QUEEN’S GAMBIT ACCEPTED

This article could also be called “Opening Basics” or “Opening Play for Beginners” to indicate that the focus is on less experienced players, to help them better understand opening play. Players over 1500 may wish to stop reading now. The goal is to illustrate opening themes using simple terminology and explanations without meaning to sound condescending – we all have to walk before we run.

Let’s analyze a double Queen Pawn opening, less common than the double King Pawn openings (1. e4 e5) but employed more frequently at the upper levels. The play is typically more closed and positional compared to the double King Pawn games, which are usually more open and tactical, at least in the opening phase. As you improve at chess, you will choose opening systems that suit your style and taste. If you play the Queen’s Gambit, or else play against it, the ideas behind the initial move sequence are indeed crucial.

1. d4 1 … d5

Both players have made good first moves. The Queen Pawn advance gains space in the center, occupying a center square (d4/d5) and controlling another center square (e5/e4) along with controlling a square from the “extended center” (c5/c4). Also, the Queen and Queen Bishop now have open lines to develop; their scope has already improved to 2 squares for the Queen and 5 squares for the Bishop.

The fundamental distinction between Queen Pawn openings and King Pawn openings is how the center Pawn is supported by the Queen on both ends. Therefore, each side has a much stronger foothold in the central arena compared to 1. e4 e5 where the King Pawns are undefended. This basic feature leads straight into stock openings like the Ruy Lopez (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5) where White plays to undermine Black’s King Pawn, whereas 1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 doesn’t threaten Black’s Queen Pawn at all and in fact hinders White’s potential Queenside play, because the Nc3 blocks the c2 Pawn from advancing. Having said that, some players prefer 2. Nc3 because they like those positions, or else they can get out of book quickly, but after 2. Nc3 Nf6 Black has an easy game since 3. e4 is prevented. (Actually, 3. e4!? leads to a different gambit outside the scope of this discussion.) To reiterate, there is a world of difference between 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 versus 1. d4 d5 2. Nc3.

2. c4

A gambit is a material sacrifice to gain other advantages in time, space, or position. In the Queen’s Gambit, White offers the c Pawn to lure Black’s Queen Pawn from the center, leaving White with two center Pawns and Black with only one. Whether this becomes truly advantageous for White is and will forever be controversial, because several Black defenses play directly against this classical tenet. Today’s lesson for beginners is that the Queen’s Gambit isn’t necessarily a gambit, since in many variations White easily regains the Pawn, or else Black spends valuable time and/or creates positional weaknesses trying to retain it.

Before proceeding, let’s compare the Queen’s Gambit to the King’s Gambit (1. e4 e5 2. f4), an aggressive attacking opening where White aims to develop quickly and ambush Black’s Kingside. Now the King’s Gambit is often a true gambit, since after 2 … ef Black can realistically maintain the extra Pawn with an eventual … g5. Also, the opening of the d1-a4 diagonal in the Queen’s Gambit only helps White, while the opening of the e1-h4 diagonal in the King’s Gambit only hurts White. But White gets pieces out fast with 3. Nf3, 4. Bc4 and 5. 0-0 (depending on Black’s play); if the f4 Pawn falls, the half-open f file proves extremely useful for White’s attack. In contrast, after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 the action is toward the Queenside, with both Kings safely at home and many moves away from castling. White’s intent during the Queen’s Gambit is for space and position instead of an instant confrontation. To reiterate, there is a world of difference between 1. e4 e5 2. f4 versus 1. d4 d5 2. c4.

2 … dc

The books will tell you, “the best way to refute a gambit is to accept it.” As with all chess advice, that grand statement must be placed into context. Since the extra Pawn is difficult to maintain, Black tends to decline the Queen’s Gambit with 2 … e6 (Classical Defense) or 2 … c6 (Slav Defense). The purpose of this article is to teach White how best to recapture the Pawn, and to advise Black against going to contortions just for that Pawn.

Other second moves for Black are less successful. 2. c4 Nf6?! goes nowhere after 3. cd; if 3 … Qxd5 4. Nc3 develops while gaining time, or else 3 … Nxd5 4. e4 Nf6 5. Nc3 and White owns the center. Compare this to the Grunfeld Defense (1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5) where Black encourages 4. cd Nxd5 5. e4 Nxc3 6. bxc3 – typical hypermodern chess with Black playing against White’s big center. One rare bird to recognize is the Chigorin Defense (1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6), simply met by 3. cd Qxd5 4. e3 e5 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Bd2 Bxc3 7. bxc3 and White has the Two Bishops to combat Black’s superior development.

After 2 … dc, White has four reasonable choices, which we’ll cover from least popular to most popular:

1) 3. Qa4+

If White is this skittish about being down one Pawn, even for one move, perhaps the Queen’s Gambit isn’t the ideal opening. The fork involving e8 and c4 regains the gambit Pawn, but the Queen isn’t well placed on c4. Besides, you should avoid such early Queen moves in the opening, since they can prove disastrous. Kaliuzhny-Maly (Alushta, 2000) continued 3. Qa4+ Nd7 4. Qxc4 e6 5. Nf3 Ngf6 6. Nc3 c5 with equal chances.

2) 3. e4

The logical follow-up to the gambit, establishing a beautiful Pawn duo at d4 and e4, but this is considered overly ambitious. Black should strike back in the center immediately:

a) 3. e4 c5 4. Nf3 cd 5. Qxd4 Qxd4 (so much for the opening) 6. Nxd4 Bd7 and Black quickly equalizes.

b) 3. e4 e5 4. de Qxd1+ (so much for the opening) 5. Kxd1 Be6 6. Nd2 Nc6 with an even game.

Black fares much worse clinging to the c4 Pawn with 3 … b5!?, because White can pry open Black’s Queenside with a4 & b3. Harrwitz-Mongredien (London, 1860) went 3. e4 b5!? 4. a4 c6 5. ab cb 6. b3 Bb7 7. f3 e6 8. bc bc 9. Bxc4 (development with gain of time, also reestablishing material equality) Nf6 10. Be3 Bb4+ 11. Nd2 and White is better. More recently, Yermolinsky-Zaltsman (St. Martin, 1993) went 3. e4 b5!? 4. a4 c6 5. ab cb 6. Nc3!? Bd7 (now it’s a real gambit) 7. Nf3 e6 8. Be2 Nf6 9. 0-0 Be7 10. d5 b4 11. d6 Bf8 12. e5 bxc3 13. exf6 Nc6 (Black wisely avoids 13 … cb 14. Bxb2 gf 15. Bxc4 with a gloomy position) 14. fg Bxg7 15. bc 0-0 producing a tense middlegame.

3) 3. e3

A safe choice, aiming to regain the gambit Pawn without further ado. Now Black, whatever you do, don’t try 3 … b5?! Check out this early example (Greco-NN, Rome 1620): 3. e3 b5?! 4. a4 c6 (4 … a6? 5. ab and Black’s a Pawn is pinned anyway) 5. ab cb?? 6. Qf3 1-0. For the record, NN is the standard abbreviation for “No Name” where the winner protects the loser’s identity when publishing such a humiliating crush.

If you’re still unconvinced, here’s another sparkling miniature (Sarratt-NN, London 1818): 3. e3 b5?! 4. a4 Bd7 5. ab Bxb5 6. Nc3 (development with gain of time) Ba6? 7. Qf3! c6 (What else?) 8. Rxa6! Nxa6 9. Qxc6+ Qd7 10. Qxa8+ Qd8 11. Qc6+ Qd7 12. Qxa6 1-0. The c4 Pawn is not worth two pieces.

After 3. e3, Black might respond 3 … e6 transposing to the next section after 4. Nf3 Nf6, but more often Black tries 3 … e5 or 3 … c5 as above. So White usually prefers 3. Nf3 which blocks … e5 for the moment. Both sides should remember how the Queen’s Gambit Accepted is more tactically tricky than the Queen’s Gambit Declined, where the center is closed. This club game illustrates two ideas: 3. e3 c5 4. Bxc4 cd 5. Nf3 e5! (5 … de?? 6. Bxf7+! Kxf7 7. Qxd8 wins the Queen) 6. Nxe5?? Qa5+ 7. Bd2 Qxe5 and Black won.

4) 3. Nf3

The most common move, planning to recapture the gambit Pawn with smooth development (Bxc4) while preventing 3 … e5 which would free Black’s game. The most natural reply for Black is 3 … Nf6, allowing 4. e3 and 5. Bxc4 to concentrate on Black’s own development and castling. 3 … Be6?! is intuitively bad, blocking Black’s King Pawn from advancing, plus the Be6 is easily kicked with Ng5. On 3 … Be6?! 4. e4 c6 5. a4 intending 6. Na3 or 6. Qc2 snatching the c4 Pawn and White stands well. Note that sometimes White’s Queen Knight is deployed at d2 or a3 to regain the gambit Pawn, thus 3. Nc3 is less favored in the Queen’s Gambit Accepted. But in the Queen’s Gambit Declined, 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6/c6 3. Nc3 is the obvious continuation.

After 3. Nf3, the two best moves for Black are 3 … Nf6 and 3 … a6, but we all know our opponents won’t always play by the book. You will undoubtedly encounter players who accept the Queen’s Gambit, then fight ferociously to keep the extra Pawn. This can sensibly be done with 3 … c6 4. e3 b5!? 5. a4 e6 and Black hopes to maintain the Queenside Pawn chain with … a6. White should play 6. b3 attacking the chain; 6 … Bb4+ 7. Bd2 Bxd2+ 8. Nfxd2(!) gets the King Knight involved against Black’s Pawns.

A pertinent side note is how in these … b5 lines, Black can sometimes advance b5-b4 to block the Queenside and maybe hold the extra Pawn. If White’s Queen Knight is already on c3, all the better. This is yet another reason why White might avoid an automatic Nc3 in the Queen’s Gambit Accepted. A good example is Karpov-Portisch (Tilburg, 1983): 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dc 3. Nc3 a6 4. Nf3 b5 5. a4 b4 6. Ne4 Nd7 7. Ned2 c3! 8. bc bc 9. Ne4 Ngf6 10. Nxc3 (Five moves to get to c3!) e6 11. e3 Bb4 12. Bd2 c5 with an equal position, later drawn. In any case, if Black ends up keeping the Pawn with … b5, White should find counterplay in the center to compensate. And if White feels adventurous, you might investigate the razor sharp Anti-Meran Gambit.

a) 3. Nf3 Nf6

develops both King Knights to their best squares while eyeing the center. From here, many QGA variations will lead to an Isolated Queen Pawn position = a lone Queen Pawn on d4 but no c Pawn or e Pawn nearby to help protect it. For instance, 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Bxc4 c5 6. 0-0 cd 7. ed Be7 and White plays for a middlegame attack based on a spatial advantage, the strong e5 outpost and the half-open e file, while Black aims to exchange pieces into a favorable endgame where the d4 isolani is weak.

A famous recent QGA game featuring an Isolated Queen Pawn was X3D Fritz-Kasparov (New York, 2003): 3. Nf3 e6 4. e3 Nf6 5. Bxc4 c5 6. 0-0 a6 7. Bb3 cd 8. ed Nc6 9. Nc3 Be7 10. Re1 0-0 11. Bf4 (More thematic is Bg5 or Be3, but this was an inspired psychological choice by the programmers since Kasparov has played both sides of this position!) Na5 12. d5 (White sacrifices the Isolated Queen Pawn for complications) Nxb3 13. Qxb3 ed 14. Rad1 Be6 15. Qxb7 Bd6 with an interesting middlegame, eventually drawn.

One word of caution about chess study. A certain source lists this Queen’s Gambit Accepted continuation as the main line: 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Bxc4 c5 6. 0-0 a6 7. Qe2 Nc6 8. Rd1 b5 9. Bb3 c4 10. Bc2 Nb4 11. Nc3 Nxc2 12. Qxc2 Bb7 “with equality.” But no White player in their right mind would allow such obvious tempo-gaining advances as 8 … b5 and 9 … c4, then leave White without the valuable King Bishop, then leave Black with a finely fianchettoed Queen Bishop, which is Black’s hardest piece to develop in Queen Pawn openings. Instead 6. 0-0 a6 7. a4 is the natural move to avoid this business, preventing Black’s Queenside Pawns from steamrolling ahead. So don’t believe everything you read. (In the sake of fairness, find Janowski-Lasker, Berlin 1910 for an instructive counterexample where a2-a4 is detrimental.)

b) 3. Nf3 a6 is Alekhine’s Variation, with the simple but effective plan of … b5 gaining time hitting the Bc4, then a fine outpost for the Queen Bishop with … Bb7. Compare to the Najdorf Sicilian (1. e4 c5) where … a6 also figures prominently in Black’s plans. You might wonder why Black is advancing a Rook Pawn so soon in the opening, and good for you. Here the move makes perfect sense and fits into Black’s overall defensive scheme. Consider the Ruy Lopez (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6) where Black also plays this early Rook Pawn push, but for sound reasons. After 3. Nf3 a6, White has several candidates:

i) 4. a4 is considered “harmless” by Schipkov who cites 4 … Nc6 5. e3 Bg4 and 4 … Nf6 5. e3 Bg4 6. Bxc4 e6, both yielding equal chances.

ii) 4. e4!? becomes a true gambit after 4 … b5 5. a4 Bb7 6. ab ab 7. Rxa8 Bxa8 8. Nc3, when Black can select the safe 8 … e6 or the sharp 8 … c6 (Schipkov).

iii) 4. e3 Bg4 develops the Queen Bishop in a different way, often exchanging it for White’s King Knight. The main line is 5. Bxc4 e6 (see how Black does well to develop the Bishop before playing e7-e6), then 6. 0-0 Nf6 gives even chances. Alternatives are 6. d5 ed 7. Bxd5 Qe7! (Schipkov), indirectly protecting b7 (8. Bxb7?? Qb4+ & 9 … Qxb7), or else 6. Nc3 c5!?. Here the aggressive 6. Qb3 tries to exploit the absent Bc8, although Black can wreck White’s Pawns with 6 … Bxf3 7. gxf3 b5 8. Be2 Nd7 leading to dynamic equality. Another option is 6. h3 Bxf3 7. Qxf3, or if 6 … Bh5 7. Qb3 again aiming for Black’s Queenside. In all of these subvariations, both sides get good play.

I hope this discussion on the basic themes of the Queen’s Gambit Accepted has been helpful. Please submit any comments, suggestions, improvements and corrections. Thanks for reading! TP