TN wrote on 03/17/19 at 08:27:59:


No, he doesn’t look at the Benko.

Blumenfeld Gambit is Chapter 2 - it’s the nearest you are gonna get here.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 03/09/19 at 01:08:18:


Yes, in this topic this is true.

But, worse, if I do understand the connotation in english: "What I have is courage that Herr Bronznik lacks." Godwin's Law, not for the first time in this context iirc. There is one very famous person in history known for his use of "Herr ..." in this offensive way.

Maybe this explains my feelings of disgust about a mindset.

Edit: "This context" refers to courage, etc. in playing risky and/or bad openings in a lot of topics.

Yes. It's about "chicken" etc. This is disrespectful. The idea could be discussed in a manner following usual civilized behavioral norms. If this sounds harsh I cannot change it. I prefer to talk to people and not about people behaving this way.

MNb wrote on 03/06/19 at 07:03:58:


I think I do understand. Lev is full of disrespect and as moderator I wouldn't tolerate that too. Iirc I don't want to discuss the only controversial point, as I forgot with whom I had a little debate.

The reason: I'm german and so Godwin's law is to near. Who wants my personal joke about the situation may send me a pm. "I've said to much ..."

So an overdeveloped sense of entitlement indeed.
See, you don't get to decide how other people should behave or not.
Ah well, perhaps Jupp understands now why I think what I think of your attitude. Someone with so little respect like you have doesn't derserve mine. Stigma remains suspiciously silent.
I've told you before and I tell you again, Lev. I don't tolerate this at the Dragon subforum.

Gambit wrote on 02/25/19 at 07:06:50:


an overdeveloped sense of entitlement?

Gambit wrote on 02/25/19 at 07:06:50:

Almost 6 years ago there was a similar discussion about that on http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/blog/2019
GM Jacob Aagaard was clearly not agreeing with this view.

RdC wrote on 09/26/18 at 07:11:13:

From the "e3 poison thread" in General Chess I understand that Smith recommends 5.a3 iso 5.Nc3. After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.e3 Nf6 5.Nf3 a6 Black does quite well. So perhaps White instead should take a look at IM Cummings' recent book on the English (for those who own it: page 232) and try 6.cxd5 exd5 7.g3!? Nc6 8.Bg2.

It may be useful to repeat it: a serious attempt to refute the VHS gambit, assuming that Black castles queenside, is answering x...g4 with y.Nh4. IM Bronznik mentions it but doesn't analyse it. Instead he only makes some general remarks. In practice White has done very well in various incarnations.

Pawnpusher wrote on 09/26/18 at 00:19:52:


It's easy enough to avoid if you are expecting it. Just open 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. e3 . Use ideas from the Axel Smith book !

RdC wrote on 09/25/18 at 11:29:28:


Why is that? Black is basically playing White in an IQP variation, no? I would argue that's better suited for hackers.

Well after I read the Hennig chapter and the Slav chapter Salgado Lopez writes that the Hennig is very playable up to about 2020, and that the Timman gambit in the Slav exchange is entirely playable. So I guess he's even more even handed than I thought.
By the way, Valeri Bronznik in his D4 Guerillas book  came to about the same conclusion about the Hennig, so there are two formidable analysts who say play it up till about 2000ish. Salgado says there is a refutation and supports it with a lot of analysis.

grandpatzer wrote on 09/24/18 at 14:23:56:


I agree with Pawnpusher that he's mostly promoting the White side but he tries to analyze all of the gambits objectively.  He's certainly doesn't claim to have refuted all of the gambits in the book.  The "Timman Gambit" for example, he writes, "I can tell in advance: this gambit seems to be good!".

It is mostly from a white perspective, but I think he makes a considerable effort to be objective. I am only as far as the von Hennig-Scharra chapter, but I like what I have read so far, and I think the analysis holds water when you look at it with engines.

I purchased this book a short time ago via the Forward Chess app.  I like a lot about the book but I feel it could have been even better.  Keep in mind I haven’t tested or ran any of the authors analysis on my own computer.  I don’t see where he ever mentions it, but all of the openings do arise via 1.d4.  I'll just briefly mention my thoughts about the main chapters.  The Budapest Gambit chapter is of course a system for White and at least on the surface appears to be quite promising.  The Blumenfeld Gambit chapter has improvements for both sides, but in the end he thinks the accepted variation is better for White. The Tarrasch and Marshall Gambits chapter only covers 5.dxc5 and 5.e4, both equal with best play according to the book.  Why not analyze 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.dxc5 that has been analyzed here on the forum and seems like a better try? The Von Hennig-Schara Gambit chapter has a lot of information.  I don’t know how much it adds to theory as I’m not that familiar with it.  He believes the variation where Black castles kingside to be his best chance. The Slav Gambits chapter only considers the Winawer Countergambit and “Timman’s Gambit”, (1.d4 d4 2.c4 c6 3.cxd5 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.Bf4 e5).  Ok, to be fair in the latter variation he also covers 5.e4!? and 5.Nf3 e5? but no mention of 5.Bf4.  I can also think of some other very interesting Slav Gambits that could have added even more value to the book.  The Dutch Gambits chapter covers 2.g4 and the Staunton Gambit and this looks like another really good chapter with new and interesting analysis. Neither system gives an advantage but they are great surprise weapons. Easily Refuted Gambits covers the Englund Gambit (called the “Charlick Gambit in the book), the Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit, and the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit.  This analysis should be useful to many players as well.  Lastly, he covers the Albin with one of the main lines of 5.a3, showing how White can maintain an advantage against Black’s various tries.  (There’s also thre chapters on “model games with exercises on the Budapest, Blumenfeld and VHS Gambits that I haven’t looked at yet.)  So all in all a very decent book as long as most of the analysis holds up.  My only regret is that he didn’t bother to analyze some of the other very interesting 1.d4 gambits.

Confused_by_Theory wrote on 09/14/18 at 17:02:05:


Where you ilve that you find so many good chess books on shelf of bookstores ¿ 

I wasn't interested initially, but after reading the excerpt, I am.

I have one main concern: I don't know what the book is about! E.g. On the basis of the first chapter excerpt, this seems to be a guide for white against black's gambit attempts after d4 c4. But there is no coverage of the Benko (according to the contents, at least). What is covered, and what isn't? Is it from both white's perspective and black's perspective, or just from white's?

Nonethess, the excerpt is intriguing. Firstly, there is attention to historically important games. Secondly, the recommendation against the Budapest is offbeat, straightforward, aggressive, and seems to be a viable try for white.

If the excerpt is an indication of what the remainder of the book is like (straightforward attacking repertoire for white against gambit black openings vs 1.d4), then it looks like it offers something meaningful compared to other books on the market.

grandpatzer wrote on 09/14/18 at 15:54:33:

I think the rook did it.

That's about it.

Looks nice though. Will take a look if I find it in a bookstall.

Anyone can write a short review of Gambit Killer by Salgado Lopez (Thinkers Publishing), aimed at defeating the most popular Black Gambits vs 1.d4?