Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit (Read 45055 times)
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 570
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #134 - 08/14/14 at 06:47:29
Print Post  
This time an in-depth overview/ analysis of the Nf3 line and more particular the complex of Fischer's defense/Becker's defense/Quaade gambit:
http://chess-brabo.blogspot.be/2014/08/kings-gambit-with-nf3.html
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 570
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #133 - 08/08/14 at 12:43:59
Print Post  
A new blogarticle covering some points which were discussed in this thread on chesspub but also some new material on the Bc4 line:
http://chess-brabo.blogspot.be/2014/08/kings-gambit-with-bc4.html
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 181
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #132 - 07/05/14 at 06:02:49
Print Post  
Stefan Buecker wrote on 02/26/14 at 17:56:22:
It seems to me that John Shaw's claim of a refutation of the King's Bishop Gambit depends not only on the "main line" (given by Johansson in The Fascinating King's Gambit), but also on the transposition to the Hanstein Gambit, via 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.Nf3 and so on. 

In an earlier thread, we have discussed the Hanstein, in particular the move 8.Qa4: http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1305856339/20 . So let's look on John Shaw's coverage of that line. Did he find any improvements? I'll start with repeating my analysis from our old chesspub thread: 



John Shaw follows Zvjaginsev - Akopjan, Rijeka 2010. His main line looks like this:
"13...Qb6?!
Leaves the queen exposed: 13...Qc7 is better."

So Shaw just mentions a single move: 13...Qc7, without crediting the chespub. He doesn't prove an advantage for Black. This contradicts his own claim on page 456 regarding 8.Qa4: "[...] the antidote has been firmly established."

Some chesspub members may remember my heated discussion later in that thread with Taljechin, who had recommended 9...Qe7 10.Qxb7 Rb8. Shaw is similarly short about this one: "[...] has been studied in depth, but the main line offers a convincing solution." Hum, studied in depth by whom?

Not particularly helpful for someone who is trying to understand how exactly the King's Bishop Gambit is refuted...



Exactly!!!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 181
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #131 - 07/05/14 at 05:33:53
Print Post  
TalJechin wrote on 04/19/14 at 14:49:15:
I had a brief look at "1.  e4 e5 2.  f4 exf4 3.  Nf3 g5 4.  Bc4 Nc6 5.  O-O d6 6.  d4 h6 7.  c3 Bg7 8.  Qa4 Bd7 9.  Qb3 Na5 10.  Bxf7 Ke7 11.  Qa3 Kxf7 12.  Qxa5"

and one idea that popped up is 12...Kg6!?

Black has the bishop pair, a slight space advantage and better development, plus that White is left with the wrong bishop and pawns on c3+d4, which makes the light squares a potential long term weakness.

White has an extra centre pawn and potential counter-chances vs Black's king.


So, consolidating the king with 12...Kg6 should have a higher priority than trying to strike back with 12...c5.

I don't remember if we've discussed Kg6, but if it hasn't been mentioned before you could start a new thread for it, if you're interested?

Edit: After a closer look, I think 12...Kg6! is at least an edge for Black.
The good news is that Shaw's strange line vs my mainline is still okay for White. I prefer the Bd3-idea, but your Qd2-g5 also looks okay, though I'd prefer to have the queens on the board.



That is what I am analysing ATM. There are only 3 good alternatives for black. Kg6, Ne7 and c5. Will post the results soon.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1250
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #130 - 04/29/14 at 07:27:33
Print Post  
Stefan Buecker wrote on 04/19/14 at 12:34:17:
Disagreement about the "N" sign remains. I have proposed to use another sign instead: DB which would be defined as "a move not in our database".

Alternatively, QC and other chess publishers could drop the capital "N" and use the sign "n" instead, defining it as "n" = the same as the traditional N for "novelty", but research limited to databases. The "n" would indicate that the author is focused on analysis, not [historical] research.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2801
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #129 - 04/23/14 at 12:12:43
Print Post  
Stefan Buecker wrote on 04/23/14 at 10:22:53:
TalJechin wrote on 04/19/14 at 14:49:15:
I had a brief look at "1.  e4 e5 2.  f4 exf4 3.  Nf3 g5 4.  Bc4 Nc6 5.  O-O d6 6.  d4 h6 7.  c3 Bg7 8.  Qa4 Bd7 9.  Qb3 Na5 10.  Bxf7 Ke7 11.  Qa3 Kxf7 12.  Qxa5"

and one idea that popped up is 12...Kg6!?
[...]
I don't remember if we've discussed Kg6, but if it hasn't been mentioned before you could start a new thread for it, if you're interested?

Edit: After a closer look, I think 12...Kg6! is at least an edge for Black.
The good news is that Shaw's strange line vs my mainline is still okay for White. I prefer the Bd3-idea, but your Qd2-g5 also looks okay, though I'd prefer to have the queens on the board.

12...Kg6 indeed may be a good idea. But I am not sure whether it is stronger than, say, 8...Kf8, which also parries the direct threats, postponing the decision how to disrupt White's center to the future.

In these and similar lines in the Hanstein Gambit, I find it difficult to come to final conclusions. The analysis never ends in move 15 or 17, it's closer to 30 or so. Engines dislike the Hanstein, they fail to see the [OTB] merits of a pawn center. My 1986 book Das neue Königsgambit recommended the Hanstein/Muzio, as it appeared sound enough for my OTB play. Would I still recommend it, if I were in John Shaw's place and had a readership of PC owners, some of whom even play correspondence chess, or visit the truth-obsessed chesspub site? Hard to say.

As I see it, the fans of 3.Nf3 should regard the Kieseritzky Gambit as their first choice, while 3.Bc4 players can follow your main line. For both groups the Hanstein remains worth a look, as a fallback option, maybe to surprise an opponent. There is 8.Qa4, and there are other lines which are relatively unexplored. - John Shaw hasn't really studied the Hanstein, but still he claimed to have refuted 3.Bc4. This gap will hopefully be filled in the 2nd edition. Then would be a better moment to take a closer look at the Hanstein.


Sure we can postpone the dissecting of the Hanstein (I'm not sure I'll have the time at the moment anyway).
I wouldn't be surprised if there's something promising among the unexplored set-ups. But 8.Qa4 I simply don't believe in, even if one probably can get away with it OTB.
  

"Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1250
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #128 - 04/23/14 at 10:22:53
Print Post  
TalJechin wrote on 04/19/14 at 14:49:15:
I had a brief look at "1.  e4 e5 2.  f4 exf4 3.  Nf3 g5 4.  Bc4 Nc6 5.  O-O d6 6.  d4 h6 7.  c3 Bg7 8.  Qa4 Bd7 9.  Qb3 Na5 10.  Bxf7 Ke7 11.  Qa3 Kxf7 12.  Qxa5"

and one idea that popped up is 12...Kg6!?
[...]
I don't remember if we've discussed Kg6, but if it hasn't been mentioned before you could start a new thread for it, if you're interested?

Edit: After a closer look, I think 12...Kg6! is at least an edge for Black.
The good news is that Shaw's strange line vs my mainline is still okay for White. I prefer the Bd3-idea, but your Qd2-g5 also looks okay, though I'd prefer to have the queens on the board.

12...Kg6 indeed may be a good idea. But I am not sure whether it is stronger than, say, 8...Kf8, which also parries the direct threats, postponing the decision how to disrupt White's center to the future.

In these and similar lines in the Hanstein Gambit, I find it difficult to come to final conclusions. The analysis never ends in move 15 or 17, it's closer to 30 or so. Engines dislike the Hanstein, they fail to see the [OTB] merits of a pawn center. My 1986 book Das neue Königsgambit recommended the Hanstein/Muzio, as it appeared sound enough for my OTB play. Would I still recommend it, if I were in John Shaw's place and had a readership of PC owners, some of whom even play correspondence chess, or visit the truth-obsessed chesspub site? Hard to say.

As I see it, the fans of 3.Nf3 should regard the Kieseritzky Gambit as their first choice, while 3.Bc4 players can follow your main line. For both groups the Hanstein remains worth a look, as a fallback option, maybe to surprise an opponent. There is 8.Qa4, and there are other lines which are relatively unexplored. - John Shaw hasn't really studied the Hanstein, but still he claimed to have refuted 3.Bc4. This gap will hopefully be filled in the 2nd edition. Then would be a better moment to take a closer look at the Hanstein.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2801
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #127 - 04/19/14 at 14:49:15
Print Post  
I had a brief look at "1.  e4 e5 2.  f4 exf4 3.  Nf3 g5 4.  Bc4 Nc6 5.  O-O d6 6.  d4 h6 7.  c3 Bg7 8.  Qa4 Bd7 9.  Qb3 Na5 10.  Bxf7 Ke7 11.  Qa3 Kxf7 12.  Qxa5"

and one idea that popped up is 12...Kg6!?

Black has the bishop pair, a slight space advantage and better development, plus that White is left with the wrong bishop and pawns on c3+d4, which makes the light squares a potential long term weakness.

White has an extra centre pawn and potential counter-chances vs Black's king.


So, consolidating the king with 12...Kg6 should have a higher priority than trying to strike back with 12...c5.

I don't remember if we've discussed Kg6, but if it hasn't been mentioned before you could start a new thread for it, if you're interested?

Edit: After a closer look, I think 12...Kg6! is at least an edge for Black.
The good news is that Shaw's strange line vs my mainline is still okay for White. I prefer the Bd3-idea, but your Qd2-g5 also looks okay, though I'd prefer to have the queens on the board.
« Last Edit: 04/20/14 at 10:00:02 by TalJechin »  

"Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 9986
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #126 - 04/19/14 at 13:09:07
Print Post  
Not Caissiber Chess?
  

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
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1250
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #125 - 04/19/14 at 12:34:17
Print Post  
Just a short note. In the meantime I have exchanged e-mails with John Shaw, and we have settled our quarrel - at least the personal part of it, regarding the Kaissiber articles and the way they were credited in The King's Gambit. Disagreement about the "N" sign remains. I have proposed to use another sign instead: DB which would be defined as "a move not in our database". At the end of the day it is the decision of Quality Chess how they want to handle the history of an opening and the research.

Birders have rarity commissions for the occasional sightings of rare birds. In chess, a novelty commission might decide about the status of a published idea: new or not. Members of this commission could be the three big publishing houses: Quality Chess, Quantity Chess and Quasimodo Chess. Oh, wait...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1250
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #124 - 02/26/14 at 17:56:22
Print Post  
It seems to me that John Shaw's claim of a refutation of the King's Bishop Gambit depends not only on the "main line" (given by Johansson in The Fascinating King's Gambit), but also on the transposition to the Hanstein Gambit, via 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.Nf3 and so on. 

In an earlier thread, we have discussed the Hanstein, in particular the move 8.Qa4: http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1305856339/20 . So let's look on John Shaw's coverage of that line. Did he find any improvements? I'll start with repeating my analysis from our old chesspub thread: 



John Shaw follows Zvjaginsev - Akopjan, Rijeka 2010. His main line looks like this:
"13...Qb6?!
Leaves the queen exposed: 13...Qc7 is better."

So Shaw just mentions a single move: 13...Qc7, without crediting the chespub. He doesn't prove an advantage for Black. This contradicts his own claim on page 456 regarding 8.Qa4: "[...] the antidote has been firmly established."

Some chesspub members may remember my heated discussion later in that thread with Taljechin, who had recommended 9...Qe7 10.Qxb7 Rb8. Shaw is similarly short about this one: "[...] has been studied in depth, but the main line offers a convincing solution." Hum, studied in depth by whom?

Not particularly helpful for someone who is trying to understand how exactly the King's Bishop Gambit is refuted...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2801
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #123 - 02/26/14 at 08:58:44
Print Post  
RdC wrote on 02/25/14 at 22:31:51:
Stefan Buecker wrote on 02/25/14 at 17:28:38:
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.d4 Nf6 5.e5 d5 6.Bb5 Ne4 7.Bxf4?!


There's an Alekhine game from 1903 which went
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Nc6 4. d4 Nf6 5. e5 Ne4 6. Bxf4 Qh4+ 7. g3 Nxg3 8. Bxg3 Qe4+ 9. Kf2 Qxh1. which is the available combination, if not quite the same position.



IIrc, I more or less refuted that line in the FKG, so Black's 5...d5 is essential.
  

"Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 2528
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #122 - 02/25/14 at 23:31:54
Print Post  
Stefan Buecker wrote on 02/25/14 at 17:28:38:
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.d4 Nf6 5.e5 d5 6.Bb5 Ne4 7.Bxf4?!

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *

John Shaw in King's Gambit p.441:

Quote:
7...Qh4+!N
7...Be7 Tiller - Kennaugh, Sunningdale 2007.

So did Shaw improve over a game from 2007? No, as we have just seen (quoted above the diagram), he could have found the Queen move in Johansson's work. Henk Smout has found the following comment from Hans Kmoch on 7...Qh4+ in Nachtrag zu P.R. v. Bilguer (v.d. Lasa) Handbuch des Schachspiels für die Jahre 1916-1929, Berlin & Leipzig 1930, p. 59, footnote 16:

Quote:
Damit wird sowohl 6. Lb3 als auch 6. Lb5 widerlegt. Diese Möglichkeit wurde von J. Bubnow, Koslow, Sowjetrußland entdeckt.


Even when I played 7...Qh4+ against Koch in the French Team Championships 2012 I knew that it was the known refutation of White's setup and had been played before, and yet I am far from an expert on the King's Gambit.
Incidentally, the real 'N' only came on move 17!
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
RdC
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 384
Joined: 05/17/08
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #121 - 02/25/14 at 22:31:51
Print Post  
Stefan Buecker wrote on 02/25/14 at 17:28:38:
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.d4 Nf6 5.e5 d5 6.Bb5 Ne4 7.Bxf4?!


There's an Alekhine game from 1903 which went
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Nc6 4. d4 Nf6 5. e5 Ne4 6. Bxf4 Qh4+ 7. g3 Nxg3 8. Bxg3 Qe4+ 9. Kf2 Qxh1. which is the available combination, if not quite the same position.



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


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1204
Joined: 01/21/11
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #120 - 02/25/14 at 21:51:05
Print Post  
I kinda agree with Eric's comment, but I also seem to remember John Shaw being one of the editors at QC, or am I wrong?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
Send TopicPrint
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo
 
  « Board Index ‹ Board  ^Top