By any name, it has always been frowned upon as theoretically unsound just like its somewhat better relatives, the Albin Counter Gambit and the Budapest Defense, but unlike them, the Englund Gambit has never been popular at the upper levels.
Still, it has had its advocates. In the 1920's the Swedish master Fritz Englund (February 22,1871 - January 14, 1933, 61 years old) promoted it and played it frequently with considerable success.
Englund entered the Stockholm chess circles as a young man, and soon became a friend of Ludvig Collijn and publisher of Collijn's books. Englund was also a noted problemist and an editor of Tidskrift for Schack and its problem column. He played in most of the main Scandinavian events and his peak as a player was around 1906. He is remembered today primarily for the Englund Gambit, but it had been played many years before.
The Latvian master Karl Behting (October 27, 1867 - March 28, 1943, 75 years old) analyzed it in 1930 in a German chess magazine. Behting was also a problem composer and he was co-editor of the chess magazine Baltische Schachblatter from 1902-1910. He is also known for his work on the Latvian Gambit (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5).
As mentioned, the gambit had been played long before, but Behting published his analysis of it in the German chess magazine Deutsche Schachzeitung in 1930. Two years later Englund sponsored a thematic tournament held in Stockholm in late 1932 and early 1933. Every game had to begin with Behting's main line (1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Qd5).
By that time either because Behting's article had been forgotten or because Englund died shortly afterwards, when chess magazines reported his death they rarely failed to mention "Englund's Gambit Tournament" and the name Englund Gambit became associated with the defense. By the way, the tournament was won by Gosta Stoltz.
In the tournament the gambit had poor results: Black scored +7 -18 =5. However, it was shown that the gambit calls for very careful play by white.
Probably the only black debut that's worse than the Englund is the Fred (1.e4 f5 2.exf5 Kf7), but the Englund Gambit sometimes pops up in blitz games. The thing is, in the Main Line (shown in the game notes) things can get really murky and both sides have to be wary of traps.
Back in the 1940s and 1950s there was a Spanish master from Madrid named Julio Balbín Delor who published in the magazine Ajedrez Espanol some analysis on the England and in Spanish circles it was baptized as the Contragambito Balbin. A short time later anothe Spanish player named Julio Ganzo from Salamanca became interested in the opening and published his own analysis.
Here is a rare game by Balbin against an opponent that I could find nothing on that was played in a tournament that I could find nothing on that was published in 1955 in Koltanowski's rare book, Koltanowski's Chess Annual. It was supposed to be the first of an annual series with the aim of providing a comprehensive yearly chess review for English-speaking players, but as far as I know there were no followups published.
The game was eye-catching because of its great finish which contained a flurry of sacrifices by Balbin.
Marcote–Balbin0–1A40Madrid1944Stockfish 15
1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 The ancient Center Game is reached after 2.d4 but that
offers white no advantage. d6 Balbin makes it a true gambit with this move. 2...c6 This is considered the Main Line. 3.f3 e7 Playable, but
probably way too passive is 3...Nge7 4.f4 b4+ This leads to some very
murky complications in which both players must be wary of falling into traps. 5.c3 This only leads to equality, but it's also tricky! 5.d2 is safe
and good for an advantage. xb2 6.c3 b4 7.b1 a3 8.d5 5...xf4 6.d5 e4 7.xc7+ d8 8.xa8 xe5 with complications in an unbalanced material
situation. 3.exd6 xd6 3...xd6 4.xd6 xd6 5.c3 e7 6.b5 0-0 7.xd6 cxd6 8.f3 e6 9.f4 bc6 10.xd6 fd8 11.xe7 xe7 12.e3 g4 13.e2 xf3 14.xf3 c6 15.xc6 bxc6 16.e2 f8 17.hd1 e7 18.xd8 Genov,P (2438)
-Topak,E (2230) Ankara TUR 2010 1-0 4.f3 c6 5.e3 This is much too
passive. 5.g5 f6 6.h4 f5 7.e3 b4 8.a3 e7 9.c3 d8 10.d4 g6 11.a4+ c6 12.d1 xa2 13.c4 f7 14.xd6+ xd6 15.e2 c5 16.0-0 e7 17.a1 b5 18.a5 b6 19.xa2 g5 White is winning, but went astray in the
complications and ended up losing. Escoms Monzo,J-Perez Martinez,A (2000)
Cullera 2007 5.e4 g4 6.e2 e7 7.c3 0-0-0 8.d2 xe2 9.xe2 d4 10.c4 xc2+ 11.d1 xa1 12.d5 e6 13.a4 b8 14.b3 c6 15.e3 f6 16.b2 e5 17.c1 xb2+ 18.xb2 xd2+ 19.xa1 e5+ Facing mate in 2, white
resigned. Naranjo Espinosa,S (2047) -Rodrigues,A (2305) Dos Hermanas 2004 0-1 5.c3 g4 6.b5 b4+ 7.c3 xd1+ 8.xd1 0-0-0+ 9.e1 e7 10.e3 f6 11.e2 h6 12.bd4 xd4 13.cxd4 c5 14.dxc5 xc5 15.a3 he8 16.b4 f8 17.b2 b8 18.e5 e6 19.b5 e7 White has a decisive advantage. Scheerer,C (2426)
-Kurth,M (2055) Bargteheide 2008 5...g4 6.e2 f6 7.c3 0-0-0 8.d4
Evidently white hopes to trade pieces and reach an ending where he is a P up.
Better was 8.Nbd2 and 9.h3 with a slight advantage. d7 9.b5 ge7 10.d2 g6 Owing to white's passive opening play black has managed to get a lead in
development that is sufficient compensation for his P minus. 11.g3 After
this black gets the upper hand. White's K remains in the center and the
weakened light squares will prove to be a detriment. 11.0-0 was correct. b8 11...h3 White need not fear this because after 12.f3 g4 13.e4
his position is perfectly satisfactory. 12.e2 he8 is equal. 11...he8 12.a4 White is oblivious to any danger. 12.c2 keeps the balance. f5 13.0-0 b8 14.a4 12...a6 the immediate 12...Bh3 was also very good. 13.xc6 In keeping with his plan of exchanging pieces white makes a fatal
tactical mistake. Correct was 13.Be2 and black could lay claim to no more than
a slight advantage. xc6 14.e2 One would have expected 14.Bxc6, but
apparently white realized that exchange would have left his light squares far
too weak. It doesn't really matter though because he is still lost even with
the B on the board. The fact that white has traded off his only well placed
piece, the N on d4, has made a huge difference in the evalution of the
position. Black is now clearly winning. h3 Planning to play ...
Rxe3, a threat that white is oblivious to. 15.b4 15.c4 Guarding e3, but
falling victim to a different sacrifice. xg3 16.b3 xf2+ 17.xf2 g2+
mates in 4. 15...xe3 16.b5 16.fxe3 allows a pretty finish.
xg3+ 17.hxg3 xg3# 16...b8 17.b3 e6 18.bxa6 xa6 19.c4 c5
Good enough, but he missed an even prettier finish that involves another
sacrifice. 19...xe2+ 20.xe2 e4+ 21.e3 g4+ 22.e1 xh1+ 23.d2 a3+ 24.d5 xd5+ 25.c2 d1+ 26.b1 e4+ 27.a2 xc1 28.xd1 c2+ 29.b2 xb2# 20.b1 d3+ 21.d2 Guess what? Black offers another
sacrifice! f4+ 22.e3 22.gxf4 Black mates in b4+ 23.e1 g2 White can only shed material to delay the mate. 22...xe3+ 23.fxe3 e4 Winning, but missing a mate in 9 by offering up a R. 23...xe3 24.e1 24.xe3 g5+ 25.f3 g4+ 26.e3 e8+ 27.xd3 e4+ 28.d2 xe2# 24...xe2+
Another sacrifice should not be surprising. 25.xe2 b2+ 26.e1 d1+ 27.f2 f1+ 28.e3 b6+ 29.d2 d1+ 30.c2 f5+ 31.e4 xe4# 24.xd3 xe3+ 25.c2 xd3+ 26.b3 b6+ 27.a2 e6+ 28.a3 xc3+ Facing mate next move white
resigned. 0–1
No comments:
Post a Comment