Sometimes activity is FAR more important than material. Another similar opening in terms of one side sacrificing a lot of material for activity is the Traxler Counterattack.
Double/Triple Muzio Gambit
Sort:
Cool, but why doesn’t the engine see this advantage even on depth >20?
Stockfish overrates the moves. It changes the evaluation every move, even if they are the best moves.
Oh, that’s cool. I guess stockfish doesn’t tell the full story…
9...Qf5 of Steinitz was strong indeed, as #8 points out, but 9...Qxd4+ was still winning for black.
11...Bc5+? spoils the win. 11...Ne7 was still winning: black has adequate defence and is ahead in material.
12...Bd6? even loses. A developing move like 12...Nc6 was still equal. Black will need to return all of his material to avoid checkmate, but can hold a draw.
"why is the win rate so high" ++ Because defending accurately is hard. Not everybody is a Steinitz, Capablanca, Karjakin, or Carlsen. In correspondence the Muzio is a sure loss for white, but in over the board play with a clock black players have a hard time defending it, especially if they have never met it before.
May 31, 2022
0
#10
Apparently, Steinitz was not hampered by the fickle evaluations of chess engines......
[quote]Sometimes activity is FAR more important than material. Another similar opening in terms of one side sacrificing a lot of material for activity is the Traxler Counterattack.[/quote]
it's easier to attack than defend. i'm a FIRM believer in initiative as a tactician and have always disagreed with all of the anti-gambit GM babble when smith morra is a MAJOR spoiler (i took soooo many points with it!), there's only ONE variation of the (down a rook in at least one line) caro kann caveman that ISN'T losing by move #15 in stockfish vs everything i had analysis of dozens of games testing the theory, and the absolute STRONGEST chess player on the planet, leela chess zero LOVES throwing material away for the initiative... well, I still say gambit hate is BS!
as a double muzio specialist (took a +400 fisher player out with it because he missed Qxg5 after a Bxf6+ "krejcik" to unpin my knight), i've come to the conclusion that GM shaw is CORRECT to espouse the quade gambit! in looking at 1600-2000 games, the quade performs 54:42 at 11k games versus 49:48 in 66k games. 12 points difference is no laughing matter, and in digging deeper into it, white has the advantage in most lines by move #15!
i'm thinking that studying amateurs (people get violently upset over it! HAHAHA!) might just be the TRUE measure of a line's "inherent soundness"... people keep testing, and the line has better resources to defend. amateur games solve "unclarity" through trial and error testing EVERYTHING. it's a mind numbing process combing through a few hundred thousand games, one move at a time looking for best performing lines that stockfish agrees with more often than not because one sees all of the homework everyone's done, and how it pans out over the board.
i'm still looking for the hater thread i created to see if big mouth wants to test his mettle against crowdsourced theory that knows EVERY trap etc. once you START at 51:49, the numbers keep going up as long as you stick to best performing, or in extreme cases... evaluated moves when the crowd's out of ideas.
i've started gathering quade theory because THAT's where the wins are.
I'm very interested in why Double Muzio Gambit is such a good opening. It has a 70% win rate for white among masters, despite the fact that white is literally down six points of material! Furthermore, the engine also analyses this position as white being down "-5.5". So why is it named, why do masters play it, and why is the win rate so high despite the engine's protesting?
Below: Double Muzio Gambit
Below: One such game played between masters