Oh horror, black develops faster in this Vienna sideline

We all know that the Vienna defense is annoying as black refuses the free f3. The result is a difficult choice for white, as he has the choice between the berserker attack with g4, sometimes followed up by the even more-than-hara-kiri h4. The other choice is the quiet fxe4, but also here, white is not without problems.

1.d4 Nf6 2.f3 d5 3.e4 dxe4 4.Nc3 Bf5 5.fxe4 Nxe4 6.Qf3 Nxc3
The other option is 6...Nd6, protecting both the b6 pawn and f5 bishop.

7.bxc3 e6 (diagram)

In my book, I had given 8.Qxb7 Nd7 9.Nf3 as equality, but I am not so sure anymore now. Let's have a closer look.

8.Qxb7 Nd7

The alternative line 8...Qh4+ offers no winning chances for black, eg 8...Qh4+ 9.Kd1 Be4 and white has the luxury of choice between 10.Qc8+, 10.Qxc7 and 10.Bb5+. So back to our main line after 8...Nd7 9.Nf3 (diagram)

It is now black who has the luxury of choice. Let's consider today black's most challenging continuation 9...Rb8. The white majesty can go to c6 or capture on a7 - my silicon assistant prefers the capture after a long thought.

9...Rb8 10.Qxa7 (diagram)

The problem is that black now has 10...Bxc2 and white has no more development moves. Ideally, the white bishop wants to be developed to d3, but this is one of the few lines where this is not possible. Also, 11.Bg5 is not so good as black simply replies 11...Be7 and it is black who can castle first.

So, are we facing a simple, yet effective antidote against our beloved gambit ? It surely seems so.

New stuff on the Vienna defense by Lev Zilbermints

After my earlier blog on the Vienna defense, fellow gambiteer Lev Zilbermints kindly sent me some additional info on the 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 Bf5 5.g4 Bg6 6.h4 h6 line.

I had dismissed this line as unsound, but Lev suggests the straightforward 7.Nh3 (diagram) with some backup lines and games.

I have appended his comments below without modification.

Harding (1979:90) gives 7 Nh3! ef3 8 Qxf3 Nc6? 9 Bb5 Weissleder-Svensson, as cited in the German magazine Fernschach 1971. Bill Wall (1999:76) supplies the rest of the game score, stating that it was a 1966 correspondence game. The game concluded 9…e6? 10 Bxc6+ bxc6    11 Qxc6+ Nd7 12 Nf4 Bxc2 13 Nb5 Ba4 [13…Rc8 – Wall] 14 Nxc7+ Ke7 15 Ng6+ Kf6 16 h5 Bb4+ 17 Ke2 Bb5+ 18 Qxb5 1-0,  Game 50a.

Game 50b:  Zilbermints – “Reboare”, Internet Chess Club 5-minute blitz, 9/8/2012:  7 Nh3! exf3 8 Qxf3 Nc6 9 Bb5 e6 10 Nf4 Bxc2 11 Bxc6+ bxc6 12 Qxc6+ Nd7 13 Nb5 Bb4+ 14 Kf2 00 15 Qxc2 c5 16 a3 Ba5 17 Be3 cxd4 18 Nxd4 e5 19 Nc6 Qf6 20 g5 exf4 21 gxf6 fxe3 22 Kg2 Bb6 23 Ne7+ Kh8 24 fxg7 Kxg7 25 Kh3 1-0.

In modern times, the  move 7 Nh3 is Gary Lane’s recommendation. He gives the game                 S. Elgstrand – K. Honfi, Semi-Final World Correspondence championship 1959 (Game 51). Scheerer (2011:125) gives 7…exf3 8 Qxf3 c6 9 Nf4! Bc2 10 Rh2 Bh7 11 g5 Nd5 12 g6! Bxg6 (not 12…Nxc3? 13 gxf7+! Kxf7 14 Ne6+ Kxe6 15 Bh3+ Kd6 16 Qg3+ and mates) 13 Ncxd5 cxd5 14 Nxg6 fxg6 15 Rf2.

According to Blackmar-Diemer Gambit World #29, December 1987, Karol Honfi Sr. was a Hungarian candidate master who played the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit extensively in the 1950s and 1960s. His son, International Master Karol Honfi Jr., also played the BDG occasionally. The article’s author is  Niels Jorge Jensen. He cites the German-language book Gambit Eroffnungen , by Laszlo Alfoldi, as saying that both Honfis promoted the BDG in Hungary.  Finally, it must be mentioned that some sources give the date of Game 51 incorrectly. It is 1959, not 1955 or 1950, as some sources have it! Harding gives the 1959 date. Fortunately, I have a photocopy of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Volume 2, Number 7, dated July 1963. It was a small newsletter published by Nicholas Kampars between 1962-1967. The date given there is 1959. The German chesslive.de site gives the date 1958. So, which is the correct one? I think that the 1959 date is the accurate one. Diemer’s book was not published until 1957. Thus, few people outside of Germany would have heard of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit. Indeed, the first BDG in America since Blackmar’s time as Diemer put it, was not played until 1955.

Game 51: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4 Bg6 6 h4 h6 7 Nh3 c6 8 Nf4 Qd6 9 Be3 e5  10 Nxg6 fxg6 11 dxe5 Qxe5 12 f4 Qa5 13 g5 hxg5 14 fxg5 Nd5 15 Qg4 Nd7 16 Qxe4+ Ne7          17 O-O-O   O-O-O 18 Bh3 Nf5 19 h5 Rxh5 20 Qe6 Bc5 21 Bf4 Bd4  22 Qxg6 Bxc3 23 bxc3 1-0  S. Elgstrand – K. Honfi Jr., Semi-Final World Correspondence Championship, 1959.

David Robert Lonsdale (2009) gives the date 1950 for the Elgstrand - Honfi Jr. game.  But this cannot be correct, since Gunderam invented his attack only in 1955/1956.  The earliest publication of the Gunderam Attack is from 1956, in an Austrian chess periodical.

Game 52:  (Moves 1-7 same as in Game 51) 7 Nh3 c6 8 Bc4?  exf3  9 h5?! f2+  10 Nxf2 Bh7       11 Be3 Nbd7 12 Bb5 e6 13 Qf3 Nd5 14 Nfe4 Nxe3 15 Qxe3 Be7 16 d5 cxd5 17 Nxd5 Bxe4          18 Qxe4 exd5  19 Qxd5 00 20 000 Nc5 0-1, Jose Miguel Loscos Vilafranca – Antonio Hernando Garcia, Spain 1993.

Game 52a: (Moves 1-7 as in game 51) 7 Nh3 c5 8 d5 Qc7 9 Nf4 Bh7 10 g5 Nfd7 11 g6 Bxg6       12 Nb5 Qe5  13 Nxg6 hxg6 14 f4 Qf6 15 Nc7 Kd8 16 Nxa8 e6 17 dxe6 Qxe6 18 Bh3 Qc6 19 00 Be7 20 Be3 Bxh4 21 Qd2 Rf8 ++ -  1-0/35, Zilbermints – “JohnnyBallgame,” ICC 5-minute rated blitz, 6/17/2013.

Game 52b:  (Moves 1-7 as in game 51) 7 Nh3 c5  8 d5 a6 9 Nf4 Bh7 10 g5 Nfd7 11 g6 Bg8 12 gxf7+ Bxf7 13 fxe4 Ne5 14 Bh3 g6 15 Nd3 Bg7 16 Nxc5 00 17 Nd3 Qb6 18 Nf2 Kh7 19 00 Be8 20 Kg2 Nf3 21 Ng4 Nxh4+ 22 Kh1 Rxf1+ 23 Qxf1 Bd7 24 Qf4 Bxg4 25 Qxg4 Qf2 26 Bf4 Nd7 27 Bg3 Qf3+ 28 Qxf3 Nxf3 29 Bxd7 1-0, Zilbermints – “sunlen”, ICC, 5 0 rated blitz, August 2013.

Game 53: (Moves 1-7 same as in Game 51) 7 Nh3 exf3 8 Nf4 Be4 9 Nxe4 Nxe4 10 Qxf3 Qxd4  11 c3 Qe5  12 Be3 c6 13 Bg2 Nf6 14 000 Qa5 15 g5 hxg5 16 hxg5 Rxh1 17 Bxh1 Nfd7 18 g6 Qxa2 19 gxf7+ Qxaf7 20 Qg4 e5 21 Be4 Kd8 22 Ne6+ 23 Bg6 Qg8 24 Bc5 Bxc5 25 Nxc5 Qd8 26 Bf5 1-0, Laurent Tinture – Daniel Mostowik, ICCF correspondence, 1997.

Game 53a: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4 Bg6 6 h4 h6 7 Nh3 exf3 8 Qf3 c6 9 Nf4 Bxc2 10 Be3 Qa5 11 Bd3 Bxd3 12 Nd3 Nbd7 13 00 g5 14 h5 Bg7 15 Rae1 000 16 a4 Rhf8 17 b4 Qc7 18 Bf2 Nb6 19 b5 Nc4 20 bc6 bc6 21 Re7 Qe7 22 Qc6 Qc7 23 Qa6+ Kb8 24 Rb1+ Ka8 25 Nb5 Qd3 ½ - ½ /51 moves, Shaw – Quinatar, correspondence 1972.

Game 53b:  1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4 Bg6 6 h4 h6 7 Nh3 exf3 8 Qf3 c6 9 Nf4 Bxc2 10 Rh2 Bh7 11 g5 Ng8 12 g6 Bg6 13 Ng6 fxg6 14 Bd3 Qd6 15 Rg2 ++-, 1-0/23, Zilbermints-Tiva, ICC 5-minute rated blitz, 4/12/2013.

Game 54: (Moves 1-7 same as in Game 51) 7 Nh3 exf3 8 Qxf3 c6 9 Nf4 Bh7 10 g5 Nfd7 11 g6 Bxg6 12 Nxg6 fxg6 13 Bd3 Nf6 14 Bxg6+ Kd7 15 Bf4 e6 16 000 Bd6 17 Be5 Qe7 18 Rhf1 Rf8       19 Bxd6 Qxd6  20 d5 cxd5 21 Ne4 Qe5 22 Nc5+ Kc6 23 Rfe1 Qd6 24 Rxe6 Kxc5 25 Qa3+ 1-0, Zilbermints – “FishPuppy”, 5-minute blitz, Internet Chess Club, 2012.

Game 54a: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4 Bg6 6 h4 h6 7 Nh3 exf3 8 Qf3 c6 9 Nf4 Bh7 10 g5 Nfd7 11 g6 Bg8 12 gxf7+ Bxf7 13 Bd3 Nf6 14 Be3 Nbd7 15 h5 Qa5 16 000 000 17 Ng6 Rg8 18 Kb1 Kb8 19 Bf4+ Ka8 20 Bg3 e6 21 Ne5 Be8 22 Bg6 Bb4 23 Ne2 Nxe5 24 Bxe5 Bxg6 25 hxg6 Rgf8 26 Qh3 Rfe8 27 Bxf6 gxf6 29 Qxh6 Qf5 29 g7 Rg8 30 Qh8 Qg6 31 Rdg1 Qf7 32 Qh6 Be7 33 c3 f5 34 Nf4 Bf6 35 Nh5 Be7 36 Re1 Rd6 37 Rhg1 e5 38 Qh7 exd4 39 Rxe7! 1-0, Zilbermints – IM Christer Hartmann, 5 0 r blitz, ICC, 12/23/2012.

The main alternative to 9 Nf4 seems to be 9 Be3. However, at the present moment, it seems to be doubtful in light of the two games played with it (Games 54a-54b).

Game 54b: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4 Bg6 6 h4 h6 7 Nh3 exf3 8 Qf3 c6 9 Be3?! Bxc2 10 Rh2 Bh7 11 g5 Nd5 12 Bc4 e6 13 Rf2 Bf5, 0-1/50, Zilbermints – “Gateway”, ICC 3 0 rated blitz, 7/26/2013.

Game 54c: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4 Bg6 6 h4 h6 7 Nh3 exf3 8 Qf3 c6 9 Be3?! Bxc2 10 Rh2 Bh7 11 g5 Nbd7 12 gf6 Nf6 13 Bc4 e6 14 000 Qe7 15 Bd3?! Better is 15 Rf1 with continuing pressure. 15…Bxd3 16 Rxd3 000 17 Rf2 Rd7 18 Rf4 Qd8 19 Bh2 Bd6 20 Bd6 Rd6 21 Rfd2 Qd7 22 Nf2 Rhd8 23 Nfe4 Nxe4 24 Nxe4 Rd5 25 Nb3 g5! =+, 0-1/37+, Zilbermints – NM Juan Tica, Rahway Swiss, New Jersey, 7/13/2013.  

Game 54d: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4 Bg6 6 h4 h6 7 Nh3 e5 8 dxe5 Qd1 9 Kd1 Nfd7 10 Nd5 Kd8 11 f4 c6 +/= , Zilbermints – IM Dmitry Zilberstein, ICC, 5 minute rated blitz, 6/25/2013, drawn in 59 moves.

Game 54e: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4 Bg6 6 h4 h6 7 Nh3 exf3 8 Qf3 c6 9 g5?! Nd5 10 Nxd5 Qxd5 11 Qxd5 cxd5 12 Bg2 e6 13 c3 hxg5 14 hxg5 Nc6 15 00 Bd6 16 Bf4 Be7 17 Rae1 Bf5 18 Re3, 0-1, Weegenaar - Verschuuren, corr NLD jub, 1991.

It should be noted that after 7 Nh3 e6 there is the premature attacking move 8 g5?! which I personally would not make. The game Christian Maier – Robert Sutterer, Kirchhelm 1982, continued 8…hxg5 9 hxg5 Nd5 10 Ne4 Nc6 11 Bb5 Qd7 12 Qe2 a6 13 Bxc6 Qxc6 14 c4 Nb6 15 b3 000 =+ although drawn in 55 moves, Game 55.

Game 56: 7 Nh3 e6 8 g5?! hxg5 9 hxg5 Nd5 10 Ne4 c6 11 Bd3 Bf5 12 Nef2 Bb4 13 Kf1 Nd7 14 Qe2 g6 15 c4 Nc7 16 Be3 Ke7 17 Kg2 Ne8 18 d5 cxd5 19 Bd4 Rh4 20 f4 dc4 21 Bxf5 Bxf5 22 Qc4 Bd6 23 Rae1 Nf8 24 Kg3 Ng6 25 Qc3 Kf8 26 Nd3 Rc8 27 Qb3 b6 28 Rxe6 Rg4+ 29 Kf3 Nh4+ 30 Ke2 fxe6 0-1, Alejandro Melchor Munoz – Niels Joergen Jensen, correspondence 1990.

Game 57: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4 Bg6 6 h4 h6 7 Nh3 e6 8 Nf4 Bh7 9 Be3 Bb4 10 Bg2 exf3 11 Bxf3 Be4 12 a3 Bxc3+ 13 bxc3 Bxf3 14 Qxf3 Nd5 15 Bd2 Nd7 16 Nxd5 exd5 17 Qxd5 c6 18 Qe4+ Qe7 19 Qxe7+ Kxe7 20 Kf2 Nf6 21 Rae1+ Kd7 22 Kf3 Rhe8 23 c4 Rxe1 24 Rxe1 Re8 25 g5 Rxe1 26 Bxe1 hxg5 27 hxg5 Ne8 28 Bg3 Nd6 29 Bxd6 Kxd6 30 a4 Ke6 31 Ke4 Kd6 32 c5+ Ke6 33 a5 f5+ 34 gxf6 gxf6 35 c4 b6 36 cxb6 axb6 37 a6 1-0, Ole Dravnieks – Buckingham, corr. 1988.

Game 58: (Moves 1-7 same) 7 Nh3 e6 8 h5 Bh7 9 a3 Bd6 10 f4 Nd5 11 Nb5 a6 12 Nxd6+ cxd6 13 c4 Ne7 14 Be3 d5 15 Qb3 Qd7 16 f5 exf5 17 Nf4 fxg4 18 Be2 Bf5 19 cxd5 00 20 Rd8 21 Rhf1 Qc7+ 22 Kb1 Nd7 23 Ng6 Bxg6 24 hxg6 Qd6 25 gxf7+ Kf8 += 1-0/45, Mikael Helin – Kaj Vinding Pedersen, Copenhagen 2003.

Let us now see what Scheerer says in his book. After 7 Nh3 Nc6! looks good. Then 8 Bb5 e6 9 Nf4 ( or 9 g5 hxg5 10 hxg5 Bh5!) 9…Qd6 10 fxe4 Bxe4 11 Rg1 000 White had less than nothing for the pawn in K. Boese – A. Kiprov, corr. 1961, Game 59.

My chess practice disagrees with Scheerer’s analyses. After 7…Nc6! the best move for White is 8 Be3 (Games 62 – 63).

Game 60: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4 Bg6 6 h4 h6 7 Nh3 e6  8 Nf4 Bh7? 9 g5! Nd5 10 Ncd5 ed5 11 g6 Bxg6 12 Nxg6 fxg6 13 fxe4 Be7 14 Qg4 00 15 e5! g5  16 Qe6+ Kh8 17 Bd3! Rf3 18 hxg5! Rxd3 19 cd3 Bxg5 20 Qg6 Bxc1 21 Rc1 Nc6 22 Kd2! Nxd4 23 Rxh6+!! Kg8 24 Qh7+ Kf8 25 Rf1+ Ke8 26 Qxg7 Qe7 27 Qh8+ Kd7 28 Rf7 Nf3+ 29 Kc1, 1-0, Zilbermints – Roger Pedersen, West Orange, NJ, Double Round-Robin Quad, 8/7/2012.

Game 61: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4 Bg6 6 h4 h6 7 Nh3 Nc6 8 Be3 exf3 9 Qxf3 e5 10 Bb5 e4  11 Qg3 Bb4 12 00 00 13 Bxc6 bxc6 14 Nf4 Bd6 15 Qh3 Qe7 16 g5 hxg5 17 hxg5 Nd5 18 Nfd5 cxd5 19 Nxd5 Qd8 20 Nf6+ gxf6 21 gxf6 Qc8  22 Qh4 Rb8 23 Kg2 Rb5 24 Bg5 Rb2 25 Rac1 Qa6 26 Rf2 Rfb8 27 Qh6 1-0, Zilbermints – IM Rudy Douven, Internet Chess Club, 5-minute blitz, 5/29/2011.

Game 62:  1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4 Bg6 6 h4 h6 7 Nh3 Nc6 8 Be3 e5 9 d5 Nd4 10 Bxd4 exd4 11 Qxd4 a6 12 Nxe4?

Better is 12 000!  according to my chess computer.  Then 12…Bd6 13 g5 hxg5 14 hxg5 Nd7 15 Ne4 Be5 16 Qe3 Qe7 17 Bg2 Qb4 with a slight edge for White.   On 12…exf3         13 Re1+ Be7 14 g5! hg5  15 hg5 Nh5 16 Nf4! += 

12…Ne4! 13 fxe4 Qxh4+  14 Nf2 Qe7 =+ 0-1/58, Zilbermints – “PalmTree”, Internet Chess Club 5-minute blitz, 5/17/2005.


Thanks Lev for sharing this with us - impressive stuff - maybe I have to reconsider my opinion on this line.

Bypassing that annoying Vienna defense

I have always hated the Vienna defense since black is always able to exchange some pieces and thus reduce white's winning chances. I always felt that white is fighting for a draw.

For that reason, I have worked in the past on several white options, originating aftre 5.g4 Bg6 6.g5 Nd5 7.Nxe4. Not without any modesty on my part, the line 7...Nc6 8.c4 was dubbed the "De Bouver attack" and yielded terrible complications.

However, black could bypass this dreaded attack and simply play 7...e6 and now 8.h4 does not seem to equalize.

That's why I look today at the next white option : the "More than Hara Kiri" line, originating after 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 Bf5 5.g4 Bg6 6.h4 (diagram)

White's most ambituous try is probably 6...Qd6, but white's reply 7.Bg2 is both unexpected and good.

Also interesting is 6...exf3 7.Qxf3 and white gets an equal game with all pieces still on the board.

The popular 6...h5 is rather simple to play for white after 7.g5 Nd5 8.Nxe4 (diagram) and white is certainly not worse than in the lines without the h4 moves.

Let's look now at the best black repsonse, 6...h6. Scheerer suggests 7.Bg2 here, but I think he overlooked the simple 7...Nc6, leaving white a pawn down without any compensation.

Summary : the More than Hara Kiri line seems to be refuted by the simple 6...h6 as Scheerer's suggestion 7. Bg2 does not provide any equality.

Kf2 always wins

I recall an excellent article by Tom Purser when Kf2 was claimed to be the winning opening's move - or maybe not completely ?! In any case. I also tried it in a fast game and guess what - Kf2 did win.

De Bouver - Dardha ( 2014, Antwerpen )

1.d4 Nf6 2.f3 d5 3.e4 dxe4 4.Nc3 Bf5 5.g4 Bg6 6.g5 Nd5 7.Ne4 e6 8.Ne2
Varying from both Diemer's 8.c4 as played in Diemer - Kopp ( 1947 ) and the proper continuation 8.h4.

8...Nc6 9.c4 (diagram)

Picking up Diemer's suggestion, one move later. Will my opponnet take the bait ?

9...Bb4+
Yes he does ! And now comes the move...

10.Kf2 (diagram)

Black now should have played 10...Nb6, with a small black advantage. But baffled by my unexpetced move, black makes a mistake,

10...Nde7
Blocking the retreat of the bishop

11.a3
And white has a small advantage which lead to a white win.

Check out Tom Purser's post on this, including the link to the Tim Krabbé article - it is really great reading.

The Vienna defense for dummies

In the Blackmar Diemer "Vienna defense", black does not take the pawn on f3, but rather defends it through the bishop 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 Bf5.

Now white has three important alternatives :
1. attack like a madman with 5.g4 Bg6 6.g5 Nd5 7.Nxe4
2. attack like an even bigger madman with 5.g5 Bg6 6.h4
3. play quietly with 5.fxe4

The first option (diagram) used to be most popular in Diemer's era.

The great point of this "Hara Kiri attack" is that white can set up some terrible difficulties for black, eg after 7...Nc6 8.c4 the dreaded "The Bouver attack" appears and the line 7...e6 8.c4 Bb4+ 9.Ke2 is not easy either.

The problem is that white has to set up his pawns like a complete beginner. Most positions in this line seem quite strange, with white advancing too many pawns. A computer might be able to handle that, but lots of humans will feel uncomfortable with the resulting positions when playing white.

The second line was recommended by Scheerer in a must-win situation.

I dubbed this line the "More than Hara Kiri". Scheerer now suggests 6...h6 7.Bg2, but 7...Nc6 seems to give black a clear advantage.

The last line 5.fxe4 is the simplest and was covered in my book "Attack with the Blackmar Diemer"

Black has two decent replies 5...Nxe4 6.Qf3 and 5...Bxe4 6.Nxe4 Nxe4 7.Bd3, both leading to equal play.

Even if I like attacking like a madman ( I play the Blackmar Diemer for a reason !? ), the "Hara Kiri" and "More than Hara Hiri" just see too much for me - I will stick to the boring 5.fxe4 for now.

Help !

In previous mails, I discussed the "De Bouver gambit" in the Vienna defense, occuring after the aggressive 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 Bf5 5.g4 Bg6 6.g5 Nd5 7.Nxe4 Nc6 8.c4 Nb4 9.a3. However, black also has the less ambituous, but equally effective 7...e6, after which the standard reply is 8.h4.

Black's options now inlcude both 8...Nc6, 8...Nd7, 8...Bxe4 and 8...Be7

a/ 8...Nd7 9.h5
...a1/ 9...Bxe4 10.fxe4 Bb4+ 11.Kf2 (+=)
...a2/ 9...Bf5 10.Ne2 (=)

b/ 8...Nc6 9.h5
...b1/ 9...Bxe4 10.fxe4 (=)
...b2/ 9...Bb4+ 10.Kf2 (=)
...b3/ 9...Bf5 10.Bb5 (=+)

c/ 8...Bxe4 9.fxe4
...c1/ 9...Bb4+ 10.c3 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Bxc3+ 12.Bd2 Bxa1 13.Qxa1 (=)
...c2/ 9...Nb6 10.Be3 (+=)
...c3/ 9...Ne7 10.Be3 (+=)
...c4/ 9...Ne7 10.c3 (+=)

d/ 8...Be7 9.???

Now it seems to me that 9.h5 is insufficient after 9...Bf5. Probably 10.Bb5 is best, but black is still on top.

So, please help, what do you suggest after 7...e6, as it seems 8.h4 does not equalize.

Is this really playable ?

I was gettng some feedback on the "The Bouver gambit" in the Vienna defense from a friend. Instead of the regular continuation 5.g4 Bg6 6.g5 Nd5 7.Nxe4 Nc6 8.c4 Ndb4 9.a3 Qxd4 10.axb4 he suggested 9.a3 Bxe4 10.fxe4 Qxd4

White's pawn centre is a complete mess, and resembles the play of a chess novice. Furthermore, white has not yet captured the piece and is even a pawn behind. So could white survive this ? Let's look at the possibilities after 11.Qe2.

It seems that 11...000 is a great black move. It sacrifies a piece, but develops the rook. White must waste a tempo to capture the knight, but has no other options ( 12.Bh3 is also suggested, but white has to capture anyway after 12...e6, so the immediate 12.axb4 is more flexible ).

After 11.Qe2 000 12.axb4, Houdini believes that the only good black move is 12...e6, releasing the black squared bishop ( 12...e5 allows white one developing move with 13.Bh3+ Kb8 and now 14.b5 wins ).

Houdini now suggests 13.Bh3 or Be3, both with equality. Let's look a little further on 13.Be3

a/ 13...Bxb4+ 14.Kf2 Qxe4 15.Nf3

Black has several moves here to continue the attack against the white king. Opening the g and/or h-file with the simple 15...h6 seems most promising, eg 16.gxh6 gxh6 17.Rg1 (=)
White's king has found some shelter and the resulting position is highly uncertain, with black having the attack ( but without a clear refutation )

b/ 13...Qxe4 14.Bg2 ( 14.Nf3 as above allows for Nxb4 )
...b1/ 14...Qf5 15.c5 Nxb4 16.Qb5 (=)
...b2/ 14...Bxb4+ 15.Kf2
......b2a/ 15...Qf5+ 16.Nf3 (=)
......b2a/ 15...Qh4+ 16.Kf1 (+=)

So it seems the white monarch can find some temporary support behind his pieces. But this might not be sufficient to survive in the long run...

Further details on new exciting Vienna line

I was away for two weeks to escape the holiday fuss and have been considering white's chances in the new Vienna continuation I unveiled in my last blog.

By the way, what name should we give it ? Does "De Bouver gambit" sound too harsh ??

Anyway, after 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 Bf5 5.g4 Bg6 6.g5 Nd5 7.Nxe4 Nc6 8.c4 Nb4 9.a3 Qxd4 10.axb4 Bxe4 11.fxe4 Qxe4+ 12.Kf2 Qxh1 13.Nf3, black is fare ahead in material but sees his queen cornered on h1.

I showed that black's only defense consists of 13...Rd8 14.Qa4 e5 15.Be3

White now wins the black queen, so the only question is how much material can black win in exchange for his queen.

After 15...e4 16.Bg2 Qxa1 17.Qxa1 exf3 18.Bxf3, black is still ahead in material and white must capitalize on his lead in development.

a/ 18...Bxb4 19.Bxc6+ bxc6 20.Qa4

...a1/ 20...Bd6 21.Qxc6+
......a1a/ 21...Kf8 22.h4 (+=)
......a1b/ 21...Rd7 22.Qe4+ Be7 23.c5 (+=)
......a1c/ 21...Ke7 22.Bd4 (+=)
...a2/ 20...Be7 21.Qxc6+
......a2a/ 21...Kf8 22.Qxc7 (+-)
......a2b/ 21...Rd7 22.Qa8+ (+=)
...a3/ 20...a5 21.Qxc6+ (+-)

b/ 18...Bd6 19.c5
...b1/ 19...Bxh2 20.Bxc6+ bxc6 21.Qh1 Be5 22.Qxc6+ (=)
...b2/ 19...Be5 20.b5
......b2a/ 20...Nd4 21.Qxa7 (+=)
......b2b/ 20...Nb4 21.Qxa7 (+=)
......b2c/ 20...Ne7 21.Qxa7 (+=)
......b2a/ 20...Nb8 21.Qxa7 (+-)
...b3/ 19...Be7 20.Bxc6+ bxc6 21.Qxa7 (+-)

c/ 18...Be7 19.b5 Ne5 20.b3 (+=)

d/ 18...Nxb4 19.Bxb7 (+=)

e/ 18...Ne5 19.Qa4+ c6 20.b5 (+=)

So it seems the "De Bouver" gambit gives white in all but lines a small but tangible advantage. Talking about a reversal in the Blackmar Diemer theory !

Terrible complications in the Vienna defense

In my previous posts, I discussed some interesting possibilities in the Vienna defense occuring after 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 Bf5.

Black declines the gambit by developing a piece.

I showed that the "More than Hara Kiri" gambit occuring after 5.g5 Bg6 6.h4 should not pose any problem for the defender as 6...h6 is a simple and effective defense.

I also proved that white does not get full compensation in the alternative line 5.fxe4 Nxe4 6.Qf3 as 6...Nxc3 7.bxc3 e6 as both 8.Qxb7 and 8.Bd3 are insufficient.

So what should the attacker play in the Vienna ? Let's have a look at 5.g5 Bg6 6.g5. Black best option now is 6...Nd5 7.Nxe4, reaching the basic "Hara Kiri" position.

Let's explore black's most natural move 7...Nc6, threatening 8...e5 ( the alternative 7...e6 is answered by 8.h4 )

Untill recently, 8.c4 Ndb4 9.a3 was dismissed because of the simple 9...Qxd4

But, it seems to me that white can take the black knight after all, eg 10.axb4 Bxe4 11.fxe4 Qxe4+ 12.Kf2 Qxh1 13.Nf1

Now it is very worthwhile to investigate this position since this line is quite forced after 8.c4. Black's queen is trapped on h1 and black needs to be very carfeul to get some compensation for it.

a/ 13...h6 14.g6
...a1/ 14...fxg6 15.Qa4 (+-)
...a2/ 14...f6 15.Qa4 (++)
...a3/ 14...f5 15.Qd5 (++)
...a4/ 14...e6 15.Qa4 (+=)
...a5/ 14...Rd8 15.Qa4 (=)

b/ 13...e6 14.Qa4 (+-)

c/ 13...e5 14.Qa4
...c1/ 14...Bxb4 15.Bg2 Be1+ 16.Nxe1 Qxh2 17.Nf3 Qh5 18.Nxe5
......c1a/ 18...00 19.Nxc6 bxc6 20.Bxc6 (=)
......c1b/ 18...Qh4+ 19.Kf3 (+=)
...c2/ 14...e4 15.Bg2 Qxg2+ 16.Kxg2 exf3+ 17.Kxf3 Bxb4 18.Be3 (=)
...c3/ 14...Rd8 15.Be3 (=)


d/ 13...Rd8 14.Qa4
...d1/ 14...e5 transposing to (c3)
...d2/ 14...e6 (+-)


So I guess the suggested line Vienna defense line 7...Nc6 8.c4 Ndb4 9.a3 Qxd4 10.axb4 provides white with an interesting attack, in which black must choose very precise defensive moves in order to survive.

Other authors ( including Scheerer ) had given black a large advantage after 7...Nc6 8.c4, but this analysis proves the opposite and restores the Hara Kiri line as the main Vienna defense line.Consider that thought as my best christmas present ever !

Vienna defense - when black exchanges everything

Last post indicated that the "More than Hara Kiri" attack is wrong, and I recommended white to play the simple 5.fxe4.

Black now may wish to exchange the knight with 5...Nxe4 6.Qf3 Nxc3 7.bxc3.

After black's simple 7...e6 my book, I recommended 8.Qxb7, regaining the pawn, but I believe the continuation 8...Nd7 9.Nf3 Rb8 is better for black, eg

a/ 10.Qc6 Bxc2! 11.Bg5 Be7 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 and both 13.Bb5 and 13.Rc1 fail to equalize

b/ 10.Qxa7 Bxc2! and 11.Bg5 and 11.Qa5 offer not enough.

c/ 10.Qa6 Bxc2! is even worse for white.

So I started looking for an improvement to 8.Qxb7 and believed 8.Bd3 might be better. After the simple 8...Bxd3, white has the choice between 9.cxd3 and Qxd3.

d/ 9.cxd3 and black has the killer move 9...Qd5! with obvious advantage

e/ 9.Qxd3 complicates things a bit more for black, but still does not address white's lack of pieces.

Bottomline - exchanging all pieces in the suggested Vienna defense is a strong defense and leaves white with a bad position.

The "More than Hara Kiri" gambit

The Hara Kiri gambit in the Vienna defense is characterized by 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 Bf5 5.g4

White can follow up with the "More than Hara Kiri gambit" ( I name that I just made up myself... ) with 5...Bg6 6.h4

Black's best reply is obviously 6...h6 after which the attacker needs to come up with a good move. Scheerer suggests 7.Bg2 in his book, but it seems to me that 7...Nc6 wins easily, as black has the luxury of choices after 8.Be3 .

So I guess I will stick to my old faithfull 5.fxe4, which gives white a simple equal game.

The main line now runs 5...Nxe4 6.Qf3 Nd6 7.Bf4 with white having a nice development for the pawn. Be assured that this line is simpler for the attacker than the "More than Hara Kiri gambit".