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

I) 4.....Nxe4 5.Qxd4

I1) 5....Nd6 I2) 5....Nc5 I3) 5....Qe7 I4) 5....d5


Position after 5.Qxd4

   Black's Knight is attacked and will eventually need to retreat. The best move here is 5....Nf6 (covered in the following lines), but many players think it is bad form to retreat to the same square from whence you came and will therefore look for alternatives. Black's other retreats are inferior, however, because they interfere with development and allow the White Queen to apply pressure to the pawn at g7. An interesting alternative, though, is 5....d5!?, where Black tries to turn the tables with a countergambit to speed his development. White probably does best then to play 6.Bxd5 Nf6 7.Nc3! transposing to Line K1.


Index of Lines
Introduction 
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
Acknowledgments
Urusov Gambit & Related Links
Urusov PGN File from Pitt Archives

I1) 5....Nd6? 6.O-O

I1a) 6....Nxc4? 7.Re1+ Ne3! (suggested by Massimo Della Valle. Urusov himself simply gives 7....Be7 8.Qxg7 Rf8 9.Bh6 +-) 8.Rxe3+ (8.Bxe3!? f6! is less clear) 8....Be7 9.Qxg7 Rf8 10.Nc3 +- Massimo Della Valle.

I1b) 6....Nc6 7.Re1+ Ne7 8.Bb3 f6 9.Qd5 g5 10.Nxg5 (10.Bf4! +-) 10....fxg5 11.Bxg5 h6 12.Nc3 Rh7 13.Qg8 hxg5 14.Qxh7 1-0 Prokes--Zander, Vienna 1925.

I1c) 6....f6 7.Re1+ Be7 8.Qg4 (8.Bb3 Nc6 9.Qg4 g6 10.Nc3 Nf7 11.Qc4 Nd6 12.Qf4 Nf7 13.Nd5 +=) 8....g6 (8....Nxc4 9.Qxg7 Rf8 10.Bh6 Ne5 11.Nxe5 fxe5 12.Rxe5 d6 13.Qxf8+ Kd7 14.Qf5+ Ke8 15.Rxe7+ Qxe7 16.Qxc8+ Kf7 17.Nc3 1-0 Knorr-Schmidt, Correspondence 1989) 9.Bb3 c5 10.Bf4 Nf5 11.Nc3 Nc6 12.Nd5 Qa5 13.Bd2 Qd8 14.Qxf5! Rf8 (14....gxf5 15.Nxf6+ Kf8 16.Bh6#) 15.Qxf6 1-0 Footner--White, Shropshire 1999.

I1d) 6....Qf6! 7.Re1+ Be7 8.Qd3 h6 (8....Nc6 9.Nc3! Qg6 10.Nd5! ±) 9.Nc3 c6 10.Be3! += Chernev. For example: 10....Nxc4 11.Qxc4 O-O 12.Bd4 Qd6 13.Rad1 Qb4 14.Qe2 Bd8 15.a3 ±.

I2) 5....Nc5?!

I2a) 6.Ne5?! Ne6 7.O-O Nc6! (7....Nxd4? 8.Bxf7+ Ke7 9.Bg5+ Kd6 10.Nc4+ Kc6 11.Bxd8 Nxc2 12.Rc1 Nxa1 13.Ne5+ +- Urusov 13....Kb6 14.Rxc7 d6 15.Rc6+ Kb5 16.Nc3+ Kb4 17.a3# 1-0 Schlemm--Wrany, Vienna 1872) 8.Bxe6 fxe6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Nd2 Qf6 =+ van der Tak

I2b) 6.Bg5! f6 (6....Nc6? 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qd5+; 6....Be7? 7.Qxg7) 7.Be3 c6 (7....Ne6!?) 8.Nc3 d5 9.O-O-O Be7 10.Qh4 Nbd7 (10....Be6 11.Rhe1; 10....O-O 11.Nxd5!) 11.Nxd5! cxd5 12.Qh5+ g6 (12....Kf8 13.Qxd5 Qe8 14.Rhe1 a6!? 15.Ng5 fxg5 16.Bxc5 Nxc5 17.Qf3+ Estrin) 13.Qxd5 Ne5 14.Qxd8+ Bxd8 15.Nxe5 fxe5 16.Bxc5 Bg5+ +- 17.Kb1 Bd7 18.Rhe1 O-O-O 19.Bxa7 Bc6 20.g3 Bf3 21.Rd3 e4 22.Rd5 Rxd5 23.Bxd5 Bd2 24.Rg1 g5 25.c4 g4 26.Kc2 Bg5 27.Re1 Re8 28.b4 h5 29.a4 h4 30.a5 hxg6 31.hxg6 Bd8 32.Bb6 Bxb6 33.axb6 Re7 34.Kc3 Kd8 35.Kd4 Rh7 36.Ra1 Rd7 37.Ra8+ Ke7 38.Ke5 e3 39.fxe3 Rd6 40.Re8+ Kd7 41.Rd8+ Kxd8 42.Kxd6 Kc8 43.e4 Kb8 44.Kd7 Ka8 45.e5 1-0 Estrin--Taimanov, Leningrad 1949.

I3) 5....Qe7!? 6.O-O Nc6 7.Qd1! (The Queen should get away from attacks. Not as good are 7.Bxf7+? Kxf7 8.Qxe4 Qxe4 9.Ng5+ Kg6 10.Nxe4 Nd4! -+; 7.Qd5?! d6? [7....Nb4! =] 8.Re1 Be6 9.Qxe4 d5 10.Bxd5 O-O-O 11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.Nc3 Rd6 13.Bf4 Rd7 14.Qxc6 Qb4 15.Nb5 Bd5 16.Re8+ Rd8 17.Qxc7# 1-0 Sostaks-Cernobrova, Marijampole 1996; or 7.Qd3?! Nb4 8.Qb3 d5 9.Bxd5 Be6!? [9....Nxd5 10.Qxd5 c6 11.Qd4 Nc5 12.Re1 Ne6 =] 10.Bxe6?! [10.c4! +=] 10....Qxe6 11.Qxe6+ fxe6 12.Na3 Bc5 13.Be3 Bxe3 14.fxe3 O-O = Werner--Meizinger, Karlsruhe, Baden-ch JS 2003, 0-1 in 60) 7....Ne5 (7....f5 8.Nc3! +=; 7....Qc5!? 8.Na3 += or 8.Qe2!? with at least a slight edge for White) 8.Bd5 Nxf3+ 9.Qxf3 Nc5 10.Be3 Qf6 11.Qxf6 gxf6 12.Re1 +=/= and White had a slight but persistent edge in Barnard-Bishop, Correspondence 1997.

I4) 5....d5!? 6.Bxd5 Nf6 (6....Nd6? 7.O-O ± Rahden-Schulz, Germany 1997) 7.Bxf7+ (White should probably avoid what follows by transposing to Line K1 with 7.Nc3! +=) 7....Kxf7 8.Qxd8 Bb4+! 9.Qd2 (9.Bd2 Rxd8 10.Bxb4 Nc6 11.Bc3?! [11.Bc5] 11....Re8+ = Kempe-Iounoussov, Hiddenhau 1998) 9....Re8+! 10.Kf1 (better may be 10.Kd1! Bxd2 11.Nbxd2 Nc6! 12.Re1 Bf5! 13.Rxe8 Rxe8 14.h3 h6! 15.Nf1! Rd8+ 16.Bd2 Be4 17.Ne1! += followed by Ng3 and White appears to be wriggling free of the bind; but whether or not he can win a pawn-up Bishops-of-opposite-color ending out of this position is another story) 10....Bxd2 11.Bxd2 (better may be 11.Nbxd2 but it is difficult to find a convincing liberation plan after 11....Nc6! One idea is to create a strongpoint at d4 after 11.Nbxd2 Nc6 12.Nb3 [12.c3?! Bf5 13.Nb3 Bd3+ 14.Kg1 Re2! =+] but Black gets good play with 12....Bg4! [12....Bf5 13.Nbd4 Rad8 14.Be3 +=] 13.Nfd4 Nxd4 14.Nxd4 c5! =. Meanwhile, after 12.Ne1 Black has pressure on the queenside with 12....Nd4! or even 12....Rxe1+!? 13.Kxe1 Nd4! with at least equality) 11....Bg4! = (Black now has sufficient compensation for the pawn according to Estrin. My own analysis bears this out and suggests that White's position is actually much harder and much less fun to play than Black's. Not as strong is 11....Bf5 12.Na3 Nc6 as in Goeller-Kochln, U.S. Amateur Teams East 1981, though even here White has lots of problems. That is why I recommend avoiding this whole line with 7.Nc3! += transposing to Line K1.) 12.Na3 Nc6 13.Ng5+ Kg6 14.f3 Rad8 15.Rd1 Bf5 16.Kf2?! (16.h4 =) 16....Nd4? (16....Rxd2+! 17.Rxd2 Kxg5 =+) 17.Be3 c5 18.c3! += Nd5 19.Bxd4 cxd4 20.Rxd4 Nf4?! (20....Kxg5 21.Rhd1 Nxc3 22.bxc3 Rxd4 23.cxd4 +=) 21.Ne4 Bxe4 1/2-1/2 Freeman--Baker, Brighton 1984, though White has good winning chances here after simply 22.fxe4 Rxd4 23.cxd4 Rxe4 24.Rd1 ± with a pawn-up ending.

Line J>>>

 
Contact: Michael Goeller, goeller@rci.rutgers.edu
Last modified: April 25, 2002
Copyright © 2002 All Rights Reserved