Never trust Stefan Bücker when he avoids to give a source. 

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

Correction: 
Henk Smout kindly points out that Staunton was not involved in this incident. It was (as I should have known) Paul Morphy after his triumph in Europe who announced that he'd only accept challenges where he'd give "pawn and move". David Lawson published in Paul Morphy, The Pride and Sorrow of Chess (1976, David McKay Company, Inc., New York), pp. 259-60, the following, starting with Louis Paulsen's letter to Henry Harrisse (Oktober 2nd, 1859):

Quote:

By the autumn of 1860 Paulsen had convinced himself (even if no one else agreed with him) that Pawn odds offered no advantage to the receiver. This decision was undoubtedly influenced by his great desire to play Morphy on even terms. He therefore wrote the following letter:
 
Quote:

Thanks to Henk Smout for this detailed correction.

SWJediknight wrote on 09/26/12 at 12:51:35:

My "intended solution" was 5.Qh5 Bb4+ 6.Nxb4 Nxb4 7.Qe5+ Ne7 8.Bd3 0-0 9.Qxd4 Nec6 10.Qc3 d5 11.Ne2 Re8 12.f3 Nxd3+ 13.cxd3 dxe4 14.dxe4 f5 15.0-0 fxe4 16.fxe4 Rxe4 17.Ng3.
  

Since 17...Qd4+ 18.Qxd4 Rxd4 19.Bf4 Be6 20.Bxc7 leads to an equal position, Black might prefer 17...Re8 18.Bf4 Be6 19.b3, but I thought that White has enough compensation for the pawn. - Okay, this line is drawish, but nevertheless somewhat disappointing for White.  

I had embraced 5.Qh5 because I wasn't sure about 5.Nf3. However, after checking your analysis, the latter move could indeed be White's best option: 5...Nge7 6.Bc4 Nxd5. Your proposal, but isn't this just a transposition to the Belgrade Gambit? 7.exd5 Qe7+ 8.Be2 (instead of your continuation 8.Kf1) 8...Nb4 9.0-0 0-0 10.c3 Nxd5 11.Re1, about =. 

Can Black avoid to go into the Belgrade? 6...0-0 7.Bg5 Kh8 looked good at first, but White has a surprise: 8.Nf6!. 


For example: 8...h6 9.Bxh6 d5 10.Bg5 dxc4 11.Nd2! g6 12.Qf3 Bb6 13.Qg3 Kg7 14.Nh5+ Kh8 15.Nf6 = Kg7 16.Qh4!? Rh8 17.Ne8+ Kg8 18.Nf6+, draw. 

White has a third option: 5.a3 Nf6 (5...Nge7 6.b4; 5...a5? 6.Qh5) 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Bxf6 Bxf6 8.Qd2 0-0 9.0-0-0 Re8 10.f3, when the computer suggests the amusing 10...Bg5!? 11.f4 Bf6 12.e5 Bh4 13.g3 Be7 =. 

SWJediknight wrote on 09/26/12 at 12:51:35:

Disagreements about risky openings will remain. Is 1.c4 g5 +0.70 or +0.30? Hard to say. However, it is easier to achieve consensus about the relative merits of openings. When you say: Soller-Gambit < Hübsch Gambit < BDG, I'll agree, and it seems possible that Bibs and Markovich would agree, too. - So what you are saying in effect is: Fyfe Gambit < Max Lange Gambit. I'd agree and add: German Ouch Gambit < Bulgarian Ouch Gambit < Fyfe Gambit. But where in this relation-chain belongs the Belgrade Gambit? I'd say it is very close to the Fyfe Gambit in my present "relative order". So if the Belgrade can be played otb, why not the Fyfe?   

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 09/26/12 at 14:24:12:

I had something like this in mind with my "Nomenclature of chess openings: an Indian Jungle" thread. It was about chess history, and I intended a more personal approach than in other threads. Hadron's claim that the OP of a thread is an "owner" and has the right to close it was strange. However, I can see that a thread like Markovich's "Spanish Repertoire" requires that there is one person who decides about the direction. 

Similarly, I wouldn't have a principal problem with a thread titled "The MacCutcheon - analytical thread, no history".

I like the concept of "Chess Archaeology", but such a section would not have more than a couple contributors.

Having said that, it would be interesting to start a thread on chess archaeology in the general chat section!

Stefan Buecker wrote on 09/25/12 at 23:46:33:


...
Ooops, 2011 - didn't notice that. But if you read what he says in that post he states that he's not interested in any engine debate, and just wants some more historic info on Fyfe and his gambit - which would fit nicely into a chess history section.

...
To me (and hopefully many others here), chess theory is the study of the games that are played and how they evolve as response to earlier games - and since no one plays the Fyfe anymore it's not theory, it's history. Simple as that.

Edited:

TalJechin wrote on 09/24/12 at 23:09:39:

We are free to decide what we post, right? I posted on the Marshall Attack, the Mason Gambit and a few others. 

Hadron asked about the Fyfe on April 3rd 2011, not 2012. He tried again on June 25th 2012. Later he locked his threads which brought him only ridicule and an insult from Markovich. I started this thread on July 4th, after a June with very low posting activity by members. July wasn't better, in three Olympic weeks interest was low. It is absurd to say that the Fyfe thread had a negative effect. Last year, activity in summer has been just as bad. - ...

Edited:

Jupp53 wrote on 09/24/12 at 19:25:11:



Thanks.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 09/24/12 at 20:37:30:



I feel Bb3!  is a better move than f5!. Still I will check.