Thursday, 12 December 2013

Site update

I had a comment earlier about how it got confusing that some of the analysis at my "old" site had not been converted/updated over to the "new" site.  Well, I've set about rectifying that- my analysis of the Italian, Blackmar-Diemer, Staunton and From Gambits, as well as "1.e4 e5 2.d4- Black doesn't take on d4" has been ported over to the Weebly site.  I intend to update those, but for now, porting the original analysis over is probably better than nothing.

I haven't yet done a thorough coverage of the Two Knights Defence, which is why there is no link to analysis for that opening yet, but I was quite recently involved in analysis of the Fegatello/Fried Liver Attack (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Nxf7) at the Chesspublishing forum.  The verdict was that 6...Kxf7 7.Qf3+ Ke6 8.Nc3 Ncb4 9.a3?! does not provide White with enough compensation if Black grabs the rook with 9...Nxc2+ 10.Kd1 Nxa1, but that 9.Qe4, 9.0-0 and 9.Bb3 were all looking OK for White.  To be honest, I am not sure that 6.Nxf7 is definitely inferior to 6.d4, since 6.d4 Be6 (as analysed in Kaissiber) probably restricts White to a small advantage.  Regardless, Black should avoid the obvious recapture on d5.

Finally, for a bit of light entertainment, a quick win that I had in a "thematic" internet game in the Muzio/Polerio Gambit, a fairly important line of the King's Gambit that Black often avoids by heading for the Hanstein Gambit.  I misplayed the early middlegame but after trading queens my opponent fell for a quick checkmate.


  1. Thanks, it's much more enjoyable to look up stuff. All the critical lines (ie those which look annoying for the gambiteer) are easy to find back now.
    For instance I took a look at Firnhaber-Lachmann, corr 1996 and thought 10.Rad1 an improvement. The plan is to arrange the pieces nicely and prepare f2-f4, all the time keeping pressure on Black's position. Due to Be7 it's a bit passive.

  2. I also glanced at Grobler-Antal, em 2011 and wondered if 10.Re1 is an option. Obviously 10...h6? 11.Bxh6 wins due to the extra tempo and just 10...d6 11.Bd3 Be6 12.Rb1 Rb8 (b6? 13.Rxe6!) 13.Bg5 isn't sufficient either. So 10.Re1 d5 11.Bd3 Ne4 12.Qf4 and White will try to open the position with c3-c4 and some point.

  3. Just got around to looking at these- I think both of these ideas look good, and the 10.Re1 idea in the Urusov Gambit looks more convincing to me than the 8.Bd2 lines examined earlier. It's a bit different to the usual Urusov fare but may well give enough compensation. I intend to upload updated Danish/Urusov files in the next few days or so when I get time.
    I've also had a look at the Danish Gambit line 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Bb4 5.Qd4 and given it a mention but I'm not convinced that it's any better than 5.Bc4 or 5.Nf3. 5...Bxc3+ 6.Qxc3 Nf6 7.Bg5 d6 8.Nf3 0-0 was the main continuation that I had a brief look at. In Firnhaber-Lachmann, corr. 1996 I'm not sure whether or not 10.Rad1 gives enough compensation, but I've seen enough to convince me that it improves on the 10.f3 played in the game.

  4. Today I felt like looking at the Staunton Gambit a bit. You will be interested in the game Bezemer-Froeyman, Taminco Open 2013 (a Holland-Flanders match).