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


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.

Smaug wrote on 08/24/16 at 02:31:54:


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!

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.

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?

MNb wrote on 09/17/11 at 16:44:47:


UM .... what?!! 

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:


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:


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 ....

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

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?

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  )

bump

Me too, MNb.  It really struck me as rather odd so I thought I'd ask.

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

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.

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. 

ghenghisclown wrote on 06/27/09 at 08:35:13:


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

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

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. 

Maybe this is it?

http://www.classicalgames.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=00...

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.

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.

Markovich wrote on 03/29/09 at 20:00:05:


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.

Tops 

Markovich wrote on 04/20/09 at 12:10:34:


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

AMM wrote on 04/19/09 at 14:48:53:


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

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 !?

AMM wrote on 04/17/09 at 22:05:53:


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.  

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...

'Zukertort'

Rudel-Moody would be the real thing.

MNb wrote on 03/29/09 at 21:03:38:


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.

George Jempty wrote on 03/29/09 at 15:18:42:


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 'George Jempty' is a non-anagram of 'Richard Moody'

bamonson wrote on 07/27/04 at 17:05:52:


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.

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.

Schroeder wrote on 05/16/08 at 06:27:49:


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.

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

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... 

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.

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 

Matemax wrote on 04/03/08 at 12:17:25:


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.

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.

Quote:

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?

CraigEvans wrote on 04/02/08 at 10:46:45:


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

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.

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! 

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.  

Toppy