| |
Main
Date: 24 Apr 2006 13:55:36
From: Nick
Subject: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
This is a reader survey about one's preferred side after
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 cxd5 exd5
As I understand it, this opening for Black has been
recommended for novice players because Black gets
easy development and piece activity usually at the cost
of an isolated queen pawn. It's usually a 'trade-off' of
pawn structure (for White) vs piece activity (for Black).
My hypothesis is that Black would be *comparatively* more
successful at lower levels of play because it's easier for
weaker Black players to handle positions with active pieces
and weaker White players tend to lack the technical skill
to exploit Black's isolated queen pawn.
Early in his career Kasparov played this opening for Black.
After he began playing in stronger events, he quit using it.
After 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 cxd5 exd5, do stronger
players prefer White and weaker players prefer Black?
If you have experience in this opening with either colour
(preferably with both colours), then please explain which
side you prefer and why. You also may state your
rating/grade if you believe that it's appropriate.
Thanks in advance.
--Nick
|
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2006 18:36:41
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Spassky, Nunn, and Kasparov used to play the Tarrasch as Black,
> > but then they stopped using it. It seems to me that they believed
> > that they had some good reasons to change their openings.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. People change openings for many reasons - they want to
> try something different, they want to be harder to prepare for. Kasparov
> has changed back and forth between the QID, Grunfeld, and King's Indian
> many times througout his career. If he plays the KID tomorrow, does that
> mean no longer trusts the Nimzo?
But Kasparov did *not* include the Queen's Gambit Declined
Tarrasch as *any* part of his openings 'rotation' after 1988
(Hort-Kasparov in Cologne). As far as I know, it's *not*
the case that Kasparov was still playing the Tarrasch on
selected occasions (unrated exhibition games don't count).
It *is* the case that Kasparov had stopped playing the
Tarrasch as Black.
> > I don't know whether both players would be willing to do this,
> > but, given the time that both Ron and Falkentyne have taken
> > to write thoughtful comments (thanks!) about the Tarrasch,
> > may I suggest that Ron and Falkentyne play a game that
> > could be posted in rec.games.chess.analysis?
> >
> > Falkentyne (White) and Ron (Black) could play a
> > Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch game, after
> > agreeing to a starting position, with the moves
> > posted in rec.games.chess.analysis. Then the
> > readers could follow the game and write comments.
> > That could be the most instructive way to show
> > some of the positive and negative aspects of
> > the Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch.
> >
> > Falkentyne, Ron, what do you think of this suggestion?
>
> I may be mistaken, but I believe Falkentyne is a significantly stronger
> player than I am. In such a case, I do not believe a game would be
> particularly telling. I also have almost no experience with
> correspondence chess.
Falkentyne has written that he's 'somewhere around 2180 USCF'
and 'probably around 2100' FIDE. Ron has written: "I got what
I consider to be a very strong position against a FM, only to
blunder in time trouble with the Tarrasch." A FM presumably
once was rated at least 2300 FIDE.)
> That being said, I'm certainly not opposed to playing a Tarrasch game
> against a strong player. I think I could learn something from it,
> although (recent posting aside) I expect to be very busy for the
> next couple of weeks.
If both Ron and Falkentyne are interested at the same time, then
we could observe a probably competitive and instructive game.
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 12 May 2006 03:18:45
From: Falkentyne
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
On 11 May 2006 18:36:41 -0700, "Nick" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>Ron wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Spassky, Nunn, and Kasparov used to play the Tarrasch as Black,
>> > but then they stopped using it. It seems to me that they believed
>> > that they had some good reasons to change their openings.
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not. People change openings for many reasons - they want to
>> try something different, they want to be harder to prepare for. Kasparov
>> has changed back and forth between the QID, Grunfeld, and King's Indian
>> many times througout his career. If he plays the KID tomorrow, does that
>> mean no longer trusts the Nimzo?
>
>But Kasparov did *not* include the Queen's Gambit Declined
>Tarrasch as *any* part of his openings 'rotation' after 1988
>(Hort-Kasparov in Cologne). As far as I know, it's *not*
>the case that Kasparov was still playing the Tarrasch on
>selected occasions (unrated exhibition games don't count).
>It *is* the case that Kasparov had stopped playing the
>Tarrasch as Black.
>
>> > I don't know whether both players would be willing to do this,
>> > but, given the time that both Ron and Falkentyne have taken
>> > to write thoughtful comments (thanks!) about the Tarrasch,
>> > may I suggest that Ron and Falkentyne play a game that
>> > could be posted in rec.games.chess.analysis?
>> >
>> > Falkentyne (White) and Ron (Black) could play a
>> > Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch game, after
>> > agreeing to a starting position, with the moves
>> > posted in rec.games.chess.analysis. Then the
>> > readers could follow the game and write comments.
>> > That could be the most instructive way to show
>> > some of the positive and negative aspects of
>> > the Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch.
>> >
>> > Falkentyne, Ron, what do you think of this suggestion?
>>
>> I may be mistaken, but I believe Falkentyne is a significantly stronger
>> player than I am. In such a case, I do not believe a game would be
>> particularly telling. I also have almost no experience with
>> correspondence chess.
>
>Falkentyne has written that he's 'somewhere around 2180 USCF'
>and 'probably around 2100' FIDE. Ron has written: "I got what
>I consider to be a very strong position against a FM, only to
>blunder in time trouble with the Tarrasch." A FM presumably
>once was rated at least 2300 FIDE.)
>
>> That being said, I'm certainly not opposed to playing a Tarrasch game
>> against a strong player. I think I could learn something from it,
>> although (recent posting aside) I expect to be very busy for the
>> next couple of weeks.
>
>If both Ron and Falkentyne are interested at the same time, then
>we could observe a probably competitive and instructive game.
>
>--Nick
That would be interesting, but I usually don't play good chess online,
as there's no real incentive or pressure for me to do so; I make
horrid mistakes that I would never do in an over the board situation.
(although sometimes, I do VERY stupid things in tournaments...)
Also, rating differences would make the game invalid, anyway. What if
I played 1. a4 against Ron and then won, for instance, because my
tactical sight was stronger? You need to have players approximately
the same strength and even then, on the sub-2300 level, it doesn't
mean much, as (To be honest), both of us are too weak
anyway...(compare a typical complicated game with a 2100 player vs a
different game with a 2600 player (just random complex games, not
playing each other) to see the night and day differences in how
dynamic and deeply a 2600 can think and create unique plans in a
complicated, unbalanced position (as opposed to a static dry one where
someone is just +/- with an obvious plan no matter who's at the
helm...)
I've played OTB games where i "seemed" completely busted, and then
some nice Rybka computer analysis showed White had a saving move which
actually solidified or increased his advantage (Tactical refutation);
most games with people under 2300 are filled with respites like
this...
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2006 12:56:41
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Does Ron believe that most players at his level would find
> > it easier to play the Queen's Gambit Tarrasch as White or
> > as Black, given the same amount of time to study it?
My question (which perhaps I should expressed differently)
was about whether it's easier for someone new to the
Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch to learn the typical
plans for White or for Black.
> I don't know. I'm not sure this is relevant, however, as at almost
> every level (except, perhaps, match play against an opponent who knows
> you play it) you can expect to know it better than your opponent if you
> play it regularly.
>
> > > I got what I consider to be a very strong position against
> > > a FM, only to blunder in time trouble with the Tarrasch.
> > >
> > > That being said, there's a line or two (involving a forced sacrifice of
> > > the d-pawn) that makes me nervous. On the other hand, I have a backup
> > > line prepared in case I decide that line isn't playable - so even if my
> > > favorite line gets busted, I'm not particularly worried.
> >
> > I understand that Ron does not wish to reveal the details of
> > his opening preparation, but does his 'backup line' for Black
> > involve playing without an IQP?
>
> This is a complicated question, as there are lots of transpositions.
> My backup line allows an IQP if black plays 9.dxc5 (which occurs in
> about 40% of my games) and doesn't if black plays 9.Bg5.
>
> > The practical question for me, as I suppose that it may
> > be for some other players, is: "Why should I spend much
> > time learning how to play the Queen's Gambit Tarrasch
> > as Black when some, though not all, GMs consider it
> > positionally dubious when compared to other defences?"
>
> I guess a lot depends on what kind of chess you play. Risk is something
> we all have to measure. I like the Tarrasch because it gives me
> positions I like where my opponents tend to mis-evaluate things. The
> position is tactically complicated enough that I can outplay a weaker
> player looking for a draw, and let my tactics are thematic enough that I
> can play confidently against a stronger player.
>
> Furthermore, I'm never completely blown off the board - I always
> seem to get to a middlegame OK.
>
> Do you have to play as well as Grischuk? Well, how about Illescas
> Cordoba - he's another player who's frequently ventured the Tarrasch
> into the 90s, and has I believe generally been around 2600.
>
> > > I mean, do the Tartakower or the Exchange QGD promise
> > > black equality these days? But nobody says they're "bad."
> >
> > Ron's general point that the Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
> > should be *not* be underestimated seems plausible to me.
> >
> > It also seems to me, however, that Ron, having spent much
> > of his time studying his apparently favourite defence to 1 d4,
> > has developed some emotional attachment to the Tarrasch.
> > That's understandable, and I don't blame Ron for apparently
> > feeling that way, yet has it influenced his judgment?
When Ron wrote "At my level, I consider that assessment
to be too negative", it's clear that he was looking at the
opening from Black's perspective as being 'too negative'.
But what's 'too negative' for Black also is 'too positive'
for White. So Ron's language suggested to me that
he's partial--perhaps with good reasons--to Black.
> That's a reasonable question. The truth is I'm on a great run with the
> Tarrasch. If anything's influenced my judgement, it's that I keep
> getting good positions and winning with it.
Of course, if Ron's doing well with the Tarrasch and he's happy
with his results, then he should trust his own experiences rather
than listen to what a GM might tell him to do.
> Now, sure, that could all end tomorrow. And we'll see if it does.
>
> Aagaard and Lund's book is really fantastic, and if the Tarrasch appeals
> to you, you owe it to yourself to get that book. And the truth is the
> Tarrasch may simply not be to your liking.
I hope that Ron understands that I never have attempted to
persuade him to stop playing the Tarrasch. I have heard
some strong players express critical views of the Tarrasch,
and I was wondering about how much truth there was.
I also wonder whether I could feel as comfortable as Ron
when playing the Tarrasch as Black. As far as I can tell,
Falkentyne feels less comfortable than Ron in playing
openings as Black that seem comparable to the Tarrasch.
> But man, I discovered that I don't really like playing with cramped
> pieces and a space disadvantage. And that rules out most QGD defenses,
> the KID, the Grunfeld. And it seems like most players meet 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4
> e6 with 3.Nf3 these days, so the Nimzo's right out.
>
> I don't mind sacrificing a pawn when I have to (I do it all the time as
> white). I don't mind structural defects if I have piece activity, and so
> the Tarrasch fits me to a T.
>
> I don't know how strong you are, but, if players like Nunn, Spassky,
> and Kasparov are going to play something, I believe it's got to have
> something going for it.
Spassky, Nunn, and Kasparov used to play the Tarrasch as Black,
but then they stopped using it. It seems to me that they believed
that they had some good reasons to change their openings.
> The question, then, is if there's a specific line that busts it.
> If there is, then I haven't seen it yet. Until my opponents start
> demonstrating that they know such a bust, then my comfort is
> far more important to me than GM pronouncements.
I hope that Ron understands that I have *not* been writing
with the intent of "I shall quote GM X in order to prove Ron's
experiences must be invalid."
I don't know whether both players would be willing to do this,
but, given the time that both Ron and Falkentyne have taken
to write thoughtful comments (thanks!) about the Tarrasch,
may I suggest that Ron and Falkentyne play a game that
could be posted in rec.games.chess.analysis?
Falkentyne (White) and Ron (Black) could play a
Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch game, after
agreeing to a starting position, with the moves
posted in rec.games.chess.analysis. Then the
readers could follow the game and write comments.
That could be the most instructive way to show
some of the positive and negative aspects of
the Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch.
Falkentyne, Ron, what do you think of this suggestion?
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 12 May 2006 00:59:34
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Spassky, Nunn, and Kasparov used to play the Tarrasch as Black,
> but then they stopped using it. It seems to me that they believed
> that they had some good reasons to change their openings.
Maybe, maybe not. People change openings for many reasons - they want to
try something different, they want to be harder to prepare for. Kasparov
has changed back and forth between the QID, Grunfeld, and King's Indian
many times througout his career. If he plays the KID tomorrow, does that
mean no longer trusts the Nimzo?
> I don't know whether both players would be willing to do this,
> but, given the time that both Ron and Falkentyne have taken
> to write thoughtful comments (thanks!) about the Tarrasch,
> may I suggest that Ron and Falkentyne play a game that
> could be posted in rec.games.chess.analysis?
>
> Falkentyne (White) and Ron (Black) could play a
> Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch game, after
> agreeing to a starting position, with the moves
> posted in rec.games.chess.analysis. Then the
> readers could follow the game and write comments.
> That could be the most instructive way to show
> some of the positive and negative aspects of
> the Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch.
>
> Falkentyne, Ron, what do you think of this suggestion?
I may be mistaken, but I believe Falkentyne is a significantly stronger
player than I am. In such a case, I do not believe a game would be
particularly telling. I also have almost no experience with
correspondence chess.
That being said, I'm certainly not opposed to playing a Tarrasch game
against a strong player. I think I could learn something from it,
although (recent posting aside) I expect to be very busy for the next
couple of weeks.
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 10 May 2006 19:49:10
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:
I was rephrasing (below) some comments that I have
heard about the Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch.
> > "Usually, White gets durable positional advantages.
> > Those positional advantages are not always enough
> > for White to win but they usually are enough to make
> > Black suffer for a long time. Black has practical
> > chances based on tactical threats and in provoking
> > White to overpress for a win. But if White's careful,
> > then Black's counterplay should not be too dangerous."
> >
> > How fair does Ron or Falkentyne believe that
> > assessment (above) to be?
>
> At my level, I consider that assessment to be too negative.
Does Ron believe that most players at his level would find
it easier to play the Queen's Gambit Tarrasch as White or
as Black, given the same amount of time to study it?
> I got what I consider to be a very strong position against
> a FM, only to blunder in time trouble with the Tarrasch.
>
> That being said, there's a line or two (involving a forced sacrifice of
> the d-pawn) that makes me nervous. On the other hand, I have a backup
> line prepared in case I decide that line isn't playable - so even if my
> favorite line gets busted, I'm not particularly worried.
I understand that Ron does not wish to reveal the details of
his opening preparation, but does his 'backup line' for Black
involve playing without an IQP?
> But my experience - against people rated 1800-2100, USCF, mostly in 30
> 30 games played on FICS - has generally been that they get the position
> they wanted (pressure on the pawn on d4 or on the c5 pawn and c6 square)
> only to discover that it's not nearly as favorable as they thought it was
> going to be. I've found that my opponents consistently underestimate
> the dynamic posibilities of my positions.
>
> Would stronger players do that? I doubt it. One real advantage of the
> Tarrasch for the practical club player is that it's not very popular and
> has a pretty mediocre reputation. Your average 1.d4 player has probably
> just looked at enough theory to get to the isolated pawn couple (d5 and
> c6), said, "Oh, that's got to be good for white" and then gone on to
> spend more time working on his KID.
I understand that the advice in this thread should apply to players
of various levels. Personally, I am not too concerned about learning
how to defeat most club players in the opening because I usually
can outplay them in the middlegame or the endgame.
If I were to consider often playing the Queen's Gambit Tarrasch
as Black, then I would have to be concerned about its viability
against my potential opponents up to at least IM level.
Yes, I know that GM Grischuk can still play the Queen's
Gambit Tarrasch as Black successfully against GMs.
To be realistic, however, I doubt that I shall ever approach
GM Grischuk's FIDE 2700+ comprehension of chess in
general, so his games might be more examples for me
to admire rather than to emulate.
The practical question for me, as I suppose that it may
be for some other players, is: "Why should I spend much
time learning how to play the Queen's Gambit Tarrasch
as Black when some, though not all, GMs consider it
positionally dubious when compared to other defences?"
> I've gotten a real sense of some of my opponents being frustrated,
> feeling like they should be able to crack the Tarrasch.
Does Ron prefer to play the Tarrasch as Black more when
he thinks that a draw should be an acceptable result for him?
How does Ron feel about playing the Tarrasch as Black
against a lower-rated White player who's content to draw?
> Even fairly late in the game, I find my opponents evaluating positions
> as favorable for white where I think I'm at least equal if not better
> (as evidenced by their comments in post-mortem). I've won a lot
> of games where my opponent struggled with the transition from
> offense (against c5/c6) to defense as my pieces suddenly became
> active.
>
> > A British GM admitted that he often has struggled to
> > win as White in the Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch,
> > yet he added that he never would consider playing it as
> > Black. He seems to regard the opening as positionally
> > dubious for Black, whose compensation seems based
> > on tactical 'tricks'. It should be noted that John Nunn,
> > a dangerous tactician, used to play the Tarrasch as
> > Black (he drew with Korchnoi) and then abandoned it,
> > presumably because he thought that it was not
> > promising enough for Black.
>
> I suspect that, at the top levels, the KID and Nimzo are perceived to
> give black more opportunities to fight for the initiative from move one.
> I'm not qualified to say if that's really true or not.
>
> But don't underestimate the effect that fashion has on the choice of
> opening. For some reason, people have gotten it into their head that the
> Tarrasch is bad. They look at Karpov's win over Kasparov as the last
> word in the opening.
>
> I think that the objective truth is that it's probably no worse than any
> of black's other QGD defenses, but it's more volatile, and people who
> like the volatility tend to meet 1.d4 with Nf6.
>
> I mean, do the Tartakower or the Exchange QGD promise
> black equality these days? But nobody says they're "bad."
Ron's general point that the Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
should be *not* be underestimated seems plausible to me.
It also seems to me, however, that Ron, having spent much
of his time studying his apparently favourite defence to 1 d4,
has developed some emotional attachment to the Tarrasch.
That's understandable, and I don't blame Ron for apparently
feeling that way, yet has it influenced his judgment?
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2006 12:48:39
From: Falkentyne
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
On 10 May 2006 19:49:10 -0700, "Nick" <[email protected] >
wrote:
Nick,
You and Ron make some important points, and I do agree with your above
post as well.
Ron mentions the inherent dynamism in his position, and he is indeed
correct; many players as White may ignore or disregard Black's hidden
potential, and when it suddenly unleashes itself, they may react
poorly and find their position deteriorating fast.
Both players must be aware of the hidden pawn breaks, sacrifices and
attacks that will unleash the power of pieces that have been sitting
around defending for the last 10-20 moves. For example, a common idea
in some openings is to inflict doubled pawns upon the opponent, and
then *Trade* them away--that's right..allow him to liquidate them.
(Instead of simply plopping a Knight in front of them and then trying
to exchange pieces and win the pawns in an ending). The idea behind
that is simple: pawns do not control the square they sit on, and
trading away the forward doubled pawn can expose the square-and the
backward pawn, as a real weakness. I believe something similar about
an IQP was even discussed in My System. Other ideas like gaining a
passed pawn, just to sacrifice it, or liquidating an opponent's IQP,
thus taking away all of his dynamic chances need to be investigated by
both players.
Ideas like White voluntarily exchanging Black's d-pawn for his e-pawn,
with the idea of gaining control over the now vacant squares and
converting one advantage into something like possession of the seventh
rank is always a motif you must be aware of. These ideas are not
available in all positions like this (or even in many of them), but
undogmatic players are constantly on the lookout for possible changes
in the pawn structure and tossing pawns for long term compensation.
Yes, plopping a piece on a square like c5 isn't the end of the world
for Black, (unless, of course, most minor pieces are traded off and
the remaining pieces are relegated to guard duty) but White will do
-much- better if he has a PLAN around putting a piece on that
square--and then base his attack around his plan (of course Black has
to do similar things with his compensating plans (usually play on the
White squares, etc). If you have a good, positiionally (or
tactically) justified reason for a strategic operation, then such
operations should improve your position or maintain equality.
Nowhere did I say the Tarrasch just wins for White, and having a "+/="
doesn't mean at all that White can even -do- anything with it (except
make Black sweat awhile), but believe me; it's no fun at all to have a
worse structure and lose the dynamism in your position, then have to
sit there and defend the rest of the game.
A warning about just thinking a unshakeable N on e4 or a corresponding
N on c5 will win for one or the other side: An example of a positional
"idea" which can lead to suicide is trying to exchange a 'bad' bishop
for a good bishop (especially earlier in the game), without having a
plan upon which this exchange is based. An example is in some Kings
Indian/Czech Benoni type structures where Black happily plays ...Bh6
to exchange off White's strong c1 Bishop, and then finds out, 20 moves
later, that he is getting mated on the dark squares, because after
White broke open the center/Kingside with f2-f4, Black sorely missed
the defender of those squares ("Bad Bishops protect Good Pawns...")
Anyway I'm getting too far off topic, and I'm not trying to bash the
Tarrasch Defense. I believe it is fully playable and can lead to
equality, but the style of play simply does not suit me nor alot of
people I know. Even though you can gain equality (you're not playing
the Tarrasch to go for the jugular like in something like a Benoni or
open Sicilian), it can be an unappeasing road for many players, unless
you enjoy the resulting positions. That's not to say I'm unwilling to
enter into an IQP or even a position almost identical to the Black
Tarrasch; But I would much rather know I have something solid for
having a worse structure, such as a lead in development or opponent
having problems untangling (neither of which are in the QGD Tarrasch).
I will say one thing for sure, though. The Tarrasch offers far more
equalizing and dynamic chances for Black than, say, the Lasker or
Capablanca defense to the Queens Gambit declined... (IIRC I think
White wins over 70% in those systems...).
Sorry if I sound incoherent....it's 6 AM And I haven't slept
yet.......
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2006 04:06:56
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Does Ron believe that most players at his level would find
> it easier to play the Queen's Gambit Tarrasch as White or
> as Black, given the same amount of time to study it?
I don't know. I'm not sure this is relevant, however, as at almost
every level (except, perhaps, match play against an opponent who knows
you play it) you can expect to know it better than your opponent if you
play it regularly.
> > I got what I consider to be a very strong position against
> > a FM, only to blunder in time trouble with the Tarrasch.
> >
> > That being said, there's a line or two (involving a forced sacrifice of
> > the d-pawn) that makes me nervous. On the other hand, I have a backup
> > line prepared in case I decide that line isn't playable - so even if my
> > favorite line gets busted, I'm not particularly worried.
>
> I understand that Ron does not wish to reveal the details of
> his opening preparation, but does his 'backup line' for Black
> involve playing without an IQP?
This is a complicated question, as there are lots of transpositions. My
backup line allows an IQP if black plays 9.dxc5 (which occurs in about
40% of my games) and doesn't if black plays 9.Bg5.
> The practical question for me, as I suppose that it may
> be for some other players, is: "Why should I spend much
> time learning how to play the Queen's Gambit Tarrasch
> as Black when some, though not all, GMs consider it
> positionally dubious when compared to other defences?"
I guess a lot depends on what kind of chess you play. Risk is something
we all have to measure. I like the Tarrasch because it gives me
positions I like where my opponents tend to mis-evaluate things. The
position is tactically complicated enough that I can outplay a weaker
player looking for a draw, and let my tactics are thematic enough that I
can play confidently against a stronger player.
Furthermore, I'm never completely blown off the board - I always seem to
get to a middlegame OK.
Do you have to play as well as Grischuk? Well, how about Illescas
Cordoba - he's another player who's frequently ventured the Tarrasch
into the 90s, and has I believe generally been around 2600.
> > I mean, do the Tartakower or the Exchange QGD promise
> > black equality these days? But nobody says they're "bad."
>
> Ron's general point that the Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
> should be *not* be underestimated seems plausible to me.
>
> It also seems to me, however, that Ron, having spent much
> of his time studying his apparently favourite defence to 1 d4,
> has developed some emotional attachment to the Tarrasch.
> That's understandable, and I don't blame Ron for apparently
> feeling that way, yet has it influenced his judgment?
That's a reasonable question. The truth is I'm on a great run with the
Tarrasch. If anything's influenced my judgement, it's that I keep
getting good positions and winning with it.
Now, sure, that could all end tomorrow. And we'll see if it does.
Aagaard and Lund's book is really fantastic, and if the Tarrasch appeals
to you, you owe it to yourself to get that book. And the truth is the
Tarrasch may simply not be to your liking.
But man, I discovered that I don't really like playing with cramped
pieces and a space disadvantage. And that rules out most QGD defenses,
the KID, the Grunfeld. And it seems like most players meet 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4
e6 with 3.Nf3 these days, so the Nimzo's right out.
I don't mind sacrificing a pawn when I have to (I do it all the time as
white). I don't mind structural defects if I have piece activity, and so
the Tarrasch fits me to a T.
I don't know how strong you are, but, if players like Nunn, Spassky, and
Kasparov are going to play something, I believe it's got to have
something going for it. The question, then, is if there's a specific
line that busts it.
If there is, then I haven't seen it yet. Until my opponents start
demonstrating that they know such a bust, then my comfort is far more
important to me than GM pronouncements.
-Ron
|
| | | |
Date: 11 May 2006 11:43:37
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
En/na Ron ha escrit:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>The practical question for me, as I suppose that it may
>>be for some other players, is: "Why should I spend much
>>time learning how to play the Queen's Gambit Tarrasch
>>as Black when some, though not all, GMs consider it
>>positionally dubious when compared to other defences?"
>
> I guess a lot depends on what kind of chess you play. Risk is something
> we all have to measure. I like the Tarrasch because it gives me
> positions I like where my opponents tend to mis-evaluate things. The
> position is tactically complicated enough that I can outplay a weaker
> player looking for a draw, and let my tactics are thematic enough that I
> can play confidently against a stronger player.
>
> Furthermore, I'm never completely blown off the board - I always seem to
> get to a middlegame OK.
I think that to understand IQP is a first step to learn strategy. If you
learn how to handle that kind of positions you will be more confident in
many many openings (QG tarrasch is only a single example of this).
I think Ron time devoted to learn how to handle QG Tarrasch will be (or
simply "is") converted in improving his chess understanding and later He
will play better in all kind of positions
And that benefits are not only long time, He is obtaining good results
with that opening as He write.
When He play with a GM it does not matter if QG TARRASCH is or not
"positionally dubious", he will play stronger than if He would have
memorized Some critical Grunfeld defence line.
Sure He will lost most games He will play with those GM's (as He will do
with another lines), but He will improve from those games.
>>It also seems to me, however, that Ron, having spent much
>>of his time studying his apparently favourite defence to 1 d4,
>>has developed some emotional attachment to the Tarrasch.
>>That's understandable, and I don't blame Ron for apparently
>>feeling that way, yet has it influenced his judgment?
>
> That's a reasonable question. The truth is I'm on a great run with the
> Tarrasch. If anything's influenced my judgement, it's that I keep
> getting good positions and winning with it.
>
> Now, sure, that could all end tomorrow. And we'll see if it does.
> (...)
>
> If there is, then I haven't seen it yet. Until my opponents start
> demonstrating that they know such a bust, then my comfort is far more
> important to me than GM pronouncements.
Logically a player who understand better the lines He plays, is more
confident in those positions because He know how to handle most kind of
options He can reach.
If you follow your feelings it does not matter when your opponent play a
non book line, but if you follow a GM suggestion you will be
unconfortable with any non book move.
AT
|
| |
Date: 09 May 2006 19:24:31
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Falkentyne <[email protected]> wrote:
> > ... Black will usually have to either deal
> > with a blockade of "hanging pawns" on c6 and d5, if White is able to
> > play (piece x c6) and Black captures with the b-pawn, with complete
> > dark square control, which is usually *always* fatal for Black (pawns
> > on c6 and d5, blockaded by Knights/Bishops, and later possible Rook
> > "lifts" like Rc1-c5-a5, or otherwise an assault on the d-pawn, which
> > is helped by the g2 Bishop.
>
> I just have to say I think this is too pessimistic.
>
> Black has to be careful on his dark squares, but it turns out that
> letting white land a piece of c5 isn't always that big a deal - provided
> it's the right piece.
>
> The key is knowing which pieces to trade. If black trades dark-square
> bishops on c5, he's often in trouble. But if he trades his ds-bishop for
> white's knight, he's often fine. (Letting the N stay on c5 is almost
> always bad for black); it turns out that a bishop on c5 attack many
> important squares, and if white tries to put a rook there it can be
> chased away by Nf6-e4.
>
> Attempts to chase that knight away via f3 o2 Bxe4 have a nice history
> of rebounding on white.
>
> Here's a game of mine which illustrates just how quickly things can
> rebound on white.
>
> [Event "FICS rated standard game"]
> [White "White"]
> [Black "Me"]
> [Result "0-1"]
> [TimeControl "1800+30"]
>
> 1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 e6 3. c4 c5 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. g3 Nf6 7. Bg2 Be7
> 8. O-O O-O 9. Bg5 cxd4 10. Nxd4 h6 11. Be3 Re8 12. Nxc6 bxc6 13. Na4 Bf5
> 14. Rc1 Qd7 15. Nc5 Bxc5 16. Bxc5 Ne4 17. Bd4 Rac8 18. e3 Qb7 19. Qa4
> Bd7 20. Qa5 a6 21.Bxe4 Rxe4 22. Rc5 Bh3 23. Rfc1 Re6 24. f3 Rg6 25. b4
> h5 26. Kf2 h4 27. Be5 hxg3+ 28. hxg3 Bf5 29. R1c3 Re8 30. Bf4 Rge6 31.
> g4 Bg6 32. Qa4 Qd7 33. Qd1 Rc8 34. e4 Rce8 35. exd5 cxd5 36. Qxd5 Qe7
> 37. Kg3 Re1 38. Qc4 Rg1+ 39. Kh3 Rh1+ 40. Bh2 Qd6 {White resigns} 0-1
>
> Obviously, this game is decided by tactics around move 37. The relevant
> point here is that even though my opponent has the better pawn structure
> and complete dark-square control, and despite the limited material left
> on the board, I'm still making threats and keeping him busy. When I miss
> his well-timed 34. e4, I still have plenty of compensation for the pawn
> (and, in fact, his best move after winning the pawn may be to
> immediately return it.)
I doubt that anyone would dispute the proposition that
Black has practical chances. As far as I can tell, Ron
believes that those practical chances are sufficient to
make the Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch playable
for Black at nearly all levels, while Falkentyne disagrees.
I have heard the Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
explained (rightly or wrongly) in terms like this
(I am expressing how I have understood it):
"Usually, White gets durable positional advantages.
Those positional advantages are not always enough
for White to win but they usually are enough to make
Black suffer for a long time. Black has practical
chances based on tactical threats and in provoking
White to overpress for a win. But if White's careful,
then Black's counterplay should not be too dangerous."
How fair does Ron or Falkentyne believe that
assessment (above) to be?
A British GM admitted that he often has struggled to
win as White in the Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch,
yet he added that he never would consider playing it as
Black. He seems to regard the opening as positionally
dubious for Black, whose compensation seems based
on tactical 'tricks'. It should be noted that John Nunn,
a dangerous tactician, used to play the Tarrasch as
Black (he drew with Korchnoi) and then abandoned it,
presumably because he thought that it was not
promising enough for Black.
I have no 'axe to grind' here. I am interested only in
the 'objective truth', as far as I can understand it,
about the Queen's Gambit Tarrasch.
Thanks to Ron, Falkentyne, and the
other contributors to this discussion.
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 12 May 2006 15:21:07
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
Falkentyne wrote:
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > (snipped)
> > > Nick wrote:
> >> > I don't know whether both players would be willing to do this,
> >> > but, given the time that both Ron and Falkentyne have taken
> >> > to write thoughtful comments (thanks!) about the Tarrasch,
> >> > may I suggest that Ron and Falkentyne play a game that
> >> > could be posted in rec.games.chess.analysis?
> >> >
> >> > Falkentyne (White) and Ron (Black) could play a
> >> > Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch game, after
> >> > agreeing to a starting position, with the moves
> >> > posted in rec.games.chess.analysis. Then the
> >> > readers could follow the game and write comments.
> >> > That could be the most instructive way to show
> >> > some of the positive and negative aspects of
> >> > the Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch.
> >> >
> >> > Falkentyne, Ron, what do you think of this suggestion?
> >
> > Ron wrote:
> >> I may be mistaken, but I believe Falkentyne is a significantly stronger
> >> player than I am. In such a case, I do not believe a game would be
> >> particularly telling. I also have almost no experience with
> >> correspondence chess.
> >
> > Falkentyne has written that he's 'somewhere around 2180 USCF'
> > and 'probably around 2100' FIDE. Ron has written: "I got what
> > I consider to be a very strong position against a FM, only to
> > blunder in time trouble with the Tarrasch." (A FM presumably
> > once was rated at least 2300 FIDE.)
> >
> > Ron wrote:
> >> That being said, I'm certainly not opposed to playing a Tarrasch game
> >> against a strong player. I think I could learn something from it,
> >> although (recent posting aside) I expect to be very busy for the
> >> next couple of weeks.
> >
> > If both Ron and Falkentyne are interested at the same time, then
> > we could observe a probably competitive and instructive game.
>
> That would be interesting, but I usually don't play good chess online,
> as there's no real incentive or pressure for me to do so; I make
> horrid mistakes that I would never do in an over the board situation.
> (although sometimes, I do VERY stupid things in tournaments...)
>
> Also, rating differences would make the game invalid, anyway. What if
> I played 1. a4 against Ron and then won, for instance, because my
> tactical sight was stronger? You need to have players approximately
> the same strength and even then, on the sub-2300 level, it doesn't
> mean much, as (To be honest), both of us are too weak
> anyway...(compare a typical complicated game with a 2100 player vs a
> different game with a 2600 player (just random complex games, not
> playing each other) to see the night and day differences in how
> dynamic and deeply a 2600 can think and create unique plans in a
> complicated, unbalanced position (as opposed to a static dry one where
> someone is just +/- with an obvious plan no matter who's at the
> helm...)
>
> I've played OTB games where i "seemed" completely busted, and then
> some nice Rybka computer analysis showed White had a saving move
> which actually solidified or increased his advantage (Tactical refutation);
> most games with people under 2300 are filled with respites like this...
There seems to be some misunderstanding about what
I had in mind when I suggested that Falkentyne and Ron
play a Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch game.
1) I do *not* expect one Falkentyne-Ron game to be able
to determine the 'ultimate truth' about the Tarrasch.
2) I do *not* expect Falkentyne and Ron to be able
to play the Tarrasch as well as strong GMs.
Yet it seems that Falkentyne and Ron both have
considerable experience playing the Tarrasch.
3) I do expect the game probably (I cannot be certain)
should be instructive for most readers here because
it probably would have at least a few errors. I suppose
that some readers here could write their comments
as the game proceeded, such as "Why didn't you
try this plan instead of that plan?" In that way, I
supposed that an instructive discussion could begin.
4) It seems to me that most readers (apart from
Ray Gordon) would feel rather intimidated and
more reluctant to suggest alternative moves
with regard to a game played here by GMs.
Is the evident rating difference between Falkentyne
and Ron so great that it would make it extremely
unlikely for them to be paired as opponents in an
OTB tournament? I noticed that Ron has written
that he 'got what (he) considers to be a very strong
position against a FM' after playing the Tarrasch.
Of course, neither Falkentyne nor Ron is under any
obligation to respond to my suggestion of a game.
I thank them again for their contributions here.
--Nick
|
| | | |
Date: 13 May 2006 00:54:23
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Is the evident rating difference between Falkentyne
> and Ron so great that it would make it extremely
> unlikely for them to be paired as opponents in an
> OTB tournament? I noticed that Ron has written
> that he 'got what (he) considers to be a very strong
> position against a FM' after playing the Tarrasch.
I don't consider myself anywhere close to FM in strength.
My last USCF (over a decade ago, after about a year of playing) was a
rapidly-rising class-C player. My last two tournament results would have
put me at about the 1700-level. I suspect that I'm playing better than
that now - I've been winning pretty consistently against people on FICS
who tell me they're in the 1800s.
But, honestly, I'm not crazy about speculating here. I could easily be
as weak as 1700, and don't want to make any sort of grand proclamations
about my strength.
I got a good position against a FM, true, but then I blundered it away.
And, who knows, maybe he doesn't think it's as good as I think it was.
-Ron
|
| | |
Date: 10 May 2006 03:47:54
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Usually, White gets durable positional advantages.
> Those positional advantages are not always enough
> for White to win but they usually are enough to make
> Black suffer for a long time. Black has practical
> chances based on tactical threats and in provoking
> White to overpress for a win. But if White's careful,
> then Black's counterplay should not be too dangerous."
>
> How fair does Ron or Falkentyne believe that
> assessment (above) to be?
At my level, I consider that assessment to be too negative. I got what I
consider to be a very strong position against a FM, only to blunder in
time trouble with the Tarrasch.
That being said, there's a line or two (involving a forced sacrifice of
the d-pawn) that makes me nervous. On the other hand, I have a backup
line prepared in case I decide that line isn't playable - so even if my
favorite line gets busted, I'm not particularly worried.
But my experience - against people rated 1800-2100, USCF, mostly in 30
30 games played on FICS - has generally been that they get the position
they wanted (pressure on the pawn on d4 or on the c5 pawn and c6 square)
only to discover that it's not nearly as favorable as they thought it
was going to be. I've found that my opponents consistently underestimate
the dynamic posibilities of my positions.
Would stronger players do that? I doubt it. One real advantage of the
Tarrasch for the practical club player is that it's not very popular and
has a pretty mediocre reputation. Your average 1.d4 player has probably
just looked at enough theory to get to the isolated pawn couple (d5 and
c6), said, "Oh, that's got to be good for white" and then gone on to
spend more time working on his KID.
I've gotten a real sense of some of my opponents being frustrated,
feeling like they should be able to crack the Tarrasch. Even fairly late
in the game, I find my opponents evaluating positions as favorable for
white where I think I'm at least equal if not better (as evidenced by
their comments in post-mortem). I've won a lot of games where my
opponent struggled with the transition from offense (against c5/c6) to
defense as my pieces suddenly became active.
>
> A British GM admitted that he often has struggled to
> win as White in the Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch,
> yet he added that he never would consider playing it as
> Black. He seems to regard the opening as positionally
> dubious for Black, whose compensation seems based
> on tactical 'tricks'. It should be noted that John Nunn,
> a dangerous tactician, used to play the Tarrasch as
> Black (he drew with Korchnoi) and then abandoned it,
> presumably because he thought that it was not
> promising enough for Black.
I suspect that, at the top levels, the KID and Nimzo are perceived to
give black more opportunities to fight for the initiative from move one.
I'm not qualified to say if that's really true or not.
But don't underestimate the effect that fashion has on the choice of
opening. For some reason, people have gotten it into their head that the
Tarrasch is bad. They look at Karpov's win over Kasparov as the last
word in the opening.
I think that the objective truth is that it's probably no worse than any
of black's other QGD defenses, but it's more volatile, and people who
like the volatility tend to meet 1.d4 with Nf6.
I mean, do the Tartakower or the Exchange QGD promise black equality
these days? But nobody says they're "bad."
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 09 May 2006 11:10:30
From: Falkentyne
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
On 24 Apr 2006 13:55:36 -0700, "Nick" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>If you have experience in this opening with either colour
>(preferably with both colours), then please explain which
>side you prefer and why. You also may state your
>rating/grade if you believe that it's appropriate.
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>--Nick
The problem is that experienced players as White can give Black a very
difficult road to equality. Black will usually have to either deal
with a blockade of "hanging pawns" on c6 and d5, if White is able to
play (piece x c6) and Black captures with the b-pawn, with complete
dark square control, which is usually *always* fatal for Black (pawns
on c6 and d5, blockaded by Knights/Bishops, and later possible Rook
"lifts" like Rc1-c5-a5, or otherwise an assault on the d-pawn, which
is helped by the g2 Bishop. Black will of course compensate by
putting pressure on the white squares (especially the e2 square by
...Re8 and ...Bg4, though in some lines the Bishop goes to e6 then
moves later), putting a Knight on e4 (the standard treatment) or by
attempting to trade the white squared Bishops. But White players who
are well versed on these lines will know how to handle these
strategies and thrawt them or try to change the pawn structure (even
if Black's d5 pawn disappears for White's e2 pawn, his Queenside may
come under attack if White still has the Bg2.).
The one thing about having a favorable pawn structure is, the longer
the game goes on without the enemy making progress, the more you will
tend to benefit, as the opponent's compensating dynamism is usually
halted to bad effect if he can't maintain it. Black does have some
equalizing chances, but it is really a thankless task.
It's important to note that "Normal" IQP positions, one where the
person without the IQP does not have a fianchetto'd Kings Bishop, are
usually just equal or at most, just very slightly better for the one
defending vs the IQP if its Black; sure there are the textbook cases
where the minor pieces get traded off and then the major pieces pile
up on the pawn, and exploit a d file pin by playing e3-e4/e6-e5 and
winning the pawn, but a very large percentage of these non major piece
endgames are drawn, if there are minor pieces left. Even an "ideal"
pure ending of a d4 Knight blockading the IQP vs a bad e6 Bishop is a
difficult nut to crack, provided the Bishop's side doesn't lose
quickly by putting all his remaining pawns on Black; if he can
centralize his King, the IQP can't be won and the Knight may be held
back by Black refusing to put other pawns on the same color as his
Bishop, and thus both sides are tied to the IQP, giving a draw. But
in some games, previous attacks may cause the side with the IQP to
cede other weaknesses or be left with holes or a very bad Bishop,
which may allow for enemy infiltration. Skillful players against
IQP's will know this and attempt to have another target, such as
creating a very bad enemy Bishop, control of the 7th rank or open
file, etc.
(I said usually equal if it's Black defending vs White's IQP, because
of development. In many other openings, if Black is left with an IQP
(besides a Tarrasch), this tends to favor White even more due to his
lead in development (example: if Black tries to go into an IQP
position out of a Queens Gambit Exchange variation by playing ...c7-c5
instead of the normal c7-c6 (versus Nf3, as opposed to Ng1-e2 and
f2-f3, where c7-c5 makes sense).
Also, with more pieces on the board, the side with the IQP usually
gets enough compensation by planting a Knight on e5/e4 and avoiding
nonnecessary piece exchanges. Of course this is just fine for Black,
if he can maintain a Knight blockade of an IQP by ...Nd5, as can
happen in various openings (QGA, Nimzo-Indian, etc), as Black may be
happy to have equalized, although he will usually use this to start
exchanging pieces. But to gain an advantage usually requires skillful
exchanging of most minor pieces or changing the pawn structure or
having a second positional plus, as the standard major piece assault
is hard to come by without a forcing tactical variation to allow it.
However, with a Fianchetto'd King's Bishop, as in the Tarrasch
Defense, Black faces more problems than he does (with colors reversed
and without a fianchetto, or, let's say, having a Queenside fianchetto
like in Nimzo-Indian lines, where the b7 Bishop merely helps control
d5 and equalize, not attack the IQP at d4) in a QGA/Nimzo Indian,
because the g2 Bishop is 1 more attacker of the IQP, and White's King
is safer than in the NI/QGA defenses. Tactical reasons usually
prevent Black from "achieving" this type of setup in a
Nimzo-Indian/QGA position against a White IQP; namely White's
development lead and attempts to soften Black's Kingside.
Overall, I always prefer White in the Tarrasch Defense lines, and as
Black, I try to avoid tricky move orders (like some English Opening
lines) where White tries to trick Black into going into a Tarrasch
Defense or a "double fianchetto" Tarrasch (the line where White plays
b3 and Bb2 instead of Bg5, which is very interesting and leads to
different play than the Bg5 lines).
Also I'm quite happy to go into the "Old" Tarrasch Defense with an IQP
if White has played e2-e3 early (this was before Rubenstein's g2-g3
treatment against the Tarrasch Defense), as in that type of position,
he has a lot of difficulty developing his c1 Bishop if he gives Black
an IQP, and that by itself is easy compensation for Black's IQP. (This
often occurs when White "Declines" the Benoni after first Declining
the Nimzo-Indian e.g. 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 c5 4. e3 d5). Here
Black will usually not play ...cxd4, as this will simply allow White's
c1 Bishop to come out, and White playing a fast cxd5 exd5 and THEN
dxc5 (whether or not White has played a2-a3) does nothing except help
Black develop, and by the time White's Bishop is on b2, Black is fully
developed and has moves like Bg4 and Nf6-e4 already in, with possible
Kingside attacking chances. Of course White can avoid giving Black an
IQP by both sides playing a2-a3/a7-a6, then dxc5 Bxc5 b2-b4 B moves
Bc1-b2 (and Black doing the same after d5xc4), but this is usually a
dead equal symmetrical position.
Anyway that's getting very off topic now....
Oh and I'm somewhere around 2180 USCF; FIDE is probably around 2100.
|
| | |
Date: 09 May 2006 17:52:49
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
In article <[email protected] >,
Falkentyne <[email protected] > wrote:
> Black will usually have to either deal
> with a blockade of "hanging pawns" on c6 and d5, if White is able to
> play (piece x c6) and Black captures with the b-pawn, with complete
> dark square control, which is usually *always* fatal for Black (pawns
> on c6 and d5, blockaded by Knights/Bishops, and later possible Rook
> "lifts" like Rc1-c5-a5, or otherwise an assault on the d-pawn, which
> is helped by the g2 Bishop.
I just have to say I think this is too pessimistic.
Black has to be careful on his dark squares, but it turns out that
letting white land a piece of c5 isn't always that big a deal - provided
it's the right piece.
The key is knowing which pieces to trade. If black trades dark-square
bishops on c5, he's often in trouble. But if he trades his ds-bishop for
white's knight, he's often fine. (Letting the N stay on c5 is almost
always bad for black); it turns out that a bishop on c5 attack many
important squares, and if white tries to put a rook there it can be
chased away by Nf6-e4.
Attempts to chase that knight away via f3 o2 Bxe4 have a nice history of
rebounding on white.
Here's a game of mine which illustrates just how quickly things can
rebound on white.
[Event "FICS rated standard game"]
[White "White"]
[Black "Me"]
[Result "0-1"]
[TimeControl "1800+30"]
1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 e6 3. c4 c5 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. g3 Nf6 7. Bg2 Be7
8. O-O O-O 9. Bg5 cxd4 10. Nxd4 h6 11. Be3 Re8 12. Nxc6 bxc6 13. Na4 Bf5
14. Rc1 Qd7 15. Nc5 Bxc5 16. Bxc5 Ne4 17. Bd4 Rac8 18. e3 Qb7 19. Qa4
Bd7 20. Qa5 a6 21.Bxe4 Rxe4 22. Rc5 Bh3 23. Rfc1 Re6 24. f3 Rg6 25. b4
h5 26. Kf2 h4 27. Be5 hxg3+ 28. hxg3 Bf5 29. R1c3 Re8 30. Bf4 Rge6 31.
g4 Bg6 32. Qa4 Qd7 33. Qd1 Rc8 34. e4 Rce8 35. exd5 cxd5 36. Qxd5 Qe7
37. Kg3 Re1 38. Qc4 Rg1+ 39. Kh3 Rh1+ 40. Bh2 Qd6 {White resigns} 0-1
Obviously, this game is decided by tactics around move 37. The relevant
point here is that even though my opponent has the better pawn structure
and complete dark-square control, and despite the limited material left
on the board, I'm still making threats and keeping him busy. When I miss
his well-timed 34. e4, I still have plenty of compensation for the pawn
(and, in fact, his best move after winning the pawn may be to
immediately return it.)
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 02 May 2006 05:05:23
From: inkwire
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
Here's the Hort-Kasparov game. Another good example of why a too-specific
search for opening moves misses key middlegames.
[Event "Cologne m"]
[Site "Cologne"]
[Date "1988.??.??"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Hort, Vlastimil"]
[Black "Kasparov, Garry"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D34"]
[WhiteElo "2595"]
[BlackElo "2760"]
[PlyCount "100"]
[EventDate "1988.10.??"]
[EventType "match"]
[EventRounds "3"]
[EventCountry "GER"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1996.11.15"]
1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 c5 3. g3 e6 4. Nf3 d5 5. cxd5 exd5 6. d4 Nc6 7. Bg2 Be7 8.
O-O
O-O 9. Be3 c4 10. Ne5 h6 11. h3 Bb4 12. Qa4 Bxc3 13. bxc3 Bf5 14. g4 Bh7
15.
Bf4 Re8 16. Rad1 a6 17. Bg3 b5 18. Qa3 Qb6 19. Qc1 Ne4 20. Bxe4 Bxe4 21.
Nd7
Qd8 22. Nc5 Bg6 23. Qd2 a5 24. f3 b4 25. e4 b3 26. axb3 cxb3 27. Nxb3 dxe4
28.
fxe4 Bxe4 29. c4 Qb6 30. Nc5 Rad8 31. Qf2 Nxd4 32. Nxe4 Rxe4 33. Qxf7+ Kh7
34.
Kh2 Qc6 35. Rf2 Rd7 36. Qf8 Qxc4 37. Rdf1 Re2 38. Rxe2 Qxe2+ 39. Rf2 Qe4
40.
Rf4 Qe2+ 41. Rf2 Qe6 42. Qa8 Qd5 43. Qf8 a4 44. h4 Rb7 45. Qa3 Qe4 46. Kh3
Rb3
47. Qf8 a3 48. g5 Qh1+ 49. Kg4 h5+ 50. Kf4 Ne6+ 0-1
|
| |
Date: 25 Apr 2006 19:19:42
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
James wrote:
> Ron wrote :
> > Hort-Kasparov, Cologne, 1988 comes to mind. I don't have an
> > easily-cut-and-pasteable version of this game handy, so you'll
> > have to look it up yourself.
>
> Tried to, but didn't. The only game Hort/Kasparov (Cologne 1988)
> I could find was:
> http://www.chess-lovers.org/palview4/parties/hk88.htm
> and it is not a Tarrasch. Faulty database?
I was able to find this Hort-Kasparov game (Cologne 1988):
This game is a Tarrasch without an IQP for Black.
(I am typing the moves, so please excuse any typo.)
1 c4 Nf6 2 Nc3 c5 3 g3 e6 4 Nf3 d5 5 cxd5 exd5
6 d4 Nc6 7 Bg2 Be7 8 O-O O-O 9 Be3 c4 10 Ne5 h6
11 h3 Bb4 12 Qa4 Bxc3 13 bxc3 Bf5 14 g4 Bh7
15 Bf4 Re8 16 Rad1 a6 17 Bg3 b5 18 Qa3 Qb6
19 Qc1 Ne4 20 Bxe4 Bxe4 21 Nd7 Qd8 22 Nc5 Bg6
23 Qd2 a5 24 f3 b4 25 e4 b3 26 axb3 cxb3
27 Nxb3 dxe4 28 fxe4 Bxe4 29 c4 Qb6 30 Nc5 Rad8
31 Qf2 Nxd4 32 Nxe4 Rxe4 33 Qxf7+ Kh7 34 Kh2 Qc6
35 Rf2 Rd7 36 Qf8 Qxc4 37 Rdf1 Re2 38 Rxe2 Qxe2+
39 Rf2 Qe4 40 Rf4 Qe2+ 41 Rf2 Qe6 42 Qa8 Qd5
43 Qf8 a4 44 h4 Rb7 45 Qa3 Qe4 46 Kh3 Rb3
47 Qf8 a3 48 g5 Qh1+ 49 Kg4 h5+ 50 Kf4 Ne6+ 0-1
> >> Does Ron know of any strong GM (FIDE 2600+) today
> >> who uses the Tarrasch as his priy defence for Black
> >> after 1 d4?
>
> Have a look at the opening report:
> http://www.chess-lovers.org/scid/d32j.html
> Grischuk uses it quite often indeed.
How useful does James find SCID as compared
to any other chess databases (e.g. ChessBase,
Chess Assistant)?
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 29 Apr 2006 02:13:56
From: James
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
Nick wrote:
> How useful does James find SCID as compared
> to any other chess databases (e.g. ChessBase,
> Chess Assistant)?
>
> --Nick
>
Well, I would be delighted to answer the question if I had chessbase...
but I don't.
Scid fits my needs. It is free and can use modern analysis engines by
tweaking them a little (using polyglot is mandatory for all UCI engines,
but it works very well).
The search functions are enough for me, and there are some very
interesting options for exporting opening reports or games in HTML.
There are drawbacks of course. First, you have to find your own
databases, and there are also shortcomings regarding the insertion of
comments in the game, for example.
Too bad Shane Hudson disappeared from the web the 8th of April 2004. It
was really a good free software.
James
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2006 10:27:59
From: Del
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
In article <[email protected] >, chess123
@alliot.org says...
> Scid fits my needs. It is free and can use modern analysis engines by
> tweaking them a little (using polyglot is mandatory for all UCI engines,
> but it works very well).
James, I'm getting off-topic here, but I also use Scid and have been
unable to get polyglot to work for me. Would you give a quick example
of what you put in the engine definition dialog for a UCI engine?
Thanks.
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2006 12:07:03
From: Del
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
> unable to get polyglot to work for me.
Replying to myself, I hadn't looked at this in a while, and when
refreshing my knowledge, found that a newer version of cygwin1.dll
fixed my problem.
|
| |
Date: 25 Apr 2006 12:43:16
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I expect that Ron has a more comprehensive database than I have
> > at this moment. But I just did a search in the online ChessBase
> > for games in which Kasparov played as Black after 1 d4 d5
> > 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 cxd5 exd5 and I found only five games,
> > none of which were played against Karpov and none of
> > which were later than 1983.
>
> You're searching too narrowly.
That possibility came to my mind after I wrote my previous post.
On the other hand, my original post did specify "1 d4 d5
2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 cxd5 exd5" as the opening in question.
> For example, in the world championship match, karpov played
> 3.Nf3. Play transposed, however, as it usually does when white
> is playing for a win.
>
> [Event "wcc"]
> [Site "Moscow"]
> [Date "1984.09.28"]
> [Round "07"]
> [White "Karpov A"]
> [Black "Kasparov G"]
>
> [Result "1-0"]
>
> 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nf6 6.Bg2 Be7 7.O-O O-O 8.Nc3
> Nc6 9.Bg5 cxd4 10.Nxd4 h6 11.Be3 Re8 12.Qb3 Na5 13.Qc2 Bg4 14.Nf5 Rc8
> 15.Nxe7+ Rxe7 16.Rad1 Qe8 17.h3 Bh5 18.Bxd5 Bg6 19.Qc1 Nxd5 20.Rxd5 Nc4
> 21.Bd4 Rec7 22.b3 Nb6 23.Re5 Qd7 24.Qe3 f6 25.Rc5 Rxc5 26.Bxc5 Qxh3
> 27.Rd1 h5 28.Rd4 Nd7 29.Bd6 Bf7 30.Nd5 Bxd5 31.Rxd5 a6 32.Bf4 Nf8
> 33.Qd3 Qg4 34.f3 Qg6 35.Kf2 Rc2 36.Qe3 Rc8 37.Qe7 b5 38.Rd8 Rxd8
> 39.Qxd8 Qf7 40.Bd6 g5 41.Qa8 Kg7 42.Qxa6 1-0
>
>
> [Event "wcc"]
> [Site "Moscow"]
> [Date "1984.10.05"]
> [Round "09"]
> [White "Karpov A"]
> [Black "Kasparov G"]
> [Result "1-0"]
>
> 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nf6 6.Bg2 Be7 7.O-O O-O 8.Nc3
> Nc6 9.Bg5 cxd4 10.Nxd4 h6 11.Be3 Re8 12.Qb3 Na5 13.Qc2 Bg4 14.Nf5 Rc8
> 15.Bd4 Bc5 16.Bxc5 Rxc5 17.Ne3 Be6 18.Rad1 Qc8 19.Qa4 Rd8 20.Rd3 a6
> 21.Rfd1 Nc4 22.Nxc4 Rxc4 23.Qa5 Rc5 24.Qb6 Rd7 25.Rd4 Qc7 26.Qxc7 Rdxc7
> 27.h3 h5 28.a3 g6 29.e3 Kg7 30.Kh2 Rc4 31.Bf3 b5 32.Kg2 R7c5
> 33.Rxc4 Rxc4 34.Rd4 Kf8 35.Be2 Rxd4 36.exd4 Ke7 37.Na2 Bc8 38.Nb4 Kd6
> 39.f3 Ng8 40.h4 Nh6 41.Kf2 Nf5 42.Nc2 f6 43.Bd3 g5 44.Bxf5 Bxf5 45.Ne3
> Bb1 46.b4 gxh4 47.Ng2 hxg3+ 48.Kxg3 Ke6 49.Nf4+ Kf5 50.Nxh5 Ke6 51.Nf4+
> Kd6 52.Kg4 Bc2 53.Kh5 Bd1 54.Kg6 Ke7 55.Nxd5+ Ke6 56.Nc7+ Kd7 57.Nxa6
> Bxf3 58.Kxf6 Kd6 59.Kf5 Kd5 60.Kf4 Bh1 61.Ke3 Kc4 62.Nc5 Bc6 63.Nd3 Bg2
> 64.Ne5+ Kc3 65.Ng6 Kc4 66.Ne7 Bb7 67.Nf5 Bg2 68.Nd6+ Kb3 69.Nxb5 Ka4
> 70.Nd6 1-0
>
> A really amazing win by Karpov. Nobody really considers this the
> Tarrasch's finest hour, but how many people would even try to play for a
> win on white's 42nd move?
>
> I believe these were the only two Tarrasch games in that match, as
> Kasparov switched to the QID and later the Tartakower defense.
Does Ron believe that Kasparov changed his opening for Black
after 1 d4 on account of his 0 / 2 score with the Tarrasch?
> Kasparov also used the Tarrasch as his priy weapon in his candidates
> final against Smyslov (who played 2.Nf3, making your search even more
> confusing).
>
> [Event "Candidates' match, final"]
> [Site "Vilnius"]
> [Date "1984.??.??"]
> [Round "2"]
> [White "Smyslov,V"]
> [Black "Kasparov,G"]
> [Result "1/2-1/2"]
> [ECO "D34"]
>
> 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. c4 e6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. g3 Nf6 6. Bg2 Be7 7. O-O O-O
> 8. Nc3 Nc6 9. Bg5 cxd4 10. Nxd4 h6 11. Be3 Re8 12. a3 Be6 13. Kh1 Qd7
> 14. Nxe6 fxe6 15. f4 Red8 16. Bg1 Rac8 17. Qa4 Kh8 18. Rad1 Qe8 19. e4 d4
> 20. Ne2 Bc5 21. Qb5 Bb6 22. h3 e5 23. fxe5 Nxe5 24. Qxe8 Rxe8 25. Nxd4
> Nc4 26. e5 Rxe5 27. Bxb7 Rc7 28. Rc1 Nxb2 29. Rxc7 Bxc7 30. Nc6 Re2 31.
> Nd4 Re5 32. Nf5 Bb6 33. Nxh6 Ra5 34. Bxb6 axb6 35. Nf5 Rxa3 36. Kh2 Nc4
> 37. g4 Ra7 38. Bh1 Ne5 39. g5 Nh5 40. Re1 Ra5 1/2-1/2
>
> [Event "Candidates' match, final"]
> [Site "Vilnius"]
> [Date "1984.??.??"]
> [Round "8"]
> [White "Smyslov,V"]
> [Black "Kasparov,G"]
> [Result "1/2-1/2"]
> [ECO "D34"]
>
> 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. c4 e6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. g3 Nf6 6. Bg2 Be7 7. O-O O-O
> 8. Nc3 Nc6 9. Bg5 cxd4 10. Nxd4 h6 11. Be3 Re8 12. a3 Be6 13. Kh1 Bg4
> 14. f3 Bh5 15. Bg1 Qd7 16. Qa4 Bc5 17. Rad1 Bb6 18. Rfe1 Bg6 19. Qb5
> Rad8 20. e3 Qd6 21. Nce2 Ne5 22. Qb3 Ba5 23. Nc3 Nd3 24. Re2 Nc5 25. Qa2
> Bxc3 26. bxc3 Qa6 27. Red2 Na4 28. Qb3 1/2-1/2
>
> [Event "Candidates' match, final"]
>
> [Site "Vilnius"]
> [Date "1984.??.??"]
> [Round "10"]
> [White "Smyslov,V"]
> [Black "Kasparov,G"]
> [Result "1/2-1/2"]
> [ECO "D34"]
>
> 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. c4 e6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. g3 Nf6 6. Bg2 Be7 7. O-O O-O
> 8. Nc3 Nc6 9. Bg5 cxd4 10. Nxd4 h6 11. Be3 Re8 12. a3 Be6 13. Kh1 Bg4
> 14. f3 Bh5 15. Nxc6 bxc6 16. Na4 Qc8 17. Bd4 Qe6 18. Rc1 Nd7 19. Rc3 Bf6
> 20. e3 Bg6 21. Kg1 Be7 22. Qd2 Rab8 23. Re1 a5 24. Bf1 h5 25. Rec1 Ne5
> 26. Bxe5 Qxe5 27. Rxc6 Bf6 28. R6c5 Qxe3 29. Qxe3 Rxe3 30. Rxd5 Rxf3 31.
> Be2 Re3 32. Bxh5 Bxh5 33. Rxh5 g5 34. Nc3 Rd8 35. Rc2 Kg7 36. Kg2 Kg6
> 37. g4 Rd4 38. h3
>
> 1/2-1/2
>
> [Event "Candidates' match, final"]
> [Site "Vilnius"]
> [Date "1984.??.??"]
> [Round "12"]
> [White "Smyslov,V"]
> [Black "Kasparov,G"]
> [Result "0-1"]
> [ECO "D34"]
>
> 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. c4 e6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. g3 Nf6 6. Bg2 Be7 7. O-O O-O
> 8. Nc3 Nc6 9. Bg5 cxd4 10. Nxd4 h6 11. Be3 Re8 12. a3 Be6 13. Nxe6 fxe6
> 14. Qa4 Kh8 15. Rad1 Rc8 16. Kh1 a6 17. f4 Na5 18. f5 b5 19. Qh4 Ng8 20.
> Qh3 Nc4 21. Bc1 Bg5 22. fxe6 Bxc1 23. Rxc1 Ne3 24. Nxd5 Nxf1 25. Rxf1
> Rf8 26. Nf4 Ne7 27. Qg4 g5 28. Qh3 Rf7 29. Nd3 Rxf1 30. Bxf1 Kg7 31. Qg4
> Qd5 32. e4 Qd4 33. h4 Rf8 34. Be2 Qe3 35. Kg2 Ng6 36. h5 Ne7 37. b4 Kh7
> 38. Kh2 Rd8 39. e5 Rxd3 40. Bxd3 Qxd3 0-1
>
> Kasparov also used it in his seimfinal match against Beliavsky.
> -Ron
Thanks to Ron for the games and his general comments here.
Ron has studied the Tarrasch much more than I have done.
"He (Kasparov) has continued to use it (the Tarrasch)
occasionally since then (his first match with Karpov)."
--Ron
Could Ron please cite some games in which Kasparov
has used the Tarrasch as Black *after* his first match
witn Karpov in 1984?
Does Ron know of any strong GM (FIDE 2600+) today
who uses the Tarrasch as his priy defence for Black
after 1 d4?
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 25 Apr 2006 22:42:27
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Does Ron believe that Kasparov changed his opening for Black
> after 1 d4 on account of his 0 / 2 score with the Tarrasch?
My personal opinion is that Kasparov realized that the IQP endgames
Karpov reached were more Karpov's style than Kasparov's. Obviously, the
fact that he scored poorly with it has to have been a factor.
I do not believe, however, that Kasparov lost confidence in the defense
in general - although obviously you'd have to ask him.
> "He (Kasparov) has continued to use it (the Tarrasch)
> occasionally since then (his first match with Karpov)."
> --Ron
>
> Could Ron please cite some games in which Kasparov
> has used the Tarrasch as Black *after* his first match
> witn Karpov in 1984?
Hort-Kasparov, Cologne, 1988 comes to mind. I don't have an
easily-cut-and-pasteable version of this game handy, so you'll have to
look it up yourself.
I'm sure I could find more examples if I looked, but the only other game
I have handy is a simul from 1987.
> Does Ron know of any strong GM (FIDE 2600+) today
> who uses the Tarrasch as his priy defence for Black
> after 1 d4?
I know that Grischuk plays it regularly, although I do not know if it's
his "priy" defense. Honestly, most of my study doesn't involve very
many recent games, since I've found that few of my opponents are up on
modern theory, and I'm still finding tons of worthwhile ideas (like the
-a5-a4-a3 pawn push in the game I posted recently) in games from the
'80s.
-Ron
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2006 02:56:56
From: James
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
Ron wrote :
>
> Hort-Kasparov, Cologne, 1988 comes to mind. I don't have an
> easily-cut-and-pasteable version of this game handy, so you'll have to
> look it up yourself.
Tried to, but didn't. The only game Hort/Kasparov (Cologne 1988) I could
find was:
http://www.chess-lovers.org/palview4/parties/hk88.htm
and it is not a Tarrasch. Faulty database?
>
>> Does Ron know of any strong GM (FIDE 2600+) today
>> who uses the Tarrasch as his priy defence for Black
>> after 1 d4?
Have a look at the opening report:
http://www.chess-lovers.org/scid/d32j.html
Grischuk uses it quite often indeed.
James
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2006 05:10:59
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
In article <[email protected] >,
James <[email protected] > wrote:
> Ron wrote :
> >
> > Hort-Kasparov, Cologne, 1988 comes to mind. I don't have an
> > easily-cut-and-pasteable version of this game handy, so you'll have to
> > look it up yourself.
> Tried to, but didn't. The only game Hort/Kasparov (Cologne 1988) I could
> find was:
> http://www.chess-lovers.org/palview4/parties/hk88.htm
> and it is not a Tarrasch. Faulty database?
Possibly. The game included in Aagard & Lund's book is definitely a
Tarrasch.
> >> Does Ron know of any strong GM (FIDE 2600+) today
> >> who uses the Tarrasch as his priy defence for Black
> >> after 1 d4?
> Have a look at the opening report:
> http://www.chess-lovers.org/scid/d32j.html
> Grischuk uses it quite often indeed.
Bear in mind that this page doesn't appear to include games where white
plays Nf3 on move two or three and then transposes, although maybe it
includes them in some of the later data.
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2006 16:51:16
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
Ron wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > Early in his career Kasparov played this opening for Black.
> > After he began playing in stronger events, he quit using it.
>
> This is somewhat of a simplification, however. Kasparov, after all,
> played the Tarrasch in his first match against Karpov. He didn't do
> very well with it, but his problems really had to do with his poor (at
> the time, relative to Karpov) technical skills. He has continued to
> use it occasionally since then.
I expect that Ron has a more comprehensive database than I have
at this moment. But I just did a search in the online ChessBase
for games in which Kasparov played as Black after 1 d4 d5
2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 cxd5 exd5 and I found only five games,
none of which were played against Karpov and none of
which were later than 1983.
If it's not too much trouble, then could someone please
post some of the more recent games by Kasparov or
his games against Karpov using this opening?
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 25 Apr 2006 01:32:51
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I expect that Ron has a more comprehensive database than I have
> at this moment. But I just did a search in the online ChessBase
> for games in which Kasparov played as Black after 1 d4 d5
> 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 cxd5 exd5 and I found only five games,
> none of which were played against Karpov and none of
> which were later than 1983.
You're searching too narrowly. For example, in the world championship
match, karpov played 3.Nf3. Play transposed, however, as it usually
does when white is playing for a win.
[Event "wcc"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1984.09.28"]
[Round "07"]
[White "Karpov A"]
[Black "Kasparov G"]
[Result "1-0"]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nf6 6.Bg2 Be7 7.O-O O-O 8.Nc3
Nc6 9.Bg5 cxd4 10.Nxd4 h6 11.Be3 Re8 12.Qb3 Na5 13.Qc2 Bg4 14.Nf5 Rc8
15.Nxe7+ Rxe7 16.Rad1 Qe8 17.h3 Bh5 18.Bxd5 Bg6 19.Qc1 Nxd5 20.Rxd5 Nc4
21.Bd4 Rec7 22.b3 Nb6 23.Re5 Qd7 24.Qe3 f6 25.Rc5 Rxc5 26.Bxc5 Qxh3
27.Rd1 h5 28.Rd4 Nd7 29.Bd6 Bf7 30.Nd5 Bxd5 31.Rxd5 a6 32.Bf4 Nf8
33.Qd3 Qg4 34.f3 Qg6 35.Kf2 Rc2 36.Qe3 Rc8 37.Qe7 b5 38.Rd8 Rxd8
39.Qxd8 Qf7 40.Bd6 g5 41.Qa8 Kg7 42.Qxa6 1-0
[Event "wcc"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1984.10.05"]
[Round "09"]
[White "Karpov A"]
[Black "Kasparov G"]
[Result "1-0"]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nf6 6.Bg2 Be7 7.O-O O-O 8.Nc3
Nc6 9.Bg5 cxd4 10.Nxd4 h6 11.Be3 Re8 12.Qb3 Na5 13.Qc2 Bg4 14.Nf5 Rc8
15.Bd4 Bc5 16.Bxc5 Rxc5 17.Ne3 Be6 18.Rad1 Qc8 19.Qa4 Rd8 20.Rd3 a6
21.Rfd1 Nc4 22.Nxc4 Rxc4 23.Qa5 Rc5 24.Qb6 Rd7 25.Rd4 Qc7 26.Qxc7 Rdxc7
27.h3 h5 28.a3 g6 29.e3 Kg7 30.Kh2 Rc4 31.Bf3 b5 32.Kg2 R7c5
33.Rxc4 Rxc4 34.Rd4 Kf8 35.Be2 Rxd4 36.exd4 Ke7 37.Na2 Bc8 38.Nb4 Kd6
39.f3 Ng8 40.h4 Nh6 41.Kf2 Nf5 42.Nc2 f6 43.Bd3 g5 44.Bxf5 Bxf5 45.Ne3
Bb1 46.b4 gxh4 47.Ng2 hxg3+ 48.Kxg3 Ke6 49.Nf4+ Kf5 50.Nxh5 Ke6 51.Nf4+
Kd6 52.Kg4 Bc2 53.Kh5 Bd1 54.Kg6 Ke7 55.Nxd5+ Ke6 56.Nc7+ Kd7 57.Nxa6
Bxf3 58.Kxf6 Kd6 59.Kf5 Kd5 60.Kf4 Bh1 61.Ke3 Kc4 62.Nc5 Bc6 63.Nd3 Bg2
64.Ne5+ Kc3 65.Ng6 Kc4 66.Ne7 Bb7 67.Nf5 Bg2 68.Nd6+ Kb3 69.Nxb5 Ka4
70.Nd6 1-0
A really amazing win by Karpov. Nobody really considers this the
Tarrasch's finest hour, but how many people would even try to play for a
win on white's 42nd move?
I believe these were the only two Tarrasch games in that match, as
Kasparov switched to the QID and later the Tartakower defense.
Kasparov also used the Tarrasch as his priy weapon in his candidates
final against Smyslov (who played 2.Nf3, making your search even more
confusing).
[Event "Candidates' match, final"]
[Site "Vilnius"]
[Date "1984.??.??"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Smyslov,V"]
[Black "Kasparov,G"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D34"]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. c4 e6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. g3 Nf6 6. Bg2 Be7 7. O-O O-O
8. Nc3 Nc6 9. Bg5 cxd4 10. Nxd4 h6 11. Be3 Re8 12. a3 Be6 13. Kh1 Qd7
14. Nxe6 fxe6 15. f4 Red8 16. Bg1 Rac8 17. Qa4 Kh8 18. Rad1 Qe8 19. e4 d4
20. Ne2 Bc5 21. Qb5 Bb6 22. h3 e5 23. fxe5 Nxe5 24. Qxe8 Rxe8 25. Nxd4
Nc4 26. e5 Rxe5 27. Bxb7 Rc7 28. Rc1 Nxb2 29. Rxc7 Bxc7 30. Nc6 Re2 31.
Nd4 Re5 32. Nf5 Bb6 33. Nxh6 Ra5 34. Bxb6 axb6 35. Nf5 Rxa3 36. Kh2 Nc4
37. g4 Ra7 38. Bh1 Ne5 39. g5 Nh5 40. Re1 Ra5 1/2-1/2
[Event "Candidates' match, final"]
[Site "Vilnius"]
[Date "1984.??.??"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Smyslov,V"]
[Black "Kasparov,G"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D34"]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. c4 e6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. g3 Nf6 6. Bg2 Be7 7. O-O O-O
8. Nc3 Nc6 9. Bg5 cxd4 10. Nxd4 h6 11. Be3 Re8 12. a3 Be6 13. Kh1 Bg4
14. f3 Bh5 15. Bg1 Qd7 16. Qa4 Bc5 17. Rad1 Bb6 18. Rfe1 Bg6 19. Qb5
Rad8 20. e3 Qd6 21. Nce2 Ne5 22. Qb3 Ba5 23. Nc3 Nd3 24. Re2 Nc5 25. Qa2
Bxc3 26. bxc3 Qa6 27. Red2 Na4 28. Qb3 1/2-1/2
[Event "Candidates' match, final"]
[Site "Vilnius"]
[Date "1984.??.??"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Smyslov,V"]
[Black "Kasparov,G"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D34"]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. c4 e6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. g3 Nf6 6. Bg2 Be7 7. O-O O-O
8. Nc3 Nc6 9. Bg5 cxd4 10. Nxd4 h6 11. Be3 Re8 12. a3 Be6 13. Kh1 Bg4
14. f3 Bh5 15. Nxc6 bxc6 16. Na4 Qc8 17. Bd4 Qe6 18. Rc1 Nd7 19. Rc3 Bf6
20. e3 Bg6 21. Kg1 Be7 22. Qd2 Rab8 23. Re1 a5 24. Bf1 h5 25. Rec1 Ne5
26. Bxe5 Qxe5 27. Rxc6 Bf6 28. R6c5 Qxe3 29. Qxe3 Rxe3 30. Rxd5 Rxf3 31.
Be2 Re3 32. Bxh5 Bxh5 33. Rxh5 g5 34. Nc3 Rd8 35. Rc2 Kg7 36. Kg2 Kg6
37. g4 Rd4 38. h3
1/2-1/2
[Event "Candidates' match, final"]
[Site "Vilnius"]
[Date "1984.??.??"]
[Round "12"]
[White "Smyslov,V"]
[Black "Kasparov,G"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D34"]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. c4 e6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. g3 Nf6 6. Bg2 Be7 7. O-O O-O
8. Nc3 Nc6 9. Bg5 cxd4 10. Nxd4 h6 11. Be3 Re8 12. a3 Be6 13. Nxe6 fxe6
14. Qa4 Kh8 15. Rad1 Rc8 16. Kh1 a6 17. f4 Na5 18. f5 b5 19. Qh4 Ng8 20.
Qh3 Nc4 21. Bc1 Bg5 22. fxe6 Bxc1 23. Rxc1 Ne3 24. Nxd5 Nxf1 25. Rxf1
Rf8 26. Nf4 Ne7 27. Qg4 g5 28. Qh3 Rf7 29. Nd3 Rxf1 30. Bxf1 Kg7 31. Qg4
Qd5 32. e4 Qd4 33. h4 Rf8 34. Be2 Qe3 35. Kg2 Ng6 36. h5 Ne7 37. b4 Kh7
38. Kh2 Rd8 39. e5 Rxd3 40. Bxd3 Qxd3 0-1
Kasparov also used it in his seimfinal match against Beliavsky.
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2006 16:41:37
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > (Some of the context was snipped by Ron.)
> > My hypothesis is that Black would be *comparatively* more
> > successful at lower levels of play because it's easier for
> > weaker Black players to handle positions with active pieces
> > and weaker White players tend to lack the technical skill
> > to exploit Black's isolated queen pawn.
I hypothesized that Black would be more successful
at lower levels of play than at higher levels of plays.
> > If you have experience in this opening with either colour
> > (preferably with both colours), then please explain which
> > side you prefer and why. You also may state your
> > rating/grade if you believe that it's appropriate.
>
> I play a the Tarrasch and a lot of IQP positions.
>
> I think you're partly right. In my experience, players really
> underestimate IQPs. Really only the experts and masters
> I've been playing lately recognize that an IQP isn't just a
> weakness and play accordingly.
>
> Below that, people don't seem to recognize that it can be an offensive
> weapon. It's really not just piece activity - it also confers a space
> advantage in the center. I've had so much success with the Tarrasch
> that I've been incorporating the IQP into more and more of my repetioire.
>
> I certainly feel like a lot of my opponents recently have been bad
> judges of the dynamic factors in a position in general - not just with
> respect to IQPs.
>
> > Early in his career Kasparov played this opening for Black.
> > After he began playing in stronger events, he quit using it.
>
> This is somewhat of a simplification, however. Kasparov, after all,
> played the Tarrasch in his first match against Karpov. He didn't do
> very well with it, but his problems really had to do with his poor (at
> the time, relative to Karpov) technical skills. He has continued to use
> it occasionally since then.
What I meant is that Kasparov no longer uses it
as his priy defence to 1 d4.
> I have games of Illescas-Cordoba played it into the 90s. I have a game
> of Ponoiov playing it in 1998, Murray Chandler in 1996, Grischuk in
> 2000 and so on. It's still a very viable defense at high levels.
Before I created this thread, I checked ChessBase and I
noticed that GM Grischuk has played it as Black in 2006
(though he lost to GM Van Wely).
--Nick
> As for if you can use it against technical players, well, Spassky, used
> it successfully against Petrosian - so clearly it's a weapon that can be
> used at almost any level.
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2006 23:19:14
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Queen's Gambit Declined Tarrasch
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote:
> My hypothesis is that Black would be *comparatively* more
> successful at lower levels of play because it's easier for
> weaker Black players to handle positions with active pieces
> and weaker White players tend to lack the technical skill
> to exploit Black's isolated queen pawn.
> If you have experience in this opening with either colour
> (preferably with both colours), then please explain which
> side you prefer and why. You also may state your
> rating/grade if you believe that it's appropriate.
I play a the Tarrasch and a lot of IQP positions.
I think you're partly right. In my experience, players really
underestimate IQPs. Really only the experts and masters I've been
playing lately recognize that an IQP isn't just a weakness and play
accordingly.
Below that, people don't seem to recognize that it can be an offensive
weapon. It's really not just piece activity - it also confers a space
advantage in the center. I've had so much success with the Tarrasch
that I've been incorporating the IQP into more and more of my repetioire.
I certainly feel like a lot of my opponents recently have been bad
judges of the dynamic factors in a position in general - not just with
respect to IQPs.
> Early in his career Kasparov played this opening for Black.
> After he began playing in stronger events, he quit using it.
This is somewhat of a simplification, however. Kasparov, after all,
played the Tarrasch in his first match against Karpov. He didn't do
very well with it, but his problems really had to do with his poor (at
the time, relative to Karpov) technical skills. He has continued to use
it occasionally since then.
I have games of Illescas-Cordoba played it into the 90s. I have a game
of Ponoiov playing it in 1998, Murray Chandler in 1996, Grischuk in
2000 and so on. It's still a very viable defense at high levels.
As for if you can use it against technical players, well, Spassky, used
it successfully against Petrosian - so clearly it's a weapon that can be
used at almost any level.
-Ron
|
|
