But there's only one book on the line at all-- I should have it by the end of the month. I may take one fewer class next quarter just to study it.

This play by black is the primary reason amongst many others that I do not like the King's gambit.

Black has the luxury of easy development and can turn it into a gambit of his own after 3. exd5 e4 or he can play 3. ... exf4.

<2...d5> and <3...e4> is not my favorite move-pair to see, it's true. I think theory still likes White in the main-line Falkbeer but I've had a rocky road of it. Have recently been playing <3.ed e4 4.d3 Nf6 5.dxe4 Nxe4 6.Be3> (think Spassky picked this up at one point):

click for larger view

Now <6...Qh4+> leads to a risk-free position where White can argue for many moves that he is just slightly better. Or so I believe at the moment.

<6...Bd6> leads to quick development on both sides and also happens to be, I think, relatively uncharted. White played a very nice game here:

Short vs Karjakin, 2008

I like the setup here for white, shipping the f-pawn and playing 4-3 on the queenside with that huge d5 pawn and tons of space to shuffle your minors behind. Check out the position after 12 moves:

click for larger view

Karjakin has solved the problem of his LSB and is ready to defang the b1-h7 diagonal, but Short is able to ruin his pawns and he wrapped things up impressively...Karjakin had clinched the match the previous game, so may have been coasting a bit. But to me this is looks pretty tidy.

~~~

Now, as for positions where Black takes <...exf4>, a delayed acceptance of the pawn (Eric Schiller and I argued a couple years ago about whether 2...d5 and 3...exf4 counted as the Falkbeer or KGA), it's true these positions must already be equal for Black, but I don't think they're so bad. My rule with Nimzo's <...c6> (mentioned by <King Death> is to always ignore it, which I think is the standard approach-- am I wrong? Eventually Black takes on d5 and we end up in the same place. A third way to get there is 3.Bc4 d5 4.exd5 fxe4. However we get there it often resembles this:

click for larger view

[Typical ...exf4 position after 10 moves. From J Gallagher vs E Almada, 1991 ]

Ok, probably these positions are more than equal for Black. If, you know, one wants to be technical. ("2...exf4 and where is White's compensation for the pawn?" Morozevich has said-- coming from Moro this hurts, Moro who so brilliantly defeated Anand with the King's Bishop Gambit as a spindly teenager, jumping on to the world stage in the process... Morozevich vs Anand, 1995.) Bottom line, for me, I think these ...exf4 positions are interesting: opposing 4-2 pawn majorities are inherently unbalanced and there is lots of scope for creativity. They are definitely dangerous positions, though. Against a well-prepared Black player you could die quickly.

But Bronstein said "The King's Gambit is no more of a risk for White than the King's Indian is for Black" and while it's not for me to say, until somebody tells me different I'm going to assume that's still the case today. After all, the King's Indian isn't going anywhere, and Kasparov's statement that "you can't play it unless you're prepared to sacrifice a pawn" isn't news to any KID player. So, sack a pawn as white! And you don't have to learn any Spanish theory. I've burned my bridges with Senor Ruy, if 2.f4 doesn't work out than 1.e4 is out the window too.

What will McShane's Fide rating be assuming he does not play anymore before the next ratings are posted?

I didn't realize someone's username was "Everyone"! I meant to ask the general readership.

13 h4?! spends a tempo for development and weakens White's pawn structure on the King side and so makes it more difficult to arrange the advance f4. After 13 0-0 with best play Black may be lost in the long run.

Very often in these Lopez middlegames Black will exchange this bishop because the knight can be more of a long term danger once it swings to f5 and cramps his position.

<...13 h4?! spends a tempo for development and weakens White's pawn structure on the King side and so makes it more difficult to arrange the advance f4. After 13 0-0 with best play Black may be lost in the long run.>

The price for removing the potential source of danger is too high, as Black has no compensation for his doubled pawn apart from his bishop pair. This exchange works only when White is unable to make count his superior pawn structure

<<...13 h4?! spends a tempo for development and weakens White's pawn structure on the King side and so makes it more difficult to arrange the advance f4. After 13 0-0 with best play Black may be lost in the long run.>

It'll take some doing for White to play f4 without weakening his own king and Black can castle long anyway. To say that "...Black may be lost in the long run" is straight out of those Reinfeld books that were around when I was a kid 50 years ago.>

Heidenfeld described Reinfeld as a devotee of Tarrasch. Reinfeld appears to have had some reason to be that. Reinfeld says in his introduction to his book of Tarrasch's best games that Tarrasch played so many fine games that it was a laborious task to select some for a compilation, amd that Tarrasch put his love of chess into some of those games.

According to Nimzovich, Tarrasch's rules were at best the tips of an experienced housewife. If we assume that Nimzovich was right to at least some degree, this suggests that Tarrasch and his disciple Reinfeld could be sometimes wrong but also sometimes right.

<He had to pay a price for what he gained.> The main price waa the bishop pair which Black relinquished

<Black has a strong grip in the center and this makes it hard for White to open up the game.>

That is not White's aim. The aim is to play f4 and to keep the centre closed otherwise.>

<White's bishop doesn't really have much to do at b2 either.> Not immediately but potentially

<If you noticed in the game itself, Ivanchuk soon swapped off the other bishop.> I noticed that Kramnik swapped off the other bishop. That was a concession which he would have liked not to have to make.

<Maybe he understands a little bit more about concrete play than Reinfeld (or even Tarrasch) did.> That seems all too believable