Latest Updates:
Normal Topic 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.c3 d5 (Read 4048 times)
kamiel
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 43
Location: vlaanderen
Joined: 08/23/04
Re: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.c3 d5
Reply #3 - 08/24/04 at 18:56:12
Post Tools
Thx for looking it up.

No, I do mean 5.Qe2 Nge7 but then I forgot to type the moves 6.exd5 Qxd5 and only then 7.Qxe5 Be6
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Mike Thomas
Full Member
***
Offline


So many openings, so little
time!

Posts: 116
Location: Louisville
Joined: 01/05/03
Gender: Male
Re: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.c3 d5
Reply #2 - 08/24/04 at 17:50:47
Post Tools
Thanks for responding to my question. After much searching I finally dug out my copy of Konikowski's monograph. It is a small (39 pages) booklet published in English by Chess Enterprises in 1981. It is entitled "4...d5 in the Cordel Defense, Spanish Game (Ruy Lopez)" and lists Andrzej Filipowicz and Jerzy Konikowski as co-authors.

Konikowski does analyse your first line up to a certain point, giving the game Muller-Konikowski, Correspondence 1966 with light notes (partially given below). I haven't checked his analysis yet, but I agree with Froeyman's opinion that after Black drops the e pawn his position doesn't look very appealing.


1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.c3 d5 5.Nxe5 Qg5 6.0-0 Qxe5 7.d4 Qe6 8.dxc5 dxe4 9.Bf4 Nge7 10.Bxc7 0-0 11.Re1 Qg6 12.Nd2 f5 13.Bc4+ (better was 13.Bd6) Kh8 14.b4 (better was 14.Bd6) Be6 15.Qb3? (better was 15.f3) Bxc4 16.Qxc4 Qg5 17.Nf1 Ng6 18.Kh1? (better was 18.Re3) Nce5 19.Bxe5 Nxe5 20.Qe2 Nd3 21.g3 Nxe1 22.Rxe1 Rad8 and Black went on to win.


Your second line, with 5.Qe2, doesn't make sense as White's own e pawn blocks the Queen's access to e5. Do you mean 5,exd5 Qxd5 6.Qe2 ?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kamiel
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 43
Location: vlaanderen
Joined: 08/23/04
Re: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.c3 d5
Reply #1 - 08/24/04 at 13:50:18
Post Tools
It was me who posted this in a newsgroup few days ago.
The 'refutation' (wins a clear pawn)  is known for some years although none of my opponents have ever found it.
Some years ago I asked in a newsgroup what the refutation was and I got an answer by  FM Helmut Froeyman whose reply I'll copy paste here.


<<
Hello,

Like I promised in a private mail, I looked some things up.

1. e4, e5 2. Nf3, Nc6 3. Bb5, Bc5 4. c3, d5? ( I give it a questionmark
because I don't think black can equalise after this move anymore. This
move marks the Konikowski variation of the Cordel Defense. Konikowski
was/is a Polish master which developped this system in the 70ties and
used this move in a lot of his correspondence games.) 5. Ne5: (Isn't
that exactly the point of 3. Bb5:? ), Qg5 6. 0-0!! (And not 6. d4? after
which black gets indeed counterplay. In fact it is a very simple move.),
Qe5: 7. d4! (With every move, new pieces are developped.), Qe6 8. dc5:,
de4: 9. Bf4 (Schiller gives 9. Bg5, f6 10. Nd2 with the advantage for
white but I doubt that 9..., f6 is blacks best move. ) and black has big
problems.
Some examples 9. .., Nf6 10. Bc7:!, 0-0 11. Re1 and black is not only a
pawn down but he has also problems with developpement and with his e
pawn. or 9.., Nge7 10. Re1, 0-0 11. Nd2 and I can't see how black will
save that e-pawn because f5 hurts against Bc4.
So I have strong doubts about its soundness.

Regards,
Helmut
>>

Another problem with the variation which I did encounter a few times in blitz games and once in serious game is the simple 5.Qe2 after which black seems to lack a good reply, black can then either sacrfice a pawn for very little compensation with Nge7 Qxe5 Be6 or try to save the pawn with 5. ... Kf8 but of course that is not a move you want to make. 

Maybe Konokowski wrote something about these lines as I have not read his monograph, if he did it would be nice to see some of his analysis.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Mike Thomas
Full Member
***
Offline


So many openings, so little
time!

Posts: 116
Location: Louisville
Joined: 01/05/03
Gender: Male
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.c3 d5
08/24/04 at 11:49:38
Post Tools
Several years ago Konikowski wrote a monograph on 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.c3 d5. Recently on one of the Usenet chess newsgroups someone mentioned in passing that this line has been refuted. I don't like to post on the newsgroups so I'll ask here - does anybody know the refutation?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo