| Feb-17-03 |
| Bears092: Is this the opening with the highest drawing rate in the database? |
 |
| Feb-17-03 |
| GregorMendel: Not very surprising now, is it? |
|
| Feb-18-03 |
| ughaibu: How about the Halloween Attack, 4.Ne5? |
|
| Sep-04-03 |
| Sylvester: What opening is this? 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5. Is it 3 Knights or 4 Knights? |
|
Sep-04-03
 |
| Sneaky: Sylvester, that's called "the Halloween Attack" (pejoratively called the "Schultz-Muller gambit" by others) mentioned below, and yes it's a Four Knights game. Check out the games of Grigor Minchev if you want to see some wild examples of that piece sacrifice. |
|
| Sep-04-03 |
| PVS: Sylvester, it is the Four Knights. I assume Sneaky and ughaibu are correct in the variation. I believe that the database is incorrect in adding 4.Bb5 if it implies a requirement for the Four Knights. I would call that the Spanish Four Knights Game, another variation of the Four Knights. Sneaky, why does "Schultz-Muller gambit" have a pejorative connotation? |
|
| Sep-05-03 |
| Sylvester: Thanks for the help. I am calling it "Four Knights" in my scorebook, but adding Halloween Attack in the notes after 4. Nxe5. Someone played it against me a couple of weeks ago: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5 Nxe5 5. d4 Nc6 6. d5 Ne5. |
|
| Sep-21-05 |
| TheGreatNN: I used to like to play 4. ..Nd4 after the above position, but can somebody please explain to me why this does not fail against 5.Bc4 Bc5 6.Nxe5 Qe7 7.Nxf7? There are no examples of this in the database: in the nine games that followed this line, white played 7.Nd3 or Nf3, yet after Nxf7 it seems black's development lead will amount to nothing. Playing on yahoo I lost four games in a row with this line, and am starting to wonder about it. |
|
| Sep-21-05 |
| RookFile: Well, that Nxf7 has been played in correspondence chess, with mixed results. Black gets a huge development lead, but if he is careless, white can consolidate his material advantage. Here are a couple of games. Of course, I don't have the slightest idea what is going on, this is correspondence chess, very complex. [Event "SEMI B009 email"]
[Site "SEMI Email"]
[Date "2000.04.05"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Donati,Davide"]
[Black "Ottaviani,Mauro"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "C48"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Nd4 5.Bc4 Bc5 6.Nxe5 Qe7 7.Nxf7 d5 8.Nxh8 dxc4
9.d3 Bd7 10.Bg5 0-0-0 11.Nd5 Qe6 12.0-0 Rxh8 13.Bxf6 gxf6 14.c3 Nc6 15.dxc4 Rg8 16.g3 Ne5
17.b4 Qh3 18.Nf4 Qh6 19.bxc5 Qxf4 20.Qd5 Rg5 21.Rfd1 Qg4 22.Rd3 Nf3+ 23.Rxf3 Rxd5 24.Rxf6 Rd1+
25.Rxd1 Qxd1+ 0-1
[Event "ICCF Jubilee Email P179"]
[Site "ICCF Email"]
[Date "2001.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Scheschuk,Curtis T"]
[Black "Tweddell,Tom"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "C48"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Nd4 5.Bc4 Bc5 6.Nxe5 Qe7 7.Nxf7 Nxe4 8.Nd5 Qh4
9.Nxc7+ Kf8 10.0-0 d6 11.Nxh8 Bg4 12.g3 Qh5 13.Bf7 Qf5 14.Be6 Nxe6 15.Nxe6+ Qxe6 16.Qe1 Bh3
17.d3 Bxf1 18.Qxe4 Qxe4 19.dxe4 Bh3 20.Rb1 Re8 21.b4 Rxe4 22.Bd2 Re2 23.bxc5 Rxd2 24.cxd6 Rxd6
25.f4 b6 26.c4 Kg8 27.c5 Rf6 28.cxb6 axb6 29.Rd1 Rf8 0-1 |
|
| Sep-21-05 |
| Pawn Ambush: Also experiment with the obvious 7...Rf8 ~
8.Ng5,h6.
8.d3,d5 9.Nd5,Qf7
8.Nd5 Qe4+
Pawn Ambush~Slow Blitz 8.O-O, Rf7, 9.Bf7, kf7, 10.d3, kg8, 11.Bg5, Qe5, 12.f4, Qe6, 13.kh1 b6! 14.Bf6, Qf6, 15.Qh5, Bb7 Black is definitely o.k. |
|
| Dec-14-06 |
| Stevens: can anybody shed any light on why ...Qxb2 is bad on this position? 
click for larger viewblack to move |
|
Dec-14-06
 |
| Eyal: <Stevens> Well, on general principles Qxb2 looks terrible - black's pieces being so underdeveloped and his king exposed in the center. Specifically, the reply Re1+ is probably good, forcing Kd8 (...Be7 Rb1 with Bb4); but Qh5 might be even stronger, again forcing black to moves like Kd8 or Bd6. In the diagram position, Black's first priority is castling, and therefore the natural - almost automatic - move is Be7 (note that the black queen on f6 is doing a very important job of protecting the e7 square). BTW, how did you reach that position? |
|
| Dec-14-06 |
| Surrealist: <Stevens> Qxb2 seems to get refuted quite directly after Qh5. Threat is Re1+ followed by Bg5 (f7 is pinned now). |
|
Dec-14-06
 |
| micartouse: <BTW, how did you reach that position?> I've played this from both sides, so I recognize it. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Nd4 5. Nxd4 exd4 6. e5 dxc3 7. exf6 cxd2+? 8. Bxd2 Qxf6. Black is a pawn up but can't defend against the attack in any variation. The best move is 7 ... Qxf6! It's a tricky and fun attack to study. |
|
Dec-14-06
|
| Eyal: <Black is a pawn up but can't defend against the attack in any variation> Yes, looks like after, e.g., 9.0-0 Be7 10.Bc3 Qg5 11.Re1 0-0 12.Re5 black's position is miserable indeed. Nice example that winning material by check (7... cxd2+?) isn't always a good idea. |
|
| Dec-15-06 |
| Stevens: thanks everyone for the analysis! when i got home i looked at the position with a board and came to the same conclusions. both Qh5 and Re1+ look good. There are real chances to hound the black queen as well with the rook, and both bishops. <micartouse> yes, you have the exact variation i was looking at! of course 9.0-0 had also been played in the diagram. yes, 7...Qxf6 does look best, but i think a few people would get lured into playing cxd2 and maybe even going after the extra pawn with ...Qxb2? thanks again <surrealist>, <eyal> and
<micartouse> |
|
Dec-15-06
|
| micartouse: Actually I have a true story about the position. A kid in my club who's much stronger than me (~400 points higher) but barely studies openings at all naively played 7 ... cxd2+ against me and won. I lost the thread of the attack after batting his king around a bit. The next day in casual play, we reached the same position and he shook his head and played 7 ... Qxf6 and beat me in the main line endgame. So it's nice to know some tricks, but in the end strength and talent usually find a way. |
|
| Dec-15-06 |
| Stevens: < micartouse> couldn't agree more. i have realised that looking at opening theory is more interesting to me than actually useful. the amount of times i have played a game desperate to try a new line, and i don't think i have ever had the chance to. by the time the opportunity comes i have forgotten the line! looking at lines and ideas is a hobby within a hobby really, it's actual practical use is far outweighed by playing actual games and studying tactics for example. of course, for the pros, opening theory is paramount, for not for me! |
|
| Jun-13-07 |
| Bob726: After the moves move 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Nd4 5. Nxd4 exd4 6. e5 dxc3 7. exf6 Qxf6 8. dxc3 Qe5 9. Qe2 Qxe2 10. Bxe2 sOpening Explorer shows that 98% the games is a draw. IS there an varation with more than 50 games that has that high a draw percentage? |
|
Jun-13-07
 |
| keypusher: <micarthouse> Look who played ...cxd2+ here! P Lewin vs Adams, 1999 |
|
Jun-14-07
|
| micartouse: Okay, strength and talent and opponents who play moves like 8. Qxd2?? :) |
|
