Muzio Gambit

the 0-0-knight sac is thematical in some variations in the king's gambit, i have seen it many times, even on GM level

Originally posted by Korch
5.0-0 is very old move known from 18th century. This gambit is still not refuted. In that game white have played not bad but instead of 7.d3 I would prefer 7.e5! Qxe5 8.Bxf7+ kxf7 9.d4! with powerful attack for 2 pieces. But 7.d3 is playable too and in final position of that game white should not resign - they had good play. 3 pawns for piece is good compensation, especially in endgame.

I am surprised that a strong player like you didn't know it, but 9...Qf5 leaves white with nothing. Chessgames.com has three games with it, and black won them all. Your chesslab.com has 11 games with 9...Qf5, with black winning 9 games. 8. d3 is the normal continuation.

Game 3405788 😳 :'( 😳 :'( 😳
Game 3407688 😳 :'( 😳 :'( 😳

Can someone show me how to beat the Muzio Gambit? Anyone? 🙁

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 have not understood why White resigned the match.

First, please have a look on (although it is written in German, it is Buecker who recommended 7.d3):

http://www.polerio.de/pdf/1986%20Buecker%20DNK%20Kapitel%20VIII.pdf

Some comments on the match:

1. Behind 7.- Lh6 I would set a question mark. This leads to the exchange variation. The resulting ending is slightly favourable for White.

2. The real challange for 7.d3 is 7.- Nc6! with the consequence 8.Bxf4 d6! (Yoos) 9. Nc3 Be6 10.Nd5 Qd8! and the position is won for Black.

3. 11. - 0-0 deserves a question mark as given also by Buecker (see link above).

4. 13.Rxf7 is considered as better than 13.Lxf7+. Black must exchange rooks and thereafter 14.Bxf7+ follows. 15.Nb5 and White has the better chances in the resulting ending.

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+ ?? (Keres 1980) is a serious blunder. 9.- Qf5! (Steinitz 1889, as a comment on J.W. Showalter vs. J.Taubenhaus, The sixth American Chess Congress, game No 330, p. 398-399: "9.- Qf5 Best, for if 9.- Qxd4+ 10.Be3, whiche piece Black, obviously, dare not to capture). White has, after 9.- Qxd4??+ as a minimum a draw, as e.g. shown by Millican 1989: http://www.polerio.de/pdf/1989%20Millican%20The%20Double%20Muzio.pdf

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

J Lapinski blundered with 9.- Qxd4+?? ... and alreay 11.- Ke8 has nothing to do with a potential draw for black --- a move not even known to Millican:

http://www.polerio.de/pdf/1989%20Millican%20The%20Double%20Muzio.pdf

Originally posted by Dutch Defense
Game 3357751 😲

8. - c6 9.Bxf4! Please note that the resulting ending is favouring White: White will win a second pawn and the attack is strong enough to win even the third.

Originally posted by cmsMaster
That's the Double Muzio Gambit - and is less sound than the line played, you'll find with some research that black generally gets compensation for the two pieces if he plays properly.

I think FabianFnas (if I have his name right) posted a "one move a day" game last year that featured a double Muzio and a following vicious attack by white that ended in a resignation by black in around 20 moves total.

It was a great game, though I don't feel like digging back and finding it... maybe later (or someone else might do it for me 🙂

Why does someone who joined today with 0 moves made so far dig up an old thread which was started by a person who is now banned?

Originally posted by Dutch Defense
Game 3405788 😳 :'( 😳 :'( 😳
Game 3407688 😳 :'( 😳 :'( 😳

Can someone show me how to beat the Muzio Gambit? Anyone? 🙁

White loses always with the Muzio. There is no draw.

See http://gcpolerio.blogspot.com/ and http://www.polerio.de/cbv/tgt001refined.cbv

Give me black, the position after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4? g4! 5.0-0 and I will win it with Black easily.

Did not know that the person was banned. Sorry.

Originally posted by Polerio
Did not know that the person was banned. Sorry.

no problem, it's not forbidden, it's just a bit weird

Originally posted by sh76
I think FabianFnas (if I have his name right) posted a "one move a day" game last year that featured a double Muzio and a following vicious attack by white that ended in a resignation by black in around 20 moves total.

It was a great game, though I don't feel like digging back and finding it... maybe later (or someone else might do it for me 🙂

Okay; I went and found it. 🙂

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=85405&page=1

Originally posted by sh76
Okay; I went and found it. 🙂

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=85405&page=1

Black made the blunder 9. - Qxd4+??

It's well known as a blunder. So why it is played still in 2008?

That's the match played?

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 Ne7 12. Nc3 Nf5 13. Be5 Qxe5 14. Qh5+ Kg8 15. Rxf5 Qe6
16. Qg5+ Qg6 17. Rxf8+ Kxf8 18. Rf1+ Kg8 and black resigned.

Btw: Yoos-Kirton:

"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 Ne7 12. Nc3 Nf5 13. Be5 Qxe5 14. Qh5+ Kg8 15. Rxf5 Qe6
16. Qg5+ Qg6 17. Rxf8+ Kxf8 18. Rf1+ Kg8 19. Qe7 Resigned 1-0

Game over.

This game was played by Yoos and Kirton in Saskatoon, 1994."

Jack (Yoos - I know Jack personally) did play against 9.- Qf5 as follows:



Yoos,J (2365) - van de Velden,E (1854) [C37]
TGT 01.02, 12.07.1998

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.0-0 gxf3 6.Qxf3 Qf6 7.e5 Qxe5 8.Bxf7+ Kxf7 9.d4 Qf5! 10.Bxf4 Nf6 11.Qe2 d6! 12.Nc3 Qg4 13.Qd2 Rg8 14.Rf2 Bf5 15.Raf1 Nbd7 16.Be3 Be4 0-1

And against the Abtauschvariante with Black:

Oortwijn,R (2400) - Yoos,J (2365) [C37]
TGT 01.03, 09.08.1998

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.0-0 gxf3 6.Qxf3 Qf6 7.d3 Nc6! 8.Bxf4 d6!! 9.Nc3 Be6 10.Nd5 Qd8 11.Bg5 Qxg5 0-1

Thus, my conclusion is that the (Muzio-) Polerio Gambit is busted:

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4? g4! -/+