| |
Main
Date: 05 Oct 2004 05:11:04
From: levellerman
Subject: Stoenwall from QGD
|
Hi, I have a question for the Stonewall's theory specialists.
I do not play it but I vaguely know that a usual way to get the
Stonewall
while avoiding the messy anti-Dutch gambits (1.d4-f5
2.e4,Nc3,h3,g4,Bg5 ..)
is via Slav ( Meran) or QGD :
1.d4-d5 2.c4-e(c)6 3.Nc3-c(e)6 4.Nf3-f5..
which leaves open the over analyzed gambit
4.e4-d:e4 5.Ne4-Bb4+ 6.Bd2-Q:d4..a variation that was popular during
the '50s-'60s
Now my question : Is there any reason for avoiding the direct :
1.d4-d5 2.c4-e6 3.Nc3-f5 !?
This should lead also to the Stonewall in the end in my opinion
(4.Nf3-c6 ..etc )
Is there something which I miss ? perhaps 4. c:d5-e:d5 followed
immediately by the Bd3-Qc2 setup pressing on f5 ? Or what ?
Thanks,
Lev
(2260 ELO )
|
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2004 16:00:10
From: Ed Gaillard
Subject: Re: Stoenwall from QGD
|
In article <[email protected] >,
levellerman <[email protected] > wrote:
>
>Now my question : Is there any reason for avoiding the direct :
>
>1.d4-d5 2.c4-e6 3.Nc3-f5 !?
I used to play the Stonewall quite a lot, though that was many years
ago. Black usually wants to avoid committing himself to the Stonewall
before White plays Nf3, because the development Nh3 followed by Nf4 is
favorable to White. Whether that's worse than allowing the gambit
lines against the Dutch or Semi-Slav move orders is a matter of taste,
I guess.
-ed g.
(2160 ELO)
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2004 16:41:44
From: Jostein
Subject: Re: Stoenwall from QGD
|
On 2004-10-05 14:11:04 +0200, [email protected] (levellerman) said:
> Hi, I have a question for the Stonewall's theory specialists.
>
> I do not play it but I vaguely know that a usual way to get the
> Stonewall
> while avoiding the messy anti-Dutch gambits (1.d4-f5
> 2.e4,Nc3,h3,g4,Bg5 ..)
> is via Slav ( Meran) or QGD :
>
> 1.d4-d5 2.c4-e(c)6 3.Nc3-c(e)6 4.Nf3-f5..
>
> which leaves open the over analyzed gambit 4.e4-d:e4 5.Ne4-Bb4+
> 6.Bd2-Q:d4..a variation that was popular during
> the '50s-'60s
>
> Now my question : Is there any reason for avoiding the direct :
>
> 1.d4-d5 2.c4-e6 3.Nc3-f5 !?
>
>
> This should lead also to the Stonewall in the end in my opinion
> (4.Nf3-c6 ..etc )
> Is there something which I miss ? perhaps 4. c:d5-e:d5 followed
> immediately by the Bd3-Qc2 setup pressing on f5 ? Or what ?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lev
>
> (2260 ELO )
It is playable, but a good player gets a positional advantage by Bf4!
This is why it is not played.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Oct 2004 15:17:56
From: Luigi Caselli
Subject: Re: Stoenwall from QGD
|
"Jostein" <[email protected] > ha scritto nel messaggio
news:2004100516414416807%whatever@nospamorg...
> On 2004-10-05 14:11:04 +0200, [email protected] (levellerman) said:
>
> > Hi, I have a question for the Stonewall's theory specialists.
> >
> > I do not play it but I vaguely know that a usual way to get the
> > Stonewall
> > while avoiding the messy anti-Dutch gambits (1.d4-f5
> > 2.e4,Nc3,h3,g4,Bg5 ..)
> > is via Slav ( Meran) or QGD :
> >
> > 1.d4-d5 2.c4-e(c)6 3.Nc3-c(e)6 4.Nf3-f5..
> >
> > which leaves open the over analyzed gambit 4.e4-d:e4 5.Ne4-Bb4+
> > 6.Bd2-Q:d4..a variation that was popular during
> > the '50s-'60s
> >
> > Now my question : Is there any reason for avoiding the direct :
> >
> > 1.d4-d5 2.c4-e6 3.Nc3-f5 !?
> >
> >
> > This should lead also to the Stonewall in the end in my opinion
> > (4.Nf3-c6 ..etc )
> > Is there something which I miss ? perhaps 4. c:d5-e:d5 followed
> > immediately by the Bd3-Qc2 setup pressing on f5 ? Or what ?
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Lev
> >
> > (2260 ELO )
>
> It is playable, but a good player gets a positional advantage by Bf4!
> This is why it is not played.
But you can play Bf4 also against the classic Stonewall and it's not so
strong.
Theory reccomends the plan with g3 - Bg2 and so on...
Luigi Caselli
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Oct 2004 00:21:01
From: Jostein
Subject: Re: Stoenwall from QGD
|
On 2004-10-05 17:17:56 +0200, "Luigi Caselli"
<[email protected] > said:
> "Jostein" <[email protected]> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:2004100516414416807%whatever@nospamorg...
>> On 2004-10-05 14:11:04 +0200, [email protected] (levellerman) said:
>>
>>> Hi, I have a question for the Stonewall's theory specialists.
>>>
>>> I do not play it but I vaguely know that a usual way to get the
>>> Stonewall
>>> while avoiding the messy anti-Dutch gambits (1.d4-f5
>>> 2.e4,Nc3,h3,g4,Bg5 ..)
>>> is via Slav ( Meran) or QGD :
>>>
>>> 1.d4-d5 2.c4-e(c)6 3.Nc3-c(e)6 4.Nf3-f5..
>>>
>>> which leaves open the over analyzed gambit 4.e4-d:e4 5.Ne4-Bb4+
>>> 6.Bd2-Q:d4..a variation that was popular during
>>> the '50s-'60s
>>>
>>> Now my question : Is there any reason for avoiding the direct :
>>>
>>> 1.d4-d5 2.c4-e6 3.Nc3-f5 !?
>>>
>>>
>>> This should lead also to the Stonewall in the end in my opinion
>>> (4.Nf3-c6 ..etc )
>>> Is there something which I miss ? perhaps 4. c:d5-e:d5 followed
>>> immediately by the Bd3-Qc2 setup pressing on f5 ? Or what ?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Lev
>>>
>>> (2260 ELO )
>>
>> It is playable, but a good player gets a positional advantage by Bf4!
>> This is why it is not played.
>
> But you can play Bf4 also against the classic Stonewall and it's not so
> strong.
> Theory reccomends the plan with g3 - Bg2 and so on...
>
> Luigi Caselli
It is indeed true that the plan with g3 Bg2 is recomended against
Stonewall, but your moveorder gives white a possibility the other
moveorder denies him - and that is to play Bf4 (and not fianchetto). In
the normal moveorder, if white plays Bf4 black can punishes that by
playing d6 instead of d5 and hit the bishop with e5.
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Oct 2004 00:33:52
From: Jostein
Subject: Re: Stoenwall from QGD
|
On 2004-10-06 00:21:01 +0200, Jostein <[email protected] > said:
> On 2004-10-05 17:17:56 +0200, "Luigi Caselli"
> <[email protected]> said:
>
>> "Jostein" <[email protected]> ha scritto nel messaggio
>> news:2004100516414416807%whatever@nospamorg...
>>> On 2004-10-05 14:11:04 +0200, [email protected] (levellerman) said:
>>>
>>>> Hi, I have a question for the Stonewall's theory specialists.
>>>>
>>>> I do not play it but I vaguely know that a usual way to get the
>>>> Stonewall
>>>> while avoiding the messy anti-Dutch gambits (1.d4-f5
>>>> 2.e4,Nc3,h3,g4,Bg5 ..)
>>>> is via Slav ( Meran) or QGD :
>>>>
>>>> 1.d4-d5 2.c4-e(c)6 3.Nc3-c(e)6 4.Nf3-f5..
>>>>
>>>> which leaves open the over analyzed gambit 4.e4-d:e4 5.Ne4-Bb4+
>>>> 6.Bd2-Q:d4..a variation that was popular during
>>>> the '50s-'60s
>>>>
>>>> Now my question : Is there any reason for avoiding the direct :
>>>>
>>>> 1.d4-d5 2.c4-e6 3.Nc3-f5 !?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This should lead also to the Stonewall in the end in my opinion
>>>> (4.Nf3-c6 ..etc )
>>>> Is there something which I miss ? perhaps 4. c:d5-e:d5 followed
>>>> immediately by the Bd3-Qc2 setup pressing on f5 ? Or what ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Lev
>>>>
>>>> (2260 ELO )
>>>
>>> It is playable, but a good player gets a positional advantage by Bf4!
>>> This is why it is not played.
>>
>> But you can play Bf4 also against the classic Stonewall and it's not so
>> strong.
>> Theory reccomends the plan with g3 - Bg2 and so on...
>>
>> Luigi Caselli
>
> It is indeed true that the plan with g3 Bg2 is recomended against
> Stonewall, but your moveorder gives white a possibility the other
> moveorder denies him - and that is to play Bf4 (and not fianchetto). In
> the normal moveorder, if white plays Bf4 black can punishes that by
> playing d6 instead of d5 and hit the bishop with e5.
It is better if to write that the plan with g3 and Bg2 is recomended
against the dutch defence). However if white can avoid playing g3 and
Bg2 against Stonewall, this will be to his advantage. In the normal
moveorder black does not play d5 before whit commits himself with g3.
The bishop on g2 is will usually not be very good with black pawns on
f5, d5, c6 and e6. The poor bishop on g2 (and space) is what black gets
for weakening e5.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Oct 2004 03:06:53
From: Jostein
Subject: Re: Stoenwall from QGD
|
On 2004-10-06 00:33:52 +0200, Jostein <[email protected] > said:
> On 2004-10-06 00:21:01 +0200, Jostein <[email protected]> said:
>
>> On 2004-10-05 17:17:56 +0200, "Luigi Caselli"
>> <[email protected]> said:
>>
>>> "Jostein" <[email protected]> ha scritto nel messaggio
>>> news:2004100516414416807%whatever@nospamorg...
>>>> On 2004-10-05 14:11:04 +0200, [email protected] (levellerman) said:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi, I have a question for the Stonewall's theory specialists.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not play it but I vaguely know that a usual way to get the
>>>>> Stonewall
>>>>> while avoiding the messy anti-Dutch gambits (1.d4-f5
>>>>> 2.e4,Nc3,h3,g4,Bg5 ..)
>>>>> is via Slav ( Meran) or QGD :
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.d4-d5 2.c4-e(c)6 3.Nc3-c(e)6 4.Nf3-f5..
>>>>>
>>>>> which leaves open the over analyzed gambit 4.e4-d:e4 5.Ne4-Bb4+
>>>>> 6.Bd2-Q:d4..a variation that was popular during
>>>>> the '50s-'60s
>>>>>
>>>>> Now my question : Is there any reason for avoiding the direct :
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.d4-d5 2.c4-e6 3.Nc3-f5 !?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This should lead also to the Stonewall in the end in my opinion
>>>>> (4.Nf3-c6 ..etc )
>>>>> Is there something which I miss ? perhaps 4. c:d5-e:d5 followed
>>>>> immediately by the Bd3-Qc2 setup pressing on f5 ? Or what ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Lev
>>>>>
>>>>> (2260 ELO )
>>>>
>>>> It is playable, but a good player gets a positional advantage by Bf4!
>>>> This is why it is not played.
>>>
>>> But you can play Bf4 also against the classic Stonewall and it's not so
>>> strong.
>>> Theory reccomends the plan with g3 - Bg2 and so on...
>>>
>>> Luigi Caselli
>>
>> It is indeed true that the plan with g3 Bg2 is recomended against
>> Stonewall, but your moveorder gives white a possibility the other
>> moveorder denies him - and that is to play Bf4 (and not fianchetto). In
>> the normal moveorder, if white plays Bf4 black can punishes that by
>> playing d6 instead of d5 and hit the bishop with e5.
>
> It is better if to write that the plan with g3 and Bg2 is recomended
> against the dutch defence). However if white can avoid playing g3 and
> Bg2 against Stonewall, this will be to his advantage. In the normal
> moveorder black does not play d5 before whit commits himself with g3.
> The bishop on g2 is will usually not be very good with black pawns on
> f5, d5, c6 and e6. The poor bishop on g2 (and space) is what black gets
> for weakening e5.
To make my meaning clearer:
- The moveorder suggested allows white to put a bishop on f4 and he has
not commited himself to a fiachetto. One of the reasons for playing d5,
and thereby weakening e5, is that black thereby "takes out" the g2
bishop. If black does not gain the inactive white bishop Stonewall
makes less sense.
- In regular Stonewall , with g3, Bf4 is a good idea (to exchange
whites bad bishop against blacks good) despite the price of a weakende
pawnstructure (Bd6xf4 gxf4). If white gets in Bf4, first ,however he
rules out Bd6xf4.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Oct 2004 23:32:25
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Stoenwall from QGD
|
En/na Jostein ha escrit:
>>>>> On 2004-10-05 14:11:04 +0200, [email protected]
>>>>> (levellerman) said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi, I have a question for the Stonewall's theory specialists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not play it but I vaguely know that a usual way to get the
>>>>>> Stonewall while avoiding the messy anti-Dutch gambits (1.d4-f5
>>>>>> 2.e4,Nc3,h3,g4,Bg5 ..)
>>>>>> is via Slav ( Meran) or QGD :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.d4-d5 2.c4-e(c)6 3.Nc3-c(e)6 4.Nf3-f5..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> which leaves open the over analyzed gambit 4.e4-d:e4 5.Ne4-Bb4+
>>>>>> 6.Bd2-Q:d4..a variation that was popular during the '50s-'60s
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now my question : Is there any reason for avoiding the direct :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.d4-d5 2.c4-e6 3.Nc3-f5 !?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This should lead also to the Stonewall in the end in my opinion
>>>>>> (4.Nf3-c6 ..etc )
>>>>>> Is there something which I miss ? perhaps 4. c:d5-e:d5 followed
>>>>>> immediately by the Bd3-Qc2 setup pressing on f5 ? Or what ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lev
>>>>>> (2260 ELO )
>>>>>
>>>>> It is playable, but a good player gets a positional advantage by Bf4!
>>>>> This is why it is not played.
>
> To make my meaning clearer:
> - The moveorder suggested allows white to put a bishop on f4 and he has
> not commited himself to a fiachetto. One of the reasons for playing d5,
> and thereby weakening e5, is that black thereby "takes out" the g2
> bishop. If black does not gain the inactive white bishop Stonewall makes
> less sense.
> - In regular Stonewall , with g3, Bf4 is a good idea (to exchange whites
> bad bishop against blacks good) despite the price of a weakende
> pawnstructure (Bd6xf4 gxf4). If white gets in Bf4, first ,however he
> rules out Bd6xf4.
I agree, ... I remember vaguely that after 1.d4-d5 2.c4-e6 3.Nc3-f5
- The setup 4.Bf4, 5.e3, 6.Bd3, 7.Nge2, 8.f3 is annoying for black
- 4.Bf4, 5.e3, 6.Bd3, 7.Nf3 is also possible (one difference is when
white has to exchange in d6 after ...Bd6).
- The setup 4.e3, 5.Bd3, 6.Nge2, 7.f3 is interesting too.
A search in databases shows Jostein perception, ... in most games in
main Stonewall Black plays ...d5 after white has played g3.
AT
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2004 13:04:24
From: Jostein
Subject: Re: Stoenwall from QGD
|
On 2004-10-06 23:32:25 +0200, Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected] > said:
> En/na Jostein ha escrit:
>>>>>> On 2004-10-05 14:11:04 +0200, [email protected] (levellerman) said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi, I have a question for the Stonewall's theory specialists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do not play it but I vaguely know that a usual way to get the
>>>>>>> Stonewall while avoiding the messy anti-Dutch gambits (1.d4-f5
>>>>>>> 2.e4,Nc3,h3,g4,Bg5 ..)
>>>>>>> is via Slav ( Meran) or QGD :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1.d4-d5 2.c4-e(c)6 3.Nc3-c(e)6 4.Nf3-f5..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which leaves open the over analyzed gambit 4.e4-d:e4 5.Ne4-Bb4+
>>>>>>> 6.Bd2-Q:d4..a variation that was popular during the '50s-'60s
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now my question : Is there any reason for avoiding the direct :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1.d4-d5 2.c4-e6 3.Nc3-f5 !?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This should lead also to the Stonewall in the end in my opinion
>>>>>>> (4.Nf3-c6 ..etc )
>>>>>>> Is there something which I miss ? perhaps 4. c:d5-e:d5 followed
>>>>>>> immediately by the Bd3-Qc2 setup pressing on f5 ? Or what ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lev
>>>>>>> (2260 ELO )
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is playable, but a good player gets a positional advantage by Bf4!
>>>>>> This is why it is not played.
>>
>> To make my meaning clearer:
>> - The moveorder suggested allows white to put a bishop on f4 and he has
>> not commited himself to a fiachetto. One of the reasons for playing d5,
>> and thereby weakening e5, is that black thereby "takes out" the g2
>> bishop. If black does not gain the inactive white bishop Stonewall
>> makes less sense.
>> - In regular Stonewall , with g3, Bf4 is a good idea (to exchange
>> whites bad bishop against blacks good) despite the price of a weakende
>> pawnstructure (Bd6xf4 gxf4). If white gets in Bf4, first ,however he
>> rules out Bd6xf4.
>
> (...)
> - The setup 4.Bf4, 5.e3, 6.Bd3, 7.Nge2, 8.f3 is annoying for black
> - 4.Bf4, 5.e3, 6.Bd3, 7.Nf3 is also possible (one difference is when
> white has to exchange in d6 after ...Bd6).
Yes. Both looks very good.
The person suggesting the Stonewall from Slav didn�t like playing
against gambits, so I guess I would have played Nf3 toying with the
idea of a h3 g4 sacrifice (and long castling).
> - The setup 4.e3, 5.Bd3, 6.Nge2, 7.f3 is interesting too.
I see no reason to not to play Bf4 when black has weakend e5 with f5
and d5. Bf4 is good as it prevents Bd6, and also a potential e6-e5.
> (...)
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2004 12:56:08
From: Luigi Caselli
Subject: Re: Stoenwall from QGD
|
"levellerman" <[email protected] > ha scritto nel messaggio
news:[email protected]...
> Hi, I have a question for the Stonewall's theory specialists.
>
> I do not play it but I vaguely know that a usual way to get the
> Stonewall
> while avoiding the messy anti-Dutch gambits (1.d4-f5
> 2.e4,Nc3,h3,g4,Bg5 ..)
> is via Slav ( Meran) or QGD :
>
> 1.d4-d5 2.c4-e(c)6 3.Nc3-c(e)6 4.Nf3-f5..
>
> which leaves open the over analyzed gambit
> 4.e4-d:e4 5.Ne4-Bb4+ 6.Bd2-Q:d4..a variation that was popular during
> the '50s-'60s
>
> Now my question : Is there any reason for avoiding the direct :
>
> 1.d4-d5 2.c4-e6 3.Nc3-f5 !?
>
>
> This should lead also to the Stonewall in the end in my opinion
> (4.Nf3-c6 ..etc )
>
> Is there something which I miss ? perhaps 4. c:d5-e:d5 followed
> immediately by the Bd3-Qc2 setup pressing on f5 ? Or what ?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lev
>
> (2260 ELO )
IMHO is playable, if you like the Stonewall, and in this way you can avoid
almost any gambit.
The only one White can play is 1.d4-d5 2.c4-e6 3.Nc3-f5 4.g4!? (or 4.h3 and
then g4).
Otherwise White plays 4.Nf3 or 4.g3 or 4.Bf4 and you can play the Stonewall.
The move 4.cxd5 doesn't change the type of position.
Luigi Caselli
(MF 2282 ELO)
|
| | |
Date: 06 Oct 2004 10:13:26
From: levellerman
Subject: Re: Stoenwall from QGD
|
"Luigi Caselli" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> IMHO is playable, if you like the Stonewall, and in this way you can avoid
> almost any gambit.
> The only one White can play is 1.d4-d5 2.c4-e6 3.Nc3-f5 4.g4!? (or 4.h3 and
> then g4).
> Otherwise White plays 4.Nf3 or 4.g3 or 4.Bf4 and you can play the Stonewall.
> The move 4.cxd5 doesn't change the type of position.
>
> Luigi Caselli
> (MF 2282 ELO)
Thanks for the reply.
In the mean time I did a database search and yes it has been played to
reach the Stonewall and it is still not "gambit proof".
The most often seen gambit runs as following :
1.d4-d5 2.c4-e6 3.Nc3-f5 5.e4 !?-d:e4 6.Bc4 ! cutting the king and
followed by Nh3-f4 or Nh3-g5-f7 and Qb3 with attack.
Lev
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Oct 2004 20:50:37
From: Luigi Caselli
Subject: Re: Stoenwall from QGD
|
"levellerman" <[email protected] > ha scritto nel messaggio
news:[email protected]...
> "Luigi Caselli" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected] >...
> > IMHO is playable, if you like the Stonewall, and in this way you can
avoid
> > almost any gambit.
> > The only one White can play is 1.d4-d5 2.c4-e6 3.Nc3-f5 4.g4!? (or 4.h3
and
> > then g4).
> > Otherwise White plays 4.Nf3 or 4.g3 or 4.Bf4 and you can play the
Stonewall.
> > The move 4.cxd5 doesn't change the type of position.
> >
> > Luigi Caselli
> > (MF 2282 ELO)
>
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> In the mean time I did a database search and yes it has been played to
> reach the Stonewall and it is still not "gambit proof".
> The most often seen gambit runs as following :
>
> 1.d4-d5 2.c4-e6 3.Nc3-f5 5.e4 !?-d:e4 6.Bc4 ! cutting the king and
> followed by Nh3-f4 or Nh3-g5-f7 and Qb3 with attack.
>
> Lev
Interesting idea, I have to check this variation because it seems dangerous.
What other gambits have you seen except 5.e4 and 5.g4?
Luigi Caselli
|
|
