The Kibitzer 
by Tim Harding

TIME TO GAMBLE ON A GAMBIT

Long ago, grandmaster Rudolf Spielmann wrote an article 'From
the sickbed of the gambits', but as we approach the end of the 20th
century, gambit openings have rarely looked healthier!  Of course
Spielmann was thinking primarily of the 'romantic' and primarily
tactical time-for-material gambits such as the King's Gambit and
Evans Gambit but even these are not doing so badly these days and
there are other kinds of gambits that I shall mention in a moment. 
A gambit means a chess opening in which one player or the other
gives up material (usually a pawn or two). The term
'Counter-Gambit' is also seen. Sometimes, as in the Falkbeer
Counter-Gambit (1 e4 e5 2 f4 d5) this involves a gambit offered in
reply to a gambit by White but a counter-gambit can be any gambit
where Black offers the material. Curiously, one of the most ancient
and famous of these is not called a gambit at all: the Two Knights
Defence (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 etc.)  

There are many books on gambits but none quite meet with my
approval. The best is GrahamBurgess's 1995 book 'gambits', which
does a good job of discussing motivations for gambits and types of
compensation, but in my opinion the author uses the term 'gambit'
too loosely and many of his examples are positional sacrifices and
not what I would call gambits at all. M. Yudovich's little book 'The
Gambit' just dips into a few topics that interest the author; Yakov
Estrin's 'Bauernopfer in der Eroeffnung' was likewise skimpy and
unsystematic; Raymond Keene's 1990 'The Complete Book of
Gambits' is certainly far from complete!  

One can speak of a gambit (as opposed to a middle-game pawn
sacrifice) when it is part of a recognised opening sequence, such as
the Marshall Counter-Gambit against the Ruy Lopez/Spanish (1 e4
e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0 Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 0-0 8
c3 d5!?). Such a gambit can arise even later (1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nf3
Nf6 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 a4 Bf5 6 e3 e6 7 Bxc4 Bb4 8 0-0 Nbd7 9 Qe2
Bg6 and now 10 e4, as played by Kasparov) but usually the offer
comes very early in the game, often between moves two and five,
in the well-known named gambits that I discuss here. However, I
would not necessarily speak of a gambit just because an opening
involves the possibility of a dodgy pawn-grab that is normally
ignored.  

A few openings that are called 'gambits' are really non-gambits, the
most obvious example being 1 d4 d5 2 c4 since even the Queen's
Gambit Accepted (2...dxc4) is very rarely played with the intention
of holding the pawn and White just regains his investment in the
course of normal development. If it were not for the venerable
antiquity of the name, the Queen's Gambit would long ago have
been dropped from the canon of gambits. True gambits are easy
enough to find, but here are a few of the most popular ones these
days (among chess players as a whole, not masters): 

* The Benko Gambit (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5); 

* The Goring (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 c3) and allied Scotch
(4 Bc4) and Danish (2 d4 exd4 3 c3) Gambits; 

* The Icelandic Gambit (1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Nf6 3 c4 e6); 

* The Slav Gambit (1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c6 4 e4 dxe4 5 Nxe4
Bb4+ 6 Bd2 Qxd4 etc.); 

* The Milner-Barry Gambit (1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 c5 4 c3 Nc6 5
Nf3 Qb6 6 Bd3 cxd4 7 cxd4 Bd7 8 0-0 or 8 Nc3); and, of course,
the aforementioned Marshall, King's and Evans Gambits.

There is also a class of somewhat fashionable gambits more typical
of correspondence play (especially thematic tournaments) than
over-the-board play. Some gambits (especially the BDG and
Latvian) have schools of passionate adherents who know them in
enormous detail. In this category I would place: 

* The BDG or Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3
Nf6 4 f3; 

* The Latvian (or Greco) Counter-Gambit (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5); 

* The Elephant Gambit (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d5 3 exd5 Bd6; note that it
is NOT an Elephant Gambit if  Black plays 3...e4); 

* The Morra Gambit: 1 e4 c5 2 d4 exd4 3 c3 (or sometimes 2 Nf3
and then 3 d4 cxd4 4 c3); 

* The Winckelmann-Riemer Gambit (1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Bb4 4
a3 Bxc3+ 5 bxc3 dxe4 6 f3!); 

* The Hennig-Schara Counter-Gambit (1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4
cxd5 cxd4!?); 

* The Albin Counter-Gambit (1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5); * The From
Gambit (1 f4 e5); 

* The French Wing Gambit (1 e4 e6 2 Nf3 d5 3 e5 c5 4 b4).

Finally there are some truly eccentric and almost certainly unsound
gambits which however may have their place in pub games,
five-minute tournaments and other forms of casual play: 

* The Tennison, or Abonyi, Gambit (1 Nf3 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Ng5); 

* The Englund Gambit (1 d4 e5) in its various forms; 

*The Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit (1 d4 Nf6 2 g4); 

* The Diemer-Duhm Gambit (1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. c4); 

* The Halasz Gambit (1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 f4).

In each category, one could think of more examples. 

The above might be considered a categorisation by (approximate)
soundness, but there are other ways of looking at gambits. For
example, there are families of gambits of which the BDG family is
the most obvious. With White and Black both having d-pawns
advanced, the attraction of Black's d-pawn to e4, usually followed
by the move f2-f3, features not only in the Blackmar-Diemer
Gambit but also in the Winckelmann-Riemer, the Alapin-Diemer
Gambit (1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Be3 dxe4) and the allied Rasa-Studier
Gambit (3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Be3) and analogous gambits against the
Caro-Kann. Another family of gambits involves the move e2-e4
(or ...e7-e5 for Black) inviting the opposing d-pawn to capture
while one's own d-pawn is yet unmoved; here the Tennison and
Englund Gambits relate to the Budapest Fajarowicz (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4
e5 3 dxe5 Ne4) which is rather sounder; gambits in which the
e-pawn is advanced to challenge the opposing f-pawn (From
Gambit, Staunton gambit) are second cousins to these.  

Another method of categorisation is by style or motivation. I have
already mentioned tactical/time-for-material gambits but there are
also positional gambits (although it is hard to find another pure
example to match the Benko) and perhaps the most interesting
these days: what I call 'randomising gambits'. Completely the
opposite of the Benko, the gambiteer is seeking not a rational
position with objective compensation but rather an extreme tactical
melee in which human and computer opponents alike may lose
their way. Typically of a randomising gambit, the player who first
offers a gambit may soon even end up ahead on material e.g. in the
Frankenstein-Dracula Variation (the subject of my first Kibitzer
article back in June) or in Latvian Gambit lines like 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3
f5 3 Bc4 fxe4 4 Nxe5 Qg5 5 d4 Qxg2 6 Qh5+ g6 7 Bf7+ Kd8 8
Bxg6 Qxh1+, or else the material situation will become quite
unbalanced as after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Bc4 fxe4 4 Nxe5 d5!? 5
Qh5+ g6 6 Nxg6 hxg6 7 Qxg6+ (acceptance by 7 Qxh8 being at
least as risky for White).  

As yet I have not published any of my own games in The Kibitzer,
so perhaps this is a good time to give one. 

T.Harding - S.I.Zlobinsky (Russia), corr (EU/M/GT/360) 1992-5
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.c3 dxc3 6.Nxc3 d6
7.Bg5 f6 Apparently a Keres suggestion, for which I can find no
precedents 8.Bh4 Nh6 Obviously 8...Nge7 also comes into
consideration. 9.0-0 This seems a necessary preparation for active
operations; the whole line of the Scotch Gambit needs a lot more
analysis. 9...Bg4 10.h3 Bh5 11.g4 Bf7 12.Nd5 Ne5 13.Nxe5 dxe5
14.Qc1! (See Diagram [kib1.gif]) This move eyes both c5 and h6;
White has emerged with some advantage. 14...Qd6! 15.Rd1 Instead
15.Bxf6!? seems to give equal chances at best . 15...0-0-0 This
looks like the only move in view of 15...Bd4? 16.Rxd4! exd4
17.Bg3 16.Qc2 My second 'creeping move' continues the
triangulation of the queen. 16...Bd4 17.Rac1 Logically brings the
last piece into the attack. 17.Rxd4!? was my original intention but I
suspect it is unsound. 17...Kb8 18.Rxd4 exd4 19.Bg3 Qc6
20.Bxc7+ Ka8 21.Bxd8 Rxd8 22.Qd2 Qd6 23.Qxd4 Kb8 24.Rc3
Be8 25.Qe3 Nf7 Else I may simply exchange queens by Qf4 or
Qg3. 26.Nf4!? Ne5 27.Bd5 Bc6!? 28.Ne6 Rd7 29.Nc5 Re7?! (See
Diagram [kib2.gif]) Black has defended quite well until now but
this seems based on a miscalculation. Better is 29...Rc7. Black's
next move is a blunder in a bad position. 30.f4! Bxd5? 31.fxe5
Qxe5 32.Qd3 b6 33.Na6+! 34.Nb4 and Black resigned. White
threatens mate starting 35 Qa6+ and if 34...Be6 35.Qa6+ Ka8
(35...Kb8 36.Nc6+) 36.Rc8+ Bxc8 37.Qxc8+ Qb8 38.Qxb8+ Kxb8
39.Nc6+ Kc7 40.Nxe7.

There will always be some players for whom gambits are
anathema, for reasons of style and temperament. Most
non-professional players, however, are willing to gamble on a
gambit. The two main reasons I see for gambits making a
comeback are: the faster time-limits in over-the-board play (both
quick-play events and 'allegro' finishes to games played for the first
90 minutes or so at a normal time rate) and the desire to confuse
computer analysts in correspondence games. A third motive,
common to both OTB and correspondence players, is simply to
avoid the heavily-signposted freeways of grandmaster theory and
stake out a little claim to originality of one's own. That is probably
the best motive of all for playing gambits. 