Page 1 l Page 2

Critical is 11.Bxg8 Rxg8 12.gxf3 Qd7 13.f4 (13.Kg2 b6 14.Be3, when Black is still well-placed after 14...g5 or 14...Re8) 13...Qg4+ 14.Kh1 Qf3+ 15.Kg1 Re8! 16.Re1. Here M&V give a game with 16...g5 17.Re3, eventually unclear. A huge improvement that I gave in our book is 16...Qg4+! 17.Kh1 g5! 18.f5 (18.Qd1 Rxe4!) 18...Rxe4, with a winning game.

11...Ne5 12.Bxg8 Rxg8

M&V give 3 densely packed pages about this line, with subvariations labeled all the way out to “B2b2233222”! Fortunately I only have to follow my recommended one. The next few moves are best:

13.f4 Nf3+ 14.Kg2 Nh4+ 15.Kh1

I agree with M&V that 15.Kg3 g5 isn't good, but they give the bare note "15.Kh3 Ng6 =+", which I ignored only just now analyzed out to an unclear position after 16.f3! followed by f5.

15...Qd7

16.f5

M&K suggest that Black is “okay” after 16.f5 (I think that Black actually stands better), so they say White should look more carefully into 16.c4. I agree, and according to my new analysis both of our books underestimate this move:

1) 16...Re8 works out very nicely for White, contrary our judgments, because of 17.f3! Qh3 (17...b6 18.f5 Qf7 19.Rg1) 18.Rf2 b6 19.Bd2 Qd7, and they quote a game that was drawn at this point, but 20.Rg1 is hard to meet. But 19...Ng6 is also unconvincing after 20.Rg1 Qh5 21.Rfg2 with a clear advantage for White;

2) 16...g5!? 17.f5! (K&M give 17.f3 gxf4 18.Bxf4 Rg2 19.Rg1 Qh3 20.Bg3 “unclear” -K+V, but White looks better; here a fascinating line is 17.f3 Qh3 18.Rf2 g4! with the idea 19.Qxb7 g3! 20.Qxa8+ Ke7 21.Qxg8 gxf2 22.Qg7+, =) 17...Qc6 18.f3 Re8 (they call this  “unclear”) 19.Rf2! Ke7 20.Bb2 Kd7 21.Rd1 Kc8 22.Qb5! and White is just better;

3) 16...Qg4 (best, I think, but not for any reasons shown before) 17.Qg3 and:

3.a) 17...Qe2?! 18.Be3, when they quote “unclear – Botterill”. But again, after the best move 18...Ng6, both of us should go further: White has a real advantage after 19.f5! Ne5! (19...Ne7 20.c5 d5 21.Rae1) 20.c5! Qg4 21.Qxg4 Nxg4 22.Bf4 dxc5 23.f3;

3.b) 17...Qf3+! may save the day: 18.Qxf3 Nxf3 19.Rb1 (19.Kg2 Nd4 20.Rd1 Ne2!? 21.Bd2 Kf7) 19...b6 20.Rb3 Nd4 21.Rh3 h6 22.Bb2 Ne6 and Black should be fine. 

[Perhaps it also should have been mentioned that 16.Rg1 Qc6! is very strong, for example, 17.Qd5 Qxd5 18.exd5 Re8 etc.]

16...Qc6 17.f3 Re8

Now everything is okay for Black.

18.Qc2

K&M say "?!" and by implication they like 18.Bg5, but then 18...Rxe4 19.Bxh4 Rxh4 20.Rae1 Rh6 or 20...Rc4 is very strong.

18...g5 19.fxg6 Nxg6 etc. and Black is better.

III Goering Gambit Declined

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3

Here one of our recommended lines is

4...Nge7

which is given only the shortest attention in M+V. We wanted something simple and safe. There are naturally options, but the most critical idea is

5.Bc4 d5 6.exd5 Nxd5

Black seems to attain easy play:

7.0–0

I also talk about 7.Qb3, leading to a good game for Black. After 7.0-0, I proposed 7...Bg4?!, which is too committal. But I also suggested the same move that M&V give:

7...Be7

which should be equal. After

8.Qb3

my suggestion was 8...Be6!, a move not mentioned by M&V; they give 8...Na5 leading to a position slightly better for White. The play can go 9.Nxd4 (9.Qxb7 Na5 10.Bb5+ Kf8!--threatening ...Rb8 – 11.Qa6 c5, now threatening ...Bc8 – Black has good play) 9...Nxd4 10.cxd4 0–0, =, since 11.Qxb7 Rb8 12.Qxa7 Ra8 draws.

I actually spend more space on 5.cxd4 d5 6.e5 Bg4, with Black again coming out well.

IV Danish Declined

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 Ne7 was our simple solution, as with the Goering Declined above. There are several White moves, but M&V only deal with these:

1) We give 4.Nf3 d5 5.Qxd4 Nbc6 6.Bb5 Be6 (6...Bd7 7.Qe3 dxe4 8.Qxe4 a6) 7.Ng5?! (M&V quote our book and correctly say that 7.exd5 Qxd5, which we don't assess, is equal after 8.Qxd5 Bxd5 9.Nbd2. A good point) 7...a6 8.Nxe6 fxe6 9.Bxc6 Nxc6 10.Qe3 Be7;

2) 4.cxd4 d5 5.e5 (M&V make the interesting suggestion 5.Nc3 dxe4 6.Bc4 Nf5 7.Nge2, which must be a better try) 5...Nf5 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Nf3 0-0 8.Bd3 Nc6 9.Ne2 f6, and instead of the move Voight played in his game, 10.a3?, Mueller and Voigt suggest 10.0-0, =.

V Danish Accepted B

Another recommended Danish Gambit line is 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2 d5 6.Bxd5 Bb4+!

Here 6...Nf6 7.Bxf7+ leads to a famous ending that M&V exhaustively analyze

7.Nd2

But instead of the normal 7...Bxd2+, they don't mention a move of mine that is not only in our recent book but in our 1995 BOOK OF BUSTS:

7...Kf8!

This avoid Qa4+ and covers g7. We give as sample lines

8.Ngf3

Or 8.Ne2 Nf6;8.Qf3 Bxd2+ 9.Kxd2 Be6.

8...Nf6 9.Qb3 Nxd5 10.exd5 Qe7+ 11.Kf1 Na6 12.Re1 Qd8 and White lacks compensation.

Also after 6...Bb4+, there's 7.Nc3 Bxc3+ 8.Bxc3 Nf6 9.Qf3, the main continuation of both of our books is 9...Nxd5, but we also give the straightforward move 9...0–0, 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.Qxf6 gxf6 12.Nf3 Na6! intending moves like ...c6 and ...Nc5, or 10.Ne2 c6 11.Bb3 a5 12.0–0 a4 13.Bc2 Bg4 14.Qe3 Qe7. 9...0-0 should at least be mentioned.

VI Scotch Gambit

In the Scotch Gambit after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4, 4...Bb4+!? is one of our two suggestions, normally met by  5.c3 dxc3, and:

1) 6.0–0 Qf6!? 7.e5 (Other tries are 7.Bg5 Qg6 8.Nxc3 Bxc3 9.bxc3 Nge7; and 7.Nxc3 Bxc3 8.bxc3 Nge7 intending ...d6 and ...0–0) 7...cxb2!? 8.Bxb2 Qf4 (this fairly obvious move is not given in M+V, they give 8...Qg6, which is not to say which is better, but I like 8...Qf4) and Black intends 9.Qb3 Nge7 or 9.e6 f6.

2) 6.bxc3 Qf6!? 7.0–0 Be7 (A move not given by M+V, who say 6...Qf6 “?!” and don't discuss any other White 7th moves) and we analyze 8.Ng5 Ne5 9.Bb3 h6 10.f4 hxg5 11.fxe5 Qxe5 12.Bxf7+ Kd8 13.h3 Schilpper-Sternberg, Crailsheim 1995, when winning was 13...Rxh3!; intending 14.gxh3 Qg3+ 15.Kh1 Qxh3+ 16.Kg1 Bc5+ etc., and 8.Re1 d6 9.Qb3 (9.Bg5 Qg6), with both 9...Nh6!? intending 10.Bxh6 gxh6 11.Na3 0–0 += and 9...Qg6!? 10.e5 dxe5 11.Nxe5 Nxe5 12.Rxe5 Bd7.

In general, Mueller and Voigt have completed an amazing task. If the lines above are typical, however, I think that they could have been generally more critical. Also, by departed from existing theory more often, they might have gotten closer to the truth. In any case, if you are an aficionado of or are interested in any of the Danish, Scotch, Goering or Urusov Gambits, get this book!

Click to see SILMAN'S REVIEW OF DANISH DYNAMITE.

Page 1 l Page 2