Jonathan Tait wrote on 04/26/14 at 09:42:11:

Thanks. It shows that I am more a 3.Nf3 guy. - But it really seems that you are an ideal choice as an editor for the Bishop's Gambit. If there had been a need to find an editor with a similar experience in the Englund Gambit, my EG book would have never appeared.

SWJediknight wrote on 04/26/14 at 00:52:33:


Especially since he seems to rely mainly/only on Fritz 12...

IMJohnCox wrote on 04/25/14 at 12:22:26:


E. J. Diemer has often put three exclamation marks behind a move in his games. And a game of chess IS a kind of dispute, no? 

Jonathan Tait wrote on 04/25/14 at 11:04:55:


You can't give analytical details, of course, but I believe the line which you refer to is 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 f5, which has led to an extended debate in the thread on Shaw's book. Indeed, it is far from obvious how White can achieve a large advantage against this move. A new suggestion for White from Taylor would be a valuable contribution to the KG theory, so I can only hope that the book will appear soon. - However, I believe that 4.d3 gives White a small plus. 

The reply 3...Nc6 against the Bishop's Gambit was recommended in an article by "C. Moriau" in Deutsche Schachzeitung 1874. Later sources called it Moriau's Variation. But I've also seen the name spelled differently: Moreau, from London. 

No, I don't think that 3...Nc6 is a refutation of 3.Bc4. If it were =+, then I'd regard it as a refutation. So far I haven't seen any analysis which demonstrates even the slightest advantage for Black. My suggestion Qd2-g5 leads to a position where I'd (slightly) prefer White. I don't buy the idea that White shouldn't exchange Queens in the King's Gambit.

Jonathan Tait wrote on 04/25/14 at 12:46:01:

Estrin investigated 3...Nc6 with the aid of Glaskov in Das Abgelehnte Königsgambiet in 1982 via the move order 2.f4 Nc6 3.Bc4 exf4 but that analysis certainly doesn't hold up.
Given

Jonathan Tait wrote on 04/24/14 at 06:59:21:

I'm skeptical. TalJechin definitely was the first to investigate this line. So it has been around for 10 years or so and I find it highly peculiar that Taylor "completely and totally busts Shaw's 3...Nc6" with it. TallJechin's assessment is far more modest and balanced. But perhaps Taylor has found something brilliant.

Let’s face it, anyone who’s ever analysed the KBG with a computer has given 3…Nc6 attention, since computers (in my very limited experience anyway) spit it out instantly as their top choice and generally think it’s good for Black, at least until persuaded.

GMTonyKosten wrote on 04/25/14 at 09:54:08:

Then the honour goes to Niek Narings (a Dutchman like Micawber and me), who wrote an article about the strength of 3...Nc6 in Schaaknieuws. In that time TalJechin was writing his book on the King's Bishopgambit. I send Naring's analysis to him and it made him realize how strong the move is (though he very well might have reached that position on his own, ie if I hadn't send it). That again inspired him to dig up new ideas (something he totally didn't need me for).

Along a slightly different line of thinking I came to the same conclusion as IM Cox:

Quote:

It's possible of course, but call me skeptical.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 04/24/14 at 23:16:48:


Thanks for that, Stefan.

Incidentally, it's bizarre that Tim should think that I'd be motivated to do him down (so to speak) from pique at his refuting 3...f5, because I helped him with this variation more than any other in the book, sharing my own expertise, pointing out why the various lines he was proposing (at any given point) didn't work or were (quite often) good for Black. The one he finally came up with (which was actually his first idea, seriously refined) looks to be a critical test. An online chessfriend of mine did finally discover a defence (it seems), but only after I'd thrashed him from the White side several times. I think Black would need some thorough preparation to play against Tim's suggestions over the board.