Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) C30-C39: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary (Read 86182 times)
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #35 - 10/14/08 at 15:52:00
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 10/14/08 at 11:10:57:
I always thought the main reason for GMs giving up the KG was the main line Kieseritzky: 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6, when the apparently sub-optimal 6.d4 has traditionally been the modern preference.  It should be dynamically equal if White chooses 6.Bc4 though.

As far as I'm aware the Fischer Defence with 3...d6 hasn't really caught on at master level in the way that 3...g5 or even the Modern (3...d5) has.

I recall I tried the 3...d6 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1 line as Black in a couple of casual games.  I really don't think the idea is as bad as it first appears- the f4 and g4 pawns are weak, the knight can redeploy on e2 to attack f4, and the black kingside is full of holes.  I reckon White has full compensation for the pawn in this line.


Personally I would be happy as White in this Ng1 line.  I don't think there is a single defense that you can blame for the KG not being played at high levels.  I think it is that essentially all of the defenses against it are good.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 915
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #34 - 10/14/08 at 11:10:57
Post Tools
I always thought the main reason for GMs giving up the KG was the main line Kieseritzky: 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6, when the apparently sub-optimal 6.d4 has traditionally been the modern preference.  It should be dynamically equal if White chooses 6.Bc4 though.

As far as I'm aware the Fischer Defence with 3...d6 hasn't really caught on at master level in the way that 3...g5 or even the Modern (3...d5) has.

I recall I tried the 3...d6 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1 line as Black in a couple of casual games.  I really don't think the idea is as bad as it first appears- the f4 and g4 pawns are weak, the knight can redeploy on e2 to attack f4, and the black kingside is full of holes.  I reckon White has full compensation for the pawn in this line.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2338
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #33 - 10/14/08 at 10:59:47
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 10/14/08 at 10:34:44:
FightingDragon wrote on 10/14/08 at 10:00:40:
@MNb: Thanks, now I see what you mean. By the way, why do you think that 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 d6 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1 is =+?


Because I dislike developing backward and have seen some games on respectable level where White did not do well. If my memory serves me well Leko had a nice win as Black. I am aware of Gallagher's opinion and also some Hebden wins, but both have given up the KG anyway, haven't they? Dissatisfaction with 6.Ng1 might have to do something with it - or perhaps not.
Sorry, I don't have the time at the moment to look closely at this variation and I assume you can find some relevant games yourself. I will be happy to be converted.


Oh, you'd be surprised Mnb:

check out:
e4 e5
Nf3 f5
ef e4
Ng1(!)

is a worthy line. Not the place to go into the intricacies of this line , but moral of the tale is: if its in the way, put it back.


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10756
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #32 - 10/14/08 at 10:34:44
Post Tools
FightingDragon wrote on 10/14/08 at 10:00:40:
@MNb: Thanks, now I see what you mean. By the way, why do you think that 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 d6 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1 is =+?


Because I dislike developing backward and have seen some games on respectable level where White did not do well. If my memory serves me well Leko had a nice win as Black. I am aware of Gallagher's opinion and also some Hebden wins, but both have given up the KG anyway, haven't they? Dissatisfaction with 6.Ng1 might have to do something with it - or perhaps not.
Sorry, I don't have the time at the moment to look closely at this variation and I assume you can find some relevant games yourself. I will be happy to be converted.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
FightingDragon
Senior Member
****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 267
Joined: 05/12/04
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #31 - 10/14/08 at 10:00:40
Post Tools
@MNb: Thanks, now I see what you mean. By the way, why do you think that 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 d6 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1 is =+?
I have seen that statement by you several times on the forum, but haven't found concrete variations.
At least Gallagher in his article series for the german magazine "Schach" (I think it was around 2000) thought white was OK.

@Dragonslayer: Congratulations!
1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.g3 Nd4!? is very creative.
I think it's hard for white to prove full compensation, e.g. 6.Bc4 (d3 Bd6!?) f3 7.d3 d6 8.Be3 Bg7 9.Qd2 Ne7 10.0-0-0 could be playable, but I'm not sure if white has full compensation.

Regarding the Kieseritsky, Stefan Buecker writes that after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6 6.Bc4 d5 7.ed5: Bd6 8.d4 0-0 9.Nc3 Nh5 you prefer 10.Ne4. But I can't see what to play after 10. ... f5!, e.g. 11.Ng5 Nd7! 12.Ne6 Qf6 13.Nf8: Kf8: 14.c3 Ng3! 15.Rg1 Ne5: 16.de5: Be5: and it is difficult to see which white piece takes part at the game at all.
I think the main issue in the position is the black pawn on f4. It severely hampers the white position and prevents the Bc1 (and consequently Ra1) coming into play. One move before black kept the pawn with Nh5.

So for me the most logical move is 10.Ne2 trying to eliminate that pawn, when Buecker's analysis at Chesscafe.com seems to indicate a good game for white.  Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dragonslayer
Full Member
***
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 248
Location: Odense
Joined: 06/13/04
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #30 - 10/13/08 at 20:40:31
Post Tools
Excellent thread. Lots of new ideas.

  • 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ne5 (or 3...g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nc6 6.d4) is a bit overrated (i.e. theory says +/- which a way too optimistic) White has other options. 4.Nc3 or 5.Nc3.
  • 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.g3 is not a TN. There was the game Littlewood-Kloster, Davos SUI 2004. Before that game I analyzed 5.g3:
    5...d6 6.d4 Bg7 gives White the play he wants. Better seems 6...g4 or even perhaps even better 5...g4 6.Nh4 Nd4!? blocking the d-pawn. I was unable to find a good continuation after this. Perhaps someone else is more lucky.
  • 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.Nf3 g5 4.d4 g4 5.Bf4 gf3 6.Qxf3 d6 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.Bc4 Nd4 9.Bf7+ Kf7 10.Qh5+ Kg7 11.0-0 Nf6 (=+ apparently, but) 12.Bh6+ Qg8 13.Qg5+ Kf7 14.Qh5+ Ke6 15.Qh3+ Ke7 16.Qh4 Nf5 -+ Fedorov (Informator 69) However 16.Nd5+ Ke8 17.Qd3 looks like an easy improvement and unclear in my view (don't trust the computer when it says =+).
    Here there is also' Carmelo Coco's 8.Bb5!?
    In the Quaade move-order 7.Bc4 is an important alternative for White. If White enters from the Fischer defence via 3...d6 4.Nc3 he is deprived of this option.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10756
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: New idea in the king's gambit?!
Reply #29 - 10/12/08 at 19:46:24
Post Tools
FightingDragon wrote on 10/12/08 at 17:02:23:
MNb wrote on 10/10/08 at 20:24:03:
Note that you should prefer 4.Nc3 and only after ...h6 5.d4.


That part I didn't understand. Can you enlighten me?  Smiley

You just argued why you want to avoid 3...d6 4.d4 g5 5.Nc3 g4 6.Bxf4 gxf3 7.Qxf3  Wink and I think 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1 is rather suspect.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
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: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #28 - 10/12/08 at 19:10:58
Post Tools
@Fightingdragon (no secrets) Wink


1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 g5 4.d4 g4 5.Bf4: gf3: 6.Qf3: d6 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.Bc4 Nd4: 9.Bf7:+ Kf7: 10.Qh5+ Kg7 11.0-0 Be6 12.Rad1 Nf6 13.Bh6+ Kg8 14.Qg5+ Kf7 15.Qh5+ ... (Salmensuu-Alexandrov, Istambul, 2002)

11....Nf6 =/+(Fedorov) and there is no forced draw)

11.0-0-0 (Salmensuu's prefered this 2 years after the above game)
11......Qf6! 12.Nd5, Qg6 -/+ (Salmensuu-Nysti, Helsinki,2004)

======================================
MNb's remarks on 1.e4,e5 2.f4,exf 3.Nf3,d6 have
to do with move-orders and transpositions:

4.d4,g5 5.Nc3,g4 and black has no direct need for ...h6
4.Nc3,h6 (4...g5!) 5.d4 Transfers to Becker's Defence.
Though I doubt that white has an advantage here
[Mnb] probably thinks of the following variation he recommended in previous posts:

4.Nc3,h6
5.d4,g5
6.g3!?,fxg3
(after 6...g4 7.Nh4,f3 black has spent a tempo on the not so usefull ...h6)
7.hxg3,Bg7
8.Be3  
      (Mnb; More common is 8.Bc4,Nf6 though neither Morozovich nor Grishuk could attain advantage playing white)

A recent game, showing black has not really much to fear:
8.Be3,Bg4 9.Be2,Nd7 10.Qd3, c6 [unclear], Shulman-Formanek,Conneticut,2007
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
FightingDragon
Senior Member
****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 267
Joined: 05/12/04
Re: New idea in the king's gambit?!
Reply #27 - 10/12/08 at 17:02:23
Post Tools
I would understand if you don't want to show your secrets, but I don't know anything better for white in the Rosentreter than the forced draw after: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 g5 4.d4 g4 5.Bf4: gf3: 6.Qf3: d6 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.Bc4 Nd4: 9.Bf7:+ Kf7: 10.Qh5+ Kg7 11.0-0 Be6 12.Rad1 Nf6 13.Bh6+ Kg8 14.Qg5+ Kf7 15.Qh5+ ...

Also in the Kieseritsky I'm not sure about 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6 6.Bc4 d5 7.ed5: Bd6 8.d4 Nh5 9.Nc3 0-0 10.Ne4 f5 (or the other way round 8. ... 0-0 9.Nc3 Nh5 Ne4 f5).
Moreover, after 5. ... d6 6.Ng4: Nf6 I think it is difficult to find anything which gives white realistic winning chances.

In that respect I don't think that the Quaade endgame after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3 g4 5.Ne5 Qh4+ 6.g3 fg3: 7.Qg4: Qg4: 8.Ng4: d5 9.Ne3 is worse, at least it offers white some practical chances.
It may not be enough from a correspondence player's viewpoint, but which variation against 3. ... g5 is???

The main advantage of the Quaade is that it is not very well known, which is important in OTB play.

MNb wrote on 10/10/08 at 20:24:03:
Note that you should prefer 4.Nc3 and only after ...h6 5.d4.


That part I didn't understand. Can you enlighten me?  Smiley
  
Back to top
 
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: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #26 - 10/11/08 at 08:57:48
Post Tools
I agree with Mnb on the second part. The variation
3...g5 4.Nc3,g4 5.Ne5,Qh4+ 6.g3,fxg3 7.Qxg4,Qxg4 8.Nxg4,d5!?
was actually played in Pillsbury-Maroczy, Vienna, 1903 and
quickly led to a drawish endgame.
Even though there is not much news under the sun. Practically all suggestions, have been discussed previous in this section of the forum.
Subscribers to paid 1.e4,e5 section can verify this very quickly, as there is a small separate database for download there that contains the forum analysis and more.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10756
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: New idea in the king's gambit?!
Reply #25 - 10/10/08 at 20:24:03
Post Tools
FightingDragon wrote on 10/07/08 at 04:01:18:
If this is a way to play the Fischer lines without allowing the Rosentreter, I think the King's gambit becomes interesting again!


I disagree on the second part. Even if this is a way to play those Fischer lnes without allowing the Rosentreter (ie Black has not a good way to deviate) I think the KG is interesting.
Unlike you I would not mind to play 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d6 4.d4 g5 5.Nc3 g4 as White. Note that you should prefer 4.Nc3 and only after ...h6 5.d4. So you offer a solution for a problem I don't have  Wink. What you don't offer - and neither does David Flude, who understandably wants to save his ideas for his corr. games - is a solution for 3...g5. You simply say that 4.Nc3 g4 5.Ne5 is OK for White, but I suspect that Qh4+ 6.g3 fxg3 7.Qxg4 Qxg4 8.Nxg4 is too drawish for corr. play. Hence I see no point in reacting.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
FightingDragon
Senior Member
****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 267
Joined: 05/12/04
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #24 - 10/10/08 at 17:01:47
Post Tools
Is nobody interested in the king's gambit anymore?

Did I post too many variations or is my suggestion entirely silly?  Undecided
« Last Edit: 10/10/08 at 21:48:11 by FightingDragon »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2892
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #23 - 10/07/08 at 20:53:45
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 07/29/08 at 17:04:07:
and I also like the "nameless 3...Nc6 defence" followed by 4...g5- it prevents the Kieseritzky and in my experience often confuses White players who are expecting 3...g5.


1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ne5! is actually a variation of the Kieseritzky (usually reached by 5.Ne5 Nc6 6.d4!) and it's still considered good for white as far as I know. Though it's easy for white to forget about Ne5 given the number of transpositions into Hansteins, Allgaiers and so forth.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
FightingDragon
Senior Member
****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 267
Joined: 05/12/04
New idea in the king's gambit?!
Reply #22 - 10/07/08 at 04:01:18
Post Tools
After checking Vadim Zvjaginsevs games in the King's gambit I have some new ideas for white:

1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4: 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3!?

now 4. ... g4 5.Ne5 is at least OK for white.

the game Zvjaginsev-Smirnov, 2008 went 4. ... Nc6 5.g3!? d6 6.d4 Bg7 7.d5 Ne5 8.gf4: gf4: 9.Bf4: Bg4 10.Bb5+ Kf8 11.Be2 with a balanced position.

what about 4. ... d6 5.g3!? (the new idea)? I couldn't find any games with that move. The idea is to transpose to the lines discussed in the Fischer defence thread (which to my mind give white nice compensation) without allowing the Rosentreter which I think is better for black (like after 5.d4 g4!).
After 5. ... g4 6.Nh4 f3 7.d4 play is very likely to transpose to these lines. One independent try is 7. ... Be7 8.Be3 (8.Nf5!?) Bh4: 9.gh4: Qh4: 10.Bf2 Qh6 when black is one tempo up compared to the Furhoff-Eriksson game from the Fischer defence. Nevertheless I think white has compensation after 11.Nd5 Kd7 12.Qd3 with the idea of 13.Be3 and 0-0-0 or even 12.Qd2!?

Black can also play 5. ... fg3: 6.hg3: Bg4 (Bg7 7.d4 h6 is the Becker defence) 7.d4 h6 (Bg7 8.Bc4 Nc6 9.Rf1 Qe7 10.Be3 h6 11.Qd2 Nf6 12.0-0-0 0-0-0 13.Rde1 and white has compensation, the question is if it's enough) 8.Bc4 Bg7 9.Rf1 and again the game has transposed to the Becker defence.

If this is a way to play the Fischer lines without allowing the Rosentreter, I think the King's gambit becomes interesting again!
I would like to hear your opinion!  Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 915
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: ChessPub King's Gambit Analysis Summary
Reply #21 - 08/25/08 at 14:33:41
Post Tools
Just had a fresh look at the Allgaier and Hamppe-Allgaier again.

I understand where the confusion came from in the line 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.d4 d5 9.Bxf4 Nf6 10.Bd3?!- that was a typo, I meant 9...Bb4 when the general agreement is that 10.Bd3 is fine for White.  I agree that 10.Nxd5 looks best in that line.

I concede that in the Allgaier proper White cannot objectively get equality- my best suggestions for getting practical chances would be 7.d4 f3 8.Be3!?, which is complex but with an edge for Black, or 7...d5 8.Bxf4 Nf6 9.Nc3 Bb4 10.Bd3 and now as MNb said above, 10...Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 dxe4 12.Bc4+ and now 12...Be6 and 12...Kg7 give Black an edge.
7.Nc3 Nf6 tends to transpose, while my best suggestion against 7...d5 would be 8.d4 f3 9.Nxd5 Nf6 10.Nxf6+ Qxf6 11.Bc4+ (rather than 11.gxf3 Qxf3 when queens come off, though I think if 12.Bc4+ Ke8 13.Qxf3 gxf3 then 14.Bf4 limits Black to just an edge).  The end result is similar to the 7.d4 d5 line above.

However, as David says above, the Kieseritzky (5.Ne5 Nf6 6.Bc4! d5 7.exd5 Bd6) may be fine as Stefan Bucker's analysis illustrates.

I had a second look at the H-A-G lines and still couldn't find a way for Black to force an evaluation better than "unclear".  Indeed, it is probably no worse than the Pierce Gambit via the Vienna move-order, which has been improved for Black recently.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo