CheckMate wrote on 05/06/09 at 18:24:10:
It's the Adelaide counter gambit.
The problem is that White can play 3. Nc3 upon which Black has no better move than ... exf4 which leads to the Pierce gambit.
Actually, I swore I would not get involved with a Markovich contolled forum again but I really have to challenge this. Nothing better after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nc3 than to play 3…exf4 and to play into the Pierce Gambit?
The ‘nothing better’ comment, I take it stems from the universal opinion that to decline it 3…Bc5?! leads to a poor King’s Gambit declined because of the move order allowing 4.Nf3 d6 5.Bb5! (The Complete Vienna. Tseitlen/Glaskov)? The thing is Gary Lane in his book “Vienna Game” tends to suggest that a counter pin with 5…Bg4! offers Black some chances in the position. Mr. Lane cites 6.Na4! Bb6 7.Nxb6 axb6 8.d3 exf4 9.0–0 Nf6 10.h3 Bxf3 11.Qxf3 g5 12.Bxf4 gxf4 13.Qxf4 Rg8 14.Qxf6 Qxf6 15.Rxf6 Ke7 16.Raf1 from the game Vegh-Noordhoeck , Seville 1993 where white had a pawn and the intiative. But even there, why 6…Bb6 if Black was willing to try the “Aderlaide Counter Gambit” then what about 6…Nge7!?. Indeed, Huber in his chessbase CD states that after 7.fxe5 0-0 8.exd6 is + over = but Blacks initative was not quite enough in the game Rudolf-Pacovsky 1999. But if you check that game out surely 8…Bxd6 is a far better try.
Also so if you throw 3…Bc5?! aside, you have 3…Bb4!?. Check out The Kenilworth Chess Club web page, under the title “My Anti-Pierce Defense” by Michael Goeller. This move is not mentioned by either Tseitlen & Glaskov or Lane and is only mentioned in passing in foot notes in ECO vol C 1981 (as + over =). So all in all, ‘nothing better’ is not altogther accurate
And as for the Pierce Gambit. I am no expert but hasn’t that been more or less buggered by 7…Nxd4 in the main line? Why is it that the Hamppe Allgaier Gambit 3…exf4 4.Nf3 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng5!? is still considered so unplayable despite all of the practical results?
Cheers
HTH
Pages: 1
C30: Kings Gambit Curiosity (Read 5246 times)
