Actually you are missing the point, the NM and others are not recommending it because it is sound, but because from move two your opponent will need to think for themselves. It creates an unbalanced position right from the outset. This of course is doubled edged but it might be exactly what a club player who likes irrational positions is looking for.
The Colorado gambit
Sort:
Nov 6, 2017
0
#43
robbie_1969 wrote:
Actually you are missing the point, the NM and others are not recommending it because it is sound, but because from move two your opponent will need to think for themselves. It creates an unbalanced position right from the outset. This of course is doubled edged but it might be exactly what a club player who likes irrational positions is looking for.
Still don't get it. Not sure what the point of deliberately putting yourself in a bad position is. Aww-rats said it is a great move, but it is not. Why not play sound moves?
Nov 6, 2017
0
#44
Derekjj wrote:
robbie_1969 wrote:
Actually you are missing the point, the NM and others are not recommending it because it is sound, but because from move two your opponent will need to think for themselves. It creates an unbalanced position right from the outset. This of course is doubled edged but it might be exactly what a club player who likes irrational positions is looking for.
Still don't get it. Not sure what the point of deliberately putting yourself in a bad position is. Aww-rats said it is a great move, but it is not. Why not play sound moves?
The Colorado gambit is sound, it does not lead to loss.
Nov 6, 2017
0
#46
Pfren's acerbic comments hold some truths:
The Marshall is considered a drawing weapon that is mostly avoided by the +2750 fish. There are players here who seem to know more than those poor fish. I have no clue how those elite players can play professional chess with such a poor understanding of chess.
The Colorado Gambit is really bad. I wish Colorado had a better representative than a losing gambit.
Perhaps mcris could share his lines that show the Colorado Gambit is sound.
Pfren's lines are a good place to start. Where did Pfren go wrong in post #58?
Nov 6, 2017
0
#47
SmyslovFan wrote:
Pfren's acerbic comments hold some truths:
The Marshall is considered a drawing weapon that is mostly avoided by the +2750 fish. There are players here who seem to know more than those poor fish. I have no clue how those elite players can play professional chess with such a poor understanding of chess.
The Colorado Gambit is really bad. I wish Colorado had a better representative than a losing gambit.
Perhaps mcris could share his lines that show the Colorado Gambit is sound.
Pfren's lines are a good place to start. Where did Pfren go wrong in post #58?
7...g6 is not ok. Instead 7...Nf6
Nov 6, 2017
0
#49
Stockfish gives 7...Nf6 as best (+.92 at 30 ply using Stockfish 8), but as several strong (human) players have pointed out, 2...f5 is objectively bad. IM John Cox, for example, and GM John Nunn have both said it's bad.
You might be able to survive using the Colorado in an engine-based correspondence game, but why even try it? White is either winning or nearly winning after only 7 moves.
SmyslovFan wrote:
Stockfish gives 7...Nf6 as best (+.92 at 30 ply using Stockfish 8), but as several strong (human) players have pointed out, 2...f5 is objectively bad. IM John Cox, for example, and GM John Nunn have both said it's bad.
You might be able to survive using the Colorado in an engine-based correspondence game, but why even try it? White is either winning or nearly winning after only 7 moves.
Actually in my database which has 1.7 million games all from fairly recently there are 138 instances. White has won 57, draws 35 and black wins 46. I agree that its objectively bad but it has shock psychological value, whatever that is worth.
pfren wrote:
Robbie, what does a blitz game prove? I can show a ton of blitz games where white is busted after 1.e4 h5!
Indeed it proves that in blitz in may have shock value, even at the very highest level. I agree with you its a horrible move and objectively bad but what does that matter among patzer players like me? Its almost meaningless. For titled players like you it has significance, but otherwise for us wood pushers its well playable, although again, I personally would never play such a move because it makes no sense to me.
Nov 6, 2017
0
#52
robbie_1969 wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
Stockfish gives 7...Nf6 as best (+.92 at 30 ply using Stockfish 8), but as several strong (human) players have pointed out, 2...f5 is objectively bad. IM John Cox, for example, and GM John Nunn have both said it's bad.
You might be able to survive using the Colorado in an engine-based correspondence game, but why even try it? White is either winning or nearly winning after only 7 moves.
Actually in my database which has 1.7 million games all from fairly recently there are 138 instances. White has won 57, draws 35 and black wins 46. I agree that its objectively bad but it has shock psychological value, whatever that is worth.
Really?
Your database has 138 instances of 7...Nf6 in that position? And you only have 1.7 million games? Really?
I'm curious as to where the games are from in that 1.7 million game database originate from ? My database is significantly larger and only have 7 games.
Nov 7, 2017
0
#54
SmyslovFan wrote:
Stockfish gives 7...Nf6 as best (+.92 at 30 ply using Stockfish 8), but as several strong (human) players have pointed out, 2...f5 is objectively bad. IM John Cox, for example, and GM John Nunn have both said it's bad.
You might be able to survive using the Colorado in an engine-based correspondence game, but why even try it? White is either winning or nearly winning after only 7 moves.
I am ready to play you 7, 8 or 9 moves and I assure you that the resulting position will not be bad for Black.
What human players evaluated is inherently subjective and not objective. For this you need a scientific evaluation or much stronger player, like an engine. While engines can fail in some closed positions, this is open game like most accepted gambits.
Nov 7, 2017
0
#55
If black is almost a pawn down (+0,92) after 7....Nf6, according to stockfish, how can you claim that black is fine?? That has nothing to do with subjective opinion....
Nov 7, 2017
0
#56
There were numerous discussions on this site that such a small margin in no way implies won game by any side.
In fact, after Nf6 and 3 minutes of thinking, Stockfish gives the margin as 0.8 , what seemed to be a full pawn capture in the beggining, gradually diminishes as the game continues.
SmyslovFan wrote:
robbie_1969 wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
Stockfish gives 7...Nf6 as best (+.92 at 30 ply using Stockfish 8), but as several strong (human) players have pointed out, 2...f5 is objectively bad. IM John Cox, for example, and GM John Nunn have both said it's bad.
You might be able to survive using the Colorado in an engine-based correspondence game, but why even try it? White is either winning or nearly winning after only 7 moves.
Actually in my database which has 1.7 million games all from fairly recently there are 138 instances. White has won 57, draws 35 and black wins 46. I agree that its objectively bad but it has shock psychological value, whatever that is worth.
Really?
Your database has 138 instances of 7...Nf6 in that position? And you only have 1.7 million games? Really?
it has 138 recent games of 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 and 2...f5. Why this should be difficult for you to believe I cannot say. That is the Colorado gambit is it not? Would you like a screenshot to confirm the veracity of my claim?
Nov 7, 2017
0
#58
pfren wrote:
What's the difference between 7...Nf6 and 7...g6?
Black wants to deploy the bishop at g7 anyway, to minimize white's control over d4, e5 after an eventual Nxc6. As a matter of fact, 7...Nf6 might well be a little less accurate, although in most lines the same positions will arise.
I can play you if you want. Your 8. ?
Nov 7, 2017
0
#59
DeirdreSkye wrote:
mcris wrote:
There were numerous discussions on this site that such a small margin in no way implies won game by any side.
In fact, after Nf6 and 3 minutes of thinking, Stockfish gives the margin as 0.8 , what seemed to be a full pawn capture in the beggining, gradually diminishes as the game continues.
0.8 is not a small margin since +1.0 is a theoretically won position(1 pawn up without compensation).Nakamura said that the position becomes unplayable at +0.9.
No, that's totally not true. Read my post again.
NM Aww-rats has also done much and great work on the Colorado gambit in his Nimzovitsch defense series on youtube. It's the unsoundness of it that attracts me. I love to win with it against players that criticise it.
There was a debate between aww_rats and pfren a couple of years ago, but I can't find the thread. All of aww_rats posts is nonsense. It would be wise to avoid that NM, or any coach that would recommend such a losing line.