ChessPub Forum - C33: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!!

Schwebbz YaBB Newbies Offline Posts: 26 Joined: 12/19/10	Re: C33: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #46 - 10/24/12 at 03:32:11	Post Tools	Print Post
	Well, my impression is that 3...Nc6 4.Nc3 Qh4+ is even better for black (than 3...Nc6 4.d4 Qh4+), and that after 3...Nc6 4.Nf3 g5 black just hunkers down with the extra pawn, e.g. 5.O-O d6 6.c3 h6 7.d4 Nf6 8.Qb3 Qd7 9.Bd3 Bg7, so it's 3.d4 or "bust"... After 4.d4 g5 white has 5.h4, which is exactly the sort of thing white would love to see when opting for this opening.


	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: C33: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #45 - 10/22/12 at 18:23:48	Post Tools	Print Post
	Schwebbz wrote on 10/22/12 at 15:34:21: @Markovich, did you mean to say that just 3.d4 is dicey, or d4 for white in general after black plays Qh4? Always seemed like a thematic move to me... I meant that 3.d4 was dicey. Obviously, d2-d4 is thematic and in most cases necessary. @Tony37: Good luck with that which, by the way, is how Evans played against Fischer.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

Schwebbz YaBB Newbies Offline Posts: 26 Joined: 12/19/10	Re: C33: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #44 - 10/22/12 at 15:34:21	Post Tools	Print Post
	@Markovich, did you mean to say that just 3.d4 is dicey, or d4 for white in general after black plays Qh4? Always seemed like a thematic move to me... @Tony37, the question of where the queen is best placed after Nf3 is a complicated one. In the line I gave, I put it on h5 because it prods the bishop, but in other cases h6 may be a better choice than f6; when the plan is to castle long, it's nice to retain the option of pushing f7-f5.


	IP Logged

tony37 God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Joined: 10/16/10	Re: C33: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #43 - 10/22/12 at 13:30:57	Post Tools	Print Post
	Markovich wrote on 10/22/12 at 13:11:43: The closest thing to a refutation is 3...Nc6, which semi-forces White back into something that resembles a Knight's Gambit. Black's g-pawn will go to g5. White's attempt at something else with 3.d4 may work, but it's dicey. 3...Nc6 is unexplored, so I wouldn't call it a refutation. But I regard it as the most challenging. As Black I would mostly expect 4.Nf3. Most popular and safest is Bogolyubov's Defense, 3...Nf6 4.Nc3 c6. Fully adequate. I would never consider 3...Qh4+ OTB. In CC it might be viable, but I have my doubts. I would be very reluctant to play this way. The classical line with 3...Qh4+ 4.Kf1 g5 is better for White, imho. That somebody played 3...Qh4+ in a rapid game was just his way of saying that Anand was bluffing. I think the bad reputation of 3...Qh4+ is totally undeserved, you just have to play a good follow-up (not 4...g5). I looked at this a while ago (not in complete detail I have to admit) and I think a good follow-up is 4...d6, Qf6 after Nf3, Be6, Ne7, other knight to c6 or d7 depending on circumstances, planning O-O-O my impression was that black has a modest advantage


	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: C33: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #42 - 10/22/12 at 13:11:43	Post Tools	Print Post
	The closest thing to a refutation is 3...Nc6, which semi-forces White back into something that resembles a Knight's Gambit. Black's g-pawn will go to g5. White's attempt at something else with 3.d4 may work, but it's dicey. 3...Nc6 is unexplored, so I wouldn't call it a refutation. But I regard it as the most challenging. As Black I would mostly expect 4.Nf3. Most popular and safest is Bogolyubov's Defense, 3...Nf6 4.Nc3 c6. Fully adequate. I would never consider 3...Qh4+ OTB. In CC it might be viable, but I have my doubts. I would be very reluctant to play this way. The classical line with 3...Qh4+ 4.Kf1 g5 is better for White, imho. That somebody played 3...Qh4+ in a rapid game was just his way of saying that Anand was bluffing.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

Schwebbz YaBB Newbies Offline Posts: 26 Joined: 12/19/10	Re: C33: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #41 - 10/22/12 at 04:13:50	Post Tools	Print Post
	Hadron wrote on 10/21/12 at 21:35:49: Master Om wrote on 03/18/11 at 16:15:01: Whats the best line to play for black in Kings Gambit after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.Bc4!.. specially in correspondence game. I personally Prefered 3...Nf6 but after looking how Morozevich Beat Anand In a Rapid I am Thinkin of 3...Qh4 But am not finding any concrete lines against it. Any Suggestions. Massa Om, if you want something to look at on this subject try googling 'Correspondence Chess News' and then look at issue 55 pages 15 through 61 there is a very good article by Michael Jensen. Regards Hadron. Note that the line I mentioned is also a Qh4 line: 3...Qh4+ 4.Kf1 d6 5.d4 Nc6 6.Nf3 Bg4, e.g., may be just as accurate.


	IP Logged

Hadron Full Member Offline Doctor, Doctor, Doctor..When will you ever learn? Posts: 195 Location: Levin, New Zealand. Joined: 03/24/05 Gender:	Re: C33: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #40 - 10/21/12 at 21:35:49	Post Tools	Print Post
	Master Om wrote on 03/18/11 at 16:15:01: Whats the best line to play for black in Kings Gambit after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.Bc4!.. specially in correspondence game. I personally Prefered 3...Nf6 but after looking how Morozevich Beat Anand In a Rapid I am Thinkin of 3...Qh4 But am not finding any concrete lines against it. Any Suggestions. Massa Om, if you want something to look at on this subject try googling 'Correspondence Chess News' and then look at issue 55 pages 15 through 61 there is a very good article by Michael Jensen. Regards Hadron.

	I'm reminded again of something Short wrote recently, approximately "The biggest fallacy in chess is the quasi-religious belief in the primacy of the opening."
	IP Logged

Schwebbz

YaBB Newbies

Offline

Posts: 26
Joined: 12/19/10

Re: C33: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!!
Reply #39 - 10/21/12 at 09:12:37

Post Tools

Print Post

Lately, I've been looking at the line 3...Nc6 4.d4 Qh4+ 5.Kf1 d6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Bb5 Qh5 8.d5 O-O-O 9.Bxf4 Ne5 10.Be2 as it seemed to put white under quite a bit of pressure. I've never seen it analyzed by anyone else, though, so maybe I've missed something important. Any suggestions?

IP Logged

Master Om Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 187 Joined: 02/20/10	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #38 - 05/19/11 at 17:10:24	Post Tools	Print Post
	Can you give the Analysis ?


	IP Logged

walkingterrapin Junior Member Offline Why play the Colle when you can play 1.e4!!!!!!!!! Posts: 98 Location: NC Joined: 07/04/10 Gender:	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #37 - 05/06/11 at 14:47:40	Post Tools	Print Post
	What about 1.e4 e5 2. f4 ef 3. Bc5 b5................ I have done some analysis in this line both including the check on h4 and without it. it is similar to the immortal game and the resulting positions are very unbalanced offering chances for both sides. any thoughts?


	IP Logged

Master Om Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 187 Joined: 02/20/10	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #36 - 04/20/11 at 03:11:06	Post Tools	Print Post
	And here is the Game Download game in pgn format
	« Last Edit: 04/20/11 at 10:51:37 by GMTonyKosten »

	IP Logged

Master Om Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 187 Joined: 02/20/10	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #35 - 04/18/11 at 15:02:02	Post Tools	Print Post
	micawber wrote on 04/18/11 at 08:17:58: @Master Om. Hi, well done and thx for sharing the game with us. A few notes. 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Nc6 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Nge2 f3 6....Nxe4 was debated on this forum by Thomas Johansson himself and Markovich a) 7....Nxc3= 8.bxc3,d5 9.cxb4,bxc4= (Markovich) b) 7....Bxc3 8.Nxc3,Nxc3 b1) 9.Qe1+,Ne7 10.Bxf7 (10.Qxc3,d5= Markovich),Kxf7 11.Bxf4,Nf5 unclear (Markovich) b2) 9.bxc3 (unclear Johansson) 7. gxf3 d5 8.exd5 Nxd5 9. O-O,Nb6 9....Nxc3!= 10.bxc3,Bd6 11.Ng3,0-0 (Belanov - Simmelink, IECG corr.,2007) Thanks Micawber. Your Analysis has always baffled and Inspired me so thinking of your methods. I am now Playing Another game . When it ends I will post here.


	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:	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #34 - 04/18/11 at 08:17:58	Post Tools	Print Post
	@Master Om. Hi, well done and thx for sharing the game with us. A few notes. 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Nc6 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Nge2 f3 6....Nxe4 was debated on this forum by Thomas Johansson himself and Markovich a) 7....Nxc3= 8.bxc3,d5 9.cxb4,bxc4= (Markovich) b) 7....Bxc3 8.Nxc3,Nxc3 b1) 9.Qe1+,Ne7 10.Bxf7 (10.Qxc3,d5= Markovich),Kxf7 11.Bxf4,Nf5 unclear (Markovich) b2) 9.bxc3 (unclear Johansson) 7. gxf3 d5 8.exd5 Nxd5 9. O-O,Nb6 9....Nxc3!= 10.bxc3,Bd6 11.Ng3,0-0 (Belanov - Simmelink, IECG corr.,2007)


	IP Logged

Master Om Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 187 Joined: 02/20/10	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #33 - 04/18/11 at 01:02:16	Post Tools	Print Post
	Finally I tested Bishops Gambit after getting Inspired by Fascinating Kings Gambit and won it. Here is the Game. Download game in pgn format
	« Last Edit: 04/20/11 at 10:52:20 by GMTonyKosten »

	IP Logged

Dragonslayer Full Member Offline I love ChessPublishing .com! Posts: 248 Location: Odense Joined: 06/13/04	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #32 - 03/25/11 at 15:08:26	Post Tools	Print Post
	Well, White does have the first move, which makes it two when he gambits a pawn for a tempo. I did write "at least" but I guess I stand corrected.


	IP Logged

Jonathan Tait God Member Offline Posts: 614 Location: Nottingham Joined: 07/11/06	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #31 - 03/24/11 at 08:43:35	Post Tools	Print Post
	Dragonslayer wrote on 03/23/11 at 11:45:23: Isn't the last one just a tempo down (and colours reversed)on the classical KG: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nc3 Nc6 ? Here it is White to move. There are then only two logical conclusions (assuming we accept that a tempo constitutes an advantage in this position - not always the case, but seems a fair assumption here): 1) The line 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 f5 is bad for Black (at least +=) 2) The line 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 f5 is ok (=) for Black, whence by inference the Line 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nc3 Nc6 mus be at least a little better for White (+= or better). I'd go for the first conclusion: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 f5 is probably good for White. But I like playing it anyway.

	blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
	WWW IP Logged

SWJediknight God Member Offline Alert... opponent out of book! Posts: 915 Joined: 03/14/08	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #30 - 03/23/11 at 22:36:49	Post Tools	Print Post
	Sometimes one tempo can easily make a larger difference than one "assessment category". For instance 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 is =, while 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 c6 3.dxc6 Nxc6 is probably +/-. 1.e4 f5 is the Fred and isn't very good: I like 2.exf5 Nf6 (2...g6 3.fxg6 hxg6 4.Qg4) 3.Be2!? for White. 3...h5 allows Nf3-h4-g6, 3...g6 4.fxg6 hxg6 leaves the g6-pawn weak and other moves allow Bh5+. Another example perhaps of the tempo making the difference between = and +/-. Looking at the comparison between 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 f5 and 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nc3 Nc6, I think we again have a "two-category" difference- the King's Gambit Declined is a weak +=, and the ...f5 line is a strong +=.


	IP Logged

Dragonslayer Full Member Offline I love ChessPublishing .com! Posts: 248 Location: Odense Joined: 06/13/04	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #29 - 03/23/11 at 19:29:07	Post Tools	Print Post
	MNb wrote on 03/23/11 at 16:39:36: It's possible that a tempo makes a difference between += and =+, so there is a third option: both 1 and 2 are true. That's my choice. Yes, it's possible, but that would be equivalent to the differnece between +/- and = which in most computer programs is roughly 1 pawn. Since a pawn sacrifice is usually considered correct if given 3 tempi (maybe 2 depending on circumstances) I fear we are digressing... If you like ...f5, why not play 1.e4 f5 (the Jux gambit according to Matzukevich) This is a From's gambit just a tempo down Usually you need for White to make some commitment (like c2-c3 combined with e4 or Nf3 allowing for ...f5, exf5, ...e4) for ...f5 to be effective. In the Jänisch, Bb5 can be a target.


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10756 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #28 - 03/23/11 at 16:39:36	Post Tools	Print Post
	It's possible that a tempo makes a difference between += and =+, so there is a third option: both 1 and 2 are true. That's my choice.

	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
	IP Logged

Dragonslayer Full Member Offline I love ChessPublishing .com! Posts: 248 Location: Odense Joined: 06/13/04	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #27 - 03/23/11 at 11:45:23	Post Tools	Print Post
	Jonathan Tait wrote on 03/22/11 at 11:05:22: [quote author=71725E3C0 link=1300464901/25#25 date=1300788373] Fair enough. I just like playing ...f7-f5. 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 f5, 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 f5, 1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nc6 3 Bc4 f5 and so forth. Isn't the last one just a tempo down (and colours reversed)on the classical KG: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nc3 Nc6 ? Here it is White to move. There are then only two logical conclusions (assuming we accept that a tempo constitutes an advantage in this position - not always the case, but seems a fair assumption here): 1) The line 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 f5 is bad for Black (at least +=) 2) The line 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 f5 is ok (=) for Black, whence by inference the Line 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nc3 Nc6 mus be at least a little better for White (+= or better).


	IP Logged

Jonathan Tait God Member Offline Posts: 614 Location: Nottingham Joined: 07/11/06	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #26 - 03/22/11 at 11:05:22	Post Tools	Print Post
	MNb wrote on 03/22/11 at 10:06:13: Personally I find the lines after 3...Nc6 4.d4 Nf6 less attractive for White. In line b) I actually had a game with 9 Neg5 Nh6 10 d4 d5 11 Bd3 Qxe2+ 12 Kxe2 Bd6 13 Bxh7 Nd7 14 Re1 Nf8 15 Bd3 Ne6 16 Nxe6+ Bxe6 17 Ne5 g5 18 h4 Bxe5 19 dxe5 gxh4 20 Bxf4 Kd7 (½-½, 55). 16 Kf2 or 16 Bd2 may improve (since I was better in that game), but I still think Black is okay after 16...Nxg5 17 Nxg5 Kc7 in either case. Regarding 13 Ne5 Re8 14 Bxf4 then 14...Nd7 forces the trade of d4 for h7 and I don't think Black is worse here either. MNb wrote on 03/22/11 at 10:06:13: Personally I find the lines after 3...Nc6 4.d4 Nf6 less attractive for White. Fair enough. I just like playing ...f7-f5. 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 f5, 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 f5, 1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nc6 3 Bc4 f5 and so forth.

	blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
	WWW IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10756 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #25 - 03/22/11 at 10:06:13	Post Tools	Print Post
	In line b) after 13...Nd7 14.Re1 Nf8 (Re8+ 15.Kf1 Rxe1+ 16.Kxe1 Nf6 17.Bd3) 15.Bd3 Ne6 16.Kf2 or 16.Bd2 White might still have an edge, though Bc1 is quite a pain in the bottom. Maybe 13.Ne5 Re8 14.Bxf4 with the better development is an improvement. Personally I find the lines after 3...Nc6 4.d4 Nf6 less attractive for White.

	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
	IP Logged

Jonathan Tait God Member Offline Posts: 614 Location: Nottingham Joined: 07/11/06	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #24 - 03/22/11 at 09:08:46	Post Tools	Print Post
	MNb wrote on 03/22/11 at 02:08:44: I suppose you have an improvement over Multatuli-Switzar, corr 1874. 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Bc4 f5 4 Qe2 Qh4+ 5 Kd1 fxe4 6 Nc3 Kd8 7 Nxe4 c6 8 Nf3 Qe7 and now: a) 9 Bxg8 Rxg8 10 d3 was given as equal by Keres already. And Fritz backs that up with 10...g5! (rather than Switzar's 10...d5); e.g. 11 Nexg5 Qxe2+ 12 Kxe2 h6 and 13...Rxg2+. b) 9 Neg5!? is more testing, but even here Black seems okay; e.g. 9...Nh6 10 d4 d5 11 Bd3 Qxe2+ 12 Kxe2 Bd6 13 Bxh7 (Johansson) 13...Nd7! and 14...Nf8.

	blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
	WWW IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10756 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #23 - 03/22/11 at 02:08:44	Post Tools	Print Post
	I suppose you have an improvement over Multatuli-Switzar, corr 1874. White was a famous Dutch author btw, real name Eduard Douwes Dekker. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multatuli

	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
	IP Logged

Jonathan Tait God Member Offline Posts: 614 Location: Nottingham Joined: 07/11/06	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #22 - 03/22/11 at 00:10:46	Post Tools	Print Post
	MNb wrote on 03/21/11 at 22:31:52: Most of your opponents obviously don't have TJ's the FKG besides their computer or they wouldn't play 6.Qxe4+. Probably not, no. But... MNb wrote on 03/21/11 at 22:31:52: At the other hand I am pretty sure corr. players - those who prefer nice long time controls like ICCF provides - will prefer 6.Nc3, with some own analysis added. ...I've still faced 6 Nc3 four times: W3 D1 L0 6...Kd8 7 Nxe4 c6 8 Nf3 Qe7 is pretty much okay for Black.

	blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
	WWW IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10756 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #21 - 03/21/11 at 22:31:52	Post Tools	Print Post
	Most of your opponents obviously don't have TJ's the FKG besides their computer or they wouldn't play 6.Qxe4+. At the other hand I am pretty sure corr. players - those who prefer nice long time controls like ICCF provides - will prefer 6.Nc3, with some own analysis added.

	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
	IP Logged

Jonathan Tait God Member Offline Posts: 614 Location: Nottingham Joined: 07/11/06	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #20 - 03/21/11 at 15:17:21	Post Tools	Print Post
	Master Om wrote on 03/18/11 at 16:15:01: Whats the best line to play for black in Kings Gambit after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.Bc4!.. specially in correspondence game. I have a very good score with 3...f5!?, especially in online server games (despite opponents often being computer assisted): 90% (P35, W30, D3, L2). The main benefit of 3...f5 is that the published "refutations" are mostly incorrect. In particular those after 4 Qe2 Qh4+ 5 Kd1 fxe4 6 Qxe4+, where Black is not worse, and in a lot of lines is significantly better.

	blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
	WWW IP Logged

Master Om Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 187 Joined: 02/20/10	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #19 - 03/21/11 at 04:46:59	Post Tools	Print Post
	micawber wrote on 03/20/11 at 13:07:12: General I think the Bishop Gambit is certainly playable for White, but Black need not fear it: All main lines are playable for him d5/Qh4; 3...Nf6 4.Nc3,c6 or 3...Nc6. This is what I feel Now. Bishops Gambit IS completely playable now. Depends on taste. Draw with Correct Play. Regarding 3...Nf6 4.Nc3,c6 @Master Om I am only aware of one game Morozovich-Anand, and that was played in 1995. Was there a more recent encounter? As for the 1995 game, the opening position was a rather unlear affair. But I would like to point out Black need not put his bishop on b4, since Bd6 is a reasonable alternative. Reference games include two encounters Kennaugh-Hebden in 2006 and 2007 and Navarra-Gelfand,2008. There are Many Games now On this line .Some are relevant and some are not. Like This from my personal bases. [Event "LSS RA-2009-0-00064"] [Site "LSS email"] [Date "2009.10.09"] [Round "?"] [White "Vaassen, Jack M"] [Black "Nichols, Scott"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "C33"] [WhiteElo "2171"] [BlackElo "2644"] [PlyCount "76"] [EventDate "2009.08.16"] [EventType "tourn (corr)"] [EventRounds "6"] [Source "ChessBase"] [SourceDate "2010.07.15"] 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Nc3 c6 5. Bb3 d5 6. exd5 cxd5 7. d4 Bd6 8. Nf3 Qe7+ 9. Qe2 Be6 10. Nb5 Nc6 11. Nxd6+ Qxd6 12. O-O h6 13. Ba4 Ne4 14. Nd2 Nxd2 15. Bxd2 g5 16. Rae1 O-O-O 17. Qd3 Rhg8 18. g3 fxg3 19. hxg3 Rg6 20. a3 Kb8 21. b4 Ne7 22. Bb3 Nc8 23. a4 Qd7 24. Qf3 Qc7 25. Rf2 Nd6 26. Bxd5 Bxd5 27. Qxd5 f5 28. Rg2 Ne4 29. Qxf5 Nxd2 30. Qd3 Rgd6 31. Rxd2 Rxd4 32. Qxd4 Qxg3+ 33. Kf1 Qh3+ 34. Kg1 Rxd4 35. Rxd4 a6 36. Re8+ Ka7 37. a5 Qg3+ 38. Kh1 Qc7 1/2-1/2 [Event "LSS CP-2007-Q-00002"] [Site "LSS email"] [Date "2009.01.15"] [Round "?"] [White "Morin, Stephane"] [Black "Kudryavtsev, Yaroslav Viktorovic"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C33"] [WhiteElo "2105"] [BlackElo "1903"] [PlyCount "47"] [EventDate "2009.01.15"] [EventType "tourn (corr)"] [EventRounds "6"] [Source "ChessBase"] [SourceDate "2010.08.31"] 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Nc3 c6 5. Nf3 b5 6. Bb3 b4 7. Ne2 Nxe4 8. O-O Qb6+ 9. d4 g5 10. Bxf7+ Kd8 11. c4 bxc3 12. Nxc3 Nxc3 13. bxc3 Qa5 14. Nxg5 Qxc3 15. Bd2 Qxd4+ 16. Kh1 Bb4 17. Bxb4 Qxb4 18. Rb1 Qa5 19. Ne6+ Ke7 20. Qd4 Re8 21. Bxe8 dxe6 22. Qxf4 Nd7 23. Bxd7 Bxd7 24. Rbd1 1-0 [Event "AUT-chT11 email"] [Site "ICCF email"] [Date "2009.04.04"] [Round "?"] [White "Moza, Manfred"] [Black "Hauser, Siegfried"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "C33"] [WhiteElo "2209"] [BlackElo "2411"] [PlyCount "41"] [EventDate "2009.??.??"] [EventType "tourn (corr)"] [EventRounds "9"] [EventCountry "AUT"] [Source "ChessBase"] [SourceDate "2010.08.31"] 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Nc3 c6 5. Bb3 d5 6. exd5 cxd5 7. d4 Bd6 8. Nge2 O-O 9. Bxf4 Bxf4 10. Nxf4 Re8+ 11. Nfe2 Ng4 12. O-O Ne3 13. Qd3 Nxf1 14. Rxf1 Nc6 15. Nxd5 Be6 16. Nef4 Bxd5 17. Nxd5 Na5 18. Nc7 Nxb3 19. Nxe8 Nxd4 20. Nxg7 Kxg7 21. Qg3+ 1/2-1/2 [Event "Oslo BNbank Gp-A"] [Site "Oslo"] [Date "2010.11.27"] [Round "10"] [White "Nakamura, Hikaru"] [Black "Royset, Jon Kristian"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C33"] [WhiteElo "2741"] [BlackElo "2180"] [PlyCount "97"] [EventDate "2010.11.27"] [EventType "tourn (blitz)"] [EventRounds "10"] [EventCountry "NOR"] [SourceDate "2011.01.05"] 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Nc3 c6 5. Qe2 d5 6. exd5+ Be7 7. d4 O-O 8. Bxf4 Nxd5 9. Nxd5 cxd5 10. Bd3 Bb4+ 11. c3 Re8 12. Be3 Qh4+ 13. g3 Qe7 14. Kf2 Bd6 15. Nf3 Bg4 16. Rae1 Nc6 17. h3 Bh5 18. g4 Bg6 19. Qc2 Qf6 20. Bg5 Bxd3 21. Qxd3 Qg6 22. Qxg6 hxg6 23. Nh4 f6 24. Bd2 Kf7 25. Ng2 g5 26. Kf3 Rxe1 27. Nxe1 Re8 28. Nc2 Ne7 29. h4 gxh4 30. Rxh4 Ng6 31. Rh5 Ne7 32. Ne3 Ke6 33. b3 b6 34. c4 dxc4 35. bxc4 Kf7 36. a4 Ng6 37. Nf5 Bf8 38. Rh1 Rc8 39. Rc1 Ba3 40. Rc3 Bb4 41. Rc2 Bxd2 42. Nd6+ Ke6 43. Nxc8 Ba5 44. Nxa7 Kd7 45. c5 bxc5 46. dxc5 Ne5+ 47. Ke4 g6 48. c6+ Kc7 49. g5 1-0 and there are many from correspondence games. Black plays 3...Nc6 I would not go so far as to claim it a refutation, or something that would bring Black a forced advantage. But imo and that of others it is a perfectly sound reply. Regarding the recommendation against the Bishop Gambit in Dangerous Weapons against 3.Bc4,Nc6. This line was allready discussed some years back. Correctly as you said I am not getting a single advantage from O Duras line as I expected. White has lots of Resources.


	IP Logged

Master Om Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 187 Joined: 02/20/10	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #18 - 03/21/11 at 04:26:40	Post Tools	Print Post
	Schwebbz wrote on 03/20/11 at 12:40:52: Master Om wrote on 03/20/11 at 04:32:32: It is interesting To see what Chess engines think. Deep Rybka 4.1 SSE42 suggests 3...Nc6! but Houdini suggests 3...Qh4+ and sticks to it when I ran both on a Hexacore MAchine for 2 hours in MPV 3. Houdini gives eval of -/+ 0.56 with 3...Qh4+ and Rybka gives =/+ 0.37 with 3...Nc6. Two things you need to keep in mind when it comes to computer analysis, though: Eval() is primarily a function for ordering and selecting moves. If the number an engine spits out with the variation happens to make sense to you, or if that number happens to accurately reflect the winning chances of the program in question, that's mostly a happy coincidence. The fact that computers can calculate millions of positions every second gives them a different set of priorities than human players. Computers 'like' positions where their opponents have to make straightforward, practically forced moves, while the best moves for their own side are utterly unclear. Why? Because it minimizes their opponents chances of finding unexpectedly good variations, and maximizes their own. Unless you recon you're the next Tal, you probably don't want to emulate this approach OTB. Have You seen My first Post ?. I asked in Correspondence Chess . My Opponenet will be using Chess programs For Analysis and i will expect Atleast with a decent Hardware my opponent will not miss Tactics atleast. I may Out Play in endgame where Programs Lack in Understanding except few.


	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #17 - 03/20/11 at 14:12:50	Post Tools	Print Post
	We're all very lucky to micawber and his impressive 1...e5 scholarship here.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	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: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!!
Reply #16 - 03/20/11 at 13:07:12

Post Tools

Print Post

General
I think the Bishop Gambit is certainly playable for White, but Black need not fear it:
All main lines are playable for him d5/Qh4; 3...Nf6 4.Nc3,c6 or 3...Nc6.

Regarding 3...Nf6 4.Nc3,c6 @Master Om

I am only aware of one game Morozovich-Anand, and that was played in 1995. Was there a more recent encounter?
As for the 1995 game, the opening position was a rather unlear affair. But I would like to point out Black need not put his bishop on b4, since Bd6 is a reasonable alternative.
Reference games include two encounters Kennaugh-Hebden in 2006 and 2007 and Navarra-Gelfand,2008.

Black plays 3...Nc6
I would not go so far as to claim it a refutation, or something that would bring Black a forced advantage. But imo and that of others it is a perfectly sound reply.

Regarding the recommendation against the Bishop Gambit
in Dangerous Weapons against 3.Bc4,Nc6.
This line was allready discussed some years back.

micawber wrote on 03/25/08 at 22:18:39:

@Markovich Is this another road to the Hanstein?

What he actually gives is
4.Nf3 g5 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Nd5!? d6 7.d4 h6 8.c3 Nf6 9.h4.

Actually it is not, though its very much alike. The difference is that
white has not played an early 0-0, but has played h4 instead.
These are the marks of the Philidor-variation, although the most
common move order starts of with 3.Nf3,g5 4.d4 rather than 3.Bc4

The special part of the transposition is white's early 6.Nd5
which makes it possible to play c3 without blocking the
development of his queens knight.
(the knight seems quite happy on d5, because black's early Nc6 makes
it difficult to drive away).

Still the postion after white's 9th move might be reached by 'normal means':

3.Nf3,g5 4.Bc4,Bg7 5.d4,h6 6.Nc3,d6 7.Nd5,Nc6 8.c3,Nf6 9.h4
In fact this position is quite old:
we have transposed to Pillsbury-Schlechter, Vienna 1903.

From this postion black has played to variations:
(a) 9....g4 10.Nd2!, Nh5?! 11.Nf1!,Bf6 12.Bxf4,Nxf4 13.Nxf4 +=
Pillsbury-Slechter, Vienna, 1903
Playing through the entire game I have the impression that black
should either play 10....Nxd5 or 11...Be6.
(b) 9....Bg4 is a more modern variation
[b1] 10.Nxf6+, Qxf6 11.Kf2?!,0-0-0 left black on top in
Sochachki-Fougerit, France 2004.
[b2] 10.hxg,hxg 11.Rxh8,Bxh8 is a better try
but it certainly does not promise white an advantage
Furhoff-M.Andersson, Sweden 1994.

But that is not all that can be said. Black has an interesting side
variation at his disposal:

8.c3, Nge7 (iso Nf6; other playable moves: 8...Na5, 8...Be6)
9.0-0, Nxd5 (note that this position can also
arise by transposition from 8...Nf6 9.0-0 (iso h4),Nxd5
10.Bxd5,Ne7
11.Bb3,Ng6
12.g3
We have been following Aljechin-Mikulka, 1923
Now Mikulka played 12...fxg3? and saw his advantage dissapear
after 13.Nxg5!
But when the same position was reached by transposition in
in Laszlo-Gymesi, Hungary 1994 black played
12......Bh3!
13.Rf2, Qd7 and black holds the advantage.

Dangerous weapons can cut both ways Undecided

IP Logged

Schwebbz YaBB Newbies Offline Posts: 26 Joined: 12/19/10	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #15 - 03/20/11 at 12:40:52	Post Tools	Print Post
	Master Om wrote on 03/20/11 at 04:32:32: It is interesting To see what Chess engines think. Deep Rybka 4.1 SSE42 suggests 3...Nc6! but Houdini suggests 3...Qh4+ and sticks to it when I ran both on a Hexacore MAchine for 2 hours in MPV 3. Houdini gives eval of -/+ 0.56 with 3...Qh4+ and Rybka gives =/+ 0.37 with 3...Nc6. Two things you need to keep in mind when it comes to computer analysis, though: Eval() is primarily a function for ordering and selecting moves. If the number an engine spits out with the variation happens to make sense to you, or if that number happens to accurately reflect the winning chances of the program in question, that's mostly a happy coincidence. The fact that computers can calculate millions of positions every second gives them a different set of priorities than human players. Computers 'like' positions where their opponents have to make straightforward, practically forced moves, while the best moves for their own side are utterly unclear. Why? Because it minimizes their opponents chances of finding unexpectedly good variations, and maximizes their own. Unless you recon you're the next Tal, you probably don't want to emulate this approach OTB.


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10756 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #14 - 03/20/11 at 10:51:06	Post Tools	Print Post
	At this stage I don't give even a single SRD what computers say. TN wrote on 03/20/11 at 04:14:42: 'Dangerous Weapons: 1.e4 e5' claims an edge for White after 3...Nc6 4.Nf3 g5 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Nd5 d6 7.d4 h6 8.c3 Nf6 9.h4, based on Pillsbury-Schlechter, Vienna 1903. This looks like a Philidor Gambit, but it doesn't really transpose. Black has other options on the 8th and 7th move. White should look at 7...g4 for instance.

	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
	IP Logged

Master Om Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 187 Joined: 02/20/10	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #13 - 03/20/11 at 04:32:32	Post Tools	Print Post
	MNb wrote on 03/19/11 at 20:43:21: I did not grant 3...Nc6 two exclams, did I? I think it's the best move because a) I don't believe in White's chances in the Hanstein (despite Markovich' remarks) and b) after 4.d4 Nf6 Black develops irritating pressure on White's centre with ...Bb4 and ...d5. Compared to 3...c6 Black's development is faster, which also should count for something. Study chapter 18 and judge for yourself. While TJ has done an excellent job I am not convinced of White's chances. Just my two SRD. Well I added 2 exclaims not for good move but for surprise value. It is interesting To see what Chess engines think. Deep Rybka 4.1 SSE42 suggests 3...Nc6! but Houdini suggests 3...Qh4+ and sticks to it when I ran both on a Hexacore MAchine for 2 hours in MPV 3. Houdini gives eval of -/+ 0.56 with 3...Qh4+ and Rybka gives =/+ 0.37 with 3...Nc6.


	IP Logged

TN God Member Offline Posts: 3420 Joined: 11/07/08 Gender:	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #12 - 03/20/11 at 04:14:42	Post Tools	Print Post
	'Dangerous Weapons: 1.e4 e5' claims an edge for White after 3...Nc6 4.Nf3 g5 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Nd5 d6 7.d4 h6 8.c3 Nf6 9.h4, based on Pillsbury-Schlechter, Vienna 1903. But I highly doubt this evaluation of 3...Nc6 since firstly, the above variation is far from forced, and secondly 4...Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Nd5 (not forced) Nd5 7.ed5 Qe7, played in Ivanchuk-Aronian, World Blitz Championship 2009, is comfortable for Black.

	All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10756 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #11 - 03/19/11 at 20:43:21	Post Tools	Print Post
	I did not grant 3...Nc6 two exclams, did I? I think it's the best move because a) I don't believe in White's chances in the Hanstein (despite Markovich' remarks) and b) after 4.d4 Nf6 Black develops irritating pressure on White's centre with ...Bb4 and ...d5. Compared to 3...c6 Black's development is faster, which also should count for something. Study chapter 18 and judge for yourself. While TJ has done an excellent job I am not convinced of White's chances. Just my two 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
	IP Logged

Master Om Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 187 Joined: 02/20/10	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #10 - 03/19/11 at 16:49:56	Post Tools	Print Post
	MNb wrote on 03/18/11 at 17:00:10: Master Om wrote on 03/18/11 at 16:15:01: Whats the best line to play for black in Kings Gambit after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.Bc4 3...Nc6 as 4.Nf3 g5 will transpose to the Hanstein Gambit and 4.d4 Nf6 is not easy either. But you'll have to buy Thomas Johansson's excellent The Fascinating King's Gambit for the details. Thanks MNB. I have that Book Now. But it suggests 3...Nf6 4...c6 the Jaenisch Bogoljubov Defence to be the main move. What is the key to 3...Nc6!! than 3...Nf6 and c6 line ?


	IP Logged

Master Om Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 187 Joined: 02/20/10	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #9 - 03/19/11 at 04:01:40	Post Tools	Print Post
	Markovich wrote on 03/18/11 at 20:24:59: White gets his chances in those ...g5 lines, so it's not very surprising to me that what I believe to be a theoretical edge for Black hasn't translated into anything great in the limited practice of this line. After all, the Bishop's Gambit doesn't come up very often among players with excellent technique. I might not play 3...Nc6 against this gambit myself, at least not OTB, just because of the difficulty of handling positions with ...g5 in. And I do not have excellent technique. But I still think that theoretically, 3...Nc6 is the most testing. 2...d5 3.exd5 exf4 intending transposition to the Modern or else Bogolyubov's Defense (3...Nf6 4.Nc3 c6) are both perfectly fine in practice, to answer the OP. I would stay well away from 3...Qh4+. Granted Markovich. I used to play Qh4+ OTB with success. I looked at T Johanssen and Micawber's Analysis . In the Fascinating Kings Gambit he Says 3....Nf6 4....c6 to be main line and O Duras Line 3....Nc6 to be Equal but Micawbers Analysis Recomends 3...Nc6. Bit confused.
	« Last Edit: 03/19/11 at 13:27:51 by Markovich »

	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #8 - 03/18/11 at 20:24:59	Post Tools	Print Post
	White gets his chances in those ...g5 lines, so it's not very surprising to me that what I believe to be a theoretical edge for Black hasn't translated into anything great in the limited practice of this line. After all, the Bishop's Gambit doesn't come up very often among players with excellent technique. I might not play 3...Nc6 against this gambit myself, at least not OTB, just because of the difficulty of handling positions with ...g5 in. And I do not have excellent technique. But I still think that theoretically, 3...Nc6 is the most testing. 2...d5 3.exd5 exf4 intending transposition to the Modern or else Bogolyubov's Defense (3...Nf6 4.Nc3 c6) are both perfectly fine in practice, to answer the OP. I would stay well away from 3...Qh4+.
	« Last Edit: 03/19/11 at 13:27:22 by Markovich »
	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

TalJechin God Member Offline There is no secret ingredient. Posts: 2892 Location: Malmö Joined: 08/12/04 Gender:	Re: Refuting King's Bishop Gambit!! Reply #7 - 03/18/11 at 19:01:16	Post Tools	Print Post
	MNb wrote on 03/18/11 at 17:00:10: Master Om wrote on 03/18/11 at 16:15:01: Whats the best line to play for black in Kings Gambit after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.Bc4 3...Nc6 as 4.Nf3 g5 will transpose to the Hanstein Gambit and 4.d4 Nf6 is not easy either. But you'll have to buy Thomas Johansson's excellent The Fascinating King's Gambit for the details. I checked my corr base on this a while back, and the ML I gave at the time seems to hold up still, iirc the stats were something like +1 =18 -1. So, it's hardly a refutation - despite the hype it's gotten. If White wants to win at all cost he might be able to dig up some chances in the alternative lines with 5.e5 instead of Nc3, where he gives up an exchange - or they may all turn out even worse nowadays... If there is something it won't be easy to find.


	IP Logged

Master Om Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 187 Joined: 02/20/10	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #6 - 03/18/11 at 17:37:19	Post Tools	Print Post
	MNb wrote on 03/18/11 at 17:21:30: If I had thought otherwise I wouldn't have written that 3...Nc6 is best. It's better than 3...c6, better than 3...Qh4+, better than 3...d5 and better than any other move. If you ask me, which you do. Ok Taking as Granted. I will Let you know my doubts after I analyse myself.


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10756 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #5 - 03/18/11 at 17:21:30	Post Tools	Print Post
	If I had thought otherwise I wouldn't have written that 3...Nc6 is best. It's better than 3...c6, better than 3...Qh4+, better than 3...d5 and better than any other move. If you ask me, which you do.

	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
	IP Logged

Master Om Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 187 Joined: 02/20/10	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #4 - 03/18/11 at 17:11:00	Post Tools	Print Post
	MNb wrote on 03/18/11 at 17:00:10: Master Om wrote on 03/18/11 at 16:15:01: Whats the best line to play for black in Kings Gambit after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.Bc4 3...Nc6 as 4.Nf3 g5 will transpose to the Hanstein Gambit and 4.d4 Nf6 is not easy either. But you'll have to buy Thomas Johansson's excellent The Fascinating King's Gambit for the details. 3...Nc6 ?? . Is it better than Qh4+ ?


	IP Logged

Master Om Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 187 Joined: 02/20/10	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #3 - 03/18/11 at 17:09:38	Post Tools	Print Post
	Schwebbz wrote on 03/18/11 at 16:36:50: First of all, 3.Bc5 is not a legal move. Assuming you meant Bc4, I think the best try for black to seize the initiative is by 3...Qh4+ 4.Kf1 d6, IMO. Edited. Sorry.


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10756 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #2 - 03/18/11 at 17:00:10	Post Tools	Print Post
	Master Om wrote on 03/18/11 at 16:15:01: Whats the best line to play for black in Kings Gambit after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.Bc4 3...Nc6 as 4.Nf3 g5 will transpose to the Hanstein Gambit and 4.d4 Nf6 is not easy either. But you'll have to buy Thomas Johansson's excellent The Fascinating King's Gambit for the details.

	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
	IP Logged

Schwebbz YaBB Newbies Offline Posts: 26 Joined: 12/19/10	Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! Reply #1 - 03/18/11 at 16:36:50	Post Tools	Print Post
	First of all, 3.Bc5 is not a legal move. Assuming you meant Bc4, I think the best try for black to seize the initiative is by 3...Qh4+ 4.Kf1 d6, IMO.


	IP Logged

Master Om Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 187 Joined: 02/20/10	C33: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! 03/18/11 at 16:15:01	Post Tools	Print Post
	Whats the best line to play for black in Kings Gambit after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.Bc4!.. specially in correspondence game. I personally Prefered 3...Nf6 but after looking how Morozevich Beat Anand In a Rapid I am Thinkin of 3...Qh4 But am not finding any concrete lines against it. Any Suggestions.
	« Last Edit: 07/17/11 at 18:54:19 by Smyslov_Fan »

	IP Logged