I really like the Nakhmanson Gambit, as it's really easy to learn, and you just have so much potential. With perfect play by black, it is a draw though, but they have to play computer moves, and even Stockfish 12 can't beat/draw it! I recently made a video on this, and you can find it right over here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n8TAR69EyY
Nakhmanson Gambit
Sort:
with perfect play by black it is a draw?
After Nxc3 and d5, black has a safe advantage with no risk.
There are some reasons that almost no books mention it...
White has some compensations for the pawn, but really less than many other gambits...
lol, just to be curious (and bcoz i have time to waste), let's go watching a video made by a kid, advocated here by a 1600...
I'm just interested in Nxc3 line, I don't want to go into trash and let's see what he proposes at about 10'30...
"This... (hesitation here) is gonna be a draw". He doesn't look so sure and well, with black playing easy moves (yes there are quite easy to find because natural), we are pawn up for almost no compensation for white.
All endgames a pawn down are draw? I have some doubts...
Gonna be a draw? Perhaps. If white just begins with pawn down, we can be sure he/she will not be able to defend accurately so far from a draw.
And that's all he says about Nxc3, lol. Less than 1 min about the line to play for black, with a ridiculous evaluation (he admits he would prefer black thought), when 14 min spent with trash lines that all players with black and some good sense would avoid.
Next stupid gambit?
Where does the name Nakhmanson came from? GM Sokolov played this in 1960's and Yakov Neishtadt commenting one of the games say that this move comes from GM Esteban Canal.
"Junk opening" is all one needs to know about it - and probably answering 6.Nc3? with 6...Nxc3, and this is enough... the following moves for Black are quite easy to find.
In fact Yakov Neishtadt classifies as 6.Nc3? the move played by Sokolov in 1966.
I don't know which Stockfish u use and how but mine gives almost -1 for black...
Nahkmanson is bad tho this is better
emchel έγραψε:
Actually, in the Nxc3 line given above, I'm very surprised that stockfish just gives 0.00.
Why Black would play something like ...f6?
White, after all, is the one that would like to swap the knight for a bishop.
After, say, 12...Bd6 white still has a lot to prove.
I like how Chess_Night5030 argues with an IM, and is using a worthless youtube video as a basis for an argument. The guy is hilarious.
For the record, Black gets a large advantage by accepting the piece, but he has to play a few "only moves" and return the piece at the right point:
Here Black will be a pawn up for very little, if anything, after 16...Bg4 as well as 16...c6.
It might be better for black if you accept the knihgt sacrifice, but you have to found some difficult moves over the board, which is not that simple as you can slip very easily.
Nice
Apr 28, 2021
0
#18
I think that the most important line that is not being discussed in regards to the Nahkmanson gambit is when the Knight takes instead of the pawn. In the end, you are just down a pawn hehe with little if any compensation.
Apr 28, 2021
0
#19
Preusseagro wrote:
I would not like the Nxc3 line at all. It too boring, And not good for white. Al least after dxc we have all the coplications we want for faster time control.
Great assessment! I looked at what Schrantz does, he typically doubles the c pawns with a bb5 then Bxc6. But the position is still lacking sadly. Perhaps someone can find an improvement!
nakhmanson gmabit is here!!