BISHOP'S OPENING | DIMOCK TOURNAMENT | URUSOV GAMBIT | TWO KNIGHTS DEFENSE | LINKS
s

E) The Symmetrical 2....Bc5

E1) 3.f4?
E2) 3.Qh5
E3) 3.c3
E4) 3.Qg4

E5) 3.Nc3
E6) 3.Nf3
E7) 3.b4!?

Position after 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5

The Symmetrical line 2....Bc5 allows White several plans of action. The two most viable are to attack the weakened pawn at g7 by Qg4, either immediately or after playing 3.Nc3, or to gain time in Evans Gambit fashion by 3.b4!? or 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.b4 (the Evans Gambit by transposition). White can also transpose to lines in the Giuoco Piano or Vienna Opening.


 
Introduction
A) 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 . . .
B) 2....Nc6
C) 2....f5
D) 2....d6
E) 2....Bc5
Links & Acknowledgments
Bishop's Opening PGN File

E1) 3.f4? Bxg1! 4.Qh5 (4.Rxg1 Qh4+ 5.g3 Qxh2 6.Kf1 d5! -+) 4....Qe7 5.Rxg1 Nc6! 6.d3 Nf6 (6....g6!?) 7.Qe2 Nd4 8.Qd1 d5 9.c3 Ng4! 10.g3 dxc4 11.cxd4 exd4 12.h3 Nf6 13.Qa4+ c6 14.Qxc4 Bxh3 15.Qxd4 Rd8 -+ Leach.

E2) 3.Qh5 Qe7 4.Nf3 d6 5.Ng5 Nf6! 6.Qxf7+ (6.Bxf7+? Kd8 7.Qh4 Rf8 8.Bc4 Ng4 9.O-O Rxf2 =+) 6....Qxf7 7.Bxf7+ Ke7 8.Bc4 h6 9.Nf3 Nxe4 10.O-O Kd8 = Bilguer

E3) 3.c3 (Direct action in the center is not effective here. Worse, though, is the Lewis Gambit: 3.d4?! Bxd4 4.Nf3 Qf6 5.Nxd4 exd4 6.0-0 Nc6 7.f4 d6 8.Bb5 Bd7 =+ Schiffers) 3....Nf6 (Playable is the Lewis Countergambit: 3....d5!? 4.Bxd5 Nf6 5.Qf3 O-O unclear) 4.d4?! (The most logical follow-up for White if he wants to gain the center. But better is 4.d3 = with more positional lines of the Bishop's opening, which are not covered here.) 4....exd4 5.e5 (5.cxd4 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Bxd2+ 7.Nxd2 d5 8.exd5 O-O =+ Keres) 5....d5! 6.exf6 (6.Bb5+ Bd7 7.Bxd7+ Nfxd7 8.cxd4 Bb4+ 9.Nc3 O-O =) 6....dxc4 7.Qh5 O-O! 8.Qxc5 Re8+ 9.Ne2 (9.Kf1 dxc3 10.Nxc3 Qd3+ 11.Nge2 Rxe2 12.Qd5 Rc2+ 13.Qxd3 cxd3 14.Be3 Be6 -+) 9....d3 10.Be3 dxe2 11.Nd2 Na6 12.Qc4 Qf6 13.Qxe2 =+ Keres/= Estrin/ = Pratt.

E4) 3.Qg4!? (This seems premature. Better is 3.Nc3 first.) 3....Qf6 (Bronstein suggests 3....d5! 4.Qxg7 Qh4! 5.Qxh8 Qxf2+ 6.Kd1 Qxg2, claiming that Black is better, which appears to be true. Not 3....g6?! 4.Qf3 Nf6 5.h3 O-O 6.Nc3 Re8 7.Nb5 a6 8.Nxc7 Qxc7 9.Qxf6 Rf8 10.d4 Bxd4 11.Bh6 1-0 Wall--Nit, Thailand 1971) 4.Nc3! Ne7! (4....Qxf2+? 5.Kd1 += is similar to line E5b below, while 4....Bxf2+ opened the game advantageously for White after 5.Kd1 Ne7 6. Qe2 Nbc6 7. Nf3 Bc5 8. Rf1 Ng6 9. d4 exd4 10. Ng5 Nf4 11. Rxf4 Qxg5 12. Bxf7+ in Prevat-Marais, Paris 1993) 5.Qg3 Nbc6 (5....c6 6.Nf3 d6 7.d3 h6 8.Be3 Nd7 9.O-O-O Ng6 10.h4 Nf4 11.d4 exd4 12.Bxf4 dxc3 13.Bxd6 cxb2+ 14.Kb1 Bxd6 15.Rxd6 Qe7 16.Qxg7 Qxd6 17.Bxf7+ Kd8 18.Qxh8+ Kc7 19.e5 += Qe7 20. e6 Nc5 21. Qxh6 Bxe6 22. Bxe6 Qxe6 23. Qxe6 Nxe6 24. h5 Rh8 25. g4 Nf4 26. Ne5 Rh7 27. h6 Kd6 28. Nf3 Ke7 29. g5 Ng6 30. Re1+ Kf8 31. Re6 Nh8 32. Ne5 a5 33. f4 a4 34. Kxb2 c5 35. f5 b5 36. f6 b4 37. f7 Nxf7 38. Ng6+ 1-0 Kirmas--Werner, OLO 1993) 6.d3 Qg6 7.Nf3 d6 8.Na4 Bb6 9.Nb6 axb6 10.c3 Bd7 (10....Qxg3 11.hxg3 Na5 = Keres) 11.Bb3 Nd8 12.Bc2 Ne6 13.Be3 f6 14.Nh4 Qxg3 15.hxg3 Nc5 16.d4 += Chehov--Perez, Caracas 1976.

E5) 3.Nc3 (The Vienna Game, by transposition)

E5a) 3....Na5? 4.Bxf7+! Kxf7 5.Qh5+ Ke6 (5...g6 6.Qxe5 +-) 6.Qf5+ Kd6 7.d4! Nc6 8.dxe5+ Kc5 (8...Nxe5 9.Bf4 Qf6 10.Bxe5+ Qxe5 11.0-0-0+ +-) 9.Be3+ Kb4 (9...Kc4 10.Qf7+ d5 11.exd6+ +-) 10.a3+ Ka5 11.e6+ d5 12.exd5 Nce7 13.b4+ 1-0 Schelkonogov--Morozenko, Krasny Luch 1989. (White's sacrifice recalls the much-reprinted game Hamppe--Meitner, Vienna 1872, which began 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Bc5 3.Na4?! Bxf2+!?)

E5b) 3....Nc6 4.Qg4!
This is the most aggressive of White's options, and therefore the move most likely to appeal to Urusov Gambiteers.

E5b1) 4....d5 5.Qxg7 dxc4 (5....Qf6 6.Qxf6 Nxf6 7.Bxd5! +-) 6.Qxh8 Qg5 7.d4! Qxg2 8.dxc5 (or the immediate 8.Bg5!) 8....Be6 (8....Bh3 9.Bg5! Qf1+ 10.Kd2 Qxf2+ 11.Nge2 Nce7 12.Bxe7 Kxe7 13.Qxe5+ Kf8 14.Qxc7 1-0 Bonwick-Bewley, Oxford 1912) 9.Bg5! +- f6 10.Bxf6 Qxh1 11.O-O-O Qxh2 12.Nd5 Rc8 13.Nf3 Qxf2 14.Rg1 Nce7 15.Bh4 Qxf3 16.Nf6+ Kd8 17.Rd1+ Nd5 18.exd5 Qf4+ 19.Kb1 Qxh4 20.Qg7 1-0 Watson-Imanaliev 1985.

E5b2) 4....Kf8

E5b2a) 5.Qf3 Nf6 (5....Qf6!? 6.Nd5 Qxf3 7.Nxf3 Bd6! 8.c3 and White's advantage may only be temporary, while 7....Bb6?! surrenders the advantage of the two Bishops.) 6.Nge2 d6 7.h3! preventing Bg4 and with the idea of 8.g4 +=

E5b2b) 5.Qg3!
The Queen seems better placed here than on f3 in this position. White has a slight advantage due to his lead in development, better placed pieces, and the safer King. White must first play Nge2 to prevent Black from gaining a strong placement with Nd4. Then middlegame strategy revolves around playing to gain the two Bishops (by Na4 as White) or putting pressure on the Kingside with Bg5 while gaining a strong placement in the center with Nd5. Black must decide, essentially, whether he wants to get the two Bishops himself (with Na5) or prevent the dangerous pin (with h6).

E5b2b1a) 5....d6 (The immediate 5....Nd4 6.Bb3 does not gain anything for Black, since White would prefer to give up the Bishop on b3, after which the a-file opens to his advantage.) 6.Nge2 Nd4 7.Nxd4 exd4 8.Na4 Be6 9.Bxe6 fxe6 10.Nxc5 dxc5 11.Qb3 += Qc8 12.Qf3+ Ke7 13.Qg3 Kf7 14.Qf4+ Kg6 15.Qg4+ Kf6 16.d3 b6 17.h4 Kf7 18.Qf3+ Ke8 19.Qh5+ Kf8 20.Bg5 Qe8 21.Qf3+ Qf7 22.Qg3 Nf6 23.O-O-O h6 24.Bd2 Kg8 25.Kb1 Rf8 26.Qh3 Rh7 27.h5 Kh8 28.f4 Ng8 29.g4 e5 30.g5 hxg5 31.fxg5 g6 32.Rdf1 Qe8 33.Rxf8 Qxf8 34.h6 Qe8 35.b3 a5 36.Be1 Qe7 37.Bd2 Rf7 38.Rf1 Rxf1+ 39.Qxf1 Kh7 40.Kb2 Qe8 41.a4 Qe7 42.Qf3 Kh8 43.Qg4 Kh7 44.Be1 c6 45.Bg3 b5 46.Be1 bxa4 47.bxa4 c4 48.dxc4 c5 49.Bxa5 Qb7+ 50.Kc1 Ne7 51.Qe6 Nc6 52.Bd2 Qc7 53.Qf6 Qd7 54.a5 Qc7 55.a6 Nb8 56.Ba5 Qd7 57.Bd8 1-0 Anand-Ravisekhar, New Delhi 1986.

E5b2b1b) 5....Nf6 6.Nge2

E5b2b1b1) 6....d6 7.d3 h6 8.Na4 (White goes for the two Bishops. Too defensive is 8.h3?! Na5 9.Be3 Bxe3 10.Qxe3 Nxc4 11.dxc4 Be6 12.b3 Kg8 13.O-O Qe7 14.g4 a6 15.Nd5 += 1/2-1/2 Hennings-Kortchnoi, Sarajevo 1969, though White retains a slight plus here also.) 8....Bb6 9.Nxb6 axb6 10.f4 Qe7 11.O-O Na5 12.Bd5 c6 13.Bxf7!? Kxf7 14.b4 Be6 15.bxa5 Rxa5 16.Bd2 Ra6 17.fxe5 dxe5 18.Qxe5 Bg4 19.Qxe7+ Kxe7 += 20.Nf4 Rha8 21.a3 g5 22.Bb4+ c5 23.Bc3 gxf4 24.Rxf4 Rxa3 25.Bxf6+ Ke6 26.Rb1 R3a6 27.Bg7 h5 28.h3 Bxh3 29.gxh3 Rg8 30.Rf6+ Ke7 31.Rfxb6 Rxg7+ 32.Kf2 Rxb6 33.Rxb6 Kd8 34.Rd6+ Kc7 35.Rd5 Kc6 36.Rxh5 Rg6 37.h4 b5 38.Rg5 Rf6+ 39.Rf5 Rh6 40.h5 b4 41.Ke3 Kd6 42.Rg5 Rh8 43.Rg6+ Ke7 44.h6 c4 45.dxc4 Ra8 46.h7 Ra3+ 47.Kd4 Rh3 48.Ra6 1-0 Rogers-Olarasu, Saint Vincent 2001.

E5b2b1b2) 6....Na5 (Black goes after the two Bishops immediately.) 7.d3 Nxc4 8.dxc4 c6 9.Bg5 Be7 10.Ng3 d6 11.Nf5 Bxf5 12.Qxf5 Qc8 13.Qf3 Qe6 14.b3 h6 15.Bxf6 Qxf6 16.Qd3 Qe6 17.O-O g6 18.f4 exf4 19.Rxf4 Kg7 20.Raf1 Rhf8 21.Ne2 Rae8 22.Nd4 Qe5 23.Rf5! gxf5 24.Rxf5 Bf6! 25.Rxe5 Bxe5 += 26.Nf3?! Re6 27.Nh4 Rfe8 28.Nf5+ Kh7 29.Qe3 b6 30.Qh3 Rg8 31.Qh5 Rf6 32.a4 d5 33.cxd5 cxd5 34.Qe2 Rg5 35.h4 Rg8 36.exd5 Rxf5?? 37.Qe4 1-0 Grombacher-Karklins, UN Open 1965.

E5b2b1c) 5....h5!? (An interesting move with some independent significance. Black strives to free his Rook while putting White's forces on the Kingside into disarray. But the weakness of g5 should tell in the long run in White's favor.) 6.h4 d6 (or 6....Nf6 7.Nge2 +=) 7.Nh3!? (Safer is 7.Nge2, of course, but White seeks thematically to exploit the weakness at g5) 7....Nd4 8.Ng5! Be6 (Probably forced, since Black cannot risk 8...Nxc2+ 9.Kd1 Nxa1 10.Nxf7 with his King so exposed on f8) 9.Bxe6 Nxe6 10.Nxe6+ fxe6 11.d3 Nf6 12.Bg5 += Qe8 13.O-O-O Ke7 14.Kb1 Kd7 15.Be3 Bxe3 16.Qxe3 Ng4 17.Qe2 c6 18.f3 Nf6 19.d4 exd4 20.Rxd4 e5 21.Rd2 Qe6 22.Rhd1 Rhd8 23.g4 hxg4 24.fxg4 Kc7 25.g5 Ng8 26.Qh5 Ne7 27.Rh1 Rh8 28.Qd1 Ng6 29.h5 Nf4 30.Rdh2 Raf8 31.Ne2 Nxe2 32.Qxe2 d5 33.b3 Kb8 34.h6 gxh6 35.Rxh6 Rxh6 36.Rxh6 Qe7 37.exd5 Qxg5 38.Re6 Qg1+ 39.Kb2 Qd4+ 40.c3 Qxd5 41.Rxe5 Qf7 1/2-1/2 Ribiero-Leite, Lisbon 1999.

E5b3) 4....Qf6 5.Nd5! Qxf2+ 6.Kd1

E5b3a) 6....Nf6 7.Qxg7 Nxd5 8.exd5 d6 9.dxc6 +-

E5b3b) 6....Kf8 7.Nh3 Qd4 8.d3 d6 9.Qh4 Bxh3 10.Qxh3 Na5 11.Rf1! Nxc4 12.Qd7! f6 13.Nxf6! 1-0 Mieses--Chigorin, Ostend 1906.

E5b3c) 6....g6 7.Nh3 Qd4 8.d3

E1b3c1) 8....d6 9.Qf3 Bxh3 10.Rf1! f5 11.gxh3 += Ford-Blackburn, Bruges 1999.

E1b3c2) 8....Bd6 9.c3 Qc5 10.b4! +- Emms

E1b3c3) 8....Bb6 9.Qf3 f6 10.Rf1 d6 11.c3 Qc5 12.b4 +- Emms-Hawksworth, British Championship 1986.

E5b4) 4....Bf8!? 5.Qg3 Nf6 (5....d6 6.Nge2 Nf6 7.O-O Na5 8.Bb3 Nxb3 9.axb3 Nh5 10.Qe3 a6 11.d4 exd4 12.Nxd4 Be7 13.Nf5 c6 14.g4 Bxf5 15.exf5 Nf6 16.g5 Ng8 17.Ne4 Kf8 18.c4 h6 19.Qh3 d5 20.Rd1 Qd7 21.Be3 Re8 22.cxd5 cxd5 23.Bd4 Qc7 24.f6 gxf6 25.Nxf6 Nxf6 26.gxf6 Bb4 27.Be3 Rg8+ 28.Kh1 Rg6 29.Bxh6+ Kg8 30.Bg7 1-0 Chwojnik-Kolski, Lopdz 1927) 6.Nf3?! (6.Nge2!) 6....Nh5 7.Qg5 Qxg5 8.Nxg5 f6 9.Nf7? Na5 10.Nxh8 (10.Bd5!?) 10....Nxc4 11.d3 Nb6 12.g4 Nf4 13.Bxf4 exf4 14. h4 Bb4 15. h5 Kf8 16. O-O-O Bxc3 17. bxc3 d6 18. h6 g5 19. f3 Kg8 -+ Mieses-Marshall, Paris 1900.

E5b5) 4....g6

E5b5a) 5.Qg3!?

E5b5b) 5.Qf3 Nf6 (5....Qf6 6.Nd5 Qxf3 7.Nxf3 Bb6 8.d3 d6 9.Ng5 += Capablanca-Gomez, Panama 1933) 6.Nge2 d6 7.d3 Bg4 (7....h6 8.h3 Qe7 9.Na4!? Emms or 9.g4 Milutinovic-Saic, Correspondence 1972) 8.Qg3 h6 (8....Qd7 9.Qh4! Emms or 8....Bxe2 9.Nxe2 Nh5 10.Qg4?! Na5 11.Bb3 Nxb3 12.axb3 Qf6 = Estrin--Ravinsky, Moscow 1964) 9.f4! Qe7 10.Nd5 Nxd5 11.Qxg4 Nf6 (11....Ne3 Larsen 12.Bxe3 Bxe3 13.f5 += Emms) 12.Qh3 Na5 13.Bb5+ c6 14.Ba4 b5 15.Bb3 += Larsen--Portisch, Santa Monica 1966.

E5c) 3....Nf6

E5c1) 4.d3 Nc6 5.f4 = King’s Gambit Declined

E5c2) 4.f4!? Bxg1!? (4....d6 5.d3 Ng4? 6.f5! Nf2 7.Qh5 Qd7? [7...0-0 8.Bg5 Qe8 9.Nd5] 8.Be6! Qe7 9.Nd5 g6 10.Qh6 Qf8 11.Bxc8 Nxh1 12.Bxb7 Bxg1 13.Bxa8 Kd7 14.Qxf8 Rxf8 15.Bh6 1-0 Emms--Jackson, Hungary 1999; 4....d5 5.exd5! e4 6.Nge2 O-O 7.d4 exd3 8.Qxd3 += Adams--Gates, US Correspondence 1960) 5.Rxg1 Nxe4 (5....d6!?; 5....O-O 6.d3 d5 7.exd5 exf4 8.Bxf4 Bg4 9.Qd2 b5 10.Nxb5 Qe8+ 11.Kf1 Bogolyubov--Stolz, Triberg 1929; 5....d5 6.exd5 O-O 7.d3 Re8 8.f5 e4! 9.d4 e3! 10.Qf3 c6 11.Be3 Qe7 12.Kd2 b5 Khavin--Polyak, USSR 1948) 6.Bxf7+!?? (6.Qh5! Santasiere Nd6! [6....O-O 7.Nxe4 d5 8.Ng5 +=] 7.Qxe5+!? [simpler than 7.Bb3 or 7.Be2!?] 7....Kf8 [7....Qe7? 8.Nd5! +-] 8.Bd5 +=; 6.Nxe4 d5 7.d4!? dxc4 8.fxe5 Qh4+ 9.Ng3 Nc6 10.Be3 Bg4 Adams--Pincus) 6....Kxf7 7.Nxe4 Re8 8.Qh5+ Kg8 9.f5 d5 (9....h6 10.f6! Re6 11.Rf1 Qf8 12.f7+ Kh8 13.Ng5 Ra6 14.b3 d5 15.Ba3! 1-0 Arkless--Whitfield, US Correspondence 1962) 10.f6 Rf8 11.Ng5 h6 12.Qg6 Rxf6 13.Qh7+ += Spence--Ackerman, Omaha 1958.

E6) 3.Nf3 d6!? (3....Nc6 4.b4 was Nunn's favorite way to transpose to the Evans Gambit in the 1980s) 4.c3 += More analysis forthcoming.

E7) 3.b4
This move is a good method of transposing to the Evans Gambit since it allows for some independent possibilities, some of which are quite favorable for White. If you like to play the Evans Gambit, this seems the most flexible way to do so from this position.

E7a) 3....Bb6

E7a1) 4.f4?! Bxg1! 5.Qh5 Qe7 6.Rxg1 Nc6 7.b5!? g6! =+ (compare E1 above).

E7a2) 4.Nf3 d6 5.d3 (5.d4 exd4 6.Nxd4 Nf6 7.Nc3 Morphy--Freeman, Birmingham 1858) 5....Nf6 6.c3 +=

E7a3) 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Nf3 Nxe4? 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Nxe5+ Ke6 8.Nxe4 Kxe5 9.Bb2+ Kxe4 10.Qf3+ 1-0 Oskam--Grosjean, Rotterdam 1930.

E7a4) 4.a4 a5 5.b5 Nf6 (+= Tartakower) 6.d3 d5 7.exd5 Nxd5 8.Ba3 (8.Qf3!) 8....Qf6 9.Qf3 Bg4 10.Qg3 Be6 11.Bxd5 Bxd5 12.Nc3 Be6 13.Nge2 Nd7 14.O-O Qg6 15.Qf3 O-O-O 16.Nd5 Bxd5 17.Qxd5 Nf6 18.Qc4 Rd5 19.Be7 Re8 20.Bxf6 Rc5 21.Qb3 gxf6 22.c4 h5 23.Kh1 h4 24.h3 c6 25.bxc6 Rxc6 26.Rab1 Re7 27.Nc3 Rd7 28.Nd5 Bd8 29.Rfe1 Re6 30.Qc3 Re8 31.Rb5 Rg8 32.Rg1 Kb8 33.Qb2 Kc8 34.f3 Qxd3 35.Rb1 e4 36.Rb3 1-0 Spielmann--Duras, Breslau 1912.

E7b) 3....Bxb4 4.c3
Black generally does well against MacDonnell's Double Gambit by declining it: 4.f4?! d5! 5.exd5 e4 6.Ne2 Nf6 7.c3! [7.O-O O-O 8.Nbc3 c6 9.dxc6 Nc6 10.Kh1 Bg4 11.Qe1 e3! -+ MacDonnell--Labourdonnais, London 1834] 7....Bc5 8.d4 exd3 9.Qxd3 0-0 10.Ba3 Bxa3 11.Nxa3 Bg4 12.0-0 Bxe2 13.Qxe2 Nxd5 14.Qf3 c6 15.Rab1 Qe7 16.Bxd5 cxd5 17.c4 unclear in Mongredien - Morphy, Paris 1859. Accepting the gambit might lead to 4....exf4 5.Nf3 Qe7 6.Qe2 d5! 7.exd5 Qxe2+ 8.Kxe2 Nf6 9.Bb2 0-0 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Kd1 with complex play. Steinitz played a number of exhibition games with the double-pawn sacrifice, usually with great success. But in Steinitz-Evill, Cambridge 1874, Black did well after 4....d6 5.Nf3 Nd7 6.0-0 Ngf6 7.c3 Ba5 8.fxe5 Nxe5 9.Nxe5 dxe5 10.Ba3 Bb6+ 11.Kh1 c5 12.d4 0-0 13.Nd2 exd4 14.e5 Ng4 =+. Players interested in these lines should compare positions from the Latvian Gambit. I think the gambit works best after 4.c3 Ba5 5.f4!

Accepting the gambit by 3....Bxb4 challenges White to prove compensation. The resulting positions are very similar to the Evans Gambit and White probably does best to transpose to the Evans in most lines. There is one significant advantage for White, however, in offering the gambit pawn before developing the Knight to f3. In the line 4.c3 Ba5, which has proven one of the more thorny in Evans Gambit theory, White can play 5.f4!? instead of 4.Nf3 Nc6.

E7b1) 4....Be7

E7b1a) 5.Qh5?! g6 6.Qxe5 Nf6 7.Nf3! Nc6 8.Qf4 d5! 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Bxd5 Qxd5 11.O-O =

E7b1b) 5.Qb3 Nh6 6.d4!? (6.Nf3 would probably transpose to Evans Gambit lines) 6....Bg5! 7.Ba3! (more natural than 7.Nd2!? Nc6 8.Qb2!? as in Kovac-Hipp, Prague 1996) 7....exd4 8.cxd4 d6 9.Nf3 O-O 10.O-O Nc6 11.Nxg5 Qxg5 12.f4 Qd8 13.Qc3 Re8 14.Nd2 += as in Siegel-Lehmann, Dotzheim 2002, when Black blundered with 14....b6? 15.Bb5 +-. White seems to be doing quite well in any event.

E7b1c) 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.d4 transposes to Kasparov's method of handling the Evans Gambit after 6....Na5 7.Be2.

E7b2) 4....Bc5 5.d4!? (Best here is 5.Nf3! Nc6 [5....Nf6?! 6.Nxe5 O-O 7.d4 Bb6 8.Nxf7! Rxf7 9.Bxf7+ Kxf7 10.e5 +=] 6.d4 transposing to the Evans Gambit. Notice that 5.f4? is questionable here due to 5....Bxg1) 5....exd4

E7b2a) 6.cxd4?! Bb4+ 7.Kf1 (White threatens 8.Qb3. Not 7.Bd2 Bxd2+ 8.Nxd2 Nf6 9.e5 d5 =+) 7....Ba5!? (7....Nc6! 8.d5 Ne5 Tartakower; 7....Qe7!?) 8.Qh5?! (8.Bxf7+! Kxf7 9.Qh5+ g6 10.Qxa5 =) 8....d5! 9.Bxd5 Qe7 10.Ba3 Nf6 11.Bxf7+ Qxf7 12.Qxa5 Nc6 13.Qa4 Nxe4 14.Nf3 Bd7 15.Nbd2 Nxd2+ 16.Nxd2 O-O-O 17.Rb1 Qd5 18.Nf3 Bf5 19.Rd1 Rhe8 20.Bc5 Qxf3!! 21.gxf3 Bh3+ 22.Kg1 Re6 23.Qc2 Rxd4! 24.Bxd4 Nxd4 0-1 MacDonnell--Boden, London 1865.

E7b2b) 6.Nf3 Nf6! (6....Nc6 7.O-O is the main line of the Evans Gambit) 7.e5

E7b2b1) 7....Ne4?! 8.O-O?! (8.Qe2! Nxc3 9.Nxc3 dxc3 10.Ng5! +=; 8.Bd5!?; 8.Qb3!?) 8....Nxc3?! (8....d5! 9.exd6 O-O! =+) 9.Nxc3 dxc3 10.Bg5? (10.Ng5! Rf8 11.Qh5! g6 12.Qxh7 +-; 10.Bxf7+!? +=) 10....Be7 11.Qd5 Rf8? (11....O-O! =+) 12.Bf6! gxf6 13.exf6 Bxf6 14.Rfe1+ Be7 15.Ng5 c6? (15....d6! 16.Nxf7 Qd7 17.Qh5 Rxf7 18.Qxf7+ Kd8 19.Be6 Qe8 20.Qxe8+ Kxe8 21.Bxc8 Nd7 22.Bxb7 =/+=) 16.Nxf7 cxd5 17.Nd6#  Denker--Shayne, Exhibition 1945.

E7b2b2) 7....d5! 8.Bb5+ Nfd7! (8....Bd7 9.Qb3 Qe7 10.O-O +=; 8....c6 9.exf6 cxb5 10.Qe2+!? Kf8 11.cxd4 Qxf6 12.O-O Bd6 13.Re1 Bd7 14.Nc3 +=) 9.cxd4 Be7 10.O-O O-O =+

E7b2c) 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Qh5+ g6 8.Qxc5 Qe7?! (8....Nf6! =) 9.Qd5+ Qe6?! 10.Qxe6+! dxe6 11.cxd4 Nf6 12.Nc3 Rd8 13.Nf3 Nc6 14.Be3 a6 15.O-O Kg7 += 16.Rac1 h6 17.Rfd1 Ne7 18.h3 c6 19.Ne5 g5 20.f3 Ng6 21.Na4 Nxe5 22.dxe5 Rxd1+ 23.Rxd1 Nd7 24.Nb6 Nxb6 25.Bxb6 a5 26.Rd8 a4 27.Kf2 Ra6 28.Bc5 Ra8 29.Kg3 b5 30.Kg4 Kg6 31.Rg8+ Kf7 32.Rf8+ Kg7 33.Kh5 Bb7 34.Rf6 Rd8 35.Rxe6 Bc8 36.Rxc6 Bd7 37.Rc7 Kf7 38.Kxh6 Ke6 1-0 Delanoy--Kamenecki, Cannes Open 2000.

E7b3) 4....Ba5
This is one of the most annoying moves in the Evans Gambit, so White might want to consider one of the alternatives below rather than transposing by 5.Nf3. In fact, transposing to the Evans may not be so easy, since Black has his own alternative: 5.Nf3 Nf6! 6.d4 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Ba3 Nxe4 9.dxe5 Nxc3 10.Qd3 Nxb1 11.Raxb1 Nc6 12.exd6 cxd6 13.Bxd6 Re8 =+ Paulsen--Asbeck, Dusseldorf 1863.

E7b3a) 5.Qh5!? Qe7 6.Bxf7+ Qxf7 7.Qxe5+ Qe7 (7....Ne7! 8.Qxa5 O-O 9.f3 d5 10.d3 b6 11.Qa4 Ba6 12.Qc2 Nd7 seems to give Black a great game for only a pawn.) 8.Qh5+! g6 9.Qxa5 Qxe4+ 10.Ne2 Nc6 (Better 10....b6 11.Qg5 Ba6 12.Qe3 =, but not 10....Qxg2? 11.Qe5+! +-) 11.Qxc7 Nf6?! (11....Qxg2 12.Rg1 Qe4 =) 12.Qf4 O-O 13.Qxe4 Nxe4 14.O-O b6 15.d3 Nc5 16.d4 Ba6 17.dxc5 Bxe2 18.Re1 Bc4 19.Na3 Be6 20.Be3 += Rf5 21.cxb6 axb6 22.Nc2 Rfa5 23.Bxb6 Rxa2 24.Rxa2 Rxa2 25.Nb4 Rb2 26.Bc5 Na5 27.h4 Nb3 28.Be7 Nd2 29.Bg5 Nb1 30.Nd3 Rb8 31.Bf6 Nd2 32.Nc5 Bf5 33.Bg5 Rc8 34.Nb7 Nc4 35.f3 h5 36.Kh2 Kf8 37.Nd8 Nb6 38.Bh6+ Kg8 39.Re8+ Kh7 40.Be3 Nd5 41.Bd4 g5 42.Rh8+ Kg6 43.Rg8+ 1-0 Narmontas--Petraitis, Radviliskis 1995.

E7b3b) 5.d4 exd4 6.Qh5 d5 7.Bxd5

E7b3b1) 7....Qf6 8.Nf3! Bxc3+ (8....dxc3! 9.Bxf7+ Qxf7 10.Qxa5 Nc6 11.Qxc3 =) 9.Nxc3 dxc3 10.Ne5! Ne7?! (10....g6! 11.Bxf7+!? Qxf7 12.Nxf7 gxh5 13.Nxh8 Nc6 14.a4! is unclear) 11.Bxf7+ Kf8 12.Bb3 Bf5 (12....Bd7! 13.Bg5 Be8 Harding) 13.Bg5 Bg6 14.Nxg6+ Qxg6 15.Bxe7+ Kxe7 16.Qe5+ Kf8 17.Qxc7 Nc6 (If 17....Qxe4+ 18.Kf1 Qd3+ 19.Kg1 Qd7 20.Qc5+ Ke8 21.Re1+ Kd8 22.Rd1 +- Harding) 18.O-O Qf6 19.Rad1 Re8 20.Rd6 1-0 Jensen--Zagorovski, Correspondence 1993-1995.

E7b3b2) 7....Qe7! (The pin on the e-pawn is quite annoying here.)

E7b3b2a) 8.Bxf7+?! Qxf7 9.Qxa5 Nc6 10.Qa3 (10.Qg5?! Nf6 11.f3 0–0 12.Ne2 Nxe4 –+) 10....Qg6 11.Ne2 Qxg2 12.Rg1 Qxe4 13.cxd4 g6 =+

E7b3b2b) 8.Ba3?! g6?! (8...Nf6! 9.Qg5 Bxc3+ 10.Nxc3 Qxa3 11.Qe5+ Be6 12.Qxd4 Bxd5 13.exd5 0–0 14.Nge2 Nbd7 =+ Black is safely up a pawn.) 9.Bxe7 (9.Qd1! Qf6 10.Qa4+ c6 11.Qxa5 cxd5 12.Qxd5 +=) 9...gxh5 10.Bc5 Ne7 11.Bb3? (11.Bxd4 =) 11....dxc3 =+ 12.Ne2 c2+ 13.Nd2 Nbc6 14.Nf4 Ne5 15.Bd4 N7c6 16.Bxe5 Nxe5 17.Rc1 Bg4 18.Rxc2 O-O-O 19.Bd5 c6 20.h3 Bf3 21.gxf3 Nxf3+ 22.Kf1 Nxd2+ 23.Ke2 Kb8 0-1 Dublin--Glasgow, Correspondence 1874.

E7b3b2c) 8.Nf3! Nf6 9.Bxf7+ Qxf7 10.Qxa5 Nc6 11.Qa3! Qc4! (11...Nxe4 12.0–0 Be6 13.Re1 Qf5 14.cxd4 0–0–0 15.Nc3 Nxc3 16.Qxc3 +=/=; 11...Qg6 12.cxd4 Qxe4+ [12...Qxg2? 13.Rg1 Qh3 14.d5! +-] 13.Be3 Nd5 14.0–0 =) 12.Qb3 Qd3 13.Ng5 Rf8 14.f3 =

E7b3c) 5.f4! Qe7 (5....d5 6.exd5 e4 7.Ba3! Macov; 5....d6 6.Qb3! Qd7 7.Nf3 += Macov, which is clearer than 6.Nf3 Be6?! 7.Bxe6 fxe6 8.O-O!? [8.fxe5] 8....Bb6+ 9.d4 exf4 10.Bxf4 Nd7 11.a4 a5 12.Qb3 Qe7 13.Ng5 Nf8?! 14.Na3 h6 15.Bxd6! Bxd4+ 16.cxd4 cxd6 17.Nf7 Rh7 18.Nc4 Rb8 19.Ncxd6+ Kd7 20.Qb5+ Kc7 21.Rac1# 1-0 Steinitz-Price, Exhibition 1888; 5...Qh4+!? 6.g3 Qe7 7.Nf3 exf4 8.d4 Qxe4+ 9.Kf2 fxg3+ 10.hxg3 Ne7 11.Rh4 Qf5! is unclear; 5...Qf6 6.Nf3 exf4 7.d4 Ne7 8.0–0 0–0 9.Ne5 Ng6 10.Nxg6 Qxg6 11.Rxf4 d6 12.Bd3 with a great gambit position for White; 5...Nc6 6.Nf3 d6 7.Qb3 Qd7 8.fxe5 Nxe5 9.Nxe5 dxe5 10.0–0 Bb6+ 11.d4 Nf6 12.Ba3 c6 13.Kh1 exd4 14.cxd4 Bxd4 15.Nc3 with a great attacking position for White.) 6.Nf3 exf4 7.d4! (7.O-O!? Macov) 7....Qxe4+ (7....b5!? is a typical Evans Gambit tactic) 8.Kf2 Nf6 (Now White seems to quickly get the better of it. Perhaps best is 8...Ne7! 9.Re1 Qg6 10.Ne5 Qf6 11.Ba3!? d6 12.Qa4+ Nd7 13.Nxf7 Rf8 14.Qxa5! with continuing complications.) 9.Ng5 Qf5 10.Re1+ Kf8 11.Qe2 Nc6 12.Nxf7 d5!? (12....g5!? or 12....f3!? +=) 13.Nxh8 Ne4+ 14.Kg1 Nxd4 15.Ba3+ Ke8 (15....c5 16.Bxc5+!; 15....Kg8 16.Qe4! Macov) 16.cxd4 Bxe1 17.Qxe1 f3 18.Qe3! f2+ 19.Kf1 Qh5 20.Nd2 Qxh2 21.Nxe4 Qg1+ 22.Ke2 Bg4+ 23.Kd2 Qxa1 24.Nf6+ 1-0  Macov--Stoilov, Bulgaria 1975.


Links & Acknowledgments>>>

 
Contact: Michael Goeller, goeller@rci.rutgers.edu
Last modified: December 23, 2002
Copyright © 2002 All Rights Reserved