The Albin Counter Gambit Discussion

Calling something “junk” does not imply a lack of respect for the player. The major league pitcher Wilbur Wood won a lot of games with his “junk” repertoire; Morozevich and Nakamura are geniuses.

I would find chess much more boring if folks only played main lines. Obviously second-best moves may pose difficult problems. But so do objectively better moves!

Fill in the blanks and name the author (people of my generation will have an unfair advantage, as it’s from a book that most of us owned 30+ years ago…)

“Your only task in the opening is to ***** a ******** ****** ****”

LOL, maybe an unfair advantage in a sense, but as a Navy shipmate used to quip: “I’ve already forgotten more stuff, this morning… than YOU have ever known!”
So this is in the same category for me, perhaps. (In that I think I know the quote, but can’t at all recall the book or author. Maybe I just heard it repeated fairly frequently.) Anyway, here goes - “Your only task in the opening is to reach a playable middle game.” Half-credit, your Honor? :unamused: :laughing:

Full credit, but no bonus points. :smiley:

Lajos Portisch, from Evans et al., How to Open a Chess Game.

Or what about 9. Bxb4 Qxb4+ 10. Qd2 . b4 is an offside square for Black’s queen here. White is a pawn up, and what does Black have?

White has to cover some annoying weaknesses after 10…Ng4. But this seems like the best try suggested so far in the 4.e4 line, and a pawn ahead is worth…

I’ve been surprised how much value there is in surprise. I was playing in a closed state championship in the 80s and after losing a game I was told that most of my remaining opponents were using another local master to help prepare for me. The master knew my openings quite well and they had formed a study group. I had won the closed four times in a row and they didn’t want to see me do it a fifth time. I didn’t have time to come up with all new openings. However, I’d helped an A player develop a total gambit (including the Albin) repetiore. I had worked with him on it for years and used it in my speed chess games so I decided to try that. I still can’t believe how well it worked. In every game, I played a dubious gambit and I won with far more ease than I had ever won any championship. I won all of my remaining games. One opponent literally sighed and wasted an hour on his clock after I played e5.

I saw Van Wely lose a game to Beliavsky at the Minnesota Tournament and then sure enough a several months later Topalov goes for the exact same type of position Beliavsky got but from an entirely different opening. Van Wely could have won the first game easily by leaving the queens on the board and that’s what he did in the second came. That is, Van Wely did his homework and figured out why he lost. Topalov also did his homework. I’m certain he knew he was playing a losing move but he is willing to risk it if he feels that his opponent will be unable to find the best moves. Topalov has said he is willing to risk losing if that means putting maximal pressure on his opponent.

That’s the long way of saying that I believe it’s sometimes completely appropriate to play the Albin, Smith-Morra or whatever. It depends on you’re opponent and their state of mind and tendencies.

cool site!

studimonetari.org/edg/albincg.html

OK, I can’t resist re-opening this discussion, because I remain intrigued by this opening - especially against the solid-but-somewhat predictable 1.d4 players in my club.

While valid questions were raised previously here, I still maintain that there are a number of possibilities (BEYOND seeing White stumble into the 4.e3 morass) that Black can enjoy later in the opening, and into the middle game. And that “wedge pawn” can indeed be a significant thorn that impedes White’s development, in several ways - well into the game.

For me, a win the other night against a solid player (see below) was quite gratifying, and resulted directly from some study of the ACG and its interesting effects. (I have deleted my friend/opponent’s name here.)

[Event “WCCC Champs - Reserve (Part 2)”]
[Site “?”]
[Date “2010.04.08”]
[Round “4”]
[White “”]
[Black “Griffin, Tom”]
[Result “0-1”]
[ECO “D06”]
[WhiteElo “1581”]
[BlackElo “1439”]
[Annotator “Griffin,Tom”]
[PlyCount “58”]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5!? 3. dxe5 d4 {Thematic of the Albin Counter Gambit. Black’s d-pawn creates difficulties for much of the game.} 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. g3 Bf5 6. a3 f6!? {Gains a tempo in development. Alternatively, 6…Nge7 more systematically pursues retrieval of the pawn and equality.} (6… Nge7 7. Bg2 Ng6 8. O-O Qd7 9. Qa4 Ngxe5 10. Rd1) 7. exf6 Nxf6 8. Bg2 Qd7 {This move has several purposes: supports the Knight (c6) and the Bishop (f5), eventually enabling Bh3; opens up the possibility of 0-0-0, doubling up on the half-open d-file; continues support of Black’s d-pawn.} 9. Bd2?! {Impedes the remaining outlet for the QN.} h5! {Building a concerted threat against Black’s
Kingside.} 10. O-O Bh3 11. Re1 (11. Bh1 Bxf1 12. Qxf1 O-O-O 13. b4 Re8 14. b5 Ne5 15. Nxe5 Rxe5 16. Bf4 - might have been worth a try) 11… Bxg2 12. Kxg2 h4 13. e4? hxg3 14. fxg3 Qh3+ 15. Kf2? Ng4+! 16. Ke2 Qg2+ 17. Kd3 Nf2+ 18. Kc2 d3+ (18… Nxd1 19. Rxd1 Qxf3) 19. Kc1 Nxd1 20. Nh4! Rxh4 {Seemed the best option to simplify, while maintaining the initiative.} 21. gxh4 Nxb2?! {The objective here was to immobilize White’s remaining Bishop and Knight - but more efficient would have been an immediate 21… Nd4 22. Nc3 (22. Rxd1 Nb3#) (22. Kxd1 Qf3+ 23. Re2 Qxe2+ 24. Kc1 Nb3#) 22… Nxc3 23. bxc3 Nb3+ 24. Kb1 Qxd2 25. Ra2 Qxe1+ 26. Kb2 Qd1 27. e5 Qc2#)} 22. Kxb2 Nd4{Threatening a couple simplifying (or worse) forks.} 23. Re3 {Perhaps the best option - yielding back the Exchange, but finally eliminating the terrible d-pawn.} Nc2 24. Rxd3 (24. Rg3 Qxe4 25. Ra2 Qxc4 26. Nc3 O-O-O) 24… Nxa1 25. Kxa1 Rd8 {Again forcing simplification.} 26. Rb3 Rxd2 27. Nxd2 Qxd2 28. Rb2 Qc3 29. Kb1 Qd3+ (29… Bxa3 30. Rxb7 Qc1+ 31. Ka2 Bc5 32. e5 Qxc4+) 0-1

d4 d5
c4 e5
dxe d4
e4 f6 immediately

While White started to lose the thread on move 9, you played a model game. Well done!

Yes a very nicely played game. I don’t agree though with 5. … Bf5 as in my opinion takes play away from black as Black can harass White more with a Knight there. The Ng6 idea in the g3 variation isn’t as strong. Black has to be careful with that nasty bishop on g2. I’m more preferential to Bg4. White is forced to eventually give back the gambit pawn if he wants to maintain the g2 bishop. I have to find my game that I played last year (which Bill was referring to before). White didn’t realize in the final position prior to accepting my draw bluff that he stood better (in my opinion) but it wasn’t clear for the class player.

Bill and Sevan, thanks for your kind words.

As to the merits of …Bf5 vs. …Bg4, it seems like that is a point of healthy ongoing debate. I have seen strong players (well above my ‘pay grade’) argue each case. I have generally preferred my Bishops on the central diagonals as they seem to exert pressure in more places, from there - such as the early threat of a minor-piece combination at c2 in this case - and can in some cases inhibit castling. (Yet the latter point is perhaps not a factor in the ACG as White typically plays 0-0.) For analogous reasons I prefer the Italian to the Spanish for White; I know the majority would disagree, but that’s a subject for a different thread anyway.

I’m not even sure that the g3, Bg2 sequence is the best for White here - as the Bishop exchange can in most cases be forced by Black, leaving White (at best) with a weakened King-side pawn structure. But I know that is considered the ‘main line’ for White. Certainly in this case I was able to take advantage of that deployment.

I would be very interested in reviewing the game (yours) that you’ve mentioned. Please post it if you can, or if you prefer, please send me a PM if you would like to transmit it more privately. Thanks again for your commentary.

That sequence is generally considered the strongest for white because the bishop is deadly if not dealt with. Black can’t really force an exchange of the bishop unless white is greedy. If you’re concerned with the setup for black of Bg4 and Qd7 to come after the g2 bishop, then white pushes e6 giving the gambit pawn back. Black cannot recapture with the queen because of the Knight on f3 will hop and fork the bishop and queen, so Black has to take back with the bishop and then white can move the rook to its optimal square of d1 (the queen should have moved to an annoying square like b3 either in front of or behind the b-pawn depending on the chosen route).

As soon as I find that game I’ll post it here. Here’s another one, which I flagged on like an idiot.

Stone,George - Muradian,Sevan [D09]
MCA FIDE FUTURITY X (3), 09.01.2010

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5. 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Bg4 6.Bg2 Qd7 7.0-0 0-0-0 8.Qa4 Bh3 9.a3 Bxg2 10.Kxg2 Kb8 11.b4 Nxe5 12.Qxd7 Nxd7 13.Nxd4 Ne5 14.Bf4 Rxd4 15.Bxe5 Re4 16.Rd1 Kc8 17.Bf4 Rxe2 18.Nd2 Re6 19.c5 Nf6 20.Nf3 Nh5 21.Be3 h6 22.Nd4 Re8 23.Nb5 a6 24.Nc3 Nf6 25.Rac1 Be7 26.h3 Rd8 27.Kf3 Rhe8 28.a4 Nd7 29.h4 Bf6 30.Nd5 c6 31.Nb6+ Nxb6 32.cxb6 Rxd1 33.Rxd1 Rd8 34.Rxd8+ Kxd8 35.Ke4 Kd7 36.Bc5 g6 37.Bf8 Be7 38.Bxe7 Kxe7 39.g4 Kd6 40.Kd4 f6 41.f4 h5 42.gxh5 gxh5 43.f5 (flag) 1-0

I always hope someone is dumb enough to fall for the suckers line so I can go do others things like catch up with friends I haven’t seen in awhile but aside from my first game ever played, no one has fallen into that.

I do play this a lot on ICC and I’m surprised that many players follow this routine because it looks safe but isn’t:

  1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5 3. Nc3…

I always run into 3. e3 The game gets kinda boring after that.