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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 26 Nov '08 08:10 / 1 edit

    1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Nxe4.

    Does this line have a name and how is it refuted?

    Edit: After Nxe5 black is going to play d5.
  2. 26 Nov '08 08:31 / 1 edit
    (see http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz05.pdf for a PDF version of this article)

    The Kibitzer
    by Tim Harding

    TWO KNIGHTS DEFENCE, THE AMAZING COUNTER-
    ATTACK

    Do you meet 1 e4 e5 by 2 Nf3 Nc6 and after 3 Bc4 wonder
    whether you dare face the Evans Gambit after 3...Bc5? You think
    that moves like 3...Be7 and 3...d6 are too passive and prefer to play
    the Two Knights Defence. However, 4 Ng5 (the "duffer's move" as
    Tarrasch called it) is not so easy to refute and you know White will
    be ready for the 4...d5 main line and the Wilkes-Barre, 4...Bc5.

    How about a move that your opponent has almost certainly not
    considered, a move that may make him fall off his seat? I cannot
    promise you it is 100 per cent sound but it has an excellent
    practical chance of success below master level.

    So here goes. After 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 you play
    the amazing counter-attack, 4 Nxe4!? (See Diagram)

    Of course White can capture the f-pawn, but he can do that in two
    ways in the Wilkes-Barre whereas after 4...Nxe4 the option 5 Nxf7
    Qh4 is definitely bad for him: e.g. 6 0-0 Bc5 7 Nxh8 Nxf2! 8 Rxf2
    Bxf2+ was given by Staunton 150 years ago; he also analysed 7
    d4!? Bxd4 8 Nxh8 Nxf2 9 Bf7+ Kf8 10 Rxf2 Qxf2+ 11 Kh1 d6 12
    Bd5 Bg4 13 Bf3 Bxf3 14 gxf3 Kg8 while the late V. Zagorovsky's
    book Romantic Chess Openings gives instead 7...Nxd4 8 Be3 d6!
    "with a very strong attack for Black."

    Here is a practical example, a correspondence game played in
    Germany in 1993, Rieszbeck- Leisebein: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4
    Nf6 4 Ng5 Nxe4 5 Nxf7 Qh4 6 0-0 Bc5 7 Nxh8 Nxf2 8 Bf7+ Ke7
    9 Rxf2 Qxf2+ 10 Kh1 d5 11 d4 Nxd4 12 Bg5+ Kd6 13 Nc3 c6 14
    Na4 Bf5 15 Nxc5 Kxc5 16 c3 Nc2 17 Qf1 Qxf1+ 18 Rxf1 Bd3 19
    Rf2 Rxh8 20 Bh5 d4 21 Rf7 dxc3 22 bxc3 e4 23 Rxg7 e3 24 Rxb7
    e2 25 Bxe2 Bxe2 26 Bf6 Re8 27 Rxh7 Bd3 28 Re7 Rxe7 29 Bxe7+
    Kc4 30 Bf6 Ne3 0-1.

    I first encountered the move 4 Nxe4 in 1993 when a reader of my
    Irish newspaper column asked what was wrong with it; after all, 5
    Nxe4 d5 is dull and clearly OK for Black. I could not give a
    satisfactory answer at the time but later I found articles by
    Yugoslav IM Rudolf Maric in the first volume of the magazine
    "Gambit Revue", nos. 6 and 7. I then traced variation back to
    Steinitz's "Modern Chess Instructor" (p.102). Recently I tracked
    down the analysis by Zukertort dating from 1875 which Steinitz
    had consulted.

    Evidently White should take on f7 with the bishop check, but what
    then? It took me three years of research into old and new books
    and periodicals to get (I think) to the bottom of the story of this
    variation. White has a good variation, perhaps the only one, but it's
    not obvious. Most books I looked into had wrong lines or nothing.
    ECO was on the right track but stopped too early; only the 1989
    edition of Euwe's "Theory of Chess Openings" edited by Heyken
    and Fette gave the key reference in full, a wartime amateur game in
    the Netherlands.

    The earliest attempt to refute 4 Nxe4, as given by Bilguer (1839)
    and later by Staunton (e.g. "Chess Player's Handbook" 1872,
    p.145) followed the line 5 Bxf7+ Ke7 6 d3 Nf6! (6...Nxg5??
    7.Bxg5+ +-; 6...Nd6 7 Ne6! dxe6 8 Bg5+ Staunton) 7 Bb3 d5 8 f4
    Bg4 9 Qd2 h6? leading to an easy win for White. Zukertort seems
    to have been the first master to give anything like a proper analysis
    of 4...Nxe4 for in the "City of London Chess Magazine" of 1875
    (p.75) he revealed the resource 9...Kd7, played against him by Dr.
    Stosch, a Berlin amateur, in 1867. After 10 Nf7 Qe8 11 Nxh8
    exf4+ 12 Kf1 comes 12...Nd4! (Stosch played the much inferior
    12...Bc5 against Zukertort.) 13 Nc3 Bc5 This turns the variation on
    its head. White has no good defence, as Steinitz agreed, e.g., 14 h3
    (Zukertort also analysed 14 Qe1 Qh5 15 Bxf4 Re8 16 Qd2 Be2+
    17 Nxe2 Rxe2.) 14...Qh5 15 Nf7 Re8 16 Ng5 Be2+ 17 Nxe2 Nxe2
    (17...Rxe2? 18 Qxf4) 18 g4 (18 Ne4 Nxe4 -+) 18...Nxg4 19 Ne4
    Rxe4 20 dxe4 Ne3+ 21 Ke1 Ng2+ and mate next move in a game
    Dufresne-Zukertort, 1869. Zukertort also examined 6 Nxe4 Kxf7 7
    Qf3+ ("This attack cannot lead to anything, as White has no forces
    in the field to proceed with." 7...Ke8 8 d4 d5 and 7 Nbc3 g6 ("a
    far stronger move than the check with the queen" 8 0-0 d5 again
    leading to advantage for Black.

    As a footnote to the Stosch line, Gambit Revue published a game
    Laks-Maric, Novi Sad, 1947, in which Maric played instead 9...e4
    10 dxe4 (Better 10 h3) 10...Nxe4 11 Qxd5 Qxd5 12 Bxd5 Nxg5 13
    Bxc6 (13 fxg5 Rd8) 13...bxc6 14 fxg5 Kd7! 15 Be3 Rb8 16 b3
    Bb4+ 17 c3 Rhe8 18 Kd2 Rb5 19 cxb4 Rd5+ 20 Kc2 Rxe3 21 Kb2
    a5 22 Ka3 c5 23 bxa5 c4 24 Kb4 c5+ 25 Kxc4 Kc6 0-1.

    Therefore 6 d4!, (after 5 Bxf7+ Ke7) as rightly given by ECO, is
    the only response that Black need fear when playing 4...Nxe4. (See
    Diagram)

    Not now 6...exd4?? 7 Bd5! Nf6 8 Qe2+ nor 6...Nxd4 7 c3 Nc6 8
    Bd5+- (Steinitz) while 6...Nd6?! (hoping to rule out usual White
    tactics) blocks Q-side development and allows 7 Ne6!! which wins
    the queen for two minor pieces.

    Most books therefore give Black the move 6..d5 which would be
    all right after 7 dxe5 h6 (Zukertort only analysed 7...Nxe5.) 8 Nxe4
    Kxf7 9 Nec3 d4 10 Ne4 (or 10 Qf3+ Kg8 11 Qd5+ Qxd5 12 Nxd5
    Bf5) 10...Nxe5 (Keres) but White has 7 Nc3!! which is a
    widely-published refutation following analysis by the Russian
    player Lopukhin, e.g. 7...Nxc3 (7...Nf6 8 dxe5 Nxe5 9 Qe2 with
    advantage to White) 8 bxc3 Qd6 (8...Bf5 9 Qf3 or 8...e4 9 f3! with
    advantage to White in both cases) 9 a4 (threat Ba3) 9...Kd8 10
    Bg8! Ke8 11 Bxh7 with advantage to White. I have two miniatures
    in my database with 6...d5, both quick wins by White.

    However, Maric made a good case for playing 6...h6!? in the
    diagrammed position and this is where you should concentrate
    your analysis if you are thinking of playing this line with either
    colour. This gets a ? from ECO but that is misleading; I doubt if
    anybody below GM strength would find the refutation over the
    board without preparation.

    For example, Csanyi-Maric, Vojvodina Champ. 1949, continued
    from the diagram: 6 d4! h6! 7 Nxe4 Kxf7 8 d5 Ne7 (Not 8...Nd4? 9
    c3! Qh4 10 Ng3 Nb5 11 0-0 and f4 with no good defence for Black
    according to Maric) 9 Qh5+ Kg8!! In Maric's opinion, Black now
    has an initiative worth at least equality. Most books, if they give
    anything, mention only 9...g6? 10 Qxe5 Bg7 11 Qf4+ Kg8 12
    Nbc3, a variation inaccurately attributed to Staunton by Steinitz.

    This line is given by Zukertort and it is probably his, for he
    remarks of 6.d4 (City of London Chess Magazine 1875, p.144) that
    "This move was first proposed by Mr. Staunton, but he neither
    analysed its consequences exhaustively nor did he prove the
    insufficiency of 6.d3." After the improvement 9...Kg8!, the Maric
    game continued 10 Qxe5 d6 11 Qd4 c6! 12 dxc6? (12 c4 cxd5 13
    cxd5 Qa5+ 14 Nbc3 Nf5 is obviously more critical.) 12...d5! 13
    Ng3 Nxc6 14 Qa4 Qe8+ 15 Ne2 Bb4+ 16 Bd2 Bg4! 17 f3 Nd4!!
    18 Qxe8+ Rxe8 19 Bxb4 Rxe2+ 20 Kd1 Rxg2! 21 fxg4 Nxc2 22
    Bd2 Nxa1 23 Nc3 Kh7 24 Kc1 d4 25 Ne4 Rc8+ 0-1.

    White should instead of 8 d5, play 8 dxe5, as recommended by
    ECO and Estrin. This wins a pawn (8...Nxe5?? 9 Qh5+ Ng6 10
    Qf5+) and the question is whether Black can get compensation,
    unlikely with his king still unsafe. Maric in fact met 8 dxe5 by
    8...Qe8 and his game with Krgin at Novi Sad 1950 continued 9
    Qd5+ Kg6 10 f4 Nb4?! and he eventually won but he wrote that he
    should have played 10...d6 as there were a lot of errors in this
    game. The remaining moves were: 11 Qc4? (11 Qb3 d5 12 Ng3
    Qc6 13 Na3 Bc5) 11...d5! 12 exd6 Bxd6 13 0-0 b5 14 Nxd6 (14
    Qe2 Bc5+ 15 Kh1 Bf5 16 Nbc3 Bd4 17 g4 Bc8 unclear) 14...bxc4
    15 Nxe8 Rxe8 16 Na3 Ba6 17 c3 Nd3 18 Nc2 Re2 19 Nd4 Rae8!
    20 Nxe2 Rxe2 21 b3 Bb7 22 Rf3 Bxf3 23 gxf3 Re1+ 0-1.

    In my opinion 8 dxe5 is definitely stronger than 8 d5; White should
    be opening lines, not closing them. Also the extra pawn means that
    Black cannot afford slow play.

    White has two dangerous possibilities against 8...Qe8. Firstly, he
    could play 9 Qh5+!? (Maric doesn't mention this obvious move.)
    but after 9...g6 10 Qf3+ Kg7 11 Qf6+ (11 0-0!? Qxe5! unclear)
    11...Kg8 12 Qxc6! although White obtains some advantage the
    resulting position may be defensible. Finally we come to the real
    problem with 4...Nxe4. After 8...Qe8 ECO gives 9 f4 d6 10 0-0
    when Maric gave 10...Kg8 (to play dxe5) and he claimed Black
    should have few problems. However, he apparently did not know
    the continuation quoted by Heyken and Fette: 11 Nbc3 dxe5 12 f5
    Qf7 13 Nd5 Bd7 14 f6 g6 15.Ne7+! and White won in van
    Steenis-Vlagsma, Beverwijk 1942. Had Black played 8...Qe7
    instead of 8...Qe8 this would have been even worse for him, as
    after 9 f4 d6 10 0-0 Kg8 11 Nbc3 dxe5 there would be 12 Nd5
    attacking the queen.

    Can Black's game be salvaged? Can something better be found
    after 6...d5 7 Nc3 or a different sixth move altogether for Black?
    Over to you!
  3. Standard member Jie
    26 Nov '08 09:27
    Originally posted by Fat Lady
    (see http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz05.pdf for a PDF version of this article)

    The Kibitzer
    by Tim Harding

    TWO KNIGHTS DEFENCE, THE AMAZING COUNTER-
    ATTACK

    .......
    Over to you!
    Is that plagiarism, copying and pasting an entire article?
  4. 26 Nov '08 09:45
    Originally posted by Jie
    Is that plagiarism, copying and pasting an entire article?
    I prefer to think of it as an advertisement for Tim Harding's excellent Kibitzer column at the chesscafe.com site.
  5. 26 Nov '08 09:54
    Originally posted by Jie
    Is that plagiarism, copying and pasting an entire article?
    Its only plagiarism if someone takes credit for the article they didn't write, and I didn't see that =) in the above posts.

    FatLady also referred to where she got it and who wrote it.
  6. Standard member Jie
    26 Nov '08 10:12
    Originally posted by Fat Lady
    I prefer to think of it as an advertisement for Tim Harding's excellent Kibitzer column at the chesscafe.com site.
    Excellent? Wow! In recommending a wacko variation like that white can just do

  7. Standard member Jie
    26 Nov '08 10:22
    Originally posted by m00nshine
    Its only plagiarism if someone takes credit for the article they didn't write, and I didn't see that =) in the above posts.

    FatLady also referred to where she got it and who wrote it.
    Perhaps she should eat some bullfrogs to cure her paranoia of playing on the site and cutting and pasting substandard articles.
  8. Standard member Korch
    Chess Warrior
    26 Nov '08 10:44 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Jie
    Perhaps she should eat some bullfrogs to cure her paranoia of playing on the site and cutting and pasting substandard articles.
    You should cure your obsession with Fat Lady (to say nothing about your obsession with other "untouchables" ). You offended him without any obvious reason.
  9. Standard member Jie
    26 Nov '08 11:54 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Korch
    You should cure your obsession with Fat Lady (to say nothing about your obsession with other "untouchables" ). You offended him without any obvious reason.
    See Thread 104097 or Thread 104232 and tell me who is obsessed with who. Also as a lawyer you should advise your fellow untouchable about plagiarism and copyrights.
  10. Standard member Korch
    Chess Warrior
    26 Nov '08 12:36 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Jie
    See Thread 104097 or Thread 104232 and tell me who is obsessed with who. Also as a lawyer you should advise your fellow untouchable about plagiarism and copyrights.s your
    It`s obviously your obsession of course. The best example of your obession is Thread 103911 and also one of these 2 threads you refer to.

    I don`t know about your China, but in civilized European countries quoting text with reference to source is not plagiarism. You should not be a lawyer to know such elementary things.
  11. Subscriber Marinkatomb
    wotagr8game
    26 Nov '08 13:41
    For crying out loud you two can you just do this in private? Watching you harrang each other in perfectly decent threads all over the site is becoming seriously irritating. Stop ruining interesting threads with this childish tit for tat.
  12. Standard member Korch
    Chess Warrior
    26 Nov '08 14:56
    Originally posted by Marinkatomb
    For crying out loud you two can you just do this in private? Watching you harrang each other in perfectly decent threads all over the site is becoming seriously irritating. Stop ruining interesting threads with this childish tit for tat.
    Who started to accuse Fat Lady in plagiarism?
  13. 26 Nov '08 15:05
    Originally posted by Marinkatomb
    For crying out loud you two can you just do this in private? Watching you harrang each other in perfectly decent threads all over the site is becoming seriously irritating. Stop ruining interesting threads with this childish tit for tat.
    The last time I was here rahimk and cmsmaster were fighting all over the place. What happened to them? There was also a mod called begian freak who would dish out bans left and right. What happened to all of those guys?