The Kibitzer 
by Tim Harding

We're Going On An Elephant Hunt

If you are a very good tactician, then the Elephant Gambit is just
about playable below master level, even in correspondence chess,
so long as you are accept that once in a while you will be
mercilessly smashed by somebody who has met it before and done
research on it. 

Once known as the Queen's Pawn's Counter Gambit (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3
d5!?), this daring thrust by Black has 19th century origins and ever
since has been revived as a surprise weapon from time to time.
White is thrown into a battle at the very beginning of the game and
players who like the initiative and the slow dominating pressure of
the Ruy Lopez can really be thrown by this early challenge. My
database even has a dozen games where White was so shocked that
he responded feebly by 3 d3, scoring three draws and nine losses!

Despite its name, the Elephant Gambit is a carnivore among chess
openings!

On the other hand, 2 d5 is not such a good choice against players
who are like to swallow pawns and hang on for the endgame. (See
Diagram: Position after 2...d5)

This is definitely one of the "grey area" gambits. Having tried it in
my teens, and having faced it a couple of times with White (both
OTB and CC), I do not believe it should be sound, or even as
dangerous as the Latvian Counter Gambit, yet White must be
careful. It was a favourite of some London players in the 1960s and
other English and European players, such as Halasz in Hungary
and Karker in Germany, took it up again in the 1980s. 

Since then the gambit has even been taken up by English
grandmaster Mark Hebden who has used it effectively in weekend
tournaments. So let's take a look at the variations, starting with
what some of the standard books say.

Since 3 Bb5+ just loses time after 3 c6 and 3 Qe2 can be met
gambit-style by 3 Nf6 4 exd5 Bd6 and 5 0-0, to hit back down
the e-file, White's choice really comes down to this: whether to
capture the e-pawn or the d-pawn. 3 exd5 is the more popular
move.

Unlike some recently-invented Gambits which are not mentioned
in many books, there is a certain amount of information on this
counter-gambit in the sort of books that the average player is likely
to consult. On the principle that "a little knowledge is a dangerous
thing", this actually makes such players very vulnerable to the
deep-researchers and home-analysers who have delved deeper into
the Elephant's trunk.

For example, after 2...d5, the second edition of "Batsford Chess
Openings" gives 3 exd5! e4 4 Qe2 Nf6 claiming an edge to White
and the famous "ECO" enlarges on this material somewhat, citing a
correspondence game from Informator 3. Although this is only a
fraction of the full story, let us look at this line first. 

After 3...e4 4 Qe2 (probably best, but not the only possibility)
Black cannot equalize by 4...f5 5 d3 Nf6 because of 6 dxe4! fxe4 7
Nc3 Bb4 8 Qb5+ c6 9 Qxb4 exf3 10 Bg5! cxd5 11 O-O-O as in
Tal-Lutikov, Tallinn 1964, cited in ECO and the recent Basic
Chess Openings by Gabor Kallai (which also mentions 3 Qxd5, a
very bad move for Black). 

So Black has to meet 4 Qe2 by 4...Nf6 when J.Pruss-M.W.Wills,
postal 1966-67, continued instructively by 5 d3 Be7 (5...Qxd5 6
Nfd2) 6 dxe4 0-0 7 Bg5! Nxe4 8 Bxe7 Qxe7 9 Nbd2 Bf5 10 0-0-0
Re8 11 Nd4 Bg6 12 Nxe4 Bxe4 13 Ne6! Bxc2 14 Qxc2 fxe6 15
dxe6 Nc6 16 Kb1 Rad8 17 Bb5 and White won with his sound
extra pawn. However, this may not be the last word as German
irregular openings specialist Stefan Buecker has suggested 9...f5!?

ECO's main line 5 Nc3!? is also critical but Black has resources.

More to the point, none of these reference works mentions 3...Bd6!
(instead of 3...e4) which has been the focus of the revival of the
gambit. In fact it is really only an Elephant Gambit when the
bishop move is played. The developing move is important because
as yet Black had not moved a piece. The bishop may look passive
sandwiched between the c7 and e5 pawns but it has a lot of
potential energy and of course it's a preparation for castling.

So go to the second diagram (after 3 Bd6).

Now White should try to keep a "buttoned down" position
anchored by at least one d-pawn, rather than be lured into fluid
centers with piece play. However, this is not easier said than done
if Black plays well; even Karpov failed to win against this line a
few years ago.

The very complexity, indeed almost inexhaustibility, of chess gives
talented players a lot of opportunities to create new and tricky
situations for White players who may believe they can refute a
gambit like this by rote. Such gambits are also a good policy
against computer opponents - so long as you're not playing Deep
Blue! The computer normally spots clear-cut combinations but
does not find it so easy to come to grips with intangibles like the
initiative, somewhat safer king and piece activity if the gambiteer
builds up gradually.

So after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d5 3 exd5 Bd6 what should happen? I would
expect White to win at master level, as happened in the 1989
British Championship when one of a group of Essex players who
have worked on the gambit tried it against a top Scottish player,
who is now a GM. Superficially, it was a comfortable win for
White but Black missed some opportunities to play better early on.

P.Motwani-J.Rogers: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d5 3 exd5 Bd6 4 d4 e4 5 Ne5
Nf6 6 Nc3 0-0 7 Bc4!? (7 Bg5 Nbd7 8 Nxd7 Bxd7 9 Bc4 h6! 10
Bc4 a6 11 a4 Re8 12 O-O Bf5! gave Black compensation in a
German CC game Crigat-Karker, published in CC Informator 3.)
7...Nbd7 8 Nxd7 Bxd7 (8...Nxd7!?) 9 Bg5 h6 10 Bh4 g5 11 Bg3
Bxg3 (11...Bf5!?) 12 hxg3 Ng4? (12...Kg7 was the only move.) 13
Be2! f5 14 Bxg4 fxg4 15 Qe2 Qf6 16 0-0-0 Rae8 17 Nxe4 Qg6 18
Rde1 Bf5 19 f3 gxf3 20 gxf3 g4 21 Qd2 Kg7 22 Nf2 gxf3 23 Re5
Rd8 24 g4 Bc8 25 Re7+ Rf7 26 Rxf7+ Kxf7 27 Rxh6 Qg7 28
Qf4+ Kg8 29 Ne4 Rf8 30 Nf6+ Rxf6 31 Qxf6 f2 32 Qd8+ Kf7 33
Qxc7+ 1-0. FIDE Master John Rogers later wrote a small
monograph on the gambit. Note also that a major alternative is
6...Nbd7 when 7 Nxd7 Bxd7 8 Bg5 0-0 9 Bc4 h6 10 Bh4 a6 11 0-0
b5 has been tried in postal, while 9 Be2 Re8 10 Qd2 a6 11 f3 e3!
12 Bxe3 Bb4 13 Bg5?? Bb5 0-1 was Mainka-Schulenberg,
Dortmund 1991. Of course White had to try 13 Kf2 Nxd5 14 Bg5
Nxc3 15 Bxd8 but Black's counterplay could well be adequate.

White has also tried 6 Bb5+ (instead of 6 Nc3) without achieving
much. The current (8-9/97) issue of my magazine "Chess Mail" has
an interesting game from Iceland with 6 Bd7, while Hebden has
experimented with 6 c6.

A good example of things going disastrously wrong for White was
the 1988 Danish correspondence game Topholm-Pape: 1 e4 e5 2
Nf3 d5 3 exd5 Bd6 4 d4 e4 5 Ne5 Nf6 6 Bc4 0-0 7 Bf4 Re8 8 0-0
(8 Qd2 Nh5!) 8...Nbd7 9 Nxd7 Bxf4 10 Nxf6+ Qxf6 11 Re1 e3! 12
fxe3 (12 Qe2 Bxh2+! 13 Kxh2 Qh4+ 14 Kg1 exf2+ or 12 f3 Qh4
13 g3 Bxg3 14 hxg3 Qxg3+ 15 Kh1 e2!) 12...Qh4! 0-1. 

Perhaps White should avoid 4 d4 and play 4 Bb5+ but after 4...c6 5
dxc6 bxc6 6 Bc4 e4 it seems to me that we have the kind of fluid
Two Knights Defense situation which White should avoid if
possible. Nevertheless a lively fight is in prospect with chances for
both sides as the following game shows.

E.Minerva-W.Muir, Italy-USA correspondence 1989-92: 1 e4 e5 2
Nf3 d5 3 exd5 Bd6 4 Bb5+ c6 5 dxc6 bxc6 6 Bc4 e4 7 Qe2 Nf6 8
Ng5 0-0 9 Nc3 Bf5 (9...Bg4! is better.) 10 d3 exd3 11 cxd3 Qc7 12
Nge4 Be5 13 Nxf6+ Bxf6 14 0-0 Nd7 15 Qf3 (Now White is on
top.) 15...Bg6 16 Bf4 Be5 17 Ne2 Qb6 18 Qh3 Rfd8 19 Bg5 Nf6
20 Rab1 h6 21 Nf4 Bxf4 22 Bxf4 Nd5 23 Be5 f6 24 Bc3 Kh7 25
Rbe1 Nf4 26 Qg3 Nxd3 27 Re7 Ne5 28 Bxe5 fxe5 29 Qxe5 Rg8
30 Rd1 Raf8 31 Bxg8+ Rxg8 32 Rdd7 1-0. 

A better try after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d5 3 exd5 Bd6 may be 4 Nc3 Nf6 5
Bc4 (5 d4 transposes to 4 d4 while 5 d3!? needs more
examination.) when Karpov-Kloster, Dortmund simultaneous
1993, continued 5...Qe7 6 0-0-0-0 7 d3 h6 8 h3 Bf5 9 Re1 Nbd7 10
Ne4 Bh7 11 Bb3 Nxe4 12 dxe4 Nc5 13 Nd2 f5 14 exf5 Bxf5 15
Nf1?! (15 Nc4 might have tested Black more.) 15...Qh4 16 Ng3
(16 Be3!?) e4 17 Nxf5 Rxf5 18 Be3 Raf8 and suddenly Black had
a dangerous initiative. The game ended 19 Qg4 Qf6 20 Kh1 h5 21
Qe2 Qe5 22 g3 Nxb3 23 axb3 Rf3 24 Rg1 h4 25 Bf4 Qf5 26 Rg2
Bxf4 27 gxf4 Qxf4 28 Kg1 e3 29 fxe3 Rxe3 draw.

Let us go back and look at White's main alternative, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3
d5 3 Nxe5. Here the gambit is not accepted at once, but the knight
takes up a potentially strong post. (See Diagram)

Here some books just give 3...Qe7? which is dandy for White after
4 d4 f6 5 Nd3 dxe4 6 Nf4 Qf7 7 Nd2 (Bondarevsky-Lilienthal,
USSR 1941) but Black has two superior moves, both mentioned in
BCO2 and ECO. 

He can equalize material (temporarily at least) by 3...dxe4, when
the game regularly cited in books (as far as move nine) is
Lob-Eliskases, German CC 1929, which went 4 Bc4 Qg5 5 Bxf7+
Ke7 6 d4 Qxg2 7 Rf1 Bh3 8 Bc4 Nf6 9 Bf4 (BCO2) Nbd7 10 Qd2
(Estrin also suggested 10 Nc3 here.) 10...Nb6 11 Be2 Nbd5 12 Nc3
Be6 13 Nxd5+ Nxd5 14 0-0-0 Qh3 15 Bg5+ Ke8 16 c4 and White
won.

Moreover, Keres failed to improve on this against Von Feilitzsch
in a 1936 CC game (12...Nxf4 13 Qxf4 Be6 14 h4 Rg8 15 Nc4
Kd8 16 0-0-0). 

However, Black could have chosen 7...Nd7!? or by 7...Nf6! he
could have transposed to Forchert-Buecker, Bad Godesberg 1991:
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d5 3 Nxe5 dxe4 4 Bc4 Qg5 5 d4 Qxg2 6 Rf1 Nf6 7
Bxf7+ (7 Nxf7 b5 8 Bb3 Bg4) 7...Ke7 8 b3 Nbd7 9 Ba3+ Kd8! 10
Be6 Bxa3 11 Nxa3 Re8 12 Bf7 Re7 which was unclear. The other
way for white to develop his queen's bishop is also critical: 8 Bf4
g6 9 Nc3 Bg7 10 Qe2 Rd8 is unclear according to Konikowski.

If Black does not like this, he can investigate 3...Bd6 when the
BCO2 recommendation is 4 d4 dxe4 5 Bc4 Bxe5 6 Qh5 with an
edge, but this needs more tests in view of 6...Qe7 (6...Qf6!? ECO)
7 Qxe5 (In reply to ECO's recommendation 7 dxe5, the reply 7...g6
has been suggested.) 7...Qxe5 8 dxe5 Nc6 9 Bf4 Nge7 10 Bb5 Bf5
11 Nd2 0-0-0 12 0-0-0 unclear (Karker). 

It should also be noted that, instead of 5 Bc4, the move 5 Qh5!? is
interesting but has escaped mention in previous theory articles. The
not altogether convincing OTB game Gufeld-Heuer, USSR Teams
Champ 1962, continued 5...Be6 (If 5...Qe7 6 Nc3 Nf6 7 Qh4 Bxe5
8 dxe5 Qxe5 9 Bf4 Qa5 10-0-0-0-0-0 11 Bc4 with a promising
position for White's pawn.) 6 Nc3 Bb4 (6...Nf6 7 Qe2 Bb4? 8
Qb5+) 7 a3 Nf6 8 Qh4 Be7 9 Nxe4 Ng4 10 Qg3 Qxd4 11 Nxg4
Qxe4+ 12 Ne3 Nc6 13 Qxg7 0-0-0 14 Bd3 Qa4 (14...Qf4 15 Nf5)
15 b3 Qa5+ 16 b4 Nxb4 (16...Qb6 17 Bb2) 17 axb4 Bxb4+ 18 Ke2
Qh5+ (18...Qc5 19 Bd2 Bxd2 20 Kxd2) 19 g4 Qh3 20 Rxa7 Kb8
21 Bd2! Kxa7 (21...Bxd2 22 Rha1) 22 Bxb4 Rhg8 23 Qe5 Bxg4+
24 Kd2 Qf3 25 Ra1+ Kb8 26 Qa5 Qxf2+ 27 Kc1 c6 (27...Qxe3+
28 Bd2 Qg1+ 29 Kb2 Qd4+ 30 Bc3 Qb6+ 31 Qxb6 cxb6 32 Be5+
Kc8 33 Bb5!+ ) 28 Qe5+ 1-0.

So this line could be a good bet for Elephant-hunters. However, the
old Soviet Chess Yearbook suggestion 8...Ba5!? could be critical. 

I leave the further exploration of this gambit as an exercise for
readers!