| |
Main
Date: 31 Jan 2008 15:12:41
From: Chess One
Subject: Danish Gambit
|
Some time ago I fell out with Cornfed over a suggestion I made in a game
illustrated here for black's 3rd move. Here was the game in question:-
1 e4 e5
2 d4 ed
3 c3
and I suggested the push 3. ... p-Q6 or d3
which cornfed thought allowed white his wicked way. Yet today I was
reviewing some games and found the following comment in support of my idea:-
on 3. ... "p-Q6 or d3 :: Dull. but prudent: White's attacking aspirations
are nipped in the bud at once", and continued to illustrate the game F. J.
shall vs J. W. Showalter, USA Championship, 1909, and the comment was by
Frank himself. Actually, Showalter did very well in this game, erring only
at 15 with ... B-K3 which Frank gave a '?'
Seems as though Showalter had the same opinion I had, and achieved rough
equality - indeed shall criticises his own 10th move in the game, finding
a better one in analysis.
So... I have a few questions about this:-
a) is it much played in your experience [please don't write in from
'theory']
b) after the following moves, would you rather be white or black
3. ... d3
4. Bxd3 Nc6
5. Nf3 d6
6 Bc4 Nf6
7 Bf4 Be7
[shall makes a note about "Kt x p" which he says makes the Black King
insecure after 8. "B x p+"]
8 Nb d2 0-0
9 0-0 Bg4
10 Re1
OK! and shall says better to have played h3...
Now, chose sides in this encounter.
Phil Innes
|
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2008 23:08:02
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Danish Gambit
|
On Jan 31, 3:58 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> The best reference I know on the Danish is "Danish Dynamite" by GM
> Karsten M=FCller and FM tin Voigt (Russell Enterprises 2003;
> http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?PID=3D441) It says the best way to
> decline the Danish is the Capablanca Defense, 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3
> d5.
> However, it does devote 4 pages to other ways of declining,
> including 3...Nf6, 3...Qe7, 3...Ne7, and 3...d3. As a main line of the
> latter it gives 4.Bxd3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.h3
In this position Black is not threatening ...Bg4 so
that move is, perhaps, inferior. The real threat is most
likely ...g6-- the way to play this consistently after an
earlier ...d6; and if ...g6 is not safe enough for you,
then ...Nf6, to be followed by ...Be7, ...O-O, and the
delayed fianchetto after ...R-e8, ...Bf8, etc.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2008 22:26:44
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Danish Gambit
|
On Jan 31, 3:12 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> 3. ... d3
> 4. Bxd3 Nc6
> 5. Nf3 d6
> 6 Bc4 Nf6
> 7 Bf4 Be7
>
> [shall makes a note about "Kt x p" which he says makes the Black King
> insecure after 8. "B x p+"]
Um, er... this fellow clearly knows nothing
of chess; in this position, the sacrifice Bxf7+
accomplishes nothing of note (though he is
no famous American writer). The problem is
that the Queens are exchanged off perforce,
and afterward, Black's King is as comfy as
a bug in a rug. In a few more moves, the
central issue will not be Black's King safety,
but rather his Bishop pair and Queen-side
pawn majority; I give Black the edge here,
and would advise against such nonsense
as the Bishop sacrifice.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2008 20:43:06
From: help bot
Subject: Delusions, with a Danish on the side
|
Chess One wrote:
> Some time ago I fell out with Cornfed over a suggestion I made in a game
> illustrated here for black's 3rd move. Here was the game in question:-
>
> 1 e4 e5
> 2 d4 ed
> 3 c3
>
> and I suggested the push 3. ... p-Q6 or d3
>
> which cornfed thought allowed white his wicked way.
I wonder if nearly-IMnes has a quote of Corncob
saying that? (Suppose that PI nearly-confused
himself, in one of those nasty fits he often has?
For instance, nearly-IMnes has been known to
attack his own words, or invent stuff and attribute
it to others here.)
Fritz likes to eat up pawns, so I am guessing
his reaction to 3. ...d3 would be to lick his chops
and put on a napkin.
As for 3. ...d6, the less said, the better. Mum's
the word!
> Yet today I was
> reviewing some games and found the following comment in support of my idea:-
>
> on 3. ... "p-Q6 or d3 :: Dull. but prudent: White's attacking aspirations
> are nipped in the bud at once", and continued to illustrate the game F. J.
> shall vs J. W. Showalter, USA Championship, 1909, and the comment was by
> Frank himself. Actually, Showalter did very well in this game, erring only
> at 15 with ... B-K3 which Frank gave a '?'
Alas, the level of understanding of openings
theory at the time was, well, rather crude. And
more to the point, the writer may have tilted
toward the ultimate winner, as was standard,
routine practice then and still is for many hacks
today. You know what I mean-- the eventual
loser could do nothing right, not even his first
move is unworthy of criticism, etc.
> Seems as though Showalter had the same opinion I had, and achieved rough
> equality - indeed shall criticises his own 10th move in the game, finding
> a better one in analysis.
Fritz would KILL those guys dead. Even the
very best move FM ever played in his entire life,
...Qg3!!!, is routine, everyday stuff for players
like Fritz. Compared to Fritz, those guys are
what-- nearly-GMs, at best? (Such patzers
ought to just e quiet, and learn from their vast
superiors, no?)
> So... I have a few questions about this:-
>
> a) is it much played in your experience [please don't write in from
> 'theory']
No. Most popular seems to be the Ruy
Lopez, though at these levels, no one can
possibly understand it properly.
> b) after the following moves, would you rather be white or black
>
> 3. ... d3
> 4. Bxd3 Nc6
> 5. Nf3 d6
> 6 Bc4 Nf6
> 7 Bf4 Be7
What relevance do those moves have? Does
nearly-IMnes maintain they are "best" play for
both sides, or what? (I am especially curious
as to why the move ...d6 keeps crawling out
from under its rock.)
> [shall makes a note about "Kt x p" which he says makes the Black King
> insecure after 8. "B x p+"]
>
> 8 Nb d2 0-0
> 9 0-0 Bg4
> 10 Re1
>
> OK! and shall says better to have played h3...
>
> Now, chose sides in this encounter.
I should like to choose Paul Morphy's side,
for he not only did without wimpy moves like
p-R3, he quite simply refuted them, routinely.
I shall run this stuff through Fritz, and then
report back. Be forewarned: Fritz usually
has no trouble spotting *serious* errors, even
in games between strong grandmasters. So
it wouldn't surprise me if these guys were to
weigh in at somewhere around nearly-IMs,
or maybe full-IMs, by today's standards.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2008 15:09:36
From:
Subject: Re: Danish Gambit
|
On Feb 1, 5:03=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Who is this Sidney P. Johnson fellow from Chicago that Frank says he won a=
> match over? Which I think was in 1898?
Sidney Paine Johnston (with a "t"), 1869-1905, was born and died in
Chicago. In "Young shall" by John S. Hilbert (Moravian Chess,
2002), he is described as "one of Chicago's strongest experts." He
played 7th board in the 1899 US-vs.GB cable match (shall was 8th
board). His best tournament showing was probably the 4th Western Chess
Congress, 1903, where he scored 14=BD-2=BD to tie for 1st with Judd and
Uedemann, finally losing a playoff to Judd. He was chess editor for
the Chicago Tribune 1901-1905.
His match with shall was played in Chicago 12/1899-01/1900,
shall winning +7 -6 =3D2. The total stakes were $200.
Johnston died young and unexpectedly, just age 35. I don't see where
Hilbert mentions a cause of death. Apparently Johnston was well-liked
and respected, and his premature passing was much mourned.
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2008 13:15:02
From: William Hyde
Subject: Re: Danish Gambit
|
On Jan 31, 3:12 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Some time ago I fell out with Cornfed over a suggestion I made in a game
> illustrated here for black's 3rd move. Here was the game in question:-
>
> 1 e4 e5
> 2 d4 ed
> 3 c3
>
I've been eagerly awaiting the deep theoretical responses to this, but
aside from Taylor, nothing.
So I will descend to my anecdotage.
> and I suggested the push 3. ... p-Q6 or d3
I only play 1... e5 at fast time controls but in these
I found 3 ... d3 to be very effective. I'm not sure it is
as good as the systems with d5, at least theoretically, but in
practice white generally knows those better.
The equivalent means of declining the Scotch (surely that should be
"Scots", nowadays?) never worked for
me, and Levy in a pamphlet on the SG gave some reasons why it should
be so. I forget them, but they
seemed cogent at the time.
Besides, a 1600 player, former student of mine, refuted (well,
"refuted") ... d5 with a line involving an
early Qc1! The game was published in CL (with disappointingly light
annotations) mainly because the loser was 2200 and the innovation was
passed over
in silence. So presumably Kramnik knows nothing about it to this day.
William Hyde
|
| | |
Date: 01 Feb 2008 17:03:23
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Danish Gambit
|
"William Hyde" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:db007359-ea77-48d5-97b3-01ed268c58a4@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 31, 3:12 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Some time ago I fell out with Cornfed over a suggestion I made in a game
>> illustrated here for black's 3rd move. Here was the game in question:-
>>
>> 1 e4 e5
>> 2 d4 ed
>> 3 c3
>>
>
> I've been eagerly awaiting the deep theoretical responses to this, but
> aside from Taylor, nothing.
Hi Bill. Me too.
Taylor's idea was to represent the main alternate, Capa's idea - which was
to play the liberating d5, rather than shall's idea which was to clog
opponent's development. In reading shall himself, I became so distracted
I let this thread alone. As a Canadian maybe you will appreciate the article
appearing in Le Monde Illustre, Montreal Nov 15th 1893:
" ... On Monday evening November 13th in a series of simultaneous
games against sixteen opponents by Mr. Steinitz, the champion of
the world, young shall played one of the boards. His original and
strong defence caused the Master to say that he had never met an
amateur of his age who had given him so much trouble. Mr. Steinitz
predicted a brilliant future for him if he continues to play chess."
The entire quotation is more fullsome, but I am lazy to transcribe it.
shall writes;
"If I continued to play chess? Nothing could have stopped me. ... My
head was full of it from morning to night -- and in my dreams as well.
Gradually it crowded out every other interest. I knew I was going to devote
my life to chess."
Its a great peice of honest writing about leaving school in Montreal,
getting a job, the boss finding out about the pocket chess set which
explained his 'studious attitude'. Then, Pillsbury came to Montreal and gave
a blindfold exhibition - and shall was surprised to learn he was a young
man - "just 21 years old at the time - he was extremely likeable and very
friendly with everyone. I succeeded in winning my game from him... at the
time, of course, it was a major triumph in my life..."
will descend to my anecdotage.
>
>> and I suggested the push 3. ... p-Q6 or d3
>
> I only play 1... e5 at fast time controls but in these
> I found 3 ... d3 to be very effective. I'm not sure it is
> as good as the systems with d5, at least theoretically, but in
> practice white generally knows those better.
ay - a pert point
> The equivalent means of declining the Scotch (surely that should be
> "Scots", nowadays?)
hopefully, at length!
> never worked for
> me, and Levy in a pamphlet on the SG gave some reasons why it should
> be so. I forget them, but they
> seemed cogent at the time.
>
> Besides, a 1600 player, former student of mine, refuted (well,
> "refuted") ... d5 with a line involving an
> early Qc1! The game was published in CL (with disappointingly light
> annotations) mainly because the loser was 2200 and the innovation was
> passed over
> in silence. So presumably Kramnik knows nothing about it to this day.
You are such a tease, Sir!
Who is this Sidney P. Johnson fellow from Chicago that Frank says he won a
match over? Which I think was in 1898?
--
I might finish by saying that a recent correspondent corrected something I
reported at Chessville, itself reporting on the NY Chess scene blogs and
web-sites, in the matter of shall's contempories. He said that he knew
personally Abraham Kupchik and Edward Lasker, [both managed to defeat
shall] though maddeningly declined further anecdote, while still relating
a quite believable comment on Helms.
Cordially, Phil Innes
> William Hyde
|
| |
Date: 31 Jan 2008 12:58:35
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Danish Gambit
|
On Jan 31, 3:12=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Some time ago I fell out with Cornfed over a suggestion I made in a game
> illustrated here for black's 3rd move. Here was the game in question:-
>
> 1 e4 e5
> 2 d4 ed
> 3 c3
>
> and I suggested the push 3. ... p-Q6 or d3
>
> which cornfed thought allowed white his wicked way. Yet today I was
> reviewing some games and found the following comment in support of my idea=
:-
>
> on 3. ... "p-Q6 or d3 :: Dull. but prudent: White's attacking aspirations
> are nipped in the bud at once", and continued to illustrate the game F. J.=
> shall vs J. W. Showalter, USA Championship, 1909, and the comment was b=
y
> Frank himself. Actually, Showalter did very well in this game, erring only=
> at 15 with ... B-K3 which Frank gave a '?'
>
> Seems as though Showalter had the same opinion I had, and achieved rough
> equality - indeed shall criticises his own 10th move in the game, findi=
ng
> a better one in analysis.
>
> So... I have a few questions about this:-
>
> a) is it much played in your experience [please don't write in from
> 'theory']
> b) after the following moves, would you rather be white or black
>
> 3. ... d3
> 4. Bxd3 Nc6
> 5. Nf3 d6
> 6 Bc4 Nf6
> 7 Bf4 Be7
>
> [shall makes a note about "Kt x p" which he says makes the Black King
> insecure after 8. "B x p+"]
>
> 8 Nb d2 0-0
> 9 0-0 Bg4
> 10 Re1
>
> OK! and shall says better to have played h3...
>
> Now, chose sides in this encounter.
I wouldn't want to play either side of this line; in the double e-
pawn openings I prefer the Ruy Lopez.
The best reference I know on the Danish is "Danish Dynamite" by GM
Karsten M=FCller and FM tin Voigt (Russell Enterprises 2003;
http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?PID=3D441 ) It says the best way to
decline the Danish is the Capablanca Defense, 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3
d5.
However, it does devote 4 pages to other ways of declining,
including 3...Nf6, 3...Qe7, 3...Ne7, and 3...d3. As a main line of the
latter it gives 4.Bxd3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.h3 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nd4 0-0 9.f4
Re8 10.Qf3 intending Be3, Nd2, Rae1 and g4, when "White is slightly
better."
|
|
