The Kibitzer

Tim Harding
Translate this page

Play through and download
the games from
ChessCafe.com in the
ChessBase Game Viewer.

Plain Man's Guide to the Kieseritzky Gambit
Part One
During 2002 I wrote a four-part series of articles on the King's Gambit for the
magazine Chess Mail, of which I was then editor, surveying various
variations through practical examples from correspondence play. Ten years
on is a good time to revisit the subject and see what has changed. Reader
feedback is welcome and can be incorporated in the second or third parts
(scheduled for August and September 2012) or in a future article.
My original series title was 'Plain man's guide to the King's Gambit' and
somewhat apologetically I have decided to retain this gender-biased line. That
is not because I don't think female chess-players should play the King's
Gambit (and there are of course many more strong female players than was
the case ten years ago) but rather because 'Plain man's guide to' was such a
stock book title phrase that I chose it then out of nostalgia and for its
recognition factor. My university library has fifty-six titles beginning with
those words and only two 'Plain person's guide' (and none beginning 'Plain
woman's guide').
The King's Gambit, one of the oldest openings, begins as follows:
1 e4 e5 2 f4

[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppp1ppp/8/4p3/4PP2/
8/PPPP2PP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 2"]
White offers his f-pawn, temporarily at least, with some of the following
objectives in mind:
a) To destroy Black's central bastion at e5, thus guaranteeing open play;
b) To obtain a majority of pawns in the centre, to gain space in the
middle game;
c) To open the f-file as a future line of attack (after castling kingside);
d) To accelerate development of the pieces (although 2 f4 in itself does
not directly help with this);
e) To envisage a queenside pawn majority, valuable for the endgame (if
White's e-pawn is exchanged for Black's d-pawn, and especially if his d-
pawn is also exchanged for Black's c-pawn);
f) Psychological motivation: to unsettle Black by a direct confrontation;
the defender must decide whether to attempt to hold the gambit pawn.
Purchases from our
chess shop help keep
ChessCafe.com freely
accessible:

No Passion For Chess Fashion
by Raetsky & Chetverik

Beating the Open Games
by Mihail Marin

ECO C
by Chess Informant
g) Theoretical motivation: many King's Gambit lines have been very
deeply analysed and the well-prepared attacker can win quickly if his
opponent chooses an inferior line.
h) Bird's Opening players can switch to it if Black replies with From's
Gambit (1 f4 e5 and now 2 e4).
The drawbacks of the King's Gambit, on the other hand, may be outlined as
follows:
a) White gives away a valuable pawn which may not be recovered;
b) In so doing, White also weakens his king position in the short run;
moreover, kingside castling is not always possible and sometimes
castling must be forgone altogether;
c) Attempting to justify the initial pawn sacrifice, White sometimes
finds it necessary to sacrifice further material, usually a minor piece, in
order to build up threats before Black can consolidate. Such piece
sacrifice lines tend to be obscure or unsound.
d) Black has a wide choice of replies which means that White has a lot
of variations to learn.
The latter, together with doubts about soundness, is perhaps the main reason
for the relative unpopularity of the gambit nowadays. To be honest, I have
always avoided playing it with white in serious games but may get around to
it some day. I have had many interesting games with black, usually in
correspondence events; over-the-board, opponents rarely played it against me.
Do not go looking for my King's Gambit games in databases. With a very few
exceptions, you will not find them. Some of my games were played on the
Internet under pseudonyms that I do not intend to reveal.
Nevertheless, the King's Gambit is fun and difficult to defend at rapid time-
limits because of White's initiative. This makes it an attractive choice when
rating points and titles are not at stake. It is also one of those openings that is
far from likely to be successful below the level of masters and experienced
tournament players. Nowadays, few grandmasters play the King's Gambit
except as a shock weapon, but it may be noted that former world champion
Boris Spassky has still been playing it in simultaneous displays this century.
As there is so much material, I have divided this into a two-part article. This
month will deal only with the main branch of the classical King's Knight's
Gambit Accepted, 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 (This month I will not look at other
replies.) 3 Nf3 g5. This principally means the Kieseritzky Gambit. The
August column will deal with all other lines arising from 3g5 and other KG
lines will be discussed in September.
So, continuing from the first diagram:
3 Nf3
White follows the old rule of thumb, knights before bishops. This also
prevents a check at h4 and hurries to get castled. The first and second parts of
the series concentrate on the various gambits arising from Black's next move
and the diverse variations arising from it. Other variations will be dealt with
in the third article, in September.
3...g5!?

[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppp1p1p/8/6p1/4Pp2/5N2/
PPPP2PP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 4"]
This ancient reply was my preferred move for many years when I have had to
meet the King's Gambit in correspondence chess. Obviously the first point is
that it protects the pawn on f4 and also it threatens to harass the knight at f3.
3...g5 says 'I have a pawn and I'm going to keep it. What are you going to do
about it?' When I was learning chess, the attitude to this move seemed to be
that 3...g5 was an obviously bad sort of nineteenth century move that
deserved to be punished and Fischer's 3...d6 (to be considered next time)
evolved as a way of improving on it. Nowadays, the view seems different:
White has to prove he has something against 3...g5 or why should Black
bother with indirect attempts like 3...d6 and 3...h6?
After 3g5, White has three main ways to proceed. The subject of this
month's article will be the move generally considered best, namely.
4 h4
About twenty years ago, when I resumed playing 1...e5 in about fifty percent
of my black games, I studied all this for a lecture I was giving. 4 h4, usually
leading to the Kieseritzky Gambit, is the crux of the whole thing; White won't
allow the dark-square pawn chain to solidify into an impenetrable Great Wall
of China.
The other moves (principally 4 Bc4 and 4 d4) are very exciting, of course.
They will be discussed next time, along with perhaps some reader comments
on this article (but only if they are received by 31 July).
4...g4
This is the problem with 3...g5; we wanted to play it to support the f4-pawn
not to chase white pieces to better squares. However, there is a positive side
to the move for Black: h4 becomes a target and the white king may get
opened up in some lines.
Now White must move his knight; where should it go?
A: 5 Ng5?! (Allgaier)
B: 5 Ne5 (Kieseritzky)
A: 5 Ng5?!
Like the Charge of the Light Brigade, the knight ventures into the jaws of
death; it has no retreat from here.
This article will not deal in any detail with the Allgaier lines because I
discussed them in the Kibitzer series numbers 78 and 79 (November 2002 and
December 2002).
Here is a high-level CC tournament example.
C. Depasquale J. Asquith
Allgaier Gambit [C39]
BFCC-40 email master invitational 2002
5...h6 6 Nxf7 Kxf7

[FEN "rnbq1bnr/pppp1k2/7p/8/4PppP/8/
PPPP2P1/RNBQKB1R w KQ - 0 7"]
7 d4
Or 7 Bc4+!? (For other moves see my November 2002 Kibitzer article.) 7...d5
8 Bxd5+ Kg7 (8...Ke8 9 d4 Nf6 is also possible.) 9 Bxb7?! (9 d4 may be
better but modern examples played by strong players are lacking.) 9...Bxb7
10 Qxg4+ Kf7 11 Qh5+ Ke7 12 Qe5+ Kd7 13 Qxh8 Nf6 14 e5 Nc6 (14...
Bxg2 was analysed by Dufresne in the nineteenth century.) 15 Qxf6 Qxf6 16
exf6 Nd4 17 00 and now:
a) 17...Bc5 18 b4 Ne2+ 19 Kh2 Rg8 20 bxc5 Rxg2+ forcing perpetual check
(John Delaney-P. Peto, SEMI email 2003).
b) 17...f3 18 gxf3 Nxc2 19 d4 Nxa1 20 Bf4 Nc2 21 Rc1 Nxd4 22 Rxc7+ Ke6
23 Kf2 Bxf3 24 Rc4 Rd8 25 Rxd4 Rxd4 26 Kxf3 Kxf6 27 h5 Rd3+ 28 Kg4
Bd6 29 Nc3 Rd4 30 Ne2 Re4 31 Kf3 Rxe2 32 Bxd6 Rxb2 33 a4 Ra2 34 Bf4
Kg7 35 Be5+ Kh7 36 Bb8 Rxa4 01, Brunomag-Redshift, Internet Chessclub
CC Quads, a correspondence game (thirty days per ten moves, computer
and other assistance allowed). This was sent in to me by the winner (George
Sobala), who said my 2002 ChessCafe.com article was "most helpful!"
7...f3!
7...d5 has also been seen.
8 Be3!? fxg2
If 8...d5 9 Nc3 Modern Chess Openings, 14th edition.
9 Bxg2 d6 10 Qe2 Be7 11 00+ Kg7

[FEN "rnbq2nr/ppp1b1k1/3p3p/8/3PP1pP/
4B3/PPP1Q1B1/RN3RK1 w - - 0 12"]
Black's king looks relatively safe here and he has a whole extra knight. 12 e5
could be worth a try in a blitz game.
12 Nc3 c6 13 e5 Bxh4 14 Ne4 d5 15 Nd6 Be6 16 Rf5!?

[FEN "rn1q2nr/pp4k1/2pNb2p/3pPR2/
3P2pb/4B3/PPP1Q1B1/R5K1 b - - 0 16"]
This ingenious move might give chances over the board. White threatens
Qxg4+ and 16...Bxf5 17 Nxf5+ White may well be winning. Also if 16...h5
17 Raf1, the position is unclear with all White's forces in action.
16...Rh7!
This gives the king a flight square at h8 and kills White's attack.
17 Nxb7 Qe8 18 Raf1 Qg6 19 Nd6 Nd7 20 c4 Kh8 21 cxd5 cxd5 01
So don't believe anyone who tells you the Allgaier Gambit, 5 Ng5, is sound.
White has to sacrifice a piece speculatively. The Hamppe-Allgaier Gambit in
the Vienna (i.e. with the added moves Nc3 for White and ...Nc6 for Black),
may be a different matter.
B:
5 Ne5!

[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppp1p1p/8/4N3/4PppP/
8/PPPP2P1/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 5"]
On this square the knight has a future, attacking g4 (twice) as well as f7, and
having retreat squares at its disposal.

Lionel Kieseritsky
This is the starting point of the Kieseritzky Gambit, named after a nineteenth
century master with the splendid name Lionel Adalbert Bagration Felix
Kieseritzky (1806-1853), otherwise best known as the loser (to Adolf
Anderssen) of the Immortal Game. This is rather unfair to him as he was a
fairly decent player for his day. He was originally from a part of what is now
Estonia but spent much of his adult life in Paris where he was one of the
strongest players in the 1850s.
In Kibitzer 78, when I wrote about the Allgaier, I also said
"The Kieseritzky Gambit has been studied very deeply and unless you are
willing to analyse deep into the middle-game, you are not likely to find
anything new. The earliest that a playable new move might be introduced is
perhaps around move ten. So the Kieseritzky is well-suited to correspondence
play but is not such a good bet for normal face-to-face or Internet contests
unless you are an expert."
In reply to 5 Ne5, Black in the old days tried lots of silly moves (like 5...h5),
but only three are suitable for mission-critical applications. White attacks the
g4-pawn twice and it's not defended, so you are returning the gambit pawn,
OK? It is a choice between 5...d6 and 5...Nf6 and I don't claim to know which
is better. I have tried them both.
B1: 5...d6
B2: 5...Nf6
B3: 5...Bg7
The other fifth moves for Black are all liable to give White a strong, even
decisive attack. The popular nineteenth century choice was to defend the
threatened pawn by 5...h5?! but this is asking for trouble. Of course there are
always people willing to revive old ideas.
The official refutation goes 6 Bc4 Rh7 (another point of Black's fifth move) 7
d4 Bh6 (7...d6 8 Nxf7! or 8 Nd3!?) 8 Nc3 Nc6 9 Nxf7 Rxf7 10 Bxf7+ Kxf7
11 Bxf4 Bxf4 12 00 Qxh4 (Nothing is really better.) 13 Rxf4+ Kg7 14 Qd2!
(14 Qd3 was been seen but then a later d4-d5 can be met by ...Ne5 with gain
of time.) 14...d6 (14...Qg5? 15 Rf7+) 15 Raf1 Nd8 16 Nd5 Bd7 17 e5!
(threatening both 18 Nxc7 and 18 Nf6) 18...dxe5 18 dxe5 Bc6 19 e6! Bxd5 20
Rf7+ Nxf7 21 Rxf7+ Kh8 (21...Kg6 22 Qd3+) 22 Qc3+ Nf6 23 Rxf6 Qxf6
(23...Qg5 24 Rh6+ Kg8 25 Rh8#) 24 Qxf6+ Kh7 25 Qf5+ Kh6 26 Qxd5 Kg6
27 Qd7 10, Bronstein-Dubinin, USSR Ch, Leningrad 1947.
B1: 5...d6
The idea is to get your pieces out while White takes back the pawn and tries
to find something for his knight to do after it has finished its business on g4.
6 Nxg4 Nf6 7 Nxf6+
If instead 7 Nf2, the logical thing for Black to do is occupy the open file with
7...Rg8 8 d4 Bh6. There are plenty of recent practical examples of this; Black
seems to making a good plus score.
7...Qxf6 8 Nc3 Nc6!
This move, which was not mentioned by McDonald, is best. Black doesn't
need to play ...c6 to prevent 9 Nd5 driving his queen from its lovely square
because it actually wants to go to the even lovelier g6.
9 Bb5
9 Nd5, aiming to eat c7 and a8, is not to be feared because of juicy variations
like (8...Nc6) 9 Nd5 Qg6 10 Nxc7+? Kd8 11 Nxa8?? Qg3+ 12 Ke2 Nd4#.
Better here is 10 d3 Qg3+ 11 Kd2 (Fedorov-Anand, Wijk aan Zee 2001) but
now Jens Kristiansen's move 11...Nb4!! (instead of the normal 11...Ne7)
makes this unattractive for White. Black has a draw in hand if White goes for
the a8-rook, and 12 Nxb4? Qe3+ (Schreiber-Jensen, email 2000) probably
loses for White.

[FEN "r1b1kb1r/ppp2p1p/2np1q2/1B6/4Pp1P/
2N5/PPPP2P1/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 0 9"]
9 Bb5 is the move Michael Agermose Jensen recommended for White a
decade ago in his article for Correspondence Chess News. The move was
played against me at www.itsyourturn.com many years ago. I didn't make the
best response but there must be some doubt whether 'Black is OK' anyway.
The diagram position does not yet seem to have received proper attention
from grandmaster theoreticians.
9...a6!?
This is the most popular choice in correspondence games, although 9...Kd8
has sometimes been seen and is the usual choice in OTB games. One example
is 10 Bxc6 bxc6 11 Qf3 Rg8 12 d3 Bh6 13 Qf2 Rb8 14 Ne2 Rxb2 15 Bxb2
Qxb2 16 00 Qxc2 17 Nxf4 Qxf2+ 18 Rxf2 Bg7 19 Rc1 Bd4 20 Rxc6 Rg4 21
Nd5 Bb7 22 Rc4 Bxf2+ 23 Kxf2 Rxh4 24 Nxc7 Rh5 25 a4 h6 26 Nb5 Ba6 27
Rd4 , C. Martin Sanchez-U. Maffei, ICCF server 2008. However, there
is much more to be analysed here.
10 Nd5

[FEN "r1b1kb1r/1pp2p1p/p1np1q2/1B1N4/
4Pp1P/8/PPPP2P1/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 0 10"]
10...Qg7!
This is possibly critical; in other games Black put his queen on g6. For
example, 11 00:
a) 11...axb5 12 Nxc7+ Kd8 13 Nxa8 Bg4 14 Qe1 Bh3 15 Qf2 Rg8 16 d3 Bg7
17 c3 Be5 18 g3 Qxg3+ 19 Qxg3 Rxg3+ 20 Kf2 Bxf1 21 Kxf1 Rxd3 22 Nb6
Ne7 23 Ke2 Rh3 24 Bd2 Rxh4 25 Rf1 f5 26 exf5 Nxf5 27 Kd3 Ne7 28 Ke4
Rh5 29 a4 bxa4 30 c4 Bxb2 31 Nxa4 Be5 32 Ba5+ Kd7 33 Rb1 Rh3 34 Nb6+
01, H. Mhlenweg-H. Koch, ICCF Email 2005.
b) 11...Kd8 12 Bxc6 bxc6 13 Nxf4 Qxe4 14 c3 Rg8 15 d3 Qe8 and now:
b1) 16 Nh5 Bg4 17 Nf6 Bxd1 18 Nxe8 Kxe8 19 Rxd1 Be7 20 Re1 Kd7 21
Rf1 Rg7 22 Bh6 , J. Asquith-J.Marin Solano, BFCC Jubilee Email 2000.
b2) 16 Qc2 Be7 17 h5 Bh4 18 d4 f5 19 Bd2 Rb8 20 b4 Bg3 21 Be1 Qe3+ 22
Kh1 Rg4 23 Nh3 Rh4 24 Bd2 Qe7 25 Kg1 Rg4 26 Rf3 Bh4 27 Raf1 Qf7 28
Be1 Be7 29 Re3 Qxh5 30 Qe2 Bf6 31 Nf4 Qf7 32 Ne6+ Bxe6 33 Rxe6 Rg8
34 Rxf5 , L. TintureR. Rizzo, corr France 2002.
11 00 Rg8
Black threatens mate on g2 before defending c7. A high-level correspondence
game continued 12 Rf2 Kd8 13 Be2 Nd4 14 c3 Nxe2+ 15 Qxe2 Bg4 16 Qf1
f3 17 d4 Be7 18 Qc4 Bxh4 19 Qxc7+ Ke8 20 g3 Bd7 21 Qxd6 Qxg3+ 22
Qxg3 Rxg3+ 23 Kh1 Rh3+ 24 Rh2 Rc8 25 Be3 f2 26 Kg2 Rxh2+ 27 Kxh2
Bb5 28 Kh3 f1Q+ 29 Rxf1 Bxf1+ 30 Kxh4 Rc6 31 e5 Bc4 32 Nf6+ Rxf6 33
exf6 Bxa2 34 Kg5 , M. Nimtz-V. Piccardo, 18th CC World Ch Final
2003.
B2: 5...Nf6!
This makes sense. Black counter-attacks White's e-pawn. Jensen turns his
attention to this in his second article (CCN 51) and asks: 'If the Kieseritsky is
really as bad as the press it gets, then why do the world's best players keep
playing it?'

[FEN "rnbqkb1r/pppp1p1p/5n2/4N3/4PppP/
8/PPPP2P1/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 6"]
6 d4
6 Bc4!? is a more aggressive but not necessarily stronger move, attacking the
f7-pawn, when after 6d5 7 exd5 Bg7 it transposes to line C2 below. In
olden days Black often tried 7Bd6, when 8 0-0?! Bxe5 9 Re1 is the
unsound Rice Gambit. After 8 d4 Nh5, play is similar to line C2, except for
the different posting of the black bishop.
6 Nxg4 gives Black a comfortable game after 6...Nxe4 7 Qe2 Qe7 or 7 d3
Ng3.
6...d6
6...Bg7 transposes to the main line C, reachable via 5...Bg7 6 d4 Nf6. Then 7
Nc3 is the main move while 7 Bc4 d5 8 exd5 gives the same position that
usually arises after 6 Bc4.
7 Nd3 Nxe4 8 Bxf4
Both sides have choices at this point. White can play here 8 Qe2 Qe7 9 Bxf4
to avoid Black's second option below but if so, he misses out on the chance of
playing Gallagher's line, 9 Be2.
Now the following:
B21: 8...Qe7!?
B22: 8...Bg7
B21: 8...Qe7!?

[FEN "rnb1kb1r/ppp1qp1p/3p4/8/3PnBpP/
3N4/PPP3P1/RN1QKB1R w KQkq - 0 9"]
9 Be2
I said in my original article that 9 Qe2 can lead to drawish endgames. One
reader, Gary Ruben (Canada), however commented: 'On the other hand, if
after you have taken your best shot at winning and it doesn't work out, having
a draw to fall back on isn't bad. Particularly in such a fluid open position'.
There has been quite a lot of further experience OTB and in correspondence
events with both 12 0-0-0 Re8 and 12 Nxe4 being tried here. Results seem to
be equally divided so this looks like a line where the better play can win, with
either colour.
9...Bg7!?
9...Nc6 is also promising; e.g., 10 Nc3 f5 (not 10...Nxd4? 11 Nd5 Qd8 12
Nf2).
10 Nc3
Neil McDonald's 1998 book on the King's Gambit says Black has already
gone wrong at move eight. He shows that 10Bxd4? is suicidal because of
11 Nd5 and that Black seems to have nothing better than 10Nxc3.
10...h5!?
My idea, which I tried in an anonymous web-server game about ten years
ago. Whereas McDonald was of the view that Black's g-pawn is useless once
it has been forced to advance to g4, this advance supports the g-pawn and it
has value again in cramping White's kingside and maintaining the material
advantage. White's pawn on h4 is now a potential weakness for the endgame
and in the short run it has to be defended by the rook.

[FEN "rnb1k2r/ppp1qpb1/3p4/7p/3PnBpP/
2NN4/PPP1B1P1/R2QK2R w KQkq - 0 11"]
Now the move ...h7-h5, which was not good at move five when Black had
zero development, is quite logical. I am saying to White: you had the chance
to take your pawn back and you didn't do it, so now I close the door. White
has to seek his compensation in piece play.
11 Nd5 Qd8 12 c3
White defends the d-pawn. 12 Nf2 does not cut across Black's plans to
simplify.
12...c6 13 Ne3 Be6 14 Nf2 Nxf2 15 Kxf2 unclear.
White is struggling to prove equality here, although I am not sure what the
best continuation is. Maybe the d-pawn should be returned by 15...Nd7 16
Bxd6 Nf6 or maybe 15...Bh6!? is good though I don't really like the look of it.
I played 15...Qf6!? but my Austrian opponent managed to find counter-
chances: 16 Kg3! 0-0 17 Qc2 c5!? 18 Rd1 cxd4 19 Rxd4 Bh6 and a lively but
balanced struggle ensued, ending in a draw eventually. Of course this was an
anonymous web-server tournament and probably neither player gave it the
attention he would in a serious CC game. Still, there is definitely food for
thought here. Also 8...Bg7 is potentially a bad line for White.
On the basis of those two games, I definitely felt more comfortable as Black
playing 5...Nf6 rather than 5...d6.
B22: 8...Bg7!?

[FEN "rnbqk2r/ppp2pbp/3p4/8/3PnBpP/
3N4/PPP3P1/RN1QKB1R w KQkq - 0 9"]
9 c3
Alternatively, 9 Qe2 (Bangiev) 9...00! 10 Qxe4 Re8 11 Ne5 dxe5 12 dxe5 is
good for Black:
a) 12...Nc6 was Michael Jensen's suggestion.
b) 12...Bxe5! is even stronger: 13 Bxe5 Nc6 14 Qf4 Rxe5+ 15 Be2 Qd4 16
Rf1 Be6 17 Nc3 Bc4 18 Qxd4 Nxd4 19 Rf4 Nxe2 0-1, C. BuenjerPeter
Daus, V0086.012 DESC email, 2001.
9...00! 10 Nd2 Re8 11 Nxe4
Or 11 Be2 (Thomas Johansson) 11...g3!? 12 Nxe4 Rxe4!? 13 Bxg3 (13 Kd2
c5!) 13...Bg4 (13...Qf6!?) 14 Nxf4 (or 14 Nc1 soon transposing to the text)
14...Qe7 15 Kf2 Bxe2 16 Nxe2 Nd7 17 Re1 Qf6+ 18 Kg1 Bh6 19 Bf2 Rae8
20 Qd3 Be3 21 Rf1 Qxh4 22 Qxe3 Rxe3 23 Bxh4 Rxe2 24 Rf2 Kg7 25 Raf1
Rxf2 26 Kxf2 f5 27 Rd1 Kg6 28 Kf3 Re4 29 Bd8 c5 30 Bc7 cxd4 31 cxd4 d5
32 Bf4 Nf8 33 Be5 Ne6 34 g3 h5 35 b4 Ng5+ 36 Kf2 h4 37 gxh4 Rxh4 01,
J. Dupont P. Daus, Freechess 0250 corr, 2002.

[FEN "rnbqr1k1/ppp2pbp/3p4/8/3PNBpP/
2PN4/PP4P1/R2QKB1R b KQ - 0 11"]
11...Rxe4+
K.Hjortstam-A.Moens, ICCF Thematic Final 1999, went instead 11...Bf5 12
Be2 Bxe4 13 00 h5? (better 13...Qxh4 14 Bxg4 Nc6) 14 Bg5 f6? (14...Qd7)
15 Bc1 Qe7 (Threat ...Bxg2) 16 Qb3+ Kh7 17 Nf2 Bg6 18 Bd3 Nd7 19 Bxg6
+ Kxg6 20 Qc2+ f5 (20...Kf7 21 Qf5 Rh8 22 Qd5+ Qe6 23 Qxb7) 21 Nd3
Rf8 22 Bg5 Qf7 23 Rae1 Rae8 24 Rxe8 Qxe8 (24...Rxe8 25 Rxf5! Qxf5 (25...
Kxf5 26 Nc5+) 26 Nf4+) 25 Re1 (Threatens clear win by 26 Nf4+ Kh7 27
Re7 so no need to risk 26 Rxf5!?) 25...Ne5 26 Re3 Qb5 27 Nf4+ Kh7 28 dxe5
dxe5 29 Nxh5 Bh6 30 Qd2 Bxg5 31 hxg5 Kg6 32 Nf6 Qb6 33 Nd7 Rd8 34
Nxe5+ 10.
12 Kf2?
We follow Anteru Harju Wesley C. Green, ICCF Officials 50th JT/IM-B
ICCF Email, 2001. Harju didn't know this king move had been refuted. Better
12 Be2 but White is still worse says Jensen 12...Qe8!? (for 12...g3!? see the
note to White's 11th move.) 13 Kd2! see Jensen in CCN51.
12...c5! 13 g3
13 dxc5 dxc5 14 g3 is book but Black seems to win with 14...c4 (14...Qb6 is
also good.); e.g., 15 Nc5 Qb6 16 Qd6 Nc6 17 Be3 Rxe3 18 Kxe3 Bf8 19 Qd2
Bh6+ 01, J.Precerutti-E.Roche Peris, EM/GT/A012 ICCF Email 1998.
13...cxd4 14 Bg2 Re8 15 c4 Nc6 16 Bd5 Ne5 17 Re1 Bf5 18 Nxe5 dxe5 19
Bg5 Qc7 20 Qb3 e4 21 Bf4 e3+ 22 Kg2 Be5 23 Qxb7 Qxb7 24 Bxb7 Rab8
25 Bc6 Rxb2+ 01
Harju commented for Chess Mail: 'My position is hopeless because of the
strong pawns on "d" and "e". A few times I have decided never to play the
Kings Gambit any more: But the often the temptation is too strong, as the
punishment is too.'
C: 5...Bg7
This move was recommended by Korchnoi and Zak and perhaps, if followed
up well, it may be playable after all.
6 d4 Nf6
If 6...d6 (6...Nf6 see 5...Nf6 6 d4 Bg7), 7 Nxg4 Bxg4 8 Qxg4 Bxd4 9 Nc3 is
good for White according to the books by Gallagher and McDonald.

[FEN "rnbqk2r/pppp1pbp/5n2/4N3/3PPppP/
8/PPP3P1/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 7"]
There are two main moves for White here:
C1: 7 Nc3
C2: 7 Bc4
There is little to recommend regaining the pawn by 7 Nxg4 Nxe4 8 Bxf4
when Black stands better after 80-0.
C1: 7 Nc3
The move that is supposed (e.g., in Neil McDonald's book) to give White a
good game.
7...d6 8 Nd3 Nh5!
After 8...0-0 9 Nxf4! Nxe4 10 Nxe4 Re8 11 Kf2 Rxe4 12 c3, White comes off
best. This old line from Rubinstein has been confirmed as good for White in
several correspondence games, although admittedly many of these games
were not at IM level or higher.
The text move is also in need of really tough tests.
9 Nxf4
Following the books, but this is a line where computer analysis suggests
Black has better chances than previously thought.
9...Ng3 10 Rh2 0-0
This is probably better than 10...Nxf1.
11 Be2
Maybe 11 Be3!? is better.
11...Re8!
Instead of Euwe's line 11...Nxe2 12 Ncxe2 f5 13 c3 fxe4 14 Qb3+ as also
given by Korchnoi and Zak.
12 Bxg4
Not 12 Qd3? Nxe4 13 Nxe4 Bf5 0-1, H. Jaeger-H. Wastel, ICCF email 2007.

[FEN "rnbqr1k1/ppp2pbp/3p4/8/3PPNBP/
2N3n1/PPP3PR/R1BQK3 b Q - 0 12"]
Now Black has two untested possibilities:
a) 12...Nxe4 13 Kf1 and now either 13...Bxg4 (played in one anonymous non-
ICCF webserver game that I have seen) or 13...c5 may turn out well for Black.
b) 12...Nc6!? attacks d4 and may even be better.
C2: 7 Bc4

[FEN "rnbqk2r/pppp1pbp/5n2/4N3/2BPPppP/
8/PPP3P1/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 7"]
7...d5!?
This is an important possibility because its main line can also arise by
transposition from 5...Nf6. Alternatively, Black can simply meet the threat to
his f-pawn by castling, but returning the gambit pawn by d5 is a common
King's Gambit theme, as it gains time to start developing the queenside.
8 exd5
As mentioned already, this important position can arise via 5Nf6 6 Bc4 d5
7 exd5 Bg7 8 d4.
8...Nh5!?
In a few games Black has castled instead or played 8...Nxd5 (met by 9 Nc3 or
9 0-0) but White appears to have the freer game in both cases.
On h5, the knight protects the f4-pawn and opens an attack by the queen
against White's h4-pawn. The position of the white king now looks somewhat
shaky, whereas Black can get his king into safety quickly by castling.
Possibly, White may stand well here but as shown below the critical position
is highly unclear and appears not to have been tested yet in any high-level
correspondence game. I strongly recommend readers to investigate this line.
9 0-0!
White gives up his weak pawn to force a queen exchange and hope that his
central and queenside preponderance will be of more significance than the
extra pawn which Black again holds, if only temporarily.
In the game M. Petr-F. Jenni, Rogaska Slatina 2009, White deferred the
sacrifice, playing 9 Nc3 0-0 10 Ne2 Qe7 (Gallagher and other writers on the
King's Gambit recommend 10c5!) 11 0-0 f3 12 gxf3 Qxh4 13 Nxg4 Bxg4
14 fxg4 Qxg4+ 15 Kh2. Although White eventually won this game, the
situation of his exposed king on a wing denuded of pawns does not make a
happy impression.
9...Qxh4 10 Qe1! Qxe1 11 Rxe1 0-0 12 Nc3 Nd7
In a friendly match during 2002 between two top American correspondence
players, N. Eric Pedersen and Wesley Brandhorst, Black chose instead 12
c5 when 13 Nb5 Nd7 transposes to the note 13c5 below.
13 Nb5
This is a critical position. It is analysed in both the 1992 King's Gambit book
by Joe Gallagher (Game Nineteen) and the 1998 book by Neil McDonald
(Game Twelve) without coming to definite conclusions. There is definitely
scope for more investigation. I conclude my article with some correspondence
games from here.
Michael A. Jensen Helmut Quelle
Kieseritzky Gambit [C39]
Schach magazine King's Gambit thematic email, 2000
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 Ne5 Bg7 6 d4 Nf6 7 Bc4 d5 8 exd5 Nh5
9 00 Qxh4 10 Qe1 Qxe1 11 Rxe1 00 12 Nc3 Nd7 13 Nb5

[FEN "r1b2rk1/pppn1pbp/8/1N1PN2n/
2BP1pp1/8/PPP3P1/R1B1R1K1 b - - 0 13"]
13...Nxe5!?
Although not mentioned in those books, this may be the most accurate
response.
In R. Byrne-Keres, USA v USSR telex match 1955, Black instead played 13...
c6 which is the most common choice here. The American grandmaster then
played 14 Nc7 which was met by the exchange sacrifice 14...cxd5!; the most
reply line is possibly 14 dxc6.
Subsequently, in Winants-van der Sterren, Wijk aan Zee 1995) Black
preferred 13c5. Then 14 dxc6 (en passant) would of course be the same as
13c6 14 dxc6 but the Belgian master Winants preferred the quiet 14 c3 and
after 14cxd4 15 cxd4 Nb6 16 Bb3 Bd7 the game soon petered out into a
draw.
The most recent over-the-board game I have seen in this variation, E. Berg-D.
De Vreugt, Bermuda 2002, saw 13c5 met by 14 d6!? (threatening Nxf7).
Black replied 14cxd4 and lost, but 14Nxe5 or 15Nb6 would probably
be the critical replies.
McDonald speculates (on page 38 of his book) about the possibility 13c5
14 Nc7, when the resource employed by Keres is unavailable since the black
pawn stands on c5 not c6. Play continues 14Rb8 15 d6 Nb6 (Instead 15...
cxd4? 16 Nxf7! wins for White according to McDonald; e.g., 16...Rxf7 17
Re7 Ne5 18 Re8+ Bf8 19 Rxe5) 16 dxc5 Nxc4 17 Nxc4 Bd4+ 18 Kh2 b5 (So
far according to McDonald, who said 19 cxb6 was forced here). Now the two
aforementioned Pedersen-Brandhorst games went as follows:
a) 19 cxb6 axb6 20 Rd1 Bf2 21 d7 Bb7 (McDonald stopped here saying
Black had good attacking chances.) 22 Nd5 Rfd8 23 Bxf4 g3+ 24 Kh1 Nxf4
25 Nxf4 b5 26 Ne5 Ra8 27 Nh3 Ra6 28 Nxf2 gxf2 .
b) 19 Ne5 Bxc5 20 d7 g3+ 21 Kh3 Bb7 22 Rd1 Rfd8 23 Kh4 Nf6 24 Bxf4
Be7 25 Ng4 Rxd7 26 Rxd7 Nxd7+ 27 Kxg3 Rc8 28 Nh6+ Kh8 .
14 dxe5 c6
Black intends to offer the exchange, as Keres did, but with the knights already
exchanged.

[FEN "r1b2rk1/pp3pbp/2p5/1N1PP2n/
2B2pp1/8/PPP3P1/R1B1R1K1 w - - 0 15"]
15 Nc7
Or 15 Nd6 cxd5 16 Bxd5 Rb8 17 b3 Be6 18 c4 Rfd8 19 Ba3 Bxd5 20 cxd5
Bf8 21 Rad1 b5 22 Bc5 a5 23 b4 axb4 24 Bxb4 Rbc8 25 Rc1 (25 Nxc8 Bxb4
regains the exchange with a good ending.) 25...Rxc1 26 Rxc1 Ng3 27 Rd1
Bxd6 28 Bxd6 Kg7 29 Bb4 , A. Kozlowicz-L. Alves, CADAP Email
2000.
15...cxd5

[FEN "r1b2rk1/ppN2pbp/8/3pP2n/2B2pp1/
8/PPP3P1/R1B1R1K1 w - - 0 16"]
16 Bxd5
16 Nxa8 dxc4 would be very like Byrne-Keres (in fact a direct transposition if
White played 17 Bd2?!), probably too risky for White.
16...Rb8 17 e6
Two other games have gone as follows:
a) 17 c4 Bd7 18 e6 Bd4+ 19 Kh1 Bxe6 20 Nxe6 Ng3+ 21 Kh2 fxe6 22 Bxe6+
Kh8 23 Bxg4 Rf6 24 Bxf4 Rxf4 25 Kxg3 Rbf8 26 Kh3 R4f6 27 Bh5 Rf5 28
Bg4 R5f6 29 Bh5 Rf5 30 Bg4 R5f6 , Jan Zidu-Laura Hartmann,EM/J50/
P046 ICCF email 2001.
b) 17 c3 Rd8 18 Bb3 Kf8 19 Nd5 Bh6 20 Rf1 Be6 21 Nxf4 Nxf4 22 Bxf4
Kg7 23 Rab1 b6 24 Bxh6+ Kxh6 25 Bxe6 fxe6 26 Rf6+ Kg5 27 Rxe6 Re8 28
Rxe8 Rxe8 29 Re1 Re6 30 Kf2 h5 31 g3 b5 32 b3 Kf5 33 Re3 Rxe5 34 Rxe5
+ Kxe5 35 Ke3 a5 , L. FedeliF. Venturelli, WQE004 ICCF server 2008.
17...Bxe6 18 Nxe6 Rbe8 19 Bd2 fxe6 20 Bxe6+ Rxe6 21 Rxe6 Bxb2 22 Rf1
Bd4+ 23 Kh2 Rf5 24 Re4 Bf2 25 Rxf2 g3+ 26 Kg1 gxf2+ 27 Kxf2 Kf7 28
Kf3 Rc5 29 c4 b6 30 Bb4 Rc6 31 Rd4 a5
To sum up, Black has considerable choice in meeting the Kieseritzky but
nothing that amounts to a clear refutation. Sources do not agree on best play.
On the whole I tend to prefer Black, but new ideas for both sides may yet be
found.
Line C2 is particularly interesting and if it is playable for Black, the question
arises whether he should prefer to aim for it via 5...Bg7, as shown here, rather
than by more usual route via 5Nf6 5 Bc4 d5.
Postscript: Zukertort's grave
Zukertort's grave in London's Brompton cemetery has been restored, with a
new headstone in English and Polish, thanks to GM Stuart Conquest, the
Polish Heritage Society, Dr Michael Negele and several other benefactors.
Thanks to Messrs. Conquest and Negele for supplying the picture shown here.
A rededication ceremony was held there on 26 June. More details can be
found on the website of the Ken Whyld Association, which links to further
reports.
One of the strongest chess grandmasters of the nineteenth century, Johannes
Herman Zukertort (1842-1888) lived in London from 1873 until his
premature death. He won Paris 1878 and London 1883, two of the greatest
tournaments of the time. However, he is now best remembered as the loser (to
Steinitz) of the first official World Chess Championship match, played in
various American cities in 1886. There is a chapter about Zukertort in my
new book Eminent Victorian Chess Players.
2012 Tim Harding. All Rights Reserved.
A PDF file of this month's column, along with all previous columns, is
available in the ChessCafe.com Archives.
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.



[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]
[Endgame Study] [The Skittles Room] [ChessCafe Archives]
[ChessCafe Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe.com]
[Contact ChessCafe.com] [Advertising]
2012 BrainGamz, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
"ChessCafe.com" is a registered trademark of BrainGamz, Inc.