Rice Gambit

I was thinking about the Rice Gambit recently and read the Wikipedia article about it.

It says

The Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (1997) analyzes 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 Nf6 6. Bc4 d5 7. exd5 Bd6 8. O-O Bxe5 9. Re1 Qe7 10. c3 Nh5 11. d4 Nd7 12. dxe5 Nxe5 (etc etc) with a draw by perpetual check, attributing this analysis to Capablanca, Amos Burn, and Edward Lasker.

I decided to analyze it with Rybka 4. The main line it prefers is 10. c3 Nbd7 11. d4 Nh5 12. Qxg4 Bxd4+ 13. Kf1 Ng3+ 14. Qxg3 fxg3 15. Rxe7+ Kxe7 16. cxd4 Nb6 17. Bb3 Bf5 18. Nc3 Rg8, where the evaluation is +1.41 (after 28 ply) and the PV continues 19. Kg1 Kd7 20. Bg5 Bd3 21. Bd1 f6 22. Bg4+ f5 23. Bh5 Rxg5 24. hxg5 Rg8 25. Rd1 Ba6 26. Re1 Rxg5 27. Bd1 Kd8 28. Re6 Rg8 29. b3 Nc8 30. Bh5 Nd6 31. Be2 Bxe2 32. Nxe2 Kd7 33. Re3 Ne4. Wow, what an exciting sequence!

After 12. dxe5, Rybka 4 prefers 12... Qxh4 (evaluation +1.76 after 27 ply): 12. dxe5 Qxh4 13. Nd2 f3 14. Ne4 o-o 15. Bg5 f2+ 16. Nxf2 Qxg5 17. Qd4 Nb6 18. Bb3 Bf5 19. Ne4 Qg6 20. Nc5 Qh6 etc. If White plays 13. e6, the evaluation is at least +2.47: 13. e6 o-o 14. exf7+ Rxf7 15. d6 Ndf6 16. Bxf7+ Kxf7 17. Nd2 f3 18. gxf3 Qg3+ and White's position is falling apart.

The only other major option tried (according to ChessOK) was ... 12. Bb5, which isn't so good: 12. Bb5 Kd8 13. Bxd7 Bxd7 14. Rxe5 Qxh4 15. Rxh5 Qxh5 16. Bxf4 Re8 ... (evaluation +1.76). Apparently this was the starting position of a Marshall vs Napier match in 1905. Rybka analysis continues: 17. Qf1 Qxd5 18. Bxe5 Qb5 19. Nd2 Qxf1+ 20. Rxf1 Be6 21. c4 f5 22. d5 Bd7 23. exf6 Kc8 ... (+1.85).

Chesslive and Chessok have a game with 12. Na3 which fails to 12. Na3 Qxh4 13. dxe5 f3 etc (evaluation >+2.05).

So it looks like Rybka 4 has busted another line ... Black can win against the Rice Gambit, not just draw.

UPDATE 25 July 2018

With a bit more analysis from the latest Stockfish build (as of July 2018) I was even more convinced that this gambit is lost for White.

I updated the Wikipedia page about it, but only with the Shaw book analysis, since Wikipedia editors mandate the use of "reliable sources". However, the main line 10. c3 Nbd7 11. d4 Nh5 (or 10. c3 Nh5 11. d4 Nbd7, transposing) is much better (by about 0.6 of a pawn in the evaluation) than Shaw's suggestion 10... f3.


Analysis:


8. d4 Nh5 9. o-o o-o 10. Rxf4 Qxh4 11. Rxg4 Bxg4 12. Qxg4 Qxg4 13. Nxg4 Kh8 (-0.47, 35 ply)


Main line on move 9 after 8. o-o? Bxe5:

9. d4 Bd6 10. Qe2 Qe7 11. Qxe7+ Kxe7 11. Bxf4 Bxf4 12. Rxf4 b5 13. Bxb5 Nxd5 (-2.14, 54 ply)


Main line after 8. o-o? Bxe5 9. Re1 Qe7 10. c3 Nbd7 11. d4 Nh5 ...

12. Qxg4 Ndf6 13. Qxc8+ Rxc8 14. Rxe5 Rg8 15. Be2 Qxe5 16. dxe5 Ng3 17. Bf3 Nxd5 18. Bxd5 Ne2+ 19. Kf1 Nxc1 (-2.49, 59 ply)


After 10. c3 Nbd7 11. d4 Nh5 12. Bb5 ...

12 ... Kd8 13. Bxd7 Bxd7 14. Rxe5 Qxh4 15. Rxh5 Qxh5 16. Bxf4 Re8 17. Na3 Qxd5 (-2.46, 56 ply)


After 10. c3 Nbd7 11. d4 Nh5 12. dxe5 ...

12 ... Nxe5 13. Qe2 f6 14. Na3 Qc5+ 15. Qf2 Qxf2+ 16. Kxf2 Bf4 (-4.10, 40 ply)


After 10. c3 Nbd7 11. d4 Nh5 12. dxe5 Qxh4 ...

13. Nd2 Nc5 14. Nf1 f3 (-2.81, 41 ply)


After 10. c3 f3 11. d4 Ne4 12. Rxe4 Bh2+ 13. Kxh2 Qxe4 (as in Shaw's King's Gambit book)

14. g3 o-o 15. Na3 Bf5 16. Bh6 Nd7 (-1.86, 50 ply)