Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. Standard member Jee
    08 May '06 13:43 / 1 edit
    Here's one opening that I like. Gets a pretty solid central position with pawn and open the rook + Queen attack on the f column (after moving B + castle). But everybody told me so far that it's crazy to loose the Knight so early for that.

    What do you feel about it?

    1. e4 e5
    2. Nf3 Nc6
    3. Nxe5 Nxe5
    4. d4 Nc6
    5. f4
  2. 08 May '06 13:48
    You play e4 twice? I will assume that 4. d4 and yes it's crazy to give up the knight just for a central pawn and tempo and that stage.
  3. Standard member Jee
    08 May '06 14:11 / 1 edit
    4. d4 indeed sorry

    I just like to get the pawns in the half of the oponent to put the presure on as well as to occupy cases to block its development, then sacrifice f4 to use that column with R + Q + R

    Guess I like to sacrifice my people
  4. 08 May '06 14:13
    it's crazy to lose the Knight so early for that.
  5. Standard member Jee
    08 May '06 14:19
    Well the way I see it is not really sacrifying the Knight, its more getting it out of the way (f column), and thinking that I will have to lose it anyway to get that central control with the fight e4/d4 against e5/d5
  6. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    08 May '06 14:52 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Jee
    Well the way I see it is not really sacrifying the Knight, its more getting it out of the way (f column), and thinking that I will have to lose it anyway to get that central control with the fight e4/d4 against e5/d5
    I think after 5. ... d5 black has as many open lines as white, a central presence and more pieces. An opening I tryed out a while ago goes: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5?! Nxe5 5. Nc6 (or Ng6) and the plan is to push the knights around with the two centre pawns to try to gain tempi for a direct assault on the king while it's still uncastled. Here's what can happen: Game 1338113, Game 1382969.

    I checked on a database, apparently the line you've given (apart from 4. f4) is called the Chicago gambit and there are 4 games on my database with this opening. In the (only) white win (Phillips vs. Harry Pillsbury, Chicago 1899) Phillips continued 4. d5 Nb8 5. Bd3.

    There was one game (Connell vs. Press, Belconnen Spring Cup 1994) which continued 4. ... Ng6 5. f4 d6 (I think 5. ... d5 should be better as white has no developed pieces) 6. Bd3 f5 7. 0-0 Nf6 8. exf5 Ne7 9. Re1 Kf7 10. Nc3 Nxf5 11. Nf4 Nxe4 12. Bxe4 d5 13. Bf3 c6 +/- as white does not have enough to show for the piece.

    I think it's probably playable, but leave your f-pawn alone and move pieces out.
  7. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    08 May '06 14:57
    Originally posted by Sicilian Smaug
    Dont sac pieces to 'get them out of the way' That's crazy talk! Your opponent could just play for swapping off all the pieces and win the end game.
    A sacrifice to clear a line for an attack can be a good idea.
  8. 08 May '06 15:28
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    A sacrifice to clear a line for an attack can be a good idea.
    But thats not what he's doing in this case.

    To the OP one thing to consider is how are you going to attack without any pieces developed? Develop your pieces, then attack (basic opening principles)
  9. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    08 May '06 16:09
    Originally posted by Sicilian Smaug
    Im all for middle game sacs that blow the opponent's King open, but certainly not in the opening phase and with no clear reasoning behind it.
    Sure, just went into troll mode for a minute. The +/- at the end of the line in the 3rd paragraph of my earlier post should read -/+.
  10. Standard member Jee
    08 May '06 16:16 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    I think after 5. ... d5 black has as many open lines as white, a central presence and more pieces. An opening I tryed out a while ago goes: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5?! Nxe5 5. Nc6 (or Ng6) and the plan is to push the knights around with the two centre pawns to try to gain tempi for a direct assault on the king while it's still uncastled. e piece.

    I think it's probably playable, but leave your f-pawn alone and move pieces out.
    I like the Game 1338113 too, but don't you feel that pawn f2 is in your way for a faster break in and could probably prevent the black castling (f2 is blocking a R+Q+R attack, which slowed things down)?

    ps: love your checkmate on that one

    Same thing with Game 1382969 : on 10w you could have sacrifice the f pawn (with an early f4), setting 4 possible threat on f7 (B+Q+R and later R).

    Well I would panick if that was on my face anyway
  11. 08 May '06 16:21
    Originally posted by Jee
    Here's one opening that I like. Gets a pretty solid central position with pawn and open the rook + Queen attack on the f column (after moving B + castle). But everybody told me so far that it's crazy to loose the Knight so early for that.

    What do you feel about it?

    1. e4 e5
    2. Nf3 Nc6
    3. Nxe5 Nxe5
    4. d4 Nc6
    5. f4
    try 1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5. thats pretty wild and definitely playable in U-1600 level.

    i.e 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 5.d4 Nc6 6.d5
  12. 08 May '06 16:54
    I think the Halloween Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5) is quite playable way beyond 1600.

    An opening which is much worse, but still better than the one which started this thread, is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7 Kxf7 5.Nxe5. I played through a game of Alekhine's once where an amateur tried this against him. Alekhine tried sucessfully to hang onto both the pieces.
  13. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    08 May '06 17:12 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Jee
    I like the Game 1338113 too, but don't you feel that pawn f2 is in your way for a faster break in and could probably prevent the black castling (f2 is blocking a R+Q+R attack, which slowed things down)?

    ps: love your checkmate on that one

    Same thing with Game 1382969 : on 10w you could have sacrifice the f pawn (with an early f4), setting 4 ...[text shortened]... possible threat on f7 (B+Q+R and later R).

    Well I would panick if that was on my face anyway
    In the first game I was following analysis which you can find at www.chessville.com (sorry I can't remember exactly where in the site, but it is the Halloween gambit). Essentially messing around with the f-pawn takes too long, I need to stop my opponent making developing moves of his own. Also I had a lost position until the end and even then I didn't have any right to hope for more than permanent check at the end.

    In the second game I see no way of sacrificing the pawn on f2 on move 10. I can't move it as the queen is in the way and none of my opponents pieces are hitting it. It might be worth considering 8. f4, but again it takes too long, black has to be kept firmly on the back foot, as as soon as he starts to free his game white is left a piece down.

    You won't find much use of these lines in the upper echelons of chess as grandmaster defensive technique is too good. White needs at least two pawns from the attack to justify giving up the knight, and it's not clear to me that you'll get that against an accurate defender.

    I think these lines are quite good fun and you'll win games with them, but you'll have to be prepared to lose more games than you would in lines where white holds on to his pieces for a bit longer.
  14. 08 May '06 17:24
    Originally posted by Jee
    Here's one opening that I like. Gets a pretty solid central position with pawn and open the rook + Queen attack on the f column (after moving B + castle). But everybody told me so far that it's crazy to loose the Knight so early for that.

    What do you feel about it?

    1. e4 e5
    2. Nf3 Nc6
    3. Nxe5 Nxe5
    4. d4 Nc6
    5. f4
    You're trying to attack before you've even started developing, you move a piece twice and give it away. This might work in bullet but shouldn't in corr.
    If this opening is sound then 150 years of chess theory is wrong.
  15. Standard member Jee
    08 May '06 17:49 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Knightlore
    If this opening is sound then 150 years of chess theory is wrong.
    Jee, just for that I'll keep messing around with it.

    What did they say again to Galileo?