| |
Main
Date: 29 Apr 2006 12:37:28
From: Nick
Subject: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7
|
In "Chess Openings for Black, Explained", GM Alburt,
GM Dzindzichashvili, and IM Perelshteyn suggest that
Black play 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as an "offbeat but sound"
alternative to their main recommendation of the Sicilian
Accelerated Dragon. The authors write that "there is no
way to refute this opening", referring to 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7,
and imply that GM Kupreichik has advocated it.
According to ChessBase, GM Kupreichik has played
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as Black only once, drawing with
it in a 1971 USSR Championship Semifinal game.
According to ChessBase, GM Sulskis has played
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as Black twice, scoring 1-1.
At the 2004 FIDE World Championship, GM Radjabov
played 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as Black against GM Adams.
Adams-Radjabov began as 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 3 Nc3 c6
4 d4 d6 5 Bc4 Bg4 (tranposing to a Philidor Defence)
and ended in a draw.
Does 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 have an independent name
as a chess opening?
--Nick
|
|
| |
Date: 02 May 2006 15:09:16
From:
Subject: Re: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7
|
Check Botvinnik vs Tarkakover, Noddingham 1936 for one procedure for
White.
|
| |
Date: 02 May 2006 22:56:14
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7
|
En/na Nick ha escrit:
> In "Chess Openings for Black, Explained", GM Alburt,
> GM Dzindzichashvili, and IM Perelshteyn suggest that
> Black play 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as an "offbeat but sound"
> alternative to their main recommendation of the Sicilian
> Accelerated Dragon. The authors write that "there is no
> way to refute this opening", referring to 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7,
> and imply that GM Kupreichik has advocated it.
>
> According to ChessBase, GM Kupreichik has played
> 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as Black only once, drawing with
> it in a 1971 USSR Championship Semifinal game.
>
> According to ChessBase, GM Sulskis has played
> 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as Black twice, scoring 1-1.
>
> At the 2004 FIDE World Championship, GM Radjabov
> played 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as Black against GM Adams.
> Adams-Radjabov began as 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 3 Nc3 c6
> 4 d4 d6 5 Bc4 Bg4 (tranposing to a Philidor Defence)
> and ended in a draw.
>
> Does 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 have an independent name
> as a chess opening?
>
> --Nick
I have read about it as Brazilian Defence.
Here in Spain lives a Colombian IM who has played it a lot. He is
"Gonzalez Rodriguez, Jorge Armando" (Gonzalez, J.A. in some databases)
and He plays it in order to avoid theory and there are many games where
He plays the plan/idea of d6, c6, h6, g5, Bg7, Nd7-f8-g6, Bd7, 0-0-0 to
attack white king once white have castled.
AT
|
| |
Date: 02 May 2006 13:29:19
From: Nick
Subject: Re: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7
|
James wrote:
> Nick wrote :
> > Here's the opening of a game between GM Michael Adams and
> > GM Teimour Radjabov at the 2004 FIDE World Championship:
> >
> > 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 3 Nc3 c6 4 d4 d6 5 Bc4 Bg4 6 dxe5 dxe5
> > 7 h3 Bh5 8 g4 Bg6 9 Bg5 f6 10 Be3 Nd7 11 Nh4 O-O-O
> > 12 Qe2 Nb6 13 Bb3 Qc7 14 Bd2 Bc5 15 O-O-O Ne7
> > (drawn after 44 moves)
>
> Interesting game. I am not sure Adams was really playing for a win here.
In my view, Michael Adams achieved a better middlegame position
(with a better minor piece), but it was not a decisive advantage.
> 14.Bd2 followed by 15. 0.0.0 is passsive (castling on the same side).
Given that White already has played h3 and g4, White's
castling kingside would be riskier for White's king.
> Much more aggressive would have been 14. a4 and 15. 0-0 with a long and
> complex variation which seems to end with white being 2 to 3 pawns up.
How did James arrive at this 'long and complex variation' (which
seems far from being forced)? Is this an output of his chess engine?
--Nick
> For example:
> 14. a4 a5 15. O-O Bb4 16. Rfd1 Nh6 17. Nxg6 hxg6 18. h4 f5 19. Be6+ Kb8
> 20. exf5 gxf5 21. gxf5 Bxc3 22. bxc3 Nd5 23. Bg5 Rdf8 24. Rxd5 cxd5
> 25. Bxd5 Nxf5 26. Rb1 Nd6 27. Qxe5 Rf5 28. Qd4 Re8 29. c4 Ree5
> 30. Be3 g6 31. Bf4 Rxf4 32. Qxf4 Qe7 33. Kf1 g5 34. Qd4 Qg7
> 35. Qc3 Re7 36. Qxg7 Rxg7 37. c5 Ne8 38. Bc6 Nf6
> 39. hxg5 Rxg5 40. Rxb7+ Kc8 etc...
|
| | |
Date: 03 May 2006 02:35:36
From: James
Subject: Re: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7
|
Nick wrote :
>
> How did James arrive at this 'long and complex variation' (which
> seems far from being forced)? Is this an output of his chess engine?
>
> --Nick
Yes and no.
It was done with many chess engines, and tried move by move, generally
trying to combine their tactical strength with my own chess
understanding (for example a4 is Rybka idea, while 0-0 is quite oriented
by me with different moves having almost the same valuation; it looks
consistent with my idea of "agressive play")...
Engines used where Shredder9, Rybka 1.2 and Fruit 2.2.1.
There are many variations. I agree with you, this sequence is not
forced, but other moves (at least those I have tried) "seem" to lead,
generally sooner, to that kind of advantage.
However, I would not bet my life on it...
James
>> For example:
>> 14. a4 a5 15. O-O Bb4 16. Rfd1 Nh6 17. Nxg6 hxg6 18. h4 f5 19. Be6+ Kb8
>> 20. exf5 gxf5 21. gxf5 Bxc3 22. bxc3 Nd5 23. Bg5 Rdf8 24. Rxd5 cxd5
>> 25. Bxd5 Nxf5 26. Rb1 Nd6 27. Qxe5 Rf5 28. Qd4 Re8 29. c4 Ree5
>> 30. Be3 g6 31. Bf4 Rxf4 32. Qxf4 Qe7 33. Kf1 g5 34. Qd4 Qg7
>> 35. Qc3 Re7 36. Qxg7 Rxg7 37. c5 Ne8 38. Bc6 Nf6
>> 39. hxg5 Rxg5 40. Rxb7+ Kc8 etc...
>
|
| |
Date: 02 May 2006 12:56:29
From: Nick
Subject: Re: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Ray Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Nick wrote:
> >> I know that 2...Qe7 violates some general principles that are
> >> recommended for most players, particularly beginners. So I wonder
> >> why GM Alburt, GM Dzindzichashvili, and IM Perelshteyn would
> >> suggest 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as an 'offbeat but sound' opening for
> >> novice players, the intended readers of their book, 'Chess Openings
> >> for Black, Explained'.
I should have written: "...for novice players, *some of* the intended
readers of their book, 'Chess Openings for Black, Explained'".
> > Well, it takes the opponent out of book, and if the opponent doesn't
> > know how to play chess well beyond that memorization, you'll get an
> > easy win.
>
> But Alburt et al are apparently recommending this to novices,
> who are likely to be playing other novices.
In the interest of clarity
1) The authors recommend the Sicilian Accelerated Dragon as
Black's priy defence against 1 e4.
2) The authors suggest 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as an 'offbeat but
sound' opening for Black, adding that 'there is no way to
refute this opening'. But the authors give no analysis
at all after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7.
3) As I understand it, the authors intend their book to be used
by players of diverse levels, including but not limited to novices.
Some of the book's explanations seem aimed at novices,
but some of the content seems useful enough to players
of 2000 FIDE level at least.
4) In my view, there's less useful text content in a book of this
length (448 pages) than there should be on account of the
excessive number of diagrams. Many diagrams may help
a novice player feel more comfortable when reading the book,
but a more experienced player should benefit more from
having more detailed analysis by the authors.
> Novices don't have an in-depth book so playing the Gunderam
> just means that you get them out of book at move two instead
> of move five. Further, the novice playing the Gunderam isn't
> likely to find the `easy win'.
My impression is that the authors believe that many White
players who are surprised by 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 will think:
"Black has just obviously violated a general opening principle
(by moving the queen too early and blocking the bishop's
development), so Black must be a quite weak player.
There *must* be a way for me to refute this opening and
crush Black quickly!" Then a Black player would have
more winning chances against an overconfident White
player who becomes obsessed with refuting this opening.
For whatever it's worth, at Amazon.com (US),
Elizabeth Zoe Vicary (2168 USCF) has written this review:
"very fun to read, the lines are easy to understand and play,
i love this book!" So 'Chess Openings for Black, Explained'
seems to be useful to some players who are not novices.
--Nick
|
| |
Date: 01 May 2006 14:22:16
From: Nick
Subject: Re: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7
|
[email protected] wrote:
> Well, 1.e4 e5, 2.Nf3 Qe7 doesn't lose outright; it doesn't even lose
> material. The only problem is that it's rather inflexible. Black no
> longer has moves like ...Be7 or ...Bb4 or ...Bc5 quickly available.
> Black does inhibit White's quick d4.
I know that 2...Qe7 violates some general principles that
are recommended for most players, particularly beginners.
So I wonder why GM Alburt, GM Dzindzichashvili, and
IM Perelshteyn would suggest 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as an
'offbeat but sound' opening for novice players, the intended
readers of their book, 'Chess Openings for Black, Explained'.
I suspect that many novice players may likely find themselves
struggling with difficulties in the opening after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7.
Why did GM Alburt, GM Dzindzichashvili, and IM Perelshteyn
suggest 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as an opening for novice players?
> For White, perhaps the best idea would be Nc3 which should force Black
> into ...Nf6 or ...c6. White then has things like Bc4 or even g3 and
> Bg2. Another possibility is for White to break in the center quickly
> (after taking care not to lose the e-Pawn.) Black's other (very slight)
> disadvantages are that White has the pin Bg5 (if ...h6 is't good in
> reply) and the having the Queen on a file likely to be opened (the
> e-file) is a bit cramping. White may (after 0-0) be able to play d4
> relying on the pin after Re1 to defend the e-Pawn.
>
> Black will have to find a counter to the plan of Nc4, Bc4, 0-0 and d4.
Here's the opening of a game between GM Michael Adams and
GM Teimour Radjabov at the 2004 FIDE World Championship:
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 3 Nc3 c6 4 d4 d6 5 Bc4 Bg4 6 dxe5 dxe5
7 h3 Bh5 8 g4 Bg6 9 Bg5 f6 10 Be3 Nd7 11 Nh4 O-O-O
12 Qe2 Nb6 13 Bb3 Qc7 14 Bd2 Bc5 15 O-O-O Ne7
(drawn after 44 moves)
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 01 May 2006 21:50:10
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7
|
>> Well, 1.e4 e5, 2.Nf3 Qe7 doesn't lose outright; it doesn't even lose
>> material. The only problem is that it's rather inflexible. Black no
>> longer has moves like ...Be7 or ...Bb4 or ...Bc5 quickly available.
>> Black does inhibit White's quick d4.
>
> I know that 2...Qe7 violates some general principles that
> are recommended for most players, particularly beginners.
> So I wonder why GM Alburt, GM Dzindzichashvili, and
> IM Perelshteyn would suggest 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as an
> 'offbeat but sound' opening for novice players, the intended
> readers of their book, 'Chess Openings for Black, Explained'.
Well, it takes the opponent out of book, and if the opponent doesn't know
how to play chess well beyond that memorization, you'll get an easy win. Of
course, if the opposite is true, you're fucked.
It's also easier to write about an opening like that than the main lines
since one has much less competition.
> I suspect that many novice players may likely find themselves
> struggling with difficulties in the opening after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7.
>
> Why did GM Alburt, GM Dzindzichashvili, and IM Perelshteyn
> suggest 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as an opening for novice players?
It's outside the box. It probably is even playable, but ironically, once
this move is played, Black has to face exactly the type of situation that
drove him from the main lines, where one move is more or less required to
prevent disaster and there is extensive memorization necessary.
>> For White, perhaps the best idea would be Nc3 which should force Black
>> into ...Nf6 or ...c6. White then has things like Bc4 or even g3 and
>> Bg2. Another possibility is for White to break in the center quickly
>> (after taking care not to lose the e-Pawn.) Black's other (very slight)
>> disadvantages are that White has the pin Bg5 (if ...h6 is't good in
>> reply) and the having the Queen on a file likely to be opened (the
>> e-file) is a bit cramping. White may (after 0-0) be able to play d4
>> relying on the pin after Re1 to defend the e-Pawn.
>>
>> Black will have to find a counter to the plan of Nc4, Bc4, 0-0 and d4.
>
> Here's the opening of a game between GM Michael Adams and
> GM Teimour Radjabov at the 2004 FIDE World Championship:
>
> 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 3 Nc3 c6 4 d4 d6 5 Bc4 Bg4 6 dxe5 dxe5
> 7 h3 Bh5 8 g4 Bg6 9 Bg5 f6 10 Be3 Nd7 11 Nh4 O-O-O
> 12 Qe2 Nb6 13 Bb3 Qc7 14 Bd2 Bc5 15 O-O-O Ne7
> (drawn after 44 moves)
That's basically a Philidor formation where White gave back the tempo by
exchanging on e5 (no doubt due to the Qe7).
While there may be nothing "wrong" with that setup in that it can't be
quickly busted, there's little that is "right" with it.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
| | | |
Date: 02 May 2006 14:45:44
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7
|
Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
>> I know that 2...Qe7 violates some general principles that are
>> recommended for most players, particularly beginners. So I wonder
>> why GM Alburt, GM Dzindzichashvili, and IM Perelshteyn would
>> suggest 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as an 'offbeat but sound' opening for
>> novice players, the intended readers of their book, 'Chess Openings
>> for Black, Explained'.
>
> Well, it takes the opponent out of book, and if the opponent doesn't
> know how to play chess well beyond that memorization, you'll get an
> easy win.
But Alburt et al are apparently recommending this to novices, who are
likely to be playing other novices. Novices don't have an in-depth
book so playing the Gunderam just means that you get them out of book
at move two instead of move five. Further, the novice playing the
Gunderam isn't likely to find the `easy win'.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Surprise Cheese (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ brick of cheese but not like you'd
expect!
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 May 2006 13:10:24
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7
|
>>> I know that 2...Qe7 violates some general principles that are
>>> recommended for most players, particularly beginners. So I wonder
>>> why GM Alburt, GM Dzindzichashvili, and IM Perelshteyn would
>>> suggest 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as an 'offbeat but sound' opening for
>>> novice players, the intended readers of their book, 'Chess Openings
>>> for Black, Explained'.
>>
>> Well, it takes the opponent out of book, and if the opponent doesn't
>> know how to play chess well beyond that memorization, you'll get an
>> easy win.
>
> But Alburt et al are apparently recommending this to novices, who are
> likely to be playing other novices. Novices don't have an in-depth
> book so playing the Gunderam just means that you get them out of book
> at move two instead of move five. Further, the novice playing the
> Gunderam isn't likely to find the `easy win'.
Nor their opponents.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
| | |
Date: 02 May 2006 02:57:44
From: James
Subject: Re: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7
|
Nick wrote :
> Here's the opening of a game between GM Michael Adams and
> GM Teimour Radjabov at the 2004 FIDE World Championship:
>
> 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 3 Nc3 c6 4 d4 d6 5 Bc4 Bg4 6 dxe5 dxe5
> 7 h3 Bh5 8 g4 Bg6 9 Bg5 f6 10 Be3 Nd7 11 Nh4 O-O-O
> 12 Qe2 Nb6 13 Bb3 Qc7 14 Bd2 Bc5 15 O-O-O Ne7
> (drawn after 44 moves)
>
> --Nick
>
Interesting game. I am not sure Adams was really playing for a win here.
14.Bd2 followed by 15. 0.0.0 is passsive (castling on the same side).
Much more aggressive would have been 14. a4 and 15. 0-0 with a long and
complex variation which seems to end with white being 2 to 3 pawns up.
For example:
14. a4 a5 15. O-O Bb4 16. Rfd1 Nh6 17. Nxg6 hxg6 18. h4 f5 19. Be6+ Kb8
20. exf5 gxf5
21. gxf5 Bxc3 22. bxc3 Nd5 23. Bg5 Rdf8 24. Rxd5 cxd5 25. Bxd5 Nxf5 26.
Rb1 Nd6
27. Qxe5 Rf5 28. Qd4 Re8 29. c4 Ree5 30. Be3 g6 31. Bf4 Rxf4 32. Qxf4
Qe7 33.
Kf1 g5 34. Qd4 Qg7 35. Qc3 Re7 36. Qxg7 Rxg7 37. c5 Ne8 38. Bc6 Nf6 39. hxg5
Rxg5 40. Rxb7+ Kc8
etc...
Comments very much welcomed.
|
| |
Date: 01 May 2006 10:58:50
From:
Subject: Re: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7
|
Well, 1.e4 e5, 2.Nf3 Qe7 doesn't lose outright; it doesn't even lose
material. The only problem is that it's rather inflexible. Black no
longer has moves like ...Be7 or ...Bb4 or ...Bc5 quickly available.
Black does inhibit White's quick d4.
For White, perhaps the best idea would be Nc3 which should force Black
into ...Nf6 or ...c6. White then has things like Bc4 or even g3 and
Bg2. Another possibility is for White to break in the center quickly
(after taking care not to lose the e-Pawn.) Black's other (very slight)
disadvantages are that White has the pin Bg5 (if ...h6 is't good in
reply) and the having the Queen on a file likely to be opened (the
e-file) is a bit cramping. White may (after 0-0) be able to play d4
relying on the pin after Re1 to defend the e-Pawn.
Black will have to find a counter to the plan of Nc4, Bc4, 0-0 and d4.
|
| |
Date: 30 Apr 2006 17:03:53
From: chasmad
Subject: Re: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
> > Ray is the same guy who recommends, as Black, after the opening moves
> > 1.e4 e6 2.f4?!, the sequence 2...Qh4+ 3. g3 Qd8. Losing TWO tempii in
> > the opening for NOTHING.
>
> Shit, you better call up the engine programmers and tell them to fix their
> evaluation mechanism.
>
If your computer told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it? Moron.
Charles
> --
> "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
> District of PA Judge
> From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
| | |
Date: 30 Apr 2006 23:26:26
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7
|
>> > Ray is the same guy who recommends, as Black, after the opening moves
>> > 1.e4 e6 2.f4?!, the sequence 2...Qh4+ 3. g3 Qd8. Losing TWO tempii in
>> > the opening for NOTHING.
>>
>> Shit, you better call up the engine programmers and tell them to fix
>> their
>> evaluation mechanism.
>>
> If your computer told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it? Moron.
How brave they are from behind their monitors, using such foul language.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
| |
Date: 30 Apr 2006 23:26:13
From: James
Subject: Re: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7
|
That's the Gunderam defence.
See full report:
http://www.chess-lovers.org/scid/c40c.html
James
Nick wrote :
> In "Chess Openings for Black, Explained", GM Alburt,
> GM Dzindzichashvili, and IM Perelshteyn suggest that
> Black play 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as an "offbeat but sound"
> alternative to their main recommendation of the Sicilian
> Accelerated Dragon. The authors write that "there is no
> way to refute this opening", referring to 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7,
> and imply that GM Kupreichik has advocated it.
>
> According to ChessBase, GM Kupreichik has played
> 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as Black only once, drawing with
> it in a 1971 USSR Championship Semifinal game.
>
> According to ChessBase, GM Sulskis has played
> 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as Black twice, scoring 1-1.
>
> At the 2004 FIDE World Championship, GM Radjabov
> played 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as Black against GM Adams.
> Adams-Radjabov began as 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 3 Nc3 c6
> 4 d4 d6 5 Bc4 Bg4 (tranposing to a Philidor Defence)
> and ended in a draw.
>
> Does 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 have an independent name
> as a chess opening?
>
> --Nick
>
|
| |
Date: 29 Apr 2006 18:53:00
From: chasmad
Subject: Re: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
> > In "Chess Openings for Black, Explained", GM Alburt,
> > GM Dzindzichashvili, and IM Perelshteyn suggest that
> > Black play 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as an "offbeat but sound"
> > alternative to their main recommendation of the Sicilian
> > Accelerated Dragon. The authors write that "there is no
> > way to refute this opening", referring to 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7,
> > and imply that GM Kupreichik has advocated it.
> >
> > According to ChessBase, GM Kupreichik has played
> > 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as Black only once, drawing with
> > it in a 1971 USSR Championship Semifinal game.
> >
> > According to ChessBase, GM Sulskis has played
> > 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as Black twice, scoring 1-1.
> >
> > At the 2004 FIDE World Championship, GM Radjabov
> > played 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as Black against GM Adams.
> > Adams-Radjabov began as 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 3 Nc3 c6
> > 4 d4 d6 5 Bc4 Bg4 (tranposing to a Philidor Defence)
> > and ended in a draw.
> >
> > Does 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 have an independent name
> > as a chess opening?
>
> I think it's called "crap."
>
You should know. You are the Crap Meister.
Ray is the same guy who recommends, as Black, after the opening moves
1.e4 e6 2.f4?!, the sequence 2...Qh4+ 3. g3 Qd8. Losing TWO tempii in
the opening for NOTHING. And yet he thinks he is competent enough to
pass judgment on a defense used by a super-GM like Radjabov. Wake up,
dumbass.
Charles
>
> --
> "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
> District of PA Judge
> From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
| | |
Date: 30 Apr 2006 08:37:48
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7
|
> Ray is the same guy who recommends, as Black, after the opening moves
> 1.e4 e6 2.f4?!, the sequence 2...Qh4+ 3. g3 Qd8. Losing TWO tempii in
> the opening for NOTHING.
Shit, you better call up the engine programmers and tell them to fix their
evaluation mechanism.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
| |
Date: 29 Apr 2006 23:01:55
From:
Subject: Re: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7
|
"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote:
> In "Chess Openings for Black, Explained", GM Alburt,
> GM Dzindzichashvili, and IM Perelshteyn suggest that
> Black play 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as an "offbeat but sound"
> alternative to their main recommendation of the Sicilian
> Accelerated Dragon. The authors write that "there is no
> way to refute this opening", referring to 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7,
> and imply that GM Kupreichik has advocated it.
>
> According to ChessBase, GM Kupreichik has played
> 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as Black only once, drawing with
> it in a 1971 USSR Championship Semifinal game.
>
> According to ChessBase, GM Sulskis has played
> 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as Black twice, scoring 1-1.
>
> At the 2004 FIDE World Championship, GM Radjabov
> played 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as Black against GM Adams.
> Adams-Radjabov began as 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 3 Nc3 c6
> 4 d4 d6 5 Bc4 Bg4 (tranposing to a Philidor Defence)
> and ended in a draw.
>
> Does 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 have an independent name
> as a chess opening?
>
Nick, check out the Gunderam Defence on:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adam.bozon/stats.htm
Stats indicate that White won 50% of the time, with Black win and Draw 25%
each. HTH
nick
--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!
Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
|
| |
Date: 29 Apr 2006 16:49:43
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7
|
> In "Chess Openings for Black, Explained", GM Alburt,
> GM Dzindzichashvili, and IM Perelshteyn suggest that
> Black play 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as an "offbeat but sound"
> alternative to their main recommendation of the Sicilian
> Accelerated Dragon. The authors write that "there is no
> way to refute this opening", referring to 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7,
> and imply that GM Kupreichik has advocated it.
>
> According to ChessBase, GM Kupreichik has played
> 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as Black only once, drawing with
> it in a 1971 USSR Championship Semifinal game.
>
> According to ChessBase, GM Sulskis has played
> 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as Black twice, scoring 1-1.
>
> At the 2004 FIDE World Championship, GM Radjabov
> played 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 as Black against GM Adams.
> Adams-Radjabov began as 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 3 Nc3 c6
> 4 d4 d6 5 Bc4 Bg4 (tranposing to a Philidor Defence)
> and ended in a draw.
>
> Does 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Qe7 have an independent name
> as a chess opening?
I think it's called "crap."
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
|
