Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
BISHOP'S OPENING | DIMOCK TOURNAMENT | URUSOV GAMBIT | TWO KNIGHTS DEFENSE | LINKS
s
Introduction
The main line of the Urusov Gambit is reached after 1.
e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3. Documented by
Ponziani in the 18th century, the gambit was first analyzed
in 1857 by Prince Sergei Urusov (sometimes rendered
"Urusoff" or "Ouroussoff"), a friend of Tolstoy and one of
the best Russian players of the mid-nineteenth century
after Petrov. Few of Urusov's games survive, and none
with his gambit, but for an example of his play see UrusovPetrov, Warsaw 1859 (or download a PGN file of his games
and those of his brother compiled by Max Burkett).
Perhaps the earliest surviving example of the gambit was
played by Urusov's secretary, Ignatz Van Kolisch, in
Kolisch-Paulsen, London 1861.
The Urusov has been popular among attacking players
for nearly 150 years. Adopted by Keidanski, Schlechter,
Tartakower, Caro, and Mieses, the opening claimed victims
among the best defenders of the late 19th and early 20th
centuries, including Steinitz and Lasker. By 1924 there
was enough interest in the line that a thematic tournament
was organized in New York featuring Marshall, Torre, and
Santasiere (see the Dimock Theme Tournament web site
for more details). More recently, correspondence players
have explored the opening's many forcing lines, and Yakov
Estrin (World Correspondence Champion from 1975 to
1980) published several monographs that carried the
analysis into the middlegame. Estrin's analysis revealed,
however, a possible equalizing method for Black (with
Panov's 4....d5) and suggested that some of the deepest
lines might end in equality with best play. With that the
opening fell into disfavor at the highest levels of master
competition, and today it is mostly seen in club play,
where it racks up quick scores against inexperienced or
unprepared opponents.
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
Though my main audience for this website is developing players (who will learn much
here about tactics, time, and material), I also hope that my analysis encourages
correspondence and master players to take another look at the Urusov. Though it is
considered an heirloom opening, the Urusov is still very much alive and well. As my analysis
shows, White achieves an enduring initiative for his pawn, offers Black many opportunities to
go wrong, and reaches level and still uncharted territory against even the most accurate
defense. With proper preparation, the Urusov poses few risks for the first player and is likely
to surprise quite a few opponents. Especially if you like playing open games and enjoy the
White side of the Two Knights Defense with d4 (which Black will transpose to over half the
time), you are bound to feel very much at home in these sharp lines.
As with all gambits, the second player can accept or decline. Alekhine wrote of the Urusov
that after 4....Nxe4 5.Qxd4 White has a very strong attack. I avoid such material gains in
the opening on principle, for they lead only to loss of time and delay of development.
Alekhines advice is practical and sound, but many players have accepted the pawn and tried
to endure the attack, using a timely thrust with ....d5 to seek equality. The most common
alternative is to return the material immediately with 4....d5, though even here White is not
without attacking resources. Also of interest are the lines beginning with 4....c5, 4....Bb4+,
and 4....d6 (transposing to the Philidor Defense), and the move 4....Nc6 transposing to The
Two Knights Defense (which I treat partially in my website on the Perreux Variation -though players are urged to investigate the Modern Variation for even better results).
Published analysis and practical games are always attributed, and where there is no
attribution the analysis is my own. I have enjoyed sharing my discoveries and hope you will
consider sharing yours as I continue to revise and update this article (a process that
continues week by week, so it pays to check back here from time to time). I welcome
questions, recent games, corrections, suggestions, and links at goeller@rci.rutgers.edu. I
have tried to include links to some of the better opening resources available on the web. For
a great collection of games, see Max Burkett's PGN files, also available at the Pitt Chess
Archives (along with a larger collection on the Bishop's Opening). For an excellent review of
the games in the Pitt Archives see Tim Harding's articles: "The Eternal Appeal of the Urusov
Gambit" and "Is the Urusov Gambit Sound?".
The reader is advised that this article is in a constant state of revision, so it pays to check
back here from time to time.
Line A >>>
BISHOP'S OPENING | DIMOCK TOURNAMENT | URUSOV GAMBIT | TWO KNIGHTS DEFENSE | LINKS
s
A) 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 ...
A1) 3....d6
A2) 3....Bd6
A3) 3....c6
A4) 3....d5
A5) 3....Qe7
A6) 3....Nc6
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! ...
A1) 3....d6? 4.dxe5 dxe5 (4....Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ or 5.Qd5 Be6 6.Qxb7 +-) 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.
Qxd8 Bb4+ 7.Qd2 Bxd2+ 8.Nxd2
A2) 3....Bd6? 4.Nf3?! (Better is 4.dxe5! Bxe5 5.f4 Nxe4 6.Qh5! +-) 4....Nc6 5.dxe5 Bxe5
6.Nxe5 Nxe5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.f4 Nc6 9.Nc3 d6 10.O-O += Loya--Wood, Flagstaff 1991.
A3) 3....c6 4.dxe5 Qa5+ (4....Nxe4 5.Qe2 += see B5 below) 5.Nc3 Nxe4 (5....Qxe5 6.Nf3
+=) 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Qf3+ Nf6 8.exf6 Qe5+ 9.Ne4 Bb4+ 10.Kf1 Re8 11.fxg7+ Kxg7
12.Qg4+ Kh8 13.Bg5! Be7 14.Nf3 Qb5+ 15.Kg1 d5 16.Qh5 Bd7 17.Nf6! 1-0 Marshall-Forseberg, New York 1924
(17....Bxf6 18.Bxf6; 17....Bf5 18.Qe8).
A4) 3....d5!? (Hooper's Gambit)
A4a) 4.dxe5
A4a1) 4....Nxe4?! 5.Bxd5 += Ng5 6.Bxg5 Qxg5 7.Nf3! Qh5 8.Nc3
Be7 9.h3 c6 10.Bb3 O-O 11.Qe2 Na6 12.Ne4 Nc5 13.Nxc5 Bxc5 14.
6.Nc3 Be7 7.f4 Ng6 8.Nf3 c6 9.O-O O-O 10.Kh1 d5 11.e5 Ne8
+= Kiss--Sepulveda, Sao Lourenco WYCF-U14g 1995.
A6d2) 5.Bb3 Bc5 (=+ Lasker) 6.Nf3 Nxf3+ 7.Qxf3 O-O 8.O-O
d6 9.Bg5 Bd4 10.c3 Be5 11.h3 h6 12.Be3 Kh7 13.Nd2 g5 14.
g4 Be6 15.Nc4 Nd7 16.Rad1 Qe7 17.Rfe1 Bg7 18.Bd4 Ne5 =+
Hobson--Isaacs, US Open Baltimore 1948.
A6e) 4.Nf3! transposes to The Two Knights Defense. Part of this site covers the
Perreux Variation (4....exd4 5.Ng5). And for those interested in the Max Lange
lines (4....exd4 5.O-O), Max Burkett has posted an excellent PGN zip file
covering those. More material will eventually follow, including the Modern
Variation (4....exd4 5.e5).
Line B >>>
The Urusov Gambit -- Line B -- 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 Nxe4 4.dxe5
BISHOP'S OPENING | DIMOCK TOURNAMENT | URUSOV GAMBIT | TWO KNIGHTS DEFENSE | LINKS
s
B) 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 Nxe4 4.dxe5
B1)
B2)
B3)
B4)
4....Nxf2
4....Bc5
4....f5
4....Qe7
B5) 4....c6
B6) 4....Nc5
B7) 4....Qh4
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
Acknowledgments
Urusov Gambit & Related Links
Urusov PGN File from Pitt Archives
The Urusov Gambit -- Line B -- 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 Nxe4 4.dxe5
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 Whites 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 00 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! 13.00
[13.Nd4? Nxe5! -+; 13.Qe3 f6!? 14.e6?! Nc5 15.Nd4 b4! 16.axb4 Nd3+ 17.Kf1
Qxb4 -+] 13...b4 =+) 13.00 Bg7 14.Rfe1 00? 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
The Urusov Gambit -- Line B -- 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 Nxe4 4.dxe5
24.Qxb6 Ba6 25.axb4 Re6 26.Rxa5 Bxe5 27.Rxa6 Rxa6 28.Qb8+ Kg7 29.
Bxe5+ f6 30.Bd4 10 Tamas-Kovacs, Hungary 1995.
B5b) 6.a3 (Or 6.a4!? d5 7.exd6+ Ne6 8.Nf3 Bxd6 9.00 00 10.Rd1 +=) 6...
d5 7.exd6+ Ne6 8.Nf3 (8.Nc3 Bxd6 9.Be3 00 10.000 Qe7=) 8...Bxd6 9.
Ng5 Qe7 10.Nxe6 Bxe6 11.Bxe6 fxe6 12.Nd2 00 13.Ne4 Be5 14.Bg5
Qf7 15.000 += 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
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+
] 9.00 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
The Urusov Gambit -- Line B -- 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 Nxe4 4.dxe5
The Urusov Gambit -- Line B -- 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 Nxe4 4.dxe5
The Urusov Gambit - Line C - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3
BISHOP'S OPENING | DIMOCK TOURNAMENT | URUSOV GAMBIT | TWO KNIGHTS DEFENSE | LINKS
s
C) 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3
C1) 4....h6
C2) 4....Be7
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! ...
C1) 4....h6 5.e5 Nh7 (5....Ne5 6.Qxd4 Ng5 7.Bxg5! hxg5 8.Nc3 Nc6 9.Qd5! Qe7 10.Qe4!
with the strong threat of Nd5) 6.Nxd4?! (White probably does better to discourage ....d5
with 6.Qxd4! Nc6 7.Qe4 Ng5 8.Bxg5 hxg5 9.Nc3 or to strive for rapid development with 6.
O-O d5 7.exd6 Qxd6 8.Re1+ Be7 9.Qxd4 O-O 10.Bf4 +=) 6....d5! 7.Bb3 (7.Bd3 or 7.exd6
are also sensible) 7....Bc5 8.Nc3 c6 9.O-O Ng5 10.Be3 O-O? (10....Qe7 11.f4 Ne6 12.f5!
Nxd4 13.Bxd4 +=; 10....Nd7 10.e6!? Nxe6 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Qh5+ with an attack) 11.Nxc6!
bxc6 12.Bxc5 Brudnova--Predovic, European Junior Championship at Rimavska Sobota
1992.
C2) 4....Be7 5.e5 Ne4 6.Qxd4
C2a) 6....Nc5 7.Nc3 (7.Qg4!? g6 8.Qf4! Ne6 9.Qe4 +=) 7....O-O (7....Nc6 8.
Qd5! Ne6 9.Be3 b6 10.0-0-0 Bb7 11.Qd2 Na5 12.Bd3 d5 13.exd6 Bxd6 14.Ne4
Be7 15.Qc3 0-0 16.h4 Qe8 17.Neg5 Bf6 18.Bxh7+ Kh8 19.Qb4 c5 20.Qg4 Qb5
21.b3 g6 22.Bxg6 fxg6 23.h5 Nxg5 24.hxg6+ Kg8 25.Nxg5 Qe8 26.Nf7 Bc8 27.
Rh7!! Bg7 28.Bh6! Rxf7 29.gxf7+ Qxf7 30.Rxg7+ Kh8 31.Rd8+ 1-0 Johnson-Moreau, Portland, Maine 1989) 8.Be3 d6 (8....Nc6 9.Qf4 Ne6 10.Qg3 +=) 9.O-
The Urusov Gambit - Line C - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3
O-O Qe8?! 10.Nd5! Bd8 11.exd6 cxd6 12.Qf4 += Heller--Jacobse, LandesEinzelmeister 1990.
C2b) 6....Ng5 7.Nxg5!? (A better gain of time follows 7.Bxg5! Bxg5 8.Nc3 Nc6
9.Qe4 Bh6!? 10.g4! or 9....Be7 10.O-O-O O-O 11.h4 . White should not
exchange so many pieces.) 7....Bxg5 8.Bxg5 (8.f4! Bh4+ 9.g3 Be7 10.Be3 +=)
8....Qxg5 9.O-O Nc6 10.Qe4 Qg6 (10....Qxe5? 11.Qxe5 Nxe5 12.Re1 and f4
+-; 10....O-O 11.f4 Qh5 12.Bd5!? or 12.Nc3 +=) 11.Qxg6 hxg6 12.Nc3 O-O
(12....Kd8 13.f4 f6 14.Rfe1 +=) 13.Rfe1 += Nd4?! 14.Nd5! d6 (14....Nxc2 15.
Re4! Re8 16.Rc1 wins the Knight while 15....Nxa8? 16.Ne7+ Kh7 17.Rh4#) 15.
Re4 Nf5 16.Nxc7 Rb8 17.g4 Nh4 18.exd6 b5 19.Bd5 Rb6 20.Rd1 Kh8 21.
Bxf7 Nf3+ 22.Kg2 Bb7 23.Re8 Rxe8 24.Nxe8 Bc6 25.Nc7 Ne5+ 26.Bd5 Bd7 27.
Be6 Bc6+ 28.Kg3 Rb8 29.f4 1-0 Karpatchev--Grigoriov, Capelle la Grande 1993.
Line D >>>
The Urusov Gambit - Line D - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3
BISHOP'S OPENING | DIMOCK TOURNAMENT | URUSOV GAMBIT | TWO KNIGHTS DEFENSE | LINKS
s
D) 4.Nf3 Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3
D1) 6.Bxf7+?
D2) 6.bxc3
Index of Lines
D3) 6.O-O
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! ...
Black might also try 5.c3 d5!? when White has several ways of seeking an advantage:
A) 6.exd5 Bd6? (much better is 6....Qe7+! +=/= transposing to line H which is
only slightly better for White) 7.Qxd4 O-O 8.O-O Nbd7 9.Bg5 in the game
Pfleger--Benitez, Lugano 1968.
B) 6.Qa4+ Qd7! (6....Nbd7 7.e5! dxc4 8.exf6 +=) 7.Qxb4 dxc4 8.O-O! Nc6 9.
Qxc4 Qe6 10.Qa4 +=.
C) 6.Bxd5! (This move wins a pawn) 6....Nxd5 7.exd5 Qe7+!? (7...dxc3? 8.Qa4
+ +- but best may be to surrender the pawn immediately with 7....Be7 8.Qxd4
O-O +=) 8.Kd2! 00!? (Black must lose material, and this is the best attempt at
a compensating attack) 9.cxb4 Qxb4+ 10.Ke2! Qb5+ 11.Qd3 Re8+ 12.Kd2
Qxd5 13.Qxd4 and Black does not have sufficient compensation for the piece.
The lines below follow 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3:
The Urusov Gambit - Line D - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3
D1) 6.Bxf7+? Kxf7 7.Qb3+ d5 8.Qxb4 Nc6 (8...Qe7) 9.Ng5+ Kg6 10.Qxc3 h6 11.exd5
Nxd5 12.Qd3+ Bf5 13.Ne4 Ndb4 14.Qg3+ Kh7 0-1 Angskog--Barkhagen, Gausdal 1994.
D2) 6.bxc3
D2a) 6....Ba5?! 7.Ba3! (7.e5 Qe7 8.Ba3 d6 9.O-O seems more forcing, but
Black might try instead 7....d5! with unclear play) 7....d6 8.O-O (8.e5! Ne4 9.
Qa4+! c6 10.Bxf7+ Kxf7 11.Qxe4 d5 12.Qf4+ Kg8 13.O-O +=) 8....O-O 9.e5
Ne4 10.Qc2 Nc5 11.Nbd2 Be6 12.Rad1 += Rheinwalt--Grube, Havenstein
GER 1991.
D2b) 6....Be7?! 7.e5 Ng4 8.h3 Nh6 9.Bxh6 gxh6 10.Qd5 (1-0 Pfleger-Brossington, Nice 1974) 10....Rf8 (10....O-O? 11.Qe4 and Bd3 +-) 11.Nd4!?
(Better 11.Qe4! +=) 11....c6 (11....d6 12.e6! ) 12.Nf5 d6 (12....Qb6 13.Qd3
Qc5 14.Qe2 ) 13.Ng7+?! (13.Nxd6+ Bxd6 14.Qxd6 Qxd6 15.exd6 Kd7 16.Nd2
+=) 13....Kd7 14.Qd3 d5 =+ 15.O-O Kc7 16.Bb3 Rg8 17.Nh5 Qf8 18.f4
Na6 19.Nd2 Nc5 20.Qf3 Bf5 21.Kh2 1/2-1/2 Yepez--Paidoussis, Leipzig 1960.
D2c) 6....Bc5 (This move is tougher than it at first appears and may actually be
Black's best) 7.e5 (7.O-O!? Nxe4! 8.Bxf7+ Kxf7 9.Qd5+ Kf8 10.Qxe4 d5! 11.Qf4
+ Kg8 12.c4!? is unclear) 7....d5! (7....Ne4? 8.Qd5! Bxf7+ 9.Kf1 O-O 10.Qxe4
Bc5 11.Bh6! +- Jan Timper; 7....Ng4?! 8.Bxf7+! +=; 7....Qe7?! 8.Be3!? [8.O-O!
] 8....Ne4 9.Qd3 Bxe3 10.Qxe3 Nc5 11.O-O O-O 12.Rd1 Nc6 13.Bd5 += COMP
Belle--COMP Lachex, Dallas 1986) 8.exf6 dxc4
D2c1) 9.Qa4+?! Nc6! 10.Qxc4 Bf8 11.Qe2+ Be6 12.fxg7 Bxg7
13.Ng5 =+.
D2c2) 9.Qe2+ Be6 10.fxg7 Rg8
D2c2a) 11.Bg5?! Qd5?! (11....Qd3! 12.Qxd3 cxd3 13.
Nbd2 Be7! =+) 12.O-O Nd7 13.Rd1 Qf5 14.Nbd2
Rxg7 15.Ne4 Be7 (15....Bb6 16.Rxd7! Kxd7 17.Rd1+
Ke8 18.Rd5! +=; 15....h6!?) 16.Nh4?! (16.Bxe7! Kxe7
17.Ng3 followed by Nd4 ) 16....Qg4 (16....Qa5!
unclear) 17.f3 Qh5 18.Bxe7 Kxe7 19.Rxd7+! Kf8
20.Rxc7 Qxh4 21.Qd2 Rd8 22.Qe3 Rg6 23.Qc5+ Kg8 24.
Rxb7 Rd5? 25.Rb8+ Rd8 26.Rab1 f5 27.Nd6 f4 28.Qc7
Rxg2+ 29.Kxg2 Bh3+ 30.Kh1 Qf2 31.Rxd8# 1-0
Nielsen--Holm-Jensen, Gladsaxe 1993
D2c2b) 11.Ng5 Qd5 (11...Qd3!? 12.Nxe6 Qxe2+ 13.
Kxe2 fxe6 14.Bh6 Be7 15.Nd2 Bf6 16.Rab1 b6 17.Rhc1
Bxg7 18.Bxg7 Rxg7 19.g3 +=) 12.Nxe6 fxe6 (Perhaps
better 12....Qxe6 13.Qxe6+ fxe6 14.Bh6 Be7 15.O-O
Bf6 16.Na3 unclear) 13.Bh6 Nc6 (13...Nd7 14.Nd2 Ne5
transposes) 14.Nd2 (14.00!? 000 15.Nd2 Ne5
appears to transpose to the main line) 14...Ne5
15.00 000 (Perhaps better is 15...Nd3!? 16.Nxc4!?
[16.Qg4 Ne5 17.Qh4 Be7 18.Qh3 is unclear] 16...Qxc4
17.Qh5+ Ke7 18.Rad1 Bd6 19.Bg5+ Kd7 20.Qf7+ Kc6
21.Qf3+ Qd5 22.Rxd3 Qxf3 23.Rxf3 Rxg7 24.h4 =) 16.
Rae1! (16.Ne4?! Be7 =+; 16.Rfe1? Nd3 17.Qxe6+
Qxe6 18.Rxe6 Nxf2 19.Kf1 Ng4 20.Ne4 Be3 -+) 16...
Nf7 (16...Bd6 17.Ne4 Be7 18.Ng3 +=; 16...Nd3 17.
Qxe6+ Qxe6 18.Rxe6 Kd7 19.Rf6 ) 17.Qxe6+ Qxe6
18.Rxe6 Nxh6 (18...Rd6 19.Rxd6 Bxd6 20.Be3 +=) 19.
The Urusov Gambit - Line D - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3
The Urusov Gambit - Line D - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3
The Urusov Gambit - Line D - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3
The Urusov Gambit - Line D - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3
line.
D2d3c2a) 8....Ng4? 9.Bxd5
+D2d3c2b) 8....Ne4 9.Bxd5
Bxc3+ (9....Nxc3 10.Bxf7+
Kxf7 11.Qxb4 +=) 10.Nxc3
Nxc3 11.Bxf7+ Kxf7 12.Qc4
+ Kf8 13.Qxc3 += Although
material is equal, White has a
clear advantage with Black's
King stuck in the center.
White's attacking chances are
also supported by the Bishops
of opposite color and his strong
pawn majority on the Kingside.
D2d3c2c) 8....dxc4 9.exf6!
Bd6 (9....Bf8? 10.O-O! ) 10.
fxg7! (10.O-O Qxf6 11.Re1+
Kf8 12.Qxc4 is unclear) 10....
Rg8 (10....Qe7+? 11.Kd1 with
the idea of Re1 wins) 11.O-O!
White has a very strong
attack against Black's King in
the center.
D2d3d) 7....Bd7 8.Qxb4
D2d3d1) 8....Nc6 9.Qxb7 dxc4 10.Nbd2
+=
D2d3d2) 8....dxc4 9.Nbd2 b5 10.a4 Na6
11.Qa3 bxa4 12.O-O Rb8 13.Re1 Qe7
14.Qa2 O-O 15.e5 += Fritz
D2d3e) 7....Qd7! (This appears to be the best try for
Black) 8.Qxb4 dxc4 (Black cannot play 8....Nc6? 9.
Bb5! +- but he can try 8....a5!? 9.Qc5 dxc4 10.Ba3!
Ra6!? 11.Nbd2 or 10....Nxe4?! 11.Qe3 f5 12.Nbd2
when, in either case, White will play O-O-O! and build a
strong attack on Black's centralized King) 9.Ba3!
(Probably the best way to play for an advantage; 9.
Qxc4 Qe6! looks dead equal, but 9.e5!? might offer
White some play) 9....Nxe4 (This looks suicidal, but
White has a clear edge after 9....Qe6? 10.Ng5! or 9....
Nc6 10.Qxc4) 10.O-O!? with unclear play. White's
attack should more than compensate for his temporary
material deficit. For example: 10....Nc6 11.Qxc4 Qe6 12.
Qa4! Bd7 13.Re1 f5 14.Nd4! Nxd4 15.Qxd4
D3) 6.O-O!?
If you are especially brave, you might accept the gambit situation wholeheartedly with 6.OO, when play might be reminiscent of the Danish Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.
Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2) or the Goring Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 dxc3 5.Nxc3
Bb4). White generally does very well in the available games, but Black's play has been weak.
More analysis and experience with this line will help to clarify the situation. Likely the
greatest challenge to the variation is for Black to accept both pawns with 6....cxb2! since
The Urusov Gambit - Line D - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3
The Urusov Gambit - Line D - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3
The Urusov Gambit - Line D - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3
The Urusov Gambit - Line E - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 d6
BISHOP'S OPENING | DIMOCK TOURNAMENT | URUSOV GAMBIT | TWO KNIGHTS DEFENSE | LINKS
s
E) 4....d6
E1) 5.e5
Index of Lines
E2) 5.Nxd4
E3) 5.Ng5
E4) 5.O-O!
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! ...
E1) 5.e5?! dxe5 6.Nxe5 Be6 7.Bxe6 fxe6 8.O-O Qd5 9.Re1 Bd6 10.Bf4 Nc6 =+
Sanchez--Lezcano, 1993.
E2) 5.Nxd4?! Nxe4 6.O-O (6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Qh5+ g6 [7....Ke7? 8.Qe2 Qe8 9.f3 +=] 8.Qd5
+ Kg7 9.Qxe4 Qe7 =+) 6....Be7 (6....d5) 7.Qh5 O-O 8.Re1 Nf6 (8....Nc5) 9.Qe2 Re8 10.
Bg5 Nbd7? (10....Bd7 =+) 11.Bxf7+! Kxf7 12.Ne6 1-0 Horowitz--Amateur 1949.
E3) 5.Ng5
E3a) 5....Be6 6.Bxe6 (6.Nxe6 fxe6 7.Bxe6 Qe7 8.Bc8 Qxe4+ 9.Qe2 Qxe2+ 10.
Kxe2 Nbd7 11.Bxb7 Rb8 12.Bc6 += Bilguer) 6....fxe6 7.O-O (7.f4!?; 7.Nxe6
Qe7 8.Nd4 Qe4+ 9.Qe2 Qe2 10.Ke2 Kd7! 11.Nc3 Nc6 = Bilguer) 7....Qd7 8.f4
h6 9.Nf3 Nc6 10.Nxd4 Nxe4 11.Qh5+ Kd8 12.Nb3 Nf6 13.Qe2 Be7 14.
Nc3 Re8 15.Rd1 b6 16.a4 a5 17.Qf3 and White had sufficient compensation
The Urusov Gambit - Line E - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 d6
The Urusov Gambit - Line E - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 d6
The Urusov Gambit - Line E - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 d6
The Urusov Gambit - Line E - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 d6
The Urusov Gambit - Line E - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 d6
The Urusov Gambit -- Line F -- 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 c5
BISHOP'S OPENING | DIMOCK TOURNAMENT | URUSOV GAMBIT | TWO KNIGHTS DEFENSE | LINKS
s
F) 4....c5
Index of Lines
Introduction
F1) 5.Ng5
F2) 5.Qe2
F3) 5.O-O!
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 BurkettRaleus, IECG 2001.
The Urusov Gambit -- Line F -- 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 c5
The Urusov Gambit -- Line F -- 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 c5
The Urusov Gambit -- Line F -- 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 c5
Line G>>>
The Urusov Gambit - Line G - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Bc5
BISHOP'S OPENING | DIMOCK TOURNAMENT | URUSOV GAMBIT | TWO KNIGHTS DEFENSE | LINKS
s
G) 4....Bc5
Index of Lines
G1) 5.O-O
G2) 5.e5!
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! ...
G1) 5.O-O
G1a) 5....Nxe4? 6.Re1 d5 (6....f5 7.Bg5 Be7 8.Qxd4 Bxg5 9.Qxg7 Qf6 10.
Qxg5 +- Zwisler--Andersen, Correspondence 1992) 7.Bxd5 Qxd5 8.Nc3 Qh5
(8....Qf5 9.Rxe4+ Be6 10.Re5 transposes) 9.Rxe4+ Be6 10.Re5 Qg6 11.Nd5
Bd6 12.Nf4 Qf6 13.Nh5 Qd8 14.Bg5 Qc8 15.Nxg7+ Kd7 16.Nxd4!? Nc6
17.Nxc6 bxc6 18.Nxe6 fxe6 19.Rxe6! Qg8 20.Re7+ +- Caro--Suchting,
Berlin 1897.
G1b) 5....d6
G1b1) 6.c3 d3! (6....dxc3?! 7.Nxc3 O-O 8.Bg5 Be6 9.Bxe6! [9.
Qb3?! Bxc4 10.Qxc4 h6 11.Bh4 Nbd7 =+ Schlechter--Marshall,
Cambridge Springs 1904] 9....fxe6 10.Qb3 Qc8 11.e5 Ng4 +=
Hartlaub--Leonhardt, Hamburg 1906 or 11....dxe5 += ColdeweySchiller, Schleswig Holstein 1995; 6....Bg4!? 7.cxd4 Bb6 =
Tartakower-Berger, Vienna 1907) 7.Qxd3 Nc6 (7....O-O 8.Bg5 h6 9.
The Urusov Gambit - Line G - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Bc5
G2) 5.e5!
The Urusov Gambit - Line G - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Bc5
G2a) 5....Ng4 6.h3 (6.Bxf7+!? Kxf7 7.Ng5+ Kg8 8.Qxg4 Nc6 9.Qf4 Qe7 10.OO Nxe5 11.Re1 d6 = Hopf--Schintgen, Bratislaw 1993) 6....Nh6 7.Bg5 Be7 8.
Bxh6 gxh6 9.Qxd4 +=
G2b) 5....Ng8 6.Nxd4 (6.c3!) 6....Ne7 7.O-O O-O 8.Bf4 (8.Be3) 8....Nbc6 9.
c3 += Cors--Pietrzak, Darm 1995.
G2c) 5....Ne4 6.Qe2! (6.Bd5!? f5 7.O-O += or 7.Nxd4!?) 6....d5 (6....Bb4+ 7.
Kf1 Nxf2 8.Qxf2 +-) 7.exd6 O-O 8.dxc7 Qxc7 9.Qxe4 Bb4+ 10.Nbd2 Qxc4
11.c3 f5 12.Nxc4 fxe4 13.Nxd4 Bc5 14.Be3 +- Na6 15.O-O Bg4 16.Rfe1
Rac8 17.Nd2 Rfe8 18.N4b3 Bf5 19.h3 b6 20.Bxc5 bxc5 21.Nc4 Rc6 22.Rad1 Bg6
23.Rd7 Rc7 24.Rxc7 Nxc7 25.Nxc5 Nd5 26.Nb3 Nf4 27.Nc1 a5 28.Nxa5 Ra8 29.
Nc6 1-0 Jones--DeCoverly, London 1973.
G2d) 5....d5 6.exf6 dxc4 7.Qe2+ Be6 8.fxg7 Rg8 9.Bg5! (9.Ng5 d3 10.Nxe6
dxe2 11.Nxd8 Kxd8 12.Bg5+ Kc8 13.Bf6 Nd7 14.Bc3 b5 15.a3 f6 16.Kxe2 Rxg7
17.g3 Kb7 = Magar--Fischer, Correspondence 1993)
G2d1) 9....Qd6!? 10.O-O! (10.Nbd2 d3! 11.Qe4 Rxg7 is less clear,
but not 10.Nc3? dxc3! 11.Rd1 cxb2 12.O-O b1=Q 13.Rxd6 Qxf1+
14.Kxf1 cxd6 -+) 10....Nd7 (10....Rxg7 11.Rd1 followed by 12.Nc3
or simply 11.Nc3) 11.Rd1 Qb6 12.Na3 +=
G2d2) 9....Qd5 10.Nc3! (10.Nbd2? d3! =+)
G2d2a) 10....dxc3? 11.Rd1 cxb2 (11....Bxf7+ 12.
Kf1!) 12.O-O Bxf2+ 13.Qxf2 b1=Q 14.Rxd5 Qxf1+
15.Kxf1 Bxd5 16.Qc5 Nc6 17.Qxd5 Rxg7 18.Ne5!
Nd8 19.Qd7+ Kf8 20.Be7+ Kg8 21.Qe8# 1-0
Goeller--Hall, Union County Ch. 1980
.
G2d2b) 10....Qf5 11.g4! (11.O-O-O?! Nd7 12.Ne4
Rxg7 13.h3 Bb6 14.Qd2 Qxe4 =+ Christie--Feige, Isla
Margarita 1998) 11....Qg6 (11....Qxg4 12.Nd5! +-) 12.
Nd5! Qxg7 (12....d3 13.Qe5 Bb4+ 14.c3 Rxg7 15.cxb4
Nc6 16.Qe3 1-0 Ahlback--Darmogray, Correspondence
1978) 13.O-O-O Kd7 14.Nf6+ Kc8 15.Nxg8 Qxg8
16.Bf6 d3 17.cxd3 Nd7 18.Bd4 cxd3 19.Qxd3 Bd6
+- 20.a3 a5 21.h3 b6 22.Rhe1 Kb8 23.Ne5 Bxe5 24.
Bxe5 Ka7 25.f4 Nc5 26.Qc3 a4 27.Bf6 Ba2 28.Re7 Rc8
The Urusov Gambit - Line G - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Bc5
The Urusov Gambit - Line G - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Bc5
Line H>>>
The Urusov Gambit - Line H - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 d5 5.exd5
BISHOP'S OPENING | DIMOCK TOURNAMENT | URUSOV GAMBIT | TWO KNIGHTS DEFENSE | LINKS
s
H) 4....d5 5.exd5
Index of Lines
Introduction
H1) 5....Bc5
H3) 5....Bg4
H2) 5....Nxd5
H4) 5....Bb4+
H5) 5....Qe7+
Acknowledgments
Urusov Gambit & Related Links
Urusov PGN File from Pitt Archives
H1) 5....Bc5 (5....c5?! 6.O-O! Be7 7.c3 +=) 6.O-O (6.Qe2+!? +=) 6....O-O 7.Nxd4 (7.
Nbd2 c6 8.Nb3 +=) 7....Nxd5?! (7....c6! 8.Nc3 cxd5 9.Bb3 +=) 8.Nb3 Nb6 9.Bxf7+
Ravagnati--Chienichetti, Corisco 1991.
H2) 5....Nxd5
H2a) 6.Qxd4?! Be6 (6....Qe7+!? 7.Kd1 c6 8.Bxd5 cxd5 9.Qxd5 Be6 10.Qb5+
Nc6 11.Be3 O-O-O+ 12.Nbd2 Rd5 13.Qe2 Qb4 =+ Kuehne--Leopold, 1994) 7.OO (7.Bg5!) 7....Nc6 8.Bb5 Nde7 (8....Ndb4!?) 9.Bg5 Qxd4 10.Nxd4 O-O-O
11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Bxe7 Bxe7 13.Bxc6 Rd6 14.Bf3 Rhd8 15.Na3 Rb6 =+
Buchner--Morrison, Bad Woerishofen 1992.
H2b) 6.O-O Nc6 (6....Be7 7.Qxd4 += Euwe-Rueb, Correspondence 1925)
The Urusov Gambit - Line H - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 d5 5.exd5
H4b) 6.c3
H4c) 6.Kf1!
H4a) 6.Bd2
This move risks nothing and actually gives White good chances in practice of
gaining an advantage.
6...Bxd2+ (6....Nxd5 7.O-O Nc6? 8.Bxd5 Qxd5 9.Bxb4 Nxb4 10.Qe1+ Be6 11.
Qxb4 +- Thierry--Quadrat, Saint-Quentin 1998; 6....Qe7+?! 7.Qe2 Qxe2+ 8.
Kxe2 Bc5 9.Bg5 Ne4 10.Bf4 c6 11.Be5 Bg4 12.Rd1 O-O 13.Bxd4 Bd6 14.h3 Bh5
15.Nc3 Re8 16.Kf1 c5 17.Be3 Nxc3 18.bxc3 Bxf3 19.gxf3 a6 20.a4 Nd7 21.a5
Re7 22.Rab1 Ne5 23.Be2 Ng6 24.Rb6 Rd7 25.Rdb1 Ne7 26.Bc4 Ra7 27.Rxd6 1-0
Klein--Dormann, GER 1994 or 8.Bxe2!? Bc5 9.c4! dxc3 10.Nxc3 Nbd7 11.Bf4
Bb6 12.O-O O-O 13.h3 Nc5 14.b4 Nce4 15.Nxe4 Nxe4 16.Rac1 Rd8 17.Bxc7
Rxd5 18.Bc4 Rd7 19.Bxb6 axb6 20.Rfe1 Nf6 21.Ne5 Re7 22.Nxf7 += ZavanelliPadros, North Atlantic Correspondence 1985) 7.Qxd2 (7.Nbxd2 Nxd5 8.Nxd4
Nb6 9.c3 =) 7....O-O (7....Qe7+?! 8.Be2 O-O 9.O-O Nxd5 10.Nxd4 followed by
Bf3, and the White Bishop is better placed) 8.Nxd4 (8.Qxd4 Re8+ 9.Kf1 Re4!?
or 9....Bf5) 8....Nxd5 9.O-O Ne7 (= Hooper. Despite the position's balanced
appearance, Black must play carefully to mitigate White's edge in development,
e.g.: 9....Na6? 10.Bxa6 bxa6 11.Nc6 Qd6 12.Qxd5! +-; 9....Nb6 10.Be2 c5 11.
Nb3 +=) 10.Rd1 +=/= White retains a very slight edge.
H4b) 6.c3 Qe7+!
This move is generally attributed to Panov, but it had been played by Frank
Marshall as early as 1900. Not 6....dxc3? 7.Qa4+! +-. White has difficulty
proving an advantage, though he does maintain the initiative with active play
following 7.Be2.
H4b1) 7.Kd2
H4b2) 7.Be3
H4b3) 7.Kf1
H4b4) 7.Qe2
H4b5) 7.Be2
H4b1) 7.Kd2? -+
This move can really start your opponents clock ticking, but that
may be its only practical value. Black easily gets in trouble,
however, if he tries too hard for a quick kill. It is worth noting that
this move was featured in a fantasy game submitted by readers of
Andy Soltis's Chess Life column and subsequently published in his
The Urusov Gambit - Line H - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 d5 5.exd5
book Karl Marx Plays Chess and Other Reports on the World's Oldest
Game (David McKay, 1991, pp. 106-107). That fantasy game seems
to have taken on a life of its own, for people have sometimes
mistaken it for real theory. Greg Verville (see game cited below)
writes that he played this move because he mistakenly thought that
it had been recommended in Chess Life. And Soltis himself would
later make the same mistake: In annotating the game PillsburyMarshall, Paris 1900 in his book Frank Marshall, United States Chess
Champion, Soltis remarks "7.Kd2! [sic], threatening 8.Re1, would
have tested Black severely" (21). I have been justifiably suspiscious
of all analysis by Soltis ever since!
H4b1a) 7....dxc3+ (Black also has problems putting
the game away after 7....Ne4+ 8.Kc2 Bf5 [8....Nxf2 9.
Qf1! Bf5+ 10.Kb3 a5 11.a3 Nxh1 12.axb4 Bxb1 13.Bg5!
f6 14.Rxb1 Kd8? 15.Re1 Qd7 16.Ne5 Qc8 17.Bxf6+ 1-0
was the composed game given by Soltis] 9.Kb3? [9.
Nxd4! unclear] 9...Nc5+ 10.Kxb4 a5+ 11.Ka3 Nb3+ 12.
Ka4 Nd7 13.Bb5 c6!? [13....O-O!] 14.dxc6 Nb6+ 15.
Kxb3 a4+ 16.Bxa4 Nxa4 17.Re1? Nc5+ 18.Kc4 Be6+ 19.
Rxe6 fxe6? 20.Bg5 b5+ 21.Kxb5 Qa7? 22.Kc4 O-O? 23.
Nxd4 e5 24.Nb5 Qb6 25.N1a3 Ra4+ 26.b4 Na6 27.Qd5
+ Kh1 28.Kb3 Ra8 29.Be3 Qb8 30.Rd1 Nc7 31.Qd8+ 10 Greg Verville-Craig Heirigs, Minnesota 1988) 8.bxc3
Ne4+ (8....O-O!? 9.Re1 Qd6 [9....Ne4+? 10.Re4 Qe4
11.Bd3 += or 9....Qc5? 10.Qb3! b5!? 11.Bd3 +-] 10.
cxb4 Qxb4+ 11.Nc3 Qxc4 12.Ba3 Bf5! 13.Qe2 Qe2+ 14.
Re2 and White has some compensation for the pawn;
8....Bf5 9.Nd4 [9.Qa4+ Nc6 10.cb4 Ne4+ 11.Kd1 Nf2+]
9....Ne4+ 10.Kc2 Bg6 11.Kb2 is unclear, e.g.: 11....Nf2
12.Qa4+ Nd7 13.Rf1 Nd3+ 14.Bd3 Bd3 15.Rf3 Bb1 16.
Rb1 Bd6 17.Re3 Be5 18.Ne6! +-) 9.Kc2 Bc5 (9....Nf2
10.Qd4! Bf5+ [10....Nh1 11.cb4 Qb4?! 12.Ba3 or 10....
Bc5 11.Qg7 Rf8 12.Re1 Bf5+ 13.Kb2 Ne4 14.Bg5 f6 15.
Qe7+ Ke7 16.Bf4 are playable for White] 11.Kb3 Nxh1
12.cxb4 and White has a good game, e.g.: 12....O-O 13.
Bb2 Qf6 14.Qe3 Qg6 15.Nbd2 etc.) 10.Re1 Bf5 (10....
f5!?) 11.Bd3 O-O unclear.
H4b1b) 7....O-O! 8.Re1 (8.Nd4?! Qc5! -+) 8....Qc5 or
8....Qd6 -+ is the easy way for Black to demonstrate
White's error.
H4b2) 7.Be3? dxe3 8.Qa4+ c6 9.Qxb4 exf2+ 10.Kxf2 Qxb4 10.
cxb4 cxd5 =+
H4b3) 7.Kf1?! dxc3 8.Nxc3 =+
H4b3a) 8....O-O 9.Bg5 h6! 10.Bh4 (10.h4? Bxc3! 11.
bxc3 hxg5 12.hxg5 Ne4 -+) 10....Bf5 11.Qd4 Nbd7
= Estrin--Vatnikov, USSR 1961.
H4b3b) 8....Bxc3 9.bxc3 O-O 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bh4
Bf5 12.Qd4 Nbd7 13.Re1 Qa3 14.Bg3 Ne8 15.h3
Nd6 16.Bxd6?! Qxd6 =+ 17.Kg1 Rfe8 18.Rxe8+ Rxe8
19.Qxa7 Nb6 20.Bb5 Ra8 21.Qxb7 Rxa2 22.Qc6 Ra1+
23.Bf1 Bd3 24.Qe8+ Qf8 25.Qxf8+ Kxf8 26.Nh2 Nxd5
27.g3 Nxc3 28.Kg2 Be4+ 29.f3 Ra2+ 30.Kg1 Bd5 31.
Bd3 Nd1 32.Ng4 Bxf3 33.Rh2 Rxh2 34.Nxh2 Bc6 35.Nf1
The Urusov Gambit - Line H - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 d5 5.exd5
H4b5b) 10.Bg5
The Urusov Gambit - Line H - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 d5 5.exd5
As the Pillsbury--Marshall
game (see H4c5a1
above) shows, White needs to be careful always of
Black's attack at f2. The Bishop is better placed at g5
than at b2 since the pin on the Knight at f6 limits
Black's opportunities for counterplay. But whether White
should reinforce the center by 10.c4 Re8 11.Nc3! or
venture immediately 10.Bg5 is unclear. More practice
and analysis is needed. White has had good success
with 10.Bg5 but there are no available games featuring
White's play against Black's most logical move, 10....
Re8.
H4b5b1) 10....h6 11.Bh4 Rd8 12.Re1
g5 13.Bc4 Be6 14.Nxg5! Ng4 15.Nf3
Qd6 16.h3! Rd7 17.hxg4 f6 18.Qc1 1-0
Grave--Zaiser, Correspondence 1965-67.
H4b5b2) 10....c6 11.c4 Rd8 12.Nc3 Bb4
13.Qb3! Bxc3 14.Qxc3 cxd5 (14....Qxe2?
15.Rfe1 +-) 15.Rfe1 Be6 16.cxd5 Bxd5
17.Bc4 Qc7 18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.Qxf6! Bxc4
20.Qg5+ Kh8 21.Qf6+ Kg8 22.Re5 Nc6
23.Rg5+ Kf8 24.Re1 1-0 Skatchkov-Lopatskaya, 1996.
H4b5b3) 10....Qd6 11.c4 Bg4 12.Nbd2
Re8 13.Bd3 Nbd7 14.Qc2 h6 15.Bh4 Bxf3
16.Bg3 Ne5 17.gxf3 Nh5 18.Ne4 Qf8 19.
Be2 Nxg3 20.hxg3 b6 21.f4 Nd7 22.Kg2
Qe7 23.Bf3 Bb4 24.Rh1 Nc5 25.Ng5 Qf6 26.
Qh7+ Kf8 27.Ne4 Nxe4 28.Bxe4 Rad8 29.
a3 Bc3 30.Rad1 Rd6 31.Bf3 g5 32.fxg5
Qxg5 33.Qd3 Qe5 34.Rh5 Qg7 35.Rdh1 Ke7
36.R1h4 Kd8 37.Rg4 Rg6 38.Rf4 Be5 39.
Re4 Rg5 40.Rh1 Rg8 41.Kf1 Qg6 42.Qe3
Qd6 43.Reh4 R8g6 44.Rxh6 Rxh6 45.Qxg5
+ Rf6 46.Rh8+ Ke7 47.Kg2 Bd4 48.Qg8
Rxf3 49.Qf8+ 1-0 Kreindl--Franz, Vienna
1998.
H4b5b4) 10....Bf5 11.Nbd2?! (11.Bd3
Bg4 12.Nbd2 =; but White should
investigate 11.c4! Re8 12.Nc3!) 11....Nbd7
12.Nb3 (12.Nh4?! Bc2!) 12....Qd6 13.c4
Ne4 14.Bd3 Nxg5 15.Bxf5 Nxf3+ 16.
Qxf3 Nf6 17.g4!? g6 18.g5 Nh5 19.Bg4
Ng7 20.Rfe1 Rfe8 21.Nd2 Bd4 22.Rab1
Rxe1+ 23.Rxe1 f5 24.gxf6 Qxf6 25.
Qxf6 Bxf6 26.Ne4 Kf7 27.Nc5 Rb8 28.
Be6+ Nxe6 29.Rxe6 Bd4 30.Nb3 =
Hohensee--Stetson, Ventura 1971, but 0-1
in 46 moves.
H4b5b5) 10....Re8
This move may be Black's best but I can
find no illustrative games. White seems
forced to play 11.Bd3 with chances for both
sides. For example: 11.Bd3 (Better than 11.
The Urusov Gambit - Line H - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 d5 5.exd5
The Urusov Gambit - Line H - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 d5 5.exd5
Line I>>>
BISHOP'S OPENING | DIMOCK TOURNAMENT | URUSOV GAMBIT | TWO KNIGHTS DEFENSE | LINKS
s
I) 4.....Nxe4 5.Qxd4
I1) 5....Nd6
I2) 5....Nc5
Index of Lines
I3) 5....Qe7
I4) 5....d5
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! ...
12.Rxe5 d6 13.Qxf8+ Kd7 14.Qf5+ Ke8 15.Rxe7+ Qxe7 16.Qxc8+ Kf7 17.Nc3 10 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....OO 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 BarnardBishop, 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>>>
BISHOP'S OPENING | DIMOCK TOURNAMENT | URUSOV GAMBIT | TWO KNIGHTS DEFENSE | LINKS
s
J) 4....Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Bg5?! Nc6 7.Qh4
J1) 7....Qe7+
J2) 7....Bb4+
J3) 7....d5
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! ...
J1) 7....Qe7+!? puts an awkward question to White's King and points up one of the main
reasons to prefer 6.Nc3, when Be3 can block Queen checks along the e-file without loss of
time.
J2) 7....Bb4+ 8.Nc3 Qe7+ 9.Kf1 Bxc3 10.bxc3 d6 11.Nd4 Be6?! (11....Nxd4) 12.Bb5
Kd7 13.Nxc6?! bxc6 14.Bxc6+? Kxc6 15.Qa4+ Kb7 16.Rb1+ Kc8 17.Bxf6 Qxf6 -+
Steenstup--Pilgaard, Copenhagen 1992.
J3) 7....d5! 8.Bxf6 (8.Bb5 Qe7+ 9.Kd1 Qd6 10.Re1+ Be7 =+ Dellenbach--Kervaire,
Correspondence 1986, or 8.Bd3?! Bb4+!? 9.c3 Qe7+ 10.Be2 =+ Pilgaard--Christensen,
Copenhagen 1989, or 8.Bd3?! Nb5! Tholefson--Torre, Dimock Theme Tournament 1924
) 8....gxf6 9.Bb3 (9.Be2 f5!? 10.Qh5 Qf6 11.Nc3 Be6 12.O-O-O d4 13.Nb5 O-O-O =
+ Gneiss--Gretarsson, Velden 1996) 9....Qe7+ (9....Be6 10.Nc3 Bb4 11.O-O-O Bxc3 12.
bxc3 Qe7 13.Bxd5 O-O-O = Tartakower--Shories, Barmen 1905) 10.Kd1 a6 (10....Bd7!? 11.
Bxc6 is similar) 11.Re1 Be6 12.Bxc6+ bxc6 13.Nd4 Kd7 14.f4 c5 15.Nf5 Qd8 16.Qh5
Kc6 17.Nd2 d4 =+ 18.Ng3 Bd6?! 19.c4 Kb6 20.f5 Bd7 21.Nge4 Ba4+ 22.b3 Bc6 23.b4 Be5
24.Nxc5 d3 25.Rb1 Qd4 26.Qh3 Rad8 27.Re3 Bf4 28.Rxd3 Qf2 29.Kc2 Bxd2 30.Kb3 Rxd3+
31.Nxd3 Qd4 32.Nb2 Re8 33.Nd1 Re4 34.c5+ Kb7 35.a3 Qc4+ 36.Kb2 Re2 0-1 Shtanchaev-Varavin, Russia 1996.
Line K>>>
BISHOP'S OPENING | DIMOCK TOURNAMENT | URUSOV GAMBIT | TWO KNIGHTS DEFENSE | LINKS
s
K) 4....Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3!
K1) 6....d5
K2) 6....Be7
K3) 6....Nc6
Index of Lines
K4) 6....Qe7+
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! ...
After 6.Nc3 Black usually transposes to the generally recognized main lines with 6....Be7,
but he can also play 6....Nc6 7.Qh4 Bb4 leading to unique positions which favor White. One
line that White should be aware of is K3a, where Black plays 7....d5 before White can castle
queenside, thus forcing exchanges. While White certainly retains some advantage in the K3a
line, it would probably be difficult to exploit in high level competition. The lines below all
follow upon 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3!
K1) 6....d5 7.Bxd5!? (Better is simply 7.Nxd5! Nxd5 8.Bxd5 +=, but the Bishop capture is
of interest due to transpositions from other lines.)
K1a) 7....Nxd5 8.Nxd5
K1a1) 8....c6? 9.Qe5+
K1a2) 8....Be6 9.c4 c6 10.Bg5
K1a2a) 10....Qd7?! 11.OOO! cxd5 (11...f6 12.Nxf6
This advance is an attempt at easy equality. But despite the relatively balanced
position, White retains a clear initiative and should gain the advantage with best
play. 8.Nxd5 Nxd5 (8...Bb4+ 9.c3 Nxd5 10.Qxd8+ Nxd8 11.Bxd5 Bc5 +=; 8...
Be6 9.Nxf6+ Qxf6 10.Qxf6 gxf6 11.Bb5 Rg8 12.Nd4 +=; 8...Be7 9.Bg5 Nxd5
10.000 Be6 11.Bxd5 Bxd5 12.c4 += transposes to Line L2) 9.Qxd8+ Nxd8
(9...Kxd8 10.Bxd5 Nb4 11.Bb3 Be6 12.Bg5+ Ke8 13.000 Bxb3 14.axb3 +=)
10.Bxd5 Be6 11.Be4 Bc5! (11...f5 12.Bd3 Bd6 13.Nd4 00 14.Bd2 f4 15.Nxe6
Nxe6 16.f3 Rfe8 17.000 Rad8 18.Rhe1 Kf7 19.Bc4 g5 20.Re2 ) 12.00 f5
13.Bd3 00 14.Re1 h6 15.Bf4 c6 16.a3 g5 17.Bc7 g4 18.b4 Bb6 19.Bxb6
axb6 20.Nd4 Rf6 21.Nxe6 Nxe6 22.Bxf5 Rxf5 23.Rxe6 +=
K3b) 7....Ne7 +=
Black plans to transfer his Knight to g6 to harrass White's Queen and provide
another defender to the Kingside. In this line, Black is also able to play the c6
and d5 pawn formation. The main problems with the line, however, are that the
Knight is vulnerable to attack at g6, perhaps by h4-h5, and the maneuver does
not gain any time for the defense in the long run.
K3b1) 8.Ne5?! (White seeks to punish Black immediately. The
Knight attacks f7 while preventing 8....Ng6, so the move has some
logic. But White does better to complete his development before
moving the same piece twice.) 8....d5 9.Bg5?! (A rather desperate
try to justify the previous move. Better 9.Bd3 Nf5 10.Qf4 = but
White does not seem to have gained anything here over the main
line.) 9....Nf5! (Best. The line 9....dxc4? 10.Rd1! Nd7 11.Qxc4 Nxe5
12.Rxd8+ Kxd8 13.Qd5+ Nd7 14.Qxf7 leads to unclear play that
should favor White, while 9....Qd6 10.O-O-O! Qxe5 11.Rhe1 yields
White a strong attack) 10.Bb5+ (10.Qf4 dxc4 11.Rd1 Bd6 -+; 10.
Bxf6 gxf6! 11.Qh5 fxe5 12.Bxd5 Qe7 -+) 10....c6 11.Qa4 Be7!
(Why should Black bother with 11....cxb5 12.Nxb5 Bc5 13.Nc7+ Kf8
14.Nxa8 Qe7 15.O-O-O) 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Bxc6+ bxc6 14.Qxc6+
Kf8 15.Qxa8 Bxe5 -+
K3b2) 8.Bg5! (Simple development is best.) 8....Ng6 9.Qd4 c6
10.O-O-O Be7 11.h4! (White points up the poor placement of
Black's Knight at g6.) 11....d5 12. h5 Nf8 13. h6 g6 += 14.Nxd5
cxd5 15.Bb5+ Bd7 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.Rhe1+ Ne6 18.Qxd5 O-O 19.
Bxd7 Qb6 20.Qb3 Qxb3 21.axb3 Nc7 22.Rd6 Bh8 23.c3 a5 24.Kc2
Ra6 25.Rxa6 Nxa6 26.Bb5 Nc7 27.Bc4 Bf6 28.Rd1 Re8 29.Rd7 Re7
30.Rd6 Ne6 31.Bxe6 Rxe6 32.Rxe6 fxe6 33.Nd2 Bg5 34.Nc4 Bxh6
35.Nxa5 b6 36.Nc6 Kf7 37.b4 Kf6 38.Kd3 Bc1 39.Nd4 Bxb2 40.Kc2
1-0 Roobol--Dutreeuw, Amsterdam 2001.
K3c) 7....Bb4 8.O-O Bxc3 9.bxc3 +=
Black must surrender the two Bishops eventually or White will threaten Bg5 and
Nd5. Now, though, White's dark squared Bishop becomes a monster.
K3c1) 9....d5
K3c1a) 10.Ba3!?
Black must play very precisely after this move, but he
can achieve equality with careful play. Better, therefore,
is 10.Rd1! below.
K3c1a1) 10....Be6 11.Rad1
K3c1a1a) 11....Qd7 12.Bb5!
+=
The Urusov Gambit - Line L - 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d5 9.O-O-O Be6
BISHOP'S OPENING | DIMOCK TOURNAMENT | URUSOV GAMBIT | TWO KNIGHTS DEFENSE | LINKS
s
L) 4....Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7
7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d5 9.O-O-O Be6
L1) 10.Rhe1
L2) 10.Nxd5!
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! ...
The Urusov Gambit - Line L - 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d5 9.O-O-O Be6
The lines below follow upon 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.
Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 (7....O-O?! 8.O-O-O h6? 9.Qh4 d6 10.Bxh6! gxh6 11.Qxh6 Nh7 12.h4
Nc6 13.Bd3 f5 14.Bc4+ Kh8 15.Ng5 1-0 Hausner--Szymczak, Prague 1989) 8.Qh4 d5 (8....
h6 9.O-O-O O-O? 10.Bxh6 gxh6 11.Qxh6 d6 12.g4 Nxg4 13.Rdg1 Na5 14.Rxg4+ Bxg4 15.
Rg1 Qd7 16.Bd3 Rfe8 17.Qh7+ Kf8 18.Qh8# Wendland--Markus, Correspondence 1997) 9.OO-O Be6.
L1) 10.Rhe1
L1a) 10....Qd7? 11.Nxd5! (Much stronger than 11 Bb5 O-O 12 Bd3 h6 13
Bxh6 gxh6 14 Qxh6 Bf5 15 Ne5 Nxe5 16 Rxe5 Ng4 17 Bxf5 Qxf5 18 Qxf8+ Bxf8
19 Rxf5 Bh6+ 20 Kb1 1-0 Zarske-Hoffmann, Zurich 1993) 11....Nxd5 (11....
Bxd5 12.Bxd5 Nxd5 13.Bxe7 Ncxe7 14.Rxd5!) 12.Bxd5 Bxg5+ 13.Nxg5 +Goeller--Steffen, Westfield 1980.
L1b) 10....h6? 11.Bxf6?! (Can't White grab the d5 pawn at this point? 11.
Bxd5! Nxd5 12.Rxd5 Bxd5 13.Bxe7 Nxe7 14.Nxd5 O-O 15.Nxe7+ Kh8 16.Rd1
Qe8 17.Ne5 Qb5 18.Qh5 Qe8 19.Rd7 Rb8 20.g4 b5 21.g5 Rb6 22.g6 Rf6 23.gxf7
R6xf7 24.N5g6+ Kh7 25.Nxf8+ Rxf8 26.Qxe8 Rxe8 27.Kd2 +- Spagnuolo-Smith, E-mail Tournament 2000) 11....Bxf6 12.Qh5 Bxc3? (12....O-O! 13.
Nxd5 +=) 13.Rxe6+ Kf8 14.Rxd5 Qc8 15.Rxc6! g6 16.Rxg6! fxg6 17.Qxg6
Qe8 18.Rf5+ Ke7 19.Qe6+ Kd8 20.Rd5+ Qd7 21.Qxd7# Tereschenko-Rotlevi, St. Petersburg 1909.
L1c) 10....O-O
L1c1) 11.Re3? h6 12.Bd3 Bc5! (This is the most embarrassing,
though equally good is 12....Re8! when the sacrifice at h6 fails
because Black can play Bf8 for defense. Not 12....d4!? 13.Bxh6 dxe3
14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.Qg5+ Kh8 16.Qh6+ Kg8 = 17.Ng5? Qxd3! 18.
Rxd3 exf2 =+ or 12....Nb4?! 13.Bxf6 Nxd3+ 14.Rexd3 Bxf6 15.Qh5
c6 16.g4 with some attacking chances for White.) 13.Bxf6 Bxe3+
14.fxe3 Qxf6 -+ White has no real compensation for the exchange.
L1c2) 11.Bd3 h6
L1c2a) 12.Bxh6?! Ne4! 13.Qf4 Bd6! (13....f5?! 14.
Bxe4 Bd6 15.Qg5 Qxg5 16.Nxg5 Bf4+ 17.Kb1 Bxg5 18.
Bxg5 dxe4 19.f3 +- Giertz--Potrock, Correspondence
1970) 14.Qe3 f5! (14....Bc5 15.Qf4 Bd6 = Lasker) 15.
Bg5 Qd7 16.Bb5 Qf7 17.Bxc6 bxc6 18.Nxe4 fxe4
19.Nd4 Bd7 20.f3 Rae8 21.fxe4 Bg4 22.Nxc6 Rxe4
23.Qd2 Bxd1 0-1 Degli-Eredi--Kotzem, German
Correspondence 1998. This line has been frequently
played by computers and found to be generally good for
Black.
L1c2b) 12.Rxe6 (Keres) 12....fxe6 (12....hxg5? 13.
Nxg5 fxe6 14.Bh7+ Kh8 15.Bf5+ +- or 13....Nh5 14.
Rxe7 +-) 13.Bxh6 gxh6 (13....Nb4!?) 14.Qg3+ Kh8
(14....Ng4!? 15.Qxg4+ Bg5+ 16.Kb1 Rxf3+ 17.gxf3 Kf7
18.Qh5+ Ke7 19.h4 Bf6 20.Qxh6 Qh8 was unclear in
Kase--Junge, Correspondence 1983) 15.Qg6 Qd6
(15....Rf7! 16.Qf7 Qg8! = Forintos and Haag) 16.Qh6+
Kg8 17.Qg6+ Kh8 = 18.Ng5?! Qxh2 and White's
attack is doubtful according to Estrin.
The Urusov Gambit - Line L - 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d5 9.O-O-O Be6
L1c2c) 12.Kb1
L1c2c1) 12....Ne4 13.Nxe4 dxe4 14.Qxe4
g6 15.Bxh6 +- Galberg-Lund--Dotzel,
Correspondence 1991.
L1c2c2) 12....hxg5?! 13.Nxg5 g6 (13....
Bd7 14.Nxd5! +-) 14.Qh6 Re8 15.Rxe6 Bf8
16.Rxe8 Qxe8 17.Nxd5 Bxh6 18.Nxf6+ Kg7
29.Nxe8+ Rxe8 20.Ne4 += Haas-Lautenbach, Correspondence 1995.
L1c2c3) 12....Re8 13.g4! see Strjbos-Zagema, NED 1997, in L1c3 below. Not 13.
Bxf6? Bxf6 14.Qh5 Ne7 15.g4 Bxc3 16.bxc3
c5 17.g5 Qb6+ 18.Kc1 c4 19.Bf1 g6 0-1
Wallinger--Beutel, Correspondence 1991,
when White's Queen is trapped.
L1c2c4) 12....Qd7?! 13.Bxh6 Ne4 14.
Bg5 Bxg5 15.Nxg5 Nxg5 16.Qxg5
L1c2c4a) 16....Ne7 17.h4 c6
18.g4 Rfe8 19.Rg1 f6 20.
Qh5 1-0 Shmelnicki--Eventov,
USSR Correspondence 19551957.
L1c2c4b) 16....d4 17.Ne4 f6
18.Qh4 Bf5 19.Bc4+ Rf7 20.
Nc5 Qd6 21.Qh5 g6 22.Bxf7
+ Kxf7 23.Qh7+ Kf8 24.Qh8
+ +- Maiko-Kochet,
Dnepropetrovsk UKR 2002.
L1c2c5) 12....Ne8 13.Bxe7 Qxe7 14.
Qxe7 Nxe7 (Forintos and Haag) 15.Nd4
Nc6 16.Nxe6 fxe6 17.Rxe6 Rxf2 18.
Nxd5 Rxg2 19.Bc4! Kh8 20.Rde1 Nd6
21.Nxc7 Nxc4! (21....Rd8? 22.Bd3! Kg8
23.Bg6 1-0 Laes--Zitterio, Correspondence
1971-1972) 22.Na8 Rh2 23.Nc7 Nd2 24.
Kc1 Nf3 = Van der Tak.
L1c3c6) 12....Nd7! 13.Bxe7 Qxe7 14.
Qxe7 Nxe7 15.Nd4 (15.Nb5 Rfc8 16.Nbd4
Nf8) 15....Nc5 (Forintos and Haag) 16.
b4?! (Estrin. White should instead try 16.
f4!, but not 16.Bf1 a5 17.f4 c6 18.g4 Re8!?
19.f5 Bd7 20.h4 b5 21.Bh3 b4 =+) 16....
Nxd3 17.Rxd3 (17.cxd3?! Nc6! 18.Nxc6!?
bxc6 19.d4 Rfb8 20.a3 a5 21.Na2 axb4 22.
axb4 c5! 23.dxc5 d4! -+) 17....Nc6 18.
Nxe6 (18.Nxc6!?) 18....fxe6 19.Rxe6
Nxb4 20.Rg3 Rxf2 =+
L1c2d) 12.g4!? Nxg4 13.Bxe7 Qxe7 14.Qg3 Qd6! is
The Urusov Gambit - Line L - 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d5 9.O-O-O Be6
The Urusov Gambit - Line L - 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d5 9.O-O-O Be6
when White is a solid pawn to the good with the better position.
L2d2) 13....Nb4?! 14.cxd5! Qd6 (14....Nxa2+? 15.Kb1 h6 16.Qa4
+ Kf8 17.Ne4 +-; 14....a5 15.Qh5 g6 16.Qh6 Qf6 17.Rhe1+ Kd7 18.
Ne4 Qb6 19.a3 Na6 20.d6 +-) 15.Rd4! c5 (15....a5 16.a3 Na6 17.
Re1+ Kf8 18.Rf4! +-) 16.dxc6 Qxc6+ 17.Kb1 and either Black's
King gets slaughtered in the middle of the board or he loses his
Knight after 17....Qc2+ 18.Ka1 O-O 19.Rxb4 +-.
L2d3) 13....h6! (13...Qf6! 14.Rxd5 h6 transposes) 14.Rhe1+ Kf8
15.Rxd5 Qf6! (15...Qc8 16.Nf3 Kg8 17.Ne5 ) 16.Re3! (The
immediate 16.Nf3 Qxh4 17.Nxh4 += is similar to the main line
below. Weaker is 16.f4!? which would work well after 16....Kg8?!
[16....g6?? 17.Nh7+] 17.Nf3 Qxh4 18.Nxh4 , but Black has
instead 16....Nb4! causing trouble.) 16....Kg8! (Black must force
the exchange of Queens or lose his own. Not as good is 16...Nb4 17.
Rf3 Nxd5 [17....Qg6 18.Rdf5 f6 19.Ne6+ Kf7 20.Nxg7 +-] 18.Rxf6
Nxf6 19.Ne4 Ne8 [19....Nxe4 20.Qxe4 ] 20.Qh3 Baja, e.g.: 20....
Kg8 21.Qd7! or 20...Rd8 21.Qa3+ ) 17.Nf3 Qxh4 18.Nxh4 g6
19.Rd7 (Worth considering is 19.Nf3 Kg7 20.Ne5 Nxe5 21.Rdxe5
+=) 19....Rc8 20.b4! Nb8 21.Rd5 Kg7 22.Nf3 += material is
equal, but White has a positional edge.
Line M>>>
The Urusov Gambit - Line M - 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 9.O-O-O
BISHOP'S OPENING | DIMOCK TOURNAMENT | URUSOV GAMBIT | TWO KNIGHTS DEFENSE | LINKS
s
M) 4....Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7
7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 9.O-O-O
M1) 9...Bf5
M2) 9...O-O
M3) 9...Qd7
Index of Lines
Introduction
M4) 9...Be6
The 8....d6 line does not challenge the center and thus
allows White to develop a piece attack against Black's King
(whether it remains in the center or castles on either wing).
Moves like 9....Bf5?!, 9....O-O?! and 9....Qd7?! all allow
White an immediate attacking plan. Black's best is therefore
9....Be6, seeking to block the open e-file before White plays
Re1 and to chase or exchange the White Bishop at c4. After
9....Be6 White can choose between avoiding the exchange
of Bishops by 10.Bb5?! and 10.Bd3?! or correctly accepting
it with 10.Bxe6 and 10.Rhe1!
The move 10.Bb5?! generally forces a draw or a rather
lifelessly equal position unless Black carefully returns the
pawn for a positional edge. And extensive practice suggests
that Black can equalize with careful play against 10.Bd3?!
and should even have an edge after the new move 10....
Ng4! White's safest alternative is 10.Bxe6, seeking to
recover the pawn quickly or gain an attack, but Black can
likely equalize if he immediately surrenders the pawn by
10....fxe6 11.Rhe1 Qd7 12.Qc4 O-O-O! The logical
developing move 10.Rhe1! poses Black the most difficult
problems and provides White excellent chances of exploiting
his initiative after 10....Bxc4 11.Qxc4 O-O, when several
moves and plans present themselves.
The Urusov Gambit - Line M - 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 9.O-O-O
M1b) 11.Re2!?
M1c) 11.Nd4?!
M1d) 11.Rxe7!?
M1e) 11.Qf4
M1f) 11.g4!
M1a) 11.Bd3? Bg6 12.Bxg6 hxg6 13.Re3 Nc6 14.Rde1 Qd7 =+ Wienand--Rapp,
Marbach/Fasanenhof, 1989.
M1b) 11.Re2 Qd7 12.Rae1 Rae8 13.Bb5 Bd8 14.Nd4 Rxe2 15.Rxe2 h6 16.
Bd2 Bg6 17.Qg3 a6 18.Ba4 b5 19.Nxc6 Qxc6 20.Bb3 unclear Bucan-Moeckel, Bad Woerishofen 1992
.
M1c) 11.Nd4?! Nxd4 12.Rxd4 c6?! (12....h6! 13.Bxh6 gxh6 14.Qxh6 Nh7! is
better for Black) 13.g4 Bg6 14.f4 h6 15.Bxh6 gxh6 (15....Ne4 16.g5! ) 16.
Qxh6 d5 17.f5 Nd7 and now White should have won immediately by 18.Rxe7!
Qxe7 19.fxg6 fxg6 20.Nxd5! +- in Goeller--Whitfield, Westfield 1983
.
M1d) 11.Rxe7!? (Tartakower's move, which likely inspired a similar try by Torre.
Mller and Voigt write that "This stretches it," meaning that it is hard to believe
that such a romantic sacrifice can succeed against best defense. But my own
analysis suggests that the idea has a lot of merit if properly followed up. Of
course, White has easier ways to get an advantage against Black's weak 9....
Bf5?! which is why this is not the main line. A lot can be learned from the stem
game that is useful in understanding the important exchange-sac motif which is
so central to the latent tactics of many positions in the M-line generally.) 11....
Nxe7 (Mller and Voigt note that 11....Qxe7? 12.Re1! h6 [12....Qd8 13.Nd5] 13.
Bxh6 Be6 14.Bg5 gives White a strong attack) 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Re1?! (This
seems a mistake, though it is not noted by Mller and Voigt. The more direct 13.
g4! += or even 13.Qxf6!? would improve here as indicated in my notes to the
stem game.) 13....Ng6 14.Qh6 c6 15.g4 Bxg4 16.Rg1 d5 17.Bd3 Bxf3 18.
Bxg6 fxg6 19.Rxg6+ Kf7? (Black tries too hard to win. A draw by perpetual
check was the correct result after 19....hxg6 20.Qxg6+ Kh8 21.Qh6+ Kg8 =) 20.
Rg7+ Ke6 21.Qe3+ Be4 22.Nxe4 dxe4 23.Qxe4+ Kd6 24.c4 f5 25.Qd4+
Ke6 26.Qe3+ Kf6 27.Qc3+ Ke6 28.Qe3+ Kf6 29.Qc3+ Ke6 30.f4 Qf6 31.
Qe3+ Kd6 32.c5+ Kd5 33.Rd7+ Kc4 34.Qb3+ Kxc5 35.Qa3+ Kb6 36.Qb4+
Ka6 37.Qxb7+ Ka5 38.Rd3 1-0 Tartakower--Shoosmith, Ostende 1907
.
M1e) 11.Qf4 (The "book" move: White plans to use the Bishop at f5 to gain time
for a pawn assault on the kingside.) 11....Bg6?! (Probably better is 11....Qd7 to
slow up White's plan and keep open options for the Bishop, though after 12.Bxf6
Bxf6 13.Nd5 Bd8, White would be doing well.) 12.g4 Na5?! (Black wants to
exchange off White's Bishop at c4 to reduce forces, but the Knight seems
misplaced here. Better might be 12....a6 followed by 13....b5 or 12....a5 with the
idea of 13....Nb4 to begin a counter-attack against White's King.) 13.Bd3 Qd7
14.Bxf6 (This reduces the defenders around Black's King and gains a strong
outpost for the Knight at d5, but a better plan might have been to seek a strong
outpost for the other Knight with 14.Nh4 or 14.Nd4 with the idea of 15.Nf5
followed by h4-h5) 14....Bxf6 15.Nd5 Bd8 16.Bf5! Bxf5 (If Black does not
exchange now, White will eventually compel him with h4-h5, opening up lines for
attack) 17.gxf5 f6 (This weakens the e6 square, but Black must prevent 18.f6!
Driving back the Knight with 17....c6 weakens the d-pawn and Black cannot play
17....c6 18.Ne3 d5? because of 19.b4! winning the Knight or 18....b5!? 19.f6!
Bxf6 20.Rxd6! with the powerful threat of Rxf6!) 18.h4 (The immediate 18.Nd4,
with the idea of Ne6 followed by doubling Rooks on the g-file, seems more
The Urusov Gambit - Line M - 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 9.O-O-O
thematic, but White is actually rewarded for his patient development of the
kingside attack because Black soon weakens his queenside, allowing the Knight a
different avenue of invasion.) 18....b5 19.Nd4! Nc4 20.Qe4 Rc8 (see diagram
below) 21.Nc6! Ne5 22.Nxa7 Ra8 23.Nb6 cxb6 24.Qxa8 Qxf5 25.Qd5+ Kh8 26.
Qxd6 Qf4+ 27.Kb1 1-0 Keidanski--Lasker, Berlin 1891.
M1f) 11.g4! (This appears to be a more direct method of exploiting the Bishop's
placement at f5 to initiate a pawn-storm on the Black king) 11....Bg6 (11....
Bxg4? 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Qxg4 or 11....Bd7? 12.Bd3! with a winning attack)
12.Qg3 with the idea of h4-h5 -->.
The diagram shows a key moment from KeidanskiLasker, when it is White to move after 20....Rc8.
Lasker is hoping to develop a counterattack on the
Queen's wing, beginning with c5 perhaps, but
Keidanski demonstrates that White's centralized
pieces allow him to control the entire board. With
21.Nc6! he switches his attack from the Kingside
and center to the Queenside. The Knight is
immune, since 21....Qxc6?? 22.Ne7+ wins the
Queen. After 21....Ne5 (to prevent 22.Ne7+
winning the exchange) 22.Nxa7 Ra8 (22....Rb8 23.
f4!) 23.Nb6! White won the exchange and the game.
Position after 20....Rc8.
The Urusov Gambit - Line M - 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 9.O-O-O
to advantage follows 12.Bxh6! Qg4 13.Bg5 Qxh4 14.Nxh4 Bd8 15.f4 +=) 12...hxg5 13.Nxg5
Qg4 14.Re4 Qxh4 15.Rxh4 Re8 16.Nh7 Ng4 17.Nd5 Nxf2 18.Nxc7 Nxd1 19.Nxe8 Ne3
20.Nxd6 Nxg2 21.Re4!? Kxh7 22.Re8!? g6 23.Nxf7! Nf4 24.Nd6 Nxd3+ 25.cxd3 Nb4
26.Kd2 Nxa2 27.Rxc8 Rxc8 28.Nxc8 and White should have a decisive edge in a complex
ending. See M3.pgn.
M4b) 10.Bd3?!
M4c) 10.Bxe6
M4d) 10.Rhe1!
M4a) 10.Bb5?! =+
This move will likely force a draw in most over the board play. With best defense,
however, Black can obtain a positional advantage after returning the pawn with
10....h6! 11.Nd4! O-O! =+.
M4a1) 10....a6?! (A critical loss of time that gives White good
attacking chances against the King in the center unless Black plays
accurately.) 11.Bxc6+ bxc6 12.Nd4 (12.Ne5? Nd5 13.Bxe7 Qxe7
14.Qc4 Qg5+ 15.Rd2 Ne7 16.Nxf7 Qxd2+ 0-1 Gazic-Hajnal, Budapest
2001) 12....Nd5 (No better was 12....Qd7 13.Rhe1 O-O 14.Ne4 +=/
=) 13.Ne4 h6 (Perhaps 13....Bxg5+ 14.Nxg5 Qf6! when White can
consider 15.Rhe1 or 15.g3! with unclear play.) 14.Bxe7 (14.Nxe6!?
fxe6 15.Qh5+ is less clear) 14....Qxe7 15.Qg3 Kd7?! (The King is
too exposed in the center of the board, though there was also no
escape in 15....O-O? 16.Nxc6! Qd7 17.Rxd5! Qxc6 [17....f5 18.Nc5
Qxc6 19.Nxe6 gives White a strong attack while 17....Bxd5? 18.Nf6+
wins the Queen] 18.Nf6+ Kh8 19.Rh5! and Black must surrender
considerable material to stop the threat of Qg5! forcing mate. But a
better defense was certainly 15....Bd7! 16.Rhe1 O-O 17.c4 Nb6 18.c5
dxc5 19.Nb3 with complex play and probably equal chances.) 16.
Rhe1 Rae8 17.f4 (More direct was 17.c4! Nb6 18.c5 Nd5 19.Qa3)
17....Kc8?! (17....g6 or 17....c5!? are better tries at defense) 18.
Qa3! +- Nb4 19.Nxe6 Qxe6 20.Qxb4 Qxa2 21.Nc3 Qa1+ 22.Kd2 c5
23.Qb3 Qa5 24.Qxf7 Ref8 25.Qe6+ Kb8 26.g3 d5 27.Kc1 d4 28.Nb1
Rf6 29.Qc4 1-0 Boschetti--Schulte, Lugano 1985.
M4a2) 10....O-O
(Obviously not 10....Qd7? 11.Ne5! and White has a critical tempo
on M3b1 below. Also of interest, though, is 10....Nd7 11.Rhe1 h6 12.
Bxe7 Qxe7 13.Nd5!? [13.Qg3 00 14.Bxc6 bxc6 15.Nd4 Nc5 16.Nxc6
Qd7 17.Nd4=] 13...Qd8 14.Qa4 00 15.Bxc6 Nc5 16.Qh4 bxc6 17.
Qxd8 Raxd8 18.Ne7+ Kh7 19.Nxc6 Rde8 =)
M4a2a) 11.Rhe1?! Re8 12.Nd4 Nxd4 13.Rxd4 c6 14.
Bd3 g6 15.Ne4 Nxe4 16.Bxe7 Qxe7 17.Qxe4 Qg5+
18.f4 Qh4 19.g3 Qxh2 20.Qf3 Bd5 21.Be4 Bxe4 22.
Rdxe4 Rxe4 23.Rxe4 Qg1+ -+ Rice--Phillips, Hastings
1995.
The Urusov Gambit - Line M - 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 9.O-O-O
M4a2b) 11.Bd3!
M3a2b1) 11....h6 12.Bxh6! gxh6 13.
Qxh6 Re8 14.Qg5+ Kf8 15.Qh6+! =
perpetual check
M3a2b2) 11....g6 12.Rhe1! Nh5! (12....a6
13.Bc4! += or 12....Re8 13.Bb5! +=) 13.g4!
(13.Be4!? Bxg5+ 14.Qxg5 unclear) 13....
Bxg5+ 14.Nxg5 h6 15.gxh5 Qxg5+ 16.
Qxg5 hxg5 17.hxg6 Ne5 18.gxf7+ Rxf7
19.Rg1 Rg7! 20.Be4 =
M4a3) 10.... h6!
This careful move order avoids the likely draw following 10....O-O 11.
Bd3!, for if now 11.Bd3?! then Black has an important tempo on lines
in M4b below and can play 11....a6, 11....Nd7, or 11....Ng4 to
advantage.
M4a3a) 11.Rhe1?! O-O 12.Bxh6 gxh6 13.Qxh6 Nh7!
=+ 14.h4 Re8 15.Bd3 Nf8 16.Ne4 Nb4 17.Ng3 Bf6
18.Nh5 Bh8 19.Ng5 Nxd3+ 19.Rxd3 Bf5 and White's
attack failed in Nilsson-Wik, Correspondence 1991.
M4a3b) 11.Nd4!
M4a3b1) 11...Qd7 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.Bxf6
cxb5 (13...Bxf6?! 14.Qe4 +=) 14.Bxe7
Qxe7 15.Qxe7+ Kxe7 16.Nxb5 =
M4a3b2) 11....Bd7 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.Bxf6
Bxf6 14.Qe4+ Qe7 15.Bxc6 Qxe4 16.
Bxd7+! Kxd7 17.Nxe4 =
M4a3b3) 11....Nd5 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 (12....
Ndxe7?! 13.Nxe6 fxe6 14.Qg4 += or 13.
Rhe1! +=) 13.Qg3 Nxc3 14.Qxc3 Qg5+
15.Kb1 O-O 16.Bxc6 bxc6 17.Qxc6 =
M4a3b4) 11....Nd7 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.
Qxe7+ Nxe7 (13....Kxe7 14.Bxc6 +=) 14.
Rhe1 (14.Nxe6 fxe6 15.Rhe1 e5 [15....c6?!
16.Rxd6 followed by R6e6 +=] 16.Bxd7+
Kxd7 17.Rxe5 =) 14....a6 (14....Bg4? 15.
Nd5! +- or 14....O-O-O 15.Nxe6 fxe6 16.
Rxe6 +=) 15.Nxe6 fxe6 16.Rxe6 axb5 17.
Nd5 Kd8 18.Rxe7 c6!? 19.Rxd7+ Kxd7
20.Nb6+ Kc7 21.Nxa8+ Rxa8 22.Re1
Kd7 23.a3 =
M4a3b5) 11....O-O! 12.Nxe6 fxe6 13.Bd2
(13.Bxh6? gxh6 14.Qxh6 Rf7! 15.Rd3 Rh7! +) 13....a6 14.Bxc6 bxc6 15.Rhe1 and
White should recover his pawn with excellent
chances of equalizing. For example: 15....
Qd7 (15.....e5!? 16.Qc4+ d5 17.Qxc6 is
unclear) 16.Qg3 Kh8 17.Qe3 e5 18.f4 Nd5!
19.Nxd5 cxd5 20.fxe5 dxe5 21.Qxe5 Bf6! =/
The Urusov Gambit - Line M - 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 9.O-O-O
M4b) 10.Bd3?! =+
The "classical" method and until recently the "book" move: White retreats his
Bishop to avoid exchanges and awaits signs of weakness in the defense. This
move has always struck me as rather artificial and a waste of time, which goes
against the entire logic of the Urusov which is all about gaining time in exchange
for material. The position is quite balanced, though, and most games in this line
have ended in a draw. Black has at least five playable methods of meeting 10.
Bd3, all of which seem to equalize or gain an edge. But best may be a move not
discussed by theory at all: 10....Ng4!, which is a slightly better version of 10....
Nd7 and should be at least slightly better for Black. The alternatives explored
below are:
M4b1) 10...Qd7?!
M4b2) 10...h6
M4b4) 10...Nd7
M4b5) 10...Ng4!
M4b3) 10...a6
M4b1) 10....Qd7?!
This long-standard move allows White to continue his initiative,
though his attack should probably only bring a draw against careful
defense.
11.Bb5
Immediately exploiting the Queen's position. Keres suggested 11.
Rhe1!? as an interesting alternative.
11....O-O
Less promising appear to be 11....Kf8!? or 11....O-O-O? 12.Qa4 a6
[13....Nd5 14.Rxd5! Bxg5+ 15.Rxg5 hxg5 16.Nd4 +- Mortensen-Wesche, Correspondence 1994] 13.Bxa6! bxa6 14.Qxa6+ Kb8 15.
Nb5 +- Keres or 12.Ne5 Qe8 13.Nc6 bc6 14.Ba6+ Kd7 15.Na4 +Tartakower.
M4b1a) 12.Ne5
M4b1a1) 12....Qc8 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Bxc6
M4b1a1a) 14....h6 15.Bxh6!?
(15.Bd2 Rb8 16.Qa4 Ng4 17.
Rdf1 [17.Be1 Bg5+ 18.Kb1 Bf6
19.b3 Nf2 20.Bf2 Bc3 21.Qa7
Bf5 1/2-1/2 Nejstadt--Burlayev,
Moscow 1958 22.Bd4 +=
Harding] 17....Bf6 18.f4! +Estrin) 15....gxh6 16.Qxh6
Ng4 17.Qf4 Rb8 18.Rd3 Qd8
19.h4 Bxh4 20.Ne4 f5 21.Bd5
Bxd5 22.Rxd5 Bf6 23.Rxf5
Bxb2+ 24.Kd2 Nxf2 25.Qxf2
Bg7 26.Qf3 d5 27.Ng5 Qd6 28.
Qxd5+ Qxd5+ 29.Rxd5 Rf2+
30.Kd3 1/2-1/2 Lemieux--Gelin,
Correspondence 1988.
The Urusov Gambit - Line M - 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 9.O-O-O
The Urusov Gambit - Line M - 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 9.O-O-O
The Urusov Gambit - Line M - 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 9.O-O-O
The Urusov Gambit - Line M - 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 9.O-O-O
The diagram shows a key moment from NaimVerducci, when it is White to move after 16....Ne7.
Naim demonstrates that pieces alone can break
through pawn cover by sacrificial means. After 17.
Rxd6! the Rook is immune from capture since 17....
cxd6? 18.Nxd6+ Kf8 19.Qf7 is mate, so suddenly
the central lines are open and Black has no
defense. Verducci tried to break one of the pins
with 17....Qc8 but lost material after 18.Nxe5 Nxe5
19.Rxe5 Qxe6 20.Rdxe6 O-O 21.Rxe7.
M4d) 10.Rhe1! +=
This move completes White's development and forces the exchange of Black's
Bishop at e6, weakening his defense of the e-file. After the exchange of Bishops,
White threatens to disrupt Black's King's field by Rxe7 and Bxf6, though this motif
needs some preparation to assure success. White can also play for piece pressure
and a pawn storm against Black's kingside, as in Berlin-Budapest, after which the
position remains quite unclear.
10....Bxc4
Harding points out that this exchange may not be as forced as I had assumed.
Not 10...00? 11.Rxe6! (better than 11.Bxe6?! fxe6 12.Rxe6 Qd7 13.Rde1 d5!
unclear) 11...fxe6 12.Bxe6+ Kh8 (12...Rf7?! 13.Nd5! ) 13.Bf5 Krticka-Lyer,
Prague 1921 13...h6 14.Bxh6 Qe8 15.g4 with a strong attack. But possible is 10...
Qd7!? 11.Bb5 (11.Bxe6 fxe6 12.Qc4 000! = transposes to M4c2 above) 11...0
0 (11....Kf8?! 12.Ne5 Nokes-Anderson, New Zealand 1979 12...Qc8 13.Nxc6 bxc6
14.Bxc6 Rb8 15.Qa4 +=) 12.Ne5! (White is up a tempo on line M2 above, but
finding the way to mate is complicated. Alternatives include 12.Nd4!?, 12.Ne4!?
Nxe4 13.Bxc6 bxc6 14.Bxe7 Rfe8 15.Ne5 Qxe7 16.Qxe7 Rxe7 17.Nxc6 Ree8 18.
Rxe4 =, and 12.Bd3!? Bf5! =+ but these do not appear promising.) 12...Qe8 (not
12...Qc8? 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Bd3! h6 15.Bxh6 gxh6 16.Qxh6 followed by Re3 -->)
13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Bd3 h6 15.f4! (The immediate 15.Bxh6!? Ng4! 16.Bg5 Bxg5+
17.Qxg5 Nxf2 18.Qh4 [18.Ne4!?] 18...Nxd3+ 19.Rxd3 Qd8 20.Qh5 Qf6 21.Rf3
Qh6+ 22.Qxh6 gxh6 23.Ne4 is unclear). After 15.f4! Harding writes that the
position "poses awkward questions" for Black since now the Bxh6 sac is really
threatened. Forced seems 15...Qd8! 16.Ne4! (16.Bxh6!? Ne4 17.Qh5 Nf6 18.Qg5
Ne8 19.Qh5 Nf6 20.Qe2!? is also interesting) 16...Nd5 17.c4! Nf6 (17...Bxg5? 18.
fxg5 Nb4 19.Nf6+! +-) 18.g4! (less clear is 18.Nxf6+ Bxf6 19.Bxf6 Qxf6 20.Qxf6
gxf6 21.f5 Bd7 22.Re7 +=) 18...Rb8! (18...Re8 19.Bxf6 Bxf6 20.Nxf6+ Qxf6 21.
g5 Qd8 22.f5 -->) 19.Re2! Re8 20.Bxf6 Bxf6 21.Nxf6+ Qxf6 22.g5 Qd8 23.Qh5
g6 24.Bxg6 Bxc4 25.Be4!! --> and I think White wins. This is a long piece of
analysis, though, to prove something that any player as Black should know
intuitively: don't go there!
11.Qxc4
The Queen is well-positioned here. Clearly inferior is 11.Bxf6?! Be6! 12.Bxe7
Qxe7 13.Qg3 (13.Qxe7+?! Nxe7 14.Ng5 Kd7 =+ Estrin) 13....Qf6 14.Nd5 Qh6+
15.Qg5 Qxg5 16.Nxg5 Kd7 17.Nf4 Rae8 18.f3 g6?! (better 18....Bc4! =+) 19.Ne4
Ke7 20.Ng5 Kf6 21.Ne4+ Ke7 22.Ng5 Nd8? (22....Ne5! =+) 23.Re3?! (23.Nd5+!
) 23....h6 24.Ngxe6 Nxe6 25.Rde1 Kf6 26.Nd5+ Kg7 27.Nf4 Kf6 28.Nd5+ 1/21/2 Matrisch-Simon, Recklinghausen 2002.
11....O-O
And we arrive at what is likely the critical position of the Urusov Gambit. There
are now at least five options for White, the last three of which seem most
The Urusov Gambit - Line M - 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 9.O-O-O
promising as methods of seeking an edge. But readers are urged to look through
all of the analysis as there are ideas and motifs (especially Torre's exchange
sacrifice) that are useful for White in other lines.
M4d1) 12.Rxe7?!
M4d2) 12.Qh4
M4d4) 12.Rd3!?
M4d5) 12.h4!?
M4d3) 12.Re3!?
M4d1) 12.Rxe7?! =+
(This sacrifice has more psychological power than analytic validity at
this point. But a lot can be learned from this game, since the
exchange sacrifice is always a latent possibility in these lines.) 12....
Nxe7 13.Bxf6 gxf6 14.Ne4 Ng6? (Better defensive prospects are
offered by 14....Kh8! 15.Nxf6 Ng8! 16.Nh5 Qd7 17.g4 Qe6 18.Qd4+
f6 =+) 15.Qc3! += Kg7?! 16.Nd4 Qc8 17.Qf3 Re8 18.Qxf6+ Kf8
19.Ng5 Re7 20.Nf5 Qd8 21.h4 Ke8 22.h5 Ne5 23.f4 Ng4 24.Ng7+
Kd7 25.Qf5+ Kc6 26.Qxg4 +- f6 27.N5e6 Qg8 28.Qf3+ Kb6 29.Qb3+
Ka6 30.Qc4+ Kb6 31.Rd5 a5 32.Rb5+ Ka6 33.a4 c6 34.Re5+ Kb6 35.
Qb3+ Ka6 36.Nc5+ dxc5 37.Qxg8 Rxg8 38.Rxe7 h6 39.g3 b5 40.Nf5
bxa4 41.Re6 Kb5 42.Rxf6 c4 43.c3 a3 44.bxa3 Ka4 45.Rxh6 Kxa3 46.
Rxc6 Kb3 47.h6 Kxc3 48.h7 Re8 49.Rxc4+ 1-0 Torre-Santasiere, New
York 1924
.
M4d2) 12.Qh4 =
White prevents immediate simplification by 12....Nd7 and threatens
an improved version of Torre's exchange sacrifice idea with 13.Rxe7!
While White has a lot of pressure after this move, Black should be
able to extricate himself with careful defense. Therefore White
probably does best to take the forced draw after 12.Qh4 Re8! 13.
Rxe7! = as analyzed in my notes to the game Jaeckle-Gross, Berlin
1998
12....Re8! (12....h6?! 13.Rd3 [13.Rxe7!? +=] 13....hxg5 [13....d5
14.Bxh6!] 14.Nxg5 Re8 15.Rh3 Nh5 16.Rxe7! g6 17.Rxe8+ Qxe8 18.
Re3?! [18.g4! ] 18....Qf8 19.Nd5 Qg7 20.Nxc7 += Browne-Taylor,
BCCC 1993
; 12....Qd7?! 13.Rxe7! Nxe7 14.Bxf6 Ng6! 15.
Ne5! +=) 13.Re3!? (13.Rxe7! =) 13....Nd7?! (13....Qd7! 14.Rde1
h6! =+) 14.Nd5 f6 15.Bf4 Nb6 (15...Nde5!?) 16.Qh5 Bf8? (16...
The Urusov Gambit - Line M - 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 9.O-O-O
The Urusov Gambit - Line M - 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 9.O-O-O
The Urusov Gambit - Line M - 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 9.O-O-O
The Urusov Gambit - Line M - 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 9.O-O-O
.
M4d3c2) 13.Qb3!? Nd7 (13....Rb8?! 14.
Rde1! Nd7 15.Bxe7 Rxe7 16.Rxe7 Nxe7 17.
Ng5 Qf8 18.Qc4 += and White wins back his
pawn at either c7 or h7 with a slight edge;
13...Ng4 14.Bxe7 Rxe7 15.Rxe7 Nxe7 16.
Ng5 Nh6 17.Qxb7 Rb8 18.Qxa7 +=) 14.
Bxe7 (14.h4!? Nc5 15.Qc4 a5 16.Rde1 h6
17.Bxe7 Rxe7 18.g4 Rxe3 19.Rxe3 Qd7 20.
g5 h5 21.g6 Qf5 22.gxf7+ Qxf7 23.Qxf7+
Kxf7 24.Nd5 Rc8 25.Ng5+ Kf8 26.Nf4 Ne5 27.
Nxh5 =) 14...Nxe7 15.Qxb7 Nc5 16.Qb5
Rb8 and White has recovered his pawn with
good chances. For example: 17.Qe2 Qd7 18.
Re1 Ne6 19.Ng5 Nf5 20.Qd3 Nxg5 21.Qxf5
Ne6 22.Nd5 c6 23.Nf6+!! gxf6 24.Rg3+ Kf8
25.Qxf6 d5 26.Qh6+ Ke7 27.Rxe6+ Qxe6 28.
Re3 .
M4d3d) 12....Qd7!
This is almost certainly the best move and the critical
test of 12.Re3. Black completes his development and
connects his Rooks, preparing to fight back against
White's pressure. The Queen move has the added
advantage of defeating some of White's typical plans in
this line, as the analysis shows. 13.Bxf6! (Exploiting the
fact that the Queen's move slightly weakens the f6
square) 13....Bxf6 14.Nd5 Qd8
(Probably best when the position is dynamically balanced
and difficult to assess. Not 14....Be5?? 15.Nxe5 Nxe5 16.
Rxe5 dxe5? 17.Nf6+ winning the Queen; 14....Rae8 or
14....Rfe8 are playable but allow 15.Nxf6+ gxf6
damaging the kingside formation when White has very
clear compensation for the pawn; 14....Bd8 15.Rde1 and
White has stronger pressure because Black's Rooks are
not connected; and 14....Qf5?! 15.g4! Qg6 16.h4! helps
White to attack. We now reach a critical position for the
evaluation of the M3c3 line. White clearly has a strong
lock on the position, but Black will wriggle out if he does
not pursue an attack.) 15.c3!? (Probably best. The quiet
pawn advance blunts the Bishop's attack on the long
diagonal, prevents back-rank mates, keeps the Black
Knight out of b4 and d4, supports a White Knight
advance to d4, and blocks attacks along the c-file if
White wins the c7 pawn.) 15....a4 (I like this attacking
idea best, though it loses some force after 15.c3. Not
15...Bg5?! 16.Nxg5 Qxg5 17.Qb5! Qh4 [17...Qxg2? 18.
Qxb7!+-; 17...Ne5?! 18.f4 c6 19.fxg5 cxb5 20.Nc7 Rad8
21.Nxb5 ] 18.Qxb7 [18.Nxc7?! Rac8 19.Qxb7 Qxf2 20.
Rf3 Qxg2 21.Qxc6 Rxc7 22.Qxc7 Qxf3 23.Qxd6 Qe3+ 24.
Qd2 Qe6 25.Kb1 f5] 18...Ne5 19.g3! Qh6 [19...Qxh2 20.
Ne7+ Kh8 21.Rh1 +-] 20.f4 Rab8 21.Qa6 Ng4 22.Re2
+=) 16.Qb5!? (A multipurpose move: attacking the
pawn at b7, taking advantage of the weakened b5
square, and preventing 16....Bg5 with exchanges) 16....
Ra7 (16....Rb8 17.g3! to support h4 += with great
control of dark squares) 17.g4! (White has a number of
choices here to try to build his pressure, including
repositioning moves like 17.Nd2-Ne4, 17.Re4, 17.Qd3-
The Urusov Gambit - Line M - 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 9.O-O-O
The Urusov Gambit - Line M - 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 9.O-O-O
to equal, though White's pawns are better.) 18. c3! Rb8?! (Last
chance for 18....Ne5 =) 19. g3! a5! (Black's last several moves have
not fit together as a plan, and one suspects that they are the
suggestions of a computer. Finally, though, Black hits upon the idea
of a queenside pawn storm, but he has already lost two critical tempi.
Meanwhile, White has established the dark-square bind and is ready
to push back the defensive Bishop at f6 and begin a winning kingside
assault. Though this plan should be implemented more quickly,
without first repositioning the Rook to e3, White has certainly used
his time more wisely than Black has!) 20. Qe2 b5 21. Nd2 (This
knight can also attack via Nf3-h2-g4) 21....Na7 22. f4 b4 23. Ne4
Be7 (The bishop has been forced to retreat and soon there are no
defenders to fight off White's pawn and piece assault.) 24. Qg4 Nc6
25. Nef6+ Kh8 26.Nd7! Ra8 27. Qf5 Kg8 28. h5 (The pieces are
in place, now here come the pawns!) 28....bxc3 29. bxc3 Rc8?
(This makes things easier, but White's attack is already strong.) 30.
g4 Bh4 31.g5! Bxg5 32.fxg5 Qxg5 33.N7f6+ gxf6 34.Qxc8+
Kh7 35.c4! Nb4 36.Qe8 Kg7 37.Kb2 Nxd5 38.cxd5 Qh4 39.Qe4
Qxh5 40.Re2 1-0 Burkett--Spiridonov, IECG WC-2003-F 2004. A
great victory by Max Burkett, rich in ideas and possibilities! The
Urusov's teeth have been sharpened!
Conclusion:
It was once thought that this main line of the Urusov was a draw after 4....Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.
Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 9.O-O-O Be6. But critical re-evaluations at moves 10 and 12 for
White have led to a new view: White clearly has more than enough compensation for the
sacrificed pawn and has good chances for an advantage. The previous "book" move 10.Bd3?!
is now refuted by 10...Ng4! (among others). Meanwhile, 10.Bxe6 has been shown to lead to
an equal and likely drawish position. But it has now been demonstrated that 10.Rhe1! is the
best move. After 10.Rhe1! Bxc4 11.Qxc4 0-0, White has several options for continuing the
attack, but Max Burkett's 12.h4! appears to be the new standard, as proven in a recent
correspondence game. I will soon provide more extensive analysis of this game, complete
with PGN file, to demonstrate how it keeps White on top. I think it is now certain that this line
of the Urusov is no longer the most critical, and Black will have to look elsewhere for equality.
Line N>>>
The Urusov Gambit - Line N - 4....Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 c6 8.O-O-O d5 9.Qh4
BISHOP'S OPENING | DIMOCK TOURNAMENT | URUSOV GAMBIT | TWO KNIGHTS DEFENSE | LINKS
s
N) 4....Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7
7.Bg5 c6 8.O-O-O d5 9.Qh4
N1) 9....O-O
N2) 9....Nbd7
N3) 9....Qa5
N4) 9....Be6!
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
The Rook move generally transposes to the main lines, however, and most of the games
given here actually had the more traditional move order. One well known game went rather
differently: 9.Rhe1 Be6 10.Bd3 Qa5 11.Kb1 (11.Bf5!) 11....Nbd7 12.Ne5 c5? 13.Qh4 Ne5 14.
Re5 O-O-O 15.Bd2 Qc7?! (15....Qb6] 16.Nb5! Qe5 17.Bf4 Qh5 18.Na7+ Kd7 19.Bb5#
Fahndrich--Steinitz, Vienna 1897. Also of interest is the game Monkman-Chessmaster4000,
London 1995, which went 9.Rhe1 Be6 10.Bd3 c5?! 11.Qa4+! Nc6 12.Bc4! dxc4?! 13.Rxd8+
+=.
While this is the most contested line of the Urusov Gambit, it is also the one where White
has achieved the best results. Black's central build up (with 7....c6 and 8....d5) appears too
slow, and his seemingly stable center often crumbles beneath the force of White's initiative.
Black does best to delay castling and the main line follows N4 with 9....Be6 10.Rhe1 Nbd7,
when White can choose between the tricky 11.Nd4!? and the standard 11.Bd3. The Knight
The Urusov Gambit - Line N - 4....Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 c6 8.O-O-O d5 9.Qh4
move seems most forceful, but the Bishop move has been most analyzed. Marco Bulgarini's
recent innovation in the N4a3b line may put 11.Nd4!? Nc5 12.f4?! into question, so White
should transpose to N4b7 with 12.Bd3!. An interesting alternative plan for White was tried
successfully in the game Voigt--Mephisto, suggesting that there is still room for innovations
in these lines. As always, you are urged to trust your own analysis.
N1) 9....O-O
N1a) 10.Bd3
N1a1) 10....Nbd7? 11.Bxh7+ Nxh7 12.Bxe7 Qc7 13.Bxf8 Ndxf8 14.
Rhe1 +- Heikenheimo--Kongshavn, Dubrovnik 1950
N1a2) 10....g6 11.Rhe1 Be6 12.Nd4 Nbd7 13.Rxe6 fxe6 14.Nxe6
Qe8 15.Nxf8 Qxf8 16.Re1 Re8 17.f4 +- Shamkovich
N1a3) 10....h6 11.Bxh6 (11.Rhe1!?) 11....Ne4 12.Qf4 Bd6 13.
Qe3 Bc5 14.Qf4 (14.Nd4 Bxd4 15.Qxd4 gxh6 16.Bxe4 Qg5+ 17.f4
Qxf4+ 18.Kb1 dxe4 19.Nxe4 Nd7 20.Rhf1 20.Rhf1 Qxh2 21.Rd3 c5
22.Qf2 Qe5 23.Qh4 Re8 24.Rg3+ Kf8 25.Rgf3 Re7 26.Qxh6+ Qg7
27.Qh5 Ne5 28.Rg3 Bg4 29.Qh4 Nc4 0-1 Monk--Wharrier,
Correspondence 1995) 14....Bd6 15.Qe3 Nxc3 (15....Bc5) 16.
bxc3 Re8 17.Qg5 Qxg5+ 18.Bxg5 Bg4 19.h4 Nd7 20.h5 f6 21.Be3
Bc5 22.Bxc5 Nxc5 23.h6 Nxd3+ 24.Rxd3 gxh6 25.Rxh6 Kg7 26.Rh4
Bf5 27.Rd1 Re2 28.Rd2 Re4 = Fedorov--Barbitsky, St. Petersburg
1999.
N1b) 10.Rhe1
N1b1) 10....h6? 11.Bxd5! Nbd7 (11....hxg5 12.Nxg5 +-; 11....
cxd5 12.Rxe7! +-) 12.Bc4 b5 13.Bd3 hxg5 14.Nxg5 Re8 15.Bh7
+ Kf8 16.Bf5 Kg8 17.Nxf7 Kxf7 18.Be6+ Kg6 19.f4 Nh5! 20.
Qg4+ Kh6 20.Qg4+ Kh6 21.Bf7?! (21.Bf5!) 21....Nxf4 22.Re6+
Kh7 23.Ne4 Ne5 24.Qxf4 Bxe6 25.Rxd8 Nxf7 26.Rxa8 Rxa8 27.Qc7
Re8 28.Qxc6 Nd6 29.Nxd6 Bg5+ 30.Kb1 Bd7 31.Qc3 Re3 32.Qd2
Re5 33.Qd3+ Bf5 34.Qg3 Rd5 35.Qf3 Be6 36.Nxb5 Re5 37.Qg3 Bf4
38.Qf2 Bg5 39.Nd4 Be3 40.Qh4+ Kg6 41.Nxe6 Rxe6 42.a4 Kf5 43.
Qh5+ g5 44.h4 Re4 45.Qf7+ Ke5 46.h5 Rh4 47.Qg7+ Kf5 48.h6
Bd4 49.g4+ 1-0 Schlechter--Neustadtl and Tietz, Carlsbad 1901.
N1b2) 10....Nbd7 11.Bd3 g6 (11....h6 12.Bxh6 gxh6 13.Qxh6
Bd6 14.Re3 Qc7 15.Qg5+ Kh8 16.Ne5! Nxe5 17.Qxf6+ Kg8 18.Rg3
+ Ng6 19.Bxg6 1-0 Wober--Druckenthaner, Austria 1988) 12.Re2
(12.Nd4!? Re8 13.Nf5 Bf8 14.Nh6+ Kg7 15.Bf5 Be7 16.f4 b5 17.Re3
b4 18.Ne2 Bc5 19.Rxe8 Qxe8 20.Ng3 Ng8 21.Nh5+ gxh5 22.Re1 Be3
+ 23.Kb1 Nf8 24.Bxc8 Qxc8 25.Rxe3 Ng6 26.Qxh5 Qa6 27.Nf5+
Kh8 28.b3 1-0 Oberhofer--Wokurka, Correspondence 1995) 12....
Re8 13.Rde1 Ne4 14.Nxe4 dxe4 15.Rxe4 f6 (15....Bxg5+ 16.
Nxg5 +-) 16.Bc4+ Kg7 17.Qxh7+ Kxh7 18.Rh4+ Kg7 19.Bh6+
Kh7 20.Bf8# Larry Evans
N1b3) 10....Bf5
N1b3a) 11.Nd4?! Bg6 12.Bd3
N1b3a1) 12....Qd7?! 13.f4! (13.Bxg6?!
fxg6! [13....hxg6? 14.Rd3-Rh3 ] 14.Ne6
The Urusov Gambit - Line N - 4....Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 c6 8.O-O-O d5 9.Qh4
The Urusov Gambit - Line N - 4....Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 c6 8.O-O-O d5 9.Qh4
The Urusov Gambit - Line N - 4....Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 c6 8.O-O-O d5 9.Qh4
The Urusov Gambit - Line N - 4....Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 c6 8.O-O-O d5 9.Qh4
N2a) 10....dxc4? 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Ne4! (12.Nd4!? Qa5 13.Ndb5! Kd8 14.Qc4
cxb5 15.Qf7 Re8 16.Nxd5 +- Shamkovich) 12....O-O 13.Ng3 Kh8 14.Nf5 Bc5
15.Qh5 c3 (15....Re8 16.Nh6! Lane) 16.Re4 Qb6 17.b3 Rg8 18.Qxf7 Qa5 19.
Rxd7! Ba3+ 20.Kb1 Qxf5 21.Re8 1-0 Avrukh--Skripchenko, Linares 2001
N2b) 10....Kf8?! 11.Bxd5! cxd5 (11....Nxd5 12.Nxd5 Bxg5+ 13.Nxg5+- van
der Tak) 12.Rxe7! Qxe7 (12....Kxe7 13.Qb4+ +-) 13.Nxd5 Qe4 14.Bf4! h6?
(14....Qe6!? 15.Kb1! [15.Nc7 Qxa2 16.Bd6+ Kg8 17.Nxa8 Qa1+ 18.Kd2 Qxb2
unclear] 15....Qc6 [15....Qg4 16.Bd6+ Kg8 17.Ne7+ Kf8 18.Re1! Qxh4 19.Nxc8
+ Kg8 20.Ne7+ Kf8 21.Nxh4 +-] 16.Be5! a5 [16....Nxe5? 17.Qb4+ +-] 17.Bxf6
Nxf6 18.Nxf6 +- Shamkovich) 15.Bd6+ Kg8 16.Ne7+ Kf8 (16....Kh7 17.
Ng5#) 17.Nxc8+ Ke8 18.Re1 Qxe1+ 19.Nxe1 Rxc8 20.Qd4 Kd8 21.Nd3
Re8 22.Be5 (22.Qxa7! van der Tak) 22....Re6 23.f4 a5 24.c3 Ke8 25.Qa4
(25.f5! van der Tak) 25....b6 26.Qd4 Kf8 27.g4 Rce8 28.Kc2 Kg8 29.a4
R8e7 30.h3 Ne8 31.Qd5 Nxe5 32.fxe5 Nc7 33.Qc4 Rd7 34.Qe4 Nd5 35.c4
Ne7 36.Qa8+ Kh7 37.Qe8 Rc7 38.Qxf7 Rxc4+ 39.Kb1 Rcc6 40.h4 Ng6 41.
h5 Nxe5 42.Qf5+ g6 43.hxg6+ Nxg6 44.Nf4 Re1+ 45.Ka2 Kg7 46.Nh5+
Kg8 47.Qd7 Re7 48.Qxc6 +- Kreiman--Shirazi, New York 1992.
N2c) 10....Nb6 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Bd3 Be6 13.Nd4 Qd7 14.Bf5 Bxf5 15.
Qxf6 += Shamkovich.
N3) 9....Qa5 10.Rhe1 Be6 (10....dxc4? 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Qxf6 +-) 11.Nd4!? (11.Bd3 Nbd7
12.Nd4 O-O-O 13.Nxe6 fxe6 14.Rxe6 Bb4 15.Ne2 Rde8 16.Rxe8+ Rxe8 17.Kb1 h6 18.Be3
+= Miraglia-Perrotta, IECG 1997) 11....Nbd7 (11....dxc4 12.Nxe6 fxe6 13.Rxe6 and now
13....Rf8 14.Rde1 Rf7 14.Qh5+!! g6 15.Rxe7+ Kxe7 16.Bxf6+ Kxf6 17.Qxa5 +- or 13....Kf7
14.Rde1 Bd8 15.Qxc4! Qxg5+ [15....Kg6 16.R1e5 +-] 16.f4 Qg4 17.h3! Qf5 [if the Queen
surrenders control of e6, there follows 18.Rxf6++! Kxf6 19.Qe6#] 18.Re7+ Kg6 19.Qf7+
Kh6 20.Qxg7+ Kh5 21.g4+ +-) 12.Nxe6 fxe6 13.Rxe6 Kf7 14.Rde1?! (14.Nxd5!! +-)
14....Rae8?! (14....Bb4! +=) 15.Be2! Bd8 (15....Ke6 16.Bh5+ Kd6 17.Qg3+ Reinfeld) 16.
Bg4 Nxg4? (16....d4! +=) 17.Qxg4 Bxg5+ (17....Nf6 18.Bxf6 Bxf6 19.Rxf6+ Kxf6 20.Qf4
+ Kg6 21.Qd6+ Kh5 22.g4+ +- Reinfeld) 18.Qxg5 Nf6 (18....Rxe6 19.Qf5+ Rf6 20.Qd7+
Kg6 21.Re3 +- Reinfeld) 19.Rxf6+! 1-0 Heinkinheimo--Crepaux, Dubrovnik 1950
(19....gxf6 20.Qh5+).
N4) 9....Be6 10.Rhe1 (The move 10.Nd4!? should eventually transpose to the main line
below, because White cannot leave out Rhe1 indefinitely without allowing Black the Nfe4!
shot. For example, 10.Nd4 Nbd7 11.Bd3 Nc5 12.Bf5?! Nfe4! 13.Nxe4 Nxe4 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.
Qxe7+ [15.Qf4 Qg5!] 15....Kxe7 16.Nxe6 fxe6 [or 16....Nxf2!] 17.Bxe4 dxe4 18.Rhe1 Rhf8
19.Rd2 Rad8 =+) 10....Nbd7 (10....O-O transposes to N1 above)
N4a) 11.Nd4!??
This move may be put into question by N4a3b2 below. White should use it only
as a tricky way of transposing to the N4b line after 11.Nd4 Nc5 12.Bd3!
N4a1) 11....dxc4? 12.Nxe6! (12.Rxe6? fxe6 13.Nxe6 Qa5 14.Nxg7
+ Kf7 15.Rxd7! Nxd7 16.Qh5+ Kg8! -+) 12....fxe6 13.Bxf6 Bxf6
(13....gxf6 14.Rxe6 Rg8 15.Qxh7 Rxg2 16.f4 b5 17.Rde1 Ne5 18.
Ne4 c3 19.bxc3 c5 20.fxe5 f5 21.Qxf5 Kd7 22.Nxc5+ Bxc5 23.Rd1+
Kc7 24.Qh7+ Qe7 25.Rxe7+ Bxe7 26.Qxe7+ Kb6 27.Rd6+ Ka5 28.
Qc7+ Ka4 29.Ra6+ 1-0 Dufek--COMP Rebel 8, Usti 1997) 14.Rxe6
+ Kf8 15.Qf4 Rc8 (15....Qb8 16.Qf5 Nb6 17.Rdd6 Qc7 18.Rxf6+
gxf6 19.Rxf6+ Ke8 20.Re6+ Qe7 21.Rxe7+ Kxe7 22.Qe5+ Kf7 23.
Qc7+ Kf8 24.Qxb7 Rg8 25.g3 Rg7 26.Qxc6 1-0 COMP MChess 4.0-COMP Genius 2.0, Euro-Chess K 1995) 16.Ne4 Qc7 17.Qf5 Kg8
18.Re7 Bxe7 19.Rxd7 h6 20.g3 c3 21.Qe6+ Kh7 22.Qxe7 cxb2
+ 23.Kxb2 Qxd7 24.Qxd7 Rhf8 25.f4 Rcd8 26.Qe7 Rb8 1-0
COMP Chess Pro 3.5--COMP Chessmaster 4000, Faas 1994.
The Urusov Gambit - Line N - 4....Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 c6 8.O-O-O d5 9.Qh4
The Urusov Gambit - Line N - 4....Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 c6 8.O-O-O d5 9.Qh4
The Urusov Gambit - Line N - 4....Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 c6 8.O-O-O d5 9.Qh4
49.Rd3+ Ke7 50.Rc3 Rc3 51.Kc3 Bd5 52.Kd4 Bg2 53.Kc5 Bf1 54.Na5 1-0
Timoshenko--Karpov, USSR 1967.
N4b5) 11....Nf8 12.Nd4 Ng8 13.Bxe7 Nxe7 14.f4 g6 15.Qf6 Rg8 16.g4
Qd6 17.f5 gxf5 18.Bxf5 Qf4+ 19.Kb1 Qg5 20.Qe5 O-O-O? 21.Ndb5! 1-0
Blosze--Carstens, Correspondence 1984.
N4b6) 11....Ng8 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.Qg3 g6 (13....Kf8 14.Nd4 g6 15.f4 Nh6
16.f5 Nxf5 17.Bxf5 gxf5 18.Nxf5 += Cibulka--Fichtl, Pardubice 1965) 14.Nd4
Ngf6 (14....O-O-O? 15.Ncb5! Ndf6 16.Na7+ Kd7 17.Nab5 +-) 15.f4 Nh5 16.
Qe3 Qf6 17.f5 gxf5 18.Bxf5 Ng7 19.g4! 1-0 Firv--Kolojanu, Correspondence
1965.
N4b7) 11....Nc5 12.Nd4
(12.Bf5?!! Bxf5 13.Bxf6 Ne6 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Nxd5!?? cxd5 16.Qa4+ Kf8 17.
Rxd5 Bg6 18.Rd7 Qc5 19.Ne5 Rc8? [19....Qxf2!] 20.Rxf7+! Kg8 [20....Bxf7 21.
Nd7+ Ke7 22.Nxc5 Rxc5 23.Qxa7 Rhc8 24.Qxb7+ R8c7 25.Qb4 +=] 21.Nxg6
hxg6 [21....Kxf7? 22.Qd7+] 22.Rf3 Rxh2 23.Rc3 Qg5+ 24.f4! Qd8 25.Qb3 Rxc3
26.Qxe6+ Kf8 27.bxc3 Rxg2 28.Rd1 Qc7 29.Rd7 [29.f5! Estrin] 29....Qxf4+ 30.
Kb2 Qf6 31.Qc4 Qb6+ 32.Qb4+ Qxb4+ 33.cxb4 b5 34.Rxa7 g5 35.a4! bxa4 36.
b5 Rg4 37.c3 Rg2+ 38.Ka3 Rg1 39.Ka2 Rg2+ 40.Ka3 Rg1 41.b6 1-0 Estrin-Khachaurov, Moscow 1943; 12.Kb1!? Nfd7 13.Qg3 Bf6 14.h4 h6 15.Be3 Qa5 16.
Bd4 O-O-O 17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.Qf4 Nxd3 19.Rxd3 Rdg8 20.g3 Rg4 21.Qd6 Nc5 22.
Rd4 Ne4 23.Qe7 Rgg8 24.Rb4 Qa6 25.Nxe4 dxe4 26.Nd4 Re8 27.Qc5 Bxa2+ =+
Zavanelli-Cordeiro, North Atlantic Correspondence 1985)
N4b7a) 12....h6 13.Bf5
(not 13.Nf5?! Kd7! or 13....Nxd3+ 14.Rxd3 Bxf5 15.Bxf6 Be6 16.
Rxe6!? fxe6 17.Qh5+ Kd7 =+; but playable is 13.f4!? Nxd3+ 14.
Rxd3 O-O 15.Nxe6 fxe6 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.Qg4 e5 18.fxe5 Bh4 19.Qe6
+ Kh8 20.g3 = Lautenbach--Steinman, Correspondence 1994, which
may deserve more attention given Harding's suggestion below of
meeting 13.Bf5 with 13....Rg8! unclear)
N4b7a1) 13....O-O 14.Bxh6 Nfe4 15.Qg4 Bg5+ 16.
Bxg5 Qxg5+ 17.Qxg5 Nxg5 18.h4 Bxf5 19.Nxf5
Nge6 20.b4 Nd7 21.h5 Nf6 22.h6 g6 23.Nd4 Nxd4
24.Rxd4 Rfe8 25.Rxe8+ Rxe8 26.g4 += Hartnak-Brewer, 1993.
N4b7a2) 13....Nh7 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Qxe7+ Kxe7
16.b4 Na6 17.Bxe6 fxe6 18.Nxe6 Kd7 19.b5 Nc7
20.Nc5+ Kc8 21.Re7 g6 22.bxc6 bxc6 23.N3e4
Ne8 24.c4 dxe4 25.Ne6 Ng7 26.Rc7+ Kb8 27.Rxg7
Ng5 28.Nd8 Kc8 29.h4 Rh7 30.Rg8 Kc7 31.hxg5 +Zedtler--Wilhelmi, 1999.
N4b7a3) 13....Qd7 14.b4? (14.Nxe6! Nxe6 [14...fxe6
15.Na4! Nxa4 16.Bxe6 Qd6 17.Bxf6 Bxf6 18.Qxa4 Kd8
19.c4! d4 20.g3 +=] 15.Qh3 Qc7 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.Bxe6
fxe6 18.Qxe6+ Kf8 19.Kb1 +=) 14....O-O-O 15.
Nxe6?! fxe6 16.bxc5 exf5 17.Bxf6 Bxf6 18.Qb4
Bxc3 19.Qxc3 Rhe8 20.Qa5 Kb8 21.Qc3 Re4 22.f3
Re7 23.Re5 Rde8 24.f4 g5 25.g3 Rxe5 26.fxe5 f4
27.gxf4 gxf4 28.Qd4 Qf5 29.Re1 f3 30.Qe3 Re6 31.
Kd2 Kc7 32.Rf1 Rxe5 33.Qxf3 Qg5+ 34.Kd3 0-1
Granat--Brustman, 1980.
The Urusov Gambit - Line N - 4....Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 c6 8.O-O-O d5 9.Qh4
The Urusov Gambit - Line N - 4....Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 c6 8.O-O-O d5 9.Qh4
The Urusov Gambit - Line N - 4....Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 c6 8.O-O-O d5 9.Qh4
The Urusov Gambit - Line N - 4....Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 c6 8.O-O-O d5 9.Qh4
The Urusov Gambit - Line N - 4....Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 c6 8.O-O-O d5 9.Qh4
Acknowledgments>>>
BISHOP'S OPENING | DIMOCK TOURNAMENT | URUSOV GAMBIT | TWO KNIGHTS DEFENSE | LINKS
s
Acknowledgments
Index of Lines
Introduction
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
Putting together a list of acknowledgments and sources for analysis I've been developing
for over 20 years is a difficult undertaking. The following list will necessarily be incomplete.
Besides the sources listed here, I owe debts of gratitude to various people who personally
helped me develop the content for this site. The late Edgar T. McCormick lent his library and
reviewed my analysis -- in the process playing countless games with me. The members of
the Westfield Chess Club in New Jersey gave me great support as I developed as a player
and provided many chances to try out the Urusov in club tournaments. Special thanks to
Glenn Petersen who offered me space in The Castled King (precursor to the Atlantic Chess
News) to publish an early version of this analysis in 1984-1985, and to Bill Freeman who
edited my work. I put that article aside for many years, until I put up my first rather
primitive web page to share it. That page sat idle for about a year until Max Burkett
corresponded with me about it and pointed me toward many of the great game archives on
the web that would help to improve what I'd begun. It took me almost a year more to get
around to making those improvements, but Max instigated that work and I thank him for
that -- and for his many wonderful game files at the Pitt Archive that have supported my
efforts.
Bibliography
Bishop's Opening PGN File
<ftp://136.142.185.47/group/student-activities/chess/PGN/Openings/bishoppg.
zip>
Burkett, Max. Various materials on the Urusov Gambit and on Prince Urusov.
1997. <ftp://136.142.185.47/group/student-activities/chess/PGN/Openings/
urusovpg.zip>. Accessed April 28, 2001.
Collins, Jack. Postal Games. Chess Review. July 1949. 224.
Estrin, Yakov and Igor Glazkov. Double King Pawn Openings. 1982.
Estrin, Yakov. Gambits. Chess Enterprises 1982.
Forintos, Gyozo and Ervin Haag. The Petroff Defense. New York: Macmillan 1991.
Galberg-Lund, Soren. Urusovuv Gambit. Brno: Self published 1995. Available
from Chess Digest. An English translation of Galber-Lund's work was available as
The Urusoff Gambit at http://ftp.ru.xemacs.org/pub/games/freechess/texts/
urusoff.txt -- still available through the archives. It is also archived under:
http://ftp.belnet.be/pub/mirror/ftp.freechess.org/pub/chess/texts/urusoff.txt
Goeller, Michael. "The Bishop's Opening: Swashbuckling Returns." Two part
article. The Castled King: The Official Publication of the New Jersey State Chess
Federation. 9.6-10.1 (November-December 1984 and January-February 1985):
8-12 and 12-17.
Harding, Tim. Bishop's Opening. The Chess Player 1973.
__________. "The Eternal Appeal of the Urusov Gambit." The Kibitzer #28 at
ChessCafe. 1998.
__________. "Interesting Byways in the Classic Open Games." The Kibitzer #46
at ChessCafe. 2000.
__________. "Is the Urusov Gambit Sound?" The Kibitzer #29 at ChessCafe.
1998.
__________. "Once more unto the Urusov, dear friends, once more..." The
Kibitzer #53 at ChessCafe. April 2003.
__________. Philidor's Defense: A Re-appraisal. Chess Digest 1984.
__________. "Some Opening Topics Revisited." The Kibitzer #33 at ChessCafe.
1999.
__________. "What Exactly Is the Bishop's Opening?" The Kibitzer #27 at
ChessCafe. 1998.
Hooper, David. A Complete Defense to 1.e4. 1966.
Keres, Paul. "Lauferspiel." Dreispringerspiel bis Konigsgambit. Berlin: