Scotch Gambit: London Defence
Smc080178
that one line I play is bad:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd 4.Bc4 Bb5+ 5.c3 dxc3 6.0-0 cxb2 7.Bxb2 Nf3 8.Ng5 0-0
9.e5 Nxe5 10. Bxe5 d5......
For move 11. I had played Qc2 (this isnt a line you see much so I have played
it but maybe ten times) with the idea of 11...dxc4 loses to 12.Rd1 followed by
BxN. After 12. Bf5!, however, I was in trouble.
If anyone knows these lines or a book on them I would be grateful I havent
found a book with the London Defense in it. So far it hasn't really concerned
me though because i get a good position in all lines except for that move.
Steve Clanton
It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survivl value.-Arthur Clark
Claus-Jürgen Heigl
>
> I have an opening rpertoire based on the Scotch gambit, but have been shown
> that one line I play is bad:
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd 4.Bc4 Bb5+ 5.c3 dxc3 6.0-0 cxb2 7.Bxb2 Nf3 8.Ng5 0-0
> 9.e5 Nxe5 10. Bxe5 d5......
>
> For move 11. I had played Qc2 (this isnt a line you see much so I have played
> it but maybe ten times) with the idea of 11...dxc4 loses to 12.Rd1 followed by
> BxN. After 12. Bf5!, however, I was in trouble.
I only have a really old book that says 11. Bd3 Ng4 12. Nf3 Nxe5
13. Nxe5 Qf6 14. f4 Bc5+ 15. Kh1 g6 16. Bc2 is good for White.
Shredder disagrees though and likes 13...Qe7 14. Nf3 (14. f4 f6
15. Nf3 Qe3+ 16. Kh1 Qxf4) 14...Bg4 quite good for Black (+0.72).
For example 15. a3 Qf6 16. Ra2 Bxf3 17. Qxf3 Qxf3 18. gxf3 Bd6
(+0.86).
11. Qc2 dxc4 12. Rd1 Bf5 really wins for Black. Relatively best
looks 12. Bxf6 Qd3 13. Qxd3 cxd3 14. Bc3 Be7 15. Nf3 Be6. One line
that shows the dangers for White: 16. Re1 c5 17. Ne5 Rad8 18. Re3
(it looks like the pawn d3 is lost, but...) 18...Bg5 19. Rxd3 f6
20. Rxd8 Rxd8 21. f4 (21. Nf3 Rd1+ 22. Ne1 Rc1 with the threat Bf5,
White is in big trouble) Bxf4 22. Nf3 Rd1+. I think Black has a
clear advantage here.
Claus-Juergen
Smc080178
lines and often leads to an endgame where the pawns are better than the piece.
Be2 and Bd3 both get the same score (+0.24) as Bb3. That is why I am hoping to
find some books (really mainly some games played from this position) or
thorough analyses. Right now I am preferring Be2.
Doctor SBD
should not - make the pawns, which are an opening gamble, as good as the piece.
Perhaps this is an overreliance on the computer. After all, it just does math
and sees the pawns as enough for the piece since white has no *immediate* way
to win the pawns. All those variations that allow black to trade off a bunch
make little sense. I suspect Be2 will end up being the preferred move, if we
ever get enough games with the line.
Harri Haanpaa
It gives 11. Bd3 "with a winning position for white".
Now, that particular book has a rather bad reputation, and it is also
outdated, and many evaluations seem biased in favor of the repertoire
side.
I could only find the following game, but I don't think it proves very
much.
[Event "Korr SM-Lag,(Div - I"]
[Site "Korr SM-Lag,(Div - I"]
[Date "1988.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Olsson, Lars-Goran"]
[Black "Ottengren, Olof"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C44"]
[EventDate "1988.??.??"]
[PlyCount "63"]
[Source "ChessliB"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 dxc3 5.Bc4 Bb4 6.O-O cxb2 7.Bxb2 Nf6
8.Ng5 O-O 9.e5 Nxe5 10.Bxe5 d5 11.Bd3 Ng4 12.Nf3 Nxe5 13.Nxe5 Qf6 14.
f4 Bc5+ 15.Kh1 g6 16.Bc2 c6 17.Nd2 Bf5 18.Bxf5 Qxf5 19.Ng4 Kg7 20.Nb3
Bb6 21.Qf3 Rfe8 22.Qc3+ f6 23.h3 h5 24.Nh2 Re3 25.Qb4 Rae8 26.Nc5
R8e7 27.Rac1 Re2 28.Nf3 Bxc5 29.Qxc5 Qd3 30.Ne5 R7xe5 31.fxe5 Rxe5
32.Qd6 1-0
I've been wondering if is there any point in playing the Scotch gambit,
as it seems to me that black can transpose to his choice of the Italian
game or the Two knights defence - and he also has other options. Why not
play 3. Bc4 instead?
Harri
Claus-Jürgen Heigl
>
> I've been wondering if is there any point in playing the Scotch gambit,
> as it seems to me that black can transpose to his choice of the Italian
> game or the Two knights defence - and he also has other options. Why not
> play 3. Bc4 instead?
It愀 as always: the gambit player hopes that his opponent is not
as familiar with the gambit as he is.
If White plays 3. Bc4, Black has also several options, like the Two
Knights, Italian or Hungarian (or Damiano, if he really must!).
An alternative to the Scotch Gambit is the Goering Gambit. 1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. c3. There Black can愒 transpose into the
Italian or Two Knights.
Claus-Juergen
Smc080178
>>
>> I've been wondering if is there any point in playing the Scotch gambit,
>> as it seems to me that black can transpose to his choice of the Italian
>> game or the Two knights defence - and he also has other options. Why not
>
>It愀 as always: the gambit player hopes that his opponent is not
>as familiar with the gambit as he is.
>
>If White plays 3. Bc4, Black has also several options, like the Two
>Knights, Italian or Hungarian (or Damiano, if he really must!).
>
>An alternative to the Scotch Gambit is the Goering Gambit. 1. e4 e5
>2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. c3. There Black can愒 transpose into the
>Italian or Two Knights.
>
>Claus-Juergen
The point of playing the scotch gambit instead you narrow down the variations
that black can play. Black may transpose into the Classical Two Knights or Max
Lange Attack, but not into many variations of the Italian game (actually i
don't know of any). The reason to play the gambit is that black does not have
as many choices, which does make it possible to learn not only the variations,
but the typical middlegame positions more thoroughly.
I say that not only does the "gambit player" hope to know the opening better,
but all chess players do! Claus-Juergen put it as if the gambit player is
playing "trappy", but is not the case.
The fact is playing any variation may lead you into a trap (which is why i
don't play Bb5). Theory changes all the time. Sure, it is great to outplay the
opponent in the opening, but the point is getting out of the book while still
having a position that you know how to play. Is not often at all that I learn
of some new wrinkle in the Max Lange or Two Knights theory.
Claus-Jürgen Heigl
>
> Black may transpose into the Classical Two Knights or Max
> Lange Attack, but not into many variations of the Italian game (actually i
> don't know of any).
Here it is:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. c3 Nf6 6. cxd4 Bb4+.
> Claus-Juergen put it as if the gambit player is
> playing "trappy", but is not the case.
That´s not what I meant. Gambits often differ a lot from the
positions of a "quiet" opening. After all, you´ll have a material
and positional imbalance. The gambit player puts his emphasis on
studying the lines and positions of the gambit and is so more
familiar with them than the non-gambit player.
Defending a gambit (accepting it) often requires a thorough
knowlegde of the gambit which the non-gambit player may not have
because he put his emphasis studying other things. In the defense
"weird" moves are somtimes necessary, which are hard to find on the
board not knowing the theory. Example: Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit where
after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bc4 Nxe4 4. Nc3 Nxc3 5. dxc3 the
odd-looking move 5...f6 is considered best or the maze of the King´s
Gambit Accepted.
I think this is entirely different from "playing for a trap", which
is hoping for the opponent to fall for the one losing move. In
defending a gambit you not only have to avoid the "one losing move",
but constantly be called upon to find the right moves, else you
go down in flames.
Claus-Juergen
Smc080178
This is exactly my point. If White should choose he may play 5.c3 and go into
the Italian game, but Black may not force his hand. More normal is 5.O-O
transposing into the Two Knights.
I think we are agreed anyway. I just thought that your reply left it like
playing a gambit was playing trappy. Thanks for clarifying.
The reason of playing the scotch gambit is to avoid 3.Bc4 Bc5. After this Black
may capture with the piece rather than the pawn and playing d4 would be giving
away a pawn without full compensation. (4.d4? Bxd4!)