86 ( +1 | -1 ) Anti-Grunfeld, Leko Gambit?Quick note: please excuse my inconsistent and possibly incorrect spelling of names. I may even be correct regardless of how I spell them...
This may be related to the "how to beat the Gruenfeld" thread already here, but I feel that this thread can be more specialized and therefore deserves to be separate. There was a suggestion of meeting 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 with 3. f3, so that a normal Grunfeld doesn't do as well: 3. f3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4 Nb6 (no knight on c3 to exchange with).
And if black goes for a KID, then white is simply playing the Samisch variation, which you certainly can't say too many negative things about.
But what if black wants to get frisky? 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. f3 e5!?
Here's Leko playing it: -> www.chessgames.com
Anyone run into this before or have any thoughts? I'll let you know if I meet it any time soon.
32 ( +1 | -1 ) because "opening advantage"doesn't necessarily lead to a full point. There is the middle-game following the opening advantage, and it's hard as well to win a won endgame.
It's easy to loose "opening advantage" games and it's sweet to be on the other side of the board and listen to the opponent's "but my position after move 15 was soooo promising" in the post-analysis ...
47 ( +1 | -1 ) Well, I showed that game for basically 3 reasons:
1)If I call it the Leko Gambit, I figure a game by Leko would be most appropriate.
2) It's a game between Leko and Kramnik, so it's not just patzer chess, but top level stuff.
3) I want to play it as white. Therefore, if Kramnik loses to it as white, we need to study that game and look for improvements. I'm not showing that game as a recommendation for how to play it, but instead I'm showing it in part of me asking for help.
86 ( +1 | -1 ) It was just a game. I was giving an example, you really don't need to question it.
Getting your name attached to something does mean something. It doesn't mean being the first to play it though -- nearly every opening I've seen hasn't been played by its namesake first. Either that player just played it a lot, played it at the right time to get it noticed, played it brilliantly first, analyzed it to death, or paid off the chess opening naming committee.
If I had more time right now, I could find a great game by white with this opening. But then again, so could you or anyone else. That's not why I posted this topic. I just wanted to know others' opinions or experiences with this. If you can't get past the game I chose, then this isn't going to be much help for anyone.
16 ( +1 | -1 ) at the top you said that a normal grunfeld dosn't do as well, I found that 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. f3 d5 transposes into 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 f3 d5 which is a neo-grunfeld, a heavily analysed line so 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. f3 d5 dosn't win.
115 ( +1 | -1 ) It lookslike WT was in it till that last stinker of Bd5, to which several alternatives seem better near the end all. And that he had winning chances just a bit earlier in the endgame, tho I didn't think his middle game was so hot the other day when looking at it ... that probably the f6 pawn was a liability but BL did not perhaps capitalize well. My impression from a brief playthru anyway. I never did get to look at seeing if ...e5 can be answered e4, and then if the BL can play Nxe4. But was thinking from an otb look that probably he cannot, as WT might then play fxe4 Qh4+/ g3 Qxe4+/ Qe2 Qxh1 and it seemed to me WT probably would trap the Q and/or have a king assault to handle with his Q in the woods?! But my board would not analyze, so I don't necessarily trust that look at the moment ... and there is the matter that BL would already have a N & R for a Queen plus gain one of the pieces that would be involved in trapping. Maybe he would be very happy unless his King proves too bare and underdeveloped overall ... Interesting ideas seem to abound in the gambit ... yet for some reason, I feel I'd rather take WT. No doubt his opponent feared a lot of home analysis being sprung upon him tho :)
124 ( +1 | -1 ) sf115 : "I found that 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. f3 d5 transposes into 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 f3 d5 which is a neo-grunfeld"
Well, the two lines you give are identical, no transposition even. And here's a sample game with this line (just the first I could find): -> www.chessgames.com
What I mean about this being weaker than a normal Exchange Grunfeld is that the white knight isn't on c3. Therefore, the pawn structure is a bit different and white gets a knight on c3 (or wherever he wants to put it) and black has a knight on b6. To me, it looks like white has an easier time holding onto that center as it isn't as loose. Sure, it's not losing for black, but as white I am much happier with that than with a normal exchange Grunfeld.
ccmcacollister : Yes, white does look good there. When I was first looking at 3. f3, the move 3...e5 just took me by surprise. It wasn't something I was expecting, and I was amazed at how awkward things could get. I was never that impressed by meeting d4 with ...e5, but black always seems to be ok in the end somehow.
142 ( +1 | -1 ) Kotov discusses ...... Alekhine's attack on the king in that game vs Bogoljubov in the book he co-authored with paul Keres: The Art of the Middlegame in Chess. Very instructive. It seems Capablanca was not impressed with the game, though! An interesting companion game is "Winz-Czerniak '39" also on www.chessgames.com (Check out "Euwe-Reshevsky '38", too) - sorry, I don't know how to do the direct link, but the info within the quotation marks will get you the game(s) in question. I've known of this game (Winz-Czerniak) for many years, as it has some rather interesting and instructive motifs in the early middlegame. Gerald Abrahams felt, after Black's 15th move, that "...Capablanca, had he found himself in such a position, would have won for White." He added parenthetically that "against most players, he would have won for Black as well!" I'm inclined to agree that White seems to have the better of it at this point, and maybe went wrong at move 21. Instead of Winz's 10.a4, Euwe tried 10.Nc3 without conspicuous success. Although Euwe's early K-side pressure (into which he had invested a pawn) looked menacing, Reshevsky managed to break up White's centre, leaving him with no attack, and still with a pawn minus. Reshevsky managed to nurse his small advantage to a win. It seems that this line got quite a workout in the late 1920s and '30s! Has it had much of an airing since then?
47 ( +1 | -1 ) it's a good game. I can understand why ganstaman thinks that it isn't as strong as the grunfeld but lots of people play it e.g. bogoljubov. If played well it doesn't give white any advantage and if white plays badly then black will get an advantage. I also think that, allthough it was a world championship, Alekhine was a much stronger player and showed this by winning the match 11-5, a huge win.