Only Chess
01 Aug 08
02 Aug 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt was an exhibition game in which Kasparov's opening moves were forced on him. No wonder he was disgusted!
i recall a very famous game in which Nigel Short employed 2.Bc4 and Garry Kasparov replied with an unusual counter gambit, but got pasted in 15 or so moves, later i think he was quite annoyed as he really detested his position as black,
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Qh4+ 4. Kf1 b5 5. Bxb5 Nf6 6. Nf3 Qh5 7. Nc3 g5 8.d4 Bb7 9. h4 Rg8 10. Kg1 gxh4 11. Rxh4 Qg6 12. Qe2 Nxe4 13. Rxf4 f5 14. Nh4 Qg315. Nxe4 1-0
02 Aug 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBecause it was (as I said above) an exhibition game. Presumably his bank account was suitably recompensed. The opening (with 3...b5?!) was of course used in the famous Immortal Game. I can assure you Kasparov wouldn't dream of playing such a move on his own free will. But maybe, just like Ronaldo, he was just being a slave.
how was it possible that his opening moves were forced upon him?
02 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Northern LadI am struggling now to find improvements for white after
If there is a refutation of the KG, it will almost certainly be 3...g5 (after 3.Nf3). But even if that is ever proved (which I somewhat doubt), there will still be 3.Bc4, not to mention 3.Nc3!? and 3d4!?, neither of which has ever been convincingly refuted.
1. e5 .. e5;
2. f4 .. eXf;
3. Nf3 .. g5;
4. h4 .. g4;
5. Ne5 ......
I have had a lot of success with this opening but have found some lines where if black plays accurately white seems unable to gain an advantage. I need to analyse these games thoroughly assisted by Fritz when I get a chance (probably when I have no games on the go to worry about) and see if I can find salvation for white. I deliberately say assisted by Fritz because in this opening engines are not that good at finding the best moves for white and lines need to be played through 3 or 4 moves or even more to determine if they work or not.
In the meantime I have acquired Johanssons' book "Fascinating Kings Gambit" and will explore 3. Bc4.
02 Aug 08
Originally posted by Dragon FireGallagher's Winning With The King's Gambit has nearly 30 pages of analysis of the Kieseritzky Gambit.
I am struggling now to find improvements for white after
1. e5 .. e5;
2. f4 .. eXf;
3. Nf3 .. g5;
4. h4 .. g4;
5. Ne5 ......
I have had a lot of success with this opening but have found some lines where if black plays accurately white seems unable to gain an advantage. I need to analyse these games thoroughly assisted by Fritz when I get a chan ...[text shortened]... meantime I have acquired Johanssons' book "Fascinating Kings Gambit" and will explore 3. Bc4.
Well worth getting a second-hand copy of the book if you haven't already.
02 Aug 08
Originally posted by SquelchbelchMost of the analysis in his book has unfortunately been superseded in the time that has passed since its publication. I've played the black side of the Kieseritzky for a long time; I don't feel black has any real problems there, although there are still one or two lines that are a little unclear. As white I've mostly played 4.d4 recently. 4...g4 5.Bxf4 is an interesting piece sac, though it appears black can force a draw if he wishes.
Gallagher's Winning With The King's Gambit has nearly 30 pages of analysis of the Kieseritzky Gambit.
Well worth getting a second-hand copy of the book if you haven't already.
03 Aug 08
Originally posted by Northern Ladhaha, ok 'DUDE', what whatever you say, anyhow what about this line that my friend, who is rated 1900+ has 'trouble', with, 1.e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4!? Bg7 5. 0-0 d6 6. d4 h6 7. c3 Nc6 8. Qa4 , which covers the 'refutation', if there is one of you're, 'almost certainly', '3..g5, which he states he cannot find in any books on the subject, he has tried 8..Na5 without success, he reckons its probably equal but quite messy and heading for uncharted territory. p.s and i would appreciate it if you referred to me as robbie carrobie da dude.😀
If there is a refutation of the KG, it will almost certainly be 3...g5 (after 3.Nf3). But even if that is ever proved (which I somewhat doubt), there will still be 3.Bc4, not to mention 3.Nc3!? and 3d4!?, neither of which has ever been convincingly refuted.
03 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'd certainly very much appreciate it if you didn't refer to me as 'dude'! As it happens, I've played 8.Qa4!? a few times on RHP with both white and black (and once OTB as white). Black's best response is probably 8...Kf8!
haha, ok 'DUDE', what whatever you say, anyhow what about this line that my friend, who is rated 1900+ has 'trouble', with, 1.e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4!? Bg7 5. 0-0 d6 6. d4 h6 7. c3 Nc6 8. Qa4 , which covers the 'refutation', if there is one of you're, 'almost certainly', '3..g5, which he states he cannot find in any books on the subject, h ...[text shortened]... ry. p.s and i would appreciate it if you referred to me as robbie carrobie da dude.😀
I'm not surprised your friend hasn't had much success with 8...Na5. It puts a piece en prise! By the way 8.Qa4!? is given in the Russian Encyclopedia Modern Chess Opening ('Sovryemyenny Shakhmatny Dyebyut'😉 as a reasonable alternative for white.
03 Aug 08
Originally posted by Northern Laddude, now perhaps most familiar as a slang term with a wide range of uses including use as an all-purpose interjection for expressing approval: “Dude!”, and actually this is a forum for discussing chess not ones personal preferences, so i would be obliged if in future you refrained from doing so, however if it offends you i will refrain, so to chess, you are correct, i wonder if instead of Qa4 he meant 8.Qb3 ..Na5, Bxf7 i will need to quiz him, anyhow i thank you for you're wisdom and hope that my predilection for informality and friendliness has not imposed itself on your sensitivities too much - regards Robbie.
I'd certainly very much appreciate it if you didn't refer to me as 'dude'! As it happens, I've played 8.Qa4!? a few times on RHP with both white and black (and once OTB as white). Black's best response is probably 8...Kf8!
I'm not surprised your friend hasn't had much success with 8...Na5. It puts a piece en prise! By the way 8.Qa4!? is given in the ...[text shortened]... ess Opening ('Sovryemyenny Shakhmatny Dyebyut'😉 as a reasonable alternative for white.
03 Aug 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think it is a matter of common courtesy (at least this side of the pond) not to refer to people in a way they don't wish to be addressed. 'Dude' may infer 'informality and friendliness' in the US, but I'm not American. It just sounds crass to me.
dude, now perhaps most familiar as a slang term with a wide range of uses including use as an all-purpose interjection for expressing approval: “Dude!”, and actually this is a forum for discussing chess not ones personal preferences, so i would be obliged if in future you refrained from doing so, however if it offends you i will refrain, so to chess, ...[text shortened]... mality and friendliness has not imposed itself on your sensitivities too much - regards Robbie.
As far as the chess point you make is concerned, I rather suspect your friend may have meant 8.Qa4 Bd7 9.Qb3 Na5, which is rather unclear after 10.Bxf7+ Kf8 11.Qa3 Kxf7 12.Qxa5 Kg6 13.g3.
03 Aug 08
Originally posted by Northern Ladim not American either, im Scottish and reside in Glasgow, 'the friendly city', and yes the word can have derogatory connotations as in someone who wears rather 'sharp' clothing, you don't wear sharp clothing do you? you know anything that's a bit, 'funky', anyhow as i have already stated i will refrain, no need to labour the point is there? and yes I think that this may have been the line, what is interesting is that there is still much uncharted water out there - regards Robbie.
I think it is a matter of common courtesy (at least this side of the pond) not to refer to people in a way they don't wish to be addressed. 'Dude' may infer 'informality and friendliness' in the US, but I'm not American. It just sounds crass to me.
As far as the chess point you make is concerned, I rather suspect your friend may have meant 8.Qa4 Bd7 9.Qb3 Na5, which is rather unclear after 10.Bxf7+ Kf8 11.Qa3 Kxf7 12.Qxa5 Kg6 13.g3.
04 Aug 08
3 edits
Tough line against the Keiseritsky - especially considering I was playing a 1400 rated!
Game 5212409
04 Aug 08
Originally posted by Squelchbelch
Tough line against the Keiseritsky - especially considering I was playing a 1400 rated!
Game 5212409