Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/13/06 at 02:15:15:


It just means that there are many KG lovers here at "the chesspub". In any case wasnt there a time that there were many Lopez threads around as well?

Thanks Jonathan, for digging them out.

Woofwoof, 

I think you may have accidently named the chesspub forum.  Congratulations!

I've been really disappointed that so many threads have been devoted to the Kings Gambit while the Ruy Lopez, Italian, Scotch and openings that are played more often are left languishing in the cellars of this section.  While it's great to see concrete analysis and thoughtful discussions, I just wonder why the great openings of tournament chess are being neglected while the theory of the King's Gambit (which I rarely face otb) is being discussed in such detail.

By the way, tonight I think I'll have a Fat Tire.

OstapBender wrote on 07/12/06 at 14:15:47:


Looks like my slip of the keyboard has etched itself into the memory of at least 1 member here!

Cheers! 

alumbrado wrote on 07/12/06 at 12:06:25:


point taken

alumbrado wrote on 07/12/06 at 12:06:25:


I am, yes
I'll check out the Flank Openings forum in a bit

[quote author=Uberdeker link=1144000928/0#0 date=1144000927]
 The Fischer Defence 1. e4 e5 ; 2. f4 ef ; 3. Ktf3 d6 is perhaps the sternest test of the King's Knight Gambit, and as such it deserves its own thread here.[/quote]

I disagree. I think 3...g5 is the sternest test. But never mind that ;)

On the Fischer: the main problem is that if you play 4 d4 g5 5 h4 g4 6 Ng1, Black generally has a defence worked out in advance. As White, you don't really want to play lots of theoretcial moves, since they just lead to equality at best.

So just play something else. 4 Bc4 is popular again now, with 4...h6 5 b3!?, 5 h4!?, 5 b4!?, 5 d3!? or whatever. Just change the nature of the position and start to play your opponent from there. Having equality (or even an advantage) in the opening is irrelevant if you don't know what to do with it :)

Dear TenWiseMen,

  If the fact that I speculate as to whether this or that sacrifice is incorrect, without entering detailed analysis makes me a useless dogmatist, then, once again, let us all abandon chess and leave it to the computer, who does nothing but calculate and does it better than any living being. From what you say, intuition and understanding have no place in chess and I feel rather sad for you if you have to plow through millions of variations at every move.
I was not aware of the existance of the "Anti-Gambit School". Dismissing rubbish is an attribute of the "Common-Sense School", even when it is not backed up by analysis.
You have done well in finding complications for White, just as Arkhein managed to hold the BDG against me. I have neither the time, the energy, nor the motivation to pursue these debates. Against 1. d4, I never play 1. ...d5, and apparently the Hubsch is easier to refute than the BDG so I'll stick with that. Against 1. e4, I don't play 1. ...e5, and I'm not sure I want to include 1. ...e5 or 1. ...d6/2. ...e5 in my repertoire against the Bird.
So these issues or not important to me. However, you have also mentionned the Morra Gambit, and I will always be prepared to uphold Sicilian honour. So, if you start a thread in the "Anti-Sicilian" Section, we can decide who estimates the importance of dynamic factors correctly.

As for the Nimzo-Spielmann discussion, it really is pointless. Spielmann was a talented and strong practical player, whereas Nimzo is arguably the most influencial theoretician of all time. Childish comparisons (who beat who and how many times) are completely besides the point. But I admire your sense of humour. Nimzo is the greatest anti-conformist since Steinitz, he had the most revolutionnary and outlandish ideas and you call him dogmatic. That's very cute.

MNb wrote on 04/25/06 at 06:18:48:


It should have taught me some modesty, should it? I never made a single remark about a Shirazi game. The only game of his that I can think of ran (with White) 1. e4 c5 ; 2. b4 cb ; 3. a3 d5 ; 4. ed Qxd5 ; 5. ab Qe5+

You have criticized me for supplying analysis "1½ ply deep". If indeed I had done
this, it would have been a great feat and you should have congratulated me.

So you are going to treat me to the refutation of the Hanstein, are you? That's very sweet, but hasn't it been refuted for several decades now?

See you in the "Anti-Sicilians" section then.

                                                               Regards,
                                                                   One Fool

I am sure, we both miss a few things.  . The position after move 15 requires very accurate play from both sides. White has to justify being two pawns down, but is severely behind in development. According to old fashioned principles it can't be good to play the black king to and fro, but what are these principles worth today?
15...Ne7 16.Bc4 Kf8 17.Bh6+ Kg8 (Ke8 brrr, but I have not managed to refute it) 18.Bg5 Nbc6 19.Bf6 Ng6 (my plan for Black was to protect invasion square h8) 20.Nd5 Na5 21.Nxc7? Nxc4 22.Nxa8 Nf4! and suddenly Black has the better development ... So White must try 21.Bd3 c6 22.Nc7 Rb8 23.b4 Bd7 24.e5 unclear.
This reminds me of an infamous line of the Danish Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2 Nc6 6.Nf3 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nf6 8.Qc2 d6 9.o-o-o o-o 10.e5 Ng4 11.Nd5 Bc5 12.exd6 cxd6 13.h4 h6 14.Ng5 hxg5 15.hxg5 Qxg5+ 16.f4 Bf5 17.fxg5 Bxc2 18.Kxc2 and White has a vicious attack.
Very deceptive stuff. My earlier statement that Black is better, seems too hasty.

As all the various lines become a little bewildering already, I have decided to make a summary. It includes most lines from above and also a few comments of mine.
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d6 4.d4 g5 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.g3 g4 7.Nh4 f3
7...Nc6 Furhoff-Sandor, Budapest 1994, see above, must also be taken seriously.

8.Bc1-e3,
It is not clear yet, when White must insert the moves h3 and h5. Frendo's analysis runs 8.h3 h5 9.Be3 Bf6 (Nc6 10.Qf2!?) 10.hxg4 hxg4 11.Qd2 Bxh4 12.Rxh4 Rxh4 13.gxh4 Qxh4+ 14.Qf2 Qxf2+ 15.Kxf2 but Ne7 16.Bc4 Kf8 17.Bh6+ (17.Rh1 Kg7) Kg8 leaves Black with an advantage. White has 10.Nf5 Bxf5 11.exf5 eg d5 12.hxg4 hxg4 13.Rxh8 Bxh8 14.Qd2 Nc6 15.o-o-o Qd7 16.Bg5 f6 17.Bf4 o-o-o 18.Nb5 with decent compensation.

8.....,Bg7-f6;
8...Nc6 9.Qd2 Nce7 10.h3 h5 11.o-o-o c6 Kennaugh-Bellin, ENG 1999, 12.Bf4 idea e4-e5 unclear.
8...Nge7 9.Qd2 (9.h3 h5 10.Qd2 is possible)
a)9...Nd7 10.o-o-o Nb6 11.Bd3 Be6 12.h3 h5 13.Rde1
1)13...c6 14.Nf5 (14.hxg4 hxg4 15.Nf5 Bxf5 16.Rxh8+ Bxh8 17.exf5 Kd7 18.Bg5 is possible)
   Bxf5 15.exf5 d5? (Qc7 or Qd7 16.Bf2 with full compensation or Kd7 16.Ne4!?) 16.Bg5 f6
   17.Bf4 Qd7 18.hxg4 hxg4 19.Rxh8+ Bxh8 20.Qh2 o-o-o 21.Qh7 +-.
2)13...Nc4 14.Bxc4 Bxc4 15.Bf4 Qd7 16.Nf5 Rg8 17.hxg4 hxg4 18.b3 +=Shulman-Kamberi,
   Stillwater 2001.
b)9...Ng6 10.Nf5 Bxf5 11.exf5 Ne7 12.Bg5! f6 13.Bf4 Nxf5 14.o-o-o with compensation (Frendo).

9.Qd1-d2,
Quite dubious, but not really clear is 9.Nxf3 gxf3 10.Qxf3 Be6 11.e5.
9.Nf5 Bxf5 10.exf5 Bg5! 11.Bxg5 Qxg5 12.Qd3 Nc6 is probably good for Black.

9.....,Nb8-c6;
9...Bxh4 10.gxf4 Qxh4+ 11.Bf2 Qh6 12.Qxh6 Nxh6 13.Nd5 with compensation in Furhoff-Eriksson, Helsingborg 1991.

10.o-o-o,
Another idea is 10.Nd5 Bxh4 11.gxh4 Be6 12.o-o-o Bxd5 (Qd7 13.Nb4!?) 13.exd5 Nce7 14.Bb5+.

10.....,Ng8-e7;
10...Bxh4 11.gxh4 Bd7 12.Qf2 13.h3 leaves Black with the question, how to finish his development.

11.Nc3-d5,
Or 11.Qf2 Bd7 12.h3 h5 13.Re1.

11.....,Ne7xd5;12.e4xd5,Nc6-e7;13.Be3-h6,
Dragonslayer also suggests 13.Bc4.

13.....,Ne7xd5;14.h2-h3,
He, who knows how to evaluate all this stuff, please stand up.
It is the remarkable games of the Swede (these fellows are more dangerous in the KG than on the footballfield, it seems) Furhoff indeed, who inspired me to investigate this variation. Still one should not consider me an expert, as my only experience runs

MNb - Koller,G [C37]
em ICCF EM/H/135, 2004
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.d4 d6 5.Nc3 g4 6.Bxf4 gxf3 7.Qxf3 Bg7 8.0-0-0 Qe7 9.e5 dxe5 10.dxe5 Nc6 11.Nd5 Qd8 12.e6 1-0
which was much too easy, to be relevant.

The starting point of this thread was my claim 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d6 equal. Overambitious defenders must also find something in

Rechel,B (2420) - Law,A (2310) [C37]
4NCB-Qiv1 0304 (2.6), 19.10.2003
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 (or d6 4.d4 g5 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.h4) 4.d4 Bg7 5.Nc3 d6 6.h4 h6 7.hxg5 hxg5 8.Rxh8 Bxh8 9.g3 g4 10.Bxf4 gxf3 11.Qxf3 Bxd4 12.0-0-0 Nc6 13.Bb5 Bxc3 (retreats will be punished with 14.e5!) 14.Qxc3 Bd7 15.Bxc6 Bxc6 16.Qh8 Kd7 17.Qh3+ Ke8 18.Qh8 Kd7 19.Qh3+ Ke8 ½-½

There is also 3...d6 4.Qe2. See TalJechin's website:
http://hem.passagen.se/tjmisha/
Click chess!
Click King's Gambit Stuff
Click No Bust.

Only for KG enthusiasts!

My conclusion is, that 3...d6 offers Black less winning chances than 3...g5.