Recently Ty Kroll made a post at the Yahoo "Unorthodox Chess Openings" Group that caught my eye and which I think is well worth sharing.
He was writing in reference to "the Fishing Pole" (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Ng4!?), a Ruy Lopez defense variant that has been enthusiastically embraced by National Master Brian Wall.
The Fishing Pole has its critics, and, like the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) also has its refutations (although the 'Pole is not nearly as bad as the Jerome). Under the right circumstances, both can also be a lot of fun to play.
It was equally interesting to see a response by N. Earl Roberts.
First Ty,
I think there's a lot of fun, if nothing else, to be had in unorthodox lines which are actually bad.I've been playing the line Brian dubbed "Tyler Hughes" in the 2 knights since he brought my attention back to it from this forum, in Blitz, and it's a lot of fun, but only because the opponents almost never respond with the winning variation for white, because they've never analyzed the line before and have probably never even seen it. I can even imagine such tricks working under slower time controls. It's the surprise factor.
I mostly play lines like that for the fun value, though. If I ever write anything about that variation (and I doubt it hasn't "all been written" already) it would start with the refutation because that's the best line, the correct line; that's real theory. All the fun I have with it in nearly every game would go in theoretical sidelines.
Writing any other way is a fantasy. I'd like to see all such lines addressed in that context. ... the fishing pole included if it is unsound.
I agree with Ty. Readers of this blog should be well aware of the many refutations of the Jerome Gambit. As more turn up, you'll see them here, too.
By the way, those with an interest in music, voice, and the occasional chess post might want to visit his blog at http://ne0romantic.livejournal.com/
Here I can follow up with Earl's post
As for the value of the "Fishing pole" itself, I actually agree with you that perhaps its value lies in its surprise, but I must point out that there is a vast difference between "playable" and "sound".
I am sure Mr. Wall does well believe that the "Fishing Pole" is playable because in those posts that I have seen, he clearly demonstrates that he is obviously the vastly stronger player....at blitz.
Here in lies the clear difference between the two, an opening is made "playable" by who it is used against relating to what medium it is used. Example, the original exclamation ridden game concerned. Mr. Wall clearly shows that over a ratings difference of around 300 points minimum (that's at a guess of the difference between 1700 and the master strength he clams to be) in a game of blitz, that the "Fishing pole" is quite playable.
The argument for it being sound on the other hand might well reduce with the rating difference coming closer together and game time being extending to a sensible length for proper consideration of moves.
Finally, refutations. Refutations are only relevant when people know them. I think Mr. Wall knows this and probably why he continues to play the "Fishing Pole" with such success in the bubblegum medium of internet chess blitz and good on him to, I am happy for him.
One of the curse of the internet Ty is people will always have an opinion and when it comes to refutations, people will always be there to line up with even more opinions... and in some way, that's not all together a bad thing.
Thank you, gentlemen.
If my opponent was content to play against me a pawn down, perhaps he was pleased here with his Bishop vs Knight advantage.
Readers with endgame skills are probably beginning to snicker.
Ok! White is winning again.
