ChessPub Forum - C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit

Master Om

Full Member

Offline

I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10

Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit
Reply #189 - 09/17/12 at 15:52:29

Post Tools

Print Post

Hello Mr Stefan I feel the move 4...Bb4 is not the best continuation here though d5 is the 2nd best move.

IP Logged

Bibs God Member Offline Posts: 2338 Joined: 10/24/06	Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit Reply #188 - 09/17/12 at 12:19:37	Post Tools	Print Post
	Jupp53 wrote on 09/17/12 at 12:04:13: Who's Harry Hill? Brit comic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hill Which reminded me of the Henry Hill omission. Criminal.


	IP Logged

Jupp53 YaBB Moderator Offline be Posts: 988 Location: Frankfurt/Main Joined: 01/04/09 Gender:	Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit Reply #187 - 09/17/12 at 12:04:13	Post Tools	Print Post
	Who's Harry Hill?

	Medical textbooks say I should be dead since April 2002. Dum spiro spero. Narcissm is the humans primary disease.
	IP Logged

Bibs God Member Offline Posts: 2338 Joined: 10/24/06	Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit Reply #186 - 09/17/12 at 11:52:19	Post Tools	Print Post
	I trust my judgment here. Suspect whimsy (German humour?) your end - nothing debatable here. Know Heinrich Himmler, Herbie Hancock, Harry Hill. And Heidi. But no idea about your Hans Haberditz. Your comments re KG, dragon, g2 bishop. Roger Irrelevant. Come on, some people here may read your comments and take your efforts at face value, as an attempt at a reasonable judgment coupled with sensible analysis. Just piles and piles of something quite smelly. Black k-side attack? Nope. With h6, Qg7, f6, g5 (finally). Not catching any buses. White d3, Be3, b4, Qa4. Or anything really. 1-0


	IP Logged

Stefan Buecker God Member Offline Posts: 1386 Location: Germany Joined: 02/11/09 Gender:	Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit Reply #185 - 09/16/12 at 07:55:28	Post Tools	Print Post
	Bibs wrote on 09/16/12 at 01:30:02: Take a step back. Ignore what one would want to be. What do you think I want to be? The reincarnation of Hans Haberditz? Bibs wrote on 09/16/12 at 01:30:02: Black is simply a pawn down in all of this. For nothing. How can you be so sure? We have a very specific situation here: castling to opposite sides, pawn storm, fianchetto g3 a target, Bg2 unable to assist in attack. Both sides attack, both sides defend. Unclear positions are good for Black. Open d-file gives relief. Why do you think White prefers cxb3 over axb3 in the Dragon? Why is White's Kg1 safer in the King's Gambit than his opponent's? I'll check 12.Be3. It may or may not be an improvement. Black can continue 12...Be7 or 12...Ne7 or something else.


	IP Logged

Bibs God Member Offline Posts: 2338 Joined: 10/24/06	Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit Reply #184 - 09/16/12 at 01:30:02	Post Tools	Print Post
	kylemeister wrote on 09/15/12 at 21:44:37: Stefan Buecker wrote on 09/15/12 at 19:34:19: (7. d3 {(recommended by Bibs)} 7... O-O-O 8. Nf3 h6 9. O-O g5 10. c3 Qg7 11.b4 Kb8 12. b5 Na5 13. d4 f6 14. d5 Bd7 15. Qe2 h5 16. Nd2 Bg4 17. Qd3 h4 {comp.}) Looks like a lot of pawn moves. 12. Be3 seems quite bad for Black. Agree. Black is simply a pawn down in all of this. For nothing. Take a step back. Ignore what one would want to be. Look at the positions that arise after: 6. Nf6: 7. d3. Black simply a pawn down. The ardour of Vass/Buecker is to be applauded, but it appears misdirected.


	IP Logged

kylemeister God Member Offline Posts: 4904 Location: USA Joined: 10/24/05	Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit Reply #183 - 09/15/12 at 21:44:37	Post Tools	Print Post
	Stefan Buecker wrote on 09/15/12 at 19:34:19: (7. d3 {(recommended by Bibs)} 7... O-O-O 8. Nf3 h6 9. O-O g5 10. c3 Qg7 11.b4 Kb8 12. b5 Na5 13. d4 f6 14. d5 Bd7 15. Qe2 h5 16. Nd2 Bg4 17. Qd3 h4 {comp.}) Looks like a lot of pawn moves. 12. Be3 seems quite bad for Black.
	« Last Edit: 09/15/12 at 23:20:16 by kylemeister »

	IP Logged

MartinC God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 2073 Joined: 07/24/06	Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit Reply #182 - 09/15/12 at 20:01:34	Post Tools	Print Post
	Well if nothing else its a fascinating experiment in terms of just how silly white can be without having a trivially (or even at all) lost position Or for that matter black.....


	IP Logged

Stefan Buecker God Member Offline Posts: 1386 Location: Germany Joined: 02/11/09 Gender:	Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit Reply #181 - 09/15/12 at 19:34:19	Post Tools	Print Post
	I still have my doubts whether 6.Ne3 is "silly analysis" (Bibs). But let's look at the alternative. This stem game of the Bulgarian Ouch Gambit was contributed by Vass (reply #114). I have added a few comments. Download game in pgn format


	IP Logged

Stefan Buecker God Member Offline Posts: 1386 Location: Germany Joined: 02/11/09 Gender:	Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit Reply #180 - 09/13/12 at 09:43:18	Post Tools	Print Post
	Smyslov_Fan wrote on 09/12/12 at 18:07:12: For me, the key would be to get the R on a1 active. With that in mind, either Bd2 or a4!? look the most enterprising. In fact, of those lines, only line 10 seems to offer something that looks like a coherent plan rather than a mélange of random moves. I agree: what we need is a coherent plan for White. But to me a2-a4 looks more like a waiting move, and with a5 and Kb8 Black does the same. If the engine has no constructive idea for either side, how can White argue that the extra pawn counts? I tried again, suppressing all the lame c2-c3 stuff, and at depth 23 the engine came up with the following: 13.Qe2 Nd4 14.Qd2 Nc6 15.Qd1!!. So what does this mean? Should White repeat the maneuver Qe2-d2-d1 a hundred times, until Black runs out of useful moves? Or is perhaps already 12. Nxe6 an error?


	IP Logged

Smyslov_Fan YaBB Moderator Correspondence fan Offline Progress depends on the unreasonable man. ~GBS Posts: 6902 Joined: 06/15/05	Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit Reply #179 - 09/12/12 at 18:07:12	Post Tools	Print Post
	For me, the key would be to get the R on a1 active. With that in mind, either Bd2 or a4!? look the most enterprising. In fact, of those lines, only line 10 seems to offer something that looks like a coherent plan rather than a mélange of random moves.


	IP Logged

Stefan Buecker

God Member

Offline

Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male

Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit
Reply #178 - 09/12/12 at 14:00:01

Post Tools

Print Post

Thanks Vass. I agree about Dr Georgi Popov. There are other men whose work is almost forgotten, who published great analyses: Hans Haberditz, Dr Balogh, Alapin, Svenonius, Cordel, Rosentreter, and many more. George Brimpton Fraser was one of the leading theoreticians in England around 1900. Sometimes a strong OTB player questioned analysis of these second-rank workers, who were better in analysis than otb. Often resulting in a "paper war". - There was a Yearbook article on the Suhle-Anderssen Variation. I compared the article with original analyses by Anderssen in the 1860s, and came to the conclusion that Anderssen's article was better. Grin

It is nice to have engines, but sometimes they are just weird in their proposals. To return to the position discussed here:

I doubt that returning the extra pawn with c2-c3 can be the best continuation. Anderssen would have tried very hard to work out a continuation which keeps the extra pawn. And I guess that most of the members here would do the same. These are the ten best candidate moves, according to Rybka:
0.86 13.c3
0.86 13.Bg2 Bc5 14.c3
0.77 13.a3 Bc5 14.c3
0.76 13.Qe2 b6 14.c3
0.74 13.Bf3 Bc5 14.c3
0.69 13.Qd2 Bc5 14.c3
0.64 13.g4 Bc5 14.Bg2 Rh8 15.c3
0.63 13.Bd2 Bc5 14.Bg2 Kb8 15.g4
0.61 13.a4 Kb8 14.Bf3 a5 15.Nc4 Bc5
Candidate moves 7, 8 and 9 look reasonable to me. What's wrong with me and my chess understanding? Or is Black's pressure on the d-file actually "worth a pawn"? Huh

IP Logged

Stefan Buecker God Member Offline Posts: 1386 Location: Germany Joined: 02/11/09 Gender:	Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit Reply #177 - 09/12/12 at 13:24:43	Post Tools	Print Post
	Bibs wrote on 09/12/12 at 12:11:17: I think Vass and Stefan may be losing everybody. The last two posts didn't make any sense. Stefan Buecker wrote on 09/11/12 at 17:40:36: Bibs wrote on 09/11/12 at 12:04:09: Plenty of silly analysis here, all tongue in cheek one presumes. Why retreat the N? 6. Nf6: 7. d3 +- Elliptical Bibs: #114. Silicon rules, no poems or fun in quality chess. Translation: The stem game of the Bulgarian Ouch Gambit went 6.Nxf6+, it can be found in reply #114. When you actually study the position, your +- is far from truth. I'll comment on 6.Nxf6+ later, but I still believe that 6.Ne3 is at least as good.


	IP Logged

Bibs God Member Offline Posts: 2338 Joined: 10/24/06	Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit Reply #176 - 09/12/12 at 12:11:17	Post Tools	Print Post
	I think Vass and Stefan may be losing everybody. The last two posts didn't make any sense.


	IP Logged

Vass God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 1105 Joined: 06/22/11	Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit Reply #175 - 09/11/12 at 18:58:17	Post Tools	Print Post
	I like such topics.. We usually discuss themes like this one trying to "analyse" romantic stuff in a romantic way. In other words, not one of us will play such openings in an important correspondence chess game, for example. But many of us will play, say, the Bulgarian Ouch Gambit in a blitz game, a rapid one...or even some of us (and here I suspect Stefan in the first place ) in OTB game on a classical time control. So, I think we can "analyse" such openings in a romantic style. A style we miss in the today competitive chess. It would be very, very bad for me if I had to run my Houdini's, Critter's, Rybka's, Komodo's and alike engines up to 30 plys depth, comparing their results (or even using the Aquarium Idea for over a week) on a specific position and duly "recite" their results after all. And further...re-working these results putting the human ideas into their pure calculations like I do in my correspondence chess games.. In the end, we'll run the risk to dry out every creative human idea in chess that can come out of us all. And to cite our computer analyses till the end of the day.. No, no - I don't like it this way. At least, it will be counter-productive for topics like this one. Let's speak our chess ideas in a human way! Calculations?! Ok! But who is going to calculate such lines instead of me when OTB?! (Harry) Houdini?! Recently I posted a topic about the Ruy Lopez, Bulgarian variation C60 with the original analysis of the late Dr Georgi Popov - one of the all time best Bulgarian correspondence chess players. http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1343208784 While translating from Bulgarian language I checked some of his ideas with an engine. And was amazed by his quality of analysis - not the computer evaluations like 0.86 (so automatically +/-), but the firm human understanding - this position is playable, or black is close to equality. Or white is better...and therefore has better chances (but still not winning 70 % ). It was full of creative human ideas...and all of this just to defend his occasional slip of the hand while playing 3...a6 in the Ruy Lopez. "That's it!" (Curt Vonnegut) ... 1.e4 c5 2.a4... Oh no, not again!.. (Thank you, Stefan!)


	IP Logged