FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
I've recently started fooling around with the Danish Gambit. I like the idea of the Smith-Morra, but in actual play it usually back-fires on me. For some reason I do much better with the Danish Gambit, which is similar, but much less popular. I welcome any feedback here on this lively line. Also, Nakamura is one of the few top GM who give this opening a shot once in a while. While reviewing one of his games, I came across a terrific position for white, that ole' Hikaru managed to lose. What I like about Nakamura is that the guy will try anything if he thinks there's a logical justification for it, like 2.Qh5!? against the Sicilian (I still think this is playable). Anyway, here goes a patzer second-guessing a GM. In the following game, does white have a clear advantage after 12.Rfd1 (instead of Nakamura's 12.Nd4)?
Just for once I'd like to see you make a thread about a good opening
It's more fun this way.
Yeah, that's the thing with openings like the SM...they're good once
I love the danish and I've played many good games with it, but its sharpness can easily be blunted:
I take umbrage! Are you inferring the Danish is not a "good" opening?! The audacity! Just for that, I've created the the Center-counter-Danish-Breyer Hybrid:
Your analysis in these gambits is rather amusing but also skewed by your enthusiasm.
Let me give you an example: In the Danish game (post #1) when Black plays 16. .... c5, 16. .... f6 is nearly a pawn and a half better. I went through the game with Houdini and most of the moves, for both sides, are not merely sub-optimal but outright inaccuracies, some are even mistakes.
It's probably a good idea to let an engine check your analysis, before you post.
I don't play engines, I play people. Chess engines are wonderful, and now, at this point in the evolution of chess, they are indispensable. But if I were to check with an engine before I posted anything, I probably wouldn't post anything. I like your line about the moves in my analysis: they are "not merely sub-optimal but outright inaccuracies, some are even mistakes." I should hope so! Interesting that you didn't figure this out, Houdini did! In case you haven't noticed, most GM games that are decisive are the result, according to the so-superior chess engines, of a mistake by one of the human players..... We had a chess club here in White Plains, that, sadly, folded up a few years ago. One time I was talking to the guy running it, a NM, and he expressed sadness that chess engines have surpassed humans. I said "So what? Automobiles move a lot faster than people, but we still have foot races.....marathons, track and field, etc. People must still keep playing people." The human element is key..... Anyway, it's bad enough I've been playing this absurd game for forty years and get routinely beat by B-class players...... Don't ask me to make sure my amateur analysis pasts muster with Houdini, or some other chess engine. My post are human products..... The forum exists so people, or engines, can react to there content. I appreciate your comment, but remember, there's no requirement that topics and the analysis therein be sound. If mine are full of flaws, then be my guest and refute away...... Incidently, after 16....f6, how about 17.Qc4, and if 17...Ne5 18.Bxe5 dxe5 18.Nc5!?
Hey! Wait a minute! I expected an argument! ..... Phooey!
Yeah, sorry about that.
One time I was talking to the guy running it, a NM, and he expressed sadness that chess engines have surpassed humans. I said "So what? Automobiles move a lot faster than people, but we still have foot races.....marathons, track and field, etc. People must still keep playing people." The human element is key.....
I just wish that analogy worked a little better...
I think it works fine. It keeps Nike in business..... Or do you think all the people buying Nikes aren't running marathons? Why else would they buy a running shoe? What other possible reason could there be to spend $300 on sneakers?......
Not too sure about this gambit, but some will score these like -.21 or -.18 which is well worth the risk involved. Obviously these gambits are not going to defeat computers, but chess is not a game for computers. Anyone who insists it is is a moron. What gambits can give you is surprise. They also can put you on the attack. So where as a perfect player would never lose to such a gambit (Computers), Paul Morphey played them for years against PEOPLE and won quite a few. So therefore gambits are about as sound as the people who play them.
Well, this is the crux of the matter. It's OK to point out flaws in an opening that have been discovered by a chess program. But to dismiss the opening as unsound or inaccurate because of that fact alone, is an absurd oversimplification. We all know the best computer programs can outplay the best humans, but we still have tournaments and matches. We still play each other....People still play people! A chess engine is an aid, a tool to help human players, not make them obsolete. Just because Houdini can refute the Center-counter-Danish-Breyer Hybrid Gambit, doesn't mean you can! .... BTW, does anyone know if Houdini, I mean Erik Weisz, the human escape artist, actually played chess?
The difference is that in chess moves (especially opening moves) are bits of data that have their own intrinsic worth...unlike with running and suchlike things...
Just because Houdini can refute the Center-counter-Danish-Breyer Hybrid Gambit, doesn't mean you can! ....
But if you read the moves (assuming of course that a computer's opening analysis is sound), then you can.
But what's your point? I've already conceded computer analysis is ultimately superior to human analysis. And they are good as study aids. But if your playing OTB, and you come up against a problem in an opening, or any problem OTB for that matter, what good does it do knowing Rybka, or Houdini or Hal 9000 has the answer? "But if you read the moves, then you can"....... Are you suggesting we all sit down to our games in tournaments or clubs with little I-Pads next to us, so we can consult them if need be? I know that's not what you meant, but I think we're talking two different topics here...... Anyway, back to the really important question: Did Harry Houdini play chess? And if not, why not?
I'm saying that if a comp comes up with opening moves, you can use them in your game (if you can remember em)...whereas you can't use Porsche tires in your footrace.
And as for the really important question: I dunno (which figures). I suspect he played something a bit more profitable...
(Plus he could shuffle em with his toes.)
Wait a minute! Wait a minute! I have seen sandals, ya' know, flip-flops, made out of old tire treads for soles! But good point about automotive technology and it's limits when applied to people races..... However, I believe those goofy bicycle helmets, those teardrop shaped things, were developed by using wind-tunnel technology created for designing racing car aerodynamics. Maybe they use it for designing Reboks, too. Well, this is going off on a ridiculous tangent..... Hey, isn't that Elijah Wood in the Houdini poster? ...... Now, on to the next big idea: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.g3! ..... The Gaga Gambit is sort of a kingside Danish Gambit, played on very rare occasions by assorted lunatics.....