sponsor:
 |
|
08-10-2008, 08:17 PM
|
#21 (permalink)
|
Posts: 1,253
Thanked 73 Times in 70 Posts
|
Originally Posted by ryan_c
Huh, I never know that. I rarely play d4, and my response to it is KID. But from my understanding in the QGA
1. d4 d5
2. c4 dxc4
3. e4
If black tried to hang with the with the pawn with 3...b5, then white would do, 3.a4 and if 4...c6(4...a6 will never be much use as the a6 pawn will be pinned anyway), then 5.b3. After 5..c4xb3 6.axb5 cxb5 7. Bf1xb5+, with Qd1xb3 to follow, white will regained his pawn with interest?
|
Without going into your specific line, that's the general consensus, that black should rather give back the extra pawn and pursue other aims (modern play) instead of doggedly holding on to it (classical play) so that white can't get anything out of it.
A game coming out of the Slav (with a late cxd4 by black) comes to mind.. Denker - Botvinnik from the 'radio match' in 1930, where Botvinnik introduces the Botvinnik system or Anti-Meran gambit. To date, people still haven't a clue what's going on and computers aren't faring any better 
__________________
White:
- Ruy Lopez
- Sicilian Defense: Chekhover variation, Rossolimo variation, Delayed Alapin variation
- French Defense: Bogo-Winawer variation, Classical variation 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. Bxe7
- Pirc Defense: Byrne variation
Black:
- Ruy Lopez: Modern Steinitz variation
- Two Knights Defense: Fritz variation, Ulvestadt variation
- King's Gambit: Falkbeer Countergambit: Nimzowitsch variation
- Indian Defense: Nimzo-Indian Defense, Queen's Indian Defense
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 04:16 AM
|
#22 (permalink)
|
Posts: 15
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
To be accepted or declined during a game means to have your oppenent or yourself either accepting either an exange or a gambit,often either making that exchange or taking a pawn or other piece in a gambit is referred to as "accepted" whereas not making an exange or not taking a gambit pawn or other piece is referred to as "declined".
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 05:30 PM
|
#23 (permalink)
|
Posts: 181
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
|
Originally Posted by Perseus
A game coming out of the Slav (with a late cxd4 by black) comes to mind.. Denker - Botvinnik from the 'radio match' in 1930, where Botvinnik introduces the Botvinnik system or Anti-Meran gambit. To date, people still haven't a clue what's going on and computers aren't faring any better 
|
I read "Fire on Board" by Alexei Shirov, and it contained a section on many of his Botvinnik System games. After 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 e6 5. Bg5 dxc4 6. e4 b5 7. e5 h6 8. Bh4 g5 9. Nxg5 hxg5 10. Bxg5 Nbd7 11. exf6, Black is down a pawn. So by accepting the gambit, black lost a pawn...?
|
|
|
|
08-13-2008, 03:54 AM
|
#24 (permalink)
|
Posts: 15
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Octal some of blacks defences or gambits often involve black losing a pawn in order to shift initiative and/or acquire positional superiority. A prime example would be the Danish gambit.
|
|
|
|
08-24-2008, 12:40 PM
|
#25 (permalink)
|
Posts: 165
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
|
Originally Posted by ryan_c
Huh, I never know that. I rarely play d4, and my response to it is KID. But from my understanding in the QGA
1. d4 d5
2. c4 dxc4
3. e4
If black tried to hang with the with the pawn with 3...b5, then white would do, 3.a4 and if 4...c6(4...a6 will never be much use as the a6 pawn will be pinned anyway), then 5.b3. After 5..c4xb3 6.axb5 cxb5 7. Bf1xb5+, with Qd1xb3 to follow, white will regained his pawn with interest?
|
I'm not refuting that, instead I have a question: isn't the point of a gambit to sacrifice material for position? So it would be unlikely that White would change his course to pursuing material supremacy instead right? If he did, what would be so lucrative to the extent that he would think of doing so?
__________________
"Blame yourself, or blame God." - Delita, Final Fantasy Tactics
I tried to be perfect but nothing was worth it, I don't believe it makes me real...
This place is so empty, my thoughts are so tempting...
But it's the only thing that I have.
If you believe it's in my soul, I'll say the words that I know; just to see if it would show, that I'm trying to let you know...
That I'm better off on my own.
|
|
|
|
08-24-2008, 04:02 PM
|
#26 (permalink)
|
Posts: 1,214
Thanked 73 Times in 71 Posts
|
Originally Posted by Devotion
I'm not refuting that, instead I have a question: isn't the point of a gambit to sacrifice material for position? So it would be unlikely that White would change his course to pursuing material supremacy instead right? If he did, what would be so lucrative to the extent that he would think of doing so?
|
The Queen's Gambit isn't truly a gambit. It's just assumed that white WILL regain the gambit pawn, and it would be dumb for black to try and prevent that.
The QG is just one exception to the naming rules. Another is The Two Knights Defense, which IS actually a true gambit. After 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5, white is up a pawn, but black gets the initiative for it.
--Fromper
__________________
White:
Ruy Lopez Exchange
Smith-Morra Gambit
French - 3. Bd3 or Tarrasch variation
Pirc/Modern - 150 Attack
Caro Kann Exchange
Scandinavean - main line
Black:
Tarrasch Defense against anything but 1. e4
King's Gambit Declined
Two Knights Defense
Scotch - 4. ... Bc5
Ruy Lopez - Closed, Keres Variation
Ruy Lopez - Exchange, 5. ... Bg4
Decline Danish/Goring/Scotch-type Gambits with early d5
|
|
|
|
11-14-2008, 03:26 AM
|
#27 (permalink)
|
Posts: 65
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
In a gambit, if any material is offered, if the opponent accepts the material, then the gambit is 'accepted'; otherwise, the gambit is declined.
Classic example: the Queen's Gambit 1. d4 d5 2. d4. If Black plays 2... dxc4, then the opening is the Queen's Gambit Accepted. If Black instead plays 2... e6, then the opening is the Queen's Gambit Declined. If Black plays something else, then it is a completely different opening. Does that help?
__________________
Microsoft is tracking this shirt. If you buy me a drink, Bill Gates will send you $245.
Originally Posted by ketchuplover
Are you saying chess is for the Bird? Is 1.f4 a chessic means of flipping the bird?
|
Originally Posted by 2021
4. Dead people can talk, but CANNOT discuss who's guilty/innocent, not even make guesses or hints. Dead people only talk at night.
|
Originally Posted by DoctorD
.... like Bird said of Steinitz - "place all the pieces in a hat, shake them around, and dump them on the board and then you have the style of Steinitz"
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chess Links
|
If you would like to exchange links with ChessForums.org please contact
us
|
| Subscribe |
|
By subscribing to the ChessForums RSS feeds you can receive new posts in your favorite feedreader.







|
|