The Kibitzer

Tim Harding
Translate this page

Play through and download
the games from
ChessCafe.com in the
ChessBase Game Viewer.

Plain Man's Guide to the Kieseritzky Gambit
Part Two
This is the second part of my survey article, based chiefly on correspondence
games, begun last month. Here we consider those King's Gambit lines
following 3 Nf3 g5 where White does not play 4 h4. A postscript discusses
some reader feedback in brief.
The 'King's Knight's Gambit' is an umbrella term covering all variations
beginning 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3. Within this we find numerous named
gambits which sometimes can transpose one into another. Before examining
lines in detail and showing sample games, it may be useful to give a little
alphabetical guide (probably incomplete) to the names of King's Gambit
variations since this can be confusing. Numerous subdivisions, some almost
never seen nowadays, are named after chess heroes of the romantic period
from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries.
Most of these lines have been recognised as unsound, albeit many are fun to
play in friendlies and a good practical chance at rapid time limits.
Allgaier Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 Ng5 (discussed
last month).
Bishop's Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Bc4, to be considered in my next
article.
Cotter Gambit: an old name in England for the Allgaier Gambit.
Cunningham Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 Be7 (next article).
Fischer Defence: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 d6 and if 4 d4 (not forced) 4
g5 5 h4 g4, see the September article.
Ghulam Kassim Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 g4 5 d4.
Hanstein Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 Bg7 5 0-0, see
below.
Kieseritzky Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 Ne5
(discussed last month).
Little (or Lesser) Bishop's Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Be2, to be
considered in my next article. (Estrin and Glazkov called this the
Petroff Gambit.)
Lolli Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 g4 5 Bxf7+.
McDonnell Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 g4 5 Nc3.
Muzio-Polerio Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 g4 5 0-0
offering the knight.
Prnu (or Keres) Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nc3, in the September
article.
Philidor Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 Bg7 5 h4.
Quaade Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Nc3.
Rice Gambit: mentioned in the previous article, is an offshoot of the
Kieseritzky Gambit, arising via 5Nf6 6 Bc4 d5 7 exd5 Bd6 8 0-0; the
sacrificed knight is eventually recovered after 8Bxe5 9 Re1 but
Black should have more than a draw.
Rosentreter Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 d4 g4 5 Bxf4 offering
the knight.
Salvio Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 g4 5 Ne5.
Schallopp Defence: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 Nf6.
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5
Having dispensed with 4 h4 last month, White's other significant possibilities
are:
A: 4 Bc4
Purchases from our
chess shop help keep
ChessCafe.com freely
accessible:

ECO C
by Chess Informant

No Passion For Chess Fashion
by Raetsky & Chetverik

Beating the Open Games
by Mihail Marin
B: 4 d4 (and 4 Nc3)
A: 4 Bc4
White is getting ready to sacrifice his knight if Black attacks it with the g-
pawn. It's not really clear that c4 is the right square for the Bishop if White
cannot break through to f7, so Black should probably not be tempted.

[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppp1p1p/8/6p1/2B1Pp2/
5N2/PPPP2PP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 4"]
The defender has two main alternatives:
A1: 4g4
A2: 4Bg7
Also possible is 4...d6 usually leading to the Hanstein Gambit (A22) or to a
sort of Fischer Defence.
A1: 4g4

[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppp1p1p/8/8/2B1Ppp1/
5N2/PPPP2PP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 5"]
This is just asking for White to sacrifice lots of pieces and give mate,
although realistically perpetual check may be all he'll get if Black keeps his
head.
5 0-0
White reckons that time and development are of the essence and is willing to
sacrifice the knight to get castled and bring the queen into play.
There are various other ways to go mad:
a) The Lolli Gambit 5 Bxf7+? Kxf7 6 Ne5+, sacrificing the bishop instead of
the knight, is completely unsound. Black should reply 6Ke8 7 Qxg4 Nf6 8
Qxf4 d6 9 Nf3 (or 9 0-0 dxe5) 9Rg8 and White has no real compensation
for the piece.
b) 5 Nc3 gxf3 6 Qxf3 is called the McDonnell Gambit, after Alexander
McDonnell who played it in one of his matches in 1834 against French master
Labourdonnais, the first series to be recorded in full and published. Some
sources claim it is a playable proposition, on the basis of 6 d6 7 d4 Be6 8
d5 (Keres) which is recommended in Korchnoi and Zak's book.
S. Kuipers-R. Swinkels, Arnhem 2004, continued 8...Bd7!? 9 00 Qf6 10 Qd3
Bh6 11 Be3 Qg7 12 Bxf4 Bxf4 13 Rxf4 Ne7 14 Raf1 00 15 R4f3 Ng6 16
Rg3 Bc8 17 Ne2 Nd7 18 Nf4 Nde5 19 Qc3 f5 20 Ne6 Bxe6 21 dxe6 Nxc4 22
Qxc4 fxe4 23 e7+ Rf7 24 h4 c6 25 Qe6 Re8 26 h5 Rexe7 27 hxg6 hxg6 28
Qc8+ Rf8 29 Rxf8+ Qxf8 30 Rxg6+ Rg7 31 Rxg7+ Kxg7 32 Qg4+ Kf6 33
Qxe4 Qh6 34 Qd4+ Ke7 35 Qc3 a6 36 Qb3 Qc1+ 37 Kh2 Qh6+ 38 Kg1 Qc1
+ 39 Kf2 Qd2+ 40 Kf3 Qd1+ 41 Kg3 Qe1+ 42 Kf3 Qf1+ 43 Kg3 Qe1+ 44
Kh2 Qe5+ 45 g3 Qe2+ 46 Kh3 .
White was probably lucky to draw that. Anyway it should be noted that Estrin
and Glazkov recommend that 8...Qh4+! is better for Black. Since 9 Kf1 loses
to 9...Bg4 10 Qxf4 Bh6 White has to reply 9 g3, when after 9...Bg4 10 Qxf4
Qh3 (a crucial tempo gain) 11 Bf1 (or 11 Rf1 f6 threatening ...Bh6) 11...Qh5
his compensation for the piece is nebulous.
c) 5 d4 is known as the Ghulam Kassim Gambit, after an Indian player of the
1820s who was involved in the historic Madras versus Hyderabad
correspondence match. Afterwards James Cochrane, cousin of the more
famous John Cochrane, published a booklet which included the games and
Ghulam Kassim's analysis of this variation. After 5gxf3 6 Qxf3, Black is
usually advised to play 6d5 7 Bxd5 Nf6 to meet 8 0-0 by 8c6. Instead 8
Nc3 is some improvement but it is hard to believe this form of the knight
sacrifice can be sound.
d) 5 Ne5 Qh4+ 6 Kf1 is the Salvio Gambit beloved of Steinitz at one time. As
in the Bishop's Gambit, White encourages Black to give the queen check, not
minding the loss of castling rights. He hopes the queen will prove to be
misplaced in the long run.
d1) For the old main line 6...Nh6 7 d4, I refer readers to the sixth game
Steinitz-Zukertort match game of 1872, annotated on pages 172-3 of my new
book Eminent Victorian Chess Players. Anderssen had played 7...d6 against
Steinitz in their 1866 match, after which Zukertort introduced the
improvement 7...f3! In 1872 Steinitz found an improvement on an article
Zukertort had written about the Salvio in the Neue Berliner Schachzeitung.
d2) 6...Nc6!, recommended by Steinitz in 1885 in his International Chess
Magazine, is reckoned to be critical.
d1) 7 Qxg4? got Steinitz a lost position against Hruby at Vienna 1882,
although he eventually won the game.
d2) The critical line is reckoned to be 7 Nxf7 Bc5 8 Qe1 g3 9 Nxh8 Bf2 10
Qd1 Nf6 when Black threatens 11...Ng4, and if here 11 h3 or 11 d4, Black
replies 11...d5.
The elegant theoretical main line goes 11 Be2 d6 12 c3 Bg4 13 h3 Ne5! 14 d4
f3 15 Bxf3 Nxf3 16 gxf3 g2+! 17 Ke2 Bxf3+! 18 Kxf3 Qxe4+ 19 Kxf2
gxh1=Q, etc.
Can computer analysis discover any way through the complications for
White? If not, the Salvio is busted.
Now we return to the main line of 4 Bc4 g4 5 0-0:
5...gxf3 6 Qxf3
This is one of the most ancient forms of the King's Gambit, popularly known
as the Muzio (due to a misunderstanding by Sarratt), but which is nowadays
attributed to Polerio, though it was not necessarily his invention either. The
early Italian free castling rule (meaning that the king could go directly to h1
instead of g1) made this a much stronger attack than it is in modern chess.
Black is a piece up, but, lacking any development, must walk a tightrope,
even though he has the option of checks on d4 which were impossible in the
original Polerio version. Clearly the traditional weak point f7 is to be the
focus of White's attack since he has three pieces bearing down against it.
6...Qf6
Several other moves have been tried as a way of circumventing the main line,
but discussing them is perhaps a job for another day.
7 e5
More material is thrown on the fire to open the e-file and especially to deflect
the black queen from the defence of f7. Other moves have been tried, but this
is the main line and we cannot discuss everything.
7...Qxe5

[FEN "rnb1kbnr/pppp1p1p/8/4q3/2B2p2/
5Q2/PPPP2PP/RNB2RK1 w kq - 0 8"]
Now White can continue 'normally' or sacrifice a second piece.
8 d3!
Estrin and Glazkov, based on old analyses by Chigorin, came to the
conclusion (in their 1982 book published by Pergamon) that this gives equal
chances although the modern tendency seems to be to prefer Black.
Unfortunately, numerous misprints on pages 54-56 of that edition make some
of their analyses hard to follow.
The alternative 8 Bxf7+?! Kxf7 9 d4 sacrifices a second piece to break open
the defences. After 9...Qxd4+ 10 Be3 Qf6 11 Nc3 or 11 Bxf4, the gamble
may work, but the Double Muzio looks unsound to me. Black should reply 9...
Qf5! This move isn't mentioned by Korchnoi and Zak, and only briefly
(admittedly favourably) by Estrin and Glazkov, but McDonald says 'this may
be the only playable move.'
White then continues 10 g4 Qg6 11 Bxf4 Nf6 12 Be5:

[FEN "rnb2b1r/pppp1k1p/5nq1/4B3/
3P2P1/5Q2/PPP4P/RN3RK1 b - - 0 12"]
Here Black has two moves that give him excellent winning chances:
a) 12...Be7 13 Nc3 d6 14 Bxf6. Here McDonald implies White may stand a
little better, but instead of 14...Bxf6 English CC-grandmaster Peter Millican
pointed out 14...Bxg4 winning for Black.
b) 12...d6 is recommended by McDonald but again is analysis is not
altogether convincing. After 13 Bxf6 Bxg4 14 Qg2, he recommends 14...Rg8,
which may be good (it threatens 15...Bf3). He says 'not 14...Bg7? 15 Bg5+
Kg8 16 Qxg4' but here it is not clear how he thinks White should meet 16...
h6!; e.g., 17 Qc8+ Kh7 18 Qxb7 Nd7.
I conclude that 8 Bxf7+ is almost certainly refuted and that 8 d3 is necessary.
The main line then goes as follows:
8...Bh6 9 Nc3 Ne7 10 Bd2

[FEN "rnb1k2r/ppppnp1p/7b/4q3/2B2p2/
2NP1Q2/PPPB2PP/R4RK1 b kq - 0 10"]
10...Nbc6
Not 10...0-0? 11 Rae1 when Korchnoi and Zak wrote that 'It is doubtful
whether Black's position is defensible' after 11...Qc5+ 12 Kh1 and
McDonald's book gives a similar conclusion. Here 12...d5 is probably critical
and a Henry Bird-C. F. Smith game in this line is analysed on page 113 of my
Eminent Victorian Chess Players.
Also 11...Qf5 is interesting since after 12 Rxe7 Qc5+ 13 Re3! fxe3 the attack
by 14 Bxf7+ Kh8 15 Ne4 Qe7 16 Bc3+ Bg7 17 Bxg7+ Kxg7 18 Qg4+
apparently only draws, but 14 Ne4! ought to win (if 14...e2+ 15 Nxc5 exf1=Q
+ 16 Kxf1 Bxd2 17 Ne4) although this needs detailed proof.
11 Rae1 Qf5
Korchnoi and Zak wrote that 11Qc5+ 12 Kh1 0-0 13 Bxf4 Bg7 14 Be3 is
also unclear after 14Qa5 which improves on old Swedish analysis.
12 Nd5
Alternatives are reckoned to be inadequate but here too Black may be more
than "OK" with best play.
12...Kd8!

[FEN "r1bk3r/ppppnp1p/2n4b/3N1q2/2B2p2/
3P1Q2/PPPB2PP/4RRK1 w - - 0 13"]
13 Qe2!
This is the Maclean Attack, analysed in depth by Chigorin in his later years,
but he failed to find a decisive line for White. In his well-known 1874 game
with Davidov (analysed in McDonald's book), the great Russian master had
played 13 Bc3 and won, but best defence is good for Black.
13...b5?!
13Qe6 allows White to force an immediate draw by repetition with 14 Qf2
Qf5 15 Qe2 etc. and that may be Black's best line.
13b5 was recommended in the books by Korchnoi/Zak and McDonald but
may be inadequate, although analysis with today's more powerful computers
will possibly improve the defence.
14 Bxf4!
This move was underestimated by McDonald and not even mentioned by
Korchnoi/Zak or by Estrin/Glazkov.
14...Bxf4
Not 14Nxd5? 15 Bxh6!.
15 Rxf4 Qg5
McDonald says that 'if 15Qe6, then 16 Qf2 maintains the attack, while 15
Qxf4 16 Nxf4 bxc4 17dxc4 is unclear.' I tend to prefer White there also since
17d6 (to get the bishop into play) can be met by 18 c5.
16 Rg4! Qf5 17 Re4 Re8
This position seems to be definitely good for White.

[FEN "r1bkr3/p1ppnp1p/2n5/1p1N1q2/
2B1R3/3P4/PPP1Q1PP/4R1K1 w - - 0 18"]
a) Now A. MoensE. De Beck, Belgium corr, 1993-4, continued 18 Rf1 Qg5
19 h4 Qh6 (19...Qg6? 20 Nxe7 Nxe7 21 Bxf7 Qb6+ 22 d4 d5 23 Bxd5 and
wins Moens) 20 Rxf7 Nd4 21 Qg4 (21 Rxd4? Nxd5!) 21...Qg6 22 Qxg6
hxg6 23 Nf6 Ndf5? (23Rh8 minimises Black's disadvantage.) 24 Nxe8
Kxe8 25 Bb3 c6 26 Rh7 d5 27 Re5 Kf8 28 g4 Kg8 (28...Ng7 29 Rxg7 Kxg7
30 Rxe7+) 29 gxf5 Kxh7 30 Rxe7+ Kh6 31 f6 Bf5 32 f7 Rf8 33 Rxa7 Kg7 34
a4 Rb8 35 a5 Be6 36 Rc7 Rc8 37 Rxc8 Bxc8 38 c4 Bb7 39 cxd5 cxd5 40 a6
Bc6 41 Kf2 Kxf7 42 Ke3 10.
b) Deep Rybka 3 on my computer prefers 18 Qe3 d6 19 Nxe7 Nxe7 20 Rxe7
Be6 21 Rxe8+ Kxe8 22 Rf1 Qc5 23 Qxc5 dxc5 24 Bxb5+ with a winning
endgame.
A2: 4...Bg7!
After studying all the Muzio-Polerio nonsense, I ask why on earth does Black
unguard the f4-pawn when he has this perfectly good move 4...Bg7 instead?

[FEN "rnbqk1nr/pppp1pbp/8/6p1/2B1Pp2/
5N2/PPPP2PP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 5"]
Black is heading for the Hanstein Gambit where he plays ...d6, ...h6, ...Nc6
and lots of nice sensible developing moves, where White doesn't get much
chance for berserk sacrifices and generally loses a pawn down. In World Cup
terms, White has conceded an early goal and had a man sent off before he
starts to play for an equaliser; it doesn't make sense.
5 0-0
The alternative is the Philidor Gambit, 5 h4, which Estrin and Glazkov's book
called the Greco-Philidor Gambit. The assault on the pawn chain comes a
move too late, as Black can support the pawn chain now that his h8-rook is
protected. After 5...h6 6 d4 d6 (the characteristic position of this gambit),
Philidor analysed the continuation 7 c3 c6?, but instead comes 7...Nc6.
a) Old theory goes 8 Qb3 Qe7 9 0-0 (or 9 hxg5 hxg5 10 Rxh8 Bxh8 11 Qb5
g4 when complications favour Black.) and after 9...Nf6! 10 hxg5 hxg5 11
Nxg5 Nxe4 (or perhaps even better 11...Nxd4) with Black for preference. The
queen is probably misplaced on b3.
b) 8 00 with two master examples:
b1) 8...Qe7 9 Qd3 g4 10 Ne1 f3 11 gxf3 Be6 12 Bb3 Qxh4 13 fxg4 000 14
Ng2 Qxg4 15 Bc2 (Better is 15 d5, however.) 15...Nge7 16 Qd1 Rhg8 17
Qxg4 Bxg4 18 Kh2 Rdf8 19 Bf4 f5 20 Nd2 fxe4 21 Bxe4 Bf5 22 Nh4 Bxe4
23 Nxe4 Nd8 24 Bg3 Ne6 25 Rxf8+ Rxf8 26 Nd2 Nd5 27 Rf1 Rxf1 28 Nxf1
b5 29 Nf5 Kd7 30 Nd2 a5 31 Ne4 Bf8 32 b3 Ng5 33 Nxg5 hxg5 34 Be1 Ke6
35 Ng3 b4 36 cxb4 axb4 37 Kg2 Bg7 38 Ne2 Kf5 39 Ng3+ Kg4 40 Ne2 Ne3
+ 41 Kf2 Nc2 42 Bd2 c6 43 Kg2 d5 44 Kf1 Bf8 45 Bc1 Bd6 46 Kf2 c5 47
dxc5 Bxc5+ 48 Kg2 Ne1+ 49 Kf1 Nf3 50 Bb2 Kh3 51 Bf6 Kg4 52 Bd8 Kf5
53 Ng3+ Kf4 54 Bc7+ Ke3 55 Nf5+ Ke4 56 Ng3+ Kd3 57 Kg2 Nd2 58 Bd8
Ne4 59 Nf5 Ke2 60 Ba5 g4 61 Kh2 d4 62 Bxb4 Bxb4 63 Nxd4+ Kf2 64 Nf5
Bd6+ 65 Kh1 g3 66 Nxg3 Bxg3 01, A. Luco-Hebden, Le Touquet 1992.
b2) 8...g4 9 Ne1 Qxh4 10 Bxf4 Nf6 11 e5 dxe5 12 dxe5 g3 13 Bxg3 Qxg3 14
exf6 Bf8 15 Nd3 Bd6 16 Qh5 Bg4 17 Bxf7+ Kf8 18 Qg6 Qh2+ 19 Kf2 Qg3+
, Nakamura-Ivanchuk, Cap d'Agde 2010.
5...d6 6 d4
In the Fischer Defence, after 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 d6 4 d4 g5, the Hanstein
will usually arise if White avoids h2-h4; e.g., 5 Bc4 Bg7 6 0-0 transposing to
the present position. Also 4 Bc4 h6 5 d4 g5 6 0-0 gives a Hanstein but White
has also tried 5 d3 giving rise to novel positions.
6...h6
This position can also arise via the Becker Defence, 3...h6, which is a way to
steer for the Hanstein while avoiding the Kieseritzky. Black just wants to
develop soundly, retaining the extra pawn for later use, and to make it hard
for White to launch a sacrificial attack.

[FEN "rnbqk1nr/ppp2pb1/3p3p/6p1/2BPPp2/
5N2/PPP3PP/RNBQ1RK1 w kq - 0 7"]
A search in the ChessBase Mega Database for games involving at least one
player rated 2500+ shows that Black almost always wins from this position
unless White was Boris Spassky!
7 c3
White can try to break open the kingside by 7 g3, but it seems premature.
Evidence is not in favour since White's king can get into danger. A promising
reply for Black is 7...Bh3 (probably stronger than blocking by 7...g4 8 Nh4 f3
as computers sometimes suggest) 8 Rf2 Nc6 and if 9 Bb5 Nf6 10 d5 a6. This
old suggestion by Estrin seems to hold up under computer examination. Also
7...Nc6 at once may be good, as in Arnason-Larsen, Reykjavik 1978, and
Buecker-Flear, Dortmund 1989.
Malaniuk has tried 7 h4!? (against J. Ivanov, Sverdlovsk 1989), but there is
insufficient experience to judge how best to meet this. Black need not reply
7...g4 since the g5-pawn is adequately defended.
7...Nc6 8 g3!?
McDonald's main example game was the unclear Jonkman-L. B. Hansen,
Wijk aan Zee 1994, where White tried 8 b4 to which Black replied 8...Qe7
but he criticized that and suggested 8...Bg4. Also 8...Nf6 may be playable.
The old-fashioned 8 Qb3 is ineffective because of 8...Qd7.
8...Bh3
Development with threats is again preferable to 8...g4.
9 gxf4
9 Qb3 fails to 9Na5 10 Bxf7+ (10 Qa4+ c6) 10Kf8.
9...Qd7!
White would be happier if Black took the exchange on f1 with an unclear
situation.
10 Rf2 Nf6

[FEN "r3k2r/pppq1pb1/2np1n1p/6p1/2BPPP2/
2P2N1b/PP3R1P/RNBQ2K1 w kq - 0 11"]
After 10...gxf4 11 Bxf4 (Hoeksema-Ligterink, Groningen 2002 and others),
the game is becoming more open, which White wants to see.
10...Nf6 is an old Glazkov recommendation, endorsed by McDonald. If White
protects the e-pawn by 11 Qd3 or 11 Qe1, Black castles queenside and is then
ready for a kingside fight where the white king is the more exposed. If 11 Bd3
Black may exchange on g4 and then castle queenside.
11 e5? does not work after 11...Ne4. In a correspondence game R. Guehn-E.
Duliba, ICCF 2001, White continued 12 Qe2 offering the exchange, but Black
rightly ignored this attempt to open the e-file and played 12...d5 after which
White was already totally lost.
It is hard to see how White can make any headway against the Hanstein and
so must look for something other than 4 Bc4. If he does not want to play the
Kieseritzky 4 h4, then the ideas in the next section, though they come with a
health warning, are more promising. At least Black is less likely to know how
to meet them.
B: (4 d4 and 4 Nc3)
If you really don't want to play 4 h4 or 4 Bc4, then (contrary to Margaret
Thatcher's favourite slogan) There Is An Alternative!! One way to play it is
the modern version of the Rosentreter Gambit, 4 d4 intending to answer 4...
g4 by the knight sacrifice 5 Bxf4, as analysed by correspondence grandmaster
Maurice Johnson back in Chess Mail's 1998 gambit issue. If mishandled, this
could be dangerous to Black's health.
Perhaps sounder is the Quaade Gambit, 4 Nc3, in which White prepares to
offer a rook in the main line.

[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppp1p1p/8/6p1/4Pp2/
2N2N2/PPPP2PP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 0 4"]
For example, 4...g4 5 Ne5 (5 Bc4 transposes to the McDonnell Gambit.) 5...
Qh4+ 6 g3 fxg3 7 Qxg4 (the point) and now:
a) 7...g2+, accepting the offer, loses after 8 Qxh4 gxh1=Q 9 Qh5 according to
old analysis by Levenfish and Keres which may be found in Korchnoi and
Zak's old book on the King's Gambit.
b) 7...Qxg4 8 Nxg4 d5 9 Bh3 dxe4 10 Nf6+ Kd8 11 Bxc8 Kxc8 12 Nfxe4
gxh2 13 Rxh2 with sufficient compensation for the pawn, following ninteenth
century analysis.
The main snag with the Quaade is that Black can ignore the offer and calmly
reply 4...Bg7 which should lead to a Hanstein where White has ruled out his
c2-c3 option. It seems 4 Nc3 is sounder than 4 d4 if the offer is accepted but
rather less flexible if it is avoided. Take your pick.
So let us look instead at the following:
4 d4

[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppp1p1p/8/6p1/3PPp2/
5N2/PPP3PP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 4"]
4...g4
Black can also play 4...d6 which transposes to the Fischer Defence, to be
considered next month.
Again he can side-step White's devious sacrificial idea by 4...Bg7, as against
the Quadde. Here though White has more options, besides 5 Nc3, and Fischer
Defence positions can arise.
Here is an example of the Rosentreter Accepted.
Darrell Nightingale Arild Haugen
CC Olympiad-15 Final 2006
Rosentreter Gambit [C37]
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 d4 g4

[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppp1p1p/8/8/3PPpp1/
5N2/PPP3PP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 5"]
5 Bxf4!
This move, introduced by Fedorov against Michael Adams at the 1997
European Team Championship in Pula, was the most exciting new
development in the King's Gambit in the last quarter century. Ireland's ICCF
Senior International Master Darrell Nightingale has played it in several high-
level correspondence games.
Old books mention only 5 Ne5 and 5 Nc3. Rosentreter's original idea was to
proceed 5 Ne5 Qh4+ 6 g3 fxg3 7 Qxg4 with the same tactical ideas as in the
Quaade Gambit. There, too, 7g2+ gives White a strong attack, at least
worth a draw, but 7Qxg4 is playable in this case. Hence the newer idea to
follow up by Bxf4 instead.
5...gxf3 6 Qxf3 Nc6
Black has tended to prefer this lately. McDonald claimed that the theoretical
(i.e., ECO) move 6...d5 was strong, but against this White need not play 7
exd5, but instead has 7 Nc3 or 7 Be5! both analysed by M. W. Johnson in
Chess Mail.
Otherwise the main choice is 6...d6:
a) Fedorov-Adams went 7 Nc3 Nc6 8 Bc4 reaching a position known from
the Pierce Gambit in the Vienna (1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nc6 3 f4 exf4 4 Nf3 g5 5 d4
g4 6 Bc4 gxf3 7 Bxf4 d6?! 8 Qxf3). Adams played 8...Qh4+ 9 Bg3 Qf6
leading to an early queen exchange and fair chances for White, but Fedorov
afterwards indicated 8...Nxd4 9 Bxf7+ Kxf7 10 Qh5+ Kg7 11 0-0 Nf6 as very
good for Black (see Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings for example). Bangiev
suggested castling on the opposite side, since after 11 0-0-0 the rook attacks
the d4-knight. McDonald agreed with this suggestion. It could be good
enough for an early perpetual check after 11...Ne6 12 Qg4+ Kf7 13 Qh5+ and
perhaps McDonald's 12 Be5+ is better.
b) Instead, White can play 7 Bc4 and if 7...Bg7 8 0-0 with compensation
according to Nunn's Chess Openings (1999). CC-GM Maurice Johnson's
article in Chess Mail 5/1998 recommended (7 Bc4 Bg7) 8 e5 dxe5 9 Bxe5
Nf6 10 0-0 Nbd7 11 Qf4!
A new treatment for Black was seen at move 7 in Nightingale-Dambrauskas,
Elburg Anniversary Final email, 2003: 6...d6 7 Bc4 Be6 (Black sacrifices a
couple of tempi to block the a2-g8 diagonal.) 8 d5 Bc8 (He wants d7 for the
queen's knight.) 9 00 Bg7 10 e5! (White is eager to reopen lines.) 10...Ne7
(Capturing on e5 leads to death on f7.) 11 Nc3 (If 11 Bh6 0-0.) 11...00 12
Ne4 dxe5 13 Bg5 Kh8 14 Bf6! Bf5 (14...Nd7 15 Bxg7+ Kxg7 16 Ng5 Ng6 17
Qh5 Nf6 18 Rxf6! with a dangerous attack, sufficient to draw.) 15 Qxf5 Nxf5
16 Bxd8 Ne3 17 Be7 and White is somewhat better in the complicated
queenless middle-game. The continuation was: 17...Nd7 18 Bxf8 Rxf8 19 d6
Nxc4 20 dxc7 Rc8 21 Rxf7 Rxc7 22 Ng5 Bf6 23 Nxh7 Bd8 24 Rd1 Ncb6 25
Nf8 Kg8 26 Rdxd7 Nxd7 27 Rxd7 Rc8 28 Nh7 Bb6+ 29 Kh1 Rxc2 30 Nf6+
Kf8 31 g4 Rxb2 32 Rxb7 Rxa2 33 Nd7+ Ke8 34 Nxb6 axb6 35 Rxb6 Kf7 36
Rb4 Re2 37 Kg1 .
7 Bc4
7 c3 is the alternative.
McDonald recommended 7 d5, to meet 7...Nd4 by 8 Qd3, but Michael
Agermose Jensen wrote in after my Chess Mail article to suggest 7...Ne7
'followed by ...Ng6, and all White has achieved is to close the c4-f7 diagonal.'
7...Qh4+!?
Also known are the following:
a) 7...Nxd4 8 Bxf7+! Kxf7 9 Qh5+ Jonathan Tait;
b) 7...Qf6 8 e5 Nxd4 9 exf6 Nxf3+ 10 gxf3 c6 11 Nc3 d5 12 Bxd5 cxd5 13
Nxd5 Kd7 14 Nc7 Rb8 15 Nb5 Ra8 16 Nc7 Rb8 17 Nb5 Ra8 18 Nc7 Rb8 -
, V.Menoni-M.Lanzani, Bratto open 2002;
c) 7...Bg7 8 e5! Nxd4 9 Bxf7+! Kxf7 10 Qd5+ Kf8 11 0-0 Estrin &
Glazkov;
d) 7...d6!? also comes into consideration.
e) In my original article, I featured 7...d5!? as the main line, continuing 8
Bxd5 Nxd4 9 Bxf7+ Kxf7 10 Qh5+ Kg7!? (10...Ke6 forces an immediate
draw by 11 Qe5+ Kf7 12 Qh5+ but Black wants to win.) which has occurred
in several correspondence games.

[FEN "r1bq1bnr/ppp3kp/8/7Q/3nPB2/
8/PPP3PP/RN2K2R w KQ - 0 11"]
e1) 11 0-0 Be7 12 Na3!? Nf6 (12...Bf6!? Tait) 13 Bh6+ Kg8 14 Qg5+ Kf7 15
Qh5+ Kg8! (15...Ke6 16 Qh3+ Kd6 17 Qd3 c5 18 c3 Ng4 19 cxd4 Nxh6 20
Rac1! or 17...Kc6 18 c3 Bc5 19 Kh1! a line from CC grandmaster M.W.
Johnson.) 16 Qg5+ Kf7 17 Qh5+ Kg8 -, J.Tait-A.Fedorko, BCCA corr
1996. Maybe Black should be winning if he played more ambitiously?
e2) 11 Be5+ Nf6 12 0-0 Be7 13 Qg5+ (13 Nc3 Rf8 14 Nd5 h6 15 Nxe7 Qxe7
16 Bxd4 Qd6 17 Bc3 Kh7 18 Qh4 Qc5+ 19 Kh1 Ne8 20 Rf3 Rxf3 21 gxf3
Qf8 22 Qf2 Bg4 seems better for Black, though he did not manage to win in
D.Acunzo-A.Dearnley, Italy v BCCA corr 1994) 13...Kf7 14 Nc3 Ke6 15
Bxd4 Qxd4+ 16 Kh1 Rf8 (16...h6!? 17 Qg6 Rg8! is unclear.) 17 Rad1 Qc4
when:
e21) A 1998 correspondence game P. Leisebein-A. Gysi continued 18 Rxf6+?
Rxf6? 19 Qg8+ Rf7 20 Qg4+ -, but surely Black should be winning after
18...Bxf6 19 Qg6 Rf7, not pointed out by the original commentators. After 20
Nd5 Qxc2 21 Qh3+ Kd6 22 Qa3+ c5 23 Ne3+ Qxd1+ 24 Nxd1 Bxb2!
(threatening mate on f1) 25 Qd3+ Bd4 Black has two rooks and a piece for
the queen, and White's serious threats are over.
e22) Despite being two pieces down, White probably missed a win: 18 Qh6!
Rd8 19 Rde1!; e.g., 19...Kd7 20 Rxf6 Bxf6 21 Qxf6 Ke8 22 Nd5 Kd7 23 Rd1
and White wins according by Dr Thomas Stock and Carmelo Coco. Computer
analysis today suggests Black may have some fighting chances with 19...c5
instead, but certainly White should have tried to win, replying 20 e5.
This is all typical romantic King's Gambit stuff: the quality and activity of the
pieces is more important than their quantity.
Now, to return to 7...Qh4+:
8 g3

[FEN "r1b1kbnr/pppp1p1p/2n5/8/2BPPB1q/
5QP1/PPP4P/RN2K2R b KQkq - 0 8"]
8...Qe7!
Stock had analysed 8...Qf6 9 Nc3!; e.g., 9...Nxd4 10 Qd3 Ne6 11 Bxe6 with
clear advantage to White: 11...dxe6 12 0-0-0 Bg7 13 Nb5 Qxb2+ 14 Kd2.
With 8...Qe7, we follow a fairly recent high-level correspondence chess
example. Although White drew the game, there must be some doubts about
whether he should have been able to do so. It is his turn to find an early
improvement.
9 Nc3 Nxd4 10 Qf2 Ne6 11 000 Nxf4 12 gxf4
White is a whole piece down, but his opponent is almost totally undeveloped.
12...Qc5 13 Qe2 b5!?
This is not compulsory. 13...Ne7 14 Kb1 b5 15 Nxb5 Rb8 is also possible.
Throughout the game there are other options and Black always seems on the
verge of winning, yet his opponent found resources.
The continuation was 14 Bxb5 Rb8 15 e5 Kd8 16 Rhf1 Ne7 17 Rf3 c6 18 Bc4
Bh6 19 Bxf7 Rb4 20 e6 Bxf4+ 21 Kb1 d6 22 a3 Rd4 23 Ne4 Qb5 24 Rfd3
Rxd3 25 Rxd3 Qe5 26 Rxd6+ Kc7 27 Rd3 Nd5 28 Qe1 Kb8 29 Qh1 Nb6 30
Qf3 Rf8 31 Nc5 Nc4 32 c3 Be3 33 Nd7+ Bxd7 34 exd7 Nd2+ 35 Rxd2 Bxd2
36 Be8 Rxf3 37 d8Q+ Kb7 38 Bxc6+ Kxc6 39 Qa8+ Kb6 40 Qxf3 (White has
queen and four pawns against queen, bishop and two. Perhaps Black should
still be able to win this.) 40...Qe6 41 h4 Be3 42 Kc2 h6 43 a4 Ka5 44 b3 Qe5
45 b4+ Kb6 46 a5+ Kb5 47 Qf1+ Kc6 48 b5+ Kd7 49 b6 axb6 50 axb6 Bxb6
51 Qf7+ Kc6 .
Postscript: Reader Feedback from last month
A number of readers commented on my previous article, two making the
same point. After the characteristic opening moves of the Kieseritzky Gambit,
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 Ne5, Black can also play 5Qe7 which
I had not mentioned. As David Flude (Australia) said in his email, it is
usually regarded as inferior, but after 6 d4 d6 7 Nxg4 Qxe4 was "sprung on
him" in correspondence and "is very drawish". However Black's eighth move
in his message was a misprint. An anonymous New Zealand reader sent the
same suggestion with the rather impolite message line "You missed one." He
(or she) indicated 8 Qe2 Qe7! claiming clear advantage for Black, which is
far less convincing than Flude's claim of equality. Perhaps that's what his
computer advised. This eighth move is indicative of the kind of reassessments
that computers are bringing about since old books do not mention the
possibility, which certainly reduces the attractiveness of the Kieseritzky for
White.
Another reader, from Denmark, complained that I had not taken account of
some articles by Stefan Bcker about the King's Gambit and demanding to be
told why not. Part of that message was added as a comment to my last article.
I appreciate his suggestion but not the aggressive language in which it was
couched.
Some of Bcker's articles appeared in a German-language magazine,
Kaissiber, that I had ceased to receive some time previously. Part of their
content apparently also appeared in the form of ChessCafe.com columns.
Regular readers will be aware that this website has published a vast amount of
material over the years and it is not possible to keep track of everything; the
articles referred to appeared when I was concentrating on my Ph.D.
researches, and was reading very little current chess material. Moreover,
those Bcker articles can now only be found in an archived zip file under the
heading 'Past columnists: Over the Horizons.'
Those of you who are really keen are welcome to download and unzip
Bcker's columns but this mini-series is a Plain Man's Guide and not an
attempt to survey the whole field of the King's Gambit and cover everything
in detail.
2012 Tim Harding. All Rights Reserved.
A PDF file of this month's column, along with all previous columns, is
available in the ChessCafe.com Archives.
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.



[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]
[Endgame Study] [The Skittles Room] [ChessCafe Archives]
[ChessCafe Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe.com]
[Contact ChessCafe.com] [Advertising]
2012 BrainGamz, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
"ChessCafe.com" is a registered trademark of BrainGamz, Inc.