08 Feb 11
3 edits
Hello everybody,
I am new to RHP and just finished my first game here with a win. I could tell my opponents was tough so I used the opening where you sacrifice the c and d pawns to gain an attacking position and luckily it paid off. Any thoughts on my game would be appreciated.
Game 8168471
09 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by greenpawn34Göring Gambit 🙂
I think I got it too!
[pgn]
[Event "Open invite"]
[Site "http://www.redhotpawn.com"]
[Date "2011.02.06"]
[EndDate "2011.02.06"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Bushless"]
[Black "teefro"]
[WhiteRating "1476"]
[BlackRating "1251"]
[WhiteELO "1476"]
[BlackELO "1251"]
[Result "1-0"]
[GameId "8168471"]
1. e4 e5 2. Ng1f3 Nb8c6 3. d4 exd4 4. c3 dxc3 5. ...[text shortened]... 3. f4 Bb4c5 14. Kg1h1 h6 15. fxg5 hxg5 16. Qg4h5 Qd8e7 17. Qh5h8[/pgn]
09 Feb 11
4 edits
Originally posted by hedonistDanish Gambit
I would call it the Danish Gambit. Is not the Scotch Gambit when white takes the pawn with the knight on c3?
But I know opening have differing names depending on where your from.
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3
Göring Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3 d4
exd4 4. c3!?
Scotch Gambit
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4
Scotch Game
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4
Of course I may not be right, as I've heard 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3 d4
exd4 4. c3!? Called the Scotch Gambit many times. I always categorized it the way I posted though.
True that about different names for openings. 🙂 Every opening seems to have an alternative name. I used to play the opening name game e.g. Player 1 "Spanish opening" Player2 "Ruy Lopez... Scandinavian Defense" Player 1 "Center Counter... Russian Defense" and so on. 🙂
Last edit: You ever notice how us old codgers go on and on and on and on and... ?
09 Feb 11
Originally posted by ChessPraxisIt's because you were vaccinated with a gramophone needle!
Danish Gambit
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3
Göring Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3 d4
exd4 4. c3!?
Scotch Gambit
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4
Scotch Game
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4
Of course I may not be right, as I've heard 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3 d4
exd4 4. c3!? Called the Scotch Gambit many times. I always categorized it t ...[text shortened]... . 🙂
Last edit: You ever notice how us old codgers go on and on and on and on and... ?
LOL
09 Feb 11
Originally posted by ChessPraxisI like the clarity this post brings, sparing the rest of us a trip to the bookshelf or to google!
Danish Gambit
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3
Göring Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3 d4
exd4 4. c3!?
Scotch Gambit
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4
Scotch Game
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4
Of course I may not be right, as I've heard 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3 d4
exd4 4. c3!? Called the Scotch Gambit many times. I always categorized it t ...[text shortened]... . 🙂
Last edit: You ever notice how us old codgers go on and on and on and on and... ?
I am 45 and started playing competitively when I was in college, and back then computers were new. I think most of us learned the nomeclature of openings because it was a mental shorthand for the moves.
I am guessing on this, but I also think that names for openings are a coping mechanism for us right-brain/language-based types to create a "linguisitic picture" out of a data stream.
10 Feb 11
Originally posted by Paul LeggettYes.
I like the clarity this post brings, sparing the rest of us a trip to the bookshelf or to google!
I am 45 and started playing competitively when I was in college, and back then computers were new. I think most of us learned the nomeclature of openings because it was a mental shorthand for the moves.
I am guessing on this, but I also think that ...[text shortened]... or us right-brain/language-based types to create a "linguisitic picture" out of a data stream.
But also there are those who like chess history.
Take me, I like nananana....🙂
10 Feb 11
Originally posted by hedonistOh, I agree with you, and I don't see those as exclusive. I especially love variations named after players, who played and refined certain ideas in games over a period of time- I see drama and adventure in their stories.
Yes.
But also there are those who like chess history.
Take me, I like nananana....🙂
I do fear that the computer has robbed us of some of that drama, as now variations can be computer tested in a huge number of games before it ever appears in a tournament, if it does at all.
One can only wonder if the Marshall Gambit in the Ruy Lopez would ever have occurred if computers were around at conception. I certainly hope so!
10 Feb 11
Originally posted by Paul LeggettI have nothing to say but... the above😀
Oh, I agree with you, and I don't see those as exclusive. I especially love variations named after players, who played and refined certain ideas in games over a period of time- I see drama and adventure in their stories.
I do fear that the computer has robbed us of some of that drama, as now variations can be computer tested in a huge number of games ...[text shortened]... uy Lopez would ever have occurred if computers were around at conception. I certainly hope so!