BIRD OPENING
BATAVO-POLISH ATTACK
________
_@@@@g@@
_@_@_@___
___@__
_____
_____
_____
_________
________
The Batavo-Polish Attack is another one of Schlenkers faves, though it has
been used earlier by Myers, among others. For some reason, his opponents
refuse to accept pawns from this creative player, even when there is no real
reason to decline.
EXAMPLES AND DISCUSSION
3...Nd5 wins a pawn. Schlenker claims that White gets great joy after. 3...Bg7;
4.Bb2 O-O; 5.e3 b6; 6.Be2 Bb7; 7.O-O was played in Schlenker-Wienigk, German High
School Individual Championship 1977. Instead of the ambitious 7...c5, I suggest 7...d6
intending ...Nbd7 and an eventual 1...e5, in keeping with generally useful strategies
against queenside fianchettoes by White.
4.Bb2 f6. When Bent Larsen tried this in the 1958 Munich Olympiad against
Raizman, Black reacted with 4...a5. But it is important to block the long diagonal.
5.f5 is now played, and was recorded by Pickett back in the 1970s. 5...Nxb4. Only
a masochist can find pleasure in Whites position. The pawn at f5 achieves nothing
and will quickly become a target after the Black d-pawn advances.
After 6.fxg6, as in Campioli-Columbo, Italy 1974, Black should just recapture and
not go wild with 6...Nd5.
1.f4 Nf6
2.Nf3 g6
3.b4
FRISKY KNIGHT VARIATION: REUTER GAMBIT
________
_@@@@g@@
_@_@@_@_
___@_
______
_____
_____
_________
________
The idea of this move, which has no name yet, is to introduce the Reuter
Gambit, but White can also play as a Stonewall Attack or some other reversed
Dutch. The knight at e5 is not easy to dislodge. 3.d3 g6 4.e4 dxe4 5.Ne5 Bg7
6.Nc3 exd3 7.Bxd3 O-O 8.O-O is another one of Clydes lines.
EXAMPLES AND DISCUSSION
3...Nbd7. 3...Bf5; 4.e3 e6; 5.Be2 Nbd7; 6.O-O Bd6; 7.d4 Ne4; 8.c4 is an interesting
option. 4.d3 c5; 5.e4 dxe4; 6.Nc3. 6.dxe4!? is another way to play it. 6...Nxe5 (Or
6...Nxe4 7.Nxf7! Kxf7 8.Qd5+e6 9.Qxe4) 7.Qxd8+Kxd8; 8.fxe5 Nxe4; 9.Bd3 Bf5;
10.O-O Bg6; 11.Re1 forces 11...f5 when 12.e6! completely entombs Blacks bishop and
provides more than enough compensation for the pawn. 6...Nxe5 ;7.fxe5 Ng4; 8.Bf4.
8.Nxe4 Nxe5 9.Be3 b6 is about even. White will make good use of the central open
files. 8...e3; 9.Qf3. 9.Bg3 Qd4; 10.Qf3 Nxe5; 11.Bxe5 Qxe5; 12.O-O-O g6; 13.d4! cxd4;
14.Bb5+Kd8; 15.Rxd4+!! A twin to our main game! 15...Qxd4; 16.Rd1 Qxd1+; 17.Qxd1+
Kc7 ;18.Qd4 f6; 19.Nd5+Kd6; 20.Nxe3+. KASPAROVS GAMBIT resigned in a 1994
game against C. Nakamura. 9...Qd4; 10.O-O-O Nxe5 11.Bxe5 Qxe5 12.Re1 g6 13.d4!?
is a sacrifice designed to activate the bishop, but it isnt quite sound. 13.g3 is a more
patient approach. 13...cxd4 14.Bb5+Kd8 15.Rd1 Bh6 16.Kb1 forced since the move
e2+is very nasty. 16...f5? Black had to play 16...Kc7!; 17.Nd5+Kb8! gets the king to a
secure location, and White is just down a bunch of pawns. 17.Rxd4+!! A crushing
sacrifice, taking avdantage of Blacks uncastled king. 17...Qxd4; 18.Rd1 Qxd1+;
19.Qxd1+Kc7; 20.Nd5+Kd6; 21.Nxe3+Kc7; 22.Nd5+is how Clyde Nakamura de-
feated the same program, from another 1994 15-minute game.
1.f4 d5
2.Nf3 Nf6
3.Ne5
FROM GAMBIT
________
_@@@@g@g@
_@_@__@_
__@__
_____
_____
_____
_________
________
White can of course transpose to the Kings Gambit with 2.e4, and this is a
common strategy.
EXAMPLES AND DISCUSSION
2...d6. The From Gambit is a good, aggressive reply to the Bird Opening. 2...Nc6,
the Schlechter Gambit, has become the popular line and is covered in Standard Chess
Openings. 3.exd6. 3.Nf3 Bg4!?; 4.e4 dxe5; 5.Bc4 Nd7; 6.Nc3 Bc5; 7.d3 Ngf6; 8.Bg5 h6;
9.Bh4 c6; 10.h3 Bh5; 11.Qe2 g5; 12.Bf2 b5 and in Hayward-Nolan, Correspondence
1987, Black had an initiative on both sides of the board.
3...Bxd6. This is a very complicated opening, and there is no room to squeeze in
all of the details in a repertoire book, I have written a monograph, How to Play theFrom
Gambit, published in 1992 by Chess Enterprises. It also covers the Schlechter Gambit.
4.Nf3 g5; 5.g3. 5.d4 g4; 6.Ng5 (6.Ne5 Bxe5; 7.dxe5 Qxd1+; 8.Kxd1 Nc6; 9.Nc3
Be6!; 10.Bf4 O-O-O+; 11.Ke1 Nge7; 12.e3 Ng6; and in Chigorin-Tarrasch, Vienna 1898,
Black had solved the problems of the opening. Dogmatic old Tarrasch who would
have thought of him on the Black side of this opening!) 6...f5; 7.e4 h6; 8.e5 Be7; 9.Nh3
gxh3; 10.Qh5+Kf8; 11.Bc4 Rh7!; 12.Qg6 Rg7; 13.Bxh6 Nxh6 (13...Bb4+is a popular
alternative.) 14.Qxh6 Bb4+; 15.c3 Qg5; 16.Qxh3 Nc6; 17.O-O Nxe5!; 18.dxe5 Bc5+;
19.Kh1 Ke7; 20.b4 Be6! Rh8; 21.Nd2 Rh8; 22.Nf3! Qg6; 23.Nh4 and now perhaps
Black should settle for the draw by repeating the position. Instead, in Theiler-Ghitescu,
Romania 1956, he tried for more and lost.
5...g4; 6.Nh4.
1.f4 e5
2.fxe5
________
_@@@@g_g@
_@_@____
__@__
_____
______
_____
________
________
This certainly is not an orthodox position!
6...Ne7; 7.d4. 7.b3 Be5; 8.Nc3 Bf6; 9.Ng2 Nbc6; 10.Bb2 Bf5; 11.e3 is also good, as
in Noble-Rodriguez Monteiro, Las Palmas 1996.
7...Ng6; 8.Nxg6. 8.Ng2 h5!? Not the most common move, but it seems good enough
and avoids a lot of messy theory. 9.e4 h4; 10.e5 Be7!; 11.Rg1 Bf5; 12.Be3 Nc6; 13.c3
Qd7; 14.Bb5 O-O-O and Black had a promising position in Genser-Jonassen, Corre-
spondence 1979.
8...hxg6; 9.Qd3. 9.Bg2 invites 9...Rxh2! but 10.Qd3 (10.Rxh2 Bxg3+; 11.Kf1 Bxh2
is better for Black.) 10...Rxh1+; 11.Bxh1 Nc6? (11...c5!) 12.Bxc6+bxc6; 13.Qe4+and
White had the upper hand in Petro-Kadlicsko, Sarospatak 1996.
9...Nc6; 10.c3 Qe7; 11.Bg2 Bf5; 12.e4 O-O-O; 13.Be3! 13.O-O?! Ne5!; 14.Qd1
(14.Qe3 Bd7; 15.Qg5 Nf3+; 16.Bxf3 f6 is unclear, according to Panchenko.) 14...Nf3+;
15.Bxf3 gxf3; 16.exf5.
________
__g@_@
_@_@@__
__@___
______
_____
______
______
_______
16...Rxh2!!; 17.Qxf3 Rh3; 18.Bf4 Bxf4; 19.Qxf4 Rdh8; 20.Qf3 Qg5; 21.Kf2 Rh2+;
22.Kg1 Rh1+and White resigned, Antoshin-Panchenko, Soviet Union 1983.
13...Rde8! 14.Nd2 g5. 14...f6; 15.exf5 Qxe3+; 16.Qxe3 Rxe3+; 17.Kf2 Rhe8 18.Rhe1
Rxe1; 19.Rxe1 Rxe1; 20.Kxe1 gxf5 and White is only a little better in the endgame.
15.exf5 Qxe3+; 16.Qxe3 Rxe3+; 17.Kf2 Rhe8; 18.Bd5 Re2+; 19.Kf1 Rxd2; 20.Bxf7
Ree2 and Black wins.
For more on the From, see Gambit Chess Openings.
HOBBS GAMBIT
________
_@@@@g@g@
_@_@_@___
_____
____@
_____
_____
_________
________
Blacks confrontational 1...e5 has been treated in the From Gambit sec-
tion, but there are other radical moves that Black can use to attack Whites
strategy. Well take a brief look at the Hobbs Gambit.
EXAMPLES AND DISCUSSION
The Hobbs Gambit is motivated by the reasonable success White has with an early
g4 against the Dutch Defense (1.d4 f5). Here, however, Black is a tempo down and has
not established a pawn in the center. This allows White to employ a strategy which is
not as effective with colors reversed.
2.fxg5 h6. 2...e5; 3.e4 (3.d3 h6; 4.Nf3 Nc6; 5.e4 hxg5; 6.Bxg5 f6 provided some
compensation for Black in Spargo-Hobbs, Berkeley 1977, because the open h-file is
valuable.) 3...Qxg5 (3...h6 of Spargo-Hobbs, Berkeley 1978, should be met by 4.g6!
fxg6; 5.Nf3 Nc6; 6.Bc4 and the weakness of Blacks kingside is critical.) 4.Nf3 Qg6;
5.Nc3 is clearly better for White. Black will have to worry about the vulnerability of f7,
which now lies on an open f-file.
See diagram next page.
3.g6! fxg6; 4.e3 when Blacks kingside is very vulnerable. I think that this is better
than 4.e4, seen in Hjortstam-Trokenheim, Postal 1990, because White may want to use
a bishop at d3 to attack g6. But that is also a good move.
1.f4 g5
________
_@@@@g@g@
_@_@_@__
____@
_____
_____
_____
_________
________
HORSEFLY DEFENSE
________
_@@@@g@@
_@_@_@_@_
____@
_____
_____
_____
_________
________
If it were Whites intention to advance the pawn to f5 right away, this might
make some sense, but even then, there are better ways to achieve the goal.
EXAMPLES AND DISCUSSION
2.Nf3 g6; 3.e4. 3.d3 d5; 4.e3 Bg7; 5.Be2 O-O; 6.O-O Nc6; 7.d4 Bf5; 8.Bd2 Be4 and
Black was doing fine in Schenk-Welling, Eindhoven 1986.
3...Bg7. Perhaps Heinolas suggested 3...d5 is better, but I still think Blacks posi-
tion is suspect. 4.Bc4 looks good for White.
1.f4 Nh6
LASKER ATTACK
________
_@@@@g@g@
_@_@_@_@_
_____
_____
_____
_____
_________
________
The Bird Opening would be orthodox enough if it were merely a way of
playing a Dutch Defense with an extra tempo. It can lead to some strange
positions too. We will look at the Lasker Attack which involves e3 and a
queenside fianchetto.
EXAMPLES AND DISCUSSION
1...d5. The most testing approach is the provocative From Gambit (1...e5 2.fxe5)
which we examined earlier.
2.e3. 2.Nf3 usually leads to similar positions, but if 2...g6, White can try 3.e4 dxe4;
4.Ng5. Bryntse-Hjorth, Postal 1973 continued 4...Nf6; 5.Bc4 e6; (5...Bg4; 6.Bxf7+Kd7;
7.Qxg4+Nxg4; 8.Be6+Kc6; 9.Bxg4 e5; 10.Nf7 Qf6; 11. Nxe5+Kb6; 12.Nc3 c6 was the
continuation of Heinola-Arne, Palo Alto 1995.) 6.Nc3 Bg7; 7.Ncxe4 Nxe4; 8.Nxe4 O-
O; 9.c3 c5; 10.d3 Qc7 11.h4 b6; 12.h5 Ba6; 13.hxg6 hxg6; 14.Qg4 Bxc4; 15.Qh4 Rc8;
16.f5! exf5; 17.Qh7+Kf8; 18. Qxg7+and Black resigned a few moves later.
2...Nf6; 3.b3 e6. 3...e5 is an unorthodox sacrifice. 4.fxe5 Ng4; 5.Bb2 Nc6; 6.Bb5
Bb4 awaits a practical test.
4.Bb2 Be7; 5.Bd3. A somewhat artificial move, but not bad, because the c-pawn
can still advance to c4, and then the bishop can retreat to c2, or b1, as needed.
5...b6; 6.Nf3 Bb7; 7.Nc3 Nbd7; 8.O-O O-O; 9.Ne2 c5; 10.Ng3 Qc7; 11.Ne5 Nxe5?
With just one move, Black invites disaster. Moving one of the rooks to c8 would have
been better. 12.Bxe5. Just compare the relative activity of the bishops Black is already
in serious trouble. 12...Qc6; 13.Qe2 a6.
White has completed development and is ready to attack. The position of the rook
at a1 cannot be improved, for the moment. Lasker starts by eliminating one of the few
defenders of the Black king. But he doesnt part with the Be5. 14.Nh5 Nxh5. White
1.f4
could simply recapture at h5; with a strong attack, but by sacrificing a piece the mo-
mentum is greatly increased. 15.Bxh7+! Kxh7; 16.Qxh5+Kg8; 17.Bxg7. This threat-
ens mate at h8. 17...Kxg7; 18.Qg4+Kh7.
Now the queen guards g2 and White can threaten the sideways equivalent of a
back rank mate. 19.Rf3 e5. The only defense. Now the Black queen can come to h6.
20.Rh3+Qh6; 21.Rxh6+Kxh6; 22.Qd7. This wins one of the bishops, and the game
now is decisively in Whites favor. 22...Bf6; 23.Qxb7 Kg7; 24.Rf1 Rab8; 25.Qd7 Rfd8;
26.Qg4+Kf8; 27.fxe5 Bg7; 28.e6 Rb7; 29.Qg6. White exploits the pin in the maxi-
mally efficient way. 29...f6; 30.Rxf6+Bxf6; 31.Qxf6+Ke8; 32.Qh8+Ke7; 33.Qg7+.
Now the rook at b7 falls, so Black gives up. Lasker-Bauer, Amsterdam 1889.
STURM GAMBIT
________
_@@@@g@g@
_@_@@_@_
_____
______
______
_____
________
________
This is a radical plan for White, offering a pawn to get access to the e4
square. The problem is that Whites d-pawn becomes backward as a result.
EXAMPLES AND DISCUSSION
2...dxc4. 2...Nf6; 3.cxd5 Nxd5; 4.e4 Nxf4; 5.d4 Ng6; 6.Nf3 Nd7; 7.Bc4 e5; 8.O-O
exd4; 9.Bxf7+was Sturm-Martin, 1951. Such gambits should not be declined. But in
Sturms games I could find no case where Black accepted!
3.Na3. 3.Qa4+Nc6; 4.Nf3 Nf6; 5.Nc3 is a more promising way of playing the open-
ing. There is no rush to recover the pawn. Still, Black is better.
3...e5; 4.e4 Bxa3; 5.Qa4+Nc6; 6.Qxa3 Qd4. Black already has a clear advantage,
Sanchez-Sarmiento, Las Palmas Open 1995.
1.f4 d5
2.c4
