Markovich wrote on 09/24/12 at 03:02:27:

I think this is a good example of the complexity of the chess player and how they might perceive themselves

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 09/24/12 at 04:43:00:

Always happy to oblige boss but I hasn’t there been several?

Alias wrote on 09/24/12 at 07:12:52:

(1)My apologies sir, you are quite right!
(2) Well, maybe yes and maybe no. Unless you have a mate or forced moves, you are always come to an opinion on with your analysis
(3) Forum rules I think…

Have a nice day
Hadron

Ok, time to get back on topic.

What was the topic again?

Stefan Buecker wrote on 09/21/12 at 09:25:38:

Maestro, with respect to you and the greatness of Brent Larsen I don't think chess is all that difficult a game. I will even go out on a limb and say that the game itself is relatively simple. The rules of the game are not all that complex. If there is any real ‘difficulty’ in playing the game, I don’t think it lies in the game itself but in the complexity of the people that play it and or are involved with it and exactly what perceptions they have in and while doing as such. After all, are 'perceptions' not the basis of opinions and doesn't chess (theory) largely move on opinons?
Hadron

MartinC wrote on 09/20/12 at 11:00:02:

True, White can afford more than Black. In the Soller Gambit, Diemer at first tried to play d7-d5, in analogy to the BDG. When he saw that pawn d5 was too vulnerable, he changed to d7-d6 in the Soller. One tempo made a big difference. Similarly, it is a key question in the Hübsch whether d4 can be successfully attacked. According to Tartakower, in the first three moves one can play everything. But eventually you have to go with d7-d6, when you are a tempo behind, or you have to play the cautious 5.Be3 instead of "active" moves like Bf4 or Bc4 in the Hübsch. 


"Chess is a difficult game", said Bent Larsen. In my "Englund Gambit" I wrote that the Soller is +/-, and I still believe it is not sound. But the BDG is a different kind of animal, and we also have the "grey zone" of draw.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 09/20/12 at 08:05:56:

Yeah, great find btw! 
Even Jaan Ehlvest played it once (against Rivas Pastor in 1991) in a classic game. My notes about it:



Sorry for the off-topic! 

Bibs wrote on 09/17/12 at 11:52:19:

Renowned Austrian analyst of an era when Vienna was one of the centers of opening research: Ernst Grünfeld, Hans Kmoch, Hans Müller, Albert Becker. Haberditz published his ideas from the late 1940s until his death in 1957. There is a "Haberditz Variation" in the French and another in the Sicilian. He is said to be the first to study what became the "Vienna Variation", which can arise via the Nimzo Indian or the Queen's Gambit (though databases have sporadic earlier games). - The Oxford Companion to Chess has lots of facts about the history of chess. A great and entertaining book, warmly recommended. 

The Fyfe belongs to a rare subset of gambits: those where the pawn is taken by a piece, instead of a pawn. With the result that the pawn structure remains "mostly intact", the gambiteer has an open file. Like 1.g4 d5 2.Bg2, but then the g-file isn't essential for White. Studying cases like the Fyfe is of interest since it gives a clue about the value of an open file. It comes close, by the way, to the experience of giving odds of "pawn and move", popular around 1840. Staunton once offered "pawn and move" to a lesser master. The offer was rejected, because "he wasn't sure whether the open f-file wasn't an advantage rather than a handicap for Black". 

In 1955 Hans Haberditz invented 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Bg5 Ne4 4.Bf4 e5!.   

Master Om wrote on 09/18/12 at 00:55:18:

Thanks. I am looking forward to your contribution. The Fyfe Gambit remains the main topic of this thread. 

Less relevant, but the Bulgarian Ouch can give us some hints. Meta-theory isn't the real thing - "Die Variante triumphiert" [The variation triumphs], as Alapin put it. But it can help to consider general rules and concepts. One of these is Tarrasch's "three tempi are worth a pawn". The exchange on f6 costs White time - approximately one tempo, if you can accept that castling long is a good idea for Black. What else? To which extent does Black profit from g2-g3 in an attack on opposite flanks? Could it be worth one tempo or rather two? 

Actually my line of reasoning was meant to go like this: the move g2-g3 is a welcome gift for Black, the Bulgarian Ouch would be unplayable without this concession. However, in the Fyfe Gambit, without g7-g6, the whole concept looks more dubious. White has an extra tempo, because he is White, but I guess that the omission of g7-g6 weighs more than that. 

I have called Bibs "elliptical", because his posts practice ellipsis, the art of omission. But what I admire in writing style, is less admirable in chess analysis: jumping to premature conclusions.

Hello Master Om, 
now I am very curious: what is the best continuation?