|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Jul-31-05 |
| SneechLatke: <Of course, but can you demonstrate an advantage for White after 3.d4 in mainline Sicilians?> What is this supposed to mean?
I'm not saying my analysis is fool-proof or set in stone, and bishop's opening is a long way from the Open Sicilian. |
 |
| Jul-31-05 |
| WMD: I switched over to playing the Bishop's Opening shortly before Tim Harding came out with his review of the opening in general, and the Urusov Gambit in particular: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibit...
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibit...
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibit...
I'm the first to admit it doesn't give White much if Black knows the score, but it's become like a family pet which I haven't the heart to put down. |
|
| Jul-31-05 |
| WMD: <What is this supposed to mean?> Is the soundness of the Urusov Gambit and Open Sicilian to be judged on the basis of 3.d4? |
|
| Jul-31-05 |
| SneechLatke: <WMD> Sorry, if my meaning was unclear: I was only analyzing the Urusov Gambit in particualar, starting with 1.e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d4. I make no claims to the soundness of the Open Sicilian or any other line involving 3.d4. |
|
| Jul-31-05 |
| ughaibu: 3.d4 is a reversed elephant, surely as worth a go as anything. |
|
| Jul-31-05 |
| WMD: There's some excellent analysis of the gambit at:
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller... |
|
| Jul-31-05 |
| Koster: Anything to avoid the Petroff I guess. |
|
| Jul-31-05 |
| ughaibu: 1.d4 is an easy way to avoid the Petroff. |
|
| Aug-01-05 |
| mack: Surely not playing chess in the first place is the easiest way to avoid the Petroff? What does everyone think of 3.Qe2? That can cause all sorts of long thinks from black. |
|
| Aug-01-05 |
| SEMENELIN: what can you say about qf3 thats more counteractive :) nyahahahehahah |
|
| Aug-08-05 |
| SneechLatke: <mack> I had a game at the MN open a few years back which started with 1.e4 e5 2. c4  f6 3. e2 where I played 3...c5, which ECO14 evaluates as =. I don't see what's so great about this move either, since white doesn't really challenge black at all. |
|
| Mar-01-06 |
| LluviaSean: So much for the "Knights Before Bishops" rule... |
|
Apr-13-06
 |
| Dr. Funkenstein: I have a questions about the bishopīs opening.
A line someone played against me the other day was
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. Bb3 Bg4?!
This seems normal to prevent Nxe5 and develop the bishop, but after I went over the game in which I responded with the tame 6. bd2?! and went on to lose after an unrelated blunder later on I came up with 6. h3 and if 6. ...Bh4 then 7. g4 Bg6 8. Nxe5 dxe4 9. Nxg6 hxg6 10. g5!? Nh7 {though this knight could go to a more active square, I imagine an opponent trying to double attack the g5 pawn) 11. dxe4 Qxd1+ 12. Kxd1 Be7 13. h4 (though f4 or Rg1 is possible) 0-0 14. Bd2 Rd8 15. Kc1 (perhaps Ke1 would be better to bring the rook into play, but the king feels drafty here) White is now up a pawn, but has some problems developing. All the same, I like being up material especially with a strong kingside attack by the pawn front and black's knight is misplaced on h7. What do you guys think about this? Let me know if there's a flaw in my analysis that white wins a clear pawn in this sequence. |
|
Apr-28-06
|
| Dr. Funkenstein: Sorry, my above analysis contains a glaring error I just realized. 13. h4 is no defence because the rook would drop if the h-pawn moves. Therefore 13. f4 or 13. Rg1 is necessary. I think f4 is the strongest move. White would then try to get the c1 bishop to e3 and the knight to d2 to disentangle with a likely c3 and Kc2. Holding on to the pawn isnīt easy, but I think once white gets him/herself in order whiteīs position is strong with the advanced kingside pawns supported by both rooks and the bishop pointing at the weak f7 pawn. |
|
Apr-28-06
 |
| refutor: <dr. funkenstein> black hasbetter 7. ...dxe4 8.dxe4 Qxd1+ 9.Kxd1 Nxe4 if 8.gxh5 exf3 9.Qxf3 Nbd7 and Black is good |
|
Apr-28-06
|
| Dr. Funkenstein: Excellent point Refutor, also, 8. Ng5 falls to 8... Bg6 when 9. h4 is met by 9. ...h5 What do you think the best course of action in this line (5. Bg4) is for white? Clearing out the center with pawn exchanges doesn't seem to do anything for white |
|
May-07-06
|
| refutor: i wonder if 3.Nc3 is better than the passive 3.d3? i'm sure 3.d3 has been played for centuries, but it seems too early to commit the pawns |
|
May-16-06
|
| Dr. Funkenstein: Well 3. Nc3 transposes into the Vienna game as opposed to the classical bishop's opening. I prefer 3. d3 because I donīt like black having the option of 3. ...Nxe4 even when a lot of black players donīt like that gamble (gamble not in terms of lost material but in potentially awkward positions after 4. Bxf7+) either. At my low level, I like the simplicity of the Bishops opening and waiting to commit my knight to c3 or d2 as opposed to the more complex Vienna game. However, sometimes the bishop can be missed on the kingside due to the d pawn locking it to center and queenside. I think it just depends on your style Refutor. |
|
| Jun-07-06 |
| Kings Indian: Today's opening of the day is the Urusov Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4) I don't play this line but I'm thinking of it. It looks very similar to the Max Lange Attack. |
|
| Sep-25-06 |
| Kwesi: Here's one close FICS game of mine playing the urusov gambit where i reckon it was very close until my final move of the game when I blundered (I'm blaming time trouble). <Any comments on the game would be much appreciated>: kwesiquest (1703) vs. AEGC (2043) --- Mon Sep 25, 06:13 PDT 2006
Rated standard match, initial time: 15 minutes, increment: 60 seconds. Move kwesiquest AEGC
---- --- ---
1. e4 e5
2. Bc4 Nf6
3. d4 exd4
4. Nf3 Nxe4
5. Qxd4 Nf6
6. Nc3 Nc6
7. Qh4 Be7
8. Bg5 d5
9. O-O-O Be6
10. Rhe1 h6
11. Bxf6 Bxf6
12. Qg3 Bxc3
13. bxc3 O-O
14. Re4 dxe4
15. Rxd8 Nxd8
16. Ne5 Bxc4
17. Nxc4 Rc8
18. Ne5 f5
19. Qg6 c5
20. g4 Nf7
21. Nd7 Rfd8
22. Nf6+ Kf8
23. Nh7+ Ke7
24. gxf5 Rc6
25. f6+ gxf6
26. Qxe4+ Kd7
27. Qf5+ Ke7
28. Qe4+ Re6
29. Qxb7+ Rd7
30. Qc8 Red6
31. Qxc5 Ng5
32. Qf5 Rd1+
33. Kb2 Rb7+
34. Ka3 Rd6
35. Qc5 Nxh7
36. Ka4 Ng5
37. Ka5 Ne6
38. Qe3 Rbb6
39. Qxh6 Ra6+
40. Kb4 Rdb6+
41. Kc4 Ra4+
42. Kd3 Nc5+
43. Ke2 Re6+
44. Kf1 Rxa2
45. h4 Ne4
46. Qg7+ Kd6
47. h5 Rxc2
48. h6 Rxf2+
49. Kg1 Re8
50. h7??? Rb8
White resigns 0-1
|
|
Jul-28-08
 |
| WarmasterKron: In my ongoing quest to find an unsound gambit against everything, I recently unleashed the following: 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 Bc5 4.h3?! b5!?
click for larger viewPlay continued 5.Bxb5 c6 6.Bc4 d5 7.exd5 cxd5 8.Bb5+ Bd7 9.Bxd7 Nbxd7 
click for larger viewAn interesting mess, and I'd take the black side of it any day. |
|
Jul-28-08
 |
| keypusher: <Warmaster Kron>
You and Paul Morphy. C Mead vs Morphy, 1857 |
|
Jul-29-08
|
| WarmasterKron: Nice game, Keypusher. If it's good enough for Morphy, it's good enough for me. I will now proceed to use this and similar excuses to justify all sorts of rubbish. |
|
| Mar-06-09 |
| FiveofSwords: heh causing problems for the other guy is never rubbish. But i must say that 4 h3 is really a lame move. If i were black and saw white make that move, I would feel no need to do anything fancy. I would just sit and do nothing and wait for the other guy to blunder because I suspect he has no idea what he should be doing in this opening, if he actually plays 4. h3. For this reason I think your gambit, although it is probably objectively sound, its meta objectively totally unsound- because when white plays 4 h3 you have no excuse to try to attack his position- its more probable that white will simply ruin his own position with no help from you. |
|
| Mar-07-09 |
| chessman95: <FiveofSwords> I wish I could do that! Whenever my opponents play a crazy line that I've never seen before, I just can't resist the temptation of playing something even more weird back. Luckilly this doesn't happen too often... |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
