I would be surprised too but 2...Nc6 is covered in chapter 21 starting on page 645 of Shaw´s book.

IM Andrew Greet wrote on 04/28/18 at 11:07:49:


Unless he updated the original draft for his self-published version, then no he hasn't. He didn't know John Shaw was writing a book until after he'd finished his own, and the supposedly critical line 3...Nc6 4 d4 Nf6 5 Nc3 Bb4 6 Ne2 f3 only featured in a note. But what he did do was recognize (independently) that this line is not as bad for White as John Shaw thought. In other words there's no real need to find anything impressive because White is already okay. This variation was discussed quite a bit on the forum. And I subsequently blogged about it >here<

IM Andrew Greet wrote on 04/28/18 at 11:07:49:


Had been thinking of buying this book last year but saw he had 'sold out'...disappointed to see that he still had copies and is now selling at a crazy price.

I recently played a King's Gambit for the first time in 10 years! It was fun, although I only managed to draw despite gaining a large advantage. We reached the position mentioned by zen_learner below after 11.Be2, but my opponent played the inaccurate 11...Ng6, so the rest of the game isn't particularly significant.

zen_learner wrote on 07/27/13 at 12:20:14:

However, looking at zen_learner's variation 11...Nxf3+ 12.Bxf3 Qf6, isn't he right after all that White is worse here? (Shaw only gives 12...Bxc3+). In the single game I found from this position, it seems like Black was the one pressing for a win:

Jonathan Tait wrote on 07/02/15 at 13:33:56:

So what's the plan if Black plays 6...Be7 (instead of 6...Bg7)? Maybe 7.Ng2 f3 8.Nf4. The engine evaluation is making me nervous though (perhaps I should just ignore it ).

buddho wrote on 03/11/17 at 12:00:50:

After 10.Qf2 g3 11.Qxf4 g2+ 12.Qxh4 gxh1(Q) black is a rook up but the engine coolly plays 13.Kf2 and doesn't see any rescue anymore for blacks second queen. The Kingsgambit is definitely not boring. I doubt very much that I would see all this in advance when playing unprepared a standard game.

This analysis has of course nothing anymore to do with OTB chess as I expect chance is close to 0% such lines can occur in normal practice.

buddho wrote on 03/09/17 at 17:02:53:


Did you look at 8 Nf5 - ?

Stefan Buecker wrote on 02/19/14 at 11:39:42:


And I've now just blogged about that:
http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/012-bust-to-bishops-gambit.html

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/06/15 at 14:09:47:


More that they added to it a bit, and they were my first games with the Quaade (tsmenace is my handle), so I thought I'd share them. The first one refers to Shaw page 169; the second to Shaw page 140 – 5...Nc6! etc is his line, and it's pretty equal.

two new Quaade games:

(when I figure out how to use the PGN function)

Ametanoitos wrote on 10/01/14 at 09:40:41:


12...Kg6 is also given by Shaw (although he arrives at the position after 10...Kf8 instead of 10...Ke7, but after 11.Kxf7 that doesn´t change anything). He credits Gustafsson for the suggestion and states that it looks good after 13.Nbd2 Ne7, or 13.g3 fxg3 14.hxg3 c5!?

Ametanoitos wrote on 10/01/14 at 09:40:41:

Apologies to Jan Gustafsson. I prefer books over videos, but rumours have it that Gustafsson's videos are worth the trouble. Besides, see reply #19 of this thread: http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/chess/YaBB.pl?num=1292872423/all

This time an in-depth overview/ analysis of the Nf3 line and more particular the complex of Fischer's defense/Becker's defense/Quaade gambit: 
http://chess-brabo.blogspot.be/2014/08/kings-gambit-with-nf3.html

Stefan Buecker wrote on 02/26/14 at 17:56:22:



Exactly!!!

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? 

This book recommends, I think, the idea of 3. .. Nc6 against the Kings Bishop Gambit of 3. Bc4. Presumably after 4. Nf3, you go back into normal territory with 4. .. g5. 

But staying in the King Bishop territory with 4. .. Nf6 also has to be possible, as in a County match game earlier today. After 5. Nc3, I'm not sure what Black's next move should be. In the event I punted 5. .. d5 and after 6 exd5, a Two Knights lookalike with 6. .. Na5. The subsequent play appears to be original. White made a temporary sacrifice with 7. 0-0, so Black chopped it off 7. .. Nxc4. Then 8. Qe2+ is met by a desperado 8. .. Ne3 to block the e file for a moment. White takes it 9. dxe3 and Black develops the Bishop with a pin 9. .. Bc5. White then plays the check 10. Qb5 which forces 10. .. Nd7. White unpinned with 11. Kh1, whereupon Black has to take on e3 with the Bishop. 11. .. Bxe3 12.Bxe3 fxe3 13. Rae1. Now finally 13. .. 0-0 14. Rxe3 Nf6. I though at the time this was slightly better for White on development and activity grounds. The game as a contest now ended abruptly as White blundered with 15. Ng5 which allows 15. .. Ng4 winning material. The clever-looking 16. Nxf7 doesn't work because of 16. .. Nxe3 17 Nxd8 Rxf1+

So I guess the conclusion is that either the author/editor didn't know all this, or chose to ignore it. In both cases it's not exactly good advertisement for QC. I guess the number of novelties is marketing feature too tempting too resist.

dfan wrote on 02/20/14 at 14:46:26:


Okay, so let me give you an example. 
Shaw: The King's Gambit, p. 427, right column: 

Quote:


The move 5. Qe2 has been played before, and not by some patzers: Bronstein - Drozdov, Riga 1986. 

However, the move 5.Qe2 has a much older history. Let's see the tournament book Vienna 1903, p.65: 

 

So Carl Schlechter credits 5.Qe2 to Simon Alapin, giving the move two exclamation marks. It wouldn't be fair to say that the move has merely been "considered", as Shaw puts it. No, the move has been clearly recommended, no doubt about it, by Alapin and Carl Schlechter. This comment had also appeared in Deutsche Schachzeitung (since Carl Schlechter was editing the DSZ). The idea 5.Qe2 is also getting "!!" in Wiener Schachzeitung 1904, p. 236. Would you call this merely "considered"? 

In WSZ 1904, p. 84, there is more analysis of 5.Qe2 by Alapin. Who else did mention the move 5.Qe2? Rudolf Spielmann in the 8th edition of the Handbuch ("Bilguer"), Euwe, Keres, Korchnoi/Zak, older editions of ECO C, Estrin/Glazkov, Gallagher, Soltis, Raingruber/Maser, Bangiev, Johansson, Reinderman 2006, Kalinichenko. Many of these authors are putting an exclamation mark after 5.Qe2.

Many thanks to Henk Smout for researching the case. 

Stefan Buecker wrote on 02/20/14 at 14:15:13:

I'd have to see the particular instance to which you refer, but sometimes this language means that the move has been played by a (relatively) weak player who didn't follow it up correctly, so the move has been played before, but the idea behind it is new. I do think that it is stretching things to still call that move a novelty in that sort of case.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 02/20/14 at 10:49:29:


This surely doesn't clear up the matter, but the * is nowadays being used in the pgn-files meaning 'unfinished game' instead of a result (1-0 etc), so i guess it can't be used in this context anymore. I always thought that TN and N meant the same thing: a new move that cannot be found in databases but I might be terribly wrong. Maybe the T underlining that the new move is of (possible) theoretical relevance and not just bad but new move in a given situation.

PANFR wrote on 02/19/14 at 12:14:23:

Thanks. Yes, I'd be interested in those corr-games. Please e-mail me a pgn file, if possible (redaktion@kaissiber.de). - I agree that White doesn't have much. But the result in Kaissiber tells us that there are many options for White, which can be tried and explored over the board. For example 9.Nd5 Qg6 10.d3 Qg3+ 11.Kd2 Nb4 12.Kc3 (Maurits Wind). In corr chess it will probably lead to a draw, but not more. And Black can certainly go wrong. So this opening looks very much like any other opening. 

Stefan Buecker wrote on 02/19/14 at 11:57:01:


No, factly he doesn't mention the move at all.
I had a brief look at 9.d4 sometime ago, and I concluded that it' equal- but I did not attempt any serious analysis, and the existing games on it (I have 25 of them, mostly from correspondence chess, although with little involvement of really good correspondence players) suggest that a draw is the most likely outcome.
If interested, I can give you the related games- mostly ICCF/ IECG/LSS stuff from average. or less than average engine users.

I was not aware of the Kaissiber article, since I have never subscribed to it- I just have quite a few of your books/ pamphlets published in the 80s-90s, when I was playing more regularly. 
I noticed this flaw when reading Sakaev's Petroff book, dealing with the same variation, and also concluding that the position is a forced draw- apparently wrongly.
Yet, the mainline in Sakaev's book is equal, although Black has all the fun there is in the position (IMHO not much, just a very,very slight positional edge, which is extremely hard to materialize).
Regarding the Bishop's gambit, I am still quite satisfied as Black with 3...d5! - also equal, but Black has all the fun (again).
The Nc3 lines in Shaw's book are very interesting, but they are also borderline refutable- which means I have not found any refutation, but I do think Black should have something against them.

PANFR wrote on 11/09/13 at 01:13:45:

You are right. Same error in Kaissiber #32 (2008), p. 36: "12. Nc7+ Kd8 13.Nxa8 Qe3+ ist sofort Remis." After your recommendation 15...Rg8, a modern engine like Stockfish DD has no trouble finding 16.c4 Rg3 17.Ke1 Bg4 18.d4 Qc6 19.Qd2 Qxe4+ 20.Kf2 Nd3+ 21.Kg1 Ne1! 22.Kh2 Bg7! -+ and the myriad of other complex tactical variations necessary to force a win for Black. 

Kaissiber #32 appeared in 2008, the engine used for the analysis was Rybka 2.3.2a, run on my old Pentium PC. Still, I think a human should indeed understand that Black is better in spite of the fact that he is a rook behind. So yes, mea culpa. Shaw has just quoted older analysis, without crediting. 

A better excuse is that 12. Nxc7+ was "at least" a draw, so it was obviously worse than 12.Qf3 which I looked at in more detail. By the way: the recommended main line in Kais. 32 was Maurits Wind's idea 12. Kc3!?, a move ignored by Shaw. And, not to forget, Kaissiber #32 advised against 9. Nd5. Our choice was 9.d4!. - On p. 114 of his work John Shaw writes: 

Quote:

Shaw is wrong, I never proposed such a name for 9.d4. The article published in Kais. 32 was titled "Am Triumphlager des Königsgambits", using a term coined by Tartakower: he joked that Spielmann's article "Am Krankenlager des Königsgambits" would have better been titled "Triumphlager", because Spielmann presented mainly his wins with the gambit.

ooops. my sincere apologies. wow, that was embarrasing...

Schwebbz wrote on 09/27/13 at 03:38:23:

Good grief.
Idiot. Rude idiot.
"Of course, I think it’s a shame that the Australian connection is left out, but it’s nice to see the line getting some reasonable coverage as it is certainly far better than first meets the eye."

I blame you for your own reading difficulties.

It is there, but not named such.

Oh, irony, smite this contributor in the face with a hot iron.

chessvibes review now up

http://www.chessvibes.com/review-the-king%E2%80%99s-gambit

That would depend on what your standards for 'juicy' is. The coverage isn't extensive: He annotates Schlecter-Teichmann, Vienna 1903. Seven novelties in the annotations. He quotes you twice, too. A little over 4 pages total. Looks good to me, though I haven't gotten around to examining the game in detail yet.

This line is recommended by Eric Schiller in "Who's Afraid of the King's Gambit? (3rd edition)". I kid you not: search on amazon, "look inside" the book, and BAM!

This actually looks like a decent line, so I find this all somewhat amusing.

blueguitar322 wrote on 08/14/13 at 14:55:42:

How could he miss Qh2??

Lord Almighty, somebody put him on suicide watch if he loses the tiebreak (not serious, we all know Kamsky's a fighter at the bone)

Breaking News: 2. f4 refutes 1...e5.

Absolutely sensational.

tony37 wrote on 08/15/13 at 16:22:51:


more than seems .... black was busted!

quite the houdini* escape by mr kamsky


* pun NOT intended and no accusation meant .... i realized after posting that idiom probably is a bit too layered here

BreakThru wrote on 08/15/13 at 13:14:39:


kamsky is apparently not a member here and does not seem to know these lines

tony37 wrote on 08/15/13 at 13:07:33:


Thanks for mentioning! A big surprise to Kamsky it seems, already spending more than ten minutes after 2.f4.

[/quote]
Shaw mentions that Sakaev gives this line, and that he only considers 8.Bc4.  Shaw recommends 8.d5!?  After three pages of analysis, he concludes "still a mess but White has the easier practical task."
[/quote]

Yes, indeed. A pity he didn't give additional analysis and or typical plans for white in this double-edged position. Usually he does this very well, but here it is somewhat too open ended for my taste. I think it is definately playable, but it requires soms home-analysis too I think.    
The alternative at move 9 also deserves attention as it might be easier to play. Position remains about equal, but dynamic. If blackplayers follow Sakaev's advice, then they will be surprised by 8.d5!? Surprisevalue and preparation is also something to take into account in these kind of complex positions. 

Jonathan Tait wrote on 08/15/13 at 07:56:23:


I have to agree with that. The modern line might well be the safest choice for black. There are no revolutionary new ideas in this line, but with a bit of preparation it's still possible to surprise the second player. Objectively the chances are balanced though and the resulting positions are more positional than most lines in the KG.

Bump. To remove the sloughter/sf dross for a time anyhow, talk about an opening text and theory.
Good book, great fun so far. 
Impressive coverage of KG Declined, a line I know well.

I was recently browsing through The Petroff - An Expert Repertoire for Black by Konstantin Sakaev (2011) in it he analyses the Quaade variation and concludes that black is better and it is White who must search for salvation. 

Sakaev uses the game Zvjaginsev - Smirnov to illustrate his analysis, the key line centering around 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.g3 g4 6.Nh4 f3 7.d4 Bb4!. His analysis seems convincing, so I am eager to comapre it with what Shaw has found when I get my hands on his book.

Tops