Declining gives White some advantage so best you can do is "accept".
Actually, the Evan's Gambit seems to be a fairly good line for
White so you will have your work cut out for you.
Should we accept or decline Evan's gambit?
Sort:
ok
[COMMENT DELETED]
You seem confused, Buddha-Bud.
It's up to BLACK whether to accept or decline the Evans.
He's saying that if black declines it, this is objectively better for white. Therefore, accpeting it is the best solution, theoretically speaking.
I'm not sure I agree, but the statement is perfectly logical. I declined it quite happily back when I still played 1...e5.
Although my rating is low...been quiet on the forums...I personally feel black should never even try to go up against the evans gambit. I prefer to just sidestep it since white gets many dangerous attacking chances and a strong bishop pair on the A3-C4 diagonals whether he accepts it or not, white will stand better imo.
Declining it (4...Bb6) is a perfectly good reply, and needs much less theory to memorize.
White's best is most probably 5.a4 a6 6.c3 Nf6 7.d3 which is a fairly typical Italian game variation.
The book recommendation 5.a4 a6 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Nd5 has failed to give white any advantage after 7...Nxd5 8.ed5 Nd4, and it seems that 7...0-0 is also perfectly OK for Black.
When I said declining leads to slight advantage for White-admittedly I was going on only what I have heard. So pfren may be correct on this that Black can equalize with fairly normal play.
happyfanatic wrote:
There is a 3rd option. Play the two knight's defense instead.
That's not really a third option, since you can't very well do it once the Evans Gambit appears on the board. If you want to call the Two Knights a third option, you might as well call the Sicilian a fourth one.
I don't get it.
5.b5 is a secondrate move, white has to be careful after 5...Na5 6.Nxe5 Nh6.
5.Bb2 is also not annoying at all, factly white has to be careful again not ending up playing the Black side of a regular Arkhangelsk variation with reversed colors, but the same tempos (the bishop has gone to b6 in two moves instead of three).
5.c3 is fine, but playing 5.a4 first doesn't harm white at all.
Jun 30, 2012
0
#12
Goomper wrote:
happyfanatic wrote:
There is a 3rd option. Play the two knight's defense instead.
That's not really a third option, since you can't very well do it once the Evans Gambit appears on the board. If you want to call the Two Knights a third option, you might as well call the Sicilian a fourth one.
Does the sicilian start 1.e4 e5?
I think I make a good point here. If you want to play e5 then after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bc4 play 3...Nf6 instead of 3...Bc5. If they play the mainline 4. Ng5 then you get to attack. Now do you think that the majority of the players on this site would be better off giving their opponent the option of a dangerous attacking gambit, or having an attack of their own? Club players aren't known for their defensive skills. The initiative counts for more at the lower levels of chess.
happyfanatic wrote:
Goomper wrote:
happyfanatic wrote:
There is a 3rd option. Play the two knight's defense instead.
That's not really a third option, since you can't very well do it once the Evans Gambit appears on the board. If you want to call the Two Knights a third option, you might as well call the Sicilian a fourth one.
Does the sicilian start 1.e4 e5?
No. Does the Two Knights start 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4?
They are equally relevant. Both are places where black might have opened differently if he wanted to avoid the possibility of the Evans Gambit, but by the time 4.b4 is played, this ship has sailed. If 1.e4 e5 is for some odd reason your standard for how many moves ago make "third alternatives" relevant, then you must at the very least include the Philidor in all its guises, the Petroff, and I don't know...maybe the Latvian, Hungarian, and Elephant for good measure?
I think I make a good point here. If you want to play e5 then after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bc4 play 3...Nf6 instead of 3...Bc5. If they play the mainline 4. Ng5 then you get to attack. Now do you think that the majority of the players on this site would be better off giving their opponent the option of a dangerous attacking gambit, or having an attack of their own? Club players aren't known for their defensive skills. The initiative counts for more at the lower levels of chess.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for the Two Knights. I think it's a great defense. But it's simply not a "third alternative" in this case. I suppose if you wanted to make a point about a "third alternative," you could say in an overarching sense that the "third alternative" is to avoid the black side of the Italian altogether if you don't like the notion of facing the Evans. The Two Knights would fit neatly in that perfectly reasonable standpoint.
Tim Harding wrote a good book on the Evans Gambit. I believe it is called Play the Evans Gambit. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Harding has been writing books on the Evans since the seventies. IMO none of them is particularly useful currently (newest one was printed back in 1997). One should probably pick Pinski's book, from 2005, but this is biased towards Black.
Jul 1, 2012
0
#16
Goomper wrote:
No. Does the Two Knights start 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4?
They are equally relevant. Both are places where black might have opened differently if he wanted to avoid the possibility of the Evans Gambit, but by the time 4.b4 is played, this ship has sailed. If 1.e4 e5 is for some odd reason your standard for how many moves ago make "third alternatives" relevant, then you must at the very least include the Philidor in all its guises, the Petroff, and I don't know...maybe the Latvian, Hungarian, and Elephant for good measure?
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for the Two Knights. I think it's a great defense. But it's simply not a "third alternative" in this case. I suppose if you wanted to make a point about a "third alternative," you could say in an overarching sense that the "third alternative" is to avoid the black side of the Italian altogether if you don't like the notion of facing the Evans. The Two Knights would fit neatly in that perfectly reasonable standpoint.
A player seeking to play the open games with 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 will likely find themselves trying to choose between 3...Nf6 or 3...Bc5. The OP was wondering whether he should accept or decline the gambit, and my input was that he had the 3rd option of simply avoiding this decision altogether and deciding on a different 3rd move while preparing his repertoire. My opinion is that the black side of the Two Knights is easier to play then the black side of the Evans. If someone intends to play 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 as black then they typically pick one of those two moves.
For some reason you have a semantics issue with my calling this a 3rd option. Choosing a different 3rd move so that you don't have to encounter an unpleasant situation on the 4th move is an option, a choice, and I don't know how anyone could argue that it isn't or why they would waste energy doing so.
...isn't the best way to refute a gambit to take it?
ChazR wrote:
...isn't the best way to refute a gambit to take it?
It's a matter of taste. White has adequate compenation if black takes the pawn, but declining with 4...Bb6 is simple and reliable- since the best continuation for white is transposing to an Italian line which should already be in Black's repertoire.
There is a crazy exchange sacrifice after 5.b5 Na5 6.Nxe5 Nh6 (6...Qg5 also goes, factly it's a forced draw) 7.Be2!? (Hector), but with best play white has nothing to boast about.
any books where i can learn the theory?