Muzio Gambit

Originally posted by Korch
Well.... GM`s are only people too and they makes mistakes quite often too.

For example GM Keen was (or maybe still is) sure that he have refuted Grob in his game against Basman in 1980, but it is not so - I have analysed that game with Rybka (for some hours) and found where white could play better with comfortable (I would even say - slightly better) posit ...[text shortened]... ferent opening lines have changed quite often. And these evaluations are mostly created by GM`s.

Well there may be ways for white to improve in some lines, but the double muzio IS regarded as unsound by most KG players from lots of analysis of lines - though I think playing e5 but not following with a bishop sac at f7 is fine.

Originally posted by cmsMaster
Well there may be ways for white to improve in some lines, but the double muzio IS regarded as unsound by most KG players from lots of analysis of lines - though I think playing e5 but not following with a bishop sac at f7 is fine.

The fact that double Muzio IS REGARDED as unsound by most of KG players, doesn`t means that IT IS unsound.

Originally posted by Korch
The fact that double Muzio IS REGARDED as unsound by most of KG players, doesn`t means that IT IS unsound.

I'll try to find the analysis for you...

Originally posted by cmsMaster
I'll try to find the analysis for you...

It would be interesting to see them.

Originally posted by Korch
It would be interesting to see them.

Here's a Shirov game - which he won with some nice analysis afterwards - though nothing concrete is gained from it. I'll have to look for more analysis on the DMG though, if anybody has some it'd be nice to see.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1074916&kpage=2

Originally posted by Dutch Defense
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.0-0 gxf3 6.Qxf3. Game 3187446 😲

what happens if black just goes all out making a mad dash to castle queenside?

Originally posted by Dutch Defense
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.0-0 gxf3 6.Qxf3. Game 3187446 😲

I blunderd in this game - but this is the way that I like to play the Muzio gambit:
Game 2956364

Originally posted by cmsMaster
Here's a Shirov game - which he won with some nice analysis afterwards - though nothing concrete is gained from it. I'll have to look for more analysis on the DMG though, if anybody has some it'd be nice to see.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1074916&kpage=2

Here is the game

[Event "Daugavpils"]
[Site "Daugavpils"]
[Date "1990.??.??"]
[EventDate "1990.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "A Shirov"]
[Black "J Lapinski"]
[ECO "C37"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "34"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. O-O gxf3 6. Qxf3 Qf6 7. e5 Qxe5 8.
Bxf7+ Kxf7 9. d4 Qxd4+ 10. Be3 Qf6 11. Bxf4 Ke8 12. Nc3 Nc6 13. Nd5 Qg6 14.
Rae1+ Be7 15. Bd6 Kd8 16. Qf8+ Bxf8 17. Bxc7# 1-0


And here is some analysis/recommendations and my responses to them

1)"Shredder also seems to think that black's defenses hold after 10. ... Qg7. For example, 11. Nc3 Nc6 12. Bxf4 Nf6 13. Nd5 d6 14. Bg3 Be7 15. Nxf6 Bxf6 16. Bh4 Rf8 17. Bxf6 Qg4 (-2.34 depth 14) where black remains up a clear piece."

But on 10...Qg7 as i have showed in this thread before white must reply 11.Qxf4+ with powerful attack.

2)"It is easy to defend (9...Qf5! and black is two pieces up)."

It is not so easy to defend, but after analysing this line I concluded that 9...Qf5 is the best for black – it can refute this line. But black must know how to play – I think it is not so easy to defend in OTB and even in CC without using engine.

3) “10. e3 g7 11. xf4+ f6 12. d4 e7 13. c3 g8 (eval -3.74; depth 13 ply; 2000M nodes)” (Crafty)

After 14.Qe4 Qg6(or g4 – otherwise white gets advantage) 15.Bxf6 Qxe4 16.Nxe4 Rybka evaluates this position about -0.90, - 1,00 but even engine cant find certain way to win for black. I would rate this position as unclear.

But I tend to agree with cmsMaster – double Muzio gambit isnt so sound as I thought.

Originally posted by Korch
11.Qxf4+ is better - 11...Nf6 12.Bd4 Be7 13.Nc3 d6 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15. Nd5 Nd7 16.Rae1 with powerful attack.

Yes, Qxf4 does seem better in hindsight.

At this point in the game, I'm disappointed that the attack has fizzled and I'll be on the defensive after I play Qg3.

Originally posted by 93confirmed
Here's the game:

1. e2-e4 e7-e5 2. f2-f4 e5xf4 3. Ng1-f3 g7-g5 4. Bf1-c4 g5-g4 5. O-O g4xf3 6. Qd1xf3 Qd8-f6 7. e4-e5 Qf6xe5 8. Bc4xf7+ Ke8xf7 9. d2-d4 Qe5xd4+ 10. Bc1-e3 Qd4-g7 11. Be3xf4 Ng8-f6 12. Bf4xc7 Nb8-c6 13. Nb1-c3 Bf8-c5+ 14. Kg1-h1 d7-d6 15. Nc3-e4 Bc5-d4 16. Ne4xd6+ Kf7-f8 17. Nd6-b5 Bc8-g4 18. Qf3-d5 Qg7-f7 19. Qd5-d6+ Kf8-g7 20. Nb5xd4 Ra8-d8 21. Bc7xd8 *

9...Qxd4+ is wrong. The refutation of the double piece Muzio is based on 9...Qf5! Interestingly enough this strong continuation was known back in the 19th century, the heyday of the King's Gambit!

Originally posted by cmsMaster
Here's a Shirov game - which he won with some nice analysis afterwards - though nothing concrete is gained from it. I'll have to look for more analysis on the DMG though, if anybody has some it'd be nice to see.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1074916&kpage=2

11...Ke8 seems like a mistake and allowed the eventual Queenside mate to take place. Instead, Black should have continued to develop via Be7, Nc6, etc.

Originally posted by 93confirmed
11...Ke8 seems like a mistake and allowed the eventual Queenside mate to take place. Instead, Black should have continued to develop via Be7, Nc6, etc.

Anyway, I think the shirov-game is a great example on why black should consentrate on king safety and developement instead of capture material (one night and three pawns!)

Originally posted by Northern Lad
9...Qxd4+ is wrong. The refutation of the double piece Muzio is based on 9...Qf5! Interestingly enough this strong continuation was known back in the 19th century, the heyday of the King's Gambit!

Ah, yeah, that's it! Thanks for the help Northern Lad.

Game 3357751 😲

Originally posted by Dutch Defense
Game 3357751 😲

I'm tempted to comment but will wait...