Talk:King's Gambit, Rice Gambit
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Concrete Analysis? edit
Does it exist? Guess it might be 8.... Bxe5 9. Re1 Qe7 10. c3 f3 11. gxf3 Qxh4 -+ ChessCreator (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Update analysis edit
Would anyone like to update this with an external source? The current assessment, though it quotes ECO in 1997, must be decades old. I suspect it should be a clear advantage for Black whether White continues 9. d4 or 9. Re1.
I suggest someone summarise the John K. Shaw Rice Gambit section from "The King's Gambit" (2013). I don't have a copy unfortunately ... Cancerward (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
For reference - Stockfish analysis
9. d4 Bd6 (-1.90, 56 ply)
otherwise .... following the main line of 9. Re1 Qe7 10. c3 Nbd7 11. d4 Nh5 (or 10. c3 Nh5 11. d4 Nbd7) ... then
(a) 12. Bb5 (-1.97, 56 ply) ... 12... Kf8 13. dxe5 Nxe5 14. b3 Kg7 15. Qd4 f6 etc (eval -2.22, 55 ply)
(b) 12. dxe5 Nxe5 (-3.98, 44 ply) ... then following the ECO line ... 13. b3 O-O 14. Ba3 Nf3+ 15. gxf3 Qxh4 16. Re5 Ng3! ... then
17. Nd2 f6 18. d6+ Kh8 19. dxc7 Qh1+ 20. Kf2 Qh2+ 21. Ke1 Qh4 22. Bxf8 Ne4+ 23. Ke2 Qf2+ 24. Kd3 Qe3+ 25. Kc2 Qxc3+ 26. Kb1 Nxd2+ 27. Qxd2 Qxd2 28. Rd5 Bf5+ 29. Rxf5 Rxf8 30. Rd5 Qe1+ 31. Kb2 Qe7 32. fxg4 Qxc7 ... then 33. Rad1 f5 34. gxf5 f3 etc (eval -6.69, 45 ply)
(c) 12. Qxg4 Ndf6 (-2.42, 54 ply)
the Shaw alternative is 10... f3 11. d4 Ne4 12. Rxe4 Bh2+ 13. Kxh2 Qxe4 ... PV is 14. Bg5 g3+ (-1.81, 60 ply) although it switches back and forth between 14. Bg5 and 14. g3 a lot.
Looks after 9. Re1 (instead of 9. d4) ... that after 9. Re1 Qe7 10. c3 ... 10... Nbd7 or 10... Nh5 is the way to go rather than 10... f3. Every line is winning. Cancerward (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Obviously you can't use engine output in wikipedia. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- If anyone is following this, there's a much better winning alternative: 8... Nbd7!
- I can't find a published source, so if anybody wants to publish it in a source that Wikipedia considers "authoritative" and link back to it on the main page, that would be very helpful to readers.
- 47 [-2.63] 8.... Nbd7 9.d4 Nxe5 10.Qe1 O-O 11.dxe5 Bc5+ 12.Kh1 Ne4 13.Bxf4 Nf2+ 14.Rxf2 Qxh4+ 15.Kg1 g3 16.Bxg3 Qxg3 17.Nd2 Re8 18.e6 Bxf2+ 19.Qxf2 Qxf2+ 20.Kxf2 fxe6
- Cancerward (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)