Avaukset C2:
(Jukka Joutsi * up-dated: 23.1.2017)

C20 * Miscellaneous replies to 1. e4 e5:

* * * * * * *

C20-1:

2.c3:

* * * * * * *

C20-(2-5):

2.Ne2:

C21-22 * CENTRE GAME ~ 1. e4 e5 2. d4

C21 ~ 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. not Qxd4

C22 ~ 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Qxd4


C21 ~ 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. not Qxd4:

3. f4 (Halasz Gambit * The Vampire Gambit) :

[Jukka Joutsi, Finland-"Hutanuc, Romania" * 2016]: 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. f4 Nc6 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. e5 Nd5 6. Nxd4 Nxd4 7. Qxd4 c6 8. Nc3 Ne7 9. Bd3 c5 10. Qxc5 b6 11. Ne4 Nf5 12. Qd5 Rb8 13. Ng5 Qe7 14. Bxf5 Bb7 15. Qb3 Bxg2 16. Rg1 Bc6 17. Bd2 d5 18. O-O-O f6 19. Qc3 fxg5 20. Qxc6+ Kf7 21. Qxd5+ Ke8 22. Bb4 Qc7 23. Qe6+ Be7 24. Bxh7 Rc8 25. Bg6+ Kf8 26. Qf7# 1-0.

(J.Murto, Finland - Jukka Joutsi, Finland ~ 2014): 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. f4 Nc6 4. c3 d5 5. exd5 Qxd5 6. Nf3 Bg4 7. Be2 O-O-O 8. cxd4 Qe6 9. Ng5 Qxe2+ 10. Qxe2 Bxe2 11. Kxe2 Nxd4+ 12. Kf2 Nc2 13. Nxf7 Bc5+ 14. Ke2 Nxa1 15. Nxh8 Nh6 16. f5 Re8+ 17. Kf3 Nxf5 18. Nf7 Nc2 19. g3 Ne1+ 20. Kg4 g6 21. Nc3 Nd3 22. Kf3 Rf8 23. Ng5 Nxc1 24. Nxh7 Rh8 25. Rxc1 Rxh7 26. g4 Ne3 27. b3 Rxh2 28. Kf4 c6 29. Ke4 Nxg4 30. Kf3 Ne5+ 31. Ke4 Bd6 32. Ke3 Rh3+ 33. Ke2 Ba3 34. Rc2 Ng4 35. Kd2 Ne3 36. Ne2 Nxc2 37. Kxc2 g5 38. Nd4 g4 39. Nf5 g3 40. Nxg3 Rxg3 0-1.

"The Vampire Gambit: Can We Bury It Now?" by Tim Harding:

THERE are quite a few astonishing gambits around which don't feature much in traditional opening books. For example, there is 4 g4 against the Gruenfeld Defence, 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 4 g4 (the Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit), the Shabalov Gambit against the Semi-Slav (which also involves an early g2-g4 which can be met by Nxg4), and of course the Winckelmann-Reimer Gambit about which I've written in my newest book Four Gambits To Beat the French (Chess Digest) and elsewhere.

Perhaps even more astonishing is the topic of this month's article, the so-called Halasz Gambit where the deviation from recognised paths comes as early as move three1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 and now 3 f4!? instead of the well-known 3 c3 (Danish Gambit) and Centre Game (3 Qxd4, revived in recent years by some OTB masters) and the rarer 3 Nf3.

This article was far advanced when Hanon Russell pointed out that Glenn Budzinski also wrote about the gambit a few months back at The Chess Cafe.

Strictly speaking, the name Halasz Gambit is not right since why give the name of a modern Hungarian postal player to a gambit that has been around since the 1840s, if not earlier? However, no name seems previously to have stuck to this bizarre idea 3 f4, and Halasz has played numerous games with it over the past few decades, and has even experimented with an analogous idea against the Sicilian Defence1 e4 c5 2 d4 exd4 3 f4!?.

Maybe it should instead be called the Vampire Gambit because it is dead yet refuses to stay buried. Can a reader finally produce the conclusive refutation to put a stake through its heart?

You will not find 3 f4 in the Center Game mentioned in "Nunn's Chess Openings", "BC02", "Modern Chess Openings" (12th edition), "Open Gambits" (Botterill), "Unorthodox Openings (Benjamin & Schiller), or "The Complete Book Of Gambits" (Keene). Either the authors and editors did not know of the move (probable) or they just dismissed it as obviously bad.

Even the second edition of ECO did not have it, and as for the latest (third) edition I am mystified because Budzinski's article refers to a supposed ECO recommendation which I cannot find in my copy! If it exists, it should be under opening code C21, note 2 (pages 174-175) but the only moves I see mentioned there are 3 Nf3 and 3 Bc4 with 3 c3 as the main line and 3 Qxd4 in C22. So I guess Budzinski was looking at the first edition, dating from the 1970s, where C21 was edited by Keres, but I passed on my copy of that edition years ago.

Anyway, Paul Keres did mention the move in his "Dreispringerspiel bis K”nigsgambit", published by Sportverlag of East Berlin in 1971; he did not think much of it and that, I believe, would be the instant opinion of any grandmaster. However, the gambit has won some games, as we shall see in a moment.

Budzinski seems to know little or nothing about Halasz and some European articles about the gambit as he only refers to one American source, the "Chess Horizons" magazine. Dr. Gyorgy Halasz of Budapest rediscovered 3 f4 some years ago but he didn't invent it. In fact, it dates from the uninhibited romantic days of the last century - as the English chess magazine, "Kingpin" (issues 19 and 20) revealed, following up a 1990 survey in "Fernschach" by German correspondence chess veteran Herman Heemsoth. More recently in "Fernschach" (1996), Jerzy Konikowski wrote another article on it.

Most recently, both my own magazine "Chess Mail" and the German "Kaissiber" have published a recent win by Halasz against a Swiss correspondence chess international master, Dr Xaver Steiner.

Halasz himself doesn't hold the master title but with a current ICCF rating of 2312 based on over 300 games, he is evidently a dangerous attacking player who wins a high proportion of his games with White. Here is that recent game:

Halasz-Steiner EU/M/1203, corr 1998 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 f4!? Bc5 Keres wrote that "3...Bb4+, 3...Nc6 or 3...d5 are also good." 4 Nf3 Nc6 5 Bd3 Halasz follows the main line from the book by Keres. Frank Marshall was the source of this line, but it is not clearly Black's best plan; perhaps Keres (lacking games to quote) found it easier to cite this authority than looking for the very best defence as he would surely have done had anybody played 3 f4 against him. Actually I was surprised to see Halasz adopt the 5 Bd3 and 6 Nbd2 move order, because in earlier years he tended to play the move a2- a3 at move five or six, threatening to expand on the queenside with gain of time. This is really a revival of an old idea seen in F.Schwenkenberg-W. Vitzthum, Dusseldorf 1861, which went 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 f4!? Nc6 4 Nf3 Bc5 5 Bd3 Nge7 6 a3 0-0 7 b4 Bb6 8 Bb2 a6 9 Nbd2 d5 10 e5 f6 11 0-0, White winning in 20 moves. Of course Black's 8...a6 looks very passive; ...a5 is the normal reaction to a3. In the present game, Halasz plays a2-a3 slightly later. 5...Nf6 6 Nbd2 d6 About this position, Keres wrote "And White has insufficient compensation for the pawn". Frank Marshall was in fact the source of this line. See what Halasz does to this book recommendation now! However, 6...d5 seems more energetic and maybe Black should play that move earlier. 7 a3 a5 8 0 0 0 0 9 e5 Ng4 10 Ne4 Bb6 11 Nfg5 h6 12 h3 f5 13 exf6 Nxf6 14 Nxf6+ Rxf6 15 Qh5 Ne7 (See Diagram) 16 g4 Halasz: "A typical intuitive sacrifice of which the consequences are incalculable." 16...hxg5 17 Qh7+ Kf8 18 Bd2 Be6 19 fxg5 Rxf1+ 20 Rxf1+ Ke8 21 Qxg7 Kd7 22 g6 d5 If 22...Qg8 Halasz indicates the continuation 23 Qh7 Rf8 24 Bh6 Rxf1+ 25 Kxf1 d5 26 Bf5 Kd6 27 Bf4+ Kd7 28 Bg5 Bc5 29 Bxe7. 23 Bg5 Bc5 24 Bf6 Kc6 25 Re1 Qd6 26 Be5 Qd7 27 b4 axb4 28 axb4 Bxb4 29 Rb1 Ra4 30 Qf6 b5 31 Bf5 Nxf5 32 gxf5 Qe7 33 Qxe6+ Qxe6 34 fxe6 1-0.

Whether 3 f4!? is actually a good move must surely be doubtful, since - unlike most gambits - it gives White no lead in development for his pawn, but only a slight gain in space on the kingside. Nevertheless, as a surprise weapon it is certainly more dangerous than Keres thought, if carefully and ingeniously followed up.

One of Black's (psychological) problems is that 3 f4 looks so obviously unsound that it is hard to decide which "refutation" to adopt. Psychologically, opponents often don't play in a stable and rational way when they believe their game is won from a very early stage and they tend to underestimate their opponents.

In the earliest games I have seen, Black tried to exploit the fact that White had not made the normal Danish gambit move, 3 c3, and tried to hold the gambit pawn by 3...Bb4+. Budzinski says that this check "might be the toughest nut for White to crack."

For example: a) 4 c3? dxc3 5 bxc3 (5 Nxc3 Nf6) 5...Bc5 and Black's bishop is strongly posted (Marshall); b) 4 Bd2 and now b1) 4...Nc6 5 a3 or 5 Bxb4; b2) 4...Qe7! tended to be successful5 Bd3 d5 6 e5 Nh6 7 Nf3 Bxd2+ 8 Qxd2 c5 9 0-0 Nc6 10 Na3 a6 0-1, 27 E.Pindar- J.S.Kipping, Manchester 1861, but better is 8 Nbxd2 as Budzinski says. However, there is another 19th century example: 5...Nf6 6 e5 Nd5 7 Nf3 Nxf4 8 0-0 Nxd3 9 cxd3 Bxd2 10 Nbxd2 c5 (0-1, 30) A.Epiphanoff-J.Wallenrath, St Petersburg 1852. The modern treatment of 3...Bb4+ is c) 4 Nd2 when Budzinski comments "Despite White's encouraging results... Black's play has often left much to be desired in the few available examples." After 4 Nd2 play can go 4...Nf6 (instead of 4...Nc6 or 4...Qe7? as played by Halasz's own opponents in games cited by Budzinski.) 5 Bd3 d5 6 e5 Ng4 7 a3! (instead of 7 Ngf3 c5 8 Ng5 c4 as in A.Bartsch- H.Edighoffer, IECG email, 1998) 7... Ne3 8 Qe2 Bg4 9 Ngf3 Ba5 10 b4 Bb6 11 Nb3 0-0 12 Bb2 f6 13 Bxd4 Bxd4 14 Nbxd4 fxe5 15 fxe5 Nf5 16 Ne6 winning the exchange and soon the game (Edinburgh Chess Club-Newcastle, intercity corr ).

In the postal game De Laat-Luuring (cited in the German periodical Gambit Revue, 1990) Black tried instead to simplify by 6...Ne4 7 Ngf3 c5 8 0-0 Nxd2 9 Bxd2 Bxd2 10 Qxd2 Qb6 but after 11 b3 Qh6 12 Rae1 Nc6 13 Ng5 Bd7 14 e6 White retained an initiative thanks to his lead in development. Black gave up the exchange by 14...fxe6 15 Rf3 0-0-0 16 Nf7 Qf6 17 Nxd8 Kxd8 and the game was eventually drawn.

Na‹ve defenders might suppose they could just defend the extra pawn by 3...c5!? although this is liable to leave holes at d5 and d6 unless Black can rapidly follow up with ...d7-d5. The May 1899 American Chess Magazine attributed the gambit to James Jellett of St Paul citing this 3...c5 line, not knowing of games played with 3 f4 in the 1860s or earlier.

In ''Marshall's Chess Openings'' (1904), the American grandmaster said 4 Bc4 was best e.g. 4...d6 5 c3 Nc6 6 Nf3 Bg4 7 0-0 Nh6 8 f5 ''and White should win''. Modern exponents of the Halasz/Vampire gambit seem to have overlooked this recommendation as they all play 4 Nf3 instead. After 4 Nf3 the 100-year-old article suggested 4...Nc6 5 Bd3 Nf6 6 0-0 Be7 7 Nbd2 0-0 8 Ng5 with interesting possibilities (Jellett), but modern players prefer 4...d6 or 4...d5. For example a) 4...d5 allows White to establish a kingside pawn majority by 5 e5; this position also often arises via 3...d5 4 e5 c5 5 Nf3 and I deal with this line later in the article. b) Surprisingly perhaps, the more flexible 4...d6 seems better although it doesn't challenge d5 at once. Blank-A.Aasum, corr,1975, continued 5 Bd3 Bg4 6 0-0 Nc6 7 a3 Be7 8 h3 Bxf3 9 Qxf3 Qc7 10 Bd2 Nf6 11 g4 0-0-0 12 e5 Nd7 13 exd6 Bxd6 14 b4 g6 15 c3 a6 16 Ra2 Rhe8 17 b5 axb5 18 Bxb5 dxc3 19 Nxc3 Nd4 20 Qd3 c4 21 Bxc4 Bc5 22 Kh2 Nb6 23 Bb5 Nb3 24 Nd5 Nxd2 25 Nxc7 Rxd3 0-1.

Thirteen years later, Dr Halasz improved on this in a postal game against the same Norwegian opponent with 10 Nd2 Nf6 11 Nc4 and won a messy game 11...0-0-0? 12 Bd2 d5 13 exd5 Rxd5 14 g4 Rdd8 15 b4 cxb4 16 axb4 Bxb4 17 Bxb4 Nxb4 18 Rxa7 Qc6 (18...Nc6 19 Ra8+ Kd7 20 Bf5+ Ke8 21 Re1+ Kf8 22 Qa3+ Kg8 23 g5 Nd5 24 Re8+ Rxe8 25 Rxe8#) 19 Bf5+?! Kc7 (19...Kb8 20 Qa3!) 20 Qb3 Qc5 21 Ra5 Qe7 (21...b5 22 Bd3 Ra8 23 Rfa1 with the initiative) 22 Re5 Qf8 23 Rb1 Nfd5 24 Be4 Qc5 (24...d3 25 c3 b6 26 cxb4 Nxf4 27 Qa3 with advantage) 25 Rxd5! Rxd5 26 Qxb4 1-0 (Halasz-Aasum).

However, Black can improve at various points and Konikowski has suggested that 9...Nf6!? 10 Nd2 0-0 gives Black the edge. So Marshall's idea may indeed be critical.

The gambit appears to have re-surfaced in the 1920s. I found the following Australian correspondence game in a history booklet about CC in that country, "The First Fifty Years" (compiled by H.W.M. Lunney, 1980). This was actually the first game to finish in the competitions organised by the Australian correspondence chess organisation.

G.W. Robertson - James McCrakett Australia, corr 1929 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 f4 Bc5 4 Nf3 Nc6 Black keeps coming back to this plan developing and defending the extra pawn. 5 Bd3 Nf6 6 Nbd2 d6 According to Frank Crowl in Australasian Chess Review, April 1930, "6...d5 seems more energetic, and if 7 e5 Ne4 whereby the black N would occupy a commanding post." However, that isn't clear as Halasz has won a game or two from that position. Crowl said that this was "a favourite opening of Alexander McDonnell; though not strictly sound it is hard to meet". Unfortunately there are none of McDonnell games with the gambit in the Oxford Encyclopaedia of Chess Games. Can any be traced? 7 a3 a5? 8 Qe2 0 0 9 0 0 Bd7 10 e5 Re8 11 Ng5! h6? Immediately fatal (wrote Crowl). Some prospects of defence lay in 11...Bg4 and if 12 Bxh7+ Kf8, but by 12 Ndf3 White would retain the better game. 12 Nde4 Nxe4 (See Diagram) 13 Nxf7!! Kxf7 14 Qxe4 Rg8 15 Bc4+ 1-0.

Another example of what can happen to Black if he plays passively is B.Blank-K.Wothe, 14th German CC Ch1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 f4 Bc5 4 Nf3 Nc6 5 a3 a5 6 Bd3 Nf6 7 0-0 d6 8 Qe1 0-0 9 h3 Bd7 10 e5 Re8 11 Qg3 Nh5 12 Qh2 g6 13 g4 Ng7 14 Nbd2 f5 15 exf6 Qxf6 16 Ne4 Qf8 17 Qg3 Re7 18 Qh4 Ne8 19 f5 gxf5 20 Bh6! Rg7 (If 20...Ng7 21 Nf6+ Kh8 22 Nh5.) 21 Bc4+ Kh8 22 Nfg5 Ne5 23 Be6 Bxe6 24 Nxe6 Qg8 25 Bxg7+ Nxg7 26 Nf6 1-0.

Halasz-Vitomskis, 28th European CC Championship 1984, saw the gambit come unstuck but far from deterring Dr. Halasz from repeating the experiment, he often played it on later occasions. 3...Bc5 4 Nf3 Nf6 5 a3 a5 6 Bd3 Nf6 7 0-0 d5! 8 e5 Ne4 9 Nbd2 f5 10 exf6 Nxf6 11 Qe1+ Qe7 12 Qh4 0-0 13 Re1 Qd6 14 Ne5 Re8 15 Ndf3 Bd7 16 Ng5 [16 Bd2!? Konikowski, FS 1998/4] 16...h6 17 Bg6? [17 Ngf7 Qf8 18 Bd2 Re7 19 Nxc6 Bxc6 20 Ne5ö Konikowski] 17...Rxe5! 18 fxe5 Nxe5! 19 Bd3 hxg5 20 Qxg5 Nf7 21 Qh4 Ne4-+ 22 Bf4 Qb6 23 Rf1 Re8 24 Qh5 Nf6 25 Qh4 Bd6 26 Bg5 Nxg5! 27 Qxg5 Re5 28 Qd2 Ng4 29 h3 Ne3 0-1. Heemsoth gave this game as a good example of how to meet the dangerous gambit. But in Halasz-Dr W. Wittmann, White varied with 11 Re1+ Be7 (11...Ne7 may be better.) 12 h3 0-0 13 g4!? Nxg4!? (13...h5 14 g5 Ne8 15 Nh4 with the initiative - Konikowski) 14 hxg4 Bxg4 15 Nf1 Bh4 16 N1h2 Bxf3 17 Nxf3 Bxe1 18 Qxe1 Qf6 19 f5! Rae8 20 Qg3 Re3?! (20...h6 21 Bf4 Ne7 and Konikowski's 20...Ne7 are the critical tests here.) 21 Bxe3 dxe3 22 Qxc7 Nd4 23 Nxd4 Qxd4 24 Kg2 Qxb2 25 Rh1 h6 26 Qg3 e2 27 Qe3 Qxa3 28 Qe6+ Kh8 29 Qxe2 Qb4 30 Re1 a4 31 Qe7 Qg4+ 32 Kf2 Qf4+ 33 Ke2 1-0 (33...Qg4+ 34 Kd2 Qf4+ 35 Kd1).

The article in "Kingpin" recommends 3...d5 (avoiding Marshall's 4 Bc4!) 4 e5 c5 5 Nf3 Nc6, aiming for a blockade on the light squares, maintaining the extra pawn. However, in the two examples I have seen Black failed to carry the plan through correctly.

A.J. Chavez-T. Casamayor, in the Von Massow Memorial (Cuban CC 1991) continued 6 b3 Bf5 7 Bd3 Nge7?! (Simpler 7...Qd7 followed by 0-0-0) 8 0-0 Qd7 9 Ba3 Ng6? (9...Bxd3 10 Qxd3 Nf5 would put the onus on White to justify his gambit. Now White develops threats.) 10 Ng5 Be7 11 e6! fxe6 12 Bxf5 exf5 13 Re1 h6? (Sacrificing the exchange by 13...0-0-0 looks the sensible thing to do.) 14 Ne6! Kf7 15 Qh5 Nd8 16 Qxf5+ 1-0. In Halasz- Sinovatsni (1990) Black met 6 b3 inventively by 6...Nh6 7 Bd3 Bf5 but after 8 0-0 instead of just developing his pieces, Halasz's opponent unwisely acted the hero by 8...c4?! 9 bxc4 10 Bxc4 d3 leading to complications after 11 Bxd3 Bc5+ 12 Kh1 Bxd3 13 cxd3 Bd4 14 Nxd4 Qxd4 15 Qb3! and Black came off worst.

Black can also follow up 3...d5 with the bishop check. After 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 f4 d5 4 e5 Bb4+ was seen in Gimeno-Felez, 1993 Ibercaja Open , with a position that Budzinski compares to a Falkbeer Counter-Gambit. The game went on 5 Nd2 Ne7 6 Nf3 Nf5 7 Bd3 c5 8 a3 Ne3 9 Qe2 and now Budzinski suggests the improvement 9...Qa5.

The only other game in my database with 4...Bb4+ is somewhat bizarre, but isn't the whole gambit bizarre?

Liban Van Damme - Gambini [C21] corr, 1972 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 f4 d5 4 e5 Bb4+ 5 Nd2 c5 6 a3 Ba5 7 b4 cxb4 8 a4!? (White's moves 7-8 are an ingenious solution that devalues Black's pawns.) 8...Nc6 9 Nb3 Bb6 10 Nf3 Bg4 11 Bb2 Bxf3 12 Qxf3 f6 13 Bd3 h6 14 e6 Qd6 15 Qh5+ Kd8 16 0-0 Rc8 17 a5 Bc5 18 Rfe1 b6 19 axb6 Bxb6 20 Kh1 g5?! (Asking for trouble.) 21 fxg5 fxg5 22 Qf7 Rc7 23 Qf2 Qf4 24 Qxf4 gxf4 25 Bc1 f3 26 gxf3 (Black is still one pawn up but it is almost worthless as White's connected passed pawns are more significant.) 26...Rg7 27 f4 Nge7 28 f5 Ng8 29 Bb2 Rg4 30 Rad1 Kc7 31 Bb5 Nge7 32 f6 Nf5 33 e7 Re4 34 Rxe4 dxe4 35 Bxd4 1-0

So how can Black put a stake through the Vampire gambit's heart?

One of many lines that ought to be good for Black in my opinion is (1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 f4) 3...Nc6 4 Nf3 d5. This plan scores 4/5 for Black in the games in my database and Black played some really stupid moves in the one game he lost.

Here in F.Schortgen-D.Mascarenhas, SEMI email 1997, White played 5 Nxd4 which doesn't look right, After 5...dxe4 6 Bb5 a6 7 Bxc6+ bxc6 8 Be3 c5 9 Nb3 Qxd1+ 10 Kxd1 Nf6 11 Bxc5 Bxc5 12 Nxc5 0-0 13 Nc3 e3 White had his pawn back but where can his uncastleable king go? Black eventually won.

So Blank, and all the other players who have faced this line, pushed the e-pawn, which is the normal response in this gambit. 5 e5 Bc5 6 a3 Bb6 Black has also won a game with 6...Nge7 where White replied 7 b4?!. After 6...Bb6 I have two examples involving master correspondence players a) Manfred Bauer- Jon Kristinsson, Scottish Magazine-10 yrs. A 1990, continued 7 b4 a6 8 Bd3 Nh6 9 0-0 Nf5 10 Qe1 h5 11 Kh1 Be6 12 Nbd2 Ne3 13 Rg1 Qd7 14 Nb3 Bg4 15 Nc5 Bxc5 16 bxc5 Nf5 17 Rb1 0-0-0 18 Rf1 h4 19 c3 h3 20 g3 dxc3 21 Qxc3 Nce7 22 Rf2 Qc6 23 Qe1 Qxc5 24 Ng5 Rhf8 25 Rfb2 b5 26 Qf1 f6 27 exf6 gxf6 28 Ne6 Nxg3+ 29 hxg3 Bxe6 30 a4 Nf5 31 Kh2 Rg8 32 axb5 Nxg3 33 Qe1 Rde8 34 bxa6 Bf5 35 Rb8+ Kd7 36 Rxe8 Rxe8 37 Bxf5+ Nxf5 38 Qd2 Rg8 39 Ba3 Qc4 40 Rg1 Re8 0-1

b) B. Blank-E.Hintikka, EU/M corr, circa 19906 a3 Bb6 7 Bd3 Nh6 8 0-0 Nf5 9 Qe2 h5 10 Kh1 Be6 11 b4 a6 12 Ng5 Nce7 13 Nd2 Qd7 14 Nb3 g6 15 Bd2 Kf8 16 Rab1 Re8 17 Nc5 Qc8 18 Ncxe6+ fxe6 19 a4 c6 20 b5 axb5 21 axb5 c5 22 c4 dxc3 23 Bxc3 c4 24 Bxf5 Nxf5 25 Rfd1 h4 26 Be1 Kg7 27 Bf2 Ng3+ 0-1.

Here is an alternative approach for Black. Anyone thinking of playing the Halasz Gambit needs an improvement on the following game; I wonder what Halasz himself thinks about this.

Vittorio Colo (ITA) - H. Ewald corr 1991 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 f4 Nf6 There has been very little experience with this Alekhine's Defence style counter-attack against the white e-pawn; it is not mentioned by Budzinski. 4 Bd3 If 4 e5 d5 5 Qxd4 Qh4+ 6 g3 Nxg3 7 Nf3 Nf5 or 7 Qf2 Nf5 so does White have anything better than 4 Qxd4 Nc6 when Black is surely OK? I also found a strange game Delmar-Rosen, Trenton Falls 1908, in which White played 4 Bc4?! which was met by 4...b5 5 Bxb5 Nxe4 and Black eventually won. Presumably Black avoided 4...Nxe4 because of 5 Bxf7+ Kxf7 6 Qh5+ but there doesn't seem anything to fear in that line. 4...Bb4+! This seems the right timing for the check. In other games in my database, Black played 4...d5. 5 Bd2 If 5 Nbd2, then 5...d5! 5...Bxd2+ 6 Nxd2 d5 7 e5 Bg4 8 Ne2 Nh5 9 Qc1 Bxe2 10 Bxe2 Nxf4 11 Nf3 Nxe2 12 Kxe2 c5 13 Qf4 0-0 14 Rae1 Nc6 15 a3 Qc7 16 Kd1 f6 17 Qf5 fxe5 18 Qe6+ Qf7 19 Ng5 Qxe6 20 Nxe6 Rf2 21 Re2 Rxe2 22 Kxe2 b6 23 Nc7 Rd8 24 Rf1 Rd7 0-1.

There's a third possible refutation. Stefan Bcker, editor of the entertaining and informative German theory and history magazine "Kaissiber", has long advocated his Nordwalde Defence to the King's Gambit, 1 e4 e5 2 f4 Qf6. (Nordwalde is the town where he lives, near the city of Muenster in north-west Germany). then after 3 d4 (3 Nc3 Qxf4 is probably more critical.) 3...exd4 we have a position that can also arise in the Halasz/Vampire Gambit, by 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 f4 Qf6!? (See Diagram) Stefan argues that this is the best answer to the Halasz Gambit. I haven't seen any games where Black actually employed this move order and I don't have any opinion about this variation, but I have included a few games with the Nordwalde in my downloadable file.

And this is not all. Halasz also plays an analogous gambit against the Sicilian Defence1 e4 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3 f4!?. This "interpretation" of the Smith-Morra Gambit (f4 instead of c3) seems utterly bizarre at first sight, and even less likely to work than the main Halasz Gambit since Black has not weakened his kingside. Yet this form of the gambit can be effective too.

M.Frerichs-Gerwert Germany corr, 1995 1 e4 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3 f4!? Nc6 4 Nf3 Qb6 5 Bd3 Nf6 6 e5 Nd5 7 Na3 e6 8 Nc4 Qc7 9 0-0 Bc5? Hermann Heemsoth says Black should have played 9...b5! 10 Nd6+ Bxd6 11 exd6 Qxd6 12 Bxb5 Qc5! with advantage. 10 Ng5 g6? 10...b5 was the last chance. 11 Ne4 Ndb4 12 Ncd6+ Bxd6 13 Nxd6+ Kf8 14 f5 exf5 15 Rxf5! 1-0 (for if 15...gxf5 16 Qh5!).

3. c3 (Danish Gambit) :

C22 ~ 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Qxd4

3. --- Nc6 :

(A.Virta, Finland - Jukka Joutsi, Finland ~ 2014): 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Qxd4 Nc6 4. Qc4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Nge2 O-O 7. Bd2 d6 8. g3 Be6 9. Qb5 Bc5 10. Bg2 a6 11. Qxb7 Na5 12. Qxa8 Qxa8 13. O-O Nc4 14. Be3 Nxe3 15. fxe3 Ng4 16. Nd1 Bc4 17. Bf3 Ne5 18. Ndc3 Nxf3+ 19. Rxf3 Bxe2 20. Nxe2 Qxe4 21. Raf1 Bxe3+ 22. Kh1 Re8 23. Nc3 Qb7 24. h4 Bc5 25. Kg2 Qxb2 26. Kh3 Qxc2 27. a3 h5 28. Rb1 Re3 29. Rb8+ Kh7 30. Rxe3 Bxe3 31. Rb1 Qxc3 0-1.

(Williamson-Smeck, 1997): 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Qxd4 Nc6 4. Qc3?? Bb4 0-1.

[Petri Hämäläinen, Finland-Denis Hogan, Ireland * NonStop * Group #9 * 2016 * C22]: 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Qxd4 Nc6 4. Qd1 d6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Bd3 Be7 7. Be3 Ng4 8. Nf3 Nxe3 9. fxe3 Bg4 10. Be2 Bxf3 11. Bxf3 Bh4+ 12. g3 Bf6 13. Qd2 Ne5 14. Be2 O-O 15. O-O-O Bg5 16. h4 Be7 17. a3 c6 18. Qd4 c5 19. Qd5 Qd7 20. h5 a6 21. h6 g6 22. Rdf1 b5 23. b3 b4 24. Na4 Qc7 25. axb4 cxb4 26. Nb2 a5 27. Nc4 a4 28. Nxe5 dxe5 29. Bc4 axb3 30. Rxf7 Kh8 31. Rhf1 Rxf7 32. Qxf7 Bd6 33. Qf6+ 1-0.

C23-24 ~ Bishop's opening (Lähettiavaus): 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4

C23 ~ 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 and NOT 2. --- Nf6

C24 ~ : 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6


C23 ~ lines 1-3 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 f5

C23 ~ line 1/1 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Qg5

C23 ~ line 1/1 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 b5

C23 ~ line 4 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 c6

C23 ~ lines 5-8 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5


C24 ~ line 1 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. f4

C24 ~ lines 2-5 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3

C24 ~ lines 6-11 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d4


C23 ~ lines 1-3 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 f5

C23 ~ line 1/1 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Qg5

C23 ~ lines 5-8 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5:

3. Qh5:

'The Classic Schoolboy Checkmate' (Klassinen 'koulumatti') (C23-5/21):

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. Qh5 Nf6?? 4. Qxf7++ 1-0.


3. --- Qe7:

Bilguer has given a bit "better" continuation for black: 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. Qh5 Qe7 4. Nf3 d6 (A) 5. Ng5 Nf6 (B) 6. Qxf7+ Qxf7 7. Bxf7+ Ke7 8. Bc4 h6 9. Nf3 Nxe4 10. 0-0 (=).

A) ... 4. --- Nf6 5. Qe5 Bf2 6. Ke2 Qe5 7. Ne5 Bb6 8. Bf7 Qe7 9. Bb3 d6 (=).
B) ... 5. --- g6 6. Qf3 Be6 (6. --- Qg5? 7. Qf7 Kd8 8. Qf8 Kd7 9. Be6 Kxe6 10. Qc8 Ke7 11. 0-0 +-) 7. Ne6 fxe6 8. d3 (+=).


C24 ~ lines 2-5 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3

[Abraham Simon, South Sudan - Jukka Joutsi, Finland * 2016]: 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. exd5 cxd5 6. Bb3 Bb4+ 7. c3 Bd6 8. O-O O-O 9. d4 e4 0-1.

["Jan S.", Denmark-Jukka Joutsi, Finland * eSkak, Denmark * Kvik #13 * 2017]: 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. a3 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. h3 Bf5 7. Nf3 Bc5 8. Bd2 O-O 9. Nc3 Nxc3 10. Bxc3 Re8 11. O-O h6 12. Re1 Qd6 13. Nh4 Be6 14. Bxe6 Rxe6 15. Qg4 Qd5 16. Re4 Rae8 17. Rae1 g6 18. Nf3 f5 19. Qh4 fxe4 20. Qxh6 exf3 21. g3 R8e7 22. Re4 Rh7 23. Qg5 Rxh3 24. Bd2 Rh5 25. Qg4 Nd4 26. c4 Qd7 27. Rxd4 Qxd4 28. Qxe6+ Kg7 29. Be3 Qxd3 30. Bxc5 Qb1# 0-1.

C25-29 Wien (Vienna): 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3

C25 ~ 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 -- not Nf6

C26 ~ 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bc4 -- not Nxe4 or Nc6

C27 ~ 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bc4 Nxe4

C28 ~ 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bc4 Nc6

C29 ~ 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. f4


C25:

C25 ~ 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 -- not Nf6 (2. --- Nc6 * but NOT 3. Nf3 = C46-49).

(Jukka Joutsi, Finland - Darren Nickerson, England ~ 2012): 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Qh5 g6 4. Qd1 Bh6 5. Bb5 Nd4 6. Nf3 c6 7. Bc4 d5 8. exd5 cxd5 9. Nxd5 Bf5 10. Nxd4 exd4 11. O-O Nf6 12. Re1+ Be6 13. Qf3 O-O 14. Nxf6+ Kg7 15. Nd5 Qc8 16. Qf6+ Kg8 17. Ne7# 1-0.

[Jukka Joutsi, Finland - Väinö Airaksinen, Finland ~ Northern Lights, 2014]: 1. g3 e5 2. e4 Nc6 3. Nc3 (= 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3) --- Bc5 4. Bg2 Bxf2+ 5. Kxf2 Qf6+ 6. Nf3 Nge7 7. Nb5 O-O 8. d4 exd4 9. Nxc7 Rb8 10. Bf4 d6 11. Nd5 Nxd5 12. exd5 Nb4 13. Qxd4 Nxd5 14. Qxd5 Qxb2 15. Rhc1 Be6 16. Qd4 Qa3 17. Bxd6 Qa6 18. Bxf8 Kxf8 19. Ng5 Re8 20. Nxh7+ Kg8 21. Ng5 Bc4 22. Re1 Qa4 23. Qxc4 1-0.

[Jukka Joutsi, Finland - Martin Gonza, Columbia * 2016]: 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 c6 3. d4 exd4 4. Qxd4 b5 5. Nf3 f6 6. Bd3 Ne7 7. e5 a5 8. exf6 gxf6 9. Qxf6 Rg8 10. O-O a4 11. Re1 Bg7 12. Qd6 Bxc3 13. bxc3 Bb7 14. Bg5 Rg7 15. Qf6 Rf7 16. Qh8+ Rf8 17. Qxh7 Rf7 18. Qg8+ Rf8 19. Bg6# 1-0.

[Lasse Lampinen, Finland-Ahmed Mohammed, Egypt * NonStop * Group #12 * 2016]: 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Bc5 3. f4 Bxg1 4. Rxg1 exf4 5. d4 Qh4+ 6. g3 fxg3 7. Rxg3 Nf6 8. Bg5 Qxh2 9. Qf3 Qh5 10. Qg2 d6 11. Be2 Ng4 12. Nd5 Qxg5 13. Nxc7+ Kd8 14. Nxa8 Qa5+ 15. c3 h5 16. a3 Nc6 17. O-O-O = (timeout 1-0).

C26:

C26 ~ 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bc4 -- not Nxe4 or Nc6.

(Jukka Joutsi, Finland-Väinö Airaksinen, Finland * 2014): 1. e4 e5 2. a3 Nf6 3. Nc3 Bc5 4. Bc4 (=2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. a3) d6 5. d3 Ng4 6. Nh3 O-O 7. O-O Kh8 8. Ng5 Qf6 9. d4 Bxd4 10. Nd5 Nxf2 11. Qxd4 Qxg5 12. Bxg5 Nh3+ 13. gxh3 exd4 14. Nxc7 1-0.

C27:

C27 ~ 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bc4 Nxe4

C28:

C28 ~ 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bc4 Nc6

[Chris Paprocki, USA-Jukka Joutsi, Finland * NonStop * Group #18 * 2016]: 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 d5 7. Bb5 O-O 8. Bxc6 bxc6 9. Bg5 dxe4 10. Bxf6 Qxf6 11. dxe4 Qg6 12. Qf3 Ba6 13. Ne2 Bxe2 14. Kxe2 Rad8 15. Rhd1 Rd6 16. Rxd6 cxd6 17. c4 f5 18. exf5 Qf7 19. Qxc6 Qxf5 20. Qd5+ Kh8 21. f3 Qxc2+ 22. Kf1 e4 23. Qd1 Qxc4+ 24. Kg1 Qc5+ 25. Kh1 e3 26. Qe2 Qc3 27. h3 Qxa1+ 28. Kh2 Qe5+ 29. Kh1 Rc8 30. g4 h5 31. Kg2 h4 32. a4 Qg3+ 33. Kf1 Rc1+ 0-1.

C29:

C29 ~ 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf3 3. f4.

(Jukka Joutsi, Finland - Frans Ferdinand, Holland ~ 2014): 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. f4 d5 4. fxe5 Nxe4 5. Nf3 Bc5 6. d4 Nxc3 7. bxc3 Be7 8. Bd3 O-O 9. c4 Be6 10. cxd5 Bxd5 11. Rb1 h6 12. c3 b6 13. c4 Bxf3 14. Qxf3 Na6 15. Qe4 f5 16. exf6 Rxf6 17. Rf1 Bb4+ 18. Ke2 Qe8 19. Rxf6 gxf6 20. Bxh6 Qxe4+ 21. Bxe4 Re8 22. Kf3 Ba3 23. c5 Nb4 24. Rb3 a5 25. Rxa3 1-0.

[Heikki Asikainen, Finland-Kalevi Peljo, Finland * Mikkeli, 13.9.1987]: 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. f4 d5 4. exd5 Nxd5 5. fxe5 Nxc3 6. bxc3 Qh4+ 7. Ke2 Be7 8. Nf3 Bg4 9. Qe1 Qh5 10. d4 Bh4 11. Qd2 O-O 12. h3 Bxf3+ 13. gxf3 f6 14. e6 Re8 15. Qe3 Nc6 16. Kd1 Rad8 17. Bd3 Rd6 18. Ba3 Rdd8 19. Rb1 Ne7 20. Bxe7 Rxe7 21. Rxb7 Qd5 22. Qe4 Qxe4 23. fxe4 Ra8 24. d5 Bg3 25. c4 Bd6 26. Kd2 Kf8 27. Rhb1 Bc5 28. e5 f5 29. Bxf5 g6 30. Be4 Rd8 31. Ke2 Kg7 32. Rf1 Rf8 33. d6 Rxf1 34. Kxf1 Rxe6 35. Rxc7+ 1-0.

C40 Miscellaneous replies to 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 ---

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3:

2. --- f5 (Latvian Gambit)

3. exf5

3. --- e4

(Jukka Joutsi, Finland - Bob Reid, Scotland ~ 2014): 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. exf5 e4 4. Ne5 Nf6 5. Be2 d6 6. Bh5+ Ke7 7. Nf7 Qe8 8. g4 Nxh5 9. Nxh8 Nf6 10. Nc3 g6 11. g5 Nbd7 12. d3 Bg7 13. gxf6+ Nxf6 14. fxg6 hxg6 15. dxe4 Qxh8 16. Bg5 Bh6 17. Bxf6+ Qxf6 18. Nd5+ 1-0.

3. --- d6

[ESIMERKKIPELI]: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. exf5 d6 4. d4 e4 5. Ng5 Bxf5 6. Nc3 Be7 7. Ngxe4 Nf6 8. Ng3 Bg6 9. Bb5+ c6 10. Bd3 O-O (+-).

(Jukka Joutsi, Finland - Rod Price, Australia ~ 2014): 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. exf5 d6 4. Nc3 Bxf5 5. d4 Nd7 6. Bd3 Bxd3 7. cxd3 Ngf6 8. O-O Be7 9. Ng5 Qb8 10. Ne6 Rg8 11. dxe5 dxe5 12. d4 c6 13. dxe5 Nxe5 14. Bf4 Bd6 15. Re1 Nfd7 16. Ne4 Bb4 17. Qh5+ Ke7 18. N6c5 1-0.

(Jukka Joutsi, Finland - 'Link Appleyard', USA ~ 2014): 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. exf5 d6 4. Nc3 Bxf5 5. d4 e4 6. Bg5 Nf6 7. Nh4 Bg6 8. Qe2 Nc6 9. Nxg6 hxg6 10. Nxe4 Qe7 11. Nxf6+ gxf6 12. Bxf6 Qxe2+ 13. Bxe2 Rh7 14. c3 Kd7 15. O-O a5 16. Bg4+ Ke8 17. Rae1+ Ne7 18. Be6 b6 19. f4 d5 20. f5 gxf5 21. Bxf5 Rh6 22. Bg5 Rd6 23. Bg4 Rad8 24. Re3 Rg6 25. Bxe7 Bxe7 26. Bh5 1-0.

3. Nxe5

(Dubinsky-Chebotarev, USSR ~ 1968): 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nxe5 Qf6 4. Nc4 fxe4 5. Nc3 Qf7 6. d4 Nf6 7. Bg5 Bb4 8. Ne5 Qe6 9. Bc4 Qf5 10. Bxf6 gxf6 11. Ng4 Qg6 12. Ne3 f5 13. Ned5 +=.

3. d3

['Dooser2004', Germany - Jukka Joutsi, Finland ~ club match: Christian Club-Northern Lights, board #3, 2014]: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. d3 Nf6 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. exf5 Bb4 6. Bd2 d5 7. a3 Be7 8. Be2 Bxf5 9. O-O O-O 10. b4 a6 11. Na4 Qd7 12. c4 dxc4 13. dxc4 h6 14. Bc3 Nd4 15. Nxe5 Nxe2+ 16. Qxe2 Qxa4 17. g4 Qc2 18. Qe3 Nxg4 19. Nxg4 Bxg4 20. Bxg7 Bf3 21. Qxh6 Qf5 22. h3 Bg5 23. Qh8+ Kf7 24. Bxf8 Bf6 25. Qh6 Rxf8 26. Rad1 Rg8+ 27. Kh2 Be5+ 28. Qf4 Bxf4# 0-1.


2. --- d5 (Elephant Gambit)

[BCO2, s. 360, alaviite #1]:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. Nxe5 Bd6 4. d4 dxe4 5. Bc4 Bxe5 6. Qh5 (+=).
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. Nxe5 dxe4 4. Bc4 Qg5 5. Bxf7+ Ke7 6. d4 Qxg2 7. Rf1 Bh3 8. Bc4 Nf6 9. Bf4 *(Lob-Eliskases +- , corr. 1932).
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. exd5 e4 4. Qe2 Nf6 5. d3 (+=/+-).


3. exd5

[ESIMERKKIPELI #1]: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. exd5 e4 4. Qe2 Nf6 5. d3 Qxd5 6. Nbd2 Nc6 7. dxe4 Qe6 8. Qc4 Qe7 9. Bd3 Be6 10. Qc3 O-O-O (+=).

(Jukka Joutsi, Finland - B.Tarrillo, USA ~ 2014): 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. exd5 e4 4. Qe2 Nf6 5. d3 Qxd5 6. Nbd2 Nc6 7. dxe4 Qh5 8. Qb5 Qc5 9. Bd3 Be6 10. e5 Nd5 11. a3 Be7 12. Qxb7 Rb8 13. Qa6 Nf4 14. O-O Nxd3 15. cxd3 O-O 16. b4 Qd5 17. Nc4 Bc8 18. Qa4 a5 19. bxa5 Bd7 20. Ne3 Qc5 21. Qe4 Rb3 22. d4 Qb5 23. Nd2 Rxe3 24. fxe3 Rb8 25. d5 g6 26. e6 f5 27. Qc2 Bc8 28. Qxc6 Rb7 29. Qc4 Qxc4 30. Nxc4 Kg7 31. Bb2+ Kh6 32. Rf3 Rxb2 33. Nxb2 Ba6 34. Rc1 1-0.

(Jukka Joutsi, Finland - P.Owen, England ~ 2014): 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. exd5 e4 4. Qe2 Nf6 5. d3 Qxd5 6. Nbd2 e3 7. Qxe3+ Be7 8. d4 Nc6 9. Bc4 Qf5 10. O-O O-O 11. Re1 Bd7 12. Bd3 Qh5 13. Ne4 Rfe8 14. Bd2 Bd6 15. Qg5 Qg6 16. Nxf6+ Qxf6 17. c3 Ne7 18. a3 a5 19. c4 Bf5 20. Qxf6 gxf6 21. Bxf5 Nxf5 22. Bxa5 Rxe1+ 23. Bxe1 Re8 24. Bd2 c5 25. dxc5 Bxc5 26. b4 Bb6 27. c5 Ba7 28. Bc3 Kg7 29. g4 Nh6 30. g5 Nf5 31. Bxf6+ Kf8 32. Rd1 Rc8 33. Rd7 Rb8 34. c6 Re8 35. Rxb7 Bb8 36. c7 Bxc7 37. Rxc7 1-0.

* * * *

[Jukka Joutsi, Finland - 'Neemo', Brazil, 2014]: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qe6 5. Bb5+ c6 6. Ba4 e4 7. O-O Be7 8. Re1 Nf6 9. d3 Qg4 10. h3 Qg6 11. Nxe4 O-O 12. Nh4 Qh5 13. Nxf6+ Bxf6 14. Qxh5 g6 15. Qh6 Nd7 16. Bb3 Nc5 17. Bxf7+ Kxf7 18. Qxh7+ Bg7 19. Qxg6+ Kg8 20. Bh6 Rf7 21. Re8+ Rf8 22. Qxg7# 1-0.

3. Nxe5

(Sami Vuori, Finland-Väinö Airaksinen, Finland * Non-Stop * Group #3 * October 2016): 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. Nxe5 Bd6 4. d4 dxe4 5. Bc4 Bxe5 6. Qh5 Qxd4 7. Qxf7+ Kd8 8. Qf8+ Kd7 9. Bxg8 Nc6 10. Be6+ Kxe6 11. Qxh8 e3 12. O-O? exf2+ 13. Kh1 Qh4 14. Qe8+ Ne7 15. g3 Qe4# 0-1.

(Jansson-Helm ~ 1993): 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. Nxe5 Bd6 4. d4 dxe4 5. Bc4 Bxe5 6. Qh5 Qe7 7. dxe5 Nc6 8. Bb5 Bd7 9. Bxc6 Bxc6 10. Nc3 g6 11. Qg4 Qxe5 12. Bf4 Qg7 = .

(Lob-Eliskases ~ 1932): 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. Nxe5 dxe4 4. Bc4 Qg5 5. Bxf7+ Ke7 6. d4 Qxg2 7. Rf1 Bh3 8. Bc4 Nf6 9. Bf4 +-.

3. Nc3

[Benjamin Akok, South Sudan-Jukka Joutsi, Finland * 2016]: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. Nc3 d4 4. Ne2 Nc6 5. g3 Bg4 6. Bg2 d3 7. c4 dxe2 8. Qxe2 Nd4 9. Qd1 Qf6 10. O-O O-O-O 11. Qa4 Bxf3 12. Bh3+ Kb8 13. b4 Ne2# 0-1.


2. --- f6 (Damiano variation):


The Damiano Defence is a chess opening beginning with the moves: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6? The defence is one of the oldest chess openings, with games dating back to the 16th century. The ECO code for the Damiano Defence is C40 (King's Knight Opening).
3.d4 and 3.Bc4
Black's 2...f6? is a weak move that exposes Black's king, weakens Black's kingside and takes away his knight's best square. The moves 3.d4 and 3.Bc4 are strong replies; I.A. Horowitz wrote (substituting algebraic notation for his descriptive notation), "Simple and potent is 3.Bc4 d6 4.d4 Nc6 5.c3, after which Black chokes to death."
3.Nxe5!
Most forceful, however, is the knight sacrifice 3.Nxe5! Taking the knight with 3...fxe5? exposes Black to a deadly attack after 4.Qh5+ Ke7 (4...g6 loses to 5.Qxe5+, forking king and rook) 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+ d5! (6...Kg6?? 7.Qf5+ is devastating and leads to mate shortly after) 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.h4 (8.d4? Bd6!) h5 9.Bxb7! Bd6 (9...Bxb7 10.Qf5+ Kh6 11.d4+ g5 12.Qf7! mates quickly) 10.Qa5!, when Black's best is 10...Nc6 11.Bxc6 Rb8, and now White will be ahead by several pawns. Bruce Pandolfini notes that Black's opening is thus sometimes described as "the five pawns gambit". Alternatively, White can continue developing his pieces, remaining four pawns up. In either case, White has a clearly winning position.
Since taking the knight is fatal, after 3.Nxe5 Black should instead play 3...Qe7! (Other Black third moves, such as 3...d5, lead to 4. Qh5+! g6 5. Nxg6!) After 4.Nf3 (4.Qh5+? g6 5.Nxg6 Qxe4+ 6.Be2 Qxg6 leaves Black ahead a piece for a pawn) Qxe4+ 5.Be2, Black has regained the pawn but has lost time and weakened his kingside, and will lose more time when White chases the queen with Nc3, or 0-0, Re1, and a move by the bishop on e2. Nick de Firmian in Modern Chess Openings analyzes instead 4...d5 5.d3 dxe4 6.dxe4, when White had a small advantage in Schiffers–Chigorin, St. Petersburg 1897.
The fact that Black can only regain the pawn with 3...Qe7! shows that 2...f6? did not really defend the e-pawn at all. Indeed, even a relatively useless move like 2...a6?! is less risky than 2...f6?. After 2...a6?! 3.Nxe5, Black could still regain the pawn with 3...Qe7 4.d4 d6, without weakening his kingside or depriving the king knight of its best square.

History: Ironically, the opening is named after the Portuguese master Pedro Damiano (1480–1544), who condemned it as weak. In 1847, Howard Staunton wrote of 2...f6, "This move occurs in the old work of Damiano, who gives some ingenious variations on it. Lopez, and later authors, have hence entitled it 'Damiano's Gambit'."[6] Staunton's contemporary George Walker instead, more logically, reserved the term "Damiano Gambit" for the knight sacrifice played by White on the third move: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5.[7] Staunton referred to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6, a highly respected move then and now, as "Damiano's defence to the K. Kt.'s opening".
The Damiano Defence is never seen today in top-level play. The greatest player to play the Damiano in serious master competition was Mikhail Chigorin. As noted above, he played the 3...Qe7 line in a game against Emmanuel Schiffers at Saint Petersburg 1897. Chigorin lost his queen on move 10, but Schiffers played so weakly that Chigorin later missed a brilliant forced mate and only escaped when Schiffers agreed to a draw in a winning position. Robert McGregor played the Damiano in a 1964 simultaneous exhibition against Bobby Fischer, essaying 3...Qe7 4.Nf3 d5 5.d3 dxe4 6.dxe4 Qxe4+ 7.Be2 Bf5, and drew, although Fischer did not play the best moves (Wikipedia, 2015).


[Tosielämän PELIESIMERKKI siitä, miten musta voi Damiano-avauksessaan sössiä nopeasti kaiken]: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 3. Nxe5 Bd6? 4. Qh5+ g6 5. Nxg6 hxg6 6. Qxh8 Kf8 7. Bc4 Ke7 8. Qg7+ Ke8 9. Qf7# 1-0.

[Jukka Joutsi, Finland - Jimmy Walker, USA * 2011]: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 3. Nxe5 fxe5 4. Qh5+ (valkoisella jo voittoetu) g6 5. Qxe5+ Qe7 6. Qxh8 Qxe4+ 7. Kd1 Ne7 8. Nc3 Qh4 9. d3 d5 10. Be2 Kf7 11. Qe5 c6 12. Bg5 Qb4 13. a3 Qb6 14. Be3 c5 15. b4 Bg7 16. Qxe7+ Kxe7 17. Nxd5+ Kf7 18. Nxb6 axb6 19. Rb1 cxb4 20. axb4 Be6 21. Bf3 Nc6 22. Bxb6 Ba2 23. Kd2 Bxb1 24. Rxb1 Ra3 25. b5 Bc3+ 26. Ke2 Nd4+ 27. Bxd4 Bxd4 28. Bxb7 Bb6 29. Rb4 Rc3 30. Kd1 Rc7 31. Rf4+ Ke6 32. Bc6 Ra7 33. d4 Ra3 34. Ke2 Rc3 35. Kd2 Ba5 36. Kc1 Kd6 37. Rf7 Rc4 38. Rd7+ Ke6 39. d5+ Ke5 40. Rxh7 Rd4 41. Re7+ Kd6 42. Re6+ Kc5 43. Rxg6 Bc3 44. Rg3 Bd2+ 45. Kb2 Be1 46. Rb3 Kb6 47. f4 Rxf4 48. d6 Bf2 49. d7 Bd4+ 50. Ka2 Bf6 51. Ra3 Rd4 52. Ra8 Rd1 53. Kb3 Kc5 54. c3 Rd3 55. Rf8 Be7 56. Rc8 Rd2 57. c4 Kb6 58. Bd5 Rd3+ 59. Kc2 Rd4 60. d8=Q+ Bxd8 61. Rxd8 1-0.

[KORREKTIMPI PELINVIENTI MUSTALLE - esimerkiksi]: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 3. Nxe5 Ne7 4. Nf3 d5 5. Nc3 dxe4 6. Nxe4 Bf5 7. Bb5+ c6 8. Bd3 Qd5 9. Nc3 Qd7 10. Bc4 Na6 (+-).


[Jukka Joutsi, Finland - "Old Boy", Australia * 2016]: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 3. Bc4 Ne7 4. Nc3 a6 5. d4 Nec6 6. dxe5 Na5 7. Bd5 c6 8. exf6 cxd5 9. f7+ Kxf7 10. Ne5+ Ke8 11. Qh5+ g6 12. Nxg6 hxg6 13. Qxg6+ Ke7 14. Nxd5# 1-0.


2. --- Bc5:

[Jukka Joutsi, Finland-Peter Kingsley, Australia * 2016]: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Bc5 3. Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 Bb6 5. Bc4 d5 6. Bxd5 Ne7 7. Bxf7+ Kf8 8. O-O 1-0.


2. --- Bd6:

[Jukka Joutsi, Finland-Alphie Berg, USA * NonStop * Group #2 * 2016]: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Bd6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Nf5 Qf6 6. Nxd6+ Qxd6 7. Qxd6 cxd6 8. Bf4 Nf6 9. Nc3 O-O 10. O-O-O Nc6 11. Bxd6 Re8 12. f3 Na7 13. e5 Nh5 14. Nd5 Nb5 15. Bxb5 axb5 16. Nc7 Rxe5 17. Nxa8 Nf4 18. Bxe5 Nxg2 19. Rhg1 Ne3 20. Rxg7+ 1-0.

2. --- Bb4

(Jukka Joutsi, Finland - 'Thudu' ~ 2007): 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Bb4 3. c3 Bc5 4. d4 Bf8 5. Nxe5 d6 6. Nxf7 Kxf7 7. Bc4+ Ke7 8. Qh5 Nf6 9. Qf7# 1-0.

2. --- Qf6

[Jukka Joutsi, Finland, "Shahim7", Bangladesh ~ 2014]: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Qf6 3. Nc3 Bc5 4. Nd5 Qd6 5. d4 exd4 6. Bf4 Qe7 7. Nxe7 Nxe7 8. Nxd4 Ng6 9. Bxc7 O-O 10. Be2 Nc6 11. Nf5 b6 12. h4 a5 13. h5 Nge5 14. f4 Ra7 15. Bd6 Bxd6 16. Qxd6 Nc4 17. Bxc4 Nb4 18. Qe5 Nxc2+ 19. Kd2 Nxa1 20. Qxg7# 1-0.

Takaisin shakkietusivulle * Chess front page.

Takaisin shakkiavauksien etusivulle * Chess openings