| Sep-24-03 | | patzer2: White's 5. e5?! is probably an opening error, wasting tempo while facilitating black's plan of rapid development. More to the point would be 5. Nc3, developing before attacking. Note that after 5. e5?! Ng4 white cannot play 6. h3?, since 6...Bh4+! wins immediately. |
|
| Sep-24-03 | | AdrianP: or perhaps 6. O-O is the real error. 6. d4 looks much better which eliminates any Bc4 checks after white has castled... here are the only three games with 5. e5 from the chessbase database, 3 white wins, in all of which W plays 6. d4: [Event "Hoogovens-B"]
[Site "Beverwijk"]
[Date "1956.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Bergsma,KM"]
[Black "Ditt,Egon"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C35"]
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Be7 4.Be2 Nf6 5.e5 Ng4 6.d4 d6 7.Bxf4 Nc6 8.h3 dxe5
9.dxe5 Qxd1+ 10.Bxd1 g5 11.Nxg5 Ngxe5 12.Nc3 Rg8 13.h4 Be6 14.Nxe6 fxe6 15.Bh5+ Kd7 16.0-0-0+ Bd6
17.Rhe1 Kc8 18.g3 b6 19.Ne4 Be7 20.Ng5 Bd6 21.Nf3 Nxf3 22.Bxf3 Kd7 23.Bxc6+ Kxc6 24.Rxe6 Rad8
25.Rh6 Rd7 26.Rd3 a5 27.Kd2 Kc5 28.Bxd6+ cxd6 29.Ke2 b5 30.Kf2 b4 31.Rf3 Rc8 32.g4 Kd4
33.Rd3+ Ke5 34.Rh5+ Ke4 35.Rd2 Rf7+ 36.Kg2 Ke3 37.Rhd5 Rc4 38.R5d3+ Ke4 39.Re2+ Kf4 40.Rf3+
1-0
[Event "SVE-URS corr5861"]
[Site ""]
[Date "1958.??.??"]
[Round "70"]
[White "Kennik,AA"]
[Black "Erlandsson,H"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C35"]
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Be7 4.Be2 Nf6 5.e5 Ng4 6.d4 Bh4+ 7.Kf1 Nf2 8.Qe1 Nd3
9.Qxh4 Qxh4 10.Nxh4 Nxc1 11.Bg4 Nc6 12.Nc3 Nxa2 13.Rxa2 Nxd4 14.Nd5 Kd8 15.Kf2 c6 16.Nb6 Rb8
17.Rxa7 Nxc2 18.Nf5 h5 19.Bd1 Nb4 20.Nd6 Nd3+ 21.Ke2 Nxe5 22.Nbxc8 Kc7 23.Bb3 f6 24.Rha1 g5
25.Ra8 Rxa8 26.Rxa8 g4 27.Ra7 Rxc8 28.Nxc8 Kxc8 29.Ra8+ Kc7 30.Rf8 f3+ 31.gxf3 Nxf3 32.Kf2 Nxh2
33.Bd1 Kd6 34.Rxf6+ Ke5 35.Rf7 Ke6 36.Rh7 g3+ 37.Kg2 Ng4 38.Bxg4+ hxg4 39.Kxg3 1-0 [Event "GER-ch qgC24 corr9395"]
[Site ""]
[Date "1993.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Sierck,M"]
[Black "Sauer,W"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C35"]
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Be7 4.Be2 Nf6 5.e5 Ng4 6.d4 Bh4+ 7.Kf1 Ne3+ 8.Bxe3 fxe3
9.Qd3 Bg5 10.h4 Bh6 11.g4 d5 12.g5 1-0 |
|
| Sep-24-03 | | patzer2: White's 14. Ne5? was the losing blunder. Better was 14. Nc3. |
|
| Sep-24-03 | | patzer2: <AdrianP> Your recommendation of 6. d4! looks good. I first thought 6 0-0 was essential to prevent 6. ...Bh4+, but the last two games you provided above show white has some amazing defensive/attacking resources after 6. d4! and 6. ...Bh4+. Makes me wonder if Michael Adams was aware of the strength of 6. d4! when he entered this line and what his counter would have been? Apparently, 6...Bh4+ was not the answer. Note: Black's position after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Be7 4.Be2 Nf6 5.e5 Ng4 6.d4 Bh4+ 7.Kf1 Nf2 8.Qe1 is both desparate and amusing. The amusement comes from the fact that with 7...Nf2 black thinks he has a winning knight fork only to find himself on his next move in a losing pin after 8. Qe1! |
|
| Sep-24-03 | | AdrianP: following 6. d4 6...c5!? looks quite interesting to me, contesting the centre and opening up possibilities of tactics based on Qa5+, on the downside, it leaves the d-pawn backward and weak and does not solve the problem of developing the W bishop quickly. I see no particular problems for B after the 6. d4 d6. |
|
| Sep-24-03 | | patzer2: <AdrianP> I ran the position after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Be7 4.Be2 Nf6 5.e5 Ng4 6.d4 through Fritz 8 for analysis. Interestingly, after white's 6. d4, Fritz 8 calculates 6...Bh4+ as best for black (-0.31 eval @14/47 depth & 652 kNs). The computer analysis goes 6. d4 Bh4+ 7. Kf1 Ne3+ (not 7. ...Nf2 8. Qe1!) 8. Bxe3 fxe3 9. Qd3 0-0 (much better than 9. ...Bg5?! in the last correspondence game cited above) 10. Qxe3 d5 11. Nxh4 Qxh4 12. Bf3 Be6 with a black advantage. Other moves rated near level by fritz 8 were 6. ...d6 (0.00 eval) and 6. ...Ne3+ (0.03 eval @ 14/47 depth & 652kNs). Fritz 8 also rates your 6...c5?! as level. The analysis by Fritz 8 goes 6. d4 c5?! 7. Bxf4! cxd4 8. Nxd4 Nxe5 9. Nf5 0-0 10. Nxe7+ Qxe7 11. Nc3 d6 12. Nd5 Qh4+ (0.19 @ 14/14 depth 652 kN/s). Note that after my suggested 5. Nc3, Fritz indicates black gets easy equality with 5...d5 or 5...Nc6 or 5...0-0. |
|
| Sep-24-03 | | AdrianP: <patzer2> it's nice when the Fritz agrees with you...! (i.e. 6. ...c5 and 6. ...d6 being OK for B), but I agree that Bh4+! looks stronger than the two correspondence matches would suggest. I'm therefore quite happy for my "c5!?" to be re-labelled "c5?!" ;-). I wouldn't be surprised if Mickey Adams had had all this worked out in home preparation, and was prepared to meet 6. d4 with Bh4+. I imagine that the upshot of our discussion is that your original thoughts were probably spot on, namely that 6. e5 is a bit dodgy for white. |
|
| Mar-24-04 | | ruylopez900: Would Black play Qh4 and Ng3 to mate White? Or is there something else? |
|
| Mar-25-04 | | TrueFiendish: White has just blundered away his knight. |
|
| Mar-25-04 | | ruylopez900: Right, I missed the discovered attack to complement a pawn. A bit tricky but after further reflection I should've seen it. |
|
| Dec-12-09 | | arifattar: I looked for all Hydra games. Then I was looking for Lutz vs Adams games. Thanks someone got it soon. Else I would have gone on and on. |
|
Kibitzing
