Talk:Queen's Gambit Accepted

Main line with 3.Nf3

"3. Nf3 leads to the main lines of the QGA. White ignores the pawn for the moment, develops a knight and prevents Black from striking at the centre with 4. ... e5."

Shouldn't this read "with 3...e5"?

Thx!  :-) Johnmuller4 02:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. Actually, Nf3 stops the ---e7-e5 advance for a considerable amount of time, so I have removed the move numbering for "...e5" altogether. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

How does white get the pawn back after 3. Nf3 b5 ?

The variation 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 b5 has a name, the Ericson Variation I think. To get the pawn back White must start to undermine the Black pawn phalanx.

4.a4 c6

5.e3 e6

6.b3

and the Black pawns fall. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Premature Queen line

"White can force black to give the pawn back by playing 3. Qa4+ Nc6 4. Qxc4." So White re-captures the c-pawn, and in the next move, 4. ... Nxd4 (or possibly 4. ... Qxd4), he loses the d-pawn. The text should really include how White can force the surrender of this second pawn as well (if he can! I don't see how, but I'm certainly no great chess player), or the line seems to not have accomplished anything at all, rendering it not even hypothetically interesting. -- Jao 09:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. 4 Qxc4 doesn't get the pawn back; White needs to play 4 e3. 91.105.28.251 13:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that does seem foolproof. Thanks for the clarification. -- Jao 18:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• 4. e3 is not enough either. After 4...e5 and now while the c4 pawn falls to White the d4 pawn falls to Black so White currently remains a pawn down and requiring some more precise moves to recover the gambit material. ChessCreator (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

After 4... e5, what about 5. dxe5? The knight is pinned and can't recapture, and the c4 pawn is still vulnerable. Bubba73 (talk), 03:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right, although this does show that regaining the pawn by 3.Qa4+ is a little messy. White can regain the pawn more straightforwardly after 3.e3 or 3.Nf3. Quale (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 4... e5 5. dxe5?! regains the pawn but it's not a good move (5. Nf3 is better). After 5. dxe5 because of Black active piece White is in real danger of losing the pawn (or more material) again.

4....e5 5. dxe5?! Be6

• 6. Bc4?? Bb4+ 7. Bd2 Bxc4 8. Bxb4 b5 9. Qa3 Nxe5 10. Nd2 Nd3+ 11. Ke2 Nxb4+ 12. Nxc4 Nc2 -+
• 6. Nf3 Qd5 (threatening b5 and Nxe5) 7. Be2 b5 (8. Qd1 Qc5 9. O-O Nxe5) 8. e4 Qc5 9. Qc2 Nxe5 and Black remains a pawn ahead.
• 6. f4 this does hold the pawns level but leaves many White with many weaknesses, White's is behind in development, the White King is a target, e3 is backward, e4 is weak and d3 is a nice square for Black to create an outpost. Technically the gambit pawn is regained but few players would choice this. Play might go 6...a6 7. Nf3 b5 8. Qc2 Nb4 9. Qd1(9. Qe4? Bd5 10. Qf5 Nge7 11. Qh3/g4 Nc2+ -+)(9. Qd2? Qxd2 10. Kxd2 O-O-O+ -+)(9. Qc3?! Bf5 10. Nd4 Nd5 11. Qd2 Bxb1 12. Rxb1 12 Bb4+ -+) Qxd1 10. Kxd1 O-O-O 11. Bd2 Nd3 =+

As I said (below), it regains the pawn but I don't like White's position. Bubba73 (talk), 13:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

4. e3 and 4.e4 are better, but as far as I can tell 4. Qa4+ does get the pawn back by force. I don't like white's position that results, however. You wind up with a pawn on e5 that must be supported, and f2-f4 makes your black-squared bishop bad and makes the pawn on e3 weak. You can support it by Nf3 but that prevents an eventual f2-f4. Bubba73 (talk), 05:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization conventions in chess

User:Primergrey, User:Sjakkalle and User:Bubba73, the capitalization convention on Wikipedia on colours and named openings follows Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess#Capitalization and WP:NAMECAPS respectively. Cobblet (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

3.Nc3 variation

The article states that a disadvantage of this variation is that "the knight is vulnerable to a b-pawn advance from Black." However, is it not the case that Black's b-pawn can be stopped in its tracks with the sharp 4.a4! ? Joe Gatt (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who once played 3.Nc3 myself, it makes little sense to me to spend a move just to weaken the queenside. If Black plays 4...e5, you'll get the same IQP positions that come up after 3...e5 except that the inclusion of a2-a4 and ...a7-a6 makes Black's life much easier – b4 is a useful square for a black knight or bishop. Or he could play 4...Nc6 when you get a Chigorin-like position where the inclusion of a4 and ...a6 probably lets Black hang on to the c-pawn. Cobblet (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

If I may please put my original question at a more fundamental level. How can there be a "b-pawn advance from Black", when the b5-square is under the control of the Nc3 knight? Joe Gatt (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I neglected to say that I was assuming Black would play 3...a6, the most critical reply to 3.Nc3. Obviously in that case controlling b5 with the knight is not enough, and my comment explains why mechanically preventing ...b5 by meeting 3...a6 with 4.a4 is not very promising. The alternative replies 3...e5 and 3...Nf6 let White transpose into normal lines of the QGA, which is something he should welcome. Cobblet (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

It is not so clear to me why the variation 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nc3 a6 4.a4! is not promising for White. If 4...e5, White can reply with 5.d5 or 5.e3, and still have a good game. In fact, even 5.dxe5 Qxd1 6.Nxd1 looks good for White.Joe Gatt (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not here to give out free chess lessons. You might want to try looking at these lines with a computer. Cobblet (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Karpov using e6?

Article states: The apparently modest 3.e3 prepares immediate recovery of the pawn and has often been employed by strong players, including Anatoly Karpov.

According to my database, Karpov only used this move twice in his whole career and almost exclusively plays 3.e4. Perhaps the part associating Karpov with the 3.e3 line should be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.100.118 (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you've misinterpreted the text; it says 3.e3 is "often employed", not "often emplyed [by Karpov]". Ok, --IHTS (talk) 08:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)