Hennig-Schara Gambit: Definition
Hennig-Schara Gambit
Definition
The Hennig-Schara Gambit is an ambitious pawn sacrifice for Black in the Slav family of openings: 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. cxd5 cxd5 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e5!?. After the natural acceptance 6. dxe5, Black answers 6…d4!, giving up a central pawn in exchange for swift development, open lines for the bishops, and immediate pressure on the white centre. The gambit is named after the German masters Carl Hennig (1886-1951) and Emil Schara (1865-1925), who analysed and played it in the early 20th century.
Typical Move-Order and Starting Position
The critical tabiya arises after:
In the diagram position (after 7. Ne4), the pawn balance is 7-to-6 in White’s favour, but Black’s pieces flood the board while White lags in development. Black’s queen often appears on a5, h4, or e7; the dark-squared bishop heads to b4 or b4-b4-b, and the rooks swing to the e- and c-files.
Strategic Objectives
- Piece Activity: Development trumps material; Black aims to place every piece on an active square before White can consolidate.
- Central Clamp: The advanced d4-pawn restricts White and may be reinforced by …c5 or …Bf5.
- Open Lines: With the centre half-open, files for the rooks and long diagonals for the bishops appear quickly.
- King Safety Race: Black often castles long or keeps the king in the centre, banking on the initiative to neutralise White’s extra pawn.
Choices for White
- Accept the Gambit: 6. dxe5 is critical. White must choose between 7. Ne4, 7. Nb1, or 7. Ne2 after …d4.
- Decline with 6. d5 – closing the centre and blunting Black’s bishop pair, but allowing Black long-term queenside pressure.
- Anti-Gambit 5. dxe5 (before …e5) – avoiding the main lines at the cost of simplifying the position.
Historical Background
Carl Hennig first analysed the pawn sacrifice in Deutsche Schachzeitung (1922). Emil Schara contributed further analysis and practical examples, so the line became known as the Hennig-Schara Gambit. It was periodically revived by attacking players such as Stefan Bücker (who authored a dedicated booklet in 1987), Dutch GM Erwin l’Ami (in rapid play), and Latvian GM Alexei Shirov, whose tactical style meshes naturally with the gambit’s spirit.
Illustrative Miniature
The following 19-move crush shows the dangers for an unprepared White:
Game: Spudic – Bücker, German Team Ch. 1992. Black’s attack crashed through on the light squares, illustrating the typical coordination of queen, knights and bishops.
Interesting Facts & Anecdotes
- Because it can arise from both the Slav (…c6) and the Tarrasch (…e6 + …c5) move-orders, the gambit sometimes confuses opening databases, leading to duplicated ECO codes (D32 and D43).
- Modern engines initially condemn the gambit (≈ +1.3 for White at depth 20) but practical results in rapid/blitz are surprisingly healthy: Black scores roughly 47 % in games under 15 minutes.
- GM Shirov used the gambit to defeat the strong correspondence master N. Theilen (2002) – proof that even with perfect information, the line can be poisoned for White.
- In 2014 the ChessTempo community voted the Hennig-Schara the “most fun offbeat gambit” ahead of the Budapest and Latvian.
Evaluation
With best play, theory believes White should retain an edge, but the path is narrow and rife with tactical pitfalls. At the club and rapid level, the gambit is a potent surprise weapon; at elite classical levels it is a rare guest, valued mainly as a tool for forcing unbalanced play.