Conquistador wrote on 01/18/10 at 17:51:32:



With best play by both sides the Lasker variation of the From Gambit appears to give White a clear advantage, if not outright winning.

I've analyzed this variation quite exhaustively and I'd love for someone to suggest a possible improvement for Black. As far as I know these are the best moves for both sides.

To continue your first line, after 9.Qd3 Nc6 10.c3 Qe7 (10...Bf5 11.e4 Qe7 12.Bg2 0-0-0 13.Be3 Rde8 14.Nd2 Rxh2 15.Rxh2 Bxg3+ 16.Ke2 Bxh2 17.exf5 Bf4 18.Nf1 Bxe3 19.Nxe3 gxf5 20.Qxf5+ Kb8 21.Qf4+-) 11.Bg2 Be6 12.Nd2 f5 13.Nc4 Bxc4 14.Qxc4 0-0-0 15.Qd3±

Maybe you are right and (1.f4 g5) 2.fxg5 h6 3.d4 is best. In fact this was how I played myself when I faced the line. The game was published with my comments in Kaissiber #5 (1998):

Bücker - Vogler (2330)
Bundesliga II 1997
1.f4 g5 2.fxg5 h6 3.d4 d5 4.c3!?
Directed against Black's main plan Qd6, followed by Bg4 and a quick 0-0-0. Now if 4...Qd6, White has 5.e4 dxe4 6.Nd2 Qd5 7.Bc4 Qxg5 8.Qe2. Other alternatives which I mentioned were: 4.g6; 4. Nf3 Nc6 5.c4; 4.e4 hxg5 5.Bxg5 dxe4 6.c3 Qd6 7.Nd2.
4...e5 5.dxe5 hxg5 6.e4 c6 7.exd5 cxd5. 
7...Bc5!?.
8.Nf3 g4 9.Nd4 Nc6 10.Bf4 Bh6 
I had expected 10...Nge7.
11.Bg3 Nge7 12.Bb5 Bd7 13.Bxc6 bxc6 14.0-0.
14.b4!? a5 15.0-0 unclear.
14...c5 15.Nc2 Qb6 16.b3? (drawn, 64).
16.Nba3! Qxb2?! 17.Qe2! Qxc3 18.e6, resp. 17...Qb6 18.Rab1 Qa5 19.Nb5 Bxb5 20.Rxb5 Qxc3 21.Qf2 Rh7 22.Rxc5 +/-. 
So far my old analysis from 1998. - Difficult to say how many of those pawns one should take. In the Sicilian Wing Gambit 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 3.a3, at first White was quite successful, until 3...d5 was generally accepted. But old wisdom is challenged, and now some authors recommend 3...bxa3.

Stefan,

I am aware of your game against Tilman Vogler. In fact, I have all these games printed out and ready for an article. 

With regard to 1 f4 h6 2 Nf3 g5 3 fxg5 hxg5 4 Nxg5 d5! is better than 4...e5 as it does not block the h2-b8 diagonal.

LDZ,
I think TN's suggestion was tongue-in-cheek.

1.f4 g5 2.fxg5 h6 3.g6!? looks pretty strong- the idea is similar to the h4-Trompowsky, wrecking the Black kingside pawn structure, but with the advantage of having level material instead of sacrificing a pawn for it.

1.f4 h6 can be met simply by 2.e4, occupying the centre.  Or 2.Nf3 g5 3.fxg5 hxg5 4.Nxg5 followed by a quick d4 (supporting the knight after it gets hit by ...e5) and e4, occupying the centre.

I don't know about the From Gambit being "too well known"- most of the people at the 1800-level don't know how to defend against it in my experience, and if you have 1...e5 as one of your main responses to 1.d4 then it surely makes sense to use it against 1.f4.

I will pick up this issue Kaissiber shortly- will be interested to see the analysis of both 4...g5 (clearly the view that 5.g3 is critical has been overturned) and 4...Nf6 and the Neo-From, as I experimented with the latter with Black as well but have never been convinced of its soundness.  Worth noting, btw, that as well as the Neo-From being reachable via 1.f4 Nc6, I think the mainline From can be reached via 1.f4 d6 although in either case you need to know a specific line of the King's Gambit upon 2.e4 e5 or 2.Nf3 e5 3.e4.

Conquistador wrote on 01/20/10 at 23:21:42:

It is true that Black wins back the pawn: 11.Kc1 0-0-0 12.g3 Rhe8 13.b3 Nxe5 14.Kb2. But the resulting position is difficult for Black, about +/-.

PatzerNoster wrote on 01/19/10 at 17:47:59:

Thanks. On 4...g5 Volker Hergert had considered both 5.g3 and 5.c3, because the former is the main line in most sources, and because he believed that 5.c3! +/- was strong and close to a refutation of 4...g5. The intended contrast (between the main line 5.g3, which doesn't give White much, on one side and the unusual 5.c3! +/- on the other side) was later spoiled by me, when I found a hidden rescue for Black at a moment when much of the layout work was already done. It seemed too late to include 5.d4. We still believe that Kaissiber #36 shows convincingly that Black has an easier life after 4...Nf6, in comparison to 4...g5, when both 5.g3 and 5.c3 appear to involve more risks for Black. But the difference between g5 and Nf6 is not as big as it had seemed at first. The "!" after 4...Nf6 on page 30 can be seen as just a relic of the earlier version. 

In 1989-91 I had invested much time on studying the Bird and From's Gambit, for a work on 1.f4 which never reached the shops. But I had always preferred 5.g3 or 5.c3!? over 5.d4, because the latter seemed a bit boring. Obviously I was mistaken, the new ideas later developed for White make it difficult for Black to equalize. 

After 4...g5 5.d4 g4 6.Ne5 Bxe5 7.dxe5 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 Nc6 9.Nc3 Be6 10.Bg5 (10. Bf4 0-0-0+ 11.Ke1 Nge7 12.e3 Nd5! =) 10...Nxe5 11.Nb5 Emanuel Lasker's old analysis (in his "Lehrbuch des Schachspiels" resp. Manual...) continued with 11...Kd7?. Instead Black should probably play as follows: 11...Rc8 12.Nxa7 f6 13.Bh4 (13.Nxc8?! fxg5 14.Na7 c6 happened in a correspondence game F. Keller - Simchen, "SP11" 1980) 13...Rd8+ 14.Kc1 c6

A possible continuation: 15.a4 Ra8 16.Bf2 Kd7 17.b4 Nh6 18.e4 Nhf7 and the white knight on a7 is a serious handicap, in my opinion sufficient to give Black compensation for the sacrificed pawn. - Maybe this line can be improved for White. Anyway, we can perhaps draw the conclusion that 4...g5 is still playable, but Black needs an excellent knowledge of all three attacking lines, 5.g3, 5.d4 and the most ambitious move 5.c3!?. The alternative 4...Nf6 is more positional and in my opinion easier for Black than g5.

I liked the article, but I don't understand why 1.f4 e5 2.fe5: d6 3.ed6: Bd6: 4.Nf3 g5 5.d4 was not covered, as this is white's second most popular move.

From the look of it I like 4. ... g5 better than 4. ... Nf6, so it would be nice to know what to do against 5.d4.