|Aug-26-10|| ||Nightsurfer: This is the 2nd stem game of the entertaining BUSCH-GASS Gambit that the German E. Busch has first introduced into tournament chess in 1906, please replay J W Baird vs E Busch, 1906 . In 1972, the matrix of this gambit has been re-invented by German lawyer Ulrich Gass, as you can check out right here, therefore the gambit is called "BUSCH-GASS"-Gambit today.
The BUSCH-GASS Gambit is nothing for timid souls, and sometimes it works indeed - as the two stem games from 1906 and 1972 do demonstrate ... but sometimes the BUSCH-GASS Gambit fails as well, one striking example has been executed in 2010: R Gralla vs Massoud Amini, 2010 !|
|Aug-27-10|| ||whiteshark: Declining the gambit doesn't seem to be working here either: |
[Event "Havana ol (Men) fin-D"]
[White "Lantsias, Andreas"]
[Black "Delgado, Simon"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Bc5 3. Bc4 d6 4. h3 Nf6 5. d3 c6 6. a4 O-O 7. O-O d5 8. exd5
cxd5 9. Bb3 Nc6 10. Nc3 h6 11. Nh2 Be6 12. Bd2 Rc8 13. Kh1 Nd4 14. Ne2 Nf5 15.
Nf3 e4 16. dxe4 Nxe4 17. Be1 d4 18. Ng3 Nexg3+ 19. fxg3 Ne3 20. Qe2 d3 21. cxd3
Bxb3 22. Bc3 Nxf1 23. Qe5 f6 0-1
|Nov-27-10|| ||Nightsurfer: <Mr. Ulrich Gass>, the re-inventor of the Busch-GASS-Gambit, demonstrates the way to go: after 3.Nxe5 ..., the correct answer is 3. ... Nc6!, this game here is a good example for that. Whereas <Mr. Massoud Amini>, the 2nd re-inventor of the Busch-GASS-Gambit, has experimented with 3. ... Nf6 instead of 3. ... Nc6!, please compare: R Gralla vs Massoud Amini, 2010 , but <Mr. Massoud Amini> could not be content with the result ...|
|Jan-15-12|| ||sevenseaman: What a beautiful adventure story. Such pulsating games are the ocher of the game of chess. They escalate it to an ethereal level.|
This Gass goes into a collection of mine.
|Jan-15-12|| ||An Englishman: Good Evening: A fascinating discovery, and on the second move of the game. Impressive! I notice that no one has tried 3.d3, 4.Be2 and an eventual Nbd2, seeking a Philidor Defense with colours reversed and an extra tempo.|
In the actual game, after 4...dxc6, Black has potential attacks against e4, g2 and f2 with ...Qd4, ...Qh4 and ...Qg5. For example 5.Bc4,Bxf2+; 6.Kxf2,Qd4+. Also, 5.Bd3?!,Qg5; 6.0-0?,Bg4!; 7.Qe1,Bf3.
White might try and return the pawn with 5.Be2,Qd4; 5.0-0,Qxe4?!; 6.Re1. 5.Be2,Qg5?!; 6.Bf3. 5.Be2,Qh4; 6.0-0,Nf6!? (...h5!?) is interesting.
But let's look at 5.d4!?,Qxd4; 6.Qxd4,Bxd4. White eliminates all attacks by swapping Queens and hopes to make his superior pawn structure count in the endgame. 5...Bxd4 threatening 6...Bxf2+ is a better move for Black, and I think keeps the initiative as compensation for the pawn structure. 5.d4!?,Bxd4!; 6.Bd3,Qh4; 7.0-0!?,Bd6!?(Bg4!?) is an example.
|Jan-15-12|| ||Phony Benoni: It's cowardly, but I'd consider 3.Bc4 and follow with d2-d3 as necessary.|
In the game, after 4...dxc6 Black has two tempi for the pawn and trouble constructing a center. It resembles some of those Scandinavian gambits like 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 c6 3.dxc6 Nxc6, where Black gangs up on d4.
Again, I'd consider 5.Bc4 and the more modest 6.d3, leaving e2 for the queen to protect the pawn and block the e-file. 5.c3, trying to enforce 6.d4, seems ambitious considering White's lack of development, but trying to continue with the plan by 6.f3 is the sort of idea that just does not work in the real world.
|Jan-15-12|| ||goodevans: <Phony Benoni: It's cowardly, but I'd consider 3.Bc4 and follow with d2-d3 as necessary.>|
I think I too would play <3 Bc4> but then if <3 ... Nf6> I probably wouldn't be able to resist the gambit pawn a second time!
|Jan-15-12|| ||newzild: <Phony Benoni: It's cowardly, but I'd consider 3.Bc4 and follow with d2-d3 as necessary.>|
If 3. Bc4, then 3...Nc6, and Black has tricked White into forgoing the Spanish game. White could try 4. Ng5 Nh6 5. Qf3 (or 5. Qh5), but 5...Qe7 looks like an adequate response.
|Jan-15-12|| ||goodevans: <newzild> Some of us prefer Italian to Spanish anyway!|
|Jan-15-12|| ||erniecohen: The problem with this gambit is that White can get a very good game by just playing 6. d3 and developing naturally (e.g., 6...f6 7. e2 0-0 8. 0-0 e6 9. f4). If 6...f5 7. d4 xe4+ 8. e2 d6 9. 0-0 h4 10. g3 f6 ( 10...h3 11. e1 e2 12. f1 ) e1 e7 c4 .|
|Jan-15-12|| ||Once: But you would, wouldn't you? Given the chance, I suspect we'd all want to play like this. Blow white away with sac after sac.|
And when the dust has settled, the appreciative crowd is trying to work out whether to shower the board with gold coins or pay you to father their children.
You lean back, smile like Blofeld in the second reel when everything seems to be going his way and you nonchalantly say "Ah yes. A little something I have been working on in my lab. It's the Busch-Gass Gambit / Chiodini Gambit, don't you know."
Over in one corner of the room an impressionable young lady swoons at the sheer magnificence of it all, and has to be revived with smelling salts.
|Jan-15-12|| ||Penguincw: Things already got interesting with 2...Bc5 gambiting a pawn.|
|Jan-15-12|| ||tivrfoa: What happens if 15. fxg4 Kg2?|
|Jan-15-12|| ||Manoloo: Rocinante and the Mill|
|Jan-15-12|| ||erniecohen: The more I look at this, the worse it looks. After 4. f3, it basically looks like Black offered to give pawn odds in exchange for getting to move first. This is obviously insufficient compensation, right?|
This gambit has no future.
|Jan-15-12|| ||PierreTheLion: @ Once: You're still my favorite Bond villain. "Do you expect me to accept (the sac)?" "No Mr. Bond...I expect you to RESIGN!"|
|Jan-15-12|| ||soberknight: I can't see the finish after 21.Kg1. Of course Black can trade queens and wind up one pawn ahead, but that can't be what caused White to resign.|
|Jan-17-12|| ||kevin86: Black has a vastly superior position at the end,despite being only a pawn plus.|