George Jempty wrote on 03/29/09 at 12:32:45:
bamonson wrote on 07/27/04 at 17:05:52:
Craig wrote:
B) 5...Nb4(!)
This move is often given a ! in theoretical manuals.
<snip>
MONSON:
As I mentioned to Craig privately, it would be a sad state of offairs if "Junior" were to be adorned with credit for this intriguing knight sacrifice variation, since I came up with this myself back in 1997. I first played it in correspondence tournaments in 1998 and also wrote some articles on it that were published by Stefan Buecker's _Kaissiber magazine_ in 1998. I also discovered the 12.Qc4+TN in 1998 but didn't get the chance to use it in practice until 1999, against a 2430 rated player:
Monson, B - Sakai (2430) [C47]
Belgrade Gambit Corr. Thematic, 1999
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nb4 6.Nxd4 Nxe4 (note that 6...Nbxd5 7.exd5 Nxd5 8.Nf5 leads to a different sacrificial attack on the other wing after 8...Ne7 9.Bg5 f6 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Qh5+, etc.) 7.Nb5 Nxd5 8.Qxd5 Qe7 9.Nxc7+ Kd8 10.Bf4! d6 11.O-O-O Kxc7 12.Qc4+!N (other moves are possible, such as 12.Bc4, 12.f3 and even 12.Rd4). 12...Kb8 13.h4! (rather than Craig's--or "Junior's" suggestion of 13.Qd4) 13...Qe6 14.Qd4 f5 15.f3 Nf6 16.Bc4 (16.Bb5!?) 16...Qe7 (16...Qd7 17.Bb5!) 17.Rhe1 Qc7 18.Re3 Bd7 19.Rc3 Bc6 20.g4 fxg4 21.fxg4 h6 22.b4 a6 23.Re1 Qd8 24.Bf7! Kc7 25.a4 g5 26.hxg5 hxg5 27.Bxg5 Bg7 28.Re6 Rh1+ 29.Kb2 Rf1 30.Be8!! Rf3 31.Rxf3 Bxf3 32.Bxf6 Bxf6 33.Rxf6 Bxg4 (amazingly, material is equal, but black cannot save the position) 34.Bg6 Bc8 35.a5 1-0
GEORGE JEMPTY:
Has anybody in this thread heard of chess computers? In particular when I plug this piece sacrifice line into my software, it gets evaluated as 1.25-1.75 in Black's advantage. This then translates to White "having insufficient compensation" for the piece.
In particular I feel that Mr Monson does a gross disservice giving the variation "(16...Qd7 17.Bb5!)". Black of course does not play 17...Qxb5?? but rather 17...Qc7. A master handing out an exclamation mark in this position amounts to intellectual dishonesty and has the effect of leading would-be amateur Belgrade-gambiteer sheep to the slaughter.
Earlier the suggested "(16. Bb5!?)" has 16...Nh5 to contend with, and even earlier Black can give back the gambit piece with 14...Qxa2
I'm rated 2000+ on the queenalice correspondence chess site, and I hereby challenge Mr Monson to a game on that site where I will play 4...exd4 instead of my usual 4...Bb4 so he can play his beloved Belgrade Gambit. And that's what this comes down to, a love affair, and we all know what they say: "love is blind".
This is my first post so I can't include URLs, but if you google for jemptymethod+queenalice you will find a link to my page there with ?id=11707 as the query string on the end of the URL (second google result when I perform the search). There you will have a link to my games, and you can see from my last loss, to Mestre_Quin in 15 moves, that I obviously do NOT use a chess engine while I'm in the middle of a game.
MONSON:
First off, love may be blind, my friend, but so are computers. Just plugging a given position into a computer program and exclaiming that because the computer evaluates the position as
"1.25-1.75 in Black's advantage. This then translates to White 'having insufficient compensation' for the piece." is a recipe for disaster!
If there is one thing I've learned about computers over the years, it is that when dealing with deep positional sacrifices that have no clear-cut punchline within their horizon, they are highly susceptible to serious, often fatal, mistakes.
Second, I wonder if it has ever occurred to Mr. Jempty that there might be other reasons why white's bishop might advantageously be placed on b5 (other than the obvious mate should black take the bishop), and that by achieving that location with a
free tempo (i.e., with black placing his queen on d7 instead of e7) might be of some value to white's attack?
Finally, about three months ago I received a private email from George Jempty challenging me to an email correspondence game in the Belgrade Gambit!
Having not been on this forum in a while I did not realize that he had written this vitriolic message here! "Gross Disservice"? "Intellectual dishonesty"? Wow! But now that I've read it it makes sense that his email challenge to me read as "Death to the Belgrade Gambit!"
Well, of course I accepted his challenge. For those who are interested here is the game with light notes. It's not an especially great game, but does demonstrate just how quickly black's position can fall apart.
B. Monson-G. Jempty
Queen Alice Internet Chess Club
Belgrade Gambit corr. challenge game
Mar-June, 2009
3d/move +14 days
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nd5 Nb4 6. Nxd4 Nxe4 7. Nb5 Nxd5 8. Qxd5 Qe7 9. Nxc7+ Kd8 10. Bf4 d6 11. O-O-O Kxc7 12. Qc4+ Kb8 13. h4 Qe6 14. Qd4 Qxa2? [Black gives back the knight voluntarily, perhaps thinking that he will be able to relieve some of the pressure and yet come out of the opening two pawns up. Needless to say, it turns out bad.]
15. Qxe4 Qa1+ 16. Kd2 Qxb2 17. Be2! [We're still in my home analysis. Black had expected 17.Bc4, which is a move most computers like, but the text is stronger since black is denied his time-gaining check on b4 and the bishop will find excellent service on f3.]
17...g6 18. Rb1 Qa2 19. Bf3 [Natural and strong. I briefly considered 19.Qe5, threatening mate and the Rh8, but didn't want to allow any needless counterplay with 19...Bf5.
19...Qa5+ 20. Kc1 Qa3+ 21. Kd1 Qa6 22. Qe8 1-0 After 22...Bg7 white has the simple but pretty 23.Rxb7+ Qxb7 24.Bxd6+ Qc7 25.Qb5+ Bb7 26.Qxb7#
To his credit, Mr. Jempty apologized for his poor showing in this game (which I also construe as somewhat of an unspoken apology for some of the above comments), and even expressed a desire to play the Belgrade from the white side. I certainly encourage him to do so! He'll have a lot of fun and a healthy success rate to boot.
Cheers,
Bruce Monson