Talk:Muzio Gambit

Paulsen/Mclean line

Do any sources include the move 14.Bxf4 in reply to 13...b5!? It seems to be better than 14.Nxe7 (which is also ok). MCO simply says that White has "adequate resources if 13...b5 without elaborating. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

This thread is interesting. Obviously we can't use it directly but we may be able to use info from it if it can be sourced somewhere else. Apparently "Maclean" is a misnaming which can be traced to on old edition of Handbuch, and the actual inventor of 13.Qe2 was R. E. Lean of Brighton, England. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Lasker's Chess magazine, 1905: "The move Q-K2 was discovered several years ago by Mr. Lean, a strong English amateur". Also, Chess 1974:"One minor quibble about another new book: in 'Korchnoy and Zak: The King's Gambit', on p. 31, poor R. E. Lean, The Man Who Almost Saved the Muzio, seems to have been converted into a Scotsman called Maclean." MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm checking Neil McDonald's book from 1998, apparently the Keene line (ending in 16.Qd5+) is actually plagiarized from Estrin... and it's not clearly better for white at all. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Recommend replacing Keene with other sources, The Complete Book of Gambits is notorious for its multiple plagiarisms. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

All good research. Will respond after coffee. ;) --IHTS (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't have 14.Bxf4 in any sources (I think the Harding online was a good find). One thing I overlooked was (I know you don't like Keene but) the Keene book gives

Another way to draw while setting a trap, is 13.Qe2 Qe6 14.Qf3 Qf5=. The trap is 13...b5? (given as strong in MCO!) 14.Nxe7 Qc5+ 15.Rf2 Nxe7 16.Bc3 Re8 17.Bxf7 Rf8 18.Bd4!+−.

(where "+−" is defined in the book as we know it: winning advantage) which is interesting to me because Keene book was published 1992 while Korchnoi leaves off w/ "15...Nxe7!∓" in the 1997 Vol C ECO, so makes me wonder if Korchnoi was unaware of the Keene continuation (I gave 18.Bd4 pos to Stockfish to show me win, & yeah ). The deal is tho, Korchnoi & Zak give an alternative line (beginning 15...Qxe7) that ends w/ "Black's position is clearly superior". So, if we incl 13...b5 in article then perhaps for sure we incl at least 14.Nxe7 Qc5+ 15.Rf2 Qxe7 line *and* 14.Bxf4 Harding line. And maybe since all that has proven in flux over time, it all s/ stem off (the safe) 13...Qe6 (Korchnoi & Zak: "Maclean's basic variation") which Harding also says "may be Black's best line".

It'd be fun to add these selections to the article. I don't know if it w/ be considered *counter* to WP "summary" philosophy, or *consistent* with it! Because the opening is rich in material of course, classic players have analyzed (e.g. Bilguer etc.), and even amateur players (e.g. Hooper & Whyld 1996 point out how someone named "'W.S.' of Milwaukee" discovered 11...Qf5 before Paulsen put into master play), so I think even w/ including the lines it is only a narrow selection from the complexities available, and I think too including amateur discoveries isn't overkill because perhaps adds interest to article (a condition of any FA article, which s/b goal of any article, is that it be "interesting to read"). But again there are editor(s) in WP:CHESS who might want to wipe out all detailed lines even if intelligently summarized & sourced. Again I think it's appropriate level of detail when there is rich history as this article has, to represent selected parts of it. But an argument might be "where does one draw the line?" A consensus at WT:CHESS w/ be nice so expansions have reason to stay, but that never happens w/ clarity (editors opine/discuss for awhile then drop topic).

I don't know why we can't use your online Harding find (even it is from ChessCafe.com, WP policy says if it is a recognized authority on topic, that trumps location like blogs etc).

Good find re Mclean name (twas puzzled earlier when couldn't find such a player, even checked Bill Wall etc.).

Keene didn't claim credit for line ending "16.Qd5+!⩲", but yes, good find re Estrin (McDonald p. 62)! --IHTS (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I've found the original "W.S. of Milwaukee", he wrote to Chess Monthly in April 1858. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

You are way better online researcher than me. --IHTS (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The fact we leave the reader wondering "What the H line do I play then?" probably means we hit the mark. LOL --IHTS (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Add'l reason for [1] taking "!" off 13...b5: K&Z gives "!" while Keene gives "?". --IHTS (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The reorganization

What I'm trying to convey essentially is that there are two "main lines"; some sources give 8.Bxf7+ as the main line, some give 8.d3. Wikipedia shouldn't take a position one way or another over which is the main line. That 9...Qf5! is better than the traditional (and greedy) 9...Qxd4+ is the consensus of modern chess writers like Harding, Shaw, and McDonald (the engines agree too) so it should be given as the main line of the Double Muzio. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. --IHTS (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

"Other 8 moves" section

I ran the line 8. Nc3 Qd4+ 9. Kh1 Qxc4 10. d3 Qc6 11. Qxf4 f6 through stockfish and the eval is -5.8... According to the lichess masters database, nobody has played it, and the 26 games in the lichess database for all lichess games has a terrible 36.5% score for white. I also checked with chesstempo.com's database and nobody has played it. Can someone actually check the source and confirm if the position is actually evaluated as equal? And/or if the eval is incorrect according to other modern sources (mainly books, like MCO 15th edition)? Antarctican2606 (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

My MCO-12 is packed away in a box, but have replaced the eval using an ECO ref (Black is −/+). --IHTS (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)