The Gibbins Weidenhagen Gambit

• lyde Nakamura 

• 5 days ago · Quote · #20

  schlechter55 

  I wouldn't say the advantage for Black is 'very slight', after 1.d4 Nf6, 2.g4 Nxg4, 3.e4 d5, 4.Be2. Black can play 4....Qd7 (5.exd5 Qxd5), or 4....h5 (5.h3 Nh6, 6.e5 Nf5!, 7.Bxh5 c5, white has lost his lead in development, he is left with weaknesses on the kingside, and his center scrumbles).

   

  It is not that easy as you say. White just castles queenside. I know that
  the White kingside pawns are scattered and that is why any sane 
  player who plays the White side would castle kingside. I took down

  Reynolds Takata 2100 and Victor Tsoy 2200 with this gambit some

  years ago. And also Cornelius Rubsamen 2 times in tournament. Rubsamen
  and Takata went on to become US national masters.
  
  Best Regards
  DarthMusashi 

   

chess is never easy.

But you should say in which of the variants I gave above, and at which move white plays 0-0-0.

In the variant  1.d4 Nf6, 2.g4 Nxg4, 3.e4 d5, 4.Be2 h5, 5.h3 Nh6, 6.e5 Nf5!, 7.Bxh5 c5,

white still needs two more moves (Qd(e)2 and Nc3) before he can play 0-0-0. Time which Black will exploit to organize a further counterplay over the c-file (in addition to the pressure in the center).

1.d4 Nf6, 2.g4 Nxg4, 3.e4 d5, 4.Be2 h5, 5.h3 Nh6

I prefer the line with 5.f3 Nh6 and now White can play
6.Nc3 guarding the center. If Black exchanges the d pawn
for the White e pawn the White e pawn will still be there
after dxe4 and Black cannot get to f5 with his N.

Best Regards
DarthMusashi 

1.d4 Nf6, 2.g4 Nxg4, 3.e4 d5, 4.Be2 h5, 5.f3 Nh6, 6.e4 e5 or 6....e6. Black is better. For instance: 6....e5, 7.Be3 (7.h4 Be7) c5!

1.d4 Nf6, 2.g4 Nxg4, 3.e4 d5, 4.Be2 h5, 5.f3 Nh6, 6.e4 e5 or 6....e6. Black is better. For instance: 6....e5, 7.Be3 (7.h4 Be7) c5!

the move 6.e4 e6 does not make sense. It should be 6.Nc3 e5 or 6...e6
if 6...e6 7.Be3 and you cannot play 7...c5 because you drop a pawn after
8.dxc5.

Not sure about 6.Nc3 e5 will have to look at that,

Anyway the GWB is not busted in the opening. It still comes down to how
well you are at tactics and strategy. I will not argue this point any further.

Best Regards
DarthMusashi 

You are right, e4 was already played in move no. 3.

I meant 6.Nc3.

Then 6....e5, 7.Be3 c5 -+.

After 6....e6, 7.Be3, I did not suggest 7....c5. Here, Black has also the better position after

7....Be7, 8.Qd2

(8.Nh3 dxe4, 9.fxe4 Ng4, 10.Bxg4 hxg4, for instance 11.Qxg4 e5, 12.Qxg7? Bf6 and Bxh3)

8....Bh4, 9.Kd1 Nc6.

-------------------------------

Conclusion:

From the practical point of view, you may play the Gambit

1.d4 Nf6, 2.g4?!, even against a strong opponent, because the refutation

(I think an evaluation that ranges between -0.80 and -1.30 in the above variants DOES refute it)

is hard to find over the board.

(Although I should mention that moves like 4....h5 are not the only possible ones. I just gave ONE possibility.)

But in correspondence chess it is not a good idea to play it against a good opponent.

I mostly agree. But if Black plays correctly, which is not too difficult, then White is not only a pawn down, but he will suffer: I do not even see Black in a defensive position in the above two lines with 6....e5 or 6....e6.

Nice games, but where are the examples of a good defense ?

In Databases such as Chess Assistant or ChessBase BIG DB 2013, 2012, 2011 etc - which aint cheap new but sometimes are available used for much better prices.

Next source: your friendly neighborhood search engine, and sites such as www.chesscafe.com which has extensive archives on all sorts of stuff, inc deadbeat, er I meant to say offbeat openings.

There must be examples where Black wins. Because I am convinced that after 2.g4 Nxg4 Black has objectively a winning position.

Great and deep analysis...after reading your comment, iam just too scared to play it again, because it seems that i have a lost position after move 2.

You may go back in this thread, I indeed analysed several lines of the gambit.

My database shows 7 White wins, 4 draws, and 12 Black wins in the 23 games in this line.

I have to be more explicit now. The analysis given by stikman and few others ignores to a large extent the black responses.

I know many books of this type: someone advertises a gambit or a sacrifice as giving excellent play or even as almost winning, but it belittles or ignores the best defense. That best defense then turns out to be a refutation of the gambit in the sense that the defender has the more active game, and at least equality.

My analysis raised doubts about the soundness: the active defense of black gives him excellent game. Before someone belittles it, he must say at which place the variants are incorrect.

I wish to challenge all players who believe that White would have a good game in the gambit.

3 days per move, 1.d4 Nf6, 2.g4 Nxg4, and I have Black.

Thanks for your response...i think no GWG-player doubts, that this gambit is not fully sound.

But beside of an old german book, featuring amateur games from a correspondence tourney with light analysis, and the anaylized games of Clyde Nakamura, there isnt much theory about this opening.

So what you can get, for example, is a pirc-type of position, with a pawn down, 2 tempi up, a half-opfen g-file and an unknown and unusual position after move 2.

I challenged you.

Hey BigG...thats the point...everyone of us is in a learning process dealing with this gambit (you remember our both GWG-battles...both quickly won by white ) and i think its really helpful, if a good and sceptical player liker schlechter55 joins us in analyzing the possibilties for both sides.

Very interesting. For blitz it is definitely a good weapon. For longer games I am not that sure, but if the Evan's gambit is good this must be good as well.

Whoever is willing to take the white pieces after 1.d4 Nf6 2.g4 (?) Nxg4 3.e4 d6 4.Be2 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 (variant from #45 which is not mentioned) is very courageous. If White trades pawns and queens, his development advantage consists of having played Bf1-Be2 and g2-out of the board at the cost of a pawn, hardly impressive compensation. If 6.d5 White loses any central initiative he may have had. Otherwise Black trades himself on d4 and plays ...Nc6 etc. with an easy development.

I would be much more afraid of meeting the Budapest than this "gambit".

I mean, it's less awful than it seems, but there is still a good margin before being even remotely playable at 2000+ level, long games.

another senseless and respectless post from the bearded greek guy...you will never learn how to behave.