urusov wrote on 03/08/15 at 00:42:17:


The notes you gave included evaluations such as "=", +/= and so on. Such notation does not usually mean "well, what I mean is it's equal unless your opponent is really well prepared".

PANFR wrote on 03/03/15 at 17:31:50:


My analysis was posted in 2003 and has not been updated since then -- though I don't think anyone has written more on the line since either.  So, yes, I do not consider games played in 2011 -- though I think Bologan was just trying to play something safe to complete avoid his opponent's preparation.  I have to agree with Tait's comments here.  Estrin's idea of 3.d4 is not a real challenge for Black -- though Bologan's way of playing it is more interesting than I had recognized.

As for PANFR's comments: I think you are right, that 1.  e4 e5 2.  Bc4 f5 3.  d3 Nf6 4.  Nf3 c6 5.  O-O d5 6.  exd5 cxd5 7.  Bb3! is a real challenge for Black, though you definitely have to consider 7...e4 (which really looks like the only chance) 8.dxe4 fxe4 which you'd have to analyze in depth to say anything definitive.

My main point is that you really have to do some deep analysis to beat these lines, especially at the amateur level.  Just consider that Jim West still plays the Philidor Gambit against level A, expert and master players with surprisingly good results.  You really have to know the line well to not go wrong let alone to gain the edge -- and it is unlikely that too many players will spend the time to analyze this stuff (as even the Bologan game suggests).

Ummm... I find it rather difficult to find some value in the analysis at the Urusov site. For example, after 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 f5? 3.d3 Nf6 4.Nf3 c6 (a rather bad move, which earns an exclam mark there) 5.0-0 d5? 6.exd5 cxd5 7. Bb3 (not mentioned) Black will lose a pawn for nothing. I found only one game (far from flawless), which is hardly surprising- playing like that as Black isn't a wise choice.

The Calabrese is better than most people appreciate.  I like MNb's suggestion of 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 f5 3.d3 Nf6 4.f4!? -- which I think is basically what White should be going for, as recommended long ago by Jaenisch.  I have analyzed the Calabrese here:

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/f5.htm

My analysis is rather inconclusive, so I think it is playable.

I had this on the board against me years ago.

Not sure if its the strongest but 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 f5 3.d3 is quite nice to play for White and should lead to some sort of edge.

3...Nf6 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.0-0 etc. avoiding any ...Bb4 business

Glenn Snow wrote on 04/08/12 at 22:15:45:


I no longer think 6...h6 is any good because of 7 Na4 Be7 8 Nh4!, which looks terrible for Black. Who'd have thought that a little move (5 a3) could prove so difficult?!

Okay, I do have another idea, but I'm loathe to say what it is in case someone refutes that as well. I still want to play this over the board!

CraigEvans wrote on 04/07/12 at 21:31:33:


I don't know about it being a genius move; it's quite an obvious one if you know anything about the KGD. But regarding that... 11 Nh4 certainly looks pretty strong here. Does that mean 10...Nh5 refutes the sacrifice in the reversed position? I can't find any theory on this; everyone just takes the rook. Of course in the KGD White mostly plays 7 Na4!, which is pointless in the reversed position (because of a3).

So maybe 6...h6 is correct (as in the game TalJechin gave earlier in the thread). This is played occasionally in the KGD; i.e. 6 h3 instead of 6 d3. It isn't very good for White there, but in reversed positions Black doesn't need "very good".

Quoting that game again with a couple of lines added:

CraigEvans wrote on 04/07/12 at 17:58:40:


Yes, that looks quite interesting. I tried 7...c6 but then 8 Nf5 d5 9 Nxg7+ Kf7 10 Nh5 seems a bit dodgy for Black; e.g. 10...Bg4 11 Be2 Bxe2 12 Qxe2 Nbd7 13 0-0 Qb6 14 Kh1 Rag8 15 Nxf6 Nxf6 16 Bxf6 Qxf6 17 f3 e3 18 Na4 Qa5 19 Qxe3 Qxa4 20 c3.

While I'm not ready to give up on that just yet, perhaps 3...Nf6 is inaccurate and Black should play 3...Nc6 instead, when 4 d3 Nf6 transposes to lines we've already discussed (albeit briefly), while 4 exf5 Nf6 5 Nf3 d5 6 Bb5 Bd6 7 d4 exd4 8 Nxd4 0-0 is okay for Black.

CraigEvans wrote on 04/03/12 at 17:53:30:


4...Bb4.

The only example here being:

The problem with 3.Bc4 is not 3...d6?! as suggested at Michael Goeller's site, as after 4.Nf3 this transposes to the Philidor Counter-Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.Bc4) which is much better for White.
As mentioned earlier in the thread the problem is the Svedenborg Variation (3.fxe4 4.Nxe5 d5), when after 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Nxg6 hxg6 Black gets very dangerous compensation for the exchange after 7.Qxh8 Kf7 and stands OK after 7.Qxg6+ Kd7.  White might have a small theoretical edge in that 7.Qxh8 line with accurate defence but I would much rather be Black in that line (hence 3.Nxe5! being the way to go against the Latvian).

All this validates what I said earlier about getting rid of the pesky Bc4 by a later ...d6, ...Qe7, ...Be6. These games here prove that. And certainly Black can castle Queenside.

On second thought, 3.d4 exd4 4.e5 d5! 5.exd6 Bxd6 and the check from e7 will be annoying.

TN wrote on 04/03/12 at 09:03:12:

SWJediknight wrote on 04/03/12 at 11:21:50:


It's good for psychological value at least.

Here's a bit more analysis:

Here's one more game with a3 :)

[pgn][Event "POL-chT"]
[Site "Lubniewice"]
[Date "1993.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Sikora Gizynska, Bozena"]
[Black "Wiliczkiewicz, Zdzislawa"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C23"]
[WhiteElo "2185"]
[BlackElo "2015"]
[PlyCount "62"]
[EventDate "1993.??.??"]
[EventType "team"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[EventCountry "POL"]
[Source ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 f5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. d3 Nc6 5. a3 Bc5 6. Nf3 h6 7. O-O d6 8. b4 Bb6
9. Nd5 Nxd5 10. Bxd5 Qf6 11. h3 f4 12. c3 g5 13. a4 a6 14. d4 g4 15. dxe5 dxe5
16. hxg4 Bxg4 17. Qd3 h5 18. Bb2 h4 19. Nh2 Bd7 20. Rfb1 Rh7 21. b5 axb5 22.
axb5 Rxa1 23. Rxa1 Nd8 24. Qf3 Qg5 25. c4 h3 26. Rc1 Bc5 27. b6 cxb6 28. Kf1
hxg2+ 29. Kg1 Qh4 30. Qxg2 Bxf2+ 31. Kf1 Bh3 0-1

[/pgn]

It's a pity 2.Bc4 isn't more common. :) 

And of course it would be nice if f5 worked against 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 too... Btw, what's the big difference there, is it 4.d4! or something else?

Glenn Snow wrote on 04/02/12 at 16:12:30:


Ah yes, 5 a3 is interesting. Now we do have a reversed KGD with the useful extra move a2-a3, preventing both ...Bb4 and negating ...Na5. The question is whether the KGD is good for an advantage even with an extra move. The only game I have with this is...

Houdini thinks 5.a3!? (In the variation 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 f5 3.d3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nc6.) is good for White.  Although I'd guess black would be OK with careful play it's certainly a practical choice for White.

3.d4 exd4 4.e5 might be a little something for white, or maybe it's just White's higher rating that speaks..

Just in case: TalJechin refers to 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.d4 Nxd4!? with I met once in a rapid game and was all too happy to draw.

TalJechin wrote on 04/01/12 at 08:06:09:


After 3 d3 Nf6 4 Nc3 (which of course is the same thing) I'd prefer 4...Nc6 (rather than 4...Bb4). Then 5 Nge2 could be answered by 5...Na5 (as in the reversed KG), or if 5 Nf3 only then 5...Bb4.

This also arises via 1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nc6 3 Bc4 f5!? (which might be called the Calabrese Counter-Gambit Deferred) 4 d3 Nf6 etc.

Glenn Snow wrote on 04/01/12 at 03:20:29:

BPaulsen wrote on 04/01/12 at 03:27:52:


Yes, those moves are too obvious. Black can't allow Nc3 coupled with Bg5. Instead: 4...fxe4 5 dxe4 Bb4+!? 6 c3 Bc5 intending ...d6, ...Qe7, ...Be6 and/or ...Nc6-d8 etc. I've found it's surprisingly difficult for White to achieve anything here.

One game:

Isn't 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 f5 3.d3 Nf6 4.Nf3 plus over equals?

Gambit wrote on 03/30/12 at 22:19:20:


1...e5 is a bad move because it weakens the d5 and f5 squares, and makes the f7-pawn even more vulnerable. The best square for Black's queen is d8 so it makes no sense to create the possibility of moving it. Moving the f8-bishop isn't much better since any move along the f8-a3 diagonal will leave the g7-pawn protected. This is why the only move that scores well at the top level against 1.e4 is 1...c5.

Gambit wrote on 03/30/12 at 20:27:46:

Predictable. As I wrote: if LDZ writes this it's a good move.

Gambit wrote on 03/30/12 at 20:27:46:

Fortunately we get a move this time, albeit one that has been widely known since 1972 at least, when Harding in his book on the Bishop's Game gave 4.f4. According to him this move stems from Staunton.
Which obviously is no Latvian Gambit Declined.

Schuld,H - Koetsheid,P [C23]
corr, 1902

1-0

Lyell drew twice with 4...Nc6 in 1985.

Just a question, but how often do people actually play these gambits in tournaments?

When I used to play 1. e4 for almost ten years, the only dubious gambit I faced was 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5?!

That is just avoiding all the fun.

After 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 f5 3 d4 d6 4 Nf3 b5 transposes to the Philidor Counter-Gambit: Newark Gambit.

I don't believe in most of these early ...f5 lines for Black but this one appears at first glance to be rather more resilient than many of the others.

Not 3.Nf3, as that transposes to a decent line of the Latvian Gambit for Black.  Black can generate very dangerous compensation in the exchange sacrifice line 3...fxe4 4.Nxe5 d5 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Nxg6 hxg6 7.Qxh8 Kf7, and 7.Qxg6+ Kd7 is OK for Black.

I'm not convinced by 3.exf5 Nf6 either- White is a tempo up on the King's Gambit Accepted but Bf1-c4 isn't necessarily the most useful of extra tempos, it can easily be hit by a subsequent ...d5.  I'm also not sure if White gets much against 3.d4 exd4.

Therefore most critical are probably 3.d3 (initiating a reversed King's Gambit Declined) and 3.Nc3, when White should get a nice edge, though nothing decisive.