It is nice to discuss Ryder Gambit theory without a clock ticking at your side... but that is beside the point!
If this were a tournament game, most likely the opponent would make a miscalculation somewhere.
After all, not everyone reads this website.

MNb wrote on 03/13/10 at 21:50:03:


No, I don't see in this harsh way. Gambit play doesn't offer a voucher for an all around dominant play. To nip opponent's play in the bud seems wise even here.

After 9.Rd4 Qa5 10.Bc4 e5 11.Rd2 Be7 White can continue with 12.h3 0-0 13.g4. But there too is 12.Ne4 0-0 13.Ng5 and 12.Nge2

Of course I know White is two pawns down but as said it's a bit to early to resign...
But I have to admit that is is a walk on the tightrope a very thin one at that. On theoretical basis I think it is lost.

Is 11...b5 playable? I had 12.Bxb5 in mind 12...e4 13.Nxe4 Qxb5 14.Nxf6+ gxf6 15.Qxf6. After 11...Be7 the idea b7-b5 is playable and forces Bb3

Btw. Diemer himself was once confronted with your idea 6...Qh4+. Play continued with 7.g3 Qg4 8.Qg2"!!" (Diemer of course)

motörhead

SWJediknight wrote on 03/10/10 at 17:49:05:


I pondered for a while on MNb's and your lines. And they convince me. 9.h3 is too slow. I would at least need another tempo to make some ideas works - e.g. I would like to have a2 covered by the king... But in MNb’s interesting line (1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Qxf3 Qxd4 6.Be3 Qh4+ 7.g3 Qb4 8.0-0-0 c6) I on the other hand really don’t like the time consuming manouvre Rd1-d4-a4xa7 at all. It takes three tempi to win back one of the two sacrificed pawns while exchanging off the formerly best placed white piece somewhere in the farest west. I think that is not the idea behind the offers.
I too had the Danish Gambit in mind when I came across the Ryder Gambit. White has one open [that is a difference compared with the Danish] an two half open files for his use and he uncompromisingly has to use this.
Over all I came to the conclusion that White’s chances will rise if Black goes for a king’s side castling. That would result in the typical attack with g3-g4-g5, where White's pieces display a quite useful arrangement or at least can be placed in aprobriate manner.  But right now White has no clear goal yet, Black’s king may, and will probably best, tuk away on queen’s side. The then weak a-pawn may be covered sth. like Nb8-d7-b6. Queen’s side castling is prepared by e7-e5, Bc8-e6, Nb8-d7. Can White stop this?
I came to the idea 9.Rd4! Qa5 and now not that thing with Rd4-a4xa7 but 10.Bc4! e5 11.Rd2. That does not stop 11...Be6 but it makes it quite ugly (12.Bxe6 fxe6 13.Nh3 Nbd7 14.Ng5). If 11...Bg4 12.Qf2 Nbd7 13.h3 Bh5 14.g4 Bg6 15.g5. Is 11...Nbd7 better? But 12.Ne4...
What do you think?

SWJediknight wrote on 03/10/10 at 17:49:05:


Going back to what one may call the main line: 6...Qg4 7.Qf2 e5 and now the side line 8.h3. You give 8...Qf5 9.Qd2 Bb4! as critical. But is that dangerous? 10.0-0-0 looks normal to me (if we take the two pawns down situation for given) 10...Be6 (I think 10...0-0 gives White the aim he is looking for 11.g4 etc.) 11.g4 Qg6 12.Nf3...

SWJediknight wrote on 03/10/10 at 17:49:05:


I agree to some degree. White only has free play. But in that 10.Bc4 line he doesn't even has that. Btw. I would prefer to play 12.0-0 (It doesn't make sense to castle into Black's possible counterattack on the queen's side with 12.0-0-0). After 12...Nbd7 13.Bb3 there are a least slight signs of a possible attack


motörhead
formerly known as cheesemate

Resigning after 6...Qh4+ 7.g3 Qb4 8.0-0-0 c6 may be premature indeed, but 9.h3 (prophylaxe is not a common strategic feature in a gambit strategy) e5 10.Bd3 Be6 11.Nge2 Nbd7 doesn't harm Black very much, does it?

SWJediknight wrote on 03/09/10 at 21:45:05:

I agree, but there may lay some hypersophisticated reasoning in 5.Qxf3. In the 5.Nxf3 variations White sometimes gets problems with his d-pawn. But with 5.Qxf3 you simply offer it. And if Black takes you can chase the queen around. Yes, may be more hyper than sophisticated, I know...

SWJediknight wrote on 03/09/10 at 21:45:05:

8.Nf3 is "?" according to Diemer. It fails to Euwe's 8...Bb4.
8.Bd3 ist one of the "main lines" (the other is 8.a3) 8...Bb4 9.Nge2 but now I don't have any game on your 9...Nd5. I'm not sure about it. Black stops to develop to exchange pieces. is that the right way? What if 10.h3 (as always I work without an engine so don't be surprised if I mix in mistakes - I will address them to wrong placement of pieces of course)
10...Qd7 (10...Qe6 11.Bc4) 11.0-0 (11.Bd2!?) 11... Nxe3 12.Qxe3 Bxc3 13.Nxc3 0-0 14.Ne4 with idea like 15.Nf6+ gxf6 16.Qg3+ Kh8 17.Qh4 hm...

SWJediknight wrote on 03/09/10 at 21:45:05:

Without the interjection of 6...Qh4+ 7.g3 this is known. What does the interjection alter? MNb says that after 6...Qh4+ 7.g3 Qb4 8.0-0-0 c6 White can't sidestep with the queen to g3. You give the rook lift 9.Rd4 (which is also known) 9...Qa5. In the comparable position without g2-g3 here played (9.)10.Be2 not hurrying to snatch the pawn. 10...e5 11.Ra4 Qc7 without g2-g3 Diemer here played 10.Nh3 which is impossible here. Hm. what to do?
Perhaps it's better to forget about that rook lift for now. I know 9.h3!? looks ridiculous. But it prevents Bc8-g4 and prepares Rh1-h2-d2 (and so takes a tiny profit from the extra move g2-g3) and there is always the idea g3-g4. Blacks queen is still in here vulnerable extraterritorial position. What? I'm two pawns down? Ah let's count... You're right. But it's too early to give it up

I find it quite interesting to reveal ways that at least muddy the waters. I think this is some sort of important training...
cheese

Some bits from Rizzitano:

8. Nf3 Bb4 9.Nxe5 Qe4 10.Nc4 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Be6 ("White has nothing for the pawn" -- Gallagher) 12. Bd3 Qc6 13. Qe2 0-0 with a decisive advantage.

8. Bd3 Bb4 9. Nge2 e4 10. Bc4 Be6 11. Bxe6 Qxe6 12. h3 Nd5 13. 0-0 Bxc3 14. bc Nc6 with a decisive advantage.

8. a3 Nc6 9. Nf3 Bd6 10. 0-0-0 Qe6 11. Ng5 Qe7 12. Bc4 0-0 13. Nd5 Nxd5 14. Bxd5 h6 15. Ne4 Be6 16. Qg3 Bxd5 17. Rxd5 f5 18. Nxd6 f4 19. Qg6 cd with a decisive advantage.  He also considers 12. Qh4 and 13. Nce4.

There are several citations of correspondence games.  Rizzitano also considers 8. Be2; none of the sources at my fingertips concerns itself with 8. h3.

I think that's a little harsh- Gambit did just say "practical chances", not "good practical chances", and I think up to around 2000-2200 he may well be right.  However I see no compelling reason to prefer 5.Qxf3 to the sounder (and no less dangerous) 5.Nxf3.

I don't know Gallagher's analysis, but checking over the resulting positions, one critical line appears to be 5...Qxd4 6.Be3 Qg4 7.Qf2 e5 8.Nf3 (8.Bd3 is less good: 8...Bb4 9.Nge2 Nd5 -/+) Bb4 9.Nxe5 Qe4 10.Nc4 Bxc3+ (Fritz offers 10...Qe7 as a possible improvement) 11.bxc3 Ng4 12.Qg3 Nxe3 13.Nxe3 =+.

MNb's interesting suggestion 6...Qh4+ 7.g3 Qb4 8.0-0-0 c6 looks promising for Black also, for while White can regain one pawn with 9.Rd4 Qa5 10.Ra4 Qc7 11.Rxa7 Rxa7 12.Bxa7, Black gains some initiative with 12...e5 and White is left a pawn down for not much.  But otherwise, I can't see how White stops Black from unravelling with ...Nbd7, choosing between ...e6 and ...e5, ...Be7, ...0-0 - there are practical chances for White like Gambit says, but it's probably -/+.

motörhead wrote on 03/08/10 at 23:19:54:


The Ryder Gambit is garbage. After 5...Qd4 6.Be3 Qg4 7.Qf2 e5 Black is up two pawns. White may have compensation for one pawn, but certainly not two. I haven't seen any real improvements for White over Gallagher/Rizzitano's analysis.