Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit (Read 51040 times)
Knightcut
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Unclear chess rocks!

Posts: 20
Location: Denmark
Joined: 04/04/11
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #139 - 11/25/14 at 22:04:32
Post Tools
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.


An interesting alternative to investigate earlier on might be 8...a6!?, which is ignored by Shaw, but seems to be favoured by Stockfish. The first point is that 9.d5 is met by 9...Bg4! and now if 10.dxc6?!, then b5! favours Black. If instead 10.Na3! b5! 11.Nxb5 axb5 12.Qxb5 Nge7 13.dxc6 Black ends up temporarily a pawn down, but with good compensation in terms of better placed pieces, open lines and - possibly soon to come - increased pressure on whites queen side pawns.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Knightcut
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Unclear chess rocks!

Posts: 20
Location: Denmark
Joined: 04/04/11
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #138 - 11/02/14 at 08:19:59
Post Tools
Ametanoitos wrote on 10/01/14 at 10:40:41:
Just a joke. You guys have comminted a crime not quoting Gustaffson who was the first one who proposed this ...Kg6 novelty!


12...Kg6 is also given by Shaw (although he arrives at the position after 10...Kf8 instead of 10...Ke7, but after 11.Kxf7 that doesn´t change anything). He credits Gustafsson for the suggestion and states that it looks good after 13.Nbd2 Ne7, or 13.g3 fxg3 14.hxg3 c5!?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Ametanoitos
God Member
*****
Offline


The road to success is
under construction

Posts: 1374
Location: Patras
Joined: 01/04/05
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #137 - 10/02/14 at 02:07:33
Post Tools
I can guarantee that the rumours are true! I was going through these lines here and suddenly when i hit upon ...Kg6 i had a memory flash and i was sure that i had seen this before somewhere.... So, i said to myself "let me check Gusti..." and i was right!
« Last Edit: 10/02/14 at 18:21:23 by Ametanoitos »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1273
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #136 - 10/01/14 at 14:51:58
Post Tools
Ametanoitos wrote on 10/01/14 at 10:40:41:
Just a joke. You guys have comminted a crime not quoting Gustaffson who was the first one who proposed this ...Kg6 novelty!

Apologies to Jan Gustafsson. I prefer books over videos, but rumours have it that Gustafsson's videos are worth the trouble. Besides, see reply #19 of this thread: http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/chess/YaBB.pl?num=1292872423/all
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Ametanoitos
God Member
*****
Offline


The road to success is
under construction

Posts: 1374
Location: Patras
Joined: 01/04/05
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #135 - 10/01/14 at 10:40:41
Post Tools
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.


Just a joke. You guys have comminted a crime not quoting Gustaffson who was the first one who proposed this ...Kg6 novelty!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 593
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #134 - 08/14/14 at 06:47:29
Post Tools
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: 593
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #133 - 08/08/14 at 12:43:59
Post Tools
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: 182
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #132 - 07/05/14 at 06:02:49
Post Tools
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: 182
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #131 - 07/05/14 at 05:33:53
Post Tools
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: 1273
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
Post Tools
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: 2819
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
Post Tools
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.
  

The thought that life could be better is woven indelibly into our hearts and our brains
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1273
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
Post Tools
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: 2819
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
Post Tools
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 »  

The thought that life could be better is woven indelibly into our hearts and our brains
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 9992
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
Post Tools
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: 1273
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
Post Tools
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
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo
 
  « Board Index ‹ Board  ^Top