| |
Main
Date: 09 Jul 2006 16:31:18
From: velo
Subject: Centre counter or scandinavian defence
|
Hello,
I'm seaching links about this defence with Qa5.
I hope to find a short presentation with stategic ways.
Thanks.
|
|
| |
Date: 25 Jul 2006 02:05:05
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Scandinavian Defence - "Dancing Queens"
|
I played the Scandinavian today and someone tried a "Dancing Queens"
defense. It made for a fun miniature:
1. e4 d5 2. Qf3 dxe4 3. Qxe4 Nf6 4. Qa4+ Qd7 5. Qf4 Nc6 6. Bc4 e5 7.
Qf3 b6 8. Nh3 h6 9. d3 Bb7 10. O-O O-O-O 11. d4 Nxd4 12. Qc3 Qc6 13.
Na3 Qxg2# 0-1
[email protected] wrote:
> Ray Gordon wrote:
> > If I want quick equality I often play the "dancing queens" line of 3. Qf3!
>
> Equality is often Black's goal. If 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Qf3?! Qxf3
> 4. Nf3 Nc6 and Black is setup to score 1/2 point. Not great for White.
>
> > Lately, however, I've been working on a different system that also doesn't
> > involve 3...Nc3, which I see as premature.
>
> Black's weakness is the exposed queen--s/he's happy if White avoids Nc3.
|
| |
Date: 18 Jul 2006 11:29:28
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Centre counter or scandinavian defence
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
> If I want quick equality I often play the "dancing queens" line of 3. Qf3!
Equality is often Black's goal. If 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Qf3?! Qxf3
4. Nf3 Nc6 and Black is setup to score 1/2 point. Not great for White.
> Lately, however, I've been working on a different system that also doesn't
> involve 3...Nc3, which I see as premature.
Black's weakness is the exposed queen--s/he's happy if White avoids Nc3.
|
| |
Date: 15 Jul 2006 21:32:43
From: knightyknight9
Subject: Re: Centre counter or scandinavian defence
|
Bjoern wrote:
> knightyknight9 wrote:
> > Check out:
> >
> > http://chesscoach1977.blogspot.com/2006/01/chess-understanding-center-counter.html
> >
> > I think you won't be disappointed.
> >
>
> I think you will.
>
> Whoever the author of that is, he/she doesn't know much about the
> Scandinavian, seems like some random copying from an outdated opening
> book with some comments added in, which are sometimes correct and
> sometimes fairly random. There's hardly a logical structure to the text
> and the information is often not to the point.
>
> Some examples:
>
> E.g. we "learn" that 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 "5.Bd2 led
> to equality in Karpov-Larsen, Montreal 1979: 5 Bd2 Bg4 6 Be2 Bxe2 7
> Ncxe2 Qb6 8 Nf3 Nbd7 9 0-0 e6."
> Well, it did lead to equality in that game and it's a famous game, but
> that is pretty irrelevant to the assessment of the variation, 6.Be2?! is
> just boring and doesn't challenge black at all. The critical variation
> is of course 6.f3!.
>
> Similarly after 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 c6 6.Bc4
> Bf5 we are told that "Another option is: 7 Ne5 e6 8 0-0 Nbd7 9 Nxd7
> [...]" quoting some 1980s games, but the real move here is 8.g4 (there's
> a good Anand game there, although a slightly different handling than the
> one by Anand seems more threatening to me - e.g. Westerinen-Prie).
>
> As the main line for 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 c6
> 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.Bd2 e6 8.Qe2 Bb4 the move 9.Ne5 is given, nothing totally
> wrong with that, but totally ignoring 9.0-0-0 seems odd, but that's not
> the main problem that I'll point out. However now his main line
> continues 9...Nbd7 10.Nxd7 Nxd7 11.a3 Nb6 12.0-0 quoting Chandler-Rogers
> without further comment. If you check this line e.g. in the great book
> by Wahls you'll find that 11...Nb6 looses and Wahls in fact comments
> "Every Russian school kid knows that 11...Nb6? looses" and funnier still
> his evidence is...yes, you are guessing correctly: Chandler-Rogers!
>
> After 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 we are told "Not 4 ... e5 5 Nf3
> [..] 5 ... Bb4 also works in White's favor by affording him superior
> development: 6.Bd2 Bg4 7 Be2 exd4 8 Nxd4 Qe5 9 Ncb5! Bxe2 10 Qxe2 Bxd2+
> 11 Kxd2 Qxe2+ 12.Kxe2." presumably that's based on Tarrasch-Mieses, but
> is the position really in white's favour after 12...Kd8? It's not like
> black has any serious winning chances, but on the other hand what real
> advantage does white have? As soon as black has connected his rooks he
> ought to have equality.
>
> And so on. The best moves are ignored in order to make some statement
> about how some line is good either for black or white (and hence doesn't
> deserve more attention by the author - the honest thing when you just
> don't know something about a move is "there's also 5.Bd2").
> Well, I guess when GMs write about openings they don't know and play,
> they get money and we get poor or mediocre opening books, the same
> obviously holds to an extent for weaker players writing about opening
> (whatever they actually get out of it).
I actually didn't know a good chunk of the information in the article
and so I got some use out of it. Your points are taken though.
|
| |
Date: 15 Jul 2006 11:52:55
From: knightyknight9
Subject: Re: Centre counter or scandinavian defence
|
Check out:
http://chesscoach1977.blogspot.com/2006/01/chess-understanding-center-counter.html
I think you won't be disappointed.
velo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm seaching links about this defence with Qa5.
>
> I hope to find a short presentation with stategic ways.
>
> Thanks.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Jul 2006 23:13:40
From: Bjoern
Subject: Re: Centre counter or scandinavian defence
|
knightyknight9 wrote:
> Check out:
>
> http://chesscoach1977.blogspot.com/2006/01/chess-understanding-center-counter.html
>
> I think you won't be disappointed.
>
I think you will.
Whoever the author of that is, he/she doesn't know much about the
Scandinavian, seems like some random copying from an outdated opening
book with some comments added in, which are sometimes correct and
sometimes fairly random. There's hardly a logical structure to the text
and the information is often not to the point.
Some examples:
E.g. we "learn" that 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 "5.Bd2 led
to equality in Karpov-Larsen, Montreal 1979: 5 Bd2 Bg4 6 Be2 Bxe2 7
Ncxe2 Qb6 8 Nf3 Nbd7 9 0-0 e6."
Well, it did lead to equality in that game and it's a famous game, but
that is pretty irrelevant to the assessment of the variation, 6.Be2?! is
just boring and doesn't challenge black at all. The critical variation
is of course 6.f3!.
Similarly after 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 c6 6.Bc4
Bf5 we are told that "Another option is: 7 Ne5 e6 8 0-0 Nbd7 9 Nxd7
[...]" quoting some 1980s games, but the real move here is 8.g4 (there's
a good Anand game there, although a slightly different handling than the
one by Anand seems more threatening to me - e.g. Westerinen-Prie).
As the main line for 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 c6
6.Bc4 Bf5 7.Bd2 e6 8.Qe2 Bb4 the move 9.Ne5 is given, nothing totally
wrong with that, but totally ignoring 9.0-0-0 seems odd, but that's not
the main problem that I'll point out. However now his main line
continues 9...Nbd7 10.Nxd7 Nxd7 11.a3 Nb6 12.0-0 quoting Chandler-Rogers
without further comment. If you check this line e.g. in the great book
by Wahls you'll find that 11...Nb6 looses and Wahls in fact comments
"Every Russian school kid knows that 11...Nb6? looses" and funnier still
his evidence is...yes, you are guessing correctly: Chandler-Rogers!
After 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 we are told "Not 4 ... e5 5 Nf3
[..] 5 ... Bb4 also works in White's favor by affording him superior
development: 6.Bd2 Bg4 7 Be2 exd4 8 Nxd4 Qe5 9 Ncb5! Bxe2 10 Qxe2 Bxd2+
11 Kxd2 Qxe2+ 12.Kxe2." presumably that's based on Tarrasch-Mieses, but
is the position really in white's favour after 12...Kd8? It's not like
black has any serious winning chances, but on the other hand what real
advantage does white have? As soon as black has connected his rooks he
ought to have equality.
And so on. The best moves are ignored in order to make some statement
about how some line is good either for black or white (and hence doesn't
deserve more attention by the author - the honest thing when you just
don't know something about a move is "there's also 5.Bd2").
Well, I guess when GMs write about openings they don't know and play,
they get money and we get poor or mediocre opening books, the same
obviously holds to an extent for weaker players writing about opening
(whatever they actually get out of it).
|
| |
Date: 15 Jul 2006 02:56:33
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod)
Subject: Re: Centre counter or scandinavian defence
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
> I play a rather well-defined system as White
> against it that is not easy for Black to "avoid."
>
> White's best bet is to just load up the center
> without attacking until he's completed his
> development, which should leave Black with
> less space and less piece activity.
Would you post one or two of your
games for illustration?
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 14 Jul 2006 13:36:18
From: mike
Subject: Re: Centre counter or scandinavian defence
|
My experience is there is little or no strategy involved with this line.
Sometimes black castles short, sometimes black castles long. Sometimes
white castles short, sometimes white castles long. Sometimes black launches
a pawn storm on the queenside, sometimes the kingside. Sometimes white
launches a pawn storm on the queenside, sometimes the kingside. Sometimes
white plays for a breakthrough in the center. Sometimes he doesnt. When
where and how each side does these things -- well, that's what chess is all
about, isnt it.
The attraction of the Scandinavian, in my opinion, is that it is somewhat
offbeat, may allow black to steer the game into positions he's more
comfortable with, and may allow black easy development. But I wouldn't say
there's a lot of strategy involved. If I'm wrong, I'd love for someone to
teach me otherwise.
"velo" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hello,
>
> I'm seaching links about this defence with Qa5.
>
> I hope to find a short presentation with stategic ways.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jul 2006 16:16:08
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Centre counter or scandinavian defence
|
> The attraction of the Scandinavian, in my opinion, is that it is somewhat
> offbeat, may allow black to steer the game into positions he's more
> comfortable with, and may allow black easy development. But I wouldn't
> say there's a lot of strategy involved. If I'm wrong, I'd love for
> someone to teach me otherwise.
I play a rather well-defined system as White against it that is not easy for
Black to "avoid."
White's best bet is to just load up the center without attacking until he's
completed his development, which should leave Black with less space and less
piece activity.
--
"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: 15 Jul 2006 00:05:24
From: Bjoern
Subject: Re: Centre counter or scandinavian defence
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
>>The attraction of the Scandinavian, in my opinion, is that it is somewhat
>>offbeat, may allow black to steer the game into positions he's more
>>comfortable with, and may allow black easy development. But I wouldn't
>>say there's a lot of strategy involved. If I'm wrong, I'd love for
>>someone to teach me otherwise.
>
>
> I play a rather well-defined system as White against it that is not easy for
> Black to "avoid."
>
> White's best bet is to just load up the center without attacking until he's
> completed his development, which should leave Black with less space and less
> piece activity.
Now, that's just the recipe for handing black equality. Black concedes a
slight delay in his development to get a position without weaknesses so
that if white doesn't immediately use his advantage in development
black's pieces are very naturally placed and he has no worries.
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Jul 2006 10:05:35
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Centre counter or scandinavian defence
|
>>>The attraction of the Scandinavian, in my opinion, is that it is somewhat
>>>offbeat, may allow black to steer the game into positions he's more
>>>comfortable with, and may allow black easy development. But I wouldn't
>>>say there's a lot of strategy involved. If I'm wrong, I'd love for
>>>someone to teach me otherwise.
>>
>>
>> I play a rather well-defined system as White against it that is not easy
>> for Black to "avoid."
>>
>> White's best bet is to just load up the center without attacking until
>> he's completed his development, which should leave Black with less space
>> and less piece activity.
>
> Now, that's just the recipe for handing black equality. Black concedes a
> slight delay in his development to get a position without weaknesses so
> that if white doesn't immediately use his advantage in development black's
> pieces are very naturally placed and he has no worries.
I don't chase the Black Queen to a5.
If I want quick equality I often play the "dancing queens" line of 3. Qf3!
Lately, however, I've been working on a different system that also doesn't
involve 3...Nc3, which I see as premature.
--
"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: 09 Jul 2006 11:49:07
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Centre counter or scandinavian defence
|
velo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm seaching links about this defence with Qa5.
>
> I hope to find a short presentation with stategic ways.
>
> Thanks.
John Emms has a useful book. I don't know of any good links.
|
|
