ChessPub Forum - Saemisch gambit refuted?

ErictheRed God Member Offline USCF National Master Posts: 2534 Location: USA Joined: 10/02/05	Re: Saemisch gambit refuted? Reply #21 - 02/26/14 at 22:09:07	Post Tools	Print Post
	I'll take a closer look, just a little skeptical of an objective advantage, that's all. New ideas pose new problems in openings all the time, that's how theory develops. I wasn't saying that White doesn't have promising new ideas, just that I'm skeptical of anything coming close to a refutation (as the original post phrased the question).


	IP Logged

BladezII Senior Member Offline Member of chesspublishing .com and STC Club Posts: 409 Joined: 11/01/04	Re: Saemisch gambit refuted? Reply #20 - 02/26/14 at 19:26:17	Post Tools	Print Post
	ErictheRed wrote on 02/26/14 at 12:50:29: To be honest BladezII, I prefer 6.Bg5 anyway, so it isn't really relevant for me. But I've played the Samisch for...17 years now? I've been around long enough to see various "refutations" of the 6...c5 gambit come and go (just as with the Marshall), so I view all of this with a bit of skepticism. Of course as time goes on I don't doubt that White will eventually figure out the best approach, and it's possible that Black won't achieve full compensation in some theoretical sense, but I'm skeptical when it's been played for about 20 years at the highest levels. I'll take a closer look out of curiosity, though. Vigorito is as much as a hardcore KID fan as they come, and a true expert. If he's paying attention at these ideas and lines, it is not just for the sake of Chesspub, it is also because he knows they hold weight. It is also fact that they are presenting problems in OTB. He, Vigorito, is not claiming the absolute truth and saying White is just better, but he is saying Black is facing issues in OTB according to recent practice. So the real question is "Why not pay attention and learn what's happening?" It can only help you, not hurt your chess. Being a subscriber certainly has its benefits.

	I am a participating member of chesspublishing.com since 1998.
	IP Logged

ErictheRed God Member Offline USCF National Master Posts: 2534 Location: USA Joined: 10/02/05	Re: Saemisch gambit refuted? Reply #19 - 02/26/14 at 12:50:29	Post Tools	Print Post
	To be honest BladezII, I prefer 6.Bg5 anyway, so it isn't really relevant for me. But I've played the Samisch for...17 years now? I've been around long enough to see various "refutations" of the 6...c5 gambit come and go (just as with the Marshall), so I view all of this with a bit of skepticism. Of course as time goes on I don't doubt that White will eventually figure out the best approach, and it's possible that Black won't achieve full compensation in some theoretical sense, but I'm skeptical when it's been played for about 20 years at the highest levels. I'll take a closer look out of curiosity, though.


	IP Logged

BladezII Senior Member Offline Member of chesspublishing .com and STC Club Posts: 409 Joined: 11/01/04	Re: Saemisch gambit refuted? Reply #18 - 02/25/14 at 19:51:40	Post Tools	Print Post
	ErictheRed wrote on 02/25/14 at 19:26:26: I remember something similar to Brabo's (perhaps a refinement?) around 2001 or 2002ish, but I can't place it now. It wasn't any of those links, though. Anyway the Samisch Gambit is not likely to be refuted, though after a couple of decades of practice and strong computers plugging away, it's not surprising that White can find ways to take the pawn and make Black work harder to justify its loss. Personally I've played the Samisch forever (more or less exclusively since Joe Gallagher's book came out) but never wanted anything to do with the White side. Maybe correspondence is different, but over-the-board Black always gets a lot of compensation. This line, with some very good games by White, indicate that in OTB it is White who is giving Black trouble. Check out all the updates covered in the KID section regarding the gambit accepted. Are you a subscriber ? I recommend, if you have not yet, to take a good look.

	I am a participating member of chesspublishing.com since 1998.
	IP Logged

ErictheRed God Member Offline USCF National Master Posts: 2534 Location: USA Joined: 10/02/05	Re: Saemisch gambit refuted? Reply #17 - 02/25/14 at 19:26:26	Post Tools	Print Post
	I remember something similar to Brabo's (perhaps a refinement?) around 2001 or 2002ish, but I can't place it now. It wasn't any of those links, though. Anyway the Samisch Gambit is not likely to be refuted, though after a couple of decades of practice and strong computers plugging away, it's not surprising that White can find ways to take the pawn and make Black work harder to justify its loss. Personally I've played the Samisch forever (more or less exclusively since Joe Gallagher's book came out) but never wanted anything to do with the White side. Maybe correspondence is different, but over-the-board Black always gets a lot of compensation.


	IP Logged

IMJohnCox God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 1551 Location: London Joined: 01/28/06 Gender:	Re: Saemisch gambit refuted? Reply #16 - 02/25/14 at 14:36:21	Post Tools	Print Post
	Funny, I could have sworn the magic move was h3!! in some position with everything hanging. Not that I keep up with the Marshall industry. Anyway, thanks for the links.


	IP Logged

brabo God Member Offline Welcome chessfriend Posts: 1073 Joined: 02/02/07	Re: Saemisch gambit refuted? Reply #15 - 02/25/14 at 14:11:02	Post Tools	Print Post
	IMJohnCox wrote on 02/25/14 at 13:28:36: Reminds one of a famous article of yesteryear, entitled 'Has The Marshall Gambit Been Refuted On The Internet?' The first year went i started on the internet: 1998. Nice memories with the very rudimentary rec.games.chess newsgroups Naturally it is about the refutation of 1 specific but important line of the Marshall gambit by the Spanish at that time totally unknown amateur Daniel Quigley: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.games.chess.misc/_CemRkWpWp8 Later it was picked up in http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz24.pdf http://www.bennedik.de/marshall99.pdf and used but not credited correctly in http://www.chesscafe.com/text/informant03.pdf


	WWW IP Logged

IMJohnCox God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 1551 Location: London Joined: 01/28/06 Gender:	Re: Saemisch gambit refuted? Reply #14 - 02/25/14 at 13:28:36	Post Tools	Print Post
	Reminds one of a famous article of yesteryear, entitled 'Has The Marshall Gambit Been Refuted On The Internet?'. I guess in the long run the answer turned out to be 'no'. Still, there does seem to be a groundswell of opinion in favour of White in this line; even from my perspective (never played and know nothing about either side) it's apparent more GMs are willing to try this with White and fewer with Black than ten years ago. Computers, I dare say.


	IP Logged

BladezII Senior Member Offline Member of chesspublishing .com and STC Club Posts: 409 Joined: 11/01/04	Re: Saemisch gambit refuted? Reply #13 - 02/25/14 at 01:15:20	Post Tools	Print Post
	No one here has quoted Vigorito, the one who runs the KID section in chess publishing.com Who here, who have posted is not a subscriber ? Vigorito has covered the line gambit and given it some good looks with some recent games.

	I am a participating member of chesspublishing.com since 1998.
	IP Logged

Keano God Member Offline Money doesn't talk, it swears. Posts: 2928 Location: Toulouse Joined: 05/25/05 Gender:	Re: Saemisch gambit refuted? Reply #12 - 04/15/13 at 16:11:13	Post Tools	Print Post
	Markovich wrote on 03/17/10 at 16:39:47: I noticed that Bologan's new KID book has a chapter devoted to White's acceptance of this gambit, with 10.Nge2 as the last, and therefore most prominent, choice for White. But he claims that Black is fine. I recommend Bologan's book. I had a look at the line Bologan recommends and I wasn't too impressed. There is an article somewhere, Chessbase Magazine it might be, that is of the opinion 10...b6 is a better move than 10...Nd7 and I kind of agree with that. I like the idea of forcing the Bishop to the a3 square. All in all this line is not one to be overly feared but Black must play accurately.


	IP Logged

F22

Senior Member

Offline

I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 306
Joined: 07/16/09
Gender: Male

Re: Saemisch gambit refuted?
Reply #11 - 08/23/10 at 07:01:25

Post Tools

Print Post

LeeRoth wrote on 03/22/10 at 02:39:28:

Paddy wrote on 03/16/10 at 16:29:33:

I have not been able to check this myself, but a friend informs me that Dzindzhi's suggested refutation
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 c5 7.dxc5 dxc5 8.Qxd8 Rxd8 9.Bxc5 Nc6 10.Nge2 Nd7 11.Be3 Nde5 12.Nf4 Nb4 13.Rc1 makes no mention of theory's recommendation 13... Be6.

Cherniaev gives 13.Kf2 Be6 14.Ncd5 Bxd5 15.cxd5! as leading to a White edge.

That does not seem realistic to me. Here is the position after 15. cxd5

After 15. ... Nc2 16. Rc1 Nxe3 17. Kxe3 both after 17. ... Bh6 and 17. ... Rac8 seem promising for Black.

IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: Saemisch gambit refuted? Reply #10 - 08/23/10 at 01:33:20	Post Tools	Print Post
	Hmm. Revolution in KID theory if this is true.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

Mikejrw YaBB Newbies Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 17 Joined: 09/02/09	Re: Saemisch gambit refuted? Reply #9 - 08/22/10 at 10:44:08	Post Tools	Print Post
	David Vigorito has covered the latest games in this line in his August update. The Nijboer game mentioned earlier in the thread is an interesting one, but is it the most critical? David Vigorito gives the line Nc7 in response to e6 on move 12, rather than bh4 (as per the Nijboer game). The resulting position in the game Elsness, F (2440)-Gallagher, J (2544)/Gothenburg 2005 is indeed very complicated. However, when you put this on Fritz, it seems to prefer white by +1. Currently this doesn't seem great for black and I lost to a GM in this line recently, who advised me to look elsewhere for a reply to the Saemisch. Of course, it would be nice if black does have something better in this line...


	IP Logged

LeeRoth God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 1520 Joined: 10/22/05	Re: Saemisch gambit refuted? Reply #8 - 03/22/10 at 02:39:28	Post Tools	Print Post
	Paddy wrote on 03/16/10 at 16:29:33: I have not been able to check this myself, but a friend informs me that Dzindzhi's suggested refutation 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 c5 7.dxc5 dxc5 8.Qxd8 Rxd8 9.Bxc5 Nc6 10.Nge2 Nd7 11.Be3 Nde5 12.Nf4 Nb4 13.Rc1 makes no mention of theory's recommendation 13... Be6. Cherniaev gives 13.Kf2 Be6 14.Ncd5 Bxd5 15.cxd5! as leading to a White edge.


	IP Logged

kylemeister God Member Offline Posts: 4989 Location: USA Joined: 10/24/05	Re: Saemisch gambit refuted? Reply #7 - 03/17/10 at 17:15:45	Post Tools	Print Post
	Incidentally, I remembered coming across this game from a few months ago. It would seem that Miedema had either changed his mind or didn't remember his own Yearbook article, since there 13. Nfd5 was described as dubious. [Event "Haaksbergen ch-NED"] [Site ""] [Date "2009.??.??"] [Round "1"] [White "Miedema, Roi"] [Black "Nijboer, Friso"] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteElo "2396"] [BlackElo "2540"] [NIC "KI 48.8.2"] [ECO "E81"] [PlyCount "82"] 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f3 O-O 6. Be3 c5 7. dxc5 dxc5 8. Qxd8 Rxd8 9. Bxc5 Nc6 10. Nge2 Nd7 11. Bf2 Nde5 12. Nf4 b6 13. Nfd5 e6 14. Bh4 exd5 15. cxd5 g5 16. Bxg5 f6 17. Be3 Na5 18. Be2 Nec4 19. Bd4 Bd7 20. O-O-O b5 21. b4 Nb7 22. Bxc4 bxc4 23. a4 Bf8 24. Bxf6 Bxb4 25. Kc2 Rdc8 26. Rb1 a5 27. Be7 Nc5 28. Bxc5 Rxc5 29. Ra1 Kf7 30. g4 Rf8 31. Rhf1 Kf6 32. h3 Ke5 33. f4 Rxf4 34. Rxf4 Kxf4 35. Rf1 Ke5 36. Rf7 Rc7 37. Kb2 Kd4 38. Ne2 Kxe4 39. Rxh7 c3 40. Ka2 Kxd5 41. h4 Ke4 0-1


	IP Logged