Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Topic Tools
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Nordic Gambit (Read 1011 times)
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1356
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Nordic Gambit
Reply #22 - 09/02/17 at 23:02:21
Post Tools
By the way, the Dutch Wikipedia calls it "Deens gambiet", offering Noords gambiet as an alternative.

The Portuguese Wikipedia has the following:

Quote:
Curiosity
The German name is Nordic Gambit and in Dutch Norwegian Gambit, all historically wrong since Lindehn was Danish

Cry
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1356
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Nordic Gambit
Reply #21 - 09/02/17 at 22:24:53
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 09/02/17 at 21:18:35:
Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/25/17 at 18:52:13:
PS. The title "Nordic Gambit" that I chose for this thread is the German name of the system. If a moderator feels it should be the Anglo-Saxon "Danish Gambit", just change it.

The Dutch name is "Noors Gambiet", which means Norwegian Gambit. Of course it was invented by the Swede Hans Lindehn.

John Lutes (Danish Gambit, 1989) lists older sources with 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 and a later c2-c3, for example Ercole del Rio (circa 1800): 3.Bc4 Qf6 4.c3! dxc3 5.Nxc3 Bb4 6.Bd2. If we add the moves Nf3 and Nc6, it would transpose to a later Marshall game, so it's not too weird. Finally Lutes arrives at 3.c3, and says:

Quote:
It appears that the subject of our study, 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3, began appearing in some analytical games by a Danish jurist, named Blankensteiner, from the Jutland; around 1830. However, the variation went relatively unnoticed for several decades.
... refering to Hooper/Whyld: The Oxford Companion to Chess (1984), as his source.

In 1856 the Swedish master Dr. H. A. W. Lindehn of Uppsala proposed 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4, and his suggestion inspired other players, a major step for this opening. It seems legitimate to call it the "Nordic Gambit", as quite a few Scandinavian players were involved: Nielsen, Sörensen, Dr. Krause, Borén, Dr. Svenonius. I don't know why it is called "Noors Gambiet" in the Netherlands. With a little luck there could be an explanation in van der Linde's work.

It became "Danish Gambit" in the English world after Martin Severin From used it in Paris 1867, an event covered by the many UK chess magazines and columns. Hard to kill a name once it is established.

The 3...Qe7 line also has older roots, it was called after Rosentreter (my "Rosenthal's" above was a mistake, sorry) only because of several articles that he wrote in Deutsches Wochenschach 1906 and 1908. The double pawn sacrifice 3...Qe7 4.cxd4 Qxe4+ 5.Be2! was indeed Rosentreter's invention. Nowadays called "Spielmann's move" or "Alekhine's move". Eventually it will become "Nakamura's move", just wait.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10129
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Nordic Gambit
Reply #20 - 09/02/17 at 21:18:35
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/25/17 at 18:52:13:
PS. The title "Nordic Gambit" that I chose for this thread is the German name of the system. If a moderator feels it should be the Anglo-Saxon "Danish Gambit", just change it.

The Dutch name is "Noors Gambiet", which means Norwegian Gambit. Of course it was invented by the Swede Hans Lindehn.
  

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: 1356
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Nordic Gambit
Reply #19 - 09/01/17 at 22:38:35
Post Tools
Jupp53 wrote on 09/01/17 at 22:14:05:
My guess Qe3 was wrong. Interesting position!

Thanks. It's almost impossible to guess Blackburne's 16.Kh1??!. Comments Steinitz in the tournament book (New York 1889): "White could have still won the Queen for two rooks, with an excellent game, by 16.Rxe7+. [...] he either misjudges his position or he trifles with his young opponent."

The engine finds 16.Qc3!, winning in circa ten moves (16...0-0 17.Bxe7 Qc8 18.Bxf8 Kxf8 19.d6!).
16.Qb1 takes a little longer, exploiting that after 0-0 and Kxf8 the pawn h7 is hanging, and 16...a6 17.Bxe7 Qxe7 18.d6! makes good use of White's d-pawn, again.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jupp53
God Member
*****
Offline


be

Posts: 757
Location: Frankfurt/Main
Joined: 01/04/09
Gender: Male
Re: Nordic Gambit
Reply #18 - 09/01/17 at 22:14:05
Post Tools
My guess Qe3 was wrong. Interesting position!
  

Medical textbooks say I should be dead since April 2002.
Dum spiro spero. Smiley
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1356
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Nordic Gambit
Reply #17 - 08/31/17 at 23:46:58
Post Tools
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*
One of the earliest Danish Gambits in tournament chess. Anybody willing to guess White's (= Blackburne's) next move?
« Last Edit: 09/01/17 at 00:59:27 by Stefan Buecker »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1356
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Nordic Gambit
Reply #16 - 08/27/17 at 17:47:52
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/24/17 at 11:24:41:
He should have recommended a line where (a) Black keeps the two extra pawns, and (b) his king is perfectly safe.

The same can be said about Rosenthal's 3...Qe7 - king safety is the key. Here is another variation:

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 Qe7 4.cxd4 Qxe4+ 5.Be2! Qxg2 6.Bf3 Qg6 7.Nc3 Bb4 8.Nge2 Ne7 9.Rg1 Qf5!? (instead of 9...Qf6, above) 10.Ng3 Qh3 11.d5 0-0 12.Nh5 Ng6 13.Qd4 Re8+ 14.Be3 Bf8 15.Rg3 Qf5 16.Ne4

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*
It's all about king safety... A plausible continuation would be 16...Re5 17.Nef6+ gxf6 18.Bg4 Qc2 19.Bd1 Qf5, draw. The best move is 16...Kh8! though, =+.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1356
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Nordic Gambit
Reply #15 - 08/25/17 at 18:52:13
Post Tools
an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 08/25/17 at 13:33:51:
Let's see how much trouble an ordinary chessplayer can get into in this line:
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 Qe7 4. cxd4 Qxe4+ 5. Be2 Qxg2 6. Bf3 Qg6 7. Ne2 Ne7 8. Nbc3 d5 9. Nf4 Qa6 10. b4 c6 (10...Qc4 is not my style) 11. b5 Qa5 12. Bd2 Qd8 (This was my idea with 10...c6. The queen is safe here, d5 is solid, and black will now focus on development.) 13. O-O Ng6 (Stockfish suggests 13...Nf5 "-0.3"(*) but my move seems even better.) 14. bxc6 bxc6 (Stiil "solid".) 15. Re1+ Be7 16. Ncxd5 (Oops. Maybe it's not hopeless though. I can shed another pawn and get castled.) 16... Be6 17. Nxe7 Qxe7 18. d5. (It may be time to take up the French Defense.)

Yes, it is a situation full of tricks, and White's activity should not be underestimated. (Btw, 13.Qe2 is -0.13, says the engine.) The book Danish Dynamite (2003) puts a ? behind 5.Be2 and quotes "7.Nc3 Bb4 -/+ ECO". Not very helpful. Kaufman or Bologan are doing much better, and I'll admit that the line probably cannot be played twice against the same opponent.

LeeRoth wrote on 08/25/17 at 16:16:23:
If we go back to Stefan's line in reply #9, 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 Qe7 4.cxd4 Qxe4+ 5.Be2 Qxg2 6.Bf3 Qg6 7.Nc3 Bb4 8.Nge2 Ne7 9.Rg1 Qf6 10.Nf4 Nbc6 11.a3, wondering if Black can play 11..Bd6 here, threatening the Nf4 and the d4-pawn.  I suppose White plays 12.Ne4 Qxd4 13.Nxd6 cxd6. But now, how does he proceed? 14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.Bxd5 Qe5 16.Kf1 Ne7 looks good for Black.

Well spotted, I had missed 11...Bd6. After 14.Qe2 (to keep the queens on the board) 14...Qe5 15.Be3 b6 16.0-0-0 Bb7, White has several options. Best looks 17.Kb1 g6 18.Nd5 Nxd5 19.Bxd5 Qf5+ 20.Ka1 0-0 21.Rg5 Qf6 22.Qh5.

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

White has sufficient play for the pawns. 22...Rae8 23.Rdg1 Re6! seems to hold: -0.15 or so, says the PC.

PS. The title "Nordic Gambit" that I chose for this thread is the German name of the system. If a moderator feels it should be the Anglo-Saxon "Danish Gambit", just change it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1301
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: Nordic Gambit
Reply #14 - 08/25/17 at 16:16:23
Post Tools
If we go back to Stefan's line in reply #9, 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 Qe7 4.cxd4 Qxe4+ 5.Be2 Qxg2 6.Bf3 Qg6 7.Nc3 Bb4 8.Nge2 Ne7 9.Rg1 Qf6 10.Nf4 Nbc6 11.a3, wondering if Black can play 11..Bd6 here, threatening the Nf4 and the d4-pawn.  I suppose White plays 12.Ne4 Qxd4 13.Nxd6 cxd6. But now, how does he proceed? 14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.Bxd5 Qe5 16.Kf1 Ne7 looks good for Black.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
Junior Member
**
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 76
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: Nordic Gambit
Reply #13 - 08/25/17 at 13:33:51
Post Tools
Let's see how much trouble an ordinary chessplayer can get into in this line:
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 Qe7 4. cxd4 Qxe4+ 5. Be2 Qxg2 6. Bf3 Qg6 7. Ne2 Ne7 8. Nbc3 d5 9. Nf4 Qa6 10. b4 c6 (10...Qc4 is not my style) 11. b5 Qa5 12. Bd2 Qd8 (This was my idea with 10...c6. The queen is safe here, d5 is solid, and black will now focus on development.) 13. O-O Ng6 (Stockfish suggests 13...Nf5 "-0.3"(*) but my move seems even better.) 14. bxc6 bxc6 (Stiil "solid".) 15. Re1+ Be7 16. Ncxd5 (Oops. Maybe it's not hopeless though. I can shed another pawn and get castled.) 16... Be6 17. Nxe7 Qxe7 18. d5. (It may be time to take up the French Defense.)

(*) Back in the day a GM, maybe it was Patrick Wolff, wrote that if white is a pawn down and the computer says it's equal, then white has a winning attack. Here white is two pawns down so "-0.3" should have set the alarm bells ringing.

(fixed a spelling error)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1356
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Nordic Gambit
Reply #12 - 08/24/17 at 11:24:41
Post Tools
Sorry, I've been sloppy. Actually there were only two games with 9...d6 10.Ng5 (the two others went 10.e5).

Reconstructing your analysis, I find your 12...Bg4 a little artificial. The alternatives 12...d5 or 12...Ng4 look more like robust equalizers to me. My file below includes ideas ("!?") which White could try to generate some practical problems for Black. Anyway, I've got the impression that 9...d6 10.Ng5 is just as good as 9...0-0 10.Ng5, more or less equal.



Actually when I see all these "0.00" lines I feel confirmed in my belief that Martin Lokander's repertoire suggestion was a bad choice. What he is trying to give are variations where Black can play for a win. His sharp weapon looks "oversharp", since it can easily lead to boring equality.

The key problem isn't his suggestion to take the second pawn. That's fine, if it is done the right way. He should have recommended a line where (a) Black keeps the two extra pawns, and (b) his king is perfectly safe.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
IsaVulpes
Full Member
***
Offline


No.

Posts: 133
Joined: 12/09/07
Re: Nordic Gambit
Reply #11 - 08/24/17 at 01:57:21
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/21/17 at 18:20:05:
By the way, the similar 9...d6 10.Ng5! had already been played in four games - three wins and one draw for White.

How did these games continue (presuming they're amongst similarly rated players - I got one game in my Database in a similar position, but there White is 1400 vs 2100 and loses)?
After 10. .. 0-0, compared to your sample line given, Black has played ..d6 instead of ..h6, which looks a lot less cooperative & much more natural to me.

I couldn't find anything impressive for Black, but it also didn't seem unduly worrying to me - although I am certainly too weak a player to truly judge such things.
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*
Eg I landed here after playing a bunch of normal-looking moves, but I have no idea which side I would prefer in a practical game.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1356
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Nordic Gambit
Reply #10 - 08/23/17 at 16:42:06
Post Tools
kylemeister wrote on 08/22/17 at 19:16:22:
Hmm; I see that Fine had 5. Be2"!" as leading to "unclear complications" in Practical Chess Openings (1948), while 60 years later MCO said "fair attacking chances" (both gave only 5...Qxg2).  I wonder if Kaufman's later repertoire book also didn't mention 5. Be2 (I see that it did recommend 3...Qe7).

edit:  oops -- MCO also opined that 5. Be2 Nf6 (it actually gave 5...d5, evidently a typo) 6. Nf3 Bb4+ 7. Nc3 0-0 8. 0-0 Bxc3 9. bc d6 "leaves White too little for the pawn, Karesik-Mikhalevski, Israel 2004."

Mikhalevski had studied his game Karesik - Mikhalevski for CBM 104. It follows the historical game Spielmann - Berger until move 12, and his novelty may be worse than the original continuation. Anyway, I don't see any advantage for Black here. White has the initiative and can force a draw in many ways. This observation supports my opinion that taking on g2 is more or less obligatory. - I am a big fan of Reuben Fine as a theoretician. His positive assessment of 5.Be2 may not be 100% true, but against an unprepared opponent such a gambit is a fine weapon.

Anecdotal evidence: When I began looking at 5.Be2 Qxg2 6.Bf3 Qg6 7.Ne2 Ne7 8.Nbc3 from Alekhine - Chèron, the next move 8...c6? was clearly a mistake. The computer suggested 8...d5! 9.Nf4 Qa6! and I liked the idea: "Why not, on this square the queen stands secure, and it prevents the white king from castling short. Good move!" Suddenly the evaluation dropped - the computer had found 10.b4! Qc4 11.Bd2! (see diagram below) and the situation was a total mess. What a shock would it be in a practical game, and the "-0.10" is a weak consolation when you actually have to detect an escape with the clock ticking.

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


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1356
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Nordic Gambit
Reply #9 - 08/23/17 at 14:31:16
Post Tools
LeeRoth wrote on 08/22/17 at 19:43:10:
In his later book, Kaufman gives 5.Be2 Qxg2 6.Bf3 Qg6 7.Ne2 Nc6 (TN) 8.Nf4 Qf5 9.Nc3 Nf6 10.Qe2 Kd8 11.Be3 Bd6 12.Nfd5 b6 13.0-0-0 Nxd5 14.Bxd5 Ba6 15.Qxa6 Nb4 16.Be4 Qxe4 17.Nxe4 Nxa6.  His verdict:  White may have compensation for a pawn, but he is down two.

Thank you very much for the hint. An excellent analysis from Kaufman. I have only his 2012 book where 5.Be2 is missing. Is there a newer version? Anyway, he is getting all the big things right: that the queen belongs to f5 and that the Bf8 can be very useful on d6 (so there is no need to hurry with Bb4+). However, he only considers 7.Ne2 (Alekhine's continuation). It seems that 7.Nc3 is more critical.

LeeRoth wrote on 08/22/17 at 19:43:10:
BTW, Bologan also recommends this pawn grab for Black in his Black Weapons book.  He gives 5..Qxg2 6.Bf3 Qg6 7.Nc3 Bb4 8.Nge2 Ne7 following some Keres analysis that was tested in the corr. game, Barrios Troncoso-Smalcl, ICCF 2002.

I like Bologan's analysis on p.3-64 and 3-65 even more than Kaufman's. It isn't easy to find improvements for White, and maybe I shouldn't even try, since I mostly agree with them that Spielmann's 5.Be2 gives White only compensation for one pawn, not two.  Smiley

I've nevertheless looked at some variations. Below are my results on 7.Nc3(!) which imo should be regarded as the main line. - On page 38 of his book Bologan gives the following advice: 

Quote:
If you have psychological problems with sacrificing one pawn, then you should first study the lines where Black sacrifices more than one pawn.

Cool

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


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1301
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: Nordic Gambit
Reply #8 - 08/22/17 at 19:43:10
Post Tools
In his later book, Kaufman gives 5.Be2 Qxg2 6.Bf3 Qg6 7.Ne2 Nc6 (TN) 8.Nf4 Qf5 9.Nc3 Nf6 10.Qe2 Kd8 11.Be3 Bd6 12.Nfd5 b6 13.0-0-0 Nxd5 14.Bxd5 Ba6 15.Qxa6 Nb4 16.Be4 Qxe4 17.Nxe4 Nxa6.  His verdict:  White may have compensation for a pawn, but he is down two.

BTW, Bologan also recommends this pawn grab for Black in his Black Weapons book.  He gives 5..Qxg2 6.Bf3 Qg6 7.Nc3 Bb4 8.Nge2 Ne7 following some Keres analysis that was tested in the corr. game, Barrios Troncoso-Smalcl, ICCF 2002.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo