A reasonable move, but one that loses. Rybka recommends: 9...Bxf2+ (the Bishop is lost, anyhow) 10.Kxf2 d6 (so that Black will have a counter to White's Bishop's attack on his Queen) 11.Bg5 g6 12.Qh3+ Kf7 13.Qb3+ Be6 14.Bxd8 Bxb3 15.axb3 Rxd8 16.Nxc7 Nbd7 17.Nxa8 Rxa8 when Black will have two Knights against a Rook and a pawn; and probably an edge.

analysis diagram







10.Qf5+ Ke7 11.Bg5+ Black resigned

'Twas brillig...

Adolf Albin Plays the Jerome Gambit (Part 1)

With the miracle of chess opening transpositions, and the inclusiveness of the "modern" variations of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+), a bit of chess revisionism is hardly difficult to perform at all...

The Modern Jerome Gambit

The "Modern" Jerome Gambit – so-called because it was not seen during the days of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome, and has only recently (within the last 10 - 15 years) appeared – can be classified as "1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Not-Nxe5+":

5.0-0, 5.Nc3, 5.d3, 5.a3, 5.h3, 5.Qe2, etc. All of those fifth moves for White can be safely submitted to chess analysis engines and all will receive a "better" score than 5.Nxe5+.

Let's take a look at 5.Qe2: it received attention as the backbone of GladtoMateYou's play (see "Home Cooking") with White in the current Chessworld Jerome Gambit Thematic Tournament. As Black's response, let's give the reasonable 5...Nf6.

And now a bit of a historical digression...

According to the August 1895 issue of the British Chess Magazine, the cities of Brandfort and Bloemfontein, South Africa, played a game of correspondence chess that year. It began 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Qe2 d6, and James Mason (writing for the BCM) wrote

Better 4...Nf6. There would be plenty of time to play the Pawn - perhaps two squares instead of one. For, as the Cape Times remarks, if White adopts the "Jerome Gambit" 5.Bxf7+ Black replies 5...Kxf7 6.Qc4+ d5 7.Qxc5 Nxe4 with advantage.

(It should be noted that despite Mason's assessment, GladtoMateYou won 3 of the 4 games in the Thematic Tournament that reached that position after 7 moves.)

We are now ready to proceed to Albin - Schlechter, Trebitsch Memorial Memorial Tournament, Vienna, 1914.

In the next post, that is...