11 Dec 07
Originally posted by Northern LadActually Italian/Two knights are not so popular in "higher levels" as Ruy Lopez - so many players have less motivation to prepare something special against that.
I stand by what I said. Strong players are always looking for new opening lines to try out and surprise opponents. Powerful engines and large databases are a big help in this. And finding good counter-attacking lines for black is something that's particularly sought after.
Playing counter gambits for black doesn't even require demonstrating full com ...[text shortened]... the last eight years in which a 2500+ has played the Traxler with black. Must mean something.
Also you are ignoring simple fact that fashion and reputation of opening/system/line also affects to popularity.
Many lines and systems with poor reputation which have been considered incorrect before, have been played in higher levels later (for example Sicilian Sveshnikov).
Also in Traksler (like other gambits) positions evalutation of computer engine may be inadequate. For many young professionals with their uncritical belief in engines this might be very important reason why not to play Traxler and other gambit lines.
P.S.
Don`t you see that not only Traxler but also other gambit lines (for example Kings gambit, which in your opinion is sound) are not popular in "higher levels"?
11 Dec 07
Originally posted by KorchActually the Italian is becoming quite a bit more popular now, particularly lines with c3 and d3, where white tries to obtain positions similar to closed Lopez while bypassing a lot of theory.
Actually Italian/Two knights are not so popular in "higher levels" as Ruy Lopez - so many players have less motivation to prepare something special against that.
Also you are ignoring simple fact that fashion and reputation of opening/system/line also affects to popularity.
Many lines and systems with poor reputation which have been considered incor ...[text shortened]... or example Kings gambit, which in your opinion is sound) are not popular in "higher levels"?
I am well aware that fashions and evaluations are constantly changing in opening theory. I have not taken into account computer assessments of the Traxler, which would only really be of interest to me for the sharp tactical lines (5.Nxf7, 5.d4). I can only say that I would expect to score about 75% as white against the Traxler (assuming opponents of my own strength).
True, gambits aren't that popular at higher levels, but a quick look at any database will show that there still are some players 2500+ who do play openings like the King's Gambit from time to time.
11 Dec 07
Originally posted by Northern LadI know that Italian with c3-d3 is becoming popular (I`m also playing these schemes - for example in one of our game which is in progress), but there is high possibility that player who is playing c3-d3 in Italian will play the same scheme against Two knights with 4.d3. Also white has another option - 4.d4. So there is not so many possibilities to play Traxler.
Actually the Italian is becoming quite a bit more popular now, particularly lines with c3 and d3, where white tries to obtain positions similar to closed Lopez while bypassing a lot of theory.
I am well aware that fashions and evaluations are constantly changing in opening theory. I have not taken into account computer assessments of the Traxler, whi ...[text shortened]... re still are some players 2500+ who do play openings like the King's Gambit from time to time.
I really dont believe that you will be able to score 75% against player in your strength who is more experienced (which means - more skilled) in these lines.
So you agree that if true gambits are not so popular as more solid openings it does not mean that gambits must be unsound? Then you should agree that popularity itself is not indicator of soundness, which means - if Kings gambit is more popular than Traxler it does not mean that Traxler is not sound.
11 Dec 07
This is a pretty open ended question for ya Northern Lad but what makes you think the Traxler is less sound than the KG... in both you drop a pawn in exchange for a powerful attack and a good position..
Both lead to equality or almost according to engines.
Where's the difference? oh and fyi I play both 😛.
11 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by ih8sensIn the Traxler you can drop a hell of a lot more than a pawn for a vicious early attack.
This is a pretty open ended question for ya Northern Lad but what makes you think the Traxler is less sound than the KG... in both you drop a pawn in exchange for a powerful attack and a good position..
Both lead to equality or almost according to engines.
Where's the difference? oh and fyi I play both 😛.
As I said, Anand was beaten in a Traxler game.
The real reason why it's hardly used at all at the highest level is two-fold I think.
Complexity & risk.
I hinted at this earlier - a GM plays for a living (I know they often have incomes from other sources ie books, lectures...) but the prestige of being in, say the top 50 could easily be dented if a mainstay of GM repertoire was the Traxler variation of 2 knights.
The Traxler is one of the sharpest & most tactically complex games.
Why not protect the GM prestige simply by playing the rock-solid Italian game or theoretically well-trodden Sicilian defence rather than hoping for a Traxler?
This is the real reason.
Dan Heisman spent at least 2,000 hours going through all the Traxler lines with Fritz & came to the conclusion that 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5!? may not be sound but he cannot be certain!
http://seagaard.dk/review/eng/sw_opening/cc_traxler.asp?KATID=SW&ID=SW-Opening
11 Dec 07
I think it can safely be said that this opening is too complicated for modern methods. Engines are (at times) pathetic at finding perpetual checks and then once they have been found, seeing beyond them...
I think the fact that I score perfect (never losing, never drawing.. only several wins) against people my own level or below is testament enough to this opening.
I will put up a few Traxler thematic games in the open invites.. anyone interested is free to accept them though PLEASE don't castle immediately... that's not even the traxler anymore 😛.
11 Dec 07
Originally posted by SquelchbelchAs I made clear previously, my views on the Traxler are not based on engine analysis. I would only do that if I were claiming a tactical refutation, for which probably only 5.Nxf7 or 5.d4 can be considered. I don't compare the King's Gambit with the Traxler, because one is a white opening and the other is a black one!
In the Traxler you can drop a hell of a lot more than a pawn for a vicious early attack.
As I said, Anand was beaten in a Traxler game.
The real reason why it's hardly used at all at the highest level is two-fold I think.
Complexity & risk.
I hinted at this earlier - a GM plays for a living (I know they often have incomes from other sources ie b ...[text shortened]... t be certain!
http://seagaard.dk/review/eng/sw_opening/cc_traxler.asp?KATID=SW&ID=SW-Opening
Actually, at higher levels gambits are often more popular with black than with white. The reason for this is that white players are often hopeful of gaining some initiative without sacrificing material, whereas black players can be more prepared to gambit a pawn for the initiative, even if it is difficult to prove full compensation. The fact that currently no player above 2500 seems to play the line suggests that at that level, players don't believe black gets very much for the pawn after 5.Bxf7+
White has, of course, many good and popular alternatives to the King's Gambit (Lopez, Italian, Scotch etc). If the Traxler really were shown to be playable for black, that would be a very significant development in the theory of the Two Knights Defence, which I would personally welcome, but it has to be based on more than wishful thinking.
12 Dec 07
I thought I'd try the Traxler against Fritz (4'/2'' blitz), here's the result:
Fritz 9 - zzyw
5. Bxf7+ Ke7 6. Bb3 Rf8 7. O-O d6 8. Nc3 Qe8 9. d3 h6 10. Nf3 Bg4 11. h3 Bh5 12. Be3 Nd4 13. Bxd4 Bxd4 14. Bc4 Qg6 15. Kh2 Ng4+! 16. hxg4 Bxg4 17. Nd5+ Kd8 18. Ne3 Qh5+ 19. Kg1 Bxf3 20. gxf3 Qh3 21. c3 Bxe3?* 22. fxe3 Qg3+ 23. Kh1 Qh3+ 1/2-1/2
* 21... Rf6! 22. Bf7! Bb6! gives black good chances (Fritz)
12 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Squelchbelchas shown by a pair of games I posted before... fritz is entirely unable to analyze this position .. in one it judged itself better when actually facing a forced mate which it could not find..
Interesting.
5.Bxf7+ is proven to be stronger for white.
in the other it judged the game drawn.. again in the shadow of an obvious loss..
edit - for those interested.. when I play the white end of the traxler gambit against fritz I usually lose.. when I play the black side I am about 50% draw 50% win. (depending on which engine I play against.. one has Nx and the other Bx in it's opening book).
12 Dec 07
I will never face the Traxler because I play The English or sometimes KG as white, Sicilian as black... so spend all the time you like on it, it won't help you against me...
Usually white would like to play the traxler because he seems to have the upper hand... I think that white should calmly develop, finding a safe spot for the king, then make black pay for his exposed king... what do you think about that?
12 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Northern LadI suspect that white could continue with moves like c3/d3/if h6, Nf3/Nbd2/0-0 and there is insufficient compensation for the pawn. The position would be somewhat like a Ruy Lopez (albeit with Bd5 and Ke7) but white has the extra pawn and merely has to parry off any f-file threats. Likewise, the 5...Kf8 lines are insufficient for Black. (white plays Bb3 and similar ideas as in the above line)
"White can still get a small but safe advantage by 5.Bxf7+ Ke7 6.Bd5 as stated by both Estrin and Cramer." (Dan Heisman) I agree!
I have not seen anything that wins convincingly for white in the 5.d4 or in the 5.Nxf7 line.