flaviddude wrote on 11/29/13 at 01:09:37:


One key idea is that a move or two later, you are liable to reach a position where pawns on e4 and d4 face Knights on f6 and c6. Whilst it's possible to advance the pawns, the Bishop on c4 is little vulnerable, as after d4-d5, you have N c6-e5 hitting the Bishop whilst on e4-e5 you have d7-d5. If the Bishop moves you can follow with Nf6-e4.

As suggested, Black may not need yet another decent defence to the Kings Knights Gambit, but the Adelaide move order has its points. (1. e4 e5 2. f4 Nc6 3. Nf3 f5). If 3 Bc4 then 3. .. exf4 transposing to the Kings Bishops Gambit in the line being discussed. It's been noted that the Shaw book is limited in its coverage of the Adelaide, but the New in Chess Yearbooks have covered it. There's no sign yet of anything that might refute it.

GabrielGale wrote on 11/06/13 at 08:26:48:


I remember using Micawber's KG Forum eBook to prepare this as Black last year, and won easily (vs a strong GM). I can see nothing wrong with it.

It most likely means that Abby Marshall didn't do a very good job of covering the line.

Bibs wrote on 09/26/13 at 11:17:27:


Okay, all reputable defences. I took that as given. If you really need things spelt out perhaps chess isn't the game for you.

I've been looking at that 3...Ne7 line in preparation for uploading another series of articles on the King's Gambit for my chess openings site. 
Of course Martin Breutigam is a stronger player than I, but I think his assessments that White is the one fighting for equality are a little optimistic. 

I considered 4.d4 d5 (An alternative way for Black to play this line is 4...Ng6!?, e.g. 5.Bc4 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Nc3 c6 8.Bb3 with full compensation for the pawn) 5.Nc3 dxe4 6.Nxe4 Nd5 (also given by Breutigam, with the assessment that White is fighting for equality) 7.Bd3 Be7 8.0-0 (8.c4 can lead to complications after 8...Ne3 9.Qe2 f5 10.Nc3 0-0) 8...0-0 9.Nc3 Ne3 (9...Nc6 is a sensible alternative, also leading to equal chances) 10.Bxe3 fxe3 11.Qe2, Short-Giri, Amsterdam 2010.

4.Nc3 is also playable but 4...d5 5.d4 dxe4 transposes to the previous line.

I didn't consider 4.Bc4 in my analysis but as Breutigam pointed out, it is likely to transpose to a main line of the Modern Defence.  Following 4...d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.0-0, I agree with him that 6...Be6! 7.Bb3 c5 (Nakamura-Adams, London 2011) currently looks like the most critical test, but I feel that instead of 8.Kh1 or 8.d4 (both of which indeed leave White struggling to reach equality) 8.c4 and 8.d3 are superior alternatives.

Nonetheless I have to conclude that 3...Ne7 is objectively about as good as the Modern Defence and that Black should achieve dynamically equal play against all White responses.

LeeRoth wrote on 12/05/09 at 18:32:45:


This makes it seem like there's something wrong with it for classical time controls.
Like what?

Jonathan Tait wrote on 09/26/13 at 07:18:56:


One refutation you don't see in the books is 1. e4 e5 2. f4 g5!!

After the mainline tries 3. Nf3, 3. Nc3 or 3. Bc4, black simply plays 3. ...gf! rather than losing central control with ef.

Any other White moves such as time wasting pawn or Queen moves wouldn't meet the classical needs of the position. Pretty much a refutation. It's been engine checked with Houdini which gave it a big number in it's evaluation