Polish Opening | How to beat the Orangutan!
#polish #orangutan #gambit #familyfork
I had the Black pieces in this game and my opponent played a very interesting opening - 1. b4 - the Polish Opening, aka the Orangutan Opening! Eric Schiller, in his book, "Unorthodox Chess Openings", quotes Tartakower:
"This move, which has so bizarre an aspect, occupies a place of honor amongst the 'freak' openings. Later, at the New York Tournament of 1924, I termed this the 'Orangutang' Opening, not only because I employed it there - against Maroczy - after a previous consultation with a young orang-outang (during a visit by all the masters to the New York Zoo on the eve of the game in question) but also since the climbing movement o the pawn to b4 and then b5 is reminiscent of that inventive animal. The name has stuck."
According to Stockfish, the Polish is "okay" for White at [-0.1]. Its offbeat nature means that it doesn't usually transpose into other better-known openings. Black has several good options to respond - taking control of the centre with pawns (e4 or d4) or with Nf6.
I played e5 and White fianchetto their bishop with Bb2. I had an opportunity to capture the pawn on b4 but didn't want to lose my e5 pawn. And so, on move 2, I make my first mistake with (2... Nc6) [+1.5] as White now had (3. b5) attacking that knight. A bit rattled, I pushed forward (3... Nd4) but the knight was immediately attacked by another pawn (4. e3).
At this point, I decided to slow down. It's a 30-min game! My knight was being bullied and I knew that I screwed up the opening. Logically, the obvious move was Ne6, to pull back my knight and lose the e-pawn. However, I didn't like the massive concession of the loss of tempo with moving the knight for a third time and losing material.
So, I decided to gambit the knight! After a bit over two minutes, I played what I knew was an audacious move that likely would not be expected by my opponent (4... Bc5). My logic: this develops my bishop and following trades. I will be up on development. I constrain White's fianchetto bishop by blocking the long diagonal. I restrict White's natural development of the queen's knight. I potentially limit White's queenside expansion, which makes their pawn on b5 misplaced. The natural square for the bishop means that it patrols the f2 square, which is often a great tactical resource to have up your sleeve. Stockfish hates this move [+6], but I'm playing an intermediate level human, not an engine!
By move 13 at the beginning of the middle game, this decision was starting to bear some fruit. Stockfish of course gives the advantage strongly to White, by I'm better developed, and White's queen in the centre of the board is about to be forced to move repeatedly, harassed by my minor pieces and pawns.
By move 17, we'd basically equalised (although I remained a full piece down) and I found a very tricky move with (17... d3), attacking White's bishop on e2, which is pinned to the rook on e1. Expected, White took with the c-pawn (18. cxd3) but I now had (18... Nxd3), ostensibly a fork of the queen and rook. Once again, the bishop doesn't look like it should capture given it's pinned to the rook, and so White plays (19. Qg3). This was a game-ending blunder! Remember I said "ostensibly" a fork of the queen and rook? Actually, it's a TRIPLE fork as the knight is also attack the f2 pawn. I now had (19... Bxf2+) which is an AMAZING family fork (king, queen, rook) with a BISHOP!
After winning the queen, I was so excited, I immediately blundered my rook on h8 as I forgot about the fianchetto bishop! However, this doesn't matter as I have an overwhelming advantage. The endgame wasn't the simplest, but on move 33, I deliver a satisfying checkmate. GG!
Game on chess.com: https://www.chess.com/game/live/75865352111
