Thanks for the help!  Glad someone else here has the book.  I recommended it to someone who plays KG also.  Maybe he bought it.  I am also trying to get another friend to get it.  He likes the King's Bishop Gambit and I am sure he will like your book.  I think he is trying to save the money to purchase it now.

Ok, back to my question.  I checked out page 77 and found 6...g5?! at the bottom of the page.  The problem is that after 7. O-O my opponent says to play 7...Be7 instead of 7...Bg7.  This allows him to castle, which keeps the pawn on g5 and makes it difficult for white to develop the QB.   After 7...O-O Should I continue with 8.b3 and trade off the Bishops?  Comparing this to the line after 7...Bg7 black seems better off in this position than after 7...Bg7 because his rook is in a better position. 

I was analyzing a bit and found that 7. Qe2+ allows white to get the pawn on g5.  Like you suggest I found that interesting and Fritz seemed to think it was good for white as well.

After analyzing more I found that 6...Be7 followed up by 7...g5 seems a bit more annoying than just 6...g5, especially with the possible 7. Qe2+.
The biggest issue for me is where to develop the Black Square bishop when he does 6...Be7 and 7...g5.
 
Thanks for writing such a detailed and good book and for answering my questions here!

Justin

Paul, thanks a lot for your suggestion, I could not check it out properly before....

It is excellent. (And even if it were not, I should have thanked you ages ago... been kind of busy)

I must be getting old and boring and I am immersed in Kindermann's Exchange book. 

So I'll keep this FKG as a scond string... now I am sharing Taljechin's initial scare about the scarecrow!

(Bottom line: I hate loosing these days to much weaker players through the double edge positions that arise in the KG... people are not succumbing to bayonet attacks as when I was young!)

Many thanks - a great suggestion!

Well 100 replies seemed like a nice round figure, but after more than a month of silence it could be time for something new here - so I thought it could be fun to show an interesting 5 minute blitz game of mine from yesterday at playchess. 

(TJ) (2314) - Moor (2452) [C33]
Rated game, 5m + 0s Main Playing Hall, 12.04.2005

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Qh4+ 4.Kf1 Nf6 5.Nf3 Qh6 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.e5 Nh5 8.Nd5!?N A moment of inspiration. 

8...Ba5 

[8...Ng3+ 9.Kg1 Qc6 10.hxg3 Qxc4 11.Nxf4 Nc6 12.c3 looks good for white.] 

9.b4!? c6 10.bxa5 cxd5 11.Bxd5 Ng3+ 12.Kg1 Nxh1 13.Ba3! A move inspired by an old line in the Westerinen gambit, where white gives a whole rook to dominate the dark squares surrounding black's king. Since I'm only an exchange down, that might mean that I'm actually a piece up??  


13...Ng3 14.hxg3 fxg3 15.Qe1 (with d4 and Qb4 in mind) 

[the more positional 15.Bd6!? may also be worth considering.] 

15...Qf4 16.d4 Nc6 17.Bxc6 bxc6 

[17...dxc6!? 18.Bc1 Qg4 19.Qb4 Qd7 20.Ba3 b6 21.e6 fxe6 22.Ne5 Qc7 23.Nxc6 Bb7 24.Ne5 0-0-0 25.axb6 axb6 26.Rf1 with comp at least.] 

18.Bc1 Qg4 19.Qb4 d5 20.Ba3 Qd7 

[Here I wasted a bunch of moves with 21.Re1? Qb7 22.Qc5 Be6 23.Ng5 Qd7 24.Rb1 a6 25.Rf1 h5 26.Nxe6 Qxe6 27.Rb1 Qd7 28.Rb6 h4 29.Rxc6 Rb8 30.Bb4 Qd8 31.a3 Rb5 32.Qc3 Rxb4 33.Qxb4 and eventually won 30 moves later...]

Much better is of course: 21.e6! fxe6 22.Ne5 Qc7 23.Qc5! 


(23.Rf1 c5 24.Qb3 still seems better for white, but black might be able to survive.) 

23...Ba6 everything else loses to Rf1-f7/8. 24.Rb1! White takes time out to stop 24...0-0-0? with 25.Nxc6+- for example 25...Kd7 26.Nb8+ Rxb8 27.Qe7+ Kc8 28.Qxe6+ wins.) 

Other 24th moves by black can be met by the plan: 25.c4 Bxc4 ( 25...dxc4 26.Rf1) 26.Nxc4 dxc4 27.a6 0-0-0 28.Rb7+- 

When looking through the game afterwards, I noticed a peculiar thing - virtually all of black's moves turned out to be Fritz's recommended option! So maybe I beat Fritz 8 and not Moor? ???



Btw, Alumbrado, how did the 'sticky-back plastic' work out? 

Well, it wouldn't hurt to add some evaluations at the end of the lines... 

Anyway, I suppose I'd still be inclined to play Rde1/Rhe1 and Qf2 and then g3 or perhaps e5.

Quote:


I'm not so sure about that anymore, how about these sample lines:

6.Nge2 g5 7.d3 Bg7 8.g3!? f3 9.Nd4 d5 (...f2+ 10.Kxf2 d5 11.Kg2 +=) 10.Nxf3 dxe4 11.dxe4 h6 (11...Nxe4 12.0-0!) 

12.Qe2 0-0 13.Bd2 (13.Nxg5?!/!?) Na6 14.e5 Ng4 15.0-0-0 Nxe5 16.Nxe5 Qxe5 17.Qxe5! Bxe5 18.Rde1 Bg7 19.h4 g4 20.Ne4 with compensation.

I'm still looking at 6...Nxe4, 7.0-0 Nc5 8.Nxf4 d5 9.d4 feels like comp though it's a bit early to say so for sure...  a piece sac on d5 at some point might not be too bad either considering the Qe7/Bf8 'development'...

Quote:


I think it was analysed in Informator or NiC after 1992, but it may very well be bad but it's one of those lines you'll need to know...

Quote:


Que? Once a year in 2003 and 2004. I got the impression he'd moved on to 2.Bc4.

Anyway, the last ten years, the Bishop Gambit has been played by Ivanchuk, Morozevich, Adams and Short to name just a few - but no Fedorov... 

Quote:


Playing sound developing moves like 2.Nf3 you mean?   

To avoid ANY confussion.... just kidding

That English author is Neil McDonald. In my opinion 4...Bb6 is so annoying, that 4.Nc3 is the better move.
In Fedorov-Marin I think 9.f5 interesting. This is almost always a dangerous plan, after Black's kingside castling. But there is a lack of good practical examples.