Latest Updates:
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) From Gambit (Read 49970 times)
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 1478
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: From Gambit
Reply #50 - 11/08/21 at 18:03:07
Post Tools
Bibs wrote on 11/08/21 at 08:36:25:
1.f4 g5

I admit to having played this in online blitz.

I have also played it a few times, via 1.f4 h6 2."any" g5, once in a rated OTB game. I won with black but that proves nothing. I tried it again recently in a casual game and almost managed to dig myself out of the hole, but failed in the end. The Hobbs (or Hobbs Deferred) is not good, but like the Wing Gambit (1.e4 c5 2.b4) it's not as bad as it looks. I'm not posting any refutations, though, because this thread is supposed to be about the From Gambit.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
proustiskeen
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


Hello from Omaha!

Posts: 677
Joined: 08/11/08
Re: From Gambit
Reply #49 - 11/08/21 at 16:49:24
Post Tools
A warning to all - play nicely. Thank you.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MartinC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 2042
Joined: 07/24/06
Re: From Gambit
Reply #48 - 11/08/21 at 09:45:18
Post Tools
Something quite impressively calm looking - if maybe well known - from LC0 after a quick look.

After 4 Nf3 Nf6 5 g3 Nc6 6 xx it tends to revert to h5,h4 stuff but After 6 d4 it just goes o-o, h6, Qd7, Bg4 develops its rooks and seems to generate plausible play vs the weak e4 spot.

If you let it play its inevitable(?) first idea of 5.. h5 then after 6 d4 h4 7 gh it basically does the same, except obviously with queen side castling instead!
(Nc6, Bf5, Qd7, o-o-o etc.).

White's judged around a soft 60% there, maybe a little less and it seemed quite easy to get into a bit of a tangle.

Its not so scared of 5 Nc3, so I suppose it thinks its getting on for playable. Mind you given that it thinks 1 f4 d5 gives black a tiny advantage, and all of Nf6, e6, c5, g6, Nc6, c6, a6, Nh6, d6, f5, h6, b6, h5, and b5 are better first moves for black this isn't really approval Smiley

Actually 1 f4 h5 is amusingly 'logical' - 2 e4 d5!? and otherwise it reverts to d5/Nf6 in classical style, with the reversed Leningrad heavily deterred!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2333
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: From Gambit
Reply #47 - 11/08/21 at 08:36:25
Post Tools
@L4L

Better to cool it. The rudeness is certainly unwelcome.
Let’s play nicely shall we?

1.f4 g5

I admit to having played this in online blitz. I don’t believe it, but one can find that Birds players can sometimes be one trick ponies (see also: BDG). As such, often not familiar with the various g4 gambits versus the Dutch, and suitable responses.

Is it ‘sound’? No. Is it advisable v titled players OTB? No. Does it work v 2300-2400 players in lichess at 2-1 and 3-2? Yes, but that’s practical stuff, not theoretical judgment. 


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 1478
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: From Gambit
Reply #46 - 11/08/21 at 06:31:54
Post Tools
Level-4-Lab wrote on 11/08/21 at 05:59:33:
Gambit wrote on 01/19/10 at 07:46:37:
The From Gambit is too well-known. Not so the Hobbs, 1 f4 g5


After 2.fxg5, where is the compensation for Black?

I'm not defending 1...g5, but it has been analyzed in replies 13, 16, 17, and 36. Ignoring that analysis and saying "where is the compensation" is not helping anybody.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 1478
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: From Gambit
Reply #45 - 08/20/19 at 02:04:19
Post Tools
I agree that 4.d4 is better for white, but I am having trouble with A3. 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 g5 4.d4 g4 5.Ng5 d5 6.Nc3 Be7 7.e4 (these last two plies are my best guess) dxe4 8.Ngxe4 Qxd4 and here you have 9.Bb5+ (?). Stockfish gives  simply 9.Qxd4 Nxd4 10.Bd3.
Edited:
i wrote 5.d4
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Latvian1
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 3
Joined: 08/17/19
Re: Neo-From Gambit
Reply #44 - 08/19/19 at 18:52:28
Post Tools
A2. After 5…d6 6. e4! Black has two reasonable looking attempts, 6…Bh6 or h6. (6…  Be7 is significantly weaker). We analyse each briefly in turn.  A2(i)  6….Bh6 7.h4 dxe5 8.d5 Nce7 9.Nc3 a6 . Now instead of Lakdawala’s   10.Be2  10.Bc4  Stockfish evaluates this position as clearly better for White. (+1.71 depth 40).
A2(ii) After 6…h6 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.e6+! Ke8 (8… Bxe6 9.d5) 
Lakdawala continues  9.Qxg4 Qf6 10.d5 Ne5  here 11.Qh3 improves on his suggested 11.Qh5+  and after the proposed moves of Stockfish and Komodo 11…..Be7 12.Be2 Qh4+ 13.Qxh4 Bxh4+ 14.g3 Stockfish evaluates the position as better for White +1.1 depth 40.
Variation A3. This is the most interesting and the variations are new. After   5….d4  White continues with the new move 6.Nc3!  Best for Black is 7….Bxg4 ( 7….dxe4 8.Ngxe4 Qxd4 ( 8…Nxd4 9.Nd6+)  9.Bb5+ evaluation  +1.37 depth 40)
8.exd5! Bxc1 9.Rxc1 Nce7 10.Bc4 Nf5 11.0-0 Qg5 ..The position at this point deserves a diagram because the best white move based on position evaluation  is only found By Stockfish or Komodo after a depth of 35 is reached.The key move is 12. Bb5+  with an evaluation of +1.27 at depth 45. 12…Kd8  is evaluated as the best move though 12…Kf8  should be investigated by the From player. Overall White can bust the Neo-From.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Latvian1
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 3
Joined: 08/17/19
Re: NEO-From Gambit
Reply #43 - 08/19/19 at 18:48:25
Post Tools
After 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 g5 the computers at this stage are in agreement that 4.d4 is best. After 4….g4  5.Ng5  we have the stem position.   There are three variations to consider, A1. 5…Bh6, A2. 5…d6  and A3. 5…d4.
Variation A1.
The analysis of this variation by GM Kosten (Chess publishing.com) or Lakdawala can be very substantially improved. In fact White has a near winning advantage in this line.
After  6. Ne4 Bxc1 7. Qxc1 Nxd4  8.Nbc3 Qh4+ Now  instead of 9.Nf2 as played in T.Bohn- K.Ziimmermann, Germany 2003, and endorsed by Lakdawala, White plays 9.g3 Qh5  and now 10.Qf4!  gives White a  winning advantage.(Stockfish depth 41 + 2.59).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Confused_by_Theory
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 521
Location: Europe
Joined: 05/13/15
Gender: Male
Re: From Gambit
Reply #42 - 11/22/15 at 15:25:06
Post Tools
Hello.

In the line being discussed:
(1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.e3 Ng4 7.Ne4)

This 7...Nc6 move looks very reasonable.

I took a look at 8.Bb5, which I originally thought must be the way to play the position for white. As detailed in the last post other modes of development look to give black a very free game. With Bb5 and a later exchange on c6 however white seems to be able to diffuse most of black's pressure. The price he pays though is that there will be some simplification of the position and not in many continuations does it seem like white gains an edge that is entirely relevant.



Have a nice day.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Knightcut
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Unclear chess rocks!

Posts: 27
Location: Denmark
Joined: 04/04/11
Gender: Male
Re: From Gambit
Reply #41 - 11/21/15 at 15:32:58
Post Tools
In Kaissiber 36# (2010) after 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Nc3, Hergert considered 5...0-0 insufficient in view of 6.e3 Ng4 ("?" Hergert) 7.Ne4 Nxh2 8.Nxh2 etc.

Here is a new idea: (5...0-0 6.e3 Ng4 7.Ne4) 7...Nc6! 8.Nxd6 Qxd6! and Black has space, development and open lines. White has a pawn and a cramped position.

Sample lines:

9.Be2 Bf5! 10.0-0 Nb4 with attack

9.c3 Bf5! 10.d4 Rfe8 with attack

9.Bc4 Bf5! 10.d3 (10.0-0 Be4 =+) Rae8 equal/unclear

9.Bd3!? is Stockfish's favourite evaluating it to a very slight
White edge, but who would want to play that, locking in ones owns pawns?

My feeling is that Black has good compensation, but I may have overlooked something - or am I just over estimating Blacks pluses?

By the way, does anyone know about any examples of 5.Nc3 in practical play since 2010? In my database it seems that 5.d4 remains the most popular choise (and Black fares well with around fifty percent). 5.e3 has been seen twice (2-0).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3142
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: From Gambit
Reply #40 - 05/20/11 at 10:45:20
Post Tools
I've modified a couple of the posts so that the games can be played through - don't forget to use the two new buttons - 'PGN' for games and the one to the right with a chess board for diagrams! Roll Eyes
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
AMM
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 110
Location: Barcelona - Spain
Joined: 11/08/07
Gender: Male
Re: From Gambit
Reply #39 - 05/09/11 at 14:12:43
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote:Thanks. On 4...g5 Volker Hergert had considered both 5.g3 and 5.c3, because the former is the main line in most sources, and because he believed that 5.c3! +/- was strong and close to a refutation of 4...g5. The intended contrast (between the main line 5.g3, which doesn't give White much, on one side and the unusual 5.c3! +/- on the other side) was later spoiled by me, when I found a hidden rescue for Black at a moment when much of the layout work was already done. It seemed too late to include 5.d4. We still believe that Kaissiber #36 shows convincingly that Black has an easier life after 4...Nf6, in comparison to 4...g5, when both 5.g3 and 5.c3 appear to involve more risks for Black. But the difference between g5 and Nf6 is not as big as it had seemed at first. The "!" after 4...Nf6 on page 30 can be seen as just a relic of the earlier version.

In 1989-91 I had invested much time on studying the Bird and From's Gambit, for a work on 1.f4 which never reached the shops. But I had always preferred 5.g3 or 5.c3!? over 5.d4, because the latter seemed a bit boring. Obviously I was mistaken, the new ideas later developed for White make it difficult for Black to equalize.



STEFAN, I didn't know you had analyzed 5.c3!?, but I noticed this move from a GM who lives in my city. I don't know Hergert's point of view in Kaissiber 36 either, but look following games which I consider very interesting:

A) 5..Nc6 6.Qa4 ( 6.d4!? g4 7.Ng5 ) 6..g4 7.Nd4 ( 7.Qe4+ Qe7 8.Qxe7+ Ngxe7= ) 7..Qh4+ 8.g3! Bxg3+ 9.Kd1 Bd7 10.Bg2 Bf2?! ( 10..Nd8! see analysis in C ) 11.Ncx6 bxc6? ( 11..Ne7 12.Qf4! ) 12.Bxc6 ( 12.Rf1! and 13.Qf4 ) 12..Rd8 was Meca (2065)-Melchor (2085), Barcelona, 2001 and now I think 13.Bxd7+ Rxd7 14.Qf4! is adventagous for White ( anyway first player won in 29 moves with 13.d3 etc. )

B) 5..g4 6.Qa4+ ( unique ) 6..Nc6 ( 6..Bd7 then perhaps 7.Qe4+ Ne7 8.Ne5 ) 7.Nd4 Bd7 ( 7..Qh4+ trasposes to A ; 7..Nge7 8.Nb5 += ) 8.Nb5 ( maybe better 8.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.Qxg4 ) 8..Nf6 ( 8..Be5!? and if 9.d4 a6! ) 9.Nxd6+ cxd6 10.d3 with initiative ( menacing Bg5 or Na3 and Nc4/Nb5 ) as Guerrero (2212)-Oms (2104), Barcelona, 2002 ( finally, 1-0 )

C) 5..g4 6.Qa4+ Nc6 7.Nd4 ( trasposing to A ) 7..Qh4+ 8.g3! Bxg3+ 9.Kd1 Bd7 10.Bg2 Nge7?! ( 10..Nd8! as pointed by R.Guerrero is the correct move. There are dotzens of lines, I'll give some as example: 11.Nb5 - 11.Qc2 Bd6 - 11..Be5!? - 11..Bd6 13.Nxd6 cxd6 14.Qd4 with initiative; 11..Bxb5 12.Qxb5+ c6 13.Qc5 - 12.d4 c6 - or 12..a6 13.N1a3 and 12..Qf2 - 13.dxe5 cxb5 in all them very complicated game ) 11.hxg3 Qxg3 12.Bxc6 bxc6 (!?) 13.Qa5!? trying to avoid ..h5. Finally game ended draw after hard battle, but logically White should to have win, Melchor (2040)-Guerrero (2212), Barcelona, 2002

Anyboby knows more games of theoretical intherest ?
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10709
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: From Gambit
Reply #38 - 12/17/10 at 20:03:18
Post Tools
Taimanov (1980) thinks 8.d4 better: h4 9.Bf4 or 9.Rg1.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
hiperburn
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 13
Location: Argentina
Joined: 12/10/08
Gender: Male
Re: From Gambit
Reply #37 - 12/17/10 at 15:12:25
Post Tools
A recent game with the From  and definitely one to play through from Black's point of view!
What about Black's 6...Be7!?


Regards,
Nik
« Last Edit: 05/20/11 at 10:43:07 by GMTonyKosten »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
hiperburn
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 13
Location: Argentina
Joined: 12/10/08
Gender: Male
Re: From Gambit
Reply #36 - 12/17/10 at 15:07:06
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 01/22/10 at 14:40:48:
LDZ,
I think TN's suggestion was tongue-in-cheek.

1.f4 g5 2.fxg5 h6 3.g6!? looks pretty strong- the idea is similar to the h4-Trompowsky, wrecking the Black kingside pawn structure, but with the advantage of having level material instead of sacrificing a pawn for it.

1.f4 h6 can be met simply by 2.e4, occupying the centre.  Or 2.Nf3 g5 3.fxg5 hxg5 4.Nxg5 followed by a quick d4 (supporting the knight after it gets hit by ...e5) and e4, occupying the centre.

I don't know about the From Gambit being "too well known"- most of the people at the 1800-level don't know how to defend against it in my experience, and if you have 1...e5 as one of your main responses to 1.d4 then it surely makes sense to use it against 1.f4.

I will pick up this issue Kaissiber shortly- will be interested to see the analysis of both 4...g5 (clearly the view that 5.g3 is critical has been overturned) and 4...Nf6 and the Neo-From, as I experimented with the latter with Black as well but have never been convinced of its soundness.  Worth noting, btw, that as well as the Neo-From being reachable via 1.f4 Nc6, I think the mainline From can be reached via 1.f4 d6 although in either case you need to know a specific line of the King's Gambit upon 2.e4 e5 or 2.Nf3 e5 3.e4.


In the game below 4.g6 simply doesn't work but probably because of the dubious 3.d3?!

4. g6 fxg6 5. Nf3 Nf6 and now

6. g3  Bg7 7. Bg2 O-O =/+

6. e3 Nc6 7. Be2 Bf5 8. Nh4 e6 9. O-O Be7 =/+

6. Nh4 ? g5 7. Ng6 Rg8 8. Nxf8 Rxf8 -/+



PS. My opponent was a die Bird opening player but hasn't the finest idea of what to do against the Hobbs gambit!?
« Last Edit: 05/20/11 at 10:43:32 by GMTonyKosten »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: From Gambit
Reply #35 - 10/06/10 at 01:15:01
Post Tools
Christian Lundmark Jensen wrote on 10/04/10 at 13:22:19:
I totally agree that 5.Nc3! etc.




Welcome to the forum.
  

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


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10709
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: From Gambit
Reply #34 - 10/05/10 at 22:13:06
Post Tools
5.Nc3 Ng4 6.g3 Nc6 7.d4 is the same as 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.d4 Ng4 7.g3 which is somewhat better for White according to Kaissiber 36. I have looked at 7...0-0 (iso 7...h5) 8.Bg2 Nxh2 9.Nxh2 Bxg3+ 10.Kf1 but this is insufficient for Black.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Christian Lundmark Jensen
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1
Joined: 10/04/10
Re: From Gambit
Reply #33 - 10/04/10 at 13:22:19
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 01/19/10 at 03:51:41:
Kaissiber 36 has an article of 21 pages on From's Gambit, written by Volker Hergert. He shows that 2...Nc6 ("Neo-From") is dubious, while 2...d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 remains a reliable weapon. 4.Nf3 g5 invites heavy complications after both 5.g3 and 5.c3. I contributed six pages on 4...Nf6, when 5.Nc3! (Bent Larsen's idea) is the hardest test. Of course Taylor's book and James Vigus' fine chapter in Dangerous Weapons: Flank Openings have been considered, as many other sources.


I totally agree that 5.Nc3! (Larsens idea) is the hardest test to 4.Nf6, but I am not convinced that 5...Nc6 is Blacks best reply (as suggested by Bucker in Kaissiber 36), at least not from a practical point of view. Instead I recommend (5.Nc3) Ng4! 6.g3 and only then 6...Nc6! A key reason for me to prefer this move order over 5...Nc6 is that it keeps alive the hopes for Black for an early knockout on h2 - an option that has always been one of the main attractions for me to play the From gambit at all! The h2-knockout doesn't seem to work immediately, however. Thus after years of analysis I had to agree with Bucker that (5...Ng4 6.g3) 6...Nxh2 is insufficient. I have indeed over the years scored many brilliant and memorable wins with it, but Bucker - backing up analysis by Larsen - gave it a devastating bust some years back in Kaissiber, and I have never seen any convincing antidotes to his bust (or managed to come up with any antidotes myself). Now, in Kaissiber 36 after 5.Nc3 Bucker (drawing on analysis by Taylor and Vigus, which I haven't seen) recommends 5...Nc6 (giving an "!" by Bucker). He folllows up with pages of analysis concentrating on 6.e3, 6.e4 and 6.d4. A common problem with these lines are, to my view, that they all seem rather none forcing and tend to yield White a slight advantage in the end. A perhaps better and more practical approach for Black therefore is (to my view): 5...Ng4! 6.g3 and only now 6...Nc6! This way Whites choises are more limited than after 5...Nc6 - and thus Blacks need to study endless branches of analysis more limited too! After 5...Ng4 even a minor slip by White will allow Black to equalize quickly (at least), for example 6.d3, 6.d4, 6.e3 and 6.e4 all yields Black good prospects after 6...Nxh2 or 6...Bxh2. Also if White finds one the few good replies after 5...Ng4 6.g3 Nc6 then Blacks prospects should still be good. A sample line could be (1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Nc3) Ng4! 6.g3 Nc6! 7.Bg2 (7.Ne4 Bf5 8.Nxd6 Qxd6 with compensation to Black) 7...h5 8.0-0 h4 9.h3 Bxg3 10.hxg4 h3 11.Bh1 Qd7 unclear.


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BirdBrain
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 168
Joined: 05/29/09
Re: From Gambit
Reply #32 - 05/05/10 at 12:06:20
Post Tools
It very well could have been a premove, but it was different waters.  I just played to cramp his position - his kingside was in terrible shape! lol...

As ugly as 2. Nf3 looks, it is still good to discuss weird moves like that too, since they are possible...and I think ...e4 puts the ball in Black's hands.  Reversed Four Pawns Attack...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 914
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: From Gambit
Reply #31 - 05/04/10 at 16:54:08
Post Tools
1.f4 e5 2.Nf3 e4 may well be Black's best as I don't think ...f5 would be a useful extra tempo in the Alekhine Defence, so Black probably has an edge here.

I don't think 2...exf4 3.d4 is as good for Black, turning the game into a sort of King's Gambit where White has played d4 instead of e4.  White threatens 4.Bxf4 with approximate equality, so to defend the pawn Black would need to play the awkward 3...Bd6 or 3...Bb4+ 4.c3 d6, while 3...g5 is likely to relinquish the pawn after 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 d6 6.Nd3.  Still, this version strikes me as giving White far fewer attacking chances than the regular King's Gambit.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ChevyBanginStyle
Full Member
***
Offline


2 \infty & *CRUNCH*

Posts: 238
Joined: 01/03/10
Re: From Gambit
Reply #30 - 05/04/10 at 14:55:24
Post Tools
BirdBrain wrote on 05/04/10 at 14:32:55:
Yesterday, I faced a fellow who played 2. Nf3 against my From's Gambit.  How to approach it?  I played ...e4 and the game fell into some kind of reversed Alekhine's Defense.  I played into the Four Pawns approach, and I played to cramp all sides of the board...I don't know if I would recommend this approach for White, although it is different!  I am assuming he was expecting exf4 and planned on playing d4...


That's so ugly, I'd suspect it was a premove in online blitz. Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BirdBrain
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 168
Joined: 05/29/09
Re: From Gambit
Reply #29 - 05/04/10 at 14:32:55
Post Tools
Yesterday, I faced a fellow who played 2. Nf3 against my From's Gambit.  How to approach it?  I played ...e4 and the game fell into some kind of reversed Alekhine's Defense.  I played into the Four Pawns approach, and I played to cramp all sides of the board...I don't know if I would recommend this approach for White, although it is different!  I am assuming he was expecting exf4 and planned on playing d4...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: From Gambit
Reply #28 - 04/25/10 at 16:07:32
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 04/25/10 at 13:31:54:
Another question: is 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.d4 0-0 7.e4 Bb4 8.Bg5 Bg4 9.a3 Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 Re8 equal indeed? After 11.Be2 Rxe4 (h6 12.Bxf6 Qxf6 13.0-0 and Black may take back the pawn only to lose the exchange) 12.0-0 White has a centre pawn, an halfopen f-file and the pair of bishops. Any KGeer would rejoice.

True, that's +/-, and not "=" as given in Kaissiber #36, p. 34. Somewhat better: 9...Ba5 +=. Together with the alternative 9.Qd3 += mentioned in the article (which still seems valid), the side-line 7...Bb4 apparently doesn't achieve full equality.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 914
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: From Gambit
Reply #27 - 04/25/10 at 14:09:18
Post Tools
I see no compelling reason for Black to prefer the move-order 2...Nc6 3.Nf3 d6 to 2...d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Nf6, but it's highly relevant to those who are interested in the move order 1.f4 Nc6 followed by 2...e5, since 2.Nf3 e5 3.fxe5 transposes.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10709
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: From Gambit
Reply #26 - 04/25/10 at 13:31:54
Post Tools
7...Re8 looks good indeed. But it still doesn't answer the fundamental question: why should Black allow White extra options and deny him/herself a few? The best Black can get after 2...Nc6 3.Nf3 d6 is a transposition to some 2...d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 line, isn't it?

Another question: is 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.d4 0-0 7.e4 Bb4 8.Bg5 Bg4 9.a3 Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 Re8 equal indeed? After 11.Be2 Rxe4 (h6 12.Bxf6 Qxf6 13.0-0 and Black may take back the pawn only to lose the exchange) 12.0-0 White has a centre pawn, an halfopen f-file and the pair of bishops. Any KGeer would rejoice.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: From Gambit
Reply #25 - 04/25/10 at 13:03:41
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 04/25/10 at 11:13:29:
In Taimanov's Damengambit bis Holländisch the Russian GM gives 6.Bg5 (iso 6.e3) h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6 8.e4 Bg4 9.c3 0-0-0 10.Nbd2 "indeed Black is better developed, but he cannot cash in on it."
With 6...0-0 Black invites yet another transposition to a line given in Kaissiber (7.Qd3 Re8) so the question is if White has better: 7.e4 Qe8 8.Bxf6 (8.e5 Nxe5!) Qxe4+ 9.Qe2 Qxe2+ 10.Bxe2 gxf6 and I am not sure if the pair of bishops fully compensate for the ruined pawn structure.

In my analysis file I find: (6.Bg5 0-0 7.e4) 7...Re8 (imo a sound alternative to your 7...Qe8; not sure why the following didn't make it into the article)
(a) 8. Bd3? Bb4+ 9.c3 Nxe4 etc.
(b) 8.e5?! h6 9.Bc1 (9.Bh4 g5) 9...Bg4 10.Be2 Bxf3 11.Bxf3 Bb4+ 12.c3 Nxd4 13.cxb4 Nxf3+ 14.gxf3 Rxe5+ 15.Kf2 Nd5 -/+.
(c) 8.Nbd2 Nxe4 9.Bxd8 Nc3+ 10.Be2 Nxd1 11.Bxc7 Nc3 12.bxc3 Bxc7 13.Rb1 Ba5 14.Rb3 Be6 15.Ra3 Bd8 16.Kf2 Be7 17.Ra4 a6 18.c4 b6 19.c3 Bd7 20.Bd1 Na5 unclear.

Quote:
One final objection to 2...Nc6 might be that 2...d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.g3 allows the Mad Dog Attack (borrowed from the BDG) h5!? At the moment it seems to me that 2...Nc6 3.Nf3 d6 is a slightly inferior version of 2...d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Nf6.

Against 5.g3, the reply 5...Nc6 (instead of 5...h5) is also fine.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10709
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: From Gambit
Reply #24 - 04/25/10 at 11:13:29
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 04/24/10 at 21:35:35:
Thus it seems to me that after 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3, 3...d6! is superior to 3...g5, and might well be good enough for equality.


Is there any reason to prefer this to 2...d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Nc6 or even 4...Nf6 5.d4 Nc6 ? Btw those Nc3 lines end with a modest +=, not with dynamic equality "but Black should not find it too hard to defend the position."
One other option is 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 d6 4.e4 reaching a KGD-variation.

SWJediknight wrote on 04/24/10 at 21:35:35:
1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 d6 4.exd6 Bxd6 5.d4 Nf6 and now 6.Nc3 transposes, while White can also try 6.e3 but after 6...0-0 7.Bd3 Re8 this is likely to transpose to the line 2...d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.d4 0-0 6.e3 Re8 given in Kaissiber, which is also equal.


In Taimanov's Damengambit bis Holländisch the Russian GM gives 6.Bg5 (iso 6.e3) h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6 8.e4 Bg4 9.c3 0-0-0 10.Nbd2 "indeed Black is better developed, but he cannot cash in on it."
With 6...0-0 Black invites yet another transposition to a line given in Kaissiber (7.Qd3 Re8) so the question is if White has better: 7.e4 Qe8 8.Bxf6 (8.e5 Nxe5!) Qxe4+ 9.Qe2 Qxe2+ 10.Bxe2 gxf6 and I am not sure if the pair of bishops fully compensate for the ruined pawn structure.

One final objection to 2...Nc6 might be that 2...d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.g3 allows the Mad Dog Attack (borrowed from the BDG) h5!? At the moment it seems to me that 2...Nc6 3.Nf3 d6 is a slightly inferior version of 2...d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Nf6.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: From Gambit
Reply #23 - 04/25/10 at 05:08:44
Post Tools
You are right. And it is a bit strange that Kaissiber #36, p. 18, recommended (1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 Nc6) 3.Nc3 d6 4.exd6 Bxd6 5.Nf3 Nf6 transposing to this more regular From analyzed in the same issue, but forgot to mention that possiblity after 3.Nf3.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 914
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: From Gambit
Reply #22 - 04/24/10 at 21:35:35
Post Tools
I've had a closer look re. my earlier suggestion of 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 d6 and haven't been able to find anything convincing for White:

A1) 4.exd6 Bxd6 5.Nc3 transposes directly to the main 2...d6, 4...Nf6 line given as dynamically equal for Black in Kaissiber 36, Black just plays 5...Nf6 here.

A2) 5.d4 Nf6 and now 6.Nc3 transposes, while White can also try 6.e3 but after 6...0-0 7.Bd3 Re8 this is likely to transpose to the line 2...d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.d4 0-0 6.e3 Re8 given in Kaissiber, which is also equal.

A3) 5.e4 Nf6 gives White the independent possibilities 6.Bb5 and 6.d4 returning the pawn (e.g. 6.Bb5 Nxe4 7.d3 Nf6 8.Qe2+ Be6), but Black can also try 5...Qe7 here, generally planning ...Bg4 and ...Nf6 rather than taking on e4 with the queen.

A4) 5.e3 Nf6 6.Be2 (6.d4 0-0 transposes again to Kaissiber's line) 6...Qe7 (6...0-0 transposes to a line which is queried in Kaissiber), followed by ...Bf5 or ...Bg4 and castling long.

B) 4.Nc3 is also possible, when Black has nothing better than 4...dxe5 leading to similar lines to 2...d6 3.Nf3 dxe5 4.Nc3.  Chances should be equal.

Thus it seems to me that after 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3, 3...d6! is superior to 3...g5, and might well be good enough for equality.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jonathan Tait
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 597
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: From Gambit
Reply #21 - 04/11/10 at 14:45:45
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 01/19/10 at 03:51:41:
Kaissiber 36 has an article of 21 pages on From's Gambit, written by Volker Hergert. He shows that 2...Nc6 ("Neo-From") is dubious


or the "Concealed From" Smiley

yes, it's probably dubious theoretically, but I still find it's a mighty surprise weapon in practice
  

blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: From Gambit
Reply #20 - 03/26/10 at 07:46:51
Post Tools
ccnp_mcse wrote on 03/26/10 at 06:25:48:
Conquistador wrote on 01/18/10 at 17:51:32:
What is the current state of the theory of the From Gambit?

1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.g3 g4 6.Nh4 Ne7 7.d4 Ng6 8.Nxg6 hxg6

1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.d4 g4 6.Ng5 f5 7.e4 h6 8.e5 Be7 9.Nh3 gxh3 10.Qh5+ Kf8 11.Bc4 Rh7 12.Qg6 Bb4+

In my experience black was okay.  Am I missing any killer lines for white?



With best play by both sides the Lasker variation of the From Gambit appears to give White a clear advantage, if not outright winning.

I've analyzed this variation quite exhaustively and I'd love for someone to suggest a possible improvement for Black. As far as I know these are the best moves for both sides.

To continue your first line, after 9.Qd3 Nc6 10.c3 Qe7 (10...Bf5 11.e4 Qe7 12.Bg2 0-0-0 13.Be3 Rde8 14.Nd2 Rxh2 15.Rxh2 Bxg3+ 16.Ke2 Bxh2 17.exf5 Bf4 18.Nf1 Bxe3 19.Nxe3 gxf5 20.Qxf5+ Kb8 21.Qf4+-) 11.Bg2 Be6 12.Nd2 f5 13.Nc4 Bxc4 14.Qxc4 0-0-0 15.Qd3±

13...Rde8 is bad (+/-) according to theory. The present main line is 13...Bd7. Three games have been played, resulting in draws. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ccnp_mcse
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1
Joined: 03/26/10
Re: From Gambit
Reply #19 - 03/26/10 at 06:25:48
Post Tools
Conquistador wrote on 01/18/10 at 17:51:32:
What is the current state of the theory of the From Gambit?

1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.g3 g4 6.Nh4 Ne7 7.d4 Ng6 8.Nxg6 hxg6

1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.d4 g4 6.Ng5 f5 7.e4 h6 8.e5 Be7 9.Nh3 gxh3 10.Qh5+ Kf8 11.Bc4 Rh7 12.Qg6 Bb4+

In my experience black was okay.  Am I missing any killer lines for white?



With best play by both sides the Lasker variation of the From Gambit appears to give White a clear advantage, if not outright winning.

I've analyzed this variation quite exhaustively and I'd love for someone to suggest a possible improvement for Black. As far as I know these are the best moves for both sides.

To continue your first line, after 9.Qd3 Nc6 10.c3 Qe7 (10...Bf5 11.e4 Qe7 12.Bg2 0-0-0 13.Be3 Rde8 14.Nd2 Rxh2 15.Rxh2 Bxg3+ 16.Ke2 Bxh2 17.exf5 Bf4 18.Nf1 Bxe3 19.Nxe3 gxf5 20.Qxf5+ Kb8 21.Qf4+-) 11.Bg2 Be6 12.Nd2 f5 13.Nc4 Bxc4 14.Qxc4 0-0-0 15.Qd3±
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 914
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: From Gambit
Reply #18 - 02/24/10 at 13:34:18
Post Tools
A question relating to various From Gambit lines: after 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3, given that 3...g5 is dubious, how about 3...d6?  The idea is similar to the continuation 3.Nc3 d6- if White continues with 4.exd6 Bxd6 then Black can follow up with ...Nf6, transposing back to the 2...d6, 4...Nf6 lines.

This position can also arise from 1.f4 Nc6 2.Nf3 e5 3.dxe5 d6 and 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.Nf3 Nc6 (instead of 3...dxe5, the only response considered in posts so far in the two From Gambit threads).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: From Gambit
Reply #17 - 01/23/10 at 18:04:44
Post Tools
Maybe you are right and (1.f4 g5) 2.fxg5 h6 3.d4 is best. In fact this was how I played myself when I faced the line. The game was published with my comments in Kaissiber #5 (1998):

Bücker - Vogler (2330)
Bundesliga II 1997
1.f4 g5 2.fxg5 h6 3.d4 d5 4.c3!?
Directed against Black's main plan Qd6, followed by Bg4 and a quick 0-0-0. Now if 4...Qd6, White has 5.e4 dxe4 6.Nd2 Qd5 7.Bc4 Qxg5 8.Qe2. Other alternatives which I mentioned were: 4.g6; 4. Nf3 Nc6 5.c4; 4.e4 hxg5 5.Bxg5 dxe4 6.c3 Qd6 7.Nd2.
4...e5 5.dxe5 hxg5 6.e4 c6 7.exd5 cxd5.
7...Bc5!?.
8.Nf3 g4 9.Nd4 Nc6 10.Bf4 Bh6
I had expected 10...Nge7.
11.Bg3 Nge7 12.Bb5 Bd7 13.Bxc6 bxc6 14.0-0.
14.b4!? a5 15.0-0 unclear.
14...c5 15.Nc2 Qb6 16.b3? (drawn, 64).
16.Nba3! Qxb2?! 17.Qe2! Qxc3 18.e6, resp. 17...Qb6 18.Rab1 Qa5 19.Nb5 Bxb5 20.Rxb5 Qxc3 21.Qf2 Rh7 22.Rxc5 +/-.
So far my old analysis from 1998. - Difficult to say how many of those pawns one should take. In the Sicilian Wing Gambit 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 3.a3, at first White was quite successful, until 3...d5 was generally accepted. But old wisdom is challenged, and now some authors recommend 3...bxa3.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 914
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: From Gambit
Reply #16 - 01/23/10 at 13:34:00
Post Tools
I must say, after looking over them more carefully with the help of Fritz, these early ...g5 lines aren't quite as bad as they look.

To my mind the main advantage of 1.f4 h6 2.Nf3 g5 3.fxg5 hxg5 4.Nxg5 d5 is that it prevents White from securing the centre with e2-e4.  A sample continuation may be 5.d4 Nf6 6.g3 Nc6 7.Bg2 Qd6 (or perhaps 7...e5 8.dxe5 Nxe5 9.Qd4 Nc6) when I'm not convinced Black has full compensation, but Black certainly has reasonable attacking chances and play against the backward e-pawn.

However even after 4...e5 5.d4, 5...Bh6 is quite irritating for White, e.g. 6.Nf3 (6.h4 f6 7.Nf3 e4 is simlar) 6...e4 7.Ne5 Bxc1 8.Qxc1 d6.  Black appears to have reasonable compensation here too.

Perhaps instead White should prefer to meet 1.f4 h6 2.Nf3 g5 with 3.e4, and then White really does get firm control of the centre.

After 1.f4 g5 I still like 2.fxg5 h6 3.g6 fxg6 I initially liked 4.e4, threatening 5.Qg4 which would force 5...Kf7.   Perhaps then simply 4...e5 so as to answer 5.Qg4 with 5...Qf6 or 5...Ne7, so the four knights should probably come out: 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Nc3 Nf6, and then 7.Nh4 Bc5 8.Nxg6 Rg8 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 10.d4 leads to complications which should be better for White but not a wipe-out.

Looking over the possibilities, 2.d4 is certainly an interesting alternative but I think better still may be the order 2.fxg5 h6 and then 3.d4, which certainly looks more promising than the 3.g6 which Craig Evans initially suggested and I agreed with.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1393
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: From Gambit
Reply #15 - 01/23/10 at 13:05:04
Post Tools
Stefan,

I am aware of your game against Tilman Vogler. In fact, I have all these games printed out and ready for an article.

With regard to 1 f4 h6 2 Nf3 g5 3 fxg5 hxg5 4 Nxg5 d5! is better than 4...e5 as it does not block the h2-b8 diagonal.
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: From Gambit
Reply #14 - 01/22/10 at 18:46:45
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 01/22/10 at 14:40:48:
Worth noting, btw, that as well as the Neo-From being reachable via 1.f4 Nc6, I think the mainline From can be reached via 1.f4 d6 although in either case you need to know a specific line of the King's Gambit upon 2.e4 e5 or 2.Nf3 e5 3.e4.

In his article Volker Hergert recommends the similar 1.f4 Nf6! followed by d6 and e5. - 1.f4 g5 isn't easy to refute, as I learned against Tilman Vogler. I had White and took on g5. Probably White should prefer 2.d4!, borrowing an idea from those g4 gambits in the Dutch.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 914
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: From Gambit
Reply #13 - 01/22/10 at 14:40:48
Post Tools
LDZ,
I think TN's suggestion was tongue-in-cheek.

1.f4 g5 2.fxg5 h6 3.g6!? looks pretty strong- the idea is similar to the h4-Trompowsky, wrecking the Black kingside pawn structure, but with the advantage of having level material instead of sacrificing a pawn for it.

1.f4 h6 can be met simply by 2.e4, occupying the centre.  Or 2.Nf3 g5 3.fxg5 hxg5 4.Nxg5 followed by a quick d4 (supporting the knight after it gets hit by ...e5) and e4, occupying the centre.

I don't know about the From Gambit being "too well known"- most of the people at the 1800-level don't know how to defend against it in my experience, and if you have 1...e5 as one of your main responses to 1.d4 then it surely makes sense to use it against 1.f4.

I will pick up this issue Kaissiber shortly- will be interested to see the analysis of both 4...g5 (clearly the view that 5.g3 is critical has been overturned) and 4...Nf6 and the Neo-From, as I experimented with the latter with Black as well but have never been convinced of its soundness.  Worth noting, btw, that as well as the Neo-From being reachable via 1.f4 Nc6, I think the mainline From can be reached via 1.f4 d6 although in either case you need to know a specific line of the King's Gambit upon 2.e4 e5 or 2.Nf3 e5 3.e4.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1393
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: From Gambit
Reply #12 - 01/21/10 at 21:43:43
Post Tools
TN,

Obviously after 1 f4 h6 2 b3 Black has several responses. First, he can continue 2...g5 3 Bb2 Nf6! 4 e4 e6 5 fxg5 hxg5 6 e5 Nd5 7 Nc3 Nxc3 8 Bxc3 =

Second, 2...d6 3 Bb2 Nf6 4 Nf3 Bf5 5 Nh4 Bg4 6 h3 Bd7 7 e3 Ne4 8 Qf3 e5! =

Third, 2...d5 3 e3 Nc6 4 Bb2  e6 5 Nf3 Bd7 6 Be2 =

It looks to me like the lines you gave me are superficial. There is nothing wrong with Black's position after 1 f4 h6 2 b3.
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: From Gambit
Reply #11 - 01/20/10 at 23:54:13
Post Tools
Conquistador wrote on 01/20/10 at 23:21:42:
In the line

1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.d4 g4 6.Ne5 Bxe5 7.dxe5 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 Nc6 9.Nc3 Be6 10.Bg5

I have instead of 10...Nxe5, 10...Nge7

10...Nge7 11.e3 0-0-0+ as about equal

It is true that Black wins back the pawn: 11.Kc1 0-0-0 12.g3 Rhe8 13.b3 Nxe5 14.Kb2. But the resulting position is difficult for Black, about +/-.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Conquistador
Junior Member
**
Offline


WWAD-What Would Alekhine
Do?

Posts: 53
Joined: 11/29/09
Re: From Gambit
Reply #10 - 01/20/10 at 23:21:42
Post Tools
In the line

1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.d4 g4 6.Ne5 Bxe5 7.dxe5 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 Nc6 9.Nc3 Be6 10.Bg5

I have instead of 10...Nxe5, 10...Nge7

10...Nge7 11.e3 0-0-0+ as about equal
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: From Gambit
Reply #9 - 01/20/10 at 18:53:26
Post Tools
PatzerNoster wrote on 01/19/10 at 17:47:59:
I liked the article, but I don't understand why 1.f4 e5 2.fe5: d6 3.ed6: Bd6: 4.Nf3 g5 5.d4 was not covered, as this is white's second most popular move.

From the look of it I like 4. ... g5 better than 4. ... Nf6, so it would be nice to know what to do against 5.d4.

Thanks. On 4...g5 Volker Hergert had considered both 5.g3 and 5.c3, because the former is the main line in most sources, and because he believed that 5.c3! +/- was strong and close to a refutation of 4...g5. The intended contrast (between the main line 5.g3, which doesn't give White much, on one side and the unusual 5.c3! +/- on the other side) was later spoiled by me, when I found a hidden rescue for Black at a moment when much of the layout work was already done. It seemed too late to include 5.d4. We still believe that Kaissiber #36 shows convincingly that Black has an easier life after 4...Nf6, in comparison to 4...g5, when both 5.g3 and 5.c3 appear to involve more risks for Black. But the difference between g5 and Nf6 is not as big as it had seemed at first. The "!" after 4...Nf6 on page 30 can be seen as just a relic of the earlier version.

In 1989-91 I had invested much time on studying the Bird and From's Gambit, for a work on 1.f4 which never reached the shops. But I had always preferred 5.g3 or 5.c3!? over 5.d4, because the latter seemed a bit boring. Obviously I was mistaken, the new ideas later developed for White make it difficult for Black to equalize.

After 4...g5 5.d4 g4 6.Ne5 Bxe5 7.dxe5 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 Nc6 9.Nc3 Be6 10.Bg5 (10. Bf4 0-0-0+ 11.Ke1 Nge7 12.e3 Nd5! =) 10...Nxe5 11.Nb5 Emanuel Lasker's old analysis (in his "Lehrbuch des Schachspiels" resp. Manual...) continued with 11...Kd7?. Instead Black should probably play as follows: 11...Rc8 12.Nxa7 f6 13.Bh4 (13.Nxc8?! fxg5 14.Na7 c6 happened in a correspondence game F. Keller - Simchen, "SP11" 1980) 13...Rd8+ 14.Kc1 c6

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
A possible continuation: 15.a4 Ra8 16.Bf2 Kd7 17.b4 Nh6 18.e4 Nhf7 and the white knight on a7 is a serious handicap, in my opinion sufficient to give Black compensation for the sacrificed pawn. - Maybe this line can be improved for White. Anyway, we can perhaps draw the conclusion that 4...g5 is still playable, but Black needs an excellent knowledge of all three attacking lines, 5.g3, 5.d4 and the most ambitious move 5.c3!?. The alternative 4...Nf6 is more positional and in my opinion easier for Black than g5.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 914
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: From Gambit
Reply #8 - 01/19/10 at 20:11:48
Post Tools
I think 5.d4 is indeed a problem.  I have generally played 5...g4 6.Ne5 Qe7 against it (as recommended in a beginners' book by CHO'D Alexander and T.J.Beach from many years ago) with decent results, but objectively it looks dubious.  Simply 7.Nc3, and then if 7...Bxe5 8.dxe5 Qxe5, then 9.Qd5 gives White at least some advantage.  Perhaps a better practical try would be 8...Be6 9.e4 (9.Nd5!? Bxd5 10.Qxd5 may be an improvement here) Nc6, when Fritz gives +1.40 but it is probably underestimating the weakness of the e4-e5 structure.  Nonetheless, while it might work OTB I think White should objectively be better here.

I think 6...Qf6 (suggested in some sources) has a similar objection.

The main line, 6...Bxe5 7.dxe5 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1, is as far as I'm aware known to give White a slight edge thanks to the extra pawn and the queen swap.

Fritz's openings book gives 6...Nc6, but then after 7.Nc3 (7.Bf4 Qf6 is unclear) Black has nothing better than 7...Bxe5 leading to similar lines to 6...Bxe5.

On the other hand if someone else has found a good way for Black to get an active game in this line then the whole 4...g5 line will be looking in a pretty healthy state.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
PatzerNoster
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 152
Joined: 10/22/09
Re: From Gambit
Reply #7 - 01/19/10 at 17:47:59
Post Tools
I liked the article, but I don't understand why 1.f4 e5 2.fe5: d6 3.ed6: Bd6: 4.Nf3 g5 5.d4 was not covered, as this is white's second most popular move.

From the look of it I like 4. ... g5 better than 4. ... Nf6, so it would be nice to know what to do against 5.d4.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: From Gambit
Reply #6 - 01/19/10 at 10:35:52
Post Tools
TN wrote on 01/19/10 at 09:41:28:
@Dragonslayer

Black can improve with 13...Be6 in your line, although I still prefer White after 14.Bf2! f5 15.Nd2 Kb8 16.0-0-0 fe4 17.Be4 Ba2 18.Rde1.

@Stefan Buecker

After 1.f4 e5 2.fe5 Nc6, does Hergert prefer 3.Nc3 or 3.Nf3? According to Vigus, 3.Nf3 g5 4.h3! d6 5.e4! is close to a refutation of this sideline.

In my opinion 13...Be6 is weaker than 13...Bd7, which almost equalizes.

After 1.f4 e5 2.fe5 Nc6, the article covers 3.Nf3 (if 3.Nc3 were strong, Black could change his move-order: 1.f4 Nc6 2.Nf3 e5 etc.) 3...g5 4.h3! d6. Now 5.e4 += is sufficient for a small advantage (as in Tornow - Hergert, corr. 1992), but Hergert proves that 5.d4! is stronger, if White finds the right moves.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: From Gambit
Reply #5 - 01/19/10 at 09:41:28
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 01/19/10 at 07:46:37:
That is the reason I play the Hobbs-Zilbermints Gambit against 1 f4. The From Gambit is too well-known. Not so the Hobbs, 1 f4 g5, and the Hobbs-Zilbermints, 1 f4 h6 2 Nf3 g5 3 fxg5 hg5,  Gambits.


Then White can play the Hobbs-Zilbermints-Larsen Anti-Gambit with 1.f4 h6 2.b3!!, when 2...g5 3.Bb2 Rh7 (3...f6 4.e3 would be a nice present for White) 4.e3! gf4 5.Bd3 and White wins. Black can play 4...Bg7 but, being a die-hard gambiteer, I don't worry about such trifling details.

Sorry for the off-topic digression.

@Dragonslayer

Black can improve with 13...Be6 in your line, although I still prefer White after 14.Bf2! f5 15.Nd2 Kb8 16.0-0-0 fe4 17.Be4 Ba2 18.Rde1.

@Stefan Buecker

After 1.f4 e5 2.fe5 Nc6, does Hergert prefer 3.Nc3 or 3.Nf3? According to Vigus, 3.Nf3 g5 4.h3! d6 5.e4! is close to a refutation of this sideline.
  

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


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1393
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: From Gambit
Reply #4 - 01/19/10 at 07:46:37
Post Tools
That is the reason I play the Hobbs-Zilbermints Gambit against 1 f4. The From Gambit is too well-known. Not so the Hobbs, 1 f4 g5, and the Hobbs-Zilbermints, 1 f4 h6 2 Nf3 g5 3 fxg5 hg5,  Gambits.
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: From Gambit
Reply #3 - 01/19/10 at 03:51:41
Post Tools
Kaissiber 36 has an article of 21 pages on From's Gambit, written by Volker Hergert. He shows that 2...Nc6 ("Neo-From") is dubious, while 2...d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 remains a reliable weapon. 4.Nf3 g5 invites heavy complications after both 5.g3 and 5.c3. I contributed six pages on 4...Nf6, when 5.Nc3! (Bent Larsen's idea) is the hardest test. Of course Taylor's book and James Vigus' fine chapter in Dangerous Weapons: Flank Openings have been considered, as many other sources.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 914
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: From Gambit
Reply #2 - 01/18/10 at 22:51:05
Post Tools
My impression upon reading the forum and hearing about Timothy Taylor's book that 4...g5 was looking fairly dubious on account of the first line and also 5.d4 g4 6.Ne5, when 6...Bxe5 7.dxe5 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 gives White an edge and 6...Qe7 and 6...Qf6 don't quite work.  OTB it may be a somewhat different matter as White has to avoid frequent traps.

However I also had the impression that Black was doing pretty well after 4...Nf6 5.d4 Ng4.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dragonslayer
Full Member
***
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 248
Location: Odense
Joined: 06/13/04
Re: From Gambit
Reply #1 - 01/18/10 at 20:37:54
Post Tools
The second line is probably ok for Black.
The first is still unclear after 9.Qd3 Nc6 10.c3 Bf5 11.e4 Qe7 12.Bg2 0-0-0 13.Be3 - no big news there, though Black may have one or two improvements after 13...Rxh2.
13...Bd7 14.Bf2 was debated in 2007 on this forum. Try searching the archives.
Black has scored reasonably well here in recent games. Se the German magazine - Kaissiber 36.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Conquistador
Junior Member
**
Offline


WWAD-What Would Alekhine
Do?

Posts: 53
Joined: 11/29/09
From Gambit
01/18/10 at 17:51:32
Post Tools
What is the current state of the theory of the From Gambit?

1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.g3 g4 6.Nh4 Ne7 7.d4 Ng6 8.Nxg6 hxg6

1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.d4 g4 6.Ng5 f5 7.e4 h6 8.e5 Be7 9.Nh3 gxh3 10.Qh5+ Kf8 11.Bc4 Rh7 12.Qg6 Bb4+

In my experience black was okay.  Am I missing any killer lines for white?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo