From: preiss@i31s15.ira.uka.de (Martin Preiss)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Lissizyn gambit (was Piket-van Mil)
Date: 28 Aug 1992 17:39:58 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: i31s15.ira.uka.de


Sorry that this posting is so late.
It contains annotations and questions concerning the 'Lissizyn gambit'
which occured in the game Piket-van Mil and was discussed here some 
days/weeks ago.


In article <1992Aug23.184226.18752@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>, gls@windmill.att.COM (I am not Harry Palmer) writes:
|> In <16u3q0INN10j@iraul1.ira.uka.de>, preiss@i31s15.ira.uka.de writes:
|> >
|> > |> > 1. Nf3 f5
|> > |> > 2. e4  fe

  In the meantime I found the position in Nesis' book
    
    G. Nesis 
    Hollaendische Verteidigung 
    Schachverlag Rudi Schmaus 1992
    ( no ISBN )

  under the name 'Lissizyn Gambit' ( Who or what is Lissizyn ? ).

|> > |> > 3. Ng5 d5
|> > |> > 4. d3  Qd6
|> >   
|> >  As far as I know a good alternative is still:
|> >  5. dxe4  h6
|> >  6. Qh5+  g6
|> >  7. Qh4   Bg7
|> >  8. Nf3   +=/=
|> >  Has anybody new games or insights for this position ?

  Nesis gives 
  8.  ..    dxe4  ( 8... Bf6 9. e5 Bx35 10. Bd3 +/- )
  9.  Qxe4  Nc6
  10. Bb5   Bf5
  11. Bxc6+ bxc6
  12. Qe2   Nf6
  13. 0-0   Nd5
  14. Na3   0-0
  15. Nc4   Qf6 
  16. Nfe5 +=  Schwarz - Moskalenko, Podolsk 1990

  8. .. g5 (!) as proposed by Jarmo Sorvari in a recent posting looks
  like an improvement.

|> 
|> I tried it on a 9000/870; the game continued 8... Bf6; 9. e5 [] B:e5;
|> 10. Bd3 Bg7; 11. O-O e5 (computers are fearless); 12. Rd1 Ne7; 13. Nc3
|> c6; 14. Be3 e4 (see previous note); 15. B:e4 Bf6; 16. B:g6+ N:g6; 17. Qh5
|> B:c3; 18. bc Na6 (somebody started compiling something, which is the
|> computer equivalent of unloading a cargo of steel tubing in the tournament
|> hall); 19. c4 Nb4 (still compiling); 20. Bc5 and it's all over.  I suspect
|> that Black is all right up to and not including 18... Na6.  But it's hard
|> to say.
|> 


Piket - van Mil  was 

 1. Nf3 f5 2. e4 fe 3. Ng5 d5 4. d3 Qd6 5. Nc3 h6 6. Nb5 Qc6

I wrote
|> On the  black side I would try to improve by 6... Qb6.
|> The game could continue with 

|> 7. Qh5+   g6
|> 8. Nxc7+  Kd7
|> 9. Nxa8   ( Perhaps van Mil played  6... Qc6 to avoid this.  But ...)
|>           Qa5+
|> 10. Bd2    Qxd2+
|> 11. Kxd2   gxh5

|> Black should be able to catch the knight a8 and gain a material plus.
|> Any human or silicon analyses are welcome.


James H. Coombs answers
in Article: 11945 of rec.games.chess 
            Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:20:27 GMT

|> Mark asked me in email similar questions to those posted here.

|> a)  is 6...Qc6 the best move (versus other queen moves), and

|> I asked Zarkov to generate three candidate moves in this position.  At
|> 40/2, the best it found were:

|> Move               Score    Suggested Line
|>   6.       Qc6       -87   7   d6c6  d3e4  h6g5  e4d5  c6c5  c1g5  g8f6
|>   6.       Qc6        37   8   d6b4  c2c3  b4b5  d1h5  e8d7  h5g4  d7d8  g5f7
|>                                d8e8  g4g6  c8f5  g6f5
|>   6.       Qc6       144   7   d6b6  d1h5  e8d7  d3e4  g8f6  h5h3  d7d8  g5f7
|>                               d8e8  h3c8  e8f7  b5c7

|> In the short run, then, Qc6 seems to be the best, and Qb6 seems
|> unpromising.
...


Zarkov doesn't explain why he prefers 7.. Kd7 to 7.. g6 in the 
variation after 6..Qb6. There are  two possibilities:

a) Zarkov found a variation which gives White an advantage that I
   overlooked.
   Does anybody see this refutation of 6..Qb6 ?

b) Perhaps Zarkov followed the variation I gave above and 
   evaluated the position after 11... gxh5  as good
   for White.  Probably most (or all) of todays chess programs would agree
   with this evaluation as White is an exchange up for the next time.
   I don't see a way to save the trapped knight. So the position may be
   better for Black and serve as an example of the 'horizon effect'.
   To correctly detect and evaluate such positions (e.g. trapped knights)
   is a major problem in computer chess. 
   Does anybody know how leading chess programs ( e.g. Deep Thought )
   cope with it ?


A propos:

Are the mentioned 2300 for Zarkov USCF rating or international Elo ?
Do the originate from games against humans or against other programs ?



Martin Preiss, 2240