NONE of us has much idea when normal over-the-board chess activities will resume.
Some people are trying to make up for this by playing online more, but it is not the same thing.
A lot of players will, I am sure, be using their enforced absence from the board as an opportunity to spruce-up opening repertoires.
Now is a good time to remove some of the stodge and try to inject new spice into our favourite lines.
On the other hand, if we have managed to last this long without theory-laden sharp lines, why change now?
As a compromise, I am planning to put forward a number of sharp lines, often gambits, but lines which, while respectable, do not require memorising loads of theory.
For example, after
1.e4 e5 it is all-too-easy to suggest
2.f4. That would certainly add spice to most repertoires, but it requires a detailed theoretical knowledge.
Similarly, after
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 it is a simple matter to suggest continuing
3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 - the Scotch Gambit.
But the Scotch Gambit has been deeply analysed for literally hundreds of years.
So instead, in part one of this series, I am starting with the Göring Gambit:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3!?
It is named after German master Carl Göring, although authors vary as to why, with some saying he introduced the line into master play, although the date of this varies.
In fact the gambit was played back in the 1840s by Howard Staunton, whose lead was followed in the 1850s by Alexander Meek and in the 1860s by Louis Paulsen and Albert Merian.
Other masters also experimented with it before the first known outings, largely unsuccessful, in the 1870s by Göring.
Be that as it may, the gambit's heyday came, long after those masters were dead, in the late 1950s and 1960s when it notched wins for the likes of Tal, Gufeld, Velimirović, Ribli, Ljubojević and, in Britain, Penrose and Levy.
The commonest response to the gambit is to accept with
4...dxc3, but Black's best results percentage-wise in ChessBase's 2020 Mega database come when it is declined with
4...d5.
I will also cover the two other main ways of declining the gambit, namely
4...d3 and
4...Nf6.
A)
4...dxc3
When George Botterill wrote Open Gambits (Batsford 1986), he felt obliged to admit he could not describe the Göring as "playable."
That verdict was effectively echoed by Larry Kaufman in The Chess Advantage In Black And White (McKay Chess Library, 2004), who recommended Black accepts the gambit as it "does not give White enough lead in development to fully offset the pawn sacrificed."
But then along came an even stronger author, Viktor Bologan, who in Bologan's Black Weapons In The Open Games (New In Chess, 2014) said he wanted to recommend acceptance but had found a sideline where he "wasn't able to find any advantage for Black."
After 4...dxc3, White can offer a second pawn with 5.Bc4!?, but I want to look at what I think can be called the main line,
5.Nxc3.
 |
| Position after 5.Nxc3 |
In some ways the position reminds me of the Morra Gambit in the Sicilian, except that in the diagram Black has a pawn on c7 instead of e7.
For White this is both good news (Black has less central influence) and bad news (Black is not so far behind in development, as he has opened a diagonal for his dark-square bishop).
From this it can be argued that the Morra is better than the Göring for White in the short term, but White's prospects in the long term are better in the Göring.
Jacob Yuchtman - Mikhail Tal
USSR Championship (Tbilisi) 1959
5...Bb4
Theoreticians are unanimous, as far as I can discover, in recommending this continuation for Black. Indeed Kaufman gives it in The Chess Advantage without comment.
The main alternative is 5...d6, after which 6.Bc4 is obvious and good, and the main line continues 6...Nf6 7.Qb3 Qd7! (7...Qe7 8.0-0 is embarrassing for Black in that the analysis engines Stockfish10 and Komodo10 reckon best now is 8...Qd7).
After 7...Qd7!, Whites overwhelmingly play 8.Ng5, but I am putting forward the calmer choice of the engines, namely 8.Qc2!?
This was played in a game in 2000 by German teenager Leonid Kritz - then a 'mere' 2424, but three years later a grandmaster.
The idea is that White does not need to rush matters. He has four development tempi - the knights, the queen and the light-square bishop - and has more space.
Black effectively only has two development tempi in that, while he has developed three pieces, it will take him an extra tempo to develop his light-square bishop as the c8-h3 diagonal is blocked by the black queen.
So 8.Qc2!? supports the e pawn and takes the string away from ...Na5, which would be an effective answer to 8.0-0.
A natural continuation after 8.Qc2!? is 8...Be7 9.0-0 (Kritz played 9.Bf4?! in his 2000 game and only drew) 0-0 10.Rd1!?, when the engines reckon Black's best is 10...Qe8!?, after which White's compensation is clear for all to see.
6.Bc4 d6 7.0-0
7.Ng5!? is little-played but liked by the engines at least as much as the text.
7...Bxc3
Black usually captures on c3 as soon as the knight is unpinned. Indeed Kaufman reckons Black's most precise move-order is 6...Bxc3+!? 7.bxc3 d6 so as to avoid White playing 7.Qb3, instead of 7.0-0, the idea being to meet ...Bxc3 with Qxc3.
8.bxc3 Nf6
The game reached this position by a different move-order: 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4 6.Bc4 Nf6 7.0-0 Bxc3 8.bxc3 d6.
Botterill recommended 8...Bg4 9.Qb3 Bxf3 10.Bxf7+ Kf8 11.gxf3 Ne5 12.Bxg8 (Stockfish10 prefers 12.Bd5!?) Rxg8 13.f4 Nf3+ 14.Kg2 Nh4+ 15.Kh1 Qd7. This is a long line but, as Botterill points out, is largely forced. Known continuations are 16.f5 and 16.c4, both aimed at keeping the black queen out of h3. But the engines reckon White can ignore this threat by playing 16.f3!! The point is that 16...Qh3 is met by 17.Rf2, eg 17...b6 18.Qd5 Re8 19.Qh5 h6 20.c4 with a winning attack against the black king. For that reason, instead of 16...Qh3, the engines suggest 16...Qc6, but Black's pieces are uncoordinated, and White is winning (Stockfish10) or at least much better (Komodo10) after 17.Qe6 or 17.Bd2.
9.e5!
Alekhine played 9.Ba3 in a 1919 win over Isakov, but Penrose came unstuck with the same move against Smyslov in 1958. The text was given by Alekhine as an improvement.
9...dxe5
Kaufman recommended 9...Nxe5 10.Nxe5 dxe5, after which the engines reckon best play is 11.Qxd8+ (Kaufman only covers 11.Qb3) Kxd8 12.Bxf7 Kxe7 13.Bb3 Be6 14.c4, as seen in Yuchtman - Semyon Furman, also in the 1959 USSR Championship, but eight rounds later. The position is unclear (Stockfish10 likes Black, but Komodo10 thinks the position is equal). In the game, White's bishop-pair and Black's somewhat-exposed king helped lead to a quick draw, although both sides could easily have played on.
10.Ng5 0-0!?
Black is two pawns up, so Tal offers the exchange to get his king to safety.
11.Ba3 Qxd1 12.Raxd1 Bf5
Not 12...Rd8? 13.Bxf7+ Kh8 14.Bb3 Re8 (best) 15.Nf7+ Kg8 16.Nd6+ etc.
13.Bxf8 Rxf8 14.Rfe1 h6 15.Nf3 Bg4 16.Rb1
The engines give 16.Bb5!? e4 17.Bxc6 bxc6 18.h3 Bh5 19.g4 Bxg4 20.hxg4 exf3 21.Rd3 Nxg4 22.Rxf3 with advantage to White, even though Black has three pawns for the exchange.
16...e4 17.Nd4 Ne5 18.Bf1 c5 19.Nb5 c4?!
The engines reckon White is only slightly better after 19...Rd8.
20.f3 Bxf3!?
Tal must have planned this combination as 20...Be6?! 21.fxe4 leaves White much better.
21.gxf3 Nxf3+ 22.Kf2 Ng4+ 23.Kg3 Nxe1 24.Rxe1 f5 25.Bxc4+
White has emerged from the complications with a bishop for three pawns. The position is unclear, but the engines prefer White.
25...Kh7 26.Be2 Ne5 27.Kf4 Ng6+ 28.Ke3 f4+ 29.Kd4
29.Kxe4?! f3 30.Nxa7 (any bishop move loses the rook) fxe2 31.Rxe2 is at best equal for White.
29...Kh8?
Tal was presumably worried about a possible pin on his knight after later pushing the e pawn, but correct is a move such as 29...Nh4, with equal chances according to the engines. The text is a mistake because it gives the white rook a tempo to get out of the potential skewer on the e file.
30.Rg1 Nh4 31.Kxe4 Re8+ 32.Kd3
Now Black only has two pawns for the bishop, and only one is a passer
(1-0, 40 moves).
(To be continued)
