Markovich wrote on 01/15/10 at 15:54:25:

Yes, I had noticed this added bonus possibility. In fact our forum friend John Cox recommends Black play 2...e5 against 2.Nc3 in his book, which would suit 4 Knights specialists - what exactly is wrong with 2...d5 is a question for another forum 

Markovich wrote on 11/18/09 at 15:08:58:


I´ve just been looking at some recent 2009 games in the 4 Knights, and have to admit that this is a very interesting approach with the White pieces against 1...e5. Its also quite solid which helps when playing stronger opponents. Against the Petroff I suspect 3...Bb4 would be quite popular - those lines seem solid enough for Black but White still has good chances for a niggle with the 2 Bishops. So, to sum up, I agree!

I would say that it depends wholly on your definition of "extensive". I would say even the deepest lines of the 5...Nxe4 Belgrade are a drop in the ocean compared to the early d4 Ruy, the Guioco Piano etc. There's also a lot of variations in the Evans Gambit which are not necessarily bad for black even if white plays correctly.

6.Bc4 sidesteps a lot of the main lines of the Belgrade and promises reasonable compensation (again I'll direct to the other thread rather than repost here) - Bruce Monson demonstrated a sideline which was quite reasonable and most tries for black seem to be okay for white (there was one line as I remember which ended up with black saccing a pawn at the end for some q-side pressure, but white should ojectively be fine here too). Or, white can suck it up and just learn the main line with 6.Qe2, which is again probably equallish and which most black players will stumble in at some point.

Also, bearing in mind that 90% of 1...e5 players have been thankfully brainwashed into playing the insipid 5...Be7, and with almost no sources offering a decent assessment and discussion of white's options here, I'd recommend the Belgrade for time to come.

I would say it is theory-lite, as opposed to theory-less. It certainly isn't theory-heavy, and other than the 5...Nex4 line (which is forcing) the rest can be played on experience.

CraigEvans wrote on 11/23/09 at 19:06:18:


The Belgrade is certainly an interesting suggestion, especially for players who love gambits in the opening, but would this opening fit the requirement of being low on theory? Last time I checked the theory on 5...Ne4 was quite extensive, although as far as I know, the theory doesn't change very rapidly in this line.

I'm going to risk the abuse of others, and suggest the Belgrade - 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5

Almost no-one knows how to correctly play this as black, and those on this forum who have regularly played it (see the Belgrade Gambit thread for details) have scored hugely with it. My personal record is over 90% against opponents between 1700-2100, and my Welsh rating is only 1930 or so (FIDE 2030).

You will see a lot of 5...Be7 "with easy equality", and you will see yourself outplay these players from the resulting position time and time again. It may be equal, but white's position is easier to play, and along with the undoubted experience factor as you play the opening more and more, you'll find yourself chalking up huge scores.

It has the benefit that it is pretty much 100% sound - the only line which could possibly pose any threat to the Belgrade is 5...Nxe4, but almost no-one plays this and, even those who do, are not necessarily familiar with all the pitfalls. Even then, it is likely white has enough play for his sacrifices. You'll see a few people running to chastise me with claims of "complete equality" after 5...Be7 and 5...Nb4 - but like most chess openings of course black can equalise. Doing so and being able to handle the resulting positions, however, is another thing... and in my experience, even strong masters are inexperienced and make basic errors in the resulting positions.

(I know blitz scores are not necessarily of any note, but I recall at last count I had scored something like 82% with the Belgrade from 25-30 blitz openings against IM/GMs on ICC. Now I'm no mug, but I'm several hundred points light of being at their level, and I don't believe that the shortness of time alone is responsible for that sort of performance.)

Give the Belgrade a whirl, seriously - there are far worse openings out there. Some of which have been named on this thread in fact - I would put this gambit comfortably alongside or above the Evans and the Danish in terms of soundness, and no less playable than the Vienna Gambits and Centre Games of this world. If you're looking for a white advantage, forget it... if you're looking for a middlegame with a nice initiative and decent chances, where understanding of the typical themes equals points in the bag, then the Belgrade is as good as anything out there. Even at IM/GM level it scores respectably, even if it's never been particularly fashionable.

ArKheiN wrote on 11/23/09 at 10:54:35:


Agreed on the full-on Frankenstein-Dracula.

Quote:


I think if dealing with a booked opponent 6. Qxe5 leaves more imbalance than 6. Nf3. 6. Nf3 is probably more dangerous against the unwary.

That's my opinion. Then again, black should probably just play 3...Nc6 against the Vienna, intending 4. d3 Na5

huggy wrote on 11/18/09 at 14:49:31:


As far as I know the Evans Gambit is completely sound. The problem is not that Black can refute it, ie prove an advantage no matter how small. The problem is how to maintain winning chances against 5...Be7. I would advise you to look at this first; if you like it you may decide to pick up 3.Bc4 indeed.

You could do a lot worse than Bishop's opening/Vienna, going into the Frankenstein Dracula (black never remembers it, though there is a narrow equalising line I believe)

Iirc I think I originally got it from the old Gufeld book, which, despite the author, was pretty good:
http://www.amazon.com/Opening-Repertoire-Attacking-Player-Eduard/dp/1857441966

then used Emm's Attacking with e4
http://www.chesshouse.com/Attacking_p/6188.htm

Also check games by e.g. Ian Rogers, Mirumian. 

Theory lite, easy to get chopping with. Avoids Petroff. 
Never lost with it, won plenty (but have been higher rated than most of my opponents, must be said).

Advantage of non-mainline sicilian, non-Ruy. Players who know 15-20 moves of theory in their backyard, suddenly have to think at move 5-10 or so. They are not good, so they can't. Easy pickings.