| |
Main
Date: 13 Nov 2006 01:56:58
From: jsfromynr
Subject: Center Counter
|
Hello All!!
Playing 1...d5 against 1.e4
Masters say that against 1.e4 if Black can play d5 later he can obtain
equal game.
e.g in Scotch game
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. d4 exd4
4. Nxd4 Nf6
5. Bc4 d5!!
If playing d5 equalizes the game then why not play center counter 1.e4
d5 to obtain equality on first move.
With Warm regards
Jatinder Singh
|
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 15:24:52
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
> En/na Nick ha escrit:
> > David Richerby wrote (to Ray Gordon):
> >>
> >>What about it, lever-boy? Rule of thumb is that there's no point
> >>pinning the knight unless White has committed to castling short:
> >>why do you think this position is an exception to the rule of thumb?
> >
> > Where exactly did David Richerby learn this 'rule of thumb'?
> >
> > Given the lack of chess books available to me when I began
> > to learn chess, I suspect that I have memorised fewer
> > 'wise' precepts than David Richerby has about chess.
> > A friend of mine (who's graded nearly 200 ECF) has
> > informed me that he's not previously heard of the
> > 'rule of thumb' cited by David Richerby.
> >
> > After I read David Richerby's cited 'rule of thumb', this
> > Caro-Kann variation promptly came to my mind
> > (from my memory of Fischer-Petrosian, Bled 1961):
> >
> > 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dxe4 4 Nxe4 Nd7 5 Nf3 Ngf6
> > 6 Nxf6+ Nxf6 7 Bc4 Bf5 8 Qe2 e6 9 Bg5 Bg4
> > (...)
>
> I asume you are showing us an exception to a general rule.
In Fischer-Petrosian (Bled 1961) 9...Bg4 should be
considered an exception to general opening principles.
> I have usually teach beginners and intermediate players
> (I asume intermediate can mean a different for some of us)
> and I have explained general rules I do not follow in my games.
>
> Imagine you are teaching to beginners and you explain them why
> to move the same piece in the opening is bad, very bad, ... and
> later you play the poissoned pawn line in Sicilian Najdorf.
I would not encourage beginners to play an 'anti-classical'
opening such as the Sicilian Sveshnikov.
> First of all we need to learn general rules and later
> we will know when to follow them or not.
> ..............
> I do not understand completely Richard words (as I have problems to know
> what mean a 200 ECF or USCF, I only understand well FIDE ratigs)
200 ECF (English Chess Federation) converts to 2250 FIDE.
> but I think He refers to do not play a move like Bg4 if after h3 we have
> to concede the bishop pair (in a position where bishop pair is an
> advantage, of course) or we have to play Bh5 g4 Bg6 in positions where
> that gain of space is good for white (there are many positions where
> that gives advantage for white in Italian or Spanish openings including
> some special cases where white has castlled short).
>
> I think Ray never wrote anything interesting (as usual) and only
> proposed a move He do not understand if it violated a general
> principle being an exception or it was a "natural move".
I don't know why Ray Gordon wrote what he did.
I don't attempt to read Ray Gordon's mind.
> The problem was Ray not Dave, ... no matter all we
> (masters and amateurs) have doubts in almost all positions.
Originally, Ray Gordon wrote:
"What about 5...Bg4?"
I interpreted that as Ray Gordon's suggestion of 5...Bg4.
I did *not* interpret that as Ray Gordon claiming that
5...Bg4 must give Black the advantage or even that
5...Bg4 must be Black's best move.
--Nick
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 14:57:32
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
> > David Richerby wrote (to Ray Gordon):
> >> Rule of thumb is that there's no point pinning the knight unless
> >> White has committed to castling short: why do you think this
> >> position is an exception to the rule of thumb?
> >
> > Where exactly did David Richerby learn this 'rule of thumb'?
>
> As I recall, it's in Nimzowitsch's _My System_. It is explicitly
> stated in one of Dan Heisman's _Novice Nook_ columns, where it is
> attributed to Lasker:
>
> ``Don't pin the adverse king's knight to the queen before the
> opponent has castled. (One of Emmanuel Lasker's `rules'.)''
> -- http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman53.pdf (page 5)
>
> > After I read David Richerby's cited 'rule of thumb', this Caro-Kann
> > variation promptly came to my mind (from my memory of Fischer-
> > Petrosian, Bled 1961):
> >
> > 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dxe4 4 Nxe4 Nd7 5 Nf3 Ngf6
> > 6 Nxf6+ Nxf6 7 Bc4 Bf5 8 Qe2 e6 9 Bg5 Bg4
>
> Your memory of the game is correct:
> http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044008
I would hope that my memory's correct because
I have played that variation more than once. :-)
> > Although Petrosian later blundered and lost the game,
> > Fischer extolled Petrosian's move 9...Bg4.
> >
> > But 9...Bg4 violates the opening precept of "Don't move the same
> > piece twice until one has developed the other pieces" and it
> > violates David Richerby's cited 'rule of thumb' (above).
>
> A rule of thumb is something that is usually, but not always, right.
> So `Don't move the same piece twice until one has developed the other
> pieces' is also a rule of thumb. Usually, it's correct but,
> sometimes, it isn't: the fact that a rule of thumb holds true in
> general does not preclude its being false in some circumstances.
>
> However, in a position where the rule of thumb fails, there must be
> some reason why it fails (just as there must be some reason it is true
> where it is true). So, for example, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Qg5?? 3.Nxg5
> violates the not-moving-a-piece-twice rule of thumb but 3.Nxg5 is a
> good move because moving the knight for a second time brings decisive
> material gain.
>
> So, what is it about the Scandinavian position that we were initially
> discussing and also the Fischer- Petrosian position that makes ...Bg4
> good? (Or, at least, not poor.) That's all I'm asking. I'm not saying
> that these moves have to be bad -- they're clearly not, by appeal to
> authority, if nothing else. :-) I'm just asking why they're good.
With regard to the Scandinavian position, my view is that 5...Bg4 is
playable (I did not write 'good'), but that White stands slightly
better.
With regard to Fischer-Petrosian (Bled 1961), Fischer extolled
9...Bg4 for reducing White's attacking chances. You may
compare that game to the earlier Tal-Fuster (Portoroz 1958),
one of Tal's brilliant attacking wins.
--Nick
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 14:45:14
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
[email protected] wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > David Richerby wrote:
> > > Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >>> What about 5...Bg4?
> > > >> What about it, lever-boy? Rule of thumb is that there's no point
> > > >> pinning the knight unless White has committed to castling short: why
> > > >> do you think this position is an exception to the rule of thumb?
> > > >> (``Because my computer gives it the highest evaluation'' is not
> > > >> an answer.)
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps he could give an actual variation to support his claim.
> > >
> > > You're the one suggesting a move that violates general opening
> > > principles. The onus is on you to explain why it's an exception.
> >
> > In a recent game (2 September 2006) IM Viktor Yermishin,
> > as Black, played 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qa5 4 d4 c6
> > 5 Nf3 Bg4 ... and won the game.
>
> In general, ...Bg4 has the idea to get the Bishop out before playing
> ...e6. If allowed, black will continue with e6/Nf6/B-out/0-0 and if
> white h3 black will retreat Bh5-g6 if necessary and does not fear an
> exchange on g6 as that is a solid pawn structure for black.
In the cited game, IM Viktor Yermishin did *not* 'retreat Bh5-g6...'
After 6 h3 Bxf3 was played. In the (27 December 2004) game,
Mazarov-Savchenko, Viacheslav Savchenko (2406 FIDE)
also played 6...Bxf3 and won the game (albeit against
a much lower rated opponent).
On the other hand, the recent game (5 August 2006)
Torok-Radnai continued with 6 h3 Bh5 7 g4 Bg6 8 Ne5 e6
9 Nxg6 hxg6 and drawn after 15 moves.
(FM Sandor Torok's rated 2334 FIDE; Adam Radnai's
rated 2219 FIDE.)
--Nick
> Black is "ok" but behind in development, and since that is a dynamic
> advantage White needs to act quickly and try and cash in on that.
>
> http://chess-training.blogspot.com
|
| |
David Richerby wrote:
> Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
> > David Richerby wrote (to Ray Gordon):
> >> Rule of thumb is that there's no point pinning the knight unless
> >> White has committed to castling short: why do you think this
> >> position is an exception to the rule of thumb?
> >
> > Where exactly did David Richerby learn this 'rule of thumb'?
>
> As I recall, it's in Nimzowitsch's _My System_. It is explicitly
> stated in one of Dan Heisman's _Novice Nook_ columns, where it is
> attributed to Lasker:
>
> ``Don't pin the adverse king's knight to the queen before the
> opponent has castled. (One of Emmanuel Lasker's `rules'.)''
> -- http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman53.pdf (page 5)
>
>
> > After I read David Richerby's cited 'rule of thumb', this Caro-Kann
> > variation promptly came to my mind (from my memory of Fischer-
> > Petrosian, Bled 1961):
> >
> > 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dxe4 4 Nxe4 Nd7 5 Nf3 Ngf6 6 Nxf6+ Nxf6 7 Bc4
> > Bf5 8 Qe2 e6 9 Bg5 Bg4
>
> Your memory of the game is correct:
>
> http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044008
>
>
> > Although Petrosian later blundered and lost the game, Fischer
> > extolled Petrosian's move 9...Bg4.
> >
> > But 9...Bg4 violates the opening precept of "Don't move the same
> > piece twice until one has developed the other pieces" and it
> > violates David Richerby's cited 'rule of thumb' (above).
>
> A rule of thumb is something that is usually, but not always, right.
> So `Don't move the same piece twice until one has developed the other
> pieces' is also a rule of thumb. Usually, it's correct but,
> sometimes, it isn't: the fact that a rule of thumb holds true in
> general does not preclude its being false in some circumstances.
>
> However, in a position where the rule of thumb fails, there must be
> some reason why it fails (just as there must be some reason it is true
> where it is true). So, for example, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Qg5?? 3.Nxg5
> violates the not-moving-a-piece-twice rule of thumb but 3.Nxg5 is a
> good move because moving the knight for a second time brings decisive
> material gain.
>
> So, what is it about the Scandinavian position that we were initially
> discussing and also the Fischer- Petrosian position that makes ...Bg4
> good? (Or, at least, not poor.) That's all I'm asking. I'm not
> saying that these moves have to be bad -- they're clearly not, by
> appeal to authority, if nothing else. :-) I'm just asking why they're
> good.
>
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Aluminium Priest (TM): it's like a
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ man of the cloth that's really light!
Dave, in post #29 on this thread I gve my explanation of why Bg4 was a
good move in that Center Counter Line, or at least the reasons behind
it, from my view.
As chess players become better, they generally seek out to violate
'Rule of Thumb' precepts and 'General Principles' because it is there
that the less obvious, better move may lie. they seek to ignore
threats, not react to them; look at all combinations one move deeper,
and not give up on them.
http://chess-training.blogspot.com
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 15:46:48
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
> > David Richerby wrote:
> >> http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1436275
> >>
> >> It should be pointed out that Yermishin out-rated his opponent by 340
> >> points and that White made a rather optimistic-looking sacrifice of
> >> minor piece for two pawns. (Of course, I am not qualified to judge
> >> either player's moves.)
> >
> > In the interest of clarity, here are my comments:
> >
> > I am *not* saying, of course, that after 5...Bg4 Black has a winning
> > position or even that Black has a better position. I am *not*
> > saying that 5...Bg4 is Black's best move. [...]
>
> Of course.
>
> > But the fact that IM Viktor Yermishin played 5...Bg4, albeit against
> > a much weaker opponent, in an international tournament indicates
> > to me that IM Yermishin believes that 5...Bg4 is a playable move.
> > I doubt that IM Yermishin would have played 5...Bg4 if he had
> > regarded it as a clearly bad move.
>
> I agree.
>
> > David Richerby's earlier comments suggested to me (though I am not
> > certain of it) that he likely thought, on the basis of his perceived
> > 'general opening principles', 5...Bg4 to be a clearly bad move.
>
> I don't think it's clearly bad: I was just (rather optimistically)
> asking Ray to say why it is good.
>
> > David Richerby (107 BCF?) has not yet shown the chess strength that
> > one might have expected him to attain after all of his efforts. Why
> > not? As a disinterested observer (based only on his games and
> > comments in RGC*), I would say that David Richerby has shown, apart
> > from his tactical weaknesses, a too dogmatic approach to evaluating
> > specific positions on the basis of his perceived 'general principles'.
>
> Thank you for these constructive suggestions.
Here's some general advice to players who have long been
making dedicated efforts to improve their chess and find
that their competitive results are not improving.
I assume that you have studied many chess books
and believe that you have 'learned' much about chess.
You should consider the possibility that some of what
you have 'learned' is wrong. So you have to 'unlearn'
part of what you think is right before you can improve.
Given that you may have invested much time, energy,
and money in the study of chess, you may find the
process of 'unlearning' to be emotionally painful as
well as conceptually difficult. But success at chess
involves a test of character as well as of intelligence.
An improving player has to stop and consider
the possibility that his or her comprehension
of chess may still be fundamentally flawed.
I have observed many players who make the same
kinds of errors again and again. I know that some
of these players have been instructed (sometimes by
me) not to make those errors and yet they still do.
Why? I suspect that, apart from their lack of
comprehension, those players may have set up
psychological barriers against changing how
they play.
There's a story about the physicists Niels Bohr
and Wolfgang Pauli. Pauli proposed a radical
new theory. Bohr thought that it was unlikely to
be true because "it wasn't crazy enough"--it
failed to challenge accepted theory enough
in a fundamental way. Pauli objected to
Bohr by claiming that his theory 'was crazy
enough' to be taken more seriously than
Bohr was taking it.
Indeed, some advances in chess opening
theory have happened only because a player
was ready to consider an idea that other
players had dismissed as obviously 'crazy'.
I am not saying that all apparently 'crazy'
ideas in chess should be taken seriously.
(I have met a few players who insist that
1 d4 d5 2 e4 is a forced win for White!)
I am saying that improvement in chess
demands that a player continually question
his or her comprehension of chess.
--Nick
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 14:58:29
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
David Richerby wrote (to Ray Gordon):
> Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4. d4 c6 5. Nf3
> > What about 5...Bg4?
>
> What about it, lever-boy? Rule of thumb is that there's no point
> pinning the knight unless White has committed to castling short:
> why do you think this position is an exception to the rule of thumb?
Where exactly did David Richerby learn this 'rule of thumb'?
Given the lack of chess books available to me when I began
to learn chess, I suspect that I have memorised fewer
'wise' precepts than David Richerby has about chess.
A friend of mine (who's graded nearly 200 ECF) has
informed me that he's not previously heard of the
'rule of thumb' cited by David Richerby.
After I read David Richerby's cited 'rule of thumb', this
Caro-Kann variation promptly came to my mind
(from my memory of Fischer-Petrosian, Bled 1961):
1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dxe4 4 Nxe4 Nd7 5 Nf3 Ngf6
6 Nxf6+ Nxf6 7 Bc4 Bf5 8 Qe2 e6 9 Bg5 Bg4
Although Petrosian later blundered and lost the
game, Fischer extolled Petrosian's move 9...Bg4.
But 9...Bg4 violates the opening precept of
"Don't move the same piece twice until one
has developed the other pieces" and it violates
David Richerby's cited 'rule of thumb' (above).
If I had posted this game's opening here and
insinuated that it had been played by two novice
players, then I suspect that some of the 'profound'
writers in rec.games.chess.analysis would have
denounced 9...Bg4 as an 'obvious' error because
of the violations of 'opening principles' (above).
For some reasons, I believe that Tigran Petrosian
and Bobby Fischer understood that opening better
than the players who blindly follow such 'opening
principles'.
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 11:17:43
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
En/na Nick ha escrit:
> David Richerby wrote (to Ray Gordon):
>>
>>What about it, lever-boy? Rule of thumb is that there's no point
>>pinning the knight unless White has committed to castling short:
>>why do you think this position is an exception to the rule of thumb?
>
> Where exactly did David Richerby learn this 'rule of thumb'?
>
> Given the lack of chess books available to me when I began
> to learn chess, I suspect that I have memorised fewer
> 'wise' precepts than David Richerby has about chess.
> A friend of mine (who's graded nearly 200 ECF) has
> informed me that he's not previously heard of the
> 'rule of thumb' cited by David Richerby.
>
> After I read David Richerby's cited 'rule of thumb', this
> Caro-Kann variation promptly came to my mind
> (from my memory of Fischer-Petrosian, Bled 1961):
>
> 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dxe4 4 Nxe4 Nd7 5 Nf3 Ngf6
> 6 Nxf6+ Nxf6 7 Bc4 Bf5 8 Qe2 e6 9 Bg5 Bg4
> (...)
> --Nick
Hello Nick,
I asume you are showing us an exception to a general rule.
I have usually teach beginners and intermediate players (I asume
intermediate can mean a different for some of us) and I have explained
general rules I do not follow in my games.
Imagine you are teaching to beginners and you explain them why to move
the same piece in the opening is bad, very bad, ... and later you play
the poissoned pawn line in Sicilian Najdorf.
First of all we need to learn general rules and later we will know when
to follow them or not.
..............
I do not understand completely Richard words (as I have problems to know
what mean a 200 ECF or USCF, I only understand well FIDE ratigs) but I
think He refers to do not play a move like Bg4 if after h3 we have to
concede the bishop pair (in a position where bishop pair is an
advantage, of course) or we have to play Bh5 g4 Bg6 in positions where
that gain of space is good for white (there are many positions where
that gives advantage for white in Italian or Spanish openings including
some special cases where white has castlled short).
I think Ray never wrote anything interesting (as usual) and only
proposed a move He do not understand if it violated a general principle
being an exception or it was a "natural move".
The problem was Ray not Dave, ... no matter all we (masters and
amateurs) have doubts in almost all positions.
Antonio
|
| | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 08:48:14
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
Nick <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote (to Ray Gordon):
>> Rule of thumb is that there's no point pinning the knight unless
>> White has committed to castling short: why do you think this
>> position is an exception to the rule of thumb?
>
> Where exactly did David Richerby learn this 'rule of thumb'?
As I recall, it's in Nimzowitsch's _My System_. It is explicitly
stated in one of Dan Heisman's _Novice Nook_ columns, where it is
attributed to Lasker:
``Don't pin the adverse king's knight to the queen before the
opponent has castled. (One of Emmanuel Lasker's `rules'.)''
-- http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman53.pdf (page 5)
> After I read David Richerby's cited 'rule of thumb', this Caro-Kann
> variation promptly came to my mind (from my memory of Fischer-
> Petrosian, Bled 1961):
>
> 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dxe4 4 Nxe4 Nd7 5 Nf3 Ngf6 6 Nxf6+ Nxf6 7 Bc4
> Bf5 8 Qe2 e6 9 Bg5 Bg4
Your memory of the game is correct:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044008
> Although Petrosian later blundered and lost the game, Fischer
> extolled Petrosian's move 9...Bg4.
>
> But 9...Bg4 violates the opening precept of "Don't move the same
> piece twice until one has developed the other pieces" and it
> violates David Richerby's cited 'rule of thumb' (above).
A rule of thumb is something that is usually, but not always, right.
So `Don't move the same piece twice until one has developed the other
pieces' is also a rule of thumb. Usually, it's correct but,
sometimes, it isn't: the fact that a rule of thumb holds true in
general does not preclude its being false in some circumstances.
However, in a position where the rule of thumb fails, there must be
some reason why it fails (just as there must be some reason it is true
where it is true). So, for example, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Qg5?? 3.Nxg5
violates the not-moving-a-piece-twice rule of thumb but 3.Nxg5 is a
good move because moving the knight for a second time brings decisive
material gain.
So, what is it about the Scandinavian position that we were initially
discussing and also the Fischer- Petrosian position that makes ...Bg4
good? (Or, at least, not poor.) That's all I'm asking. I'm not
saying that these moves have to be bad -- they're clearly not, by
appeal to authority, if nothing else. :-) I'm just asking why they're
good.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Aluminium Priest (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ man of the cloth that's really light!
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 11:26:32
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
En/na David Richerby ha escrit:
> Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
>>David Richerby wrote (to Ray Gordon):
>>
>>>Rule of thumb is that there's no point pinning the knight unless
>>>White has committed to castling short: why do you think this
>>>position is an exception to the rule of thumb?
>>
>>Where exactly did David Richerby learn this 'rule of thumb'?
>
> As I recall, it's in Nimzowitsch's _My System_. It is explicitly
> stated in one of Dan Heisman's _Novice Nook_ columns, where it is
> attributed to Lasker:
>
> ``Don't pin the adverse king's knight to the queen before the
> opponent has castled. (One of Emmanuel Lasker's `rules'.)''
> -- http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman53.pdf (page 5)
> (...)
> Dave.
thanks,
I did not know what si the excat traslation to that rule.
In a recet post I have wrote about pair of bishops or space gain in
kings wing but now it semms more simple:
1) ...Bg4 pins a knight but it can be moved in positions like "Legal
mate" or with tricks like Bxf7 followed by Ne5xg4.
2) after h3 Bh5 g4 white can advance his pawns if He has not castled and
black has castled, that is specially good for white but if king
situations are reversed tha evaluation is the opposite.
Antonio
Ps: I continue waiting Ray explanation of his strange "castling always
later" rule. Seems like my students when they say "we will do tomorrow".
|
| |
Nick wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
> > Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>> What about 5...Bg4?
> > >> What about it, lever-boy? Rule of thumb is that there's no point
> > >> pinning the knight unless White has committed to castling short: why
> > >> do you think this position is an exception to the rule of thumb?
> > >> (``Because my computer gives it the highest evaluation'' is not
> > >> an answer.)
> > >
> > > Perhaps he could give an actual variation to support his claim.
> >
> > You're the one suggesting a move that violates general opening
> > principles. The onus is on you to explain why it's an exception.
>
> In a recent game (2 September 2006) IM Viktor Yermishin,
> as Black, played 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qa5 4 d4 c6
> 5 Nf3 Bg4 ... and won the game.
>
> --Nick
In general, ...Bg4 has the idea to get the Bishop out before playing
...e6. If allowed, black will continue with e6/Nf6/B-out/0-0 and if
white h3 black will retreat Bh5-g6 if necessary and does not fear an
exchange on g6 as that is a solid pawn structure for black.
Black is "ok" but behind in development, and since that is a dynamic
advantage White needs to act quickly and try and cash in on that.
http://chess-training.blogspot.com
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 17:42:14
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
> > David Richerby wrote (to Ray Gordon, not to Nick):
> >> You're the one suggesting a move that violates general opening
> >> principles. The onus is on you to explain why it's an exception.
> >
> > In a recent game (2 September 2006) IM Viktor Yermishin, as Black,
> > played 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qa5 4 d4 c6 5 Nf3 Bg4 ... and won
> > the game.
I mentioned that game only because it seemed relevant
to the dispute between David Richerby and Ray Gordon
and because they seemed to have been ignorant of it.
> http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1436275
>
> It should be pointed out that Yermishin out-rated his opponent by 340
> points and that White made a rather optimistic-looking sacrifice of
> minor piece for two pawns. (Of course, I am not qualified to judge
> either player's moves.)
In the interest of clarity, here are my comments:
I am *not* saying, of course, that after 5...Bg4 Black has a
winning position or even that Black has a better position.
I am *not* saying that 5...Bg4 is Black's best move.
As one who's not an expert on Scandinavian (1 e4 d5)
theory, I would judge the position after 5...Bg4 as
slightly in favour of White.
But the fact that IM Viktor Yermishin played 5...Bg4,
albeit against a much weaker opponent, in an international
tournament indicates to me that IM Yermishin believes
that 5...Bg4 is a playable move. I doubt that IM Yermishin
would have played 5...Bg4 if he had regarded it as a clearly
bad move.
David Richerby's earlier comments suggested to me
(though I am not certain of it) that he likely thought, on
the basis of his perceived 'general opening principles',
5...Bg4 to be a clearly bad move.
As far as I can tell, David Richerby is someone of
well above average general intelligence, who has
worked diligently to improve his chess. I suspect
that David Richerby has done considerably more
serious study of chess books than I have done.
Yet David Richerby (107 BCF?) has not yet
shown the chess strength that one might have
expected him to attain after all of his efforts.
Why not? As a disinterested observer (based
only on his games and comments in RGC*), I
would say that David Richerby has shown, apart
from his tactical weaknesses, a too dogmatic
approach to evaluating specific positions on
the basis of his perceived 'general principles'.
I am *not* telling David Richerby that he must
change how he plays chess. If he's content
with how well he plays chess and with his
competitive results, then I also am content.
I attempt to evaluate chess positions as objectively as
I can, without being influenced by my likes or dislikes
of other players' personalities. I have agreed with
many of David Richerby's criticisms of Ray Gordon.
Even before I became aware of IM Yermishin's game,
however, I regarded 5...Bg4 as a playable move and
Ray Gordon's suggestion of it as plausible.
Yes, I know that Ray Gordon has long shown
that he's one of the most arrogant and abusive
writers in rec.games.chess.* But that does
*not* mean that everything written by Ray Gordon
should be condemned.
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 10:16:07
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
Nick <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1436275
>>
>> It should be pointed out that Yermishin out-rated his opponent by 340
>> points and that White made a rather optimistic-looking sacrifice of
>> minor piece for two pawns. (Of course, I am not qualified to judge
>> either player's moves.)
>
> In the interest of clarity, here are my comments:
>
> I am *not* saying, of course, that after 5...Bg4 Black has a winning
> position or even that Black has a better position. I am *not*
> saying that 5...Bg4 is Black's best move. [...]
Of course.
> But the fact that IM Viktor Yermishin played 5...Bg4, albeit against
> a much weaker opponent, in an international tournament indicates to
> me that IM Yermishin believes that 5...Bg4 is a playable move. I
> doubt that IM Yermishin would have played 5...Bg4 if he had regarded
> it as a clearly bad move.
I agree.
> David Richerby's earlier comments suggested to me (though I am not
> certain of it) that he likely thought, on the basis of his perceived
> 'general opening principles', 5...Bg4 to be a clearly bad move.
I don't think it's clearly bad: I was just (rather optimistically)
asking Ray to say why it is good.
> David Richerby (107 BCF?) has not yet shown the chess strength that
> one might have expected him to attain after all of his efforts. Why
> not? As a disinterested observer (based only on his games and
> comments in RGC*), I would say that David Richerby has shown, apart
> from his tactical weaknesses, a too dogmatic approach to evaluating
> specific positions on the basis of his perceived 'general
> principles'.
Thank you for these constructive suggestions.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Happy Clock (TM): it's like a clock
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ that makes your troubles melt away!
|
| | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 04:17:39
From:
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
> > Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > David Richerby wrote (to Ray Gordon, not to Nick):
> > >> You're the one suggesting a move that violates general opening
> > >> principles. The onus is on you to explain why it's an exception.
> > >
> > > In a recent game (2 September 2006) IM Viktor Yermishin, as Black,
> > > played 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qa5 4 d4 c6 5 Nf3 Bg4 ... and won
> > > the game.
>
> I mentioned that game only because it seemed relevant
> to the dispute between David Richerby and Ray Gordon
> and because they seemed to have been ignorant of it.
>
> > http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1436275
> >
> > It should be pointed out that Yermishin out-rated his opponent by 340
> > points and that White made a rather optimistic-looking sacrifice of
> > minor piece for two pawns. (Of course, I am not qualified to judge
> > either player's moves.)
>
> In the interest of clarity, here are my comments:
>
> I am *not* saying, of course, that after 5...Bg4 Black has a
> winning position or even that Black has a better position.
> I am *not* saying that 5...Bg4 is Black's best move.
> As one who's not an expert on Scandinavian (1 e4 d5)
> theory, I would judge the position after 5...Bg4 as
> slightly in favour of White.
>
> But the fact that IM Viktor Yermishin played 5...Bg4,
> albeit against a much weaker opponent, in an international
> tournament indicates to me that IM Yermishin believes
> that 5...Bg4 is a playable move. I doubt that IM Yermishin
> would have played 5...Bg4 if he had regarded it as a clearly
> bad move.
>
> David Richerby's earlier comments suggested to me
> (though I am not certain of it) that he likely thought, on
> the basis of his perceived 'general opening principles',
> 5...Bg4 to be a clearly bad move.
>
> As far as I can tell, David Richerby is someone of
> well above average general intelligence, who has
> worked diligently to improve his chess. I suspect
> that David Richerby has done considerably more
> serious study of chess books than I have done.
> Yet David Richerby (107 BCF?) has not yet
> shown the chess strength that one might have
> expected him to attain after all of his efforts.
> Why not? As a disinterested observer (based
> only on his games and comments in RGC*), I
> would say that David Richerby has shown, apart
> from his tactical weaknesses, a too dogmatic
> approach to evaluating specific positions on
> the basis of his perceived 'general principles'.
>
> I am *not* telling David Richerby that he must
> change how he plays chess. If he's content
> with how well he plays chess and with his
> competitive results, then I also am content.
>
> I attempt to evaluate chess positions as objectively as
> I can, without being influenced by my likes or dislikes
> of other players' personalities. I have agreed with
> many of David Richerby's criticisms of Ray Gordon.
> Even before I became aware of IM Yermishin's game,
> however, I regarded 5...Bg4 as a playable move and
> Ray Gordon's suggestion of it as plausible.
>
> Yes, I know that Ray Gordon has long shown
> that he's one of the most arrogant and abusive
> writers in rec.games.chess.* But that does
> *not* mean that everything written by Ray Gordon
> should be condemned.
I snip nothing, because this is one of the best on-topic posts I've seen
here in a while. I agree about David Richerby. I don't know about Ray
Gordon as I don't read his posts.
--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!
Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
~Semper Fi~
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 21:48:38
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> What about 5...Bg4?
> >> What about it, lever-boy? Rule of thumb is that there's no point
> >> pinning the knight unless White has committed to castling short: why
> >> do you think this position is an exception to the rule of thumb?
> >> (``Because my computer gives it the highest evaluation'' is not
> >> an answer.)
> >
> > Perhaps he could give an actual variation to support his claim.
>
> You're the one suggesting a move that violates general opening
> principles. The onus is on you to explain why it's an exception.
In a recent game (2 September 2006) IM Viktor Yermishin,
as Black, played 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qa5 4 d4 c6
5 Nf3 Bg4 ... and won the game.
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 09:50:48
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
Nick <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> You're the one suggesting a move that violates general opening
>> principles. The onus is on you to explain why it's an exception.
>
> In a recent game (2 September 2006) IM Viktor Yermishin, as Black,
> played 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qa5 4 d4 c6 5 Nf3 Bg4 ... and won
> the game.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1436275
It should be pointed out that Yermishin out-rated his opponent by 340
points and that White made a rather optimistic-looking sacrifice of
minor piece for two pawns. (Of course, I am not qualified to judge
either player's moves.)
Dave.
--
David Richerby Dangerous Surprise Chicken (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a farm animal but not like
you'd expect and it could explode at
any minute!
|
| |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 20:04:25
From: Matt Nemmers
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
> >>> Try reading Nimzowitch some time.
> >>
> >> No 6...Qh5? I mean in the c6 line.
> >
> > Turns out not to work: 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 c6 5.Nf3 Bg4
> > 6.h3 Qh5? 7.hxg4! Qxh1 8.Ne4!! and Black has no response to 9.Ng3,
> > trapping the queen.
>
> Now that's a useful post: I ask why a move can't be played, and without
> flames, he posts exactly why.
Seems to me an "Openings Grandmaster" such as yourself shouldn't need
to be shown why a move can't be played. What was it you said? You
"play like a GM for the first 12 moves?" Here there are only nine and
you can't follow. LMAO!
> Now, this raises another question: why do I see even expert-rated players
> falling into this trap?
You don't. You don't play chess.
|
| |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 02:34:22
From: Matt Nemmers
Subject: Re: No improvement in 16 years...
|
Ray Gordon, creator of the pivot wrote:
> >> B-player commentary noted.
> >
> > This coming from an A-player
>
> who is much higher-rated than the B-player
Doubtful. A 1900 rating after 16 years of stagnation is probably
equivalent to the strength of a Class B player.
I wouldn't sweat you in a sauna, tough guy.
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 22:04:14
From: Matt Nemmers
Subject: No improvement in 16 years...
|
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
> B-player commentary noted.
This coming from an A-player with no improvement or activity in over 16
years.
Funny.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 05:30:43
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: No improvement in 16 years...
|
>> B-player commentary noted.
>
> This coming from an A-player
who is much higher-rated than the B-player
--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.
A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "AFCs pay my rent."
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 16:30:32
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: No improvement in 16 years...
|
En/na Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" ha escrit:
>>>B-player commentary noted.
>>
>>This coming from an A-player
>
>
> who is much higher-rated than the B-player
who is not rated and has no idea about chess nor training methods
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 07:07:11
From: Matt Nemmers
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> What about 5...Bg4?
> >>
> >> What about it, lever-boy? Rule of thumb is that there's no point
> >> pinning the knight unless White has committed to castling short: why
> >> do you think this position is an exception to the rule of thumb?
> >> (``Because my computer gives it the highest evaluation'' is not an
> >> answer.)
> >
> > Perhaps he could give an actual variation to support his claim.
>
> You're the one suggesting a move that violates general opening
> principles. The onus is on you to explain why it's an exception.
>
>
> Dave.
Ray doesn't explain -- he proclaims. And will not provide evidence to
support his proclamations, even if asked nicely. That's how he rolls.
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2006 10:19:32
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
jsfromynr <[email protected] > wrote:
> If playing d5 equalizes the game then why not play center counter
> 1.e4 d5 to obtain equality on first move.
Because life isn't that easy.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Adult Drink (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ refreshing juice beverage that you
won't want the children to see!
|
| |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 16:39:13
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"jsfromynr" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Masters say that against 1.e4 if Black can play d5 later he can obtain
> equal game.
Not quite. The "rule of thumb" which, like all rules of thumbs, has lots
of exceptions is "In a 1.e4 e5 game, if black can play d5 without giving
white other compensation then he usually achieves an equal position."
> e.g in Scotch game
>
> 1. e4 e5
> 2. Nf3 Nc6
> 3. d4 exd4
> 4. Nxd4 Nf6
> 5. Bc4 d5!!
First of all, white's fifth move here is not close to best.
Secondly, I'm not at all convinced the position here is equal. 6.ed Nxd5
7.Nxc6 bc 8.0-0 and white still has a small advantage.
>
> If playing d5 equalizes the game then why not play center counter 1.e4
> d5 to obtain equality on first move.
In the main line scandiavian, black gives up a development and space
advantage for an extremely solid position - but while black's position
can be hard to crack, very few people would describe it as equal.
-Ron
|
| | |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 14:55:35
From: bellatori
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
As in the commetry of the attached game... the scandinavian is a good
surprise against opponents who are not too much stronger than you. In
correspondence chess it is an absolute no-no. Black in general aims for a
type of Caro Kann position which then begs the question why not play the
Caro?
[Event "EM/MN/093"]
[Site "ICCF Correspondence"]
[Date "2005.10.20"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Wharrier, Jo (ENG)"]
[Black "Lohmann, Frank (GER)"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B01"]
[WhiteElo "2294"]
[BlackElo "2378"]
[Annotator "Wharrier,Jo"]
[PlyCount "63"]
[EventDate "2005.10.20"]
[EventType "tourn (corr)"]
1. e4 d5 {I used to play the Centre Counter OTB and it produced good
results
against strong players because of its novelty value. In CC this is a very
risky strategy.} 2. exd5 Qxd5 {...and this is not the safest option.} 3.
Nc3
Qa5 4. d4 c6 5. Nf3 Nf6 6. Bc4 Bf5 7. Bd2 e6 8. Nd5 Qd8 9. Nxf6+ gxf6 ({
No better is} 9... Qxf6 10. Qe2 $14) 10. Bb3 Nd7 11. Nh4 Bg6 12. Qf3 {
Anyone playing CC has to look at a good database BEFORE they reach this
point.
Three games, all won by White should suggest something to Black. Chose
another
opening!} Qb6 $6 $146 13. O-O-O $1 {I imagined that my opponent may have
been
trying to provoke c3 and then O-O-O for White can look a bit risky if
Black
can play a5,4.} Qxd4 (13... O-O-O $142) 14. Qh3 Ne5 15. Nxg6 Nxg6 (15...
fxg6
$4 16. Qxe6+ Be7 17. Rhe1 $18) 16. g3 h5 17. f4 Qc5 18. Bc3 Be7 19. Rhf1
Nf8
20. f5 e5 {Black's pieces are all tied up, the KR is completely out of
play.
Now is the time to switch play to the middle.} (20... exf5 21. Rxf5 $18)
21.
Qg2 a5 {When the position is looking bad, try for counter play.} 22. a3 b5
23.
Rfe1 Ra7 (23... b4 $5 24. Bxe5 $6 (24. Ba4 $1 Nd7 25. Bxc6 O-O $16) 24...
fxe5
25. Rxe5 Qxe5 26. Qxc6+ Nd7 27. Rxd7 Bg5+ 28. Kb1 O-O $17) 24. Bd2 Qb6 25.
Be3
Bc5 26. Bxc5 Qxc5 {White is a pawn down and has allowed the swapping of
material. Black is, however completely lost. His out of play rook means
White
is attacking a piece up.} 27. Rd3 a4 28. Rc3 Qb6 29. Rxc6 Qb8 30. Bd5 Nd7
31.
g4 Rg8 32. Qh3 {and Black resigned. Although material is level Black is
about
to be picked off one piece at a time.} 1-0
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 16:00:42
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
> [Event "EM/MN/093"]
> [Site "ICCF Correspondence"]
> [Date "2005.10.20"]
> [Round "?"]
> [White "Wharrier, Jo (ENG)"]
> [Black "Lohmann, Frank (GER)"]
> [Result "1-0"]
> [ECO "B01"]
> [WhiteElo "2294"]
> [BlackElo "2378"]
> [Annotator "Wharrier,Jo"]
> [PlyCount "63"]
> [EventDate "2005.10.20"]
> [EventType "tourn (corr)"]
>
> 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4. d4 c6 5. Nf3
> Nf6
What about 5...Bg4?
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Nov 2006 10:06:52
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\" <[email protected] > wrote:
>> 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4. d4 c6 5. Nf3
>
> What about 5...Bg4?
What about it, lever-boy? Rule of thumb is that there's no point
pinning the knight unless White has committed to castling short: why
do you think this position is an exception to the rule of thumb?
(``Because my computer gives it the highest evaluation'' is not an
answer.)
Dave.
--
David Richerby Flammable Disgusting Chicken (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a farm animal but it'll
turn your stomach and it burns really
easily!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Nov 2006 11:44:21
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
>> What about 5...Bg4?
>
> What about it, lever-boy? Rule of thumb is that there's no point
> pinning the knight unless White has committed to castling short: why
> do you think this position is an exception to the rule of thumb?
> (``Because my computer gives it the highest evaluation'' is not an
> answer.)
Perhaps he could give an actual variation to support his claim.
I use a much different scheme against the Center Counter.
--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.
A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "AFCs pay my rent."
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 09:49:08
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\" <[email protected] > wrote:
>>> What about 5...Bg4?
>>
>> What about it, lever-boy? Rule of thumb is that there's no point
>> pinning the knight unless White has committed to castling short: why
>> do you think this position is an exception to the rule of thumb?
>> (``Because my computer gives it the highest evaluation'' is not an
>> answer.)
>
> Perhaps he could give an actual variation to support his claim.
You're the one suggesting a move that violates general opening
principles. The onus is on you to explain why it's an exception.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Accelerated Boss (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ middle manager but it's twice as fast!
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 09:25:33
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
>>> What about it, lever-boy? Rule of thumb is that there's no point
>>> pinning the knight unless White has committed to castling short: why
>>> do you think this position is an exception to the rule of thumb?
>>> (``Because my computer gives it the highest evaluation'' is not an
>>> answer.)
>>
>> Perhaps he could give an actual variation to support his claim.
>
> You're the one suggesting a move that violates general opening
> principles.
The person claiming it's a violation of principles would have the burden of
supporting that claim with the refutation of the alleged violation.
Developing a bishop to g4 and pinning the knight to the queen is hardly a
violation of principles.
On the other hand, I had assumed we were talking about the main line
(4...e5) and not 4...c6, which is less active to begin with.
So, to rephrase:
>1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4. d4 c6
What about 4...e5?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 16:27:42
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\" <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> Ray Gordon wrote:
>>> David Richerby wrote:
>>>> What about it, lever-boy? Rule of thumb is that there's no point
>>>> pinning the knight unless White has committed to castling short:
>>>> why do you think this position is an exception to the rule of
>>>> thumb?
>>>
>>> Perhaps he could give an actual variation to support his claim.
>>
>> You're the one suggesting a move that violates general opening
>> principles.
>
> The person claiming it's a violation of principles would have the
> burden of supporting that claim with the refutation of the alleged
> violation.
Er, no. I claimed that it violated principles, which is self-
evidently true. I have proven my claim. Your position is that my
claim is irrelevant. The only reason a claim based on general
principles can be irrelevant is if the principles don't apply to the
concrete position under discussion. So, prove they don't.
> Developing a bishop to g4 and pinning the knight to the queen is
> hardly a violation of principles.
I thought you were the guy who played the opening like a GM? If
a) White hasn't castled and has the option of castling long or
b) White has castled long or
b) White has castled short and Black has no way of opening the centre,
then, in general (i.e., unless there's something in the position that
makes one of Black's options good), White has little to lose by
responding to the pin with 6.h3, to which Black can choose between
a) 6... Bh5 7.g4 Bg6 8.Bd3, conceding space and tempi,
b) 6... Bf5, admitting that he put the bishop on the wrong square and
c) 6... Bxf3 7.Qxf3, conceding bishop for knight and losing a tempo.
Try reading Nimzowitch some time.
> On the other hand, I had assumed we were talking about the main line
> (4...e5) and not 4...c6, which is less active to begin with.
You had assumed, despite quoting the moves, including 4... c6, that
Black had played 4... e5? Well, in that case, I can't help you.
> So, to rephrase:
>
>>1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4. d4 c6
>
> What about 4...e5?
That's not a rephrasing, it's a totally different question. That
said, it is a valid and interesting question.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Perforated Dish (TM): it's like a fine
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ ceramic dish but it's full of holes!
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 18:18:06
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
> then, in general (i.e., unless there's something in the position that
> makes one of Black's options good), White has little to lose by
> responding to the pin with 6.h3, to which Black can choose between
>
> a) 6... Bh5 7.g4 Bg6 8.Bd3, conceding space and tempi,
> b) 6... Bf5, admitting that he put the bishop on the wrong square and
> c) 6... Bxf3 7.Qxf3, conceding bishop for knight and losing a tempo.
>
> Try reading Nimzowitch some time.
No 6...Qh5? I mean in the c6 line. No, I'm not looking at the board.
As for the "opening like a GM" rek, I would never see either side of this
position in a game....or would I?
Years of trying to find a "bust" to the Center Counter led me to conclude
that the opening is perfectly sound, if a bit passive, and that White needs
a radically different approach to it. When Black gets the pin going on the
d1-h5 diagonal, White usually has difficulty keeping the edge.
Even a GM will only get equality out of the opening against perfect play.
>> On the other hand, I had assumed we were talking about the main line
>> (4...e5) and not 4...c6, which is less active to begin with.
>
> You had assumed, despite quoting the moves, including 4... c6, that
> Black had played 4... e5? Well, in that case, I can't help you.
Or anyone else who plays White and wants to know why 4...e5 is nothing to
fear on the way to your variation.
--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.
A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "AFCs pay my rent."
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 10:26:03
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\" <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> then, in general (i.e., unless there's something in the position that
>> makes one of Black's options good), White has little to lose by
>> responding to the pin with 6.h3, to which Black can choose between
>>
>> a) 6... Bh5 7.g4 Bg6 8.Bd3, conceding space and tempi,
>> b) 6... Bf5, admitting that he put the bishop on the wrong square and
>> c) 6... Bxf3 7.Qxf3, conceding bishop for knight and losing a tempo.
>>
>> Try reading Nimzowitch some time.
>
> No 6...Qh5? I mean in the c6 line.
Turns out not to work: 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 c6 5.Nf3 Bg4
6.h3 Qh5? 7.hxg4! Qxh1 8.Ne4!! and Black has no response to 9.Ng3,
trapping the queen.
> No, I'm not looking at the board.
I didn't see that line even with the board. Thanks, Fritz.
> As for the "opening like a GM" rek, I would never see either side
> of this position in a game....or would I?
I'll wager most GMs have never seen the position after 1.a3 in a game.
Doesn't stop *them* being able to play it like a GM.
> Even a GM will only get equality out of the opening against perfect
> play.
That's not known to be true. If chess is a forced win for Black
(unlikely but possible), the GM is lost from move 1 against perfect
play.
>>> On the other hand, I had assumed we were talking about the main
>>> line (4...e5) and not 4...c6, which is less active to begin with.
>>
>> You had assumed, despite quoting the moves, including 4... c6, that
>> Black had played 4... e5? Well, in that case, I can't help you.
>
> Or anyone else who plays White and wants to know why 4...e5 is
> nothing to fear on the way to your variation.
That whooshing noise is the sound of a point flying right past you.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Disposable Slimy Chair (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a chair but it's covered in goo and
you never have to clean it!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 17:50:45
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
>>> Try reading Nimzowitch some time.
>>
>> No 6...Qh5? I mean in the c6 line.
>
> Turns out not to work: 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 c6 5.Nf3 Bg4
> 6.h3 Qh5? 7.hxg4! Qxh1 8.Ne4!! and Black has no response to 9.Ng3,
> trapping the queen.
Now that's a useful post: I ask why a move can't be played, and without
flames, he posts exactly why.
Now, this raises another question: why do I see even expert-rated players
falling into this trap?
--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.
A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "AFCs pay my rent."
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 21:17:18
From: Bjoern
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
bellatori wrote:
> As in the commetry of the attached game... the scandinavian is a good
> surprise against opponents who are not too much stronger than you. In
> correspondence chess it is an absolute no-no. Black in general aims for a
> type of Caro Kann position which then begs the question why not play the
> Caro?
To save the move c6 if possible and to avoid the advance variation?
The variation in this game is definitely one of the critical tests for
the Scandinavian though.
> [Event "EM/MN/093"]
> [Site "ICCF Correspondence"]
> [Date "2005.10.20"]
> [Round "?"]
> [White "Wharrier, Jo (ENG)"]
> [Black "Lohmann, Frank (GER)"]
> [Result "1-0"]
> [ECO "B01"]
> [WhiteElo "2294"]
> [BlackElo "2378"]
> [Annotator "Wharrier,Jo"]
> [PlyCount "63"]
> [EventDate "2005.10.20"]
> [EventType "tourn (corr)"]
>
> 1. e4 d5 {I used to play the Centre Counter OTB and it produced good
> results
> against strong players because of its novelty value. In CC this is a very
> risky strategy.} 2. exd5 Qxd5 {...and this is not the safest option.} 3.
> Nc3
> Qa5 4. d4 c6 5. Nf3 Nf6 6. Bc4 Bf5 7. Bd2 e6 8. Nd5 Qd8 9. Nxf6+ gxf6 ({
> No better is} 9... Qxf6 10. Qe2 $14)
Actually I believe 9...Qxf6 is the right way to try to hang on for a
draw. The variations after 10.Qe2 are unpleasant, but as far as I know
black can hold the resulting positions with GM Prie's Qe5 idea (even if
there are really no realistic winning chances for black). 9...gxf6 is
more ambitious, but not particularly well founded.
4...c6 is an inaccurate move order after which white doesn't even have
to play 5.Nf3 and can play with Bc4+Bd2 for a quick d4-d5 which black
can only avoid by playing Qb6 (in the game black of course also had that
option on move 7).
|
| |
jsfromynr wrote:
> Hello All!!
>
> Playing 1...d5 against 1.e4
>
> Masters say that against 1.e4 if Black can play d5 later he can obtain
> equal game.
> e.g in Scotch game
>
> 1. e4 e5
> 2. Nf3 Nc6
> 3. d4 exd4
> 4. Nxd4 Nf6
> 5. Bc4 d5!!
>
>
> If playing d5 equalizes the game then why not play center counter 1.e4
> d5 to obtain equality on first move.
>
>
> With Warm regards
> Jatinder Singh
Such a broad statement is usually useless in chess.
The Center Counter Game or Scandinavian Defense dates from the 15th
century. It and the French Defense are the oldest asymmetrical
King-pawn openings. "A History of Chess", by H. J. Murray (1913)
reports that the Center Counter was first documented in a manuscript by
the Spanish author, Luis Ramires Lucena around 1435. This Center
Counter Game is one of the earliest recorded games.
Over the centuries, the Center Counter was often critisized because of
the (usually) early exposure of black's Queen and associated loss of
time in the opening phase of the game. As a result, to this day, the
defense is often condemned by analysts, and is taboo to many players.
However, there exists no clear refute to black's best play. Therefore,
its claim as a regular opening is recognized by strong players. For
example, this Center Counter opening gave black the win against a world
champion, and this game gave black good chances in a world championship
match.
The Center Counter is an immediate attempt by black to aggressively
cross white's opening plans. Black dictates the opening line of play
from the start. Therefore, white's opening preparation along other
lines is wasted. White must dance to black's tune. Thus, black often
scores a psychological mini-victory in the opening by playing the
Center Counter.
So, getting d5 in without compromising other aspects of black's
position may give black equality, but that is not the case with the
Scandanavian. Black has some worries and is usually behind in
development early.
But, it is a viable opening to play and white needs to be prepared for
it.
http://chess-training.blogspot.com
|
| | |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 15:28:02
From: Luigi Caselli
Subject: Re: Center Counter
|
<[email protected] > ha scritto nel messaggio
news:[email protected]...
> However, there exists no clear refute to black's best play. Therefore,
> its claim as a regular opening is recognized by strong players. For
> example, this Center Counter opening gave black the win against a world
> champion, and this game gave black good chances in a world championship
> match.
Karpov - Larsen (I don't remember when) and Kasparov - Anand (New York
1995).
Luigi Caselli
|
|
