B) 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 Nxe4 4.dxe5

B1) 4....Nxf2
B2) 4....Bc5
B3) 4....f5
B4) 4....Qe7
B5) 4....c6
B6) 4....Nc5
B7) 4....Qh4

Black to play after 4.dxe5

    Black captures the e-pawn rather than the d-pawn, and White captures Black's pawn at e5 to maintain material equality. This line is weaker than 3....exd4 because the Knight is vulnerable at e4 and White's pawn at e5 gives White more control of the center squares. White also has immediate threats, including 5.Qd5 (forking f7 and the Knight at e4) or 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Qd5+ (winning a pawn and misplacing Black's King). Black does have the move, though, and he has a number of choices -- including several methods of attempting a counter-attack, none of which is especially effective.

Index of Lines
A) 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 ...
B) 3.d4 Nxe4 4.dxe4
C) 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 ... 
D) 4.Nf3 Bb4+
E) 4.Nf3 d6
F) 4.Nf3 c5
G) 4.Nf3 Bc5
H) 4.Nf3 d5
I) 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 ...
J) 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Bg5?!
K) 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3! ...
L) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d5
M) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6
N) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 c6 8.O-O-O d5
Urusov Gambit & Related Links
Urusov PGN File from Pitt Archives

B1) 4....Nxf2? 5.Qd5! (5.Qf3 Qe7 6.Qxf2 Qxe5+ 7.Ne2 ± is also good) 5....Qh4 6.Qxf7+ (or 6.Nf3 Qe4+ 7.Kxf2 +-) 6...Kd8 7.Nf3 Qe4+ (7....Nd3+ 8.Kd1! Nf7+ 9.Ke2 Qe4+ 10.Kxf2 +- or 8....Nxe5 9.Bg5+! Qxg5 10.Nxg5 Nxf7 11.Nxf7+ +-) 8.Kxf2 Bc5+ 9.Kf1 Nc6 +- 10.Nc3 Qxc2 11.Bg5+ Ne7 12.Nd4 Qxb2 13.Rd1 d5 14.exd6 Bxd6 15.Bxe7+ Bxe7 16.Ne6# 1-0 Kirby--Simpson, Mission City KS 1993

B2) 4....Bc5? 5.Bxf7+ (5.Qd5 Qh4 6.g3 Bxf2+ 7.Ke2 Qg4+ 8.Nf3 Qg6 9.Bd3 Nxg3+ 10.hxg3 Qxg3 11.Ng5 d6 12.Qxf7+ +- Harholm--Boeye, 1990) 5....Kf8 (5....Kxf7 6.Qd5+ Kf8 7.Qxe4 ±) 6.Bd5! (6.Qf3 ± Staunton) 6.....Qh4 (6....Nxf7? 7.Qf3+; 6....Ng5 7.Nf3! Ne6 8.Bxe6 +-; 6....Bxf7+ 7.Kf1 Bxg1 8.Qf3+ Nf6 9.exf6 Qxf6 10.Qxf6+ gxf6 11.Rxg1 +-) 7.Qf3+ Ke8 8.Bxe4 (8.Nh3 or 8.g3 +-) 8....Rf8 (8....Bxf2+ 9.Qxf2 Qxe4+ 10.Be3 Qxe5 11.Nc3 Rf8 12.Nf3 and 13.O-O-O +-) 9.g3 Bxf2+ (9....Rxf3 10.gxh4 Rxf2 11.Nc3 +-) 10.Ke2 Qe7 11.Bf4 +-

B3) 4....f5?! 5.Nf3 d6 (5....Bc5!? 6.O-O d6 7.exd6 Qxd6 8.Qe2 +=) 6.O-O dxe5 7.Qe2!? (7.Qxd8+! Kxd8 8.Nxe5 Nd6 9.Rd1 Ke8 10.Bb3 Be7 11.Nc3 +=) 7...Bd6 (7....Nc6 8.Rd1 Qf6! 9.Bd5 +=) 8.Nc3! Nxc3 (8....Qe7?! 9.Nxe4 ± Goeller--Sherry, Westfield 1983) 9.bxc3 Nc6 (9....e4 10.Bg5! Qd7 [10....Be7? 11.Ne5! Bxg5 12.Qh5+ g6 13.Nxg6 +-] 11.Nd4 Nc6 12.Be6! [12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.f3 +=] 12....Bxh2+ 13.Kh1 Qd6 14.Nxf5! Qe5 15.Bxc8 Rxc8 16.Qg4 with the idea of 17.f4 +-) 10.Bg5 and White’s attack more than compensates for the sacrificed pawn: for example, 10....Qd7 11.Nxe5 Nxe5 12.f4 h6!? 13.Bh4! (13.fxe5 Bc5+ 14.Be3 +=) 13....g5 14.fxe5 Bc5+ 15.Bf2 ±.

B4) 4....Qe7?! 5.Qe2 Nc5 (5....Qxe5? 6.f3 +-)

B4a) 6.Nc3 Ne6 7.Be3 Nc6 8.Nf3 (8.f4!?) 8....b6 9.O-O-O Bb7 10.Nd5 Qd8 11.Bg5! Be7 (on 11....Nxg5 Collins gives 12.Nxc7+ Qxc7 13.Nxg5 Qxe5? 14.Bxf7+ Kd8 15.Qg4 d6 16.Rhe1 Qf6 17.Re8+ Kc7 18.Ne6+ Kd7 19.Nc5 Kc7 20.Qd7# but more direct is 11....Nxg5 12.Nf6+! gxf6 13.exf6+ Ne6 14.Bxe6 +-) 12.h4 Nxg5 (12....h6!?) 13.Nxg5 Bxg5+ 14.hxg5 Qxg5+ 15.f4 Qd8 16.Qh5 Rhf8 17.Rhe1 Qc8 18.e6 Kd8 19.exf7  1-0  Kelley--Kornhauser, US Correspondence 1954.

B4b) 6.Nf3 h6 (6....Ne6 7.Nc3 likely transposes to B4a) 7.Nc3 c6 8.Be3 b5 9.Bb3 (better to surrender the dark-squared Bishop with 9.Bxc5! Qxc5 10.Bb3 +- with the powerful threat of Nc3-e4-d6+ with a winning attack) 9....Nba6 10.0–0 b4 11.Nb1 Nc7 12.Nbd2 Nxb3 13.axb3 a5?! 14.Nc4 Ba6 15.Rxa5 +- Qd8 16.Bb6 Bxc4 17.Qxc4 Rxa5 18.Bxa5 Qb8 19.Nd4 Qb7 20.Bxc7 Qxc7 21.f4 (better 21.Re1 with the idea of Nd4-b5-d6+) 21....Qa7 22.Kh1 Bc5 23.Nf5 0–0 24.h3 (better 24.Qc4-d3-g3 +-) 24....Qb6?! 25.Qd3! d5 26.exd6! (26.Qg3!? +-) 26....Rd8 27.Re1 Bf2 28.Rd1 Kh7 29.d7! +- g6 30.Qc4 gxf5?! 31.Qxf7+ Kh8 32.Rd6 and Black cannot avoid mate in two. 1-0 Michael Dougherty(2318) - Alex Lenderman(2217), National Chess Congress Philadelphia (5), 30.11.2003

B5) 4....c6 5.Qe2 Nc5

B5a) 6.Nc3?! b5! (6....Be7?! 7.Bf4 [This move also met with success in Cheremisin--Korchmar, Saratov 1976, but 7.Be3! with the idea of exchanging the dark-squared Bishop for the Knight at c5, rather than allowing Black to exchange the light-squared Bishop with b5 and Nxb3, seems objectively better] 7....Ne6 8.Bg3 c5 9.Nf3 Nc6 10.O-O-O Qa5 11.Nb5!? O-O 12.Nd6 Bxd6 13.exd6 b5 14.Bd5 += Woeber--Grabher, Correspondence 1995) 7.Bb3 a5! 8.a3 Ba6!? 9.Qf3 Nxb3 10.cxb3 Qe7 11.Bf4 d5 12.Nge2 g6?! (better 12...Nd7! 13.0–0 [13.Nd4? Nxe5! -+; 13.Qe3 f6!? 14.e6?! Nc5 15.Nd4 b4! 16.axb4 Nd3+ 17.Kf1 Qxb4 -+] 13...b4 =+) 13.0–0 Bg7 14.Rfe1 0–0? 15.Nd4!± Bb7 16.Qg3 b4 17.Na4 Re8 18.Re3!? c5 (18...h6 19.Rae1 g5? 20.e6!-->) 19.Bg5 cxd4 (19...Bxe5 20.Nf5-->) 20.Bxe7 dxe3 21.Bd6 exf2+ 22.Qxf2 Nd7 23.Nb6 Nxb6 24.Qxb6 Ba6 25.axb4 Re6 26.Rxa5 Bxe5 27.Rxa6 Rxa6 28.Qb8+ Kg7 29.Bxe5+ f6 30.Bd4 1–0 Tamas-Kovacs, Hungary 1995.

B5b) 6.a3 (Or 6.a4!? d5 7.exd6+ Ne6 8.Nf3 Bxd6 9.0–0 0–0 10.Rd1 +=) 6...d5 7.exd6+ Ne6 8.Nf3 (8.Nc3 Bxd6 9.Be3 0–0 10.0–0–0 Qe7=) 8...Bxd6 9.Ng5 Qe7 10.Nxe6 Bxe6 11.Bxe6 fxe6 12.Nd2 0–0 13.Ne4 Be5 14.Bg5 Qf7 15.0–0–0 += Nd7 16.Kb1 h6 17.Bh4 Bc7 18.Nd6! Bxd6 19.Rxd6 Rae8 20.Re1 e5 21.Qg4! Qf4 22.Re4 (22.Qxf4!? Rxf4 23.Bg3 Rf7 24.f3 +=) 22...Qxg4 23.Rxg4 h5 24.Ra4?! (24.Re4! Nf6 25.Rb4 Re7 26.f3 +=) 24...Nb6! 25.Re4 (25.Rxa7?? Nc8–+) 25...Rf4! 26.f3 Rxe4 27.fxe4 Kf7 28.b3 Re6 29.Rd2 (29.Rd8!? Re8 [29...Rg6 30.Bg3 unclear] 30.Rxe8 Kxe8 31.Bf2 unclear. Now Black slowly gets the better of the ending and might have won.) 29...Rg6 30.h3 Ke6 31.c4 Nd7 32.b4 Nf6 33.Re2 Rh6 34.Kc2 Rh8 35.Re3 Rg8 36.Bg5 Rd8 37.Rd3 Rg8 38.Bxf6 gxf6 39.g3 f5 40.exf5+ Kxf5 41.a4 Rg7 42.b5 e4 43.Rd8 Rxg3 44.Rd7 cxb5 45.axb5 b6 46.Rxa7 Ke5 47.Rb7 Rg6 48.Kc3 Re6 49.Rf7 h4 50.Kd2 Kd4 51.Rh7 Kxc4 52.Rxh4 Kxb5 53.Rh8 Kb4 54.h4 e3+ 55.Ke2 b5 56.h5 Kb3 57.Rg8 Re5 58.h6 Rh5 59.Rh8 Rh3 60.h7 b4 61.Kd3 Rh6 62.Kxe3 Re6+ 63.Kf4 Re7 64.Kg5 Rb7 ½–½ Fedorov- Mamedyarov, Aeroflot Open, Moscow 2004. See PGN file.

B5d) 6.Nf3! (White's idea is to rapidly mobilize and preserve the option of attacking with c4 if Black prematurely advances with b5 and a5 -- rather than passively trying to retreat the Bishop via a3 and Ba2)  6....b5 (6...d5?! 7.exd6+ Ne6 8.Ng5 Qxd6 [8...Bxd6 9.Nxe6 Bxe6 10.Bxe6 fxe6 11.Qxe6+ Qe7 12.Qxe7+ ±] 9.0–0 h6 10.Rd1 Qe7 11.Ne4 Qc7 12.f4 ±) 7.Bb3 a5 (7...Nxb3?! 8.axb3 d5 9.exd6+ Be6 10.Ng5; 7...d5 8.exd6+ Be6 9.Ng5 ±) 8.c4! with the better game for White. See PGN file.

B6) 4....Nc5

B6a) 5.Nf3 (White goes for rapid mobilization, but this is not the strongest plan. The immediate 5.Bf4 might also be met also with 5....d6! 6.exd6 Bxd6 7.Bxd6 cxd6 and, though the pawn at d6 is potentially weak, Black has lots of activity.) 5....Be7?! (Better 5....d6! 6.O-O Be6 7.Bxe6 Nxe6 8.exd6 Bxd6 9.Re1 O-O = Spetzke--Wolff, Eisenberg 1993) 6.Bf4 Nc6 7.Nc3 Ne6 8.Bg3 O-O 9.Qe2 f5 (9....d6 10.O-O-O) 10.O-O-O Qe8 11.Nd5 Kh8 12.Nf4 a6 13.h4 Na5 14.Bxe6! dxe6 15.Ng5 Bc5 16.Rd8 Qxd8 17.Qh5 h6 18.Qg6! hxg5 19.hxg5+ Kg8 20.Qh5 (20.Rh8+! Kxh8 21.Qh5+ Kg8 22.g6 +-) 20....Nc4 21.g6 Qd2+ 22.Kb1 Na3+ 23.bxa3  1-0  Nejstadt--Gipslis, USSR 1955.

B6b) 5.f4 d6 (A necessary move to avoid the cramping that follows 5....Ne6 6.Nf3 h6? 7.f5 Ng5 8.O-O Nf3+ 9.Qf3 c6 10.f6 gxf6 11.Bxf7+ Kxf7 12.Qh5+ Kg8 13.Qg6+ Bg7 14.exf6 Qf8 15.f7+ 1-0 Pfleger--Herzog, Berlin 1960 or 5....g6? 6.Nf3 c6 7.Be3 d5 8.exd6 Qxd6 9.Nc3 Bf5 10.Qxd6 Bxd6 11.0-0-0 Be7 12.Rhe1 Ne6 13.Ne5 Bf6 14.g4 Bxe5 15.gxf5 Bxc3 16.fxe6 Bf6 17.exf7+ Kf8 18.Bc5+ Kg7 19.f5 Na6 20.Bxa6 bxa6 21.Rd7 Kh6 22.fxg6 Bg7 23.gxh7 Rxh7 24.f8Q Bxf8 25.Bxf8+ Rxf8 26.Re6+ 1-0 Lasker-Amateurs, New Orleans Exhibition 1893) 6.Nf3 Be6 += 7.Bxe6 fxe6 8.O-O d5 9.b4 Nca6 10.Nd4 Bxb4 11.Nxe6 Qd7 12.f5 g6 13.Qg4 Bc5+ 14.Nxc5 Nxc5 15.e6 1-0 Strijbos--Jochemsen, Njimegen 1993.

B6c) 5.Be3! Ne6 (To avoid an eventual Bxc5. Not 5....d6? 6.Bxc5! dxc5 7.Bxf7+! but perhaps 5....Nc6 6.Nf3 d6!? 7.Bxc5 dxc5 8.Qxd8+ Nxd8 9.Nc3 though White has a clear edge despite the reduced forces.) 6.f4! Bb4+ 7.c3 Ba5 8.Nf3 Bb6 9.Qe2 O-O 10.f5! ± Nc5 11.Bg5 Qe8 12.f6 Ne6 13.fxg7 Nxg7 14.Nbd2 d5 15.Bxd5 c6 16.Ne4 Nd7 17.Bc4 Bd8 1-0 Flierl--Pensold, Germany 1992.

B7) 4....Qh4!? Though this move seems to lay claim to the initiative, it is much better for White in the end. Download PGN File.

B7a) 5.Qe2?! Estrin

B7a1) 5....Bc5?! 6.g3! Bxf2+ 7.Qxf2!? (7.Kf1! ±) 7....Nxf2 8.gxh4 Nxh1 9.Kf1! ± Nc6 10.Bf4 Rf8 11.Kg2 Nb4 12.Na3 b6 13.Nf3 Bb7 14.Rh1 Nd5 15.Bc1 O-O-O 16.Rd1 Ne7 17.Kg3 ± Levi--Guy, Adelaide Open 1990. This game is worth some study, since the resulting ending of two minor pieces versus a Rook is fairly common in the B-lines.

In Levi-Guy, Black won the exchange with 8....Nxh1 but his Knight was trapped on the h1 square. White could win it with 9.Bd5?! but that would allow Black to put pressure on the pawn at e5 with 9....O-O! 10.Bxh1 Re8!, when the pin on the isolated e-pawn would make it especially difficult to defend, i.e.: 11.Bf4 d6 12.Nf3 dxe5 and White cannot recapture due to 13....f6 winning a piece. Therefore, Levi chose the best way to get the Knight with 9.Kf1! gaining two pieces for a Rook.

B7a2) 5....Nxf2! 6.g3! Qe4! 7.Nc3 Bb4! (7....Qxh1? 8.Qxf2 c6 9.Qxf7+ Kd8 10.Bg5+ Kc7 11.O-O-O +-; 7....Qxe2+!? 8.Kxe2 Nxh1 9.Nd5 b5! =+) 8.Kxf2 Qxh1 (8....Bc5+ 9.Be3 Bxe3+ 10.Qxe3 Qxc4!? 11.Nf3 O-O 12.Rad1 with compensation for the pawn) 9.Nf3 Bc5+ 10.Be3 Bxe3+ 11.Qxe3 Qxa1 12.Nd5 Qxb2! (not 12....O-O? 13.Nf6+ Kh8 14.Qe4 g6 15.Qh4 +- nor 12....Na6? 13.Qg5!! +-) 13.Nxc7+ Kd8 14.Nxa8 Qxc2+ -+ and White does not have adequate compensation for the exchange (Download PGN File).

B7b) 5.Be3!? Nxf2?! (5....Nd6! +=) 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Qf3+ Ke8 8.Bxf2 Qb4+ 9.Nc3 Qxb2 10.Rb1 Qxc2 11.Nge2 Nc6 12.O-O ± (Download PGN File).

B7c) 5.Qf3! Ng5 (5....Nxf2? 6.Qxf7+ Kd8 7.Nf3! Nd3+ 8.Kd1 Nf2+ 9.Ke2 Qe4+ 10.Kf2 Bc5+ 11.Kf1 +-)

B7c1) 6.Qe2?! Nc6 7.g3 Qe4 8.Qxe4 Nxe4 9.Bd5 Nc5 10.Bxc6 dxc6 11.Ne2 Bg4 12.Nbc3 O-O-O =+ Dorfman--Zilberstein, USSR 1974.

B7c2) 6.Qd5!? c6 (6....Qe4+ 7.Qxe4 Nxe4 8.f3 Nc5 9.Nc3 +=) 7.Bxg5 cxd5 8.Bxh4 dxc4 9.Nc3 +=

B7c3) 6.Bxg5 Qxc4 (6....Qxg5 7.Bxf7+ Kd8 8.Nc3 ±) 7.Nc3 Bb4 (7....d6! 8.O-O-O Nc6 9.exd6 Bxd6 =) 8.Nge2 O-O 9.O-O?! (Better 9.Bf4 to discourage ....d6 or 9.O-O-O followed by Qg3 and f4 to build a kingside attack +=) 9....d6 = 10.Be7 Re8 11.Nd5 Bg4 12.Qg3 Qxd5 13.Qxg4 Qxe5 14.Qxb4 Nc6 15.Qxb7 Nxe7 16.Ng3 Qc5 1/2-1/2 Braun--Tresch, Germany 1991.

B7c4) 6.Qf4! Qxf4 7.Bxf4 Ne6 8.Bg3 (+= Larsen) 8....Nc6 9.Nf3 Bc5 10.Nc3 Ned4 11.Nd5! Nxf3+ 12.gxf3 Bb6 13.O-O-O += O-O 14.Rhg1 Kh8 15.f4 (15.b4! Re8 16.a4! a5 17.b5 ± Nxe5?! 18.Rde1 d6 19.f4 +-) 15....Na5 16.Nxb6 axb6 17.Bd5 f6 18.exf6 Rxf6 19.Rde1 Rf8 20.f5 d6 21.Re7 c6 22.Bxd6 Bxf5 23.Rgxg7 cxd5 24.Be5 Rfe8 25.Rxh7+ Kg8 26.Reg7+ Kf8 27.Rh8+ 1-0 Bering-Christensen, Copenhagen 2002. (Download PGN File).

Line C >>>

Contact: Michael Goeller,
Last modified: March 1, 2004
Copyright © 2002 All Rights Reserved