Lines with 3. Bg5

1. e4 e5
2. d4 Nf6
3. Bg5

After 3 dxe5, white's most popular response, evoking the Trompowsky, Torre, and Veresov attacks. However, the database record for this move (+3 -5 =5) is not particularly promising for white.

3... h6

Puts the question directly to white. 3... Be7 4. Nc3 exd4 5. Qxd4 Nc6 is roughly equal. However, several games in the database run 4 dxe5 Nxe4 5 Bxe7 Qxe7, after which black stands quite well. Moreover, the tempting 6 Qe2 in this line fails against the strong threats of 6...Qg5!

It should be noted here that black is almost on (heretofore) uncharted ground—I have only two games in my DB featuring 3…h6.

4. Bh4



The pin remains a useful device for white, if only to discourage an immediate …exd4.

4. dxe5 hxg5 5. exf6 Qxf6 and black’s aggressive posture more than compensates for the doubled pawn.

4. Be3 is possible, but not particularly enterprising. 4…exd4 5. Qxd4 Nc6 6. Qd3 d5 7. Nd2 Nb4 and white has several threats to parry. However, the gambit line 4…exd4 5. Bxd4 Nxe4 6. Qe2 Qe7 7. Nc3 Nc6 has white setting the tone.

Of course, 4. Bxf6 Qxf6 5. Nf3 Qb6 grants black a marked initiative.

4…exd4

This is not the simplest line; but for the tactically alert, it offers a good deal of canvas on which to paint. Those seeking calmer but equal play are encouraged to play 4…Be7, which may result in positions similar to those described under the notes for black’s third move.

5 e5

Seemingly white’s sharpest reply, but one which can be defused by proper play. The primary alternative, 5 Qxd4, allows black to equalize quickly with 5…Nc6. The gambit line 5…c3 may deserve some consideration.

5…Qe7
6. Qe2 d3!




The keymove. The pawn pressures white to move the c-pawn; once this is accomplished, black can get his queen out from under the pin and rescue the Nf6.

7. cxd3 Qb4+

White has little choice but to accede to black’s wishes. 7. Qxd3 Qxe5+ leaves black with no weaknesses and up a pawn.

8. Qd2

Perhaps white’s best route to equality. Other moves (Nc3, Nd2, and Kd1 are the only options) allow the black knight to flee to d5—a strong post. A caveat: in these three cases, 8…Qxh4 9. exf6 may lead black into trouble.

8…Qxh4
9. Nf3 Ne4!




Another surprise, but a sound one. A queenswap here will leave white underdeveloped and his advanced pawns open to attack. The very natural 10. dxe4 Qxe4+ gives black more than enough initiative (and the solid threat of …Bb4+) to offset the material loss.

Black appears to have the situation well in hand.

Game of the Week: Attacks Are Made to Be Pressed

[Event "New York Metropolitan tt"]
[Site "New York"]
[Date "1923.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Souweine, Arthur Jacob"]
[Black "Kupchik, Abraham"]
[Result "0-1"]

{While there is an impressive record for Abraham Kupchik in the annals (he apparently took second to Capablanca at Lake Hoptacong in 1926), little is to be found about Arthur Souweine. Based on the few references I could find, it appears that his peak may have been in the 1890s, and he never reached the caliber of someone like Kupchik. }

1. e4 e5 2. d4 Nf6 3. dxe5 Nxe4 4. Bc4
{A no-nonsense approach often focusing on development. Perhaps the thought is that black's N will be unable to hold its post, and therefore needs no "incentive." The current game, in which white seems to be the last advocate for the Romantic Era, is something different. }

4... c6 5. Bxf7+
{A far less speculative tactic than most bishop-takes-f7 slams. }

5... Kxf7 6. Qf3+ Nf6 7. exf6 Qxf6 8. Be3
{The queen exchange gains white nothing at this point, of course. }

8... d5 9. Qxf6+
{Neither is it particularly good here. 9 Nd2 keeps things moving for white. } ( 9. Nc3 Qxf3 10. Nxf3 Bb4 11. O-O Bxc3 12. bxc3 {has black lagging in development and quiets the position somewhat, but cripples white's queenside minority.} )

9... gxf6
{The right choice, despite the pawn dispersion it creates. Note how the current pawn structure, while full of holes, nonetheless severely restricts white's knights. The QN, for instance, cannot take up a useful post near the center in fewer than three moves, and a black pawn on f6 takes away both e5 and g5 from the KN. }

10. Nf3 Nd7
{10...Rg8 might be stronger here. }

11. O-O Nc5 12. Nbd2 Rg8 13. Kh1 Be7!
{An extremely instructive move. 13...Bd6 would have given this bishop more immediate scope, but left it awkwardly placed in the event of white's freeing thrust, c4. }

14. Rfd1
{With a later c4 in mind. Whether white's transfer of forces to the queenside while parrying kingside threats is wise remains to be seen. }

14... Bg4 15. h3 Bh5 16. c4 Rad8 17. cxd5
{While white's c4 thrust has come to naught, there's no need to do black's work for him. This move will get black's forces out in front of the pawns and ready for
action. }

17... Rxd5 18. Bxc5 Rxc5
{Again, an unnecessary simplification. Black's bishops will become very strong. Note that black's K has not been made to move a single time after the capture on f7 back at move 5.}

19. Rac1 Rd8 20. g4 Bg6 21. Re1 Bf8
{Threatening to come around the corner and target the Nd2.} ( 21... Rxc1 22. Rxc1 Bb4 23. Nf1 Be4 24. Kg2 Rd3 25. Ne3 {with some advantage to black.} )

22. Rxc5 Bxc5 23. Kg2 h5
{Computer analysis shows this position only slightly in black's favor. Given white's complete lack of play and black's marauding bishops, it's very nearly a win for black. }

24. Ne4 Bb4 25. Re3 hxg4 26. hxg4 Re8 27. Ng3 Rxe3 28. fxe3 Bb1
{The bishops, in textbook play, now come entirely into their own. }

29. a3 Bc5 30. e4 Ke6 31. Nd2
( 31. g5 fxg5 32. Nxg5+ Kf6 33. Nf3 {gives white a passed pawn and a little bit of play, but hardly enough. } )

31... Bc2 32. Nf5
{It is difficult to see the purpose of this otherwise natural-looking move, since black should be able to disrupt the linchpin of the position, the Nd2, without undue difficulty. }

32... Ke5 33. b4 Bf8 34. Kf3 Bd1+ 35. Kg3 b5 36. Ne3 Ba4 37. Nf5 c5
{There is no relief available. }

38. bxc5 Bxc5 39. Nb1 b4 40. axb4 Bxb4
{The Nb1 is immobilized!}

41. Ne3 Kxe4 42. Nc4 Kd4 43. Nba3
{Nca3 was better, but material will be lost in any event. }

43... Bb3 44. Nb5+ Kxc4 45. Nxa7 Ba4 46. Nc8
{Futility--had the N stayed at a7, ...Bd7 would have immobilized it. Now Bc5 does the same thing.}

46... Bc5
{Black can eliminate the N, trade pawns, then mate with the two bishops. A very complete victory. }

0-1

Game of the Week: Black Killed by Underdevelopment

I probably should have annotated a win for the Peterson Defense as my first Game of the Week, but this represents one of the highest-rated contests in the database. Some early inaccuracies by black coupled with a general neglect of development wind up sinking Yaremko in the end.

---

[Event "ch-UKR u20"]
[Site "Lviv UKR"]
[Date "2005.??.??"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Yarmysty, M"]
[Black "Yaremko, N"]
[Result "1-0"]
[BlackElo "2234"]
[ECO "C20"]
[WhiteElo "2334"]

1. e4 e5
2. d4 Nf6
3. dxe5 Nxe4
Really the only choice, other than a retreat with ...Ng8.

4. Qd5
Not the most popular choice, but a serious enough test for the advanced N. Two retreat squares (c5 and g5) are available, as is the option of direct protection via ...f5.

4... Nc5
Probably safest.

5. Bc4 Qe7
An interesting selection. 5...Ne6 may be more typical here, blocking the threat of mate. This, however, begins to put pressure on white's advanced pawn.

6. Be3
With black's queen stalking the king's file, this shield is prudent.

6... Nc6
7. Nf3 Qe6?
Encouraging this exchange seems questionable given the position. 7...Na4 or ...d6 should be explored. 7... Nb4 8. Bxc5 Nxd5 9. Bxe7 Nxe7 10. Ng5 is entirely in white's favor.

8. Nc3 Nb4
Probably black's best, given its multiple threats, but it does not solve the problem of white's preponderance of developed forces.

9. Qxe6+ dxe6
Natural, but resulting in a symmetrical pawn structure for now.

10. O-O-O c6
...Be7 seems imperative here, though black seems to be preparing d4 as a N outpost.

11. Ng5?
Allows an immediate ...Nd5, and lets initiative begin to slip away. Instead 11. Bxc5 Bxc5 12. Ne4 Be7 13. Nd6+.

11... Nd5
Black masks the open file and threatens ...Nxe3 or ...Nxc3, either one offering doubled, isolated pawns.

12. Bd4 Nxc3
13. Bxc3
White slips out, but his Bc3 is very poorly placed for offensive activity.

13... Be7
14. h4
f4 would have been more in the spirit of 11 Ng5.

14... h6
15. Nf3

Computer evaluation rates this position very even, with only a slight advantage to white. But white's lead in development and black's "problem" QB may come back to haunt him.

15... b5
16. Be2 Bb7
An interesting try, but this B will take some time to properly activate. 16...0-0 seems more appropriate here.

17. Nd4 Ne4
This transparent threat facilitates white's repositioning of his bad Bc3. With this and the eariler ...b5, black has given white all the reasons he needs to redeploy his forces! Also note that black's N has nowhere to go, other than right back to c5. Meanwhile, black's rooks sit unconnected and unutilized.

18. Be1 a6
This move is difficult to understand unless it is prefatory to ...c5; note again that the Ne4 has no flight squares if c5 is occupied.

19. Nb3 Rc8
20. Na5 Ba8
21. b4!

The keymove--the Ne4's lack of mobility stabs black in the chest.

21... Bxb4
21... c5 22. f3 cxb4 23. fxe4 Bxe4 24. Rd2 O-O 25. Bf3 Bxf3 26. gxf3 is also advantageous to white. Other alternatives lose material outright.

22. Bxb4 Nxf2
23. Bc5 Nxh1
24. Rxh1
Black has a raw material advantage of a pawn; but as the Bc5 cannot be driven away, black's Ba8 is useless.

24... f6
Black no longer has any productive choices.

25. Rd1 Kf7
26. Rd7+ Kg6
27. h5+?
A wasted opportunity, but black's wandering king will soon be cut down. 27. Bd3+ f5 (any move of black's K onto the h-file will be death not long after ...Rxg7.) 28. h5+ Kh7 29. g4 and white's attack is too strong.

27... Kf5
28. Bd3+ Kf4
Not 28... Kxe5 29. g3 Rcd8 30. Bd4#

29. Nb3 f5
30. g3+
An immediate 30 Nd4 gives black too many threats to parry.

30... Kxg3
31. Nd4?
Why not the natural 31 Rxg7+ instead?

31... Rhg8
32. Nxe6 f4
33. Nxg7 f3
A sad march to nowhere.

34. Rf7 Kg4
35. e6 1-0
35 Bf5+ wins more material, but this game is over nevertheless.

Bits found on the web

9 December 2005
Ran across this page (in French) which recommends 2...Nf6; however, a "last minute" note appears to say that the author tried the line in Blitz and was overwhelmed by white. The game, however, is not included.

Also, Bill Wall includes the following game in a list of his shortest games.

[Event "?"]
[Site "Internet (1996.07.06)"]
[Date "1996.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Wall Bill"]
[Black "Oimage"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "?"]

1.e4 e5 2.d4 Nf6 3.Bg5 Bb4+ 4.c3 Ba5 5.dxe5 1-0

What I am claiming, and what I am not

This is not a "novelty," right?
The 1 e4 e5 2 d4 Nf6 series is so natural that it must obviously have been played many, many times before. But it's almost unknown. Indeed, a database search turns up 87 master-level games* (as of Dec. 2005) employing this defense. And of these, white immediately transposes to a "standard" line (with 3 Nf3 or 3 Bc4) in 19.

Some of these are ridiculous games as well. A correspondence game from the Netherlands (Warren-Selman 1936) ran as follows: 1. d4 Nf6 2. e4 e5 (reaching the Peterson via the Omega Gambit!) 3. dxe5 Nxe4 4. a3 d6 5. exd6 Bxd6 6. g3 Nxf2 0-1. Apparently white felt that losing his queen after 7. Kxf2 was too much to stomach. Too bad he could have averted defeat with the simple 7. Qe2+!

So why should you claim it, or name it?
Because, surprisingly, it has no name and no champion. It has been played at least twice by the Slovenian master Zlatko Jeraj, more than anyone else, but I have not been able to find any information that he has analyzed or claimed the system (and indeed, he drew in both games, and one transposed after 3 Nf3 into a mainline Petrov). The available resources suggest it remains unnamed (unlike pretty much every other four-ply position in chess)--it has no entry in Bill Wall's extremely comprehensive list of opening names. There are, however, 23 entries in his list, covering pretty much every white response to 3 exd4 as well as the Beyer (2...d5) and Philidor (2...d6) gambits.

Are you saying this is a winning line for black?
I'm not making any claim like "Win with 2...Nf6!" What I am saying is that this is a solid, unrefuted line in which black can reach a playable and equal middlegame. Moreover, it's a line Center Game players will simply not be expecting. From personal experience, I can tell you that this will stop the bulk of Center Game players in their tracks, and anything that puts your opponent out of book at move 2 can't be bad.

What if you find out someone has already claimed this line?
Then I will withdraw my claim--but I will not stop playing it. If anyone has information on a prior claim, please contact me. I'd like nothing more than to look over someone else's analysis.

Are you a master chessplayer?
Hardly! In all honesty I'm a complete patzer. I currently sport a correspondence rating of 1799--it's a number I'm proud of, but it does not in any way qualify me as an expert.

So why should we listen to you?
All I'm doing is presenting an idea and some very basic analysis. If you think it's ridiculous, or if you find an obvious refutation, by all means let me know. But I think you'll find that it's an idea not so easily dismissed.

---

*As I begin to work through these games (12/05), I'm finding many duplicate games, and even more that probably don't belong at all (such as immediate 3 Nf3 transpositions to the Petrov). When my examinations are complete, I'll post a PGN of the relevant games.

Transpositions

The Peterson Defense has a very natural feel to it, and as such it's not surprising that there are several transpositional opportunities. Indeed, it's simply the 3 d4 Petrov without white's preliminary 3 Nf3.

Here are some lines that, sooner or later, transpose to other openings:

Petrov 3 d4 (C43)
1. e4 e5 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nf3

Petrov Defense, Modern Variation (C43)
1. e4 e5 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nf3 exd4 4. e5 Ne4 5. Qxd4 d5 6. exd6 Nxd6

Petrov Defense, Symmetrical Variation (C43)
1.e4 e5 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nxe4 4.Bd3 d5 5.Nxe5

Philidor Defense, Nimzovich Variation (C41)
1.e4 e5 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nf3 d6

Bishop's Opening, (C24)
1.e4 e5 2.d4 Nf6 3.Bc4

Pirc Defense (B07)
1 e4 e5 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 d6

Center Game, Kupreichik Variation (C22)
1 e4 e5 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 exd4 4 Qxd4 Nc6 5 Qe3 Bb4 6 Bd2 O-O 7 O-O-O Re8 8 Bc4 d6 9 Nh3
(This seems to be a well-worn variation of the Center Game originating in the Romantic era but popping up periodically after that--Winawer beat Steinitz with it in 1896, Tartakower lost with it against Reshevsky in 1937, etc. GM Viktor Kupreichik, however, is a Belarussian player active for the past five decades.)

What is it?

The Center Game (1 e4 e5 2 d4) is one of the oldest of all chess openings. Both by itself and through its cousins the Danish Gambit (2...exd4 3 c3) and the Goring Gambit (2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 c3), the opening played a major role in the "romantic" era of swashbuckling chess back in the 19th century. The Center Game's focus on immediate central tension (and the almost immediate release of that tension) has given it something of a simplistic air, and it is no longer much played at the higher levels of chess.

But, and this should be emphasized, the opening is not unsound and continues to be ventured occasionally at the "lower" levels of chess, where most of us mortals play. It is in something of a renaissance at the moment in blitz chess thanks to the efforts of players such as correspondence chess master Craig Collister. He uses the opening for its surprise value--though it is straightforward, it gives you a bit of a shock if you're not ready for it.

The Peterson Defense has a similar approach. In most of the literature on the Center Game, you'll find comments such as "Black's 2...exd4 [is] the only sound response" (Cafferty & Hooper, A Complete Defense to 1 e4, 1986). And indeed, there are not many sound options.

• Direct protection by 2...f6 is inadvisable for the kingside weakness it creates, and in fact a sequence such as 2...f6 3 dxe5 fxe5 4 Qh5+ is disastrous for black. Probably best is 3...Nc6 4 exf6 Nxf6 where black, a pawn down, at least has some developmental advantage.
  
• Direct protection by 2...d6, the Maroczy Defense, may fail against the queenswap line (3 dxe5 dxe5 4 Qxd8+) and is probably best played as a gambit (i.e., 3 dxe5 Bd7, the Philidor Gambit of the Maroczy Defense).
  
• Direct protection by 2...Nc6 is interrupted by the space-and initiative-gaining 3 d5 Nce7 (not the piece-losing 3...Nd4?).
  
• 2...d5, technically the Beyer Countergambit of the Blackmar-Diemer, just looks silly, though I suppose it's playable on some level. Note that 3 dxe4 dxe5 allows the queenswap and trouble for black.
  

I've essayed 2...Nf6 many times; and in almost every case, it stops white dead in his tracks. Not because it's brilliant, not because it's winning...but because it's a solid move that can't be directly refuted, one that is of some independent interest, one that requires some calculation. In any timed game, particularly a 3 0 or 5 0 blitz session, this factor could be key.