|Apr-23-14|| ||Phony Benoni: The pun mashes the movie "Dead Poet's Society" with the late poet, Emily Dickinson. It bears no relation to the game, which is nothing really special either. All Rice Gambits wind up looking like this.|
The story behind the gambit is interest. Isaac Leopold Rice was a wealthy industrialist and an Amateur Chess Enthusiast. One day, when reaching the position after <8...Bd6>:
click for larger view
He blundered with <9.0-0> leaving the knight en prise. Continuing the game as only an Amateur Chess Enthusiast would, he found to his surprise that White got an interesting attack for the piece, and began to wonder if he was onto something.
Being wealthy, he began to pay chess masters to analyze the game, and sponsored thematic tournaments which used it. The amount of brainpower spent on the gambit was staggering, and it was probably fun for the masters let their imaginations romp.
Simply looking at the famous players in this list of games show how devoted Professor Rice was to his braninchild:
|Apr-23-14|| ||waustad: Thank you for the eludication.|
|Apr-23-14|| ||Moszkowski012273: 10...f3 followed by 11.d4,Ne4 is a decent way to keep the advantage Blacks.|
|Apr-23-14|| ||al wazir: Not sure what 24. h5 accomplishes, or was meant to accomplish.|
|Apr-23-14|| ||FSR: <al wazir: Not sure what 24. h5 accomplishes, or was meant to accomplish.>|
Excellent question. Houdini 3 says that it's a very weak move, and that had Black responded with 24...Rf7! White would have had only a large advantage (+0.82). Instead, the immediate 24.Qh6! was crushing, e.g. 24...Qc2 (24...Bf5 25.Nxg7 ) 25.Re4! and now 25...Qxe4 26.Nxe4 Rf1+ 27.Kh2! wins.
|Apr-23-14|| ||FSR: <Phony Benoni> Kinda weird: after Rice died in 1915, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac..., all those high and mighty players who had been so fascinated by his gambit suddenly lost interest.|
|Apr-23-14|| ||FSR: The <really> weird thing (and this time I'm serious) is that 8.0-0?! actually outscores the normal 8.d4. Opening Explorer I'm not sure why that would be, since Rice hired strong players to contest both sides of his gambit. Unless they pulled their punches as Black to make his gambit seem more viable than it really was. Nah, that couldn't be.|
|Apr-23-14|| ||FSR: The Rice Memorial (1916) tournament was played the year after Rice's death. You might have thought that there'd be a Rice Gambit or two as a homage to the guy. But no, there was only one King's Gambit, and that a declination with 2...Bc5. B Kostic vs Janowski, 1916 Sad. |
Reminds me of the Polugaevsky tournament played months before Polu died of cancer. The Open Sicilian was mandatory (Black could choose 2...d6, 2...Nc6, or 2...e6), but no one played Polugaevsky's famous line in the Najdorf. Incidentally, I was surprised to see that Houdini 3 says that <Black is OK!> in the Polugaevsky. But these days 6.Be3 rather than 6.Bg5 is the rage, rendering it a moot point.
|Apr-23-14|| ||Eusebius: Terribly confusing game. Probably at those times they liked massacres.|
|Apr-23-14|| ||morfishine: <Phony Benoni> Nice write-up on the Rice Gambit. The KG has been a favorite of mine, especially at 5-min, but I've never ventured into this line|
|Apr-23-14|| ||raju17: Sincerely, here is a game to ponder. The player commiting less blunders won. Ha ha ha ha|
|Apr-23-14|| ||Garech: Interesting game for sure. The story all the more so, I had heard it before but it was nice to hear it again from <Phony Benoni>. Wiki adds:|
"...Concrete analysis has long since shown the gambit to be "neither good nor necessary", so it has been abandoned in serious play and stands only as "a grotesque monument to a rich man's vanity...".
On another note, as a self-confessed grammar Nazi, I could not help but twitch a little when I saw the apostrophe in the title!
|Apr-23-14|| ||perfidious: <Garech....I could not help but twitch a little when I saw the apostrophe in the title! >|
That gave me a start as well.
|Apr-23-14|| ||kevin86: Mate cannot be stopped...if the knight is moved, Arabian mate follows in two moves.|
|Apr-23-14|| ||RookFile: I guess there were at least two poets names Napier, another named Rice, and everybody has heard of Emily Dickinson.|
|Apr-23-14|| ||waustad: They must have meant that it was the society of Dickenson, who was a dead poet. That would make sense.|
|Jul-03-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <FSR: The <really> weird thing (and this time I'm serious) is that 8.0-0?! actually outscores the normal 8.d4. Opening Explorer I'm not sure why that would be, since Rice hired strong players to contest both sides of his gambit. Unless they pulled their punches as Black to make his gambit seem more viable than it really was. Nah, that couldn't be.>|
Think harder. What would you do to figure out, professor?
|Jul-03-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: PS maybe I should give you an odd:
"Concrete analysis has long since shown the gambit to be "neither good nor necessary", so it has been abandoned in serious play and stands only as "a grotesque monument to a rich man's vanity". The Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (1997) analyzes:
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4 .h4 g4 5. Ne5 Nf6 6. Bc4 d5 7. exd5 Bd6 8. 0-0 Bxe5 9. Re1 Qe7 10. c3 Nh5 11. d4 Nd7 12. dxe5 Nxe5 13. b3 0-0 14. Ba3 Nf3+ 15. gxf3 Qxh4 16. Re5 Bf5 (or 16... Qg3=) 17. Nd2 Qg3+ 18. Kf1 Qh2 19. Bxf8 g3 20. Bc5 g2+ 21. Ke1 Qh4+ (or 21... g1=Q 22. Bxg1 Qxg1+ 23. Bf1 Ng3 with an unclear position) 22. Ke2 Ng3+ 23. Kf2 Ne4+
with a draw by perpetual check, attributing this analysis to José Raúl Capablanca, Amos Burn, and Edward Lasker."
I wonder what they meant with "grotesque." Because the analysis is as 'grotesque' as it can be; in fact it's nonsense. Except the mysterious: "or 16... Qg3=." And the repetition itself. I wonder why that would be...
Because 16... Ng3 (0-1) is obvious....
17. Nd2 f6 18. d6 Kh8 19. Re7 Qh1 20. Kf2 Qh2 21. Ke1 Qh4 22. Qc1 cd6 23. Kd1 Bf5 24. Nf1 Rae8
16... Ng3 17. Nd2 f6 18. d6 Kh8 19. dc7 Qh1 20. Kf2 Qh2 21. Ke1 Qh4 22. Bf8 Ne4 23. Ke2 Qf2 24. Kd3 Qe3 25. Kc2 Qc3 26. Kb1 Nd2 27. Qd2 Qd2 28. Rd5 Bf5 29. Rf5 (see diagram; now a White Rook between Black pawns) Rf8. A common theme these days at cg:
click for larger view
And that's just the beginning; it's gets even more mysterious.. the 'variation' in the Enclyc. ends in a draw lol note the mysterious 18. Bxf8 g3, Rice must haved loved such moves..
It gets worse... "or 21...g1=Q 22. Bxg1 Qxg1+ 23. Bf1 Ng3 with an unclear position..." Again.. very mysterious: a Knight at g3, 24. Rxf5=
But wait! Now comes the irony 23. Bf1 Qg3+ (not again!) leads to a mate in 6 for Black. While 23. Nf1 wins for White.
-23. Bxf1 Qg3+ 24. Ke2 Qh2+ 25. Ke1 Qh4+ 26. Ke2 Ng3+ (...) 27. Kf2 Ne4+ 28. Kg1 Qf2+ 29. Kh1 N eh g3x
-23. Nf1 Ng3 is also funny 24. Qd4 1-0
-23. Nf1 Ng7 24. Qd4 1-0
-23. Nf1 Bg6 24. Re8 Re8 25. Qe8 Kg7 26. Qe5 Kg8 27. Qxf4 1-0
|Jul-03-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Correction: text under diagram 18. Bxf8 g3 must be 19. Bxf8 g3 (wiki var), I kind of had planned to edit that part out ☺|
|Jul-03-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: PS Oh wait, I remember... 19. Bxf8 in the wiki var Rxf8= |
The diagram itself waits for Rxf8 0-1 as well. Why I put it in.