The Kibitzer by Tim Harding Is The Urusov Gambit Sound? Having dealt last month with preliminary digressions from the main move order, it is time now to examine the position arising from 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nf3 (or 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 d4 exd4 4 Bc4) 4...Nxe4 5 Qxd4 Nf6 6 Nc3 Be7 7 Bg5 (See Diagram) Black has two (very different) principal defenses to the gambit: 7...c6 followed by...d5 to occupy the centre and, in some cases, castle queenside; 7...Nc6 followed by...d6, trying to catch up on development to neutralise the white initiative. Black can of course castle at once by 7...0-0 but this generally transposes to lines below. By committing his king so early, Black loses flexibility and makes it easier for White to decide on his plan. The line 7...c6 8 0 0 0 d5 was introduced in last month's Kibitzer. Even at move 9, castling may be premature for Black. Last month we saw the consultation game Schlechter versus Neustadtl and Tietz, in which Black defended by 9 Rhe1 0-0 10 Qh4 h6? overlooking a powerful combination, 11 Bxd5!. Black does have other tenth moves here, but they have been little explored: a) 10...Bf5 seems good for White; it is covered in the final game of this article. b) 10...Nbd7 is inferior as after 11 Bd3 Black cannot transpose back to main lines because his queen's bishop is hemmed in. Now 11...h6?! is risky because of 12 Bxh6 gxh6 (12...Ne4? 13 Qg4), a trick which would not be possible if Black had not castled. After 13 Qxh6 Re8 14 Ng5 (14 Re3) 14...Nf8 15 Re3 White has a dangerous attack; even if it is not quite clear; I doubt if you would like to be the defender here! So after 10...Nbd7 11 Bd3 the move 11...g6 has been tried: 12 Ne5 Nc5! Mieses-von Holzhausen, Duisburg 1929. The best reply seems to be 12 Re2! when White is clearly better, according to Keres (12 Nd4!? was another Keres suggestion), e.g. 12...Re8 13 Rde1 Ne4 14 Nxe4 dxe4 15 Rxe4 was the end of my old notes, but ECO has a pretty line credited to GM Larry Evans continuing 15...f6 (15...Bxg5+ 16 Nxg5+-) 16 Bc4+ Kg7 17 Qxh7+! Kxh7 18 Rh4+ Kg7 19 Bh6+ Kh7 20 Bf8 mate. c) 10...Be6 11 Bd3 h6 (11...g6 12 Nd4) is a line which has now been refuted. Virtually all the games in my database were played by computers, so evidently this is a line that programmers have been putting into the openings books of their creations, primarily trying to catch out other computers! White has to decide where to put the queen. White is virtually forced to sacrifice the bishop by 12 Bxh6 and since 12...gxh6 13 Qxh6 is hopeless for Black, the critical reply is 12...Ne4. Old analysis (e.g. by Keres and the late David Hooper) concentrated on 13 Qf4 but it now seems that 13 Qh5! does the business for White. Then 13...Nxc3? would lose rapidly to the thematic 14 Bxg7! so there are two main lines: c1) 13...gxh6 14 Bxe4 Nd7 15 Bf5 Nf6 16 Qh3 Bxf5 17 Qxf5 and White has a favourable position (safer king, no weaknesses) without any material disadvantage; and c2) 13...g6 14 Qe5 Bf6 15 Qf4 with tremendous complications that readers can enjoy analysing for themselves, e.g. 15...Nxc3 16 Rxe6 fxe6 17 Qg4 Nxa2+ 18 Kb1 Rf7 19 Kxa2 Kh8 20 Qxg6 Qg8 (20...Qa5+ 21 Kb1 Qb4 22 Bg7+! Rxg7 23 Qe8+ and wins) 21 Qh5 and White should soon regain the sacrificed exchange with a very good game. In view of lines like this, Black normally defers castling to keep White guessing about where the king will go. From the first diagram, play is more likely to continue 7...c6 8 0 0 0 d5 9 Rhe1 (9 Qh4 almost always transposes, e.g....Be6 10 Bd3 Nbd7 11 Nd4 Nc5 12 Rhe1 reaching the next diagram position) 9...Be6 (Not 9...dxc4?? 10 Qxd8 mate!) 10 Qh4 (or 10 Bd3 Nbd7 transposing) 10...Nbd7 11 Bd3 Nc5 12 Nd4 which brings about another position for analysis. (See Diagram) In my 1970s book on the Bishop's Opening, I quoted Keres as writing that White now has a threatening position but it is not clear whether he can force more than the return of his pawn. I gave this position to Chessbase 7.0 to try its new Opening Report feature. It found 33 games with this position in my very large (approximately 1.5 million game) reference database and the program's analysis included the following points: * White scores well (65%); * Short draws are rare (none under 20 moves); * Draws are of average length (circa 38 moves); and * Wins by both sides are shorter than average. Doing this kind of analysis, it is always important to remember that it is only "lies, damned lies and statistics". What ChessBase is doing here is just a modern version of Ulvestad's "Chess Charts" of the 1940s. The program can only work reasonably well if it is analysing a large and representative database, with games by strong players. If a game is duplicated in the database, it distorts the results. Games by weak players or decided by blunders (or on time against the run of play) are also highly misleading. Even when your database is both large and clean so that the analysis can be at its most revealing you have to remember that one strong move can be a counter-example that blows a hole in any sample based on previous play. What is most convenient about this Opening Report feature of Chessbase 7 is that it gives access to the games in your database in a convenient way. So far as moves from this position are concerned, there is little choice, since 12...h6 carries no threat and is powerfully answered by 13 Nf5!. Black must try to relieve the pressure by exchanges and 12...Nfd7 is unreliable. As the ChessBase report correctly informed me, Black "scores miserably". Tartakower's move here was 13 f4 but Estrin's plan 13 Bxe7 Qxe7 14 Qxe7+ Kxe7 15 f4! is much stronger and after 15...Nxd3+ 16 Rxde3 (Larsen even suggested 16 cxd3!? once.) Black has tried unsuccessfully: a) 16...g6 in the well-known miniature Neishtadt-Volkovich, USSR 1958. 17 g4 Nc5 18 Rde3 Kd6 19 b4 Ne4 20 Nxe4+ dxe4 21 Nxe6 fxe6 22 Rxe4 1-0. Black resigned as he cannot defend his e-pawn (22...Rae8 23 f5); and b) 16...Nc5 was seen in Hausner-Weber, 1992, which went 17 Rde3 g6 18 b4 Na6 19 Nxe6 fxe6 20 Rxe6+ Kd8 21 Re7 with the better ending for White 21...d4 22 Na4 b6 23 a3 Nc7 24 Rg7 Ne8 25 Rge7 Nd6 26 R1e6 Re8 27 Rxe8+ Nxe8 28 Rxc6 and the extra pawn was duly cashed in. 12...Kd7!? has been seen. (See Diagram) At first sight the move looks rather like desperation, even if there is no immediate refutation. However, the point is that ...h6 next move will really threaten...hxg5 because the h-pawn is not pinned (the rook being defended by the queen) and this will force White to retreat his advanced pieces or enter murky complications. If you are looking for a defence for Black this is worth investigating further, to judge from this game which you should analyse for yourself L.Lepre - U, Nyffenegger, corr, 1992 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 Qxd4 Nf6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Nc3 c6 8 0-0-0 d5 9 Rhe1 Be6 10 Qh4 Nbd7 11 Bd3 Nc5 12 Nd4 Kd7!? 13 f4 (Maybe White should prefer 13 Nxe6 or 13 Bf5 h6 14 Bd2 but I see nothing forcing.) 13...h6 14 Bxf6 Bxf6 15 Qf2 Nxd3+ 16 Rxd3 g6 17 Ne4 b6 (This prevents Nc5+, after which the black king is surprisingly invulnerable in the centre.) 18 f5 gxf5 19 Nxf5 Rg8 20 c4 Rg4 21 g3 Be5 22 h3 Rxe4 23 Rxe4 Qg5+ 24 Ne3 Bxg3 25 Qf3 Rd8 26 Kc2 Ke8 27 cxd5 cxd5 28 Nxd5 Rxd5 29 Qxg3 Rc5+ 30 Kd1 Qc1+ 31 Ke2 Rc2+ 32 Kf3 Qf1+ 33 Ke3 Re2+ 34 Kd4 Qf6+ 35 Qe5 Qd8+ 36 Kc3 Qc8+ 0-1. Generally 12...Ng8 is considered the critical defence. (See Diagram) Now the double exchange on e7 is ineffective because at move 14 Black takes with the knight. It is possible to exchange only the bishops and then play (13 Bxe7 Qxe7) 14 Qg3 g6 15 Nce2 with compensation, but instead 13 f4 (not mentioned in ECO) is probably best, when: a) 13...Kf8?! 14 b4 Nxd3+ 15 Rxd3 with advantage to White (C.Torre-Tholfsen, New York 1924) was a line from my 1970s book. An old "MCO" continued 15...Qd6 here which is not entirely clear. b) In my book I said that Black can defend by 13...Bxg5 14 fxg5 Ne7 (as suggested by Pachman and approved by Larsen. This remains untested. White could then capture on h7 (intending to continue b4 and, when the knight retreats, Rxe6 followed by huge complications) but the self-pin of the bishop against the white queen is unattractive to say the least. Instead of 14...Ne7 Black may be able to get away with 14...h6 as 15 Nxe6 Nxe6 is unconvincing. I saw 16 Nxd5 in an old game Giertz-Kornetzky but it looks highly unsound! However, 15 Bg6!? is interesting with a long forced variation leading to a position that is hard to assess15...Kd7 16 Bxf7 Bxf7 17 Qg4+ Kc7 18 Qf4+ Kc8 (18...Kb6 19 Nf3!) 19 Qxf7 Qxg5+ 20 Kb1 with compensation for the pawn, but is it just enough or can White stand better? Even the young Karpov underestimated the dangers of the gambit. G.Timoschenko-Karpov, USSR Junior Ch, Moscow 1969, went 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 Qxd4 Nf6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Nc3 c6 8 0-0-0 d5 9 Rhe1 Be6 10 Qh4 Nbd7 11 Bd3 and now 11...c5!? 12 Ne5 Nxe5 13 Rxe5 d4 14 f4 Nd7 15 Bb5 Bxg5 16 fxg5 Qc7 17 Bxd7+ Kxd7 18 Qe4 Qc6? 19 Rxc5 and White won in 54 moves. The "Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings" gives this as its main line for the Urusov, saying that White has compensation for the pawn after his18th move; however, there seem to have been no other willing takers for Karpov's 11th move. Going back to the beginning, the alternative defensive line 7...Nc6 leads to a different kind of struggle. I would tend to prefer this move as Black because it gets a piece into play whereas 7...c6 impedes development. After 8 Qh4 we get to this position: (See Diagram) The first thing to realise here is that while 8...d5 looks wrong (since the d-pawn lacks protection) this has never actually been proved. After 9 0-0-0 Be6 10 Rhe1 there are these examples: a) 10...h6 11 Bxf6 Bxf6 12 Qh5 Bxc3? (Black may only be a little worse if he avoids this.) 13 Rxe6+ Kf8 14 Rxd5 etc. (Tereschenko- Rotlevi, St Petersburg 1909); b) 10...Qd7 11 Bb5 0-0 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 open, 1993. c) 10...0-0! 11 Bd3 h6 is really far from clear. In my 1970s Bishop's Opening book I incorrectly gave now 12 Rxe6 fxe6 (not 12...hxg5? 13 Nxg5 Nh5 17 Rxe7 and White does win) 13 Bxh6 "for if then 13...gxh6? 14 Qg3+ Kh8 15 Qg6 gives White a winning attack". Rubbish! as GM Bent Larsen soon pointed out to me. The correct assessment is equal, probably an immediate draw. In addition, Black can consider 13...Nb4. Also 12 Bxh6 does not work because of 12...Ne4, so after 11...h6 the game Hmelnitsky-Eventov, USSR 1956, went 12 Kb1 Qd7? 13 Bxh6 Ne4 14 Bg5 Bxg5 15 Nxg5 with a good game for White. However at move 12 Black has various possible improvements such as 12...Ne8 (Euwe) and 12...Re8 (Wallinger-Beutel, corr 1991) which need proper testing. Usually, however, Black has played 7...Nc6 with the idea of continuing 8 Qh4 d6 9 0-0-0 Be6 10 Bd3 reaching the next diagram. (See Diagram) Now if 10...h6 Neishtadt won a game in a simultaneous by 11 Bxh6 but this should only yield a draw after 11...gxh6 (11...Ng4 12 Bg5) 12 Qxh6 Ne5 13 Nxe5 dxe5 14 Qg5+ Kh8 15 Bf5 (threatening Rd3) 15...Qe8. White should therefore play 11 Rhe1 Qd7 (Euwe) 12 Bb5 0-0-0 which, back in the 1970s Larsen told me was unclear. However, Black can easily get massacred in practice: E.Svensson-H.Tolksdorf European master class corr. 1973 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 Qxd4 Nf6 6 Nc3 Be7 7 Bg5 Nc6 8 Qh4 d6 9 0-0-0 Be6 10 Bd3 h6 11 Rhe1 Qd7 12 Bb5 0-0-0 13 Qa4 Nd5? 14 Rxd5! Bxg5+ (Or 14...hxg5 15 Nd4 Bxd5 16 Nxd5 Bf6 17 Bxc6 1-0 J.Uschold-M.Wallinger, West German corr 1985.) 15 Rxg5 hxg5 16 Nd4 Rdg8 17 Nxc6 bxc6 18 Bxc6 Qe7 19 Qxa7 1-0. From the diagram, the main line is 10...Qd7 which allows the pin 11 Bb5. Now Black has to give up the idea of queenside castling because the white queen can switch wings in a mirror of the kind of attacks that take place on the kingside in other variations: 11...0- 0-0? 12 Qa4 a6 13 Bxa6 bxa6 14 Qxa6+ Kb8 but now not 15 Nb5 (Keres) 15...Nd5; however, 15 Be3! seems quite promising. So after 10...Qd7 11 Bb5 comes 11...0-0 and now 12 Ne5 (one of the points of Bb5 in these lines) has been known since a 1924 British postal game Griffith-MacDonald. However 12...Qc8 13 Nxc6 bxc6 is an improvement. Then 14 Bxc6 (14 Bd3!?) when: a) 14...Rb8 15 Ne4 Qd8 16 Rd3 Kh8 17 Nxf6 Bxf6 (17...gxf6?? 18 Be4+-1-0 Matrisch-Ninkovic, corr 1973) 18 Bxf6 with a slight advantage to White; b) 14...h6 15 Bd2 [15 f4 hxg5 16 fxg5 Nh7!] 15...Rb8 is reckoned to be equal, following Neishtadt-Burlyaev, Candidate masters tournament, Moscow, 1958. 16 Qa4 Ng4 17 Be1 soon led to a draw. However, Estrin and Glazkov in their book "3 Double King Pawn Openings" (Chess Enterprises, 1982) suggested 17 Rdf1! Ne5 (17...Bf6 18 f4!) 18 Nd5 here. In fact, they preferred 12 Nd4 to 12 Ne5, partly because against the Keres suggestion 12...h6 they had prepared the sacrifice 13 Bxh6 gxh6 14 Qxh6 Ng4 15 Qh5. So Black should play 12...a6 following Mieses-Rubinstein, Breslau 1912, when after 13 Bd3 Black's safest course would have been 13...h6 14 Bxh6 (14 Ne4 Nd5! or 14 Nxc6 bxc6 15 Bxh6 Ng4) 14...gxh6 15 Qxh6 Nxd4 16 Qg5+ Kh8 17 Qh6+ Kg8 18 Qg5+ with perpetual check (Estrin and Glazkov). Summary Whether we take the stem position after 7 Nc3 or major subvariations from a later point, the attraction of the Urusov is clear - * White scores well (65% or better) whatever Black's 7th move; * White wins are shorter than average; * Draws are rare. On top of this, consider that the gambit generally involves the kind of open tactical play which doesn't require you to be a grandmaster. Positional subtleties revolve around assessing whether White has sufficient dynamic compensation, not on whether an endgame that could arise will be decisive. The gambit can also confuse the judgment of programs like Fritz. All in all, it is a good bet below master level but remember: Preparation pays! Until you get into the details, it is really hard to believe that the Urusov Gambit can be sound against correct defence. The first impression is that Black has made no major structural concession and should be able to catch up on development without falling into a trap. That may be true at the highest level (where the gambit is never played!) but at the level where most mortal chess players operate it has a good chance of success. Against a computer, it is probably not a good bet as they tend to be ingenious defenders, but private games against computers can help to prepare you for games with human opponents. Here is one last game, sent to me by the winner after he read the previous Kibitzer column. Juergen Zarske (Switzerland)-H. Schneider corr. 1993 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 Qxd4 Nf6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Nc3 c6 8 0-0-0 d5 9 Rhe1 0-0 10 Qh4 Bf5 Unusual, but there is a precedent. 11 Nd4 Another correspondence game with the same player as Black went11 g4!? Bd7 12 Bd3 h6 13 Bxh6 Ne4 14 g5 gxh6 15 Rg1 Nxc3 16 Bh7+ Kxh7 17 Qxh6+ Kg8 18 g6 1-0 R.Mercurio- H.Schneider, corr. 1996. 11... Bg6 12 Bd3 Qd7 12...h6 13 Bxg6 hxg5 14 Qxg5 fxg6 15 Ne6 Ne4 16 Qxg6 Bg5+ 17 f4 gave interesting complications in Caro-Janowski, Berlin 1897 (drawn in 81 moves). 13 f4 h6 Asking for trouble! Now we get a classic Urusov Gambit sacrificial attack. 14 Bxh6 gxh6 Not 14...Bxd3 15 Bxg7! Kxg7 16 Rxe7 and Black either gets a lost ending (after 16...Qg4+) or is mated after 16...Qxe7 17 Rxd3. 15 Bxg6 fxg6 16 Qxh6 Kf7 (See Diagram) It is hard for Black to choose among the many possibilities here, as all are at least slightly worse for him. Now 17 Nf3 looks obvious but Zarske prefers another approach. 17 Ne6!? Rg8 18 g4 Qd6 19 Ne4 Exploiting the pin on the d-file, and not for the last time in this game. 19...Nxe4 20 Rxe4 Bf8 21 Ng5+ Kf6 22 Qh4 Qd7 23 Ne6+ Kf7 24 Ng5+ Kf6 25 Re5! After the repetition, White tries a new tack. 25...Na6 26 Ne4+ Kg7 27 Qf6+ Kh7 28 Ng5+ Kh6 29 Ne6 Kh7 30 Nxf8+ and Black resigned since 30...Rxf8 is met by 31 Re7+ with mate or win of the queen. (1-0) Copyright 1998 Tim Harding. All Rights Reserved.