tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-972861663416917172.post2309316449215804765..comments2023-08-02T07:35:14.650+01:00Comments on 200 Open Games: 012. A Bust to the Bishop's GambitJonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17147186679298442560noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-972861663416917172.post-50212345022418245812021-07-03T09:39:58.807+01:002021-07-03T09:39:58.807+01:00Hi Austin. No, I've not looked at this since. ...Hi Austin. No, I've not looked at this since. Doing so quickly now with <em>Stockfish 14</em> (just out!), the engine likes 13...f6 for Black in Flude-Rekhtman. In general it seems keen to keep the queens on the board.<br /><br />Incidentally – or rather <em>three</em> incidentallies (if that's a word):<br />1. Depth 35 is nothing. When I want to know what the engine really thinks about a position, I'll let it run into the high 40s, even early 50s.<br />2. Stockfish 14 prefers 3 Nf3 at 35 depth, though it thinks Black has the advantage anyway.<br />3. Given #2, I wouldn't recommend spending too long deciding between 3 Bc4 and 3 Nf3. Pick the one that leads to positions you like more and then just play it. The King's Gambit is essentially an improvisers' opening anyway. Whereas if you study it too much you'll just come to agree with Stockfish ;)Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17147186679298442560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-972861663416917172.post-81401134479652317822021-07-03T08:58:39.288+01:002021-07-03T08:58:39.288+01:00Hey I've been down a rabbit hole recently tryi...Hey I've been down a rabbit hole recently trying to figure out whether Nf3 or Bc4 is better. A chessable course I just finished (550 variations) recommened to me Bc4. This course is more recent so it uses a stronger engine. The author set the engine to depth 35 and concluded that Bc4 was a superior move. Have you investigated any of your lines with more recent engines like stockfish 13 NNUE? Your insights are great but your comments are all 4 years old and i'm wondering if I can trust those evaluations.Austinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03040021459982922391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-972861663416917172.post-53455093743568535332017-02-19T09:55:52.180+00:002017-02-19T09:55:52.180+00:00My basic philosophy is that all defences to the Ki...My basic philosophy is that <em>all</em> defences to the King's Gambit are good, if properly prepared. Up to 2005, on the very rare occasions that I ever faced 3 Bc4, I went for the standard 3...Nf6 4 Nc3 c6, which can be a bit dull. Since then I've mostly played 3...f5!? (following investigations into 2 Bc4 f5!?, where 3 f4!? exf4 is an unlikely transposition) – except, and for no reason that I can discern, for one game in 2006 with 3...Nc6. As it happens, that did continue 4 Nf3 g5, but then 5 Nc3?! Bg7 6 d4 d6 7 0-0 h6 and I won quite easily.Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17147186679298442560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-972861663416917172.post-22535649400071889972017-02-19T03:26:28.865+00:002017-02-19T03:26:28.865+00:00Aye, I agree, I don't think White is any worse...Aye, I agree, I don't think White is any worse after the Qd2-Qg5 plan. I remember that when I first looked at the position after move 11 I was hopeful about White's chances of attacking down the half-open g-file (Kh1 and Rg1) but the practical examples of White attempting this plan are very unconvincing.<br /><br />I have generally met 3.Bc4 with 3...Nc6 (dating back about five years before John Shaw recommended the move). It has served me well at the club level; many opponents head into a Hanstein Gambit with 4.Nf3, which I believe is probably slightly better for Black with best play, although I've found that at club level the Hanstein is nothing like as harmless as its reputation!Ian Simpsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12934766627374308248noreply@blogger.com