- 98_A08_Grunfeld Attack GIA
40 games, 1942-2022 - 98_A10/A36/A37_Great Snake English; Fischers Sym
6 games, 1967-2024 - 98_A15_English_Double-Fianchetto
46 games, 1923-2018 - 98_A18+A19 Flohr Mikenas Carls Variation
25 games, 1927-2022 - 98_A23_English, Keres Variation (A20-A23)
19 games, 1956-2023 - 98_A31_Anti-Benoni English (Kasparov Gambit)
<The Kasparov/Vaganian Gambit> The introductory position of the <Kasparov/Vaganian Gambit> can occur after 1 d4,1 Nf3 and 1 c4, which can appeal to a wide range of players. The usual move order is <1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 Nf3 cxd4 4 Nxd4 e5!? 5 Nb5 d5 6 cxd5 Bc5> bringing us to a very sharp position.
click for larger view
Opening Explorer
<219 games · 1979-2017> notable games:
J Costa vs J Polgar, 1987 Tims Collins, Francis George - Kitto, Francis EA
City of London CC, 1937.03.15
Varsity Oxford-Cambridge (1)
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nf3 cd4 4. Nd4 e5 5. Nb5 d5 6. cd5 Bc5 7. N5c3 O-O 8. e3 Nbd7 9. e4 Bd4 10. Bd3 Nc5 11. h3 Nh5 12. Qe2 Qh4 13. Bc2 f5 14. g3 Ng3 15. fg3 Qg3 16. Kd1 fe4 17. Ne4 Ne4 18. Be4 Bh3 19. Bh7 Kh8 20. Be4 Kg8 21. Bh7 Kh8 22. Nd2 Rf2 23. Qd3 Be3 24. Bf5 Rd2 25. Bd2 1-0 Source: The Times, 16 Mar 1937 check also: http://xn--vidosechecsenligne-dwb.c... <The Kasparov Gambit>
On this 60 mins, FIDE Senior Trainer Andrew Martin argues the case ... https://videos.chessbase.com/PubPoi... 01: INTRO
02: Summary of variations
03: 5.Sc2/Nb3 Game 1 - N V Pedersen vs E Najer, 2005 04: 5.Nf3 Game 2 - Wiech,O - Berberich,C
05: 7.d6 Game 3 - C Seel vs Ganguly, 2004 06: THE MAIN LINE 7.N5c3 Intro
07: 7.N5c3 0-0 8.g3 Game 4 - B C Yildiz Kadioglu vs K Arakhamia-Grant, 2014 08: 7.N5c3 0-0 8.g3 Game 5 - I Hausner vs I Rogers, 1994 09: 7.N5c3 0-0 8.e3 Game 6 - A Mikhalchishin vs Kasparov, 1981 10: 7.N5c3 0-0 8.e3 Game 7 - Lautier vs M Illescas, 1995 11: 7.N5c3 0-0 8.e3 Game 8 - L Ortega vs Bareev, 1987 12: 7.e3 0-0 8.N5c3 e4 Game 9 - D Madsen vs Hodgson, 1994 13: 7.e3 0-0 8.N5c3 e4 Game 10 - Pradeep,K - Rathnakaran,K 14: 7.N5c3 0-0 8.a3 a5 Game 11 - S Palatnik vs Kasparov, 1982 = = = = = = = = =
R Haque vs Hodgson, 1987
whiteshark: White does somewhat better meeting <7...Ne4> with <8.e3>, John Watson's idea when Black should explore <8...0–0!>
(8...Nxd6?! 9.Qd5 Qb6 10.Qxe5+ wins a pawn ; and 8...Bb4+ 9.Bd2! Bxd2+ 10.Nxd2 Nxd6 11.Nf3 is also promising for White, as pointed out by Watson) <9.N1c3> (this is fine for Black, but I'm not sure that White has any route to the advantage: 9.Qd5 Bb4+ 10.Bd2 Nxd2 11.Nxd2 a6 is fine for Black too, since 12.Nc7 can simply be met by 12...Ra7 ,; and 9.Qc2 Bb4+ 10.Bd2 Nxd2 11.Nxd2 a6! is also at least equal for the second player, because 12.Nc7?! Qxd6! 13.Nxa8? Bf5 14.Qd1 Rd8 regains a piece with a crushing initiative) <9...Nxd6 10.Qd5> (otherwise Black has managed to regain his pawn with equality) <10...Na6 11.Qxe5 Re8 12.Qh5!?> (12.Qd5 Be6 13.Qd1 is somewhat more sensible, although I still rather like Black's lead in development after 13...Qe7) <12...Nb4! 13.Qxc5 Nc2+ 14.Ke2> (or 14.Kd1?! Ne4+ 15.Qd5 Nxa1 16.Qxd8 Rxd8+ 17.Ke2 Nxc3+ 18.bxc3 Be6 with some advantage to Black) <14...Nxb5 15.Nxb5 Bg4+ 16.f3 Rc8 17.Qd6 Nxa1 18.Qxd8 Rexd8 19.Nc3 Be6> and as the knight will escape, Black is doing pretty well. = = = = = = =
Literature - Recommended Opening Books:
Richard Palliser,Tony Kosten & James Vigus: Dangerous Weapons - Flank Openings (Everyman 2008), Chapter 7 Nicolai Pedersen: Play the Benko Gambit, Chapter 7 Carsten Hansen: Symmetrical English (has a good section on A31 Vaganian/Kasparov Gambit). Boris Alterman: <The Alterman Gambit Guide - Black Gambits 1> (Qualitychess, 2011) Chapter 3 (p.197-276) IMO the reference work, he calls it <Vaganian Gambit>, because it was 1st played by the Armenian GM Rafael Vaganian in 1977. [Event "URS-ch FL45"]
[Site "Baku"]
[Date "1977.??.??"]
[Round "16"]
[White "Peresipkin, Vladimir"]
[Black "Vaganian, Rafael A"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A31"]
[WhiteElo "2395"]
[BlackElo "2545"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nf3 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e5 5. Nb5 d5 6. cxd5 Bc5 7. e3 O-O 8. N5c3 Bf5 9. Be2 Re8 10. O-O e4 11. Nd2 a6 12. a3 Qc7 13. Nc4 b5 14. d6 Qc8 15. Na5 Qe6 16. b4 Bxd6 17. Bb2 Nbd7 18. Nb7 Bf8 19. Qd2 Rab8 20. Na5 Ne5 21. Rad1 Kh8 22. Nd5 Rbd8 23. Bxe5 Rxd5 24. Bd4 Kg8 25. Qb2 Ng4 26. Bc3 Ne5 27. Rxd5 Qxd5 28. Bxe5 Qxe5 29. Qxe5 Rxe5 30. Rc1 Rd5 31. Nb3 g6 32. Kf1 h5 33. Rc6 Rd6 34. Rxd6 Bxd6 35. Nc5 Bxc5 36. bxc5 Kf8 37. Ke1 Ke7 38. Kd2 Ke6 39. Kc3 Kd5 40. Kb4 Bd7 41. Bd1 a5+ 42. Kxa5 Kxc5 43. Bb3 Be8 44. h4 f6 45. g3 g5 46. Be6 g4 47. Ba2 Bg6 48. Bb3 Be8 49. Be6 Kd6 50. Bf5 Kc5 51. Bxe4 Kc4 52. Kb6 Kb3 53. Kc7 Kxa3 54. Kd8 Bf7 55. Ke7 Bc4 56. Bg6 b4 57. Bxh5 b3 58. Bg6 Be2 59. h5 Bd1 60. Bf7 b2 61. Bg6 Kb3 62. h6 Bc2 63. Bxc2+ Kxc2 64. h7 b1=Q 65. h8=Q Qb7+ 66.
Ke6 Qc6+ 67. Kf7 f5 68. Qe5 Qf3 69. Kf6 Kd2 70. Qxf5 Ke1 71. Kg5 Kxf2 72. Qxg4 Qa8 73. e4 Qd8+ 74. Kf4 Qd2+ 75. Ke5 Qc3+ 76. Kd5 Qb3+ 77. Kd6 Qb6+ 78. Ke7 Qc7+ 79. Kf6 Qd6+ 80. Kf7 Ke3 81. Qg6 Qe5 82. Qh6+ Kd3 83. g4 Qc7+ 84. Kg6 Qd6+ 85. Kh7 Qe7+ 86. Qg7 Qh4+ 87. Kg8 Kxe4 88. g5 Kf5 89. g6 Qh1 90. Qf7+ Kg5 91. Qe6 Qa8+ 92. Kg7 Qa1+ 93. Kf7 Qa7+ 1/2-1/2 = =
[Event "Rome"]
[Date "1977.??.??"]
[White "Mariotti, Sergio"]
[Black "Vaganian, Rafael A"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A31"]
[WhiteElo "2490"]
[BlackElo "2545"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nf3 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e5 5. Nb5 d5 6. cxd5 Bc5 7. e3 O-O 8. N5c3 e4 9. Nd2 Bf5 10. Nb3 Bd6 11. Be2 a6 12. Nd4 Bg6 13. g4 h6 14. h4 Nbd7 15. Bd2 Ne5 16. Rg1 Nfd7 17. h5 Bh7 18. Qc2 Nc5 19. O-O-O Rc8 20. Kb1 Qf6 21. Nf5 Rfe8 22. Ka1 Ned3 23. f4 Bxf5 24. gxf5 Nb4 25. Qb1 Bf8 26. Be1 Ncd3 27. Bxd3 exd3 28. Rxd3 Bc5 29. Bf2 b5 30. Rd2 Bxe3 1/2-1/2 = [Event "URS Spartakiad"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1979.??.??"]
[White "Piesina, Gintautas"]
[Black "Vaganian, Rafael A"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A31"]
[WhiteElo "2200"]
[BlackElo "2570"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nf3 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e5 5. Nb5 d5 6. cxd5 Bc5 7. N5c3 O-O 8. g3 Ng4 9. e3 f5 10. Be2 Nf6 11. a3 Nbd7 12. b4 Bd6 13. Nd2 Nb6 14. Nb3 Kh8 15. Ra2 Bd7 16. Nc5 Bxc5 17. bxc5 Nbxd5 18. Nxd5 Ba4 19. Qd3 Nxd5 20. O-O Bc6 21. Rd2 Qe7 22. Qc4 Nf6 23. f3 f4 24. Rd6 Nh5 25. exf4 exf4 26. g4 Rae8 27. Bd1 Qg5 28. Bd2 Re5 29. Rf2 Rfe8 30. Qd4 Rxc5 31. h4 Qxh4 32. Qxc5 Qg3+ 33. Rg2 Re1+
1/2-1/2
= = = = = =
P.S.:
The other day a 2250 player uncorked <8.h3> against me. Being on my own I lost badly in 22. :( One is always wiser after the event. ;D
|
|
45 games, 1952-2017 - 98_A40 Dzindzi Indian aka The Beefeater
The <Dzindzi Indian <1. d4 g6 2. c4 Bg7 3. Nc3 c5 4. d5 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 f5 >> 
click for larger view is an extremely offbeat variation – and that’s exactly what makes it so dangerous! The effect of this surprising opening system can be devastating on the unprepared opponent, often forcing defensive gut reactions to this very different type of set-up. In this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?featur... on the Kingside Fianchetto Variation for white, we will examine black’s typical sources of counterplay against white’s disrupted center. I recommend that black plays to immediately establish pressure on white’s clumsy doubled pawns on c3 and c4 with early …Qa5, …Nd7-Nb6 maneuvers. It is also a great idea to remember the …Qa5-Qa6 idea, similar to variations in the Nimzo-Indian where black changes his focal point on those pawns to exploit white’s difficulty in defending them. Combining this pressure with castling queenside where position is closed, black will have a free hand to attack white’s kingside with pressure on the h-file. It is frequent in the Dzindzi Indian that black will completely tie down white’s pieces to the defense of the doubled c3 and c4 pawns and the defense of white’s kingside, to break the position open in the center with …e5 to fully exploit white’s lack of fluid coordination. = ♗ = ♗ = ♗ = ♗ = ♗ = ♗ = ♗ = ♗ = ♗ =
This line is usually named after the grandmaster and two-time US Champion Roman Dzindzichashvili, who pioneered the defence in the 1980s. It looks like a strange cocktail of the Benoni, Dutch and Nimzo-Indian! Black's decision to capture on c3 unbalances the position in a way he couldn't hope to do otherwise, and for this reason the Dzindzi-Indian is an effective line to play as Black if you are desperate to win. One practical advantage from Black's point of view is that quiet responses by White tend to be at best unchallenging and sometime much worse than that, so the Dzindzi-Indian can be a successful choice against timid players. The follow-up of ...f5 is designed to avoid giving White a free hand in the centre. Black will usually try to keep the position as closed as possible, and then exploit White's obvious structural weaknesses on the queenside. An example of a successful Black strategy is seen in Handler-Kozul, Graz 2011, where White's 6 Nf3 and subsequent play leaves Black with little to fear. Generally speaking, White should be in a hurry to open the position, and the critical tries against the Dzindzi-Indian usually involve some form of gambit. One of these is <6 e4!? fxe4 7 f3>: White basically treats the position like a Dutch, and plays a Staunton-type gambit. In fact <7...exf3?!> (see Navara-Rozmbersky, Czechia 2001) is simply too risky, as White gets a very favourable version of the Staunton Gambit. Much wiser is <7...Nf6! 8 fxe4> and now either <8...Qa5 9 Qc2 d6> (see Onischuk-Sokolov, Viernheim 1995) or the immediate <8...d6> (see Liascovich-Tristan, Mar del Plata 2007), although even here Black must play accurately and White has some chances to keep an advantage. Another aggressive option for White is <6 h4!?>: The h2-h4 lunge is seen in a few Leningrad Dutch lines, and here it's more enticing because Black no longer has his dark-squared bishop. The main line runs <6...Nf6 7 h5 Rg8 8 hxg6 hxg6> and here White has more than one option: Possibly the most violent try is <9 g4!?>, which can cause Black serious problems if he doesn't know how to respond. However, Black's play in Bunzmann-Okhotnik, France 2002, beginning with <9...Qa5!>, seems quite convincing to me. Also possible for White is the strange-looking <9 Qa4!?>, which has been used successfully by one or two very strong players and is certainly more challenging than it initially appears. See Shishkin-Klimov, St Petersburg 2008, for an example of the problems Black can face here. Finally, <6 g4!?> is yet another violent attempt against the Dzindzi-Indian: This is probably not quite as critical as <6 e4> or <6 h4>, as long as Black remembers to meet <6...fxg4 7 h3> with the typical Dutch response <7...g3!>. See the game Bazart-Okhotnik, Creon 2008, for more details. http://www.chesspublishing.com/cont... = ♗ = ♗ = ♗ = ♗ = ♗ = ♗ = ♗ = ♗ = ♗ =
Opening Explorer http://brooklyn64.com/2011/the-dzin...
http://www.denkschach.de/beefeater....
check out: Game Collection: Modern - Dzindzi's 4...Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 f5 http://www.redhotpawn.com/chess/gra... there's a thematic overlap area to: Game Collection: 50_Bishop pair -how to get it in the opening
|
|
36 games, 1914-2025 - 98_A40_English Defense_-b6/e6/Bb7
1 game, 1997 - 98_A40_Englund / Hartlaub / rev. BDG etc
"<1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Qe7> 
click for larger viewThe opening was invented by the same man who established the Latvian Gambit: <Karlis Betinš (1867-1943; in German sources: <Karl Behting>>). He published his analysis “Königsbauer gegen Damenbauer” in Deutsche Schachzeitung 1930, pp. 171-174. Two years later Fritz Englund (1871-1933), the leading chess figure in Sweden, sponsored a thematic tournament, held at Stockholm in late 1932 and early 1933. Every game had to begin with <Betinš’> main line 4 Qd5. Don’t ask me why the new planet wasn’t named after <Karlis Betinš> – probably because his article had already been forgotten, or – more probable – because <Englund> died shortly afterwards. When chess magazines reported his death, they rarely failed to mention <Englund’s Gambit Tournament.>” So the name stuck." Stefan Buecker in his ChessCafe.com column <Over the Horizons>: "Visiting Planet Englund" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-11-19. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = The Englund Gambit is a rarely played chess opening that starts with the moves: <1. d4 e5?!>
Black's idea is to avoid the traditional closed queen's pawn games and create an open game with tactical chances, but at the cost of a pawn. The gambit is considered weak; Boris Avrukh writes that <1...e5> "seems to me the worst possible reply to White's first move".[1] It is almost never seen in top-level play, although Paul Keres once tried it.[2] The gambit is occasionally seen in amateur games and in correspondence chess, and the <3...Qe7> version of the gambit was frequently used by Henri Grob.[3] Black has numerous ways to continue after 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5. Black can offer to exchange the d-pawn for White's e-pawn with 2...d6, arguing that after White captures with exd6, ...Bxd6 will offer Black a lead in development to compensate for the pawn. After the continuation <2...Nc6 3.Nf3>, Black may round up the e5-pawn with <3...Qe7>, intending to meet 4.Bf4 with the disruptive 4...Qb4+, and ensuring that White's only way to maintain the extra pawn is to expose the queen with 4.Qd5, but in subsequent play the queen can prove to be awkwardly placed on e7. 3...Nge7 intending 4...Ng6 is another way to round up the e5-pawn, but requires two tempi, while Black can also offer to exchange the f-pawn with 3...f6, or 3...Bc5 intending a subsequent...f6, with similar play to the Blackmar–Diemer Gambit except that Black has one tempo less. The gambit can be considered an inferior relative of the Budapest Gambit and Albin Countergambit, as by comparison with those gambits, White has not weakened the b4-square with c2–c4, and may be able to put that tempo to better use in order to avoid giving away any key squares.[4] Accordingly, with careful play White should be able to obtain a greater advantage against the Englund than against the Budapest and Albin, against all approaches by Black. However, since the Budapest and Albin rely upon White continuing with 2.c4, and can thus be avoided by continuations such as 2.Nf3 (when 2...e5? can be met by 3.Nxe5 in either case), it is easier for exponents of the Englund Gambit to get their opening on the board and avoid getting into a typical queen's pawn type of game. Contents
1 History
2 Main variations
2.1 Blackburne–Hartlaub Gambit
2.2 Soller Gambit
2.3 Zilbermints Gambit
2.4 Englund Gambit main line
2.5 Alternatives for White
3 See also
4 References
5 External links
This article uses algebraic notation to describe chess moves.
History
1.d4 e5 is also known as the Charlick Gambit after Henry Charlick (1845–1916), the second Australian chess champion, who introduced the 2...d6 line in the early 1890s.[5] The main line Englund Gambit (2...Nc6, 3...Qe7) was introduced by Kārlis Bētiņš (1867–1943), who also established the Latvian Gambit. The Swedish player Fritz Carl Anton Englund (1871–1933) sponsored a thematic tournament in which all games had to begin with the position after <4.Qd5>; the 1.d4 e5 gambit complex was later named after him.[3] Main variations
<Blackburne–Hartlaub Gambit>
The Blackburne–Hartlaub Gambit, 2...d6, was Charlick's original idea to avoid the closed openings, aiming for compensation for a pawn after 3.exd6 Bxd6.[5] A sample continuation is 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4, when White remains a pawn up with some advantage. White can also delay the immediate 3.exd6, playing 3.Nf3 first, when after 3...Bg4, 4.e4 Nd7 transposes into a gambit line of the Philidor Defence played by Blackburne. Black gets partial compensation for the pawn after 5.exd6 Bxd6 6.Be2 Ngf6 7.Nc3 Qe7.[6] However, White obtains a large advantage after 2...d6 3.Nf3 Bg4 4.Bg5! Qd7 5.exd6 Bxd6 6.Nbd2.[7] <Soller Gambit>
The Soller Gambit, 2...Nc6 3.Nf3 f6, was named after its Swiss exponent Karl Soller. The immediate 2...f6 is sometimes seen as well, when 3.Nf3 Nc6 transposes, but 3.e4! Nc6 4.Bc4 gives White a large advantage.[8] In the Soller Gambit proper, International Master Gary Lane recommends 4.exf6 Nxf6 5.Bg5.[9] In this line Black gets partial compensation via 5...h6!, e.g. 6.Bh4 Bc5 (or 6...g5 at once) 7.e3 g5 or 6.Bxf6 Qxf6 7.c3 Bc5, although White keeps some advantage.[10][11] White can also return the pawn via 4.e4, securing the better chances. Then after 4...fxe5 5.Bc4, 5...Nf6 6.Ng5! leads to complications that are very good for White, but 5...d6 may be an improvement.[12] <The Felbecker Gambit>, 3...Bc5, usually followed by ...f6, is a variant on the Soller Gambit approach, when again Black may get partial compensation in such lines as 4.Nc3 f6 5.exf6 Nxf6 6.Bg5 d6 7.e3 h6, but 4.e4 is also critical, when Black's best is 4...Qe7 as 4...f6 5.Bc4! gives White a large advantage.[13] <Zilbermints Gambit>
The Zilbermints Gambit, 2...Nc6 3.Nf3 Nge7, was named after the American chess player Lev D. Zilbermints who had extensive analysis published on the line in Blackmar Diemer Gambit World issues 61–63. German FIDE Master Stefan Bücker provided further analysis in Kaissiber 5 and 6.[14] The idea is to play ...Ng6 and win the pawn back. Gary Lane recommends the response 4.Bf4.[15] After 4...Ng6 5.Bg3, Zilbermints recommends either 5...Bc5 or 5...Qe7 6.Nc3 Qb4, when White's main responses are 7.Rb1, 7.Qd2 and 7.a3. After 7.Rb1, a possible continuation is 7...Qa5 8.Qd5 Bb4 9.Qxa5 Bxa5 10.e3 0-0 11.Bd3 Re8 12.Bxg6 Bxc3+ 13.bxc3 fxg6, when Black's superior pawn structure compensates for the lost pawn, while both 7.Qd2 and 7.a3 lead to considerable complications.[16] An alternative for White is 5.e3, but Black may get some compensation for the pawn after 5...d6.[17] If 4.Bg5, then Black obtains a good game via 4...h6 5.Bh4 g5 6.Bg3 Nf5.[15] Thus 4.Nc3 is the most critical response, when 4...Ng6 is ineffective in view of 5.Bg5! Be7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.Nd5,[18] so Black may need to fall back upon 4...h6.[17] <Englund Gambit main line>
Most common today is <2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7>. White can try to keep the extra pawn with 4.Qd5!?, the Stockholm Variation. Black can try a queenside fianchetto with 4...b6, or attempt to regain the pawn with 4...h6, but neither of those lines provide enough compensation for the pawn.[19][20] Thus, Black usually challenges the e5-pawn immediately with 4...f6, when play continues 5.exf6 Nxf6 6.Qb3. Black does not get enough compensation with the delayed queenside fianchetto 6...b6[21] so the main line continues 6...d5. After 6...d5, 7.Nc3 Bd7!, threatening 8...Na5, leads to complications and good play for Black (e.g. 8.Bg5 Na5 or 8.Qxb7 Rb8 9.Qxc7 Qc5).[3] However, after the stronger responses 7.Bf4 and 7.Bg5 (intending 7...Bd7 8.e3), while Black retains some compensation for the pawn, White keeps an edge.[3][22] Instead, White often allows Black to regain the pawn at the cost of lagging development. The main line runs 4.Bf4 Qb4+ 5.Bd2 (5.Nc3!? is perfectly playable, as 5...Qxf4 is well met by 6.Nd5!, while 5...Qxb2 6.Bd2 transposes to the main line) 5...Qxb2 6.Nc3![3] White must avoid the notorious trap 6.Bc3?? Bb4!, which wins for Black after 7.Bxb4 Nxb4 or 7.Qd2 Bxc3 8.Qxc3 Qc1#.[23] After 6.Nc3, 6...Nb4? is refuted by 7.Nd4 c6 8.a4.[3] The main line instead continues 6...Bb4 7.Rb1 Qa3 8.Rb3 Qa5 9.e4 Nge7 or 9.a3 Bxc3 10.Bxc3 Qc5, when White has some advantage due to the lead in development, but Black is not without chances due to the loose white pieces and shattered white pawn structure.[24] However, in 2006 Bücker pointed out that 8.Nd5!, previously analysed by Grob as leading only to an unclear position, has been improved for White, and Black has yet to find a good response.[3][25] Avrukh also considers this very strong, analyzing 8...Bxd2+ 9.Qxd2 Qxa2 10.Rd1 Kd8 11.Ng5 Nh6 12.e6! d6 (12...Qa5? 13.e7+! Ke8 14.Qxa5 Nxa5 15.Nxc7+ wins) 13.exf7 Rf8 14.Nxc7 Kxc7 15.Qxd6+ Kb6 16.Ne4! Qxc2 (or 16...Bf5 17.Nc3 Qxc2 18.Nd5+) 17.Nd2 Rxf7 18.Rb1+ Qxb1+ 19.Nxb1 with "a decisive advantage". Stefan Bücker offers 13...Qa5 for Black[25] but concludes that White is clearly better after 14.c3 Rf8 15.Nxh7 Rxf7 16.Ng5 Rf8 17.g3 Ne5 18.Bg2 Nhf7 19.Nxf7+ Rxf7 20.Qd4. Avrukh also considers 8...Ba5 9.Rb5 Bxd2+ (9...a6? 10.Rxa5 Nxa5 11.Nxc7+) 10.Qxd2 Kd8 11.Ng5 (the traditional reply 11.e4 may allow Black a playable game after 11...a6!? according to Bücker[25]) 11...Nh6 12.f4!? a6 13.Rb3 Qxa2 14.Nc3 Qa1+ 15.Rb1 Qa5 16.e3 when Black is "close to losing", for example 16...Re8 17.Bc4 Nxe5 18.fxe5 Qxe5 19.Bxf7! Qxg5 20.Bxe8 Kxe8 21.Nd5 Qe5 22.0-0 and "White wins."[26] Bücker also considers 9.e4!? to be a strong alternative to 9.Rb5, leading to a clear advantage for White.[25] Black therefore sometimes tries 4...d6 instead, continuing 5.exd6 Qf6 6.Qc1 (or 6.e3, returning the pawn). White's other major try for advantage is 4.Nc3 Nxe5 5.e4, securing a lead in development and leaving Black's queen awkwardly placed on e7.[27] Stefan Bücker recommends 5...Nf6 6.Bg5 c6 7.Nxe5 Qxe5 8.f4 Qe6, with a playable game but some advantage for White.[3] Viktor Korchnoi won a miniature in a 1978 simultaneous exhibition with 4.Nc3 Nxe5 5.Nd5 Nxf3+ 6.gxf3 Qd8 7.Qd4 d6 8.Bg5!,[28] but according to Bücker Black gets a playable game with 8...f6 9.Bd2 c6 10.Nf4 Qb6.[3] Alternatives for White
White can decline the Englund Gambit in a number of ways, including 2.e4 (transposing to the Centre Game) or 2.c3 (transposing to the Saragossa Opening). 2.d5 is sometimes seen, but leaves Black with a good game after 2...Bc5, while 2.e3 can be met by 2...exd4 3.exd4 d5 transposing to the Exchange Variation of the French Defence, and in addition Black can avoid 3...d5 and simply develop with a good game. 2...Nc6 and 2...e4 may also be playable. After 2.Nf3, Black gets a good game with 2...exd4 3.Nxd4 d5, preparing ...c5, and 2...e4 3.Ne5 d6 4.Nc4 d5 is also good for Black.[29] After 2.dxe5 Nc6, instead of 3.Nf3, White can also defend the e5-pawn with 3.Bf4, when Bücker suggests either 3...g5 followed by 4...Bg7, or 3...f6 hoping to get an improved version of the Soller Gambit.[3] 3.f4 is sometimes seen, but Black has reasonable chances after 3...f6 or 3...d6. White can also transpose to a line of the Nimzowitsch Defence with 3.e4. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = See also
List of chess openings
List of chess openings named after people
References
Avrukh 2010, p. 594.
Bücker 1988, p. 111.
"Over the Horizons: Visiting Planet Englund" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-11-19.
"Daring Defences to 1.d4". Retrieved 2009-05-03.
Hooper and Whyld 1992, p. 73 ("Charlick Gambit" entry).
Bücker 1988, p. 28.
Smith and Hall 1994, p. 110.
Bücker 1988, p. 51.
"Opening Lanes: The World Cup" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-11-19.
Bücker 1988, p.64.
Kaissiber 5, p. 31.
Kaissiber 5, p. 33.
Bücker 1988, p. 55.
Kaissiber 5, p. 35.
"Opening Lanes: The Dashing Danish". Retrieved 2008-11-19.
Kaissiber 5, p. 37.
Kaissiber 5, p. 36.
Bücker 1988,p.54.
Bücker 1988, p. 83.
Bücker 1988, p. 94.
Bücker 1988, p. 95.
Bücker 1988, p. 104.
Avrukh 2010, p. 595.
Andrew Martin, Chess Monthly 2000.
"Over the Horizons: Repairing the Englund Gambit" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-04-22.
Avrukh 2010, pp. 595–96.
Avrukh 2010, pp. 594–95.
Korchnoi–Koning, simul 1978. The game concluded 8...Qd7 9.Bh3! Qxh3 10.Nxc7+ Kd7 11.Nxa8 Qg2 12.Qa4+ Ke6 13.Qe8+ Kf5 14.Qe4+ Kxg5 15.f4+ 1–0
Bücker 1988, p.139.
Bibliography
Avrukh, Boris (2010). "1.d4 Volume Two". Quality Chess. ISBN 978-1-906552-33-6.
Bücker, Stefan (1988). Englund Gambit. Edition Madler Im Walter Rau Verlag / Düsseldorf. ISBN 3-7919-0301-2.
Burgess, Graham (2000). "The Mammoth Book of Chess". Carroll & Graf. ISBN 0-7867-0725-9.
Donnelly, Mike (2005). "Another look at the Englund Gambit"., Chess Monthly, April 2005.
Hooper, David and Whyld, Kenneth (1992). The Oxford Companion to Chess. Oxford University. ISBN 0-19-866164-9.
Martin, Andrew (2000). "The Englund Gambit"., Chess Monthly, August 2000.
Smith, Ken; Hall, John (1994). The Englund Gambit and the Blackburne–Hartlaub Gambit Complex. Chess Digest. ISBN 0-87568-242-1.
External links
The Wikibook Chess Opening Theory has a page on the topic of: Englund Gambit
Gary Lane (2000). "Opening Lanes" (PDF). Chesscafe.com.
Gary Lane (2002). "Opening Lanes" (PDF). Chesscafe.com.
Stefan Bücker (2006). "Over the Horizons" (PDF). Chesscafe.com.
1,171 Games at Chess.com
Opening Report: 1.d4 e5 (1819 games)
Stefan Bücker (2009). "Over the Horizons Part 2" (PDF). Chesscafe.com. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englu...
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englu...
|
|
12 games, 1898-2011 - 98_A42_Modern Defense
14 games, 1963-2024 - 98_A43-A44_Benoni Defense (old Benoni w/o c4)
17 games, 1841-2023 - 98_A45 - General Indian Game
31 games, 1918-2022 - 98_A45 - Trompowski trumps
|
Here's a <MUST SEE> appetizer for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sey... refering to Vaganian vs Kupreichik, 1974 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trompo...
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trompo... Opening Explorer (after 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5) Opening Explorer (after 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 Ne4 3. h4 ) check also Game Collection: Tromfovsky Opening - Rey ... and Game Collection: Anti-KIDs ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 <Winning with the Trompowsky> by Peter Wells 004 Annotated Bibliography
005 Introduction
013 1 2...Ne4 Introduction and Minor Lines
023 2 2...Ne4 3 Bf4 c5 4 f3 Qa5+ 5 c3 Nf6
The Attacking Repertoire with 6 d5!?
050 3 2...Ne4 3 Bf4 c5 4 f3 Qa5+ 5 c3 Nf6
The Solid Repertoire with 6 Nd2
074 4 2...Ne4 3 Bf4 d5
Introduction and the Attacking Repertoire with 4 f3 091 5 2...Ne4 3 Bf4 d5
The Solid Repertoire with 4 e3!?
120 6 2...c5
Introduction and the Solid Repertoire with 3 Bxf6 141 7 2...c5
The Attacking Repertoire with 3 d5!?
173 8 2...e6 3 e4!?
209 9 2...d5 Introduction and 3 Bxf6
232 10 2...g6 and Other Minor 2nd Moves
239 Index of Main Variations
240 Index of Games
♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 Die Trompowsky-Eröffnung (1. d4 Sf6 2. Lg5) gehört wohl zu denen abseits der großen Hauptkomplexe, die in den letzten zehn Jahren die rasanteste Entwicklung hinter sich haben. Auch literarisch ist dies der Fall: Als Quellen sind allein fünf größere Werke seit 1995 angegeben (auf Deutsch ein Buch von Gerstner und eine CD von Knaak). Und trotzdem gibt es schon wieder jede Menge neuer Entwicklungen - ein bezeichnendes Beispiel: In einer der Hauptvarianten, 1.d4 Sf6 2.Lg5 Se4 3.Lf4 c5 4.f3 Da5+ 5.c3 Sf6 6.Sd2 cxd4 7.Sb3 Db6 8.Dxd4 Sc6 9. Dxb6 axb6, sind dem Zug 10.Sd4 in älteren Büchern nur etwa 10 bis 20 Zeilen gewidmet, bei Wells breitet er sich als absolute Nr. 1 unter diversen Alternativen über fast acht Seiten aus. Und obwohl das Buch nur Empfehlungen für Weiß beinhaltet und keinesfalls mit Varianten überladen ist (dazu später mehr), hat es einen doch recht erheblichen Umfang erreicht. Die Frage, ob ein neues Trompowsky-Buch schon wieder sinnvoll oder gar notwendig ist, kann also wohl bedenkenlos mit Ja beantwortet werden (zumal das relativ neueste der anderen Werke, ein spanisches, hier zu Lande so gut wie unbekannt sein dürfte). Wie gesagt, ist es ein Repertoirebuch, dem der Leser folgen sollte, um davon zu profitieren; eine grundlegende Wahl bleibt ihm aber: Zu den drei Hauptsystemen gibt Wells jeweils ein doppeltes Angebot, einmal offensiv, einmal solide. Mir scheinen damit eigentlich auch alle wichtigen und aktuellen Varianten abgedeckt; hier aber doch noch ein paar Hinweise, was drin ist und was nicht: Nach 2...Se4 wird nur 3.Lf4 behandelt (nicht 3.Lh4 oder 3.h4), nach 3...c5 4.F3 Da5+ 5.c3 Sf6 dann 6.d5 (offensiv) und 6.Sd 2 (solid). Bei 3...d5 liegt die Wahl zwischen 4.e3 (solid) bzw. 4.f3 Sf6 5.e4 (offensiv) und 2.-c5 wird mit 3.Lf6 (solid) oder 3. d5 (offensiv) beantwortet, aber 3.Sc3 bleibt weg. Und zu 2...e6 3.e4 h6 4. Lf6 Dxf6 ist anzumerken, dass Wells immer den f-Bauern frei haben will, das ältere 5.Sf3 (zu dem es eine Menge Material gibt) fehlt also völlig. Wer den Ideen des Autors folgt, wird aber m.E. sehr gut bedient. Im Vergleich zu anderen Büchern dieses Kalibers bringt Wells trotz der beachtlichen Seitenzahl relativ wenig Varianten (vor allem praktisch keine kompletten unkommentierten Datenbankpartien) und ziemlich viele Erklärungen, die auch allgemein-strategische und turnierpraktische Dinge umfassen; er ist offensichtlich immer bemüht, verbal und mit Varianten den Kern einer Sache zu treffen und das weniger Wichtige kurz zu halten bzw. ganz wegzulassen. Dazu kommen viele eigene Ideen, Analysen und Empfehlungen. Sicher muss davon noch manches praktisch ausprobiert werden, bevor man ein genaues Urteil treffen kann (ich selbst will mich dabei zurückhalten, da meine letzten Trompowsky-Erfahrungen schon einige Jahre her und also nicht mehr auf neuestem Stand sind, während Wells nicht nur GM ist, sondern auch reichlich Trompowsky-Praxis mit beiden Farben besitzt), aber zumindest bei der ersten Lektüre macht es durchweg einen starken Eindruck. Wells versucht m.E. auch nicht, die weißen Chancen gezielt "gut zu schreiben" (wie manche einschlägig bekannten Spezialisten), es kommt auch keineswegs immer ein nachweisbares Plus für Weiß heraus, sondern das Hauptgewicht liegt darauf, dass der bessere Kenner in relativ ungewöhnlichen Stellungen auf praktische Vorteile hoffen kann. Technisch habe ich ein paar Fehler entdeckt, z.B. bei Zugumstellungen oder bei einer Variante, wo der 10. und 11. Zug von Schwarz jeweils Da6 heißen, aber das stört keinesfalls den Gesamteindruck. FM Gerd Treppner, Rochade Europa 08/2003 Vorbildlich in jeder Beziehung der englische GM Wells: Ausgiebige Erläuterungen in strategischer, theoretischer und turnierpraktischer Hinsicht. Detaillierte Analysen (in die seine Erfahrungen aus Sitzungen mit Hodgson, McShane und anderen einfließen) dort, wo sie sein müssen. Es handelt sich um ein Repertoirebuch, wobei der Autor allerdings meist zwei Züge zur Auswahl stellt: einen aktiven und einen eher soliden. Freaks mögen bedauern, dass die eine oder andere extravagante Spielweise wie z. B. 1. d4 Sf6 2.L.g5 Se4 3. h4 c5 4. d:c5 Da5+ 5. Sd2 Lg5 6. h:g5 g6 7. Th4!? (Wells behandelt nur 3. Lf4) oder 2... c5 3. Sc3 c:d4 4.D:d4 Sc6 5. Dh4 (besprochen wird 3. L:f6 und 3. d5) wegfiel - das ist der Preis für den o. g. Ansatz. Aufschlussreich ist Wells' Parallelanalyse, beispielsweise zu Varianten aus dem Ben-Oni. Der Autor wägt nach etwa 1. d4 Sf6 2. Lg5 Se4 3. Lf4 c5 4. f3 Da5+ 5. c3 Sf6 6. d5 d6 7. e4 g6 das Für und Wider ab (Besonderheiten im Vergleich zu Ben-Oni sind die Stellung von Da5 und des c3). Neben der strategischen befindet sich auch die theoretische Diskussion auf der Höhe, wichtig ist z. B. das klare Herausstellen des "Handels mit Optionen": dieser und jener Zug führen meist zur selben Stellung, indes erlaubt Zug A die Abweichung x und Zug B die Abweichung y. Lieber Leser, entscheide selbst, was dir unangenehmer wäre. Erläuterungen dieser Art sucht man bei Müller/Voigt und Gutman vergebens. Platz wird an anderer Stelle gespart, z. B. widmet Wells dem anspruchslosen 2... e6 3. e4 Le7 nur eine Seite, obwohl es Tonnen von Partien dazu gibt. Aber das Spiel gestaltet sich unproblematisch; gesunder Menschenverstand reicht aus, um mit Weiß das etwas bessere Spiel zu erlangen. Hingegen wird 3... h6 4. L:f6 D:f6 (z. B. 5. Sc3 d6 6. Dd2 g5!?), wo Schwarz im Austausch für seinen Raumnachteil das Läuferpaar erhält, penibel abgehandelt. Fazit: Alle Erläuterungen sind auf den Punkt gebracht, hinzu kommt eine gute Recherche. Eines der überzeugendsten Eröffnungsbücher der letzten Jahre! Ein reichlich fades (aber nicht unübersichtliches) Layout mit vergessener Silbentrennung ist ein kleiner, nicht dem Autor anzulastender Kritikpunkt. Harald Keilhack Schach 06/2004
Nach einer relativ ruhigen Phase zeigt sich der englische Verlag Batsford in letzter Zeit wieder erfreulich produktiv, mit "Winning with the Trompowsky" ist dort nach längerer Zeit sogar wieder ein Eröffnungsbuch erschienen. Schon die Kombination von Thema und Autor weckt eine gewisse Vorfreude: Die Trompowsky-Eröffnung hat sich zwar längst als vollwertig etabliert, ist aber dennoch nicht besonders häufig anzutreffen und genießt noch einen gewissen exotischen Ruf. Ihre enorme Spanne an unterschiedlichen Stellungstypen, eine im Vergleich zu anderen Eröffnungen noch nicht ganz ins uferlose gehende Theorie und die Möglichkeit, bereits im zweiten Zug den weiteren Verlauf selbst bestimmen zu können machen sie zu einer für ein breites Spektrum von Spielern sehr interessanten Eröffnung. Der Autor wiederum hat sich unter anderem durch seine Arbeit für das ChessBase Magazin einen Namen gemacht, in dem er eine Rubrik über Strategie im Schach betreut. Davon profitiert nun auch dieses Buch, denn man merkt Peter Wells darin die Erfahrung bei der Erklärung strategischer Aspekte an. Damit wollen wir nun etwas genauer auf "Winning with the Trompowsky" eingehen. Zunächst einmal handelt es sich um ein Repertoire-Buch für Weiß-Spieler mit der Ausgangsstellung 1.d4 Sf6 2.Lg5. Nach einer ersten Einführung folgen die zehn Kapitel mit der Theorie und zahlreichen praktischen Beispielen. Dabei zeigen sich schnell zwei wesentliche Punkte dieses Buches. Zum einen versteht es der Autor, beim Leser durch gute Erklärungen ein gutes Verständnis zu entwickeln, wozu auch die Erörterung von Vor-und Nachteilen bei der Wahl der Zugfolge und der Bezug auf ähnliche Stellungstypen aus anderen Systemen gehört. Zum anderen bietet er in allen wichtigen Hauptvarianten die Wahl zwischen einem "soliden" und einem "aggressiven" Repertoire. Wir wollen hier den Aufbau der Kapitel kurz skizzieren, damit auch erfahrene Trompowsky-Anhänger entscheiden können, ob ihnen das hier erstellte Repertoire zusagt, denn die Qualität und die Tiefe des Repertoires ist sicher nicht nur für Neueinsteiger sehr zu empfehlen. Nach einem einführenden Kapitel über 2...Se4 und einer Besprechung der Nebenvarianten folgen zwei Kapitel über die Hauptvariante 2...Se4 3.Lf4 c5 4.f3 Da5+ 5.c3 Sf6. Dabei wird zuerst das "Angriffs-Repertoire" mit 6.d5 besprochen, danach kommt das "solide" Repertoire mit 6.Sd2 an die Reihe. Gegen 2...Se4 3.Lf4 d5 gibt es wieder eine Einführung, ein "Angriffs-Repertoire" mit 4.f3, das nächste Kapitel zeigt dann das "solide" 4.e3. Diese fünf Kapitel nehmen bereits etwa die Hälfte des Buches ein, nun steht mit 2...c5 ein weiterer Schwerpunkt auf dem Programm. Wieder bietet Wells eine Einführung und erarbeitet ein "solides" Repertoire mit 3.Lxf6, das "Angriffs-Repertoire" im nächsten Kapitel ist auf 3.d5 aufgebaut. Die restlichen drei Kapitel beschäftigen sich mit den sonstigen Möglichkeiten für Schwarz, also z.B. mit 2...e6 (worauf 3.e4 vorgeschlagen wird), 2...d5 (mit 3.Lxf6) und 2...g6 und sonstige Nebenvarianten im zweiten Zug. Die Theorie ist übrigens auf ausführlich kommentierten Musterpartien aufgebaut, die die wichtigsten Abspiele darstellen. In den Kommentaren finden sich natürlich noch viele zusätzliche Abspiele, mit denen Sie das Repertoire ergänzen oder anders gestalten können. Insgesamt umfasst das Buch 52 dieser Musterpartien, unter den Weiß-Spielern finden sich übrigens neben dem Trompowsky-Guru Hodgon auch Weltklassespieler wie Akopian, Lputjan oder Adams. Als Fazit bleibt die Feststellung, wie beeindruckend vielseitig sich diese Eröffnung präsentiert und somit für jeden Geschmack etwas bietet, und das alles wird in "Winning with the Trompowsky" auch noch sehr überzeugend dargestellt. Weitere Pluspunkte verdienen die klaren Einschätzungen von Wells, durch die man sich gut orientieren kann, das mit 240 kompakt bedruckten Seiten sehr umfangreiche Material sowie der gute Druck. Mit zumindest grundlegenden Englischkenntnissen sollte dieses gelungene Eröffnungsbuch gut zu meistern sein. Schachmarkt 02/2004
♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5 - ♗g5
|
|
234 games, 1926-2022 - 98_A46+A48+D02 ... L O N D O N SYSTEM !!!
|
You are looking for an opening with the following attributes: 1. easy to learn
2. extremely solid
3. full of poison
4. fascinating positions
5. relatively unknown
6. plenty of scope for own ideas
It is interesting to note that the London-System is very well known in amateur circles as White can reach a playable position after the opening phase without having to have a lot of theory knowledge. This fact alone underlines the solidity of the London-System. As the system covers all variations after 1 .d4 d5 (lazy people can also use it against 1 ...Nf6), it must be regarded as a universal weapon. But if this system is so good, then why is it still so little-known? I can only guess at the reason - probably the opinion established itself at higher levels that the London-System (LS) would not have enough bite to seriously endanger Black. However, there are also a few people among the top grandmasters who think otherwise. Gata Kamsky for instance used the London-System with reasonable success and the London-System is very popular one or perhaps two steps lower down at the IM- to FM-level, as White can easily avoid long theory variations, forcing his opponent to play chess from the very beginning. The much-praised solidity should not be mistaken for boredom as in truth the concept for a very dangerous kingside attack is inherent in the London-System. Numerous games have been decided in favour of White long before the 30th move just because Black underestimated the white set-up. I once heard the Torre Attack described as The Old Man's Bad Habit (Aagaard), <and no less a tribute can be paid to the London...<"One problem is that this is actually a pretty good opening">>
-- Christof Sielecki
The original idea of the London System was as an Anti-KID weapon in the LOndon tournament in 1922, fighting for the control of central dark squares. Alekhine vs Euwe, 1922 check out for more (Artverwandte):
Game Collection: A46 London System # 2 (White) ;
Game Collection: A46 London System # 2 (Black) ;
Game Collection: Lloyd Bridges Corralled Fredthebear's Nite ; Game Collection: London system ;
Game Collection: D02 London System # 1 (White) ;
Game Collection: D02 London System # 1 (Black) ;
Game Collection: A48 London System # 3 (Black) (D'oh!); [Event "Ch Czechoslovakia (team) 1990/91"]
[Site "Czechoslovakia"]
[Date "1991.??.??"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Blatny Pavel (CZE)"]
[Black "Jurek Josef (CZE)"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A47"]
[WhiteElo "2480"]
[BlackElo "2384"]
1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 b6 4. e3 Bb7 5. Nbd2 Be7 6. Bd3 Nh5 7. Qe2 d6 8. h4
Nxf4 9. exf4 Nd7 10. f5 exf5 11. Bxf5 g6 12. Be4 c6 13. h5 Rg8 14. O-O-O Nf6
15. hxg6 hxg6 16. Rde1 Kd7 17. Ng5 Qf8 18. d5 cxd5 19. Bd3 Rc8 20. Bb5+ Kd8 21.
Qe6 Rxc2+ 22. Kxc2 fxe6 23. Nxe6+ Kc8 24. Nxf8 Bxf8 25. Nb3 a6 26. Bd3 Kd7 27.
Nd4 Ne4 28. f3 Bg7 29. fxe4 Bxd4 30. Rh7+ Rg7 31. Rxg7+ Bxg7 32. exd5 Bxd5 33.
Bxg6 Be5 34. g4 Ke6 35. Rf1 Ke7 36. Bd3 b5 37. g5 Be6 38. b3 Bd7 39. b4 Be6 40.
a3 Bd5 41. g6 Bg7 42. Re1+ Be5 43. Be4 Be6 44. Rf1 Bc4 45. Rf3 Bf6 46. Bb7 d5
47. Rf5 Ke6 48. Bc8+ Ke7 49. Bxa6 Ke6 50. Bc8+ Ke7 51. Rf3 d4 52. Bf5 Bd5 53.
Rf1 1-0
A nice video by FM Grant Szuveges on the London System and Torre Attack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RML... check: Game Collection: Anti-KIDs http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... (171 games) http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... (121 games) http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... (97 games) http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... (90 games) http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... (68 games) check out: Game Collection: QP System with Bf4 (London, Tarzan, Veresov) ;
Game Collection: A A A London System 1 (d5) (White) = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The London System has a number of advantages for the club player. - White's pieces tend to come to the same sorts of squares each game, - it concentrates on some fairly simple aims in the opening (fast, solid development, central occupation) and - there isn't much theory on it because there are no sharp lines. To some extent, these advantages are all also disadvantages! - White's pieces tend to come to the same sorts of squares each game, so it should be easy to predict and counter. - It concentrates on some fairly simple aims in the opening (fast, solid develoopment, central occupation) which can be met happily with the same sorts of strategy. - There isn't much theory on it because there are no sharp lines, which means Black shouldn't struggle either to find a decent line against it nor to equalise. So much, so general. In practice, passive or too-simple play by Black can lead to trouble, and, with a space or development advantage, White can attack happily on either side of the board. I've lost and struggled against the London throughout my chess career, and watched Peter Lane (formerly of this parish) have some real walk-throughs against strong players with this system. Repertoire books (Soltis 1988, Johanssen & Kovacevic 2009) do give unrealistic numbers of White wins (2/40 losses in Soltis) but they also give you some recipes about how to play, and a player with a plan will usually beat a player without one. It all depends on what ideas you can bring to the game. Magnus Carlsen brings more to a game than most, and he can beat top Grandmasters with the London. John Cox had a superb introduction to 'Dealing with d4 Deviations': I begged Everyman Chess to let me write this book. All my chess-playing life I have had a terrible record against these feeble variants, as I saw them. The final straw was being utterly slaughtered by Richard Pert in a London league match in the 4 e3 line in Chapter 9. I wanted the incentive to study them and give myself the opportunity to put this right. And for me, it's worked splendidly. I believe I have really learned something about these systems, and if I am able to pass on to the reader the confidence I have now gained myself, then the job will have been well done. ...
I think it's worth examining why I used to do so badly against these systems. Dealing with these openings successfully is a matter of psychological approach among other things – it's not by chance that every work from Black's point of view called them 'annoying' or some synonym. I set out what I now feel were my main failings in this area in the hope others might recognize some of theirs and be inspired to remedy them at less cost in points than I managed. 1) The most obvious point – I didn't actually have a repertoire at all against, say, the Colle. You just play chess, right? Develop the pieces and equalize. I remember Grandmaster Vlatko Kovacevic playing the Colle against me back before databases. I had no idea this was his customary weapon of mass destruction, and I thought I must have sat down at the wrong board. A GM playing 3 e3?? With that attitude, it won't surprise you to learn I got torched on the kingside around about move 25. Only the fact that the game was played in a comparatively minor event has saved me from appearing in every Colle book since on the wrong end of a classic White crush. Time has mercifully obscured the details, but I know I went ...d5 and ...c5. Pretty soon a knight appeared on e5 and I didn't seem to be able to shift it. Shortly after that, either the h- or the g-pawn arrived on the premises. Then came Re3, Qh5, and the next thing I knew I was looking like something out of 1001 Winning Chess Combinations. That wasn't the only such debacle, either; every time my opponent played one of these vile things I was behind on the clock as I worked on my conception of the wheel, and just as you'd expect some of my wheels came out square. Hopefully the remedy to this is obvious – you hold it in your hands. 2) I was bored by these openings: I didn't consider them interesting. 3) Not only did I not consider them interesting, I didn't consider them dangerous. 4) A less obvious point, this: to combat these openings successfully requires a good knowledge of many structures. A good chess education, in fact. 5) I didn't experience the adrenalin surge I got defending 'my' openings. 6) Lastly, I wasn't playing set-ups I was happy and had experience with. John Cox
And a little tribute to England's most notable exponent of the system: It personally brings back some memories of Michael Franklin at some quickplays in London I used to play at. A very strong player, and a very frustrating player to play against. Imagine fantastic quality Staunton sets, and that horrid London system bishop cutting across the diagonal, just waiting with its little cutesy pigeon hole on h2 made by the h3 move, to puncture the opponents pawn structure etc - and kill all the enthusiasm of the up and coming young players.
If you imagine Michael Franklin as a kind of chess Dracula, sucking all the enthusiasm and counterplay out of the position and his opponents, you begin to feel the nature of the opening and the people that really excel at using it. And yes even with a minority attack, those sorts of players will just wait to pounce on any weaknesses you dare create on the Queenside. They literally look forward to you entertaining them trying to attack them anywhere waiting to pounce on weaknesses created ... Tryfon Gavriel
https://exeterchessclub.org.uk/cont...
|
|
491 games, 1882-2022 - 98_A46/A48_Torre Attack 3.Bg5
|
I once heard the <Torre Attack described as <The Old Man's Bad Habit (Aagaard),> and no less a tribute can be paid to the London... <"One problem is that this is actually a pretty good opening">
-- Christof Sielecki
White pursues quick and harmonious development, will bolster his d4-pawn by c2–c3, then often enforces e2–e4 to obtain attacking chances on the kingside. If White plays an early c4, the opening will transpose to a number of more common Queen Pawn Openings, such as the Queen's Gambit or one of the various Indian defences. The opening is named after the Mexican grandmaster Carlos Torre Repetto. The variation was also employed by Savielly Tartakower, and the young Tigran Petrosian on occasion. Among top-level players it perhaps has been most utilized by Jan Timman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torre_...
A nice video by FM Grant Szuveges on the London System and Torre Attack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RML... check: Game Collection: Anti-KIDs ;
Game Collection: TORRE! TORRE! TORRE! ; Takqueen's Game Collections
|
|
357 games, 1890-2022 - 98_A46_Yusupov-Rubinstein System
|
Was kennzeichnet das <Yusupov-Rubinstein System>? ANNÄHERUNGEN
Basierend auf den z.Zt 17 Partien scheint das Yusupov-Rubinstein System nach den folgenden Zügen aufs Brett: <1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 b6 4.Bd3 Bb7 5.O-O d5 6.Ne5 Bd6 7.f4
O-O <>> 
click for larger view with <8.Nd2 c5> or <8.b3 Ne4> as continuations oder aber auch nach <1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. e3 b6 4. Bd3 Bb7 5. O-O Be7 6. Nbd2 d5 7. Ne5 O-O <>> 
click for larger view with <8.Qf3> / <8.b3> as continuations ♔ ♔ ♔ ♔ ♙ ♙ ♙ ♙ ♔ ♔ ♔ ♔ ♘ ♘ ♘ ♗ ♗ ♗
So there you have it:
<1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 b6 4.Bd3 Bb7 5.O-O d5 6.Ne5 <>> 
click for larger viewis in both lines with <6...Be7/Bd6> and <7... 0-0> next
|
|
77 games, 1893-2017 - 98_A51 Fajarowicz Gambit (3... Ne4)
<1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ne4 > 
click for larger viewOpening Explorer || http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... <4. Nf3> Opening Explorer <4. a3> Opening Explorer <4. Nd2> Opening Explorer <4. Qc2> Opening Explorer <1.d4 ♘f6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 ♘e4> | <1.d4 ♘f6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 ♘e4> | <1.d4 ♘f6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 ♘e4> check out: Game Collection: The Fabulous Budapest Gambit with games from the book <The Fabulous Budapest Gambit>, by <Viktor Moskalenko>, published in 2007. - - - - - -
Introduction
<l.d4> players are used to being treated with respect. After the game Levin - Gulman, German Ch 2001, in which I played the Fajarowicz-Richter Gambit, my opponent, a solid GM and well known theoretician, was sufficiently affected by the enormous tension he had to face from the very start that some months later, in the German League 2002, he preferred to play l.Nf3 against me! "The study of Chess Openings has taught us that Black, being a single-move behind, cannot achieve complete equality. He has a choice: to be content with a passive but sound position, or try early freeing moves. <1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5!?> This variation was invented in 1917 by Istvan Abonyi, Zsigmo nd BartiSZ and Gyulll Breyer. Such an aggressive action seems premature; on the other hand the black squares in the centre are a bit weak due to c2-c4", Richard Reti, Die Meister des Schachbretts, 1930. <3.dxe5 Ne4!?> "The Fajarowicz-knight creates latent threats along the a5-e1 diagonal and, in conjunction with the consequent gambit continuation d7-d6 or d7-d5, may well make White's development more difficult", Max Euwe, Theorie der Schach-Eroeffnungen, 1965. "The Budapest is really a counter-attack rather then a def ence and it appeals to players who like to challenge White for the initiative from early in the game. This particularly applies to the Fajarowicz Variation, in which (by contrast with the <3 ...Ng4>, the main line of t he Budapest) Black puts more emphasis on fighting for key squares than on seeking the early recapture of the pawn he has given up", Tim Harding, The Fighting Fajarowicz, 1996. <Every chess opening has its own history, its own destiny> Soler - Marcoff, Steinitz Chess Club, November 1927, seems to be the very first published game with <3 ... Ne4>, while the British Chess Magazine, 1919, mentions the game Mlotkowski - Barrett, already played in Philadelphia 1904/1905. However, investigations and examinations began only with the game Steiner - Fajarowicz, Wiesbaden 1928, where Black got a completely winning position, and this was actually the birth of a new Gambit, Stefan Buecker/Alfred Diel, Kaissiber 1/2001. "In the pantheon of opening theoreticians, one of the most obscure surely has to be S.Fajarowicz. The creator of <3 ... Ne4> in the Budapest Gambit, he is almost unknown outside his variation. The major recent works have little to say about him other than that he was from Leipzig and that he was active during the period
1920-1938 ", John Donaldson, Inside Chess, 1990. Thanks to Diel we now know a bit more: "on June 5, 1908, Sammi Fajarowicz was born in Mockern near Leipzig. He was one of those comet-like players of chess history, whose active period (1927-1933) was too short owing to persecution of the Jews and fatal illness", Kaissiber 1/2001. -- Lev Gutman, The Budapest Fajarowicz; The Fajarowicz-Richter Gambit in Action others: Game Collection: Black Bear Games didn't full Fredthebear
|
|
48 games, 1928-2024 - 98_A52 Budapest Gambit
|
check out: Game Collection: The Fabulous Budapest Gambit with games from the book <The Fabulous Budapest Gambit>, by <Viktor Moskalenko>, published in 2007; <new and updated edition in 2017 <!>> Game Collection: A A A A52 Budapest Gambit Accepted (Black) ; Game Collection: The Fabulous Budapest Gambit ;
Game Collection: Black Bear Games didn't full Fredthebear ;
Game Collection: Budapester Gambiet ; CHECK OUT this VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx2m... Related notation
[Event "Budapest FS04 GM"]
[Site "Budapest"]
[Date "2000.04.11"]
[Round "11"]
[White "Hoang Thanh Trang"]
[Black "Kahn, Evarth"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A52"]
[WhiteElo "2448"]
[BlackElo "2301"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. e3 Nc6 6. Be2 Ngxe5 7. Nc3 O-O 8.O-O Nxf3+ 9. Bxf3 Ne5 10. Be2 Re8 11. a3 a5 12. b3 Ra6 13. Nd5 Qh4 14. g3 Qh3 15. e4 Rd6 16. b4 Ree6 17. Bh5 Bd4 18. Ra2 Rg6 19. Kh1 Rxd5 20. cxd5 d6 21. Bf4 Rf6 22. Be2 g5 23. Bxg5 Rf3 24. g4 Nxg4 25. Bf4 Rxf2 0-1 ♙e5 ♙e5 ♙e5 ♙e5 ♖♙♙♖♙♙♖ ♙e5 ♙e5 ♙e5 ♙e5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budape...
♙e5 ♙e5 ♙e5 ♙e5 ♖♙♙♖♙♙♖ ♙e5 ♙e5 ♙e5 ♙e5
Player: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... ♙e5 ♙e5 ♙e5 ♙e5 ♖♙♙♖♙♙♖ ♙e5 ♙e5 ♙e5 ♙e5
"The Budapest Gambit <1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5> use to be a theoretical backwater. Though the gambit dates back to at least Adler-Maroczy, Budapest 1896 and has been seriously analyzed since 1916, until recently one could count the number of books devoted to it on one hand. The publication of Lev Gutman’s Budapest Fajarowicz (Batsford 2004) and Viktor Moskalenko’s The Fabulous Budapest Gambit (New in Chess, 2007) along with its occasional adoption by super GM Shakhriyar Mamedyarov, have done much to bring the Budapest into the mainstream. The latest word is The Budapest Gambit by American IM Tim Taylor. Taylor, who has made a reputation as an author willing to challenge prevailing opinion, believes that White’s most challenging line against the Budapest is <1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4>. He is hardly alone in holding this opinion but what he thinks is Black’s best reply will surprise many – try <4…h5!> (exclamation mark T.T.). This idea of Richard Reti, keeping the Knight in White’s territory for at least one more move, has been rarely played. Taylor is convinced that it is the answer to Black’s problems after spending 42 pages on move four alternatives. After 4…h5 Taylor suggests meeting 5.Be2 with 5…Nc6! and 5.f4 with 5…Bc5 with quick development compensating for the pawn. The author’s final conclusion is that the main line is <4…h5 5.h3 Nxe5 6.Be3> and that 6…Bb4+ offers good play. Taylor offers plenty of original analysis and ideas in the chapters on 4.e4 which make up over a quarter of the book. While the Los Angeles based IM likes the early advance of the h-pawn in the e4 variation, he does not endorse its cousin – <1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 g5> – despite its adoption by Mamedyarov. He sees no reason to be optimistic about Black’s position after <5.Bg3 Bg7 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.h4!> This reviewer has always considered the variation <1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nc3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Qe7 8.Qd5 f6 9.exf6 Nxf6 10.Qd3 d6 11.g3> to be one of White’s most testing tries. Taylor agrees but believes that <11…0-0 12.Bg2 Bg4 13.0-0 Rae8 14.Rae1 Kh8> offers Black equal chances. Another line that has posed problems to Budapest Gambiteers for years is <1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.e3 Nxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Be2 0-0 10.0-0.> White avoids playing a3 hoping to gain a tempo if …Bxd2 is played without provocation. Taylor points out that Black has tried not only <10…Bxd2 but also 10…Re8, 10…d6 and 10…a5 with generally miserable results.> These moves force the second player to either surrender the two Bishops or allow pawn weaknesses, or both. The author’s solution is the little known <10…Bd6!?> which he spends seven pages examining. Clearly IM Taylor’s The Budapest Gambit is an original book! While Taylor has warm feelings for the Budapest proper (3…Ng4), he does not share them for its little cousin the Fajarowicz (3…Ne4). To quote the author after <3…Ne4>, "I have to admit right here that I don’t understand this gambit. Black is a pawn down but unlike in the regular Budapest, has no threat to get it back and no significant lead in development. [...] Taylor feels the most convincing sequence for White against the Fajarowicz is <4.Nd2 Bb4 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Qe7 7.Bg2 Nxd2 8.Bxd2 Bxd2+ 9.Qxd2 Nxe5 10.Nxe5 Qxe5 11.0-0> when Black has recovered his pawn but White has a lead in development and more space. IM Taylor’s latest book is must reading for all that play the Budapest Gambit, particularly club players that want to meet 1.d4 with something a little spicier than normal. That said I must offer one caveat, which doesn’t have anything to deal with the viability of the Gambit. After <1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3> (intending 3.c4) I don’t see a good partner for the Budapest in the way that the Albin or Chigorin player can meet <1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 with 2…Nc6.> To this reviewer it would appear that the Budapest is not the ideal choice for the player looking for one stop shopping against 1.d4 the way the King’s Indian, Dutch or various Queen’s Gambit/Slav variations do. http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc... chessexplained on <4.e3/5.Nh3>: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGo... Lecture with GM Yasser Seirawan (Exploring d4 | Budapest Gambit):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Svg...
Fine vs G Page, 1933
|
|
187 games, 1896-2022 - 98_A53-A55_OLD Indian Defense (aka Altindisch)
|
Old Indian (A53)
Old Indian, Ukrainian Variation, 4.Nf3 (A54)
Old Indian, Main line (A55) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_In...
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altind... "The Hanham Variation of the Old Indian Defence is known as a solid setup quite similar (or even identical) to the original Hanham line in the Philidor Defence. However, a thorough investigation of the Hanham Old Indian is not available so far. The book presented here intends to offer a systematic synopsis of the Old Indian main line, i.e. all variations in which Black has to play against the „classic“ e4/d4/c4 center formation. After an introducing survey on the history of the Old Indian Defence (including ten selected master games played with this opening), the systematic part is divided into seven chapters: The classical main line (White plays Be2), the fianchetto line (White plays Nf3 and g3, Bg2), the Nge2 fianchetto line (White plays Nge2 and g3, Bg2), the Nge2 side lines (Nge2 combined with various moves as h3, Be3), the Sämisch line (White plays f2-f3), the early blockade variations (d4-d5 combined with various setups as Bd3, Nge2) and finally a chapter on miscellaneous sidelines."
https://www.amazon.de/Novelties-Old... http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/che... = = = Some players with black = = =
Hickl: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... Chigorin: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... Capablanca: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... Bronstein: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... (57 games) Petrosian: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... Kotov: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... Boleslavsky: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... Larsen: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... Movsesian: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... (27 games) Granda Zuniga: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... Jobava: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... Galego http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...
|
|
73 games, 1906-2016 - 98_A56_CZECH BENONI
399 games, 1898-2022
|
Kibitzing
