Hubbry Logo
Evans GambitEvans GambitMain
Open search
Evans Gambit
Community hub
Evans Gambit
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Evans Gambit
Evans Gambit
Evans Gambit
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Evans Gambit
abcdefgh
8
a8 black rook
c8 black bishop
d8 black queen
e8 black king
g8 black knight
h8 black rook
a7 black pawn
b7 black pawn
c7 black pawn
d7 black pawn
f7 black pawn
g7 black pawn
h7 black pawn
c6 black knight
c5 black bishop
e5 black pawn
b4 white pawn
c4 white bishop
e4 white pawn
f3 white knight
a2 white pawn
c2 white pawn
d2 white pawn
f2 white pawn
g2 white pawn
h2 white pawn
a1 white rook
b1 white knight
c1 white bishop
d1 white queen
e1 white king
h1 white rook
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Moves1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4
ECOC51–C52
Origin1827
Named afterWilliam Davies Evans
ParentGiuoco Piano

The Evans Gambit is a chess opening that begins with the moves:

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Bc5
4. b4

The Evans Gambit is an attacking line of the Giuoco Piano. White offers a pawn to divert the bishop on c5. If Black accepts, White can follow up with c3 and d4, ripping open the centre, while also opening diagonals to play Ba3 or Qb3 at some point, preventing Black from castling kingside and threatening the pawn on f7, respectively. If Black declines, the pawn on b4 stakes out space on the queenside, and White can follow up with a4 later in the game, potentially gaining a tempo by threatening to trap Black's dark-square bishop.

According to Reuben Fine, the Evans Gambit poses a challenge for Black since the usual methods of handling aggressive gambits from White are more difficult to achieve than with other gambits. Fine was once beaten by this gambit in a friendly game against Bobby Fischer, in just 17 moves.[1] The gambit was very popular during the era of Romantic chess in the 19th century.[2]

The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings has two codes for the Evans Gambit, C51 and C52. C52 contains lines beginning 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5, the main line. C51 contains all other lines.

This article uses algebraic notation to describe chess moves.

History

[edit]

The gambit is named after the Welsh sea captain William Davies Evans, the first player known to have played it. The first game with the opening is considered to be Evans–McDonnell, London 1827, although in that game a slightly different move order was tried (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.0-0 d6 and only now 5.b4). In his monthly Chess Life column, Andrew Soltis commented that Evans was "the first player to be widely honored for an opening we know he played".[3] Dutch Grandmaster Paul van der Sterren described the Evans Gambit as "unreal" and "fairylike".[4]

The first analysis of the gambit was published in the Second Series of Progressive Lessons (1832) by William Lewis.[5] The gambit became extremely popular and was played several times in the series of games between McDonnell and Louis de la Bourdonnais in 1834. Players including Adolf Anderssen, Paul Morphy and Mikhail Chigorin later took it up. The Evergreen Game won by Adolf Anderssen against Jean Dufresne opened with the Evans Gambit. Eventually, however, the second world chess champion Emanuel Lasker dealt a heavy blow to the opening with a modern defensive idea: returning the pawn under favourable circumstances. The opening was out of favour for much of the 20th century, although John Nunn and Jan Timman played it in some games in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In the 1990s, Garry Kasparov used it in a few games (notably a famous 25-move win against Viswanathan Anand in Riga, 1995[6]), which prompted a brief revival of interest in it. The gambit has proven resilient under modern analysis, with no clear refutation.[2]

Main Line: 4...Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5

[edit]
abcdefgh
8a8 black rookb8c8 black bishopd8 black queene8 black kingf8g8 black knighth8 black rook8
7a7 black pawnb7 black pawnc7 black pawnd7 black pawne7f7 black pawng7 black pawnh7 black pawn7
6a6b6c6 black knightd6e6f6g6h66
5a5 black bishopb5c5d5e5 black pawnf5g5h55
4a4b4c4 white bishopd4 white pawne4 white pawnf4g4h44
3a3b3c3 white pawnd3e3f3 white knightg3h33
2a2 white pawnb2c2d2e2f2 white pawng2 white pawnh2 white pawn2
1a1 white rookb1 white knightc1 white bishopd1 white queene1 white kingf1g1h1 white rook1
abcdefgh
Evans Gambit, Main Line, 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4

Black's usual response is to accept the gambit with 4...Bxb4. 4...Nxb4 is less flexible as 5.c3 Nc6 effectively transposes into the inferior retreat 4...Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5. After 5.c3 the usual retreat is 5...Ba5, which pins the pawn on c3 if White plays 6.d4, but it has the drawback of removing the option of moving to the square a5 from the black knight. Later, Black will often retreat the bishop to b6 in order to facilitate ...Na5. White then usually follows up with 6.d4, entailing a second pawn offer; 6.0-0 and 6.Qb3 are alternatives.

6.d4 exd4

[edit]

White cannot respond with 7.cxd4 due to the pin by Black's bishop on a5. While 7.Nxd4 is possible, it sets Black few problems and White usually prefers to offer a second pawn with 7.0-0 or 7.Qb3 (preferred by Nigel Short), though Black usually does not accept it.

Mieses Defence: 7.0-0 Nge7

[edit]
abcdefgh
8a8 black rookb8c8 black bishopd8 black queene8 black kingf8g8h8 black rook8
7a7 black pawnb7 black pawnc7 black pawnd7e7 black knightf7 black pawng7 black pawnh7 black pawn7
6a6b6c6 black knightd6e6f6g6h66
5a5 black bishopb5c5d5 black pawne5f5g5 white knighth55
4a4b4c4 white bishopd4 black pawne4 white pawnf4g4h44
3a3b3c3 white pawnd3e3f3g3h33
2a2 white pawnb2c2d2e2f2 white pawng2 white pawnh2 white pawn2
1a1 white rookb1 white knightc1 white bishopd1 white queene1f1 white rookg1 white kingh11
abcdefgh
Mieses Defence, Main Line, 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 Nge7 8.Ng5 d5

The move 7...Nge7, the Mieses Defence, was formerly rare, but was recommended by Vasily Panov in the 1960s and is now considered one of the main lines of the Evans Gambit.[7] Black intends to meet 8.Ng5 or 8.cxd4 with 8...d5 (8.Ng5 0-0? is weak due to 9.Qh5 h6 10.Nxf7 Rxf7 11.Bxf7+), returning the pawn in many lines.

Compromised Defence: 7.0-0 dxc3

[edit]

The materialistic 7...dxc3, dubbed the "Compromised Defence", accepts the second pawn offered by White. It is well met by 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qg6 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3! with a very dangerous initiative for the sacrificed pawns, and thus is not well regarded.

Anderssen Defence: 7.0-0 Nf6

[edit]

7...Nf6 is known as the Anderssen Defence, with the common continuations 8.Ba3 d6 9.e5, aiming to open lines for both of White's bishops, 8.e5 d5 followed by 9.exf6 or 9.Bb5, 8.cxd4 Nxe4 9.d5 Ne7 11.Qd4 Nf6, and 8.cxd4 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5, transposing to the Mieses Defence.

Other replies to 7.0-0

[edit]
  • Following 7.0-0, 7...d6 and 7...Bb6 are two common alternatives, usually with the idea of reaching the "Normal Position" after 7...d6 8.cxd4 Bb6 or 7...Bb6 8.cxd4 d6. The position is also commonly reached from 5...Bc5. Black may avoid it, typically with 8...Nf6 or 8...Bg4.
  • 7.0-0 d6 8.Qb3 is known as the Waller Attack, an alternative for White to the Normal Position.
  • 7.0-0 d3, with the idea of depriving the knight of the c3 square and slowing down White's development, was played by Jean Dufresne in the famous Evergreen Game, but has never been popular.

7.Qb3

[edit]

This move has received increased attention in recent decades, most notably by Nigel Short. As White has established a battery along the b3–f7 diagonal that threatens Black's king, Black must defend the pawn or else allow a later Bxf7+, forcing the king to move and lose castling rights. As such, Black usually responds with 7...Qe7 or 7...Qf6 (which may later be kicked with an e5 by White). In either case, play most often continues 8.0-0 Bb6, with Black adding another defender to the pawn on d4.

6.d4 d6

[edit]
abcdefgh
8a8 black rookb8c8d8 black knighte8 black kingf8g8 black knighth8 black rook8
7a7 black pawnb7 black pawnc7 black pawnd7e7f7 black pawng7 black pawnh7 black pawn7
6a6b6 black bishopc6d6e6 black bishopf6g6h66
5a5b5c5d5e5 white knightf5g5h55
4a4b4c4 white bishopd4e4 white pawnf4g4h44
3a3b3c3 white pawnd3e3f3g3h33
2a2 white pawnb2c2d2e2f2 white pawng2 white pawnh2 white pawn2
1a1 white rookb1 white knightc1 white bishopd1e1f1 white rookg1 white kingh11
abcdefgh
Lasker Defence, Main Line, 6.d4 d6 7.0-0 Bb6 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.Qxd8+ Nxd8 10.Nxe5 Be6

With this move, Black supports the pawn on e5, opens the square d7 for the queen, and unblocks the c8–g4 diagonal for the queen's bishop. White most often continues with 7.Qb3 or 7.0-0. 7.dxe5, as well as 7.Bg5, the Sokolsky Variation, are also seen.

Lasker Defence: 7.0-0 Bb6

[edit]

Following 7.0-0, a common response for Black is 7...Bb6, originated by Emanuel Lasker. It most often continues 8.dxe5 (8.a4 is an alternative but not as well regarded[2]) dxe5 9.Qxd8+ Nxd8 10.Nxe5 Be6. Although less ambitious than other options, this variation takes the sting out of White's attack by returning the gambit pawn and exchanging queens, and according to Fine, "is psychologically depressing for the gambit player" whose intent is usually an aggressive attack. Mikhail Chigorin analysed the alternative 9.Qb3 Qf6 10.Bg5 Qg6 11.Bd5 Nge7 12.Bxe7 Kxe7 13.Bxc6 Qxc6 14.Nxe5 Qe6, which avoids the exchange of queens, but reached no clear verdict.

Tartakower Attack: 7.Qb3

[edit]
abcdefgh
8a8 black rookb8c8 black bishopd8e8 black kingf8g8 black knighth8 black rook8
7a7 black pawnb7 black pawnc7 black pawnd7 black queene7f7 black pawng7 black pawnh7 black pawn7
6a6b6c6 black knightd6 black pawne6f6g6h66
5a5 black bishopb5c5d5e5 black pawnf5g5h55
4a4b4c4 white bishopd4 white pawne4 white pawnf4g4h44
3a3b3 white queenc3 white pawnd3e3f3 white knightg3h33
2a2 white pawnb2c2d2e2f2 white pawng2 white pawnh2 white pawn2
1a1 white rookb1 white knightc1 white bishopd1e1 white kingf1g1h1 white rook1
abcdefgh
Tartakower Attack, Main Line, 7.Qb3 Qd7

This line is the most frequent and avoids the Lasker Defence. As in other lines with Qb3, Black must defend the pawn or else allow a later Bxf7+. Black's most common response is 7...Qd7. The weaker 7...Qe7 permits 8.d5, forcing the awkward move 8...Nd4, but following 7...Qd7, 8...Ne7 can be played instead. 7...Nh6 does not effectively defend the pawn either as White can simply play 8.Bxh6. Following 7...Qd7, White most often plays 8.dxe5, 8.0-0, or 8.Nbd2. Following any of these, Black can return the pawn with 8...Bb6 or hold onto it with 8...dxe5, though White obtains sufficient compensation in lines following this move.

Other lines

[edit]

Following 7.0-0, Black has several alternative moves. 7...Bd7 is known as the Sanders–Alapin Defence. It is regarded as solid.[2] 7.0-0 exd4 transposes to the main line with 6...exd4. 7...Bg4 and 7...Nf6 are also seen. Additionally, 7.dxe5 is a lesser seen alternative for White.

Other lines

[edit]
abcdefgh
8a8 black rookb8c8 black bishopd8 black queene8f8 black rookg8 black kingh88
7a7 black pawnb7 black pawnc7 black pawnd7 black pawne7f7 black pawng7 black pawnh7 black pawn7
6a6b6c6 black knightd6e6f6 black knightg6h66
5a5 black bishopb5c5d5e5 white knightf5g5h55
4a4b4c4 white bishopd4 white pawne4 white pawnf4g4h44
3a3b3c3 white pawnd3e3f3g3h33
2a2 white pawnb2c2d2e2f2 white pawng2 white pawnh2 white pawn2
1a1 white rookb1 white knightc1 white bishopd1 white queene1f1 white rookg1 white kingh11
abcdefgh
Richardson Attack, 6.0-0 Nf6 7.d4 0-0 8.Nxe5
  • 6.0-0, the Slow Variation, is a notable alternative for White, though 6.d4 is significantly more common. Black most often plays 6...Nf6 or 6...d6. The latter usually transposes to the 6.d4 d6 line after 7.d4, but the former features notable independent lines. For example, 6...Nf6 7.d4 0-0 8.Nxe5 is dubbed the Richardson Attack.
  • 6.Qb3, a move usually delayed by at least another move by White, is a playable sideline.[2] Black most often defends against the battery with 6...Qe7. Following this, White usually plays 7.d4 or 7.0-0. Black may then play 7...exd4 to transpose to the main line with 6...exd4, but 7...Nf6 is more challenging for White. An alternative for Black is 6...Qf6, which can also transpose. 6...Nh6 is possible but rare.
  • 6.d4 b5 is the Leonhardt Countergambit, which most often continues 7.Bxb5 Nxd4 8.Nxd4 exd4, followed by either 9.Qxd4 or 9.0-0.

4...Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5

[edit]
abcdefgh
8a8 black rookb8c8 black bishopd8 black queene8 black kingf8g8 black knighth8 black rook8
7a7 black pawnb7 black pawnc7 black pawnd7e7f7 black pawng7 black pawnh7 black pawn7
6a6b6 black bishopc6 black knightd6 black pawne6f6g6h66
5a5b5c5d5e5f5g5h55
4a4b4c4 white bishopd4 white pawne4 white pawnf4g4h44
3a3b3c3d3e3f3 white knightg3h33
2a2 white pawnb2c2d2e2f2 white pawng2 white pawnh2 white pawn2
1a1 white rookb1 white knightc1 white bishopd1 white queene1f1 white rookg1 white kingh11
abcdefgh
Normal Position, 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 d6 8.cxd4 Bb6

5...Bc5 is often played by those unfamiliar with the Evans Gambit, and is regarded as inferior to 5...Ba5 and 5...Be7,[2] because 6.d4 (the usual next move) attacks the bishop again, gaining tempo, and Black's options are limited compared to 5...Ba5.

Normal Position: 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 d6 8.cxd4 Bb6

[edit]
abcdefgh
8a8 black rookb8c8 black bishopd8 black queene8f8 black rookg8 black kingh88
7a7 black pawnb7 black pawnc7 black pawnd7e7f7 black pawng7 black pawnh7 black pawn7
6a6b6 black bishopc6d6 black pawne6f6g6 black knighth66
5a5 black knightb5c5d5 white pawne5f5g5h55
4a4b4c4d4e4 white pawnf4g4h44
3a3b3c3d3 white bishope3f3 white knightg3h33
2a2 white pawnb2 white bishopc2d2e2 white knightf2 white pawng2 white pawnh2 white pawn2
1a1 white rookb1c1d1 white queene1f1 white rookg1 white kingh11
abcdefgh
Ulvestad Variation, Main Line, 9.d5 Na5 10.Bb2 Ne7 11.Bd3 0-0 12.Nc3 Ng6 13.Ne2

The Normal Position is the main line after 4...Bc5, and can be reached by various other move orders, and in fact is more often reached from 5...Ba5 lines. It has frequently been played ever since the 1834 La Bourdonnais–McDonnell matches. It was very common in the 19th century but is not as well regarded in the present.[2] Black is content to settle for a one-pawn advantage and White seeks compensation in the form of open lines and strong central pawns.

Other possible move orders include 6.d4 exd4 7.cxd4 Bb6 8.0-0 d6, and as mentioned earlier, from the main line of the gambit via 5...Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 d6 8.cxd4 Bb6. Comparably to in the main line, Black avoids playing 7...dxc3 because of threats such as 8.Bxf7+ Kxf7 9.Qd5+ Kf8 (or 9...Ke8) 10.Qxc5+ d6 11.Qxc3.

9.d5 and 9.Nc3 are the most common next moves for White. In response to the former, Black usually plays 9...Na5. White often plays 10.Bb2, known as the Ulvestad Variation, which frequently continues 10...Ne7 (or 10...Nf6; 10...Nxc4 allows 11.Bxg7, dooming Black's rook on h8; 10...f6 is playable but not well regarded for Black[2]) 11.Bd3 0-0 12.Nc3 Ng6 13.Ne2.

Following 9.Nc3, the Morphy Attack, preferred by Mikhail Chigorin and Morphy,[2] the usual continuations are 9...Na5 10.Bg5, the Göring Attack, and 9...Bg4 10.Qa4, the Fraser Attack.

Göring Attack: 9.Nc3 Na5 10.Bg5

[edit]
abcdefgh
8a8 black rookb8c8 black bishopd8 black queene8 black kingf8g8 black knighth8 black rook8
7a7 black pawnb7 black pawnc7 black pawnd7e7f7 black pawng7 black pawnh7 black pawn7
6a6b6 black bishopc6d6 black pawne6f6g6h66
5a5 black knightb5c5d5e5f5g5 white bishoph55
4a4b4c4 white bishopd4 white pawne4 white pawnf4g4h44
3a3b3c3 white knightd3e3f3 white knightg3h33
2a2 white pawnb2c2d2e2f2 white pawng2 white pawnh2 white pawn2
1a1 white rookb1c1d1 white queene1f1 white rookg1 white kingh11
abcdefgh
Göring Attack: 9.Nc3 Na5 10.Bg5

This line is named after Carl Theodor Göring, who played it in several games against Johannes Minckwitz in 1869. The Göring Attack came into fashion after Mikhail Chigorin played it against Wilhelm Steinitz in 1883, and scored brilliant successes with it.[8] Modern Chess Openings describes it as a "tricky" opening, "which can be refuted only if you know the right moves".[9]

Other lines

[edit]

White can also play 7.Ng5 after 6.d4 exd4. The usual continuation is 7...Nh6 8.Nxf7 Nxf7 9.Bxf7 Kxf7 10.Qh5+, forking Black's king and bishop on c5. Black can then gain the initiative by chasing White's queen (though Black's king is weak), so the line is not well regarded.[2]

White also has the option of 7.cxd4 after 6.d4 exd4, which may transpose to the main lines with 7...Bb6, or Black may opt to play 7...Bb4+ instead, most often continuing 8.Nbd2 or 8.Kf1.

Also playable for Black after 6.d4 is 6...Bb6, but White is regarded as having a small advantage following 7.Nxe5 Nxe5 8.dxe5 Ne7, where Black's position is quite cramped, though White has a poor pawn structure.[2]

Evans Gambit Accepted, other lines

[edit]
  • 5...Be7, the Anderssen Variation, is the most frequent alternative to 5...Ba5 and has often been considered one of the "safer" retreats, as the bishop can assist in the defence of the king, though often results in the return of the pawn.[2] It has been played by Viswanathan Anand. After 6.d4 Na5, the usual continuation, White can attempt to maintain an initiative with 7.Be2 (7.Bd3 is another option), or immediately recapture the pawn with 7.Nxe5. In the former lines, play usually continues with 7...exd4 8.Qxd4, popularised by Garry Kasparov, who is seen as having revitalized 7.Be2,[2] or alternatively 7...d6. After 7.Nxe5, play most often continues 7...Nxc4 8.Nxc4, where White has a strong center but has given up the bishop pair. 6.Qb3 is also possible, most often continuing 6...Nh6 7.d4 Na5.[2]
  • 5...Bd6 is the Stone–Ware Variation, named after Henry Nathan Stone and Preston Ware. It reinforces the pawn on e5 but blocks Black's pawn on d7 from moving. It has been played by several grandmasters such as Andrei Volokitin, Alexander Grischuk and Loek van Wely.
  • 5...Bf8 is the Mayet Defence. It is rarely seen as it undevelops Black's bishop.

Evans Gambit Declined

[edit]
abcdefgh
8a8 black rookb8c8 black bishopd8 black queene8 black kingf8g8 black knighth8 black rook8
7a7b7 black pawnc7 black pawnd7 black pawne7f7 black pawng7 black pawnh7 black pawn7
6a6 black pawnb6 black bishopc6 black knightd6e6f6g6h66
5a5b5c5d5e5 black pawnf5g5h55
4a4 white pawnb4 white pawnc4 white bishopd4e4 white pawnf4g4h44
3a3b3c3 white knightd3e3f3 white knightg3h33
2a2b2c2 white pawnd2 white pawne2f2 white pawng2 white pawnh2 white pawn2
1a1 white rookb1c1 white bishopd1 white queene1 white kingf1g1h1 white rook1
abcdefgh
Showalter Variation, 4...Bb6 5.a4 a6 6.Nc3

There are various ways to decline the gambit, most often with 4...Bb6. Due to the wasted tempo, most commentators consider declining the Evans Gambit to be weaker than accepting it and returning the pawn at a later stage. Aron Nimzowitsch claimed in his book My System that declining the gambit does not lose a tempo, since b4 is developmentally unproductive, "as is every pawn move, if it does not bear a logical connection with the centre. For suppose after 4...Bb6 5.b5 (to make a virtue of necessity and attempt something of a demobilizing effect with the ill-moved b-pawn move), 5...Nd4 and now if 6.Nxe5, then 6...Qg5 with a strong attack."[10]

  • 4...Bb6 5.a4 a6 (5...a5 is an alternative but allows 6.b5, kicking Black's knight) is the most common continuation and often leads to the Showalter Variation (5...a6 6.Nc3). Black usually responds with 6...Nf6 or 6...d6. White seems to have a small advantage with a space advantage on the queenside.[2]
  • 4...Bb6 5.b5 Na5 leads to various known lines, such as the Lange Variation (6.Nxe5 Nh6). Black is considered to have an advantage as White's attack is premature.[2]
  • 4...Bb6 may also be followed by 5.0-0, 5.c3, and 5.Bb2 (the Cordel Variation).
  • 4...d5, counterattacking White's bishop on c4, is the Evans Countergambit.
  • 4...Be7 is possible but passive.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Evans Gambit

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Evans Gambit is an aggressive within the , where White sacrifices a pawn on the fourth move to gain rapid development, central control, and attacking chances against Black's uncastled king. The main line begins with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4, offering the b4-pawn; if Black accepts with 4...Bxb4, White continues 5.c3, forcing Black to retreat the while White develops quickly with moves like 6.d4 and 7.O-O. This gambit embodies the tactical spirit of 19th-century , prioritizing initiative and piece activity over material equality. Named after British sea captain William Davies Evans (1790–1872), the opening was first analyzed and played by him in 1826 against Alexander McDonnell in , though it gained wider recognition in the 1830s through European chess publications. Evans, a Welsh-born naval officer, popularized the line during his travels, and it was dubbed the "Gambit du Capitaine Evans" in the French journal Le Palamède in 1838. The gambit rose to prominence in the mid-19th century, featured extensively in periodicals like the Chess Player’s Chronicle (1844) and Deutsche Schachzeitung (1849), and became a favorite of attacking masters such as , who used it to devastating effect in the 1850s. In modern theory, the Evans Gambit remains viable, particularly in faster time controls like blitz, due to its complexity and Black's defensive challenges, though sound lines like the Lasker Defense (6...d6) allow Black to return the pawn for equality. Notable 20th- and 21st-century adopters include , who revived interest with aggressive play in the 1990s, and it continues to appear in grandmaster games for its psychological edge and tactical richness. Variations include the Declined line (4...Bb6), where Black avoids capturing but concedes space, and the gambit has been refined through extensive analysis in chess literature since the .

Overview

Moves and Notation

The Evans Gambit is a line of the that begins with the moves 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4. With 4.b4, White sacrifices the b4-pawn to the black bishop, aiming to disrupt Black's development and seize the initiative. If Black accepts the gambit by capturing 4...Bxb4, White immediately challenges the bishop with 5.c3, forcing it to move again while opening lines for the queen and supporting a subsequent d2-d4 push. This provides White with compensation through rapid development, particularly of the queenside pieces and central control, often leading to an open position where White's active pieces outweigh the material deficit. After 5.c3, Black's most common responses include retreating the bishop to 5...Ba5 (the main line acceptance) or 5...Bc5 (the McDonnell Defense, returning the bishop to its original square). The position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 features White's pawn on c3 attacking the bishop (which has captured on b4), White's light-squared bishop eyeing f7, with Black's knight on c6 and bishop now on a5. In the 5...Bc5 variation (McDonnell Defense), the black bishop retreats to c5—its original square—while having captured the b-pawn, maintaining pressure on f2. White can regain the pawn with 6.d4. If Black declines the gambit by not capturing on b4 (e.g., 4...Bb6 or 4...Nf6), the game can transpose into quieter lines such as the after White plays 5.c3 or develops further.

Strategic Ideas

The Evans Gambit offers White a dynamic opportunity to seize the initiative by sacrificing a pawn early, aiming primarily for rapid development and central dominance. White's key goals include establishing strong central control through the d4 push, which challenges Black's e5 pawn and opens lines for the queen and , while facilitating quick kingside to safeguard the king and activate the rook. This setup enables aggressive kingside attacks, exploiting the gambit's inherent gain to pressure Black's underdeveloped position. Black faces significant challenges in coordinating development, as the acceptance of the gambit often leads to a misplaced (on a5 or b6) and weaknesses in the , particularly around the kingside and center. White's compensation lies in superior piece activity, where open files and diagonals allow bishops and the queen to target vulnerable squares like f7, prioritizing long-term attacking potential over the material deficit. This imbalance forces Black into defensive maneuvers, potentially delaying and exposing the king to threats. Core strategic concepts revolve around the pawn sacrifice's value in gaining , compelling Black's to retreat and thereby accelerating White's . Open lines emerge as a hallmark, with the b-file and long diagonals providing avenues for White's pieces to infiltrate, emphasizing activity and coordination over static material counts. Common motifs include the pin against Black's on c6, which restricts counterplay and supports central advances; the formation of a battery along the e-file with queen and rook for direct threats; and the f2-f4 push, which bolsters while intensifying kingside pressure by opening further lines for attack.

History

Origins and Early Development

The Evans Gambit was invented by Captain William Davies Evans, a Welsh seafarer born in 1790, who devised the opening while aboard ship during the mid-1820s. Evans, serving in the Royal Navy, conceptualized the pawn sacrifice on the fifth move as an aggressive continuation of the Italian Game, aiming to accelerate development and launch a kingside attack. The gambit bears his name in recognition of this innovation, though he was not a professional chess player but rather an amateur enthusiast. The first recorded game featuring the Evans Gambit occurred in 1827 in , where Evans himself employed it against Alexander McDonnell, the leading English player of the time, and secured a victory. This encounter, played in a casual setting at a chess club, marked the gambit's practical debut, though it remained obscure initially. By the early , the opening began to appear in print; it was first analyzed and published in William Lewis's Second Series of Lessons on the Game of Chess in 1832, which included the Evans-McDonnell game and introduced the line to a wider audience. Subsequent coverage in magazines such as Bell's Life in followed, with anonymous Evans Gambit games reported as early as 1838, further disseminating the variation among British players. During the Romantic era of chess in the mid-19th century, the Evans Gambit rose to prominence as an emblem of bold, sacrificial play within the framework, appealing to the era's emphasis on tactical brilliance over positional restraint. Its adoption accelerated through informal matches and club play in , particularly in and , where it suited the aggressive styles favored by players of the period. Key early theorists contributed to its theoretical foundation; notably, , the era's preeminent English master, provided extensive analysis in his influential The Chess-Player's Handbook (1847), praising the gambit's dynamic potential while exploring Black's counteroptions. By the , the opening had spread via international tournaments, cementing its status as a staple of competitive chess in the Romantic tradition.

Notable Players and Games

The Evans Gambit was championed in the mid-19th century by , who frequently employed it to showcase aggressive, sacrificial play characteristic of the Romantic era. Anderssen, a leading figure in European chess, used the gambit to secure victories in informal and tournament settings, contributing to its reputation as a weapon for rapid development and kingside attacks. , the unofficial world champion during his 1858 European tour, also adopted the opening to dominate opponents, integrating it into his repertoire of variations for quick initiative. , the first official World Chess Champion, advocated for the Evans as a sound gambit despite his positional style, playing it extensively both as White and Black in over 30 recorded games, often emphasizing central control after the pawn sacrifice. One of the most iconic encounters featuring the Evans Gambit is the "Evergreen Game" between Anderssen and his student Jean Dufresne in , 1852, where Anderssen unleashed a brilliant series of sacrifices, culminating in a queen and rook combination to deliver on move 23. This casual game, analyzed extensively in 19th-century chess literature, highlighted the gambit's attacking potential and inspired generations of players. In the late 19th century, revived interest in the Evans Gambit through his dynamic style, using it to challenge Steinitz in their 1892 match in , where Chigorin won the first game after 5...Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0, pressuring Black's center and queenside. Chigorin's advocacy helped sustain the gambit's viability in top-level play, including multiple attempts at the 1895/96 St. Petersburg tournament. , Steinitz's successor as champion, countered the Evans with innovative defenses, notably the Lasker Defence (6...d6), first prominently featured in his 1895/96 game against Chigorin, where Black aimed to simplify by exchanging queens while retaining the extra pawn. This line, along with the Anderssen Defence (7...Nf6), emerged from these high-stakes matches, refining Black's responses and influencing Evans theory by balancing White's initiative against material compensation. The gambit also powered tournament successes, such as Harry Pillsbury's three wins with it at 1895, underscoring its role in 19th-century competitive chess.

Accepted Variations

Main Line with 5...Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0

In the main line of the Evans Gambit Accepted, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0, has castled kingside, offering a second pawn on d4 while gaining rapid development and central pressure. This position leaves Black facing the choice of capturing on c3, developing the kingside , or other moves, with typically aiming to regain the gambited pawn via cxd4 or launch an immediate attack using Qb3 to target f7 and Re1 to support e4-e5 advances. Black's counterplay often involves challenging the center with ...d5 or accelerating development to contest 's initiative, though engines evaluate most continuations as roughly equal, favoring 's activity in practical play. White's strategic plan emphasizes piece activity over , with Qb3 pressuring the weakened kingside and potential sacrifices to expose Black's king before . Black must avoid passive defense, as delays in counterattacking the center can allow White to consolidate with moves like Ba3 pinning the knight or Rad1 increasing pressure on d4. The Mieses Variation arises with 7...Nge7, a solid but somewhat passive response that defends e5 indirectly while preparing ...d5. White often continues 8.Ng5, targeting f7, and after 8...d5 9.exd5 Ne5 10.Qb3 (or 10.Qxd4), Black can equalize with 10...f6, though the position remains complex with White retaining attacking chances due to Black's slightly cramped development. This line is considered drawish in engine assessments but requires precise play from Black to neutralize White's threats. In the Compromised Defence, 7...dxc3 accepts the second pawn but concedes central space and invites 8.Qb3, where White's queen eyes b7 and f7 while the rook on f1 supports e4-e5. Black gains a material edge but weakens the queenside; common continuations like 8...Qf6 9.e5 Qg6 10.Re1 lead to White regaining material with active pieces, often leaving Black's position overextended. Though Black secures some space on the queenside, the line is risky as it dilutes counterplay options and favors White's initiative in unbalanced middlegames. The Anderssen Counterattack with 7...Nf6 is an aggressive development that challenges e4 immediately, aiming for rapid kingside activity. typically responds with 8.cxd4 to reclaim the pawn, followed by e5 to gain space, but Black can counter with ...d5 or ...Nxe4 if overextends. This variation offers Black dynamic chances through open lines but is tactically sharp and risky, as inaccuracies can expose the king; engines view it as equal, yet scores well in practice due to Black's need for exact defense against threats like Ng5 or Re1.

Lasker Defence with 6...d6

In the Lasker Defence of the Evans Gambit, Black responds to White's 6.d4 with 6...d6, supporting the e5-pawn while delaying immediate central confrontation and aiming for a solid pawn structure. This move, popularized by Emanuel Lasker in the late 19th century, allows Black to retreat the bishop to b6 after White's development, often transposing into quieter positions that neutralize White's early initiative. Database statistics from over 1,000 games show White scoring approximately 52% wins in this variation, indicating a slight but persistent edge due to superior piece activity. White's main continuations are 7.0-0, developing the rook and preparing central play, or the more aggressive 7.Qb3, known as the Tartakower Attack after Savielly Tartakower's advocacy in the early 20th century. Following 7.0-0, Black typically plays 7...Bb6, retreating the bishop to safety and challenging White's center with ...exd4 on the next move if desired, while preparing ...Na5 to attack the c4-bishop. Black may follow with ...Nge7 or ...0-0 for kingside development, maintaining a compact setup that limits White's attacking avenues. The Tartakower Attack with 7.Qb3 pressures the f7-pawn and gains time on the a5-bishop, often leading to 7...Qd7 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.Ng5, where White sacrifices the e-pawn for rapid kingside initiative and open lines against Black's king. This line creates sharp complications, with White's knight on g5 eyeing f7 and h7, while Black must defend precisely to avoid material loss; for instance, 9...Nf6 10.exf6 Qxd1+ 11.Kxd1 leaves White with active pieces and a strong attack despite the disrupted pawn structure. Modern engine evaluations, such as those from Stockfish, assess positions after 9.Ng5 as favorable for White (+0.8 to +1.2 pawns equivalent) due to the lead in development and attacking chances, though Black can equalize with accurate play like ...0-0 and ...Na5. Black's typical setup in both 7.0-0 and 7.Qb3 lines involves ...Bb6 to safeguard the , followed by ...Na5 to or displace the c4-, and ...0-0 for king safety, resulting in a solid but somewhat passive position where retains pressure through central control and piece coordination. This defence effectively tempers the gambit's sharpness, as evidenced by its historical success in reducing the Evans Gambit's popularity at elite levels until modern revivals.

Other Accepted Responses

In the Evans Gambit after 5...Ba5, White has several alternatives to the sharp 6.d4, including the quieter 6.d3, which supports a development while maintaining the gambit pawn's tension. This move avoids immediate central confrontation, allowing White to prepare and piece coordination without risking overextension; Black typically responds with 6...d6 or 6...Nf6 to solidify the center, leading to balanced positions where White's lead in development compensates for the pawn deficit, though engines evaluate it as roughly equal. Another sixth-move option for White is 6.0-0, an early that prioritizes safety and rook activation before committing the center. This sideline escapes the pin on the c3-pawn and pressures Black's position, often prompting 6...exd4 to open lines or 6...d5 as a counter-push to challenge White's center immediately. Following 6...d5, White can reply with 7.Qb3, targeting the weakened f7-pawn and forcing Black into defensive maneuvers; database statistics from show White achieving a 52% win rate in this line at intermediate levels (under 2000 Elo), reflecting practical attacking chances despite theoretical equality. The 7.Qb3 variation arises directly after 6.d4 exd4 7.Qb3, an aggressive alternative to the standard 7.0-0 that intensifies pressure on f7 and aims to exploit Black's uncoordinated pieces. Black's common reply is 7...Qe7, defending the pawn while preparing development, but this is considered dubious as it blocks the knight's path and invites White's 8.0-0 or 8.Bb2 to reinforce the attack; for instance, White can follow with Nc3 and Re1, maintaining initiative in . Alternatively, 7...Na5 attacks the c4-bishop and seeks counterplay on the queenside, met by White's 8.Bb2 to develop with or 8.0-0 to consolidate; these lines lead to dynamic equality per , with White's active pieces offsetting the imbalance. Among minor defenses, 7...Be7 after 6.d4 exd4 offers a solid retreat, aiming to return the pawn via ...dxc3 later while preserving options, though it cedes some initiative to rapid mobilization. This move has gained popularity in modern play for its reliability, with 365Chess database results indicating a 48% White win rate across 1,200+ games, underscoring balanced outcomes when avoids greed. Similarly, the premature 7...dxc3 without prior development (e.g., knights or bishops active) exposes king, allowing 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 to launch a strong kingside assault; master database stats show winning 55% of such positions, as struggles to coordinate amid the open center.

Bc5 Retreat Lines

5...Bc5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0

In the Evans Gambit, Black's retreat with 5...Bc5 (also known as the McDonnell Defense) immediately after 5.c3 invites White to challenge the center forcefully with 6.d4, aiming to regain the gambit pawn while developing rapidly. Black typically responds 6...exd4, and after 7.0-0, the position sharpens as White castles kingside, preparing further aggression. This sequence, known as the "Normal Position" in some analyses, often continues with 7...d6 8.cxd4 Bb6, where Black supports the knight on c6 and retreats the bishop to a safer diagonal, resulting in a tense central with White's d4-pawn supported and providing central control. White's primary strategies in this position revolve around exploiting the bishop pair advantage, often initiating a dxe5 break to open the center and target Black's king, or developing with Qb3 to pressure the f7-pawn and coordinate with the light-squared bishop on c4. Black counters by seeking development with moves like ...Na5 to challenge the c4-bishop or ...Nge7 to safeguard the king and prepare ...d5, aiming to consolidate the extra pawn while avoiding overextension. The bishop pair gives White long-term compensation for the , as the open lines favor the two bishops over Black's knights in many scenarios. A key tactical idea arises if Black errs in development, such as delaying ...d6, allowing White to play Ng5 and fork the king and rook on h8, a common trap that underscores the gambit's aggressive nature. This line differs from the main 5...Ba5 variation primarily in Black's earlier bishop retreat, which cedes some tempo but simplifies the structure. Modern engine evaluations favor White with a slight edge here, around +0.5 to +0.7 pawns, due to the dynamic potential despite Black's material advantage.

Alternative Sixth-Move Options

In the Bc5 retreat line of the Evans Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5), White's most aggressive sixth-move option is 6.d4, but alternatives like 6.0-0 provide dynamic development without immediately committing the center pawn. This move prepares d2-d4 on the following turn while safeguarding the king, often transposing into familiar structures or similar to the Normal Position (after Black's 6...d6 7.d4 exd4 8.cxd4 Bb6) where White regains the gambited pawn but secures rapid piece activity and central superiority. A more restrained choice, 6.d3, bolsters the e4 pawn and invites quiet play, effectively declining the gambit's sharper implications in favor of a solid setup with 's bishop pair intact and potential for gradual queenside expansion. Such lines typically result in balanced positions with minimal risk for , though they forgo the initiative associated with the central push. Black's rarer responses after 6.d4 further deviate from standard . The central counter 6...d5 opens the position early, challenging 's e4 pawn and leading to complications where aims for quick equality, but retains a slight edge through better development (e.g., 7.exd5 Nxd5 8.0-0). Alternatively, 6...exd4 7.0-0 without the supportive 7...d6 exposes to tactical pitfalls, such as the erroneous 7...dxc3? 8.Bxf7+ Kxf7 9.Qd5+ forcing the king into the open with significant advantage for . These deviations generally yield less sharp play than the main 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 d6 continuation, with engine evaluations hovering near equality but practical results favoring White due to Black's occasional inaccuracies in unfamiliar territory; database statistics from club-level games show White scoring around 55% in such sidelines, lower than the gambit's core aggressive variants.

Declined Variations

4...d5 Counter-Gambit

In the Evans Gambit, Black's 4...d5 immediately counters White's aggressive pawn offer by striking at and the on c4, transforming the opening into the Evans Countergambit. This decline avoids accepting the b4-pawn and instead seeks dynamic equality through central control and potential material gain on e5. White's most common reply is 5.exd5, opening the e-file and challenging Black's structure, after which Black must choose a recapture or development plan to maintain balance. The principal recapture 5...Nxd5 positions the knight actively in but leaves it vulnerable to the bishop on c4 and pawn advances. White typically follows with 6.d4, accelerating development and targeting the e5-pawn while pressuring the knight; for instance, 6...exd4 7.cxd4 Bb6 8.0-0 allows White a lead in piece activity and open lines for the Bc4, providing compensation for the gambit pawn through rapid mobilization and kingside attacking chances. Black counters by developing the light-squared bishop and queenside pieces to contest , but imprecise play can leave the knight overextended. Theoretical evaluations assess this line as approximately equal with accurate defense, as Black's central pawn majority offsets White's initiative. An alternative is 5...Na5, sidestepping the recapture to attack the c4-bishop and eye the b4-pawn, though it temporarily misplaces the on the rim. White can 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Be2 or push 6.d4 for central , maintaining on e5 and gaining time on the knight; risky attempts like 6.Bxf7+ transpose toward Gambit-style sacrifices, which favor Black due to the advanced b4-pawn disrupting White's coordination. Black gains queenside but concedes central , allowing White development advantages and Bc4 as compensation. Precise play leads to equality, with Black's structure holding firm against White's activity. Black may also try 5...Nxb4, greedily securing the gambit pawn while ignoring the d5-pawn. White responds forcefully with 6.0-0, castling into play and preparing to exploit the misplaced ; after 6...Nf6 7.Nxe5, White wins the e5-pawn, gaining a central pawn for the flank pawn and a strong initiative, as Black's on b4 remains awkwardly placed. This option favors strategically, as the material trade bolsters White's development lead, though Black can develop actively to mitigate.

Other Declined Moves

In the Evans Gambit, Black's other declined responses to 4.b4—beyond the counter-gambit with 4...d5—encompass infrequent options such as 4...Nxb4, 4...d6, and 4...Be6, which neither capture the offered pawn nor challenge White's directly. These moves typically lead to passive positions where Black struggles for equality, as White regains the initiative through rapid development and central control. The capture 4...Nxb4, taking with the knight instead of the bishop, is rare, occurring in only about 2% of games in databases. White counters effectively with 5.c3, forcing 5...Nc6 and transposing to a position resembling the accepted main line (4...Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5) but with Black's knight having retreated, resulting in a lost . This favors White's space advantage, as subsequent play like 6.d4 exd4 7.cxd4 often leaves Black's pieces uncoordinated, with evaluations around +0.15 indicating a slight but practical edge for . Some lines may transpose toward structures if Black develops the kingside knight early, but White maintains pressure on the center. Moves like 4...d6, intended to support the e5-pawn, overlook the unprotected on c5, allowing to win with 5.bxc5 dxc5 6.d4 exd4 7.c3, opening lines for the pieces while isolating Black's c5-pawn. This results in a significant developmental lead for and is considered dubious, appearing sporadically in historical games from the but avoided in modern theory due to Black's clear disadvantage. Similarly, 4...Be6 develops the c8- prematurely without addressing the threat to c5, permitting 5.bxc5, which wins the outright since Black has no legal recapture on c5, giving a decisive advantage. can follow with rapid development to consolidate the extra piece. These responses underscore the gambit's soundness, as declining without counterplay cedes the initiative.

Modern Assessment

Engine Evaluations and Theory

Modern chess engines consistently evaluate the Evans Gambit as a sound and viable opening for White, granting a modest but tangible advantage in the main lines following acceptance. , for instance, assesses the position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.O-O as approximately +0.4 to +0.6 in White's favor at deep search depths, emphasizing White's rapid development and central control over the sacrificed pawn. Similarly, showcased the gambit's potential in its 2018 match against , selecting the Evans Gambit in game 10 and converting its initiative into a decisive win through aggressive piece play. Long-standing myths of a complete refutation for the Evans Gambit—often citing outdated 19th-century analyses—have been thoroughly debunked by contemporary engine evaluations, which demonstrate that Black cannot safely retain the b4-pawn without facing overwhelming compensation in the form of White's lead in time and attacking chances. In lines where Black attempts to consolidate the material gain, such as premature development moves, engines like quickly reveal tactical vulnerabilities, awarding White evaluations exceeding +1.0. These assessments confirm the gambit's theoretical soundness, with White's advantage persisting through accurate play up to move 15 or beyond in principal variations. Theoretical refinements in the 2020s have focused on Black's counterplay options, particularly in the Lasker Defence (5...Be7), where resources like an early ...Qf6 have emerged to challenge White's d4 push and Nc3 development, often leading to more balanced middlegame structures around equality. This move, popularized in online databases and engine-assisted analysis, addresses earlier weaknesses by defending e5 more actively and preparing ...Re8, though White retains practical chances through 6.d4 or Na3 setups. Database statistics from the Masters collection, covering games from 2200+ rated players through 2025, show White achieving a 55% win rate in Evans Gambit positions, underscoring its effectiveness at elite amateur and professional levels despite Black's equalization paths. The 2025 Opening Encyclopaedia highlights the Evans Gambit's enduring viability in faster time controls, positioning it as a potent surprise weapon in rapid and blitz encounters where its tactical sharpness can exploit Black's unfamiliarity, even as classical theory stabilizes around slight White edges.

Popularity in Contemporary Play

In recent years, the Evans Gambit has experienced a notable revival as a surprise weapon in rapid and blitz events, capitalizing on its dynamic to generate immediate attacking chances against unprepared opponents. During the 2024 Chess tournament, a variant format discouraging draws, employed it to defeat , while used it successfully against Bassem Amin, highlighting its effectiveness in high-stakes, fast-paced play. Similarly, in the April 2025 Freestyle Chess Grand Slam knockout in , Carlsen and Nakamura revisited the opening in their match, underscoring its occasional resurgence among elite players seeking variety beyond standard lines. At club and amateur levels, the Evans Gambit maintains steady adoption, appearing in approximately 3-5% of positions on platforms like and , where it yields White a win rate of 55-60% due to Black's frequent inaccuracies in the sharp lines. Streamers and online content creators, including Nakamura in casual streams, have popularized it further by showcasing its "fun" and aggressive potential, fostering positive sentiment as a "menace" opening that disrupts solid defenses. Several factors contribute to this contemporary appeal: widespread access to chess engines has facilitated deeper preparation of its complications, making it viable even against informed play, while its bold style aligns with aggressive repertoires favored in shorter time controls. In contrast to more positional openings like the , the Evans Gambit offers rapid development and kingside pressure, attracting players who prioritize initiative over equality.

References

  1. https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-evans-gambit-a-history
  2. https://www.chess.com/blog/BoboTheFlyingSheep67/the-evans-gambit-a-complete-guide
  3. https://chessdoctrine.com/chess-openings/kings-pawn/evans-gambit/
  4. https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/evansgambit.html
  5. https://en.chessbase.com/post/evans-gambit-for-the-new-generation
  6. https://www.chessworld.net/evans-gambit.asp
  7. https://thechessworld.com/articles/openings/evans-gambit-complete-opening-guide/
  8. https://www.simplifychess.com/evans-gambit/index.html
  9. https://chesspathways.com/evans-gambit/
  10. https://en.chessbase.com/post/john-nunn-learn-to-play-the-evans-gambit
  11. https://chess-teacher.com/evans-gambit/
  12. https://biography.wales/article/s3-EVAN-DAV-1790
  13. https://www.chess.com/blog/introuble2/captain-evans-and-his-gambit-in-19th-century
  14. https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Chess_Player_s_Handbook.html?id=Zu0IAAAAQAAJ
  15. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=10342
  16. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=10358
  17. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=C51
  18. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018961
  19. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1264014
  20. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1036422
  21. https://www.365chess.com/eco/C52_Evans_gambit_Lasker_defence
  22. https://www.chessable.com/blog/evans-gambit/
  23. https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-evans-gambit-modern-play
  24. https://chesstempo.com/game-database/opening/italian-game-evans-gambit-lasker-defense/887
  25. https://www.365chess.com/eco/C52_Evans_gambit_Tartakower_attack
  26. https://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=20&n=3216&ms=e4.e5.Nf3.Nc6.Bc4.Bc5.b4.Bxb4.c3.Be7&ns=3.5.7.11.15.16.20
  27. https://chess-teacher.com/counter-evans-gambit-as-black/
  28. https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/nxb4-in-evans-gambit
  29. https://www.chess-openings-for-beginners.blogspot.com/2019/08/ewans-gambit-answering-moves-how-to-respond.html
  30. https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/1872/how-should-white-continue-after-nxb4-in-the-evans-gambit
  31. https://www.scribd.com/document/447007780/Italian-Game-C50-59-annotated-games-1850-1950
  32. https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/at-what-rating-does-the-evans-gambit-fall-off
  33. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEylXLEJ-Eg
  34. https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/1041/what-is-the-main-purpose-of-the-evans-gambit
  35. https://www.quora.com/Has-Evans-Gambit-been-busted-Why-is-it-not-seen-in-high-level-games
  36. https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1f4y4ux/which_is_the_best_variation_to_against_evans/
  37. https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/why-does-no-one-play-evans-gambit
  38. https://en.chessbase.com/post/opening-encyclopaedia-review-nagesh-havanur-p1
  39. https://www.chess.com/news/view/2024-casablanca-chess-day-1
  40. https://en.chessbase.com/post/casablanca-chess-2024-d1
  41. https://en.chessbase.com/post/new-chessbase-magazine-222
  42. https://www.chess.com/openings/Giuoco-Piano-Game-Evans-Gambit
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.