Latest Updates:
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Refutation of the Ryder Gambit (Read 47958 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
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 900
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #33 - 04/22/10 at 09:19:20
Post Tools
I think the problem is that the Ryder Gambit doesn't look like it can be revived (at least theoretically speaking) for White.  5...Qxd4 6.Be3 Qg4 7.Qf2 e5 is probably =+ while 6...Qh4+ 7.g3 Qb4 is probably more. 

In many gambit lines the sacrifice of one or more additional pawns, while riskier, offers the gambiteer more dangerous compensation- such as the Poisoned Pawn with 10.e5 or the Goring Gambit with 5.Bc4.  But I don't think the Ryder Gambit manages this- if anything White seems to have more chances of a quick victory in the lines following 5.Nxf3.  In addition, it's toothless in a way because Black can ignore the pawn on d4 and steer the game into channels where the queen would be best placed elsewhere and the king's knight would be best on f3.  For instance 5...Nc6 6.Bb5 (6.d5 Nd4 -/+, while otherwise Black threatens 6...Nxd4 winning the pawn under better circumstances) 6...Bd7 7.Nge2 e5 8.dxe5 Nxe5 9.Bxd7+ Nfxd7 and although White has some chances with Qg3, Be3/Bf4 and 0-0-0, I would assess this line as a fairly comfortable =+ for Black.  Or 5...c6 6.Bd3 Bg4 7.Qf2 e6 may also be better for Black than any of the 5.Nxf3 lines.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #32 - 04/22/10 at 00:22:49
Post Tools
Could we get back to chess and stop discussing Lev?  It really is not what this forum is for.  I just deleted a post of his that was mainly chest-puffing, and by the same token, we here should leave off provoking him or criticizing him and just talk about the chess of the thing.  If you want to talk about Lev per se, do it in Chit Chat or perhaps general chess.  But really what is the point, since Lev is merely annoying, not important.

If you want to talk about d-pawn specials, do it here.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
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 #31 - 04/19/10 at 23:48:12
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 04/19/10 at 16:57:47:
But I don't think it's entirely fair to LDZ to say that has provided no analysis.  He sometimes does provide analysis.


Yes and moreover it's quality is quite decent. But never on BDG-lines that may lead to an advantage for Black, like 5...c6 and Craig Evans' line vs. his 0-0 gambit in the Euwe defence. And I find that typical.

Imo there is also a difference between taking a calculated risk in a game once in a while - after all Beljavsky dared to play the Traxler against no one less than Karpov and got away with it - and taking that approach as the fundament of your regular opening repertoire. After all I have played the Ryder Gambit for two years. Of course I had my work done in Black's best lines so I usually got good positions out of the opening. The few cases that I didn't made me drop it. Same with Albin's.

You see? That's why I am so interested in rehabilitating the Danish/Göring and Morra. If one day I get back to OTB-chess I might take them up again, but only if am convinced that they are good enough for equality (and it rather should be a dynamic equality).
  

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
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #30 - 04/19/10 at 16:57:47
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 04/19/10 at 01:52:48:
And typically LDZ has provided zero analysis to show that White has sufficient compensation in the BDG, many requests notwithstanding. He only blabbers about "psychology", "computers" and in the past about another infamous c-word. Neither is he interested in Black's best moves, again unlike ArkHein and Sevenviolets. That's my reason to write he plays hope chess.


If someone isn't interested in the Search for Truth in chess, fine, that's his loss.  But to talk as if he is interested and yet perpetually slide into "this succeeds in practice" is shapeshifting, it seems to me.

But I don't think it's entirely fair to LDZ to say that has provided no analysis.  He sometimes does provide analysis.
  

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


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 900
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #29 - 04/19/10 at 12:11:11
Post Tools
I can see your point regarding LDZ and "hope chess" now- particularly re. the attitude of insisting that an opening line is objectively good and being uninterested in best play from the opponent.

There is an interesting grey area here.  I mentioned the line 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.d4 Bg4 and 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7, both of which are in a similar theoretical state- Black is doing alright except against one critical line which probably leads to +/-, but which White very rarely finds in OTB games.   I initially took up those lines some years ago thinking that Black had a viable position in all lines, but after the critical lines became established, was unable to repair them convincingly for Black.

Would continuing to play either of those lines with Black, on the grounds that an opponent is very unlikely to both find the critical line and play it accurately through to its conclusion, constitute "hope chess"?  It's certainly a risk, but it's a calculated risk based on the premise that in a large majority of games Black won't come out of the opening with a significantly worse position, in contrast to the Ryder Gambit where White probably ends up worse out of the opening in most games and relies upon Black misplaying the middlegame.

I must say, though, that with just the above two exceptions, 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.
  
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 #28 - 04/19/10 at 01:52:48
Post Tools
Frankly I don't see any difference between "playuing a dubious opening in the hope of achieving a specific trap" (and JDKnight should have added: "which leads to an inferior position if the opponent avoids that trap") and "playing a dubious system on the grounds that it's easy for the opponent to go wrong" (and JDKnight should have added: "which leads to an inferior position if the opponent plays good moves.")

I am all for setting traps. But if the opponent avoids them I still want to have at least an equal position. Playing an opening (especially as White) that leads to an inferior position if the opponents play the best moves is hope chess. The Ryder Gambit is one example.
It's something completely different if one studies an opening with a dubious reputation and one tries to prove it playable by finding improvements in critical lines.

Regarding the BDG with 5.Nxf3 I would say that White has problems proving sufficient compensation in a couple of lines, just like the Morra Gambit. At the other hand a clear route to an indispute advantage for Black is not known either yet, again just like the Morra Gambit. The way ArkHein and Sevenviolets (Patrik Shoupal) play the BDG is certainly not hope chess. They are convinced and willing to show that white has enough.

As much as LDZ I love playing gambits. But I only play the ones I think correct. And typically LDZ has provided zero analysis to show that White has sufficient compensation in the BDG, many requests notwithstanding. He only blabbers about "psychology", "computers" and in the past about another infamous c-word. Neither is he interested in Black's best moves, again unlike ArkHein and Sevenviolets. That's my reason to write he plays hope chess.
  

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
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 900
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #27 - 04/19/10 at 00:33:01
Post Tools
I agree with ChevyBanginStyle here.  Personally I always interpreted "hope chess" as referring primarily to thought processes along the lines "I go here, I go there" with little or no consideration of the opponent's intervening moves. 

I think playing a dubious opening purely in the hope of achieving a specific trap might be delving into "hope chess" territory, but that's not the same as playing a dubious opening system partly on the grounds that it's easy for the opponent 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 #26 - 04/18/10 at 21:43:31
Post Tools
I don't care about Heisman. What I care about is winning with my chess style... and I do!
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
ChevyBanginStyle
Full Member
***
Offline


2 \infty & *CRUNCH*

Posts: 238
Joined: 01/03/10
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #25 - 04/18/10 at 21:42:38
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 04/18/10 at 20:40:33:
Gambit wrote on 04/18/10 at 17:20:59:
Madness, no. Psychology in chess, yes.

Hope chess (ie playing inferior moves assuming that the opponent will not find the best replies), yes.

Read Heisman's columns on Chesscafe. Gambit's "psychology" perfectly fits in Heisman's definition of hope chess.


I tend to associate "hope chess" with beginner's play centered around one simplistic idea that can easily be rebuffed. The line begins to blur when you consider marginal openings. For instance, is the BDG hope chess? Lev Gutman suggested ideas that offer White long-term compensation in the 5...c6 line which is considered by many to be one of Black's most respectable defenses. Even if an opening is objectively unsound, the reasons may not be entirely obvious and the possibilities for interesting play manifold. There are grandmasters who sometimes deliberately play openings of inferior quality in Swiss events to create complications or trip up their opponents. Are they playing "hope chess"? There is a "poker bluff" aspect to play like this that is much more sophisticated than a common beginner's mistake. Chess is a game after all and even a chess "logician" must appreciate these aspects of the game to become a strong practical player.
  
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 #24 - 04/18/10 at 20:40:33
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 04/18/10 at 17:20:59:
Madness, no. Psychology in chess, yes.

Hope chess (ie playing inferior moves assuming that the opponent will not find the best replies), yes.

Read Heisman's columns on Chesscafe. Gambit's "psychology" perfectly fits in Heisman's definition of hope chess.
  

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
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 900
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #23 - 04/18/10 at 17:38:33
Post Tools
I doubt that "madness" was meant to be interpreted literally- "method in his madness" is a common phrase to show that something that might appear mad on the surface actually has a solid logical basis behind it.

Tim Harding had an interesting article on "Logicians vs Berserkers":
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz99.pdf

Of course categorisations like that always have drawbacks, but Gambit's approach (which also applies to myself to a lesser extent) appears very similar to what Harding describes as the "Berserker" approach.  I think of Markovich in particular as a strong example of a Logician on these boards.
  
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 #22 - 04/18/10 at 17:20:59
Post Tools
Madness, no. Psychology in chess, yes.
  
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 #21 - 04/18/10 at 11:37:13
Post Tools
There's a thing that Tim McGrew calls the "Caltrop Coefficient"- where it is easier for one side to err than the other and the price for erring can be more catastrophic for one side than the other.  In many gambits the caltrop coefficient heavily favours the gambiteer.

I'm sure it works for many obviously unsound openings.  For example I've scored well with the Englund Gambit (1.d4 e5, though these days I mostly use other responses to 1.d4) and the Portuguese/Jadoul Gambit (1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.d4 Bg4), because although White is probably +/- in the critical line of both openings, White rarely finds the correct path and most often ducks out with a harmless alternative- even at IM/GM level.  On the other hand, for openings with numerous critical responses, the chances of the opponent finding one of them are a lot higher and so the caltrop coefficient is lower.

Judging by White's high score with the Ryder Gambit I'm guessing that the Ryder Gambit has a decent caltrop coefficient but I still see no compelling reason to prefer it to 5.Nxf3, except perhaps that it is less well-analysed.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ChevyBanginStyle
Full Member
***
Offline


2 \infty & *CRUNCH*

Posts: 238
Joined: 01/03/10
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #20 - 04/18/10 at 10:33:51
Post Tools
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. I think the Halloween Gambit (Four Knights with 4.Nxe5) is almost -/+ (or at least =/+) with accurate play in a couple of the most critical lines, but when I studied it carefully, it soon became clear to me that it is not an easy opening to refute "cold" OTB. It's funny. Sometimes I have a fascination with "improper" openings. If this were Go, they would be called hamete in Japanese which roughly translates to "trick plays." Often they are most likely incorrect, but a strong player should be able to figure out why beyond the fact that they are not joseki (standard). I will almost never play an opening that I believe to be incorrect, even if I find it to be interesting. It is matter beyond practical chances for me. As a consequence, there are many openings that I have studied that I never intend to play, even if it is unlikely that I would ever face them with the opposite color. I imagine a lot of people would think that I am wasting my time. I see it as a form of training, but perhaps it could be argued that it's not the most efficient use of time.

In regards to TN's claim that White is just as likely to make a miscalculation as Black, I would tend to agree in general terms if the positions were "cold" to both players, but that is often not the case and I think there may be a method to Gambit's madness. Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #19 - 04/18/10 at 05:52:32
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 04/17/10 at 23:16:09:
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.


I have my watch ticking at my side, if that counts. Tongue

If two players of equal strength play each other and one plays the Ryder Gambit, White is just as likely to make a miscalculation as Black. If White had real compensation for both pawns then fair enough, Black would be more likely to err, but as shown here Black is just much better (probably -/+).

Not everyone reads the Forum, but Black's moves aren't exactly difficult to find over the board. An alert Black won't fall for White's few tricks in a game with a classical time control.

  

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: 1388
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #18 - 04/17/10 at 23:16:09
Post Tools
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.
  
Back to top
YIM  
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 #17 - 03/14/10 at 22:18:24
Post Tools
motörhead wrote on 03/14/10 at 15:32:30:
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.


On these points we completely agree.
  

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 #16 - 03/14/10 at 15:32:30
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 03/13/10 at 21:50:03:
motörhead wrote on 03/13/10 at 14:38:38:
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 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?


If White has to "stop" Black's ideas there is something wrong. 9.Rd4 Qa5 10.Bc4 e5 11.Rd2 Be7 again asks the question: what is White's attacking plan? Both ...Be6 and the manoeuvre Nb8-d7-c5 remain open. Perhaps Black can even play 12...b5.


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
  

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 #15 - 03/13/10 at 21:50:03
Post Tools
motörhead wrote on 03/13/10 at 14:38:38:
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 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?


If White has to "stop" Black's ideas there is something wrong. 9.Rd4 Qa5 10.Bc4 e5 11.Rd2 Be7 again asks the question: what is White's attacking plan? Both ...Be6 and the manoeuvre Nb8-d7-c5 remain open. Perhaps Black can even play 12...b5.
  

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 #14 - 03/13/10 at 14:38:38
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 03/10/10 at 17:49:05:
Re. 9.h3 in MNb's line, it looks too slow- simply ...e5, ...Be6 and ...Nbd7 as given looks good.   Btw, Fritz also suggests the idea Nh3-g5 tying Black down to defending f7 for a while, e.g. 9.Rd4 Qa5 10.Nh3 Nbd7 11.Ra4 Qc7 12.Ng5 (ignoring the pawn on a7 for now) 12...Ne5 13.Qf4 e6 14.Rxa7 Rxa7 15.Bxa7 Qa5 16.Kb1, which looks like a slightly improved version of the immediate grab on a7, although Black still stands better.

I don't reject the Ryder Gambit out of hand as a practical weapon at fast time limits or low levels- some of the positions look superficially attractive to me at first glance (probably due to similarities with the two-pawn gambits in the Danish/Goring and all of those open lines) and White certainly gets some practical chances.  But it certainly doesn't look sound.


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:
The problem in the 8.h3 line, I think, is 8...Qf5 9.Qd2 Bb4!.


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:
In the 7.Qf2 e5 8.Bd3 line, 8...Bb4 9.Nge2 e4 10.Bb5+ a6 11.Ba4 0-0 doesn't appear to give White anything significant for the two-pawn deficit, e.g. 12.0-0-0 Be6, or 12.0-0 Nbd7 with ideas of ...Nc5 and ...Ne5 if appropriate.


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
Wink

motörhead
formerly known as cheesemate

  

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


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 900
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #13 - 03/10/10 at 17:49:05
Post Tools
In the 7.Qf2 e5 8.Bd3 line, 8...Bb4 9.Nge2 e4 10.Bb5+ a6 11.Ba4 0-0 doesn't appear to give White anything significant for the two-pawn deficit, e.g. 12.0-0-0 Be6, or 12.0-0 Nbd7 with ideas of ...Nc5 and ...Ne5 if appropriate.

The problem in the 8.h3 line, I think, is 8...Qf5 9.Qd2 Bb4!.

Re. 9.h3 in MNb's line, it looks too slow- simply ...e5, ...Be6 and ...Nbd7 as given looks good.   Btw, Fritz also suggests the idea Nh3-g5 tying Black down to defending f7 for a while, e.g. 9.Rd4 Qa5 10.Nh3 Nbd7 11.Ra4 Qc7 12.Ng5 (ignoring the pawn on a7 for now) 12...Ne5 13.Qf4 e6 14.Rxa7 Rxa7 15.Bxa7 Qa5 16.Kb1, which looks like a slightly improved version of the immediate grab on a7, although Black still stands better.

I don't reject the Ryder Gambit out of hand as a practical weapon at fast time limits or low levels- some of the positions look superficially attractive to me at first glance (probably due to similarities with the two-pawn gambits in the Danish/Goring and all of those open lines) and White certainly gets some practical chances.  But it certainly doesn't look sound.
  
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 #12 - 03/10/10 at 01:29:21
Post Tools
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?
  

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 #11 - 03/10/10 at 01:16:36
Post Tools
kylemeister wrote on 03/09/10 at 23:00:21:
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.


Thanx for the variations.
After a short view I agree with SWJediknight's statment concerning the line after 8.Nf3.

To keep the flow in the discussion I before taking a sleep give an idea to 8.Bd3 Bb4 9. Nge2 e4. Isn't 10.Bb5+!? better than Rizzitano's 10.Bc4 Be6 11.Bxe6 Qxe6 12.h3 Nd5 etc? It lures forward 10...c6 11.Ba4 and now a7 is hanging. That's really not a major problem for Black but it is a little option  and at least White isn't forced directly into exchanges and perhaps he can untangle his pieces for a second wave...

to 8.h3 I have the game Grava - Stowe, corr USA 1963. There followed 8...Qf5 9.Qd2 Ne4 10.Nxe4 Qxe4 11.0-0-0 Be7 12. Bb5+ Nc6? (12...c6) 13. Bc5 f6 14.Nf3 Be6 15.Rhe1 Qg6 16.Nd4! Bd5? (16...Rd8! 17.Nxc6! bxc6 18.Qa5!? Rxd1+!...) 17.Nxc6! 1-0
Haven't checked it but only typed...

I still have to check your 8.a3 qutation.

Good night

cheese
  

A walk trough the ocean of most souls would scarcely get your feet wet.
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 #10 - 03/10/10 at 00:29:06
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 03/09/10 at 21:45:05:
However I see no compelling reason to prefer 5.Qxf3 to the sounder (and no less dangerous) 5.Nxf3.

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:
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 =+.

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) Wink
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:
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 -/+.

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

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


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 900
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #9 - 03/09/10 at 23:34:10
Post Tools
Thanks for the info!  That first line looks a little over-optimistic for Black to me: 13.Qh4, and now 13...Nbd7 14.0-0, 13...0-0 14.0-0 and 13...Qxg2 14.Rg1 Qf3 (or 14...Qc6) 15.Rxg7.  While Black stands better here, I find it hard to believe that it's anywhere near decisive- White does have a fair number of open lines and a slight lead in development.

13.Qe2 0-0 (as given) 14.0-0 gives White pretty scant compensation, relying on the b and f-files, but even here I think "-+" is a bit over the top.

However I agree that Black is probably winning after the continuations 8.Bd3 and 8.a3, with the latter in particular looking far too slow.

Of course, it doesn't repair the line for White- Black is still better (the disagreement is over how much better Black is) and there are many alternatives such as MNb's line (above) which I think is a solid -/+, and maybe more (I looked at 6...Qh4+ 7.Bf2 but it doesn't work in view of 7...Qg4!, and after 8.Qe3 e6 Black has a large advantage).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4666
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #8 - 03/09/10 at 23:00:21
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.

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.
  
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 #7 - 03/09/10 at 21:54:00
Post Tools
kylemeister wrote on 03/09/10 at 00:29:59:
Pachman, Gallagher and Rizzitano have given 6...Qg4 7. Qf2 e5 as clearly better for Black.


Thanx to you and the others.
You seem to larsen a bit. Grin
That Danish hero is a declared fan of short variations.  And yours is short too. But to my resources White after
1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Qxf3 Qxd4 6.Be3 7.Qf2 e5 had played at least two different moves quite regularly. And that in corres chess and the player weren't absolute beginners... Well it was pre engine time (if now one of them had access to Konrad Zuse's Z1).
There is 8.a3 and 8.Bd3 - and 8.h3 too. How do the three wise men get on with that? The Austrian IM or GM (don't know) Danner played the wild stuff in his youth, and he had both moves on the board.

cheese
  

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


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 900
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #6 - 03/09/10 at 21:45:05
Post Tools
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 -/+.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
nyoke
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 593
Location: BELGIUM
Joined: 12/31/06
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #5 - 03/09/10 at 20:13:08
Post Tools
Quote:
That said, it still has practical chances in over-the-board tournaments.


Gee, I knew that time limits for OTB-play have been sharpened but had no idea that 'bullets' had become the rule.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #4 - 03/09/10 at 07:02:38
Post Tools
motörhead wrote on 03/08/10 at 23:19:54:
Let's get a bit generous and offer two pawns.
I own a copy of Diemer's book "Vom ersten Zug auf Matt". It largely deals with a gambit idea Diemer credits to a Dr. Ryder.

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Qxf3

From theoretical point of view I can't believe that this is good anyhow. But Diemer played it quite regularly. And on practical basis it worked.
The question to me is: What ist the best way to defend Black's case in this variation? Does White get enough practical chances (not theoretical), or is there a clear refutation - discovered by, say, Rybka?
Can Black simply take ond d4 (5...Qxd4) and how does he proceed after 6.Be3?
Are other continuations - 5...c6, 5...e6, 5...g6, 5...Nc6, 5...Nbd7 - more to the point?

cheese


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.
  

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: 1388
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #3 - 03/09/10 at 05:48:25
Post Tools
I only play the Ryder Gambit in blitz games. The reason for this is because I am more familiar with the 5 Nxf3 lines than with 5 Qxf3. It is my opinion that the Ryder is far more riskier than the BDG. That said, it still has practical chances in over-the-board tournaments. This is because people won't have the advantage of computer assistance to help them.
  
Back to top
YIM  
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 #2 - 03/09/10 at 01:46:18
Post Tools
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.
  

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
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4666
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
Reply #1 - 03/09/10 at 00:29:59
Post Tools
Pachman, Gallagher and Rizzitano have given 6...Qg4 7. Qf2 e5 as clearly better for Black.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
motörhead
Full Member
***
Offline


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

Posts: 226
Joined: 10/09/08
Refutation of the Ryder Gambit
03/08/10 at 23:19:54
Post Tools
Let's get a bit generous and offer two pawns.
I own a copy of Diemer's book "Vom ersten Zug auf Matt". It largely deals with a gambit idea Diemer credits to a Dr. Ryder.

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Qxf3

From theoretical point of view I can't believe that this is good anyhow. But Diemer played it quite regularly. And on practical basis it worked.
The question to me is: What ist the best way to defend Black's case in this variation? Does White get enough practical chances (not theoretical), or is there a clear refutation - discovered by, say, Rybka?
Can Black simply take ond d4 (5...Qxd4) and how does he proceed after 6.Be3?
Are other continuations - 5...c6, 5...e6, 5...g6, 5...Nc6, 5...Nbd7 - more to the point?

cheese
  

A walk trough the ocean of most souls would scarcely get your feet wet.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo