Page 1 of 1
Lisitsin Gambit
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 3:54 pm
by Roger de Coverly
Has the forum ever discussed this? Does it even know what it is?
Supposedly a popular topic according to
http://stevegiddinschessblog.blogspot.c ... uding.html
you know who wrote:It is always interesting to observer termitic two-facedness, in regard to the issue of copyright theft. Whilst clambering repeatedly on their high horses over allegations that Ray Keene may or may not have purloined the odd bit of analysis of the Lisitsin Gambit,
I think I've seen it mentioned on the Streatham blog.
I think the Lisitsin is one of the ideas against the Dutch which goes 1 Nf3 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 Ng5 or something similar involving first d3 and then e4.
Re: Lisitsin Gambit
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:03 pm
by Matt Mackenzie
Krogius shows himself losing a miniature against it in his chess psychology book, IIRC.
Re: Lisitsin Gambit
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:59 pm
by Leonard Barden
I played the Lisitsin in an internet game the other day and my opponent replied 2...e5 transposing to the Greco.....
Re: Lisitsin Gambit
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:13 pm
by John McKenna
Play the Dutch Defense Against 1.c4/Nf3 by ICCF Masters DeVault & Hickman contains - Keene's suggestion in Modern Chess Theory 1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 is a way to arrive at the gambit...
And refers to the game Schlenker-Findlayson 1979/80 Hastings Challengers, which began:
DeVault & Hickman call Leonard's opponent's 'Greco' (1.Nf3 f5 2.e4 e5...) a transposition to the Latvian Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5...) just a question of names, I suppose.
Re: Lisitsin Gambit
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:53 am
by Jonathan Bryant
Roger de Coverly wrote:
you know who wrote:r allegations that Ray Keene may or may not have purloined the odd bit of analysis of the Lisitsin Gambit,
I think I've seen it mentioned on the Streatham blog.
I dare say we may have alluded to this, but to the best of my (admittedly rather shakey) memory, we've not actually had a specific post dedicated to it. Frankly, I'm surprised to read the <i>"may or may not" bit you say that Gidders wrote.
Batsford paid out $3,000 after acknowledging what it called RDK's "unfortunate oversight" in failing to acknowledge the source of the material that he'd used.
see full story from Inside Chess (via Kingpin) here:-
http://www.kingpinchess.net/?p=1551#more-1551
On the other hand, Raymondo is also rather generous with his own annotations. He's given us (the S&BC Blog, I mean) a couple of annotated games for free, and as far as I can tell pretty much all of his published notes to his own games can be found on chessgames.com.
One thing's for sure. Ray wouldn't have bothered threatening legal action to deal with a spoof photograph of himself appearing somewhere on the web. He's much more of a charmer.