It took NM James West to point out just how to play the f5 - Philidor properly. I bet that some players screwed up playing f5, and their defeats got mentioned in Lasker's Manual.

Which line do you consider critical, Jupp?

To cite West's book, pages 118-120:

After 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 f5 4 Bc4 West gives 4...Nc6 5 dxe5 dxe5 6 Qxd8+ Nxd8 7 Ne5

Alternatives:

  7 exf5 Nc6 8 Bd3 Nge7 9 Nh4 Nd4 10 g4 h5 = 11 h3? hxg4 12 hxg4 Rxh4! -+ ; 8 Ng5 Nd4 9 Nf7 Bxf5 =

7 Nc3, McCarthy - West, Somerset 1991

  7... fxe4 8 Bd2
 
 Alternatives:

  8 Nxe4 Nf6 9 Nxf6 ch gxf6 10 00 Nf7 =
  8 Nc3 Nf6 9 Bg5 Bd6 10 f4 Be6 and drawn on move 27, MacArthur - West, Somerset, 1995.

8...Bd6 9 Bc3 Nf6 10 h3 Be6 11 Nd2 00 12 00 Nd5, drawn on move 30.

The above game given by West is Lowenthal and Medley - Morphy and Mongredien, London, 1858.

Regarding 3...f5, it has been played by Morphy, no less. The poor move, as you call it, is actually 4...Qe7.

I have the same opinion of anti-Sicilians, 1. d4 without 2. c4, and other sidelines. Would it not be better to generally play the Open Sicilian, 1. d4 with 2. c4, and other main lines instead of expending maximum effort trying to get a good position out of a mediocre opening line? To me it is like wasting 1 hour on the clock for no reason in a tournament game and then trying very hard not to lose on time before move 40...

Gambit wrote on 03/01/12 at 02:40:21:


I'll save my money.  As for the website, there is no easy way to discover games in this line.  If I ever encounter this I will just have to reply to 4...Nc6 with 5.Nc3 and see what happens.  But I thought you would share your own ideas, that's really what I was asking.

Gambit wrote on 02/29/12 at 06:31:01:

No, I had no idea. I mistrust West if he claims 4...b5 is viable. When did chess stop being chess?

4...Nc6 looks like a better idea, but what is Black's play supposed to be after 5.exf5 Bxf5 6.0-0?  Offhand White looks better to me.  I found a lot of old games with 5.dxe5 in my data base, but that move makes no sense to me.  For that matter, 5.Nc3 looks quite strong.

It seems to me that if 4.Bc4 can be safely played, then 3...f5 is just a mistake.

Gambit wrote on 02/28/12 at 16:28:45:


What about 8.Neg5? For example, 8.Neg5 e4 9.Nf7 Qe7 10.O-O and Black seems to be in water way over his head. 

When was it, 1855, that Morphy demonstrated to all and sundry just how to smash an opponent who opens the position when lagging in development?  That's what Reti thought his point was, anyway.  Has something changed since then?

I can't believe a great gambiteer like you, Lev, author of so many nice piece attacks, is upholding this antediluvian approach to chess!  Or that anyone is, for that matter.

What, by the way, is supposed to be Black's play against 4.Bc4 fxe4 5.Nxe5?  I would be very interested to know.

James West suggests 6...c6! This is found by his Fritz engine. We analysed this back and forth. Black appears to hold in all lines, including the 7 Ne4 and 7 Ng5 lines.

If 7 Nxe4 Nf6! 8 Nxf6 gf6
                      8 Ng3 e4

7 Ng5 Qe7 8 Nf7 Nf6 9 Nxh8 d5 10 dxe5 Qxe5 11 00 Ng4 12 f4 Bc5+ 13 Kh1 Qh5! 14 h3 Qh4 15 Bd5 Qg3 16 Bf7+ Ke7! 17 Qg4 Bg4  18 Ne4 Qh4 19 Nc5 Bxh3 20 Rf3 Bg4 21 Rh3 Bh3 22 gh leading to a draw by perpetual check in the lines Fritz, West and I analysed.

These lines were worked out at the 2012 United States Amateur Team East tournament and shortly afterwards, February 18 - 26, 2012. USATE lasted 3 days, 18-20 February 2012.