A Double Mengarini, Please

The Mengarini Opening to some extent is an attempt to turn the tables in the opening struggle. It comes in at least three different versions:

• 1.e4 e5 2.a3
• 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.a3
• 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.a3
  

Against each of these move-orders Black can resolutely turn the table back again with the reply ...a6. Instinctively one would think that these extra moves - which mainly appears to have defensive qualities - would favor Black who by nature is the defending part. However it's not that clear in practice. Actually it turns out to be quite hard to figure out how the extra moves influence the resulting double king-pawn positions:

1.e4 e5 2.a3 a6 (Dia)

3.Nf3

a) Sadly 3.f4!? with a Pseudo King's Gambit seems untested.

b) 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 would transpose but the Vienna style moves 4.Bc4 or 4.f4!? may be worth a try.

c) 3.d4 exd4 4.Qxd4 Nc6 5.Qe3 d6 looks like a slight improvement over the well-known 2.d4 exd4 3.Qxd4 Nc6 4.Qe3 line of the Centre Game. However, in Hofstetter-S.Mueller, Kahl 1996 chances were equal after 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Bd2 Be7 8.Bc4 Be6 9.Nd5 0–0 10.Ne2 Ne5 11.Nxf6+ Bxf6 12.Bxe6 fxe6.

3...Nc6 4.Nc3

a) 4.Bc4 b5 5.Ba2 Nf6 6.Ng5 d5 7.exd5 Nxd5 8.Nxf7 Kxf7 9.Qf3+ Ke6 10.Nc3 Nce7 11.d4 Qd6? (11...Bb7) and in Vasic-Ristovski, Portoroz 2003 White could have obtained a winning position with 12.Ne4.

b) 4.d4 exd4 and now:

b1) I really don't understand why nobody has tried 5.Nxd4 Nf6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.e5. In this line it's quite likely that Black's ...a6 will be to his disadvantage, as he after 7...Qe7 8.Qe2 doesn't have the sharp option ...Ba6.

b2) 5.c3 dxc3 6.Bc4 d6 7.0–0 Bg4 8.Qb3 Qd7 9.Ng5 (after 9.Bxf7+ Qxf7 10.Qxb7 Kd7 11.Qxa8 Bxf3 12.gxf3 Qxf3 Black at least has a perpetual check) 9...Bh5 10.Bxf7+ Bxf7 11.Nxf7 Na5 12.Qxc3 Qxf7 13.Qxa5 and White had a clear advantage in Zagrapan-Ilkovics, Slovakia 1998.

4...Nf6 (Dia)

One of the strengths as well as the limitations of the Three Knights Opening is the fact that it reduces the active options for both sides. With a3 and a6 eliminating all lines with Bb5 and ...Bb4 this becomes even more pronounced. 4...Bc5?! is met strongly by 5.Nxe5!

5.d4

5.g3 Nxe4?! is yet another version of the Halloween Gambit. I cannot even guess if the extra a-pawn moves favor any of the sides but a sensible solution is as usual to return the piece with 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Nc3 d4 8.Bg2 dxc3 9.bxc3 which would be a well-known theoretical position if it weren't for these extra a-pawn moves. But maybe the entire gambit is silly as Black after 8.Ne2 the doesn't have option of ...d3 followed by ...Nb4.

5...exd4 6.Nxd4 (Dia)

6...Bc5

a) 6...Nxd4 7.Qxd4 simply gives White the freer game and slightly the better chances, e.g: 7...d6 8.Be2 Be7 9.0–0 0–0 10.Bf4 Be6 11.Rad1 += Bucher-Knaus, Switzerland 2006.

b) 6...g6 7.Bg5 (7.Nxc6 bxc6 8.e5 Qe7 9.Qe2 Nd5 10.Ne4 Bg7 11.c4 +=) 7...h6 8.Bh4 Bg7?? (8...d6 9.Bxf6!? Qxf6 10.Nd5 Qxd4 11.Nxc7+ Kd8 12.Nxa8 Qxe4+ 13.Qe2) 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.e5+- Gunsberg-Zukertort, London 1887.

c) 6...d6 7.f3 (7.Nxc6 bxc6 8.Bc4 Be7 9.0–0 +=) 7...g6 8.Be3 Bg7 9.Qd2 Qe7 10.0–0–0 Be6 11.g4 += Nanu-Chirpii, Eforie Nord 1999.

d) 6...d5 7.exd5 Nxd5 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.Bc4 Qe7+ 10.Ne2 Qe4 11.Bxd5 Qxd5 (11...cxd5 12.0–0 +=) 12.0–0 Bd6 13.Bf4 += Bhend-Mottas, Pizol 1997.

7.Nxc6

a) After 7.Nb3 Ba7 only Black has any use of the extra a-pawn moves.

b) 7.Be3 may well be best.

b1) Instinctively 7...Bb6 looks less compact with the pawn on a6.

b2) After 7...Ba7 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.Bxa7 Rxa7 Black's rook looks a little silly.

b3) 7...Nxd4 8.Bxd4 looks more comfortable for White: 8...Qe7 (after 8...Bxd4 9.Qxd4 d6 10.0–0–0 0–0 11.e5 Ng4 12.f4 Qh4 13.exd6 cxd6 14.g3 Qh5 15.h3 White was clearly better in Eichner-Feldmann, Germany 2006) 9.Be2 d6 10.Bxc5 dxc5 11.0–0 0–0 12.Qd3 += Pirttimaki-Nippula, Finland 1993.

7...bxc6 8.e5

This must be better than 8.Bc4 d6 9.h3 h6 10.0–0 0–0 = of E.Reppen-Garcia Serrano, Copenhagen 2004.

8...Qe7 9.Qe2 Nd5 10.Ne4 (Dia)

10...0–0?!

10...Bd4!? 11.f4 f5 12.c3 Ba7 is better and at first glance unclear.

11.c4 Nb6 12.Bg5

White's opening has been a success - White is at least somewhat better, Braeuning-X.Garcia, Barcelona 1997.

Mengarini's Opening

My apologies to readers waiting for some serious analysis - I still have some things to say about 1.a3:

1.a3 e5 2.e4 (Dia)
I suspect this move will come as a surprise to many players. We now have a position that could as well arise from 1.e4 e5 2.a3, which at first seems rather meaningless in a set of openings where we have learned that rapid development is essential.
2...Nf6
This is natural and probably best. It is debatable whether the extra a-pawn move has any significance in the reversed King’s gambit arising after 2...f5!?. What is certain is that this is an unlikely move to encounter unless your opponent is a regular King’s Gambit player. One of the relatively few practical examples is 3.exf5 Nf6 4.Be2 (4.g4!?) 4...Bc5 5.Nf3 d6 6.d4 exd4 7.Nxd4 0–0 8.0–0 Bxd4 9.Qxd4 Bxf5 with fairly equal chances in Anbuhl-T.Kristiansen, Gausdal 1981.
3.Nc3
Now we enter the so-called Mengarini Opening (which normally would arise after 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.a3). It can be considered a reversed version of the Open Games where the Ruy Lopez obviously is ruled out. It seems unlikely that the extra move will make a reversed Latvian with 3.f4?! a tempting option.
3...Nc6
With 3...Bb4?? (a reversed Spanish) out of the question, one might expect 3...d5 (a reversed Scotch) to be Black’s best try, as Kasparov has made a case for this being White’s only serious alternative to the Spanish. However, it turns out that after 4.exd5 Nxd5 5.Qh5!, may be a major obstacle. In the parallel line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Qh4, White has the promising pawn sacrifice 5.Nb5 (or possibly a delayed version with a later Nb5). As this obviously is not an option here, 5...Nc6 6.Bb5 may be quite unpleasant for Black, e.g. 6...Qd6 7.Ne4 Qe6 8.Nf3 Bd6 9.Nfg5 Qg6 10.Qf3 f5 11.Nxd6+ Qxd6 12.d4 0–0 13.Bc4 Nce7 14.Bd2 exd4 15.0–0–0 h6 16.Rhe1 with a clear advantage to White in Czarnota-Korosciel, Poraj 2003.
3...Bc5 4.Nf3 d6 obviously must be sound. One of the more high-powered games continued 5.h3 Nc6 6.d3 a6 7.g3 0–0 8.Bg2 Be6 9.0–0 h6 10.Kh2 d5 with equal chances, Wahls-Brueckner, German Cht 1990.
4.Nf3 d5 (Dia)
This probably is critical.
a) 4...Bc5 5.Nxe5! is good for White, and one of the basic ideas behind the Mengarini, e.g. 5...Nxe5 6.d4 Bd6 7.dxe5 Bxe5 and now:
a1) 8.Bd3 0–0 9.0–0 Re8 10.Ne2 d5 =+ Levitsky-Steinitz, Moscow 1896.
a2) 8.Nb5 a6 9.f4 axb5 (9...Bxb2 10.Bxb2 axb5 11.e5 Qe7 12.Bxb5) 10.fxe5 Nxe4 11.Qg4 d5 12.Qxg7 +/- Molander-Van Hoolandt, Gausdal 2002.
b) 4...a6 makes some sense; Black reclaims his right to be Black. The game Gunsberg-Zukertort, London 1887 casts some doubt about the playing level at the time: 5.d4 exd4 6.Nxd4 g6 7.Bg5 h6 8.Bh4 Bg7?? 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.e5 g5 11.exf6 Qxf6 12.Bg3 when White was winning.
c) 4...d6 allows White to take the initiative in the centre with 5.d4 exd4 6.Nxd4 when Black seems unable to take advantage of White’s tempo-loss:
c1) 6...Nxd4 7.Qxd4 Be7 8.Bc4 0–0 9.0–0 Kh8 10.Bg5 Ng4 11.Bxe7 Qxe7 12.f4 (12.Nd5) 12...Be6 13.Be2 += Carlsen-Potapov, Peniscola 2002.
c2) 6...Be7 7.Be2 (7.Bc4 0–0 8.0–0 Re8 9.h3 Nxd4 10.Qxd4 Nd7 11.Nd5 Nb6 12.Nxe7+ Qxe7 = Gullaksen-Simonsen, Torshavn 2003) 7...0–0 8.Be3 Re8 9.Qd2 Nd7 10.0–0–0 Bf6 11.f4 Nb6 12.g4 Bd7 13.g5 Bxd4 14.Bxd4 Nxd4 15.Qxd4 += Motwani-Winants, Belgium 2001
d) 4...g6 is a reversed version of Glek’s Four Knight’s line. White’s most entertaining move is 5.Nxe5!?, to which I may return in a later entry. It has however limited theoretical significance as Black after 5...Nxe5 6.d4 Nc6 7.d5, can return the piece with 7...Bg7! 8.dxc6 bxc6 and reach exactly the same position as after 5.d4 exd4 6.Nxd4 Bg7 7.Nxc6 bxc6.

5.Bb5
Also 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Bb5 Nxc3 7.bxc3 has been tried, but White has been unable to prove any advantage: 7...Bd6 8.d4 exd4 9.cxd4 0–0 10.0–0 Bg4
a) 11.c3 Qf6 12.h3 Bxf3 13.Qxf3 Qxf3 14.gxf3 Ne7 15.c4 Nf5 16.Be3 Nh4 17.f4 c6 =+ Bae-Porat, Port Erin 2003
b) 11.Be3 Ne7 12.h3 Bh5 13.Bd3 Nd5 14.c4 Nxe3 15.fxe3 c5 = Golubovic-Z.Szabo, Budapest 1995
5...d4
5...Nxe4 may be better:
a) 6.Qe2 Nxc3 7.Qxe5+ Qe7 8.dxc3 Bd7 1/2–1/2 Gullaksen-A.Moen, Stockholm 2004.
b) 6.Nxe5 Qf6 7.Nf3 Be6 8.Qe2 Nxc3 9.dxc3 Bd6 10.Bg5 Qg6 11.Bd3 Qh5 12.Bf5 Ne5 (12...0–0!) 13.Bxe6 fxe6 14.Nxe5 Qxe2+ 15.Kxe2 Bxe5 = Djurhuus-A.Moen, Gausdal 2002
6.Ne2
The position has become semi-closed. I doubt White has any advantage, but there should be plenty of opportunities to outplay a weaker opponent. One typical game is G.Welling-Reimer, Dinard 1986:
6...Qe7
6...Nxe4 7.d3 Nf6 8.Nxe5 Qd5 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.Nf3 c5 11.0–0 Bd6 12.c4 Qb7 13.b4 += Glek-Zaja, Austria 2005.
7.d3 Bd7 8.0–0 g6 9.c3 dxc3 10.bxc3 (Dia)

White is better developed, better co-ordinated and has more pawns in the centre. But with accurate play it is still possible that Black could hang on.
10...Nd8?! 11.a4 c5 12.d4 Bxb5 13.axb5 Bg7 14.dxe5 Ng4
14...Nxe4 15.Re1 0–0 16.Nf4 Nxc3 17.Qb3 is no better.
15.Bg5 Qc7 16.Nf4 Nxe5 17.Nd5 Nxf3+ 18.Qxf3 (Dia)



18...Qc8
Black's position is just too bad. 18...Qd7 19.Rfd1 and 18...Qd6 19.Rfd1 are just as hopeless.
19.Bf6 1–0