Worth a Second Look... (Part 3)

The most recent analysis of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 (see "Worth a Second Look (Part 1)" and "Worth a Second Look (Part 2)") is by NM Clyde Nakamura, in his very creative "The Search for Dragons & Mythical Chess Openings" column at Chessville. Nakamura refers to the line, after the additional 3.Nxe5 Nc6, as "Chiodini's Gambit" apparently so-named by a chessfriend-of-a-chessfriend. He gives earlier (1998) analysis by Stefano Vezzani and by Sverre Johnsen, and then gives a host of annotated games, including one by Busch and one by Gass.

The Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nxe4 4.Nc3) was suggested by Lionel Kieseritzky in 1848. Samuel Boden published the first analysis of it in his Popular Introduction to Chess in 1851. Over 150 years later, will the BKG, in Chiodini form, rise again like the mythical Phoenix?

Worth a Second Look... (Part 2)

Rainer Schlenker refers to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 (see "Worth a Second Look... (Part 1)") as the "Busch - Gass Gambit" in the May/June 1985 issue (pp. 69-71) of his magazine Randspringer.

He refers to analysis by Oskar Cordel in Führer durch die Schachtheorie (1888)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.d4 Bd6 (4...Bb6 5.Bc4!) 5.f4 f6 6.Nc4 Qxe4+ 7.Kf2 Bxf4 8.Nc3 Qf5 9.Bd3 Qg5 10.Re1+ Ne7 11.Kg1 Nbc6 12.Bxf4 Qxf4 13.Qh5+ Kf8 14.Re4 +/- / +-

and analysis included in Bilguer (1916)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.d4 Bd6 5.Nc3! Bxe5 6.Nd5 Qd6 7.dxe5 Qxe5 8.Bf4 Qxe4+ 9.Qd2

Schlenker, however, modifies the name that Bent Larsen gave to the line ("Busch-Gambit") in Larsen's Sharp Openings (in Danish) based on the game Baird - Busch, 15. Kongresses Deutchen Schachbundes, Nuremberg 1906. Sharp Openings included a portion of the game:

Baird,D - Busch
Nuremberg, 1906
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nf3 Qe7 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.d4 Nxe4 7.Nd5 Bb4+ 8.Bd2 Nxd2+ 9.Nxe7 Nxf3+ 10.Ke2 Nfxd4+ 11.Kd3 Bxe7 12.c3 Ne6 13.Kc2 0-0 14.g3 d5 15.Bd3 Rd8 16.f4 d4 17.f5 dxc3 18.fxe6 Nb4+ 19.Kxc3 Rxd3+ 20.Qxd3 Nxd3 21.exf7+ Kf8 22.Kxd3 Bf5+ 0-1

Schlenker adds the name "Gass" to the variation after the German master who had been playing the line in the 1970s and 1980s, and gives a few examples.

Many of Gass's blitz games have gone:

NN - Gass
blitz (1970 - 1985)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6 5.d3 Nf6 6.Bg5 Nxe4 7.Bxd8 Bxf2+ 8.Ke2 Bg4 checkmate

and then there's

NN - Gass
blitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6 5.c3 Qe7 6.f3 f5 7.d4 fxe4 8.dxc5 exf3+ 9.Kf2 Nf6 10.Bc4 Ne4+ 11.Kg1 fxg2 12.Kxg2 Bh3+ 13.Kg1 Qxc5+ 14.Qd4 Rd8!! White resigns

While Cordel (1888) and Bilguer (1916) updated the analysis of Salvio (1604) (see "Worth a Second Look... (Part 1)"), Busch and Gass have taken the opening in a different direction: that of a reversed Boden - Kieseritzky Gambit, a move down.

That, too, deserves a second look...

Worth a Second Look... (Part 1)

Continuing the discussion from "London Calling... Seven Months of Blog", "The next best thing..." and "The next worst thing..." based on my self-challenge from that first post:

I also got wondering the other day: is there another totally obscure and disreputable tactical opening line or gambit that I could go digging for information about, while I'm researching the Jerome Gambit [1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+]??

Who – especially a Jerome Gambiteer – couldn 't get excited about the opening in the following game?

Kaidanov,Gregory - Martinenko,Sergey

Pioneer House Tournament, 1969

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Bxf2+ 4.Kxf2 Qh4+ 5.Kg1 Qxe4 6.Qh5 Qd4 checkmate

Granted, the future Grandmaster was only 10 years old and in only his second year in the Pioneer House program when he played that game, but still...

Where did such a thing come from??

Unfortunately, the earliest example that I have in my database of the 3...Bxf2+ line is a little less optimistic for Black:

Krejcik, Josef - Baumgartner

Troppau, 1914

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Bxf2+ 4.Kxf2 Qh4+ 5.g3 Qxe4 6.Qe2 Qxh1 7.Bg2 Black resigns

Oh, well. But, still... The thing surely is worth a second look.

The opening 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 actually has a long pedigree. When J.H. Sarratt published his The Works of Damiano, Ruy-Lopez and Salvio on the Game of Chess in 1813, he noted Salvio's analysis of the line (from Il Puttino, altramente detto, il Cavaliero Errante, del Salvio, sopra el gioco de Scacchi, 1604), including the following (translated into modern algebraic notation)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.d4 Bb4+ (4...Bd6 5.f4 f7 6.Nc4 Qxe4+ 7.Kf2 Bxf4 8.Nc3 Qf5 9.Bd3 Qg5 10.Re1+; 4...d6 5.dxc4 Qxe5 6.cxd5 Qxe4+ 7.Be3 cxd6 8.Qxd6 Qxc2) 5.c3 Ba4 6.f3 f6 7.Nc4

Note, though, that Salvio focused on 3.Nxe5 Qe7, rather than 3...Bxf7+, with the goal of capturing White's e-pawn to maintain material equality. To him, Black's 2...Bc5 didn't lose a pawn as much as it made capturing White's e-pawn, in turn, more awkward (due to 4.d4), and caused Black to fall behind in development.

That put 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 in a whole class of defenses where Black appeared indifferent to the loss of his e-pawn, as shown in these examples:

Pilkington,R - Harvey,E

Dublin Evening Mail corr, 1889

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 a5 3.d4 exd4 4.Qxd4 h5 5.Bc4 f6 6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3 Be7 8.Qd5 Black resigns

Judd,M - MacLeod,N

USA-06.Congress New York (8), 1889

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 c6 3.Nc3 d6 4.d4 Bg4 5.dxe5 Bxf3 6.Qxf3 dxe5 7.Bc4 Nf6 8.0-0 Be7 9.Qg3 0-0 10.Qxe5 Nbd7 11.Qf5 b5 12.Bd3 Bd6 13.Bg5 Qc7 14.f4 g6 15.Qh3 Nh5 16.e5 Bc5+ 17.Kh1 Rae8 18.Ne4 Be7 19.Bh6 Ng7 20.Rad1 f5 21.exf6 Bxf6 22.Bc4+ bxc4 23.Rxd7 Qc8 24.Nxf6+ Rxf6 25.Rxg7+ Kh8 26.Qxc8 Rxc8 27.Rxa7 Rg8 28.Re1 Rd6 29.h3 Black resigns

Csipkes,A - Sutro,J

Hungary, corr, 1893

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e5 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.d4 Nc6 5.Nxc6 Qxe4+ 6.Be3 Qxc6 7.Nc3 cxd4 8.Qxd4 Nf6 9.0-0-0 Be7 10.Rg1 0-0 11.g4 d6 12.g5 Ne8 13.Bb5 Qc7 14.Nd5 Qd8 15.Bxe8 Rxe8 16.Qf4 Rf8 17.Bd4 Be6 18.Nf6+ Kh8 19.Qh4 Bxf6 20.gxf6 g6 21.Rxg6 Rg8 22.Rdg1 Rxg6 23.Rxg6 Bf5 24.Qh6 Qf8 25.Rg7 a6 26.Bc3 Black resigns

Brody,M - Albin,A

Kolisch mem, Vienna (5), 1899

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 a6 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.d4 d6 5.Nf3 Qxe4+ 6.Be2 Bf5 7.c4 Qc2 8.0-0 Qxd1 9.Rxd1 Be7 10.Nc3 Nf6 11.Bf4 0-0 12.h3 Re8 13.Bd3 Bxd3 14.Rxd3 Bf8 15.Re3 Nbd7 16.Rae1 c6 17.Rxe8 Nxe8 18.d5 c5 19.Kf1 h6 20.g4 g5 21.Bg3 f6 22.Ke2 Kf7 23.Kd3 b5 24.b3 bxc4+ 25.bxc4 Rb8 26.Kc2 Rb4 27.Nd2 Ng7 28.a3 Rb6 29.f4 gxf4 30.Bxf4 h5 31.Nde4 hxg4 32.hxg4 Ne5 33.Bxe5 dxe5 34.Na4 Rb8 35.Kc3 Ne8 36.Naxc5 Rc8 37.Nd3 Nd6 38.Nxd6+ Bxd6 39.Rb1 e4 40.Nb4 Rb8 41.Re1 Be5+ 42.Kc2 a5 43.Nc6 Rb2+ 44.Kc1 Rb3 45.Rxe4 Rxa3 46.Nxe5+ fxe5 47.Kb2 Ra4 48.Kb3 Rb4+ 49.Kc3 Kf6 50.Re1 Rb8 51.Ra1 Rg8 52.Rf1+ Ke7 53.Rf5 Kd6 54.Rf6+ Kd7 55.Re6 Rg5 56.c5 Rxg4 57.Rxe5 Rg1 58.Rh5 Rc1+ 59.Kd4 Ke7 60.Rh6 a4 61.Ra6 Ra1 62.Ra7+ Kf6 63.c6 a3 64.Kc5 Ke5 65.Re7+ Kf5 66.Kd6 Rh1 67.c7 Rh6+ 68.Kc5 Rh8 69.d6 Kf6 70.Re2 a2 71.Rxa2 Ke6 72.Re2+ Black resigns

It's all too much to reflect on at once...

All's well that ends well

The other day I stopped by the website of the United States Chess Federation (USCF) and read about the Eighth U.S. Chess School recently held in Scottsdale, Arizona. There I read about 15 year old Kevin Zhang, rated 2160, who made the remarkable comment

I like playing any endgame that’s completely equal...
I made 2100 without any opening theory at all, just with simple tactical ideas and solid endgames. I would get horrible positions out of the opening and then have to fight back in the middlegame.

That came to mind later in the day when I was playing a game at the Free Internet Chess Server (FICS) and reached the following position with White. (It didn't arise from one of my Jerome Gambit games – 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+.)


Readers will recognize a standard Bishops-of-opposite-colors ending, and realize that White, despite his protected passed pawn, has nothing.

If my opponent hadn't been rated some 150 points above me, I would have offered a draw. It seemed polite to let him do so.

32. Kf3 Bb2 33. a4 Ba3 34. b5 axb5 35. axb5 Kd7

36. f5 c6 37. bxc6+ bxc6 38. Ke4 Bb2

Once White plays e5-e6, Black will be able to establish a dark square blockade with his Bishop and King, and the White pawns will not advance. Likewise, White can establish a light square blockade with his King and Bishop, and the enemy c-pawn will do no damage.

39. Bc4 Ke7 40. Bb3 Kd7 41. Be6+ Ke7 42. Bb3 Kd7

It's evident that neither one of us is getting anywhere. (Even though it was a 2 12 game, time on the clock was not an issue for either of us.)

43. h4 Ke7 44. h5 Kd7 45. Bc4 Ke7 46. Bb3 Kd7

Same old, same old. To show that I had a sense of humor, I decided to break the deadlock by sacrificing a pawn – not that it would change anything.

47. f6 gxf6 48. exf6
After 48...Bxf6 White's King heads for – h1!

Black will be able to exchange his c-pawn for White's Bishop and even win White's remaining pawn, but he will find himself in the even more notorious wrong-colored-Bishop-and-Rook-pawn ending where he will be unable to promote his remaining pawn because he will not be able to chase White's King away from the Queening square!

48...Ke8

My opponent shows that he is a funny guy, too. It turns out that he can draw without even recapturing the pawn!

49. Kf5 Bxf6

However, this is one joke too many.

My opponent would not communicate with me after the game (perhaps he had already started another match) so that I could not learn why he played this move instead of 49...Kf8, which clearly draws.

If I were to guess, I would say that after 49...Bxf6 50.Kxf6 he told himself: now, even if I lose both of my pawns my opponent will still be stuck trying to win that notorious wrong-colored-Bishop-and-Rook-pawn ending...

50. Kxf6 c5 51. Kg6 Kf8 52. Kxh6


Oooops... The Black King cannot get to h8 to hold off the White pawn.

Black resigns.

Jerome Gambit: Drilling Down (26)

After the previous one-sided adventure (see "Jerome Gambit: Drilling Down (25)") the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) seemed to be on its last legs against the 7...d6 defense, and the following game – even though it is a humorous draw – adds to the Jerome's misery, as the computer Hiarcs 8, playing White, "panics" (as did Crafty 19.19 before it: see "Jerome Gambit: Drilling Down (22)") and forces an early draw.

A pleasant break for RevvedUp, nonetheless.

Hiarcs 8 - RevvedUp

blitz 2 12, 2006

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6

7.f4 d6 8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Qh3+

9...Ke7 10.Qg3 Kd6 11.Qd3+ Ke7 12.Qg3 Ke6 13.Qh3+ Kf7 14.Qh5+ Ke6 15.Qh3+ draw

Jerome Gambit: Drilling Down (25)

Further exploration into the 7...d6 line of defense in the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) shows that it is more effective than it looks: Black's King is not so unsafe, and White's King can get into its own trouble.


RevvedUp - Hiarcs 8
blitz 2 12, 2006

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6

7.f4 d6 8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Rf1

As in "Jerome Gambit: Drilling Down (24)".
9...Nf6 10.Qe2 Ke7 11.d3 Bg4

Hiarcs 8 varies from 11...Qd4 that Fritz 8 played in the previous game.

12.Qd2 Qd4 13.c3 Qd6

It doesn't seem right that White has sacrificed two pieces to get into this position.

14.b4 Bb6 15.a4 Rhf8
Black can even ignore the threat of h4-h5, trapping his Bishop.

16.Qc2 Nxe4

A sacrifice, which accepted, will lead to mate.

17.dxe4 Rxf1+ 18.Kxf1 Rf8+ 19.Ke1 Bf2+ 20.Kf1 Bh4+ 21.Kg1 Qb6+ 22.Kh1 Rf1 checkmate


Brutal.

Don't say we didn't warn you...

From the "Why You Lose in the Opening" chapter of Tim Harding's Why You Lose at Chess (1982)

Playing an opening that is tactically unsound is rather another matter, for punishment is likely to be swift and painful if your opponent knows the refutation. Openings such as the Queen Pawn Counter Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5), Englund Gambit (1.d4 e5), Jerome Gambit(1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) involve the early sacrifice of material that is unlikely, against a player of reasonable competence, to bring material or positional compensation...

To go deliberately into such openings or variations is not to be recommended as a general rule. If the opponent is weaker than you, then you should be able to win without taking such risks. If the opponent is stronger, he is likely to know the refutation or find it...