| |
Main
Date: 01 Feb 2007 03:20:29
From: Ron
Subject: Evans Gambit ...
|
So I'm having a little bit of fun with the Evans gambit (realizing that
my attacking skill has completely fallen apart in the last six months)
and I stumbled across the following position:
1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 d6 7.Qb3 Bd7 8.de
Bb6 9.Nbd2 Na5 10.Qc2 Ne7?
r1b1k2r/pppqnppp/1bnp4/4P3/2B1P3/1QP2N2/P2N1PPP/R1B1K2R w KQkq - 0 10
Now, this move is generally considered bad because of:
11.Bxf7+ Kxf7 12.e6+ Kxe6 13.Ng5+ Kf6 14 e5+
r1b4r/pppqn1pp/1b1p1k2/n3P1N1/8/2P5/P1QN1PPP/R1B1K2R b KQ - 0 14
Now it appears white gets a winning attack after 14. ... Kxh5 15.Nf3+
Kh5 16.h3 (which was 1-0 in a finnish correspondence game).
BUT (there's always a but)
Black also has:
14.... dxe5 15. Nde4+ Kg6 when Harding, in "Evans Gambit and a System
Against the Two Knights Defense," gives 16.Nf3+ Nac6 17.Nc5+ Qf5? 18
Nh4+, 1-0 Barker-shall, England, 1951.
But clearly black is cooperating here. EG 16. ... Qd5! (getting the
queen out of the most dangerous discovered check, as well as giving the
bishop access to the blocking and pinning square f5) and it looks like
white is stymied.
Clearly, against a human player, this is a position with a lot of
practical chances for white. Nevertheless, I'm finding this position
really challenging.
Does anybody see a forced win for white here (after 16 ... Qd5):
r1b4r/ppp1n1pp/1b4k1/n2qp3/4N3/2P2N2/P1Q2PPP/R1B1K2R w KQ - 4 17
Thanks!
-Ron
|
|
| |
Date: 31 Jan 2007 21:10:44
From:
Subject: Re: Evans Gambit ...
|
On Jan 31, 9:20 pm, Ron <[email protected] > wrote:
> So I'm having a little bit of fun with the Evans gambit (realizing that
> my attacking skill has completely fallen apart in the last six months)
> and I stumbled across the following position:
>
> 1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 d6 7.Qb3 Bd7 8.de
> Bb6 9.Nbd2 Na5 10.Qc2 Ne7?
>
There must be some typo here. 8.Bf7 seems to win for White.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 07:52:45
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Evans Gambit ...
|
In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] wrote:
> There must be some typo here. 8.Bf7 seems to win for White.
Yeah. My had. That was supposed to be 7 ... Qd7. The FENs are correct.
The entire post, corrected, below:
So I'm having a little bit of fun with the Evans gambit (realizing that
my attacking skill has completely fallen apart in the last six months)
and I stumbled across the following position:
1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 d6 7.Qb3 Qd7 8.de
Bb6 9.Nbd2 Na5 10.Qc2 Ne7?
r1b1k2r/pppqnppp/1bnp4/4P3/2B1P3/1QP2N2/P2N1PPP/R1B1K2R w KQkq - 0 10
Now, this move is generally considered bad because of:
11.Bxf7+ Kxf7 12.e6+ Kxe6 13.Ng5+ Kf6 14 e5+
r1b4r/pppqn1pp/1b1p1k2/n3P1N1/8/2P5/P1QN1PPP/R1B1K2R b KQ - 0 14
Now it appears white gets a winning attack after 14. ... Kxh5 15.Nf3+
Kh5 16.h3 (which was 1-0 in a finnish correspondence game).
BUT (there's always a but)
Black also has:
14.... dxe5 15. Nde4+ Kg6 when Harding, in "Evans Gambit and a System
Against the Two Knights Defense," gives 16.Nf3+ Nac6 17.Nc5+ Qf5? 18
Nh4+, 1-0 Barker-shall, England, 1951.
But clearly black is cooperating here. EG 16. ... Qd5! (getting the
queen out of the most dangerous discovered check, as well as giving the
bishop access to the blocking and pinning square f5) and it looks like
white is stymied.
Clearly, against a human player, this is a position with a lot of
practical chances for white. Nevertheless, I'm finding this position
really challenging.
Does anybody see a forced win for white here (after 16 ... Qd5):
r1b4r/ppp1n1pp/1b4k1/n2qp3/4N3/2P2N2/P1Q2PPP/R1B1K2R w KQ - 4 17
Thanks!
-Ron
|
|
