3.d5
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | 8 | ||||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | 8 | ||||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
This ambitious move is playable but rarely seen. Black normally responds with 3...Ne5. Then after 4.e4 (inviting 4...Nxe4?? 5.Qd4 winning a knight), Black struck back in the center with 4...Ng6 5.f4 e5 in the seminal game Sämisch-Torre, Moscow 1925. However, Orlov considers both Torre's fourth and fifth moves inferior. He and Palliser both recommend instead 4...e6, after which play can become extremely sharp. For example, Elburg-Simmelink, correspondence 1999 continued 5.f4 Ng6 6.Bd3 exd5 7.e5?! Ne4 8.cxd5 Qh4+ 9.g3 Bb4+! 10.Bd2? (Better is 10.Nc3! Nxc3! 11.bxc3 Bxc3+ 12.Bd2 Bxd2+ 13.Qxd2 Qe7 14.Nf3 d6 15.Bb5+! Kf8 16.Qc3 with some practical chances for the sacrificed pawn). Nxg3 11.Nf3 (see diagram at left) Nxf4! 12.Bf1! (12.Nxh4?? Nxd3#!; 12.Bxb4? Nxd3+ 13.Qxd3 Qxb4+ is hopeless for White. Bxd2+ 13.Nbxd2 (see diagram at right; 13.Qxd2? Nxf1+ 14.Nxh4 Nxd2 is winning for Black.) Qh3! 14.Rg1 (White cannot take either of Black's two hanging pieces: 14.Bxh3 Nd3#; 14.hxg3 Qxg3#. Nor is 14.Ng5 Qg2! any better.) Nxf1 left Black with two extra pawns.
Read more about this topic: Black Knights' Tango, Possible Continuations