The non-bonny situation after 1.e4 e5

[Offramp]

I almost always play 1.e4. Fischer was right!
I am happy with almost every reply except 1...e5. What is the best
move now?
I do not much like 2.f4 as I have been black in the King's Gambit many
times and I find that black has the better position AND keeps the
pawn! Fischer was right!
So I always play 2.Nf3. If black plays the Petroff I play a line I
learned here at RGCM: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.c4 ...
(invented by Marco).
But after 2...Nc6 I have found myself a bit stuck. I no longer want to
play any sort of Spanish, and I am rather worried about a brilliant
and ancient line for black:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Qh4! Very Steinitzy!
So I think a good one is the Scotch Gambit - recommended by Lev
Alburt! - or the Goring Gambit: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. c3.

[MikeMurray]

In the Scotch Gambit, after 4 Bc4, it seems Black can get away with
... Bb4ch.

To play the Goring against well booked opponents who decline it, you
have to like playing the same ending over and over and over (after
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. c3 d5 5. exd5 Qxd5 6. cxd4 Bg4 7.
Nc3 Bb4 8.Be2 Bxf3 9. Bxf3 Qc4).

[Taylor Kingston]

The most radical solution would be to try the Center Game (1.e4 e5
2.d4) or even the Danish Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 etc.). The
best book I know of for this is "Danish Dynamite" by Müller and Voigt.
It examines not only the Danish but all the lines it can transpose
into, and related lines such as the Göring. These openings are so
ancient most players today haven't studied them. It also avoids the
Petroff.
Contrary to your sentiments, Alan, I tended to play 1.e4 only
against opponents whom I expected to reply with 1...e5. I would then
play the Center Attack of the Spanish: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6
4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d4!?. It leads to an interesting open game that, in my
experience, most 1...e5 players are not booked for. An example, from
club play a few years ago:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d4 Nxe4?! 6. Qe2 d5 7.
Nxe5 b5?? 8. Nxc6 Qd6 9. Bb3 Qxc6 10. f3 and wins.

[Offramp]

On Feb 2, 3:09 pm, MikeMurray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:

> To play the Goring against well booked opponents who decline it, you
> have to like playing the same ending over and over and over (after
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. c3 d5 5. exd5 Qxd5 6. cxd4 Bg4 7.
> Nc3 Bb4 8.Be2 Bxf3 9. Bxf3 Qc4).

Thanks for the warning. I can see that after Bxc6 bxc6 Qe2+ Qxe2 an
ending arises more or less by force - which is not the kind of thing
one expects from a two-pawn gambit (a SORT-OF possible 2-pawn
gambit....)

[Offramp]

On Feb 2, 6:29 pm, Taylor Kingston <ttk5...@gmail.com> wrote:

>   The most radical solution would be to try the Center Game (1.e4 e5
> 2.d4) or even the Danish Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 etc.).

Those are very good ideas! It is - as they say in soccer when a ball
is hooofed from one end to the other with no pissarseing around in
centre-field - ROUTE 1! In blitz I should think it is quite a weapon
as one is guaranteed an initiative for about 15 moves...

>   Contrary to your sentiments, Alan, I tended to play 1.e4 only
> against opponents whom I expected to reply with 1...e5.

That reminds me of one of the few times Bobby Fischer played 1.c4. In
1970 he did not want to play a Sicilian, but his opponent was
Polugayevsky, who ALWAYS played a Sicilian - so BF played 1.c4.

> I would then
> play the Center Attack of the Spanish: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6
> 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d4!?. It leads to an interesting open game that, in my
> experience, most 1...e5 players are not booked for. An example, from
> club play a few years ago:
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d4 Nxe4?! 6. Qe2 d5 7.
> Nxe5 b5?? 8. Nxc6 Qd6 9. Bb3 Qxc6 10. f3 and wins.

Thanks for the suggestions, guys!

[Taylor Kingston]

Here are some examples of what the Center Game can do:

[Event "DSB-02.Kongress"]
[Site "Berlin"]
[Date "1881.09.08"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Winawer, Szymon"]
[Black "Riemann, Fritz"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C22"]
[PlyCount "61"]
[EventDate "1881.08.29"]

1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Qxd4 Nc6 4. Qe3 Bb4+ 5. c3 Ba5 6. Qg3 Qf6 7.
Bf4 d6 8. Bb5 Bd7 9. Nd2 h6 10. Nc4 Bb6 11. h4 Nge7 12. Nf3 Ng6 13.
Nxb6 axb6 14. Be3 Nce5 15. Be2 Bc6 16. Nd2 O-O-O 17. h5 Nf8 18. a4 Qe7
19. b4 f6 20. b5 Be8 21. a5 bxa5 22. Rxa5 b6 23. Ra7 Ned7 24. O-O Ne6
25. Rfa1 Nec5 26. Bg4 Qf7 27. Nc4 Ne6 28. Qxd6 f5 29. Ra8+ Nb8 30.
Nxb6+ cxb6 31. Rxb8# {Schallopp: Der erste und zweite Kongress des
Deutschen Schachbundes, p. 158} 1-0

[Event "Nuremberg"]
[Site "Nuremberg"]
[Date "1896.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Winawer, Szymon"]
[Black "Steinitz, William"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C22"]
[PlyCount "39"]
[EventDate "1896.??.??"]

1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Qxd4 Nc6 4. Qe3 Nf6 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Bd2 O-O 7. O-
O-O Re8 8. Bc4 Bxc3 9. Bxc3 Nxe4 10. Qf4 Nf6 11. Nf3 d6 12. Ng5 Be6
13. Bd3 h6 14. h4 Nd5 15. Bh7+ Kh8 16. Rxd5 Bxd5 17. Be4 f6 18. Bxd5
fxg5 19. hxg5 Ne5 20. g6 1-0

[William Hyde]

On Feb 2, 1:29 pm, Taylor Kingston <ttk5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2:48 am, Offramp <alaneobr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>
>   The most radical solution would be to try the Center Game (1.e4 e5
> 2.d4) or even the Danish Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 etc.).

An excellent idea. A friend of mine, rated only 1700, managed to
defeat a strong expert with the Danish. If he'd played the game in
Vienna in 1900 it would be anthologized in dozens of books, but alas
the game's only appearance was in Larry Evans' column.

I would also recommend the Guioco Piano, particularly the Moeller
attack, and of course if the opponent ventures a two Knights you do
not let him sac the pawn. Give the Max Lange a try.

William Hyde

[The Master]

On Feb 2, 10:09 am, MikeMurray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:

> To play the Goring against well booked opponents who decline it, you
> have to like playing the same ending over and over and over (after
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. c3 d5 5. exd5 Qxd5 6. cxd4 Bg4 7.
> Nc3 Bb4 8.Be2 Bxf3 9. Bxf3 Qc4).

The position reached above at move ten is not an ending but rather a
middlegame (or, for some heavilly booked masters, perhaps still the
opening).

[The Master]

On Feb 2, 6:11 pm, William Hyde <wthyde1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >   The most radical solution would be to try the Center Game (1.e4 e5
> > 2.d4) or even the Danish Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 etc.).
>
> An excellent idea.  A friend of mine, rated only 1700, managed to
> defeat a strong expert with the Danish.

It is also possible for a 1700 rated player to defeat a strong
expert by snatching a pawn and holding onto it -- the antithesis of
such gambit play.

[MikeMurray]

It's not just masters who are heavily booked in this position. After
10 Bxc6ch bxc6, 11 Qe2ch QxQch, 12 KxQ 0-0-0, is it a queenless middle
game or an ending? 11 Qb3 Qxb3, 12 axb3 Ne7 doesn't change things
much. Playing Black, I've had B players snap these lines out in
seconds.

[The Master]

On Feb 7, 8:44 am, MikeMurray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 20:59:52 -0800 (PST), The Master
>

> <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 2, 10:09 am, MikeMurray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
> >> To play the Goring against well booked opponents who decline it, you
> >> have to like playing the same ending over and over and over (after
> >> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. c3 d5 5. exd5 Qxd5 6. cxd4 Bg4 7.
> >> Nc3 Bb4 8.Be2 Bxf3 9. Bxf3 Qc4).
>
> >  The position reached above at move ten is not an ending but rather a
> >middlegame (or, for some heavilly booked masters, perhaps still the opening).
>
> It's not just masters who are heavily booked in this position.

True. Some time ago I published a game between two Experts in which
both were trucking along on 'cruise control' memorized opening moves
until finally, one ran out of by-rote-moves and after seeing his
opponent's reply, simply resigned. Just how much we rely upon rote
opening moves and how much upon calculation, varies greatly from
player to player and also can vary considerably over time. In this
example, both Experts were book-monkey types and this was hardly the
only line they both 'knew' by rote.

> After 10 Bxc6ch bxc6, 11 Qe2ch QxQch, 12 KxQ 0-0-0, is it a queenless middle
> game or an ending?

This depends entirely upon the definitions used in that it *is*
purely a matter of definition. Some players tend to casually call any
position where the queens have been exchanged an endgame, without any
consideration. But on a test (presumably administered by some
contankerous, anal-retentive pedant) they would check the box for
'middlegame,' after careful consideration.

>  11 Qb3 Qxb3, 12 axb3 Ne7 doesn't change things much.  Playing Black, I've had B players snap these lines out in
> seconds.

Playing inferiors can be fun and can sharpen your tactical
instincts, but to really improve you need to face players who can be
relied upon to stomp on your weak moves so you can eradicate the
pests. This is why I keep challenging nearly-an-IMs like Phil Innes,
but they always decline knowing full well that because they are so
great, they are *expected to win*. Nothing to gain and everything to
lose.

[None]

On Feb 8, 6:13 am, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is why I keep challenging nearly-an-IMs like Phil Innes,
> but they always decline knowing full well that because they are so
> great, they are *expected to win*.  Nothing to gain and everything to
> lose.

The Staunton variation?

[The Master]

Not exactly. Mr. Staunton was actually doing something useful while
ducking Mr. Morphy, whereas I'm afraid Mr. Innes mainly keeps himself
engaged with his usual quacking and posturing here in rgc. Besides,
Staunton would have thumped Sam Sloan, not fled him in terror the way
the 'dumb and dumber' duo from Vermont did when challenged. They must
still recall the agony of defeat suffered by Mr. Brock, though that
was a decade ago, more or less.