Welcome on this forum.

tbronto wrote on 08/22/11 at 02:20:59:

Why not Cochrane-Owen Gambit? They both played it before Morphy did. If Kieseritzky had anything to do with it it was also before Morphy came around. Kieseritzky died in 1853.

tbronto wrote on 08/22/11 at 02:20:59:


tbronto wrote on 08/22/11 at 02:20:59:

I'd be curious what your friend has to offer against a line of defence to be found in that Harding book:

5...f6 6.Nh4 g6 7.f4 Qe7 8.f5 Qg7 and Black's position is very hard to break open.
Similar is 4...Nc6 5.0-0 (5.Nxe4 only promises Black something) Nxc3 6.bxc3 f6 7.Nh4 g6 8.f4 Qe7.

tbronto wrote on 08/22/11 at 02:20:59:

When it comes to tactics you better trust computers than your instincts. Computers are unbeatable in tactics. 10.Qd5 is as strong as 10.Nf7, which also wins, eg Qf6 11.Qe2.
To answer your question: 11.Re3 c6 12.Nd6 wins. 11.Re3 c6 12.Rf3 d5 13.Rxf6 Bxf6 14.Nxh8 dxc4 15.Qd6+ wins. There is nothing messy here as Black only gets two pieces for the Queen and is left with an undeveloped Queenside.
7...Bg7 is a blunder. Black should play 7...d6 or 7...Nc6. Keeping the centre closed is more important than developing pieces. If White can't break through Black is just a pawn up. At this point it's me who trusts his instincts rather than computer evaluation.

A well-known friend of mine wants to publish a book about the Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit, which he wants to re-christen, the Morphy Gambit. I was wondering why he would want to promote a line that has a sketchy reputation at best, but he insists that the Gambit is much better than it's reputation. So I went over the notes that I had made in China a few years ago, in an old book, Bishop's Opening by T.D. Harding (pub. by Batsford Ltd. 1973), which contains a section on the Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit. Now I may be old-fashioned, but I still accept Harding's assessment that the gambit could possibly be unsound, or in his words, not as reliable as the Ourosoff Gambit.

Still, I did some serious analysis of my own and I managed to reverse a lot of the lines given in Harding's book. I managed to reverse assessments favorable to Black and White, so the overall effect was to cancel out favorability one way or the other. That, in my opinion left Harding's conclusion intact.

My friend on the other hand feels that all lines where Black tries to hold the pawn, (1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 (Nf3), Nf6 3 Nf3 (Bc4), Nxe4 4 Nc3 Nxc3 5 dc f6), give White either the better game or a win. At least I'm in good company, since as Harding notes, Steinitz thought that '5...f6' was the "only move."

One line that thoroughly baffled me was after 5...f6, the game continues 6 0-0 g6 7 Re1 Bg7 8 Bg5 given as a win by Harding. e.g. 8...fxg5 9 Nxe5 wins. I was unable to come up with a clear win after 9...Kf8 10 Nf7 Qf6 11 Re3 c6 12 Rf3 d5, which is a confusing mess. 

Of course, my friend pointed out the win for White with 11 Qd5! Of course the computers confirm this, but I don't use computers because I prefer to trust my instincts. But for those of you with computers, I ask a small favor, do your machines give White a win after 11 Re3? I'm just curious to find out. Thanks.