Proof that From's Gambit is unsound..?

Morphyesque View Profile

Only Chess

05 May '10 22:25

Morphyesque
Joined
05 May '10
Moves
0
05 May '10 22:25
Hey all,

was having a discussion at the chess club last night with the resident (and ardent!) defender of Bird's Opening, and so the discussion turned to From's Gambit.

Eventually, the conclusion was reached that From's Gambit was unsound, and the reason it was unsound is because Eric Schiller wrote a book entitled "A Gambit Repertoire for Black", and although the book has a section on Flank Openings, it does not include a section on From's Gambit.

I contend that the book in question (which I own, and actually found very useful) was meant to be a smaller volume, and it isn't that the From's Gambit is necessarily unsound, it's that the Bird's is so bad that Black can do far better by just playing conventionally.

Thoughts?
greenpawn34
e4
Joined
06 May '08
Moves
42492
05 May '10 22:331 edit
It may not be in the book because after 1.f4 e5 2.e5 would
take it out of the sphere of the book and into mainline King's Gambit.

The reasoning that it is unsound because it is not mentioned
in a Schiller book is beyond me. Some would claim that the fact
it is NOT mentioned in a Schiller book makes it all the more sound.
Morphyesque
Joined
05 May '10
Moves
0
05 May '10 22:43
Well, the line of reasoning went:

1) Schiller will publish theory on openings of questionable merit.
2) Schiller did not include this gambit for Black specifically in a book essentially titled "black Gambits".
3) Therefore, From's Gambit didn't even meet his lowly standards, because it's not that good.

For the record, he gambits he recommends aren't that horrible (Scandinavian, geared towards Icelandic / Portugese versus 1.e4 and Schara Gambit + several offbeat QG lines vs 1.d4).
greenpawn34
e4
Joined
06 May '08
Moves
42492
05 May '10 23:201 edit
I'd say the From's is OK for Black at under 1900 level.

Just did a Quick check on the RHP DB.

http://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/Chess-c210000170?dispSortId=1&byocList=t210004777

After 2...d6 Black is 50% wins v 39% at games between 1400-1900's.
Possibly more than that as games under 10 moves do appear on it
and I suspect there are a whole load of quick Black wins where White
plays an h3 and gets mated by Bg3 which are not shown.
wormwood
If Theres Hell Below
We're All Gonna Go!
Joined
10 Sep '05
Moves
10228
06 May '10 00:091 edit
white gets a good game if he knows what he's doing, but I doubt it could be claimed unsound just for that. and it's by no means losing for black, and a draw is enough for black to be sound, right?

the cons for black? white will usually have much more experience against it, because you get a LOT of froms playing 1.f4. in fact I always premove fxe because it's so frequent. just like you get stauntons as a dutch player. it's the first thing you book up against.

but it is tricky, and especially in blitz white can easily drop something. but so can black, and often does.

as a surprise weapon? well, frankly it's more of a surprise when black actually knows what to do in the mainline past move 7.
randolph
the walrus
an English garden
Joined
15 Jan '08
Moves
32836
06 May '10 00:15
Originally posted by Morphyesque
Well, the line of reasoning went:

1) Schiller will publish theory on openings of questionable merit.
2) Schiller did not include this gambit for Black specifically in a book essentially titled "black Gambits".
3) Therefore, From's Gambit didn't even meet his lowly standards, because it's not that good.

For the record, he gambits he recommends are ...[text shortened]... s Icelandic / Portugese versus 1.e4 and Schara Gambit + several offbeat QG lines vs 1.d4).
His recommendations aren't bad but his analysis ranges from lazy and unchecked to downright malicious.
Morphyesque
Joined
05 May '10
Moves
0
06 May '10 01:24
Originally posted by randolph
His recommendations aren't bad but his analysis ranges from lazy and unchecked to downright malicious.

It's funny you mention that, because he devotes a small chapter under the Scandinavian section on what to do against Blackmar-Diemer psycopaths who play 2.e4, and takes a nice pot shot against Diemer's shoddy analysis ("10.Nxf7.. is this sacrifice s ...[text shortened]... n player who has said anything BUT "ugh, not the Smith-Morra!" in the post-mortem.
Morphyesque
Joined
05 May '10
Moves
0
06 May '10 01:25
Originally posted by randolph
His recommendations aren't bad but his analysis ranges from lazy and unchecked to downright malicious.
It's funny you mention that, because he devotes a small chapter under the Scandinavian section on what to do against Blackmar-Diemer psycopaths who play 2.e4, and takes a nice pot shot against Diemer's shoddy analysis ("10.Nxf7.. is this sacrifice sound? The literature suggests that it is, but analysis suggests that it is not.. [two moves of analysis later] .. and the white queen is trapped!! This little problem didn't stop Diemer from awarding himself two exclamation marks for the wretched move Nxf7" )

That's one thing about the From's Gambit.. our resident Bird's player talked about our first and only game played to date where he had white, and he mentioned that he was actually hoping that I would have played the From's instead of just setting up a generic "d5/c5/Bd6/Nc6 and play for an ..e5 break" system, because as he said, he was "more than ready" for the From's Gambit.

Compare that to, say, the Smith-Morra against the Sicilian, which may have a similar assessment (it isn't bad, but you can realistically expect more in the main lines, so choose this for psychological value only) but I have yet to meet a Sicilian player who has said anything BUT "ugh, not the Smith-Morra!" in the post-mortem.
randolph
the walrus
an English garden
Joined
15 Jan '08
Moves
32836
06 May '10 02:23
Hey, careful who you're calling a psychopath

half this forum responds to 1... d5 with 2. d4 🙂
Morphyesque
Joined
05 May '10
Moves
0
06 May '10 02:56
Originally posted by randolph
Hey, careful who you're calling a psychopath

half this forum responds to 1... d5 with 2. d4 🙂
Oh, are there Blackmar-Diemer players on this forum.. I'm sorry, I didn't know.. I'll try and use "less big" words 😛
Tiwaking
Joined
26 Jan '10
Moves
1174
06 May '10 06:14
Originally posted by Morphyesque
Thoughts?
Froms gambit isnt 'unsound', it just isnt worth it.

1. f4! e5? 2. fxe5 d6 3. e4 dxe5

And we have no problems.

If you mean the hard core:

1.f4! e5 2. fxe5 d6 3. exd6 Bxd6

Then the automatic: Nf6, g3, Bg2, Nc3 with an eye on 0-0, Kh1

....I guess if you werent familiar with the Froms gambit, then you may have trouble. Thing is: If you're not familiar with the Froms gambit, why are you playing the Birds Opening anyway?
National Master Dale
Joined
29 Aug '09
Moves
1574
06 May '10 07:011 edit
Hi Tiwaking. I don`t recommend 3.e4 since

Invert Board PGN
1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.e4 Qh4+

Looks like it might be scary for white.

Black also is doing super well on the dark squares after 3...dxe5 4.Nf3 Bc5 if he doesn`t wanna play the Queen check.
pulern
Joined
04 May '05
Moves
2621
06 May '10 09:14
The From gambit can't be dismissed by the fact that it is not mentioned by Schiller. Even if he had mentioned it and even claimed to refute it, I would still not blindly buy his analysis or conclusions.

See Stefan Bücker's Kaissiber. In issue 36 (Jan-Mar 2010), there is a 21p article by Volker Hergert. The discussion centers on the following variations:

1.f4 e5 2.fxe4

A) 2...Nc6 3.Nf3 g5
A1) 4.d4
A2) 4.h3!

B) 2...d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3
B1) 4...g5
B2) 4...Nf6!

"Proof that the From's Gambit is unsound...?"
well, can't find anything that amount to proof in this thread so far.
For those who think that the From is unsound, please post the actual refutation.

Reg, Paul
Tiwaking
Joined
26 Jan '10
Moves
1174
06 May '10 11:39
Originally posted by National Master Dale
Hi Tiwaking. I don`t recommend 3.e4 since
Looks like it might be scary for white.

Black also is doing super well on the dark squares after 3...dxe5 4.Nf3 Bc5 if he doesn`t wanna play the Queen check.
Oops. Apologies. My move order was incorrect. I got mixed up with:

1. f4! e5? 2. e4 <- The trusty Kings Gambit.

The correct move order is:

1. f4! e5? 2. fxe5 d6 3. Nf3 dxe5

As suggested by GM Henrik Danielsen as a good alternative because, quote:

'If you have family, work and children. You might need an opening which is not so theoretical
wormwood
If Theres Hell Below
We're All Gonna Go!
Joined
10 Sep '05
Moves
10228
06 May '10 12:17
Originally posted by Tiwaking
1. f4! e5? 2. fxe5 d6 3. Nf3 dxe5

As suggested by GM Henrik Danielsen as a good alternative because, quote:

'If you have family, work and children. You might need an opening which is not so theoretical
yeah, declining from's gambit works pretty well, especially in blitz. usually the opponents hit a wall right after 3.Nf3 and you're 30s up on clock after the first 6 moves. it's like they never even considered the possibility of declining it.

well, I guess it's not really declining it as you take the pawn, albeit just for one move. but anyway...

Only Chess Forum

Proof that From's Gambit is unsound..?