Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Topic Tools
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) C25: Fyfe Gambit. (Read 18163 times)
trw
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1332
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: C25: Fyfe Gambit.
Reply #15 - 07/01/12 at 08:27:33
Post Tools
Per the OP's wishes, this thread is now locked.
  
Back to top
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: Male
Re: C25: Fyfe Gambit.
Reply #14 - 07/01/12 at 04:49:35
Post Tools
Please no more posts for or against, as far as I am concerned this topic is closed and quite frankly I am sorry I brought it up.
While I had hoped for more (older) information on the Fyfe Gambit, It is not my wish for people to start drawing battle lines. I just don't won't to be responsible, even indirectly, for people fallling foul of trolls and or the moderators (they have a job to do) by getting so far off topic.
Hopefully the moderators will close off this thread sooner rather than later.
Thanks
Hadron
Smiley
  

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."
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
PatzerNoster
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 142
Joined: 10/22/09
Re: C25: Fyfe Gambit.
Reply #13 - 07/01/12 at 04:06:52
Post Tools
This is also off topic, for which I apologize, but I think I need to make that point:

It seems to me that Hadron wants to explore the Fyfe gambit out of a "historical" interest, which there is nothing to bother about.

I mean I am not that bad a player and have analysed things like 1.c4 g5?! or the Mokele Mbembe (1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Ne4?!) without ever planning to play them in a serious tournament game, just out of interest for chess.
You might argue about how productive that is but for us as amateurs chess is fun, so what is wrong with that?

@Markovich: I know that you are one of the most active posters here and have contributed really a lot to this forum.
However I didn't fail to notice how some of your most recent actions as a moderator (splitting up threads and deleting posts at will) and contributor (personal insults) befouled the atmosphere on the ChessPub forum.
While you still were moderator I noticed that the number of posts here was going down dramatically. Now the forum seems to have recovered a bit, so please refrain from these methods because they are clearly harmful!
If you think that the opening asked about is bad (which to my eyes it also is) you can state that in a polite way without getting personal on people!
I think about MNb who also has very clear-cut opinions but brings them across in a much more agreeable way, which is normally very inspiring for a debate.


To make my point clear, I have nothing against a no-nonsense debate, but personal attacks as against the OP clearly don't fall in this category.
  
Back to top
 
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: Male
Re: C25: Fyfe Gambit.
Reply #12 - 06/30/12 at 23:59:54
Post Tools
I actually wondered if I should bothered adding anything more to the debate has I did have the other thread closed down for a reason (i.e. I found a resource of information thanks to the Maestro and I was not interested in further banal debates).
However [Edited] seems to want to continue to wave the red flag: 

Markovich wrote on 06/30/12 at 01:25:02:
For my part, I chose to mock the notion that chess played normally is "soporific," the OP's term.

And I think this is the point that Mr. Büecker and at least one other was trying to make, just who are you to mock anyone? As for myself, I really didn’t take I great deal of notice of your attempts at wit because no where did I say that either “chess played other than in gambit fashion is boring” or “that chess played normally is "soporific," I said that “soporific chess is not for me” and because I was also asking about Peter Fyfe’s gambit idea, you decided you would add 2 and 2 together and make it 5.

Markovich wrote on 06/30/12 at 01:25:02:
The most pointed and confrontational remarks, I thought, were those of the O.P..

Pointed? My original posts in both forum threads are exactly that, pointed. Precise and to the point – Please does anyone have any old games and analysis on the Fyfe Gambit – Please do not tell me it is junk – and please I do not won’t chess engine analysis. A pointed and precise request followed with specific and concrete riders. If you compare the first thread (up until with the first of Mr. Büecker’s post on 5/18/11) with the second, it is not hard to see that the first thread is clearly the more sensible where the second lapses into stupidity as early as the second post.

Markovich wrote on 06/30/12 at 01:25:02:
And he also chose not to air out any chess specifics..

Why do I need to “air out” any chess specifics, as you put it? As with both threads, I asked a simple question and while the first thread provided some reasonable leads as did the second but …..

Markovich wrote on 06/30/12 at 01:25:02:
So far, it is fair to say, NO ONE has discussed this gambit.

…you are quite right. No one has discussed the gambit directly, what certain individuals have done however is either (1) done what I have asked of them and provided me with analysis from old sources (which Mr. Büecker did in a round about fashion) or (2) made attempts at banal if not flawed humour. So rather that howl about people being confrontational as you did in a paragraph above, why did you not attempt to actually discuss the gambit rather than attempt some poor Sigmund Freud impression? You had your chance to make a sensible contribution and you chose not to do so perhaps to point out that others also have not is a bit rich.

Markovich wrote on 06/30/12 at 01:25:02:
So perhaps someone should bring on some variations instead of striking a noble pose in favour of good and against evil.

What good and evil is, perhaps, purely subjective, just like what ‘normal chess’ is or just what ‘soporific’ chess might be.

All I wanted was so me old analysis on the Fyfe Gambit and look what I got. I will be writing to the forum moderator to close this thread as well, these troll bites are starting to itch. An esteemed thank you to the more sensible among you  Smiley
HTH
« Last Edit: 07/02/12 at 00:23:11 by trw »  

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."
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1332
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: C25: Fyfe Gambit.
Reply #11 - 06/30/12 at 04:20:01
Post Tools
Guys let stay on the topic of the thread "Fyfe Gambit" or I will lock this thread.
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: C25: Fyfe Gambit.
Reply #10 - 06/30/12 at 01:25:02
Post Tools
God, you would think from reading all this that there was an attempt to surpress discussion in the earlier thread. There was nothing of the kind. For my part, I chose to mock the notion that chess played normally is "soporific," the OP's term. I admit that it was offtopic, but otherwise I have no apology to make.  The most pointed and confrontational remarks, I thought, were those of the O.P. And he also chose not to air out any chess specifics.

So far, it is fair to say, NO ONE has discussed this gambit.

Stefan, need I point out the irony in your last post?

Who is accused of not being willing to discuss the 64 squares? I don't believe that I have ever shown any reluctance to do so, if anyone could be found to have a conversation with.

So perhaps someone should bring on some variations instead of striking a noble pose in favor of good and against evil.

  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
tp2205
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 183
Joined: 09/11/11
Re: C25: Fyfe Gambit.
Reply #9 - 06/28/12 at 13:48:25
Post Tools
One more voice in support for free choice of topic. There are many possible reasons for analysing positions of questionable pedigree besides historical research. You may have an annoying team mate who keeps on playing these positions, or you may want to learn how to go about refuting such openings efficiently.

The only time I would understand strong reactions if we have to hear 20 times a day that the Fyfe gambit wins by force.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10474
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: C25: Fyfe Gambit.
Reply #8 - 06/28/12 at 13:08:09
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 06/28/12 at 10:01:08:
Why can't the Fyfe Gambit be discussed without insults?

I agree. Moreover I am not sure a priori why the Fyfe Gambit would be worse than say the Jerome Gambit.
So I grab the opportunity to state that a) I looked in my small library if I could find something (no; Tseitlin doesn't mention it) and b) that I did not defend Markovich, but tried to explain that he and Hadron actually agreed on one point (that non-gambits can be interesting too). I don't blame Hadron for misunderstanding though, he was ill-treated.

The most annoying thing is that he made clear he thought low of the Fyfe-Gambit, but was just interested in its history. That's very legitimate and the insults were nothing but strawmen.
Anyhow, this is why I keep a low profile lately. There is not enough analysis and way too much banter. Yes, I know I am responsible for this too.
  

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
 
Michael Ayton
God Member
*****
Offline


‘You’re never alone with
a doppelgänger.’

Posts: 1835
Location: durham
Joined: 04/19/03
Gender: Male
Re: C25: Fyfe Gambit.
Reply #7 - 06/28/12 at 10:39:01
Post Tools
Well exactly. I was appalled by the reception Hadron got first time round, and mailed him to say so. Such insult-mongers never think what impression they're giving, of the Forum and indirectly of ChessPublishing more generally, to the new poster and potentially to others.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1382
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: C25: Fyfe Gambit.
Reply #6 - 06/28/12 at 10:01:08
Post Tools
This forum needs rules. Why can't the Fyfe Gambit be discussed without insults? Criticism is fine, if it comes with some analysis. I have been in contact with all kinds of chess-loving people. But their attitude can be completely different. One man wasn't in a chess club, rarely played a game against a human. His hobby horse: to study the Evans Gambit with fast software. To detect an error in old analysis was a "heureka" moment for him.

Some members here would say that the Evans is incorrect, that he must study the French. But they'd miss the point: this man loved the Evans, BECAUSE it was out of fashion. He went to libraries, checking old sources, to find out what Steinitz said and why Keres didn't quote him accurately. And he was aware that PCs are most useful in analyzing sharp openings.

Not many are interested in the Fyfe Gambit. But discouraging a lonely researcher should not be our members' business.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1382
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Fyfe Gambit.
Reply #5 - 05/18/11 at 09:16:10
Post Tools
Blackburne believed that the Fyfe Gambit led to equality with best play from both sides, and I agree. 3...exd4 4.Nd5 is OK for White, 3...Nxd4 is more critical.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
AMM
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 110
Location: Barcelona - Spain
Joined: 11/08/07
Gender: Male
Re: Fyfe Gambit.
Reply #4 - 04/21/11 at 00:15:18
Post Tools
Hadron wrote on 04/02/11 at 23:11:59:
He's Back!
Anyways punters, a request for some assistance if I may. I am a big fan of chess history as it relates to the playing of the game (i.e. old analysis and the like).

If anyone oot there has any analysis from old books or any other old sources would be cool. Maybe we could exchange email address?... But please don't bother with any sort of chess engine analysis, I have Fritzs 5 through 10 (plus a few others) and they largely say the same thing that Fyfe's idea is a load of bollicks (but what do these digital demons know?).
Thanks
HTH
(Go Kiwi!!)


If you want more old historical analysis, I can help you with original Karl Bething ones (1939) from Latvian gambit ( translated to English from Latvian ). Also his own biography or other things. Not many people has these sources.

amelchormunoz@gmail.com (Barcelona, Spain )
  
Back to top
WWW  
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: Male
Re: Fyfe Gambit.
Reply #3 - 04/04/11 at 01:02:29
Post Tools
Schroeder wrote on 04/03/11 at 16:33:52:
Two links that might be of interest:

The Glasgow Story: Peter Fyfe
http://www.theglasgowstory.com/image.php?inum=TGSA05210&t=2&urltp=search.php%3Fs...

Tim Harding: The Kibitzer (2004)
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz96.pdf


Thanks for your efforts Schroeder, I did actually find these but thank you anyway

Schroeder wrote on 04/03/11 at 16:33:52:
Two links that might be of interest:

The Glasgow Story: Peter Fyfe
http://www.theglasgowstory.com/image.php?inum=TGSA05210&t=2&urltp=search.php%3Fs...

Tim Harding: The Kibitzer (2004)
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz96.pdf


Well Craig, you are of course entitled to your opinion but I would suggest ones mans junk is another treasure. For years the books said 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bb4 was crap sighting Betting – Lebedev 1903 and Keres/Geller ECO Vol C 1981 and it wasn’t till around 2005 I discovered that Alapin had analyzed all this in the 1880/90's and given his own improvement. The point I am try to make is I agree with you Fyfe’s Gambit is a load of old tripe but in this day and age of computers and soporific chess played by ratings narcotized grandmasters (to quote Hugh Myers), it is better to look at something different and be original rather than to simple reproduce the chess of people who think improving a set of numbers makes them beyond reproach.
But thanks for your input!
Hadron
Smiley
  

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."
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Schroeder
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 89
Location: Hamburg
Joined: 03/28/08
Gender: Male
Re: Fyfe Gambit.
Reply #2 - 04/03/11 at 16:33:52
Post Tools
Two links that might be of interest:

The Glasgow Story: Peter Fyfe
http://www.theglasgowstory.com/image.php?inum=TGSA05210&t=2&urltp=search.php%3Fs...

Tim Harding: The Kibitzer (2004)
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz96.pdf

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
CraigEvans
God Member
*****
Offline


If I can't sacrifice a
pawn, I'll throw my rook
in

Posts: 587
Location: Kidderminster
Joined: 07/14/03
Gender: Male
Re: Fyfe Gambit.
Reply #1 - 04/03/11 at 15:42:19
Post Tools
I don't need an engine to tell me that this idea is, to change the wording slightly, not so good. Utter tripe. Madness. So many other words that are not allowed on this family website...

Afraid I can't help you as regards to the history or theory of the opening, I must confess I've accidentally played it a few times in bullet chess but it appears useless to me! I'd be interested to see if I'm wrong though!
  

"Give a man a pawn, and he'll smell a rat. Give a man a piece, and he'll smell a patzer." - Me.

"If others have seen further than me, it is because giants have been standing on my shoulders."
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo