The BryntseFaj
1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5! 3.Nf3 dxe4 4.Ne5!?
By Michael Goeller, with games and notes by Dana Mackenzie
The BryntseFaj 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 "Sicilipest" by way of acknowledging the Budapest connection. Though I have tossed around various names myself, I finally settled on the BryntseFaj 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 BryntseFaj 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 setup (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 BryntseFaj 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 BryntseFaj.
In my fickle opening studies, I have since moved on to other openings entirely, leaving the McDonnell French and the BryntseFaj 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 BryntseFaj, 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 BryntseFaj 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.
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.
Strangely, after playing somewhat passively in the early going, Black switches into a hyperaggressive 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.
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.
10
[Dana Mackenzie]
Dana Mackenzie (2131)  James AlShamma (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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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 "Sicilipest."
01
[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.
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

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
1/21/2
[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
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+

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.
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.
16. d4 Kb8 17. Nxh8 cxd4 18. Bf4+ Ka7 19. a4 Qxb2 20.
10
[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.
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.
Another Fajinspired 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.
01
[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
b) 6. Nc4!?
6... Nxe5
6... e6 7. Qe2 Qc7 8. Nxd7 (8. Nxe4 Nxe5)
8... Bxd7 9.
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.
17... Kd7 18. Bf4 Bd6 19. Rfe1
18. Bf4 Bd6 19. Rae1 Kd7 20. Rxe5 gxh5 21. Rxf5 Rd8 22. cxd3 b5 23. Rxh5
10
[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.
8. Bxd3 Be7 9. Be3 (9. Qe2 a6 10. Bd2 Qc7 11.
8... a6
8... Nxe5! 9. Qxd8+ Kxd8 10. fxe5 Nd7 11. Bf4 a6 12. a4 b6
9. a4
Perhaps simply 9.
Now castling would be a mistake: 11.
11... Nd5
No better is 11... Ne4 12. Qh3! Nxe5 13. fxe5 Bh4+ 14. g3 Nxc3 15. bxc3 Qd5 16.
Perhaps instead 13... f5!? 14. Bc4 Nxe5 15. fxe5 Qe8 16. a5 Qg6
14. Bb2
Another idea would be 14. Bd2!?
15... Nxe5 16. fxe5 Be7 17. Bc1 Bd8 18. Qh3 h6 19. Bxh6!
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!
10
[Enzo]
Sandor Porkolab (2000)  Kestutis Andrasiunas (1400) [B21]
FICGS Thematic Tournament 000023/FICGS (1) 2007
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.
But what happens after Qb8? Not sure why this game ended.
10
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.
01
[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.

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]
Also possible is Qe2, and it is hard to say which is better.
8. Qe2 Be7 9. Bd2
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.
10.
Better was 10.
10...
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.
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 lineopening, barricadesmashing 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 "Sicilipest 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.
01
[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:
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.
Both sides must always consider 8... Nxe5 when here perhaps White has something after 9. Qxd8+ Kxd8 10. fxe5 Nd7 11. Bf4
9... Nxe5
10. Qe2 Nb6 11. Bd3 a6 12. Be3 Nbd5 13. Nxd5 Nxd5
14. Rad1! Qc7 15. Bd2 b6 16. c4 Nf6 17. Bc3 Bb7 18. Ng4
18. g4!?
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.
10
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 BryntseFaj, which were mentioned in the wellknown 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 BryntseFaj 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.
HDanielsen (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!?

15. Nf6+! Bxf6 16. exf6 g6 17. Qe3
Black resigns
10
[Michael Goeller]
HDanielsen (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
10Various Games
I have not had a lot of luck tracking down games with the BryntseFaj. 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.
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.
11.
Strong was 11. f5!
11... Be7 12. f5
15... Qf6 16. Bd2 Qxf7 17. fxe6 Qe8 18. Rxf8+ Qxf8 19. Nxd5
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.
10
[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
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.
01
[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
12.
b) 13.
13... Nd5 14.
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 fpawn 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
d) 7... Nd5? is the usual move in the Faj, but here with the Knight at e5 protected it fails simplyto 8. Nxd5
9... Nbd7! 10. Nc4 Qb4 11. a3 exd2+ 12. Qxd2 Ne4
10. Nc4 Qb4 11. Bxd7+ Nbxd7 12.
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
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
01
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.
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.
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+ 10
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!
8. Qe2 g6 (8... Nxe5 9. fxe5 Nd5 10. Nxd5 Qxd5 11. Be4!)
9. Bd2 Bg7 10.
8... Qc7 9. Qg3 g6 10.
12. Qh4 Nxe5 13. fxe5 Bxe5 14. Nd5 Qd6 15. Nxe7 Qd4+ 16. Qxd4 Bxd4+ 17. Be3 Be6
12... Nxe5
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
Hilton Paul Bennett  David J. Cooper [B21]
New Zealand ch64/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
ETL
01kenilworthian (1730)  DevinCamenares (1650) [B21]
Casual correspondence/Chess.com 2010

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
[Michael Goeller]
Some Fajarowicz Examples with a Black ...f5
In trying to learn more about how best to play the BryntseFaj, I looked for some examples where Black plays the Faj with an early ...f5, leading to positions very similar to the BryntseFaj 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
[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
[Michael Goeller]
Bibliography
Chesspub forum, Names or Games with 1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5 3.Nf3 dxe4 4.Ne5
Michael Goeller, McDonnell's AntiFrench
_______, 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