(UTC)
  ChessPub Forum › Chess Publishing Openings › 1. e4 e5 - Non-Spanish › 2 Knights › Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
(Moderators: Smyslov_Fan, Jupp53, trw)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Anti-Max Lange is a refutation? (Read 29103 times)
Gambiteer
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline



Posts: 27
Joined: 04/22/09
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #28 - 04/18/10 at 21:47:46
Post Tools
Master Om wrote on 04/08/10 at 16:24:07:


1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. O-O Nf6 5. d4 Bxd4 6. Nxd4 Nxd4 7. f4 d6 8.fxe5 dxe5 9. Bg5 Qe7 10. Na3 Rg8 *
Roman Dzindzichashvilli was the first to popularize it. But i knew it since 2004. Here are some facts.

It was first played in the Playchess engine game Iptables-V1 on October 13, 2004.  Both players were using Deep Fritz 8.
It was then played in Golek-Poison on February 20, 2005.  Shredder 9 vs. Deep Fritz 7.
Humans first played it December 22, 2005.  Derek Williams-Ralls Nelson.  No tournament data available on this one.  Ralls is an American player with a current rating of 2089.
First high-caliber human players were Plamen Stefanov (2425)-Ervin Janosi (2316), February 1, 2008.  This was an ICCF correspondence game during the III. Danube Cup-Paul Darmogray Memorial. 
It was then played in the more recent SCCT game (one of Sedat's tournaments) involving SicilianHurricane and Om Master 2.0 (Its My Book for fritz interface)on February 14, 2009.  Both had Rybka, I imagine.
Courtesy :- Nelson Hernandez .
I have done my own analysis and i have found that 7.Nc3 is only playble move where 7.f4  or 7.Bg5 is played.


I had a chance to play 10...Rg8 in a corr game last year.  My opponent quickly deviated from the sparse reference material I was using at the time:

11.Kh1

      (11.Qd3!? Bd7 12.Qe3 Ne6 13.Bxf6 gxf6 14.Rad1 {Stefanov-Jánosi/Paul Darmogray Memorial 2008/0-1})

11...Bd7 12.Qe1 a6!? weakens q-side, risks 13.Qa5 -> Bxa6 but prepares the useful b5 advance 13.Bd5

      (13.Qh4 Ne6 14.Bxe6 (14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.Qxf6 16.Rxf6 b5 17.Bb3 Rg6) 14...Qxe6 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.Rxf6 Qg4) 

13... O-O-O 14.Qf2 c6 15.Bc4 Ne6 16.Bh4?!

      Better is 16. Bxf6 gxf6 17.Qxf6 Qxf6 18.Rxf6 b5 19.Bb3 Rg7 (19...Ng5!? 20.Re1 Rg6 21.Rf2 f6) 

16... g5 17.Bxg5 Nxg5 18.Qxf6 Qxf6 19.Rxf6 Rg6 20.Rff1 b5 21.Bb3 f6 22.Rae1 Kc7 23.c3 h5 24.Nc2
Be6 25. Rf2 a5 26. h3 Bxh3 27. gxh3 a4 28. Bxa4 bxa4 29. Re3 h4 30. Ne1 Ne6 31.
Kh2 Rdg8 32. Ref3 Rg3 33. Rg2 Nf4 34. Rgxg3 hxg3+ 35. Rxg3 Rd8 36. Re3 c5 37.
c4 Rd2+ 38. Kg3 Rxb2 39. Nd3 Rxa2 40. Nxf4 exf4+ 41. Kxf4 Kb6 42. Kf5 Rf2+ 43.
Kg6 Ka5 44. h4 Kb4 45. h5 a3 46. h6 a2 47. Re1 Rh2 48. Rc1 Kb3 49. Kxf6 Rxh6+
50. Ke5 Ra6 51. Kd5 a1=Q 52. Rxa1 Rxa1 53. Kxc5 Re1 54. Kd5 Kb4 55. e5 Ka5 56.
Kd6 Kb6 57. c5+ Kb7 58. c6+ Kc8 0-1

I analyzed 10...Rg8 extensively and am skeptical about whites chances.  Imho, black has a small but enduring advantage.

Regards,
Roy

  
-Roy
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #27 - 04/10/10 at 21:54:18
Post Tools
The move 10...Rg8 was missing in Gutman's Kaissiber (2006) article(s) on the Max Lange Gambit. When it was mentioned in the Nic Yearbook, we discussed the move and came to the conclusion that it is equal. However, later Lev Gutman has analyzed the MLG in much more detail for a series of articles in NIC Yearbook. Part 1 was in #92, and the 10...Rg8 move should be in part 3 of the article. Probably in vol. 94 - which I can only guess, since I don't have it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #26 - 04/08/10 at 16:24:07
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 04/04/10 at 22:48:29:
In Kaissiber 24, 8. ... Bg4 was Lev Gutman's main line in the "Rosentreter Variation" 7. Bg5 of the Max Lange Gambit. He considers your game continuation until 18...Rde8 (another corr. game from 1997), then suggests 19. b4!? unclear.

The Honfi line 15...0-0 =+ is continued by Gutman: 16. Kf2 =. 

However, Gutman prefers 11. c3!? (over 11. Rxd1), when his main line ends in a draw in move 17. The Max Lange Gambit (in the original version) is more testing - Black should better know some theory.

Stefan. You know this move 10....Rb8!



1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. O-O Nf6 5. d4 Bxd4 6. Nxd4 Nxd4 7. f4 d6 8.fxe5 dxe5 9. Bg5 Qe7 10. Na3 Rg8 *
Roman Dzindzichashvilli was the first to popularize it. But i knew it since 2004. Here are some facts.

It was first played in the Playchess engine game Iptables-V1 on October 13, 2004.  Both players were using Deep Fritz 8.
It was then played in Golek-Poison on February 20, 2005.  Shredder 9 vs. Deep Fritz 7.
Humans first played it December 22, 2005.  Derek Williams-Ralls Nelson.  No tournament data available on this one.  Ralls is an American player with a current rating of 2089.
First high-caliber human players were Plamen Stefanov (2425)-Ervin Janosi (2316), February 1, 2008.  This was an ICCF correspondence game during the III. Danube Cup-Paul Darmogray Memorial. 
It was then played in the more recent SCCT game (one of Sedat's tournaments) involving SicilianHurricane and Om Master 2.0 (Its My Book for fritz interface)on February 14, 2009.  Both had Rybka, I imagine.
Courtesy :- Nelson Hernandez .
I have done my own analysis and i have found that 7.Nc3 is only playble move where 7.f4  or 7.Bg5 is played.


  
ICCF IM
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 916
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #25 - 04/05/10 at 12:14:39
Post Tools
Possibly not after 7.Bg5, but 7.f4 is more testing as is demonstrated by Lev Gutman in Kaissiber.  Michael Goeller also has a couple of articles on the line that he has previously linked to.

Anyway the anti-Max Lange normally refers to the line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 (which can be reached by numerous other move-orders) and then 5.0-0 Nxe4 instead of 5...Bc5.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #24 - 04/05/10 at 03:29:19
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 04/04/10 at 22:48:29:
In Kaissiber 24, 8. ... Bg4 was Lev Gutman's main line in the "Rosentreter Variation" 7. Bg5 of the Max Lange Gambit. He considers your game continuation until 18...Rde8 (another corr. game from 1997), then suggests 19. b4!? unclear.

The Honfi line 15...0-0 =+ is continued by Gutman: 16. Kf2 =. 

However, Gutman prefers 11. c3!? (over 11. Rxd1), when his main line ends in a draw in move 17. The Max Lange Gambit (in the original version) is more testing - Black should better know some theory.

So there is no good continuation for white ?
  
ICCF IM
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #23 - 04/04/10 at 22:48:29
Post Tools
In Kaissiber 24, 8. ... Bg4 was Lev Gutman's main line in the "Rosentreter Variation" 7. Bg5 of the Max Lange Gambit. He considers your game continuation until 18...Rde8 (another corr. game from 1997), then suggests 19. b4!? unclear.

The Honfi line 15...0-0 =+ is continued by Gutman: 16. Kf2 =. 

However, Gutman prefers 11. c3!? (over 11. Rxd1), when his main line ends in a draw in move 17. The Max Lange Gambit (in the original version) is more testing - Black should better know some theory.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ArKheiN
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 728
Location: Belgium
Joined: 03/30/05
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #22 - 04/04/10 at 22:04:29
Post Tools
This time a game of mine in my first corr game with 1..e5 where I tried the Italian as Black (and I quickly have switched to the two Knights defense more suited to my style). I have played an anti Max-Lange. The game was drawn but I feel that the theoretical line of my game is not very good for White.

Corr 2006-2007

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.O-O Nf6 5.d4 Bxd4 6.Nxd4 Nxd4 7.Bg5 d6 8.f4 Bg4 9.Bxf6 Bxd1 10.Bxd8 Rxd8 11.Rxd1 Nxc2 12.Nc3 Nxa1 13.Rxa1 exf4 14.Nd5 Kd7 15.Nxf4 Rhe8 16.Bd3 Re5 17.Kf2 c6 18.Rc1 Rde8 19.g3 a6 20.Kf3 g6 21.Rd1 b5 22.Bc2 a5 23.Nd3 R5e7 24.Nf4 a4 25.g4 Kc7 26.h4 Re5 27.a3 R5e7 28.Bb1 Rb8 29.Nd3 f6 30.Nb4 Rc8 31.Na6+ Kb6 32.Nb4 Rd8 33.Rc1 Rc7 34.Rf1 Re8 draw

But I think Black is just =/+ out of the opening with "my" idea of 8..Bg4 which is not the most popular. Since then I got Palkovi's book in my hand and there is what he says: "8..Bg4 9.Bxf6 Bxd1 10.Bxd8 Rxd8 11.Rxd1 Nxc2 12.Nc3 Nxa1 13.Rxa1 exf4 14.Nd5 c6 15.Nxf4 0-0 =/+ Honfi" and I agree with him. According to Palkovi, 8.f4 is better than 8.Bg5 because of that line. I have not analysed 8.f4 yet and never got it in a game so I cannot give my toughts at the moment.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 916
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #21 - 04/04/10 at 18:40:46
Post Tools
Re. Master_Om, maybe the players with White didn't know what they were doing (this is part of the reason why White scores poorly in the Morra in the databases, e.g. playing Re1 instead of Qe2 and Rd1).

White is doing fine theoretically after 7.f4 and 7.Bg5 and the 7.f4 line has even been used successfully at GM level.

Re. ArKheiN's game: it looks like Black erred in the opening: 10...Bd7 and 14...Bf5 consumes two tempi to get the bishop to f5, and Nb4xc2xa1 allows White enough of an initiative to win two pieces for the rook, leaving White clearly better.  Perhaps Black should try 10...Qxe2+ immediately, saving a tempo after 11.Bxe2 Bf5 or maintaining active play after 11.Kxe2 Bg4.  I think chances are approximately equal in both cases.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ArKheiN
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 728
Location: Belgium
Joined: 03/30/05
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #20 - 04/04/10 at 15:59:14
Post Tools
Here was my game with 6.Qe2

Corr 2009-2010
ArKheiN - XXX

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.e5 Ng4 6.Qe2 Qe7 7.Bf4 f6 8.exf6 Nxf6 9.Nbd2 d5 10.Bb5 Bd7 11.Bxc7 Rc8 12.Bg3 Nb4 13.Kd1 Qxe2+ 14.Bxe2 Bf5 15.Nxd4 Nxc2 16.Nxf5 Nxa1 17.Bd3 g6 18.Nd4 Bc5 19.N2f3 O-O 20.Ne6 Ne4 21.Nxf8 Bxf8 22.Rf1 Nc5 23.Bb1 Bh6 24.Be5 Na4 25.Re1 b6 26.h4 a6 27.Ng5 d4 28.Re2 Bg7 29.Bxg7 Kxg7 30.Rd2 b5 31.Ne6+ Kf7 32.Nxd4 Kf6 33.Nf3 Rc7 34.Ng5 a5 35.Ne4+ Kg7 36.b3 Nb6 37.Rd6 1-0 

Improvments for Black are certainly possible but what was the decisive error is not so clear to me. Ah and between, what I like with that Urusov's move order is that I "forced" that Petroff player to enter in the Two Knight defense with d4. Any comment to the game is welcome.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #19 - 04/04/10 at 15:47:45
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 04/04/10 at 13:24:47:
White continues 6.Nxd4 Nxd4 7.f4 (7.Bg5 is also playable) and the latest verdict is that White's compensation suffices for dynamic equality.


In My Database and in  my book  between good players i have more looses for white than black. Is it the refutation for Max Lange ?.
  
ICCF IM
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ArKheiN
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 728
Location: Belgium
Joined: 03/30/05
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #18 - 04/04/10 at 15:40:02
Post Tools
At Urusov: I don't think 5..Ng4 deserves a "!" mark, but I would say Black have chances to equalize, same about 5..Ne4. I won in corr one game with 6.0-0 and one game with 6.Qe2 against the same opponent, ok he wasn't the strongest corr player and my games are not proof but I don't feel Black's game is that easy. Sveshnikov's results at master play with 6.Qe2 are good too. I really believe that the Modern two knight offers real chances to get a small advantage as White but that Black should equalize with accurate play.

That line as White is not my main line at the moment because I am testing differents open games as White, but I play mostly the position as Black.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
urusov
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 147
Location: Kenilworth
Joined: 08/04/05
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #17 - 04/04/10 at 15:13:34
Post Tools
Reverse wrote on 03/24/10 at 02:52:38:
So. I want to play the max lange, but I don't know what to play against the anti-max Lange, i.e. 5..Nxe4. Should I move on to another opening? Is there enough play in the typical lines to play for a win as white?

That's the problem: I don't think there is much for White in the anti-Max Lange.  John Emms's Play the Open Games as Black is still pretty good on this.  Black is fine also against the Modern variation with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.e5 Ng4! -- the best move in my opinion and pretty much equal against anything White tries.  That is precisely why players who want to reach the Max Lange are trying to do so via the Max Lange Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.O-O Nf6 5.d4!?)  See my recommendations here:
http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/2010/02/1e4-e5-2nf3-white-reper...

I think the consensus is that at a certain level, the Modern variation is playable (and I agree -- White gets something against the main tries 5...d5 and 5...Ne4) -- but the Anti-Lange is just equal at best.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 916
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #16 - 04/04/10 at 13:24:47
Post Tools
White continues 6.Nxd4 Nxd4 7.f4 (7.Bg5 is also playable) and the latest verdict is that White's compensation suffices for dynamic equality.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #15 - 04/04/10 at 08:32:00
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 03/24/10 at 12:33:02:
Yep, it's a game of chess.  So either study up and play good moves or revert to 5.e5, which is more likely to offer winning chances above 2100.  Theoretically there is no real advantage either way, but 5.e5 demands more sophistication from both players.  

If you want a theoretical +=, play the Spanish.  But below 2100 any form of the Italian, including the one you're playing, is just as likely to score for you.


What if  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.0-0 Nf6 5.d4 Bd4!? . what now ?. Now no Max Lange . What is the best Continuation  here ?
  
ICCF IM
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10780
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #14 - 03/29/10 at 22:36:18
Post Tools
Since Ghizdavu-Sydor, Skopje 1972, White should stay away from that ending.
  
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
 
urusov
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 147
Location: Kenilworth
Joined: 08/04/05
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #13 - 03/29/10 at 00:32:20
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 03/28/10 at 19:56:21:

You could also consider using the Danish move-order 3.c3 with the idea 3...dxc3 4.Nxc3 which is probably White's soundest way of playing this opening system, and certainly the soundest way to avoid Capablanca's ending in view of the line 3...d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.cxd4 Nc6 6.Be3.


I have been looking at this of late with Nigel Davies book Gambiteer I, where I think it is his best chapter.  This "Half Danish" line was played by Alekhine and really simplifies your 1.e4 e5 opening prep.  And the 6.Be3 line, if played as recommended by Davies (meeting the Bb4 pin of Nc3 with Nge2 and a3), avoids the Capa ending.

The Capa ending, though, is not without life and there are some interesting sources that discuss this -- see here:
http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/2006/04/danish-endgame-analysis...
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 916
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #12 - 03/28/10 at 23:08:54
Post Tools
Yes, I've had this line in one of my own games.  5...Nf6 6.e5 Ne4 transposes to a line normally reached via 4...Nf6 5.e5 Ne4 6.Bd3 d5.   White should probably continue 7.0-0 (7.cxd4 Bb4+ followed by 8...Bg4 is good for Black), offering a gambit with 7...dxc3 8.Nxc3 Nxc3 9.bxc3, or alternatively if 7...Be7 White continues with 8.cxd4 and can play to undermine the strong knight on e4.  I think both 7...dxc3 and 7...Be7 probably equalise for Black, but at least play is far less sterile than in Capablanca's line.

I think Black has a few other ways to equalise against this line (5...Bg4, 5...Be6, 5...Be7) but I haven't found any ways for Black to suck the life out of the position.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4989
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #11 - 03/28/10 at 20:12:54
Post Tools
I would think that after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 ed 4. c3 d5 5. Bd3, the simple 5...Nf6 looks promising for Black.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 916
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #10 - 03/28/10 at 19:56:21
Post Tools
It depends on your level of play.  At the highest levels 4.Ng5 is certainly a better bet than 4.d4, and it worked well for Nigel Short even against 2700+ players.  But the databases I've seen consistently show 4.d4 scoring more highly than 4.Ng5, so the inverse may well be true below a certain level.

I agree with MNb regarding the 6.0-0 gambit in the Italian, it's sound enough and it leads to interesting and equal play.

Re. the Goring Gambit, I generally avoid the Capablanca endgame after 4...d5 with the offbeat 5.Bd3, but I'm not sure if it would work at 2200+.  The critical "declining" line runs 5...dxe4 6.Bxe4 Nf6 7.Bxc6+ bxc6 8.0-0 = (an improvement on 8.Nxd4 when 8...Bd7 and 8...c5 are good for Black), but it is not clear if White can generate many winning chances at high levels.  More theoretically critical is if Black takes the bait with 5...dxc3 6.exd5 cxb2 (6...Qxd5 7.Nxc3 is fine for White) 7.Bxb2 Qxd5 8.0-0 and White has a lot of pressure for the two pawns, but it's not clear if it's enough.  Otherwise there is Martin Voigt's preference 5.exd5 Qxd5 6.cxd4 Bg4 7.Nc3 Bb4 8.a3 (instead of 8.Be2 Bxf3 9.Bxf3 Qc4), but I don't fully trust it.  

You could also consider using the Danish move-order 3.c3 with the idea 3...dxc3 4.Nxc3 which is probably White's soundest way of playing this opening system, and certainly the soundest way to avoid Capablanca's ending in view of the line 3...d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.cxd4 Nc6 6.Be3.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10780
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #9 - 03/27/10 at 14:30:51
Post Tools
A pity you don't mention the interesting 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.0-0!?
It can be reached by 3...Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0 Bc5 6.c3 as well, though this move order again allows 5...Nxe4.
In general I don't see why your remarks (especially the one on amateur level) would not apply to 5.0-0 Nxe4 as well, having your target audience in mind.
Plus there is the additional benefit of the move order 1.e4 e5 2.d4. So from a practical point of view, for amateurs below 2000, I think meeting the 2Knights with 4.d4 not inferior to 4.Ng5. From a theoretical point of view everything is just equal anyway.
  
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
 
urusov
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 147
Location: Kenilworth
Joined: 08/04/05
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #8 - 03/26/10 at 23:56:53
Post Tools
Reverse wrote on 03/24/10 at 14:38:11:
As of Now I just reached 2200 USCF.  Something happened to me as a child so i must play a gambit against 1..e5, so no Ruy or scotch. 


I understand and feel the same way.  And for a long time I explored paths in the Two Knights with d4.   
http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/2005/12/notes-on-two-knights-wi...
But I have to tell you, you will be much better off playing the Italian in such a way that it allows the Ng5 line instead (e.g.: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5).  Yes, Black is the one who gets to play a gambit, but you get interesting and sharp play for both sides.  I put together a repertoire on this from online sources:
http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/2010/02/1e4-e5-2nf3-white-reper...
I think it will give you better chances than the d4 lines.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Daniel
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 169
Joined: 05/29/06
Gender: Male
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #7 - 03/25/10 at 13:59:34
Post Tools
Reverse wrote on 03/24/10 at 14:38:11:
As of Now I just reached 2200 USCF.  Something happened to me as a child so i must play a gambit against 1..e5, so no Ruy or scotch.  Anyway, the goring gambit was bread and butter but in my last tournament I faced capablanca's 4..d5 twice against. One of my opponents was 2368 and the other 2287. I don't feel like i can win if strong players force me into that endgame. 


No gambits against 1... e5 are good at your level.  Buckle down and learn the Ruy.  There is a reason it is called the Spanish Torture.  The Scotch is also good and fairly simple to learn.  Just pick up Barsky's book and you're good to go though you might want to play like Carlsen against 4...Bc5.  The Four Knights can also be a decent surprise weapon against the Petrov.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Reverse
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 212
Location: USA
Joined: 11/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #6 - 03/24/10 at 17:26:13
Post Tools
Yes. I have not looked at 5..d5 yet.Well, has anyone solved the Keidanz variation? I have my computer analyzing it right now but i figure it will take years to do so.

5..Ne4 is strange. My database doesn't have but maybe 15 games with it by players over 2200. 

Line 1: 6.0-0
This has been played several times:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. e5 Ne4 6. O-O Be7 7. Re1 d5 8. exd6 Nxd6 9. Bd5 Nf5 10. Bxc6 bxc6 11. g4 Nh6 12. Bxh6 gxh6 13. Qxd4  This looks ugly. Not sure why it has been played more than once.

Line 2: 6.Bd5
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. e5 Ne4 6. Bd5 Nc5 7. O-O Ne6 8. Re1 Be7 9.Nbd2 d6 10. exd6 Qxd6 11.c4 0-0 

I am not sure what white gets if black just plays 11..dxc3 instead.


Line 3: 6.Qe2

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. e5 Ne4 6. Qe2 Nc5 7. O-O Ne6 8. Bxe6 dxe6 9. Rd1 Be7 10.Be3 or c3

This seems to be the best of the options. White at least has something to play for here.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4989
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #5 - 03/24/10 at 14:58:55
Post Tools
You will perhaps know that while 5...Ne4 and 5...Ng4 are quite playable, the traditional main reply is 5...d5.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Reverse
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 212
Location: USA
Joined: 11/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #4 - 03/24/10 at 14:38:11
Post Tools
As of Now I just reached 2200 USCF.  Something happened to me as a child so i must play a gambit against 1..e5, so no Ruy or scotch.  Anyway, the goring gambit was bread and butter but in my last tournament I faced capablanca's 4..d5 twice against. One of my opponents was 2368 and the other 2287. I don't feel like i can win if strong players force me into that endgame. 

So I will look at the chesscafe.com article, but what about this 5.e5 move. Do you know guys know anywhere to find analysis on this move? One of my students played a game against it a few months back. after 5.e5 Ne4 6. Bd5 Nc5 7.0-0 Be7. White soon started playing weird moves cause he was rated 1400.  So what is the best continuation? 6.Bd5, 0-0 or Qe2?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 916
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #3 - 03/24/10 at 14:06:34
Post Tools
I think the traditional line (8...Qh5 9.Nxe4 Be6 10.Bg5 Bd6) offers few winning chances if Black is happy with a draw, but Stefan Bucker's suggestion certainly looks like a promising try for interesting and equal play, and very much in the Max Lange spirit.  I was sceptical about it initially, especially as Fritz assesses it as =+ to -/+, but closer inspection suggests that it's just another case of a faulty computer evaluation.

Against 8...Qa5 as well as the same approach as suggested in that article, 9.Nxe4 Be6 10.Neg5 0-0-0 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Rxe6 Bd6 13.Bg5 Rde8 (or 13...Rdf8!?) 14.Qe2 also gives reasonable scope for both sides to play for a win (IMHO).  As I quite like most of these lines for White at the sub-2000 plane on which I play (8...Qh5, 10...Bd6 was the only problem), it's good to see them given a new lease of life.

I don't trust Canal's 7.Nc3 on account of 7...dxc3 8.Bxd5 Be6 9.Bxe4 Qxd1 10.Rxd1 cxb2 11.Bxb2 f6, when I doubt White can generate enough of an initiative for the pawn in this simplified position (there's a thorough analysis of the line in Kaissiber 35 which reinforces my view).

The Max Lange proper is looking in fine shape in view of the line 6.e5 d5 7.exf6 dxc4 8.fxg7 Rg8 9.Bg5, and the alternative 6.c3 should yield interesting and equal play.

Overall on general grounds I also agree with what Markovich says.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #2 - 03/24/10 at 12:33:02
Post Tools
Yep, it's a game of chess.  So either study up and play good moves or revert to 5.e5, which is more likely to offer winning chances above 2100.  Theoretically there is no real advantage either way, but 5.e5 demands more sophistication from both players.  

If you want a theoretical +=, play the Spanish.  But below 2100 any form of the Italian, including the one you're playing, is just as likely to score for you.
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Djy
Full Member
***
Offline


Non mais y connait pas
Raoul!

Posts: 157
Joined: 03/21/10
Re: Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
Reply #1 - 03/24/10 at 11:04:10
Post Tools
Reverse wrote on 03/24/10 at 02:52:38:
So. I want to play the max lange, but I don't know what to play against the anti-max Lange, i.e. 5..Nxe4. Should I move on to another opening? Is there enough play in the typical lines to play for a win as white?


http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kaiss53.pdf
I want to add i've remembered that a 2300 FIDE with black completely lost after 20 moves against a 2000 .
Betweem a drawish opening and a draw there a océan!
  
La connerie c'est la décrontaction de l'intelligence  Gainsbourg
La victoire est brillante mais l'échec est mat!  Coluche
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Reverse
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 212
Location: USA
Joined: 11/11/09
Gender: Male
Anti-Max Lange is a refutation?
03/24/10 at 02:52:38
Post Tools
So. I want to play the max lange, but I don't know what to play against the anti-max Lange, i.e. 5..Nxe4. Should I move on to another opening? Is there enough play in the typical lines to play for a win as white?

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 
Topic Tools
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo
 
  « Board Index ‹ Board Top  

ChessPub Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge