The Bryntse-Faj

bryntse-faj

1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5! 3.Nf3 dxe4 4.Ne5!?

By Michael Goeller, with games and notes by Dana Mackenzie

The Bryntse-Faj is an intriguing and almost unknown sideline of the Grand Prix Sicilian, which gets us into completely undocumented territory on move 4. Like its close cousin the Bryntse Gambit (1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5 3.Nf3 dxe4 4.Ng5) it is inspired by lines of the Budapest Defense where Black plays 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 and now either the normal Budapest with 3...Ng4 or the Fajarowicz Gambit with 3...Ne4. Dana Mackenzie, who has tried both approaches to the Bryntse, sometimes calls the whole complex the "Sicili-pest" by way of acknowledging the Budapest connection. Though I have tossed around various names myself, I finally settled on the Bryntse-Faj for its useful brevity in communicating the basic idea, which is to play the known Bryntse Gambit in ways that resemble the Fajarowicz, often called "the Faj" for short.

I came to study the Bryntse-Faj almost by process of elimination. I had been trying to work out an opening repertoire built around the McDonnell French (1.e4 e6 2.f4!?), with one idea being that I could transpose sometimes to that line via the Grand Prix Sicilian if I played 1.e4 c5 2.f4 rather than my preferred move order with 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 and only later f4. The beauty of 2.f4 is that if Black likes a French set-up (which is the line I have always found most annoying after 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6!), then White would be able to get the McDonnell French by transposition via 1.e4 c5 2.f4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.e5. Of course, the problem with 2.f4 is that Black can meet it with the powerful 2...d5! (practically equalizing already, in my opinion), which was the reason so many Grand Prix players like myself had chosen 2.Nc3 in the first place. Naturally, I had to ask the question: Is there some new way to meet the dreaded 1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5! that might at least surprise my opponents and lead to an interesting game? The present line naturally proposed itself as an answer.

In my experiments with 1.e4 c5 2.f4, I have discovered that the Bryntse-Faj indeed makes a useful way to complete the repertoire, more for practical than analytic reasons. For one thing, I have found that very few amateur players (fewer than one quarter would be my estimate) play 2...d5! when faced with 1.e4 c5 2.f4, choosing instead more compliant approaches with 2...Nc6 (most common) or 2...e6 (which is precisely what I am hoping for). Meanwhile, those who play the correct 2...d5! tend to be the most heavily reliant on opening preparation, and therefore the most likely to feel that they have just driven over a cliff when confronted by the unknown Bryntse-Faj.

In my fickle opening studies, I have since moved on to other openings entirely, leaving the McDonnell French and the Bryntse-Faj far behind. That's the main reason I have decided to publish my present notes, despite their unfinished state, as I doubt I will play any more games or be returning to do more analysis any time soon. Meanwhile, I hope these notes and my PGN file might be useful to others who are interested in this variation (perhaps for many of the same reasons that brought me to it). I wish I had been able to reach a clearer judgment about how White should best approach the Bryntse-Faj, but only further practice with the line will help to decide that. If nothing else, I hope that this article encourages more games!

In compliling the game collection, I have had the invaluable assistance of Dana Mackenzie, who was kind enough to send me three of his own games with the line along with extensive annotations. Unless otherwise noted, the comments to his three games are his own. For those games alone, I was tempted to name this the "Mackenzie Gambit." But I did not want to embarrass Dana, and I thought that name might confuse people since Dana is now so much better known for the Bryntse line with 4.Ng5! where he has already achieved amateur chess immortality.

 

Black Plays 4...Nd7!

Probably Black's best defense against the Bryntse-Faj is 4...Nd7 which leaves open many dynamic options. White has a choice between trying to recover his pawn at e4 or playing in gambit fashion by d3. Both are very complicated with the Black Knight on d7, giving Black the option of playing Nxe5 at any time.

Dana Mackenzie (2112) - Reynald Del Pilar (2284) [B21]

North American Open/Las Vegas, NV USA (5) 2002


1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Ne5 Nd7 5. Nc3!

 










[White might also consider recovering the pawn by something like 5. Bb5!? a6 6. Bxd7+ Bxd7 7. Nc3 Nf6 8. Qe2 Bf5!? 9. g4! Be6 10. f5 Bd5 11. g5 Qd6 12. Nc4 Bxc4 13. Qxc4 Qd4 14. Qe2 Nd7 15. Nxe4. But this doesn't look all that exciting. MG]

 

5... a6

In a 40/2 time control, Black had already used 1:16 after this move!

 

Perhaps more accurate is 5... Nxe5 6. fxe5 a6 (6... Qd4? lets White get the kind of gambit play he wants. For example, 7. Bb5+ Kd8 (7... Bd7 8. e6!?) 8. d3! exd3 9. Bxd3 Qxe5+ 10. Be4+ Bd7 11. Qf3 Nf6 (11... f5 12. O-O) 12. Bf4 Qe6 13. O-O-O Nxe4 14. Nxe4 Qxa2 15. Rxd7+ Kxd7 16. Nxc5+ with a mating attack) 7. d3 exd3 8. Bxd3 Qd4 9. Qe2 Bg4 10. Qe4 Qxe4+ 11. Bxe4 O-O-O 12. O-O.

 

6. Qh5

I thought about 6. Nxd7, simply winning back the pawn, but given the time situation I felt I should keep the position as complicated as possible.

a) 6. Nxd7 Bxd7 7. Nxe4 Bc6 8. d3 e6=.

 

b) 6. d3!? Nxe5 (6... exd3 7. Bxd3) 7. fxe5 exd3 8. Bxd3 Qd4 9. Qe2 Bg4!? 10. Qe4 Qxe4+ 11. Bxe4 MG.

 

6... Nxe5?!

I thought that Black should chase the queen with 6... g6 However, it looks as if White can either win his pawn back or get good counterplay in all lines. Here are some sample variations. 7. Bc4! e6 (7... Nh6 8. Qe2 Nxe5 (8... Nxe5 9. fxe5 f5 10. exf6 exf6 11. Nxe4) (8... f5 9. d3 Bg7 10. dxe4 Nxe5 11. fxe5 Ng4 12. exf5 Nxe5 13. Bd5 gxf5 (13... Bxf5 14. Bxb7) 14. Bh6) 9. fxe5 Qd4 10. Qxe4 Qxe4+ 11. Nxe4) 8. Qe2 Nxe5 9. fxe5 Qd4 10. Qxe4 Bg7 11. d3 Ne7 12. Be3 Qxe4 13. Nxe4 Bxe5 14. Bxc5 (Mackenzie) 14... Bxb2 15. Rb1 (15. Nd6+ Kd7 16. Rb1 Bc3+ 17. Ke2 b5 18. Bb3) 15... Be5 16. d4 Bc7 17. a4 (17. Nf6+ Kd8) .

 

7. Qxe5

7. fxe5 g6 8. Qe2 Bg7 9. Qxe4 Qc7 MG.

 

7... Nf6 8. Nxe4 Ng4?!

Strangely, after playing somewhat passively in the early going, Black switches into a hyper-aggressive mode. This allows White to catch up in development and get a solid position.

 

Perhaps Black should play instead 8... Nxe4 9. Qxe4 g6!? (9... Qc7 10. b3) 10. Bc4 (10. Qe5 Qd4) 10... Bg7 11. d3 Qc7 MG

 

9. Qc3 Qd5 10. Qc4 e6 11. Nc3 Qd8

Played with great reluctance. After this move Black had used 1:40, and he now has 20 minutes to make 29 moves. Time trouble strongly affected the rest of the game.

 

12. Qe2

I've got to admit that this is pretty weird, two national masters moving their queens around like beginners while the other pieces are undeveloped.

 

12... Nh6 13. g3 Nf5 14. d3 h5 15. Bg2 h4 16. Qf2 g6 17. Bd2 Bg7 18. O-O-O Bd4 19. Qe1 Rb8 20. Ne4 b5?

Continuing the aggressive play, but the pawn sacrifice cannot be justified when Black's king is still exposed in the center.

 

21. c3 Bg7 22. Nxc5 Qc7 23. Qf2 b4 24. d4 Qa5

 










25. Bc6+!

White takes advantage of Black's uncastled king to bring another defender to the queenside. Black's "attack" is over.

 

25... Kf8 26. Ba4 hxg3 27. hxg3 Rxh1 28. Rxh1 Qc7 29. Re1

29. g4 bxc3 30. Bxc3 Ne7 31. Bc2

 

29... Rb6 30. g4! Ne7 31. c4! Rd6 32. Be3 Nc6

Here Black's flag fell, with 8 moves still to go before the time control. I was thinking of playing the wild 33. f5?! here, but the computer recommends first 33. Bxc6 Rxc6, then 34. f5.

 

1-0

[Dana Mackenzie]


Dana Mackenzie (2131) - James Al-Shamma (2145) [B21]

CalChess Labor Day Classic/San Francisco, CA USA (6) 2003


1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Ne5 Nd7 5. Nc3 Nxe5 6. fxe5 a6

Probably a better move order for Black than in the del Pilar game.

 

7. Qe2

Alternatively White can play in "true gambit style" with 7. d3!? For example, 7. d3!? Qd4!? 8. dxe4 Qxd1+ (8... Qxe5 9. Qf3 Nf6 10. Bf4 Qd4 11. h3) 9. Nxd1 e6 10. Be3 Bd7 11. Nf2 Rc8

 

7... Bf5

 










8. g4

8. Nxe4 Qd4 9. d3 Qxe5 10. Ng3 Qxe2+ 11. Bxe2 Bg6 12. h4 h5 13. Bf3 O-O-O and I don't think White has enough play for his pawn.

 

8... Bg6 9. Bg2

I debated over playing 9. e6!? but I couldn't find anything clear. On principle, it seemed to me that White wants to develop first before entering wild complications. Some computer analysis goes 9... fxe6 10. Nxe4 Nf6 11. Nxc5!? Qd5 12. Nxe6 Qxh1 13. Nc7+ Kd8 14. Nxa8 b5 15. g5 Nd7 16. a4 Qxa8 17. axb5 and here Fritz 7, of course, liked the greedy 17. ... Bxc2 with a small advantage for Black. In reality, I think anything could happen here.

 

9... e6










10. h4?

This creates too many weak squares on the kingside. Better is 10. Nxe4! Qc7 11. d3 Qxe5 12. O-O and White is glad to have Black take the e5 pawn because it opens lines for him. The threat is 13. Bf4 with open season on Black's queen and king.

 

10... h5 11. g5 Ne7 12. Bxe4?

This is also a strategic error. The game shows that exchanging the bishops leaves White in a relatively passive position. Better again is 12. Nxe4 Nc6 13. d3 Nxe5 14. Bf4 Nc6 15. O-O-O with good compensation for the pawn. White's bishops bear down on the queenside if Black castles there, there is a nice target on h5 if Black castles kingside, and the open e- and f-files give White nice attacking chancers if Black's king stays in the center.

 

12... Qc7 13. d3 Bxe4 14. Qxe4 Nf5 15. Bf4

This bishop is now a really sad piece.

 

15... g6?

Natural, but it gives White one last chance to get a decent game. Black should castle first.

 

16. O-O-O?

16. Qa4+ Qd7 17. Qxd7+ Kxd7 18. Ne4 I didn't want to trade queens because I wanted to "preserve attacking chances. " But as it turns out, it only preserves attacking chances ... for my opponent. In the game I could never get my knight to e4/f6 because of Black's pressure on e5. But in this variation, that's not a problem.

 

16... O-O-O 17. Qg2 Bg7 18. Rde1 Rd4 19. Re4 Rhd8 20. Qh2 Qc6 21. Rhe1 c4 22. dxc4 Qxc4 23. Qh1 Bf8 24. a3?

Oops! This hangs a pawn. But White was in trouble anyway.

 

24... Bxa3 25. Nb1 Be7 26. c3 Rxe4 27. Rxe4 Qd3 28. Nd2 Ng3! 29. Qe1 Nxe4 30. Qxe4 Qxe4 31. Nxe4 Rd3 32. Kc2 Rf3 33. Bh2 Re3 34. Nd2 Rh3

A game where White went rather badly wrong, but a good test of what is clearly an important variation for the 4. Ne5 "Sicili-pest."

0-1

[Dana Mackenzie]


Werner Weiss (2172) - Thomas Walter (2023) [B21]

Bahn Championship Tournament/Gemuend 1999


1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Ne5 Nd7 5. Nc3 Nxe5 6. fxe5 a6

White's might now try 7.d3 in true gambit style. Instead he simply recovers his pawn.

 

7. Qe2 Qd4

 

 

8. Qxe4 e6 9. d3 f5 10. Qxd4 cxd4 11. Ne2 Bc5 12. c3 Ne7!?

12... dxc3 13. bxc3 Ne7 14. d4

 

13. Nxd4! Bxd4 14. cxd4 Bd7 15. Bd2 Nd5

15... Bc6 16. Be2 Rd8 17. Bc3 Nd5 18. Bf3 g5

 

16. Rc1 O-O 17. Be2 Rac8 18. Kf2 h6 19. h4 Bb5 20. b3 Kf7 21. a4 Bd7 22. Rc5 Bc6 23. Rhc1 Ke7 24. b4 Nb6

 










25. b5! axb5 26. Bb4

26. axb5 Bd5 27. Rc7+

 

26... Kd7 27. axb5 Bd5 28. Rc7+ Rxc7 29. Rxc7+ Kxc7 30. Bxf8 g5 31. h5! Kd7 32. Bxh6

32. g4!

 

32... g4 33. g3 Bb3 34. Bf1 Ke7 35. Bg2 Nd5 36. b6 Kf7 37. Bg5 Kg7 38. Bxd5?

This blows White's advantage, as the Bishops of opposite colors will make it very difficult to win.

 

38... Bxd5 39. Ke3 Bf3 40. Kd2 Bd5 41. Kc3 Kh7 42. Kb4 Kg7

1/2-1/2

[Michael Goeller]

 


kenilworthian - nn [B21]

Live Chess/Chess.com 2011


1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Ne5 Nd7 5. Nc3 Ngf6

5... Nxe5 6. fxe5 Qd4 7. Bb5+ Bd7 8. Qe2 (8. Bxd7+ Kxd7 [8... Qxd7 9. Qe2 O-O-O 10. Qxe4 Nh6 11. O-O] 9. Qg4+ e6 10. Qxe4 Qxe4+ 11. Nxe4; also possible is 8. e6!?) 8... Qxe5 9. Bxd7+ Kxd7 10. d3

 

6. Bc4 Nxe5

6... e6 7. d3! Nxe5 (better 7... exd3 8. Qxd3!? Nxe5 9. Qxd8+ Kxd8 10. fxe5 Nd7 11. Bf4) 8. fxe5 Nd7 9. Bf4 exd3 10. Qxd3 Nb6 11. Bb5+

 

7. fxe5 Qd4 8. Bb5+ Nd7

 










9. e6!? fxe6 10. Qg4 a6 11. Qxe6! axb5?!

Better 11... Qd6 12. Bc4 (perhaps 12. Bxd7+ Bxd7 13. Qxe4 Bc6 14. Qe2 +=) 12... Nf6 13. Qxd6 exd6 14. Nd5 with good play.

 

12. Nxb5 Qb4

Perhaps Black should try instead 12... Qa4

 

13. Nd6+ Kd8 14. Nf7+ Kc7 15. c3 Qb5

Or 15... Qb6 16. Qxb6+ Kxb6 17. Nxh8 Ne5 18. O-O

 

16. d4 Kb8 17. Nxh8 cxd4 18. Bf4+ Ka7 19. a4 Qxb2 20. O-O Nc5 21. Qe5

1-0

[Michael Goeller]


Christophe Czekaj (2000) - Wladyslaw Król (2423) [B21]

FICGS Thematic Tournament 00002/FICGS (1) 2007


1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Ne5 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nbd7 6. Bc4

A different idea from the Budapest is to avoid the possible exchange of Knights by 6. Nc4 Qc7 7. d3 exd3 8. Bxd3 a6 9. Qf3 g6 10. O-O Bg7 11. f5. But with the Knight supported on e5, this would feel like a loss of time.

 

6... e6

Black could play 6... Nxe5 7. fxe5 Qd4 (7... Nd7 8. Bxf7+ Kxf7 9. Qh5+ g6 10. e6+ Kg7 11. Qd5) 8. Bb5+ Nd7 but after 9. e6!? he would have some difficulties completing his development.

 

7. d3

White can also recover his pawn with 7. Qe2 Qc7 8. Bb5 a6 9. Bxd7+ Nxd7 10. Qxe4 Bd6 with approximate equality.

 

7... exd3 8. Bxd3

Another Faj-inspired idea is 8. Qxd3!? Nxe5 (8... Be7!) 9. Qxd8+ Kxd8 10. fxe5 Nd7 11. Bf4 a6 12. a4. In the game continuation, White gives up too much material.

 

8... a6 9. a4 Qc7 10. Qe2 Bd6 11. Nc4 Bxf4 12. Bxf4 Qxf4 13. Rf1 Qxh2 14. O-O-O   Rb8 15. Ne4 Nxe4 16. Bxe4 O-O 17. Qe3 Nf6 18. g4 Nxe4 19. Rh1 Qg2 20. Rdg1 Qf2 21. Qxe4 g6 22. Rg2 Qd4 23. Qxd4 cxd4 24. Rgh2 e5 25. Rxh7 Bxg4 26. Nxe5 Bf5 27. Nf3 Be4 28. Rh8+ Kg7 29. R1h7+ Kf6 30. Rxf8 Rxf8 31. Nxd4 g5 32. Kd2 Bxh7

0-1

[Michael Goeller]


Christophe Czekaj (2000) - Sandor Porkolab (2000) [B21]

FICGS Thematic Tournament 0000/FICGS (1) 2007


1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Ne5 Nd7 5. Nc3 Ngf6 6. Bc4

a) 6. d3 Nxe5 7. fxe5 Ng4!

b) 6. Nc4!?

 

6... Nxe5

6... e6 7. Qe2 Qc7 8. Nxd7 (8. Nxe4 Nxe5) 8... Bxd7 9. O-O (9. Nxe4 Qxf4) 9... Bc6.

 

7. fxe5 Qd4 8. Bb5+ Nd7 9. e6 fxe6 10. Qg4 a6 11. Qxe6 Qf6

Not 11... axb5? 12. Nxb5 Qf6 13. Rf1 Qxe6 14. Nc7+ Kd8 15. Nxe6+ Ke8 16. Nc7+ Kd8 17. Nxa8 b6 18. a4 Bb7 19. Nxb6 Nxb6 20. a5.

 

12. Qxf6 exf6 13. Be2 f5 14. O-O   Ne5 15. Nd5 Rb8 16. d3 exd3 17. Bh5+ g6

17... Kd7 18. Bf4 Bd6 19. Rfe1

 

18. Bf4 Bd6 19. Rae1 Kd7 20. Rxe5 gxh5 21. Rxf5 Rd8 22. cxd3 b5 23. Rxh5

1-0

[Michael Goeller]


Wladyslaw Jakub Krol (2263) - Vladimir Turicnik (1898) [B21]

IECG 2002


1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Ne5 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nbd7 6. Bc4 e6

If 6... Nxe5 7. fxe5 Qd4 then one idea is 8. Bb5+ Nd7 (8... Bd7? 9. exf6) 9. e6! fxe6 and perhaps 10. Ne2!? (10. Qe2 a6 11. Bxd7+ Bxd7 12. Nxe4 c4!) 10... Qb4 11. c4 a6 12. a3 Qa5 13. Ba4 b5 14. Bc2 Nf6 15. O-O e5 16. Nc3 Qd8 17. cxb5 g6 (17... axb5) 18. Ba4 Qd4+ 19. Kh1 axb5 20. Bxb5+ Bd7 21. Qb3.

 

7. d3 exd3 8. Qxd3

8. Bxd3 Be7 9. Be3 (9. Qe2 a6 10. Bd2 Qc7 11. O-O-O b5 12. Rhe1 O-O) (9. Qf3 a6 10. Be3 Qc7 11. O-O-O (11. Nxd7 Bxd7 12. O-O-O Bc6 13. Qg3 O-O) 11... Nxe5 12. fxe5 Qxe5 13. Bf4 Qh5 14. Qe3) 9... Qc7 10. O-O Nxe5 11. Nb5 Qc6 12. fxe5 Nd5

 

8... a6

8... Nxe5! 9. Qxd8+ Kxd8 10. fxe5 Nd7 11. Bf4 a6 12. a4 b6

 

9. a4

Perhaps simply 9. O-O

 

9... Be7 10. Qg3 O-O 11. Bd3!

Now castling would be a mistake: 11. O-O?! Nxe5! 12. fxe5 Qd4+ 13. Be3 Nh5!! (13... Qxc4 14. exf6) 14. Qh3 Qxe5! (14... Qxc4!? 15. Qxh5 Qb4) 15. Rae1 Nf6 16. Bd3 Qh5

 

11... Nd5

No better is 11... Ne4 12. Qh3! Nxe5 13. fxe5 Bh4+ 14. g3 Nxc3 15. bxc3 Qd5 16. O-O c4 17. Bxh7+ Kxh7 18. Qxh4+ Kg8 19. Ba3 Rd8 (19... Re8 20. Rxf7!!) 20. Qh5 (20. Qe7!? Rd7 21. Qf8+ Kh7 22. Be7) 20... Rd7 21. Rad1 g6 22. Qh6 Qxd1 23. Qf8+ Kh7 24. Rxd1 Rxd1+ 25. Kf2 Rd7 26. Be7 Rxe7 27. Qxe7

 

12. O-O Nxc3 13. bxc3 Bf6

Perhaps instead 13... f5!? 14. Bc4 Nxe5 15. fxe5 Qe8 16. a5 Qg6

 

14. Bb2

Another idea would be 14. Bd2!?

 

14... Qc7 15. c4 g6

15... Nxe5 16. fxe5 Be7 17. Bc1 Bd8 18. Qh3 h6 19. Bxh6!

 

16. Rf3 Bg7 17. Rd1 Nf6

17... Nb6 18. Qh4 Nxa4 19. Rh3 h5 20. Ba1

 

18. Qh4 b6 19. Rh3 h6 20. g4 Bb7 21. g5 hxg5 22. fxg5 Nh5 23. Re1 Rad8 24. Qg4 Ba8 25. Rxh5!!

25. Bxg6 fxg6 26. Qxe6+ Rf7 27. Rxh5 Rd2! 28. Qxf7+!? (28. Qe8+ Rf8 29. Qe6+=) 28... Qxf7 29. Nxf7 gxh5 30. Nh6+ Bxh6 31. Re8+ Kh7 32. Rxa8 Bxg5=

 

25... gxh5

25... Rxd3 26. cxd3 gxh5 transposes to the game line.

 

26. Qxh5 Rxd3 27. cxd3 Qb7 28. Re4 Rc8 29. Nxf7 Bxb2 30. Qg6+ Kf8

30... Bg7 31. Ne5! Rf8 (31... Qe7 32. Rh4) 32. Qxe6+ Rf7 33. g6 Bxe5 34. gxf7+ Qxf7 35. Rxe5 Qxe6 36. Rxe6

 

31. Nh6!

1-0

[Enzo]


Sandor Porkolab (2000) - Kestutis Andrasiunas (1400) [B21]

FICGS Thematic Tournament 000023/FICGS (1) 2007


1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Ne5 Nf6 5. Bc4 Qd4 6. c3 Bg4 7. Qb3 1-0

 


Fernando Vasquez (1657) - Steven Gaffagan (2037) [B21]

FICGS Thematic Tournament 00002/FICGS (1) 2007


1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Ne5 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nbd7 6. Bc4 e6 7. d3 exd3 8. Qxd3 Be7

Black can always try 8... Nxe5

 

9. O-O  O-O 10. Qe2 Nb6 11. Rd1 Qc7 12. Nb5

But what happens after Qb8? Not sure why this game ended.

 

1-0


Clemens Wlokka (2035) - Johannes Steffan (2305) [B21]

WT/M/GT/252/corr ICCF 1989


1. f4 c5 2. e4 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Ne5 Nd7 5. Bb5 a6 6. Bxd7+ Bxd7 7. Nc3 Nf6 8. d3?!

An inconsistent gambit now that Bishops are exchanged. White can instead recover the pawn with 8. Qe2 Bf5 9. g4 Be6 10. f5 Bd5 11. g5 Qd6 12. Nc4 Bxc4 13. Qxc4 Nd7 14. Qxe4

 

8... exd3 9. cxd3 e6 10. Qf3 Qc7 11. Be3 Rc8 12. O-O Bd6 13. Qg3 O-O 14. Ne4 Nxe4 15. dxe4 f5 16. Nxd7 Qxd7 17. e5 Be7 18. Rac1 c4 19. h4 Rfd8 20. Qf3 Qb5 21. Rf2 Rd3 22. h5 Bc5 23. Re2 Rxe3 24. Rxe3 Qxb2

0-1

[Michael Goeller]


Black plays a compliant ...e6

The most challenging way for Black to play is with Nbd7 and Nf6, keeping open options for dynamic play in the center. As soon as Black plays an early ...e6, White should probably play in true Faj gambit style with an early d3. The following game from Dana Mackenzie offers some excellent ideas for this approach. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of other good examples for those looking to study this pure gambit approach. White can also play simply to recover his pawn at e4, which we will examine in the games of GM Henrik Danielsen below.

Dana Mackenzie (2136) - Nikolay Andrianov (2441) [B21]

Western States Open/Reno, NV USA (1) 2003


1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Ne5 Nf6

The move preferred by Fritz 7, so I had played against it many times. But this was my first human opponent to play it.

 

5. Nc3 e6 6. d3!










Still in home prep. My feeling was that Bc4 and Bb5+ do not really get anywhere.

 

[I agree with Dana -- White should go after anybody who plays the passive e6. Recovering the pawn may not lead to more than sterile equality against best play by Black, e.g.: 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. Qe2 a6 8. Bxd7+ Nbxd7 9. Nxe4 Nxe5 10. Nxf6+ Qxf6 11. fxe5 Qh4+ 12. g3 Qd4 MG]

 

6... exd3 7. Bxd3 Nbd7 8. Qf3

Also possible is Qe2, and it is hard to say which is better.

8. Qe2 Be7 9. Bd2 O-O 10. O-O-O

 

8... a6 9. Be3 Be7

During the game I wasn't really sure what I was going to do about 9... Qc7 However, after the game Fritz 7 showed me the way: 10. O-O-O! Nxe5 11. fxe5 Qxe5 12. Rhf1 with the threat of g4. This is a very characteristic variation. In some ways White is happier to sacrifice two pawns than just one, because it really enhances his lead in development and his open lines. Clearly my opponent, a 2400+ player, understood better than I did that chasing the second pawn would expose Black to unacceptable risks. Instead he tries to refute my gambit in the classical way: accept the gambit pawn and then return it later in an advantageous way. However, it doesn't quite work out for him.

 

10. O-O

Better was 10. O-O-O! Qc7 11. Rhe1!

 

10... O-O 11. Rae1 Qc7 12. Bf2 g6?

This is the one move in the game that I cannot explain. Black seems to be defending against f5, a move that is not even threatened yet, and he does it with a move that only creates more weaknesses on his kingside. It's hard to understand why a player of his caliber would play a move like this.

 

13. Bh4 c4 14. Bxc4 b5 15. Bb3 Bb7 16. Qh3 Nc5

By returning the gambit pawn, Black seems to have taken over the initiative. My next move must have come as a big surprise.

 

17. f5! exf5

An interesting position where White has two tempting sacrifices, and they are both right!

 

18. Bxf7+!

18. Rxf5! also works: after 18... gxf5 ( The computer finds the extraordinary variation 18... Bc8! 19. Rxf6!! Bxh3 20. Nd5 Qa5 21. Nxe7+ Kg7 22. gxh3 with three pieces for a queen. Beautiful as it is, one has to admit that this is a "computer variation.") 19. Qg3+ Ng4 (19... Kh8 20. Nxf7+ Rxf7 21. Qxc7) 20. Bxe7 Qxe7 21. Nxg4 Qxe1+ 22. Qxe1 fxg4 23. Qe7 Rac8 24. Qg5+ Kh8 25. Qf6+ Kg8 26. Nd5.

 

18... Rxf7 19. Nxf7 Kxf7 20. Bxf6 Bxf6 21. Qxh7+ Bg7

 










White to play and win. In a game situation, I doubt that even one player in a hundred would come up with White's correct move.

 

22. Rxf5+?

Wrong!!

 

The right move is 22. Nd5!! I never even considered it. For one thing, I thought that 22. Rxf5+ was winning. But also, psychologically it is very difficult to sacrifice a piece on an empty square. We are all accustomed to line-opening, barricade-smashing sacrifices like Rxf5+, but sacrifices like this one are highly unusual. The point is simply a matter of move order. After the forced 22... Bxd5 23. Rxf5+! gxf5 24. Qxf5+ Kg8 25. Qxd5+ Kh7 26. Qxa8 we get an endgame that is vastly better for White than the one in the game. Most importantly, queens are still on the board, which makes the exposed position of Black's king a serious problem. And almost as important, Black does not have the two bishops.

 

22... gxf5 23. Qxf5+ Kg8 24. Nd5 Rf8!

The move I didn't see -- or, more precisely, didn't evaluate correctly. White wins the battle (he recovers all of his sacrificed material), but he loses the war. Black succeeds in trading queens, and his two bishops are immensely powerful.

 

25. Qxf8+ Kxf8 26. Nxc7 Bxb2 27. Ne6+?!

This move hastens the end, as it leaves White's rook friendless, but White was losing anyway.

 

27... Nxe6 28. Rxe6 a5 29. h4 Bd5 30. Ra6 a4 31. g4 Bxa2 32. g5 a3 33. h5 Bd5

Very discouraging. For the second game in a row, my "Sicili-pest Variation" proved to be just good enough to lose. By 2005, the next time I played the gambit 3. Nf3 dxe4, I had switched my allegiance to the move 4. Ng5. Nevertheless, the move 4. Ne5 has in no way been refuted, and I may come back to it in the future.

 

0-1

[Dana Mackenzie]


Christophe Czekaj (2000) - Steven Gaffagan (2037) [B21]

FICGS Thematic Tournament 00002/FICGS (1) 2007


1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Ne5 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nbd7 6. Bc4 e6

6... Nxe5 7. fxe5 Qd4 (7... Nd7 8. e6) 8. Bb5+ Nd7 9. e6 fxe6 10. Qe2

 

7. d3

A brave decision. White can also try to recover his pawn with:

a) 7. Qe2 Qc7!

b) 7. Bb5 a6 8. Bxd7+ Bxd7 9. Qe2 Rc8 10. Nxe4 Nxe4 11. Qxe4 Bc6 12. Nxc6 Rxc6 13. d3 =

 

7... exd3

7... Nxe5 8. fxe5 Nd7 9. Bf4 exd3 10. Qxd3 a6 11. O-O

 

8. Qxd3!? Be7

Both sides must always consider 8... Nxe5 when here perhaps White has something after 9. Qxd8+ Kxd8 10. fxe5 Nd7 11. Bf4

 

9. O-O  O-O

9... Nxe5

 

10. Qe2 Nb6 11. Bd3 a6 12. Be3 Nbd5 13. Nxd5 Nxd5

13... exd5! 14. c3 Re8

 

14. Rad1! Qc7 15. Bd2 b6 16. c4 Nf6 17. Bc3 Bb7 18. Ng4

18. g4!?

 

18... Nxg4 19. Qxg4 g6

And it is not clear why the game came to a sudden end in such a complex situation. But that often happens with correspondence games.

1-0


White Recovers the Pawn at e4

I corresponded with GM Henrik Danielsen to see if he had any game scores to share from his experiments with the Bryntse-Faj, which were mentioned in the well-known internet article by Thomas Johansson (see bibliography). He was very nice but said he was, understandably, too busy to go searching through his games for me, so I only have two examples from the ICC database. GM Danielsen, best known for his work on the "Polar Bear" approach to the Bird's Opening, which is essentially a Leningrad Dutch Reversed, naturally reaches the Bryntse-Faj via a 1.f4 move order. His idea seems to be to simply recover the e4 pawn by natural development (including Bb5+, Qe2, and Nc3), which is an idea well known from the Faj also.

H-Danielsen (2786) - petur3 (2437) [B21]

ICC 5 0/Internet Chess Club 2002


1. f4 c5 2. e4 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Ne5 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. Qe2 Be7 8. b3!? O-O 9. Bxd7 Nbxd7 10. Bb2 Nxe5?! 11. fxe5 Nd5 12. Nxe4 Qc7 13. O-O Nb4 14. d3 Nc6

 










15. Nf6+! Bxf6 16. exf6 g6 17. Qe3

Black resigns

1-0

[Michael Goeller]


H-Danielsen (2837) - JMatias (2391) [B21]

ICC 5 0/Internet Chess Club (-) 2002


1. f4 c5 2. e4 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Ne5 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bc4 e6 7. a4 Bd6 8. Qe2 Nbd7 9. Nxd7 Bxd7 10. Nxe4 Nxe4 11. Qxe4 Bc6 12. Qe3?! Bxg2 13. Rg1 Qh4+ 14. Qf2 Qxf2+ 15. Kxf2 Be4 16. d3 Bf5 17. h4 h5 18. Be3 g6 19. a5 Kd7 20. Ra3 Be7 21. Kg3 Kc6 22. Rb3 Bd8 23. Ra1 Bc7 24. Rc3 e5 25. Bb3 exf4+ 26. Bxf4 Bxf4+ 27. Kxf4 Rad8 28. Ke5 Rhe8+ 29. Kf6 Rd7 30. Ba4+ Kd6 31. Bxd7 Kxd7 32. Rxc5 Re2 33. Kxf7 Rh2 34. Ra4 Kd6 35. Rc3 Rf2 36. Kg7 Rg2 37. Kf6 Be6 38. Rd4+ Bd5 39. Rc8 Kd7 40. Rc5

Black resigns

1-0

Various Games

I have not had a lot of luck tracking down games with the Bryntse-Faj. I offer the remainder with light notes and include a PGN file for those who wish to do their own study and explorations.

Michael Schulz (2222) - Bernd Kievelitz (2168) [B21]

Berlin Eckbauer op 1999


1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Ne5 Nf6 5. Nc3

Worth exploring is the immediate gambit approach with 5. d3 Nbd7 (5... exd3 6. Bxd3 Nc6 (6... g6?? 7. Nxf7) 7. Nc3) 6. dxe4 Nxe5 (6... Nxe4 7. Nxf7) 7. Qxd8+ Kxd8 8. fxe5 Nxe4 9. Bd3 f5 10. Bxe4 fxe4 11. Nc3 b6 12. O-O Bb7 13. Bf4 g6 14. Rad1+ Kc8 15. e6

 

5... a6 6. Bc4

Perhaps better 6. d3 exd3 7. Bxd3 Nbd7.

 

6... e6 7. a4 b6 8. Qe2 Bb7 9. d3 exd3 10. cxd3 Qd6?!

 










10... Qc7 11. f5 (11. O-O Bd6) 11... Bd6

 

11. O-O

Strong was 11. f5!

 

11... Be7 12. f5 O-O 13. Bf4 Qd4+ 14. Kh1 Nd5 15. Nxf7 Nxf4

15... Qf6 16. Bd2 Qxf7 17. fxe6 Qe8 18. Rxf8+ Qxf8 19. Nxd5

 

16. Rxf4 Qf6?

16... Qxf4 17. Qxe6 Bxg2+ 18. Kxg2 (18. Kg1 Qd4+ 19. Kxg2 Qg4+) 18... Qg4+ 19. Kf1 Qf3+ 20. Kg1 (20. Ke1 Bh4+) 20... Qg4+=

 

17. Ne5

Likely stronger was 17. Raf1! Qxf7 (17... Rxf7 18. fxe6) 18. Bxe6

 

17... Bd6?

Necessary was 17... Kh8

 

18. fxe6 Qe7 19. Rxf8+ Kxf8 20. Rf1+ Ke8 21. Qh5+ Kd8 22. Rf7

Also strong was 22. Nf7+!? Kc8 23. Nd5

 

22... Qe8 23. Rxb7! Qxh5 24. Nf7+ Ke8 25. Nxd6+

and mate next move.

1-0

[Michael Goeller]


kenilworthian (1874) - Michelangelooo (2066) [B21]

Live Chess/Chess.com 2011


1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Ne5 Nf6 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nc3 Nbd7 7. Qe2 Be7 8. Nxe4 O-O 9. d3 Nxe5 10. fxe5 Nd7 11. Bf4 Qc7 12. Ng3 b5 13. Bb3 Bb7 14. O-O a5 15. a4 c4 16. dxc4 b4 17. Rae1 Rad8

17... Bc5+ 18. Kh1 Bd4 19. Nh5!?

 

18. Nh5 g6 19. Nf6+! Nxf6 20. exf6 Qb6+ 21. Kh1?!

21. Be3 Bc5 22. Qf2 Bxe3 23. Rxe3

 

21... Bxf6 22. Be3 Bd4 23. Bh6 Bg7 24. Be3 Qc6 25. c5 Rfe8 26. Qf2 Rf8 27. Rd1 Rxd1 28. Rxd1 Qe4 29. Rf1 h5

29... Bxb2

 

30. c6 Qxc6 31. Bc5 Qe8 32. Bxf8 Qxf8 33. h3 Bxb2 34. Bxe6 Qg7 35. Bxf7+ Kh8 36. Re1 Bd4 37. Re8+ Kh7

and now 38.Qe2 would win, but I lost on time.

 

0-1

[Michael Goeller]


Iwan Topot (1228) - Sebastian Aguilar (1550) [B21]

SL.2003.0.00001/IECG - Chessfriend.com 2003


1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Ne5 Nf6 5. Bb5+ Nbd7 6. Qe2 a6 7. Bxd7+ Bxd7 8. Nc3 e6 9. Nxe4 Be7 10. Ng5!?

a) 10. d3 Nxe4 11. Qxe4 (11. dxe4)

b) 10. b3?! Bb5 11. d3 Nxe4 12. Qxe4 Qd4

 

10... O-O 11. d3 Qb6 12. b3

12. O-O!? c4+ 13. Be3 Qxb2 (13... cxd3 14. Qxd3 Qc7 15. Nxh7 Nxh7 16. Qxd7 Qxd7 17. Nxd7 Rfd8 18. Nb6 Rab8 19. f5) 14. Nxc4 Qc3 15. Rab1 Ba4 16. Rxb7

 

12... Rad8 13. Bd2

a) 13. Bb2? Qb4+

b) 13. O-O!?   c4+ 14. Be3 cxd3 15. Qf2!! Qb4 (15... Qd6 16. Rad1 Nd5 17. Rxd3 Bxg5 18. Bc5 Qb8 19. Bxf8) 16. Nxd3 Qc3 17. Bd4

 

13... Nd5 14. O-O-O   Qc7 15. h4 b5 16. h5 h6 17. Ngf3 a5 18. Nxd7 Rxd7 19. Ne5 Rdd8 20. c4 Nb4 21. Bc3 Bd6 22. g4 f6 23. Ng6 Bxf4+ 24. Nxf4 Qxf4+ 25. Kb1 Rfe8 26. cxb5 Qc7 27. Qe4 Nd5 28. Be1 Qb6 29. a4 Rd6 30. Rc1 Nb4 31. Bxb4 axb4 32. Qg6 1/2-1/2


Matteo Campi (1541) - Andrea Rebeggiani (1800) [B21]

Grand Prix Attack Thematic/SEMI Email 2000


1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Ne5 Nf6 5. b3? Qd4 6. Bb2 Qxb2 7. Nc3 e3!

In the regular Fajarowicz, this move is inadequate because it is simply met wth fxe3. But with the f-pawn at f4, this is suddenly strong and very likely Black's best. Alternatives do not trouble White:

a) 7... Qa3? 8. Bb5+ (8. Nc4 Qa6) 8... Nc6 9. Nc4 Qb4 10. a3

b) 7... Be6!? 8. a3 (8. Bb5+? Nc6 9. Nxc6 a6 10. Nd4+ axb5 11. Ndxb5 Bg4!) 8... Nd5 (8... Bg4 9. Be2 (9. Nxg4 Nxg4 10. Ra2 Ne3 11. Rxb2 Nxd1 12. Kxd1) 9... Bxe2 10. Kxe2 Nc6 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. Ra2 Qxa2 13. Nxa2) 9. Bb5+ Nc6 10. Na4 Qd4 11. c3 (11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. Bxc6+ Bd7 13. Bxa8 Nxf4) 11... Nxc3 (11... Ne3 12. cxd4 Nxd1) 12. dxc3 Qd6 13. Nxc6 a6 14. Nb6 axb5 15. Qxd6 exd6 16. Nxa8 bxc6 17. Nc7+ Kd7 18. Nxe6 Kxe6

c) 7... Nc6 8. Nc4 Bg4 (8... Qxa1 9. Qxa1) 9. Be2 Qxa1 10. Qxa1 Nd4 11. Qd1 Nxe2 12. Nxe2 O-O-O 13. Ne5 Bh5 14. O-O

d) 7... Nd5? is the usual move in the Faj, but here with the Knight at e5 protected it fails simplyto 8. Nxd5

 

8. Rb1 Qa3 9. Bb5+ Bd7

9... Nbd7! 10. Nc4 Qb4 11. a3 exd2+ 12. Qxd2 Ne4

 

10. Nc4 Qb4 11. Bxd7+ Nbxd7 12. O-O  Nb6?

12... b5 13. a3 Qxc3 14. dxc3 bxc4

 

13. a3 Nxc4 14. axb4 Nxd2 15. Qe2 Nxb1 16. Qb5+ Nd7 17. Rxb1 e6 18. Rd1 O-O-O 19. Ra1?!

19. bxc5

 

19... e2! 20. bxc5 Bxc5+ 21. Kh1 Bb6 22. Na4

22. Qxe2

 

22... e1=Q+ 23. Rxe1 Bc7 24. g3 h5 25. c4 h4! 26. Kg2 hxg3 27. hxg3 Nf6

27... Nb8

 

28. c5 a6 29. Qe2 Rh5 30. Ra1 Rdh8 31. Qc4 g5 32. Nb6+ Kb8 33. Qd4 Rh2+ 34. Kf3 g4+ 35. Ke3 Bxb6 36. cxb6 Nd5+ 37. Kd3 Rd8 38. Qe5+ Ka8 39. Qg5 f6

0-1


Matteo Campi (1541) - Andrea Rebeggiani (1800) [B21]

Grand Prix Attack Thematic/SEMI Email 2000


1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Ne5 Nf6 5. b3 Qd4 6. Bb2 Qxb2 7. Nc3 e3 8. Rb1 Qa3 9. Bb5+ Bd7 10. Nc4 Qb4 11. Bxd7+ Nbxd7 12. O-O Nb6 13. a3 Nxc4 14. axb4 Nxd2 15. Qe2 Nxb1 16. Qb5+ Nd7 17. Rxb1 e6 18. Rd1 O-O-O 19. Ra1 e2 20. bxc5 Bxc5+ 21. Kh1 Bb6 22. Na4 e1=Q+ 23. Rxe1 Bc7 24. g3 h5 25. c4 h4 26. Kg2 hxg3 27. hxg3 Nf6 28. c5 a6 29. Qe2 Rh5 30. Ra1 Rdh8 31. Qc4 g5 32. Nb6+ Kb8 33. Qd4 Rh2+ 34. Kf3 g4+ 35. Ke3 Bxb6 36. cxb6 Nd5+ 37. Kd3 Rd8 38. Qe5+ Ka8 39. Qg5 f6 0-1


Fernando Vasquez (1657) - Christophe Czekaj (2000) [B21]

FICGS Thematic Tournament 00002/FICGS (1) 2007


1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Ne5 a6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. d3 exd3 7. Bxd3 Qc7 8. O-O Nc6 9. Re1 e6 10. Ng4 Nxg4 11. Qxg4 b5 12. f5 c4 13. Be4 Bc5+

13... b4 14. Bf4 Qb6+ 15. Be3 Qc7 16. Nd5 exd5 17. Bxd5

 

14. Kh1 g6 15. fxe6 Bxe6 16. Qf3 Rc8 17. Nd5 Qa7 18. Nf6+ Ke7 19. Bxc6 Rxc6 20. Qxc6 Kxf6 21. Bh6 g5 22. Rxe6+ fxe6 23. Rf1+ Bf2 24. Qf3+ 1-0


Hilton Paul Bennett - Manfred Rosenboom [B21]

CP.1997.P.00023/IECG (1) 1998


1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Ne5 a6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. d3

6. Bc4 e6 7. a4 Nbd7 8. Qe2 Nxe5 9. fxe5 Nd7 10. Qxe4 Nxe5!

 

6... exd3 7. Bxd3 Nbd7 8. Qf3

8. Qe2 g6 (8... Nxe5 9. fxe5 Nd5 10. Nxd5 Qxd5 11. Be4!) 9. Bd2 Bg7 10. O-O-O O-O 11. h3

 

8... Qc7 9. Qg3 g6 10. O-O Bg7 11. Re1

11. Be3 b6

 

11... Nh5 12. Qg5

12. Qh4 Nxe5 13. fxe5 Bxe5 14. Nd5 Qd6 15. Nxe7 Qd4+ 16. Qxd4 Bxd4+ 17. Be3 Be6

 

12... Nxe5

12... f6?? 13. Bxg6+

 

13. fxe5 c4! 14. Bf1 h6

14... Be6! 15. g4 h6 16. Qh4 Nf4 17. Bxf4 g5 18. Bxg5 hxg5 19. Qxg5 Bh6

 

15. Qe3 Be6 16. g4 Bxg4 17. Nd5 Qd8 18. Bxc4 O-O!? 19. Qc5 e6 20. Nb6 Qh4 21. Re4 Rad8 22. Be3 Qh3 23. Bf1 Qf3 24. Rb4 Ng3 25. Bf4 Qh1+ 26. Kf2 Nxf1 27. Rb3 g5 28. Rxf1 Rd2+ 0-1


Hilton Paul Bennett - David J. Cooper [B21]

New Zealand ch-64/corr 1997


1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Ne5 Nc6 5. Bb5 Bd7 6. Nxc6

Better seems 6. Bxc6 Bxc6 7. Nxc6 bxc6 8. Nc3 Nf6 9. Qe2 Qd4 10. Qa6 Qd7

 

6... bxc6

6... Bxc6 7. Bxc6+ bxc6 8. Nc3

 

7. Bc4 g6 8. d3 Nf6 9. dxe4 Nxe4 10. Qf3 Qa5+ 11. Bd2 Nxd2 12. Nxd2 Bg7 13. c3 O-O 14. O-O Rab8 15. Bb3 Qc7 16. Rae1 e5 17. Qe3 exf4 18. Qxc5 Rb5 19. Qe7 Re5 20. Rxe5 Bxe5 21. Ne4 Kg7 22. Re1 Bf5 23. Qh4 h6 24. Nd2 a5 25. Qf2 Re8

ETL

0-1

kenilworthian (1730) - DevinCamenares (1650) [B21]

Casual correspondence/Chess.com 2010


1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 Bg4










4. h3 dxe4?!

It's unfortunate that my opponent did not play the most challenging line with 4...Bxf3, as it would be useful to know how best to meet this approach by Black. After 4... Bxf3 5. Qxf3 (or 5. Bb5+ Nc6 6. Qxf3 e6 7. Nc3) 5... Nc6 (Black can also try 5... dxe4 or 5... e6) 6. Bb5 e6 Black has decent chances.

 

5. hxg4 exf3 6. Qxf3 Qb6 7. Na3 Nc6 8. Bb5 O-O-O 9. Bxc6 Qxc6 10. Qxc6+ bxc6 11. Nc4 f6 12. d3 e6 13. g5 Ne7 14. Bd2 Nd5 15. gxf6 gxf6 16. O-O-O Nb6 17. Ba5 Kb7 18. Rde1 Re8 19. Nd2 Nd5 20. f5 e5 21. Ne4 Be7 22. Rh6 Reg8 23. g3 Bf8 24. Rh3 h6 25. c4 Nb4 26. Bxb4 cxb4 27. Nxf6 Rg5 28. Rf1 Bg7 29. Ne4 Rg4 30. f6 Rf8 31. Rf2 Rxe4 32. dxe4 Bxf6 33. Kc2 Bg7 34. Rxf8 Bxf8 35. Rh5 Bg7 36. Rf5 Kb6 37. Rf7 Bh8 38. Rh7 1-0

[Michael Goeller]


Some Fajarowicz Examples with a Black ...f5

In trying to learn more about how best to play the Bryntse-Faj, I looked for some examples where Black plays the Faj with an early ...f5, leading to positions very similar to the Bryntse-Faj but with colors reversed. Likely more games like these could be found and they might offer ideas for both players.

Helgi Olafsson (2535) - David Olafsson (2270) [A51]

Reykjavik Open/Reykjavik (8) 1994


1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ne4 4. Nd2 Bb4 5. a3 Bxd2+ 6. Bxd2 Nc6 7. Bf4 Qe7 8. Nf3 f5

 










9. h4! b6 10. e3 Bb7 11. Bd3 O-O-O 12. Qc2 h6 13. O-O-O Rdf8 14. h5 Nc5 15. Bxf5 Rxf5 16. Qxf5 Nb4 17. axb4 Be4 18. Rxd7 Nb3+ 19. Kd1 Qxb4 20. Qxe4 Nc5 21. Rxc7+ Kxc7 22. e6+ Kd8 23. Qd5+ 1-0

[Michael Goeller]


Dieter Gerke - Michael Gegner [A51]

Dortmund ABC Aufstreber/Dortmund (3) 2000


1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ne4 4. Nf3 d6 5. Qd5 f5










6. exd6 Bxd6 7. e3 Nc6 8. a3 Qe7 9. Qd1 Be6 10. Be2 g5 11. b4 Ne5 12. c5 Nxf3+ 13. gxf3 Be5 14. fxe4 Bxa1 15. exf5 Bxf5 16. Bh5+ Bg6 17. Bxg6+ hxg6 18. Qc2 Qe6 19. Nc3 Bxc3+ 20. Qxc3 O-O-O 21. Bb2 Qe4 22. Rg1 Qf3 23. Qc2 Rxh2 24. Bd4 g4 25. Qe2 Rh1 26. Qxf3 Rxg1+ 0-1

[Michael Goeller]

download pgn

Games in PGN

 

Bibliography

Chesspub forum, Names or Games with 1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5 3.Nf3 dxe4 4.Ne5

Michael Goeller, McDonnell's Anti-French

_______, Grand Prix with Na3!?

_______, Left Hook Grand Prix on Video

_______, The Nuclear Option in the Sicilian Grand Prix

Thomas Johansson, Bryntse - Smith, Correspodence 1967

Dana Mackenzie, Queen Sac Variation / Bryntse Gambit Update

_______, Mackenzie - Pruess, Western States Open 2006 (see also comments at Chessgames.com)

_______, Why Not Nuke the Caro?

 

Copyright © 2011 by Michael Goeller