| |
Main
Date: 15 Mar 2006 04:28:12
From:
Subject: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
Hi
Could someone suggest/recommend defences or systems for Black to be
played against either 1.d4 d5 when c4 is not forthcoming from white or
any other opening from white that doesn't involve 1. e4. (Ideally I'm
looking for one or two defences that can be played against virtually
anything white might try) I'm not playing at master/tournament level
and I don't have the time to study and do justice to an opening that's
been theoretically determined to move 20+, so I'd be happiest with
something "unusual" and maybe not considered sound at GM level but
adequate at club level.
Regards
Roger
|
|
| |
Date: 30 Mar 2006 08:11:32
From: doctorjohn
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
>>Could someone suggest/recommend defences or systems for Black to be played against either 1.d4 d5 when c4 is not forthcoming from white or any other opening from white that doesn't involve 1. e4. (Ideally I'm looking for one or two defences that can be played against virtually anything white might try)<<
"Action Chess: Purdy's 24 Hours Opening Repertoire" is exactly that,
according to the author. He proposes an opening that gives a
reasonably even outcome against any opening except 1.e4, the Stonewall,
or the Colle system. (He also suggests the simplest way to deal with
each of those.) His opening system is not unusual or "trappy", it is
just a basic sound setup. The first 6 moves
(...d5,...e6,...Ng6,...Be7,...0-0, ...b6) are the same almost no matter
what white does (except that, in response to 1.c4, black's first two
moves must be reversed to 1. ... e6 and 2. .... d5). Black can then
play ...Nd7 to prepare ...c5, opening a file for his rooks; or
fianchetto the b-bishop. If at some point white plays c4xd5 and black
recaptures with the e-pawn, then the bishop can be developed to e6; the
previously played ...b7 is still usefull to support ...c5.
Purdy estimates about 10 hours of study to learn how to deal with
various issues with this setup. The other 14 hours is to learn how to
deal with 1.e4, the Stonewall and the Colle system.
This recommendation is from me, a 1400-1500 level player, so take it
for what it's worth. Having recently purchased CT-ART and played with
it a little, I must say I agree with Purdy that time spent on tactics
would be WAY more useful at my (our?) level than time spent on
openings.
The IM who comments in the book seems to agree that this book is what
it claims to be, and suffices for players up to about 1800 - 2000
level.
Have fun!!
John in Virginia
[email protected] wrote:
> Hi
>
> Could someone suggest/recommend defences or systems for Black to be
> played against either 1.d4 d5 when c4 is not forthcoming from white or
> any other opening from white that doesn't involve 1. e4. (Ideally I'm
> looking for one or two defences that can be played against virtually
> anything white might try) I'm not playing at master/tournament level
> and I don't have the time to study and do justice to an opening that's
> been theoretically determined to move 20+, so I'd be happiest with
> something "unusual" and maybe not considered sound at GM level but
> adequate at club level.
>
> Regards
> Roger
|
| |
Date: 27 Mar 2006 00:09:57
From: Stefan Renzewitz
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
<[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]...
> Hi
>
> Could someone suggest/recommend defences or systems for Black to be
> played against either 1.d4 d5 when c4 is not forthcoming from white or
> any other opening from white that doesn't involve 1. e4. (Ideally I'm
> looking for one or two defences that can be played against virtually
> anything white might try) I'm not playing at master/tournament level
> and I don't have the time to study and do justice to an opening that's
> been theoretically determined to move 20+, so I'd be happiest with
> something "unusual" and maybe not considered sound at GM level but
> adequate at club level.
>
> Regards
> Roger
I just discovered this quite new book for 1.d4 d5 where White is not plying
c4:
'Dealing with d4 Deviations : Fighting The Trompowsky, Torre,
Black-Diemer, Stonewall, Colle and Other Problem Openings (Everyman
Chess)'
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1857443993/sr=8-1/qid=1143410558/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-5550213-4492128?%5Fencoding=UTF8
I'm considering to buy it myself so I can't comment on the quality yet, but
it sounds interesting. Maybe someone else can comment on it.
Regards,
Stefan
|
| |
Date: 22 Mar 2006 01:58:34
From: xtra
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
[email protected] a �crit :
> Hi
>
> Could someone suggest/recommend defences or systems for Black to be
> played against either 1.d4 d5 when c4 is not forthcoming from white or
> any other opening from white that doesn't involve 1. e4. (Ideally I'm
> looking for one or two defences that can be played against virtually
> anything white might try) I'm not playing at master/tournament level
> and I don't have the time to study and do justice to an opening that's
> been theoretically determined to move 20+, so I'd be happiest with
> something "unusual" and maybe not considered sound at GM level but
> adequate at club level.
>
> Regards
> Roger
>
chesspublishing.com
|
| |
Date: 21 Mar 2006 17:31:11
From: Dan Schmidt
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
[email protected] writes:
|
| |
Date: 16 Mar 2006 13:19:53
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Ray Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> And if the common opinion is that the opening is unsound even better!
> >
> > Unless the opinion is such because the opening is unsound.
> > Even if it's not totally unsound, it compromises Black enough to give
> > White the equivalent of a full-step head start in a 100-yard dash.
'100-*yard* dash'? Ray Gordon has shown he's an American. :-)
> Those of you who are afficioadoes of Ray's bad sporting analogies
> will note that the percentage difference in time from first to last
> finisher in the 2002 Olympic 100m finals were 2.5% (men) and 2.3%
> (women). Once again, Ray, in claiming that a bad opening is a
> roughly 1% handicap, indicates that the opening is not the most
> important phase of the game.
David Richerby might be interested in reading Charlie Francis's
analysis of Ben Johnson's start in the men's 100 metre final at
the 1988 Olympic Games in his book 'Speed Trap' (1991).
Charlie Francis was Ben Johnson's coach.
> > The Scotch, in fact, bears quite a resemblance to the Sicilian,
> > except that Black's e-pawn is traded on d4 instead of his c-pawn,
>
> Um, I thought you played the opening like a grandmaster?
I prefer to avoid telling 'grandmasters', real or self-perceived,
how they should play their openings. :-)
--Nick
> In the Sicilian, Black typically counterattacks on the queenside, using the
> half-open c-file as a jumping-off point. He has more space there than
> White does on the half-open d-file. Meanwhile, in the Scotch, Black
> can't use the c-file to attack on the queenside because it's closed
> and it is White who has the advantage of more space on the semi-open
> file with the pawns on d6 and e4.
|
| |
Date: 16 Mar 2006 13:18:57
From:
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
>Could someone suggest/recommend defences or systems for Black
Isn't the goal to have fun?
Shouldn't you try a variety of defenses and then play what you enjoy.
Do you like Open/Closed positions, positional / tactical games?
I am just getting back into chess after a 20 year absence and I was
never a strong player (1700s) so my opinion might not hold much weight.
I never really studied openings much (it seemed silly to me to
memorize lots of moves) but did try to understand the theory behind
them. I read Fine's "Ideas behind the chess openings" (probably out of
print and obsolete these days).
I discovered I liked "hypermodern" (probably not even called that
anymore) defenses and my game as Black would often fall into an Indian
or Pirc line. But I didn't try to memorize 20+ moves.
I think you should play what you find fun. Do club players these days
know the openings to move 20?
|
| | |
Date: 17 Mar 2006 09:09:11
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> I am just getting back into chess after a 20 year absence and I was
> never a strong player (1700s) so my opinion might not hold much
> weight. I never really studied openings much (it seemed silly to me
> to memorize lots of moves) but did try to understand the theory
> behind them.
Sounds like the right plan to me and it's what most strong players
advise, too.
> I read Fine's "Ideas behind the chess openings" (probably out of
> print and obsolete these days).
It's still in print (and cheaply available from Amazon). It's not at
all obsolete, though it is a little out of date. However, since it's
about *understanding* rather than memorization, that's not too much of
a problem. While the exact lines used by GMs to exploit an idea
change every other year, the ideas themselves don't change too much.
And even if they do, understanding one way to play a particular
opening (even if it's no longer considered the best way) will give you
an edge over other players of the same level of skill.
> I think you should play what you find fun. Do club players these
> days know the openings to move 20?
Not the ones I play at tournaments. I don't think I've ever stayed
`in book' (according to Fritz) for more than about ten moves and even
those were in lines like the open Sicilian where the first five moves
are almost automatic (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6/e6/Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6
5.Nc3 a6/e6/d6/Nc6). It tends to be my opponent who takes us out of
book as I seem to remember lines from master games I've played through
without actually trying to.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Adult Projector (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ 16mm film projector that you won't
want the children to see!
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Mar 2006 02:41:44
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
> Not the ones I play at tournaments. I don't think I've ever stayed
> `in book' (according to Fritz) for more than about ten moves and even
> those were in lines like the open Sicilian where the first five moves
> are almost automatic (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6/e6/Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6
> 5.Nc3 a6/e6/d6/Nc6).
"Automatic?"
<snicker >
|
| | |
Date: 17 Mar 2006 07:08:31
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] wrote:
> >Could someone suggest/recommend defences or systems for Black
>
> Isn't the goal to have fun?
>
> Shouldn't you try a variety of defenses and then play what you enjoy.
> Do you like Open/Closed positions, positional / tactical games?
Openings are so much a matter of taste and familiarity that it's almost
impossible for one person to recommend choices to another without
knowing a lot about the other's preferences.
I will offer one comment though:
There have been suggestions (in this thread, and elsewhere) of stuff
that is offbeat in a way that violates opening principles. Much of this
stuff is, theoretically, reasonable, but it has a drawback: it's hard to
play.
The Chigorin QGD is a good example of this. If black doesn't know what
he's doing, putting his QN in front of his c-pawn will make it very hard
for him to fight for a fair share of the center. It's very easy for
black to find himself in a crisis situation where he has to play very
accurately, whereas white has natural moves which will give him a strong
position.
And the problem is that most players under master strength are simply
not going to play those critical moves accurately.
You can try to compensate by doing extra opening study, but that's time
would usually play greater dividends spend on tactics or endings.
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 15 Mar 2006 22:52:23
From: Stefan Renzewitz
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
Hello Roger,
sounds like you are looking for the Chigorin!
http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_chigorin_defence.html
http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_die_tschigorin_verteidi.html
It is only covering 1. d4 though, but it is a lot of fun and you will most
likely know the theory better than White without having to study 20+ move
orders.
Cheers,
Stefan
<[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]...
> Hi
>
> Could someone suggest/recommend defences or systems for Black to be
> played against either 1.d4 d5 when c4 is not forthcoming from white or
> any other opening from white that doesn't involve 1. e4. (Ideally I'm
> looking for one or two defences that can be played against virtually
> anything white might try) I'm not playing at master/tournament level
> and I don't have the time to study and do justice to an opening that's
> been theoretically determined to move 20+, so I'd be happiest with
> something "unusual" and maybe not considered sound at GM level but
> adequate at club level.
>
> Regards
> Roger
>
|
| | |
Date: 19 Mar 2006 22:59:31
From: RD
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
On Wed, 15 2006 22:52:23 +0100, "Stefan Renzewitz"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>Hello Roger,
>
>sounds like you are looking for the Chigorin!
>http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_chigorin_defence.html
>http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_die_tschigorin_verteidi.html
>
>It is only covering 1. d4 though, but it is a lot of fun and you will most
>likely know the theory better than White without having to study 20+ move
>orders.
Bad or not, Chigorin is not easy opening to play (from black side).
White moves come naturally -- black has to play accurately to not
drift into bad position. If black is not fully prepared, he will be
the one with bad position after the opening. That makes it a bad
choice for weaker players. Maybe for players over 2000 who like
spending time on opening, it might be good surprise tool to get white
players (especially weaker players) out of opening, etc ... but in
general, it's not a good choice (not because the opening is bad but
because it's harder to play the black side).
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Mar 2006 00:14:19
From: Stefan Renzewitz
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
"RD" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]...
>
> Bad or not, Chigorin is not easy opening to play (from black side).
> White moves come naturally -- black has to play accurately to not
> drift into bad position. If black is not fully prepared, he will be
> the one with bad position after the opening. That makes it a bad
> choice for weaker players. Maybe for players over 2000 who like
> spending time on opening, it might be good surprise tool to get white
> players (especially weaker players) out of opening, etc ... but in
> general, it's not a good choice (not because the opening is bad but
> because it's harder to play the black side).
>
Hello RD,
I agree with you. It is very important to really know the moves of some
critical lines or you get easily into a lost position in some variations. If
Roger doesn't want to spend quite some time on his opening he should indeed
look elsewhere, but if he is willing to work on the opening and in
combination with a good opening training program it should not take too much
time. If black is doing his homework I think it is as good or bad as many
other openings for a players <2000, but you are right that there are easier
and less to learn openings to choose from.
Regards,
Stefan
|
| | |
Date: 16 Mar 2006 09:51:21
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
Stefan Renzewitz <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> schrieb:
>> Could someone suggest/recommend defences or systems for Black to be
>> played against either 1.d4 d5 when c4 is not forthcoming from white
>
> sounds like you are looking for the Chigorin!
Sounds kinda difficult if White isn't going to co-operate with c4...
I play 1... Nf6 and go for a queen's indian type of setup against 1.d4
2.Nf3. If White plays 2.c4 you can always transpose back in to a
queen's gambit if that's what you want: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 and 3... d5;
not 2... d5 as 3.cxd5 is good for White -- 3... Nxd5 4.e4 and Black
doesn't have Nxc3 available as it would be in the Gruenfeld; or
3... Qxd5 Nc3.
At club level, if you can deal with the typical Colle-style attack
with e3, Nbd2, Bd3, Qe2 and e4, you should be fine.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Pointy-Haired Watch (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a precision chronometer that's
completely clueless!
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2006 11:19:43
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
> Stefan Renzewitz <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> schrieb:
>>> Could someone suggest/recommend defences or systems for Black to be
>>> played against either 1.d4 d5 when c4 is not forthcoming from white
>>
>> sounds like you are looking for the Chigorin!
>
> Sounds kinda difficult if White isn't going to co-operate with c4...
And, if you'll permit me to follow up to myself for a second time,
specifically advised against by Dan Heisman in this month's Novice
Nook at chesscafe.com `The Most Common Opening Inaccuracies':
``Blocking break moves. Dont put your pieces (especially knights) in
front of important pawn break moves 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 [...]
2... Nc6(?) Black has no scope for his pieces as his c5-break is
delayed: Dont put a knight in front of your c-pawn in double
d-pawn openings. A cramped position is likely to result. Better
is 2.Nf6 or 2.e6 or 2.c5.''
Dave.
--
David Richerby Beefy Monk (TM): it's like a man of
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ God that's made from a cow!
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2006 21:28:46
From: Stefan Renzewitz
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:d+z*[email protected]...
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Stefan Renzewitz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> <[email protected]> schrieb:
>>>> Could someone suggest/recommend defences or systems for Black to be
>>>> played against either 1.d4 d5 when c4 is not forthcoming from white
>>>
>>> sounds like you are looking for the Chigorin!
>>
>> Sounds kinda difficult if White isn't going to co-operate with c4...
>
Not really, if you would know the book I linked to you would have found some
chapters only dealing with games where white is NOT playing c4. Mostly the
lines with c4 are covered though.
> And, if you'll permit me to follow up to myself for a second time,
> specifically advised against by Dan Heisman in this month's Novice
> Nook at chesscafe.com `The Most Common Opening Inaccuracies':
>
> ``Blocking break moves. Dont put your pieces (especially knights) in
> front of important pawn break moves 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 [...]
> 2... Nc6(?) Black has no scope for his pieces as his c5-break is
> delayed: Dont put a knight in front of your c-pawn in double
> d-pawn openings. A cramped position is likely to result. Better
> is 2.Nf6 or 2.e6 or 2.c5.''
>
This is exactly why it was called unsound for so many years I bet, because
the Nimzowitsch school would have told you that the opening is violating
several general rules (including exchanging your bishops against knighs
early in the game). But since Watsons released "Secrets of Modern Chess
Strategy" - for many players the inofficial successor of Nimzowitsch "my
system" - you have to take general rules only as what they are: general
rules. And just by chance it is Watson who says in his review about the
Chigorin book from Bronznik:
"It will not only become the Chigorin Defense bible for many years to come,
but it establishes the Chigorin as a sound defense deserving respect.
Players of all strengths might want to look in this direction for a new
system to play."
http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_die_tschigorin_verteidi.html
If you would read the book in question you would see that all typical raised
complains are treated and answered. Now if you ask me we are trying to find
the one-eyed among the blind men, at least I'm even not close to the chess
level of Watson to refute his claim.
I understand your point in general and I absolutely agree with you, but you
always have to check the actual case. Here I believe there is no way to
claim the opening is unsound (like many gambits). If you think so you have
to refute it by a forcing move order which leads to an advantage for white.
Stefan
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2006 09:53:37
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
> I play 1... Nf6 and go for a queen's indian type of setup against
> 1.d4 2.Nf3.
I forgot to mention that there are a few good examples from this in
Alekhine's book of best games. I'm afraid I can't remember the
details and don't have the book with me.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Carnivorous Salted Puzzle (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like an intriguing conundrum but it's
covered in salt and it eats flesh!
|
| | |
Date: 15 Mar 2006 20:28:53
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
> sounds like you are looking for the Chigorin!
> http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_chigorin_defence.html
> http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_die_tschigorin_verteidi.html
>
> It is only covering 1. d4 though, but it is a lot of fun and you will most
> likely know the theory better than White without having to study 20+ move
> orders.
But that's only because a monkey could convert the wins that White gets from
such an unsound line for Black. No need to book up to move 20.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2006 08:15:32
From: Stefan Renzewitz
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]...
>> sounds like you are looking for the Chigorin!
>> http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_chigorin_defence.html
>> http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_die_tschigorin_verteidi.html
>>
>> It is only covering 1. d4 though, but it is a lot of fun and you will
>> most likely know the theory better than White without having to study 20+
>> move orders.
>
> But that's only because a monkey could convert the wins that White gets
> from such an unsound line for Black. No need to book up to move 20.
>
That was the pre-judgement for a long time and is exactly the reason why it
makes so much sense to study it as Black, because enough White players still
believe that it is unsound based on past theory (and not existing
comprehensive books about it), but you better take a second look (and read
for example the reviews) or you are behind the current theory. There are a
some quite well known GM's playing it at the highest level. I think Moro
played with Chigorin draw against Kramnik in a 15 min. game (and draw
against GM Christiansen 1995 in New York and a victory over Belvjawski...)
and if you use CA or ChessBase you will find several top standard games
(check the games of the GM Miladinovic) where it was played very successful.
I for one know that 2000 the German championship was once won by GM Rabiega
mostly because he was wining several games with Black and the Chigorin (for
example against GM Nenashew).
If you can play an opening against GM's successfully it should be sound
enough for us normal mortals - IMO. And if the common opinion is that the
opening is unsound even better! You will be prepared better and your
opponent will be busy telling himself the whole time that he has to punish
you for playing such an "unsound" opening.
Cheers,
Stefan
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2006 06:24:39
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
>>> It is only covering 1. d4 though, but it is a lot of fun and you will
>>> most likely know the theory better than White without having to study
>>> 20+ move orders.
>>
>> But that's only because a monkey could convert the wins that White gets
>> from such an unsound line for Black. No need to book up to move 20.
>>
>
> That was the pre-judgement for a long time and is exactly the reason why
> it makes so much sense to study it as Black, because enough White players
> still believe that it is unsound based on past theory (and not existing
> comprehensive books about it), but you better take a second look (and read
> for example the reviews) or you are behind the current theory. There are a
> some quite well known GM's playing it at the highest level.
Which is what motivated me to get back into training. This is the chess
equivalent of a wet dream, like a boxer who drops his right while jabbing
with his left.
GMs play it as an efficient way of defeating IMs and below in order to win
tournaments without giving up their A repertoire. Why should I show you my
home preparation if I don't have to?
Now, this doesn't mean that these lines aren't playable, since the computers
can beat us with them, but the gin for error is so slim that a truly
prepared opponent (Leko, Anand, Topalov, Polgar, etc.) will usually rip it
to shreds. My experience with people who play lines like the Chigorin is
that they are very weak on how to play the opening, and even more lost when
you take them out of their narrow but well-studied book preparation, thus
turning the tables on them. Kind of like when Michigan State closed the
half in the first round of the NCAA tournament a while ago against
Princeton, with a perfectly executed and very athletic version of the
back-door cut, Princeton's pet play. They looked so defeated when their
weapon was used against them.
>I think Moro played with Chigorin draw against Kramnik in a 15 min. game
>(and draw against GM Christiansen 1995 in New York and a victory over
>Belvjawski...) and if you use CA or ChessBase you will find several top
>standard games (check the games of the GM Miladinovic) where it was played
>very successful. I for one know that 2000 the German championship was once
>won by GM Rabiega mostly because he was wining several games with Black and
>the Chigorin (for example against GM Nenashew).
To win with that opening you have to be 100-200 points superior in the
remaining phases of the game.
Roddick could win tennis matches with a 75 mph serve, but that doesn't mean
he shouldn't use a 115 mph serve instead.
> If you can play an opening against GM's successfully it should be sound
> enough for us normal mortals - IMO.
It's playable, but not necessarily preferable. The question is where you
will wind up ratingwise if you build your repertoire around a limiting line
like the Chigorin. If you want to be like Fritz, and slaughter people
tactically after they run out of ideas to refute you, you can play it for
the world title. We, however, are not computers, and cannot execute a
strategy like that. Watch Fritz play the Latvian sometime if you want to
see what I'm talking about.
>And if the common opinion is that the opening is unsound even better!
Unless the opinion is such because the opening is unsound. Even if it's not
totally unsound, it compromises Black enough to give White the equivalent of
a full-step head start in a 100-yard dash.
I only deviate from main lines with what I believe will become the main
lines of the future. For example, in the Ruy Lopez, every line I play seems
to leave white up about a tenth of a pawn, which is damn near equal. The
Lopez is a "main line" because it supposedly is White's only try for an
advantage, but practice says otherwise. Once you accept that premise, all
the other king-pawn games, such as the Scotch, become fair game for
objective superiority. The Scotch, in fact, bears quite a resemblance to
the Sicilian, except that Black's e-pawn is traded on d4 instead of his
c-pawn, and this should make White's job even easier.
>You will be prepared better and your opponent will be busy telling himself
>the whole time that he has to punish you for playing such an "unsound"
>opening.
I don't punish the opening, but take what is given to me. I don't play 1.
d4 so I don't have to deal with the Chigorin, but there are equivalents on
the king-pawn side, such as the Nimzovich Defense (1. e4 Nc6), which may
even transpose to the Chigorin in some lines.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2006 21:41:10
From: Stefan Renzewitz
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
Hello Ray,
>> That was the pre-judgement for a long time and is exactly the reason why
>> it makes so much sense to study it as Black, because enough White players
>> still believe that it is unsound based on past theory (and not existing
>> comprehensive books about it), but you better take a second look (and
>> read for example the reviews) or you are behind the current theory. There
>> are a some quite well known GM's playing it at the highest level.
>
> Which is what motivated me to get back into training. This is the chess
> equivalent of a wet dream, like a boxer who drops his right while jabbing
> with his left.
>
> GMs play it as an efficient way of defeating IMs and below in order to win
> tournaments without giving up their A repertoire. Why should I show you
> my home preparation if I don't have to?
In the game Nenashev - Rabiega it was white who was the GM and he lost to
the Non-GM player (now he is GM too though). Check your game database you
will find enough GM players playing it with black against other GM players.
> Now, this doesn't mean that these lines aren't playable, since the
> computers can beat us with them, but the gin for error is so slim that
> a truly prepared opponent (Leko, Anand, Topalov, Polgar, etc.) will
> usually rip it to shreds. My experience with people who play lines like
> the Chigorin is that they are very weak on how to play the opening, and
> even more lost when you take them out of their narrow but well-studied
> book preparation, thus turning the tables on them. Kind of like when
> Michigan State closed the half in the first round of the NCAA tournament a
> while ago against Princeton, with a perfectly executed and very athletic
> version of the back-door cut, Princeton's pet play. They looked so
> defeated when their weapon was used against them.
>
>>I think Moro played with Chigorin draw against Kramnik in a 15 min. game
>>(and draw against GM Christiansen 1995 in New York and a victory over
>>Belvjawski...) and if you use CA or ChessBase you will find several top
>>standard games (check the games of the GM Miladinovic) where it was played
>>very successful. I for one know that 2000 the German championship was once
>>won by GM Rabiega mostly because he was wining several games with Black
>>and the Chigorin (for example against GM Nenashew).
>
> To win with that opening you have to be 100-200 points superior in the
> remaining phases of the game.
>
Again, in the game cited black was about 150 ELO points lower and you can
find more examples like this one.
> Roddick could win tennis matches with a 75 mph serve, but that doesn't
> mean he shouldn't use a 115 mph serve instead.
>
>> If you can play an opening against GM's successfully it should be sound
>> enough for us normal mortals - IMO.
>
> It's playable, but not necessarily preferable. The question is where you
> will wind up ratingwise if you build your repertoire around a limiting
> line like the Chigorin. If you want to be like Fritz, and slaughter
> people tactically after they run out of ideas to refute you, you can play
> it for the world title. We, however, are not computers, and cannot
> execute a strategy like that. Watch Fritz play the Latvian sometime if
> you want to see what I'm talking about.
This is your own opinion and absolutely fine, but it is not proved or
official theory.
>
>>And if the common opinion is that the opening is unsound even better!
>
> Unless the opinion is such because the opening is unsound. Even if it's
> not totally unsound, it compromises Black enough to give White the
> equivalent of a full-step head start in a 100-yard dash.
Show the forcing line leading to a better position for white. I'm curious!
> I only deviate from main lines with what I believe will become the main
> lines of the future.
Exactly! Maybe this is becoming a standard opening against d4, how can we
now? It has the potential if you read articles about Bronzniks Chigorin
book:
http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_die_tschigorin_verteidi.html
Stefan
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2006 16:10:41
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
>> Unless the opinion is such because the opening is unsound. Even if it's
>> not totally unsound, it compromises Black enough to give White the
>> equivalent of a full-step head start in a 100-yard dash.
>
> Show the forcing line leading to a better position for white. I'm curious!
By "better" I mean about a half-pawn better. Black is usually left one step
away from disaster.
>> I only deviate from main lines with what I believe will become the main
>> lines of the future.
>
> Exactly! Maybe this is becoming a standard opening against d4, how can we
> now? It has the potential if you read articles about Bronzniks Chigorin
> book:
I don't play 1. d4, but I do face the Nimzovich Defense (1. e4 Nc6), which
is a rough equivalent.
I don't doubt that the opening is playable, but Black is giving up a lot,
just as a tennis player who takes 30 mph off his serve is taking a lot.
Black's goals are simple: a) avoid having to study a lot of theory; and b)
take White out of his book. Those are valuable considerations against weak
players, but it won't work in the world championship cycle.
There may be nothing wrong with the move, but there is nothing right with it
either.
You wouldn't play deliberately weak moves in an endgame, would you? Why do
it in the opening?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2006 17:03:56
From: Dr A. N. Walker
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
In article <[email protected] >,
Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
[...]
>Black's goals are simple: a) avoid having to study a lot of theory; and b)
>take White out of his book. Those are valuable considerations against weak
>players,
Valuable against *any* player, if achieved. Playing a GM,
I'd much rather be on familiar territory while he is having to work
it out OTB than vice versa. And the less theory I have to study,
the more time I have for other things. This is important even for
a strong professional; particularly so for an amateur [which is
the vast majority of us]. The twin problems are, of course, firstly
that it's much easier to get a weak player than a strong one out of
book; and secondly that once you're both out of book, that's where
a strong opponent will start to outplay you [so it helps if at least
your position is still decent].
> but it won't work in the world championship cycle.
I don't think there is much, if any, evidence for this. Of
course, you don't get to be in the WCC unless all parts of your game
are strong. But there is nothing wrong, even today, with a less
bookish approach to openings. The difference is that today it's
significantly harder to get "out of book", because there are strong
advocates of all manner of "off-beat" lines. The actual line of
World Champions is split not-too-unevenly between those who were
famous for their detailed opening study and those who rather tried
to play the opening more on general principles. But it's hard to
see, for example, in modern WC matches, openings such as the Evans
Gambit as anything other than an attempt to get the opponent out of
preparation.
Meanwhile, it's perhaps worth noting that Kasparov -- not
an openings slouch! -- spent a large part of his match against DB
getting the computer out of book in the first few moves; and that
when, in the fatal last game, he failed to do so, he fell into a
known trap. Perhaps he should have persisted?
[...]
>You wouldn't play deliberately weak moves in an endgame, would you? Why do
>it in the opening?
"Deliberately weak" is a little OTT. No, you should not
play "deliberately weak" moves, not if you have any ambitions in
chess; and that is why we are unlikely [IMHO] to see a revival of
Damiano's Defence at any serious level [however successful it may
prove as a surprise weapon at club level]. But chess is not played
in a vacuum. It is played against an opponent, and the opening is
[unless one side blunders] a phase of jockeying for position, where
psychological factors are part of the game [*especially* at the
very highest levels, where we can take it for granted that both
players understand the importance of development, pawn structure,
king safety, and so on]. A player who likes to play in style A
but is forced by the logic of the position to play in style B will
be psychologically uncomfortable. The two Tal-Botvinnik WC matches
are a case study. So is the first Karpov-Kasparov match. So are
the Kasparov-Kramnik and Kasparov-DB matches. So, famously, is
Lasker's "must win" game against Capablanca. A move doesn't need
to be good by some computer-evaluation standard or even by agreed
GM standards to be good by "needs of the moment" standards --
again, even in the WCC.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
[email protected]
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Mar 2006 01:05:34
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
>>Black's goals are simple: a) avoid having to study a lot of theory; and b)
>>take White out of his book. Those are valuable considerations against
>>weak
>>players,
>
> Valuable against *any* player, if achieved. Playing a GM,
> I'd much rather be on familiar territory while he is having to work
> it out OTB than vice versa. And the less theory I have to study,
> the more time I have for other things. This is important even for
> a strong professional; particularly so for an amateur [which is
> the vast majority of us]. The twin problems are, of course, firstly
> that it's much easier to get a weak player than a strong one out of
> book; and secondly that once you're both out of book, that's where
> a strong opponent will start to outplay you [so it helps if at least
> your position is still decent].
>
>> but it won't work in the world championship cycle.
>
> I don't think there is much, if any, evidence for this. Of
> course, you don't get to be in the WCC unless all parts of your game
> are strong. But there is nothing wrong, even today, with a less
> bookish approach to openings. The difference is that today it's
> significantly harder to get "out of book", because there are strong
> advocates of all manner of "off-beat" lines. The actual line of
> World Champions is split not-too-unevenly between those who were
> famous for their detailed opening study and those who rather tried
> to play the opening more on general principles. But it's hard to
> see, for example, in modern WC matches, openings such as the Evans
> Gambit as anything other than an attempt to get the opponent out of
> preparation.
>
> Meanwhile, it's perhaps worth noting that Kasparov -- not
> an openings slouch! -- spent a large part of his match against DB
> getting the computer out of book in the first few moves; and that
> when, in the fatal last game, he failed to do so, he fell into a
> known trap. Perhaps he should have persisted?
>
> [...]
>>You wouldn't play deliberately weak moves in an endgame, would you? Why
>>do
>>it in the opening?
>
> "Deliberately weak" is a little OTT. No, you should not
> play "deliberately weak" moves, not if you have any ambitions in
> chess; and that is why we are unlikely [IMHO] to see a revival of
> Damiano's Defence at any serious level [however successful it may
> prove as a surprise weapon at club level]. But chess is not played
> in a vacuum. It is played against an opponent, and the opening is
> [unless one side blunders] a phase of jockeying for position, where
> psychological factors are part of the game [*especially* at the
> very highest levels, where we can take it for granted that both
> players understand the importance of development, pawn structure,
> king safety, and so on]. A player who likes to play in style A
> but is forced by the logic of the position to play in style B will
> be psychologically uncomfortable. The two Tal-Botvinnik WC matches
> are a case study. So is the first Karpov-Kasparov match. So are
> the Kasparov-Kramnik and Kasparov-DB matches. So, famously, is
> Lasker's "must win" game against Capablanca. A move doesn't need
> to be good by some computer-evaluation standard or even by agreed
> GM standards to be good by "needs of the moment" standards --
> again, even in the WCC.
You make the correct argument for the Chigorin. I never disputed the
usefulness of these openings. What I do dispute is that they are
objectively equal to the main lines, when it is clear that they are not, for
reasons that would be obvious to a 1400-rated player.
My original study of chessgames came from the book "500 Master Games Of
Chess," from an era where what was correct in the first five moves was still
the topic of heated debate. You don't get that with today's games: all
openings are thought "playable," and to an extent, they are. Thanks to
computers, I am now convinced that Black can get away with the Latvian,
whereas in the past I would have said it was probably a forced win for
White.
God only knows what new theory hides deep within the Philidor.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2006 23:53:03
From: Stefan Renzewitz
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]...
>>> Unless the opinion is such because the opening is unsound. Even if it's
>>> not totally unsound, it compromises Black enough to give White the
>>> equivalent of a full-step head start in a 100-yard dash.
>>
>> Show the forcing line leading to a better position for white. I'm
>> curious!
>
> By "better" I mean about a half-pawn better. Black is usually left one
> step away from disaster.
>
I must have missed the line you proved to show that white is at least
half-pawn better. Otherwise anybody can claim that the Najdorf is unsound or
the French Defence.
>
>>> I only deviate from main lines with what I believe will become the main
>>> lines of the future.
>>
>> Exactly! Maybe this is becoming a standard opening against d4, how can we
>> now? It has the potential if you read articles about Bronzniks Chigorin
>> book:
>
> I don't play 1. d4, but I do face the Nimzovich Defense (1. e4 Nc6), which
> is a rough equivalent.
Hardly. The lines where White players e4 at some point in the Chigorin are
certainly not the majority to say the least.
> I don't doubt that the opening is playable, but Black is giving up a lot,
> just as a tennis player who takes 30 mph off his serve is taking a lot.
>
You missed to give any objective argument for your statements.
> Black's goals are simple: a) avoid having to study a lot of theory; and b)
> take White out of his book. Those are valuable considerations against
> weak players, but it won't work in the world championship cycle.
>
The Chigorin book is >300p which I wouldn't call little theory given the
fact that it is just the first serious book on this opening. You can expect
even more theory in the future. Furthermore unlike many other openings the
motifs and arising positions can be incredible different where it is not
enough to just learn a few main ideas of the opening. You actually have to
learn a lot of totally diferent ideas and then even more move orders or you
are indeed lost as black pretty early on. If you don't know the theory very
well you will get into positional-wise lost positions. It is a quite
challenging opening for an ambitous player I would claim.
> There may be nothing wrong with the move, but there is nothing right with
> it either.
>
As proved by whom and shown by which lines?
> You wouldn't play deliberately weak moves in an endgame, would you? Why
> do it in the opening?
>
Of course not, but who is doing that?
You already stated that actually you don't have really any idea about the
opening as you are not playing it. Why don't you just give it a try and find
out for yourself? I think there is an eBook in english available from
Chessbase by Brautigam or so . Bronzniks book is also available in english
by now.
Regards,
Stefan
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2006 20:15:12
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
>>> Show the forcing line leading to a better position for white. I'm
>>> curious!
>>
>> By "better" I mean about a half-pawn better. Black is usually left one
>> step away from disaster.
>>
>
> I must have missed the line you proved to show that white is at least
> half-pawn better. Otherwise anybody can claim that the Najdorf is unsound
> or the French Defence.
There is a clear reason (impeded development) that Nc6 is generally not
played before c5.
>>>> I only deviate from main lines with what I believe will become the main
>>>> lines of the future.
>>>
>>> Exactly! Maybe this is becoming a standard opening against d4, how can
>>> we now? It has the potential if you read articles about Bronzniks
>>> Chigorin book:
>>
>> I don't play 1. d4, but I do face the Nimzovich Defense (1. e4 Nc6),
>> which is a rough equivalent.
>
> Hardly. The lines where White players e4 at some point in the Chigorin are
> certainly not the majority to say the least.
It's the same weakness, with an opening with about the same reputation.
>> I don't doubt that the opening is playable, but Black is giving up a lot,
>> just as a tennis player who takes 30 mph off his serve is taking a lot.
>>
>
> You missed to give any objective argument for your statements.
The knight at c6 impedes the pawn at c5, thus weakening the center and
leading to slower dewelopment.
>> Black's goals are simple: a) avoid having to study a lot of theory; and
>> b) take White out of his book. Those are valuable considerations against
>> weak players, but it won't work in the world championship cycle.
>>
>
> The Chigorin book is >300p which I wouldn't call little theory given the
> fact that it is just the first serious book on this opening.
I would call that "little theory."
>You can expect even more theory in the future.
Theory = some guy with Fritz.
> Furthermore unlike many other openings the motifs and arising positions
> can be incredible different where it is not enough to just learn a few
> main ideas of the opening.
Never said it was.
>You actually have to learn a lot of totally diferent ideas and then even
>more move orders or you are indeed lost as black pretty early on. If you
>don't know the theory very well you will get into positional-wise lost
>positions. It is a quite challenging opening for an ambitous player I would
>claim.
Try it against Kamsky or Anand and see how far you get.
>> There may be nothing wrong with the move, but there is nothing right with
>> it either.
>>
> As proved by whom and shown by which lines?
Basic opening theory: don't impede the c-pawn with Nc6.
>> You wouldn't play deliberately weak moves in an endgame, would you? Why
>> do it in the opening?
>>
>
> Of course not, but who is doing that?
See above.
>
> You already stated that actually you don't have really any idea about the
> opening as you are not playing it. Why don't you just give it a try and
> find out for yourself? I think there is an eBook in english available from
> Chessbase by Brautigam or so . Bronzniks book is also available in english
> by now.
The opening can be eschewed on general principle. I don't need to "refute"
1...h6 to prove it's unsound either.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2006 08:24:22
From: Stefan Renzewitz
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]...
>>You actually have to learn a lot of totally diferent ideas and then even
>>more move orders or you are indeed lost as black pretty early on. If you
>>don't know the theory very well you will get into positional-wise lost
>>positions. It is a quite challenging opening for an ambitous player I
>>would claim.
>
> Try it against Kamsky or Anand and see how far you get.
>
Well, actually Moro played against Anand draw with Chigorin and Kamsky
played once Chigorin himself. I compiled for you a little list of games
where both players had an ELO >2500. I know the facts don't matter and won't
convince you, but I thought I would just share this:
Spraggett - Perovic 0 : 1 1991 Vienna
Zvjaginsev - Ivanov 1/2: 1/2 1990 Ashkhabad
Bareev - Kamsky 1/2 : 1/2 1991 Tilburg
GOldin - Morozevich 0:1 1993 St. Petersburg
Dreev - Morozevich 1/2 : 1/2 1993 Alushta
van Wely - Morozevich 0 : 1 1995 Amsterdam
Gelfand - Miladinovic 1/2 : 1/2 1995 Belgrade
Lautier - Miladinovic 0 : 1 1995 Belgrade
Gulko - Miladinovic 0 : 1 1995 New York
Khalifman - Morozevich 0 : 1 1995 Yalta
Grabarczyk - Kaminski 1/2 : 1/2 1996 Brzeg Dolny
Beliavsky - Yermolinsky 0 : 1 1998 Madrid
Karpov - Ivanchuk = 1/2 : 1/2 1998 Melody Amber (blindfold)
Kramnik - Linares 1/2:1/2 1998 Linares
Vallejo Pons - Chibukhchian 0 : 1 1999 Yerevan
Rogezenko - Morozevich 0 : 1 2000 Istanbul
Yermolinsky - Rahman 1/2 : 1/2 2000 Stratton Mountain
Anand - Morozevich 1/2 : 1/2 2001 Wijk an Zee
Piket - Morozevich 1/2 : 1/2 2001 Wijk an Zee
Ljubojevic - Morzevich 0 : 1 2002 Melody Amber (blindfold)
Hansen C. - Hansen S. 0 : 1 2002 Esbjerg
Cifuentes - Vallejo Pons 1/2 : 1/2 2002 Mondariz
Ljubojevic - Morzevich 0 : 1 2003 Melody Amber (blindfold)
Ivanov - Friedel 1/2 : 1/2 2004 Stratton Mountain
Masimenko - Miladinovic 0:1 2004 Bratto
Volkov - Gustafasson 0 : 1 2005 Dos Hermanas (Internet)
Getting back to the question how far I would get with the Chigorin against
Anand and Kamsky: I guess I would not survive for long. Not sure if it would
be due to my opening though.
Regards,
Stefan
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Mar 2006 15:34:06
From: Leopold
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
"Stefan Renzewitz" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ray Gordon" <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:[email protected]...
>>>You actually have to learn a lot of totally diferent ideas and then even
>>>more move orders or you are indeed lost as black pretty early on. If you
>>>don't know the theory very well you will get into positional-wise lost
>>>positions. It is a quite challenging opening for an ambitous player I
>>>would claim.
>>
>> Try it against Kamsky or Anand and see how far you get.
>>
>
> Well, actually Moro played against Anand draw with Chigorin and Kamsky
> played once Chigorin himself. I compiled for you a little list of games
> where both players had an ELO >2500. I know the facts don't matter and
> won't convince you, but I thought I would just share this:
>
> Spraggett - Perovic 0 : 1 1991 Vienna
> Zvjaginsev - Ivanov 1/2: 1/2 1990 Ashkhabad
> Bareev - Kamsky 1/2 : 1/2 1991 Tilburg
> GOldin - Morozevich 0:1 1993 St. Petersburg
> Dreev - Morozevich 1/2 : 1/2 1993 Alushta
> van Wely - Morozevich 0 : 1 1995 Amsterdam
> Gelfand - Miladinovic 1/2 : 1/2 1995 Belgrade
> Lautier - Miladinovic 0 : 1 1995 Belgrade
> Gulko - Miladinovic 0 : 1 1995 New York
> Khalifman - Morozevich 0 : 1 1995 Yalta
> Grabarczyk - Kaminski 1/2 : 1/2 1996 Brzeg Dolny
> Beliavsky - Yermolinsky 0 : 1 1998 Madrid
> Karpov - Ivanchuk = 1/2 : 1/2 1998 Melody Amber (blindfold)
> Kramnik - Linares 1/2:1/2 1998 Linares
> Vallejo Pons - Chibukhchian 0 : 1 1999 Yerevan
> Rogezenko - Morozevich 0 : 1 2000 Istanbul
> Yermolinsky - Rahman 1/2 : 1/2 2000 Stratton Mountain
> Anand - Morozevich 1/2 : 1/2 2001 Wijk an Zee
> Piket - Morozevich 1/2 : 1/2 2001 Wijk an Zee
> Ljubojevic - Morzevich 0 : 1 2002 Melody Amber (blindfold)
> Hansen C. - Hansen S. 0 : 1 2002 Esbjerg
> Cifuentes - Vallejo Pons 1/2 : 1/2 2002 Mondariz
> Ljubojevic - Morzevich 0 : 1 2003 Melody Amber (blindfold)
> Ivanov - Friedel 1/2 : 1/2 2004 Stratton Mountain
> Masimenko - Miladinovic 0:1 2004 Bratto
> Volkov - Gustafasson 0 : 1 2005 Dos Hermanas (Internet)
>
> Getting back to the question how far I would get with the Chigorin against
> Anand and Kamsky: I guess I would not survive for long. Not sure if it
> would be due to my opening though.
>
> Regards,
>
> Stefan
Stefan,
You forgot that Chigorin himself used to play this opening also.
Leopold
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2006 13:28:47
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
>> And if the common opinion is that the opening is unsound even better!
>
> Unless the opinion is such because the opening is unsound. Even if
> it's not totally unsound, it compromises Black enough to give White
> the equivalent of a full-step head start in a 100-yard dash.
Those of you who are afficioadoes of Ray's bad sporting analogies will
note that the percentage difference in time from first to last
finisher in the 2002 Olympic 100m finals were 2.5% (men) and 2.3%
(women). Once again, Ray, in claiming that a bad opening is a roughly
1% handicap, indicates that the opening is not the most important
phase of the game.
> The Scotch, in fact, bears quite a resemblance to the Sicilian,
> except that Black's e-pawn is traded on d4 instead of his c-pawn,
Um, I thought you played the opening like a grandmaster? In the
Sicilian, Black typically counterattacks on the queenside, using the
half-open c-file as a jumping-off point. He has more space there than
White does on the half-open d-file. Meanwhile, in the Scotch, Black
can't use the c-file to attack on the queenside because it's closed
and it is White who has the advantage of more space on the semi-open
file with the pawns on d6 and e4.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Slimy T-Shirt (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ fashion statement but it's covered
in goo!
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2006 15:00:32
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
>> The Scotch, in fact, bears quite a resemblance to the Sicilian,
>> except that Black's e-pawn is traded on d4 instead of his c-pawn,
>
> Um, I thought you played the opening like a grandmaster? In the
> Sicilian, Black typically counterattacks on the queenside, using the
> half-open c-file as a jumping-off point. He has more space there than
> White does on the half-open d-file. Meanwhile, in the Scotch, Black
> can't use the c-file to attack on the queenside because it's closed
> and it is White who has the advantage of more space on the semi-open
> file with the pawns on d6 and e4.
White also has a similar spatial advantage in the sicilian, and Black has an
open central file (e-file) instead of the c-file.
The positions are still very similar.
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2006 09:54:55
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
Stefan Renzewitz <[email protected] > wrote:
> And if the common opinion is that the opening is unsound even
> better! You will be prepared better and your opponent will be busy
> telling himself the whole time that he has to punish you for playing
> such an "unsound" opening.
This might backfire if your opponent is calm enough not to try to kill
you in 20 moves so avoids over-reaching.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Confusing Aluminium Soap (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a personal hygiene product
that's really light but you can't
understand it!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2006 06:25:19
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
>> And if the common opinion is that the opening is unsound even
>> better! You will be prepared better and your opponent will be busy
>> telling himself the whole time that he has to punish you for playing
>> such an "unsound" opening.
>
> This might backfire if your opponent is calm enough not to try to kill
> you in 20 moves so avoids over-reaching.
Yet the computers will often go for the throat by move five in lines like
this, exploiting the one flaw that many humans miss.
|
| |
Date: 15 Mar 2006 08:12:01
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Request for Repetoire Recomendation
|
> Hi
>
> Could someone suggest/recommend defences or systems for Black to be
> played against either 1.d4 d5 when c4 is not forthcoming from white or
> any other opening from white that doesn't involve 1. e4. (Ideally I'm
> looking for one or two defences that can be played against virtually
> anything white might try) I'm not playing at master/tournament level
> and I don't have the time to study and do justice to an opening that's
> been theoretically determined to move 20+, so I'd be happiest with
> something "unusual" and maybe not considered sound at GM level but
> adequate at club level.
Openings are either good or not good.
"club level" openings that can't be played by GMs are not sound.
Try Nf6 and c5 based systems if you want something good for combatting d4,
or go "slav" with c6 and d5.
|
|
