cathexis wrote on 03/19/23 at 14:01:49:


Well, for 2 they're definitely playing a lot more slow Italian games than they used to! That's presumably because once you get a slower, more strategic, position it gets impossible to analyse/remember all the options.

Something like the Marshall they're so talented that they can analyse it out and just about remember it.

cathexis wrote on 03/18/23 at 14:32:36:


Do you mean 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nc6 3. Nf3 Bc5 ?
Now White can playthe Evans Gambit 4b4!? I've had fun with this in speed chess. My opponents know little theory and I've been figuring this out also. In terms of "best play," White can hold the draw. So that means that the gambit is theoretically sound. I think it is fine in practice.

More challenging, according to master and grandmaster theory is:
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nc6 3. Nf3 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 ed4 6. e5!? d5!? and now either 7.Bb5 or 7.Be2. If 7.Bb5 Ne4 8. cd4 and now either 8...Bb4ch or 8...Bb3!? The game can get very complicated.

5.d3 has been very popular at the highest levels. The Evans gambit and Giuoco Piano with 6.e5!? are more aggressive. The later has not been exhaustively analyzed and is suitable at all playing levels. The Evans is just fun IMO.

Your comment about the Lopez immediately gave me 2 thoughts for what they are worth:

1. It was exactly the absence of the Evans that brought it back into fashion when Gary K. surprised Anand with it! What goes around...

2. Have modern engines pushed all players into more Closed Games? By which I am implying that tactical ability is what has most benefited from engine analysis and so is generally higher among players than it was in the past. Therefore they are more likely to seek victory in postional play.

But regardless, appreciate your reply!

Greetings,

I wanted to ask for opinions on the Evans Gambit: is it still playable on higher levels? What is its current reputation? How commonly seen at any level?

By way of background, I'm working my way through Lane's 2nd Bishop's Opening book (from the White side) and he has 2 chapters on C51/52. I understand why he would include it as it arises easily via transposition. My real goal is to go through some books I've already collected on Bishop's Opening/Vienna. So Lane's 2nd book is kind of phase 1. I just tracked down a copy of "The Complete Vienna Game," but it's pending delivery from England, so I'm starting with C23/24. Once that gets here, I will have virtually all books on these two openings going back to and including Tim Harding's works in the 70's. But however closely those two openings might be to the Giuoco Piano that is not my current study. So I am undecided if I should just skip those two chapters or not. How efficacious would it be for me is the question.

TIA!

P.S. I know I have asked related GP/BO questions on the Italian board before. The Evans is usually wrapped into the GP. But my real focus is on study of C23/24, C25-29 and that is why I post this here. Mods can feel free to move it if they deem it necessary.