|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-01-04 | | MutinyFever: This looks like a sharp version of Falkbeer to me Shr0pshire. I think it is more powerful than 2... d5, containing the merits without the weaknesses. Still, what you call Paris attack is what thrills and frightens me. I call it Rosentreter Gambit, because that's my standard reply. (1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4.d4 g4 5.Bxf4 gxf3 6.Qxf3 with an incredibly tactical battle to follow.) I don't blitz much. Rosentreter is far too treacherous for a five minute game. |
|
| May-01-04 | | BiLL RobeRTiE: after 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 d4, playing ...g4 seems like an unnecessary risk when Black can just remain a pawn up with a clear plus after ...Bg7 followed by ...h6. |
|
| May-01-04 | | BiLL RobeRTiE: Actually, I would go so far as to say that 4 h4! is forced as a reply to 3...g5 as a means of liquidating the pawn chain, similar to how after 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 e4 b5 White 'must' play 4 a4. I don't doubt that the Rosentreter, Quaade, and lines after 4 Bc4 offer quite a few traps for the unsuspecting player plus good development / SOME compensation in exchange for his pawn (or piece if Black risks ...g4), but the fact of the matter is Black is up material and can easily consolidate if he knows what he's doing theorywise. |
|
| May-30-04 | | ruylopez900: To continue in the Abbazia Defense would oyu play exd5 (killing off Black's last centre pawn) then Nc3 to gain time off the Queen? d3 doesn't look nice as it isn't conducive to rapid kingside development (point of the KG). d4 seems a bit weak as the two centre pawns may lack defense later on. Any help would be appreciated. |
|
| May-30-04 | | BiLL RobeRTiE: Check the opening explorer; the main line runs 3...d5 4. exd5 (4. e5?! doesn't offer much, 4. d4?! drops a pawn, and 4. d3? dxe4 5. dxe4 Qxd1+ 6. Kxd1 is just idiotic) 4...Nf6 (4...Qxd5?! allows White to get a solid plus in development, which is not the idea behind 3...d5) and now White usually plays 5. Bb5+, 5. Bc4, or 5. Nc3, all of which give him a minimal advantage, if any. |
|
| May-30-04 | | ruylopez900: <Bill> Thanks for the insights. |
|
| May-30-04 | | BiLL RobeRTiE: Sure! |
|
| May-30-04 | | refutor: bill, any opinion on the allgaier 4.h4 g4 5.Ng5? i'm sure it's not playable at the super g level (refer to Morozevich vs Kasparov, 1995 ) but i'm sure practically at lower levels it can't be any worse than the muzio, and doesn't allow 4. ...Bg7? |
|
Jun-24-05
 | | waddayaplay: I know that L. Pachman called this the "modern treatment" of the KG. (in 1975 or so) , and further "perhaps not the strongest, but at least certainly the most solid reply". |
|
| Aug-01-05 | | gambitfan: 1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 c6 4. Nc3 exf4 5. Nf3 By transposition, Falkbeer counter gambit == Abazzia defense !! |
|
| Oct-06-06 | | Microbe: I play the Allgaier <Refutor> and I enjoy it very much. It may not be sound but it certainly gives your opponent a shock =D |
|
| Jun-28-07 | | Marvol: Rather odd that Gallagher has faced this opening 12 times, as white, in the short period of 1986-1992 - not before, not since. Strange coincidence... or a bias in the database? |
|
| Nov-02-07 | | pawnofdoom: I always play this agsint the King's Gambit. Is Abbazia in this database? He came up with this defense, but I can't find him anywhere |
|
| Nov-02-07 | | Resignation Trap: Abbazia was a place, not a player. It was the former name of Opatija, in present-day Croatia. |
|
| Nov-02-07 | | whiteshark: There is a book about this thematic tournament:
King's Gambit Accepted Tournament <Abbazia 1912>
by Anthony J. Gillam. Publisher: The Chess Player, Nottingham, 1984 |
|
| Dec-08-07 | | WarmasterKron: Fun vs. the Abbazia/Modern:
Warmaster Kron (1651) - NN (1758)
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d5 4.exd5 Qxd5
5.Nc3 Qe6+ 6.Be2 Nf6 7.O-O Bd6 8.d4 Nd5
9.Nxd5 Qxd5 10.c4 Qc6 11.Ng5 h6 12.Nxf7 Kxf7
13.Bxf4 Qxf4 14.Rxf4+ Kg8 15.Qf1 Nd7 16.Bf3 Qa6
17.Bd5+ Kh7 18.Qe3+ g6 19.Rf7+ Kg8 20.Rf6+ Kh7
21.Qxg6# 1-0
I'm particularly pleased with 12.Nxf7. Not sure how sound it is, but it seemed to put my opponent on the back foot. |
|
| Jun-24-08 | | offtherook: Opening of the day 6/24/08. I don't really enjoy facing this defense, but that's robably just because I haven't studied the theory. Anyone have a good fun line against this? Hopefully keeping all the good gambitty fun you see in other lines. |
|
| Jan-25-09 | | blacksburg: hmmm, abbazia. i guess this is what i will play, i played it on accident and it seems like the best practical way to deal with KG, i don't like the ...g5 stuff. |
|
| Jan-25-09 | | blacksburg: Bronstein vs Botvinnik, 1952 ok, botvinnik played it, so it must be ok. also, feels like 2 knights defense, which is good. :) |
|
| Feb-22-10 | | Wassily: If you want to play this line, why not play the Falkbeer move order? Then if 3. exd5 exf4. This at least lets White make the error of fxe5?? Qh4+, and also possibly inferior moves to 4. Nf3. |
|
Feb-23-10
 | | Eric Schiller: <wassily> That's the line I teach my students. It is simple and White can't build a strong attack. |
|
| Jul-26-10 | | Call me Ishmael: I agree with <Wassily> and <Eric Schiller>, the Abbazia (Modern) via the Falkbeer move order is Black's best defense to the King's Gambit. Although I still feel 5.Bb5+ gives White a small edge. |
|
| Feb-23-11 | | LDJ: I like the Abbazia Defence as it doesn't require much theory learning. I reach it through the Falkbeer move-order (1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 exf4) because this avoids the king's bishop's gambit. |
|
| Apr-21-11 | | LDJ: I have a question about the Abbazia Defence. After <1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 exf4 4.Nf6 Nf6 5.Nc3!? Nxd5> why does usually White take back on d5? In a similar position (but with colours reversed) in the Scotch (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4) Black shouldn't take. What's the big difference? |
|
Feb-19-12
 | | Penguincw: Opening of the Day
King's Gambit Accepted, Abbazia Defense
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.♘f3 d5
click for larger view |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
