2

I am relatively new to chess SE, so I am not sure how to include the chessboard thing.

[FEN ""]    

1. e4 c5 
2. Nf3 Nc6 
3. d4 cxd4 
4. Nxd4 Nf6
5. Bc4?! Nxe4
6. Bxf7+ Kxf7
7. Qh5+ ...
8. Qd5+

and wins back the Knight after that. I am a ~1900 rating player on chess.com, and I play it frequently. I win almost most of the matches and it is evident white settles for a good positional advantage by the end of this opening, leaving black unable to castle. I would actually call this a trap that loses black his ability to castle. Is there a name for this? Is there any counter to this variation perhaps (I have never encountered one before)? If not why is this rarely seen in world championships?

Improve this question
1
  • I fail to see how white gets any positional advantage and would prefer black in this position. If anything white's position looks borderline losing unless there is some engine line to capitalize on black's king. Just my first thoughts at looking at the position because I've never seen it before.
    – Matthew Liu
    Dec 31, 2018 at 15:15

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
3

I would actually call this a trap that loses black his ability to castle.

I would call it a double blunder, first by white with 5. Bc4 then by black with 5. ... Nxe4.

Is there a name for this?

It is unusual for blunders to be given names although it does happen in special cases. This isn't special.

Is there any counter to this variation?

  1. ... Qa5+ is the obvious one after which white looks to be in a lot of trouble to me.

Deliberately playing bad moves in the hope that your opponent will blunder is called "hope chess". If you want to improve then you have to try and stop doing that because it won't work against good players.

Improve this answer
1
  • 2
    I see nothing wrong with Nxe4 considering the variation that the OP has given looks really good for black. Qa5+ probably wins a pawn by force but white seems to get some compensation for that. I'd rather just get 2 bishops, a pawn center and lead in development.
    – Matthew Liu
    Dec 31, 2018 at 16:13
0

Good for who? Short answer no.
If it were good more people would be playing it. It is more an example of a slash and burn tactical player that should fall short if black plays carefully.

If you play really weak players there is a good chance they will make mistakes and fold like a broken chair.

Against a better player White gets the material back but black gains tempi chasing the White Queen and will have the two bishops plus a slightly better center.

Minor positional advantage to black should make up for castling by hand instead of the normal way.

Will a super deep computer analysis change the assessment? Who knows? Who cares? The game is played by people not computers and anything can happen depending on many factors.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.