|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-31-04 | | rochade18: Any move different from Nf6, Nc6 and d6 makes it c40 |
|
| Mar-31-04 | | AgentRgent: Cyphelium: <1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 3. Nxe5 Qe7 4. Nc4 Qxe4+ 5. Ne3 Nc6 6. Nc3 Qe5 7. Bc4 Nge7 8. O-O Nd4 9. d3 b5 10. Ned5 bxc4 11. Re1 Qd6 12. Bf4 Qc6 13. Nxc7+ Kf7 14. Nxa8 Bb7 15. Ne4 Bxa8 16. dxc4 Ne6 17. Bd6 Qxc4 18. b3 Qc6 19. c4 f5 20. Qh5+ g6 21. Qf3
and now you suggest 21.- Qb6. However, 20.- Bxd6 wins a piece. > Bxd6 is impossible as there is a knight on e7. |
|
Mar-31-04
 | | Chessical: <Cyphelium> I too am confused by your last post: <and now you suggest 21.- Qb6. However, 20.- Bxd6 wins a piece> Please could you clarify your variations by detailing all the moves? Anyway, earlier in the above line:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.Nc4 Qxe4+ 5.Ne3 Nc6 6.Nc3 Qe5 7.Bc4 Nge7 8.0–0 Nd4 <9.Re1> (instead of d3, seems extremely strong) Qc5 10.Ncd5 Nxd5 11.Nxd5+ Kd8 12.d3 d6 13.Qh5 Bd7 14.Be3 with a miserable position for Black. |
|
| Mar-31-04 | | AgentRgent: Cyphelium, If I understand correctly this is the line under discussion: <1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 3. Nxe5 Qe7 4. Nc4 Qxe4+ 5. Ne3 Nc6 6. Nc3 Qe5 7. Bc4 Nge7 8. O-O Nd4 9. d3 b5 10. Ned5 bxc4 11. Re1 Qd6 12. Bf4 Qc6 13. Nxc7+ Kf7 14. Nxa8 Bb7 15. Ne4 Bxa8 16. dxc4 Ne6 17. Bd6 Qxc4 18. b3 Qc6 19. c4 f5 20. Qh5+> and now we have 2 alternatives 20...g6 or 20...Kg8. after 20...g6 follows: 21. Qf3 where 21...fxe4 is impossible due to the pin, 21...Bxd6 is impossible due the Knight on e7. Thus 21...Qb6 is probably blacks best because of threats of Ng5+ followed by Qxc6 and Bxe7. after 20...Kg8 follows 21. Bxe7 g6 22. Qh4 fxe4 When white has Rook+Pawn for Bishop+Knight. Technically even material, although white's rook control of the d and e files, plus the weakness of black's e pawn lead me to believe white is somewhat better. |
|
| Mar-31-04 | | Cyphelium: <Chessical & AgentRegent> You are completely right. I was just confused. Analysing without a board sometimes results in such nonsense, sorry for wasting your time with it. |
|
| Mar-31-04 | | AgentRgent: Chessical: <1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.Nc4 Qxe4+ 5.Ne3 Nc6 6.Nc3 Qe5 7.Bc4 Nge7 8.0–0 Nd4 <9.Re1> (instead of d3, seems extremely strong)> 9.Re1 seems fine, but I don't like 9...Qc5. What about: 9...Kd8 10. Ned5 Qf5 11. Nxe7 Bxe7 12. d3 Bb4 13. Bd2 Nc6 and black stands not too badly despite the King on d8 |
|
Mar-31-04
| | Chessical: <Cyphelium> No problem! <AgentRgent> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.Nc4 Qxe4+ 5.Ne3 Nc6 6.Nc3 Qe5 7.Bc4 Nge7 8.0-0 Nd4 9.Re1 <Kd8> is an interesting idea, and most probably better than 9...Qc5. I do not think, however, it is enough to rescue Black> I would prefer to continue <10.d3> [rather than 10.Ned5] 10...d6 11.Ncd5 Nxd5 12.Nxd5 Qf5 13.c3 Nc6 14.d4 Bd7 15.Nf4 and Black is tied up. The whole defence is creaking, especially after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.Nf3! |
|
| Mar-31-04 | | ruylopez900: <rochade18> Alright, thanks for the info (and I thought the Damiano's had its own Code....) |
|
Apr-03-04
 | | tpstar: <InspiredByMorphy>: Friend, let's go through this together, please. We are all trying to learn and improve, because we love chess. But these long threads with a one sentence summary hold great power to confuse people. For the sake of all future students, let's set this down right: 1) Look at the board after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6?! 3. Nxe5! Ne7?! 4. Nf3. White has everything = a center Pawn, a KN on its best square at f3, a KB headed straight to c4 along the weakened a2-g8 diagonal, easy development, no weaknesses, great prospects. Best of all, White's a Pawn up! White has a clear advantage in Time, Space, Position, and Material. Meanwhile, Black has nothing = no center Pawn, a KN misplaced on e7 blocking the KB and Queen, the advance f7-f6 which weakened the a2-g8 diagonal (which White can't wait to exploit) along with the h5-e8 diagonal (which White already exploited with 3. Nxe5!), hard development, gloomy prospects. Worst of all, Black's a Pawn down! Black has a clear disadvantage in Time, Space, Position, and Material. Therefore, any other reasonable response to 2. Nf3 (2 ... Nc6, 2 ... Nf6, even 2 ... d6) works better for Black than stumbling out of the gate with the bad bad bad Damiano Defense (2 ... f6?!). Moreover, this explains why the McGregor Line (3. Nxe5! Qe7) is Black's only hope, regaining the gambit Pawn at once. 2) The whole point of 1 ... e5 was to prevent White from advancing d2-d4. After 2. Nf3 f6?! 3. Nxe5! Ne7?! 4. Nf3, how does Black stop 5. d4 and White owns the center? 4 ... c5?! leaves a gaping hole at d5 which White can target with the positional Nc3/Bc4/d3 or the direct 5. d4 cd (5 ... d6 6. dc dc 7. Qxd8+ Kxd8 8. Be3) 6. Nxd4. The best Black can do is 4 ... d5 which delays d2-d4 for one move; 5. ed Nxd5/Qxd5 6. d4. Now Black's game is much freer than before, because Black advanced d7-d5, but there's still no compensation in sight for the gambit Pawn. So instead of trading Pawns off after 3 ... Ne7?! 4. Nf3 d5 5. ed, 3 ... Qe7 regains the Pawn and reestablishes material equality. 3) As to 4. Nc4!?, you are mixing systems. In the Greco/Latvian Gambit (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5!?), a common continuation is 3. Nxe5 Qe7/Qf6 4. d4 d6. Now instead of the Ne5 moving to f3 or d3, only to get kicked again by 5 ... fe, White retreats 5. Nc4. But it's only a temporary spot, because when Black advances d6-d5, then this Knight finds the hole at e5. P Ten_Hacken vs Nobbe, 1982 Smyslov vs M Kamishov, 1945
But in the Damiano Defense, 4. Nc4!? makes no sense except to create unusual positions, which in and of itself makes no sense. Consider the Petrov Defense after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6. Does the Ne5 move over to c4? Of course not - it returns to f3 like it should! (OE has 1709 Petrov games; 4. Nf3 1651, 4. Nc4!? 33 = 50:1.) This is a major point, because in some of your Damiano games assuming 4. Nc4!? Black gets 4 ... d5 in with tempo, or else the KN winds up on e3 and not f3. So please stop analyzing the unnatural 4. Nc4!? and please start analyzing the natural 4. Nf3. |
|
Apr-03-04
| | tpstar: 4) Cyphelium made several good points which may have been misunderstood. When analyzing chess openings, start with the trunk, then major branches, then specific variations. You cannot follow one example game out "to the leaf" and pretend it represents a main line or best play for either side. Thus, most of us would ignore your entire 4. Nc4!? Qxe4+ 5. Ne3 analysis, because 4. Nf3 Qxe4+ 5. Be2 is more likely (and better). And if you think White would just sit there and give up the fine Bc4 (10 ... bxc4) only to get 13. Nxc7+ in - that's another giant stretch right there. But your example games do support a central tenet = N&B are better than R&P, which is why Black came out OK even after 2 ... f6?!. Cyphelium also noted how you don't block a mating battery (Qc6/Ba8) with a piece (Ne4), because it gets dislodged too easily (... f5) and it's gone. You must make that battery bite on granite (f3), freeing the piece for other things. And not the odd 17. Bd6?! which accomplishes nothing, but the even 17. Bg3 because the Pc4 is immune (17 ... Qxc4?? 18. Nd6+). Otherwise, I'll let him speak for himself. No study time is wasted if you're learning something. But if you truly are trying to rehabilitate the bad bad bad Damiano Defense, then you truly are wasting your time. Best wishes, tpstar. |
|
| Apr-03-04 | | InspiredByMorphy: <tpstar> <1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6?! 3. Nxe5! Ne7?! 4. Nf3. White has everything> White has an extra pawn but black has better development. White also has his king in the center of the board unable to castle. After 4.Nf3, I dont totally disagree with you but, after 4.d5, 3.Ne7 makes sense. I have never debated the gambit pawn not being recovered. The Damiano seems to be probably the hardest opening for black to regain the pawn, against proper play from white. Heres an example of 4.d5 where black gets better development, and whites king gets stuck in the center unable to castle. 1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 f6
3. Nxe5 Ne7
4. Nf3 d5
5. exd5 Nxd5
6. Nc3 Nc6
7. Bb5 Nxc3
8. dxc3 Qxd1+
9. Kxd1 Be6
10. Bxc6+ bxc6
11. Be3 O-O-O+ |
|
| Apr-03-04 | | InspiredByMorphy: <tpstar> An example of 3.Qe7 4.Nf3 Black develops well. 1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 f6
3. Nxe5 Qe7
4. Nf3 Qxe4+
5. Be2 Ne7
6. d4 d5
7. Nc3 Qe6
8. O-O Qb6
9. Na4 Qc6
10. b3 Bf5
11. Bd3 Nd7
12. Bxf5 Nxf5
13. Re1+ Kf7
14. c4 Bb4
15. Bd2 a5
16. Rc1 Rhc8
17. Bxb4 axb4
18. cxd5 Qxd5
19. Qd2 c5
20. dxc5 Qxd2
21. Nxd2 Ne5
22. Nb6 Nd3
23. Nf3 Rf8
24. Nxa8 Rxa8
25. Rcd1 Nxe1
26. Nxe1 Rxa2
27. Rd7+ Ke6
28. Rxb7 Ra1
29. Kf1 Kd5
30. Rxb4 Kxc5
31. Rb8 Rb1
32. b4+ Kd5
33. b5 g5
34. b6 h5
35. Ke2 Nd4+
36. Kd2 Nc6
37. Rh8 Rxb6
38. f4 h4
39. fxg5 fxg5
40. Rg8 Ne5
41. Rxg5 Ke4
42. Rh5 Ng6
43. Kc3 Ke3
44. Nf3 Rc6+
45. Kb4 Kf2
46. Nxh4 Nxh4
47. Rxh4 Kxg2
48. h3 Rc7
49. Rh5 Rg7
50. h4 Rg4+
51. Kc5 Kh3
52. Rh6 Rxh4
53. Rxh4+ Kxh4
1/2-1/2 |
|
| Apr-03-04 | | InspiredByMorphy: With 3.Ne7 and 6.Qf7
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 f6
3. Nxe5 Ne7
4. Nf3 d5
5. exd5 Qxd5
6. Nc3 Qf7
7. d4 Bf5
8. Bd3 Nbc6
9. d5 Ne5
10. Nxe5 fxe5
11. O-O O-O-O
12. Qf3 Bg6
13. Qxf7 Bxf7
14. Be3 Nxd5
15. Bxa7 Nf4
16. Bf5+ Be6
17. Bxe6+ Nxe6
18. Rae1 b6
19. Rxe5 Nd4
20. Rd1 Kb7
21. a3 c5
22. Bxb6 Kxb6
23. Rg5 Kc6
24. Kf1 Rb8
25. b4 Ra8
26. a4 cxb4
27. Rxd4 bxc3
28. Rc4+ Kd7
29. a5 g6
30. Rb5 Bd6
31. Rxc3 Rhb8
32. Rxb8 Rxb8
33. Rf3 Ra8
34. Rf7+ Kc6
35. Rxh7 Rxa5
36. Rh6 g5
37. h4 gxh4
38. Rxh4 Rg5
39. Rd4 Kc5
40. Ra4 Kd5
41. g4 Rg6
42. Ke2 Bc5
43. f3 Re6+
44. Kd2 Re3
45. Rf4 Re5
46. Rf7 Kc4
47. c3 Rd5+
48. Kc2 Re5
49. Rf4+ Kd5
50. Ra4 Rg5
51. Kd3 Rg8
52. Re4 Bd6
53. Rd4+ Ke6
54. c4 Rf8
55. Re4+ Kd7
56. Ke3 Rg8
57. Rd4 Kc6
58. Rd5 Re8+
59. Kf2 Bc5+
60. Kg2 Re2+
61. Kh3 Rc2
62. g5 Rxc4
63. g6 Bd4
64. Ra5 Kd6
65. f4 Ke6
66. Kg4 Kf6
67. Ra6+ Kg7
68. f5 Bf6+
69. Kf3 Rc3+
70. Ke4 Rc4+
71. Kd5 Rd4+
72. Ke6 Re4+
73. Kd6 Re5
74. Ra7+ Kh6
75. Rf7 Rxf5
76. g7 Rg5
77. Rxf6+ Kxg7
1/2-1/2 |
|
| Apr-03-04 | | InspiredByMorphy: With 8.Bxd3
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 f6
3. Nxe5 Ne7
4. Nf3 d5
5. exd5 Qxd5
6. Nc3 Qf7
7. d4 Bf5
8. Bd3 Bxd3
9. Qxd3 Nbc6
10. O-O O-O-O
11. Rd1 Kb8
12. a3 Ne5
13. Nxe5 fxe5
14. Qe4 Rxd4
15. Rxd4 exd4
16. Qxd4 Nc6
17. Qd5 Qxd5
18. Nxd5 Bd6
19. Bf4 Bxf4
20. Nxf4 Re8
21. Kf1 Nd4
22. Nh5 Nxc2
23. Rc1 Nd4
24. Nxg7 Rd8
25. Re1 Kc8
26. Re8 h6
27. g4 Rxe8
28. Nxe8 Nf3
29. Nf6 Nd2+
30. Ke2 Nc4
31. f4 Kd8
32. g5 hxg5
33. fxg5 Ke7
34. b3 Nxa3
35. h4 c5
36. Kd3 b5
37. h5 c4+
38. Kc3 cxb3
39. Nd5+ Kf7
40. Kxb3 Nc4
41. Kb4 Nd6
42. Nc7 Kg7
43. Ne6+ Kf7
44. Nc5 Kg7
45. Ka5 Kf7
46. Ka6 Kg7
47. Ne6+ Kg8
48. Ka5 Kh7
49. Nc5 Nf5
50. Ne4 a6
51. Nf6+ Kg7
52. Ne8+ Kh7
53. Kb4 Kg8
54. Nf6+ Kf7
55. Nd5 Ng3
56. h6 Nf5
57. h7 Kg7
58. Nf6 Nh4
59. Ka5 Nf3
60. g6 Ne5
61. Ne8+ Kh8
62. g7+ Kxh7
63. Nd6 Nc4+
64. Nxc4 bxc4
65. g8=Q+ Kxg8
66. Kb4 c3
67. Ka3 c2
68. Kb2 c1=Q+
69. Kxc1 Kf7
70. Kd2 Ke6
71. Ke3 Kd5
72. Kd2 Kc4
73. Kc1 Kb3
74. Kb1 a5
75. Kc1 a4
76. Kb1 a3
77. Ka1 a2
1/2-1/2 |
|
| Apr-03-04 | | InspiredByMorphy: <tpstar> <most of us would ignore your entire 4. Nc4!? Qxe4+ 5. Ne3 analysis, because 4. Nf3 Qxe4+ 5. Be2 is more likely (and better> Black wins a pawn the same move with 5.Qxg2 1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 f6
3. Nxe5 Qe7
4. Nc4 Qxe4+
5. Be2 Qxg2
6. Bf3 Qh3
7. d4 d5
8. Qe2+ Ne7
9. Bxd5 Nc6
10. Bxc6+ bxc6
11. Bf4 Bg4
12. Qe3 O-O-O
13. Qxh3 Bxh3
14. Nbd2 Nf5
15. O-O-O Nxd4
16. Be3 Bg4
17. Rde1 Bf5
18. Bxd4 Rxd4
19. Re8+ Rd8
20. Rxd8+ Kxd8
21. Rd1 Be6
22. Nb3+ Kc8
23. Nca5 c5
24. Nc6 Bd6
25. Nxa7+ Kb7
26. Nb5 Bf4+
27. Kb1 Kc6
28. Nc3 Bxh2
29. Re1 Bxb3
30. cxb3 Be5
31. Ne2 g5
32. f4 gxf4
33. Rf1 h5
34. Nxf4 Bxf4
35. Rxf4 h4
36. Rxf6+ Kd5
37. Rf2 h3
38. Rh2 Ke5
39. a4 Kf4
40. a5 Kg3
41. Rh1 Kg2
42. Rc1 h2
43. Kc2 h1=Q
44. Rxh1 Rxh1
45. b4 cxb4
46. Kb3 Rb1
47. Ka2 Rd1
48. Kb3 Rd2
49. Kxb4 Rxb2+
50. Kc5 Rb7
51. Kc6 Ra7
52. a6 Kf3
53. Kd5 Rxa6
54. Kc4 Ra5
55. Kb3 c6
56. Kc4 Rd5
57. Kb3 Ke2
58. Kc3 Ke3
59. Kc4 Kd2
60. Kb3 Rd4
61. Kb2 Rd3
62. Ka1 Rb3
63. Ka2 Kc2
64. Ka1 Ra3# |
|
| Apr-03-04 | | InspiredByMorphy: <4. Nc4!? Black gets 4 ... d5 in with tempo, or else the KN winds up on e3 and not f3> With 3.Qe7 4.Nc4 d5 5.Qh5+ black doesn't gain a tempo at all, and furthermore the knight doesen't end up on e3, it doesen't have to move. 1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 f6
3. Nxe5 Qe7
4. Nc4 d5
5. Qh5+ g6
6. Qxd5 f5
7. Qe5 Bg7
8. Qxe7+ Nxe7
9. Nc3 Bxc3
10. dxc3 fxe4
11. Bf4 Nd5
12. Bh6 Nc6
13. O-O-O Be6
14. Nd2 Bf5
15. Nxe4 Bxe4
16. Re1 O-O-O
17. Rxe4 Nf6
18. Ra4 a6
19. Bxa6 bxa6
20. Bg7 Rhf8
21. Bxf8 Rxf8
22. Rxa6 Kb7
23. Ra4 Nd5
24. f3 Nf4
25. g3 Nd5
26. Rf1 Ne3
27. Rf2 h5
28. f4 Rd8
29. Rd2 Re8
30. Re2 Re6
31. Re1 Ne7
32. Ra5 N7f5
33. Re5 Ra6
34. a3 Ng4
35. R5e2 h4
36. gxh4 Nxh4
37. h3 Nf6
38. Rd1 Nf5
39. Rdd2 Ng3
40. Re7 Ra4
41. Rd4 Rxd4
42. cxd4 Nd5
43. Rg7 Nxf4
44. d5 Nf5
45. Rg8 Nh4
46. Kd2 Nxd5
47. Re8 g5
48. Kd1 Nf3
49. Rg8 Nf4
50. a4 Nxh3
51. Ke2 Ne5
52. b4 Nf4+
53. Kf2 g4
54. a5 Ka6
55. Re8 Nc6
56. Re4 Nd5
57. b5+ Kxb5
58. c4+ Kxa5
59. cxd5 Nb4
60. Rc4 Kb5
61. Rxc7 Nxd5
62. Rg7 Kc5
63. Rxg4 Ne7
1/2-1/2
A good example of how two knights can be better than a rook in the endgame. |
|
| Apr-03-04 | | Benjamin Lau: This page is getting increasingly absurd. I see IBM has not taken the advice I gave him several weeks earlier to make analysis easier for his peers by giving alternative variations, by not analyzing to checkmate, and by analyzing wide instead of deep. I don't know why anyone bothers replying to his inconsiderate posts at all, I gave up a while ago. |
|
| Apr-03-04 | | InspiredByMorphy: <tpstar> Above are 4 different variations involving 4.Nf3 and a few explaining the validity of 4.Nc4 . Just because a move appears more natural, doesen't mean it is better. Just take for example 4.Nf3 legally allows the knight 5 different moves. One is retreating the knight back to g1, two moves are good, and two are bad. With 4.Nc4 black has 6 different moves, 3 good moves and 3 bad ones. There may even be a very small advantage to the fact the knight is on the 4th rank, as opposed to retreating it to a square it has already been to on the 3rd rank. |
|
| Apr-04-04 | | InspiredByMorphy: <Benjamin Lau> Since when is publishing chess variations inconsiderate? I am considerate to anybody who proposes a question by looking into it. Just because I may disagree with what is presented, it doesen't mean I am inconsiderate. I try and carry myself with manners and respect for those around me. You and I only started to have a problem, when you felt like I needed your advice concerning analyzing. I dont remember ever asking for your condescending advice. I am trying to do something contributive. What did your last kibitz contribute to? At least Im publishing chess and not paragraphs of ranting opinionated fluff. By the way the whole <analyze wide, not deep> thing is for the birds. Very often in chess things aren't what they appear to be, and many questions can be answered by simply looking a few more moves ahead. This is the last time I speak to you. |
|
| Apr-04-04 | | Benjamin Lau: IBM: Your posts hardly consider variations. I don't know what you're talking about. Your last post alone (not including the other ludicrous ones before it) contains 63 linear uninterrupted moves of pure gibberish. Not a single "(if 24. blah blah blah, black has 24...Qe5! 25. Rf3, etc)" or other explanation. You never asked for my advice, but I gave it to you earlier to make not only the work of others easier, but yours too. About 50% or more of your work is unnecessary, and much more of it probably even wrong. You even had the craziness to indicate apparently forced mates in 50 or so. I don't think even Fritz has that capability. You claim that looking a "few" more moves ahead is okay, but looking about 63 ahead is definitely not a "few" so your statement is meaningless. Your paragraphs are hardly analysis and I've done much better before. I've contributed much better analysis than yours, both my own and from other sources. (i.e.
Karpov vs Kasparov, 1984, Ivanchuk vs Yusupov, 1991, Fischer vs Myagmarsuren, 1967, Reti vs Spielmann, 1928, Anand vs Kramnik, 2003, Taimanov vs Yusupov, 1982, Reshevsky vs Petrosian, 1953, Nimzo-Indian (E20), Pillsbury vs Winawer, 1896, etc. And those are only the examples I recall off the top of my head. This is the last time I will speak to you either. |
|
Apr-04-04
| | Chessical: <InspiredbyMorphy> I am politely suggesting that you do not post huge variations that offer no alternatives. After 10 or so moves they are of little practical value, as so many alternatives have been consequently ignored.
There are many members of our chessgames community who are interested in new ideas, but few will be prepared to go through 70 odd moves, when so much is left unaddressed in the analysis. For example in the line:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 Ne7 4.Nf3 d5 5.exd5
<5.Nc3> d4 6.Nb5 Nbc6 7.c3 Bg4 8.Qb3 Bxf3 9.gxf3 dxc3 10.dxc3 leaves Black with a punctured position. It also potentially makes the remaining moves of your analysis redundant. I believe analysis can only move forward by proposing and checking at each junction, not by simply motoring straight ahead and silently disregarding any turnings. |
|
| Apr-04-04 | | InspiredByMorphy: I am done. Sorry to have offended anybody. |
|
Apr-10-04
| | tpstar: Swallow it down/What a jagged little pill/It feels so good/Swimming in your stomach/Wait until the dust settles - Alanis Morissette, "You Learn" Don't be mad. Better to work through this here than suffer a humiliating crush someday which may get memorialized as database game #8. Besides, this is how advances in chess theory occur = reviewing old openings for new ideas. The mighty Keres got his start airing out these museum piece lines in postal chess (CMIIW, PaulKeres), but I doubt you'd ever find any Damiano games under his name. So if HE thought 2 ... f6?! was unplayable, forget it. |
|
| Apr-26-04 | | Vischer: anyone, what is the best way to play against 2...d5, which I've heard called the Elephant gambit. |
|
| Apr-26-04 | | Dudley: 3. Nxe5 is the best, imo. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
