Here is a more complete set of links, that should keep Wilkes-Barre/Traxler fans busy for a while:

Tim Harding
www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz58.pdf

Maarten de Zeeuw (5 of the 6 cited articles from earlier posts)

http://www.newinchess.com/Yearbook/pdf/YB63_146.pdf
http://www.newinchess.com/Yearbook/pdf/YB65_137.pdf
http://www.newinchess.com/Yearbook/pdf/YB66_113.pdf
http://www.newinchess.com/Yearbook/pdf/YB67_130.pdf
http://www.newinchess.com/Yearbook/pdf/YB68_142.pdf

Stefan Bücker
The following articles comment upon and correct the series by
Maarten de Zeeuw

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kaiss23.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kaiss24.pdf

Note that the last link contains an import correction over the first article by Stefan Bücker.
This correction was based on the discussion of the 
articles by Maarten de Zeeuw on the following site by

John Jerz
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzesz4a6/current/id12.html

TonyRo wrote on 03/31/08 at 20:56:20:



Stefan Buecker suggests...

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5 5. Bxf7+ Ke7 6. Bb3 Rf8 7. d3 d6 8. Be3 Qe8

It not that funny tactical play as in 5.Nxf7, but IMHO Black seems to be okay.

TonyRo wrote on 03/31/08 at 20:56:20:


Play 6...d6 straight away, inviting the trap 7 Nf7? Qf8; it is much stronger. I think 6 Bb3 is worse than Bd5 because white cannot swap on c6, although Bd5 is ultimately better for black as well.

I think the Traxler is the perfect opening, an endless tactical mindfield where black always manages to punish whites greed. I miss playing it.

There are too few themed tournaments and far too many safe players playing safe, boring openings, more concerned about their grade, tournament record or petty personal satisfaction than discovering new lands.

edgy wrote on 04/02/08 at 20:31:52:


Many years ago there was a junior in New Zealand whose positional sense was much greater than his tactical ability (always a sign of a potentially very strong player). So for about eighteen months he played the Polugaevesky line in the Sicilian Nadjorf. Did he become a Grandmaster? Did he ever.   

I also, as a teenager, used the Traxler as a tactical tooth-cutter.  I remember spending long hours at my desk, or at a little table in the garden, analyzing it and taking notes.  I did the same with the Belgrade.  I was probably about 1600 at the time, and I am sure that all that analysis improved my chess.  Nothing special about the Traxler or the Belgrade, of course, but those were easy and attactive paths into complications.  The first time I defeated a master, it was with one of my prepared lines in the Belgrade.

I would be hesitant before I would recommend the Traxler to a player at the 1200 level, and I do not recommend it to my young students, many of whom are under 1000.  At that level piece coordination doesn't come easy, and you can't conduct a mating attack without it.

The first improvements a player makes in chess have nothing to do with sacrificing material for initiative or attack, but just with activating the pieces and recognizing tactics sufficiently well to be able to hold onto his peices and perhaps win some of the opponents, then persevere in the ending.  You can win a lot of chess games even if the only mating "attacks" you understand are K+Q vs. K, or K+R vs. K.

Quote:

Yearbook 63
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5  (Another look at the traxler gambit (1)-  p. 146)

Yearbook 65
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5 5. Bf7 Ke7 6. Bd5 (Another look at the traxler gambit (2): 5. Bf7 Ke7 6. Bd5 - p. 137)

Yearbook 66
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5 5. Bf7 Ke7 6. Bb3 (Another look at the traxler gambit (3): 5. Bf7 Ke7 6. Bb3 - p. 113)

Yearbook 67
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5 5. Nf7 Bf2 6. Kf2  (Another look at the traxler gambit (4): 5. Nf7 Bf2 6. Kf2 - p. 130)

Yearbook 68
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5 5. Nf7 Bf2 6. Kf1! (Another look at the traxler gambit (5): 5. Nf7 Bf2 6. Kf1 - p. 142)


Yearbook 70
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5 5. Nf7 Bf2 6. Kf1 Qe7 8. Nh8 d5 (Its hard to kill the traxler gambit - p. 136)

Quote:

Yes - I think thats the way to describe it. Maybe I just underestimated 1200 as too much beginners, sorry guys 

Matemax wrote on 03/30/08 at 06:54:59:


Absolutely yes!  Back when I was a 1300 player (about 12 years old), I spent a summer studying the Nxf7 lines of the Wilkes-Barre.  (I was forced indoors all summer, recovering from an accident.)  I wasn't looking at theory so much as just analyzing on my own, trying to find the mates and the perps and the lines where all the material comes back.

When I started playing tournaments again, my rating leapt to 1800.  I didn't even play the variation more than a couple of times.  It's a tactical education.

Matemax wrote on 03/30/08 at 06:54:59:


1200 players usually can attack comparatively well, but do not have much positional understanding, endgame ability or defensive skills.
A line where they have a big initiative and know the theory is likely to give them better results than more normal lines. I played through one of my mates games with him on Friday night. Just when he had messed up a position totally his opponent overlooked a knight fork.