Hi!

I've always been attracted to gambits. Right now I am experimenting with the Albin Counter Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5).

I was wondering if you might have a game or two to share. I have many master games (including numerous Morozevic games and the Lasker Trap), but I am looking for other variations of the gambit.

So, if you have a game you would like to share, please post them here or email me.

I should also mention I am writing a book about the Alblin, so if you want your game or analysis published in a book, please let me know that as well.

Thanks and happy King hunting! ;)

Barefoot_Player

I have a book THE ALBAN COUNTERGAMBIT by Eric Schiller

This gambit was played by attacking players such as Pillsbury and Marshall.it is now rarely played,but its no means to be rejected

 Maybe it's rarely played because guys like Marshall and Pillsbury are pretty rare now, which is too bad for us incurable romantics. But since you brought up the Albin, Barefoot_Player, what's your preference as white in this line, 3.dxe5 or 3.e3, or something else? One time when I came up against this as white, I played 3.e4!? and got away with it, but I suspect it's unsound. ........... Also, on the subject of gambits, the other day I came across something called the "Lobster Gambit" in the Latvian: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.g4!? Is this thing for real?

melvinbluestone,

3.dxe5 is considered the stongest move. 3.e3 is passive and allows black some easy paths to equality with 3...exd4 4.Qxd4 Nf6 to be followed by 5...Nc6. It is actaully stronger to play 4...Nf6 rfirst then 5...Nc6, instead of the other way around.

3.e4 is better than 3.e3, but not as strong as 3.dxe5. By the way, 3.e4 is known as the Spassky variation.

I taught myself enough German to read the chess books in their language. I am not suggesting you do the same, but at the same there is a lot of untapped knowledge to be found.

Hope this helps!

Barefoot_Player

PS - I've never heard of the Lobster Variation but it doesn't seem as strong as some the main lines. Usaully I just try to grab the center and castle queenside.

It's a great surprise weapon and does enjoy some top level success as such. However, white scores near 70% in high level play in all the main lines which makes it a weak choice as a mainstay in your arsenol. 

The two best ideas for white are to either play 5. a3 or 5. g3. In either case blacks idea is to play Nc6 and either Ne7-Ng6 to pick up the e pawn or Nc6 Bg4 Qe7. If black can muster enough activity to win the e pawn and defend the d pawn with a move like c5 then black gets some significant space (which can be good or bad depending on whether black has the pieces and activity to use/defend that space. If all black has is Q side expansion and an undeveloped K side then white can provoke weaknesses and get a good endgame).

Not to split hairs, Barefoot_Player, but I thought the Spassky variation was 4.e4, after 3.dxe5 d4, or are they both considered part of the same line?...... Thanks for the info, though, guys. Also, I played a quick off-hand game with a friend, shown below, and I'm curious about the idea of 8.Bg5. It doesn't look quite right..... Sort of goes against the spirit of the opening. But the idea was to draw black's queen from the defense of the d-pawn, hoping for something like 8.Bg5 Be7 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nfxd4 O-O-O 11.e3 Ngxe5 12.Qc2, and white looks alright. I figured black would jump at the chance to get in queenside castling, but instead he just kicked the bishop...... Observe:

The Spassky Variation d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.e4 Nc6 5.f4 f6 6.Nf3 fxe5  this was played by Spassky against Lutikov Kharkov 1963 the game ended in a draw

I understand Lamford wrote a book on the ALBIN COUNTERGAMBIT i dont have a copy but i will look for it

White can avoid all Albin complications with 2. Nf3. Not that it is a a extremely strong opening, but still, if you don't want to learn the lines as white, end the nonsense with 2. Nf3

I have a book on it, Gambiteer 2 by nigel davies. Inspirational rather than complete I  would say; it's one of those books where the author tryes to convince you that white is the one needing care to equalize ;a nice book but nothing more. I don't think it's worth buying for a player which already knows the opening well (by the way only half of the book is devoted to the albin).

Personally speaking, i played the Albin for a while with decent results; however i quickly got really bored since most white players go for the a3 or Nd2 lines(I can't blame them!) leading to a += rather dry queenless middlegame. I have nothing against queenless middlegames, as long as it's not a two-result game where white pushes his small advantage without risk; and this is the case in  the Albin. It's a matter of tastes i guess, but describing the albin as a sharp counter to 1.d4 is rather wrong; due to those lines it turned out to be the most static defence i ever played.

It's the sort of thing for a one-off surprise, not a mainline defense.  It's a gimmick, and you should never build your game on gimmicks.

Estragon,

You being a 2400+ player, I would expect a little more than just dismissing a gambit without refering to any analysis or general principles.

Shame on you!

j/king

Rob

Now wait a minute, pfren! In your view, 2.Nf3 may be better than 2.c4 because it disallows the Albin. But are you saying it's a better move all together? .......because that takes in more than just the Albin! Or are you saying just don't play it against Albin-favoring opponents? ........ Also, as pellik mentioned in post #5, after 5.a3, doesn't 5...Bg4 keep up the pressure? After 6.Nbd2 Qe7....... but of course, the question is still whether this whole mess is worth a pawn to black.........

The problem with Albin counter gambit is that white can simply avoid it with 2.Nf3 and c4 next move transposes back to Queen's Gambit.Of course white sacrifices some lines where the king's knight goes to e2 but black loses a whole opening.It's good  as a surprise weapon but you need to know Queen's Gambit too.

I like Budapest Gambit a lot(1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5) but has the same problem.

 This is not strictly true, as after 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c4 e5 simply transposes back. But that's not the point I was trying to make before. 2.Nf3 doesn't avoid the Albin, it just avoids the Queens Gambit on move two. If the solution is to play 2.Nf3, does that mean 1.d4 d5 2.c4!? is a questionable line......? Or just questionable against those irksome opponents who like to play the Albin.....?

at least this thread has some content for a change...