Latest Updates:
Normal Topic Rhodes Gambit? (Read 1986 times)
God Member

Esse quam videri bonus

Posts: 1418
Location: London
Joined: 02/17/03
Gender: Male
Re: Rhodes Gambit?
Reply #1 - 06/23/04 at 10:11:02
Post Tools
Oldish?!  The early 60s is almost prehistoric!

I am a little sceptical about this, although I must admit to not having played through your analysis.

Two main points:

(1) Why not just play 3.Bb5+ and try to reach the Maroczy positions that way?  I am thinking particularly of the line 3...Bd7 4.Bxd7+ Qxd7 5.c4!?

(2) Having played these 3.Bb5+ lines occasionally with White, and reached the Maroczy positions without the light-squared bishop, and having also played 'normal' Maroczy positions, via a Symmetrical English move order, I am not at all sure that I wouldn't rather have my light-squared bishop.

I, too, found this somewhat paradoxical, given the obvious restrictions placed on the bishop by the pawns on c4 and e4.  But then I re-read Michael Stean's gem of a book Simple Chess , where he talks about space.

The point about these Maroczy positions is that White has a reasonable space advantage which, in Stean's terms (I am paraphrasing here), means that his position can 'take' more pieces on the board, whereas Black, because he is constricted, benefits from exchanges.  It is true that some exchanges are better than others, but in general White wants to keep pices on the board.

On a more mundane level, I have found that c4 is a harder weakeness to defend without the bishop.  You often end up having to play b2-b3 to defend c4, and a2-a4 to stop ...b5.  A black knight on c5 then ties down a White rook on b1, another knight (or sometimes the Black queen) can land on b4, and it all gets very difficult to make progress with White.

OK, that's probably not very helpful in terms of the validity, or otherwise, of the gambit you propose - but I thought I would share my thoughts anyway!

If sometimes we fly too close to the sun, at least this shows we are spreading our wings.
Back to top
IP Logged
Full Member

I'm always happier when
I'm a pawn down.

Posts: 157
Location: Oldham
Joined: 06/20/03
Gender: Male
Rhodes Gambit?
06/23/04 at 08:55:22
Post Tools
I have an oldish (early '60s) book called "Chess Openings for the County Player" by G.I. Rhodes. In it he gives an interesting gambit idea (see below for the analysis). The idea is to try and get a Maroczy Bind type position where white has managed to get rid of his white-squared bishop. To me this seems like a reasonable aim as that is often a bad piece in those structures, but I'm not an expert in those lines. I was wondering what other people thought of this idea. Also the analysis is pre-computer so is probably full of errors.

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Bb5+ Bd7 6.c4 Nxe4
( 6...e5 7.Nf5 Bxb5 8.cxb5 Qa5+
( 8...d5 9.Bg5 Qa5+ 10.Nc3 d4 11.Bxf6 dxc3
( 11...gxf6 12.Qa4 Bb4 13.Qxa5 Bxa5 14.Nd6+ Kd7 15.Nxb7 dxc3 16.O-O-O+ +/- )
12.b4 Bxb4 13.Nxg7+ Kf8 14.O-O Rg8 15.Qd5 Qb6 16.Nf5 +/- )
9.Nc3 Nxe4 10.Qd5 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Qc7
( 11...Qxc3+ 12.Bd2 Qxa1+ 13.Ke2 Qxh1 14.Qxb7 f6 15.Qc8+ Kf7 16.Qc4+ +/- )
12.O-O g6 13.Nh6 a6 14.c4 axb5 15.cxb5 Ra4 16.Be3 +/- )
7.Qf3 d5
( 7...Qa5+ 8.b4 Qxb4+ 9.Bd2 Nxd2
( 9...Qb2 10.Qxe4 Qxa1 11.Qxb7 e5 12.Bxd7+ Nxd7 13.Qxa8+ +/- )
10.Nxd2 Nc6 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Bxc6 Rc8 13.Bxd7+ Kxd7 14.Rb1 Qa5 15.Rb5 Qxa2 16.Qf5+ )
( 7...Bxb5 8.Nxb5 Qa5+
( 8...d5 9.cxd5 Qa5+
( 9...Nd6 10.N1c3 Na6 11.Bf4 Nxb5 12.Nxb5 Qa5+ 13.Nc3 Nb4 14.O-O Rd8 15.d6 exd6 16.Rfe1+ +/- )
10.N1c3 Nxc3 11.Nxc3 g6 12.b4 Qxb4 13.Rb1 Qa5 14.Rxb7 Bg7 15.Bd2 Qa6 16.d6 +/- )
9.b4 Qxb4+ 10.Nd2 Nxd2 11.Bxd2 Qxc4 12.Qxb7 Qe6+ 13.Kd1 Qd7 14.Nc7+ Kd8 15.Qxa8 Qxc7 16.Rc1 +/- )
8.cxd5 Qa5+ 9.Nc3 Nxc3 10.Bxd7+ Nxd7 11.bxc3 Nf6 12.d6 exd6
( 12...e5 13.Qxb7 Qxc3+ 14.Bd2 Qxa1+ 15.Ke2 Qxd4 16.Qc6+ +/- )
13.O-O Be7 14.Re1 Nd5 15.Nf5 Rd8 16.Nxg7+ +/- *
Back to top
IP Logged
Bookmarks: Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo