MNb wrote on 03/15/06 at 01:09:42:


Don't be so trusting!  10. Bxg8 was just off the top of my head.  I suggested it because 9. Bxg8 has been considered as a possible candidate; since 9...Bb6 is not very constructive, I thought 10. Bxg8 would be logical.  The link I gave does purport to show that 9...Nf6 is =+, however.  Thanks for the reference.

MNb wrote on 03/02/06 at 01:31:54:


There is an extended discussion of the 6. c3 Bg4 variation here: http://www.hardchess.com/columns/199909.htm (see "Caro Variation" on the dropdown menu under the chessboard).  I would be curious to know the provenance of 9...Bb6.  Since 9...Nf6 as recommended by Cordel leads to Black advantage, I am not sure why such a seemingly passive move would be played.  I would guess that White should reply 10. Bxg8 Rxg8  11. Kh1 with a position that is unclear to me.

Thanks for the info guys. Reiner-Steinitz makes me smile.

TalJechin wrote on 03/01/06 at 08:56:44:


In junior chess and club chess White tends to score very well with the Scotch Gambit sequence 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Bc4, since the direction chosen in this position (which I call the Scotch Gambit Crossroads) is critical and the transpositions are so confusing that it is easy to find yourself move-ordered out of your repertoire. The rule to remember as Black is that if you answer 3 Bc4 with 3...Bc5 then play 4...Bc5 against the Scotch Gambit; but if you answer 3 Bc4 with 3...Nf6 play 4...Nf6.

Some years ago there was a brief surge of popularity for the sequence 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Bc4 Bc5 5 0-0 following its recommendation in the first edition of "An opening repertoire for the attacking player" by Keene & Levy, but it was pretty soon found or (re-found, since this was pretty common knowledge amongst the top players of the 19th century) that White was struggling to equalise after 5...d6! 6 c3 Bg4! since 7 b4 Bb6 8 Qb3 Bxf3! and 7 Qb3 Bxf3! only LOOK scary for Black. Hence the second edition recommended seeking transposition to the Italian with 5 c3.

Chess Publishing subscribers should study the game Peretz-Mikhalevski. Here are two of my favourite examples from 19th century immortals:

[Event "Paris m"]
[Site "Paris"]
[Date "1860.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Kolisch, Ignatz"]
[Black "Anderssen, Adolf"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C44"]
[PlyCount "32"]
[EventDate "1860.??.??"]
[EventType "match"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[EventCountry "FRA"]
[Source "?"]
[SourceDate "1998.11.10"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. O-O d6 6. c3 Bg4 7. Qb3 Bxf3 8.
Bxf7+ Kf8 9. Bxg8 Rxg8 10. gxf3 g5 11. Qd1 Qd7 12. b4 Bb6 13. Bb2 d3 14. Qxd3
Ne5 15. Qe2 Qh3 16. Nd2 g4 0-1

[Event "Vienna m4"]
[Site "Vienna"]
[Date "1860.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Reiner"]
[Black "Steinitz, William"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C44"]
[PlyCount "36"]
[EventDate "1860.??.??"]
[EventType "match"]
[EventRounds "3"]
[EventCountry "AUT"]
[Source "?"]
[SourceDate "1998.11.10"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. O-O d6 6. c3 Bg4 7. Qb3 Bxf3 8.
Bxf7+ Kf8 9. Bxg8 Rxg8 10. gxf3 g5 11. Qe6 Ne5 12. Qf5+ Kg7 13. Kh1 Kh8 14. Rg1
g4 15. f4 Nf3 16. Rxg4 Qh4 17. Rg2 Qxh2+ 18. Rxh2 Rg1# 0-1

Ok, I'm reading "The chess advantage in black and white", and I think I've run across a little hole. Maybe someone can point me the right way.  In chapter 16 game 5 ("The Italian game"), Kaufman recommends 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. 0-0 Nf6 5. d4 Bxd4. He writes, "A bold but dubious gambit". True enough. Then he notes that "5. ...exd4 is a variation of the Two Knights defence." Also true...I think it's the max lange attack? No problem, so we're avoiding the max lange. Along to the next chapter on the scotch game, Kaufman writes off the Scotch gambit in a note to game one, when after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 he writes, 'Many amateurs play 4. Bc4 first, the scotch gambit, but after 4. ...Bc5 5. c3 Nf6 play transposes to a main line of the Italian game." Very true. But he leaves it up to the reader to realize that 5. c3 is hardly forced! For one, 5. Ng5 can be played, even if it isn't great. But my real problem is that white can also play 5. 0-0, when 5. Nf6 is perfectly playable, except that it goes right into a max lange attack (which Kaufman doesn't deal with, because it's not in the repertoire!) This has happened to me a few times online, and I kept telling myself, "Wow, I should really pay more attention...how did I end up playing THIS?" Fortunately, I know about the next five or six moves of the Max Lange. Unfortunately, that really isn't enough to avoid getting mowed down by someone who knows what they're doing. The last time this happened, I was more aware, and I played 5. Nge7 to avoid the issue. Does anyone know if I have missed a game somewhere in the book where he recommends something against this? Or if 5. Nge7 is an OK move to avoid Max Lange? Or if I'm basically stuck with learning the Max Lange against this move order?