F) 4....c5

F1) 5.Ng5 F2) 5.Qe2 F3) 5.O-O!

Position after 4.Nf3 c5

    This rarely seen line is playable for Black and deserves more analysis. White gains a small advantage from 5.Qe2 (if Black plays correctly). But more interesting play follows 5.O-O, which allows White to recover his pawn with excellent chances of gaining an advantage as well.

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

F1) 5.Ng5 (Even worse is 5.Ne5?! d5! as tried in Smirka-Santasiere, Dimock Theme Tournament 1924) 5....d5 6.exd5 h6 (6....Bd6!? and 6....Bg4 are playable) 7.Qe2+ Qe7 8.Qxe7+ Bxe7 9.Nxf7 Kxf7 10.d6+ Be6 11.Bxe6+ Kxe6 12.dxe7 Kxe7 =+ Black has a slight edge in the endgame due to his greater control of space.

F2) 5.Qe2 d5! (5....d6? 6.e5 dxe5 7.Nxe5 Be6 8.Nxf7! Qe7 9.Qxe6 1-0 Akos--Csaszar, Hungary 1968) 6.exd5+ Be7 (6....Qe7?! 7.Ne5 Nbd7 8.f4! +=)

F2a) 7.Bb5+?! Kf8!  (7....Bd7? 8.d6 +-) 8.c3 (8.O-O a6! [8....Qxd5 9.Re1 Be6 10.Ng5 Nc6 11.Nxe6 Qxe6 12.Qxe6 fxe6 13.Bxc6 bxc6 14.Rxe6 Rc8 15.Na3 +=] 9.Bd3 Nxd5 10.c3 Nc6 =+) 8....a6 9.Ba4 Bf5 10.Bc2 Bxc2 11.Qxc2 Qxd5 12.cxd4 Nc6 13.O-O cxd4 14.a3 Ng4 15.Nbd2 d3 16.Qc4 Qxc4 17.Nxc4 b5 =+ 18.Ne3 Nge5 19.Nxe5 Nxe5 20.a4 b4 21.Bd2 a5 22.Rac1 Ng6 23.Nd5 Bd6 24. Be3 Rd8 25.Rfd1 Bxh2+ 26.Kxh2 Rxd5 27.Rc5 Ne7 28.Rc7 Ke8 29.Bc5 Ng6 30.Bb6 Rf8 31.Ra7 f6 32.Rxa5 Rxa5 33.Bxa5 Kf7 34.Bxb4 Rd8 35.a5 Ke6 36.Kg3 Ne5 37.Bc3 h5 38.f4 Nc4 39.Kf3 g6 40.a6 g5 41.a7 g4+ 42.Kg3 Ra8 43.Bd4 d2 44.Kh4 Kf5 45.Bg1 Ke4 46.b3 Ne3 47.Rxd2 Rxa7 48.Kxh5 1/2-1/2 Burkett-Raleus, IECG 2001.

F2b) 7.O-O?! (a trappy line) 7....Nxd5! (7....O-O 8.c3 transposes to F2c1 below) 8.Ng5!? (8.c3 Nc6 [8....dxc3? 9.Rd1 +-] 9.Rd1 Nb6 =; 8.Qe5?! Nf6 9.Re1 O-O 10.Qxc5 Be6 -/+) 8....O-O 9.Nxh7 Kxh7! (9....Re8 10.Qh5 Be6 11.Bd3 Qd7 [11....Nb4?? 12.Nf8!! +-] 12.Ng5 Nf6 13.Bh7+ Kf8 14.Qh4 Nc6 15.Bf4 =) 10.Qh5+ Kg8 11.Bxd5 Nd7 =+

F2c) 7.c3 =

F2c1) 7....O-O 8.O-O Re8! (This pawn sacrifice seems most promising for Black. Not 8....Nxd5? 9.Bxd5 +-; or 8....dxc3 9.Nxc3 Re8 10.Bg5 Bg4 11.Qd3 += when White has a space advantage and passed pawn) 9.cxd4 cxd4 10.Nxd4 Bd6 (10....Nxd4? 11.Qh5 ±) 11.Qd3 Nbd7 12.Nf3 Nc5 = and Black has at least sufficient play to recover the pawn later.

F2c2) 7....Nxd5 8.cxd4 (8.O-O Nc6 9.Rd1 Bg4 10.h3 Bxf3 11.Qxf3 Nf6 =+) 8....cxd4 9.Nxd4 O-O (9....Nb6 10.Bb5+ Bd7 11.Nf5 +=) 10.O-O Nb6 11.Bb3 Qxd4! (11....Bf6 12.Nb5 Re8 13.Be3 = but White has the more comfortable game) 12.Qxe7 Nc6 13.Qe3 = Black's more comfortable development compensates for the two Bishops.


F3) 5.O-O! (5.c3?! Nxe4 6.cxd4 d5 =+)

F3a) 5....Be7?! 6.e5 Ng4 (6....Ng8 7.c3 +=; 6....Ne4?! 7.Bd5! f5 8.c3! ±) 7.h3 Nh6 8.Bxh6 gxh6 9.Re1 (9.c3!) 9....d5 10.exd6 Qxd6 11.Ne5 Be6 12.Bxe6 Qxe6 13.Na3 a6 14.Nec4 Qg6?! 15.Qe2 +- Nc6 16.Ne5 Nxe5 17.Qxe5 Qg5 18.Qxh8+ 1-0 Escalante--Markowski, California 1989.

F3b) 5....d5 6.exd5 Nxd5?! (6....Be7 7.c3 O-O 8.cxd4 += compare F2b above; 6....a6 7.b4! +=)

F3b1) 7.Re1+?! Be7 8.Bg5 Nc6 9.Bxd5 Qxd5 10.Nc3 Qd8 11.Ne4 O-O 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.Neg5 Qf6 14.Qd3 Bf5 15.Qc4 h6 16.Ne4 Bxe4 17.Rxe4 Qf5 18.Rae1 b6 =+ Kirby--Zackery, San Jose State 1987.

F3b2) 7.c3?! Be7 8.Qb3 Be6 9.Qxb7 (9.cxd4 Nc6 10.dxc4 O-O =) 9....Nd7 10.Qb3?! (10.Re1 N7b6 11.Bb5+ =) 10....Rb8 11.Qc2 Ne3! 12.fxe3 Bxc4 13.Rd1 d3 14.Qf2 O-O =+ Bednarski--Lubinski, Wroclaw Poland 1960.

F3b3) 7.Nxd4 cxd4 8.Qxd4 Be6 (8....Nf6 9.Bxf7+! +-) 9.Rd1 Nc6 10.Qe4 +=

F3b4) 7.Ng5! (Compare the Lolli Attack) 7....Be7 (7....f6 8.Re1+ Be7 9.Qf3 ±; 7....Be6 8.Re1 Qd7 9.Nxf7 Ne3!? 10.Bxe6! Nxd1 11.Bxd7+ Kxf7 12.Bc8! ±) 8.Nxf7! Kxf7 9.Qf3+ Ke8! 10.Bxd5 Rf8 11.Qb3 Qb6 12.Qd3 Bf5 13.Qe2 ±

F3c) 5....Nxe4

F3c1) 6.Nc3!? Nxc3 (6....d5 7.Nxd5 =) 7.bxc3 d5 8.Bb5+ Bd7 9.Bxd7+ Qxd7 10.cxd4 is unclear.

F3c2) 6.Ne5!? d5 7.Qh5 g6 8.Nxg6 fxg6 9.Qe5+ Qe7 10.Qxh8 dxc4 11.Re1 Bf5 12.Nd2 Nc6 13.Nxe4 Bxe4 14.f3 O-O-O 15.Rxe4 Qf7 16.Rf4 Qe7 17.Re4 =

F3c3) 6.Re1! d5 7.Bxd5 (7.Nc3?! dxc4 8.Nxe4 Be6 9.Neg5 Be7 10.Nxe6 fxe6 11.Rxe6 O-O =+) 7...Qxd5 8.Nc3 Qd8 (8....Qf5!? 9.Nxe4 Be6 10.Qd3! ±) 9.Nxe4

F3c3a) 9....Be6 10.Nfg5! (10.Neg5 Be7 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Rxe6 O-O =) 10....Be7 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Nxc5! Bxc5 13.Qh5+g6 14.Qxc5 ± White has very strong play on the dark squares and against Black's weak pawns.

F3c3b) 9....Be7 10.Nxc5 Nc6 11.Nb3 +=

F3d) 5....Nc6!

F3d1) 6.e5?! d5 7.exf6 dxc4 8.Re1+ Be6 9.fxg7 Bxg7 10.Ng5 Qd5 11.Nc3 Qf5 12.g4 Qg6 13.Nce4 O-O-O 14.f4 Bxg4! 15.Qxg4+ f5 16.Qg3 (16.Qh3 h6) 16....fxe4 17.Qg4+ Rd7 18.f5 Ne5 19.Qxe4 Qh5 20.Bf4 d3! 21.Kh1 d2 22.Red1 Ng4! -+ 23.Qxc4 Nf2+ 24.Kg2 Qg4+ 25.Kf1 Bd4 26.c3 Qxf4 0-1 Khropov--Korolev, Leningrad 1964.

F3d2) 6.c3?! Nxe4! (Minev writes that the hope for 6....dxc3? 7.Nxc3, “when White has more than enough compensation for the sacrificed pawn, is naive in our lifetime.”  Black can also play 6....Be7 according to van Wieringen, when 7.cxd4 Nxe4 8.dxc5 Nxc5 9.Nc3 O-O 10.Bf4 brought White some compensation in Deak-Balasz, Hungary 1996, according to Muller and Voigt) 7.Qb3!? (7.cxd4 d5 8.Re1 or 7.Re1 d5 8.cxd4 is unclear) 7....Nd6! 8.Re1+ Be7 9.Bd5 O-O (9....dxc3 10.Qxc3 O-O 11.Qxc5) 10.cxd4 cxd4 11.Bf4 Ne8 (11....Nf5!?) 12.Ne5 Nxe5 13.Bxe5 Bf6 14.Bg3 d6 15.Nd2 Nc7 16.Ne4 Be5 17.f4 Nxd5 18.Qxd5 Bf6 19.Bf2 Be6 20.Qxb7 d5 21.Nxf6+ Qxf6 22.Rad1 Qxf4 23.Bxd4 Qb8 24.Qxb8 1/2-1/2 Zavanelli--C.A. van Wieringen, Dick Smit Memorial Correspondence 2000-2001.

F3d3) 6.Re1 d6 7.c3 Bg4 8.Qb3 Qe7 9.Nbd2 dxc3 10.bxc3 a6 11.h3 += Fritz

F3d4) 6.Ng5! van Wieringen Ne5 7.Bb3 gives us a postion reminiscent of lines from the Perreux Variation of the Two Knights Defense:

F3d4a) 7....d5 (7....c4?! 8.f4!) 8.Re1! (Not 8.exd5?! Bd6 =+; but interesting might be 8.f4!? Ng6 9.e5 Ne4! 10.c3 or 10.e6!? unclear according to van Wieringen) 8....dxe4 (8....h6 9.exd5 hxg5 10.Rxe5+ +=; 8....Bg4!? 9.Ba4+! Nfd7 10.f3 Be7 11.exd5! += and not 9.f3?! h6! 10.Bf4 Bd6 11.exd5 hxg5 12.Bxe5 Bxe5 13.Rxe5+ Kf8 =+ due to the open h-file)

F3d4a1) 9.Nxe4 Be7 10.Bf4 (10.Nxc5 Nc6) 10....Nxe4 = according to analysis by Cor van Wieringen. But White keeps the initiative here as well: 11.Bxe5 Nf6 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Qh5 O-O 14.Nd2 (14.c3!?) with chances of building an attack on the kingside with Nd2-f3-h4, Bb3-c4-d3, and doubling Rooks on the e-file.

F3d4a2) 9.Bf4!? c4! 10.Bxe5 (10.Ba4+ Nc6 =) 10...cxb3 11.axb3 Ng4 (11....Nd7?! 12.Bf4! +=) 12.Rxe4 Nxe5 13.Rxe5+ Be7 14.Qe2! (14.Ra4?! O-O 15.Rxd4 Qc7 unclear) with an interesting position: Black has two Bishops versus White's two Knights, but White has the initiative and pressure against the pawn at d4. I like White's chances better and might prefer this line to the one above.

F3d4b) 7....h6! 8.f4 hxg5 9.fxe5 Qc7! 10.Bxg5 (10.exf6?! Qxh2+ gives Black at least a draw if not more) 10....Qxe5 11.Bf4 Qh5

F3d4b1) 12.Qxh5 Nxh5 13.Bc7 d6 = van Wieringen, and the complications following 14.e5 dxe5 15.Bxf7+ likely lead only to equality again.

F3d4b2) 12.Qd3!? d6 (12...Be7 13.Na3) 13.c3 with relative equality, but White keeps the initiative.




Line G>>>


Contact: Michael Goeller,
Last modified: December 5 , 2003
Copyright © 2002 All Rights Reserved