Eliminating/discouraging draws

[Paul McKeown]

do you consider the Nescafe Frappe attack garbage?

No, should I?



Hmmm, I've even played it myself!

Another unsound sac which works at 200 level plus?

I didn't know it was unsound. Perhaps trying a little too hard, but unsound? Well, if it has been recently shown to be unsound, it undoubtedly required considerable effort by hundreds of analysts over a couple of decades, backed up by petahertz and terabytes.

It is a bit absurd to compare the Nescafe Frappe with this junk 4... Bxb4 5. c3 f5 line in the Evans. If I could see, at sight, that 6. cxb4 fxe4 7. b5 causes it problems, if Carl points out that 6. d3 is a sound response, then I hardly think it deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence as the Frappe Attack!

[Paul McKeown]

good intro to gambit play

Try 1. e4 e5 2. f4.

Or any of thousands of other highly respected, long established and deeply researched lines, some of which you are going to have to learn something about anyway, if you wish to improve.

[Carl Hibbard]

It is a bit absurd to compare the Nescafe Frappe with this junk 4... Bxb4 5. c3 f5 line in the Evans. If I could see, at sight, that 6. cxb4 fxe4 7. b5 causes it problems, if Carl points out that 6. d3 is a sound response, then I hardly think it deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence as the Frappe Attack!

Struth, I am a patzer without an engine but after 6. d3 perhaps Be7 is the only choice is it?

I was actually interested what the black response was?

[Paul McKeown]

It is a bit absurd to compare the Nescafe Frappe with this junk 4... Bxb4 5. c3 f5 line in the Evans. If I could see, at sight, that 6. cxb4 fxe4 7. b5 causes it problems, if Carl points out that 6. d3 is a sound response, then I hardly think it deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence as the Frappe Attack!

Struth, I am a patzer without an engine but after 6. d3 perhaps Be7 is the only choice is it?

I was actually interested what the black response was?

Carl, I'm a patzer, too! Most of us are!

I've no idea what Black is meant to do after 6. d3, but 6... Be7 must be an option. I don't think Black will have done himself any favours accepting the Evan's b-pawn, then throwing open the door to the kingside with 5... f5! I'm sure you're 100% correct that 6. d3 is not going to be much fun for Black.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Here's a little something for Geoff, perhaps slightly sounder than his Evans counter-gambit:

[Event "4th Jessie Gilbert Open 2011"]
[Site "Coulsdon CF"]
[Date "2011.08.22"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Rudd, Jack"]
[Black "Campbell, Eoin"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B09"]
[WhiteElo "2278"]
[BlackElo "1876"]
[PlyCount "63"]
[EventDate "2011.08.20"]
[SourceDate "2011.08.22"]

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. f4 Bg7 5. Nf3 c5 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. e5 Ng4 8. e6
fxe6 9. Ng5 Bxb5 10. Nxe6 Bxd4 11. Nxb5 Qa5+ 12. c3 Bf2+ 13. Kd2 Be3+ 14. Kc2
Qa4+ 15. b3 Qe4+ 16. Kb2 Nf2 17. Nxd6+ exd6 18. Qxd6 Nc6 19. Bxe3 Nd3+ 20. Ka3
Ncb4 21. Rac1 Qxe3 22. cxb4 cxb4+ 23. Ka4 Nxc1 24. Rd1 b5+ 25. Kxb4 a5+ 26. Ka3
Ra7 27. Qd8+ Kf7 28. Ng5+ Kg7 29. Rd7+ Rxd7 30. Qxd7+ Kh6 31. Nf7+ Kh5 32. Qd5+
1-0

[Roger de Coverly]

Or any of thousands of other highly respected, long established and deeply researched lines, some of which you are going to have to learn something about anyway, if you wish to improve.

For a slightly mad line, consider 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 Nxe4. Some engines even consider it a better move than 4 .. Bc5.

It's probably as good as playing the Berlin against the Scotch by 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 Nf6 which is to say it's not completely losing but Black will have little room for error to stay in the game.

[Carl Hibbard]

There is the old 1. e4 d5 2. ed Qd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. b4 Qb4 5. Nb5 which I have played instead of the more normal 5. Rb1

[Paul McKeown]

Actually, Carl, thinking about it, after 6. d3, Black's only move must surely be 6... Be7, as otherwise Nf3-g5 is going to hurt. Not sure what the follow up is for White, but it looks a pleasant enough gambit for White.

[Justin Hadi]

Paul, I think you are intentionally or unintentionally missing the point.

At U100 level the main aim is to enjoy the game, learn tactics, etc. I haven't met any mega serious U100 players yet. The openings will barely make any difference, even this ...f5 stuff. So if it's garbage, and yeah it looks pretty bad to my 170 eyes it doesn't actually matter. There is plenty of time to learn real openings when they actually make a difference .

Just as the Nescafe Frappe attack being unsound doesn't matter much at club level. And yes Burgess who wrote the original article thinks it's 'not quite sound'.

[Paul McKeown]

Reasonable gambits. Perhaps the old reverse Faj, 1. b3 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. e4!? Played that from time to time ages ago. Sadly not many opponents were crazy enough to take the Ra1!

[Justin Hadi]

And you can play the King's gambit as White as well. Lot of theory though for an U100 player...

[Paul McKeown]

Paul, I think you are intentionally or unintentionally missing the point.

At U100 level the main aim is to enjoy the game, learn tactics, etc. I haven't met any mega serious U100 players yet. The openings will barely make any difference, even this ...f5 stuff. So if it's garbage, and yeah it looks pretty bad to my 170 eyes it doesn't actually matter. There is plenty of time to learn real openings when they actually make a difference

I don't think it helps to teach players to depend on winning with traps and the like, so we shall have to differ.

Just as the Nescafe Frappe attack being unsound doesn't matter much at club level. And yes Burgess who wrote the original article thinks it's 'not quite sound'.

I suspect their is a difference in emphasis between, 'not quite sound' and 'unsound'. I was actually given Burgess's Attacking the Benko The Nescafe Frappe Attack booklet some years ago by a club mate who had spent a lot of time analysing it with Burgess in Bristol. Thanks, Graham. Still proudly on my shelves, even though I don't play it any more.

[Paul McKeown]

And you can play the King's gambit as White as well. Lot of theory though for an U100 player...

I refer you to my statement above:

Try 1. e4 e5 2. f4.

Or any of thousands of other highly respected, long established and deeply researched lines, some of which you are going to have to learn something about anyway, if you wish to improve.

[Justin Hadi]

And long established + deeply researched = THEORY ...

[Roger de Coverly]

And long established + deeply researched = THEORY ...

The Kings Gambit leads to such weird positions that you need to have done a bit of background research to have any hope of finding sensible moves. That applies to both colours