I  was sure you would also find something on ...Be7    Your variations are quite convincing and it is very difficult to find a promising continuation for white indeed. I am going to investigate it more deeply...

MamboVipi wrote on 10/09/07 at 21:51:50:


Oh yes indeed, this line is Taylor's book ... At least that means I agree with him     On 11...Nc6 I play 12.c3 without any thoughts and I think the problem remains the same, Black Bishop is just misplaced on e7, don't you think ?


Quote:


Your variations seem quite correct. You re right Kf8 may be not so bad, and your variation with 8.d5 better than mine . That's funny that this ugly move cannot be refuted. 


Quote:


Thanks, I hope you understand french a little bit 


I just come back to your previous thread :

Quote:


16.Re1 was the main line before Taylor's book. Not sure if his move 16.Be2 is an improvement or not.

In my theory, I have the following statement after 16.Be2 : "if Black plays something else than 16...cxd4, then dxc5 is winning because of the material advantage". Hum, that s the kind of theorical winning game that is just unclear OTB. The problem of the main lines following  13.Qe6+ is just they are just unclear. You can spend hours on them but OTB it won t prove very useful because of the many possibilities for both sides. 

Quote:


It is another way to play for an advantage, but certainly not easier.

Let me suggest you something else, the almost unknown 7.Nc3!? .  Here are a few variations :

- 7…cxd4 8.Qxd4 0-0 9.Bg5 (9.Nb5!?) 9…Nc6 10.Qxg4 (10.Qd2!?) 10…Bxg4 11.Bxd8 Rfxd8 12.0-0-0 Bf4+ 13.Kb1 Rxd1 14.Nxd1, +=

- 7…Nc6 8.Bg5 (8.dxc5?! Bxc5 9.Qxd8 Txd8 10.Ne4 Bb6, =; 8.Qe4+!? Be6 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.e3, += ) 8…f6 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.Qxd8+ Kxd8 11.0-0-0+ Re8 12.Rd5! Bf2 (12…Nf2 13.Rxc5 Nxh1 14.Be3 et le Knight won't get out) 13.Bf4, +=.

These lines have almost never been played, but seem very interesting to me.

MNb wrote on 10/10/07 at 02:43:55:


Very interesting link. Thanks MNb. 
I really like the idea's of the Ballogh gambit!!

le_gars wrote on 10/09/07 at 16:43:19:


That line is also given in Taylor's  book but after 11.Qd3 black can play 11...Nc6 and now 12.0-0 f4 doesn't give white an advantage I think: 13.d5 Nb4 14.Qe2 fxe3 (maybe even Nxe3) but it's quite unclear. That's why I started looking for an earlier improvement for white.

Quote:


After 8.Bf4 I would suggest 8...Nc6 and now 9.Bxd6+ Qxd6 10.c3!? (10.Nc3 cxd4 11.Rd1 Qg6 looks OK for black) 10...Bd7 =+ or 9.c3 f5 10.Bxd6+ Qxd6 11.Qd3 cxd4 12.Nbd2 Ne3!? is interesting but no problem for black.
So I think my line starting with 8.d5 is more promising.

By the way le_gars, nice website you have on the Bird!

No, then he would have told us if and where Hans AW Lindehn has shown his gambit to From.

MNb wrote on 09/21/07 at 01:37:07:


I believe Greco mentioned the gambit 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 Qh4+ as early as the 17th century. See e.g.:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1272149

One also finds an amusing game from 1802:
NN - Du Mont
Paris 1802
1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.g3 Qg5 5.Nf3 Qxg3+6.hxg3 Bxg3#

Martin Severing Janus From (1828-1895) was indeed Danish. He played 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Nh6 in this game:

Møllerstrøm,M - From,S [A02]
Copenhagen 1862
1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Nh6 5.e4 Ng4 6.g3 Nxh2 7.Rxh2 Bxg3+ 8.Ke2 Bxh2 9.Nxh2 f5 10.Bg2 fxe4 11.Bxe4 Qh4 12.Qh1 0-0 13.Bd5+ Kh8 14.Qg1 Qh5+ 15.Bf3 Rxf3 16.Nxf3 Bg4 17.d3 Nc6 18.Bf4 Rf8 19.Bg3 Rxf3 20.Ke1 Qh6 21.Nc3 Nb4 0-1

The game was published in Deutsche Schachzeitung july-august 1862. Not often mentioned is the fact that this game was played by mail.

From was later invited to the international tournament in Paris 1867.

The chessplayers in Copenhagen also analyzed the Nordic (Danish) gambit 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 and 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Nc6 in the 1860ies and 70ies.

Dragonslayer wrote on 03/24/06 at 16:11:56:


Last week I had a game in which I followed the last mentioned line which I knew from Timothy Taylor's book:

1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.d4 Ng4 6.Qd3 c5 7.Qe4+ Be6 8.Ng5 Bxh2 9.Nxe6 Qh4+ 10.Kd2 fxe6 11.Rxh2 Qg5+ 12.e3 Nxh2 13.Qxe6+ Kd8 14.Qd6+ Nd7 15.Qxh2 Rf8 16.Be2 (my opponent told me he only knew an other line: 16.Ke1 cxd4 followed by, I assume, Be2) now my opponent played 16...Rf2 
(Taylor gives 16...cxd4 17.Kd1 dxe3 18.c4 Rf2 19.Nc3 Qxg2 20.Qxg2 Rxg2 21.Bxe3 with a winning ending). My reply was 17.Qxh7?! with should have led to a draw after 17...cxd4 18.Kd1 Rxe2! 19.Kxe2 Qxg2+ 20.Kd3 Qf1+ 21.Kxd4 and black can get a perpetual check with either 21...Qf6+ or 21...Qxc1 22.Qg8 Kc7 23.Qxa8 Qxb2+ 24.Nc3 Qb4+ 25.Kd3 Ne5+ 26.Kd2 Nc4+

So a better move should be 17.dxc5. I analyzed this move a bit with rybka and came up with the following line 17...Nxc5 18.Nc3 Ke7 19.Qc7+ Kf8 20.Qd6+ Kf7 21.Ke1 Rxg2 22.Qf4+ Qxf4 23.exf4 Re8 24.Kf1 Rh2 and I think white is better, but this is quite complicated stuff!

When I was analyzing this line I wondered whether black can go for a simpeler game with 7...Be7? One line goes like 8.Bg5 Nc6 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Qxe7 Kxe7 11.dxc5 Ne3 and although white is 2 pawns up, it's difficult to proceed maybe 12.Na3 Rd8 13.b3 Rd5 14.c4 Rxc5 15.Kf2 Ng4+ 16.Kg3 is a try. Any thoughts on this line?

Even 7...Kf8 might be playable, e.g. 8.d5 Nf6 9.Qh4 Be7 10.e4 Nxd5 11.Qf2 an I like white's position a bit better, but it isn't that much of an advantage

Is 5.g3 an easier way to play for an advantage for White?

I had some disappointing results also with white in the beginning. If you make one weaker move, the burden of defense becomes very high for white. Until I went studying the From, and then things drastically changed for the better. From is nice for white, but only if you know your lesson.

By the way, Mechelen is a very nice place to live in.

Markovich wrote on 09/20/07 at 12:35:08:

Well, one of the Danes. From might have been kibitzing when Lindehn-Maczuski was played in Paris 1863, as he has lived there. Otherwise Lindehn has told him in Kopenhagen 1862.
Other Danish connections are the corr games Kopenhagen-Uppsala,1875 (From probably was involved), Nielsen-Van der Linde,1875 and Sörensen-Leffler, 1875. I have read somewhere that the Danish wrote one or more articles on this gambit.

Quote:

From my experience, 1 f4 d5 is roughly equal, although black needs to know what he is doing. With all others white can play for an edge, just as with 1 e4 or 1 d4.

1. f4-e5 2.fe4-Nc6 3.Nc3 ?! I think this is not a good move. 1 f4 e5 2 e4 ?! I think this is not a good move either, although a lot of people have a soft spot for playing a kings gambit. 

1.f4 d6 2.Nf3 e5 3.fxe5 g5!? Is a tricky try, but not a serious challange for white in the From.

[quote author=Uberdeker link=1142847973/30#33 date=1190314539]Although it may not be fully sound either, the Deferred From should in principle be superior to the standard form.[/quote]
Do you think something like 1. f4-e5 2.fe4-Nc6 3.Nc3-d6?

Markovich wrote on 09/20/07 at 12:35:08:


I think your first reason is the most important. I started to play the Bird in July and now I am very happy when my opponent plays the From (in blitz or rapid, my percentage is about 90%). Last week in a rapid tournament I totally outplayed a player rated 500 elo points higher (2300). He surely underestimated me but it is not normal that a player of my level so easily outplays someone rated 500 points higher. There is certainly something wrong with the From. (The Mestel variation might be better but I never encountered it till today) 

I'm not sure where to post this, since all these lines have a knack for transposition or near-transposition, but I was just thinking that 1. Ktf3 f5 ; 2. d3 Ktc6 as discussed in another thread can be answered by 3. a3, analogously to the line above. Again, it's a reactive idea, so probably does not promise much advantage if played with colours reversed. Still, worth mentionning I think.

Sorry Frendo. I was thinking of a completely different position when I suggested 2. Ktc3 d5 ; 3. e4. Indeed, 3. ...de is good for Black as I briefly mentionned when considering 2. e4 d5. Now I'm starting to give different assessments of the same position depending on the move-order! 
So 2. ...d5 needs to be investigated, but after 3. e3, Black should be wary of going in for 3. ...c5, since he is now 2 (!) tempi down on the White side of the UD QP Defence. Admitedly, it is a very reactive defence, so this may be playable.
Regarding the rest, yes, there are many transpositional possibilities depending on Black's various second moves (2. ...Ktf6, 2. ...g6, 2. ...c5 etc)
But the line 2. ...a6 ; 3. e4 b5 ; 4. Ktf3 (4. d4 Bb7 ; 5. Bd3 is more ambitious but of course entails greater risk) Bb7 ; 5. d3 Ktbd7 is not yet a closed Sicilian as 6. g3 can still be met with 6. ...e5 and a strange Philidor-type position.

Yes, I just had a look. My analysis ran as follows : "3. g3?! e5!". Typically thorough treatment.  And it may not even be correct!!
By the way, there are two posts in that thread filled with serious material to which I never responded. Only just back and allready feeling overwhelmed again. Maybe I should just stick to Diplomacy...

Dear Frendo,

 I discussed this option in the thread "Bird's".  1. f4 d6 ; 2. Ktc3 should not be answered by 2. ...e5?! 3. e4 ef ; 4. Bc4 when White has a "dream" KG or 2. ...d5 ; 3. e4, but either 2. ...Ktf6, 2. ...g6, 2. ...c5 or 2. ...a6!?, the latter most likely transposing to a favourable form of UD KP Defence (1. e4 d6 ; 2. d4 Ktf6 ; 3. Ktc3 a6) due to the Knight still being on -g8. 
Will try to post some more on this, 1. f4 d6 ; 2. Ktf3 e5 and 1. Ktf3 f5 ; 2. d3 Ktc6 ; 3. d4 soon. A lot of discussions to catch up on.

Regards,
UD

[quote author=Michael Ayton link=1142847973/15#23 date=1144058771]I have to agree with MNb. All this rudeness and ego-stuff is highly tedious. If the Sevenviolets--Uberdeker "debate" is to continue, could it do so back-channel?[/quote]

Good point, Michael. I deleted all my nonsense posts here and I will try to not talk with Uberdeker any more. For safety reasons:)

[quote author=Sevenviolets link=1142847973/15#24 date=1144051539]
Advantage (unlike "edge") means +/- and it is, with best play from both sides, a win. Needs only to be technically converted. Uberdeker, I hope, you "may come to understand this". [/quote]

This is once again pure sophistry and I suspect SevenViolets is just fishing for arguments without believing himself that they are justified.

+ = : slight advantage/edge/pull etc...
[u]+[/u] : large advantage
+ - : winning advantage

I sincerely hope that this puts an end to this uninteresting and inconstructive debate

MNb - By all means call me "Hubert Longtoe", although I don't quite catch the pun

I'm not sure this deserves an answer, but being a magnaminous fellow, I'll give one anyway.
Having "the advantage" in a given position does not guarantee a win after "best" play from both sides.
If you think about it long enough, SevenViolets, you may come to understand this.

Uberdeker

In your line 1.f4 d6 2.Nf3 e5 3.fxe5 g5 I did give you one suggestion for White: 4.e4 g4 5.Bc4 etc. Look careful and you will find it!
Discussing the Fischer defence to the KG does not belong here. I agree 100% with MNb's post. If you want to discuss the merits of 6...f5 it belongs in the Open games section.

Yes Black does not have to play ball after 1.f4 d6 2.e4. I have myself contemplated playing like this to coax White into the King's Gambit. I just though it unnecesary to point out every deviation for both sides and offered one line that could possibly lead to the Bishop's gambit. Next time I will make sure to point out every line that deviates. E.g.: 1.f4 d6 2.e4 a6 also does not lead to the Bishop's Gambit, nor does 1.f4 d6 2.e4 c6, nor ... stop. I think you get the point.
1.f4 d6 2.e4 Nf6 3.Nc3 is just a position. Playable for both sides. If I had the White pieces after 1.f4 d6 I would definitely prefer 1.f4 d6 2.Nf3 e5 3.e4. But this is jus as much a personal preference.

[quote author=Sevenviolets link=1142847973/0#14 date=1143899741]

White should play simply1.f4 d6 2.Nf3 e5 3.e4! transposes to an advantageous line of King´s Gambit. This line scores almost
80% for white in CorrDatabase 2004. Your line is refuted  ;)
[/quote]

This is utter rubbish! Until the opposite is proven, in The Fisher Defence Black has the advantage, especially in the line 4. d4 g5 ; 
5. h4 g4 ; 6. Ktg1 f5!?

[quote author=Sevenviolets link=1142847973/0#11 date=1143825854]
For Uberdeker: 1. f4 d6 2. Nf3 e5 3. fxe5 g5 4. exd6 Bxd6 seems to transpose to standard lines. 
[/quote]

I wish people would read the previous posts so that repeating oneself would not be necessary. The whole idea was 4. ed g4.

[quote]2...Nf6 looks like a good enough move (after 1.f4 d6 2.e4) but White looks OK (meaning not better) after 3.e5.  As I've mentioned in other posts I think 2...d5 is also a good move for Black.[/quote]

3. e5 transposes to a sideline of the Alekhine after 3. ...Ktd5 ; 4. d4 Bf5. Now 5. c4 can be met by 5. ...Ktb5 instead of the usual ...Ktb6, so Black should be happy with this.

Glenn's 2. ...d5 is akin to my idea of 2. ...Ktf6 ; 3. Ktc3 d5 and also looks satisfactory.

Now when are you lot going to refute 1; f4 d6 ; 2. Ktf3 e5 ; 3. fe g5 ; 4. ed g4 ; 5. dc Qxc7 ; 6. Ktd4 Bd6  ?

Dear Self-Slayer (don't be mad, I just can't get over it!),

As you have pointed out yourself in an earlier post, 1.f4 d6 ; 2. e4 e5?! is inferior for Black, and the right answer is indeed 
3. Bc4.
But 2. e4 cannot really be called "aiming for the Bishop's Gambit", as Black would have to be very complacent to accept.  The right move (and again, I'm only repeating myself) is 2. ...Ktf6. 
If White replies 3. Ktc3, he would have to be happy with both a transposition to the Austrian Attack vs Pirc/Czech/Lion/Neo-Philidor/UDKP and 3. ...d5!?
It might suit some people's repertoire but in a way it kills the whole purpose of 1. f4.

                                                            Regards,
                                                                Hubert

To the rest of you :

When are you going to refute 1. f4 d6 ; 2. Ktf3 e5 ; 3. fe g5??   I'm waiting!

[quote author=Dragonslayer link=1142847973/0#6 date=1143216716]
After 1.f4 d6 2.e4 Nf6 White has 3.Nc3 with either a good King's Gambit (3...e5) a good Grand Prix attack (3...c5) or a mainline Pirc (3...g6 4.d4).
[/quote]

Actually the transposition to Pirc/Czech/Lion etc  is perhaps not compulsory. Black may also have 3. ...d5!? ; 4. e5 d4 ; 5. Ktce2 (5. ef dc ; 6. fg cd+ ; 7. Bxd2 Bxg7 Χ-f4) Ktd5 ; 6. Ktxd4 Ktxf4 ; 7. Ktgf3 c5!?

I do not have Taylor's book but IMO the From is playable.

After 1.f4 d6 2.e4 Nf6 White has 3.Nc3 with either a good King's Gambit (3...e5) a good Grand Prix attack (3...c5) or a mainline Pirc (3...g6 4.d4).
After 1.f4 d6 2.Nf3 e5 White can still enter the King's Gambit with 3.e4 which alomst forces Black to play the Fischer defence with 3...exf4. Uberdeker's line 3.fxe5 g5!? transposes to the line 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.Nf3 g5!? This is probably ok for Black. According to Danish cc-GM Ove Ekebjærg White's best is the Polerio style sacrifice 4.e4 g4 5.Bc4 gxf3 6.Qxf3.

In the main line From:
1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.g3 g4 6.Nh4 Ne7 7.e4!? Ng6 8.Nf5 Bxf5 9.exf5 Ne5 10.Bg2 Nbc6 11.0-0 looks dangerous for White, but with accurate play he should have the better chances.

4...Nf6 seems the better choice. After 5.d4 Black can choose between a dead even game after 5...0-0 6.Bg5 Re8 7.Qd3 Nc6 8.a3 (or 8.c3) h6 9.Bxf6 Qxf6 10.e4 Bf5 11.Nc3. Black wins the pawn on e4 with Qe7 or Qg6.
More complicated is 5...Ng4 6.Qd3! c5 7.Qe4+ Be6 8.Ng5 Bxh2
and here White must decide between the draw with 9.Rxh2 Nxh2 10.Nxe6 fxe6 11.Qxe6+ Qe7 12.Qc8+ Qd8!=
or playing for more with 9.Nxe6 Qh4+! 10.Kd2 fxe6 11.Rxh2 (11.Qxe6+ Kd8 is also unclear) 11...Qg5+ 12.e3 Nxh2 13.Qxe6+ Kd8 14.Qd6+ Nd7 15.Qxh2 which is very unclear.

Dear all,

  I'm a bit alarmed at the general view on a line I instinctively considered to be sound. It's perhaps time I kicked it out of my repertoire.
I was thinking maybe a deferred version is playable :
1. f4 d6 ; 2. Ktf3 (2. e4 Ktf6 ; 3. e5 Ktd5 ; 4. d4 Bf5 is sideline of the Alekhine which is already in my repertoire since I sometimes play 1. e4 d6) e5 ; 3. fe g5 ; 4. ed g4 ; 5. dc Qxc7 ; 6. Ktd4 Bd6
Black is two pawns down but the dark squares around the White King look rather weak.
The whole thing is probably highly dubious, but it might appeal to some BDG fanatics if they ever stick their heads out of the "-d pawn specials" section!

                                                     Looking forward to hearing what you think of this junk,
                                                                                                   Hubert

I'd say 'shaky' if not, very dubious however putting that aside Black has to be prepared against the next move 2. e4 for all those King's Gambiteers.

At Uberdecker's request on another thread, I thought it might be good to start a new thread on this exceptionally sharp gambit, and to combine it with a poll given the enermous amount of interest in the Bird's Opening recently on this forum (and elsewhere), especially since Tim Taylor's excellent book on the opening.

Certainly, in his book, he makes a good case for Lasker's 4...g5 looking shaky - I have played the line myself and agree that it's predicated on a few traps which, once avoided, leave black with little for his investment. I haven't had enough time to check through the Mestel (4...Nf6, 5...Ng4!?) line much, but I am much less convinced by his analysis here - however, objectively I feel that black should not be able to get away with giving up both central pawns solely because white has pushed his f-pawn.