Forums

New Super Powerful Gambit

pfren
theCodeNick έγραψε:

Hi. I found a new checkmating "trap" in this gambit. And remember this gamit only works in the pawn takes variation of the rosentreter gambit.

 

 

Why should Black play 7...c2 though? He is temporarily 3 pawns up, and he should develop "Evans-style" with 7...Qf6 and ...Nge7, when It does not seem that white will get enough for a couple of pawns.

Lucasl6142

I found this variation of the gambit, even though engine says black is winning, I think the position is somewhat equal or even good for white.

In the first line where black blocks with queen, white has all pieces developed, a bishop pair, and after bxf7 and a bit of work to get the c2 pawn back, white is actually not too down. In the second (and slightly better for black) line, I would say white's position has no major flaws and the position is fairly equal. And black can't castle!

BlackLawliet
2021blitzgrind wrote:

A new gambit I discovered

the rating gambit

it happens when you purposely sac rating to me so you can win more in the next game

Haha

BlackLawliet

Guys, if it is a combo of gambits that has never been tried before, it's still a new gambit even if it has similiar ideas

Sep-Gol

Somebody's played this vs me before.

You know the funny part?

 

Sep-Gol
BlackLawliet wrote:

Guys, if it is a combo of gambits that has never been tried before, it's still a new gambit even if it has similiar ideas

It's been tried before. 

Gullgirly

Wow ..so much negativity sad.png

ronpaulsrustedball
Sep-Gol wrote:
BlackLawliet wrote:

Guys, if it is a combo of gambits that has never been tried before, it's still a new gambit even if it has similiar ideas

It's been tried before. 

Indeed it has.

A little practical research yelded the following:

I could not find said 5.b4 idea in either ECO volume C 1981 or The Italian Gambit System by Jude Acers & George S. Lavender.

This does not mean the idea is not there, just I could not find it.

From what I could find the idea has been recorded as being used 3 times prior to 2021. Once each in 1868, 1891 and 2009 respectively. Two seperate and different move orders where used to achieve the given starting position.. 

Two of the three games are listed as causal games played in New York and New Orleans respectively (Both 19th century games) and the 3rd is from a under 14 Championship. Infer what you will from this as to the quality of the games.

This should however not detract from the original posters efforts. So what he may have rediscovered an old idea? Chess would be truly a boring game if it limited itself to playing the same old same old day in and day out.

Sep-Gol
ronpaulsrustedball wrote:
Sep-Gol wrote:
BlackLawliet wrote:

Guys, if it is a combo of gambits that has never been tried before, it's still a new gambit even if it has similiar ideas

It's been tried before. 

Indeed it has.

A little practical research yelded the following:

I could not find said 5.b4 idea in either ECO volume C 1981 or The Italian Gambit System by Jude Acers & George S. Lavender.

This does not mean the idea is not there, just I could not find it.

From what I could find the idea has been recorded as being used 3 times prior to 2021. Once each in 1868, 1891 and 2009 respectively. Two seperate and different move orders where used to achieve the given starting position.. 

Two of the three games are listed as causal games played in New York and New Orleans respectively (Both 19th century games) and the 3rd is from a under 14 Championship. Infer what you will from this as to the quality of the games.

This should however not detract from the original posters efforts. So what he may have rediscovered an old idea? Chess would be truly a boring game if it limited itself to playing the same old same old day in and day out.

I know right!
You have discovered a very new effort for an idea.

I think ytou should be happy about rediscovering this.

Please take out NEW though.

This has been tried before.

Say rediscovered please. 

BlackLawliet
Sep-Gol wrote:
ronpaulsrustedball wrote:
Sep-Gol wrote:
BlackLawliet wrote:

Guys, if it is a combo of gambits that has never been tried before, it's still a new gambit even if it has similiar ideas

It's been tried before. 

Indeed it has.

A little practical research yelded the following:

I could not find said 5.b4 idea in either ECO volume C 1981 or The Italian Gambit System by Jude Acers & George S. Lavender.

This does not mean the idea is not there, just I could not find it.

From what I could find the idea has been recorded as being used 3 times prior to 2021. Once each in 1868, 1891 and 2009 respectively. Two seperate and different move orders where used to achieve the given starting position.. 

Two of the three games are listed as causal games played in New York and New Orleans respectively (Both 19th century games) and the 3rd is from a under 14 Championship. Infer what you will from this as to the quality of the games.

This should however not detract from the original posters efforts. So what he may have rediscovered an old idea? Chess would be truly a boring game if it limited itself to playing the same old same old day in and day out.

I know right!
You have discovered a very new effort for an idea.

I think ytou should be happy about rediscovering this.

Please take out NEW though.

This has been tried before.

Say rediscovered please. 

If this is true, I am fine admitting that this gambit is not necessarily new. That being said, it was said that the move order was different so even though so technically even the idea is exactly the same, it is a "new" opening

BlackLawliet
Ilampozhil25 wrote:

ok so

 

This logic is very flawed. As I stated, the ideas are not new but the opening is. This is like if you said that the game you featured was the same as the original even the move order is completely different. If you are going to criticize something please do whoever you are talking to the courtesy of using sound logic 

BlackLawliet

Yes, I know what a transposition is, so you tell me, are the 2 games below the same game?

Like I said. Same end result, very different means of getting their

Gullgirly

Lol, don't let them get you down, you have done more than enough to deserve a lot of credit for this happy.png

GoldenEagle178
Hi
BlackLawliet
Gullgirly wrote:

Lol, don't let them get you down, you have done more than enough to deserve a lot of credit for this

Thanks

BlackLawliet
GoldenEagle178 wrote:
Hi

Hello!

theCodeNick
IM pfren wrote: Why should Black play 7...c2+ though? He is temporarily 3 pawns up, and he should develop "Evans-style" with 7...Qf6 and ...Nge7, when It does not seem that white will get enough for a couple of pawns.

I don't play the Evans (I play c3 d4 against GP), so I was using the lichess database to make informed decisions. After 7.Qb3, the position had been reached 4 times by players of lichess elo 1800+ (so like 1600+ on chess.com tongue.png) playing in a rapid or classical format. In every one of those games black went with 7...c2+. Although I do agree that developing Evans style is best, because avoids little traps like mine by just being solid.