play live chess

Play Live Chess

Vote and you will gain!
Funky name, real interests
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
paulvalle 851 ( +1 | -1 )
Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit THE GIBBINS-WEIDENHAGEN GAMBIT by Clyde Nakamura
------------------------------------------------------

In early 1982 I had discovered an amazing gambit in one of my blitz
games with Malcolm Kirkpatrick. I did not know what to name it.
Therefore I used a combined name of another familiar opening, the
Grob's Attack. It was thus named the Queens Pawn Grob. My first
actual game with this opening did not occur til my 2 game match with
Reynolds Takata in 1982.

It was not until I had written a letter to Hugh E. Myers of Myers
Opening's Bulletin, that I had discovered that the Queen's Pawn Grob
had been played much earlier by other players and Masters dating to
the 1930's with Humphrey Bogart's game and to Bronstein's game during
the 1950's. It was also known as the "Bullfrog" and "Weidenhagen
Gambit".

This gambit is very transpositonal in nature. It could easily
transpose into a number of other openings such as a form of the
Budapest Defense, Alekhine's defense, Sicilian Defense and etc.

The opening moves are 1.d4 Nf6 2.g4! The move 2.g4 tends to disrupt
Black's normal development. If black declines the gambit with 2...d5
then 3.g5 can be very troublesome. In some lines white gets play on
the
half open g file with Rg1. If black captures the g pawn with 2...Nxg4
white picks up 2 tempi and a long lasting strategic attack. Like most
other gambits White gets good control of the center, good development
of his pieces and a strong center. Black may have to defend
throughout most of the game.

One of the most interesting ideas that has been tried against the
Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit has been Oshima's line (1.d4 Nf6 2.g4
e5.). This is a form of the Budapest Gambit. This was first played
by Oshima against me in 1985. And also in 1986 where Oshima had
analyzed this line extensively but was still busted over the board in
1986. Black gets good development and counterplay for his e5 gambit
pawn.

It has taken me a long time to fully realize that the Gibbins-
Weidenhagen Gambit is not a true Queen's Pawn opening. A good
majority of the games lead to king pawn positions. This is the very
reason that the gambit is so potent.

Bogart,Humphrey - NN Source: D.Lewis [A45]
1935
1.d4 Nf6 2.g4 Nxg4 3.f3 Nf6 4.e4 d6 5.Be3 g6 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.Qd2 Nc6 8.0-
0-0 0-0 9.Bd3 e5 10.d5 Nb4 11.Bc4 a5 12.a3 Na6 13.h4 Nh5 14.Nge2 f5
15.Bg5 Bf6 16.f4 exf4 17.Nxf4 Nxf4 18.Qxf4 fxe4 19.Bh6 Re8 20.Nxe4
Bg7 21.Bxg7 Kxg7 22.h5 Bf5 23.hxg6 Bxg6 24.Qh6+ Kg8 25.Rdg1 Qe7
26.Rxg6+ hxg6 27.Qh8+ Kf7 28.Rh7+ 1-0

Deimer,E - Wagner Opening Adventure 6/64 [A45]
St.Radegund 1960
1.d4 Nf6 2.g4 Nxg4 3.e4 Nf6 4.e5 Nd5 5.c4 Nb6 6.Nc3 d6 7.a4 dxe5 8.a5
exd4 9.axb6 dxc3 10.Qxd8+ Kxd8 11.Rxa7 1-0

Bronstein - Simagin Irreg.Openings-Harding [A45]
Moscow Team Ch. 1967
1.d4 Nf6 2.g4 d5 3.g5 Ne4 4.f3 Nd6 5.e4 [5.e4 appears to be a bit too
premature. Better was 5.Nc3 attacking the d5 pawn and supporting the
e4 pawn thrust.] 5...dxe4 6.fxe4 e5! [Black could have played
6...Nxe4 winning a pawn but White could have compensation with
7.Bg2 Nd6 etc.] 7.dxe5 Nxe4 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 [There appears to be still
a lot of play left on both sides. David Bronstein might not have
liked his shattered pawn structure and a difficult endgame.] 1/2-1/2

Nakamura,C - Takata,Reynolds [A45]
Match vs Takata 10/10/82
1.d4 Nf6 2.g4 d5 3.g5 Ne4 4.f3 Nd6 5.Nc3 c6 6.e4 dxe4 7.fxe4 g6 8.Be3
Bg7 9.Bd3 Na6 10.a3 Nc7 11.Qf3 [There was a question on where I
should have developed my Queen. 11.Qf3 was the most aggressive
line.] 11...Be6 12.0-0-0 Qd7 13.Nge2 Nc4 14.d5 Bg4 [Not 14...cxd5
because 15.Bxc4 drops a N.] 15.dxc6 Qxc6 [If 15...Bxf3 16.cxd7+
(16...Kf8 17.Bxc4 threatening d8 queen) Kxd7 17.Bxc4+ and White is
up a N.] 16.Qf2 Bxe2 17.Bxe2 Nxb2 18.Rdf1 [If 18.Kxb2 Qxc3+ 19.Kc3
Qb2+ 20.Kd2 Bc3+ 21.Kd3 0-0-0+ and White drops at least a piece or
gets mated.] 18...Qxc3? 19.Qxf7+ Kd8 20.Bc5! Qe5 [Black does not play
20...Qxc5 because he loses his material advantage to 21.Qxg7 Re8
22.Kxb2] 21.Bxe7+ Kc8 [21...Qxe7 is bad because of 22.Rfd1+ Nxd1
23.Rxd1+ and black drops the Q.] 22.Bd6 Qc3 [Black could have played
22.Qxd6 and give back the piece and shut down White's tactical shots
with a slightly inferior game, but decided to retain the material
advantage which was fatal.] 23.Bg4+ Kb8 24.Rf3 Qc4 25.Qxg7 Rd8 26.Rc3
1-0

Nakamura,C - Vasquez,Enrique (2005) [A45]
National Open '83 3/17/83
1.d4 Nf6 2.g4 Nxg4 3.e4 d6 4.Be2 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nbd7 6.Be3 e6 7.Qd2 a6 8.0-
0-0 b5 9.a3 Bb7 10.d5 Nxe4?! [Black made a strategic mistake. He
starts to open up the center when his pieces are much less
developed.] 11.Nxe4 exd5 12.Bg5! f6 13.Nxf6+! Nxf6 14.Bh5+ g6 15.Re1+
Kd7 16.Bg4+ Nxg4 [16...Kc3 17.Qc3+ Kb6 18.Bxf6 d4 19.Qxd4+ c5
20.Bxd8+ should win.] 17.Bxd8 Rxd8 18.Qd4 Bh6+ 19.Kb1 Ne5 20.Qh4 d4
21.f3 Be3 22.c3 c5 23.cxd4 Bxd4 24.Ne2 Nxf3 25.Qh3+ Kc7 26.Nxd4 Nxd4
27.Re7+ Kb6 28.Rhe1 Bc8 29.Qe3 Bf5+ 30.Ka2 d5 31.Qg3 Rc8 32.Qe5 Nc6
33.Qf6 Rhf8 34.Rf7 Rxf7 35.Qxf7 d4 36.Qxh7 d3 37.Qh6 Rd8 38.Qe3 Nd4
39.b4 c4 [Not good was 39...Nc2 40.Qxc5+ Kb7 41.Re7+ (41...Kb8 or
41...Ka8 leads to mate, 41...Rd7 drops the pawn at d3, 41...Bd7 also
drops the pawn at d3)] 40.a4 c3
41.Qe7! Be6+ 42.Rxe6+ Nxe6 43.a5+ Kc6 44.Qxe6+ Rd6 45.Qc8+ Kd5
46.Qxc3 Ke4 47.Qd2 Rd4 48.Qg2+ Ke3 49.Qg3+ Kd2? 50.Qg2+ Ke3 51.Qg3+
Kd2? [Up until Black's last error the game was still very close. It
was still very difficult to win this game.] 52.Qf2+ 1-0

Druke - Becker [A45]
GWG Thematurnier 1984 (30 min. partien)
1.d4 Nf6 2.g4 d5 3.g5 Ne4 4.Nf3 c5 5.c3 Nc6 6.Bf4!! Qb6 7.Nbd2 Qxb2
8.Nxe4 dxe4 9.d5 exf3 10.dxc6 fxe2? [Black got a little too greedy.
Now White develops another piece.] 11.Bxe2 Qxc3+ 12.Bd2 Qe5 [Black
had other possible Q moves such as 12....Qa3 13.cxb7 Bxb7 14.Bb5+
Kc8 15.Ba5+ Kc8 16.Qd8+mate, but they all seem to lose.] 13.cxb7 Bxb7
14.Qa4+ Kd8 15.Ba5+ Qc7 [If 15...Kc8 16.Qd8+mate.] 16.Rd1+ Kc8
17.Qe8+
1-0

Nakamura,C - Tsoy,Victor (2200) [A45]
Hi St Champ Qual '84
1.d4 Nf6 2.g4 Nxg4 3.e4 d6 4.Be2 Nf6 5.Nc3 c5 6.Nf3 cxd4 7.Nxd4 g6
8.Be3 Bg7 9.Qd2 Nc6 10.0-0-0 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 a6 12.f3 Be6 13.Nd5 Bxd5
14.exd5 Rc8 15.Kb1 Qc7 16.c4 h5 17.Qe3 h4 18.Rhe1 Nh5 19.Bf1 Bxd4
20.Qxd4 0-0 21.Bd3 Nf6 [Black's kingside is very weak and there is no
real counterplay on the Queen side.] 22.Rg1 b5 23.Qxh4 bxc4?
[23...Kg7 should have been played. It appears that Black under
estimated the Bishop sac on g6.] 24.Bxg6! fxg6 25.Qh6! [Black
expected 25.Rxg6+ and 25...Kf7 should escape the king side attack.]
25...e5 26.Rxg6+ Kf7 27.Rxf6+ Ke7 28.Qg7+ 1-0

Nakamura,C - Oshima,Daniel (1815) [A45]
Quad Tournament 3/29/86
1.d4 Nf6 2.g4 e5 [The "Oshima" variation of the Gibbins-Weidenhagen
Gambit. Daniel Oshima had studied this variation extensively and is
said to have created a mini booklet .] 3.dxe5 Nxg4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3
Nc6 6.Nc3 Ngxe5 7.Nxe5 Nxe5 8.Qh5 d6 9.Be2 g6? [A key error. Now the
dark squares f6, g7 and h6 become very weak.] 10.Qh6 Qf6? 11.f4 Ng4
12.Bxg4 Bxg4 13.Nd5! Qd8 14.b4! Bb6? [14...c6 15.Bb2 was better.]
15.Bb2! Bh5 16.Nf6+ Ke7 17.Nxh5 Ke6 18.0-0-0 Qf8 19.Bg7 Qe8 20.f5+
Kxf5 21.Qf4+ 1-0

Nakamura (2105) - Rubsamen,Rogelio (2000) 2/19/95 [A45]
Dick Dole Memorial Rd4 Gibbins-Weidenhagen
1.d4 Nf6 2.g4 [The "Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit".] 2...Nxg4 3.e4 d5
4.Be2 Nf6 5.e5 Nfd7 6.e6 fxe6 [White is 2 pawns down, but Black is
really tied down. For a long time I had thought that White's game
was unsound. But recent practice games with my Chess Programs has
proven that White has good winning chances.] 7.Bd3 [The other option
was to play the Q to d3 then g3 with other moves such as Bf4 and h4,
if Black decides to castle kingside.] 7...Nf6 8.Nf3 b6 9.Qe2 [9.Qe2
had a twofold function. 1. To prevent Black from playing Ba6
exchanging my attacking Bishop. 2. To attack the weak point at e6.]
9...Nc6 10.c3 Bb7 11.Bf4 [I could have played 11.Qxe6 but Black could
free his game by exchanging Queens. The other interesting move was
11.Ng5 which required exact calcul- ation. I opted instead to
further develop my pieces.] 11...Nh5 12.Bg3 Nxg3 13.hxg3 Qd6 14.Rxh7
Rxh7 15.Bg6+ [15.Bg6+ played to prevent normal castling.] 15...Kd7
16.Bxh7 g6! [Black's last move was played to give back the pawn to
free his game. Otherwise the B at f8 could be trapped at f8.]
17.Bxg6 Bg7 18.Ng5? [This was too dangerous. 18.Nbd2 was much safer.
I got too greedy. I saw a chance to win the Black Q at d6 by playing
my N to f7. Also if Black played 18...e5 then I had some tricks with
19.Bf5+ Ke8 20.Qh5+ etc.] 18...Rh8! 19.Nd2 Nxd4! [The first shock! I
did not expect this N sacrifice. 20.Qf1 or 20.Qe3 were not possible
because of 20...Nc7+.] 20.cxd4 Rh1+ 21.Nf1 Qb4+ 22.Kd1 Qxd4+ 23.Ke1
[23.Kc1 was not possible because of 23...Rxf1+ 24.Qxf1 Qxb2+. 23.Kc2
also not possible because of 23...Qxb2+.] 23...Qb4+ 24.Kd1 [At this
point I already accepted the fact that this game would be drawn by
perpetual check.] 4...Qa4+ [Black could have tried for a draw with
perpetual check with 24...Qd4+ but tried for the win instead.]
25.Kc1 Kc8 26.Bc2 Qd4 27.Rb1 Bh6 28.f4 e5! 29.Ne6! Qg1 30.Kd2 exf4
31.gxf4 d4 32.Bf5 Kb8 33.Bd3 Bd5 34.Kc2 Qg8 35.Nxd4 Bxa2 36.Qf3!
Bxb1+? [Best was 36...Bd5 to slow down White's attack on the a8-h1
diagonal. However after 36...Bd5 White had 37.Be4 playing for
control of the diagonal.] 37.Kxb1 Rg1 [37...Qg1 was also loses to
38.Nc6+ Kb7 39.Nb4+ Kb8 40.Na6+ Kc8 41.Bf5+ e6 42.Bxe6+ Kd8 43.Qd5+
Ke8 44.Qd7+ Kf8 45.Qf7+mate.] 38.Nc6+ [The Q drops with either
38...Kc8 39.Nxe7+ or with 38...Kb7 39.Nxe7+] 1-0

Nakamura,C (2100) - Felber,Joseph (2120) Game 30 minutes [A45]
Match-Game 2 10/12/95
1.d4 Nf6 2.g4 d5 3.g5 Ne4 4.f3 Nd6 5.Nc3 c6 6.e4 g6 7.Be3 Be6 8.Qd2
Bg7 9.0-0-0 b5 10.exd5 Bxd5 11.Nxd5 cxd5 12.h4 Nc6 13.h5 gxh5 14.Rxh5
Nc4 15.Bxc4 [15.Bxc4 was forced since I could not allow Black to post
a N on a key strategic square.] 15...bxc4 16.c3 Qa5 17.a3 Qb5
18.Qc2 Rb8 19.Rd2 [19.Rd2 played to further guard my b2 square.]
19...Na5 20.Rdh2 Nb3+ 21.Kb1 h6 22.g6 Rf8 23.Bxh6 Bxh6 24.Rxh6 Kd7
25.g7 Rg8 26.Qf5+ Kc7 27.Qxf7 Qd7 28.Re2 Rxg7 [An very tricky R sac,
but it was unsound.] 29.Qxg7 Qf5+ 30.Rc2! [This move is the key to
White's defense.] 30...Nd2+ 31.Ka2! [Black cannot play 31...Qxc2
because 32.Qxe7+ Kc8 33.Rh8+ mate.] 31...Qd7 32.Rxd2 Kb7 33.Re2 Ka8
34.Rh8 [Black had no more counter play. White had only a minute left
on the clock but this should be no problem.] 1-0

brobishkin 14 ( +1 | -1 )
Hmmm... Interesting article Paulvalle... I will look into the various lines of play... The article brought a smile to my face... Thank you...

Bro...
paulvalle 411 ( +1 | -1 )
Recent comment by Clyde; Listed below is the email I recently received from Nico Vandenbroucke
about the Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit (1.d4 Nf6 2.g4). Yes, I really
racked my brains on this one.

-----Hello Clyde

I've seen on the internet you're also a fan of this opening ! there's
one line that I find interesting and I would love to share some info
on it.it's your game against Rubsamen,Rogelio Nakamura (2105) -
Rubsamen,Rogelio (2000) 2/19/95 [A45] Dick Dole Memorial Rd4 Gibbins-
Weidenhagen 1.d4 Nf6 2.g4 Nxg4 3.e4 d5 4.Be2 Nf6 5.e5 Nfd7 6.e6 fxe6
and now you quote :[White is 2 pawns down, but Black is really tied
down. For a long time I had thought that White's game was unsound.
But recent practice games with my Chess Programs has proven that
White has good winning chances.] Well I tried it out myself but with
few luck.I play 7.Qd3 and after 7...g6 i'm somewhat stuckWith c5,
Bg7, Nc6,Qb6 black has some serious counterplay , and white doesn't
really have a target to hit at !care to share your analysis.

Regards Nico

-----------

Listed below is my reply to Nico:

I spent the last 2 days reanalyzing the Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit
line (1. d4 Nf6 2. g4 Nxg4 3. e4 d5 4. Be2 Nf6 5. e5 Nfd7 6. e6 fxe6
7.Qd3) and have concluded that black is clearly better in almost all
lines. Black has the 2 pawn breaks of c5 and e5 and with Bg7 has
pressure on white's d pawn. White's d pawn is actually weak. There
are a few lines that give white chances but black would have to
blunder or play 2nd or 3rd best moves. Once black gets one of 2 pawn
breaks of c5 or e5, black frees his game and activates his pieces.
Black does not seem to have any weaknesses in his game. It is
difficult for white to mount an attack. Below is the analysis that I
did with Fritz5 on this line.

[Event "Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Nakamura, C."]
[Black "Fritz5"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "A45"]
[Annotator "5/24/02 Analysis"]
[PlyCount "36"]

{16384kB} 1. d4 Nf6 2. g4 Nxg4 3. e4 d5 4. Be2 Nf6 5. e5 Nfd7 6. e6
fxe6 7. Qd3 g6 8. Bf4 (8. Nf3 Bg7 9. Bf4 (9. Ng5 Nf6 10. Bf4 Ne4 11.
Nd2 Nxg5 12. Bxg5 Qd6 13. c3 e5 14. dxe5 Qxe5 15. Nf3 Qf5 16. O-O-O
Qxd3 17. Rxd3) 9... c5 10. c3 Qb6 11. Qd2 cxd4 12. cxd4 Nc6 13. Be3
Nf6 14. Nc3 Ne4 15. Nxe4 dxe4 16. Ne5 Nxe5 17. dxe5 Qc7 18. Bd4 Bd7
(18... Bxe5 19. Bb5+ Kf7 20. Rc1 Qd6 21. Bxe5 Qxe5 22. Be2 $19
{Advantage for black of 2.41.}) 19. Rc1 Bc6 20. Qc3 Rd8 21. Bg4 Qd7
22. Rd1 Bd5 23. Bxa7 Ra8 24. Qd4 b5 25. Bb6 Rxa2 26. O-O Qb7 27. Ra1
Qb8 28. Rxa2 Bxe5 29. Qc5 Bxh2+ 30. Kh1 Bxa2 31. b3 Kf7 32. f3 e3 33.
Qxe3 Qd6 34. Re1 h5 35. Bxe6+ $18 {White is clearly better in this
position according to Fritz5 with an advantage of 2.22.}) (8. Bg5 Bg7
9. Nf3 c5 10. c3 Nc6 11. Na3 cxd4 12. Nxd4 Nxd4 13. cxd4 e5 14. dxe5
Nxe5 15. Qb5+ Qd7 16. Rd1 d4 17. Bh6 Bf6 18. Bf4 Nc6 19. Bg3 a6 20.
Qc5 Qf5 21. Qb6 $19) 8... Bg7 9. Qg3 O-O (9... Nc6 10. Bxc7 Qxc7 11.
Qxc7 Bxd4 12. Nf3 Bxb2 13. Bb5 Bxa1 14. Bxc6 bxc6 15. Qxc6 Bb7 16.
Qxe6 Rc8 17. Qe2 e5 18. O-O e4 19. Na3 Bf6 20. Nb5 O-O 21. Nd6 Rb8
22. Nd2 22... Ne5 $15 {According to Fritz5 black has a slight edge of
0.28.}) (9... Na6 10. Bxa6 bxa6 11. Bxc7 $18) (9... e5 10. dxe5 Nc5
11. Nc3 Ne6 12. Be3 (12. O-O-O Nxf4 13. Qxf4 c6 14. Nf3 Qc7 15. Rhe1
Bf5 16. Qg3 e6 17. Bf1 Nd7 18. Bh3 Bxh3 19. Qxh3 Nf8 20. Ng5 (20. Nd4
Qf7 21. Na4 Qe7 22. Qc3 Nd7 23. Qh3 Bxe5 24. Nxe6 Kf7 25. Nd4 Rae8
26. Kb1 Qd8 27. Nf3 Bg7 28. Ng5+ Qxg5 29. Qxd7+ Re7 30. f4 Qf6 31.
Rxe7+ Qxe7 32. Qxe7+ Kxe7 33. c4 $19 {The endgame is not good for
white. He is playing for the draw.}) 20... Qe7 21. f4 h6 22. Nf3
22... O-O-O $19 {According to Fritz5 black has an advantage of
0.91.}) 12... d4 13. O-O-O c5 14. Nf3 Qa5 15. Bb5+ Bd7 16. Qg4 Nc6
17. Bxc6 bxc6 18. Nxd4 cxd4 19. Bxd4 19... Rd8 $19 {White's game is
lost. He is down a minor piece.}) 10. Bxc7 Qe8 11. Nf3 Nc6 12. c3 e5
13. dxe5 (13. Bxe5 Ndxe5 14. dxe5 Bf5 15. Nbd2 Qb8 16. Rd1 Nxe5 17.
Nd4 Bc8 18. Rg1 Nc6 19. N2b3 e5 20. Nc2 Rd8 21. h4 {According to
Fritz5 black has a slight edge of 0.59.}) 13... Nc5 14. Ng5 Ne6 15.
Nxe6 Bxe6 16. Na3 Qc8 17. Nb5 a6 18. Bb6 18... axb5 $19 {advantage
black 3.34.} *

Below is the recommended line of the Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit (1.
d4 Nf6 2. g4 Nxg4 3. e4 d5 4. Be2 Nf6 5. e5 Nfd7 6. Bg5). I did a
preliminary analysis, but the final verdict on this line is still not
out yet.

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Analysis Gibbins-Weidenhagen"]
[Black "6.Bg5 line"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "A45"]
[Annotator "Nakamura, C 5/26/02"]
[PlyCount "44"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. g4 Nxg4 3. e4 d5 4. Be2 Nf6 5. e5 Nfd7 6. Bg5 h6 7. Bh4
g5 8. e6 gxh4 (8... fxe6 9. Bh5#) 9. Bh5 Rh7 10. exf7+ (10. Qd3 Nf6
11. Bxf7+ Rxf7 12. exf7+ Kxf7 13. Nf3 Bg7 14. Ne5+ Kg8 15. Rg1 Qe8
16. Nd2 Nbd7 17. O-O-O Nf8 18. Qe3 Ne6 19. Rg2 (19. Qxh6 Qh5 20. Qe3
{Black has a slight edge of 0.59. This line is not that good for
White.}) 19...Ng5 20. f4 Ne6 21. Rdg1 b6 22. Qh3 Nh5 23. Qxh4 c5 24.
Rg6 Nexf4 25. Rxg7+ Nxg7 26. Qxf4 Kh7 27. Ndf3 Nf5 28. Qg4 a6 29. Nh4
h5 30. Qg5 Ng3 (30... Qf8 31. Qg6+ Kh8 32. Nf7+ Qxf7 33. Qxf7 Nxh4
34. Qg7# {checkmate}) 31. Rxg3 Bg4 32. Nxg4 hxg4 33. Qf5+ Kh8 34.
Rxg4 Rd8 35. Qe5+ Kh7 36. Qg7# {checkmate}) 10... Rxf7 11. Bxf7+ Kxf7
12. Qh5+ Kg7 13. Nf3 Nf6 14. Rg1+ Kh8 15. Qxh4 Nc6 16. Nc3 (16. Nbd2
Bf5 17. Ne5 Qe8 18. Qf4 e6 19. Ng6+ Bxg6 20. Qxf6+ Kh7 21. c3 e5 22.
O-O-O exd4 23. Rde1 Qf7 24. Re6 Qxf6 25. Rxf6 25... Bh5 {Black has
the advantage of 2.15 according to Fritz5.}) (16. Ne5 Nxe5 17. dxe5
Ne4 18. f3 Nc5 19. Nc3 Bf5 20. Qg3 Bh7 21. O-O-O 21... e6 {Fritz5
gives black an advantage of 0.88.}) 16... Qd7 17. O-O-O Qf5 18. Ng5
Ng4 19. h3 Nb4 20. Rd2 Qxg5 21. Qxg5 hxg5 22. hxg4 22... c6
{According to Fritz5 black has a slight edge of 1.05.} *

I posted these 2 analysis in the files section called qpgrobm.pgn.

Best Regards
Clyde Nakamura
acne 2 ( +1 | -1 )
that's inspiring
keiserpaul 34 ( +1 | -1 )
The counter gambit ! A few years ago I often played this opening with good results.
I remember one particular game that started with
1.d4 Nf6 2.g4 Nxg4 3.e4 and now my opponent played the
totaly shocking and unexpected move 3. .. e5
After 4.Qxg4 exd4 5.Qe2 Nc6 6.a3 d6 7.Nd2 g6
8.Nb3 Bg7 it was Black who had initiative for material.
Finally I was very happy to reach a draw after 23 moves.
macheide 14 ( +1 | -1 )
paulvalle Dear friend,

Very interesting material, very interesting. Thanks for sharing it with us. A good material for analysis.

macheide.
paulvalle 505 ( +1 | -1 )
Another e-mail from Clyde; The Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit Oshima Defense (1.d4 Nf6 2.g4 e5)
was first played against me in 1985 by Daniel Oshima in a tournament
game. He had prepared this line for my Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit. It
is said that he had created a mini-booklet on this line. He had tried
the line 2 times in 2 different tournament games against me, but lost
both games. This is a very interesting counter gambit to the Gibbins-
Weidenhagen Gambit (1.d4 Nf6 2.g4). I have taken another look at this
Oshima line and listed below is my analysis. I have compiled a
database of 17 Oshima Defense games plus analysis lines in a file
called gwoshima.cbv a chessbase compressed file, which I posted in
the files section. What really is the Oshima Defense? I realized
before that it has elements of both the Englund Gambit (1.d4 e5), the
Budapest Defense (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5), the Scandinavian (1.e4 d5) and
other independent lines. A good majority of actual games played have
been with the g pawn chase line (13 of 17 games).

[Event "Budapest Defense Scheme"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit"]
[Black "Oshima Defense Line 2"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "A45"]
[Annotator "C.Nakamura & Fritz5"]
[PlyCount "38"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. g4 e5 3. dxe5 Nxg4 4. Bf4 (4. Nf3 d6 5. exd6 Bxd6 6. h3
Nxf2 7. Kxf2 7... Bg3+ {white drops the Q, this trap also occurs in
the Budapest Defense.}) (4. Nf3 Bc5 5. e3 Nc6 6. Qd5 Bb6 7. Rg1 d6 8.
exd6 Be6 9. Qg5 Qxg5 10. Nxg5 Nxh2 11. Bg2 Bf5 12. Bxc6+ bxc6 13. e4
h6 14. exf5 hxg5 15. Ke2 cxd6 16. Rxg5 Kf8 17. Be3 Re8 18. Nd2 Rh3
19. Nc4 Bc7 20. Rh1 $2 20... d5 21. Nd2 d4 22. Nf1 dxe3 23. fxe3 Rh6
24. Rg2 Nxf1 25. Rxh6 Rxe3+ 26. Kxf1 26... gxh6 $19 {white is down a
piece & should lose the endgame.}) 4... Nc6 5. Nf3 Bc5 6. e3 Qe7 7.
Qd5 f6 8. exf6 Nxf6 9. Qb3 d6 10. Nc3 Bb4 11. O-O-O Bxc3 12. Qxc3 Ne4
13. Qe1 g5 14. Bg3 Qf7 15. Nd2 Nxd2 16. Qxd2 Qxa2 17. Qc3 Qa1+ 18.
Kd2 Qa5 19.
Qxa5 19... Nxa5 {Black has a slight edge of 0.34 according to Fritz5.
White is down a pawn and black has the better pawn structure.} *

It is possible to have an Englund Gambit type of trap in this opening,
but there are no actual games played with this line.

[Event "Englund Gambit Trap"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit"]
[Black "Oshima Defense Line 1 "]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "A45"]
[Annotator "C.Nakamura"]
[PlyCount "14"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. g4 e5 3. dxe5 Nxg4 4. Bf4 Qe7 5. Nf3 Qb4+ 6. Qd2 (6. Bd2
Qxb2 7. Bc3 Bb4 8. Qd2 (8. Bxb4 8... Qxa1 $19 {black has won the
exchange & is now winning.}) 8... Bxc3 9. Qxc3 Qc1#) 6...Qxb2 7. Qc3
(7. Qd4 Bb4+ 8. Kd1 (8. Nbd2 8... Bc3 {the white R now drops.}) (8.
c3 Qxa1 9. Qxb4 9... Qxa2 {black wins the exchange and a pawn.}) (8.
Bd2 Qc1#) 8... Qxd4+ 9. Nxd4 9... Nxf2+ {white drops a R.}) 7... Bb4 {
white drops the Q & is now lost.} *

There are 4 reverse Scandinavian lines listed, but there are no actual
games with these lines.

[Event "Reverse Scandinavian Line 1"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit"]
[Black "Oshima Defense"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "A45"]
[Annotator "C.Nakamura"]
[PlyCount "13"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. g4 e5 3. h3 exd4 4. Qxd4 Nc6 5. Qa4 b5 6. Qxb5 Rb8 7.
Qd3 {this is an interesting line. This is like the Mieses-Kotroc
Gambit in the Scandinavian.} *

[Event "Reverse Scandinavian Line 2"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit"]
[Black "Oshima Defense"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "A45"]
[Annotator "C.Nakamura"]
[PlyCount "9"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. g4 e5 3. h3 exd4 4. Qxd4 Nc6 5. Qd3 $11 {Fritz5 gives the
position as equal. This line is like one of the regular Scandinavian
lines except the g pawn is at g4 and the h pawn is at h3.} *

[Event "Reverse Scandinavian Line 3"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit"]
[Black "Oshima Defense"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "A45"]
[Annotator "C.Nakamura"]
[PlyCount "9"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. g4 e5 3. h3 exd4 4. e3 dxe3 5. Bxe3 {this is an
interesting gambit & needs to be investigated further.} *

[Event "Reverse Scandinavian Line 4"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit"]
[Black "Oshima Defense"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "A45"]
[Annotator "C.Nakamura"]
[PlyCount "9"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. g4 e5 3. h3 exd4 4. c3 dxc3 5. Nxc3 {
another interesting gambit by white.} *

The g pawn chase variation is the most common variation played. There
are 13 games in the database out of 17 games.

[Event "g pawn chase variation"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit"]
[Black "Oshima Defense"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "A45"]
[Annotator "C.Nakamura & Fritz5"]
[PlyCount "15"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. g4 e5 3. g5 Ne4 (3... Nd5 $2 4. dxe5 4... Nb6 $16 {
this line is not good for black since he dropped a pawn for no
compensation.})(3... Ng4 $4 4. h3 $18 {The black N drops.}) (3... Ng8
$2 4. dxe5 $14 {black also drops a pawn in this line.}) 4. Nf3 exd4
5. Qxd4 d5 6. Nc3 Nxc3 7.Qxc3 Nc6 8. Qb3 $11 {Fritz5 says that this
position is equal. Clyde: White actually has good prospects for an
attack on the kingside. After developing the black square B to e3 or
f4, white castles queenside. Black has problems in developing his
queenside. The B at c8 cannot move for awhile because of Qxb7.
Therefore black will try to castle kingside. White can then roll his
pawns down the kingside for a kingside attack.} *

The flexible move Bg2: There are 4 games in the database. See games
24, 27, 29 & 31.

[Event "the flexible move Bg2"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit"]
[Black "Oshima Defense"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "A45"]
[Annotator "Oshima Defense"]
[PlyCount "13"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. g4 e5 3. Bg2 Nxg4 4. h3 (4. Nh3 exd4 5. Qxd4 Nf6 6. Bf4
c5 7. Qa4 Qb6 8. Nd2 Qxb2 9. Rb1 Qd4 10. Qxd4 cxd4 11. Rxb7 Nc6 12.
Rc7 $17) 4... Nxf2 5. Kxf2 Qf6+ 6. Ke1 Qg6 7. Kf2 $11 {black can play
Qf5+ and repeat the position for a draw.} *

Best Regards
Clyde Nakamura
swindel 8 ( +1 | -1 )
Gibbins-Weidenhagen rulez! My shortest win on chessnet was featuring it. Too bad i didn't get the rating for it :-(
swindel 5 ( +1 | -1 )
sorry, chessnet should be gameknot, of course...
peppe_l 4 ( +1 | -1 )
In your opinion What is the best line for black?
mrzor 15 ( +1 | -1 )
Yes, Ze Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit iz vewy stwong move. It iz ze best move fo player of ze vite piecez.
Sank you vewy much.

Herr Zor
paulvalle 275 ( +1 | -1 )
2...e6 variation Another e-mail from Clyde, 26.10.02:

Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit Theory (The 2e6 Variation)

In the Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit (1.d4 Nf6 2.g4) there exists an
interesting way for Black to decline the gambit. This is by playing
the move 2e6 which is like a cross between an Alekhine's Defense
(1.e4 Nf6) and a French Defense (1.e4 e6). After 2.e6 White can chase
the Black N at f6 by playing 3.g5. Black has several possibilites:


3Nd5 4.c4 or 4.e4 then 4Nb6. Actually 4.e4 is preferable since with
4.c4 Black has 4Bb4+ exchanging off some minor pieces. This is like
an Alekhine's Defense where Black is trying to lure White's pawns to
come forward and be over extended. Listed below are 2 sample games
with the 3Nd5 4.e4 line.

[Event "Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit Game"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1994.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Nakamura"]
[Black "486/Genius2 9/27/94"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A45"]
[WhiteElo "2105"]
[PlyCount "67"]
[EventDate "1994.??.??"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. g4 2... e6 {[2...e6 is not a common reply to the
Gibbin's-Weidenhagen Gambit.]} 3. g5 Nd5
4. e4 Nb6 5. Nc3 d5 6. Nf3 dxe4 7. Nxe4 Be7 8. Bd3 8... O-O
{[Castling kingside is a strategic error. All of White's forces are
aimed at the kingside.]} 9. Rg1
Nc6 10. Be3 {[10.Be3 guards the center as well as develop a piece.]}
10... Na4 11. Qc1 {[11.b3 is not good because of 11...Nb2 and my good
B at d3 is exchanged.]}
11... a6 12. b3 Nb6 13. c3 e5 14. Qc2 {[14.Qc2 was played because the
B at d3 was unguarded plus White is preparing to castle kingside.]}
14... exd4 15. Nxd4
Nxd4 16. Bxd4 Nd5 17. O-O-O Ba3+ 18. Kb1 Re8 19. Nf6+!
{[A powerfull move. Now the kingside is ripped open.]} 19... gxf6 20.
gxf6+ Kh8 21. Rg7 Nf4 22. Rxh7+ Kg8 23. Rg1+ Bg4 24. Rxg4+ Ng6 25.
Rg7+ Kf8 26. Rxf7+ Kg8
27. Rxg6+ Kxf7 28. Bc4+ Qd5 29. Bxd5+ Re6 30. Rg7+ Ke8 31. Bxe6 b6
32. Qh7 Bd6 33. Re7+ Kd8 34. Qg8# 1-0

[Event "Compuserve email"]
[Site "CServe email"]
[Date "1995.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Roods, Scott"]
[Black "Turner"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A45"]
[PlyCount "41"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. g4 e6 3. g5 Nd5 4. e4 Nb6 5. Nc3 d5 6. Be3 Nc6 7. Qd2
Be7 8. O-O-O O-O 9. f4 Bd7 10. Nf3 dxe4 11. Nxe4 Nd5 12. c4 Nxe3 13.
Qxe3 Qc8 14. h4 Nb4 15. a3 Na6 16. Bd3 c5 17. Rdg1 cxd4 18. Nf6+ Bxf6
19. gxf6 g6 20. Nxd4 b5 21. f5 1-0


3Ne4 and after 4.f3 Black has to play 4Nd6. If 4Nxg4 then
5.h4 the Black N drops.

[Event "Theme2 corr"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1983.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Wundt, Hermann"]
[Black "Volling, A."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A45"]
[PlyCount "90"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. g4 e6 3. g5 Ne4 4. h4 d5 5. Bg2 Nd6 6. Nc3 g6 7. e4 c6
8. Bf4 Qb6 9. Rb1 Nc4 10. b3 Na3 11. Rc1 Bb4 12. Nge2 Nb5 13. Qd3 c5
14. Be5 Rg8 15. exd5 exd5 16. Bxd5 Nd7 17. O-O Nxc3 18. Nxc3 Nxe5 19.
dxe5 Be6 20. Bxe6 Qxe6 21. Qf3 Bxc3 22. Qxc3 Qg4+ 23. Qg3 Qxg3+ 24.
fxg3 Rd8 25. Rcd1 Ke7 26. c4 Rxd1 27. Rxd1 Rd8 28. Rxd8 Kxd8 29. Kf2
Kd7 30. Ke3 Ke7 31. Ke4 Ke6 32. a3 a6 33. b4 cxb4 34. axb4 b6 35. c5
bxc5 36. bxc5 Kd7 37. Kd5 a5 38. c6+ Kc7 39. Kc5 a4 40. Kb4 Kxc6 41.
Kxa4 Kd5 42. Kb4 Kxe5 43. Kc5 Kf5 44. Kd6 Kg4 45. Ke7 Kxg3 0-1


3Ng8 This is like the Brooklyn Defense in the Alekhine's Defense
which has the moves 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Ng8. The game below is the only
known game with the move 3Ng8.

[Event "GWG theme corr"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1983.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Gnirk, Hajo"]
[Black "Goetz"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A45"]
[PlyCount "63"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. g4 e6 3. g5 Ng8 4. e4 d5 5. e5 Bd7 6. Be3 Nc6 7. c3 g6
8. Ne2 Nge7 9. Ng3 Bg7 10. Qd2 Nf5 11. Nxf5 exf5 12. Bg2 Be6 13. Na3
Qd7 14. O-O O-O 15. f4 a6 16. Qf2 Rfd8 17. Qh4 Qe7 18. Rf3 h5 19. Rh3
Kf8 20. Nc2 Rab8 21. Bd2 Qd7 22. Ne3 Na7 23. Bf1 Nc8 24. Be2 Nb6 25.
Nf1 Qe7 26. Ng3 Ke8 27. Bxh5 gxh5 28. Nxh5 Bh8 29. Nf6+ Bxf6 30. exf6
Qf8 31. Re1 Kd7 32. g6 1-0


This particular variation (2e6) of the GWG is new territory and has
not been extensively explored. Over ten years ago someone played this
variation against me in a blitz game and gave me a very difficult
game before resigning to my GWG. Unfortunately I do not have that
game score.
paulvalle 47 ( +1 | -1 )
more 2...e6 I had a strange thought. After 1.d4 Nf6 2.g4 e6 White can play an
Omega (1.d4 Nf6 2.e4) type of Gambit with the move 3.e4 gambiting the
e pawn. The g pawn is now guarded. After 3...Nxe4 4.Nc3 Nxc3 5.bxc3
White has that familiar Omega Gambit pawn structure with pawns at
d4, c3 & c2 and with the e pawn missing. The only difference is that
White has a pawn at g4. I am not sure if this new gambit will lead
to a good game for White.

Best Regards
Clyde Nakamura
paulvalle 109 ( +1 | -1 )
Some resources: Humphrey Bogart game:
hem.passagen.se/tjmisha/hb.html

-----

www.chessworks.com/analysis/Openings/Unorthodox/UCOdraft/UNO_gi.htm#Heading15
www.schachseiten.de/gwg.htm

www.sfwindheim.de/forum/messages/3.html

home2.inet.tele.dk/gambit/gwg.htm

---


There are analysis of the gambit in Gambit Revue #4\3 and #4:
schachhaus-maedler.de/shop/p553.html

-----

There is even a couple of books on this gambit:

-"Gibbins-Weidenhagen-Gambit" by Pape & Jensen (1991).

-"Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit" by Druke (1996).




triangulator 5 ( +1 | -1 )
hey this is cool a + for paulvalle, thanks for this good analysis