Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) C47: The Belgrade Gambit (Read 157265 times)
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


I only look 1 move ahead,
but its always the best

Posts: 2211
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: C47: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #245 - 05/23/17 at 01:50:21
Post Tools

CraigEvans wrote on 11/15/16 at 18:28:29:

Ahh, 2016 nears an end and this thread is brought back to life - well done for that! Seems fitting for me to come back to life on here too...

In your first line, I have consulted Monson's 'bible' on this opening - he suggested 13.Nh4 and felt white had enough. Sadly, the silicon beasts of 2016 are a different animal to yesteryear, and the comp finds nothing for white here. Alas your line also looks fine - albeit, OTB, I'd happily take a position as white still where I can force my opponent's king to h6 whilst I have a Q, B and R on the board, but objectively back has more than enough material for the queen and should be able to untangle.

Your second line is a well-known one, and indeed after 9.Qe2+ a theoretically equal position is reached. It holds no real terrors for either side... but it is an open game with bishops and rooks on the board - and white is likely to have more knowledge or experience of the position. I'd certainly not be too worried if this is the best black has - we aren't playing the BG to get an advantage!!

On your last line, again I agree - as romantic as all this seemed at the time, modern computers are able to poke holes and see defenses that we just couldn't find 5 years ago. However, 17.Rhe1 intending 18.Rd3 does look a bit better, and white certainly has compensation - all his pieces are in play on good squares, black is completely undeveloped and both his rooks are currently asleep. Sounds... I dunno, first time I've looked at the line in 5 years, but it doesn't seem hopeless - it wouldn't scare me off having been willing to play 5.Nd5 in the first place. How much time/prep are black players willing to put into this random piece sac in an odd sideline of the third most popular defence to the BG? I leave that up to you... but I'd play 17.Rhe1 Qc7 (what else?) 18.Rd3 and let black show me his defence!


Happened upon one of your Belgrade Gambit blitz games vs. Chess Explained on Youtube. Good to see your enthusiasm hasn't waned, Monson would be proud. Smiley
  

The man who tries to do something and fails is infinitely better than he who tries to do nothing and succeeds - Lloyd Jones Smiley
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MARCO
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 12
Joined: 04/29/15
Re: C47: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #244 - 03/14/17 at 17:50:06
Post Tools
According to what has been said in previous posts, the Age of the Engine for some gambits is sweet and bitterness. For my part I have had to review many analyzes from the years 1984 onwards on the belgrade gambit.
In 2015 I played by correspondence only to see how the hand came according to the state of the art and managed to pass the test but I was left with some doubts if I could play to win in the line that played my opponent. Above all my doubts go for the 6.Bc4 play and its effectiveness but I can not deny that it gave me many joys for years. I have my eyes on the 6.Bf4 and 6.Bb5 variants now.
You can see my "short" analysis at the attached correspondence game.
Regards,
Marco.
  

belgrade_2015.pgn ( 33 KB | 326 Downloads )
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
CraigEvans
God Member
*****
Offline


If I can't sacrifice a
pawn, I'll throw my rook
in

Posts: 588
Location: Bryn, South Wales
Joined: 07/14/03
Gender: Male
Re: C47: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #243 - 11/15/16 at 18:28:29
Post Tools
Smaug wrote on 08/24/16 at 02:31:54:
Wow, what a read this thread was! Also hello to all, long time reader, first time poster. Also feel free to make this its own thread if you prefer.

I was looking at some lines for black with reasonable e5 open game type positions, and I didn't see any analysis of them on this thread. Here are my thoughts, feel free to add anything!

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nd5 Nb4 6. Nxd4 Nbxd5 7. exd5 Nxd5 8. Nf5 Ne7 9. Bg5 f6 10. Bxf6 gxf6 11. Qh5+ Ng6 12. O-O-O and now not c6 or d6 but d5!. 

It seems the best white has is 13. Rxd5 Qxd5 14. Nxg7+ Kf7 15. Qxd5 Kxg7. Comp says roughly equaly, but I like black's pieces, with plans of Bd6, Rf8, maybe Ne5.

Second line: Same line until white plays 6.Nxf6+ ...Qxf6 7.Bc4 d5 8. exd5 Bg4. I've looked into this a lot less, but it seems like black avoids the minefields and gets to play a normal position with, it seems, good pratical chances. With these two together, black can pretty much play 5...Nb4 against the Belgrade with confidence.

Last and the more crazy line, that I don't think I have the memory or 'cajones' to play with so many pieces lining up against my king but I still find it fascinating how resilient white is in the BG, so here goes. Monson (did he ever publish the new book btw?) gave the game:

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 f5 15. f3 Nf6 16. Bc4 Qe7 and black gets crushed. In his analysis he writes if 16...Qd7, then 17. Bb5! and the shared analysis ended. However, even though the bishop is forbidden, Stockfish suggests 17...Qc7 and after a long think, is still giving a pawn plus edge to black. Plans include a6, b5, Kb7 or a6, b6, and Qc5.




Ahh, 2016 nears an end and this thread is brought back to life - well done for that! Seems fitting for me to come back to life on here too...

In your first line, I have consulted Monson's 'bible' on this opening - he suggested 13.Nh4 and felt white had enough. Sadly, the silicon beasts of 2016 are a different animal to yesteryear, and the comp finds nothing for white here. Alas your line also looks fine - albeit, OTB, I'd happily take a position as white still where I can force my opponent's king to h6 whilst I have a Q, B and R on the board, but objectively back has more than enough material for the queen and should be able to untangle.

Your second line is a well-known one, and indeed after 9.Qe2+ a theoretically equal position is reached. It holds no real terrors for either side... but it is an open game with bishops and rooks on the board - and white is likely to have more knowledge or experience of the position. I'd certainly not be too worried if this is the best black has - we aren't playing the BG to get an advantage!!

On your last line, again I agree - as romantic as all this seemed at the time, modern computers are able to poke holes and see defenses that we just couldn't find 5 years ago. However, 17.Rhe1 intending 18.Rd3 does look a bit better, and white certainly has compensation - all his pieces are in play on good squares, black is completely undeveloped and both his rooks are currently asleep. Sounds... I dunno, first time I've looked at the line in 5 years, but it doesn't seem hopeless - it wouldn't scare me off having been willing to play 5.Nd5 in the first place. How much time/prep are black players willing to put into this random piece sac in an odd sideline of the third most popular defence to the BG? I leave that up to you... but I'd play 17.Rhe1 Qc7 (what else?) 18.Rd3 and let black show me his defence!
  

"Give a man a pawn, and he'll smell a rat. Give a man a piece, and he'll smell a patzer." - Me.

"If others have seen further than me, it is because giants have been standing on my shoulders."
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Smaug
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 4
Joined: 08/24/16
Re: C47: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #242 - 08/24/16 at 02:31:54
Post Tools
Wow, what a read this thread was! Also hello to all, long time reader, first time poster. Also feel free to make this its own thread if you prefer.

I was looking at some lines for black with reasonable e5 open game type positions, and I didn't see any analysis of them on this thread. Here are my thoughts, feel free to add anything!

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nd5 Nb4 6. Nxd4 Nbxd5 7. exd5 Nxd5 8. Nf5 Ne7 9. Bg5 f6 10. Bxf6 gxf6 11. Qh5+ Ng6 12. O-O-O and now not c6 or d6 but d5!. 

It seems the best white has is 13. Rxd5 Qxd5 14. Nxg7+ Kf7 15. Qxd5 Kxg7. Comp says roughly equaly, but I like black's pieces, with plans of Bd6, Rf8, maybe Ne5.

Second line: Same line until white plays 6.Nxf6+ ...Qxf6 7.Bc4 d5 8. exd5 Bg4. I've looked into this a lot less, but it seems like black avoids the minefields and gets to play a normal position with, it seems, good pratical chances. With these two together, black can pretty much play 5...Nb4 against the Belgrade with confidence.

Last and the more crazy line, that I don't think I have the memory or 'cajones' to play with so many pieces lining up against my king but I still find it fascinating how resilient white is in the BG, so here goes. Monson (did he ever publish the new book btw?) gave the game:

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 f5 15. f3 Nf6 16. Bc4 Qe7 and black gets crushed. In his analysis he writes if 16...Qd7, then 17. Bb5! and the shared analysis ended. However, even though the bishop is forbidden, Stockfish suggests 17...Qc7 and after a long think, is still giving a pawn plus edge to black. Plans include a6, b5, Kb7 or a6, b6, and Qc5.


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



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: C47: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #241 - 09/19/11 at 21:10:39
Post Tools
This, I hope, is the last we will hear of the Monson-Morss "game."  No one is going to change his views, so what, really, is the point?  

I do not think Bruce is to be criticised for anything he has said so far.  We merely disagree somewhat.  He certainly was not remiss in posting when he noticed this thread.

In any case, will delete forthwith anything more about Monson-Morss that doesn't concern the 64 squares.  This place is for chess, not airing old grievances; asking for apologies for them; or taking those who post here for not being quite as nice as they should have been.

  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bamonson
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 31
Location: Colorado
Joined: 07/25/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #240 - 09/19/11 at 17:41:33
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 09/17/11 at 16:44:47:
Monson's post must be one of the silliest misunderstandings caused by bad reading I ever met:

Sandman wrote on 01/11/11 at 17:00:36:

[WhiteTeam "Romania"]
[BlackTeam "Hungary"]
[WhiteTeamCountry "ROM"]
[BlackTeamCountry "HUN"]


He might even have concluded that I did not exactly mean what he suggests I meant. At least Sandman understood:

Sandman wrote on 01/11/11 at 20:41:03:
Me too, MNb.  It really struck me as rather odd so I thought I'd ask.


So to make very sure that everybody understands what I meant: I am suspicious that that game is real - the question Sandman asked.
If Monson and Morss are the same person is something I cannot say with any probability. If they are the game is highly probably fake. If they aren't - well, I doubt if one played for Hungary and the other for Rumania ánd that they played each other for those teams, but call me paranoid if you like.

Edit: I was suspicious about the game, as I had forgotten about Markovich' explanation, just like I had forgotten about the whole game. Funny that Monson brings everything back in memory by apologizing for causing eventual embarrassment everybody had forgotten ....


Once more, blatant misrepresentation from people causes the discussion to be extended.  I am certainly not 'apologizing' to Mark because I think there was anything wrong with our game situation.  I apologized because apparently someone else took the information and used it in a way never intended by me.   

This has likewise happened to me (IMs and others quoting from my book or website incorrectly and mucking things up, rather than just contacting me directly if they have a question on the Belgrade Gambit).  I haven't received any apologies for that, but whatever.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: C47: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #239 - 09/17/11 at 21:05:39
Post Tools
Hi Bruce!

Nice to hear from you, My assumption has alway been that you had the cruncheroo prepared when you offered to play a game in that line, and I doubt if you could convince me otherwise. Since we were engaged in a discussion of a position at move 23 (among many other positions we discussed at length), I think that a more polite way of pointing out that Black was lost in the disputed position would have been to say why.  

But it means very little to me now, and I only posted because someone doubted that it was a real game and I thought the story was funny.  It's not like I wouldn't shake your hand or anything. Quite the contrary.  I'd love to split a beer with you sometime, or if you don't drink, a lemonade or something.

It's funny how chess games get passed around and loaded up with garbled info.  I wonder who put "Hungary" and "Romania" as our nationalities?
« Last Edit: 09/18/11 at 01:17:50 by Markovich »  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bamonson
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 31
Location: Colorado
Joined: 07/25/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #238 - 09/17/11 at 19:05:37
Post Tools
quote:

"On correspondencechess.com I said that if you and your honey are strolling along the carnival midway some evening, munching on popcorn and listening to the calliope, and you see Monson in a booth, grinning demonically over a chess position and offering you a chance to play Black's side of it, walk on."

wow
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bamonson
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 31
Location: Colorado
Joined: 07/25/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #237 - 09/17/11 at 18:57:41
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 09/17/11 at 16:44:47:
Monson's post must be one of the silliest misunderstandings caused by bad reading I ever met:

Sandman wrote on 01/11/11 at 17:00:36:

[WhiteTeam "Romania"]
[BlackTeam "Hungary"]
[WhiteTeamCountry "ROM"]
[BlackTeamCountry "HUN"]


He might even have concluded that I did not exactly mean what he suggests I meant. At least Sandman understood:

Sandman wrote on 01/11/11 at 20:41:03:
Me too, MNb.  It really struck me as rather odd so I thought I'd ask.


So to make very sure that everybody understands what I meant: I am suspicious that that game is real - the question Sandman asked.
If Monson and Morss are the same person is something I cannot say with any probability. If they are the game is highly probably fake. If they aren't - well, I doubt if one played for Hungary and the other for Rumania ánd that they played each other for those teams, but call me paranoid if you like.



UM .... what?!!   
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bamonson
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 31
Location: Colorado
Joined: 07/25/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #236 - 09/17/11 at 17:16:24
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 01/12/11 at 14:18:27:
Sandman wrote on 01/11/11 at 17:00:36:
Hey,

I found this Belgrade game in my database and was curious if it is an actual game or an "engineered" fake by someone. I hope Bruce or Markovich can verify it's validity or if they do not see this perhaps someone else can comment.


[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1998.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Monson Bruce"]
[Black "Morss Mark F"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C47l"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]
[PlyCount "51"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2007.04.15"]
[WhiteTeam "Romania"]
[BlackTeam "Hungary"]
[WhiteTeamCountry "ROM"]
[BlackTeamCountry "HUN"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nb4 6.Nxd4 Nbxd5 7.exd5 Bc5 8.Nb3 Bb6 9.d6 O-O 10.Qf3 Qe8+ 11.Be2 Ne4 12.Bf4 Bxf2+ 13.Kf1 Bb6 14.Re1 f5 15.Bc4+ Kh8 16.Bd5 cxd6 17.h4 Qg6 18.h5 Qf6 19.c3 Bc5 20.g4 b6 21.Nxc5 bxc5 22.gxf5 Qxf5 23.Bxa8 Qxf4 24.Qxf4 Rxf4+ 25.Kg2 Nf6 26.Re7 1-0


Thanks


I wrote about this on correspondencechess.com, back in the days when I was still active there.  The actual game began on White's 19th, ended after White's 20th, and was part of a lengthy email discussion between me and Monson in which, for the sake of argument, I upheld Black's chances after 9.d6.  From my point of view it was a purely hypothetical dispute.  The conversation was entirely polite, but I think that Monson may eventually have grown somewhat annoyed that I kept saying that Black was O.K..  

So we're up to, as I recall, 18...Qf6 in our disputations, I say "Black is O.K." and Monson says, "How would you like to play a game from this position?"  I agree, and he sends 19.c3, I reply 19...Bc5, and he uncorks 20.g4!.  I then resign, since not having seen this strong move earlier, it's clear that I've underestimated White's chances.  I don't think much about it, except that it's a strange way for Monson to show me 20.g4!.  

So I was suprised to see later that Monson had published the game, such as it was, on his website, larded with lengthy analysis after 20.g4!.  Reading it would've been a little like sitting in post-mortem with the guy who spends several minutes showing you exactly how brilliant his winning idea was.  But having already understood the strength of Monsons' move, I didn't read further.  Monson did report my resignation on the correct move.  I don't recall whether he bothered to say that the actual game had begun on move 19. Someone has evidently copied some of his analysis into the quoted pgn, but the score as quoted is false.  

On one hand it was a little amusing, but on the other a little unkindly, that Monson took what was essentially an offhand training exercise between chessfriends and presented it as him removing my scalp in an serious CC game.  In discussing my resignation at move 20, Monson said something like "Early resignations are common in CC, where players often carry the burden of many games."  True enough, but it fostered the false impression that this was a formal CC game. In such game, I almost certainly would not have adopted this way of replying to the Belgrade, and if I had, I would like to think that I'd have applied myself a little harder around moves 15-18 and not fallen into Monson's 20.g4! idea.  But I did agree to a game, and Monson won, so there it is.

Having made a favorable impression on many people with Hard Chess, I later discovered that my defeats tended to show up in print with rather rather suprising regularity.  I suppose that people thought that it was neat to have the scalp of a celebrity, albeit a very minor one, though in fact I am a rather middling player whether of CC or OTB.   

Monson is a strong player, and he might well beat me if we ever played a proper CC or OTB game. Or perhaps I might beat him.

On correspondencechess.com I said that if you and your honey are strolling along the carnival midway some evening, munching on popcorn and listening to the calliope, and you see Monson in a booth, grinning demonically over a chess position and offering you a chance to play Black's side of it, walk on.

Here is a corrected score if anyone's interested:

[Event "Training game"]
[Site "email"]
[Date "1998.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Monson Bruce"]
[Black "Morss Mark F"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C47l"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]
[Source "Morss, Mark F."]
[SourceDate "2011.01.11"]
[PlyCount "3"]
[FEN "r1b2r1k/pp1p2pp/1b1p1q2/3B1p1P/4nB2/1N3Q2/PPP3P1/4RK1R w - - 1 19"]

{The game commenced at the position arising from 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nb4 6.Nxd4 Nbxd5 7.exd5 Bc5 8.Nb3 Bb6 9.d6 O-O 10.Qf3 Qe8+ 11.Be2 Ne4 12.Bf4 Bxf2+ 13.Kf1 Bb6 14.Re1 f5 15.Bc4+ Kh8 16.Bd5 cxd6 17.h4 Qg6 18.h5 Qf6 - Morss} 19.c3 Bc5 20.g4 {20...b6 21.Nxc5 bxc5 22.gxf5 Qxf5 23.Bxa8 Qxf4 24.Qxf4 Rxf4+ 25.Kg2 Nf6 26.Re7 - Monson} 1-0


First, I wasn't aware that Markovich was Morss.  Hi Mark!  It's been a long time!

Second, whatever assumptions of nefarious intent being levied here are clearly overblown.  My memory is a little faded on this whole encounter, but Mark's coverage seems pretty close to how things transpired.  

As I recall I did post the score (with the full explanation of the circumstances) on my Belgrade Gambit website at the time it happened, not on some other website at some future date, or as a compilation of "Bruce's Greatest Games and Genius Combinations and Awe-inspiring Attacks."  Anyone who went to the site back then will recall that I posted all of the games and analysis I was working on, particularly in newly developing theoretical lines as this variation was (and is).  

In fact, on my website I ran my own correspondence tournaments.  These were not rated and they were not sanctioned by any national or international correspondence bodies.  It was just Belgrade Gambit Theoretical Tournaments.  I also did individual games with people who would write in to me to "challenge me" in some critical line, usually after putting a position into their computer program and seeing it register a winning position for black.

There was certainly no hidden agenda or some other attempt to embarrass Mark with this 'game'; it was simply another theoretical game that was used as a tool for testing theory.  There was very good reasons for using a game format rather than just continuing discussions ad infinitum.  When people are playing they will place more focus on the position rather than just throwing out variations.  Some of the best innovations in the BG were in fact discovered in these "theoretical games" that were done on my website.

I might also add that I also published those games where I lost.  But I didn't discount the 'game' simply because the critical stage of the game started on move 23!  Hell, look at modern Super GM tournaments.  Those guys don't even start playing until they're 20-30 moves in sometimes and they rattle off moves at lightning speed just to get to the 'theoretical debate'.  Frankly, I don't see much difference here other than my games were always friendly.  

But I certainly don't want any hard feelings from people I view as friends.  So, Mark, if you feel in any way sleighted over all of this then I apologize.  It certainly wasn't my intent.

Incidentally, in one of the recently published Four Knights books I found it interesting that the ONLY game the guy used of mine was one where he did something similar.  He took a game I had played in one of my theory tournaments but inexplicably used one of the variations I listed as the main line and showed me actually losing the game!  

My email is out there.  Anyone writing on the Belgrade Gambit for one of their books is welcome to talk with me about anything and I'll be forthcoming.  Even if you disagree you'd think it prudent to at least contact me.  But no one ever does.  They just publish the same old stuff recycled material over and over again, mistakes and all.

Cheers,  

Bruce Monson
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10758
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #235 - 09/17/11 at 16:44:47
Post Tools
Monson's post must be one of the silliest misunderstandings caused by bad reading I ever met:

Sandman wrote on 01/11/11 at 17:00:36:

[WhiteTeam "Romania"]
[BlackTeam "Hungary"]
[WhiteTeamCountry "ROM"]
[BlackTeamCountry "HUN"]


He might even have concluded that I did not exactly mean what he suggests I meant. At least Sandman understood:

Sandman wrote on 01/11/11 at 20:41:03:
Me too, MNb.  It really struck me as rather odd so I thought I'd ask.


So to make very sure that everybody understands what I meant: I am suspicious that that game is real - the question Sandman asked.
If Monson and Morss are the same person is something I cannot say with any probability. If they are the game is highly probably fake. If they aren't - well, I doubt if one played for Hungary and the other for Rumania ánd that they played each other for those teams, but call me paranoid if you like.

Edit: I was suspicious about the game, as I had forgotten about Markovich' explanation, just like I had forgotten about the whole game. Funny that Monson brings everything back in memory by apologizing for causing eventual embarrassment everybody had forgotten ....
« Last Edit: 09/17/11 at 21:47:51 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
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bamonson
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 31
Location: Colorado
Joined: 07/25/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #234 - 09/17/11 at 16:26:38
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 01/11/11 at 20:35:59:
As Monson and Morkovich both are American I am a bit suspicious.


That has to be one of the silliest conclusions I've ever heard.  Two people happen to be American is ground for 'suspicion' of their being the same person?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
CraigEvans
God Member
*****
Offline


If I can't sacrifice a
pawn, I'll throw my rook
in

Posts: 588
Location: Bryn, South Wales
Joined: 07/14/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #233 - 06/05/11 at 12:04:04
Post Tools
I entirely agree with Markovich - after his line white is clearly better and black will struggle to survive.

Further, since 7...d3 is still considered very testing for white (possibly one of the few lines that could conceivably refute the gambit), I don't see why black would look for deviations? If he plays 5...Nxe4 he will no doubt have invested the time needed to look at the main line - as much as I love this gambit for white, I always secretly sighed in relief when my opponents avoided this and played the "safe" 5...Be7 (which I have a huge plus score with still). 

A very nice try though, keep on looking for ways to save black Wink
  

"Give a man a pawn, and he'll smell a rat. Give a man a piece, and he'll smell a patzer." - Me.

"If others have seen further than me, it is because giants have been standing on my shoulders."
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #232 - 05/30/11 at 16:07:46
Post Tools
robl wrote on 05/25/11 at 17:42:11:
In the main line with 5....Nxe4, 7....Be7 is considered bad (actually losing) after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nd5 Nxe4 6. Qe2 f5 7. Ng5 Be7 8. Nxe4 fxe4 9. Qxe4 O-O 10. Bd3 g6 11 Bh6 Re8 12 0-0 

However my computer plays the non-intuitive 11 ...Rf7!
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*
Yes 12 Bc4 looks obvious but fire up your computer and try to win (or even draw). Black plans a timely Bf8 and Kh8. Any ideas for White?


12.h4 d6 (12...Bb4+ 13.Kd1 d6 14.Bc4 Bf4 15.Qe2 is no good for Black) 13.Bc4 Kh8 (13...Bf5 14.Nxe7 and Black will have scant comp for his exchange) 14.O-O-O appears to be quite good for White.  He has all the time in the world to attack Black's king.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
robl
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 12
Joined: 01/14/07
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #231 - 05/25/11 at 17:42:11
Post Tools
In the main line with 5....Nxe4, 7....Be7 is considered bad (actually losing) after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nd5 Nxe4 6. Qe2 f5 7. Ng5 Be7 8. Nxe4 fxe4 9. Qxe4 O-O 10. Bd3 g6 11 Bh6 Re8 12 0-0 

However my computer plays the non-intuitive 11 ...Rf7!
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*
Yes 12 Bc4 looks obvious but fire up your computer and try to win (or even draw). Black plans a timely Bf8 and Kh8. Any ideas for White?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo