Is that in the same way that 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Qh4 refutes the Scotch Game?  

Try harder.  I think you'll find 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 Qe7 more promising and even then things are not so simple.  Early queen forays have a cost.

Take for example 1.e4 e5 2.d4 Qh4 3.Bd3 exd4 4.Nf3.  How do you expect to hold on to the pawn?  4...Qf6 5.Bg5 Qb6 6.0-0 Qxb2  Black even gets another pawn!  7.Nbd2 Nc6 8.Rb1 Qxa2 and another! (8...Qc3 9.Nc4 and Bd2 next, trapping the queen; 8...Qa3 is best, but after 9.Nc4 Qc5 10.e5 is pretty miserable for Black {edit:  well, maybe not so terrible for Black after 10...a6}; Rb5 is a tactical idea here that White may eventually play under favorable circumstances.) 9.Nc4 Qa4 10.Bd2 Any takers for Black now?

Final edit:

I'll leave the above as a sample line, but I think 8.Nc4! is more accurate than 8.Rb1.  A possible continuation is 8.Nc4 Qb4 9.e5 a6 10.a4 when the plan of Bc1-a3 is very dangerous for Black.

Quote:


I didn't say that I used a computer to help produce my moves for correspondence play.  I said that I use the computer for openings research (or at least, that is what I meant to say), without saying anything about how I prepare my moves for correspondence chess.   

I am not sure of the value of a computer for chess training, but I think its of very great use in preparing openings variations.

Markovich wrote on 06/03/07 at 14:56:01:


OK, I see I took things the wrong way.  I actually considered the possibility that you maybe you didn't use a chess engine for analysis, since you have played postal chess for quite a while.  Last time I talked to someone who played postal chess (before 2000), it seemed like using computers was often a no-no, but hard to enforce.  I am little curious about this, since computers are used so much in opening analysis these days.  Has this rule been completely dropped because of its impracticality?  From your account, it sounds I like I really need to get with the times and get an engine.  I have a little reluctance of the idea of using one other than for the purpose of blunder checking.  It seems a like a lot of people (especially weaker players) have developed a lazy approach to analysis with their computers.  (For instance, taking the computer's word when tactics get complicated.)  I remember reading somewhere that a strong player recommended minimal use of the computer in the early stages of analysis.  I think I could show restraint, but I haven't gotten around to buying one.  I am not a master yet, so I am not too certain of its value in training.  I get feeling though that maybe I am mistaken.

As far as my tendency to be materialistic goes, I have been that way for a long time since I was a junior.  I am tenacious defender of difficult positions, but I've had a number of downfalls.  In the past, getting into difficult positions wasn't necessarily something I would plan, but I would simply get myself into them by underestimating compensation.  This is something I am trying to correct partly by studying gambit play.  For my level (~1950 USCF last time I played), I would actually consider myself tactically strong, but I am a bit shortsighted in some strategic situations.  In my opinion, there is often a strong positional aspect of gambit play that is backed up by tactical strength.  I am working at developing a feel for these positions.  Maybe it would be more productive if I used a computer for navigation.  However, I sometimes feel it is better training to spend the effort to understand the position from scratch.  From this standpoint, I feel reluctant to invest in an engine.  I never thought of this as a pressing matter, but maybe I've put it off for far too long.

Quote:


I certainly didn't mean to imply that I thought you were doing anything unacceptable, and I am quite sorry if I created that impression.  I'm surprised if you don't use a chess engine to help you analyze; I do, and I believe that essentially everyone doing openings research does also.  Actually, I'm a pretty good analyst without it, but the computer makes it possible to work much faster.  I do think you have to be extremely careful when using a chess engine.  The evaluations of many positions are highly suspect, as you will know -- particular those where there is a big imbalance.  I merely conjectured that you were perhaps too impressed by the -1.86 that any engine tends to give you in two-pawn-down positions, and not taking White's advantages enough into account.

Markovich wrote on 06/02/07 at 15:37:03:


5. Be3 Bb4+  6. Nc3 Nf6  7. Be2!

Interesting idea, but as my last post indicates, I already see some problems with 6...Nf6 right now.  6...d5 was my original preference, and it still is.  I don't use "silicon" to evaluate positions, just my own stupid ideas and moves.  (As folks like MNb can testify, if I am using an engine, it's pretty crappy.)  I suppose you are talking about my reference to Kaufman's book which uses computer aided analysis?  This also is an old idea used by Rubinstein.  I guess you could me accuse of being materialistic, but whatever... think whatever you want to think.

I think 5.Be2 is an interesting.  When I am first looked at accepting the pawn, I could not find an acceptable defense for Black.  (I still don't see one.)  It was surprising, so I wrote the "without a lot of  thought" part.  I think it is better to play 5...Bb4+ 6.Nc3 d5 7.Nf3 Bf5.  I don't see yet how this improves on 5.Be3, although I have not looked at it for that long.  Do you have any additional ideas for white here?

In several lines, Black has a concrete means of defense that holds his position together.  In some other lines, Black doesn't quite make it and White has excellent compensation.  I have argued for both sides, so I would appreciate it if you did not pull the "silicon card" to invalidate everything I have written.  I don't really think you mean it this way, but in a public forum this is kind of how it comes across, especially when there was someone earlier posting one move assessments and game scores without comment.

I actually started this thread to see some more ideas from the white side, and I appreciate your analytical contributions.  I would be happy to see more resources for white in the 5.Be2 line.

MNb wrote on 05/30/07 at 20:30:16:


It's not unclear.  Black just crushes White after 16...Rc8!.  I saved this for years and finally got to play it as follows:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 dxc3 5.Bc4 cxb2 6.Bxb2 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nf6 8.Qc2 d6 9.O-O-O O-O 10.e5 Ng4 11.Nd5 Bc5 12.exd6 cxd6 13.h4 Nce5 14.Ng5 g6 15.Ne4 Bf5 16.Bxe5 Nxe5 17.h5 Rc8! 18.hxg6 Ba3+ 19.Kb1 Bxe4 20.Qxe4 Rxc4 21.Qe3 fxg6 22.Qxa3 Rxf2 23.Qxa7 Qf8 24.Ne7+ Qxe7 25.Qxf2 Rb4+ 26.Ka1 Ng4 0-1  Good, Gary - Morss, Mark US 13th CC Ch. Final.

White also has 11. h4 which perhaps is a little less clear, though I would still much prefer Black in CC.  OTB as I have said, I would rather not skate so close to the edge.   

Also, I'm talking about how best to offer the Danish Gambit, not the Half-Danish. 

I think that 5. Be2! is very a good move, and so is 5. Be3 Bb4+  6. Nc3 Nf6  7. Be2!  It seems to me that X and perhaps some others are a little too impressed by silicon's evaluation of the resulting positions.  Silicon will almost always tell you you're winning if you're two pawns up and it can't see a clear way for your opponent to mate you or regain his material.  But as you will know, there are plenty of two-pawn-up positions where you're not only not winning, but worse (e.g. the Compromised Defense to the Evans).  Objectively here perhaps, Black is somewhat better.  But he sure isn't just winning, and I wouldn't want to be Black with the clock ticking.  In fact I would rather be White OTB.

11.Nd5 Bc5 12.exd6 cxd6 13.h4 Nce5 14.Ng5 g6 15.Ne4 Bf5 (Botterill) 16.h5 Bxe4 17.Qxe4 is quite unclear. I guess we have to wait for a few daredevils in corr chess, trying this stuff out. But I suspect, that in silicon age saccing two pawns is simply too much.

Alekhine's 4.Nxc3 perfectly avoids the Schlechter Defence, which only arises after 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2 d5.  In fact after 4.Nxc3 Black's best lines include ...Nc6 at some point; then White has the choice of x.Nf3 or x.Nge2. The only annoying extra option for Black is 3...Qe7, the main subject of this thread! Granted, ...Nge7 is annoying too, but White does not avoid that one with Göring's move order.

I don't trust Mikenas' idea 3...Qe7 4.cxd4 Qxe4+ 5.Be2 either, though again games are lacking. Who knows?

Parismagique's idea 13...f5 looks pretty good. So maybe White must try 13.a3 Bxc3 (Ba5 14.Rae1 f5? 15.Nxd5) 14.bxc3 and 15.c4. 3.c3 Qe7 4.cxd4 Qxe4+ 5.Be3 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Nf3 Nd5 8.Qd2 Qe7 9.Bd3 (iso 9.Bc4) might also be an idea; Nf4 10.0-0 Nxd3 11.Qxd3 Bxc3 12.Qxc3 or even 12.bxc3 with a serious lead in development.

All this stuff confirms my judgment, that 3...Qe7 is an interesting defence, but not a proven refutation yet. The well prepared defender will net quite a few points, as the surprise factor is turned against the gambiteer. Müller/Voigt hardly spend two pages on this little move, where Schlechter's Defence receives about 14 ...

parisestmagique wrote on 05/30/07 at 07:57:25:


13...f5 looks good to me.  Compared to Davies' line the extra tempo (...c6) black gets out of 8...Qe7 seems to make a big difference.  White just doesn't have the same tactical resources to get a break in the center.  So maybe this suceeds as a more ambitious attempt.  9.Bc4 looks a little suspect to me, since it loses a tempo compared to the analogous line (8...Nxe3) given by Davies.  But if 9.Bd3, 9...Nf4 is now a possibility.  Discuss.

So I was a little lazy when I looked at this line.  It would be cool if this works.  Good ideas.

To end this message without a lot of thought, I'll just say 5.Be2 looks really desperate!  Not that I am saying the Black position looks enjoyable after accepting the pawn.  I'd have think about that.  2 pawns up and saddling the opponent with 3 isolated pawns is really tempting!  But my first impression is that Black is OK if he plays it safe with 5...Bb4+ 6.Nc3 d5, when white's bishop on e2 is not on its ideal square.