Thanks,
Paul
Please understand I am very weak unrated player.
The move order 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 c5 or 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e5 does exist and do make
a sense. I feel that a reasonable continuation might be to accept this
"Gambit" as shown in the following "elder" CC match:
Csipkis,A - Suto,J [B27]
cr, 1894
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e5 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.d4 Nc6 5.Nxc6 Qxe4+ 6.Be3 Qxc6 7.Nc3 cxd4
8.Qxd4 Nf6 9.0-0-0 Be7 10.Rg1 0-0 11.g4 d6 12.g5 Ne8 13.Bb5 Qc7 14.Nd5 Qd8
15.Bxe8 Rxe8 16.Qf4 Rf8 17.Bd4 Be6 18.Nf6+ Kh8 19.Qh4 Bxf6 20.gxf6 g6
21.Rxg6 Rg8 22.Rdg1 Rxg6 23.Rxg6 Bf5 24.Qh6 Qf8 25.Rg7 a6 26.Bc3 1-0
Best regards
Thomas
WebM...@thomasstock.com
http://thomasstock.com/gambit/
Visonary wrote in message ...
Oooooh... I'm going to have to totally disagree on this one. 3. Nxe5(!)
Qe7 4. Nf3 Qxe4+ 5. Be2 with a quick Nb1-c3 gives White a very large
advantage in development.
Tim Kokesh
"I am tired of this thing called science.... We have spent millions in
that sort of thing for the last few years, and it is time it should be
stopped." -- Simon Cameron, U. S. Senator from Pennsylvania, demanding
that funding end for the Smithsonian Institution, 1861