Englund was also a noted problemist and an editor of Tidskrift för Schack (Journal of Chess) and its problem column. He played in most of the main Scandinavian events usually finishing in the middle of the pack.
He is remembered today or the Englund Gambit although it had been played before by the Australian Henry Charlick (1845-1916), who preferred 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 d6. The Latvian player Karl Behting (1867-1943) who is best known for the Latvian Gambit published his analysis of 1.d4 e5 in Deutsche Schachzeitung 1930.
In late 1932, Englund sponsored a thematic tournament held at Stockholm in which every game had to begin with 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Qd5. Perhaps because Behting's article had already been forgotten, or because Englund died shortly afterwards, when chess magazines reported his death they rarely failed to mention Englund's Gambit Tournament (won by Gosta Stoltz). So the name Englund Gambit stuck.
Author Matthew Lunn called the Gambit the second worst opening in chess (top honors belong to the Fred: 1.e4 f5). While it's not sound and playing it in serious games can't be recommended, blitz games are another matter because it can be trappy if white isn't careful.
The (vague) idea of the Englund is to avoid the closed d-Pawn openings and create an open game with tactical chances. GM Boris Avrukh writes that 1...e5 "seems to me the worst possible reply" to 1.d5 even if the great Paul Keres once tried it and in correspondence play a version of the gambit was frequently used by Henri Grob.
Way, way back, Ken Smith and John Hall published a book titled The Englund Gambit 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 and the Blackburne-Hartlaub Gambit Complex 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 d6.
Smith (1930-199) founded Chess Digest in 1962. It was a magazine aimed at teaching amateurs and Smith advocated playing gambit openings. He published tons of books, pamphlets and monographs on gambit openings which, of course, were mostly his own and they were highly recommended and heavily advertised in the magazine.
The problem with these gambit books was the same then as it is today...shoddy analysis and overblown promises of positive results if you played them. Of course, they wrote before chess engines, but even so, the analysis was often just plain wretched and their evaluations were equally often the exact opposite of what they claimed.
Unfortunately, even in this day of engines, authors are still peddling unsound gambits as a viable way of taking your opponent out of the books, making him think on his own and racking up points from the unsuspecting.
Seriously, if you want to play a gambit, play a sound, or reasonably sound, one!. Don't worry about the opponent being booked up! Most of us amateurs can't remember more than four book moves anyway.
Anonymous - Tartajubow
Result: 0-1
Site: Chess Hotel
Date: 2021
Englund Gambit
[...] 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Declining the gambit makes little sense - why allow black to strike at your center for free? 2...♘c6 the most popular response by far, threatening to win the pawn back immediately.
4.♗g3 h5 Going all out for the attack and why not?! Black's K-side is already badly compromised.
2...d6 The idea of this is that black gets a lead in development. 3.exd6 ♗xd6 4.♘f3 ♘c6 5.♘c3 and black has no lasting compensation for the P.
3.♗f4 White can transpose into the Nimzovich with 3. e4 Nxe5 4. f4 which also gives white a good chance for an advantage, but there is little reason to do so when he can simply defend the P.
3.f4 This is too weakening to be considered anything near a refutation. 3...d6 4.exd6 ♗xd6 5.g3 ♘f6 6.♘f3 O-O 7.♗g2 ♗g4 8.O-O ♕d7 9.♔h1 ♖ad8 10.♕e1 ♖fe8 11.♘bd2 Black is better. Anon-Tartajubow/ Chess Hotel 2020
3.♘f3 is best met by 3...♕e7 Threatening to regain the P at once and planning to meet 4.Bf4 with the disruptive 4...Qb4+. Thus, white's only way to maintain the extra P is to expose his Q with 4.Qd5, but in subsequent play black's Q can prove to be awkwardly placed on e7. 4.♕d5 f6 5.exf6 ♘xf6 6.♕b3 and white is better.
3...g5 Risky at best.
3...♕e7 The universally accepted move. 4.♘c3
4.♘f3 this is OK as long as white doesn't fall for the cheap trap. 4...♕b4+ 5.♕d2 ♕xb2 6.♕c3 ♗b4
(4.c3 ♘xe5 5.♘d2 ♘d3# Yes, this was actually played in a game.) 4...♕b4 5.♕d2 ♕xb2 6.♖b1 ♕a3 7.♘d5 ♕xa2 8.♖d1 ♔d8 9.♘f3 ♘ge7 10.e4 ♘xd5 11.exd5 white's lead in development soon proved decisive. Dydyshko,V (2506)-Vovk,O (2279)/Minsk 2015 4...♗g7 5.♘c3 ♘ge7 6.♕d2 ♘g6 7.O-O-O ♘gxe5 8.e4 h5 white is better. Damgaard,S-Petersen,K/Copenhagen 2000)
5.h3 Better was 5.h4 forcing black to close the K-side with 5...g4 5...♗g7 6.♘f3 g4
6...d6 is an interesting alternative. 7.exd6 gets really tricky after 7...g4 8.hxg4 ♗xb2 9.♘bd2 hxg4 (9...♗xa1 10.♕xa1 ♕f6 11.♕xf6 ♘xf6 12.g5 ♘d5 13.dxc7 and white is winning.) 10.♖xh8 (10.dxc7 ♕e7 11.♘h2 ♘f6 12.♖b1 ♗c3 with about equal chances.) 10...♗xh8 11.dxc7 ♕e7 12.♘g1 ♘f6 Here, too, the chances are about equal.
7.hxg4 hxg4 8.♖xh8 ♗xh8 9.♘h2 Instead of putting his N out of play it would have been better to have played 9.Nd4 9...♘xe5 Now that black has managed to regain his P he has equalized. 10.c3 d5 11.e3 ♗f5 12.♘d2 While the engines evaluate this position as equal, practically speaking white is quite cramped. 12...♘e7 13.♕b3 Should I let him have the b-Pawn? 13...♗e6 There seems to be no harm in allowing the capture of the b-Pawn. Best here was probably 13...N7-c6, but I wanted to give his something to think about as the threat is ...d4 14.♕a4+ Deciding against taking the P.
14.♕xb7 ♖b8 15.♕xa7 ♖xb2 Technically the position is equal, but black has the freer game.
14...♗d7 Black threatens to win material: Bd7xa4 15.♕b4 ♘7c6 Giving him another chance to play Qxb7. 16.♕f4
16.♕xb7 ♖b8 17.♕a6 ♖xb2 with a situation similar to before...black has the freer game.
16...f5 17.♕h6 White threatens to win material: Qh6xh8 (17.O-O-O ♕f6 18.♘b3 is roughly even.) 17...♗f6 White's piece can't move: h2 18.♕h5+ ♔f8 19.♘b3 ♕e7 Here white can play 20.Qh6+ but then he would find himself in an inferior position. Or, he can play the correct 20.Bf4 and keep the chances even. 20.♘d4 Instead he plays what looks to be a natural move, but it is tactically faulty.
20.♕h6+ ♗g7 21.♕h5 a5 22.O-O-O a4 23.♘d4 a3 24.b3 and the chances are roughly equal, but white's defense must be precise.
20.♗f4 ♕f7 Black allows a draw after 20...Kg7 21.Qh6+ 21.♕xf7+ ♔xf7 22.O-O-O ♖h8 Neither side can claim any attack and the result will come down to who plays the ending better.
20...♘xd4 21.cxd4
21.exd4 is out of the question because of 21...♘f3+ 22.♔d1 ♕e1+ 23.♔c2 ♗a4+ 24.b3 ♕d2+ 25.♔b1 ♘xd4 winning easily.
21...♕b4+ 22.♔d1 ♕xb2 23.♖c1 ♗a4+ This is the move white missed. Want to know a little secret? I didn't see it either after white played 23.Rc1. Facing mate in 2 white resigned.
23...♕xa2 was my intention when I played 20...Nxd4. 24.♗xe5 would have drawn.
24.♖xc7 would lose to 24...♗a4+ 25.♔e1 ♕b1+ 26.♔d2 ♕d1+ 27.♔c3 ♕c2+ 28.♔b4 a5+ mate next move.
(24.dxe5 ♗a4+ 25.♔e1 ♕b2 26.♖d1 ♕c3+ 27.♖d2 ♕c1+ draws) 24...♕a4+ 25.♔d2 ♕a5+ 26.♔c2 ♗a4+ 27.♔b2 ♕b4+ etc. Powered by Aquarium
No comments:
Post a Comment