Gambit not so Galore

My first flirt with the Gibbens-Weidenhagen gambit was like a Microsoft demo. Everything looks fine but it just doesn't work properly. After just a few moves I had a clear advantage against a decent player. For the price of a g-pawn I had the center, easy development and self-confidence. But then reality crushed in! After a few weak moves I just got outplayed.

Note to self: Openings never replace thinking.

  

My second and last try with the gambit started bad and then got worse. My opponent played daring active moves and soon I found myself on a position hated by Mr Houdini and with My king as exposed as the king in a well known H.C Andersen story.

Does it make sense to play gambits with long medival double names? Well, why do you play Chess? If your answer is "to have fun" or "to exercise the brain", then why not? The road less travelled will take you to uncharted territory fast where you and your opponent will have to play Chess. What about the first move advantage? I am convinced that experience from playing wild weird stuff will offer a practical advantage. And do not forget the fun factor.

 Post Scriptum: Check out what Frisco has to say: Frisco's Post

The Cult of Blackmar-Diemer

Early in my chesshood I decided to give the Blackmar-Diemer gambit (BDG) a try. I had very little playing experience but I had solved quite a few tactics problems. I thought it was a wise thing to join the Cult of Blackmar-Diemer. My results were terrible or worse. It did not occur to me that playing a gambit is a lot more that using a bag of tricks.

After trying a whole range of openings (and buying books on most openings!), I am again tempted to give the weird world of gambits a try inspired by a handful of highly inspirational Facebook updates by talented chess book author Frisco Del Rosario.

A real gambit must have a Middle Earthesque double name! If you plan to play the BDG you must arm up with a few properly named gambits. Black will try 1. d4 Nf6 and then it might be worthwhile to introduce the wonderful Gibbins-Weidenhagen gambit (1. d4 Nf6 2. g4?!). So I did in my comeback game as a d4-player and it was a disaster (a topic for a later blog post). In my second game black was trying the dirty trick of trying a transposition into something French. Counter Measures! Enter the Diemer-Duhm gambit (1. d4 d5 2. e4 e6 3. c4?!). The Diemer-Duhm is presented in heartwarming fashion at Jyrki Heikkinen’s web site. I am especially impressed by his one page summary of the “duties” of all the pieces (for both sides!) in the opening (http://www.nic.funet.fi/pub/doc/games/chess/ddg/Texts/men.html). This is a great way to prepare for studying the nuances of the opening. I think all opening books aimed at improving players should include such a condensed introduction.

Seeing Ghosts!?

My dear opponent saw some ghosts late in the game when we both were close to time trouble. White resigned with nine minutes on the clock versus my four minutes.

Make sure to have something to hide behind, a shame pillow, when looking at the game. It is a blunderfest.

Nota Bene: If you cannot play decent chess you might still be able to generate a crowd good for some serious namedropping. Dan Heisman did watch some of my game for unknown reasons. THAT made my day. You can bet on that!

The Gospel of Evaluations

I have recently been playing a certain UCO Opening as Black which Mr Fritz frowns upon (+0,95 +/-). This very opening have been quite good for me as Black in semi serious games vs Shredder's iPhone App. Over the last ten games, I have had an performance of 1500+ which is much higher than my ICC rating.

How much should one humble patzer care about theory and evaluations?

Another interesting aspect is the "Blunder Distribution" for players of different strengths. Looking at the changes in Evaluations in any ordinary game by yours truly, you find the evaluation dropping but about a piece every twenty moves or so. That is indeed scary!

So, if I find an opening that I enjoy playing and the opening (as far as I know) is free of traps or wild forced tactical lines. Is that a cure or remedy for Opening Phobia? You often hear or read that you should stick to validated solid lines that will that will be your guide and support throughout your chess career.

Well, my career might find a peak and a plateau at 1700ish some years down the road (loosely guesstimated by a quote from Pandolfini(?) claiming that anyone capable of thinking three moves deep is able to reach 1700) and I think that any opening that avoids donating wood and glaring positional sacrifices should be OK for a 1700 future me.

So, Evaluations are funny stuff. What does it really mean to be down by almost a full pawn (according to Mr Fritz) in a position that in no obvious way is doomed to loose a pawn? I guess Mr Fritz is betting on Soft Values such as "more space" and perhaps "superior control over the center" but these are features not forever and is it absolutely sure that someone capable of dropping a piece every 20 moves is capable of cashing in on "more space"?

Dear Reader, Have I cured my Opening Phobia? I Dare not Say but I will keep playing Weapon X for a while. I hope to be able to post some interesting game with the stuff in action pretty soon.