Wednesday, July 31, 2013


Despite that engines play today much stronger than humans, interest in games played between engines is much smaller than games played between humans. Quality is not enough to attract a big audience. Every player will admit that chess played in a competition between humans is many times richer than purely calculating the best move. Besides what is considered as the best move by an engine can even be a mistake in a specific game. I can imagine a situation where the best move leads to a perpetual while a draw is no option due to the tournament-situation. 

Obviously engines have evolved enormously in the last decades. However if we look to 1990 then I dare to state that engines aren't playing more human today, at contrary. It was in that era that I learned to play chess. In my blogarticle schaakcompositities I already mentioned that I bought a tablet : Mephisto Europa A to practice. Well I believe that I have played hundreds, maybe even thousands of games against it. After I started to win on the highest level of the Mephisto Europe A, I bought the Tandy Chess Champion 2150. Also against that tablet I again played several hundreds of games. Around 1995 I switched to the PC and I played 40 games with a long time control against Siberian Chess and Fritz 2. These gigantic matches were my last engine confrontations as next the door opened to tournament-chess against humans and I never looked again to engine-games. 

It is evident that this unusual competition lasting for several years had a serious impact on my style. A computer punishes every careless move and doesn't lose the attention. You are forced to be very concentrated during the complete course of the game and you learn to double check each move if it is tactically correct. Prudence is the key to score which generated a big aversion of anything risky. While this approach works well against engines, it quickly appeared to be much less effective against humans. My new opponents spent much less attention to material and were ready to take risks for the initiative or to get compensation, counterchances,... which was totally new for me. Besides I experienced that it was very hard to acquire these new skills as it was fully contradicting my auto-didactic prudent style. In this aspect Jacob Aagaard is right in his comments below the blogarticle  Is chess really a young man's game? that engines are bad for the early development of a chessplayer. On the other hand it is clear that practicing against engines is still many times better than no practice at all for the development.

In the comments below my blogarticle mijn mooiste zet I already stated that I was aware that improving would require a more aggressive approach of my playing-style. However this didn't go easily. I remember once that I tried an interesting gambit in one of my very first interclubgames in Belgium. I received excellent chances but in the game I didn't use them and suffered a painful defeat. 
[Event "Interclub Roeselare-Pion68"] [Date "1998"] [White "Brabo"] [Black "Groenewald, L."] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "B27"] [WhiteElo "2270"] [BlackElo "2225"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "r3nrk1/pp1bppbp/1qnp2p1/8/2BPP3/5N1P/PPN2PP1/R1BQR1K1 w - - 0 12"] [PlyCount "60"] 12. Be3 {(With this gambit I manage to complete quickly the development.)} Na5 13. Bd3 Qxb2 14. Qd2 $6 {(White misses a number of chances in the game. Here Bg5 is better to first provoke f6 after which we can follow up with Bd2.)} (14. Bg5 $1 $14) 14... Qb6 15. Nb4 Nc6 16. Rab1 Qd8 17. Rec1 e6 18. Bc4 Nc7 19. Bb3 $6 (19. Nxc6 $1 $14) 19... a5 20. Nxc6 bxc6 21. Ba4 Ra6 22. Rb7 Qc8 23. Rb2 Qa8 24. Bf4 Nb5 25. Rbc2 $6 (25. Bh6 $1 $14) 25... Rd8 26. Bg5 $6 (26. Bh6 $1 $14) 26... Rc8 27. Qd3 $6 (27. e5 $1 $14) 27... Rb8 28. Bf4 Bf8 29. Nh2 Be8 30. Ng4 Bg7 31. Be3 $4 (31. Bxb5 $1 $16) 31... Qb7 32. Nh2 $6 ( 32. e5 $1 $14) 32... d5 33. e5 f5 34. Nf3 $4 {(White blows his last winning-chance and in timetrouble it goes completely wrong.)} (34. exf6 $1 $16) 34... Qe7 35. Nd2 Rab6 36. Rc5 Qa7 37. Nb3 Bf8 38. R5c2 Na3 39. Nc5 Nxc2 40. Nxe6 Nxe3 41. Qxe3 Rb1 0-1
A complete swap from a positional player to a pure attacking player didn't happen but I dare to state that today my game has become more dynamic. I can direct better an initiative which means the risks of investing material have become smaller. In the past Open Gent I played a few nice attacking games of which my game against the German player Olaf Pienski probably best illustrates how I treat today material in a more flexible way.
[Event "Open Gent 5de ronde"] [Date "2013"] [White "Brabo"] [Black "Pienski, O."] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C18"] [WhiteElo "2344"] [BlackElo "2075"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "r1n3rk/pp1q1bpp/4p3/n2pPp1P/3P1N2/P1PB2Q1/3B1PP1/1R3RK1 w - - 0 21"] [PlyCount "14"] 21. c4 {(I was looking already for some time to this breakthrough but only now I considered it sufficient which is confirmed by the engines. )} Nxc4 (21... dxc4 22. Bxa5 cxd3 23. d5 Ne7 24. dxe6 Bxe6 25. Rfd1 $18) 22. Bxc4 dxc4 23. d5 g5 (23... exd5 24. e6 {(This triple-gambit was obviously the purpose. )} Bxe6 25. Bc3 Ne7 ( 25... d4 26. Rfd1 $18) 26. h6 d4 27. Rxb7 {(There are several roads leading to victory but this one is the fastest.)} Qxb7 28. Bxd4 Nc6 29. Bc3 $18) 24. hxg6 Ne7 25. Qh4 Rxg6 26. Nxg6 Nxg6 27. Qf6 Kg8 {(Black did not want to wait for Bh6 after which the position collapses. )} 1-0
Now I admit that this example is pretty lame for real attacking players. Some players make it even a duty in each game to sacrifice material so they can force their own attacking style upon their opponent. We surely all know players whom fit this description. We admire but at the same time fear these players. 1 Belgian FM whom fits surely in this category is Luc Henris. Twice I had the pleasure to meet him on the board and each time the game was a wild affair.
[Event "Interclub Deurne-Anderlecht"] [Date "1999"] [White "Brabo"] [Black "Henris, L."] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "C63"] [WhiteElo "2261"] [BlackElo "2267"] [PlyCount "61"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 f5 4. Nc3 fxe4 5. Nxe4 d5 6. Nxe5 dxe4 7. Nxc6 Qg5 8. Qe2 Nf6 9. f4 Qh4 10. g3 Qh3 11. Ne5 c6 12. Bc4 Bc5 13. d3 Ng4 14. Nf7 Bf2 15. Kd1 e3 16. Qf3 Nf6 17. f5 Nd5 {(Obviously I prepared the game as I did not know previously so much theory about the Schliemanngambit. Till here I followed exactly the recommendation of Gary Lane his book. The variation continued with Rf8 and after 2 more moves white would have a winning advantage. Now accidentally Gary Lane sit 2 boards further so I found it already suspicious why Luc Henris followed this variation. Luc naturally had a novelty in his sleeve which I only later discovered in the openingbook of Rebel.)} 18. Bxd5 (18. Nd6 $5 Kd7 19. Ne4 Rf8 20. Nxf2 exf2 21. Qxf2 Rxf5 22. Qe2 {(This is another continuation which exists and in this unclear position I have the feeling that black has not enough compensation for the pawn.)}) 18... cxd5 19. Nd6 {(Later at home I discovered Be3. First I thought this wins easily but analyzes showed that it is still very complicated.)} (19. Bxe3 Bxe3 (19... O-O 20. Nh6 gxh6 21. Qxd5 Rf7 22. Bxf2 Bxf5 23. Bd4 Bg4 24. Kd2 Bf3 25. Qe5 Qg2 $18) 20. Nxh8 d4 (20... Bxf5 21. Qxe3 Kf8 22. Re1 Qh5 23. Kc1 Kg8 24. Qe5 Kxh8 25. Qxd5 Qh6 $18) 21. Qe4 Kf8 22. Qd5 Qh5 23. Ke1 Qe8 (23... Bd7 24. Qxd7 Re8 (24... Bg5 25. Qf7 Qxf7 26. Nxf7 Kxf7 27. Kd1 Kf6 28. Rf1 Be3 29. a4 Re8 $18) 25. Qf7 Qxf7 26. Nxf7 Kxf7 27. Ke2 h5 28. h3 Bg5 29. Kf1 Re3 $18) 24. Rf1 Bg5 $1 $146 {(Unbelievable but till here I found everything back in the databases. A serious improvement on the correspondence game which I found.)} 25. Kd1 $5 {(My original choice was Kf2 to activate the 2nd rook a.s.a.p. However after a5-Ra6 it is not clear immediately if white got a winning advantage. The f-line is blocked by the white king and the king is less safe on f2 than d1. Of course the big disadvantage of Kd1 is that the rook on a1 is locked up. At this moment I believe white does not need the rook to organize the attack.)} Qd7 $1 ( 25... Bd7 26. g4 Rc8 (26... Ba4 27. b3 Bc6 28. Ng6 hxg6 29. fxg6 Bf6 30. Qh5 Qe6 31. g5 Bg2 $18) 27. Ng6 hxg6 28. fxg6 Bf6 29. Qh5 Be6 30. g5 Qc6 31. Rf2 Ke7 $18) (25... Qh5 26. Rf3 Qe8 (26... Ke7 27. h4 Bd7 28. Qf7 Qxf7 29. Nxf7 Bxh4 30. gxh4 Kxf7 $18) 27. h4 Bf6 28. g4 Bxh4 29. Rf1 Bd7 (29... Qd7 30. Ng6 hxg6 31. fxg6 Bf6 32. Qxd7 Bxd7 33. g5 $18) 30. Ng6 hxg6 31. fxg6 Bf6 32. g5 Qxg6 33. gxf6 $18) 26. Qb3 a5 $1 (26... b6 27. h4 Bf6 28. g4 Bb7 29. Qe6 Qc7 30. g5 Re8 31. Qf7 Qxf7 32. Nxf7 Kxf7 33. gxf6 Kxf6 $18) 27. h4 Bd8 $1 (27... a4 28. Qf7 Qxf7 29. Nxf7 Bxh4 30. gxh4 Kxf7 $18) (27... Bf6 28. g4 a4 29. Qe6 Qxe6 30. fxe6 Ke7 31. g5 Be5 $18) 28. Rf4 {(White threatens Rd4-Rd8 and black can not recapture due to mate on f7.)} Bf6 $1 (28... Bc7 29. Rxd4 Qxf5 30. Qa3 Kg8 31. Qe7 b5 32. Qe8 Qf8 33. Qxf8 Kxf8 34. Kd2 $18) (28... a4 29. Qc4 Bf6 30. Re4 b5 31. Qc5 Be7 32. Qxd4 Qxd4 33. Rxd4 Bf6 34. Rd5 $18) 29. g4 a4 (29... b5 30. g5 Be5 (30... a4 31. Qe6 Qc7 32. Qd5 Bb7 33. Qf7 Qxf7 34. Nxf7 Kxf7 35. gxf6 Kxf6 $18) 31. Rf1 a4 32. Qe6 Qxe6 33. fxe6 Ke7 34. Nf7 Bg3 35. Rg1 Bxh4 $18) (29... Ra6 30. g5 Be5 31. Rf2 a4 32. Qe6 Qxe6 33. fxe6 $18) 30. Qc4 $5 {(Surely other continuations must be sufficient too for the win.)} b5 31. Qc5 Kg8 32. g5 Be7 33. Qxd4 Kxh8 34. Kd2 Qxd4 35. Rxd4 Kg8 $18 {(The endgame must be won for white as the 2 bishops can not be sufficient compensation for the rook with the 3 pawns. The endgame remains however a technical job as black can resist still for quite some time with his pair of bishops.)}) 19... Kd7 20. Nxc8 Re8 21. Qxd5 Kxc8 22. Ke2 Qg4 {(Black probably still follows theory which I did not know. Re5 was played in several correspondence games and is likely also playable.)} (22... Re5 23. Qg8 {(If white chops the rook then black can force immediately the draw with Qg4,Qh3.)} Kd7 24. Qxg7 Re7 25. Qd4 Ke8 26. Qf4 Rc8 27. c3 Rc5 28. g4 h5 $1 {(Black has 3 pawns less but generates enormous piece-activity. The position is totally unclear.)}) 23. Qf3 Qa4 24. b3 Qd4 25. Ba3 $146 {(After the game Luc told me that this is the first new move of the game. He still knew Rb1 against which he drew twice against fide masters.)} (25. Rb1 Qc3 26. Rb2 a5 $1 {(White has 2 pawns extra but his pieces are not active. Black clearly has compensation but I believe that white with precise play still has the better chances.)} 27. Qd5 Kb8 28. Qc4 Qe5 29. Qf4 Qxf4 30. gxf4 Ra6 31. b4 a4 32. b5 Rf6 $16) 25... Qc3 26. Qd5 Qd2 27. Kf3 e2 28. Qc4 Kd7 29. Qd5 {(I preferred here to force the draw with a perpetual as there remained less than a quarter on my clock and I did not trust the kingsafety. Nevertheless I had noticed that with Bb4 I could still do a try to win the game and prove that my novelty was an amelioration of the theory.)} (29. Bb4 $142 Qe3 30. Kg2 Rad8 {(Recommended by my opponent after the game and indeed the best.)} 31. Qb5 {(I showed after the game Be1 after which white has no problems anymore but also probably can not win anymore the endgame. Qb5 is a lot more complicated and gives excellent winning-chances.)} Kc8 32. f6 $1 g6 {(White threatened Qf5 with taking on f2.)} (32... Kb8 $6 33. f7 Re6 34. Qd7 $3 Rxd7 35. f8=Q Re8 36. Qxf2 $18) 33. Qc4 Kd7 34. f7 Re5 35. f8=Q Rxf8 36. Bxf8 e1=N 37. Raxe1 Bxe1 38. Rf1 Qe2 39. Kg1 $18 {(This endgame is clearly won for white as blacks attack has been repelled.)}) 29... Kc8 30. Qc4 Kd7 31. Qd5 {(I proposed here a draw which black accepted after 10 minutes as he realized nothing extra was possible.)} 1/2-1/2
Also in the second encounter Luc surprised me with his better knowledge of the gambit although also this time I have my doubts about the correctness.
[Event "Interclub Anderlecht-Deurne"] [Date "2000"] [White "Henris, L."] [Black "Brabo"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "C34"] [WhiteElo "2255"] [BlackElo "2272"] [PlyCount "106"] 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. d4 g5 5. h4 g4 6. Ng1 Qf6 7. Nc3 Ne7 8. Nge2 Bh6 9. Qd2 Bd7 10. Nxf4 $146 {(Luc played this novelty in this critical modern variation of the kingsgambit very fast so I deduct that he must have studied this at home. Normal is g3 which I checked during my preparation.)} Nbc6 $1 {(Accepting the gambit with Bxf4, gives white excellent compensation. Stronger therefore is my move which completes the development as quick as possible.)} 11. Nb5 $5 {(The alternatives are discussed below.)} (11. Nce2 Ng6 12. d5 (12. c3 O-O-O 13. g3 Nce5 14. dxe5 dxe5 15. h5 Bc6 16. Qxd8 Rxd8 17. hxg6 exf4 18. Rxh6 f3 $17) 12... Nce5 13. h5 Nc4 14. Qc3 (14. Qb4 Nxf4 15. Qxc4 Nxe2 16. Bxe2 Bxc1 17. Rxc1 O-O-O 18. Rb1 Rde8 19. Bd3 Qe5 $17) 14... Qxc3 15. bxc3 Nge5 $15) (11. d5 Nd4 $1 12. Kd1 g3 $1 13. Nce2 Nxe2 14. Bxe2 Qe5 15. Qc3 Qxc3 16. bxc3 O-O-O 17. Rb1 Rde8 18. Bf3 Rhg8 $15) 11... O-O-O $5 {(An interesting alternative is Kd8 with the plan to exert quickly pressure via the e-file. Black has in both cases the better prospects.)} (11... Kd8 12. Qf2 (12. d5 Ng6 13. g3 (13. Ne6 Qxe6 14. Qe2 Qe5 15. Bxh6 Qxb2 16. Rc1 Nd4 17. Nxd4 Qxd4 $17 ) (13. dxc6 Bxf4 14. cxb7 (14. Qd4 Qxd4 15. Nxd4 bxc6 16. Bxf4 Nxf4 17. g3 Nh5 18. Ne2 Rb8 $17 ) 14... Bxd2 15. Bxd2 Rb8 16. Bg5 Qxg5 17. hxg5 Rxb7 18. a4 a6 19. Nd4 Rb4 20. c3 Rxb2 $17 ) 13... Re8 14. Kd1 (14. dxc6 Rxe4 15. Kd1 Bxc6 16. Bg2 Bxf4 17. gxf4 a6 18. Bxe4 Bxe4 19. Nxd6 Bf3 20. Ke1 $19 ) (14. Bg2 Bxf4 15. gxf4 Nce7 16. h5 Nh4 17. Nc3 Nxg2 18. Qxg2 Qd4 $17) 14... Nxf4 15. gxf4 Ne7 16. h5 g3 17. c4 Nc8 18. Bg2 Nb6 19. Qd3 Na4 20. Kc2 Rg8 21. Re1 Bxb5 22. cxb5 $17 ) 12... a6 13. d5 g3 14. Qxg3 axb5 15. dxc6 Bxc6 16. Nh5 Qe6 17. Bxh6 Qxh6 18. Qg5 Qe6 19. Nf6 $15 ) 12. d5 Ne5 13. Qf2 $5 {(Taking on a7, is not good due to Kb7 followed up with N7g6. H5 to avoid Ng6 is too slow as after a6 white is too far behind with the development.)} (13. h5 a6 14. Nc3 (14. Nd4 Rde8 15. Be2 g3 16. Qe3 Ng4 17. Bxg4 Bxg4 18. Qxg3 Qxd4 19. Qxg4 f5 $17 ) 14... Kb8 15. Qf2 Rhg8 16. Qg3 Qg7 17. Bd2 f5 18. O-O-O fxe4 19. Nxe4 Qf7 $15 ) 13... Bxb5 $6 {(I make the wrong decision as I estimate incorrectly the consequences of Nxc7. After my move I lose my advantage as f5 becomes much harder to complete. Black can not control the e6 square anymore.)} (13... a6 $1 14. Nxc7 (14. Nd4 Rde8 15. Be2 (15. g3 c5 16. dxc6 N7xc6 17. Nfe2 Nf3 18. Nxf3 gxf3 19. Nc3 Bxc1 20. Rxc1 d5 $19) 15... g3 16. Qxg3 Rhg8 17. Nh5 Qh8 18. Qf2 Bxc1 19. Rxc1 f5 20. exf5 Ng4 21. Qf4 $17) (14. Nc3 Kb8 15. Be2 Rhf8 ( 15... Qg7 16. Nh5 Qf8 17. Nf6 Bxc1 18. Rxc1 Ng8 19. Nxd7 Rxd7 20. g3 h5 $11 ) 16. Rf1 Qh8 17. Rb1 Bg7 18. Kd1 f5 19. Qd4 N5c6 20. Qc4 Nd4 21. exf5 Nxe2 22. Ncxe2 $15 ) (14. Na3 Kb8 15. Be2 N7g6 16. Nxg6 Qxg6 17. Bxh6 Qxh6 18. O-O Rhf8 19. Qg3 f5 20. exf5 Bxf5 $15 ) 14... Bxf4 15. Nxa6 Nxd5 $3 {(I missed this possibility during the game.)} 16. exd5 Rhe8 17. Be2 Nf3 18. Kd1 Bxc1 19. Rxc1 Qd4 20. Qxd4 $15 ) 14. Bxb5 a6 $5 {(Immediately Kb8 is likely a bit stronger but the balance is not broken.)} 15. Be2 Kb8 16. g3 $5 {(White expects that black can not use the f3 square. A more careful continuation is Qg3 to follow up with 0-0 and Qb3. The position contains mutual chances.)} Rhf8 $5 {(Black wants to play f5 but without the bishop covering the white squares, this is not possible without concessions. An alternative is Rde8 to exert pressure on the e-pawn.)} 17. Be3 Bxf4 $5 { (Black solves the problem of e6 in a drastic way but Qh8 immediately followed with f5 was a very interesting alternative. Black sacrifices the exchange but gets beautiful compensation in the center. )} 18. gxf4 Nf3 $2 {(A big calculation error which immediately gives black a serious disadvantage. Much better was Nd7 which leaves b2 for capturing. Black can next consolidate g4 with h5 and does not stand worse.)} 19. Bxf3 gxf3 20. O-O-O Qh6 21. Qxf3 f5 22. e5 Rg8 23. exd6 $2 {(Better was H5 which puts the rook on a more active position with a clear advantage for white. Now black gets a chance to free himself. )} Qxd6 24. Rd3 $5 Rg4 25. h5 Ng8 $5 26. c4 $5 Qb4 27. Rc3 $5 Nf6 28. Rg1 $5 Rdg8 29. Rxg4 Rxg4 {(I proposed here a draw which white declined although he has not a better position. )} 30. Bd4 $6 {(More precise is Kb1.)} Ne4 31. Qe2 $6 {(White sacrifices or blunders a pawn. Better is a3.)} Rxf4 32. Rg3 $6 {(White provokes b6 but something does not work.)} b6 $2 {(I miss in timetrouble a beautiful winning chance with the awkward Rf1.)} 33. Rb3 Qd2 $6 {(Qd6 would have given black a clear advantage. )} 34. Qxd2 Nxd2 35. Rxb6 $2 {(Objectively Kxd2 is better with a drawn rookendgame despite the pawn less but white wants more. )} cxb6 $4 {(I remember that I was shocked after whites answer and started to miss some trivial things like the check on e5. White now gets a very good, probably winning endgame. Kc8 was good for a clear advantage for black.)} 36. Be5 Kc8 37. Bxf4 Nxc4 38. b3 Na5 $5 { (With a few seconds remaining on my clock, I had to take quickly a difficult decision. However Na3 does not hold the position either on the long term.)} (38... Na3 39. Kd2 Nb5 40. Be5 Nc7 (40... Kd7 41. Ke3 Na3 42. Kf4 Nc2 43. Kxf5 Nb4 44. d6 Nxa2 45. Kf6 Nc1 46. Kg7 Nd3 47. Bg3 a5 48. Kxh7 $18) 41. Bxc7 Kxc7 42. Ke3 Kd6 43. Kf4 Kxd5 44. Kxf5 b5 45. a3 a5 46. Kf6 a4 47. b4 Kc4 48. Kg7 Kb3 49. Kxh7 Kxa3 50. h6 Kxb4 51. Kg6 a3 52. h7 $18) 39. Kd2 Kd7 40. Ke3 Nb7 41. Kd4 Nd6 {(My opponent offered here a drink in the assumption that it was won and I should resign. Realizing that I blundered a few moves ago, I initially thought indeed to resign but after a quarter reflection I still wanted to try one last plan which I considered worth trying.)} 42. Ke5 Ne4 $5 {(It is difficult to estimate what gives the best practical chances. After my move white can win forcefully with precise play which eventually did not happen in the game. B5 probably could have resisted longer although white would not have to find many difficult moves as Bd2 followed up with g6 does the job. )} 43. Kxf5 Nc3 44. d6 Nxa2 {(After b5 recommended by Fritz, white plays simply Kg5 and wins easily. Taking on a2 was the only chance to confuse the matter. )} 45. Kf6 Nc3 46. Kg7 Nd5 47. Be5 Ke6 48. h6 Ne3 49. Kxh7 Nf5 { (Ng4 is no salvation either. )} (49... Ng4 50. Kg7 Nxe5 51. h7 Nf7 52. d7 Ke7 53. d8=Q $18) 50. Bd4 $4 {(Strange here Fritz shows an exclamationmark. However Kg6 assures the win. Now it will be a draw.)} (50. Kg6 $3 Nxh6 51. Kxh6 a5 52. Kg5 b5 53. Kf4 a4 (53... b4 54. Ke4 a4 55. bxa4 b3 56. Kd3 b2 57. Kc2 $18) 54. b4 a3 55. Ke3 a2 56. Ke4 a1=Q 57. Bxa1 Kxd6 $18) 50... a5 $1 51. Bxb6 (51. Be5 b5 $1 52. Kg6 Nxh6 53. Kxh6 b4 54. Kg5 a4 55. bxa4 b3 $11) 51... a4 52. bxa4 Kxd6 53. Kg6 Nxh6 {(Disappointed white had to agree to the draw.)} 1/2-1/2
I am curious what is mentioned about the chosen variation of the above game in the recently published book The King's Gambit. Feedback of the readers, bought this book, is surely welcome.

That Luc Henris loves gambits can also be seen off the board. Recently he published after years work the colossal book about the Albin-tegengambiet. The book weights 1kg 200 gram and counts 615 pages of which we can deduct that we deal here with an authentic openingbook which explains every detail of what is interesting about the opening.

I couldn't find a proper review on the internet of this book but there was some commotion on chesspub about plagiarized work. Seems you can find some pages literally in an earlier published work while no references are shown in the book. I also find this annoying as you could already read in my earlier blogarticle sos. However at contrary with my story, the publisher was willing to apologize which prevented further escalation.

It is evident that today there is still a lot of interest in gambits. Players are aware that nobody can play like Houdini (if we exclude vals spelen). Gambits differ us from the engines. It is not mandatory that it should be fully correct as long it creates problems on the board for our opponents so they make sooner or later a mistake.