Mr Fletcher's gambits ... and some that he missed.

In 1954, an Edinburgh amateur named Elliott Fletcher published a book called Gambits Accepted, which on one level is one of the worst chess books ever written. His analysis is unreliable, and his attitude to some very ropey openings is woefully uncritical.

But the book is largely redeemed by a games collection which includes some little known treasures.

We think that Fletcher’s collection should be preserved for posterity.

Fletcher stated that he could find only 84 gambits. He had overlooked some obvious candidates, and we have managed to expand Fletcher’s collection to 95. In one or two instances, with the aid of Internet databases which of course weren’t available in 1954, we think we have found better candidates for inclusion than Fletcher himself chose.

1. Damiano Gambit NN-NN (with a surprise in the notes)
2. Schulze-Muller Gambit Phillips-Pillsbury
3. Jerome Gambit Sorensen-NN
4. Evans Gambit Spens-Cheshire
5. Mortimer-Evans Gambit Blackburne-Steinitz
6. Basque Gambit Richter-Ahues
7. Scotch Gambit Blackburne-Gifford
8. Goering Gambit Beddall-Leffler
9. King’s Rook’s Pawn Gambit Zollner-Vaughan, Cray & Greenwell
10. King’s Knight Gambit Stoltz-Rellstab
11. Allgaier Gambit Ourousoff-Bihn
12. Allgaier-Thorold Gambit Gunsberg-Ballard
13. Kieseritsky Gambit Harrwitz-Szen
14. Rice Gambit Marshall-von Scheve
15. Salvio Gambit NN-von der Lasa
16. Cochrane Gambit Tchigorin-Winawer
17. Muzio Gambit Maroczy-Tchigorin
18. Muzio-Lolli Gambit Elliott-Roper
19. Double Muzio Gambit
20. Young Gambit Young-Marshall
21. Greco-Philidor Gambit MacDonnell-Labourdonnais
22. Hanstein Gambit Spielmann-Grunfeld
23. Calabrese-Philidor Gambit Marshall-Gunsberg
24. Calabrese Gambit Greco-NN
25. Rosentreter Gambit/ Soerensen Gambit Gottschall-NN
27. Quaäde Gambit Schmid-Alapin
28. Cunningham Gambit Steinitz-Bird
29. Three Pawns Gambit von d. Lasa-Jaenisch
30. King’s Bishop Gambit Tchigorin-Schlechter
31. Lesser Bishop Gambit Bird-Weiss
32. Breyer Gambit Milner-Barry-Mitchell
33. Polerio Gambit Loyd-Moore
34. Pernau Gambit Willemson-Weigel
35. Orsini Gambit Guglielmetti-di Aria
36. Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit Blumberg-Rennie
37. Lopez Gambit Staunton-NN
38. Bishop’s Wing Gambit Dubois-Wyvill
39. MacDonnell Double Gambit Dubois-Wyvill
40. Centre Gambit Potter-Matthews
41. Danish Gambit Schnitzler-Alexandre
42. Vienna Gambit Purdy-Cowen
43. Hamppe-Allgaier Gambit Blackburne-Benfy
44. Hamppe-Allgaier-Thorold Gambit Hirschfield-Zukertort
45. Hamppe-Muzio Gambit Lange-v. Drygalski
46. Pierce Gambit Dinge-Walbrodt
47. Vienna-Cunningham Gambit Blackburne-Berry
48. Steinitz Gambit Steinitz-Zukertort
49. Fyfe Gambit NN-NN
50. Sicilian Wing Gambit Tartakower-Luckis
51. Albin-Chatard Gambit Alekhine-Fahrni
52. Alekhine Gambit Tramoyeres-Marin
53. Latvian (Counter)-Gambit Alonso-de Soto
54. Corkscrew Counter-Gambit Gamman-Blackburne
55. Lopez Counter Gambit NN-NN
56. Philidor Counter Gambit NN-Schallopp
57. Queen’s Pawn Counter Gambit Kozelen-Eliskases
58. Jaenisch Counter Gambit Gossip-Blackburne
59. Ponziani Counter Gambit Blackburne-Robey
60. Middleton Counter Gambit ‘MacR’-Hart
61. Gianutio Counter Gambit Milner-Barry-Alexander
62. Bledow Counter Gambit Swiderski-Teichmann
63. Bishop’s (Bryan) Counter Gambit Morphy-Maurian
64. Falkbeer Counter Gambit Gunsberg-v. Bardeleben
65. Calabrese Counter Gambit NN-Boden
66. Lewis Counter Gambit Chomat-Conill
67. Centre Counter Gambit Vergani-Blackburne
68. Swiss Gambit Wagner-v. Skerszewski
69. Lemberg Gambit Keres-Teltvecker
70. Reti Gambit Castaldi-Norcia
71. Staunton Gambit Gligoric-Kostic; Tartakower-Mieses
72. Blackmar’s Second Gambit Reti-Euwe
73. Blackmar’s First Gambit Wallis-NN
74. Queen’s Gambit Janowski-Schallopp
75. Marshall Gambit Janowski-Suechting
76. From (Counter)-Gambit Bird-Blackburne
77. Blumenfeld Counter Gambit Tarrasch-Alekhine
78. Budapest (Counter)-Gambit Bendix-Aitken
79. Tartakower Counter Gambit Whyte-Davis
80. Schara-Hennig Counter Gambit Pirc-Alekhine
81. Tarrasch Counter Gambit Barrera-Moritz
82. Albin Counter Gambit Karu-Keres
83. Winawer Counter Gambit Alapin-Marco
84. Benoni Counter Gambit NN-NN

And a number that Mr Fletcher missed.

Books by people like Eric Schiller list any number of recently invented gambits; but these are all gambits which had been played before Fletcher’s book was published, and seem to have met his criteria for inclusion.

85. Steinitz (Counter) Mason-Steinitz
86. Belgrade Gambit Markov-Rohacek
87. Ourousoff Gambit Schlechter-Neustadt & Tietz
88. Cochrane (Petroff) Gambit Gossip-City of Birmingham
89. Morra Gambit Tartakover-Lokvenc
90. Marshall (Counter-) Gambit Frere-Marshall
91. Charlick (Counter-) Gambit Apperley-Charlick
92. Milner-Barry Gambit Milner-Barry-Isles
93. Dilworth (Counter-) Gambit (mentioned by Fletcher who wrongly stated that it did not qualify for inclusion by his criteria) Estelles-Dilworth
94. Volga (now Benko) (Counter-) Gambit Bozic-Udovcic
95. Lisitsyn Gambit Haberditz-Hysek

1. Damiano Gambit NN-NN (with a surprise in the notes)

  [Event "East of Scotland Ch"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1951.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "NN"]  [Black "NN (Damiano Gambit)"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C40"]  [PlyCount "31"]  1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 3. Nxe5 fxe5 ({The reason for this move has not been  revealed by Black, an experienced player. As the gambit was accepted the use of the opening was not for setting the trappy variation in the Damiano Gambit Declined commencing with} 3... Qe7 {[Which move was played more than once by Tchigorin in master tournaments. But probably its most remarkable outing was in a simul in 1964 where apparently Black decided to try and bluff no less than Bobby Fischer into thinking that he was a rabbit. The game continued...} 4. Nf3 d5 5. d3 dxe4 6. dxe4 Qxe4+ 7. Be2 Bf5 8. Nd4 Nc6 9. Nxf5 Qxf5 10. O-O Bd6 11. Bg4 Qb5 12. Nc3 Qc4 13. Be2 $4 (13. Re1+ Nge7 14. Be6 {is winning comfortably}) 13... Qf7 14. Bb5 O-O-O 15. Qg4+ f5 16. Qh3 Nge7 17. Ne4 h6 18. Nxd6+ Rxd6 19. Bf4 Rd4 20. Be3 Rb4 21. Bxc6 Nxc6 22. b3 Re4 23. Rfd1 Rd8 24. Rxd8+ Nxd8 25. Rd1 Qe6 26. g3 Rxe3 {draw Fischer-Magregor, simul Houston 1964}) 4. Qh5+ Ke7 5. Qxe5+ Kf7 6. Bc4+ d5 7. Bxd5+ Kg6 8. d4 ({Even stronger is} 8. h4) 8... Qf6 9. Qg3+ Kh5 10. e5 Qf5 11. Bf3+ Qxf3 12. Qxf3+ Bg4 13. Qf7+ g6 14. h3 Nh6 15. hxg4+ Kxg4 16. Qf4# 1-0

2. Schulze-Muller Gambit Phillips-Pillsbury

  [Event "Simul,"]  [Site "Chicago"]  [Date "1899.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Phillips, D T."]  [Black "Pillsbury, H N."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C44"]   [PlyCount "89"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nxe5 {This, which is included by Fletcher under the title of Schulze-Muller, is more accurately titled the Chicago Gambit, for a reason which will be apparent} ({Some have given the name "Schulze-Muller" (which is a German slang expression corresponding to "Tom Dick and Harry") to the gambit} 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5 Nxe5 5. d4 {which was apparently used to good effect by club players in Leipzig in the late 19th century. This, otherwise called the Halloween Gambit or Leipzig Gambit, is a stronger version because the Black knights are targets for the White pawns. But we have not identified any games in this line which Fletcher could have quoted}) 3... Nxe5 4. d4 Nc6 ({Quoting an anonymous club game, Fletcher writes: Black had in previous games in this opening tried} 4... Ng6 {with very little success and was experimenting with a new move}) (4... Qh4 $2 5. dxe5 Qxe4+ 6. Qe2 Qxe2+ 7. Bxe2 d6 8. Bf4 dxe5 9. Bxe5 Bf5 10. O-O O-O-O 11. Bf3 Bxc2 $2 12. Rc1 f6 $2 13. Bg3 Bxb1 $4 ({This loses rapidly. Black still should try} 13... Re8) 14. Rxc7+ Kb8 15. Rxb7+ {And wins [Fritz finds a mate in 7]}) {But the only game one ought to quote for this opening, surely, is this amazing episode:} 5. d5 Nb8 6. Bd3 d6 7. O-O Nd7 8. c4 Be7 9. Nc3 Ne5 10. Be2 f5 11. f4 Nf7 12. Bd3 fxe4 13. Nxe4 Bf5 14. Kh1 Bxe4 15. Bxe4 Nf6 16. Bf3 O-O 17. g4 Nd7 18. Be3 b6 19. Be4 Nc5 20. Bc2 a5 21. Rf3 Nh8 22. Rh3 g6 23. g5 Qd7 24. Rh4 Rf5 25. Qg4 Raf8 26. Qh3 Bd8 27. a3 R8f7 28. b4 Nb7 29. Bd2 Qe8 30. Re1 Re7 31. Rxe7 Qxe7 32. Bxf5 gxf5 33. Qxf5 Ng6 34. Rh6 Nf8 35. Qd3 Qf7 36. f5 Be7 37. g6 hxg6 38. fxg6 Qg7 39. Qf5 Nd8 40. Rh3 Bf6 41. Bh6 Qe7 42. Re3 Be5 43. Bg5 Qe8 44. Bxd8 Nxg6 45. Bxc7 {1-0 Yes, that is Pillsbury the winner of Hastings 1895 and the near-World Championship candidate. In mitigation, he was playing 27 games of chess (+20 -2 =5) and ten games of draughts (+7 -1 =2). }

3. Jerome Gambit Sorensen-NN

Fletcher quotes a club game for the Jerome; and none of the surviving games by Jerome himself which we had located when putting this collection together were won by White. But the Danish player and problemist Soren Sorensen showed an interest in the gambit. Even greater interest has been shown by Rick Kennedy who has been researching this outrageous opening for some years and the fruit of whose researches can be found at http://jeromegambit.blogspot.co.uk .

       [Event "?"]   [Site "Denmark"]   [Date "1888.06.17"]   [Round "?"]   [White "Sorensen, S."]   [Black "NN"]   [Result "1-0"]   [ECO "C50"]   [Annotator "Hickman,Neil"]   [PlyCount "53"]      1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Bxf7+ Kxf7 5. Nxe5+ Nxe5 6. d4 $6 ({As one would expect, the most usual move here is} 6. Qh5+ {when after} Ke6 (6...g6 $5 7. Qxe5 d6 {"Not to be outdone in generosity" commented Blackburne, dryly.} 8. Qxh8 Qh4 9. O-O Nf6 10. c3 $4 ({after} 10. Qd8 {White still appears to be winning}) 10... Ng4 $1 11. h3 Bxf2+ 12. Kh1 Bf5 13. Qxa8 Qxh3+ $1 14. gxh3 Bxe4# {was a famous offhand game won by Blackburne in 1880}) 7. Qf5+ ({Apparently the Czech player Feifar has perpetrated} 7. f4 {with success several times in correspondence play (!!!), scoring pretty respectably (P5 W2 D2 L1 on Kennedy's blog)}) 7... Kd6 8. f4 Qf6 9. fxe5+ Qxe5 10. Qf3 Nf6 11. d3 Ke7 12. Nc3 c6 $6 13. Bf4 Qh5 $6 14. e5 Ng4 $2 15. O-O-O g6 16. Ne4 Nf2 17. Bg5+ Ke6 18. Qf6+ Kd5 19. c4+ Kd4 20. e6# {was one of the games won by Jerome which Kennedy has unearthed}) 6... Qh4 7. O-O Ng4 8. h3 Bd6 9. e5 Bxe5 $6 {Black decides to take the unsound White opening by the scruff of the neck. Unwise, with Black's king so exposed.} 10. dxe5 Nxe5 11. Qd5+ Kf6 12. f4 Ng6 13. Nc3 {White is now better.} d6 $4 14. Be3 $2 ({White misses the chance to win by a knockout with} 14. f5 Ne5 15. Ne4+ Ke7 16. Bg5+ {"etc", as they say}) 14... Ke7 15. Rae1 Kd8 16. Nb5 Nf6 17. Qc4 Ne8 $2 ({According to Fritz, the correct defence was the improbable looking} 17... c6 18. Nxd6 Bxh3) 18. Bf2 Qf6 19. Bd4 Qh4 20. Rxe8+ Kxe8 21. Nxc7+ Kf8 22. f5 ({Grabbing the rook with} 22. Nxa8 {wins, of course; but nobody who plays the Jerome Gambit is going to be that prosaic}) 22... Ne5 23. f6 $3 gxf6 (23... Nxc4 24. fxg7+ Ke7 25. gxh8=Q) 24. Qd5 Kg7 25. Qxd6 Rg8 26. Rxf6 Qxf6 27. Bxe5 {Threatening mate and with the win of a rook still to come after White has munched the opposing Queen!} 1-0

I am impressed that friend Kennedy has unearthed so many games won by Jerome himself. I am something more than impressed to find that a Czech player has been willing to play the Jerome in correspondence play.

4. Evans Gambit Spens-Cheshire

  [Event "Hastings Tour Match"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1899.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Spens, W C."]  [Black "Cheshire, H F (Evans Gambit)"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C51"]   [PlyCount "41"]   {There are any number of Evans Gambits Fletcher could have chosen, but rather touchingly he selected one played by Walter Spens, stalwart of his Edinburgh club, against Horace Cheshire of Hastings (editor of the Hastings 1895 Tournament Book) on the tour which the Hastings players undertook in 1899}   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. O-O Bb6 7. d4 exd4 8. cxd4 d6 {The well-known 'normal' position in the Evans Gambit Accepted} 9. Bb2 Na5 10. d5 Ne7 ({If} 10... Nxc4 {, writes Fletcher, then} 11. Qa4+ (11. Bxg7 $1 {instead is plainly winning})) 11. Bd3 O-O 12. Nc3 c6 13. e5 {White goes in for line clearing as Black's position is beginning to become cramped} dxe5 14. Ba3 Re8 15. d6 Ng6 16. Ne4 f5 17. Nfg5 {Feed this position through Fritz and you will be assured that Black is winning easily (about -5.07). In real life, it's not so easy} h6 18. Qh5 Nf4 $4 (18... Nh8 {and Black still appears to be ok}) 19. Nf6+ $1 {The point of most of these over-sharp openings is that while if the opponent finds all the right moves he is likely to win "easily", actually finding them all over the board is another matter entirely. White is offered the one chance he needs} gxf6 (19... Qxf6 20. Qxe8+ Qf8 21. Qxf8+ Kxf8 22. d7+  Kg8 23. dxc8=Q+ Rxc8 24. Bxf5 {loses horribly. Black realises what is coming and prefers a quick way out}) 20. Qf7+ Kh8 21. Qh7# 1-0

5. Mortimer-Evans Gambit Blackburne-Steinitz

  [Event "London"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1863.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Blackburne, J H."]  [Black "Steinitz, W."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C51"]  [PlyCount "55"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. d4 exd4 7. cxd4 Bb6 8. O-O d6 {The 'normal' position of the normal Evans} 9. Nc3 Bg4 10. Qa4 Bd7 11. Qb3 Na5 12. Bxf7+ Kf8 13. Qc2 Kxf7 {This constitutes the Mortimer-Evans which was newly introduced when this game was played} 14. e5 Bg4 $2 ({According to Blackburne, the losing move. Correct was} 14... h6) 15. Re1 Bxf3 16. Qf5+ Nf6 17. Qxf3 Re8 18. Bg5 Nc6 19. exf6 Rxe1+ 20. Rxe1 gxf6 21. Qh5+ Kg8 22. Bh6 Qd7 23. Re4 Kh8 24. Qh4 Qf7 25. Nd5 Qg6 ({Not} 25... Qxd5 {because of mate in two by} 26. Qxf6+) 26. Nf4 Qf5 ({This is a blunder, though Fletcher does not say so. After} 26... Qf7 27. Nh5 {White is better, but there is nothing immediately decisive}) 27. Qg3 Qd7 28. Nh5{ 1-0}

6. Basque Gambit Richter-Ahues

  [Event "Cracow"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1940.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Richter, W."]  [Black "Ahues, K."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C84"]   [PlyCount "67"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. d4 exd4 7. e5 Ne4 8. c3 {This constitutes the Basque Gambit} dxc3 9. Bc2 d5 10. Nxc3 Nxc3 11. bxc3 Bg4 12. Re1 Qd7 $2 ({Mieses recommends} 12... d4 $1 {[Though Fritz reckons 12...Qd7 is Black's best move and that} 13. cxd4 Bb4 14. Re3 {is pretty solidly +/-]}) 13. Rb1 Nd8 $2 ({Again Mieses questions the adequacy of Black's move. Less timid was} 13... b5) 14. h3 Be6 ({Not} 14... Bf5 {because of} 15. Nd4 $1 Bxc2 16. Qxc2 {followed as soon as possible by Nf5, f4 and a king-side attack}) 15.  Qd3 c5 16. Nh2 h5 $4 ({Definitely a bad move, creating a king's side weakness, according to Mieses.} 16... Nc6 {is best.}) 17. Qg3 Nc6 18. Bg5 b5 19. Nf3 Kf8 20. Nh4 Bxg5 21. Qxg5 Qe7 22. Qf4 Kg8 {And now, until Black is forced to resign, White's game is confined to rook play.} 23. Re3 $1 Rh6 24. Rg3 Kh8 25. Rg5 Rg8 26. Re1 Bd7 27. Re3 Nd8 28. Rxg7 {Black resigns, for if} Rxg7 {there follows} 29. Qxh6+ Kg8 30. Rg3 Rxg3 31. Bh7+ Kh8 32. Bg6+ Kg8 33. Qh7+ Kf8 34. Qh8# 1-0

7. Scotch Gambit Blackburne-Gifford

  [Event "The Hague"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1874.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Blackburne, J H."]  [Black "Gifford, H W."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C44"]   [PlyCount "39"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. Ng5 Nh6 6. Qh5 Qe7 7. f4 O-O $2 ({Blackburne recommends} 7... d6 {followed by ...Bd7. Tartakower in "500 Master Games of Chess" commented drily: "Assigning to his king a rather storm-swept domicile."}) 8. O-O d6 9. f5 d3+ {Once again Blackburne criticises. He thinks this is not good as it allows White's QN to be brought into action on a good square.} 10. Kh1 dxc2 11. Nc3 Ne5 12. Nd5 Qd8 13. f6 Ng6 14. fxg7 Kxg7 15. Qxh6+ Kxh6 16. Ne6+ {Starting a routine king hunt} Kh5 17. Be2+ Kh4 18. Rf4+ Nxf4 19. g3+ Kh3 20. Ndxf4# 1-0

8. Goering Gambit Beddall-Leffler

  [Event "Hastings (Second Class)"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1923.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Beddall, Miss E"]  [Black "Leffler, W E."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C44"]  [PlyCount "21"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. c3 h6 $2 5. Bc4 dxc3 6. O-O d6 7. Nxc3 Bg4 8. a3 Ne5 9. Nxe5 $1 Bxd1 10. Bxf7+ Ke7 11. Nd5# {Black is just another victim of the Legalle (sic) trap, which goes back to 1725} 1-0

9. King’s Rook’s Pawn Gambit Zollner-Vaughan, Cray & Greenwell

  [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Zollner, L."]  [Black "Vaughan; Gray; Greenwell"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C25"]   [PlyCount "33"]   {White in this game was Louis Zollner, the Danish Consul based in Newcastle, and the inaugural president of the Northumberland Chess Association. In 1938, at the age of 84, he beat Alekhine in a simul.}   1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4 exf4 4. h4 {Mr Zollner's own idea, which had the approval of Dr Lasker. It makes the opening, which started as a Vienna, a King's Rook's Pawn Gambit.} Be7 5. Nf3 d6 6. d4 Bg4 7. Bxf4 Bxh4+ 8. g3 Bf6 9. Bb5 Bxf3 10. Qxf3 Bxd4 11. O-O-O Bb6 12. e5 Nge7 13. exd6 cxd6 14. Rxd6 Qc8 15. Qe4 Qf5 16. Rxc6 Qxe4 17. Rc8# 1-0

10. King’s Knight Gambit Stoltz-Rellstab

   [Event "Swinemunde"]  [Site "Swinemunde"]  [Date "1932.??.??"]  [Round "5"]  [White "Stoltz, G."]  [Black "Rellstab, L."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C36"]   [PlyCount "41"]  [EventDate "1932.??.??"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Nf6 ({Gone are the days of} 3... g5) 4. Nc3 d5 {Although the advantage of the early advance of this pawn by Black was known quite a long way back in history it is only since the Abbazia tournament of 1912 that it has been regarded as the sine qua non for the King's Gambit} 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. Nxd5 Qxd5 7. d4 Nc6 8. Bxf4 Bg4 9. Bxc7 Bxf3 10. Qxf3 Qxf3 11. gxf3 {Who is playing the gambit game? For the moment, White is a pawn up, even if it is only an isolated one} Rc8 12. Bf4 Nxd4 {Now they are level in material again. White, however, still has his isolated pawn, but he has two bishops as compensation} 13. O-O-O Bc5 ({Not} 13... Rxc2+ {because of} 14. Kb1 {and both R and N cannot be defended.}) ({Nor} 13... Nxc2 {for} 14. Bh3 {is full of nasty threats}) 14. Be5 Ne6 15. Bb5+ Kf8 16. Bd7 Ra8 17. Bxe6 Re8 18. Rd5 Be3+ 19. Kb1 fxe6 20. Rd7 Rg8 21. Bd6+ {1-0 Stoltz and Keres, together with the two British players, Milner-Barry and C H O'D Alexander, did a lot in the 1930s to resuscitate the king's gambits. This game is a good example of their gambit-cum-position style} 1-0

11. Allgaier Gambit Ourousoff-Bihn

  [Event "Moscow"]  [Site "Moscow"]  [Date "1851.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Ourousoff, Prince S"]  [Black "Bihn"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C39"]   [PlyCount "43"]  [EventDate "1851.??.??"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ng5 h6 6. Nxf7 Kxf7 7. Bc4+ {The Ourousoff being played by its inventor} ({Fletcher points out that the original form of the Allgaier Gambit} 7. Qxg4 Nf6 8. Qxf4 {was refuted in the 1820s by the improbable-looking} Bd6 {discovered by Horny. Ourousoff's move was one of the ideas which rehabilitated the gambit}) 7... d5 8. Bxd5+ Kg7 ({We now know that} 8... Ke8 {offers better chances for Black}) 9. d4 Nf6 10. Nc3 Bb4 11. Bxf4 Nxd5 12. exd5 Qxd5 $2 {Greedy. Black can't afford this with half his pieces undeveloped} 13. O-O {Black is lost} Bxc3 14. Be5+ Kg8 15. Qd3 Bxd4+ 16. Bxd4 Qh5 17. Qc4+ Kh7 18. Rf7+ Kg6 19. Rg7+ Kf5 20. Rf1+ Ke4 21. Bf6+ Ke3 22. Qd3# 1-0

12. Allgaier-Thorold Gambit Gunsberg-Ballard

   [Event "London m/1"]  [Site "London m/1"]  [Date "1889.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Gunsberg, I"]  [Black "Ballard, Dr W R"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C39"]   [PlyCount "47"]  [EventDate "1889.??.??"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ng5 h6 6. Nxf7 Kxf7 7. d4 {This is the Allgaier-Thorold, the other rehabilitation of the Allgaier} ({Keres later advocated} 7. Nc3) 7... d6 $2 8. Bc4+ Kg6 {Reserving g7 for the KB, but it never succeeds in getting there} 9. Bxf4 Nf6 10. Qd3 Qe8 11. Nc3 Nc6 12. h5+ Nxh5 13. Rxh5 $1 Nb4 14. Qe2 Kxh5 15. a3 Nc6 16. O-O-O Kg6 17. Nd5 Rh7 18. e5 Rf7 19. Bd3+ Kg7 20. Nf6 Qe7 21. Bxh6+ Kh8 ({Of course not} 21... Kxh6 {because of} 22. Ng8+ {writes Fletcher} ({Each to his own. Some would prefer} 22. Rh1+ Kg7 23. Rh7#)) 22. Bxf8 Qxf8 23. Rh1+ Kg7 24. Rh7# 1-0

13. Kieseritsky Gambit Harrwitz-Szen

   [Event "London"]  [Site "London"]  [Date "1851.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Harrwitz, D."]  [Black "Szen, J."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C39"]   [PlyCount "41"]  [EventDate "1851.??.??"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 Nf6 6. Nxg4 Nxe4 7. Qe2 d5 8. d3 Bxg4 9. Qxg4 Ng3 10. Rh3 Bd6 11. Bxf4 Qe7+ 12. Kf2 Bxf4 13. Qxf4 Nxf1 $2 14. Nc3 O-O 15. Kxf1 c6 16. Re1 Qd8 17. Rg3+ Kh8 18. Qh6 Rg8 {Thereby allowing White to bring off a neat problem-like finish} 19. Re8 $3 Qxe8 20. Qf6+ Rg7 21. Qxg7# 1-0

14. Rice Gambit Marshall-von Scheve

  [Event "Rice Gambit Tournament"]  [Site "Monte Carlo MCO"]  [Date "1904.02.29"]  [Round "7"]  [White "Marshall, F J."]  [Black "von Scheve, T."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C39"]   [PlyCount "61"]  [EventDate "1904.02.08"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 Nf6 6. Bc4 d5 7. exd5 Bd6 8. O-O {This is the Rice Gambit, to which the tournament was dedicated} Bxe5 9. Re1 Qe7 10. c3 ({Not} 10. d4 {on account of} Bxd4+ {etc}) 10... f3 $2 ({The correct move is} 10... Nh5 {as played by Marshall against Mieses in the same tournament}) 11. d4 Ne4 12. Rxe4 Bh2+ 13. Kxh2 Qxe4 14. g3 O-O {So well was this opening analysed in its first ten years of existence - it was introduced in 1896 - that up to this point the present game was regarded as 'book'} 15. Bd3 Qxd5 16. c4 Qh5 ({Obviously not} 16... Qxd4 {on account of} 17. Bxh7+) 17.  Nc3 c6 18. Ne4 f5 19. Nd6 f4 {This turns out to be not as good as it looks} 20. Qe1 fxg3+ 21. Qxg3 Nd7 22. Bg5 f2 23. Bf5 Nb6 24. Nxc8 Raxc8 25. Be6+ Rf7 26. Rf1 Re8 27. Bxf7+ Qxf7 28. Qxg4 Qg6 29. Rxf2 Nxc4 30. h5 Re4 $2 (30... Qg7 {has been suggested as an improvement, writes Fletcher - but after} 31. h6 Ne3 32. Qh4 Qd7 33. Bxe3 {White is winning very easily, e.g.} Rxe3 34. Qg5+ {and mate next move}) 31. Bh6 {In this now famous position, the White Queen cannot be taken because of Rf8 mate.} 1-0

15. Salvio Gambit NN-von der Lasa

   [Event "Blind"]  [Site "Berlin"]  [Date "1838.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "NN"]  [Black "der Lasa, Baron T"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C37"]   [PlyCount "45"]  [EventDate "1838.??.??"]   {It seems that der Lasa was playing blindfold, which explains a lot}   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. Ne5 Qh4+ 6. Kf1 Nh6 7. d4 f3 8. g3 Qh3+ 9. Kf2 Qg2+ 10. Ke3 f6 (10... f5 {was later found to be the better move at this point}) 11. Nd3 Nf7 12. Nf4 Bh6 13. Kd3 Bxf4 14. Bxf4 c6 15. Nc3 O-O 16. Bd6 b5 17. Bxf7+ Rxf7 18. h3 b4 19. Bxb4 Ba6+ 20. Ke3 Qxg3 21. Qg1 Qc7 22. Qxg4+ Rg7 23. Qxf3 {"And wins, for White is already a pawn up and has complete control of the centre. Black's queen's knight has no square available and the QR is in consequence locked out of play"} 1-0

16. Cochrane Gambit Tchigorin-Winawer

   [Event "Berlin"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1881.09.10"]  [Round "11"]  [White "Tchigorin, M."]  [Black "Winawer, S."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C37"]   [PlyCount "33"]  [EventDate "1881.08.29"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. Ne5 Qh4+ 6. Kf1 f3 7. d4 Nf6 ({This seems to be as strong as the more common} 7... fxg2+) 8. Nc3 ({The usual move is} 8. Bxf7+ {but the text works out quite well}) 8... fxg2+ 9. Kxg2 Qh3+ 10. Kg1 d5 11. Bxd5 Nxd5 12. Nxd5 Bd6 13. Qe1 Nd7 $2 (13... Bxe5 {would probably hold the position, suggests Fletcher. Fritz disagrees after} 14. dxe5 Na6 15. Nf6+ Kf8 16. a4 {with Ra3 to follow}) (13... Be6 {on the other hand may be sufficient}) 14. Nxd7 Bxd7 15. e5 O-O-O 16. exd6 Rde8 17. Qa5 1-0

17. Muzio Gambit Maroczy-Tchigorin

  [Event "Vienna"]  [Site "Vienna AUT"]  [Date "1903.05.05"]  [Round "3"]  [White "Maroczy, G."]  [Black "Tchigorin. M."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C37"]  [PlyCount "47"]  [EventDate "1903.05.02"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. Nc3 {This move has been attributed to MacDonnell. Opinions differ as to its value as an alternative to 5. 0-0} gxf3 6. Qxf3 d6 $2 ({The usual King's Gambit move for Black is proper here:} 6... d5 $1) 7. d4 Be6 8. Nd5 c6 9. O-O cxd5 10. exd5 Bf5 11. Bxf4 Bg6 12. Bb5+ Nd7 13. Rae1+ Be7 14. Bxd6 Kf8 15. Rxe7 Nxe7 16. Re1 Kg7 17. Bxe7 Qa5 18. Qe2 Nf8 19. Bf6+ Kg8 (19... Kxf6 20. Qe5#) 20. Qe5 h6 21. Bxh8 f6 22. Qe7 Kxh8 23. Qxf6+ Kg8 24. Re7 1-0

18. Muzio-Lolli Gambit Elliott-Roper

  [Event "Minnesota"]  [Site "Minnesota"]  [Date "1903.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Elliot"]  [Black "Roper"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C37"]   [PlyCount "47"]  [EventDate "1903.??.??"]   {This game would have suited better than the one Fletcher chose.}   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. Bxf7+ Kxf7 6. Ne5+ Ke8 7. Qxg4 Nf6 ({Fletcher quotes a game which continued} 7... Qf6 8. Qh5+ Ke7 {Forced} 9. Nf7 Qxf7 10. Qe5+ Qe6 11. Qxh8 Nf6 12. Nc3 d6 13. O-O c6 14. d4 Nbd7 15. e5 dxe5 16. dxe5 ({Fritz points out the brilliant} 16. Bxf4 $3 {which is winning for White -} exf4 17. Rae1) 16... Nxe5 17. Bxf4 Ng6 18. Bd6+ Qxd6 19. Rae1+ Ne5 20. Rxf6 Qxf6 21. Rxe5+ Kf7 ({Here Black should have played} 21... Be6 {with a won game (Handbuch)}) 22. Qxh7+ Bg7 23. Qh5+ Kg8 24. Re8+ Bf8 25. Ne4 Qf5 ({"There was nothing to be gained from} 25... Qd4+ {(Handbuch)" - but according to Fritz the position would now be level}) 26. Qh6 {and wins ('The Honorary Secretary-Another Member, Played in a London Chess Club')}) 8. Qxf4 d6 9. Nc4 Be6 10. e5 {Good gambit play on principle - rip lines open irrespective of soundness!} Bxc4 $2 {Plausible but a mistake. Even the materialistic Fritz has Black barely better now} 11. exf6 Be6 12. O-O Kf7 13. Re1 d5 14. Rxe6 $5 {Enterprising, certainly} Kxe6 15. Qg4+ Kf7 (15... Kd6 {moving the king away from the action was best}) ({And Black presumably refrained from} 15... Kxf6 {because of} 16. Qh4+ Kg6 17. Qxd8 {picking up the queen... except that Black then has} Bc5+ 18. Kh1 Rxd8 {and wins!}) 16. Qh5+ Ke6 17. Nc3 Bc5+ 18. d4 $5 Bxd4+ 19. Kh1 Bxc3 20. bxc3 Qxf6 21. Bg5 Qe5 (21... Qf5 {leaving the king exposed to check on the e-file seems to leave Black slightly better. But White has all his pieces in play, Black has three of his pieces unmoved; always a dangerous situation}) 22. Qg4+ Kf7 23. Rf1+ Kg8 24. Be7+ 1-0

19. Double Muzio Gambit/ 20. Young Gambit Young-Marshall

   [Event "USA Simultaneous Exh"]  [Site "USA Simultaneous Exh"]  [Date "1913.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "W W Young"]  [Black "Frank James Marshall"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C37"]   [PlyCount "25"]  [EventDate "1913.??.??"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. Bxf7+ ({Another, and better, form of the Double Muzio is} 5. O-O gxf3 6. Qxf3 Qf6 7. e5 Qxe5 8. Bxf7+ Kxf7 9. d4 Qxd4+ 10. Be3 Qf6 11. Bxf4 Bg7 12. Nc3 Ne7 $2 13. Nd5 $1 Nxd5 14. Qxd5+ Qe6 15. Bd2+ (15. Bh6+ {is more accurate}) 15... Kg8 $2 (15... Bf6 {though} 16. Qh5+ Ke7 17. Rae1 {still wins}) 16. Rae1 Qxd5 17. Re8+ Bf8 18. Bh6 {1-0 Smirnov-Tikhonov, Moscow 1954, probably just too late for Fletcher's book; but it has been suggested that the whole game had been played before in 19th century England}) 5... Kxf7 6. O-O gxf3 7. Qxf3 Qf6 ({Steinitz prefers} 7... d6) 8. d4 Qxd4+ 9. Be3 Qf6 10. Nc3 {The inventor offers the gambit bearing his name} Ne7 {Marshall declines this gambit} ({The Young Gambit Accepted is} 10... fxe3 {- Fletcher, commenting "The opening has now become the Young Gambit Accepted and this loses rapidly. It will be noticed that the remaining Black moves are all made by the king" gives a club game which continued} 11. Qh5+ Ke6 12. Rxf6+ Kxf6 ({less immediately disastrous is} 12... Nxf6 {but White is still winning after} 13. Qf5+ Kf7 14. Nd5 Bg7 15. Nxf6) 13. Nd5+ Ke6 (13... Kg7 {is the only alternative, and White follows with} 14. Qg5+ Kf7 15. Rf1+ Nf6 16. Qxf6+ {and mate next move}) 14. Nxc7+ Ke7 (14... Kd6 {would have enabled Black to survive a little longer}) 15. Qe5+ Kf7 16. Rf1+ Kg6 17. Qf5+ Kg7 18. Qg5#) 11. Bxf4 d6 12. Qh5+ Kg7 $2 ({The only move is the improbable-looking} 12... Qg6 {which even as fine a tactician as Frank Marshall misses}) 13. Bh6+ 1-0

21. Greco-Philidor Gambit MacDonnell-Labourdonnais

   [Event "London m3"]  [Site "London m3"]  [Date "1834.??.??"]  [Round "44"]  [White "McDonnell, A."]  [Black "La Bourdonnais, L."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C38"]   [PlyCount "63"]  [EventDate "1834.??.??"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. d4 d6 6. c3 h6 7. Na3 Nc6 8. Bd2 Qe7 9. O-O Bd7 10. b4 O-O-O 11. Bd3 g4 12. Ne1 f3 13. gxf3 Nf6 $2 ({The Handbuch suggests} 13... Nxb4 14. cxb4 Bxd4+ 15. Kh1 Bxa1) 14. b5 Nb8 15. Nac2 Rdg8 16. Kh1 h5 17. Ne3 gxf3 18. Qxf3 Bg4 19. Qf4 Nbd7 20. Nf5 Qe6 21. Nf3 Bxf3+ 22. Qxf3 Ng4 23. a4 Bh6 24. Bxh6 Nxh6 25. a5 Nxf5 $2 (25... Kb8 {is given by the Handbuch as being the better move (Though Fritz reckons White is still winning after it)}) 26. exf5 Qb3 27. a6 d5 28. c4 Nf6 29. axb7+ Kb8 30. c5 Ng4 31. b6 $1 axb6 (31... cxb6 32. Qg3+ Kxb7 33. Ba6+ {winning queen, says Fletcher} ({Each to his own. MacDonnell would probably have found} 33. Rxa7+ $1 Kxa7 34. Qc7+ {and mate next move})) 32. c6 1-0

22. Hanstein Gambit Spielmann-Grunfeld

  [Event "7, Teplitz-Schonau it GER"]  [Site "7, Teplitz-Schonau it GER"]  [Date "1922.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Spielmann, R."]  [Black "Gruenfeld, E."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C38"]   [PlyCount "61"]  [EventDate "1922.??.??"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Nc6 4. Nf3 g5 5. O-O d6 6. d4 Bg7 7. c3 h6 8. g3 g4 9. Nh4 f3 10. Nd2 Bf6 11. Ndxf3 gxf3 {This is the 'normal' position of the Hanstein Gambit when White is sacrificing the QN rather than the KN} 12. Qxf3 Rh7 $2 (12... Bh3 $1 {(Spielmann)}) 13. Ng6 Rg7 14. Nf4 Bg4 15. Qg2 Bg5 16. h3 Bd7 17. Nh5 Rh7 18. e5 dxe5 19. Qe4 f5 20. Rxf5 $1 Bxf5 21. Qxf5 Re7 22. Bxg5 hxg5 23. Rf1 Qd6 24. Bxg8 exd4 25. Qf8+ Kd7 26. Qxa8 Qc5 27. Nf6+ Kd6 28. Qf8 Qe5 29. Kg2 d3 30. Rf2 Qe1 31. Qh6 1-0

23. Calabrese-Philidor Gambit Marshall-Gunsberg

  [Event "Vienna"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1903.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Marshall, F J."]  [Black "Gunsberg, I."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C38"]   [PlyCount "49"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. h4 h6 6. d4 d6 7. Qd3 Nc6 8. c3 Qe7 9. hxg5 hxg5 10. Rxh8 Bxh8 {This is the characteristic capturing sequence of the Calabrese-Philidor.} 11. e5 f5 12. Bxg8 dxe5 13. dxe5 g4 14. Nd4 Nxe5 15. Qe2 Bd7 16. Kd1 O-O-O 17. Bb3 Qg5 $2 ({Either} 17... f3 {or 17...c5 in better}) 18. Bd2 c5 19. Ne6 Bxe6 20. Bxe6+ Kb8 21. Kc2 a6 22. Na3 b5 23. Nxb5 axb5 24. Qxb5+ Kc7 25. Qxc5+ {and wins} 1-0

24. Calabrese Gambit Greco-NN

  [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1620.??.??"]  [Round "44"]  [White "Gioachino Greco"]  [Black "NN"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C38"]  [PlyCount "31"]  [EventDate "1620.??.??"]   {Fletcher couldn't find an example of the Calabrese Gambit where White won. Possibly he didn't look back far enough. Here is a spectacular effort by the Calabrian himself, Gioachino Greco.}   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. d4 d6 6. Nc3 c6 7. h4 h6 8. hxg5 hxg5 9. Rxh8 Bxh8 10. Ne5 $6 {Spectacular, and works, though it shouldn't. But this is in 1620, for heaven's sake.} dxe5 11. Qh5 Qf6 12. dxe5 Qg7 13. e6 ({Fletcher quotes a club game which proceeded} 13. Bd2 Nh6 14. O-O-O Qg6 15. Qxg6 fxg6 16. e6 Bf6 17. Rh1 Ng4 18. Rh7 Ne5 19. Bb3 b5 20. a4 a6 21. Kb1 f3 22. gxf3 Nxf3 23. Be3 g4 24. Bc5 Nd2+ 25. Kc1 Nxb3+ 26. cxb3 Bxe6 27. e5 Bg5+ (27... Bxe5 28. Re7+) 28. Kc2 Bf7 {Fletcher doesn’t comment on this move, but once again, it only takes one bad move, and Black has just made it...} 29. Ne4 Be7 30. e6 Bxc5 31. exf7+ Kd8 32. Nxc5 Ke7 33. Ne6 Nd7 34. f8=Q+ {1-0}) 13... Nf6 14. exf7+ Kf8 $4 ({The improbable-looking} 14... Ke7 $3 {would have left White struggling to justify his sacrifice}) 15. Bxf4 $3 {Greco is presented with the chance and takes it with aplomb. White now has a forced win in every variation - Black opts for the spectacular end.} Nxh5 16. Bd6# 1-0

25. Rosentreter Gambit/ 26. Soerensen Gambit Gottschall-NN

  [Event "from the Handbuch"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Gottschall"]  [Black "A N Other"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C37"]   [PlyCount "51"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. d4 g4 5. Ne5 (5. Nc3 {is the Soerensen Gambit. Fletcher gives a club game which continued} gxf3 6. Qxf3 Bb4 7. Bxf4 d5 8. O-O-O Bxc3 9. exd5 Bxb2+ {With the idea of getting some sort of counter attack} 10. Kxb2 Bf5 11. Bb5+ Nd7 12. Rhe1+ Kf8 13. Qh5 Qf6 14. Bxd7 Bxd7 15. Be5 Qb6+ 16. Ka1 Qh6 ({There is not much else to be done, says Fletcher, for if} 16...Nf6 {White carries on with} 17. Qh6+ Ke8 (17... Kg8 18. Bxf6 {and mate can only be staved off by sacrificing the queen}) 18. Bxc7+ {and the queen is lost}) ({Fritz, however, suggests that after} 16... f6 {White still has quite a lot to do}) 17. Qxh6+ Nxh6 18. Bxh8 {"and wins, being the exchange and a pawn to the good".}) 5... Qh4+ 6. g3 fxg3 7. Qxg4 g2+ 8. Qxh4 gxh1=Q 9. Be3 Be7 10. Qf4 Nf6 11. Nc3 d6 12. O-O-O dxe5 {Given a '?' by Fletcher, but the best move according to Fritz} 13. dxe5 Nfd7 14. Bc4 Qg2 15. Bxf7+ (15. Qxf7+ {is much stronger}) 15... Kd8 16. e6 Bd6 17. e5 (17. Rxd6 {mates in 11 according to Fritz}) 17... Be7 18. Nd5 Nc6 19. Nxe7 Nxe7 20. Qf6 Rf8 {This allows a forced mate in six} 21. Qxe7+ Kxe7 22. Rxd7+ Bxd7 23. Bc5+ Kd8 24. e7+ Kc8 25. exf8=Q+ Be8 26. Qxe8# 1-0

27. Quaäde Gambit Schmid-Alapin

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1889.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Schmidt"]  [Black "Alapin, S."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C37"]   [PlyCount "45"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Nc3 g4 5. Ne5 Qh4+ 6. g3 fxg3 7. Qxg4 g2+ 8. Qxh4 gxh1=Q {Black's moves have been identical with those of Gottschall-NN. White's difference in development is that the QN has been played instead of the QP. This is, of course, the fundamental distinction between the Quaade and the Rosentreter. (Apart, of course, from the fact that White is better in the Quaade and losing in the Rosentreter...)} 9. d4 $1 ({Fletcher's exclamation mark. But actually White should play} 9. Qh5 Be7 10. Nxf7) 9... d6 10. Nxf7 Kxf7 11. Qh5+ Ke7 $1 ({Much stronger than} 11... Kg7 {says Fletcher. Fritz disagrees.}) 12. Bg5+ Kd7 13. O-O-O ({Plausible, but} 13. Qh3+ {wins more quickly}) 13... Qxf1 {The queen cannot escape, but Black has acquired (no repentance is offered for the pun!) (A Quaade... Oh, I see...) a major and two minor pieces for the lady} 14. Rxf1 Ne7 15. Rf7 Nbc6 16. Nd5 Kd8 17. Qxh7 ({Fritz rates} 17. Nf6 {as about +14 for White...}) 17... Rxh7 18. Rxf8+ Kd7 19. Nf6+ Ke6 20. d5+ Ke5 21. Nxh7 Nxd5 22. Re8+ Nce7 23. Bxe7 ({"And wins". In this collection, of course, nobody is going to be so prosaic as to play} 23. exd5 {and win both knights}) 1-0

28. Cunningham Gambit Steinitz-Bird

   [Event "Vienna"]  [Site "Vienna AUT"]  [Date "1873.08.21"]  [Round "10.1"]  [White "Wilhelm Steinitz"]  [Black "Henry Edward Bird"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C35"]  [PlyCount "71"]  [EventDate "1873.07.21"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7 4. Bc4 Bh4+ 5. Kf1 d6 6. d4 Bg4 7. Bxf4 Qf6 8. Be3 Ne7 9. Nbd2 h6 10. h3 Bxf3 11. Nxf3 Nd7 12. Kg1 Bg3 13. Nd2 Nb6 14. Bd3 Bf4 15. Bf2 h5 16. h4 O-O-O 17. Nf3 d5 $2 ({The Handbuch suggests that} 17... Rdg8 {followed by ...g5 is better}) 18. e5 Qe6 19. Qe2 f6 20. Re1 Nc6 21. g3 fxe5 22. gxf4 Qg4+ 23. Kh2 e4 24. Ng5 Qxf4+ ({Not} 24... exd3 {says Fletcher, for White would play} 25. Qxg4+ hxg4 26. Nf7 dxc2 {Fritz reckons the position would then be level, however. As played, White is better.}) 25. Bg3 Qf6 26. Bb5 Nxd4 27. Qf1 Rdf8 28. c3 Qe7 29. cxd4 ({All the authorities, observes Fletcher, never fail to point out that Steinitz had a simple win by} 29. Qh3+ {If so, they are ignoring} Nf5 {when it's still level}) 29... Rxf1 30. Rhxf1 Rf8 31. Rxf8+ Qxf8 32. a3 c6 33. Rf1 Qe8 34. Rf7 Nd7 ({Better} 34... Qxf7 35. Nxf7 cxb5 {though after} 36. Nd6+ Kd7 37. Nxb5 Nc4 38. Nxa7 Nxb2 {White is still a bit better}) 35. Bf1 Nf6 36. Rc7+ {Steinitz had a subtle way of avoiding the simple and obvious} 1-0

29. Three Pawns Gambit von d. Lasa-Jaenisch

   [Event "Berlin"]  [Site "Berlin"]  [Date "1842.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Baron Tassilo von Heydebrand und von der Lasa"]  [Black "Carl Friedrich von Jaenisch"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C35"]  [PlyCount "39"]  [EventDate "1842.??.??"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7 4. Bc4 Bh4+ 5. g3 fxg3 6. O-O gxh2+ 7. Kh1 Bf6 8. Ne5 Bxe5 9. Qh5 Qe7 10. Rxf7 Qc5 {Black is threatening mate in one} 11. Rf8+ Ke7 ({Not} 11... Kxf8 12. Qf7#) 12. d4 Qxc4 (12... Qxd4 {is winning for Black}) 13. Qe8+ Kd6 14. Qxe5+ Kc6 15. Na3 d6 16. d5+ Kc5 17. Be3+ Kb4 18. c3+ Ka4 19. b3+ Kxa3 20. Bc1# 1-0

30. King’s Bishop Gambit Tchigorin-Schlechter

   [Event "London"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1899.??.??"]  [Round "24"]  [White "Tchigorin, M I."]  [Black "Schlechter, C."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C33"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Nf6 {The safe Cozio defence} 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Bb4 6. O-O O-O 7. e5 Ng4 $2 (7... Ne8 {, as played by Steinitz against Charousek at Budapest in 1896, is stronger}) 8. d4 d6 9. h3 Ne3 10. Bxe3 fxe3 11. Nd5 Ba5 12. exd6 Qxd6 ({This is better than} 12... cxd6 {which leaves an isolated pawn. }) 13. Ng5 Qg6 14. Nxf7 $1 Rxf7 15. Ne7+ Nxe7 16. Bxf7+ Qxf7 17. Rxf7 {If Black takes the rook, the queen fork picks up the loose bishop.} 1-0

31. Lesser Bishop Gambit Bird-Weiss

   [Event "Bradford (Brilliancy Prize)"]  [Site "Bradford"]  [Date "1888.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Bird, H E."]  [Black "Weiss, M."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C33"]  [PlyCount "63"]  [EventDate "1888.??.??"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Be2 f5 4. e5 d6 5. Nf3 dxe5 6. Nxe5 Qh4+ 7. Kf1 Bd6 8. Nf3 Qf6 9. d4 Ne7 10. c4 c6 11. Nc3 Nd7 $2 {It would be better for Black to have castled here} 12. Bd2 Qh6 13. c5 Bc7 14. Qb3 Nf6 15. Bc4 Ne4 16. Re1 Nxd2+ 17. Nxd2 Kd8 18. Nf3 b5 19. Be6 b4 20. d5 bxc3 21. d6 Rb8 22. dxe7+ Kxe7 23. Bd7+ Kd8 24. Qf7 Bxd7 25. Rd1 Kc8 26. Qxd7+ Kb7 27. Rd6 Qh5 28. Qxc6+ Kc8 29. Qa6+ Rb7 30. c6 Bxd6 31. Qxb7+ Kd8 32. Qd7# 1-0

32. Breyer Gambit Milner-Barry-Mitchell

   [Event "London"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1933.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Milner-Barry, P S."]  [Black "Michell, R P."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C33"]  [PlyCount "37"]  [EventDate "1933.??.??"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Qf3 Nc6 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 d5 6. e5 Ne4 7. Bxf4 Be7 $2 ({This is too quiet. Better was} 7... f6) 8. Nd2 Nxd2 9. Bxd2 O-O 10. Bd3 f5 11. Ne2 Be6 12. Nf4 Qd7 13. O-O-O Nd8 14. Rdf1 g6 15. h4 Nf7 16. Qg3 Nh8 17. h5 g5 18. Nxe6 Qxe6 19. Bxg5 {There is nothing that Black can do. This game is regarded by experts as a model of a king's side attack for this opening, and it deserves to be better known.} 1-0

33. Polerio Gambit Loyd-Moore

   [Event "USA, 19c"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Loyd, S."]  [Black "Moore, G."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C33"]   [PlyCount "47"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. d4 d5 {This is a game said to have been played in the 19th century by Sam Loyd. I am suspicious about it because White ignores several easy wins, and Black plays several weak moves, before setting up a problem-like finish. But it is better than the game Fletcher quoted} ({The main line is} 3... Qh4+ {taking advantage of the fact that the K cannot go to f1. Fletcher quotes a club game which continued} 4. Ke2 Nf6 5. Nf3 Qh5 (5... Qg4 {has actually been seen in modern grandmaster play -} 6. Nc3 Bb4 7. Nd5 Nxd5 8. exd5 c6 9. Kf2 O-O 10. Be2 Qf5 11. c3 Bd6 12. Rf1 Qxd5 13. Kg1 Bc7 14. c4 Qf5 15. Ne5 d6 $2 16. Bg4 Qf6 17. Bxc8 Rxc8 18. Rxf4 Qe7 19. Nxf7 d5 20. Nh6+ Kh8 21. Nf7+ Kg8 22. Rf1 Qh4 23. h3 Rf8 24. Qe2 Qxd4+ $2 25. Be3 Qxc4 $2 26. Nh6+ gxh6 27. Rxf8+ Kxf8 28. Bxh6+ {1-0 (31) Jacobs-Gelfer, 1981}) 6. Nc3 d5 7. e5 Ne4 8. Nxd5 Na6 9. Nxf4 Qh6 10. Nd5 Ng3+ 11. hxg3 Qxh1 12. Kf2 Qh5 $2 (12... c6 {would have been better. For one thing, it stops 13 Bb5+}) 13. Bxa6 bxa6 14. Nxc7+ Kd8 15. Nxa8 Bb7 16. Nc7 Kxc7 17. Bf4 Kd8 18. Qd2 Qg6 19. d5 Bc5+ 20. Kf1 Qe4 21. Bg5+ Be7 22. Qa5+ Ke8 23. Bxe7 Kxe7 24. Qc7+ Ke8 25. d6 {1-0}) 4. Bd3 Nf6 5. Bxf4 c5 6. Bg5 dxe4 7. Bxe4 cxd4 8. Bxf6 Qxf6 9. Nf3 Bc5 10. O-O O-O 11. Nbd2 d3+ 12. Kh1 dxc2 13. Bxh7+ Kxh7 14. Qxc2+ Qg6 15. Qxc5 Na6 16. Qb5 Nc7 17. Qc4 Qb6 18. Nh4 a5 19. Ndf3 Ra6 20. Ne5 $6 (20. Ng5+ Kg8 21. Rxf7 {wins very straightforwardly}) 20... f6 $4 (20...Be6 $14) 21. Rf3 $6 (21. Nhg6 {wins at once}) 21... Qxb2 22. Re1 f5 (22... Re8 $6) 23. Rh3 f4 24. Qe6 $3 {After a number of fishy moves, a brilliant (and very Loydian) one to conclude the game.} 1-0

34. Pernau Gambit Willemson-Weigel

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1931.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Willemson"]  [Black "Weigel"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C33"]  [PlyCount "47"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nc3 Qh4+ 4. Ke2 c5 $2 {Played in order to stop d4, but according to Keres is not sound} 5. Nf3 Qh6 (5... Qh5 6. Nd5 {with double threats on c7 and f4}) 6. Nd5 Na6 7. d4 {White plays d4 anyway!} g5 8. Kf2 $1 Ne7 9. Bxa6 Nxd5 10. exd5 bxa6 11. Re1+ Kd8 12. Ne5 Qg7 13. Bd2 Kc7 14. Ba5+ Kb8 ({The king should have gone to b7, writes Fletcher, giving the move played a '?' but missing} 14... Kb7 15. Qf3 Kb8 16. Qb3+ Bb7 17. Nc6+ dxc6 18. Re8#) 15. c4 Bd6 16. b4 cxd4 17. Qxd4 f6 18. Nd3 Bb7 19. c5 Bc7 20. Bxc7+ Kxc7 21. Re7 $1 Qh6 22. c6 $1 Bc8 23. d6+ Kb8 24. Qd5 {There is a forced mate in 4. All this can be traced back to Black's doubtful fourth move} 1-0

35. Orsini Gambit Guglielmetti-di Aria

   [Event "corr"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1899.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Guglielmetti"]  [Black "Di Aria"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C33"]  [PlyCount "47"]  [EventDate "1899.??.??"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. b3 {The "Orsini Gambit" is an idea which is probably better delayed. It has some merit as an answer to the Becker Defence, 3 Nf3 h6.} Qh4+ 4. Ke2 ({One should perhaps mention here the miniature horror story} 4. g3 $4 fxg3 5. h3 $4 g2+ 6. Ke2 Qxe4+ 7. Kf2 gxh1=N# {Wiede-Goetz, Strasbourg 1880, a game possibly justified by an elegant finish}) 4... d5 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. exd5 Nf6 7. Nc3 $1 Bc5 8. d4 Bb4 9. Qd3 Bxc3 10. Qxc3 O-O 11. Bd2 Re8+ 12. Kd1 Ne4 13. Qxc7 Nxd2 14. Kxd2 Qf2+ 15. Kc3 Rc8 16. Qxc8+ Bxc8 17. Re1 f5 18. Re8+ Kf7 19. Rxc8 Ke7 20. Bb5 Kf6 21. Re1 Kg6 22. Re6+ Kh5 23. Rh8 Qe3+ 24. Kb2 {  Black, in a mating net, cannot make much use of his queen} 1-0

36. Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit Blumberg-Rennie

   [Event "English v American Universities"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1909.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Blumberg, H (Columbia)"]  [Black "Rennie, J G (Oxford)"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C42"]  [PlyCount "41"]   {This match appears to have been played by cable and to have been one of a series. In 1909 the Americans won 4.5-1.5 without losing a game.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bc4 Nxe4 4. Nc3 Nxc3 5. dxc3 f6 6. Nh4 g6 7. O-O c6 8. Bb3 d5 9. Qe2 Bd6 $2 (9... Bg7 {is preferable}) 10. Bh6 Be6 11. f4 e4 $2 ({A developing move such as} 11... Nd7 {is necessary}) 12. f5 Bf7 $2 ({Slightly stronger would have been} 12... gxf5) 13. Bg7 Rg8 14. fxg6 Rxg7 15. gxf7+ Rxf7 16. c4 Be5 $2 ({Gaining time by} 16... Bc5+ {is much better, suggests Fletcher - but after} 17. Kh1 Na6 18. cxd5 cxd5 19. Qh5 Nc7 20. Rad1 {Fritz isn't too impressed}) 17. Rad1 Qb6+ 18. Kh1 dxc4 ({This move appears to be the real howler. After} 18...Na6 {White's better but there's nothing immediately decisive}) 19. Qxc4 Qc7 20. Qe6+ {Black resigned on account of a forced mate of a rather problem-like type: } Re7 (20... Qe7 21. Qc8+ Qd8 22. Qxd8#) (20... Kf8 21. Rd8+ Kg7 22. Qg4+ Kh6 23. Nf5#) 21. Qg8# {This game is forgotten now, but at the time White justly earned high praise for his exploitation of his opponent's slightly weak moves} 1-0

37. Lopez Gambit Staunton-NN

   [Event "London, c"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1840.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Staunton, H."]  [Black "NN"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C24"]  [PlyCount "43"]   1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. Qe2 Nf6 4. f4 {This is the Lopez Gambit, long forgotten but which appears in several games of the Labourdonnais-MacDonnell match. Fletcher waxes lyrical about it: "Utter remoteness from all other gambits is the chief impression given by the Lopez Gambit. Playing through analysed variations and the very few recorded games, one is taken away to another chess world altogether, being initiated into it by an opening that will never now be played, a world that died with Selkirk [George Selkirk, whose book was published in 1868]. Music provides a possible analogy; one has gone from key signature harmony to modal polyphony, and there is no Vaughan Williams in chess to link the mysterious past to the present..."} Qe7 5. Nf3 exf4 $2 {Black is well advised to decline the gambit. In the King's Gambit Accepted, ...Bc5 is generally a bad idea because it allows d4 with gain of time; so here.} 6. d4 Bb6 7. e5 Nh5 8. Nc3 c6 9. Ne4 O-O 10. Nd6 Ba5+ 11. c3 b5 12. Bb3 Ba6 13. Qe4 b4 14. Nf5 Qd8 15. c4 d5 16. cxd5 Re8 17. d6 g6 18. Nh6+ Kg7 19. Nxf7 Qb6 20. Bxf4 Nxf4 21. Qxf4 Nd7 22. Qh6+ {and wins. Yes, that is the dry-as-dust positional player Howard Staunton playing White...} 1-0

38. Bishop’s Wing Gambit/ 39. MacDonnell Double Gambit Dubois-Wyvill

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2015.06.14"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Dubois, S."]  [Black "Wyvill, M."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C23"]  [PlyCount "57"]   1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. b4 Bxb4 4. f4 d6 $2 (4... d5 {,writes Fletcher, is the correct move. And this is certainly what Morphy played against Mongredien on the one occasion he faced the MacDonnell.}) ({However, as the MacDonnell Double Gambit Accepted is unsound, one might as well accept it. Fletcher gives a club game which continued} 4... exf4 5. Nf3 Be7 {Joe Valerio would approve} 6. d4 Bh4+ 7. g3 ({Fritz suggests that} 7. Kf1 {is level}) 7... fxg3 8. O-O gxh2+ 9. Kh1 d6 10. Bxf7+ {After all, having given up four pawns, White is entitled to do something drastic, and this looks to be the sort of move the position warrants} Kf8 {However, by not taking the piece, Black is able to maintain quite a stubborn resistance for a while.} 11. Bg6 (11. Nxh4 Qxh4 12. Be6+ Ke8 13. Bxc8 {, which Fletcher doesn't give, is surely not too difficult}) 11... Bg4 $4 (11... Bf6 $1) 12. Nxh4+ Nf6 13. Qxg4 hxg6 14. Nxg6+ Kg8 15. Qe6+ Kh7 16. Qf5 Kg8 17. Rf3 (17. Nxh8 $1) 17... Nc6 18. Qe6+ Kh7 19. Nxh8 Kxh8 20. Rh3+ Nh7 21. Qg6 Qg8 22. Bb2 d5 23. Nd2 Ne7 24. Qg5 Re8 25. Nf3 c6 26. Ne5 g6 27. Qf6+ Qg7 28. Nf7+ Kg8 29. Nh6+ Kh8 30. Qe6 Rf8 31. Ba3 Ng8 32. Bxf8 Qxf8 {And Black, who has two pawns for the loss of the double exchange and a piece,resigned five moves later}) 5. c3 Bc5 6. Nf3 Be6 $2 7. Bxe6 fxe6 8. Qb3 Qc8 9.  fxe5 h6 10. d4 Bb6 11. O-O Nc6 12. exd6 cxd6 13. Kh1 $1 Na5 14. Qb5+ Qc6 15. Qh5+ Ke7 16. Bg5+ Nf6 17. Bxf6+ gxf6 18. e5 dxe5 19. dxe5 f5 20. Na3 Raf8 21. Rad1 Bc5 $4 22. Nd4 $6 ({Fletcher doesn't mention it, but White had better:} 22. Qh4+ Ke8 23. Rd8+ Kf7 24. Qf6+ Kg8 25. Qg6#) 22... Qe8 23. Qh4+ Kf7 24. Nab5 Be7 25. Qh3 Nc4 26. Nxe6 Ne3 (26... Kxe6 27. Nc7+) 27. Nbc7 Qc6 28. Qh5+ Kg8 29. Qg6# 1-0

40. Centre Gambit Potter-Matthews

   [Event "London"]  [Site "London"]  [Date "1868.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Potter, W N"]  [Black "Matthews"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C21"]  [PlyCount "25"]  [EventDate "1868.??.??"]   1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Bc4 c5 $2 (3... Nc6 {is the correct move}) 4. Nf3 d6 5. O-O Nc6 6. c3 d3 7. Re1 Bg4 8. e5 Nxe5 9. Nxe5 $1 Bxd1 10. Bb5+ Ke7 11. Bg5+ f6 12. Ng6+ Kf7 13. Nxh8# {A most unusual square from which to effect a mate} 1-0

41. Danish Gambit Schnitzler-Alexandre

   [Event "Paris"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1879.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Schnitzler, G."]  [Black "Alexandre, A."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C21"]  [PlyCount "29"]   1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2 Qg5 $2 (5... d5 {is now considered best here for Black}) 6. Nf3 Qxg2 7. Bxf7+ Kd8 8. Rg1 Bb4+ 9. Nc3 Qh3 10. Rg3 Qh6 11. Qb3 Bxc3+ 12. Qxc3 ({Fletcher does not mention it, but} 12. Bxc3 {threatening horror on g7 seems considerably stronger. Admittedly, the move played is good enough to win}) 12... Nf6 13. Rg6 ({Given a "!!" by Fletcher, but actually inferior to the ruthless} 13. Bc1 Nxe4 14. Bxh6 Nxc3 15. Bg5#) 13... hxg6 (13... Nxe4 14. Rxh6 Nxc3 15. Bxc3 {is admittedly winning for White, but after} Re8+ 16. Bxe8 gxh6 17. Bh5 {Black will be able to struggle on for some time}) 14. Qxf6+ gxf6 15. Bxf6# {It doesn't really matter, but Edward Winter has identified some serious questions about the date of the game and the identity of the players. Some sources give the game as being played in Berlin, 1869. And if Black was Aaron Alexandre, there is a difficulty in that he died in 1850. Pretty, finish, anyway.} 1-0

42. Vienna Gambit Purdy-Cowen

   [Event "Melbourne"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1930.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Purdy, C J S."]  [Black "Cowen, E M."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C34"]  [PlyCount "53"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. f4 exf4 4. Nf3 $2 (4. e5 {is much stronger}) 4... Be7 $2 (4... d5 {would be best here, as in all King's Gambits}) 5. d4 d6 6. Bxf4 O-O 7. Bc4 Bg4 $2 ({More forceful would have been} 7... Nxe4 $1 {(with the familiar fork trick)}) 8. O-O c6 {Most annotators criticised this move, but gave no practical alternative} 9. Bb3 Nbd7 10. Qd3 h6 $2 {Black is playing a close game, says Fletcher, in a position that calls for open play. No, I don't understand the comment, either.} 11. Kh1 Nb6 {Even this has met with disapproval} 12. Rae1 Bxf3 $2 {White now has complete control of the centre and is ready to embark on a flank attack. This conveniently provides him with  an open file, in which to operate against a castled king.} 13. gxf3 Nh7 14. Rg1 Ng5 15. Rg3 Qd7 16. Qd2 Rfe8 17. Qg2 d5 18. Rg1 {As far as White is concerned the game is playing itself!} Bf8 19. Bxg5 hxg5 20. exd5 Nxd5 21. Nxd5 cxd5 22. Rxg5 g6 23. Bxd5 Kh7 24. Rxg6 $1 f6 25. Rh6+ Bxh6 26. Qg6+ Kh8 27. Qxh6+ {One of the world's greatest analysts shows just how easy over-the-board play can be. Cecil Purdy (1906-1979) became the first World Correspondence Champion. He suffered a fatal aneurysm whilst playing at a tournament in Sydney in 1979. His last words to his son (who was also competing in the tournament) were allegedly "I have a win, but it will take time".} 1-0

43. Hamppe-Allgaier Gambit Blackburne-Benfy

   [Event "Manchester"]  [Site "Manchester"]  [Date "1898.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Joseph Henry Blackburne"]  [Black "Benfy"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C25"]  [PlyCount "49"]  [EventDate "1898.??.??"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4 exf4 4. Nf3 g5 5. h4 g4 6. Ng5 h6 7. Nxf7 Kxf7 8. Bc4+ d5 9. Nxd5 Kg7 10. d4 Nf6 11. Bxf4 Bd6 12. Nxf6 Qxf6 13. Be3 Bg3+ 14. Ke2 Rd8 15. c3 Bxh4 16. Rf1 Qg6 17. Rf7+ Kh8 18. Qh1 Bg5 19. Bxg5 Qxg5 20. Raf1 Bd7 ({Fletcher doesn't comment on this move (and neither does Blackburne, in his book of his best games), but instead of waiting for White to come and get him Black could have drawn the sting from the attack by giving back the extra material with} 20... Ne5 21. R7f5 Bxf5 22. Rxf5 Qg6 23. dxe5) ({or more ambitiously} 20... g3 {aiming to bring the bishop into the game actively on g4. White seems then to have no better than} 21. Rf8+ Rxf8 22. Rxf8+ Kh7 23. Rf7+ Kh8 {with a draw by repetition. With which Mr Benfy, one of 20 opponents in a simul, would no doubt have been well pleased.}) 21. R1f6 h5 22. Qh4 $1 Qxh4 23. Rh6+ Kg8 24. Rxd7+ Kf8 25. Rh8# 1-0

44. Hamppe-Allgaier-Thorold Gambit Hirschfield-Zukertort

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1860.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Hirschfeld, P."]  [Black "Zukertort, Dr J H"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C25"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4 exf4 4. Nf3 g5 5. h4 g4 6. Ng5 h6 7. Nxf7 Kxf7 8. d4 d6 9. Bxf4 Bg7 $1 10. Bc4+ Kg6 $1 11. Be3 Kh7 12. Nd5 Nge7 {According to Zukertort this is a fairly secure position for Black} 13. Qd3 Rf8 14. Bg5 hxg5 $2 (14... Be6 {would have been much safer}) ({Fritz suggests} 14... Bxd4 {would be even stronger}) 15. hxg5+ Kg6 16. e5+ Kxg5 17. Qh7 $1 Nxd5 18. Qxg7+ Kf4 19. O-O+ Ke3 20. Rxf8 Qe7 21. c3 $1 Nf4 (21... Qxg7 22. Re1+ {mates in two} ) 22. Re1+ Kd2 23. Rxf4 {and mate follows. Zukertort was an advocate of king moves, but surely not as far as d2!} 1-0

45. Hamppe-Muzio Gambit Lange-v. Drygalski

   [Event "from the Handbuch"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Lange, M."]  [Black "v Drygalski"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C25"]  [PlyCount "41"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4 exf4 4. Nf3 g5 5. Bc4 g4 6. d4 gxf3 7. O-O fxg2 8. Bxf7+ Kxf7 9. Qh5+ Kg7 10. Qg4+ Kf7 11. Bxf4 $6 ({Fletcher allows this astonishing move to pass without comment. Surely} 11. Rxf4+ {is slightly more sane?}) 11... gxf1=Q+ 12. Rxf1 Nf6 13. Bg5 Be7 14. Nd5 Rg8 15. e5 h6 $6 ({This was the early 19th century, remember. For Black to play} 15... Rxg5 16. Qxg5 Qg8 {squelching White's attack and emerging a piece to the good would have been regarded as jolly unsporting, what?}) 16. Qh5+ Ke6 17. Nf4+ Kf5 18. Qf7 Rxg5+ ({Hmm. Granted, Black's king is a bit exposed after} 18... Kxg5 {but being four pieces to the good he will cope. Fletcher contents himself with observing that one of White's threats was 19 Ne6+ winning the queen.}) 19. Ng2+ Kg4 20. Rf4+ Kh3 21. Rh4# {The immobility of Black's queenside is significant. "One of the most exciting gambit games ever" enthuses friend Fletcher. That is certainly one way of describing it.} 1-0

46. Pierce Gambit Dinge-Walbrodt

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Dinge"]  [Black "Walbrodt"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C25"]  [PlyCount "51"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4 exf4 4. Nf3 g5 5. d4 g4 6. d5 ({This move is quite rare} 6. Bc4 {is the usual method of leaving the knight for capturing.}) 6...gxf3 7. Bxf4 fxg2 8. Bxg2 Nce7 9. d6 cxd6 10. Bxd6 Ng6 11. Rf1 Qb6 12. e5 Bg7 ({Why not} 12... Qe3+ {for goodness' sake?}) 13. Nd5 Qxb2 14. Nc7+ Kd8 15. Rxf7 Bxe5 16. Ne6+ Ke8 (16... dxe6 17. Bxe5+ {winning the queen}) 17. Nc7+ Kxf7 {Black prefers to risk getting mated rather than acquiesce in the draw by repetition!} 18. Qd5+ Kg7 19. Ne8+ Kh6 20. Qd2+ Kh5 $4 (20... Nf4 {grabs Black the one tempo he needs for survival -} 21. Bxe5 (21. Bf8+ Kg6 22. Be4+ Kf7) 21... Qxe5+ 22. Kf2 Nf6 {and White's attack has evaporated}) 21. Bf3+ Kh4 22. Qf2+ Kg5 23. Qg2+ Kh6 24. Qh3+ Nh4 25. Qxh4+ Kg6 26. Qh5# 1-0

47. Vienna-Cunningham Gambit Blackburne-Berry

   [Event "Clifton"]  [Site "Clifton"]  [Date "1894.??.??"]  [EventDate "?"]  [Round "?"]  [Result "1-0"]  [White "Joseph Henry Blackburne"]  [Black "John Berry"]  [ECO "C25"]  [WhiteElo "?"]  [BlackElo "?"]  [PlyCount "53"]   1.e4 {Notes by Blackburne.} e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.Nf3 Be7  5.Bc4 Bh4+ 6.g3 fxg3 7.O-O gxh2 8.Kh1 {The game has now been  transposed into a Cunningham or Three Pawns Gambit.} Nh6 9.d4  Na5 10.Be2 d6 11.Bxh6 gxh6 12.Nd5 Bg3 {Useless. He should have  brought out the QB to be ready to Castle on that side.} 13.Qd2  c6 14.Qxh6 cxd5 15.Qg7 Rf8 16.Qxg3 dxe4 17.Nd2 d5 18.Bh5 Nc6  19.Bxf7+ Kd7 20.Nb3 Ne7 21.Be6+ {The decisive stroke. If the  King takes, Knight mates.} Kc6 22.Qc3+ Kd6 23.Bf7 b6 24.Rf6+  Kd7 25.Raf1 Rxf7 26.Rxf7 Bb7 27.Qh3+ 1-0

48. Steinitz Gambit Steinitz-Zukertort

   [Event "Correspondence"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1886.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Steinitz, W."]  [Black "Zukertort, Dr J H"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C25"]  [PlyCount "35"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4 exf4 4. d4 Qh4+ ({This is quite the usual move in this kind of opening, but Black can safely play} 4... Bb4) 5. Ke2 d5 {The inventor of this particular defence plays it against the inventor of the gambit.} 6. exd5 Qe7+ {Threatening perpetual check. A somewhat similar position occurs in the Polerio Gambit.} 7. Kf2 Qh4+ 8. g3 fxg3+ 9. Kg2 Nxd4 10. hxg3 Qg4 11. Qe1+ Be7 12. Bd3 Nf5 13. Nf3 Bd7 14. Bf4 f6 {Zukertort wanted to keep the White KN away, but this does not work out well. Fritz suggests that White is winning anyway, however.} 15. Ne4 Ngh6 16. Bxh6 Nxh6 17. Rxh6 $1 gxh6 18. Nxf6+ 1-0

49. Fyfe Gambit NN-NN

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "NN"]  [Black "NN"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C25"]  [PlyCount "53"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. d4 {The Fyfe Gambit, invented by one Peter Fyfe  (1854-1940), Chief Sanitary Inspector and later Director of Housing in Glasgow. According to Blackburne, it should lead to equality with best play; but nobody other than Mr Fyfe has seemed enthusiastic about trying it.} exd4 4. Nd5 Bc5 5. Nf3 d6 6. Ng5 Ne5 7. f4 Ng6 8. Bd3 Nf6 9. O-O Nxd5 10. exd5 O-O 11. f5 Ne5 12. Qh5 h6 13. f6 Bg4 14. Qh4 ({There was actually a forced mate available by} 14. Bh7+ Kh8 15. fxg7+ Kxg7 16. Ne6+ $1 Kh8 17. Qxh6 {and mate in 4}) 14... Nxd3 15. fxg7 Kxg7 16. Qxg4 hxg5 17. Bxg5 f5 18. Qg3 Qe8 19. cxd3 Rf7 20. Rae1 Qg8 21. Be7+ Kh8 22. Qh4+ Qh7 23. Bf6+ Kg8 24. Qg5+ Kf8 25. Rf3 Re8 26. Rxe8+ Kxe8  27. Rh3 1-0

50. Sicilian Wing Gambit Tartakower-Luckis

   [Event "Paris"]  [Site "Paris"]  [Date "1938.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Tartakower, Dr S G"]  [Black "Luckis, M."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "B20"]   [PlyCount "31"]  [EventDate "1938.??.??"]   1. e4 c5 2. b4 cxb4 3. a3 e6 4. d4 ({Instead of the more popular} 4. axb4 {as played by Wing Gambit experts Spielmann and Marshall}) 4... d5 5. exd5 Qxd5 6. Nf3 (6. c4 {is also playable, as in the Abrahams Variation at an earlier move}) 6... Nc6 7. Bd3 Nf6 ({White's last move set a simple trap. If} 7... Nxd4 $2 8. Nxd4 Qxd4 $4 9. Bb5+ {winning the Queen (a motif familiar from the Milner-Barry Gambit in the French)}) 8. O-O Bd6 9. axb4 Nxb4 10. c4 Qh5 11. c5 Nxd3 (11... Bc7 {at once, removing the bishop and avoiding the exchange, was better.}) 12. Qxd3 Bc7 13. Qb5+ Nd7 14. Na3 O-O 15. c6 $1 Qxb5 16. Nxb5 {Somewhat surprisingly in the context of this collection, Black resigns as two pieces are en prise} 1-0

51. Albin-Chatard Gambit Alekhine-Fahrni

   [Event "Mannheim "]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1914.??.??"]  [Round "11"]  [White "Alekhine, Dr A A"]  [Black "Fahrni, H."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C14"]  [PlyCount "45"]  [EventDate "1914.07.20"]   1. e4 {Most of the notes to this game are by Richard Reti, quoted on  chessgames.com} e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4 {This ingenious method of play which has subsequently been adopted by all modern masters is characteristic of Alekhine's style.} Bxg5 7. hxg5 Qxg5 8. Nh3 $1 {The short-stepping knight is always brought as near as possible to the actual battle field. Therefore White does not make the plausible move 8 Nf3 but 8 Nh3 so as to get the knight to f4.} Qe7 9. Nf4 Nf8 10. Qg4 $1 f5 {The only move. Not only was 11 Qxg7 threatened but also Nxd5.} 11. exf6 gxf6 12. O-O-O {He again threatens Nxd5.} c6 13. Re1 Kd8 14. Rh6 $1 e5 15. Qh4 Nbd7 16. Bd3 e4 17. Qg3 $1 Qf7 {Forced - the sacrifice of the knight at d5 was threatened.} (17...Qd6 18. Bxe4 ({even stronger, according to Fritz, is} 18. Nxe4) 18... dxe4 19. Rxe4 {and Qg7 wins (Reti)}) 18. Bxe4 $1 dxe4 19. Nxe4 $1 Rg8 (19... Qxa2 20. Nxf6 Nxf6 21. Qg7) 20. Qa3 $1 {Here, as so often happens, a surprising move and one difficult to have foreseen, forms the kernel of an apparently simple Alekhine combination.} Qg7 (20... Qe7 21. Qa5+ b6 22. Qc3) 21. Nd6 $1 Nb6 22. Ne8 $1 Qf7 {White mates in three moves.} 23. Qd6+ {Seldom, writes Fletcher, have so many exceptionally strong moves been made in one game. Certainly the battering which Alekhine handed out to Black in this game meant that very few players have been willing to risk accepting the gambit.} 1-0

52. Alekhine Gambit Tramoyeres-Marin

   [Event "Valencia"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1927.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Tramoyeres, R."]  [Black "Marin, V."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C15"]  [PlyCount "51"]   1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nge2 dxe4 5. a3 Bxc3+ (5... Be7 6. Nxe4 {avoids the ensuing excitement}) 6. Nxc3 f5 7. Bf4 ({Alekhine considered this move to be unsound. In a celebrated demolition job on Nimzowitsch, he continued } 7. f3 exf3 8. Qxf3 Qxd4 $2 9. Qg3 Nf6 10. Qxg7 Qe5+ 11. Be2 Rg8 12. Qh6 Rg6 13. Qh4 Bd7 14. Bg5 Bc6 15. O-O-O Bxg2 16. Rhe1 Be4 17. Bh5 Nxh5 18. Rd8+ Kf7 19. Qxh5 {1-0 Alekhine-Nimzowitsch, Bled 1931}) 7... Nf6 8. f3 exf3 9. Qxf3 O-O 10. O-O-O Nd5 11. Bc4 c6 12. Rde1 Nxf4 13. Qxf4 Rf6 14. g4 fxg4 15. Qxg4 Rg6 16. Qh3 Qg5+ 17. Kb1 Rh6 18. Rhf1 $1 Rxh3 19. Rxe6 h6 20. Rxh6+ Qd5 21. Nxd5  gxh6 $4 ({Somewhat less catastrophic was} 21... Rxh6 22. Nc7+ Kh7 23. Nxa8) 22. Ne7+ Kh8 (22... Kg7 23. Rf7+ Kh8 24. Ng6+ Kg8 25. Rd7#) 23. Rf8+ Kg7 24. Rf7+ Kh8 25. Ng6+ Kg8 26. Rd7# 1-0

53. Latvian (Counter)-Gambit Alonso-de Soto

   [Event "Corunna"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1942.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Alonso"]  [Black "de Soto, G."]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "C40"]  [PlyCount "52"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5. Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 Qg6 7. Bf4 Nf6 8. Ne3 Be7 9. Bc4 c6 10. O-O (10. d5 {is probably the best move here. The text loses time}) 10... d5 11. Be2 O-O 12. f3 Nh5 13. Be5 Bg5 14. Qd2 Qh6 15. Ncd1 Nd7 16. Bc7 exf3 $1 17. Rxf3 Ndf6 18. Nf2 Bd7 19. Rf1 Ne4 20. Qd3 (20. Nxe4 {is winning for White according to Fritz. As so often in these games, one indifferent move is all it takes for the roof to fall in.}) 20... Rxf3 21. gxf3 Nxf2 22. Kxf2 Nf4 23. Bxf4 Bxf4 24. Ng4 Bxg4 25. fxg4 Qh4+ 26. Kf3 Qxh2 {Mate can only be averted by sacrificing a lot of material} 0-1

54. Corkscrew Counter-Gambit Gamman-Blackburne

   [Event "London"]  [Site "London"]  [Date "1869.??.??"]  [EventDate "?"]  [Round "?"]  [Result "0-1"]  [White "G Gamman"]  [Black "Joseph Henry Blackburne"]  [ECO "C40"]  [WhiteElo "?"]  [BlackElo "?"]  [PlyCount "62"]   1.e4 {Notes by Blackburne.} e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bc4 fxe4 4.Nxe5 Nf6  5.Nf7 Qe7 6.Nxh8 d5 7.Be2 {Bb3 or Bxd5 would lose the Queen by  Bg4.} Nc6 8.d4 exd3 9.cxd3 Bg4 10.Nc3 O-O-O 11.O-O Be6 12.Bf4  d4 13.Nb5 Nd5 14.Bg3 a6 15.Na3 Qd7 16.Nc4 Be7 17.Ng6 {Time  would have been saved by leaving the Knight alone and playing  Rc1 instead.} hxg6 18.a3 Bf6 19.Bf3 g5 20.b4 Nc3 21.Qc2 Bxc4  22.dxc4 d3 23.Qd2 Nd4 24.Bd1 Nde2+ 25.Kh1 Ne4 26.Qa2 Bxa1  27.Qxa1 Qf5 28.Ba4 Rh8 {White regrets his 17th move.} 29.Qe1  N4xg3+ 30.fxg3 Rxh2+ 31.Kxh2 Qh7# 0-1

55. Lopez Counter Gambit NN-NN

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "NN"]  [Black "NN"]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "C41"]  [PlyCount "38"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 f5 4. exf5 Nf6 5. Nc3 c6 6. d4 e4 7. Qe2 d5 8. Bg5 Be7 ({If} 8... dxc4 9. Nxe4 {would cause considerable trouble}) 9. Ne5 O-O ({Similarly, observes Fletcher,} 9... dxc4 10. Qxc4 {is strong for White} ({which may be true, but} 10. Bxf6 Bxf6 11. Qh5+ g6 12. fxg6 {wins out of hand})) 10. Bb3 Bxf5 11. f3 Nbd7 12. fxe4 Nxe4 13. Bxe7 Qxe7 14. Nxe4 Bxe4 15. Qxe4 Nxe5 16. Qxe5 Qh4+ 17. g3 (17. Kd2 {kept a small advantage}) 17... Qg4 18. h3 $2 Qf3 19. Kd2 Rae8 {Mate or loss of the queen follows} 0-1

56. Philidor Counter Gambit NN-Schallopp

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "NN"]  [Black "Schallopp, E."]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "C41"]  [PlyCount "38"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 f5 4. dxe5 fxe4 5. Ng5 d5 6. e6 Bc5 7. Nxe4 Be7 (7...dxe4 8. Qh5+) 8. Qh5+ ({Fletcher doesn't mention this, but it's a case of "Patzer sees a check..." Stronger was} 8. Qg4) 8... g6 9. Qe5 Nf6 10. Ng5 O-O 11. Nc3 Bd6 12. Qe2 Qe7 13. Bd2 Re8 14. O-O-O Bxe6 15. Re1 Bg4 16. Qb5 $4 (16. Nxd5 {was the correct move.}) 16... Qxe1+ $1 17. Bxe1 Bf4+ 18. Bd2 Re1+ 19. Nd1 Rxd1# 0-1

57. Queen’s Pawn Counter Gambit Kozelen-Eliskases

   [Event "Correspondence"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1928.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Kozelek"]  [Black "Eliskases, E."]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "C40"]  [PlyCount "34"]  [EventDate "1928.??.??"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. exd5 ({Eliskases played at least one other postal game at this time using the QP/Elephant Countergambit. The other one didn't go so well -} 3. Nxe5 dxe4 4. Bc4 Qg5 5. Bxf7+ Ke7 6. d4 Qxg2 7. Rf1 Bh3 8. Bc4 Nf6 9. Bf4 Nbd7 10. Qd2 Nb6 11. Be2 Nbd5 12. Nc3 Be6 13. Nxd5+ Nxd5 14. O-O-O Qh3 15. Bg5+ {and Black decided to save on the stamps - Lob-Eliskases}) 3... e4 4. Qe2 Nf6 5. Qb5+ $2 (5. Nc3 {would have been safer}) 5... c6 6. dxc6 bxc6 7. Qe5+ Be7 8. Ng5 Nbd7 9. Qf4 O-O 10. Nxe4 {White is two pawns to the good but is undeveloped.} Nd5 11. Qf3 Re8 12. d3 Ne5 13. Qg3 Bh4 14. Bg5 Bxg5 15. Qxg5 Qxg5 16. Nxg5 Nf3+ 17. Kd1 Re1# 0-1

58. Jaenisch Counter Gambit Gossip-Blackburne

   [Event "Manchester"]  [Site "Manchester"]  [Date "1890.09.02"]  [EventDate "?"]  [Round "12"]  [Result "0-1"]  [White "Gossip, G. H. D."]  [Black "Blackburne, J. H."]  [ECO "C63"]  [WhiteElo "?"]  [BlackElo "?"]  [PlyCount "44"]   1.e4 {Notes by Blackburne.} e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 {It has not  yet been proved that this defence leads to a lost game.} 4.d3  {Qe2 is probably the correct play.} d6 5.exf5 Nf6 6.Nh4 Be7  7.Bg5 O-O 8.Bxc6 bxc6 9.Nc3 Rb8 10.b3 {Rb1 is the better  defence.} Qe8 11.g4 Nd5 12.Ne4 {If Bxe7, a piece is won by  Nxc3.} Bxg5 13.Nxg5 Nf4 14.Qd2 c5 15.O-O-O Qc6 16.Rhe1 a5  17.Qxa5 {After this his game is lost.} Ra8 18.Qc3 Rxa2 19.Ne4  Nd5 20.Qd2 Qa6 21.Qg5 Qa5 22.Nd2 Qa3+ 0-1

59. Ponziani Counter Gambit Blackburne-Robey

   [Event "London"]  [Site "London"]  [Date "1862.07.02"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Blackburne, J. H."]  [Black "Robey, J."]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "C44"]  [PlyCount "72"]  [EventDate "1862.??.??"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 f5 4. exf5 e4 5. Ng1 {There really is nowhere else to go, writes Fletcher, unless White is prepared to bear the burden of two isolated d-pawns.} ({But the error in this assessment appears from a more modern game:} 5. Nd4 $1 Nxd4 $2 6. Qh5+ $1 g6 7. fxg6 Nf6 8. g7+ $1 Nxh5 9. gxh8=Q Nc2+ 10. Kd1 Nf6 11. Kxc2 d5 12. Be2 Be6 13. g4 d4 14. d3 Bc4 15. Rd1 {1-0 Finegold-Moody, Detroit 1983}) 5... Nf6 6. d4 d5 7. g4 g6 8. g5 Nh5 9. f6 Bd6 10. h4 O-O 11. Nh3 Be6 12. Be3 Qd7 13. Nd2 Bg4 14. Qb3 Be6 15. O-O-O a6 16. Ng1 {Blackburne seems to like this knight to be at home.} Na5 17. Qc2 b6 18. Bh3 Bxh3 19. Nxh3 b5 20. Nb3 Nc4 21. Nc5 Qc6 22. Qe2 Qb6 23. b3 Na3 24. Qb2 b4 25. cxb4 Nb5 ({If} 25... Qxb4 26. Bd2 {wins a piece}) 26. a4 Na7 27. Qc3 Rf7 28. Kb2 Nc6 29. Ka3 Rb8 30. Bd2 a5 31. b5 $2 ({Looks logical, but is inferior to} 31. bxa5 Nxa5 32. Rb1) 31... Nxd4 32. Rc1 Ne2 33. Qe3 Nxc1 34. Rxc1 c6 35. bxc6 $4 (35. Qd4 {is still better for Black, but the move played is immediately disastrous.}) 35... d4 $1 36. Bxa5 Bxc5+ {The victor in this game was John Robey (1826-1885). He was the first Australian to compete in an English or European tournament. He finished last at London in the 14-player field with a score of +2, =0, -11.} 0-1

60. Middleton Counter Gambit ‘MacR’-Hart

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "'MacR'"]  [Black "Hart, R A."]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "C37"]  [PlyCount "48"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 d6 5. O-O Bg4 6. h3 h5 {This remarkable move constitutes the Middleton Counter Gambit. It appears to have been invented by Thomas Middleton of Waxahachie, Texas around the start of the 20th century} 7. hxg4 hxg4 8. Nh2 ({Better, suggests Fletcher, is} 8. d4 {sacrificing the N to prevent ...g3.}) ({Another Hart game around 1907 went less well -} 8. Ne1 g3 9. Rf3 Nd7 10. d4 Ngf6 11. Nc3 Ng4 12. Bxf4 Nf2 $4 (12... gxf4 $17) 13. Bxg3 Nxd1 14. Bxf7+ Ke7 15. Nd5# {Lansing-Hart}) 8... g3 9. Ng4 Nf6 10. Nc3 ({Not} 10. Nxf6+ {which would allow a strong attack on the open h-file}) 10... Rh4 11. Ne3 (11. Nf2 {would have been stronger, suggests Fletcher. Fritz disagrees}) 11... fxe3 12. dxe3 g4 13. Qd4 Bg7 14. e5 Nc6 ({If now} 14... dxe5 15. Qxd8+ (15. Bxf7+ {comes to the same thing}) 15... Kxd8 16. Bxf7 {with a good game}) 15. Qf4 Nxe5 $1 16. Qxg3 Nh5 17. Qf2 Nf3+ 18. gxf3 g3 19. Qd2 (19. Qe2 {was probably better but after} Bxc3 20. bxc3 Qd7 {Black has plenty of compensation for his piece}) 19... Rh2 (19... Rxc4 {was obviously too simple for Black!}) 20. Qd5 Rh1+ 21. Kg2 Nf4+ 22. exf4 Rh2+ 23. Kg1 Bd4+ 24. Qxd4 (24. Rf2 Bxf2+ 25. Kf1 g2+ 26. Kxf2 (26. Ke2 Qe7+ 27. Kxf2 Qe1+ 28. Kxe1 g1=Q+) 26... Qh4+) 24... Qh4 0-1

61. Gianutio Counter Gambit Milner-Barry-Alexander

   [Event "Cambridge"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1929.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Milner-Barry, P S."]  [Black "Alexander, C H O'D."]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "C33"]  [PlyCount "48"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 f5 4. exf5 Nf6 5. Be2 Be7 6. Bh5+ Kf8 7. Nh3 d5 8. O-O Bxf5 9. Nxf4 g6 10. d4 Kg7 (10... gxh5 {was much too dangerous}) 11. g4 Bc8 $1 12. g5 $2 Nxh5 13. Nxh5+ gxh5 14. Qxh5 Rf8 15. Rf4 Rxf4 $1 16. Bxf4 Qg8 17. Nd2 Nc6 18. Rf1 Be6 19. Nf3 Kh8 20. Kh1 $2 Qg6 21. Qh4 Bf5 22. Ne5 Be4+ 23. Kg1 Nxe5 24. dxe5 Bc5+ {In addition to a strong attack Black can translate his advantage of a minor piece into a major one. "What a pity", wrote Fletcher, "that the contestants have not published their many games played together at  Cambridge. It is not too fanciful to suggest that such a collection would be the most entertaining since La Bourdonnais - MacDonnell".} 0-1

62. Bledow Counter Gambit Swiderski-Teichmann

   [Event "Vienna"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1903.05.22"]  [Round "15"]  [White "Swiderski, R."]  [Black "Teichmann, R."]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "C33"]  [PlyCount "52"]  [EventDate "1903.05.02"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 d5 4. Bxd5 Qh4+ 5. Kf1 g5 6. g3 Qh6 7. d4 c6 8. Bb3 $2 ({All of the subsequent trouble could have been avoided if White had played} 8. Bc4 {e.g.} Nf6 9. Nc3 Bh3+ 10. Nxh3 Qxh3+ 11. Kg1 fxg3 12. Bf1) 8... Nf6 9. Nc3 Bh3+ 10. Ke1 Bg2 11. e5 Nfd7 12. h4 Bxh1 13. Nh3 Be7 14. Qg4 gxh4 15. Bxf4 Qg6 16. Qe2  Nb6 17. a4 hxg3 18. Kd2 Bd5 19. Bxd5 cxd5 20. Rg1 Nc6 21. Nb5 Rc8 22. c3 Nc4+ 23. Kc1 N6a5 24. Qd1 Qb6 25. Qg4 Nb3+ 26. Kb1 Qg6+ 0-1

63. Bishop’s (Bryan) Counter Gambit Morphy-Maurian

   [Event "Springhill"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1855.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Morphy, P."]  [Black "Maurian, S."]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "C33"]  [PlyCount "24"]  [EventDate "1855.??.??"]   {The Bishop's, or Bryan, Counter Gambit is sufficiently bad that even the 19th century adventurers avoided it. It was the start of the "Immortal Game" Anderssen-Kieseritski, of which Lasker commented that however fine the finish, the opening was an insult to our feelings. But as with the Damiano Gambit, it turns out that the gambit declined offers something memorable. It is not often that you see Paul Morphy getting flattened in 12 moves:} 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Qh4+ ({Observing that recorded wins by Black in this opening are difficult to find, Fletcher quotes a club game which proceeded} 3... b5 4. Bxb5 Qh4+ 5. Kf1 Nf6 6. Nf3 Qh5 7. d4 $6 c6 $6 8. Be2 Nxe4 9. Nbd2 Ng3+ 10. Kf2 Nf5 $6 11. h4 Ne3 12. Qe1 Be7 13. Ne5 $4 Bxh4+ 14. g3 Bxg3+ 15. Kg1 Qg5 16. Ndf3 Bh2+ 17. Kf2 Qg2#) 4. Kf1 b5 5. Bd5 $6 {Refraining from pawn grabbing is all very well, but this is frankly absurd even if it is Morphy playing it} (5. Bxb5 Bb7 (5... Nf6)) 5... Nc6 6. Nf3 Qh5 7. d4 Nf6 8. Bb3 Ba6 9. Qe2 Nxd4 $6 10. Nxd4 b4 11. Qxa6 $4 (11. c4 {would make this move all right, because the bishop covers d1 -} bxc3 12. Qxa6) 11... Qd1+ 12. Kf2 Ng4# 0-1

64. Falkbeer Counter Gambit Gunsberg-v. Bardeleben

   [Event "Hastings"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1895.08.30"]  [Round "19"]  [White "Gunsberg, I."]  [Black "von Bardeleben, C."]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "C32"]  [PlyCount "36"]  [EventDate "1895.08.05"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 e4 4. Qe2 Nf6 5. Nc3 Bd6 6. Nxe4 O-O 7. Nxf6+ Qxf6 8. Qf3 Bf5 9. d3 Bb4+ 10. Kd1 Nd7 {Black has excellent development for his two pawns sacrificed} 11. c3 $2 (11. Ne2 {would have been better, suggests Fletcher. Fritz doesn't appear to agree}) 11... Bxc3 $1 12. bxc3 Qxc3 13. Rb1 Nc5 14. Qf2 ({Once again} 14. Ne2 {is the better move}) 14... Nxd3 15. Qg3 Rad8 16. Bxd3 Bxd3 17. Rb2 Rxd5 18. Rd2 Re8 0-1

65. Calabrese Counter Gambit NN-Boden

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "NN"]  [Black "Boden, S S."]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "C23"]  [PlyCount "36"]   1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 f5 3. Bxg8 {A popular sequence of the early classical gambit period} Rxg8 4. exf5 d5 5. Qh5+ g6 6. fxg6 Rxg6 7. h3 Bc5 8. Nf3 Nc6 9. Nh4 Qf6 10. O-O Nd4 11. Nc3 Qxh4 12. Qxh4 Nf3+ 13. Kh1 Nxh4 14. d4 Rxg2 15. dxc5 Bxh3 16. Rg1 Kd7 17. Rxg2 Bxg2+ 18. Kh2 Rg8 {There is no defence to ...Nf3 mate} 0-1

66. Lewis Counter Gambit Chomat-Conill

   [Event "Havana"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Chomat"]  [Black "Conill"]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "C23"]  [PlyCount "36"]   1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. c3 d5 4. Bxd5 Nf6 5. Qb3 O-O 6. Nf3 c6 7. Bxf7+ Rxf7 8. Nxe5 Bxf2+ 9. Kf1 ({If} 9. Kxf2 Nxe4+ {with a very strong attack, writes Fletcher} ({but} 9... Ng4+ {snaffling the e5 N looks even nastier})) 9... Nd5 10. Nxf7 Qf6 11. exd5 Bh4+ 12. Ke2 Qf2+ 13. Kd1 Bg4+ 14. Kc2 Bf5+ 15. Kd1 Bd3 16. Nh6+ gxh6 17. dxc6+ Kg7 18. Qxb7+ Kg6 {White can win another rook and be rook, exchange and four pawns up, but cannot avoid being mated. Both sides were hitting each other right from the beginning and producing one of the liveliest in the gambit galaxy} 0-1

67. Centre Counter Gambit Vergani-Blackburne

   [Event "Hastings"]  [Site "Hastings, England"]  [Date "1895.08.23"]  [EventDate "1895.08.05"]  [Round "14"]  [Result "0-1"]  [White "Vergani, B."]  [Black "Blackburne, J. H."]  [ECO "B01"]  [WhiteElo "?"]  [BlackElo "?"]  [PlyCount "96"]   1.e4 {Notes by H. N. Pillsbury} d5 2.exd5 c6 {Black sacrifices  a Pawn for the purpose of obtaining a quick development,  expecting to bewilder his less experienced opponent. He  obtains no sufficient compensation, however, during the  opening.} 3.dxc6 Nxc6 4.Nf3 e5 5.d3 f5 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Bg5 Be7  8.g3 h6 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.Qd2 Be6 11.Bg2 O-O {In view of the  style of dashing tactics which Black has adopted. one would  expect here Qd7, and if 12 O-O, then O-O-O, followed by g5. It  seems equally as good as the text.} 12.O-O Qe7 13.Nd1 Rfd8  14.Qc1 Rac8 15.Ne1 Nd4 16.Qb1 {White’s tactics seem forced,  and in the next few moves he drives back the enemy and brings  out his Pieces again.} Qf7 17.c3 Nc6 18.f4 Be7 {exf4, and if  19 Rxf4, g5 seems preferable.} 19.fxe5 {White could have won a  second Pawn by Bxc6 and fxe5 without serious danger.} Nxe5  20.d4 {And there was no objection to Bxb7.} Nc4 21.Qd3 Bf6  22.Nf3 g6 23.Nd2 {White has held his one pawn thus far, and  brought out the imprisoned Queen, but here he fails to foresee  the combination which his opponent is preparing. 23 b3 Nd6 24  Nf2 was straightforward and correct, and the Pawns on the  Queen's side could then be speedily advanced.} Qd7 24.b3 Nb2  {The initiatory move of a clever plan by which Black regains  his Pawn.} 25.Qe2 {If 25 Nxb2 Rxc3 26 Qe2(best) Bxd4+ 27 Kh1  Rc2 regaining the Piece with a Pawn ahead.} Nxd1 26.Raxd1 Rxc3  27.Nf3 Rdc8 28.Rd2 Kh7 29.Rfd1 Bg8 30.Ne5 Qc7 31.Qb5 Bg5  32.Rd3 Rxd3 33.Qxd3 Bf6 34.Nf3 Rd8 35.Qe3 Bd5 36.Kf1 Qd6  37.Qe2 Rd7 38.Ng1 Re7 39.Qd3 Bxg2+ 40.Kxg2 Qd5+ 41.Kf2 {White  has well stood his ground to this point, but here goes wrong  41 Nf3 was perfectly safe and correct. If in answer Black  should attempt to force matters by Bg5, then 42 Qc4 and if  Qxc4 43 Nxg5+ hxg5 44 bxc4 and White should win.} f4 42.gxf4  Re4 43.Ne2 Bh4+ 44.Kg1 Qe6 45.Rd2 {The losing move. 45 Ng3,  would have still given White a fair game, if in answer Re3,  then 46 Qc4. After this error there is no saving White's  game.} Re3 46.Qc4 Qg4+ 47.Kh1 Qf3+ 48.Kg1 Bf2+ 0-1

68. Swiss Gambit Wagner-v. Skerszewski

   [Event "Corres"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1912.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Wagner, A."]  [Black "von Skerszewski"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "A02"]  [PlyCount "31"]  [EventType "corr"]   1. f4 f5 {"Neither usual nor commendable", observed Al Horowitz sourly in Chess Openings: Theory and Practice.} 2. e4 {Notably modest notes by Wagner in the 1911-1912 British Chess Magazine suggested that this "Swiss Gambit" was "the first really sound Gambit presented to the chess public". He went some way to justifying this boast by playing 15 correspondence games with it against noted masters or analysts. Wolf drew; all his other opponents lost...} fxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. g4 d5 (4... e6 5. g5 Nd5 6. Nxe4 Nxf4 7. d4 Ng6 8. Qh5 Qe7 9. Bd3 Qf7 10. Nh3 Ne5 11. Be2 g6 12. dxe5 $5 ({Fritz suggests that} 12. Qh4 {is winning without too much fuss}) 12... gxh5 13. Bxh5 Qxh5 14. Nf6+ Kd8 15. Nxh5 Nc6 16. Bd2 Bb4 17. c3 Bf8 18. Bf4 Ne7 19. O-O-O Ng6 20. Rhf1 Be7 21. Ng7 Nf8 22. g6 {1-0 was Wagner-Costin}) 5. g5 d4 6. gxf6 dxc3 7. fxg7 cxd2+ 8. Bxd2 Bxg7 9. Qh5+ Kf8 10. O-O-O Qe8 (10... Qd4 11. Bc3 Qe3+ 12. Kb1 Bxc3 13. Nh3 Bxh3 14. bxc3 $6 (14. Bc4 {straight away wins outright}) 14... Nd7 $2 15. Bc4 Qb6+ 16. Bb3 Be6 17. Rxd7 Bxb3 18. axb3 h6 19. Rhd1 c5 20. Rxe7 Kxe7 21. Qe5+ Qe6 22. Qg7+ Qf7 23. Rd7+ Kxd7 24. Qxf7+ {1-0 was Wagner-Lipez}) 11. Qd5 Bd7 12. Bc4 (12. Qxb7 Bc6 {would be very embarrassing, suggests Fletcher}) 12...Nc6 13. Ne2 Nd8 14. Bc3 Bxc3 15. Nxc3 Be6 16. Qe5 {Black will be mated or lose a piece} 1-0

69. Lemberg Gambit Keres-Teltvecker

   [Event "Pernau v Kukruse, corres"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1933.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Keres, P."]  [Black "Teltvecker, K."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "B01"]  [PlyCount "35"]  [EventType "corr"]   1. Nf3 d5 2. e4 {The Lemberg Gambit looks like a reverse Budapest but is less promising because Black's c-pawn has not moved} dxe4 3. Ng5 Bf5 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Bc4 e6 6. f3 exf3 ({Not bad, but most authorities prefer} 6... Qd4) 7. Qxf3 c6 8. Nxf7 $1 Kxf7 $2 (8... Qd4 {was the correct move}) 9. Qxf5 Qe7 10. Ne4 h6 11. Nc5 g6 12. Qxe6+ Ke8 13. O-O b5 $2 (13... Qxe6 {should have been played}) 14. Qc8+ {Playing by correspondence, the young Paul Keres is not going to miss a mate in 5!} Qd8 15. Re1+ Be7 16. Rxe7+ $1 Kxe7 17. Qe6+ Kf8 18. Qf7# 1-0

70. Reti Gambit Castaldi-Norcia

   [Event "Italian Ch"]  [Site "Firenze "]  [Date "1936.10.??"]  [Round "1"]  [White "Castaldi, V."]  [Black "Norcia, F."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "A09"]   [PlyCount "51"]  [EventDate "1936.??.??"]   1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Na3 Bg4 $2 4. Nxc4 Nf6 5. Qb3 Bc8 $2 ({The full retreat must be wrong. A useful suggestion is} 5... Qd5) 6. Nce5 Qd5 7. Qc2 c6 8. e3 e6 9. Bc4 Qa5 10. O-O Bd6 11. d4 Nbd7 12. Bd2 Qc7 {Four queen moves out of twelve must be considered as too many} 13. Nxf7 $1 Kxf7 14. Ng5+ Ke7 15. Nxe6 Qb8 16. Nxg7 Nb6 17. e4 Bxh2+ 18. Kh1 Bf4 19. Bb4+ Bd6 20. Bxd6+ Qxd6 21. e5 Qxd4 22. exf6+ Qxf6 23. Rfe1+ Kd8 $2 (23... Kf8 {would have prolonged the game considerably}) 24. Qd3+ Bd7 25. Ne6+ Kc8 26. Qd6 {Black can only avoid mate by giving up the queen. This first round game won the brilliancy prize and was a sign of things to come - Vincenzo Castaldi (1916-1970) went on to win the first of his eight national titles.} 1-0

71. Staunton Gambit Gligoric-Kostic; Tartakower-Mieses

   [Event "Yugoslav Ch"]  [Site "Ljubljana"]  [Date "1951.??.??"]  [Round "4"]  [White "Gligoric, S."]  [Black "Kostic, B."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "A04"]  [PlyCount "39"]  [EventDate "1951.??.??"]   1. Nf3 f5 2. e4 {This is given by Fletcher as an example of the Staunton Gambit, but it is in fact the Lisitsyn Gambit, another specimen of which we include a little later on.} fxe4 3. Ng5 Nf6 4. d3 e3 5. Bxe3 e5 6. d4 e4 7. f3 {With the pawn on d4 the game can now be regarded as having transposed into a Staunton Gambit formation.} exf3 8. Qxf3 d5 9. Bd3 Bg4 10. Qf2 Bd6 11. h3 Bh5 $2 ({The bishop would have been better placed on} 11... Bd7) 12. O-O Qe7 13. Nc3 c6 $2 14. Rae1 O-O 15. Bf4 Qd7 16. Bxd6 Qxd6 17. Nxh7 $3 Rf7 (17... Nxh7 18. Bxh7+ Kxh7 19. Qxf8) 18. Nxf6+ Rxf6 19. Qh4 Rh6 20. Qxh5 {Mate in two if the queen is taken, mate in three otherwise, suggests Fletcher. Fritz says that 20...g6 is mate in 12. Certainly resignation is in order for Black. The winner's style is very reminiscent of Alekhine, particularly the finish.} 1-0   [Event "Baden Baden"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1925.04.24"]  [Round "7"]  [White "Tartakower, Dr S G"]  [Black "Mieses, J."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "A82"]  [PlyCount "29"]  [EventDate "1925.04.16"]   {So we thought we should include an example of the Staunton Gambit proper which was available to Fletcher. And this one comes with a rather good story. While playing enterprising chess in the first week of the Baden Tournament, Tartakover only succeeded in scoring five draws. And Mieses teasingly inquired "Have you had sufficient preparation for your sixth draw...?" Tartakover's response was impressive.} 1. d4 f5 2. e4 {This is the Staunton proper} fxe4 3. Nc3 (3. f3 {leads to Blackmar's Second Gambit}) 3... Nf6 4. g4 $5 d5 $2 ({How many times in this collection will Black be criticised for making time wasting pawn moves on the king-side, or praised for playing ...d5? But in this bizarre position Black does need to play} 4... h6 5. h4 d5 6. g5 (6. Bh3 {is even worse -} g5 7. hxg5 hxg5 8. Bxg5 Bxg4) 6... hxg5 7. Bxg5 $17) 5. g5 Ng8 6. f3 exf3 7. Qxf3 e6 8. Bd3 g6 9. Nge2 Qe7 {At this point apparently Emanuel Lasker commented dryly: "...Bg7 is likewise of no avail. The points c7 and e5 are weak, h4-h5 threatens also, the e-pawn cannot be held in the long run. White has many pieces in play, Black none, at these odds everyone would like  to play gambits."} 10. Bf4 c6 11. Be5 Bg7 12. Qg3 Na6 13. O-O Bd7 14. Bd6 Qd8 15. Qf4 {Black can only avoid mate by giving up enormous amounts of material.} 1-0

72. Blackmar’s Second Gambit Reti-Euwe

   [Event "Rotterdam"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1920.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Reti, R."]  [Black "Euwe, Dr M"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "A83"]  [PlyCount "33"]   1. d4 f5 2. e4 fxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 g6 5. f3 exf3 6. Nxf3 Bg7 7. Bd3 c5 8. d5 Qb6 9. Qd2 Qxb2 {"A weak move in any opening" wrote Fletcher in 1954, just as Bronstein, Black against Joppen at Belgrade, showed that the move was playable in the Sicilian} 10. Rb1 Nxd5 {An attempted swindle which backfires} 11. Nxd5 $1 ({Not, of course,} 11. Rxb2 Bxc3 {regaining the queen with advantage}) 11...Qxb1+ 12. Kf2 Qxh1 {A reminder of Anderssen's "Immortal Game"} 13. Bxe7 d6 ({It has been suggested that this move is a mistake, but after} 13... Qa1 {Fritz shows a win for White, after} 14. Qg5 d6 15. Bxg6+ Kd7 16. Qf4 $1 Be5 17. Qa4+ {with mate to follow.}) 14. Bxd6 Nc6 15. Bb5 Bd7 16. Bxc6 bxc6 17. Qe2+ {Fifteen years after this game was played the loser became World Champion. But even more remarkable is that Reti beat Euwe twice with double rook sacrifices during 1920!} 1-0

73. Blackmar’s First Gambit Wallis-NN

  [Event "Sydney"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1923.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Wallis, F J."]  [Black "N N"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "D00"]  [PlyCount "23"]   1. d4 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bf5 5. Qe2 Nc6 6. O-O-O e6 7. d5 Nb4 8. Qb5+ Qd7 9. Qxb7 {This move passes without comment from Fletcher, the game after 9...Qxb2 in Reti-Euwe.} Qc8 10. Bb5+ Nd7 11. dxe6 Bxe6 12. Rxd7 $1 1-0

74. Queen’s Gambit Janowski-Schallopp

   [Event "Nuremberg"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1896.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Janowski, D."]  [Black "Schallopp, E."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "D21"]  [PlyCount "33"]   1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 c5 4. e3 cxd4 5. Bxc4 Bg4 6. exd4 e6 7. Qa4+ Nc6 8. Ne5 Qxd4 9. Nxc6 Qe4+ 10. Be3 bxc6 11. Nc3 Qxg2 {Note Black's undeveloped king's side} 12. Bd5 $1 exd5 13. Qxc6+ Kd8 14. Qxa8+ Kd7 15. Qb7+ Ke6 16. Qc6+ Bd6 17. Bf4 {The capture of White's two rooks cannot prevent mate} 1-0

75. Marshall Gambit Janowski-Suechting

   [Event "Barmen-A"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1905.08.??"]  [Round "8"]  [White "Janowski, D."]  [Black "Suechting, H."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "D32"]  [PlyCount "55"]  [EventDate "1905.??.??"]   1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5 exd5 5. e4 dxe4 6. d5 Nf6 ({Fletcher gives instead a club game which continued} 6... f5 $1 7. f3 exf3 $2 8. Nxf3 Bd6 9. Bg5 Ne7 10. Bc4 Nd7 11. O-O O-O 12. Nb5 Qb6 13. a4 a5 14. Qb3 Ne5 $4 15. Nxe5 Bxe5 16. d6+ {1-0}) 7. Bg5 Be7 8. Bb5+ Kf8 9. Nge2 a6 10. Ba4 Bg4 11. O-O Ne8 $2 {This looks plausible - a pawn to the good, swap some material - but turns out to be a mistake} 12. Bxe7+ Qxe7 13. Bxe8 Qxe8 14. Qc2 Nd7 15. Ng3 h5 16. Rae1 Qc8 17. Ncxe4 h4 18. Nd6 Qc7 19. Ngf5 g6 20. Qe4 $1 Nf6 21. Qe5 Bxf5 22. Qxf6 Rh7 23. Nxf5 gxf5 24. d6 Qc6 25. Re7 Qd5 26. Rfe1 Qc6 27. Rxf7+ Rxf7 28. Qh8# 1-0

76. From (Counter)-Gambit Bird-Blackburne

   [Event "London"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1886.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Bird, H E."]  [Black "Blackburne, J H."]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "A02"]  [PlyCount "34"]   1. f4 {Some of the notes are by Blackburne.} e5 2. fxe5 d6 3. exd6 Bxd6 4. Nf3 Nf6 ({This move has been superseded by} 4... g5 {in modern practice}) 5. d4 Ng4 (5... Nc6 {is the usual move. Blackburne was fond of the knight attack on the f-pawn}) 6. Bg5 f6 7. Bh4 g5 8. Bf2 Nxf2 9. Kxf2 g4 10. Nh4 f5 11. g3 f4 12. Qd3 O-O 13. Qb3+ {Mr. Bird and I played many games at this opening, and many followed the same lines.} Kh8 14. Kg1 Qf6 15. Bg2 fxg3 {Stronger than Qxd4+.} 16. hxg3 Qf2+ 17. Kh2 Rf3 0-1

77. Blumenfeld Counter Gambit Tarrasch-Alekhine

   [Event "Bad Pistyan"]  [Site "Bad Pistyan CZE"]  [Date "1922.04.07"]  [EventDate "1922.??.??"]  [Round "1"]  [Result "0-1"]  [White "Tarrasch, Dr S"]  [Black "Alekhine, Dr A"]  [ECO "E10"]  [WhiteElo "?"]  [BlackElo "?"]  [PlyCount "80"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. c4 c5 4. d5 b5 5. dxe6 fxe6 6. cxb5 d5 7. e3 Bd6 8. Nc3 O-O 9. Be2 Bb7 10. b3 Nbd7 11. Bb2 Qe7 12. O-O Rad8 13. Qc2 e5 14. Rfe1 e4 15. Nd2 Ne5 16. Nd1 Nfg4 17. Bxg4 (17. Nf1 Nf3+ $1) 17... Nxg4 18. Nf1 Qg5 19. h3 Nh6 20. Kh1 Nf5 21. Nh2 d4 22. Bc1 d3 23. Qc4+ Kh8 24. Bb2 Ng3+ $1 25. Kg1 (25. fxg3 Qxg3 {and there is no defence}) 25... Bd5 26. Qa4 Ne2+ 27. Kh1 Rf7 28. Qa6 h5 29. b6 Ng3+ 30. Kg1 axb6 31. Qxb6 Ne2+ 32. Kh1 Ng3+ 33. Kg1 d2 34. Rf1 Nxf1 35. Nxf1 Be6 $1 36. Kh1 Bxh3 37. gxh3 Rf3 38. Ng3 h4 39. Bf6 Qxf6 40. Nxe4  Rxh3+ 0-1

78. Budapest (Counter)-Gambit Bendix-Aitken

   [Event "London"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1944.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Bendix, Dr S"]  [Black "Aitken, Dr J M"]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "A52"]  [PlyCount "88"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Bf4 Nc6 5. Nf3 Bb4+ 6. Nc3 Qe7 7. Qd5 f6 8. exf6 Bxc3+ 9. bxc3 Nxf6 10. Qd3 d6 {For his gambit pawn, Black has gained tempi and has isolated and doubled White's c-pawns. On the other hand, White still has two bishops.} 11. e3 O-O 12. Be2 Ne4 13. O-O Kh8 14. Nd4 Nc5 15. Nxc6 $2 bxc6 16. Qd2 Bf5 17. f3 Qf7 18. e4 {White is playing sensibly, looking to improve his position rather than expecting his extra material to win by itself} Be6 19. Be3 Nd7 20. f4 $1 ({The right move was} 20. c5) 20... Bxc4 21. Bxc4 Qxc4 22. Qd4 Qe6 23. f5 $2 {Advancing the e-pawn would be more correct, according to Fletcher, though Fritz approves of 23 f5} Qe7 24. Rf4 c5 25. Qd2 Nf6 26. Qd3 Rae8 27. Re1 Qf7 28. c4 Nd7 {Aiming for the hole White has obligingly created on e5} 29. Bc1 Ne5 30. Qh3 Qxc4 31. Rh4 Qg8 32. g4 g6 33. fxg6 Qxg6 34. Kh1 Rf3 35. Qg2 Ref8 36. Bb2 Rf2 37. Bxe5+ dxe5 38. Qg3 Rf1+ ({And not} 38... Rxa2 39. Qxe5+ {when most of Black's advantage has evaporated}) 39. Rxf1 (39. Kg2 Rxe1 40. Qxe1 Rf4) 39... Rxf1+ 40. Kg2 Rf4 41. g5 Qxe4+ 42. Kh3 Rxh4+ 43. Qxh4 Qxh4+ 44. Kxh4 c4 {And White cannot enter the 'cordon' of the c-pawn} 0-1

79. Tartakower Counter Gambit Whyte-Davis

   [Event "Hastings"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1951.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Whyte, A L."]  [Black "Davis, M."]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "A52"]  [PlyCount "26"]  [EventDate "1951.??.??"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. e4 d6 5. exd6 Bxd6 6. Be2 ({This is, as Fletcher observes, the move given by Tartakower. Fletcher was only able to locate a club game which proceeded} 6. Nf3 Qe7 7. Qe2 Nc6 8. h3 Nge5 9. Nxe5 Bxe5 10. f4 (10. Be3 $1) 10... Nd4 11. Qd3 Bf6 12. g3 Bf5 $1 13. Nc3 O-O-O 14. Kf2 {Wanting his king on a square where it could not be checked by the knight, White soon finds that it is attacked by the bishop} Nb3 15. Qb1 Bd4+ 16. Kg2 Nxa1 17. Qxa1 Bxe4+ 18. Kh2 Bxh1 {0-1}) 6... f5 7. Bxg4 fxg4 8. Qd5 $6 ({White tries to keep the Black King stuck in the centre, but neglects his development and exposes his queen. Given that he has a sound material plus and no weaknesses, development by} 8. Ne2 {was called for}) 8... Nc6 9. a3 Nd4 $1 10. c5 ({The simple and vicious point being, of course,} 10. Qxd4 $4 Bb4+ {winning the queen}) 10... Be7 11. Kf1 {And whose king is stuck in the centre now...?} Be6 12. Qxd8+ Rxd8 13. Nc3 Bc4+ {White is dropping a lot of material. It is always amusing when a gambit results in a very rapid win on material for the gambiteer.} 0-1

80. Schara-Hennig Counter Gambit Pirc-Alekhine

   [Event "Bled"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1931.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Pirc, V."]  [Black "Alekhine, Dr A"]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "D32"]  [PlyCount "48"]   1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5 cxd4 5. Qa4+ Bd7 6. Qxd4 exd5 7. Qxd5 Nc6 8. Bg5 Nf6 9. Qd2 h6 10. Bxf6 $2 Qxf6 11. e3 O-O-O 12. O-O-O Bg4 13. Nd5 Rxd5 $1 14. Qxd5 Ba3 $3 {As is so often the case with Alekhine's games, a good move is only the preliminary to an even better one} 15. Qb3 (15. bxa3 Qa1+ 16. Kc2 Bxd1+ 17. Qxd1 Qxa2+) 15... Bxd1 16. Qxa3 Qxf2 17. Qd3 Bg4 18. Nf3 Bxf3 19. Qf5+ Kb8 20. Qxf3 Qe1+ 21. Kc2 ({As Tartakover said, this was to hazardous just to save a pawn. A better move was} 21. Qd1) 21... Rc8 22. Qg3+ $2 Ne5+ 23. Kb3 Qd1+ 24. Ka3 Rc5 0-1

81. Tarrasch Counter Gambit Barrera-Moritz

   [Event "Guayaquil"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1939.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Barrera"]  [Black "Moritz"]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "D32"]  [PlyCount "54"]   1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5 exd5 5. dxc5 d4 6. Ne4 Bf5 7. Qc2 $2 (7. Nd6+ {is the usual move here}) 7... Qd5 8. Qa4+ Nc6 9. Ng3 Bxc5 10. Nxf5 Bb4+ 11. Bd2 Bxd2+ 12. Kxd2 Qxf5 13. Nf3 Nf6 14. e3 dxe3+ 15. fxe3 O-O {As White has an isolated king's pawn, writes Fletcher, Black could now be said to have a slight positional advantage. Fritz assesses that advantage as overwhelming. More important than the isolated pawn are surely the king being stuck in the centre, Black's lead in development and the decentralised position of White's queen.} 16. Rd1 Rad8+ 17. Ke1 Rxd1+ 18. Qxd1 Rd8 19. Qc1 Nb4 20. a3 Nc2+ 21. Kf2 Ne4+ 22. Kg1 Qc5 23. g3 Rd2 24. Nxd2 Qxe3+ 25. Kg2 Ne1+ 26. Kh3 Nf2+ 27. Kh4 Qh6# 0-1

82. Albin Counter Gambit Karu-Keres

   [Event "corr"]  [Site "corr"]  [Date "1931.??.??"]  [Event "corr"]  [Site "corr"]  [Date "1931.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Karu, A."]  [Black "Keres, P."]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "D08"]  [PlyCount "54"]  [EventDate "1931.??.??"]   1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5 3. Nc3 {It is a surprise that Fletcher included this game in a book on "Gambits Accepted" There are plenty of brilliant Albin Accepted games, for example this effort by the great Kurt Richter:} (3. dxe5 d4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. Nbd2 Bf5 6. a3 Qd7 7. g3 d3 8. e3 f6 {In many lines of the Albin, Black plays to recapture the pawn on e5, but Richter is determined to play this like a true gambit.} 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. Bg2 Bh3 11. O-O $2 Bxg2 12. Kxg2 h5 13. h4 Ng4 14. b3 Be7 15. Ne4 O-O $2 16. Nfg5 Rad8 17. f3 Bxg5 18. hxg5 Nce5 19. fxg4 $2 {Black has ample compensation for his material anyway, but after this move the roof falls in} Qc6 20. Rf4 Rxf4 21. gxf4 Qxe4+ 22. Kg3 h4+ 23. Kh3 d2 $1 24. Bxd2 Nf3 25. Ra2 Nxd2 26. Qe2 (26. Rxd2 Qxe3+) 26... Rd3 ({There was an elegant forced mate by} 26... Qh1+ 27. Qh2 Qf3+ 28. Kxh4 Kf7 $1 {but the move played was quite enough to force resignation. 0-1 Saemisch-Richter, Berlin 1941 })) 3... exd4 4. Qxd4 Nc6 5. Qxd5 Be6 6. Qb5 a6 7. Qa4 Bb4 8. Bd2 Bxc4 9. a3 b5 10. Qc2 Nd4 11. Qe4+ Be7 12. Nf3 c5 13. Rc1 Nf6 14. Qb1 Qd6 15. Nxd4 cxd4 16. Ne4 Nxe4 17. Qxe4 O-O 18. Bf4 Qd8 19. Rd1 Bf6 20. Qf3 Re8 21. b3 d3 22. e4 Bc3+ 23. Bd2 Qd4 24. Bxc3 Qxc3+ 25. Rd2 Rxe4+ 26. Qxe4 Qc1+ 27. Rd1 d2# 0-1

83. Winawer Counter Gambit Alapin-Marco

   [Event "Monte Carlo"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1901.02.21"]  [Round "11"]  [White "Alapin, S."]  [Black "Marco, G."]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "D10"]  [PlyCount "52"]  [EventDate "1901.02.04"]   1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 e5 4. dxe5 d4 5. Ne4 (5. Nb1 f6 6. exf6 Nxf6) 5...Qa5+ 6. Nd2 ({Should White play} 6. Bd2 {then Black follows with} Qxe5 7. Nf3 Qc7 {says Fletcher...}) 6... Bf5 7. Ngf3 c5 8. Qb3 Nd7 9. g3 Be4 10. Bg2 Bc6 11. O-O Ne7 12. e3 dxe3 13. Qxe3 Nf5 14. Qf4 g6 15. Ne4 O-O-O 16. Neg5 Bh6 17. Qg4 Bxg5 18. Bxg5 h5 19. Qf4 Rde8 20. a3 Re6 21. b4 Qc7 22. b5 Bxf3 23. Bxf3 Nd4 24. Ra2 f6 25. Bd5 fxg5 26. Qxg5 Qxe5 {"and wins" - Chessgames.com gives the game through to move 54 but we will spare you.} 0-1

84. Benoni Counter Gambit NN-NN

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "NN"]  [Black "NN"]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "A43"]  [PlyCount "62"]   {The only game Fletcher was able to find illustrating the Benoni accepted as a winning gambit was this club game in which, as he correctly observes, "Black gives up a whole series of pawns without getting them back and succeeds in winning after an exceedingly lively and unsound contest".} 1. d4 c5 2. dxc5 b6 3. cxb6 d5 4. c4 Qxb6 5. cxd5 e6 6. a3 Bc5 7. e3 Nf6 8. dxe6 O-O 9. exf7+ Kxf7 ({This, observes Fletcher mildly, does not appear to have any advantages over} 9... Rxf7) 10. Bc4+ Be6 11. Bxe6+ Qxe6 12. Nf3 Kg8 {Obviously to avoid Ng5+} 13. O-O Nc6 14. b4 Rad8 15. Qe2 Nd4 $1 16. Nxd4 Bxd4 17. Bb2 Bxb2 18. Qxb2 Ng4 19. Qe2 $2 ({We did comment that Fletcher's analysis was weak, and this move is a case in point. He is right to observe that White should not allow Black to place his K on e5 threatening mate or win of the exchange. But when he suggests that} 19. h3 {appears to be the best move he overlooks} Rxf2 $1 20. Qc1 Rxf1+ 21. Kxf1 Qf7+ 22. Kg1 Qc7 $1) (19. Qa2 {is a sensible way of cashing in the three extra pawns}) 19... Qe5 20. g3 Nxf2 21. Rxf2 Rxf2 22. Qxf2 Rd1+ 23. Kg2 Qxa1 24. Nd2 Qa2 25. Nf3 Qd5 26. Kh3 h5 27. Qe2 g5 ({Better} 27... Ra1) 28. Nxg5 Rd2 29. Qxh5 Qf5+ 30. g4 Qf1+ 31. Kg3 Rg2+ 0-1

85. Steinitz (Counter) Mason-Steinitz

   [Event "London"]  [Site "London ENG"]  [Date "1883.06.19"]  [Round "23.1"]  [White "Mason, J."]  [Black "Steinitz, W."]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "D00"]  [PlyCount "60"]  [EventDate "1883.04.26"]   {Fletcher included a considerable amount of obscure material from the 19th century but unaccountably omitted one of Steinitz' better ideas.} 1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 c5 3. dxc5 (3. e3 Qb6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bxb8 Rxb8 6. Bb5+ Kd8 7. dxc5 Qxc5 8. Nf3 Nf6 {led to a useful win for Black in a crucial game in the Women's World Championship in 2012 - Gunina-Galliamova 0-1 in 31}) 3... Nc6 4. Nf3 f6 5. e3 e5 6. Bg3 Bxc5 7. c3 Nge7 8. Nbd2 Bb6 9. Be2 O-O 10. O-O Nf5 11. e4 Nxg3 12. hxg3 d4 13. cxd4 exd4 14. Bc4+ Kh8 15. Nb3 Bg4 16. Bd5 Ne5 17. Bxb7 Rb8 18. Bd5 f5 19. Nbd2 f4 20. Qa4 $4 Nxf3+ (20... Bxf3 {is even stronger}) 21. Nxf3 fxg3 22. fxg3 Qd6 23. Nh2 d3+ 24. Kh1 Be2 25. Rxf8+ Rxf8 26. Bb3 Qxg3 27. Qd7 d2 28. Qxd2 Bc7 29. e5 Qxe5 30. Nf3 Rxf3 0-1

86. Belgrade Gambit Markov-Rohacek

   [Event "Sofia"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1949.??.??"]  [Round "1"]  [White "Markov, Z."]  [Black "Rohacek, I V."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C47"]  [PlyCount "55"]  [EventDate "1949.??.??"]  [EventType "team"]  [EventRounds "2"]  [EventCountry "CRO"]  [Source "ChessBase"]  [SourceDate "1999.11.16"]   {Another surprising omission from Fletcher's collection is the Belgrade Gambit, a curious sideline of the Four Knights' Game in which, so far from gaining a lead in development, White appears to waste time moving his QN twice. Yet in the hands of a player who knows what he is doing, the gambit is dangerous and has claimed Keres and Averbakh among its victims. The gambit was first tried, without success, by Kurt Richter before the war, but was adopted with some enthusiasm by Yugoslav players in the late 1940s.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nd5 Nxd5 6. exd5 Bb4+ 7. Bd2 Qe7+ 8. Qe2 {Bizarre. Still the gambit pawn down, White cheerfully accepts wholesale exchanges.} Bxd2+ 9. Kxd2 Qxe2+ 10. Bxe2 Ne7 11. d6 $1 {It is surprising how significant the immobility of Black's QB appears to be} Nc6 12. Rhe1 O-O 13. dxc7 a6 14. Bc4 d6 15. Bd5 Bd7 16. Bxc6 bxc6 17. Re7 Be6 18. Nxd4 c5 19. Nxe6 fxe6 20. f3 Rfe8 21. Rd7 d5 22. Re1 Rac8 23. c4 dxc4 24. Re5 Kf8 25. Rxc5 Re7 26. Rxe7 Kxe7 27. Rxc4 Kd6 28. b4 1-0

87. Ourousoff Gambit Schlechter-Neustadt & Tietz

   [Event "Karlsbad"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1901.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Schlechter, C."]  [Black "Neustadt & Tietz"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C24"]  [PlyCount "97"]   {It is curious that although Fletcher mentions Prince Ourosoff (one of the men who revived the Allgaier Gambit) he does not mention his gambit.} 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Qxd4 Nf6 ({If Black attempts to cover f7 by playing the rather artificial} 5... Nd6 {White comes out comfortably on top, e.g.} 6. O-O Nc6 7. Re1+ Ne7 8. Bb3 f6 9. Qd5 g5 10. Nxg5 fxg5 11. Bxg5 h6 12. Nc3 (12. Bf4 {is even stronger -} Rh7 13. Bxd6 cxd6 14. Qh5+ Rf7 15. Bxf7#) 12... Rh7 13. Qg8 hxg5 14. Qxh7 {1-0 Prokes-Zander, Vienna 1925}) 6. Nc3 (6. Bg5 Be7 7. Nc3 O-O 8. O-O-O Nc6 9. Qh4 d6 10. Bd3 h6 11. Bxh6 gxh6 (11... Ng4  12. Bg5) 12. Qxh6 Nb4 13. Ng5 Nxd3+ 14. Rxd3 Bf5 15. Rg3 Bg6 16. Ne6 {1-0 Neishtadt-NN, simul 1950}) 6... c6 7. Bg5 d5 8. O-O-O $1 Be7 9. Rhe1 O-O 10. Qh4 h6 11. Bxd5 $3 $16 Nbd7 12. Bc4 b5 13. Bd3 hxg5 14. Nxg5 Re8 15. Bh7+ Kf8 16. Bf5 Kg8 17. Nxf7 $1 Kxf7 18. Be6+ Kg6 19. f4 Nh5 20. Qg4+ $4 ({After playing brilliantly up to here, White falters -} 20. Bf5+ $1 Kxf5 21. g4+ Kg6 22. Qxh5+ Kf6 23. Qf5#) 20... Kh6 21. Bf7 Nxf4 22. Re6+ Kh7 23. Ne4 $4 (23. Qxf4 {really isn't difficult}) 23... Ne5 24. Qxf4 Bxe6 25. Rxd8 Nxf7 26. Rxa8 Rxa8 27. Qc7 Re8 28. Qxc6 Nd6 29. Nxd6 Bg5+ 30. Kb1 Bd7 31. Qc3 Re3 {White now has to spend quite a little time fending off back row mates before eventually the weight of material tells.} 32. Qd2 Re5 33. Qd3+ Bf5 34. Qg3 Rd5 35. Qf3 Be6 36. Nxb5 Re5 37. Qg3 Bf4 38. Qf2 Bg5 39. Nd4 Be3 40. Qh4+ Kg6 41. Nxe6 Rxe6 42. a4 Kf5 43. Qh5+ g5 44. h4 Re4 45. Qf7+ Ke5 46. h5 Rh4 47. Qg7+ Kf5 48. h6 Bd4 49. g4+ $1 {Yes, that is the noted drawmeister Carl Schlechter showing us how to play a gambit.} 1-0

88. Cochrane (Petroff) Gambit Gossip-City of Birmingham

   [Event "City corr"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1860.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Gossip, G H D."]  [Black "City of Birmingham"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C42"]  [PlyCount "59"]  [EventDate "1860.??.??"]   {Fletcher quotes a line called the Cochrane Gambit which is an obscure  variation of the Salvio Gambit, but omitted to mention Cochrane's interesting line against the Petroff. Here is the "other" Cochrane Gambit in a postal game played against the members of the City of Birmingham Chess Club} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 ({Curiously, in his own book on the openings published in 1891. Gossip gives this move a "?" insisting that the only correct line for White is} 3. d4) 3... d6 4. Nxf7 {And Gossip doesn't mention this line at all!} Kxf7 5. Bc4+ Be6 $1 ({The Birmingham players were evidently aware of the theory of this line. The stem game Cochrane-Mohishunder, Calcutta 1848, continued} 5... Ke8 6. O-O c5 7. h3 $1 Qc7 8. f4 {and white won. It is  important for Black to get rid of the dangerous White KB.}) 6. Bxe6+ Kxe6 7. d4 Kf7 8. Nc3 Be7 9. Qe2 Rf8 10. Be3 Kg8 {A curious way to castle...} 11. O-O-O c6 12. f4 Qa5 13. g4 Nbd7 14. g5 Nxe4 $6 ({Quite a modern approach - Black gives back the material to break up White's central position - but probably inferior to} 14... Ne8) 15. Nxe4 Qxa2 16. Nc3 Qf7 17. d5 $1 cxd5 18. Nxd5 Rfc8 19. f5 $1 Bf8 20. Rhf1 Nb6 21. g6 hxg6 $2 (21... Qe8 {was better. Without doing anything very spectacular Gossip has worked up a tremendous attack. Note in particular that Black's QR might as well not be on the board.}) 22. fxg6 Qxg6 23. Nf6+ $2 ({Playing by post, Gossip, who was a pretty competent attacking player, really ought to have found} 23. Rxf8+ Kxf8 24. Rf1+ Ke8 25. Bg5+ Kd7 26. Qg4+ Kc6 27. Ne7+ {bagging the Black Queen}) 23... Kf7 24. Ng4+ Kg8 25. Nh6+ Kh7 26. Nf5 Re8 27. Qf3 Nc4 28. Qh3+ Kg8 29. Nh6+ gxh6 30. Rg1 1-0

89. Morra Gambit Tartakover-Lokvenc

   [Event "Venice"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1948.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Tartakower, Dr S G"]  [Black "Lokvenc, J."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "B21"]  [PlyCount "81"]  [EventDate "1948.??.??"]  [EventType "tourn"]  [EventRounds "13"]  [EventCountry "PLE"]  [Source "ChessBase"]  [SourceDate "1999.07.01"]   1. e4 c5 2. d4 {Fletcher examines the Wing Gambit against the Sicilian in some detail, but omits the Morra Gambit, which was just starting to become popular as his book appeared. The gambit appears to have started with Tartakover but was made popular by the efforts of the Frenchman Morra and the American Ken Smith (hence it is often referred to as the "Smith-Morra"). The Yugoslavs Ivkov and Matulovic won a number of attractive games with it in the late 1950s. Here is the gambit being played by its probable inventor.} cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 {One great virtue of the Morra is that it takes away the positional basis of much of Black's play in the Sicilian (essentially a minority attack against the c-pawn)} Nc6 5. Nf3 d6 6. Bc4 e6 7. Bf4 Nf6 8. Qe2 Nh5 9. Be3 Be7 10. Rd1 Qa5 11. O-O Nf6 12. Bg5 O-O 13. Nb5 d5 14. exd5 exd5 15. Bxf6 Bxf6 16. Bxd5 Bg4 17. Nd6 Qb6 18. Ne4 Be7 19. Nc3 Bf6 20. Ne4 Be5 $6 ({Over-optimistic. Black should have repeated moves with} 20... Be7) 21. Neg5 Bxf3 22. Qd3 g6 23. Qxf3 Nd8 $6 (23... Qc7 {looks to be a better try}) 24. Qh3 h5 25. g4 Bf4 26. Ne4 hxg4 27. Qxg4 Bh6 28. Bb3 Kg7 29. Rd6 Qc7 30. Rfd1 {We have the familiar situation - without actually doing anything very spectacular, White has all his pieces in play and Black is effectively playing at odds of QR.} Qa5 31. R6d5 Qc7 32. Rd6 Qa5 33. Rd7 Qe5 34. R1d6 Kh8 35. Rf6 Rc8 36. Kg2 Rc7 37. Rd5 Qxb2 (37... Qe7 {was less immediately fatal}) 38. Rh5 Kg7 39. Rxh6 Kxh6 40. Qf4+ Kg7 41. Qxc7 1-0

90. Marshall (Counter-) Gambit Frere-Marshall

   [Event "New York"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1917.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Frere, W."]  [Black "Marshall, F J."]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "C89"]  [PlyCount "34"]   {A striking omission from Fletcher's collection is the Marshall Gambit, familiar from Capablanca-Marshall, New York 1918, but with which Marshall had been experimenting for some time before then. Here is an early Marshall Gambit with Marshall's own notes.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3 d5 9. exd5 e4 ({For a while I thought that} 9...Nxd5 {was the strongest move but the text is even more aggressive}) 10. dxc6 exf3 11. d4 ({Today} 11. Qxf3 {is invariably played, then} Bg4 12. Qg3 Bd6 {follows}) 11... fxg2 12. Bf4 Bg4 13. Qd3 ({At once} 13. f3 {seems stronger}) 13... Nh5 14. Bxc7 {An unsound sacrifice} Qxc7 15. Qe4 Nf4 16. Qxe7 Qxe7 17. Rxe7 Bf3 0-1

91. Charlick (Counter-) Gambit Apperley-Charlick

   [Event "Adelaide-Unley match"]  [Site "Australia"]  [Date "1894.12.10"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Apperly, H W."]  [Black "Charlick, H."]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "A40"]  [PlyCount "30"]  [EventDate "1894.??.??"]   1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 d6 {This has been called the Charlick Counter Gambit.} 3. Bf4 Nc6 4. exd6 Qf6 5. Bc1 Bxd6 6. c3 Bf5 7. e3 O-O-O {Black has worked up a terrifying lead in development} 8. Nd2 Qg6 9. h3 Nf6 10. Ngf3 Rhe8 {Black's game is virtually playing itself. Unless White can find some remarkable way of getting his king into safety, a violent win for Black seems only a matter of time.} 11. Qa4 Bc2 12. Nb3 Ne4 13. Nh4 Qg3 $1 {Violent enough. The final position is rather pretty} 14. fxg3 ({No better, of course, is} 14. Qxe4 Rxe4 15. fxg3 Bxg3+ 16. Ke2 Bd1#) 14... Bxg3+ 15. Ke2 Bd1# 0-1

92. Milner-Barry Gambit Milner-Barry-Isles

   [Event "British Ch"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1951.04.18"]  [Round "4"]  [White "Milner-Barry, P S."]  [Black "Isles, E."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C02"]   [PlyCount "49"]   1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. Bd3 {The Milner-Barry Gambit offered by its inventor. Many classical gambits have an obvious logic - the various King's Gambits aimed at the f7 weakness, the Evans with its central control. The Milner-Barry offers two pawns and leaves Black with no apparent weaknesses. Its justification is simply that unless Black knows exactly what he is doing, he will lose horribly...} cxd4 7. cxd4 Bd7 ({And not, of course,} 7... Nxd4 $4 8. Nxd4 Qxd4 9. Bb5+ {a horrible trap which still gets its share of victims}) 8. Nc3 Nxd4 9. Nxd4 Qxd4 10. O-O Qxe5 ({Much later it was discovered that} 10... a6 {made life more difficult for White; but Ken  Messere was willing to play the gambit in the World Correspondence Championship -} 11. Qe2 Ne7 12. Rd1 Qb6 13. Be3 Qc7 14. f4 Nc6 15. Bf2 Be7 16. Rac1 {Messere-Zagarovsky, 5th WCC Final 1965 (1-0 in 40)}) 11. Re1 Qd6 12. Nb5 {This is why ...a6 is a good idea} Bxb5 13. Bxb5+ Kd8 14. Be3 Qb4 15. Qd3 Nf6 16. a3 ({Later, Milner-Barry recommended} 16. Rac1 {instead}) 16... Qh4 17. g3 Qh3 18. Qc3 Bd6 19. Rac1 Ng4 20. Qxg7 Qxh2+ 21. Kf1 Nxe3+ 22. Rxe3 Qh3+ $2 ({Black could have called White's bluff by} 22... Qh1+ {because after} 23. Ke2 Qxc1 24. Qxh8+ Ke7 25. Qxa8 Qxb2+ {picks up the loose bishop and Black is probably winning the ending. But that can be said at some stage about a lot of games in this collection.}) 23. Kg1 Ke7 24. Qg5+ Kf8 25. Rec3 {Black will either be mated or lose ruinous amounts of material} 1-0

93. Dilworth (Counter-) Gambit (mentioned by Fletcher who wrongly stated that it did not qualify for inclusion by his criteria) Estelles-Dilworth

   [Event "Correspondence game"]  [Site "England"]  [Date "1941.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Estelles"]  [Black "Dilworth, V."]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "C82"]   [PlyCount "48"]  [EventDate "1941.??.??"]   1. e4 ({Dilworth also proposed a gambit for White in the Nimzo-Indian:} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e4 $6 {- Dilworth contributed an article on the variation to the March 1949 issue of CHESS magazine. Dilworth's idea was} Nxe4 5. Qg4 Nxc3 6. Bd2 {However, White's compensation for the pawn is nebulous at best, and the line accordingly never developed a following beyond Dilworth himself. Chris Ward has called the gambit "critical, but basically rubbish"}) 1... e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5 Be6 9. c3 Bc5 10. Nbd2 O-O 11. Bc2 Nxf2 {The Dilworth Gambit played by the man who made it popular. Fletcher's criteria were that an opening had been named as a gambit (which this was, by Tartakover in 100 Modern Games of Master Chess) and had been played by a master. He appears to have overlooked Smyslov-Botvinnik, Moscow Championship 1943. Botvinnik became sufficiently enthusiastic about the Dilworth that some chauvinistic Soviet writers referred to it as "Botvinnik's variation" prompting indignant splutterings in the pages of CHESS.} 12. Qe2 (12. Rxf2 f6 13. exf6 Qxf6 14. Qf1 {Smyslov-Botvinnik, 1943 - 1-0 in 50 moves}) 12... f6 13. exf6 Qxf6 14. Rxf2 Rae8 15. Qd3 g6 16. Qf1 Bg4 17. Nd4 $4 {Surprisingly, this move, attacking the black queen and blocking the bishop's diagonal, loses catastrophically.} (17. h3 {is about even.}) 17...Nxd4 18. Rxf6 Rxf6 19. cxd4 Bxd4+ 20. Kh1 Rxf1+ 21. Nxf1 Re1 22. Bd3 Bf5 23.Be2 Rxe2 24. Bh6 Be4 {The final position rather emphasises the importance of what the pieces are doing rather than how many of them there are. In material terms, Black irrelevantly has two extra pawns. Fritz assesses the position as +12 in Black's favour} 0-1

94. Volga (now Benko) (Counter-) Gambit Bozic-Udovcic

   [Event "YUG-ch"]  [Site "Belgrade"]  [Date "1948.??.??"]  [Round "14"]  [White "Bozic, A."]  [Black "Udovcic, M."]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "A59"]  [PlyCount "77"]  [EventDate "1948.??.??"]  [EventRounds "17"]  [EventCountry "YUG"]   {Fletcher suggests that the Lopez Gambit is utterly remote from all other gambits, but the opening of which that can certainly be said, the Benko Gambit (or Volga Gambit as it was then called), had just started to appear when his book came out. Here is an early experiment.} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5 a6 {This is the key idea. Black gets long term pressure down the a and b files rather than a quick (and frequently unsound) attack.} 5. bxa6 Bxa6 6. Nc3 d6 7. e4 g6 ({The idea of stopping castling by} 7... Bxf1 {hadn't been thought of when this game was played}) 8. Bxa6 Nxa6 9. Nge2 Bg7 10. O-O O-O 11. f3 Qd7 12. Be3 Rfb8 {The characteristic pressure down the queen's side files, with the extra pawns proving a potential embarrassment to White.} 13. Qd2 Nc7 14. Rac1 Rb4 15. Rc2 Rab8 16. Nc1 Nfe8 17. Nd3 R4b7 18. Rb1 Na6 19. Ne2 Nec7 20. Rbc1 f5 21. b3 fxe4 22. fxe4 Nb4 23. Nxb4 Rxb4 24. Rc4 Rxc4 25. Rxc4 Rf8 {Black turns his attention to the Kingside and White doesn't react quickly enough} 26. Rc1 Qg4 27. Qd3 Be5 28. h3 Qh4 29. Kh1 g5 30. Bg1 g4 31. Nc3 $2 {The knight isn't going anywhere - and removing a piece from the defence of the king gives Black the one chance any gambiteer needs} Rf3 $3 32. Qd2 (32. gxf3 Qxh3+ {and mate next move}) 32... Bf4 33. Qe2 Bxc1 34. gxf3 Qxh3+ 35. Qh2 Qxf3+ 36. Qg2 Qxc3 37. Qxg4+ Qg7 38. Qc8+ Qf8 39. Qg4+ ({not, of course,} 39. Qxc7 Qf3+ 40. Kh2 Bf4# {but after the king goes to h8 there are no more checks and Black has emerged with an extra piece}) 0-1

95. Lisitsyn Gambit Haberditz-Hysek

   [Event "Wenen"]  [Site "Wenen"]  [Date "1938.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Haberditz, H"]  [Black "Hysek"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "A04"]  [PlyCount "15"]  [EventDate "1938.??.??"]   {Lisitsyn introduced his gambit in the early 1930s, losing with it to Botvinnik; but it was subsequently adopted with success by players of the stature of Szabo and Gligoric, as witness the game Gligoric-Kostic earlier in this collection. This little game features plausible play by Black which walks into a shattering refutation} 1. Nf3 f5 2. e4 fxe4 3. Ng5 d5 4. d3 exd3 5. Bxd3 {Black is lagging in development and his kingside is exposed. Surely he can deal with both problems by...} Nf6 $2 (5... g6 {and Black seems to be all right}) 6. Nxh7 Nxh7 $4 ({Black's position is pretty horrible after} 6... Be6 7. Ng5 {but this loses by a knockout}) 7. Bg6+ Kd7 8. Qxd5# 1-0

Mr Fletcher’s gambits … and some that he missed.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply