Two other Hubsch gambit games

After my review of Eric Jego's book, I am adding just two other Hubsch gambit games against titled players.

Guido De Bouver - FM Clement Houriez, 2011

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 Nxe4 4.Nxe4 dxe4 5.Bxc4 Nc6 6.c3 e5 7.d5 Ne7
My young opponent had just received his first IM norm a week ago, so I guess this Hubsch gambit was just a distraction on his way to the top. Anyway, he played the moves instantly. After the game, he told me this was his prepared answer to avoid the difficulties of the Blackmar Diemer. He surely was playing at lightning speed in this rated over-the-board game.

8.f3 exf3 9.Nxf3 f6 (diagam)
Here my opponent started to think for more than 20 minutes and decided to simply defend his extra pawn. Guess the alternative was 9...c6. So what do I have here ? Black's position is super solid and is simply a pawn up.

10.00 Nf5
Superstrong ! Guess only masters see this move. It took him another 15 minutes of thinking. But now the remainder of the game is "a matter of technique"...

11.Qc2 Bc5+ 12.Kh1 00 13.b4 Be3 14.d6+ (diagram)
Luckily I still had this one - otherwise I could have resigned by now ( not that it didnt matter a lot... )

14...Kh8 15.Bb3
Bad - 15.Bd3 would have allowed me to struggle on.

15...Bxc1 16.dxc7 Qxc7 17.Qxc1 Rd8 18.c4 Be6 19.Qb2 Ne3
0-1.
And here I decided not to waste my opponent's time anymore. Guess he had proven his point...






The third Hubsch gambit game I played against a titled player gave me some hope of winning. I already covered this one in an earlier post. I am adding it without any comment.


Guido De Bouver - FM Peter De Jonghe, 2012.


1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 Nxe4 4.Nxe4 dxe4 5.Bc4 e6 6.Nh3 Be7 7.Qe2 Qxd4 8.Be3 Qe5 9.000 Nc6 10.Bf4 Qf5 11.g4 (diagram)

11...Qg6 12.Bb5 e5 13.Bxe5 Bxg4 14.Qd2 Rd8
0-1

These games show why I dont fancy the Hubsch anymore - as opposed to the Blackmar Diemer, it is quite difficult to create an attack against the black king. Instead, it is white that is fighting to find good moves. One thing is sure - the Bubsch leads to short games ( at least when I am playing them... ).

An interesting Hubsch gambit game

I am back from a short holiday and, as a follow up of my last post, am posting a Hubsch gambit game I played against an IM. I am adding some additional analysis.

Guido De Bouver - IM Steven Geirnaert
Kappelle-Op-den-Bos, 2012.

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 Nxe4 4.Nxe4 dxe4 5.Bc4 Nc6 6.c3 e5 7.d5 Nb8 8.f3
My last move was not so strong - f3 is thematic but black does not have to take.

8...Bf5 (diagram)

9.h4
Threatening to gain back the pawn

9...Be7
Blocking g4

10.Be3 Bxh4 and I duly resigned here ( after 10 moves... )
0-1

So it is clear that the combined 8.f3 and 9.h4 is bad. But what to play after 8...Bf5 ? Seems there is nothing, so the error lies with 8.f3.

Maybe 8.Ne2 is better - but it seems to me black is simply a pawn up after Bd6 ?

Sure there is room for improvement, but it seems this line puts the heat on white.

Gambit Hubsch - Antidote ou Leurre ?

This week, I received Eric Jego's book "Gambit Hubsch - Antidote ou Leurre ?".

Eric's book is in French - "leurre" can be translate in English as "bait", or "decoy". And that word illustrates the concept of the book very well. Eric tries to explain the applicable ideas in the various Hubsch lines. I like his work, especially for following reasons :

1. As always with Eric's books, the layout is great and facilitates the reading. It is obvious Eric has spent lots of time on it. Just look at the art work on the front page and you will know what I talking about !

2. Eric focuses on games between titled players. I focus more on (computer) opening analysis, but it is great to see how strong players react on white's enterprising play. Guess this gives confidence to the reader that strong player make errors too. In my books and blog, I am looking into it differently, but Eric's work is equally valuable.

3. I like the comments section at the end of each variation. It summarises the ideas quite well ( an area I have not focused on in my book on the Blackmar Diemer ).

4. In comparison with his previous book, Eric has focused less on the application of the "elementary principles". Eric does a remarkable job of applying them in the right dosing throughout the text.

5. "Gambit Hubsch - Antidote ou Leurre ?" does not focus on single variations but provides a wide look into all variations. This broadens the scope of the book, and reader.


Some (minor) concerns I have :

1. The physical size and used font seem to small as I had problems reading it in bed. Now reading chess books in bed might not be recommended, but it happens. So I would recommend increasing the book and associated font size a bit - which will make life easier.

2. Whilst Eric does a remarkable job in describing possible variations, the lines he analyses are not analysed very deeply. As an example, I have played the Hubsch twice against IM masters, both played exactly the same line 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 Nxe4 4.Nxe4 dxe4 5.Bc4 Nc6 6.c3 e5 7.d5 (diagram). Now one IM played 7...Ne7, the second played 7...Nb8. I never saw the pawn back and was simply crushed. It can be coincidence that they played the same line, but from the smalltalk after the game, it seems they both knew about the Hubsch and this was their prepared reply. So thorough analysis and opening analysis seems necessary  when playing sharp lines. Eric's book seems not targeted towards this deep analysis.

So I really recommend this book to anyone studying the Blackmar Diemer - reading this book will keep you posted on that annoying Hubsch gambit. But is it now a refutation, or is it a trap ? It's up to you to find out !

The difficult Hubsch gambit

Most Blackmar Diemer gambiteers hate it when the defender chooses the Hubsch. And so do I ( I had to face the Hubsch 8 times in my over-the-board career and only got a 37.5% result - I always played 5.Bc4... ). I got a Hubsch defense yesterday against a FIDE master and misplayed it completely, far overvalueing development.

De Bouver Guido - FM Peter De Jonghe, 15-JAN-2012.

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 Nxe4 4.Nxe4 dxe4 5.Bc4 e6 6.Nh3 Be7 7.Qe2

7...Qxd4
Winning a second pawn

8.Be3 ?!

Now black could have settled matters already by taking a third pawn 8...Qxb2 9.00 and white has less than nothing for his three pawns. But my opponent was kind to me and allowed me to castle.

8...Qe5 9.000 Nc6 10.Bf4 Qf5

Now I screw up completely with 11.g4, after which the remainder of the game was only a formality for my opponent, but 11.Bxc7 would have given me some decent chances.

So where did I go wrong ? Obvioulsy 11.g4. Also 8.Be3. Maybe 6.Nh3 is not optimal and 6.c3 is better. But 6.Bc4 is also not that strong and 6.Be3 or 6.Bf4 are to be recommended. Maybe even 3.f3, but this seems to allow 3...c5 ?

Too many worries, too few answers...

Wild, wilder, wildest

I was twice crashed lately in the Hubsch gambit by master opponents after the 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 opening. My strong opponents indicated they would never play 3...dxe4 ( because of the upcoming Blackmar Diemer complications ), and both played the strong 3...Nxe4 4.Nxe4 dxe4 5.Bc4 Nc6 6.c3 e5 7.d5.

The first opponent ( rated 2340 ) tried 7...Ne7, the other player ( rated 2310 ) tried 7...Nb8, both crushing me. After the game, both confirmed to me that this was their prepared response to the Blackmar Diemer tries.
So I said to myself, "Never again !" and decided to focus on 1.d4 Nf6 2.f3 instead - at least I wont be crushed anymore by the Hubsch.

Today I will focus on the line 1.d4 Nf6 2.f3 c5 3.d5 e6 4.e4 exd5 5.e5

Black has three important options : 5...Qe7, 5...Ng8 and 5...Nh5

a/ 5...Qe7 6.Qe2 Ng8 7.Nc3 with slight advantage for white

b/ 5...Ng8 6.Qxd5 with an equal game

c/ 5...Nh5 6.Qe2 ( see diagram ) White threatens to play g4, winning the knight.

This blog looks at black's strongest reply 6...Nc6 7.g4. Other black options will be considered later.

c1/ 7...Nd4 8.Qg2 with very complicated play, eg
c11/ 8...d6 9.Nc3 dxe5 10.gxh5 with roughly equal play
c12/ 8...Qh4+ 9.Kd1 d6 10.Nc3 =
c13/ 8...Qa5+ 9.Nc3 =
c14/ 8...Qe7 9.Kd1 =
c15/ 8...Be7 9.gxh5 +=


c2/ 7...d6 8.exd6+ Be6 9.d7+ Qxd7 10.gxh, again with complicated play
c21/ 10...Be7 11.Bf4 =
c22/ 10...000 11.Bf4 +=
c23/ 10...Bd6 11.Na3 =
c24/ 10...Nd4 11.Qf2 +=



c3/ 7...Be7 8.gxh5 +=

For once, white is not on the gambiting sides...