New answers tagged

0

According to Wikipedia: A gambit (from ancient Italian gambetto, meaning "to trip") is a chess opening in which a player, more often White, sacrifices material, usually a pawn, with the hope of achieving a resulting advantageous position As @bof points out in his comment: A sacrifice is not necessarily a piece sacrifice; it can be an exchange ...


24

While it's not generally given as part of the explicit definition, the term "gambit" usually refers to an offer of material that can be accepted. If it can't be accepted, then it's a trap. You can look through chess traps and see that many of them involve apparently giving up material.


7

Yes. In this line in the Dutch Defence black cannot take the offered bishop [fen ""] 1. d4 f5 2. Bg5 h6 3. Bh4 g5 4. e3 gxh4?? 5. Qh5#


3

You are a Pawn up, so it is generally to your advantage to exchange pieces and head for the endgame. You dont control a great deal of space. If you retreat ..Nf6, your pieces will get in each others way. Exchanging helps to free your game, White hopes for an attack to compensate his lost Pawn. Exchanging gives him less to attack with You dont have much ...


6

This is known as the Steinitz Attack, and he won several quite nice games with it. Against ..d6 or..d5 he took and played on the dark squares with d4, f4, Qe2, b3, Bb2, Ne5, Rae1,.. Much more than this I do not know, but it seems that it cant be all that bad.


1

I think the name for 4. Ng5 is Knight Attack. There isn't a specific name, because it leads to more specific openings, like the Fried Liver Attack, Polerio Defense 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 (trying to prevent the sacrifice), the Traxler Countergambit 4. Ng5 Bc5, and more. It's just like how 1. e4 e5 is called the open game. There isn't a specific name for it, ...


7

Respond with 2... d5. If White plays 3. exd6, then 3.. Bd6. White has wasted 3 moves on the e-pawn, and after that Black has one piece developed against white's zero. Normally White just follows 2... d5 with 3. d4 and we're back into the regular French Defence advanced variation.


5

e4 is an opening that controls d5. By playing e6 as black, you are fighting for d5 as well, without playing ...d5 immediately and risking your queen getting hit. With white playing e5, it's just a bad move. I don't understand why someone would play it, as it weakens control of d5 and f5, moves the same piece twice, and weakens the pawn overall. I can only ...


4

Computers have complex reasons for their move choices, however, in this position there is a simple rationale for exchanging knights. You need to think of two factors: are pieces moving to better (or worse) squares, and tempo (who is to move). In this position, if you play Nxd2, White gets to play Bxd2. So, you keep the move and White improves his bishop ...


1

I don't think nf3 is bad at all but the multiple moves to sac on f7 is using up too many tempi and also giving up a knight is different than saccing a b. i think against any team over 1500 or so a team on which white plays this opening would lose pretty consistently. a tempo is a very valuable thing in standard chess and probably more valuable even in BH.


2

I'd bet a lot of money that somehow one move from either side was stored incorrectly which makes the whole game incorrect. A possible correct version of this game may be 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be7 Or some other permutation of those moves (e.g. play 4...cxd4 one move earlier, I chose this order since it's closer to the ...


9

The game Najer - Polgar, Richard Riordan GM Blitz, 2009 is from TWIC 767, along with the above sequence of moves. Sicilian Paulsen, White win, 78 moves. There are a large number of moveless games from the same tournament, so it looks like the event organisers had problems recording the game moves accurately.


3

If I had to guess I'd say that one extra move for White (normal chess) is objectively a draw, 3 extra moves is probably a win, and 2 extra moves is a tossup. The problem is, for anything short of 4 extra moves, there's no way to definitively prove any of the above results. Yes, Stockfish gives some evaluation that's much better for White, but unless it can ...


0

Watch for your opponent’s weaknesses and prevent your pieces from being able to clear through your opponent’s pieces. Opening up your bishops is usually a bad thing, as your opponent can use your bishop to win.


8

There is a similar ancient question, but this isn't a duplicate since White may move anywhere. For an upper bound, I can prove a guranteed win for White in 5 moves. Indeed, it is reminiscent of Scholar's Mate. [FEN ""] 1. e3 null 2. Bc4 null 3. Qf3 null 4. Nh3 null 5. Ng5 With Black to move, as White has now used up their five given moves, ...


2

In the Ruy Lopez White usually wants to play with c3 and d4 to claim the center. If you play d3 instead then you lose a tempo if you still want to go for that plan. Of course it is not the only possible plan but then the question becomes, if you answer 3...Nf6 with 4.d3, why would you not play the Italian instead where you might get a similar structure after ...


5

Three options I can think of immediately: https://chess-endgame-trainer.firebaseapp.com/home is a fantastic chess endgame trainer. Chessable also lets you create your own courses (for free) which you can then do spaced repetition on. Listudy is another option.


2

I would strongly suggest looking into chess.com as they have an extensive "Learning" module on end game and end game tactics. You are limited to the amount of modules you can complete per day unless you are willing to pay for a subscription. This isn't necessarily a bad thing as learning to much can result in concepts not necessarily taking hold. ...


1

I am old enough to remember when the Pirc and Modern were new and controversial. At that time, when explaining them to beginners, one talked about "luring the White Pawns forward to where they can be attacked". With 2.e5, White voluntarily sticks his head above the parapet. The reply ..f6 does not meaningfully attack the Pawn, but creates a ...


4

Carlsen introduced 8... Ne7 (after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5) instead of 8...Nb8. He played this in round 12 and then again in game two of the tiebreak. The line was known before but not played at the highest level and therefore not considered a serious approach by black. You can find the analyzed games here ...


-1

Depends how good you are. At the GM level it will likely draw a lot more than if you are not even an IM and play at a local club. The d3 move works well for me. But then I am not a GM nor are my opponents.


1

4.d3 The main alternative to the move 4.0-0, it avoids Berlin endgame. White do not seek to squeeze the maximum from the debut, carrying the weight fight in the middle of the game. although elite grandmasters have recently become addicted to this continuation, his theory is still developing (comment from the book practical guide to the Berlin defense. ...


3

Using Caissabase or the lichess masters database we can see that instead of Nxe4, Nc6 is more popular to avoid this gambit idea (the Urusov gambit) which is.... dubious but not so simple and seemingly scores fine enough. White has additionally scored p decently. Qe7+ has only been played in one game, but seems good (black won that game, and SF12 gives -0.89 ...


5

The knight is badly misplaced on c3 here. If you protect your d5-pawn with ...e6, what is the knight supposed to do? It doesn't put any pressure on the d5-pawn since there are no White pawns helping to attack it. If White's c-pawn were on c4 then the knight would be completely fine on c3. But now, even if all of White's pieces were attacking the d5-pawn, it ...


3

My answer is to just play chess- playing on the queenside as normal is a good idea in this structure even without the pawn on c3, since here you get to knock away the knight. Pressure versus d4 is also easier without a c3 pawn, which is nice. Black is better than normal, but it's not really anything you can get a instant win from- this just doesn't even come ...


0

A gambit by any other name is still a gambit. Using your pawn as a sacrifice in order to control the action/ space on the board is the choice of the player. I concur w/ the notion that it’s not necessarily a sacrifice if the means justify the ends. Basically, it’s just a term that has been assigned to a particular strategy... is all!!!


Top 50 recent answers are included