(UTC)
Latest Updates:
(Moderators: Smyslov_Fan, Jupp53, trw)
‹ No Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) C41: Newark gambit (Read 78037 times)
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: C41: Newark gambit
Reply #39 - 02/09/12 at 01:22:54
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 02/08/12 at 04:29:39:
LOL... The Schliemann is complicated. So is my gambit.
Try the following line:

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 f5 4 Bc4 b5 5 Bxb5+ c6 6 Ba4 fxe4 7 Nxe5 dxe5 8 Qh5+ with complications.

You also might want to check the game I posted against Canadian FM C. Stevens. Very complicated stuff.

Finally, ever heard what Savielly Tartakower once said? "Dubious, therefore playable."


Not critical and therefore not interesting. But since there is no real conversation going on here, this thread is at an end.
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1394
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: C41: Newark gambit
Reply #38 - 02/08/12 at 04:29:39
Post Tools
LOL... The Schliemann is complicated. So is my gambit.
Try the following line:

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 f5 4 Bc4 b5 5 Bxb5+ c6 6 Ba4 fxe4 7 Nxe5 dxe5 8 Qh5+ with complications.

You also might want to check the game I posted against Canadian FM C. Stevens. Very complicated stuff.

Finally, ever heard what Savielly Tartakower once said? "Dubious, therefore playable."
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
trw
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1414
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: C41: Newark gambit
Reply #37 - 02/07/12 at 16:37:59
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 02/07/12 at 05:39:52:
I used to play the Schliemann, years ago. It can get very complicated fast. But my question is, how is the Schliemann similar to the Newark Gambit?

It is not. If you read the opening I quoted it was Rousseau Gambit. Lots of people play the Schliemann because its complicated and borderline sound. This Newark gambit you have proclaimed is refutable, boring and simple. No similarities at all.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: C41: Newark gambit
Reply #36 - 02/07/12 at 12:49:07
Post Tools
trw wrote on 02/07/12 at 04:14:19:
SWJediknight wrote on 02/03/12 at 00:35:44:
Like the Rousseau gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 f5)


is this line so fundamentally different than the Schliemann? Seems like the ideas would be similar.


The Schliemann works as well as it does because White's Bishop has already gone to b5.  Here it hasn't.  Also, needless to say, here Black has played the self-blocking 2...d6.

@Lev: I might try? I'm not interested in playing this gambit.  But 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.Bc4 b5 5.Bb3 Bb7 6.dxe5 and now what? 6...fxe5 7.Ng5 d5 8.Ne6 followed by 9.Bxd5 appears very close to a win for White.
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1394
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: C41: Newark gambit
Reply #35 - 02/07/12 at 05:39:52
Post Tools
I used to play the Schliemann, years ago. It can get very complicated fast. But my question is, how is the Schliemann similar to the Newark Gambit?
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Gilchrist is a legend
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1039
Location: Manchester, UK
Joined: 03/02/10
Re: C41: Newark gambit
Reply #34 - 02/07/12 at 05:15:27
Post Tools
But if 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 f5, what if 4. d4 since after ...fxe4 5. Nxe5 Nxe5 6. dxe5 there is no queen check on a5 with tempo via ...c6 and winning a piece?
  
Creo lo que creo no importa lo que creen los demás.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1414
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: C41: Newark gambit
Reply #33 - 02/07/12 at 04:14:19
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 02/03/12 at 00:35:44:
Like the Rousseau gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 f5)


is this line so fundamentally different than the Schliemann? Seems like the ideas would be similar.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1394
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: C41: Newark gambit
Reply #32 - 02/07/12 at 03:36:02
Post Tools
Instead of 5...fxe4 6 Nc3 you might try 5 Bb3 Bb7!?
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: C41: Newark gambit
Reply #31 - 02/07/12 at 02:19:55
Post Tools
I have deleted some obnoxious posts by various people.

Lev, the very next thing that you post that does not address the 64 squares, unless it is very friendly indeed, will get you banned, and I doubt that I will relent this time. Come here friendly and come prepared to talk chess theory, or don't come at all. And no one will miss you.

Further, I will shut this miserable thread unless someone posts something to uphold Black's case against 4.Bc4 b5 5.Bb3! fxe4 6.Nc3!, which appears to me to be dispositive. For one thing, where is Black going to put his king?

If nothing pertinent appears, this thread dies. Tread very carefully now, Lev.
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 915
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: C41: Newark gambit
Reply #30 - 02/06/12 at 11:13:12
Post Tools
Trouble is, in the case of many dubious gambits, the most theoretically critical response does involve "ducking out" of the most complicated lines (complicated lines, after all, tend to be relatively unclear).  This can involve settling for a safe one or two-pawn advantage as opposed to pursuing more material, or returning the material in order to take over the initiative (the former being critical against the Budapest Fajarowicz and Elephant gambits, and the latter against the Latvian and Englund for instance). 

It's mainly with the sounder gambits- the Evans, the 4.Ng5 d5 line of the Two Knights, and many of White's popular gambit tries in the Slav are good examples- where the most critical responses tend to involve heading straight into the more complex and bloodthirsty lines. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: C41: Newark gambit
Reply #29 - 02/04/12 at 05:01:11
Post Tools
Lev, of course Black's win is not certain after 9...Kc6, but it remains that anyone looking for a fight would've played this move, since it holds out pretty good winning chances, while the other way a perp is on the board.

But were you planning to answer on the subject of 5.Bb3 fxe4 6.Nc3? It looks awfully good for White.
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
fling
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1591
Joined: 01/21/11
Gender: Male
Re: C41: Newark gambit
Reply #28 - 02/03/12 at 21:28:31
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 02/03/12 at 21:18:56:
Markovich wrote on 02/02/12 at 17:08:21:
Gambit wrote on 02/02/12 at 11:24:06:
To answer a few questions:

4 exf5 was refuted by James West in a posted reponse on the Kenilworth Chess Club website, the same source you gave.

As for the Newark Gambit, here is a recent game with it:

FM Christian Stevens (Canada) - Lev Zilbermintz
Internet Chess Club 5 0 rated blitz
January 25, 2012

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 f5 4 Bc4 b5 5 Bb3?! fxe4 6 Ng5 d5 7 Ne4 dxe4 8 Qh5+ Kd7 9 Qf7+ Ne7 10 Qe6+ Ke8 11 Qf7+ Kd7 DRAWN.



Shame on you for playing into that draw when you could've tried to win with 9...Kc6.  But 9.Qxe5 would've been a better move than 9.Qf7+.  It's interesting that the position in question comes up more directly, and one move sooner, via 6.Nxe5 dxe5 7.Qh5+ Kd7.

But say Lev, it appears to me that 6.Nc3!, rather than any move of the king knight, is the best move on the board.  In fact it looks to me that White is close to winning. I assume you have something to say about it, so I shall wait for your reply.  Come to think of it, isn't "?!" a quite extravagant mark to put on such a sound and seemingly promising move as 5.Bb3?  You really should be more unassuming with your move decorations.

I mean, Tarrasch would never have condoned 5.Bxg8.


The win is by no means certain. My computer gives 10 a4 ed4 11 axb5 Kb6 =


But OTB Black must have good chances  Cheesy
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1394
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: C41: Newark gambit
Reply #27 - 02/03/12 at 21:18:56
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 02/02/12 at 17:08:21:
Gambit wrote on 02/02/12 at 11:24:06:
To answer a few questions:

4 exf5 was refuted by James West in a posted reponse on the Kenilworth Chess Club website, the same source you gave.

As for the Newark Gambit, here is a recent game with it:

FM Christian Stevens (Canada) - Lev Zilbermintz
Internet Chess Club 5 0 rated blitz
January 25, 2012

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 f5 4 Bc4 b5 5 Bb3?! fxe4 6 Ng5 d5 7 Ne4 dxe4 8 Qh5+ Kd7 9 Qf7+ Ne7 10 Qe6+ Ke8 11 Qf7+ Kd7 DRAWN.



Shame on you for playing into that draw when you could've tried to win with 9...Kc6.  But 9.Qxe5 would've been a better move than 9.Qf7+.  It's interesting that the position in question comes up more directly, and one move sooner, via 6.Nxe5 dxe5 7.Qh5+ Kd7.

But say Lev, it appears to me that 6.Nc3!, rather than any move of the king knight, is the best move on the board.  In fact it looks to me that White is close to winning. I assume you have something to say about it, so I shall wait for your reply.  Come to think of it, isn't "?!" a quite extravagant mark to put on such a sound and seemingly promising move as 5.Bb3?  You really should be more unassuming with your move decorations.

I mean, Tarrasch would never have condoned 5.Bxg8.


The win is by no means certain. My computer gives 10 a4 ed4 11 axb5 Kb6 =
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 915
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: C41: Newark gambit
Reply #26 - 02/03/12 at 00:35:44
Post Tools
http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2012/01/refuting-philidor-counter-gambit-with....

The critical line (after 4.exf5) is given as 4...e4 5.Ng5 Nf6 6.f3 h6 7.Nxe4 Nxe4 8.Qe2 d5 9.fxe4!, leading, as MNb implied, to clearly better positions for White.   Also Markovich's 4.Bc4 b5 5.Bb3 fxe4 6.Nc3 looks simple and good.

Like the Rousseau gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 f5) I can see this gambit providing some fun at blitz where White may stumble into the pitfalls, but in a serious game I would certainly much rather be White.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: C41: Newark gambit
Reply #25 - 02/02/12 at 17:08:21
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 02/02/12 at 11:24:06:
To answer a few questions:

4 exf5 was refuted by James West in a posted reponse on the Kenilworth Chess Club website, the same source you gave.

As for the Newark Gambit, here is a recent game with it:

FM Christian Stevens (Canada) - Lev Zilbermintz
Internet Chess Club 5 0 rated blitz
January 25, 2012

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 f5 4 Bc4 b5 5 Bb3?! fxe4 6 Ng5 d5 7 Ne4 dxe4 8 Qh5+ Kd7 9 Qf7+ Ne7 10 Qe6+ Ke8 11 Qf7+ Kd7 DRAWN.



Shame on you for playing into that draw when you could've tried to win with 9...Kc6.  But 9.Qxe5 would've been a better move than 9.Qf7+.  It's interesting that the position in question comes up more directly, and one move sooner, via 6.Nxe5 dxe5 7.Qh5+ Kd7.

But say Lev, it appears to me that 6.Nc3!, rather than any move of the king knight, is the best move on the board.  In fact it looks to me that White is close to winning. I assume you have something to say about it, so I shall wait for your reply.  Come to think of it, isn't "?!" a quite extravagant mark to put on such a sound and seemingly promising move as 5.Bb3?  You really should be more unassuming with your move decorations.

I mean, Tarrasch would never have condoned 5.Bxg8.
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 
Topic Tools
‹ No 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