a
berliner variation fritz
Sort:
Noone here knows what they are talking about!!!
First of all everyone is correct that the Berliner is refuted. However after that everyone is wrong.
Not 8. Qf3 because of the double pawn sac Ne7. And if you look at the main line 8.Be2 you'll find that black gets copensation, even after 9.NH3(Fischer's choice)
Roman Dzindzicashvili did some anylasis of this and said it was better for white. I've done some anylasis with Rybka and found the same thing. 8.Bd3 will be the downfall of the Roy Lopez.
I am not sure what the roy lopez is, but 8.Bd3 is quite an ugly move. I wonder why you would play it, other than the possibility of going Ne4 instead of f3 after h6. I guess I need more proof to see if it is playable. How would I develop my queenside effectively?
If you want to avoid all of this just don't play e5. ::))
super12345 wrote:
Noone here knows what they are talking about!!!
First of all everyone is correct that the Berliner is refuted. However after that everyone is wrong.
Not 8. Qf3 because of the double pawn sac Ne7. And if you look at the main line 8.Be2 you'll find that black gets copensation, even after 9.NH3(Fischer's choice)
Roman Dzindzicashvili did some anylasis of this and said it was better for white. I've done some anylasis with Rybka and found the same thing. 8.Bd3 will be the downfall of the Roy Lopez.
How does a Knight on f6 get to e7? How does a Knight on a5 get to e7? Do you mean the weak continuation 8.Qf3 Rb8 9.Bxc6ch? Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Nd7?
White should meet 8.Qf3 Rb8 with 9.Be2+/-
super12345 wrote:
Noone here knows what they are talking about!!!
First of all everyone is correct that the Berliner is refuted. However after that everyone is wrong.
Not 8. Qf3 because of the double pawn sac Ne7. And if you look at the main line 8.Be2 you'll find that black gets copensation, even after 9.NH3(Fischer's choice)
Roman Dzindzicashvili did some anylasis of this and said it was better for white. I've done some anylasis with Rybka and found the same thing. 8.Bd3 will be the downfall of the Roy Lopez.
Penchalaiah wrote:
sloughterchess wrote:
The Ng5 variation of the TKD has not been analyzed with one caveat in mind: To justify a pawn sacrifice, it is necessary to have three tempos for the pawn in an open position. In the critical variations, the position is not open and Black doesn't have even three tempos for the pawn. Modern defensive technique has not caught up to this opening. Black has some, but not full, compensation for the pawn. Here is an example of modern defensive technique missed by all the opening manuals known to the author.
The move sequence 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 is the Berliner Gambit. Theory now gives 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Qe2! This is an idea of ICM Wlater Muir, and, if followed correctly is +- by move 23 in all variations.
Black can be down a whole lot of material after 12...O-O 13.fxg4 with two possibilites A)13...Bxg3ch which runs into 14.Kd1 Nb4 15.Qxb5 Bd6 16.a3 Nd3 17.Bxd3 exd3 18.Qxd3 Qxg4ch 19.Qf3 Qxd4 20.Nc3+- or 13...Nb4 14.Nc3! Bxg3ch 15.Kd1 Rae8 16.Nxe4 f5 17.Qe3 Qxg4ch 18.Be2 Qxe4 19.Qxe4 Rxe4 20.hxg3 Nc2 21.Rb1 Nxd4 22.Bf3+-
What is even worse is the book move 12.Qe2 Be6? The basic problem with the Berliner Gambit is that it is a tempo gambit, but Black, in the middle of the attack, makes a pawn move and repositions a developed piece to an inferior square. This loss of time suffers severe retribution.
White has two entirely different winning plans here. What is incomprehensible is why anyone would recommend 13.fxe4?? just driving the Knight right where it wants to go. If White had nothing better, then 13.Qf2 just holding the piece is theoretically correct, but too complex to play against a tactically gifted opponent either silicon or human.
The positional way to play the Berliner Gambit is just 13.Nc3!! Following standard gambit procedure, White gives back just enough material to stifle the attack and emerge with a completely winning middlegame. First of all, Black cannot avoid 13...Nxc3 e.g. if 13...Nb4? 14.Kd1+- But after 13...Nxc3 14.dxc3 (Fritz 8 and IM Silman like bxc3, but I like straightening out my pawn structure.) Then 14...Bxg3ch 15.hxg3 Qxh1 16.Qxb5ch: We now follow Sloughterchess-Fritz 8 for the next several moves played at 120/25 with Fritz taking at least 10 minutes/move. 16...Kf8 17.fxe4 (d5 is also playable) Rc8 18.Bf4 c6 (The horizon effect) 19.Qc5ch Kg8 20.O-O-O Qh2 21.Ba6 Rf8 22.d5 Qh5 23.Qxc6 You will note that White has Bishop and three pawns for the Rook (two passed), a safe King and the initiative +- I beat Fritz 8 by just advancing my passed pawns and pushing it off the board.
hai can you explain it by diagram
Here is the diagram of the game:
Now that the Berliner Gambit has been refuted, it is time to take on the Wilkes-Barre/Traxler. This post is concerned with the prelimaries. On another post I will provide the game I played using my innovation against Fritz 8.
Here is the balance of the game featured above.
The preliminary variations of the Fritz leading up to the Berliner Gambit suggest that they don't equalize either.
An interesting tactical shot can be played in one of the side variations of the Ulvestad.
In post 33, I made a simple tactical oversight that gives Black good chances to equalize. Here is a postiti
onal way to bystep the tactics in an early Ulvestad sideline.
Time to call it a Knight. There is another transription error from Fritz to the site. From post 34, here, I hope ! is the correct score:
For the Berliner Variation to have any real theoretical signficance, it is necessary to demonstrate that Black does not have equality after 8.Ne4 Ne6. Here is another try in this variation:
Sloughter, you failed to prove an advantage in chesspub before and you will not change my mind here.
Conquiscador wrote:
Sloughter, you failed to prove an advantage in chesspub before and you will not change my mind here.
I leave it to the open minds of chess.com participants to see whether Black has equality after 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Bxd7ch Qxd7 11.O-O! Rd8 12.Qf3. The other try could be either Knight to f4. Here is what it would look like:
Sloughterchess, to refresh your memory from the chesspub forum a year ago(reply number 134 of page 9 of the famous thread) , there is a part of a message from MNb:
"3. When entering a battle you'd better be well prepared. You wrote that you know Estrin's book. Still you "refute" that Ulvestad-Fritz line with Bxb5+ by giving an irrelevant move for Black. I'll help you once again: after Bxb5+ Bd7 Bxd7+ Qxd7 0-0 Black should not play ...Nf4. If you had cared to look it up in Estrin or even in this thread (my game on page 1 or 2) you would have known it."
You are really the best to give inferiors defenses and you are clearly biased for the White side. 11..Ndf4 is not very good, 11..Be7 is clearly better and even 11..f5 might be ok but I am not sure, but you don't say a word about theses better moves.
The Ng5 variation of the TKD has not been analyzed with one caveat in mind: To justify a pawn sacrifice, it is necessary to have three tempos for the pawn in an open position. In the critical variations, the position is not open and Black doesn't have even three tempos for the pawn. Modern defensive technique has not caught up to this opening. Black has some, but not full, compensation for the pawn. Here is an example of modern defensive technique missed by all the opening manuals known to the author.
The move sequence 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 is the Berliner Gambit. Theory now gives 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Qe2! This is an idea of ICM Wlater Muir, and, if followed correctly is +- by move 23 in all variations.
Black can be down a whole lot of material after 12...O-O 13.fxg4 with two possibilites A)13...Bxg3ch which runs into 14.Kd1 Nb4 15.Qxb5 Bd6 16.a3 Nd3 17.Bxd3 exd3 18.Qxd3 Qxg4ch 19.Qf3 Qxd4 20.Nc3+- or 13...Nb4 14.Nc3! Bxg3ch 15.Kd1 Rae8 16.Nxe4 f5 17.Qe3 Qxg4ch 18.Be2 Qxe4 19.Qxe4 Rxe4 20.hxg3 Nc2 21.Rb1 Nxd4 22.Bf3+-
What is even worse is the book move 12.Qe2 Be6? The basic problem with the Berliner Gambit is that it is a tempo gambit, but Black, in the middle of the attack, makes a pawn move and repositions a developed piece to an inferior square. This loss of time suffers severe retribution.
White has two entirely different winning plans here. What is incomprehensible is why anyone would recommend 13.fxe4?? just driving the Knight right where it wants to go. If White had nothing better, then 13.Qf2 just holding the piece is theoretically correct, but too complex to play against a tactically gifted opponent either silicon or human.
The positional way to play the Berliner Gambit is just 13.Nc3!! Following standard gambit procedure, White gives back just enough material to stifle the attack and emerge with a completely winning middlegame. First of all, Black cannot avoid 13...Nxc3 e.g. if 13...Nb4? 14.Kd1+- But after 13...Nxc3 14.dxc3 (Fritz 8 and IM Silman like bxc3, but I like straightening out my pawn structure.) Then 14...Bxg3ch 15.hxg3 Qxh1 16.Qxb5ch: We now follow Sloughterchess-Fritz 8 for the next several moves played at 120/25 with Fritz taking at least 10 minutes/move. 16...Kf8 17.fxe4 (d5 is also playable) Rc8 18.Bf4 c6 (The horizon effect) 19.Qc5ch Kg8 20.O-O-O Qh2 21.Ba6 Rf8 22.d5 Qh5 23.Qxc6 You will note that White has Bishop and three pawns for the Rook (two passed), a safe King and the initiative +- I beat Fritz 8 by just advancing my passed pawns and pushing it off the board.