| Sep-11-09 | | Everett: A nice scalp for black here in the ever-sharp Budapest Gambit. |
|
| Feb-26-10 | | pskogli: A really weak game from a GM. |
|
Apr-05-11
 | | FSR: I will never understand the Fajarowicz Gambit as long as I live. In CG's database, it actually scores better than 3...Ng4. |
|
| Apr-05-11 | | DanielBryant: FSR, for what it's worth, I feel more comfortable with the Englund Gambit than the Fajarowicz, and that's not saying much. |
|
Sep-30-13
 | | offramp: The 15...Bd2+ tic-tac is really clever. |
|
| Sep-30-13 | | sofouuk: 4.a3 is the correct response - maybe the last good move white played tho :) |
|
Sep-30-13
 | | Phony Benoni: 15...Bd2+ is a very nice shot. Seeing the queen as the firing piece in a discovered attack can be hard to foresee. <FSR> I take it the apparent success of the Fajarowicz is probably due to the Simul Effect. If you tablulated all the the simul results in the databse, the Masters' winning percentage would be well below reality. This is because more simul wins against Masters get published and preserved than simul wins by Masters. Same with the Fajarowicz and many other opening lines with dubious reputations but high winning percentages. |
|
| Sep-30-13 | | Kikoman: position after 17...c5
click for larger viewThe move 15...Bd2!! is crushing! whether White takes the bishop or not, he can't save his own Queen. |
|
| Sep-30-13 | | erimiro1: Walter Becker of Steely Dan? Well - Do it again! I also don't get the Budapest gambit, and its cousin, the Albin counter gambit. True, in both cases white is in difficulties of developing his kingside, and the C4 pawn is misplaced. But practicly when I tried it for few times, I couldn't use it as black, and after few moves white players arranged their forces and got better positions. |
|
| Sep-30-13 | | Once: I suppose the attraction of an opening like this is that white has to play accurately to avoid falling into some nasty tactic. If white can develop smoothly he ought to win, Black's job is to keep piling on the threats to make it difficult for white to develop. Fritz reckons that the losing move came after 12...Bxf3 
click for larger viewNow Fritzie says that the only move to keep white in the game is 13. gxf3. This allows white to meet 13...Bh6 with e3 to block access to the land-mined d2 square. But I would contend that this is not so easy to see OTB. And that is probably the attraction of the opening. Black found himself playing someone graded far more than himself. So he played a tricksy opening with the idea of setting traps. Incidentally, black is following the advice in Simon Webb's "Chess for Tigers" about how to play against heffalumps: 1. don't avoid playing a gambit if you know it
2. play actively
3. randomise
4. don't swap everything off
5. be brave! |
|
| Sep-30-13 | | Abdel Irada: I think the culprit was likely 10. b4??
This move makes very little sense. If you're trying to hold a gambit pawn, solid development is logical, not ill-conceived "aggression." Is there anything wrong with the forthright 10. Bf4? Either this, or White should look at a judicious way to return the pawn. I can't help suspecting that Lukacs looked at the 245-point rating difference and underestimated Becker. But if so, 2275 is *not* weak, and Lukacs paid dearly for his presumption. ∞ |
|
| Sep-30-13 | | morfishine: As far as this play on words or "pun" goes, I don't see the connection between a company that makes hand-held power tools & chess Unless the inference was White got drilled
***** |
|
| Sep-30-13 | | ossipossi: <10...0-0-0->: d1 so weak after only ten moves! |
|
| Sep-30-13 | | kevin86: The poor queen can't stay where she is and cannot find a place to move. At least Becker didn't "bore us" |
|
Sep-30-13
| | FSR: I played 7.Nc3! Nxc3 8.Qxc3 Nc6 9.Bf4 Bf5 10.Rd1! (stopping 0-0-0) and won quickly in F Rhine vs G Bungo, 2013. John L Watson says that instead of 6.cxd5, even better was 6.e3! with a large advantage. Houdini 3 agrees, assessing the position as +1.15. |
|
| Sep-30-13 | | Conrad93: 4. Qd4 solves all of white's problems. |
|
| Sep-30-13 | | Abdel Irada: <Conrad93: 4. Qd4 solves all of white's problems.> And behold! With a single snap of his fingers, <Conrad93> has completely rewritten opening theory on the Fajarowicz Variation. (This must be why, in the three times 4. Qd4 appears in the database, White has drawn twice and lost once.) ∞ |
|
| Sep-30-13 | | castagno: Pretzel logic! |
|
Sep-30-13
| | FSR: <Phony Benoni> Are you saying that this is a simul game? That's not apparent to me, and CG.com seems to think that it's a classical game. But you make an interesting point. People who submit games for publication, publishers, and readers all prefer short, snappy games. So games like this one (where Black won quickly) and F Rhine vs G Bungo, 2013 (where White won quickly) are more likely to be submitted and published than games that are long and/or dull and/or drawn. Does Black <really> outscore White in the Englund Gambit after 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6? Opening Explorer Hard to believe. |
|
Sep-30-13
 | | perfidious: <BL> is shorthand for Bundesliga-doubt this was from a display, which view is corroborated by: http://www.365chess.com/tournaments... |
|
Sep-30-13
| | Phony Benoni: <FSR> No, I'm not suggesting it's a simul game. only that the apparently favorable statistical result arises from the same phenomenon. Devotees of the opening submit their wins for publication, and throw the losses away. Those who defeat the dubious opening may not feel the game is worth preserving; also, such wins are usually long pawn-up grind-em-downs rather than the "short, snappy style" you rightfully pointed out. And perhaps the parallel with simul games isn't so clear. IF a Master wins 40 games and loses 4 in a simul, it's likely that all his losses will be published (and preserved), but few of his wins. News value, for one thing, plus the fact that in a simul any game a Master loses is probably going to be of higher quality than most of his wins. So the mechanism is different but the result is the same, an apparent statistical aberration due to weighted data. (I don't what I'm talking about, just what the words mean.) |
|
Sep-30-13
| | FSR: <Phony Benoni> OK, we're on the same page then. I had never thought of that phenomenon before. But it has a lot of explanatory potential, I think - although I don't know how one proves the effect rather than just speculating about it. The statistics for the Traxler/Wilkes-Barre, for example, always seem extraordinarily good for Black. Yet hardly anyone plays it! There, I think probably a few things are going on: (1) your Simul Effect - the short, snappy, usually decisive games are more likely to be published; (2) to play the variation correctly, you have to (a) be a tactically genius and (b) have studied the opening extensively; (3) most people aren't going to spend that much time working up a defense to a move (3.Bc4) that they'll only rarely see, particularly since (4) White can easily avoid the craziness by eschewing the "duffer's move" (Tarrasch) 4.Ng5. |
|
| Sep-30-13 | | Conrad93: <<Conrad93: 4. Qd4 solves all of white's problems.>
And behold! With a single snap of his fingers, <Conrad93> has completely rewritten opening theory on the Fajarowicz Variation. (This must be why, in the three times 4. Qd4 appears in the database, White has drawn twice and lost once.) ∞>
4. Qd5 is better, but there is nothing wrong with 4. Qd4. It's not my fault that a couple of morons had trouble against a really bad opening. Yeah, nothing says an opening is bad like three games! Wonderful thinking. |
|
Kibitzing
sac: 15...Bd2+
icon.
