Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) C47: The Belgrade Gambit (Read 117292 times)
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10586
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #35 - 08/02/04 at 07:20:24
Post Tools
<Amateurs tend to make dubious Gambits and Offbeat Openings their life's work>
So what? Who cares? If they derive satisfaction from it and have a lot of fun. Why does TopNotch want to be my self declared guru? Is it so important for him if my ELO rises from 1800 to 1850?
  

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
 
killbill
Guest


Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #34 - 08/01/04 at 17:00:04
Post Tools
Topnotch says:

"Finally, the critical line in which Monson says white has an impressive plus score, namely the pawn snatch variation:  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 Nxe4

White has a few options here, none of which are convincing in my opinion, but  due to constraints of space lets focus on Mr. Monsons  choice in two correspondence games, namely: 8. Re1 Nf6 9.Nxe7+ Nxe7 10.Qxd4 d5 11.Bd3 now instead of 11...Bg4 I think black should try 11....Nc6 intending 12.Qh4 Ne4 returning the pawn with an excellent game."

This line is given by Kaufman by transposition and seems rather logical.

The BG is obviously playable, but chess is a logical game and it strikes me as an illogical opening. White sacrifices a pawn on move 5, moves a piece twice, and leaves another pawn hanging. It should come as no surprise that black can return the pawn and at least equalize without too much trouble. I think any strong player could be well prepared for the Belgrade by spending an afternoon on it. Try doing that with the Spanish....
  
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 #33 - 08/01/04 at 16:27:21
Post Tools
I'm fine with "agreeing to disagree" with Mr. TopNotch, who ever he is.

While I have not spoken with Paul Motwani, I am in contact with Karel Van der Weide, so I will ask him about this particular quote regarding 5...Be7 that TopNotch quoted.

Tomorrow I will post the aforementioned 5...Be7 6.Bf4 material (just a sampling--my postings have been huge), but following that my contributions to the discussion are going to drop-off significantly since I have already invested more time and energy than I had originally intended; time I could have spent working on the BG website that is under construction even now.

For those that are interested, I will invite you to email me privately at bamonson@pcisys.net.  I also encourage those who have played, are currently playing, or intend to play the BG to submit your games to me.  All such games will be added to the large BG database I will be offering FREE on the website.

Regards,

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


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

Posts: 2118
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #32 - 08/01/04 at 15:29:57
Post Tools
Clearly we can go on jousting back and forth as to the genuine merits of the Belgrade Gambit, however I suspect that the forum readers would grow tired of such protracted debate. It is unlikely that I will change your views on the subject as it is that you will change mine. So we can at least agree to disagree. Grin

To wrap up my thoughts on the matter, and to reluctantly use Mr. Monson's space consuming quotation and answer style. lets begin.    

MONSON:
I find it interesting that Topnotch latches onto an inferior line for white (9.Nxe7+?) in order to try painting a positive picture for black, especially after I had provided the definitive examples (one of which was played by Eric Prie, whom TopNotch has expressed respect for) showing the PROPER method for dealing with 8...Ne5.

TOPNOTCH:
This was intentional, as I thought it important to show that black also had attractive possibilities. Regarding my respect for GM Eric Prie, this is also true, as I have a healthy respect for the GM title in general and what it represents. Nevertheless, do not mistake this respect for blind faith, I have an enquiring mind that leads me to question any theory that feels suspicious to me. Furthermore, as previously stated GM Prie gave up on the Belgrade so I fail to see your point.

Another point that maybe of interest to you, is that according to GM Paul Motwani your colleague in arms and a noted Belgrade Gambitteer had this to say about the gambit - "I recall Dutch IM Karel van der Weide telling me a few years ago that he felt he really ought to give up 'The Belgrade', as (although there are a number of pitfalls for an unprepared opponent) it's just too easy for Black to quickly get a good position if he/ she knows a little theory about the gambit." Those who want to verify that quote need only to locate the annotations to the one Belgrade Gambit game to be found in the ChessPub database.

Now to revisit the line where u claim that you provided the difinitive answer to deal with 8...Ne5. Lets see if this is so:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Nxd4 Ne5!? 9.Bb3 (Best according to Mr. Monson)

In the above position, and from the small number of sample games I have found in this line, white has done fairly well. Based on that statistic alone are we to conclude then that white has the advantage here? I think not. If statistics were the end all in chess then we would all be playing The Blackmar Diemer Gambit.

My analysis indicates that 9...c5 which may seem counter intuitive at first, looks quite reasonable for black. At first glance it seems strange to volunteeringly weaken blacks d-pawn but some concrete tactical features of the position justify the move. First off white probably has to swap his well placed Knight on d5 immediately or risk losing the e-pawn for nothing. Please note that 10. Nf3 is well met by 10...Bg4 so 10.Nxf6 or 10.Nxe7 should be preferred. The other important feature of 9...c5 is that it carries the annoying positional threat of c4, which although not winning the bishop, does force it to the awkward and unsecure a4 square.

In the few games in which I have seen 9...c5 played Black has done well, but these were not played at the highest level. Nevertheless my independant analysis suggests to me that black is comfortably equal.  

MONSON:
Out of respect for BilboBaggins' request, I will address this variation with a number of illustrative games.  It is in fact a common line, and given the exceedingly lopsided number of wins for white in not only this line, but also the variant 5...Be7 6.Bc4 Nxe4 (which may now transpose after 7.O-O O-O) I have to wonder why.  

But before I get to the games, I'd like to address another slap-in-the-face issue that came from TopNotch regarding my winning with the Belgrade whether I am playing the white or black side (and in thematic tournaments, you play games from BOTH sides against each opponent--that's the point).

Quote:  "Well look who we find beating up on his own gambit.... LOL, it seems that Mr. Monson wins whether he is playing the white or black side of the Belgrade  - I have drawn some further conclusions from all this, but prefer to remain silent for the moment."  

TopNotch's intent, of course, is to ridicule and insinuate that I must be somehow disingenuous in my convictions about the correctness of this gambit.  To the contrary, my wins from the black side are no more an indictment against the BG than Kasparov being able to win from either side of the same variation in the Sicilian is an indictment against that variation.  It merely demonstrates that I knew more about the position(s) than did my opponent(s), and had I been playing the white side I would have handled the position in a different manner.  In the game he cited, against my good friend Joop Simmelink, white "went wrong" almost immediately with 13.Re3?! and then compiled the problem with 14.Bxg6?, after which black was clearly better.

Now some games (For Biblo, and others who are genuinely interested in learning something about the BG and not just here to rant about their particular hatred for gambits).

TopNotch claims that the "burden of proof" is on white to show compensation for his pawn in the line 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 O-O 7.O-O Nxe4.  Well, that's fine, but according to my database (some 90 games in this line) white scores above 62% (and most of these are master level correspondence games), so I hardly see this as the refutation black is looking for.  Since TopNotch took the liberties of showing you some of the wins from black's side (including my win against Simmelink), I will provide the positive side for white.

TOPNOTCH:
I already stated in a previous post that the Belgrade is probably no better or worse than some of the other 1.e4 e5 Gambits out there. Mentioning your winning with either color was not meant as a slap in the face, I was merely poking a little fun, and if anything it should have been taken as a compliment to your prowess in this Gambit. However your winning with either color suggests to me that victory is not really decided by the inherent potency of this opening per se, but more by who is playing it.

There can be no doubt that you have invested an enormous amount of time researching, playing and defending this gambit. You even wrote a book on it, played thematic tournaments with it and have built up an impressive database of games dedicated to it. Despite all that obsession, nothing you have shown me thus far has convinced me that this opening is one that I could rely on. Of course others would have to make up their own minds on that for themselves.

Finally, the critical line in which Monson says white has an impressive plus score, namely the pawn snatch variation:  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 Nxe4

White has a few options here, none of which are convincing in my opinion, but  due to constraints of space lets focus strictly on Mr. Monson's  choice in two correspondence games, namely: 8. Re1 Nf6 9.Nxe7+ Nxe7 10.Qxd4 d5 11.Bd3 now instead of 11...Bg4 I think black should try 11....Nc6 intending 12.Qh4 Ne4 returning the pawn with an excellent game.

Moving on, Mr. Monson has made repeated references to GM Gutman. Gutman is a very creative and original thinker, whom I respect a lot, still I have to agree with Ranjk's opinion a few posts back that he tends to go against the grain and is kind of a Chess Pirate in this regard.

Recently GM Gutman has taken it upon himself to try and rehabilitate a whole host of questionable and unfashionable Openings, which have not always met with approval from his fellow GM's. For instance, GM Mathew Sadler was brutal on Gutman's latest offering entitled 'Budapest Fajarowicz' - Quote "All in all, rather disappointing. I have the feeling that the book is rather well researched, but I cannot understand how a player of Gutman's strength could deliver analysis of this quality" - GM Mathew Sadler. The full review for those that are interested maybe found in Mathew's column in New In Chess issue #3, 2004.

I have thoroughly enjoyed this robust debate, and I wish you well,  but this is where it must end for me, unless something compelling forces me to do otherwise.

In conclusion, I think that the Belgrade is playable but nothing special for White and nothing that black has to fear. Having said that, I commend Mr. Monson's unswerving dedication to this line and I think that his intimate knowledge and practice of it has enriched the theory, similar to what Ken Smith did for the Smith Morra Gambit.

Now its up to forum readers to make up their own minds.

Best of Luck

Top Grin        


« Last Edit: 08/01/04 at 19:14:22 by TopNotch »  

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
 
Panda
Guest


Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #31 - 08/01/04 at 13:12:07
Post Tools
I must admit that the Belgrade does seem more and more tempting! When is the new Monson book due to be published?

And a stupid question I suppose, but which move order 2.Nc3 or 2.Nf3 is 'best'? i.e. would I be correct to assume that 2.Nc3 leaves black less options to avoid the 4knights?
  
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 #30 - 08/01/04 at 12:28:15
Post Tools
PART II: Gutman's Variation (5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 Nxe4 7.Qe2!)

GM Lev Gutman wrote about this line in several articles in Schach Archiv in 1996 and 1997.  Myself and a few other people got the practical tests rolling in late 1997 and 1998, and it has proven to be a lethal tool to say the least.


Monson,B (2250) - Liew Chee Meng (2330) [C47]
Belgrade Gambit Corr. thematic, 1998

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bc4 Be7 7.Qe2 f5? 8.Bf4 Bb4+ 9.c3 dxc3 10.bxc3 Ba5 11.0-0 Kf8 12.Rae1 h6 13.Nh4!! Qxh4 14.f3 d6 15.fxe4 Bd7 16.Bg3 Qg5 17.Rxf5+ Bxf5 18.exf5 1-0

Monson,B - Bender,F (2200) [C47]
APCT BG 98-Final, 2000

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bc4 Be7 7.Qe2 Nc5 8.Bg5 Ne6 9.Nxe7 Nxe7 10.Bxe6 dxe6 11.0-0-0 c5 12.Qb5+ Qd7 13.Qxc5 f6 14.Be3 e5 15.Bxd4! b6 16.Qa3 exd4 17.Rhe1 Qc7 18.Nxd4 Kf7 19.Qb3+ Kf8 20.Nb5 Qf4+ 21.Rd2 Bf5 22.g3 Qg4 23.f3 Qh5 24.Qa3 Be4 25.Rxe4 1-0


Toscano,J (2300) - Fruth,M (2350) [C47]
BG-TGT 5.16, 2000

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bc4 Be7 7.Qe2 Nc5 8.Bg5 Ne6 9.Nxe7 Nxe7 10.Bxe6 fxe6 11.0-0-0 d6 12.Nxd4 Qd7 13.Qh5+ g6 14.Qh6 Nf5 15.Nxf5 gxf5 16.f4 Qf7 17.Rhe1 Bd7 18.Rd3 Qg6 19.Qh4 h6 20.Rg3 Qf7 21.Rge3 h5 22.R1e2 Rc8 23.Qe1 Kf8 24.Qc3 Kg8 25.Qb3 b6 26.Rxe6 Bxe6 27.Rxe6 Rf8 28.Bh6 Rxh6 29.Rxh6 Qxb3 30.axb3 Kg7 31.Rxh5 Kg6 32.Rg5+ Kf6 33.Kd2 Rh8 34.h3 a5 35.Ke3 Re8+ 36.Kf2 Re4 37.g3 a4 38.bxa4 Rxa4 39.Rg8 Ra2 40.Rc8 c5 41.Rc6 Rxb2 42.Rxd6+ Ke7 43.Rd2 b5 44.g4 b4 45.g5 c4 46.Ke3 Ra2 47.h4 b3 48.cxb3 cxb3 49.Rd5 Ra3 50.Kd2 Ra2+ 51.Kc1 Rc2+ 52.Kb1 Rh2 53.Rxf5 Rxh4 54.Kb2 Rh3 55.g6 1-0


Koetsier,J (2250) - Cijs,P (2200) [C47]
NED CC email Ch., 2000

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bc4 Be7 7.Qe2 Nc5 8.Bg5 Ne6 9.Nxe7 Nxe7 10.Bxe6 dxe6 11.0-0-0 c5 12.Qb5+ Bd7 13.Qxc5 f6 14.Qxd4 Nc6 15.Qc3 fxg5 16.Qxg7 Rf8 17.Qxh7 Qe7 18.Qg6+ Qf7 19.Qxg5 Rg8 20.Qh4 Rxg2 21.Rhg1 Rxg1 22.Rxg1 Qf8 23.Rg6 Ne7 24.Rf6 Qg7 25.Qh5+ Kd8 26.Rf7 Qg6 27.Rf8+ Be8 28.Qe5 Nd5 29.Qd6+ Kc8 30.h4 Nc7 31.Ne5 Qh6+ 32.f4 Qg7 33.b4 a5 34.Qc5 Kb8 35.b5 1-0

Monson - Milat (FM) [C47]
Email corr., 1997

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 Nxe4 7.Qe2 Nc5 8.Bg5 d3 9.Qe3 d6 10.0-0-0 dxc2 11.Rd2 Ne6 12.Nxe7 Nxe7 13.Re1 0-0 14.Qe4 Nxg5 15.Nxg5 Ng6 16.h4 c6 17.Nxf7 Rxf7 18.Qe8+ Qxe8 19.Rxe8+ Nf8 20.Rxd6 b5 21.Bb3 c5 22.Bxf7+ Kxf7 23.Rdd8 1-0


Monson,B - Owens,J (2097) [C47]
Belgrade Gambit Corr. Thematic, 1998

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bc4 Be7 7.Qe2 Nd6 8.Bf4 0-0 9.0-0-0 Bf6 10.Rde1 b6 11.Bxd6 cxd6 12.Qe4 Bb7 13.h4 Rc8 14.Bd3 g6 15.Qf4 Be5 16.Qd2 Na5 17.Nxe5 Bxd5 18.Ng4 Bxa2 19.Qf4 f5 20.Nh6+ Kg7 21.h5 Nb3+ 22.Kd1 Nc5 23.hxg6 Nxd3 24.Nxf5+ Rxf5 25.Rxh7+ Kf6 26.Qxd6+ Be6 27.cxd3 Qf8 28.Rxe6+ dxe6 29.Rf7+ Qxf7 30.gxf7 Kg7 31.Qxe6 1-0


Simmelink,J - Owens,J [C47]
Belgrade Gambit Corr. Thematic, 1998

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bc4 Be7 7.Qe2 Nd6 8.Bf4 0-0 9.Nxe7+ Nxe7 10.Bxd6 cxd6 11.0-0-0 Nc6 12.Qe4 Qf6 13.Nxd4 d5 14.Bxd5 Nxd4 15.Qxd4 Qxd4 16.Rxd4 Re8 17.Rhd1 Kf8 18.Bf3 f5 19.Rh4 Kg8 20.Bd5+ Kh8 21.Rh5 1-0

Simmelink,J - Knudsen [C47]
IECG Cup 98 Q.F., 1999

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 Nxe4 7.Qe2 Nc5 8.Bg5 f6 9.Nh4 Kf8 10.Bh6!! (I had shared this innovation with Simmelink in 1998 and was happy to see it put into practice against such a respected correspondence player as Knudsen.)  10...gxh6 11.Qh5 Ne6 12.Nf5 Rg8 13.Qxh6+ Ke8 14.f4 Bb4+ 15.Kf1 d6 16.Nxb4 Nxb4 17.Qxh7 Kf8 18.Nh6 Rg7 19.Qh8+ Ke7 20.Nf5+ Kd7 21.Bxe6+ Kxe6 22.Qxd8 Kxf5 23.Qh8 Re7 24.g4+ Ke6 25.Re1+ Kd7 26.Rxe7+ Kxe7 27.a3 Nxc2 28.Qh7+ 1-0


Hruby,M - Barkwell,M [C47]
C1.1998.0.00162 IECG Email (1), 30.10.1998

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bc4 Be7 7.Qe2 Nd6 8.Bf4 0-0 9.Nxe7+ Nxe7 10.Bxd6 cxd6 11.Nxd4 Nc6 12.0-0-0 Qg5+ 13.Kb1 Nxd4 14.Rxd4 b5 15.Bd5 Rb8 16.Qf3 Ba6 17.h4 Qe5 18.Rhd1 Rbe8 19.Re4 Qf6 20.Qxf6 gxf6 21.Rg4+ Kh8 22.Rgd4 Re7 23.Bf3 Kg7 24.Rxd6 Bc8 25.c3 Rfe8 26.Kc2 a6 27.Bg4 Re4 28.R1d4 Bb7 29.g3 Rxd4 30.Rxd4 Be4+ 31.Kb3 f5 32.Bh3 d5 33.Bf1 f4 34.g4 Re6 35.a4 bxa4+ 36.Rxa4 Rh6 37.h5 f5 38.gxf5 Rxh5 39.f3 Bxf3 40.Rxf4 Be4 41.f6+ Kf7 42.Bxa6 Bf5 43.Bb7 Kxf6 44.Bxd5 Ke5 45.Rd4 Rh2 46.Ka3 h5 47.b4 h4 48.b5 Rc2 49.Kb3 h3 50.b6 Rf2 51.b7 Bc2+ 52.Kb4 Rf8 53.Kc5 h2 54.Kb6 Bb3 55.Bc6 1-0


Monson,B - Ellis,M [C47]
APCT BG-Thematic Prelim-2, 1999

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bc4 Be7 7.Qe2 Nc5 8.Bg5 Ne6 9.Nxe7 Nxe7 10.Bxe6 dxe6 11.0-0-0 c5 12.Qb5+ Bd7 13.Qxc5 f6 14.Qxd4 fxg5 15.Qxg7 Rg8 16.Qxh7 Qc7 17.Rhe1 Qf4+ 18.Kb1 Bc6 19.Ne5 Qf6 20.Qh5+ Kf8 21.Rd7 Rh8 22.Qe2 Ke8 23.Rd6 Rc8 24.Ng4 Qg7 25.Qxe6 Kf8 26.Ne5 Be8 27.Re3 1-0

Daus,P (2154) - Hameed,J (2130) [C47]
CL2-1999.32 IECC Email, 1999

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 Nxe4 7.Qe2 Nc5 8.Bg5 f6 9.Bh4 Ne6 10.0-0-0 a6 11.Rhe1 g5 12.Nxg5 fxg5 13.Qh5+ Kf8 14.Rd3 Kg7 15.Nxe7 Qxe7 16.Rxe6 dxe6 17.Bxg5 1-0

Koetsier,D - Vosselman,J [C47]
NED-ch2 email, 01.09.1999

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bc4 Be7 7.Qe2 Nc5 8.Bg5 Ne6 9.Nxe7 Nxe7 10.Bxe6 dxe6 11.0-0-0 c5 12.Qb5+ Bd7 13.Qxc5 f6 14.Qxd4 fxg5 15.Qxg7 Rg8 16.Qxh7 Qa5 17.Qh5+ Kd8 18.Kb1 Qf5 19.h4 gxh4 20.Qxh4 Ke8 21.Nd2 Bc6 22.Nc4 Qg5 23.Qd4 Kf8 24.Ne5 Rc8 25.Qd6 Be4 26.Ka1 Bxc2 27.Rc1 Kg7 28.f4 Qf6 29.Ng4 Qf7 30.Nh6 Qf6 31.Nxg8 Kxg8 32.Qd7 1-0


Monson,B - Wallace,G (2000) [C47]
BG-TGT 5.30 cr, 2001

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 Nxe4 7.Qe2 Nd6 8.Bf4 Kf8 9.0-0-0 Ne8 10.Rhe1 d6 11.Nxd4 Nxd4 12.Rxd4 Be6 13.Nxe7 Qxe7 14.Qf3 Qf6 15.Bxe6 fxe6 16.Rxe6 Qf7 17.Bxd6+ 1-0


Toscano,J (2300) - Petters,O (2233) [C47]
CM-2000-0-00125, 2001

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bc4 Be7 7.Qe2 Nc5 8.Bg5 Ne6 9.Nxe7 Nxe7 10.Bxe6 dxe6 11.0-0-0 c5 12.Qb5+ Qd7 13.Qxc5 f6 14.Be3 e5 15.Bxd4 b6 16.Qa3 Qb7 17.Bxe5 fxe5 18.Nxe5 Be6 19.Rd6 Qc8 20.Qa4+ b5 21.Qxb5+ Kf8 22.Rhd1 h5 23.Qa5 Ke8 24.Qa4+ Kf8 25.Qe4 1-0

Regards,

Bruce Monson

P.S.  I will still be posting that previously promised series of game on the 5...Be7 6.Bf4 variation.






  
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 #29 - 08/01/04 at 11:20:22
Post Tools
TOPNOTCH:
While I honestly think that black has nothing to fear in the lines given in my previous post, I must confess that they are a bit dull. Recently a more interesting idea has emerged for black based on a tactical discovery. Check out the following games where both players fell into the same trap:  Grin

MONSON:
I find it interesting that Topnotch latches onto an inferior line for white (9.Nxe7+?) in order to try painting a positive picture for black, especially after I had provided the definitive examples (one of which was played by Eric Prie, whom TopNotch has expressed respect for) showing the PROPER method for dealing with 8...Ne5.

TOPNOTCH:
Finally BilboBaggins raised an important query regarding the pawn snatch after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 Nxe4!? It is quite possible that this is the most critical line of the entire 6.Bc4 variation. Should white fail to find something convincing here then he can scrap the whole 6.Bc4 line altogether.

MONSON:
Out of respect for BilboBaggins' request, I will address this variation with a number of illustrative games.  It is in fact a common line, and given the exceedingly lopsided number of wins for white in not only this line, but also the variant 5...Be7 6.Bc4 Nxe4 (which may now transpose after 7.O-O O-O) I have to wonder why.

But before I get to the games, I'd like to address another slap-in-the-face issue that came from TopNotch regarding my winning with the Belgrade whether I am playing the white or black side (and in thematic tournaments, you play games from BOTH sides against each opponent--that's the point).

Quote:  "Well look who we find beating up on his own gambit.... LOL, it seems that Mr. Monson wins whether he is playing the white or black side of the Belgrade Wink - I have drawn some further conclusions from all this, but prefer to remain silent for the moment."

TopNotch's intent, of course, is to ridicule and insinuate that I must be somehow disingenuous in my convictions about the correctness of this gambit.  To the contrary, my wins from the black side are no more an indictment against the BG than Kasparov being able to win from either side of the same variation in the Sicilian is an indictment against that variation.  It merely demonstrates that I knew more about the position(s) than did my opponent(s), and had I been playing the white side I would have handled the position in a different manner.  In the game he cited, against my good friend Joop Simmelink, white "went wrong" almost immediately with 13.Re3?! and then compiled the problem with 14.Bxg6?, after which black was clearly better.

Now some games (For Biblo, and others who are genuinely interested in learning something about the BG and not just here to rant about their particular hatred for gambits).

TopNotch claims that the "burden of proof" is on white to show compensation for his pawn in the line 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 O-O 7.O-O Nxe4.  Well, that's fine, but according to my database (some 90 games in this line) white scores above 62% (and most of these are master level correspondence games), so I hardly see this as the refutation black is looking for.  Since TopNotch took the liberties of showing you some of the wins from black's side (including my win against Simmelink), I will provide the positive side for white.

Barnsley,T (2450) - Reijnen,M [C47]
1st Master Norm Tnmt., corr.. 1998

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bc4 Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.Re1 Nf6 9.Nxe7+ Nxe7 10.Qxd4 d5 11.Bd3 b6 12.Bg5 c5 13.Qe5 Nc6 14.Qf4 Nb4 15.Rad1 Nxd3 16.Rxd3 Be6 17.Nd2 Qb8 18.Qh4 Nd7 19.f4 Re8 20.Rde3 d4 21.R3e2 Rc8 22.Qf2 h6 23.Bxh6 gxh6 24.Qg3+ Kf8 25.Rxe6 fxe6 26.Rxe6 Re8 27.Rxh6 Qd8 28.Nc4 Qe7 29.Rh8+ Kf7 30.Rh7+ Kf8 31.Rxe7 Rxe7 32.Qh4 Rg7 33.Qh8+ Rg8 34.Qh6+ 1-0

Monson,B - Johnson,G (2329) [C47]
APCT BG-Thematic Prelim-2, 1999

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 Nxe4 8.Re1 Nf6 9.Nxe7+ Nxe7 10.Qxd4 d5 11.Bd3 Bg4 12.Ne5 Be6 13.Bg5 Nf5 14.Qf4 Nd6 15.Re3! h6 16.Bxh6 Nfe4 17.Rg3 Nxg3 18.Qxg3 Ne8 19.Re1 c5 20.Bg5 Nf6 21.Qh4 Qa5 22.Nf3 Ne4 23.Rxe4 dxe4 24.Qxe4 g6 25.Qh4 Qb4 26.c4 f5 27.Qh6 Rae8 28.Qxg6+ Kh8 29.Bf6+ Rxf6 30.Qxf6+ Kg8 31.g4 Qa4 32.Ne5 Qd1+ 33.Kg2 fxg4 34.Qh6 Bd5+ 35.cxd5 Rxe5 36.Bh7+ Kf7 37.Bg6+ Ke7 38.Qg7+ Kd6 39.Qf6+ Kd7 40.Qxe5 Qf3+ 41.Kf1 Qd1+ 42.Qe1 Qxd5 43.Qe8+ Kc7 44.Qf7+ Qxf7 45.Bxf7 Kd6 46.Bh5 Ke5 47.Bxg4 1-0


Monson,B - Johnson,G (2329) [C47]
APCT BG-Thematic Prelim-3, 2000

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 Nxe4 8.Re1 Nf6 9.Nxe7+ Nxe7 10.Qxd4 d5 11.Bd3 Bg4 12.Ne5 Be6 13.Bg5 Nf5 14.Qf4 Nd6 15.Rad1 a5 16.c4!? dxc4 17.Bc2 a4 18.Rd4! a3 19.bxa3 Rxa3 20.Qh4 h5 21.g4 Rxa2 22.Bb1 Ra1 23.gxh5 Qe7 24.h6! Rxb1 25.hxg7 Rxe1+ 26.Kg2 Nh7 27.Bxe7 Re8 28.Bxd6 cxd6 29.Nf3 Re5 30.Nxe5 dxe5 31.Rd8 Rxd8 32.Qxd8+ Kxg7 33.Qd6 Kf6 34.h4 Kf5 35.Qd1 Kg6 36.Qf3 b5 37.Qe4+ Kh6 38.Qxe5 b4 39.f4 c3 40.f5 Bb3 41.Qf4+ Kh5 42.Kg3 c2 43.Qd2 Ba4 44.Qd5 Be8 45.f6+ Kg6 46.Qe4+ Kxf6 47.Qxc2 Kg7 48.Qe4 Bd7 49.Qd4+ 1-0

Lutzenberger,R (2365) - Dimitriadis,M (2191) [C47]
IECG CP-1998-F-00001, 01.10.2001

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 Nxe4 8.Nxd4 Nf6 9.Nxe7+ Qxe7 10.Bg5 Qe5 11.Nf3 Qxb2 12.Rb1 Qc3 13.Bd3 Ne5 14.Rb3 Nxf3+ 15.Qxf3 Qc6 16.Qf4 Nd5 17.Qf5 g6 18.Qe4 Kg7 19.Qh4 h5 20.Bc1 f5 21.Re1 Nf6 22.Bxf5 1-0


White,W (2000) - Amneus (2150) [C47]
Memorial Day Classic, 1988

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bc4 Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.Re1 Nf6 9.Nxe7+ Nxe7 10.Qxd4 d5 11.Bd3 Bf5 12.Rxe7 Bxd3 13.Qe5 Bxc2 14.Qxc7 Be4 15.Nd4 b6 16.Be3 Qxc7 17.Rxc7 Rfc8 18.Rac1 Rxc7 19.Rxc7 Bb1 20.a3 Ng4 21.Bf4 Re8 22.Rc1 Bd3 23.f3 Nf6 24.Rc7 a5 25.Rb7 b5 26.Nxb5 Re1+ 27.Kf2 Re2+ 28.Kg3 g6 29.Bh6 Bxb5 30.Rxb5 d4 31.Rxa5 Re8 32.Ra6 Nh5+ 33.Kf2 Rd8 34.Ke2 f6 35.Ra7 Kh8 36.g4 1-0

Fleury,M (2000) - Kaufmann,R (2200) [C47]
Unknown Tournament, 1998

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 Nxe4 8.Re1 Nf6 9.Nxe7+ Nxe7 10.Qxd4 d5 11.Bd3 Bf5 12.Rxe7 Bxd3 13.Re5 Be4 14.Bg5 h6 15.Bh4 Qd6 16.Bg3 c5 17.Qd2 Qb6 18.c3 Rfe8 19.Re1 Rxe5 20.Nxe5 Re8 21.f3 Bf5 22.Bf2 Qd6 23.Bg3 Qa6 24.Bf2 Qxa2 25.g4 Be6 26.Bxc5 Rc8 27.Bd4 a5 28.g5 hxg5 29.Qxg5 Nh7 30.Qg3 f6 31.Ng6 Re8 32.Qd6 Ng5 33.Qg3 Bf7 34.Rxe8+ Bxe8 35.Nf4 Qb1+ 36.Kg2 Qxb2+ 37.Bf2 a4 38.h4 Nh7 39.Ne6 Kf7 40.Nxg7 Qxc3 41.Nxe8 Kxe8 42.Qg6+ Kf8 43.Qxh7 b5 44.h5 Qa3 45.h6 f5 46.Qxf5+ Kg8 47.Qxd5+ Kh7 48.Qe4+ 1-0

W. White - Townsend [C47]
Long Beach, 1990

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 Nxe4 8.Re1 Nf6 9.Nxe7+ Nxe7 10.Bg5 Ng6 11.Qxd4 h6 12.Bxf6 Qxf6 13.Qxf6 gxf6 14.Bd3 b6 15.Be4 c6 16.Bxg6 fxg6 17.Re7 Rf7 18.Rae1 Bb7 19.Nh4 Kg7 20.R1e3 c5 21.Nxg6 d5 22.Nh4 Kf8 23.R7e6 Kg7 24.Nf5+ Kg6 25.Nd6 Rd7 26.Rg3+ Kh7 27.Rxf6 Rad8 28.Nf7 1-0

Roman,M - Lasota,Z [C47]
POL-ch35 sf05 corr, 1991

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bc4 Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.Re1 Nf6 9.Bg5 d6 10.Qd2 Ne5 11.Nxe5 dxe5 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Qh6 Be6 14.Nxf6+ Bxf6 15.Bd3 1-0

Bulgarini,Marco - Contreras [C47]
Metropolitano por Equipos, 1994

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 Nxe4 8.Re1 Nd6 9.Nxe7+ Nxe7 10.Bg5 Re8 11.Qe2 Kf8 12.Nxd4 Nxc4 13.Qxc4 f6 14.Bf4 Nc6 15.Rxe8+ Qxe8 16.Bxc7 Qf7 17.Qc5+ Kg8 18.Re1 b6 19.Qd6 Bb7 20.Nf5 Re8 21.Qd2 Rxe1+ 22.Qxe1 Qe6 23.Ne3 Ne5 24.b3 Qc6 25.Bb8 Ba6 26.f4 Nf7 27.Nd5 Qc5+ 28.Kh1 Kf8 29.c4 b5 30.b4 Qc8 31.Bxa7 bxc4 32.Bc5+ d6 33.Qe7+ Kg8 34.Bxd6 Nxd6 35.Qxd6 c3 36.Ne7+ 1-0

Monson - Rodriguez [C47]
Colorado Springs, 1996

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 Nxe4 7.0-0 0-0 8.Re1 Nd6 9.Bd3 Bf6? 10.Nxf6+ Qxf6? (10...gxf6 is forced, and still ultimately losing for black) 11.Bg5 Qxg5 12.Nxg5 h6 13.Qh5 Ne8 14.Bh7+ Kh8 15.Qxf7 1-0

Monson - Sibayan [C47]
Colorado Springs, 1994

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 Nxe4 8.Re1 Nd6 9.Bd3 Re8 10.Bf4 f6 11.Ng5! fxg5 12.Qh5 h6 13.Bxd6 cxd6 14.Nf6+! 1-0

Monson - Sibayan [C47]
Colorado Springs, 1996

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 Nxe4 7.0-0 0-0 8.Re1 Nd6 9.Bd3 h6 10.Bf4 Ne8 11.Nxd4 Bc5 12.Nf5 d6 13.Qh5 Nf6 14.Nfe7+ Nxe7 15.Nxf6+ gxf6 16.Rxe7 Qxe7 17.Qxh6 f5 18.Bg5 f6 19.Bc4+ Rf7 20.Bxf6 1-0

Monson (2350) - Cardon (IM) (2450) [C47]
ICC, 1997

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bc4 Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.Nxd4 Nxd4 9.Qxd4 Nf6 10.Nxe7+ Qxe7 11.Bg5 Re8 12.Bxf6 Qxf6 13.Rae1 Rd8 14.Qxf6 gxf6 15.Re3 d5 16.Rg3+ Kh8 17.Bd3 Be6 18.Rf3 Kg7 19.Rg3+ Kh6 20.f4 Rg8 21.Re3 d4 22.Re4 Bd5 23.Rf3 Bxe4 24.Rh3+ Kg7 25.Bxe4 c6 26.Rxh7+ Kf8 27.Bd3 Re8 28.Kf2 b5 29.Bf5 Ke7 30.Rh3 Rb8 31.Ra3 Rb7 32.g4 Kd6 33.h4 Re7 34.h5 Rge8 35.Bd3 Kc5 36.Ra6 Re4 37.Bxe4 Rxe4 38.Rxa7 f5 39.Kg3 Re3+ 40.Kh4 Re2 41.Rxf7 fxg4 42.Kxg4 Rxc2 43.h6 d3 44.h7 Rh2 45.Rd7 d2 46.f5 Rxh7 47.Rxd2 1-0

Monson (2420) - Milat (2430) [C47]
ICC, 1999

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 Nxe4 8.Re1 Nf6 9.Nxe7+ Nxe7 10.Qxd4 Ng6 11.h4! TN d5 12.Bd3 Bg4 13.Nh2 Bd7 14.Bg5 h6 15.h5 hxg5 16.hxg6 Bc6 17.Rad1 Ne4 18.gxf7+ Kxf7 19.Bxe4 1-0

Bustos Serrano,D - Tirado Parra,A [C47]
Alameda de Osuna op 6th Madrid (5), 04.2000

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 Nxe4 8.Re1 Nf6 9.Nxe7+ Nxe7 10.Qxd4 Ng6 11.Bg5 d6 12.h4! h6 13.h5 Ne5 14.Bh4 Nxc4 15.Qxc4 Bd7 16.Re3 Bc6 17.Rae1 Re8 18.Nd4 Rxe3 19.Rxe3 Qd7 20.Bxf6 gxf6 21.Nxc6 bxc6 22.Qf4 Kh7 23.Qxf6 Re8 24.Rf3 Re1+ 25.Kh2 Qe7 26.Qxf7+ Qxf7 27.Rxf7+ Kg8 28.Rxc7 1-0


Melchor,A - Peñas,Y (2089)
C.E. Badalona op (9), 2000

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 Nxe4 7.0-0 0-0 8.Re1 Nf6 9.Rxe7 Nxe7 10.Nxf6+ gxf6 11.Bh6 Re8 12.Qxd4 Ng6 13.Bxf7+ Kxf7 14.Ng5+ fxg5 15.Qg7+ Ke6 16.Re1+ Kf5 17.Qf7+ Qf6 18.Qxe8 d5 19.h3 Ne5 20.g4+ Kf4 21.Bxg5+ Qxg5 22.Qf8+ Bf5 23.Qb4+ Be4 24.Qd2+ Kf3 25.Qe2+ 1-0

In Part II to this post I will provide games with 5.Be7 6.Bc4 Nxe4, and the powerful Gutman variation, 7.Qe2!

Bruce Monson


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


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

Posts: 2118
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #28 - 08/01/04 at 10:18:11
Post Tools
I too am an aggressive player  Grin

But there is a difference between aggressive and wreckless. Using eccentric chess prodigies such as Morozovitch, Shirov and to a lesser extent Hector to make the case that offbeat Chess Openings are a good idea is an unsound premise.

The truth remains that the majority of GM's do not engage in these so called Gambit Openings/Offbeat Openings on a regular basis with the exception of a precious few, and these exceptions only serve to prove the rule.

Ironically when a top player experiments with a questionable opening, amateurs are quick to site it as a justification for the validity of that opening; while ignoring the otherwise established main Openings that the same player sited usually employs.

Amateurs tend to make dubious Gambits and Offbeat Openings their life's work, while strong players only dabble in it, with a few exceptions of course. This is why the Blackmar Diemer, Smith Morra and Latvian Gambits will continue to be extremely populat at amateur level, but only at that level.

Just about every player that graduates from club level, soon learns that their repertoire of tricky openings that worked so smoothly before have now become far less effective. Unfortunately in many cases these hodge podge of tricky Openings cannot be strengthened significantly against competent play, and so, after wasting years in a false sense of security they now have to shop around for something decent.

Craig and Ranjk have said most of what I say is obvious, to some extent this true, but it has amazed me that despite it being so obvious my views always meet with much resistence.

People do not want to hear the obvious if it conflicts with what has been working for them. Gambits are like sweets, very tasty and addictive, but too much indulgence and we get cavities. Lets resolve to make sure that we eat plenty of Vegetables fruit and grain as well, so that we may all grow into strong players.

Bon Appetit

Top  Grin
  

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
 
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 #27 - 08/01/04 at 04:32:33
Post Tools
There now seems to be a different duplication,Top...  Grin

The games you posted in the 8...Ne5 variation are all well and good, but notice that Mr Monson did not recommend 9.Nxe7+, instead he gave the options Bb3 and Nxf6, both of which appear far stronger.

To quote rankj, "After you leave the beginners levels, if you want to improve, you must play established openings since in this way you can learn lessons from very strong players that played them...". Someone should really try telling people like Johnny Hector this, a well-known and respected GM who has made his living from playing non-established openings, for example the latvian and a pawn sacrifice on move 6 against the Ruy Lopez exchange, I believe 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.O-O Bg4 6.h3 Bh5!?... or Shirov or Morosevich, often both using openings somewhat off the beaten track. Bent Larsen played just about everything, as did Bronstein (I believe ranjk pointed out that the Cochrane was totally unsound, yet Bronstein felt that it wasn't much worse than the main lines, and while black probably does get the better in it, I think that was somewhat dismissive). Peter Svidler played 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.c3 as a gambit against Kasparov and won not too many years ago... there are countless other examples too.

My point here? I suppose it's that just because not everyone chooses to play such opening systems, it does not invalidate them, and it does not seem a fact that playing them "stagnates" the development of players. The reason they are not played more is probably due to the fact that a lot of people are scared of being material down. This can be a good thing - obviously losing material isn't something which is ideal, but sometimes it's necessary. These people who are scared of it will sometimes develop to the 2000 level where they'll come across players who'll find a way to win a pawn, and suddenly find themselves lost. A pawn down, they can't go to an endgame - yet they don't have experience of attacking, gaining an initiative to compensate.

For others like me, and I suspect MNb and Bruce, that is our style... since I took up the game, the KG and a host of other gambits have been my staple opening systems, yet my development has proceeded pretty smoothly I would say... just as gambit play isn't the style of greats like Petrosian and Karpov, conventional opening play isn't the choice or style of many, many great players.

Also, I would put this opening exactly with the scotch and "slow guioco", that it offers white no theoretical advantage, but does offer a choice of tactical or positional play, and a comfortable, familiar and playable middlegame.

As a final note, I would like to address the comment about how we are sometimes quick to argue or contradict TopNotch... it is not that he is "wrong" per se... much of what he says is valid, and as ranjk pointed out, some of it is "obvious"... but wasn't Tartakower the one who quipped "obvious but dubious"? Just as some people may find that gambiteers' views are lop-sided and biased, so I feel are those of non-gambiteers, especially his at times.  Just as these "amateurs" are impressionable and can be persuaded into gambit play easily, they are surely just as impressionable as to be put off gambit play for life by someone such as Top who is completely and utterly dismissive of any opening which doesn't fit in with his repertoire, or so it seems at times. Within a short period I think most players already have a feeling for whether they're aggressive players or more strategic, positional players - whether or not they can play well in that style. So if anyone is tempted by us to play these gambits, great! If they don't work for you, or don't fit in with your style, then feel free to drop them and not play them again... but at least you'll have tried it. Just because they're not approved by the self-named "Guru", doesn't mean they're not worth experimenting with at the very least, and quite possibly adding to your repertoire.

A guiding hand often leads others astray...

Regards,
Craig  Grin

(P.S. Sorry about a non-belgrade rant - I shall post some more analysis quite soon. I'd also like to thank Bruce again for helping out on this thread, and posting so much of his work for the benefit of others)
  

"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
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 2118
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #26 - 07/31/04 at 20:18:29
Post Tools
Much thanks goes out to KillBill for proof reading my last post and spotting a duplication.  Grin

I have since made the appropriate corrections and replaced the duplicated game with the one I had originally intended. As you will see, the new game bares close resemblance to the Monson one.

Please do not hesitate to inform me should you find any further typos or duplications.

That's yet another reason why I hate doing extra long posts  Angry  I dont always read them back carefully before uploading, especially when I feel a need to respond urgently.

Sayonara

Top Grin
  

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
 
killbill
Guest


Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #25 - 07/31/04 at 19:47:52
Post Tools
topnotch- you have the same game twice that Mr Monson won with black. I get your point, but that wasn't too slick Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 2118
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #24 - 07/31/04 at 16:08:29
Post Tools
While I honestly think that black has nothing to fear in the lines given in my previous post, I must confess that they are a bit dull. Recently a more interesting idea has emerged for black based on a tactical discovery. Check out the following games where both players fell into the same trap:  Grin

[Event "Buenos Aires Clarin op"]
[Site "Buenos Aires"]
[Date "1995.05.??"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Rappa,Damian"]
[Black "Vasquez,Rodrigo"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "C47"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Nxd4 Ne5!?
9.Nxe7+ Qxe7 10.Bb3 Nxe4! 11.Re1 Qh4!! 12.g3 Nxg3 13.hxg3 Qxd4 14.Qxd4 Nf3+ 15.Kg2 Nxd4 16.Re7 c6
17.Bf4 d5 18.c4 dxc4 19.Bxc4 b5 20.Bb3 a5 21.Be5 Nxb3 22.axb3 Be6 23.Bc7 Bxb3 24.Rxa5 Bd5+
25.f3 b4 26.Rxa8 Rxa8 27.Rd7 g5 28.Kf2 Ra7 29.Rd8+ Kg7 30.Bb6 Re7 31.Bc5 Rb7 32.Bd4+ Kh6
33.Rd6+ Be6 34.Rxc6 Rd7 35.Ke3 Kg6 36.Rb6 b3 37.g4 h5 38.gxh5+ Kxh5 39.Rb8 f5 40.Rb5 Bd5
41.Bc3 Bc4 42.Rb6 Rd3+ 43.Kf2 Bd5 44.Rb5 Rxf3+ 0-1

[Event "FRA-chT fin"]
[Site "Belfort"]
[Date "2004.01.30"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Vallet,Marc"]
[Black "Milliet,Sophie"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "C47"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Nxd4 Ne5
9.Nxe7+ Qxe7 10.Bb3 Nxe4 11.Re1 Qh4 12.g3 Nxg3 13.fxg3 Qxd4+ 14.Qxd4 Nf3+ 15.Kf2 Nxd4 16.Re7 c6
17.Bf4 d5 18.c4 dxc4 19.Bxc4 b5 20.Bf1 Be6 21.Bg2 Rfc8 22.Rd1 Nf5 23.Rb7 a5 24.a3 h5
25.Rb6 Ne7 26.Rc1 Bd5 27.Bxd5 Nxd5 28.Rbxc6 Rxc6 29.Rxc6 Nxf4 30.gxf4 Rd8 31.Ke3 Rd5 32.Rc8+ Kh7
33.b4 axb4 34.axb4 Kg6 35.Rc1 Kf5 36.Rg1 g6 37.h3 f6 38.h4 Rd6 39.Rc1 Kg4 40.Rg1+ Kxh4
41.Rxg6 Kh3 42.Ke4 h4 43.Kf3 Rd3+ 44.Kf2 Rd4 45.Rxf6 Rxb4 46.Kf3 Rb3+ 47.Ke4 Kg2 48.Rg6+ Rg3
49.Rb6 h3 50.Rxb5 h2 51.Rb2+ Kh3 52.Rxh2+ Kxh2 53.f5 Kh3 54.Kf4 Kh4 55.f6 Rg1 56.Kf5 Kh5
0-1

Finally BilboBaggins raised an important query regarding the pawn snatch after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 Nxe4!? It is quite possible that this is the most critical line of the entire 6.Bc4 variation. Should white fail to find something convincing here then he can scrap the whole 6.Bc4 line altogether.

[Event "TGT"]
[Site "ICCF email"]
[Date "1998.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Simmelink,Joop Theo"]
[Black "Monson,Bruce"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "C47"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bc4 Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.Re1 Nf6
9.Nxe7+ Nxe7 10.Qxd4 d5 11.Bd3 Ng6 12.Bg5 c6 13.Re3 Qd6 14.Bxg6 fxg6 15.Bf4 Qd8 16.Be5 Bf5
17.c3 Ng4 18.Bxg7 c5 19.Qxc5 Kxg7 20.Re7+ Rf7 21.Rae1 Be4 22.Qd4+ Kg8 23.Rxf7 Kxf7 24.h3 Nh6
25.Qd2 Kg7 26.Ng5 Qf6 27.Nxe4 dxe4 28.Qd7+ Qf7 29.Qd4+ Kg8 30.Qxe4 Nf5 31.Qb4 Rf8 32.a4 Ne3
33.Qh4 Nd5 34.c4 Qf4 35.Qxf4 Nxf4 36.f3 Nd3 0-1 [Well look who we find beating up on his own gambit.... LOL, it seems that Mr. Monson wins whether he is playing the white or black side of the Belgrade Wink - I have drawn some further conclusions from all this, but prefer to remain silent for the moment.]

[Event "ESP-chT1"]
[Site "Mondariz Balneario"]
[Date "2002.09.04"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Alcazar Jimenez,Jesus Alberto"]
[Black "Ruiz Teran,Pablo"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "C47"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bc4 Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.Re1 Nf6
9.Rxe7 Nxe7 10.Nxf6+ gxf6 11.Bh6 Re8 12.Qxd4 d5 13.Bb5 c6 14.Bd3 Ng6 15.h4 Ne5 16.Qf4 Nxf3+
17.Qxf3 Qd6 18.Bf4 Qe6 19.Qh5 f5 20.Qd1 Qg6 21.a4 Bd7 22.Ra3 Qg4 23.Qd2 Re6 24.Bf1 Rg6
25.h5 Qxh5 26.c4 Be6 27.c5 Re8 28.a5 a6 29.Rb3 Bc8 30.Rg3 Rxg3 31.Bxg3 Qg4 32.b4 h5
33.Bd6 f4 34.f3 Qg6 35.Bxf4 Bf5 36.Qf2 Bd3 37.Bxd3 Qxd3 38.Qg3+ Kh7 39.Qh4 Qg6 40.Kh2 d4
41.g4 d3 42.Kg3 Kg8 43.Bg5 f6 44.Bd2 Re2 0-1

[Event "Portocom op"]
[Site "Debrecen"]
[Date "2000.10.21"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Comp Rebel Century 3.0"]
[Black "Debreceni,Tibor"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "C47"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 Nxe4 8.Nxd4 Bc5
9.Nb5 Nxf2 10.Qh5 Ne5 11.Nbxc7 Rb8 12.b4 Bd4 13.c3 Nh3+ 14.Kh1 Bxc3 15.Nxc3 Qxc7 16.Bxf7+ Rxf7
17.Rxf7 Nxf7 18.Qxh3 b5 19.Bb2 Bb7 20.Nxb5 Qc2 21.Bd4 Bxg2+ 22.Qxg2 Qxg2+ 23.Kxg2 Rxb5 24.Bxa7 Rxb4 25.a4 Rg4+ 26.Kf2 Rh4 27.Kg3 Rh6 28.a5 Ra6 29.Bd4 Nd6 30.Kf4 Nc4 31.Bc3 Kf7 32.Ke4 Ke6
33.Kd3 d5 34.Re1+ Kd7 35.Ra1 Kd6 36.Kd4 g6 37.Rf1 Ra7 38.Rf6+ Ke7 39.Kxd5 Nxa5 40.Re6+ Kf8
41.Rf6+ Kg8 42.Rd6 g5 43.h3 Nb3 44.Rb6 Rd7+ 45.Kc6 Rd3 46.Rxb3 Rxh3 47.Rb8+ Kf7 48.Bb4 g4
49.Rf8+ Ke6 50.Re8+ Kf5 51.Rf8+ Ke4 52.Re8+ Kf3 53.Re1 g3 54.Bc5 h5 55.Rf1+ Kg2 56.Rf4 Rh1
57.Be7 Re1 58.Bd8 Rc1+ 59.Kd7 Rd1+ 60.Kc8 Rxd8+ 61.Kxd8 Kh3 62.Rf3 h4 63.Ke7  0-1

[Event "ESP-chT1"]
[Site "Mondariz Balneario"]
[Date "2002.09.04"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Alcazar Jimenez,Jesus Alberto"]
[Black "Ruiz Teran,Pablo"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "C47"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bc4 Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.Re1 Nf6
9.Rxe7 Nxe7 10.Nxf6+ gxf6 11.Bh6 Re8 12.Qxd4 d5 13.Bb5 c6 14.Bd3 Ng6 15.h4 Ne5 16.Qf4 Nxf3+
17.Qxf3 Qd6 18.Bf4 Qe6 19.Qh5 f5 20.Qd1 Qg6 21.a4 Bd7 22.Ra3 Qg4 23.Qd2 Re6 24.Bf1 Rg6
25.h5 Qxh5 26.c4 Be6 27.c5 Re8 28.a5 a6 29.Rb3 Bc8 30.Rg3 Rxg3 31.Bxg3 Qg4 32.b4 h5
33.Bd6 f4 34.f3 Qg6 35.Bxf4 Bf5 36.Qf2 Bd3 37.Bxd3 Qxd3 38.Qg3+ Kh7 39.Qh4 Qg6 40.Kh2 d4
41.g4 d3 42.Kg3 Kg8 43.Bg5 f6 44.Bd2 Re2 0-1

Based on the above evidence the burden of proof is heavily on White to prove full compensation for his material deficit and on that note the case for the defence rests……………………………………..FOR NOW!!

Top Grin

       
« Last Edit: 07/31/04 at 20:21:10 by TopNotch »  

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
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 2118
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #23 - 07/31/04 at 16:04:25
Post Tools
Bravo Ranjk, many people find the truth annoying and not only in chess. Grin

Mr. Monson has dismissed my posts as a lot of talk not substantiated by moves and variations. It is true that I talk a lot, but that's because I have lots to say and am willing to share these thoughts on the forum. One must remember that on this forum there are many different levels of player, and lesser experienced players are quite impressionable especially when it comes to Opening theory. For this reason anyone purporting that any Obscure Gambit, Belgrade or otherwise, is the answer to their prayers, will give me cause to sound off and balance the scales so that those impressionable aspiring players out there can get a more complete and realistic picture.

Sometimes I have so much to say that to include reams of analysis complete with Informator codes have to take a back seat, since to combine prose with such analysis would make my posts decidedly too long and off putting to would be readers. Furthermore I consider important for Carbon based beings as opposed to Silicon based ones (Silicon based being the weapon of choice by most Correspondence players) that they learn how to think in chess and to think effectively one must be able to verbalize, internally or externally, about the position in front of them. Conceptual thought  is the weapon of choice of Over The Board (OTB) players, with lines and variations serving only to validate ones intuition about a position. So it makes sense for aspiring players to learn how to develop their intuition, therefore making it easier to find the appropriate candidate moves in any position and also to judge objectively whether an Opening should really succeed or fail.

Lets take a look using Mr. Monson's format shall we:

Pawn Structure  - The most ideal pawn structure, or one of them, in 1.e4 e5 Openings are the Central pawns standing abreast of one another, namely on e4 and d4 with c3 and to a lesser extent f3 if need be to reinforce this configuration. This is the Centre that white aims for in The Ruy Lopez, and it is this central pawn structure that is the reason why the Ruy has endured as the most challenging of all 1.e4 e5 Openings for black. Not only does White cover the d5 and f5 central squares but also the c5 and e5 ones as well, which equates to total Central control, and that is why black finds it so difficult to equalize against the Ruy as contesting this dominance is no trivial task.

Piece Placement  - You claim that White's pieces stand much better in the following position: 1e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Nxd4 Nd4 9.Qxd4 Nxd5 10.Bxd5. I think that view is over stated, true black's e-pawn would be weakened after the advance c6 to kick the bishop, but this is hardly the end of the world, since as shown in many lines of The Kings Indian for black, white is unable to exploit this. What black must guard against in this position is becoming passive, and to this end the bishop should not be condemned to e7 but be transferred to the active a1-h8 diagonal while seeking to exchange White's light squared bishop with Be6.

The Latent Weakness – Ah yes, Black's backward d6 pawn is no doubt a weakness in the strictest theoretical terms, however there is a school of thought that states that a pawn weakness is only a weakness if it can be effectively exploited. Furthermore it is not clear that black cannot do with the weakening c6.  Admittedly should Black be forced to play c6 it would mean that the d6 pawn would become the only weakness in the position, and for this reason it is possible that White may have a slight edge. However, this point maybe mute, as I will show later that black has more testing alternatives in this line.

Now after a glut of wins showing the way forward for White compliments of Mr. Monson, its time to redress the balance a bit and show that it is not all one way traffic:

[Event "EU-chT (Men)"]
[Site "Kapfenberg"]
[Date "1970.05.??"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Bellon Lopez,Juan Manuel"]
[Black "Pedersen,Karl"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "C47"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Nxd4 Nxd5
9.Bxd5 Nxd4 10.Qxd4 Bf6 11.Qd3 Re8 12.c3 Qe7 13.f3 c6 14.Bb3 Be6 15.c4 Rad8 16.f4 Bc8
17.Re1 Bf5 18.Bc2 d5 19.cxd5 cxd5 20.Qb5 Bxe4 21.Ba4 a6 22.Qa5 b5 23.Bb3 Qd7 24.h3 d4
25.Qxa6 Bb7 26.Qa5 Qc6 27.Rxe8+ Rxe8 28.Qd2 d3 0-1

[Event "BCF-ch"]
[Site "Ayr"]
[Date "1978.08.07"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Knox,Victor W"]
[Black "Motwani,Paul"]
[Result "1/2"]
[Eco "C47"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Nxd4 Nxd5
9.Bxd5 Nxd4 10.Qxd4 Bf6 11.Qd3 a5 12.c3 Rb8 13.Be3 Be6 14.Bxe6 fxe6 15.f4 Qe7 16.Rf3 b6
17.Raf1 Rbd8 18.b3 e5 19.Qd5+ Qf7 20.f5 Qxd5 21.exd5 e4 22.R3f2 Bxc3 23.a3 Rd7 24.Rc1 Bf6
25.g4 Re8 26.Kg2 Rf7 27.Kg3 g6 28.fxg6 hxg6 29.Kg2 Bd8 30.Rxf7 Kxf7 31.Rf1+ Kg8 1/2

[Event "Quebec op"]
[Site "Montreal"]
[Date "1998.07.??"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Lesiege,Alexandre"]
[Black "Gligoric,Svetozar"]
[Result "1/2"]
[Eco "C47"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Nxd4 Nxd4
9.Qxd4 Nxd5 10.Bxd5 Bf6 11.Qd3 c6 12.Bb3 Re8 13.c3 Be6 14.Be3 Bxb3 15.axb3 a6 16.f3 Re6
17.Rad1 Qc7 18.Bd4 Rae8 19.Rf2 h6 20.Bxf6 Rxf6 21.Qd4 Rfe6 22.c4 Qa5 23.Rfd2 Qg5 24.Qf2 
1/2

[Event "Elista ol (Men)"]
[Site "Elista"]
[Date "1998.09.29"]
[Round "13"]
[White "Norris,Alan J"]
[Black "Rasmussen,Rogvi W"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "C47"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 d6 7.Nxd4 0-0 8.0-0 Nxd4
9.Qxd4 Nxd5 10.Bxd5 Bf6 11.Qd3 Re8 12.c3 Qe7 13.Bf4 Rb8 14.Rfe1 Be6 15.Bb3 a6 16.Bc2 g6
17.a4 Red8 18.Rad1 Qe8 19.Qg3 Qc6 20.h4 Qc5 21.Bg5 Be5 22.Qf3 Re8 23.Be3 Qc6 24.h5 Qd7
25.hxg6 hxg6 26.Qe2 Kg7 27.f4 Bg4 28.Qf2 Bf6 29.e5 Be7 30.exd6 Bxd1 31.Bd4+ f6 32.dxc7 Qxc7
33.Rxd1 Rh8 34.Bb6 Qc6 35.Qd4 Rbd8 36.Bxd8 Rxd8 0-1

[Event "Niederbayern-chT 9900"]
[Site "Landshut"]
[Date "1999.05.08"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Klinger,Josef"]
[Black "Niedermeier,Johann"]
[Result "1/2"]
[Eco "C45"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Be7 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.Nxd4 Nxd4 7.Qxd4 d6 8.Nd5 Nxd5
9.Bxd5 Bf6 10.Qd3 0-0 11.0-0 a5 12.c3 a4 13.a3 Rb8 14.Bf4 Qe7 15.Rfe1 Be5 16.Bg3 Bxg3
17.hxg3 Be6 18.Rad1 Rfe8 19.Re3 Bxd5 20.exd5 Qd7 21.Rde1 Rxe3 22.Rxe3 Re8 23.Qe2 Kf8 24.Rxe8+ Qxe8
25.Qxe8+ Kxe8 26.c4 Ke7 27.Kf1 c6 28.dxc6 bxc6 29.Ke2 c5 30.Kd3 Kd7 31.Kc3 Kc6 32.b4 axb3
33.Kxb3 Kb6 34.Kc3 Ka5 35.g4 Ka4 36.Kb2 g5 37.g3 f6 38.f3 Ka5 39.Kb3 Kb6 40.Kc3 Ka5
41.f4 Ka4 42.Kb2 Ka5 43.Kb3 Kb6 44.Ka4 Ka6 45.Kb3 Ka5 46.f5 Kb6 47.Kc3 Ka5 1/2

Darn, when I tried to upload my post I was informed it was too long, and consequently I had to cut it in half  Angry

Thats why I hate to combine talk with moves, there just aint enuff space.

To be continued!

Top  Grin
  

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
 
Bilbo Baggins
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


A Texan Stranded in New
Jersey

Posts: 43
Location: Runnemede
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #22 - 07/30/04 at 23:24:57
Post Tools
Greetings all;

bamonson - Could you please share your insights into the line reccomended in "Play the Open Games". .... 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 Nxe4?   I would find that to be most helpful.

Your Humble Servant,

Bilbo
  
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 #21 - 07/30/04 at 17:38:11
Post Tools
5...Be7 6.Bc4 (Part II)

===> Black plays 8...Ne5

This is also frequently played by black, but white gets good play.

Van Oosterom JJ - Sorri J [C47]
corr NBC/87/extra/16, 1982

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Nxd4 Ne5 9.Nxf6+ Bxf6 10.Be2 Nc6 11.c3 d5 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.Qa4 Bd7 14.Bf3 Re8 15.Bf4 Be5 16.Bxe5 Rxe5 17.exd5 cxd5 18.Qd4 Qg5 19.h4 Qe7 20.Bxd5 Re8 21.Rad1 Bb5 22.c4 c6 23.Bf3 c5 24.Qf4 Bd7 25.Bd5 Bc8 26.Bc6 Rf8 27.b3 h6 28.Rd3 Re6 29.Bd5 Re2 30.Re3 Rxe3 31.fxe3 Be6 32.e4 Rd8 33.Qe5 Rd6 34.Rf3 Ra6 35.Rg3 f6 36.Qf4 Kh8 37.a4 Rd6 38.e5 Rb6 39.exf6 Qxf6 40.Qxf6 gxf6 41.Bxe6 Rxe6 42.Rd3 Rb6 43.Kf2 Kg7 44.Kf3 Kf7 45.Kf4 Ke6 46.h5 a5 47.g4 Rb8 48.Re3+ Kf7 49.Kf5 Rb6 50.Rd3 Rb7 51.Rd6 Rxb3 52.Rxf6+ Kg7 53.Rg6+ Kh7 54.Rc6 Rf3+ 55.Ke4 Ra3 56.Rc7+ Kg8 57.Kf5 Rb3 58.Rxc5 Rb4 59.Rc7 Kh8 60.c5 1-0

Prie,E - Hawksworth,J [C47]
London NWYM London (3), 1984

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 d6 7.Nxd4 0-0 8.0-0 Ne5 9.Bb3 Nxd5 10.Bxd5 c6 11.Bb3 c5 12.Ne2 c4 13.Ba4 a6 14.c3 b5 15.Bc2 Bb7 16.f4 Nd7 17.Be3 Re8 18.Ng3 Bh4 19.Nf5 Bxe4 20.Bxe4 Rxe4 21.Qg4 Bf6 22.Rad1 Re6 23.Rxd6 Rxd6 24.Nxd6 Qc7 25.Rd1 Nf8 26.Ne4 Qe7 27.Qf5 Rd8 28.Rxd8 Qxd8 29.Nxf6+ Qxf6 30.Qc8 Qe6 31.Qc5 Nd7 32.Qa7 f6 33.h3 h5 34.Qa8+ Kh7 35.Qf3 Kg6 36.Kh2 f5 37.Bd4 Kh6 38.Qg3 Qg6 39.Qh4 Nf6 40.Bxf6 gxf6 41.Qf2 Qe8 42.Qb6 Kg6 43.Qf2 Qe4 44.Kg3 a5 45.a3 a4 46.Kh4 Kh6 47.g3 Qe8 48.Qf3 Qg6 49.Qc6 Qg7 50.Qe6 Qg6 1-0

Koetsier,J (2250) - Massy (2400) [C47]
NED CC email Ch., 2000

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Nxd4 Ne5 9.Bb3 Nxd5 10.Bxd5 c6 11.Bb3 Bf6 12.c3 Re8 13.Re1 Bg4 14.f3 Bd7 15.a4 Qc7 16.Be3 Rad8 17.Qd2 b6 18.Bg5 Be7 19.Bxe7 Rxe7 20.f4 Ng4 21.Rad1 Rde8 22.Nf3 d5 23.e5 b5 24.h3 Qb6+ 25.Qd4 bxa4 26.Qxb6 axb6 27.Bxa4 Nh6 28.g4 f6 29.c4 Ra8 30.Bb3 dxc4 31.Bxc4+ Kf8 32.Rd6 b5 33.Bb3 fxe5 34.fxe5 Be8 35.Ng5 1-0

Monson,B - Adamczyk,W [C47]
Belgrade Gambit Corr. Thematic, 1998

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Nxd4 Ne5 9.Bb3 Nxe4?! [This ultimately loses a piece for two pawns, but it is not easy for white to break through and requires good endgame skills.] 10.Re1 Nc5 11.Nxe7+ Qxe7 12.f4 Nxb3 13.Nxb3 f6 14.fxe5 fxe5 15.Be3 Be6 16.Qd2 Rf7 17.Rf1 a6 18.Rxf7 Bxf7 19.Re1 Rf8 20.Nc1 Qh4
21.b3 Be6 22.c4 b6 23.Nd3 a5 24.Nb2 Rf5 25.Na4 Qe7 26.Nc3 Qd7 27.Rd1 Rf7 28.Ne4 Bf5 29.Ng5 Rf6 30.Qd5+ Kh8 31.c5 bxc5 32.Bxc5 Qe8 33.Be3 a4 34.bxa4 Qxa4 35.Qb3 Qxb3 36.axb3 h6 37.Nf3 Bg4 38.Rf1 Kh7 39.b4 Kg6 40.b5 Bc8 41.Rc1 Bd7 42.Rb1 Kf5 43.Bd2 Rf7 44.b6 cxb6 45.Rxb6 d5 46.Bb4 e4 47.Nd4+ Kf4 48.Bc5 Rf6 49.Rb7 Rf7 50.g3+ Kg5 51.Nc6 Be6 52.Be7+ 1-0


Simmelink,J (2450) - Vujanovic,A (2243) [C47]
CM.2001.0.00147 IECG, 01.07.2001

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Nxd4 Ne5 9.Bb3 Nxd5 10.Bxd5 Bf6 11.c3 Re8 12.f4 Nd7 13.Re1 Nb6 14.Bb3 Bd7 15.Bc2 a6 16.a4 a5 17.Qd3 Bxd4+ 18.cxd4 d5 19.e5 Qh4 20.Rf1 Bg4 21.f5 Nd7 22.Rf4 Qe1+ 23.Qf1 Qe2 24.Bb3 c5 25.Bxd5 Rad8 26.Bc4 Qxf1+ 27.Kxf1 cxd4 28.e6 fxe6 29.Bxe6+ Rxe6 30.fxe6 Bxe6 31.Rxd4 Rf8+ 32.Rf4 Nc5 33.Rxf8+ Kxf8 34.Be3 Nb3 35.Ra3 Ke7 36.Ke2 Kd6 37.Kd3 h6 38.Kc3 Nc5 39.Bxc5+ Kxc5 40.Ra1 Bd5 41.g3 Bc6 42.b3 Bd5 43.Re1 b6 44.Re7 g6 45.Rg7 Be4 46.g4 1-0

Monson,B - Adamczyk,W [C47]
Belgrade Gambit Corr. Thematic, 1998

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Nxd4 Ne5 9.Bb3 Nxd5 10.Bxd5 c6 11.Bb3 Bf6 12.c3 Re8 13.Re1 Qc7 14.h3 a5 15.a4 b6 16.f4 Ng6 17.Qh5 Bxd4+ [17...Bb7 18.Bd2 Rad8 19.Bc2 h6 20.g4 Bh4 21.Nf5 Bxe1 22.Rxe1 d5 23.e5 Nxe5 24.fxe5 Re6 (24...Rxe5 25.Rxe5+-) 25.g5 Rxe5 26.Rxe5 Qxe5 27.gxh6 g6 28.h7+ Kh8 29.Qh4±]
18.cxd4 d5 19.e5

[19.f5 Qg3 20.Re3 Qxg2+ 21.Kxg2 Nf4+ 22.Kh2 Nxh5 23.exd5 Bxf5 (23...Bd7 24.dxc6 Bxc6 25.Re5 Rad8 26.Be3 Rxe5 27.dxe5 Rd3 28.Rd1±) 24.dxc6±]

19...Qe7 [19...Ne7 20.g4 c5 21.Be3 Ba6 22.Rac1 c4 23.Bc2±] 20.Be3! Qb4

[20...Qh4 21.Qxh4 Nxh4 22.Rac1 Bd7 23.Bf2 Nf5 24.g4 Ne7 25.f5±; 20...c5 21.Bxd5 cxd4 22.Bxa8 dxe3 23.Be4 Qc5 24.Bxg6 hxg6 25.Qe2±]

21.Bc2 Qxb2 22.Rec1!

[22.Rac1 b5 23.f5 Nf8 24.f6 (24.e6 Ra7 25.Re2 Qb4 26.Bf2 Ree7 27.f6 Rxe6 28.fxg7 Kxg7) 24...g6 25.Qh6 Ne6 26.Rf1 Qa3]

22...Rb8 23.f5 Nf8 [23...Nxe5!? 24.Rab1 Qa3 25.Rb3±] 24.f6 g6 [24...gxf6 25.exf6+- Rxe3 26.Qg5+ Ng6 27.Qh6+-] 25.Qh6 Ne6 26.Bxg6! fxg6

[26...hxg6 27.Rxc6!! Qxa1+ (27...Rb7 28.Rxe6 fxe6 29.Qxg6+ Kh8 30.Qxe8++-) 28.Kh2 Rb7 (28...Re7 29.Rxe6 fxe6 30.Qxg6+ Kh8 31.fxe7+-) 29.Rxe6 fxe6 30.Qxg6+ Kh8 31.Qxe8+ Kh7 32.f7+-]

27.f7+! Kxf7 28.Qxh7+ Ng7 29.Rxc6!! Qxa1+ [29...Bf5 30.Rf6++-; 29...Re6 30.Rf1++-] 30.Kh2 Be6

[30...Rxe5 31.Qxg6+ Kg8 (31...Kf8 32.Rf6+ Kg8 33.Qf7+ Kh7 34.Rh6#) 32.Rc7+-; 30...Re6 31.Bh6 Rxc6 32.Qxg7+ Ke8 33.Qf8+ Kd7 34.Qf7+ Kd8 35.Bg5+ Rf6 36.Bxf6#]

31.Bh6 Qxd4

[31...Rh8 32.Rc7+; 31...Rg8 32.Bxg7 Rxg7 33.Rc7+ Ke8 34.Rxg7+-]

32.Qxg7# 1-0


===> After 8...Nxd5 9.exd5

Monson - Montgomery (2160) [C47]
Goldenwest Open, 1991
[Monson]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 d6 7.Nxd4 0-0 8.0-0 Nxd5 9.exd5 [In later years I would play the stronger 9.Bxd5!, but even here there are positional advantages to the pawn on d5.] 9...Nxd4 10.Qxd4 Bf6 11.Qd3 Re8 12.c3 Bg4 13.Be3 Qd7 14.Bb5 c6 15.Ba4 Qc7 16.Rae1 b5 17.Bc2 g6 18.dxc6 Bf5 19.Qd2 Bxc2 20.Qxc2 Qxc6 21.Qd2 Re6 22.Rd1 Rae8 23.Qd5 Qxd5 24.Rxd5 a6 25.Rfd1 Be5 26.a4? [Premature.  With 26.g3!± white maintains a clear advantage] 26...bxa4 27.Ra5 Bf4 28.Rxa4 Bxe3 29.fxe3 Rxe3 30.Rxa6 Re2 31.Raxd6 Rxb2 32.R6d2 Rb3? [32...Rxd2 33.Rxd2 Rc8 34.Rc2 f5=] 33.Rc2 Rc8 34.c4 Rb6 35.c5 Rbc6 36.Rd5 Kf8 37.Kf2 Ke7 38.Ke3 Ke6 39.Kd4 R8c7 40.Re2+ Kf6 41.Rd6+ Rxd6+ 42.cxd6 Rc1 43.Kd5 Rd1+ 44.Kc6 Rc1+ 45.Kd7 Rd1 46.Kc7 Rc1+ 47.Kd8 Rd1 48.d7 h5 49.Ke8 1-0

This should suffice for now to demonstrate some of the common themes and dangers.  This has always been my favorite line against 5...Be7, primarily because black very often will capture the e4-pawn on his next move (apparently having the bishop on e7 inspires a larger sense of safety than does capturing the pawn on move 5). 

In my next post I will discuss the equally interesting 6.Bf4 variation.

Regards,

Bruce Monson
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo