Dennis Monokroussos analyses a recent game of his in this video:
A Wild von Henning Schara

WOW i'm now really impressed by this 10.a3 idea. Unfortunately i haven't access to Kaissiber 31, so i analyzed all the complications myself. According to my analysis (with the aid of deep Rybka 3 of course) white gets indeed big advantage in all variations after 10...Qe7 11.Bg5. After the better 10...0-0 11.Bg5 h6 12.Bxf6 Qxf6! is a draw but again your suggestion 12.Bh4! is very stong. In fact, i couldn't find any position for Black which offers to some extent a reasonable position.
So, Stefan Bücker many thanks for sharing this strong and fairly unknown idea for white btw: how much would it cost me, to get this Kaissiber 31 issue?

that 9...Qc7 move is indeed a fresh idea, but it seems to me, that it is more significant, that blacks Queen on c7 is worse placed in comparison to e7, than being able to castle one move earlier. In my opinion white gets advantage with both moves 10.Bg5 and 10.e3: after 10.Bg5 Bb4 as played in this corr.game i like for white 11.Bxf6N gxf6 12.Qc2 Kb8 13.a3 with certain advantage, if 10...Be7N then 11.e3 0-0-0 12.Qb3 and white seems to be fine. Also 10.e3 should give white the advantage in my opinion. After 10...0-0-0 of course not 11.Le2? cause Lh3! like in the 2009 game, but simply 11.Bd2N to cut out that idea seems promising for white. Now i think it becomes obvious that blacks Queen feels uncomfortable on c7, e.g. 11...Bc5 12.Nb5! gives problems, but what black player wants to play the position after 11...a6 12.Be2 Kb8 13.0-0

to Stefan Bücker: your suggestion with an early a3 looks very subtle. Till now i went in the main position for 10.e3 Qe7 11.a3 and after 11...0-0-0 12.Qc2 Kb8 13.Be2 g5 14.b4 i like white very much. So it seems to me, that black should prefer 11...0-0. And i think, thats exactly the point of your early a3. After 10.a3 0-0 there is as you point out 11.Bg5! My question is, what do you do after 10.a3 Qe7 ? Because now 11.e3 and we are back with 11...0-0

Stefan Buecker wrote on 03/07/09 at 04:18:31:


Extremely helpful.  Thanks a lot for pointing this out.   

I have attached a pgn file with all of the analyses on the Von-Hennig from this thread, although the analyses for meeting 2.Nf3 are not included.

dsanchez wrote on 03/26/06 at 14:23:34:

This comes from a thread that was erroneously placed outside the 1.d4 d5 section and then didn't earn a reply from BDG fans. Since I co-authored an article on the Schara-Hennig Gambit for Kaissiber 31 (together with Maurits and Michiel Wind), my opinion may be of interest:

Q: How can Black exploit the non-book move 8.a3?
A: He can't. Had White played 10.Nf3! instead of 10.e3, his set-up would even be superior to the (old) theory. The main point is 10...0-0 11.Bg5!, as explained in our article.

After White missed his golden opportunity by playing the standard 10.e3?, the game returned to known channels. Instead of 16.Nd2, the alternative 16.Nh4 is stronger (+/-). For Black, I'd prefer 11...Bd6 to 11...Bb6. Castling long is risky for Black, we favour the 0-0. To avoid the early a3, Black should play 7...Nf6!.

Quote:


It does seem that  most threads have numerous posts that deviate from the originator's beginning subject.  I know I've been guilty of this too so I'm going to try and make it a point to try and avoid this.  (after this post of course   )

I too would like to see a discussion involving the merits of 0-0 and 0-0-0 for Black and when which is more appropriate.  Seems as though I remember E.Schiller wrote a book called "Gambit Opening Repertoire for Black" (or something along those lines) which recommended the VHS Gambit with 0-0.  Unfortunately I don't own the book as I have tended to avoided Schiller's books but perhaps this contains some useful information?

<I find your criticism of kamiel's choice of opening bizarre.>
I do not quite understand this. I only asked a simple question, nothing more. Further I can only repeat myself.
<for someone so obsessed with gambits>
I even understand this less. The greatest part of my repertoire, especially as Black, consists of non gambits.

I am a bit timid to criticise a GM - after all, who am I? - but Gagu's 11.b4 looks premature. 11.Nf3 leads to the lines given by Tracke.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 cxd4!? 5.Qxd4 Nc6 6.Qd1 exd5 7.Qxd5 Bd7 8.Nf3 Nf6 9.Qd1 Bc5 10.e3 Qe7
11.Be2 o-o-o 12.o-o g5 13.Nd4 (probably more precise than 13.b4 indeed) g4 14.b4! Bxb4 (after Nxb4 White has 15.Ba3 Be6 16.Rb1!) 15.Qb3 Nxd4 16.exd4 Be6 17.Qb2 and maybe Kb8 is possible:
a)18.Bg5 Bxc3 19.Qxc3 Ne4 20.Bf4+ Ka8 and how big is White's advantage?
b)18.Rb1 Nd5 19.Nxd5 Bxd5 20.Qxb4 Qe4 21.f3 Qxe2 22.Bg5 gxf3!? and does Black get compensation?

Then after 11.a3 o-o-o 12.b4 Bg4 13.Bd2 Bd4 14.Qc2 Bxf3 15.gxf3 Kb8 16.Be2 Bxc3 17.Bxc3 Nd5 18.b5 and now Rc8!? 19.Bxg7 Ncb4 20.Qb2 Nc2+ 21.Kf1 Rhe8! and Black seems even better.
So far my contribution for reviving the VHS Gambit.

For the record, I am not saying that discussion of a repertoire containing the Henning-Schara as a surprise weapon is bad, although I think it should be under a different topic as it detracts from on-topic discussion.  (I have to go back a page to find kamiel's post under a cloud of discussion on the transpositional features of 2.Nf3.)  I would find it insulting to have a relevant post obscured in this way, along with a pointless criticism.  This really turns off possible contributors to the forum.

After 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Bg5 the move c5 is not really advisable. My first impression is that for a VHS player 4...dxc4 and 4...Bb4+ are most attractive, leading to completely different sharp systems.

Tracke, Geof Strayer, thanks a lot. Indeed I hoped for a small theoretical essay about comparising the two move orders, without going into detail. I think everyone considering taking up the VHS has food for thought now. For me, it will take some time to digest.
Especially we club players should not underestimate this problem. From experience I know, that after a few years get success with some sharp gambit, people start to prepare you - either by trying to refute it, either by trying some transposition.

I am not responding so much to the Von Hennig-Schara portion of this thread, but rather the discussion of the 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 move order, and specifically tracke's comparison of this move order with the 1.d4 d5 2.c4 (with a quick Nc3) move order.  I found tracke's post very interesting because the choice between these two move orders is one that the 1.d4 player must inevitably consider, and because there does not appear to be a consensus among the top-level GMs who play d-pawn openings as to which move order is better.  (Namely, some of them seem to prefer an early c4/Nc3, some seem to prefer an early Nf3.)  Although ultimately I largely disagree with many of tracke's conclusions (as he may well disagree with mine), I found his post so interesting that I am responding at some length. 


tracke said:

   "I called 2.Nf3 a big theoretical concession to black. Of course the differences of 2.c4 and 2.Nf3 (with c4 to follow) or only small but they might be (or even are)important in GM play or corr. And the difference is of course that after 2.Nf3 black is very very close to equality but after 2.c4 white might keep a little (but clear) edge."

   I think this is a bit of an overstatement, as many of the world's top d4 players (including Kramnik) have played early Nf3 move orders in the double d-pawn openings.  I think I can virtually guarantee that they did not choose the early Nf3 approach solely to avoid the Von Hennig-Schara Gambit or the Albin Counter-Gambit.  (I suspect that most top players would in fact welcome the chance to play against these gambits.) In fact, I believe that move orders with an early Nf3 have other advantages and some disadvantages when compared with move orders with an early c4/Nc3, and that it is not clear that the latter is any better of an attempt to gain an advantage than the former.

    As to tracke's specific comments (a) through (d) comparing the early Nc3 with early Nf3 move orders, my responses are as follows:

   (a)  I agree with the comment that the Exchange
         Variation is more promising with an early Nc3
         than with an early Nf3, but that is mostly
         because the exchange variation with an early
         Nf3 is practically toothless these days, not
         due to the fact that the Exchange Variation with
         an early Nc3 is so strong.  In particular, the
         statement that  the 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 
         move order is "nowadays completely avoided by
         black on gm level" is incorrect: a search in a
         ChessBase or ChessAssistant database will 
         disclose that there are many dozens if not
         hundreds of games in the last several years
         where GMs have used this move order, and in
         fact it may be more common at the GM level than 
         the 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7!? move order, as
         many GMs do not seem to like playing the
         Alatortsev. Moreover, although it is probably true
         that Black has yet to demonstrate a clear route
         to full equality in the Exchange Variation with
         an early Nc3, it is also true that even in the lines
         constituting White's best attempts to prove a
         theoretical advantage, White's advantage is
         quite small in the "end-positions" reached.  It is
         not at all clear, in fact, that the Exchange Variation
         with an early Nc3 is any better for White than the
         theoretical mainlines (that is, without and early
         cxd5.)

         (b)  As to the comment that White has a "small
         advantage in the Alatortsev, this is debatable,
         as Black has been doing quite well in the
         main lines lately.  And although you might
         prefer the 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.Nf3 Nf6
         5.Bf4!? move order if you are going to play the
         Bf4 variation, the comment that White has
         the initiative in the Bf4 variation is somewhat
         misleading (notwithstanding the fact that Kramnik
         recently lost to Leko in a sideline after lackluster
         play), as in general Black is no worse after 5.Bf4
         as after 5.Bg5, although the variations do tend
         to be sharper and both sides must play more 
         precisely.

         As to tracke's  comment that "[a]fter 1.d4 d5
         2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Nf3 black has 4...c6, 4...c5, 
         4...Bb4 or, obviously most reliable, 4...dxc4!=
         with a Vienna after 5.e4/5.Bg5 and a harmless
         variation of QGA after 5.e3 a6!," I would note
         that (i) you cannot avoid variations where Black
         plays e6 combined by c6 by playing an early Nc3
         rather than an early Nf3; (ii) the same holds true
         of variations combining e6 and c5 for Black,
         although you do avoid the Semi-Tarrasch by
         playing the early Nc3 move order (not a big
         advantage, in my opinion, as White seems to be
         doing well against the Semi-Tarrasch these days);
         (iii) 4...Bb4 is another system that a player of
         the White pieces should not fear, as he is proving
         an edge; and (iv) unless tracke knows something
         about Vienna theory that I don't, +=/unclear
         would be a  better evaluation of the critical
         mainlines than =.

         So I'm not sure any of these "additional"
         possibilities after an early Nf3 move order really
         constitute a reason to prefer an early c4/Nc3
         move order.

    (c)  I would think that the Marshall Gambit against
         Black's "triangle defense" (i.e., with d5, e6 and
         c6) is more accurately characterized as unclear.
         In any event, in the early Nf3 move order after
         1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 c6, White can play 4.Qc2!
         to avoid the Noteboom, a very interesting move
         which scores a whopping 64% for White in the
         almost 1700 games I have in my version of
         ChessBase (considerably better, by the way, than
         the Marshall Gambit).  The choice between the
         4.Qc2! lines in the early Nf3 move order and the
         Marshall Gambit in the early c4/Nc3 lines probably
         is more a matter of taste than anything else.  (I
         do agree with tracke that, as a practical matter,
        avoiding the Noteboom is a sensible choice.)

         Furthermore, the only advantage an early Nc3
         move order has over early Nf3 move orders
         against Stonewall structures is that an early Nf3
         eliminates the possibility of lines with Nh3 for
         White.  Since it is not clear that the Nh3 lines
         against the Stonewall are any better than the
         lines with Nf3 (although I suppose an argument
         could be made to this effect) and since Nc3
         also restricts White's choices vs. the Stonewall
         (in many of the the mainline Stonewall positions,
         White's queen knight is actually misplaced on
         c3 and either belongs on b1 (to support a Bc1-a3
         plan) or on d2 (heading to f3 to aid in the fight for
         control over e5), I don't believe that the early
         Nc3 move order should be given any preference
         regarding possible transpositions to the
         Stonewall.

    (d)  I'm not sure I understand tracke's comment here,
         as against the Slav I think that the Nf3 move
         order is arguably more flexible than the Nc3 move
         order (as he seems to suggest), and in most
         cases White will play both Nf3 and Nc3 early on,
         the  order not being particulary significant.  For
         example, whether you play 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c6 3.c4
         Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Nc3 or 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6
         4.e3 e6 5.Nf3 you reach the same position.  The
         early Nf3 does have the advantage of maintaining
         the option of Nbd2 in some lines, while the early
         Nc3 move order may make some of the early Bf5
         or Bg4 lines more risky.

   As to tracke's additional comments: (i) although 1.d4 d4 2.c4 Bf5 might be slightly worse for Black than 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Bf5 3.c4, White seems to be better after both move orders and so this is not a good reason to avoid an early Nf3; (ii) there is a reasonable argument that after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6, White's best try for an advantage against the Chigorin Defense is in the lines with 3.Nf3 Bg4 4.Nc3, the same position reached after 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c4 Bg4 4.Nc3, so you gain nothing by avoiding an early Nf3; and (iii) as tracke acknowledges, 1.d4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 is probably just better for White and not a good reason to avoid the early Nf3 move-order.

    So I don't think it is accurate to call the decision to play double d-pawn openings with an early Nf3 (as opposed to an early c4 combined with Nc3) a "theoretical concession."  And I also believe that MNb's essential point is a perfectly valid one: that if you play the Von Hennig-Schara Gambit against the early Nc3 move order, you will need an entirely independent defense against the early Nf3 move order, and I don't think the fact that you have "avoided" the mainlines after an early c4/Nc3 (i.e., by playing the V H-S Gambit) has significantly eased your theoretical task, as the mainlines after an early Nf3 are just as problematic.

     Of course, the fact that there are GMs who seem to prefer the early c4/Nc3 move order (just as some seem to prefer the early Nf3 move order) indicates that there are differing opinions on this question.  I would be interested to hear what other 1.d4 players think on this issue, and whether they, like tracke, believe the early c4/Nc3 lines to be generally more pressing than those with an early Nf3.  But perhaps this is sufficiently far from the V H-S topic that it would be better as the subject of another thread.

             -Geof

     

And of course, spakus, kamiel,..., you´re right, too, as you´ve faced this before MNb´s insistence on 2.Nf3. And maybe most right was alumbrado with his first post, which anticipates my "article" in a very short form.
We all are right! (o happy day ...)


Back to the topic we should forget early derivations and start with the tabyja (mainline starting position) after
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 cxd4!? 5.Qxd4 Nc6 6.Qd1 exd5 7.Qxd5 Bd7 8.Nf3 Nf6 9.Qd1 Bc5 10.e3 Qe7:

Just quoting ECO-D (2004, material up to nov03) there are now only 11.Be2 and 11.a3 as serious attempts to gain or keep a white advantage, after all other moves black has at least sufficient compensation (I do not believe ECO to be still the best source but it is still a good point to start with).

(1) 11.a3 0-0-0 (11...0-0 12.Qc2 += Kasparov) 12.b4! (12.Qc2 Kb8 ... unclear) Bg4 13.Bd2 Bd4 14.Qc2 Bxf3 15.gxf3 Kb8 16.Be2 Bxc3 17.Bxc3 Nd5 18.b5! Nxc3 19.bxc6 Ne2 20.Ke2 Qc7 21.Rhc1 +=

(2) 11.Be2 0-0-0 12.0-0 (12.Bd2 g5 ... unclear) and now:
(2a) 12...g5 13.Nd4 g4 (13...h5 ... +-) 14.b4 Bxb4 15.Qb3 (15.Bb2 h5 ... =) Nxd4 16.exd4 Be6 17.Qb2 Nd5 18.Nxd5! (18.Nb5 Kb8 ... =) Rxd5 19.Bf4 Bd6 20.Bxd6 Qxd6 21.Rfb1 b6 22.a4 +-
(2b) 12...Kb8 13.a3 g5 14.b4 Bb6 15.b5 Ne5 16.Nd4 Neg4! +=

Any improvements?
White seems to be better. On the other hand, if black plays a gambit where white has every chance to lose quickly (as spakus´ games has shown) and where even in the mainline white gets only a "+=", then it might be worthwhile to take a second look. And even a third.

Okay, MNb, let´s talk about 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3  (puh, this will not become a short post)

I considered to go to the related thread but there they talked about 3.Bf4, 3.Bg5 and such stuff. I want to talk about disadvantages of an early Nf3 in QG mainlines. So I presuppose that white plays 3.c4 after 2...Nf6!/2...e6/2...c6

It´s not in my intention (or even in my ability) to give a complete theoretical survey of the QG, fur this purpose please ask Ruslan or read the 600 pages of ECO D.

I called 2.Nf3 a big theoretical concession to black. Of course the differences of 2.c4 and 2.Nf3 (with c4 to follow) or only small but they might be (or even are)important in GM play or corr. And the difference is of course that after 2.Nf3 black is very very close to equality but after 2.c4 white might keep a little (but clear) edge.

(a) 1.d4 d5 2.c4! e6 3.Nc3! Nf6 is the best known example (and nowadays completely avoided by black on gm level) 4.cxd5! exd5 5.Bg5 +=
QGD Exchange with an early Nf3 is only =/+= or even a clear =

(b) 1.d4 d5 2.c4! e6 3.Nc3! Be7! gives white a choice between 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bf4 with a very small advantage or, more usual these days, 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bf4! with initiative.
After 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Nf3 black has 4...c6, 4...c5, 4...Bb4 or, obviously most reliable, 4...dxc4!= with a Vienna after 5.e4/5.Bg5 and a harmless variation of QGA after 5.e3 a6!

(c) 1.d4 d5 2.c4! e6 3.Nc3! c6 and the Marshall/Abrahams 4.e4!+= is the best way to challenge the noteboom (and avoid the stonewall)
After 3.Nf3 c6 there are catalan transpositions or Qc2/Bf4 ideas but they are not equally strong!

(d) 1.d4 d5 2.c4! c6 3.Nc3!? gives black such things as 3...dxc4?! and 3...e5?! but most black players will continue with 3...Nf6 (for 3...e6 see above). Now many white players prefer the meran 4.Nf3 e6 5.e3 to the open slav 4.Nf3 dxc4! and this is why they play 4.e3 and 4...a6 5.Qc2! .
After 2.Nf3 you can´t avoid the open slav (in a theoretical promising way)

These are only the most important variations, there are many more (Slav Exchange,...).

I would even consider (from a white point of view) that:
- 2.c4 Bf5 is better than 2.Nf3 Bf5
- 2.c4 Nc6 is better than 2.Nf3 Nc6 (!)
- 2.c4 c5 is better than 2.Nf3 c5
though even in the second cases black has no full equality

Sorry, sorry, sorry, it´s not my intention to discuss anyone of these variations in detail. Look out what grandmasters play and what they avoid !

This is of course only the theoretical side of the problem and important on master level. Or for club/tournament patzers like you and me which try to prepare like grandmasters.
As long as we are no professionals time should be a very important factor and in this way 2.Nf3 can prove to be the better choice as it limits black´s possibilities.
And (as we´re no universal players) of course ít´s not in everybody´s style to challenge black´s more dynamic counterattacks in the most principal way (even if it´s a +=).
For this 1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 (as advocated by Khalifman in his Kramnik books) is a nice way to avoid nimzoindian, benoni, wolga/benkö ... and hide away with symmetrical english after 1.Nf3 c5/Nf6 2.c4 . Theoretically a strong white 1.d4/2.c4-player should reach an += against benoni/wolga and take on the challenge against the nimzo.

      ???

*********************************************

At the end one comment to the original problem. The Tarrasch Defense is a very good choice for an active and improving player (up to master level). As Kasparov pointed out not long ago it´s still sound as long as you have not to defend some little inferior endgames against Karpov.
For black I would recommend playing the mainline even in the 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 move order and to use the Schara-Hennig only occasionally as surprise weapon, in the end the latter should be not fully sound (but defendable).
But that´s something I don´t know exactly and so the interesting discussion may continue!

If I face this gambit in blitz I have my own way to treat it:

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 cxd4 5.Qxd4 Nc6 6.Qa4 exd5 7.Bf4!?

and after next move (usually 7.-Nf6) I will play 8.0-0-0

Then black starts to think how come he's the one who is under attack 

After 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 you can choose 2. ... a6!? going for queens gambit accepted ; 2. ... Bf5!? going for keres defence; 2.... e6 going for a main line tarrash or 22 different varations you can choose in queens gambit declined (Are these suddenly refuted perhaps?);you can play 2...c6 going for catalan; you can play 2. ... Bg4; you can play 2. ... c5; you can play 2. ... Nc6 going for chigorin; 2. ...f5 going for stonewall and you can play 2. ...g6.
If you are trying to say that you need to do more than just learning the hennig schara against d4 then that is of course true but the same is true for all non-system openings.
Nobody should learn budapest gambit or albin counter gambit anymore as it can be avoided with 2. Nf3; why on earth play latvian gambit if it can be avoided with 2.Nc3 or even why spend all the time studying kings gambit if it can be avoided with 1. ... c5 ?
And all those people who study the english are nuts as after 1. ... e6 it will transpose to queens gambit declined.
I would agree that I have troubles understanding people who study marshall gambit as they never get to play it but as you reach the hennig schara starting position in about 70% of the 1.d4 games then that's more than enough for me.

euh?
Isn't that like asking somebody who loves the sicilian: but what about 1.d4 avoiding your pet opening?

Don't tell me the position after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 is not often reached. If he plays 3.Nf3 well then you play another opening; if he plays 1.e4 then you play another opening too.

This really is a fantastic opening!!
I'm currently worth around 2150 but with this opening I have a score of no less than 6,5 on 7 and the draw was when I needed a draw to win the tourney.
With this opening I have beaten 1 FM and 1GM with no less than 2580. Statistically I would have about 1% chance to win against a gm with black but this opening did it. Also I managed to win all my games with this opening in less than 28 moves!

I post my games here (except the irrelevant draw) in chronological orde. In the first games I didn't know theory very well but the games show the spirit of the gambit as they all lead to wild tactics. All these games were long time control otb games.


[Date "2002.11.08"]
[WhiteElo "1860"]
[BlackElo "1933"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5 cxd4 5. Qa4+ Bd7 6. Qxd4 exd5 7. Qxd5 Nc6
8. Nf3 Nf6 9. Qd1 Qb6 10. e3 O-O-O 11. a3 Bf5 12. Qa4 Bb4 13. Bd2 Rxd2 14. Nxd2
Bxc3 15. bxc3 Qb2 16. Qd1 Rd8 17. Rc1 Ng4 18. e4 Nce5 19. Qc2 Qb6 20. Nf3 Bxe4
0-1

[WhiteElo "1863"]
[BlackElo "1933"]
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 Bb4 10. f3 Qa5 11. Bxf6 gxf6 12.
e4 O-O-O 13. Rc1 Be6 14. Qf4 Qxa2 15. Nge2 Qxb2 16. g3 Ne5 0-1


White "1450"]
[Black "1927"]
[Result "0-1"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5 cxd4 5. Qxd4 Nc6 6. Qd1 exd5 7. Nxd5 Qa5+?
8. Nc3 Bb4 9. Bd2 Bf5 10. e4 O-O-O (of course this isn't really correct but it looked like fun, wouldn't have played it against a better player though) 11. exf5 Nf6 12. Qc2 Nd4 13. Qc1 Rhe8+ 14.
Nge2 Qe5 15. Be3 Ng4 16. Bxd4 Qxd4 17. Qc2 Qxf2# 0-1

Date "2003.03.23"]
[WhiteElo "2127"]
[BlackElo "1927"]


1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5 cxd4 5. Qa4+ Bd7 6. Qxd4 exd5 7. Nxd5 Nc6
8. Qe4+ Be6 9. Nc3 Nf6 10. Qa4 Bc5 11. e3 Qe7 12. Nf3 O-O-O 13. Be2 Bd7 14. Qh4
Nb4 15. O-O g5 16. Qxg5 Nc6 17. Nd5 Nxd5 18. Qxd5 Rhg8 19. Qh5 Bg4 20. Qh4?? (very big blunder but black was having most of the fun anyway)Qxh4 21. Nxh4 Bxe2 0-1


[Date "2003.12.07"]
[WhiteElo "2344"]
[BlackElo "2043"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5 cxd4 5. Qxd4 Nc6 6. Qd1 exd5 7. Qxd5 Bd7 8.Nf3 Nf6 9. Qd1 Bc5 10. e3 Qe7 11. a3 O-O 12. Be2 Rfd8 13. Qc2 Ne5 14. b4 Bd6
15. Nd4 Rac8 16. Qb3 Neg4 17. Bxg4 Bxg4 18. Bb2 Bxh2 19. Rxh2 Rxd4 20. Ne2 Qd6
21. Rh4 Rd3 22. Nc3 Qc6 23. f3 Bxf3 24. Qc2 Rxe3+ 25. Kf1 Qd6 26. Rh3 Be2+ 27.Ke1 Bd3+ 0-1


[Date "2004.09.06"]
[White "GM Gagunashvili, Merab"]
[WhiteElo "2580"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5 cxd4 5. Qa4+ Bd7 6. Qxd4 exd5
7. Qxd5 Nc6 8. a3 Nf6 9. Qd1 Bc5 10. e3 Qe7 11. b4 Bb6 12. Nf3
O-O 13. Be2 Rfd8 14. Qc2 Rac8 15. Bb2 Bc7 16. O-O Ne5 17. Rfd1 Nfg4! 18. h3?! Nxe3!! 19. fxe3 Nxf3+ 20. Bxf3 Qxe3+ 21. Qf2 Bh2+! 22. Kf1 Rxc3! 23. Bxc3?? Bb5+ 24. Be2 Bxe2+ 25. Ke1 Qxc3+ 26. Kxe2 Re8+ 27. Kf1 Qc4+ 0-1

If the remedy is found by a Dutchman, the Philips 2000 Defence should be the correct name.

Spakus,
have you already found a satisfactory answer to 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3!? This is the reason I never really studied the Von Hennig Schara Gambit.

I genuinely wish you luck with the gambit.  It is a truly inspired idea.  One thing though: it is the von Hennig (not HenniNg)-Schara Gambit   Call me a pedant if you will ... 

Not sure if this will be of any use, but this is a game I played as black in this gambit on IECC a few months back. White certainly didn't play too well, but it shows the sort of problems that white faces.

[Event "TH-M-2166.1"]
[Site "IECC"]
[Date "2003.07.20"]
[White "Jensen, Jeff"]
[Black "Evans, Craig "]
[Result "0-1"]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 cxd4 5.Qxd4 Nc6 6.Qd1 exd5 7.Qxd5 Bd7 8.Nf3 Nf6 9.Qd1 Bc5 10.e3 Qe7 11.Be2 g5 12.O-O g4 13.Nd4 h5 14.Bd3 h4 15.Nf5 Qe5 16.e4 Bxf5 17.exf5 g3 18.Kh1 gxf2 19.Qf3 Nh5 20.Ne4 Nd4 21.Qg4 Ng3+ 22.Nxg3 hxg3 23.h3 O-O-O 24.Bf4 Rxh3+ 25.Qxh3 Qxf4 26.Rac1 Qd6 27.b4 Nc6 28.Rxc5 Qxd3 29.Rcc1 Kb8 30.b5 Ne7 31.f6 Ng6 32.Qg4 Rh8+ 0-1

As you can see, I preferred to delay castling, it probably isn't strongest but it's another alternative.

Also, Tim Harding wrote a few Kibitzers on this gambit, not sure which numbers, but if you go to www.chessopolis.com and to links and then openings, I believe there's a link directly to it, which saves having to rummage through the archives.

Hope some of this is of help,
Regards and festive greetings,
Craig 

Hi, Everybody

Lately I have been playing a gambit response to d4 that is somewhat off the beaten path.  It begins 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5 cxd4!?

Normally play continues. 5. Qxd5 Nc6 6. Qd1 exd5 7. Qxd5 Bd7 8. Nf3 Nf6 9. Qd1(Qb3 possibly) Bc5 10. e3 Qe7 11. Be2 0-0-0 12. 0-0 g5! (the g pawn is immune from capture because of 13. Nxe5 Rg8 ect.)

This line is the main line that represents best play for both sides and it favors black in my opinion. I believe this because of the prospects for attack, and because I have scored tremendouly well from this position.

Has anyone here had experience with this gambit and if so what is your opinion of it?

Is there any great divervence from the main line for white?

Or does anyone have a way for white to mount a strong defense/counter-attack after 12. 0-0 g5!

I keep thinking this gambit is too good to be true. is it?