Latest Updates:
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) C47: The Belgrade Gambit (Read 104292 times)
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 2050
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 | 213 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: 10514
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
 
elmudo
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 2
Joined: 07/17/09
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #230 - 01/30/11 at 11:22:32
Post Tools
CraigEvans wrote on 01/17/11 at 20:41:11:
but my cojones are not that big these days...


Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

Sorry, but as a Spaniard I find that expression in the mouth of an English speaker extremely funny!!

Now seriously: does Monson have a new website on the Belgrade, or you're referring to his former one (long time defunct)?

Best regards,
  
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 #229 - 01/17/11 at 20:41:11
Post Tools
I came out of a one-year retirement from active chess this weekend to participate in the 4NCL... my first game, as blackk, and guess what is thrown at me? (Via a 1...Nf6 move order, I should say)

Anyway, suffice it to say I remembered very little of any of this, having barely looked at a board in so long. So, I did the sensible thing, and played 5...Nxe4 - backing myself and not being a coward after the strong words.

Anyway, 6.Bc4 Be7 7.Qe2 Nc5 8.Bg5 Ne6 9.Nxe7 Nxe7 was the continuation, after which my opponent deviated from the usual 10.Bxe6 and instead preferred a quieter continuation with 10.O-O d5!? 11.Bxe7 Qxe7 (I did sit there for some time trying to make 11...Kxe7 work, but my cojones are not that big these days...) 12.Bxd5 O-O 13.Kb1?! c5 and after a few complications we eventually reached a peaceful conclusion - I would say white does not have enough for his pawn in this position, though he clearly does have play with moves such as c3 and Ng5 in some lines. On the other hand, discussions a while back centered on the far more critical lines after 10.Bxe6, where the onus was on both sides to prove something - my gut feeling was that white had at least enough, whereas Markovich and others felt black was at least equal and possibly more so. Still, it's an interesting open game in a non-theoretical position with chances for both sides - at the sub-2200 level I don't think you can ask for much more as white.

It may not be of any interest to anyone, but since the thread was still active and I'm back on the scene, I thought it might interest someone to see how I handle the black side. I maintain that 5...Nxe4 is the only critical move (though in a 4NCL game a few years back I did record a 9 move win in the 5...Nb4 line  Grin)
  

"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
 
Sandman
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 97
Joined: 05/10/07
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #228 - 01/14/11 at 00:17:22
Post Tools
Thank you Mark for clearing that up. Due to the "teams and countries" I thought it perhaps a fake especially since I didn't think you'd play the black side of the belgrade. I'm glad I asked and glad you took the time to clear it up.

Thanks
  

“All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy.
That's how far the world is from where I am.
Just one bad day.”
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #227 - 01/13/11 at 22:04:26
Post Tools
bump
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #226 - 01/12/11 at 14:18:27
Post Tools
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
« Last Edit: 01/12/11 at 15:30:53 by Markovich »  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Sandman
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 97
Joined: 05/10/07
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #225 - 01/11/11 at 20:41:03
Post Tools
Me too, MNb.  It really struck me as rather odd so I thought I'd ask.
  

“All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy.
That's how far the world is from where I am.
Just one bad day.”
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10514
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #224 - 01/11/11 at 20:35:59
Post Tools
As Monson and Morkovich both are American I am a bit suspicious.
  

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
 
Sandman
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 97
Joined: 05/10/07
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #223 - 01/11/11 at 17:00:36
Post Tools
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
  

“All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy.
That's how far the world is from where I am.
Just one bad day.”
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ghenghisclown
God Member
*****
Offline


Pedicare Vestri Latin

Posts: 1022
Location: HollyWeird
Joined: 07/19/06
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #222 - 06/28/09 at 20:54:26
Post Tools
I'm not usually proud of ignorance. What makes this an exception though is the same factor that allows people to sometimes pass standardized tests without knowing a particular subject to be tested. I would rather maximize my performance on the other 99 games (where I am sure to suffer some loses against openings that come up with some frequency) by studying those lines, middlegames, and so forth. Now, I've been to nearly every chess hangout in town, watched or played nearly every high expert or master (Cuz it's not Berlin here, it's L.A., much less players/clubs) and I have yet to see even one Belgrade Gambit played in tournament or even Blitz. Even the Serbians I've seen don't play it!

I like 1...e5 a lot. To me, the discussion on this particular thread must be based on whatever pleasure the opening produces rather than on practical results. In anycase, I'm unlikely even to face it at all, even in 400 games. But playing e5, I'll get the Spanish, Scotch, and Italian for sure. Don't want to be so negative, but after these pages and digital ink spilt on this topic...
  

"Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it."
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 #221 - 06/28/09 at 16:30:45
Post Tools
The point is I assume you intend to play more than 100 games in your career. Therefore, if you meet the Belgrade one in every hundred, then you will likely meet it more than once. With a little bit of work, you might actually get yourself some easy draws or even wins. With your proudly-exclaimed wholesale ignorance, you most likely will lose that game when it comes around... and those types of losses do start to add up, given I assume you treat other "lesser" systems such as the Ponziani, various Scotch/Italian Gambits etc with equal ignorance. That 1 defeat in a hundred quickly becomes 5 or 6, and over a career those results make a difference.

The choice is yours, I suppose. The saddest thing is that by deliberately choosing to be ignorant of the opening, you're actually missing out on some wonderful games, and some very interesting lines, both positional and wildly tactical as you prefer. Still, your loss is your opponent's gain. Wink

Still, I'm not sure why you even felt the need to comment on the thread, if your only opinion was such a dismissive one. It seems more sensible to just post on things you're actually interested in, and leave those of us who are actually interested in the opening to discuss it.  Cool
  

"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
 
ghenghisclown
God Member
*****
Offline


Pedicare Vestri Latin

Posts: 1022
Location: HollyWeird
Joined: 07/19/06
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #220 - 06/27/09 at 15:18:10
Post Tools
How do you lose a lost one in a hundred game more often than not? Wouldn't it then be a two in a hundred? Anyway, I'm looking forward to wholesale ignorance on this gambit...
  

"Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it."
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 #219 - 06/27/09 at 10:32:47
Post Tools
ghenghisclown wrote on 06/27/09 at 08:35:13:
I'd rather lose that one in a hundred Belgrade game as Black than spend more than 10 minutes total studying it.


And with this attitude, my chessfriend, you will lose that one-in-a hundred Belgrade game more often than not. Wink

Kafka - no problem, I'll either bring it down this Monday if I can make it, or else next Monday for the 3rd round.
  

"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
 
ghenghisclown
God Member
*****
Offline


Pedicare Vestri Latin

Posts: 1022
Location: HollyWeird
Joined: 07/19/06
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #218 - 06/27/09 at 08:35:13
Post Tools
I'd rather lose that one in a hundred Belgrade game as Black than spend more than 10 minutes total studying it.
  

"Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it."
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TonyRo
God Member
*****
Offline


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1772
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #217 - 06/26/09 at 17:23:39
Post Tools
I thought that I might pick one up at that price as well! Monson seems like a good guy who knows a little too much about the Belgrade...might be worth a looksy.  Grin
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #216 - 06/26/09 at 16:37:44
Post Tools
TonyRo wrote on 06/26/09 at 14:43:28:


That's a bargain, for ten bucks.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TonyRo
God Member
*****
Offline


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1772
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #215 - 06/26/09 at 14:43:28
Post Tools
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Kafka
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 7
Joined: 06/26/09
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #214 - 06/26/09 at 14:30:33
Post Tools
Ah Mr Evans. Do you have a copy of this book? If so maybe I could borrow it for a week or two, seeing as we are members of the same club. If not I will try e-mailing him as you suggest.

Kafka = Richie.

Cheers
  
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 #213 - 06/26/09 at 13:52:54
Post Tools
Monson's e-mail address is somewhere in this thread, and he clearly still looks in from time to time. Contacting him direct is what I did.

However, it does appear on places like ebay from time to time, so if you do not wish to contact him then this might be a viable alternative.
  

"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
 
Kafka
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 7
Joined: 06/26/09
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #212 - 06/26/09 at 13:28:14
Post Tools
I'm thinking about incorporating the Belgrade Gambit into my own repertoire. However, I can't seem to find anywhere which sells Monson's book. I dont want to start playing it without some degree of theoretical knowledge. Does anyone know where I can obtain a copy of this book? If not are there any other resources out there.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2169
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #211 - 06/15/09 at 09:50:12
Post Tools
Pity that 5...Be7 is so equal and that everyone knows such as all the repertoire books give it. Otherwise would be fun to play.

Havent played through it, but well done Mr monson. Look forward to your new book.

But best not get too excited by 'reasonable player beats duffer' game when choosing your repertoire.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #210 - 06/14/09 at 23:29:45
Post Tools
That game was a beat-down, and almost inspired me, someone who doesn't even play 1. e4, to take up the Belgrade.

Grin
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 2050
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #209 - 06/14/09 at 21:53:18
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 03/29/09 at 20:00:05:
George Jempty wrote on 03/29/09 at 15:18:42:
Whatever, he accepted my challenge, so I won't be posting again until after that game finishes, and whatever the result, the analysis will be vetted with proper software, so we will get much closer to the truth than all the mental masturbation that this thread has consisted of


Yes, well, some would argue that degree of resemblance that any given chess analysis bears to masturbation is directly proportional to the reliance it places upon the judgements of a chess machine.  If you bother to read the this thread, which I will admit is a daunting task, you will see that it contains some rather good ideas.  

But there is more than a whiff of Richard Moody about you, Mr. Jempty, not only in your trust in these machines but also in your wholesale contempt for everyone else.  If you keep up the latter I will propose that you be banned.  

I expect Monson to tear your head off, by the way, just because I know he's a good chess player.


Looks like your prediction turned out to be absolutely spot on, and I can hardly wait for Mr. Jempty's promised computer vetted analysis so that we may know the truth of this encounter. Nevertheless it would not surprise if we do not hear from him in awhile. Grin

Tops  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
 
bamonson
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 31
Location: Colorado
Joined: 07/25/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #208 - 06/14/09 at 05:40:12
Post Tools
George Jempty wrote on 03/29/09 at 12:32:45:
bamonson wrote on 07/27/04 at 17:05:52:
Craig wrote:

B) 5...Nb4(!)

This move is often given a ! in theoretical manuals.

<snip>

MONSON:
As I mentioned to Craig privately, it would be a sad state of offairs if "Junior" were to be adorned with credit for this intriguing knight sacrifice variation, since I came up with this myself back in 1997.  I first played it in correspondence tournaments in 1998 and also wrote some articles on it that were published by Stefan Buecker's _Kaissiber magazine_ in 1998.  I also discovered the 12.Qc4+TN in 1998 but didn't get the chance to use it in practice until 1999, against a 2430 rated player:

Monson, B - Sakai (2430) [C47]
Belgrade Gambit Corr. Thematic, 1999

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nb4 6.Nxd4 Nxe4 (note that 6...Nbxd5 7.exd5 Nxd5 8.Nf5 leads to a different sacrificial attack on the other wing after 8...Ne7 9.Bg5 f6 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Qh5+, etc.) 7.Nb5 Nxd5 8.Qxd5 Qe7 9.Nxc7+ Kd8 10.Bf4! d6 11.O-O-O Kxc7 12.Qc4+!N (other moves are possible, such as 12.Bc4, 12.f3 and even 12.Rd4).  12...Kb8 13.h4! (rather than Craig's--or "Junior's" suggestion of 13.Qd4) 13...Qe6 14.Qd4 f5 15.f3 Nf6 16.Bc4 (16.Bb5!?) 16...Qe7 (16...Qd7 17.Bb5!) 17.Rhe1 Qc7 18.Re3 Bd7 19.Rc3 Bc6 20.g4 fxg4 21.fxg4 h6 22.b4 a6 23.Re1 Qd8 24.Bf7! Kc7 25.a4 g5 26.hxg5 hxg5 27.Bxg5 Bg7 28.Re6 Rh1+ 29.Kb2 Rf1 30.Be8!! Rf3 31.Rxf3 Bxf3 32.Bxf6 Bxf6 33.Rxf6 Bxg4 (amazingly, material is equal, but black cannot save the position) 34.Bg6 Bc8 35.a5 1-0



GEORGE JEMPTY:
Has anybody in this thread heard of chess computers?  In particular when I plug this piece sacrifice line into my software, it gets evaluated as 1.25-1.75 in Black's advantage.  This then translates to White "having insufficient compensation" for the piece.

In particular I feel that Mr Monson does a gross disservice giving the variation "(16...Qd7 17.Bb5!)".  Black of course does not play 17...Qxb5?? but rather 17...Qc7.  A master handing out an exclamation mark in this position amounts to intellectual dishonesty and has the effect of leading would-be amateur Belgrade-gambiteer sheep to the slaughter.

Earlier the suggested "(16. Bb5!?)" has 16...Nh5 to contend with, and even earlier Black can give back the gambit piece with 14...Qxa2

I'm rated 2000+ on the queenalice correspondence chess site, and I hereby challenge Mr Monson to a game on that site where I will play 4...exd4 instead of my usual 4...Bb4 so he can play his beloved Belgrade Gambit.  And that's what this comes down to, a love affair, and we all know what they say: "love is blind".

This is my first post so I can't include URLs, but if you google for jemptymethod+queenalice you will find a link to my page there with ?id=11707 as the query string on the end of the URL (second google result when I perform the search).  There you will have a link to my games, and you can see from my last loss, to Mestre_Quin in 15 moves, that I obviously do NOT use a chess engine while I'm in the middle of a game.


MONSON:
First off, love may be blind, my friend, but so are computers.  Just plugging a given position into a computer program and exclaiming that because the computer evaluates the position as "1.25-1.75 in Black's advantage.  This then translates to White 'having insufficient compensation' for the piece." is a recipe for disaster!  

If there is one thing I've learned about computers over the years, it is that when dealing with deep positional sacrifices that have no clear-cut punchline within their horizon, they are highly susceptible to serious, often fatal, mistakes.  

Second, I wonder if it has ever occurred to Mr. Jempty that there might be other reasons why white's bishop might advantageously be placed on b5 (other than the obvious mate should black take the bishop), and that by achieving that location with a free tempo (i.e., with black placing his queen on d7 instead of e7) might be of some value to white's attack?

Finally, about three months ago I received a private email from George Jempty challenging me to an email correspondence game in the Belgrade Gambit!  

Having not been on this forum in a while I did not realize that he had written this vitriolic message here!  "Gross Disservice"? "Intellectual dishonesty"?  Wow!  But now that I've read it it makes sense that his email challenge to me read as "Death to the Belgrade Gambit!"

Well, of course I accepted his challenge.  For those who are interested here is the game with light notes.  It's not an especially great game, but does demonstrate just how quickly black's position can fall apart.

B. Monson-G. Jempty
Queen Alice Internet Chess Club
Belgrade Gambit corr. challenge game
Mar-June, 2009
3d/move +14 days

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nd5 Nb4 6. Nxd4 Nxe4 7. Nb5 Nxd5 8. Qxd5 Qe7 9. Nxc7+ Kd8 10. Bf4 d6 11. O-O-O Kxc7 12. Qc4+ Kb8 13. h4 Qe6 14. Qd4 Qxa2? [Black gives back the knight voluntarily, perhaps thinking that he will be able to relieve some of the pressure and yet come out of the opening two pawns up.  Needless to say, it turns out bad.] 15. Qxe4 Qa1+ 16. Kd2 Qxb2 17. Be2! [We're still in my home analysis.  Black had expected 17.Bc4, which is a move most computers like, but the text is stronger since black is denied his time-gaining check on b4 and the bishop will find excellent service on f3.]  17...g6 18. Rb1 Qa2 19. Bf3 [Natural and strong.  I briefly considered 19.Qe5, threatening mate and the Rh8, but didn't want to allow any needless counterplay with 19...Bf5. 19...Qa5+ 20. Kc1 Qa3+ 21. Kd1 Qa6 22. Qe8 1-0

After 22...Bg7 white has the simple but pretty 23.Rxb7+ Qxb7 24.Bxd6+ Qc7 25.Qb5+ Bb7 26.Qxb7#

To his credit, Mr. Jempty apologized for his poor showing in this game (which I also construe as somewhat of an unspoken apology for some of the above comments), and even expressed a desire to play the Belgrade from the white side.  I certainly encourage him to do so! He'll have a lot of fun and a healthy success rate to boot.

Cheers,

Bruce Monson



  
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 #207 - 06/14/09 at 02:58:48
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 04/20/09 at 12:10:34:
I know from having had private conversations with Monson, not recently, that he has built up a vast store of information about all sorts of Belgrade Gambit lines.  It would be wonderful if he would produce another edition of his book.  


Indeed I do intend to publish a 2nd edition to my book.  It has been 13 years and there have been a lot of improvements and innovations over the years.

However, I'm currently in the middle of writing two book: one a biography on the famous Hungarian-American player, Herman Steiner; and also a commemorative book on the two Piatigorsky Cup tournaments from 1963 and 1966.

And by the way, as a quick message to my friend Alejandro Melchor (going all the way back to the thematic tournaments I hosted on my old Belgrade Gambit website):  

It would be poor form, my friend, for you to distribute electronic (e-book) copies of my book.  It is my intellectual property after all, and believe it or not I continue to receive orders for copies my book.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kind Regards,

Bruce Monson


  
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 #206 - 05/22/09 at 16:07:00
Post Tools
There is no reason to be hesitant - we are here to share knowledge of ideas, and seek the truth in these lines. I am certainly never  against this in principle, as long as both participants are open to ideas.

However, I am not sure that 6.Nxd4 has ever been regarded as white's main try against 5...Nb4. Certainly, the line with 9...f6 is quite appealing, but the 9...d5 has always put me off the whole idea. However, instead of 8.Nf5, it may well be that 8.Bc4 is an improvement, although there seems to be very scant material on the move. I'll accept that on first glance it might not look particularly promising after 8...Qe7+ (untested to my knowledge, but appears to me to be critical) 9.Kf1 Nb6 10.Bb3 d6 11.Bf4, but it is surprisingly difficult for black to continue, e.g. 11...Qf6 12.Qe2+ Kd8 13.Qd2 Be7 14.c4! and white has definite compensation.

However, also as noted by TopNotch, I believe that 6.Nxf6+ Qxf6 7.Bc4 is regarded as white's main try, and that the positions resulting after e.g. 7...Bc5 8.O-O d6!? 9.e5!? dxe5 10.Ng5 are sharp and complicated enough to keep most black players away. However, I do believe that ultimately black should be able to prove some advantage here.

So, the question has to be, is black better in the position after 9...d5 10.Bxe7 Bxe7 11.Nxg7+ Kf8 12.Qh5 Qd6 13.Be2 Qb4+ (the greedy approach looks critical) 14.c3 Qxb2 15.O-O and, okay, black has the bishop pair, but to me it looks unclear and that white will have his own chances. 15...c6 looks obvious but after 16.Qd4 Rg8 17.Rae1 white is fine, so black probably needs to grab on c3 as well, but after 15...Qxc3 16.Qxd5 c6 17. Qe4 Bd6 18.Qh4 again looks like compensation to me.

I'd be interested to see how you would continue for black after 13.Be2 as you are a much stronger player than I and I have a vested interest in this line... but at the moment, I'm not seeing an advantage for either side, just a position where both sides have plus and minus points and can both play for a win.
  

"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: 2050
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #205 - 05/21/09 at 04:16:11
Post Tools
AMM wrote on 04/19/09 at 14:48:53:
Craig,

        I am also according with you, main lines of Four Knights with classical 4.Bb5 and nowadays idea 4.g3 are correct, but solid and peaceful moves ( despite of Nunn' and other English players revival in 90's ). Objectively the "Scotch" (4.d4) Belgrade gambit is the most promising White chance to get some kind of initiative. The advantage of first player is to surprise his opponent with some often innocent looking continuations which has a chance opportunist tactic, while hoping to maintain a sound position if Black should find his way through the maze of trappy lines. Besides is relatively easy to study or memorize specifical continuations. Personally I believe best for Black is avoiding with 4..Bb4 though it leads to a sharp struggle where a good knowledge of theory of both sides is required.

Summarizing Black answers, I think:

A) 5..Nxd5; 5..Bc5 and 5..Bb4+ are totally discredit lines.

B) 5..d6 is a reasonable one, but very untested.

C) 5..h6!? is very unknown and probably Black would need to test it more often. It has the advantage on avoiding White Bg5 ( or sometimes Ng5 ) usual ideas.

D)5..Nb4!? probably the only attempt on trying initiative as Black - if he wants the victory ... -. I talked personally with French BG specialist GM Erik Prié three years ago and he himself left off playing it owing to this move.

D) 5..Ne4 is a bit risky and both sides need a great amount on theory to remember after 6.Qe2 ( sometimes even Encyclopaedic Head !? ); otherwise 6.Bc4!? deserves more consideration. Personally I didn't recommend 5..Ne4 on Master level neither Amateur's one.
 
E) 5..Be7 I am according with you this peaceful move taking away White's attacking possibilities is a good response ... but only " if Black wants anything other than a draw" ( your own words ), which is absolutely adequate if White player is lower-rated; I myself have got some points in this way vs. higher opponents with any risk !?. Personally I think best White move is 6.Bc4 again, so 6.Bf4 0-0!?

When I told I'll type Monson's book, I meant I'll write ONLY the games ( with new recent games and engines analysis ), NOT whole "words" book ( not an e-book as you think ). In fact, I helped him with some Spanish games of those years, and even I talked with GM Bellón who offered me some unknown games by himself.

This "Belgrade" forum it has been one of the most well-read and some of us would appreciate if Bruce inform if he wants on publishing another 2nd. ed. of the book, .. or at least if he can write here again.

All need his help !?


I'm always hesitant about re-awakening this protracted (partly my fault)  and by now infamous thread. Nevertheless, into the breech I go once again.

Been looking at this stuff again recently and saw it mentioned in some sources that the following sacrificial approach holds promise for White against 5...Nb4: 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 gf6 11.Qh5+ Ng6 12. 0-0-0  d6 13.Nh4 Bg7 14.Re1+ Kf8 15.Bc4 c6 16.Qxg6!! very pretty, and white regains his piece and retains the initiative after 16...d5 17.Qd3.

However going back, Black should prefer  9...d5 after which White can regain his pawn with 10.Bxe7 Bxe7 11.Nxg7+ but after 11...Kf8 12.Nh5 Qd6! its Black who is slightly better due to his bishop pair and queenside pawn majority. Black's king's position maybe slightly weakened it is true, but I don't see any meaningful way for white to exploit this factor in the coming play.

In my opinion if White is to have any objective chances against 5...Nxb4, he will need to investigate the consequences of 6.Nxf6 very carefully.

Tops 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
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #204 - 04/20/09 at 12:10:34
Post Tools
I know from having had private conversations with Monson, not recently, that he has built up a vast store of information about all sorts of Belgrade Gambit lines.  It would be wonderful if he would produce another edition of his book.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
AMM
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 110
Location: Barcelona - Spain
Joined: 11/08/07
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #203 - 04/19/09 at 14:48:53
Post Tools
Craig,

        I am also according with you, main lines of Four Knights with classical 4.Bb5 and nowadays idea 4.g3 are correct, but solid and peaceful moves ( despite of Nunn' and other English players revival in 90's ). Objectively the "Scotch" (4.d4) Belgrade gambit is the most promising White chance to get some kind of initiative. The advantage of first player is to surprise his opponent with some often innocent looking continuations which has a chance opportunist tactic, while hoping to maintain a sound position if Black should find his way through the maze of trappy lines. Besides is relatively easy to study or memorize specifical continuations. Personally I believe best for Black is avoiding with 4..Bb4 though it leads to a sharp struggle where a good knowledge of theory of both sides is required.

Summarizing Black answers, I think:

A) 5..Nxd5; 5..Bc5 and 5..Bb4+ are totally discredit lines.

B) 5..d6 is a reasonable one, but very untested.

C) 5..h6!? is very unknown and probably Black would need to test it more often. It has the advantage on avoiding White Bg5 ( or sometimes Ng5 ) usual ideas.

D)5..Nb4!? probably the only attempt on trying initiative as Black - if he wants the victory ... -. I talked personally with French BG specialist GM Erik Prié three years ago and he himself left off playing it owing to this move.

D) 5..Ne4 is a bit risky and both sides need a great amount on theory to remember after 6.Qe2 ( sometimes even Encyclopaedic Head !? ); otherwise 6.Bc4!? deserves more consideration. Personally I didn't recommend 5..Ne4 on Master level neither Amateur's one.
   
E) 5..Be7 I am according with you this peaceful move taking away White's attacking possibilities is a good response ... but only " if Black wants anything other than a draw" ( your own words ), which is absolutely adequate if White player is lower-rated; I myself have got some points in this way vs. higher opponents with any risk !?. Personally I think best White move is 6.Bc4 again, so 6.Bf4 0-0!?

When I told I'll type Monson's book, I meant I'll write ONLY the games ( with new recent games and engines analysis ), NOT whole "words" book ( not an e-book as you think ). In fact, I helped him with some Spanish games of those years, and even I talked with GM Bellón who offered me some unknown games by himself.

This "Belgrade" forum it has been one of the most well-read and some of us would appreciate if Bruce inform if he wants on publishing another 2nd. ed. of the book, .. or at least if he can write here again.

All need his help !?
  
Back to top
WWW  
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 #202 - 04/18/09 at 04:08:04
Post Tools
Mr Melchor, I would be the first to ask for this resource, and if I can contribute anything to your eBook from my analysis then I would be happy to do so. I'm not a master-strength player and there are few openings that I "know", but this is one of the few I feel confident to comment on given my experience and record. Somewhere on my PC I have a fairly extensive set of notes on the opening (though, in the case of 5...Nxe4, sadly not overly positive) and would be happy to share any analysis which may be of use.

I was not aware of the Spielmann game though, as with many gambits, it seems fitting that Spielmann was one of the originators. Still, with the amount that Trakjovic and his compatriots contributed, the opening has been designated correctly. Ironically, one of the rarest lines, 5...h6, has been one of the few lines which concerns me in the opening. Other than 5...Nxe4 (or 5...Be7 6.Bc4!? Nxe4) and possibly 5...Nb4 (though I think I can navigate these waters safely), there is no critical test to the Belgrade - white is at least equal in all other lines, and whilst 5...Be7 is the most popular response, I believe 5.Nd5 to be the most pressing try in the Four Knights.

Yes, that is my claim. The Scotch Four Knights gives white nothing - I personally prefer black in the main lines. The 4.Bb5 lines were de-fanged some time ago as well. 4.g3 is a nice "system" for white to learn and play game after game, but objectively offers nothing.

The Belgrade offers black the opportunity to cold-bloodedly try and refute white's opening play. They seldom takes up this opportunity, and when he or she does, they often go wrong quickly. More likely, however, is that they choose the "easy" equality after 5...Be7 and suddenly find things not to be so easy. Look at most/all of the games on this thread after 5...Be7 - how many times does a lower-rated white player easily draw with his higher-rated opponent? How many times does a highly-rated black player grind down a weaker white player? I defy anyone to tell me that 5...Be7 is a worthwhile line if black wants anything other than a draw.. the objective merits of such a result as black notwithstanding, against this opening surely black has to be hunting for more?
I still objectively feel 5...Nxe4 leads to a draw, but white has to play a LOT more accurately to achieve this. After 5...Be7, "easy equality" though it may be, white is most likely to be able to press for a victory, with few losing chances. I'll take those odds against any player, any day.
  

"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
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1382
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #201 - 04/17/09 at 22:42:46
Post Tools
AMM wrote on 04/17/09 at 22:05:53:
[color=#ff0000]Finally, a curious History note: In all books ( including Monson's one ) the Belgrade is known was invented by Yug circles ( mainly Mihajlo Trajkovic ), but the facts are others ...


In Kaissiber 4(1997), Bruce Monson writes on both theory and history of the Belgrade Gambit. He gives the game Richter - Becker, 1938, and reports how, a few years later, Trajkovic was shown that game in a German book (Monson's source: Miroslav Radojcic). Trajkovic wasn't convinced that Richter's idea was bad, and so he started his analyses... I am a big fan of Kurt Richter, but the name "Belgrade Gambit" is established, and I feel it is legitimate to say that Trajkovic has invented the gambit.  
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
AMM
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 110
Location: Barcelona - Spain
Joined: 11/08/07
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #200 - 04/17/09 at 22:05:53
Post Tools
Craig Evans told:

A recent game deviated from the above with the also commonly-called-equal 11...Re8 (trying to avoid the weakness on d6 that ...c6 entails) 12.c3 Rb8 (intending Be6) 13.Be3 a6 14.Ba7!? (objectively the position is now dead equal I reckon... but white gets a nicely-anchored Q in the moddle of the board, a tiny spacial edge... and at U2200 level, that can be enough) Ra8 15.Bd4 c6 16.Bb3 Bxd4 17.Qxd4 Be6 18.Bc2!? d5 19.e5 Qg5 20.f4! and I won within another 10 moves - admittedly my opponent went wrong in time trouble, but even in a simple, level position, white's position quickly becomes very strong on even one inaccuracy. 18...Qc7! should be preferred, with at least equal chances, but even here white has scope to play for the win.


Paradoxically the idea 12..Rb8 intending Be6 was seen in my own game of Catalonian team ch (ESP) two weeks ago; the continuation was 13.Bb3 b6 ( suddenly Black change his ideas and it preffer attack e4 square ) 14.f3 Bb7 15.Rd1 Bb7 16.Ba4 Rd8 17.Bc2 g6 18.Bb3 etc. with an small plus ( Melchor-Miquel, 2009 both Expert class players ).

Another interesting idea I think is not in Monson's book is in the Main Line 11..Qe7 12.12.c3 c6 13.Bb3 Be6!? ( instead of 13..Re8 ) 14.Bc2 g6 15.Be3 ( perhaps 15.Bf4 is more accurate ) 15..Rad8?! ( maybe 15..Rfe8 or 15..d5 are better ) 16.Bxa7 b5 17.Qf3! c5 ( 17..Bxc3 18.Qxc3 Qxa7 19.a4!? ) 18.Bb6 ( 18.a4!? ) 18..Ra8 ( 18..Rb8? 19.Bc7 and 19.Bxd6! ) 19.a4 ( Melchor-Monzón, Barcelona, 2002 )

Finally, a curious History note: In all books ( including Monson's one ) the Belgrade is known was invented by Yug circles ( mainly Mihajlo Trajkovic ), but the facts are others ...

Game Spielmann - Tartakower, Wien match, 1921 was: 1. e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nd5 Be7 5.d4 exd4 6.Nxd4 and we can see is a trasposition from 5.Nd5 ( Belgrade ) 5..Be7 6.Nxd4 etc.

and also paradoxical was Kurt Richter - Albert Becker, Berlin, 1938 so it was played a REAL Belgrade after 5.Nd5 and Black chose 5..Nxd5 6.exd5 Bb4+ 7.Bd2 Qe7+ 8.Be2 d3 9.cxd3 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 Nb4 11.0-0 0-0 12.Bd1 Nxd5 13.Bb3 Nf6 winning Black ( !! ) in 32 moves, so maybe Richter not tried the experiment anymore!?

At present I'm typing Monson book on Chessbase format ( this will take some time ), but adding new engines analysis and recent games of last years. When I finish if somebody wants I'll send the file with this task.

Alejandro Melchor, amelchor@eresmas.net
  
Back to top
WWW  
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 #199 - 04/17/09 at 17:37:23
Post Tools
I disappear for a little while, and all heck breaks loose... No further comments from Empty yet?

The line after 5...Be7 all the way to 12...Be6 has been debated in here previously I believe, and is discussed briefly in Monson's book on the opening. He gives 13.Rd1 += with no further analysis. Following dragonmaster's analysis below, we get 13...Bxb3 14.axb3 Re8 15.Qxd6 Qxd6 16.Rxd6 Rxe4 17.Be3 h6 18.c3 Bg5?! 19.Bxg5 hxg5 and now, instead of Kiss's 20.Kf1, I'd be inclined to say that 20.Rd7 is a stronger move, although it is still equallish. I would concur with Schroeder that, whilst the position might be objectively equal after both 15.Qxd6 and 15.c3, white has ample scope to play on in a simplish position with almost no losing chances and a few chances to pressure black. If this is the best black can manage against the BG then the gambit is very much sound. I agree further with Markovich that 7...Nxe4 (or, indeed, 5...Nxe4) is the critical continuation.

Monson also mentions 13.c3, though then he only considers the erroneous 13...d5. 13...Bxb3 is indeed stronger, but after 14.axb3 Qe7 15.Bf4 Rfe8, 16.Bxd6?! is probably not strongest. Better is probably 16.Rfe1 with the idea 16...Be5 17.Be3 intending a later f4, which is a thematic manoeuver in this variation. Does white have an edge? Probably not... but again, in practice he probably has the better winning chances as black will find it difficult to get in ...d5, and sooner or later white will be able to organise his pieces efficiently. I'm not saying, with best play, he should get anywhere... but if this is all black can aim for against the Belgrade, some pseudo-grovelling, then white has nothing to fear.

I have never lost in the Belgrade gambit in a serious or semi-serious game (I did lose one quickplay 4NCL game a few years back, but even then I had a winning position and misplayed the tactics). My score after 5...Be7 remains a healthy 100% - in many games black has gone in for exactly this sort of position and, whether white has had an objective edge or not, in practice it is easier to play white.

A recent game deviated from the above with the also commonly-called-equal 11...Re8 (trying to avoid the weakness on d6 that ...c6 entails) 12.c3 Rb8 (intending Be6) 13.Be3 a6 14.Ba7!? (objectively the position is now dead equal I reckon... but white gets a nicely-anchored Q in the moddle of the board, a tiny spacial edge... and at U2200 level, that can be enough) Ra8 15.Bd4 c6 16.Bb3 Bxd4 17.Qxd4 Be6 18.Bc2!? d5 19.e5 Qg5 20.f4! and I won within another 10 moves - admittedly my opponent went wrong in time trouble, but even in a simple, level position, white's position quickly becomes very strong on even one inaccuracy. 18...Qc7! should be preferred, with at least equal chances, but even here white has scope to play for the win.

If IMs and GMs will trot this line out for black in serious competition, then I will be playing the Belgrade for a long, long time to come. Until people are willing to learn 5.Nxe4 (or maybe 5...Nb4, which I think is a serious try for black), then the BG provides a solid platform to play from.

As for Empty's comments on the 12.Qc4+ line, I am no theoretical expert so I cannot comment on this line. However, I can read, and intrigued by his computer-assisted chagrin, I plugged the line as far as 15...Nf6 into Rybka 3. It gives -0.7, which is no more an edge than white seems to get in several openings which then suddenly disappears on correct play. I do not have 100% faith in the line myself, and so not know how white is supposed to continue after 16.Bc4, but the computer seems to see plenty of compensation and, as a human using his eyes and instincts, a boxed-in Ra8, Kb8 being lined up by the Bf4 and major pieces on the d-file seem to show even there that white has come comp. Indeed, after 16.Bc4 Qd7, 17.Rhe1 might be stronger than 17.Bb5, when Rybka seems to only be suggesting the black queen dancing around d8, c7, c6 or b6...

As for the use of the "!" - we all know in any gambits that the literature is prone to excesses of these marks, and any person with knowledge of opening works such as on the BDG will know that a healthy excess of "!"s is fully permitted, especially on moves you find yourself. Empty's behaviour, as others have already stated, is not acceptable on a forum where many of the contributors have forged friendships, or at least mutual respect for each other, over the years.  As for the "mental masturbation" on the thread, as already alluded to by Markovich, any serious attempt to trawl through all the analysis posted, especially the debate between Bruce and our own TopNotch over a critical position, will both be rewarding in terms of opening and general chess understanding. And it certainly holds up to computer analysis as well, though I wonder how useful Empty's computer-assistance proclamations would be if confronted by some of these lines OTB.

Wait... I'm beginning to sound like Lev... Shocked

  

"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 #198 - 04/08/09 at 02:34:08
Post Tools
Roger Williamson wrote on 04/07/09 at 21:39:02:
'Zukertort'


Oh him.  He doesn't even have an Iron Cross, let alone a Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds.  I bring this up only because it fits with "Rudel" and harmonizes with Moody's alleged political tendencies.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Roger Williamson
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 114
Joined: 09/26/08
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #197 - 04/07/09 at 21:39:02
Post Tools
'Zukertort'
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #196 - 04/07/09 at 20:06:07
Post Tools
Roger Williamson wrote on 03/31/09 at 01:02:43:
Rudel-Moody would be the real thing.


I miss the point.  Hans-Ulrich Rudel?
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Roger Williamson
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 114
Joined: 09/26/08
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #195 - 03/31/09 at 01:02:43
Post Tools
Rudel-Moody would be the real thing.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 900
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #194 - 03/30/09 at 23:33:54
Post Tools
Zilbermints crept up into the 2000s already by the late 1990s:
http://www.wyomingchess.com/playershow/Zilbermints.html

...while I remember Richard Moody saying his rating was short of 1800, so I believe Markovich is right.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #193 - 03/30/09 at 11:56:00
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 03/29/09 at 21:03:38:
I second this. One more reason is a totally - for this thread and for the theory of the Vienna - irrelevant line of the Vienna, that I have written down in my book on Vienna many years ago. It looks like the quality of this site is in danger.

A game Zilbermintz-Jempty might be interesting though.


I tried to get Zilbermints and Moody to tackle each other, either rhetorically or at the chessboard, but it failed.  I opine that Zilbermints is a much better player than Moody-Jempty is, however.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10514
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #192 - 03/29/09 at 21:03:38
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 03/29/09 at 20:00:05:
But there is more than a whiff of Richard Moody about you, Mr. Jempty, not only in your trust in these machines but also in your wholesale contempt for everyone else.  If you keep up the latter I will propose that you be banned.


I second this. One more reason is a totally - for this thread and for the theory of the Vienna - irrelevant line of the Vienna, that I have written down in my book on Vienna many years ago. It looks like the quality of this site is in danger.

A game Zilbermintz-Jempty might be interesting though.
  

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
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #191 - 03/29/09 at 20:00:05
Post Tools
George Jempty wrote on 03/29/09 at 15:18:42:
Whatever, he accepted my challenge, so I won't be posting again until after that game finishes, and whatever the result, the analysis will be vetted with proper software, so we will get much closer to the truth than all the mental masturbation that this thread has consisted of


Yes, well, some would argue that degree of resemblance that any given chess analysis bears to masturbation is directly proportional to the reliance it places upon the judgements of a chess machine.  If you bother to read the this thread, which I will admit is a daunting task, you will see that it contains some rather good ideas.  

But there is more than a whiff of Richard Moody about you, Mr. Jempty, not only in your trust in these machines but also in your wholesale contempt for everyone else.  If you keep up the latter I will propose that you be banned.  

I expect Monson to tear your head off, by the way, just because I know he's a good chess player.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George Jempty
Full Member
***
Offline


Participant 1996 US Corres.
Champ. Qualifying Rd.

Posts: 201
Location: Carrollton, TX
Joined: 03/29/09
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #190 - 03/29/09 at 15:18:42
Post Tools
Bibs wrote on 03/29/09 at 13:31:18:
Looks like 'George Jempty' is a non-anagram of 'Richard Moody'


Whatever, he accepted my challenge, so I won't be posting again until after that game finishes, and whatever the result, the analysis will be vetted with proper software, so we will get much closer to the truth than all the mental masturbation that this thread has consisted of
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2169
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #189 - 03/29/09 at 13:31:18
Post Tools
Looks like 'George Jempty' is a non-anagram of 'Richard Moody'

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George Jempty
Full Member
***
Offline


Participant 1996 US Corres.
Champ. Qualifying Rd.

Posts: 201
Location: Carrollton, TX
Joined: 03/29/09
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #188 - 03/29/09 at 13:25:53
Post Tools
George Jempty wrote on 03/29/09 at 12:32:45:
bamonson wrote on 07/27/04 at 17:05:52:
Craig wrote:

B) 5...Nb4(!)

This move is often given a ! in theoretical manuals.

<snip>

MONSON:
As I mentioned to Craig privately, it would be a sad state of offairs if "Junior" were to be adorned with credit for this intriguing knight sacrifice variation, since I came up with this myself back in 1997.  I first played it in correspondence tournaments in 1998 and also wrote some articles on it that were published by Stefan Buecker's _Kaissiber magazine_ in 1998.  I also discovered the 12.Qc4+TN in 1998 but didn't get the chance to use it in practice until 1999, against a 2430 rated player:

Monson, B - Sakai (2430) [C47]
Belgrade Gambit Corr. Thematic, 1999

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nb4 6.Nxd4 Nxe4 (note that 6...Nbxd5 7.exd5 Nxd5 8.Nf5 leads to a different sacrificial attack on the other wing after 8...Ne7 9.Bg5 f6 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Qh5+, etc.) 7.Nb5 Nxd5 8.Qxd5 Qe7 9.Nxc7+ Kd8 10.Bf4! d6 11.O-O-O Kxc7 12.Qc4+!N (other moves are possible, such as 12.Bc4, 12.f3 and even 12.Rd4).  12...Kb8 13.h4! (rather than Craig's--or "Junior's" suggestion of 13.Qd4) 13...Qe6 14.Qd4 f5 15.f3 Nf6 16.Bc4 (16.Bb5!?) 16...Qe7 (16...Qd7 17.Bb5!) 17.Rhe1 Qc7 18.Re3 Bd7 19.Rc3 Bc6 20.g4 fxg4 21.fxg4 h6 22.b4 a6 23.Re1 Qd8 24.Bf7! Kc7 25.a4 g5 26.hxg5 hxg5 27.Bxg5 Bg7 28.Re6 Rh1+ 29.Kb2 Rf1 30.Be8!! Rf3 31.Rxf3 Bxf3 32.Bxf6 Bxf6 33.Rxf6 Bxg4 (amazingly, material is equal, but black cannot save the position) 34.Bg6 Bc8 35.a5 1-0



Has anybody in this thread heard of chess computers?  In particular when I plug this piece sacrifice line into my software, it gets evaluated as 1.25-1.75 in Black's advantage.  This then translates to White "having insufficient compensation" for the piece.

In particular I feel that Mr Monson does a gross disservice giving the variation "(16...Qd7 17.Bb5!)".  Black of course does not play 17...Qxb5?? but rather 17...Qc7.  A master handing out an exclamation mark in this position amounts to intellectual dishonesty and has the effect of leading would-be amateur Belgrade-gambiteer sheep to the slaughter.

Earlier the suggested "(16. Bb5!?)" has 16...Nh5 to contend with, and even earlier Black can give back the gambit piece with 14...Qxa2

I'm rated 2000+ on the queenalice correspondence chess site, and I hereby challenge Mr Monson to a game on that site where I will play 4...exd4 instead of my usual 4...Bb4 so he can play his beloved Belgrade Gambit.  And that's what this comes down to, a love affair, and we all know what they say: "love is blind".

This is my first post so I can't include URLs, but if you google for jemptymethod+queenalice you will find a link to my page there with ?id=11707 as the query string on the end of the URL (second google result when I perform the search).  There you will have a link to my games, and you can see from my last loss, to Mestre_Quin in 15 moves, that I obviously do NOT use a chess engine while I'm in the middle of a game.


I've challenged Mr Monson via queenalice.com, since I'm 2000+ if he beats me he'll sport a nice provisional rating.  But if he beats me, like he says about playing Kasparov, it could well just be the disparity in playing strength, and not the opening.

Regardless of the result, he needs to be prepared for in-depth computer-assisted post-mortem analysis.  In my experience someone so intellectually dishonest will probably decline, and I welcome that just as much, Mr Monson following in the footsteps of Staunton vis-a-vis Morphy.

Lest you think I'm harsh, I subject all my interesting ideas after the fact to computer analysis.  I've uncorked pretty piece sacrifices for wins in OTB games that computer have then proven were only draws, if not worse.  I certainly don't run around attaching exclamation points to my moves nevertheless.

Want the proof?  You can see analysis I posted online 11 years ago of moves I found independent of computer usage, but that computers cannot refute either.  For instance see http://web.archive.org/web/19990505014052/www.maxpages.com/cornbeltchess/vienna wherein I positively refute Black's misguided moving of his knight three times in an open game: 1. e4 e5  2. Nc3 Nf6  3. f4 d5  4. fxe5 Nxe4  5. Nf3 Bg4  6. Qe2 Ng5?  And this move is refuted by a move that so many books give a question mark: 7. Qb5+, with the eleventh move being the clincher: 7... c6  8. Qxb7 Nxf3+  9. gxf3 Bxf3 10. Rg1 Nbd7  11. d4!  (better than the immediate 11. Qxc6, keeps the threat alive, and doesn't submit to Black's counterplay with 11...Rc8, with the additional all important advantages of protecting the e5 point and prepares to develop the Q-side)

Refuting a move as early as the sixth that has been repeated ad infinitum as a viable option is a much more significant theoretical contribution than attaching exclamation marks to moves in positions that computers can prove lost, in an opening you've staked your entire reputation on.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George Jempty
Full Member
***
Offline


Participant 1996 US Corres.
Champ. Qualifying Rd.

Posts: 201
Location: Carrollton, TX
Joined: 03/29/09
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #187 - 03/29/09 at 12:32:45
Post Tools
bamonson wrote on 07/27/04 at 17:05:52:
Craig wrote:

B) 5...Nb4(!)

This move is often given a ! in theoretical manuals.

<snip>

MONSON:
As I mentioned to Craig privately, it would be a sad state of offairs if "Junior" were to be adorned with credit for this intriguing knight sacrifice variation, since I came up with this myself back in 1997.  I first played it in correspondence tournaments in 1998 and also wrote some articles on it that were published by Stefan Buecker's _Kaissiber magazine_ in 1998.  I also discovered the 12.Qc4+TN in 1998 but didn't get the chance to use it in practice until 1999, against a 2430 rated player:

Monson, B - Sakai (2430) [C47]
Belgrade Gambit Corr. Thematic, 1999

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nb4 6.Nxd4 Nxe4 (note that 6...Nbxd5 7.exd5 Nxd5 8.Nf5 leads to a different sacrificial attack on the other wing after 8...Ne7 9.Bg5 f6 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Qh5+, etc.) 7.Nb5 Nxd5 8.Qxd5 Qe7 9.Nxc7+ Kd8 10.Bf4! d6 11.O-O-O Kxc7 12.Qc4+!N (other moves are possible, such as 12.Bc4, 12.f3 and even 12.Rd4).  12...Kb8 13.h4! (rather than Craig's--or "Junior's" suggestion of 13.Qd4) 13...Qe6 14.Qd4 f5 15.f3 Nf6 16.Bc4 (16.Bb5!?) 16...Qe7 (16...Qd7 17.Bb5!) 17.Rhe1 Qc7 18.Re3 Bd7 19.Rc3 Bc6 20.g4 fxg4 21.fxg4 h6 22.b4 a6 23.Re1 Qd8 24.Bf7! Kc7 25.a4 g5 26.hxg5 hxg5 27.Bxg5 Bg7 28.Re6 Rh1+ 29.Kb2 Rf1 30.Be8!! Rf3 31.Rxf3 Bxf3 32.Bxf6 Bxf6 33.Rxf6 Bxg4 (amazingly, material is equal, but black cannot save the position) 34.Bg6 Bc8 35.a5 1-0



Has anybody in this thread heard of chess computers?  In particular when I plug this piece sacrifice line into my software, it gets evaluated as 1.25-1.75 in Black's advantage.  This then translates to White "having insufficient compensation" for the piece.

In particular I feel that Mr Monson does a gross disservice giving the variation "(16...Qd7 17.Bb5!)".  Black of course does not play 17...Qxb5?? but rather 17...Qc7.  A master handing out an exclamation mark in this position amounts to intellectual dishonesty and has the effect of leading would-be amateur Belgrade-gambiteer sheep to the slaughter.

Earlier the suggested "(16. Bb5!?)" has 16...Nh5 to contend with, and even earlier Black can give back the gambit piece with 14...Qxa2

I'm rated 2000+ on the queenalice correspondence chess site, and I hereby challenge Mr Monson to a game on that site where I will play 4...exd4 instead of my usual 4...Bb4 so he can play his beloved Belgrade Gambit.  And that's what this comes down to, a love affair, and we all know what they say: "love is blind".

This is my first post so I can't include URLs, but if you google for jemptymethod+queenalice you will find a link to my page there with ?id=11707 as the query string on the end of the URL (second google result when I perform the search).  There you will have a link to my games, and you can see from my last loss, to Mestre_Quin in 15 moves, that I obviously do NOT use a chess engine while I'm in the middle of a game.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Schroeder
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 89
Location: Hamburg
Joined: 03/28/08
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #186 - 02/08/09 at 08:09:19
Post Tools
I think that the position after
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 Be6
13.Rd1 Bxb3 14.axb3 Re8 15.c3 Qe7 16.Be3 a6 17.b4 Be5 18.g3
(Van Bommel,T- Jelic,M/IECG email 2001) - although the assessment as equal may be correct - gives White enough scope to play for a win. If this position is the worst thing that can happen to White in the BG, than there is no reason to stop playing it.

In another IECG game, 16.f3 was played instead of van Bommel's 16.Be3.

[Event "BI-2007-P-00011"]
[Site "LSS"]
[Date "2007.04.23"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Kireev, Sergey"]
[Black "Petersen, Hans"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2321"]
[BlackElo "1788"]
[PlyCount "89"]
[EventDate "2007.04.23"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nd5 Be7 6. Bc4 O-O 7. O-O d6 8.
Nxd4 Nxd4 9. Qxd4 Nxd5 10. Bxd5 Bf6 11. Qd3 c6 12. Bb3 Be6 13. Rd1 Bxb3 14.
axb3 Qe7 15. c3 Rfe8 16. f3 Be5 17. g3 Qe6 18. b4 a6 19. Be3 Rad8 20. Bb6 Rd7
21. Rd2 d5 22. f4 Bb8 23. Re1 Qg4 24. e5 Re6 25. h3 Qh5 26. Rde2 Bc7 27. Bc5
Rd8 28. g4 Qh4 29. f5 Ree8 30. Kg2 Ra8 31. e6 fxe6 32. fxe6 b6 33. Qf3 bxc5 34.
Qf7+ Kh8 35. Qxc7 Rac8 36. Qd7 cxb4 37. e7 h6 38. Rf1 Kg8 39. Rf7 Qg5 40. Rf5
Qc1 41. Qe6+ Kh7 42. g5 hxg5 43. Rf1 Qxf1+ 44. Kxf1 bxc3 45. bxc3 1-0

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
robl
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 12
Joined: 01/14/07
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #185 - 09/06/08 at 16:49:56
Post Tools
OK now a view of the Belgrade Gambit from a wood pusher. I retired from USCF chess in the 1980s with a rating of 1700 (my career however included a draw with a very young Maxim Dlugy in 1980). Currently my ICC blitz rating is 1450 (I'm over 55 and even with a 5 second increment I often lose on time). However, I win 90% of BG games. At my level I almost never get into a prolonged theoretical discussion of the major lines. The most common response  by far is 5..Nxd5 and my oponents have no clue how to followup. The added bonus is that the 4 knights itself is a relatively uncommon opening nowadays so 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Bc5 is quite common and after 4. NxP BxP+ I've done very well against stronger players as the 2 bishops usually overcome white's temporarily exposed king.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
dragonmaster
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 13
Location: Overveen, the Netherlands
Joined: 03/19/08
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #184 - 08/30/08 at 14:18:49
Post Tools
Indeed, White is in desparate need for something interesting after the sequence 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 Be6!, particularly as this is being recommended by Marin in his repertoire book. Looking at the games in the various Belgrade gambit databases I come to the following analysis

13.c3

  • 13.Rd1 Bxb3 14.axb3 Re8 15.Qxd6 (15.c3 Qe7 16.Be3 a6 17.b4 Be5 18.g3 Qe6 19.Rd2 Qg4 20.f4 Bf6 with an equal position although 1-0 Van Bommel,T- Jelic,M/IECG email 2001 after various errors) 15...Qxd6 16.Rxd6 Rxe4 17.Be3 h6 18.c3 Bg5 19.Bxg5 hxg5 20.Kf1 Re7 21.f3 Rae8 22.b4 a6 23.Rad1 f6 24.Rd7 Kf7 ½-½ Kiss,A (2370)-Rogulj,B (2420)/Austria 1994
  • 13.Bxe6 fxe6 14.Qb3 Qd7 15.f4 Bd4+ 16.Kh1 Qf7 17.Bd2 d5 18.Bb4 c5 19.Ba3 b6 20.Qf3 Bf6 21.Rad1 Rad8 22.b4 cxb4 23.Bxb4 Rfe8 24.e5 Be7 25.Bxe7 Rxe7 26.Qd3 g6 27.g4 Qe8 28.Rf3 Qc6 29.Rdf1 ½-½ Bulgarini Torres,M (2373)- Brandhorst,W (2464)/Argentina 2000
  • 13.Bf4 Is another try to mix up things. In this case, Black can easily find equality. Bxb2! 14.Rab1 Qf6 15.Bxd6 Rfe8 16.Rfd1 ( 16.Rfe1 Bd4= ) 16...Bxb3 17.axb3 Rad8 18.f4 c5 19.e5 Bd4+= 20.Qxd4 cxd4 21.exf6 Rxd6 22.Ra1 a6 23.Ra4 Red8 24.fxg7 Kxg7 25.Kf2 b5 ½-½ Fruth,M- Marcotulli,G/ICCF corr 2000
  • 13.c4? a5 14.Bc2 g6 15.Bf4 Bxb2 16.Rab1 Be5 17.Bxe5 dxe5 18.Rxb7 Qxd3 19.Bxd3 Rfd8 20.Be2 Rd2 21.Re1 Rxa2 22.Rc7 a4 23.Rxc6 a3 24.Bf1 Rb2 25.Rd6 a2 26.Rdd1 Rab8 27.Bd3 Rd8 0-1 Lopez Pereyra,A (2140)-Cabrera,A (2502)/Sauzal 2004
13...Bxb3!

  • 13...Qe7? 14.Bc2 g6 15.f4 Rad8 ( 15...d5 16.e5 Bg7 17.f5 gxf5 18.g4 f6 19.gxf5 Bc8 20.e6 b6 21.Bf4 Kh8 22.Kf2 Qc5+ 23.Qe3 Qxe3+ 24.Bxe3 Ba6 25.Rg1 Rfe8 26.Rg4 Re7 27.Rag1 Rd8 28.Ba4 Bb7 29.b4 Rf8 30.c4 dxc4 31.Rxc4 1-0 Lutzenberger,R (2275)-Noakes,G (2119)/ IECG email 1998) 16.f5 Bc8 17.Be3 b6 18.Bb3 Be5 19.Rf3 Qh4 20.Rh3 Qe7 21.Rf1 d5 22.exd5 cxd5 23.Bc2 Rd6 24.Qd2 Re8 25.fxg6 hxg6 26.Rhf3 Rf6 27.Rxf6 Bxf6 28.Bf2 Qd8 29.Ba4 Bd7 30.Bxd7 Qxd7 31.Qd3 Qc6 32.Rd1 ½-½ Ruefenacht,M (2520)-Lopepe,P (2521)/ Argentina 1998
  • 13...d5?! 14.Rd1! maintains a minute plus. (Instead of 14.exd5 Bxd5 15.Be3 Bxb3 16.Qxd8 Bxd8 17.axb3 Bb6 18.Bxb6 and a draw was agreed in van Oosterom - Planta, corr 1982 ) 14...dxe4 15.Qxe4 Qe7 16.Be3 Rfd8 ( 16...a6 17.Bxe6 Qxe6 18.Qxe6 fxe6 19.Rd7 Rf7 20.Rd6 Re8 21.Rad1 += ) 17.Rxd8+ Rxd8 18.Bc2 g6 19.Bxa7 +=


14.axb3 Qe7 [ 14...Re8 15.Be3 a6 16.f3 ½-½ Bley,M (2328)-Muri,H (2343)/ICCF Email 2002 ] 15.Bf4 Rfe8 16.Bxd6 [ 16.Rfe1 Be5 17.Be3 a5 18.f4 Bf6 19.Bd4 ½-½ Simmelink,J (2341)-Koch,C (2222)/Chessfriend.com 2004 ] 16...Qxe4 17.Qxe4 Rxe4 18.Rfe1 Rae8 19.Rxe4 Rxe4 20.Kf1 a6 21.f3 Re6 22.Re1 Rxe1+ 23.Kxe1 Bd8 24.g4 g6 25.f4 f5 26.g5 Kf7 27.Ke2 Ke6 28.Bb8 Kd5 29.Kd3 c5 30.c4+ Kc6 31.Be5 ½-½ Gula,Joop J Domagala,Rudi Johannes Poland 2001
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #183 - 06/28/08 at 02:08:39
Post Tools
Schroeder wrote on 05/16/08 at 06:27:49:
I have recently added the Belgrade gambit to my White repertoire, and have been doing well so far (+4, =0, -0).

The most interesting one of these games was a correspondence game, where my opponent defended with 5.-Be7. The game seems to back the judgement of Craig Evans and Bruce Monson, namely that Black has by no means an easy equality.


[Event "Kais Maiturnier"]
[Site "www.schacharena.de"]
[Date "2008.05.05"]
[White "Schroeder, Christoph"]
[Black "Wizzard"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2222"]
[BlackElo "2050"]
[EventType "tourn (corr)"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[EventCountry "GER"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nd5 Be7 6. Bc4 O-O 7. O-O d6 8. Nxd4 Nxd5 9. Bxd5 Nxd4 10. Qxd4 Bf6 11. Qd3 Qe7 12. c3 c6 13. Bb3 Be6 14. Bc2 g6 15. f4 Rad8 16. f5 Bc8 17. Bh6 Rfe8 18. Bb3 d5 19. exd5 cxd5 (19... Bxf5?! 20. Rxf5 gxf5 21. Qxf5 with compensation) 20. fxg6 hxg6 21. Qf3 Bg7 22. Bxg7 Kxg7 23. Rae1 Qc5+? (better 23... Be6 24. Qe3 +=) 24. Kh1 Be6 25. Rxe6! +- fxe6 26. Qf6+ Kh6 27. Rf3
1-0



Personally, I would have preferred the more ambitious 7...Nxe4, which I believe that I and others have discussed higher up in this thread.

However, in the game, I think that Black has very easy equality with 11...c6 12.Bb3 Be6.  For example, 13.Rd1 Bxb3 14.axb3 Re8 = was Kiss-Rogulj, Austria 1995.  Either White takes the d-pawn and enters an equal ending (which he did in the cited game), or he soon has to play f2-f3, after which Black puts his bishop on e5 (except that 15.f3 immediately would be met by 15...d5=+).  Black has other ways to play at move 11, for example 11...a5!?, and perhaps even 11...Qe7 is O.K., but I think that if White wants to claim an advantage, he must first of all prove something against Rogulj's line.

To me, these positions look so dry that a claim of White advantage is moderately preposterous.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Schroeder
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 89
Location: Hamburg
Joined: 03/28/08
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #182 - 06/26/08 at 20:57:37
Post Tools
Mihail Marin' book "Beating the Open Games" contains one chapter about the Belgrade Gambit. A free update on this book is now available:

http://www.qualitychessbooks.com/default.aspx
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Schroeder
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 89
Location: Hamburg
Joined: 03/28/08
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #181 - 05/16/08 at 06:27:49
Post Tools
I have recently added the Belgrade gambit to my White repertoire, and have been doing well so far (+4, =0, -0).

The most interesting one of these games was a correspondence game, where my opponent defended with 5.-Be7. The game seems to back the judgement of Craig Evans and Bruce Monson, namely that Black has by no means an easy equality.


[Event "Kais Maiturnier"]
[Site "www.schacharena.de"]
[Date "2008.05.05"]
[White "Schroeder, Christoph"]
[Black "Wizzard"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2222"]
[BlackElo "2050"]
[EventType "tourn (corr)"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[EventCountry "GER"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nd5 Be7 6. Bc4 O-O 7. O-O d6 8. Nxd4 Nxd5 9. Bxd5 Nxd4 10. Qxd4 Bf6 11. Qd3 Qe7 12. c3 c6 13. Bb3 Be6 14. Bc2 g6 15. f4 Rad8 16. f5 Bc8 17. Bh6 Rfe8 18. Bb3 d5 19. exd5 cxd5 (19... Bxf5?! 20. Rxf5 gxf5 21. Qxf5 with compensation) 20. fxg6 hxg6 21. Qf3 Bg7 22. Bxg7 Kxg7 23. Rae1 Qc5+? (better 23... Be6 24. Qe3 +=) 24. Kh1 Be6 25. Rxe6! +- fxe6 26. Qf6+ Kh6 27. Rf3
1-0

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


Chesspub gives you strength!

Posts: 1302
Joined: 11/04/07
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #180 - 04/07/08 at 14:58:45
Post Tools
The "hidden" idea of 6...b5 for me is/was that I have something playable against 6.Bc4 and I know all the other lines (apart from 6.Bc4) are simply good for Black. But to be honest I am not eager to shoot moves like b5 on the board - I feel they are mostly dubios  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 #179 - 04/07/08 at 12:27:45
Post Tools
Markovich, in your line with the immediate 15...Rab8 it's in my inquisitive nature to probably just grab that pawn on c7 and ask where black's compensation is, given the reduced material. So 16.Qxc7 Rfc8 17.Qa5 and I'd ask, given that the Nd4 is presently stronger than the Bd7, and since white has no weaknesses to speak of, does black objectively have enough? Of course the open lines give practical compensation and white will have to be careful; but this just looks like a vastly improved version for white of some dragon lines, where all black's attacking pieces have been taken off the board and the Bd7 has been hemmed in. Then again, I'm a patzer and I've been known to be wrong very occasionally...  Wink

As for 6...b5 - I actually did look at this some years back for about 5 seconds, and my conclusion was that I'd probably cry if my opponent played it against me. I hope Bruce is still around (and, if so, that he might have a comment on this line), because I genuinely don't know how white should meet this idea - there certainly seems to be nothing wrong with it, and I'm an advocate of such ...b5 thrusts normally anyway.

I think I have to agree with the line given by Markovich, namely 7.Bxb5 Nb4 8.Bd3 Bb7 9.Bxe4 Bxd5 10.Bxd5 Qe7+ 11.Be3! Nxd5 12.Qxd4 Nxe3 13.fxe3 Qb4+ 14.c3! as possibly being white's best route; the endgame doesn't offer much but, I'd suggest, if anything white is better, though it looks more equal to me. 8...Nxf2!? is also worth a punt and also leads to a drawish endgame.

7.Qe2 might also be worth a try; 7...bxc4 8.Qxe4+ Be7 9.Bg5 f6 10.Bf4 O-O 11.O-O-O! Bd6 12.Bxd6 cxd6 13.Nxd4 and, despite the pawn defecit, I'd suggest that white is the only person with chances in the endgame. In fact, I think this is what I'd probably choose OTB - white must have a small edge here.
  

"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 #178 - 04/05/08 at 02:42:45
Post Tools
Matemax wrote on 04/04/08 at 13:13:15:
.1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 ed4 5.Nd5 Ne4 6.Bc4 b5



Well that is something that combines great originality with echoes of 19th Century anti-Evans ...b5 countergambits, and I salute you.  I have no idea of the ultimate merits, but on the surface, it looks pretty good.  I have no doubt, though, that Monson will come here with four pages of variations and citations to show that he thought of this in 1972.

For what it's worth, 7.Bxb5 Nb4 8.Bd3 may be best.  White is still in business, isn't he?  But on second thought, 8...Bb7 9.Bxe4 Bxd5 10.Bxd5 Qe7+ 11.Kf1 (11.Kd2!? g6 as recommended by silicon; but 11.Be3 Nxd5 12.Qxd4 Nxe3 13.fxe3 Qb4+ may be +=) 11...Nxd4 12.Qxd4 Qc5 just may be adequate.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Matemax
God Member
*****
Offline


Chesspub gives you strength!

Posts: 1302
Joined: 11/04/07
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #177 - 04/04/08 at 13:13:15
Post Tools
I'de like to give a slightly strange idea I had after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 ed4 5.Nd5 Ne4 6.Bc4:


* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

I cant find any games (chesslive.de) - but perhaps someone knows better?

The ideas behind this weird move 6...b5:

- distract Bc4
- make a square for the Bc8
- prepare attack on whites pieces (with Nb4 threatening c6)
- taking the initiative with Black

Some variations which need critical thoughts from the community:


6...b5 

1) 7.Bxb5 Nb4 8.Qe2 Nxd5 9.Qxe4+ Qe7 10.Qxe7+ Bxe7 11.Nxd4 O-O 12.O-O Bf6

2) 7.Bd3 Nc5 8.Qe2+ (8.Bxb5 Ne6) 8....Ne7 9.Bg5 Bb7

3) 7.Bb3 Bd6 8.Nxd4 (8.O-O O-O 9.Nxd4 Be5 10.Nxb5) 8...Qh4 9.Be3 Nxd4 10.Qxd4 O-O

4) 7.Qe2 bxc4 8.Qxe4+ Be7 9.Bg5 f6 10.Bf4 O-O 11.Bxc7 Bb4+ 12.Nxb4 Qe8

Just some variations no evaluations at the moment  Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #176 - 04/03/08 at 19:08:56
Post Tools
CraigEvans wrote on 04/03/08 at 16:32:38:
11...O-O 12.Nxd4 Bd7 13.Qf3 Qe8 14.Bxe7 (otherwise a future ...Nd5 will be strong) Qxe7 15.Qxb7 e5 16.Nb3 - black might have a bit of an initiative but I can't see it being more than equal, and (clutching at straws) maybe white can get something in the endgame.


Thanks for being so forthcoming.  I didn't look much at 15...e5 though, since it looked to me like 15...Rab8 was stronger, after which I would rather be Black.

CraigEvans wrote on 04/03/08 at 16:32:38:
Or alternatively 14.Qxb7 Nd5 (or 14...f6 15.Bd2 Nd5 16.Rhe1) 15.Rhe1 f6 16.Bd2 Rb8 17.Qa6 which again doesn't look more than equal, but again in truth black probably is likely to have more fun.


To me, these lines seem to leave Black with quite good chances (I was going to say with compensation for his pawn, but I realized that he isn't down a pawn unless White dares to take a second queenside pawn).  If this is true then I'll have to disagree with TopNotch that  6...Nxe4 isn't a good move.  This also implies that besides 5...Be7, 5...Nxe4 is a good move, which has always been my belief.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
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 #175 - 04/03/08 at 16:32:38
Post Tools
Matemax wrote on 04/03/08 at 12:17:25:
Quote:
5...Nxe4
This is rarely played, and sensibly so - it is extremely difficult for black to hold the position. I don't know the critical lines that well, so I wont attempt any analysis of these lines yet.

Perhaps I missed something in the past 12 pages - but I want to mention Yearbook 64, page 131: "A fundamental test of the Belgrade Gambit" - especially the game Abarran-Parnenzini:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 ed4 5.Nd5 Ne4 6.Qe2 f5 7.Ng5 d3 8.cd3 Nd4 9.Qh5 g6 10.Qh4 c6 11.de4 cd5 12.ed5 Bg7 13.Kd1 h6 14.Nf3 Qh4 14.Nh4 Kf7 15.Be3 (15.Bd3 b5) f4 17.Bd4 Bd4 18.Bd3 Rg8 =+ according to the article

Furthermore one can read in the introduction:
7.Bg5 Ne7!? 8.Ne5 (Monson) c6!

Someone enlighten me please?


The point, Matemax, is that white plays 6.Bc4 and avoids the old main line altogether. After 6...Be7 7.Qe2 then we're back into this convo. Wink

Yep Markovich, I think 11...O-O is probably the critical try - certainly black's more popular tries, 11...c5 and 11...c6 seem to give white great play. It doesn't seem like white gets too much from 12.Rxd4 Qe8, therefore 12.Nxd4 looks the only try; whilst I'm not normally a pawngrabber in front of my own king, white may have to acquiesce to 12...Bd7 13.Qf3 Qe8 14.Bxe7 (otherwise a future ...Nd5 will be strong) Qxe7 15.Qxb7 e5 16.Nb3 - black might have a bit of an initiative but I can't see it being more than equal, and (clutching at straws) maybe white can get something in the endgame. Or alternatively 14.Qxb7 Nd5 (or 14...f6 15.Bd2 Nd5 16.Rhe1) 15.Rhe1 f6 16.Bd2 Rb8 17.Qa6 which again doesn't look more than equal, but again in truth black probably is likely to have more fun.

As for 7...d6, whilst it may not be "advantage", I wouldn't call it "comfortable equality for black", either. The line 8.Nxd4 Nxd5 9.Bxd5 Nxd4 10.Qxd4 Bf6 11.Qd3, as previously discussed, gives a position rich in possibilities and where I've scored highly as white - the difficulty in dislodging the Bd5 without weakening d6, and white's plan of f4-f5 or f4 and e5 can be very difficult to counter. Equal - maybe. Comfortable - definitely not.

The other move is 8...Ne5, which I can't profess to be an expert on - however, Topnotch and Bruce had a long discussion on this around pages 4-7 with a lot of inventive lines for both colours - if you can't locate it then I'll again dig out my old notes.
  

"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 #174 - 04/03/08 at 15:43:13
Post Tools
Craig, somehow I must have managed to edit my post to eliminate my intended reference to your linked game, which is what I was referring to.  Nice game, by the way.  But unlike TopNotch, I don't want to give up on 6...Nxe4 just yet.  For one thing, this same position can be obtained from 5...Nxe4 6.Bc4 Be7, and I had been under the impression that 6...Be7 was correct in that sequence.  So this concession would also concede that 5...Nxe4 isn't a strong move, whereas I think it is.

I meant 7.Qe2 Nc5 8.Bg5 Ne6 9.Nxe7 Nxe7 10.Bxe6 dxe6 11.0-0-0 and now how about 11...0-0, intending 12.Nxd4 Bd7, and if 13.Qf3 then 13...Qe8. 

Concerning ...d6, would you be good enough to post what you consider to be White's continuation leading to advantage?  I really was not aware that anything like that had been claimed here.  Perhaps I've forgotten.

Matemax, not 6.Qe2 but 6.Bc4 is considered critical.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Matemax
God Member
*****
Offline


Chesspub gives you strength!

Posts: 1302
Joined: 11/04/07
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #173 - 04/03/08 at 12:17:25
Post Tools
Quote:
5...Nxe4
This is rarely played, and sensibly so - it is extremely difficult for black to hold the position. I don't know the critical lines that well, so I wont attempt any analysis of these lines yet.

Perhaps I missed something in the past 12 pages - but I want to mention Yearbook 64, page 131: "A fundamental test of the Belgrade Gambit" - especially the game Abarran-Parnenzini:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 ed4 5.Nd5 Ne4 6.Qe2 f5 7.Ng5 d3 8.cd3 Nd4 9.Qh5 g6 10.Qh4 c6 11.de4 cd5 12.ed5 Bg7 13.Kd1 h6 14.Nf3 Qh4 14.Nh4 Kf7 15.Be3 (15.Bd3 b5) f4 17.Bd4 Bd4 18.Bd3 Rg8 =+ according to the article

Furthermore one can read in the introduction:
7.Bg5 Ne7!? 8.Ne5 (Monson) c6!

Someone enlighten me please?
  
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 #172 - 04/03/08 at 12:05:11
Post Tools
Ahh, it's good to see TopNotch back in the room - despite the apparent disagreements we have had I always enjoy his posts (and, contrary to public opinion, I do enjoy the opinions of strong players, even if they don't always buy into my particular feelings on chess).

Firstly, with reference to Markovich - well, I was always useless at languages, so I'll accept the correction.  Wink
With regards to the proposed line - which line are you playing 11...O-O in exactly? For reference I would meet 5...Be7 with 6.Bc4 and therefore I'm not sure where you'd get to 11...O-O from (since black would usually castle now or next move).

It's nice to see that Toppy agrees with 7.Qe2 being a strong move; it should be noted however that this not only means that 5...Be7 6.Bc4 Nxe4?! is dubious, but also casts some fresh doubts on 5...Nxe4 also - after 6.Bc4 black has nothing better than 6...Be7 (Monson does a good job of smashing up the alternatives in his book; 6...Bb4+ is probably black's only other try but it's a little hairy and I think white gets plenty of play after 7.c3).

With the 5...Be7 6.Bc4 O-O move-order, I'll have to wait until I get home to check my analysis - it's certainly probably the most challenging line after 5...Be7. As for "comfortable equality" after 5...Be7 6.Bc4 O-O 7.O-O d6, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. There's plenty of analysis on here to support both sides and, one thing which can't be argued with (whether the position is equal or not) is that there is plenty of scope for outplaying an opponent with either white or black here - as has been said many times, "equal" and "drawn" are two separate things, and I've had good success with the white side of these lines.

I am interested in how you play the position in the Bogo line after 6...Qe7, also - I'll have to look up the relevant thread on here this evening, but certainly I've never had any problems in these lines.

Most of my chess is predicated on psychology, bluff and luck, and it's serving me well so far; I think I'll stick with what I know. You can't teach an old dog new tricks, and you can't teach a patzer good chess.  Grin

Regards,
Craig
  

"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: 2050
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #171 - 04/03/08 at 03:25:04
Post Tools
CraigEvans wrote on 04/02/08 at 10:46:45:
I'd missed the last few posts on this where 4...Bb4 is discussed - I know it's not "strictly" a Belgrade but it is a feasible anti-Belgrade option. Sadly I'm not subscribed to this section (hope to change that soon), but what was Renet's assessment of the line? I've certainly scored close to 100% after 5.Nxe5 and was just under the impression that black gets a worse game in pretty much every line?

With regards to the Belgrade proper, I've certainly scored highly with the Trakjovic line, though sadly managed to refute Bruce's suggestion in his (otherwise fantastic) work on the opening - the exchange sacrifice in the line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 Nxe4 7.O-O O-O 8.Re1 Nf6 9.Rxe7?! Nxe7 10.Nxf6+ gxf6 just doesn't quite hold up to close scrutiny. However, I think 7.Qe2! (the aforementioned Gutman Variation) causes black some huge problems, and again I've scored 100% with this line; http://team4545league.org/pgnplayer/pgnplayer.php?ID=5910&Board=2 is a game I played on ICC's team4545 league where I basically won a game from preparation alone - having reached the position after 15...e5 in a previous game I'd analysed afterwards and found the crushing 16.Nxe5! move (which I missed first time around), and therefore didn't really have to think until the endgame.

Now, if 5...Be7 is such a good equaliser, black either needs a serious improvement in the above game after 7.Qe2, or needs to accept that actually ...Nxe4 is too dangerous and therefore play into the quieter waters of perhaps 6...d6 (which was discussed previously, at great length, with some fantastic variations from both TopNotch and Bruce; as far as I'm aware black was struggling to find equality in those lines too).

My gut feeling, along with my practical experience, is that 5...Nb4 is the only really critical move, after which black gets at least equality. 6.Nxd4 Nxe4 7.Nf5?, as pointed out by Monson, is weak (I won a 4NCL game in 9 moves as black in this line - the amusing continuation was 7...c6 8.Nxg7+?? (lovely tactical idea, but...) Bxg7 9.Nxb4 Qe7 (oops!)0-1), and therefore 7.Nb5 has to be tried, in which white seems to get enough play (but black's chances certainly aren't worse).

The longer books keep on recommending 5...Be7 for black, the longer I'll be playing this as white! Viva les Belgrade!  Cheesy


Dan Heisman is always raving about the team 45/45 league on his ICC radio show.

Too tired to get into specifics right now, so just a few quick bullet points that maybe developed later.

A) 6...Nxe4 is a very rare move and it seems that after 7.Qe2 it will remain that way.

B) 6...0-0 7.0-0 Nxe4 is the way to go if Black is feeling frisky and wants to punish White.

C) 6...0-0 7.0-0 d6 is comfortable equality for Black, despite your indirect claims that Monson proved otherwise in this thread.

D) I think 5...Nb4 is ok for Black and maybe more depending on the correct evaluation of 6.Nxd4 Nxe4 7.Nb5 Nxd5 8.Qxd5 Qe7 9.Nxc7+ Kd8 10.Bf4 d6 11.0-0-0 Kxc7 which I have never really analysed seriously, since Black has comfortable options that offer chances to outplay the opponent with significantly less risk.

E) I also like and play 4...Bb4 5.Nxe5 Bxc3 6.bxc3 Qe7, which is not to avoid the Belgrade Gambit but rather to avoid some of the stale positions arising out of 4...exd4 5.Nxd4.

Good luck in your future adventures with the Belgrade Gambit, you will need it.

Toppy 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
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #170 - 04/03/08 at 01:08:42
Post Tools
CraigEvans wrote on 04/02/08 at 10:46:45:
The longer books keep on recommending 5...Be7 for black, the longer I'll be playing this as white! Viva les Belgrade!  Cheesy


In deference to our French chessfriends, that would have to be, "Vive le Gambit Belgrade!" I believe.

But anyway, how do you play after 11...0-0?  My idea would be 12.Nxd4 Bd7 13.Qf3 Qe8.  Go ahead, take my b-pawn.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #169 - 04/02/08 at 13:35:10
Post Tools
Craig,

I have no confidence in Bogoliubov's 4...Bb4.  There is some good analysis of it here if you look back a few years.

I haven't seen our chessfriend TopNotch around here in a long time, but if he reads this, maybe he'll post on the subject of your 7.Qe2.  I will myself once my inorganic analytical partner and I have had the chance to look at it.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3100
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #168 - 04/02/08 at 12:50:58
Post Tools
CraigEvans wrote on 04/02/08 at 10:46:45:
The longer books keep on recommending 5...Be7 for black, the longer I'll be playing this as white!

You'll be glad to know that Marin recommends it too, then! Wink
  
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 #167 - 04/02/08 at 10:46:45
Post Tools
I'd missed the last few posts on this where 4...Bb4 is discussed - I know it's not "strictly" a Belgrade but it is a feasible anti-Belgrade option. Sadly I'm not subscribed to this section (hope to change that soon), but what was Renet's assessment of the line? I've certainly scored close to 100% after 5.Nxe5 and was just under the impression that black gets a worse game in pretty much every line?

With regards to the Belgrade proper, I've certainly scored highly with the Trakjovic line, though sadly managed to refute Bruce's suggestion in his (otherwise fantastic) work on the opening - the exchange sacrifice in the line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 Nxe4 7.O-O O-O 8.Re1 Nf6 9.Rxe7?! Nxe7 10.Nxf6+ gxf6 just doesn't quite hold up to close scrutiny. However, I think 7.Qe2! (the aforementioned Gutman Variation) causes black some huge problems, and again I've scored 100% with this line; http://team4545league.org/pgnplayer/pgnplayer.php?ID=5910&Board=2 is a game I played on ICC's team4545 league where I basically won a game from preparation alone - having reached the position after 15...e5 in a previous game I'd analysed afterwards and found the crushing 16.Nxe5! move (which I missed first time around), and therefore didn't really have to think until the endgame.

Now, if 5...Be7 is such a good equaliser, black either needs a serious improvement in the above game after 7.Qe2, or needs to accept that actually ...Nxe4 is too dangerous and therefore play into the quieter waters of perhaps 6...d6 (which was discussed previously, at great length, with some fantastic variations from both TopNotch and Bruce; as far as I'm aware black was struggling to find equality in those lines too).

My gut feeling, along with my practical experience, is that 5...Nb4 is the only really critical move, after which black gets at least equality. 6.Nxd4 Nxe4 7.Nf5?, as pointed out by Monson, is weak (I won a 4NCL game in 9 moves as black in this line - the amusing continuation was 7...c6 8.Nxg7+?? (lovely tactical idea, but...) Bxg7 9.Nxb4 Qe7 (oops!)0-1), and therefore 7.Nb5 has to be tried, in which white seems to get enough play (but black's chances certainly aren't worse).

The longer books keep on recommending 5...Be7 for black, the longer I'll be playing this as white! Viva les Belgrade!  Cheesy
  

"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
 
AMM
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 110
Location: Barcelona - Spain
Joined: 11/08/07
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #166 - 12/30/07 at 19:28:12
Post Tools
The move 6.Nxd4 is playable but it don't cause serious problems to Black ( particularlly I would prefer 6.Bc4 ).

As is pointed in Monson's book as a general rule of thumb White should avoid taking the pawn on d4 until Black has played .. d6.

Here another previous game with the same line: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Nxd4 0-0 7.Nb5 (7.Be2!?) 7..Nxe4 8.Nbxc7 (8.Bd3) 8..Bc5 9.Qf3? (9.Be3) 9..Nxf2 10.Be3 Bxe3 11.Nxe3 Nxh1 12.Nxa8 Qh4+ 13.Kd2 Qb4+ (13..d5! with idea ..Bg4 and ..Rxa8 -+ quickly) 14.c3 Qxb2+ etc. 0-1 (35) Mahjoob,Morteza-Croad,Nicolas; World jr. ch., Yerevan,2000

As it has been noted before, the best way to respond Belgrade is 5..Nb4 and according my point of view also 5..h6!?
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 2050
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #165 - 12/27/07 at 01:39:28
Post Tools
I was rather hesitant to reactivate this hornets nest again, but since Tony covered this variation in his recent Nov 07' update, I finally decided what the hay. Here is the game from that update:

Toufighi,H (2385) - Howell,D (2527) [C47]
WYb18 Kemer TUR (8), 25.11.2007

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Nxd4 0-0 7.Nb5 Bc5 8.Nbxc7 Nxe4 9.Bd3 Nxf2 10.Bxh7+ Kxh7 11.Qh5+ Kg8 12.Bg5 Re8+ 13.Kf1 Re5 0-1

Apparently the player of the White pieces is a noted OTB Belgrade Gambit expert, perhaps that notoriety in part was responsible for his untimely undoing.  Undecided

Toppy 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
 
robl
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 12
Joined: 01/14/07
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #164 - 01/14/07 at 03:36:20
Post Tools
photophore wrote on 05/18/05 at 13:45:19:
Excuse my ingenuity , but nobody has told about what is the most obvious reply :
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 d4 exd4 5 Nd5 Nxd5
What are the White trumps in this line?


Here's an example from the current Hastings tournament (although 11d6! is better than Nxd4: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1442331
And here's a nice win at the high GM level against 4....Bb4 http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1419012
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jonathan Tait
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 490
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #163 - 07/11/06 at 16:20:30
Post Tools
John_Toscano wrote on 01/09/05 at 07:40:02:
When I lost an important game in the line 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 h5!? and afterwards couldn't find a good way to answer this move, then saw the game widely published, it was time to give it up.


sorry John Kiss
  

blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
M. Pytel
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 37
Joined: 06/24/06
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #162 - 07/09/06 at 17:23:29
Post Tools
bamonson wrote on 07/27/04 at 17:05:52:
Craig wrote:

B) 5...Nb4(!)

This move is often given a ! in theoretical manuals.

CRAIG:
White usually replies 6.Bc4, and then 6...Nbxd5 7.exd5 Bb4+ 8.Bd2 Qe7+ 9.Qe2 Bxd2+! 10.Kxd2 Qxe2+ 11.Kxe2 c5! 12.dxc6 bxc6 13.Nxd4 d5 gives black the advantage. I'd be interested to see what improvements Bruce has for white here (I do not own a copy of his book unfortunately).

MONSON:
I personally don't care for 6.Bc4, though it is playable.  And Craig is correct regarding black's 12...bxc6!, which is indeed the strongest move by black here.  However, it doesn't really lead to an advantage per se for black.  We can talk about this more, but for now I'd like to address the other moves at white's disposal.

CRAIG:
6.Nxf6+ Qxf6 7.Bb5 Bc5 8.O-O O-O 9.e5 Qb6 10.Be2 d6 is also better for black, so 5...Nb4 may be the way for black to cast doubt on the gambit's validity.

MONSON:
Actually, 6.Nxf6+ is fully playable, but 7.Bb5 is not the correct follow-up.  White should play 6.Bc4 Bc5 7.O-O d6 when there are several important lines.  These are some of the most complex lines in the BG.

CRAIG:
6.Nxd4 Nxe4 7.Nb5 Nxd5 8.Qxd5 Qe7 9.Nxc7+?! is an interesting piece sac from junior which I don't believe is sound, but seems quite dangerous after 9...Kd8 10.Bf4 d6 11.O-O-O Kxc7 12.Qc4+ Kb8 13.Qd4, even if the attack is insufficient.

MONSON:
As I mentioned to Craig privately, it would be a sad state of offairs if "Junior" were to be adorned with credit for this intriguing knight sacrifice variation, since I came up with this myself back in 1997.  I first played it in correspondence tournaments in 1998 and also wrote some articles on it that were published by Stefan Buecker's _Kaissiber magazine_ in 1998.  I also discovered the 12.Qc4+TN in 1998 but didn't get the chance to use it in practice until 1999, against a 2430 rated player:

Monson, B - Sakai (2430) [C47]
Belgrade Gambit Corr. Thematic, 1999

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nb4 6.Nxd4 Nxe4 (note that 6...Nbxd5 7.exd5 Nxd5 8.Nf5 leads to a different sacrificial attack on the other wing after 8...Ne7 9.Bg5 f6 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Qh5+, etc.) 7.Nb5 Nxd5 8.Qxd5 Qe7 9.Nxc7+ Kd8 10.Bf4! d6 11.O-O-O Kxc7 12.Qc4+!N (other moves are possible, such as 12.Bc4, 12.f3 and even 12.Rd4).  12...Kb8 13.h4! (rather than Craig's--or "Junior's" suggestion of 13.Qd4) 13...Qe6 14.Qd4 f5 15.f3 Nf6 16.Bc4 (16.Bb5!?) 16...Qe7 (16...Qd7 17.Bb5!) 17.Rhe1 Qc7 18.Re3 Bd7 19.Rc3 Bc6 20.g4 fxg4 21.fxg4 h6 22.b4 a6 23.Re1 Qd8 24.Bf7! Kc7 25.a4 g5 26.hxg5 hxg5 27.Bxg5 Bg7 28.Re6 Rh1+ 29.Kb2 Rf1 30.Be8!! Rf3 31.Rxf3 Bxf3 32.Bxf6 Bxf6 33.Rxf6 Bxg4 (amazingly, material is equal, but black cannot save the position) 34.Bg6 Bc8 35.a5 1-0



There's also another option for white on the 7th move:

Prie - Psakhis Paris 1990
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. d4 ed4 5. Nd5 Nb4 6. Nd4 Ne4 7. Nf5 c6 8. Nb4 Qa5 9. Qf3 Bb4+ 10. Kd1 Qe5 11. Ng7+ Kd8 12. Nf5 d5 13. Nh6 Qd4+ 14. Bd3 Nf2+ 15. Ke2 Re8+ 16. Be3 Nd3 17. c3 Nf4+ 18. Kf2 Nd3+ 19. Ke2 Qc4 20. Nf7+ Kc7 21. Kd2 Bc5 22. Qg3+ Kb6 23. Nd6 Be3+ 24. Qe3 Re3 25. Nc4 dc4 26. Ke3 Bg4 27. b3 Kc5 0-1
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2892
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #161 - 07/08/06 at 13:52:03
Post Tools
Poorgrade_gambit wrote on 07/06/06 at 08:17:34:
Sorry, i thought it was, coz it was in my Schiller Book, "How To Play the Belgrade Gambit", taking a note of your reply i verified it and yes, it falls under the avoided lines in Chapter 12-15. The line Mamedyarov used is the Bogoljubow variation (4. ... Bb4) avoiding the Gambit, and Pentala continued with the Krause Variation by taking the pawn in e5.

Thank You


If you're interested in the Belgrade you should also check up Bruce Monson's book on it. - Btw, has he published a 2nd revision of it?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
OstapBender
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no spoon.

Posts: 1491
Location: not in Kansas anymore
Joined: 10/16/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #160 - 07/06/06 at 15:14:02
Post Tools
Poorgrade_gambit wrote on 07/06/06 at 08:17:34:
Sorry, i thought it was, coz it was in my Schiller Book, "How To Play the Belgrade Gambit"

Of course you mean the line, not the Harikrishna-Mamedyarov game.  Be kinda scary if Schiller could crank out chess books this quickly.  Shocked
  

"If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates."  -Jay Leno
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #159 - 07/06/06 at 14:51:36
Post Tools
Poorgrade_gambit wrote on 07/06/06 at 08:17:34:
Sorry, i thought it was, coz it was in my Schiller Book, "How To Play the Belgrade Gambit", taking a note of your reply i verified it and yes, it falls under the avoided lines in Chapter 12-15. The line Mamedyarov used is the Bogoljubow variation (4. ... Bb4) avoiding the Gambit, and Pentala continued with the Krause Variation by taking the pawn in e5.

Thank You


Well of course, if you're going to play the Belgrade Gambit, you have to know how to play against 4...Bb4.  But in itself it's not a Belgrade.  It may interest you to know that Olivier Renet's 1. e4 e5 section of Chesspub recently included extensive new analysis of 4...Bb4.
  

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


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 2
Joined: 07/05/06
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #158 - 07/06/06 at 08:17:34
Post Tools
Sorry, i thought it was, coz it was in my Schiller Book, "How To Play the Belgrade Gambit", taking a note of your reply i verified it and yes, it falls under the avoided lines in Chapter 12-15. The line Mamedyarov used is the Bogoljubow variation (4. ... Bb4) avoiding the Gambit, and Pentala continued with the Krause Variation by taking the pawn in e5.

Thank You
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
alumbrado
God Member
*****
Offline


Esse quam videri bonus
malebo

Posts: 1418
Location: London
Joined: 02/17/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #157 - 07/05/06 at 12:15:15
Post Tools
Erm, I'm not commenting on the pros and cons of the Belgrade Gambit, but this is not a Belgrade Gambit, the introductory moves of which are 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5.

Say what you like about 4...Bb4, but it radically prevents 5.Nd5 ...

For all you know, Harikrishna was aiming for a Scotch Four Knights after 4...exd4 5.Nxd4.
  

If sometimes we fly too close to the sun, at least this shows we are spreading our wings.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Poorgrade_gambit
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 2
Joined: 07/05/06
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #156 - 07/05/06 at 10:22:40
Post Tools
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10514
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #155 - 05/21/05 at 08:44:23
Post Tools
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bc4 Be7 7.o-o o-o 8.Re1 Nf6 9.Nxe7+ Nxe7
A) 10.Bg5 (I do not know, if this has been debated) c5 (Ng6 11.Qxd4 is an improved version of variation B) 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.b4 d5 and I doubt if White has enough compensation for two pawns.
B) 10.Qxd4 d5 11.Bd3 Ng6
B1) 12.b4!? is worth looking at: a5 13.b5 Qd6 14.a4 Re8 15.Rxe8+ Nxe8 16.Ba3 += or Bg4 13.Ne5 Nxe5 14.Rxe5 Re8 15.Bb2 with sufficient compensation.
B2) 12.Bg5 Qd6 13.b4 a5 14.b5 c5 15.bxc6 bxc6 16.Bxg6 fxg6 17.Bf4 is about equal, but White's winning chances are almost zero.
Note that White has some other options on move 7 and 8.
Twenty years of experience with all sorts of gambits have teached me, to be careful before claiming an advantage for the gambiteer. But long lasting pressure due to the pair of bishops, as in line B1, is good enough for me.
  

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
 
John_Toscano
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 3
Location: Lome
Joined: 01/09/05
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #154 - 05/20/05 at 14:50:48
Post Tools
Its nice to get into a discussion of a concrete variation rather than follow a rather pointless discussion of the merits of 5.Be7 as an equalising move. For whatever it's worth, 5..Be7 is certainly a good move but has never put me off playing the BG. 

As for 5..Nxd5, there are some well-studied lines, all thought to be a bit better for White eg

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nxd5 6.exd5 Bb4+ 7.Bd2 Qe7+ 8.Qe2 Bxd2+ 9.Kxd2 Qxe2+ 10.Bxe2 Ne7 11.d6 gives White quite a lot of pressure in the ending, despite the pawn deficit

5..Nxd5 6.exd5 Nb4 7.Nxd4 Nxd5 8.Nf5 Ne7 9.Bg5 f6 [9...d5 10.Bxe7 Bxe7 11.Nxg7+ Kf8 12.Nh5] 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Qh5+ Ng6 12.0-0-0 is a promising sacrifice, though 9..d5 is an interesting alternative that gives Black plenty of play. I would avoid this by playing 5..Nxd5 6.exd5 Nb4 7.Bc4 Qe7+ 8.Kf1! which offers good chances for White.

I think these lines have put Black players off 5..Nxd5, especially as there are other moves that make life harder for White 








  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
photophore
Full Member
***
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 203
Location: Montesson
Joined: 09/25/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #153 - 05/20/05 at 03:59:47
Post Tools
Hi TopNotch!
You might be a little more tolerant!
About Belgrade Gambit , I know almost nothing , and my question was the reflect of my ingenuity
when I discuss about an opening that I know rather well , as Two Knights Defence , I don't refuse to give concrete lines , some of them are new
So , don't consider me as a "pique-assiette" , and just answer me : what is wrong with 5...Nxd5?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 2050
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #152 - 05/18/05 at 17:41:48
Post Tools
Awww shucks guys, you flatter me  Embarrassed

I am just a patzer with a big mouth, so no need to lose any sleep worrying about how strong or weak, young or old I am.

My ongoing debate with Monson and his beloved Belgrade Gambit is a good thing. Such heated debates in the long run only serve to sell more books.  Wink

That was a hint to photophore, this forum is not meant as a free lunch or a replacement to Informant, New in Chess or Chesspublishing.com. If you want in depth coverage buy the books and study them, when you have done that you may come back here and discuss ideas, content or ask for clarification.

Give a man a fish he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he should never go hungry.

No 'DOUBT' about that.

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
 
photophore
Full Member
***
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 203
Location: Montesson
Joined: 09/25/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #151 - 05/18/05 at 13:45:19
Post Tools
Excuse my ingenuity , but nobody has told about what is the most obvious reply :
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 d4 exd4 5 Nd5 Nxd5
What are the White trumps in this line?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #150 - 05/18/05 at 07:58:51
Post Tools
Quote:
I have looked at Markovich' idea 10...d5 11.Bd3 Ng6 12.Bg5 Qd6 and this looks indead at least equal for Black.
With so few doubts I sometimes wonder why TopNotch is not a strong GM yet  Wink


Thanks, I appreciate your taking your time with that.  I was hoping that at some point, Bruce Monson would come here either to demonstrate White's chances against my idea or to admit that the Trajkovic line is not quite up to snuff.

Lately I too have been wondering both about TopNotch' actual strength in chess, which I assume exceeds my own (2240); and his age, which I am sometimes tempted to think must be no more than 18.  That was some very nice Dragon analysis he so generously posted, in any case. 
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10514
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #149 - 05/18/05 at 05:34:14
Post Tools
I have looked at Markovich' idea 10...d5 11.Bd3 Ng6 12.Bg5 Qd6 and this looks indead at least equal for Black.
With so few doubts I sometimes wonder why TopNotch is not a strong GM yet  Wink
  

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
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 2050
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #148 - 05/17/05 at 21:11:28
Post Tools
A close look at this thread will reveal that I did supply some lines and improvements, sometimes obvious ones, on the games given. Grin

As for the Dragon, I think I sometimes supply too much analysis, but perhaps that is because I have a special interest in it.

Play the Belgrade if you must, no doubt you will soon be on the market again shopping for something else to play.

Peace and Love

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
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10514
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #147 - 05/17/05 at 15:27:02
Post Tools
For all those, who don't feel like reading the whole thread: Monson has given many, many games, including several of his own, after 5.Nd5 Be7 with both 6.Bc4 and 6.Bf4. Of course TopNotch does not bother to give concrete lines against these moves, as he is assumes that he will be right, when repeats himself as often as possible.
It is a shame, as in various threads of the Dragon he has proven, that he is very capable of producing good analysis. TopNotch wishes us piece, but sometimes he reminds me of a wolf in sheepclothes .... Grin
Thanks to the posts of Monson I am seriously considering to pick up the Belgrade. So with Zarvox I am curious if there will be a second edition of his book.
  

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
 
HgMan
God Member
*****
Offline


Demand me nothing: What
you know, you know

Posts: 2326
Location: Up on Cripple Creek
Joined: 11/09/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #146 - 05/17/05 at 13:30:03
Post Tools
The beauty of chess is that there are rarely "End of Story" scenarios--the number of messages in this thread is testament to that.

I've never played either side of the Belgrade Gambit (nor likely will), but I've been following this thread out of chessic interest, and would second Markovich's call for substance over rhetoric.  Let's get back on course, please.
  

"Luck favours the prepared mind."  --Louis Pasteur
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 2050
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #145 - 05/17/05 at 02:26:08
Post Tools
5...Be7! is very easy to play and is for everyone from 1600-2500 Grin

There is not so much theory to master here and the ideas are not difficult to assimilate. Amateur players need to be shrewd, If 90% of the World's top players choose 5...Be7! when confronted by this gambit OTB, I would be inclined to think there mustbe a good reason.

Accepting the pawn or pawns in the Belgrade Gambit may in all likely hood be the most testing course, but unless you have done your homework well and in the absence of a clear refutation, then this is best left to the realm of correspondence chess.

In fact correspondence chess is where most of these weird and whacky gambits get the most testing, if something useful turns up there we OTB guys will take note of it and if practicable apply it.

Amateurs tend to overload their brains and memory with too much superfluous information. Master 5...Be7! and that is all one needs to know to get a good game against the Belgrade Gambit.

The effectiveness of 5...Be7! is the main reason why this Gambit is rarely seen in Over the board play today. I doubt this trend will change any time soon.

End of story

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
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #144 - 05/16/05 at 10:47:09
Post Tools
I respect the opinions both of TopNotch and of Bruce Monson.  However, I wouldn't come to this forum if opinions were all I found here.  It really is supremely unenlightening to learn that one player thinks that White after 5...Be7 has reasonable play for a win, while another thinks he doesn't.

I wish that the next time someone posts to this thread, they would post some specific ideas about how to play in given positions (e.g.) see my own post, previous page of this thread, concerning the Trajkovich line.  My ideas there remain unanswered, whether from their being ridiculous or simply from everyone's uninterest in the line considered, I am not sure.

I do think that the burden of proof concerning White's supposed winning chances after 5...Be7 rests with those who claim they exist, since established theory -- for whatever it is worth -- seems to say that Black's equality here is easy.

But we should also recognize that the question of whether significant winning chances exist with the Belgrade versus excellent opposition is not necessarily very interesting to the players who play chess, like me, significantly below the excellent level.

  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 2050
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #143 - 05/16/05 at 01:12:24
Post Tools
My apologies Zarvox, I did not mean to depress you  Grin

Yes I am repeating myself, I tend to do that when I am right  Wink and I am sure that if you had to meet 6...Be7! every time you played The Belgrade Gambit you would soon move on to greener pastures.

Regarding avoiding the Petroff, you should know that these players usually tend to go: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Bb4!? So if getting the Belgrade by this route was your motivation then think again.

You did say a surprise weapon though, and in that case, its not such a bad choice, I could think of worse.

Good Luck

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
 
Zarvox
Junior Member
**
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 71
Location: California
Joined: 05/15/05
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #142 - 05/16/05 at 01:01:28
Post Tools
Sigh. I just wanted to know if there was any news about progress on the 2nd edition of Monson's book, or if the Belgrade Gambit website is up. TopNotch, you're certainly entitled to your opinion but is it really necessary to keep repeating the same opinion over and over again in this thread?

I don't have an opinion at the moment regarding the position after Be7, but to me it's not the end of the world if it's equal (as NCO says). I would like to see the score of a match in the Belgrade Gambit between 2 equally rated players, where White knows the Belgrade Gambit well and Black just thinks Be7 is all he needs to know.

Obviously it's not objectively as strong as the Ruy Lopez, but if it leads to interesting and beautiful positions, that are not clearly better for Black, then it should be a good and fun surprise weapon. And it's a huge advantage that it can be used against the Petroff as well as against Nc6.

So... any updates on the book or website? Any interesting recent games in this opening? Thanks.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 2050
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #141 - 05/16/05 at 00:59:38
Post Tools
Ouch!! Grin

I will keep an eye out for high level games with this Gambit. There are bound to be lots.

In the meantime I will give it a whirl in my blitz games along with the Blackmar Diemer and Elephant Gambit.

Top Grin

Postscript: Don't bother to quote the Svidler vs Morozovitch game to me, as a close look at this will reveal that Moro was actually better there. Just goes to show that the element of surprise is not be underestimated in a game of chess, and I suspect that Svidler will not repeat this experiment anytime soon.
  

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
 
bamonson
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 31
Location: Colorado
Joined: 07/25/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #140 - 05/15/05 at 23:46:54
Post Tools
Quote:
Sadly The Belgrade Gambit is a dead end.  Grin

While white has to know everything about this gambit to get a playable game, black only needs to know one thing.

I think I mentioned the line responsible for the unpopularity of The Belgrade in OTB play elsewhere in this thread, and it is the line chosen by most GM's when confronted by this gambit: Rather than make you wade through this thread trying to find it, I will repost it:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7!

White over the past 30 years has never been able to prove anything worthwhile against the above line. Black players looking for a reliable antidote need look no further than the above. Ten editions of Monson's book won't change that fact.

If you doubt my words and want a second opinion, start a thread seeking GM Eric Prie's thoughts on the matter, as he used to practice this gambit in the 90's.

Peace and love.

Top  Grin  



As usual, the safely anonymous "TopNotch" is running his mouth again about things he obviously knows nothing about.  But then we've come to expect that from him.  He is forever talking as though the BG is somehow refuted, which is undoubtedly what he *wants* to be so, but simply is not so.

FACT: The BG is completely sound and playable at the GM level.  While it is true that, like most *true* opening gambits, it's not going to be a primary weapon, that does not mean that it is unplayalbe, let alone refuted.

FACT: Below the GM level it is particularly strong, especially when black heads for somber 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 waters.

BTW, I'd be more than happy to talk with Eric Prie about the BG.  He may be interested in all the new developments that have occurred over the years--developments that have done rather well in strong correspondence tournaments, no less.

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


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

Posts: 2050
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #139 - 05/15/05 at 20:48:39
Post Tools
Sadly The Belgrade Gambit is a dead end.  Grin

While white has to know everything about this gambit to get a playable game, black only needs to know one thing.

I think I mentioned the line responsible for the unpopularity of The Belgrade in OTB play elsewhere in this thread, and it is the line chosen by most GM's when confronted by this gambit: Rather than make you wade through this thread trying to find it, I will repost it:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7!

White over the past 30 years has never been able to prove anything worthwhile against the above line. Black players looking for a reliable antidote need look no further than the above. Ten editions of Monson's book won't change that fact.

If you doubt my words and want a second opinion, start a thread seeking GM Eric Prie's thoughts on the matter, as he used to practice this gambit in the 90's.

Peace and love.

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
 
Zarvox
Junior Member
**
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 71
Location: California
Joined: 05/15/05
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #138 - 05/15/05 at 20:23:19
Post Tools
Any updates on the 2nd edition of the book? I'm interested in learning the Belgrade Gambit, but don't want to track down a copy of Bruce Monson's book if a new one is coming any time in the near future.

Also, is there a website to replace the Thomas Stock one?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #137 - 01/09/05 at 23:46:22
Post Tools
I believe that Black's best defense to the "Trajkovic" variation of the Belgrade Gambit, 1. e4 e5  2. Nf3 Nc6  3. Nc3 Nf6  4. d4 exd4  5. Nd5 Nxe4  6. Bc4, is 6...Be7!  7. O-O O-O 8. Re1! Nf6  9. Nxe7 Nxe7  10. Qd4 Ng6! (as I said before, I think 11...b6 =, but 11...Ng6 improves)  11. Bg5 Qd6!.  (Monson's book gives the passive 11...c6.)

Black unpins and prepares ...c5 to mobilize his pawn majority.  If 12. Bxf6 Qxf6  13. Qxf6 (13. Qxd5 Qxb7 is good for Black, I think) 13...gxf6, I don't thing Black's shattered kingside is sufficient comp for White's lost pawn.  White may be able to get a knight to f5, but in the mean time, Black can get a rook to e5.  The position somewhat compares to a Scotch 4 Knights where Black accepts the same kingside pawn structure even without being a pawn up.

Or 12. b4 a5  13. b5 c5  14. bxc6 bxc6 and Black seems to be doing quite well, whether or not White exchanges on f6.

A third try is 12. Rad1 c5  13. Qc3 b6  14. Bxf6 Qxf6  15. Qxf6 gxf6  16. Bxg6 fxg6  17. Rxd5 Bf5 =+.  If Black wants even more he can try 14...gxf6!? after which it is not so obvious how White will justify his lost pawn; various frontal assaults on d5 do not seem to work.

Unlike the 11...b6 that we discussed before, here White's pieces do not get dance around on e5 and in front of Black's castled position.


  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #136 - 01/09/05 at 22:37:25
Post Tools
Quote:
Dutch theoretician AC van der Tak has written some short articles on the Belgrade Gambit in the Dutch corr. chess magazine Schaakschakeringen. In nr.350, april 2001, he mentions 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bc4 Ne7 7.Ne5
a) 7...Nxd5 8.Bxd5 Qe7 9.Bxf7+ Kd8 10.Qd4 Qb4+ 11.Qxb4 Bxb4+ 12.c3 Bd6 and there is nothing wrong with Black's position.
b) 7...Nd6 8.Qf3 Nxd5 9.Bxd5 Qf6 10.Qe2 Be7 11.h4 h6 12.Rh3 (with an attack, according to Gutman) d3! (not mentioned by Monson in an earlier post) 13.cxd3 Nf5 14.Bxf7+ (14.Bg5? hxg5 15.hxg5 Rxh3 16.gxf6 Bb4+) Kd8 15.g4 Nxh4 16.Rxh4 Qxh4 17.Ng6 Qf6 18.Nxh8 g5 19.Be3 Qxh8 with about equal chances, Barnsley-Bormida, em 1997.
VdT clearly does not have the opinion, that 6...Ne7 <black has serious problems that persist to a white edge.>

[a] After 12...Bd6 in your first line.  There is nothing structurally wrong with Black's position, but White has a considerable lead in activity.
[b] This line with 9...Qf6  10. Qe2 Be7 really does not smell like good chess to me.  If Black has nothing better than this, then I would be reluctant to play 6...Ne7.
« Last Edit: 01/09/05 at 23:47:48 by Markovich »  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10514
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #135 - 01/09/05 at 21:36:31
Post Tools
Rudolf Spielmann would have been baffled and hardly have known what to do, as happened when he faced 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 (Nimzovitsj was Black).
The Wagenbach Defense is treated on Thomas Johansson's website:

http://hem.passagen.se/tjmisha/
Click chess
Click King's Gambit stuff
Click The Wagenbach Defence

A discussion should take place in another thread.
  

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
 
John_Toscano
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 3
Location: Lome
Joined: 01/09/05
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #134 - 01/09/05 at 16:37:16
Post Tools
I thought the line 3..h5 looked ridiculous when it was played against me but I had to take it seriously after I lost the game, especially as Jonathan Tait was playing Black and he chooses his openings very carefully. The line was invented by his club colleague Wagenbach and is now widely known as the ‘Wagenbach Gambit’. I did find a good reply in the end but  the fact that Black could get away with stuff like this put me right off the KG.

There are reams of analysis of this gambit all over the internet and if you want to know more (I don't!), I believe Jon Tait and Joop Simmelink are both authorities. 3...h5!? Unbelievable! What would Rudolf Spielmann play, I wonder?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 2050
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #133 - 01/09/05 at 13:51:31
Post Tools
I was wondering.  Grin

Why is the line:  1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 h5!? so terrifying for White? I would have thought that if anything this would encourage Kings Gambiteers.

Just a thought.

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
 
John_Toscano
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 3
Location: Lome
Joined: 01/09/05
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #132 - 01/09/05 at 07:40:02
Post Tools
I recently registered on this forum and was both pleased and astonished to see the ongoing and, at times, heated debate about the merits of the Belgrade Gambit. As something of a specialist in this gambit, I want to give my own opinion on both the gambit itself and a lot that has been written about it.

I started playing the Belgrade back in 1994. Before then, I had spent a decade trying virtually everything against 1...e5, with mixed results. The Vienna Game, the Ruy Lopez, the Ourosoff Gambit, 3.Bc4, I studied them all and tried them out, all with varying success. For two years I became pre-occupied with the Kings Gambit and even became known as a bit of an expert on this opening, but I began to see many holes in it. When I lost an important game in the line 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 h5!? and afterwards couldn't find a good way to answer this move, then saw the game widely published, it was time to give it up.

Then I started looking seriously at the Belgrade and have played it ever since. My results? I have lived in various African countries for the past ten years so I don't play much otb chess, except for meaningless blitz games on the ICC, but in e-mail chess I have played the BG 29 times (nine times with Black), often against 2200+ opposition, scoring 19 wins, 8 draws and 1 loss. My e-mail rating is 2290 in all games, with the Belgrade it works out at about 2400.   

The Belgrade introduces a rich diversity of positions, depending on how Black plays. The game can become a tactical slugfest or a complex strategical struggle and often leads to fascinating endgames. I do not believe that White can force a clear advantage in many of the main lines but there is scope to play for a win in every one of them. Ultimately, in the postions which arise, the player with the better understanding is likely to come off better and that, I believe, is how a good chess game should be settled. I lost one game in ths gambit, with White, because my opponent played better than me, not because the opening was wrong, though his choice of defence was very good. Like Bruce Monson, I relish playing the Black side and often win, again because I understand what I am doing.

I play this gambit not because it is a gambit, but because I have found, by long trial and error, that it suits my style of play and gives me better winning chances against 1..e5 than anything else I have tried. There is nothing 'dicey' or 'speculative' about it, because White has clear plans against different replies and there is no need to look for 'cheapos'. As for the fact that 4..Bb4 is a good alternative, that's rather dodging the argument, but White also has good prospects of an advantage anyway.   

I think the weatlth of analysis and debate on this site settles the argument anyway! I have enjoyed reading all the contributions and look forward to more.Meanwhile, I'll keep playing the Belgrade with the help of all this extra analysis!

John Toscano
Lome
Togo     Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ygramul
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 62
Location: Roma
Joined: 11/18/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #131 - 12/23/04 at 10:30:49
Post Tools
At a first glance 12...d3 doesn't impress me at all: Why not 13.Rxd3 instead of 13.cxd3?

After 13.Rxd3 White seems to have good attacking chances:
i.e.
13....Qxh4 14.Bxf7+ Nxf7 15.Ng6 or
13...0-0 14.g4! (defending h1 and therefore preventing Qxh4)
  
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 #130 - 12/22/04 at 21:56:49
Post Tools
Quote:
Dutch theoretician AC van der Tak has written some short articles on the Belgrade Gambit in the Dutch corr. chess magazine Schaakschakeringen. In nr.350, april 2001, he mentions 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bc4 Ne7 7.Ne5
a) 7...Nxd5 8.Bxd5 Qe7 9.Bxf7+ Kd8 10.Qd4 Qb4+ 11.Qxb4 Bxb4+ 12.c3 Bd6 and there is nothing wrong with Black's position.
b) 7...Nd6 8.Qf3 Nxd5 9.Bxd5 Qf6 10.Qe2 Be7 11.h4 h6 12.Rh3 (with an attack, according to Gutman) d3! (not mentioned by Monson in an earlier post) 13.cxd3 Nf5 14.Bxf7+ (14.Bg5? hxg5 15.hxg5 Rxh3 16.gxf6 Bb4+) Kd8 15.g4 Nxh4 16.Rxh4 Qxh4 17.Ng6 Qf6 18.Nxh8 g5 19.Be3 Qxh8 with about equal chances, Barnsley-Bormida, em 1997.
VdT clearly does not have the opinion, that 6...Ne7 <black has serious problems that persist to a white edge.>


Tony Barnsley happens to be a good friend of mine, and we discussed this game shortly after he played it.  Suffice it to say that those who would dare contend the line Bormida pursued (including 12...d3) would be in for some nasty surprises.  I'll leave it at that...

Bruce Monson

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


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10514
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #129 - 12/22/04 at 20:42:51
Post Tools
Dutch theoretician AC van der Tak has written some short articles on the Belgrade Gambit in the Dutch corr. chess magazine Schaakschakeringen. In nr.350, april 2001, he mentions 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bc4 Ne7 7.Ne5
a) 7...Nxd5 8.Bxd5 Qe7 9.Bxf7+ Kd8 10.Qd4 Qb4+ 11.Qxb4 Bxb4+ 12.c3 Bd6 and there is nothing wrong with Black's position.
b) 7...Nd6 8.Qf3 Nxd5 9.Bxd5 Qf6 10.Qe2 Be7 11.h4 h6 12.Rh3 (with an attack, according to Gutman) d3! (not mentioned by Monson in an earlier post) 13.cxd3 Nf5 14.Bxf7+ (14.Bg5? hxg5 15.hxg5 Rxh3 16.gxf6 Bb4+) Kd8 15.g4 Nxh4 16.Rxh4 Qxh4 17.Ng6 Qf6 18.Nxh8 g5 19.Be3 Qxh8 with about equal chances, Barnsley-Bormida, em 1997.
VdT clearly does not have the opinion, that 6...Ne7 <black has serious problems that persist to a white edge.>
  

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
 
lnn2
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1503
Location: nc
Joined: 09/22/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #128 - 12/19/04 at 08:46:37
Post Tools
I just stumbled onto this thread only because now it's the longest thread on the forum and that made me curious. I don't play 1.e4 e5 with either colour so am a rather "neutral" outsider to this.

Having played through a few lines...White appears to have sufficient compensation for the material. The worst that can happen to White is equality. I don't think White is worse out of the opening like in the BDG.

bruce: when is your book coming out? will definitely buy it Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #127 - 12/17/04 at 08:37:17
Post Tools
Quote:
"Red" book?  Er, well my book has a white cover with black lettering and a black pen and ink illustration.  If you have something other than that then you do not have my book.

Bruce Monson




I don't have it in front of me; I thought I remembered that it was red.  It has a drawing of, I think, you and Trifunovich(?).
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ygramul
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 62
Location: Roma
Joined: 11/18/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #126 - 12/17/04 at 03:04:02
Post Tools
Bruce when the second edition of your book will be available?
I'm very interested in it since I have only Schiller's book which, I must say, is very bad and completely useless!

(perhaps the best of it is the coverage of the 4.d4 Bb4 line which, by the way, is not the Belgrade Gambit).
  
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 #125 - 12/16/04 at 16:28:48
Post Tools
Quote:
Is there a new version?  I have the original, red book.


"Red" book?  Er, well my book has a white cover with black lettering and a black pen and ink illustration.  If you have something other than that then you do not have my book.

Bruce Monson

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



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #124 - 12/16/04 at 15:23:30
Post Tools
Quote:
Evidently Markovich doesn't have a copy of my book. 


Is there a new version?  I have the original, red book.
  

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 #123 - 12/16/04 at 14:24:13
Post Tools
Quote:
I have only looked at it recently; I haven't studied it.  Provisionally, I am fairly happy with Black's game.  It seems that Black has quite good winning chances.  I don't have a board in front of me at the moment, but I'll try to get back soon with some specific ideas, both in this and in Polovodin-Hazai.


Evidently Markovich doesn't have a copy of my book.  If he did, he could answer a lot of the variations he is having difficulty understanding, such as in this 14...Qxh4 and 15...Kf7 line; and particularly the line 5...Nxe4 6.Bc4 Ne7 7.Ne5!, in which it would be an understatement to say that black has serious problems that persist to a white edge even if he manages to feel his way through the tactical mindfield.

One example (from my book) is a game between two of my good friends, Tim McGrew and FM Marcel Milat, in which Tim (as white) employs an original idea from GM Lev Gutman after: 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bc4 Ne7 7.Ne5 Nd6 8.Qf3! Nxd5 9.Bxd5 Qf6 (9...Qe7? 10.Kd1! c6 11.Re1 [11.Bb3 is also possible] 11...cxd5 12.Qxd5 Qe6 13.Nf3 Be7 14.Rxe6 dxe6 15.Qxd4 +/-) 10.Qe2 Be7 11.h4! (threatening the deadly 12.Bg5) 11...h6 12.Rh3! (the crux of Gutman's idea, renewing the threat of Bg5 since the rook cannot be captured with check on h1 by the Rh8, along with the additional threat of Rf3) 12...O-O (castles into it, but then 12...c6?, 12...Nf5 and 12...Rf8 fail to either 13.Bg5 or 13.g4) 13.g4! c6 14.g5 Qf5 15.Rf3 Qh7 (black could hold out longer with 15...cxd5 16.Rxf5 Nxf5, but after 17.gxh6 Bxh4 18.Nf3! Bf6 19.hxg7 Bxg7 20.Bf4 d6 21.Ng5 and white can soon take his chips to the cashier.) 16.g6! 1-0

I should also remind people that in the Main Line with 5...Nxe4 6.Qe2, white has a choice of continuations after 6...f5, to include my revitalized idea of 7.Bg5!? which has brought me great success, as well as 7.Nd2!? d3 8.Qf3!, which has been almost completely ignored by theory, wrongly in my view.  There is also 7.Bf4, which is fully playable. 

Moreover, while both 6.Qe2 and 6.Bc4 are strong options after 5...Nxe4, white does have a couple of interesting options in 6.Bd3!? and 6.Nxd4!?, neither of which were covered in my 1997 book, but will be in the 2nd edition.

Finally, in the Main Line 5...Nxe4 6.Qe2 f5 7.Ng5 d3 8.cxd3 Nd4 9.Qh5+ g6 10.Qh4 c6 11.dxe4 cxd5, it appears that white can play 12.exf5!? (instead of the usual 12.exd5) if he likes.

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



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #122 - 12/16/04 at 13:15:34
Post Tools
Quote:
Last time I played 6.Qe2 was in 1998. 
But you haven't answered to my question about your preference (as Black) for 5...Nxe4 6.Bc4 Ne7


I have only looked at it recently; I haven't studied it.  Provisionally, I am fairly happy with Black's game.  It seems that Black has quite good winning chances.  I don't have a board in front of me at the moment, but I'll try to get back soon with some specific ideas, both in this and in Polovodin-Hazai.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ygramul
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 62
Location: Roma
Joined: 11/18/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #121 - 12/15/04 at 09:51:37
Post Tools
Last time I played 6.Qe2 was in 1998. 
The variation you mention was played against me in 1996 but my opponent continued with 14....Nxf3 and the game at the end was a draw.

In my notes to the game I reported the game Polovodin Hazai 1-0 which continued 14..Qxh4 15.Nxh4 Kf7 16.Be3 f4 17. Bxd4 Bxd4 18.Bd3 d6 19.Nxg6

Perhaps 18...Rg8 is better

But you haven't answered to my question about your preference (as Black) for 5...Nxe4 6.Bc4 Ne7
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #120 - 12/14/04 at 11:52:17
Post Tools
Quote:
Besides if Black wants to play for a win he should take into account that after 5...Nxe4 the old classical line:

6.Qe2 f5 7.Ng5 d3 8.cxd3 Nd4 9.Qh5+ g6 10.Qh4 c6 11.dxe4 cxd5 12.exd5

is going to probably end in a draw both after 12..Bg7



I have my doubts.  As I said earlier, 12...Bg7  13. Kd1! h6  14. Nf3 Qxh4  15. Nxh4 Kf7 looks quite good for Black.  Maybe White has play for a draw, but Black's game looks better to me. 
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ygramul
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 62
Location: Roma
Joined: 11/18/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #119 - 12/14/04 at 04:33:38
Post Tools
Besides if Black wants to play for a win he should take into account that after 5...Nxe4 the old classical line:

6.Qe2 f5 7.Ng5 d3 8.cxd3 Nd4 9.Qh5+ g6 10.Qh4 c6 11.dxe4 cxd5 12.exd5

is going to probably end in a draw both after 12..Bg7 and 12..Qa5+.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ygramul
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 62
Location: Roma
Joined: 11/18/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #118 - 12/14/04 at 04:14:47
Post Tools

Of course I don't think that any forced variation exists which automatically gives White the advantage after 5...Nxe4.

However what I have experienced is that after 5..Nxe4 6.Bc4 the play goes in the direction desired by White:
1) very open position
2) at any time White can look for sacrifices and tactical opportunities that can suddenly change the assessment of the variation
3) computers programs often fail in assesting the position ( and that is a plus for a correspondance player like I am)

In practice:

After 6...Be7 7.Qe2 is very interesting as already mentioned by Bruce Monson in this forum (he also presented some games with this variation).  By the way if Black replies with 7...f5 (maybe for similarity to the 6.Qe2 variation) that gives the advantage to White after 8.Bf4

After 6...Bb4+ 7.c3 dxc3 8.00 00 9.Qb3 (Monson's idea) White has good attacking chances.  Personally I faced  this variation twice with 2 wins

Among the other moves I happened to face 6...Nc5 and here White has excellent winning chances after 7.Bg5 f6 8.Nh4 d6 9.Bxf6 Ne7 10.b4

On the other hand I've never met 6...Ne7 that you mention as Black's best try.  Honestly I'm not in the position to comment this move but after 7.Ne5 in my database I have 16 games with this variation with an excellent score for White: + 69% =38% -12%
Maybe you know something I don't.  If so I would appreciate to share your view about this variation.


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



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #117 - 12/13/04 at 16:30:45
Post Tools
Quote:
I don't agree that 5...Nxe4 is the best choice if Black is looking for a win.  I would rather play 5...Nb4.
As a matter of fact when I play the Belgrade Gambit with White I'm happy if my opponent plays 5...Nxe4 accepting the gambit!



Well, it would be very helpful if you would supply some of your thoughts in the specific variations being discussed here.  For example, if you think White is O.K. after 6. Qe2, why?
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ygramul
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 62
Location: Roma
Joined: 11/18/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #116 - 12/11/04 at 15:42:17
Post Tools
I don't agree that 5...Nxe4 is the best choice if Black is looking for a win.  I would rather play 5...Nb4.
As a matter of fact when I play the Belgrade Gambit with White I'm happy if my opponent plays 5...Nxe4 accepting the gambit!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
JEGutman
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Psychological draw offers
are the key to success.

Posts: 41
Location: Pasadena
Joined: 12/09/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #115 - 12/09/04 at 18:33:35
Post Tools
I will quote my friend's former coach "first I will find draw, then I will find win".  The best way to try to refute a line is to first prove that you can equalize easily and then find a refuting plan.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #114 - 11/29/04 at 07:52:34
Post Tools
Quote:
As a matter of fact this is exactly one of the comments in the Barnsley,T - Reijnen,M reported in Bruce's last post with equality judice. Therefore that can't be consired the last word on the variation.


I was not trying to propose the last word, just that an intermediate conclusion must be that Black is no worse than equal.  Barnsley  gave the line after 13. Qh4 Ng6; I observed that Black could also get the same outcome from 13. Qe5 Ng6 -- there is nowhere to go but g3.  So Black must be at least equal.

Yeah, I agree this line is more relevant after 5...Be7.  But I am arguing that Black can play to win against this system, and that the way to do that is to play 5...Nxe4.   White has a number of ways to equalize after 5...Be7; according to my understanding, he doesn't need to offer this gambit.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ygramul
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 62
Location: Roma
Joined: 11/18/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #113 - 11/29/04 at 03:19:52
Post Tools
Quote:
Well nobody is answering; is it because of American Thanksgiving?  

Having looked some more, it appears that 11...b6 is at least good enough for full equality.  After 12. Bg5 c5  13. Qh4 Ng6  14. Qg3 Nh5  15. Bxd8 Nxg3  16. Bxb6 axb6  17. hxg3 Bd7 is no better than equal for White, am I wrong?  That leaves aside all Black's tries other than 14...Nh5.  And if 13. Qf4 then just 13...Ng6  14. Qg3 is the same -- leaving aside any prospects Black may have from playing 13...Nc6.


As a matter of fact this is exactly one of the comments in the Barnsley,T - Reijnen,M reported in Bruce's last post with equality judice. Therefore that can't be consired the last word on the variation.

Quote:
In any case, is this the critical line?  Isn't it rather, 5. Nd5 Nxe4  6. Bc4 Ne7!?


Well in my opinion the importance of the line is related to the following move order which may happen when White decides to reply with 6.Bc4 to 5..Be7:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 OO 7.OO Nxe4
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #112 - 11/27/04 at 20:59:24
Post Tools
Well nobody is answering; is it because of American Thanksgiving? 

Having looked some more, it appears that 11...b6 is at least good enough for full equality.  After 12. Bg5 c5  13. Qh4 Ng6  14. Qg3 Nh5  15. Bxd8 Nxg3  16. Bxb6 axb6  17. hxg3 Bd7 is no better than equal for White, am I wrong?  That leaves aside all Black's tries other than 14...Nh5.  And if 13. Qf4 then just 13...Ng6  14. Qg3 is the same -- leaving aside any prospects Black may have from playing 13...Nc6.

I confess to some puzzlement concerning 12. Bg5 c5  13. Bxf6?! cxd4  14. Bxe7, but my belief is that Black can't possibly be worse there.

In any case, is this the critical line?  Isn't it rather, 5. Nd5 Nxe4  6. Bc4 Ne7!?
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ygramul
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 62
Location: Roma
Joined: 11/18/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #111 - 11/26/04 at 03:25:23
Post Tools
I agree in thanking Bruce.  My feeling is that the success of this forum on Belgrade Gambit is due mainly to his posts which are always very interesting! (Also his site, which unfortunately went down, was very interesting)

By the way, Bruce, it would be interesting to know your scores with BG both with White and Black.

I put this question because, though I'm a supporter of BG, looking only at my games I must admit that the score is better as Black:

with White: +6 =5 -3 which is fine (equal or better than in other openings)

with Black: +3  =2 -0 which is even better

Finally a curiosity: I met Efendeyev by e-mail in 2001 but he didn't allow me to play the Belgrade Gambit and played 4...Bb4 instead

Francesco Costa


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



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #110 - 11/25/04 at 10:04:34
Post Tools
Thanks for sharing those games and notes, Bruce.

First a clarification: when I said 11...Nc6 was "unimpressive," I meant as a winning try.  Certainly 11...Nc6 is a good chess move.   But it looks like if White wants the half point, he can just play 12. Qh4 Ne4  13. Bf4.  Am I wrong?

It seems that 12. Bg5 is the best answer to 11...b6.  In Barnsley-Reijnen, 12...c5  13.  Qe5 Nc6  14. Qf4, and here I first thought that Black should've played 14...c4.  Certainly White lacks comp if he has to reply 15. Be2 or 15. Bf1.  Then I noticed 15. Bxc4! dxc4  16. Rad1 Bd7  17. Bxf6 gxf6  18. Qd6 Nb8 (sadly necessary, as 17...Be8 hangs the queen) and now Black is so far back on his heels that White can calmly pursue his attack, for example 19. Nh4 followed by lifting the rook to e3.  I doubt that Black can survive.  Funny that Barnsley didn't mention this in his notes; maybe he wanted to keep it for a future game.

I do think that Reijnen after 14...Nb4 15. Rad1 was too hasty with the capture on d3.  The bishop can hardly go away (unless maybe to h7!), so why not delay its exchange and play 14...Be6 (intending ...Qb8 )?  I haven't had the time to look further, and so I have no idea whether this is an improvement or merely an inconsequential transpostion.  Certainly however, White can't play his Nd2 idea right now because ...Nxd3 denies him his rook-lift.  Barnsley's notes are silent on this point.

Black might also try 13...Ng6 instead of 13...Nc6, another obvious idea not mentioned by Barnsley.  I haven't looked very hard yet; after 13...Ng6  14. Qg3, is 14...Qd7 playable?  But 14...c4 without a knight on c6 does not look so great to me, since it offers White dominion of d4; it really doesn't matter then whether Black has an extra pawn or not.

I don't think that Black is in terrible trouble, but I'm not sure that he can claim that White lacks comp.   I intend to look further, but maybe ...b6 does turn out to be too slow.  I would be curious to know what anyone else thinks. 


 


  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
X
God Member
*****
Offline


Education is a system
of imposed ignorance.Chomsky

Posts: 571
Joined: 10/04/03
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #109 - 11/25/04 at 06:39:29
Post Tools
"A perfect example of this is the recent World Championship match between Kramnik and Adams, where reliance on "computer analysis" cost Kramnik dearly on the white side of a Marshall Gambit in the Ruy."

Yes, brings back memories.  Especially the part when Adams would carry on in a fake Hungarian accent in the post-game conferences.  I mean at first it was kind of funny, but then it just got to be annoying...  
  

Power to the People!&&http://www.gravel2008.us/           http://www.nationalinitiative.us/&&Mike Gravel for President 2008
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 #108 - 11/24/04 at 16:30:07
Post Tools
Quote:
I hope someone will point out if I am wrong, but I have some hopes for 11...b6.  I have no idea if it has ever been played.  I do note that it is not in Monson's book.


MONSON:
While it's true that 11...b6 was not examined in my book, it is nevertheless not an entirely new move, and it has had practical tests in strong correspondence competition, including in a game in which I was a participant (see below).

I have three games to contribute, in the order in which they were played:

GAME #1

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

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 b6N

A new move, but perhaps a little too slow.

12.Bg5 c5 13.Qe5

Or 13.Qh4 Ng6 14.Qg3 Nh5 (14...Bb7 15.h4 d4 [15...Qb8 16.Bxf6 Qxg3 17.fxg3 gxf6 18.h5 Ne5 19.Nxe5 fxe5 20.Rxe5 +/=] 16.Nd2 Nh5 17.Bxd8 Nxg3

18.Be7±) 15.Bxd8 Nxg3 16.Bxb6 axb6 17.hxg3 Bd7 with equality. 

13...Nc6 14.Qf4 Nb4 15.Rad1 Nxd3 16.Rxd3 Be6 17.Nd2 Qb8

On 17...h6? 18.Bxh6! gxh6 (On 18...Nh5? 19.Qe5 gxh6 20.Qxh5 Qf6 21.Rf3 Qxb2 22.Rxe6! fxe6 23.Rg3+ Qg7 24.Qxh6+-; or 18...Ng4? 19.Rxe6+-) 19.Qxh6 Bf5 (19...Ng4 20.Rg3) 20.Rg3+ Bg6 21.Re6! Re8 (21...Rc8 22.Nf3! [22.Rh3 Nh5 23.Rxg6+ fxg6 24.Qxg6+ Ng7 25.Qh7+ Kf7 26.Rf3+ Ke8 27.Qxg7 Rxf3 28.Nxf3 Qd7±] 22...Rc7 23.Ne5 Qe8 24.Rxf6! Qxe5 25.Rgxg6+ fxg6 26.Rxf8#; 22.Rxg6+ fxg6 23.Qxg6+ Kh8 24.Rxf6 Re1+ 25.Nf1 Re7 26.Qh5+ Rh7 27.Qe5 Rg7 28.Rh6+ Kg8 29.Qh5+-

18.Qh4 Nd7 19.f4 Re8 20.Rde3 d4 21.R3e2 Rc8 22.Qf2! h6

On 22...Bf5 23.c3 (23.Ne4 Bg4 24.Qg3 (24.Rd2 Re8 25.Qg3 f5) 24...Bxe2 25.Nf6+ Nxf6 26.Bxf6 g6 27.Qg5 Qd6 28.Rxe2 Re8 29.Be5 Qe6; Or 23...d3 (23...h6 24.Bh4 Qd6 25.h3 Qg6 26.Kh2 dxc3 27.bxc3 b5 28.Re7) 24.Re7 Nf8 25.R7e5 Be6 26.f5 Bxa2 27.Qg3 Nd7 28.Bf4 Qb7 29.Bh6 g6 30.fxg6 fxg6 31.Re7 Qd5 32.c4±

23.Bxh6!! gxh6 24.Qg3+ Kf8 25.Rxe6! fxe6 26.Rxe6 Re8 27.Rxh6 Qd8 28.Nc4 Qe7

On 28...Nf6 29.Ne5 Ke7 30.Qg7+ Ke6 31.Rxf6+ Qxf6 (31...Kd5 32.Qb7#) 32.Qd7#

29.Rh8+ Kf7 30.Rh7+ Kf8 31.Rxe7 Rxe7 32.Qh4 Rg7 33.Qh8+ Rg8 34.Qh6+ 1-0

GAME #2

Monson,B - Barnsley,A [C47]
TGT ICCF email, 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 b6!?

First played in Barnsley-Reijnen, 1st Master Norm CC, England, 1998

12.Bg5 c5 13.Bxf6!?N

This is one of my own innovations that I feel is correct despite the fact that I eventually lost this game.  White gains R+N for the queen and sets up a binding position where his knight has a dominating post on d4, his Bd3 is better than black's and the rook(s) will control the open e-file.  It should be noted that it is precisely because black is left with Q+B, rather than Q+N, that this plan works, since the Q+B combination is clumsy due to black's restrictive d5-pawn.

13...cxd4 14.Bxe7 Qc7 15.Bxf8

Here white may also play 15.Nxd4 after which 15...Re8 (15...Bd7 16.Bxf8 Kxf8 17.c3 transposes to the game; 15...Qe8 16.Ba3!? Be6 17.Ng5 g6 [17...h6? 18.Nh7! +/-] ) 16.Bd6! Qd7! (16...Qd8?! 17.Bc7! Rxe1+ 18.Rxe1 Qf8 19.Bd6! Qd8 [but not 19...Qxd6?? 20.Re8+ Qf8 21.Bxh7+! +-] 20.Nc6 Qd7 21.Bb5 Ba6 22.Ne7+ Qxe7 23.Rxe7 Bxb5 when the opposite bishop and rook ending is slightly better for white, though surely drawn with best play. 

15...Kxf8 16.Nxd4 Bd7

The attempt to infiltrate with 16...Qf4? 17.c3 Qd2 is easily parried with 18.Bb5 Bg4 19.f3 Bh5 20.Re2 Qg5 21.Rae1 +/-)

17.c3 g6 18.g3 Re8 19.Rxe8+ Bxe8 20.Re1 Bd7 21.Kg2 a5 22.a3 Kg7 23.f4 Qd6 24.Re5 f6 25.Re3 Kf7 26.Be2?

This is the beginning white's troubles.  The idea was to reposition the Bishop on f3 and transfer the rook to d3 (d2) to pressure d5, which may or may not be plausible, but my execution of hit certainly was not. 

But there were other alternatives to legitimately press for an advantage, and with virtually no risk of losing whatsoever.  For example, 26.h4!? when 26...h5 is met with 27.f5! gxf5 28.Bxf5 Bxf5 29.Nxf5 Qc5 30.Rd3 b5 31.Ne3 Ke6 32.Kf3 Qc6 33.Rxd5 a4 (of course not 33...Qxd5+?? 34.Nxd5 Kxd5 35.g4 +-) when a Zugswang position arises after 34.Ke2! (better than the immediate 34.Ke4 or 34.g4) 34...Qe8 35.Kf2! after which it is doubtful black will be able to hold the position.

26...Qc5 27.Bf3 Qc4 28.Re2 Bc8 29.Rd2 Qc5 30.h4

The problem with the seemingly strong 30.Nb3, which accomplishes the task of winning the d5-pawn, is that after 30...Qe3 31.Bxd5+ Be6 32.Bxe6+ Kxe6 33.Nd4+ Kd5 34.Ne2 Qd3, white is not losing, but neither are there any realistic prospects for an advantage.

30...Kg7 31.h5 Bd7 32.hxg6 hxg6 33.Nc2 Be6 34.g4?

This is ultimately the culprit for white's loss in this game.  Obviously, I was pressing for an advantage, but in doing so the kingside pawns become weakened, and thus vulnerable as targets.      

34...Bc8!? 35.Rxd5?

Committed to playing for a win, white is now on the road to defeat.  Better was 35.Nd4 Qc7 36.Ne2 Ba6 37.Nd4 Kh7 (obviously not 37...Qxf4?? 38.Ne6+) 38.Ne6 Qd6 39.f5 Bc4 40.fxg6+ Kxg6 41.Be4+ Kf7 42.Bf5 Qe5 43.Nd4 and the position should be a draw.

35...Qc4 36.Nd4 Bxg4!

By exchanging his lame d-pawn for white's g-pawn, black now has excellent winning chances due to the possibility of creating a passed pawn, and though this may or may not be enough to win, the remainder of the game is quite instructive in how Mr. Barnsley (a corr. IM) ultimately does realize this advantage.

37.Rb5 Bxf3+ 38.Kxf3 Qd3+ 39.Kf2 Qe4 40.f5 Qf4+ 41.Ke2 Qh2+ 42.Kd3 Qh3+ 43.Ke4 Qh1+ 44.Ke3 Qe1+ 45.Ne2 g5 46.Rxb6 g4 47.Rb7+ Kh6 48.Rf7 Qh4 49.Rf8?

Up to this point white has managed to hold the position together, but this move allows black the chance to reposition his queen to a more active position and ultimately win by force.  Correct was 49.b4! when 49...Qg5+ 50.Ke4 g3 51.Nxg3 Qxg4+ 52.Kd5 Qxg3 53.Rxf6+ Kh5 54.Rc6 Qf3+ 55.Kd6 when white should do no worse than a draw. 

49...Qg5+ 50.Ke4 Qg7!

Demonstrating how important it was for white to keep g7 guarded.  Now the queen's full range of motion comes into effect.

51.Re8 Qb7+ 52.Ke3 Qf3+ 53.Kd2 Qxf5 54.Re3 Qb1 55.b4 Qa2+ 56.Kd3 Qxa3 57.Re6 axb4 58.Rxf6+ Kg5 59.Rb6 bxc3 60.Rc6 c2+ 61.Rc3 c1Q 62.Nxc1 Qd6+ 63.Ke3 Qe5+ 64.Kd2 g3 65.Ne2 g2 0-1

Black threatens Qxe2+, of course, while 66.Re3 is answered by 66...Qb2+ followed by Qxe2, etc.; and 66.Rc1 fails to 66...Kg4 67.Rg1 Kf3, etc.

In an OTB game I would have played 66.Re3 and made black prove he could win with Q vs R against the "3rd rank defense," but in a correspondence game there was no point in continuing the struggle.

GAME #3

Simmelink,J (2337) - Efendiyev,E (2310) [C47]
LM.1999.0.00002 IECG Email, 11.09.1999

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 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 b6 12.b4 a5 13.b5

(an interesting possibility here is 13.Bg5!? axb4 14.Bxf6, ruining black's kingside pawn structure--Monson)

13...c5 14.bxc6 Nxc6 15.Qh4 Nb4 16.Bg5 Nxd3 17.cxd3 h6 18.Bxf6 ½-½
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
HgMan
God Member
*****
Offline


Demand me nothing: What
you know, you know

Posts: 2326
Location: Up on Cripple Creek
Joined: 11/09/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #107 - 11/24/04 at 08:01:59
Post Tools
Quote:
Yes, at least according to Firnhaber, you're right about Schlecter's 10...c5. ÊI wasn't comparing the two positions, just noting the similarity of the "now I'm going to lash out on the queenside" ideas in a setting that many would presume would call for continued defense.


Fair enough.  I was really splitting hairs, but I think--in principle--we agree.
  

"Luck favours the prepared mind."  --Louis Pasteur
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ygramul
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 62
Location: Roma
Joined: 11/18/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #106 - 11/24/04 at 03:31:30
Post Tools
Quote:
Just to offer something further for folks here to chew on,  11...b6  12. b4 a5  13. b5 c5  14. bxc6 Nxc6  15. Qh4 Nb4  16. Ba3 (16. Bg5!?) 16...Nxd3  17. cxd3 Re8  18. Rxe8+ Qxe8  19. Bb2 Qd8  and Black, I maintain, is better.  E.g. 20. Rb1 Bf5  21. Bxf6 Qxf6  22. Qxf6 gxf6  23. Rxb6 Bxd3  24. Rxf6 Bc4.


Very interesting, though I would prefer playing 16.Bg5 rather than 16.Ba3.

I've found a game already played with this 11...b6 variation in which White played 12.Bg5 at once:


[Event "EM/MN/001"]
[Site "ICCF Email"]
[Date "1997.07.15"]
[White "Barnsley, A.R.(Tony) (ENG)"]
[Black "Reijnen, Marcel J.F.(NLD)"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C47"]
[WhiteElo "2440"]
[BlackElo "2415"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nd5 Nxe4 6. Bc4 Be7 7. O-O O-O 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



Besides I haven't received any answer to the other question I put on the Simmelink-Knudsen (maybe because my post was the last of the 5th page)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #105 - 11/24/04 at 00:17:35
Post Tools
Quote:
I'm more of an interested outsider in this conversation--I've never played these lines and likely never will.  Taking advantage of this queenside majority seems like the right path and I'm looking forward to more posts, but as a tangent, the Danish line above with the immediate 10... c5 is a little dubious, since it severely weakens d6, so Black needs to be a little more careful.  I wonder if similar problems translate from the Danish to the discussion at hand.  Your b6 looks promising, but again, I'm not intimately familiar with these lines.


Yes, at least according to Firnhaber, you're right about Schlecter's 10...c5.  I wasn't comparing the two positions, just noting the similarity of the "now I'm going to lash out on the queenside" ideas in a setting that many would presume would call for continued defense.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
HgMan
God Member
*****
Offline


Demand me nothing: What
you know, you know

Posts: 2326
Location: Up on Cripple Creek
Joined: 11/09/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #104 - 11/23/04 at 22:32:43
Post Tools
Quote:
I am reminded of Schlecter's defense to the Danish, 1. e4 e5 Ê2. d4 exd4 Ê3. c3 dxc3 Ê4. Bc4 cxb2 Ê5. Bxb2 d5!? (better 5...Nc6!, I say) Ê6. Bxd5 Nf6 Ê7. Bxf7 Kxf7 Ê8. Qxd8 Bb4+ Ê9. Qd2 Bxd2 Ê10. Nxd2. ÊAnd here Saint Karl proposed 10...c5!?, asserting his pawn majority.


I'm more of an interested outsider in this conversation--I've never played these lines and likely never will.  Taking advantage of this queenside majority seems like the right path and I'm looking forward to more posts, but as a tangent, the Danish line above with the immediate 10... c5 is a little dubious, since it severely weakens d6, so Black needs to be a little more careful.  I wonder if similar problems translate from the Danish to the discussion at hand.  Your b6 looks promising, but again, I'm not intimately familiar with these lines.
  

"Luck favours the prepared mind."  --Louis Pasteur
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #103 - 11/23/04 at 22:02:16
Post Tools
Just to offer something further for folks here to chew on,  11...b6  12. b4 a5  13. b5 c5  14. bxc6 Nxc6  15. Qh4 Nb4  16. Ba3 (16. Bg5!?) 16...Nxd3  17. cxd3 Re8  18. Rxe8+ Qxe8  19. Bb2 Qd8  and Black, I maintain, is better.  E.g. 20. Rb1 Bf5  21. Bxf6 Qxf6  22. Qxf6 gxf6  23. Rxb6 Bxd3  24. Rxf6 Bc4.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #102 - 11/23/04 at 21:13:04
Post Tools
Quote:
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 Nc6 12.Qh4 Ne4

For starters, White CAN...


I am unimpressed by 11...Nc6.  Leaving aside the dry fact that Black is a pawn up, what is his play here against White's two bishops and kingside pretensions?  Isn't it his queenside pawn majority?  Therefore, it seems to me that blocking the c-pawn is counter-productive.  11...b6 is a more logical move, preparing ...c5.  You just have to find your counterplay, you know?  If 12. b4 then probably 12...a5.  I mean, the object of this game is to WIN!

I am reminded of Schlecter's defense to the Danish, 1. e4 e5  2. d4 exd4  3. c3 dxc3  4. Bc4 cxb2  5. Bxb2 d5!? (better 5...Nc6!, I say)  6. Bxd5 Nf6  7. Bxf7 Kxf7  8. Qxd8 Bb4+  9. Qd2 Bxd2  10. Nxd2.  And here Saint Karl proposed 10...c5!?, asserting his pawn majority.

I hope someone will point out if I am wrong, but I have some hopes for 11...b6.  I have no idea if it has ever been played.  I do note that it is not in Monson's book.
  

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 #101 - 11/23/04 at 15:18:41
Post Tools
Quote:
2

The objection about the line seems reasonable but has not be answered


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 Nc6 12.Qh4 Ne4

For starters, White CAN, if he likes, sacrifice the exchange here with 13.Rxe4!?  It seems this should not be a real possibility since black has not made any pawn weaknesses on his kingside, but he can't maintain that after 13...dxe4 14.Qxe4 (also interesting is 14.Bg5!? f6 15.Qxe4 g6 16.Qc4+ Kg7 17.Bd2! Re8 [17...Ne5? 18.Nxe5 fxe5 19.Bc3 Re8 20.Re1 Qd6 21.Qb5+/-] 18.Qf4 Qd6 [18...g5? 19.Nxg5!] 19.Qh6+ Kg8 20.Bc3 --->) 14...f5 15.Qc4+ Kh8 16.Bd2!

The bishop seems best here here since c3 is it's strongest square, and the queen needs the 4th rank open to transfer back to f4 (or h4), followed in some lines with white advancing h-pawn to h4, h5, h6, etc. 

There are many interesting possibilities, though I've never had the opportunity to play this variation in a practical game . . . yet.

Bruce Monson
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ygramul
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 62
Location: Roma
Joined: 11/18/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #100 - 11/23/04 at 12:19:10
Post Tools
2

Quote:
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....



The objection about the line seems reasonable but has not be answered
  
Back to top