To me, the opening intrigues me. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 f5.

About 20 years ago, this was regarded as unsound for black. However, later analysis shows that this isn't so simple.

White should play:
22. Kc1! a5 23. Qc2 Qa3+ and now my improvement on previous analysis: 25. Kb1!? Ba6 (25... Qxc3 26. Rc1 Qh3 27. Bg3 =) 26. Rhe1 Bxe2 (26... Qxb2+ 27. Kxb2 bxc3+ 28. Kxc3 Bb4+ 29. Kc2 Bxe1 30. Rxe1 Bxe2 31. Rxe2 unclear) 27. Rxe2 Qa4 28. Rde1 Bxh2 29. Qa2 bxc3+ 30. Ka1 unclear)

I took several hours to investigate your line. I used the straight Fritz 9 interface, and gave it 1,500 MB for RAM. (I generally gave it at least three minutes per ply as well.)

This is what I came up with:
25.b1!?, (Inferior?) 25...a6;

This is interesting, as is taking on c3 with the Queen here.

< [25...Qxc3; 26.Rc1 Qa3!;
This is better for Black, as 27.Rxc6 is now answered by 27...e3!; (opening the h7-b1 diagonal); which wins on the spot.] >

Now I follow your analysis for a little while.

26.he1 xe2; 27.xe2 a4; 28.de1 b3!; 29.a1 a3; 30.g3 a8; 31.e3 c4; 32.xc7 a6; 33.h4 c1!; ( ) Black is winning in all lines.

Bird 5 mistakes:
9.Nh5 -0.29 (9.c4 0.15)
10.Qd2 -0.71 (10.Be2 -0.28)
11.g4 -1.88 (11.Bxf6 -0.70)
22.Kb2 -5.24 (22.Kc1 -0.15)
25.Kc2 -5.44 (25.Ka2 -3.66)

As I recall there was some analysis by Zukertort (not of this game, but of the Staunton/Owen-Morphy/Barnes consultation game) that gave 4. Nc3 fxe4 5. Nxe4 d5 6. Nxe5! According to <nimh>'s Rybka, Morphy's 5...d5 was a mistake anyway.

Of course, this was a cutting-edge line back in 1858 (and maybe now -- don't some books recommend 3...f5?), and there was lots of analysis for 4. dxe5, 4. Bc4 and 4. Nc3.

click for larger view

Of course given whites response in the text, the move produced more favorable results than had the stronger move 5. ...Nf6 been played. The arguement will never be answered on the topic of whether Morphy knew he was playing a risky move that may lose a pawn which may lose the game, or whether he didn't know the line. I I lean more on the first of the two possibilities.

http://contregambitphilidor.blogspo...

Take the games with a grain of salt. His variation index is good, though. I've got to admit, this opening intrigues me, and I've got special prep on the white side. I'll publish the analysis after I get a chance to try my ideas out on a few practitioners.

Without a doubt, the leading practitioner of this opening is Jim West.

<The arguement will never be answered on the topic of whether Morphy knew he was playing a risky move that may lose a pawn which may lose the game, or whether he didn't know the line.>

The impact of the "Cafe de La Regeance" is misunderstood.

The impact of not yet having Steinitz writings about chess is misunderstood.

This game was in the Romantic era. The Romantic era was about combination and beauty. Places like the Cafe de La Regeance were spectator and interest driven. People were seen as having guts to accept sacrifices even if it was risk. And the same with those playing sacrifices.

So to run this game over with an engine is a misunderstanding of the game at a fundamental level.

Here is what the 1st official World Champion Steinitz said about Morphy:

"Being the greatest player of the old school, Morphy naturally exhibits most profound mastery in the sacrificing tactics directed against any weakness in the adverse king's quarters once he holds the grip of the game. But he sometimes also hazards impetuously for the purpose of precipitating a crisis, especially against a player whom he knows to be below his force. To use a philosophical illustration he employs the subjective in preference to the objective reasoning for the purpose of getting the best of the argument." (Editors note: i.e. Morphy took unnecessary risks)"

And who do you think raised the "internal quality" (objectivity) standards of understanding the game of chess through his writing? Who do you think taught players when attacks were bound to be successful or not?! Who published ideas about weak squares, and other sophisticated elements of positional chess?! It was Steinitz - the 1st official world champion.

"Would you be good enough to state some early period when your seconds can meet mine...?"

"Today many amateurs think of Morphy as a dazzling combinative player, who excelled in sacrificing his queen and checkmating his opponent a few brilliant moves later. One reason for this impression is that chess books like to reprint his flashy games. There are games where he did do this, but it was not the basis of his chess style. In fact, the masters of his day considered his style to be on the conservative side compared to some of the flashy older masters like La Bourdonnais and Anderssen.

Morphy can be considered the first modern player. Some of his games do not look modern because he did not need the sort of slow positional systems that modern grandmasters use, or that Staunton, Paulsen, and later Steinitz developed. His opponents had not yet mastered the open game, so he played it against them and he preferred open positions because they brought quick success. He played open games almost to perfection, but he also could handle any sort of position, having a complete grasp of chess that was years ahead of his time. Morphy was a player who intuitively knew what was best"

Bird vs Morphy, 1858