(UTC)
Latest Updates:
  ChessPub Forum › Chess Publishing Openings › 1. e4 e5 - Non-Spanish › Italian › Evans Gambit "compromised" defense
(Moderators: Smyslov_Fan, Jupp53, trw)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Topic Tools
Normal Topic Evans Gambit "compromised" defense (Read 2384 times)
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Evans Gambit "compromised" defense
Reply #5 - 04/15/08 at 13:58:36
Post Tools
After 12.Rad1 Re8, another dangerous move, possibly better than 13.Bd3, is 12.Ne2 (recommended by silicon).  For example, if 12...Nd8 as in I. Carlsson - Mohamidi, Sweden 1999, White should continue 12.Bd3 (instead of 12.Nf4 as played) 12...Qh6 13.Ng3 and I would not want to be Black.

I also looked at 12...Bb6 13.Bd3 Qh5 14.Ng3 Qg4 15.Rfe1 and again I would much prefer White.
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
breizatao
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


A good pawn is a dead
pawn!

Posts: 35
Location: Paris
Joined: 02/27/08
Gender: Male
Re: Evans Gambit "compromised" defense
Reply #4 - 04/15/08 at 10:53:32
Post Tools
photophore wrote on 04/15/08 at 09:07:20:
My analysis goes on : 12 Rad1 Re8 13 Bd3 Qh5 14 Ne4 and Black finds the unexpected 14...Nf5 after what 15 Neg5 h6 16 Bxf5 hxg5 17 g4 Qh6
18 h4 Nxe5 19 Rd5 , and White wins the Bishop , but at the expense of
3 Pawns
It's truly hard for a "winning" game !


I have had some problems with font!

After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.OO dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qg6 10.Nxc3 Ne7 11.Ba3 OO 12.Rad1 and Black can try:

A) 12 ... b5!? (Zukertort variation)
A1) 13.Nxb5 Re8 (13 ... Rb8 14.Bxe7! [14.Qa4 is better] Nxe7 -/+ W.Paulsen-Zukertort, Leipzig, 1877) 14.Bd3 Qh5 15.Bxe7 (15.Be4 Rb8 Qa4 a6 17.Na7 unclear) 15 ... Nxe7 16.Qa4 (16.Nbd4 Bb6!) 16 ... Nc6 17.Be4 followed by Na3 is unclear
A2) 13.Bd3 Qh5 (13 ... Qg4! 14.h3 Qe6 15.Nd5 b4 16.Bxh7! Kh8 17.Ng5 +- Young-Zukertort, 1872) 14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.Qxd5 b4! 16.Bb2 Rb8 (16 ... Bb7!?) Taylor-Zukertort, 1872

B) 12 ... a6 (Anderssen variation) 13.Nd5 Nxd5 14.Bxd5 (14.Rxd5!?) Riemann-Anderssen, Breslau, 1874

C) 12 ... Bb6 13.Bd3!? (13.Nd5?! Nxd5 14.Bxd5 Re8 -/+; 13.Rfe1?! Na5!) 13. Qh5 14. Ne4 with the idea 15.h3, 16.Ng3 White is better because the Queen side is not developed and the attack on the castling is very active.

About 12... Re8 13 Bd3 Qh5 14 Ne4 Nxe5?! (14... Nf5 is a better move) 15.Nxe5 Qxe5 16.Bb2 Qe6 17.Qa4! Bb6 18.Ng5 is good for White
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
photophore
Full Member
***
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 203
Location: Montesson
Joined: 09/25/04
Gender: Male
Re: Evans Gambit "compromised" defense
Reply #3 - 04/15/08 at 09:07:20
Post Tools
My analysis goes on : 12 Rad1 Re8 13 Bd3 Qh5 14 Ne4 and Black finds the unexpected 14...Nf5 after what 15 Neg5 h6 16 Bxf5 hxg5 17 g4 Qh6
18 h4 Nxe5 19 Rd5 , and White wins the Bishop , but at the expense of
3 Pawns
It's truly hard for a "winning" game !
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
breizatao
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


A good pawn is a dead
pawn!

Posts: 35
Location: Paris
Joined: 02/27/08
Gender: Male
Re: Evans Gambit "compromised" defense
Reply #2 - 04/15/08 at 06:13:44
Post Tools
photophore wrote on 04/14/08 at 14:04:25:
In the Evans Gambit , "copromised" defence
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 Bxb4 5 c3 Ba5 6 d4 exd4 7 O-O dxc3
has not a good fame : White has a big lead in development ,
and yet I was confronted 3 times with the variation :
8 Qb3 Qf6 9  e5 Qg6 10 Nxc3 Ne7 11 Ba3 O-O 12 Rad1 Bb6!? (or?! )
Then there is a conflict between the feeling of the position , that gives a big advantage to White , and the difficulty to concretize it with concrete analyses
Neither 13 Re1 nor 13 Nd5 seem to be satisfactory , and the 3rd plausible move 13 Bd3 , after a vrry complicated tactical line , leads only to a slight plus for White
Can anybody explain me the reasons of this discrepancy?  


After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.OO dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qg6 10.Nxc3 Ne7 11.Ba3 OO 12.Rad1 Black can try:

A) 12 ... b5? (Alternative Zukertort)
A1) 13.Nxb5 Re8 (13 ... Rb8 14.Bxe7! [14.Qa4 is better] Nxe7 - / + W.Paulsen-Zukertort, Leipzig, 1877) 14.Bd3 Qh5 15.Bxe7 (15.Be4 Rb8 Qa4 a6 17.Na7 unclear) 15 ... Nxe7 16.Qa4 (16.Nbd4 Bb6!) 16 ... Nc6 17.Be4 followed by Na3 unclear
A2) 13.Bd3 Qh5 (13 ... Qg4! 14.h3 Qe6 15.Nd5 b4 16.Bxh7! Kh8 17.Ng5 + - Young-Zukertort, 1872) 14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.Qxd5 b4! 16.Bb2 Rb8 (16 ... Bb7?) Taylor-Zukertort, 1872

B) 12 ... a6 (variant Anderssen) 13.Nd5 Nxd5 14.Bxd5 (14.Rxd5?) Riemann-Anderssen, Breslau, 1874

C) 12 ... Bb6 13.Bd3? (13.Nd5? Nxd5 14.Bxd5 Re8 - / +; 13.Rfe1! Na5!) 13. Qh5 14. Ne4 with the idea 15.h3, 16.Ng3 White is better because the Queen side is not developed and the attack on the castling is very active.

So ... to be followed.
Fred
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
micawber
God Member
*****
Offline


like many sneaks and skunks
in history he's a poet

Posts: 852
Location: Netherlands
Joined: 09/07/05
Gender: Male
Re: Evans Gambit "compromised" defense
Reply #1 - 04/14/08 at 21:27:45
Post Tools
Well, the position after 12.Rad1,Bb6 looks quite good for white.
(in fact Euwe/ed.Heike&Fette considered the position after 12.Rad1 near winning). Black's counterplay is nowhere in sight yet, and his queenside is not so easy to develop.

But in this day and age, people can prepare the defense of this kind of position with comps and a clear cut win is hard to give.
Nevertheless I still think I would prefer to be on the white side in this one.

White's ideal attacking position should look something like a
battery Bb2/Bb3/Qe4, after black's queen has been driven to e7/f8.
I can understand Bd3, and I take your word that Nd5 leads nowhere.
Even though I would consider this a candidate move to eliminate the defending knight on e7.
Black is not so much in danger of a direct attack, than of a creeping attack. White's plan should be to increase the pressure, without allowing black to break free.
To counter this kind of plan, a computer is of limited help, as the evaluation may be distorted by black's material plus.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
photophore
Full Member
***
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 203
Location: Montesson
Joined: 09/25/04
Gender: Male
Evans Gambit "compromised" defense
04/14/08 at 14:04:25
Post Tools
In the Evans Gambit , "copromised" defence
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 Bxb4 5 c3 Ba5 6 d4 exd4 7 O-O dxc3
has not a good fame : White has a big lead in development ,
and yet I was confronted 3 times with the variation :
8 Qb3 Qf6 9  e5 Qg6 10 Nxc3 Ne7 11 Ba3 O-O 12 Rad1 Bb6!? (or?! )
Then there is a conflict between the feeling of the position , that gives a big advantage to White , and the difficulty to concretize it with concrete analyses
Neither 13 Re1 nor 13 Nd5 seem to be satisfactory , and the 3rd plausible move 13 Bd3 , after a vrry complicated tactical line , leads only to a slight plus for White
Can anybody explain me the reasons of this discrepancy?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Topic Tools
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo
 
  « Board Index ‹ Board Top  

ChessPub Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2021. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge