66. The Refutation of the King’s Gambit – Part 6

[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "2019.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "King's Gambit "] [Black "Schallopp Variation"] [Result "*"] [ECO "C34"] [Annotator "Wahls"] [PlyCount "32"] [SourceVersionDate "2002.05.06"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e5 Nh5 5. d4 g6 {[#] This is the third good
option after 5.d4. Black prepares the fianchetto, at the same time
overprotecting his knight. This analysis teaches us again about many general
chess principles and, more specifically, about the bright side of playing the
Sicilian Scheveningen. Yes, you got me right. This King's Gambit will finally
turn into a Scheveningen, which is a nice example of interconnection in
chess. The broader your chess knowledge, the better you can apply the method
of analogy. I even felt reminded of a Benoni game between Spassky and Fischer
in one of the side lines (see respective comment). Keep in mind the wise tenet
of quantum mechanics: Everything is connected with everything else!} 6. Be2 {
This is by far the most common move, but not necessarily the best.} (6. Qe2 Be7
7. g4 $6 (7. Nc3 {see 6.Nc3}) 7... fxg3 8. Bh6 (8. Nc3 d5 9. exd6 Qxd6 10. Bh6
{see 8.Bh6}) 8... d5 9. exd6 Qxd6 10. Nc3 Bg4 11. O-O-O Nd7 12. h3 (12. Nb5 $2
Qf6 13. Bg2 O-O-O $19) 12... Bxf3 13. Qxf3 O-O-O 14. Bg2 c6 15. Qxf7 Qf6 16.
Rhf1 Qxf7 17. Rxf7 Rhe8 18. Rxh7 Ndf6 19. Rf7 Ng8 20. Be3 Bh4 21. Kd2 Ngf6 $17)
(6. Nc3 d6 7. Qe2 {[#] As it turns out, White can steer the game into a
slightly inferior ending after this move. For a true King's Gambit player this
must be a degrading perspective, however.} Be7 (7... d5 $2 8. g3 Nc6 (8... fxg3
$2 9. Bg5 $14) 9. Bxf4 Nxf4 10. gxf4 Bh6 11. Qe3 $11) 8. Bd2 (8. Nd5 $2 Nc6
$146 (8... O-O $2 {1-0 (54) Kinte,K (1972)-Klein,W (1778) Remote email 2013})
9. Nxe7 (9. Nxf4 Bg4 $17) 9... Qxe7 10. exd6 cxd6 $17) 8... Nc6 9. O-O-O Bg4
10. Qf2 (10. Qe1 $2 Bxf3 11. gxf3 O-O 12. Qe4 Re8 13. Bc4 Bf6 14. Rhg1 Bg7 15.
Bxf4 Qc8 $17) (10. Kb1 $2 Nxd4 11. Qe4 Bxf3 12. gxf3 dxe5 13. Bxf4 Nxf4 14.
Qxe5 O-O 15. Qxf4 c5 16. h4 Qd6 $17) (10. Qc4 O-O 11. Be2 dxe5 12. dxe5 (12.
Nxe5 $2 Be6 13. Qa4 Nxd4 14. Bxh5 gxh5 15. Bxf4 c5 $17) 12... Bxf3 13. Bxf3
Nxe5 14. Qf1 Nxf3 15. Qxf3 Bd6 16. Ne4 (16. g4 $2 fxg3 17. hxg3 Qf6 $17) 16...
Qe7 17. Nxd6 cxd6 18. Rhe1 Qc7 19. Bxf4 Nxf4 20. Qxf4 Rad8 $15) 10... Bxf3 11.
Qxf3 (11. gxf3 $2 Bh4 12. Qe2 O-O $17) 11... Nxd4 12. Qd5 (12. Qxb7 $2 dxe5 13.
g4 Nf6 14. Bxf4 exf4 15. Rxd4 Qxd4 16. Qxa8+ Bd8 17. Bb5+ Kf8 $17) 12... dxe5
13. Qxe5 O-O 14. Nd5 Nc6 15. Nxe7+ Qxe7 16. Qxe7 Nxe7 17. Be2 Nd5 18. Bxh5 gxh5
$15) (6. Bc4 $2 d5 7. exd6 Bxd6 8. O-O O-O 9. Nc3 Bg4 $17 {1-0 (32) Montell
Zabay,A (2125)-Coll Enriquez,L (2320) Santa Susanna 2015}) 6... d6 $1 {[#] Directly attacking the e-pawn is more energetic than developing the bishop. It
is also more flexible, as we will see below.} (6... Bg7 $6 7. O-O d6 8. exd6
cxd6 9. Ne1 {Compared to the main line, White has this move at his disposal,
as there is no pressure on the d-pawn.} (9. Nc3 $2 {1-0 (26) Gallagher,J (2500)
-Curran,A Lyon 1993}) 9... Nf6 10. Bxf4 Nd5 11. Bc1 Nc6 12. c3 O-O 13. Nc2 {
Black is slightly better, but White is still in good shape.}) 7. O-O Nc6 8. Nc3
(8. exd6 Bxd6 {That's only possible because the bishop stayed put in move 6.}
9. c4 (9. c3 Ng7 10. Nbd2 g5 11. Ne4 h6 $17) (9. Nc3 Bg4 (9... O-O $2 10. Ne5
$1 {gives White chances for equality.}) 10. h3 {White has to surrender the
square g3 in order to chase away the bishop.} Bf5 11. d5 Ne7 12. Nd4 Ng3 13.
Bb5+ Bd7 14. Rxf4 O-O 15. Rf3 Be5 16. Bxd7 Qxd7 17. Nde2 Nxe2+ 18. Qxe2 Qd6 19.
Qf2 Nf5 $17 {leaves White with a weak d-pawn and kingside.}) 9... Bg4 10. Nc3
O-O {Obviously, something has gone terribly wrong for White. Black managed to complete
his development and is still sitting on his extra pawn. We will now see some
cases, where he will trade his extra material for piece activity, capitalizing
on the weaknesses in White's position.[#]} 11. d5 (11. Ne4 $2 Re8 (11... f5 $2
{0-1 (48) Dani,T-Egri,L (2150) Debrecen 1998}) 12. Nxd6 Qxd6 $19) (11. c5 Be7
12. Kh1 Bf6 13. d5 Ne7 14. Ng1 Bxe2 15. Ngxe2 Re8 16. Bxf4 Nxf4 17. Rxf4 Nf5
18. Qd3 Re3 19. Qd2 Re5 20. Qd3 Bg7 21. Raf1 Qd7 $17 {Black's pieces are more
active and the d-pawn is vulnerable.}) 11... Ne7 12. Ne4 (12. Nd4 Bxe2 13.
Ncxe2 c6 (13... g5 $6 {1-0 (26) McDonald,G (1614)-Bengoa Barrena,J (950) IECG
email 2002}) 14. dxc6 Nxc6 15. Nxc6 bxc6 16. Nxf4 Qb6+ 17. Kh1 Bxf4 18. Bxf4
Nxf4 19. Rxf4 Qxb2 $17) 12... Nf5 13. Nd4 Bxe2 14. Nxe2 Re8 15. Nxd6 Qxd6 16.
Nxf4 Nf6 $1 (16... Nxf4 17. Bxf4 Qc5+ $17 {1/2-1/2 (36) Skonieczny,J (2320)
-Gavrileteanu,L (1790) IECG email 2003}) 17. Kh1 Re4 18. b3 Rae8 19. Nh3 c6 20.
Bf4 Qd7 21. Bg5 Ng4 22. dxc6 Qxc6 23. Rf4 h5 $19 {Black has emerged with
overwhelming piece activity.}) 8... Bg7 (8... dxe5 $2 9. d5 $14) 9. exd6 cxd6 {
[#]} (9... Qxd6 $2 10. Nb5 Qe7 11. d5 {gives White something to hope for, even
though after} a6 {Black is still on top.}) 10. d5 $6 {This move is motivated
from a psychological point of view. Even a King's Gambit player doesn't want
to live forever with a minus pawn. Consequently, the majority of all white
protagonists tried to regain the f-pawn. It would have been better to bet on
piece activity, instead.} (10. Ne1 Bxd4+ 11. Kh1 Ng7 12. Bxf4 Nf5 13. Qd2 O-O
14. Nf3 Bg7 15. Rad1 $15) (10. Nd5 g5 11. c3 Be6 12. Nxf4 Nxf4 13. Bxf4 gxf4
14. d5 O-O 15. Rf2 Ne5 16. Nxe5 Bxe5 17. dxe6 fxe6 {0-1 (29) Steiner,A (2174)
-Morgunov,D (2346) Vienna 2018} 18. Rf3 $15) 10... Ne5 11. Nd2 $6 (11. Nxe5 $2
dxe5 12. Bxh5 gxh5 13. Qxh5 Qb6+ 14. Kh1 Qg6 15. Qxg6 hxg6 $19) (11. Ne1 Nf6
12. Bxf4 Qb6+ 13. Kh1 O-O 14. a4 Re8 15. Qc1 Bf5 $17) (11. Nd4 Bg4 $1 {An
important tactical motive.} 12. Bb5+ Nd7 13. Qxg4 Bxd4+ 14. Kh1 f5 15. Qh3 (15.
Qe2+ Be5 16. g4 (16. Bxd7+ $2 {leads to a positional catastrophe after} Qxd7
17. Bxf4 Nxf4 18. Rxf4 O-O 19. Rf3 Rac8 {[%csl Yb2,Yc2,Yd5,Ge5,Yh2] [#] when
the Be5 dominates the entire board.}) 16... fxg4 17. Qxg4 Qe7 18. Ne2 a6 19.
Bxd7+ Qxd7 20. Qxd7+ Kxd7 21. Bxf4 Nxf4 22. Nxf4 Rac8 23. c3 Rc5 24. Nd3 Rxd5
25. Rf7+ Kc8 $17) 15... Be5 16. Ne2 O-O 17. Nxf4 Nxf4 18. Bxf4 Bxf4 (18... Nf6
19. Bxe5 dxe5 20. c4 Rc8 {Both sides have their respective majorities, but the
difference in the value of the minor pieces is tremendous.} 21. Rac1 Qa5 22.
Qb3 a6 23. Ba4 Ne4 $17) 19. Bxd7 (19. Rxf4 Ne5 $17 {[#] Again, we see a very
negative minor piece match-up. By the way, this position type is well-known
from the Scheveningen.}) 19... Qxd7 20. Rxf4 Rae8 $17 {Black owns the only
open file on the board.}) 11... Nf6 {This is the conservative move. But there
is also the option to ignore the threat to the knight, in the style of
Spassky-Fischer, Reykjavik 1972, 3rd game.} (11... O-O $5 12. Nb3 $2 (12. Bxh5
gxh5 13. Rxf4 Bg4 14. Qf1 Ng6 15. Rf2 f5 $1 16. h3 (16. Nf3 f4 $17 {sees
Black's pieces very active.}) 16... f4 17. hxg4 $2 hxg4 $19 {when the idea of
Qh4 and g3 is very annoying for White.}) 12... Ng3 $1 {[#]} (12... Bf5 13. Bxh5
gxh5 $17 {1-0 (37) Schmid,W (1782)-Edelmann,W GER email 2016}) 13. hxg3 fxg3 {
This is another example for converting the gift Black received in move 2 into a
deadly attacking unit.} 14. Rf4 {Defending against 14..Qh4, of course.} g5 15.
Rd4 f5 16. Qe1 f4 {That's one impressive kingside structure.} 17. Bd2 Ng6 18.
Bh5 Be5 $19 {with g4-g5 to follow.}) 12. Rxf4 O-O 13. Nf1 $2 {That creates a
conflict with the rook's desire to return to safety. [#]} (13. Nb3 Re8 (13...
Ne8 14. Nd4 f5 $17) 14. a4 Qb6+ 15. Qd4 (15. Kh1 Bg4 $1 $17) 15... Qxd4+ 16.
Nxd4 (16. Rxd4 $2 Bf5 {[%cal Rf5c2]}) 16... a6 {[%csl Yc2,Yd4,Yd5,Ye2,Yf4] White's position suffers from the many soft spots it contains. Most of all,
the d-pawn appears to be very exposed, e.g.} 17. a5 Ned7 18. Nf3 (18. Nb3 Nxd5
$17) 18... b5 19. axb6 Nxb6 20. Bd3 Nbxd5 21. Nxd5 Nxd5 22. Re4 Bb7 $17) 13...
Re8 $2 {Why not exploiting the vulnerable rook?} (13... g5 14. Rb4 (14. Rf2 $2
Nfg4 15. Bxg4 Nxg4 16. Re2 f5 $19) 14... Nfd7 15. Ne4 h6 16. Ne3 (16. Nxd6 $4
Qe7 $19 {Didn't I say the rook was a problem?}) 16... f5 (16... Nb6 17. g4 Nxg4
18. Bxg4 f5 $17 {is a simple solution.}) 17. Nxd6 f4 {Again, we will see White
suffer from his off-road rook, one way or the other.} 18. Nef5 (18. Nec4 Nb6
19. Nxb6 Qxd6 20. Nxa8 Qxb4 $19) 18... Nc5 19. Nxg7 Qxd6 20. Nh5 Ncd3 21. Re4
Nxc1 22. Rxc1 Bf5 23. Rd4 Bg6 {[%cal Rf4f3]} 24. Bg4 Nxg4 25. Qxg4 Rae8 $19)
14. Be3 a6 15. a4 b6 16. Bf2 Nfd7 $17 {[#] In contrast to White, Black has a mobile majority and a
fantastic central outpost for his pieces. That's the kind of position I hope
for, whenever I enter a Scheveningen structure. ½-½ (48) Marchisotti,M (2311)
-Lukasova,A (2303) ICCF email 2013} *

Recent Posts