Does anyone here have any thoughts about, or know of good reference material for the Evans gambit? I have seen it a few times and thought it was an interesting gambit but can't seem to find much theory behind it. Does anyone here have experience with it or can offer their thoughts about it?

The Evans is about as old as openings get.

About books, I'd think about Harding and Cafferty's "Play the Evans Gambit". For general information (on all openings not too modern), the famous "Handbuch des Schachspiels".

I know it's not exactly a new opening...I just don't see much discussion on it in forums. Thanks for the book. What do you personally think about the opening? What opponents is it most effective against?

I like Tim Harding's "Evans Gambit and a System against the Two Knights Defense" although I think I found one hole in it's analysis, and need to find an alternate line (but haven't done the research since I'm not playing much these days).

I love the Evans gambit, although, honestly, there are lots of good gambit lines in the Italian complex (4.d4 is interesting, as is 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4). There's a ton of play here, enough to keep a casual player busy for his entire career.

These are great choices for the developing player, as you'll get a big center, open lines, and a development advantage to launch your attack with.

The nice thing about the Harding book is the system against the 2N; this is the same system recommended in "The Italian Gambit System" - 4.d4 ed 5.e5 - a much better choice for the developing player than 4.Ng5, which gives black lots of compensation.

Heh, well, popularity is irrelevant for openings like the Evans Gambit. It's overall a very nice gambit. Declining and returning the pawn being a little more complicated than most gambits I know of.

If you play the Evans, you're in it to attack. You'll end up with one of three things (if you go through theory);
- A rather dull and depressing game after black returns the pawn and swaps off a bunch of stuff.
- Decently placed pieces giving you a bit of a positional advantage, mostly coming out of 'retreat' variations.
- A lost game, down up to 2 pawns according to computers, with an attack that can be tough to meet.

Which I suppose is true for most gambits. It works best against docile opponents that like to sit back (again true for most gambits). As I said, computers have chopped up the swashbuckling lines but they will still work for us non-titled players because there really is enough in them. Personally I think it's one of the best gambits available.


Ronaldinho, I just love seeing that Ng5 garbage in the 2N

That's the same line I play in the Two Knights. I chose it because I wanted a line that MCO considers playable, yet is seen infrequently enough that most of my opponents won't know it. All I really know about it is what I read in MCO-14, but I've gotten some decent games with it.

I use the similar line in the Giuoco Piano (4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. e5) rather than the typical Moller attack, just to get my opponents out of book and keep myself in familiar territory.

Of course, I rarely get to play either these days, as nobody over 1400 USCF rating seems to play e5 against 1. e4. And oddly enough, the last three times I did get 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 as white, my opponents played the Philidor (2. ... d6) twice, and the Hungarian Defense (2. ... Nc6 3. Bc4 Be7) once.

--Fromper

It is most effective against those who don't know how to play against it. There are several lines where if Black is careful he should neutralize the attack and then be equal or better. As a surprise weapon, the opening is viable at even the highest levels but against a well prepared black opponent it is probably no better than equal.

Out of curiosity, Crash, which lines do you think neutralize white's attack?

Well its been a long time since I have looked at it and all of the three games that I have played within the time frame where I kept track of my games in an electronic database were played early in a chess comeback after a long layoff but nonetheless I have won all three games that I played after

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.O-O d6 7.d4 Bb6 though I did play this move one move prematurely in one game and it would have just transposed back into the main line if my opponent had chosen his play more carefully.

Guard f7 with as many pieces as are attacking it and you should be fine as black. I must say that I was not totally comfortable with my position in two of those games during the game but analysis after the game showed that I was fine and I did manage to get overwhelming positions in all three. I tried to return some of the material in all three games but in each case white spurned the offer in favour of complications that quickly fizzled out.

I have looked at some of the other lines and it seemed to me that black was okay in them too but the Ba5-b6 retreat after accepting the gambit suits me best. It also seems to me that Black's pieces seem to get developed more quickly than white's and so white's attack should not succeed.

Ah, yeah. Lasker's defense.

My general approach is to not allow it by playing 6.d4! rather than 6.0-0. Then 6. ... d6 7.Qb3 Qd7 8.dxe5 when dxe5 seems to give white a very good attack, whereas 8. ... Bb6 when 9.Nbd2 Na5 10.Qc2 Ne7!? is the position I need to re-examine, since the theoretical continuation involves a sacrifice which I no longer have confidence in, but most people will play 10.Nxc4 which I'm happy to face. White can sidestep this whole variation, in any event, by playing 9.Bb5, which had a pretty good reputation last time I checked (which was a while ago).

The idea that Lasker's Defense (d6 and BB6) is a refutation of the Evans has actually won me a lot of games, because most people who haven't studied the Evans except to dismiss it don't realize how easy the Lasker defense is to sidestep.