Latest Updates:
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) C47: The Belgrade Gambit (Read 166679 times)
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


I Love ChessPublishing!

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

belgrade_2015.pgn ( 33 KB | 349 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: 10765
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
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 134
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
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 134
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: 10765
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
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 134
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: 1831
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: 1831
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: 2338
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: 2211
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: 2211
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: 1386
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: 916
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: 10765
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
Senior Member
****
Offline


Participant 1996 US Corres.
Champ. Qualifying Rd.

Posts: 253
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: 2338
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
Senior Member
****
Offline


Participant 1996 US Corres.
Champ. Qualifying Rd.

Posts: 253
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
Senior Member
****
Offline


Participant 1996 US Corres.
Champ. Qualifying Rd.

Posts: 253
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 ˝-˝ 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 ˝-˝ 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 ˝-˝ 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 ˝-˝ 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 ˝-˝ 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 ˝-˝ 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 ˝-˝ 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: 2211
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: 3167
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: 2211
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
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 617
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: 10765
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: 2211
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: 10765
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: 2211
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: 10765
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: 2330
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: 2211
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: 2211
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: 72
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: 2211
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: 2211
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: 72
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: 10765
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: 2211
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: 10765
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: 1504
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.Be7ą) 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 Qd7ą] 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.c4ą 

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 ˝-˝
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
HgMan
God Member
*****
Offline


Demand me nothing: What
you know, you know

Posts: 2330
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. ĘI 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: 2330
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 Ę2. d4 exd4 Ę3. c3 dxc3 Ę4. Bc4 cxb2 Ę5. Bxb2 d5!? (better 5...Nc6!, I say) Ę6. Bxd5 Nf6 Ę7. Bxf7 Kxf7 Ę8. Qxd8 Bb4+ Ę9. Qd2 Bxd2 Ę10. Nxd2. ĘAnd 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
 
IP Logged
 
ygramul
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 62
Location: Roma
Joined: 11/18/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #99 - 11/23/04 at 12:15:13
Post Tools
The discussion seems to be become quite general.  Let's stick to the point (the Belgrade Gambit).  Having read all the old posts it seems to me that there are some open issues about the various touched.

I'm going to recall some:


Quote:
PART II: Gutman's Variation (5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 Nxe4 7.Qe2!)

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

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 Nxe4 7.Qe2 Nc5 8.Bg5 f6 9.Nh4 Kf8 10.Bh6!! (I had shared this innovation with Simmelink in 1998 and was happy to see it put into practice against such a respected correspondence player as Knudsen.)  10...gxh6 .................



Well the position seems to be far from clear in case Black doesn't take the Black Bishop and moves 10..d6 opening the diagonal to his Bc8.   
 

  
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 #98 - 11/23/04 at 10:55:25
Post Tools
Quote:
The thing is back in 1981 it was so different to what it is today, with no internet and modern chess engines everyone was on there own to a large extent or maybe had some help from friends at the local chess club ... I think it was Sveshnikov who said he hated the Internet because as soon as he played a new idea about 10 milliseconds later it was known all round the world where in the old days so to speak he may have been able to get away with the new idea for a couple of months and it would eventually find its way into a new book ... With the super strong chess engines its so easy for us to play through a game and point out the errors, even some of the greatest games have been busted by the machine.

Regards


Quite true.  However, as strong as computers are these days they are not infallible.  Indeed, I am 100% certain that my opponents are using computers in our cc games, which probably explains why my success with the Belgrade has been so great--because even the strongest computers commit egregious mistakes when calculating materially (combined with positionally) imbalanced positions.

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.   

The Belgrade is replete with such positions where the computer will continue to undervalue white's position (for material reasons) by as much as 3.00 points, and by the time it's horizon catches up to reality it's too late since the position is already lost beyond repair.

Sure, if there is a tactical solution within the computer's horizon it will spot it in seconds, but when there is not then they are as likely to go amiss as not.  The problem is, positions that APPEAR to have a decisive tactical solution will often result in the computer heading down this erroneous path, only to find that the punchline occurs 20 moves down the road.  This is precisely why computers rely so much on their opening books.

Computers are a great tool to test your ideas, but if you're relying on them to play your games (illegally or not) you're destined for a rude awakening.

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 #97 - 11/23/04 at 10:07:48
Post Tools
Quote:
The thing is back in 1981 it was so different to what it is today, with no internet and modern chess engines everyone was on there own to a large extent or maybe had some help from friends at the local chess club ... I think it was Sveshnikov who said he hated the Internet because as soon as he played a new idea about 10 milliseconds later it was known all round the world where in the old days so to speak he may have been able to get away with the new idea for a couple of months and it would eventually find its way into a new book ... With the super strong chess engines its so easy for us to play through a game and point out the errors, even some of the greatest games have been busted by the machine.

Regards



Oh, I absolutely concur.  Books and chess mags were so much more important in those days.  And nowadays with a strong chess engine, even a player of rather middling talents, like me, can produce halfway decent analysis (not always informed by very much understanding of chess, of course).  I do understand, though, that even the big boys are using chess engines to assist their home preparation.
  

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



Posts: 50
Location: UK
Joined: 09/17/03
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #96 - 11/23/04 at 02:45:57
Post Tools
The thing is back in 1981 it was so different to what it is today, with no internet and modern chess engines everyone was on there own to a large extent or maybe had some help from friends at the local chess club ... I think it was Sveshnikov who said he hated the Internet because as soon as he played a new idea about 10 milliseconds later it was known all round the world where in the old days so to speak he may have been able to get away with the new idea for a couple of months and it would eventually find its way into a new book ... With the super strong chess engines its so easy for us to play through a game and point out the errors, even some of the greatest games have been busted by the machine.

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



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #95 - 11/22/04 at 22:38:07
Post Tools
All honor to Gary Kenworthy; that was a fine game.  It is featured, I believe, in Nunn's book on the 4 Knights.

All honor indeed, but it appears to me that van der Sterren missed his win by not playing, as recommended by Nunn, 8...Bc5 (instead of 8...Bb4+) 9. O-O Nxf2  10. Qh5 Ne5  11. b4! (Guttman; 11. Nbxc7 d6! Nunn) 11...d6!  12. bxc5 Bg4  13. Qg5 Nf3+  14. gxf3 Nh3+  15. Kh1 Nxg5  16. fxg4 c6  17. Nxd6! cxd5  18. Bxd5  Ne6!.  Gutman mistakenly queries this, saying "19. Rxf7! and White wins."  But 19. Rxf7 Rxf7  20. Bxe6 Qf6  21. Bxf7+ Kh8 and it is Black who wins.
 
My thinking is that 8. Ndb5 is a rather sad move.  If White in the glorious Belgrade has to stake his hopes on threats against c7, his life has come to a sorry pass.      

"Cannons to the right of them, cannons to the left of them, rode the six hundred!"
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
John Cox
Guest


Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #94 - 11/22/04 at 19:33:31
Post Tools
Actually, while I'm being mean, PvdS seems to have had some bad luck in this kind of line against English club players. He certainly was a GM - and an ex-Candidate I believe - when he went down in about the same number of moves to another 'club player', Andrew Hon, at Lloyds Bank 1992, in a similar Vienna slugfest.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
John Cox
Guest


Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #93 - 11/22/04 at 19:30:08
Post Tools
And indeed this game will be well known to anyone who has had the pleasure to be gary's team mate - if he will forgive me!

To be fair, or petty, or something, Paul van der Sterren was not a GM at the time.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BigBen
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 50
Location: UK
Joined: 09/17/03
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #92 - 11/22/04 at 19:10:03
Post Tools
Quote:
I recall playing over a game many moons ago where Dutch GM playing black got rudely dismissed in this line by a little known player name Gary Kenworthy.

   


Gary is very well known to me  Smiley

Kenworthy,GARY (2245) - Van der Sterren,Paul (2440) [C47]
Ramsgate op Ramsgate, 1981

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bc4 Be7 7.Nxd4 0-0 8.Nb5 Bb4+ 9.c3 Nxf2 10.Qh5 Nxh1 11.cxb4 Nxb4 12.Bg5 Re8+ 13.Kf1 Re5 14.Re1 1-0

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



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #91 - 11/21/04 at 23:32:20
Post Tools
Quote:

The other line u mentioned, I had plumb forgot about despite the fact that in my dim and distant youth I had a nice win as White over GM Steffan Djuric in a 5min tournament in St. Maarten


You must be a very strong player: another demonstration that chesspublishing is worth the money (though yes, I know that I didn't have to buy a full subscription just to read the posts on this forum).

In that 14.Be3 line that you cite, I must agree that White is preferable after 18. Bxb4 Qxb4+  19. Kxb4 Bc6  and now though 20. Kc5!? looks entertaining, I suspect that just 20. Re1+ Kd7  21. Kc3 is enough to take the point.

Thanks for calling that Sveshnikov idea to my attention.  To me it appears to be both unambitious and commiting Black to defend against the two bishops for a long time, either with queens or without, as White may choose.   7. Bd3 keeps the queens on and plays in gambit fashion, while with 7. Nxc6 and 7. Bf4 White heads for the ending.  Far be it from me to opine what White's ultimate chances are, but I would probably choose the ending and torture my opponent for 80 moves or so before agreeing to the draw. 

I don't mean to be dismissive of 5...Bxc3; I hope somebody here will offer specific ideas about it. 

Many thanks for sharing your ideas, which have been very helpful to me.
  

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 #90 - 11/21/04 at 23:10:30
Post Tools
Quote:
It is remarkable, that Markovich seeks to avoid the BG by a countergambit!Another idea is 15.Bd3 first. 15.bxa5 Rxa5 16.Nc4 Ra2 17.Ne3 is rather unclear.


Personally if I wanted the whole point, I would play 5...Nxe4.  But if anyone claims that the Belgrade offers White good play for a win, as some here do, they must also claim that 4...Bb4 does.  I have looked pretty hard at the position after 17. Ne3, thinking at first that White must surely be winning.  But I am now moderately convinced that Black holds.  Black would have to be well prepared, of course (or be playing cc).

Quote:
TopNotch's idea is interesting, but Black can improve:
12.Bc4! d5 13.Bb5+ c6 14.Be3! a5 15.Nxc6 axb4+ 16.Nxb4+ Bd7 17.Nxd5 Rc8+ 18.Bc4 Rxc4+ 19.Kxc4 Qe4+ though White is the only one who can avoid the draw by repetition.


That last remark seems to be an understatement since, it seems to me, after 20. Qd4 a heavy burden of proof rests with Black.
  

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: 2211
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #89 - 11/21/04 at 23:08:40
Post Tools
Considerably more testing for black is: 12.Bc4! d5 13.Bb5+ c6 14.Be3! a5 15.Nxc6 axb4+ 16.Nxb4+ Bd7 17.Bxd7+ (Much stronger than 17.Nxd5)
17....Kxd7 18.Nxd5 Rac8+ 19.Kd3 Qd6 20.Rd1.

I might add that 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 Bb4!? is not a Counter Gambit at all, nor is it neccessarily an attempt to avoid the Belgrade Gambit, which is but a sideline in the Scotch Four Knights. That the Belgrade Gambit is bypassed is more likely incidental than intentional.   

I have long considered 1...e5 to be black's most reliable answer to 1.e4, so if u do decide to take it back up MNB, u have my blessings. 

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: 10765
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #88 - 11/21/04 at 21:45:29
Post Tools
It is remarkable, that Markovich seeks to avoid the BG by a countergambit! If 4...Bb4 proves to be playable, the chance that I will pick up 1...e5 again rises considerably.
12.Bc4 d5 was a quick draw in Rasidovic-Pavlovic, Biel Open 1990.
12.Bh6 a5 13.Qxf8+ Qxf8 14.Bxf8 Kxf8 15.b5 d6 16.Nxf7 Kxf7 17.Bc4+ was about equal in Rausis-Koch, Mulhouse 2001. Another idea is 15.Bd3 first. 15.bxa5 Rxa5 16.Nc4 Ra2 17.Ne3 is rather unclear.
And of course, if I decide to play 3.Nc3 against the Petrov, I will play it against 2...Nc6 too.

TopNotch's idea is interesting, but Black can improve:
12.Bc4! d5 13.Bb5+ c6 14.Be3! a5 15.Nxc6 axb4+ 16.Nxb4+ Bd7 17.Nxd5 Rc8+ 18.Bc4 Rxc4+ 19.Kxc4 Qe4+ though White is the only one who can avoid the draw by repetition.
For TopNotch: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nd5 (I have mentioned this before) looks like a Spanish Bird with colours reversed.
  

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: 2211
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #87 - 11/21/04 at 20:41:48
Post Tools
Well lets add some fire shall we.  Grin

But first some housekeeping matters. I think the line that Mr. Monson advocates if I'm not mistaken is: 1. e4 e5  2. Nf3 Nc6  3. Nc3 Nf6  4. d4 exd4  5. Nd5 Nxe4!  6. Bc4 and not 6.Qe2. So u need to concentrate your efforts there as theory on this 6.Bc4 line is hazy at best, I recall playing over a game many moons ago where a Dutch GM playing black got rudely dismissed in this line by a little known player named Gary Kenworthy.

The other line u mentioned, I had plumb forgot about despite the fact that in my dim and distant youth I had a nice win as White over GM Steffan Djuric in a 5min tournament in St. Maarten:  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 Bb4  5. Nxe5 Nxe4  6. Qg4 Nxc3  7. Qxg7 Rf8  8. a3 Nxd4! 9. axb4 Nxc2+  10. Kd2 Nxa1 11. Kxc3 Qe7! This is indeed best, but I am not 100% sure it equalises for black. In my game Djuric chose 11....a5?! or maybe just ?? 12.Bc4 Qe7 13.Re1!! d5 14.Bb5+ and lost soon after. In the Post-Mortem that followed Djuric told me that in his home preparation he had found an antidote for black in this line but could not remember the analysis. After going over Markovich's post I suspect what he found may have been 11....Qe7!, however after the following sequence: 12. Bc4! d5 13.Bb5+ c6 14.Be3! (14.Bh6? is strongly met by 14...d4+ as confirmed in Juan Rohl Montes vs Walter Arencibia, 1998)  The text introduces the threat of 15.Bc5 and so we get: 14....a5 15.Nxc6 bc6 16.Bxc6! (This improves on Fingerov vs Sodol, 2003where White erred with 16.Bc5? 16...ab4+ 17.Bxb4 Qe6 18.Qxf8+ Kd7 and Black went on to win convincingly) 16...Bd7 only now 17.Bc5 ab4 18.Bxb4 with a complex position which I think is better for White maybe even winning. Black will get rook and two pieces for his Queen, but his pieces lack coordination and his King is badly exposed.  I suspect that the much touted 11...Qe7 may not be the answer to Black's prayers after all.

A related line which desrves very close examination, especially when one considers that Evgenny Sveshnikov recently claimed that it solved all of black's problems in the Scotch Four Knights, runs as follows:  :  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 Bb4  5. Nxe5 Bxc3+! 6.bxc3 Qe7. This line scores extremely well for black according to my Database. 

Could this really be the answer to the dreaded Scotch Four Knights?  LOL Wink 

Stay tuned folks.

Top  Grin    
« Last Edit: 11/22/04 at 19:57:52 by TopNotch »  

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



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #86 - 11/21/04 at 17:44:10
Post Tools
So much smoke on this thread, so little fire.  Umm, let's see, where's my trusty can of gasoline?   

I say that 1. e4 e5  2. Nf3 Nc6  3. Nc3 Nf6  4. d4 exd4  5. Nd5 Nxe4!  6. Qe2 f5  7. Ng5 d3  8. cxd3 Nd4  9. Qh5+ g6  10. Qh4 c6  11. dxe4 cxd5  12. exd5 Bg7!  13. Kd1! h6!  14. Nf3 Qxh4  15. Nxh4 Kf7! is significantly better for Black.  Compare the knights, for crying out loud. 

I further say that 4...Bb4  5. Nxe5 Nxe4  6. Qg4 Nxc3  7. Qxg7 Rf8  8. a3 Nxd4! 9. axb4 Nxc2+  10. Kd2 Nxa1 11. Kxc3 Qe7! equalizes.  Gutman is wrong about 12. Bh6 (12. Bc4 d5) 12...a5  13. Qxf8+ Qxf8  14. Bxf8 Kxf8  15. bxa5 Rxa5  16 . Nc4 "mit klarem weissen Vorteil" -- Black is fine after 16...Ra2!, though play is tricky.

Rescue your children, Belgrade bugs! Smiley
  

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 #85 - 11/21/04 at 17:42:49
Post Tools
Quote:


Upon checking Fide's online rating list and I could find no record of Mr. Monson's OTB elo (Sorry national ratings don't count), so I will have to take him at his word. Regarding Correspondence Chess, I'm afraid that players have too much access to other resources for one to really judge a players true strength.

I really enjoyed the bit about Kasparov, that was quite humorous, who knows, maybe one day u will get your chance.

 


Monson was talking about his cc rating, not his otb rating which is 2242 USCF.  That places him in, approximately, the top one-half of one percent of U.S. tournament players.   

In any case, Monson is entitled to express his fantasy of some day facing Kasparov (which he was sharing just for rhetorical purposes) without being mocked.

Let's debate the issues and not the strength of the people posting here.  If one had to be an FM to express oneself here, there would be very few posts.
  

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: 2211
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #84 - 11/21/04 at 17:03:11
Post Tools
[quote author=bamonson link=board=1-1e4e5;num=1090841423;start=60#75 date=11/18/04 at 18:53:58]Monson (previous)

If I were to play Kasparov in a correspondence game, even from the white side, the disparity in our abilities (he a super-GM, perhaps the greatest ever, though I personally doubt that, and me a mere 2400 range player) the MOST LIKELY single-game result would be that I would lose regardless of whether I played against the Petrov, or against the Kings Indian, or the Sicilian, or any number of other opening choices.

But I will say with no reservation that I would gladly challenge Garry Kasparov to a correspondence game in which I played the white side of the Belgrade gambit, and I would not lose no matter which line he chose to pursue; or if I did, it would be demonstrable that it was not due to the opening but rather some other mistake (or series of mistakes) that occurred down the road. 

End Quote.

That was a mouthful.  Grin

Upon checking Fide's online rating list and I could find no record of Mr. Monson's OTB elo (Sorry national ratings don't count), so I will have to take him at his word. Regarding Correspondence Chess, I'm afraid that players have too much access to other resources for one to really judge a players true strength.

I really enjoyed the bit about Kasparov, that was quite humorous, who knows, maybe one day u will get your chance.

Take care

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
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 2211
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #83 - 11/21/04 at 15:44:43
Post Tools
Petroff players are not obliged to allow the Four Knights game and can opt instead for: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Bb4!?.  Grin

Still, I do not see any reason why someone would want to avoid the Four Knights, all in all its pretty harmless, Belgrade Gambit included.

Yours truly

Top  Grin  

Postscript: In the often quoted Svidler - Morozevich game, black was more than ok after the Opening. I would have definetly preferred to have been Black there.
  

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 #82 - 11/21/04 at 15:35:22
Post Tools
Something not yet considered on this thread is that after 4. d4, Black does not have to play 4...exd4: last time I looked, 4...Bb4 was considered perfectly good.  Perhaps Monson or somebody will be good enough to correct me on this point.
  

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 #81 - 11/21/04 at 15:29:00
Post Tools
Your question makes me feel like a graduate student facing a final exam question in Chess 701 (Open Systems): "Analyze White's comparative winning chances in the Petrov and the Belgrade.  Be specific.  (20 points)."

But seriously, I am not a player of 1. e4 except in very casual games.  In serious games, I always play 1. d4.  So I am not the best person to ask about how to beat the Petrov.  I do think that 3. Nxe4 is probably the best answer.  Also I think that the vexed question of whether the Petrov is an ironclad drawing resource or just another way to get tortured is applicable only at the highest levels.  I can only realistically hope to beat players rated 2300 and below -- and not all of them!  So in games at my level, I would play 3. Nxe4 and hope to win based either on my vastly deeper comprension of chess Smiley or on luck.  And I would play 2...Nf6 with exactly the same expectation!   

But to paraphase what Botvinnik once said about the Tarrasch, if the Petrov is good then 1. e4 is not a strong move -- and I would sooner doubt the former than believe the latter.  White is better from the initial position, right?  And I don't think that either 1. e4 or 2. Nf3 is suboptimal.

Also my taste is to play WITH the IQP, so I am not attracted very much to the main lines of the Petrov, where Black battles on the other side.  The line that most attracts me (as Black) is 3. Nxe5 d6  4. Nf3 Nxe4  5. d4 d5  6. Bd3 Bd6.  But it seems that White preserves fairly good winning chances there.

If I WERE a 1. e4 player, I would not choose 3. Nc3 versus 2...Nf6 unless I also played it against 3...Nc6 (in which case I probably would also play 2. Nc3 versus Alekhine's.) The reason is that from my limited understanding, White's winning chances after 3. Nxe5 are better.   As I've said before, I don't think the Belgrade offers good winning chances IN THEORY.  I do applaud Bruce's success with it and enthusiasm for it, and if you think it will work for you, by all means play it!  But in that case, do yourself a favor and also play it after 2...Nc6!
  

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 #80 - 11/21/04 at 08:58:31
Post Tools
Maybe we can say that the petroff is refuted by the belgrade? Well, at least the mindset of the person who plays 2...Nf6 to guarantee his draw is refuted, while the position on the board may not be so clear.  8)

The point is despite this entire debate, no-one has come up with any convincing route to a black advantage, and if white is guaranteed an equal position from the opening should he know his stuff, while he's taken black out of his "safety zone", so to speak (let's say, for example, that black is one of these evil Petroff players [Though, in over 300 OTB/correspondence games, I have luckily never encountered even one petroff player]) then the Belgrade seems a pretty good alternative to the scotch/spanish. A petroff player, like a french or caro-kann player (stereotyping I know, but still), is usually very fond of grabbing pawns then trying his damndest to hold onto them. So okay... 

You sit at your board, shake hands with your opponent, and begin your game. After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3, your opponent plays his king's knight to f6, and gives you a knowing smile, which screams "Would you like a draw now or in 3 hours time?". So you play 3.Nc3 Nc6, 4.d4 exd4, and he's still got that smirk, you can read his mind and all it's saying is "Well, this is known to be drawish since the dark ages." You hover your hand over your king's knight, and all of a sudden whip your queen's knight to d5. All of a sudden, Mr. Petroff has a vacant look on his face, beads of sweat run down his forehead, and it's your turn to smile. 

He's now faced with the dilemma of continuing to play in quiet mode with 5...Be7, though even this has been shown here not to guarantee a quiet game, or trying to punish you for that errant knight move. So, he grabs the pawn on e4. Now, 6.Qe2 f5 gives white the opportunity to scare Mr Petroff to holy hell with the crazy 7.g4, or after the main line 7.Ng5 white seems to have a decent position, though of course such wild, messy positions are not to everyone's taste. Someone who's entered the game with a draw or win in the endgame mindset will rarely be able to adjust appropriately. 

The only thing that surprises me is that this thread has become so popular... usually my gambit threads attract a handful of posts, but this one seems to have mustered almost as much passion for/against the opening as the King's Gambit - even if some of the debate has been on pro gambitism v. anti gambitism in general. While such passion and room for debate exists, our game is truly alive. The day that I agree that openings like the Belgrade and KG are not worth playing, is the day I believe chess dies. And, as a pre-emptive strike on this Markovich concept of "gambit psychosis", I would like to point out that I play these openings solely because I get better results with them than I do with mainstream openings. 

To illustrate this, a little aside: Recently at the advice of a clubmate, I went through all my games from the last three seasons, looked at every opening I played and my results. As a result I have actually stopped playing the KG, since even though my results are very good (6.5/10 against similar strength opposition), when black accepted the gambit pawn I'd scored 0.5/3. I actually have my best results with the scotch (100%), while I've only ever lost one game in the ponziani, and am unbeaten in the belgrade (correspondence and OTB). So these are the openings I now play. I have also as a result of the above scan through my results, gotten rid of the Latvian and Albin completely. However, the budapest gambit remains in my repertoire, as does 1...a6 against 1.d4. 
On the other hand, I was planning to play the morra but from my scan of openings I've found myself to get good, good results with the open sicilian (4.5/8 against considerably stronger opposition), so the morra is scrapped.

A lot of people play gambits not because they feel they have to, or because they're objectively better, but because they enjoy them more and, at the levels they play, get better results with them. This is certainly the case with me, and I would imagine the case with MNb too. The day that my openings are shown to be refuted or my results deteriorate with them, I will give them up and find something else. 

Just one quick question, what do people regard as best after 5...Nxe4? While 6.Qe2 seems the main move, plenty of games are played in the 6.Bc4 and some in the Bd3 lines. In my ongoing correspondence games, one of which is against Peter Leisebein, I have chosen the main lines after 6.Qe2, but objectively I'm not sure this is best. 

Regards,
Craig  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
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10765
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #79 - 11/19/04 at 15:25:28
Post Tools
<I was criticizing of the idea that to play in gambit fashion is particularly desirable in itself.>
We can easily agree on this. But still my question remains: what is your opinion on White's chances in the BG compared to the Petrov?
You see, the latter opening is what guys like Glenn Snow and me - and also GM Van der Wiel - bothers so much. Please support your opinion with short variants.
  

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 #78 - 11/19/04 at 14:34:52
Post Tools
Quote:
Monson (previous)
The truth is almost all openings (including gambits) are playable at most any level, including the highest echelons of GM play   
 
Markovich:
Lots of luck if you attempt to uphold that proposition in your practical play! 

MONSON:
Yes, yes, blah, blah, blah.


Well dear chessfriend, please DO note that you said "almost ALL openings (INCLUDING gambits)" are playable at the highest levels.  I am hardly engaging in blather to raise an eyebrow at such a sweeping statement, nor does your happy experience with the Belgrade do much to support your proposition.   I am impressed by your evident strength at chess, your enthusiasm, and by your deep grasp of the principles of this interesting system.  I am less impressed by the system itself, sorry.  But yes, it's chess, and maybe someday we will play a game and you can prove how hopelessly wrong I am (I probably would not give you a chance to play your pet system, however)!   

Remember Ken Smith and his precious, precious Smith-Morra gambit?  He tried it against the big boys at San Antonio 1972, and they ate him alive.  (I am NOT, of course, putting myself in their league nor even that of Smith).   

Is the Smith-Morra "playable" at top levels?  On any given day and against a well chosen opponent, I expect it is.  Can it possibly be an integral part of a strong repertoire?  I doubt it.
  

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 #77 - 11/19/04 at 14:03:49
Post Tools
Quote:
<the belief that ONLY gambit play is interesting>
How many players are there who share this belief?
I never met any.


I always enjoy reading here your ideas about the openings; you are often very well informed.

But I am a little surprised by the quoted remark, given your frequent presence on this site, where I (at least) have encountered some who give evidence of being afflicted with "Gambit Psychosis."  Certainly I've encountered a number of people in "real life" that admirably fit the description.  One player even told me that he MUST play 2. g4 against the Dutch, because that was the only system that gives "interesting" play!  There's an entire magazine (in German) devoted exclusively to gambits, for crying out loud.  I imagine there are thousands of gambit devotees eagerly awaiting its next issue, just yearning to see latest ideas in the Winckelman and the Latvian.

You might also try reading some of the writings of Santasiere, if you can get your hands on them.  And I don't think that he has been the only one to decry technical precision as the death-knell of artistry in chess.

If you read what I wrote, I was not criticizing of gambits or necessarily of those playing them; I was criticizing of the idea that to play in gambit fashion is particularly desirable in itself.  In general in chess, I think, there are many things that one should be able to do besides this.  Active play in open positions IS fundamental -- that does not mean that it is the end-all and the be-all.   

Not if one intends to WIN, anyway.
  

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


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10765
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #76 - 11/18/04 at 20:42:00
Post Tools
<the belief that ONLY gambit play is interesting>
How many players are there who share this belief?
I never met any.
Monson is right - some players do incorporate gambits
in their repertoire, like me. This is not because they
believe that gambits are the ONLY road - they believe
that it is an INTERESTING road to play for a win.
This attitude is shared by all those top GM's who used to play the Botvinnik Variation in the Slav, the Poisoned Pawn in the Najdorf, the Perenyi Gambit.
Again, the BG should not be considered as an alternative for the Ruy Lopez or even the Scotch. It is a way to avoid the hard to beat Petrov.
  

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 #75 - 11/18/04 at 18:53:58
Post Tools
Monson (previous)
The truth is almost all openings (including gambits) are playable at most any level, including the highest echelons of GM play   
 

Markovich:
Lots of luck if you attempt to uphold that proposition in your practical play! 

MONSON:
Yes, yes, blah, blah, blah.

Actually, if "practical play" is any indication, then I should be happy to play the BG in every single game because in some 30 odd "practical" OTB games I have lost only one (which I was winning, no less), which is much more than I can say for any other opening (gambit or not) that adorns my repertoire.   In correspondence games I have 60-plus wins versus a grand total of only 2 losses (one against a corr. IM, Tony Barnsley, in which I could have drawn as I pleased but tried for more and eventually over-extended while pressing for a win) and around 20 draws.

So in purely "practical" circumstances, I'd say the BG has been a rather remarkable weapon for me.

But to put this into a serious perspective, let me say this:

If I were to play Kasparov in a correspondence game, even from the white side, the disparity in our abilities (he a super-GM, perhaps the greatest ever, though I personally doubt that, and me a mere 2400 range player) the MOST LIKELY single-game result would be that I would lose regardless of whether I played against the Petrov, or against the Kings Indian, or the Sicilian, or any number of other opening choices.

But I will say with no reservation that I would gladly challenge Garry Kasparov to a correspondence game in which I played the white side of the Belgrade gambit, and I would not lose no matter which line he chose to pursue; or if I did, it would be demonstrable that it was not due to the opening but rather some other mistake (or series of mistakes) that occurred down the road.

If the opening is as "dicey" as some commentators like to portray it, then given the rating disparity, even drawing should be a near impossible feat against a player of Kasparov's caliber.

Moreover, while winning a correspondence game against Kasparov would be a hurculean feat under any circumstances, the possibility would nevertheless be real if he sought to aggressively punish white for his daring choice of opening.  And this is not just my own assessment, but one many great players such as Karpov, Keres, Tal, Euwe, Svidler and others have contended over the years.   

Indeed, while we keep hearing that GMs can get "easy equality" by playing 5...Be7 (something Svidler has shown to be not so easily done as said), it is remarkable to note that none of them seem to want to test the waters by trying to actually refute it with 5...Nxe4. 

So, good people, if the Belgrade looks interesting to you then play it--it's sound.  If it doesn't interest you, then golly, don't play it.  How hard is that?

Cheers, 

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 #74 - 11/18/04 at 12:57:01
Post Tools
Quote:


The BG is not an opening that relies on cheap "tactical tricks" or keeping one's fingers crossed in hope that the opponent will play incorrectly and fall into a trap.  To the contrary, the BG is a positional gambit that pretty much assures white at least a small edge from the opening should black play to avoid testing the TRUE gambit lines (e.g., capturing on e4).   


Really? I think of the Spanish and the Queen's Gambit as systems that "pretty much assure White at least a small edge from the opening."  While I agree with your seeming premise that Black does best to play 5...Nxe4, I suspect the Belgrade's comparative absence from play at top levels has more to do with the widely-shared perception that White has very scant play for a win against  5...Be7.  The future will no doubt judge who errs in this: you, or the chess world!

Quote:
I will also repeat what I've stated here earlier; and that is that just because someone is proficient in a particular gambit, or numerous gambits, that does not--DOES NOT-- mean that that person is "lazy" or "neglectful" of other aspects of the game and proper chess development.  It simply means that they choose to include such gambits in their repertoire.


I fully agree with the words written, but they in no way contradict my claim that the belief that ONLY gambit play is interesting constitutes a refusal to learn anything more about chess.   

Quote:
In fact, we might reverse the situation and say that those who dedicate themselves exclusively to dry ultra-solid low-risk openings are more likely to be the ones who...


I would be the last to advocate that anyone do that.  I believe that open positions, which as a species require a high level of tactical acumen and involve high risk, are fundamental to chess. 

Quote:
I also find it amusing when people set "rating" cut-offs for what is and is not acceptable for people to be playing


I don't know if you have chess students, Bruce; I do.  (Parenthetically, I teach strictly as a volunteer, not for money.)  I believe that one has to be (1) a good tactician; and (2) proficient in playing open positions; before making much progress in chess.  I would consider it a waste of my time to take on a student who insisted on playing the Pirc or the King's Indian while rated under oh, say, 2000.  On the other hand, I do encourage improving players to play in gambit fashion.  I think the Belgrade, Danish, Blackmar-Diemer, Smith-Morra and so forth are excellent systems for young, improving players, even though some are dicey from a theoretical viewpoint.      

Quote:
and [I find it amusing] especially when they claim that "gambits" like the Belgrade are only playable against players rated below 2200, or below 2000, etc.  That is all nonsense.


Personally I would find it too time-consuming to have to learn separate systems for separate classes of players, so I can only agree.  I do think there are systems that are of such questionable soundness that they can be expected to score only against weak opposition.

Quote:
The truth is almost all openings (including gambits) are playable at most any level, including the highest echelons of GM play


Lots of luck if you attempt to uphold that proposition in your practical play!

Quote:
It is almost always the talent and skill of the individual player that determines success or failure at the board; not because s/he played a particular opening but because s/he understands that opening and as a result of this, combined with their own abilities, they made consistently stronger moves than their opponent over the course of many moves during that game.


That is more or less true, but you should have said "combined with their own abilities AND their knowledge of chess."  The last bit would more support my case than that of anyone who would advocate constant reliance on gambits.  One is not ALWAYS going to be a pawn down with good compensation, and nobody who ONLY understands gambit play is going to be able to pull the good moves out of his hat necessary to defeating strong players in many practical situations. 

Also, your last remark is only more or less true: if entirely true, it would seem that 1. a3 should be seen more than it is.
  

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 #73 - 11/18/04 at 08:56:49
Post Tools
A jolly good point!

Well I played the Petrof in the past both as Black and as White and I don't think White has more winning chances than in the Belgrade (which now I sometime play as White).
As a matter of fact Belgrade Gambit is more risky, but, as Bruce Monson correctly assested,  is more risky both for White and for Black.
Besides computer programs often make mistakes in evaluating the position (due to the unbalance and the trade off material / position) and that's good if you're a correspondance player as me.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10765
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #72 - 11/01/04 at 20:20:28
Post Tools
Let us boil down the whole debate again to the one and only relevant question: does the Belgrade Gambit offer better chances to play for a win, from the White point of view, than the Petrov?
Specifically, what is to preferred, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 or 3.d4 or 3.Nxe5 ?
Remember, that GM John van der Wiel once offered the Nobel Prize for anyone who could refute the Petrov - which is an argument pro the Belgrade.
This is why I follow this thread with much interest.
  

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 #71 - 11/01/04 at 02:01:08
Post Tools
[Markovich wrote]

"For whatever it is worth, I do not agree that the Belgrade is a better try than the King's Gambit, or even as good a try.  Just look at the difference in the depth of the strategic conception of these two systems!  With apologies to Bruce Monson, what is the Belgrade but a bundle of tactical tricks?"

MONSON:
Apologies indeed!   

The BG is not an opening that relies on cheap "tactical tricks" or keeping one's fingers crossed in hope that the opponent will play incorrectly and fall into a trap.  To the contrary, the BG is a positional gambit that pretty much assures white at least a small edge from the opening should black play to avoid testing the TRUE gambit lines (e.g., capturing on e4).   

I will also repeat what I've stated here earlier; and that is that just because someone is proficient in a particular gambit, or numerous gambits, that does not--DOES NOT-- mean that that person is "lazy" or "neglectful" of other aspects of the game and proper chess development.  It simply means that they choose to include such gambits in their repertoire.   

In fact, we might reverse the situation and say that those who dedicate themselves exclusively to dry ultra-solid low-risk openings are more likely to be the ones who are "lazy" and neglectful of some aspects of chess development that round-out one's play; namely deep combinative thinking and intuition, tactical alertness, and perhaps most importantly dynamic creativity. 

I also find it amusing when people set "rating" cut-offs for what is and is not acceptable for people to be playing; and especially when they claim that "gambits" like the Belgrade are only playable against players rated below 2200, or below 2000, etc.  That is all nonsense.   

The truth is almost all openings (including gambits) are playable at most any level, including the highest echelons of GM play (anyone remember the "coffee house" favorite of them all, the Evans Gambit, being used by Kasparov a few years back, and how quickly super-GM's such as Anand and Adams went down in flames against it?).   

It is almost always the talent and skill of the individual player that determines success or failure at the board; not because s/he played a particular opening but because s/he understands that opening and as a result of this, combined with their own abilities, they made consistently stronger moves than their opponent over the course of many moves during that game.

If you REALLY want to improve your play, whether you deem yourself a tactician or positional strategist or both, you should continue to practice what you feel comfortable playing, but also force yourself to investigate, practice and come to better understand those nagging situations where you find yourself struggling or wandering aimlessly during your games.   

Don't be one-dimensional, but also don't siphon all the excitement and dynamism out of your game under the false assumption that your are making your play "stronger" or "more mature"--you aren't.
  
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 #70 - 11/01/04 at 01:00:35
Post Tools
[CraigEvans wrote:]
Okay, for those just joining the discussion, the position we're currently analysing is found after the following:

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

However, as I suggested on a much earlier post, 13...b5!? seems to be a much tougher defence. It's hard to believe that, or to take the move seriously, but the point that freeing the b7 square for the queen seems to ward off many of white's threats is not to be underestimated.

MONSON:
Craig, I applaud your efforts but 13...b5 isn't a very good option, in my opinion. It's just too weaking to black's position; and especially so given black's already seriously lagging development.  Of all the pawns black might consider sacrificing back to relieve pressure, the one standing in front of his king is the least likely to be suitable.  Indeed, I would be delighted to see such a move played in a serious correspondence game against me. 

I can tell you that you quickly went wrong in assessing the "best" moves at white's disposal following this line.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10765
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #69 - 11/01/04 at 00:35:02
Post Tools
<OF COURSE they were technicians of victory!  That is what we should all aspire to be.>
Why? In the first place we can not win all the time. In the second place there is nothing wrong with striving for entertainment and beauty.
Now I do not sympathize with Santasiere's denegration of players with better skills. But I do not like being denegrated either, just because I want to have a good time behind the board. My object when playing chess is to have fun, not to score without having fun.
BTW, I have hardly played the Danish anymore the last ten years. Too many boring lines.

My alternative to the sequence Morphy-Steinitz-Lasker-Rubinstein-Capablanca:
Morphy-Young Steinitz-Tsjigorin-Spielmann-Alekhine-Keres-Bronstein-Tal. Quite respectable, isn't it?

<It is unfortunate to discount so readily the deep beauty of our game UNLESS it is found in Morphy-style play.>
Who on this site ever did? Not me. It is the other way round: some people are without much reason very negative on all gambits.
But of course, when improving it is sensible to become an allround player. I never denied that.
OK, Markovich, you may have the last word.
  

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 #68 - 10/31/04 at 21:49:48
Post Tools
Well indeed, if someone has given up trying to get better at chess, he should just play whatever entertains him.  But I really don't know that I have ever encountered a chess player who didn't aspire to a higher level of play than he was presently capable of.  Or to put it another way, to be able to beat the players that presently beat him.

It misses the point to set up supposedly "dull" straw men like Capablanca as the alternative to playing the Danish all the time.  Like it or not, this is not an easy game, nor is it one that always demands a Banzai attack.

It is unfortunate to discount so readily the deep beauty of our game UNLESS it is found in Morphy-style play.  That kind of play is sometimes called for, but this one-sidedness fails to acknowledge the ruthless emphasis on scoring that really good play demands.  The object of this game is to SCORE, not to uphold a certain style of play.  Some of the best words ever spoken in this vein were Karpov's when he said, "Style?  I have no style."   

Anthony Santasiere emphasized the beauty of the material-for-activity dichotomy at the expense of other forms of chess beauty, and denegrated the great players of his day as "technicians of victory."  OF COURSE they were technicians of victory!  That is what we should all aspire to be.
  

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


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10765
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #67 - 10/31/04 at 19:46:49
Post Tools
Am I glad that my ELO never reached 1900! As this will probably not happen anymore during the rest of my life, I have eternal approvement of Markovich to play my favourite gambits.
Markovich is right of course - assuming that ones main ambition is to improve ones level. Further I refer to my post in General Chess - Chess attitude. My main point is, that when I tried to develop my chess skills in the way Markovich described, I did not enjoy playing anymore and even quit the game for a while. But if anyone does enjoy playing like Lasker, Rubinstein, Capablanca or Ulf Andersson, he/she has my blessing. A variety of styles on amateur level only heightens the fun. Though I do not expect/recommend anyone to follow my example, one must realise that at some point there comes an end to improving ones level - and then all the hard work and ambition will be in vain.
So all those folks enjoying the Belgrade: keep on going and have fun.
  

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
 
X
God Member
*****
Offline


Education is a system
of imposed ignorance.Chomsky

Posts: 571
Joined: 10/04/03
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #66 - 10/31/04 at 19:43:23
Post Tools
"For whatever it is worth, I do not agree that the Belgrade is a better try than the King's Gambit, or even as good a try.  Just look at the difference in the depth of the strategic conception of these two systems!  With apologies to Bruce Monson, what is the Belgrade but a bundle of tactical tricks?"

Uh-oh.  I sense another gambit argument again.   Sad

Please,...<gasp> stop... the insanity... Cry
  

Power to the People!&&http://www.gravel2008.us/           http://www.nationalinitiative.us/&&Mike Gravel for President 2008
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #65 - 10/31/04 at 17:46:58
Post Tools
I probably should not dip my toe in these waters, infested as they are with sharp-toothed Belgrade practioners like my chessfriend Bruce Monson, whose laudable book is an excellent introduction to this opening.

I think that whether dicey gambits like the Belgrade are a good idea depends on one's level of chess development.  I recall that Euwe said, and I think others must have said before him, that a player's chess development recapitulates the development of chess.  So one of the first things a player learns/should learn after how to hold onto his material is how to play in open positions -- which has a lot to do with getting and keeping the initiative.  So I think that for a certain class up player, probably up to about 2000 elo, gambit-style play is a very good way to develop one's game.  For the same reason, I think that the Tarrasch Defense is just about the only defense to the closed systems that I would recommend to a player below 2000.

Like TopNotch, however, I am not in sympathy with the "I must play gambits or die of melancholy" school of thought, which I think is a form of refusal to learn anything more about chess.  Particularly above the 2000 level, I think that an ambitious player should be willing to take on some deeper problems than whether two pawns plus the initiative is worth more than the piece some particular open positon.  Morphy-like play is fine, but after Morphy came Steinitz and then came Lasker and Rubinstein and then... you see my point.  I recently had one of my students working on Rubinstein's games and they said, "Arrgh!  They all go 80 moves!"  But chess games often DO go 80 moves and it is quite important, eventually, to understand how to win from all sorts of chess positions, not only gambit ones.  Rubinstein in his good years was indeed an excellent model of how to play chess: he played some beautiful sacrifices, but he was also capable of almost ironclad play in "undynamic" positions.  (I admit that plenty of modern GMs go beyond him, since so much more is understood about chess nowadays). 

If I encountered the Belgrade and needed only the half point, I would certainly play 5...Be7.  If I needed the whole point I would play 5...Nxe4, which I suspect is the best move on the board and which offers Black at least good winning chances.

For whatever it is worth, I do not agree that the Belgrade is a better try than the King's Gambit, or even as good a try.  Just look at the difference in the depth of the strategic conception of these two systems!  With apologies to Bruce Monson, what is the Belgrade but a bundle of tactical tricks?
  

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 #64 - 10/19/04 at 05:36:22
Post Tools
Okay, for those just joining the discussion, the position we're currently analysing is found after the following:

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

Objectively here, I don't think white has enough for the piece. However, proving this seems a far from simple task. One thing that seems sure, after 13....Qe6 white gets more compensation than he ought to in the 14.Qd4 f5 15.f3 Nf6 16.Bc4 Qd7 17.Rhe1 line. I am struggling to find any black improvements here (I briefly looked at 21...Nxg4 but after 22.Bb5 Qb6 23.Qc4 white is winning), possibly 21...Qb6 22.Bxd6+ Bxd6 23.Qxd6+ Qc7 24.Qd4 Re8 (or h5) is a better try for black, when I cannot see a direct refutation.

However, as I suggested on a much earlier post, 13...b5!? seems to be a much tougher defence. It's hard to believe that, or to take the move seriously, but the point that freeing the b7 square for the queen seems to ward off many of white's threats is not to be underestimated. 14.Qxb5+ Qb7 (Maybe 14...Bb7 is playable here too, but I'm not so sure) 15.Qa4 (where else?) Bd7 16.Qd4 Qc6 and now maybe 17.g4 is most promising for white (17...Bxg4?! 18.Bg2 looks almost deadly, whereas if black doesn't take the pawn, 18.Rh3 is a "subtle" move), when 17...Nc5 seems forced, and white can choose to win a pawn back with 18.Bg2 (18...Qxg2 19.Bxd6+ Bxd6 20.Qxd6+ Kb7 21.Qxc5 Rad8 intending ...Ka8, ...Qb7 which seems to give good chances of successful defence) or can continue with his plan with 18.Rh3 Kb7 19.Rg3 Qb6 when again black seems able to ward off the immediate threats. (Maybe 20.Qd5+ draws, it's hard to work out.)

It would be almost ironic if such a strange looking move should be the downfall of an extremely odd piece sacrifice. 

It's curious that when John Emms wrote his excellent "Play the Open Games as Black", he said the position after 11...Kb8 "could certainly do with a practical test" when, if he'd bothered to look on chessbase's online database, he would have found several... maybe he wrote the belgrade chapter early 1998-1999 and didn't recheck it before publishing? Who knows...

Regards, 
Craig  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
 
OstapBender
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no spoon.

Posts: 1491
Location: not in Kansas anymore
Joined: 10/16/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #63 - 10/18/04 at 11:33:47
Post Tools
In reference to the line 5...Nb4 6.Nxd4 Nxe4 7.Nb5 Nxd5 8.Qxd5 Qe7 9.Nxc7+

MONSON: 
This one game alone (against a 2400+ correspondence player) may not be enough, but I also noted as I recall that I have played seven games with this line, all master level players, including two additional 2400+ players in Joop Simmelink and Manuel Fruth in which I won one and drew one.  In all, my record is +4 =2.  That speaks QUITE HIGHLY for the viability of the sac. 

OSTAPBENDER:
While this might speak highly of the viability of the sac, it falls far short of demonstrating its soundness - and farther still of making the line useful to anyone else (other than of course you and those who qualify to be you 'friends' <wink>).

MONSON: 
Well, golly, I'm sorry that I am unwilling to just give away all my private analysis for free, especially since I intend to use this variation more in the future!   

OSTAPBENDER:
Fair enough, but it weakens your position for criticizing someone else for making unsubstantiated claims when you are unwilling to back up your own claims with concrete analysis.  You can't have it both ways.  We all look forward to the day when the 'secret lines' will be revealed in your upcoming book.

MONSON:
Finally, in answer to your other question regarding 5...Nb4 6.Nxd4 Nxe4 7.Nf5?, I will go ahead and tell you why it is bad:  7...c6 8.Nxb4 Bxb4+ 9.c3 Qf6!, and now: 
A) 10.Nxg7+ Kd8! [Tal] 11.Qf3 Bxc3+! 12.bxc3 Qxg7 -+ 
B) 10.Qf3 Nxc3 11.Bd2 (11.a3 Qe5+!) 11..g6! 12.bxc3 gxf5 13.Rd1 Bc5 14.Bd3 d5 -+ 
I hope this response is sufficient.

OSTAPBENDER:
This is certainly more than what I initially found in NCO, but just a truncated version of what I later found in Pinski's 'Four Knights' book.

Sorry for the irreverance.  This is an interesting thread which, in addition to marketing Mr. Monson's upcoming book, does occasionally provide some useful discussion and a few ideas about the Belgrade Gambit.
  

"If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates."  -Jay Leno
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 #62 - 10/18/04 at 00:13:45
Post Tools
OSTAPBENDER WROTE:
My comments (and eventual question) refer to Monson-Sakai correspondence game appearing earlier in this thread (7/27/04 by bamonson).  First of all, is this sparsely annotated game provided as support of the strength (as well as ownership) of the 9.Nxc7+ idea?  

MONSON:
This one game alone (against a 2400+ correspondence player) may not be enough, but I also noted as I recall that I have played seven games with this line, all master level players, including two additional 2400+ players in Joop Simmelink and Manuel Fruth in which I won one and drew one.  In all, my record is +4 =2.  That speaks QUITE HIGHLY for the viability of the sac.

In addition, I have shared my analysis with a few friends (people who have a good track record for offering me their own innovations and thoughts <wink>) and they have done well with this variation as well.

OSTAPBENDER WROTE:
My contention is that a game like this, provided without a shred of analysis to indicate that Black's defense against the piece sacrifice as well as White's subsequent innovation on move 12, was anything close to the critical, most testing response, is of little value to anyone trying to assess the line in question.

MONSON:
Well, golly, I'm sorry that I am unwilling to just give away all my private analysis for free, especially since I intend to use this variation more in the future!   

Anyone who reads ChessMail magazine will notice that correspondence players usually will not go into detailed analyses on the opening phases of their games, because they work hard on these and giving it away only makes their job harder still.

Moreover, I have also said that I'm planning a second edition to my Belgrade Gambit book, and when I publish it I PROMISE (just like the first edition) that I will reveal EVERYTHING I know about not only this beautiful line, but a litany of other extraordinary variations and games that have not been introduced to cyberspace.   

In addition, I will probably be doing more BG articles for Kaissiber magazine in the near future, one of which will likely focus on this line.

OSTAPBENDER WROTE:
Now I get to my question.  Wasn't Black's 16th move, 16...Qe7, a lemon?  

MONSON:
If I wrote 16...Qe7 then I wrote it incorrectly, because the actual game continuation was 16...Qd7, after which it continued 17.Rhe1 (Here 17.Bb5 is also good, but not better than the move I chose) 17...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 34.Bg6 Bc8 35.a5 1-0 
 
Certainly 16...Qe7? would lose immediately to 17.Qxd6, etc.  Indeed, this tactical point is THE primary basis on which white's entire sac revolves around.  When I posted this I was at my work computer and therefore basically recalling the game blindfold from memory.  I apologize for any confusion this may have caused.  Incidentally, the rapid reply you mentioned from the other day also occurred while I was at work, otherwise I might have posted the refuting analysis against 7.Nf5.

Finally, in answer to your other question regarding 5...Nb4 6.Nxd4 Nxe4 7.Nf5?, I will go ahead and tell you why it is bad:  7...c6 8.Nxb4 Bxb4+ 9.c3 Qf6!, and now:

A) 10.Nxg7+ Kd8! [Tal] 11.Qf3 Bxc3+! 12.bxc3 Qxg7 -+
B) 10.Qf3 Nxc3 11.Bd2 (11.a3 Qe5+!) 11..g6! 12.bxc3 gxf5 13.Rd1 Bc5 14.Bd3 d5 -+

I hope this response is sufficient.

Bruce Monson
  
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 #61 - 10/17/04 at 18:18:23
Post Tools
My comments (and eventual question) refer to Monson-Sakai correspondence game appearing earlier in this thread (7/27/04 by bamonson).  First of all, is this sparsely annotated game provided as support of the strength (as well as ownership) of the 9.Nxc7+ idea?  The point made seems to be that if a line (or indeed a whole opening variation) is successful against a > 2400 player - in a correspondence game no less - then it must be strong (even "bullet-proof").  My contention is that a game like this, provided without a shred of analysis to indicate that Black's defense against the piece sacrifice as well as White's subsequent innovation on move 12, was anything close to the critical, most testing response, is of little value to anyone trying to assess the line in question.

Now I get to my question.  Wasn't Black's 16th move, 16...Qe7, a lemon?  I don't see how blocking in the f8-bishop, and preventing it from immediately recapturing on d6, can possibly be the best Black has here.  The alternative 16...Qd7, which Monson suggests is strongly met by 17.Bb5 (in one of the few game annotations), must be better.  As near as I can tell White missed a golden opportunity in this game when he played 17.Rhe1 instead of 17.Qxd6+, which wins on the spot.  After 17...Qxd6 18.Rxd6 +- White wins back the piece, coming out a pawn up with a continuing initiative.  Am I overlooking something here?

I've been reading forum threads for a while now, before finally deciding to register with the idea of maybe participating (asking questions at least), and I have to say that that many of the gambit-associated threads are very different than threads concerning other, perhaps less controversial, lines.  There is a real 'The Emperor has No Clothes' feel to them (if this comes off as a non-sequitur then so be it).  This is not so much an open exchange of ideas as it is a pissing contest between those who embrace the gambit and those who dare to suggest that it might possibly be ineffective against a well-prepared opponent or even (shudder) unsound.

"Up on housing project hill, it's either fortune of fame.  You must pick one or the other, though neither is to be what they claim."  (This is indeed a non-sequitur, just for the sake of quoting something other than 'The Matrix'; it's Bob Dylan, by the way)
  

"If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates."  -Jay Leno
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 #60 - 10/17/04 at 18:13:14
Post Tools
I'm impressed with the speed of Mr. Monson's response to my first post to a Chesspublishing.com forum.  The response appeared before I had even logged off!  The gist of this exchange was pretty much the following - Q: "... is 7.Nf5 bad?"  A: "Yes it is."  I learned just about nothing from this, but I was impressed by the speed.  Since I asked the question without having even attempted to find the answer for myself, the brief answer was probably more than I deserved.  I did find a more informative, though still not wholly satisfactory, answer simply by consulting NCO - which I should have done in the first place.  At least the question was not ignored.  Thanks.
  

"If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates."  -Jay Leno
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 #59 - 10/16/04 at 17:45:08
Post Tools
Quote:
In the 5...Nb4 line, after 6.Nxd4 Nxe4, it seem like 7.Nb5 is the main (only?) move considered.  Is 7.Nf5 bad?


MONSON:
After 5...Nb4, white has three options in 6.Nxf6+, 6.Bc4 and 6.Nxd4, all of which are playable.  However, I consider 5.Nxd4 to be the strongest.

After 5.Nxd4 Nxe4 6.Nf5 is indeed bad while 6.Nb5 is both good and extremely complicated.
  
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 #58 - 10/16/04 at 16:46:10
Post Tools
In the 5...Nb4 line, after 6.Nxd4 Nxe4, it seem like 7.Nb5 is the main (only?) move considered.  Is 7.Nf5 bad?
  

"If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates."  -Jay Leno
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 #57 - 10/16/04 at 12:49:58
Post Tools
Mr. Monson,
I think you are right.  After something like 17.f4 Bg4 18.Qd2 Nd3 19.e5 I agree that white has a strong pawn center and the bishop on g4 is a bit of a target.  I had underestimated the strength of f4 and e5.

Still I think the ideas of ...Bg5 and/or ...Nd3 have some merit.  I think that this a point where black needs to play actively to make something of the position, or he is just overextended with ...c4.  Peeling back to the position at 14.Bc2, I think there are three possibilities that deserve consideration:

I) 14.Bc2 Nd3?! (an idea mainly, surely dxe4 is better)

15. exd5 Bf5; 
15.Bxd3 exd3 16. Qxd3 exd4 17.Qxe4 Bf5 and black may be able to argue compensation for the pawn; though in lines like 18. Qxb7 Bd3 19.Re1 Rfe8 20.Be3 Rab8 21.Qxa7 Qxa7 22.Bxa7 Rxb2 23.Nf4 I don't see it.

II) 14.Bc2 dxe4 15.Bxe4
a) 15...Rd8 16.Nd4 and as an alternative to16...Qb6, I think 16...Nd3 is worth looking at:  17.Bxd3 cxd3 18.Qxd3 Bf5 and black might have enough compensation; for instance 19. Qc3 Qd5 20.Be3 Rac8 and the very least this is difficult to win with white with blacks activity and the bishops of opposite.
b) 15...Bg4 I think deserves serious consideration as it momentarily prevents Nd4 and f3 is not as strong here and Bxb7 looks very dangerous to me.  Note that if 16.f3 Bh5 17.Bxb7 loses a piece to ...Qb6+.  If white is provoked into playing f3, then black has ...Nd3 as a possibility with a superior version of the lines mentioned earlier.

These are really just ideas that might make things more difficult for white.  I don't really know anything about the Belgrade Gambit, but the whole ...c5, c4 plan seems risky.  It is my impression that black must play very actively if he is to justify this.  Is this a main line?
  

Power to the People!&&http://www.gravel2008.us/           http://www.nationalinitiative.us/&&Mike Gravel for President 2008
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 #56 - 10/15/04 at 14:03:26
Post Tools
[Event "TH-M-2310.1"] 
[Site "IECC"] 
[Date "2003.12.05"] 
[White "Gomez, Fernando"] 
[Black "Evans, Craig"] 
[Result "1/2-1/2"] 
 
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nb4 6.Nxf6+ Qxf6 7.Bc4 c5 8.O-O d6 9.e5 dxe5 10.Bg5 Qf5 11.Re1 Nc6 12.Bd3 Qe6 13.c3 f6 14.Nxd4 Bxd4 15.cxd4 Nxd4 16.Be3 Nf5 17.Qc2 Nxe3 18.Rxe3 Bd7 19.Qxc7 Bc6 20.Qxg7 O-O-O 21.Be4 Kb8 22.Bxc6 Qxc6 23.Rg3 Qd7 24.h3 Qxg7 25.Rxg7 h5 26.Rf7 Rhf8 1/2-1/2

Illustration of white's attacking chances in this line, where I barely managed to hold on through the attack.

Regards, 
Craig  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
 
Bruce Monson
Guest


Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #55 - 10/14/04 at 12:55:27
Post Tools
Quote:
Ok, this is from a casual glance at the position, but in Mr. Monson's analysis of 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 Ne5 9.Bb3 c5 10.Nxf6+ Bxf6 11.Ne2! c4 12.Ba4 Qa5 13 c3 d5 14 Bc2 Rd8 15 Nd4

why not the disruptive 15...Bg4 with the idea 16.f3 Bd7 17. exd5 Nd3 18.Bxd3 Bxd4+ 19.cxd4 cxd3 (20.Qd3? Bb5) ?

MONSON:
I don't have my analysis in front of me, but I'm sure I looked at 15...Bg4 16.f3 Bd7 (or 16...Be6).  If I remember correctly, white should now play 17.f4 kicking the knight (instead of 17.exd5 which seems to benefit black) when 17...Nd3 is met strongly with 18.e5, etc.

Bruce Monson (not anonymous)

  
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 #54 - 10/14/04 at 05:45:49
Post Tools
Maybe this will distract attention from TopNotch's anonymity, as I have the worst alias of them all!   Grin
  

Power to the People!&&http://www.gravel2008.us/           http://www.nationalinitiative.us/&&Mike Gravel for President 2008
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 #53 - 10/14/04 at 05:37:28
Post Tools
Ok, this is from a casual glance at the position, but in Mr. Monson's analysis of 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 Ne5 9.Bb3 c5 10.Nxf6+ Bxf6 11.Ne2! c4 12.Ba4 Qa5 13 c3 d5 14 Bc2 Rd8 15 Nd4

why not the disruptive 15...Bg4 with the idea 16.f3 Bd7 17. exd5 Nd3 18.Bxd3 Bxd4+ 19.cxd4 cxd3 (20.Qd3? Bb5) ?

I don't use a computer or anything, but I have difficulty believing white has any advantage in the postion after 14. Bc2.  I have not done an in depth analysis or anything, but it seems like Mr. Monson's analysis is a little over-optimistic.  It seems like black can do more to interfere with white's development.

Just dropping an idea; I have not checked lines carefully or anything.

Also, on a side note, I don't think this is a bad opening at all;  I just don't think it bears comparison to something like the Spanish.  As mentioned, it's "apple and oranges."  Maybe this is heretical, but I think a lot of these gambits are mainly good for exercises in analysis, as the solutions for both sides are often counterintuitive.  I wouldn't play them in tournaments to improve practical play, unless for psychological reasons; but that's another story from the theory.  Don't the same people tire of these arguments?  (Though I guess I'm doing it a little myself.)
  

Power to the People!&&http://www.gravel2008.us/           http://www.nationalinitiative.us/&&Mike Gravel for President 2008
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
feb
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 73
Location: maastricht
Joined: 01/31/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #52 - 08/06/04 at 04:36:54
Post Tools
I took a quick look at the lines. The last line with 10.Nb5!? is interesting. After 10...c4 11.Ba4 a6 12.Nbc7,  I think you are right Bruce that 12...b5 favors White. I see more merit in the continuation 12...Nxd5 13.Nxa8 Nf6, and if 14.f4 then 14...Ng6. Maybe we should look at other 14th moves for White too.
  
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 #51 - 08/05/04 at 16:44:31
Post Tools
Quote:
Right, about time for some analysis from me I suppose... In the line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Nxd4 Ne5 9.Bb3 c5 10.Nxf6+ Bxf6 11.Ne2! c4 12.Ba4 Qa5 13 c3 d5! (this move deserves the !) Craig  Grin


BRUCE MONSON:
Not so fast.  While I'll admit that 13...d5 is a great improvement over 13...Nd3, it does not mean that black is out of the woods.   

White has two feasible alternatives to 14.exd5, which I agree is not white's best option:  (A) 14.f4!? and (B) 14.Bc2!

(A) 14.f4 Nd3 15.e5 Be7 16.Bc2 Bc5+ 17.Nd4 Bf5 18.Qe2 [or 18.Bxd3 Bxd3 19.Rf2 Bxd4+ 20.cxd4 f6 21.Be3=] 18...Bxd4+ [18...Qb6 19.Be3 Qxb2? 20.Bxd3!; or 18...Nxc1 19.Rfxc1 Bxc2 20.Rxc2 when white's pawn majority is more dangerous than blacks.] 19.cxd4 Rfe8 20.g4 Be4 21.f5, when the position is objectively level (e.g., it will most likely turn into an opposite-colored bishops game with mutual blockades), though white's kingside pawn majority is more dangerous than blacks.  In addition, the c4-pawn may come under attack by a timely b3, undermining the Nd3 support. 


(B)  14.Bc2!? 

While it's true that this allows black to rid himself of the "trouble" d-pawn, that does not necessarily mean that he has resolved all his problems.

14...Rd8 [14...dxe4 15.Bxe4 Rd8 16.Nd4 transposes] 15.Nd4 dxe4 16.Bxe4 Qb6 [guarding b7--which is now under attack from the Be4, which ties the Bc8--and eyeing b2 & d4] 17.Qh5 [17.Qc2!? is also interesting] 17...h6   

[17...g6 18.Qe2 Nd3 (18...Ng4 19.Nf3 Be6 20.h3 Ne5 21.Nxe5 Bxe5 22.Bxg6 hxg6 23.Qxe5ą) 19.Be3 Qxb2 20.Bxd3 Qxc3 21.Bxc4 Bxd4 22.Rac1] 

18.h3 (Not 18.Bxh6?? Bg4!-+)  18...Nd3 19.Be3!?  [19.Bd5!? is also good] 19...Bxd4 

[19...Qxb2 gets messy.  One exciting possibility is 20.Nb5! a6 21.Rab1!? Qxa2 22.Nc7 Rb8 23.Rb6!? [23.Bd5 and Nd5 are both good options] 23…Bxc3 24.Rxh6!!? [white may well have better moves, but this is exciting and predicated around white's 27th move.] 24...gxh6 25.Qxh6 Bg7 26.Qh7+ Kf8 27.Bxd3! Qa5 [27...cxd3? 28.Bc5+ +-] 28.Bh6 Bxh6 [28...Qe5 29.Bxc4ą] 29.Qxh6+ Ke7 30.Qh4+ Kd7? 31.Qxc4! Ke7 [31...Qxc7?? 32.Qxf7+ Kd6 33.Qf4+ Kd7 34.Bf5++-] 32.Qh4+ f6 [32...Kd7? 33.Rd1 Kxc7 34.Qe7+ Kb6 (34...Bd7 35.Rc1+ Kb6 36.Qe3+ +-; 34...Rd7 35.Rc1+ Kb6 36.Qe3++-) 35.Qxd8+ +-]  33.Bg6 Qd2 34.Qc4 Rd6 35.Nxa6 bxa6 36.Qc7+ Bd7 37.Qxb8ą] 

20.Bxd4 Qe6 21.Qf3 Nxb2 22.Rfe1 Qd6 23.Re3 Nd3 24.Rd1 Ne5 25.Qe2ą

This is not exhaustive, of course, but shows some of the tactical nuances that are hanging over the position.  In short, a position rich in possibilities.


In the line 10.Nf5 Bxf5 11.exf5 c4 12.Ba4 Rb8 13.c3 Nd3 14.Nxe7 Qxe7 15.Bc2 Nxc1 16.Re1 Qc7 Rxc1 d5, I take issue with TopNotch's conclusion that  "black is perfectly fine. White's Bishop is hampered by the pawn on f5 and the plan of g4-g5 to improve its scope is fraught with risk and tactical problems."  In fact, white's kingside pawn rush is far more dangerous--and faster--than black's own ideas for a queenside rush here, e.g., 17.Qd4 b5 (logical because it defends the a-pawn and gets blacks queenside rollers going, which is supposedly black's goal.) 18.g4 h6 19.h4 when black is in trouble.


There is one other line I'd like to discuss: 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Nxd4 Ne5 9.Bb3 c5 

10.Nb5!? 

I had originally thought this to be unsound, even though I have two games in my database in which white plays this and wins both games.  My concern, of course, was that after 10…c4 11.Ba4 black gains a tempo with 11…a6, after which he can play …b5 apparently trapping the bishop and winning B+N for a rook. But I took another look and it appears that white has a tactical resource that prevents this. 

10…c4 

[10...Nxe4?! 11.Re1; 10...Nxd5 11.Bxd5 a6 12.Na3!] 

11.Ba4 a6[b] 

11...Nxd5 12.Qxd5 Bd7 13.Nc3 (13.f4 Qb6+) 13...Bc6 14.Bxc6 bxc6 15.Qd4 f5 16.f4 Nf7 17.Qxc4 Qb6+ 18.Kh1 fxe4 19.Qxe4; 

11...Nxe4?! 12.Nbc7 (12.f4 Ng4 13.Qe2 Ngf6 14.Nbc7 Bg4 15.Qxc4 Rc8 16.Nxe7+ Qxe7 17.Nd5 Nxd5 18.Qxd5) 12...Rb8 13.f4 (13.Bf4) 13...Ng4 14.f5 Ngf6 15.c3 b5 16.Bc2 Rb7 17.Bxe4 Nxe4 18.Nxe7+ Qxe7 19.Nd5 Qd8 20.Qd4; 

11...Bd7 12.Nxf6+ (12.Nbc3 Nxd5 (12...Bxa4 13.Nxa4 Nxe4 14.Re1 f5 15.f3 Bh4 16.fxe4 Bxe1 17.Qxe1 b5 18.Nac3ą) 13.Qxd5 Bxa4 14.Nxa4ą] 


12.Nbc7 b5 

Trying to trap the bishop.  [Alternatives are 12...Rb8 13.c3; 12...Nxd5 13.Nxa8 Nf6 (13...b5 14.Qxd5 bxa4 15.f4 Nd7 16.Be3 Nf6 17.Qd4 Bb7 18.Nb6 Nxe4 19.Nd5ą) 14.f4] 

13.Nxe7+!

The key move since it diverts the queen from the 15-d8 diagonal.  [Not 13.Nxa8?! Nxd5 14.Qxd5 Bd7! 15.f4 Bc6 16.Qd4 Nd7-/+] 

13...Qxe7 14.Nxa8 Bg4 [14...Qa7 15.Qxd6] 15.f3 Rxa8 16.fxg4 Nexg4 17.Qd4 Nxe4 18.c3 bxa4 19.Qxc4ą   


Bruce Monson
bamonson@pcisys.net


  
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 #50 - 08/04/04 at 16:53:44
Post Tools

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

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

Right, about time for some analysis from me I suppose... In the line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Nxd4 Ne5 9.Bb3 c5 10.Nxf6+ Bxf6 11.Ne2! c4 12.Ba4 Qa5 13 c3 d5! (this move deserves the !) 14.exd5 Rd8, I think that white may need to try something else other than 15.Nf4. I tried to make 15.b4 work, but after 15...Qxd5 16.Qxd5 Qxd5 17.Nf4 Rd8 18.Nh5, 18...Bh4 seems to give black the advantage. So, in the line 15.Nf4 Bg4 16.f3 Be6, instead of 17.Nxe6?!, maybe 17.Be3 Bxd5 18.Bc2 Bc6 19.Qe2 with what should be a playable middlegame for white - maybe black has a slight edge, but it's nothing to fear.

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

Regards, 
Craig  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
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10765
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #49 - 08/04/04 at 05:39:37
Post Tools
As you like to ridiculize other's opinions, TopNotch, do not be surprised if others ridiculize your strong statements. Further I refer to my post in the category General Chess.
I have already explained, why your theoretical explanations are not too constructive, TopNotch - they are usually not supported by moves.
  

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: 2211
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #48 - 08/03/04 at 16:48:01
Post Tools
I would have thought that my posts were constructive, however if my rhetorical style offends some, I'm truly sorry.  Grin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Nxd4 Ne5 9.Bb3 c5 10.Nxf6+ Bxf6 11.Ne2! c4 12.Ba4 Qa5 [There can be no doubt that White's light squared bishop is misplaced on a4, and so black should logically try to exploit this feature to improve his game. True as Mr. Monson says the bishop can be re-routed to c2 after c3 but this cost time. Time which black should use productively]  

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

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

Next game:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 d6 7.Nxd4 0-0 8.0-0 Ne5 9.Bb3 c5 10.Nf5 Bxf5 11.exf5 c4 12.Ba4 Rb8!? 

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

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

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

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

Good Luck

Top  Grin

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

 

« Last Edit: 08/04/04 at 18:57:41 by TopNotch »  

The man who tries to do something and fails is infinitely better than he who tries to do nothing and succeeds - Lloyd Jones Smiley
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
A.A.
Guest


Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #47 - 08/03/04 at 05:42:13
Post Tools
The discussion is less and less about the Belgrade it seems and more and more about Mr Chop Ton, why not start a separate thread for the latter controversy under general chess, so this thread doesn't become another mega thread filled with irrelevant postings?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10765
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #46 - 08/03/04 at 05:22:52
Post Tools
Thanks, Dragonslayer, you perfectly describe the kind of player I am. I congratulate TopNotch with his fanmail. I respect it, if he does not want to reveal his refutation of the KG. I ask him, to respect my point of view. Moreover, he may not expect from me that I just believe him on his words. As Euwe (a higher authority than TopNotch) once wrote: every chess player has to decide for him/herself, as he/she can only rely on him/herself when sitting behind the board. So for the sake of clarity: I do not believe that gambit play is the only or even the best way to play chess and I do not advice anyone to play the openings I do. I do not want to be a guru and I do not need one.
  

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
 
A.A.
Guest


Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #45 - 08/03/04 at 04:54:34
Post Tools
Craig wrote:
Quote:
D) 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.


Intrigued by the current discussion I took a look see in the ol database, and 5...Nxe4 does seem like the critical move to me. In games 1997-2004 with both players at least rated 2300, black took exactly 50%. (+3 =9 -3).

Especially seeing former 'Belgrader' Hector playing black, indicates that Nxe4 may be worth taking seriously.

Ruefenacht,M (2512) - Hector,J (2559) [C47]
Korning Memorial DSU, 01.03.1998

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Qe2 f5 7.Ng5 d3 8.cxd3 Nd4 9.Qh5+ g6 10.Qh4 c6 11.dxe4 cxd5 12.exd5 Bg7 13.Kd1 h6 14.Nf3 Nxf3 15.Qxd8+ Kxd8 16.gxf3 d6 17.Rg1 g5 18.h4 Bd7 19.a4 Rc8 20.hxg5 Rc5 21.Be3 Rxd5+ 22.Kc2 f4 23.gxh6 Be5 24.Bxa7 Bf5+ 25.Kb3 Rd2 26.Bc4 Rxh6 27.Rae1 Rh3 28.Re2 Rxf3+ 29.Kb4 Rxe2 30.Bxe2 Rh3 31.Bf1 Rh4 32.b3 f3+ 33.Bc4 Be6 ˝-˝

The few wins usually went to the side with a rating advantage, except for the following. I'm not yet sure what to make of it!?

Guerra Bastida,D (2305) - Korneev,O (2619) [C47]
Navalmoral op 6th Navalmoral (6), 2000

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bd3 Nc5 7.0-0 Ne6 8.c3 dxc3 9.bxc3 Bc5 10.Re1 0-0 11.Bxh7+ Kxh7 12.Ng5+ Kg6 13.h4 Nxg5 14.Bxg5 f6 15.Qd3+ Kf7 16.Bxf6 Bxf2+ 17.Kh1 Bxe1 18.Bxd8 Nxd8 19.Qf3+ Ke8 20.Rxe1+ Ne6 21.Qg3 Kf7 22.Rf1+ Ke8 23.Qg4 Kd8 24.Rxf8+ Nxf8 25.Qg5+ 1-0
  
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 #44 - 08/03/04 at 00:02:22
Post Tools
In the line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Nxd4 Ne5!? 9.Bb3, TopNotch offers 9...c5 as black's best response, and even claims that the games he's seen where black has employed this line have gone well.  Hmmm, I don't think so.  In fact, my database shows a total of 10 games where 9...c5 was played, with white's results being +7 -1 =2.

TOPNOTCH: 
My analysis indicates that 9...c5 which may seem counter intuitive at first, looks quite reasonable for black. At first glance it seems strange to volunteeringly weaken blacks d-pawn but some concrete tactical features of the position justify the move. 

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

TOPNOTCH:
First off white probably has to swap his well placed Knight on d5 immediately or risk losing the e-pawn for nothing. Please note that 10. Nf3 is well met by 10...Bg4 so 10.Nxf6 or 10.Nxe7 should be preferred. 

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

TOPNOTCH:
The other important feature of 9...c5 is that it carries the annoying positional threat of c4, which although not winning the bishop, does force it to the awkward and unsecure a4 square.

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

For example, here's a simple line that two BG experts and friends of mine, IM Brian Hartman and FM Marcel Milat have played in this position:  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Nxd4 Ne5 9.Bb3 c5 10.Nxf6+ Bxf6 11.Ne2! c4 12.Ba4 Qa5 (or 12...a6) 13.c3 Nd3 (yes, "at first glance" it would seem that black has accomplished much by getting his knight to d3.  Too bad it can't stay there, let alone magically correct the problem-child at d6!) 14.Bc2 (Nice square, eh?  Feels almost like a Ruy where black has done something seriously wrong...).  And now black probably has to trade for the Bc1 and hope to Zeus that he can hold the position together.

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

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

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

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 d6 7.Nxd4 0-0 8.0-0 Ne5 9.Bb3 c5 10.Nf5 Bxf5 11.exf5 c4 12.Ba4 Nc6 13.c3 a6 14.Re1 b5 15.Bc2 Qd7? 16.Rxe7!? [ This is actually quite good, and I played it almost instantly since it was something I had already been eyeing.  But had I stopped for a moment I like to think I would have noticed 16.Nb6 which wins without a fight] 16...Nxe7 17.Nxf6+ gxf6 18.Bh6 Kh8 19.Bxf8 Rxf8 20.Qd4 Ng8 21.Rd1 Rd8 22.g4 h6 23.h4 Kh7 24.Re1!? [24.Qb6!ą] 24...Re8 25.Re6!! [25.Rxe8 Qxe8 26.Qxd6 Qe2 27.Qd1 Qe5 is good but still very difficult for White.] 25...Kg7 26.Qxd6 [26.Rxd6? Re1+ 27.Kh2 Qb7] 26...Qxd6 27.Rxd6 Re2 28.Bd1 Rxb2 29.Rxa6 Rb1 30.Rd6 Ra1! 31.Kg2 [It wasn't too late to screw up with 31.Rd2? b4! 32.cxb4 c3 33.Rc2 Rxd1+ 34.Kg2 Rd4-+] 31...Rxa2 32.Rb6 Ra3 33.Rxb5 Rxc3 34.Rc5 Rc1 35.Bb3 c3 36.Rc7 Kf8 37.Rxf7+ Ke8 38.Ra7 Ne7 39.Be6 Rd1 40.Rc7 Rd3 41.g5 hxg5 42.hxg5 Nd5 43.g6! Nf4+ 44.Kg1 Nh3+ 45.Kf1 [45.Kh2 Nxf2 46.g7 Ng4+ 47.Kg2 Nh6 is still winning but more difficult.] 45...Nf4 46.Bb3! Rh3 47.Ba4+! Kd8 48.Rd7+ Kc8 49.Rh7 1-0


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

Cheers,

Bruce Monson
  
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 #43 - 08/02/04 at 17:52:57
Post Tools
Quote:
To CraigEvans, most of the names on that list you quoted maybe played 5 Belgrade gambits over a period of 20 years. I will check and see how many times Lautier has played it, but I wish you will stop making hollow arguments to defend an indefensible position.  


They still played the opening, and the fact is (yes, fact) that so many high-quality GMs would not play an opening if it wasn't playable. I assume you mean indefensible for my position in the argument as opposed to the position of the gambit, but both are equally incorrect - no-one has been able to challenge the soundness of the gambit, and whereas you have only continued your rant on how gambits are not the way to go, I have also posted some lines which no analysis has disproved, other than Bruce Monson himself posting stronger lines for white where they have been available. 

There is no such thing as "an easy road for white", or indeed black. Those planning to play white in for example, the Ruy Lopez, will have have to do one hell of a lot of work. And ultimately black can probably prove equality in this. If not, black can play the french or sicilian - again, as far as I know there is no "easy road" to an advantage against either. 

The point of a thread on a particular opening is to discuss lines, to share ideas and so on. As far as I'm aware, few people post on a thread with the sole idea of discouraging others. Fewer still do this without providing more than obscure reasons which are not applicable to the masses. Very few of us, even with an impeccable opening repertoire, are capable of reaching the master level... for the bulk of us, chess is about enjoyment... besides, in the last 5 seasons my grade has gone up 677 points, so I hardly think the openings can be to blame.   

If you don't have anything constructive to say on a given opening, there's little need to say anything. You don't anger or frustrate me so much as amuse me, to put down so many lines that you are neither qualified or knowledgable enough to say anything about. Mr Monson is a world expert in this opening and he regards it as fully playable, whereas you're some guy who has a dislike for gambits and is giving very little to support your claims. The few times you've given concrete lines, they've been fairly accurate - it's a shame you're not willing to share a few more of "your secrets" with us...

The fact that people get quite agitated with your responses is solely that they do nothing to enhance the quality of the discussion. 

Regards, 
Craig  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
 
Dragonslayer
Full Member
***
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 248
Location: Odense
Joined: 06/13/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #42 - 08/02/04 at 16:26:31
Post Tools
First of all, I think it is commendable of Bruce to discuss his valuable insights into the BG, unfortunately I cannot contribute much but I will certainly be looking out for a 2nd edition of your book.
I had a brief spell with the Belgrade gambit, but gave it up in 1992 in favour of the KG. Now I only play it occasionally through the move-order 1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e5. With Black I used to play 5...Nb4!

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, by the way, I don't want to hide behind an alias - my full name is Michael Agermose Jensen.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 2211
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #41 - 08/02/04 at 15:00:24
Post Tools
I'm back, the one that so many love to hate  Grin

My words always evoke such passion among my fellow forum readers, and I consider this a good thing, it means my so called blah, blah, blah gives you cause for pause.

MNb, while I did not give many concrete lines in the Kings Gambit thread, I did point out where the problems lay. As a tournament player, I certainly have no intention of giving away all of my secrets in detail, some of which have not yet been played, just to win an 
argument on the Forum. Interestingly enough, the arguments I made in the Kings Gambit thread prompted its fragmentation into smaller more specialised ones, which only served to validate what I already knew and tried in vain to communicate to you die-hards, i.e. The Kings Gambit is dubious.   

The elo Chess Rating system, while not perfect, is a fairly accurate measure of a players chess performance. If you continue to play tournament chess, and your elo stagnates it means you have an area that needs some work. This argument about having fun, and not caring if your rating improves or not is one I do not share or believe.

This so called fun that some of you speak of is connected solely to catching an unwary opponent who is unfamiliar with some obscure or tricky opening that you use. As soon as players become aware of the tricks and play the approved lines, the fun ends, and once again u r shopping around for I guess another tricky system, and the cycle continues. 

The line I focussed on in the Belgrade Gambit, namely 5...Be7 is the one most chosen by strong OTB players, who for practical reasons have decided it is good enough for Black. 5...Nb4 is also popular.

The complete soundness of the BG was not challenged on this thread, I merely meant to show a reliable answer to it, that as someone earlier said, a player could prepare in an afternoon.   

The real test of the soundness of the BG will come in the accepted lines stemming from 5...Nxe4. It is here that Mr. Monson will have to guide you, as no doubt he has conducted much research in this area. 

What I can tell you is that anyone who after reading this thread, decides to take up the BG under the misguided misconception that it is an easy road for white, will soon be in for a rude awakening. But hey, feel free to ignore my Blah, Blah, Blah, but I feel confident that some will choose to listen and heed.

To KillBill, yes I agree, sometimes I do feel I'm wasting my time here. But every now and again I get messages from forum readers thanking me for guiding them in the right direction, and providing some objectivity in the midst of all this madness.

To CraigEvans, most of the names on that list you quoted maybe played 5 Belgrade gambits over a period of 20 years. I will check and see how many times Lautier has played it, but I wish you will stop making hollow arguments to defend an indefensible position.   

For those of you who define fun by how much you have grown and matured as a player then this post is for you.   

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: 10765
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #40 - 08/02/04 at 14:32:19
Post Tools
<People do not want to hear the obvious if it conflicts with what has been working for them. >
Last post of killbill is a perfect example of an anti-gambiteer suffering from this disease. I did not write that rising one's ELO is a goal ONE should not have, I wrote that is a goal I do not have. I am not a self declared guru.
Killbill, read my posts in the Albin's thread and you will understand how misplaced your remark <talking about how the Albin is better than the Orthodox QQD> is.
Another statement: if every 1800 player improves his/her level with 400 points, all ELO's will remain the same. It is useless indeed, debating with people who think rising one's ELO is the only goal in chess.
Further I agree with Craig Evans, but that is nothing new.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
killbill
Guest


Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #39 - 08/02/04 at 12:41:28
Post Tools
Topnotch

I recommend you save your breath here. No point in debating with someone who thinks making 2200 is a goal that people shouldn't have. You keep getting attacked here though for what, I am not sure. Some players will never make master no matter what, so you may as well let them have their fun and play gambits. No harm for the unambitious club player. Gambit players tend to take these debates very personally- they have to defend their babies. Next we'll be talking about how the Albin is better than the Orthodox QQD....
For those of you with loftier goals, broaden your horizons. Play the Belgrade on occasion if you must, but also study perhaps the Scotch Four Knights, which is more logical positionally and has just as much (very little) venom. There are really two discussions here- the playability of the Belgrade and it's objective merit. Ask a few titled players and you should get a fair answer to both...
  
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 #38 - 08/02/04 at 11:30:09
Post Tools
Quote:
I too am an aggressive player  Grin

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


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

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

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

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

Regards, 
Craig  Grin

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

"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
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10765
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #37 - 08/02/04 at 10:39:49
Post Tools
Dear TopNotch,
1. Even if my ELO rises to 2200+, who cares? I don't.
2. If getting a ELO 2200+ means that I have to spend evenings playing boring chess, I will rather stop playing.
3. I have played some opponents with 2200+ and lost mainly because of defects in middle game play. This is quite logical, as that is usually the stage where the game is decided. I am pretty sure I would not have done better with the QGD or the Ruy Lopez - not to mention that dreadful Petrov.
4. The Matrix is a lousy movie, but that subject needs another thread.
5. If you really want to share your opening knowledge and insight with me, poor ignorant, concentrate on concrete lines and abandon empty words. Your contribution in the Bishop's game (the c6, exf4, d5 idea) was better and more convincing than all those long posts in the King's Gambit and here in the Belgrade Gambit.
6. If you have read all my posts carefully, you must admit that I am willing to change my opinion on openings - but only after I have seen concrete variations. I now think my second favourite the KG is in trouble. This change of opinion did not occure due to you, but due to other KGeers who pointed out the critical lines.

So my request, oh enlightened guru, is to stop the bla-bla and start a more scientific approach. This means that you should support your deductional statements by inductional lines. This way I already came to the conclusion, that the Albin's and the Morra are hardly playable and the Danish is a boring draw at best.

On this terms a debate with you might be more fruitful for everyone, dear TopNotch.
In the mean time I wish all Belgrade aficionados good luck in proving their pet opening playable.
  

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: 2211
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #36 - 08/02/04 at 09:29:40
Post Tools
The real fun MNb is raising your elo from 1800+ to 2200+ or more, and for most of us a reliable Opening repertoire goes a long way towards this end. Grin

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

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

Top  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: 10765
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #35 - 08/02/04 at 07:20:24
Post Tools
<Amateurs tend to make dubious Gambits and Offbeat Openings their life's work>
So what? Who cares? If they derive satisfaction from it and have a lot of fun. Why does TopNotch want to be my self declared guru? Is it so important for him if my ELO rises from 1800 to 1850?
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
killbill
Guest


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

"Finally, the critical line in which Monson says white has an impressive plus score, namely the pawn snatch variation:  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 Nxe4 
 
White has a few options here, none of which are convincing in my opinion, but  due to constraints of space lets focus on Mr. Monsons  choice in two correspondence games, namely: 8. Re1 Nf6 9.Nxe7+ Nxe7 10.Qxd4 d5 11.Bd3 now instead of 11...Bg4 I think black should try 11....Nc6 intending 12.Qh4 Ne4 returning the pawn with an excellent game."

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

The BG is obviously playable, but chess is a logical game and it strikes me as an illogical opening. White sacrifices a pawn on move 5, moves a piece twice, and leaves another pawn hanging. It should come as no surprise that black can return the pawn and at least equalize without too much trouble. I think any strong player could be well prepared for the Belgrade by spending an afternoon on it. Try doing that with the Spanish....
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bamonson
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 31
Location: Colorado
Joined: 07/25/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #33 - 08/01/04 at 16:27:21
Post Tools
I'm fine with "agreeing to disagree" with Mr. TopNotch, who ever he is.

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

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

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

Regards,

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


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

Posts: 2211
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #32 - 08/01/04 at 15:29:57
Post Tools
Clearly we can go on jousting back and forth as to the genuine merits of the Belgrade Gambit, however I suspect that the forum readers would grow tired of such protracted debate. It is unlikely that I will change your views on the subject as it is that you will change mine. So we can at least agree to disagree. Grin

To wrap up my thoughts on the matter, and to reluctantly use Mr. Monson's space consuming quotation and answer style. lets begin.    
 
MONSON: 
I find it interesting that Topnotch latches onto an inferior line for white (9.Nxe7+?) in order to try painting a positive picture for black, especially after I had provided the definitive examples (one of which was played by Eric Prie, whom TopNotch has expressed respect for) showing the PROPER method for dealing with 8...Ne5. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the few games in which I have seen 9...c5 played Black has done well, but these were not played at the highest level. Nevertheless my independant analysis suggests to me that black is comfortably equal.  
 
MONSON: 
Out of respect for BilboBaggins' request, I will address this variation with a number of illustrative games.  It is in fact a common line, and given the exceedingly lopsided number of wins for white in not only this line, but also the variant 5...Be7 6.Bc4 Nxe4 (which may now transpose after 7.O-O O-O) I have to wonder why.  
 
But before I get to the games, I'd like to address another slap-in-the-face issue that came from TopNotch regarding my winning with the Belgrade whether I am playing the white or black side (and in thematic tournaments, you play games from BOTH sides against each opponent--that's the point). 
 
Quote:  "Well look who we find beating up on his own gambit.... LOL, it seems that Mr. Monson wins whether he is playing the white or black side of the Belgrade  - I have drawn some further conclusions from all this, but prefer to remain silent for the moment."  
 
TopNotch's intent, of course, is to ridicule and insinuate that I must be somehow disingenuous in my convictions about the correctness of this gambit.  To the contrary, my wins from the black side are no more an indictment against the BG than Kasparov being able to win from either side of the same variation in the Sicilian is an indictment against that variation.  It merely demonstrates that I knew more about the position(s) than did my opponent(s), and had I been playing the white side I would have handled the position in a different manner.  In the game he cited, against my good friend Joop Simmelink, white "went wrong" almost immediately with 13.Re3?! and then compiled the problem with 14.Bxg6?, after which black was clearly better. 
 
Now some games (For Biblo, and others who are genuinely interested in learning something about the BG and not just here to rant about their particular hatred for gambits). 
 
TopNotch claims that the "burden of proof" is on white to show compensation for his pawn in the line 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 O-O 7.O-O Nxe4.  Well, that's fine, but according to my database (some 90 games in this line) white scores above 62% (and most of these are master level correspondence games), so I hardly see this as the refutation black is looking for.  Since TopNotch took the liberties of showing you some of the wins from black's side (including my win against Simmelink), I will provide the positive side for white. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best of Luck

Top Grin        

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

The man who tries to do something and fails is infinitely better than he who tries to do nothing and succeeds - Lloyd Jones Smiley
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Panda
Guest


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

And a stupid question I suppose, but which move order 2.Nc3 or 2.Nf3 is 'best'? i.e. would I be correct to assume that 2.Nc3 leaves black less options to avoid the 4knights?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bamonson
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 31
Location: Colorado
Joined: 07/25/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #30 - 08/01/04 at 12:28:15
Post Tools
PART II: Gutman's Variation (5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 Nxe4 7.Qe2!)

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


Simmelink,J - Owens,J [C47]
Belgrade Gambit Corr. Thematic, 1998
 
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bc4 Be7 7.Qe2 Nd6 8.Bf4 0-0 9.Nxe7+ Nxe7 10.Bxd6 cxd6 11.0-0-0 Nc6 12.Qe4 Qf6 13.Nxd4 d5 14.Bxd5 Nxd4 15.Qxd4 Qxd4 16.Rxd4 Re8 17.Rhd1 Kf8 18.Bf3 f5 19.Rh4 Kg8 20.Bd5+ Kh8 21.Rh5 1-0

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Regards,

Bruce Monson

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






  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bamonson
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 31
Location: Colorado
Joined: 07/25/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #29 - 08/01/04 at 11:20:22
Post Tools
TOPNOTCH:
While I honestly think that black has nothing to fear in the lines given in my previous post, I must confess that they are a bit dull. Recently a more interesting idea has emerged for black based on a tactical discovery. Check out the following games where both players fell into the same trap:  Grin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monson - Rodriguez [C47]
Colorado Springs, 1996

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

Monson - Sibayan [C47]
Colorado Springs, 1994

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

Monson - Sibayan [C47]
Colorado Springs, 1996

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Bruce Monson


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


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

Posts: 2211
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #28 - 08/01/04 at 10:18:11
Post Tools
I too am an aggressive player  Grin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bon Appetit

Top  Grin
  

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


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

Posts: 588
Location: Bryn, South Wales
Joined: 07/14/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #27 - 08/01/04 at 04:32:33
Post Tools
There now seems to be a different duplication,Top...  Grin

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

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

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

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

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

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

A guiding hand often leads others astray...

Regards, 
Craig  Grin

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

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

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


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

Posts: 2211
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #26 - 07/31/04 at 20:18:29
Post Tools
Much thanks goes out to KillBill for proof reading my last post and spotting a duplication.  Grin

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

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

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

Sayonara

Top Grin
  

The man who tries to do something and fails is infinitely better than he who tries to do nothing and succeeds - Lloyd Jones Smiley
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
killbill
Guest


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


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

Posts: 2211
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #24 - 07/31/04 at 16:08:29
Post Tools
While I honestly think that black has nothing to fear in the lines given in my previous post, I must confess that they are a bit dull. Recently a more interesting idea has emerged for black based on a tactical discovery. Check out the following games where both players fell into the same trap:  Grin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Grin 

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

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


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

Posts: 2211
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #23 - 07/31/04 at 16:04:25
Post Tools
Bravo Ranjk, many people find the truth annoying and not only in chess. Grin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued!

Top  Grin
  

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


A Texan Stranded in New
Jersey

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

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

Your Humble Servant,

Bilbo
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bamonson
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 31
Location: Colorado
Joined: 07/25/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #21 - 07/30/04 at 17:38:11
Post Tools
5...Be7 6.Bc4 (Part II)

===> Black plays 8...Ne5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Nxd4 Ne5 9.Bb3 Nxd5 10.Bxd5 c6 11.Bb3 Bf6 12.c3 Re8 13.Re1 Qc7 14.h3 a5 15.a4 b6 16.f4 Ng6 17.Qh5 Bxd4+ [17...Bb7 18.Bd2 Rad8 19.Bc2 h6 20.g4 Bh4 21.Nf5 Bxe1 22.Rxe1 d5 23.e5 Nxe5 24.fxe5 Re6 (24...Rxe5 25.Rxe5+-) 25.g5 Rxe5 26.Rxe5 Qxe5 27.gxh6 g6 28.h7+ Kh8 29.Qh4ą] 
18.cxd4 d5 19.e5 

[19.f5 Qg3 20.Re3 Qxg2+ 21.Kxg2 Nf4+ 22.Kh2 Nxh5 23.exd5 Bxf5 (23...Bd7 24.dxc6 Bxc6 25.Re5 Rad8 26.Be3 Rxe5 27.dxe5 Rd3 28.Rd1ą) 24.dxc6ą] 

19...Qe7 [19...Ne7 20.g4 c5 21.Be3 Ba6 22.Rac1 c4 23.Bc2ą] 20.Be3! Qb4 

[20...Qh4 21.Qxh4 Nxh4 22.Rac1 Bd7 23.Bf2 Nf5 24.g4 Ne7 25.f5ą; 20...c5 21.Bxd5 cxd4 22.Bxa8 dxe3 23.Be4 Qc5 24.Bxg6 hxg6 25.Qe2ą] 

21.Bc2 Qxb2 22.Rec1! 

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

22...Rb8 23.f5 Nf8 [23...Nxe5!? 24.Rab1 Qa3 25.Rb3ą] 24.f6 g6 [24...gxf6 25.exf6+- Rxe3 26.Qg5+ Ng6 27.Qh6+-] 25.Qh6 Ne6 26.Bxg6! fxg6 

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

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

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

31.Bh6 Qxd4 

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

32.Qxg7# 1-0


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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Bruce Monson
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bamonson
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 31
Location: Colorado
Joined: 07/25/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #20 - 07/30/04 at 17:35:27
Post Tools
5...Be7 6.Bc4: Part I

Main line 9...Nxd5 10.Bxd5!

There are some general themes that occur in the main line: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Nxd4 Nxd4 9.Qxd4 Nxd5 10.Bxd5 that I'd like to address.

A quick glance might suggest that the position is somewhat drawish but this would be a false assumption as there are a number of factors which are favorable to white:  Pawn structure, piece placement and latent weaknesses.

Pawn Structure --  According to Reuben Fine's excellent book, "The Ideas Behind The Chess Openings," this is white's "Ideal pawn structure in all double e-pawn openings."  This is due to an advantage in space and more contol in the center which affords white a wider range of options when devising a plan;  while black is restricted to a much narrower course of action.  Further, it's important to note that white's e-pawn provides other important roles on e4: covering two key squares in black's camp (d5 & f5) which further restricts his development (while still still remaining mobile), and poised to combine with the f-pawn as battering rams to break-up black's kingside.   

Piece Placement -- Even as they stand now white's pieces are much better placed than black's.  The Rf1 stands behind the f-pawn which is poised to advance to f4 and coordinate with the e-pawn as battering rams in some variations (this is a common theme).  The Bc1 is well situated where it stands at the moment as it's not yet clear where its 
ideal post will be.  Depending on black's actions it may occupy d2, e3, f4 or even stand pat on c1 with subtle differences in plan.  Most significant however is the actual occupation of d5 by the other bishop.  Not only does it eye the b7 pawn and a2-g8 diagonal but it also greatly hinders black's development -- a point he cannot just ignore as white can continue to build pressure on either wing by simply advancing 
pawns and applying a slow but persistent squeeze.  For this reason black must chase this bishop from its post and therein lay the crux of white's plan.

The Latent Weakness -- As will be seen black can ill afford to allow white's bishop to camp out on d5.  However, the only way to oust the bishop is to kick it out with ...c6 which in turn leaves the d6 pawn weakened.  Here the real significance of the e4 pawn comes to light.   

White retreats his bishop to b3 and simply gangs up on the d6 pawn while preventing it from advancing to d5.  In response to this black has little choice but to bear down on the e-file and attempt to exchange his weak d-pawn for white's e-pawn.  Practice has shown however that this is not a simple matter and black is fighting an up hill battle.

Whether or not these differences are enough to say that white is clearly better or only slightly better is not important.  What is important is that there are imbalances in the position which leave much room for individual creativity.

Below are several games in this variation that demonstrate many of these intricacies, though the selection is not exhaustive by any means.

The following game is nothing short of a positional masterpiece (yes, I said "positional") conducted at the hands of one of the strongest correspondence GM's in the world, Dr. Karl Heinz Kraft.  One of the primary points to note is the problems black can get into simply by allowing white's bishop to drop anchor on d5 for too long!

Kraft (2615) - Toptschij (2430) [C47]
Correspondence, 1994
[Kraft/Monson]

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 Qe7 [11...c6 12.Bb3 Be6 13.Rd1] 12.c3 Re8 13.Bf4!? a5 [On 13...c6? 14.Bxd6!] 14.Rad1 Ra6 15.Rd2 a4 16.a3 Ra5 17.Rfd1 Bg5 18.Bxg5 Qxg5 19.f4!ą [The e4/f4 pawn center is a common theme in the 6.Bc4 variation, but here it comes with 
particularly strong effect.--Monson] 19...Qe7 20.h3 Kf8 21.Re2 b6 22.e5 g6 23.Qd4! dxe5 24.Rxe5 Qc5 25.Rxe8+ Kxe8 26.Bc6+ Ke7 27.Kh2ą Qxd4 28.Rxd4 Be6 29.Rxa4 Kd6 30.Rxa5 bxa5 31.Be4 Kc5 32.g4 Ba2 33.Bd3 Bc4 34.Bc2 Ba2 35.h4 Kc4 36.f5 Bb3 37.Be4 Ba2 38.fxg6 fxg6 39.h5 gxh5 [Or 39...Kb3 40.Bxg6!+-] 40.Bxh7+- Kb3 41.gxh5 Kxb2 42.a4 Kxc3 43.h6 1-0

Mihajlo Trajkovic is the father of the Belgrade Gambit, so it's 
appropriate to show how he led the way in this line.  Indeed, it was very likely that Toptschij in the previous game was aware of this game, and for that reason tried to avoid playing ...c6, weaking the d6-pawn.

Trajkovic,M - Stieg [C47]
cr, 1967

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 a5 12.a4 Qe7 13.c3 c6 14.Bb3 Be6 15.Bc2 g6 16.f4! [Here we see the effects of the e4/d4 pawn center combined with the Bc2-Qd3 battery.  This is a very common theme in this 
variation.] 16...Bg7 17.f5 Bc8 18.Be3 c5 19.Rad1 Ra6 20.Bf4 Rd8 21.Qg3 gxf5 22.exf5 f6 23.Rfe1 Qf8 24.Bb3+ Kh8 25.Be6 Bxe6 26.fxe6 Qe7 27.Bxd6! 1-0


Simmelink,J (2400) - Herve,D [C47]
IECG LM-001-1999, 1999
[Monson]

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 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 a5 12.a4 c6 13.Bb3 Qe7 14.c3 Be6 15.Bc2 g6 16.f4ą [Again, the e4/f4 pawn advance] 16...d5 17.e5 Bh8 18.f5 Bd7 [18...Bxf5? 19.Rxf5 gxf5 20.Qxf5 f6 21.e6 Rfe8 22.Bh6 Rad8 23.Rf1+-] 19.Bh6 Bxe5 [The only chance, but White is still clearly better.] 20.Bxf8 Rxf8 21.Qf3 Bd6 22.Rae1 Qh4 23.g3 Qh3 24.Bd3 Bc5+ 25.Kh1 g5 26.f6? [This allows Black the opportunity to extricate, or even exchange off, his misplaced queen, thus making White's task much more difficult.  Better was simply doubling rooks on the e-file and slowly increasing the pressure, since Black has no counterplay to speak of.] 26...Bg4 27.Qg2 Qh5 28.Be2 h6 29.Bxg4 Qxg4 30.Qe2 Qxe2 31.Rxe2 Kh7 [31...Rd8 32.Rfe1 Kh7 33.Re8 Rxe8 (33...Rd7 34.R1e7) 34.Rxe8 Kg6 35.Rb8 b6 36.Rc8 d4 37.cxd4 Bxd4 38.Rxc6 g4 39.Kg2ą] 32.h4 gxh4 33.gxh4 Rg8 34.Rf5!ą Rg1+ 35.Kh2 Kg6 36.Ree5 h5 37.Rxh5 Rb1 38.Rhg5+ Kxf6 39.Rgf5+ 
Kg7 40.Re2 Ra1 41.b3 Rc1 42.c4 Bd6+ 43.Kh3 Rc3+ 44.Kg4 dxc4 45.Ref2 cxb3 46.Rxf7+ Kg8 47.Rxb7 Bb4 48.Rff7 Rd3 49.Rg7+ Kf8 50.h5 b2 51.Rh7+- Rd4+ 52.Kf3 Rd3+ 53.Ke4 Kg8 54.Rbg7+ Kf8 55.h6 Ke8 56.Rh8+ Bf8 57.Rb7 Rh3 58.h7 1-0

Simmelink,J (2400) - Alvebring,M [C47]
IECG LM-1999-0-00001, 1999

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Nxd4 Nxd4 9.Qxd4 Nxd5 10.Bxd5 Bf6 11.Qd3 Qe7 12.c3 a6 13.a4 Rb8 14.Bb3 Re8 15.Bc2 h6 16.Be3 Qe6 17.e5 Bxe5 18.Qh7+ Kf8 19.Rae1 f6 20.Bg6 Re7 21.f4 Qg8 22.Qxg8+ Kxg8 23.fxe5 fxe5 24.Bf2 Be6 25.Bh4 Rd7 26.a5 Bc4 27.Rf2 Be6 28.Re3 Bc4 29.g4 b6 30.g5 h5 31.axb6 c5 32.Bxh5 
Rdb7 33.Be2 Bxe2 34.Rexe2 Rxb6 35.Bg3 Kh7 36.h4 Kg6 37.Kg2 Kh5 38.Kh3 a5 39.Rd2 a4 40.Rf7 R6b7 41.Rxb7 Rxb7 42.Rxd6 Rxb2 43.Rd7 Rb1 44.Rxg7 Rh1+ 45.Bh2 e4 46.Rc7 Kg6 47.Rc6+ Kf7 48.g6+ 1-0

Eriksson,M - Berkell,P (2335) [C47]
SWE-chT fin Eksjo, 1986

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 Re8 12.c3 Qe7 13.Bf4 Bg5 14.Bg3 Bh4 15.Bf4 Bg5 16.Bxg5 Qxg5 17.f4 Qe7 18.Rae1 c6 19.Bb3 Qf8 20.Re3 Bd7 21.e5 Rad8 22.exd6 Rxe3 23.Qxe3 Bc8 24.Rd1 b6 25.Qe4 Rd7 26.Qxc6 g6 27.Ba4 Rd8 28.d7 Ba6 29.Re1 Bb7 30.Qxb7 Qc5+ 31.Kh1 Qf2 
32.Qe4 a6 33.Qe3 Qxb2 34.Qe8+ 1-0


Bulgarini Torres,M (2373) - Souto,A [C47]
Latin Am zt 15th sf1 corr, 2000

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Nxd4 Nxd4 9.Qxd4 Nxd5 10.Bxd5 Bf6 11.Qd3 c6 12.Bb3 Re8 13.c3 Be6 14.Bc2 g6 15.f4 [Again, the typical e4/f4 pawn attack] 15...Qb6+ 16.Kh1 d5 17.e5 Bf5 18.Qd2 Bxc2 19.Qxc2 Bg7 20.Rf3 c5 21.Be3 Qc6 22.Bf2 Rad8 23.Rd1 Rd7 24.a3 a5 25.Bh4 b6 26.Qf2 a4 27.h3 f6 28.f5 Rxe5 29.fxg6 hxg6 30.Bxf6 Bxf6 31.Rxf6 Re6 32.Rf4 Kg7 33.Rf1 Qd6 34.Rxa4 Rf6 35.Qxf6+ Qxf6 36.Rxf6 Kxf6 37.Kg1 d4 38.cxd4 cxd4 39.Kf2 Ke5 40.Ke2 Ke4 41.Ra8 Re7 42.Kd2 b5 43.Ra6 g5 44.Rf6 Re8 45.Rf1 Rd8 46.Re1+ Kf4 47.Kd3 Kg3 48.Re5 Rg8 49.Re2 Rd8 50.b3 g4 51.Re5 gxh3 52.gxh3 Ra8 53.Kxd4 Kxh3 
54.Rxb5 Rxa3 55.b4 Rb3 56.Kc4 Rg3 57.Rf5 Kg4 58.Rf1 Re3 59.b5 Re2 60.Rb1 Rc2+ 61.Kb4 Rh2 62.b6 Rh8 63.b7 Kf5 64.Kc5 Rb8 65.Kc6 Ke6 66.Kc7 1-0

Keglevic,P - Savic,V [C47]
JUG-ch corr, 1971

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 d6 7.Nxd4 0-0 8.0-0 Nxd5 9.Bxd5 Nxd4 10.Qxd4 Bf6 11.Qd3 Qe7 12.c3 Rb8 13.Be3 c6 14.Bb3 b5 15.Rfd1 Rd8 16.Bf4 Be5 17.Qg3 Re8 18.Rd2 c5 19.Rad1 c4 20.Bc2 Rb6 21.Bxe5 dxe5 22.Rd5 f6 23.a4 a6 24.Qe3 Qc7 25.Qc5 Qxc5 26.Rxc5 Be6 
27.a5 Rbb8 28.Rc6 Ra8 29.Kf1 Kf7 30.Rdd6 Bc8 31.b3 Re6 32.bxc4 Rxd6 33.Rxd6 bxc4 34.Ke1 Ra7 35.Rc6 Be6 36.Kd2 Ke7 37.Kc1 Bd7 38.Rxc4 Bb5 39.Rc8 Kd7 40.Rh8 h6 41.Bb3 Rc7 42.Kc2 Ke7 43.Bd5 Kd6 44.Kb3 Kc5 45.c4 Bc6 46.Rb8 Bxd5 47.exd5 Rd7 48.Kc3 1-0

Bruce Monson


PART II in next post:
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ranjk
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline



Posts: 10
Location: Campinas
Joined: 07/19/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #19 - 07/30/04 at 15:54:31
Post Tools
Hi all,

I went to http://www.chesslive.de to check Svidler games in the BG and only found 5 games. Is it really all of his games? If the answer is yes, these games hardly can made a case for this opening. Four of them were played when he was a teen of around 14 years (1990-91) and at that time he was a "modest" player (compared with his actual level!), with rating <2500. His last game is much more serious than the others, since he was already a top GM and played against Morozevich in 2002.

But this last game can really count for the soundness of BG? Topalov played the Cochrane Gambit against Kramnik  in a Linares tournament few years ago and of course this gambit is unsound. Kramnik was so surprised and unprepared that played an inferior continuation and the game ended in a draw. Probably this is what Svidler was hoping when he played BG against Morozevich, to take him off his guard. I don't think he has the guts to play BG against Morozevich again!

I want to say another thing, about GM Lev Gutman. He is a strong player, of course, and recently writed "Budapest Fajorowitz" and "Scotch Qh4", about two very "funny" openings and both books had loads of analysis from his part. But how many GMs take so much time analysing these kind of openings?  It's seens that Gutman is a kind of "chess pirate", his views about less popular openings probably is not shared by his GM colleagues! What he said about BG cannot be taked as a normal GM view of things... And about Karpov, what he said in a beginner book can hardly be  taked as seal of approval from a World Champion. If he said that in a Informant monograph after supplying many original analysis too support his views, than we are talking!

The Belgrade Gambit is very interesting and I'm even looking at some games to learn the lines, since I'm thinking in playing it in blitz games. But I think it's very unhealthy to play it as your main weapon against 1. ... e5 in rated  games with slow time controls. Every time I look at a gambit in Open Games, I'm very suspicious. Take the example of King's Gambit. It's much more popular than BG and have much better pedigree too, with many chess legends at the white side, but now for many years the KG theoretical status is under a cloud. Of course, in practice, the KG (and probably the BG too) works perfectly if you are playing against  players with Elo <2300...

I noted that every time TopNotch talks, many people seems annoyed. Because of this, I love to read threads which he writes, it's always interesting and very funny! But I don't understand why so many people complain, he only says rather obvious things! After you leave the beginners levels, if you want to improve, you must play established openings since in this way you can learn lessons from very strong players that played them, among these players there are giants like Kasparov and Karpov. Within established openings you can see ideas of the best players of the world, unlike BG. Isn't this so obvious?

And note that opening theory, as any other subject worth studying, obeys kind of "Darwinian" rules,  because of this Ruy Lopez rules today and King's Gambit and many other gamtibs in open games were discarded by strong players decades ago. Like it or not, this is the truth and for the proof, check the pages of Informant of the last four decades and count how many Ruy Lopez and gambits were played.

Of course for us here, at a much lower level, this fact don't have much relevance. Since we are amateurs, we play what really hooks us. So if you like gambits, just play them and don't be bothered by what books say about their theoretical status. But if turn out that you play the Spanish, you have the possibility to study the games of the best players of our time, unlike BG. Because of this you can learn more and you cannot deny it!

Cheers,
ranjk
  
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 #18 - 07/30/04 at 09:42:59
Post Tools
Obviously a GM, particularly a top one like Svidler, can't keep wheeling it out time and again, as if you become known as someone who is likely to play the Belgrade Gambit, people will take the time beforehand to work out a line of defence.

But at club level, and in the typical weekend Swiss, i.e. the vast majority of my games, and, I suspt of most people on this site, nobody knows exactly who they are going to be playing until ten minutes before the game, and even then they don't know what opening will coem up!

Most of those playing 1...e5 with Black at this level will have something worked out against the Spanish and the Italian and most likely the King's Gambit and the Vienna  and the bishop's Opening as well.  I suspect this is not necessarily the case for the BG.

A further advantage of the BG (or indeed a 'mainstream' Four Knights) is that it can be played against the Petroff as well ...
  

If sometimes we fly too close to the sun, at least this shows we are spreading our wings.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
killbill
Guest


Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #17 - 07/30/04 at 09:35:38
Post Tools
I think some may be taking this discussion a little too personally. I have no doubt that the Belgrade is playable but it seems very clear it is not in the same league as the Spanish, or even the Scotch or slow Giouco. At club level it should still be a good weapon though. Svidler may have played it in the 90's, but he plays the Spanish now. Fashion? Or did he need a more serious weapon....
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10765
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #16 - 07/30/04 at 05:29:04
Post Tools
Still TopNotch has not shown that the Petrov is strategically more complex than the Belgrade Gambit ...
For the record: I never have played both of them as White.
  

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: 2211
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #15 - 07/29/04 at 18:56:34
Post Tools
The Belgrade Gambit is probably no better or worse than some of the other gambits arising after 1.e4 e5. Grin

To my knowledge the BG has not been refuted outright, however the 5...Be7 line has proven so effective an equaliser that many would be White players have either abandoned or dismissed it altogether. It does not always take an outright bust to condemn a line for White, the mere fact that a comfortable equaliser exists is enough put it on the endangered list.

Its nice to see that so many people are quoting me, it means hopefully u r paying attention. Tongue
However in many cases, some of you miss the gist of what I'm trying to say. Yes its good to reach positions and Pawn Structures that one is familiar with, but my point was that the Pawn Structures that arise in the Belgrade is usually fixed and inflexible which do not allow for much variety of strategic plans from white's point of view. 

For amateurs to restrict themselves exclusively to a system with such a narrow strategic scope will stagnate their chess development in the long run. Of course if you are already a strong player with a sound understanding of how to handle various strategic positions, then dabbling in things like the BG will probably not harm you. 

Craig was quick to highlight that I reccommended The Vienna and Bishop's Opening as good choices for White even though they did not neccesarily promise a theoretical advantage. However what Craig failed to appreciate when quoting me, was the Strategic Complexity to which I referred to, it is this strategic complexity that distinguishes the Openings I recommended from the BG.

No doubt I will be quoted again, so let me elaborate a bit further. The Belgrade Gambit commits White from the outset to very energetic and precise play to justify his pawn minus, there is nothing wrong with this style if it suits you, however my point is that The Bishops Opening and Vienna complexes allow for a variety of approaches both immensly tactical or positionally subtle which allows White to vary his lines according to who he is playing. Belgrade Gambit practitioners do not have the luxury of such flexibility.

Regarding the Petroff, it is important to note that for the most part strong players use this Defence when a drawn result is desirable. No doubt symetrical Pawn Structures such as those that are typical of many Petroff mainlines are very hard for white to breakdown, even at Grandmaster level. The same holds true for any Opening with a symmetrical pawn structure, for instance that is why many strong players regard the Symmetrical Variation as Black's most reliable choice against the English Opening, GM Chris Ward included.

I was asked to reccommend something for White against the solid Petroff that offers reasonable chances for an advantage. Well, considering how difficult it is to breakdown symmetrical pawn structures, I think white should aim instead to create an asymmetrical one. Bearing this in mind I think 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Nc3!? is an excellent practical weapon against The Petroff in which I have enjoyed much success, and it is not at all easy for black to equalise here. However, considering this is a Belgrade Gambit thread, I do not want to delve further into the intricacies of the above line.

So to conclude, if White is satisfied that black can equalise comfortably with 5...Be7 but believes that the resultant positions are rich and complex enough to allow good chances to outplay the opponent, then by all means practice The Belgrade Gambit. For the record I do not believe this to be the case.

The Guru has spoken.

Top Grin  

Postscript: Remarkably Mr. Monson posted his response while I was finishing up mine and hence I did not see it until I had already uploaded. I will address some of his points in due course.

Till then have fun and be good.  Grin     
« Last Edit: 07/31/04 at 10:10:58 by TopNotch »  

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


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 31
Location: Colorado
Joined: 07/25/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #14 - 07/29/04 at 17:51:06
Post Tools
TOPNOTCH:
The problems arise when one becomes obsessed with these Offbeat Gambits, and gambit play in general to the exclusion of other important strategic Opening concepts that one must learn in order to improve as a chessplayer. 

MONSON:
Once again, you're talking apples and oranges!  It does not follow that just because someone happens to specialize in a particular gambit that that person must therefore be ignoring other "important strategic Opening concepts."   

TOPNOTCH:
Yes, I know we all want to tranpose into or play Openings we love, even if deep down we know they are flawed. 

MONSON:
So far you have not provided one iota of evidence demonstrating that the Belgrade Gambit is "flawed" in any way.  The Belgrade has withstood the rigors of world class correspondence grandmasters as well as world class OTB grandmasters.  Moreover, I doubt there is anyone in the world who is more up on current Belgrade Gambit theory than I am, and yet I know of no "bombs" for black that leave me with any "deep down" concerns about the gambit being "flawed." 

Theory has shown, and continues to show, that white has good prospects against all of black's 5th move responses, and that includes the allegedly devastating 5...Be7.   

I checked my database, and according to the 940 games with 5...Be7 (that's probably about as many games as you have TOTAL for the BG in your database), white won 374 (40%) while black won 257 (27%) and 297 were drawn (33%), for an adjusted score of 56% for white against 44% for black! with an average ELO rating of 2349!

I'd say 56% against this devastating show-stopper in 5...Be7 is pretty damn good!  Perhaps this is why GMs such as Gutman, Bellon, Szmetan,  Peter Svidler (he's only like, what, among the top ten GMs in the world?!) and others (including a multitude of IMs and correspondence IMs and GMs) continue to include this gambit in their repertoir.   

Perhaps, too, this is why GM Lev Gutman wrote in his 1993 book d4 im Vierspringerspiel (d4 in the Four Knights): ...I believe that White's position has great potential and I intend to prove that, in all variations, Black must contend with the worse position. . . . for years the Belgrade Gambit has been considered unsatisfactory for White but now I am of the opinion that White has the better chances and Black has no easy defense."

Even Karpov was impressed with it.  In his 1988 book, The Open Game in Action he said: ...[N]ot everyone wishes to sacrifice a pawn (or even two) so early in the opening to obtain the initiative.  For that reason the [Belgrade] Gambit hasn't become very popular.  All the same this gambit leads to quite exciting and lively play.  I think those who favor stormy complications should include the gambit in their repertoire.

Svidler, in fact, played the BG through the 90's and as recently as 2002 used it against Morozevich.  Incidentally, Morozevich played 5...Be7, and far from being a ho-hum yawnfest, it turned into a tactical melee with pieces flying all over the place.  It was VERY hard-fought!  Ultimately the final result was a draw, but it was later discovered that Svidler missed a win.  Here's that game:

Svidler,P (2690) - Morozevich,A (2707) [C47]
St Petersburg-Moscow Moscow (1), 22.10.2002

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bf4 d6 7.Nxd4 0-0 8.Nb5 Nxd5 9.exd5 a6 10.dxc6 [10.Nxc7 Qxc7 11.dxc6 Re8 12.Be2 bxc6 13.0-0 Rb8 14.b3 +/= Monson; For 10.Nc3 see game ven der Weide-Ellenbroek below.] 10...axb5 11.Bxb5 Bg5 12.cxb7 Bxb7 13.Qg4 Qe7+ 14.Kd2 Bf6 15.Rhe1 Qd8 16.c3 Rb8 17.Kc2 Bc8 18.Qe2 c6 19.Bd3 Be6 20.Qd2 g6 21.Kc1 Qa5 22.Bxd6 Rxb2 23.Qxb2? (Svidler could have won with 23.Kxb2!) 23...Bxc3 24.Qa3 Qxa3+ 25.Bxa3 Ra8 26.Rxe6 Bxa1 27.Rxc6 Rxa3 28.Bc4 Bd4 29.f4 Ra5 30.Kd2 Rc5 31.Rxc5 Bxc5 32.a4 Kf8 33.Kd3 Bb6 34.Ke4 Ke7 35.f5 g5 36.Kd5 g4 37.Kc6 Bg1 38.h3 gxh3 39.gxh3 Kf6 40.Bd3 Kg5 41.a5 Kh4 42.a6 f6 43.Kb7 Kxh3 44.a7 Bxa7 45.Kxa7 Kg4 46.Kb6 Kf4 47.Kc5 Ke5 ˝-˝

The following game, won by BG expert Karel Van der Weide, occurred in the same variation as the previous game, though the position arose by transposition after . . . not 1.e4 but 1.Nf3!  It sure was lucky for Karel that his opponent played ...Nc6 and ...e5 or else he wouldn't have known what to do. . .

Van der Weide,K - Ellenbroek,T [C47]
NLD-ch sf Enschede (4), 1995

1.Nf3 Nc6 2.e4 e5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bf4 d6 7.Nxd4 0-0 8.Nb5 Nxd5 9.exd5 a6 10.Nc3 Ne5 11.Be2 Bg5 12.Bg3 Ng6 13.0-0 Bf4 14.Qd4 Qg5 15.Rae1 Bf5 16.h4 (just another boring, drawish, position arising from 5...Be7) 16...Qh6 17.h5 Be5 18.Bxe5 Nxe5 19.f4 Ng4 20.Bxg4 Bxg4 21.f5 Bxh5 22.Re3 f6 23.Rh3 Qg5 24.Ne4 Qg4 25.Rg3 Qe2 26.Nxf6+ Rxf6 27.Qxf6 Qe3+ 28.Rxe3 gxf6 29.Re7 Rc8 30.Rf4 Bf7 31.Rc4 c5 32.Rxb7 Bxd5 33.Rg4+ Kh8 34.Rd7 Bxa2 35.Rxd6 Bb1 36.Rc4 Ba2 37.b3 a5 38.Ra6 Rd8 39.Rxa5 Bb1 40.Raxc5 1-0


TOPNOTCH:
The truth is you will never learn very much about the intricacies 1e4 e5 play if you restrict yourself to something like The Belgrade Gambit, 

MONSON:
Again, apples and oranges!  Just because one happens to be an expert in the Belgrade Gambit DOES NOT mean that that is their ONLY focus, or that they neglect other aspects of the game.


TOPNOTCH:
why, because the pawn structures that arise are predictable and do not allow for much flexibility in strategy. 

MONSON:
In my next post I will present numerous games involving the three main lines white generally plays against 5...Be7 (namely 6.Bf4, 6.Bc4 and 6.Bb5, all of which offer dynamic possibilities ranging between tactical skirmishes and positional nuances).  I'll let the other readers decide whether they are as benign as TOPNOTCH is under the illusion they are.  You'll notice that I didn't mention 6.Nxd4 (the line Craig originally provided a short line for, after which TopNotch chimed-in with his "this confirms what I already knew" diatribe).  That's because 6.Nxd4, while perfectly playable, is the least strong of white's options.

Just a short addition here.  Let me say that the Belgrade is actually more of a positional gambit than a typical kill-or-be-killed bloodbath.  Certainly, in nearly every major line there are variations that will send the game into bloodly tactical complications, but even when these are avoided white is usually left with the pleasant option of maintaining the tension or heading into a slightly better endgame.  Indeed, in addition to honing your tactical skills, the BG will also hone your endgame skills.  I will be providing examples to demonstrate this.

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 #13 - 07/29/04 at 12:53:47
Post Tools
Firstly, also in reference to TopNotch's mention of predictable pawn structures... is that not what you should be aiming for?? To have familiar positions where you are comfortable with handling the pawn structures and so on? I thought the idea of any opening scheme was to be familiar with the resulting middlegames and endgame structures? Also, if one plays a set system in the ruy, let's say as an example the 5.d4 lines, they will also have a familiar and predictable pawn structure... this is exactly what the player of the white pieces is looking for - if someone wants to trot out 12 moves from Emms' book to reach a dead equal position as black which they may play once every 5 years, while I'm playing the position say once a month, then I will have the advantage regardless. I will know how to handle the resultant positions. I will know what structures to aim for in the endgame, which pieces to keep on or get rid of, which files to claim in view of the endgame. The player of the black pieces will just have the comfort of being told by a GM that the position was "equal" - along with sound possibly the most over/misused expression in chess.

Also, I like the fact that there isn't any talk of this gambit being unsound or refuted - everyone agrees that black gets equal play it seems, which I have no problem with. I will happily echo what MNb said, pleae give me a line against the petroff which promises more than equality. In fact, to quote you on your suggested openings for white, "Whilst the Bishop's Opening and Vienna Game do not promise a theoretical advantage against correct play by black, they are Bullet Proof (Sound) and strategically complex and unbalanced enough to allow the player that understands the typical resultant positions better to prevail." Black is unable to prove an advantage in the belgrade or four knights, the four knights is certainly bulletproof and if black's best is 5...Be7 with equality, so be it. If white can handle the position better, this means nothing. Black has no winning chances in the 5....Be7 lines unless white does something drastically wrong. 

When I trawl through my database, white is scoring at least 50% in the lines after 5...Be7 6.Bc4...

I have looked at the position I mentioned after 6.Bc4 O-O 7.O-O d6 8.Nxd4 Nxd4 9.Qxd4 Nxd5 10.Bxd5 Bf6 11.Qd3, and the common continuation seems to be 11...c6 12.Bb3 Re8 13.c3 Be6 14.Be3, where white is certainly no worse - if Bxb3, the open a-file will be useful; also black's d pawn is weak and if white can prevent ...d5, he can achieve an edge. There is also the possibility of advancing with f4 to cramp black.

The more I look at the Belgrade, the more I think that it's as good a try as anything else.

Regards, 
Craig 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
 
killbill
Guest


Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #12 - 07/29/04 at 10:50:54
Post Tools
perhaps Belgrade fans should post some analysis rebuffing recently published antidote- both Emms in "Play The Open Games as Black" and Kaufman in "Chess Advantage"... give 5...Be7. 

I can see the Belgrade being a surprise weapon, but if these 1.e4 e5 gambits had any real bite, we would see them played in high level OTB tournaments. Correspondence is a different matter - I think more players will play "critical lines" (5...Ne4; 5...Nb4) but if the solid 5...Be7 equalizes without much difficulty, it's what players will prepare OTB.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Panda
Guest


Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #11 - 07/29/04 at 06:06:15
Post Tools
I don't see why Mr TopNotch prefers to recommend the Vienna or the Bishop's Opening in favour of the Belgrade, since for one thing, if white white wants a safer option he could play a traditional 4Knights or a Glek system, the latter has scored very well even in GM encounters.

And if 5...Be7 is the worst white can encounter, it's strange that not more people play the Belgrade! 

After 6.Nxd4 Nxd4 7.Qxd4 it looks like a tiny edge for white to me. So what is the secret for total equality for black?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10765
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #10 - 07/29/04 at 05:53:02
Post Tools
<because the pawn structures that arise are predictable>
There is hardly one opening with more predictable pawn structures than the Petrov. As TopNotch sees himself as a kind of guru, leading me ignorant amateur in the right direction, maybe he can tell me what to do after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6.
  

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: 2211
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #9 - 07/28/04 at 20:44:22
Post Tools
Thank you all for your thoughts and critcisms Grin

To clarify a few things, it was not my intent to imply that Gambit play isnt useful for the less experienced player to aquaint himself with the dynamics of the game, quite the opposite. I agree wholeheartedly that Gambit play is useful for developing tactical skills. The problems arise when one becomes obsessed with these Offbeat Gambits, and gambit play in general to the exclusion of other important strategic Opening concepts that one must learn in order to improve as a chessplayer. Yes, I know we all want to tranpose into or play Openings we love, even if deep down we know they are flawed. The truth is you will never learn very much about the intricacies 1e4 e5 play if you restrict yourself to something like The Belgrade Gambit, why, because the pawn structures that arise are predictable and do not allow for much flexibility in strategy.    

The fact remains that the higher up the ladder you go, the less successful these Gambit Openings prove to be. I am happy that Mr.Monson has had good success in Correspondence play with this gambit, however my thoughts about its true merit remains unchanged. I think The Belgrade gambit may only prove dangerous if black is the higher rated player trying to win at all cost, in this case he must take some risks, and in fact I stated this in my previous post. 

The big problem for White in the Belgrade Gambit is that it has been known for some time that 5...Be7 equalises comfortably and with little effort. The 5...Be7 variation is the main reason why the Belgrade Gambit has more or less faded from 'OVER THE BOARD TOURNAMENT PLAY' since the 70's, and if White is the higher rated player this line is doubly annoying to face, as a draw will hardly be welcome. I should also mention here that GM Eric Prie I think was once an avid Belgrade Gambit practitioner in the 90's but eventually gave it up as word on the effectiveness of 5...Be7 spread to the masses  Wink

I have been criticised for not posting lines, but I did not see a need to, as most of you can check your personal or Online Databases and confirm for yourself why 5...Be7 is regarded so highly. My job as I see it is to point you in the right direction, not attempt an Opening Monograph on the forum.

Finally, and perhaps this is my biggest gripe with this BG from white's point of view. Why spend so much time analysing all these complicated lines for White when black has a safe, sound and reliable answer in which to date White has been unable to prove anything against. Too much work for too little reward I say, unless u r happy with a draw.

Perhaps Mr. Monson can tell us his score against 5...Be7 and perhaps post some of those games. I suspect that most of his stronger opponents who did not mind risking a draw may have chosen this line, and I would be curious as to what new ideas Mr. Monson has here to resuscitate White's chances.   

Regards

Top  Grin  

   
  

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


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

Posts: 588
Location: Bryn, South Wales
Joined: 07/14/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #8 - 07/28/04 at 13:58:56
Post Tools
I've been looking at the 5...Nb4 6.Nxf6+ lines over the last few days, and I must admit that 7.Bc4! is a significant improvement. 9.Ng5 seems the best move in the position after 7...Bc5 8.O-O d6, though also, perhaps 9.Bg5 is deserving of attention...I would probably prefer Ng5 given that it's a gambit I'm playing, and there seems no clear continuation after 9.Bg5 Qg6 10.a3 Nc6... maybe 11.b4 is an idea, and 11.Qe2 Bg4 with the idea of a later e5 may be playable, but 9.Ng5 certainly seems better. 
I should note here that 9.e5 dxe5 10.a3 seems to be the main continuation, but I think white is struggling somewhat in these lines, the plan is to bust open the centre with f4 as soon as can be arranged, but trawling through my databases I see that black seems to be defusing the white play quite easily at the moment, and Mr Monson himself has had plenty of success on the black side in correspondence tournaments. (Incidentally, 10.Bg5 may be a far better try, in the games I found with this move, white is scoring 50%, 10...Qf5 11.Re1 seems to give white possibly enough for his pawn) 

Just a note on the Nxc7+ piece sac line (Monson gambit?!), after 13.h4, I was wondering if Bruce (or anyone else) has considered or seen 13...b5!?. when having a little look at this, I found it to be quite an interesting defence... the point is that if 14.Qxb5+, 14...Qb7 and b7 turns out to be a decent square for the queen, and white can obviously not exchange. Have you looked at this Bruce, and if so, have you found a reliable method against it?

Regards, 
Craig 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
 
bamonson
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 31
Location: Colorado
Joined: 07/25/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #7 - 07/27/04 at 17:05:52
Post Tools
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

  
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 #6 - 07/27/04 at 16:21:47
Post Tools
Craig wrote:
A) 5...Bc5
This line is often not mentioned, and sometimes only recieves a footnote, but I think it deserves close attention. The point is 6.Bf4 is met by O-O!, and 7.Bxc7 Qe8! is probably better for black. So instead best is probably 6.Bg5, when black usually chooses between 6...Be7 (which I don't feel is correct), or 6...d6. Quite a few players, including Mr Monson, have been known to play 6.Bf4 and only on 6...d6 play 7.Bg5, as this prevents ...Be7, but if black is aware of the O-O possibility, I'm not sure whether this is good for white.

[MONSON]
I have long viewed 5...Bc5 to be suspect, but I do not disagree with Craig that it deserves "close attention."

White has a few options here, but one I like is 6.Bf4, which I only slightly prefer over 6.Bg5 since it forces black to decide between playing 6...d6 or 6...O-O.  Most common, of course, is 6...d6, after which white plays 7.Bg5 and prepares to wreck black's pawn structure.

However, the immediate 6.Bg5 is fully sound and quite dangerous for black, especially if he now plays 6...d6?!, which is even better for white.  Better is 6...Be7 after which white must decide between 7.Bf4, transposing to 5...Be7 6.Bf4 lines, or playing 7.Bxf6 Bxf6 8.Bb5, which is actually quite an interesting variation.

But to give an example of how white's play might be geared around black's attempt to hold the d4-pawn, I'd like to present the following game against an ICCF 2450 player.  I am not going to provide detailed annotations, but the astute player will notice that white makes no attempt to recapture the d4-pawn, rather using this to his advantage in keeping black's Bc5 as a virtual spectator, cut off from the action occuring on the kingside by his own pawns on d6 and d4!   Indeed, black will often be compelled to expunge this pawn voluntarily (...d3) in effort to get his useless bishop back into play.  Other themes are open lines (even at the cost of a further pawn sacrifice) and keeping black's king quarantined in the center.


Monson,B - Simmelink,J (2450) [C47]
Belgrade Gambit Corr. Thematic, 1998

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Bc5 6.Bf4 d6 7.Bg5 h6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Qd2! Be6 10.Bb5 a6 11.Ba4 b5 12.Bb3 Ne5 13.Qf4 Ng6 14.Qg3 Rg8 15.0-0-0 Kf8 16.Nf4! Bxb3 17.axb3 Nxf4 18.Qxf4 Rxg2 19.Nh4 Rg5 20.Nf5 d5 21.Rhg1 Bd6 22.Qh4 Ke8 23.Nxh6! c5 24.exd5 Rxg1 25.Rxg1 f5 26.Qh5 Bf4+ 27.Kb1 Bxh6 28.Re1+! Be3 29.fxe3 d3 30.e4! Qf6 31.cxd3 Rd8 32.Rf1 Qd4 33.Qxf5 Qxd3+ 34.Ka2 Rd7 35.Rg1 Ke7 36.Rg7 Kd8 37.Qe5 Kc8 38.Rg8+ 1-0

The game was very complicated and at several stages it required subtle handling, but that is to be expected against strong opposition.  The reality is, black's position is much more difficult to play than white's.

As for 6...O-O!? being the "refutation," well, that is simply not so.  Yes, if white gets careless he can see the game turn on him with a counterattack (though it is usually a threat to the Bc7 that Black has in mind in these lines), but there are all kinds of problems black must deal with, not the least of which is the complete destruction of his pawn structure after 6...O-O 7.Bxc7 Qe8 8.Nxf6+ gxf6.  Note first of all that black is not up any material at this time and yet he has severe structural weaknesses in his pawn structure that will kill him in almost any endgame.  Moreover, his king rests on this same side of the board and thus will always be vulnerable to attack.  And even in the event black can manage to get an extra pawn (i.e., white can legitimately sacrifice the e-pawn on purpose in some lines), white can still work against these permanent weaknesses in black's position with virtually no risk at all to himself. 

Black's entire strategy, therefore, seems to revolve around the idea of playing ...d6 and ...Qe7, trapping the bishop on c7.  But white has several answer to this, including just retreating the bishop and leaving the e-pawn for the taking, or ideas involving Bd3 and Qd2 (eyeing h6) and offering to let black just win the bishop (with consequences, of course).

This position, incidentally, is not the same as in the 5...Be7 6.Bf4 O-O!? line, in which black has much the same ideas but does not have to suffer the destruction of his pawn formation directly around his castled 
king.

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 #5 - 07/27/04 at 15:21:42
Post Tools
Today and tomorrow I will post a few games and items of theoretical interest for those BG fans here.   

I would also like to inform you that my NEW Belgrade Gambit website (I used to have a site at www.thomasstock.com/belgrade until Thomas disappeared off the face of the planet!  BTW, if anyone knows if he's alive please let me know!) which is being sponsored by Chessfriend.com.  On this site I will offer a lot of free analysis, free downloads, and tons of games that can be viewed on the site.  Eventually there will be some paid features as well, such as detailed modules and comprehensive annotated games.  I will also be offering BG thematic tournaments again.  Anyone interested is welcome to email me privately and I will send out an announcement when the site is up.

Regards,

Bruce Monson
bamonson@pcisys.net
  
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 #4 - 07/27/04 at 15:06:38
Post Tools
TopNotch (who ever this is) has missed the point on a whole host of issues:

First, whatever "his thoughts" on the Belgrade Gambit may be, they should hardly be given any significance in this case since he failed to provide even one variation to the discussion in support of his blanket castigation.

Second, this discussion is on the Belgrade Gambit and some questions some players have regarding some of the variations, not "opening systems"!  As such, TopNotch's insinuation that one who studies and strives to obtain the Belgrade Gambit in their games must somehow be conducting their opening preparation haphazardly, without an eye toward openings that will serve them "for a lifetime," or "build[ing] [their] entire Opening Repertoire around an offbeat system that could fall based on the discovery of a single powerful novelty" is simply asinine!

But HAD we actually been talking about such "opening systems" I could easily have pointed out that I have utilized 1.Nc3 as a "system" for many years, and that through this "system" one will frequently encounter the following line: 1.Nc3 e5 2.e4 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5, etc., and several variants among this move order, all leading to the same Belgrade Gambit.  Of course he may also encounter 1...d5, 1...c5, 1...g6 and several other possibilities, each of which white, using this "system," must be prepared for.   

In short, constructing your opening repertoire in a manner that improves the odds of reaching positions (or gambits) that you enjoy and understand is a recipe for success and should be encouraged.

Finally--and this is perhaps most important for those "amateurs" TopNotch was evidently trying to convince (are we to presume TopNotch is a "professional"?)--it is a categorical fallacy to suggest that the inclusion of off-beat gambits like the Belgrade (and the BG has been found to be "bullet proof" at the highest levels of correspondence chess for the last 40 years) in your repertoire is somehow a recipe for disaster.  In fact, the reverse is true.  Indeed, it is precisely through knowing such gambits--and using them--that offers lower rated players their best opportunities for success against higher rated players.   

What's interesting though is how TopNotch was on the right track when he said:

"they [the Bishop's Opening and Vienna Game] are strategically complex and unbalanced enough to allow the player that understands the typical resultant positions better to prevail." 

But evidently this same standard of "understand[ing] the typical resultant positions" is insufficient if we're talking about the Belgrade Gambit or other gambits that happen to be out of the mainstream sights, even when said opening has been proven sound.

Bruce Monson


 
Roll Eyes
  
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 #3 - 07/27/04 at 12:43:04
Post Tools
I was always told, whether it be from instruction manuals or from players at my club, that it wasn't just useful but "necessary" to play gambits like this. And they're still played at the top level now and again, even if only rarely, and even if only as a surprise weapon. While I have no doubt that the Ruy Lopez is a better opening in the sense that white will get an advantage, I feel with best play that this gambit is correct, and offers white a playable game. If black can swallow a pawn and hold on for 60 moves playing accurately, then well done him. Mr Monson has assured me there are several improvements for white in all the lines over my basic analysis. Also, I should apologise to him, the piece sac line I mentioned as being found by Junior has actually been played by him and others, I believe he's done some work on this line with Albert Schenning, and I'm assured it should be playable.

The thing about all these "offbeat" gambits is that they cannot be refuted. Why people bother trying I do not know. Black can equalise, yes. Possibly even get a small edge. But as black, the main lines are the ones which leave you with a small edge or dull equality. There are very few systems for the attacking player as black which can give you equality AND attacking chances. As white, you have the luxury of playing lines like these - if they're not as likely to give you an advantage, so what? Loads of people play systems like the stonewall and colle as white - known to not really trouble black with correct play. But the white-side players are comfortable with this set-up, and therefore play it. It seems that non-gambit players come here, pick "holes" in the opening which give black equality, and then leave satisfied. I know of no opening which black cannot achieve equality against. 

I will post some more analysis here just as soon as I've done it  Lips Sealed

Regards, 
Craig Cheesy

(PS - "Whilst the Bishop's Opening and Vienna Game do not promise a theoretical advantage against correct play by black, they are Bullet Proof (Sound) and strategically complex and unbalanced enough to allow the player that understands the typical resultant positions better to prevail."... in light of the fact that black has nothing but drawing lines against the KG, and there is no known refutation to the belgrade, or indeed no known line which promises black an easy life, surely the same can be said? The player that understands the typical resultant positions better, will prevail. Even more so if it's a sharp tactical position which black would not have wanted...)

  

"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
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10765
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #2 - 07/27/04 at 09:34:17
Post Tools
I do not agree with TopNotch. If you want to learn about open piece play and the balance between development/activity and material, there is no better way than practising open gambits, even if they are a bit obscure.
Of course it is very possible, that you feel the need to practice something strategically more complex after a while.
  

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: 2211
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #1 - 07/26/04 at 20:06:00
Post Tools
White can equalise with careful play Grin

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the Belgrade Gambit, which had its heyday in the 70's, long before the Database deluge. Nowadays, as you rightly pointed out, every 'Russian Schoolboy' Knows that 5...Be7 is a very effective antidote to this gambit, while 5...Nb4 is a bit more ambitious but also more risky and perhaps unnecessary considering the standing of 5...Be7.

The main virtue, as I have oft said about these obscure gambits, lies in the element of surprise. Once you shine a spot light too close on them, they lose much of their lustre, somewhat like The Kings Gambit.

I can appreciate that Mr. Monson has put in much time and effort in researching this Gambit, and hence has a vested interest in its viability. Nevertheless I would advise amateurs who are flirting with the idea of using this as repertoire weapon, to have a reliable back up weapon handy. You will need it.

One further bit of sage advise to all u aspiring players. Never build your entire Opening Repertoire around an offbeat system that could fall based on the discovery of a single powerful novelty. Choose more flexible resilient Opening systems, in the end your prudence will be rewarded. For instance, reliable alternatives to the Ruy could be the Bishops Opening or Vienna Game.

Whilst the Bishop's Opening and Vienna Game do not promise a theoretical advantage against correct play by black, they are Bullet Proof (Sound) and strategically complex and unbalanced enough to allow the player that understands the typical resultant positions better to prevail.

Opening lines such as The Belgrade Gambit come and go while a system such as the Bishop's Opening will serve u for a lifetime.

Top  Grin
    

Top Grin  
« Last Edit: 07/28/04 at 19:34:20 by TopNotch »  

The man who tries to do something and fails is infinitely better than he who tries to do nothing and succeeds - Lloyd Jones Smiley
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
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
C47: The Belgrade Gambit
07/26/04 at 06:30:23
Post Tools
At the suggestion of Bruce on the "Death of KG" thread, I have taken the opportunity to start a thread on the Belgrade. I'm currently playing some games in the Belgrade on IECC, so I cannot post them yet but I shall do when I've finished them.

Anyway, for those who have never heard of this crazy opening, it is reached after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 (the "tame" four knights) 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5!? (If someone can insert a diagram here that would be great)

In this position, black has a number of tries. He usually declines the gambit pawn, and I think this is probably wise. Nonetheless, the main tries are:

A) 5...Bc5
This line is often not mentioned, and sometimes only recieves a footnote, but I think it deserves close attention. The point is 6.Bf4 is met by O-O!, and 7.Bxc7 Qe8! is probably better for black. So instead best is probably 6.Bg5, when black usually chooses between 6...Be7 (which I don't feel is correct), or 6...d6. Quite a few players, including Mr Monson, have been known to play 6.Bf4 and only on 6...d6 play 7.Bg5, as this prevents ...Be7, but if black is aware of the O-O possibility, I'm not sure whether this is good for white.

B) 5...Nb4(!)
This move is often given a ! in theoretical manuals. 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). 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. 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.

C) 5...Be7
This move is often considered the safest way for black to get a good game. 6.Nxd4 Nxd5 7.exd5 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 O-O intending ...Bf6 is better for black, so white needs to find something else. 6.Bc4 O-O 7.O-O d6 8.Nxd4 Nxd4 9.Qxd4 Nxd5 10.Bxd5 Bf6 11.Qd3 is a very slight improvement on this for white, but black's position still looks very comfortable. 6.Bf4 O-O! 7.Bxc7 Qe8 is similar to the idea I mentioned in line A above, though Igor Polovodin has shown a willingness to defend this position as white on more than one occassion. 8.Be2 d6 9.Nxf6+ Bxf6 10.Bxd6 Be7 11.Bxe7 Qxe7 12.Nd2 f5! gives black mighty good play for his material investment, 8....d6! being the novelty found and used by Felix Izeta Txabarri to defeat Bellon Lopez in 1998. 

D) 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.

So what do you guys think? Does anyone play the white side and know of any improvements? Does anyone like the black side and have any more lines? Or do you just feel like saying your two pennies worth? Here's your chance!

Regards, 
Craig Grin
« Last Edit: 07/17/11 at 18:49:23 by Smyslov_Fan »  

"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
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo