Still no analysis on this or anything?! There must have been something I've overlooked, and/or if anyone knows of other examples of this type of opening being used, please enlighten me - I would love to take a look...
Novelty in the Veresov line(s) proves effective!
Sort:
5... Qd6? is bad because it looses a pawn.
7...Qc6?? is awful because it simply looses a piece
So I'm not sure this is the best game to look at this opening with. It was pretty much over after move 10 -- not sure what you want comments on.
Ke2 was inventive -- I liked Kf1 at first but e2 is safe and does clear your back rank.
I liked Ke3 also, black doesn't have the time (or material) to threaten the king, and it does a good job strengthening the center.
Nf3 giving up the exchange, to me ideas like that slap the opponent in the face because suddenly they realize they're simply loosing, nice idea. I like it because the bishop represents half of black's developed army... also I tend to favor tempo/initiative ideas like this -- while it may not have been the objectively best move, it was not at all a bad move and also fits my style.
As for the opening itself it reminds me of a line in the scandinavian after 1.e4 d5 2.e5 Bf5 3. d4 e6 when I love it for white to put a knight on c3 when my c4 push is much more effective. So I think when you mention the e6 with a french like structure you have the right idea, this with the idea of c5 should be annoying for white.
Wing gambits are agressive and surprising and good to play in club games / online games. Objectively though it should be tough for white if black is careful not to let that g file put too much pressure on his king if he castles kingside. If black wants to play it safe, he could also aim to castle queenside but I like the e6 c5 idea best.
As for this opponent, I bet you could have played almost any opening as he blunders a piece twice, a pawn, and also his queen, all to one move threats -- maybe you have a more recent game featuring this idea you could show us?
Yeah. I mean you clearly played well and your opponent wasn't bad or anything, but you really need to look at a game where so many obvious blunders weren't made.
Jan 3, 2010
0
#5
ok guys, i see, well the only problem is that, as I mentioned, I've never tried this precise approach/opening before, so perhaps I'll gather more data (i.e. try it out in more games) and then post those on here instead.
Is this bullet or something?
21 Qg3 was bad, because of 21...f5, though black didnt play it.
Anyways, I think I might have played this (g4) in a bullet/blitz game or two (I rarely play veresov anyways)
Mar 20, 2012
0
#8
Hi there !
Long time since I posted anything, also been letting my ratings slip, but still find time to experiment.
I thought of this string with this recent game of mine - actually it's still in progress as I post this, but really, common - forced move - only 2 choices, I mate with both - already programmed under conditionals - so please, trolls and the like - spare me the lecture!
Seriously, this one is a turn based game, and the play was much better overall, with natural moves being played - and ends with an 18 move mate!
It uses the same 'novlety' , and still attempts to stay true to the classical attacking motifs of the French transposition and general g and h file attacks.
Please enjoy and comment/analyse:
Mar 20, 2012
0
#9
I know I was late guys, but common- I think I got what you rquested!
Btw- , sure enough, black has now resigned :)
Black doesnt play 5..Bf3, continues to develop and hes up a pawn. Not a good opening for white.
Mar 22, 2012
0
#12
pfren wrote:
tarius78 wrote:
Interesting that I won so easily then.....
You won because your opponent blundered a whole piece as early as move seven, but the "gambit" has nothing appetizing in it- I'd rather say it drops a pawn for absolutely nothing.
Mr. pfren -
I believe that you were referring to the first game I posted - that's old news mate. The whole point, as well as that of my thrid comment (the one you quoted) was that I have a second game which better illustrates the highlights and possible advantages of playing this opening, where the opponent plays much better and blunders far less and keeps worse play for later in the game.
If you have any useful insights into the second game in this thread, then please, feel free - I'm all ears -
Here to learn after all :)
The gambit g4 is not that strong. You get very little in exchange for it.
In the (second) game, that you got any compensation at all, is probably
because he castled into the side where the g-file was opened. He didn't have to
do that. But even so, with accurate defense he probably could still win.
What are you going to do if he goes 11...Nxe4 12.Bxe4 c6 with idea of Qc7 and OOO? trading down further and still up a pawn?
Your 13. Ng5 ?? is a blunder. He can just go 13..Qa5 hitting the N and a2.
Your comments to the game make it sound like you played brilliantly, but you actually just gave up a pawn for nothing, later blundered by Ng5 etc. Only after 15...Qa5?? were you actually winning. Before that Black had the advantage.(by the way just 15...Bf8 defends everything -- then what can white do against simple plan of c5 for example?)
I'm a big fan of the Veresov attack as white, and have become rather comfortable in the transpositions to French lines. As such, I'm at times been stumped by alternate opening move responses (which don't resemble Slav lines, French lines, etc) that don't play easily into my favorite positions.
Through some experimentation, I've realized that good answers to 2. ... Bg4 of 2. ... Bf5 lie in an early g file pawn move, whether fianchetto-style (g3) or .... well in this game I explore the 'or' part! With 3. g4!? the game dynamic takes a different twist, and, as this game exemplifies, has striking effect!
Analysis would be greatly appreciated: