I already read that one, but still thanks.
He has quite some good ideas (and is able to explain them) in the 3Bc4 complex, when he is not discussing weird lines (Grob and somesuch).

BtW the only times I have played the TKD as black was when I played a Traxler (still the Bc5 move), so I am very unfamiliar with all the Ng5 lines.

I dont understand you exactly. I think you are referring to one of the TKD lines, which I have never played.

I am just in an eternal discussion with Mnb in which he argues that Nf6 lines are better than the Bc5 lines in the whole d4-gambits complex. And there I agree with you that I dont like the lines after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.o-o Nxe4 6.Re1 d5 7.Bxd5 Qxd5 8.Nc3 for black for basically the same reason Mnb doesnt like my lines.

Currently I still have to look at the line 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 c3 Nf6 5 d4 exd4 6 0-0 Nxe4 7 cxd4 d5 8 dxc5 dxc4 9 Qe2 Qd3.

As I am without my stuff I cant comment on the line you give. So I give my comments a bit later.
The Qxd8+ line is not very good in the sense that my previous comment is 100% applicable. I have looked at that line a lot and it is not very amusing for white.

I have to say I have an entirely different opinion about the resulting positions. I have played all these Italian-related lines with both colours ever since I learned chess. White really doesnt have much of an initiative and constantly has to find the best moves not to lose the initiative. Almost all the resulting positions (in which the pawn hasnt been returned) have the same basic structure, white has some initiative, but it is very difficult to do something with it. For black it is much easier, he just has to find decent spots for his pieces and always has a cop-out by returning the pawn or offering exchanges.
These gambits are excellent at 1600-level where black players often play too passive or too materialistic, but from about 1700 they are just too simplistic. Tactically they are not very complex (unlike say a Max Lange or Muzio) whereas strategically they are very superficial. I am not saying black can autopilot, but I feel they are much easier to play for black once you have avoided the early pitfalls.
We can discuss the merits of Bc5 vs Nf6, but I think we can agree that objectively they are about equal. With in general Nf6 more focussing on counterplay and Bc5 more on neutralising. A bit similar to the Sicilian and Caro-Kann, though much less extreme.

Ok Mnb point this pawngrabber to one variation in which white gets an advantage.

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 c3 Nf6 5 d4 exd4
-6 0-0 Nxe4 7 cxd4 d5 8 dxc5 dxc4 imo black is just a pawn up. Not a very usefull one, but after Qxd8+ or Qe2 white doesnt have very much going on as discussed in another thread.
-6 b4 Be7 7 e5 Ne4 and now  8 b5 Na5 9 Bd3 Nxc3 or 8 Qb3 0-0 9 cxd4 Bxb4+
-6 e5 d5 7 Bb5 Ne4 8 cxd4 Bb6 followed by 0-0 and f6.

After 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 white must play 5 c3 to not get an inferior position. There are some sidelines like 5 Ng5, but they are not very dangerous. So basically when you answer 4 .. Bc5 to these Scottish gambits you avoid all their theory and usually get back to your main line Giuoco theory, which is certainly not worse to the TKD for black.

Thanks, MNb, for putting me right on the 5 c3 Nf6 6 b4?! and the 5 …d3?! stuff! As regards the latter, I guess I was thrown off the scent by Glenn Flear mentioning, after 6 b4 Bb6 7 0-0 d6 8 a4 a6, only 9 Qb3, “with the initiative”. I can appreciate 9 Qd3 is really just good for White, even if in practice I suspect things are rather messy (hence Black’s reasonable score?)? Presumably 7 …Nf6 here, transposing to 5 c3 Nf6 6 0-0 d3?! 7 b4 Bb6, can’t help, as all Black has done is commit his KN. I’m sure I myself would simply meet 6 0-0 with 6 …Ne4, but isn’t 6 …dc reasonable too?; NCO gives 7 e5 d5 8 Bb3, unclear.

I’m really fascinated by the question of classification here that MNb points up! The position after 6 0-0 is treated as a Giuoco Piano in BCO 2 (1989), but as a Two Knights in MCO 13 (1990) and in NCO (1999). It’s also classed as a (C56) Two Knights on ChessPublishing, where it’s suggested there’s disagreement over C55/C56 classification, and as a Two Knights also by ChessBase (8), Fritz (6), and indeed almost all the other chess engines I currently have that give ECO codes! So what’s going on here? One might think the classification might have changed in the 1990s, except that Palkovi’s book (if I’ve got the right one) was published in 1998! Can anyone shed any more light on this?

Personally, unless someone persuades me otherwise, I’m reckoning in practice to short-circuit all these admittedly fascinating lines, by meeting 3 d4 ed 4 Bc4 with 4 …Nf6, with a clear transposition to the Two Knights. 5 e5 d5 6 Bb5 Ne4 7 Nd4 Bc5 (or 7 …Bd7) seems like an interesting game for both sides, while 5 …Ne4 and 5 …Ng4 look OK too.

And http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/hard/h990726.htm

and

http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/hard/h990830.htm

"5 c3, 5 ...Nf6 will not necessarily lead to a Giuoco Piano"
This I do not understand:
3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.c3 (best since 1850 or so) Nf6 and
3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 look very much the same to me.
All authors I am aware of - Estrin, Botterill, Palkovi amongst others - think that 6.o-o belongs to the Italian (3.Bc4 Bc5) and not to the Two Knights. It is true, that 6.o-o dxc3 7.Nxc3 transposes back to the Scottish Gambit (some would even say Göring Gambit) but White has stronger: 7.e5!
Jeremy Silman's website has an article on 6.b4. Palkovi (and I) does not trust it because of Bb6 7.e5 d5 8.exf5 dxc4 9.b5 o-o!? Berend-Barle, Debrecen 1992. Maybe White can improve.

5...d3 6.b4 Bb6 7.0-0 d6 8.a4 a6 9.Qxd3 gives White a solid edge.

Quote:

Trick is that after 5 c3 (which is I think the best) black just replies Nf6 and you are back in main line Giuco (I have won at least 5 serious games by that transposition).
The main problem is that every book about Scottish gambits and especially the repertoire ones dont take Bc5 seriously and assume that a c3 move will always transpose after dxc3. If you play 0-0 like you did, you have an ideal situation for black. He can develop easily and is a pawn up for the moment.

Quote:



@Willempie:

I was move ordered by GM Izeta in a game back in 1992.
My analysis then was that 5.c3 was better than theory suggested... (I played 5.0-0 d6 and lost, and was rather annoyed. The game started 1.e4 Nc6. If interested I could try to rescue/remember tha analysis...) I seem to recall that it was a very interesting line indeed. I lost interest because I found the Max-Lange bad news!

I think that Bxd6 used to be the main line but 11.c4 is a more modern (and relatively unexplored) move. It is yet to be fully assessed hence the discussion. I have played 11.Bxd6 a couple of times and drawn but the truth seems to be that black is a little better unless improvements can be found against the 2 brutal wins of Jonny Hector.

As for 11.....Bb4, if black wants an advantage perhaps the search needs to veer towards 12.Ng3 Qg6 13.h4 h6 (h5!?) 14.h5 Qh7 15.Bd2. Otherwise it looks pretty drawish.

Quote:


After 17.Qf3 White is completeley in charge;  I mean he decides wethear play goes on or he extends his hand and offer draw.  IMHO.   

Another option to consider is 16.Ne4!? Qb2 17.Re2 Qb6 and here  18.Rd2 with idea of 18... d5 19.c5 followed by Nd6 and plans of Rd3-Rg6 or Rc2 and invading down the c-file.

On the anti-maxlange. I dont think black needs to panick.
The Bc5-variation (instead of Bd7) seems fine to me.
Also see my post  " italian two knights strange variation"
which features an interesting piece-sac for black (with thx
from the suggestion by Mnb.

Quote:

After 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 d4 exd4 5 O-O Bc5 6 c3 Nxe4 7.cxd4 d5 8.dxc5 dxc4 9.Qe2!? 
What about 9 .. Qd3? Seems like a complete equaliser while I'd personally prefer 9 Qxd8 for white and take my chances in an endgame with iniative.

"What is the current state of Theory for this line?"
Emms in his book The Open Games for Black calls it underestimated. The critical line is Nxe4 7.cxd4 d5 8.dxc5 dxc4 9.Qe2!? with chances for both sides.

One of the "anti Max Lange" is Corden-Estrin variation
1 e4 e5
2 Nf3 Nc6
3 Bc4 Nf6
4 d4 exd4
5 O-O Bc5
6 c3          that one can also get via the Italian
What is the current state of Theory for this line?

I have posted a PGN and java applet devoted to a line in the Max Lange that will likely interest people reading this thread:
http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/2005/09/modern-horowitz-variati...

You can see some analysis of related lines posted periodically at my blog:
http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian

I wish there were a way to get to the Max Lange without letting Black play he Anti-Lange lines with Nxe4 though, since those seem rather equal, as the analysis above suggests.  But many still go in for the Lange proper in the belief that it offers Black more winning chances than the Anti lines which most view as deadly drawish.

I'll give one line which i've been looking at.

Following elysium's analysis:

After 10...Bd6 11.c4 h6 12.Nxd6 cxd6 13.Bf4 Qc5 14.Rc1 0-0 15.Nd2 Qb4 16.Ne4!? Qb2 17.Re2 Qb6 18.Nd6 both sides have options here but I think I prefer white (dont think Bg4 here helps black). Opinions?

Quote:



In B, 10...Bd6 is indeed equal, sez I.   We usually say, "re-invent the wheel," by the way.

5 .. Bxd4 is supposed to be the "refutation". Havent looked at that line for ages, but there were some tricky lines involved.

c) 8...Qh5 9.Nxe4 Be6 10.Bg5 Bb4 (Bd6 11.c4 Much work needs to be done here and black needs to tread carefully to reach an equal position but I'm interested to know opinions)

After 10...Bd6 11.c4 h6 12.Nxd6 (12.Bh4 0-0 13.Nxd6+cxd6 14.Bg3 Bg4 15.Bxd6 Rfd8 16.Bg3 Bxf3 17.Qxf3 Qxf3 18.gxf3 -/+) cxd6 13.Bf4 Qc5 14.Rc1 0-0 15.Nd2 (15.a3 a5 16. Nd2 d5 17.Nb3 Qb6 18.c5 Qb5 19.Bd6 Rfe8 20.Nxd4 Qxb2 should be okay maybe) Qb4 16.b3 d5 17.cxd5 Bxd5 18.Nc4 Rfe8 looks good for black.

My turn. Analysis based on two sources: Euwe's Theorie der Schach-Eröffnungen, reworked by Heyken and Fette (1988 ) and Pachman's Moderne Schachtheorie (1980).

A 8...Qa5 9.Nxe4 Be6 10.Neg5 (10.Bd2 Qf5 11.Bg5 Bd6! is equal; 10.Bd2 Bb4! 11.Nxd4 Nxd4 12.c3 o-o-o! offers winning chances - to Black) o-o-o 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Rxe6 Qf5! 13.Qe2 h6 14.Re4 (14.Nh4 and 14.Bd2 are worse) g5 15.Bd2 Bg7 (=P) 16.Re1 Bf6 17.h3 h5 (=HF) 18.h4 g4 19.Ng5 =Engelbert-Kreuzkamp, Hamburg-ch 1993. It is not dead equality though; one might say with chances for both sides.

B 8...Qh5 9.Nxe4 Be6 10.Bg5 Bb4 (Bd6 is also equal) 11.Nxd4 (11.c3? dxc3 12.bxc3 Ba5 13.h4 Qg4!) 11.Nxd4 Qxd1 12.Rexd1 Nxd4 13.Rxd4 Ba5! 14.Nc5 Bb6 and maybe, very maybe White can keep a tiny edge with 15.Rad1 o-o 16.Nxe6 fxe6 17.R4d2 (my only contribution).

C 8...Qd8 / 11.Bh6? (11.Rf4 o-o 12.Nxc6 is dead equal since Ragosin-Botvinnik, Leningrad 1930) fxe4! 12.Bxf7 Rf8! 13.Qh5+ Rf7 14.Rd1 Qd6! 15.Nd5 (15.Ndb5 Qf4) Nxd4 16.Rxd4 Bf5 17.Nf6+ Qxf6 18.Bxf6 Bxf6 19.Qxf5 Bxd4 20.Qxe4+ Re7 and Black wins (HF).
I am very eager to learn, how White can improve on this. I also recommend English speaking chess players to consult books in German - it is not necessary to invent the wheel for the second time.

4...Bc5 5.o-o? is inferior to 5.c3 Nf6 6.o-o!? which is the same as 4...Nf6 5.o-o Bc5 6.c3!? and has been debated in other threads of the Italian.

I'll try to give the best lines for white and black.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.o-o Nxe4 6.Re1 d5 7.Bxd5 Qxd5 8.Nc3 Qd8 9.Rxe4+ Be7 10.Nxd4 f5 11.Bh6 fe 12.Bxg7

a) 12.......Rf8 13.Qh5+ Rf7 14.Rd1 Bd7 15.Nxc6 bc 16.Nxe4 White looks good here. If 16.........Rb8 17.c4! followed by Qxh7.

b) 12.......Nxd4 13.Qh5+ Kd7 14 Rd1 Bd6 15.Rxd4 Re8 16.Nxe4 Rxe4 17.Rxe4 c5 18.Qd5 Kc7 19.Be5 I think this position is hard for black to hold (even without the queens on).

c) 12.......Kf7 is harder to deal with. Of course white has an easy perpetual if he wants it. He might try 13.Bxh8 Qxh8 14.Qh5+ Kf8 15.Nxc6 bc 16.Qh6+ Kf7 (If 16.....Qg717.Qc6 Rb1 18.Qc7 Ra8 19.Re1) 17.Qc6 Rb8 18.Qxe4 Rxb2 19 Re1 Bb4 I can't see any more than a draw here for white by perpetual but am still trying to find improvements.

My opinion of 11........0-0 remains the same based on my earlier analysis and some recent games (mine included against an IM and a GM).

The Qh5/a5 lines are another story.........  

OK.

Start with 8..Qd8 9 Rxe4+ Be7 (main move) 10 Nxd4 f5 11 Bh6! . Black is struggling here if he tries to win material but can try 11....0-0 12 Nxc6 bc 13 Rd4 Qe8 14 Bf4 Bf6 15 Rd3 Qf7 Qd2 where although black has the 2 bishops whites plan of exchanging one off on e5 is hard to meet without compromising elsewhere when white will be quite a bit better.

Hello,

I was finding the cagey exchange quite comic. Who was going to break out, with a concrete line first...

Bye John S

a) 8...Qa5 gives some chances of equality deep into the ending if black knows very deep theory.

b) 8....Qh5 is always slightly worse for black although with best play he is only slightly worse.

c) 9...Qd8 is worse. There is no way for black to gain equality in this line.

I've done a bit of analysis recently on the Max Lange and would be interested in any players of the black pieces defending their opinions. If black can equalise it's "only just" and after a lot of hoop jumping!