| |
Main
Date: 09 Apr 2007 13:36:51
From: vindalooMan
Subject: Evans gambit position
|
Hi, I am reading GM Rohde "The Great Evans Gambit Debate", but I am
bit confuse about how his assessment
on the following position (which is one of those he uses to support
his suggestion of
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. Qb3 against
6.d4
r1b2k1r/ppp2qpp/3p1n2/N7/8/B1Q5/P4PPP/R4RK1 b - -
In his book he says that in this position he would "prefer white", but
doesn't give any reason.
For sure Black position is a bit cramped and h-rook is going to stay
home for a while, but I don't see big opportunities for White. He can
put some pressure on b column with a Rook and the Queen, but then?
Would someone help me to spot what I am missing?
Thank you
Alessandro
|
|
| |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 14:43:26
From: vindalooMan
Subject: Re: Evans gambit position
|
On Apr 10, 7:26 pm, Ron <[email protected] > wrote:
> Again, this sort of position is something you're going to have to learn
> to play. There's clearly compensation here. Is it really two pawns
> worth? That's a tough question.
>
> However, it's important to realize that the soundness of the sacrifice doesn't
> depend on black making a tactical error (although often he has plenty of opportunity to
> do so.)
In fact I decided to take up Evans because it looked to me (and to
some strong player I talked with)
also strategically sound (even if risky). It's up to me not to make it
work. First step is to get confidence with
its scenarios (i.e. play play play)
>
> (I think you'll find that, after you gain a little experience, you score
> very well from positions like this. Defense is harder that attacking -
> although while you'll learning you'll probably go through a phase where
> it seems like black manages to trade off a few pieces painlessly and
> your compensation vanishes).
the few times Black allowed me the Evan I have had exactly the feeling
you described right now,
but thanks for letting me know there is light at the end of the
tunnel. ;-)
Alessandro
|
| |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 14:36:24
From: vindalooMan
Subject: Re: Evans gambit position
|
On Apr 10, 12:13 am, Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected] > wrote:
> a typical position "force/material vs development". There are no
> rules about when there is enough compensation for a pawn or two. The
> writer only write "He prefer white".
Yes, I just would have liked some plan by his side, just to give me a
hint of where to look ;-)
> Compensation does not mean a rapid crash, only mena that to defend this
> position is as difficult than to attack it. Evans gambit players need to
> manage those type of positions.
I was not looking for a quick win, sorry if I gave this sensation.
Thanks for your answer,
anyway. My plan is to get practice on this kind of position :) I hope
sooner or later I will get
the right feeling.
Alessandro
|
| |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 14:31:05
From: vindalooMan
Subject: Re: Evans gambit position
|
On Apr 10, 2:34 am, Ron <[email protected] > wrote:
First of all thank you for your interesting replies.
> By the way, what does "The Great Evans Gambit Debate" give in this line:
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 d6 7. Qb3 Qd7
> 8. dxe5 Bb6 9. Nbd2 Na5 10. Qc2 Ne7 11. Bxf7+ Kxf7 12. e6+ Kxe6 13. Ng5+
> Kf6 14. e5+
Unluckily I cannot help on this. The book deviate from your line at
move 10 for Black
He gives 10...Nxc4 11.Nxc4 d5! (which brings Black control on central
light squares) after which He thinks Black is doing fine.
Some lines are (the ! are his)
12.exd5 Qxd5 13.Qa4+! Bd7 14.Nxb6 cxb6 15.Qd4 Bc6 16.O-O O-O-O!
12.Bg5 h6! 13.Bh4 g5! 14.Nxb6 axb6 15.Bg3 dxe4 16.Qxe4 Ne7
He basically prefers 9.Bb5.
It is not the first line I see missing from Rodhe's book, but probably
to be complete is not the goal of an 80 pages
booklet. I will probably need (in the medium future, not in the next 6
months... before I need to play the gambit) to integrate it with
another book. Have you read Pinski book on Italian game and Evans? Or
better the latest version of Harding?
Alessandro
|
| |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 00:59:27
From: vindalooMan
Subject: Re: Evans gambit position
|
On Apr 10, 2:34 am, Ron <[email protected] > wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
> "vindalooMan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > r1b2k1r/ppp2qpp/3p1n2/N7/8/B1Q5/P4PPP/R4RK1 b - -
>
> Just to be clear, you're talking about the position on move 6, right?
Well... no :) I was quoting the line only till move 6 because at move
6 Rodhe
discusses both 6.d4 and 6.Qb3 and finally says that he prefers 6.Qb3
also on the
basis of this line
7. d4 Nxd4 8. Nxd4 exd4 9. O-O! dxc3 10. e5 Qxe5 11. Bxf7+ Kf8 12. Na3
Nf6
13. Nc4 Qe7 14. Ba3 d6 15. Nxa5 Qxf7 16. Qxc3
which bring us to the position I inserted, where I don't see all the
compensation Rodhe seems to be talking about. Sorry for not being
clear, it was a late night post ;-)
> You shouldn't expect to see an immediate and clear "win" here. Rather,
> this is one of those positions that, as you gain experience and
> judgement, you'll learn to understand. The process of sacrificing
> material for an unclear attack (which is what most gambits are) is one
> of the most complicated ones in chess, and it'll take time and
> experience for you to be able to do some consistently.
I am willing to give it time:) I am looking for a way to expand my
ordinary Gioco Piano, but I am not expecting the "killer move", sorry
if I gave this idea :)
I was just browsing through the book to have a first idea of Rodhe
lines and I was surprised (and I am still a bit) because I can't find
any attack or positional "something" compensating two pawns... but
still, surely I lack the feeling for this position, right now
>
> You'll develop that experience over time, particularly by playing both
> sides of gambits and by playing over master games. I'd encourage you to
> spend a lot of time looking at the games of Morphy, Lasker, and Alekhine
> while you develop a feel for this sort of thing.
Thank you for your suggestion. I surely will follow your advice,
because I would like to get the right feeling for this kind of
positions.
>
> By the way, what does "The Great Evans Gambit Debate" give in this line:
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 d6 7. Qb3 Qd7
> 8. dxe5 Bb6 9. Nbd2 Na5 10. Qc2 Ne7 11. Bxf7+ Kxf7 12. e6+ Kxe6 13. Ng5+
> Kf6 14. e5+
I will check it as soon as I am home... right now I don't have the
book with me.
Alessandro
|
| | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 17:26:58
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Evans gambit position
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"vindalooMan" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> 7. d4 Nxd4 8. Nxd4 exd4 9. O-O! dxc3 10. e5 Qxe5 11. Bxf7+ Kf8 12. Na3
> Nf6
> 13. Nc4 Qe7 14. Ba3 d6 15. Nxa5 Qxf7 16. Qxc3
>
> which bring us to the position I inserted, where I don't see all the
> compensation Rodhe seems to be talking about. Sorry for not being
> clear, it was a late night post ;-)
Eh, I'd say the same thing applies. Black is up a pair of pawns, but
he's going to have a hard time connecting his rooks.
Again, this sort of position is something you're going to have to learn
to play. There's clearly compensation here. Is it really two pawns
worth? That's a tough question.
Clearly, black can go wrong very easily. EG 16. ... Nxa5 17.Qxa5 Bd7?
18.Ne5! and Qxc7 gets the material back. However, it's important to
realize that the soundness of the sacrifice doesn't depend on black
making a tactical error (although often he has plenty of opportunity to
do so.)
(I think you'll find that, after you gain a little experience, you score
very well from positions like this. Defense is harder that attacking -
although while you'll learning you'll probably go through a phase where
it seems like black manages to trade off a few pieces painlessly and
your compensation vanishes).
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 17:56:49
From:
Subject: Re: Evans gambit position
|
On Apr 9, 7:34 pm, Ron <[email protected] > wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
> "vindalooMan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > r1b2k1r/ppp2qpp/3p1n2/N7/8/B1Q5/P4PPP/R4RK1 b - -
>
> Just to be clear, you're talking about the position on move 6, right?
>
> r1bqk1nr/pppp1ppp/2n5/b3p3/2B1P3/1QP2N2/P2P1PPP/RNB1K2R b KQkq - 2 6
>
> Your FEN is not correct, if that's the case.
>
> White's compensation in the Evans can come quickly, or it can take it's
> sweet time. You might be crashing through against his king, or you might
> be applying slow, consistent queenside pressure.
>
> You shouldn't expect to see an immediate and clear "win" here. Rather,
> this is one of those positions that, as you gain experience and
> judgement, you'll learn to understand. The process of sacrificing
> material for an unclear attack (which is what most gambits are) is one
> of the most complicated ones in chess, and it'll take time and
> experience for you to be able to do some consistently.
>
> You'll develop that experience over time, particularly by playing both
> sides of gambits and by playing over master games. I'd encourage you to
> spend a lot of time looking at the games of Morphy, Lasker, and Alekhine
> while you develop a feel for this sort of thing.
>
> By the way, what does "The Great Evans Gambit Debate" give in this line:
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 d6 7. Qb3 Qd7
> 8. dxe5 Bb6 9. Nbd2 Na5 10. Qc2 Ne7 11. Bxf7+ Kxf7 12. e6+ Kxe6 13. Ng5+
> Kf6 14. e5+
>
> I'm worried that this line is busted because of 15. ... de 16.Nde4+ Kg6
> when the threat of the discovered check doesn't seem to do anything
> because black can interpose a knight or queen (as required) on f5.
>
> (Harding, in 1996, gave 17.Nf3 Nc6? 18.Nc5+ Qf5 19.Nh4+, but white can
> make better use of his free move after 17.Nf3, say with Qd5).
>
> -Ron
Several things about this line are puzzling. Why play 10...Ne7; is it
better than Nxc4? Is 11.Bxf7+ better than 11.Nxc4? Likewise, White
does have mores like 9.Ba3 (though I haven't looked at this one.)
In the given line, I don't see anything for White. Perhaps White can
play 17. Nd6+ and after ...Nf5, 18.Nxc8 Rac8, 19.g4....
|
| | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 01:38:30
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Evans gambit position
|
In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] wrote:
> > 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 d6 7. Qb3 Qd7
> > 8. dxe5 Bb6 9. Nbd2 Na5 10. Qc2 Ne7 11. Bxf7+ Kxf7 12. e6+ Kxe6 13. Ng5+
> > Kf6 14. e5+
> >
> > I'm worried that this line is busted because of 15. ... de 16.Nde4+ Kg6
> > when the threat of the discovered check doesn't seem to do anything
> > because black can interpose a knight or queen (as required) on f5.
> >
> > (Harding, in 1996, gave 17.Nf3 Nc6? 18.Nc5+ Qf5 19.Nh4+, but white can
> > make better use of his free move after 17.Nf3, say with Qd5).
>
> Several things about this line are puzzling. Why play 10...Ne7; is it
> better than Nxc4? Is 11.Bxf7+ better than 11.Nxc4? Likewise, White
> does have mores like 9.Ba3 (though I haven't looked at this one.)
10. ... Nxc4 is the main line. As of 1996, Harding gave 10. ... Ne7 a ?,
but I'm worried that evaluation is incorrect. That is, in fact, my
question. Is the question k which has traditionally been attached to
10 ... Ne7 a mistake. Can black hold in this line?
11.Nxc4 isn't a legal move.
Of course, white can play 11.0-0, but I'm not sure that amounts to much,
and it seems rather unambitious if 10. ... Ne7 really deserves it's "?".
If black can get away with it and castle safely, then I think the ? is
erroneous.
> In the given line, I don't see anything for White. Perhaps White can
> play 17. Nd6+ and after ...Nf5, 18.Nxc8 Rac8, 19.g4....
I believe that black had hold is extra material here - I don' t think
white has sufficient compensation.
|
| |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 00:34:52
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Evans gambit position
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"vindalooMan" <[email protected] > wrote:
> r1b2k1r/ppp2qpp/3p1n2/N7/8/B1Q5/P4PPP/R4RK1 b - -
Just to be clear, you're talking about the position on move 6, right?
r1bqk1nr/pppp1ppp/2n5/b3p3/2B1P3/1QP2N2/P2P1PPP/RNB1K2R b KQkq - 2 6
Your FEN is not correct, if that's the case.
White's compensation in the Evans can come quickly, or it can take it's
sweet time. You might be crashing through against his king, or you might
be applying slow, consistent queenside pressure.
You shouldn't expect to see an immediate and clear "win" here. Rather,
this is one of those positions that, as you gain experience and
judgement, you'll learn to understand. The process of sacrificing
material for an unclear attack (which is what most gambits are) is one
of the most complicated ones in chess, and it'll take time and
experience for you to be able to do some consistently.
You'll develop that experience over time, particularly by playing both
sides of gambits and by playing over master games. I'd encourage you to
spend a lot of time looking at the games of Morphy, Lasker, and Alekhine
while you develop a feel for this sort of thing.
By the way, what does "The Great Evans Gambit Debate" give in this line:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 d6 7. Qb3 Qd7
8. dxe5 Bb6 9. Nbd2 Na5 10. Qc2 Ne7 11. Bxf7+ Kxf7 12. e6+ Kxe6 13. Ng5+
Kf6 14. e5+
I'm worried that this line is busted because of 15. ... de 16.Nde4+ Kg6
when the threat of the discovered check doesn't seem to do anything
because black can interpose a knight or queen (as required) on f5.
(Harding, in 1996, gave 17.Nf3 Nc6? 18.Nc5+ Qf5 19.Nh4+, but white can
make better use of his free move after 17.Nf3, say with Qd5).
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 00:13:21
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Evans gambit position
|
En/na vindalooMan ha escrit:
> Hi, I am reading GM Rohde "The Great Evans Gambit Debate", but I am
> bit confuse about how his assessment
> on the following position (which is one of those he uses to support
> his suggestion of
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. Qb3 against
> 6.d4
>
> r1b2k1r/ppp2qpp/3p1n2/N7/8/B1Q5/P4PPP/R4RK1 b - -
>
> In his book he says that in this position he would "prefer white", but
> doesn't give any reason.
> For sure Black position is a bit cramped and h-rook is going to stay
> home for a while, but I don't see big opportunities for White. He can
> put some pressure on b column with a Rook and the Queen, but then?
> Would someone help me to spot what I am missing?
>
> Thank you
> Alessandro
This is a typical position "force/material vs development". There are no
rules about when there is enough compensation for a pawn or two. The
writer only write "He prefer white".
Compensation does not mean a rapid crash, only mena that to defend this
position is as difficult than to attack it. Evans gambit players need to
manage those type of positions.
Antonio
|
|
