MNb wrote on 11/14/19 at 15:13:46:


I think you have to take the e4-pawn – otherwise what's the point of ...Qh4 at all? Thus 5 Nb5 Bb4+ 6 Bd2 Qxe4+ 7 Be2 Kd8 8 0-0 Bxd2 9 Nxd2 Qf4 and so on. But yes, you have to want to play like this

I believe that 4...Ab4+ is covered in a book by Kuljasevic. I forgot the title, but I remember that it was published by Thinkers Publishing.

HgMan wrote on 01/19/19 at 19:23:41:

What have you considered and ruled out?  I have always preferred 4...Nf6 and then retreating the knight to b6 rather than going Ba6 after White's stab with c4.  Nb6 seems to lead to fairly rational or intuitive positions, unlike Ba6.  Also, Nb6 invites the common error by White of playing b2-b3 too early allowing an immediate minority attack of sorts via a7-a5-a4 then axb3.  Black gets this somewhat frequently; if so, Black might be already clearly better due to White's huge dark-square holes on the queenside (b4, c5, even a3).

Both the direct ..Nb6 and the ..Ba6 lines in the normal 4..Nf6 mainline seem to be doing well, both objectively and practically. Not sure why one would avoid them - I play the Scotch now and then, and those definitely are by far the least comfortable lines to face.

4..Bb4+ on the other hand I am very comfortable in as White; it mostly banks on a certain unfamiliarity factor, but at this point it's another mainline, so investing some time into it is definitely worth it, and then I never felt like c2-c3 is so bad a move that Black wasting an entire tempo on provoking it can ever be good.

Jonathan Tait wrote on 01/24/19 at 00:11:17:

Yeah, that might be worth a try, though probably not in corr. games. Black can play it in two ways: play ...Kd8, grab pawn e4 and hope to survive White's quick development or allow the fork Nxc7+ and try to prove sufficient compensation. I remember (if my memory doesn't fail me) GM Paul Motwani discussing a game like that in Schaaknieuws. I can't find it though. It made me buy GM Lev Gutman's book on 4...Qh4 many years ago. Unfortunately exactly in the spectacular lines his analysis contains quite a few flaws. After 5.Nb5

a)5...Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Bc5 doesn't make much sense to me, while Qxe4+ 7.Be2 is not exactly my cup of tea;
b)5...Bc5 6.Qe2 Nf6 7.Be3! Bxe3 8.Qxe3 looks promising for White;
c) To avoid this 5...Nf6 always has interested me. Some lines:
1) 6.Nxc7+ Kd8 7.Nxa8 Bc5 8.Qf3 (8.Qe2 Nxe4! with interesting complications) Re8 (Nd4 is better, but doesn't seem to equalize either to me) 9.Nc3 Nd4 10.Qd3 Nxe4 11.Nxe4 Rxe4+ 12.Kd1 d5 and we have a rare case of a GM producing three bad moves in a row: 13.Be3 (13.Qg3) b6 (Bg4+) 14.g3 (14.b4) Qh5+.
2) 6.N1c3 Bb4 is an improved version of line a).
3) 6.Be3 Bb4+ is normally reached via 5.Be3 Nf6 6.Nb5 Bb4+.
4) 6.Nd2 looks reasonable too.

try 4...Qh4

While I am no expert on open games, what do you play against Scotch Four Knights?