I guess I'm just too old school for the folks here LOL...
Recently I played a game in a thematic tournament and used an old line advocated by J H Blackburne himself, in the Mayet Variation of the Greco Counter Gambit. It's one of the better games I've played, so have a look:
0-1
What do you guys think?
The Gambit King
Right now, I'm wondering how you can have a rating over 2000 when you play 2... f5 when I can't keep mine above 1900 and I play openings that make sense!
Yeah, I honestly don't know. To be honest, ratings inflation on this site is HUGE, and I've just recently been on a real lucky winning streak. I think my OTB strength is around 1450, and NO MORE than 1700...
Go see this post of mine for more info on ratings inflation:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/2000-rating-is-not-so-high-level-here?lc=1#last_comment (I'm the 2nd to last comment currently)
HOWEVER... I do feel that the Latvian Gambit is a good opening for Black, and I think I understand it pretty well... in the recent tournament that this game comes from, I scored 5/5 with Black (a little less with White, but hey, this opening is good for Black, right?)... and this is in some sidelines that I've analysed. I really think that the popular consensus in the Latvian Gambit is wrong, but after all, it is my favourite opening with Black. So maybe my recent jump in rating has had to do more with luck that people didn't play 2. P-Q4 (d4) on me... I hate the centre opening, and I hate defending a Danish/Goring gambit LOL!
I think White hung his queen.
After 7 Be2 Nc6 yep, Black has some good development, but he's also down a rook (at least, for now)...as the saying goes, "it's a game."
Black will only be down the exchange after he takes the knight in the corner, and he'll have quite a bit of compensation for it, too!
Just look at this game:
That's why I said "at least for now"...and also why I said, "it's a game." :)
oh, cool... i'm used to so many negative comments about my gambits LOL... i thought that by "it's a game"... you meant "it's over"... but, hey, what's a rook when you're playing the Latvian Gambit? In the Poisoned Pawn Variation White often gladly sacrifices both his rooks!
Gotcha. If a guy of the stature of Blackburne played it, it can't be total junk (are you listening, Nytik?).
Well, I admire your sentiments, but wasn't Blackburne also known for playing this line:
Fun, at the price of being sound!
Doesn't seem that unsound to me.
Well, it is a bit cheap, because white has 4. NxN and it seems that after d3 and castles white has a safe advantage.
Well, isn't this much better for White?
Come on, Blackburne was one of the best players of his century. And anyway, you're supposed to be The Gambit King (don't go trying to change your stripes on me like that).
By the way, that's a myth... it's extremely unlikely that Blackburne ever played the 'Blackburne-Schilling Gambit'... furthermore, I don't think that it's totally unsound, I was just showing that White could get a pretty big initiative. Blackburne's real genius lay in the Latvian Gambit, Mayet variation, not some obscure move in the Italian game that he never even played!
LOL, If I wasn't the Gambit King, then I wouldn't play games like this in correspondence!
that was a pretty amazing game!
Thanks... I don't know about you, but it's worth it for me to lose every once in a while (okay, a lot) in order to get games like this:
Oh i still feeling the blow and it will haunt me always just see it
http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=29151028
There was an optical illusioun in the 7th move of mine.
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.