Goeller Michael - The Bishop's Opening (Article 2004)

The Bishop's Opening - Introduction
BISHOP'S OPENING | DIMOCK TOURNAMENT | URUSOV GAMBIT | TWO KNIGHTS DEFENSE | LINKS
s
Introduction
The Bishop's Opening (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4) is among the first
recorded opening lines and was played by Greco, though he
and his contemporaries much preferred the King's Gambit (1.
e4 e5 2.f4). Philidor was the first to analyze the Bishop's
Opening extensively in the late eighteenth century. He
preferred 2.Bc4 to 2.Nf3 because it left open the possibility
of pawn to f4 to secure a space advantage and fight for the
center with pawns. In the nineteenth century, Howard
Staunton examined the line and played numerous games
with it as both White and Black (especially in his match with
Cochrane in 1842). But it was not until mid-century that the
romantic approach to the opening, played to gain both time
and space, gained popularity due to the success of Adolph
Anderssen and others. Because Anderssen led the way to an
exciting approach to this line, his games are featured in this
section of the website and will eventually be completely
annotated.
Introduction
A) 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 . . .
B) 2....Nc6
C) 2....f5
D) 2....d6
E) 2....Bc5
Links & Acknowledgments
Bishop's Opening PGN File
In our own time, the Bishop's Opening has been dusted off by Bent Larsen and John Nunn,
and more recently by Vishwanathan Anand, Anatoly Karpov, and Garry Kasparov. These
players, however, generally prefer the slow maneuvering lines with 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3
which often resemble the closed lines of the Ruy Lopez. In this article and related sites, I
recommend instread the swashbuckling Urusov Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4) against 2....
Nf6 and gambit alternatives for White against other Black moves.
Unusual Second Move Alternatives for Black>>>
Contact: Michael Goeller, [email protected]

Last modified: May 15, 2004
Copyright 2002 All Rights Reserved
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/index.html28/09/06 07:14:51
The Bishop's Opening - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4
s
A) 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 . . .
A1) 2....Be7
A4) 2....Qg5
A7) 2....c6
A2) 2....Ne7
A5) 2....g6
A8) 2....b6
A3) 2....b5
A6) 2....Qe7
A9) 2....Qh4
Introduction
A) 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 . . .
B) 2....Nc6
C) 2....f5
D) 2....d6
E) 2....Bc5
Position after 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4
Unlike the move 2.Nf3, which attacks Black's e-pawn and therefore limits Black's possible
responses to some extent, the Bishop's Opening allows Black a wide range of second move
alternatives. Fortunately, none of them are especially good. But White should be prepared to
face them from time to time, especially in club or blitz play.
A1) 2....Be7? 3.Qh5 g6 4.Qxe5 Nf6 5.d3 Nc6 6.Qg3 Estrin.
A2) 2....Ne7? 3.Qh5 Ng6 4.Nf3 f6 (4....d6 5.Ng5 ) 5.Nh4 +- Edwards--Kuhla,
Correspondence 1986.
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/unusual.html (1 of 6)28/09/06 07:15:03
The game Edwards--Kuhla

ended after a rapid assault on
Black's Kingside position.
After 5.Nh4, Black must lose
material due to the pin on the
h-pawn.
Position after 5.Nh4
A3) 2....b5?! 3.Bxb5

A3a) 3....f5 4.d4! Nf6 (If 4....exd4 5.e5! in the style of MacDonnell-Labourdonnais, London 1834, with colors reversed is probably better than 5.
Qxd4!? Nf6 6.exf5 Bb7 7.f3 Bd6?! 8.Ne2 Na6 9.Qe3+ Kf7 10.Qb3+ Bd5 11.Bc4
c6 12.Bxd5+ Nxd5 13.O-O Mongredien--Anderssen, London 1851) 5.dxe5
Nxe4 6.Nf3 Bc5 7.O-O c6 8.Bc4 Qb6 9.Qe2 Ba6 10.Nbd2 Nxd2 11.Bxd2
Bxc4 12.Qxc4 Be7 13.Bc3 Na6 14.Rad1 Nc7 15.Nd4 g6 16.e6 Nd5 17.exd7+
Kxd7 18.Nxc6 Qxc6 19.Rxd5+ Kc7 20.Be5+ 1-0 Jacobs--Kunholm, 1990.
Black's initiative was

blunted in the game
Jacobs--Kunholm after
White forced exchanges
with 10.Nbd2. Also
strong was 10.Nc3 as
10....Nxc3 11.bxc3 Bxc4
12.Qxc4 allows White to
play either Nd4 or Ng5
with advantage.
White to play after 9....Ba6
A3b) 3....c6
Black's chances in this line should not be underestimated. White needs to play
actively to claim the advantage.
A3b1) 4.Ba4 Bc5 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.d3 (6.Nf3 d5 7.exd5 e4 8.dxc6 0-0
9.d4 Bb4 [9...exf3 10.dxc5 fxg2 11.Rg1] 10.Ne5 Qa5 11.c7 Bxc3+
12.bxc3 Qxc3+ 13.Bd2 Qxc7 14.c4 ) 6...d5 7.exd5 0-0 8.Bg5 (8.
dxc6 Qb6 9.Qf3 Bg4 10.Qg3 ) 8...cxd5 9.Qd2 Bb7 10.Nge2 Qb6
11.0-0 Ng4 12.Bh4 (12.Nd1 h6 13.Bh4 g5 14.Bg3 f5 15.h3 f4 16.
hxg4 fxg3 17.Nxg3 Rf4 18.Bb3 Rxg4 19.Ne4 ) 12...f5 13.Bb3
Ne3 14.fxe3 Bxe3+ 15.Bf2 Bxd2 16.Bxb6 axb6 17.Nxd5 Kh8
18.Rad1 (18.Nxb6? Be3+) 18...Bg5 19.Ng3 (19.Kh1 Bd8 20.d4 e4
21.Nef4 +=) 19...Ra5 20.Nc7 g6 21.Kh1 (21.Ne6? Be3+) 21...

Be7 22.Ne6 Re8 23.d4 exd4 24.Nxd4 Bf6 25.c3 h5 26.Bf7 Re3
(26...Re7 27.Bxg6 Rg7 28.Bxf5 h4 29.Be4 hxg3 [29...Bxd4 30.Rxd4
hxg3 31.Rd8+ Rg8 32.Rxg8+ Kxg8 33.Bxb7] 30.Bxb7 Bxd4 31.Rf8+
Rg8 32.Rxg8+ Kxg8 33.Rxd4 +-) 27.Nge2? (27.Bxg6 h4 28.Ngxf5
Ree5 29.Nxh4 Bxh4 30.Rf8+ Kg7 31.Rxb8 +-) 27...Kg7 28.b4 Ra7
29.Bc4 Ba8 30.Ne6+ (30.Nf4 Rxc3 31.Nb5 Rxc4 32.Nxa7 Rxb4 is
unclear) += 30...Kh6 31.Kg1? b5 32.Rd6? (32.Kf2 Re5 33.Bb3
Bxg2 34.Rg1 Bh3 is unclear) 32...bxc4 33.N6f4 Kg7 34.Nd4
Rxa2 35.h4 Kf7 36.Nf3 Rxc3 37.Ng5+ Bxg5 38.hxg5 Rg3 39.
Rf2 Ra1+ 40.Kh2 Rg4 41.Nxg6 Be4 1-0 Morten Topholm Rud-Steen Brydegaard, CBF Pokalfinalen 2001. Clearly both White's and
Black's play could be improved, but White held the edge throughout
the opening.
Black to play after 13.Bb3.
White missed
many
opportunities to
squelch Black's
initiative in the
game Morten
Topholm RudSteen
Brydegaard. In
the diagrammed
position, Black
played 13....
Ne3!? 14.fxe3
Bxe3+, leading
to practically
even chances
after 15.Bf2
Bxd2 16.Bxb6
axb6 17.Nxd5.
A3b2) 4.Be2 Nf6 (4....d5 5.exd5 cxd5 6.Bb5+ Nd7 7.Qe2 Bd6 8.
Nf3 Qe7 9.Bc6 Rb8 10.Nc3 Bb7 11.Bxb7 Rxb7 12.Nxd5 Qd8 13.O-O
Ngf6 14.Nxf6+ Qxf6 15.d3 O-O 16.Ng5 Nc5 17.Ne4 Nxe4 18.Qxe4
Qe7 19.c3 f5 20. Qd5+ Kh8 21.b3 e4 22.Bg5 Qc7 23.dxe4 fxe4 24.
h3 a6 25.c4 h6 26.Be3 Qe7 27.c5 Bb8 28.Rfd1 Bc7 29.Qh5 Bb8 30.
Rd5 Rd7 31.Rad1 Rxd5 32.Rxd5 Qf6 33.Qd1 Bf4 34.Bxf4 Qxf4 35.
Qd2 1-0 Jendrossek--Zuechner, Correspondence 1990) 5.d3 d5 6.
f4! exf4 7.e5 Nfd7 8.Bxf4 Nc5 (8....Qb6!) 9.Nf3 (9.c3!?) 9....
Ne6 10.Bg3 Qb6 11.Nbd2?! Bc5 12.Nb3 Be3 13.d4 Na6 14.
Qd3?! Nb4! 15.Qc3 Nxd4! 16.Nfxd4 Bxd4 17.Nxd4 Qxd4 18.
Qb3 Qe4 19.O-O-O! a5 20.Bf3 Qg6 21.a3 Qg5+ 22.Kb1 Nxc2
23.Qxc2 Bf5 24.Rd3 O-O 25.Ka1 Qg6 26.Rhd1 Rfd8 27.Qc3
Bxd3 28.Qxd3 Qe6 +- 29. Be4 g6 30.Bf3 Rd7 31.h3 h5 32.Bf4 Rb7
33.g4 Rab8 34.Rd2 Rb3 35.Qe2 a4 36.gxh5 Qe7 37.Ka2 Rxa3+ 38.
bxa3 Rb3 39.Rb2 Qxa3+ 40.Kb1 Rxf3 41.Bg5 Rxh3 42.hxg6 Rh1+
43.Bc1 fxg6 44.Rb8+ Kh7 45.Rb7+ Kh8 46.Qd2 Qf3 47.e6 Kg8 48.
e7 Kf7 49.Qb2 1-0 Friedlander--Anderssen, Breslau 1856.
Despite his
careful retreat
with 4.Be2,
White was able
to fight for the
initiative while
retaining his
extra pawn in
the game
FriedlanderAnderssen.
Black to play after 6.f4!
A4) 2....Qg5?! 3.Nf3!

A4a) 3....Qxg2? 4.Rg1 Qh3 5.Bxf7+! Kd8 6.Rg3 (6.d4 exd4? 7.Rg3 +- Lane)
6....Qh6 7.d4 Qb6 8.Bxg8 Rxg8 9.Nxe5 Leach.
A4b) 3....Qg6
A4b1) 4.Nxe5 Qxe4+ 5.Qe2 Qxe2+ 6.Kxe2 Nh6 7.d4 d6 8.
Bxh6 dxe5 9.Be3 exd4 10.Bxd4 Nc6 = Leach.
A4b2) 4.O-O d6 (4....Qxe4? 5.Nxe5 +-) 5.d3 Bg4 6.Nc3 Nc6 7.
Be3 O-O-O =
A4b3) 4.Nc3! d6 5.d3 c6 (5....Bg4 6.Nd5 Kd8 7.h3 Bxf3 8.Qxf3
+=; 5....Be6 6.Nd5 Bxd5 7.Bxd5 c6 8.Bb3 +=) 6.Ng5!? Be6 (6....
Nh6 7.Qf3) 7.Bxe6 fxe6 8.Qg4 Kd7 9.f4! Nh6 (9....h6?! 10.f5! )
10.Qg3 exf4 11.Bxf4 +=
A5) 2....g6 3.Nf3 (White, of course, has any number of good plans here, including
development by 3.Nc3 and 4.d3 followed by immediate attack with 5.f4 or even 5.h4-h5!? if
Black castles.) 3....Bg7 (On 3....d6 4.d4 transposes to the Larsen variation of Philidor's
Defense. By playing 3....Bg7, Black keeps his options open.) 4.d3!? (A simple and sound
method of development. Also good is 4.d4 exd4 and now either 5.Nxd4 Nc6 = [not 5....Nf6?!
6.e5] or the more ambitious 5.c3!? or 5.Bg5!? with interesting gambit play.) 4....b6?! 5.
Ng5 Nh6 6. Qf3!? O-O 7. h4! d6 8. h5! Qe7 9. hxg6 hxg6 10. Qg3 Be6 11. Nxe6 fxe6
12. Bxh6 Nc6 13. Qxg6 Nd4 14. c3 Nf5 15. Bxg7 Nxg7 16. Rh7 Rf7 17. Nd2 Raf8 18.
Bxe6 Qxe6 19. Rxg7+ Rxg7 20. Qxe6+ +- Khraizat-Daniels, Detroit 1994.
A6) 2....Qe7 3.Nc3 (3.Nf3 d6 4.O-O h6 5.d4 c6 6.dxe5 dxe5 7.Be3 Nf6 8.Nc3 += Mueller-Behle, NRW 1988) 3....c6 4.Nf3 (4.a4 d6 5.d3 Be6 6.Nge2 Nd7 7.a5 Ngf6 8.O-O h6 9.Ng3
g5 10.Bxe6 fxe6 11.d4 exd4 12.Qxd4 += Neubert--Bondick, Correspondence 1981) 4....h6
5.d4 d6 6.Qd3 Nd7 7.O-O g5 8.Be3 Qf6 9.b4 Ne7 10.d5 Ng6 11.dxc6 bxc6 12.b5
Bb7 13.bxc6 Bxc6 14.Bb5 Ne7? 15.Rfd1 1-0 Goldberg--Pelikan, Correspondence 1989. White
must strive aggressively to open up lines when Black seeks a closed position. If Black
achieves a closed game he will have a comfortable equality.
The game Goldberg--Pelikan

saw White break through
Black's hedgehog formation
with an interesting b-pawn
push. After 12.b5!, White
gains control over the square
d5 (a great outpost for the
Knight at c3) and leaves
Black's pawn at d6 hopelessly
backward.
Position after 12.b5!
A7) 2....c6 3.d4 d5 (3....exd4 4.Qxd4 +=; for 3....Nf6 see The Urusov Gambit website) 4.
exd5 cxd5 5.Bb5+ Bd7 6.Bxd7+ Nxd7 7.dxe5 Nxe5 8.Ne2! (8.Qe2 Qe7 9.Nc3 O-O-O =
Zifroni--Boim, Ramat Hasharon 1993) 8....Nf6 9.O-O
A7a) 9....Be7 10.Nbc3 += Lisitsin. White has good play against Blacks
isolated d-pawn.
A7b) 9....Bc5 10.Bg5 Neg4 11.Nec3! Qb6 12.Qe2+ Kf8 (12....Qe6 13.Qxe6
+ fxe6 14.h3 Ne5 15.Re1 ) 13.Bxf6 Nxf6 14.Na4 +=
A7c) 9....Bd6 10.Nbc3 Bc7 11.Bg5 Neg4 12.h3 h6 13.Bh4 g5 14.hxg4
gxh4 15.Nd4 += Rg8 16.f3 Be5 17.Re1 Qd6 18.f4 Nxg4 19.fxe5 Qc5 20.Ncb5
h3 21.Qf3 Rg7 22.Qxh3 O-O-O 23.Qc3 Qxc3 24.Nxc3 Rg6 25.Re2 Rb6 26.b3
Rg6 27.Rf1 Rd7 28.Ncb5 Ra6 29.e6 fxe6 30.Rf8+ Rd8 31.Rxd8+ Kxd8 32.Nxe6+
Kd7 33.Nc5+ Kc6 34.Nxa6 Kxb5 1-0 COMP 386/33 Rex 2--COMP Super C, 1991.
A8) 2....b6 3.d3 (3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d4 exd4 5.c3!? in the style of the Goring Gambit seems
appropriate here, but not 3.d4 exd4 4.c3?! Bb7! =; 4.c3 followed by 5.d4 is an alternate
plan) 3....Nf6 4.f4 exf4 5.Bxf4 d5?! 6.exd5 Nxd5 7.Qe2+ Be7 8.Bxd5 Qxd5 9.Bxc7
Bruhl--Conway, London 1788.
In the game Bruhl--Conway,

White put pressure on the
pawn at e5, practically forcing
Black to either surrender the
center with 4....exf4 or
weaken his Queenside with an
eventual ....d6. In any event,
White made it difficult for
Black to use the Queenside
fianchetto. And after the
desperate 4....exf4 5.Bxf4
d5?! White won a pawn.
Position after 4.f4.
A9) 2....Qh4
A9a) 3.Qe2 Nf6 4.d3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qh5 6.c3 Na5 7.Nbd2 Be7 8.d4 Nxc4 9.
Nxc4 exd4 10.cxd4 Bb4+ 11.Kf1 b6 12.e5 Ng8 13.h3 Ba6 14.g4 Qg6 15.
d5 h5 16.Nh4 Qh7 17.g5 Colin Leach.
A9b) 3.Nc3! Nf6 (3....Bc5 4.Qe2 d6 5.Nd5 Kd8 6.Nf3 Qh5 7.d4 exd4 8.Nf4 Qg4
9.Bxf7 Bb4+ 10.Kf1 ) 4.Nf3 Qh4 5.d3 Nc6 6.Nb5 Bb4+ 7.Bd2! Kd8 8.Bxb4
Nxb4 9.Qd2 Nc6 10.O-O-O! a6 11.Nc3 b5 12.Bb3 Goeller
2....Nc6>>>

Last modified: December 15, 2002
The Bishop's Opening - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.f4
s
B) 2....Nc6 3.f4!?
B1) 3....exf4
B2) 3....Nf6
B3) 3....Bc5
B4) Other
Introduction
A) 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 . . .
B) 2....Nc6
C) 2....f5
D) 2....d6
E) 2....Bc5
Position after 2....Nc6 3.f4
Black's Knight move allows White multiple options for transposing to other lines. Only the
gambit line 3.f4 is covered below because it is most in keeping with the gambit spirit of the
Urusov. Other options:
3.Nf3, when play might proceed along the lines of the Two Knights Defense (3....Nf6),
the Evans Gambit (3....Bc5 4.b4), or the Hungarian Defense (3....d6). For those
interested in these lines, I recommend Tim Harding's book The Evans Gambit and a
Line Against the Two Knights Defense.
3.d3 leads to positional lines in the Bishop's Opening, where White can play f4 after
more preparation. For those interested in this move or 3.Nc3, I recommend John
Emms's book Attacking with 1.e4.
3.Nc3 transposes to the Vienna (for coverage of 3.Nc3 Bc5 see line E).
After 2....Nc6 3.f4!?

The main lines following this move can also arise from the King's Gambit and are quite
complex. Black's best is probably to accept the gambit with 3....exf4, when White's main
compensation is control of the center. If Black declines the gambit, White gets a space
advantage with no risk. The main lines after 3...exf4 are quite complex and there are
chances for both sides. White's main strategy is to use his control of the center to make sure
there is no safe haven for Black's King anywhere on the board.
B1) 3....exf4 4.Nf3 (4.Nc3? Qh4+ 5.Kf1 Bc5 -+; 4.d4?! Nf6! 5.e5 d5! 6.Be2
Ne4 7.Bxf4 f6 =+) 4....g5 (4....Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.d4 Nh5?! 7.O-O g6 8.Nd5 Bh6 9.
Ne1 Be6 10.Be2 Ng7 11.Nxf4 Bxf4 12.Bxf4 Bd7 13.Bh6 +- Metger--Tchigorin,
Berlin 1897; 4....d6 5.d4! Bg4 6.Bxf4 Bxf3 7.gxf3 Nf6 8.Nc3 Qe7 9.Qd2 a6 10.OO-O O-O-O 11.Bg5 h6 12.Nd5 Qd7 13.Nxf6 Qh3 14.Bf1 Qxf3 15.Bg2 Qxd1+ 16.
Qxd1 hxg5 17.Qg4+ Kb8 18.Nd7+ Ka8 19.Nxf8 Rdxf8 20.e5 Rh4 21.Qxg5 Rxd4
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/nc6.htm (1 of 5)28/09/06 07:15:14
22.Qxg7 Rd8 23.e6 fxe6 24.Bxc6 1-0 Gratz--Duffy, US Open 1994) 5.O-O (5.
h4?! g4 6.Ng5 Ne5! 7.Bb3 h6 8.d4 hxg5 9.dxe5 Bg7! =+ Mieses--Tchigorin,
Vienna 1903) 5....Bg7 (5....g4 6.Ne1 [White can also transpose to the Pierce
Gambit with 6.d4!? gxf3 7.Nc3, for which see Kibitzer 96 and Kibitzer 97 by Tim
Harding] 6....Bc5+ 7. Kh1 Na5 8. Bxf7+ Kxf7 9. Rxf4+ Ke8 10. Qxg4 Qe7 11.
Qh5+ Kd8 12. d4 Bb6 13. Rf7 Nf6 14. Rxf6 Qxe4 15. Rf8+ Ke7 16. Qe8+ 1-0
Morch-Hansen, Copenhagen 1954) 6.d4 d6 7.c3 h6
B1a) 8.g3
B1b) 8.h4
B1c) 8.Qa4!
B1a) 8.g3?! Bh3! = Spielmann--Gruenfeld, Carlsbad 1923

B1b) 8.h4!? (transposing to the Greco-Philidor Gambit) 8....Qe7
(8....Nf6!? 9.hxg5 Nxe4 10.Bxf4 d5! [10....hxg5? 11.Bxf7+] 11.
gxh6 Bxh6 12.Bxh6 Rxh6 13.Nd2!? f5! unclear; 8....g4?! 9.Ne1! f3
10.gxf3 Qxh4 11.f4! g3 12.Nf3 +=) 9.a4 (White begins an attack on
the Queenside to cover all flanks. Also possible is 9.b4!?) 9....Bd7
10.a5
B1b1) 10....a6 11.Qd3 Nd8 12.b3 Ne6 13.e5 dxe5
14.Ba3 Qd8 15.Re1 g4 16.Nxe5 Qxh4 17.Nd2 Bxe5
18.Rxe5 O-O-O 19.Ne4 g3 20.Bxa6 Qh2+ 21.Kf1
Qh1+ 22.Ke2 Qxa1 23.Bxb7+ Kxb7 24.Rxe6 Ra8
25.Nc5+ Kb8 26.Nxd7+ Kc8 27.Nb6+ Kb8 28.Qb5
Qa2+ 29.Kd1 Nf6 30.Nxa8+ Kc8 31.Qa6+ Kb8 32.
Rb6+ 1-0 Yoos--Duong, Brantford CAN 1999.
B1b2) 10....O-O-O 11.b4
B1b2a) 11....Nb8 12.b5 Nf6 13.e5
with a double-edged position in BerglundMueller, 1988 (after Anderssen--Riemann,
Breslau 1875).
B1b2b) 11....g4 12.b5 gxf3 13.bxc6
Bxc6 14.d5 fxg2 15.Rxf4 Bd7 16.Qb3
(or 16.Qf1 in Mueller-Stuyfzand 1988) 16....
Be5 17.Na3 Bxf4 18.Bxf4 Qxh4 19.Bh2
Qxe4 20.Nc2 Bf5 21.Rb1 b6 22.axb6
axb6 23.Qb5 Kb8 24.Ra1 Bc8 25.Bd3
Qe8 26.Qb3 Ne7 27.Qa2 Bb7 28.Qa7+
Kc8 29.Ba6 1-0 Gibney--Lawson, Canada
1995.
B1c) 8.Qa4! Bd7 (8....Kf8? 9.Na3 f6 10.Bd2 Bg4 11.g3 fxg3 12.
hxg3 Bh5 13.Rae1 Be8 14.Qc2 Bf7 15.Bxf7 Kxf7 16.Qb3+ Kg6 17.
Qc2 Nge7 18.e5+ f5 19.g4 h5 20.gxf5+ Nxf5 21.Nh4+ Kh7 22.Qxf5
+ Kg8 23.Qf7+ Kh7 24.Qg6+ Kg8 25.Rf7 Rh7 26.Nf5 Qe8 27.Rxg7+
Kf8 28.Rg8+ 1-0 MacDonnell-NN, England 1823) 9.Qb3
B1c1) 9....Na5 10.Bxf7+ Kf8 11.Qa3! (11.Qb4? c5!)
11....Kxf7 12. Qxa5 Ke8 13.b3 Ne7 14.e5 d5 15.Ba3
c6 16.Qb4 b6 17.Qd6 Bf5 18.Qxd8+ Rxd8 19.h4 Bg4 20.
hxg5 Bxf3 21.gxh6 Rxh6 22.Rxf3 Ng6 23.Nd2 Kd7 24.
g3 Rdh8 25.Raf1 Rh1+ 26.Kf2 R8h2+ 27.Ke1 Bxe5 28.

dxe5 Nxe5 29.gxf4 Nxf3+ 30.Nxf3 Rxf1+ 31.Kxf1 Rxa2
32.Bf8 c5 33.f5 Rc2 34.Ne5+ Ke8 35.Bg7 1-0 DunnDion, IECC 1997.
B1c2) 9....Nge7?! 11.Qxb7 Ng6 12.Qa6 g4 13.Ne1
Qh4 14.Bb5 Nge7 15.Bxf4 Rb8 16.Bg3 Qh5 17.
Bxc6 Nxc6 18.d5 Ne5 19.Qxa7 Ke7 20.Qxc7 Rxb2 21.
Rf5 Qg6 22.Bxe5 Bxe5 23.Rxe5+ dxe5 24.Qxe5+ Be6
25.Nd3 Rbb8 26.d6+ Kd7 27.Qa5 Ke8 28.Qc7 1-0
Leone--Roebuck, Correspondence 1991.
B1c3) 9....Qf6 10.Qxb7 += Rc8 11.Qa6 Rb8 12.b4 g4
13.b5 Rb6 14.Qa3 gxf3 15.bxc6 Rxc6 16.Bd5 Rxc3 17.
Nxc3 Qxd4+ 18.Kh1 fxg2+ 19.Kxg2 Qd3 20.Rxf4 Bh3+
21.Kh1 Bxc3 22.Bb2 Qd2 23.Rg1 Bxb2 24.Qxh3 Qxf4 25.
Qc8+ Ke7 26.Qxc7+ Ke8 27.Qb8+ Ke7 28.Qc7+ Ke8 29.
Bc6+ Kf8 30.Qd8+ 1-0 DeVilder-Maas, Haarlem 1995.
B1c4) 9....Qe7 10.Qxb7 Rb8 11.Qa6 Nf6 12.d5 Ne5
(12....Nd8 13.Qxa7 Rb7 14.Qd4 O-O 15.Nbd2 g4 16.
Ne1 Nh5 17.Qd3 f5 18.Nc2 Nf7 19.exf5 Ne5 20.Qe2
Bxf5 21.Nd4 Bd7 22.a4 Qh4 23.Ba6 Rbb8 24.Qe1 Qxe1
25.Rxe1 Ra8 26.Bb5 Bxb5 27.Nxb5 Nd3 28.Rd1 Rf7 29.
Nb3 Nxc1 30.Rdxc1 g3 31.N3d4 Nf6 32.c4 Ne4 33.a5
Be5 34.h3 Nf2 35.Ra3 f3 36.b4 fxg2 37.Kxg2 1-0 LeoneBeckman, Correspondence 1991) 13.Nxe5 Qxe5 14.
Qxa7 O-O 15.Nd2 c5 16.dxc6 Bxc6 17.Bxf7+ Kh8 18.
Bg6 Bxe4 19.Nxe4 Nxe4 20.Re1 d5 21.Qd7 f3 22.gxf3
Rxf3 23.Bxe4 dxe4 24.Qg4 Qc5+ 25.Kh1 Rbf8 26.Qg1
Qb5 27.a4 Qb7 28.Be3 Qxb2 29.Bd4 e3 30.Rab1 Qc2 31.
Bxe3 Bxc3 32.Bd4+ 1-0 Leone-Van Aalzum,
B2) 3....Nf6 4.Nf3 (White has alternatives here in 4.Nc3 Nxe4! 5.Nf3, as
discussed somewhat by Tim McGrew in his articles Blindsided and Shall We
Dance? at ChessCafe, or the safe 4.d3!? Be7 5.Nc3 d6 6.Nf3 O-O 7.O-O Bg4 8.
Qe1 Qd7 9.f5 Bxf3 10.Rxf3 Nd4 11.Rh3 Nxc2 12.Qh4 Nxa1 13.Bg5 c6 14.Bxf6
h6 15.Rg3 Bxf6 16.Qxf6 g5 17.Qg6+ 1-0 Mohr--Rozakis, Ikaria 1993)
B2a) 4....Nxe4!? 5.Bd5! (5.fxe5?! d5 = or 5....Bc5! =+; 5.Qe2 d5
6.Bb5 Bg4! 7.d3 Nf6!? 8.fxe5 Nd7 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.O-O Be7 11.d4 OO =/=+ Wahls) 5....Nf6 6.Bxc6 dxc6?! (better 6....e4! 7.Bxe4
Nxe4 8.O-O Bc5+ 9.d4 Be7 10.Re1 d5 11.c4 c6 12.Nc3 Nxc3 13.
bxc3 O-O 14.Qe2 Bd6 15.cxd5 cxd5 16.Qb5 =) 7.fxe5 Ng4 8.d4
Be7 9.O-O Be6 10.c3 h5 11.h3 Nh6 12.Nbd2 g5 13.Ne4 Rg8
14.h4 g4 15.Nfg5 Nf5 16.Nh7 Bxh4 17.Nhf6+ Bxf6 18.Nxf6+
Ke7 19.Qd3 Nh4 20.c4 Qf8 21.Bg5 1-0 Strijbos--Deyirmendjian,
Avoine 1995.
B2b) 4....exf4! 5.e5! (5.Nc3 Na5! 6.Be2 d5! 7.e5 Ne4 8.O-O g5 9.
d4 h5! =/=+) 5....d5 (5....Ng4!? 6.Qe2 Be7 7.O-O d6! 8.Bb5 O-O 9.
Bxc6 bxc6 =) 6.Bb5 Ne4 7.d3 Nc5 8.Bxf4 Ne6 9.Bg3 Be7 10.OO O-O 11.d4 Ng5 12.Nxg5 Bxg5 13.c3 Be6 +=/= 1/2-1/2
Kadziolka--Rutkowski, Polanica Zdroj Poland 2001.
B3) 3....Bc5 4.Nf3 d6 5.c3 (5.d3 Bg4 6.c3 Bb6 7.h3 Bxf3 8.Qxf3 += Lovass--
Kincses, Epitok 1982) 5....Nf6 (5....f5 6.d4; 5....Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 Qe7 8.
f5!? O-O-O 9.d3 Nf6 10.Bg5 += Steinitz--Noa, Vienna 1882)
B3a) 6.d4?! exd4 7.cxd4 Bb4+ (7....Bb6 8.O-O O-O 9.Nc3 Bg4
10.Be3 Re8 11.Qd3 Nb4 12.Qd2 Nxe4! 13.Nxe4 Rxe4 14.Ng5 Re3 + Winawer--From, Paris 1867) 8.Bd2 Bxd2+ 9.Nbxd2 O-O 10.d5
Ne7 11.O-O c6 12.dxc6 bxc6 13.Bb3 Ba6 =+ Kauschmann-Grzesik 1982.
B3b) 6.fxe5!? dxe5 7.d3 O-O (7....Bg4 8.h3 Bxf3 9.Qxf3 +=
Wolf--Lewi, Vienna 1904) 8.Qe2 a5 9.a4 Be6 10.Bxe6 fxe6 11.
Be3 Qe7 12.Bc5 Qc5 13.Na3 Rad8 14.Ng5 Rde8 15.Nc4 Nd8
16.Nf3 Nc6 17.Qe3 Qxe3+ 18.Nxe3 Nd7 19.Ke2 += Ciocaltea-Radulescu, Bucharest 1964.
B3c) 6.d3 O-O
B3c1) 7.Bb3 Qe7 8.f5 d5 9.Qe2 dxe4 10.dxe4 Bd7
11.Bg5 a6 12.Nbd2 b5 13.Nf1 Na5 14.Ng3 Nxb3
15.axb3 Kh8 16.Nh5 Bc6 17.b4 Bb6 18.Bxf6 gxf6
19.Qd2 Bxe4 20.Qh6 Rg8 21.Nxf6 Bxf5 22.Nxg8
Rxg8 23.Rxa6 e4 24.Nh4 Bg4 25.h3 Bc8 26.Rxb6
cxb6 27.Rf1 Be6 28.Rf4 Bc4 29.Nf5 Qg5 30.Qxg5 Rxg5
31.Ne3 Bd3 32.Rxf7 Rg8 33.Ng4 Rd8 34.Nf6 e3 35.Rd7
Rxd7 36.Nxd7 Be4 37.g3 Bf5 38.Nxb6 Be6 39.h4 Kg7
40.Ke2 Kf6 41.Na8 Ke5 42.Nc7 1-0 Steinitz-Blackburne, London 1870.
B3c2) 7.b4! Bb6 8.a4 a6 9.fxe5 dxe5 10.Bg5 Qd6
11.Na3 Ne7 12.Bb3 Be6 13.Bxf6 gxf6 (13....Bxb3 14.
Bxe7 Bxd1 15.Bxd6 Bxf3 16.Bxf8 Bxg2 17.Bxg7 Bxh1
18.Bxe5 +- Tarrasch) 14.Nc4 Bxc4 15.dxc4! Qxd1+
16.Rxd1 Rad8 17.c5 Rxd1+ 18.Kxd1 Rd8+ 19.Ke2
Ba7 20.a5 c6 21.Rf1 Ng6 22.g3 Bb8 23.Nd2 Kg7
24.Nc4 Ne7 25.Ne3 Bc7 26.Rd1 Rd1 27.Bd1 Kf8
(27....Kg6 28.Nc4 Nc8 29.Ke3 h5 30.h3 Kg5 31.h4+
Kg6 32.g4 hg4 33.Bg4 Ne7 34.Nd6 +- Tarrasch) 28.
Kd3 Ke8 29.Bg4 Kd8 30.Nf5 Ng8 31.Kc4 Bb8 32.
Bh3 Bc7 33.Kd3 Bb8 34.Ke3 Bc7 35.Kf3 Bb8 36.
Kg4 Bc7 37.Kh5 Ke8 38.Nd6+ Bxd6 39.cxd6 Kd8
40.Bf5 1-0 Blackburne--Schlechter, Leipzig 1894.
B4) 3....Na5!? 4.Be2! (The Hamppe-Meitner inspired 4.Bxf7+? doesn't work
well after 4....Kxf7 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Qxe5 Qh4+ 7.g3 Qe7 =+ or 7.Kf1 Qh5 8.Qxh8
Bg7 -+)
B4a) 4...exf4 5.Nf3 (5.d4!? Nf6! 6.e5 Nd5 7.Nf3 d6 8.00 =) 5...
d5 6.exd5 Qxd5 (6...Nf6 7.00 +=) 7.00 Nc4 8.b3 Nd6 9.d4
Qf5 (9...Bf5 10.c4 Qe6 11.Bxf4 000 12.Nc3 Nf6 13.Ng5 ) 10.
Ne5 g5 11.Bg4 Qf6 12.Bxc8 Rxc8 13.Nc3 Ne7 14.Re1 h5 15.
Ba3 g4 16.Nd5
B4b) 4....d5 5.exd5 exf4 6.Nf3 Nf6 7.00 Nxd5 (7...Qxd5 8.d4
+=) 8.c4 Nb6 9.d4 Be7 10.Bxf4 00 11.b3 +=
B5) 3....f5?! 4.exf5! Nf6 5.fxe5 Nxe5 6.Be2 +=
B6) 3....Qh4+ 4.g3 Qe7 5.Nc3!? (5.d3 exf4 6.Bxf4 Na5 =; 5.f5!? Qc5 6.d3
Na5 7.Nd2 Nxc4 8.Nxc4 d5 9.Be3! d4 10.Bd2 =) 5....exf4 6.d4 fxg3 7.hxg3
Nf6 8.Bg5! += with excellent compensation for the pawn.
2....f5>>>

Last modified: March 15, 2002
The Bishop's Opening - Calabrese Countergambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 f5
s
C) Calabrese Countergambit, 2....f5
C1)
C2)
C3)
C4)
3.Bxg8
3.exf5
3.Qh5+
3.d4
Introduction
C5)
C6)
C7)
C8)
3.d3
3.Nc3
3.Nf3
3.f4
A) 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 . . .
B) 2....Nc6
C) 2....f5
D) 2....d6
E) 2....Bc5
Position after 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 f5
The Calabrese Countergambit is very similar to the Latvian Countergambit (1.e4

e5 2.Nf3 f5), also known as the Greco Counter Gambit, and can transpose to
well-known territory if White responds 3.Nf3 (leading to lines too complex to
analyze here at length, though this may well be among White's best options).
Black's gambit should not be underestimated and White must play actively to
secure any advantage against it. Long ago Jaenisch published an extensive
analysis of 3.d3 which is still widely considered the simplest response. But I am
not so sure I trust it anymore. Better may be the more active 3.Nc3, which
combines in some ways the best of both the 3.Nf3 and 3.d3 lines, or the
romantic 3.f4! (my current recommendation) which creates a very sharp
symmetry that should favor White. There is still a lot to discover here, and the
analysis does much to bear out the classical ideas of Philidor and his followers.
C1) 3.Bxg8?! Rxg8
The capture of the Knight by the Bishop is anti-positional, surrendering a
strongly developed piece for one on its original square. But recent suggestions
by James Grist show that the line may be playable for White.
C1a) 4.Qh5+? g6 5.Qxh7 Rg7 (=+ Greco) 6.Qh8 Qg5! (6....
fxe5!? =+; 6....d6?! 7.d4! f4?! 8.g3!? Qe7?! 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.gxf4
exf4 11.Nc3 Bf5! 12.f3 Nc6?! [12....Rh7! =+] 13.Nd5! += Graeffe-Reinhardt, 1990) 7.Qh3 fxe4 (Better 7....Nc6!) 8.Nc3 Qf5 9.Qe3
Rf7 10.Nh3 d5!? 11.Nxd5 Nc6 12.c3 (12.Ng5!? Nd5!) 12....Be6
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/f5.htm (1 of 14)28/09/06 07:15:28
13.c4 Nd4 14.Qc3 Qg4 15.O-O Ne2+ 0-1 NN--Greco, Italy 1620.
C1b) 4.exf5?! d5 (4....Qf6!?; 4....Nf6!? 4.Nf3 [4.g4 d5 5.Bb3 Bc5 6.
d3 h5 7.g5 Ng4 8.Nh3 Bxf5 9.f3 O-O 10.Nc3 c6 11.Qe2 Na6 12.a3
Nc7 13.Nd1 Qd6 14.Nhf2 Nxf2 15.Nxf2 Ne6 16.h4 Nd4 17.Qd1 e4
18.dxe4 Qg3 19.Qd3 Bxe4 20.fxe4 Qxf2+ 21.Kd1 Nxb3 22.Qxb3 Rf3
23.Qa4 Raf8 24.exd5 Re3 0-1 NN--Anderssen, Rotterdam 1861] 4....
e4 5.Ne5 d5 6.Bb3 Bxf5 7. d3 Bd6 8.Bf4 Qe7 9.d4 c5 10.c3 O-O 11.
O-O Nc6 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.Bxd6 Qxd6 14.h3 Rab8 15.dxc5 Qxc5 16.
Nd2 a5 17.a4 e3 18.fxe3 Qxe3+ 19.Rf2 Ne4 20.Nxe4 Bxe4 21.Qf1
Rxb3 0-1 Hermann--Steinitz, The Hague 1873) 5.Qh5+ g6 6.fxg6
Rxg6 7.Ne2 (7.Qxh7 Qf6 8.Qxc7?! Nc6 9.Qh7 Nd4 [9....Rxg2 10.
Qh5+ Kd8 -+] 10.Kd1 Bg4+ 11.f3 Nxf3 12.gxf3 Bxf3+ 13.Ke1 Bxh1
14.Ne2 Bg2 15.d4 O-O-O 16.dxe5 Qf1+ 17.Kd2 Bh6+ 18.Kc3 Rc6+
19.Kb3 Qxe2 20.Bxh6 Qc4+ 21.Ka3 Ra6+ 0-1 Pentz--Maroczy,
Nagyteteny 1901) 7....Nc6 8.O-O Bg4 9.Qh7 Rh6 10.Qd3 e4 11.
Qe3 Qh4 12.h3 Be2 13.Qe2 Nd4 14.Qd1 (14.Qg4 Qg4 15.hg4
Ne2#) 14....Nf3+ 15.Kh1 Qh3+! 16.gh3 Rh3+ 17.Kg2 Rh2+ 18.
Kg3 Bd6+ 19.Kg4 Rh4+ 20.Kf5 Rh5+ 21.Kg6 (21.Kf6 Be7+ 22.
Ke6 Re5#; 21.Kg4 Rg5+ 22.Kh3 O-O-O! -+) 21....Rg5+ 22.Kh6
Bf8+ 23.Kh7 Kf7 24.Rh1 Bg7! 0-1 Fisher--Steinitz, Liverpool
1872.
C1c) 4.Nc3! (James Grist sent me some analysis of this move,
showing that it makes 3.Bxg8 a playable alternative for White. Also
playable might be 4.d3 which likely transposes to the main line
below after 4....Nc6 5.Nc3 d6) 4....d6 (Better, in Grist's view, is 4....
Nc6! to prevent d4, which should transpose to the main line below.
A very interesting try, though, is 4....Qg5!? which Grist thinks
should be answered aggressively with 5.Nf3! Qxg2 6.Rg1 Qh3 7.Rg3
Qh5 8.Rg5 Qh3 9.Nd5 Na6 and now White should not win the
exchange with 10.Nf6+? gxf6 11.Rxg8 fxe4 =+, but has a number
of possibilities, including 10.d3 [Grist +=], 10.Qe2, or 10.exf5, all of
which look quite promising.) 5.d3 (Better in this move order is 5.d4!
exd4 6.Qxd4 Nc6 7.Qc4 Rh8 8.Nd5 Be7 9.Nf3 +=) 5....Nc6 6.f4?!
(This move turned out badly. Grist suggests 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxh7 Rg7
8.Qh6 [8.Qh8 Nd4 9.Kd1 f4 =+] 8....f4 9.Bd2 Bg4!? 10.f3 Be6 11.
g4 which is playable for White who keeps his extra pawn in a
relatively closed position) 6...Be6 7.Be3 g6 8.Qe2 exf4 9.Bxf4
Nd4 10.Qf2 Bg7 11.Nf3 c5!? 12.Be3?! (12.Ng5, 12.O-O, or 12.
exf5 =/+=) 12....Qb6! =+ 13.Bxd4 cxd4 14.Nd1?! (14.Nd5 =+)
14....fxe4 15.dxe4 Qa5+ 16.Qd2 Qc5 17.O-O d3+ 18.Ne3
dxc2 19.Rac1 Bh6 20.Rfe1?! Rc8 21.Kh1 Kd7 22.b3 Rgf8 23.
Rxc2 Bxe3 24.Rxc5 Bxd2 25.Rxc8 Rxc8 26.Nxd2 Rc2 27.Nf3
Rxa2 28.Nd4 Rb2 29.h3 Bxb3 30.e5 dxe5 31.Rxe5 a6 32.Re3
Bd5 33.Rg3 b5 34.Rg5 Kd6 35.h4 Rb4 36.h5 Rxd4 37.hxg6
hxg6 38.Rxg6+ Be6 39.g3 Rg4 40.Rf6 Rxg3 41.Rf8 b4 42.Ra8
Ra3 43.Rb8 a5 44.Rb6+ Ke5 45.Kg2 b3 46.Kf1 Ra2 47.Ke1 01 Jacquemin--Baldes, Paris 1993.
C2) 3.exf5 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5.Qxd4 d5 6.Bd3 Nc6 (6....c5!? Leach) 7. Qe3+
Kf7 8.Ne2 Bb4+ 9.c3 Re8 10.Qg3 Bd6 =+ Leach
C3) 3.Qh5+ g6 4.Qe2 fxe4 (4....Nc6?! 5.exf5 +=) 5.Qxe4 Nc6 =
C4) 3.d4 (Estrins suggestion) 3....exd4 (3....Qf6!? Leach)
C4a) 4.Nf3 (4.exf5 Nf6 =; 4.e5 d5 =; 4.c3 Nf6 5.exf5 d5 6.Bd3 =;
5.e5 d5! =) 4....fxe4!? (4....d6! transposes to C5) 5.Ne5 d5!? (5....

Qf6) 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Nxg6 hxg6 8.Qxh8 Be6 and Black has
compensation for the exchange.
C4b) 4.Bxg8! Rxg8 5.Qxd4 fxe4 6.Qd5 Rh8 7.Nc3 (7.Qh5+!? g6
8.Qe5+ Kf7 9.Bg5 Qe8 10.Qf4+ +=) 7....d6 8.Bg5 Qd7 9.O-O-O
Qf5 10.Qxe4+?! (10.Rd4! +=) 10....Qxe4 11.Nxe4 h6 =
Hankipohja--Pyhaelae, Finland Team Ch. 1988
C5) 3.d3 Nf6
Weaker is 3....Bc5? 4.Bxg8! [This move is generally strong once the Black
Bishop has moved from f8] 4....Rxg8 5.Qh5+ Kf8 6.Nf3 Qf6 [6....d6!? ] 7.Ng5!
Rh8 8.Nxh7+ Rxh7 9.Qxh7 fxe4 10.O-O d5 11.Nc3 [11.Qh8+! +-] 11....Be6 12.
Qh8+ Ke7 13.dxe4 c6 14.exd5 cxd5 15.Be3 Bd6 [15....d4 16.Ne4 Leach] 16.
Rad1 Qf7 17.b4! Bxb4? 18.Ne4 Qf8 19.Qh4+ Kd7 20.f4 Nc6 21.fxe5 Qh8 22.Qg3
1-0 Paulsen--Chevalier St. Bon, London 1862
C5a) 4.f4
This move was recommended by Jaenisch long ago, but it is not as
easy for White as 4.Nf3. A better way to implement these ideas is
by 3.f4!
C5a1) 4.... d6 (4....exf4 5.Bxf4 fxe4 6.dxe4 Qe7 7.e5
d6 8.Qe2 dxe5 9.Bxe5 c6 10.Nf3 += Staunton; 4....fxe4
5.dxe4 Nc6 6.Nc3 Bc5 7.Nf3 Na5 8.Bd3 O-O 9.fxe5 Ng4
10.Qe2 += Harding; 4....d5!? 5.exd5 e4!? Bilguer) 5.
Nf3 fxe4 (5....exf4 6.O-O fxe4 7.dxe4; 5....Nc6!? was
recommended by Keres) 6.dxe4 Bg4 7.fxe5 Bxf3 8.
Qxf3 dxe5 9.Qb3 Qe7 (9....Qc8 10.Bg5 Bc5 11.Bf7+
+= Jaenisch) 10.O-O c6 11.a4 h6 12.Be3 b6 13.Nc3
Nbd7 14.Rad1 O-O-O 15.Ba6+ Kc7 16.a5 Nc5 17.axb6+
axb6 18.Na4 Nxa4 19.Qxa4 Nd7 20.Be2 1-0 Schuld-Koetsheid, Correspondence 1902.
C5a2) 4....Nc6! 5.Nf3 (5.Nc3 Bb4 =) 5....fxe4!?
(Better may be 5....exf4! 6.Qe2 [6.e5 d5!] 6....fxe4 7.
dxe4 Ng4 8.Bxf4 Qf6 unclear) 6.dxe4?! (Better 6.Nxe5!
d5 7.Bb5 Qd6 [7....Bd7 8.Bxc6 Bxc6 9.dxe4 Bc5!?
unclear] 8.Nc3 exd3 9.cxd3 Bd7 10.O-O +=/= and
White still has a very slight edge) 6....Nxe4 7.fxe5
Nxe5! 8.Bd5 (8.Nxe5 Qh4+ 9.g3 Nxg3 10.hxg3 Qxh1+
=+) 8....Nxf3+ 9.Qxf3 Nf6 10.Bg5 c6 11.Bb3 Qa5+
12.Bd2 Qe5+ 13.Kd1 Qh5!? (After the exchange of
Queens White has little hope of compensation for the
pawn, of course, but Black had better winning chances
after 13....d5! 14.Re1 Ne4 with the threat of 15....Bg4!)
14.Re1+ Kd8 =+ 15.Qxh5 Nxh5 16.Bg5+ Nf6 17.Nd2
d5 18.Nf3 Bd6 19.c4 dxc4 20.Bxc4 Re8 21.Rxe8+ Kxe8
22.Bd3 h6 23.Bxf6 gxf6 24.Kc2 Kf7 25.Re1 Be6 26.g3
Re8 27.Re4 Be5 28.Nh4 Rd8 29.b3 c5 30.Re2 a6 31.
Ng6 Bc7 32.Nh4 Be5 33.Ng6 Bc7 34.Nh4 Be5 35.Ng6
1/2-1/2 Emms-Lyell, Southampton 1986.
C5b) 4.Nf3!
Emms recommends White try to play the typical Black formation of
the King's Gambit Declined with an extra tempo. Black's inability to
castle easily should be a big problem for him here, and this is
therefore the easiest line for White to play over the board, though I
am not sure it yields any real advantage.

C5b1) 4...d5?! 5.exd5 Bd6 (in the game Tapani-Panu, Raissio 1993, Black tried 5....e4 6.dxe4 fxe4 7.
Ng5 h6 when, instead of 8.Ne6 Bxe6 9.dxe6 Qxd1+ 10.
Kxd1 Bc5 11.Ke2 Nc6 +=, White could have played 8.
Nxe4! Qe7 9.O-O! +-) 6.O-O O-O 7.Nc3 a6 8.a4 h6
(8....e4!? 9.dxe4 fxe4 10.Ng5 ) and now White should
have played 9.Re1 Re8 10.Nd2! Qe7 11.Qf3 in
Lenhof--Steinitz, Vienna 1859 which continued instead 9.
d4!? e4 10.Ne5 Nbd7 11.Nxd7?! (11.f4! +=) 11....Bxd7
12.f3 Qe8 13.fxe4 fxe4 14.Bf4 Qg6 15.Bxd6 cxd6 16.
Qe2 Rae8 17.Rf4?! Re7?! (17....e3! =+) 18.Re1 Rfe8 19.
Qf2 Nh5 20.Rh4 Rf7 21.Qd2 Nf6 22.h3 Qg5 23.Qf4 Nh7
24.Qxg5 Nxg5 25.Rf1 Rfe7 26.Rhf4 e3 27.Re1 Bxh3 28.
Bd3 Bd7 29.b3 Nh7 30.Nd1 Nf6 31.c4 Ng4 32.Rf3 Nf2
33.Bg6 Nxd1 34.Bxe8 Rxe8 35.Rxd1 Bg4 36.Re1 Bxf3
37.gxf3 Kf7 38.c5 dxc5 39.dxc5 Re5 40.c6 bxc6 41.
dxc6 Ke6 42.Kf1 e2+ 43.Rxe2 Rxe2 44.Kxe2 a5 45.f4
g6 0-1.
C5b2) 4....Nc6 5.O-O (5.Ng5?! d5! 6.exd5 Nxd5 7.O-O
Be7 was unclear in a game between Bilguer--von der
Lasa) 5....Bc5 (perhaps better 5....Qe7!? but not 5....
fxe4 6.dxe4 Nxe4? 7.Nxe5! Nxe5 8.Qh5+! Ng6 9.Re1 )
6.Nc3 d6 7.Bg5 or 7.Na4 +=.
C5b4) 4....c6! 5.Qe2! (5.Nxe5? Qa5+ -+; 5.Nc3 Bb4!
[5....b5!?] 6.Bg5 = Sorensen--From, Copenhagen 1870
after 6....d5!; 5.O-O d5 6.exd5 cxd5 7.Bb5+ Bd7 8.Bxd7
+ Nxd7 9.Re1 e4! =) 5....Be7 6.O-O d5! 7.exd5 e4! 8.
Nd4 cxd5 9.Bb5+ Kf7 += with a complex struggle
underway.
C6) 3.Nc3
This may be White's safest option, with still relatively little theory to worry
about! I think I would recommend this for play over the board.
C6a) 3....d6 4.Nf3 fxe4 5.Nxe5 Nh6 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Nxg6 Bg4 8.
Qb5+ c6 9.Qxb7 hxg6 10.Qxa8 Rh7 11.Nxe4 d5 12.Bxd5 cxd5
13.Qxd5! Rd7 14.Qb5 a6 15.Qa4 Kf7 16.d3 Rd4 17.Qb3+ Kg7 18.
Be3 Nf5 19.h3 Bb4+ 20.Kf1 Nxe3+ 21.fxe3 Qf8+ 22.Kg1 Rxe4 23.
hxg4 Rxe3 24.Rf1 Re1 25.Rxe1 Bc5+ 26.d4 Bxd4+ 27.Re3 Nc6 28.
Qb7+ Ne7 29.Rh3 +- Hommeles--Zagema, Netherlands 1995.
C6b) 3....Nf6 4.d3 Bb4 5.Bd2 (5.Nf3 fxe4 6.dxe4 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3
d6 8.O-O Qe7 9.Nh4!? Nc6 10.a4 Be6 11.Nf5 Bxf5 12.exf5 g6 13.
Rb1!? gxf5 14.Bg5 was unclear in Sunder--Pirrot, Giessen/
Saarbrucken 1986) 5....c6 (5....Qe7 6.Nge2 c6 7.O-O Na6 8.Kh1 b5
9.Bb3 fxe4 10.Nxe4 Bxd2 11.Qxd2 d5 12.Nxf6+ gxf6 13.f4 Rg8 14.
Ng3 Bg4 15.Rae1 O-O-O 16.fxe5 fxe5 17.Qc3 Kb7 18.Qxe5 Qc5 19.
Rf7+ Bd7 20.d4 Qb6 21.Qd6 Kc8 22.c3 Nc7 23.Ree7 Rg6 24.Qe5
Ne6 25.Nf5 Qc7 26.Nd6+ Kb8 27.Bc2 Rg5 28.Bf5 Nf8 29.Qf6 Rg8 30.
h3 c5 31.dxc5 Qxc5 32.Bxd7 Rg6 33.Rxf8 1-0 Coposciutti--Bianca,
Rome 1990) 6.f4 exf4 7.e5 Ng4 8.Bxf4 Qa5 9.Nf3 Qc5 10.Qd2
a5 11.a3 Bxc3 12.bxc3 Na6 13.h3 b5 14.Ba2 Nh6 15.Be3 Qf8
16.Nd4 Ng8 17.O-O g6 18.e6 dxe6 19.Bxe6 Nc5 20.Bxc8 Rxc8
21.Rae1 Kd7 22.Nxf5 gxf5 23.Bd4 Qh6 24.Qf2 1-0 Cimmino-Neri, Correspondence 1991-1992.
C7) 3.Nf3
This transposes to a much analyzed line in the Latvian Counter-Gambit (1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 f5 3.Bc4!?), where best is probably 3....d6! leading to one of Black's best
lines in the Philidor Countergambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.Bc4) if White
plays the aggressive 4.d4. The latest analysis by Tony Kosten, published in The
Latvian Gambit Lives! and Winning with the Philidor, and James West, published
in two editions of The Philidor Countergambit, suggests that these lines are quite
playable for Black. I present some of the main lines to give you a sense of the
play here and urge you to purchase these excellent books if you wish more fully
to understand this extremely complex variation. I will also eventually post a
small website devoted to what I see as White's best ideas in this line, complete
with the seven surviving games from the Dimock Theme Tournament of October
1921 devoted to the Greco Counter Gambit with Bc4. For now, here are links to
those Dimock games:
Forsberg-Jaffe
Forsberg-Marshall
Hodges-Jaffe
Jaffe-Marshall
Marshall-Forsberg
Marshall-Hodges
Marshall-Jaffe
C7a) 3....b5 (Strautins) 4.Bxg8! Rxg8 5.d4 (5.exf5 e4 6.Nd4 Qg5

7.O-O a6 8.d3 += Montivay-Monsalvo, Correspondence 1970) 5....
fxe4 6.Bg5! Be7 7.Nxe5! g6 8.Bxe7 Qxe7 9.Qe2 c6 10.Nd2 +=
Kozlov-Franco, Correspondence 1974.
C7b) 3....fxe4 4.Nxe5
C7b1) 4....Qg5?! (This is rightly called the Poisoned
Pawn Variation, since Black probably loses if White plays
precisely) 5.d4! Qxg2 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Bf7+ Kd8 (7....
Ke7 8.Bg5+! Nf6 9.Qh4 Qxh1+ 10.Kd2! e3+ 11.Ke2!
Bg7 12.Nc3 Qg2 13.Ne4! +- Kozlov-Svendsen,
Correspondence 1991) 8.Bxg6! Qxh1+ 9.Ke2 c6 (9....
Qxc1 10.Nf7+ Ke8 11.Nxh8+ hxg6 12.Qxg6+ Kd8 13.
Nf7+ is also advantageous for White) 10.Nc3! e3!
(10....Nf6 11.Qh4 [11.Qg5! Purins-Eglitis,
Correspondence 1974] 11....Be7 12.Bg5! Qxa8 13.Bxf6
Bxf6 14.Qxf6+ Kc7 15.Nc4!! b6 16.Qe5+ d6?! 17.Nb5
+!! 1-0 Purins--Englitis, Correspondence 1971; 10....
Kc7 11.Bf4 hxg6 12.Qxh8 Qxa1 13.Qxg8 d6 14.Qxf8 +Gubats-Vitomskis, Correspondence 1970) 11.Nf7+ Kc7
12.Qg5 Be7 13.Qg3+ d6 14.Be4 Bg4+ 15.Qxg4 Nf6
16.Qe6! +- Falkowski-Leisebein, Correspondence 1988.
C7b2) 4....Nf6!? (Blackburne) 5.Nf7! (5.Bf7+ Ke7 6.
Bb3 d5 7.d4 c5 8.Bg5 Nc6 9.Qh5 Qe8 10.Qh4 cxd4 11.
Bxd5 Nxe5 12.Qxe4 Kd6
13.Bxf6 gxf6 14.f4 Bf5 15.fxe5+ Qxe5 16.Qxe5+ fxe5
17.Bb3 Bh6 18.Na3 Kc5 19.O-O Rhf8 20.Rad1 Be3+ 21.
Kh1 b5 22.Nb1 Bg4 23.Rde1 Be2 24.Rxf8 Rxf8 25.h3
Rf2 26.c3 d3 27.Bd1 e4 28.b4 Kd6 29.Na3 a6 30.c4 Kc6
31.cxb5 axb5 32.Nb1 Bd4 33.Nd2 Bc3 34.Kg1 Bxd2 35.
Kxf2 e3 0-1 Gamman-Blackburne, London Match 1869)

5....Qe7 6.Nxh8 d5 7.Be2 (7.Bxd5?! Bg4! 8.Bxb7 Qe5
9.Nc3 Bxd1 10.Nxd1 Nd5 11.Bxa8 c6 unclear; 7.Bb5+!?
c6 8.Be2 +=)
C7b2a) 8.Bh5+?! g6 9.Nxg6 hxg6 10.
Bxg6+ Kd8 11.Bh5 Ne5 12.Be2 unclear
C7b2b) 8.d4 exd3 9.cxd3 Bg4?! (9....Bf5
Kosten) 10.Nc3 O-O-O 11.O-O Be6 12.
Bf4?! d4 13.Nb5 Nd5 14.Bg3 a6 15.Na3
Qd7 16.Nc4 Be7 17.Ng6 hxg6 18.a3 Bf6
19.Bf3 g5 20.b4 Nc3 21.Qc2 Bxc4 22.
dxc4 d3 = 23.Qd2 Nd4 24.Bd1 Nde2+ 25.
Kh1 Ne4 26.Qa2 Bxa1 27.Qxa1 Qf5 28.Ba4
Rh8 29.Qe1 N4xg3+ 30.fxg3 Rxh2+ 31.
Kxh2 Qh7+ 0-1 Gamman-Blackburne,
London Match 1869.
C7b2c) 8.O-O Bf5 9.d4 O-O-O 10.c3
Qe6 11.Bf4 Be7 12.b4 Rxh8 13.a4 g5!?
+= Keast-Bormann, Correspondence 1974.
C5b2d) 8.d3 Bf5 9.dxe4 +=
C7b3) 4....d5 (Svedenborg) 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Nxg6
C7b3a) 6....Nf6 7.Qe5+ Be7 8.Bb5+ c6
9.Nxe7 Qxe7 10.Qxe7+ Kxe7 11.Be2
Rg8 12.g3 c5 13.d3 exd3 14.Bxd3 c4 15.
Be2 Nc6 16.c3 Bf5 17.Be3 Rae8 18.O-O
Kd7 19.Rd1 Bg4 20.Bxg4+ Rxg4 21.
Nd2 Larsen-Nilsson, Correspondence
1991.
C7b3b) 6....hxg6
C7b3b1) 7.Qxg6+ Kd7 8.
Bxd5 Nf6 9.Nc3 Qe7
C7b3b1a) 10.b3
Rh6 11.Qf7 Qxf7
12.Bxf7 Nc6 13.
Bb2 Bc5 14.h3
Bd4 15.O-O-O
Bxf2 16.g4 Bh4
17.Rdf1 Ke7 18.
Bc4 Be6 -+ OrenHeap,
Correspondence
1991.
C7b3b1b) 10.d3
exd3+ 11.Be3 c6
12.Bb3 Bh6 13.OO-O Bxe3+ 14.
fxe3 b6 15.Rxd3
+ Kc7 16.e4
Nbd7 17.Rf3 Ba6

18.Rf5 Raf8 19.
Qg3+ Kb7 20.Re1
Nc5 21.e5 Nxb3+
22.axb3 Nd7 23.
Rxf8 Rxf8 24.Kb1
Rf1 25.Rxf1 Bxf1
26.Qf3 Ba6 27.
Qf5 Nxe5 -+
JakobssonMcDonald,
Correspondence
1995.
C7b3b2) 7.Qxh8 Kf7 8.Qd4
Be6 9.Be2 Nc6 10.Qe3 Bh6
11.f4 d4 12.Qf2 Nf6 13.O-O
d3 14.cxd3 exd3 15.Bd1 Nd4
16.Nc3 Bf8 17.Kh1 Bc5 18.
Na4 Be7 19.b3 Ng4 20.Bxg4
Bxg4 21.Bb2 AlderdenGoedhart, Correspondence
1984, but Black can likely
improve here according to
Kosten.
C7c) 3....d6!
Transposing to Philidor's original vision of his defense is much better
than playing the Latvian Gambit. According to recent practice and
analysis, Black does quite well.
C7c1) 4.d3
C7c1a) 4....Nc6?!
C7c1a1) 5.O-O Nf6 6.Ng5 d5
7.exd5 Nxd5 8.Nc3 Nce7 9.
Qf3 c6 10.Nce4 fxe4 11.Qf7
+ Kd7 12.Qe6+ Kc7 13.Qxe5
+ Qd6 14.Qxd6+ Kxd6 15.
Nf7+ Ke6 16.Nxh8 exd3 17.
cxd3 Kf6 18.b4 Be6 19.Re1
Bg8 20.Bb2+ Kg5 21.Re5+
Kh6 22.Bc1+ g5 23.Rxg5 1-0
Morphy--Rousseau, New
Orleans 1849.
C7c1a2) 5.a3!? Nf6 6.Nc3 h6
7.Nh4!? g5 8.Nxf5 Bxf5 9.
exf5 Nd4 10.Ne4 g4 11.h3
Qe7 12.c3 Nxf5 13.hxg4
Nxe4 14.dxe4 Nh4 15.g3
Ng6 16.g5 O-O-O 17.Qg4+
Kb8 18.gxh6 +- Ochoa De
Echaguen--Barrenechea, Seville
1994.
C7c1b) 4....Nf6!? (Kosten) 5.Bg5 h6 6.
Bxf6 Qxf6 7.c3 Nc6 8.b4 Be7 9.Nbd2
Be6 10.Qb3 Nd8 11.h3 O-O 12.O-O-O?!

a5 13.b5 a4 14.Bxe6 Nxe6 =+ Kosten.
C7c1c) 4....c6! 5.O-O f4! 6.d4 Qf6 7.
dxe5 dxe5 8.Nc3 Bg4 with the idea of
Nd7 and O-O-O = West.
C7c2) 4.d4
C7c2a) 4....fxe4? 5.Nxe5! dxe5 6.Qh5+
Kd7 7.Qf5+ Kc6 8.Qxe4+ (8.Qxe5 is also
winning) 8....Kb6 9.Be3 exd4 10.Nc3 Nf6
11.Na4+ Ka5 12.Qe5+ c5 13.Bd2+
Kxa4 14.a3 1-0 Ginzburg-Schuster,
Buenos Aires 1992..
C7c2b) 4....Nc6!? 5.dxe5 dxe5 6.Qxd8+
Nxd8 = West
C7c2c) 4....exd4! 5.Ng5 (5.Nxd4 fxe4 6.
Qh5+ g6 7.Qd5 Qe7 8.Bg5 Nf6 = MelchorSvendsen, Correspondence 1985) 5....Nh6
6.O-O (6.Nxh7?! Ng4! 7.Nxf8 Kxf8 =+
Nurmi-Mestel, Tjentishe 1975, and SorokinMaliutin, Moscow 1991)
C7c2c1) 6....Nc6?! 7.exf5! (7.
Re1 f4! 8.Bxf4 Qf6 9.Qd2 Be7!
10.Na3 Ne5 11.Be2 O-O 12.g3
Ng6 =+ Kosten) 7....Bxf5 8.
Re1+ Kd7 9.Be6+! (9.c3 Qf6
10.Qb3 Be7 11.Ne6 Rab8 12.
cxd4 Qh4 13.Ng7 Nxd4 14.Nf5
Nhxf5 15.Be6+ Kd8 =+
Adorjan-Mestel, Moscow 1977)
9....Bxe6 10.Nxe6 Qh4 11.
Bxh6 gxh6 12.Qf3 Be7 13.
Qf5 Ne5 14.Nxd4+ ZemitisSvendsen, Correspondence
1998.
C7c2c2) 6....f4! 7.Bxf4 Qf6 8.
Qh5+ g6 9.Qh4 Nc6 10.Nd2
Bd7 11.Ndf3 O-O-O 12.Ne6
Qxh4 13.Nxh4 Bxe6 14.Bxe6
+ Kb8 15.Bg5 Be7 16.Bxh6
Bxh4 17.g3 Bf6 = 18.a3 d3!
19.c3 Rhe8 20.Bd5 Ne5 21.Bf4
c6 22.Bb3 g5 23.Bxe5 Rxe5 24.
Bc4 Rxe4 25.Bxd3 Re7 26.Rae1
Rde8 27.Rxe7 Rxe7 28.f4 gxf4
29.Rxf4 Bg5 1/2-1/2 Reyna
Glez-Perez, Correspondence
1994
C8) 3.f4!
This may be White's theoretically best method of obtaining an advantage, but it
can lead to great complications. White is up a tempo, after all, and therefore
should have the edge in symmetrical lines. Black's best therefore is to break
symmetry with 3....exf4, transposing to the Lopez Counter Gambit of the
Bishop's Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 f5!?), a line which has not been
extensively examined for nearly 100 years, though it received some scrutiny
from Estrin and Glazkov in 1982. This is fascinating territory for analysis and
research and might therefore be preferred by correspondence players.
C8a) 3....Nc6 4.exf5! Nf6 5.fxe5 Nxe5 6.Be2 +=
C8b) 3....Nf6 4.fxe5 Nxe4 5.d3! (5.Nf3 += Emms, e.g.: 5....d5 6.
exd6 Nxd6 7.Be2) 5....d5 (5....Qh4+?! 6.g3 Nxg3 7.Nf3 Qh3 8.Rg1
Nh5 9.Bf7+ Ke7 10.Nc3 ) 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxe4 Qh4+ 8.Kf1 Bc5
(8....fxe4 9.g3 Qe7 10.Be2 Qxe5 11.Be3 ; 8....cxb5 9.exd5 ) 9.
Qe1 +=
C8c) 3....Bc5 4.Bxg8 Bxg1 5.exf5 Qh4+ 6.g3 Qh3 7.Qe2 Rxg8
8.Rxg1 Qxf5 9.d4 Nc6 10.g4 Qg6 11.d5 Nb4 12.Na3 Nxd5 13.
Qxe5++=
C8d) 3....exf4!
C8d1) 4.Nh3?! fxe4 6.Bxg8 Rxg8 7.Nc3 Bc5 8.
Ncxe4 Bxf2+ 9.Nxf2 d6 10.O-O g5 =+ AnderssenMayet, Berlin 1855.
C8d2) 4.d3?! Qh4+ 5. Kf1 fxe4 6. dxe4 Bc5! =+ 7.
Qf3 Nh6 8. Bxf4 Rf8 9. g3 Qg4 10. Kg2 g5 11. Qxg4
Nxg4 12. Bxg5 Rf2+ 13. Kh3 d5 14. Bxd5 Ne3+ 15. Kh4
Nd7 16. b4 Ng2+ 17. Kh5 Bf8 18. Nh3 Nf6+ 19. Bxf6
Rxf6 20. Nf4 Nxf4+ 21. gxf4 Rh6+ 22. Kg5 Rg6+ 23.
Kh5 Bg4+ 24. Kh4 Bf3 25. Rg1 Rxg1 26. Nd2 Be7+ 27.
Kh3 Bg4# 0-1 Mayet-Neumann, Berlin 1865.
C8d3) 4.Qh5+ g6 5.Qe2 fxe4 6.Qxe4+ Be7 7.Qd5
Nh6 8.Qe5 Rf8 9.Qg7 Bh4+ =+ Schulten-Suhle,
Berlin 1864.
C8d4) 4.exf5 Nf6 (4....Qh4+! 5.Kf1 f3! 6.d4 gxg2+ 7.
Kxg2 Nf6 8.Qe2+ Kd8 9.Be3 Nc6 10.c3 d5 11.Bd3 Bd6
12.Nd2 Re8 13.Nf1 Bf4 14.Nf3 Qg4+ =+ analysis by S.
A. Sorensen in Nordischen Schachzeitung 1873, cited by
Korchnoi) 5.Nc3 Qe7+ 6.Qe2 Nc6 7.Nf3 Nb4 = 8.Bb3
c6 9.d3 d5 10.Nd4 f3 11.gxf3 Qxe2+ 12.Ncxe2 Kf7 13.
Bg5 Bd6 14.Kd2 Bd7 15.Rag1 Rhe8 16.Bf4 Bf8 17.Rg2
c5 18.a3 Na6 19.Ne6 Bxe6 20.fxe6+ Rxe6 21.Nc3 Rd8
22.Kc1 Rc6 23.Rd1 Be7 24.Be5 c4 25.Ba2 Nc7 26.Rgd2
Ke8 27.Bxc7 Rxc7 28.dxc4 dxc4 29.Rxd8+ Bxd8 30.Nb5
Rd7 31.Bxc4 Bb6 32.Re1+ Kf8 33.Be6 Rd8 34.c4 Rd3
35.f4 a6 36.Nc3 Be3+ 37.Kb1 Bxf4 38.Bc8 Rd8 39.Bxb7
Rb8 40.Bxa6 Bd2 41.Rc1 Bxc1 42.Kxc1 g5 43.c5 Ke7 44.
b4 h5 45.Nb5 Nd5 46.Nd4 Kf6 47.Kd2 g4 48.Bc4 Ne7
49.b5 Ke5 50.Kc3 h4 51.a4 Nd5+ 52.Bxd5 Kxd5 53.c6
Rc8 54.Kd3 g3 55.hxg3 hxg3 56.Nf5 Rg8 57.c7 g2 58.
Ne3+ Kd6 1/2-1/2 Murey-Tatai, Beer Sheva 1978.
C8d5) 4.Nc3 Qh4+ (On 4....d5 5.Nxd5! and not 5.
Bxd5?! in Anderssen-Eichborn, Breslau 1854; 4....Nf6 5.
d3 fxe4 6. dxe4 Bb4 7. Qe2 Bxc3+ 8. bxc3 d6 9. Bxf4
Bg4 10. Nf3 Qe7 11. O-O += Cauveren-Geus,

Correspondence 1904, or 5....c6 6.Bxf4 d5 7.exd5 cxd5
8.Bb3 Bb4 9.Qe2+ Kf7 10.Nf3 += Westerinen--Kiltti,
Jyvaskyla 1994) 5.Kf1
C8d5a) 5....f3!? 6.d3 fxg2+ 7.Kxg2 Bc5
8.Nh3 Nf6 9.Bg5 Qd4 10.Nc3 Be7 11.
Re1 Kd8 12.Qf3 += Nc6 13.Bd5 d6 14.
Bxc6 bxc6 15.Nf4 Qc5 16.Ne6+ Bxe6 17.
Rxe6 Kd7 18.Rae1 Bd8 19.R6e2 Rf8 20.
Bxf6 gxf6 21.Qg4 d5 22.d4 Qd6 23.Na4 Kc8
24.Nc5 Rf7 25.Re8 Rb8 26.Qg8 Rd7 27.
Nxd7 Qxd7 28.Rxd8+ 1-0 KopaevKamishov, Leningrad 1938.
C8d5b) 5....Nf6 6.Nf3 Qh5 7.d3 +=
Anderssen-Mayet, Berlin 1855.
C8d5c) 5....fxe4 6.Nxe4
C8d5c1) 6....Nf6 7.Nf3 Qh6
(7....Qh5 8.Nxf6+ gxf6 9.d4
+= Emms) 8.Qe2!? +=
Chigorin-Gelvig,
Correspondence 1882
C8d5c2) 6....Be7! 7.d4 Nh6
8.Nf3 Qh5 9.Bxf4 d5 10.Ng3
Qf7 11.Bb5+ c6 12.Bxh6
cxb5 = 13.Be3 O-O 14.Kg1
Bg4 15.Qd2 Bxf3 16.Rf1 Qg6
17.Rxf3 Nd7 18.Kf2 Rac8 19.
Rc1 Bd6 20.Qd3 Bxg3+ 21.
hxg3 Qxd3 22.cxd3 Rxc1 23.
Rxf8+ Kxf8 24.Bxc1 Kf7 25.Bf4
Ke6 26.Kf3 Kf5 27.g4+ Ke6 28.
Bc7 Nf8 29.Be5 Kf7 30.Bf4 Ne6
31.Be3 Nd8 32.Ke2 Nc6 33.a3
a5 34.b3 b4 35.a4 Ke6 36.Bf2
Na7 37.Bg3 b5 38.axb5 Nxb5
39.Be5 g6 40.Ke3 Nc3 41.Kd2
Kd7 42.Bf4 Kc6 43.Kc2 Nb5 44.
Be3 Na7 45.Kb2 Kb5 46.g5 Nc6
47.g4 a4 48.bxa4+ Kxa4 49.
Bf2 b3 50.Be3 Nb4 51.Kc3 Nc2
52.Bc1 Ne1 53.Kd2 Nf3+ 54.
Ke3 Nxg5 55.Kf4 Nf7 56.g5 Kb5
0-1 Maroczy-Marco, Vienna
1903.
C8d6) 4.Qe2!
Recommended by Estrin and Glazkov as the "only" way
of obtaining an advantage. But an improvement will
need to be found on Glazkov's analysis, which Keres
shows leads only to equality.
C8d6a) 4....fxe4? 5.Qh5+! g6 6.Qe5+
Qe7 7.Qxh8 Nf6 was successful in
Pillsbury-Marshall, Vienna 1903 and GohleNeumann, Berlin 1866, but it should have
lost, according to Neumann's analysis: 8.
b3! d5 9.Ba3 c5 10.Bxc5 Qxc5 11.Qxf6
dxc4 12.Qxf4 ( Neumann) 12....Bf5 13.
Nc3 cxb3 14.axb3 Nc6 15.g4 Nd4 16.
Ra4 Ne6 17.Qg3 Bd6 18.Qg2 Nf4 19.
Qf1 1-0 Dennis-Schuster, Correspondence
1992.
C8d6b) 4....Nf6 5.e5 Ne4 6.Nf3 Be7 (6....
Nc6 7.d3 Ng5 8.Bxf4 Nxf3+ 9.Qxf3 Nd4 10.
Qf2 Ne6 11.Be3 d5 12.exd6 Bxd6 13.Qxf5
Qh4+ 14.Qf2 Qh5 15.Nc3 Bd7 16.Qe2 Qh4
+ 17.Bf2 Qh6 18.Ne4 Be7 19.Qe3 Qg6 20.
O-O-O b6 21.Rhe1 O-O-O 22.Kb1 Rhe8 23.
Nc3 Nc5 24.d4 Bh4 25.Qf3 Rf8 26.Qa8+ 10 Hartmann-Oechslein, Correspondence
1980) 7.O-O?! (7.d3! Bh4+ 8.Kf1 +=) 7....
d5 8.exd6 cxd6 9.d3 Nf6 10.Bxf4 d5 11.
Bb3 O-O 12.Nc3 Re8 13.d4 Bb4 14.Qd3
Bxc3 15.bxc3 a5 16.Bxb8 Rxb8 17.c4
Be6 18.Ng5 Qd7 19.Nxe6 Qxe6 20.cxd5
Qe4 21.Qxe4 fxe4 += 22.c4 Red8 23.c5
a4 24.Bxa4 Nxd5 25.Bb3 Kh8 26.Bxd5 Rxd5
27.Rfd1 h6 28.Kf2 Ra8 29.Rd2 Ra3 30.Re1
Rf5+ 31.Ke2 Rc3 32.Rb1 Rg5 33.g3 Rh5 34.
Rh1 Rf5 35.Rb2 Rff3 36.Rd1 Rfe3+ 37.Kf2
Rf3+ 38.Kg2 g5 39.Re1 Rfe3 40.Rbe2 Rxe2
+ 41.Rxe2 e3 42.Kf3 Rd3 43.Ke4 Rd2 44.
Kxe3 1-0 Rosenthal-From, Paris 1867.
C8d6c) 4....Qe7!? 5.Nc3 c6 (5....fxe4 6.
Nd5! Qh4+ 7.Kf1 Bd6 8.Nf3 Qh6 9.Qxe4+
Ne7 10.b3! Nbc6 11.Ba3 +=/)
C8d6c1) 6.d3?! fxe4 7.Bxg8
Rxg8 8.Nxe4 d5 9.Nd6+ Kd7
10.Nxc8 Qh4+!? (10....Kxc8
11.Bxf4 =) 11.Kf1 Na6 12.
Nf3 Qf6 13.Ne5+?! (13.Nxa7
=) 13....Kc7!? 14.Ng4 Qf7 15.
Ne5 Qf5 16.Nxa7 Rxa7 17.
Qf2 Bd6! =+ 18.Nf3 (18.
Qxa7? Bc5! -+) 18....Raa8 19.
Bd2 Nb4 (19....g5) 20.Bxb4
Bxb4 21.Nd4 Qf6 22.c3 Bd6
23.a4 Rge8 24.a5 Re3 -+ 25.
Nc2 Qe7 26.Nxe3 fxe3 27.Qc2
Rf8+ 28.Ke1 Qh4+ 29.Kd1 Rf2
30.Qb3 e2+ 31.Kc1 Rf1+ 32.
Kc2 e1=N+ 33.Rxe1 Qf2+ 0-1
Hawranke-Schoene, RLNN 1991.
C8d6c2) 6.d4!? b5 7.Bxg8
Rxg8 8.exf5 d5 9.Bxf4 =
C8d6c3) 6.e5! Qh4+ 7.Kf1
b5 8.Bb3 b4 9.Nf3 Qe7 10.

Na4!? unclear, but White looks
to be gaining the advantage.
C8d6d) 4....Qh4+ 5.Kd1! (5.Kf1?! fxe4 6.
Qxe4+ Be7 7.Nf3 Qh5 8.Nc3 Nf6 9.Qxf4 d5
10.Qxc7 Nc6 11.Bb5 Bd7 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.
Qe5 O-O 14.Qxh5 Nxh5 15.d4 Bg4 16.Ke2
Rae8 17.Rf1 Bf6+ 18.Kd3 Bf5+ 19.Kd2 Nf4
20.g3 Ne6 21.Ne2 c5 22.c3 cxd4 23.Nexd4
Nxd4 24.cxd4 Bh3 25.Re1 Be7 26.Re3 Bb4
+ 0-1 Schulten-Neumann, Berlin 1865) 5....
fxe4 (5....Kd8 6.e5! +=; 5....Nf6 6.Nf3
Qh5 7.Nc3! += Glazkov Nc6 8.e5 Ne4 9.
Nd5 Kd8 10.Nxf4 ; 5....Ne7 6.Nf3 Qf6 7.
e5 +=) 6.Qxe4+ (6.Nc3 Kd8! 7.Bxg8 Rxg8
8.Qxe4 g5 9.Nf3 Qh5 10.Nd5 Qg6! =
Zukertort; 7.Nxe4 c6 8.Nf3 Qe7 9.Bxg8
Rxg8 10.d3 d5 11.Bxf4 h6 Dekker-Svitsar
1875 =) 6....Be7 (6....Ne7 7.Nf3 Qf6 8.d4
d5!? [8....c6 9.Qxf4 d5 10.Bd3 +=] 9.Bxd5
Bf5 10.Qe2 c6 11.Bb3 g5 12.Bd2 Nd7 13.
Bc3! +=) 7.Nf3 (7.d4 Nf6 8.Qxf4 Qxf4 =
Korchnoi) 7....Qh5 8.Re1 (Perhaps White
can improve here with 8.Bxg8!? Rxg8 9.Nc3
Nc6 10.Nd5 Kd8 11.Nxf4 Qf7 12.Qxh7 d5
13.d3! Bf5 14.Qh5 g6 15.Ng5 Qf6 16.Qf3
+= Cordel-Neumann, Paris 1867) 8....Nc6
9.Bxg8 (9.b4 Nf6 10.Qe2 d6 11.Bb2 a6 =
W. C. Spenser, Chess Journal 1873, cited
by Korchnoi) 9....Rxg8 10.Nc3 d6 (10....
Kd8 11.Nd5!) 11.Nd5! Bf5 12.Qc4
C8d6d1) 12....Bxc2+?! 13.
Ke2!
(The stem game continued
instead 13.Qxc2? Qxd5 14.
Qxh7 O-O-O 15.b3 Bf6 16.Rb1
g5 17.Qe4 Qxe4 18.Rxe4 g4 19.
Ne1 Be5 20.Bb2 Bxb2 21.Rxb2
Rdf8 22.d3 d5 23.Ree2 Nd4 24.
Rf2 Nf5 25.Kc1 Ne3 26.d4 g3
27.hxg3 fxg3 28.Rfe2 Nf5 29.
Nf3 Nd6 30.Kd1 Ne4 31.Rbc2
Nf2+ 32.Ke1 Kd8 33.Re3 Ng4
34.Rec3 c6 35.Re2 Nh2 36.Nd2
Kd7 37.Ree3 Re8 38.Ke2 Kd6
39.b4 b6 40.a4 Rgf8 41.Rxe8
Rxe8+ 42.Re3 Rxe3+ 43.Kxe3
Ng4+ 44.Kf4 Nf2 45.b5 Nd3+
46.Kxg3 c5 47.Kg4 c4 48.Kf5
c3 49.Nb3 c2 50.g4 c1=Q 51.
Nxc1 Nxc1 52.g5 Nb3 53.Kf6
Nxd4 54.g6 Ne6 55.Kf5 d4 56.
Ke4 Ke7 0-1 Mayet-Neumann,
Berlin 1866.)
C8d6d1a) 13....
Bg6 14.Nxc7+
Kd7 15.Nxa8 +=
C8d6d1b) 13....
Qg6 (HofferGrischfeld, London
1882) 14.Kf2!
Kd7?! 15.Rxe7+!
+- Glazkov.
C8d6d1c) 13....
Ne5! 14.Qxc7 Qf7
(14....Bf6 15.Kf2
Bd3 16.Qxd6; 14....
Bd3+ 15.Kd1 +=
Glazkov) 15.Qxb7
Rd8 (15....Bd3+
16.Kd1 Rd8 17.
Nxe5 Glazkov) 16.
d4! (16.Kf1 Bd3+
17.Kg1 Kf8 18.Qxe7
+ [18.Nc7!?
unclear, but not
Glazkov's 18.Nd4?
Bh4! =+] 18....
Qxe7 19.Nxe7
Kxe7 20.Nxe5 dxe5
21.Rxe5+ Kd6 22.
Ra5 =) 16....Nxf3
17.gxf3 Bh4 18.
Qc6+ Kf8 19.Bxf4
+= White seems to
be winning here.
C8d6d2) 12....Bg4! (= Keres)
C8d6d2a) 13.Nf6
+?? gxf6 14.Qxg8
+ Kd7 15.Rxe7
+!? Kxe7 16.
Qxa8? Bxf3+ 17.
gxf3 Qxf3+ 18.
Ke1 Nd4 -+
C8d6d2b) 13.c3
Bxf3+ 14.gxf3
Qxf3+ 15.Kc2
Ne5 16.Rxe5!?
dxe5 17.Nf6+
gxf6 18.Qxg8+
Bf8 19.Qe6+ Be7!
20.Qg8+ Bf8 21.
Qe6+ =
C8d6d2c) 13.Nxc7
+ Kd7 14.Nxa8
Bxf3+ 15.gxf3
Qxf3+ 16.Qe2
Qxe2+ 17.Kxe2 f3
+! 18.Kf1 Rxa8 =
The Bishop's Opening - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 d6
s
D) Philidor's 2....d6
D1) 3.Nf3
D2) 3.f4
Introduction
A) 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 . . .
B) 2....Nc6
C) 2....f5
D) 2....d6
E) 2....Bc5
Position after 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 d6
The move 2....d6 was often preferred in Philidor's time, and

it can lead to familiar lines of the Philidor Defense, especially
if White plays 3.Nf3. Though I cover 3.Nf3 here, I actually
recommend 3.f4! because it more actively battles for control
over the center and is more in keeping with the spirit of the
fighting Bishop's Opening.
Philidor claimed that whoever was first to venture the fpawn break (by f4 as White or f5 as Black) would secure a
space advantage. It has taken about 200 years for us to
rediscover the correctness of that view -- and one reason
White might think twice about 3.Nf3 is that it allows Black
one of the better lines of the Philidor Countergambit with
3....f5!
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/d6.htm (1 of 4)28/09/06 07:15:52
D1) 3.Nf3 f5! (3....Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 h6 6.Nf3 e4 7.Qe2 Be7 8.Ne5 Bf5 9.Nc3 +=; 3....
Nc6 4.c3 Bg4 5.d4 Qf6 6.Be3 Bxf3 7.gxf3 Nge7 8.Bb5 +=; 3....Be7 4.O-O Nf6 5.d3 O-O 6.c3
+=; 3....Be6 4.Bxe6 fxe6 5.d4 exd4 6.Nxd4 Nf6! 7.Qd3! [7.Nc3 Qd7 8.O-O e5 9.Nde2 Be7 =
Pachman] 7....Qc8 8.Bg5 Be7 9.O-O +=)
D1a) 4.d4 exd4! (4....fxe4 5.Nxe5!) 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.O-O f4! 7.Bxf4 Qf6 8.Qh5
+ g6 9.Qh4 Nc6 10.Nd2 Bd7 11.Ndf3 O-O-O 12.Ne6 Qxh4 13.Nxh4 Bxe6
14.Bxe6+ Kb8 15.Bg5 Be7 16.Bxh6 Bxh4 17.g3 Bf6 = 18.a3 d3! 19.c3
Rhe8 20.Bd5 Ne5 21.Bf4 c6 22.Bb3 g5 23.Bxe5 Rxe5 24.Bc4 Rxe4 25.Bxd3 Re7
26.Rae1 Rde8 27.Rxe7 Rxe7 28.f4 gxf4 29.Rxf4 Bg5 1/2-1/2 Reyna Glez-Perez,
D1b) 4.d3
D1b1) 4....Nc6?!
D1b1a) 5.O-O Nf6 6.Ng5 d5 7.exd5 Nxd5 8.Nc3
Nce7 9.Qf3 c6 10.Nce4 fxe4 11.Qf7+ Kd7 12.Qe6+
Kc7 13.Qxe5+ Qd6 14.Qxd6+ Kxd6 15.Nf7+ Ke6
16.Nxh8 exd3 17.cxd3 Kf6 18.b4 Be6 19.Re1 Bg8
20.Bb2+ Kg5 21.Re5+ Kh6 22.Bc1+ g5 23.Rxg5 10 Morphy--Rousseau, New Orleans 1849.
D1b1b) 5.a3!? Nf6 6.Nc3 h6 7.Nh4!? g5 8.Nxf5
Bxf5 9.exf5 Nd4 10.Ne4 g4 11.h3 Qe7 12.c3 Nxf5
13.hxg4 Nxe4 14.dxe4 Nh4 15.g3 Ng6 16.g5 O-OO 17.Qg4+ Kb8 18.gxh6 +- Ochoa De Echaguen-Barrenechea, Seville 1994.
D1b2) 4....Nf6!? 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bxf6 Qxf6 7.c3 Nc6 8.b4 Be7 9.
Nbd2 Be6 10.Qb3 Nd8 11.h3 O-O 12.O-O-O?! a5 13.b5 a4 14.
Bxe6 Nxe6 =+ from a game of Kosten's
D1b3) 4....c6! 5.O-O f4! 6.d4 Qf6 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.Nc3 Bg4 with
the idea of Nd7 and O-O-O = West.
D2) 3.f4! exf4 (3....Nf6 4.d3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Be7 6.O-O Bg4 7.c3 or 7.h3 +=, or 4.Nc3 c6 5.Nf3
Be7 += Schumaker-Mentz, Landes-Einzelmeister, 1992; 3....Nc6!? 4.Nf3 f5!?)
White's best plan is to attack in the center
with 3.f4. Black should take the gambit
pawn, otherwise White will have a space
advantage and central pressure at no cost.
Of course, White could play 3.d3 followed
by f4 at some later point, but it is best to
strike directly at Black's strong point in the
center.
D2a) 4.Nf3 (Though this move protects against 4....Qh4+, the Knight is subject
to attack by g5-g4. In some situations, White's best may be to sacrifice the

Knight for open lines and development.) 4....g5 5.d4 Bg7 6.O-O h6 7.c3 Qe7
8.h4!? (8.e5 dxe5 9.Nxe5 Bxe5 10.Re1 f6 11.b3 Nd7 12.Qh5+ Kd8 13.Ba3 Qg7
14.Nd2 Ne7 15.dxe5 Nxe5 16.Rad1 Bg4 17.Nf3+ Kc8 18.Nxe5 Bxh5 19.Be6+
Kb8 20.Nd7+ Kc8 21.Nf8+ Kb8 22.Rd8+ Nc8 23.Rxc8# 1-0 Aguileva--Carlsson,
Correspondence 1949) 8....g4 9.Bxf4 gxf3 10.Qxf3 Be6 11.Nd2 Bxc4 12.
Nxc4 Nd7 13.Bxd6 cxd6 14.Nxd6+ Kd8 15.e5 f6 16.Nxb7+ Kc7 17.Na5
Rb8 18.Qc6+ Kd8 19.Nb7+ Rxb7 20.Qxb7 Nb6 21.Qb8+ Nc8 22.Rae1 Qc7
23.Qb3 Nb6 24.Re3 Nc4 25.Rg3 h5 26.Rxg7 Qxg7 27.Qxc4 Rh6 28.Qd5+ Kc7 29.
Qd6+ Kb7 30.e6 1-0 Thomas--Johnson, Correspondence 1902.
D2b) 4.Nc3 Qh4+ 5.Kf1 Be6 (5....c6 6.Nf3 Qh5 7.d4 g5 8.h4 Bh6 9.Nxg5 Qxd1
+ 10.Nxd1 Bxg5 11.hxg5 Be6 12.Bd3 Ne7 13.Bxf4 Kd7 14.Ne3 Na6 15.c4 Ng6
16.g3 Nb4 17.Ke2 Nxd3 18.Kxd3 Ke7 19.Rh6 Rad8 20.Rah1 Nf8 21.Nf5+ Bxf5
22.exf5 d5 23.g6 dxc4+ 24.Kxc4 fxg6 25.Bg5+ 1-0 Zindel--Jagstaidt, Genf
1992) 6.Qe2 c6 7.Nf3 Qe7 8.d4 Bxc4 9.Qxc4 g5 10.e5 d5 11.Qd3 Na6 12.
Ne2 Nb4 13.Qd1 O-O-O 14.c3 Na6 15.h4 g4 16.Nh2 h5 17.Nxf4 Qxh4 18.
Kg1 Nh6 19.Nf1 Qe7 20.Nxh5 Rg8 21.Nfg3 Rg6 22.Nf4 Rg5 23.Be3 Nc7
24.Qd2 Rg8 25.Nfe2 f6 26.exf6 Qxf6 27.Bxh6 Bd6 28.Rf1 Qe6 29.Bf4
Rde8 30.Rh6 Bxf4 31.Qxf4 Qe7 32.Rf6 Ne6 33.Qe5 Ng5 34.Qxe7 Rxe7 35.Rf8+
Rxf8 36.Rxf8+ 1-0 Fischer--Evans, New York US Ch. 1963.
D2c) 4.d4! Qh4+ 5.Kf1
Black's Queen is exposed on this square while White's King is now out of the
way. Overall, the situation favors White.
D2c1) 5....Bg4 6.Nf3 Qh6 (6....Qf6 7.e5 Qh6 8.g3 Qh3+ 9.Kf2
fxg3+ 10.hxg3 Bxf3 11.Qxf3 Qd7 12.Qxb7 Qc6 13.Bb5 Greco) 7.g3
Qh3+ 8.Kf2 fxg3+ 9.hxg3 Bxf3 10.Bxf7+ Kd8 11.Qxf3 Qd7 12.
Rxh7! Rxh7 13.Bxg8 Rh2+ 14.Kg1 Rxc2 15.Qxf8+ Qe8 16.Bg5
+ Kd7 17.Be6+ Qxe6 18.Qd8+ Kc6 19.d5+ Qxd5 20.exd5+
Kxd5 21.Nc3+ Ke5 22.Qe8+ Kd4 23.Qe4+ Kc5 24.Be3# 1-0
Greco--NN, 1620.
D2c2) 5....Qf6 6.Nc3 c6 7.Nf3 Nd7 8.Qe2 b5 9.Bb3 a5 10.d5
b4 11.dxc6 bxc3 12.cxd7+ Bxd7 13.e5 dxe5 14.Nxe5 f3 15.
Qe4 O-O-O 16.Nxd7 Rxd7 17.Qa8+ Kc7 18.Qxa5+ Kb8 19.Qb5
+ Kc8 20.Bg5 Qg6 21.Ba4 fxg2+ 22.Kxg2 Qe4+ 23.Kf2 Qd4+
24.Kf3 Qd5+ 25.Qxd5 Rxd5 26.Bc1 Bb4 27.bxc3 Bxc3 28.Rb1
Nf6 29.Rb3 Bd4 30.Bf4 Be5 31.c4 Ra5 32.Bxe5 Rxe5 33.Rhb1
Kc7 34.Rb7+ Kd6 35.Rxf7 Rf5+ 36.Kg2 Ra8 37.Rb6+ Kc5 38.
Rb5+ Kxc4 39.Rxf5 Rxa4 40.Rf4+ 1-0 Nehlert--Mueller, Baden
Baden 1988.
D2c3) 5....Nf6 6.Nf3
D2c3a) 6....Qg4 7.Nc3 Be7 8.e5 Nh5 9.Nd5 Bd8 10.
exd6 cxd6 11.Qe2+ Kf8 12.b3 Nc6 13.Ba3 Qg6 14.Re1
Bd7 15.Ne5 Nxe5 16.Qxe5 h6 17.Bd3 Kg8 18.Bxg6
dxe5 19.Bxh5 exd4 20.Ne7+ Kh7 21.Bxf7 Rf8 22.Bd5
Bb5+ 23.Kf2 Bb6 24.Be4+ g6 25.Nxg6 Rf6 26.Ne5+ 1-0
Zuckerman--Miagmarsuren, Polanica Zdroj 1972.
D2c3b) 6....Bg4 7.Nc3 Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Nc6 9.Bb5!? a6 10.
Bxc6+ bxc6 11.e5 Nd5 12.Nxd5 cxd5 13.Qxd5 Rd8 14.
e6 fxe6 15.Qxe6+ Be7 16.Qd5 f3 17.gxf3 Qh3+ 18.Kf2
Bh4+ 19.Ke3 Rf8 20.Qe4+ Kf7 21.Kd3 Kg8 22.Bf4 Rde8
23.Qd5+ Kh8 24.Bg3 Bd8 25.Rae1 Rxe1 26.Rxe1 Qg2
27.Qf7 Qxf3+ 28.Qxf3 Rxf3+ 29.Ke4 Rf8 30.Kd5 Bf6 31.

c3 Kg8 32.Kc6 Bd8 33.Kd7 Kf7 34.Rf1+ Bf6 35.Kxc7
Ke6 36.Kc6 Rc8+ 37.Kb7 Rc4 38.Rf3 a5 39.b3 1-0
Clissie--Smith, Sussex 1989.
D2c3c) 6....Qh5 7.Nc3 Be7 8.e5 dxe5 9.dxe5 Ng4 10.
Nd5 Bd8 11.Nxf4 Qf5 12.Bd3 Qd7 13.h3 Nh6 14.Qe1 OO 15.Nh5 Nf5 16.Bd2 Nc6 17.Bc3 Be7 18.Qe4 Qe6 19.
g4 Qh6 20.gxf5 Qxh5 21.Qg4 Qxg4 22.hxg4 Bb4 23.Kf2
Bxc3 24.bxc3 Re8 25.Rae1 a5 26.Kg3 a4 27.a3 Ra5 28.
Kf4 Rc5 29.Rh4 h6 30.c4 Bd7 31.Rh2 Na5 32.g5 hxg5+
33.Nxg5 Bc6 34.Re3 f6 35.exf6 gxf6 36.Ne6 Kf7 37.Rh7
+ Kg8 38.Rg7+ 1-0 Sorensen--Ochsner, DEN 1996.
D2c4) 5....Nc6 5. d4 d6 6.Nf3 Qh6 7.Nc3 Nf6 8.e5 dxe5 9.dxe5
Nh5 10.Nd5 Bd7 11.Nxc7+ Kd8 12.Nxa8 Ng3+ 13.Ke1 Nxh1 14.
Bxf7 Kc8 15.Qd5 Nb4 16.Qc4+ Qc6 17.Nd4 Qxc4 18.Bxc4 Bc5 19.a3
Nc6 20.Nf3 Re8 21.Bxf4 g5 22.Nxg5 Nxe5 23.Be2 Ng6 24.Nc7 Rxe2
+ 25.Kxe2 Nxf4+ 26.Kf3 Bd6 27.Rxh1 h5 28.g3 Bc6+ 29.Ne4 Nh3
30.Nb5 Ng5+ 31.Ke3 Bc5+ 32.Nxc5 Bxh1 33.Nxa7+ Kc7 34.h4 Nf7
35.Ne6+ Kd6 36.Nf4 Ke5 37.Nxh5 Kf5 38.Nf4 Kg4 39.Ne2 Nd6 40.
b3 1-0 Westerinen--Moen, Gausdal 1985.
D2c5) 5....g5
D2c5a) 6.Nf3 Qh5 7.Nc3 Nf6 8.h4 Bg4 9.Kf2 Bxf3 10.
Qxf3 h6 11.hxg5 Qxh1 12.gxf6 Qh4+ 13.Kg1 Qe1+ 14.
Bf1 Qg3 15.Qh5 f3 16.Nd5 Na6 17.Bc4 Qg6 18.Qxf3 OO-O 19.Bxa6 bxa6 20.Qc3 Rd7 21.Qc6 1-0 Anderssen-Mohr, Amsterdam 1861.
D2c5b) 6.g3 Bh3+ 7.Kf2 Qh6 8.Nxh3 Qxh3 9.Qf3 Bg7
10.c3 Ne7 11.gxf4 Qxf3+ 12.Kxf3 gxf4 13.Bxf4 O-O 14.
Nd2 Kh8 15.Raf1 f5 16.Be6 Nbc6 17.exf5 Nxf5 18.Kg4
Nh6+ 19.Kh3 Ne7 20.Ne4 Ng6 21.Bg5 Rae8 22.d5 Nf7
23.Be3 Nd8 24.Rxf8+ Nxf8 25.Bf5 Re5 26.Rf1 Rxd5 27.
Bxa7 Ra5 28. Bb8 Nfe6 29.a3 Ra8 30.Bxc7 Nxc7 31.
Nxd6 Ra6 32.Rd1 Be5 33.Nc4 Rh6+ 34.Kg2 Bf6 35.Rd7
Nce6 36.Nd6 Rh5 37.Bxe6 Nxe6 38.Rxb7 Nf4+ 39.Kf3
Nd5 40.a4 Rxh2 41.a5 Rh3+ 42.Ke4 Ne7 43.Nf5 Nxf5
44.Kxf5 Bxc3 45.bxc3 Rf3+ 46.Ke5 Re3+ 47.Kd5 Rd3+
48.Kc4 Rd6 49.Kb5 Rd5+ 50.Kb4 Rd6 51.c4 Rd1 52.a6
Ra1 53.a7 1-0 Westerinen--Bokan, Moscow 1989.
2....Bc5>>>

Last modified: April 15, 2003
The Bishop's Opening - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5
s
E) The Symmetrical 2....Bc5
E1)
E2)
E3)
E4)
3.f4?
3.Qh5
3.c3
3.Qg4
E5) 3.Nc3
E6) 3.Nf3
E7) 3.b4!?
Introduction
A) 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 . . .
B) 2....Nc6
C) 2....f5
D) 2....d6
E) 2....Bc5
Position after 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5
The Symmetrical line 2....Bc5 allows White several plans of

action. The two most viable are to attack the weakened
pawn at g7 by Qg4, either immediately or after playing 3.
Nc3, or to gain time in Evans Gambit fashion by 3.b4!? or 3.
Nf3 Nc6 4.b4 (the Evans Gambit by transposition). White
can also transpose to lines in the Giuoco Piano or Vienna
Opening.
E1) 3.f4? Bxg1! 4.Qh5 (4.Rxg1 Qh4+ 5.g3 Qxh2 6.Kf1 d5! -+) 4....Qe7 5.Rxg1 Nc6! 6.
d3 Nf6 (6....g6!?) 7.Qe2 Nd4 8.Qd1 d5 9.c3 Ng4! 10.g3 dxc4 11.cxd4 exd4 12.h3 Nf6
13.Qa4+ c6 14.Qxc4 Bxh3 15.Qxd4 Rd8 -+ Leach.
E2) 3.Qh5 Qe7 4.Nf3 d6 5.Ng5 Nf6! 6.Qxf7+ (6.Bxf7+? Kd8 7.Qh4 Rf8 8.Bc4 Ng4 9.O-O
Rxf2 =+) 6....Qxf7 7.Bxf7+ Ke7 8.Bc4 h6 9.Nf3 Nxe4 10.O-O Kd8 = Bilguer
E3) 3.c3 (Direct action in the center is not effective here. Worse, though, is the Lewis
Gambit: 3.d4?! Bxd4 4.Nf3 Qf6 5.Nxd4 exd4 6.0-0 Nc6 7.f4 d6 8.Bb5 Bd7 =+ Schiffers) 3....
Nf6 (Playable is the Lewis Countergambit: 3....d5!? 4.Bxd5 Nf6 5.Qf3 O-O unclear) 4.d4?!
(The most logical follow-up for White if he wants to gain the center. But better is 4.d3 = with
more positional lines of the Bishop's opening, which are not covered here.) 4....exd4 5.e5
(5.cxd4 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Bxd2+ 7.Nxd2 d5 8.exd5 O-O =+ Keres) 5....d5! 6.exf6 (6.Bb5+ Bd7
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/bc5.htm (1 of 9)28/09/06 07:16:09
7.Bxd7+ Nfxd7 8.cxd4 Bb4+ 9.Nc3 O-O =) 6....dxc4 7.Qh5 O-O! 8.Qxc5 Re8+ 9.Ne2 (9.
Kf1 dxc3 10.Nxc3 Qd3+ 11.Nge2 Rxe2 12.Qd5 Rc2+ 13.Qxd3 cxd3 14.Be3 Be6 -+) 9....d3
10.Be3 dxe2 11.Nd2 Na6 12.Qc4 Qf6 13.Qxe2 =+ Keres/= Estrin/ = Pratt.
E4) 3.Qg4!? (This seems premature. Better is 3.Nc3 first.) 3....Qf6 (Bronstein suggests 3....
d5! 4.Qxg7 Qh4! 5.Qxh8 Qxf2+ 6.Kd1 Qxg2, claiming that Black is better, which appears to
be true. Not 3....g6?! 4.Qf3 Nf6 5.h3 O-O 6.Nc3 Re8 7.Nb5 a6 8.Nxc7 Qxc7 9.Qxf6 Rf8 10.
d4 Bxd4 11.Bh6 1-0 Wall--Nit, Thailand 1971) 4.Nc3! Ne7! (4....Qxf2+? 5.Kd1 += is similar
to line E5b below, while 4....Bxf2+ opened the game advantageously for White after 5.Kd1
Ne7 6. Qe2 Nbc6 7. Nf3 Bc5 8. Rf1 Ng6 9. d4 exd4 10. Ng5 Nf4 11. Rxf4 Qxg5 12. Bxf7+ in
Prevat-Marais, Paris 1993) 5.Qg3 Nbc6 (5....c6 6.Nf3 d6 7.d3 h6 8.Be3 Nd7 9.O-O-O Ng6
10.h4 Nf4 11.d4 exd4 12.Bxf4 dxc3 13.Bxd6 cxb2+ 14.Kb1 Bxd6 15.Rxd6 Qe7 16.Qxg7
Qxd6 17.Bxf7+ Kd8 18.Qxh8+ Kc7 19.e5 += Qe7 20. e6 Nc5 21. Qxh6 Bxe6 22. Bxe6 Qxe6
23. Qxe6 Nxe6 24. h5 Rh8 25. g4 Nf4 26. Ne5 Rh7 27. h6 Kd6 28. Nf3 Ke7 29. g5 Ng6 30.
Re1+ Kf8 31. Re6 Nh8 32. Ne5 a5 33. f4 a4 34. Kxb2 c5 35. f5 b5 36. f6 b4 37. f7 Nxf7 38.
Ng6+ 1-0 Kirmas--Werner, OLO 1993) 6.d3 Qg6 7.Nf3 d6 8.Na4 Bb6 9.Nb6 axb6 10.c3
Bd7 (10....Qxg3 11.hxg3 Na5 = Keres) 11.Bb3 Nd8 12.Bc2 Ne6 13.Be3 f6 14.Nh4 Qxg3 15.
hxg3 Nc5 16.d4 += Chehov--Perez, Caracas 1976.
E5) 3.Nc3 (The Vienna Game, by transposition)
E5a) 3....Na5? 4.Bxf7+! Kxf7 5.Qh5+ Ke6 (5...g6 6.Qxe5 +-) 6.Qf5+ Kd6 7.
d4! Nc6 8.dxe5+ Kc5 (8...Nxe5 9.Bf4 Qf6 10.Bxe5+ Qxe5 11.0-0-0+ +-) 9.
Be3+ Kb4 (9...Kc4 10.Qf7+ d5 11.exd6+ +-) 10.a3+ Ka5 11.e6+ d5 12.
exd5 Nce7 13.b4+ 1-0 Schelkonogov--Morozenko, Krasny Luch 1989. (White's
sacrifice recalls the much-reprinted game Hamppe--Meitner, Vienna 1872, which
began 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Bc5 3.Na4?! Bxf2+!?)
E5b) 3....Nc6 4.Qg4!
This is the most aggressive of White's options, and therefore the move most
likely to appeal to Urusov Gambiteers.
E5b1) 4....d5 5.Qxg7 dxc4 (5....Qf6 6.Qxf6 Nxf6 7.Bxd5! +-) 6.
Qxh8 Qg5 7.d4! Qxg2 8.dxc5 (or the immediate 8.Bg5!) 8....Be6
(8....Bh3 9.Bg5! Qf1+ 10.Kd2 Qxf2+ 11.Nge2 Nce7 12.Bxe7 Kxe7
13.Qxe5+ Kf8 14.Qxc7 1-0 Bonwick-Bewley, Oxford 1912) 9.Bg5!
+- f6 10.Bxf6 Qxh1 11.O-O-O Qxh2 12.Nd5 Rc8 13.Nf3 Qxf2 14.Rg1
Nce7 15.Bh4 Qxf3 16.Nf6+ Kd8 17.Rd1+ Nd5 18.exd5 Qf4+ 19.Kb1
Qxh4 20.Qg7 1-0 Watson-Imanaliev 1985.
E5b2) 4....Kf8
E5b2a) 5.Qf3 Nf6 (5....Qf6!? 6.Nd5 Qxf3 7.Nxf3 Bd6!
8.c3 and White's advantage may only be temporary,
while 7....Bb6?! surrenders the advantage of the two
Bishops.) 6.Nge2 d6 7.h3! preventing Bg4 and with
the idea of 8.g4 +=
E5b2b) 5.Qg3!
The Queen seems better placed here than on f3 in this
position. White has a slight advantage due to his lead in
development, better placed pieces, and the safer King.
White must first play Nge2 to prevent Black from
gaining a strong placement with Nd4. Then middlegame
strategy revolves around playing to gain the two
Bishops (by Na4 as White) or putting pressure on the
Kingside with Bg5 while gaining a strong placement in
the center with Nd5. Black must decide, essentially,
whether he wants to get the two Bishops himself (with
Na5) or prevent the dangerous pin (with h6).

E5b2b1a) 5....d6 (The immediate 5....Nd4 6.Bb3 does
not gain anything for Black, since White would prefer to
give up the Bishop on b3, after which the a-file opens to
his advantage.) 6.Nge2 Nd4 7.Nxd4 exd4 8.Na4 Be6
9.Bxe6 fxe6 10.Nxc5 dxc5 11.Qb3 += Qc8 12.Qf3+
Ke7 13.Qg3 Kf7 14.Qf4+ Kg6 15.Qg4+ Kf6 16.d3 b6 17.
h4 Kf7 18.Qf3+ Ke8 19.Qh5+ Kf8 20.Bg5 Qe8 21.Qf3+
Qf7 22.Qg3 Nf6 23.O-O-O h6 24.Bd2 Kg8 25.Kb1 Rf8
26.Qh3 Rh7 27.h5 Kh8 28.f4 Ng8 29.g4 e5 30.g5 hxg5
31.fxg5 g6 32.Rdf1 Qe8 33.Rxf8 Qxf8 34.h6 Qe8 35.b3
a5 36.Be1 Qe7 37.Bd2 Rf7 38.Rf1 Rxf1+ 39.Qxf1 Kh7
40.Kb2 Qe8 41.a4 Qe7 42.Qf3 Kh8 43.Qg4 Kh7 44.Be1
c6 45.Bg3 b5 46.Be1 bxa4 47.bxa4 c4 48.dxc4 c5 49.
Bxa5 Qb7+ 50.Kc1 Ne7 51.Qe6 Nc6 52.Bd2 Qc7 53.Qf6
Qd7 54.a5 Qc7 55.a6 Nb8 56.Ba5 Qd7 57.Bd8 1-0
Anand-Ravisekhar, New Delhi 1986.
E5b2b1b) 5....Nf6 6.Nge2
E5b2b1b1) 6....d6 7.d3 h6 8.Na4 (White
goes for the two Bishops. Too defensive is 8.
h3?! Na5 9.Be3 Bxe3 10.Qxe3 Nxc4 11.
dxc4 Be6 12.b3 Kg8 13.O-O Qe7 14.g4 a6
15.Nd5 += 1/2-1/2 Hennings-Kortchnoi,
Sarajevo 1969, though White retains a
slight plus here also.) 8....Bb6 9.Nxb6
axb6 10.f4 Qe7 11.O-O Na5 12.Bd5 c6
13.Bxf7!? Kxf7 14.b4 Be6 15.bxa5 Rxa5
16.Bd2 Ra6 17.fxe5 dxe5 18.Qxe5 Bg4
19.Qxe7+ Kxe7 += 20.Nf4 Rha8 21.a3 g5
22.Bb4+ c5 23.Bc3 gxf4 24.Rxf4 Rxa3 25.
Bxf6+ Ke6 26.Rb1 R3a6 27.Bg7 h5 28.h3
Bxh3 29.gxh3 Rg8 30.Rf6+ Ke7 31.Rfxb6
Rxg7+ 32.Kf2 Rxb6 33.Rxb6 Kd8 34.Rd6+
Kc7 35.Rd5 Kc6 36.Rxh5 Rg6 37.h4 b5 38.
Rg5 Rf6+ 39.Rf5 Rh6 40.h5 b4 41.Ke3 Kd6
42.Rg5 Rh8 43.Rg6+ Ke7 44.h6 c4 45.dxc4
Ra8 46.h7 Ra3+ 47.Kd4 Rh3 48.Ra6 1-0
Rogers-Olarasu, Saint Vincent 2001.
E5b2b1b2) 6....Na5 (Black goes after the
two Bishops immediately.) 7.d3 Nxc4 8.
dxc4 c6 9.Bg5 Be7 10.Ng3 d6 11.Nf5
Bxf5 12.Qxf5 Qc8 13.Qf3 Qe6 14.b3 h6
15.Bxf6 Qxf6 16.Qd3 Qe6 17.O-O g6 18.
f4 exf4 19.Rxf4 Kg7 20.Raf1 Rhf8 21.
Ne2 Rae8 22.Nd4 Qe5 23.Rf5! gxf5 24.
Rxf5 Bf6! 25.Rxe5 Bxe5 += 26.Nf3?! Re6
27.Nh4 Rfe8 28.Nf5+ Kh7 29.Qe3 b6 30.
Qh3 Rg8 31.Qh5 Rf6 32.a4 d5 33.cxd5 cxd5
34.Qe2 Rg5 35.h4 Rg8 36.exd5 Rxf5?? 37.
Qe4 1-0 Grombacher-Karklins, UN Open
1965.
E5b2b1c) 5....h5!? (An interesting move with some
independent significance. Black strives to free his Rook
while putting White's forces on the Kingside into
disarray. But the weakness of g5 should tell in the long

run in White's favor.) 6.h4 d6 (or 6....Nf6 7.Nge2 +=)
7.Nh3!? (Safer is 7.Nge2, of course, but White seeks
thematically to exploit the weakness at g5) 7....Nd4 8.
Ng5! Be6 (Probably forced, since Black cannot risk 8...
Nxc2+ 9.Kd1 Nxa1 10.Nxf7 with his King so exposed on
f8) 9.Bxe6 Nxe6 10.Nxe6+ fxe6 11.d3 Nf6 12.Bg5
+= Qe8 13.O-O-O Ke7 14.Kb1 Kd7 15.Be3 Bxe3 16.
Qxe3 Ng4 17.Qe2 c6 18.f3 Nf6 19.d4 exd4 20.Rxd4 e5
21.Rd2 Qe6 22.Rhd1 Rhd8 23.g4 hxg4 24.fxg4 Kc7 25.
g5 Ng8 26.Qh5 Ne7 27.Rh1 Rh8 28.Qd1 Ng6 29.h5 Nf4
30.Rdh2 Raf8 31.Ne2 Nxe2 32.Qxe2 d5 33.b3 Kb8 34.
h6 gxh6 35.Rxh6 Rxh6 36.Rxh6 Qe7 37.exd5 Qxg5 38.
Re6 Qg1+ 39.Kb2 Qd4+ 40.c3 Qxd5 41.Rxe5 Qf7 1/21/2 Ribiero-Leite, Lisbon 1999.
E5b3) 4....Qf6 5.Nd5! Qxf2+ 6.Kd1
E5b3a) 6....Nf6 7.Qxg7 Nxd5 8.exd5 d6 9.dxc6 +E5b3b) 6....Kf8 7.Nh3 Qd4 8.d3 d6 9.Qh4 Bxh3 10.
Qxh3 Na5 11.Rf1! Nxc4 12.Qd7! f6 13.Nxf6! 1-0
Mieses--Chigorin, Ostend 1906.
E5b3c) 6....g6 7.Nh3 Qd4 8.d3
E1b3c1) 8....d6 9.Qf3 Bxh3 10.Rf1! f5
11.gxh3 += Ford-Blackburn, Bruges 1999.
E1b3c2) 8....Bd6 9.c3 Qc5 10.b4! +Emms
E1b3c3) 8....Bb6 9.Qf3 f6 10.Rf1 d6 11.
c3 Qc5 12.b4 +- Emms-Hawksworth,
British Championship 1986.
E5b4) 4....Bf8!? 5.Qg3 Nf6 (5....d6 6.Nge2 Nf6 7.O-O Na5 8.Bb3
Nxb3 9.axb3 Nh5 10.Qe3 a6 11.d4 exd4 12.Nxd4 Be7 13.Nf5 c6 14.
g4 Bxf5 15.exf5 Nf6 16.g5 Ng8 17.Ne4 Kf8 18.c4 h6 19.Qh3 d5 20.
Rd1 Qd7 21.Be3 Re8 22.cxd5 cxd5 23.Bd4 Qc7 24.f6 gxf6 25.Nxf6
Nxf6 26.gxf6 Bb4 27.Be3 Rg8+ 28.Kh1 Rg6 29.Bxh6+ Kg8 30.Bg7
1-0 Chwojnik-Kolski, Lopdz 1927) 6.Nf3?! (6.Nge2!) 6....Nh5 7.
Qg5 Qxg5 8.Nxg5 f6 9.Nf7? Na5 10.Nxh8 (10.Bd5!?) 10....
Nxc4 11.d3 Nb6 12.g4 Nf4 13.Bxf4 exf4 14. h4 Bb4 15. h5
Kf8 16. O-O-O Bxc3 17. bxc3 d6 18. h6 g5 19. f3 Kg8 -+
Mieses-Marshall, Paris 1900.
E5b5) 4....g6
E5b5a) 5.Qg3!?
E5b5b) 5.Qf3 Nf6 (5....Qf6 6.Nd5 Qxf3 7.Nxf3 Bb6 8.
d3 d6 9.Ng5 += Capablanca-Gomez, Panama 1933) 6.
Nge2 d6 7.d3 Bg4 (7....h6 8.h3 Qe7 9.Na4!? Emms or
9.g4 Milutinovic-Saic, Correspondence 1972) 8.Qg3 h6
(8....Qd7 9.Qh4! Emms or 8....Bxe2 9.Nxe2 Nh5 10.
Qg4?! Na5 11.Bb3 Nxb3 12.axb3 Qf6 = Estrin-Ravinsky, Moscow 1964) 9.f4! Qe7 10.Nd5 Nxd5 11.
Qxg4 Nf6 (11....Ne3 Larsen 12.Bxe3 Bxe3 13.f5 +=

Emms) 12.Qh3 Na5 13.Bb5+ c6 14.Ba4 b5 15.Bb3
+= Larsen--Portisch, Santa Monica 1966.
E5c) 3....Nf6
E5c1) 4.d3 Nc6 5.f4 = Kings Gambit Declined
E5c2) 4.f4!? Bxg1!? (4....d6 5.d3 Ng4? 6.f5! Nf2 7.Qh5 Qd7?
[7...0-0 8.Bg5 Qe8 9.Nd5] 8.Be6! Qe7 9.Nd5 g6 10.Qh6 Qf8 11.
Bxc8 Nxh1 12.Bxb7 Bxg1 13.Bxa8 Kd7 14.Qxf8 Rxf8 15.Bh6 1-0
Emms--Jackson, Hungary 1999; 4....d5 5.exd5! e4 6.Nge2 O-O 7.d4
exd3 8.Qxd3 += Adams--Gates, US Correspondence 1960) 5.Rxg1
Nxe4 (5....d6!?; 5....O-O 6.d3 d5 7.exd5 exf4 8.Bxf4 Bg4 9.Qd2 b5
10.Nxb5 Qe8+ 11.Kf1 Bogolyubov--Stolz, Triberg 1929; 5....d5 6.
exd5 O-O 7.d3 Re8 8.f5 e4! 9.d4 e3! 10.Qf3 c6 11.Be3 Qe7 12.Kd2
b5 Khavin--Polyak, USSR 1948) 6.Bxf7+!?? (6.Qh5! Santasiere
Nd6! [6....O-O 7.Nxe4 d5 8.Ng5 +=] 7.Qxe5+!? [simpler than 7.
Bb3 or 7.Be2!?] 7....Kf8 [7....Qe7? 8.Nd5! +-] 8.Bd5 +=; 6.Nxe4 d5
7.d4!? dxc4 8.fxe5 Qh4+ 9.Ng3 Nc6 10.Be3 Bg4 Adams--Pincus)
6....Kxf7 7.Nxe4 Re8 8.Qh5+ Kg8 9.f5 d5 (9....h6 10.f6! Re6 11.
Rf1 Qf8 12.f7+ Kh8 13.Ng5 Ra6 14.b3 d5 15.Ba3! 1-0 Arkless-Whitfield, US Correspondence 1962) 10.f6 Rf8 11.Ng5 h6 12.Qg6
Rxf6 13.Qh7+ += Spence--Ackerman, Omaha 1958.
E6) 3.Nf3 d6!? (3....Nc6 4.b4 was Nunn's favorite way to transpose to the Evans Gambit in
the 1980s) 4.c3 += More analysis forthcoming.
E7) 3.b4
This move is a good method of transposing to the Evans Gambit since it allows for some
independent possibilities, some of which are quite favorable for White. If you like to play the
Evans Gambit, this seems the most flexible way to do so from this position.
E7a) 3....Bb6
E7a1) 4.f4?! Bxg1! 5.Qh5 Qe7 6.Rxg1 Nc6 7.b5!? g6! =+
(compare E1 above).
E7a2) 4.Nf3 d6 5.d3 (5.d4 exd4 6.Nxd4 Nf6 7.Nc3 Morphy-Freeman, Birmingham 1858) 5....Nf6 6.c3 +=
E7a3) 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Nf3 Nxe4? 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Nxe5+ Ke6 8.
Nxe4 Kxe5 9.Bb2+ Kxe4 10.Qf3+ 1-0 Oskam--Grosjean,
Rotterdam 1930.
E7a4) 4.a4 a5 5.b5 Nf6 (+= Tartakower) 6.d3 d5 7.exd5 Nxd5
8.Ba3 (8.Qf3!) 8....Qf6 9.Qf3 Bg4 10.Qg3 Be6 11.Bxd5 Bxd5 12.
Nc3 Be6 13.Nge2 Nd7 14.O-O Qg6 15.Qf3 O-O-O 16.Nd5 Bxd5 17.
Qxd5 Nf6 18.Qc4 Rd5 19.Be7 Re8 20.Bxf6 Rc5 21.Qb3 gxf6 22.c4
h5 23.Kh1 h4 24.h3 c6 25.bxc6 Rxc6 26.Rab1 Re7 27.Nc3 Rd7 28.
Nd5 Bd8 29.Rfe1 Re6 30.Qc3 Re8 31.Rb5 Rg8 32.Rg1 Kb8 33.Qb2
Kc8 34.f3 Qxd3 35.Rb1 e4 36.Rb3 1-0 Spielmann--Duras, Breslau
1912.
E7b) 3....Bxb4 4.c3
Black generally does well against MacDonnell's Double Gambit by declining it: 4.
f4?! d5! 5.exd5 e4 6.Ne2 Nf6 7.c3! [7.O-O O-O 8.Nbc3 c6 9.dxc6 Nc6 10.Kh1
Bg4 11.Qe1 e3! -+ MacDonnell--Labourdonnais, London 1834] 7....Bc5 8.d4

exd3 9.Qxd3 0-0 10.Ba3 Bxa3 11.Nxa3 Bg4 12.0-0 Bxe2 13.Qxe2 Nxd5 14.Qf3
c6 15.Rab1 Qe7 16.Bxd5 cxd5 17.c4 unclear in Mongredien - Morphy, Paris
1859. Accepting the gambit might lead to 4....exf4 5.Nf3 Qe7 6.Qe2 d5! 7.exd5
Qxe2+ 8.Kxe2 Nf6 9.Bb2 0-0 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Kd1 with complex play. Steinitz
played a number of exhibition games with the double-pawn sacrifice, usually
with great success. But in Steinitz-Evill, Cambridge 1874, Black did well after
4....d6 5.Nf3 Nd7 6.0-0 Ngf6 7.c3 Ba5 8.fxe5 Nxe5 9.Nxe5 dxe5 10.Ba3 Bb6+
11.Kh1 c5 12.d4 0-0 13.Nd2 exd4 14.e5 Ng4 =+. Players interested in these
lines should compare positions from the Latvian Gambit. I think the gambit
works best after 4.c3 Ba5 5.f4!
Accepting the gambit by 3....Bxb4
challenges White to prove
compensation. The resulting
positions are very similar to the
Evans Gambit and White probably
does best to transpose to the
Evans in most lines. There is one
significant advantage for White,
however, in offering the gambit
pawn before developing the Knight
to f3. In the line 4.c3 Ba5, which
has proven one of the more thorny
in Evans Gambit theory, White can
play 5.f4!? instead of 4.Nf3 Nc6.
E7b1) 4....Be7
E7b1a) 5.Qh5?! g6 6.Qxe5 Nf6 7.Nf3! Nc6 8.Qf4
d5! 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Bxd5 Qxd5 11.O-O =
E7b1b) 5.Qb3 Nh6 6.d4!? (6.Nf3 would probably
transpose to Evans Gambit lines) 6....Bg5! 7.Ba3!
(more natural than 7.Nd2!? Nc6 8.Qb2!? as in KovacHipp, Prague 1996) 7....exd4 8.cxd4 d6 9.Nf3 O-O 10.
O-O Nc6 11.Nxg5 Qxg5 12.f4 Qd8 13.Qc3 Re8 14.
Nd2 += as in Siegel-Lehmann, Dotzheim 2002, when
Black blundered with 14....b6? 15.Bb5 +-. White seems
to be doing quite well in any event.
E7b1c) 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.d4 transposes to Kasparov's
method of handling the Evans Gambit after 6....Na5 7.
Be2.
E7b2) 4....Bc5 5.d4!? (Best here is 5.Nf3! Nc6 [5....Nf6?! 6.Nxe5
O-O 7.d4 Bb6 8.Nxf7! Rxf7 9.Bxf7+ Kxf7 10.e5 +=] 6.d4
transposing to the Evans Gambit. Notice that 5.f4? is questionable
here due to 5....Bxg1) 5....exd4
E7b2a) 6.cxd4?! Bb4+ 7.Kf1 (White threatens 8.Qb3.
Not 7.Bd2 Bxd2+ 8.Nxd2 Nf6 9.e5 d5 =+) 7....Ba5!?
(7....Nc6! 8.d5 Ne5 Tartakower; 7....Qe7!?) 8.Qh5?! (8.
Bxf7+! Kxf7 9.Qh5+ g6 10.Qxa5 =) 8....d5! 9.Bxd5
Qe7 10.Ba3 Nf6 11.Bxf7+ Qxf7 12.Qxa5 Nc6 13.
Qa4 Nxe4 14.Nf3 Bd7 15.Nbd2 Nxd2+ 16.Nxd2 O-O-O
17.Rb1 Qd5 18.Nf3 Bf5 19.Rd1 Rhe8 20.Bc5 Qxf3!! 21.

gxf3 Bh3+ 22.Kg1 Re6 23.Qc2 Rxd4! 24.Bxd4 Nxd4 0-1
MacDonnell--Boden, London 1865.
E7b2b) 6.Nf3 Nf6! (6....Nc6 7.O-O is the main line of
the Evans Gambit) 7.e5
E7b2b1) 7....Ne4?! 8.O-O?! (8.Qe2! Nxc3
9.Nxc3 dxc3 10.Ng5! +=; 8.Bd5!?; 8.
Qb3!?) 8....Nxc3?! (8....d5! 9.exd6 O-O! =
+) 9.Nxc3 dxc3 10.Bg5? (10.Ng5! Rf8 11.
Qh5! g6 12.Qxh7 +-; 10.Bxf7+!? +=) 10....
Be7 11.Qd5 Rf8? (11....O-O! =+) 12.Bf6!
gxf6 13.exf6 Bxf6 14.Rfe1+ Be7 15.
Ng5 c6? (15....d6! 16.Nxf7 Qd7 17.Qh5
Rxf7 18.Qxf7+ Kd8 19.Be6 Qe8 20.Qxe8+
Kxe8 21.Bxc8 Nd7 22.Bxb7 =/+=) 16.Nxf7
cxd5 17.Nd6# Denker--Shayne,
Exhibition 1945.
E7b2b2) 7....d5! 8.Bb5+ Nfd7! (8....Bd7
9.Qb3 Qe7 10.O-O +=; 8....c6 9.exf6 cxb5
10.Qe2+!? Kf8 11.cxd4 Qxf6 12.O-O Bd6
13.Re1 Bd7 14.Nc3 +=) 9.cxd4 Be7 10.OO O-O =+
E7b2c) 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Qh5+ g6 8.Qxc5 Qe7?! (8....
Nf6! =) 9.Qd5+ Qe6?! 10.Qxe6+! dxe6 11.cxd4 Nf6
12.Nc3 Rd8 13.Nf3 Nc6 14.Be3 a6 15.O-O Kg7 +=
16.Rac1 h6 17.Rfd1 Ne7 18.h3 c6 19.Ne5 g5 20.f3 Ng6
21.Na4 Nxe5 22.dxe5 Rxd1+ 23.Rxd1 Nd7 24.Nb6 Nxb6
25.Bxb6 a5 26.Rd8 a4 27.Kf2 Ra6 28.Bc5 Ra8 29.Kg3
b5 30.Kg4 Kg6 31.Rg8+ Kf7 32.Rf8+ Kg7 33.Kh5 Bb7
34.Rf6 Rd8 35.Rxe6 Bc8 36.Rxc6 Bd7 37.Rc7 Kf7 38.
Kxh6 Ke6 1-0 Delanoy--Kamenecki, Cannes Open 2000.
E7b3) 4....Ba5
This is one of the most annoying moves in the Evans Gambit, so
White might want to consider one of the alternatives below rather
than transposing by 5.Nf3. In fact, transposing to the Evans may
not be so easy, since Black has his own alternative: 5.Nf3 Nf6! 6.d4
0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Ba3 Nxe4 9.dxe5 Nxc3 10.Qd3 Nxb1 11.Raxb1 Nc6
12.exd6 cxd6 13.Bxd6 Re8 =+ Paulsen--Asbeck, Dusseldorf 1863.
E7b3a) 5.Qh5!? Qe7 6.Bxf7+ Qxf7 7.Qxe5+ Qe7
(7....Ne7! 8.Qxa5 O-O 9.f3 d5 10.d3 b6 11.Qa4 Ba6 12.
Qc2 Nd7 seems to give Black a great game for only a
pawn.) 8.Qh5+! g6 9.Qxa5 Qxe4+ 10.Ne2 Nc6
(Better 10....b6 11.Qg5 Ba6 12.Qe3 =, but not 10....
Qxg2? 11.Qe5+! +-) 11.Qxc7 Nf6?! (11....Qxg2 12.
Rg1 Qe4 =) 12.Qf4 O-O 13.Qxe4 Nxe4 14.O-O b6
15.d3 Nc5 16.d4 Ba6 17.dxc5 Bxe2 18.Re1 Bc4 19.
Na3 Be6 20.Be3 += Rf5 21.cxb6 axb6 22.Nc2 Rfa5 23.
Bxb6 Rxa2 24.Rxa2 Rxa2 25.Nb4 Rb2 26.Bc5 Na5 27.h4
Nb3 28.Be7 Nd2 29.Bg5 Nb1 30.Nd3 Rb8 31.Bf6 Nd2 32.
Nc5 Bf5 33.Bg5 Rc8 34.Nb7 Nc4 35.f3 h5 36.Kh2 Kf8 37.
Nd8 Nb6 38.Bh6+ Kg8 39.Re8+ Kh7 40.Be3 Nd5 41.
Bd4 g5 42.Rh8+ Kg6 43.Rg8+ 1-0 Narmontas-Petraitis, Radviliskis 1995.
E7b3b) 5.d4 exd4 6.Qh5 d5 7.Bxd5

E7b3b1) 7....Qf6 8.Nf3! Bxc3+ (8....
dxc3! 9.Bxf7+ Qxf7 10.Qxa5 Nc6 11.Qxc3
=) 9.Nxc3 dxc3 10.Ne5! Ne7?! (10....g6!
11.Bxf7+!? Qxf7 12.Nxf7 gxh5 13.Nxh8 Nc6
14.a4! is unclear) 11.Bxf7+ Kf8 12.Bb3
Bf5 (12....Bd7! 13.Bg5 Be8 Harding) 13.
Bg5 Bg6 14.Nxg6+ Qxg6 15.Bxe7+
Kxe7 16.Qe5+ Kf8 17.Qxc7 Nc6 (If 17....
Qxe4+ 18.Kf1 Qd3+ 19.Kg1 Qd7 20.Qc5+
Ke8 21.Re1+ Kd8 22.Rd1 +- Harding) 18.OO Qf6 19.Rad1 Re8 20.Rd6 1-0 Jensen-Zagorovski, Correspondence 1993-1995.
E7b3b2) 7....Qe7! (The pin on the e-pawn
is quite annoying here.)
E7b3b2a) 8.Bxf7+?! Qxf7 9.
Qxa5 Nc6 10.Qa3 (10.Qg5?!
Nf6 11.f3 00 12.Ne2 Nxe4 +)
10....Qg6 11.Ne2 Qxg2 12.
Rg1 Qxe4 13.cxd4 g6 =+
E7b3b2b) 8.Ba3?! g6?! (8...
Nf6! 9.Qg5 Bxc3+ 10.Nxc3
Qxa3 11.Qe5+ Be6 12.Qxd4
Bxd5 13.exd5 00 14.Nge2
Nbd7 =+ Black is safely up a
pawn.) 9.Bxe7 (9.Qd1! Qf6 10.
Qa4+ c6 11.Qxa5 cxd5 12.
Qxd5 +=) 9...gxh5 10.Bc5
Ne7 11.Bb3? (11.Bxd4 =)
11....dxc3 =+ 12.Ne2 c2+ 13.
Nd2 Nbc6 14.Nf4 Ne5 15.Bd4
N7c6 16.Bxe5 Nxe5 17.Rc1 Bg4
18.Rxc2 O-O-O 19.Bd5 c6 20.
h3 Bf3 21.gxf3 Nxf3+ 22.Kf1
Nxd2+ 23.Ke2 Kb8 0-1 Dublin-Glasgow, Correspondence 1874.
E7b3b2c) 8.Nf3! Nf6 9.Bxf7
+ Qxf7 10.Qxa5 Nc6 11.Qa3!
Qc4! (11...Nxe4 12.00 Be6 13.
Re1 Qf5 14.cxd4 000 15.Nc3
Nxc3 16.Qxc3 +=/=; 11...Qg6
12.cxd4 Qxe4+ [12...Qxg2? 13.
Rg1 Qh3 14.d5! +-] 13.Be3
Nd5 14.00 =) 12.Qb3 Qd3
13.Ng5 Rf8 14.f3 =
E7b3c) 5.f4! Qe7 (5....d5 6.exd5 e4 7.Ba3! Macov;
5....d6 6.Qb3! Qd7 7.Nf3 += Macov, which is clearer
than 6.Nf3 Be6?! 7.Bxe6 fxe6 8.O-O!? [8.fxe5] 8....Bb6
+ 9.d4 exf4 10.Bxf4 Nd7 11.a4 a5 12.Qb3 Qe7 13.Ng5
Nf8?! 14.Na3 h6 15.Bxd6! Bxd4+ 16.cxd4 cxd6 17.Nf7
Rh7 18.Nc4 Rb8 19.Ncxd6+ Kd7 20.Qb5+ Kc7 21.
Rac1# 1-0 Steinitz-Price, Exhibition 1888; 5...Qh4+!? 6.

g3 Qe7 7.Nf3 exf4 8.d4 Qxe4+ 9.Kf2 fxg3+ 10.hxg3
Ne7 11.Rh4 Qf5! is unclear; 5...Qf6 6.Nf3 exf4 7.d4 Ne7
8.00 00 9.Ne5 Ng6 10.Nxg6 Qxg6 11.Rxf4 d6 12.Bd3
with a great gambit position for White; 5...Nc6 6.Nf3 d6
7.Qb3 Qd7 8.fxe5 Nxe5 9.Nxe5 dxe5 10.00 Bb6+ 11.
d4 Nf6 12.Ba3 c6 13.Kh1 exd4 14.cxd4 Bxd4 15.Nc3
with a great attacking position for White.) 6.Nf3 exf4 7.
d4! (7.O-O!? Macov) 7....Qxe4+ (7....b5!? is a typical
Evans Gambit tactic) 8.Kf2 Nf6 (Now White seems to
quickly get the better of it. Perhaps best is 8...Ne7! 9.
Re1 Qg6 10.Ne5 Qf6 11.Ba3!? d6 12.Qa4+ Nd7 13.Nxf7
Rf8 14.Qxa5! with continuing complications.) 9.Ng5
Qf5 10.Re1+ Kf8 11.Qe2 Nc6 12.Nxf7 d5!? (12....
g5!? or 12....f3!? +=) 13.Nxh8 Ne4+ 14.Kg1 Nxd4
15.Ba3+ Ke8 (15....c5 16.Bxc5+!; 15....Kg8 16.Qe4!
Macov) 16.cxd4 Bxe1 17.Qxe1 f3 18.Qe3! f2+ 19.
Kf1 Qh5 20.Nd2 Qxh2 21.Nxe4 Qg1+ 22.Ke2 Bg4+
23.Kd2 Qxa1 24.Nf6+ 1-0 Macov--Stoilov, Bulgaria
1975.
Links & Acknowledgments>>>

Last modified: December 23, 2002
The Bishop's Opening - Acknowledgments
s
Introduction
A) 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 . . .
B) 2....Nc6
C) 2....f5
D)2....d6
E) 2....Bc5
Download PGN Games
The literature on the Bishop's Opening is quite

extensive and there are a number of good articles on
the web that offer analysis.
Tim Harding has published a number of articles on the
Bishop's Opening (including online articles as The
Kibitzer) and he may be responsible in some ways for
its revival. Gary Lane's book, Winning with the
Bishop's Opening, remains one of the most complete
recent considerations of the opening, with excellent
coverage of the more positional 3.d3 lines that are not
covered here.
Harding, Tim. Bishop's Opening. The Chess Player 1973.

Harding, Tim. Philidor's Defense: A Re-appraisal. Chess Digest 1984.
Harding, Tim. What is the Bishop's Opening? Kibitzer 27.
Keres, Paul. "Lauferspiel." Dreispringerspiel bis Konigsgambit. Berlin: Sportverlag 1974. 207213.
Kosten, Tony. Winning with the Philidor Defense. New York: Henry Holt 1992.
Lane, Gary. Winning with the Bishop's Opening. New York: Henry Holt 1993.
Larsen, Bent. Chapter C24 in Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (ECO). Beograd 1981.
Lasker, Emmanuel. Lasker's Manual of Chess. Dover.
Leach, Colin. Bishop's Opening. Self published 1990. Available from Chess Digest.
West, James. The Philidor Countergambit. Chess Enterprises 1994.
Return to Introduction>>>

Last modified: March 15, 2002
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/acknowledgments.htm28/09/06 07:16:18

Goeller Michael - The Bishop's Opening (Article 2004)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Goeller Michael - The Bishop's Opening (Article 2004)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Goeller Michael - The Bishop's Opening (Article 2004)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are some of the notable players who analyzed or played the Bishop's Opening?

What are some of the notable players who analyzed or played the Bishop's Opening?

What are some of Black's most common second move responses to the Bishop's Opening?

What are some of Black's most common second move responses to the Bishop's Opening?

The Bishop's Opening - Introduction

Contact: Michael Goeller, [email protected]

The Bishop's Opening - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4

Position after 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/unusual.html (1 of 6)28/09/06 07:15:03

The Bishop's Opening - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4

The game Edwards--Kuhla

Position after 5.Nh4

A3) 2....b5?! 3.Bxb5

Black's initiative was

White to play after 9....Ba6

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/unusual.html (2 of 6)28/09/06 07:15:03

The Bishop's Opening - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4

21.Nef4 +=) 19...Ra5 20.Nc7 g6 21.Kh1 (21.Ne6? Be3+) 21...

Black to play after 13.Bb3.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/unusual.html (3 of 6)28/09/06 07:15:03

The Bishop's Opening - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4

A4) 2....Qg5?! 3.Nf3!

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/unusual.html (4 of 6)28/09/06 07:15:03

The Bishop's Opening - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4

The game Goldberg--Pelikan

Position after 12.b5!

In the game Bruhl--Conway,

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/unusual.html (5 of 6)28/09/06 07:15:03

The Bishop's Opening - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4

Contact: Michael Goeller, [email protected]

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/unusual.html (6 of 6)28/09/06 07:15:03

The Bishop's Opening - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.f4

Position after 2....Nc6 3.f4

After 2....Nc6 3.f4!?

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/nc6.htm (1 of 5)28/09/06 07:15:14

The Bishop's Opening - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.f4

B1a) 8.g3?! Bh3! = Spielmann--Gruenfeld, Carlsbad 1923

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/nc6.htm (2 of 5)28/09/06 07:15:14

The Bishop's Opening - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.f4

g3 Rdh8 25.Raf1 Rh1+ 26.Kf2 R8h2+ 27.Ke1 Bxe5 28.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/nc6.htm (3 of 5)28/09/06 07:15:14

The Bishop's Opening - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.f4

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/nc6.htm (4 of 5)28/09/06 07:15:14

The Bishop's Opening - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.f4

Contact: Michael Goeller, [email protected]

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/nc6.htm (5 of 5)28/09/06 07:15:14

The Bishop's Opening - Calabrese Countergambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 f5

Position after 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 f5

The Calabrese Countergambit is very similar to the Latvian Countergambit (1.e4

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/f5.htm (1 of 14)28/09/06 07:15:28

The Bishop's Opening - Calabrese Countergambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 f5

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/f5.htm (2 of 14)28/09/06 07:15:28

The Bishop's Opening - Calabrese Countergambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 f5

5.e5 d5! =) 4....fxe4!? (4....d6! transposes to C5) 5.Ne5 d5!? (5....

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/f5.htm (3 of 14)28/09/06 07:15:28

The Bishop's Opening - Calabrese Countergambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 f5

am not sure it yields any real advantage.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/f5.htm (4 of 14)28/09/06 07:15:28

The Bishop's Opening - Calabrese Countergambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 f5