Belgrade Gambit Marin
Belgrade Gambit Marin
Belgrade Gambit Marin
When I embarked on the vast research project is useless in view of 3.¤f3! when 3...£xg2 allows
that resulted in Beating the Open Games and its 4.¦g1 £h3 5.¥xf7†.
companion volume A Spanish Repertoire for Black, So how could I forget about such an interesting
I had little doubt about the fact that some of the opening? The answer is quite simple: given the
less important lines might escape my attention. structure of our repertoire, 2.¥c4 will most
The Open Games are almost as inexhaustible as likely transpose elsewhere in the book, be it to
the game of chess itself, and one cannot pretend the King’s Gambit (if White plays f4 at some
to have a prepared response against every legal moment), or one of the numerous variations of
move. the Italian Game (if he refrains from such a brave
My suspicions proved to be correct when, action). You can also refer to my comment on
shortly after the book was published, readers page 42 from the Vienna Game.
made me aware of minor omissions. This does Basically, we should just develop the knights in
not make me less proud of the book in general, the normal way and play ...¥c5 at some moment,
but I consider it to be my duty to publish these but it is important to follow the most restrictive
additions. move order. I would recommend
2...¤c6
The first opening that I forgot to make a short If 2...¥c5 White could consider 3.£g4 when
comment about is the Bishop’s Opening. Black cannot answer in the same way as White
1.e4 e5 2.¥c4 would have done against 2...£g5, with 3...¤f6,
because the f7 is hanging after 4.£xg7. It is easy to
convince ourselves that each way of protecting the
g7-square has its drawbacks. For instance, 3...g6
weakens the dark squares, which can be felt after
the bishop’s departure.
Players who intend to play the Petroff Defence
(2.¤f3 ¤f6) are more or less forced to play 2...¤f6
in order to avoid learning such a complicated
opening as the Italian Game. In modern times
White almost always answers 3.d3, when 3...¤c6
followed by ...¥c5 leads to well known paths.
However, I would be worried that in the event
of the romantic 3.d4!? we would have to learn
This opening is just as old as the King's Gambit
some additional lines.
and the Italian Game. It was regularly employed
After 2...¤c6, White cannot give the game an
by Greco and made part of Philidor's system of
independent character.
thinking (see also his concept about not blocking
the f-pawn too early, mentioned on page 14).
Later it was submitted to thorough practical
examination in the matches between Cochrane
and Staunton (1841 and 1842). In modern times
Larsen frequently resorted to this opening in
order to avoid theory, while Kasparov tried it in
several rapid games.
Abstractly speaking, moving the bishop with
the knight still on g1 might look like a violation of
the rules of development. However, Black cannot
take immediate advantage of it because 2...£g5?!
2 Mihail Marin
3.f4 ¥c5 4.¤f3 d6 leads to the King’s White still needs to justify his early knight
Gambit (pages 13-38), 3.¤f3 is an immediate jump to the centre. Both ...¤xe4 and ...¤xd5
transposition to the Italian Game, while moves should be permanently considered, while an
such as 3.¤c3 or 3.d3 only delay the moment of exchange on e7 or f6 would just improve Black’s
such a transposition. Black simply plays ...¤f6 development. Compare with the following line
and ...¥c5. from the English Opening: 1.c4 e5 2.¤c3 ¥b4
This is all. If I had written about the Bishop’s 3.¤d5 ¥e7 4.d4 d6 5.e4 ¤f6, where Black loses
Opening in the first place, it would hardly have a whole tempo (and does not capture any pawn
occupied more space than it does now. on the way!) in order to provoke such a tense
situation in the centre.
My second omission is slightly more significant Returning to the Belgrade Gambit, we should
and refers to the Belgrade Gambit, a subline of know that after the simplifications:
the Four Knights Scotch: 6.¤xd4 ¤xd5 7.exd5 ¤xd4 8.£xd4 0–0
1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.d4 exd4 Black has very easy play.
5.¤d5!?
In order to complicate the fight White would
The first player who tried this in a recorded need to castle long, but if he develops the dark-
game was Richter back in 1938, but the variation squared bishop then 9...¥f6 would be unpleasant.
probably owes its name to the fact that in the '40s The only way to defend the b2-pawn would be
it was played in several games between Yugoslav 10.£b4, but then 10...a5 would offer Black a
players. strong initiative, precisely on the wing where the
In this case no transpositions to other white king has planned to go.
known lines are possible, but I forgot about Therefore, White has to play the more modest
this variation because it is really harmless for 9.¥e2
Black. In fact, almost all I knew about it before when play may continue
writing these few lines was that Black should 9...¥f6 10.£d3
not try sharp lines (such as 5...¤xe4 6.£e2 f5 10.£d1?! is too passive and hands the initiative
7.¤g5 or 5...¤xd5 6.exd5 ¥b4† 7.¥d2) which to Black. For instance: 10...d6 11.0–0 ¥f5
would indeed transform the position into a 12.¥d3 £d7 13.c3 ¦fe8 14.a4 ¥e4³ Sax-Karpov,
dangerous gambit, but play the solid developing Tilburg 1979.
move 10...d6 11.0–0 ¦e8 12.¥f3
5...¥e7 White has to place his bishop on this relatively
As we shall see, this will transpose to a structure passive square because 12.c3, preparing the
typical of the relatively inoffensive Ponziani development of the other bishop, would offer
Opening. Black some initiative after 12...¥f5!³.
Bishop Opening Transposition and the Belgrade Gambit 3