| |
Main
Date: 09 Apr 2006 12:36:33
From: 42N83W
Subject: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
I played Black. I've modified the PGN format for readability. Please don't
laugh! Even though I won I'm sure my play was only ginally less sucky
than White's. Also, is the Caro-Kann an opening that a beginner such as
myself should be messing with?
1. e4 c6 2. Qf3?
{What is the accepted action when a player deviates from an opening so early
in the game? I was tempted to play e6 followed by Qf6, thinking my opponent
wouldn't like trading Queens so early. At least my experience has been that
people who play the Queen early don't like playing without her.}
2... d5
{I decided to proceed as planned. I need work on refuting these early
departures from an opening.}
3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. Bc4
{White clearly is playing aggressively, trying for an early win. Again, I
need more practice on refuting this. How do you refute the early attack on
f7?}
6... e6
{At this point I was definitely planning on if Bxd5 then Qxd5, thus avoiding
an isolated Pawn and tempting an early Queen trade.}
7. Nh3 Bc5 8. Qg3 O-O 9. Nf4 Nxf4 10. Qxf4 Nc6 11. b3 f5 12. Qg3 Qd4 13. Nc3
{Originally White played Bb2? I allowed the takeback. This was on Yahoo!
Games and I was feeling benevolent. Plus it definitively indicated that my
opponent is prone to mistakes, and that coupled with his early Queen moves
made me like my chances}
13... Nb4 14. Bb2 Nc2+ 15. Kd1
{Wouldn't White have been better with Kf1?}
15... Nxa1 16. Kc1
{?? I don't get that at all. Why not Bxa1 ?}
16... Nxb3+ 17. Bxb3 Qxf2 18. Re1 Qxg3 19. hxg3 Re8 20. Na4 Bd6 21. Bc2 Bxg3
22. Rh1
{Looking ahead to pinning the Bishop. White will take the b7 Pawn and then
probably try to fork my Rooks, forgetting about my Bishop on g3. At least
that's what I was thinking}
22... Bd7 23. Nc5 Bb5 24. Nxb7 Rac8 25. Nd6
{Ha! But seriously, is it okay to bank on that if your opponent has
indicated that possibility through his play?}
25... Bxd6 26. g4 Bd3
{White resigns.}
0-1
=================================================
The creative act is not the province of remote oracles or rarefied geniuses
but a transparent process that is open to everyone.
-Greg Kot in Wilco Learning How To Die-
|
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2006 16:37:46
From: Nick
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
> > David Richerby wrote:
> >> Claiming that every opening played by 2000+ players is playable at
> >> every level is approaching a truism: of course every opening that
> >> doesn't lead to weaknesses that can be exploited by a 2000+ player
> >> is more or less playable.
> >
> > If I understand David Richerby's meaning correctly, then should
> > not his last sentence conclude with "... every opening that doesn't
> > lead to weaknesses that can be exploited by a *2000- player*
> > (less strong than a 2000 player) is more or less playable"?
I construed David Richerby's statement with an emphasis on
his words, 'more or less playable'. That seemed to suggest
that David Richerby was making an assertion about an opening's
practical value, with an implication that it might be considered
a bit theoretically dubious at some level (a high level) of play.
I supposed that David Richerby was writing about an opening
that did not lead to any weaknesses that were obvious enough
to be exploited by a player who's less strong than 2000 FIDE.
Then that opening should be considered 'more or less playable'
for most club players (who are less strong than 2000 FIDE).
I had assumed that this thread's context, giving advice on
'how to respond to 1 e4 c6 2 Qf3', was directed toward
most club players' level(s) of chess comprehension.
> I don't think so: if an opening produces no weaknesses that can
> be exploited by a 2000+ player, it can produce only very slight
> weaknesses so should be playable by everyone.
As far as I can tell, there's no upper bound to the class of
'2000+ players', so David Richerby's original statement seems
to cover Kasparov, Topalov, Anand, etc. If Kasparov, Topalov,
and Anand cannot exploit any weaknesses in an opening, then
it does not seem to make much sense to write of that opening
being 'more or less playable' (which David Richerby originally
wrote) rather than it being 'completely playable'.
There seems to be a misunderstanding between David Richerby
and me that arose from his choice of words, 'more or less playable'.
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 18 Apr 2006 09:12:26
From: alexmagnus
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
Nick Wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
> Nick [email protected] wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
> Claiming that every opening played by 2000+ players is playable at
> every level is approaching a truism: of course every opening that
> doesn't lead to weaknesses that can be exploited by a 2000+ player
> is more or less playable.
>
> If I understand David Richerby's meaning correctly, then should
> not his last sentence conclude with "... every opening that doesn't
> lead to weaknesses that can be exploited by a *2000- player*
> (less strong than a 2000 player) is more or less playable"?
>
> I construed David Richerby's statement with an emphasis on
> his words, 'more or less playable'. That seemed to suggest
> that David Richerby was making an assertion about an opening's
> practical value, with an implication that it might be considered
> a bit theoretically dubious at some level (a high level) of play.
>
> I supposed that David Richerby was writing about an opening
> that did not lead to any weaknesses that were obvious enough
> to be exploited by a player who's less strong than 2000 FIDE.
> Then that opening should be considered 'more or less playable'
> for most club players (who are less strong than 2000 FIDE).
> I had assumed that this thread's context, giving advice on
> 'how to respond to 1 e4 c6 2 Qf3', was directed toward
> most club players' level(s) of chess comprehension.
>
> I don't think so: if an opening produces no weaknesses that can
> be exploited by a 2000+ player, it can produce only very slight
> weaknesses so should be playable by everyone.
>
> As far as I can tell, there's no upper bound to the class of
> '2000+ players', so David Richerby's original statement seems
> to cover Kasparov, Topalov, Anand, etc. If Kasparov, Topalov,
> and Anand cannot exploit any weaknesses in an opening, then
> it does not seem to make much sense to write of that opening
> being 'more or less playable' (which David Richerby originally
> wrote) rather than it being 'completely playable'.
>
> There seems to be a misunderstanding between David Richerby
> and me that arose from his choice of words, 'more or less playable'.
>
> --Nick
I don't know what David Richerby meant, I meant EVERY player over 2000
i.e. not just Kasparov, Anand or Topalov but also unknown Exper
players
--
alexmagnus
|
| |
Date: 14 Apr 2006 15:52:45
From: Nick
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
Claus-J=FCrgen Heigl wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > If a 'club player' is defined as someone who's less than 2000 FIDE
> > in strength, then I am not a 'club player'. Yet I have little 'book
> > knowledge' about chess.
What I once 'knew' about opening theory has been largely
forgotten or probably has become mostly obsolete by now.
I have become a 'beginner' again. :-)
> If you can hold your own against an IM
I make no claim about my strength now in general.
I just describe the facts in this case.
I scored +1 =3D2 in three games with someone who's using
the internet chess server account of an IM who's rated
slightly under 2500 FIDE (i.e. a 'strong IM'). I cannot be
certain that this IM was my opponent, but it's against the
internet chess server's policy for the IM to permit anyone
else to impersonate him. If it could be proven that this
IM was permitting anyone else to impersonate him, then
I expect that this internet chess server would suspend or
perhaps cancel this IM's account there.
I respect GMs and IMs, but I am not in awe of them.
GMs and IMs do not 'walk on water'. I have observed
enough errors by GMs and IMs to know that they are
humanly fallible like me, except perhaps when they
may be using chess engines for assistance. :-)
> after being inactive for years, you are certainly
> not typical for a club player.
I welcome overconfident opponents, so I would
encourage every potential opponent of mine to
believe the rubbish that has been written about
my playing strength and talent by some of the
white Americans who like to troll me. :-)
> When you are this strong
I strive to be as realistically self-critical as possible,
and I know that I have many weaknesses, which I
feel disinclined to describe in detail in public. :-)
> you would definitively profit from opening knowledge
> and home preparation.
I expect so. At this time, however, I am rather short of
resources (time, books, software) to prepare an opening
repetoire that I would consider adequate at an IM level.
I suspect that many, if not most, of the club players who
write here have done more serious opening preparation
than I have ever done. After losing their games to me,
some club players have been surprised when I did not
know the correct names of the opening variations that
had been played.
I have noticed with interest that Antonio Torrecillas has
written: "A talented local player used to play 1. g4 until
he reached IM level. He obtained good results but not
thanks to the opening but his chess skills. ...
He switched to 1. d4. Today He is GM."
I don't play 1 g4, so I already have taken my
first step toward becoming a GM someday. :-)
> Playing book openings is basically playing moves at the start of the
> game that have been tested by very strong players and have held up
> against other very strong players. If you are an average player you
> should profit from making moves that survived the test of players much
> higher in strength. (That should be true for other players as well.)
>
> Still, the average player is not free from making a selection of which
> openings he plays. It does him no good if he plays an opening he
> doesn't understand or if his book knowlegde ends in a critical or
> dangerous position.
I have discovered that it's easier for me to defeat most 'average
players' by enticing them out of their opening preparations.
When an 'average player' has to begin thinking for himself or
herself rather than just copying GM moves, he or she tends
to make errors that I usually can exploit.
> Also when trying to improve time may be invested better elsewhere than
> in studying openings, as the chess game doesn't end with the opening.
> But that doesn't change my assessment that openings matter.
Of course, 'openings matter', and openings matter much more at
the higher levels of chess. I have had some painful experiences
on account of my ignorance of the openings.
But my advice to the player who created this thread would be to
forget about attempting to refute openings such as 1 e4 c6 2 Qf3.
It's true that if you memorize many opening traps, then you
probably can get some easy quick wins against other novice
players, but that does little for your general understanding of chess.
> It is certainly true that one ginal move in the opening doesn't
> necessarily lose the game. But this ginal move gives your opponent
> an edge and sometimes he will be able to convert this edge into points.
> Playing ginal moves is essentially a kind of giving a handicap.
>From what I have observed, strong GMs (FIDE 2600+) are
more effective than IMs in denying their opponents counterplay.
I had Black against a former champion of Russia (FIDE 2600+).
I played the opening inaccurately, and I found myself fighting
off a strong attack. In general, I could see what he intended
to play, yet I usually was about one move too slow in being
able to respond to it. If I had been playing an IM, then I
might have been able to sacrifice something, create more
complications, and hope that my opponent would lose control.
But he gave me no evident opportunties for counterplay.
I was able to last into an inferior endgame, in which I
hoped that I had some ginal drawing chances.
I soon blundered in zeitnot and he won the game.
--Nick
|
| |
Date: 14 Apr 2006 14:49:20
From: Nick
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
> > David Richerby wrote:
> >> From this, we can conclue that, while bringing the queen out early
> >> doesn't guarantee a loss, it does mean you have to play much more
> >> accurately than the average beginner is going to manage.
> >
> > I would make a distinction between 'bringing the queen out early'
> > (David Richerby's expression) and moving the queen *prematurely*.
>
> Good point.
If I recall correctly, in his book, 'Meet the Masters', Max Euwe
annotates a win by Alekhine in which the only way for Alekhine
to punish his opponent's inaccurate opening was by moving his
queen several times early in the game. Euwe praised Alekhine
for his creative opening play in defiance of general principles.
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 18 Apr 2006 12:24:50
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
Nick <[email protected] > wrote:
> If I recall correctly, in his book, 'Meet the Masters', Max Euwe
> annotates a win by Alekhine in which the only way for Alekhine to
> punish his opponent's inaccurate opening was by moving his queen
> several times early in the game. Euwe praised Alekhine for his
> creative opening play in defiance of general principles.
``A strong player knows all the rules and laws of the game. A
talented player knows everything that a strong player knows but
he also sees exceptions to the rules. But major chess talents
(we call them geniuses) gradually transform these exceptions
into new rules. And so on, ad infinitum.''
-- Tigran Petrosian.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Homicidal Salted Cat (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a cat but it's covered in salt and it
wants to kill you!
|
| |
Date: 14 Apr 2006 14:38:11
From: Nick
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
David Richerby wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> alexmagnus <[email protected]> wrote:
> > When I wrote "every opening" I meant any opening ever played
> > regularly by some player rated...hm... 2000+.
>
> What you said was, `I think, every opening is playable at every level,
> because nobody plays best moves only.' Claiming that every opening
> played by 2000+ players is playable at every level is approaching a
> truism: of course every opening that doesn't lead to weaknesses that
> can be exploited by a 2000+ player is more or less playable.
If I understand David Richerby's meaning correctly, then should
not his last sentence conclude with "... every opening that doesn't
lead to weaknesses that can be exploited by a *2000- player*
(less strong than a 2000 player) is more or less playable"?
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2006 10:48:12
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
Nick <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> Claiming that every opening played by 2000+ players is playable at
>> every level is approaching a truism: of course every opening that
>> doesn't lead to weaknesses that can be exploited by a 2000+ player
>> is more or less playable.
>
> If I understand David Richerby's meaning correctly, then should
> not his last sentence conclude with "... every opening that doesn't
> lead to weaknesses that can be exploited by a *2000- player*
> (less strong than a 2000 player) is more or less playable"?
I don't think so: if an opening produces no weaknesses that can be
exploited by a 2000+ player, it can produce only very slight
weaknesses so should be playable by everyone.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Natural Pants (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ well-tailored pair of trousers but
it's completely natural!
|
| |
Date: 13 Apr 2006 13:56:40
From: Nick
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
David Richerby wrote:
> alexmagnus <[email protected]> wrote:
> > (snipped)
> As AT pointed out, in example games where one side loses quickly
> due to early queen sorties, it's usually because of some later blunder.
> However, the later blunder usually looks like a plausible move and it
> usually isn't all that late. From this, we can conclue that, while
> bringing the queen out early doesn't guarantee a loss, it does mean
> you have to play much more accurately than the average beginner is
> going to manage.
I would make a distinction between 'bringing the queen out early'
(David Richerby's expression) and moving the queen *prematurely*.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Nxe5 d6 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 Qe2 Qe7 is an
example of 'bringing the queen(s) out early' that's acceptable.
If Black were to play 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Nxe5 Nxe4? then
White *should* 'bring the queen out early' with 4 Qe2.
I suspect that when the 'average beginner' moves the queen
prematurely, the 'average beginner' tends to keep moving the
queen too much in the opening because the 'average beginner'
does not yet understand its general disadvantages.
> > (snipped)
> > I think, every opening is playable at every level,
> > because nobody plays best moves only.
>
> This is clearly false: there are plenty of openings that just drop a
> piece or the game. You can't expect to win with 1.f3 e5 2.g4 at
> any level.
When he wrote 'every opening', Alex Magnus may have been
(I am not certain of his context) referring to 'every opening'
recognised in chess books.
> I'm prepared to believe that there are many more workable
> openings than are used at the top level, though.
I would not advise the 'average beginner' to spend much of
one's study time in attempting to win most of one's games
in the opening.
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 14 Apr 2006 11:07:14
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
Nick <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> From this, we can conclue that, while bringing the queen out early
>> doesn't guarantee a loss, it does mean you have to play much more
>> accurately than the average beginner is going to manage.
>
> I would make a distinction between 'bringing the queen out early'
> (David Richerby's expression) and moving the queen *prematurely*.
Good point.
> I would not advise the 'average beginner' to spend much of one's
> study time in attempting to win most of one's games in the opening.
Indeed. The way to win games quickly in the opening is to learn about
development and the centre (e.g., from Nimzowitsch and maybe Kmoch or
just play through lots of Morphy's games) and then play a couple of
very weak players online. :-)
Dave.
--
David Richerby Cyber-T-Shirt (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ fashion statement that exists only in
your computer!
|
| |
Date: 12 Apr 2006 18:16:46
From: Nick
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
Nick wrote:
> Claus-J=FCrgen Heigl wrote:
> > Nick wrote:
> > > Playing 'theoretically approved' openings is not too important for
> > > most club players. Sam Sloan likes to play 1 g4 as White and
> > > 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f6 as Black and he has been rated USCF 2100+.
>
> Here's the context for my statements (above):
> The player who created this thread has acknowledged that
> he's a 'beginner', yet he seemed to believe that he should
> be able to win (he wrote of 'refuting' White's opening) as
> Black after 1 e4 c6 2 Qf3? He's too optimistic.
>
> > When a player achieves good results with ginal or even bad openings
> > this doesn't mean he couldn't achieve better results with better openin=
gs.
>
> Claus-Juergen Heigl and I do *not* disagree about that.
> Claus-Juergen seems to be arguing against some position
> that I have *not* taken.
>
> > Korchnoi in a recent interview to the german chess magazine Schach 64
> > thinks that Nakamura's fondness of 2. Qh5 actually cost Nakamura points.
> >
> > Grandmasters playing inferior openings may get away from it better than
> > club players because of their preparation. Most club players don't do
> > much preparation and will be at a immediate disadvantage when violating
> > opening principles.
>
> If a 'club player' is defined as someone who's less than 2000 FIDE
> in strength, then I am not a 'club player'. Yet I have little 'book
> knowledge' about chess. As far as I can tell, for instance,
> David Richerby has studied chess much more seriously than
> I ever have. To this day, I hardly ever have opened any book about
> tactics, and I never have done any training with chess software.
> I never have seen many of the books that seem to be most
> often recommended in rec.games.chess.* for novice players.
> I have done almost no opening preparation whatsoever.
>
> On account of my inactivity in recent years, I am now substantially
> weaker than I was. Recently, I played some games in order to
> help out how weak I have become, and I was rather surprised
> by my results. I played three games with an IM (who's rated
> almost 2500 FIDE). As White, I won the first game when he,
> appearing overconfident, attempted a dubious plan to win in
> an inferior position. In the second game, as Black I got into
> trouble in the opening, and my opponent had a significant
> advantage. He should have played to exploit my queenside,
> but he (perhaps hoping to avenge his earlier loss) decided
> to attack my king. I defended accurately and reached a
> clearly drawn endgame, and we agreed to a draw. In the
> third game, my opponent played more conservatively and
> offered a draw as Black when in a slightly inferior position.
> So I scored +1 =3D2. I also played Black against a player
> who's rated 2300 FIDE (who did not seem overconfident).
> Again, I got in trouble in the opening, and at one point
> I thought that I would probably lose if my opponent
> played the best moves. His position appeared to
> be overwhelmingly strong, but I had some resources.
> Fortunately for me, my opponent played some 'natural'
> attacking moves, which included an inaccuracy.
> I was able to stop his attack and his passed pawn.
> I reached a clearly drawn endgame, and we agreed
> to a draw. It's a sample of only four games, but
> I thought my performance rating of 2500+ FIDE
> was acceptable under the circumstances. :-)
>
> It seems true enough, however, that most club players
> are weaker than I am in the middlegame and hence
> less able to compensate for ignorance of the opening.
I am reluctant to give advice to most players about how to
improve because I suspect my experiences probably are
not too relevant to their experiences of playing chess.
For instance, I find it hard to understand how anyone
could (apart from typos) often write illegal moves.
As a beginning player, I played in a club wherein,
for some reason, most players objected to my writing
down the moves of unrated games. At least several
players said that they would refuse to play with me
at all if I wrote down the moves of their games.
So, during a club meeting, I would play, say, about
a dozen games without writing down their moves.
Then I would go home and write down all the moves
from memory. I did not find it hard to write down some
400-500 moves from memory with complete accuracy.
More than a few persons have boasted that they must
be far superior to me (I don't look like a white European)
in chess talent and in general intelligence, so I suppose
that they, as beginners, must have found it even easier
to write down 500+ moves from memory with complete
accuracy.
--Nick
|
| |
Date: 12 Apr 2006 17:57:27
From: Nick
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
Claus-J=FCrgen Heigl wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > Playing 'theoretically approved' openings is not too important for
> > most club players. Sam Sloan likes to play 1 g4 as White and
> > 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f6 as Black and he has been rated USCF 2100+.
Here's the context for my statements (above):
The player who created this thread has acknowledged that
he's a 'beginner', yet he seemed to believe that he should
be able to win (he wrote of 'refuting' White's opening) as
Black after 1 e4 c6 2 Qf3? He's too optimistic.
> When a player achieves good results with ginal or even bad openings
> this doesn't mean he couldn't achieve better results with better openings.
Claus-Juergen Heigl and I do *not* disagree about that.
Claus-Juergen seems to be arguing against some position
that I have *not* taken.
> Korchnoi in a recent interview to the german chess magazine Schach 64
> thinks that Nakamura's fondness of 2. Qh5 actually cost Nakamura points.
>
> Grandmasters playing inferior openings may get away from it better than
> club players because of their preparation. Most club players don't do
> much preparation and will be at a immediate disadvantage when violating
> opening principles.
If a 'club player' is defined as someone who's less than 2000 FIDE
in strength, then I am not a 'club player'. Yet I have little 'book
knowledge' about chess. As far as I can tell, for instance,
David Richerby has studied chess much more seriously than
I ever have. To this day, I hardly ever have opened any book about
tactics, and I never have done any training with chess software.
I never have seen many of the books that seem to be most
often recommended in rec.games.chess.* for novice players.
I have done almost no opening preparation whatsoever.
On account of my inactivity in recent years, I am now substantially
weaker than I was. Recently, I played some games in order to
help out how weak I have become, and I was rather surprised
by my results. I played three games with an IM (who's rated
almost 2500 FIDE). As White, I won the first game when he,
appearing overconfident, attempted a dubious plan to win in
an inferior position. In the second game, as Black I got into
trouble in the opening, and my opponent had a significant
advantage. He should have played to exploit my queenside,
but he (perhaps hoping to avenge his earlier loss) decided
to attack my king. I defended accurately and reached a
clearly drawn endgame, and we agreed to a draw. In the
third game, my opponent played more conservatively and
offered a draw as Black when in a slightly inferior position.
So I scored +1 =3D2. I also played Black against a player
who's rated 2300 FIDE (who did not seem overconfident).
Again, I got in trouble in the opening, and at one point
I thought that I would probably lose if my opponent
played the best moves. His position appeared to
be overwhelmingly strong, but I had some resources.
Fortunately for me, my opponent played some 'natural'
attacking moves, which included an inaccuracy.
I was able to stop his attack and his passed pawn.
I reached a clearly drawn endgame, and we agreed
to a draw. It's a sample of only four games, but
I thought my performance rating of 2500+ FIDE
was acceptable under the circumstances. :-)
It seems true enough, however, that most club players
are weaker than I am in the middlegame and hence
less able to compensate for ignorance of the opening.
My general observation is that much advice on how
to improve in chess seems too dogmatic, so I just
ignore it. :-)
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 14 Apr 2006 03:27:54
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?=
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
Nick wrote:
> If a 'club player' is defined as someone who's less than 2000 FIDE
> in strength, then I am not a 'club player'. Yet I have little 'book
> knowledge' about chess.
If you can hold your own against an IM after being inactive for years,
you are certainly not typical for a club player. When you are this
strong you would definitively profit from opening knowledge and home
preparation.
Playing book openings is basically playing moves at the start of the
game that have been tested by very strong players and have held up
against other very strong players. If you are an average player you
should profit from making moves that survived the test of players much
higher in strength. (That should be true for other players as well.)
Still, the average player is not free from making a selection of which
openings he plays. It does him no good if he plays an opening he doesn't
understand or if his book knowlegde ends in a critical or dangerous
position.
Also when trying to improve time may be invested better elsewhere than
in studying openings, as the chess game doesn't end with the opening.
But that doesn't change my assessment that openings matter.
It is certainly true that one ginal move in the opening doesn't
necessarily lose the game. But this ginal move gives your opponent an
edge and sometimes he will be able to convert this edge into points.
Playing ginal moves is essentially a kind of giving a handicap.
Claus-Juergen
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Apr 2006 11:27:48
From: alexmagnus
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
When I wrote "every opening" I meant any opening ever played regularl
by
some player rated...hm... 2000+. Excpet the "generally accepted
openings ( like f.x.Ruy Lopez, Anti-shall Variation) to this grou
belong some openings which are considered inferior: Parham Attack
Traxler Gambit (b.t.w. is it still unrefuted?), Halloween Gambit (ther
are some variations which claim to be "refutations" of it, but I've see
many people playing those lines and losing with black in a standar
game) or even Grob's Attack.These openings and some others of this sor
are playable at any level. I certainly didn't mean Fool's Mate o
Damiano Defence (sorry Mr.Sloan)
--
alexmagnus
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Apr 2006 14:37:03
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
In article <[email protected] >,
alexmagnus <[email protected] > wrote:
> When I wrote "every opening" I meant any opening ever played
> regularly by some player rated...hm... 2000+.
What you said was, `I think, every opening is playable at every level,
because nobody plays best moves only.' Claiming that every opening
played by 2000+ players is playable at every level is approaching a
truism: of course every opening that doesn't lead to weaknesses that
can be exploited by a 2000+ player is more or less playable.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Old-Fashioned Edible Spoon (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a piece of cutlery but you
can eat it and it's perfect for your
grandparents!
|
| |
Date: 12 Apr 2006 12:53:04
From: Nick
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
> > David Richerby wrote:
> >> Has there ever been a game on Yahoo! where neither player has
> >> pointed a queen and a bishop at f2/f7 within the first few moves,
> >> apparently expecting an instant checkmate?
> >
> > [...]
> > After I play 1 d4, for some reason my opponents, even at Yahoo, tend
> > to avoid playing Bc5 to take aim at f2.
>
> Of course. They get confused by your dastardly mirror-image opening,
> play Bf5 and try to checkmate your queen on c2, instead. :-)
Lee, Yang, and Wu already have shown that parity's
not conserved in weak nuclear interactions. :-)
Playing 'theoretically approved' openings is not too important for
most club players. Sam Sloan likes to play 1 g4 as White and
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f6 as Black and he has been rated USCF 2100+.
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 13 Apr 2006 01:33:40
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?=
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
Nick wrote:
> Playing 'theoretically approved' openings is not too important for
> most club players. Sam Sloan likes to play 1 g4 as White and
> 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f6 as Black and he has been rated USCF 2100+.
When a player achieves good results with ginal or even bad openings
this doesn't mean he couldn't achieve better results with better openings.
Korchnoi in a recent interview to the german chess magazine Schach 64
thinks that Nakamura's fondness of 2. Qh5 actually cost Nakamura points.
Grandmasters playing inferior openings may get away from it better than
club players because of their preparation. Most club players don't do
much preparation and will be at a immediate disadvantage when violating
opening principles.
It might not be losing every time, but doing it often it adds up.
Claus-Juergen
|
| |
Date: 12 Apr 2006 00:08:19
From: 42N83W
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? game snipped
|
[game snipped]
Okay, I'm busted. I used the "refute" with really knowing what it means. I
admit it. What I meant (which wasn't what I said) was what does one do when
you it's apparent that your opponent is clearly going after f7? I suppose
the reason you don't see that at advanced levels of play is because it's 1)
easy to defend, and 2) a waste of time and moves. The frustrating part is
when you finaly make an investment in time and money in improving your game,
learning openings and such, and then you have to leave what you started to
go chase down a Queen or Bishop. I know that sounds whiney, but in reality
I totaly accept that. My initial perception with actually studying chess is
that it's limiting, at least at first. Anyway, let me just say that I have
no problem with losing, however much, until some of this stuff starts to
sink in.
-gk-
|
| | |
Date: 13 Apr 2006 11:13:08
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? game snipped
|
42N83W <[email protected] > wrote:
> Okay, I'm busted. I used the "refute" with really knowing what it
> means.
That's OK -- the point is to learn things.
> What I meant (which wasn't what I said) was what does one do when
> you it's apparent that your opponent is clearly going after f7?
For this discussion, I'm going to use `attacker' for the player who's
going after f2/f7 and `defender' for the other.
Try to develop naturally, making sure you keep everything covered. In
many cases, just castling is enough to defend f7 because the swap of
N+B for R+P, although `equal in points' is usually to the defender's
advantage, for two reasons. The first is that knights and bishops are
usually much more active in the middlegame than rooks are, especially
early on. After all, one or both of the attacker's rooks will be
stuck in the corner of the board for at least a few moves, while the
defender's knight and bishop leap gleefully around the centre. The
second reason is that the attacker has spent at least six moves
getting a knight and bishop off the board via f2/f7; the defender has
spent only three moves dealing with the threat (castling and two
captures). This means that the defender has three extra moves to do
something useful in (the defender has `three tempi'). It's often
said, in the context of gambit openings, that a pawn is worth about
three tempi.
Another point to bear in mind is development with tempo. For example,
after 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Qxd4, Black can play 3... Nc6, attacking the
queen and forcing it to move again, to a less commanding position.
It might be useful for you to play a few games against a computer,
here. Play as White and try to hurl everything you've got at f7 and
see how the computer responds. Don't try to learn the moves it makes
against you but look for patterns and techniques.
Ultimately, in the face of a premature attack, the defender holds all
the cards, if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor. By construction, the
attacker is attacking at range, with only a few pieces. The defender,
on the other hand, is working close to home, with all his pieces
available to help with the defence. In most cases, an attack simply
cannot succeed if the defender has more resources.
> The frustrating part is when you finaly make an investment in time
> and money in improving your game, learning openings and such, and
> then you have to leave what you started to go chase down a Queen or
> Bishop.
I think that, at the moment, you shouldn't worry about learning
openings. There's simply no point knowing what to do after, say, 1.e4
e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 etc. if your opponents just
aren't going to play into those kinds of positions. And there are few
things more tragic than a weak player, who has memorized lots of
opening, playing a stronger player who *understands* some openings,
getting into a position that the Whizzo Opening Encyclopaedia
describes as `slight advantage for White' and then losing because he
has no idea what that advantage is, let alone how to exploit it. (But
the opening was good! The book said so! Kasparov played it! Why did
I lose?)
What you should be concentrating on is general principles of the
opening: develop your pieces, control the centre, get your king to
safety. If your opponent isn't trying to do the same things, ask
yourself why not and if you can exploit that. Also ask if he's
generated any threats that you have to deal with immediately. It
might be that you can't exploit it immediately so go back to your main
plan of develop, control, castle.
> My initial perception with actually studying chess is that it's
> limiting, at least at first.
It often feels that way when you learn new things and it's often the
case that, once you've learnt a new idea, your results dip for a
little while you get used to it. When you're playing chess, it's
important to have a plan. As a beginner, the first plan is `Attack
f7! Kill! Kill!! Kill!!!' Realising that this plan is naive is the
first step but it's important to replace the discarded plan, rather
than playing aimlessly.
> Anyway, let me just say that I have no problem with losing, however
> much, until some of this stuff starts to sink in.
An excellent attitude, sir!
Dave.
--
David Richerby Disgusting Cheese Chainsaw (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a lethal weapon that's made of
cheese but it'll turn your stomach!
|
| | |
Date: 13 Apr 2006 03:13:50
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?=
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? game snipped
|
42N83W wrote:
> What I meant (which wasn't what I said) was what does one do when
> you it's apparent that your opponent is clearly going after f7?
A classic example:
[Event "Schoenbrunn"]
[Site "Schoenbrunn"]
[Date "1809.??.??"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "N Bonaparte"]
[Black "The Turk"]
[ECO "C20"]
[PlyCount "48"]
1. e4 e5 2. Qf3 Nc6 3. Bc4
Napoleon tests the ability of the chess automaton by threatening the
scholar's mate.
3...Nf6 4. Ne2 Bc5 5. a3
Fearing Nb4 which was not a threat because White can always defend with Bb3.
5...d6 6. O-O Bg4
Black has defended against the premature white attack and now uses
White's misplaced queen to speed up his development.
7. Qd3 Nh5
Aims for f4.
8. h3
Too late. 8. Nbc3 was necessary so White can recapture with the knight
and keep control of f4 and d4.
8...Bxe2 9. Qxe2 Nf4 10. Qe1
Better was 10. Qg4 which restricts the black queen in attacking the
kingside (Qg5) and keeps control of f3. Black has a good attack after
10...Qf6 11. d3 h5 12. Qd1 g5 planning to castle queenside.
10...Nd4 11. Bb3
Unfortunately c2 is not the only square attacked.
11...Nxh3+
11...Qg5 or 11...Nf3+ are even stronger.
12. Kh2
12. gxh3 Nf3+ loses the queen.
12...Qh4 13. g3 Nf3+ 14. Kg2
If 14. Kh1 Qh5 15. Kg2 Nf4+ mates in 3.
14...Nxe1+
14...Nf4+ 15. gxf4 Qg4+ 16. Kh1 Qh3 mate is even quicker.
15. Rxe1 Qg4
Modern chess automats like 15...Nf4+ with a mate in 7: 16. gxf4 Qxf2+
17. Kh3 exf4 18. Kg4 Qg3+ 19. Kf5 Qh3+ 20. Kxf4 g5+ 21. Kxg5 Rg8+ 22.
Kf6 (22. Kf4 Qg4 mate) 22...Rg6 mate. Perhaps the automat didn't want to
humiliate the emperor with a king chase across the board.
16. d3 Bxf2 17. Rh1 Qxg3+ 18. Kf1 Bd4 19. Ke2 Qg2+ 20. Kd1 Qxh1+ 21. Kd2
Qg2+ 22. Ke1 Ng1 23. Nc3 Bxc3+ 24. bxc3 Qe2# 0-1
A quickie:
Adov -- Borisov
St Petersburg
1889 0-1 C20
1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nc6 3.Bc4 g6 4.Qf3 Nf6 5.Qb3 Nd4 6.Qc3
After 6. Bxf7+ Ke7 7. Qc4 b5 the bishop is lost. 6. Qd3 d5 7. Bb3 (7.
exd5 Bf5 and Nxc2+) 7...Nxe4 is a little bit better than the text move.
6...d5 7.Bxd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Bf5 9.d3 Bb4 0-1
10. Qxb4 Nxc2+ wins the queen.
Claus-Juergen
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Apr 2006 10:02:17
From: alexmagnus
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
Claus-J�rgen Heigl Wrote:
> 42N83W wrote:[color=blue]
> A quickie:
>
> Adov -- Borisov
> St Petersburg
> 1889 0-1 C20
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nc6 3.Bc4 g6 4.Qf3 Nf6 5.Qb3 Nd4 6.Qc3
>
> After 6. Bxf7+ Ke7 7. Qc4 b5 the bishop is lost. 6. Qd3 d5 7. Bb3 (7.
> exd5 Bf5 and Nxc2+) 7...Nxe4 is a little bit better than the tex
> move.
>
> 6...d5 7.Bxd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Bf5 9.d3 Bb4 0-1
>
> 10. Qxb4 Nxc2+ wins the queen.
>
> Claus-Juergen
Well, not the best example for someone who wants to learn to counte
2.Qh5.
5.Qb3?? is a blunder which can be made only by beginners. 5.Ne2 is th
correct move here, played in both Nakamura games with 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5.
About Korchnoi's opinion on Nakamura's 2.Qh5. Quote from Korchnoi
"Nakamura lost one game after another out of the opening, and eve
after he once randomly won after 2.Qh5, he didn't explain why he playe
it". What??? Nakamura played 2.Qh5 only in 4 games (twice against 1...e
and twice against 1...c5): one win, one draw and two losses; the firs
of two losses (against Sasikiran, his first Qh5 game) had nothing to d
with the opening: after 23.e5! he would have even a superior position
The second loss (against Volokitin, his last Qh5 game) was really a
opening loss (e4 c5 Qh5 is clearly worse than e4 e5 Qh5 though, in m
opinion, still playable - in that game, f.x., he could have hold th
position with 18.f4). "Lost one game after another"???
I think, every opening is playable at every level, because nobody play
best moves only
--
alexmagnus
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Apr 2006 16:59:49
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
En/na alexmagnus ha escrit:
> About Korchnoi's opinion on Nakamura's 2.Qh5. Quote from Korchnoi:
> "Nakamura lost one game after another out of the opening, and even
> after he once randomly won after 2.Qh5, he didn't explain why he played
> it". What??? Nakamura played 2.Qh5 only in 4 games (twice against 1...e5
> and twice against 1...c5): one win, one draw and two losses; the first
> of two losses (against Sasikiran, his first Qh5 game) had nothing to do
> with the opening: after 23.e5! he would have even a superior position.
> The second loss (against Volokitin, his last Qh5 game) was really an
> opening loss (e4 c5 Qh5 is clearly worse than e4 e5 Qh5 though, in my
> opinion, still playable - in that game, f.x., he could have hold the
> position with 18.f4). "Lost one game after another"???
>
> I think, every opening is playable at every level, because nobody plays
> best moves only.
It seems Nakamura did not obtained much from his opening and sure He
will change in the future.
A talented local player used to play 1.g4 until he reached IM level. He
obtained good results but not thanks to the opening but his chess
skills. After realising He was playing odd games (He conceded some kind
of advantage in the opening) He switched to 1.d4. Today He is GM.
Sure that 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 is playable, ... but sure too that once the
susprise effect has disappeared the opening has nothing to do with the
good results a talented player can obtain here.
AT
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Apr 2006 14:24:48
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
alexmagnus <[email protected] > wrote:
> Well, not the best example for someone who wants to learn to counter
> 2.Qh5.
>
> 5.Qb3?? is a blunder which can be made only by beginners. 5.Ne2 is
> the correct move here, played in both Nakamura games with 1.e4 e5
> 2.Qh5.
As AT pointed out, in example games where one side loses quickly due
to early queen sorties, it's usually because of some later blunder.
However, the later blunder usually looks like a plausible move and it
usually isn't all that late. From this, we can conclue that, while
bringing the queen out early doesn't guarantee a loss, it does mean
you have to play much more accurately than the average beginner is
going to manage.
> About Korchnoi's opinion on Nakamura's 2.Qh5. Quote from Korchnoi:
> "Nakamura lost one game after another out of the opening, and even
> after he once randomly won after 2.Qh5, he didn't explain why he
> played it". What??? Nakamura played 2.Qh5 only in 4 games (twice
> against 1...e5 and twice against 1...c5): one win, one draw and two
> losses
So he did, technically, `lose one game after another'. Not in the
usual sense of the phrase, though. :-)
> I think, every opening is playable at every level, because nobody plays
> best moves only.
This is clearly false: there are plenty of openings that just drop a
piece or the game. You can't expect to win with 1.f3 e5 2.g4 at any
level. I'm prepared to believe that there are many more workable
openings than are used at the top level, though.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Broken Chicken (TM): it's like a farm
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ animal but it doesn't work!
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Apr 2006 10:06:12
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? game snipped
|
En/na Claus-J�rgen Heigl ha escrit:
> 42N83W wrote:
>> What I meant (which wasn't what I said) was what does one do when you
>> it's apparent that your opponent is clearly going after f7?
>
> A quickie:
>
> Adov -- Borisov
> St Petersburg
> 1889 0-1 C20
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nc6 3.Bc4 g6 4.Qf3 Nf6 5.Qb3 Nd4 6.Qc3
>
> After 6. Bxf7+ Ke7 7. Qc4 b5 the bishop is lost. 6. Qd3 d5 7. Bb3 (7.
> exd5 Bf5 and Nxc2+) 7...Nxe4 is a little bit better than the text move.
>
> 6...d5 7.Bxd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Bf5 9.d3 Bb4 0-1
>
> 10. Qxb4 Nxc2+ wins the queen.
>
> Claus-Juergen
A very similar quickie (2 moves quickiest):
Student - Torrecillas (Me); 1980
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Qf3?! Nf6 4.Qb3? d5
{4...Nd4! is also good, maybe better)
5.ed5 Nd4
{after 5.Bd5 Nd4 6.Bf7 Ke7 white has no better options than 7.Qd3 Kxf7
with a won position for black}
6.Qa4 Bd7
{Another white 6 moves also lose: 6.Qc3 Bb4 7.Qd3 Bf5}
7.Qa5 Bb4 0-1
That example shows very well what I said in a previous post, 3.Qf3 was a
bad move but it does not lose inmediatly (and maybe has no refutation)
but after another mistake (the true losing mistake) black was winning.
If white would have played "perfectly" after 3.Qf3 (well, only with no
big mistakes) white would have not lose (at least no as soon). But the
examples given in books to show how moves like 3.Qf3 are bad, contains
those kind of big mistakes following moves like 3.Qf3.
Antonio Torrecillas
|
| |
Date: 10 Apr 2006 19:53:09
From: Nick
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
42N83W wrote:
> I played Black. I've modified the PGN format for readability.
> Please don't laugh! Even though I won I'm sure my play was
> only ginally less sucky than White's. Also, is the
> Caro-Kann an opening that a beginner such as myself
> should be messing with?
As far as I know (I am not 'Ray Gordon', a self-styled
'grandmaster of the openings') there's less opening theory
after 1 e4 c6 than after 1 e4 c5, 1 e4 e5, or 1 e4 e6.
So the Caro-Kann may be more useful for a player
whose resources in opening preparation are limited.
> 1. e4 c6 2. Qf3?
That's a too harsh criticism of 2 Qf3, which seems to
be a playable enough move among most club players.
According to ChessBase, in 2003 Sandra Krege (born 1987,
now 2104 FIDE) played 1 e4 c6 2 Qf3 and won against
Patrick Grofig (born 1985, now 2112 FIDE) at the German
U-20 championship tournament.
> {What is the accepted action when a player deviates from an opening so early
> in the game? I was tempted to play e6 followed by Qf6, thinking my opponent
> wouldn't like trading Queens so early. At least my experience has been that
> people who play the Queen early don't like playing without her.}
In this case, you should 'play the board' (objectively)
rather than attempt to read your opponent's mind.
> 2... d5
>
> {I decided to proceed as planned. I need work on
> refuting these early departures from an opening.}
I doubt that 1 e4 c6 2 Qf3 can be refuted outright.
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 11 Apr 2006 10:07:02
From: alexmagnus
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
I wonder what Bernard Parham thinks of 2.Qf3;-) He plays early queen i
almost every game, though, as I know, the Parham variation is 1.e4 c
2.Qh5.
Here is e.g. one if his won games:
B.Parham(2040)-V.Dima(2100), Chicago 2001
1. e4 c6 2. Qh5 Nf6 3. Qh4 d6 4. d4 g6 5. Nf3 Bg7 6. Bd3 Bg4 7. Nbd
Nbd7 8. O-O Qc7 9. c4 c5 10. d5 h6 11. Ne1 Ne5 12. f3 g5 13. Qf2 Bh
14. Be2 Bg6 15. a4 Nh5 16. Nb3 Qb6 17. Ra3 Nf4 18. Bxf4 gxf4 19. Qh4 f
20. Qxf4 O-O 21. Qh4 fxe4 22. fxe4 Rxf1+ 23. Bxf1 Kh7 24. a5 Qc7 25. Nd
Rf8 26. Be2 Bf6 27. Qh3 Bg5 28. Ndf3 Nxf3+ 29. Nxf3 Bc1 30. Rc3 Rxf3 31
Rxf3 Bxb2 32. Rf8 Bd4+ 33. Kh1 Bg7 34. Rf1 Qxa5 35. Bh5 Bxh5 36. Qxh
Qc3 37. Qf5+ Kh8 38. Qc8+ Kh7 39. Qxb7 Qxc4 40. Qb1 Kh8 41. Rf7 Bf6 42
e5 1-
--
alexmagnus
|
| |
Date: 10 Apr 2006 18:55:36
From: Nick
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Has there ever been a game on Yahoo! where neither player has
> pointed a queen and a bishop at f2/f7 within the first few moves,
> apparently expecting an instant checkmate?
Yes, I cannot recall that ever occurring in any of my games
at Yahoo, and I have no doubt (my memory's not perfect)
that it did not occur in more than a few of my games there.
After I play 1 d4, for some reason my opponents, even
at Yahoo, tend to avoid playing Bc5 to take aim at f2.
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 11 Apr 2006 10:52:33
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
Nick <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> Has there ever been a game on Yahoo! where neither player has
>> pointed a queen and a bishop at f2/f7 within the first few moves,
>> apparently expecting an instant checkmate?
>
> [...]
> After I play 1 d4, for some reason my opponents, even at Yahoo, tend
> to avoid playing Bc5 to take aim at f2.
Of course. They get confused by your dastardly mirror-image opening,
play Bf5 and try to checkmate your queen on c2, instead. :-)
Dave.
--
David Richerby Crystal Windows (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ graphical user interface but it's
completely transparent!
|
| |
Date: 10 Apr 2006 13:57:34
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
42N83W <[email protected] > wrote:
> 1. e4 c6 2. Qf3?
>
> {What is the accepted action when a player deviates from an opening
> so early in the game?
Ask yourself if his move is bad and, if so, why. Here the problem is
that White's queen is taking away the knight's natural square and is
itself vulnerable to attack. You should just develop sensibly and
keep an eye out for tactical shots against his queen. Don't be fooled
into thinking that, because White played a poor move in the opening,
you must be able to win inside ten moves.
> I was tempted to play e6 followed by Qf6, thinking my opponent
> wouldn't like trading Queens so early. At least my experience has
> been that people who play the Queen early don't like playing without
> her.}
You're probably right in your second sentence but I don't like the
idea of meeting a premature queen sortie with one of your own. Two
wrongs don't make a right and all that. White's problems are that his
queen is vulnerable and you can get a development advantage. Your
plan of trading queens solves his queen vulnerability problem and
gives him time to catch up on development.
> 2... d5
>
> {I decided to proceed as planned. I need work on refuting these
> early departures from an opening.}
If by `refute', you mean `win serious material within a few moves',
that's not always possible. There's no immediate refutation, in that
sense, to 2.Qf3 that I can see. You just need to understand why the
move is bad and use that to build up a strong position. The
refutation comes from the fact that you won in 26 moves rather than
46.
> 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4
Here, I prefer 4... dxc4 5.Bxc4 Nf6, with play against the isolated
QP, which is hard to advance. If something like 6.d6, you can harry
the white queen with 6... Bg4 and then 7... e6, develop your bishop
and castle.
> 4... Nf6 5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. Bc4
>
> {White clearly is playing aggressively, trying for an early win.
Has there ever been a game on Yahoo! where neither player has pointed
a queen and a bishop at f2/f7 within the first few moves, apparently
expecting an instant checkmate?
> Again, I need more practice on refuting this. How do you refute the
> early attack on f7?}
Looks like you managed reasonably well. An attack with queen and
bishop is almost guaranteed to fail with all the pieces still on the
board, ready to come to your king's defence.
> 6... e6
>
> {At this point I was definitely planning on if Bxd5 then Qxd5, thus
> avoiding an isolated Pawn and tempting an early Queen trade.}
But it doesn't avoid the isolated pawn! 7.Bxd5 Qxd5 8.Qxd5 exd5.
It seems you did reasonably well in the rest of the game. I don't
like your push to f5 (doesn't achieve anything but dramatically
weakens e6) and I don't see why you offered to trade your attacking
queen for his doing-nothing queen by playing Qxf2.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Metal Chair (TM): it's like a chair
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ that's made of steel!
|
| | |
Date: 11 Apr 2006 00:30:06
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
En/na David Richerby ha escrit:
> 42N83W <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>1. e4 c6 2. Qf3?
>>
>>{What is the accepted action when a player deviates from an opening
>>so early in the game?
>
>>2... d5
>>
>>{I decided to proceed as planned. I need work on refuting these
>>early departures from an opening.}
>
> If by `refute', you mean `win serious material within a few moves',
> that's not always possible. There's no immediate refutation, in that
> sense, to 2.Qf3 that I can see. You just need to understand why the
> move is bad and use that to build up a strong position. The
> refutation comes from the fact that you won in 26 moves rather than
> 46.
In some books there are games with "not much logical" moves claiming the
game was lost by those moves. For example there are games with a
premature queen move where the opponent wins in 20 moves. But many times
the illogical move is not the cause of the lost game and only later
mistakes produced that short win.
2.Qf3 is not a logical move and sure his negative aspects are evident
but black is not winning after it (and maybe he is not better neither).
There are no refutation of that move, you need to continue playing.
AT
|
| |
Date: 10 Apr 2006 00:06:08
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?=
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
42N83W wrote:
> I played Black. I've modified the PGN format for readability. Please don't
> laugh! Even though I won I'm sure my play was only ginally less sucky
> than White's. Also, is the Caro-Kann an opening that a beginner such as
> myself should be messing with?
Why not. You seem to know the basics.
> 1. e4 c6 2. Qf3?
>
> {What is the accepted action when a player deviates from an opening so early
> in the game? I was tempted to play e6 followed by Qf6, thinking my opponent
> wouldn't like trading Queens so early. At least my experience has been that
> people who play the Queen early don't like playing without her.}
>
> 2... d5
>
> {I decided to proceed as planned. I need work on refuting these early
> departures from an opening.}
Good move. You are contesting the center and open the diagonal of the
bishop. This is totally in line with the Caro Kann. Another idea is
2...e5 because White can't attack e5 so easily. f3 is blocked to the
knight and d4 is not possible because the white queen doesn't lend
support on the d file. If White attacks with 3. Qg3 Black defends with
3...d6. This is somewhat like Philidor's Defense where the white queen
is misplaced. For example 4. Nf3 f5!? (threat 5...f4 6. Qg5 Be7 7. Qxg7
Bf6) 5. exf5 Nh6. Black plans to capture with the knight, has an
excellent center and a half open file for attack. The white queen is
misplaced.
> 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. Bc4
>
> {White clearly is playing aggressively, trying for an early win. Again, I
> need more practice on refuting this. How do you refute the early attack on
> f7?}
By defending the threats and playing sound moves. An attack that is
supported by only a few pieces will soon run out of steam and then the
attacking pieces may be misplaced. Here White already develops a
weakness on the d file, especially d4 which would make an excellent
square for a black knight.
> 6... e6
>
> {At this point I was definitely planning on if Bxd5 then Qxd5, thus avoiding
> an isolated Pawn and tempting an early Queen trade.}
The isolated pawn is nothing to worry here as White is lacking the d
file to attack it. A good reason to take with the queen is that White
already has an isolated pawn and Black would like to keep the d file
half open to attack it. If White trades the queens Black has a slight
development advantage and the bishops pair in an open position and
should be a little better. Most likely White plays 8. Nc3 to get a
development advantage himself. Then Black has the half open d file and
the bishops pair which is also good.
> 7. Nh3 Bc5 8. Qg3
White is neglecting development and king safety. White should castle.
> O-O 9. Nf4
Another already developed piece moves a second time.
> Nxf4
Trades off the attacking piece but that isn't necessary. Instead 9...Bd6
unpleasantly pins the knight. If 10. Bxd5 exd5 the e file opens. 11. 0-0
g5 12. d4 Kh8 loses the knight. 11. d4 Re8+ 12. Kf1 (12. Be3 Re4 13. 0-0
g5 wins the knight) 12...Nc6 13. Be3 Qb6 and Black has an irresistible
attack. 10. d3 Qc7 doesn't save the knight also.
> 10. Qxf4 Nc6 11. b3
Hopes to use the long diagonal for the bishop but White is so far behind
in development that he is in severe difficulties. If 11. 0-0 Black can
attack with 11...Nd4 (threat Nc2) 12. Nc3 (or 12. Na3 Bd6 13. Qe4 f5 13.
Qd3 Qf6 with the plan f4-f3) 12...Bd6 13. Qe4 f5 14. Qd3 Qf6 15. b3 b5!
16. Bxb5 Bb7 and Black has a strong attack that is more than worth the
pawn. The immediate threat is 16...Nf3+! 17. Kh1 (17. gxf3 Qg5+ 18. Kh1
Qh5 19. Qxd6 Qxf3+ 20. Kg1 Qg2 mate.) 17...Qe5 18. g3 Ne1+ and wins.
> f5
More forcing is 11...Nd4 (threat Nc2+) 12. Qe4 (12. Na3 Bxa3 doesn't
help) 12...f5 13. Qd3 b5 14. Bxb5 Bb7 with the threat Be4 and Nc2+. 15.
0-0 Nf3+ like above. 15. f3 Qh4+ 16. g3 Qh5 and the kingside collapses.
The text move gives White the opportunity to control d4.
> 12. Qg3
After 12. Bb2 Kh8 13. 0-0 e5 14. Qg3 (14. Bxe5? Nxe5 15. Qxe5 Bd4) Black
is still better but White avoided the worst.
> Qd4 13. Nc3
>
> {Originally White played Bb2? I allowed the takeback. This was on Yahoo!
> Games and I was feeling benevolent. Plus it definitively indicated that my
> opponent is prone to mistakes, and that coupled with his early Queen moves
> made me like my chances}
>
> 13... Nb4
Now again after 14. 0-0 White escapes mostly unharmed. 13...f4 14. Qh4
(14. Qf3 Ne5 15. Qe2 f3 opens the f file) 14...Qe5+ 15. Kd1 f3 16. gxf3
Nd4 and Black has a very nice attack.
> 14. Bb2 Nc2+ 15. Kd1
>
> {Wouldn't White have been better with Kf1?}
No. Actually this is one of White's better moves as it puts up a trap.
> 15... Nxa1
Better was 15...Bd6 16. Na4 Qxb2 17. Nxb2 Bxg3 18. Kxc2 Bxf2 which wins
a pawn.
> 16. Kc1
>
> {?? I don't get that at all. Why not Bxa1 ?}
The trap was 16. Na4! and it is you who is losing material! The queen
can't move away because of Qxg7 mate and if 16...Bd6 17. Bxd4 Bxg3 18.
hxg3 Nxb3 19. axb3 White has two pieces for rook and pawn, the bishops
pair, a lot of development advantage and overall the better position.
Especially weak is e6 and the queenside is also in danger.
Therefore it would have been good if the white queen was forced off the
g file before playing Nc2+. 14...Bd6 15. Qf3 (15. Qg5 Bf4) 15...Nc2+
wins the exchange.
Now the game is over.
> 16... Nxb3+ 17. Bxb3 Qxf2 18. Re1 Qxg3 19. hxg3 Re8 20. Na4 Bd6 21. Bc2 Bxg3
> 22. Rh1
> 22... Bd7 23. Nc5 Bb5 24. Nxb7 Rac8 25. Nd6
> 25... Bxd6 26. g4 Bd3
Claus-Juergen
|
| | |
Date: 09 Apr 2006 19:19:19
From: 42N83W
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
"Claus-J�rgen Heigl" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>> {?? I don't get that at all. Why not Bxa1 ?}
>
> The trap was 16. Na4! and it is you who is losing material! The queen
> can't move away because of Qxg7 mate and if 16...Bd6 17. Bxd4 Bxg3 18.
> hxg3 Nxb3 19. axb3 White has two pieces for rook and pawn, the bishops
> pair, a lot of development advantage and overall the better position.
> Especially weak is e6 and the queenside is also in danger.
>
> Therefore it would have been good if the white queen was forced off the g
> file before playing Nc2+. 14...Bd6 15. Qf3 (15. Qg5 Bf4) 15...Nc2+ wins
> the exchange.
Holy crap! God, that's depressing; I didn't even see that. You all have
humbled me with your comments. Not that I thought I was good, but by
pointing out the stuff that seems so obvious now that I didn't see then.
Time to study!
-gl-
|
| |
Date: 09 Apr 2006 14:21:40
From:
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
42N83W wrote:
> I played Black. I've modified the PGN format for readability. Please don't
> laugh! Even though I won I'm sure my play was only ginally less sucky
> than White's. Also, is the Caro-Kann an opening that a beginner such as
> myself should be messing with?
>
>
> 1. e4 c6 2. Qf3?
> {What is the accepted action when a player deviates from an opening so early
> in the game?
There's virtually nothing written about this line, and very few games
with it -- my databases came up with maybe five or six examples, all
since 1985 or so. The line does not even have a name -- the closest
thing I found in any opening manual is 1.e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Qf3, called
the Goldman variation, which is considered innocuous, not at all
dangerous for Black.
> I was tempted to play e6 followed by Qf6, thinking my opponent
> wouldn't like trading Queens so early. At least my experience has been that
> people who play the Queen early don't like playing without her.}
A better idea would be to use the premature queen deployment to your
advantage, by harassing her with minor pieces, forcing White to lose
tempi while you develop.
> 2... d5
>
> {I decided to proceed as planned. I need work on refuting these early
> departures from an opening.}
>
> 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. cxd5 Nxd5
No need to recapture immediately. How about 5...Bg4, developing with
tempo as I mentioned earlier? The pawn on d5 can be recaptured later.
> 6. Bc4
> {White clearly is playing aggressively, trying for an early win. Again, I
> need more practice on refuting this. How do you refute the early attack on
> f7?}
> 6... e6
This is your best move at this point. 6...Nf6 is also playable.
> {At this point I was definitely planning on if Bxd5 then Qxd5, thus avoiding
> an isolated Pawn and tempting an early Queen trade.}
But after 7.Bxd5 Qxd5 8.Qxd5 exd5 you'd have an isolated pawn anyway.
Still, it would hardly matter, since White does too, so neither of you
would have an advantage in pawn structure.
If 7.Bxd5, I would recommend 7...exd5. White has voluntarily
surrendered one of his bishops, you will soon have an advantage in
development, and the white queen may still be harassed a bit.
> 7. Nh3 Bc5 8. Qg3 O-O 9. Nf4? Nxf4
You could have won a piece with the pinning tactic 9...Bd6 10.Bxd5
exd5 11.0-0 g5 12.d3 Kh8 etc.
> 10. Qxf4 Nc6 11. b3 f5
11...e5 12.Qg3 Nb4 would win the Exchange, viz. 13.0-0 (if 13.Na3 Qd4
14.Rb1 Qe4+ 15.Kf1 Nc2 is even worse) Nc2 etc.
> 12. Qg3??
Better 12.Bb2
> 12...Qd4!
Even stronger is 12...f4! 13.Qd3 Qh4!, and if 14.0-0? f3! -+.
> 13. Nc3
>
> {Originally White played Bb2? I allowed the takeback. This was on Yahoo!
> Games and I was feeling benevolent. Plus it definitively indicated that my
> opponent is prone to mistakes, and that coupled with his early Queen moves
> made me like my chances}
>
> 13... Nb4
Again, stronger is 13...f4! and after either 14.Qf3 Ne5 or 14.Qh4
Qe5+ 15.Kf1 f3! you have a terrific attack.
> 14. Bb2??
Necessary was 14.0-0, though again after 14...f4 etc. Black has a
strong attack.
14... Nc2+ 15. Kd1
>
> {Wouldn't White have been better with Kf1?}
Actually no.
> 15... Nxa1?? 16. Kc1??
You needed to play 15...Bd6 first, then 16...Nxa1. White could have
fought back with 16.Na4!, forcing you to give up your queen, since if
16...Qd7 17.Bxe6+! is crushing, and almost any other queen move allows
17.Qxg7 mate.
> {?? I don't get that at all. Why not Bxa1 ?}
Probably because White is just not a very good player at this point.
Probably a near-beginner, like yourself. I don't mean that in a
discouraging way -- almost everyone's pretty bad at chess at first,
except for rare geniuses like Capablanca and Reshevsky. If you study
and learn from your mistakes, you will improve.
After this, White is totally lost, and the game needs no further
commentary.
> 16... Nxb3+ 17. Bxb3 Qxf2 18. Re1 Qxg3 19. hxg3 Re8 20. Na4 Bd6 21. Bc2 Bxg3
> 22. Rh1
>
> {Looking ahead to pinning the Bishop. White will take the b7 Pawn and then
> probably try to fork my Rooks, forgetting about my Bishop on g3. At least
> that's what I was thinking}
>
> 22... Bd7 23. Nc5 Bb5 24. Nxb7 Rac8 25. Nd6
>
> {Ha! But seriously, is it okay to bank on that if your opponent has
> indicated that possibility through his play?}
>
> 25... Bxd6 26. g4 Bd3
>
> {White resigns.}
>
> 0-1
>
> =================================================
> The creative act is not the province of remote oracles or rarefied geniuses
> but a transparent process that is open to everyone.
> -Greg Kot in Wilco Learning How To Die-
Good luck in your future games!
|
| |
Date: 09 Apr 2006 16:18:38
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: How to respond to 1.e4 c6 2.Qf3? Entire game posted
|
>I played Black. I've modified the PGN format for readability. Please
>don't laugh! Even though I won I'm sure my play was only ginally less
>sucky than White's. Also, is the Caro-Kann an opening that a beginner such
>as myself should be messing with?
>
>
> 1. e4 c6 2. Qf3?
>
> {What is the accepted action when a player deviates from an opening so
> early in the game? I was tempted to play e6 followed by Qf6, thinking my
> opponent wouldn't like trading Queens so early. At least my experience
> has been that people who play the Queen early don't like playing without
> her.}
How about 2...Qd7 with the idea of 3..Qf5?
|
|
