| |
Main
Date: 14 Jun 2005 18:31:50
From:
Subject: Identify this crazy opening
|
The other day I played a game on Yahoo with someone who was only rated
in the low 1200s despite having won about 60 percent of about 2,100
non-draw, non-abandoned games. My exact memories are hazy, but it
began something like: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Bc5 3 Nxe5 and then (I think) he
brought his queen out; I moved my knight to d3 (maybe) to threaten his
bishop, and then he either moved the queen again or brought out a
knight (or maybe he brought out the knight first, then the queen), but
in any case he left his bishop wide open for capture, and I captured
it.
OK, so far this doesn't sound like an opening at all but merely
purblind play on his part. Then all hell broke loose, as he used his
queen, supplemented by a knight and maybe other pieces later, launching
a long, nearly continuous series of checks of my king, all rather
skillful, which I just managed to fend off by the skin of my teeth.
Because (after his initial few moves) his play throughout the game was
so competent (barring a couple of questionable but by no means
irresponsible moves), I wondered if perhaps this was one of those
"crazy" openings meant to lure players into a difficult position by
offering a couple of easy captures. If so, what is its name and
history?
The notion also occurred to me that the account was one he had created
to test out crazy lines like this, but that's just a notion. I know
Eric Schiller has written a large book called Unorthodox Chess
Openings, and a good player might not want to jeopardize his rating by
testing them with his normal account. It was certainly an interesting
game.
.
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
|
| |
Date: 18 Jun 2005 10:17:15
From:
Subject: Re: Identify this crazy opening
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Now, the ad says the book contains more
> > than 1,500 unorthodox openings and variations. Are you really
> > asserting that most experienced chess players are familiar with more
> > than a tiny fraction of these?
>
> I've browsed this book in bookstores before.
>
> My feeling is that the book contains two types of lines:
>
> Unorthodox stuff (like the Grob or the Frankenstein-Dracula) which does
> have some bite but which most players have seen a few times.
>
> Stuff which most people haven't seen because it is simply bad and not
> hard to refute over the board.
>
> To me, the book is based on a fundamental fallacy: that the way to win
> at chess is to surprise your opponent in the opening.
I don't advocate that as a principle, and not having seen the book
myself, I can't say whether it does either. You mention that you've
browsed the book, but is that enough to make the attribution you have?
I don't think authorship of such a book is, ipso facto, sufficient for
anyone to infer such thinking on the part of the author. After all,
the same author has other reference books out such as Standard Chess
Openings, also encyclopedic. I think the point of such a book would be
to catalog the unusual, have fun, and offer food for thought and
experimentation.
Having said that, surprise in an opening *can* be beneficial, and I
think we agree on that. It is difficult to say in advance whether it
will be or not, if one has no knowledge of the other player, other than
a rating, especially if the rating isn't all that high -- I think low
to middle-ranked players are more likely to be offput by the unusual in
opening lines. Faced with the unexpected, players sometimes become
cautious, or revert to a defensive game. Now, whether that is good or
bad will depend on a particular case. If the one who "battens down the
hatches" is normally an aggressive player, and good at it, it could
hurt his game. If the player who used the "surprise" is generally a
better player when both sides quietly develop their pieces and eschew
early attacks, it might help his game. If the surprised player would
normally be a better player than his opponent in a conventional line,
it may help the one who uses the "surprise" opening. None of that
makes "surprise your opponent at the expense of your game" a solid
general principle; but I wouldn't agree with the dictum "don't ever
experiment at the possible expense of your game" either, in casual
games.
>
>
> > You say to develop normally, and
> > that may be good advice here, or it may not. You don't have enough
> > facts to say.
>
> Actually, I do - since in this case we had some moves to look at. In
> other cases, no, but the principle (and I haven't been saying just
> "develop your pieces" - I've been saying "identify the problem with your
> opponents' move and exploit it, rather than do something crazy which
> ignores the weaknesses he's voluntarily created") is absolutely solid.
>
> If you ignore the weaknesses in your opponent's position, you will
> lose. Yeah, sure, maybe you'll play really lousy opponents who will
> hang pieces anyway (the case here, it seems) but getting into the habit
> of not looking at the problems with your opponents moves and selecting
> the logical way to exploit them is a recipie for disaster.
Well, you said my response was poor, yet it won a bishop and a pawn
within the first few moves, and I eventually won the game. True, I did
catch hell for this and had a very difficult time battling my way out,
but that just shows that my opponent, despite his apparent naivety, was
a savvy tactician and had a strategy behind his fumble-gambit. So, I
don't think you can say that because he opened oddly and fumbled a
piece, that he wasn't any good. He was, seemingly, experimenting.
Since we're looking at a specific case, the facts of the case argue
that, had I played conventionally and stopped with the pawn,
consolidating my position classically instead of going after the
bishop, I might have lost without the initial advantage which came from
an early capture of his bishop. I don't have enough facts to say
either way, and neither do you. You have no additional information
about the level of his play: in fact, you only know that he made an
opening which you disapprove of and that I responded to it in a way
which you disapprove of. I'm not saying that you shouldn't disapprove
of it, on general principles, but there are exceptions to generalities
and this may be one of them. We don't know.
<snip >
> Those moves are just bad. To refuse to consolidate
> your comfortable pawn-up position (when you're slightly behind in
> development) is just bad chess.
On general principles, perhaps. In this specific case, you don't have
enough information to judge. Sorry if the ambiguity disturbs your
dogma. I had an immediate sense that the other player was playing
purblind and that I could take additional advantage by capturing his
bishop, and my sense was correct, because I was able to. But the
appearance of incompetence was misleading because in so doing I fell
into a trap from which I just barely escaped intact.
> The notion that anyone would play such
> moves hoping for their opponent to casually consolidate their
> development and emerge a quiet pawn up is, what's the word I'm looking
> for here - completely insane.
Well naturally he didn't play those moves hoping I would accept the
pawn and stop there, unless he had another trick up his sleeve. He
seems to have played them hoping that his illusory incompetence would
lead his opponent into greed, and it did. And I'm glad it did because
it became a really interesting game. That doesn't mean I want to play
such games all the time or most of the time, but sometimes they are
fun.
>
> Those are moves based on a few shallow threats. Black's only hope of
> not simply being worse is for white to go for complications where his
> lack of development would be a problem.
By "being worse" you mean being a pawn down, but catching up in
development, as white must waste a turn retreating his knight or else
alter his development where his play is built around defending that
knight. I'm not sure that's catastrophic. Also, some players like
open play and don't mind sacrificing a pawn to accomplish this,
particularly if their opponent must lose a tempo in retreating the
piece he used for the capture.
>
> People get way too caught up in trying to out-clever their opponent by
> playing unexpected moves. A good chessplayer isn't thrown on his heels
> by an unexpected move. I think you'll find that, when your opponent
> tries to get clever, simple chess is usually best - don't overlook a
> good move for an unexpected one.
>
> Good chess beats good chess psychology. Nothing's as demoralizing to a
> gambiteer than squelching his initiative and forcing a technical game!
> If he was comfortable in technical chess, he'd never play opening moves
> like that anyway.
>
> -Ron
I think you're reading too much partisanship into my post. I'm not
advocating "surprise chess" as a school of thought.
.
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
| |
Date: 16 Jun 2005 18:39:49
From:
Subject: Re: Identify this crazy opening
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Note that this is in addition to more than 3,000 "standard"
> > openings in another Schiller book, and also apparently separate from
> > more than 2,000 "gambit" openings (though there may be some overlap).
> > Some of the "unorthodox" openings are named things like "the
> > Orangutang, Raptor Variation, Halloween Gambit, Double Duck,
> > Frankenstein-Dracula Variation, and the Drunken King". Perhaps there
> > is something in there about a Purblind Bishop opening...
>
> All of the variations you named above are rare and unthorodox, but
> (with the possible exception of the Double Duck and the Drunken King)
> familiar to every experienced chessplayer.
>
> There's a world of difference between them and what you've described.
Remember this was from an advertisement for the book. Ads frequently
try to target the sensibilities of their target audience and in a case
such as this that means including a number of (perhaps only passingly)
familiar teasers as well as the promise of a lot of new (or at least,
generally unfamiliar) stuff. Now, the ad says the book contains more
than 1,500 unorthodox openings and variations. Are you really
asserting that most experienced chess players are familiar with more
than a tiny fraction of these? Because if so I don't think that's
tenable. Most experienced chess players don't even bother with
unorthodox openings, and most of those who have at least experimented
seriously with them lack anything approaching encyclopedic knowledge.
I don't think it follows that because you haven't heard of it, or
because it only works if the opponent overreaches himself, it isn't a
recognized opening. Many gambits and traps count on an overreach or
even just poor play (sometimes but not always the same thing). Most
conventional gambits are turned down nowadays among serious players,
hence few serious players employ them. How much more risky for truly
unconventional openings? The point is that if one is not in a
tournament or risking one's reputation, but using an alias account to
experiment and have fun with odd openings, strategies and tactics, or
if one is playing novices (like me) and just wants to see whether
they'll bite and what happens if they do, playing peculiar openings
might make sense. So might responding unconventionally to them if one
is in an adverturous mood. One might even learn things from such lines
which one would not easily learn from "book" games. Of course, if
chess is, always and everywhere, a kind of holy shrine not to be
sullied by "tom-foolery", I can see why you might object to the degree
which you seem to.
>
> > > People play these moves with the hope of discombobulating their
> > > opponents into bad moves. There's no reason this opening should give
> > > black a series of meaningful threats, but you have to not panic.
>
> > There's something to that, but I wouldn't make an absolute dictum of
> > it. There may be cases where a good player experimenting with odd
> > strategies muffs it worse if met on unconventional terms, than in cases
> > where his opponent plays it safe and forces him to revert to a
> > conventional line in which he is more experienced.
>
> You might think so, but, no. Unless there's a tactical refutation,
> people who play crap like that are usually looking for someone to get
> overambitious and try to "refute" an "obviously bad" opening.
Well, if falling into the trap works for the one who set it, then it
isn't an obviously bad opening. And if it doesn't work and the one
dangling the bait can see that his opponent is going to ignore the bait
and develop conventionally, he can himself revert to a conventional
line with only ginal loss. (The loss of a pawn in an opening,
whether or not under circumstances where it is easily recoverable, is
not commonly catastrophic.) So, either way, one can't say that it is
obviously bad, only that it appears to be. And that is the nature of
the bait, of course!
Now, it may be that the player who dangles the bait is experimenting
with openings, and under those circumstances he may actually be better
off with a conventional line than his opponent. Remember, he is not
playing his most effective line, he is seeking novelty and sensation,
as well as the opportunity to explore little-traveled avenues and thus
perhaps learn some things which might be of value if transplanted to
his conventional ("serious") games. You say to develop normally, and
that may be good advice here, or it may not. You don't have enough
facts to say. It may be that the other player, forced to back off of
his trap and play conventionally, is a better conventional player than
his opponent. "Develop your pieces, control the center, etc." is fine
advice, but scarcely a magical formula for winning since your opponent
may be doing the same thing, and better.
I don't play any truly weird openings, but I have found through
experience that somewhat unusual ones may confuse those used to more
conventional lines, even to the point of losing their edge. In those
cases, had I tried a conventional line myself, their own superior
experience and skills in that line might well have resulted in my loss
instead of in my win.
.
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
| | |
Date: 17 Jun 2005 18:59:38
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Identify this crazy opening
|
In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] wrote:
> Now, the ad says the book contains more
> than 1,500 unorthodox openings and variations. Are you really
> asserting that most experienced chess players are familiar with more
> than a tiny fraction of these?
I've browsed this book in bookstores before.
My feeling is that the book contains two types of lines:
Unorthodox stuff (like the Grob or the Frankenstein-Dracula) which does
have some bite but which most players have seen a few times.
Stuff which most people haven't seen because it is simply bad and not
hard to refute over the board.
To me, the book is based on a fundamental fallacy: that the way to win
at chess is to surprise your opponent in the opening.
> You say to develop normally, and
> that may be good advice here, or it may not. You don't have enough
> facts to say.
Actually, I do - since in this case we had some moves to look at. In
other cases, no, but the principle (and I haven't been saying just
"develop your pieces" - I've been saying "identify the problem with your
opponents' move and exploit it, rather than do something crazy which
ignores the weaknesses he's voluntarily created") is absolutely solid.
If you ignore the weaknesses in your opponent's position, you will
lose. Yeah, sure, maybe you'll play really lousy opponents who will
hang pieces anyway (the case here, it seems) but getting into the habit
of not looking at the problems with your opponents moves and selecting
the logical way to exploit them is a recipie for disaster.
> I don't play any truly weird openings, but I have found through
> experience that somewhat unusual ones may confuse those used to more
> conventional lines, even to the point of losing their edge. In those
> cases, had I tried a conventional line myself, their own superior
> experience and skills in that line might well have resulted in my loss
> instead of in my win.
Well, there's a difference between playing slightly unconventional
lines to throw someone on their own devices and refusing to accept an
easy refutation of your opponents moves.
EG, the former is like playing the Smith-Morra or the Evans gambit,
where you don't have a realistic expectation of a theoretical advantage,
but you figure to make up for that by avoiding a theory dance and by
playing a position where you have the easier game to play.
The later is the sort of thing we're discussing here (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5
3.Nxe5 Qe7/f6/h5). Those moves are just bad. To refuse to consolidate
your comfortable pawn-up position (when you're slightly behind in
development) is just bad chess. The notion that anyone would play such
moves hoping for their opponent to casually consolidate their
development and emerge a quiet pawn up is, what's the word I'm looking
for here - completely insane.
Those are moves based on a few shallow threats. Black's only hope of
not simply being worse is for white to go for complications where his
lack of development would be a problem.
People get way too caught up in trying to out-clever their opponent by
playing unexpected moves. A good chessplayer isn't thrown on his heels
by an unexpected move. I think you'll find that, when your opponent
tries to get clever, simple chess is usually best - don't overlook a
good move for an unexpected one.
Good chess beats good chess psychology. Nothing's as demoralizing to a
gambiteer than squelching his initiative and forcing a technical game!
If he was comfortable in technical chess, he'd never play opening moves
like that anyway.
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 15 Jun 2005 20:19:36
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Identify this crazy opening
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The other day I played a game on Yahoo with someone who was only
rated
> in the low 1200s despite having won about 60 percent of about 2,100
> non-draw, non-abandoned games. My exact memories are hazy, but it
> began something like: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Bc5 3 Nxe5 and then (I think)
he
> brought his queen out; I moved my knight to d3 (maybe) to threaten
his
> bishop, and then he either moved the queen again or brought out a
> knight (or maybe he brought out the knight first, then the queen),
but
> in any case he left his bishop wide open for capture, and I captured
> it.
If Black plays 3. ...Nc6, this has some resemblance to the Petroni
Petroff (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 Nc6) and possibly transposes.
|
| |
Date: 15 Jun 2005 15:33:43
From:
Subject: Re: Identify this crazy opening
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I know all this is
> > terribly vague for any sort of *analysis* but I was rather hoping that
> > it might "ring a bell", so to speak, i.e., result in an identification.
>
> It doesn't sound like something that has a name, but rather a risky
> unsound gambit which you justified by your play. People do this sort of
> thing all the time.
I hope I didn't *justify* it. After all, I captured a piece and a pawn
within the first few opening moves, then survived intact the subsequent
trap (if that's what it was) to go on to eventually win the game. But
after my initial success it was rough going for quite a while. As for
the rest, more conservative play could likely have avoided the "trap",
but then who knows how I'd have done against this player (who was
otherwise tactically skilled) if I hadn't taken the bait and won a
piece free and clear in the earliest part of the game?
>
> Generally, it's really only the good and/or popular openings that have
> names...
Schiller's book Unorthodox Chess Openings lists more than 1,500 "weird,
contentious, controversial, arrogant, and outright strange openings"
according to the ad for the book. An individual who had been through
it might have been able to provide a name and background to what I
observed. Note that this is in addition to more than 3,000 "standard"
openings in another Schiller book, and also apparently separate from
more than 2,000 "gambit" openings (though there may be some overlap).
Some of the "unorthodox" openings are named things like "the
Orangutang, Raptor Variation, Halloween Gambit, Double Duck,
Frankenstein-Dracula Variation, and the Drunken King". Perhaps there
is something in there about a Purblind Bishop opening...
>
> 3. ... Qe7 or Qf6, the simple Nf3 is probably best, and on 3....Qh4
> 4.Qf3 (which immediately creates a mate threat of your own) should solve
> all of your problems. He's down a center pawn for insufficient
> compensation - finish your development, castle, and you'll be fine.
>
> People play these moves with the hope of discombobulating their
> opponents into bad moves. There's no reason this opening should give
> black a series of meaningful threats, but you have to not panic.
>
> -Ron
There's something to that, but I wouldn't make an absolute dictum of
it. There may be cases where a good player experimenting with odd
strategies muffs it worse if met on unconventional terms, than in cases
where his opponent plays it safe and forces him to revert to a
conventional line in which he is more experienced.
.
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
| | |
Date: 17 Jun 2005 21:58:01
From: Will Kemp
Subject: Re: Identify this crazy opening
|
You probably are aware of this, but for those who are not, this is not
unusual for any opening where one sides gambits (or even blunders) material.
The side that accepts the material often does so at the expense of
development or mobility. He must then weather the storm and consolidate his
position, after which "the rest is technique." This is not easy in speed
chess.
Sorry, I don't have any idea what the name of your variation might be.
> I hope I didn't *justify* it. After all, I captured a piece and a pawn
> within the first few opening moves, then survived intact the subsequent
> trap (if that's what it was) to go on to eventually win the game. But
> after my initial success it was rough going for quite a while.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Jun 2005 23:36:48
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Identify this crazy opening
|
In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] wrote:
> Note that this is in addition to more than 3,000 "standard"
> openings in another Schiller book, and also apparently separate from
> more than 2,000 "gambit" openings (though there may be some overlap).
> Some of the "unorthodox" openings are named things like "the
> Orangutang, Raptor Variation, Halloween Gambit, Double Duck,
> Frankenstein-Dracula Variation, and the Drunken King". Perhaps there
> is something in there about a Purblind Bishop opening...
All of the variations you named above are rare and unthorodox, but
(with the possible exception of the Double Duck and the Drunken King)
familiar to every experienced chessplayer.
There's a world of difference between them and what you've described.
> > People play these moves with the hope of discombobulating their
> > opponents into bad moves. There's no reason this opening should give
> > black a series of meaningful threats, but you have to not panic.
> There's something to that, but I wouldn't make an absolute dictum of
> it. There may be cases where a good player experimenting with odd
> strategies muffs it worse if met on unconventional terms, than in cases
> where his opponent plays it safe and forces him to revert to a
> conventional line in which he is more experienced.
You might think so, but, no. Unless there's a tactical refutation,
people who play crap like that are usually looking for someone to get
overambitious and try to "refute" an "obviously bad" opening.
And they end up winning a lot of games when their opponent's don't
understand the resulting position.
I mean, let's look at just the first four moves of your name again
(before the bad Nd3). What's white's advantage? He's got an extra pawn.
What's black's compensation? Not much - although he's not behind in
development.
In a game like that black is DYING for white to overreach, because the
only advantage white doesn't have is his traditional one - development.
This means that complications may well favor black (as they usually
favor the better-developed player).
On the other hand, if white accepts that he's a pawn up at no cost and
simply develops, then black is lost. No, it's not a "gimmie" loss, but
white's a solid pawn up. He should win if he plays to that strength.
(I guess the other alternative is that somebody's just a lousy player,
and they'll screw up the more complicated position because their tactics
suck.)
Maybe a year ago we had someone on one of the r.g.c groups complaining
about how he was soundly beaten by someone who played (as black) 1.e4 a5
2.Nf3 Ra6?! 3.Bxa6 Nxa6) or something like that. He was baffled - how
could black give up the exchange for nothing and win? Wasn't it
insulting that his opponent even tried?
But the white player kept trying to win in the middlgame in a direct
attack. He posted a few games, most of which ended with him being
checkmated with his "extra" material still undeveloped on a1. He
thought he was "up" material, but all of black's minor pieces were
swarming around his king and his rooks weren't involved in the game.
This gets to a very important point about how you play chess:
When your opponent makes a mistake, you have to identify what about the
mistake is actually a mistake, and what the appropriate punishment is.
You can't say, "Oh, my opponent played poorly, so now I'll attack his
king!" because maybe the mistakes he made had nothing to do with
attacking his king. Maybe the mistake he made was giving you an
easily-won endgame, but if you don't steer for that ending, you're
matching his error with an equal one.
Of course, sometimes the correct refutation of your opponent's mistake
is a vigorous attack, but that's almost certainly not the case in the
game you describe (leading up to Nd3, at least. After allowing Nxc5,
it's hard to know what to think of black's play). Sometimes a mistake is
such that you have a variety of ways to refute it, but I think it's
pretty silly to, when confronted with bad play, look for some
"unorthodox" refutation which might actually justify his play.
He's giving you an easy advantage. Take it and use it to beat him!
Anything else is silly.
|
| |
Date: 15 Jun 2005 14:44:26
From:
Subject: Re: Identify this crazy opening
|
[email protected] wrote:
> The other day I played a game on Yahoo with someone who was only rated
> in the low 1200s despite having won about 60 percent of about 2,100
> non-draw, non-abandoned games. My exact memories are hazy, but it
> began something like: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Bc5 3 Nxe5
Looking through the Oxford Companion to Chess, which lists the moves
and names of 1,327 different openings, it seems that those moves are
not listed at all. This opening appears to be officially nameless.
|
| |
Date: 15 Jun 2005 12:20:10
From:
Subject: Re: Identify this crazy opening
|
I wish I could remember more about it...I should have emailed myself
the game history. All I remember is that I had a heck of a time
freeing any pieces since his queen kept jumping back and forth driving
the king back in front of openings, and otherwise keeping me busy with
check or immediate threat of checkmate, all the while trying to take
vulnerable pieces if the king couldn't be had. Perhaps I exacerbated
the problem moving a pawn to give myself more elbow room or save a
piece from immediate capture, but I don't remember. I know all this is
terribly vague for any sort of *analysis* but I was rather hoping that
it might "ring a bell", so to speak, i.e., result in an identification.
M.A.
David Richerby wrote:
> k Adkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The other day I played a game on Yahoo with someone who was only rated
> > in the low 1200s despite having won about 60 percent of about 2,100
> > non-draw, non-abandoned games. My exact memories are hazy, but it
> > began something like: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Bc5 3 Nxe5 and then (I think) he
> > brought his queen out; I moved my knight to d3 (maybe) to threaten his
> > bishop, and then he either moved the queen again or brought out a
> > knight (or maybe he brought out the knight first, then the queen), but
> > in any case he left his bishop wide open for capture, and I captured
> > it.
>
> It doesn't sound like a standard line. 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.Nf3 Qxe4+ 5.Be2 d6
> 6.Nc3 Qe7 7.d4 looks good for White. Regardless of where Black's queen
> goes on move 3, 4.Nd3 is poor as, when Black moves the bishop away:
>
> 1) White's queen's bishop is blocked in;
> 2) White's e4 pawn is now very weak as it can't be defended by d2-d3;
> 3) White can't exploit his central pawn advantage by playing d2-d4.
>
> Any rule of thumb in chess has exceptions but I can't think of many for
> ``In the opening, it's really bad for White to have a minor piece on d3/e3
> in front of the d2/e2 pawn and symmetrically for Black.'' The only one
> that comes to mind is that, in the Sicilian Dragon, Black often has the
> pawn structure h7, g6, f7, e7, d7 with the bishops on g7 and e6. Here,
> though, Black's king's bishop is already developed, he's not aiming for
> the e5-d5 pawn centre and putting a pawn to e6 would block in the queen's
> bishop
>
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Indelible Microsoft Radio (TM): it's
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a radio that's really hard to
> use but it can't be erased!
|
| | |
Date: 15 Jun 2005 21:24:37
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Identify this crazy opening
|
In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] wrote:
> I know all this is
> terribly vague for any sort of *analysis* but I was rather hoping that
> it might "ring a bell", so to speak, i.e., result in an identification.
It doesn't sound like something that has a name, but rather a risky
unsound gambit which you justified by your play. People do this sort of
thing all the time.
Generally, it's really only the good and/or popular openings that have
names. After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5?! 3.Nxe5 Qf6 (or Qh4) 4.Nd3 you're on
your own.
3. ... Qe7 or Qf6, the simple Nf3 is probably best, and on 3....Qh4
4.Qf3 (which immediately creates a mate threat of your own) should solve
all of your problems. He's down a center pawn for insufficient
compensation - finish your development, castle, and you'll be fine.
People play these moves with the hope of discombobulating their
opponents into bad moves. There's no reason this opening should give
black a series of meaningful threats, but you have to not panic.
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 15 Jun 2005 07:42:30
From:
Subject: Re: Identify this crazy opening
|
Or: 1.e4 e5, 2. Nf3 Bc5, 3.Ne5 Qe7, 4.d4
|
| |
Date: 15 Jun 2005 15:20:26
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Identify this crazy opening
|
k Adkins <[email protected] > wrote:
> The other day I played a game on Yahoo with someone who was only rated
> in the low 1200s despite having won about 60 percent of about 2,100
> non-draw, non-abandoned games. My exact memories are hazy, but it
> began something like: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Bc5 3 Nxe5 and then (I think) he
> brought his queen out; I moved my knight to d3 (maybe) to threaten his
> bishop, and then he either moved the queen again or brought out a
> knight (or maybe he brought out the knight first, then the queen), but
> in any case he left his bishop wide open for capture, and I captured
> it.
It doesn't sound like a standard line. 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.Nf3 Qxe4+ 5.Be2 d6
6.Nc3 Qe7 7.d4 looks good for White. Regardless of where Black's queen
goes on move 3, 4.Nd3 is poor as, when Black moves the bishop away:
1) White's queen's bishop is blocked in;
2) White's e4 pawn is now very weak as it can't be defended by d2-d3;
3) White can't exploit his central pawn advantage by playing d2-d4.
Any rule of thumb in chess has exceptions but I can't think of many for
``In the opening, it's really bad for White to have a minor piece on d3/e3
in front of the d2/e2 pawn and symmetrically for Black.'' The only one
that comes to mind is that, in the Sicilian Dragon, Black often has the
pawn structure h7, g6, f7, e7, d7 with the bishops on g7 and e6. Here,
though, Black's king's bishop is already developed, he's not aiming for
the e5-d5 pawn centre and putting a pawn to e6 would block in the queen's
bishop
Dave.
--
David Richerby Indelible Microsoft Radio (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a radio that's really hard to
use but it can't be erased!
|
| | |
Date: 15 Jun 2005 16:22:50
From: Toni Lassila
Subject: Re: Identify this crazy opening
|
On 15 Jun 2005 15:20:26 +0100 (BST), David Richerby
<[email protected] > wrote:
>k Adkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The other day I played a game on Yahoo with someone who was only rated
>> in the low 1200s despite having won about 60 percent of about 2,100
>> non-draw, non-abandoned games. My exact memories are hazy, but it
>> began something like: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Bc5 3 Nxe5 and then (I think) he
>> brought his queen out; I moved my knight to d3 (maybe) to threaten his
>> bishop, and then he either moved the queen again or brought out a
>> knight (or maybe he brought out the knight first, then the queen), but
>> in any case he left his bishop wide open for capture, and I captured
>> it.
>
>It doesn't sound like a standard line. 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.Nf3 Qxe4+ 5.Be2 d6
>6.Nc3 Qe7 7.d4 looks good for White. Regardless of where Black's queen
>goes on move 3, 4.Nd3 is poor as, when Black moves the bishop away:
Of course Black can try 3...Bxf2+?! 4. Kxf2 Qh4+, when 5. g3 Qxe4
is adequately met by 6. Qe2! and 6...Qxh1? 7. Bg2 wins
(Krejcik-Baumgartner, 1914).
--
King's Gambit - http://kingsgambit.blogspot.com
Chess problems, tactics, analysis and more.
|
| |
Date: 15 Jun 2005 04:43:13
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Identify this crazy opening
|
> The other day I played a game on Yahoo with someone who was only rated
> in the low 1200s despite having won about 60 percent of about 2,100
> non-draw, non-abandoned games. My exact memories are hazy, but it
> began something like: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Bc5 3 Nxe5 and then (I think) he
> brought his queen out; I moved my knight to d3 (maybe) to threaten his
> bishop, and then he either moved the queen again or brought out a
> knight (or maybe he brought out the knight first, then the queen), but
> in any case he left his bishop wide open for capture, and I captured
> it.
>
> OK, so far this doesn't sound like an opening at all but merely
> purblind play on his part. Then all hell broke loose, as he used his
> queen, supplemented by a knight and maybe other pieces later, launching
> a long, nearly continuous series of checks of my king, all rather
> skillful, which I just managed to fend off by the skin of my teeth.
>
> Because (after his initial few moves) his play throughout the game was
> so competent (barring a couple of questionable but by no means
> irresponsible moves), I wondered if perhaps this was one of those
> "crazy" openings meant to lure players into a difficult position by
> offering a couple of easy captures. If so, what is its name and
> history?
>
> The notion also occurred to me that the account was one he had created
> to test out crazy lines like this, but that's just a notion. I know
> Eric Schiller has written a large book called Unorthodox Chess
> Openings, and a good player might not want to jeopardize his rating by
> testing them with his normal account. It was certainly an interesting
> game.
Sounds like a Bishop's opening with colors reversed.
--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Four FREE books on how to get laid by beautiful women
Seduction Made Easy: http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Get this book FREE when you purchase ANY affiliated product!
Visit our FREE SPEECH SEDUCTION REVIEW message boards at:
http://cybersheet.com/eve/ubb.x
Compare over a dozen different seduction e-books and get SME for FREE if you
buy!
http://www.cybersheet.com/chess.html
Free Chess E-book: Train Like A Chess Champion
Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
|
|
