I'm playing someone on-line rated 1960, and we played these moves

1. e4 e6
2. d4 d5
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Bg5 Be7
5. Bxf6 Bxf6
6. e5 Bg5
7. h4

Is this gambit a TN?

he then played Bxh4

therefore...

8. Qg4 and so on

Phil

"Chess One" wrote in message
news:lLI1h.5568$mX4.2234@trndny03...
I'm playing someone on-line rated 1960, and we played these moves

1. e4 e6
2. d4 d5
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Bg5 Be7
5. Bxf6 Bxf6
6. e5 Bg5
7. h4

Is this gambit a TN?

he then played Bxh4

therefore...

8. Qg4 and so on

Phil



Found in www.chessbase-online.www :

Rasas,Robertas A - Lacis,J[C13]

LAT Exiles corr5254 Latvia, 1952

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Bxf6 Bxf6 6.e5 Bg5 7.h4 Be7 8.Qg4 Bf8
9.h5 Nc6 10.Rh3 Qe7 11.Rf3 Bd7 12.Nh3 h6 13.0-0-0 0-0-0 14.Qf4 a6 15.a3 f6
16.g4 fxe5 17.dxe5 Qc5 18.b4 Qb6 19.Na4 Qa7 20.b5 axb5 21.Bxb5 Nxe5 22.Qxe5
Bxb5 23.Rc3 Bd6 24.Qxe6+ Kb8 25.Nb2 Bxa3 26.Rxd5 Bb4 0-1


Everything old is new.

Regards,
John

On Oct 31, 9:06 am, "Chess One" wrote:
I'm playing someone on-line rated 1960, and we played these moves

1. e4 e6
2. d4 d5
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Bg5 Be7
5. Bxf6 Bxf6
6. e5 Bg5
7. h4

Is this gambit a TN?

he then played Bxh4

therefore...

8. Qg4 and so on

Um, Phil, first things first -- this is not the Winawer Variation,
which would require 3...Bb4. This, with 3...Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Bxf6, is
called the Anderssen Variation.
After 5...Bxf6 6.e5, the normal reply is 6...Be7, going back at least
to Bird-Mason, London 1883. Checking CB's MegaDatabase 2005, I found
three games with 6...Bg4, the earliest of which was Grott-Vukusic, NRW
Girls U20 Ch 1995, which continued 7.Qg4. None had 7.h4, so I suppose
it might be a TN -- but not in the Winawer.
I'd post the three games here, but my CB Reader is having one of its
frequent malfunctions, and it will only list the games, not show them.

"John Sheatsley" wrote in message
k.net...

"Chess One" wrote in message
news:lLI1h.5568$mX4.2234@trndny03...
I'm playing someone on-line rated 1960, and we played these moves

1. e4 e6
2. d4 d5
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Bg5 Be7
5. Bxf6 Bxf6
6. e5 Bg5
7. h4

Is this gambit a TN?

he then played Bxh4

therefore...

8. Qg4 and so on

Phil



Found in www.chessbase-online.www :

Rasas,Robertas A - Lacis,J[C13]

LAT Exiles corr5254 Latvia, 1952

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Bxf6 Bxf6 6.e5 Bg5 7.h4 Be7 8.Qg4
Bf8 9.h5 Nc6 10.Rh3 Qe7 11.Rf3 Bd7 12.Nh3 h6 13.0-0-0 0-0-0 14.Qf4 a6
15.a3 f6 16.g4 fxe5 17.dxe5 Qc5 18.b4 Qb6 19.Na4 Qa7 20.b5 axb5 21.Bxb5
Nxe5 22.Qxe5 Bxb5 23.Rc3 Bd6 24.Qxe6+ Kb8 25.Nb2 Bxa3 26.Rxd5 Bb4 0-1

Thanks John, it was probably not wise to take the pawn, and as Taylor
Kingston says, 'it is not a Winawer' French, since by definition any TN this
early is automatically not classifed as any 'named defence', but it does not
seem to have a name and has the Winawer feature of the Queen sortie. My game
did not continue as this one, and I waited until move 28 to get even on
material.

Which seemed like a hell of a long time to me!

This is an interesting reference you provide, is it called 'exiles' because
it was played outside Latvia? And in the year before I was born?


Everything old is new.

I never knew it, for sure. My game proceeded this way - of which I have very
many doubts to the soundness of my play

But the compensation was in a constant intiative. I also played the same
person with the black bits and played a 'Fischer' move in a modern benoni,
again which he took, and again perhaps unsoundly. Here is this game to the
point of material equality. I admit, I always prefer the white side.

1. e4 e6
2. d4 d5
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Bg5 Be7
5. Bxf6 Bxf6
6. e5 Bg5
7. h4 Bxh4
8. Qg4 Bg5
9. Nf3 Bh6
10. Bd3 Nc6
11. a3 Qe7
12. b4 f5
13. exf6 Qxf6
14. Qh5 Ke7
15. Ne2 Bd7
16. O-O Be8
17. Qh3 Bg6
18. b5 Na5
19. Ne5 Bxd3
20. Qxd3 b6
21. Qc3 Rc8
22. Qb4 Kd8
23. Rd1 Qe7
24. Qc3 Bg5
25. Re1 Bf6
26. Nf4 Bxe5
27. Rxe5 Qd6
28. Nxe6 Kd7

Cordially, Phil

Regards,
John

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:23:59 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Bxf6 Bxf6 6.e5 Bg5 7.h4 Be7 8.Qg4
Bf8 9.h5 Nc6 10.Rh3 Qe7 11.Rf3 Bd7 12.Nh3 h6 13.0-0-0 0-0-0 14.Qf4 a6
15.a3 f6 16.g4 fxe5 17.dxe5 Qc5 18.b4 Qb6 19.Na4 Qa7 20.b5 axb5 21.Bxb5
Nxe5 22.Qxe5 Bxb5 23.Rc3 Bd6 24.Qxe6+ Kb8 25.Nb2 Bxa3 26.Rxd5 Bb4 0-1

Thanks John, it was probably not wise to take the pawn, and as Taylor
Kingston says, 'it is not a Winawer' French, since by definition any TN this
early is automatically not classifed as any 'named defence', but it does not
seem to have a name

Up through White's move 6, I believe this is called Anderssen's
Variation. At best, Black's sixth move just lets White go back into
standard lines a tempo up.


and has the Winawer feature of the Queen sortie.

The "Queen sortie" is a feature of many lines in both the Steinitz and
Anderssen Variations, among others. As Taylor mentions, it's ....
B-QN5 on the third move that distinguishes the Winawar Variation.


Uhhhh, there's this web site called "Chessville" with a nice summary
of French Defense terminology:
http://www.chessville.com/instructio...french_eco.htm

Chess One wrote:
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Bxf6 Bxf6 6. e5 Bg5 7. h4
Bxh4 8. Qg4 Bg5 9. Nf3 Bh6 10. Bd3 Nc6 11. a3 Qe7 12. b4 f5 13. exf6
Qxf6 14. Qh5 Ke7 15. Ne2 Bd7 16. O-O Be8 17. Qh3 Bg6 18. b5 Na5
19. Ne5 Bxd3 20. Qxd3 b6 21. Qc3 Rc8

21... Rac8, I assume.

22. Qb4 Kd8 23. Rd1

23.Rad1, I assume.

23... Qe7 24. Qc3 Bg5 25. Re1

25.Rfe1, I assume.

25... Bf6 26. Nf4 Bxe5 27. Rxe5 Qd6 28. Nxe6 Kd7


Dave.

--
David Richerby Broken Pickled Gnome (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a smiling garden ornament but it's
preserved in vinegar and it doesn't
work!

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...

The "Queen sortie" is a feature of many lines in both the Steinitz and
Anderssen Variations, among others. As Taylor mentions, it's ....
B-QN5 on the third move that distinguishes the Winawar Variation.


Uhhhh, there's this web site called "Chessville" with a nice summary
of French Defense terminology:
http://www.chessville.com/instructio...french_eco.htm

I don't trust everything I read on the web! I wonder for example if this
site covers the Armenian French, that's often a test of a good site - or
even book - I notice that NCO left it out, eg. Some of these web-sites are
not very comprehensive, IMO, bit of this, bit of that...

Anyway, I have learned two things, its not a TN in the Winawer, and someone
played it in 1952, but the formation seems anomalous.

Phil

On Oct 31, 6:23 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
Thanks John, it was probably not wise to take the pawn, and as Taylor
Kingston says, 'it is not a Winawer' French, since by definition any TN this
early is automatically not classifed as any 'named defence',

Wrong reason, Phil. It is not a Winawer French for this reason: after
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3, Black played 3...Nf6 instead of 3...Bb4. The
distinguishing move of the Winawer French is 3...Bb4. Shouldn't a
Nearly-an-IM like you know that?

but it does not
seem to have a name and has the Winawer feature of the Queen sortie.

The queen sortie is completely irrelevant. Qd1-g4 is played in
several lines of the French, for example Nimzovitch's peculiar
treatment of the Advance variation, 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.Qg4. On
the other hand, there are many lines of the Winawer French where White
never plays Qd1-g4. So that move has nothing to do with the
nomenclature of this line.
The Winawer variation of the French, 3...Bb4, is called that because
of its use by Szymon Winawer (1838-1919). He preferred knights to
bishops, and so was partial to opening lines involving early B-for-N
exchanges.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ps.com...

On Oct 31, 6:23 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
Thanks John, it was probably not wise to take the pawn, and as Taylor
Kingston says, 'it is not a Winawer' French, since by definition any TN
this
early is automatically not classifed as any 'named defence',

Wrong reason, Phil. It is not a Winawer French for this reason: after
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3, Black played 3...Nf6 instead of 3...Bb4. The
distinguishing move of the Winawer French is 3...Bb4. Shouldn't a
Nearly-an-IM like you know that?

How would nearly a B player know what nearly an IM would know?

I just don't know if this thing has a name - if you don't know either, go
troll somewhere else. This is a *real chess* thread, and its not all about
you!

Even though you don't know nuthin this hardly inhibits your ****. And you
have done this to everyone who knows more than you. My sin is that I
innocently played these moves, having never encountered them before. So
sorry, but get over it!

I thought I got very good initiative for my pawn, and this was the intent of
the gambit. Chess players often do this.

but it does not
seem to have a name and has the Winawer feature of the Queen sortie.

The queen sortie is completely irrelevant. Qd1-g4 is played in
several lines of the French, for example Nimzovitch's peculiar
treatment of the Advance variation, 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.Qg4. On
the other hand, there are many lines of the Winawer French where White
never plays Qd1-g4. So that move has nothing to do with the
nomenclature of this line.
The Winawer variation of the French, 3...Bb4, is called that because
of its use by Szymon Winawer (1838-1919). He preferred knights to
bishops, and so was partial to opening lines involving early B-for-N
exchanges.

yes, and it also had an early B-for-N exchange

not because Winawer did it or Queen Victoria put a medal on it, and
completely in ignorance of its name or precedents - it don't have one -but
because we nearly-an-IMs sometimes do this, which we laughingly call
'playing chess', creativity', or 'winging-it'

PI

On Nov 1, 10:39 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in glegroups.com...

On Oct 31, 6:23 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
Thanks John, it was probably not wise to take the pawn, and as Taylor
Kingston says, 'it is not a Winawer' French, since by definition any TN
this
early is automatically not classifed as any 'named defence',

Wrong reason, Phil. It is not a Winawer French for this reason: after
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3, Black played 3...Nf6 instead of 3...Bb4. The
distinguishing move of the Winawer French is 3...Bb4. Shouldn't a
Nearly-an-IM like you know that?

I just don't know if this thing has a name - if you don't know either, go
troll somewhere else. This is a *real chess* thread, and its not all about
you!

That's right, Phil, it's (in part) about opening nomenclature.
Whether this line has a name or not, it is *_not_* a line of the
Winawer. That's my sole point. Perhaps you actually meant to title this
thread "Is this a TN in the French?", but of course you're too
stiff-necked to admit that you can ever make even an inadvertent
mistake.