This content has been moved for private gambit gang use.

Remember to copy(Ctrl+C) before submitting a lot of text online. Also it is better to prepare pgn beforehand with a chess program like fritz or a simple one like chesscat because it can be a pain if something goes wrong.

I faced this gambit once and responded with 3. Nc3.  What do you think?

This content has been moved for private gambit gang use.

AnthonyCG wrote: Remember to copy(Ctrl+C) before submitting a lot of text online. Also it is better to prepare pgn beforehand with a chess program like fritz or a simple one like chesscat because it can be a pain if something goes wrong.

---

Thanks for the good advice. And Birdbrain, that's what I might do to if I faced this gambit (although it would probably be too tempting for me and I'd end up thinking I'd have an advantage in taking the pawn, since I'd have an extra move also...) It looks like a good idea. However, you might have to sacrifice some material because if 3. ...PxPKB5 4. PxP then 4. ...Q-KR5 ch. looks nasty, so you might need to move the other pawn out first. But I guess it would just get you into a kind of King's Gambit, which is what you wanted to play anyways if you reached this position. So all in all I'd say it's a good move, although it seems just a tiny bit 'ungentlemanly' not to accept the challenge of the Panteldakis Countergambiteer you happen to be playing :)

The Gambit King

Why even discuss this, though? It is well known that 3.exf5 is a much better response.

Gambitking wrote:

In this game we will look at the 'Poisoned Rook' variation. It arises after

 

1.       P-K4       P-K4

2.       P-KB4    P-KB4!?

3.       PxPK5   Q-KR5 ch.

4.       P-KKt3

When black plays the obvious move 4. ...QxPK5 ch. forking the King and Rook.

 

 Even though black has a material advantage and white has trouble reaching the ending position without losing (see move list to look at variations). I still wouldn't aim for this position. If an opponent is skilled enough to reach the position, their piece coordination may trump the material. In any case, it's not as cool as the classic smothered mate!

The Gambit King

---

This is just after a glance.  But,  After b-g3 I  prefer blacks position.  Black will have at least the exchange and a better pawn structure.  Whites only rook isn't doing anything for a while and his dark square bishop doesn't look to happy for a few moves either.  Blacks pawn structure seems better and he is two moves from castling. 

 

Whites position is aesthetically pleasing.  But, down material with a worst pawn structure and no initiative I can't see it as being good. 

This content has been moved for private gambit gang use.

erikido23 wrote:

---

This is just after a glance.  But,  After b-g3 I  prefer blacks position.  Black will have at least the exchange and a better pawn structure.  Whites only rook isn't doing anything for a while and his dark square bishop doesn't look to happy for a few moves either.  Blacks pawn structure seems better and he is two moves from castling. 

 

Whites position is aesthetically pleasing.  But, down material with a worst pawn structure and no initiative I can't see it as being good. 

---

You've made a valid point. Just looking at the board and at what you said, I would agree with you. However, Claude Nakamura says that Black has awful piece coordination and that White's king is safer. Supposedly, a strong computer or player could exploit the developmental and coordinational advantages to press home an attack. This sort of parallels some of the 3. B-QB4 lines in the Latvian gambit. But this is certainly a dicey position! It's just that I'd rather aim for the two-pawn sacrifice, where you're on offence instead of trying to hang onto material (this is a gambit, after all...)

The Gambit King

TonightOnly wrote: Why even discuss this, though? It is well known that 3.exf5 is a much better response.

---

In my post on the third Panteldakis Countergambit line (the grey chessboard, the post starts with "Since we've covered the other two variations..."), I outline how black gets a great game after this response, in my favourite line, the two-pawn sacrifice.

The Gambit King

Gambitking wrote: erikido23 wrote:

---

This is just after a glance.  But,  After b-g3 I  prefer blacks position.  Black will have at least the exchange and a better pawn structure.  Whites only rook isn't doing anything for a while and his dark square bishop doesn't look to happy for a few moves either.  Blacks pawn structure seems better and he is two moves from castling. 

 

Whites position is aesthetically pleasing.  But, down material with a worst pawn structure and no initiative I can't see it as being good. 

---

You've made a valid point. Just looking at the board and at what you said, I would agree with you. However, Claude Nakamura says that Black has awful piece coordination and that White's king is safer. Supposedly, a strong computer or player could exploit the developmental and coordinational advantages to press home an attack. This sort of parallels some of the 3. B-QB4 lines in the Latvian gambit. But this is certainly a dicey position! It's just that I'd rather aim for the two-pawn sacrifice, where you're on offence instead of trying to hang onto material (this is a gambit, after all...)

The Gambit King

---

EDIT: Erikido23, did you notice that after black's Bg3 (B-KKt6), B-KKt2 (Bg2) traps the queen? (The knight protects the pawn) This certainly would favour White!!

Gambitking wrote: Gambitking wrote: erikido23 wrote:

---

This is just after a glance.  But,  After b-g3 I  prefer blacks position.  Black will have at least the exchange and a better pawn structure.  Whites only rook isn't doing anything for a while and his dark square bishop doesn't look to happy for a few moves either.  Blacks pawn structure seems better and he is two moves from castling. 

 

Whites position is aesthetically pleasing.  But, down material with a worst pawn structure and no initiative I can't see it as being good. 

---

You've made a valid point. Just looking at the board and at what you said, I would agree with you. However, Claude Nakamura says that Black has awful piece coordination and that White's king is safer. Supposedly, a strong computer or player could exploit the developmental and coordinational advantages to press home an attack. This sort of parallels some of the 3. B-QB4 lines in the Latvian gambit. But this is certainly a dicey position! It's just that I'd rather aim for the two-pawn sacrifice, where you're on offence instead of trying to hang onto material (this is a gambit, after all...)

The Gambit King

---

EDIT: Erikido23, did you notice that after black's Bg3 (B-KKt6), B-KKt2 (Bg2) traps the queen? (The knight protects the pawn) This certainly would favour White!!

---

WHile bg2 traps the black queen, rxh2 and whites bishop is pinned or he can take the rook and be down a knight(in addition the bishop would then be pinned to the queen as well).

Erikido, I'm not trying to start an argument or anything here ROFL. To be honest, I'd agree with you, except that Clyde Nakamura supposedly thinks that a strong human or computer would see some 'tactical possibilities'... and remember there still might be some way to trap the queen by protecting that square again, checking first, or possibly threatening to take the undefended bishop in the other corner once the knight moves. I actually think black's position might be better too, but I wouldn't underestimate white's attack, per Clyde's analysis.

The Gambit King

Gambitking wrote:

Erikido, I'm not trying to start an argument or anything here ROFL. To be honest, I'd agree with you, except that Clyde Nakamura supposedly thinks that a strong human or computer would see some 'tactical possibilities'... and remember there still might be some way to trap the queen by protecting that square again, checking first, or possibly threatening to take the undefended bishop in the other corner once the knight moves. I actually think black's position might be better too, but I wouldn't underestimate white's attack, per Clyde's analysis.

The Gambit King

---

I wasn't arguing.  Simply discussing how I saw the position.  As for the "tactical possibilities".  They all seem to lay in blacks hands in my mind.  There is no available checks for white to make.  After white takes the h pawn the bishop is hanging and can't be protected again.  So white can't try and protect other squares. 

 

WHile I may not be a "strong player" in naku's eyes these are positions which I tend to excel in.  And to me it just looks like all the possibilities are on blacks side. 

Yeah. And I've just learned a lesson--don't blindly follow other people's assessment of a position. To be honest I think Clyde might be just plain wrong here! Even though I greatly admire him as a gambit player. But hey, if he's wrong that just means there's another way to play the Panteldakis countergambit as black. In fact, I was just siding in the favour of a refutation, which is pretty unusual for me LOL. But I think you're right. What you said makes more sense than tons of 'variations spaghetti' I read elsewhere. And by the way I didn't mean you were arguing. That's why were on this site, to have fun and learn by discussing things. It's all good mate. :)

The Gambit King

Gambitking wrote:

Yeah. And I've just learned a lesson--don't blindly follow other people's assessment of a position. To be honest I think Clyde might be just plain wrong here! Even though I greatly admire him as a gambit player. But hey, if he's wrong that just means there's another way to play the Panteldakis countergambit as black. In fact, I was just siding in the favour of a refutation, which is pretty unusual for me LOL. But I think you're right. What you said makes more sense than tons of 'variations spaghetti' I read elsewhere. And by the way I didn't mean you were arguing. That's why were on this site, to have fun and learn by discussing things. It's all good mate. :)

The Gambit King

---

Definitely a very valuable lesson indeed.  In any given situation even if one side is better you still need to evaluate why.  Does white have the attacking chances while black has a static long lasting positional advantage, which if the white attack is held off will win out?   Is this "winning position" the type of position that I can and or like to play?  THese are the types of questions which should be asked.