| |
Main
Date: 25 Nov 2005 15:27:07
From: bellatori
Subject: Bird's Opening & Dutch
|
After a 25 year lay off I came back to chess through CC. I have just found
my first game which was, funnily enough Bird's Opening. I am not vain
enough to include it because, truth to say it was not very good. What
provoked this thread was a sudden realisation that no-one really plays it
earnestly but my favourite defence to QP opening at the moment is the
Leningrad Dutch which seems to be fairly sharp and is occasionally essayed
by the likes of Kramnik and Kasparov. So 1.f4 d4 is viewed fairly
negatively but 1.d4 f5 has a reaonable reputation particularly as a
fighting defence.
So its a fighting defence but a passive opening. Is it just me or does it
strike anyone else as rather surprising?
Bellatori
|
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 2005 12:34:21
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Bird's Opening & Dutch
|
bellatori <[email protected] > wrote:
> What provoked this thread was a sudden realisation that no-one
> really plays [the Dutch] earnestly but my favourite defence to QP
> opening at the moment is the Leningrad Dutch which seems to be fairly
> sharp and is occasionally essayed by the likes of Kramnik and
> Kasparov.
The problem with the Dutch in general (and, especially, the Stonewall) is
that it's hard to get the black queenside into the game.
> So 1.f4 d4 is viewed fairly negatively but 1.d4 f5 has a reaonable
> reputation particularly as a fighting defence.
>
> So its a fighting defence but a passive opening. Is it just me or does
> it strike anyone else as rather surprising?
No, it's actually quite common. The King's Indian Attack is much more
passive than the King's Indian Defence. You might imagine that, since in
the Sicilian, it's often the case that every tempo is vital, playing 1.c5
e4 would lead to a trivial win for White (all that Sicilian counter-
attacking goodness with an extra tempo to boot!) but it's actually one of
the most boring and drawish openings there is.
I'm not exactly sure why this should be.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Miniature Shack (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ house in the woods but you can hold
in it your hand!
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 15:22:43
From: Toni Lassila
Subject: Re: Bird's Opening & Dutch
|
On 02 Dec 2005 12:34:21 +0000 (GMT), David Richerby
<[email protected] > wrote:
>No, it's actually quite common. The King's Indian Attack is much more
>passive than the King's Indian Defence. You might imagine that, since in
>the Sicilian, it's often the case that every tempo is vital, playing 1.c5
>e4 would lead to a trivial win for White (all that Sicilian counter-
>attacking goodness with an extra tempo to boot!) but it's actually one of
>the most boring and drawish openings there is.
I don't think for example 1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.e4 d6
6.d3 h5 is boring at all.
>I'm not exactly sure why this should be.
I've sometimes heard the explanation that White's "extra tempo" forces
him to show his hand prematurely allowing Black to counter better.
That sounds like rubbish to me. More likely the Black player concedes
that he shouldn't try his luck playing like he was on the white side
of an Open Sicilian since he's effectively a tempo down if he tries
that, so he opts for a less forceful and more positional system.
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 20:28:00
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Bird's Opening & Dutch
|
>>No, it's actually quite common. The King's Indian Attack is much more
>>passive than the King's Indian Defence. You might imagine that, since in
>>the Sicilian, it's often the case that every tempo is vital, playing 1.c5
>>e4 would lead to a trivial win for White (all that Sicilian counter-
>>attacking goodness with an extra tempo to boot!) but it's actually one of
>>the most boring and drawish openings there is.
>
> I don't think for example 1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.e4 d6
> 6.d3 h5 is boring at all.
>
>>I'm not exactly sure why this should be.
>
> I've sometimes heard the explanation that White's "extra tempo" forces
> him to show his hand prematurely allowing Black to counter better.
> That sounds like rubbish to me. More likely the Black player concedes
> that he shouldn't try his luck playing like he was on the white side
> of an Open Sicilian since he's effectively a tempo down if he tries
> that, so he opts for a less forceful and more positional system.
You forget that White's extra tempo helps him in the quest for...equality,
which is "sharp" for black because White's goal is to win.
If you give White the extra tempo, but Black the setup commonly associated
with White -- i.e., one rank of greater space, and greater occupation of the
center, White needs the extra tempo to reach the equality that Black never
quite achieves.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Dec 2005 21:38:41
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Bird's Opening & Dutch
|
>> What provoked this thread was a sudden realisation that no-one
>> really plays [the Dutch] earnestly but my favourite defence to QP
>> opening at the moment is the Leningrad Dutch which seems to be fairly
>> sharp and is occasionally essayed by the likes of Kramnik and
>> Kasparov.
>
> The problem with the Dutch in general (and, especially, the Stonewall) is
> that it's hard to get the black queenside into the game.
>
>
>> So 1.f4 d4 is viewed fairly negatively but 1.d4 f5 has a reaonable
>> reputation particularly as a fighting defence.
>>
>> So its a fighting defence but a passive opening. Is it just me or does
>> it strike anyone else as rather surprising?
>
> No, it's actually quite common. The King's Indian Attack is much more
> passive than the King's Indian Defence. You might imagine that, since in
> the Sicilian, it's often the case that every tempo is vital, playing 1.c5
> e4 would lead to a trivial win for White (all that Sicilian counter-
> attacking goodness with an extra tempo to boot!) but it's actually one of
> the most boring and drawish openings there is.
>
> I'm not exactly sure why this should be.
Because the added tempo gives "black" enough for equality, nothing more.
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 10:16:25
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Bird's Opening & Dutch
|
Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> The King's Indian Attack is much more passive than the King's Indian
>> Defence. You might imagine that, since in the Sicilian, it's often the
>> case that every tempo is vital, playing 1.c5 e4 would lead to a trivial
>> win for White (all that Sicilian counter-attacking goodness with an
>> extra tempo to boot!) but it's actually one of the most boring and
>> drawish openings there is.
>>
>> I'm not exactly sure why this should be.
>
> Because the added tempo gives "black" enough for equality, nothing more.
That doesn't make sense. The Sicilian is (often) a very sharp opening
where every tempo matters. If having an extra tempo (i.e., playing the
1.c4 e5 English) is only enough for equality, black not having that tempo
(i.e., playing the Sicilian) should be a dead loss. But it isn't.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Poisonous Sushi (TM): it's like a raw
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ fish but it'll kill you in seconds!
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 20:25:55
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Bird's Opening & Dutch
|
>>> Defence. You might imagine that, since in the Sicilian, it's often the
>>> case that every tempo is vital, playing 1.c5 e4 would lead to a trivial
>>> win for White (all that Sicilian counter-attacking goodness with an
>>> extra tempo to boot!) but it's actually one of the most boring and
>>> drawish openings there is.
>>>
>>> I'm not exactly sure why this should be.
>>
>> Because the added tempo gives "black" enough for equality, nothing more.
>
> That doesn't make sense. The Sicilian is (often) a very sharp opening
> where every tempo matters. If having an extra tempo (i.e., playing the
> 1.c4 e5 English) is only enough for equality, black not having that tempo
> (i.e., playing the Sicilian) should be a dead loss. But it isn't.
Black doesn't lose a tempo unless he moves a piece twice. I was talking
about openings which are sharp for black but dead equal when reversed.
|
|
