|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Apr-09-02
 | | Sneaky: Keep in mind the time controls for this game were 25 minutes + 10 seconds/move. Much shorter than normal tournament controls. But there's no GM that plays the Petrov that wouldn't delight in refuting this gambit, and Shirov was no exception. |
|
| Apr-06-04 | | Taidanii: I think that Short's triple pawn had something to do with his defeat. ;) If his play would have been different, the Gambit may have in fact refuted Shirov. |
|
| Apr-07-04 | | acirce: Extremely strange choice by Short. I didn't even know about this game. Weird. |
|
| Aug-20-04 | | acirce: <clocked> what is not true? For your information, May comes after April! :-) |
|
| Aug-20-04 | | clocked: 27... Be3+? (Nxd4) is a mistake which white could have cashed in on with 30.Qf7+! In that case, maybe the choice to play something inherently unbalanced rather than a standard Petrov would not be questioned. |
|
| Aug-20-04 | | clocked: <acirce> Oh sorry I am unstuck in time :-) |
|
| Oct-11-04 | | rochade18: Well I do not see your move 30.Qf7 win, because the white rook is forced to stay on f1 in my opinion. would you explain this line to me? |
|
| Oct-11-04 | | Knezh: 30. Qf7+ Rxf7 31. exf and promotes
Should be enough to clinch it. |
|
| Oct-13-04 | | rochade18: Ah now I see that the rook on f1 would be protected by the promoted pawn! |
|
| Jun-24-05 | | bomb the bishop: <refutor, bishop> its not necessarily a bad opening, in fact the aim is to incomodate black, taking into acount that the Petroff defense is such a stable line, this variation is more of a psychological breakthrough and it does compensate, the problem is that 9. 0-0?! seems like a weak move,
9. ♕e2 is better.. then follows 9.. ♔f7 and 10. ♘c3 with enough compensation for white |
|
| Jul-30-05 | | patzer2: Instead of 6. dxc5, perhaps 6. Bc4+ as in White's nice win by a GM in S Sulskis vs T Michalczak, 2005 is worth a try. |
|
| Jul-30-05 | | patzer2: Has anyone noticed that after <clocked> pointed out that White missed a win with 30. Qf7!, that all the discussion about the Petrov being a bad opening choice ceased. As far as I know the Petrov is still being played with decent results in correspondence play, and I don't know of anyone claiming a "refutation." Indeed, Topalov and Krammnik drew a game as annotated in detail at http://www.chessbaseusa.com/T-NOTES..., suggesting to me that the opening is alive and well. Certainly, it is a worthy try at club level. |
|
| Jul-30-05 | | patzer2: Click on Topalov vs Kramnik, 1999 for the link to that super GM draw in the Cochrane Gambit. |
|
| Jan-12-06 | | Steppenwolf: 30 Rd1! instead of Rg1. Prevents the following moves of the knight and saves a tempo. |
|
| Mar-31-07 | | gambitfan: After: 1. e4 e5 2. ♘f3 ♘f6 3. ♘xe5 d6 4. ♘xf7 ♔xf7 5. d4 ... Can we say that 5. ... c5!? is kind of refutation of the Cochrane Gambit ? |
|
Sep-21-07
 | | Peligroso Patzer: <30 Rd1! instead of Rg1.> As originally pointed out by <clocked>, White had the following winning continuation at move 30: 30.Qf7+ Rxf7 31.exf7, with 32.f8=Q to follow.
|
|
| Jan-28-08 | | buffalobill: 14. Qf3+ was much stronger. It gets back the knight plus avoids the doubled and lost pawn.
Yes, gambitfan, 5. ... c5 is the strongest and best response. Thereafter, it's up to the skills of the players. |
|
| Dec-27-08 | | KingG: I'm quite surprised Short missed 30.Qf7+ actually. Maybe he was in desperate time trouble, or perhaps he had already mentally given up, but it's certainly not a hard tactic for someone of his class to see. In fact, the computer seems to suggest that 27...Be3+ was a losing mistake. In light of this, I don't see why he should be reproached for his opening choice. It very nearly worked out for him. However, it should also be said that 26...Nxd4 27.cxd4 Rf8 was winning for Black. The evaluation in this game jumped around quite a bit. |
|
| Dec-27-08 | | 5hrsolver: 30.Qf7+! What a missed save. |
|
| Nov-07-09 | | The Chess Express: <Taidanii: I think that Short's triple pawn had something to do with his defeat. ;)
If his play would have been different, the Gambit may have in fact refuted Shirov. buffalobill: 14. Qf3+ was much stronger. It gets back the knight plus avoids the doubled and lost pawn. Yes, gambitfan, 5. ... c5 is the strongest and best response. Thereafter, it's up to the skills of the players.> As far as this opening is concerned these are probably the two most important comments thus far. One possible line might be 14. Qf3+ Kg8
15. Qxc3 b6
16. Be3 Qe6
17. Re2 d4
18. Bxd4 Nxd4
19. Qxd4 Bxc5
20. Qe4
click for larger viewI prefer white. |
|
| Jun-01-10 | | Stoned Knight: You've got to love Short. he is one of the few top grandmasters that try something different and take risks. I mean playing this gambit against Shirov takes a nerve. Well done Nigel, too bad you missed a couple of good moves. |
|
| Oct-12-11 | | Marmot PFL: 10 Qd3 seems to give white good compensation. |
|
| Jan-30-15 | | sharpnova: <Refutor>
First off it would be refuter. not refutor.
Secondly, how can you say there isn't enough compensation? One knight for:
-two pawns
-king off balance and can't castle easily and even then it's a manual castle
-strong center
-open diagonals for bishop vs black's boxed in dark bishop, which can't be fianchettoed or black's king will never be safe It is easily the most sound opening piece gambit there is. And you will be wise to reevaluate both your username and the soundness of this opening. |
|
| Feb-26-16 | | happyjuggler0: A good rule of thumb is to never play a known opening sacrifice against a Latvian. They seem to know them all.... |
|
Feb-26-16
 | | plang: If it is a sound opening sacrifice it doesn't matter whether he knows it or not (Marshall Gambit for instance) |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
