White can play contra gambit :
Medusa Gambit Madness 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g5
Sort:
The Contra Gambit looks like an Omega type of Gambit that I play.
The Omega has the moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.e4 where the e pawn is sacrificed.
See my article at Chessville on the Omega Gambit in my column called
"The Search for Dragons & Mythical Chess Openings. The move 4...f5 is
clearly a horrendous blunder which should have never been played.
Better was 4...d5 guarding the N at e5. The move 4...f5 just fatally
weakened the Black kingside position.
Who named this gambit the Contra Gambit? It looks like an interesting
line against the Medusa Gambit. This is the first time that I had seen
this line.
Best Regards
DarthMusashi
19 hours ago·Quote·#67
DarthMusashi: Any reaction at all to the earlier discussion?
Only one game features what we have decided is the critical line, 4.Bf4 c5 5.Qc2, game number 1. Black played the new move 5...Qb6 (instead of ..Qa5+) which was weakly met by 6.dxc5, but 6.e3 is a much better reply.
I have to take a look at the position again, however there are other
lines being played in my games with the Medusa such as:
1. d4 Nf6 2.c4 g5 3.Bxg5 Ne4
4.Bf4
4.Bh4 I have seen this move quite often maybe as often as 4.Bf4
4.Nf3 computers like to play this move which is a good developing move
4.Be3 Eric Schiller played this against my Medusa & lost
4.Bc1 undoing the weakness at the b2 square. I have rarely seen this move,
Best Regards
DarthMusashi
I just tryed to see the shortcomings of Medusa Gambit.Usually the best answer to gambits is to make a contra-sacrifice in a proper moment. I decided to call it contra gambit but i don't know if there is any theory about it.
If 4...d5 :
I do not believe there is any theory on this because I wrote
the article on the Medusa Gambit at Chessville. And my article
never covered this.
This is a really a fascinating new idea. My hats off to you.
Best Regards
DarthMusashi
In that position after 3.Nc3 I would have guarded the pawn at g5 with 3..h6.
Was this from an actual game for is this just analysis?
Best Regards
DarthMusashi
My current evaluation on the Medusa Gambit is that it is not totally sound. However I still enjoy playing it because I get very unique posiitons which you would not otherwise find in regular openings.
But for those of you who just analyze and say that it is unsound, I would
suggest you play the Medusa to find out for yourself rather than speculating on whether it is playable or not playable. The tactics you learn in the Medusa Gambit can be used in other opening settings. You will gain a further insight into the weaknesses of certain positions.
Tactics is what separates the different classes. As Eric Shiller had said
it is still food for thought.
You can try it in your practice blitz games or offhand games. For those
of you at the lower levels you need to improve your tactics, whether the
opening is sound or not sound it should not matter. In practice games
you should be trying to improve your game rather than trying to win
your games. If you just try to win your games then you will be playing
the same lines that win for you. You need to experiment with the openings and even with tactics to improve your game. When I see a
speculative sac I will attempt it because I was curious to see whether
it will work or not. Of course in a tournament game you should play
to win your game.
I also believe in the concept of Kanai which is the striving to improve
yourself. So in this case I had tried to improve the Medusa Gambit
and even wrote an ariticle in Chessville called Medusa Gambit Miniatures.
Best Regards
DarthMusashi
I am inclined to agree with you . You have my encouragement :)
Sherlock_Holmes
I am inclined to agree with you . You have my encouragement :)
Many thanks for your encouragement. I do hope others will follow my
suggestions on improving their game.
Best Regards
DarthMusashi
I greatly appreciate that DarthMusashi brought my attention to this opening. It looks absolutely ridiculous, but the Medusa Gambit does have its merits even though it is not completely sound. It definitely expanded my horizons and allowed me to experience positions that I had never seen before to say the least!
Some years ago i was possessed by the idea to sacrifice a knight or bishop for 3 or even 2 pawns, and i was doing this in every suitable and not so suitable situation in most of the games with not very good result.
But it gave me a good understanding for such unbalanced positions and now i can say that 3 pawns are very good compensation for a light piece.
here is a significant improvement on this gambit! (I think)
The medusa gambit deferred!
This line is a totally different opening because it originates with the Benoni Defense. However it looks very interesting and promising. I would have to investigate this opening further. You will probably have to give it another name.
Best Regards
DarthMusashi
the point of my gambit is similar to the medusa, and the final position in my previous diagram could be reached in both gambits:
but I think that the addition of the move d5 by white only improves black's chances on the long diagonal
After 5.Bc1
I didn't check this lines - just fantasy
I tried playing against the Contra Gambit in a test game. I had
set the initial position as 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g5 3.e4 and played the
Black side from this position against Firefly 2350 in game
25 minutes. I believe I should have won that game and must have
missed the win. See game below:
A long time ago Daniel Oshima (class A player) said that he had played
the Medusa Gambit 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g5 against his teacher Reynolds Takata
(master) in blitz games. He was laughing and said that the Medusa Gambit
was driving Reynolds crazy. He kept beating Reynolds with the Medusa
Gambit.
Best Regards
DarthMusashi
The move 3...d5 was an error. Black cannot let White take the g pawn
because the White pawn at g5 will be a problem latter. I suspected 3...d5 was an error so I consulted chess engine Houdini 1.5a.
Houdini 1.5a came up with 2 alternative moves:
3...g4 =
3...gxh4 +/= I had orginally thought that 3...gxh4 was better
See analysis below:
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2012.08.03"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Medusa Gambit"]
[Black "Analysis by Houdini 1.5a"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "A50"]
[Annotator "Doe,John"]
[PlyCount "13"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g5 3. h4 gxh4 (3... g4 4. e3 Bg7 5. Nc3 d5 6. cxd5 Nxd5 7. Nge2 Nc6 8. Nxd5 Qxd5 9. Nc3 Qd6 10. Be2 f5 {=}) 4. Rxh4 Bg7 5. Nf3 c6 6. Nc3 d6 7. g3 {+/=} *
Also, I think 3...g4 is marginally better, but after 4.Nc3 (what's with 4.e3?) Bg7 5.e4 d6 6.h5, what has black got?
Black has a playable game. He is not down any material. He still has chances to win the game.
but come on! 4.Rxh4? is absurd! Simply something like 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Nc3 c6 6.e4 d6 7.Nxh4 and white is better.
According to Houdini 1.5a the line you gave still does not change it's
evaluation that White is better. It was +/= even with your line. It's
advantage is only 0.49 a half a pawn. This advantage may not be
enough to win. I have played games down 2 pawns or more. That
does not bother me. As a gambit player you should be able to hold
the game to a draw a pawn down.
I have played 1...h5 against 1.g4 which is similar to this h4 line you
looked at.
Also Lloyd Kawamura (2400) has played the move gxh4 against me
in another opening 1.d4 g6 2.h4 Bg7 3.h5 gxh4 which is similar to
the line you are considering. I played 4.Rxh4 Nf6 5.Rh1. But he castled Queenside. We drew several blitz games with this line.
Best Regards
Clyde Nakamura
DarthMusashi: Any reaction at all to the earlier discussion?
Only one game features what we have decided is the critical line, 4.Bf4 c5 5.Qc2, game number 1. Black played the new move 5...Qb6 (instead of ..Qa5+) which was weakly met by 6.dxc5, but 6.e3 is a much better reply.