tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085454862998663312.post6375426909426894704..comments2024-03-14T15:47:13.884-04:00Comments on Tartajubow On Chess II: Is Opening Theory Wrong About the Urusov Gambit?Tartajubowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07825756152678176267noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085454862998663312.post-7243502216913121922020-05-18T21:11:08.317-04:002020-05-18T21:11:08.317-04:00Actually, while the two lines I point to are defin...Actually, while the two lines I point to are definitely the most challenging for White, some recent computer analysis convinces me that White is definitely at least equal in both and offers Black many chances to go wrong.Michael Goellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14512012158305281566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085454862998663312.post-84735489956093090082018-03-02T07:57:43.320-05:002018-03-02T07:57:43.320-05:00Thanks for the information. Since this post I hav...Thanks for the information. Since this post I have drawn 3 more games (+5 -0 =7). One opponent did play the 6. bxc3 d5! (Bologan) line and after 7.exd5 he played 7...Bd6 and the game was drawn. As for the lines beginning with 4...Nc6, my score against it is +3 -0 =2. The Urusov has scored better than the Ruy Lopez; my record with it is +4 -3 =5!Tartajubowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07825756152678176267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085454862998663312.post-24160193023747572312018-03-01T22:00:24.659-05:002018-03-01T22:00:24.659-05:00Just came across your interesting post on my favor...Just came across your interesting post on my favorite opening. You might be interested in my most complete bibliography:<br /><a href="http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2012/11/urusov-gambit-bibliography_26.html" rel="nofollow">http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2012/11/urusov-gambit-bibliography_26.html</a><br /><br />I am afraid that the game Thompson - Weberg, Correspondence 1949, if closely analyzed, might reveal the refutation to the Urusov.<br /><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140709014635/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles423.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20140709014635/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles423.pdf</a><br />My own analysis of this game on my 2003 website is taken from old notes by Jack Collins from his Chess Life column and is very mistaken.<br /><a href="https://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/gambit/K.html#k3" rel="nofollow">https://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/gambit/K.html#k3</a><br /><br />Also somewhat difficult to deal with is 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nf3 Bb4+ 5. c3 dxc3 6. bxc3 d5! as analyzed by Bologan in Black Weapons in the Open Games. My own analysis of this line seems mistaken as well, though Bologan does not consider the rather interesting try 7.cxb4!? dxc4 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8. However, Black should be at least equal here--though it is complicated. And the line 6...Bc5 (instead of 6...d5) should equalize with best play.<br /><br />Fortunately, nobody ever plays these lines, and I have only seen them once each in my countless games with the gambit in online blitz. So, for us amateurs, the Urusov remains pretty deadly. And Alex Fishbein's book on the Scotch Gambit (https://www.amazon.com/Scotch-Gambit-Energetic-Aggressive-System/dp/1941270743) gives encouragement against Black's most common option, which is 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Nc6. But White is probably safest entering these lines with 2.Nf3.Michael Goellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14512012158305281566noreply@blogger.com