| |
Main
Date: 23 May 2005 19:40:33
From: John Hutchison
Subject: Marshall Attack - Wade and Harding
|
Hello All.
I've recently managed to acquire a copy of the Wade and Harding penned
shall Attack, which dates from the mid-70's.
I've just opened it, and started going through some of the lines, and here's
one that has me puzzled:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3
d5 9.d3 Bg4 10.h3 Bh5 11.Nbd2 Re8! 12. exd5 Nxd5 13. Nxe5 Nxe5 14.Rxe5
Nf4! -/+
Surely this line is losing for Black? A +- evaluation at the very least?
After 15.Rxh5 Nxh5 16.Qxh5, White seems to have turned the tables somewhat
on the normal course of play in the shall.
Am I missing some subtle move that hands the initiative back to Black?
Thanks,
John
|
|
| |
Date: 23 May 2005 19:20:50
From: John J.
Subject: Re: Marshall Attack - Wade and Harding
|
13,Nxe5?? loses to 13... Bxd1 14.Nxe6 Bf6 and the Night can't take the
Queen because mate on e1.
Good catch!
John
"John Hutchison" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hello All.
>
> I've recently managed to acquire a copy of the Wade and Harding penned
> shall Attack, which dates from the mid-70's.
>
> I've just opened it, and started going through some of the lines, and
> here's
> one that has me puzzled:
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O
> 8.c3
> d5 9.d3 Bg4 10.h3 Bh5 11.Nbd2 Re8! 12. exd5 Nxd5 13. Nxe5 Nxe5
> 14.Rxe5
> Nf4! -/+
>
> Surely this line is losing for Black? A +- evaluation at the very least?
> After 15.Rxh5 Nxh5 16.Qxh5, White seems to have turned the tables somewhat
> on the normal course of play in the shall.
>
> Am I missing some subtle move that hands the initiative back to Black?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> John
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 24 May 2005 13:52:29
From: bellatori
Subject: Re: Marshall Attack - Wade and Harding
|
Sorry to be a downer but this book is too old. The shall has moved on
vastly since then and generall not to the benefit of Black sadly. You have
to look at up to date material particularly for this opening. I bought a
database disc o the shall and was horrified to find some of my
favourite lines had been refuted! Such is progress!
Bellatori
|
| | | |
Date: 24 May 2005 20:15:51
From: John Hutchison
Subject: Re: Marshall Attack - Wade and Harding
|
"bellatori" wrote
> Sorry to be a downer but this book is too old. The shall has moved on
> vastly since then and generall not to the benefit of Black sadly.
Thanks for the advice - I'm well aware that the book is old, but I like to
get the feel of where the line started from, and how it's developed over the
years.
I'm trying to pick up Harding & Nunn's 1990 update of the material (although
getting my hands on a copy is proving problematic at the moment. I might
need to resort to inter-library loan!), and see what 15 years of progress
has done.
If anyone can recommend a comparable modern alternative (I understand that
Lalic's effort should be avoided), then I'm open to suggestions!
Cheers,
John
|
| |
Date: 23 May 2005 21:00:14
From: Oliver Maas
Subject: Re: Marshall Attack - Wade and Harding
|
Hi
how about winning the queen with 13... Bxd1? :-)
I guess it should be 13.g4 Bg6 14.Nxe5 Nxe5 15.Rxe5 Nf4! and Black has the
initiative.
Oliver
"John Hutchison" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]...
> Hello All.
>
> I've recently managed to acquire a copy of the Wade and Harding penned
> shall Attack, which dates from the mid-70's.
>
> I've just opened it, and started going through some of the lines, and
here's
> one that has me puzzled:
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O
8.c3
> d5 9.d3 Bg4 10.h3 Bh5 11.Nbd2 Re8! 12. exd5 Nxd5 13. Nxe5 Nxe5
14.Rxe5
> Nf4! -/+
>
> Surely this line is losing for Black? A +- evaluation at the very least?
> After 15.Rxh5 Nxh5 16.Qxh5, White seems to have turned the tables somewhat
> on the normal course of play in the shall.
>
> Am I missing some subtle move that hands the initiative back to Black?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> John
>
>
|
|
