MartinC wrote on 10/28/11 at 16:22:41:


Absolutely.

Ferit Tuncer wrote on 10/28/11 at 19:40:01:


9...Qf5! dates back to Steinitz; and more specifically the game Showalter-Taubenhaus, New York 1889. Probably Black is just winning in this whole variation.

This gambit is interesting, but let's confine ourselves to the chess of it and especially to what we ourselves, as opposed to our engines, think about given positions. Posting long pgn files containing nothing but engine analysis is quite obnoxious.

@MartinC,

Yeah, you are absolutely right.


I worked on DMGA. Best continuation is probably 9.d4 Qf5 10.Bxf4 as both theory and Houdini suggests it. Then i picked up 10...Nf6, and 10...Bg7 as candidates to investigate.

@MartinC,

All i want to do is make people to help to improving this line. And i am trying to use my engine power somehow. (:

@MartinC,

Of course we can't ignore but we should accept that on these kind of sharp positions, engines do much more better than humans.

@fling,

I understand what you mean. But i expect most presice results from most competitive engine. Maybe i am wrong. But i am not engine specialist, and don't know algorithms.

Ferit Tuncer wrote on 10/28/11 at 09:17:52:


Yes, I understand that you played a match. Does it say anything at all how about how the engine will perform in the analyis of the Muzio gambit? Especially with parameters like that in the match?

Ferit Tuncer wrote on 10/28/11 at 08:23:40:


I am not sure I get your logic behind this. But I still appreciate that you will analyse the Muzio and present the result here.

A few remarks to the game presented by MNb
10...c6 is actually a sideline. The main line continues with Nbc6.
10....Nbc6 11.Rae1,Qf5 12.Nd5,Kd8 13.Qe2,Qe6 14.Qf3
is the Lean-attack.
Old theory books now state that Black should repeat moves with 14...Qf5. But actually 14....Qg6! promises Black good winning chances, as pointed out by S.Buecker/H.Smout digging up old analysis by Snosno-Borovski (1911).

That 18....Qg6 was the first new move in Mnb's game might be clarified a bit.
Both 18....Qxf4 and 18...Nxe7 had been analysed by Schlechter in the Bilguer as early as 1916.
Actually 18...Qxf4 leads to a forced draw as well after
19.Nxf4,Nxe7 20.Qg5+,Kh8 21.Nh5,f5 22.Qe3! (Blankenberg-Hannison,2001) when a perpetual is set up with 23.Qd4,Rf7 24.Qd8+ or 22...Rf7 23.Qe8+.

There is also an interesting side variation with
13.Bxd5,cxd5 14.Qh5,Qd6 15.Nb5! unclear (Samisch-Gunther, 1926). Black might have entered this in the game by replying 14.Bxd5,cxd5 (iso 14...0-0). But this also would not have given black any winning chances imo.

Just two things to be aware of:

• There's already quite a bit of Muzio analysis in the threads on this site, you may want to check those out before seeing whether you're re-inventing the wheel. You can check them out by typing "C37" or Muzio in the search box.
• The Muzio Gambit doesn't lend itself particularly well to engine analysis. There are quite a few sac lines that the engines just completely misevaluate even in these days. (Perhaps Fritz 13+ will prove this statement wrong, but I doubt it.)