Stefan Buecker wrote on 04/19/14 at 11:34:17:

Alternatively, QC and other chess publishers could drop the capital "N" and use the sign "n" instead, defining it as "n" = the same as the traditional N for "novelty", but research limited to databases. The "n" would indicate that the author is focused on analysis, not [historical] research.

TalJechin wrote on 04/19/14 at 13:49:15:

12...Kg6 indeed may be a good idea. But I am not sure whether it is stronger than, say, 8...Kf8, which also parries the direct threats, postponing the decision how to disrupt White's center to the future. 

In these and similar lines in the Hanstein Gambit, I find it difficult to come to final conclusions. The analysis never ends in move 15 or 17, it's closer to 30 or so. Engines dislike the Hanstein, they fail to see the [OTB] merits of a pawn center. My 1986 book Das neue Königsgambit recommended the Hanstein/Muzio, as it appeared sound enough for my OTB play. Would I still recommend it, if I were in John Shaw's place and had a readership of PC owners, some of whom even play correspondence chess, or visit the truth-obsessed chesspub site? Hard to say. 

As I see it, the fans of 3.Nf3 should regard the Kieseritzky Gambit as their first choice, while 3.Bc4 players can follow your main line. For both groups the Hanstein remains worth a look, as a fallback option, maybe to surprise an opponent. There is 8.Qa4, and there are other lines which are relatively unexplored. - John Shaw hasn't really studied the Hanstein, but still he claimed to have refuted 3.Bc4. This gap will hopefully be filled in the 2nd edition. Then would be a better moment to take a closer look at the Hanstein.

Not Caissiber Chess?

It seems to me that John Shaw's claim of a refutation of the King's Bishop Gambit depends not only on the "main line" (given by Johansson in The Fascinating King's Gambit), but also on the transposition to the Hanstein Gambit, via 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.Nf3 and so on.  

In an earlier thread, we have discussed the Hanstein, in particular the move 8.Qa4: http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1305856339/20 . So let's look on John Shaw's coverage of that line. Did he find any improvements? I'll start with repeating my analysis from our old chesspub thread:  



John Shaw follows Zvjaginsev - Akopjan, Rijeka 2010. His main line looks like this: 
"13...Qb6?!
Leaves the queen exposed: 13...Qc7 is better." 

So Shaw just mentions a single move: 13...Qc7, without crediting the chespub. He doesn't prove an advantage for Black. This contradicts his own claim on page 456 regarding 8.Qa4: "[...] the antidote has been firmly established." 

Some chesspub members may remember my heated discussion later in that thread with Taljechin, who had recommended 9...Qe7 10.Qxb7 Rb8. Shaw is similarly short about this one: "[...] has been studied in depth, but the main line offers a convincing solution." Hum, studied in depth by whom?

Not particularly helpful for someone who is trying to understand how exactly the King's Bishop Gambit is refuted...

Stefan Buecker wrote on 02/25/14 at 17:28:38:


Even when I played 7...Qh4+ against Koch in the French Team Championships 2012 I knew that it was the known refutation of White's setup and had been played before, and yet I am far from an expert on the King's Gambit.
Incidentally, the real 'N' only came on move 17!

I kinda agree with Eric's comment, but I also seem to remember John Shaw being one of the editors at QC, or am I wrong?

Hmm, so he puts "N" after every move his engine likes?!  N as in engiNe?