Discoveries (theoretical novelties) in C51, C52 Evans gambit, in C50 Giuoco Pianissimo (including discovery of a very important gambit, that is relative to Evans gambit), in C50 Hungarian defence, changing appraisal of their very important systems, are present in this investigation.

Summary of analysis (author's novelties are marked by symbol "AN")

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5

Paragraph 1: 4.b4 Bb4 5.c3

The are several black’s strong defences, and I suggest else the following new one: 5…Bc5 6.d4 ed 7.0-0 Na5 8.Bd3! (For example, the move 8.Bf7?AN is bad: 8…Kf7 9.Ne5 Kf8!? 10.Qh5 Qe7!? 11.Ng6 hg 12.Qh8, and black wins.) …dc!? 9.Nc3 d6!AN. Black has an advantage. We see a quite rare case, where e4-e5 isn’t very dangerous for black. Black has 2 extra pawns, and, moreover, white doesn’t have initiative after Bc8-e6.

Paragraph 2: 4.d3 h6!? 5.b4 (Part 1)

First of all, it should be noted, that after 5.c3 d6! 6.d4! ed 7.cd Bb6!AN the black’s pawn h6 plays a very useful role for black, and the game is equal. Further, it is clear that 5.b4 isn't the strongest move, but is a very important move for theory. And we’ll see below, this gambit has much more traps than 4.b4: the pawn h6 (instead of pawn h7) makes black’s position weak in a lot of cases. (The situation is similar after 4.0-0 h6? 5.b4 AN.) In this paragraph we’ll consider black’s “famous in 4.b4 theory” responses only. We’ll consider other black’s responses in paragraphs 3-6. 5…Bb4 6.c3.

I. 6…Bc5 AN (C51) 7.d4 (7.0-0 is another good way.) ...ed 8.0-0

A) 8…Na5? 9.Bf7! Kf7 10.Ne5 with a very strong winning attack, that is analogous mostly to Bukayev Jerome counter gambit.

B) 8…d6 9.cd Bb6 10.d5! White has an enough compensation for material.

II. 6…Bf8 AN (C51)

[After 6…Be7 AN (C51) white stands better after 7.Qb3 Na5 8.Bf7 Kf8 9.Qa4. It should be noted, that after 7.d4 Na5? white plays 8.Bf7! Kf7 9.Ne5 with the similar attack and the same result.] 7.d4 Na5? 8.Bf7! Kf7 9.Ne5 with the similar attack and the same result.

III. 6…Ba5 (C52)

A) 7.0-0 d6 8.d4!AN Bb6 (8…ed 9.cd Bb6 10.d5! – 7.d4 AN ed 8.0-0 d6 9.cd Bb6 10.d5!) 9.de de 10.Bf7!! Kf7 11.Ne5 (White wins.)

A1) 11…Kf6 12.Qf3! Ke5 13.Qf7! White wins. (It should be noted, that after 13.Qf4 Ke6 14.Qf5 Ke7 15.Ba3 black has a move 15…Nb4!)

A2) 11…Ke6 12.Qb3! (12.Qg4? Ke5 13.Qh5 Kf6!) 12…Ke5 13.Qf7! (with the idea Bf4; with the idea Kh1, f4; with the idea Nd2) White wins.

A3) 11…Ke7! 12.Ba3 Ke6 [12…Kf6 13.Qf3 Ke5 14.Kh1!? White has a very strong winning attack.] 13.Qh5! with a very strong winning attack, that is analogous mostly to Bukayev Jerome counter gambit.

B) 7.d4 AN d6 (7…ed 8.0-0 d6 9.cd Bb6 10.d5! – 6…Bc5 AN 7.d4 ed 8.0-0 d6 9.cd Bb6 10.d5!) 8.de de 9.Bf7!! Kf7 10.Ne5. White wins too, and wins by much more easy playing, than in the variant IIIA.

B1) 10…Kf6 11.Qf3! Ke5, and white wins after both 12.Qf7 and 12.Qf4 Ke6 13.Qf5 Ke7 14.Ba3.

B2) 10…Ke6 11.Qb3! Ke5 12.Qf7! White wins.

B3) 10…Ke7! 11.Ba3. White wins.

[It should be noted in III, that some of these blows are new and winning for corresponding (weak for white) d4-de-Bf7-Ne5-variations of 4.b4 Bb4 5.c3 Ba5 too.]

Paragraph 3: 4.d3 h6!? 5.b4 (Part 2)

5…Bb6 AN 6.b5! (White wins.) 6…Na5 7.Bf7! Kf7 8.Ne5. White wins.

It is necessary to add here, that there is the same situation in C50 Hungarian defence! Thus, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Be7 4.d3 h6!? 5.d4!AN ed!? we can have the following: 6.c3!? [Of course, the move 6.Nd4 is good.] 6…Na5? [It realizes white’s trap. Black must play 6…Nf6! 7.e5 Nh7!] 7.Bf7! [the pawn h6 (instead of pawn h7) makes black’s position weak here too] Kf7 8.Ne5 with a very strong winning attack, that is analogous mostly to Bukayev Jerome counter gambit. It is analogous to 3…Bc5 4.0-0 h6?? AN 5.b4!, that the variation 3…Be7 4.0-0 h6?? AN 5.d4! etc. (White wins.) and similar variations of C50 Hungarian defence are not important for theory, because h7-h6 is here a useless, unlogical response. But the move 4…h6!? is useful, logical after 4.d3 here too.

About names etc.

The gambit move 5.b4 isn’t new nominally, but it was never considered in publications, was never commented, was almost never played. All few games, where it was played, show, that everywhere white has made a large error in the beginning of playing. [Thus, it is interesting, that everywhere the extremely simple move d3-d4! is my new idea (AN). Why has white never played it? Most probably, white has been sure, that black’s positions are better with h7-h6 in all possible variations than without h7-h6.] That is why the gambit 5.b4 is new, in fact!

How should we call this new strong and important gambit? Of course, we can see these positions too as a result of transposition of moves after 4.b4: 4…Bb4 5.c3 B~ 6.d3?? h6??, but it is clear, that the name “XXXXXXX attack/variation (6.d3 h6) of Evans gambit” is bad, because the move 6.d3 is very bad here and can’t attract attention! That is why, it is necessary to call it “Evans-XXXXXXX gambit” (as not a part of Evans gambit)! [Addition by Webmaster: I suggest to call this new gambit (5.b4) as “Evans-Bukayev gambit” in honour of its author! He agrees to this gambit’s name.]

Auteur : Y.Bukayev

S'inscrire | Mot de passe