| Nov-09-04 | | Poisonpawns: Is this Korchnoi attack unsound? It seems pretty tough in this game.I am scared to play against this in the Dutch defense. |
|
| Nov-12-04 | | Poisonpawns: 9..Bg7 10.0-0-0 Qa5 11.Bh6 Bxh6 12.Qxh6 Be6 13.Kb1 Rf8 14.Bg2 Nbd7 15.Nge2 0-0-0 16.d5 cxd5 17.Nf4 Bf7 18.Nfxd5 This is still slightly unclear to me can anyone help with analysis? This seems like a good weapon against the dutch. |
|
| Nov-23-04 | | Poisonpawns: Does anyone know how to play for black against this line? I was thinking, first of all instead of 5...d6 to play d5, which could be followed by 6.e5 Bf5 |
|
| Nov-23-04 | | Swindler: Ain't this an idea in the Sicilian (though reversed)? 1.e4 c5 2.a3? Saw a new book about it. |
|
| Nov-23-04 | | I sacrifice like Tal: I'll put it this way.
"Black has done nothing wrong."
So, White's 'attack' should be unsound in some sense. I think Blac is fine is he can castle queenside and offset the white centre comehow. Or maybe playing e6 or d6 instead of Nf6. I'm not sure. But it IS interesting. |
|
| Nov-24-04 | | Poisonpawns: Yes thats true but does any Dutch player have experience and or analysis in this line. It would be nice to here from a GM or IM :-) |
|
| Nov-24-04 | | drukenknight: why doesnt black push his own h pawn in order to put the question to the B? You will mess up these gambit lines all the time if you dont attempt to force exchanges. |
|
| Apr-15-05 | | Poisonpawns: Just wanted to say I am 2-0 now after using this line as white in tourneys,against 2100+ opposition.This is a nasty anti-dutch weapon! |
|
| Nov-16-05 | | refutor: <poisonpawns> did you come to a conclusion about ...d5 v. ...d6? |
|
| Nov-16-05 | | mrbasso: 3...d5! is the best move.
The best way to refute a Gambit is to decline it. |
|
| May-18-09 | | Poisonpawns: I claimed another victim 1955 rated player this weekend in this line.I just give the opening 1.d4 f5 2.h3 d6 3.g4 fxg4 5.hxg4 Bxg4 6.f3 Be6 7.e4 the rest went quite similar to the korchnoi game.The opponent had the extra pawn, but was unable to solve his positional problems. |
|
| Oct-28-09 | | jmboutiere: 3...d5 - 0.5 Rybka 3
6...c6 - 0.02
12...Nh5 + 0.36; 12...h6 + 0.09
19.a4 - 0.02
22.Ng2 - 0.85 the same for 22...Rb8; 22...Nc8 + 0.00
23...Kf8 +1.40; 23...Rb8 - 1.23
24...Bh6 + 1.63; 24...Rb8 +4.58
29.Ng5 +6.01; 29.Qh3 +3.45
37... Rg5 mate in 4 |
|
| Nov-03-09 | | ajile: <mrbasso: 3...d5! is the best move.
The best way to refute a Gambit is to decline it.> This I think depends on the defender's temperament. Also there are openings where Black might give the material back but not immediately. So there are actually 3 different scenarios. Decline
Accept
Accept but give back later
Basically the usual theme is that the Gambiteer is trading material for a time/developing advantage. If he is successful he will get the material back and/or develop a winning attack. However the downside is that if the player accepting the gambit can hold off the attack then he will have a material advantage. If you are a patient good defender and you play well under long term pressure then accepting the gambit would be the best way for YOU to attempt to refute the gambit. If you don't play well under these circumstances then either declining or returning the material quickly is probably your best way to attempt to refute the gambit. For example the King's Gambit. Both the accepted variation (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4) and the Falkbeer Counter Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5) work well for Black but lead to very different types of games. Bobby Fischer of course would have said to take the pawn and make White prove he has something tangible. :o) |
|
Feb-08-12
 | | eternaloptimist: <ajile> u made some excellent points on who should accept gambits & who should decline them but I disagree w/ Fischer's philosophy. I agree wholeheartedly w/ your points though. |
|
| Feb-08-12 | | King Death: < ajile:...For example the King's Gambit. Both the accepted variation (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4) and the Falkbeer Counter Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5) work well for Black but lead to very different types of games...> The Accepted is okay for Black if he knows a decent amount of theory but in the Falkbeer the old main line (1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.ed e4) isn't rated all that highly by theory today. Black usually plays either 3.ed c6 or 3.ed ef, to get a line in the gambit accepted while avoiding 3.Bc4 which has become popular again in the last 15-20 years. |
|
| Jun-06-12 | | Nova: So, has there been any refutation of this gambit, or is it still viable today? I like the way it looks and hope to use it! |
|
| Jun-06-12 | | Shams: <Nova> Sadly 3...d5 seems to give Black the better chances:
Opening Explorer |
|
Jul-11-14
 | | perfidious: <mrbasso....The best way to refute a Gambit is to decline it.> In many cases I agree with this. |
|
Sep-15-21
 | | FSR: <mrbasso> is correct about the strength of 2...Nf6 3.g4 d5! Staunton recommended this in the "The Chess-Player's Handbook" (1857)! I was horrifically crushed in this line in the blitz game F Rhine vs NN, 2020. If you think about it, White is playing a sort of Deferred Grob's Attack (2.h3 and 3.g4). Can't be good. ChessBase Online shows that White scores only 39.7% in 248 games with 3...d5! |
|
Jan-10-22
| | FSR: I should have written 1847, not 1857. |
|
Kibitzing
