27 Dec 07
Has anyone ever attempted anything similar to the following gambit line against the English opening?
1. c4 d5?! 2. cxd5 e6 3. dxe6 Bxe6
I suppose it's similar to From's Gambit but on the other side of the board (1. c4 instead of 1. f4). In that regard, it stands to reason that it is probably more dubious than From's Gambit, as black doesn't have the compensation of white's weakened kingside, but it looked interesting. Does black really have any compensation?
Any comments?
27 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by wittywonkawell..as a good rule of thumb a pawn is worth about 3 tempos...and you give up two pawns. All you have now is about the advantage white has at the start of the game but minus two pawns
Has anyone ever attempted anything similar to the following gambit line against the English opening?
1. c4 d5?! 2. cxd5 e6 3. dxe6 Bxe6
[fen]rn1qkbnr/ppp2ppp/4b3/8/8/8/PP1PPPPP/RNBQKBNR[/fen]
I suppose it's similar to From's Gambit but on the other side of the board (1. c4 instead of 1. f4). In that regard, it stands to reason that it is probabl side, but it looked interesting. Does black really have any compensation?
Any comments?
Edit:and white can immediately take hold of the center which is bad if you notice in most gambits the whole point is to get a lead in development AND control the center...other wise the opening is useless because you can't attack without central control.
27 Dec 07
Originally posted by tomtom232yep if you use lasker's analytical system of the opening an e or d pawn is worth two clear tempos and a c or f is worth one and a half so you've given up four for 2 and a half based on that system hmmm...
well..as a good rule of thumb a pawn is worth about 3 tempos...and you give up two pawns. All you have now is about the advantage white has at the start of the game but minus two pawns
Edit:and white can immediately take hold of the center which is bad if you notice in most gambits the whole point is to get a lead in development AND control the center...other wise the opening is useless because you can't attack without central control.
27 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by tomtom232minus one pawn.
.....All you have now is about the advantage white has at the start of the game but minus two pawns.....
I doubt wether it is sound, but it is not a bad as it looks at first sight. Both black bishops are free. One question is: can black develop a dangerous intitiative before white can set up a solid centre and hav aan easy game? I guess a strong black player against a weaker white player can. The reverse would be lethal.
27 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Mephisto2it just looks like white has started the game with one pawn missing. (reversed).
minus one pawn.
I doubt wether it is sound, but it is not a bad as it looks at first sight. Both black bishops are free. One question is: can black develop a dangerous intitiative before white can set up a solid centre and hav aan easy game? I guess a strong black player against a weaker white player can. The reverse would be lethal.
27 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Mephisto2yeah you're right one pawn...but still the one pawn that white is missing isn't worth as much as any one of the two pawns that black is missing
minus one pawn.
I doubt wether it is sound, but it is not a bad as it looks at first sight. Both black bishops are free. One question is: can black develop a dangerous intitiative before white can set up a solid centre and hav aan easy game? I guess a strong black player against a weaker white player can. The reverse would be lethal.
27 Dec 07
Well, (my older version of) Fritz rates the position 0.50 -- half a pawn advantage for white, which is probably more than enough for a reasonable opening advantage.
However, I also gave this line a shot:
1. c4 d5?! 2. cxd5 c6 3. dxc6 Nxc6
This looks more similar to a reversed Smith-Morra Gambit, and after a few moments analyzing the position, Fritz only rated the position 0.25 -- one fourth of a pawn advantage for white.
Any thoughts?
27 Dec 07
Originally posted by wittywonkaYes, don't use Fritz for opening assessments (except maybe for very tactical lines); use common sense instead. The Morra is barely correct in its normal form. A tempo down, it's a non-starter.
Well, (my older version of) Fritz rates the position 0.50 -- half a pawn advantage for white, which is probably more than enough for a reasonable opening advantage.
However, I also gave this line a shot:
1. c4 d5?! 2. cxd5 c6 3. dxc6 Nxc6
[fen]r1bqkbnr/pp2pppp/2n5/8/8/8/PP1PPPPP/RNBQKBNR[/fen]
This looks more similar to a reversed Smith-Morra ...[text shortened]... Fritz only rated the position 0.25 -- one fourth of a pawn advantage for white.
Any thoughts?
I did once try to make a sort of reverse Morra work, namely 1.c4 e5 2.g3 d5 3.cxd5 c6!? 4.dxc6 Nxc6, with the justification that fianchettoing against the Morra is not considered one of the better lines, so might even be playable a tempo down. However, white doesn't have to take the pawn on the fourth move.
27 Dec 07
Originally posted by Northern LadThanks for the suggestions. I think I agree that, as you pointed out, it might be better to set up more like a genuine Smith-Morra with 1. ... e5 before attempting 2. ... d5. Also, I think it would probably work better if white chose to play g2-g3 (committing) before Nc3, as you mentioned.
Yes, don't use Fritz for opening assessments (except maybe for very tactical lines); use common sense instead. The Morra is barely correct in its normal form. A tempo down, it's a non-starter.
I did once try to make a sort of reverse Morra work, namely 1.c4 e5 2.g3 d5 3.cxd5 c6!? 4.dxc6 Nxc6, with the justification that fianchettoing against the Morr ...[text shortened]... en be playable a tempo down. However, white doesn't have to take the pawn on the fourth move.
27 Dec 07
Originally posted by wittywonkaAs an english player, I've played against both that and against a benko-ish gambit a couple times each. Neither presented serious problems though I do believe I gave up a draw. If the opening explorer worked, it would be trivial to find the games, but as is I have no desire to dig through my thousands of completed games so I apologize for not having the link handy.
Has anyone ever attempted anything similar to the following gambit line against the English opening?
1. c4 d5?! 2. cxd5 e6 3. dxe6 Bxe6
[fen]rn1qkbnr/ppp2ppp/4b3/8/8/8/PP1PPPPP/RNBQKBNR[/fen]
I suppose it's similar to From's Gambit but on the other side of the board (1. c4 instead of 1. f4). In that regard, it stands to reason that it is probabl ...[text shortened]... side, but it looked interesting. Does black really have any compensation?
Any comments?
27 Dec 07
Originally posted by wittywonkaActually....
Well, (my older version of) Fritz rates the position 0.50 -- half a pawn advantage for white, which is probably more than enough for a reasonable opening advantage.
However, I also gave this line a shot:
1. c4 d5?! 2. cxd5 c6 3. dxc6 Nxc6
[fen]r1bqkbnr/pp2pppp/2n5/8/8/8/PP1PPPPP/RNBQKBNR[/fen]
This looks more similar to a reversed Smith-Morra ...[text shortened]... Fritz only rated the position 0.25 -- one fourth of a pawn advantage for white.
Any thoughts?
Game 2207350
I think it's ok. 🙂 I even had decent winning chances throughout that game, and I'd be willing to try it again. There are definitely better tries for black though.
27 Dec 07
I think both of these gambit ideas suck quite badly. As Northern Lad said, sticking into an engine is a poor choice. The first one is absolutely bad. Black gets about two tempi, but can you really count the ..Be6? It's not really placed well, and you will probably have to move it again, and your kingside isn't developed. Meanwhile, White of course hasn't touched anything, but he has no weakness. I would expect Black to suffer quite a bit. The second makes alot more sense, but a Smith Morra Gambit a tempo down seems like a terrible choice. What's wrong with just playing chess? These silly gambits pop up all the time in the forum, and every time I ask myself, "Why not ditch this silly crap and play something good?"
27 Dec 07
Originally posted by !~TONY~!Where's the fun in that? 😛
I think both of these gambit ideas suck quite badly. As Northern Lad said, sticking into an engine is a poor choice. The first one is absolutely bad. Black gets about two tempi, but can you really count the ..Be6? It's not really placed well, and you will probably have to move it again, and your kingside isn't developed. Meanwhile, White of course hasn't to ...[text shortened]... rum, and every time I ask myself, "Why not ditch this silly crap and play something good?"
28 Dec 07
Originally posted by wittywonkaSomebody tried something similar to this against me just now while I was blitzing. It's not exactly the same, I think this is the Englund Gambit:
Has anyone ever attempted anything similar to the following gambit line against the English opening?
1. c4 d5?! 2. cxd5 e6 3. dxe6 Bxe6
[fen]rn1qkbnr/ppp2ppp/4b3/8/8/8/PP1PPPPP/RNBQKBNR[/fen]
I suppose it's similar to From's Gambit but on the other side of the board (1. c4 instead of 1. f4). In that regard, it stands to reason that it is probabl ...[text shortened]... side, but it looked interesting. Does black really have any compensation?
Any comments?
[Event "Rated game, 3m + 0s"]
[Site "Café"]
[Date "2007.12.28"]
[Round "?"]
[White "CMSMaster"]
[Black "Hoß"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1453"]
[BlackElo "1428"]
[PlyCount "55"]
[EventDate "2007.12.28"]
[TimeControl "180"]
1. d4 {3} e5 {3} 2. dxe5 {2} d6 {1} 3. exd6 {1} Bxd6 {1} 4. Nc3 {2} Nf6 {6} 5.
Nf3 {5} O-O {9} 6. Nb5 {2} a5 {25} 7. Nxd6 {3} cxd6 {6} 8. Bf4 {4} Ne8 {9} 9.
e3 {2} Nc6 {14} 10. Bb5 {1} Qc7 {5} 11. Bxc6 {2} bxc6 {3} 12. O-O {3} Bg4 {14}
13. Qe2 {24} Nf6 {28} 14. Rfd1 {2} Rad8 {6} 15. Rd4 {5} c5 {4} 16. Rc4 {7} Qb6
{4} 17. b3 {4} Rfe8 {4} 18. Rd1 {9} Nh5 {2} 19. h3 {11} Bxf3 {2} 20. Qxf3 {2}
Nxf4 {1} 21. Qxf4 {2} h6 {3} 22. Rc3 {4} Re6 {5} 23. Rcd3 {2} Rf6 {2} 24. Qg3 {
4} Rg6 {1} 25. Qf3 {3} f6 {4} 26. Qd5+ {2} Kh8 {5} 27. Qf7 {3} Rg8 {2} 28. Qxg6
{Zeit (Lag: Av=1.99s, max=3.6s) 2} 1-0
Only blitz, but it didn't seem very difficult to play against.
29 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by wittywonkaHere's something very similar, only 2...c6 and 3...Nxc6. Two high level players.
Has anyone ever attempted anything similar to the following gambit line against the English opening?
1. c4 d5?! 2. cxd5 e6 3. dxe6 Bxe6
[fen]rn1qkbnr/ppp2ppp/4b3/8/8/8/PP1PPPPP/RNBQKBNR[/fen]
I suppose it's similar to From's Gambit but on the other side of the board (1. c4 instead of 1. f4). In that regard, it stands to reason that it is probabl side, but it looked interesting. Does black really have any compensation?
Any comments?
Game 3190860