
Alapin Gambit (of the French Defense) - Refuted!
If you play the French Defense with Black, there is a chance that you’ve come across this weird move 3. Be3, leading to the Alapin Gambit. It’s strange because White is sacrificing the central e4-pawn and awkwardly tucking the bishop between two pawns, where it doesn’t do much of anything!
The idea is a lot like the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: White gives up the central pawn to play f2-f3, aiming to open the f-file and launch a kingside attack.
This gambit can be a real pain for Black, especially in bullet or blitz, as White often grabs quick wins right out of the opening, like in this example:
Overall, Black shouldn’t rush to take the pawn on f3 right away (unlike the one on e4!). Instead, there’s a brilliant move that’s tough to spot over the board without a bit of preparation or help of an engine: 4...Nh6!
The idea is that White can’t touch the e4-pawn (with 5. fxe4) because Black responds with 5...Qh4+, followed by 6...Qxe4. This gives Black a great position, while White's kingside gets seriously weakened.
Also, 5. Bxh6 doesn’t work because of the same idea — 5...Qh4! followed by 6...Qxh6. The e4-pawn of Black is still immune, due to 7...Qe3+ at the end, followed by capturing the e4-pawn of White.
So, White can’t touch the knight on h6 or the e4-pawn. But what’s the point of putting the knight on h6? The idea is to bring it to f5, where it pressures White's e3-bishop and d4-pawn. Once the knight is on f5, Black starts to take control, and there’s really no compensation left for the pawn White sacrificed. At that point, Black is clearly the one with the advantage!
I cover all of this and more in one of my latest videos on YouTube, where I walk through the ideas, key lines, and show how the Alapin Gambit is practically refuted.
If you found this post helpful, swing by my YouTube channel, check out the video, and let me know what you think in the comments. I’d love to hear your thoughts!