Well, protecting the pawn is worthwhile, but there was really no need to protect it 3 times while your opponent only attacked it once. I probably would not have played Qf3; it blocks your knight from the square where it can attack his e-pawn. And you ended up moving your queen in 2 moves anyway. I also have to wonder if you saw that he could play Bxc2 after your queen moved.
Protecting a Pawn Post-Gambit
Sort:
After 2...e5 I'd just take.
DavidMertz1 wrote:
Well, protecting the pawn is worthwhile, but there was really no need to protect it 3 times while your opponent only attacked it once. I probably would not have played Qf3; it blocks your knight from the square where it can attack his e-pawn. And you ended up moving your queen in 2 moves anyway. I also have to wonder if you saw that he could play Bxc2 after your queen moved.
Good points. I should've played 4)Nf3 then probably 6)d3 and 7) Qe2. I'd be in the same position with an extra developed piece.
quarki: Is a specific advantage to this other than being a pawn up?
Aug 18, 2011
0
#5
"Good points. I should've played 4)Nf3 then probably 6)d3 and 7) Qe2. I'd be in the same position with an extra developed piece. "
I might have played Bc4 first, just so the queen and d3 pawn aren't blocking out the bishop. You also have to watch out for him playing e4 and kicking your f3 knight.
Hey all, I'm just embarking on my chess studies, I just had a question about the beginning of a game I recently played. I had a pawn advance to d5 after taking the my opponent's pawn in a Scandinavian. I'm just wondering if it was worth it trying to hold this pawn in position while my opponent becomes more aggressive. The positions at 5) and 6) are what I'm talking about. After 6) ...Nd7 I found a good pinning position to threaten early, which led up to the attack beginning at 9) Qe5+. I eventually win, but only after a cave-in on my side, saved only due to a serious blunder by my opponent.
In summary, is it worth using this many resources trying to protect the d5 pawn?