Falkbeer

Having just played a game (and won) with the Falkbeer, can anyone offer advice on how to defend?

Here is the game:
e4 e5
f4 d5
fxe5? Qh4+
Ke2 Qxe4+
Kf2 Bc5+
Kg3 Qxe5+
Kf3 Nf6

An extremely quick victory, or it would have been without time controls of possible hour to move... clearly fxe5 is out of the question. Thanks for your advice! 🙂

Originally posted by Bifrost
Having just played a game (and won) with the Falkbeer, can anyone offer advice on how to defend?

Here is the game:
e4 e5
f4 d5
fxe5? Qh4+
Ke2 Qxe4+
Kf2 Bc5+
Kg3 Qxe5+
Kf3 Nf6

An extremely quick victory, or it would have been without time controls of possible hour to move... clearly fxe5 is out of the question. Thanks for your advice! 🙂

Originally posted by cmsMaster
3.exd5 is much better...look you annotated it yourself.

Originally posted by Bifrost
Annotated it? Sorry, I don't understand. After exd5, what then? Nf6? c6? Qxd5? 😕 Good start with advice, but please continue. Elaborate. 😉

It's out of print, so I'm sure no-one will mind!

The King's Gambit - A modern view of a swashbuckling opening
Neil McDonald:
(p.127)
Falkbeer Counter-Gambit
(2...d5 3.exd5...e4)


1.e4...e5 2.f4...d5 3.exd5...e4

"In the Falkbeer Black sacrifices a pawn to seize space in the centre and deprive White of the important developing move Nf3. However, the e4-pawn, the keystone of Black's strategy, can be eliminated with 4.d3! And although Black then achieves free development for his pieces, the modern verdict is that White has good winning chances. Hence the Falkbeer has been something of a museum piece at the highest levels of chess and we can only give two illustrative games in this chapter. Nevertheless, perhaps it is time for a rehabilitation of this counter-gambit, since Onischuk's play in Game 46 challenges the theoretical assessment of the main line."
cont...

It sucks when you play it against me...but then again so do all the other openings when you play them against me. 😛


EDIT: when I become a famous GM...I will say this at an appropriate time so that I can have a famous quote to be remembered by. 😵

...cont

The King's Gambit - A modern view of a swashbuckling opening
Neil McDonald:
(p.127/128)

"Game 46
Jonkman-Onischuk
Hamburg 1992

1.e4...e5 2.f4...d5 3.exd5...e4 4.d3!...Nf6

This is certainly better than 4...exd3 5.Bxd3...Qxd5 6.Nc3, when 6...Qe6+ (if 6...Qxg2 7.Be4...Qg4 8.Qxg4...Bxg4 9.Bxb7 wins for White. A safer-looking alternative is 6...Qd8, but White still builds up a dangerous initiative with 7.Nf3...Nf6 8.Qe2+! - this is better than 8.0-0...Bc5+ - 8...Be7 9.Be3...0-0 10.0-0-0, threatening to take on h7)
7.Nge2...Nh6 8.f5!...Nxf5 9.0-0...Ne3 10.Bxe3...Qxe3+ 11.Kh1...Bd6 12.Nf4...0-0 13.Qh5...g6 14.Nxg6! gave White a winning attack in Murey-Nikitin, USSR 1970. Also good is 5.Qxd3, holding on to the extra pawn.
Black's other possibility is 4...Qxd5 5.Qe2...Nf6 and now:


a) Gallagher's prefernce is for 6.Nd2!? However, in the variation 6...Bg4 7.Ngf3...Bxf3 8.gxf3...e3 9.Ne4...Be7 10.Bxe3...0-0!? 11.Bg2...Nc6 12.0-0 (as recommended by Keres) it is not clear how much the extra pawn is worth after say 12...Nh5 13.Qd2...f5!? 14.Ng3...Nf6. The white bishop on g2 looks very miserable.
b) Perhaps 6.Nc3 is better. Play could go 6...Bb4 (forced) 7.Bd2...Bxc3 8.Bxc3...Bg4 (again there is little choice, as White planned 9.Bxf6) 9.dxe4...Qxe4 10.Qxe4+...Nxe4 11.Bxg7...Rg8 12.Bd3!...Nc5. If now 13.Bc3 then 13...Nxd3+ 14.cxd3...Nc6, intending 18...0-0-0, is unclear or perhaps better for Black. So White should play 13.Bf6! to stop Black castling. Then after 13...Nxd3+ 14.cxd3...Nc6 15.h3!...Bf5 16.g4 (returning the extra pawn to speed his development) 16...Bxd3 17.0-0-0 White will have a virtually decisive initiative againt the Black king, which is trapped in the centre. For example, 17...Rg6 18.g5; or 17...Be4 18.Re1; or finally 17...Nb4 18.a3...Be4 19Rh2...Nd3+ 20.Kd2 and Black finds himself in a tangle."

cont...

...cont

The King's Gambit - A modern view of a swashbuckling opening
Neil McDonald:
(p.128)

"dxe4...Nxe4 6.Nf3


[i]The alternative 6Be3 is examined in Game 47.
6...Bc5 7.Qe2...Bf5
Black's two other sharp ideas have been refuted:
a) 7...Bxf2+? 8.Kd1...Qxd5 9.Nfd2!...f5 10.Nc3...Qd4 11.Ncxe4...fxe4 12.c3...Qe3 13.Qh5+...Kf8 14.Bc4...Qxf4 15.Qd5, when the double threat of 16.Qd8 mate and 16.Nxe4 was decisive in Réti-Breyer, 1920.
b) 7...0-0? 8.Qxe4...Re8 9.Ne5...f6 10.Bd3...g6 11.Qc4! leaves White a pawn up after 11...Bd6 (or else 12.d6+ will be strong) 12.0-0...fxe5 13.Nc3 etc.
Other moves can be met by normal development, e.g 7...Qe7 8.Be3...Nd7 9.Nbd2 etc.
8.Nc3!
Simple development frustrates Black's plans. The greedy 8.g4? allowed Black a devastating attack after 8...0-0 9.gxf5...Re8 in Spielmann-Tarrasch, Ostrau 1923.
8...Qe7 9.Be3...Nxc3"

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
It's out of print, so I'm sure no-one will mind!

The King's Gambit - A modern view of a swashbuckling opening
Neil McDonald:
(p.127)
[b]Falkbeer Counter-Gambit
(2...d5 3.exd5...e4)
[fen]rnbqkbnr/ppp2ppp/8/3P4/4pP2/8/PPPP2PP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1[/fen]

1.e4...e5 2.f4...d5 3.exd5...e4

"In the Falkbeer Black sacrifices a pawn to k's play in Game 46 challenges the theoretical assessment of the main line."
cont...[/b]

Originally posted by adam warlock
But black can play 3. ... c6!? and from then on things can get really wild.

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
That's the Nimzowitsch Counter Gambit where the line
[b]1.e4...e5 2.f4...d5 3.exd5...c6!? 4.Nc3...exf4 5.Nf3...Bd6 6.d4...Ne7 7.dxc6...Nbxc6 8.Bc4...0-0 9.0-0...Bg4 10.Ne4
Is common sense & looks ok for both.

[fen]r2q1rk1/pp2nppp/2nb4/8/2BPNpb1/5N2/PPP3PP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 1[/fen][/b]

Originally posted by adam warlock
Why not 5. ... Bc5 ?

Edit: forget about it. It just loses a tempo to d4.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Bc5 is playable I think...Bc5 and if d4 then Bxf3.

Originally posted by adam warlock
But you don't have Bxf3.

Originally posted by tomtom232
hmmm...then there isn't a knight on f3? in that case I would play Bxd4. 😛

But if there is no bishop on g4 then you're SOL.