Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Muzio Madness Pt. III

The Double, or Wild, Muzio

There happens to be several openings or variations that fall unter the umbrella of either "Double Muzio" or "Wild Muzio."  They all involve the sac of two pieces in the openng. The most common moves are -
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. O-O gxf3 6. Bxf7+


or a deferred sac-
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. O-O gxf3 6. Qxf3 Qf6 7. e5 Qxe5 8. Bxf7+

 

The Lolli Gambit is also sometimes called the Wild Muzio, but it follows a very different, and much older, idea-
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. Bxf7+ Kxf7 6. Ne5+

 

 

The Nov. 1901 issue of the BCM asserts tht the Double Muzio was invented by  Mr. Rhodes Marriott, president of the Cheshire Chess Association and secretary of the Manchest Chess Club:
"During his 'Cafe days,' he made a systematic study of the Muzio and Allgaier Gambits (his chief book of reference being Cook's Chess Synopsis), and he became so familiar with both gambits that he could generally " hold his own" on even terms with almost any of the first-class players. On one occasion Mr. Blackburne, playing simultaneously at one of the Cafes, offered the "Allgaier," which Mr. Marriott accepted and drew. It was whilst a Cafe player that he invented the 'Double Muzio,' which had a great vogue in Manchester some years back, the innovation being the immediate sacrifice of the Bishop after giving up the Knight."

 

Chess in Manchester
The Double Muzio
Otago Witness, March 14, 1888

For some time past Mr. Rhodes Marriott, secretary of the Manchester Chess Club, has practiced with much entertainment to himself and with a good proportion of successful results against ost of his opponents, a lively form of the Muzio Gambit,
which, after the sacrifice of the Kt, he immediately gives up the KB, obtaining thereby an attack which against anything but careful and accurate play becomes irresistible.  For want  of a more appropriate name the opening is locally designated the 'Double Muzio.'  It seems, however, that Manchester has not had the debut all to itself.  According the the International Chess Magazine, two well-known American players, Messrs Ware and Young, of Boston, have hit upon the same idea, and do impressed they seem to have been with the difficulties of the defence that they wrote to Mr. Steinitz for his views on the subject.
 Mr. Steinitz replies in the December number of the International, and in the course of his observations states that 'the idea emanated from Mr. Cochrane, one of the most ingenious masters of the old school.' Mr. Steinitz's analysis is in favor of the defence, but there are variations of an extremely complicated character, and in ordinary play there are undoubedly many chances for the first player.  Mr. Marriott has recently had a curious experience with the opening.  He succeeded in mating his opponent in 17 moves and a few weeks later he repeated the operation against another player.  The two games being identical from first to last.  The following is the game which will probably be considered interesting apart from the singular coincidence with which it is associated -

 

 

It will be obvious from the games below that the line involving 6. Bxf7+ is the only line that Marriott,  Ware and Young are being credited with.  The deferred sac had been around for a while. Both are Double Muzio's but that name may very well have been established by Marriott.

Some sample games:
some are master games, most are simuls, odds or disparate games
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments


  • 14 months ago

    gcpolerio

    "@LazerZorin,

    I had written : "After centuries of debate, the jury is still out on the Muzio's soundness"  in the Part II  article (the Muzio, not the Double Muzio), but nothing of the sort in reponse to anything IM pfren wrote.""

    Agree ... but...

    In the Kaissiber 13, 2000 article, Stock - A.Schenning (FS 1998; TGT 1.06) 0:1 is given as the main line to cover 9.- Qf5! Steinitz. I gave you a link to the version as annotated by chessfriend Albert. Kaissiber 13 covers also 9.- Qxd4+?+= with reference to Peter's (Millican) article. I added this match since your Muzio Madness part III does not contain so much concerning 9.- Qf5! (Steinitz 1889 "Best..."). I guess that this may be the point of some more or less 'angry'/not ammused/not so friendly comments on this part of your Muzio Madness series?!

  • 14 months ago

    gcpolerio

    batgirl,

    for the problem Double Muzio 6th, or deferred 8th move, it may be of note that Steinitz was analysing, on request of CC players Ware and Young of Boston, on pp. 366-67 (The International Chess Magazine, Volume II No. 12, 1886) 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Qxf3 d6. 7.-d6! (Steinitz 1886) is, from my point of view, just the bust to the not-deffered-direct-double (Avalos-)Polerio-Cascio-Muzio. In these analyses Steinitz expressed some symphathy for the deferred version 6.Qxf3 Qf6 7.e5 Qxe5 8.Bxf7+. I hope that my comment will help to see a difference in-between 6.Bxf7+ and 8.Bxf7+?!

    If you are interested in pp. 366-67 ICM II, please tell me how to send a copy to you.

    I do not know so well Steinitz' view on the "deferred double Muzio" 3 years later but I actually thought that even this was busted with Showalter-Taubenhaus, NY 1889 and the comment by Steinitz on Taubenhaus 9th move 9.- Qf5 (Steinitz 1889: "best ..."). Let's assume that Steinitz was losing interest in the double in about 1889.Laughing

    Eventually Dale (Kirton) had forgotten Steinitz in 1995 but if you encounter "your Taubenhaus", or "your van de Velden", you will recall Steinitz soon. Wink

    The Millican analyses, 1989, are, also from my point of view, the best and most comprehensive analyes of 9. - Qxd4+? (Keres 1971). But this publication is rather thin as to 9.- Qf5! (Steinitz, or Taubenhaus). A more recent and more comprehensive analysis of 9.- Qf5! can be found in Kaissiber 13, 2000.

  • 16 months ago

    Newba

    in @jhb701's game, if opponent would play 11...Nd4 it'd be huge huge trouble. Got lucky he simply pushed pawns two times XD

  • 16 months ago

    Newba

    Thanks for that wonderful article!

    That monstruous Muzio is just astonishing, too bad I hadn't any opponent playing 3...g5 (people most likely choose to develop the knight instead) but if I have, it'll surely grant me a big big grin. Cool

  • 3 years ago

    batgirl

    A very fun ending indeed.  I think that's the reason I like openings such as the Muzio/Double Muzio (I realize your opening may be a distant cousin only, but it's closely related in spirit) - because they're fun.

  • 3 years ago

    jhb701

    What fun games! I was inspired so I played an OTB game today where I tried to sac some pieces in the spirit of Muzio. My opponent started with a Caro structure so I had to improvise, the ending was quite fun.

     

  • 3 years ago

    batgirl

    @LazerZorin,

    I had written : "After centuries of debate, the jury is still out on the Muzio's soundness"  in the Part II  article (the Muzio, not the Double Muzio), but nothing of the sort in reponse to anything IM pfren wrote."

  • 3 years ago

    LaserZorin

    @batgirl

    Your article itself is fine, and yes, you noted the Double Muzio is unsound. 

    However, I was responding to your comments to IM pfren, where you noted "the jury is still out", and otherwise implied the Double Muzio is playable.  It's not.  It's a bankrupt opening that leads to a White loss. 

    Keep in mind that even in the 19th century (!!), strong players like Charousek and Morphy would only dare use the line against relative tomato cans, or in training games. 

    You would never see them unfurl it against a fellow master. 

  • 3 years ago

    batgirl

    @LazerZorin,

    What I had mentioned several times in this series, which you chose to ignore, is that the Double Muzio is, indeed, considered by theorists to be a lost game for White.  A couple of moves or lines isn't analyisis, but ideas in a trace of analysis. Again, this doesn't mean the detailed analysis doesn't exist, and if it does, that it would bear it out anything but the reasonable idea that White can't get enough compensation for two full pieces in the opening.  The  purpose behind this presentation was never to show the soundness or lack of soundness of any lines of the Muzio, but to explore to its history and uniqueness.  While you seem to imply that I'm opposing any ideas that the D.M. might be unsound, nothing could be further from the truth. I welcome any concrete analysis and whatever might be concluded from that analysis.  The Millican anaylis I proffered, as limited as it is, was the best, and most recent, I could find.  Feel free to post any analysis you might have.

  • 3 years ago

    IM pfren

    To be fair, the gambit did not feature in any serious correspondence thematic tournament lately- for rather obvious reasons. But my data say that out of ten games in correspondence chess after 2007, the position after 11.Bxf4 has scored 0,5/10 - which is not a terribly good score.

  • 3 years ago

    LaserZorin

    @batgirl

    "There seems to be so little from which to draw any reasonable conclusions"


    Sure there is.  There are these wonderful things called chess programs that provide more fruitful analysis on an opening line than 100 silly games against tomato cans the 19th centuries. 

    The analysis mentioned by IM pfren, which you've mostly ignored, shows that the Double Muzio leads to a loss. 

    Hence why you don't even see the variation played at an 1800+ level, let alone that of a serious master. 

    After all, you rarely see the opening line 1. a4 followed by 2. h4 played in tournament games, but that hardly means "the jury is still out" on them.  (Although in terms of positional assessment, they are far superior to the Double Muzio!)

    It's a cute little historical relic, but let's not be under delusions.  The Double Muzio is a crappy opening that leads to a White loss. 

  • 3 years ago

    batgirl

    I'm not sure I'd categorize 1989 as the Stone Age, maybe the Iron Age. 

    "Black has quite a decent game by returning material by12...Qxf1+"  Shrug. . . . Millican even gave 11. Qe2 as an altenative to 11. Qe3, stating it might be a stronger move but currently lacks the proper analysis. I imagine part of the reason for that consideration was the possibility of QxR, returning 4 pts. of mat'l.

    Really, finding "post-Stone-age" theory or even modern games in different variations is a difficult and mostly unrewarding task at best. There seems to be so little from which to draw any reasonable conclusions.

  • 3 years ago

    IM pfren

    But the immediate 10. Bxf4 can lead to a winning situation for White after such as 10... Nf6 11. Qe3 Bg7 12. Be5 Qe6 13. Nc3 d5 14. Rae1 Nd7 15. Qf3 Nxe5 16. dxe5 Qb6+ 17. Kh1 Rf8 18. Nxd5 Qd4 19. exf6 Bxf6 20. Nxf6, the key being White's strong d pawn, along with an attack, for Black's better Queen position. (analysis by Millican)

     

    Millican's analysis comes from the Stone Age. Today, any engine would inform you that after 12.Be5 Black has quite a decent game by returning material by12...Qxf1+, when white has to force a perpetual to avoid loss, and that instead of the rather helpful 12...Qe6? Black can comfortably beat the attack by 12...Qg6.

  • 3 years ago

    ArnesonStidgeley

    See post #23 at http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/combat-stories-and-kings-gambit?page=2 for my sole contribution to the Double Muzio body of theory - a win for White even with my opponent finding  9...Qf5.

     

  • 3 years ago

    elbowgrease

    sac of 2 pieces? wouldn't that lose?

  • 3 years ago

    nihilarian

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 3 years ago

    batgirl

    "So, technically, it's white who's simply lost after Kxf7!"

    As I stated in another reply, I'm not a theorist.  It seems, though, to be the consensus of those who are and who deal in the Double Muzio that with best play, White just doesn't get quite enough compensation for the material given up.  This is hard for Black to prove OTB however.  Heck, it's hard enough for Black to prove in analysis - in spite of any dogmatism one might read on the subject.


  • 3 years ago

    batgirl

    "Good for the museum. 9...Qf5 simply refutes the whole idea."

    Actually, Lowenthal claimed that Morphy invented the opening (with the delayed sac) and only played it giving QN odds.  Some analysts believe that without the QN on the board to block in the QR, the attack is irresistible. As it is, since the Double Muzio is too risky for high-level tournament play, the theory on it is quite limited.

    I'm anything but a theorist, but I can't see one move, such as 9...Qf5 as a refutation in itself, though Black's only job is to get to a superior endgame. In fact the consensus seems to give 9...Qxd4+ as the main line.  9...Qf5, an attempt to better place the Q, was first suggested by Steinitz.

    After the opening moves: 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. O-O gxf3 6. Qxf3 Qf6 7. e5 Qxe5 8. Bxf7+ Kxf7 9. d4 Qf5, the most common reply seems to be: 10. g4 Qg6 11. Bxf4 Nf6 12. Be5 Be7 13. Bxf6 Bxf6 14. Nc3  with 14...Kg7 unpinning the King and not so good for white.

    But the immediate 10. Bxf4 can lead to a winning situation for White after such as 10... Nf6 11. Qe3 Bg7 12. Be5 Qe6 13. Nc3 d5 14. Rae1 Nd7 15. Qf3 Nxe5 16. dxe5 Qb6+ 17. Kh1 Rf8 18. Nxd5 Qd4 19. exf6 Bxf6 20. Nxf6, the key being White's strong d pawn, along with an attack, for Black's better Queen position. (analysis by Millican)

  • 3 years ago

    melvinbluestone

    Thanks for the reply, batgirl. Good point. So, technically, it's white who's simply lost after Kxf7! Ha! Thank goodness for those lower echelon players who give us exciting games like these.

  • 3 years ago

    IM pfren

    Good for the museum. 9...Qf5 simply refutes the whole idea.

    9...Qxd4+ may also give Blak some advantage, but it's quite clear it's a dangerous choice.

Back to Top

Post your reply: