Schliemann defense

Philipper wrote: An opening which has been fascinating me for a while is the Schliemann defense played in the Ruy Lopez or Spanish opening. Playing directly for the initiative with this aggressive opening by opening the f-file and attacking the kingside. It can also be used as a surprise weapon against your unknowing opponent! The opening goes as following:After this, white has a numerous options like 4.exf5, 4.d3 or maybe 4.d4!? but developing with 4.Nc3 is considered best, as it develops a piece and supports the e4 pawn.Below a wonderful game played by Pillsbury against Tarrasch:I would like to conclude this article with my own game where I was playing with the black pieces:Please let me know what you think of this interesting opening and your good/bad experiences with it!

 

Thanks for an interesting thread about an opening you have played for some time. I have to admit that I struggle a bit as black in positions similar to the Karjakin - Radjabov ending that was drawn. I feel that white often gets a slight pull, especially in the lines with 10. d4.

 

I no more play 2...Nc6.

 

@moneywolf 9.d4 might even be stronger than 10.d4.

@neveraskmeforadraw I have met 9. d4 a couple of times but I think black is doing quite OK after the move 9... Qg6 that Khalifman played against Shirov. 

Black is definitely doing ok in both variations with the bishop pair and open lines, even at the cost of a pawn, but otb it seems that White is the one who has the upper hand.

White is of course better slightly with good chances with best play but I think that the Schliemann is an underrated practical weapon

@FizzyBand Do you think black should capture the knight on f3 or check on a6 instead with the bishop in the line with 10. d4 above?

Black's advantage being bishop pair, there is no reason to take on f3.

Radjabov took on f3 because it spoiled white's structure!

A good game to analyze is this one :

Edouard himself analyzed it in megadatabase. White won but black missed several opportunities. The result has nothing to do with opening.

The problem with Schliemann is 4.d3, thats the reason why we don't see so much Schliemann at high level.

A long time ago I was playing against my first IM (I was about 13) and this opening came up with me as white. I thought this could get complicated so I simply focused on classical ideas, not grabbing pawns, keeping ahead in development, avoiding complications, etc. Ended up in a R&P endgame which I won with surprising ease.

Further to this...

https://200opengames.blogspot.com/2021/01/067-eighteenth-century-fortress.html

HI

I'm looking at it as part of my "reverse king's gambit" ...f5 pushing SYSTEM because I just can't take the toothless scandinavian anymore DESPITE a few % winning stats mostly because it allows unforgivable 2.e5, but I also hate 3.d4.

it's a WINNING system between 1600-2000. I wandered back here in trying to find names for a couple variations, but check these stats out:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 Schlieman Defense 44:52@1.1m +0.6 (25% of games after 2...Nc6)

4.d3 fxe4 5.dxe4 Nf6 45:51@171k +0.7  in 29% of continuations

4.Bxc6 dxc6 Exchange Variation 39:59@242k = in 25% of continuations

4.exf5 e4 Jaenish Gambit Accepted 39:57@200k = in 22% of continuations

4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 Dyckhoff Variation 46:50@49k +0.9 in 13% of continuations

so... white has a 13% chance at EQUALITY 1600-2000. I like those odds!

looks like white doesn't have a clue what he's doing against the schliemann in every main line REGARDLESS of the evaluations, or as I'm inclined to think, at the amateur level, attack is stronger than position. I've heard at least 1 GM say "it's easier to attack than defend" and if you give an attacker a strong attacking system, well, that's where you get all those stats where GOOD "gambits" (Levy or Igor said it's not even really a gambit) like this get NICE winning results like this. haters can equivocate all they want, but they just can't DEFEND in the real world

sadly, after brushing up on the rousseau for an hour or so and trying to take it for a test ride, I'd have to face 3.Bb5 which I haven't studied yet, but now that I've been book building and watching videos, I see some of the same ideas from the rousseau & luccini gambits in the schliemann too.

regardless, I like that it has long sharp fangs and uses TACTICAL tools I understand and takes my opponent out of the POSITIONAL comfort zone thy thought they were going to be in.

I like the part in one of GM Igor's videos he points out that even GMs fall for OBVIOUS lose queen in 1s trying to take on h8 when there's a queen on d4!!! THAT's the exact same kind of thing gambit haters pretend doesn't happen in the REAL WORLD... quoting an evaluation, then emphatically declaring "white is up 2 points, so black is clearly losing and should resign" or "if white plays this one move, he's winning"

the thing about "winning" is YOU GOTTA PROVE IT TO MAKE IT HAPPEN