1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.Nf3 h5!? Invented in 1991(?) by the Hungarian emigré, János Wagenbach. Jonathan Tait, who has analyzed the defence with Wagenbach, wrote a couple of short articles about it in Chess Mail (issues 10/98 and 11/98). But I suppose, 3.-h5 is unknown to most KG players even today.
What is the point of 3.-h5, ? The main idea is, given the time, to play -h4 and -g5, erecting a pawn fortress on the kingside. If white tries to stop this with 4.h4 black can choose from 4.-d5 5.ed5 Nf6 (Ne7!?) or 4.-Nf6 5.e5 Ng4 when black seems to have an improved version of the Modern or the Schallopp.
My first reaction was that 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ne5 d6 7.Nd3 must be good for white… The question is whether Black has improved on the Long Whip or if White has an improved version of the Berlin defence, (i.e. Black has played h5 instead of Nf6). However, it seems that white's position isn't all that comfortable after all:
Analysis - 5h4g46Ne5 [C34]
[TJ]
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 h5 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ne5 d6 7.Nd3 f3 [7...Be7 8.Bxf4 Bxh4+ 9.g3 Bf6 10.e5 dxe5 11.Nxe5!?] 8.gxf3 Be7 9.Be3 Bxh4+ 10.Kd2 Bg5 11.f4 Be7
[11...Bf6 12.Nc3 c5 (12...Nc6 13.d5 Na5 (13...Nd4 14.Bg2 h4 15.Qg1) 14.b3 Bxc3+ 15.Kxc3 Nf6 16.Kb2! c5 17.Qe1) 13.dxc5 Bxc3+ 14.bxc3 Nf6 15.Bg2 d5 16.exd5 +=]
This is probably unclear or equal, white's K and Nd3 tend to get in the way, making it hard to take any direct advantage of white's better development.
Here's some of my old analysis , which is mostly an example of what kind of mess that may result, I'm sure black has improvements on the variations below...
12.Nc3 Nf6 (12...h4!?) 13.Bg2 h4 14.e5 Nh5 15.f5!? [15.e6?! Ng3 16.exf7+ Kxf7]
15...dxe5 16.Nxe5 Ng3 17.Qxg4 Nxh1 [17...Bf6 18.Nxf7! Bxf5 (18...Kxf7 19.Qg6+ Kf8 20.Bd5 Qe7 21.Rxh4) 19.Qxf5 (19.Qxg3 Kxf7 20.Qf4 Bc8 21.Bd5+) 19...Nxf5 20.Nxd8 Nxe3 21.Bxb7] 18.Nxf7 Kxf7 19.Bd5+ with an attack.
The Old Main Line
: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 h5 4.d4 g5 5.Bc4 h4 6.0–0 d6 7.Nc3 c6 8.Nxg5I don't believe white has more than compensation for the piece, after the knight sacrifice. But the resulting position is very sharp so players who like the Muzio should feel at home here, I guess. Below is some of my own analysis plus some games from Thomas Stock's Thematic Gambit Tournaments. You can find more games etc here: http://thomasstock.com/gambit/
Elburg,J - Koetsier,D [C34]
TGT 29.1, 1999
[Koetsier]
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 h5 4.d4 g5 5.Bc4 h4 6.0–0 d6 7.Nc3 c6 [7...Be6!?] 8.Nxg5 Qxg5 9.Bxf4 Qg6 10.Qf3 Be6 11.d5 Bg4 12.Qf2 [12.Qe3!?] 12...Nd7!? 13.dxc6?! [13.Rae1! unclear] 13...bxc6 14.h3 Be6! [14...Bxh3 15.Bxd6 Qxg2+ 16.Qxg2 Bxg2 17.Bxf7+ Kd8 18.Rfd1 Bxd6 19.Rxd6 Bh3 20.Rxc6 Ngf6 21.Kh2 Bg4 22.e5 Ke7 23.exf6+ Kxf7=+]15.Bxe6 fxe6 16.Rad1 [16.Rae1 e5 17.Be3 Ngf6 18.Bxa7 Nh5 19.Kh2 Bh6 -+]
16...e5 17.Be3 Ngf6 -+ 0–1
Ruggeri Laderchi - Elburg [C34]
email game 1998
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 h5 4.Bc4 h4 5.d4 g5 6.0–0 d6 7.Nc3 c6 8.Nxg5 Qxg5 9.Bxf4 Qg4 10.Bxf7+ Kd8 11.Qd2 h3 12.g3 Qg7 13.d5 Nh6 14.Be6 Qg6 15.dxc6 Qxe6 16.Bg5+ Ke8 17.Nd5 Na6 18.Qa5 b6 19.Qxa6 Rh7 20.Qe2 1–0
Analysis - Diversions from the Main variation [C34]
[TJ]
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 h5 4.Bc4 h4 5.d4[After 5.Ne5, Tait gives the following in the article: 5…Nh6! 6.Qh5 Qe7! 7.Nc3
(7.Nxf7? g6 8.Qe5? Nxf7 9.Bxf7+ Kxf7 10.Qxh8 Qxe4+ 11.Kf1 f3! 0-1, Elburg - Tait, corr friendly thematic 1997. 7.d4? d6 8.Nxf7 Qxe4+ 9.Kf1 g6 -/+. 7.d3 g6 8.Nxg6 fxg6 9.Qxg6+ Kd8 10.Bxf4 Qh7! =+)
7…g6 8.Nxg6 fxg6 9.Qxg6+ Kd8 10.d4 Qg7! 11.Qxg7 Bxg7 =+]
5...g5 6.0–0 d6 7.Nc3 c6 8.Nxg5 Qxg5 9.Rxf4!? A creepy move which seems hard to meet.
9...Nf6?! 10.Rf5 Qg6 11.Rg5 Qh7 12.Bd3! Nfd7 13.e5 Qh6 14.Rg8!! Rxg8
[14...Qh5 15.Qxh5 Rxh5 16.Ne4 dxe5 17.Be2 Rh7 18.Bg5! f6 19.Bxf6 Nxf6 20.Nxf6+ Kf7 21.Rxf8+ ±/+-]
15.Bxh6 Bxh6 16.e6 Be3+ 17.Kh1 Nf6 [17...fxe6 18.Qe2+-] 18.Ne4 Nxe4 19.exf7+ Kxf7
20.Qh5+ +- However, 9...f6! (J.Tait) seems good enough for unclarity.
Koetsier,D - Sakellarakis,D [C34]
TGT 29.1, 1999
[Koetsier]
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 h5 4.d4 g5 5.Bc4 h4 6.0–0 d6 7.Nc3 Be6 8.Bxe6 fxe6 9.Qd3 c6?! [9...g4! 10.Nd2 (10.Ne1) 10...e5 11.Qb5+ Nd7 12.Qxb7 Qb8÷] 10.e5 Rh6 11.Ne4 dxe5 12.Nexg5 Be7 [12...exd4? 13.Bxf4+-] 13.Ne4 h3?
[13...Nd7 14.dxe5
A) 14...Qb6+ 15.Kh1 A1) 15...0–0–0 16.Bxf4 Rh5 +/- (16...Nc5 17.Qc4) ;
A2) 15...h3 ;
B) 14...Nc5 15.Qxd8+ Rxd8 16.Nf2 Rg6 17.Bxf4±]
14.Nxe5 Nf6 [14...Nd7 15.Ng4 Rh8 (15...Rh5 16.Nd6+ Bxd6 17.Qg6+ Ke7 18.Qxh5) 16.Nd6+ Bxd6 17.Qg6+ Ke7 18.Qg7+ Ke8 19.Qxh8+-] 15.Bxf4 hxg2 16.Rf2 Nxe4 17.Bxh6 1–0
Sakellarakis,D - Koetsier,D [C34]
TGT 29.1, 1999
[Koetsier]
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 h5 4.Bc4 g5 5.d4 h4 6.Qd3!? d6 7.Qb3 Qe7 8.Qb5+ Nc6 9.Bd5[9.0–0 h3 10.Nxg5 Rh5 11.Bxf4 hxg2 12.Rf2 a6 (12...f6?! 13.Bxg8 fxg5²) 13.Qa4 (13.Qb3) 13...Rxg5 14.Bxg5 Qxg5 15.Bxf7+ Kd8 Perpetual check.]
9...Bd7 10.Qxb7 Rb8 11.Qa6 Rb6 12.Qe2
[12.Qc4 g4 13.Nfd2 Nb4 14.Ba8 h3³]
12...g4 13.Bxc6 Rxc6 14.Ng1
[14.Nfd2? h3 15.Nc3 Qh4+ 16.Kd1 hxg2 17.Qxg2 f3 18.Qf1 Bg7–+]
14...Bg7 15.c3 Bxd4 16.Bxf4 Bb6
[16...Bg7? 17.Be3 Qxe4 18.Bxa7 d5 19.Qxe4+ dxe4 20.Ne2 h3 21.g3÷]
17.Nd2 Nf6 18.0–0–0 Rc5 19.h3? [19.e5³]
19...Nh5 20.Rf1 Bb5 21.c4 Ba5 22.b3 Nxf4 23.Rxf4 Qe5 24.Rf5?? [24.Rxg4 Bd7-/+] 24...Qc3+ 25.Kb1 Bb4 0–1
Analysis
[C34][TJ]
I've also looked at a new version of the Nxg5 sac. 4.Nc3 h4 5.d4 g5 6.Nxg5!?N Qxg5 7.Nd5;
7-Bd6 8.e5 c6 9.Bxf4 Qg6 10.Ne3 Qe4 11.Qg4 when both Bf8 and Bc7 are met by Bd3 Qxd4. Nf5 (followed by Nd6+ Bxd6, exd6 when black has used up his temporary threats with the queen.);
7-Qd8 8.Bxf4 d6 9.Bc4!? c6 10.Ne3 seems to allow white to build up an attack in the centre and f-file since black has a hard time creating counter-play.
Later when I was just tidying up some 'easy' variations I thought, I ran into 7…Na6! which is stronger than expected, black's queen manages to get counterplay all on her own! After 8.Bxf4 Qg6 9.Bxa6 bxa6 (9…Qxg2 allows white a better endgame after Nc7+ Kd8. Rf1 bxa6. 12.Qe2) 10.Nxc7+ Kd8 and white has suddenly run out of steam 11.Qf3 Rb8 12.Ne6 dxe6 13.Bxb8 Bb7 or 11.0-0 Bb7 both at least = for black.
The Positional Main Line
I believe that Bc4+b3 is most promising for white, transposing to a Fischer defence where black plays h5-h4 - this looks even stranger if one reach it via The Fischer, 3-d6 4.Bc4 h5 5.b3 h4. But it's far from easy to prove white has more than an edge here. However, white has the initiative, he can play for a central break with e5 or d4-d5 and/or open the kingside with g3. The results have at least been encouraging for white so far…
1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.Nf3 h5 4.Bc4 h4 5.b3
COMP Fritz 3 - JA Tait, Farnsfield (30 min game) 1995
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 h5 4 Bc4 h4 5 b3 d6 6 Bb2 Bg4 [Fritz started play here] 7 h3 Bh5 8 0-0 Rh6 9 d4 c6 10 b4 Nd7 11 a4 g5 12 a5 a6 13 Nbd2 Bg7 14 Ra2 Kf8 15 Bb3 Ne7 16 c3 Rc8 17 Qc2 Ng6 18 Ba4 Nh8 19 Raa1 Re6? 20 d5 cxd5 21 Bxd7 Qxd7 22 exd5 Rg6 23 c4 Bxb2 24 Qxb2 f6? 25 Nxg5!! Rxg5 26 Qxf6+ Nf7 27 Rxf4 Rg7 28 Qxh4 Bg6 29 Qh8+ Rg8 30 Qh6+ Rg7 31 Raf1 Kg8 32 Rxf7 Bxf7 33 Ne4 Rg6 34 Qxg6+ Bxg6 35 Nf6+ Kg7 36 Nxd7 Rxc4 37 Nf8 Rxb4 38 Ne6+ Kh7 39 Rf6 Bc2 40 Ng5+ 1-0
K Matthews - G McDonald, corr BCCA SOT 95C2 1995-96
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 h5 4 b3 h4 5 Bc4 d6 6 h3 Qf6 7 d4 Qg6 8 Qe2 Qg3+ 9 Qf2 Nf6 10 Qxg3 fxg3 11 Ng5 d5 12 exd5 Bd6 13 Bb5+ Bd7 14 Bxd7+ Nbxd7 15 c4 b6 16 Nc3 0-0-0 17 Nxf7 Rde8+ 18 Kd1 Bb4 19 Bd2 Rhf8 20 Ng5 Bxc3 21 Bxc3 Ne4 22 Nxe4 Rxe4 23 Re1 Rxe1+ 24 Bxe1 Rf4 25 Kc2 Rxd4? [25...Rf1] 26 Rd1 Rxd1 27 Kxd1 Nf6 28 Bd2 Ne4 29 Be3 Kd7 30 Kc2 Ke7 31 Kd3 Nc5+ 32 Kd4 Kf6 33 Bf4 g5 34 Bxc7 Kf5 35 Bd8 Kf4 36 b4 1-0
K Forman - JJ Wagenbach, Nottingham (rd.1) 1997
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 h5 4 Bc4 h4 5 b3 d6 6 h3 Nc6 7 Bb2 Be6 8 Nc3 Nf6 9 d3 Nh5 10 Ne2 Rh6 11 Qd2 g5 12 0-0-0 Bxc4 13 dxc4 Qe7 14 Ned4 Nxd4 15 Nxd4 Ng3 16 Rhe1 0-0-0 17 Qa5 a6 18 Kb1 Rg6 19 Nf5 Qd7 20 Nxg3 hxg3 21 Qf5 Qe6 22 Rd5 Re8 23 Kc1 Bh6 24 Kd1 c6 25 Rd3 Kc7 26 Bc3 Bg7 27 Qa5+ Kb8 28 e5 Bxe5 29 c5 Qc8 30 cxd6 Bxc3 31 Qxc3 Rxe1+ 32 Qxe1 Re6 33 Qa5? Qd7?? [33...Qh8!] 34 Qxg5 Re4 35 c4 b6 36 Qg8+ Kb7 37 Qg4 f5 38 Qf3 c5 39 Rd2 Kc6 40 Qd3 Kb7 41 Qd5+ Ka7 42 Qg8 Re6?? T 43 Qf8?? T [43 Qe6 +-] 43...Re3 44 Qg8 Re5 45 Qh8 Re4 46 Qg8 Re8 47 Qg6 b5 48 cxb5 axb5 49 Kc2 Kb6 50 a3 Kc6 51 b4 Re5 52 bxc5 Kxc5 53 Kb3 Re4 54 Qg8 Rc4 55 Qd5+ Kb6 56 Re2 Rc1 57 Re7 Qc6 58 Qd3? [58 Qc6] 58...Rc3+? [58...Qc4 -+] 59 Qxc3 Qxd6 60 Rg7 Qd5+ 61 Kb4 Qe4+ 62 Kb3 Qd5+ 63 Kb4 Qe4+ 64 Kb3 Qd5+ ½-½
JA Tait - JT Simmelink, corr invitational thematic 1998
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 h5 4 Bc4 h4 5 b3 d6 6 Bb2 Nf6 7 Qe2 Nh5 8 Nc3 Bg4 9 e5 Be7 10 0-0-0 Nc6 11 d4 0-0 12 e6 f5 13 Qf2 Nb4 14 d5 Bf6 15 Kb1 g5 16 a3 Na6 17 Bxa6 bxa6 18 Rde1 Qe7 19 Nd4 Qg7 20 Na4 Rab8 21 Rhg1 h3 22 gxh3 Bxh3 23 e7 1-0
D Nightingale - JT Simmelink, corr invitational thematic 1998
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 h5 4 Bc4 h4 5 b3 d6 6 d4 g5 7 Nc3 Bg7 8 h3 c5? 9 Bb2 cxd4 10 Nb5 Nc6 11 Nfxd4 Ne5 12 Nf5 Bxf5 13 Nxd6+ Qxd6 14 Qxd6 Nxc4 15 Qb4 Bxb2 16 Rb1 Bd7 17 bxc4 Be5 18 Qxb7 Rb8 19 Qxb8+ Bxb8 20 Rxb8+ Ke7 21 Kf2 Kf6 22 Rd1 Ba4 23 Rdd8 Kg7 24 c5 Bc6 25 e5 Be4 26 Rbc8 f3 27 gxf3 Bf5 28 Ra8 Bxh3 29 c6 Be6 30 c7 1-0
Click below to contact me or Jonathan:
Thomas Johansson
My King's Gambit Book Resurrecting The Resurrected
