Nakhmanson Gambit

Sort:
GambitsForChess

Hi everyone, I find the gambit very interesting. Is it solid/should I try play this? And if they decline, is the scotch game still good? 

Thanks

sndeww

can you post the moves for this gambit

tmkroll

Is it solid? no, of course not, but that's not what White is looking for when White plays this way. Re: declining, Nd6 is just a safe, relatively easy response which gives Black the better position, right? People who play this are hoping Black has never seen it before and will try taking the Knight without realizing just how hard the resulting position is to play (though that may be the best move if Black can defend like a computer.)

poucin

Nakhmanson gambit :

Really, I've never seen someone played this.

Maybe not as stupid as Jerome gambit but indeed, black can decline with an easy life.

Accepting probably refutes but OTB defence is very difficult and no need to enter what opponent wants!

I don't like Nd6, when development is a bit cramped, so simply Nxc3 followed by d5.

sndeww

Well at least white might be able to pressure the opponent into imploding in this gambit.

pinkblueecho

A couple of example OTB Master games for this surprise blitz weapon:

Checkmate in 12 against a 2487:

Black (2448) resigns in 19:

 

 

tmkroll

Well I don't think Nd6 is so hard to play and Black should emerge a pawn ahead there, but sure, poucin's line looks even easier.

tmkroll

Looking at those games it is pretty amazing a 2487 didn't take on c4, maybe it's not so easy as it looks over the board, but yeah, normal people would have taken the bishop and then not gone in for that weird computer-looking line in the analysis, just Be7 and castled and been up a pawn for nothing.

MultiMlin

oh yes, it is good

GambitsForChess
poucin wrote:

Nakhmanson gambit :

Really, I've never seen someone played this.

Maybe not as stupid as Jerome gambit but indeed, black can decline with an easy life.

Accepting probably refutes but OTB defence is very difficult and no need to enter what opponent wants!

I don't like Nd6, when development is a bit cramped, so simply Nxc3 followed by d5.

After the Nxc3 line, and white eventually emerges down a pawn, isn't the position still okay?


 

poucin
GambitsForChess a écrit :
poucin wrote:

Nakhmanson gambit :

Really, I've never seen someone played this.

Maybe not as stupid as Jerome gambit but indeed, black can decline with an easy life.

Accepting probably refutes but OTB defence is very difficult and no need to enter what opponent wants!

I don't like Nd6, when development is a bit cramped, so simply Nxc3 followed by d5.

After the Nxc3 line, and white eventually emerges down a pawn, isn't the position still okay?

 

Well, if u don't mind playing a pawn down for no compensation, then your position is ok!

LM_player
I only recently learned about this gambit after Kevin made a video about it on youtube!
tourIDchess10kp
Looks fun, I’m in
tmkroll
LM_player wrote:
I only recently learned about this gambit after Kevin made a video about it on youtube!

Oh, I'd guess that's what got many of us here. I know it's what got me here (though I think the opening was played again me once in Blitz; I just didn't know it was 'a thing' before Kevin's vid.)

sndeww

I just stalk the openings section in the forums

gullupakka

what is the problem with dxc3

pfren
gullupakka έγραψε:

what is the problem with dxc3

 

The problem is that the engines claim a slight advantage to Black, and yet, only an idiot would love to defend such a position.

gullupakka

so you're saying i'm an idiot because i asked what the problem is?

gullupakka

i dont understand what the use of saccing a knight on an enpty square is

poucin
gullupakka a écrit :

i dont understand what the use of saccing a knight on an enpty square is

So difficult to watch previous posts when u can see analysis answering your question