Alfred Wolf/Wolfe/Wolffe Gambit

Anyone heard of this?

I thought I once read that it was
1. Nf3 d5
2. c4 dxc
3. Na3

but have also seen this described as Reti Gambit

anyone?????

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Anyone heard of this?

I thought I once read that it was
1. Nf3 d5
2. c4 dxc
3. Na3

but have also seen this described as Reti Gambit

anyone?????

1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 is the "official" Reti move sequence, although anything starting 1. Nf3 tends to be tagged as a Reti.

2. ... dxc4 is sometimes called the Reti Gambit, but it is as much a gambit as the Queen's Gambit. In fact, white gets minimal advantage if he now sets about regaining his pawn in the traditional Reti manner of 3. Na3 or 3. Qa4+. Whether either or both of those carry the name of Wolf, Wolfe or Wolffe I haven't a clue. My preferred method of dealing with 2. ... dxc4 when I have played 1. Nf3 has always been 3. e4 which seems far more effective than the usual moves.

There is a novel called 'gambit' from a guy named 'wolfe':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambit_(novel)

Originally posted by Diophantus
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 is the "official" Reti move sequence, although anything starting 1. Nf3 tends to be tagged as a Reti.

Which is wrong and confusing. 1.Nf3 is a Reti. Oh yeah? 1... Nf6, now it's a double-Reti. Is it? 2.d4 d5, and now it's a... double-Indian double-Reti? Bollocks, it's a queen's pawn game, and well on its way to becoming the dreaded Colle.

2. ... dxc4 is sometimes called the Reti Gambit, but it is as much a gambit as the Queen's Gambit.

Euwe, in his opening books, calls this the Flank Gambit Accepted, but I don't think his nomenclature on the non-open/closed games ever got adopted even in the Netherlands. It's a bit idiosyncratic.

Richard

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Which is wrong and confusing. 1.Nf3 is a Reti. Oh yeah? 1... Nf6, now it's a double-Reti. Is it? 2.d4 d5, and now it's a... double-Indian double-Reti? Bollocks, it's a queen's pawn game, and well on its way to becoming the dreaded Colle.

[b]2. ... dxc4 is sometimes called the Reti Gambit, but it is as much a gambit as the Queen's Gambit.

Euwe, ...[text shortened]... osed games ever got adopted even in the Netherlands. It's a bit idiosyncratic.

Richard[/b]

1. Nf3 is anything you want it to be I reckon. Common openings after 1. Nf3 are Reti, English, KIA, Catalan, various other Queen's Pawn openings, Sicilians (one of my favourite games involves someone trying to steer an inveterate Reti player into a symmetrical English but getting a Sicilian instead), French, Caro Kann and so and so forth. About the only thing you can't reach is anything where the g1-knight has to stay at home for a while.

Is 1. Nf3 a Reti? Of course it isn't, but then I didn't say it was, I just said it often gets called that. 1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 is the line that various opening books call a Reti although even now it could be something different in a move or three.

Before the 1920's and Reti's win over Capa which put it on the map
1.Nf3 was often called the Zukertort Opening or Irregular Opening.

I think, though I don't have the book on hand, the New York tournament
book called it the Reti/Zukertort or Zukertort/Reti. (possibly mistaken.)

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Before the 1920's and Reti's win over Capa which put it on the map
1.Nf3 was often called the Zukertort Opening or Irregular Opening.

I think, though I don't have the book on hand, the New York tournament
book called it the Reti/Zukertort or Zukertort/Reti. (possibly mistaken.)

I don't think 1. Nf3 should have a name, just as 1. e4 doesn't really have a name. If we must call it something, call it a King's Knight game just as 1. e4 is a King's Pawn game.

Originally posted by Diophantus
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 is the "official" Reti move sequence, although anything starting 1. Nf3 tends to be tagged as a Reti.

2. ... dxc4 is sometimes called the Reti Gambit, but it is as much a gambit as the Queen's Gambit. In fact, white gets minimal advantage if he now sets about regaining his pawn in the traditional Reti manner of 3. Na3 or 3. Qa4+. Wheth ...[text shortened]... ave played 1. Nf3 has always been 3. e4 which seems far more effective than the usual moves.

My opening post was unclear; as far as I am concerned it is a Reti Opening ... but the variation I have heard/read called the Alfred Wolf(f)(e) Gambit.

😕 Maybe it was in a dream!

Incidently if you play 3. e4 the character of the game is quite different and in mho no longer a Reti. (KIA?)

"...just as 1. e4 doesn't really have a name."

That's a shame and a sin.

1.f4 is the Bird.
1.g4 is the Grob (or Spike)
1.b3 is Larsen's
1.c3 is the Saragossa
1.c4 is the English (or The Saragossa Advanced!)
and 1.b4 is named after an ape!

I demand 1.e4 have a name. 1.e4 The Morphy Attack. Let it be so.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
My opening post was unclear; as far as I am concerned it [b]is a Reti Opening ... but the variation I have heard/read called the Alfred Wolf(f)(e) Gambit.

😕 Maybe it was in a dream!

Incidently if you play 3. e4 the character of the game is quite different and in mho no longer a Reti. (KIA?)[/b]

After e4 it certainly isn't a Reti but it isn't a KIA either. I don't think it has, or needs, a a name. It certainly confuses opponents who are expecting to equalise immediately and then get a draw out of a long drawn out positional struggle.

Originally posted by Diophantus
Is 1. Nf3 a Reti? Of course it isn't, but then I didn't say it was, I just said it often gets called that.

Oh, yes, I gathered that from the way you phrased it. I wasn't railing against you, but against this habit you describe, and which (IMAO) too many opening books have.

Richard

Originally posted by Diophantus
I don't think 1. Nf3 should have a name, just as 1. e4 doesn't really have a name. If we must call it something, call it a King's Knight game just as 1. e4 is a King's Pawn game.

My thoughts exactly.

Richard

Originally posted by greenpawn34
and 1.b4 is named after an ape!

That's not a nice thing to say about Alexei Sokolski, even if he is a White-Russian.

Richard

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
That's not a nice thing to say about Alexei Sokolski, even if he is a White-Russian.

Richard

I wonder if Orang Utan was Sokolski's nickname down the White Russian Club?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
My opening post was unclear; as far as I am concerned it [b]is a Reti Opening ... but the variation I have heard/read called the Alfred Wolf(f)(e) Gambit.[/b]

OK, I've just found something new. Euwe does mention the name of Alfred Wolf (one f, no e), not in connection with the Réti Gambit Accepted, but with
a. the realisation that 1. Nf3 d5 is an Indian defense in the attack;
b. an investigation (ca. 1920) of 2. c4 followed (presumably not - because he never mentions it in that line - after 2. ...dxc, but after 2. ...e6) by 3. g3;
c. specifically, with what Euwe calls the Landstrasser Flank-gambit, which is 1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 Nf6. (It is not, according to Euwe, good for Black.)

Mr. Wolf, of Vienna, was a member of the Landstrasser Schachklub. The line mentioned in c. occurred in Wolf-Teich, Vienna 1923. Wolf believed this game to be the premiere of what Euwe calls the Flank-gambit, and nowadays tends to be called the Réti Gambit. Whether he was correct, or whether this line was played before, I have no idea; but this does seem to be the reason why the name of Wolf is connected with the Réti Gambit. It should not, even so, be connected with the RGA at all.

Richard