| Jan-12-04 | | Benjamin Lau: This 4...b5!? gambit is very interesting. It simultaneously removes the c pawn, thereby strengthening ...d5 (and thus e4 the key square in the Nimzo) and lets you fianchetto. 5...Nd5 does not look like a good idea though. 5...d5 is probably better I think. I wonder if trading the a pawn or c pawn with ...a6 or ...c6 later on for white's new b5 pawn could be useful, like in the Benko or something. |
|
| Feb-01-04 | | patzer2: <Benjamin Lau> I'm a big fan of playing the Benko, but this 4...b5?! doesn't look like a second cousin or any other close relative. I'll grant that 5...d5 here is better than the move played, but the immediate 4...d5 or 4...c5 is even better than 4...b5?! The problem with the gambit here is that it leaves the kingside weak, delays piece development and concedes too much of the center to White. Positionally, it looks like a lost game for Black, and I suspect Kere's mental reaction was something like "Oh Goody! A free pawn!" when he saw this unorthodox move. The difference in this line and the Benko is that in the Benko Black has locked up a share of the center, has a stronger defense of the kingside and more open files, diagonals and active piece play to pressure the White Queeside. Those elements do not appear to a significant enough degree in this line to justify the gambit of a pawn. |
|
| Feb-01-04 | | Benjamin Lau: Patzer2, I may be missing something, but I don't see how the ...b5 gambit weakens black's kingside, it looks pretty good in fact to me, certainly better than white's after f3. Perhaps you meant black's queenside, but this is typical in the Benko too, which is a fairly respectable opening. Also, while I agree that the gambit may not be entirely sound (hence 4...b5!? is my notation), I think that you're being a bit orthodox in your assessment. If you examine modern games, structure can sometimes take precedence over piece development, the reason being that having superior structure can lead to gradually superior development. Take for example a relatively modern line in the revitalized Scotch Game, I think it goes something like 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nxc6 bxc6 6. e5 Qe7 7. Qe2 Nd5 8. c4 Ba6 9. b3 g6 10. f4. Who is superior here? You'll see that black is the one with superior development, and white has only one piece (his queen no less!) in play yet white is actually better. John Watson gives a possible continuation as: 10...Bg7 11. Qf2 and now black's pieces are developed, but extremely cramped after 11...Nb6, whereas white's superior structure effectively enables him to catch up in development. Once white does develop, Watson notes, his pieces will have the superior squares. But another more simple reason is that playing the Nimzo means black is often ahead of white in development anyway, so surely it cannot hurt to give some up for a better center. I also don't see how you think this gamit "concedes too much of the center to white." Quite the opposite in fact as I noted earlier, it strengthens the most important squares for black strategically speaking- e4 and d5. Positionally to me at least, this gambit looks actually rather unclear. I'll go do an investigation into it later. As for "more open files, diagonals and active piece play to pressure the White Queeside" in the Benko, as I noted earlier, black can easily play ...c6 or ...a6 to for this purpose, so it's unclear what differences you see. The only major difference is that in this gambit, black has more space than in the Benko, but the position is open. |
|
| Feb-01-04 | | Benjamin Lau: Further to the above post, Watson notes that after 12. Be2 d6 13. Bf3 o-o 14. o-o Bb7 15. Ba3 Nd7 16. Nd2 and black is struggling not to be suffocated (this line in the Scotch opening I mean.) |
|
| Feb-01-04 | | Benjamin Lau: The only actual problem I see with this gambit is that white can still immediately play e4 if he chooses to decline from immediately taking the b pawn. I will go take a look at this line. |
|
| Feb-01-04 | | Benjamin Lau: Play I suspect would continue 4. f3 b5!? 4. e4 cxb4 5. Bxc4 o-o 6. Qb3 Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 d5 8. Bb5 (can't play exd5 without white's pawn structure becoming weak) c6 9. Bd3 and white is probably much better. Also interesting may be however 4. f3 b5!? 4. e4 cxb4 5. Bxc4 o-o 6. Qb3 c5!? 7. dxc5 Bxc5 8. Bg5 Qb6 9. o-o-o Qxb3 and white has only a slight advantage. I think the ...b5 idea may be viable, but it may have to be played at another point in time. The idea is by no means restricted to the Benko, you often see ...b5 in the Nimzo Indian Leningrad for instance. Certainly I probably wouldn't play the ...b5!? gambit in an important game, but it could be a fun try at other times. |
|
| Feb-01-04 | | patzer2: The kingside is weakened because the dark squared bishop is not available for the defense of the Kingside as in the fianchetto in the Benko and also because the move wastes tempo that could have been otherwise used to establish central development of pawns and minor pieces to counter White's monopoly in the center followed by an unimpeded attack on the Black Kingside. Look at Black's position after 13. f4! in this game as an example. White's pieces are all developed, while Black is still struggling to activate his queenside pieces to help defend against White's coming kingside attack. And much of this lack of development can be attributed to the wasted tempo in playing 4...b5?! and in trying to shore up the weakenesses the move created. As you note White can accentuate the weakness and decline the gambit with an immediate 4. e4 (with advantage) or simply snatch the pawn and watch Black try and justify the move. Obviously, black's followup of 5...Nd5 is weak (in this game allowing a quick White 8. e4 to follow with a big advantage). If Black plays 5...d4, as we both suggested, White accelerates development with 6. Bg5 followed by 7. e4 with an advantage in the center to facilitate the coming attack against the Black Kingside. |
|
| Feb-01-04 | | Benjamin Lau: <The kingside is weakened because the dark squared bishop is not available for the defense of the Kingside as in the fianchetto in the Benko > ? I can understand you to the extent that there are less forces on the kingside, so it is weakening in that sense, but the question is whether or not it is significant, and I don't think it is. Any developing move involves shifting forces and creating new weaknesses but new strengths. We could argue that playing Bg5 in the Queen's Gambit weakens white's queenside since the bishop isn't there anymore, but it's not really significant either. I don't really follow on that comment. <And much of this lack of development can be attributed to the wasted tempo in playing 4...b5?! > And the fact that black misplayed immediately following the gambit... That seems to be the main problem in my opinion. The gambit itself as I noted earlier probably doesn't fail outright after 4. f3 b5!? 4. e4 cxb4 5. Bxc4 o-o 6. Qb3 c5!? 7. dxc5 Bxc5 8. Bg5 Qb6 9. o-o-o Qxb3 and white has a slight advantage, but it's not very big and certainly insufficient for pulling out a win. As it is, I don't disagree with your analysis, that white stands better in most lines (certainly to a great enough extent to rule out 4...b5!? as a good response to 4. f3; ...c5 is the best response of course as an immediate 4...d5 poses problems once white plays a3 threatening to take the bishop advantage and still have a decent pawn structure after cxd5). I examined the lines and agree that 4...b5!? is probably not a good idea (perhaps ?!), but I disagree with your reasons for the assessment, some of them make little sense. |
|
| Feb-02-04 | | sleepkid: Benjamin: The biggest problem with playing this gambit is that I might whip out a truncheon and bludgeon you upside the head. (if you play it against me, and I think you're not looking, then once you're unconcious I will arrange the pieces displaying my majestic victory, and revive you claiming that you passed out in amazement after the denouement of my incredible combination unfolded.) ...actually, in this game I have to go with a 4. ...b5?! and not a 4. ...b5!? Though I have to disagree with patzer2 in that Keres probably did not think "Oh goody! A free pawn!" - since Keres himself often played the somewhat analogous Wing Gambit Keres vs Eliskases, 1937 (a truly beautiful game) and was a correspondence player of note, who was aware of the traps laying in prepared lines and dubious openings. I believe Keres accepted the pawn with great circumspection. The reason I prefer 4. ...b5?! as the correct notation here is because Black does absolutely nothing useful with the tempo he gains by sacrificing the pawn. Improvements might be possible however. (which is what I really meant to say since I'd obviously never bludgeon my staunch ally Benjamin Lau. Right MM?) |
|
| Feb-02-04 | | patzer2: I agree that in response to 4. f3 that 4...c5 is a good reply, though I think 4...d5 is also sound. The opening explorer indicates White has better winning chances against 4...c5, while 4...d5 gives both sides a better chance for the draw. The difference seems to be a matter of taste. As for 4...b5?! we both agree 5. e4 is a good reply, while I think Kere's reply 5. cxb5 is best, leading in my opinion to an arguably clearer and stronger White advantage. Of course there's nothing wrong with our difference of opinion, as preferences for different opening moves and playing styles is part of what makes chess so much fun. |
|
| Feb-02-04 | | Benjamin Lau: Lol sleepkid, luckily you'll never get to bludgeon me because you play 1. e4 (or are you a switch hitter?). ;-) I agree after analyzing the gambit of course that it is more likely ?! If white did not have the chance to play e4 immediately, it would probably be merely a !? idea; as it is, ...b5?! is a bit late. |
|
| Feb-02-04 | | Benjamin Lau: Patzer2, actually, I think that Keres' reply may not have been the strongest. After looking at accepting the gambit, I think with best play the line would perhaps run 5. cxb4 d5 6. Qa4 c5 7. bxc6 Qb6 8. c7+ Nc6 9. a3 Bxc3+ 10. bxc3 Bd7 11. Bf4 Nh5 12. Bd2 Qxc2 (=); white has a pawn but is hideously far back in development and his center is ill. Of course, I agree with you though that differences are what makes chess fun so it all comes down ultimately to taste. |
|
| Feb-02-04 | | patzer2: I would play 5. cxb4 d5 6. Bg5 <6...c5 7. e4> (with advantage for White)and not 6. Qa4?! (which I agree would be bad for White's development). |
|
| Feb-02-04 | | sleepkid: Benjamin: *ahem* No. Not at all, what are you insinuating? I only play the KING'S pawn opening. *ahem* None of that sissy Queen's Pawn stuff for me. ...however, I sometimes play the Grob. . . might be time to see my analyst. |
|
| Feb-02-04 | | Benjamin Lau: Patzer2, 6. Bg5 h6 7. Bh4 g5 8. Bf2 Bd7 9. Qb3 Bxc3+ 10. bxc3 a6 11. bxa6 12. e4 Rb6 13. Qc2 dxe5 14. fxe4 Ng4 with an unclear position, it doesn't look like white has a large advantage to me, probably equal. |
|
| Feb-02-04 | | Benjamin Lau: Ooops, skipped something. 11. bxa6 Rxa6. In either case, white doesn't have a large advantage and I think that the victor from here would be the better player. |
|
| Feb-03-04 | | patzer2: <Benjamin Lau> Without getting too deep into your analysis, I'll accept that White has only a small advantage after accepting the gambit and that 5. cxb5 or 5. e4 are both solid replies for White to Black's 4...b5 gambit played in this game. |
|
| Feb-27-24 | | Stolzenberg: As you make your bed, so you must lie in it. After <4. ... b5 5. cxb5> Black should have consequently played ... a6 and ... axb5 asap. |
|
| Feb-27-24 | | Stolzenberg: <17. ... Bxd4?> was a blunder of course. |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
