You moved your bishop twice in the opening and it's generally better to develop knights before bishops anyway. Don't make too many pawn moves in the opening either.
Jaenisch Gambit on C4.
Sort:
Oh.. I was black... Maybe I didn't tell clear. I'm sorry for that. Please advise me the development of black.
Oh... my thoughts for b5 :
1. Fianchetto on b7 is possible.
2. I gain the center of the board with f5 and there is no support on d4 from the c-file. So I can easily play d5.
3. I'm ahead in development. But... Is my position as black good? If so, I will study this opening further... There are some players who will always play c4 with white.
The position you end with in the moves diagrammed above seems interesting to me... I'd love to hear what a stronger player thinks of about it. I'm trying to learn how to analyze positions more accurately and make no pretense to expertise here -- Here's my take:
I think White stands better here because he has a natural attacking pathway along the half-open c-file -- he has an 'extra' pawn at b5 and it's putting a cramp in Black's side.
You asked: "have I developed my pieces well in this opening?" mmm -- yes, maybe, but...
I don't see any obvious errors, and your pieces look more or less activated...but the follow up question is -- A) do you have some idea in mind of what you're trying to accomplish? Development with a simple idea or plan attached to it is better than generic good development IMO. Especially in gambit openings.
I wonder how to proceed here. When I look at the position all I see are things for White to do, and frustrations for Black. White's pieces seem better situated, overall, despite the lack of "development" (that is, the look able to be developed naturally, without a lot of headache)...Black's light square bishop doesn't have much scope at the moment and it isn't obvious to me how to improve it... and the Black N on d7 -- where's it going? White can pretty much force an exchange of dark square bishops (moving Bc1-Ba3) -- exchanging Black's good bishop for White's bad... meanwhile White's light-square bishop has can harass the Black kingside. .
But... Black does have an advantage in development and space on the Kingside. Black needs to play energetically here and make use of his dynamic advantages -- maybe a pawn storm from the Kingside and forgo castling? Or have I gone mad?
I like the gambit and I really find the position interesting -- I posted all this in the hopes of starting a conversation -- if a master comes along and says all my analysis is complete hogwash (or course I hope it isn't), I won't be offended!
Thank you for your reply.
Finally I lost my game when I am at home, I will post the entire game. But I wanted to learn more about the opening.
You tell me now interesting thoughts. Rushing forward with my pawns without castling. So in this diagram h5 would be an interesting move. And maybe better then Nbd7. Then also white cannot easily exchange the bishops....
To be honest, played this opening last saturday with a match with the club. And it was the second time I played this opening. Most of the time people comes with e4, so I can't practice this opening very good. But I want a good answer on c4.
What I discovered about the Jaenisch Gambit, is that Black has to attack rapidly, before white can attack on queen side..... But it is an interesting idea attack on King side without castling.....
You tell me now interesting thoughts. Rushing forward with my pawns without castling. So in this diagram h5 would be an interesting move. And maybe better then Nbd7. Then also white cannot easily exchange the bishops....
The part about "rushing forward with pawns without castling" -- just a stray idea, and probably a bad one. I am not surprised to hear, " I discovered about the Jaenisch Gambit, is that Black has to attack rapidly" -- Black has basically gambited a pawn for the initiative, and he needs to keep the initiative and cause some problems, or he's lost a pawn without compensation.
The thing to do (I'm going to do it as soon as I'm done typing) is to put that position into a database and see if others have dealt with it and try to learn from them.
Okay, but is castling not a loss of tempo? I hope that I can learn as well about this opening....
Well, not much help from the database! Your move, 2...f5 -- is a novelty. I tested out my "exchange bad-for-good bishop" idea for White and from what I could see, Black has nothing to fear from that exchange. The pawn center isn't locked and neither bishop was all that good or bad... all that happens is that after Ba3 Bxa3 Nxa3 white's N is awkwardly placed.
In more usual Janisch gambit lines (it's not a very played line! Just 51 games in my 4 million game database) one idea that comes up frequently is for black to play a6!? offering another pawn in exchange for wide open lines on the queenside and more tempo/initiative for Black.
Do you think f5 is a bad move? My goal was to prevend that he could play e4. When I played e4, he certainly plays e4...
f5 is almost always a risky move! But it definitely lays a claim to e4. It's an interesting position. I don't think the no-castling idea works... but it's hard to say -- I test my ideas against a very very strong computer program: so it tends to make all my ideas look bad (an idea has to be very VERY strong to let me get an advantage on a 2900 rated player!).
I often play 1.c4, and I think white looks better here, even though your opponent made some awkward developing moves. The setup of white's pawns is going to make it difficult for black to bring out his queen's knight, though the possibility of bringing your knight to e4 definitely weighs in your favor. I'd wonder about 6. . .d5, as it blunts your light-squared bishop, especially after white plays d4, locking it in place. I'll often fianchetto my bishop in a 1.c4 opening and later play e4 to solidify my position, but in that case, my light-squared bishop is a long-term defensive measure, and once the center opens up, he's a possible threat after a e5 advance. In a gambiting position where you need to make immediate use of the iniative, limiting the scope of your pieces only gives white time to better defend him/herself.
Also, I would say that pawn-storming before castling is probably a bad idea, but if I could add a speculative idea I'd think that you wouldn't have to lose a tempi as once white plays d4, you can play Bb4+, followed by 0-0 and Ne4, with the threat of marching that f-pawn down.
You are right. Because of my own pawns blocked my light bishop. My bishop was weak and defends nothing. But now I'm wondering, how to develop my pieces so I get a strong attack, before white can attack on queen side. Can you give me an idea how to develop as black? (with a board, so I can see). Thank you in advance.
Is f5, e5 and d6 better then f5, e6 and d5?
I don't think 2....f5 is a bad move here. You do a good job of following a Dutch-type build-up. As an assessment of the position:
You minor pieces are all developed and are on good squares. The B on b7 is the worst of them being blocked by the d5 pawn. A future move like a6 bxa6, Bxa6 (a Benko Gambit-type approach) could get that B on a great diagonal (f1-a6). But if you are going to use this line, then the Black K must head K-side (0-0) in order to place the R's on a8 and b8.
If you want a K-side attack (which is possible here), you'll probably want your K at e7 where he is safest (for a K-side attack) and swing your a-Rook to g8 to push g5/g4 along with h5/h4. But White must be castled K-side in order for this to work, and even then, it is extremely risky. If you have the courage and skill of Anand, then go for it, but if you had that, you wouldn't need my advice.
Play for a6 and the Q-side attack--I think it is the most natural here. White has developed poorly (I can't agree with b3 and his N belongs at f3) so you do have some compensation for the pawn but it will not be permanent--take advantage of this now. Open the a and b files, place your Rooks there, and look for an opportunity to play Rxa3 when White can't play axb3 because of pins or a back-rank mate or something. Good luck!
Thank you... I will keep this in mind. But you told exactly what I mean. Attack without castling. So Ke7. Or the both rooks to the K-side, or both to the Q-side..... I will keep this in mind.....
I have not found a good reply for 1. c4: 1. ...e5 transposes into a reversed sicilian, 1. ...d5 is an inferior Scandanavian, 1. ...f5 goes into a dutch structure (which isn't bad, I just dont like main like 1. d4 defenses) and 1. ...Nf6 has the same effect.
This is interesting, if not dubious. But it might work, we never know. Checking my database when I get home
The Dutch Defence is a solid defence. It is the opposite of Bird, I guess. so it is very slowly developing with no attack in the opening. Most of the time the games are developing slowly.
In the Jaenisch Gambit on C4 I will try to develop f5 and e5.
Wow..... I found one other topic about this opening... See http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/jaenisch-gambit-against-1c42
I can see the difference between that game and mine. I should have play a6 and c5......
Kentering... both you and the person in that post you linked have hit upon the same f5(!?) e6 d5 -- pawn formation. That's not something that has been tried before that I can tell, so it's sort of remarkable you and he have independently hit upon the same novel approach to the opening. Or did you find f5 recommended somwhere that I don't know about?
The fellow in the other Janisch thread talks about fighting on the Queenside, so I'm really mystified why he plays 2.f5...
Well, I played f5 to avoid that he could play e4. When I played e5, he can easily play e4. I tried to control the center of the board. In my opinion, my plan was working on that, but later in the match, I failed to attack. Now I know why. I wanted to attack on Kingside, but I guess an attack on Queenside is better, easier and quicker.
I guess a pawnstructure of f5, e5 and d6 is better. As soon as I can play this opening again, I will try that, if that is better. And I will focus on attacking on queenside.
JG27Pyth wrote:
The position you end with in the moves diagrammed above seems interesting to me... I'd love to hear what a stronger player thinks of about it. I'm trying to learn how to analyze positions more accurately and make no pretense to expertise here -- Here's my take:
I think White stands better here because he has a natural attacking pathway along the half-open c-file -- he has an 'extra' pawn at b5 and it's putting a cramp in Black's side.
You asked: "have I developed my pieces well in this opening?" mmm -- yes, maybe, but...
I don't see any obvious errors, and your pieces look more or less activated...but the follow up question is -- A) do you have some idea in mind of what you're trying to accomplish? Development with a simple idea or plan attached to it is better than generic good development IMO. Especially in gambit openings.
I wonder how to proceed here. When I look at the position all I see are things for White to do, and frustrations for Black. White's pieces seem better situated, overall, despite the lack of "development" (that is, the look able to be developed naturally, without a lot of headache)...Black's light square bishop doesn't have much scope at the moment and it isn't obvious to me how to improve it... and the Black N on d7 -- where's it going? White can pretty much force an exchange of dark square bishops (moving Bc1-Ba3) -- exchanging Black's good bishop for White's bad... meanwhile White's light-square bishop has can harass the Black kingside. .
But... Black does have an advantage in development and space on the Kingside. Black needs to play energetically here and make use of his dynamic advantages -- maybe a pawn storm from the Kingside and forgo castling? Or have I gone mad?
I like the gambit and I really find the position interesting -- I posted all this in the hopes of starting a conversation -- if a master comes along and says all my analysis is complete hogwash (or course I hope it isn't), I won't be offended!
Thrusting foward the pawns without castling? The black's game would be mess as it's not really safe anywhere since the queenside is white's. You say black will go for an all out attack on the kingside; well yes this is his only hope, but to me it looks like a stonewall dutch which isn't particularly scary with many extra problems: Black is already cramped on the queenside, he has his extra pawn, the c file is wide open, and the bishop on b7 is not really doing much besisdes further controlling e4 which is not necessary here. Usually black can if he wants to activate his bishop play ...c5 usually with ...dxc4 but here the useful b5 pawn could take en passant. So I don't see how black gets compensation when he's down a pawn and it seems like an inferior stonewall dutch.
I played a match with the Jaenisch Gambit at C4. Finally white won the game, because I (black) made a major mistake at the end of the game. My opponent has a rating of 300 points higher then I have.
But about the opening... Have I developped my pieces well in this opening? Can someone advise me in this opening?