chess against computer

Chess Against Computer

Vote and you will gain!
Crazy name, real interests
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
jeffz_2002 99 ( +1 | -1 )
Killed by Steinitz variation (4...Qh4!?) in Scotch Hello,

Playing some blitz for the hell of it, I opened with Scotch game: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 ... all well and good until ... 4. ...Qh4!? Ouch! Naturally I thought to protect e5 by 5. Nc3, but after 5. ... Bb4 N is pinned. I stupidly then tried to protect it with 6. Bd3? which of course led to 6. ... Nxd4, and it was downhill from there.

I searched on the net and saw that a whole book has been written on this variation. Silman mentions a few lines on a site somewhere (Google). So, two parts to this question:

1. Does anyone have a reference to a simple refutation to this line, with annotation?

2. Black effectively gives up his KP and the center pawns after 3. ...exd4. The game being what it is, white will probably have to return the pawn sooner or later, as black has not violated any principles in opening play (this philosophy from Edward Lasker). Since Qh4!? is such a strong strike against e4, should white just give up the pawn and develop the rest of his pieces?
t0ned0g 18 ( +1 | -1 )
hmmmmmmmm...... I don't know the exact line but one knight goes to b5 to smack c7 and the bishop goes to e2 to stop the check when Qxe4......white has to give up the e-pawn but gets good compensation........
ordinary_man 15 ( +1 | -1 )
here you go... 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Qh4!? 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Be2! Qxe4 7.Ndb5 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Kd8 9.0-0 Nf6 10.Be3 Re8 11.Re1 Qd5 12.Qc1

This from Nunn's Chess Openings and evaluates white as slightly better.
atrifix 13 ( +1 | -1 )
4... Qh4!? 1) Well, there is no refutation.

2) Here's the main line:

5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Be2 Qxe4 (6... Nf6?! 7. 0-0 Bxc3 8. Nf5! Qxe4 9. Bd3+/-) 7. Ndb5 Bxc3+ 8. bxc3 Kd8 9. 0-0 Nf6 (or 9... a6 10. Nd4+/-) 10. Be3 Re8 11. Re1 Qd5 12. Qc1 is given as +=.
javelin 22 ( +1 | -1 )
Heres how (modern) scotch is played by pros

goto the last few pages (fast forward picture) for the latest games of 2002 and 2001
mrzor 61 ( +1 | -1 )
I agree with atrifix: There is no refutation of 4...Qh4.

In fact, the line given above is probably not the most troublesome, as black can improve:

11...d6 (instead of 11...Qd5) takes the sting out of White's idea Qc1-a3. Gutman's main line goes thus:
12.Rb1 Re7 13.Nd4 Nxd4 14.cxd4 Bg4 15.Bxg4 Qxg4 16.Qxg4 Nxg4 17.Rxb7 Kd7 18.h3 Nxe3 19.Rxe3 Rxe3 20.fxe3 Kc8 21.Rb3 Rb8 22.Kf2 Rb6 23.Ra3 Kb7 24.Rb3 c5 and "The rook ending should be drawn, but I still prefer black" - Gutman.

Of course there are plenty of possibilities to vary from this line, the discussion as to who's better here is wide open. It's just the current theoretical view on this particular line.

paulvalle 16 ( +1 | -1 )
no refutation, but some analysis:
nightwalker 70 ( +1 | -1 )
Steinitz Variation!! I have been playing the Steinitz variation and have been doing personal research into it for my homepage(
The line the_ordinary_man talks of is new to me as after castles I always place my knight on e7! board #292899 This is a game I played on gameknot and it was the first time I had played this variation but as my opponent was a very good player I am very proud of the game. If anyone wants to play the scotch opening against me I will be more than happy to play the Steinitz Variation!
All players welcome. :)
tovmauzer 8 ( +1 | -1 )
Paulvalle Must be very interesting link, but it demands some kind of login...
zdrak 16 ( +1 | -1 )
Here's another article about 4...Qh4: