ChessPub Forum - C37: Double Muzio/Muzio Polerio Gambit refuted ?

(UTC)

ChessPub Forum › Chess Publishing Openings › 1. e4 e5 - Non-Spanish › Kings Gambit › C37: Double Muzio/Muzio Polerio Gambit refuted ?

(Moderators: Smyslov_Fan, Jupp53, trw)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Page Index Toggle

Pages: [1] 2 3

Topic Tools

Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies)

C37: Double Muzio/Muzio Polerio Gambit refuted ? (Read 61012 times)

tony37 God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Joined: 10/16/10	Re: C37: Double Muzio/Muzio Polerio Gambit refuted ? Reply #36 - 12/05/13 at 17:36:01	Post Tools	Print Post
	on http://tws27.50webs.com/chess/kings_gambit/hanstein.htm the first game is about the Muzio gambit and it starts 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.O-O gxf3 6.Qxf3 Qf6 7.e5 Qxe5 8.d3 Bh6 9.Bd2 Ne7 10.Nc3 Nbc6 11.Rae1 and now it gives 11...Qf5 as the main move and says "11...Qd4+ 12.Kh1 doesn't help Black" but in my notes I have 11...Qd4+ 12.Kh1 O-O 13.Nb5 Qf6 as very good for black (one sample line being 14.Nxc7 Rb8 15.Qe4 d6 16.Bxf4 Bxf4 17.Rxf4 Qe5 18.d4 Qxe4 19.Rfxe4 Ng6), which seems to be confirmed by the game Danculovic-Cernovsky, email, 2009


	IP Logged

tony37 God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Joined: 10/16/10	Re: C37: Double Muzio/Muzio Polerio Gambit refuted ? Reply #35 - 01/01/13 at 16:49:58	Post Tools	Print Post
	Someone played the Muzio gambit against me in correspondence and I won, which wasn't too difficult but 32...Re2 would have been way better than my 32...h4, where white can draw in a lot of lines Download game in pgn format


	IP Logged

Dragonslayer Full Member Offline I love ChessPublishing .com! Posts: 248 Location: Odense Joined: 06/13/04	Re: Double Muzio/Muzio Polerio Gambit refuted ? Reply #34 - 06/16/10 at 15:32:28	Post Tools	Print Post
	MNb wrote on 06/09/10 at 00:38:14: Stefan Buecker wrote on 06/08/10 at 15:13:28: I am presently more interested in the Kieseritzky Gambit, this thread caught me on the back foot and I cannot guarantee that I'll contribute much more. But it is nice to watch people still studying this gambit, 102 years after Chigorin's death. If you find something after 5...d6 6.Nxg4 Nf6 7.Nxf6+ Qxf6 8.Nc3 Nc6 let us know, eventually via Kaissiber. Yes and then White just needs to navigate all the other drawing variations at move 5! It seems only 5...h5? in unplayable. Furthermore 6...Be7 is also not easy to prove something against. For now I have given up on the Kieseritzky for a different 4th move.


	IP Logged

Master Om Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 187 Joined: 02/20/10	Re: Double Muzio/Muzio Polerio Gambit refuted ? Reply #33 - 06/15/10 at 08:25:54	Post Tools	Print Post
	Stefan Buecker wrote on 06/15/10 at 08:11:09: Master Om wrote on 06/15/10 at 04:54:28: Kings Gambit is Immortal opening. IT will never Die.

	ICCF IM
	IP Logged

Stefan Buecker God Member Offline Posts: 1386 Location: Germany Joined: 02/11/09 Gender:	Re: Double Muzio/Muzio Polerio Gambit refuted ? Reply #32 - 06/15/10 at 08:11:09	Post Tools	Print Post
	Master Om wrote on 06/15/10 at 04:54:28: Kings Gambit is Immortal opening. IT will never Die.


	IP Logged

Master Om Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 187 Joined: 02/20/10	Re: Double Muzio/Muzio Polerio Gambit refuted ? Reply #31 - 06/15/10 at 04:54:28	Post Tools	Print Post
	Stefan Buecker wrote on 06/09/10 at 00:53:27: My own favourite has "always" been 7.d3 Nc6 8.Bxf4 d6 9.Nc3, the "Exchange Variation". Master Om in reply #21 now mentions 9...Nge7, which in my database scores "only" + 0, =1, -7, much worse than 9...Be6 (+0, =0, -8). Unfortunately, so far I haven't found a refutation. I have to analyse a bit on this regards. Although its not much Worse. Quote: I am presently more interested in the Kieseritzky Gambit, this thread caught me on the back foot and I cannot guarantee that I'll contribute much more. But it is nice to watch people still studying this gambit, 102 years after Chigorin's death. Well i have to admit that i feel in muzio 7.d3! leads to draw at best defence by black but white having chances of winning. Kings Bishop Gambit is better than Kings Knights Gambit. I have to look at the Kieseritzky Gambit. I have one Analysis AFAIK. Kings Gambit is Immortal opening. IT will never Die.

	ICCF IM
	IP Logged

Stefan Buecker God Member Offline Posts: 1386 Location: Germany Joined: 02/11/09 Gender:	Re: Double Muzio/Muzio Polerio Gambit refuted ? Reply #30 - 06/09/10 at 00:53:27	Post Tools	Print Post
	I discussed this line on eight pages in Kaissiber #32 (2008), slightly preferring 9.d4 over the alternatives 9.Nd5 and 9.Bb5.


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10777 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: Double Muzio/Muzio Polerio Gambit refuted ? Reply #29 - 06/09/10 at 00:38:14	Post Tools	Print Post
	Stefan Buecker wrote on 06/08/10 at 15:13:28: I am presently more interested in the Kieseritzky Gambit, this thread caught me on the back foot and I cannot guarantee that I'll contribute much more. But it is nice to watch people still studying this gambit, 102 years after Chigorin's death. If you find something after 5...d6 6.Nxg4 Nf6 7.Nxf6+ Qxf6 8.Nc3 Nc6 let us know, eventually via Kaissiber.

	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
	IP Logged

Stefan Buecker God Member Offline Posts: 1386 Location: Germany Joined: 02/11/09 Gender:	Re: Double Muzio/Muzio Polerio Gambit refuted ? Reply #28 - 06/08/10 at 15:13:28	Post Tools	Print Post
	Hadron wrote on 06/05/10 at 12:49:32: The Lean attack is only a possible draw if Black ops for the possibility of Alapin’s 13…b5 [...] I agree with HTH: other moves are better and give Black an advantage. But 13…b5 may not even be sufficient for a draw, in two ways: the traditional 14.Nxe7 and 14.Lxf4. Both variations lead to +/-. Hadron wrote on 06/07/10 at 00:19:52: Mr. Bücker didn't Thomas Stock in his article from his 2000 article in Kaissiber Number 13 think that 7...Bh6 was also better black? [...] In the said 2000 article Thomas Stock's preference was for 6.Qxf3 Qf6 7.Nc3 and 7...Qd4+ 8.Kh1 Qxc4 9.b3. Has there been any theoretical changes in either of these lines to change their evaulations? In his reader's letter in Kaissiber #33 (2009), Thomas Stock reported about the results in thematic Muzio tournaments. "7...Bh6? 8.Bxf4! Bxf4..." (but now I wonder what happens after 8...d6), and he also gave new ideas against 9.b3. Both lines are not entirely clear. My own favourite has "always" been 7.d3 Nc6 8.Bxf4 d6 9.Nc3, the "Exchange Variation". Master Om in reply #21 now mentions 9...Nge7, which in my database scores "only" + 0, =1, -7, much worse than 9...Be6 (+0, =0, -8). Unfortunately, so far I haven't found a refutation. MNb wrote on 06/06/10 at 19:55:20: I don't think 9...Nge7 deserves any exclam. Rybka suggests 10.Nb5 Kd8 11.Qe3 and I would say that 10.Qe3 Qg6 11.Nd5 looks interesting as well. After looking a little further I think the rather crazy 10.Nb5 Kd8 11.Qe3 Kd8 12.Bxf7 Qxf7 13.Bxd6 Qh5 14.Bxc7+ Kd7 15.e5 Nf5 16.e6+ Ke8 17.Rxf5 Qxf5 18.e7 most promising. A fine analysis, but instead of 15...Nf5, Black has the stronger 15...Nd5 16.e6+ Ke8, and White is in difficulties. For example 17.Qe4 a6 18.Nd6+ (18.Rf5 Nf6) 18...Bxd6 19.Bxd6 Nde7 20.Rae1 Qd5 21.Qxd5 Nxd5 22.c4 Nde7 23.d4 Nxd4 24.Be5 Nc2 25.Bxh8 Nxe1 26.Rxe1 b5, e.g. 27.Re4 bxc4 28.Rh4 Bxe6 29.Rxh7. With two pawns for a piece, and only two black pawns remaining on the board, White's drawing chances remain intact. Nevertheless, not a great variation to prove the correctness of the Muzio... I am presently more interested in the Kieseritzky Gambit, this thread caught me on the back foot and I cannot guarantee that I'll contribute much more. But it is nice to watch people still studying this gambit, 102 years after Chigorin's death.


	IP Logged

Stefan Buecker God Member Offline Posts: 1386 Location: Germany Joined: 02/11/09 Gender:	Re: Double Muzio/Muzio Polerio Gambit refuted ? Reply #27 - 06/08/10 at 14:11:46	Post Tools	Print Post
	micawber wrote on 06/05/10 at 15:56:59: For the owners of somewhat older opening books, it is probable usefull to now that the drawing line given by Euwe/Estrin/Keres namely 14.Qf3,Qe6 15.Qe2 with a repetition of moves, was proven wrong as well: Since 1998 Black started to play 14...Qg6 in corr.games and - sorry about statistics again - scored a convincing 8/8 in correspondence games. Although I think that Bücker allready pointed out 14...Qg6 in the mid eighties. 14...Qg6 was already in Pierce's 1902 BCM article, but the claim that after 14...Qg6 15.Bxf4 Bxf4! Black has winning chances stems from Znosko-Borovsky's Muzio-Gambit. Analytische Untersuchungen über den Lean-Angriff, Leipzig 1911, an important work based on Mikhail Chigorin's analyses. This significant idea was missing in the 8th ed. of the Handbuch ("Bilguer"), and many later opening manuals repeated the wrong "drawing line", including my own article in The Myers Openings Bulletin #33 (1984). A notable exception were Henk Smout's articles in Schaakbulletin #152 (1980) and #180 (1982). Smout not only knew Snosko-Borovsky's book, but also improved critical lines, thus correcting much of the reigning Muzio theory. It wasn't exactly my best achievement that I ignored both the 1911 work and Smout's articles, when I wrote on the Muzio. Thanks to Smout, MOB #36 (1985) had the corrections. The Handbuch ("Bilguer") is an excellent source for old openings, but in spite of its size it only has a small part of the opening knowledge of the 19th century. It has its weaknesses, as I had to learn. Regarding Lean/MacLean, the Handbuch (1916) was probably the origin of some confusion: "This continuation, after the inventor MacLean called Lean Attack in Brighton..." Euwe, Kortchnoj/Zak and others wrote "MacLean". Hugh Myers wrote in MOB # 36, p. 8: "There might be a little doubt as to which is correct, but for now we'll use Lean to refer to 13.Qe2." Information on the creative player R. E. Lean can be found in B. Denman's book Brighton Chess (1994).


	IP Logged

Hadron Full Member Offline Doctor, Doctor, Doctor..When will you ever learn? Posts: 195 Location: Levin, New Zealand. Joined: 03/24/05 Gender:	Re: Double Muzio/Muzio Polerio Gambit refuted ? Reply #26 - 06/07/10 at 00:34:39	Post Tools	Print Post
	MNb wrote on 06/07/10 at 00:00:13: Hadron wrote on 06/06/10 at 23:48:53: Glad to be able to assist. Inflated ego's are usually very funny. It saves me the effort to ask if you on your turn have learned something from the McDonald quote. No you don't need to me ask me anything. The one thing I have learnt is that you largely have no idea what your babbling on about and you try and obfuscate any examination of your utterances by banal fixations.. MNb wrote on 06/07/10 at 00:00:13: Back to chess. Imo the only interesting variation in the Muzio Gambit to analyze is the quiet 7.d3. Quite right nigel, back to the chess. I encounter 7.d3 once while playing in the NZCCA champs and was quitely squashed. It does appear from all the analysis I have been able to gather since to be more positional than a number of the other tries which is perhaps why so many prefer the straight forward violent approach. Like I said horses for courses. Thanks HTH
	« Last Edit: 06/07/10 at 06:57:15 by Hadron »
	I'm reminded again of something Short wrote recently, approximately "The biggest fallacy in chess is the quasi-religious belief in the primacy of the opening."
	IP Logged

Hadron Full Member Offline Doctor, Doctor, Doctor..When will you ever learn? Posts: 195 Location: Levin, New Zealand. Joined: 03/24/05 Gender:	Re: Double Muzio/Muzio Polerio Gambit refuted ? Reply #25 - 06/07/10 at 00:19:52	Post Tools	Print Post
	Stefan Buecker wrote on 06/06/10 at 13:33:55: The move 13.Qe2 was invented by R. E. Lean from Brighton. So "Lean Attack" is correct, sorry. After 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.0-0 gxf3 6.Qxf3 Qf6, in my opinion the Exchange Variation 7.d3 is White's best option. Kaissiber #33 (2009) had a reader's letter by Dr. Thomas Stock, who thought that 7...Nc6 8.Bxf4 d6 9.Nc3 Be6 10.Nd5 Qd8! was good for Black. Now Rybka finds 11.c3 Qd7 12.Bb5 h6 13.Be3 Rh7 14.d4 0-0-0, intending something like 15.Nb4 d5 16.exd5 Bxd5 17.Qxd5 Qxd5 18.Nxd5 Rxd5 19.Bc4 Rd6 20.Bxf7 Nf6 21.Bg6 Re7 22.Bf4 Rd8 23.Bxc7 Kxc7 24.Rxf6, unclear. Other moves (11.Qh5; 11.Kh1) offer also sufficient play. Mr. Bücker didn't Thomas Stock in his article from his 2000 article in Kaissiber Number 13 think that 7...Bh6 was also better black? He did mention 7...Nc6 but did not go pass 11.c3 (unfortunately while I have a number of your works, I do not speak german). In the said 2000 article Thomas Stock's preference was for 6.Qxf3 Qf6 7.Nc3 and 7...Qd4+ 8.Kh1 Qxc4 9.b3. Has there been any theoretical changes in either of these lines to change their evaulations? .. Thanks HTH

	I'm reminded again of something Short wrote recently, approximately "The biggest fallacy in chess is the quasi-religious belief in the primacy of the opening."
	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10777 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: Double Muzio/Muzio Polerio Gambit refuted ? Reply #24 - 06/07/10 at 00:00:13	Post Tools	Print Post
	Hadron wrote on 06/06/10 at 23:48:53: Son, you need to calm down before you burst a blood vessel because you seem to be finding things that are not there, like agreeing with me that these lines are pretty irrelevant. I don’t know how you get ‘pretty irrelevant’ out of ‘a rare visitor’? Father, don't worry about my blood vessels, they are in fine shape. OK, then we don't agree. I am not in for a debate on semantics in this thread. Thanks for the You get one back from me: for this: Hadron wrote on 06/06/10 at 23:48:53: Glad to be able to assist. Inflated ego's are usually very funny. It saves me the effort to ask if you on your turn have learned something from the McDonald quote. Later edit: Hilly Terry Harry's post underneath shows that the answer is a clear no. Back to chess. Imo the only interesting variation in the Muzio Gambit to analyze is the quiet 7.d3.
	« Last Edit: 06/07/10 at 03:43:15 by MNb »
	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
	IP Logged

Hadron Full Member Offline Doctor, Doctor, Doctor..When will you ever learn? Posts: 195 Location: Levin, New Zealand. Joined: 03/24/05 Gender:	Re: Double Muzio/Muzio Polerio Gambit refuted ? Reply #23 - 06/06/10 at 23:48:53	Post Tools	Print Post
	My my son, we are an angry fellow… MNb wrote on 06/06/10 at 11:57:44: Hadron wrote on 06/05/10 at 22:18:27: Who the hell cares? All those who react, including you. As for the reason why - but only if you care, which I doubt given once again your poor reading - I recommend rereading all the posts which include the name McDonald in this thread. Hadron wrote on 06/05/10 at 23:04:25: Horses for courses I guess.....4...g4 is such a rare visitor to the board simply because 4....d6 & 4....h6 offer so much the better chances. As I agree with you that the lines discussed here are pretty irrelevant I haven't contributed analysis. I cannot help wondering why you got involved with lengty posts. A preference for the irrelevant perhaps? Bücker attributes 13.Qe2 to MacLean. As B. is known for his meticulous research on subjects like these I rather rely on him than on someone who always finishes his posts with and has problems with reading. Son, you need to calm down before you burst a blood vessel because you seem to be finding things that are not there, like agreeing with me that these lines are pretty irrelevant. I don’t know how you get ‘pretty irrelevant’ out of ‘a rare visitor’? Any sensible (and calm) serious chess player should always have a back-up plan to deal with such rare visitors. Me, I would always Bc4 in reply to g5 if g4 could be guaranteed. The simply fact of the matter is, with serious players, it can not. If you intend to play one you should know the other which makes neither irrelevant. After all I would not have played in all those WCCF Muzio thematics back in the day, if I thought as such. I think if you where calm and not fixating on the worth of one persons opinion relating solely to how they sign a post and had taken even 60 seconds from your tumultuous existence to skim read through: Hadron wrote on 06/05/10 at 23:04:25: The 1925 edition of MC0 (specifically number 4), the 1910 edition of Freeborough and Ranken, Estrin & Glaskov and Myers Opening Bulletin (Vol 3 No 12) You mighty have saved yourself from: MNb wrote on 06/06/10 at 11:57:44: Bücker attributes 13.Qe2 to MacLean. As B. is known for his meticulous research on subjects like these I rather rely on him than on someone who always finishes his posts with and has problems with reading. and the need for: Stefan Buecker wrote on 06/06/10 at 13:33:55: The move 13.Qe2 was invented by R. E. Lean from Brighton. So "Lean Attack" is correct, sorry. But you have learnt something and that is good. Glad to be able to assist. HTH and just for you:

	I'm reminded again of something Short wrote recently, approximately "The biggest fallacy in chess is the quasi-religious belief in the primacy of the opening."
	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10777 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: Double Muzio/Muzio Polerio Gambit refuted ? Reply #22 - 06/06/10 at 19:55:20	Post Tools	Print Post
	I don't think 9...Nge7 deserves any exclam. Rybka suggests 10.Nb5 Kd8 11.Qe3 and I would say that 10.Qe3 Qg6 11.Nd5 looks interesting as well. After looking a little further I think the rather crazy 10.Nb5 Kd8 11.Qe3 Kd8 12.Bxf7 Kxf7 13.Bxd6 Qh5 14.Bxc7+ Kd7 15.e5 Nf5 16.e6+ Ke8 17.Rxf5 Qxf5 18.e7 most promising. Stefan Buecker wrote on 06/06/10 at 13:33:55: The move 13.Qe2 was invented by R. E. Lean from Brighton. So "Lean Attack" is correct, sorry. OK, I learned something today.

	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
	IP Logged

Page Index Toggle

Pages: [1] 2 3

Topic Tools

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Bookmarks:

del.icio.us

Digg

Google

Google+

reddit

StumbleUpon

Yahoo

« Board Index ‹ Board Top

Top

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

Valid XHTML

Valid CSS

Powered by Perl

Source Forge