11 Jun 08
1 edit
I'm thinking of trying either the Danish (1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4), Half-Danish (4. Nxc3) gambits here on RHP for a year or so in a repertoire change to what I have been playing - namely 1.e4 e5 2.f4.
What opinions do you have about the pros/cons of the Danish Gambit systems, especially when compared to the KG?
I will continue to play the King's Gambit OTB for next season &then may will switch once I have a little more experience in the Danish.
I do like the similarities between The Danish Gambit & my favourite opening the Morra. Many of the same lines are opened and the openings seem to have many of the same thematics, namely the e4/e5 pawn thrust & early Qb3.
Here's my first Danish Gambit game which I have just finished, complete with a nice bishop sac on f7 Game 5055204
11 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by SquelchbelchI would rather not be the first one to respond to this post, but here are my thoughts. I really have no faith in the Danish Gambit. The line 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2 d5! 6. Bxd5 Nf6 7. Bxf7 Kxf7 8. Qxd8 Bb4+ 9. Qd2 Bxd2+ 10. Nxd2 c5 is probably better for Black. His 3-1 queenside majority is probably gonna be the telling factor in this position. The alternatives for White, 6. exd5 and 7. Nc3 are even worse.
I'm thinking of trying either the Danish (1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4), Half-Danish (4. Nxc3) gambits here on RHP for a year or so in a repertoire change to what I have been playing - namely 1.e4 e5 2.f4.
What opinions do you have about the pros/cons of the Danish Gambit systems, especially when compared to the KG?
I will continue to play the on f7 Game 5055204
[fen]r1b2k1r/ppp3pp/3q4/8/1n4n1/BQP2N2/P4PPP/3RR1K1 w - - 0 1[/fen]
In your game, the "nice bishop sac on f7" actually just hangs a piece. I assume you intended 9. Bxf7+ Kxf7 10. Qb3+ Be6 11. Ng5+, which looks like it just picks up the piece, but unfortunately it loses immediately to 11...Qxg5!, in which case you're losing horribly.
I didn't mean to come off like a know it all jerk, I just want to tell it like it is, or what I think it is! 😀
11 Jun 08
Originally posted by !~TONY~!What about the half-Danish? I understand Alekhine was an advocate.
I would rather not be the first one to respond to this post, but here are my thoughts. I really have no faith in the Danish Gambit. The line 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2 d5! 6. Bxd5 Nf6 7. Bxf7 Kxf7 8. Qxd8 Bb4+ 9. Qd2 Bxd2+ 10. Nxd2 c5 is probably better for Black. His 3-1 queenside majority is probably gonna be the telling factor in ...[text shortened]... me off like a know it all jerk, I just want to tell it like it is, or what I think it is! 😀
11 Jun 08
Originally posted by SquelchbelchI don't know a lot about that variation, I have to admit. If you wanted to look into it, I think Nigel Davies' Gambiteer I recommends that line. I think if you want to play any of those lines, you should definitely make sure you're comfortable playing the positions after 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 d5!? This line was played by Capablanca a couple times I believe, and now bears his name. This is the choice of most club players, because they get a relatively easy and safe position as Black, and will almost never get checkmated. I'd look that line up and see what you can find.
What about the half-Danish? I understand Alekhine was an advocate.
Also, you might try the Center Game. After 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Qxd4!? Nc6 4. Qe3, White plans to play 5. Nc3, 6. Bd2, and 7. 0-0-0. It's a truly underrated line, and I've scored a lot of points with it. There are 3 chapters on it in the new book Dangerous Weapons 1. e4 e5 although I haven't actually checked out the book. Here are two great games played by one of my favorite GMs just to show you what it's all about:
www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1121841
www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1121762
Btw, chessgames wasn't working for me today, so I couldn't check to make sure those were the correct games, but they should be right. If not, I'll try to post the correct ones a bit later.
12 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by !~TONY~!It's funny i was myself considering trying the danish too, hesitating between the 2 versions...
I don't know a lot about that variation, I have to admit. If you wanted to look into it, I think Nigel Davies' Gambiteer I recommends that line. I think if you want to play any of those lines, you should definitely make sure you're comfortable playing the positions after 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 d5!? This line was played by Capablanca a couple ti mes, but they should be right. If not, I'll try to post the correct ones a bit later.
Everyone seems to discard the "full" danish gambit with the same old line, but it's not that all clear... white is not forced to go for this Bxf7+ trick which is in fact a simplification trick, not at all in the spirit of the gambit!
Jonny Hector tried 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2 d5 6.Nxd5 (i know he played at least 2 games against schussler but can't find them on chesslive.de!)
The capablanca defence is th real test i think... it put me off this gambit (very efficient, and a lot of people know it) but Davies gives an alternative option to avoid it ...Worth trying i guess
Anyway the most complete book on the danish is "danish dynamite" by K.Muller. Davies quotes him in his book. It's very serious and thorough (a rare thing in gambit books!) but the analysis are very dense and heavy ( you get lines like chapter 1 : line C3b21323 !!)
The centre game is fine but it has one big flaw : it's not a gambit ! 😉 (i begin to know squelchbelch...)
12 Jun 08
Originally posted by shorbockIf I may throw my opinion out there, most gambits suck. It should not be difficult to study gambits such as the Latvian, Elephant, Danish, etc...and either equalize or get a small edge as black, or get an solid edge or large edge as White. It's much more fun to attack and not be down any material in legitimate openings.
The centre game is fine but it has one big flaw : it's not a gambit ! 😉
Also, did you not look at one of the posted games? The main line of the Center Game is indeed a gambit:
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Qxd4 Nc6 4. Qe3 Nf6 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Bd2 0-0 7. 0-0-0 Re8 8. Qg3, and now either 8...Rxe4 or 8...Nxe4 wins a pawn for Black, although White gets some compensation.
12 Jun 08
Originally posted by !~TONY~!I would add that after 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Qxd4 Nc6 white has interesting option 4.Qa4!? playing reversed Scandinavian.
If I may throw my opinion out there, most gambits suck. It should not be difficult to study gambits such as the Latvian, Elephant, Danish, etc...and either equalize or get a small edge as black, or get an solid edge or large edge as White. It's much more fun to attack and not be down any material in legitimate openings.
Also, did you not look at one of ...[text shortened]... d now either 8...Rxe4 or 8...Nxe4 wins a pawn for Black, although White gets some compensation.
12 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by !~TONY~!In CC with 2 similarly rated players both using databases & books I agree that risky gambits are just that; a risk.
If I may throw my opinion out there, most gambits suck. It should not be difficult to study gambits such as the Latvian, Elephant, Danish, etc...and either equalize or get a small edge as black, or get an solid edge or large edge as White...
However, I play here to improve my opening knowledge & try things out for my OTB club games, where for instance throwing someone out of their mainline open Sicilian repertoire & gaining an early development tempo & open lines is worth at least a pawn when the other guy has to make 42 moves in 90 minutes.
Oh yeah, that & I genuinely find the gambit openings fun to play. 🙂
12 Jun 08
2 edits
You could also try another fun gambit... knowing you have the same taste as me for crazy openings !
Let me introduce to you the dreaded Halloween gambit !
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 (oh no a boring symetrical 4 knights game...)
4.Nxe5 ?!!?
I've been experimenting with it for about 2 years, at start it was just like a joke, i was not really convinced, but the more i played it the more i saw how difficult it could be for black!
Finally 3 weeks ago i decided to give it a try in serious OTB competition, against a stronger player (my opponent was rated 2240 Fide )
He decided to hang to the piece and after 20 moves he was in a very precarious position ( can't resist showing it 🙂 )
white to move
Unfortunately i had spent a lot of time and had only 6 min to reach move 40... so i let him escape : i played Rd6? and after Qf5 Qxf5 Nxf5 Rd7 we settled for a draw. (maybe i'm still better but i'm very weak at blitz!)
Apart from the pleasure of showing-off, this game shows how even a strong player can have trouble meeting such a gambit over the board...i don't think i could get such a position against him with a king's gambit.
A fun thing : it can be played with black too!
Magnus Carlsen even tried it (and won):
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g3!? Nxe4
It's probably sounder with black because the move g3 deprives the knight of it's best flight square (after 5.Nxe4 d5)
A game i played here :
Game 4852664
And no need to buy a book ! : http://www.chessville.com/UCO/Halloween_Gambit/Part_1.htm
12 Jun 08
Originally posted by !~TONY~!Maybe i'll surprise you, but i'm not far from agreeing with you.
If I may throw my opinion out there, most gambits suck. It should not be difficult to study gambits such as the Latvian, Elephant, Danish, etc...and either equalize or get a small edge as black, or get an solid edge or large edge as White. It's much more fun to attack and not be down any material in legitimate openings.
Also, did you not look at one of ...[text shortened]... d now either 8...Rxe4 or 8...Nxe4 wins a pawn for Black, although White gets some compensation.
I know most of those gambits are based on a lot of wishful thinking, with rubbish books showing you only nice little miniatures where the gambit victim plays passively and conveniently "forgetting" to tell us (or only in small sidelines) about the strong variations which explain why GM's don't play it...
True, the morra (also one of my favorite openings) is theoretically dubious : in a few lines (the best) white actually has to struggle for equality, while in the najdorf you give nothing and you have plenty of tactics with a sound position.
But i'm like squelchbelch, i've decided i don't want to be world champion and i don't care losing some more games as long as i'm having fun!
Besides, recently there has been a revival of some gambits : players like Morozevitch(Albin), Radjabov (Jaenish/schlieman), Mamedyarov (Budapest) have shown some gambits can be true modern weapons, that could be played not only for a mate in 20 moves against a weak player, but could also acquire a strategic caracter (as is already admitted for the benko).
And some really good books too, written by strong players with some objectivity, not the usual crap. Moskalenko's fabulous budapest gambit is a good example.
12 Jun 08
Originally posted by shorbockI think that Karpov once derided the Smith-Morra Gambit by pointing out that White doesn't need to give up a pawn in order to get a good attacking position against the Sicilian.
True, the morra (also one of my favorite openings) is theoretically dubious : in a few lines (the best) white actually has to struggle for equality, while in the najdorf you give nothing and you have plenty of tactics with a sound position.
On another point, who cares if the Smith-Morra is "theoretically dubious" anyway, unless you're a GM playing against another GM. At club level, the Smith-Morra gives White excellent practical chances if s/he is an able tactician.
13 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by gaychessplayerExactly, i've noted that many average players accept the gambit but that most strong players (2250+) i met OTB found it simpler to refuse it... i recall one who tried a "refutation"(not the best) but who got mixed up and i won a nice game (though i was outrated 150 points), and 2 years later when we met again he played 3...d3, and outplayed me strategically in the maroczy bind.
I think that Karpov once derided the Smith-Morra Gambit by pointing out that White doesn't need to give up a pawn in order to get a good attacking position against the Sicilian.
On another point, who cares if the Smith-Morra is "theoretically dubious" anyway, unless you're a GM playing against another GM. At club level, the Smith-Morra gives White excellent practical chances if s/he is an able tactician.
But in correspondence it's a different story (though i don't think any line can give black a forced clear advantage)
13 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by gaychessplayerI'm of the opinion that "practical chances" means "you can win quickly if your opponent doesn't know the line." Playing these dubious gambits really doesn't help you improve as a chess player. In fact, it makes you one-dimensional. Whenever I consider a new opening, I always approach it assuming that my opponent has equal theoretical knowledge. People will say that you can play anything "below GM level." If that's true, then why not play opening with a good theoretical reputation?
I think that Karpov once derided the Smith-Morra Gambit by pointing out that White doesn't need to give up a pawn in order to get a good attacking position against the Sicilian.
On another point, who cares if the Smith-Morra is "theoretically dubious" anyway, unless you're a GM playing against another GM. At club level, the Smith-Morra gives White excellent practical chances if s/he is an able tactician.
Scott
13 Jun 08
Originally posted by smrex13I've beaten a lot better players than you with this "dubious" gambit.
I'm of the opinion that "practical chances" means "you can win quickly if your opponent doesn't know the line." Playing these dubious gambits really doesn't help you improve as a chess player. In fact, it makes you one-dimensional. Whenever I consider a new opening, I always approach it assuming that my opponent has equal theoretical knowledge. People wi ...[text shortened]... that's true, then why not play opening with a good theoretical reputation?
Scott
On this site I'm currently
P=44
W=31
D=5
L=8
or +70.5 which compares to +60 for my games over all.
Thankyou for your advice, but I shall continue to play (and win) with the Morra gambit.
Also, to assume that a Sicilian player will have "equal theoretical knowledge" of the gambit is, to be frank, plain stupid. A sicilian player will encounter the Morra very infrequently & won't be as versed in the latest theory as a dedicated Morra gambit player.
Let's say, unlikely as this is that they studied it a while ago & bought the excellent "Winning with the Smith-Morra Gambit" by Burgess.
I have to say that even that great specialist book has lines in it which have been superceded by theoretical advances by Black, which have resulted in considerations & new approaches for White.
The gambit is fun. I'm sorry but I just don't get that from an open Sicilian, which is surely what Black is expecting after he plays 1...c5.
If the gambit is accepted, Black has to play very carefully to avoid early defeat in many lines.
Typical Sicilian moves can be disastrous & White gets a lot of play for a pawn & generally has all the attacking chances.
13 Jun 08
3 edits
Originally posted by smrex13Actually gambits are recommended to develop combination and attacking skills. Personally for me playing the Latvian gambit in my young years has helped me much.
I'm of the opinion that "practical chances" means "you can win quickly if your opponent doesn't know the line." Playing these dubious gambits really doesn't help you improve as a chess player. In fact, it makes you one-dimensional. Whenever I consider a new opening, I always approach it assuming that my opponent has equal theoretical knowledge. People wi that's true, then why not play opening with a good theoretical reputation?
Scott
Openings `with a good theoretical reputation` tend to become competition in memory instead of competition in chess skills.