Latest Updates:
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) C41: Philidor Countergambit 3..f5 (Read 12275 times)
AMM
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 110
Location: Barcelona - Spain
Joined: 11/08/07
Gender: Male
Re: Philidor Countergambit 3..f5
Reply #10 - 04/20/11 at 23:23:47
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 04/18/11 at 00:32:14:
motörhead wrote on 01/08/10 at 00:03:32:
4..e4 5.Ng5 Bxf5 6.Nc3 d5 7.f3

Must surely be better than 6.f3 and 7.h4.


It has been demostrated Black is suffering after this serie of moves ( f.i. see Melchor-Elburg above ). Also 7..Be7; 7..Bb4 or 7..Nf6 are not sufficient either ( it has known several games, not neccesary enclose here ).

Maybe relatively best is 7..e3!? 8.Bxe3 Nc6 or 8..h6 9.g4!? hxg5 10.gxf5 Nc6 , an own Black game - draw, with difficulties - from 2006

Another ( last? ) possibility: 4...Bxf5 ( instead of 4..e4 ) and if 5.dxe5 Nc6!? also played by myself
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 900
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Philidor Countergambit 3..f5
Reply #9 - 04/18/11 at 00:32:14
Post Tools
motörhead wrote on 01/08/10 at 00:03:32:
4..e4 5.Ng5 Bxf5 6.Nc3 d5 7.f3

Must surely be better than 6.f3 and 7.h4.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1388
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Philidor Countergambit 3..f5
Reply #8 - 04/18/11 at 00:14:31
Post Tools
All it means is that your opponents did not know how to counter 4 ef5, that's all. What is wrong with the following lines:

4...e4 5 Qe2 Nf6 6 g4 Nxg4 7 Qxe4 Qe7 8 Bd3 Qxe4+ Nf6 9 Bxe4 Nf6 10 Bd3 Nc6 11 c3 d5 12 Bf4 Bd6 13 Bxd6 cxd6 with the idea of ...Ne4 unclear, James R. West, The Dynamic Philidor Counter-Gambit, 2nd edition, 1996

         5 Ng5 Bxf5 6 f3 e3 7 h4 h6 8 Ne4 Be7 9 g3 d5 10 Nc5 Bd6 11 Nxb7 Bxg3+ 12 Ke2 Qf6 =+ 0-1/47,
Budovskis - Eglitis, Latvia 1970
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
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: Philidor Countergambit 3..f5
Reply #7 - 04/14/11 at 13:39:16
Post Tools
Unless someone can rescue black after the simple and strong 4.exf5!, then the fun lines after 4.Nc3 (which are also dubious for black) are a moot point. I've played this myself on occasion, and after 4.exf5 black is fairly miserable to play I can tell you.
  

"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
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1388
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Philidor Countergambit 3..f5
Reply #6 - 04/14/11 at 10:58:08
Post Tools
Laramonet wrote on 04/14/11 at 07:32:22:
Didn't AMM say he considered 5...., d5 dubious ? Unless I'm mis-reading it, his original post was promoting the idea of 5...., Nf6 wasn't it ?


So how come 5...Nf6 is not that well-known?
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Laramonet
Senior Member
****
Offline


Gwyddbwll am byth !

Posts: 309
Location: Kidwelly
Joined: 03/16/07
Gender: Male
Re: Philidor Countergambit 3..f5
Reply #5 - 04/14/11 at 07:32:22
Post Tools
Didn't AMM say he considered 5...., d5 dubious ? Unless I'm mis-reading it, his original post was promoting the idea of 5...., Nf6 wasn't it ?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1388
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Philidor Countergambit 3..f5
Reply #4 - 04/14/11 at 04:22:05
Post Tools
What do you suggest after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 f5 4 Nc3 fxe4 5 Nxe4 d5 6 Neg5 ?
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
motörhead
Full Member
***
Offline


Here comes the bass, thunder
in the guts...

Posts: 226
Joined: 10/09/08
Re: Philidor Countergambit 3..f5
Reply #3 - 01/08/10 at 00:03:32
Post Tools
AMM wrote on 01/01/10 at 14:09:59:
I'm in Schiller's point of view that Philidor Countergambit must be re-directed with simple 4.exf5 f.i.:

4..e4 5.Ng5 Bxf5 6.Nc3 d5 7.f3 e3!? (Kosten) and now 8.f4!? (Pachman, besides 8.Bxe3 h6 9.g4! hxg5 10.gxf5 Nc6 11.Qd2 Be7 12.0-0-0) 8..Nf6 (8..Bb4 9.Bxe3 Nf6 10.Bd3 Destrebecq,F) 9.Bd3 Qd7 10.0-0 Nc6 11.Bxf5 Qxf5 12.Tf3 by trasposition from Latvian gambit, Melchor-Elburg, corr., 6th. LG World Tournament (sf.), 2008-09


Maurits Wind (in Kaissiber #27/2007) too gives 4.exf5 as White's best move - he thinks that Black has no possibility to get a playable position. 
As you he gives 4..e4 5.Ng5 Bxf5 6.Nc3 d5 7.f3 as the main line (with only two minor deviations).
On 7...e3 he continues with 8.Bxe3 Qe7 9.Kf2 h6 10.Nge4 +/-.
As an alternative he gives 7...Qe7 8.Lc4! (or 8.fxe4!) exf3+ 9.Kf2 Qd7 10. Re1+ Be7 11.Qxf3 and Black suffers.
No cure seems to be in sight. Black not even has the possibilty to confuse the game...

By the way, Wind also deals with the moves
4.dxe5 (4...fxe4 5.Ng5 d5 6.e6 Nh6 7.Nc3 c6 8.Ngxe4! Nf5! 9.Nxg5 Qf6 10.Bd3 h6 11.Qf3 g6 12.g4 hxg5 13.gxf5 gxf5 14.Qxf5 Be7 Black has nearly  equalised)
4.Nc3 (in the same way you did) and
4.Bc4 exd4 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.0-0 where he says that Black should try 6...Qf6! e.g. 7.exf5 Bxf5 8.Re1+ Kd7 9.Be6+ Bxe6 10.Nxe6 Nf5.
  

A walk trough the ocean of most souls would scarcely get your feet wet.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
AMM
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 110
Location: Barcelona - Spain
Joined: 11/08/07
Gender: Male
Re: Philidor Countergambit 3..f5
Reply #2 - 01/01/10 at 14:09:59
Post Tools
6..Nf6?! has been always considered as dubtious, and it's not Main Line. Besides 9.c3 also 9.c4!?; 9.Bg5!? or 9.Nc3 g6 ( or 9..c6 ) 10.Bg5! c6 ( 10..Qg7? 11.Nb5! ) 11.f3 exf3 12.Qxf3 Bg7 13.Bd3 and 0-0 with strong preassure on e and f files.

6..Nh6 the most old and obvious move it'is rather complicated but 7.Nc3 c6 8.Ngxe4! and now Nf5!? etc. (Kosten), is the correct way.

I'm in Schiller's point of view that Philidor Countergambit must be re-directed with simple 4.exf5 f.i.:

4..e4 5.Ng5 Bxf5 6.Nc3 d5 7.f3 e3!? (Kosten) and now 8.f4!? (Pachman, besides 8.Bxe3 h6 9.g4! hxg5 10.gxf5 Nc6 11.Qd2 Be7 12.0-0-0) 8..Nf6 (8..Bb4 9.Bxe3 Nf6 10.Bd3 Destrebecq,F) 9.Bd3 Qd7 10.0-0 Nc6 11.Bxf5 Qxf5 12.Tf3 by trasposition from Latvian gambit, Melchor-Elburg, corr., 6th. LG World Tournament (sf.), 2008-09
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
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: Philidor Countergambit 3..f5
Reply #1 - 01/01/10 at 12:02:49
Post Tools
I'm more interested in whether black can justify his exchange sac in this line:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3. d4 f5 4.dxe5 fxe4 5.Ng5 f5 6.e6 Nf6 7.Nf7 Qe7 8.Nxh8 Bxe6 9.c3

Bauer gives the game Novak-Janousek 1995, where black's compensation was gradually eroded after 9...Nc6 10.Bb5 Bd7?! - he suggested three improvements for black's 10th move:

A) 10...Ng4 11.h3 and I am not entirely sure how black's position is improved after 11...Nf6 12.Be3, where white's control of h3 could be useful. He is in no rush to castle k-side...

B) 10...O-O-O does not fill me with confidence either. 11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.Qa4 and black is practically forced to exchange queens with 12...Qc5 13.Be3 Qb5 14.Qxb5 cxb5 15.Bxa7, which is greedy but white is now a whole exchange up. Show me the compensation.

C) 10...Qc5 may be the best of these moves. 11.Qa4 seems logical as a reply, when 11...a6 12.Na3 O-O-O 13.Bxc6 Qxc6 14.Qxc6 bxc6 15.Nc2 seems like a logical follow-up. Black has a strong centre and the bishop pair. White has the exchange for a pawn. Black will still have to spend some time recouping the knight, while white activates the rest of his forces. There might be some comp, but with the queens off I struggle to believe there is enough.

So, before I consider 4.Nc3 (which never worried me in my time playing this as black), I am interested to see your ideas to keep black afloat in this simplest of lines for white. Quick win of material, get the queens off... seems so simple.

Maybe 9...Nbd7 is an instant improvement, allowing 10.Bb5 c6 where the light-square bishop doesn't really have an active role? Still, 10.Qa4 can be a trifle bothersome for preventing q-side castling then, at least for a move, whilst clearing the queen off the d-file before black's rook gets there to push through d4. Incidentally, this is another drawback of Nbd7, that the knight does not support this advance.
  

"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
 
AMM
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 110
Location: Barcelona - Spain
Joined: 11/08/07
Gender: Male
C41: Philidor Countergambit 3..f5
01/01/10 at 06:00:37
Post Tools
Now some sources claim Latvian gambit has been finally refuted in several ways ( with best 3.Nxe5! ), we could put our eyes in other "f5" ruptures, mainly from Philidor's Defence.

         Two years ago had a vigorous online debate between USA NM James West and USA FM Dennis Monokroussos ( http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/chain_1175389056.shtml
) regarding the line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5!?. According Dennis himself, Tony Kosten ("Winning with the Philidor",1992 ), Paul Motwani ( C.O.O.L. / I.C.E.,1997 ) Eric Schiller & John Watson ("Survive and beat annoying chess openings" - Open games -,2003 ) Christian Bauer ("The Philidor files",2006 ) 4.Nc3(!) had been widely judged as the closest move to a refutation. However, in their analysis only 4..fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 (?!) was considered, but in this point they don't say anything on 5..Nf6, a more correct answer.

         The move 5..d5 was also known by trasposition in Latvian gambit circles from long time ago as a bit dubtious, not only for 6.Nxe5!?, if not also specially on 6.Neg5 h6?! 7.Nf7! - indeed, it's not Motwani's "refutation", the move is known from a game Stepanov-Maljutin, Moscow, 1992 -. Moreover, West's 6...exd4 7.Nxd4 Qe7+! as some of his recent games, is an excellent improvement

         Thus, the reply 5..Nf6 was tested in Latvian Gambit by M. Downey ( first "LG World Tournament" champion ), Holland S. De Jong and I myself (!?). In "Myers Opening Butlletin", Maurits Wind already reccomended 6.Nxf6+ gxf6! but the line was already known by Alapin and Zuckertort who analyzed 6.Qe2 and 6.Bd3 respectively - I don't see anything either after 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Nxf6+ Bxf6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 or even 7..gxf6!? -.

         After 5..Nf6 6.Nxf6 gxf6! ( it's easy to imagine logical 6..Qxf6?! is dubtious after 7.Bg5 ) I have 18 games in my Base. It would be appropiate to think on benefiting relatively on Black King's broken flank after 7.Nh4 but 7..Be6 8.Qh5+ Bf7 doesn't anything, Hence, 7.dxe5 is played awaiting 7..fxe5? 8.Ng5! ( 8.Bc4 h6 still with some defence ) 8..Qf6 9.Bc4 with attack according Polugaievsky and played in Schwertel-Burghardt, corr., 1990-91, but, of course, the correct way is 7..dxe5!.

         Now the exchanges of Queens it is not suitable for White, the position is innocuous and Black's King have not any danger in the centre. Some examples after 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8:

             9.Bd2 Bc5 or 9..Bg4 (Maurits Wind)
             9.Be3 Bg4 10.h3 Ba6 11.0-0-0 Nd7 12.Kb1 Bd6 13.Nd2 Ke7 (Sebastian-Hector, Spain, 1989, 0-1,39)
             9.Be3 Be6 10.0-0-0+ Ke8 11.a3 Nd7 12.Nd2 f5!? (12..Kf7=) (Bernini-Fournier, FRA tch3, 2007, 1/2-1/2, 25)
             9.Bd3 Be6 10.0-0 Nd7 11.Nh4 c6 12.Bf5 Bxf5 13.Nxf5 Kc7 = (Gnirk-Melchor, corr. ICCF thematic, 2004-06, 0-1, 25)
            
         Another tries in 8th. move:

             8.Bd3 Nc6? 9.Bd2? Be6 10.0-0 Qe7 11.Qe2 Rg8 12.Rfe1 0-0-0 = (Drüke-Downey, corr. LG thematic, 1990)
             8.Bd3 Nc6? 9.Ng5!! fxg5 10.Qh5+ Kd7 11.Bxg5 Be7 12.Bf5+ ( or 12.Bb5!? Qg8 13.0-0-0+ Bd6 14.Bf6 is even better) 12..Kd6 13.0-0-0+ Nd4 14.Bf4! +- with a very strong attack  (Leko-Tornyai, Keckskemet, 1992, 1-0, 22)

       but 8.Bd3 Bg4 (or 8..Be6 9.0-0 Nc6 10.Be4 Qd6) 9.Qe2 Nc6 10.Bd2 (10.Be3 Qd5 =) 10..Nd4 (10...Dd7 too) 11.Qe3 (a bit better better 11.Qe4) 11..Bxf3 12.gxf3 Qd7 (12...Qd5!?) 13.0-0-0 0-0-0 = (Schmidt-Lenz, Platz, 1996, 1/2-1/2, 21).

            The most interesting (and exciting) games, almost identical, was:

            8.Nd2!? Be6 9.Qf3 Bd5?! 10.Ne4 Be7 11.Be3 c6 12.0-0-0 Nd7 13.Rxd5!! cxd5 14.Qh5+ Kf8 15.Bb5!  Nb6 16.Rd1 with:

              a) 16..h6 17.Qg6 Rg8 18.Ng3 Bc5 19.Nh5 Be7 20.Bxh6+ Rxh6 21.Qxh6+ Kf7 22.Rd3 Rg8 23.Rf3 Rxg2 24.Rxf6+ Kg8 25.Ng3 Qh7 26.Qg5+ 1-0  (Krantz-Downey, corr.,1990-91), and

              b) 16..Kg8 17.Rd3 Bf8 18.Be8! Qe7 19.Bc5 1-0  (De Jong-Melchor, corr., ICCF thematic, 1998-99)

         Of course, it is necessary to improve Blak's play; a simple idea is 9..Nc6 10.Bb5 Qd7 with idea Bg4 and / or 0-0-0 of Borrmann-Melchor, corr. LADAC thema sf., 2008-09 (also 10..h5!? 11.0-0 Be7) the game continued 11.Ne4 (11.Qxf6 Rg8 12.0-0 Be7 and 0-0-0 with clear compensation) 11..0-0-0!? 12.Nxf6 e4! etc.

         Another idea: 9..c6 10.Ne4 Nd7 ( 10..Bg7 11.Bh6! ) 11.Be3 Qa5+

         As you can see there are a nice games with 6..Nf6, so I don't understand "celebrities" gave up with 4.Nc3 ... Maybe readers or "our father" of this web Tony KOSTEN could add something ...

« Last Edit: 07/17/11 at 19:05:05 by Smyslov_Fan »  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo