Marshall gambit refuted?

Game 3599000

I just cant find anywhere it went wrong 😕

At the end, f6 was played to lose a pawn but keep better position and bishop pair, BxN would quickly fall apart and lose im pretty sure of that. So the game seems lost by then anyway, right?

My opponent is a GM and personally thinks that the gambit by black is unsound and white can with perfect play force a victory, though he isnt certain of it he is pretty convinced that black cannot draw if white plays perfectly.
I didnt know if anyone here would be able to disagree or offer any alternate moves etc for black, it would be appreciated.
And no i dont genuinely think this game is a refutation of the gambit, but can't see where i could have improved!

heh GM. right... heh yeah sure whateva. GM...suuuree.

I am the long lost son of Boris Jeltsin.

Originally posted by Jusuh
heh GM. right... heh yeah sure whateva. GM...suuuree.

I am the long lost son of Boris Jeltsin.

How unfortunate.

Originally posted by mazziewag
How unfortunate.

Yes. Fortunately my mom is Carmen Electra. Go figure.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

sure...gm norms...yeah right... whatever..heh

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I am shocked you have not said "just kidding" yet. We all know you, 1900 RHP player, are not becoming GM. Also I am pretty sure you dont have any norms at all. They are extremely hard to achieve, especially if one is club player.

Oh and btw...whats your elo rating Smaug?

yeah right. and you think I was being serious?

I am also very disappointed on you.

Originally posted by mazziewag
Game 3599000

I just cant find anywhere it went wrong 😕

At the end, f6 was played to lose a pawn but keep better position and bishop pair, BxN would quickly fall apart and lose im pretty sure of that. So the game seems lost by then anyway, right?

My opponent is a GM and personally thinks that the gambit by black is unsound and white can with ...[text shortened]... inely think this game is a refutation of the gambit, but can't see where i could have improved!

Why do you play g5? The other thing that seems against your own plan (a kingside attack, or else why play the gambit?) you react to white's counterplay on the queenside and lose the initiative. It was more important to keep building threats I think.

Originally posted by Exuma
Why do you play g5? The other thing that seems against your own plan (a kingside attack, or else why play the gambit?) you react to white's counterplay on the queenside and lose the initiative. It was more important to keep building threats I think.

Possibly, but it was to prevent Rh4 dislodging the queen, it seemed neccessary.
As for whether or not he is a GM, it doesnt really matter, he is the most knowledgable player i have faced on this site still, and so his claim that black has made no errors is still worth investigating.

I see g5 to stop the rook. After 10 a4, why not Nf6? Attacks the rook again, and threatens to come in on g4 with threats against h2...

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I recall that many super-GM's have used it recently (including Leko, Anand, even Kramnik in blindfold), but an analysis of the game below would be very interesting.

Vladimir Kramnik vs Levon Aronian (2007)
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1459869

- As someone who plays the white side of the Ruy, I feel that chess wouldn't be fair if white couldn't refute this gambit. 😉