Latest Updates:
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) A weird gambit in the Tarrasch (Read 6719 times)
CraigEvans
God Member
*****
Offline


If I can't sacrifice a
pawn, I'll throw my rook
in

Posts: 588
Location: Bryn, South Wales
Joined: 07/14/03
Gender: Male
Re: A weird gambit in the Tarrasch
Reply #15 - 06/18/09 at 22:05:56
Post Tools
There is another thread on this opening here somewhere, which I was involved in some years back. I tried to rehabilitate it at the time with a drunken double-knight sacrifice which didn't quite work... but 9.Bf4 looks like an interesting attempt - I had not seen this game but it looks like a good attempt. I think talk of a "refutation" is quite strong, and having played this OTB and in correspondence, no-one is yet to refute it against me.
Still, as Stefan says, 6.d5 remains a viable option - of course white gets no advantage, but he gets a sharp game in positions that black is almost certain to be unfamiliar with. And to boot I don't think it is bad, either.
  

"Give a man a pawn, and he'll smell a rat. Give a man a piece, and he'll smell a patzer." - Me.

"If others have seen further than me, it is because giants have been standing on my shoulders."
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1382
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: A weird gambit in the Tarrasch
Reply #14 - 06/06/09 at 14:53:31
Post Tools
Bibs wrote on 06/06/09 at 14:32:44:
An invention of Simon Williams I think.

He invented 7.Nge2?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2159
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: A weird gambit in the Tarrasch
Reply #13 - 06/06/09 at 14:32:44
Post Tools
An invention of Simon Williams I think.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1382
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: A weird gambit in the Tarrasch
Reply #12 - 06/06/09 at 10:57:59
Post Tools
Vladimir wrote on 06/05/09 at 19:41:37:
Albeit ashamed at my dearth of sources, I feel compelled to ask if Kaissiber/NIC/DW offer any insight as to the status of the old main line 6.d5 since it hasn't been mentioned yet.

In Kaissiber 1 I gave 6.d5 f5 =+, maybe this was too negative, 6.d5 remains an interesting option which results in sharp games. I haven't checked new sources, but don't believe that White has an advantage after 6.d5 f5 or 6.Bb5+ Bd7 7.dxc5 (Marshall) or 7.Nge2.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1382
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: A weird gambit in the Tarrasch
Reply #11 - 06/06/09 at 01:38:25
Post Tools
TN wrote on 06/05/09 at 23:43:51:
@Stefan Buecker

Your 6...Nf6 7.Nge2 idea (which hasn't been played in practice) appears to be an improvement over the 7.Qb3 variation, but I don't think it suffices for equality after 7...Nc6 8.Be3 cd4 9.Nd4 Ne5 or 8.d5 Ne5 9.Bb5 Bd7 10.Bd7 Qd7.

8.d5 Ne5 9.Bb5+ Bd7 10.0-0, e.g. 10...Bxb5 11.Nxb5 Qd7 12.Bf4 Bd6 13.Nxd6+ Qxd6 14.b4 cxb4 15.Bxe5 Qxe5 16.Qa4+, =.

TN wrote on 06/05/09 at 23:43:51:
I disagree with your claim that '6...cd4 is forcing and -/+', based on the game S.Williams-R.Williamson, which continued as follows:

7.Qb3 Nf6 8.Bf7 Ke7 9.Bf4! Nc6 (9...Na6 10.Rd1 Nc5 11.Qc4 Nd3 12.Rd3 ed3 13.Nb5 is unclear according to Williams, an assessment I agree with) 10.Bc4!N (an improvement over the previously played 10.Nd5) 10...Na5 [...]
If these variations are covered in more detail in Kaissiber, then I would be interested in your analyses of this line.

The new idea 9.Bf4 was missing in Kaissiber 1; after 9...Nc6 (or 9...dxc3, White's sacrifice seems dubious) 10.Bc4 g5 11.Bg3 (11.Bxg5 dxc3) Qb6 White is in difficulties: -/+.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: A weird gambit in the Tarrasch
Reply #10 - 06/05/09 at 23:43:51
Post Tools
@Stefan Buecker

Your 6...Nf6 7.Nge2 idea (which hasn't been played in practice) appears to be an improvement over the 7.Qb3 variation, but I don't think it suffices for equality after 7...Nc6 8.Be3 cd4 9.Nd4 Ne5 or 8.d5 Ne5 9.Bb5 Bd7 10.Bd7 Qd7.

I disagree with your claim that '6...cd4 is forcing and -/+', based on the game S.Williams-R.Williamson, which continued as follows:

7.Qb3 Nf6 8.Bf7 Ke7 9.Bf4! Nc6 (9...Na6 10.Rd1 Nc5 11.Qc4 Nd3 12.Rd3 ed3 13.Nb5 is unclear according to Williams, an assessment I agree with) 10.Bc4!N (an improvement over the previously played 10.Nd5) 10...Na5 11.Qb4 Ke8 12.Qb5 Bd7 (12...Nc6 is probably better, when Flear considers 13.0-0-0 Bd6 14.Nge2 Bf4 15.Bf4 and states 'White has a big lead in development and I doubt that he is worse'). 12...Bd7 13.Qe5 Be7 14.Qd4 Nc4 15.Qc4 Rc8 16.Qb3 Qa5 17.Nge2 Qa6 18.0-0 Be6 19.Qb5 Kf7 (19...Qb5! 20.Nb5 Kf7 is equal according to Flear) 20.Qa6 ba6 21.Ng3 Rhd8 22.Rfe1 with an edge for White, who went on to win.

If these variations are covered in more detail in Kaissiber, then I would be interested in your analyses of this line.
  

All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Ben_Hague
Full Member
***
Offline


I'm always happier when
I'm a pawn down.

Posts: 157
Location: Oldham
Joined: 06/20/03
Gender: Male
Re: A weird gambit in the Tarrasch
Reply #9 - 06/05/09 at 20:04:38
Post Tools
What's the theoretical status of 9.Bf4? I know Dangerous Weapons rates it quite highly, and Simon Williams has played it. This game was also quite good fun to play through.
[Event "FSIM July"]
[Site "Budapest HUN"]
[Date "2008.07.06"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Vegh, Endre"]
[Black "Adams, N"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2298"]
[BlackElo "2222"]
[ECO "D32l"]
[EventDate "2008.07.05"]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.e4 dxe4 6.Bc4 cxd4 7.Qb3 Nf6 8.Bxf7+ Ke7 9.Bf4 dxc3 10.Rd1 Qb6 11.Bd6+ Qxd6 12.Rxd6 Kxd6 13.Ne2 c2 14.O-O Nc6 15.Qg3+ Ke7 16.Bb3 Ke8 17.Rc1 Bd7 18.Rxc2 Rc8 19.h3 g6 20.Nc3 Be7 21.Nb5 Kf8 22.Nd6 Bxd6 23.Qxd6+ Kg7 24.g4 g5 25.Rc5 Rhf8 26.Rxg5+ Kh8 27.Rc5 e3 28.fxe3 Ne4 29.Qd3 Ne5 30.Rxc8 Nf3+ 31.Kh1 Nf2+ 32.Kg2 Ne1+ 33.Kf1 1-0
I particularly like the way Black's knights are at the same time brilliant and useless.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vladimir
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 60
Joined: 05/22/09
Re: A weird gambit in the Tarrasch
Reply #8 - 06/05/09 at 19:41:37
Post Tools
Albeit ashamed at my dearth of sources, I feel compelled to ask if Kaissiber/NIC/DW offer any insight as to the status of the old main line 6.d5 since it hasn't been mentioned yet.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1382
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: A weird gambit in the Tarrasch
Reply #7 - 06/05/09 at 18:14:01
Post Tools
TN wrote on 06/05/09 at 10:40:46:
This gambit is weak because of 6...Nf6 7.Qb3 Nc6!, when according to the Yearbook survey and Dangerous Weapons, Black is clearly better.

6...cxd4! is forcing and -/+. That's what I'd call a refutation. How can 6...Nf6? be better, which leaves White the escape 7.Nge2 (about =)?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: A weird gambit in the Tarrasch
Reply #6 - 06/05/09 at 10:40:46
Post Tools
This gambit is weak because of 6...Nf6 7.Qb3 Nc6!, when according to the Yearbook survey and Dangerous Weapons, Black is clearly better. If you can find an improvement for White against this line, then it would be a sensible option against the Tarrasch, but otherwise I strongly recommend avoiding this line in practice, as most strong players will already know the refutation.

However, whilst on the subject of rare lines against the Tarrasch, 4.cd5 ed5 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Bf4!? carries a large dose of venom.

  

All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
zoo
Ex Member


Re: A weird gambit in the Tarrasch
Reply #5 - 06/04/09 at 18:39:03
Post Tools
Great service! thanks for the links & analysis. Indeed Nf6 is bad news for White.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: A weird gambit in the Tarrasch
Reply #4 - 06/04/09 at 16:35:51
Post Tools
This is also treated in a fairly recent NIC yearbook, again with the recommendation of 7...Nf6.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1382
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: A weird gambit in the Tarrasch
Reply #3 - 06/04/09 at 15:26:11
Post Tools
6.Bc4 in the Marshall Gambit was introduced in O'Connell - Morris, Debrezin 1992 (European Team Ch.). In Kaissiber 1 (1996) I analyzed the game Cech - Frolik, Luhacovice 1993, saying that after 6...cxd4 7.Qb3 the reply 7...Nf6 gave Black an advantage, while other moves seemed to give White compensation. In Kaissiber 2 (1997) Harald Keilhack added more analysis to demonstrate that 7...Nf6 was strong. A few years later 6.Bc4 was discussed in this forum, and Scherbakov recommended 7...Nf6 in the subscribers section. A game Nadanian - Godena, 2000, was also important. Search for those names to find the threads.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
zoo
Ex Member


Re: A weird gambit in the Tarrasch
Reply #2 - 06/04/09 at 15:09:33
Post Tools
oh, after 7...Nf6 8.Bf7+ Ke7, you propose that White lets his Knight "en prise" and plays for an attack ? sounds interesting...

By the way, does anybody know if this is standard or at least well-known tarrasch theory, and what the best course is for both players after 5.e4 ?

NB. if this thread belongs to 1.d4 d5, hopefully the moderators may relocate it properly ?  
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TicklyTim
Senior Member
****
Offline


can I take that back,
please...

Posts: 274
Location: England
Joined: 05/29/09
Gender: Male
Re: A weird gambit in the Tarrasch
Reply #1 - 06/04/09 at 14:51:42
Post Tools
If you're happpy letting the f7 pawn go and messing your king about, then why not dxc3 going a knight up, rather than keeping central pawns - though a later Ba3 might be scary! I think letting the king get chased in the open looks very risky, though don't know any theory on it.
I remember a Karl Mah (england) game that was oft quoted, I'll just dig it out...
6...cxd4 7.Qb3!? Qe7 8.Nd5 Qd7 9.Bf4 Bd6 10.Qg3! Bxf4 11.Qxf4 Kd8 12.Qe5! Nc6? 13.Qxg7 Qg4 14.Qf8+ Kd7 15.Qxf7+ Kd8 16.Qc7+ Ke8 17.Qd6! 1-0, Mah - Vukovic, 1995

P.S: this is really a 1.d4 d5 opening
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
zoo
Ex Member


A weird gambit in the Tarrasch
06/04/09 at 14:27:12
Post Tools
Hello there!
Being primarily an e4 player, I try to alternate with 1.c4 without embarking on too much d4 theory, and in this respect 1.c4 e6 proves rather challenging.
After 1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4 c5 4.cd ed, I saw a weird idea in an online encyclopedia : 5.e4 intending 5...dxe4 6.Bc4 cxd4 7.Qb3 (see diagram).

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*
After a natural move like 7...Qd7 8.Nxe4, Black seems to have a problem with his black bishop, especially since the plan of ...a5-Bb4 runs into a timely Bxf7+ followed by Ne4-d6+. However in the diagram position I'm more concerned with 7...Nf6, letting go of f7 but retaining the central pawns. Do you feel White retains enough compensation here? I fear this whole idea of 5.e4 may just be crap, and would like to learn more from you guys.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo