Latest Updates:
  Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

  Discussion forum for ChessPublishing.com, the opening theory site
   
  Chess Theory HomeHelpSearchLoginRegister  
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
KG - Fischer Defence (Read 7907 times)
woofwoof
God Member
*****
Offline


chess is like life

Posts: 929
Singapore
Gender: male
Re: KG - Fischer Defence
Reply #29 - 07/13/06 at 07:22:31
 
Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/13/06 at 03:15:15:
I just wonder why the great openings of tournament chess are being neglected while the theory of the King's Gambit (which I rarely face otb) is being discussed in such detail.


It just means that there are many KG lovers here at "the chesspub". In any case wasnt there a time that there were many Lopez threads around as well?

Thanks Jonathan, for digging them out.
Back to top
 

"I don't make mistakes. I make prophecies which immediately turn out to be wrong." - Murray Walker
 
IP Logged
 
Jon Tait
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 331
Nottingham
Re: KG - Fischer Defence
Reply #28 - 07/13/06 at 06:08:48
 
Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/13/06 at 03:15:15:
I've been really disappointed that so many threads have been devoted to the Kings Gambit


that's just because I've bumped all the threads
sorry Smiley
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6577
Re: KG - Fischer Defence
Reply #27 - 07/13/06 at 03:15:15
 
Woofwoof,

I think you may have accidently named the chesspub forum.  Congratulations! Smiley

I've been really disappointed that so many threads have been devoted to the Kings Gambit while the Ruy Lopez, Italian, Scotch and openings that are played more often are left languishing in the cellars of this section.  While it's great to see concrete analysis and thoughtful discussions, I just wonder why the great openings of tournament chess are being neglected while the theory of the King's Gambit (which I rarely face otb) is being discussed in such detail.

By the way, tonight I think I'll have a Fat Tire. Smiley
Back to top
« Last Edit: 07/13/06 at 03:16:10 by Smyslov_Fan »  
 
IP Logged
 
Glenn Snow
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1548
Franklin
Gender: male
Re: KG - Fischer Defence
Reply #26 - 07/12/06 at 21:41:16
 
Quote:
"Good to see some posts from you though - look forward to some comments on 1.b3 in particular (in the Flank Openngs section obviously!) - assuming you are that Jonathan Tait", Alumbrado.
"

Agree, but it is also nice to see your comments on the King's Gambit since your the author (or will be) of "King's Gambit Uncensored".  Is that still going to be out January 07?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
woofwoof
God Member
*****
Offline


chess is like life

Posts: 929
Singapore
Gender: male
Re: KG - Fischer Defence
Reply #25 - 07/12/06 at 16:09:52
 
OstapBender wrote on 07/12/06 at 15:15:47:
sometimes (well, once at least) referred to as the ChessPub.  Cheers!  Smiley


Grin Looks like my slip of the keyboard has etched itself into the memory of at least 1 member here!

Cheers!  Smiley
Back to top
 

"I don't make mistakes. I make prophecies which immediately turn out to be wrong." - Murray Walker
 
IP Logged
 
OstapBender
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no spoon.

Posts: 1491
not in Kansas anymore
Re: KG - Fischer Defence
Reply #24 - 07/12/06 at 15:15:47
 
Jonathan,

Welcome to the forum, sometimes (well, once at least) referred to as the ChessPub.  Cheers!  Smiley
Back to top
 

"If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates."  -Jay Leno
 
IP Logged
 
Jon Tait
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 331
Nottingham
Re: KG - Fischer Defence
Reply #23 - 07/12/06 at 14:48:47
 
alumbrado wrote on 07/12/06 at 13:06:25:
This sort of comment is all well and good, but this is a chess theory site - the notion that we should just go with whatever move we feel like is not really the idea!


point taken Wink

alumbrado wrote on 07/12/06 at 13:06:25:
Good to see some posts from you though - look forward to some comments on 1.b3 in particular (in the Flank Openngs section obviously!) - assuming you are that Jonathan Tait  Wink


I am, yes Smiley
I'll check out the Flank Openings forum in a bit
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
alumbrado
God Member
*****
Offline


Esse quam videri bonus
malebo

Posts: 1418
London
Gender: male
Re: KG - Fischer Defence
Reply #22 - 07/12/06 at 13:06:25
 
Quote:
Having equality (or even an advantage) in the opening is irrelevant if you don't know what to do with it Smiley


This sort of comment is all well and good, but this is a chess theory site - the notion that we should just go with whatever move we feel like is not really the idea!

Good to see some posts from you though - look forward to some comments on 1.b3 in particular (in the Flank Openngs section obviously!) - assuming you are that Jonathan Tait  Wink
Back to top
« Last Edit: 07/12/06 at 13:06:54 by alumbrado »  

If sometimes we fly too close to the sun, at least this shows we are spreading our wings.
 
IP Logged
 
Jon Tait
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 331
Nottingham
Re: KG - Fischer Defence
Reply #21 - 07/11/06 at 15:58:13
 
[quote author=Uberdeker link=1144000928/0#0 date=1144000927]
 The Fischer Defence 1. e4 e5 ; 2. f4 ef ; 3. Ktf3 d6 is perhaps the sternest test of the King's Knight Gambit, and as such it deserves its own thread here.[/quote]

I disagree. I think 3...g5 is the sternest test. But never mind that ;)

On the Fischer: the main problem is that if you play 4 d4 g5 5 h4 g4 6 Ng1, Black generally has a defence worked out in advance. As White, you don't really want to play lots of theoretcial moves, since they just lead to equality at best.

So just play something else. 4 Bc4 is popular again now, with 4...h6 5 b3!?, 5 h4!?, 5 b4!?, 5 d3!? or whatever. Just change the nature of the position and start to play your opponent from there. Having equality (or even an advantage) in the opening is irrelevant if you don't know what to do with it :)
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 9949
Moengo
Gender: male
Re: KG - Fischer Defence
Reply #20 - 05/05/06 at 02:49:50
 
[quote author=Uberdeker link=1144000928/0#3 date=1144281251]Dear MNb,

As regards 4. d4 g5 ; 5. Ktc3 Bg7 ; 6. g3 g4 ; 7. Kth4 f3 , whether or not h3 and ...h5 are inserted, I think Black should follow the game Shulman-Kamberi that you quoted. It seems to me that he should then play 13. ...c6 with ...Qd7 or ...Qc7 and ...0-0-0 to follow. [/quote]

Sorry, I mixed up Shirazi and Shulman. I will leave it to you, to decide how important this mistake is regarding your Common Sense attitude towards sacrifices.
As for the Morra Gambit, I will follow your line of reasoning. I do not have it on my repertoire, nor do I intend to include it in the future. So a debate with someone, who dismisses all positions with material down based on Common Sense and backed up with 1˝ ply analysis is pointless indeed. I don't feel like to start the same process for the third time.
It is sufficient to remark, that you have failed to prove a =+ in the Fischer Defense and in the BDG. The latter I regret. You might have noticed, that I have taken over that task.
Won't see you in the Anti-Sicilian section.
Back to top
« Last Edit: 05/05/06 at 02:56:41 by MNb »  

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
 
One Fool(Guest)
Guest


Re: KG - Fischer Defence
Reply #19 - 05/04/06 at 10:44:41
 


Dear TenWiseMen,

  If the fact that I speculate as to whether this or that sacrifice is incorrect, without entering detailed analysis makes me a useless dogmatist, then, once again, let us all abandon chess and leave it to the computer, who does nothing but calculate and does it better than any living being. From what you say, intuition and understanding have no place in chess and I feel rather sad for you if you have to plow through millions of variations at every move.
I was not aware of the existance of the "Anti-Gambit School". Dismissing rubbish is an attribute of the "Common-Sense School", even when it is not backed up by analysis.
You have done well in finding complications for White, just as Arkhein managed to hold the BDG against me. I have neither the time, the energy, nor the motivation to pursue these debates. Against 1. d4, I never play 1. ...d5, and apparently the Hubsch is easier to refute than the BDG so I'll stick with that. Against 1. e4, I don't play 1. ...e5, and I'm not sure I want to include 1. ...e5 or 1. ...d6/2. ...e5 in my repertoire against the Bird.
So these issues or not important to me. However, you have also mentionned the Morra Gambit, and I will always be prepared to uphold Sicilian honour. So, if you start a thread in the "Anti-Sicilian" Section, we can decide who estimates the importance of dynamic factors correctly.

As for the Nimzo-Spielmann discussion, it really is pointless. Spielmann was a talented and strong practical player, whereas Nimzo is arguably the most influencial theoretician of all time. Childish comparisons (who beat who and how many times) are completely besides the point. But I admire your sense of humour. Nimzo is the greatest anti-conformist since Steinitz, he had the most revolutionnary and outlandish ideas and you call him dogmatic. That's very cute.

MNb wrote on 04/25/06 at 07:18:48:
Let me remind you of your earlier remark about that Shirazi game. You were wrong and that should have teached you a little modesty


It should have taught me some modesty, should it? I never made a single remark about a Shirazi game. The only game of his that I can think of ran (with White) 1. e4 c5 ; 2. b4 cb ; 3. a3 d5 ; 4. ed Qxd5 ; 5. ab Qe5+

You have criticized me for supplying analysis "1˝ ply deep". If indeed I had done
this, it would have been a great feat and you should have congratulated me.

So you are going to treat me to the refutation of the Hanstein, are you? That's very sweet, but hasn't it been refuted for several decades now?

See you in the "Anti-Sicilians" section then.

                                                               Regards,
                                                                   One Fool
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Glenn Snow
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1548
Franklin
Gender: male
Re: KG - Fischer Defence
Reply #18 - 04/30/06 at 18:25:19
 
Well I seem to be missing a lot of stuff but here is another try that hopefully corrects some earlier mistakes.  I'm worried about my variation versus 17...Ke8 since I think this is wrong now but MNb says he hasn't refuted it.  Anyway, here's what I have now:

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d6 4.d4 g5 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.g3 g4 7.Nh4 f3 8.h3 h5 9.Be3 Bf6 10.hxg4 11.Qd2 Rxh4 12.gxh4 Bxh4+ 13.Rxh4 Qxh4+ 14.Qf2 Qxf2+ 15.Kxf2 Ne7! 16.Bc4 Kf8 17.Bh6+ Kg8  [17...Ke8? 18.Bg5 Nbc6 (18...Be6 19.Bxe6 fxe6 20.Rh1 Kf7 (( 20...Ng8 21.Nb5 Na6 22.Rh7 Rb8 23.Nxc7+ Nxc7 24.Rxc7±; 20...Ng6 21.Rh7 Nc6 22.d5 Nce5 23.dxe6±)) 21.Bxe7! Kxe7 22.Rh8+/=) 19.Rh1! Kf8 20.Nb5+-]  18.Bg5 Nbc6 [18...Ng6 19.Nd5±; 18...Kf8 19.Rh1 Be6 20.Bxe6 fxe6 21.Nb5 Na6 22.Rh8+ Ng8 23.Rh4+/=; 18...Nec6 19.Nd5±]  19.Bf6 Ng6 [19...Kf8 20.Rh1 Ng8 21.Rh8+/=] 20.Nd5 [20.Rh1!? or ?!] 20...Na5! 21.Bd3 [21.Nxc7? Nxc4 22.Nxa8 Nf4–+] 21...c5 (“21…c6 22.Nc7 Rb8 23.b4 Bd7 24.e5 unclear“, MNb.) 22.dxc5 dxc5 23.e5 Nc6 24.Re1 Nb4 25.Nxb4 cxb4 26.Rh1  [26.Bxg6 fxg6 27.e6 Bxe6 28.Rxe6 Kf7 29.Rd6 Re8 30.Bd4 Re2 unclear] 26...Kf8 27.Be4 Rb8 28.Bxg6 fxg6 29.Rh7 Be6 30.Bg7+ Ke7 31.Bf6+ Kf8 32.Bg7=




Back to top
« Last Edit: 04/30/06 at 18:29:52 by Glenn Snow »  
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 9949
Moengo
Gender: male
Re: KG - Fischer Defence
Reply #17 - 04/30/06 at 11:46:28
 
I am sure, we both miss a few things.  Cheesy. The position after move 15 requires very accurate play from both sides. White has to justify being two pawns down, but is severely behind in development. According to old fashioned principles it can't be good to play the black king to and fro, but what are these principles worth today?
15...Ne7 16.Bc4 Kf8 17.Bh6+ Kg8 (Ke8 brrr, but I have not managed to refute it) 18.Bg5 Nbc6 19.Bf6 Ng6 (my plan for Black was to protect invasion square h8) 20.Nd5 Na5 21.Nxc7? Nxc4 22.Nxa8 Nf4! and suddenly Black has the better development ... So White must try 21.Bd3 c6 22.Nc7 Rb8 23.b4 Bd7 24.e5 unclear.
This reminds me of an infamous line of the Danish Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2 Nc6 6.Nf3 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nf6 8.Qc2 d6 9.o-o-o o-o 10.e5 Ng4 11.Nd5 Bc5 12.exd6 cxd6 13.h4 h6 14.Ng5 hxg5 15.hxg5 Qxg5+ 16.f4 Bf5 17.fxg5 Bxc2 18.Kxc2 and White has a vicious attack.
Very deceptive stuff. My earlier statement that Black is better, seems too hasty.
Back to top
 

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
 
Glenn Snow
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1548
Franklin
Gender: male
Re: KG - Fischer Defence
Reply #16 - 04/29/06 at 20:23:44
 
Quote:
"It is not clear yet, when White must insert the moves h3 and h5", MNb.


Strange, but for some reason I sorta locked out the idea that 8.Be3 could be followed by h3 at a more opportune time!  However, I still think 8.h3 is marginally better for White.  I think he has slightly better of a draw with best play.  Since I could very well be wrong and 8.Be3 seems completely viable I'm wasn't going to continue the discussion but just in case it could prove useful here's my analysis.

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d6 4.d4 g5 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.g3 g4 7.Nh4 f3 8.h3 h5 9.Be3 Bf6 [9...c5!?; 9...Nc6 10.Qd2!? is a suggestion by MNb] 10.hxg4 hxg4 [10...Bxg4 11.Qd2 Nc6 12.0–0–0+/=] 11.Qd2 Rxh4 [11...Bxh4 12.Rxh4 12...Rxh4 13.gxh4 Qxh4+ (13...g3 14.0–0–0 Qxh4 15.Nd5 Qd8 16.Bg5 f6 17.Bh4 g2+/=) 14.Qf2 g3 (14...Qxf2+ 15.Kxf2 See the tranposition to the 11...Rxh4 variation above.) 15.Qxf3 g2+ 16.Kd2 gxf1Q 17.Rxf1 f5 (17...Qh7 18.Nd5+-) 18.Nd5±] 12.gxh4 Bxh4+ 13.Rxh4 Qxh4+ 14.Qf2 Qxf2+ [14...g3 Transposes to 11...Bxh4.] 15.Kxf2 Ne7! [15...c6 16.Bd3 Ne7 17.Rh1 Be6 18.Rh8+ Kd7 19.d5 cxd5 20.Bb5+ Kc7 21.Re8 Nec6 22.exd5 Bd7 23.Rf8 Ne5 (23...Nd8 24.Bxd7 Kxd7 ((24...Nxd7 25.Nb5++-)) 25.Rg8±) 24.Bxd7 Kxd7 25.Bg5±] 16.Bc4 Kf8 [16...f5 17.Rh1+/=; 16...Be6 17.Bxe6 fxe6 18.Rh1 (18.Kg3 is good enough to draw.) 18...Nd7! (18...Kd7 19.Rh8+/=; 18...d5 19.exd5 Nxd5 ((19...exd5 20.Bg5+/=)) 20.Nxd5 exd5 21.Rh8+ Kd7 22.Kg3+/=) 19.Rh8+ Nf8 20.Kg3 Nc6 (20...0–0–0 21.Kxg4 Nfg6 22.Rxd8+ Kxd8 23.Kxf3 b6 ((23...d5 24.a4+/=)) 24.Kg4 c6 25.Kg5=) 21.Kxg4 e5 22.d5 Nd4 23.Bxd4 exd4 24.Nb5 f2 25.Rh1 0–0–0 26.Kf3 Nh7 27.Kxf2 Ng5 28.Ke2=] 17.Bh6+ Kg8 [MNb gave this is as best but one of us (probably me!) is missing something.  17...Ke8! 18.Bg5 Be6 (18...Nbc6 19.Bf6 Ng8 20.Bg7 Na5 21.Bb5+ Bd7 ((21...c6 22.Bd3 b6 23.Rh1 Ne7 24.b4+/=)) 22.Nd5 Rc8 23.Bxd7+ Kxd7 24.Rg1=) 19.Nb5 Na6 20.Bxe6 fxe6 21.Rg1 Kd7 22.Rxg4=] 18.Bg5 Nbc6 [18...Ng6 19.Nd5±; 18...Kf8 19.Rh1 Be6 20.Bxe6 fxe6 21.Nb5 Na6 22.Rh8+ Ng8 23.Rh4+/=] 19.Bf6 Kf8 20.Rh1 Ng8 21.Rh8+/=
Back to top
« Last Edit: 04/29/06 at 20:27:56 by Glenn Snow »  
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 9949
Moengo
Gender: male
Re: KG - Fischer Defence
Reply #15 - 04/27/06 at 15:03:49
 
As all the various lines become a little bewildering already, I have decided to make a summary. It includes most lines from above and also a few comments of mine.
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d6 4.d4 g5 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.g3 g4 7.Nh4 f3
7...Nc6 Furhoff-Sandor, Budapest 1994, see above, must also be taken seriously.

8.Bc1-e3,
It is not clear yet, when White must insert the moves h3 and h5. Frendo's analysis runs 8.h3 h5 9.Be3 Bf6 (Nc6 10.Qf2!?) 10.hxg4 hxg4 11.Qd2 Bxh4 12.Rxh4 Rxh4 13.gxh4 Qxh4+ 14.Qf2 Qxf2+ 15.Kxf2 but Ne7 16.Bc4 Kf8 17.Bh6+ (17.Rh1 Kg7) Kg8 leaves Black with an advantage. White has 10.Nf5 Bxf5 11.exf5 eg d5 12.hxg4 hxg4 13.Rxh8 Bxh8 14.Qd2 Nc6 15.o-o-o Qd7 16.Bg5 f6 17.Bf4 o-o-o 18.Nb5 with decent compensation.

8.....,Bg7-f6;
8...Nc6 9.Qd2 Nce7 10.h3 h5 11.o-o-o c6 Kennaugh-Bellin, ENG 1999, 12.Bf4 idea e4-e5 unclear.
8...Nge7 9.Qd2 (9.h3 h5 10.Qd2 is possible)
a)9...Nd7 10.o-o-o Nb6 11.Bd3 Be6 12.h3 h5 13.Rde1
1)13...c6 14.Nf5 (14.hxg4 hxg4 15.Nf5 Bxf5 16.Rxh8+ Bxh8 17.exf5 Kd7 18.Bg5 is possible)
   Bxf5 15.exf5 d5? (Qc7 or Qd7 16.Bf2 with full compensation or Kd7 16.Ne4!?) 16.Bg5 f6
   17.Bf4 Qd7 18.hxg4 hxg4 19.Rxh8+ Bxh8 20.Qh2 o-o-o 21.Qh7 +-.
2)13...Nc4 14.Bxc4 Bxc4 15.Bf4 Qd7 16.Nf5 Rg8 17.hxg4 hxg4 18.b3 +=Shulman-Kamberi,
   Stillwater 2001.
b)9...Ng6 10.Nf5 Bxf5 11.exf5 Ne7 12.Bg5! f6 13.Bf4 Nxf5 14.o-o-o with compensation (Frendo).

9.Qd1-d2,
Quite dubious, but not really clear is 9.Nxf3 gxf3 10.Qxf3 Be6 11.e5.
9.Nf5 Bxf5 10.exf5 Bg5! 11.Bxg5 Qxg5 12.Qd3 Nc6 is probably good for Black.

9.....,Nb8-c6;
9...Bxh4 10.gxf4 Qxh4+ 11.Bf2 Qh6 12.Qxh6 Nxh6 13.Nd5 with compensation in Furhoff-Eriksson, Helsingborg 1991.

10.o-o-o,
Another idea is 10.Nd5 Bxh4 11.gxh4 Be6 12.o-o-o Bxd5 (Qd7 13.Nb4!?) 13.exd5 Nce7 14.Bb5+.

10.....,Ng8-e7;
10...Bxh4 11.gxh4 Bd7 12.Qf2 13.h3 leaves Black with the question, how to finish his development.

11.Nc3-d5,
Or 11.Qf2 Bd7 12.h3 h5 13.Re1.

11.....,Ne7xd5;12.e4xd5,Nc6-e7;13.Be3-h6,
Dragonslayer also suggests 13.Bc4.

13.....,Ne7xd5;14.h2-h3,
He, who knows how to evaluate all this stuff, please stand up.
It is the remarkable games of the Swede (these fellows are more dangerous in the KG than on the footballfield, it seems) Furhoff indeed, who inspired me to investigate this variation. Still one should not consider me an expert, as my only experience runs

MNb - Koller,G [C37]
em ICCF EM/H/135, 2004
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.d4 d6 5.Nc3 g4 6.Bxf4 gxf3 7.Qxf3 Bg7 8.0-0-0 Qe7 9.e5 dxe5 10.dxe5 Nc6 11.Nd5 Qd8 12.e6 1-0
which was much too easy, to be relevant.

The starting point of this thread was my claim 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d6 equal. Overambitious defenders must also find something in

Rechel,B (2420) - Law,A (2310) [C37]
4NCB-Qiv1 0304 (2.6), 19.10.2003
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 (or d6 4.d4 g5 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.h4) 4.d4 Bg7 5.Nc3 d6 6.h4 h6 7.hxg5 hxg5 8.Rxh8 Bxh8 9.g3 g4 10.Bxf4 gxf3 11.Qxf3 Bxd4 12.0-0-0 Nc6 13.Bb5 Bxc3 (retreats will be punished with 14.e5!) 14.Qxc3 Bd7 15.Bxc6 Bxc6 16.Qh8 Kd7 17.Qh3+ Ke8 18.Qh8 Kd7 19.Qh3+ Ke8 ˝-˝

There is also 3...d6 4.Qe2. See TalJechin's website:
http://hem.passagen.se/tjmisha/
Click chess!
Click King's Gambit Stuff
Click No Bust.

Only for KG enthusiasts!

My conclusion is, that 3...d6 offers Black less winning chances than 3...g5.
Back to top
« Last Edit: 04/27/06 at 15:09:21 by MNb »  

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
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print