Recently on Wikipedia I stumbled across Talk: Blackburne Shilling Gambit which had the following:
...Another suggestion not mentioned in the article is that after 1.P-K4,P-K4 2.N-KB3,N-QB3 3.B-B4,N-Q5?...I should have thought the most enterprising way of punishing black's loss of tempo is with 4.BxP check!! (eg. ....KXB 5.NxPcheck etc. with ample compensation for the piece and a probably winning attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.28.67 (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Disagree. After 5...Ke7 white has no way to continue the attack or even getting more piece in to contine. Moving the Queen out 6. Qg4 d6 7. Qg5+ Nf6 =+ or 6. Qh5 can be met with Nf6 =+. Black is better and white's 4. Bxf7 is an unsound sacrifice. SunCreator (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
If one likes this sort of sacrifice for White (compare the Cochrane Gambit against Petroff's Defense: 1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7?!), it seems to me that one ought to play against the Blackburne Shilling Gambit 4.Nxe5!? Qg5 5.Bxf7+! Ke7 6.0-0, which gives White a similar but much improved form of piece sacrifice. In that line, White gets to chase around not only Black's king, but also his knight (c3) and queen (d4) with gain of tempo. Krakatoa (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I like the thoughts contained in the first paragraph, especially "ample compensation for the piece," although "and a probably winning attack" may be over-stating it a bit.
The second paragraph seems to miss White's best play against 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke7 – White should probably play 6.c3 Nc6 7.d4 with an okay game.
Paragraph three suggests 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Nxe5 Qg5 5.Bxf7+ Ke7 6.0-0 – which, after the natural 6...Qxe5 7.Bxg8 Rxg8 8.c3 Nc6 9.d4 is similar to the line just mentioned. (Geoff Chandler finished off a troubled Stockbridge "NN" in 1983 with 9...Qa5 10.d5 Ne5 11.Qh5 Nf7 12.d6+)
No comments:
Post a Comment