One final off-subject note - where did I say I was unambitious? I believed I just made a remark about my not caring too much about ratings... I know there are some players who I outgrade by maybe 100 points who are probably stronger than me... I also know there are some players who outgrade me by the same margin who I would back myself to beat 9 times out of 10... I am extremely ambitious, and I aim to improve for some time to come... I don't believe that openings are the only way to do this though, and chess is primarily about having fun anyway - if someone can bust my belgrade or KG in 10 moves OTB, then I will change the opening, like I did when Hodgson destroyed my Albin - I can see no way of patching up that opening and therefore it has been dropped from my repertoire and now I need a new way of combatting 1.d4  . However, f they can just get an equal game which I feel comfortable with, then I'll play it against Jack the Patzer or Kasparov as required. 

It's good to see you posting analysis on lines - that's what everyone wants, be it good or bad for the gambit. What myself and MNb don't want is you posting saying "Don't play this, it's rubbish. Ask Kasparov, he'd agree", and then not supporting this. I personally don't care much for pasting games either unless they're annotated or have been asked for specifically, and I also understand you wanting to keep some of your "secrets"... but posts on here should still be constructive rather than dismissive. I quite enjoy reading what you write, but it is irritating when you are completely dismissive without variations sometimes. 

Right, about time for some analysis from me I suppose... In the line 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 c5 10.Nxf6+ Bxf6 11.Ne2! c4 12.Ba4 Qa5 13 c3 d5! (this move deserves the !) 14.exd5 Rd8, I think that white may need to try something else other than 15.Nf4. I tried to make 15.b4 work, but after 15...Qxd5 16.Qxd5 Qxd5 17.Nf4 Rd8 18.Nh5, 18...Bh4 seems to give black the advantage. So, in the line 15.Nf4 Bg4 16.f3 Be6, instead of 17.Nxe6?!, maybe 17.Be3 Bxd5 18.Bc2 Bc6 19.Qe2 with what should be a playable middlegame for white - maybe black has a slight edge, but it's nothing to fear.

However, all this is a moot point if white plays 6.Bf4, which is probably the strongest move - 6.Bc4 is a nice tactical variation, but it does seem that with the 9...c5 idea, however anti-positional, black can achieve the better game. 

Regards, 
Craig 

I would have thought that my posts were constructive, however if my rhetorical style offends some, I'm truly sorry.  

Sometimes words convey more than dry moves alone can, this is why amateurs are always longing for more explanatory prose in the theoretical Opening books. If my posts are so irritating, there is no harm in your ignoring them, I wouldn't take it personally, honest.

When I feel it neccessary, I do give moves as I have done in this thread already, but quite frankly cutting and pasting games from databases that are readily available to everyone does not make much sense to me, so I try to refrain from doing so very often.

MNb and Craig have made their ambitions or lack there of well known, if they are satisfied thats ok. I fail to understand though, why they think that my posts are specifically targetted at them, my posts are intended for everyone and in particular those looking for guidance in repertoire selection and to some extent help with their thought process. 

The Blah Blah that you are fond of ridiculing me for is an important component in coming to grips with the chess position in front of you. If you think its a waste of time, then so be it.

Now lets take a peek at Mr. Monson's submission: 

MONSON: 
Actually, this weaking of the d6 pawn (not to mention the gaping hole left on d5!) is simply a bad plan for black and correct play by white demonstrates this through simple, logical, moves.  I find it interesting that TopNotch--who proclaims himself a "guru" and champion of opening principles--would even be considering such ideas in lieu of the permanent weakness they leave in their wake. The fact that black is scrambling to "justify" this weaking already at Move 9 is an indication that all is not right in OZ.

TOPNOTCH:
Strong words indeed but wholly inaccurate, I am certainly not a dogmatic thinker, and I did indicate why I considered the seemingly anti positional c5 to be justified. But rather than repeat what I have already said, I will just like to draw to your attention Openings such as the Sveshnikov Sicilian where black donates the 'Gaping Hole' on d5 in return for some other compensating factors. A position cannot be assessed properly based on one positional factor alone, it mustbe assessed as a whole.     

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 c5 10.Nxf6+ Bxf6 11.Ne2! c4 12.Ba4 Qa5 [There can be no doubt that White's light squared bishop is misplaced on a4, and so black should logically try to exploit this feature to improve his game. True as Mr. Monson says the bishop can be re-routed to c2 after c3 but this cost time. Time which black should use productively]  

13. c3 [Now instead of the obvious 13...Nd3 as played in Mr. Monson's illustrative game, I think black can advance the 'Problem Child' immediately with good play]

13...d5! [This works primarily as a consequence of White'e misplaced bishop on a4. A possible continuation could now be] 14.exd5 Rd8 15.Nf4 Bg4! 16.f3 Be6 17.Nxe6 fxe6 18.Bc2 Qb6+ 19.Kh1 Rxd5 20.Qe2 Nd3 21.f4 Qd6 [When black's activity and powerful Knight on d3 compensates fully for the two bishops and weak pawn on e6].

Next game:

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 c5 10.Nf5 Bxf5 11.exf5 c4 12.Ba4 Rb8!? 

[This seems much more logical than 12...Nc6? as played in Mr. Monson's other illustrative game]

13.c3 [The alternative 13.f4 is well met by 13...b5!] Nd3 14.Nxe7 Qxe7 15.Bc2 Nxc1 16.Re1 Qc7 Rxc1 d5  [In this position, I think black is perfectly fine. White's Bishop is hampered by the pawn on f5 and the plan of g4-g5 to improve its scope is fraught with risk and tactical problems. Perhaps white should try to transfer the bishop to the h1-a8 diagnol, but this is not so easy for white to achieve. In the meantime, black may challenge on the e-file with Re8 and or set his Queenside 4 to 3 pawn majority in motion with something like b5 followed by a5].

To reiterate, I fail to see why White should be so optimistic here. For the record, I think the variations arising from  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 Nxe4 put even more pressure on White, who has to play quite precisely to even maintain equality. For further details, I refer you to my suggested improvement on the two Monson games posted elsewhere in this thread.

I wish Mr. Monson all the best with his Belgrade Gambit website, no doubt when it is finished it will  prove most enlightening and perhaps the subject of further heated debates.

Good Luck

Top  

PostScript: My identity is unimportant, do not let it distract you from your search for the truth. Suffice it to say I am an Amateur, that is, I do not make my living from chess. 8)  

 

Thanks, Dragonslayer, you perfectly describe the kind of player I am. I congratulate TopNotch with his fanmail. I respect it, if he does not want to reveal his refutation of the KG. I ask him, to respect my point of view. Moreover, he may not expect from me that I just believe him on his words. As Euwe (a higher authority than TopNotch) once wrote: every chess player has to decide for him/herself, as he/she can only rely on him/herself when sitting behind the board. So for the sake of clarity: I do not believe that gambit play is the only or even the best way to play chess and I do not advice anyone to play the openings I do. I do not want to be a guru and I do not need one.

In the line 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, TopNotch offers 9...c5 as black's best response, and even claims that the games he's seen where black has employed this line have gone well.  Hmmm, I don't think so.  In fact, my database shows a total of 10 games where 9...c5 was played, with white's results being +7 -1 =2.

TOPNOTCH: 
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. 

MONSON:
Actually, this weaking of the d6 pawn (not to mention the gaping hole left on d5!) is simply a bad plan for black and correct play by white demonstrates this through simple, logical, moves.  I find it interesting that TopNotch--who proclaims himself a "guru" and champion of opening principles--would even be considering such ideas in lieu of the permanent weakness they leave in their wake. The fact that black is scrambling to "justify" this weaking already at Move 9 is an indication that all is not right in OZ.

TOPNOTCH:
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. 

MONSON:
The one game in my database where white loses comes, again, after the weak trade Nxe7.  This is not the correct plan.  Capturing Nxf6+ IS a good plan, as is 10.Nf5.  White will forever dominate the d5 hole so he does not have to worry about initiating a swap of his d5-knight if he doesn't want to.

TOPNOTCH:
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.

MONSON:
Actually, there is nothing "awkward" about it, since white follows this up with c3, after which the bishop glides beautifully to c2 where it eyes combinations on the kingside and perhaps even redirects itself to the h1-a8 diagonal via e4; and all while black's d-pawn is hanging out in LaLaLand and the advanced c-pawn may be expoited as well.

For example, here's a simple line that two BG experts and friends of mine, IM Brian Hartman and FM Marcel Milat have played in this position:  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 c5 10.Nxf6+ Bxf6 11.Ne2! c4 12.Ba4 Qa5 (or 12...a6) 13.c3 Nd3 (yes, "at first glance" it would seem that black has accomplished much by getting his knight to d3.  Too bad it can't stay there, let alone magically correct the problem-child at d6!) 14.Bc2 (Nice square, eh?  Feels almost like a Ruy where black has done something seriously wrong...).  And now black probably has to trade for the Bc1 and hope to Zeus that he can hold the position together.

The other option is 10.Nf5!? which virtually forces black to trade off his one good bishop.  While this does give white doubled f-pawns, it also leaves white with the two bishops and CONTINUED control of d5, while black's d6-pawn remains permanently marked with a "kick me" sign on it's back.  And just an additional note here: after black trades his light-squared bishop for white's night, it then becomes VERY playable for white to play Nxe7 giving him a wonderful two-bishops vs two-knights game that will be absolutely miserable for black to defend.

Back in 1996 I won a nice increment blitz game (5+3) against IM Christer Hartman with 10.Nf5.  Granted, this was a speed game, but I achieved a winning position very early on before "time" mistakes became a factor.  Here it is:

NM B. Monson (2300) - IM C. Hartman (2500) [C47]
Internet, 1996

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 c5 10.Nf5 Bxf5 11.exf5 c4 12.Ba4 Nc6 13.c3 a6 14.Re1 b5 15.Bc2 Qd7? 16.Rxe7!? [ This is actually quite good, and I played it almost instantly since it was something I had already been eyeing.  But had I stopped for a moment I like to think I would have noticed 16.Nb6 which wins without a fight] 16...Nxe7 17.Nxf6+ gxf6 18.Bh6 Kh8 19.Bxf8 Rxf8 20.Qd4 Ng8 21.Rd1 Rd8 22.g4 h6 23.h4 Kh7 24.Re1!? [24.Qb6!±] 24...Re8 25.Re6!! [25.Rxe8 Qxe8 26.Qxd6 Qe2 27.Qd1 Qe5 is good but still very difficult for White.] 25...Kg7 26.Qxd6 [26.Rxd6? Re1+ 27.Kh2 Qb7] 26...Qxd6 27.Rxd6 Re2 28.Bd1 Rxb2 29.Rxa6 Rb1 30.Rd6 Ra1! 31.Kg2 [It wasn't too late to screw up with 31.Rd2? b4! 32.cxb4 c3 33.Rc2 Rxd1+ 34.Kg2 Rd4-+] 31...Rxa2 32.Rb6 Ra3 33.Rxb5 Rxc3 34.Rc5 Rc1 35.Bb3 c3 36.Rc7 Kf8 37.Rxf7+ Ke8 38.Ra7 Ne7 39.Be6 Rd1 40.Rc7 Rd3 41.g5 hxg5 42.hxg5 Nd5 43.g6! Nf4+ 44.Kg1 Nh3+ 45.Kf1 [45.Kh2 Nxf2 46.g7 Ng4+ 47.Kg2 Nh6 is still winning but more difficult.] 45...Nf4 46.Bb3! Rh3 47.Ba4+! Kd8 48.Rd7+ Kc8 49.Rh7 1-0


Whereas TopNotch's "independent analysis" has suggested to him that black is "comfortably equal" I have to raise an eyebrow in wonder as to what he thinks is so darling about black's position.

Cheers,

Bruce Monson

First of all, I think it is commendable of Bruce to discuss his valuable insights into the BG, unfortunately I cannot contribute much but I will certainly be looking out for a 2nd edition of your book.
I had a brief spell with the Belgrade gambit, but gave it up in 1992 in favour of the KG. Now I only play it occasionally through the move-order 1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e5. With Black I used to play 5...Nb4!

I don't really want to get involved in the rhetorical musings of TopNotch as I got fed up with that in the KG thread.
But here is a few suggestions for TopNotch and the rest of the scaremongers (I shall refrain from any variations and concrete examples since you obviously dislike those):

1) Is it really that hard to accept that there are two kinds of people: Those that have chosen to utilize their skill at a particular boardgame to become professional chessplayers, and those that have chosen another career (for whatever reason) and just like to play chess in their spare time?

2) Is it so unreasonable to accept that some of these "amateurs" prefer to play exciting chess every game, since they do not have to earn a living from this specialized skill and therefore can play the King's Gambit every time if they want to, even disregarding their rating.

3) Regarding the "dubiousness" of certain openings I guess the term "put up or shut up" applies here. So unless you are willing to back up your claims with concrete variations I suggest you keep your opinions and snide remarks to yourself. Forums are for people discussing new ideas and variations in openings and not for making unsubstantiated claims all the time.

4) Perhaps you should also consider taking a course in rhetoric so the rest of us will be spared of your little rhetorical tricks to derail the discussion. As a primer you might consider "A rulebook for arguments" by A. Weston.

Oh, by the way, I don't want to hide behind an alias - my full name is Michael Agermose Jensen.

<People do not want to hear the obvious if it conflicts with what has been working for them. >
Last post of killbill is a perfect example of an anti-gambiteer suffering from this disease. I did not write that rising one's ELO is a goal ONE should not have, I wrote that is a goal I do not have. I am not a self declared guru.
Killbill, read my posts in the Albin's thread and you will understand how misplaced your remark <talking about how the Albin is better than the Orthodox QQD> is.
Another statement: if every 1800 player improves his/her level with 400 points, all ELO's will remain the same. It is useless indeed, debating with people who think rising one's ELO is the only goal in chess.
Further I agree with Craig Evans, but that is nothing new.

Quote:


Okay, how about this list (from my database only, I would think Bruce could list countless more):

Tarrasch, Nimzowitsch, Alekhine, Spielmann, Euwe, Maroczy, Marshall, Bogoljubow, Bondarevsky, Tal, Hort, Estrin, Opochensky, Kuprechik, Adorjan, Bellon Lopez, Horvath, Polovodin, Gyula Sax, Kurajica, Bronstein, Westirinen, Hector, Svidler, Prie, De La Villa, Lautier, Lutz, Christiansen, Adams, Topalov, Oll, Shirov, Wohl, Arkhipov, Judit Polgar, Golubev, Tseitlin, Istratescu, Nunn himself, Gurevich... and the list goes on. 

They have ALL played the Belgrade, more than 50% of these people on several occasions. I don't care what is said, this many high-quality players do not play unsound openings. The Belgrade is no worse than any other system in the four knights, including the Glek system. In the recent book on the Four Knights, Pinski concedes that white cna not achieve an advantage, so unless TopNotch is going to say that the whole Four Knights is busted (which wouldn't surprise me), the Belgrade seems to be a pretty good option - both the Spanish Four Knights and Scotch Four Knights are extremely easy to equalise against, and offer white less scope for outplaying his opponent. The Glek system is better, but still only gives equal play. So far no-one has given any line which leads to a black advantage, and Bruce Monson has shown that white's possibilities are extremely dangerous. Top redressed the balance by showing how black can also generate winning chances, and in this way he seems to have just proven that the Belgrade is a completely viable system which generates chances for both sides. 

Anyone who wants to play this gambit should, it is quite clearly sound, and while not to everyone's taste, I can't see any opponents, prepared or not, blowing any big holes into your position...

Regards, 
Craig 

(Postscript - it would be the death of chess as a whole if everyone cared as much about their rating as Top evidently does... there has been talk for many years now of chess dying from draws, and if the adventurous, "eccentric" players die out from listening to people like Top, it will not be long before the game is truly dead)

The real fun MNb is raising your elo from 1800+ to 2200+ or more, and for most of us a reliable Opening repertoire goes a long way towards this end.

As in The Matrix, you now have an important choice to make MNb. Many Gambits represent a world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

Take the Red pill and the story ends as an 1800 or take the Blue pill and see how far you can really go.

Top