tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3646744826405217242024-03-12T17:43:21.785-07:00Ian Simpson on ChessInsights of an enthusiastic gambiteer with a particular fondness for the classic "open gambits"Ian Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-364674482640521724.post-10165614255300180932022-12-11T06:41:00.004-08:002022-12-11T06:41:29.294-08:00Some re-examination of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, Euwe Defence, Qe2 ideas<p> I was recently re-reading Christoph Scheerer's chapter on the Euwe Defence with <b>1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 e6 </b>and seeing that in several lines he likes the idea of Bd3 followed by Qe2. I wondered if I could find something new involving Qe2 in positions where he doesn't mention the idea.</p><p>My first experiment was a failure. Following <b>6.Bg5 Be7 7.Bd3 Nc6</b>,</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjScvyLQo4aJORFe3vcmoVj-mjvNXTZ4S7suMrZBNsoPxPRanqf2Gu9sL0KFA41aLTEKvEVP5vWvBr_nsdw7PVS65lBVpTbdvQT_yAjPAnqXSy84PtGbjGgkxk6H-0Vy9uXFozCQN3P164ZITevmmf3HBjBv6X8C2TbiXjxn-t46jNbxkvB2jR2Kgxj8A" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="436" data-original-width="436" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjScvyLQo4aJORFe3vcmoVj-mjvNXTZ4S7suMrZBNsoPxPRanqf2Gu9sL0KFA41aLTEKvEVP5vWvBr_nsdw7PVS65lBVpTbdvQT_yAjPAnqXSy84PtGbjGgkxk6H-0Vy9uXFozCQN3P164ZITevmmf3HBjBv6X8C2TbiXjxn-t46jNbxkvB2jR2Kgxj8A" width="240" /></a></div><br />I've seen <b>8.a3 </b>and <b>8.Qd2 </b>suggested, and Lev Zilbermints has favoured the second pawn sacrifice <b>8.0-0 Nxd4 9.Kh1</b>, but I wondered if <b>8.Qe2 </b>might work, because after <b>8...Nxd4 9.Nxd4 Qxd4 10.0-0-0</b>, White has a long lead in development and the black queen is facing the white rook on d1.<p></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiANcN9cE1S1-trWMZ6uxG5IQrSBqZpqsb_8D9glTGktp1rdEDpNfAGtCV2nQWks2DaTa1XenDbWYvBVzfLrGmBhtbS6z62rWazGKK4WpnFdn6Z1tekL3zsNWr1wWxVKiN5M66yTFSSAxB3UsUgXERMEyoZqitUkNK1GrNxF-8IxdTjbLrsd9W-_KIWnA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="436" data-original-width="436" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiANcN9cE1S1-trWMZ6uxG5IQrSBqZpqsb_8D9glTGktp1rdEDpNfAGtCV2nQWks2DaTa1XenDbWYvBVzfLrGmBhtbS6z62rWazGKK4WpnFdn6Z1tekL3zsNWr1wWxVKiN5M66yTFSSAxB3UsUgXERMEyoZqitUkNK1GrNxF-8IxdTjbLrsd9W-_KIWnA" width="240" /></a></div><br />Unfortunately for me, Stockfish inconveniently points out <b>10...Qg4!</b>, when White has to spend another tempo moving the queen, and Black is able to get time to consolidate.<p></p><p>Another variation where Christoph Scheerer doesn't mention the Qe2 possibility is after <b>7...c5 8.dxc5</b> (here 8.Qe2?! cxd4 doesn't work)<b> Qa5</b>.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEipdmy3_cVu_qw_ZLWNpJj-62fnDqFhpvjOoWvy6vjrvW_9uFtvRvH1v8MrwQoSkZVcYw07D-pTyAcIRe2780yP__kAxsTFcaTVa-M3GOtG385T60ZnBA5WAQD8A1l-dyiAlSNaMwNsCkxDtUHmFkNE5gUgjnv1K_9xlmN_nCZ7IEjYpXeZiMkrxEndtQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="436" data-original-width="436" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEipdmy3_cVu_qw_ZLWNpJj-62fnDqFhpvjOoWvy6vjrvW_9uFtvRvH1v8MrwQoSkZVcYw07D-pTyAcIRe2780yP__kAxsTFcaTVa-M3GOtG385T60ZnBA5WAQD8A1l-dyiAlSNaMwNsCkxDtUHmFkNE5gUgjnv1K_9xlmN_nCZ7IEjYpXeZiMkrxEndtQ" width="240" /></a></div><p>Here he only gives the main line <b>9.0-0 Qxc5+ 10.Kh1</b>, which, to be fair, gives White a fair amount of compensation for the pawn. But here <b>9.Qe2!? </b>looks quite good, e.g. <b>9...Nbd7 10.0-0-0 Nxc5 </b>(10...0-0 11.h4 improves over the 11.Kb1 of Toussaint-Mercky, France 1999).</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgG0_7SvRLSz4QKLppeSCj3eL3nb5wIjR56ZgNpb4R0qWViJgZ9jwCN_M2f-1jAqkQxWsNK5ZYKEULntIXiwo79mvfksSu-ESFGqmJtq5-FTtX6F6wukKUyQbYmjy-SkgklUqM2zpi_Xweytm2HfJAUk3WnFTW1zwG5ZXOcxLpPCGRURTV9SGgEzhhI3w" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="436" data-original-width="436" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgG0_7SvRLSz4QKLppeSCj3eL3nb5wIjR56ZgNpb4R0qWViJgZ9jwCN_M2f-1jAqkQxWsNK5ZYKEULntIXiwo79mvfksSu-ESFGqmJtq5-FTtX6F6wukKUyQbYmjy-SkgklUqM2zpi_Xweytm2HfJAUk3WnFTW1zwG5ZXOcxLpPCGRURTV9SGgEzhhI3w" width="240" /></a></div><br />Now White has various options including Ne5 and Rhf1, keeping up a fair amount of pressure on the black position, and if Black plays ...Nxd3+, White can answer with Rxd3.<p></p><p>Generally I think these days that <b>7.Bd3 c5 </b>(as recommended by Joe Gallagher and James Rizzitano some time ago) is not so challenging for White, and that the traditional main line <b>7...Nc6</b> is the most critical. </p><p>I have most often played <b>7.Qd2 </b>(instead of 7.Bd3) when I have had this line with White, but I am not sure about White's compensation after <b>7...c5</b>, which is why I decided to revisit the traditional <b>7.Bd3.</b></p><p></p>Ian Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-364674482640521724.post-7388850308796868372022-10-03T17:10:00.008-07:002022-10-03T17:14:55.871-07:00Duck Chess gets some mainstream recognition<p>I haven't posted here for a while, but I haven't left the chess world.</p><p>During my long stint at <a href="https://www.exeterchessclub.org.uk">Exeter Chess Club</a>, Tim Paulden invented a new chess variant called Duck Chess, and we had quite a few informal "chess variants" tournaments that featured it. </p><p>Recently, it has started to gain more mainstream recognition as Chess.com has <a href="https://www.chess.com/variants">added it to their list of chess variants</a>. Over the past week several of the most prominent chess streamers, including <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqvYsPAufB8&t=0s">Eric Rosen</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld1SFvPmgSg">Jonathan Schrantz</a>, have picked up on it and tried it out on Chess.com. </p><p>Essentially, you make a move and then you place the yellow duck on a square, and the duck serves as a blocker (so for instance if you play 1.e4 with White, and you don't want your opponent playing the Sicilian Defence, 1...c5, you can annoy them by putting the duck on c6 so that they can't move the c-pawn). The technique for how to checkmate opponents in Duck Chess is rather different to the standard game of chess. You can get some nice smothered duck mates with a knight, but if you try to deliver checkmates with the queen, and there's some distance between the queen and king, your opponent can keep blocking with the duck. I remember learning that the hard way a few times when I was down in Exeter, and Eric Rosen found it out starkly towards the end of his game.</p><p>Meanwhile, over the past year I've really got into Levy "GothamChess" Rozman's series Guess the Elo, and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO0yTly_fqo">the latest episode</a> was particularly amusing for the variable quality of the play.</p><p>In addition to this I've been actively involved with a Chess.com group called The Unsound Openers, who tend to dabble in a range of gambits from the blatantly unsound to ones that are near the margins of soundness, as well as some offbeat lines like the Borgcloud and the Grob. There's plenty of unorthodox openings around on the YouTube channels of Eric Rosen and Jonathan Schrantz and to a lesser extent GothamChess, who I now follow regularly. </p>Ian Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-364674482640521724.post-10748979135211719242021-10-31T15:28:00.007-07:002021-10-31T15:48:38.550-07:00Another suitably festive post for Halloween<p> I remember that one of my most recent updates to my site was on Halloween and featured an article on the Halloween Gambit. I still need to update the site to address the fact that some pages are in disarray, but so far "life" has been getting in the way of me completing that. I hope to manage it at some point in the next few weeks.</p><p>With it being Halloween, I've completed my first complete Lichess study (I've also got a couple ongoing on the Scotch Gambit and the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit) which is on the Halloween Gambit.<br /></p><p><iframe frameborder="0" height="371" src="https://lichess.org/study/embed/pneMGFCd/uA48MC6X" width="600"></iframe></p><p>My conclusion is unchanged though from last time: it's dangerous, but unsound. I recently played in a Chess.com thematic tournament where I played the 7...d5 line with Black and converted the extra piece, although my opponent missed an opportunity to complicate matters. When I played White, my opponent went 7...Bb4 instead, and I had an opportunity to generate a strong, if not winning, attack, but I missed my chance and lost.</p><p>As I mentioned in the Introduction, Black can try to transpose to the Stafford Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nc6) with 4...Bc5. Objectively the transposition with 5.Nxc6 dxc6 is good for White, but I'm inclined to suggest 5.Nf3 instead, which allows White to retain an extra pawn without permitting Black as many hacking chances as in the Stafford Gambit. I'm currently playing in a Chess.com thematic tournament in the Stafford, as it happens (the first time that I've ever played it with either colour), and have so far got good positions with both colours, but it's still early days there.</p><p>A good source on the Halloween Gambit and the history of it is Tim Krabbe's site at https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/tour/breeze.htm My investigations seem to bear out the old masters' view that the lines ending 7...d5 and 7...c6 (Chapters 9 & 11) are the biggest test for White, but White still gets some (but objectively not enough) long term attacking chances there.<br /></p>Ian Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-364674482640521724.post-84707756493706870652021-07-04T10:42:00.001-07:002021-07-04T10:42:11.122-07:00Revisiting the Scotch Gambit: the Two Knights Defence with d4<p>I'm currently writing a Lichess study on the Scotch Gambit/Two Knights Defence position that arises after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 (or 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Nf6).</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixVUBlQaPl4FcRwigLXpfIflKLlI802bdoA9b6Eux96-7fNj-m7DC8nEC1fubOhD9j8-sAL0EfJYMYzDlMH3Ko44H5uoIAXJNRfccyYFpPOCjKW1E4HsUWmMqyQJoRfJvU-TdtdWRUHz43/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="424" data-original-width="424" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixVUBlQaPl4FcRwigLXpfIflKLlI802bdoA9b6Eux96-7fNj-m7DC8nEC1fubOhD9j8-sAL0EfJYMYzDlMH3Ko44H5uoIAXJNRfccyYFpPOCjKW1E4HsUWmMqyQJoRfJvU-TdtdWRUHz43/" width="240" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I think this is especially worth revisiting because there have been quite a few new developments since I last examined the line in some depth, mainly in the 5.0-0 lines:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">(a) 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.Nc3?!, the Nahkmanson Gambit. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFWHCSjeQT3Us_o-1vXMB9ToqIyI0xq_1UrIV5PVU6lyY9ZIgH_EGxwFL_YHPTUN1s0vkmabTSZjmM0BaUFsHRBIIhHaPFpPomDWZArUlAw1ZfoAP_V9H8HOer6LsdHkGJBzV6ceb5mXif/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="424" data-original-width="424" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFWHCSjeQT3Us_o-1vXMB9ToqIyI0xq_1UrIV5PVU6lyY9ZIgH_EGxwFL_YHPTUN1s0vkmabTSZjmM0BaUFsHRBIIhHaPFpPomDWZArUlAw1ZfoAP_V9H8HOer6LsdHkGJBzV6ceb5mXif/" width="240" /></a></div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Until recently I had rejected this out of hand, but I was first introduced to one of the key points behind this a couple of years ago at my local chess club (6...dxc3 7.Bxf7+, with the idea of Qd5+, and then usually Re1 followed by recapturing on e4). It's not very sound, largely because Black can settle for a one-pawn advantage after 6...Nxc3 or 6...Nd6, so I can't recommend it as a serious tournament weapon. But it has been gaining some popularity at online blitz in particular, where it offers White plenty of hacking chances, especially if Black accepts the piece sacrifice. Thus, in the study that is currently work in progress I have devoted a chapter to this line.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">(b) 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.Re1 d5 7.Bxd5 Qxd5 8.Nc3 Qd7!?.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxy6iEgd_LCfrlPfq5jOtGSvNMJpTg4jYuYcqaT5BboqpEthuA1uEadQMLkhyphenhyphenIWmOe01flZw-B372o37cz3wO562IWy_NLUn96owJOkKASCogw6_e8KHNvEIV70o6YiGF0IPlVXw1m152N/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="424" data-original-width="424" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxy6iEgd_LCfrlPfq5jOtGSvNMJpTg4jYuYcqaT5BboqpEthuA1uEadQMLkhyphenhyphenIWmOe01flZw-B372o37cz3wO562IWy_NLUn96owJOkKASCogw6_e8KHNvEIV70o6YiGF0IPlVXw1m152N/" width="240" /></a></div><br />I don't think I have previously covered that line in much detail, but it has emerged as a serious alternative to the main lines (8...Qa5, 8...Qh5). It aims to improve over the 8...Qd8 line (Black probably isn't fully equalising after 8...Qd8 9.Rxe4+). Graham Burgess gave it a good look in his updated version of Chris Baker's <i>A Startling Chess Opening Repertoire</i>. After 8...Qd7 9.Nxe4 White should be no worse, as White can put the knights onto active posts so that they aren't inferior to Black's knight and bishop, but it is trickier to generate winning chances.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The Max Lange line with 5.0-0 Bc5 6.e5 d5 7.exf6 dxc4 8.fxg7 is now looking roughly equal with best play, although I'd still rather have White in that line, and it's still looking better than the old main line 8.Re1+ Be6 9.Ng5 Qd5.</div><p></p><p>Via a search of the ChessBase database, I have also found a new try for White in the main line of the Canal Variation (5.0-0 Nxe4 6.Re1 d5 7.Nc3 dxc3 8.Bxd5 Be6 9.Bxe4 Qxd1 10.Rxd1 cxb2 11.Bxb2 f6 12.h4) which complicates matters and so could be a good practical try for rapid games and especially online blitz, though I still think Black's better with best play in that variation and that 7.Nc3 is therefore not as reliable as 7.Bxd5.</p><p>My fresh investigations into the 5.e5 lines are only just starting, so I'll have to see if anything new turns up in those.</p>Ian Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-364674482640521724.post-28262138991999213662021-06-28T08:55:00.006-07:002021-06-28T09:13:00.872-07:00Managing too much of a monstrosity<p>I have a confession to make. </p><p>I created the bulk of my site, <a href="https://www.ianchessgambits.com/">https://www.ianchessgambits.com/</a>, at a time when I wasn't in full time employment and had plenty of time to devote to thoroughly analysing a wide range of gambits. In recent years I've been in full time employment and have inevitably had rather less time, and over time it has become rather too daunting for me. This has resulted in a large number of pages falling into disarray as procrastination set in, my previous site got discontinued, support for Flash disappeared and some of the ChessBase-based replayable diagrams have stopped working properly. </p><p>I haven't been blogging much or updating the site much recently partly because the whole thing has got too much for me to handle and has kept putting me off. </p><p>Had I been older and wiser when I first started the site, I would probably have gone for a more selective, article based approach, possibly more along the lines of what Tim Harding used to do in his excellent ChessCafe.com column, writing about lines that particularly interest me and branching out over time to eventually end up with a pretty comprehensive site. But then again, some of the tools that are currently available for this sort of thing weren't available back then. I'm attracted to the idea of doing studies on <a href="http://Lichess.org">Lichess.org</a> and creating articles that essentially embed said studies into the articles. When I first started out, the best PGN viewers were rather more primitive.</p><p>I wouldn't want to get rid of what I already have on the site, though. I'm considering keeping it up as a sort of archive and then reverting to this more article-based approach, but I'm open to other suggestions. It's not ideal, but I need to change something or I'll just keep on saying that I'm going to push forward with updates and then releasing one or two updates per year if I'm lucky.</p><p>In the meantime I've been discovering some famous chess streamers - I chanced upon Eric "Oh no my queen!" Rosen and then branched out from him to Levy Rozman ("GothamChess") and Alexandra Botez (who coined the concept of the "Botez gambit", where you blunder your queen and then do your best to pretend that it was a sacrifice). </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7nnoHVmc4RUY8dpsAdOdOsIzag7BtseM45tZakgDdNtbi2BAZetg4LMKt2AK9CEI9JsOVvfs9-wycRludtsD5xgNqZp2r4BZtG9qphCjTLbFI-RVqsjvxxGOGJfj8sZ2ul7h_hOm5eCG8/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="424" data-original-width="424" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7nnoHVmc4RUY8dpsAdOdOsIzag7BtseM45tZakgDdNtbi2BAZetg4LMKt2AK9CEI9JsOVvfs9-wycRludtsD5xgNqZp2r4BZtG9qphCjTLbFI-RVqsjvxxGOGJfj8sZ2ul7h_hOm5eCG8/" width="240" /></a></div><br />This well-known position arose from 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.Re1 d5 7.Bxd5 Qxd5 8.Nc3. My opponent played 8...Be6??, allowing 9.Nxd5, but somehow I lost because I let Black's d4-pawn run forward and queen. I played that game a long time ago so can't remember the specifics, but it was one of my most embarrassing losses (though in my defence it was just an online blitz game). 8...Be6?? is the move that most springs to my mind when I think of the Botez gambit. Anyway, I'm pleased to see these people streaming and stressing the importance of playing chess primarily for fun.<p></p><p>Eric Rosen has been having a lot of fun with the Stafford Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nc6?! 4.Nxc6 dxc6) in online blitz games. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh705d-EE7rVx_x2fKqFccMMSz14BidRD7kf8_Qey15d8UzHuNW9rIyc3Vzl6pQIBwLBnufKBx7rNXx46pqnPXeLTxfmW7MNkHwJvxwNlHxbm6t48BS81kDcALHKrjES-le_wYMI_94njkB/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="424" data-original-width="424" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh705d-EE7rVx_x2fKqFccMMSz14BidRD7kf8_Qey15d8UzHuNW9rIyc3Vzl6pQIBwLBnufKBx7rNXx46pqnPXeLTxfmW7MNkHwJvxwNlHxbm6t48BS81kDcALHKrjES-le_wYMI_94njkB/" width="240" /></a></div><br />When I first looked at it, I rejected it out of hand, seeing it as basically a tempo-down version of the Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit (which, although dangerous, is not fully sound), but when I looked closely, it's one of those lines that Tim McGrew might refer to as having a high "Caltrop Coefficient" - with best play Black ends up a pawn down for just vague hacking chances, but whereas a slip by Black tends to result in being a pawn down for nothing (which isn't such a big deal at fast time controls, especially online), a slip by White can often lead to instant ruin. But it's quite telling that in Eric Rosen's recent over-the-board games in Vegas he passed up opportunities to play the Stafford Gambit, preferring the just mildly offbeat 2...Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Bb4+ 5.c3 Bc5. It's one of those lines that can be a lot of fun in online blitz and lead to good attacks, but in slow over the board games risks producing a number of depressing losses and draws where you never really had much for the pawn.<p></p><p>Interestingly one of his other pet lines is the London System (1.d4 and 2.Bf4) which, in contrast, has a reputation of being very solid and very sound, though it can certainly be played in an aggressive way, e.g. involving queenside castling and, if Black goes kingside, throwing forward the kingside pawns. I guess he doesn't pre-move 2.Bf4, as otherwise the Englund Gambit (1...e5) would become very attractive.</p>Ian Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-364674482640521724.post-81832291572707520552020-12-10T12:39:00.003-08:002020-12-10T12:46:39.506-08:00Getting active on Chess.com during a difficult 2020<p> As many will know, the year 2020 has been plagued by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has meant that I have played very little over-the-board chess this year. However, I have been increasingly actively involved on Chess.com, playing mainly fast games, but also some correspondence type games as well. It has to be said, though, that even though we're allowed 3 to 7 days per move in those games, in practice I rarely spend much longer on an individual move than I would over the board.</p><p>I am a member of a group known as "The Unsound Openers", which seems to me to be very apt, especially as 10-15 years ago I quite often played the Englund Gambit with 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7, including using it once in a serious game. </p><p>But when I recently revisited the most critical line of the Englund proper with the aid of Stockfish and Leela Chess Zero, the modern computers have been showing it to be even more unsound than I previously thought. For example, in the position following <b>1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Bf4 Qb4+ 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Rb1 Qa3 8.Nd5! Ba5 9.Rb5 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 Kd8 11.e4 a6</b>:</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgm0aS3Ac80IBspeSWX-tzJSVqLfrAxqL7exhtZThi4HuQRZg8Ugl2n_PrXP6OZOQ0teyvgcXy1jRX-9sAPW65WdurBy9R9_GHZGhyZahjC8Kvr_MfbUW6QCtsrkdwCekKWRnPRF54vB-p1/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="790" data-original-width="790" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgm0aS3Ac80IBspeSWX-tzJSVqLfrAxqL7exhtZThi4HuQRZg8Ugl2n_PrXP6OZOQ0teyvgcXy1jRX-9sAPW65WdurBy9R9_GHZGhyZahjC8Kvr_MfbUW6QCtsrkdwCekKWRnPRF54vB-p1/" width="240" /></a></div><br />I examined this in some detail with Stefan Bucker back in the late 2000s, and we concluded that Black's defence is very difficult but that with best play Black might be able to hold, with White's poor pawn structure being the main source of hope for Black. But Stockfish points out that <b>12.Rb3 Qxa2 13.Bc4!</b> is very strong, with the idea of sacrificing the rook on h1 for an unstoppable attack after 13...Qa1+ 14.Ke2! (14.Qd1? Qxd1+ 15.Kxd1 leaves White with inadequate compensation for a pawn) 14...Qxh1 15.Qg5+ Nge7 16.Nxe7 Nxe7 17.Bxf7. Black can play 13...Qa5 (or perhaps 12...Qa5 instead of 12...Qxa2) but White's attack appears to be close to winning in all lines. The line 11.Ng5 Nh6 12.f4, suggested by Boris Avrukh, also appears to be close to winning.<div><br /></div><div>Black's best bets appear to be 5...Qc5 (instead of 5...Qxb2, but this rather defeats the point of the opening) and 8...Bxd2+ 9.Qxd2 Kd8 (instead of 8...Ba5, or 8...Bxd2+ 9.Qxd2 Qxa2, whereupon 10.Rd1 is very strong) but they aren't much fun for Black either. I had already given up on 3...Qe7 about 10 years ago, and on the rare occasions that I have used 1...e5 since, I have usually gone for 3...Nge7 instead, and these findings are unlikely to change that.</div><div><br /></div><div>These days my openings tend not to be quite as unsound as that, but there are certainly a fair number that can be said to be at the margins of soundness, including the Blackmar-Diemer, the double pawn sacrifice in the Goring Gambit, the "Smerdon's Scandinavian" complex, the Albin Counter-Gambit and the Ruy Lopez Steinitz Defence Deferred piece sacrifice line 4...d6 5.0-0 Bg4 6.h3 h5.</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm hoping that progress will pick up on updating my main chess website soon, as I've got to grips with the Chess.com game/analysis replayer (which you can also embed onto a website, at least if you have some sort of premium membership on there - I recently went for Gold, which is the least expensive) and I hope it might address the problem with the ChessBase replayer, which tends to have many levels of nested variations which can be hard to follow for some. I note that Jonathan's blog 200 Open Games has been using the Chess.com replayer for a while.</div>Ian Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-364674482640521724.post-69707911075254154672019-12-18T15:06:00.002-08:002019-12-18T15:08:47.463-08:00Fun with a chess variantAs I prepare for another revamp of my main chess site, here's a bit of light entertainment.<br />
<br />
At Exeter Chess Club I was recently playing in a chess variants tournament. One of my favourites is the variant where if the king reaches one of the central squares (e4, d4, e5, d5) it is an automatic win for the player whose king reaches that square. Otherwise normal rules of chess apply. I was playing Black and reached the following position with White to move:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhkmU8z4PP3ugG9-QOm1qBMLqeUEnIOD2Jmqr4fXf7beKytpI9uWwCyl_Ww20-QHYZw0vjA_dVB9cCAP-ViViZKM8U50OQrFR4uVNVWhYzM9LZimP03HnkynjTMGq2Xxs4ls32VdxLerOZ/s1600/Image1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="798" data-original-width="798" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhkmU8z4PP3ugG9-QOm1qBMLqeUEnIOD2Jmqr4fXf7beKytpI9uWwCyl_Ww20-QHYZw0vjA_dVB9cCAP-ViViZKM8U50OQrFR4uVNVWhYzM9LZimP03HnkynjTMGq2Xxs4ls32VdxLerOZ/s200/Image1.png" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
I had given up a queen for a rook in order to get my king out to d6. In normal chess this position would be a straightforward win for White, but in this chess variant White has to be extremely careful as Black is only one move away from bringing the black king to the central squares and winning.<br />
<br />
In the game White played <b>1.Qxe4 </b>and resigned immediately after <b>1...Re8!</b>. In a normal game 2.Qxe8 would win, but in this chess variant, 2.Qxe8 would be met by 2...Kd5 0-1. And if 2.Qxf5, Black wins normally with 2...Re1#, exploiting the weakness of the back rank.<br />
<br />
A question is whether White can save this position despite being a queen for a rook ahead - this is the sort of chess variant that wouldn't work with computer analysis. An obvious try is 1.Qb5, covering the central squares for the time being, but after 1...Nd4 2,Qg5 f5 or 2.Qa5 b5, White is struggling to keep the central squares covered and stop the black king from advancing. 1.Qa5 is probably best, but White has to watch out for ...Rc8-c5 and ...Re8-e5 ideas.<br />
<br />
The opening saw me on the black side of a Four Knights Game (via an unusual move order, 1.Nc3 Nc6 2.Nf3 e5 3.e4 Nf6 I think). My opponent then played 4.Bc4, allowing 4...Nxe4. He remarked afterwards that in this chess variant the Halloween Gambit (4.Nxe5, the subject of my Halloween update to my website) would have been strong as in various variations it is difficult for Black to stop White from safely moving the king forward towards the centre.<br />
<br />
I imagine that the Mason Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nc3!?) and the allied Steinitz Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.d4!?), inviting ...Qh4+, forcing Ke2, would also be good in this particular variant.Ian Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-364674482640521724.post-45432234705646997152019-03-07T15:23:00.001-08:002019-03-07T16:19:18.630-08:00A "very nearly brilliancy" in the MorraI had a "very nearly brilliancy" in the Morra a couple of days ago, where I played what was probably my best ever attack up to move 21, sacrificing a piece and then an exchange in order to get a winning attack, but then threw it all away at move 22. I had actually planned 22.Bh6 in advance, but talked myself out of playing it, thinking that 22.Be7 was "safer" because the bishop was defended by the queen...<br />
<br />
The game began<br />
<br />
<b>1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. c3 dxc3 5. Nxc3 g6 6. Bc4 d6 7. Qb3</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgx2FsmQUtkHL8IDvbLklfFcOY2EXj9sEEsOQGpAgg9BtFCg2Uls1HIqKIOLwtakb5HJ8pxpu3VmljvcU3ubD55Cr2LZCE-KQFx_qNQHBEe4cKaQAz72bB6s4GQba-XR-0aBuh_1KNlzAm6/s1600/image1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="798" data-original-width="798" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgx2FsmQUtkHL8IDvbLklfFcOY2EXj9sEEsOQGpAgg9BtFCg2Uls1HIqKIOLwtakb5HJ8pxpu3VmljvcU3ubD55Cr2LZCE-KQFx_qNQHBEe4cKaQAz72bB6s4GQba-XR-0aBuh_1KNlzAm6/s200/image1.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
Hitting f7, and encouraging ...e6, whereupon Black's Dragon formation "loses its shape", as Marc Esserman puts it in his book.<br />
<br />
<b>7...e6 8. O-O Nf6 9. Rd1 Qe7 $6 10. Bg5 </b><br />
<br />
10. Bf4 is even stronger, with the idea of encouraging Black to weaken d5 further with 10...e5 11. Bg5.<br />
<br />
<b>10... a6</b>?<br />
<br />
10... Bg7 was best, and then if 11. Nd5?! (11. Bf4) (11. Nb5) 11... exd5 12. exd5 O-O<br />
13. dxc6 bxc6.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZnfHFMXiD3G94WeLd5ZmYtRZCXxu4z3AG_nLYtpsriWH1gJIgxilTsCBSpGvUb0csHGci23nnkCwsRNtuGTuy32p1rhWfKiAykuYAdXUCp2Mph8nOaXFGRwaCsf_hvspXagjTUfVORziv/s1600/image2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="798" data-original-width="798" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZnfHFMXiD3G94WeLd5ZmYtRZCXxu4z3AG_nLYtpsriWH1gJIgxilTsCBSpGvUb0csHGci23nnkCwsRNtuGTuy32p1rhWfKiAykuYAdXUCp2Mph8nOaXFGRwaCsf_hvspXagjTUfVORziv/s200/image2.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>11. Nd5</b><br />
<br />
11. Bd5! was even stronger, but sacrificing the knight is the second best move in the position.<br />
<br />
<b>11... exd5 12. exd5 Ne5</b><br />
<br />
12... Bg7 13. dxc6 O-O is objectively best, but then White has attacking<br />
chances and the better pawn structure in a position with level material, and<br />
the black pawn on d6 will probably drop off.<br />
<br />
<b>13. Nxe5 Qxe5 </b><br />
<br />
13... dxe5 14. d6 gives White a winning attack.<br />
<br />
<b>14. Re1</b><br />
<br />
14. f4! would have been even stronger, preventing Black's ...Ne4 idea, but a couple of lines have to be calculated accurately. The move played in the game is also winning for White, though.<br />
<br />
<b>14... Ne4</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqNHQew828BIIdzB3b48-GrX_yw6WnGFqCaof0XENuHE9r2WX7y0wWw1FI-84HLMzE5n4aeVpSnLCnu4LGHRYqO5iAnjnHByFbzsZLzh-3EdqxtMh-5ntq4sJtUKcl3o8ZtugHJz20xF0u/s1600/image3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="798" data-original-width="798" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqNHQew828BIIdzB3b48-GrX_yw6WnGFqCaof0XENuHE9r2WX7y0wWw1FI-84HLMzE5n4aeVpSnLCnu4LGHRYqO5iAnjnHByFbzsZLzh-3EdqxtMh-5ntq4sJtUKcl3o8ZtugHJz20xF0u/s200/image3.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>15. Rxe4! Qxe4 16. Qc3!</b> <b>Qe5</b><br />
<br />
I saw 16... Bg7 17. Qxg7 Rf8 18. Bh6 Qe7 19. Qc3 renewing the threat of Re1.<br />
<br />
16...f6 17. Re1 Qxe1+ 18. Qxe1+ Kf7 is Black's best chance, whereupon White has to<br />
find 19.Bxf6! to get a winning position.<br />
<br />
<b>17. Re1 Bg7</b><br />
17... Qxe1+ 18.Qxe1+ Kd7 gives White a choice of winning continuations. For example, 19. Bf6 Rg8 20. Qe3 b5 (20... Kc7 21. Qe8) 21. Qb6! forces mate.)<br />
<br />
<b>18. f4!</b><br />
<br />
18. Rxe5+? Bxe5 followed by ...0-0 is probably alright for Black.<br />
<br />
<b>18...Qxe1+ 19. Qxe1+ Kf8 20. Qe7+ Kg8 21. Qe8+ Bf8 </b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigftfnbaHnr0UgdfTaQSRdblOJIpqqpfwdzB-j5PZ-Am-I1MpFfdBzUQzKB3J-7mrkYHyWO0m8BOQcQmojoAG-c2G-iXqjglKjhzDRYLEv-OW0fMugTbnAHuwrZ5Oo6ro8WKzeweq_fU7n/s1600/image4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="798" data-original-width="798" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigftfnbaHnr0UgdfTaQSRdblOJIpqqpfwdzB-j5PZ-Am-I1MpFfdBzUQzKB3J-7mrkYHyWO0m8BOQcQmojoAG-c2G-iXqjglKjhzDRYLEv-OW0fMugTbnAHuwrZ5Oo6ro8WKzeweq_fU7n/s200/image4.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
Unfortunately this is the point where I bottled it. 22.Bh6, which was my original intention, forces mate in four moves, but I somehow convinced myself that Black could wriggle out, and consequently played a "safer" move that allowed Black to wriggle out...<br />
<br />
<b>22. Be7?? Kg7! 23. Bxf8+?! </b><br />
<br />
As is often the case after the psychological blow of missing a quick win, I rather went to<br />
pieces. 23. Bh4 would still have left White with a strong, possibly winning,<br />
attack.<br />
<br />
<b>23... Rxf8 24. Qe4?! Bf5 25. Qd4+ Kg8 26. Qb6 Rac8 27. Bb3?! Rfe8 </b>and Black went on to win.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately I have been forced to link to the game rather than
embed a replayable game into the blog post, because at least at my end I
seem to have triggered some sort of block that is stopping me from
viewing replayable chess games in my own blog (but not other people's
blogs).<br />
<br />
<a href="http://view.chessbase.com/cbreader/2019/3/7/Game19546281.html">http://view.chessbase.com/cbreader/2019/3/7/Game19546281.html </a><br />
<br />
An agonising loss, but I do seem to have improved my attacking play a bit recently - a common past failing of mine has been to be too eager to "cash in" and missing the quiet moves (like 16.Qc3 and 18.f4 in the above game). I think had I reached the position at move 15 this time last year I would probably have been preoccupied with trying to regain the piece with f2-f3 and it is unlikely that I would have had the guts to play 15.Rxe4.<br />
<br />
Having seen a number of AlphaZero-Stockfish matches recently, I think I may well have been inspired by AlphaZero's willingness to sacrifice pawns and even pieces and then quietly improve its position. Ian Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-364674482640521724.post-28765539846282815782018-06-03T07:46:00.001-07:002018-06-03T07:46:43.428-07:00RIP Valeri YandemirovI've just found out via Chessdom.com that Valeri Yandemirov passed away last year at the age of 55:<br />
http://www.chessdom.com/in-memoriam-gm-valeri-yandemirov/<br />
<br />
Not a household name, but he was a grandmaster with a peak rating of 2545 in 1998, and he was rated in the 2500s for most of the "noughties" as well.<br />
<br />
The main reason why the name sticks out for me is that he was a big practitioner of two daring and sacrificial lines in the Ruy Lopez Modern Steinitz Defence: the Siesta Variation (<b>1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 d6 5.c3 f5</b>) and the line <b>5.0-0 Bg4 6.h3 h5</b>, which some have started naming after him (notably Timothy Taylor in his book <i>Slay the Spanish</i>). The idea most commonly associated with Yandemirov was, after <b>7.d4 b5 8.Bb3 Nxd4 9.hxg4</b>, to play <b>9...Nxb3</b> (instead of 9...hxg4 10.Ng5 Nh6, which has been shown to be insufficient for Black) <b>10.axb3 hxg4 11.Ng5 Qd7</b>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMMBlCo0lsVwQDQAoTvTBHPXutzJrd8d1dGUao3P1j6lmbcVTQx-_jxwSWcy6pYNdm7w8408xkpHOYOETJx3aaPkgQSgPTleO0BxLDNPrEnuS6IiOngjiJsBj-Js3vCqU0MU-Vo8-gPPbw/s1600/yandemirov.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="338" data-original-width="338" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMMBlCo0lsVwQDQAoTvTBHPXutzJrd8d1dGUao3P1j6lmbcVTQx-_jxwSWcy6pYNdm7w8408xkpHOYOETJx3aaPkgQSgPTleO0BxLDNPrEnuS6IiOngjiJsBj-Js3vCqU0MU-Vo8-gPPbw/s200/yandemirov.png" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
Black is currently a piece down but can generally regain the piece with ...f6 and ...fxg5 since the knight on g5 has no retreat square. The main idea is however to play ...Qf7 and ...Qh5 and try to mate White down the h-file. On the other hand this line is still theoretically dodgy because in the meantime White can smash Black on the queenside. The line was dealt quite a heavy blow in the game Gashimov-Grischuk, Baku 2008: <a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1492751">http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1492751</a><br />
<br />
Nowadays, while 4...d6 has seen some popularity at the highest levels, GMs such as Shakhriyar Mamedyarov and Nigel Short have tended to prefer 5...Bd7 over 5...Bg4, but the 5...Bg4 line has still seen a few recent GM outings, particularly in the hands of Laurent Fressinet: <a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1902468">http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1902468</a><br />
<br />
Aseev-Yandemirov, Krasnoyarsk 2003 was arguably the greatest advert for his pet line:<br />
<a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1267372">http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1267372 </a><br />
<br />
I have tried these lines out myself from time to time since 2009 and currently have an online game that has reached the position after <b>6.h3 h5</b>. I tend to think that if it can work at GM level it must be good enough for mere mortals, even though it may be of marginal theoretical soundness.<br />
<br />
<br />Ian Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-364674482640521724.post-90441506126488886612018-04-16T16:37:00.003-07:002018-04-16T16:44:41.404-07:00An intriguing transposition from the Albin Counter-Gambit into the Göring Gambit DeclinedI've probably mentioned the transposition from the Chigorin Defence before (it was also mentioned about a year and a half ago over at <a href="http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/005-different-gambit-declined.html">200 Open Game</a>s). Recently I managed to get it in one of my own online games, fittingly, in a Chess.com match between "The Gambit Players" and "Philippine C", and it actually started out as an Albin Counter-Gambit: <b>1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5</b>, and White replied with the tame <b>3.e3</b>. After <b>3...Nc6 4.cxd5 Qxd5 </b>we were into a Chigorin, and after <b>5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Nf3 exd4 7.exd4 </b>we were into a Göring/Danish Gambit Declined.<br />
<br />
Capablanca's line with 7...Bg4 8.Be2 (8.Be3!? - Mark Nieuweboer) 8...Bxf3 9.Bxf3 Qc4 gets pretty sterile if White knows what he/she is doing, so I was tempted to duck out with the sensible 8...Nf6, but as I was playing a slightly higher-rated player with Black I thought I would test my opponent out in the Capablanca Variation. It worked, for after <b>7...Bg4 8.Be2 Bxf3 9.Bxf3 Qc4 10.Bd2?! 0-0-0 11.Qe2?! Qxe2+ 12.Bxe2 Nxd4 </b>I was already a pawn up and managed to win with the extra pawn after a long struggle.<br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" height="373" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://pgn4web-board.casaschi.net?am=n&d=3000&ss=36&ps=d&pf=d&lcs=_XNo&dcs=O8AB&bbcs=O8AB&bscs=b&hm=n&hcs=r4fT&bd=s&cbcs=YeiP&ctcs=$$$$&hd=j&md=f&tm=18&fhcs=$$$$&fhs=16&fmcs=$$$$&fccs=v71$&hmcs=_XNo&fms=16&fcs=m&cd=i&bcs=____&fp=18&hl=t&fh=b&fw=p&pe=1056$zlax9RvluXuHQagCH_QZ1aT_gtOWeX6ZasOb_V1U_4UTcz5qILNE7KwilhO$Qxf9Zt7_uvEXewilheKl8$z95r$Dv1vTjQzJ_aQsL7t4coaZt2l8$yUtm3kHmwwilh1NYfdvlo_oZ8Hb69wzSG1BHAPyYuAp096y1BHzlKAP1eA1wilh_CvQx4HKD3oLE$EG80otD64HKD3nEO$EG8mHxYuuaQqf7N31BHzlax9ReKl8$z95r$e2L0Tt4co7_0wXhZZkHZZNvgBNc2z996_91BHl505XgKj704bfijb005fcizn049WQ2IsVyf75DN$BHgL328bvAsTvD33GK308TwL1L7x71FzN0L71FzN6pnvNv71Rx4MUrtmfnL7s7x6pzgZvN$f4jx75GK35n14MUrtmfcjxeNLR$fcjx71GI6V2p06pWg$Nm7cL3stRp0xnvMf7WmqCVdQRU0C$fzNdQRqY0wL7JGHNLoaz7j04RPgsHF3504RRfcKj7f1aITxWu7fL328Hvoa37L10zIuDJRk1c$wcz23gZl7T1aFnwez790$M5fbBp3d$wa328bw$T3enxTC7nD15Bgizbb1aIHwajbf10F7xWtAy5$yO7EF5n02l75Sx5p0$M5uDJEN5r0$Qbfbizb90$M5grQF5d$xVy7YF52vfQmRAAQupy1v7JEx5JgvL7JSF0ITy1$fci6VaBIgwv758F0x7y5$fYF3VKpy5vfcHF0FEHlnT1en_gsmR7Lj10FIr_grQFbd$vpB7tM50L75Rx6BgEf328bxUG3pb10Czgi3pf1aITlmcbyi$fbzN9byl$gsIzmc7ylvgrgzjg5J$vnwDDqc6uPp904Nh7sFAyY5C$grBp6jyuABwL7Jtg2Ih5yxv7JFXN6jOgLL7JtM$MbfmZo_oZ8Hb69wzSGfe_AnpaPexeLNpKG0KAiZwfXonH$0" width="100%">your web browser and/or your host do not support iframes as required to display the chessboard</iframe>
In the meantime I finally had an outing in the line that I had corresponded with Gary Lane about over at Opening Lanes (Chesscafe.com): <b>1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.c3 d5 5.Bd3!? dxe4 6.Bxe4 Nf6 7.Bxc6+ bxc6 8.0-0 </b>(which both of us suggested independently of each other). I got some pressure in the IQP middlegame that ensued but did not make the most of it and ended up with a draw, but my opponent came close to losing on time.<br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" height="373" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://pgn4web-board.casaschi.net?am=n&d=3000&ss=36&ps=d&pf=d&lcs=_XNo&dcs=O8AB&bbcs=O8AB&bscs=b&hm=n&hcs=r4fT&bd=s&cbcs=YeiP&ctcs=$$$$&hd=j&md=f&tm=18&fhcs=$$$$&fhs=16&fmcs=$$$$&fccs=v71$&hmcs=_XNo&fms=16&fcs=m&cd=i&bcs=____&fp=18&hl=t&fh=b&fw=p&pe=608$AB0G3vgpEa3u1BHzutHh07jbT0i$451BHASUtGJ0b4coaZt2l8$xZXG5n56Os_XF9pNflmF0P1OL71ZRmwilhVgZKNI$H_TjQzxQXJvkYy$EG4wvfi33Q1$gK33GK3b0$Ni75ENb$xy7SFc$vaq7SjB7T1$FzM$Nm790$kpr_fQlC4yv7m6AP0q9vr1dzcZv7wj5j049WM1TXJvMvfcgz03U0z$vnBD1SF2b0$g5fsbL308V_NLO$$06hdfq$7WfP0qU0I$wa36ip0$QsVvKLOZeoevNqQDXAnyT_DEmtDcL308V_P6ip$H1iQ0uwCXcSSOmBHxY2g6Yv6Y_DcD$$gij5T16sDvVqv7SlBD1Fij5901khpyIhpvOv7pLHe_5M_DcL$$f3Pk0xvfbQFervOv75GKzjGKz56$vpB758x39$wSq7e_rvVwf3dPg_DdDj$HsYG_fwf$$gKj7b10xpxB7fv3dPg1m7fL328TvK_9WyZt2l81_9LnutHi7KfgmocLKqG0Z5HY4Cxfe_COXzu8gVcKK2X0_gC_a4v0" width="100%"> </iframe><br />
Also I'm currently working on what will probably end up as a book-sized pdf article on the "open gambits" with an early d2-d4 (including the Italian and Max Lange gambits as well as the Danish, Göring, Scotch and Urusov) so that all the various transpositions will be handled in the one pdf file, and there will be links to replayable annotated examples in the text. It's an ambitious project so it may well take me several months, but it would be satisfying to pull it off.Ian Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-364674482640521724.post-58128109618120971252018-01-24T16:15:00.000-08:002018-01-24T16:15:12.065-08:00Trying out Stockfish 8<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
</div>
Having used a combination of old versions of Fritz and Rybka to error-check my chess analysis for years, I decided to give Stockfish 8 a go. Ironically, this was prompted by <a href="https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-tournaments/alphazero-vs-stockfish">Stockfish's much-publicised losses against Google's AlphaZero</a>. Yes, even bad publicity can be good.<br />
<br />
I'm already finding that Stockfish sometimes disagrees with what Fritz and Rybka had to say on particular opening lines, and more often than not it tends to be right when I examine its suggestions closely. For instance, I've previously examined the 13.Nxh7 sacrifice in Thiele-van Perlo, corr. 1987 in the <span class="st">Göring Gambit in the following position:</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFj6f7SFz2B_0enZhIjIxL0rBJifwpBJ-GBDMmmmYWO7R4UdVY1b7yeHOmxOSd_VXmxNJyzaZDIE4vJ561R5db52NPll18Uik4lvs5jWS1shdbzneF8_eeIWnvCOPVVyBRssNFXwqVZTuS/s1600/thiele.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="354" data-original-width="354" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFj6f7SFz2B_0enZhIjIxL0rBJifwpBJ-GBDMmmmYWO7R4UdVY1b7yeHOmxOSd_VXmxNJyzaZDIE4vJ561R5db52NPll18Uik4lvs5jWS1shdbzneF8_eeIWnvCOPVVyBRssNFXwqVZTuS/s200/thiele.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
My previous examinations of the position suggested that 13.Nxh7 was dubious, and that 13.Ne6 was better, but a further examination with Stockfish suggests that 13.Ne6 is dubious because of 13...Bxe6 14.fxe6 and now the computer inconveniently points out 14...Ng8!, after which I can't see how White makes further progress. Meanwhile, 13.Nxh7 appears to be sound, and may well be the best move in the position. Thiele rather erred after 13...Kxh7 14.Bh5 g5 15.fxg6+, when after 15...Kg7 the g6-pawn blocks White's avenues of attack. After instead 15.h4, it appears that White has at least enough for the piece in all lines.<br />
<br />
I decided to feed Stockfish 8 a position that David Norwood used to show computers back in the 1990s, and which is sometimes thus known as the Norwood Position:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYoy4jL2kAotvX0E30X_nfSjm9sUZlpaeLkOv-Tc8dl1HE_eVpoI_6JX9xJqlwkO4laoJuwQvFcLJjODIcJ4tcHVe7JOSDEsK6ANFrh7s7W8tLciUlCscWHOveGqKYXw3NuMrkTV6sast0/s1600/norwood.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="354" data-original-width="354" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYoy4jL2kAotvX0E30X_nfSjm9sUZlpaeLkOv-Tc8dl1HE_eVpoI_6JX9xJqlwkO4laoJuwQvFcLJjODIcJ4tcHVe7JOSDEsK6ANFrh7s7W8tLciUlCscWHOveGqKYXw3NuMrkTV6sast0/s200/norwood.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
Highlighting how far computers have advanced in the past 20 years, Stockfish 8 doesn't even look at the rook on a5, recommending that White shuffle the king, although it does erroneously assess the position at -17 pawns in Black's favour (the correct assessment is that it's a draw!). If you enter 1.bxa5, it immediately gives mate for Black in circa 18 moves.<br />
<br />
More challenging for the computer is if you replace the b-pawn with a bishop:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEptABmYAfd-4kULP3xCj3R8eQtpBgxdvtGgjOhnRrIbgTGpucL9Zf9HLdtHK0EwiI3DxQYj0Kn0ErFoNPtKT49DETnuctagNJDnPVSukXyHGEG8E2JtadHB7obuiE7nOwJBb6D-6m5atI/s1600/norwood_var.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="354" data-original-width="354" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEptABmYAfd-4kULP3xCj3R8eQtpBgxdvtGgjOhnRrIbgTGpucL9Zf9HLdtHK0EwiI3DxQYj0Kn0ErFoNPtKT49DETnuctagNJDnPVSukXyHGEG8E2JtadHB7obuiE7nOwJBb6D-6m5atI/s200/norwood_var.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
No, this wasn't originally my idea. I can't recall where I first read it, but it is discussed in the <a href="http://www.chesscomputeruk.com/SS_52.pdf"><i>Computer Chess News Sheet June-July 1994</i></a>, so this might well be where the revised position originates from. I recall feeding it to Fritz and Rybka some time ago and both computers insisted on grabbing the rook, but it might have changed with the latest commercial versions.<br />
<br />
Stockfish 8 recommends 1.Bxa5 for a couple of minutes, assessing it as -5.2 pawns in Black's favour, and gives 1.Bb4 (the correct move) as -9.5 pawns in Black's favour, but then it picks up on 1.Bxa5 b4!, and within another couple of minutes it rejects 1.Bxa5 and gives 1.Bb4 followed by shuffling the king as best. So even the revised version no longer stumps today's strongest computers.<br />
<br />
There are of course still blockade positions that are even beyond Stockfish 8, but as computer AI continues to improve, they have to be more and more inventive. I'm left wondering how AlphaZero, with its Monte Carlo method of calculation, would fare. We might never know!Ian Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-364674482640521724.post-80715301576255550912018-01-03T15:47:00.000-08:002018-01-03T15:56:30.708-08:00Kasparov plays the Mason GambitHappy New Year everyone! <br />
<br />
Just stumbled upon a game from last August where Garry Kasparov, like Magnus Carlsen before him, wheeled out the Mason Gambit in blitz (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nc3!?).<br />
<a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1883800">http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1883800 </a><br />
<br />
Unlike Carlsen's opponent, Karjakin did venture the critical response 3...Qh4+ but then after 4.Ke2 he went for the rather passive 4...Qd8. As it was a blitz game he probably wanted to "play it safe" and the idea isn't completely without merit, for 4...d6 5.Nf3 Qd8 is one of Black's better responses, as discussed by John Emms in his 2000 book <i>Play the Open Games as Black</i>, giving a Fischer Defence where White has two extra tempi but one of them is the undesirable Ke1-e2. As "brabo" discussed at the Chesspublishing.com forum some time ago, the most critical response of all is probably 4...Ne7 covering d5.<br />
<br />
However, after the immediate 4...Qd8, Kasparov's continuation 5.d4 Nf6 (5...g5? 6.h4 doesn't work for Black) 6.Bxf4 regained the sacrificed pawn and led to a rather interesting middlegame where White relied on a strong centre to compensate for the exposed position of the white king.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzbgvsP0CikOddUlI4OMiH92msl7T5Ai-hXD7ke9KE85olRu2gCk0BBvkYn9BI43f5UjFAJMuJ12z5iYGbX-aSspbpO0YWCFFAZRG4ZSVhSuT9WSQKVva2trpq0Nu_Gaj7EwQgp0DigfKT/s1600/mason1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="354" data-original-width="354" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzbgvsP0CikOddUlI4OMiH92msl7T5Ai-hXD7ke9KE85olRu2gCk0BBvkYn9BI43f5UjFAJMuJ12z5iYGbX-aSspbpO0YWCFFAZRG4ZSVhSuT9WSQKVva2trpq0Nu_Gaj7EwQgp0DigfKT/s200/mason1.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
It would seem that Kasparov lost his way into the early middlegame and was lucky to get a draw, but fair play to him for continuing in the spirit of the opening and going all-out, which is usually the best way to swindle a win or draw in a blitz game. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaVWHF7DC_0u1kMdw9mMeQL82Gs7yd-DEu9XDka6hf_EAUvEXnsPYx-6ulApb4WVCwVC9qWAlq9vM-sQQ-2t1Q7-_CfvgFHsGdkMhdUCVbwvKDm-RHedvN5G2OfZzV8S1P0YY0j9uwxlpp/s1600/mason2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="354" data-original-width="354" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaVWHF7DC_0u1kMdw9mMeQL82Gs7yd-DEu9XDka6hf_EAUvEXnsPYx-6ulApb4WVCwVC9qWAlq9vM-sQQ-2t1Q7-_CfvgFHsGdkMhdUCVbwvKDm-RHedvN5G2OfZzV8S1P0YY0j9uwxlpp/s200/mason2.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
43...Qc6+ would have won for Black, with the idea 44.Kg1 hxg6. Instead 43...Qd2+? was played (it was a blitz game after all!) and Kasparov managed to get a draw.<br />
<br />
Earlier on, the computer offers 7.e5 as a reasonable alternative to the 7.Bg5 played in the game, and also suggests 7.Nd5, although I would find it difficult to psychologically justify allowing the opening of the e-file towards the white king with ...Nxd5, exd5.Ian Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-364674482640521724.post-49148163818514903392017-09-19T15:09:00.000-07:002017-09-19T15:09:36.127-07:00Update on the UrusovIt's been a while, but I finally completed my update of the Urusov Gambit coverage at <a href="http://www.ianchessgambits.com/urusov-gambit.html">http://www.ianchessgambits.com/urusov-gambit.html </a><br />
I've managed to get the ChessBase dynamic diagrams working, which allow viewers to move the pieces. The new ChessBase game replayers is, I think, a significant improvement over the old one but I found that having multiple instances of the replayer on one web page caused glitches, so I have chosen to provide links to the annotated examples that are published using the One Click Publishing feature.<br />
<br />
As for the assessment of the gambit, the accepted lines still seem to be holding up well, but of the declining lines, 4...Bb4+ does, as <a href="http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/games/java/2008/urusov-patzer-variation.htm">Michael Goeller suggested a while ago</a>, appears to be the main problem at high levels, if Black aims for equality by striking out in the centre with a well-timed ...d5. However, in the Chesslive.de database, Black tends to follow up 4...Bb4+ poorly, and so the move is scoring only 41% for Black. The highest-scoring reply for Black is the more well-known 4...Nc6 transposing to the Two Knights Defence (where Black is scoring 49%). Black is scoring 44% after grabbing the bait with 4...Nxe4.<br />
<br />
For White, if faced with a prepared opponent, there are some ideas for unbalancing the position after 4...Bb4+. There is 5.c3 dxc3 6.0-0 0-0 (6...cxb2 7.Bxb2 and as in many such lines, it is unclear if White has two pawns' worth of compensation, but White's initiative is extremely dangerous) 7.a3!? (7.bxc3 d5), which gives some compensation, though I'm not sure if it is objectively enough. More definitely sound but less in the gambit-style are 6.bxc3 d5 7.cxb4!?, and 6...Bc5 7.e5 d5 8.exf6 dxc4 9.Qxd8+.<br />
<br />I don't expect to be giving up the Urusov anytime soon, having had a lot of fun with it in practice, but in view of 4...Bb4+ as well as 4...Nc6, I don't expect it to catch on among grandmasters either.Ian Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-364674482640521724.post-40441644264245296092017-05-31T15:35:00.002-07:002017-05-31T15:35:23.844-07:00A recent game in an unusual Morra Gambit DeclinedI recently beat a higher rated player as White in an unusual line of the Morra Gambit Declined.<br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" height="374" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://pgn4web-board.casaschi.net/?am=l&d=3000&ss=36&ps=d&pf=d&lcs=W_iH&dcs=MHW2&bbcs=MHW2&hm=s&hcs=RKim&bd=c&cbcs=UtKy&ctcs=x7x7&hd=j&md=f&tm=18&fhcs=g3g3&fhs=16&fmcs=7x7x&fccs=v71$&hmcs=RKim&fms=16&fcs=m&cd=i&bcs=W_iH&fp=18&hl=t&fh=b&fw=p&pe=1822$AB0G3vgpEa3u1BHzutHh07jbj0if291BHASUtGJ02LEG8uOLpM73mSAnO$LZqK_Agilh1NYfdvluvmWUXCUjjQzJzuGXGf7MUfjQzxQXJvfi31BHA_e0G3aouf7R40ilh1NYfdaouf7MhvEG8mHxYuuaQqfam0ilha4M4qsZmFWuL7LEG84xTxIGWUtGoXmD4CvJxBHl500bgij705XghJXfL328bvpC7L19bwezp049WM5YfuZU6$fhJYfsT11pv_YN$zXfuZboo_DT$$7sGKj4$vpy7stQ0_Wz6hv$02KIfT1cVvoEN0L71Ex2_MJuV6$gKj6_Jfsr0$OlDJRTH6$v8a36_yduV6$$0$Mcfd0$QhpvVd0$ilKP0q9vNv71GHGY$QsAfnL7m6AP6_yr_P2v$$HsFimV29$v7y75hU0y$v7x7dBb1$BIuD1Rk0z$wrtmfuZcO_fnL$$vaoj5f14MUs6Jfsl5f$$71i9vO$gPwDe_5M_DbL3dWg$hoj5L1$zHfVAF2p0$lRfscD38bv9yz5T1cXvVqv4vlRfWHF24$yKIBv_Xq6ZvS$$00dfnD30qo0_TSeY0PRvfXN0xnvS$fcjB7sFi35906jx5ldWM0C$fWmt71GK356$yKIBv_XqCZvRv$02GRDcL38bv_YN2EJ$yu78N24$yFg2fuZcO_a2r$$3ayNV2EJ$$10FWQ0xvfCx2Exvf4kez0kDN2_MDbT1$FKpv9JPfnr1$FWg$Nm7e_5M_Awxv$0$lXuDbT1dE7vVoL3me5v9I5fuZc0uCuArxY$ZZaxgqV6YK4Veo0xTCZeV22vfQly7stnHfD1$zRfYF2_MDe_5c0Q1v$$voaz7b1dE7_SZvOv$$v9FheP56$xVFh71FCx39$vpJYfWmtAx2$w9Ft7e_5M_Dbj13XfVXN2d$yFh7dBr06u3c0_TSeY0POv75Rp2_N75GKmZvOv$$wWz6kwC$$0$QjXfnr13FETvat7fD1$zRfWke36_yn_P56$v8cz2kiM14$fAke30qM12$vnB7dG350$ROfWke37f10xbwQemZvVvL7VfP6_yuV35$$3dQiM0uwotD6gXzzgXirtyqWL_wTyTwUoiUXZ8hRgtyo9o0Ahq$uP7f16pKrvVw$7SO_fw$$$wQUz6j7$$30cpw2$fXN$FE7_fy$4ANp7e_5vVy$7JFzx6jIuDgD3m8BwRJYuV3n$$3dKpw5vfWkWj8QtQ1d$vpFh71GIz79$H5GIz6_yr_P6j7$$3dKpw2$fWkWj8QtQ1b$yueY15$wQejm8AfuZg0Q2$$02FlDe_5U_Dgv1L7BKP8rw5vf4mt7sGIz7T16hbv_Xp1_m9MoTb_yVAeeLSNH0Gfe_eTqKAZN9RxSP8_fAXZllt82mOTbFC$ZZax$eV2Fd$v9FmeP3FAN34$vpFm71hQ16$fbYGY4NqCZvVyv75FAN6pWM11va0CIuDJt9w2v7sFfGY4OS7fd0$Nm71hQ_DgL$$f3QF2Fd$$16pzo11vf4jy71hQ16$fcihL_XoN1_22UJZZaxeThZuf4AVvr6DpmRwmVP3kZmEK$eW_fvD3dQRN$FWo16$fcij0jM0_U36jd$$0n3AF32vfckDF1_uKuaXIL_H5NNvCCTq7KfeLNH8ueD_CvQx$eW_fnXDHl$0" width="100%">your web browser and/or your host do not support iframes as required to display the chessboard</iframe> 4...g6 looks like a slightly inferior way of declining the gambit, allowing White a classic two-pawn centre. After 5.cxd4 the Chesslive.de database gives 569 games with 5...Bg7 (probably best) when White is scoring 59.6%.<br />
<br />
Over the board I spent a while deliberating over 5...d5 6.exd5 or 6.e5, and correctly selected exd5. I was playing by analogy with some <span class="st">Göring Gambit</span> Declined lines that I'd looked at before, where Black has to beware of the d4-d5 pawn push if White can get a knight out to c3 without it being hit by the pinning ...Bf8-b4. I gave 6.exd5 Qxd5 7.Nc3 Qa5 in the notes, but most often played has been the retreat 7...Qd8, albeit with White still scoring a hefty 71.2%. <br />
<br />
I got very tempted by the possibility of trapping the black queen. <i>Fritz </i>says that Black can survive, but admittedly has to walk a proverbial tightrope. Overall I thought it was a pretty well-played game, though as usual at club level there were some mutual inaccuracies.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile over at my gambits site I'm working on updating the Urusov Gambit coverage, as that is rather out of date at the moment.Ian Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-364674482640521724.post-72795455096809496592017-03-01T15:34:00.002-08:002017-03-01T15:39:47.201-08:00Playing two sharp gambits in serious games for the first time- without knowing much theory!I had a couple of recent serious games when, true to form, I played gambit lines, but it was the first time I had used them in serious games, and I haven't covered either of them at my website. The games contain a fair number of mistakes, but they were 25 minute rapid games.<br />
<br />
<b>Game/Gambit #1 - The Geller Gambit</b><br />
<br />
The more successful experiment was in the Geller Gambit (yes, I've also re-added 1.d4, 2.c4 lines to my repertoire, having been attracted to some of them back in my childhood). 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.e4 b5 is the normal move-order, but I stumbled into it via 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 dxc4 4.e4 b5 5.Nf3!? (5.a4 is the normal move, according to the Chesslive.de database, where White generally regains the pawn) 5...Nf6.<br />
<br />
I had a close look at this line with someone from my local chess club back in 2014, but have to admit that I don't recall much of the theory. My 6.e5 Nd5 7.Ne4?! was clearly inferior to 7.a4 and 7.Ng5, but was not punished. Also, I could have got a strong attack with 13.f5 or 14.Nxe6 (both of which I actually looked at during the game, but didn't see far enough ahead). The experiment paid off in the end though, and I have every intention of continuing to try out these Queen's Gambit lines.<br />
<br />
My impression is that the Geller Gambit has been held suspect for many years, but that "the Ginger GM" Simon Williams has advocated it in some recent videos of his. I associate Simon Williams particularly with the Dutch Defence (1.d4 f5) and some crazy queen sacrifices, notably <a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1567730">this one</a>. He also tried the interesting deviation 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.e4 b5 6.Qc2 <a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1704368">against Andrey Sumets at Hastings 2013</a>, but lost.<br />
<br />
<b>Game/Gambit #2 - Rubinstein Four Knights</b><br />
<br />
The line goes 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Nd4, from Black's point of view. It's well-known to be a sound line for Black, where White often ducks out of the complications with 5.Nxd4 or 5.0-0. I had recently taken this up in my online games, and sacrificed the pawn on e5 in several of them with good results. However, I hadn't learnt many of the ideas behind the sacrifice of the pawn on e5, and so in this serious game played too "automatically" in the opening and didn't get enough compensation. Indeed, if I had found 10...Bg4! I would probably have gone on to win.<br />
<br />
The games are available here: <a href="http://www.viewchess.com/cbreader/2017/3/1/Game190376437.html">http://www.viewchess.com/cbreader/2017/3/1/Game190376437.html</a>Ian Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-364674482640521724.post-34000185533611790672017-02-16T17:31:00.003-08:002017-02-16T18:28:38.622-08:00An End In Sight to the 2015/16 HiatusHi all,<br />
<br />
Apologies for the long period of time without any updates. I also see that I've had several comments to my earlier blog posts, which I've neglected (during late 2015 and 2016). I got a full-time job, lost the resolve to keep up what I'd previously been doing, and ended up leaving readers in limbo.<br />
<br />
I am in the process of rebranding my site; the new address is at <a href="http://www.ianchessgambits.com/">http://www.ianchessgambits.com/</a> and has moved to a paid hosting service. <br />
<br />
Over the past year I also experimented with producing my own PDF articles. Here's
one that I came up with on the "Anti-Max Lange", 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4
exd4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4.<br />
<a href="http://www.ianchessgambits.com/uploads/1/9/3/3/19336435/the_anti_max_lange.pdf">http://www.ianchessgambits.com/uploads/1/9/3/3/19336435/the_anti_max_lange.pdf</a><br />
The main source of inspiration for this was the old Chesscafe.com articles, particularly Tim Harding's often-excellent Kibitzer column. <br />
<br />
As I felt I was able to express myself and my enthusiasm more through that type of article, I have a general idea of creating web articles in that sort of style with the aid of the new <a href="http://en.chessbase.com/post/dynamic-diagrams-your-new-chess-publishing-tool">ChessBase dynamic diagrams</a>, thereby allowing viewers to play through the lines or just generally experiment, without the need to be tied to the PGN format. They also have a new game replayer which is good with PGNs with relatively short notes, but tends to be buggy if more than one replayer is used on a single web page. But I'll need to experiment with this a bit.<br />
<br />
I'm also preparing to move my chess blog to the new site, <a href="http://www.ianchessgambits.com/chessblog">http://www.ianchessgambits.com/chessblog</a> . I hope to update that blog more frequently with other chess-related stuff as well as the progress on the openings/gambits articles, so that it doesn't go for long periods without any updates.<br />
<br />
I expect progress on the chess gambits coverage to be quite slow this time around due to greater pressures on my time, but I haven't given up on it. I am tempted to look into more in the way of 1.d4 lines, having played the Queen's Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.c4) from the white side quite a bit recently.<br />
<br />
I'll have a look over some of the replies to my earlier articles over the weekend.Ian Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-364674482640521724.post-55806744197760750552015-12-20T16:12:00.002-08:002015-12-20T16:12:14.185-08:00Alekhine-Chatard Attack coverage completeedI have finally got around to covering all of the main variations of the Alekhine-Chatard Attack against the French Defence.<br />
<a href="http://tws27.weebly.com/alekhine-chatard-attack.html">http://tws27.weebly.com/alekhine-chatard-attack.html</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgA596W6dAYnGsfqkz4wq_ddMnDMtQSCfy0C3a8GZv8Ozvbd7RdVqIE1CHHCAuacb7c43kTf4l5JxcYakLhjQEtTYfu-mc41n0xHvl38MC4ssMOswDZCf0onRgyxryQY03ikQaxtRmY5lwR/s1600/achatard1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgA596W6dAYnGsfqkz4wq_ddMnDMtQSCfy0C3a8GZv8Ozvbd7RdVqIE1CHHCAuacb7c43kTf4l5JxcYakLhjQEtTYfu-mc41n0xHvl38MC4ssMOswDZCf0onRgyxryQY03ikQaxtRmY5lwR/s200/achatard1.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
My opinion of the accepted lines of the gambit <b>(6...Bxg5 7.hxg5 Qxg5) </b>have changed quite a lot since examining the lines more closely. I don't think the old main line, played by Alexander Alekhine against Fahrni, Mannheim 1914, with <b>8.Nh3 Qe7 9.Nf4</b>, is very convincing. I think Black can get quite a solid position with <b>9...Nc6 </b>followed by ...g6, ...Nb6, ...Bd7 and ...0-0-0. The move-order is quite important; if 9...g6 at once, then 10.Bd3 is quite dangerous for Black, threatening sacrifices on g6. The lines with White sacrificing a knight on d5 after 10.Qg4 Nxd4 can easily burn out to a draw. At club level most players won't play accurately, of course, but even so, I am not sure about White's practical chances.<br />
<br />
But I believe that 9.Qg4 looks quite promising for White, attacking g7 immediately and planning to follow up with Nf3-g5 in most cases. 8.Nb5!?, which has been discussed briefly at the Chesspublishing.com and also mentioned by John Watson, also looks quite promising. The modern move 8.Qd3 aims for long-term positional compensation rather than a quick attack, but also appears to give White at least sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn. The compensation persists even if Black engineers a queen trade with 8...Qg6 9.Qxg6 fxg6 (White can also consider 9.Qd2).<br />
<br />
One common motif in the declined variations is that Black wants to get in ...c7-c5, undermining White's d4-pawn, without allowing White to get in Nc3-b5-d6. Thus, ...a6 is often played, but I don't trust the immediate 6...a6 7.Qg4 for Black, despite its popularity. 6...c5 7.Bxe7 leaves Black with a choice between 7...Qxe7 8.Nb5, often involving an exchange sacrifice on a8, and 7...Kxe7, which gives up castling rights but aims for long-term queenside counterplay. I think the 6...c5 line is better for White, but Black is not without chances.<br />
<br />
Black's best declining moves are 6...Nc6 (which leads to positions with just a slight edge for White, and chances for both sides), 6...0-0, and 6...h6. The last two give Black good chances of theoretical equality, though White often gets a slight "pull" in the middlegame. In both cases, the positions tend to be double-edged with the kings castled on opposite sides of the board.<br />
<br />
John Watson has recently written about some of these lines at Chesspublishing (though to see his full analysis requires a subscription). In his <a href="http://www.chesspublishing.com/content/2/index.htm">latest update</a> he says 6...h6 "seems to be more reliable than the others" and gives 7.Be3 an exclamation mark, rather than the exchange of bishops with 7.Bxe7. He is a stronger player than I, but my investigations suggest that there is a strong case for his position.<br />
<br />
I suspect that the Alekhine-Chatard with 6.h4 is not as likely to give White a theoretical advantage with best play as the standard 6.Bxe7, but it is a decent try for advantage, as well as increasing the payoff if Black goes wrong- White can sometimes pull off a quick attack and win very quickly. <br />
<br />Ian Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-364674482640521724.post-6996894316381029682015-11-25T14:45:00.002-08:002015-11-25T14:50:10.336-08:00Alekhine-Chatard Attack coverage underwayI've been busy recently, but started coverage of the Alekhine-Chatard Attack in the French Defence, <b>1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nfd7 6.h4!?.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKVT8_Up3RpD-3uiJ8de_VwdCDZU78qqd7oKobVlws2AqShmtW-95Vi8FCNT3p5Gh7sQ5nqowk0fMLJF1ysbSpODWfoZtZ7rI0Si3hChaCm7Fln-tGscKztJe04oLGjNpdzWqecipCdg_-/s1600/achatard1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKVT8_Up3RpD-3uiJ8de_VwdCDZU78qqd7oKobVlws2AqShmtW-95Vi8FCNT3p5Gh7sQ5nqowk0fMLJF1ysbSpODWfoZtZ7rI0Si3hChaCm7Fln-tGscKztJe04oLGjNpdzWqecipCdg_-/s200/achatard1.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<b><br /></b>
I find that the <b>3.Nc3 </b>lines of the French Defence often lead to crazy and rich positions, although of course 3.Nc3 is one of the main lines, and many of the variations are quite theory-heavy. The various attempts to steer play into a sort of pseudo Blackmar-Diemer Gambit with 3.Be3 and 3.c4 are not convincing, although there is a subvariation of 3.Nc3, 3...Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 5.f3!?, which aims to transpose into a line of the Blackmar-Diemer (Euwe Defence) which probably gives White full compensation for the pawn.<br />
<br />
The Alekhine-Chatard Attack is one of the soundest gambits that I've looked at so far; <a href="http://www.chesspublishing.com/content/2/nov14.htm">indeed French Defence guru John Watson considers that it is holding up well at high levels.</a> I've been a fan of this gambit for many years, and recall having quite a few nice wins with it as a junior in the late-1990s.<br />
<br />
I have only got around to covering 6...c5 and 6...0-0 so far, but am trialing out a new way of displaying the coverage (sort of like a ChessCafe.com article but with the games still presented as replayable java games via ChessBase).<br />
<br />
The coverage is here:<br />
<a href="http://tws27.weebly.com/alekhine-chatard-attack.html">http://tws27.weebly.com/alekhine-chatard-attack.html</a><br />
My overall assessments seem to broadly agree with Watson's comments on 6...c5 and also 6...Nc6, which I cover briefly as a sideline, although of course Watson will have gone into far more detail.<br />
<br />
I had a recent game as White in the Alekhine-Chatard Attack but unfortunately lost the game score. I managed to crash through on the h-file by putting rooks on h1 and h6 and a queen on h4, and breaking through on h7, and Black's counterattack ended up being a tempo too slow. (If I remember rightly, Black met 6.h4 with 6...c5 7.Bxe7 Kxe7, and later moved the king over to the kingside to guard h7). <br />
<br />
Meanwhile I've recently received my copy of <i>Smerdon's Scandinavian</i>. It is refreshing to see a grandmaster frequently using and being enthusiastic about a line that is objectively of marginal soundness. I'll be looking at his Caro-Kann transposition lines (1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.d4, involving an early ...g6) with some interest since I didn't look at those when I last covered the line. Of course White should avoid 4.dxc6?! Nxc6 in that variation; I remember a few games when I tried that greedy variation as White at the local chess club just to see if it was really as bad as its reputation, and inevitably I got crushed every time. <br />
<br />
Smerdon also recommends the Vienna Defence (1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 Bf5) against the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, and is quite dismissive of White's chances. Personally I always thought 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5 was a more serious test of the gambit, but I'll be looking at his lines more closely shortly to see if he's found any major improvements for Black over what I know of.Ian Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-364674482640521724.post-39240379772953327122015-10-19T14:26:00.001-07:002015-10-19T14:35:38.412-07:00A nice exchange sac in the Albin Counter-GambitI had a nice win (albeit in a simultaneous) with an exchange sac in the Albin. This game is a good example of how White can go wrong despite playing a succession of "natural" moves. Of course, White can do better. 5.a3 is the most popular response in my experience, but the move-order trick 5.Nbd2 may be more accurate as it takes the sting out of 5...Nge7 and 5...Bf5. After 5.a3, I opted to put the bishop on f5. I think it was 7.Qa4 where White started to go a bit astray; 5.a3 is nonetheless a very reasonable try for advantage and 7.Nb3 or the immediate 7.b4 would have maintained good chances of an advantage out of the opening.<br />
<br />
"Real life" has been slowing progress down on my gambiteering site in recent months, but I'm still preparing new content for it. <br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" height="373" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://pgn4web-board.casaschi.net/?am=n&d=3000&ss=36&ps=d&pf=d&lcs=_XNo&dcs=O8AB&bbcs=O8AB&bscs=b&hm=n&hcs=r4fT&bd=s&cbcs=YeiP&ctcs=$$$$&hd=j&md=f&tm=18&fhcs=$$$$&fhs=16&fmcs=$$$$&fccs=v71$&hmcs=_XNo&fms=16&fcs=m&cd=i&bcs=____&fp=18&hl=t&fh=b&fw=p&pe=486$zlax9Rvln56N_7jQzHLcnz1ak8nyTjQzyWQxf81wI$bD0ivEG8sZmFWvfX9pNmXX5Hh06Ldzi2eMilh1NYfdvgu$O$LZqK_AgilhVgZKNI$A2MwilhamNV06NyvEG8mHxYuuaQqf860ilha4M4q6SG3vh42p$of1C0ilhOeAWVw2WQxf81wI$bD$LTjQxLL7SxcVw$7Ex1pwv7SjBDSxb$vo8z2jU5vgUz6s$voGp7e_5_Pp$$308pyv75pRx6h4a1vfWW3ayNTXJwL3cnxUEN0L71pg1m7dyv$0$QhpvNv75FijdQ8F250$Ni7s8x2706sB_NLNv78kaz2khU0y$wGj6_zfsbn32cb_P5b$$758F2Ey$$10IAfuZc_Dbv30kSx2_N7dBf0ncjBDsFij5n10zBfVi6ZvN$$06pWM0B$vpJXfcICV42MAxMn0" width="100%">your web browser and/or your host do not support iframes as required to display the chessboard</iframe>
The trick is that Black follows up with ...Nb2+ and picks up the queen on a4; the exchange sacrifice was to kill White's coverage of the important b2-square. Were it not for this sneaky tactic, White may have been able to get away with Bb2xd4.<br />
<br />
I note that I missed quite a deep "computer move" in this game: 11...Nd7!, intending 12...Nc5 with the idea of 13...Nd3+. Ian Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-364674482640521724.post-28487638445537413092015-10-07T14:59:00.001-07:002015-10-07T14:59:09.845-07:00A win as Black in the Blackmar-Diemer GambitThe next lot of openings articles will focus on anti-French gambits and another revisit of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit. It may take a couple of weeks though as I have a lot of other stuff going on.<br />
<br />
I had a recent game as Black where I unexpectedly faced the BDG. I managed to win the game with the extra pawn, but as usual at club level, there were some mutual errors along the way. I tried out the von Popiel Attack with 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 about 10-11 years ago, but soon replaced 4.Bg5 with the standard 4.f3. White does get some compensation for the pawn but less chances of a quick attack developing in my opinion. Indeed, early in the game, I was the first to go on the attack.<br />
<br />
<iframe height='373' width='100%' frameborder='0' scrolling='no' marginheight='0' marginwidth='0' src='http://pgn4web-board.casaschi.net/?am=l&d=3000&ss=36&ps=d&pf=d&lcs=_XNo&dcs=O8AB&bbcs=O8AB&bscs=b&hm=n&hcs=r4fT&bd=s&cbcs=YeiP&ctcs=$$$$&hd=j&md=f&tm=18&fhcs=$$$$&fhs=16&fmcs=$$$$&fccs=v71$&hmcs=_XNo&fms=16&fcs=m&cd=i&bcs=____&fp=18&hl=t&fh=b&fw=p&pe=1582$zlax9RvkZ8p4Nhfpw7aCT757eWu9MC5BKGl4coab2l8$xQhl7Z4co7ZYnz1fDqf29$jb9pNmuAVJT3e1BHA_e0G3vlr04Lomo6LEG80otD6f7KK9MB0wXSu_9xBHAPyYuAp096y1BHzlKAP11jb9pNmXX5HfIAY$ypf9pNflmF0MqaV05TnjQzGRgtKKAVID3df9pNgnJ7GnZYnz1fDqf43$fD9pMnn33M5Yfv3qM0_Wj4ZmPextNNaPq2qkeYp1kqzEpae0CT2Zyshnwv75DN0zJgv308VvVmUua1kqzu0x2TxIxqvuwGegv$htD29LexY0eeHxY5_4U_$_2ltxOM71eHY2hZPe_KAnuK0zG3S4KDHXgn_IUmuCROZy$7ho_DL$$71hQ5vf4i33U6$fbBg3039vD3dWg$OlNDr01TXJeaDEN2Gv$$l2crvr1$BBgWmZvr1aByfQF29$v8EztQ0u_OLpM72eTHXh3_2UDcnw6LtwEup$HKj2D2eQxfoX_I6NHlt86GlYfd$$0_fnL7Yx5FZM0PMv$02l7bv32tg0uy_UuAJ6K4M7p7gl5xlHgX6AyhZP4Y5LRQi_ly7b63xBmOXbFC5fojyZeAnHXhbRmz7F_2q7$_KY0z$vpKHfbQN2b02O7m6AP5L0nCx$zZfqf7WIbP2kYx2r0$kunwQGz6ir$$3sprvMf7tM6lHfuZbk_Dbj16HgSOiz5r02i4yS7e_rvVoL$$fYG_fnr1$xbv_YN2EwL71FAN$FErw1v7iQ0_W5eY0wL$$vqtDfD13Yfcjy7dG39$$16IfuZbk_Dfn38k7N2F2$wRE5fVQy_fvL$$wVFtDe_rw1$fYkejdInw2$fWkG30kpLHdDn$$7YkG37L1$FPU6lJuV3n045fuZU0Q5$gQW30qU1c$v9IduV3n$$3039w5vgsg3jPHgL328nv8aj7905YgQaqz7r05VzU1khrw$T38Xvau7nD1dKnv9Fl7nn3sFAxdEdfuZU0QnLL$$yJRfM$7VBNdIqrv_XnG_fM$71Rk0_Wz6l70$kdgQazbn1$FzM_Dnv$$gQazbn1$Frl4_CSOXbFC6DHfuc_v6Y6pEXwB$gRFu71FCN5p0$khnv9EbuDe_7vVmUZt2eTuKuaXIMWaaTuGeUTcnzlZwbADHXh5_wZG2mF0L7vKAmYxtR6yZwBv$0$g6eY2d$yIhnxU7F54$yEcfuZg0Qwf4Cpn_Pb9$$3sDU26$gsIzm8rwvT3stQ0QvT3s8y_fLr$$7iQ54$gri36_zfsLD1dK4uUowf$$gi3nb15HgVGl7Lv3jFQx9by2$gQTPsEyY0S2$$043fmTo_6DEziOTyV0Z5k$uSZlnL1aIHyIlHgyf7JGgzs8xbr04RRgQW34_Umr0otD6fe_An6TpOPlt809RutwKTuFL5kyNNLnu3w_gYTuco3$uP96ya4xL0'>your web browser and/or your host do not support iframes as required to display the chessboard</iframe>
<br />
Ian Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-364674482640521724.post-64084950027713510272015-09-15T12:30:00.001-07:002015-09-15T12:32:44.640-07:00A look at the Latvian GambitSince the opening has many devoted aficionados, I don't think my site would be complete without some coverage of the Latvian Gambit (<b>1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5</b>).<br />
<div>
<a href="http://tws27.weebly.com/latvian-gambit.html">http://tws27.weebly.com/latvian-gambit.html</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgR1Gtms7iPXn0E5QmtWrEqFI00bkz5sX7a_WiA3dNX0Iu-mZX_zNAH-VA6VJl4TZhkIwJXCFFHjMeer5Ujs03U1aanqbiGgFgEe8OP1FxSTUk6YYGqrRufXnHHnxBg1qbii9iBo0Ip9n0I/s1600/latvian1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgR1Gtms7iPXn0E5QmtWrEqFI00bkz5sX7a_WiA3dNX0Iu-mZX_zNAH-VA6VJl4TZhkIwJXCFFHjMeer5Ujs03U1aanqbiGgFgEe8OP1FxSTUk6YYGqrRufXnHHnxBg1qbii9iBo0Ip9n0I/s200/latvian1.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I've done a fair amount of research on the line, most notably various threads at the Chesspublishing.com forum. "AMM", in particular, posted some fine analysis here:</div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/chess/YaBB.pl?num=1262014233/90">http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/chess/YaBB.pl?num=1262014233/90</a></div>
<div>
Stefan Bucker had a good analysis on the gambit at Chesscafe.com but his articles went behind a paywall (and the site isn't looking healthy at present anyway).<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
I don't trust the gambit, but I can see why it is popular. Like the similarly dubious Englund Gambit (1.d4 e5), it has the merit of leading to unusual positions in many of the variations. The Svedenborg Variation (3.Bc4 fxe4 4.Nxe5 d5) often leads to considerable chaos with reasonable chances for Black. The main line involves a surprisingly strong exchange sacrifice: 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Nxg6 hxg6 7.Qxh8 Kf7. For this reason, I think White should avoid 3.Bc4, but it will be a natural reaction of many players who have not studied the line.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The variation with 3.exf5 e4 is probably theoretically better for White, especially in the case of 4.Ng1!?, where White argues that in this reversed King's Gambit, but Black can be satisfied with the attacking chances. 3.d4 is slightly better for White with accurate play, but Black has to watch out for a couple of dangerous piece sacs following 3...fxe4 4.Nxe5.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The problems are the simple 3.Nc3, which I think generally leaves Black a pawn down for just half a pawn's worth of compensation, and of course the main line, 3.Nxe5. 3...Nc6 4.Qh5+ and 3...Nf6 4.Bc4 are not looking too good, although 3...Nc6 might be worth a try in blitz games, since it generally leads to positions with insufficient compensation for an exchange.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
3...Qf6 is probably best but it has a few problems. I don't like Black's position after 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Be2 or 6.Nc3, although it is just about playable. After 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3, the 5...Qf7 line leads to dangerous attacking chances for White after 6.Ne3 and 7.d3, so I suggest that aficionados of the black side should rather try 5...Qg6. In general I think this is the hardest line for Black to face psychologically since it tends to be White who gets most of the attacking chances. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Is the Latvian Gambit refuted? It depends on how strong your definition of "refuted" is. I don't think it loses by force, but White certainly has a choice of ways to get a significantly greater-than-normal advantage out of the opening, and there are a few variations where I really wouldn't be happy with Black's position.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The illustrative games and analysis are <a href="http://www.viewchess.com/cbreader/2015/8/10/Game49709936.html">here.</a></div>
Ian Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-364674482640521724.post-42985426985968808872015-07-08T15:47:00.003-07:002015-07-08T15:47:54.715-07:00Evans Gambit coverage completed, some words on the DeclinedAfter a long "hiatus" I have finally completed the section on the Evans Gambit, including a good look at the Evans Gambit Declined: <b>1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bb6.</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_0HrMcFvqBRo6TDj6FO-Lc5PJI3447OovZyX_cm0URnIjYcEoHVud8aCsTMatzts7DGqLiVfqNWIXZFr_L4ZL59-6QAYW70tjeb0_-TDesfyEnymJVZlL-dP6kYPPu342Hxb26ebmbdOI/s1600/evans3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_0HrMcFvqBRo6TDj6FO-Lc5PJI3447OovZyX_cm0URnIjYcEoHVud8aCsTMatzts7DGqLiVfqNWIXZFr_L4ZL59-6QAYW70tjeb0_-TDesfyEnymJVZlL-dP6kYPPu342Hxb26ebmbdOI/s200/evans3.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
I think Mihail Marin was right to give the Evans a lot of respect in his book <i>Beating the Open Games</i>: Black has no simple way to decline the gambit and reach equality, or to accept the gambit, return the pawn and reach equality. Until the early 21st century, it was considered for a long time that <b>4...Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 Nge7 </b>was the fix, but Nigel Short demonstrated in his games that <b>7.Qb3 </b>is harder to crack. Of course, Black has theoretical equality, but typically White ends up with good compensation for a pawn, typically what White wants out of this opening.<br />
<br />
In the Evans Gambit Declined, it seems that 5.b5, Captain Evans's original idea, with the idea of picking up the e5-pawn, is alright, but not a serious try for advantage, if White meets 5...Na5 with the clumsy-looking 6.Bd3. 6.Nxe5 is tactically flawed because White ends up with two pieces attacked following 6...Nh6 7.d4 (otherwise 7...Bd4 forks the knight on e5 and rook on a1) 7...d6.<br />
<br />
Therefore White generally plays 5.a4 with the threat of trapping Black's bishop on b6 with a4-a5, and so Black usually pushes the a7-pawn to give the bishop an escape hatch on a7. My investigations of 5.a4 support the consensus view that 5...a5 is inferior because White can kick the c6-knight away from covering d4 by playing 6.b5, and then get a strong centre with a subsequent d2-d4. <br />
<br />
5...a6 is the strongest response to 5.a4. 6.Bb2, with the idea of playing b4-b5 and not falling into tactical trouble on the a-file because the a1-rook is defended by the bishop on b2, does not appear to promise White much.<br />
The most aggressive way to continue is 6.Nc3 intending 7.Nd5, although given that Black equalises comfortably following 6...Nf6 7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Nd4, I suggest that White should defer the knight intrusion for another move, with 7.0-0, which makes it rather harder for Black to reach equality. Black can generally grab the e4-pawn in these lines, but if so, White gets good compensation.<br />
<br />
The most reliable route to a slight advantage is a slow build-up reminiscent of the closed lines of the Giuoco Piano, with 6.c3 followed by d3, Nbd2 and 0-0. This is pretty risk-free and denies Black much in the way of counterplay, but may not appeal to some fans of this gambit, so I have devoted considerable coverage to both 6.Nc3 and 6.c3.<br />
<br />
I think the biggest issue with the Evans Gambit is not the opening itself, but rather the fact that Black can avoid it with the Two Knights Defence, 3...Nf6. Most in keeping with the aggression associated with the Evans are the 4.Ng5 lines (see <a href="http://www.weebly.com/weebly/main.php">here</a> and <a href="http://www.weebly.com/weebly/main.php">here</a>) and the 4.d4 lines (see <a href="http://www.weebly.com/weebly/main.php">here</a> and <a href="http://www.weebly.com/weebly/main.php">here</a>). If any of these are suitable for you, then I can certainly recommend the Evans Gambit. There's also the argument, if it works fairly well for Nigel Short at grandmaster level, it can't be bad at club level.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://tws27.weebly.com/evans-gambit-declined.html">Evans Declined overview</a><br />
<a href="http://www.viewchess.com/cbreader/2015/7/8/Game19216873.html">In-depth coverage (illustrative games and analysis)</a>Ian Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-364674482640521724.post-88742782001353795592015-05-31T16:19:00.000-07:002015-05-31T16:37:52.172-07:00A couple of recent games in the Sicilian NajdorfI've had a significant operation recently and been recovering, so haven't had much time to concentrate on chess (though I did get the coverage of the King's Gambit completed earlier). <br />
<br />
I have a couple of deeply annotated games in the Sicilian Najdorf with 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.Nf3 d6 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 that I played recently.<br />
<a href="http://www.viewchess.com/cbreader/2015/6/1/Game22003379.html">http://www.viewchess.com/cbreader/2015/6/1/Game22003379.html</a><br />
<br />
Note the fairly unusual move-order. This move-order probably won't be right for most players: it works well if you're happy to play the White side of the <a href="http://tws27.weebly.com/morra-gambit.html">Morra Gambit</a> or the ...d6 lines of the Open Sicilian (while side-stepping lines like the Kan, Taimanov and Lowenthal). The main issue with it is that after 3...a6, 4.c3 is probably best, leading to a Morra, since after 4.Nxd4, after a subsequent ...e7-e5, White doesn't have the b5-square available for the knight on d4, and that after 3...d6 (as played in these games), 4.c3 Nf6 is awkward since 5.e5 (probably best) is now met by 5...dxe5, rather than a transposition into normal c3-Sicilian lines.<br />
<br />
These two games highlight the downside of getting involved in these sort of highly theoretical tactical lines- at club level most of us don't really know what we're doing! But they do tend to produce pretty interesting games. <br />
<br />
Of course, 6.Bg5 is one of the most "theoretical" responses to the Najdorf and there are plenty of ways of playing the Open Sicilian with White that are not as theoretical, though constructing a full Open Sicilian repertoire that both avoids heavy theory and maintains good attacking chances is quite tricky- some compromises will be needed one way or another against certain lines. For those who are interested, <a href="http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/2010/01/five-easy-pieces-open-sicilian.html">Michael Goeller at his Kenilworthian blog</a>, back in January 2010, suggested a relatively aggressive and low-theory approach, mostly involving early f2-f4 advances, but also see the comments section at the end of the article for an illustration of the challenges involved.Ian Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-364674482640521724.post-68926490292303702832015-04-23T12:45:00.004-07:002015-04-23T12:45:30.752-07:00King's Gambit coverage completedIt's been somewhat quiet on here recently, but I've managed to get the King's Gambit coverage at my site completed:<div>
<a href="http://tws27.weebly.com/kings-gambit.html">http://tws27.weebly.com/kings-gambit.html</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This includes coverage of the three most important ways of declining the gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5, 2...d5, and 2...Nc6. Until a few months ago I had not really examined 2...Bc5 and so didn't really know what I was doing when I had it a few times from the White side.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Some comments on individual lines</b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<b>2...d5</b></div>
<div>
The line 2...d5 3.exd5 e4 appears to be slightly better than I had previously thought. Some of Boris Alterman's ideas, e.g. in the lines 4.d3 Nf6 5.dxe4 Nxe4 6.Be3 Bd6!?, and 6.Nf3 c6!?, appear to offer Black reasonable practical chances, although I agree with John Shaw that White should be able to get an advantage with accurate play in all lines. White also appears to be slightly better against 3...c6, so Black's objectively best follow-up to 2...d5 is 3.exd5 exf4, which usually leads to a Modern Defence (2...exf4 3.Nf3 d5) but without allowing 3.Bc4 d5 4.Bxd5. My latest examinations of that line suggest that Black might be able to equalise with accurate play but I find the positions more appealing for White than after 3.Nf3 d5.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>2...exf4 3.Bc4</b></div>
<div>
The most critical test of 3.Bc4 remains <b>3...Nc6</b>. The most critical line runs <b>4.d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Nge2 f3 7.gxf3 d5 8.exd5 Nxd5 9.0-0 Nxc3 10.bxc3 Bd6.</b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFp9X1jIpuJ3R6tWSgnzmzm39T1kPVqjmt4VmGI_77PYAQoeViNV6t2fES_PF-dZrCmiZKCHUStmjqHQ8fZJMj2au_jydF15GHuKHdcedhdJs-XK1YaLpAPaCCnWS2mm9KSGzgyWi8th_o/s1600/bc4nc6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFp9X1jIpuJ3R6tWSgnzmzm39T1kPVqjmt4VmGI_77PYAQoeViNV6t2fES_PF-dZrCmiZKCHUStmjqHQ8fZJMj2au_jydF15GHuKHdcedhdJs-XK1YaLpAPaCCnWS2mm9KSGzgyWi8th_o/s1600/bc4nc6.jpg" height="200" width="200" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
White has the inferior pawn structure and an exposed king, but has plenty of open lines for the bishops and rooks. As White I would be tempted to play Kh1 and Rg1 and make use of the half-open g-file, but it is questionable whether White can make much of this. Probably objectively best is Stefan Bucker's suggestion <b>11.Qd2 </b>intending to encourage a queen exchange with Qg5, and thus making White's exposed king less of a problem, My analysis then runs 11...0-0 12.Qg5 Qxg5+ 13.Bxg5 Bf5 14.Bb3 Na5 15.Ng3 Nxb3 16.axb3. The queenless middlegame gives approximately equal chances and the rival pawn majorities ensure that there is plenty of play left. In view of this, I disagree with John Shaw's claim that 3...Nc6 is a refutation of 3.Bc4, but I think that the resulting positions are generally easier for Black to play than for White.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>2...Bc5</b></div>
<div>
The assessment of this line lies somewhere in the grey area between "=" and "+=" and White tends to get most of the attacking chances, although it is probably Black's best way of getting a fairly closed position with level material against the King's Gambit. If Black's aim is rather just to reach dynamically equal positions with level material then the Modern Defence is a better bet, and if Black has a problem with 3.Bc4 d5 4.Bxd5 then there is 2...d5 3.exd5 exf4.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There is one line recommended by Mihail Marin which has left me wondering:</div>
<div>
<b>3.Nf3 d6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Bc4 Nc6 6.d3 Bg4 7.Na4 0-0 8.Nxc5 dxc5 9.0-0 Qd6 10.f5 Nd4 11.a4 a6 12.c3 b5 13.cxd4 Bxf3</b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOJ1jX_6jaRsLF-INRFSn2t-hyPin1rwVtIThQP_lr-sArkB08Cx_Y0XYcuKZOcaLkj_beFfTAFzAWRIwDQ7_CeiNHmg11EBOFZShQF199uRqFdPj2lRyjPEuYvuT7K7uk_NrIsQqDSP-D/s1600/bc51.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOJ1jX_6jaRsLF-INRFSn2t-hyPin1rwVtIThQP_lr-sArkB08Cx_Y0XYcuKZOcaLkj_beFfTAFzAWRIwDQ7_CeiNHmg11EBOFZShQF199uRqFdPj2lRyjPEuYvuT7K7uk_NrIsQqDSP-D/s1600/bc51.jpg" height="200" width="200" /></a></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
Fedorov-Marin, Eforie Nord 2000 continued with 14.Qxf3 bxc4 here and the game was soon agreed drawn, but why not 14.Bxf7+ followed by 15.Rxf3? I have to admit that <i>Fritz </i>spotted this before I did. It looks quite promising for White.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The sideline 4...Nc6 intending 5.Bc4 Bg4 looks like it may improve slightly over the main line for Black, but White has the option of changing plans with 5.Bb5, whereupon Black's best seems to be to sacrifice a pawn for compensation with 5...Nge7 6.Na4 Bg4 7.fxe5 0-0 8.exd6 Bxd6.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
White can avoid all of this with 4.c3, which works well unless Black finds 4...Bb6! The line appears to offer equal chances in a double-edged position after 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bg4 7.Be3, with the idea of h2-h3 and meeting ...Bg4xf3 with the daring g2xf3, hoping to use the impressive pawn centre to compensate for long-term issues with king safety. 4.c3 thus remains playable but less likely to provide a theoretical edge for White than 4.Nc3.</div>
Ian Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-364674482640521724.post-87211846777432895012015-02-20T17:26:00.001-08:002015-02-20T17:28:54.520-08:00An outing in Lev Gutman's line of the Blackmar-Diemer GambitMy next update to my Gambiteers Guild site will hopefully result in a near-complete coverage of the King's Gambit, as I am currently examining the Falkbeer Counter-Gambit and the Declined, with 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5. It appears that Boris Alterman in his gambit series has come up with some interesting ideas for Black in the "true" Falkbeer (with 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 e4) which, though not bringing Black close to full equality, ensure that the line is worth taking more seriously than I thought.<br />
<br />
Indeed, a few months ago I had quite an embarrassing loss as White in that variation where I played 4.d3 Nf6 5.dxe4 Nxe4 6.Nf3, the most critical response, but then lost my way.<br />
<br />
But while my site continues to get updated slowly, in the meantime I will discuss some of my own practical encounters. <br />
<br />
Remarkably, Lev Gutman's recommendation against the critical Ziegler Defence to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.Bg5 e6 8.Nh4!? Bg6 9.Nxg6 hxg6 10.Qd3) still hasn't been tested according to the Chesslive.de database. But I managed to reach it via transposition in a very recent game of my own. Although I lost the game, I felt that I had decent chances out of the opening.<br />
<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Bc4 Bf5 5. f3 exf3 6. Nxf3 e6 7. Bg5 Nf6 8.</b><br />
<b>Nh4 Bg6 9. Nxg6 hxg6 10. Qd3 Be7 11. O-O-O Nbd7 12. h4 </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnrYYO2SPzCZMPDHq16yvhmfvQq_t5d7UG1aTdDJG9U6hq9id8OGgD3SaC_OHnvcenCVKlyynX7_nkta5byWf0sZtd6bCyUuQME3YUheyQhW5H6Pnp9TjejHFqaofWnL7KB1DBTdqTfJ8p/s1600/bdg2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnrYYO2SPzCZMPDHq16yvhmfvQq_t5d7UG1aTdDJG9U6hq9id8OGgD3SaC_OHnvcenCVKlyynX7_nkta5byWf0sZtd6bCyUuQME3YUheyQhW5H6Pnp9TjejHFqaofWnL7KB1DBTdqTfJ8p/s1600/bdg2.jpg" height="200" width="200" /></a></div>
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<b>12...Nb6 13. Bb3 Nbd5 14. Ne2 </b><b>b5 15. Rhf1 a5 16. c4 bxc4 17. Bxc4 O-O 18. Nf4 Nxf4 19. Bxf4 Nd5 20. Be5 Bf6</b><br />
<b>21. g4 Bxh4 22. Rh1 Bg5+ 23. Kb1 Ne3 24. Rdg1 Nxc4 25. Qh3 f6 26. Qh7+ Kf7 27.</b><br />
<b>Bxf6 Bxf6 28. Rh6 Qxd4 29. Qxg6+ Ke7 30. Rh3 Qxb2# 0-1</b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.viewchess.com/cbreader/2015/2/21/Game29996246.html">http://www.viewchess.com/cbreader/2015/2/21/Game29996246.html</a><br />
<br />
The move-order from the Caro-Kann was pretty unusual- normally Black plays 4...Nf6 and then 5.f3 exf3 6.Nxf3 is a straight transposition to the Ziegler Defence. With the move-order 4...Bf5 5.f3 exf3 6.Nxf3 e6, Black can consider meeting 7.Bg5 with 7...Be7!?, which appears to be completely unexplored. My preliminary suggestion is 8.Qd2 intending 9.0-0-0, and if 8...Bxg5 9.Nxg5.<br />
<br />
With the retreat 14.Ne2 I began to go astray, but the computer suggests that 14.Kb1 would have given White decent compensation for the pawn, and after 14...b5 (the problem with 14.Ne2 is rather 14...Ng4) 15.Nf4 White would also have been doing fine. The final straw was the wildly over-optimistic 25.Qh3?, when I failed to realise that Black could simply create a secure escape hatch for the king with 25...f6. The idea of Qd3-h3 works for White in some lines following the natural recapture with 25.Qxc4. I also missed a "shot" with 24.Bxe6!. <br />
<br />
An interesting fighting game and not particularly discouraging for White's cause, despite the loss. However, I still believe that the most critical line of the Blackmar-Diemer complex is the Gunderam Defence with 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5, rather than 5...c6 6.Bc4 Bf5.Ian Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.com6