(UTC)
Latest Updates:
  ChessPub Forum › Chess Publishing Openings › 1. e4 e5 - Non-Spanish › Italian › C51-C52: Evan's Gambit Refutation?
(Moderators: Smyslov_Fan, Jupp53, trw)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) C51-C52: Evan's Gambit Refutation? (Read 24716 times)
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2916
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: Evan's Gambit Refutation?
Reply #30 - 12/14/10 at 10:44:32
Post Tools
Yes, it was a bad omission in the first edition to miss Qb3, but he more than made up for it with that effort.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ghenghisclown
God Member
*****
Offline


Pedicare Vestri Latin

Posts: 1022
Location: HollyWeird
Joined: 07/19/06
Gender: Male
Re: Evan's Gambit Refutation?
Reply #29 - 12/14/10 at 10:15:43
Post Tools
Yes. Apparently I had looked at the first edition, in a friend's chess library, thus I couldn't find the line.

Very interesting. Also very (perhaps unnecessarily) complicated. I'm waiting to see what Gustafsson says on the issue, although I'm guessing he's going for 5...Be7.

However, Marin did a great job.







And THANKS. Grin
  
"Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it."
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1520
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: Evan's Gambit Refutation?
Reply #28 - 12/13/10 at 04:52:14
Post Tools
ghenghisclown wrote on 12/07/10 at 23:18:59:
Keano wrote on 11/29/10 at 09:41:14:
I've not got the energy to read the whole of this but in case its not been mentioned after 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 exd4 Short switched to 7.Qb3! which was also played by Sutovsky I think. Last time I looked White has decent compensation.

I've faced this move in Blitz. I think most books don't take it seriously enough. They tend to be dismissive, but its tricky and I think its good. Qe7 is probably the best response. Somehow I feel that Black's position is rather unpleasant.


You can look it up here:  http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/BTOG-2nd-edit-Evans-Gambit.pdf
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ghenghisclown
God Member
*****
Offline


Pedicare Vestri Latin

Posts: 1022
Location: HollyWeird
Joined: 07/19/06
Gender: Male
Re: Evan's Gambit Refutation?
Reply #27 - 12/07/10 at 23:18:59
Post Tools
Keano wrote on 11/29/10 at 09:41:14:
I've not got the energy to read the whole of this but in case its not been mentioned after 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 exd4 Short switched to 7.Qb3! which was also played by Sutovsky I think. Last time I looked White has decent compensation.

I've faced this move in Blitz. I think most books don't take it seriously enough. They tend to be dismissive, but its tricky and I think its good. Qe7 is probably the best response. Somehow I feel that Black's position is rather unpleasant.
  
"Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it."
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2916
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: Evan's Gambit Refutation?
Reply #26 - 11/29/10 at 09:41:14
Post Tools
I've not got the energy to read the whole of this but in case its not been mentioned after 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 exd4 Short switched to 7.Qb3! which was also played by Sutovsky I think. Last time I looked White has decent compensation.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10756
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Evan's Gambit Refutation?
Reply #25 - 11/27/10 at 15:18:32
Post Tools
drogo wrote on 11/27/10 at 02:12:19:
this game shows that, with careful play, White doesn't get the chance to attack:

Guess what? This game is one of the three I referred to above. The other two are Short-Adams, Sarajevo 2000 and Ovetchkin-Lastin, RUSch 2003.

drogo wrote on 11/27/10 at 02:12:19:
Party baby!!

That's because you haven't read well:

MNb wrote on 11/20/10 at 20:56:38:
The main reason I would prefer 8.Ng5 is 8.cxd4 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5
  
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
 
drogo
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 40
Joined: 09/21/10
Re: Evan's Gambit Refutation?
Reply #24 - 11/27/10 at 02:12:19
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 11/20/10 at 20:56:38:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4
7.0-0 Nge7 8.Ng5 scores 57% for White in my database.
As the score is ½/3 on top level (both players 2500+) I would still suggest to pay serious attention to this line.

The main reason I would prefer 8.Ng5 is 8.cxd4 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5
a) 10.Ba3 Be6 11.Bb5 f6.
b) 10.Qb3 Be6 11.Qxb7 Ndb4 12.Bb5 Bd5!


In fact I would love 9...Nxd5 as White! 10. Nxf7 Kxf7 11. Qf3+ Qf6 12. Bxd5+ Kf8 13. Ba3+ Party baby!!

As for the variation 7... Nge7 (which I think it's very good for Black), this game shows that, with careful play, White doesn't get the chance to attack:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1247769
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10756
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Evan's Gambit Refutation?
Reply #23 - 11/20/10 at 20:56:38
Post Tools
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4
7.0-0 Nge7 8.Ng5 scores 57% for White in my database.
As the score is ½/3 on top level (both players 2500+) I would still suggest to pay serious attention to this line.

The main reason I would prefer 8.Ng5 is 8.cxd4 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5
a) 10.Ba3 Be6 11.Bb5 f6.
b) 10.Qb3 Be6 11.Qxb7 Ndb4 12.Bb5 Bd5!
  
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
 
Highfive
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 29
Joined: 08/21/09
Re: Evan's Gambit Refutation?
Reply #22 - 11/20/10 at 20:34:38
Post Tools
While looking over the chesstempo.com database (filtered for 2200+)  I was alarmed to see that 'Mieses Defense' 

1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 exd4
7. 0-0  Nge7

scores 57% for black!  I think they do not really have a large enough set of evan's games in that line for that to mean anything.

But I looked a little deeper and saw 8. exd4 and 8. Ng5 as the two main replies.  Which reply would you prefer and why?
 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3265
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: Evan's Gambit Refutation?
Reply #21 - 11/17/10 at 15:35:06
Post Tools
Phil Adams wrote on 11/17/10 at 12:21:16:
Thanks Stigma - interesting. I'll check out Barsky's stuff.

Re 4...Bc5 5 Nb3 Bb6 I used to dabble in this line as White until one day I realized that, after Nd4-b3, the knight is worse placed than before and it even lengthens the diagonal of the black bishop, whereas ...Bc5-b6 does not really diminish the power of the bishop and in fact puts it on a somewhat safer square! At that point I gave up believing that the Nb3 line could possibly be worthwhile other than as an occasional surprise, since logically Black must be at least OK.

Its recent adoption by Carlsen and then by other strong players like Berg, Radjabov and Nakamura suggests that it has some merit. Their approach is a quick Qe2, Nc3 and 0-0-0. Often the b6 bishop will be exchanged after Be3, or (if White gets in Bg5 and f4 or f3) it simply doesn't do much on that diagonal. But its absence from the kingside may be a problem if White works up an attack there.
  
Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: Evan's Gambit Refutation?
Reply #20 - 11/17/10 at 14:35:22
Post Tools
Anonymous and sloughter are posting in the same thread?  Huh

After 4...Bc5 5.Nb3 Bb6, White can consider a different version of Carlsen's idea with 6.a4 a6 (6...a5 gives White use of the b5-square) 7.a5 Ba7 8.Nc3 Nf6 9.Qe2 and Be3, which may not be any better but certainly gives Black some fresh problems to solve.
  
All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Phil Adams
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 163
Joined: 04/04/08
Re: Evan's Gambit Refutation?
Reply #19 - 11/17/10 at 12:21:16
Post Tools
Stigma wrote on 11/16/10 at 19:59:09:
@ Phil Adams: I agree with everything you say. I would not recommed the Mieses, particularly not the White side, to anyone looking for easy play or avoiding theory.

But Barsky covers two alternatives in addition to the Miesis:

A) 6.Bd3 d5 7.0-0 and after 7...dxe4 8.Qe1 Qe7 9.Qc3 White will win back the pawn and have the better pawn structure against Black's bishop pair.

B) 6.Bd3 d5 7.e5 and White will sacrifice the e5-pawn for unclear attacking chances. I admit this latter line can get quite theoretical, but at least the theory is not very well-known - yet!

So in combination with the recommended 4...Bc5 5.Nxc6 Qf6 6.Qf3 I maintain that it's possible to build a Scotch repertoire with a limited amount of theory from this book.

If White is an attacking player, he could combine 6.Bd3 d5 7.e5 with something sharper against 4...Bc5: 5.Nb3 a la the recent Carlsen-Bacrot game or 5.Be3 Qf6 6.Nb5!? spring to mind, but require other sources. It's a bit illogical that Barsky gives three options against 4...Nf6 but only one against 4...Bc5.


Thanks Stigma - interesting. I'll check out Barsky's stuff.

Re 4...Bc5 5 Nb3 Bb6 I used to dabble in this line as White until one day I realized that, after Nd4-b3, the knight is worse placed than before and it even lengthens the diagonal of the black bishop, whereas ...Bc5-b6 does not really diminish the power of the bishop and in fact puts it on a somewhat safer square! At that point I gave up believing that the Nb3 line could possibly be worthwhile other than as an occasional surprise, since logically Black must be at least OK.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3265
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: Evan's Gambit Refutation?
Reply #18 - 11/16/10 at 19:59:09
Post Tools
@ Phil Adams: I agree with everything you say. I would not recommed the Mieses, particularly not the White side, to anyone looking for easy play or avoiding theory.

But Barsky covers two alternatives in addition to the Miesis:

A) 6.Bd3 d5 7.0-0 and after 7...dxe4 8.Qe1 Qe7 9.Qc3 White will win back the pawn and have the better pawn structure against Black's bishop pair.

B) 6.Bd3 d5 7.e5 and White will sacrifice the e5-pawn for unclear attacking chances. I admit this latter line can get quite theoretical, but at least the theory is not very well-known - yet!

So in combination with the recommended 4...Bc5 5.Nxc6 Qf6 6.Qf3 I maintain that it's possible to build a Scotch repertoire with a limited amount of theory from this book.

If White is an attacking player, he could combine 6.Bd3 d5 7.e5 with something sharper against 4...Bc5: 5.Nb3 a la the recent Carlsen-Bacrot game or 5.Be3 Qf6 6.Nb5!? spring to mind, but require other sources. It's a bit illogical that Barsky gives three options against 4...Nf6 but only one against 4...Bc5.
  
Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Phil Adams
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 163
Joined: 04/04/08
Re: Evan's Gambit Refutation?
Reply #17 - 11/16/10 at 19:47:40
Post Tools
Stigma wrote on 11/15/10 at 12:26:23:
These days it's also possible to play the Scotch with a very small time investement, i.e. by choosing the least theoretical options from Barsky's book.



Hi Stigma, I often find myself agreeing with your views but in the context of this discussion I'm not completely sold on the Scotch. It seems to me that it has become a very concrete opening with a lot of theory (especially in the Mieses) and is thus rather "unforgiving" of less than accurate play. In the Mieses the struggle between White's better structure and Black's piece activity can be interesting and instructive, but it can be tricky to handle.

I accept that there's perhaps a case for the Scotch Four Knights, if only on the basis that in the main line White is well developed, castled and without weakness.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
sloughter
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 619
Location: schoharie
Joined: 12/29/08
Gender: Male
Re: Evan's Gambit Refutation?
Reply #16 - 11/15/10 at 17:46:30
Post Tools
TonyRo wrote on 11/15/10 at 13:52:41:
sloughter wrote on 11/15/10 at 02:38:29:
In the Schenectady Chess Club Championship I won the following Evans Gambit game against a 1900 player so I doubt that 7...Nge7 is all that convincing as a refutation.


1700 vs. 1900 games are truth these days?



Black made only one significant error, 12...Bd7, a "logical" move to stop the threat of Bxc6ch/Qa4. Once he made that one mistake, he was worse. As for Fritz 12, it recommends 12...Bb4 (Nb6 13.Qe2+/- according to Fritz 12)13.Qa4 Qd6 14.Nbd2 O-O 15.Ne4 with a very complicated, about equal opening/middlegame.

This game shows just how tricky the Evans is; it is possible to make perfectly "logical" moves and still be dead lost.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
Topic Tools
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo
 
  « Board Index ‹ Board Top  

ChessPub Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge