play chess free

Play Chess Free

Participate and you will find!
Crazy name, real interests
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
nathanman22 47 ( +1 | -1 )
Name the Opening Okay, I am starting a thread in which you can give opening moves that you have played and are unfamiliar with and gain help on learning more about them. I tried this opening recently and was wondering what it was called and if it is effective.

definite benefits I saw: control of center
weaknesses: I had to move my king and can't castle.

spurtus 2 ( +1 | -1 )
why not bxf4 on move 6?
apastpawn 29 ( +1 | -1 )
Nathan Thats called the Villemson Variation in the King's Gambit. Also called the Villemson Gambit. Similar to the Steintz Gambit in the KG which has both knights to c3 and c6.

nathanman22 12 ( +1 | -1 )
spurtus I believe I did do bxf4 on move 6--I just read this forum, I guess you read my mind! (:

tim_b 11 ( +1 | -1 )
Cripes! Not for the faint-hearted, I would say!

After the queen check, 3. ... Qh4+ chesslab said white won 33%, black won 55%.
More: Chess
ionadowman 7 ( +1 | -1 )
Looks very similar... ... to the Keres Gambit (3.Nc3). What has chesslab to say about this line?
nathanman22 31 ( +1 | -1 )
tim_b It looks as if I might fall into the 33% that wins. (: I kind of liked the new manuever, but I didn't see the queen coming and it scared me a little. However, I felt that the compensation to get a solid hold on the center made up for the lack of castling. Does anyone have any thoughts on this choice?

tim_b 30 ( +1 | -1 )
Ion Much improved odds, but still too scary for a wimp like me!:

white won 40%, black won 42%

Hi Nathan, the queen move is always going to happen, I think anyway, in the absence of a quick Nf3. Well done for falling into the 33%! Just my opinion, but I feel the hold on the centre is inadequate compensation. :)
tim_b 10 ( +1 | -1 )
p.s. Sorry, Ion, the figure I gave you was assuming that Qh4+ was played in reply to Nc3 (which itself gave 39% - 39%)
ccmcacollister 42 ( +1 | -1 )
Nathan ... I'm not a KG expert, but play it a lot in blitz. (I think one can spend 5 years getting the lines down then spend another 2 learning the names!? :)
But if you want to avoid the Ke2 move you can just play the different line:
1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef 3.Nf3 and if Be7 Bc4 now rather than d4. Then if Bh4+ just Kf1 with advantage, I feel, since the B+ should be an error costing him tempo or leaving him needing to guard it. That's my IMO. I don't know what the theory says there.
ccmcacollister 182 ( +1 | -1 )
Due to interest by a GK friend's PM ... ... I went looking re my line above vs KGA, with ...Be7, & my assessment does not invoke any disagreement from several GM opponents of Bronstein. Bronstein plays
exactly the move order I gave; in reply to which They all opted against 4...Bh4+ & instead played 4...Nf6. Those BL opp's include:1961 Kholmov, 1945 Koblencs, 1958 Lemoine, and Ivkov(* see note #1) in 1957.
Since Bronstein does play my own move order, I believe it implies that he too has a
preference for Kf1 rather than Ke2 if his K needs moved. But possibly he might just want his Bf1 to be moved to Bc4 so he can play Ke2 without blocking it in ?! I have nothing from him to disprove that thought.

[ *NOTE #1 ~ The Ivkov game is a bit different since the opening varies thusly:
1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef 3.Nf3 Be7
4.Be2!? Nf6 5.d3 d5 6.e5 Ng4 7.Bxf4 f6 8.d4 O-O 9.O-O fxe5 10.Ne5 Ne5 11.Be5 Rxf1+ 12.Bxf1 Nf6 ... DRAW ]
In his preface to the game, Bronstein commends Ivkov for accuracy in handling the position so as to deny WT any good attacking chances. This is from Bronstein's
Book "200 Open Games".
An interesting fact, perhaps would surprise many, as it did me; Bronstein actually has many more Ruy Lopez games in this book then any other option vs ...e5. Before reading it, I would have thought he'd favor the KG.
EG, it has KG games page 8 thru 37. Vienna's from 38 thru 44. Ruy Lopez games are from page 92 thru page 234 ~! {Games are usually one page only, a few get 2 pages in this witty & recommendable book}
Being an ....e5 player himself, he has BL in some of those pages. But he has made remarks to indicate great faith in the strength of the Ruy Lopez for White.
It seems strange to me though, that he DOES mainly play ...e5 & playing ....e5 he must meet the Ruy many times. Perhaps like Bogolubov, he must figure to win with WT "because He has White" & to Win with Black "Because he is" 'Bronstein' !?!! And that actually may not be so far off from the truth, IMO.
schnarre 6 ( +1 | -1 )
Good for practicing King moves under pressure!
ionadowman 52 ( +1 | -1 )
tim_b... ... At 39% apiece, that's not a bad result for White with the Keres Gambit (even 40-42 would in my view be acceptable...). I am surprised that White actually manages a 33% score with 3.d4, a line that I had though unplayable!
Craig - that line Bronstein-Ivkov looks like Tartakower's patent - the Lesser Bishop's Gambit. Except I suppose it isn't, really, since the LBG goes 3.Be3, rather than 3.Nf3..., 4.Be2. Ivkov was a very strong GM - no doubt capable of extracting all life out of Bronstein's opening play...