@eladar saidThe Budapest gambit is fine, but the Stafford Gambit is faulty. It works for Rosen because it's relatively obscure - you're playing 2. ... Nf6 with the intention of playing a gambit, most people who play Petrov's Defence want stodge, so it's pretty rare. Rosen mentions a number of times that a player has put a video on YouTube (I assume there's a link somewhere in one of his videos) that gives details on how to refute it.
OK, I guess Eric has had an effect, hopefully a good one. For now on I am going to play the Stafford Gambit and the Budapest Gambit if I can.
It has been a long time since I have played 1.e4 e5
And the Budapest is no Englund, which I have always thought it was like.
Also it can be refused by 4. Nc3 when you're into the Halloween Gambit. This isn't exactly a problem since white's given up a piece for an attack and all you have to do is defend, but the point of playing a gambit is to have the initiative and white has the initiative in the Halloween Gambit. You can insist on a Stafford Gambit with 4. ... Bc5 but white can then just retreat the knight. At which point you're a pawn down without the quick development that getting the c-pawn out of the way gives you. There's a video Rosen did where that happened, it went well for Rosen until he missed an underpromotion idea for his opponent and was checkmated in severe time trouble.
It works well in blitz games, but at longer time limits and in correspondence games it doesn't work so well. Especially at correspondence every now and again you'll get someone who'll just look up the refutation.
Having said all that here's a black win from my database between Ernst Rojahn and Seibold from 1947 which transposes into the line I'm talking about:
@eladar saidI find them entertaining but so far not useful for my chess development.
As of late I have been watching Eric Rosen and a trash talker street chess series.
I find them entertaining but so far not useful for my chess development.
Try IM Kostya Kavutskiy
I find these very useful for my chess development.
&t=159s
&list=PLVp5Aaip2NED3ShO79cbpe4_We4mQDrSm
Hi Guys,
Cannot condemn or condone Chess DVD's I did not get reasonably good
with them because they did not exist when I took up the wood.
Book, board and bedroom works, It turned out some brilliant chess player
from 1800 - 2000. It has a proven history.
See latest blog for something I read in the late 60's that stuck.
Blog Post 468
Daresay some DVD's stuff will stick but whether you can transpose 2d
instruction (and the dreaded 'goldfish effect) into OTB 3D play is something
I'm not sure about (I'm talking about me - others may find it a doddle.) .
Also some of the DVD's really suck. Andrew Martin and Simon Williams
I like, I cannot stand some of the American slow voices drawling voices,
sorry lads but I can't. they have no enthusiasm, they send me to sleep.
Sometimes the intro takes ages. do not know the exact time because I
switched them off after 90 seconds.
I cut my teeth on Reinfeld, Chernev and Tartakower, I cannot advise on
anyone modern. Maybe John Watson his books read well , I can see value in them.
Recap:
If you are sure DVD's/YouTube works for you then go for it. (don't convince
yourself out of laziness it works.) come back in 50 years and say I recall a game
I watched onYouTube with a similar position.
If not, then Mozart on the C.D. (volume low)
Get out the Board and Pieces and play over masterpieces.
Get into the room with them, you are recreating in front of your very
eyes exactly what they saw. (not 32 gifs with flashing squares a mouse
pointer waving about and some talking head gibbering on and on and on...)
@eladar saidThere's a recently uploaded video where someone plays that against him. I'll show the opening moves, from memory, and the trick Rosen was hoping his opponent would fall for:
The refutation I saw on line was simply c3, which supports the d4 push to block the bishop on c5.
Hope I got those coordinates correct.
In the game white avoided 7. dxe4 but Black has his pawn back and a good enough position - so I don't think this counts as a refutation. I think it's something else.
Some examples this trap, including when it shown T.V. and won by Sherlock Holmes.
Blog Post 351