re:  Aron Nimzowitsch vs. Arthur Hakansson.  Incredible!  So enthralling I forgot what the post was about!

HAHAHA

re: Aron Nimzowitsch vs. Arthur Hakansson.

unfrickinbelievable. nimzowitsch totally handed it to that hakansson guy. i think the annotation said it best: "the queen finds herself in a position she would only be consigned in a problem." quite an understatement.

(seriously! go back and look at move 25... Nxd4. it might as well say "white to move. mate in three")

ozshmbal wrote: I rarely follow my own rules.  I just completed a game with an opening pawn sacrifice.  White opened with d4 I countered with e5 (Froms's gambit) then d4xe5.  White could have transposed this offer into a Kings's gambit with more success.  The game ended in a draw.  I've still yet to win a game in an early pawn sacrifice.  I'll keep working on it

---

 from's gambit is 1. f4 e5

Thanks for pointing out my typo.  a d4 position couln't have been transposed into a King's gambit anyway only an f4 by white.

actually, 1.d4 can transpose into rare kg lines :) because e4, f4 and ..e5 are not prevented yet!

 

This is a nice forum.

And indeed gambits kan sometimes lead to a checkmate in the ending game.

So when you´re only a beginner: just do the normal opening!

Dekker, your typo 'kan' for 'can' puzzled me a while - i started thinking of gambit lines in the Kan Sicilian :)

 

good games on here

normajeanyates wrote:

actually, 1.d4 can transpose into rare kg lines :) because e4, f4 and ..e5 are not prevented yet!

 

---

to play out a line like that is possible, but leaves white in an awkward position -- a position  I wouldn't like to face.  Can you cite an example of a game where this opening proved successful for white?

I was only making a logical point, not a plausible one! I should have been clearer - i should have said 'rare, because obviously unsound as far as I know, lines' ;)

As for citing games, clearly i can play this line against a REAL beginner and still win; but i suppose you don't want that sort of game cited...

What's really amazing about the Fischer game above is who he was playing against and how little time it took to reach a decisive position. Reuben Fine was still a strong player but a little past his prime by 1963, but 30 years earlier was considered one of the stronger players of his generation. Fine was quoted as saying that in blitz games, he could easily hold his own against Alekhine, but Capablanca crushed him mercilessly. That definitely would rank Fischer as good as or better than J.R.

ozshmbal wrote: I rarely follow my own rules.  I just completed a game with an opening pawn sacrifice.  White opened with d4 I countered with e5 (Froms's gambit) then d4xe5.  White could have transposed this offer into a Kings's gambit with more success.  The game ended in a draw.  I've still yet to win a game in an early pawn sacrifice.  I'll keep working on it

---

The opening you give is not From's gambit but the Charlick (Englund)  gambit

And so everyone knows where I'm coming from concerning Reuben Fine, here's an example of how good he really was. From 1931, just as he was hitting his stride.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1043696

 

Reuben Fine, THEN 17 YEARS OLD, forces J.R. Capablanca to resign, WHILE PLAYING THE BLACK PIECES!  

Reuben Fine is not a name a lot of younger players are familiar with, but they should be because he was a dangerous individual when seated at a chess board. 

 

Maybe not a good idea in correspondence chess but the kings gambit, smith morra, two knights defense, Scotch Defense, Goring Gambit, Blackmar Diemer Gambit all give  away a pawn and all have a decent scoring percentage for white. They are all very tricky lines and it is not exactly easy to get an automatic advantage with the extra pawn and the iniative and tactical complications white gets are not easy to play against. Now if a grandmaster played one of these lines against you and me what do you think would happen? I bet he or she would beat the crap out of us. So after would you conclude you should always give away a pawn in the opening because a grandmaster beat you with a pawn sacrifice? I dont think so. So I do not think either you should assume you should never play a pawn sacrifice in the opening because a grandmaster beat you after you made one. Just play what you like, are comfortable with, and gives you a fun game.

there are perfectly sound lines - very playable at correspondence chess [even at 30 days a move, with engines allowed - as at ficgs] - in the king's gambit (muzio/salvatio/..), the two knight's defence (wilkes-barre ie traxler), greco countergambit (ie latvian gambit) where the gambitting side gives away a piece and a pawn! (and in those wilkes-barre and greco lines it is black who is gambitting away piece+pawn!)

in the vienna game, the vienna gambit is standard. (of course that is only a pawn gambit ;) )

OTOH, smith-morra and blackmar are theoretically unsound, until someone finds a way to resurrect them. None have been found yet.

Until well into the 1980s the evans gambit was considered unsound; now it has been resurrected. Opening theory is a very active science: the state-of-the-art keeps changing.

 

 

 

You are actually making the argument that every gambit is unsound? How about the Queen's Gambit? This is one of white's best openings. It sounds like you are also trying to say that pawn sacrifices become more justified as the game progresses.

 

I have a very hard time believing that you should be rated >2100.

We do not need to be too orthodox, at Chess!

The Openings with Sacrifices are very picky and tricky! 

Make a Chess Fun! Explode your Imagination Mind!!

word are flying out like endless rain into a paper cup they slither 'while they stay they slip away across the universe .... just space out!

 

lol...