That move seals it for White i think. The Knight looks to be much stronger in the end game for White.Masterbaiter wrote:e5
MD v JL
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 10121
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:57 am
- Location: van buren,missouri
Re: MD v JL: Gambit declined
-
- Posts: 16465
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:16 am
- Location: Canada
Re: MD v JL: Gambit declined
It's not over but finding the best defence for Black will be hard work. Yes, the Night is stronger than the Bishop in in the ensuing endgame.gerold wrote:That move seals it for White i think. The Knight looks to be much stronger in the end game for White.Masterbaiter wrote:e5
I think 26. e5! deserves an exclamation mark. The game is fully controlled by White, you might even say e5! puts Black in a zugzwang situation.
Terry McCracken
-
- Posts: 8557
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:01 pm
- Location: UK
Re: MD v JL: Gambit declined
Masterbaiter wrote:e5
8 | |||||||||
7 | |||||||||
6 | |||||||||
5 | |||||||||
4 | |||||||||
3 | |||||||||
2 | |||||||||
1 | |||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
5rr1/1p1bk3/p3pp2/4P3/3P2pp/1PN1P3/1P3RPP/5RK1 b - - 0 26
Well played Martin!
25... Rhg8? was an error and I should have played Bc6 instead and although white still has the advantage I think black should be able to hold the draw with careful and precise play.
8 | |||||||||
7 | |||||||||
6 | |||||||||
5 | |||||||||
4 | |||||||||
3 | |||||||||
2 | |||||||||
1 | |||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
5r1r/1p2k3/p1b1pp2/8/3PP1pp/1PN1P3/1P3RPP/5RK1 w - - 2 26
-
- Posts: 261
- Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 12:34 am
- Location: Ottawa Canada
Re: MD v JL: Gambit declined
Bc6 was probably stronger but is still not the type of position you want to have to defend. Any further mistakes and it is all over.
Thanks for the games. Perhaps the McMad gambit is just a little too mad?
Thanks for the games. Perhaps the McMad gambit is just a little too mad?
Looking for interesting people to chat with
-
- Posts: 8557
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:01 pm
- Location: UK
Re: MD v JL: Gambit declined
Well it is only meant to be used for blitz play really - it is no good for serious slow play but it is still a bit of a challenge for white to prove that he can win a theoretically won position. Perhaps we could play progressive take all next - these games only last a few moves and are ideal for correspondence play.Masterbaiter wrote:Thanks for the games. Perhaps the McMad gambit is just a little too mad?
http://www.chessvariants.org/winning.dir/takeall.html
-
- Posts: 16465
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:16 am
- Location: Canada
Re: MD v JL: Gambit declined
Jack Lad wrote:Well it is only meant to be used for blitz play really - it is no good for serious slow play but it is still a bit of a challenge for white to prove that he can win a theoretically won position. Perhaps we could play progressive take all next - these games only last a few moves and are ideal for correspondence play.Masterbaiter wrote:Thanks for the games. Perhaps the McMad gambit is just a little too mad?
http://www.chessvariants.org/winning.dir/takeall.html

Terry McCracken
-
- Posts: 8557
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:01 pm
- Location: UK
Re: MD v JL: Gambit declined
Terry McCracken wrote:













-
- Posts: 16465
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:16 am
- Location: Canada
-
- Posts: 8557
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:01 pm
- Location: UK
Re: MD v JL: Gambit declined
Proclaims McDouchebag the super troll.Terry McCracken wrote:You're an idiot.Jack Lad wrote:Terry McCracken wrote:![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
-
- Posts: 8514
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 3:25 am
- Location: Jerusalem Israel
Re: MD v JL: Gambit declined
This was the move of which I couldn't think what would be the follow-up.Masterbaiter wrote:e5
Is it premature?