|
|
1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. Bb5+ Bd7 4. Bc4
|
A common alternative is 11.Be2 , which I have also played successfully in otb tournaments. |
 
|
| |
|
|
4... Bg4 5. f3
|
This is mainline, but Ne2 or Nf3 should be playable as well. Personally I have never tried them. |
|
| |
|
|
5... Bf5
|
BL's most common alternative to 5...Bf5 is 5...Bc8, which some sources will award an Exclamation Point "!" , which marks it to be the 'best move' in their opinion. I am not a student of these 2 lines but having played both from both sides of the board; IMO & experience, it is certainly no less good than Bf5, but I see no problem with Bf5 either; nor any real need to give serious preference to one over the other. |
|
| |
|
|
6. Nc3
|
WT has an option here, or on move 7 also, to attack BL's Bf5 with the aggressive K-side expansion move g4. I have faced the move in tournament play, but have not employed it myself in serious play. A similiar g4 idea is present in the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, which is mentioned in the Scandinavian Defense thread as a possible route WT might transpose to vs the Scandinavian. And this is very similar, just lacking the pawn sac by WT. |
|
| |
|
|
6... Nbd7 7. d4
|
7.Ne2 is also well playable. But d4 is a more aggressive in the center & more flexible as well, allowing for an f4 and Nf3 formation if desired. 7.d3 is another alternative. |
|
| |
|
|
7... Nb6
|
All standard book to here. Now WT initiates play into the Collister Counter-Gambit, which was something of a novelty when I began playing around 1980 (I believe), but has been seen in print sometime after that. |
|
| |
|
|
8. Bb5+
|
|
|
| |
|
|
8... Bd7 9. Bd3
|
Now WT will achieve his goals of the variation: To remove the Bf5 & place his own Bd3 to take that diagonal; and to attain the easy development and fluid center which follow.
***
No one has tried any other move here. 8. ...c6? is obviously bad. 8...Nbd7 irritates the logic as a repetition without gain. Leaving 8...Nfd7 to consider. Unlike its brother Knight, this move can actually achieve something.
The question is, whether it is something BL wishes to achieve. A couple examples seem to show he can attain a position that is somewhat loosened, tho not more so than some we've seen Kasparov play from a Sicilian. So that aspect may appeal to some players, however the difference being that WT comes out "ready to play" in both these lines, while BL has yet to find a home for his K and finishes development in "second place".
Several lines from 8. ... Nfd7
9. g4 Bg6
10. h4 h6
11. h5 Bh7
12. Bd3 Bxd3
13. Qxd3 Nf6
14. Nge2 Nbxd5
15. Nxd5 Nxd5
16. Bd2
******* OR ******
Nfd7
9. Bg5 a6
10. Bd3 Bxd3
11. Qxd3 h6
12. Bh4 g5
13. Bg3 Nf6
14. O-O-O Nbxd5
15. Nxd5 Nxd5
16. c3 Qd7
17. h4 Bg7
18. hxg5 hxg5
19. Rxh8+ Bxh8
20. Nh3
*************
Those are given to yield a "feel" for what may come of Nfd7 and not intended to claim best play was made there. |
|
| |
|
|
9... Nbxd5
|
Note that WT is actually behind is development at this point. But that is temporary. All his piece are poised to develop to one or more choices of placements without hindrance. |
|
| |
|
|
10. Nxd5 Nxd5 11. c4
|
This is the move that produces great ease and freedom for WT and many options on how to play his position.
BL has 3 choices now.
11...Nb6 11...Nf6 or 11...Nb4
*************
But see the formations WT can adopt. Eg's Ne2, Ne2 with Ne4, f4 & Nf3, Be3-Bf4-Bg5, Qd2-Qb3-Qc2-Qe2 perhaps Qf3, o-o or O-O-O. Even Bd2 & Bc3 ala Caro-Kann vs the Nb4 line especially.
****
EG's 11...Nb4 12.Bb1 e6 13.a3 // or 12.Be4 Bc6?! 13.d5!? Bd7 14.a3
11...Nb6 12.Bg5 g6 13.Qd2 Bg7 14.Ne2 etc.
11...Nf6 12.Qb3 Qc8 (most common) 13.Qc2 h6 14.Be3 e6 or 15.Ne2 and b3 with Bb2 formation.
******* |
|
| |
|
|
11... Nf6 12. Qb3
|
To strike at the b7 square before ...e6 is played, if Wt is going to, thus leaving d5 a viable reply to Bc6. In reality tho, it will probably not be a true tempo gain for WT since after ...Qc8 BL has supported his later ...c5 push which will now be ready as soon as he plays ...e6. |
|
| |
|
|
12... Qc8 13. Be3 e6 14. Ne2 c5
|
Usually a center break is not recommended before being castled. But in this case it is not harmful to BL and might even hinder WT from o-o if he were to trade pawns here. Also if WT did capture now, the Bxc5 is free development since the B has never moved. |
|
| |
|
|
15. O-O cxd4 16. Nxd4 Bc5
|
IMO 16...e5 would be a bit too adventurous for BL. Thus this or Be7 to O-O before considering such an idea.
***
And here we have a basic sequence from the Counter-Gambit variation. Now WT need consider where he wishes to place his Rooks. And how he will secure his Be3, as presently Nc2 is the only real defense vs ...e5. As it seems to me the sac of Rfe1 after ...e5 would be insufficient.
BL looks to have quite a responsive position it is true. The one thing WT can do easily that BL cannot however is to Double Rooks aor Triple Majors on a File. There in might lie some potential for advantage. Also the BL Q is presently "working" but has a bit of awkwardness in trying to work with or clear the path for BL to use his Rooks centrally. His chances will lie in the effectiveness of his minor piece play in the near future game, imo. Yet if a minor piece comes off the board, it seems to give WT full advantage. Thus there is much scope for play from both sides of the board. May the better player win ... }8-D
* ** *** ***** *** ** *
|
|
| |
