Oct-28-03
 | | patzer2: Anderssen's quick loss to Zukertort after 7...Qxc4 is perhaps a good example of the danger of over-emphasizing "winning material" at the expense of development (especially early in the opening). |
 |
| Oct-28-03 | | drukenknight: problem goes back even earlier. Look at move 5 black is behind in development. OKay but maybe he will grab a N. So black gets material and whites gets more development so white attacks. Basic pattern, material for attack no big deal. 5..Qe7 does not solve development issue. It blocks his own B, guaranteeing that he will fall behind in development. Well okay can he fall behind in development? SUre but then he has to grab material, e..g pxN. Look at 5...Bc5+ sure it can be blocked but if so, he will not lose material on the deal. ANd white will block with pawn not piece, so he's not losing the development battle. Better? |
|
| Oct-28-03 | | Shadout Mapes: I think with 5...Bc5+ 6.d4 black would still lose the development battle, white is already castled and has the duo center pawns, while black still has to play d6 and keep his king away from threats to f7. |
|
Oct-28-03
| | patzer2: <drukenknight/ShadoutMapes> I agree with you <drukenknight> that 5. ..Qe7 is where black begins to waste tempo and fails to make the best move in 5. ..exf3! My point is that it takes three moves of the queen to win a piece (the bishop) with 7...Qxc4, thereby putting black seriously behind in development. Of course this could have been avoided with the immediate 5. ..exfg! And <Shadout Mapes> you are correct that 5...Bc5+ 6.d4 is bad for black. The correct move is 5..exf3! After following the muzio "mainline" 5..exf3! 6. Qcf3 Qxf6 7. e5?! [ 7. c3 was recommended as an alternative by Kasparov and Keene in BCO] Qxe5 8. Bxf7+ Kxf7 9. d4, black is doing OK with development and actually has a won game with 9...Qf4! See kibitzing to S Brady vs M Heidenfeld, 1991 for specific analysis. Also see analysis at Shirov vs J Lapinski, 1990 for Crafty's analysis of a black win after 5..exf3 6. Qcf3 Qxf6 7. e5?! Qxe5 8. Bxf7+ Kxf7 9. d4 QQxd4+ 10. Be3 Qg7! [not 10...Qf6 as given in the "opening book"]. To my knowledge, the claim of a black wins with either 9...Qf4! or 10...Qg7! in the main line muzio has not been published. So you may be able to surprise a "booked up" opponent in the Muzio with these surprises. But you won't get there using up precious tempo with moves like 5...Qe7 6...Qc5+ and 7...Qxc4, especially when you can win a piece in one simple move 5...gxf3 and then immediately get on with developing. |
|
| Oct-29-03 | | drukenknight: hmmm, okay, exf3. |
|
Oct-29-03
| | patzer2: <drukenknight> Sorry for the confusion. I meant 5...gxf3 (not 5...exf3). The corrected analysis should read:
After following the muzio "mainline" 5..gxf3! 6. Qcf3 Qxf6 7. e5?! [ 7. c3 was recommended as an alternative by Kasparov and Keene in BCO] Qxe5 8. Bxf7+ Kxf7 9. d4, black is doing OK with development and actually has a won game with 9...Qf4! See kibitzing to S Brady vs M Heidenfeld, 1991 for specific analysis. Also see analysis at Shirov vs J Lapinski, 1990 for Crafty's analysis of a black win after 5..gxf3 6. Qcf3 Qxf6 7. e5?! Qxe5 8. Bxf7+ Kxf7 9. d4 QQxd4+ 10. Be3 Qg7! [not 10...Qf6 as given in the "opening book"]. |
|
| Aug-17-04 | | resty: it seems anderssen had a jinx against the muzio |
|
sac: 6.Nc3
