Interesting, can you show a deeper analysis or some games with it?
Thoughts on the Portuguese Gambit
Sort:
Nov 21, 2018
0
#3
David Smerdon has a good book analyzing the opening and its various lines fairly deeply with around 100 example games, which is where I primarily learned about it.
This is an example of one game I played recently. Obviously I am a bad player, so it could have been played much better. But the general idea is to basically ignore the pawns in the opening so that you can get a lead in development and a strong attack going that will let you either checkmate or win material.
There's a lot to go into because white can and does generally play a lot of weird stuff against it just because it's an abnormal opening and people don't really know the theory. The general main line goes like this though:
This is more an example of how white can easily go wrong if they don't play well. The lead in development lets you get in a strong attack and white can make some mistakes which seem like they'd probably be reasonable moves.
aidan0816 wrote:
David Smerdon has a good book analyzing the opening and its various lines fairly deeply with around 100 example games, which is where I primarily learned about it.
This is an example of one game I played recently. Obviously I am a bad player, so it could have been played much better. But the general idea is to basically ignore the pawns in the opening so that you can get a lead in development and a strong attack going that will let you either checkmate or win material.
There's a lot to go into because white can and does generally play a lot of weird stuff against it just because it's an abnormal opening and people don't really know the theory. The general main line goes like this though:
This is more an example of how white can easily go wrong if they don't play well. The lead in development lets you get in a strong attack and white can make some mistakes which seem like they'd probably be reasonable moves.
The problem is in all the lines you show the opposing player plays several sub-optimal moves (even go against common sense in the position). In the 1st example you made a faulty sacrifice, but your opponent did a very poor job of organizing his position and loses a full rook.
Your "main line" variation is far from the main line, its a terrible variation. f3 makes no sense and likely gives black all the compensation he needs. The simple nf3 or be2 is perfectly fine. 8. kf2 is a huge mistake/blunder, invites problems for no reason. Better is nc3, develops... 9. a3 makes no sense, you have no pieces developed and an exposed king, you are inviting trouble. 14 Qe2 is best though white is strongly since he did not make any development on move 9.
Nov 21, 2018
0
#5
Daniel1115 wrote:
aidan0816 wrote:
David Smerdon has a good book analyzing the opening and its various lines fairly deeply with around 100 example games, which is where I primarily learned about it.
This is an example of one game I played recently. Obviously I am a bad player, so it could have been played much better. But the general idea is to basically ignore the pawns in the opening so that you can get a lead in development and a strong attack going that will let you either checkmate or win material.
There's a lot to go into because white can and does generally play a lot of weird stuff against it just because it's an abnormal opening and people don't really know the theory. The general main line goes like this though:
This is more an example of how white can easily go wrong if they don't play well. The lead in development lets you get in a strong attack and white can make some mistakes which seem like they'd probably be reasonable moves.
The problem is in all the lines you show the opposing player plays several sub-optimal moves (even go against common sense in the position). In the 1st example you made a faulty sacrifice, but your opponent did a very poor job of organizing his position and loses a full rook.
Your "main line" variation is far from the main line, its a terrible variation. f3 makes no sense and likely gives black all the compensation he needs. The simple nf3 or be2 is perfectly fine. 8. kf2 is a huge mistake/blunder, invites problems for no reason. Better is nc3, develops... 9. a3 makes no sense, you have no pieces developed and an exposed king, you are inviting trouble. 14 Qe2 is best though white is strongly since he did not make any development on move 9.
I prefaced the first game by pointing out that I'm not a master and therefore neither are the opponents I play against. It shouldn't come as a surprise to you that most players, often even GMs and masters don't always play optimally. That's generally the point of most gambits, they invite mistakes and create sharp, tactical positions where it's easy to mess up.
f3 is the move rated as most optimal by stockfish and other computer software. It might not make sense to you, but it is generally accepted by most masters who have actually spent time studying the opening and developing the theory to be the best choice in the position. So that's why it is considered the main line (although lower level players unfamiliar with the theory don't ever play f3 because it looks counter-intuitive). Nf3 and Be2 are both playable moves but they aren't the best in the position. 4. Bb5+ Ncd7 5. Be2 is actually better than Be2. It misplaces the knight and still trades off the white bishops.
And yes, white obviously could have played better in the last game, but this particular example was between GM David Smerdon (black) and CM Chikwere Onyekwere (white). It's more an example of how white can easily mess up by playing moves that seem to make sense in the position. Taking on f7 seems quite logical at first, win the extra pawn and misplace the opponent's king with tempo. Obviously this does not work out for white. Nc3 would have been better than Kf2, but black is still in a winning position at that point.
Did you have any thoughts on the Portuguese gambit itself, aside from criticisms of my game?
David Smeardon made a you tube video about this, filmed at Melbourne chess club. You could find it easily, it has a lot of detail about it.
Nov 21, 2018
0
#7
kennedyryderparis wrote:
David Smeardon made a you tube video about this, filmed at Melbourne chess club. You could find it easily, it has a lot of detail about it.
I have his book on this opening and have been reading through it
aidan0816 wrote:
Daniel1115 wrote:
aidan0816 wrote:
David Smerdon has a good book analyzing the opening and its various lines fairly deeply with around 100 example games, which is where I primarily learned about it.
This is an example of one game I played recently. Obviously I am a bad player, so it could have been played much better. But the general idea is to basically ignore the pawns in the opening so that you can get a lead in development and a strong attack going that will let you either checkmate or win material.
There's a lot to go into because white can and does generally play a lot of weird stuff against it just because it's an abnormal opening and people don't really know the theory. The general main line goes like this though:
This is more an example of how white can easily go wrong if they don't play well. The lead in development lets you get in a strong attack and white can make some mistakes which seem like they'd probably be reasonable moves.
The problem is in all the lines you show the opposing player plays several sub-optimal moves (even go against common sense in the position). In the 1st example you made a faulty sacrifice, but your opponent did a very poor job of organizing his position and loses a full rook.
Your "main line" variation is far from the main line, its a terrible variation. f3 makes no sense and likely gives black all the compensation he needs. The simple nf3 or be2 is perfectly fine. 8. kf2 is a huge mistake/blunder, invites problems for no reason. Better is nc3, develops... 9. a3 makes no sense, you have no pieces developed and an exposed king, you are inviting trouble. 14 Qe2 is best though white is strongly since he did not make any development on move 9.
I prefaced the first game by pointing out that I'm not a master and therefore neither are the opponents I play against. It shouldn't come as a surprise to you that most players, often even GMs and masters don't always play optimally. That's generally the point of most gambits, they invite mistakes and create sharp, tactical positions where it's easy to mess up.
f3 is the move rated as most optimal by stockfish and other computer software. It might not make sense to you, but it is generally accepted by most masters who have actually spent time studying the opening and developing the theory to be the best choice in the position. So that's why it is considered the main line (although lower level players unfamiliar with the theory don't ever play f3 because it looks counter-intuitive). Nf3 and Be2 are both playable moves but they aren't the best in the position. 4. Bb5+ Ncd7 5. Be2 is actually better than Be2. It misplaces the knight and still trades off the white bishops.
And yes, white obviously could have played better in the last game, but this particular example was between GM David Smerdon (black) and CM Chikwere Onyekwere (white). It's more an example of how white can easily mess up by playing moves that seem to make sense in the position. Taking on f7 seems quite logical at first, win the extra pawn and misplace the opponent's king with tempo. Obviously this does not work out for white. Nc3 would have been better than Kf2, but black is still in a winning position at that point.
Did you have any thoughts on the Portuguese gambit itself, aside from criticisms of my game?
Black is better after nc3, but not winning, probably losses are limited to a few pawns.
My point is that the gambit is unsound. Stockfish might like f3 since it is materialistic and can find all the ways to defend at the perfect time for minimal loss, but as human players its not practical. Best is to develop your pieces and get castled (with or without an extra pawn). You can play all the unsound gambits you want but it does not make you a better player. I am similarly rated to the player in the first example yet would never make all the mistakes he did.
Nov 22, 2018
0
#9
Daniel1115 wrote:
aidan0816 wrote:
Daniel1115 wrote:
aidan0816 wrote:
David Smerdon has a good book analyzing the opening and its various lines fairly deeply with around 100 example games, which is where I primarily learned about it.
This is an example of one game I played recently. Obviously I am a bad player, so it could have been played much better. But the general idea is to basically ignore the pawns in the opening so that you can get a lead in development and a strong attack going that will let you either checkmate or win material.
There's a lot to go into because white can and does generally play a lot of weird stuff against it just because it's an abnormal opening and people don't really know the theory. The general main line goes like this though:
This is more an example of how white can easily go wrong if they don't play well. The lead in development lets you get in a strong attack and white can make some mistakes which seem like they'd probably be reasonable moves.
The problem is in all the lines you show the opposing player plays several sub-optimal moves (even go against common sense in the position). In the 1st example you made a faulty sacrifice, but your opponent did a very poor job of organizing his position and loses a full rook.
Your "main line" variation is far from the main line, its a terrible variation. f3 makes no sense and likely gives black all the compensation he needs. The simple nf3 or be2 is perfectly fine. 8. kf2 is a huge mistake/blunder, invites problems for no reason. Better is nc3, develops... 9. a3 makes no sense, you have no pieces developed and an exposed king, you are inviting trouble. 14 Qe2 is best though white is strongly since he did not make any development on move 9.
I prefaced the first game by pointing out that I'm not a master and therefore neither are the opponents I play against. It shouldn't come as a surprise to you that most players, often even GMs and masters don't always play optimally. That's generally the point of most gambits, they invite mistakes and create sharp, tactical positions where it's easy to mess up.
f3 is the move rated as most optimal by stockfish and other computer software. It might not make sense to you, but it is generally accepted by most masters who have actually spent time studying the opening and developing the theory to be the best choice in the position. So that's why it is considered the main line (although lower level players unfamiliar with the theory don't ever play f3 because it looks counter-intuitive). Nf3 and Be2 are both playable moves but they aren't the best in the position. 4. Bb5+ Ncd7 5. Be2 is actually better than Be2. It misplaces the knight and still trades off the white bishops.
And yes, white obviously could have played better in the last game, but this particular example was between GM David Smerdon (black) and CM Chikwere Onyekwere (white). It's more an example of how white can easily mess up by playing moves that seem to make sense in the position. Taking on f7 seems quite logical at first, win the extra pawn and misplace the opponent's king with tempo. Obviously this does not work out for white. Nc3 would have been better than Kf2, but black is still in a winning position at that point.
Did you have any thoughts on the Portuguese gambit itself, aside from criticisms of my game?
Black is better after nc3, but not winning, probably losses are limited to a few pawns.
My point is that the gambit is unsound. Stockfish might like f3 since it is materialistic and can find all the ways to defend at the perfect time for minimal loss, but as human players its not practical. Best is to develop your pieces and get castled (with or without an extra pawn). You can play all the unsound gambits you want but it does not make you a better player. I am similarly rated to the player in the first example yet would never make all the mistakes he did.
Why do you think it is unsound? You get back the pawn, you get a lead in development and get castled. I'm not seeing why you think this.
If white is not super focused on keeping the pawn and neglects development (with black avoiding recapturing the pawn) the opening is unsound. It is totally fine in the Scandinavian to delay recpaturing the pawn. If black plays it in gambit fashion it is unsound, if white tries right away to keep the pawn it's a mistake. other than with playing something like nc3(or c4 w/o d4 first)
Nov 22, 2018
0
#11
For example with both of the moves you suggested in place of f3, black has recaptured the pawn, has more pieces involved in the game and can easily get more pressure on d4 than white is able to deal with in a lot of situations.
I have Smerdon's book and it's very good. The gambit is technically a bit unsound but on the club level if you are able to learn his book well and are good at tactics a player could rack up a lot of rating points. Club players (includes me) miss tactics that one could drive a truck through. Even some players rated into the 2500s FIDE play it at times. Smerdon is 2508 FIDE and has beaten many titled players with it. My performance rating has been better with the somewhat passive 3...Qd8 Scandinavian than with 2...Nf6. I can see tactics fairly well at times but the level of complexity I can deal with well is rather low.
aidan0816 wrote:
For example with both of the moves you suggested in place of f3, black has recaptured the pawn, has more pieces involved in the game and can easily get more pressure on d4 than white is able to deal with in a lot of situations.
If white does not accept the gambit he gets into standard Scandinavian positions. Are you trying to say black is better in those positions?
Pfren has pointed out that f3 is the refutation to the gambit (and that it is unsound). Thus there are two choices for white. If they know the refutation they will play f3 and be a lot better. If they dont they will decline the gambit and get a normal position. Both are favorable. No reason to play this gambit than, unless you hope that they will accept it and not know how to proceed after that.
Nov 22, 2018
0
#14
Daniel1115 wrote:
aidan0816 wrote:
For example with both of the moves you suggested in place of f3, black has recaptured the pawn, has more pieces involved in the game and can easily get more pressure on d4 than white is able to deal with in a lot of situations.
If white does not accept the gambit he gets into standard Scandinavian positions. Are you trying to say black is better in those positions?
Pfren has pointed out that f3 is the refutation to the gambit (and that it is unsound). Thus there are two choices for white. If they know the refutation they will play f3 and be a lot better. If they dont they will decline the gambit and get a normal position. Both are favorable. No reason to play this gambit than, unless you hope that they will accept it and not know how to proceed after that.
Your dichotomy is false, the choice isn't between refutation and normal Scandi lines. That's incorrect. For example, here is a typical scandi line:
As you can see from any of the examples above, the lines are different. f3 is the most optimal response but not a 'refutation'. The refutation to the Portuguese gambit goes like this and isn't something that is really ever seen over the board, just in higher level correspondence games.
The point of the gambit is that it leads to sharp tactical positions which are generally considered "fun" to some players. It's pretty easy for white to play poorly and isn't something most people prepare heavily for because it isn't a popular opening like the Sicilian or French. If you don't like gambits and prefer completely solid, theoretically sound openings it may not be for you. It's not your play style. But you're also not a grand master so complete theoretical solidity isn't something that should be considered relevant.
aidan0816 wrote:
Daniel1115 wrote:
aidan0816 wrote:
For example with both of the moves you suggested in place of f3, black has recaptured the pawn, has more pieces involved in the game and can easily get more pressure on d4 than white is able to deal with in a lot of situations.
If white does not accept the gambit he gets into standard Scandinavian positions. Are you trying to say black is better in those positions?
Pfren has pointed out that f3 is the refutation to the gambit (and that it is unsound). Thus there are two choices for white. If they know the refutation they will play f3 and be a lot better. If they dont they will decline the gambit and get a normal position. Both are favorable. No reason to play this gambit than, unless you hope that they will accept it and not know how to proceed after that.
Your dichotomy is false, the choice isn't between refutation and normal Scandi lines. That's incorrect. For example, here is a typical scandi line:
As you can see from any of the examples above, the lines are different. f3 is the most optimal response but not a 'refutation'. The refutation to the Portuguese gambit goes like this and isn't something that is really ever seen over the board, just in higher level correspondence games.
The point of the gambit is that it leads to sharp tactical positions which are generally considered "fun" to some players. It's pretty easy for white to play poorly and isn't something most people prepare heavily for because it isn't a popular opening like the Sicilian or French. If you don't like gambits and prefer completely solid, theoretically sound openings it may not be for you. It's not your play style. But you're also not a grand master so complete theoretical solidity isn't something that should be considered relevant.
You can argue with pfren if you want with what constitutes a refutation. The point is you either know the theory for the refutation or you dont.
If you compare the two positions that you showed you will find they are very similar. White is not forced to castle queenside and black can pin the f3 knight if he wants. I am also not really sure if the line you showed is good for black (first example), since he will need several tempi to be on par with white while in the meantime white can start his attack.
Nov 22, 2018
0
#16
Daniel1115 wrote:
aidan0816 wrote:
Daniel1115 wrote:
aidan0816 wrote:
For example with both of the moves you suggested in place of f3, black has recaptured the pawn, has more pieces involved in the game and can easily get more pressure on d4 than white is able to deal with in a lot of situations.
If white does not accept the gambit he gets into standard Scandinavian positions. Are you trying to say black is better in those positions?
Pfren has pointed out that f3 is the refutation to the gambit (and that it is unsound). Thus there are two choices for white. If they know the refutation they will play f3 and be a lot better. If they dont they will decline the gambit and get a normal position. Both are favorable. No reason to play this gambit than, unless you hope that they will accept it and not know how to proceed after that.
Your dichotomy is false, the choice isn't between refutation and normal Scandi lines. That's incorrect. For example, here is a typical scandi line:
As you can see from any of the examples above, the lines are different. f3 is the most optimal response but not a 'refutation'. The refutation to the Portuguese gambit goes like this and isn't something that is really ever seen over the board, just in higher level correspondence games.
The point of the gambit is that it leads to sharp tactical positions which are generally considered "fun" to some players. It's pretty easy for white to play poorly and isn't something most people prepare heavily for because it isn't a popular opening like the Sicilian or French. If you don't like gambits and prefer completely solid, theoretically sound openings it may not be for you. It's not your play style. But you're also not a grand master so complete theoretical solidity isn't something that should be considered relevant.
You can argue with pfren if you want with what constitutes a refutation. The point is you either know the theory for the refutation or you dont.
If you compare the two positions that you showed you will find they are very similar. White is not forced to castle queenside and black can pin the f3 knight if he wants. I am also not really sure if the line you showed is good for black (first example), since he will need several tempi to be on par with white while in the meantime white can start his attack.
They are similar, but play tends to be flipped (ie which side the queen is on, which sides they castle on, etc) and black gets more pressure on the d4 pawn with the Portuguese than the traditional Scandi. The Queen's knight is also a bit more aggressively placed on c6 than it is on d7. They aren't many major differences in the 4. Nc6 variation, but I personally prefer the positions you get out of the Portuguese more than the traditional scandi opening. The 4. Be2 variation tends to pretty quickly work out to an even endgame (which is good for black) while the 4. f3 variations have some unique and interesting play to them as well.
This is an enjoyable opening I've been playing recently which seems to have pretty good chances for black, although I rarely see it discussed anywhere.