Welcome to ChessCentral's coaching corner. This page is designed for the average chess player. We will try to
update this page with new problems or a lecture on a particular aspect of the game whenever we can. Please feel free
to submit feedback via the feedback page.
We archive our previous coaching corner articles for people who are new to our site or those who wish to simply to
relive some lesson from the past. The following articles have been archived:
Playing Gambits
by Theos Rippis
One of the most important skills that a beginner or inexperienced club player should look to enhance is his/her tactical
and attacking ability. This of course can be improved by going through and trying to solve tactical problems in books like Fred
Reinfeld's 1001 Winning Chess Combinations.
But there is another more cut throat and practical method that can be used while the student is improving in their early
stages as well. One should at some stage, even if only for a short period of time, try playing some sort of Gambit
Opening either in training games or in tournament games. A Gambit Opening is an opening where you sacrifice some material
(usually a pawn or two) in order to gain something else in return (e.g. space, initiative, attacking chances etc.) This will of course put the player playing the gambit in the hot
seat from the word go! There is no time to wait and allow the opponent to consolidate their material advantage and let them
take the game into a superior ending. You must be resourceful and on the ball to take any opportunity that comes your
way in the form of tactics and attacking play. I believe that this method should also be used now and then by "defensive" players
to help round off their style.
Recently at the Australian Open I noticed a couple of Blackmar-Diemer Gambits (BDG) played by friend and fellow tournament
player Kerry Stead. Kerry has improved vastly over the last year going from average club player to strong club player
through his persistent practice and use of the BDG. He almost claimed an IM scalp in round 2 using this Gambit (see below).
It should be noted here, that I do not wish to prove the soundness or unsoundness of any gambit or opening system.
I merely want to show a couple of examples of a reasonable club player using gambits to get himself into "attacking" and "tactical" positions,
and make a point that this method of play can improve one's attacking skills, even if you are not going to continue playing
gambits for the rest of your chess playing career.
But be prepared! Every now and then like with any
opening system you WILL suffer a painful loss - but that's what it's all about, we ALL have to learn from our loses!
Stead,K (1941) - Wohl,A (IM) (2440) [D00]
Australian Open (2), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bh5 7.g4!? Bg6 8.Ne5 Nbd7 9.Nxg6!?
[The attacker usually tries to keep pieces on if possible to continue the onslaught later on, but in this case White needs some
later pressure on the f-file and especially on the f7 square.
After 9.Qf3 c6 (even 9...Bxc2 makes it hard for White to show enough compensation for the two pawns)
10.Bc4 (10.Bg2 Bxc2 11.0-0 e6 -/+) Nb6 11.Bb3 Qxd4 White is just lost being two pawns down for
hardly enough compensation.]
9...hxg6 10.Bg2 c6 11.Qf3 e6 12.0-0 Qb6?!
[But is this too much improvisation from Black? 12...Qe7 was safer and here Black should have been satisfied with
being a pawn up even though he faces being passive for quite some time before he can reach a good endgame.
After the game Wohl said that he simply did not like his position after 12...Qe7 because he would be forced to be passive.
This response from the IM goes to show that playing a gambit is not only useful to give yourself an attacking type
of position, but it is also useful against opponents who might be attacking players themselves and do not wish to refute
a gambit by defending and being patient to claw their way to the endgame while having to avoid tactical traps along the way.]
13.g5 Qxd4+ 14.Be3 Qb4 15.gxf6 gxf6
[Black has managed to get 3 pawns for the piece but White's better development and the bishop pair should
ensure that his game should be preferable.]
16.Rad1 Bc5 17.Ne4?
[But this allows the queens to be exchanged and gives Black good chances of salvation in the coming endgame. Better
was 17.Bxc5 Qxc5+ 18.Rf2 intending 19.Ne4 with good attacking chances.]
17...Bxe3+ 18.Qxe3 Qb6 19.Qxb6 axb6 20.a3 Ke7 21.Nd6 Ne5!
[Black avoids the tactical trap 21...Nc5 22.Nxb7! Nxb7 23.Bxc6 Rab8 24.Rd7+ +-. It is not important to annotate the rest of
this game but only to mention that White had good chances of keeping the pressure on if he could keep the queens on
the board. Black has managed to achieve reaching an ending which is objectively speaking not worse for him. He now uses his
superior endgame technique effectively to win this game]
22.Nxb7 f5 23.Rfe1? f6 24.Bxc6 Nxc6 25.Rd6 Ne5 26.Red1 Rxh3 27.Nd8 Ra4 28.Rxe6+ Kf8 29.b4 Raxa3
30.Rxf6+ Kg7 31.Rxb6 Rag3+ 32.Kf2 Ng4+ 33.Ke1 Rg2 0-1
A painful loss considering a club player had an IM on the back foot. But a good example of how playing gambits can still
play an important part in anyone's repertoire even against strong opponents.
Stead,K (1941) - Weller,T (1643) [D00]
Australian Open (4), 1999
1.d4 Nf6 2.f3 d5 3.e4 dxe4 4.Nc3 exf3 5.Nxf3 e6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Bd3 b6 8.Qe2 Bb7 9.0-0-0
[9.0-0 is prefered by IM Gary Lane in his book on the BDG. Either way it doesn't matter here, White has an attacking type
of position and his eyes are only fixed on the opponent's king!]
9...Nd5 10.Ne4!
[Avoiding exchanging pieces. This is what Gambit and attacking play is about - knowing which pieces to keep for the upcoming attack.]
10... Bxg5+?!
[It is understandable that Black wishes to exchange some pieces since he is a pawn up, but he must be careful as this
exchange also allows White's king's knight to get perilously close to his own king while improving the opponent's
development and hurting his own. Black should have played 10...Nbd7 here.]
11.Nfxg5 Nd7!?
[Black does the right thing and gets on with his development since he is lacking in that department. Although now some
interesting tactics are about to take place. Perhaps 11.Nc6 is better though, since this does not allow White's knight later entry onto d6. The
alternative 11...Qe7 looks like more trouble than it's worth:
11...Qe7 12.Rhf1 f5 (12...f6 13.Nxe6±) 13.Nxe6! fxe4 (13...Qxe6?? 14.Nd6+) 14.Qxe4 Kd7 15.Qg4 h5 16.Nc5+
A) 16...Kc6 17.Qg6+ Qd6 18.Bb5+!! Kxb5 19.c4+ Ka5 (19...Kb4 20.a3+ Ka5 21.b4+ Nxb4 22.axb4+ Kxb4 23.Qb1+ Kxc4
24.Qb3#) 20.Nxb7++-;
B) 16...Kd8 17.Nxb7+ Ke8 18.Qc8+ Qd8 19.Qxd8#
This analysis shows what may be hidden in these types of positions. I certainly had fun working out these lines and
improving on my tactics all thanks to the type of position that has arisen from this opening.]
12.Nxf7!?
[This looks very courageous but it's still not clear to me that this should ultimately force victory.]
12...Kxf7 13.Rhf1+ Kg8!
[This is best. The alternatives all seem to lead to victory for White e.g.:
A) 13...N5f6 14.Ng5+ Ke8 15.Nxe6 +- ;
B) 13...N7f6 14.Ng5+ Ke8 15.Nxe6 Qe7 +/- ;
C)13...Ke8 14.Nd6+! Ke7 (14.cxd6 15.Qh5+ g6 16.Bxg6 Ke7 17.Rf7+ Ke8 18.Rxh7+ Kf8
19.Qh6+ Kg8 20.Bf7#) 15.Rde1 e5 16.Nxb7 Qb8 17.Qg4 +- ;
D)13...Ke7 14.Ng5 Qg8 15.Rde1 Nf8 16.Nf7 Qxf7 17.Rxf7+ Kxf7 +/-]
14.Nd6!
[White's only way of trying to continue the pressure. Now White threatens 15.Qxe6#]
Qg5+ 15.Kb1 Ne3?
[But here this looks like the losing move. Surely it was better to play 15.Qe3! then White might reply 15.Qh5 but after
15...g6 I still don't see any forced win e.g. 16.Bxg6 N7f6! etc.
Note: If anyone sees the forced win or any advantage for White here, please email me! (that means you as well Kerry!!!)]
16.Nf7 Qxg2 17.Qxe3 g6 18.Qxe6 Bd5 19.Qxd7 Kg7
20.Qe7 Bxf7 21.Rxf7+ 1-0
[Notes by Theos Rippis]
