DDG and Semi-Slav, Marshall Gambit
I formulated a simple 4-phase plan for the course of the DDG games
when I started to analyze the DDG seriously in the mid-90s (if the
word "serious" can appear in the same sentence with the DDG):
- Obtain the bishop-pair.
- Obtain the half-open f-file.
- Sacrifice at f6.
- Give a checkmate at h7.
Jyrki Heikkinen - Kauko Kaiju, rapid game, 2000
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.e4 c6
Nowadays this seems to be the most common way to decline the DDG.
But the game is not yet lost: White can still trick Black into
accepting the e4-pawn...
4.Nc3
Note that this has transposed to the Semi-Slav, Marshall Gambit:
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e4!?.
4...Bb4
4...dxe4 5.f3 transposes to the Semi-Slav, Gunderam Gambit, of
which Schiller wrote in Unorthodox Chess Openings (1998):
"Another Diemerish gambit, but this time White has a pawn at c4; and
Black has a bad bishop, which makes this somewhat promising. Yet it
seems to be remarkably easy to equalize as Black."
Examples of how not to equalize: 5.exf3 6.Nxf3 Nf6 7.Bd3 Be7 8.O-O
- A) 8...O-O 9.Bc2 Nbd7 10.Qd3 Re8 11.Ng5 Nf8 12.Nce4 c5 (12...Nxe4
13.Nxf7!) 13.d5 exd5 14.Nxf6+ Bxf6 15.Nxh7 Bd4+ 16.Kh1 dxc4 17.Qxc4?
(17.Qf3) Nxh7? (17...Be6 18.Qd3 c4 -+) 18.Qxf7+ Kh8 19.Qh5 (19...g6
20.Bxg6 Re7 21.Bg5 +-) 1-0, Heikkinen - Rantanen, 1997.
- B) 8...h6 9.Bc2 O-O 10.Qd3 Nbd7 11.Nfd2 e5 12.Nde4 exd4??
(12...Nxe4) 13.Nxf6+ Nxf6 14.Rxf6 g6 15.Rxg6+ fxg6 16.Qxg6+ 1-0,
Heikkinen - Kauppinen, 1999.
5.Qb3
Is anyone else playing this move? I have not found any examples.
Instead of respectable moves such as 5.e5 or 5.exd5, a gambiteer
has interesting alternatives, too:
- A) 5.Bd3 dxe4 6.Bxe4 Qh4? (6...Nf6 7.Bc2 c5 8.Nf3 cxd4 9.Nxd4 e5
10.Ba4+! Bd7 11.Ne2, Khalifman - Godena, 1996) 7.Bc2 c5 8.Nf3 Qh5
9.g4!? Qxg4 10.Rg1 Qh5 11.Rg5 Qh3 12.dxc5 Ne7 13.Rxg7 Ng6 14.Bg5 Nd7
15.Qd3 Kf8? 16.Rxf7+ Kxf7 17.Ne5+ 1-0 in 24, Heikkinen - Siikonen,
2000.
- B) 5.Qc2 Nf6 6.f3 dxe4 7.Be3 O-O 8.a3 Bxc3+ 9.Qxc3 exf3 10.Nxf3
Nbd7 11.Bd3 h6 12.O-O Ng4 13.Bd2 f5 14.Rae1 Nb6 15.Qc1 Kh7 16.h3 Nf6
17.g4 Ne4? 18.Bxe4 fxe4 19.Rxe4 Qc7 20.Bf4 Qe7 21.g5 h5 22.g6+ Kg8
23.Bg5 Qc7 24.Ne5 Bd7 25.Qd1 Rxf1+ 26.Kxf1 Rf8+ 27.Kg1 Nxc4 28.Qxh5
Rf6 29.Qh7+ Kf8 30.Bxf6 Nxe5 31.Qh8# 1-0, Heikkinen - Joutsivuo, 1999.
- C) 5.Ne2 dxe4 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.Nxc3 f5 8.g4 proved to be a bad idea in
Mitenkov - Maljutin, 1996.
5...Bxc3+
Phase 1 of the plan: bishop-pair. This loses a tempo, but is
played amazingly often.
5...a5 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.Qxc3 dxe4 8.f3 Nf6 9.Bg5 exf3 10.Nxf3 h6 11.Bh4
O-O 12.Bd3 Nbd7 13.O-O Qc7 14.Bc2 c5 15.Qd3 cxd4 16.Bxf6 Nxf6 17.Nxd4
g6?? (17...Rd8) 18.Rxf6 1-0 in 40, Heikkinen - Kauppinen, 2001.
6.Qxc3 dxe4
Psychology is interesting: Black thinks that it is safer to take
the pawn now than in the 3rd move. Alternatives:
- A) 6...Nf6 7.e5 Ne4 8.Qe3 Nd7?! 9.f3 Qh4+ 10.Ke2 Ng3+ (10...Qh5
11.Nh3 +-) 11.hxg3 Qxh1 12.Nh3 is a wild variation yet to be tested on
the board.
- B) 6...Nd7 7.Nh3 h6 8.Bd3 dxc4 9.Bxc4 b5 10.Bd3 Bb7 11.Bf4 Ne7
12.O-O O-O 13.Qd2 Ng6 14.Bd6 Re8 15.e5 Ne7 16.Qf4 Nc8 17.Bb4 a5 18.Bd2
b4 19.Rfe1 c5 20.Re3 cxd4 21.Rg3 Kf8 22.Rxg7! (nice 4-move rook
maneuver) f6 23.Qxh6 Nxe5 24.Qh8# 1-0, Heikkinen - Kauppinen, 1999.
- C) 6...Ne7 7.Bg5 h6 (7...f6 8.Bh4 O-O 9.O-O-O Nd7 10.g4 Ng6 11.Bg3
a6 12.h4 dxc4 13.Bxc4 Qe7 14.h5 b5 15.hxg6 bxc4 16.Rxh7 e5 17.Bxe5
Nxe5 18.Rh8+ 1-0, Heikkinen - Ristaniemi, 2001) 8.Bh4 O-O 9.O-O-O dxc4
10.Bxc4 b5 11.Bd3 a5 12.Bc2 b4 13.Qc5 Re8 14.Nf3 Na6 15.Qh5 Qc7 16.Bg3
Qb6 17.h4 Bb7 18.Rh3 Rac8 19.Ne5 f6 20.Ng4 Qb5 21.Nxh6+! Kh7
(21...gxh6 22.Be5; 21...Kh8 22.e5) 22.e5+ g6 23.Bxg6+ Nxg6 24.Nf5+ Kg8
25.Qxg6+ Kf8 26.Qg7# 1-0, Heikkinen - Kauppinen, 2000.
7.f3 Nf6
- A) 7...Nd7 8.Be3 exf3 9.Nxf3 Ngf6 10.Bd3 Qc7 11.O-O Ng4 12.Bd2 O-O
13.Rae1 c5 14.dxc5 Qxc5+ 15.Kh1 f6 16.Re4 Nge5 (16...Nde5) 17.Bc2 Ng6
18.b4 Qc7 19.c5 e5? 20.Nh4 Nxh4 21.Rxh4 g6 22.Bc4+ 1-0, Heikkinen -
Virkamäki, 2001.
- B) 7...exf3 8.Nxf3 Ne7 9.Bd3 O-O 10.Bg5 f6 11.Bh4 Ng6 12.Bg3 Re8
13.O-O-O a6 14.h4 Ne7 15.Qc2 Nf5 16.Bf2 h6 17.g4 Nd6 18.Rdg1 b5 19.c5
Nf7 20.g5 f5 21.g6 Nh8 22.Ne5 1-0 in 37, Heikkinen - Meri, 2000.
8.Bg5
More passive is 8.Be3 O-O 9.O-O-O Qe7 10.h4 exf3 11.gxf3 Nh5 12.Ne2
Nbd7 13.Bg5 f6 14.Be3 Nb6 15.Bh3 Na4 16.Qc2 b5 17.Bg4 Qf7 18.c5 f5
19.Bxh5 Qxh5 20.Rdg1 Qxf3 21.Bh6 Rf7 22.b3 Ba6 23.Rh2 Rb8 24.Rhg2 g6
25.Rg3 Qh5 26.Bg5 1-0, Heikkinen - Ristaniemi, 2002.
8...exf3
Phase 2 of the plan: half-open f-file. White is now ready to
attack.
9.Nxf3 O-O
9...Ne4! 10.Bxd8 Nxc3 11.Ba5 Ne4 12.Bd3 is better for Black.
10.Bd3 Nbd7 11.O-O Qc7
11...b6 12.Ne5 Qc7 13.Bxf6 Nxf6 14.Rae1 Bb7 15.Rxf6 gxf6 16.Bxh7+
Kxh7 17.Qh3+ Kg7 18.Qg3+ Kh7 19.Re4 1-0,
Ruth - Ramsey, 1908.
The stem game of the DDG has been reached via transposition. Nothing
new under the sun...
12.Ne5 c5
13.Bxf6 Nxf6
The bishop-pair is decisive: 13...cxd4 14.Bxh7+ Kxh7 (14...Kh8
15.Bxg7+!) 15.Qh3+ Kg8 16.Bxg7 or 13...gxf6 14.Bxh7+ +-.
14.Rxf6!
Phase 3 of the plan: sacrifice at f6. Game is pretty much
over.
14...gxf6
14...cxd4 15.Bxh7+ Kxh7 16.Qh3+ Kg8 17.Re1 wins:
- A) 17...Bd7 18.Re4 Bc6 19.Rh4 g6 20.Rh8+ Kg7 21.Rxg6+.
- B) 17...g6 18.Qh6 (threatening Nxg6) Qe7 19.Ref1.
- C) 17...Qe7 18.Ref1.
15.Bxh7+ Kh8
15...Kxh7 16.Qh3+ Kg7 17.Qg3+ Kh7 (other moves lose the queen)
18.Rf1! (this might have been difficult to find during the game)
- A) 18...f5 19.Qh5+ Kg7 20.Qg5+ Kh8 21.Rf3 f6 22.Qh6+ +-.
- B) 18...Rg8 19.Qh4+ Kg7 20.Ng4 (20.Rxf6 seems to enough as well;
e.g., Kf8 21.Qh7 Rg7 22.Qh8+ Rg8 23.Ng6+) Kf8 21.Nxf6! Rg6 22.Qh8+ Ke7
23.Qe8+ Kd6 24.Ne4#.
16.Qh3 fxe5
16...Kg7 17.Rf1! fxe5 18.Qg3+ Kh8 19.Rf6 Qd8 20.Bd3! +-.
17.Be4+ Kg7 18.Qh7+ 1-0
The queen checks at h4-g5-h6 would have been followed by phase 4
of the plan: checkmate at h7.
Games in PGN.
DDG News 3,
Jyrki Heikkinen (ed.)