Danish gambit
01 Oct '07 15:47I used to play the danish gambit, but I dropped it a few years ago. Does anyone here play it? I wonder if it can be played in a long game
01 Oct '07 16:45 02 Oct '07 02:21 02 Oct '07 13:08Originally posted by gaychessplayerAm I the only one who wonders why people like Nigel Davies (he's certainly not the only offender among IMs and GMs) recommend openings they wouldn't dream of playing themselves in a million years? Well, I suppose they have books to sell ...
In his recent book "Gambiteer I", GM Nigel Davies recommends a variation of the Danish Gambit for White: 1 e4 e5 2 d4 ed 3 c3 dc 4 Nc3.
He recommends the Wing Gambit against the Sicilian: 1 e4 c5 2 b4.
Another "winger" against the French: 1 e4 e6 2 Nf3 d5 3 e5 c5 4 b4
Gambiteer II (a repertoire for Black) is due out this month by the same author.
02 Oct '07 18:41Originally posted by Northern LadI think you answered the question yourself. Incidentally, the gambits advocated in Gambiteer II, The Schliemann and the Albin, have been on the fringe of respectability for a long time, and have seen some outings by strong players such as Morozevich, Aronian, and Radjabov.
Am I the only one who wonders why people like Nigel Davies (he's certainly not the only offender among IMs and GMs) recommend openings they wouldn't dream of playing themselves in a million years? Well, I suppose they have books to sell ...
02 Oct '07 21:20Originally posted by !~TONY~!Well, might even buy Gambiteer II myself, since I do play the Schliemann from time to time and would certainly consider the Albin but for the fact that a lot of white players simply don't allow it (2.Nf3).
I think you answered the question yourself. Incidentally, the gambits advocated in Gambiteer II, The Schliemann and the Albin, have been on the fringe of respectability for a long time, and have seen some outings by strong players such as Morozevich, Aronian, and Radjabov.
03 Oct '07 01:00Originally posted by Northern LadThere are some openings that can be very successful at sub-IM levels that would probably only be a draw at IM+ levels. Masters are generally very good at navigating through complex positions, unlike class players, who might overlook a simple combination.
Am I the only one who wonders why people like Nigel Davies (he's certainly not the only offender among IMs and GMs) recommend openings they wouldn't dream of playing themselves in a million years? Well, I suppose they have books to sell ...
03 Oct '07 08:31Originally posted by gaychessplayerI still think it a little dodgy to write books on openings you never play yourself. How can you have a real feel for it? Another example was Tony Kosten, who wrote not one, but two(!) books on the Latvian (Greco) Counter Gambit and was publicly derided by John Nunn for doing so.
There are some openings that can be very successful at sub-IM levels that would probably only be a draw at IM+ levels. Masters are generally very good at navigating through complex positions, unlike class players, who might overlook a simple combination.
03 Oct '07 08:51Originally posted by Northern LadI have a copy of Kosten's The Latvian Gambit lives in front of me now.
I still think it a little dodgy to write books on openings you never play yourself. How can you have a real feel for it? Another example was Tony Kosten, who wrote not one, but two(!) books on the Latvian (Greco) Counter Gambit and was publicly derided by John Nunn for doing so.
03 Oct '07 13:27Originally posted by SquelchbelchThe basic problem is the suspicion that Kosten is effectively selling a book on false premises, in other words giving an objectively dodgy opening a GM seal of approval - hence Nunn's derision. The plain fact of the matter is that no GM will ever play the Latvian, since white obtains a clear positional advantage by force. I write this as a one-time occasional player of this opening myself. It really is a shame that 3.Nxe5 is so positionally strong for white, since the other main lines (3.Bc4 and 3.exf5) are incredibly interesting tactically and maybe fairly playable for black.
I have a copy of Kosten's The Latvian Gambit lives in front of me now.
There is a lack of specialist info on the Latvian & Kosten's work is incredibly detailed & seems very thorough.
03 Oct '07 13:551 editOriginally posted by Northern LadHave you read Kosten's book?
The basic problem is the suspicion that Kosten is effectively selling a book on false premises, in other words giving an objectively dodgy opening a GM seal of approval - hence Nunn's derision. The plain fact of the matter is that no GM will ever play the Latvian, since white obtains a clear positional advantage by force. I write this as a one-time occa ...[text shortened]... s (3.Bc4 and 3.exf5) are incredibly interesting tactically and maybe fairly playable for black.
03 Oct '07 13:56Originally posted by Northern LadI`m ready to play Latvian gambit in our current tournament game (if you will allow me to do that) to show that after 3.Nxe5 things are not so simple.
The basic problem is the suspicion that Kosten is effectively selling a book on false premises, in other words giving an objectively dodgy opening a GM seal of approval - hence Nunn's derision. The plain fact of the matter is that no GM will ever play the Latvian, since white obtains a clear positional advantage by force. I write this as a one-time occa ...[text shortened]... s (3.Bc4 and 3.exf5) are incredibly interesting tactically and maybe fairly playable for black.
Back to Top