Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Refutation of the Ryder Gambit (Read 47955 times)
motörhead
Full Member
***
Offline


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

Posts: 226
Joined: 10/09/08
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #48 - 02/17/16 at 23:53:48
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 02/17/16 at 17:00:18:
Strength of my opponents: ELO 1500 - 1800.
I never felt that any opponent was well prepared - they usually had just some vague idea of what to do.


That is exactly what I have awaited. A skilled but not very much skilled oponentship with no special theoretical background to the very item (which is not easy to get...). And at best you know your mainlines and that you have to hunt King and Queen...

MNb wrote on 02/17/16 at 17:00:18:
I think you could recommend this to some pupils who need a quick patch and like taking risks.


I fully agree - and add that in the Ryder it is not only about taking risks but also about taking opportunities...

MNb wrote on 02/17/16 at 17:00:18:
Be honest though - I never fooled myself by thinking it was the ultimate solution. It's dubious at best. Plus make sure they are prepared for Black's two best defenses. It's kind of fun (for players with a certain attitude) to find ideas, even if dubious, in lines that are supposed to be bad. That will improve analyzing skills. In practical games that will often work like a charm, because the defender gets insecure and still will have to find solutions behind the board.


That is what I think. Of course the Ryder is no ultimate solution but much more an ultimate task...
Improving analysing skills - yes, just as they are forced to (with vibrant pieces if just the opponent slipps a bit).
That insecurity of the opponents is just a matter of fact. We don't deal theoretically with the positions but just practically with time limit. Mistakes are allowed and wellcome...   

MNb wrote on 02/17/16 at 17:00:18:
In the meantime the pupil can work on a more serious repertoire.


Here we are. The problem of every "normal" opening approach for upcomers is: It is too much you have to deal with. Especially in the 1.e4-sector...


MNb wrote on 02/17/16 at 17:00:18:
There is some truth in "beneath ELO 2400 (or whatever) anything goes", as long as you understand the positions better than your opponents. The Ryder Gambit worked for me like that.


This is the inclination I too have. We should not forget that chess is a game of mistakes. And making the first "mistakes", giving away two pawns for not enough play, may be a good investment, as the opponent later is invited to mix in his own share of mistakes...
And they will, not all, but statistically for sure and in rising rate the lower the level is...


CarriedbyGg wrote on 02/17/16 at 21:30:10:
To explain my point, I would not like to recommend such objectively unsound openings to anyone, because I think just scoring well is not an excuse for playing bad stuff.


Objection.
Just scoring well is in first instance a very good excuse for playing risky stuff. Simply: Why not?
Ah, as the oponents grow stronger. So you should do. And develop your skills.
How do we learn chess? In my last lecture, on tuesday, we talked about openings and just as naturally as it may be one of the pupils suggested to play for what in Germany is called the "Schaefermatt" -  1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Qh5...

You may call it rubbish, I as a teacher would call it a micro plan. In a teaching or learning sense this pupil acts goal orientated - not sound yet, but goal orientated.

My simple question is how I can get pupils advance to play for goals. Even if this goals are on a higher level not sustainable. The Ryder is, quite sure, not sound. But for sure it is lively with White having the initiative - or fun as MNb gave it on his experience. Not enough but nearly... If Black plays the best moves, the Gambiteer may fail. May. But how often this case will arise?

I think they have to learn even those failures to reach the next level... Never forget: Those items may return in ugly situations were you have to choose between just bad or very risky.
So I think pupils should learn this early on...

CarriedbyGg wrote on 02/17/16 at 21:30:10:
There are enough openings that are thought of being fine while providing enouh sharpness for someone who wants to take risks. The King's gambit, to name one.


Yeah. 1.e4 e5 2.f4. Burns. But how often do you get 1...e5?! And how do you sac against 1...c6 or 1...Nf6?

To keep things straight and simple, to reduce the workload in a sense that the pupils get an active position is a point on it's own...
Besides:playing the King's gambit quite often forces you to even sacrifice a whole piece (e.g. on f7) - may be logic and clearcut but also not easy...

CarriedbyGg wrote on 02/17/16 at 21:30:10:
There is no better way of learning a proper repertoire than to play it from the beginning!


Objection. Check Morphy. His play was clearly not allways exactly to death, but vibrant. But wrong in theoretical sense. But in combination with the opponents mistakes it was enough to construct masterpieces...

Young pupils should get in touch with such a genius input even if their level may be much lower. All in all they want to rise.
My experience is, that the input of pupils on lower ranks and higher ones dramatically rises, when the position turns to be concrete...

So of course they should learn, that an invested risk may matter positively...

CarriedbyGg wrote on 02/17/16 at 21:30:10:
Maybe the points will not come that easily because the opponent also knows some more stuff in "his" line, but it will teach you a lot about pawn structures, harmony, development and so on.


Before we learn about pawn structure we definitely should learn about piece power for sure...
  

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


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 82
Joined: 02/06/15
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #47 - 02/17/16 at 21:30:10
Post Tools
I won't say that I condemn every non-mainline opening, but I think there is a clear cut between second-rate openings and everything below that. To explain my point, I would not like to recommend such objectively unsound openings to anyone, because I think just scoring well is not an excuse for playing bad stuff. There are enough openings that are thought of being fine while providing enouh sharpness for someone who wants to take risks. The King's gambit, to name one.
I would advise everybody to play mainline chess, which is logic and clear-cut. There is no better way of learning a proper repertoire than to play it from the beginning! Maybe the points will not come that easily because the opponent also knows some more stuff in "his" line, but it will teach you a lot about pawn structures, harmony, development and so on.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10546
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #46 - 02/17/16 at 17:00:18
Post Tools
Strength of my opponents: ELO 1500 - 1800.
I never felt that any opponent was well prepared - they usually had just some vague idea of what to do.
I think you could recommend this to some pupils who need a quick patch and like taking risks. Be honest though - I never fooled myself by thinking it was the ultimate solution. It's dubious at best. Plus make sure they are prepared for Black's two best defenses. It's kind of fun (for players with a certain attitude) to find ideas, even if dubious, in lines that are supposed to be bad. That will improve analyzing skills. In practical games that will often work like a charm, because the defender gets insecure and still will have to find solutions behind the board.
In the meantime the pupil can work on a more serious repertoire. In about the same way I recommended a good friend of mine to play the Leningrad Bird (Polar Bear), when his regular repertoire was in a crisis. He already had years of experience with the Dragon,  the Closed Sicilian and the KID. To his amazement he scored 4,5 / 6, exactly because his opponents didn't really understand the resulting positions. There is some truth in "beneath ELO 2400 (or whatever) anything goes", as long as you understand the positions better than your opponents. The Ryder Gambit worked for me like that.
  

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
 
motörhead
Full Member
***
Offline


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

Posts: 226
Joined: 10/09/08
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #45 - 02/15/16 at 21:25:07
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 02/14/16 at 16:07:20:
1. Yes.
2 - 5. Can't remember, I didn't keep track.
6. Never.
7. Fun. Still I quit after two years. Fun like this never lasts.

Background: my main source was Sawyer's Keybook I. I checked his lines with Fritz 1. I didn't have access to databases yet (now it's 20 years ago).



Thx for the answer.
Even if it is 20 years ago, you remember the fun, so I conclude that you weren't slaughtered too many times over the board.

I don't want do bore you, but two questions remain, so...

Do you have a faint rememberance on the strength of your oponents then?

Did you at some time get the feeling that your oponents did some homework in preparation on you and the Ryder (as they may have seen you playing it earlier on)?

Aside: I fully understand that you stopped playing it (in the end it is too risky).
But I as a coach ask myself nevertheless whether it may be advisable to play this stuff for some time just as a stage of development of chess skills...
  

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


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10546
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #44 - 02/14/16 at 16:07:20
Post Tools
1. Yes.
2 - 5. Can't remember, I didn't keep track.
6. Never.
7. Fun. Still I quit after two years. Fun like this never lasts.

Background: my main source was Sawyer's Keybook I. I checked his lines with Fritz 1. I didn't have access to databases yet (now it's 20 years ago).
  

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
 
motörhead
Full Member
***
Offline


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

Posts: 226
Joined: 10/09/08
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #43 - 02/10/16 at 21:43:14
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 03/09/10 at 01:46:18:
Believe me or not, but when I played the Ryder Gambit some 15 years ago (only OTB) I found that there were a few points not entirely clear after 6...Qg4.
The line that bothered me most was 6...Qh4+ 7.g3 Qb4 (an improvement on 6...Qb4) 8.0-0-0 c6 and as White can't play 9.Qg3 Black is better.



To revive this thread...

1. Did you play the Ryder on regular basis then?
2. How about the statistics in results (won drawn lost)?
3. How about the statistics in the anwers
a. declined (5...c6, 5...g6 etc.)
b. accepted (5...Qxd4)?
4. When 3b, what did your opponents play after 6.Be3? Did moves like 6...Qe5 or 6...Qd8 even occur?
5. How often have you been confronted with what may be called the main line 6...Qg4 7.Qf2 e5! which looks best, grapping space?
6. You feared the line  6...Qh4+ 7.g3 Qb4 8.0-0-0 c6. How often did you met it?
7. What is your over all resumee on your own games?
Fun or frustration?

Background: One can consult statistics on the Ryder, but what are statistics?

As Avruch writes White in the database has a "staggering plus score" even with 6...Qg4 7.Nf3 asf.

I think, Al-over-megabases may miss too many games. But special databases (eg. BDG megabase) may be distorted. As glorius victories are very likely to be included while bad losses may be not included. (For this reason?!) the results in the databases show clear plusses for White nearly everywhere (eccept 5...g6!).
  

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


USCF National Master

Posts: 2506
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #42 - 01/10/13 at 20:51:34
Post Tools
ChevyBanginStyle wrote on 04/18/10 at 10:33:51:
It's sloppy chess, but it might work at a higher level than many people want to admit. For an extreme case, take Sam Sloan's Damiano Defense with 3.Nxe5 fxe5?? where he knowingly accepts a lost position in standard time controls to have the opportunity to demoralize his opponents.


Old old old thread here, I admit, but...were you seriously suggesting that following a 1900-rated player's opening play into a clearly lost game on move 2 is in any way a good idea? 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Sandman
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 103
Joined: 05/10/07
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #41 - 01/10/13 at 15:26:35
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 04/19/10 at 12:11:11:
I generally stick only to gambit lines that I consider reasonably sound in all lines- I take the same approach to the BDG as ArKheiN for example.



If I may, which gambits are those?
« Last Edit: 01/10/13 at 17:15:03 by Sandman »  

“All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy.
That's how far the world is from where I am.
Just one bad day.”
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10546
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #40 - 04/03/11 at 18:03:55
Post Tools
Sure, but after 11...Nbd7 Black is still a pawn up, ready to take the centre with 12...e5 while White cannot even develop normally with 12.Bd3 because of 12...Ne5 or even 12...b6. At the other hand 12.Be3 Rxa4 13.Nxa4 allows Black to catch up with development as Na3 is misplaced.
In short: Black is better.
  

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
 
WilhelmHH
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline



Posts: 9
Location: Hamburg
Joined: 07/30/05
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #39 - 04/03/11 at 12:05:14
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 03/09/10 at 21:45:05:
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,


11. Bxa7 is possible
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1388
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #38 - 10/05/10 at 05:23:29
Post Tools
FM Eric Schiller wrote on 10/05/10 at 02:32:40:
"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."

Instead, 13.Bd4! seems to equalize.

I'm doing a new eBook on the Ryder and that is what I am recommnding.



Okay, that sounds good! Can you give us the first seven moves prior to the line cited above?

I don't play the Ryder because I am less familiar with 5 Qxf3 than 5 Nxf3. That said, I do venture it sometimes on the Internet Chess Club.

Give me these titled players to play on the Internet Chess Club, BDG Accepted, and I will beat them for breakfast.
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
FM Eric Schiller
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1
Joined: 10/05/10
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #37 - 10/05/10 at 02:32:40
Post Tools
"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."

Instead, 13.Bd4! seems to equalize.

I'm doing a new eBook on the Ryder and that is what I am recommnding.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1388
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #36 - 04/24/10 at 04:29:57
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 04/23/10 at 22:06:48:
I don't think the 8.0-0 gambit in the Euwe defence is sound either (see various pieces of analysis elsewhere on the forum, leading to at least =+ for Black).  But I'll concede that it is, indeed, more dangerous for Black in practice than the Ryder Gambit- for starters it is easier for Black to go wrong.


Precisely the point. It is easier for Black to go wrong.
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 900
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #35 - 04/23/10 at 22:06:48
Post Tools
I don't think the 8.0-0 gambit in the Euwe defence is sound either (see various pieces of analysis elsewhere on the forum, leading to at least =+ for Black).  But I'll concede that it is, indeed, more dangerous for Black in practice than the Ryder Gambit- for starters it is easier for Black to go wrong.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1388
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #34 - 04/23/10 at 19:14:23
Post Tools
After 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 ef3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1 the Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defense to the BDG arises. It has many similarities with the Ryder Gambit (two pawn sacrifice, for example), but is much more dangerous. For in the Zilbermints Gambit, all of White's pieces are developed and ready to attack. Moreover, Blacks does not have the 5...Qxd4 6 Be3 Qg4! line that is available in the Ryder Gambit.

Now, some have said that I should tell them the critical lines to my gambit. Seriously, folks. You don't expect me to give you all the answers, huh? Nor do you expect the professor to give you answers on the mid-term exam.

LOL!
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo