Stefan Buecker wrote on 10/12/14 at 21:51:42:


Agree! The correspondence game I played with black started 15.04.2011 and finished 11.06.2011 - at that time I was fully unaware of the Kaissiber's analysis of Mr Wind. Though, probably my opponent with white seemed to be aware of it.
Let me say that when I played OTB chess up to 1994-1995, together with my friends who played Scandinavian at that time - we knew about this idea. Right now, I can't recall if we saw it in a game in the late 80's, or just found it while analyzing. There were no databases at that time and the openings' theory wasn't developed as it is now.. 

RoleyPoley wrote on 09/19/14 at 21:53:26:


A lot of verbal explanation, as the book will primarily be of interest to players below master level, I'd guess.

Having said that, I've spent a LOT of time on the analysis, as my ultimate goal is to be able to propose a repertoire in which every line for Black is at least 'playable'. This has been quite a challenge! I'm still trying to work out the best way to handle the 'Correspondence Refutation' with 4.f3 Bf5 5.g5 Bg6 6.c4 (discussed in depth in this thread). More significantly, I've had to drop the Icelandic Gambit as my main recommendation after 3.c4, although I still cover it in detail, but fortunately there are some surprising gambit lines after 3.c4 c6 4.d4 that are both sound and exciting (IMO).

smurfo wrote on 09/16/14 at 19:52:54:


Thank you for providing an update as to when we may be able to expect it. I'm looking forward to it.

In the meantime i will give the lines from Levy/Keenes book a go. Never played the opening before but sounds a blast!

smurfo wrote on 08/26/14 at 14:37:38:


When do you think you will have your draft completed, and the when is the earliest we can expect to see it available?

I thought the variation came from Belgium with IM Jadoul and Vandevoort. And then Portuguese players jumping on the bandwagon .... ? 

A good point- I think Black is still able to get decent play against 8.exf7+, but it is certainly more challenging than the 8.Nc3 that I gave.  The critical line seems to be 8...Kxf7 9.Kf2 (if 9.Qd2 Re8 10.Kf2 transposes, or Black can consider 9...Rd8) Re8 10.Qd2 Qd7 (Dworakowski-Moll, Groningen 1997).



The idea is the typical exchange sacrifice on e3.  Now instead of 11.Nc3?! Rxe3 12.Kxe3 Bc5, White can continue 11.c5. Rxe3 12.Qxe3 (12.Kxe3 Nd5+) 12...Nxd4 13.Bc4+ Be6 14.Bxe6+ Nxe6.



I think Black still has enough play for the material (White has to play the weakening 15.b4 to avoid ...Bxc5, and then Black chooses between 15...a5 and 15...Nd5).

Just noted that in a couple of earlier posts in the thread, my analysis after 10...Bd6 11.Ne2 Ne7 12.h5 Bf5 was improved on for White with 13.Ne3 c5 14.Kf2!, so will need to take a closer look at that line to see if I can come up with anything.

I have very recently produced articles on what I call the "Scandinavian gambits" (arising from 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6).  Although I play 1...e5 more often these days, I still sometimes wheel out these lines as well, and have had a recent outing in the line 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.d4 Bg4 4.f3 Bf5 5.Bb5+ Nbd7 6.c4 e6 7.dxe6 fxe6 8.Ne2 c6 9.Ba4.  Although I lost the game, the loss was not the fault of the opening, as I had a roughly equal position around move 15.  I believe that this line is Black's best antidote to the 5.Bb5+, 6.c4 approach.

http://tws27.weebly.com/icelandic-gambit.html
http://tws27.weebly.com/portuguese-gambit.html
http://tws27.weebly.com/3rd-move-alternatives-for-white.html

I am a club-level player, and set up this site mainly to provide introductions for club players who are interested in taking up these lines, but if any of my coverage proves helpful, by all means feel free to make use of it.  I'm certainly interested in the upcoming book, as I feel that my enthusiasm for these lines, and opinions on their merits, are pretty similar.

My assessment of the line 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.d4 Bg4 4.f3 Bf5 5.g4 Bg6 6.c4 e6 7.Nc3 cxd5 8.g5 Nh5 was, "8...Nh5 is the main alternative but then 9.f4 leaves the knight on h5 in danger of being trapped and chopped off.  9...Nc6 10.Be2 Nb4
(10...dxc4 11.Bxh5 Bxh5 12.Qxh5 Nxd4 13.Kf2 Bc5 gives Black some, but not enough, compensation for the piece due to White's exposed king, De Waele,W (1976)-Bukharin,A (1956) Lechenicher SchachServer 2010, where White covers most of the threats with 14.Be3)
11.Bxh5 Nc2+ 12.Kf2 Nxa1 13.Bxg6 hxg6 14.cxd5 with advantage for White, Oreopoulos,K (2375)-Bensiek,N (2348) ICCF email 2011".

Indeed, 9...dxc4 10.Be2 Nc6 merely transposes.  I think Black's best tries are possibly 7...Bd6 (e.g. 8.Nge2 0-0 9.h4 h6 10.dxe6 Nc6 11.Bh3 fxe6 12.g5) and 8...Nfd7 9.Nxd5 Nc6 10.h4 Bd6 (e.g. 11.Ne2 Ne7 12.h5 Bf5 13.Be3 c5 14.d5).  The resulting positions are better for White, but I wouldn't mind taking Black in practice, because White's plan of pushing the kingside pawns forward leaves the white king without a reliable pawn shelter, which will always provide Black with some practical chances.

I agree that 4.Bb5+ Nbd7 5.Be2 is a pretty dull line, especially as I couldn't make the bolder approaches with ...0-0-0 work for Black.  My attempt ran, 5...Bxe2 6.Qxe2 Nxd5 7.c4 N5f6 8.Nc3 c6 9.Nf3 Qc7 10.0-0 e6 11.d5 0-0-0 12.dxc6 bxc6 13.Rd1, and I didn't find Black's position very appealing, with minimal pawn shelter in front of the black king.  Indeed, if I ever face that line I may well be tempted to chance it with 4...c6, which, though unsound, is not as bad as I previously thought it might be.

My examinations of the line 3.Nf3 Bg4 suggest to me that it is no better or worse than 3.d4 Bg4 (in either a theoretical or practical sense) so I think it is an entirely reasonable and consistent recommendation.