The Hand wrote on 04/12/09 at 15:47:12:


I once played White against this and the game contined 3.g3 Qe7 4.Nf3 exf4 4.Nc3 d5 5.Kf2!? and I felt that I had a fine game.  White runs to g2 if checked on g4.  In the actual case, though, Black blundered with 5...dxe4 6.Nxe4 Qxe4? 7.Bb5+ and lost.

Has anyone played the Keene line (1.e4 e5?! 2.f4 Qh4+ 3.g3 Qe7)?  I've always been curious about it, but as you can tell, I'm not a big fan of the Black cause in 1.e4 e5?!.   

!

Willempie wrote on 03/09/09 at 08:56:03:


He already has: better centre control and more active pieces (Black's King's Bishop). White just has to prevent Black from equalizing and I admit, knowing from practice, that is not always easy.

Willempie wrote on 03/09/09 at 08:56:03:

Sure. You might say that my remark was not directed to you, but prophylactically of character.  

Stefan Buecker wrote on 03/06/09 at 04:52:43:

As to the chess, all I could find is:
1.e4 e5 2.f4 d6 3.Nf3 f5 4.Bc4! fxe4 [4...Nf6 5.d3 fxe4 (5...d5 6.exd5 intending Qe2) 6.dxe4 Bg4 (6...Nxe4?? 7.Qd5+-; 6...Nbd7 7.Ng5±) 7.fxe5 Bxf3 (7...dxe5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.Nxe5+-) 8.Qxf3 dxe5 9.Be3 intending 0–0 ±; 4...Nc6 5.d3 Nf6 (5...Na5? 6.Bxg8 Rxg8 7.fxe5 dxe5 (7...fxe4 8.dxe4 … Qd5) 8.Nxe5 Intending Qh5) 6.Nc3 … 0–0 ± 6...Na5? 7.fxe5 … Nxe5; 4...exf4 5.d3 Nf6 (5...fxe4 6.dxe4 g5 7.h4! … Ng5) 6.Nc3 Nh5 7.0–0 fxe4 (7...g5 8.Ne5!) 8.dxe4 c6 9.Nd4+- Qh4? 10.g3 fxg3 (10...Nxg3 11.Rxf4) 11.Bf7+ Kd8 12.Qxh5 gxh2+ 13.Kh1+-] 5.Nxe5 dxe5 [5...d5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Nxg6 Nf6 8.Qe5+ … Nxh8] 6.Qh5+ Kd7 [6...Ke7 7.Qxe5+] 7.Qf5+ [7.Bxg8!?] 7...Kc6 8.Qxe4+ Kb6 9.Nc3± … Na4+ 9...c6 10.fxe5 a6 [10...Kc7 11.d4 b6 12.Bf4 … 0–0–0 & d5] 11.d4 Ka7 12.Be3 Nd7 13.d5+ … 0–0–0, d6 & e6 from Kings Gambit Declined Classical Defences by Leach.
As to its quality, that is best left to those of you may feel the need to prepare for something obscure.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 03/06/09 at 04:52:43:

New in chess magazine No7 1997 said it best when commenting on Peter Svidler’s use of Basman’s Be2 system in the Sicilian to beat Gary Kasparov. Kasparov’s second at the time, Yury Dokhoian was purported to have said “if we starting analysing c3 and d3 Sicilians we won’t get anything serious done”.
Same thing applies to 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d6 3.Nf3 f5

As to:
Schaakhamster wrote on 03/06/09 at 05:31:16:

Usually weak players?...Maybe yes, maybe no but Mehmed Pasalic (2355) @ Dortmund (1995), Spyridon Skembris (2420) @ Athens (1996), Benjamin Bujisho (2220) @ Accession (1996)
And Miss. Catherine Perena (2227) @ Manlia (2006) all of who have used the line in question would maybe disagree with your sweeping generalization. (There are also some historical examples available stemming from the 1.e4 d6 2.f4 e5 move order) I think my old coach summed it up well....."Assumption even in chess is the mother of all (insert expletive) ups."
And finally
Schaakhamster wrote on 03/06/09 at 05:31:16:

I know who he is. I have “Die Nordwalder Variante” and “Englund Gambit’, both in German (which I do not speak but chess is the universal language here) . So I know what he can do and I do understand the quality of what he can produce. However, especially when it comes to chess, I have never been a one for any sort of hero worship. After all it is that sort of blind faith in titles and what people have achieved that has given us such top quality authors as Eric Schiller to name just one.

HTH

@LeeRoth,

I suggest you take a look at 5...Nf6 6.d4,Bd6 7.Qe2+,Qe7
(look up the game J.Polgar-Briem, Reykjavik, 1988.
Besides, I feel that exchanging on c6 is not as nearly effective for White if Black's knight is on f6 rather than on e7.

That being said I think the Nimzo Counter is  not the most effective move order to enter either the Bishop Gambit or the Modern Defense.

It's the main line that is troubling to me.  1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 c6 4.Nc3 exf4 5.Nf3 Bd6 6.d4 Ne7 7.dxc6 Nbxc6 8.Bc4 O-O 9. O-O Bg4 10.Ne4 Bc7 11.c3 Ng6 12.Nf2 Bf5 13.Bd3 +/=.

SWJediknight wrote on 03/07/09 at 00:24:13:


I don't think it's entirely sound.  I believe that White is significantly better after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 c6 4.Nc3 exf4 5.Bc4 Qh4+ 6.Kf1 f3 7.d3 fxg2 8.Kxg2 Bg4 9.Qd2.

Further, concerning 2...d6, I think that 3.Nf3 f5 4.exf5 Bxf5 5.Nc3 is good for White.  For instance 5...exf4 6.d4.  I don't think it requires a whole heck of a lot of study by the White partisans, either.

Since 2...d6 is neither "wild" nor "wacky" (thanks to Gambit, I learned a new word), I shouldn't have nominated it in the first place. I do believe that the refined "Krause" version of the move is OK for Black, while passive treatments are generally what White is hoping for. Of course Black won't lose by force (the same can be said about 2...c5).