If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
If Marshall can draw Capablanca in a Danish Gambit there's absolutely no harm in wheeling something like this out in a weekend tournament against the locals...
If Marshall can draw Capablanca in a Danish Gambit there's absolutely no harm in wheeling something like this out in a weekend tournament against the locals...
The Winckleman - Reimer Gambit. Black should probably win but may never have seen this before. Even if he has, it's not an easy win, even with a computer.
"Black can actually play on in the final position and Bryson-Flear, British Ch (Edinburgh) 1985 continued 16...Qa2 17.Ra1 Qc4 18.Rc1 Qb4! 19.Rb1 Qd6 20.Rxb7 O-O, when White was struggling to justify being a pawn down." - John Emms, Play the Open Games as Black. It should be noted that the Capablanca game was played in round 9 of a 10 round event and Capa was leading the field by a full point at the time.
If Marshall can draw Capablanca in a Danish Gambit there's absolutely no harm in wheeling something like this out in a weekend tournament against the locals...
i'm sure fritz or rybka or whomever has busted this, but hopefully your mark at the weekend tournament doesn't have their assistance :)
Last time I looked I was convinced that 10.Qb3 is White's best move in the critical position at move ten in this line. I was also convinced that the queenless middlegame is equal after 10...Qxb3 11.axb3, when Black can play safely with 11...Nge7, or more adventureously with 11...Nxd4!? :D. In addition, Black is given a chance to go wrong with the excessively risky 10...Qxd4 (when White proceeds with 11.0-0).
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
The Winckleman - Reimer Gambit. Black should probably win but may never have seen this before. Even if he has, it's not an easy win, even with a computer.
Ban the Winawer. Bah! Humbug!
The Winawer is, of course, eminently playable ;). One thing, though, there are many deviations both sides can make from the main lines. Black really ought to do his homework (and there is lots!) and be ready for even fourth move deviations from 4.e5 by White, although most of these are relatively harmless in theory and hardly anyone plays these against myself and other local French players.
However 4.exd5 and 4.Nge2 are fairly serious attempts if White is aiming for a draw. Meanwhile a one-time Fischer favourite in 4.a3, the move you've mentioned in conjunction with a dubious gambit :D, dropped in popularity after a well-known Fischer loss. It's main lines are not completely without venom, however, and I've recently been on both sides of the sort of positions that arise (one game began 1.a3, and I unwisely allowed a Winawer reversed where I played an early ...a6, and after Bxc6+ White had a potentially useful a2-a3 tempo thrown in compared to normal positions with colours reversed - luckily I won anyway).
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
The Winawer is, of course, eminently playable ;). One thing, though, there are many deviations both sides can make from the main lines. Black really ought to do his homework (and there is lots!) and be ready for even fourth move deviations from 4.e5 by White, although most of these are relatively harmless in theory and hardly anyone plays these against myself and other local French players.
However 4.exd5 and 4.Nge2 are fairly serious attempts if White is aiming for a draw. Meanwhile a one-time Fischer favourite in 4.a3, the move you've mentioned in conjunction with a dubious gambit :D, dropped in popularity after a well-known Fischer loss. It's main lines are not completely without venom, however, and I've recently been on both sides of the sort of positions that arise (one game began 1.a3, and I unwisely allowed a Winawer reversed where I played an early ...a6, and after Bxc6+ White had a potentially useful a2-a3 tempo thrown in compared to normal positions with colours reversed - luckily I won anyway).
Hi Kevin,
Well, lots of things are playable but may not be that winnable.
I would suppose most opening gambits are dubious. After all, the gambiteer is giving up material in exchange for some initiative and these days computers find a way to neutralise the initiative leaving the gambiteer simply a pawn down.
Some gambits are better than others. By the way, I gave the wrong comment for 5. f3. It should be ?! rather than the !? I mistakenly typed.
I think Thomas Winckelmann (I hope I spelled his name correctly as he has picked me up on it before) wrote books on that gambit. I know somewhere on my hard drive I have a database of games on that gambit using the different lines.
The things with gambits is they are fun to play. At least I always found them that way. They have always kept my interest in the game over the decades. Those gambits used to be good at coffee house chess. Those were the days. I'm more hung up on having fun than my rating unless I'm playing for titles or a prize.
The French is not really my style from the black side. If the opponent wants an easy game he simply plays the Tarrasch. Black gets to try the draw line or has to remember a ton of theory to try for a win. Some players aren't that good at beating the Winawer but those who are seem to do it often.
Anyhow, I'm back playing on our private CC team this year. I took a break last time for health reasons. We're the Gambiteer's Guild. The games start the 25th of this month.
If Marshall can draw Capablanca in a Danish Gambit there's absolutely no harm in wheeling something like this out in a weekend tournament against the locals...
Gambits aren't always as bad as their reputation; in some of the better ones, if White is offering the material, the positions in their critical lines may be rather unclear, or with compensation for White, rather than clearly equal (which would be a definite moral defeat for the first player in theory).
That would seem to make these better gambits (of which, in this case, the Danish [or a line of the Goring by transposition some might say] is not one, most people would say) seem as good as mainline openings.
The problem with even these better gambits is usually practical, for serious players: normally there are not many variations the defender has to remember to reach a playable, albeit unclear position, if he avoids the (often well-known) traps, as often White has little choice but to go down a narrow path in order to avoid standing equal or worse. This essentially means a serious player can't really play such 'limited' or unsubstantial openings all their life without also adopting mainline openings (which are richer in choice of decent variations for both sides) anyway. Hence most serious players, not trusting even these better gambits entirely in the first place, seldom or never play them, especially as their frontline openings.
By better gambits (for White) I am thinking of such gambits as the Evans (again respected these days since Kasparov's usage, although I've had such faith in it, since long ago, that I've used it as a frontline opening), and possibly the King's Gambit (depending whether White finds being on the defensive [when in some critical cases Black sacs material for compensation] to be acceptable). The King's Gambit is good to know, however if you play the Bird's Opening, in case Black offers the From and you wish to avoid it, at least on occasion. However, the Bird is of course an opening that most serious players seldom use, for different reasons than for the King's Gambit.
Nowadays even the Benko Gambit (a Black gambit) is considered suspect, at least at the highest levels. It is rich for choice of variations for both sides, however. The stats in my database for high level games with White playing ECO's ultimate mainline (White castling by hand, with the king going to g2) are grim for Black if he's hoping for a win; today's high level players know how to defend with White, at least in slow games.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
...lots of things are playable but may not be that winnable... The French is not really my style from the black side. If the opponent wants an easy game he simply plays the Tarrasch. Black gets to try the draw line or has to remember a ton of theory to try for a win. Some players aren't that good at beating the Winawer but those who are seem to do it often.
The stats for the Winawer aren't that bad, at least in databases I've seen (I know it's been mentioned before...). Even compared to the Sicilian, the French as a whole is a good winning weapon, especially if Black doesn't face the Tarrasch, and uses the Winawer when possible. The Sicilian does have a lesser-known problem with the c3-Anti Sicilian, however, if White wants a draw.
In the Winawer Black stats are moderately less favourable than for the Najdorf, though, since for one thing in the Winawer Black more often has to soak up some early pressure before returning fire. Even then he may have to win a long game, which may give more chances to drop the ball than in a typical Najdorf. I suspect many Black player's styles may be less often suitable for the need for strategic, defensive and technical skills, as opposed to the more commonly satisfied stylistic demands made of those playing the Najdorf, where for one thing memory work counts for more.
The French Tarrasch is a variation where the tendency is often towards a draw, but if either player wants to win then they need to take special risks against a strong opponent bent on drawing. That would mean, in Black's case, avoiding isolated d-pawn lines, and even many of the more dynamic 3...Nf6 lines have to be bypassed. My own favourite is the Guimard (3...Nc6), which may be due for a revival. Watson recommended it in a recent Dangerous Weapons series book on the French, though I've played it for years. Black's stats are good, but it hasn't been fashionable in high level play for decades. Supposedly many += lines for White, but they might be peeled away one by one, if one is open minded.
...I would suppose most opening gambits are dubious. After all, the gambiteer is giving up material in exchange for some initiative and these days computers find a way to neutralise the initiative leaving the gambiteer simply a pawn down....
The things with gambits is they are fun to play. At least I always found them that way. They have always kept my interest in the game over the decades. Those gambits used to be good at coffee house chess. Those were the days. I'm more hung up on having fun than my rating unless I'm playing for titles or a prize.
The books have for ages given most gambits the rush out the door, and so it's not surprising that computers (or good players, even in days gone by) dispatch most gambits handily. Gambits are fun to play against weaker players in particular, because quite often it promises a quick trip to the bar, in my case (sometimes they play on down the house, though...:(). Good fun, but gambits don't always make your chess skill better sooner in the long run since they often win just by traps.
Gambits are less reliable against peers, and often do worse than mainline openings in games amongst master-strength players or above. In the case of the Goring gambit I quit using it while I was ahead, once I realized that a book that I had on it didn't tell the whole story anymore. Even though I had a perfect score with it, including vs. masters, it was against my principles to continue with it when I could finally convince myself Black ought to equalize by force. Even against much weaker players, I would just use the Evans, or possibly the KG, nowadays if I was in the mood to gambit against 1.e4 e5.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Thursday, 21st January, 2010, 04:11 PM.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Oddly or not, I don't think I have any books that mention this gambit.
I visited your given linked blog briefly, and I saw that the author was interested in the Jerome Gambit as White, but even the analysis given there seemed to show that Black is quite fine in theory, if he plays properly, despite the ultimate result of the games given.
As I mentioned in a comment on the Goring Gambit in an earlier post, I gave that one up as soon as I convinced myself Black could equalize by force. I'm sure that, like with the Jerome Gambit, I could beat a weaker/much weaker player with it, or almost any opening, but usually, if the game matters at all, I'd stick to my principles and play an opening that has a better theoretical status for White. In the case of the Jerome Gambit, White probably shouldn't even get equality if Black plays well.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Wednesday, 20th January, 2010, 03:32 PM.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
This blog mentions the sequence 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6. To show that people play just about anything, an expert-strength player in my old Brampton club (then not CFC rating its games) played this 'opening' now and then. Apperently it had some theory devoted to it, at least back in his homeland.
White needs to play precisely, it would seem, to make the most out of his position. My own analysis (without a computer or books, etc.) would go:
4.d4!
(if 4.0-0 Black has 4...Nf6 and after 5.d4 he can play 5...d6 without dropping a pawn; if 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 then possible is 5...exd4 [5...d6 is 'solid'] with the idea 6.cxd4 Bb4+ and Black has the extra move ...h6 included in an otherwise normal mainline, or 6.e5 with the idea 6...d5 7.Bb5 Ne4 and if 8.Nxd4 White almost has a mainline position, except Black has traded ...h6 for c2-c3, which may not be too much of a gain for White)
4...exd4
(4...d6? drops a pawn after 5.dxe5)
5.0-0!
(not 5.Nxd4 when Black can play 5...Nf6 or the more adventurous 5...Ne5)
and White has a favourable version of a normal mainline, where Black has substituted ...h6 for the more useful ...Nf6. Play might continue 5...Bc5 6.c3! and if 6...dxc3 (better is 6...d3, but White stands better after 7.b4) 7.Bxf7+! (a familiar trick for Italian/Evans Gambit players) 7...Kxf7 8.Qd5+, intending Qxc5 with advantage:
For example, now 8...Ke8 (to avoid Qxc5 with check) could be answered by 9.Qxc5 anyway, with advantage in spite of ...cxb2 since the displacement of the Black king is worth more than the pawn. However 9.Qh5+ works, as 9...g6 10.Qxg6+ Kf8 (10...Ke7 11.Qg7+) 11.Qf5+ Qf6 (or ...Nf6) allows 12.Qxc5 with check anyway, followed by Qxc3.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Thursday, 21st January, 2010, 04:12 PM.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Tweet
Comment