Amen.  And since, in the Great Philidor Gambit Debate, the Affirmative refuses to offer evidence, I declare the Negative the winner -- notwithstanding that I have been upholding it.

In fact, so long as I am the monitor of this part of the board, anything posted on the subject of this gambit without being a serious attempt to prove Black's chances will be summarily deleted. 

Well, since someone took that to be a total supprssion of any conversation about this gambit, let me make it clear that anything serious that anyone has to say about this gambit will be accepted.  "See West's website" is going to be suppressed, however.

Chessexplained wrote on 03/23/12 at 07:01:34:

The underlined part is true. The later part pure speculation trying to put a meaning into something out of the category "shit happens".

Back to topic. My summary:
After 4. Bc4
a) fxe4 5. Nxe5
b) b5 5. Bb3
c) Nc6 5. Nc3
each move with white advantage.

Does an average player need more? (If yes - what's it?)

That a white player is able to blunder maybe enough reason for some to play this with black. So what?

Yes, I suggest you go to Jim West's website. He defeated GM Maurice Ashley with the Philidor Counter-Gambit in 2002.

Go to Jim West on Chess. Type in Maurice Ashley. The game should come up.

Is there a game we can look at where a GM lost against this opening?

I am still yet to see a convincing response to Markovich's suggestion of (4.Bc4 Nc6) 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.Ng5.  I looked more closely at it earlier in the thread and my impression that it gave exactly the sort of positions that White is hoping for when essaying the Scotch Gambit (normally reached after 2...Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4) and without having to sacrifice a pawn.

On the other hand, now I know that if I am playing Lev in a game then an approach involving 1.e4, 2.Nf3 and 3.d4 suggests itself as a way to get good tactical chances right out of the opening.

Poor Lev is being so badly beaten up here, closing this thread would be a mercy to him. Post fresh analysis here if you have it Lev, since I will summarily delete mere opinion and noncritical examples from your play.

Gambit wrote on 03/21/12 at 05:16:49:



Gambit, I don't know why I should capture on 'b5' ( 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.Bc4 b5?! ) when I think this is the worst answer to 4..b5?!. Even 5.Bxg8 Rxg8 can give White adventage:

a) 6.Qe2!?
b) 6.exf5 Bxf5 ( 6..e4 7.Qe2 Qe7 8.Ng5 etc. Baudoin-Dominici, 1993 ) 7.Qe2 etc. several games
c) 6.dxe5 dxe5 7.Qe2 Bd6 8.0-0 Ba6? ( Mangion-Zilbermints, 2011) 9.exf5 b4 10.Qe4

In 2006 Michael Goeller asked to the community what is the best Black move against 4.Bc4. In the  games where Jim West himself played Black against the line, he chose 4..Nc6 which suggests that he does not fully trust the standards 4…exd4 or 4..fxe4 ( 4..b5 was not known yet ): I've tons of West games, and Always play 4..Nc6, so then we should consider this move as relatively best one.

If Markovich believes 5.Nc3 etc. is simplest we must continue the analysis at this point. Of course, this seems more relevant than Black resources on 5.dxe5 and 5.Ng5

What I don't understand is why a dangerous tactician and an experienced BDG-player like LDZ would defend black's side after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.Bc4, when White gets a lead in development and lots of activity for free.
If Black plays like that against the BDG then LDZ is the fastest to show a hyper-aggressive and clever refutation.
No matter how much I like to tease LDZ, this time I am completely serious, exactly because I respect LDZ as a daring attacking player very much. After 4.Bc4 it's White who does the attacking and LDZ tries to defend? Shoot me.

Gambit wrote on 03/21/12 at 15:40:52:


Yeah, you give 5...Nf6, which after 6.Ng5 just leaves white with a clear advantage/winning position. 5... exd4 also seems clearly better for white. Frankly speaking, opening up a position with no development and a weak king is just awful - and this is just what this line does.

Markovich wrote on 03/21/12 at 11:30:09:


In 2001 our ChessPubDirector Tony Kosten wrote a book titled "The Latvian gambit lives !".

In 2012 we should write another article titled "Can PCG survive ?". If after below anwers, all depends on Newark's 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.Bc4 b5?! we are walking in a wrong way. By the way, the same position arises from a known Latvian gambit line: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bc4 b5?! ( Strautins' move ) 4.Bb3! d6 5.d4. and most of the noted games goes from this trasposition

So, after Newark-Zilbermints gambit order, White plays 5.Bb3! and now I'll repeat my answer:

      - 5..h6? 6.dxe5 Ne7 7.Nh4! Qd7? 8.e6 Fiorito-Alloin, 1983

      - 5..Nf6?! 6.dxe5 Nxe4? 7.Qd5 +- Ouwerkerk-Zagt, 1982

      - 5..exd4?! 6.Nxd4 fxe4? 7.Qh5+ +- Janssen-Boll, 1975
 
      - 5..Nc6?! 6.dxe5 ( or 6.Ng5!? ) 6..Nxe5?? ( 6..dxe5 7.Bd5! ) Niemand-Purins, 1983; now 7.Bxg8! and 8.Qd5 +-

      - 5..fxe4:

                   - 6.0-0 c6 7.Ne5 ( 7.Ng5?! d5 8.Nc3 ) 7..dxe5 8.Qh5+ Kd7 8.dxe5 perhaps is favourable for White, but less clear than following below lines ( Atars-Gasser, 1969 and Diepstraten-Druke, 1990 )
 
                   - 6.Nxe5 dxe5 7.Qh5+ Kd7 ( 7..g6?? 8.Qxe5+ Qe7 9.Qxh8 +- Dinu- Popescu, 1995 ) 8.dxe5 ( 8.Qf5+?! Kc6 9.Qxe4+ Kb6 DePalma-Zilbermintz, 2011 and Simmons-Zilbermintz, 2012 or 8.Qxe5 Bd6 Hebrard-Jester, 1987 are not so good ) 8..Kc6 (!?) 9.Qe2 Bc5 10.a4 with some preasure, but Black still defends !
   
                   - 6.Ng5!? d5 ( 6..Nh6 7.Nxe4 Bf5 8.Qf3 d5 9.Nec3 ) 7.dxe5 c6 and now instead 8.e6 ( Schild-Bullockus, 1979 ) 8..Nf6 9.Nf7 Qc7 10.Nxh8 Bxe6 11.Nc3 Nbd7 or several games where first player played 8.0-0, best seems 8.Nc3 Bb6 9.e6! or even 8.Nxe4!? of Strelis-Alberts, 1979
                          
                   - 6.dxe5!? ( you could analyze many ways )

                   - 6.Cc3! - pointed by Markovich - and all moves are bad; f.i. - 6..Qd7? ( 6..Nf6 7.dxe5 ) 7.Ng5 Nh6 8.Be6 Courthiau-Simonet, 1982, but other Black 6th. moves are weak too


Summarizing: we have to find another better move as Black instead of this ones, but I've seen rest of 4th. moves are also dfficult ...      

Gambit wrote on 03/21/12 at 05:16:49:


Would you please be good enough to provide a link?  That site has a huge archive and there is no obvious way to find your game.

P.S. I found Simmons - Zilbermintz, but its 5.Bb3 fxe4 6.Nxe5 is not critical.  Do you have something against 6.Nc3?

Gambit wrote on 03/19/12 at 19:51:37:



Yes, indeed Jupp53; 4..fxe4? is a bad move. Also after 4..exd4 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.0-0 f4 (!?) Markovich suggest 7.Bxf4 Qf6 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.c3!.

If 4..Nc6 5.Nc3 Be7 ( 5..fxe4? 6.Ng5 Nh6 7.d5; 5..Nf6?! 6.Ng5 ) 6.Bd5 Nf6 7.Bxc6+ bxc6 8.dxe5 Nxe4 9.Qd3 d5 10.0-0 0-0 11.Bf4. All this is known not sufficient from long time ago

So 4..Nf6?! and 4..Be7? are weak too, ...

Gambit suggested Newark gambit 4..b5!? ( ?! ) as last refuge, but you should to read long http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1313467158/all to know if Philidor Countergambit is still playable. Personally I tnink 5.Bb3! is strong, but all this has been posted in above discussion.

Gambit wrote on 03/02/12 at 21:56:00:

Beg your pardon for answering late. My copy of Lasker's Manual has been disappeared and just refound it.

Personally: It's not of interest what an Elo 1900+ player thinks about this line. So it's Lasker's line to be given here (with a translation of some comments).

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 d6
3. d4 f5 (A bold reply to remove the pawn e4.)
4. Bc4 (This way white limits the white king and aims at the difficult to protect point f7.)
4. .. fxe4
5. Nxe5 dxe5
6. Qh5+ Kd7
7. Qf5+ Kc6
8. Qxe5 (With many threats. Black will not be able to secure his king without important losses.)
*
Lasker gives a line after 8. .. a6 9. Be3.

This seems sufficient. In 50+ years never meeting this line the (known) motive Nxe5 -> Qh5+ and looking for attacking chances seems enough. Someone preparing this with black in my chess surroundings for serious games will be known soon and it's time to prepare it then. And to care about games with less than 15 min. time is spoiled energy imo.

I think that 5.Nc3 is much better than 5.dxe5
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.exf5 Bxf5 5.Nc3! (5.dxe5)

AMM wrote on 03/14/12 at 00:29:50:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.dxe5 fxe4 5.Ng5 d5 6.e6 Bc5 7.Nxe4 Bb4
and white probably has an edge, but its the smallest that black can get it down.

Chessexplained wrote on 03/13/12 at 23:19:28:

The move 6..Nh6 is no good. Best for black is
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 f5 4. dxe5 fxe4 5. Ng5 d5 6. e6 Bc5!

Vass wrote on 03/13/12 at 09:39:16:

As a first player I would go for:

This is the game George Atwood - J.Bruhl 0-1, London 1801 where Atwood played 10. f4?! on 9...Nc7?!
Instead, on 9...Nc7 10.c4! is giving some good chances for a win. Another try can be 9...Nc5, but after 10.c4 Nd3 11. Nc3! white is close to winning.. At last, 9...g6, can be met by 10.c4! Be7 11. Nxe4! and I think white is way better..
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think white is close to win in every sub-variation after 7.g3! and 8.Bh3! 

SWJediknight wrote on 03/12/12 at 19:50:36:


As I've pointed below, this line seems one of the best resources as Black pieces: After 6..f4!? ( second player must keep the e-file closed ) 7.Bxf4 Qf6 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.Re1 ( 9.Bb5 Laine-Andrasiunas, cr. ICCF, 2007 ) 9..Ne5 ( 9..Be7!? Mechkarov, I know three games, but f.i. 10.c3 Ng4! unclear; another possibility is 9..Bd7 ) 10.Be2 ( 10.Bb3!? Be7 11.h4 ) 10..Be7! ( Kosten; but not 10..Bg4?! 11.f3 Bd7 12.Bg3 0-0-0 13.f4 of Parhalis-Arhipkin, USSR, 1975 ) and now:

a) 11.Na3?! 0-0 12.g3? ( better 12.Bxe5 dxe5 according English GM ) 12..Ng6 with Black advantage Hall-West, USA, 1993 ( or 12..c6 Kessler-Schultz, cr. email, 2004 )

b) 11.Nf3 Nxf3+ 12.Bxf3 Nf7! with idea ..0-0 and ...Ne5, or even, in some cases, ...g5 and ...h5 catching a bishop. In this way Black won a game Ali Bin-Ismail, Moskow ol., 1994; 0-1, 45

Maybe "our" Director GM Tony Kosten should to say anything about all this ? ....  (!!)

I am not sure of the principles by which Black's chances can be upheld after 4.Bc4, apart from pixie dust. This line at best is fun for coffeehousing. Nobody willing to defend Black's game on an objective basis could be accused of sanity.

It mystifies me that any exponent of romantic chess, like Lev, could uphold Black's side of a system that so thoroughly depends on the assumption that piece activity counts for little. Are there no principles of chess?

Gambit wrote on 03/11/12 at 22:02:49:


I continue thinking as Eric's Schiller ( "Survive & beat annoying chess openings", 2003 ) and Maurits Wind ( Chess review "Kaissiber" 7/2007 ) point of view, that 4.exf5 is most simple way to find "some" refutation on Philidor Countergambit. ( 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 )

Summarizing;

a) 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 Nf6! ( 5..d5?! 6.Nxe5!? is more dubtious )
b) 4.dxe5 fxe4 5.Ng5 d5 6.e6 Nh6! 7.Nc3 c6 8.Ngxe4 Nf5!? ( Kosten, T )
c) 4.Bc4 exd4 ( 4..Nc6 5.Nc3 ) 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.0-0 f4!?

PS. "Gambit", our thematic Tourney should to start soon, but I'm waiting any answer of two important players, John Elburg and Hagen Tiemann. I see you are anxious to test some Philidor' traspositions ! ( 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.d4 d6; 3.Nc3 d6; 3.Bc4 d6 and 3.exf5 d6 but the problem is most people plays 3.Nxe5, so you will be able to do something about !! )

Is 4...Nc6 not a straight transposition to the Rousseau Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 f5 4.d4 d6, vs. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 f5 4.Bc4 Nc6)?  My understanding was that 4.d4 is the most critical test of the Rousseau, as Tim McGrew admitted in one of his articles:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/mcgrew13.pdf
That said, Tim (and Dennis Monokroussos) only consider 4...fxe4 here and not 4...d6.

5.Ng5 Nh6 6.0-0 can be met by 6...Nxd4 which might be OK for Black (7.c3 f4! or 7.Nc3 c6, when White has plenty of compensation for the pawn, but probably not a large advantage).  Therefore White should probably save the pawn with 6.d5 Na5 7.Bd3 (or 6...Nd4 7.c3) when I think White has a pretty substantial advantage.

Alternatively Markovich gave 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.Ng5, which also looks good for White, e.g. 6...Qe7 7.Bf7+ Kd7 8.d5 Nd4 9.Be6+ Ke8 10.exf5, with complications, but White has the majority of the attacking chances.   If 5...fxe4 then 6.Ng5 Nh6 7.Ngxe4, or 6...exd4 7.Bf7+ Kd7 8.Nd5. 

I won't deny that the Philidor Countergambit may be a lot of fun in rapid games, but it seems to me that if White plays accurately then it's White who has the majority of the fun, with good attacking chances against the weakened black kingside.

Fllg wrote on 03/11/12 at 17:24:30:


I don't like 4..exd4, but anyway 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.0-0 f4!? 7.Bxf4 Qf6:

a) 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qh4 ( Reyna-Pérez, cr. Cuba, 1984 http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/games/reyna-perez.htm ) but now 9..Ng4! etc.
b) 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.Re1 is analyzed in West book, by trasposition; several games are known, now 9..Ne5 or 9..Be7 ( Mechkarov ) are suggested.
c) 8.Bc1 Nc6 9.f4 Bg4 10.Qd3 0-0-0 is not problematic as Black either ( Zemitis-Melchor, cr. 1997 )

Probably 4.Bc4 Nc6 is the only reasonable move as it was pointed by Jim West at http://jimwestonchess.blogspot.com/2007/02/philidor-counter-gambit-4bc4.html

Fllg wrote on 03/11/12 at 17:24:30:

Sorry, I got confused.

I suppose that West haa an analysis of it, but to me, 4...exd4 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.0-0 looks strong. E.g. 6...Nc6 7.exf5 Bxf5 8.Re1+ Kd7 9.Be6+ Bxe6 10.Nxe6 Qh4 11.Qf3.

So what is Black supposed to do after 4.Bc4 exd4 5.Ng5?

@Fllg: Isn't 4.Bc4 fxe4 5.Nxe5 quite strong?

I´m not here to defend Blacks cause but I have played this a few times a long time ago in my youth and from what I remember after 4.Bc4 exd4 5.Ng5 Nh6 is critical intending 6.Nxh7 Ng4. This has been played by Jonathan Mestel in 1975 winning a miniature in the U20-Wch.

Anyway I´m sure White is better after 4.exf5 and even 4.dxe5 fxe4 5.Ng5 d5 6.e6 Bc5 7.Nxe4! Be7 8.Ng5 Bxg5 9.Qh5+ g6 10.Qxg5 Qxg5 11.Bxg5 is no fun for Black as I had to experience myself. White has a stable edge with his pair of Bishops.

While 4.exf5 and 4.Nc3 probably promise advantage for White, the position seems to cry out for 4.Bc4, particularly since 4...fxe4 fails.

I'm not going to waste my money on a book that claims that the position after 4.Bc4 is good for Black, nor am I likely to scour West's site just to find out where he addresses 4.Bc4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.Ng5.

But if if anyone wants to dispute my point of view with anything concrete, he can do it here.

But is trading queens the best line for white against 4..Bxf5

breizatao wrote on 03/10/12 at 04:30:38:

4...Bf5 is easier to play, but the other line is just as good, provided you know West's analyses and games.

To begin with, after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 f5 4 exf5 e4! is played. Then you have:

5 Ng5 Nf6

6 Ne6 Bxe6 7 fxe6 d5 8 Be2 Qd6 9 00 Qxe6 10 f3 Bd6 11 fxe4 dxe4 12 b3 Nbd7 13 Na3 c6 14 Nc4 Bc7 15 Ne3 000 and 0-1/56, Airapetian - Arkhipkin, Erevan, 1981.

6 Nc3 d5 7 f3 h6!

8 Ne6 Bxe6 9 fxe6 Bb4 10 Bd2 Bxc3 11 bxc3 Qe7 12 fxe4 Qe6 13 e5 Ne4 14 Bd3 00 15 Bxe4 dxe4 16 Qe2 Qg6, = in 27, Gubats - Ziedins, Latvia, 1970.

Of course, 4...Bf5 can be played. In his book, West gives ten pages of games and analyses to this move. Obviously, for space reasons, I cannot cite everything.

What does James West recommend for white if black plays 4..Bxf5
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.exf5 Bxf5

Gambit wrote on 02/27/12 at 03:57:07:

Gambit wrote on 03/02/12 at 21:56:00:


I don't understand 5.dxe5.  It certainly would not be my first idea.  Why would White, with much better activity, want to exchange queens? What does West say about 5.Nc3, which looks to me like a very good move?  White's position is God's gift to a gambiteer, and you're upholding Black's side of it!  I can't figure it.

f5 has been played by Philidor and Morphy - indeed. This is no prove the moves are good, with all respect to the grand old masters. Infact Philidor and Morphy opened the door to the class teaching us inferior players why these kind of moves are minor moves.

f5 was respectable enough to be mentioned in Lasker's Manual as a bad continuation. That's the kind of respect a great master of the past deserves.

Having fun with this continuation is one thing and all right. De gustibus non est disputandum! Telling this a good move shows either a lack of chess education (and-)or disrespect.

This is in no way similar to anti-Sicilians or 1.d4 without c4. In those two examples, white plays a second-best move to get an equal (or perhaps very slightly advantageous) position from a theoretical perspective in order to fish in less-charted waters.

Here, Black is playing clearly inferior moves that have not been tested in grandmaster practice and then trying to figure out how to survive from that obviously inferior position. It's not the same thing, and the readers should know it.

I can't understand the obsession with lines like 3...f5 and 4...Qe7.  I mean, some people play two poor moves and then burn the midnight oil trying to find the best possible way to continue after that.  Why not just play good moves from the outset?

I suggest you buy West's book, "The Dynamic Philidor Counter Gambit". It gives good analyses of 4...Nc6 lines.

You should also google Jim West on Chess and go on his website. He gives many games with 4...Nc6.

I will email West. Between him and Fritz we will come up with an antidote to your lines.

As for 4...fxe4? it  is a mistake. I thought you knew that, Markovich. West himself says either 4...Nc6 or 4...b5 are the playable moves.

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

I'd prefer 9.dxe5. This is clearly better than your move.
After 9. .. dxe5 10. Bg5 white develops easily with a material and a positional plus.

Lev, what is your answer to 4.Bc4 b5 5.Bb3 fxe5 6.Nc3? Frankly it amazes me that anyone with any sense of judgment in this game could uphold Black's side.

I play the Philidor Counter-Gambit a lot, and have never seen 4...Qe7 played. James West suggests instead, 4...e4. Now, 5 Ng5 Nf6 with the following deviations:

  A1.1  6 Ne6

  A1.2  6 Nc3 d5 7 f3 h6  8 Ne6;
                                     8 Nge4


  A2 5...Bxf5

   6 Nc3 d5
   6 Nc3 Nf6
   6  f3

   and Black has 3 responses:

   6...d5; 6...Qe7 ; 6...e3

Source: The Dynamic Philidor Counter-Gambit 2nd edition, by NM James R. West

Also, let me mention here that my joint analyses with West and his chess engine Fritz have found new improvements in the Newark Gambit. In fact, the improvements put to rest the  so called refutations.

At this moment I am playing a correspondence game with the Newark Gambit. It involves the line you mentioned, Alejandro, "the ruinous position". Once it is finished, I will post it here.

When your Latvian Gambit correspondence tournament starts, I will be only too happy to play you. Maybe then we can transpose, via 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 d4 d6 4 Bc4 b5
order, into my line.

So how long until the LG tournament starts?

3...f5?!
4....Qe7?

Tad harsh. But certainly helpful.

breizatao wrote on 02/24/12 at 19:48:37:


I don't criticise you for pointing out some specifics to tne OP, nor  do I say that denegration is a substitute for analysis.

But to observe frankly that one side's game is crap is a useful antidote to wasting time on analysis. If you want to put a page of variations up here analyzing 4...Qe7, by all means do so. I think though that the tail is wagging the dog if we need analysis to reach that conclusion.

Further if somebody seriously thinks Black's game might be okay after 4...Qe7, theoretical investigations are unlikely to be the very best use of the time they have for chess.

What is to answer, really? After 4...Qe7, White has made four good moves, Black one.

Who is promoting 3...f5 that this bad move keeps attracting attention here?

What about
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 f5 4. exf5 Qe7 5. dxe5 6. Bc4 dxe5 7. Nc3 Nc6 7. 0-0 Qd7
with only a small edge for white.

breizatao wrote on 02/24/12 at 07:56:12:

I was looking at the line
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.exf5 Qe7
and couldn't find a way to get a clear dominating position for white. Is the move 4.. Qe7 a known theoretical move in the philidor countergambit?

I've read in a number of places that 4.exf5 is suppose to be the crushing move against the philidor countergambit, but I'm not so sure of it after 4.. Qe7.