17 ( +1 | -1 ) four knights - snoreanybody got any ideas on how to get an attack going in the four knights as white? Bb5 seems to be a tedious idea, as who wants to exchange a perfectly decent bishop for a knight. Help!!! :(
17 ( +1 | -1 ) Belgrade gambitI don't have any experience in it, but maybe it is worth looking into? 1. e4, e5; 2. Nf3, Nc6; 3. Nc3, Nf6; 4. d4, exd4; 5. Nd5 Unfortunately, I don't know the theory on it. Probably somebody else around here does though.
131 ( +1 | -1 ) If the four knights makes you snore, then howabout playing something else! The opening is notoriously symmetrical, which you probably already know. 3 Bc4 and Bb5 are more consistent I think. However, 4 Bb5 after Nc3 is not as lousy as you think. The idea is that after Bxc6 dxc6 Black will no longer be able to break through so easily in the center because he lacks his queen's pawn. This is precisely the situation in which a knight is just as good as a bishop: keep the center closed, and look to expand on the kingside. A number of Nimzovitch's games follow that exact plan: after exchanging his king's bishop for Black's knight, Black often applies the Bg4 pin. But now White can happily answer with h3 ...Bh5 g4 ...Bg6 and the Black bishop is in a "desert" because Black will not be able to efficiently open the center. Your bias for Bishops over Knights is preventing you from understanding these possibilities.
For example: Nimzovitch - Leonhardt San Sebastian, 1911
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bb5 Bb4 5 0-0 0-0 6 Bxc6 dxc6 7 d3 ... Now Black will have a hard time opening the center the d5 break is unavailable to him. 7 ...Bg4 8 h3 Bh5 9 Bg5 (g4 is premature because of 9 ...Nxg4 10 hxg4 Bxg4 followed by ...f5) 9 ...Qd6 10 Bxf6 Qxf6 11 g4 Bg6 12 Kg2 Rad8 13 Qe2 Bxc3 14 bxc3 c5 15 Nd2 Qe7 16 Nc4 b6 17 Ne3 f6 18 Rg1 Qd7 19 Kh2 Kh8 20 Rg3 Qb5 21 Qe1 Qa4 22 Qc1 Rd7 23 h4 Bf7 24 c4 Be6 25 Qb2 a5 26 Rag1 Qc6 27 R1g2! Qd6 28 Qc1 Qd5? 29 Nd5! Rxd5 30 c3 Qxd3 31 exd5 Qxc4 32 dxe6 Qxe6 33 Qc2 c4 34 Qf5 Qxf5 35 gxf5 1-0
30 ( +1 | -1 ) Anaxagoras...Thanks for your lengthy variation. I presume 28.... Qd5 should be 28 ... Qd4. Seems like a good idea in general then to restrict the white bishop. Probably if I try to play it black will develop the bishop on the queenside, sod's law. By the way 3.Bc4 is dodgy. I tried it before and got 4...Nxe4 5. Nxe4 d5!? in reply and promptly lost. :(
24 ( +1 | -1 ) also I forgot to mention...Paul (keiserpaul) is the biggest proponent of Halloween Gambit (or maybe "was" is the term now :/) and if you check his past games you'll find a wealth of theory on this surprising gambit!
7 ( +1 | -1 ) pandemona...Those links you gave are broken man. I get nothing but the old 404 when I try them.
8 ( +1 | -1 ) Gk forums mess up links...Remove the "WBR" tag (including the angle brackets) from the URLs, or cut and paste them! :) ~ s/p
26 ( +1 | -1 ) oops! Yes, you're right about Qd4. I was translating from the old player-relative notation. That's just an example of course, but the point about keeping the center closed if Black has no d-pawn is clear.
You must mean 4 Bc4, not 3 Bc4. Otherwise Black doesn't yet have his N at f6 yet.
26 ( +1 | -1 ) thank you pandemona for providing the link to pauls book (this is why i'm missing paul on GK, he would have wrote like 2 pages to the above post ;p) thats the one i was talking about
47 ( +1 | -1 ) oh, i fogot... cleiter no, it's not just ok for blitz. you should realy check it out properly. also in your source is a mistake in the attack with 9.Bd3. it's too defensive. 9.Bc4 is the more powerfull move, there is no need to cover up the e pawn at this time. maybe you should join sometimes one of the MT's where they play halloween as thematic tourney. you will be suprised what you can do with it best regards kai