< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 7 ·
|Mar-02-09|| ||chessman95: <My understanding of Traxler theory is that the lines after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Ng5 4. Ng5 Bc5 5. Nxf7 Bxf2+ are pretty much analyzed out to forced draws, and the move 5. Bxf7+ is better.> I hear this over and over again, so it must be correct, but I still don't get why. In my personal experience I've only played against the Traxler Gambit a few times (I rarely venture into the relms of the Italian Game) but in those games I've always played Nxf7 even though it's "refuted" and I've won every time. I can't see any obvious tactics that can get black a forced draw, and usually what happened in my games was we traded peices until I got to the endgame with an extra peice and won. My opponents would confidently smile when I "fell into the trap" by playing Nxf7, and then scratch their heads trying to come up with the refutation they had all heard of. Even in books the authors just dismiss this line as refuted and don't tell why. Does anyone know how to refute this line? Until I finally lose in one of my traxler gambit games, I'm just going to keep playing this line.|
|Mar-03-09|| ||MaxxLange: Well, they have to know what they are doing exactly. Lines like this are the kind of thing I had in mind:|
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5 5. Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6. Kxf2 Nxe4+ 7. Kg1 Qh4 8. g3 Nxg3 9. hxg3 Qxg3+ 10. Kf1 Rf8 11. Qh5 d5 12. Bxd5 Nd4 13. Qh2 Qg4 14. Qxe5+ Be6 15. Bxe6 Qf3+ 16. Kg1 Ne2+ 17. Kh2 Qf2+ 18. Kh3 Qf3+
|Mar-03-09|| ||MaxxLange: <chessman95>
from a link a few pages back, here is a NiC survey championing the Nxf7 line:
|Mar-03-09|| ||chessman95: <MaxxLange> I know that the line where white's king takes the bishop on f2 ends up in perpetual check, but what if the king just moves to f1? I've played this in all my games and can't remember ever losing.|
|Mar-03-09|| ||MaxxLange: That's what the New In Chess article says: Kf1 wins for White in the Nxf7 line|
Unfortunately, they haven't put the fifth part of the article up on the web - my link goes to the one about Kxf2 (which is also interesting). The link to all 4 articles they did make free is about 2 pages back.
All of this is wanting to make me play the Italian Game again. But it seems really hard to win against 3...Bc5. Maybe I should try the Evans Gambit against it.
|Mar-03-09|| ||chessman95: Okay, so the Kf1 line does win. Then how can they say that Nxf7 has been refuted? I don't see any way to force a draw for black unless you play Bxf2+ hoping that white makes the blunder of taking the bishop.|
By the way <MaxxLange> the Evans Gambit is an excellent choice against Bc5 and leads to very fun games. That and some of the lines in the Two Knights Defense we have been talking about lead me to start playing the Italian more often instead of the Spanish, which I still play but not all the time anymore.
|Mar-03-09|| ||MaxxLange: <chessman95> this NiC line is new analysis; he begins by criticizing NM Heisman's work.The old view was that Bxf7 was superior by theory. It's probably still controversial...clearly Kf1 is the better move in terms of practical chances|
I like playing the Ruy with White, and I have scored pretty well with it. So that makes me loathe to play 3. Bc4, which I did also once love and I won some nice tournament games against other fish with. I like playing all this 1. e4 e5 stuff from both sides, really.
|Mar-03-09|| ||MaxxLange: My last rating was 1642...I'd like to think I have improved since then...at my level, I should be able to put a killing Italian Game repetoire together, if I choose to. It's an attractive concept, build a repetoire around older stuff with a stodgy reputation, but be going for the throat with gambits|
|Mar-03-09|| ||chessman95: <MaxxLange> I would recommend building an Italian repetoire. After I started playing the Italian, my performance went up a lot, and at least my opponents didn't know if I was going to play the Spanish or Italian, which put together make a headache of theory for your opponent to learn to prepare against you. As you said, it's an old opening with lots of new ideas, which is exactly why I play it. People no longer play it just for classical attack of the f7 pawn and simple development, but instead for exciting gambits and aggressive attacks. Also, it's nice to have another opening for variety's sake. I recently added the Scotch to my repetoire as well...|
|Mar-07-09|| ||FiveofSwords: exactly what opening you play is not very important. No opening is so awesome that a weak player will beat a strong player and no opening is so terrible that a weak player will lose to a strong player. Its extremely common for people between the 0-2100 rating to think some openings are simply better than others and this is a mistake. Its also a common error for people to think that GMs play the best openings and always in a good way. Its also a common error for people to think that computers play the best openings and always in a good way. You need to figure out how to get positions you like from the opening that support your basic approach to chess and your chess philosophy...that accent your personal strengths and hide your weaknesses. Now regarding various positions where you have pawns on e4 and e5 and white plays bc4, you cant really say exactly what sort of position it is because there is a massive variety. It can be a wild open tactical game or a slow manouvering closed and nearly blocked position. The same can be said of the ruy lopez. However, I do think its worth mentioning that you dont have to deal with various very well known 'refutations' (I put this in quotes because its rather a bold thing to say. But with very strong players I honestly dont think it's far from the truth at all) of the ruy lopez such as the marshall gambit or the berlin defense if you dont play the ruy lopez.|
|Mar-07-09|| ||blacksburg: here's a quote from Marin's "Beating the Open Games" that i found quite interesting (note that the book recommends 3...Bc5 and the italian game)|
"If absolute truth is ever to be discovered in chess, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the more logical 3...Nf6 is better....However, centuries of practice have proved that after the critical 4.Ng5 the position is by no means easier to play than in the few sharp systems available to White after 3...Bc5."
|Mar-07-09|| ||chessman95: <FiveofSwords> You are somewhat right that the there are no openings that are significantly better than the others, and there are not a lot that will almost 'automatically' be beaten. And yes, the most important thing in an opening is not the opening itself but the middlegame it reaches. However, I do not think it would be wise to just pick an opening with an middlegame you like and not consult advise from books, computer analysis, etc. Also, I beleive that experience in a variety of openings, even if you don't play them often, is important. As I read in one book, "Too many chess players start out by playing rare openings that avoid theory, but rather they should first learn the theory and only then choose if they want to play rare openings to avoid the theory." So the openings you learn and play is important if you want to be successful in the opening stage of the game. You can't just pick a random one, do a little studying and be okay.|
<Now regarding various positions where you have pawns on e4 and e5 and white plays bc4, you cant really say exactly what sort of position it is because there is a massive variety.>
Each side has some say in this. White (as I do) can always choose to play the most agressive moves if he wants to, and black will have no response that makes the position completely quiet. In fact, often the best way, and most natural, to respond to an agressive move is to play something agressive right back, so I often reach positions I like when I play the Italian Game. And if my opponent is annoying and forces the game to be quiet for the moment, than I gladly let him because I most likely have the advantage.
|Mar-07-09|| ||Dredge Rivers: There's gonna be a rumble Two Knights.
There's gonna be a rumble, that's rights.
And we'll see who'll be the last man standing,
There's gonna be a rumble TWO KNIGHTS!
|Mar-07-09|| ||FiveofSwords: sure...learning theory is nice...And trust me, i have a stupid amount of free time and a decent memory and so i know plenty of theory, i dont 'avoid' anything. Its also nice to have an open mind. After all of the massive amounts that ive learned on variou openings, I genuinely beleive that systems where white plays Bc4 have somewhat better practical winning chances, FOR ME, than systems with Bb5, regarless of the opponent. (but against computers, I play 1 d4) Ive played both, i know both very well.|
|Mar-07-09|| ||FiveofSwords: im actually quite orthodox, in fact, my repitoire is if anything most unusual in how old fashioned it is. I knew a guy who would break off grandmasters openign this sort fo way tho: 1 e4 nf6 2 e5 Ng8. not kidding. He could play that sort of 'nonsense' and was good with it.|
|Mar-07-09|| ||FiveofSwords: the way to study theory is not really to focus on moves, this is not usually important. More profitable is to learn general plans, how various openings are approached, things like that. I often find myself using ideas in a position that i recall from an openings which is absurdly different...but just happens to be similar in this one single respect.|
|Mar-07-09|| ||chessman95: I wouldn't call playing the Alapin Sicilian and Tarrasch French very orthodox.|
|Mar-07-09|| ||Marmot PFL: Don't play this with either color unless you want a fight and knowing lots of lines helps too. 4 Ng5 can be met with d5 5 ed5 Na5 or b5, or with 4...Bc5. The GMs these days usually play 4 d3 just to avoid these risky lines.|
|Mar-07-09|| ||MaxxLange: So, the fifth New In Chess Traxler survey, which supposedly gives the refutation of the whole line after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 Bc5 5 Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6 Kf1, wasn't on the web special free link thing because it wasn't out yet. It's in print in the latest NiC yearbook, which I now want very much.|
Do you guys actually get a lot of people playing this line? I have never played a real game with White against it. On the Internet, or OTB? I know that Eric Schiller posted that he was teaching it to his scholastic students as Black a few years ago - has it become a trend?
|Mar-07-09|| ||MaxxLange: 1 e4 nf6 2 e5 Ng8> ultra-modernism|
|Mar-07-09|| ||chessman95: <MaxxLange> Unfortunately, that line rarely appears. Of course, I don't even play the Italian that much so I wouldn't get into those lines a lot in the first place. However, the Traxler Gambit and Fried Liver Attack are probably the funnest lines to analyze in all of chess! Too bad I can't play them more often.|
|Aug-04-09|| ||whiteshark: Opening of the Day
<The Fried Liver Attack <1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. Nxf7 >>
click for larger view
<7. Qf3+ Ke6 8. Nc3 >
click for larger view
|Aug-04-09|| ||pulsar: Interesting discussion here. I have some experience with the Two Knights but I usually go for the Fritz Variation (5...Nd4) and got some decent results with it both in rapid and blitz.|
<whiteshark> May I know if the opening you posted above is considered busted for Black or has there been a major reassessment of the position? I must have read somewhere that the last diagram you've shown is losing for Black. Thank you. :)
|Aug-04-09|| ||blacksburg: <pulsar> regardless of the whether the position is lost or drawable for black, only one thing matters - the 4...d5 lines are definitely better and easier to play. no need to put your king on e6 like a maniac.|
|Aug-04-09|| ||pulsar: <blacksburg> I agree. Although I haven't really analyzed the line in detail, the King looks maltreated supporting his Knight from e6. I was just curious if there's any major reassessment of the position, that's all. Thanks.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 7 ·