The Tarrasch game is currently just a diagram. Could you please fix that for us? 
Schliemann defense
Sort:
My experience with the Jaenisch Gambit or Schliemann is that Black needs to know this game right down to the last move in the endgame. Black often ends up two pawns down in the ending, with chances.
This opening is good enough vs players who don't know it. To even get to this defense, black must also play very well against the Bishop's Opening, Scotch Game, Scotch Gambit, King's Gambit, Vienna Game, Italian game (or Two Knights' Defense), Four Knights' Game, etc. This defense is ok for those with a computer backup or an ok defense for those who know how to survive all the White tries just mentioned. White avoids the Ruy Lopez these days.
I have played it, but what I see masters play against it is far different than anything I have had to meet. I know 25 defenses (for Black) to the Spanish Ruy Lopez and this one is not at the top of my list.
The Schliemann Defense is one of the six most popular variations of the Ruy Lopez. I think that the following link gives correct description of this variation:
I finished a Schliemann game a couple of days ago that was quite fun. It was played very casually (half an evening) against one of my "regulars". Although riddled with errors by both sides, it gives a flavour of the shenanigans involved when one plays the Schliemann:
I play it frequently, because I want to play 1 ...e5, and I'm a little apathetic about mainline Ruy stuff. So it's this, or 3... Nd4 for me. Both are fun to play.
From "Searching For Bobby Fischer":
Vinnie: What's that?
Josh: Schliemann attack.
Vinnie: Schliemann attack? Where'd you learn that from, a book?
Josh: No, my teacher taught me.
Vinnie: Oh, your teacher. Well, forget it. Play like you used to, from the gut. Get your pawns rolling on the queen's side. Come and get me.
This is what got me hooked on it.
Here's one of my favourites: :)
Him didn't know what hit Him. 
NN28 wrote:
REFUTATION OF THE 3..exf4 5..d5 SCHLIEMANN (do ppl actually play this at master level and above?)
Yes:
1: =-=(32) Carlsen 2813 - Nisipeanu 2672, Medias ROU 2010 [88]
2: 1-0(37) Kamsky 2735 - Piket 2625, Groningen 1995 [75]
3: 1-0(33) Fischer - Matulovic, Herceg Novi 1970 [60]
4: 1-0(41) Svidler 2726 - Degraeve 2558, Mulhouse FRA 2009 [37]
5: 1-0(26) Timman 2635 - Piket 2640, Wijk aan Zee 1995 [7]
6: 0-1(30) Timman 2635 - Speelman 2615, London 1989 [88]
7: =-=(52) Spassky - Kholmov, Baku 1961 [16]
8: =-=(24) Karpov 2705 - Parma 2510, Ljubljana 1975 [51]
A collection of games in the Schliemann's:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1004274
It's nowhere near being refuted, if anything it seems to end up being drawish on top level. Personally though, I found that it requires a bit too much theory study for my taste.
Right, Carlsen is wrong, you are right. Now I know in what context I should assess things you write. Thanx for clearing that up.
nigel davies have written well about this opening in his book gambiteer 2 where he recommend it for black and he really believes in blacks chances there compared to the ordinary lopez. it a good book. you should ckeck it out:)
Atos wrote:
A collection of games in the Schliemann's:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1004274
It's nowhere near being refuted, if anything it seems to end up being drawish on top level. Personally though, I found that it requires a bit too much theory study for my taste.
out of curiosity what lopezlines do you play instead?
tigergutt wrote:
Atos wrote:
A collection of games in the Schliemann's:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1004274
It's nowhere near being refuted, if anything it seems to end up being drawish on top level. Personally though, I found that it requires a bit too much theory study for my taste.
out of curiosity what lopezlines do you play instead?
Usually the Marshall's attack, when I have an opportunity.
NN28, calm down. The Schliemann's is a respectable opening and used by strong grandmasters. It's not "refuted" or anything.
NN28 wrote:
rooperi wrote:
Right, Carlsen is wrong, you are right. Now I know in what context I should assess things you write. Thanx for clearing that up.
Are you dumb or something? Since when do we equate superGMs with Rybka 3/Houdini?
Go analyze the game yourself with any dencent engine,and see what move it suggests on white's 10th move.
Btw are you even aware how erratic GM's play tends to be? Why do you think there's a 450 elo difference between the best engines and the best GMs around?
Carlsen didn't know the opening properly and fucked up.
You think these are my lines..? That I just came up with them out of nowhere..?
No, I'm not dumb, but you clearly have a problem.
Because Engines are super strong, You call Carlsen a noob? That makes you an idiot.
Because Engines are super strong, and can possibly win against a Super GM against the Schlieman, you think the same is not true for other (esp Black) openings? That makes you an idiot.
Because you make a statement about "master level', and when proved wrong you suddenly shift the goalposts to 'the best engines'? That makes you an idiot.
Because you can't write a post without dropping the f bomb, not only makes you an idiot, but an immature little worm as well.
An opening which has been fascinating me for a while is the Schliemann defense played in the Ruy Lopez or Spanish opening. Playing directly for the initiative with this aggressive opening by opening the f-file and attacking the kingside. It can also be used as a surprise weapon against your unknowing opponent! The opening goes as following:
After this, white has a numerous options like 4.exf5, 4.d3 or maybe 4.d4!? but developing with 4.Nc3 is considered best, as it develops a piece and supports the e4 pawn.
Below a wonderful game played by Pillsbury against Tarrasch:
I would like to conclude this article with my own game where I was playing with the black pieces: