87 ( +1 | -1 )
Game for analysis...
I've always wanted to show that game for analysis. I have some remarks on it; but I'll review and post them later.
Just one note: First move to be evaluated is 10. Bb3 (opening is well known Latvian gambit). 10. Bb3 looks as weak, but this game shows that after many moves that Bishop takes its role. At 10. Be2 the Bishop still isn't very active...
[Event "Bishop opening; 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4"]
[Site "-> gameknot.com
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 f5 3. Nf3 fxe4 4. Nxe5 d5 5. Qh5+ g6
6. Nxg6 Nf6 7. Qe5+ Be7 8. Nxe7 Qxe7 9. Qxe7+ Kxe7 10. Bb3 Rg8
11. g3 Nc6 12. d3 exd3 13. cxd3 Ne5 14. Ke2 Bg4+ 15. Ke3 Bf5
16. d4 Nfg4+ 17. Ke2 Be4 18. Re1 Nf3 19. Rd1 Nfxh2 20. Nd2 Bd3+
21. Kxd3 Nxf2+ 22. Ke2 Nxd1 23. Bxd5 Rxg3 24. Kxd1 c6 25. Be4 Ng4
26. Bxh7 Rh8 27. Be4 Rd8 28. Kc2 Rxd4 29. b3 1/2-1/2
62 ( +1 | -1 )
Beginning of annotation
2. Bc4 f5!?
First two White's moves were mandatory as there was Bishop opening MT see (-> gameknot.com. I start it by wanting (partly) to experience as Black the Calabrese (counter-)gambit [It's strange why it is called counter-gambit if it's a pure gambit...] It is called by name of Gioachino Greco, also known as Il Calabrese (17 century) who used it.
This move allows transform the game into Latvian gambit area as it was done in the text.
As the best moves books points 3. d3, 3. Nc3 or 3. d4!? An interesting move is 3. f4!?
Are somebodies there wanting the annotation to be continued?
49 ( +1 | -1 )
Yes. I do. The Latvian gambit used to be one of my favorite openings, though
I didn't play it regularly. But as a change from a regular diet of French defences, I found the Latvian and the Schliemann very refreshing...
It was called a 'counter gambit', as I understand it by the way, because it is a gambit played by Black.
I've played through your game and find it is a line with which i am unfamiliar, though obviously having the same 'parentage' as a line analysed by Paul Keres, many years ago.
36 ( +1 | -1 )
I wonder if Black ought not to have got more from such activity as obtained in this game. You seemed always to be on the edge of knocking over your opponent, but without being able to deliver the knockout punch. The final position doesn't seem to offer much for black, so if there is a win, maybe it has to be found earlier on?
48 ( +1 | -1 )
Final position looks like there is a small edge for Black (not sure), but I already was tired with that game and agreed for a draw.
Yep I felt that White are on the edge of loosing - but I still could find the critical place where (if) I could enhance my game. So I have an intention to annotate the game to know moves, and them try to re-analyse it.
My opponent, pigonthe7th, said he is writing some notes and thinks to publish them here.
5 ( +1 | -1 )
Sorry, it must be "I still couldn't find"
37 ( +1 | -1 )
I will try to analyze this game, but it will take me quite awhile if you want the analysis to be more than superficial. I don't really know what to say about the opening (other than it seems to me that the critical test is 8. Bb5+ c6 9. Nxh8), so I'm going to start analyzing at move 10. At this point all I can say is I do not think 10. Bb3 is best, and the final position looks equal to me.
58 ( +1 | -1 )
Tnx to atrifix
No, no any problem about time - the game was finished about year ago - and I time to time return to it and re-play it...
Yep, 8. Bb5+ c6 9. Nxh8 are one of main lines, but 8. Nxe7 Qxe7 9. Qxe7+ Kxe7 has also been played and known. Then, the main continuation has to be 10. Bb5 c6 11. Be2 - with idea that pawn on c6 takes a good place of Knight [does not allow to develop Black Knight through c6]...
But my main interest is if Black could obtain some additional benefice if White plays text's move 10. Bb3 and if could enhance their game after that move...
25 ( +1 | -1 )
You wrote: "It was called a 'counter gambit', as I understand it by the way, because it is a gambit played by Black."
Yep, it could... but so many gambits for Black are called as GAMBITS and not as counter-gambits -and it is interesting why this gambit is one of very rare (or, maybe, alone) exception....
71 ( +1 | -1 )
Good point, and I don't really know the answer. I suspect, though, 'countergambit' is an appellation losing its currency. It refers to a number of rather old gambits (Albin, Falkbeer, Queen's Pawn... all played by Black). But some of these at least have acquired more modern names, e.g the Latvian Gambit for Greco Countergambit, or Elephant Gambit or Maroczy Gambit for Queen's Pawn Countergambit. Oddly enough, some gambit openings aren't called gambits, e.g. the 'main' line of the 2 Knights' Defence, or even the Wilkes-Barre (Traxler) line in the 2 Knights'. Like a good many things, there seems to be less 'system' than appears at first sight.
48 ( +1 | -1 )
This is my analysis of your game. It's not much, very basic, probably missing a lot of things but hopefully this will help you.
On move three white could have tried 3.d3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bb4 where the premature movement of the f7-pawn creates positional problems for Black along the a2-g8 diagonal.
The critical move that gives black the advantage is 14. Ke2. 14. 0-0 is better.
Nobody missed any tactical points as far as I can see, and after 28...Rxd4 the game is exactly even (according to Chessmaster)
54 ( +1 | -1 )
Tnx to luke_mcmullan
You wrote: "after 28...Rxd4 the game is exactly even (according to Chessmaster)"
I don't very believe in chess engines :-) but some rational points are in them :-)
You and atrifix state, that final position is about even...
Maybe, but I still think there are a small advantage for black --- as they still have some kind of initiative. But there are so subtle things...
I suggest to all to do (parallelly with game annotation) an analysis of final position, too.
73 ( +1 | -1 )
Line of luke_mcmullan
"3.d3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bb4"
That is a line from 'pure' Calabrese counter-gambit [our game transformed into Latvian gambit]. In this option
4. Nf3!? could be very attractive as attempt to play King gambit reversed (Fisher variation?) with extra tempo...
Instead, 4. Nc3 allows White to avoid some very complicate positions and could be good option. I'm suggesting one game as example played by Lithuanian as Black (maybe not the best) using this line:
[White "Brethauer,Sarah"] [Black "Lasinskas,Povilas"]
[Date "2002.08"][Result "0-1"]
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 f5 3.d3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.Nge2 Na5 6.Bb3 Nxb3 7.axb3 Bc5 8.0-0 0-0
9.h3 d6 10.Kh1 f4 11.f3 Nh5 12.Qe1 Be6 13.Na4 Be3 14.Bxe3 fxe3 15.Ng3 Nf4 16.Nf5 Bxf5 17.exf5 Qg5 18.Rg1 Qxf5 19.Kh2 Rf6 20.g4 Rh6 21.Rg3 Qg5 22.Nc3 Rf8 23.Qxe3 Qh4 24.g5 Nxh3 25.gxh6 Nf4+ 26.Kg1 Qxg3+ 27.Kf1 Ng2 0-1
But better to return to our game...
56 ( +1 | -1 )
To ionadowman about Countergambits
Maybe, in the past was a practise to call all gambits played by Black as counter-gambits. But by idea (as I understand), a countergambit is a gambit played as an answer to gambit played by opponent - as example - Falkbeer countergambit: 1. e4 e5 2. f4 (White has an iintention to plays the King gambit offering the pawn) 2. ... d5! - Black doesn accept offering of White and offers HIS pawn in his .
So I suggest, - all titles from older times still have part 'countergambit', but newer ones are called as gambit.
Just small note: Ruy Lopez is a [counter-]gambit too! - but it is not called in this way... :-)
60 ( +1 | -1 )
I, too, thought that countergambits were Black's attempt to cut across White gambits as you describe, loreta. That was until I discovered the Greco and the QP c/gambits (several brazillion years ago now). I'm not sure I follow your reasoning in respect of the Ruy Lopez: gambits I thought were openings in which one side offered material for gains in tempo or position. Tarrasch put it a bit more cynically: "A gambit is an opening in which one side gives up material for the sake of getting a lost game." I have a slightly different view, of course! Naturally the Ruy does include some gambit lines...
30 ( +1 | -1 )
Ruy Lopez is gambit as after 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 - Black offers a pawn
4. Bxc6 dc 5. Nxe5
Let's look what it's there - Black offered material (the pawn e5) for gain of position (White after talking the pawn has no advantage)... So main lines of Ruy Lopez with 3. a6 (and many others) are [counter-]gambits... :-)
124 ( +1 | -1 )
More options (opinions)
I posted that game at google chess group to show it to more audience and to get more replies - there I'm sharing main ideas:
Fritz8 rates the final position as roughly even. Black played the
opening badly, and would have been completely busted had White played
8.Nxh8 instead of 8.Nxe7.
Black's 10...Rg8 is not bad; perhaps 10...Nc6 or 10...Be6 were
better, but not by much.]
[Antonio Torrecillas disagree:
In my database there are 58 games with your proposed line (8.Nxh8?!)
with only a 25% for white.
There are 214 games with the critical line 8.Bb5+! c6 9.Nxe7 Qxe7
10.Qxe7 Kxe7 11.Be2 (black has no avaiable ...Nc6) with a 51% for white,
... not very impresive!
That mean this position is known (theroretically speaking) and Fritz
proposals must be taken with great care. (Other critical moves are
7.Qxh8 and 7.Qxg6)
In my opinion something was wrong because black seem near to a win after
move 15th ... but it seems a like a computer assited game and in order
to concrete a moment to obtain advantage with black, it's needed many
time and a good plan with careful calculation.]
[Ray Gordon summarises:
Only GOD can do that]
91 ( +1 | -1 )
H'mmm... An interesting notion: that in playing 1.e4 e5, 2.Nf3, Nc6 3.Bb5 a6, Black is playing a gambit, since there is nothing to stop 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.Nxe5(?) aside from White's 5th move not being very good. So if white doesn't play the Exchange Variation, then it's the Ruy Lopez Gambit Declined! Well, if you like, though I don't buy it (sorry!). Black gets the P back at once with a fine game; not really a gambit (Tho' just to confuse the issue, I don't really think of the Queen's Gambit so-called as a gambit, either). I have played on GK a gambit line in this very variation though: a (temporary) sacrifice of a B on g4 to open up the h-file against the White K.
I find the discussion of Fritz's conclusions, and database ... er... data most interesting. My own sources (based on Keres's analysis) seems to prefer 8.Bb5+! etc, but make no comment on 8.Nxh8. Keres must have looked at the latter move, surely...
26 ( +1 | -1 )
You wrote: " have played on GK a gambit line in this very variation though: a (temporary) sacrifice of a B on g4 to open up the h-file against the White K"
Do you mean Alapin variation? One of my last games on GK is by using that line (as White): 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5. 0-0 Bg4 6. h3 h5!
5 ( +1 | -1 )
That's the one! Fun, isn't it? I'll just dash off and have a look...
12 ( +1 | -1 )
Not one of your active games (I see you like the Schliemann, as well!)
Your other games too long ago to access. How did you get on?
40 ( +1 | -1 )
Finished game (Alapin in Ruy Lopez)
That is my last finished game against therealjimfriar
No access to it, already :-) But it isn't very interestng as went 20+ moves in known areas and only then I did my first move to side - anyway, after few moves we agreed a draw... Anyway, if you want to see it, I'll try to extract its text [I've it in Lithuanian notation, so I could transfer it to English one]
63 ( +1 | -1 )
Alapin Variation in the Ruy
I played this line in April I think. I won in 17 moves, but it was by no means as one-sided as that sounds! It got very complicated, both sides tried to attack on the K-side of the board, and the position after white's 17th I thought was lost for Black! But then I found the winning move. Actually I had foreseen the position, and was looking for alternatives when the killer move occurred to me. Quite an exciting brevity:
[myntzky v ionadowman] 1e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.O-O Bg4 6.d3 h5
7.h3 Bd6?! 8.hxg4 hxg4 9.Ng5 Nh6 10.Nxf7 Kxf7 11.g3 g5 12.Be3 Qf6 13.f3 Kg7 14.Nd2 Qe6 15.f4? [I began fancying my chances after this...] 15...exf4 16.gxf4 Nf5! 17.Qxg4 [You can see why at first glance I thought this was good for White!] 17...Qh6! 0-1
19 ( +1 | -1 )
Another note from Antonio Torrecillas:
[I wanted to write about 6...hxg6 7.Qxg6 (I have 701 games, 43% for
white) and 6...hxg6 7.Qxh8 (I have 593 games, 41% for white) as another
critical possibilities in this complicated line. ]
18 ( +1 | -1 )
Antonio Torrecillas: about final position
A bit different opinion than mine:
[ I think final position can be played, specially for white because if
white can finish his development black can have some problems. ]
18 ( +1 | -1 )
that I give so little attention last time - just I was too busy and I'm still in some troubles... I wish I prepare next portion of annotation during week-end...
30 ( +1 | -1 )
I found new article:
The Psychology of Gambit Chess Openings
by Clyde Nakamura (big lover and user of gambits)
Note: As GK has an error interpreting this urkl - I posted it without http://
Just copy link and paste into new browser
17 ( +1 | -1 )
I signed to 6th championship of Latvian gambit...
I hope to get new ideas and would share them... after a year...
--->>>> Anyway, I'd like to see more comments to this game...
2 ( +1 | -1 )
48 ( +1 | -1 )
...Quite an interesting and informative article on Chessville. I found it by the way by searching for 'Psychology of Gambit Openings'. It was at the top of the list. I almost always prefer searches over addresses to find things...
My problem with gambits lately is that my opponents seem able to suck the life out of them, whence material deficits do become a serious consideration. Mind you, I seem lately to be drifting into inferior lines in most of my games. Could be a lesson here...
7 ( +1 | -1 )
After 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. Nxe5 the fork 5... Qd4 regains the pawn