Any good online articles on the Scotch Gambit? I’d had a few interesting games over the years, but wanted to find out a bit more about its ins and outs.
The first time I played it, I got smoked really bad. But the 2nd time I came across it… some months later, it turned into a rather interesting game that I eventually won.
I don’t have the score of that anymore. A basic rundown is that I took 2 pawn early in the game, but left the pawn hanging for several moves. (Neither me or the white player would exchange). After about another 5 moves, I felt I’d sufficiently shored up my position, and took the b2 pawn. My opponent quickly went into offensive overdrive. It was a very lively game indeed. Essentially he couldn’t break through and eventually traded off a piece for 2 pawns in front of my king, but he was always 1 tempo too late for any serious threats. After a while (quite awhile if I recall), his offense sputtered out, and his pieces were all over the board, where’s my pieces were well coordinated from rebuffing a withering attack, and promptly started to gobble up his position, either with taking pawns or pieces, or getting positive positional advantages.
For a long time I couldn’t figure out which opening it was, but a recent article in Chess Life finally solved that mystery when it highlighted a Scotch Gambit game.
I don’t really want to buy an entire book on the subject, but a decent article going over a game or two would be sufficient.
The book, “An Opening Repertoire for an Attacking Player,” by Raymond Keene has extensive analysis on the Scotch Gambit and transpositions to the Two Knights Defense. The Dangerous Weapons series also has book with Scotch Gambit lines in it. From Black’s point of view, “Play the Open Game for Black,” by Gary Lane has many different defensive tries.
Have analyzed this line a lot over the years, especially with several of my students, but only got to play it a couple of times, as most of my opponents did not play Open games. The positions with the best chances for equality or counterattack lay within the Two Knights Defense transpositions. The regular lines give White free rein to attack because of his lead in development. Even if there is a complicated defensive block to White’s ambitions, why should Black play on White’s field and let him have all of the fun? It is too easy for Black to become confused and make mistakes in the main line. The extra pawn(s) are not worth it.
The article from Chesscafe was interesting. I think if I go against the gambit in the future, I’d probably play it similar to the first time I won as black. Essentially take the c3 pawn, then develop my pieces. If the opponent trades off the pawn, no biggie, and if he lets it hang there too long, I’ll eventually take the b2 pawn, but only after I decided there isn’t much development left to do, other than deciding if I can safely take the b2 pawn.
Really depends on what the opponent does: if I want to let him try a diagonal assault with 2 bishops or not. The more amateurish games on chesscafe seemed to revolve around taking the b2 pawn far too early in the game. The Tim Harding game was interesting.
A line that’s worked fine for me (as Black) is 1 e4 e5, 2 Nf3 Nc6, 3 d4 exd4, 4 Bc4 Bc5, 5 c3 d6, 6 cxd4 Bb6, 7 h3 (not forced, but they usually play this) Nf6, 8 Nc3 0-0 (or 8 … Nxe4 immediately), 9 0-0 Nxe4, 10 Nxe4 d5, etc.
