Latest Updates:
Normal Topic An unusual Sac in Evans Gambit ! Is it sound? (Read 5413 times)
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10569
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: An unusual Sac in Evans Gambit ! Is it sound?
Reply #9 - 12/30/08 at 12:05:36
Post Tools
sloughter wrote on 12/29/08 at 10:46:54:
Here is the refutation of the Berliner Variation: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Qe2 (I found this independently of Walter Muir, but I would like to call this the Muir variation in recognition of his great contribution here to opening theory).


8...Ne6 iso 8...Qh4?
  

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
 
sloughter
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 619
Location: schoharie
Joined: 12/29/08
Gender: Male
Re: An unusual Sac in Evans Gambit ! Is it sound?
Reply #8 - 12/30/08 at 09:13:14
Post Tools
Of course it is sound! 11.Bb3, just ignoring the Knight fork; the Bishops have beautiful squares, and Black has to figure out how to connect his Rooks.  (Not BCM's 11.exd5 Ne5 -/+) White has excellent compensation for the piece.

Richard Moody Jr.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 902
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: An unusual Sac in Evans Gambit ! Is it sound?
Reply #7 - 12/29/08 at 16:19:29
Post Tools
sloughter wrote on 12/29/08 at 09:36:17:
It always helps when you do analysis not to miss forced moves. When the British Chess Magazine reviewed my book, they called it farcical and appalling and then gave one move (in the entire review of my book!) to prove how bad my book was. Here is the move sequence in question: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.O-O Ne7 8.Ng5 d5 9.Nxf7 Kxf7 10.Qf3ch Kg8      I believe BCM (Murray Chandler or some other GM),
now claims a win for Black)

White's next move is forced, and, yes, it was missed by BCM:

11.Bb3! taking advantage of the pin and leaving it up to Black to sweat out the attack. It is very important for White to preserve his attacking Bishop.

By the way, Ken Smith sold my addendum on the Evans Gambit, an eight page rebuttal of my critics, for $3.95. If you would like to contact me for additional information on this and other topics, feel free to contact me at slmrea@aol.com


I have little doubt that 11.Bb3! is the best move in the position, but how does White continue the attack after 11...Be6?  As far as I (and Fritz) can see, Black just regroups with ...Qd7, ...Rf8, and ...Bb6 and answers captures on d5 with ...Bxd5, and White ends up a piece down for not a great deal.  I think White's attacking chances are better in the 10.exd5 line.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
sloughter
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 619
Location: schoharie
Joined: 12/29/08
Gender: Male
Re: An unusual Sac in Evans Gambit ! Is it sound?
Reply #6 - 12/29/08 at 10:46:54
Post Tools
In a recent book, Magic, I refute the Berliner Variation of the Two Knights Defense and the Wilkes Barre/Traxler (WBT). Combine this with Pincus's refutation of the Fried Liver and mine of the Ulvestad (which, with best play, just transposes to the Fritz) and you've got four main lines of the Ng5 variation of the Two Knights Defense that are +- within 20 moves. Black has only vague equalizing chances in the Na5 lines.

Here is the refutation of the Berliner Variation: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Qe2 (I found this independently of Walter Muir, but I would like to call this the Muir variation in recognition of his great contribution here to opening theory)

Black has only bad choices here: If 12...O-O 13.Qf2 & White holds the piece.

Even worse is 12...Be6, the only move I have in Fritz 8's memory. IM Jeremy Silman, the great endgame analyst specializing in Queen pawn openings, couldn't believe me when I told him this was book.

Now theory gives the incredibly bad move 13.fxe4?? (When I got the silicone monster in the mail, I decided to try out Muir's idea of 12.Qe2; when it coughed up 12...Be6, I almost fainted. I had assumed that Black would just steer for a losing position theoretically, but not a forced practical loss, with 12...Bxg3ch 13.hxg3 Qxh1 14.Qxb5ch +/-), I never even considered 13.fxe4 because it is contrary to my theories of opening development.

If White had nothing better, then 13.Qf2?! is fine, just holding the piece, but then Black gets some counterplay with 13...Nb4 14.Na3 & I've lost 80 games against Fritz 8 from the starting position.

Absolutely devastating and leading to the fastest win by White in any major opening in chess (Kasparov in BCO 2 devotes an entire page to the Berliner Variation, so the analysis has been vetted by the greatest Correspondence World Champion, Dr. Hans Berliner, the strongest computer at the time, Hitech, and the greatest over the board World Champion of all time, Kasparov, yet their analysis is completely wrong!!)

Absolutely devastaging is 13.Nc3!! According to the way I define development, this gains about 7!! tempos when you consider all the wood that is chopped, the offside Queen and the fact it will take Black forever to connect its rooks.

According to Fritz 8 (after 10 minutes of thought for each of its next five moves), it gives as best 13...Nxc3 14.dxc3 (Jeremy kind of likes 14.bxc3 which is what Fritz likes, too) White's ugly duckling becomes a beautiful swan! 14...Bxg3ch 15.hxg3 Qxh1 16.Qxb5ch Kf8 17.fxe4 is +- theoretically and practically (I defeated Fritz 8 in the middlegame here).

This opening should not be called the Berliner Variation, it should be called the Berliner Gambit. What is standard praxis against a gambit? Give back just enough material to squelch the attack and use positional plusses to bring home the win. In my variation, White has Bishop and two pawns for the Rook, a slight material advantage (and White picked up the c-pawn easily), a permanent initiative and connected passed pawns in the center.

BCO, MCO and ECO in later additions can sum up the position as 12.Qe2 +/-

Here is a simple cook of the WBT: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5?! (No better or worse than the other lines) 5.Bxf7ch Ke7 6.Bd5 Rf8 7.Bxc6! dxc6 8.Nf3!! N game over!  (8.Qe2 is weaker because Black has 8...Ng4 9.f3 Bf2ch 10.Kf1 Bb6 =)After 10 minutes, Fritz 8 now plays gives 8...Kf7 (No better is 8...Nxe4 9.Qe2 Nxf2 10.Rf1 & White picks up two pieces for the Rook) 9.d3 +/-

Now the exposed nature of the Black King prompted Fritz 8 to play 9...Kg8, and I just continued 10.Be3 Bd4?! 11.Nxd4 exd4 12.Bg5 Qd6 13.Bxf6 Rxf6 14.O-O & Black's f-file pressure was worthless. White won in the middlegame easily.

The Ulvestad and the Pincus idea in the Fried Liver (4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.d4! Bb4ch 7.c3 Be7 8.Nxf7ch Kxf7 9.Qf3ch Ke6 10.O-O! is just winning) are also winning for White..
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
sloughter
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 619
Location: schoharie
Joined: 12/29/08
Gender: Male
Re: An unusual Sac in Evans Gambit ! Is it sound?
Reply #5 - 12/29/08 at 09:36:17
Post Tools
It always helps when you do analysis not to miss forced moves. When the British Chess Magazine reviewed my book, they called it farcical and appalling and then gave one move (in the entire review of my book!) to prove how bad my book was. Here is the move sequence in question: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.O-O Ne7 8.Ng5 d5 9.Nxf7 Kxf7 10.Qf3ch Kg8      I believe BCM (Murray Chandler or some other GM),
now claims a win for Black)

White's next move is forced, and, yes, it was missed by BCM:

11.Bb3! taking advantage of the pin and leaving it up to Black to sweat out the attack. It is very important for White to preserve his attacking Bishop.

By the way, Ken Smith sold my addendum on the Evans Gambit, an eight page rebuttal of my critics, for $3.95. If you would like to contact me for additional information on this and other topics, feel free to contact me at slmrea@aol.com
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
CheckMate
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 163
Location: Uppsala
Joined: 07/18/06
Gender: Male
Re: An unusual Sac in Evans Gambit ! Is it sound?
Reply #4 - 07/29/08 at 20:55:55
Post Tools
In my opinion White should play 7. Qb3(!) instead of 7. 0-0 Ne7, the latter is a dead end for White. As Marin shows there's probably a narrow way for Black to equality but he has to play very, very exact against 7. Qb3 to be able to survive!

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


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 902
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: An unusual Sac in Evans Gambit ! Is it sound?
Reply #3 - 07/29/08 at 17:51:58
Post Tools
Although I play the Evans occasionally, I admit I don't know much about the theory of this line.

The Evans articles from this link should help:
http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_opng_anlys/archive.html
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
photophore
Full Member
***
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 203
Location: Montesson
Joined: 09/25/04
Gender: Male
Re: An unusual Sac in Evans Gambit ! Is it sound?
Reply #2 - 07/29/08 at 17:26:56
Post Tools
I thank you for your advice , and , after some more analysis , I incline to share it
In summary , this line with Nxf7 is not directly losing but , with besst play by White , the outcome is a difficult draw
Yet one question : you prefer 10 Qxd4 , and I agree , but the usual move is 10 Bd3 : in his comment of Morozvich-Adams , Pinski tells 10 Qxd4 is weak
I  think he is wrong , and he has missed something in his analysis : what is your opinion?
It's a pity that there is no good recent book on Evans Gambit
( nor on King's Gambit )
It is sad for an opening which has a so bright past at the highest level
( Tchigorine , Steinitz , Charousek ,, and so on )
My experience shows that , even in postal game , most players have forgotten  the Theory of this opening
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 902
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: An unusual Sac in Evans Gambit ! Is it sound?
Reply #1 - 07/28/08 at 18:55:14
Post Tools
I recall a scathing British Chess Magazine review of Richard Moody's The Evans Gambit Revolution, which gave this line a mention:  9 Nxf7 Kxf7 10 Qf3+ gives White compensation against 10...Ke8, but instead 10...Kg8, as pointed out by BCM, refutes 10 Qf3+ out of hand.

Instead White should play 10 exd5 Ne5 11 Bb3 Nf5 12 cxd4 Ng6 13 d6+ Kf8 14 dxc7 Bxc7 15 Qf3 Ngh4, when White has some, but not enough, compensation for the lost knight.

Objectively White will do well to draw in this line; it might give a few practical chances but I see no compelling reason to prefer it to the simpler 9 exd5 Ne5 10 Qxd4 with complex and equal play.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
photophore
Full Member
***
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 203
Location: Montesson
Joined: 09/25/04
Gender: Male
An unusual Sac in Evans Gambit ! Is it sound?
07/28/08 at 09:30:47
Post Tools
In Evans Gambit , after
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 Bxb4 5 c3 Ba5 6 d4 exd4 7 O-O  Ne7
8 Ng5 d5
Instead  of 9 exd5 , one iay play the Sac 0 Nxf7 : it's thematic , but is it sound , i-e does White get a fair compensation ?
I have just 1 example in my database ( 1-0 , 31 ) ,between obscure players
I bubmitted it to Rybka , which doesn't like it , but fails to give a "true" refutation , sign tha there is at least some compensation
With best Black play , is it sufficient for a draw?
Thanks in advance
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo