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.
[Event "Madrid"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1944.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Marcote"]
[Black "Balbin"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A40"]
[Annotator "Stockfish 15"]
[PlyCount "56"]
[EventDate "1944.??.??"]
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... Nc6 {This is considered the Main Line.} 3. Nf3 Qe7 {Playable, but
probably way too passive is 3...Nge7} 4. Bf4 Qb4+ {This leads to some very
murky complications in which both players must be wary of falling into traps.}
5. Nc3 {This only leads to equality, but it's also tricky!} (5. Bd2 {is safe
and good for an advantage.} Qxb2 6. Nc3 Bb4 7. Rb1 Qa3 8. Nd5) 5... Qxf4 6. Nd5
Qe4 7. Nxc7+ Kd8 8. Nxa8 Nxe5 {with complications in an unbalanced material
situation.}) 3. exd6 Bxd6 (3... Qxd6 4. Qxd6 Bxd6 5. Nc3 Ne7 6. Nb5 O-O 7. Nxd6
cxd6 8. Nf3 Be6 9. Bf4 Nbc6 10. Bxd6 Rfd8 11. Bxe7 Nxe7 12. e3 Bg4 13. Be2 Bxf3
14. Bxf3 Nc6 15. Bxc6 bxc6 16. Ke2 Kf8 17. Rhd1 Ke7 18. Rxd8 {Genov,P (2438)
-Topak,E (2230) Ankara TUR 2010 1-0}) 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. e3 {This is much too
passive.} (5. Bg5 f6 6. Bh4 Bf5 7. e3 Nb4 8. Na3 Qe7 9. c3 Rd8 10. Nd4 Bg6 11.
Qa4+ c6 12. Rd1 Nxa2 13. Nc4 Bf7 14. Nxd6+ Qxd6 15. Be2 Qc5 16. O-O Ne7 17. Ra1
b5 18. Qa5 Qb6 19. Rxa2 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 Bg4 6. Be2 Qe7 7. Nc3 O-O-O 8. Nd2 Bxe2 9. Qxe2 Nd4 10.
Qc4 Nxc2+ 11. Kd1 Nxa1 12. Nd5 Qe6 13. Qa4 Kb8 14. b3 c6 15. Ne3 Nf6 16. Bb2
Be5 17. Kc1 Bxb2+ 18. Kxb2 Rxd2+ 19. Kxa1 Qe5+ {Facing mate in 2, white
resigned. Naranjo Espinosa,S (2047) -Rodrigues,A (2305) Dos Hermanas 2004 0-1})
(5. Nc3 Bg4 6. Nb5 Bb4+ 7. c3 Qxd1+ 8. Kxd1 O-O-O+ 9. Ke1 Be7 10. e3 Nf6 11.
Be2 h6 12. Nbd4 Nxd4 13. cxd4 c5 14. dxc5 Bxc5 15. a3 Rhe8 16. b4 Bf8 17. Bb2
Kb8 18. Ne5 Be6 19. Bb5 Re7 {White has a decisive advantage. Scheerer,C (2426)
-Kurth,M (2055) Bargteheide 2008}) 5... Bg4 6. Be2 Qf6 7. c3 O-O-O 8. Nd4 {
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.} Bd7 9. Bb5 Nge7 10. Nd2
Qg6 {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. O-O {was correct.}
Kb8 (11... Bh3 {White need not fear this because after} 12. Qf3 Bg4 13. Qe4 {
his position is perfectly satisfactory.}) 12. Qe2 Rhe8 {is equal.}) 11... Rhe8
12. a4 {White is oblivious to any danger.} (12. Qc2 {keeps the balance.} f5 13.
O-O Kb8 14. a4) 12... a6 {the immediate 12...Bh3 was also very good.} 13. Nxc6
{[%mdl 8192] 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.} Nxc6 14. Be2 {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.} Bh3 {[%cal Oe8e3] Planning to play ...
Rxe3, a threat that white is oblivious to.} 15. b4 (15. Nc4 {Guarding e3, but
falling victim to a different sacrifice.} Bxg3 16. Qb3 Bxf2+ 17. Kxf2 Qg2+ {
mates in 4.}) 15... Rxe3 {[%mdl 512]} 16. b5 (16. fxe3 {allows a pretty finish.
} Qxg3+ 17. hxg3 Bxg3#) 16... Nb8 17. Qb3 Re6 18. bxa6 Nxa6 19. Nc4 Nc5 {
Good enough, but he missed an even prettier finish that involves another
sacrifice.} (19... Rxe2+ {[%mdl 512]} 20. Kxe2 Qe4+ 21. Ne3 Bg4+ 22. Ke1 Qxh1+
23. Kd2 Ba3+ 24. Qd5 Rxd5+ 25. Kc2 Bd1+ 26. Kb1 Qe4+ 27. Ka2 Bxc1 28. Nxd1 Qc2+
29. Nb2 Qxb2#) 20. Qb1 Nd3+ 21. Kd2 {Guess what? Black offers another
sacrifice!} Bf4+ {[%mdl 512]} 22. Ne3 (22. gxf4 {Black mates in} Nb4+ 23. Ke1
Qg2 {White can only shed material to delay the mate.}) 22... Bxe3+ 23. fxe3 Qe4
{Winning, but missing a mate in 9 by offering up a R.} (23... Rxe3 24. Re1 (24.
Kxe3 Qg5+ 25. Kf3 Qg4+ 26. Ke3 Re8+ 27. Kxd3 Qe4+ 28. Kd2 Qxe2#) 24... Rxe2+ {
Another sacrifice should not be surprising.} 25. Rxe2 Nb2+ 26. Ke1 Rd1+ 27. Kf2
Rf1+ 28. Ke3 Qb6+ 29. Kd2 Rd1+ 30. Kc2 Bf5+ 31. Re4 Bxe4#) 24. Bxd3 Qxe3+ 25.
Kc2 Qxd3+ 26. Kb3 Rb6+ 27. Ka2 Be6+ 28. Ka3 Qxc3+ {Facing mate next move white
resigned.} 0-1
No comments:
Post a Comment