fjd wrote on 05/26/17 at 08:55:31:

Yes I experienced the same problem some time ago. I was able to solve it by going to the settings -> show advanced settings (see below) -> content settings -> Flash allow sites to run Flash
I have no idea why this was suddenly switched off as I hadn't changed anything myself. I guess another automatic update of the system nobody asked for which is pretty frustrating if you spent so much time writing the blog.

By the way, is it just me or are the diagrams no longer loading on brabo's blog?

I would never announce mate-in-X in competition. Just make the moves. This was an informal game, it was more a teaching moment against a junior player. I said something like "now there's a mate, can you see it?" You really have to know your opponent and the situation. I would never do it if the opponent might take offense, as for example some players at this same club would surely take offense. I imagine the old-time practice was more about challenging any spectators than about trying to show up the opponent. Although that no doubt happened as well.

Fllg wrote on 12/09/14 at 18:26:03:
Unlike in the Boden-Kieseritzky proper, the insertion of O-O for white and ...Nc6 for black means that ...f7-f6 is not the only move to keep the pawn. Black should play 6...Qe7!. I analyzed this move over 25 years ago and actually got it over the board once against a class-A player, about 20 years ago. And recently got it again in an offhand game against a wee lad:

"A.W." vs. "an ordinary chessplayer", Mulligan Chess Club, 2017.03.04
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nxe4 4.Nf3 Nc6!? 5.O-O?! Nxc3 6.dxc3 Qe7 7.Re1 f6 8.Nd4!? N (The previous game went 8.Nh4 g6 9.Kh1 but I don't remember the rest, it was too long ago. Knowing me I probably played 9...Nd8!?.) 8...d6 9.Bb5?! (9.f4) 9...Bd7 10.Nxc6 Bxc6 11.Bxc6+ bxc6 12.Qf3 Qd7 13.Qg3 g6 14.b4? Bg7 15.Bb2 O-O 16.f4 c5?! 17.bxc5 Qb5 18.Rab1 (18.Ba3 Qa4 19.c4! was best, after the game we looked at 19...Qxc4 20.cxd6 cxd6 21.Rad1 Rad8 22.fxe5 fxe5 23.Qe3) 18...Qxc5+ 19.Kh1 Rab8 20.Qe3? Qxe3 21.Rxe3 exf4 22.Rf3 f5 23.h3 Rb6 24.Kh2 Rfb8 25.Re1 Rxb2 26.Re2 Kf7 27.g3 Re8 28.Ref2 Re3 29.Rxf4 Be5 30.h4 Bxf4 31.gxf4 Rxc3 32.Kg1 Rcxc2 33.Rf1 and black announced mate in three.

It could be mentioned that that e-pawn sac stuff has indeed been around for a long time; for example a 1960s book by David Hooper ("A Complete Defence to 1. P-K4") devoted about ten pages to it (basically favoring Black but saying the evidence wasn't conclusive).

Hello, I'd like to ask you theoreticians a question about this opening

To put things in perspective, I'd like to clarify that my OTB rating is 1500-ish (Fide). So yes, I know, at that level opening theory is less useful than other things and one should study only tactics and basic endgames (and that's why you wont see me asking around some sacrifice line at move 20 in the grunfeld or the sicilian).

But since I play it with white and also approximately more than 75% of my black games are 4 knights (including the last six in a row. My opponents really don't have much love for the russian game), I don't think there would be too much harm in knowing a bit more about the fist few moves of this opening, and specifically about a computer line that I have no idea how to handle.

It is in the usually horrible 4.Bc4 Nxe4 (which curiously appears on my board every second game, once even against an expert), and here after both 5.Bxf7 and 5.Nxe4 d5 I fancy my chances. 

However, the computer thinks that better than both would be the strange 5.0-0!?. I don't trust the silicon bastard and his weird lines too much, but I admit that the gambit and subsequent attack on the king worry me a bit (and conversely interests me on the white side).

Another thing, I also often find this position through the move order 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nxe4 4.Nc3, where I usually play 4...Nc6 (but I wonder if something better is available, as once in a rapid I tried 4...Nxc3 but things got worse soon afterwards).

Still, what could be the best plan against that strange 5.0-0? And was that ever played in a serious game at master level (because I can't find it, as I only use that free database on the shredder website as a loose guideline)?


PS I'd like to add that I only own 1 chess opening book, the italian edition of Watson's 1.e4 which was a gift from about 1 year ago. Amusingly enough, both the russian defence and the four knights are missing (but there are some 16 pages on the Pirc. How splendid). Sorry for the rant, but to get hold of a 'everything you wanted to know about e4 but were afraid to ask ' book only to discover that the only thing it ignores is exactly your repertoire is quite disappointing.

Cheers