Rice Gambit

Thread view:

jeremy.p.spinrad@vanderbilt.edu - 27 Jul 2007 18:01 GMT

I googled Rice Gambit, and was surprised to see that there were a good
number of hits not for chess, but for Condoleeza. Do you think that
the person who first used Rice gambit in the newer sense was aware of
the history of the Rice Gambit in chess?

Jerry Spinrad

Reply to this Message

SBD - 27 Jul 2007 18:28 GMT

On Jul 27, 12:01 pm, "jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu"
<jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:

> I googled Rice Gambit, and was surprised to see that there were a good
> number of hits not for chess, but for Condoleeza. Do you think that
> the person who first used Rice gambit in the newer sense was aware of
> the history of the Rice Gambit in chess?
>
> Jerry Spinrad

You're kidding, right? How many tournament chessplayers know the Rice
Gambit, let alone some newspaper reporter who knows little more than
the moves?

I would be surprised if more than 3 of 10 players at the next
tournament you go to can tell you anything about the Rice Gambit....

And I must admit I have no idea what the Rice Gambit is outside of
chess. Nor do I care to.

Reply to this Message

Taylor Kingston - 27 Jul 2007 19:32 GMT

On Jul 27, 1:01 pm, "jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu"
<jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:

I have no idea, but would speculate it's likely that some reporter
or columnist somewhere, who covers the activities of the Secretary of
State, would know of the Rice Gambit. The existence of the gambit is
not common knowledge, even among chess players, but neither is it
nearly as esoteric a bit of arcana as, say, the Chapais Manuscript. It
would not surprise me if a chess-playing journalist such as Charles
Krauthammer knows of it, at least that it is the name of an actual
chess opening. Once the term appeared in a widely read story or
column, it would surely be picked up by other journalists.
In case any rgcp readers are interested, the gambit is defined by
the moves 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6 6.Bc4 d5 7.exd5
Bd6 8.0-0. Wealthy German-American industrialist Isaac Leopold Rice
(1850-1915) became obsessed with this opening, and sponsored many
thematic tournaments and matches devoted to it, paying top players
such as Lasker, Chigorin, Pillsbury, Marshall et al to play and
analyze it. As far as I know, none of them considered the line
worthwhile or even very interesting, but they were interested in
Rice's money. If I recall correctly, Black can get an advantage
whether he accepts or declines the knight sac.
The Oxford Companion is particularly uncharitable toward the Rice
Gambit, saying it is "A grotesque monument to a rich man's vanity ...
White's sacrifice of the knight is neither good nor necessary ...
After Rice died, masters wasted no more time on the gambit."

Reply to this Message

David Kane - 28 Jul 2007 02:17 GMT

> On Jul 27, 1:01 pm, "jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu"
> <jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> Rice's money. If I recall correctly, Black can get an advantage
> whether he accepts or declines the knight sac.

Thimann's "King Gambit" (1974) gives the following:
"London 1904 was a Rice Gambit Tournament. and the first
16 moves* were obligatory. Most results were in Black's favour
and the Rice Gambit has been seen very little since."

*1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6 6.Bc4 d5 7.exd5 Bd6 8.O-O Bxe5
9.Re1 Qe7 10.c3 Nh5 11.d4 Nd7 12.Bb5 Kd8 13.Bxd7 Bxd7 14.Rxe5 Qxh4 15.Rxh5 Qxh5
16.Bxf4 Re8

Korchnoi and Zak in the "King's Gambit" (1986) call the gambit "dubious" but
give a different main line (with some notably faulty analysis).
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6 6.Bc4 d5 7.exd5 Bd6 8.O-O Bxe5
9.Re1 Qe7 10.c3 Nh5 11.d4 Nd7 12.dxe5 Nxe5 13.b3 O-O 14.Ba3 Nf3+ 15.gxf3 Qxh4
16.Re5 Bf5 17. Nd2 Qg3+ 18. Kf1 Qh2 19. Bxf8 g3 20. Bc5 g2+ 21. Ke1 g1=Q+
22.Bxg1 Qxg1+ 23. Bf1 Ng3 "with unclear play" citing analysis by Capablanca,
Burn and Ed. Lasker.

The analysis is clearly incorrect. After 23. Bf1??, Black can win with 23 ...
Qg3+ However, 23. Nf1 seems to leave White with a big material advantage. Of
course, Korchnoi and Zak point out that Black has many ways to force a perpetual
earier in this line, which is also Thimann's assessment of best play this
variation.

> The Oxford Companion is particularly uncharitable toward the Rice
> Gambit, saying it is "A grotesque monument to a rich man's vanity ...
> White's sacrifice of the knight is neither good nor necessary ...
> After Rice died, masters wasted no more time on the gambit."

This seems harsh. If there is a refutation of the Rice Gambit which gives more
to Black than a draw (and there may be), it was unknown to some GMs 70+ years
after Rice's interest.

I'd be interested in others knowledge of the history or assessment of the line.

Reply to this Message

David Richerby - 30 Jul 2007 17:39 GMT

> <jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
>> I googled Rice Gambit, and was surprised to see that there were a
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> or columnist somewhere, who covers the activities of the Secretary
> of State, would know of the Rice Gambit.

It seems much more likely to me that the phrase `Rice gambit' is being
used in the same sense as `Rice's gambit', here and has absolutely
nothing to do with chess. It's just the usual English meaning of the
word `gambit'. For example, if I wrote a piece on World War I and
referred to `the French defence of the Marne' or `the English opening
at Ypres', you wouldn't assume I was talking about chess.

Perhaps the phrasing as `the Rice gambit' is intented to sound more
chess-like than `Rice's gambit' but I doubt there's anything more to
it than that.

Dave.

Signature

David Richerby Fluorescent Cheese (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a brick of cheese but it'll hurt
your eyes!

Reply to this Message

Chess Forum / General Topics / July 2007

Rice Gambit