Chess Opening Theory/1. f4/1...d5/2. e4

Williams gambit A03 Bird's opening → Dutch variation Scandinavian defence 2. e4? · Williams gambit White offers Black the e-pawn for free. It is very similar to the Englund gambit (1. d4 e5) with colours reversed. After 2...dxe4 Black has a clear lead, but White has the opportunity to try the same sort of traps seen in the Englund gambit: 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Qe2 Bf5 (Black looks to hold on to the extra pawn) 5. Qb5+ Bd7 6. Qxb7?! where 6...Bc6?? is a game losing blunder to 7. Bb5!, pinning the bishop to the king. Rather 6...Nc6 followed by 7...Rb8 is winning for Black. (Compare the Englund gambit main line, 1. d4 e5? 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Bf4 Qb4+ 5. Bd2 Qxb2?!.) 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 exd3 5. Ne2!? (White appears to blunder the knight, as if a pre-move mistake) dxe2?? 6. Bxf7+ (removes defender of queen) Kxf7 7. Qxd8. (Compare the Wu trap in the England gambit, 1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. exd6 Ne7!? 5. dxe7?? Bxf2+ 6. Kxf2 Qxd1.) Simplest for Black is just to give the pawn back, and convert the tempo White spends on recovering the pawn into developing moves. History The identity of the "Williams" behind this gambit is a little uncertain. The second edition of the Oxford Companion attributes it to Elijah Williams, a nineteenth century chess player.The Oxford Companion to Chess Hooper David Oxford University Press 1992 0198661649 2nd Oxford 448 Wyld Kenneth However, this is probably incorrect: no games where Elijah Williams played this line are cited by the book or are otherwise attested in databases. A 1997 monograph on the gambit written by a William L. Williams disputed the Oxford Companions account. Williams asserted they originated the gambit in 1975.The Williams Gambit Williams William L. Caissa editions 1997 9780939433506 Yorklyn, DE, USA Twelve of their games from 1975 onwards appeared in one database attributed to a "W. Williams",Williams v Arnett, 1975. MillionBase. however in some versions of the database this was given as Walford Hall Williams. Sample game 1. f4 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Qe2 Qd4 5. h3 a6 6. g4 g6 7. Bg2 Nc6 8. Nxe4 1 right In this position, Black played 8...h6??."Williams, W." versus Cranford, W., 1982Williams v Cranford, 1982. MillionBase.1. f4 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Qe2White is threatening e4, but Black would like to keep the extra material. 4...Qd4!?Better perhaps is a normal developing move, 4...Bf5 (defending the pawn) or 4...Bg4 (attacking the queen). White may continue with the reversed Englund gambit line, 5. Qb5+, but as long as Black avoids the trap of 5...Bd7 6. Qxb7?! Bc6?? there is no danger. After the text move, 5. Qb5+ is still possible where 5...Bd7?? falls into the trap but 5...Nc6 defuses it. 5. h3Not strictly necessary. White prevents 5...Bg4 but even if 5. g3 Bg4? is a mistake. 6. Qb5+! and White is winning at least a pawn: 6...Nbd7 7. Qxb7 Rb8 8. Qxc7. 6...Nc6 loses a knight: the difference between this position and that after 4...Bg4 5. Qb5+ is that Black's queen is not on the back rank to defend the rook. 5...a6 6. g4 g6 7. Bg2Black cannot now bring another defender to the pawn.7...Nc6 8. Nxe4 h6??8...Nxe4 was necessary to save the game. With their queen on e2 and the e-file half-open, White can exploit Black's uncastled king.9. c3 Qd8?? 10. Nxf6# 1-0' 9. c3 drives the queen away from controlling f6, allowing White to take the knight and Black cannot take back due to the pin on the e-file. Black's knight is lost regardless, but 9...Qd8?? was the worst place to move the queen, as it takes away the king's escape square and 10. Nxf6# is checkmate. Theory table 0 2...dxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Qe2 Bf5 5. Qb5+ Bd7 6. Qxb7 Nc6 7. Bb5 Rb8 8. Qa6 Nd4 ++ Williams gambit 2. ... ... 3. ... ... 4. ... ... 5. ... ... 6. ... Bc6?? 7. Bb5! -- (trap) 2. ... 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 exd3 5. Ne2!? dxe2?? 6. Bxf7+ Kxf7 7. Qxd8 -- (trap) References See also