Latest Updates:
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) C30-C39: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary (Read 36051 times)
Dragonslayer
Full Member
***
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 231
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: 06/13/04
Re: C30-C39: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #65 - 01/11/16 at 13:35:09
Post Tools
11...Nb4! is an old idea of Jens Kristiansen. It was tested before in Schreiber-Jensen, corr 2000 and several other corr games.
White should play 12.Qf3! to draw. See e.g. Sakaev's book on 1...e5.
After 12.Nxc7+? (which was thought to draw) a strong (and winning) novelty for Black at move 15 was given here in the Forum by PANFR in 2014. A reasonable engine will also suggest it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Knightcut
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Unclear chess rocks!

Posts: 27
Location: Denmark
Joined: 04/04/11
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #64 - 01/05/16 at 10:27:05
Post Tools
Looking for interesting lines in the KG I noted the attached game and was quite amazed about Blacks 11...Nb4! It hangs the knight en prise, yet Black won after 12.Nxb4 and the computer assessment points at good play for Black after this sacrifice. However, I am in doubt if White with best play can actually force a Draw after 12.Nxc2+, i.e: 12...Kd8 13.Nxa8 Qe3+ 14.Kc3 Qc5 15.Kd2 Bg7 16.Be2! Rg8 17.c3 Bxc3 18.bxc3 Qe3+ 19.Ke1 Qg3 20.Kd2 etc. with perpetual check.
Any ideas how Black can avoid this and stay in the game with reasonable play?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
barrera
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1
Joined: 01/06/13
Re: C30-C39: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #63 - 01/06/13 at 15:52:41
Post Tools
@micawber

re "11......Qf6! 12.Nd5, Qg6 -/+
(Salmensuu-Nysti, Helsinki,2004)"

Can u tell me where to find this game, please. Kiss
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
PatzerNoster
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 116
Joined: 10/22/09
Re: C30-C39: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #62 - 09/11/11 at 11:03:54
Post Tools
Dear Dragonslayer,

thank you for your honest and enlightning answer!

After some analysis (and with the help of your ideas), I found some attractive possibilities for white:

After 18. ... Kd7 19.Bb5! (19.c3 followed by Bc4 is interesting, but black can activate the rook by Rae8, but 19.Bc4 fails to Nfd4: protecting e6) a6 20.Ne6 Qg6 21.Bd3! (the bishop retreats and pins the knight) Rae8 22.Qf4 Nce7 23.d5! and now the white queen can switch back to the queenside with an attack.

If instead 20. ... Qh6 the queen feels uncomfortable there: 21.Bc6:+ bc6: 22.Qa5 Rac8 23.h3!! (the knight on f5 was immune due to Qd2+ with mate, but white works to diffuse the threat). And the black pawn structure falls apart while white keeps the initiative.

I think your opponent was quite right to be afraid of 16. ... Kd7 17.Bc4 when Be6+ forces Kd8 anyway and white can open the kingside by h3 with a vicious attack!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dragonslayer
Full Member
***
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 231
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: 06/13/04
Re: C30-C39: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #61 - 09/09/11 at 13:22:01
Post Tools
PatzerNoster wrote on 09/06/11 at 18:12:07:
I'm sorry, I didn't want to let the thread die, just was on vacation so I couldn't respond.

@Dragonslayer: the "upset" was not meant in a patronizing way, rather that you beat a player with a higher rating who is on his way to become a GM quite soon in my opinion! Wink

Anyway, concerning the real content of the game I'm not sure if 13.Bh6 is actually superior to 13.Bf4, after all the Bg7 is not such a great piece and white "loses" the right to castle (that might not be important in the position). On the other hand the black king will definitely stay in the centre, but that might also be the case with 13.Bf4, as castling kingside looks extremely risky.

After 18. ... Qh6? the game seems to be over, what did you plan after the superior 18. ... Kd7 or 18. ... Kc8 ?
My computer gives equality after both moves, but Kd7 to bring the a-rook to e8 seems more natural to me.


No offence taken. I didn't take it in a patronizing way. That's why I put the smiley after "upset". Before the game people were joking about me wasting a White on a sure loss (I lost to him with White in last year's tournament).

I was expecting the French, when he played 1...e5. After this I would consider it an almost even match, given that he apparently was unprepared and has only recently taken up 1...e5.
The computer prefers 13.Bf4 and gives Black a healthy advantage after 14...Qe7+. But as so often in gambit openings if you follow the computer's best move suggestion for a while it ends up with 0.00 after 18.Nf4. One certainly wouldn't expect the game to be over in 5 moves.
Yes, 18...Qh6? loses on the spot. I had also seen 18...Nxd4? 19.c3 winning, and had expected 18...Kc8. Then Black plays with a rook less. The computer is notoriously unrealiable in such situations. It justifies its 0.00 eval with the line 19.Ne6 Qh6 20.Qxh6 Nxh6 21.h3 Kd7 22.Bb5 a6 23.Bxc6+ Kxc6 24.hxg4 Nxg4+ 25.Kxf3 and White wins one of the Black pawns with an even game. I had seen nothing of this and saw no reason to go to e6 and allow the queen exchange. Of course, I saw that 19.Bd3 now allows ...Nxd4 and c3 can be answered by Ne2 since there is no fork on e6. So I simply planned 19.c3 followed by 20.Bd3. Black has no counterplay and must fear the endgame if White captures the pawn on g4 when f3 also falls. Another option is h2-h3 and f3 also falls. White will always have the better structure compensating the second pawn. This is standard fare in the KG, even if the momentary two-pawn deficit is a complete deterrent to most players.
Regarding 18...Kd7 my opponent has earlier chosen Kd8 over Kd7 fearing Bc4 in response, so psychologically it is difficult to readjust. Time was short and my plan was simply to recheck if Bc4 was any good and otherwise play 19.Bb5 with various threats (the primitive d4-d5, and the deeper Ne6+Qa5) and clearing the way for Qd3. Maybe Black can parry these threats, I don't know.
Regarding the dreaded 0.00 I am not concerned. Not because a draw would still be an upset but because, I am playinga real person and not Rybka/Fritz/Houdini. Also I dislike annotating by result and adlibbing computer analysis. Yes, the position was even, but the pressure is clearly on Black.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GabrielGale
Senior Member
****
Offline


Who was Thursday?

Posts: 423
Location: Sydney
Joined: 02/28/08
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #60 - 09/07/11 at 01:06:44
Post Tools
Slightly off-topic but too lazy to locate the correct thread ......
Just read fellow ChessPubber Sverre Johnsen's blog (reactivated after some period of dormancy) that he is writing a manuscript on the KG (see http://sverreschesscorner.blogspot.com/2011/09/brief-return-to-chess-blogging.ht...)

I wonder if he can provide more info ......
  

http://www.toutautre.blogspot.com/
A Year With Nessie ...... aka GM John Shaw's The King's Gambit (http://thekinggambit.blogspot.com.au/)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
PatzerNoster
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 116
Joined: 10/22/09
Re: C30-C39: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #59 - 09/06/11 at 18:12:07
Post Tools
I'm sorry, I didn't want to let the thread die, just was on vacation so I couldn't respond.

@Dragonslayer: the "upset" was not meant in a patronizing way, rather that you beat a player with a higher rating who is on his way to become a GM quite soon in my opinion! Wink

Anyway, concerning the real content of the game I'm not sure if 13.Bh6 is actually superior to 13.Bf4, after all the Bg7 is not such a great piece and white "loses" the right to castle (that might not be important in the position). On the other hand the black king will definitely stay in the centre, but that might also be the case with 13.Bf4, as castling kingside looks extremely risky.

After 18. ... Qh6? the game seems to be over, what did you plan after the superior 18. ... Kd7 or 18. ... Kc8 ?
My computer gives equality after both moves, but Kd7 to bring the a-rook to e8 seems more natural to me.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10068
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #58 - 09/01/11 at 21:23:10
Post Tools
OK.
Congrats with a fine game.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dragonslayer
Full Member
***
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 231
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: 06/13/04
Re: C30-C39: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #57 - 09/01/11 at 13:14:01
Post Tools
PatzerNoster wrote on 08/25/11 at 14:11:53:
@Dragonslayer:
Congrats for the nice game against German prodigy Rasmus Svane, a nice upset and proof how dangerous the KG is in practice.
If I'm not mistaken the game followed some analysis from the ChessPub forum here for a while. Wink


An "upset"?? Wink
Yes the game followed a suggestion from John Emms' 1.e4 e5 book where 10.Nf5 is mentioned, I think. Before that there was something similar (...Bf6) in Graham Burgess' 101 Ches Opening Surprises.
The analysis here on chesspub by Craig Evans ended with 10.Nf5 Bxf5 11.exf5 Ne7 12.Bg5! f6 13.Bf4 and compensation. I actually had a long think before 12.Bg5 because:
a) I wasn't sure it was the best move and could not remember the home analysis in detail.
b) I wanted to make sure that my 13.Bh6 was better than 13.Bf4 before I went for the whole line.

10.Nf5 is the first new move in a game, but I guess 13.Bh6 is the real novelty.

P.S. Would be nice if I didn't get the last post in a KG thread once again...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dragonslayer
Full Member
***
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 231
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: 06/13/04
Re: C30-C39: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #56 - 08/27/11 at 13:46:59
Post Tools
Ok, here are some of my findings after 3...g5 4.Nc3 Bg7
5.g3!? is interesting and the only way to avoid the piece sacrifices. It is neither better nor worse than the other lines, just different. I am not so worried about 5...g4 6.Nh4 d5.

5.d4 g4 6.Ne5 Bxe5! is bad for White.
5.d4 g4 6.Bc4 gxf3 7.Qxf3 is likely to transpose to the Rosentreter when White later plays Bxf4 (as observed by MNb) or the Pierce if Black plays ...Nc6. But Qxf4 is not out of the question in all lines.

After 5.d4 g4 6.Bxf4 gxf3 7.Qxf3 d6 8.Bc4 Be6 both 9.d5 and 9.Bxe6 are reasonable. But 8.0-0-0 is also interesting.

After 7...Nc6 8.Bc4 with transposition to the Pierce gambit is not forced. There are at least two other options that can be investigated.
Nocci-Ryan is a draw after 8...d6! (Line C) 9.Bxf7+. White has one better try for an advantage at move 9.

8...Nxd4? (line B) is a mistake and White is winning after 9.Bxf7+ Furhoff-Kallgren is an improvement over Motzko-Marco at move 12.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
PatzerNoster
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 116
Joined: 10/22/09
Re: C30-C39: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #55 - 08/25/11 at 14:11:53
Post Tools
@Dragonslayer:
Congrats for the nice game against German prodigy Rasmus Svane, a nice upset and proof how dangerous the KG is in practice.
If I'm not mistaken the game followed some analysis from the ChessPub forum here for a while. Wink

Back to 5. ... g4,
I guess the critical lines are:

6.Bf4: gf3: 7.Qf3:

A) 7. ... d6 8.Bc4 Be6! 9.d5!? and trying to break with e5.

B) 7. ... Nc6 8.Bc4 Nd4:
C) 7. ... Nc6 8.Bc4 d6

against B and C white can sacrifice on f7, I don't remember exactly (no board or ChessBase here), but I think one is won for white and one is drawn, guess Nd4: draws because of some interposition with Nf5 later...
Perhaps 0-0-0 instead of Bc4 also comes into consideration?!

Edit: it's the other way round, line C draws while line B loses...
« Last Edit: 08/25/11 at 16:55:12 by PatzerNoster »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10068
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #54 - 08/24/11 at 16:41:38
Post Tools
In fact also the McDonnell Gambit might just transpose:
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.d4 g4 6.Bc4 gxf3 7.Qxf3 d6/Nc6 and has White better than 8.Bxf4 ? This is what actually happened in that Motzko-Marco game. So it seems just to be a pseudochoice.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dragonslayer
Full Member
***
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 231
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: 06/13/04
Re: C30-C39: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #53 - 08/24/11 at 14:54:17
Post Tools
PatzerNoster wrote on 08/22/11 at 15:19:05:
So you mean that the best white can do is transpose to the Rosentreter gambit, a gambit where he seems to have a draw at most?!
Or is the move Bg7 detrimental for black?
As I said, I can't find material about Bg7 in that position, except the one Furhoff game, which doesn't seem to have great theoretical importance.
@MNb: nice game, but unfortunately Qe7 by black seems weak (as you state indirectly).

What do the other experts Dragonslayer, TalJechin think about this?


Check out Jensen-Svane, Politiken Cup, round 4 Denmark 2011.
After 5...g4 White can choose between the Rosentreter with 6.Bxf4 or the McDonnell with 6.Bc4. Yes, ...Bg7 is sometimes a liability (White has Qg3 forking c7 and g7 but only if White has castled so Black cannot reply ...Bf6 threatening ...Bh4, as was missed in at least one KG book)
White has at least a draw in this line and I think it is better for White than the regular Rosentreter which is indeed a draw. (Cannot be more specific right now)
As for 4...Bg7 5.d4 g4 6.Ne5 I would be worried about 6...Bxe5.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10068
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #52 - 08/22/11 at 19:23:28
Post Tools
PatzerNoster wrote on 08/22/11 at 18:38:15:
C) 4. ... Bg7 5.g3 g4 6.Nh4 d5!?

If you have faith in White's chance, by all means try it. Who knows? I am not convinced after 7.Nxd5 f3, but there is no reason to trust my judgment more than your own.
You might also take a look at 5.d4 g4 6.Ne5 Qh4+ 7.g3 fxg3 8.Qxg4 Qxg4 9.Nxg4 Nc6 10.Bf4.

After 6.Bxf4 gxf3 7.Qxf3 Nc6 8.Bc4 there are two more games:

Motzko-Marco, Cesky Tesin sim 1906
Polasek-Cernousek, CZEchT 2007.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
PatzerNoster
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 116
Joined: 10/22/09
Re: C30-C39: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #51 - 08/22/11 at 18:38:15
Post Tools
To be honest I would rather avoid the Rosentreter, as I have the feeling that white is fighting for equality (of that type he is down a piece for one or two pawns and tries to find a chance to effect some perpetual, as normally the attack might not suffice for more). Of course I may be wrong as I don't have much experience in these types of positions, but that's just what my feeling tells me.

Nevertheless I would love to be converted, as I like white's play in the other lines (objectively about equal but dangerous in practise), so perhaps there is a reason nobody plays g4 at that stage?!

On the other hand the attempt with g3 might be interesting.
I think that 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3

A) 4. ... d6 5.g3 and
B) 4. ... Nc6 5.g3 are OK for white, but as I already stated I'm unsure about

C) 4. ... Bg7 5.g3 g4 6.Nh4 d5!?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10068
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #50 - 08/22/11 at 15:39:51
Post Tools
PatzerNoster wrote on 08/22/11 at 15:19:05:
So you mean that the best white can do is transpose to the Rosentreter gambit, a gambit where he seems to have a draw at most?!
Or is the move Bg7 detrimental for black?

Yes, no. Why should a perfectly logical move like Bg7 harm Black?

Nocci,R (2311) - Ryan,P (2291) [C37]
WSTT/1/06/Semifinal 1 - King's Gambit, ICCF, 25.05.2007
-



The Rosentreter has been discussed here on this forum a few years ago. The general verdict was that it's a forced draw indeed. Now your question, if I understand you correctly, if White can avoid a forced draw after 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.d4 g4. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I see no reason why Black should be worse. All of Black's moves look perfectly sound to me.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
PatzerNoster
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 116
Joined: 10/22/09
Re: C30-C39: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #49 - 08/22/11 at 15:19:05
Post Tools
So you mean that the best white can do is transpose to the Rosentreter gambit, a gambit where he seems to have a draw at most?!
Or is the move Bg7 detrimental for black?
As I said, I can't find material about Bg7 in that position, except the one Furhoff game, which doesn't seem to have great theoretical importance.
@MNb: nice game, but unfortunately Qe7 by black seems weak (as you state indirectly).

What do the other experts Dragonslayer, TalJechin think about this?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10068
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #48 - 08/21/11 at 20:38:05
Post Tools
Furhoff-Kallgren, Stockholm Open 1994, saw this line. Furhoff is the pioneeer of White's opening strategy. There is also a thematic corr. game Nocci-Ryan, WSTT 2007. In both games Black played 7...Nc6, which just transposes. So does 7...d6.
To make things even a bit more confusing, play is also similar to the Pierce Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.Nf3 g5 5.d4 g4 6.Bc4 gxf3 7.0-0 d6 8.Qxf3.

A theoretically quite irrelevant game:

MNb - Koller,G [C37]
em EM/H/135, 2004



  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
PatzerNoster
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 116
Joined: 10/22/09
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #47 - 08/21/11 at 15:36:26
Post Tools
One thing that is unclear to me in the whole new concept of the King's Gambit (Quaade gambit in connection with the g3-ideas) is the following:

1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3 Bg7 (black's most popular move in that position).

Now most people play 5.d4, but what should white do after 5. ... g4 (this move is almost never played,why?)?
After 6.Bf4: gf3: 7.Qf3: the position resembles a Rosentreter, but is this version for white acceptable? I have not been able to find anything about a Rosentreter with such an early Bg7.

After 5.g3 (never played before according to my knowledge) white has to reckon with 5. ... g4 6.Nh4 d5!? which is Houdini's preference. This move looks strange, but in the whole "New King's Gambit" white's compensation is based on good control of the centre, which black can challenge with this counter-pawn-sacrifice. Meanwhile the white king feels uncomfortable in the centre with the f3-pawn right in front of him.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


I only look 1 move ahead,
but its always the best

Posts: 1844
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #46 - 11/01/08 at 02:31:43
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 10/31/08 at 17:43:02:
MNb wrote on 10/30/08 at 21:19:34:
ANDREW BRETT wrote on 10/30/08 at 17:13:53:
I vaguely recall Emms recommending 3... h6 in his book on the open games - anyone able to explain why this line isn't being used.

Fashion? Anyhow, the line 4.d4 g5 5.Nc3 and g2-g3 at the right moment offers decent compensation. Of course this does not mean that Black is worse.


Fashion in the King's Gambit is a little like fashion in Duluth, Minnesota.


I'm gunna take a wild guess at the meaning of this analogy and go with FLEETING .

Tops Smiley
  

The man who tries to do something and fails is infinitely better than he who tries to do nothing and succeeds - Lloyd Jones Smiley
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #45 - 10/31/08 at 17:43:02
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 10/30/08 at 21:19:34:
ANDREW BRETT wrote on 10/30/08 at 17:13:53:
I vaguely recall Emms recommending 3... h6 in his book on the open games - anyone able to explain why this line isn't being used.

Fashion? Anyhow, the line 4.d4 g5 5.Nc3 and g2-g3 at the right moment offers decent compensation. Of course this does not mean that Black is worse.


Fashion in the King's Gambit is a little like fashion in Duluth, Minnesota.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10068
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #44 - 10/30/08 at 21:19:34
Post Tools
ANDREW BRETT wrote on 10/30/08 at 17:13:53:
I vaguely recall Emms recommending 3... h6 in his book on the open games - anyone able to explain why this line isn't being used.

Fashion? Anyhow, the line 4.d4 g5 5.Nc3 and g2-g3 at the right moment offers decent compensation. Of course this does not mean that Black is worse.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ANDREW BRETT
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 621
Joined: 07/07/06
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #43 - 10/30/08 at 17:13:53
Post Tools
I vaguely recall Emms recommending 3... h6 in his book on the open games - anyone able to explain why this line isn't being used.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dragonslayer
Full Member
***
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 231
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: 06/13/04
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #42 - 10/29/08 at 23:05:47
Post Tools
FightingDragon wrote on 10/14/08 at 11:00:40:
@MNb: Thanks, now I see what you mean. By the way, why do you think that 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 d6 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1 is =+?
I have seen that statement by you several times on the forum, but haven't found concrete variations.
At least Gallagher in his article series for the german magazine "Schach" (I think it was around 2000) thought white was OK.

@Dragonslayer: Congratulations!
1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.g3 Nd4!? is very creative.
I think it's hard for white to prove full compensation, e.g. 6.Bc4 (d3 Bd6!?) f3 7.d3 d6 8.Be3 Bg7 9.Qd2 Ne7 10.0-0-0 could be playable, but I'm not sure if white has full compensation.

Regarding the Kieseritsky, Stefan Buecker writes that after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6 6.Bc4 d5 7.ed5: Bd6 8.d4 0-0 9.Nc3 Nh5 you prefer 10.Ne4. But I can't see what to play after 10. ... f5!, e.g. 11.Ng5 Nd7! 12.Ne6 Qf6 13.Nf8: Kf8: 14.c3 Ng3! 15.Rg1 Ne5: 16.de5: Be5: and it is difficult to see which white piece takes part at the game at all.
I think the main issue in the position is the black pawn on f4. It severely hampers the white position and prevents the Bc1 (and consequently Ra1) coming into play. One move before black kept the pawn with Nh5.

So for me the most logical move is 10.Ne2 trying to eliminate that pawn, when Buecker's analysis at Chesscafe.com seems to indicate a good game for white. Smiley


Actually 10.Ne4 f5 11.Ng5 Nd7! is very good for Black (I discussed this with Bcker and tried everything: 11.Nxd6 cxd6 12.Nd3 seems best).
10.Ne2 has its problems too. Instead of Riemann's 10..Re8 Black has at least two better choices.

So it seems 9.Nc3 is under a cloud. However Bcker did a good job of putting 9.0-0 back on the playing field.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10068
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #41 - 10/20/08 at 02:53:02
Post Tools
It is a fair comparison, because in the Fischer line 3...d6 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1 White will have to give back the tempo to develop that knight on g1. You're not going to leave it there the rest of the game, are you? In fact after 3...d6 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1 Nf6 the illegal move 7.Ng1-d3 immediately transposes.
Now you may argue that White for the time being has better moves than x.Nge2, but at the other hand Black may look for other options but 6...Nf6.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
FightingDragon
Senior Member
****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 253
Joined: 05/12/04
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #40 - 10/19/08 at 23:51:13
Post Tools
I don't think that' a fair comparison. In the main variation of the Kieseritsky black is an important tempo up (Nf6).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10068
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #39 - 10/15/08 at 01:44:30
Post Tools
FightingDragon wrote on 10/14/08 at 22:15:15:
I think I know which line you mean:

1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 d6 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1 f5 and we have Hector-Leko, 1995.


Yes, that's the one. White has done quite badly, even after 7.Nc3. There have been two wins by Fedorov, but Black's play has been improved as well.
I haven't looked at 6...f3 but that might be a problem as well. Finally I find it a bit peculiar that 3...g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6 6.d4 d6 7.Nd3 is condemned these days and 3...d6 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1 is thought to give White enough compensation. Is the knight on g1 really that much better than on d3?
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
FightingDragon
Senior Member
****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 253
Joined: 05/12/04
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #38 - 10/14/08 at 22:15:15
Post Tools
I think I know which line you mean:

1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 d6 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1 f5 7.Nc3 fe4: 8.Bf4: Nf6 9.Qd2?! d5! and we have Hector-Leko, 1995.

After that, it was discovered that white is fine after 9.d5!

But I always asked myself what happens after 8. ... d5!
After 9.Be5 Nf6 both 10.Bf6: Qf6: 11.Nd5: Qd6 -/+ and 10.Nd5: Qd5: 11.Bf6: Bb4+! 12.c3 0-0 13.Bg5 Bd6 =+ are better for black.

Alas I don't really see a better move than 9.Qd2, but maybe white is OK nevertheless.

Another interesting possibility is 7.Bf4: fe4: 8.c4 preventing d5, although it looks a little loosening.
Or 8.Qd2!? d5 (Nf6 9.h5 waiting for ... d5 10.c4!) 9.c4! which also looks interesting.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10068
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #37 - 10/14/08 at 21:41:56
Post Tools
Bibs wrote on 10/14/08 at 11:59:47:
Oh, you'd be surprised Mnb:

check out:
e4 e5
Nf3 f5
ef e4
Ng1(!)

is a worthy line. Not the place to go into the intricacies of this line , but moral of the tale is: if its in the way, put it back.


No, I am not surprised, I knew this line already. A black pluspawn on f4 or a white one on f5 might make a difference, don't you think? And even then 3.exf5/4.Ng1 might not be White's best against the Latvian, so it looks like a bad analogy to me.
Anyhow, if I play the KG I prefer 3...d6 4.d4 (4.Nc3) g5 5.Nc3 which feels more natural to me and is unclear at least.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4104
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #36 - 10/14/08 at 17:10:04
Post Tools
Reminds me of what Robert Byrne said long ago (apropos of why he stopped playing the KG):  "Black has one defense after another, all of them good."
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #35 - 10/14/08 at 16:52:00
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 10/14/08 at 12:10:57:
I always thought the main reason for GMs giving up the KG was the main line Kieseritzky: 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6, when the apparently sub-optimal 6.d4 has traditionally been the modern preference. It should be dynamically equal if White chooses 6.Bc4 though.

As far as I'm aware the Fischer Defence with 3...d6 hasn't really caught on at master level in the way that 3...g5 or even the Modern (3...d5) has.

I recall I tried the 3...d6 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1 line as Black in a couple of casual games. I really don't think the idea is as bad as it first appears- the f4 and g4 pawns are weak, the knight can redeploy on e2 to attack f4, and the black kingside is full of holes. I reckon White has full compensation for the pawn in this line.


Personally I would be happy as White in this Ng1 line.  I don't think there is a single defense that you can blame for the KG not being played at high levels.  I think it is that essentially all of the defenses against it are good.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 889
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #34 - 10/14/08 at 12:10:57
Post Tools
I always thought the main reason for GMs giving up the KG was the main line Kieseritzky: 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6, when the apparently sub-optimal 6.d4 has traditionally been the modern preference. It should be dynamically equal if White chooses 6.Bc4 though.

As far as I'm aware the Fischer Defence with 3...d6 hasn't really caught on at master level in the way that 3...g5 or even the Modern (3...d5) has.

I recall I tried the 3...d6 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1 line as Black in a couple of casual games.  I really don't think the idea is as bad as it first appears- the f4 and g4 pawns are weak, the knight can redeploy on e2 to attack f4, and the black kingside is full of holes.  I reckon White has full compensation for the pawn in this line.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1987
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #33 - 10/14/08 at 11:59:47
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 10/14/08 at 11:34:44:
FightingDragon wrote on 10/14/08 at 11:00:40:
@MNb: Thanks, now I see what you mean. By the way, why do you think that 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 d6 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1 is =+?


Because I dislike developing backward and have seen some games on respectable level where White did not do well. If my memory serves me well Leko had a nice win as Black. I am aware of Gallagher's opinion and also some Hebden wins, but both have given up the KG anyway, haven't they? Dissatisfaction with 6.Ng1 might have to do something with it - or perhaps not.
Sorry, I don't have the time at the moment to look closely at this variation and I assume you can find some relevant games yourself. I will be happy to be converted.


Oh, you'd be surprised Mnb:

check out:
e4 e5
Nf3 f5
ef e4
Ng1(!)

is a worthy line. Not the place to go into the intricacies of this line , but moral of the tale is: if its in the way, put it back.


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10068
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #32 - 10/14/08 at 11:34:44
Post Tools
FightingDragon wrote on 10/14/08 at 11:00:40:
@MNb: Thanks, now I see what you mean. By the way, why do you think that 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 d6 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1 is =+?


Because I dislike developing backward and have seen some games on respectable level where White did not do well. If my memory serves me well Leko had a nice win as Black. I am aware of Gallagher's opinion and also some Hebden wins, but both have given up the KG anyway, haven't they? Dissatisfaction with 6.Ng1 might have to do something with it - or perhaps not.
Sorry, I don't have the time at the moment to look closely at this variation and I assume you can find some relevant games yourself. I will be happy to be converted.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
FightingDragon
Senior Member
****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 253
Joined: 05/12/04
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #31 - 10/14/08 at 11:00:40
Post Tools
@MNb: Thanks, now I see what you mean. By the way, why do you think that 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 d6 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1 is =+?
I have seen that statement by you several times on the forum, but haven't found concrete variations.
At least Gallagher in his article series for the german magazine "Schach" (I think it was around 2000) thought white was OK.

@Dragonslayer: Congratulations!
1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.g3 Nd4!? is very creative.
I think it's hard for white to prove full compensation, e.g. 6.Bc4 (d3 Bd6!?) f3 7.d3 d6 8.Be3 Bg7 9.Qd2 Ne7 10.0-0-0 could be playable, but I'm not sure if white has full compensation.

Regarding the Kieseritsky, Stefan Buecker writes that after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6 6.Bc4 d5 7.ed5: Bd6 8.d4 0-0 9.Nc3 Nh5 you prefer 10.Ne4. But I can't see what to play after 10. ... f5!, e.g. 11.Ng5 Nd7! 12.Ne6 Qf6 13.Nf8: Kf8: 14.c3 Ng3! 15.Rg1 Ne5: 16.de5: Be5: and it is difficult to see which white piece takes part at the game at all.
I think the main issue in the position is the black pawn on f4. It severely hampers the white position and prevents the Bc1 (and consequently Ra1) coming into play. One move before black kept the pawn with Nh5.

So for me the most logical move is 10.Ne2 trying to eliminate that pawn, when Buecker's analysis at Chesscafe.com seems to indicate a good game for white.  Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dragonslayer
Full Member
***
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 231
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: 06/13/04
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #30 - 10/13/08 at 21:40:31
Post Tools
Excellent thread. Lots of new ideas.

  • 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ne5 (or 3...g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nc6 6.d4) is a bit overrated (i.e. theory says +/- which a way too optimistic) White has other options. 4.Nc3 or 5.Nc3.
  • 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.g3 is not a TN. There was the game Littlewood-Kloster, Davos SUI 2004. Before that game I analyzed 5.g3:
    5...d6 6.d4 Bg7 gives White the play he wants. Better seems 6...g4 or even perhaps even better 5...g4 6.Nh4 Nd4!? blocking the d-pawn. I was unable to find a good continuation after this. Perhaps someone else is more lucky.
  • 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.Nf3 g5 4.d4 g4 5.Bf4 gf3 6.Qxf3 d6 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.Bc4 Nd4 9.Bf7+ Kf7 10.Qh5+ Kg7 11.0-0 Nf6 (=+ apparently, but) 12.Bh6+ Qg8 13.Qg5+ Kf7 14.Qh5+ Ke6 15.Qh3+ Ke7 16.Qh4 Nf5 -+ Fedorov (Informator 69) However 16.Nd5+ Ke8 17.Qd3 looks like an easy improvement and unclear in my view (don't trust the computer when it says =+).
    Here there is also' Carmelo Coco's 8.Bb5!?
    In the Quaade move-order 7.Bc4 is an important alternative for White. If White enters from the Fischer defence via 3...d6 4.Nc3 he is deprived of this option.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10068
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: New idea in the king's gambit?!
Reply #29 - 10/12/08 at 20:46:24
Post Tools
FightingDragon wrote on 10/12/08 at 18:02:23:
MNb wrote on 10/10/08 at 21:24:03:
Note that you should prefer 4.Nc3 and only after ...h6 5.d4.


That part I didn't understand. Can you enlighten me? Smiley

You just argued why you want to avoid 3...d6 4.d4 g5 5.Nc3 g4 6.Bxf4 gxf3 7.Qxf3  Wink and I think 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1 is rather suspect.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
micawber
God Member
*****
Offline


like many sneaks and skunks
in history he's a poet

Posts: 852
Location: Netherlands
Joined: 09/07/05
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #28 - 10/12/08 at 20:10:58
Post Tools
@Fightingdragon (no secrets) Wink


1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 g5 4.d4 g4 5.Bf4: gf3: 6.Qf3: d6 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.Bc4 Nd4: 9.Bf7:+ Kf7: 10.Qh5+ Kg7 11.0-0 Be6 12.Rad1 Nf6 13.Bh6+ Kg8 14.Qg5+ Kf7 15.Qh5+ ... (Salmensuu-Alexandrov, Istambul, 2002)

11....Nf6 =/+(Fedorov) and there is no forced draw)

11.0-0-0 (Salmensuu's prefered this 2 years after the above game)
11......Qf6! 12.Nd5, Qg6 -/+ (Salmensuu-Nysti, Helsinki,2004)

======================================
MNb's remarks on 1.e4,e5 2.f4,exf 3.Nf3,d6 have
to do with move-orders and transpositions:

4.d4,g5 5.Nc3,g4 and black has no direct need for ...h6
4.Nc3,h6 (4...g5!) 5.d4 Transfers to Becker's Defence.
Though I doubt that white has an advantage here
[Mnb] probably thinks of the following variation he recommended in previous posts:

4.Nc3,h6
5.d4,g5
6.g3!?,fxg3
(after 6...g4 7.Nh4,f3 black has spent a tempo on the not so usefull ...h6)
7.hxg3,Bg7
8.Be3
      (Mnb; More common is 8.Bc4,Nf6 though neither Morozovich nor Grishuk could attain advantage playing white)

A recent game, showing black has not really much to fear:
8.Be3,Bg4 9.Be2,Nd7 10.Qd3, c6 [unclear], Shulman-Formanek,Conneticut,2007
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
FightingDragon
Senior Member
****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 253
Joined: 05/12/04
Re: New idea in the king's gambit?!
Reply #27 - 10/12/08 at 18:02:23
Post Tools
I would understand if you don't want to show your secrets, but I don't know anything better for white in the Rosentreter than the forced draw after: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 g5 4.d4 g4 5.Bf4: gf3: 6.Qf3: d6 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.Bc4 Nd4: 9.Bf7:+ Kf7: 10.Qh5+ Kg7 11.0-0 Be6 12.Rad1 Nf6 13.Bh6+ Kg8 14.Qg5+ Kf7 15.Qh5+ ...

Also in the Kieseritsky I'm not sure about 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6 6.Bc4 d5 7.ed5: Bd6 8.d4 Nh5 9.Nc3 0-0 10.Ne4 f5 (or the other way round 8. ... 0-0 9.Nc3 Nh5 Ne4 f5).
Moreover, after 5. ... d6 6.Ng4: Nf6 I think it is difficult to find anything which gives white realistic winning chances.

In that respect I don't think that the Quaade endgame after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3 g4 5.Ne5 Qh4+ 6.g3 fg3: 7.Qg4: Qg4: 8.Ng4: d5 9.Ne3 is worse, at least it offers white some practical chances.
It may not be enough from a correspondence player's viewpoint, but which variation against 3. ... g5 is???

The main advantage of the Quaade is that it is not very well known, which is important in OTB play.

MNb wrote on 10/10/08 at 21:24:03:
Note that you should prefer 4.Nc3 and only after ...h6 5.d4.


That part I didn't understand. Can you enlighten me?  Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
micawber
God Member
*****
Offline


like many sneaks and skunks
in history he's a poet

Posts: 852
Location: Netherlands
Joined: 09/07/05
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #26 - 10/11/08 at 09:57:48
Post Tools
I agree with Mnb on the second part. The variation
3...g5 4.Nc3,g4 5.Ne5,Qh4+ 6.g3,fxg3 7.Qxg4,Qxg4 8.Nxg4,d5!?
was actually played in Pillsbury-Maroczy, Vienna, 1903 and
quickly led to a drawish endgame.
Even though there is not much news under the sun. Practically all suggestions, have been discussed previous in this section of the forum.
Subscribers to paid 1.e4,e5 section can verify this very quickly, as there is a small separate database for download there that contains the forum analysis and more.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10068
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: New idea in the king's gambit?!
Reply #25 - 10/10/08 at 21:24:03
Post Tools
FightingDragon wrote on 10/07/08 at 05:01:18:
If this is a way to play the Fischer lines without allowing the Rosentreter, I think the King's gambit becomes interesting again!


I disagree on the second part. Even if this is a way to play those Fischer lnes without allowing the Rosentreter (ie Black has not a good way to deviate) I think the KG is interesting.
Unlike you I would not mind to play 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d6 4.d4 g5 5.Nc3 g4 as White. Note that you should prefer 4.Nc3 and only after ...h6 5.d4. So you offer a solution for a problem I don't have  Wink. What you don't offer - and neither does David Flude, who understandably wants to save his ideas for his corr. games - is a solution for 3...g5. You simply say that 4.Nc3 g4 5.Ne5 is OK for White, but I suspect that Qh4+ 6.g3 fxg3 7.Qxg4 Qxg4 8.Nxg4 is too drawish for corr. play. Hence I see no point in reacting.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
FightingDragon
Senior Member
****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 253
Joined: 05/12/04
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #24 - 10/10/08 at 18:01:47
Post Tools
Is nobody interested in the king's gambit anymore?

Did I post too many variations or is my suggestion entirely silly?  Undecided
« Last Edit: 10/10/08 at 22:48:11 by FightingDragon »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2873
Location: Malm
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #23 - 10/07/08 at 21:53:45
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 07/29/08 at 18:04:07:
and I also like the "nameless 3...Nc6 defence" followed by 4...g5- it prevents the Kieseritzky and in my experience often confuses White players who are expecting 3...g5.


1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ne5! is actually a variation of the Kieseritzky (usually reached by 5.Ne5 Nc6 6.d4!) and it's still considered good for white as far as I know. Though it's easy for white to forget about Ne5 given the number of transpositions into Hansteins, Allgaiers and so forth.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
FightingDragon
Senior Member
****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 253
Joined: 05/12/04
New idea in the king's gambit?!
Reply #22 - 10/07/08 at 05:01:18
Post Tools
After checking Vadim Zvjaginsevs games in the King's gambit I have some new ideas for white:

1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3!?

now 4. ... g4 5.Ne5 is at least OK for white.

the game Zvjaginsev-Smirnov, 2008 went 4. ... Nc6 5.g3!? d6 6.d4 Bg7 7.d5 Ne5 8.gf4: gf4: 9.Bf4: Bg4 10.Bb5+ Kf8 11.Be2 with a balanced position.

what about 4. ... d6 5.g3!? (the new idea)? I couldn't find any games with that move. The idea is to transpose to the lines discussed in the Fischer defence thread (which to my mind give white nice compensation) without allowing the Rosentreter which I think is better for black (like after 5.d4 g4!).
After 5. ... g4 6.Nh4 f3 7.d4 play is very likely to transpose to these lines. One independent try is 7. ... Be7 8.Be3 (8.Nf5!?) Bh4: 9.gh4: Qh4: 10.Bf2 Qh6 when black is one tempo up compared to the Furhoff-Eriksson game from the Fischer defence. Nevertheless I think white has compensation after 11.Nd5 Kd7 12.Qd3 with the idea of 13.Be3 and 0-0-0 or even 12.Qd2!?

Black can also play 5. ... fg3: 6.hg3: Bg4 (Bg7 7.d4 h6 is the Becker defence) 7.d4 h6 (Bg7 8.Bc4 Nc6 9.Rf1 Qe7 10.Be3 h6 11.Qd2 Nf6 12.0-0-0 0-0-0 13.Rde1 and white has compensation, the question is if it's enough) 8.Bc4 Bg7 9.Rf1 and again the game has transposed to the Becker defence.

If this is a way to play the Fischer lines without allowing the Rosentreter, I think the King's gambit becomes interesting again!
I would like to hear your opinion!  Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 889
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #21 - 08/25/08 at 15:33:41
Post Tools
Just had a fresh look at the Allgaier and Hamppe-Allgaier again.

I understand where the confusion came from in the line 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.d4 d5 9.Bxf4 Nf6 10.Bd3?!- that was a typo, I meant 9...Bb4 when the general agreement is that 10.Bd3 is fine for White.  I agree that 10.Nxd5 looks best in that line.

I concede that in the Allgaier proper White cannot objectively get equality- my best suggestions for getting practical chances would be 7.d4 f3 8.Be3!?, which is complex but with an edge for Black, or 7...d5 8.Bxf4 Nf6 9.Nc3 Bb4 10.Bd3 and now as MNb said above, 10...Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 dxe4 12.Bc4+ and now 12...Be6 and 12...Kg7 give Black an edge.
7.Nc3 Nf6 tends to transpose, while my best suggestion against 7...d5 would be 8.d4 f3 9.Nxd5 Nf6 10.Nxf6+ Qxf6 11.Bc4+ (rather than 11.gxf3 Qxf3 when queens come off, though I think if 12.Bc4+ Ke8 13.Qxf3 gxf3 then 14.Bf4 limits Black to just an edge).  The end result is similar to the 7.d4 d5 line above.

However, as David says above, the Kieseritzky (5.Ne5 Nf6 6.Bc4! d5 7.exd5 Bd6) may be fine as Stefan Bucker's analysis illustrates.

I had a second look at the H-A-G lines and still couldn't find a way for Black to force an evaluation better than "unclear".  Indeed, it is probably no worse than the Pierce Gambit via the Vienna move-order, which has been improved for Black recently.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
flaviddude
Senior Member
****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 329
Location: Australia
Joined: 01/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: articles on Chess Cafe
Reply #20 - 07/31/08 at 12:45:15
Post Tools
Stefan Bucker has posted an article on the main line of the Kieseritzy on Chess Cafe. An expanded version of this article will appear in the next issue of Kaissiber. In my opinion this patches up a line of the King's Gambit where white was struggling.

I have played the King's Gambit from both sides for many years both over the board and in correspondence. I am currently happy playing against every line from black. Black can equalize in some lines if he is very careful. However many of these positions are even but not drawish. Some of the positions that arise are very difficult and quite different to other openings.      
  

I am hopelessly addicted to the King's Gambit
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 889
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #19 - 07/30/08 at 16:56:36
Post Tools
Yes, thanks for alerting me to that- so the Allgaier proper doesn't look to be in the best shape then. 
In the 7 Bc4+ line, the 9 Bxb7 Bxb7 10 Qxg4+ Kf7 11 Qh5+ Ke7 12 Qe5+ Kd7 is paradoxical in that it's White who ends up temporarily ahead on material but facing a winning attack.  There is the deviation 12 Qb5 Qc8 13 0-0 Bg7 14 Rxf4 but it's highly unlikely that White has enough compensation for two pieces here.  In your main line Fritz also suggests 15 Rf1, but that loses as well.

Black certainly appears to be better in all lines following 7 d4 f3 8 Bc4+ and the main alternative 8 Be3, and also following 7 Nc3 d5 (7...Nf6 might also be good, but as you say, it's not very relevant as 7...d5 is safely better for Black)

However it looks like the Hamppe-Allgaier is in much better shape from the latest analysis.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10068
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #18 - 07/30/08 at 02:40:55
Post Tools
Here we go again, this time bashing the Allgaier.

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ng5 h6 6.Nxf7 Kxf7
-7.Nc3 d5 8 d4 f3 9 Nxd5 Nf6 10 Nxf6 Qxf6 11 gxf3 Qxf3 12 Bc4+ and I think Ke8 is more than =+, eg 13.Qxf3 gxf3 14.Kf2 Bg4 15.h5 Nc6 16.c3 Na5 17.Bd3 c5.
-According to an analysis from Chabelsky 7.Bc4+ d5 8.Bxd5+
a)8...Ke8 9.d4 (but then why not 7.d4 immediately?) Nf6 10.Nc3 Nh5 11.0-0 c6 12.Bb3 Bg7 3.e5 Tf8 14.Ne4 Qxh4+ 15.Nd6+ Kd7 and Black has the extra piece plus the winning attack ...
b)8...Kg7 9.Bxb7 Bxb7 10.Qxg4+ Kf7 11.Qh5+ Ke7 12.Qe5+ and 100 years ago one knew better than current sicilon power: Kd7 13.Qxh8 (13.Qf5+ Kc6 14.Rh3 a5! and the black king escapes) Nf6 14.e5 Bxg2 (Fritz6 thinks White is better, but we should rather rely on the old masters) 15.Rg1 (15.Rh2 f3 16.Qxf6 Qxf6 17.exf6 Bc5, Gunsberg in 1895; Fritz6 gives 18.d4 Bxd4 19.Nd2 Nc6 20.f7 Ne5 but has changed its evaluation drastically) f3 16.Qxf6 Qxf6 17.exf6 Bc5 (Lewenfisj 1910). All this shows that Eric Schiller's books sometimes are useful; it's to be found in his "Who is afraid of the KG". Heartwarming that these old masters understood stuff like this better than 21st century computers.
-So I tried to revive 7.d4, similar to the HAG.
a)7.d4 f3 (this thematic move is probably even stronger than d5 8.Bxf4 Nf6 9.Nc3 Nxe4 or Be6) 8.Bc4+ d5 9.Bxd5+
a1)9...Ke8 10.gxf3 Nf6 11.Bb3 gxf3 12.Be3 Nc6 and I doubt White's compensation.
a2)9...Kg7 10.gxf3 Nf6 11.Nc3 Bb4 12.Bc4 c5! -+Le Goff-Bauget, corr 1993 is an improvement on the old 12...gxf3.

Sidenote, possibly not very relevant: C2 (see previous page). After 7...Nf6, Harding's main line is 8 d4 d5 9 Bxf4 Bb4 10 Bd3 and now Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 dxe4 12 Bc4+ Be6 and in no single line Fritz will drop his evaluation, as far as I can see
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10068
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #17 - 07/30/08 at 01:24:26
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 07/29/08 at 18:04:07:
1. After 8 d4 Bb4 I reckon White can try 9 Bc4+ d5 10 Bxd5+ Kg7 11 Bxf4, unclear, as Bb4 isn't usually one of Black's best moves in the dodgy 8 Bc4+ line.


After 11...Nge7 (iso Nf6) I doubt White's compensation; also after 10...Ke8 (iso 10...Nge7) 11.Bxf4 Nge7, but I never cared to look further as 9.Bxf4 Nf6 10.Bd3 looked good enough for me. I refer to Claridge-Burkett, IECG 1999.
But you might be right, activating both white bishops this way feels right.

SWJediknight wrote on 07/29/08 at 18:04:07:
2. Having another run-through of 8 d4 d5 9 Bxf4 Nf6, I'm not sure that that stretch of the article is among Harding's best, as he glosses over Glazkov's 10 Bb5+ Bxc3+ 11 bxc3 Nf6 12 0-0 Kg7, when 13 exd5 is fine for White, and Rodricht's 14 Bxg4 in the 10 Be2 line, which also looks OK (though I feel Black has improvements in the 13...dxe4 line, I don't trust 10 Be2 and 13 c4 at all).

As well as 10 Bb5 which is about equal, 10 Bd3 is also better IMO than 10 Be2. So maybe even that line may be playable for White.

Neither do I trust 10.Be2, but mainly because of the answer dxe4 and now what? For the same reason I dismiss 10.Bd3. One example is Bennett-Mulenko, IECG 2000. White has an independent option though: 10.Nxd5 looks attractive to me. Down-Furmston, corr BPCF 1993 went very well for White; the other important game Pillsbury-Winkler, Wien 1902 needs to be scrutinized. Of course there is still 9.Nxd5 as well, which imo is White's best.
This was the reason to look for transpositional tricks (9...Nf6 or 9...Bb4) for Black. So if you're right about 8.d4 Bb4 9.Bc4+ it looks like the Hamppe-Allgaier is in quite fine shape. Moreover 8.d4 Bb4 9.Bxf4 Nf6 (d5 10.Bd3 Jansen-Fiorito, corr NBC 1996 or d6?! 10.Bc4+) 10.Bd3 d5 11.0-0 is Claridge-Burkett, IECG 1999 again. Nice!

Stuff about the Allgaier proper to follow soon.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 889
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #16 - 07/29/08 at 18:04:07
Post Tools
On the topic of how to answer 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3, I'm not convinced that Black is better with best play after 3...g5.  Black can certainly equalise, but it's difficult to prove more than that.  The Hanstein Gambit, while unpromising for White, probably equalises, while in the Kieseritzky, see Stefan Bucker's analysis of 4 h4 g4 5 Ne5 d6 Nxg4 Nf6, and 5...Nf6 6 Bc4! (rather than the more ambitious, but insufficient, 6 d4 d6) d5 7 exd5.
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kaiss34.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kaiss35.pdf

Also, I wonder if Fritz's 7 Bc4+ d5 8 Bxd5+ Kg7 9 Bxb7 mentioned above is wholly sound in the Allgaier; if it is, even the Allgaier may be good enough for equality.

As Black (I sometimes meet 1 e4 with 1...e5) I quite like the Cunningham in response to the KG, and I also like the "nameless 3...Nc6 defence" followed by 4...g5- it prevents the Kieseritzky and in my experience often confuses White players who are expecting 3...g5.

MNb wrote on 07/29/08 at 02:57:37:
...

8.d4 Bb4 9.Bxf4 Nf6 and now both 10.Bd3 and 10.Be2 seem to provide compensation. Now one important point is that both are answered with 10...d5, transposing to

8.d4 d5 9.Bxf4 Bb4 10.Bd3/10.Be2 Nf6. So if JediKnight is right, White has a problem after 8...Bb4. In this move order though I think 8...Be6 9.Bd3 Nf6 even better.

...




1.  After 8 d4 Bb4 I reckon White can try 9 Bc4+ d5 10 Bxd5+ Kg7 11 Bxf4, unclear, as Bb4 isn't usually one of Black's best moves in the dodgy 8 Bc4+ line.

2.  Having another run-through of 8 d4 d5 9 Bxf4 Nf6, I'm not sure that that stretch of the article is among Harding's best, as he glosses over Glazkov's 10 Bb5+ Bxc3+ 11 bxc3 Nf6 12 0-0 Kg7, when 13 exd5 is fine for White, and Rodricht's 14 Bxg4 in the 10 Be2 line, which also looks OK (though I feel Black has improvements in the 13...dxe4 line, I don't trust 10 Be2 and 13 c4 at all).

As well as 10 Bb5 which is about equal, 10 Bd3 is also better IMO than 10 Be2.  So maybe even that line may be playable for White.

3.  8 d4 d5 9 Bxf4 Be6 (the immediate 8...Be6 is illegal!) can be met by 10 Be2, undermining the g4 and d5-pawns, while 10 Bd3 isn't too bad either, e.g. 10...Nf6 11 exd5 Nxd5 12 0-0.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anders
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 107
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #15 - 07/29/08 at 14:51:00
Post Tools
OK.  Thanks / Anders
  

Those are my principles, and if you dont like them... well, I have others... GROUCHO MARX
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #14 - 07/29/08 at 14:48:02
Post Tools
Anders wrote on 07/29/08 at 14:13:52:
Markovich wrote on 07/29/08 at 12:58:38:
I apologize that it's not in the spirit of this thread, but personally I would never consider 3...g5.  I understand that Black is better, but there are much simpler defenses that utterly frustrate White's quest for (a) the advantage and (b) the thrill of playing his heavily prepared, antique system ca. 1865.


Hi.
Could you please update on which defences you think about? 

(Sorry if there is an old thread with info around this.  I could not find one when looking).

Cheers / Anders


Well, I usually play the Modern but I certainly would also consider the Cunningham.  For whatever it's worth.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anders
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 107
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #13 - 07/29/08 at 14:13:52
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 07/29/08 at 12:58:38:
I apologize that it's not in the spirit of this thread, but personally I would never consider 3...g5. I understand that Black is better, but there are much simpler defenses that utterly frustrate White's quest for (a) the advantage and (b) the thrill of playing his heavily prepared, antique system ca. 1865.


Hi.
Could you please update on which defences you think about?

(Sorry if there is an old thread with info around this. I could not find one when looking).

Cheers / Anders
  

Those are my principles, and if you dont like them... well, I have others... GROUCHO MARX
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #12 - 07/29/08 at 12:58:38
Post Tools
I apologize that it's not in the spirit of this thread, but personally I would never consider 3...g5.  I understand that Black is better, but there are much simpler defenses that utterly frustrate White's quest for (a) the advantage and (b) the thrill of playing his heavily prepared, antique system ca. 1865.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10068
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #11 - 07/29/08 at 02:57:37
Post Tools
Ha, a little debate on the Allgaier. As S_F says, ever chessplayer should have a hobby. Mine is trying to revive irrelevant stuff like this. Wouldn't it be nice if the Allgaier was player after all? My attempt started after reading those two Harding articles; as always I lost my interest somewhere halfway. But it is there again.

First the Viennese version: 7.Nc3 Nc6 and now 8.Bc4+ d5 9.Bxd5+ Kg7 (Ke8 10.d4 Bg7 11.Bxf4 Nxd4 is an option) 10.d4 Qf6!? 11.e5 Nxe5 12.dxe5 Qxe5+ Zjelnin-Tiulin, Cherepovets 1973, 13.Qe2 Bd6 14.Qxe5+ Bxe5 15.o-o f3!? 16.gxf3 Nf6 17.Bb3 g3 =+. Instead 10...f3 leads us to Babula-Votruba, Cihak 1969, which after 40 years is still unclear indeed.

There is another reason why I think the immediate check might be imprecise. After 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.d4 d6 White might prefer 9.Bxf4 Be7 10.g3 limiting Black's options somewhat; 9.Bc4+ Kg7 10.Bxf4 Be7 11.g3 is the similar idea.

After 8.d4 f3 might be good: 9.Bc4+ d5 10.Bxd5+ Kg7 11.gxf3 Bb4 12.Be3 Nf6 13.Bc4 Qe7 14.Qe2 is Gallagher-Hresc, Geneve 1991, where should have played Rd8! In my opinion White may try 14.Qd3, but I am not sure about his compensation.

8.d4 Nf6 9.Bc4+ d5 10.Nxd5 f3 11.gxf3 Be6 12.gxf4 Gallegos-Shipman, San Francisco 2000, Nxe4 13.Qf3 Nf6 14.Rf1 Kg7 15.Nxf6 Bxc4 16.Nh5+ Kh8 17.Nf6+ -.

8.d4 Bb4 9.Bxf4 Nf6 and now both 10.Bd3 and 10.Be2 seem to provide compensation. Now one important point is that both are answered with 10...d5, transposing to

8.d4 d5 9.Bxf4 Bb4 10.Bd3/10.Be2 Nf6. So if JediKnight is right, White has a problem after 8...Bb4. In this move order though I think 9...Be6 10.Bd3 Nf6 even better. I agree on 9.Nxd5 f3 (Nf6 10.Bxf4 indeed) 10.gxf3 Nge7 (according to Konikowski Be6 12.fxg4 favours White) 11.Bxc4 Be6 is Gallego-Shipman above. I agree that White looks fine after 11...Nxd5 12.Bxd5+ Kg7; he may try 13.fxg4 Be7 14.0-0 Genestier-Sireta, corr 1993 or 13.Bxc6 bxc6 14.fxg4 Be7 15.0-0 as well.

My investigations on the Allgaier proper have been limited to 7.d4. As I agree with JediKnight on this I decided to do something else, forgetting about 7.Nc3 and 7.Bc4+. As Ritchie Blackmore once said: Vielleicht das nchste Zeit (German native speakers, please don't react. I know the difference between Zeit and Mal).

Later edit: I have corrected the typo pointed out be JediKnight (see next page).
« Last Edit: 07/30/08 at 01:09:43 by MNb »  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 889
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #10 - 07/28/08 at 21:40:07
Post Tools
Here's Harding's articles:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz78.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz79.pdf

I've checked over Gallagher's NCO line with the assistance of Fritz 10, and think there may be improvements for White over it, but nothing particularly inspiring.  My analysis of the Allgaier from tonight's survey (which probably has many holes) runs:

A.  7 d4 f3 (7...d5!?) 8 Bc4+ d5 9 Bxd5+ Kg7 10 gxf3 Nf6 11 Bc4 (11 Nc3 Bb4 -/+ Gallagher, e.g. 12 Bc4 c5!) 11...c5 12 e5 Nc6 =+.

B.  7 Bc4+ d5 8 Bxd5+ Kg7 (8...Ke7 9 d4 gives White sufficient compensation) 9 Bxb7 is Fritz's suggestion (9 d4 f3! =+, transposes to line A) 9...Bxb7 (9...f3 10 Bxc8 f2+ 11 Kxf2 Qxc8 12 d4 with compensation) 10 Qxg4+ Kh7 (10...Kf7 11 Qh5+ Ke6 12 Qf5+ Kd6 13 d4 with compensation) 11 Qf5+ Kg7 12 Qg4+, with a repetition draw.

C.  7 Nc3

C1.  7...Bb4 8 Bc4+ d5 9 Nxd5 Be6 10 Qe2 with compensation.

C2.  After 7...Nf6, Harding's main line is 8 d4 d5 9 Bxf4 Bb4 10 Bd3 dxe4 11 Bc4+ Kg7 12 0-0 Nc6 13 d5, which is unclear.  This is one of those lines where Fritz initially thinks Black is much better, but push it down its suggested lines, and the evaluation drops substantially.

C3.  7...d5 is the one move that might be better than 7...Nc6.  8 d4 (8 Nxd5 Nf6 9 Nxf4 Qd4 10 d3 Bc5 -/+) 8...f3 9 Nxd5 Nf6 10 Nxf6 Qxf6 11 gxf3 Qxf3 12 Bc4+ Kg7 13 Qxf3 gxf3 =+.

C4.  7...Nc6 and now:

C4a.  8 Bc4+ d5 9 Bxd5+ Kg7 10 d4 Bd6 (10...f3 11 gxf3 Be7 12 Be3 Bxh4+ 13 Kd2 is unclear, 10...Nf6 11 Bxf4 with compensation) 11 Bxc6+ (11 e5 Nxe5 12 dxe5 Bxe5 leaves Black a pawn up and destroys White's centre) 11...bxc6 and I think Black may be slightly better, though the position is still murky.

C4b.  8 d4 d5 (8...f3 is probably best met by 9 Be3 with another unclear position, rather than 9 Bc4+ which tends to transpose to line C4a) 

C4b1.  9 Bxf4 Bb4 is good for Black, but I think White's two move-9 alternatives are worth another look: 
C4b2.  9 exd5 Qe7+ (9...Nce7 10 Bxf4 Ng6 11 Be5 Bg7 12 Qe2 unclear) 10 Kf2 Ne5 =+
C4b3.  9 Nxd5 Nf6 (9...f3 10 gxf3 Nge7 11 Bc4 Nxd5 is considered good for Black according to Harding, but White seems fine to me: 12 Bxd5+ Kg7 13 Be3 with compensation) 10 Bxf4 is extremely messy.

In conclusion, unless I've missed something (which I might well have done), White's best move in the Allgaier seems to be 7 Bc4+ with sufficient compensation, though Black can force a quick draw in that line.  7 Nc3 is best met by 7...d5 with an edge for Black, while the Hampe-Allgaier with 7...Nc6 looks unclear.  It also appears that MNb is right about 8 d4 with the intention of queenside castling, rather than 8 Bc4+, being White's best approach in the Hampe-Allgaier lines.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10068
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #9 - 07/28/08 at 17:58:52
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 07/28/08 at 11:25:03:
Tim Harding wrote an article on the Allgaier a while ago, in which he concluded that 7 Nc3 was the best move, but it was still doubtful as to whether White got enough against accurate defence. Black's best may be to transpose to the Hamppe-Allgaier with 7...Nc6, when Harding suggests 8 Bc4+ as a largely unexplored possibility.


I always have felt intuitively that both statements are incorrect. After 7.Nc3 should not Black rearrange his kingside first? Both 7...Bb4 and 7...Nf6 strike me as more logical.
In the Hamppe-Allgaier (7.Nc3 Nc6 or 2.Nc3 Nc6) it seems to me that White has to play d2-d4 anyway, while it is not sure yet that c4 is the best square for the bishop. Moreover I think the queen's wing a safer place for the white king than the king's wing. Of course I know that White has won a lot of nice attacking games by castling kingside, but well, I always felt because of inaccurate defence.
Just my 2 SRD.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 889
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #8 - 07/28/08 at 11:25:03
Post Tools
Tim Harding wrote an article on the Allgaier a while ago, in which he concluded that 7 Nc3 was the best move, but it was still doubtful as to whether White got enough against accurate defence.  Black's best may be to transpose to the Hamppe-Allgaier with 7...Nc6, when Harding suggests 8 Bc4+ as a largely unexplored possibility.

7 d4 and 7 Bc4+ are inaccurate in view of the line given in NCO.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ANDREW BRETT
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 621
Joined: 07/07/06
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #7 - 07/27/08 at 18:09:30
Post Tools
A few random thoughts:
I thought in the Allgaier 7 Nc3 was a main alternative

3.. Ne7 seems to have been revived by Mickey Adams and was used also by Sokolov and Seirawan ( I think Spassky mauled him though !)

I see Nigel short won a game with the KG v Karjakin in their recent blitz- I wonder what he had in mind as the choice of the Falkbeer avoided any prep
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
blueguitar322
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 138
Joined: 07/27/06
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #6 - 07/27/08 at 00:27:44
Post Tools
One last addition: a transposition table for all the first 6 moves or so of the ...g5 systems. No evaluations on here, just move orders. Anything in bold represents the primary move order to achieve individual systems within the ...g5 strategy, italicized lines are transpositions. This is important because much of the future viability of the KG might lie in move orders avoiding unpleasant positions.




I also found these notes, which talk about some of the naming conventions and general strategy ideas:

General Guidelines (Black plays ...g4)
  • The Kieseritzky is probably the most logical continuation
  • Lines with 4 Bc4/d4/Nc3 either:
    • require White to sacrifice a piece
    • allow Black to play Qh4+
  • lines that prepare g4 with d6/Nc6 prohibit Nf3-e5
  • Whites light-squared bishop usually belongs on c4, hitting f7 (though only after g4 has been played because of 4 Bc4 Bg7!)
General Guidelines (Black sets up with Bg7/d6/h6)
  • If White plays Bc4, its a Hanstein Gambit
  • If White plays Bc4 and h4, its a subset of the Hanstein called the Philidor Gambit (or Greco-Philidor Attack)
  • If White plays 4 Bc4 Bg7, 5 d4/Nc3 still allows Black the g4 option
  • If White doesnt play Bc4
    • and Black plays h6, its a Becker Defense
    • and Black plays d6, its a Fischer Defense
    • and Black plays Nc6 without d6, its a Pierce Gambit Declined
  • Whites light-squared bishop usually belongs on f1 (guarding h3 in some lines) or b5 (after Nc6)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
blueguitar322
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 138
Joined: 07/27/06
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #5 - 07/27/08 at 00:18:01
Post Tools
Repertoire Ideas

Here's just a few basic thoughts of mine as I tried to find the objectively strongest repertoire for White and Black. Note this only for 3 Nf3; for 3 Bc4 and all forms of declining/counter-gambiting, the definitive work is most definitely Thomas Johansson's Fascinating King's Gambit. Also note that several 3 Nf3 transpositions (notably several Modern Defense lines) are covered there as well. For anyone interested in the KG from either color, well worth the price of admission.

As White (against ...g5 systems)
  • My goal was to get to the position arising after 3g5 4 Nc3 Bg7 5 d4 d6 6 g3!? as this looks promising for White. There are two basic move order options - 4 Nc3 and 4 d4.
  • Good for White is Quaade (4 Nc3 g4 5 Ne5 Qh4+ 6.g3 fxg3 7.Qxg4 Qxg4 8.Nxg4 d5 9.Ne3!?)
  • Problem with Quaade is 4Nc6! and now Pierce Gambit (4 d4 g4) or Hamppe-Allgaier (4 h4 g4 5 Ng5) is necessary and neither are looking strong
  • Also interesting is Rosentreter move order (4 d4, when 4...Bg7 5 Nc3 d6 6 g3!? and we have our ideal starting point) but 4...g4 5 Bxf4 (the Rosentreter proper) 5...gxf3 6 Qxf3 Nc6! is tough
  • Eschewing the above, the Kieseritzky (4 h4 g4 5 Ne5) is always an option, but doubtful at the moment (see Black repertoire)
  • A knowledgeable Black opponent familiar with move order trickery can always steer the game into his desired channel; to play 3 Nf3 g5 as White currently requires picking at least one difficult line
As Black
  • Hanstein/Philidor after 4 Bc4 Bg7
  • Rosentreter: play 4g4 5 Bxf4 gxf3 6 Qxf3 Nc6 or 4Bg7 5 Nc3 d6 6 g3 Nc6
  • Pierce and Hamppe-Allgaier after 4 Nc3 Nc6
  • Kieseritzky - several lines to choose from; investigate 5...d6 6 Nxg4 Nf6, 5...Nf6 6 d4 and either 6...d6 7 Nd3 Nxe4 8 Bxf4 Bg7 9 c3 O-O or 6...Nc6 (Federov-Ivanchuk)
There's no doubt that, at the moment, Black is having his way after 3 Nf3 g5. Black players should be willing to play 2...exf4 3 Nf3 g5 with confidence. However, be aware that all of these lines are very sharp, and in some lines - as in the Najdorf Poisoned Pawn - Black is often surviving due to a single resource.

Further Resources
This thread - so far - doesn't cover the Hanstein/Philidor, the Pierce Gambit, the Hamppe-Allgaier Gambit, or the Kieseritzky Gambit. All of these are very important, but their theory is more widely available.

In particular, be sure to check out Michael Jensen's excellent article series "Bring Back the King's Gambit" (4 parts) in Correspondence Chess News (Issues 45, 51, 52 and 55) and Tim Harding's Pierce Gambit articles from the ChessCafe Kibitzer section.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
blueguitar322
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 138
Joined: 07/27/06
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #4 - 07/26/08 at 23:50:10
Post Tools
Other Tries
Outside of the Muzio, all these tries are considered suspect to varying degrees. Ive seen a few comments about these on ChessPub but most work has gone into the Kieseritzky, Rosentreter, or Quaade. Ill just give what I have in NCO and McDonalds book. Theres a lot of transpositional possibilities between these, the Rosentreter, and the Pierce.

[1] Muzio Gambit (4 Bc4 g4 5 O-O) NCO gives 5gxf3 6 Qxf3 Qf6 7 e5 Qxe5 8 Bxf7!? (8 d3 Bh6 9 Nc3 Ne7 10 Bd2 with comp.) 8Kxf7 9 d4 Qxd4+ (9Qf6 10 Bxf4 +/-) 10 Be3 Qf6 11 Bxf4 (Yoos-Kirton, Saskatoon 1994) with compensation. Michael Jensen claims 8 Bxf7 is bad (Fritz seems to agree, suggesting 11Ne7 12 Nc3 Qc6 and 11Nc6 12 Nc3 Bc5+). He and MNB recommend looking further at 7 d3, given by Bucker. The big problem with the Muzio is 4 Bc4 Bg7! and the Hanstein/Philidor complex.

[2] Allgaier Gambit (4 h4 g4 5 Ng5) NCO gives 5h6 6 Nxf7 Kxf7 7 d4 f3! 8 Bc4+ d5 9 Bxd5 Kg7 10 gxf3 Nf6 11 Nc3 Bb4 -/+

[3] Ghulam-Kassim Gambit (4 Bc4 g4 5 d4) After 5gxf3 6 Qxf3 d5! 7 Bxd5 Nf6 8 O-O c6! there is 9 Bxf7+ Kxf7 10 Qxf4 Bg7 11 e5 Rf8 12 exf6 Kg8! (Zak) and 9 Nc3 cxd5 10 exd5 Bg7 11 Bxf4 O-O 12 Bg5 Bg4! (Fritz improving on ECO) 13 Qf4 Nbd7 -/+

[4] McDonnell Gambit (4 Bc4 g4 5 Nc3) Now 5gxf3 6 Qxf3 d5 7 Nxd5 Nc6 8 O-O Bd6 9 d4 Nxd4 10 Qh5 Be6 11 Bxf4 Bxf4 12 Nxf4 Nf3!! 13 Rxf3 Qd4+ 14 Kh1 Bxc4 15 c3 Qxe4 =+ (McDonald)

[5] Salvio Gambit (4 Bc4 g4 5 Ne5) McDonald gave 5Qh4+ 6 Kf1 Nc6! 7 Nxf7 Bc5 8 Qe1 g3 9 Nxh8 Bf2 10 Qd1 Nf6 11 Be2 d6 12 c3 Bg4 13 h3 Ne5 14 d4 f3 15 Bxf3 Nxf3 16 gxf3 g2+ 17 Ke2 Bxf3+ (Goncarenko-Alekseev, Corr 1963) with 18 Kxf3 gxh1Q+ 19 Qxh1 Qxe4+ advantage to Black, but it seems play can be improved for both sides at times.

[6] Lolli Gambit (4 Bc4 g4 5 Bxf7+) has the distinction of being the line Neil McDonald was most pessimistic about in his already pessimistic (for White) KG book. He gives 5Kxf7 6 Ne5+ Ke8 7 Qxg4 Nf6 8 Qxf4 d6 9 Nf3 Rg8 -/+

[7] Sorenson Gambit (4 d4 g4 5 Ne5) McDonald has some analysis on this (mostly quoting Zak, it seems), and it looks like White has a draw after 5Qh4+ 6 g3 fxg3 7 Qxg4 f2+ 8 Qxh4 gxf1Q 9 Nc3. Charles Kennaugh comments The main drawback to this line is that if black plays 7...g2+ 8.Qxh4 gxh1Q white only seems to have a draw which he should probably take immediately with 9.Nxf7 Kxf7 10.Qh5+ Kg7 11.Qg5+ etc. Black does himself no particular favours playing for a win with 9...Be7 10.Qh5 Qxe4+ 11.Kd1 Qxd4+ 12.Bd2 Qf6?! (12...Nf6?? 13.Nd6+ Kd8 14.Qe8+!; 12...Kf8! 13.Ne5 Qf2 14.Bh6+ Nxh6 15.Qxh6+ Ke8 16.Qh5+ Kf8=) 13.Nd6+! Kf8 14.Qe8+ Kg7 15.Bc3 Bxd6 16.Bc4.

McDonald quotes ECO with 7Qxg4! 8 Nxg4 d5 9 Ne3 dxe4 10 hxg3 Nc6 11 Bb5 Bd7 where White has some compensation (Blacks kingside structure) but not enough. (NCO agrees, giving the position =+) This line is pretty similar to the Quaade above, but inferior as the developed c3 knight is probably worth more than the move d2-d4.

Kennaugh gives 9.Ne5! f6 10.Bf4 Bg7 and now instead of the piece sacrifice 11.exd5?! dxe5 12.dxe5 Nd7 13.Bb5 a6 14.Bxd7+ Bxd7 which Glazkov gives as slightly better for black (though that assessment is untested) white can simply play 11.Nd3 with the idea 11...dxe4 12.Nc5 f5 13.Nc3! with a strong initiative for the sacrificed pawns.

References: McDonald, Bucker (esp for 7 d3 Muzio according to Jensen), NCO, Charles Kennaugh (link above) for the Sorenson Gambit.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
blueguitar322
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 138
Joined: 07/27/06
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #3 - 07/26/08 at 23:36:03
Post Tools
Fischer Defense Furhoff Attack (3d6 4 d4 g5 5 Nc3 Bg7 6 g3)
Note: 5g4 6 Bxf4 gxf3 7 Qxf3 transposes to Rosentreter Gambit 6d6 7 Nc3 lines
  • [1] 6g4 7 Nf4 f3 8 Be3
    • a) 8Bf6 9 Qd2
      9 Nf5 Bxf5 10 exf5 Bg5! (Jensen) 11 Bxg5 Qxg5 12 Qd3 Nc6 =+ (MNb)
      9 Nxf3!? (MNb) 9gxf3 10 Qxf3 Bg7 (10Nc6 11 O-O-O Be6 (11Bg5!?) 12 Qh5! Qe7 13 e5 unclear (MNb)) 11 Bc4 Be6 12 Bxe6 fxe6 13 Rf1 Qf7 14 Qh5+ Qg6 15 Qb5+ Nd7 16 Qxb7 Rb8 17 Qxa7 unclear (MNb: murky White gets quite a lot of pawns)
      9Nc6
      9Bxh4 10 gxh4 Qxh4+ 11 Bf2 Qh6 12 Qxh6! Nxh6 13 Nd5 with compensation, Furhoff-Eriksson, Helsingborg 1991
      10 O-O-O
      10 Nd5 Bxh4 11 gxh4 Be6 12 O-O-O Bxd5 (12Qd7 13 Nb4!? with compensation (MNb)) 13 exd5 Nce7 14 Bb5+ with compensation (MNb)
      10Nge7
      10Bxh4 11 gxh4 Bd7 12 Qf2 += or +/- (MNb: now 13 h3 leaves Black with the question of how to finish his development)
      11 Nd5 Nxd5 12 exd5 Ne7 13 Bh6 Nxd5 14 h3 with compensation (Jensen)
    • b) 8Nge7 9 Qd2 Nd7
      9Ng6 10 Nf5! (Hague) 10Bxf5 11 exf5 Ne7 12 Bg5 f6 13 Bf4 Nxf5 14 O-O-O with compensation (Hague)
      10 O-O-O Nb6 11 Bd3 Be6 12 h3 h5 13 Rde1 c6
      13Nc4 14 Bxc4 Bxc4 15 Bf4 Qd7 16 Nf5 Rg8 17 hxg4 hxg4 18 b3 += Shulman-Kamberi, Stillwater 2001
      14 Nf5 Bxf5 15 exf5 d5?
      15Qc7 16 hxg4 hxg4 17 Rxh8+ Bxh8 18 Bg5 f6 19 Bh4 with compensation
      15Qd7 16 hxg4 hxg4 17 Rxh8+ Bxh8 18 Bf2 with compensation
      15Kd7 16 hxg4 (16 Ne4!?; 16 Bg5 f6 17 Bf4) 16hxg4 17 Rxh8+ Bxh8 18 Bf2 with compensation
      16 Bg5 f6 17 Bf4 Qd7 18 hxg4 hxg4 19 Rxh8+ Bxh8 20 Qh2 O-O-O 21 Qh7 +/- (All analysis after 13c6 by MNb)
    • c) 8Nc6 9 Qd2 Nce7
      9Bf6 8Bf6 9 Qd2 Nc6
      10 h3 h5 11 O-O-O c6 (Kennaugh-Bellin ENG 1999) 12 Bf4 unclear (MNb)
  • [2] 6g4 7 Nf4 f3 8 h3 h5 9 Be3 Bf6
    9Nge7 10 Qd2 Ng6 (10Nd7 11 O-O-O Nb6 12 Bd3 Be6 8 Be3 Nge7 9 Qd2 Nd7) 11 Nxg6 fxg6 += (MNb)
    9Nc6 10 Qd2!? (Brendo)
    10 hxg4!
    10 Nf5 Bxf5 11 exf5 d5 12 hxg4 hxg4 13 Rxh8 Bxh8 14 Qd2 Nc6 15 O-O-O Qd7 16 Bg5 f7 17 Bf4 O-O-O 18 Nb5 with compensation (MNb)
    10hxg4
    10Bxg4 11 Qd2 Nc6 12 O-O-O += (Snow)
    11 Qd2 Rxh4
    11Bxh4+ 11Rxh4
    12 gxh4 Bxh4+ 13 Rxh4 Qxh4+ 14 Qf2 Qxf2+
    14g3 15 Qxf3 g2+ 16 Kd2 gxf1Q 17 Rxf1 f5 (17Qh7 18 Nd5 +-) 18 Nd5 +/- (Snow)
    15 Kxf2 Ne7!
    15c6 16 Bd3 Ne7 17 Rh1 Be7 18 Rh8+ Kd7 19 d5 cxd5 20 Bb5+ Kc7 21 Re8 Nec6 22 exd5 Bd7 23 Rf8 Nd8 (23Ne5 24 Bxd7 Kxd7 25 Bg5 +/- Snow) 24 Bxd7 Kxd7 (24Nxd7 25 Nb5+ +- Frendo) 25 Rg8 +- (Frendo)
    16 Bc4 Kf8
    16f5 17 Rh1 += (Frendo)
    16Be6 17 Bxe6 (17 Rh1 Kg7 =+ MNb) 17fxe6 18 Rh1 (18 Kg3 = Frendo) 18Nd7! (18Kd7 19 Rh8 += Frendo; 18d5 19 exd5 Nxd5 (19exd5 20 Bg5 += Frendo) 20 Nxd5 exd5 21 Rh8+ Kd7 22 Kg3 += Frendo) 19 Rh8+ Nf8 20 Kg3 O-O-O
    (20Nc6 21 Kxg4 e5 22 d5 Nd4 23 Bxd4 exd4 24 Nb5 f2 25 Rh1 O-O-O 26 Kf3 Nh7 27 Kxf2 Ng5 28 Ke2 = Frendo)
    21 Kxg4 Nfg6 22 Rxd8+ Kxd8 23 Kxf3 b6 (23d5 24 a4 += Frendo) 24 Kg4 c6 25 Kg5 = (Frendo)
    17 Bh6+ Kg8
    17Ke8 18 Bg5! Nbc6
    (18Be6 19 Bxe6 fxe6 20 Rh1 Kh7 (20Ng8 21 Nb5 Na6 22 Rh7 Rb8 23 Nxc7+ Nxc7 24 Rxc7 +/- Frendo; 20Ng6 21 Rh7 Nc6 22 d5 Nce5 23 dxe6 +/- Frendo) 21 Bxe7! Kxe7 22 Rh8 += Frendo)
    19 Bf6 Ng8 20 Bg7 Na5 21 Bb5+ Bd7 (21c6 22 Bd3 b6 23 Rh1 Ne7 24 b4 += Frendo) 22 Nd5 Rc8 23 Bxd7+ Kxd7 24 Rg1 = Frendo
    18 Bg5 Nbc6
    18Ng6 19 Nd5 += (Frendo)
    18Nec6 19 Nd5 += (Frendo)
    18Kf8 19 Rh1 Be6 20 Bxe6 fxe6 21 Nb5 Na6 22 Rh8+ Ng8 23 Rh4 += (Frendo)
    19 Bf6 Ng6 (MNb)
    19Kf8 20 Rh1 Ng8 21 Rh8+ += (Frendo)
    20 Nd5 Na5! 21 Bd3
    21 Nxc7? Nxc4 22 Nxa8 Nf4! -+ (MNb)
    21...c5
    21c6 22 Nc6 Rb8 23 b4 Bd7 24 e5 unclear (MNb)
    22 dxc5 dxc5 23 e5 Nc6 24 Re1 Nb4 25 Nxb4 cxb4 26 Bxg6
    26 Rh1 Kf8 27 Be4 Rb8 28 Bxg6 fxg6 29 Rh7 Be7 30 Bg7+ Ke7 31 Bf6+ Kf8 32 Bg7 = (Frendo)
    26fxg6 27 e6 Bxe6 28 Rxe7 Kf7 29 Rd6 Re8 30 Bd4 Re2 unclear (Frendo)
  • [3] 6Nc6!? 7 Bb5
    7 d5?! Ne5 8 gxf4 (8 Bb5+ Bd7 9 Bxd7 Nxd7 10 gxf4 g4 11 Ng1 Qh4+ -/+ Estrin/Glazkov) 8gxf4 8 Bxf4 Bg4 10 Bxe5 Bxe5 11 Bb5+ Kf8 12 O-O Nf6 -/+ (Estrin/Glazkov)
    7 Bc4?! g4; 7 gxf4?! g4 (Jensen: did not look appealing)
    • a) 7a6 8 Bxc6+ bxc6 9 O-O
      9 Qd3 Qf6 10 gxf4 g4 11 e5 Qg6 12 Nh4 Qxd3 13 cxd3 f5 =+ Zeller-Renet, Swiss League 2006)
      9 g4 10 Nh4 f3 11 Be3 Ne7 12 Qd2 Ng6 13 Nf5 Bf6 14 Rae1 Rg8 15 Bh6 Ne7 16 Nxe7 Bxe7 17 d5! c5 18 e5! +/- Jensen-Edoo, Bronshoj Ch Copenhagen 2004
    • b) 7g4 8 Nh3 f3 9 d5?!
      9 Be3!? Unclear
      9a6 10 Ba4 b5
      10Bxc3!? =+
      11 Nxb5 axb5 12 Bxb5 Nge7 13 dxc6 O-O =+, Furhoff-Sandor, Budapest 1994

Summary: I have dubbed this line of the Fischer Defense (3d6 4 d4 g5 5 Nc3!?) the Furhoff Attack after its original proponent and author of several games in this analysis. After 5Bg7 (trying to head towards a Hanstein) 6 g3!?, White avoids the counter-productive 6 Bc4 and instead undermines Blacks pawn chain. Following 6g4 (kicking the knight) 7 Nh3 f3, Black has gained a protected passed pawn; but at f3 unlike f4 the pawn proves to only be a minor nuisance to the White army.

In most of these lines (Nc6/Bb5 ideas notwithstanding), White develops his queenside fluidly with Be3, Qd2, and O-O-O hoping to catch Black not fully developed. With the ideal pawn center d4/e4 and his king safe on the queenside, White can pursue plans of pushing through the center. Additionally, following h3/h5 and hxg4/hxg4, White can seek play down the h-file. Whites dark-squared bishop, unlike so many other KG lines with exf4, and g5, is a monster in many of these lines, patrolling the c1-h6 diagonal and stopping on f4, g5 and h6 at different times. Indeed, these lines seem to be a microcosm of the modern interpretation of the KG (3 Nf3, at least) as they pit Whites development lead and better structure vs. Blacks extra material and cramping kingside pawns.

One of the key questions for White is when to include h3/h5. Line [1] delays that sequence, preferring the immediate 8 Be3. Line [2] instead continues 8 h3 h5 9 Be3. Theres no particularly conclusive evidence from the above lines, though 8 Be3 might be slightly more accurate. Note that none of the lines above feature an early Bc4 (the Hanstein complex) or h6 (the Becker complex).

Huge kudos to the ChessPub analysis team of MNb, Michael Jensen (Dragonslayer), Glenn Snow, Ben Hague, and Frendo for the vast majority of analysis above. This is truly a homegrown line, as precious few little of it existed beforehand.

References: Theres nothing in any of the references materials I have. Its all at ChessPub:
Fischer Thread #1
Fischer Thread #2
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
blueguitar322
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 138
Joined: 07/27/06
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #2 - 07/26/08 at 23:34:36
Post Tools
Quaade Gambit (4 Nc3 g4 5 Ne5)
  • [1] 5Qh4+ 6 g3 fxg3 7 Qxg4 g2+? 8 Qxh4 gxh1Q 9 Qh5! +-
    • a) 9Be7 and now Bird-Anon. 1886 features a nice smothered mate after 10 Nxf7 Nf6 11 Nd6+ Kd8 12 Qe2 Rxe8 13 Nf7#
    • b) 9Nh6 10 d4 d6
      10Bb4 11 Bxh6 Qxe4+ 12 Kd1 Qxd4+ 13 Ke2 wins; 10d5 is similar to line given
      11 Bxh6 Be6
      11dxe5 12 Qxe5+ Be6 13 Qxh8 is good for White
      12 O-O-O gives tremendous compensation for the exchange. (Analysis by Ben Hague)
  • [2] 5Qh4+ 6 g3 fxg3 7 Qxg4 Qxg4 8 Nxg4 d5 9 Ne3! (Craig Evans idea)
    • a) 9d4 10 Nb5 Na6 11 Nxd4 (Evans-Canizares, IECC 2004) += or +/-
    • b) 9c6 10 exd5 Nf6 11 hxg3
      Fritz likes 11 dxc6 Nxc6 12 Nb5
      11Bd6 12 Ne2 Nxd5 13 b3
      13 d4 is better, keeping the queenside pawns together after knights are exchanged
      13Nxe3 14 dxe3 = (Canizares-Evans, IECC 2004)
    • c) 9dxe4 (Fritz favorite) 10 Ned5 Kd7 11 Nxe4 +=
  • [3] 5Nc6 (suggested by JEH) 6 Nxg4 Qh4+ 7 Nf2 Bc5 8 d4 Bxd4 9 Qf3 (Johansson: looks roughly level at the first glance but theres life in the position. After Qxf4 the queens may be coming off when pawns f7 and h7 may be weaker than the pawn e4 so Black may want to compensate by doubling the c-pawns with Bxc3 which in turn gives away the bishop pair.)
Summary: Like the Rosentreter above, the Quaade is a move-order attempt to steer play into the modern Fischer Defense lines (3d6 4 d4 g5 5 Nc3), but it also allows 4g4. Unlike the Rosentreter, this line is not a knight sac as best is 5 Ne5!

Line [1] (5Qh4+ with 7g2+?) is clearly good for White; Line [2] (5Qh4+ with 7Qxg4) is also holding up well and should promise White at least an edge (even materialistic Fritz favors White in almost every line); Line [3] (5Nc6!?) is probably Blacks best try, with rough equality but an interesting position (Id prefer White).

The problem with the Quaade is not after 4g4; rather 4Nc6! transposing to either a Pierce Gambit (5 Bc4 g4 6 O-O) or Hamppe-Allgaier (5 h4 g4 6 Ng5!?).

References: Most analysis is homegrown here at ChessPub with Craig Evans responsible for the key idea (9 Ne3!). Theres a Quaade thread but most information is on a declined position also reached through the Fischer Defense Furhoff Attack. Most info is hidden in the big threads (Death of KG, New Look at KG).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
blueguitar322
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 138
Joined: 07/27/06
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #1 - 07/26/08 at 23:32:34
Post Tools
Rosentreter (4 d4 g4 5 Bxf4 gxf3 6 Qxf3)
  • [1] 6d6 (recommended by Emms; only line given in NCO; 7 Nc3 unclear; 7 Bc4 =+)

    • a) 7 Nc3 Nc6
      7h6 8 Bc4 Be6 Dabo-Peranic Ita Open 1994 9 Bxe6!? unclear)
      8 Bc4
      8 O-O-O h5 9 e5 Bg4 10 Qe4 Bh6 =+ Morozevich-Aleksandrov, WCC 2000;
      8 Bb5!? Coco 8Bd7 9 O-O-O Bg7 10 e5 Nge7 11 Bxc6 (11 Bg5!? Fritz) 11Nxc6 12 exd6 O-O! (12cxd6?! 13 Rhe1+ +-; 12Nxd4? 13 Rxd4! +-) 13 dxc7 Qf6 unclear
      8Qh4+
      8Nxd4 9 Bxf7+ Kxf7 10 Qh5+ Kg7 11 O-O (11 O-O-O!? McDonald) and now 11Nf6 =+ (Federov) and 11Be6 led to perpetual in Salmensuu-Aleksandrov, Istanbul olm 2000
      9 Bg3 Qf6 10 Qxf6 Nxf6 11 O-O Be7
      11Nxd4? 12 Rxf6 Be7 Federov-Adams, Pula 1997 13 Nd5! O-O-O 14 c3 Nc6 15 Raf1 +/- (Federov)
      12 e5 dxe5
      12Nd7 13 Bxf7+ Kd8 14 Rad1 unclear (Federov)
      13 dxe5 Na5 14 Bb5! c6 15 exf6 Bc5+ 16 Kh1 cxb5 17 Nxb5! += (Cumbers)
    • b) 7 Bc4 Bg7
      7Qf6 8 Nc3 c6 9 Qe3!? += (Kennaugh);
      7Be6 8 d5 (8 Bxe6 fxe6 9 O-O!? Kennaugh) 8Bc8 (8Be7 9 O-O Qe7 (9Qf6 10 Nd2/Qe2 += Kennaugh) 10 Nc3 (10 e5!?) unclear Menoni-Everet, Bratto ITA 2001) 9 O-O Qf6 10 Nc3! unclear (Kennaugh)
      8 O-O
      8 e5 dxe5 9 Bxe5 Nf6 10 O-O Nbd7 11 Nf4! M. Johnson 11Qe7! =+ (Cumbers)
      8Bxd4+ 9 Kh1!?
      9 Be3 Bxe3+ 10 Qxe3 Be6 11 Qd4 Soltis 11Bxc4! 12 Qxh8 Qg5! -/+ (Cumbers)
      9Qf6!
      9Bf6 10 e5 dxe5 11 Bxe5 Nd7 12 Bc3 Qe7 13 Re1 Be5 14 Bxe5 Nxe5 15 Qh5 unclear/+= (Glazkov/Soltis/Lane)
      10 Nc3 Bxc3 11 bxc3 Nc6 12 Qg3 Ne5! =+ Leisebein-Kopplin, Corr 1988
  • [2] 6Nc6 (7 Bc4 =+ or perpetual; 7 d5 =+; 7 c3 unclear/=+)
    • a) 7 d5?! Nce7!
      7Qf6 8 dxc6 Qxb2 9 Qb3 =  (Kennaugh)
      8 e5
      8 Be5 Ng6! 9 Bxh8 Nxh8 =+ (feb/Jensen)
      8Ng6 9 Bd3 Nxf4 10 Qxf4 Bh6 11 Qf2
      11 Qf3 Qg5 -+ (Stock)
      11Bg7 12 O-O
      12 Qg3 Kf8 -/+ (Jensen)
      12Nh6 13 Qg3 Kf8 14 Nc3 d6 -/+ (Jensen)
    • b) 7 Bc4 d5!
      7Nxd4? 8 Bxf7+!
      7Bg7!? 8 Nc3 leads to a Vienna thought to be good for White; 8 c3!? and 8 Bxc7!? (Kennaugh); 8 e5 Nxd4! 9 Bxf7+ Kxf7 10 Qh5+ Ke6! (Burgess)
      7Qh4+!? (Evans)
      8 Bxd5 Nxd4! 9 Bxf7
      9 Qd3!? Bg7 10 O-O and now both 10Ne6! and 10Be6 11 Nc3 c6 12 Qg3 Qf6!? are rough for White (Jensen) while 12Qb6 is a double-edged game where White looks pretty solid (Jensen/MNb)
      9Kxf7 10 Qh5+ Ke6! and White must force perpetual check
      10Kg7 unclear (MNb)
    • c) 7 c3 Bh6 8 Bxf4 Qf6 9 O-O Bxf4 10 Qxf4 Qxf4 11 Rxf4 with a position similar to the exchange variation of the Muzio/Polerio gambit. White will continue with Na3/d2 and Raf1 (Jensen)
  • [3] 6d5? (7 Be5 +/-; 7 Nc3 compensation; 7 exd5? =+)
    • a) 7 Be5! f6
      7dxe4 8 Qxe4 Qe7 9 Nc3! f6 10 Nd5 +- (Emms)
      8 Qh5+ Ke7 9 Nc3 Be6
      9c6 10 exd5 Qe8 +/- Coco-Tuisko Corr 1995
      10 exd5 Bf7 11 Qe2! +- (Cumbers)
    • b) 7 Nc3!? dxe4
      7Nf6 (Schiller) 8 Bxc7! (Hague);
      7Bb4! 8 exd5 with compensation (Hague)
      8 Qxe4! and now 8Ne7 9 Bc4, 8Be7 9 Nd5, 8Qe7 9 Be5, and 8Be7 9 Nb5! all win for White (Kennaugh)
    • c) 7 exd5? Nf6
      7Bd6 8 Bb5+ Bd7 9 Bxd6! cxd6 (9Bxb5 10 Be5! Leisebein) 10 O-O Qf6 (10f6 11 Nc3 Testa-Mlotkowski, Los Angeles 1917 unclear Soltis) 11 Qc3! Leisebein-Jungle, East German Corr Ch 1986 unclear)
      8 Bb5+ c6 9 Be5 Bg7 10 dxc6 bxc6 =+ (ECO/McDonald)

Summary: The Rosentreter is a move order attempt to get to the Fischer Defense modern lines (3d6 4 d4 g5 5 Nc3) but it allows 4g4!, forcing a knight sacrifice 5 Bxf4 gxf3 6 Qxf3.

Line [1a] (6d6 7 Nc3 Nc6) leads to a Pierce Gambit (8 Bc4) that is at least playable for White if he can avoid the perpetual check (see McDonalds 11 O-O-O!?) although Carmelo Cocos suggestion 8 Bb5!? looks quite strong from his (albeit limited) analysis. Line [1b] (6d6 7 Bc4) was recommended by Jensen here at ChessPub, but 7Bg7 8 O-O Bxd4+ and now both 9 Be3 and 9 Kh1 lead to an edge for Black. 8 e5 is probably a better chance for White, though Paul Cumbers line for Black should give him an edge (White has two pawns for the piece and Black has terrible structure but the bishop pair).

Line [2] (6Nc6) is the critical variation, as ChessPub has known for 3-4 years. Line [2a] (7 d5) is dubious. Line [2b] (7 Bc4) looks like a forced draw after 7d5! 8 Bxd5 Nxd4! as 9 Qd3!? looks dubious at the moment. Michael Jensen has spent a lot of time looking into [2c] (7 c3), but the above line is the only one hes mentioned (to my best knowledge). The general opinion is that it might be playable (and certainly tricky for Black to handle), but ultimately is dubious. Note that Bb5 ideas such as in 6d6 7 Nc3 Nc6 8 Bb5!? above dont work because the d-pawn is still on d7 and theres no pin.

Line [3] (6d5?) has been recommended in published works on the KG but it clearly fails thanks to Line [3a] (7 Be5!) The more prominent replies arent as strong; Line [3b] (7 Nc3) is good enough to give compensation after 7Bb4 8 exd5 but Line [3c] (the immediate 7 exd5?) instead throws it away.

References: Lots of ChessPub homegrown analysis here (link below), especially on 6Nc6. Key contributors were Michael Jensen, MNb, Craig Evans, Paul Cumbers and Ben Hague. Charles Kennaughs analysis (link below) was also critical. Soltis recommends the Rosentreter in his repertoire books with some interesting ideas but lots of holes. McDonald analyzed Federov-Adams, Pula 1997 but misses the key line for 6Nc6.

Charles Kennaughs Analysis
Carmelo Cocos Analysis
ChessPub thread on Rosentreter
See also the big ChessPub KG threads (Death of KG, New Look at KG)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
blueguitar322
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 138
Joined: 07/27/06
C30-C39: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
07/26/08 at 23:31:47
Post Tools
So last summer, I thought it'd be great to consolidate and summarize a lot of the homegrown KG analysis that can be found around these parts - ChessPub truly is a great resource for the KG even if no fully acceptable paths have been found (yet) after 3 Nf3.

After a little work, I got very ambitious and even suggested creating a playable e-book to hold all the analysis. I was going to try and merge analysis from just about every source I could get my hands on. Needless to say, that never ended up happening. BUT I do still have some of the material on the:
  • Rosentreter (3 Nf3 g5 4 d4 g4 5 Bxf4!?)
  • Quaade (3 Nf3 g5 4 Nc3 g4 5 Ne5!?)
  • Furhoff Attack (3 Nf3 d6 4 d4 g5 5 Nc3 Bg7 g3) - a line in the Fischer Defense which I named after its strongest proponent
  • Strongest lines for most of White's "misc" gambits after 3...g5 (excluding the Hanstein/Philador)
  • A rough guide to forming a repertoire that involves any of the ...g5 lines
  • A ...g5 systems transposition table
  • General notes on naming convention, strategy, etc
While organizing some of my chess-related files, I found it this afternoon and figured I'd throw it up. There's nothing here that can't be found elsewhere on ChessPub, but it's a fairly nice compilation, if I do say so myself.

Long live the KG! (But it will have to be resuscitated by a stronger player than myself...)
David
« Last Edit: 08/08/11 at 05:54:47 by Smyslov_Fan »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo