Still another Englund Gambit trap

I have previously written several posts about traps in the Englund Gambit (1.d4 e5? or, to be charitable, 1.d4 e5?!). There are two "official" refutations of the main line of the gambit: after 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7, one begins with 4.Bf4 (or 4.Bg5) Qb4+ 5.Bd2 Qxc3 6.Nc3!, the other with 4.Qd5. As I've previously noted, indiscriminately combining the two can lead to disaster. Below is another instance of this. After 5.Bg5?? (5.Nc3!) Qb4+!, White is losing after either 6.Bd2 Qxb2 7.Bc3 Bb4, as in the game, or 6.Qd2 Qxb2 7.Qc3 Bb4. The final position is very reminiscent of that arising after the classic Englund trap, 4.Bf4 Qb4+ 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Bc3?? Bb4! 7.Qd2 Bxc3 8.Qxc3 Qc1#.

A trap in the King's Indian?

The best-scoring line against the King's Indian Defense is the flexible 5.h3! 0-0 6.Bg5! In Mega Database 2013, White scores a gaudy 64.6% in 2938 games! That is better than he does against garbage like the Englund Gambit, where he only scores 57.7% in 1280 games in the main line (1.d4 e5? 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7) - although White does get 66.8% with 4.Qd5!, almost forcing Black to make his pawn sac permanent with 4...f6, when White's best-scoring line is 5.exf6 Nxf6 6.Qb3 d5 7.Bg5! (82.7%, but with a tiny sample size - only 27 games). But I digress.

The 5.h3 0-0 6.Bg5 line also sets a little trap: Black's most natural and thematic move, 6...e5, is here a blunder, dropping a pawn to 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.Qxd8 Rxd8 9.Nd5! GM Yury Shulman in his lecture at the North Shore Chess Center last year discussed a 1996 game in which he fell into this trap. Though disgusted with himself, he played on as though nothing had happened. He went on to roll his 2460-rated opponent like a joint, as NM Marvin Dandridge would say:

Where did White go wrong? According to Houdini 3, the natural 11.Nxc7 was already a small inaccuracy, and 12.Nd5 a more serious one. After 12...h6! White had to surrender his dark-squared bishop for Black's knight. This is a big positional concession, as Black's unopposed dark-squared bishop will be a holy terror once it sets up camp on c5. Black already had sufficient compensation for his accidentally sacrificed pawn, and White's game went downhill from there. (Note that all numerical assessments in this and the following game are by Houdini 3.)

How should White play? As I say, Houdini says that 11.Nxc7 is already a little inaccurate. But 11.0-0-0, White's most successful move (3-0 in Mega 2013), is actually a blunder. As I indicate in my notes to the above game, Houdini then analyzes 10...Rf8 11. Nxc7 Nxe4! as leading to equality. White's best move is instead 11.Rd1!, threatening to win a piece with 12.Nxf6+. Note that unlike the similar 11.0-0-0 it does not leave f2 vulnerable to a knight fork. After 11.Rd1!, Black must lose a tempo with 11...Rf8, and now 12.Nxc7 Rb8 13.f3! leaves White with an advantage that Houdini assesses as +1.32.

This line is seen in the following game. Incidentally, the note to Black's 9th move is very interesting. Houdini considers 9...Nbd7, dropping the c-pawn and leading to a position where White has a +1.32 advantage, inferior to surrendering the exchange with either 9...Nxd5 10.Bxd8 Nf6 (+0.94) or 9...Rxd5 10.cxd5 Ne4 (+1.09).

Most absurd Internet game yet

It turns out that my fourth move is a novelty, deviating from the more subtle 4...Bd6 of Krebs-Diemer, Germany 1974 (0-1, 13). Diemer (1908-90), a Nazi, shares billing credit for the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit and wrote the 1957 book "Playing for Mate From the First Move."

Yet another trap in the Englund Gambit

The Englund Gambit (1.d4 e5?) is one of the weakest responses to 1.d4. It is nonetheless very trappy and requires exact play from White. One of White's strongest responses is 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Qd5! Black is likely, sooner or later, to have to sac a pawn with ...f6, for probably inadequate compensation. See Stefan Bücker's article Visiting Planet Englund for more details. Much weaker, however, is the immediate 3.Qd5, which tends to lead to disaster after 3...f6! Here Black, who has not had to misplace the queen with ...Qe7, gets strong compensation. Below is an example. After 7...Nd4, White was already defenseless against the threats to his queen and c2, e.g. 8.Qd3 Bf5; 8.Qa4+ b5; or 8.Qe3+ Ne4. White's choice, 8.Qc3, allowed a simple tactical shot, winning White's queen for just one minor piece.

Another trap in the Englund Gambit

In the weak but trappy Englund Gambit, after 1.d4 e5? 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7, White's two best moves are 4.Bf4! and 4.Qd5! In either case, however, White must know what he/she is doing. As the game below shows, combining the two ideas can be disastrous. On White's fifth move, correct was 5.Nc3! Bb7 6.Bg5, forcing Black to make his pawn sac permanent with 6...f6 7.exf6 Nxf6. Instead, 5.Bf4?? lost material to 5...Qb4+!, forking White's bishop and b-pawn. If White had responded with 6.Qd2 Qxb2 7.Qc3, 7...Bb4 would win the queen for starters. In the final position, White loses either his rook (after 9.Nxc3 Qxa1+) or king (after 9.Qxc3 Qc1#).

Note that the player of the White pieces reportedly died three years ago. Apparently, as with Mark Twain (and Elvis?), the rumors of his death have been greatly exaggerated. Or perhaps there is life, and Internet access, after death.

A nasty trap

The Englund Gambit, 1...e5?!, is a very dubious opening, but it contains one very nasty little trap. I think almost every 1.d4 player falls into it at least once - hopefully only in a blitz game. White's first five moves are fine, arguably the strongest moves on the board. 6.Bc3?? also looks great, but loses horribly. After 6...Bb4!, White loses at least a piece, for example 7.Bxb4 Nxb4!, threatening both 8...Qxa1 and 8...Nxc2+. Instead of 6.Bc3??, correct is 6.Nc3! Bb4 (6...Nb4 7.Nd4 c6 8.a4! leaves Black's queen in trouble) 7.Rb1 Qa3 and now 8.Nd5 or 8.Rb3 Qa5 9.a3 leaves Black with a very difficult game.