The Kibitzer 
by Tim Harding 

What Exactly Is the Bishop's Opening?

The simple answer to that question is: 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4. However,
like many simple answers to complicated questions, it does not tell
the whole story by any means.

When I resumed playing chess after a two year lay-off due to
postgraduate studies, I looked for an opening that would avoid the
theory I'd missed and allow me to do some research of my own. I
decided to play 1 e4 and if 1...e5 (more popular than the Sicilian in
Britain in the early 1970s) then I could surprise opponents by 2
Bc4. 

It certainly worked. Most of them blinked and then bashed out
2...Nf6 but after my third move (and I tries most of the
possibilities) Black had to settle down to a big think.

As a reader in Oxford's Bodleian Library, I had access to the
collection of chess literature bequeathed by Professor Harold
Murray, author of the first big history of chess. I was probably the
first person to look at much of this stuff with more than a casual
interest. In particular, I copied everything that Philidor wrote about
this opening, his favourite, in the English editions of his book.
Philidor thought that 2 Bc4 was superior to 2 Nf3 because it left
open the path of the f-pawn to advance to f4, after suitable
preparation.

Later generations did not agree with him; 2 Nf3 seemed to put
Black more on the defensive and the Evans Gambit became more
popular. Then I moved on to the 19th century stuff and especially
to what Jaenisch said about the opening in his "New Analysis of
the Chess Openings" and to Staunton's view of the matter. In the
second half of that century, the Ruy Lopez regained the
pre-eminence among open games. The Bishop's Opening became a
rarity. Finally I came to the great Schlechter edition of Bilguer's
"Handbuch des Schachspiels" which really summed up chess
opening theory as it stood at the start of World War I. At the same
time, I studied more recent examples of the opening, such as they
were. One theory book that was current at the time (by Horowitz if
I recall correctly) only gave the name Bishop's Opening to 3 d4.

I played 2 Bc4 a lot in the 1970s, both OTB and in correspondence
tournaments, and in 1973 my book "Bishop's Opening" first
appeared, published by the Chess Player (Nottingham, England).
One day I may totally rewrite that book, which was my first. 

When White answers 2...Nf6 by 3 Nc3, the game tends to be
classified as a Vienna, so half my "Bishop's Opening" book dealt
with lines that most people call the Vienna. However, the Bishop's
Opening is of much greater antiquity than the Vienna which
strictly speaking is a name that should only be given to the lines
with 2 Nc3 and 3f4, or other lines following 2 Nc3 that cannot
arise from the Bishop's Opening. That includes the 3 g3 lines and 2
Nc3 Bc5.

My great precursor in this research was, of course, grandmaster
Bent Larsen. He had started playing the Bishop's Opening in 1964,
at the Amsterdam interzonal. One of his rivals commented:
"preparing for this tournament the other participants have studied
Boleslavsky's latest innovations, but Larsen has studied Greco and
Philidor!" The forgotten opening paid off, as he rapidly defeated
Australian master B.Berger and Hungarian grandmaster Levente
Lengyel while Svetozar Gligoric, one of the world's top players at
that time, got off with a draw after a tough struggle. Let's start with
the Berger game.

Larsen-Berger: Amsterdam izt, 1964

1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6

I'll return later for a discussion of the alternatives facing White at
this point, and to Black's other possible second moves. Just note
now that Larsen tried both 3 d3 and 3 Nc3 at Amsterdam.

3 d3 Nc6 

If Black wants to avoid this, 3...c6 is the main possibility.

4 Nf3 

This is not the Philidor way, but it can be effective. Now if Black
plays 4...Be7 we have a kind of Two Knights Defence, a line that
became fashionable later, as we shall see. If he prefers 4...Bc5 then
a slow Italian Game (Guioco Pianissimo) arises. Thinking White is
playing passively, Berger makes a naive reply.

4...d5?! 5 exd5 Nxd5 6 0-0

Black now has problems about his e-pawn. In the 1970s some
efforts were made to revive this line by sacrificing the e-pawn,
Marshall-style, but they weren't very convincing. Berger went
down rapidly against the Danish grandmaster:

6...Bg4?! 7 Re1 Be7 

If 7...f6? 8 Nxe5 is already strong.

8 h3 Bxf3 9 Qxf3 Nd4! 

The best move in view of 9...Nf6 10 Bg5+-. Now White could go
wrong by 10 Qxd5 Qxd5 11 Bxd5 Nxc2 but Larsen found a simple
way to win a pawn:

10 Qg4! 0-0 

If now 10...Nxc2 11 Rxe5 Larsen intended to meet 11...Nf6
(11...c6 12 Qxg7 Rf8 13 Rxd5!) 12 Qxg7 Kd7 by 13 Bg5 Rg8 14
Qxf7 Rxg5 15 Rxg5 Nxa1 and now either 16 Qe6+ or 16 Nc3.

11 Rxe5 Nf6 12 Qd1 Bd6 13 Re1 Re8 14 Be3

The rest was a comfortable exploitation of White's material
advantage. 14...c5 15 Nd2 Bc7 16 Nf3 Qd6 17 Bxd4 cxd4 18
Rxe8+ Rxe8 19 c3 dxc3 20 bxc3 Nh5 21 Qa4! Re7 22 Qxa7 Nf4
23 Qxb7 h5 24 Qc8+ Kh7 25 h4 1 0 In that pre-database era, this
game was not particularly well known until 1970 when Bell & Son
published the English edition of Larsen's game collection under the
typically boring title (for those days) of "Larsen's Selected Games
of Chess 1948-69". This was just a straight translation of the
original Danish title, whereas the German publisher had the right
idea, putting out his edition under the title "Ich Spiel Auf Sieg" ("I
play to win"). Not only was that a much better title from a
marketing point of view; it also summed up Larsen's philosophy
perfectly. 

Equalise in the opening? So what, we play the middle-game! The
middle-game exchanges to an endgame where White's advantage
seems imperceptible. No draw! I like my position... Thus, Larsen
won his instructive game against Lengyel at Amsterdam, which
you can find in his book. If you just have it in a database without
notes, try to work out where Black went wrong. Then get hold of
the book! 

The Bishop's Opening lends itself to this kind of two-pronged
approach. White hopes either to win quickly by an early
exploitation against someone who underestimates it or doesn't
know the theory, or else he will play for a slow strategic/endgame
win. It is rather like the way 1 Nc3 can work, as discussed in this
column two months ago.

Let's go back to the position after 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 and see what
White can do. 

His e-pawn is attacked. One possibility is the counter-attack
against Black's own e-pawn by 3 f4?! but 19th century analysts
showed Black gets good play by 3...d5! rather than the older
3...Nxe4. If White wants complications then 3 d4!? is certainly
possible. This usually leads to the 

Urusov Gambit which will be the subject of next month's Kibitzer.
There are two reasonable ways of defending the e-pawn, one of
which (3 Nc3) gives Black the option of 3...Nxe4, usually leading
to the Frankenstein-Dracula Variation and its offshoots. See
Kibitzer 1, 21 and 22 for discussions of that line.

There is another way that Black can go after 3 Nc3 Nxe4, namely 4
Nf3!? but if White really wants to play that gambit he should use
the move order (1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6) 3 Nf3!? Nxe4 4 Nc3 since it is
more likely that Black will take the pawn after 3 Nf3 especially if
you touch the king's knight "accidentally on purpose" so that you
are obliged to move it. Then your opponent will think you've
blundered when actually it's the Boden-Kieseritsky Gambit.

(Seriously, though, readers: that's gamesmanship and I don't
condone that kind of behavior at all.) 

The main line of the Boden-Kieseritsky Gambit goes 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4
Nf6 3 Nf3!? Nxe4 4 Nc3 Nxc3 5 dxc3 f6 (! "only move" said
Steinitz) and now the 19th century English player Boden played 6
Nh4. 

Although 6 0-0 followed by 7 Re1 may be more sensible, this is
not the kind of opening where sensible moves are likely to be
effective. White: 

a) is a pawn down; 
b) has doubled pawns; 
c) has moved his knight twice and stuck it on the edge of the board,
which is supposed to be anti-positional.

However, consider at it from the other point of view. Black: 
a) has zero development; 
b) has weakened the white squares near his king so that Qh5+
threatens; 
c) doesn't have the "freeing" ...d5 move since White can just take
the pawn.

I know a few people who actually play this gambit and whatever
theory says I would hesitate to take Black. However, there are
ways to avoid it by returning the material, such as 5...c6 (instead of
5...f6) or 4...Nf6 or 4...Nc6 (and if 5 Nxe4 d5) which is the same as
the Two Knights Defence line 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Nc3
Nxe4.

In the 1980s the "Bishop's Opening" became fashionable again but
not a line that I would call the Bishop's Opening at all. English
grandmasters such as Nunn and Murray Chandler, for example,
played many games with the line 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d3 Nc6 4
Nf3 as Larsen did against Berger. However, if Black then played
the more cautious ...Be7 or ...Bc5, White followed by moves like
c3, Bb3 and a slow-build up rather similar to the closed Ruy Lopez
with 5 d3 or 9 d3. 

Personally, I consider this to be a variation of the Two Knights
Defence. The only reason it was known as the Bishop's Opening is
because it marked White's avoidance of the Petroff. The reason
why this line was adopted is connected with the popularity of the
Petroff Defence in that decade. White was experiencing difficulties
in breaking down the Petroff and lots a of games were leading to
draws. By playing 2 Bc4, White avoided all that Petroff theory and
steered for Lopez-like positions. When Black learned how to
handle the Nunn-Chandler line, and White found improvements
against the Petroff, then the pendulum swung back and 2 Bc4
returned to obscurity. 

An interesting sideline to this story was seen in the game
Oim-Morgado, Axelson Memorial correspondence 1984-93; White
was CC world champion and Black a previous world championship
runner-up and a great Petroff Defence specialist. In this game the
Estonian grandmaster opened:

1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 Qe2!? 

This sleepy move was a great favourite of mine in the early 1970s.
Black has to start thinking for himself very early in the game.
Morgado played 3...Bc5 4 Nf3 Nc6 (The Italian Game has arisen
by transposition; the position after White's next move could also
arise by 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc4 4 c3 Nf6 5 Qe2!?, a move
which would never occur to most players perhaps.) 5 c3 d6 6 d3 a6
(Also playable is 6...0-0 as in Barua-Lev, London Lloyds Bank
1991.) 7 0-0 Be6! 8 Nbd2 0-0. Here White played 9 Bb3 and
eventually won after inaccuracies on both sides. According to Oim,
9 Bxe6 fxe6 10 d4 exd4 11 cxd4 Nxd4 12 Nxd4 Bxd4 13 Qc4 Bb6
14 Qxe6+ Kh8 15 a4 would have ensured White a slight
advantage. - Another possibility from the diagram is 3...Nc6 when
White should not play the 19th century 4 f4?! because of
Staunton's 4...d5! but 4 c3 Bc5 5 Nf3 transposes to Oim-Morgado,
while 5 b4!? might come into consideration. Now that the Bishops
Opening is unfashionable again, there is scope for surprise and new
research once more. Larsen still plays it from time to time.

Bent Larsen- Nigel Davies London (Watson Farley Williams
tournament) 1989

1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d3 Nc6 4 Nc3 Bb4 5 Nf3 

Prior to Larsen, White usually met this Pin Variation by 5 Nge2 or
5 Bg5. However, Larsen is willing to allow his c-pawn to be
doubled and is not worried about 5...d5?! 6 exd5 Nxd5 7 0-0!
because if 7...Nxc3 8 bxc3 Bxc3 White has 9 Ng5.

5...d6 6 0-0 Bxc3 7 bxc3 Bg4!? 

This is a different approach than Larsen's 1960s opponents
adopted. For example, Larsen-Lengyel, Amsterdam 1964, went
7...Na5 8 Bb3 Nxb3 9 axb3 0-0 10 c4 (This diamond-shape pawn
formation was shown to be useful by Larsen on other occasions
too) 10...Qe7 11 Nd2 Nd7 12 Qh5 Nc5 13 f4 exf4 14 Rxf4 Qe5 15
Qxe5 dxe5 16 Rf2 and White has a useful long-term advantage as
Larsen explains in his book. So Davies avoids the exchange on c3.

8 h3 Bh5 9 Bb3 Nd7 10 Be3 

10 g4!? is an alternative according to Larsen 

10...Qe7 11 Rb1 

The plan is to meet 11...0-0-0 by 12 Bd5, but 11 Kh2!? was
preferable according to Larsen. 

11...Nd8 12 Kh2 f6 13 Qd2!? Bf7 14 Nh4 g6 15 f4 Bxb3 16 axb3
Nf7

Also after 16...f5 17 Nf3 White has a clear advantage.

17 Nf3 0 0 18 Rf2 a6 19 Rbf1 Kh8 20 Kh1 Rae8 21 Nh2 exf4?! 22
Bxf4 Nfe5 23 c4 Rf7 24 Qa5! Rc8 25 Nf3 Nc6?! 26 Qc3 Kg8 27
Nh2 h5 28 Bc1 Qf8 29 Nf3 Qg7 30 b4 Nce5 31 Nd4 Re8 32 c5
dxc5 33 bxc5 c6 34 Nb3 g5? 35 Nd4 Qf8 36 Nf5 

 Nxc5 37 Ba3 Ned7 

37...b6 would also have been met by 38 Qa1!. The point of this
retreat is that d3-d4 can be immediately followed up actively since
...Na4 would no longer attack the queen.

38 Qa1! b5 39 d4 Rxe4 40 Bxc5 1-0

My final game shows that the old swashbuckling 19th century lines
of the Bishops Opening can still be employed if Black does not
reply 2...Nf6. The loser was a former CC world champion in one of
his last tournaments.

A.A. Jensen - Vladimir Zagorovsky Finnish CC 30-year Jubilee,
second GM group 1993-95

1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Bc5 

If 2...Be7 White wins a pawn by 3 Qh5, although Black may get
some short-term counterplay. Moves like 2...Nc6 and 2...d6 can be
played but are not to be feared.

3 b4!?

This move is a throwback to the past. Larsen played the
Vienna-style 3 Nc3 and if 3...Nc6 then 4 Qg4.

3...Bxb4 4 c3 

Alexander McDonnell used to play 4 f4 here but that seems rather
extravagant.

4...Ba5 

4...Bc5 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 Bb4+ is known from G.A.
MacDonnell-Boden, London 1869 while 4...Be7 also would be
worth analysing further. 5 d4 exd4 6 Qh5 d5 7 Bxd5 Qf6

Zagorovsky varies from the messy 7...Qe7 8 Ba3 Nf6 as seen in the
Dublin-Glasgow, intercity correspondence match of 1874. 8 Nf3
Bxc3+ 9 Nxc3 dxc3 10 Ne5 Ne7 11 Bxf7+ Kf8 12 Bb3 

Black is still a pawn ahead but the pawn majorities are extremely
unbalanced and Black's king looks insecure. Here Zagorovsky had
to try 12...Bd7! (to meet 13 Bg5 by 13...Be8!). Missing this, he
went down to rapid defeat:

12...Bf5? 13 Bg5 Bg6 14 Nxg6+ Qxg6 15 Bxe7+ Kxe7 16 Qe5+
Kf8 17 Qxc7 Nc6 

If 17...Qxe4+ 18 Kf1 Qd3+ 19 Kg1 Qd7 20 Qc5+ Ke8 21 Re1+
Kd8 22 Rd1+- according to Cimmino in the CC Yearbook.

18 0-0 Qf6 19 Rad1 Re8 20 Rd6 1 0. I f 20...Qf4 21 Rxc6+- so
Black resigned.

Finally to answer the question in the title, it can be seen that the
Bishop's Opening is not one opening but a complex of allied
variations which gives White a variety of possible treatments of the
position arising from 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4. The game can be quite and
strategic or rapidly become wildly tactical. For all-rounders who
are happy with either kind of game, it is still a good choice. 

Copyright 1998 Tim Harding. All Rights Reserved.