Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 17
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit (Read 124513 times)
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1381
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit
Reply #234 - 10/04/12 at 10:07:03
Post Tools
Never trust Stefan Bücker when he avoids to give a source.

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

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:
As soon as I received your letter I commenced analyzing the pawn and move game. I have not yet finished my work. Should the result prove that in the pawn and move game the advantage is really on the side of the player who receives the odds, as it is supposed to be, I will play a match with Morphy at these odds; and should I beat him he will be obliged to play a match on even terms.

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:
New York, Oct. 3, 1860
Paul Morphy, Esq., Dear Sir:
[...]
I am aware that you have declined playing with our most prominent Chess players, except at odds of pawn and move. Allow me in reply to express the opinion that the odds of pawn and move is a doubtful advantage, whilst it invariably and necessarily results in a kind of mongrel game, never advancing the cause of Chess and rarely proving interesting to the great majority of Amateurs.
[...]

Thanks to Henk Smout for this detailed correction.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1381
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit
Reply #233 - 09/30/12 at 23:04:13
Post Tools
SWJediknight:
Quote:
If I was Black against this I would also be tempted by the solid 3...Nxd4 4.f4 d6, which looks a little better for Black in the lines TalJechin looked at although White does get some initiative.

I think Black had nothing at all in the position where we closed the debate in that line - see diagram below, with Black to move. The Bh6 does nothing. If Black tries g6, White will play g3-g4! followed by g5 and Nd5. Black has an extra pawn, but he is almost paralyzed, has no pawn breaks at all. Am I wrong to slightly prefer White? He has all the fun: a3, b4, Qd3, Rd1 - and always g3-g4 remains a threat. What is Black's plan? He might return the pawn (Nc6-d4), but that's rather += than anything else.

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1381
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit
Reply #232 - 09/30/12 at 17:25:57
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 09/26/12 at 12:51:35:
With some assistance from Rybka I have found another possibility for Black (apologies if someone else found it earlier in the thread).

The point is that with 5...Nge7, Black avoids the transposition to the Belgrade Gambit with 5...Nf6, and the main advantage of this is that 6.Bg5 is hit by 6...f6.  I feel that White is able to get some, but not enough, compensation for the pawn.[...]

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:
I can certainly see merit in this Fyfe Gambit analysis, as we've already seen that the lines 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4 and 4.0-0 Nf6 5.d4 were under-rated by theory for a long time, so how about 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.d4?  It seems playable enough for casual and blitz games, but if White is after a reasonably sound d4-gambit then the Italian/Max Lange lines are better.  For this reason I doubt that the Fyfe Gambit will ever gain much popularity.

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?   
  
Back to top
 
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 #231 - 09/26/12 at 14:38:15
Post Tools
I've started a thread in the general chess section called "Chess Archaeology".

Edited:
Please, if you have personal problems with another member here, try to keep it personal. Do not bring these issues into the forum.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1381
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit
Reply #230 - 09/26/12 at 14:36:18
Post Tools
Smyslov_Fan wrote on 09/26/12 at 14:24:12:
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!

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".
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit
Reply #229 - 09/26/12 at 14:28:03
Post Tools
Smyslov_Fan wrote on 09/26/12 at 14:24:12:
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!


Chess archaeology would presuppose a very good library of old chess sources, it would seem.  There are many 19th-century analyses that would be interesting to review, for example.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
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 #228 - 09/26/12 at 14:24:12
Post Tools
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!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 898
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit
Reply #227 - 09/26/12 at 12:51:35
Post Tools
With some assistance from Rybka I have found another possibility for Black (apologies if someone else found it earlier in the thread).

The point is that with 5...Nge7, Black avoids the transposition to the Belgrade Gambit with 5...Nf6, and the main advantage of this is that 6.Bg5 is hit by 6...f6.  I feel that White is able to get some, but not enough, compensation for the pawn.
If I was Black against this I would also be tempted by the solid 3...Nxd4 4.f4 d6, which looks a little better for Black in the lines TalJechin looked at although White does get some initiative.

I can certainly see merit in this Fyfe Gambit analysis, as we've already seen that the lines 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4 and 4.0-0 Nf6 5.d4 were under-rated by theory for a long time, so how about 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.d4?  It seems playable enough for casual and blitz games, but if White is after a reasonably sound d4-gambit then the Italian/Max Lange lines are better.  For this reason I doubt that the Fyfe Gambit will ever gain much popularity.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2892
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit
Reply #226 - 09/26/12 at 08:03:08
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 09/25/12 at 23:46:33:
TalJechin wrote on 09/24/12 at 23:09:39:
The difference:

a lot of people play the Colle and no one plays the Fyfe and yet the Colle discussion took a few weeks and the Fyfe goes on and on month after month after month, with you posting replies to yourself apparently just to keep your thread on top. [...]
And is there really nothing new in major openings like the Scotch or Petroff since April 3rd when Hadron first mentioned the Fyfe? Or is this thread keeping new topics away from being noticed by hogging the top slot on the forum front?

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. ... The thread belongs where it is and it won't be moved. Next you'll move the Latvian Gambit to chit chat?


...
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:
Edited to remove references to a personal attack.  ~SF October 4, 2012
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 13:16:22 by Smyslov_Fan »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit
Reply #225 - 09/26/12 at 01:29:53
Post Tools
I think the Fyffe Gambit parts of this  thread are perfectly fine, contain a great deal of interesting detail, and belong where they are. I also think that the chess argumentation here proceeds more or less in defiance of common sense in chess and is too trusting of computerized evaluations. There always seems to be a hoop-jumping analytical rejoinder to every objection to this gambit, to the extent that the alternative to infinite argumentation is silence. When I recently said that hyperbolically, my post was removed, so I'll say it in plain English. If the Fyffe Gambit is sound, then I am an idiot, but I am not prepared personally to engage in endless rounds of analysis here to dispute the point.

Substantively, I never even debated the critical lines here, but only the very interesting   4...d5!? Even so. dreadful and bigotted person that I am, I modestly claim to have contributed as much hard chess to this subject as anyone else here. ...

Also I think that the other gambits discussed here should have been discussed separately.

Edited:
Edited to remove comments that fueled a personal conflict ~SF September 27, 2012.
« Last Edit: 09/26/12 at 14:21:39 by Smyslov_Fan »  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1381
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit
Reply #224 - 09/25/12 at 23:46:33
Post Tools
TalJechin wrote on 09/24/12 at 23:09:39:
The difference:

a lot of people play the Colle and no one plays the Fyfe and yet the Colle discussion took a few weeks and the Fyfe goes on and on month after month after month, with you posting replies to yourself apparently just to keep your thread on top. [...]
And is there really nothing new in major openings like the Scotch or Petroff since April 3rd when Hadron first mentioned the Fyfe? Or is this thread keeping new topics away from being noticed by hogging the top slot on the forum front?

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:
Edited to remove a personal attack. ~SF October 4 2012
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 13:14:20 by Smyslov_Fan »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2892
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit
Reply #223 - 09/25/12 at 07:57:57
Post Tools
Just a poll to see what the majority of members here think about this.

You can vote for seven days and then the result will be revealed.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit
Reply #222 - 09/25/12 at 06:46:39
Post Tools
Jupp53 wrote on 09/24/12 at 19:25:11:
Intersting how the human mind works. Master OM brought a new idea looking reasonable and everybody starts cutting it down with opening a discussion about whatsoeverbutnotthetopic.  Grin You must love chess.  Roll Eyes



Thanks. Smiley
  
Back to top
 
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 #221 - 09/25/12 at 06:29:35
Post Tools
Some have asked for a moderator to step in.

The problem as I see it is not this thread, but the dearth of activity in other threads. If an interesting idea comes along in another thread, this will slowly die away.

So the onus is on the members. If you want this thread to become irrelevant, post interesting ideas in other 1.e4 e5 threads!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: C25: The Everlasting Fyfe Gambit
Reply #220 - 09/25/12 at 05:49:40
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 09/24/12 at 20:37:30:
The main line given by Master Om: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.d4 Nxd4 4.f4 Bb4 5.Nf3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Nxf3+ 7.Qxf3 Qh4+ 8.g3 Qf6 9.Bc4!

An important move, I believe. White encourages Black to castle short. This matters so much that White invests a full tempo (soon this bishop retreats to d3). If instead 9.Bd3? d6 10.0-0 Ne7 11.f5 Bd7 12.Bd2 h6 13.a4 a5, and Black will be able to castle long; White has zilch compensation.

9...Ne7 10.0-0 0-0 11.f5!.

Better than 11.Bb3 =+ (Master Om), in my opinion.

11...b6 12.Bd3 Bb7 13.Qh5! Qc6 14.f6, and White has sufficient compensation for the pawns.

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *



I feel Bb3!  is a better move than f5!. Still I will check.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 17
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo