(UTC)
Latest Updates:
  ChessPub Forum › Chess Publishing Openings › 1. e4 e5 - Non-Spanish › Kings Gambit › C33: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!!
(Moderators: Smyslov_Fan, Jupp53, trw)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) C33: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!! (Read 42531 times)
Jonathan Tait
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 614
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!!
Reply #31 - 03/24/11 at 08:43:35
Post Tools
Dragonslayer wrote on 03/23/11 at 11:45:23:
Isn't the last one just a tempo down (and colours reversed)on the classical KG: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nc3 Nc6 ? Here it is White to move.
There are then only two logical conclusions (assuming we accept that a tempo constitutes an advantage in this position - not always the case, but seems a fair assumption here):
1) The line 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 f5 is bad for Black (at least +=)
2) The line 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 f5 is ok (=) for Black, whence by inference the Line 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nc3 Nc6 mus be at least a little better for White (+= or better).


I'd go for the first conclusion: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 f5 is probably good for White. But I like playing it anyway. Wink
  
blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 915
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!!
Reply #30 - 03/23/11 at 22:36:49
Post Tools
Sometimes one tempo can easily make a larger difference than one "assessment category".   For instance 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 is =, while 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 c6 3.dxc6 Nxc6 is probably +/-.

1.e4 f5 is the Fred and isn't very good: I like 2.exf5 Nf6 (2...g6 3.fxg6 hxg6 4.Qg4) 3.Be2!? for White.  3...h5 allows Nf3-h4-g6, 3...g6 4.fxg6 hxg6 leaves the g6-pawn weak and other moves allow Bh5+.  Another example perhaps of the tempo making the difference between = and +/-.

Looking at the comparison between 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 f5 and 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nc3 Nc6, I think we again have a "two-category" difference- the King's Gambit Declined is a weak +=, and the ...f5 line is a strong +=.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dragonslayer
Full Member
***
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 248
Location: Odense
Joined: 06/13/04
Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!!
Reply #29 - 03/23/11 at 19:29:07
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 03/23/11 at 16:39:36:
It's possible that a tempo makes a difference between += and =+, so there is a third option:
both 1 and 2 are true.
That's my choice.


Yes, it's possible, but that would be equivalent to the differnece between +/- and = which in most computer programs is roughly 1 pawn. Since a pawn sacrifice is usually considered correct if given 3 tempi (maybe 2 depending on circumstances)
I fear we are digressing...
If you like ...f5, why not play 1.e4 f5 (the Jux gambit according to Matzukevich)
This is a From's gambit just a tempo down  Wink
Usually you need for White to make some commitment (like c2-c3 combined with e4 or Nf3 allowing for ...f5, exf5, ...e4) for ...f5 to be effective.
In the Jänisch, Bb5 can be a target.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10756
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!!
Reply #28 - 03/23/11 at 16:39:36
Post Tools
It's possible that a tempo makes a difference between += and =+, so there is a third option:
both 1 and 2 are true.
That's my choice.
  
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
 
Dragonslayer
Full Member
***
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 248
Location: Odense
Joined: 06/13/04
Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!!
Reply #27 - 03/23/11 at 11:45:23
Post Tools
Jonathan Tait wrote on 03/22/11 at 11:05:22:
[quote author=71725E3C0 link=1300464901/25#25 date=1300788373]

Fair enough. I just like playing ...f7-f5.

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 f5, 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 f5, 1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nc6 3 Bc4 f5 and so forth.


Isn't the last one just a tempo down (and colours reversed)on the classical KG: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nc3 Nc6 ? Here it is White to move.
There are then only two logical conclusions (assuming we accept that a tempo constitutes an advantage in this position - not always the case, but seems a fair assumption here):
1) The line 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 f5 is bad for Black (at least +=)
2) The line 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 f5 is ok (=) for Black, whence by inference the Line 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nc3 Nc6 mus be at least a little better for White (+= or better).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jonathan Tait
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 614
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!!
Reply #26 - 03/22/11 at 11:05:22
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 03/22/11 at 10:06:13:
Personally I find the lines after 3...Nc6 4.d4 Nf6 less attractive for White.


In line b) I actually had a game with 9 Neg5 Nh6 10 d4 d5 11 Bd3 Qxe2+ 12 Kxe2 Bd6 13 Bxh7 Nd7 14 Re1 Nf8 15 Bd3 Ne6 16 Nxe6+ Bxe6 17 Ne5 g5 18 h4 Bxe5 19 dxe5 gxh4 20 Bxf4 Kd7 (½-½, 55). 16 Kf2 or 16 Bd2 may improve (since I was better in that game), but I still think Black is okay after 16...Nxg5 17 Nxg5 Kc7 in either case.

Regarding 13 Ne5 Re8 14 Bxf4 then 14...Nd7 forces the trade of d4 for h7 and I don't think Black is worse here either.

MNb wrote on 03/22/11 at 10:06:13:
Personally I find the lines after 3...Nc6 4.d4 Nf6 less attractive for White.


Fair enough. I just like playing ...f7-f5.

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 f5, 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 f5, 1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nc6 3 Bc4 f5 and so forth.
  
blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10756
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!!
Reply #25 - 03/22/11 at 10:06:13
Post Tools
In line b) after 13...Nd7 14.Re1 Nf8 (Re8+ 15.Kf1 Rxe1+ 16.Kxe1 Nf6 17.Bd3) 15.Bd3 Ne6 16.Kf2 or 16.Bd2 White might still have an edge, though Bc1 is quite a pain in the bottom. Maybe 13.Ne5 Re8 14.Bxf4 with the better development is an improvement.
Personally I find the lines after 3...Nc6 4.d4 Nf6 less attractive for White.
  
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
 
Jonathan Tait
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 614
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!!
Reply #24 - 03/22/11 at 09:08:46
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 03/22/11 at 02:08:44:
I suppose you have an improvement over Multatuli-Switzar, corr 1874.


1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Bc4 f5 4 Qe2 Qh4+ 5 Kd1 fxe4 6 Nc3 Kd8 7 Nxe4 c6 8 Nf3 Qe7 and now:

a) 9 Bxg8 Rxg8 10 d3 was given as equal by Keres already. And Fritz backs that up with 10...g5! (rather than Switzar's 10...d5); e.g. 11 Nexg5 Qxe2+ 12 Kxe2 h6 and 13...Rxg2+.

b) 9 Neg5!? is more testing, but even here Black seems okay; e.g. 9...Nh6 10 d4 d5 11 Bd3 Qxe2+ 12 Kxe2 Bd6 13 Bxh7 (Johansson) 13...Nd7! and 14...Nf8.
  
blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10756
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!!
Reply #23 - 03/22/11 at 02:08:44
Post Tools
I suppose you have an improvement over Multatuli-Switzar, corr 1874. White was a famous Dutch author btw, real name Eduard Douwes Dekker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multatuli
  
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
 
Jonathan Tait
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 614
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!!
Reply #22 - 03/22/11 at 00:10:46
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 03/21/11 at 22:31:52:
Most of your opponents obviously don't have TJ's the FKG besides their computer or they wouldn't play 6.Qxe4+.


Probably not, no.
But...

MNb wrote on 03/21/11 at 22:31:52:
At the other hand I am pretty sure corr. players - those who prefer nice long time controls like ICCF provides - will prefer 6.Nc3, with some own analysis added.


...I've still faced 6 Nc3 four times: W3 D1 L0
6...Kd8 7 Nxe4 c6 8 Nf3 Qe7 is pretty much okay for Black.
  
blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10756
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!!
Reply #21 - 03/21/11 at 22:31:52
Post Tools
Most of your opponents obviously don't have TJ's the FKG besides their computer or they wouldn't play 6.Qxe4+. At the other hand I am pretty sure corr. players - those who prefer nice long time controls like ICCF provides - will prefer 6.Nc3, with some own analysis added.
  
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
 
Jonathan Tait
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 614
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!!
Reply #20 - 03/21/11 at 15:17:21
Post Tools
Master Om wrote on 03/18/11 at 16:15:01:
Whats the best line to play for black in Kings Gambit after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.Bc4!.. specially in correspondence game.


I have a very good score with 3...f5!?, especially in online server games (despite opponents often being computer assisted): 90% (P35, W30, D3, L2).

The main benefit of 3...f5 is that the published "refutations" are mostly incorrect. In particular those after 4 Qe2 Qh4+ 5 Kd1 fxe4 6 Qxe4+, where Black is not worse, and in a lot of lines is significantly better.
  
blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!!
Reply #19 - 03/21/11 at 04:46:59
Post Tools
micawber wrote on 03/20/11 at 13:07:12:
General
I think the Bishop Gambit is certainly playable for White, but Black need not fear it:
All main lines are playable for him d5/Qh4; 3...Nf6 4.Nc3,c6 or 3...Nc6.
This is what I feel Now. Bishops Gambit IS completely playable now. Depends on taste. Draw with Correct Play.
Regarding 3...Nf6 4.Nc3,c6 @Master Om

I am only aware of one game Morozovich-Anand, and that was played in 1995. Was there a more recent encounter?
As for the 1995 game, the opening position was a rather unlear affair. But I would like to point out Black need not put his bishop on b4, since Bd6 is a reasonable alternative.
Reference games include two encounters Kennaugh-Hebden in 2006 and 2007 and Navarra-Gelfand,2008.

There are Many Games now On this line .Some are relevant and some are not. Like This from my personal bases.
[Event "LSS RA-2009-0-00064"]
[Site "LSS email"]
[Date "2009.10.09"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Vaassen, Jack M"]
[Black "Nichols, Scott"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C33"]
[WhiteElo "2171"]
[BlackElo "2644"]
[PlyCount "76"]
[EventDate "2009.08.16"]
[EventType "tourn (corr)"]
[EventRounds "6"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2010.07.15"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Nc3 c6 5. Bb3 d5 6. exd5 cxd5 7. d4 Bd6 8.
Nf3 Qe7+ 9. Qe2 Be6 10. Nb5 Nc6 11. Nxd6+ Qxd6 12. O-O h6 13. Ba4 Ne4 14. Nd2
Nxd2 15. Bxd2 g5 16. Rae1 O-O-O 17. Qd3 Rhg8 18. g3 fxg3 19. hxg3 Rg6 20. a3
Kb8 21. b4 Ne7 22. Bb3 Nc8 23. a4 Qd7 24. Qf3 Qc7 25. Rf2 Nd6 26. Bxd5 Bxd5 27.
Qxd5 f5 28. Rg2 Ne4 29. Qxf5 Nxd2 30. Qd3 Rgd6 31. Rxd2 Rxd4 32. Qxd4 Qxg3+ 33.
Kf1 Qh3+ 34. Kg1 Rxd4 35. Rxd4 a6 36. Re8+ Ka7 37. a5 Qg3+ 38. Kh1 Qc7 1/2-1/2

[Event "LSS CP-2007-Q-00002"]
[Site "LSS email"]
[Date "2009.01.15"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Morin, Stephane"]
[Black "Kudryavtsev, Yaroslav Viktorovic"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C33"]
[WhiteElo "2105"]
[BlackElo "1903"]
[PlyCount "47"]
[EventDate "2009.01.15"]
[EventType "tourn (corr)"]
[EventRounds "6"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2010.08.31"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Nc3 c6 5. Nf3 b5 6. Bb3 b4 7. Ne2 Nxe4 8. O-O
Qb6+ 9. d4 g5 10. Bxf7+ Kd8 11. c4 bxc3 12. Nxc3 Nxc3 13. bxc3 Qa5 14. Nxg5
Qxc3 15. Bd2 Qxd4+ 16. Kh1 Bb4 17. Bxb4 Qxb4 18. Rb1 Qa5 19. Ne6+ Ke7 20. Qd4
Re8 21. Bxe8 dxe6 22. Qxf4 Nd7 23. Bxd7 Bxd7 24. Rbd1 1-0

[Event "AUT-chT11 email"]
[Site "ICCF email"]
[Date "2009.04.04"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Moza, Manfred"]
[Black "Hauser, Siegfried"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C33"]
[WhiteElo "2209"]
[BlackElo "2411"]
[PlyCount "41"]
[EventDate "2009.??.??"]
[EventType "tourn (corr)"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "AUT"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2010.08.31"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Nc3 c6 5. Bb3 d5 6. exd5 cxd5 7. d4 Bd6 8.
Nge2 O-O 9. Bxf4 Bxf4 10. Nxf4 Re8+ 11. Nfe2 Ng4 12. O-O Ne3 13. Qd3 Nxf1 14.
Rxf1 Nc6 15. Nxd5 Be6 16. Nef4 Bxd5 17. Nxd5 Na5 18. Nc7 Nxb3 19. Nxe8 Nxd4 20.
Nxg7 Kxg7 21. Qg3+ 1/2-1/2

[Event "Oslo BNbank Gp-A"]
[Site "Oslo"]
[Date "2010.11.27"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Nakamura, Hikaru"]
[Black "Royset, Jon Kristian"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C33"]
[WhiteElo "2741"]
[BlackElo "2180"]
[PlyCount "97"]
[EventDate "2010.11.27"]
[EventType "tourn (blitz)"]
[EventRounds "10"]
[EventCountry "NOR"]
[SourceDate "2011.01.05"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Nc3 c6 5. Qe2 d5 6. exd5+ Be7 7. d4 O-O 8.
Bxf4 Nxd5 9. Nxd5 cxd5 10. Bd3 Bb4+ 11. c3 Re8 12. Be3 Qh4+ 13. g3 Qe7 14. Kf2
Bd6 15. Nf3 Bg4 16. Rae1 Nc6 17. h3 Bh5 18. g4 Bg6 19. Qc2 Qf6 20. Bg5 Bxd3 21.
Qxd3 Qg6 22. Qxg6 hxg6 23. Nh4 f6 24. Bd2 Kf7 25. Ng2 g5 26. Kf3 Rxe1 27. Nxe1
Re8 28. Nc2 Ne7 29. h4 gxh4 30. Rxh4 Ng6 31. Rh5 Ne7 32. Ne3 Ke6 33. b3 b6 34.
c4 dxc4 35. bxc4 Kf7 36. a4 Ng6 37. Nf5 Bf8 38. Rh1 Rc8 39. Rc1 Ba3 40. Rc3 Bb4
41. Rc2 Bxd2 42. Nd6+ Ke6 43. Nxc8 Ba5 44. Nxa7 Kd7 45. c5 bxc5 46. dxc5 Ne5+
47. Ke4 g6 48. c6+ Kc7 49. g5 1-0

and there are many from correspondence games.

Black plays 3...Nc6
I would not go so far as to claim it a refutation, or something that would bring Black a forced advantage. But imo and that of others it is a perfectly sound reply.

Regarding the recommendation against the Bishop Gambit
in Dangerous Weapons against 3.Bc4,Nc6.
This line was allready discussed some years back.

Correctly as you said I am not getting a single advantage from O Duras line as I expected. White has lots of Resources.



  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!!
Reply #18 - 03/21/11 at 04:26:40
Post Tools
Schwebbz wrote on 03/20/11 at 12:40:52:
Master Om wrote on 03/20/11 at 04:32:32:
It is interesting To see what Chess engines think. Deep Rybka 4.1 SSE42 suggests 3...Nc6! but Houdini suggests 3...Qh4+ and sticks to it when I ran both on a Hexacore MAchine for 2 hours in MPV 3. Houdini gives eval of -/+ 0.56 with 3...Qh4+ and Rybka gives =/+ 0.37 with 3...Nc6.


Two things you need to keep in mind when it comes to computer analysis, though:

Eval() is primarily a function for ordering and selecting moves. If the number an engine spits out with the variation happens to make sense to you, or if that number happens to accurately reflect the winning chances of the program in question, that's mostly a happy coincidence.

The fact that computers can calculate millions of positions every second gives them a different set of priorities than human players. Computers 'like' positions where their opponents have to make straightforward, practically forced moves, while the best moves for their own side are utterly unclear. Why? Because it minimizes their opponents chances of finding unexpectedly good variations, and maximizes their own. Unless you recon you're the next Tal, you probably don't want to emulate this approach OTB.



Have You seen My first Post ?. I asked in Correspondence Chess . My Opponenet will be using Chess programs For Analysis and i will expect Atleast with a decent Hardware my opponent will not miss Tactics atleast. I may Out Play in endgame where Programs Lack in Understanding except few.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Refuting Kings Bishop Gambit!!
Reply #17 - 03/20/11 at 14:12:50
Post Tools
We're all very lucky to micawber and his impressive 1...e5 scholarship here.
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
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 © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge