Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled? (Read 86760 times)
RdC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 866
Joined: 05/17/08
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #45 - 05/02/14 at 23:47:05
Post Tools
PANFR wrote on 05/02/14 at 16:29:09:
After ten minutes thought, engines evaluate 3...Qe7 as equal, which means that such a stupid move should be avoided, since it's not tactically justified


Is it that stupid? There's an immediate threat of Qxe4 which needs to be defended against. You block in the B f8 but if you intend g5 to hold the f4 pawn, that gives the Bishop a square on g7. You end up with a grip of the dark squares, similar to some of the more mainstream ideas against the Kings Gambit.

By some standards including engine assessments 2. f4 is just a dubious move, so replies to it should be looking for a Black advantage, but equality will do if it creates an original position.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #44 - 05/02/14 at 18:23:52
Post Tools
There is nothing new under the sun. Henk Smout has found an antique example for 3...Qe7 at http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1610055 . It had been published with comments (which are given in the link above) in Australian Town and Country Journal (NSW), January 20, 1872:


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
PANFR
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 252
Location: Greece
Joined: 10/31/11
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #43 - 05/02/14 at 16:29:09
Post Tools
After ten minutes thought, engines evaluate 3...Qe7 as equal, which means that such a stupid move should be avoided, since it's not tactically justified.
My database has 18 games with it, and white is scoring rather well (+17 =0 -1). None of these games is worth much, I think.
  
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: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #42 - 05/01/14 at 08:47:38
Post Tools
RdC wrote on 04/29/14 at 17:56:32:
Stefan Buecker wrote on 04/29/14 at 11:41:06:
[quote author=033512510 link=1398286690/35#35 date=1398763731]
No, it is sufficient for a modern Bishop's Gambit author to consider the twelve replies in The Evolution of the Chess Openings (1906).
Smiley


Does that include 3. .. Qe7? Engines seem to like it and it does threaten a pawn. I expect it needs a bit of work to uncover all the tactical justifications.


Engines are notoriously unreliable in the early opening phase, the horizon effect is probably the main reason, as all the tactical justifications tend to melt away with the ply depth a few more moves in...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #41 - 05/01/14 at 08:40:44
Post Tools
RdC wrote on 05/01/14 at 00:16:02:
If you try to play initiative chess with White, you want to cut down Black's dangerous responses, rather than encourage them to proliferate.

The Ruy Lopez doesn't cut down Black's dangerous responses either, like 3...a5. Just saying. - I won't defend the Bishop's Gambit (3.Nf3 is better), but if Timothy Taylor is listening, the idea 3...Qe7 should be in his book.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RdC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 866
Joined: 05/17/08
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #40 - 05/01/14 at 00:16:02
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 04/30/14 at 22:59:16:
So there remains some work to be done to justify the idea.


Unless there's  hidden positional or tactical subtleties beyond the search depth, the engines think the problems can be solved. With apologies to King's Gambit fans, 2. f4 is a bit of a dodgy move in comparison to the alternatives. It's not even a threat of 3. fxe5 . If you try to play initiative chess with White, you want to cut down Black's dangerous responses, rather than encourage them to proliferate.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #39 - 04/30/14 at 22:59:16
Post Tools
RdC wrote on 04/29/14 at 17:56:32:
Stefan Buecker wrote on 04/29/14 at 11:41:06:
No, it is sufficient for a modern Bishop's Gambit author to consider the twelve replies in The Evolution of the Chess Openings (1906).
Smiley

Does that include 3. .. Qe7? Engines seem to like it and it does threaten a pawn. I expect it needs a bit of work to uncover all the tactical justifications.

Wow, you managed to find a possibility not considered in The Evolution of Chess Openings! By the way: This 1906 work has sorted the alternatives by their date of introduction. So the six pages covering the Bishop's Gambit begin with the oldest option, 3...f5 (Lopez 1561), ... idea No. 10 is 3...d5 from a game Bilguer vs Bledow (published in Chess Players' Chronicle 1841), the eleventh option is 3...b5 (1841) and the "newest" is 3...Nc6 (1874).

This is a remarkable gap of 140 years between 1874 and "XIII. - thirteenth. - 3...Qe7, recommended by RdC 2014 in chesspub.com". - There are eight games with 3...Qe7 in the database (White won 7, lost 1). So there remains some work to be done to justify the idea.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RdC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 866
Joined: 05/17/08
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #38 - 04/29/14 at 17:56:32
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 04/29/14 at 11:41:06:
No, it is sufficient for a modern Bishop's Gambit author to consider the twelve replies in The Evolution of the Chess Openings (1906).
Smiley


Does that include 3. .. Qe7? Engines seem to like it and it does threaten a pawn. I expect it needs a bit of work to uncover all the tactical justifications.
« Last Edit: 05/06/14 at 08:34:30 by GMTonyKosten »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jonathan Tait
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 503
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #37 - 04/29/14 at 12:43:06
Post Tools
RdC wrote on 04/29/14 at 09:28:51:
Presumably a tactical point is that the obvious continuation 4. Bxg8 Rxg8 5. Qh5+ winning back a pawn can be thwarted by Black flicking in 4. .. Qh4 + himself.


Yes, 4...Qh4+ is possible; but actually 4...Rxg8 5 Qh5+ g6 6 Qxh7 Rg7 is very good for Black anyway. This dates back to Mayet-Hanstein, Berlin 1866. Smiley
  

blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #36 - 04/29/14 at 11:41:06
Post Tools
RdC wrote on 04/29/14 at 09:28:51:
I suppose if you are writing an advocacy book about the King's Bishop Gambit, all possible continuations have to be considered, even if in practice there's around one recorded OTB game a year. [...]

No, it is sufficient for a modern Bishop's Gambit author to consider the twelve replies in The Evolution of the Chess Openings (1906).
Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RdC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 866
Joined: 05/17/08
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #35 - 04/29/14 at 09:28:51
Post Tools
Jonathan Tait wrote on 04/26/14 at 09:42:11:
No, it's primarily a book on the Bishop's Gambit, so the line in question is 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Bc4 f5. (As you say, I can't give analytical details.)


I didn't even know that 3. .. f5 was possible, but a superficial engine check seem to confirm that it's OK. I suppose if you are writing an advocacy book about the King's Bishop Gambit, all possible continuations have to be considered, even if in practice there's around one recorded OTB game a year.

Presumably a tactical point is that the obvious continuation 4. Bxg8 Rxg8 5. Qh5+ winning back a pawn can be thwarted by Black flicking in 4. .. Qh4 + himself.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3117
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #34 - 04/27/14 at 13:02:01
Post Tools
Jonathan Tait wrote on 04/27/14 at 10:40:54:
...although it's not really a thread about the opening at all.


Very true!
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Jonathan Tait
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 503
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #33 - 04/27/14 at 10:40:54
Post Tools
GMTonyKosten wrote on 04/27/14 at 09:56:28:
so other 3rd moves should be discussed in a different thread.


...although it's not really a thread about the opening at all.
  

blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3117
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #32 - 04/27/14 at 09:56:28
Post Tools
Hadron wrote on 04/26/14 at 23:25:14:
But isn't there is more to the King's Gumboot than just the bog stock 3.Nf3 and 3.Bc4?....


yes, but ...

Jonathan Tait wrote on 04/26/14 at 09:42:11:
it's primarily a book on the Bishop's Gambit, so the line in question is 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Bc4


so other 3rd moves should be discussed in a different thread.

Meanwhile I didn't want to take this thread off topic with my

GMTonyKosten wrote on 04/25/14 at 09:54:08:
I'm not even sure that 3...Nc6 could be considered to be 'Shaw's refutation', as wasn't this Duras line analysed on the Forum beforehand?


I just wanted to point out that 3...Nc6 is hardly John's invention. Roll Eyes
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #31 - 04/27/14 at 06:21:31
Post Tools
Hadron wrote on 04/26/14 at 23:25:14:
But isn't there is more to the King's Gumboot than just the bog stock 3.Nf3 and 3.Bc4?....

I don't trust the alternatives. Losing one game quickly, reaching the Breyer Gambit (3.Qf3) via a transposition of moves, was enough.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo