Latest Updates:
Normal Topic C33: Irregular 3rd moves in the KGA? (Read 2017 times)
Hadron
Full Member
***
Offline


Doctor, Doctor, Doctor..When
will you ever learn?

Posts: 195
Location: Levin, New Zealand.
Joined: 03/24/05
Gender: Male
C33: Irregular 3rd moves in the KGA?
01/01/13 at 09:30:40
Post Tools
Recently I have been doing some research for an article on specific Queen moves in the King’s Gambit accepted of which the most well known is the Breyer Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Qf3). My research has lead me to The Oxford Companion to Chess which mentions that a Sicilian priest, Pietro Carrera (1573-1647) not only examined 3.Qf3 but the three other possible Queen moves as well, specifically 3.Qe2, 3.Qg4 and 3. Qh5. As a bit of a historical side note I managed to lay my hands (figuratively speaking) on a copy of the 1822 English translation of Carrera 1612 book “Il gioco degli scacchi” (Treatise on the game of chess) through google books and it only mentions 3.Qg4 and 3.Qh5 with some less than sterling analysis by modern standards.
The only book I own which covers all 4 of these specific Queen moves is a 1987 booklet called “KGA: Irregualr 3rd moves for White”.
Of 3.Qg4 it mentions

as being quite advantageous for Black. Given the final position it is hard not to agree.
Of 3.Qh5 it mentions

As also being advantageous for Black. However 8.h4 and 9...f3 look somewhat suspect.
So does anyone up until this point have any thoughts?...Moving on along. This leaves the remaining 2 Queen moves. I have more than enough on Breyers Gambit (3.Qf3) with all the King's Gambit books I own. Of the remaining Queen move (3.Qe2), it has been played by Basman in the past but the only analysis I have on this is a very thinly annotated game between Basman & Hartston from London going back 39 years (out of the afore mentioned Irregular 3rd moves booklet). Does anyone have any published analysis on 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Qe2 I can look at to go over? Thanking you all in advance
Hadron.
« Last Edit: 01/01/13 at 14:04:40 by Smyslov_Fan »  

I'm reminded again of something Short wrote recently, approximately "The biggest fallacy in chess is the quasi-religious belief in the primacy of the opening."
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo