Markovich wrote on 07/11/12 at 15:21:17:


Unless Black is very much better, I would never want to play into this position with 11.g4, which just totally goes against my idea of how to handle the Black pieces.  So congrats on finding that.

But Stefan, what is it with these bold claims of White advantage or even sufficient play for White in complicated positions where White seems to have a lot to prove?  If you can boldly say that 11.g4 favors White, I can boldly say that 5...Qd7 and eventually 20...Bxc1 is =+, and I believe actually that my claim is a whole lot less bold than yours.  I will also say that except for tricks, White is indeed playing for two results after 20...Bxc1.  

I am quite prepared to accept that 4...d5 may not be the best answer to 4.f4.  It would, however, seem to be something of an insult to Black's conception that this simple and straightforward move produces at least equality.  Personally I do think it leads to Black's advantage in the indicated line.  Maybe White has some saving tricks, but I don't think that many people will look at that position and want to play into it as White.  But even if I'm wrong about that, what is really the point, since you already admit that White is worse by other means after 4.f4?  What is the point altogether, really?  I never said that 4...d5 refuted this gambit; I said it was a good move, which it is.   Do you think you've proven otherwise?

Finally I would like to point out a difference in conversational style here.  My basic mode in suggesting moves on this board, which I don't actually do that often, is to look at the position and suggest straightforward moves that look pretty strong.  I don't usually spend much time analyzing before I post my chess ideas.  So while I am talking that way, someone else keeps coming back with ingenious analyses based on considerable labor (or machine time), sometimes showing that there was a hole in some idea of mine.  Well, big wup.  I never claimed to have chess truth here in my hand, and don't think I will spend two hours preparing a deep justification before I next suggest what seems to be a decent chess move on this board.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/17/12 at 21:03:25:

I was refering to 5.exd5 Qe7 6.fxe5 Qxe5 7.Nge2. The alternative 5...Bc5 6.fxe5 Qh4+ was covered in an earlier post, I thought White had nothing to fear - am I wrong? Will check. - Thanks for your many interesting suggestions, this will keep my computer busy for a while.   

Stefan, I agree completely that analysing gambits and offbeat lines really helps my chess. 

Regarding your " 6.fxe5! Qxe5+ 7.Nge2", I'm sorry, but I don't know the moves between 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.d4 Nxd4 4.f4 d5 and your move 6. I've mostly been studying 5.ed5 Bc5 6.fe5 Qh4+.

Black also has 5...Bf5, which seems ok to me too.

This is in addition to:

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.d4?! Nxd4 (exd4 doesn't necessarily transpose to known lines of other openings either) 4.f4 Bb4


1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.d4?! Nxd4  4.f4 and the computeresque 4...Bd6!?

All of these lines probably favor Black slightly.

The main problem with the Fyfe is that Black has several ways to play to gain a very comfortable game, and a few interesting gambit lines, such as Markovich's. 

The Fyfe just isn't critical to know. Black has a number of different paths available, and the question on 4...d5 is what sort of advantage does Black have, or can white equalise?

It's interesting to analyse here, but I would never include it in my repertoire.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 07/16/12 at 20:22:52:


I overlooked 12.g5; odd position as usual; but don´t forget to check 8. ...b6 instead of 8. ...Bf5.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 07/16/12 at 20:15:21:


11. ...Bg6 12.Bg2 Nf6

Stefan Buecker wrote on 07/16/12 at 08:01:29:


Hard to believe, that White can survive after 10.Kf2 0-0-0 - the wKing is to exposed.

Markovich wrote on 07/16/12 at 01:35:26:

Oppsy doodle, my bad. I had it on d2 of my mini board

Markovich wrote on 07/16/12 at 01:35:26:

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.d4 Nxd4 4.f4 d5 5.exd5 Qe7 6.Bd3 exf4+ 7.Be4 Nf5 8.Nge2 Nf6 9.Bxf5 Bxf5 10.Bxf4 where you say 10...0–0–0 seems to do the trick. If I start out playing a gambit then doesn’t 11.Qd4 rather suggest it self ? and how is 11…Bxc2 that bothersome? (Maybe the more sensible amongst us wouldn’t try 11…Bxc2 but with white himself intending  0–0–0, His chances are no worse)
and on 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.d4 Nxd4 4.f4 d5 5.exd5 Qe7 6.Bd3 exf4+ 7.Be4 Nf5 8.Bxf4 I think this is no better or worse than Mr. Buecker’s 8.Nge2 after Nf6 9.Qd3 Nd6 10.0-0-0

Markovich wrote on 07/16/12 at 01:35:26:

Maybe, maybe not

Regards
Hadron