Center Counter Game

Main

Date: 08 Apr 2006 00:17:57
From: Ken Lovering
Subject: Center Counter Game

I've got a match coming up against a guy who plays 1.e4 100% of the time,
for which I reply 1....e5 and he replies 2.d4 100% of the time. We have
never played each other.

I plan on playing 2.....exd4, for which, he replies with 3.Nf3 100% of the
time. I have never had to play against this in a standard game and am
seriously studying the line for the first time.

All of his opponents (this is on ICC and his game history is reviewable,
plus he has some games in his library) played 3....c5, of which, I have no
intention of following suit.

My plan is to play 3....Bb4+. I highly doubt that he will play Bd2, because
from reviewing his past games, it appears that he loves to retain his bishop
pair. In addition, I doubt he'll even consider Nc3, as he hates doubled
pawns. That leaves 4.c3, which he has played in a few games in the past. A
sort of Danish Gambit, or at least in the spirit of............

So, after 4.....dxc3 5.Nxc3, I plan on playing 5....Ne7.

This line was actually played in the past by Zvjaginsev 2655 v. Beliavsky
2650 and it ended in a draw.

White's plan is to exert pressure down the a1-h8 & ab2-g8 diagonals with his
Bishops and Queen, however, I believe that I've come up with a good plan.

6.Qd4?! This is the novelty by White in the above game, which I believe my
opponent loves, and has been looking forward to playing against someone, but
has never had the chance.

The game continues 6......Bxc3+ 7.Qxc3 0-0 8.b4! (this is for the purpose of
bringing his Bishop b2 as well as to c4 and giving it a retreat square on
b3) d5?! (preventing Bc4) 9. Bb2 f6 10.Bd3, and, in the game Black played
Kh8, which I don't find, and neither does Fritz, necessary. I plan on
playing 10.........Bg4.

Now there are all kinds of possibilites and the tree can go on forever and
I'm working on building mine...........however...........

Does anyone see the neccessity behind Kh8?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Ken

Date: 09 Apr 2006 08:23:09
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Center Counter Game

In article <[email protected] >,
"Ken Lovering" <[email protected] > wrote:

>
> Does anyone see the neccessity behind Kh8?

Last things first.

It looks to me like a prophylactic move - and one I'd strongly encourage
you to play. The point is that having played ...f6, black is going to
have lots of tactical opportunities based on moves like Qb3+ or Qc4+.
No, neither of those win material right now, but any time you have an
unprotected piece, that check is giving him a key tempo to put together
a double attack.

Kh8 gets your king off the dangerous a2-g8 diagonal, which is almost
certainly worth a tempo - especially in a game between amateurs which
will probably be decided because somebody misses a tactic.

Fritz doesn't look for a move like that because Fritz never misses a
tactic. You and me, on the other hand, miss tactics. Notice how a Bg4 is
a potential target for a queen check on c4.

> I plan on playing 2.....exd4, for which, he replies with 3.Nf3 100% of the
> time. I have never had to play against this in a standard game and am
> seriously studying the line for the first time.
>
> My plan is to play 3....Bb4+. I highly doubt that he will play Bd2, because
> from reviewing his past games, it appears that he loves to retain his bishop
> pair. In addition, I doubt he'll even consider Nc3, as he hates doubled
> pawns. That leaves 4.c3, which he has played in a few games in the past. A
> sort of Danish Gambit, or at least in the spirit of............

I'm not crazy about 3. Bb4+. I like 3. ... Nc6, transposing into a
Scotch game, much more. Why, well:

> So, after 4.....dxc3 5.Nxc3, I plan on playing 5....Ne7.

4. dxc3 5.bxc3!

Now 5. ... Bc5 6.Bc4 Ne7 (Nf6? 7.e5! Ng4 8.Bxf7+!) 7.Ng5 d5 (7. ... 0-0
8.Qh5! h6 9.Nxf7 winning) 8.ed 0-0 9.0-0 with a position which, while
computers may evaluate as close to even, looks to me like it's much
easier to play for white. My gut tells me that's a position where white
will score very well in practical play between amateurs.

Alternatively 5 ... Ba5 (often a better way to play for the win in
similar positions) 6.Bc4 Ne7 (Nf6 7.e5 d5 8.ef dc 9.Qa4+ Nc6 10.fg Rg8
11.0-0 +/-) 7.Ng5 (noticing a pattern here?) d5 8.ed 0-0 9.0-0 and
again, computers say this looks pretty equal but it sure looks easier to
play for white. He's got very gambit-like play without being down a
pawn; black has defensive resources but do you really want to be
defending going into the middlegame like this?

> The game continues 6......Bxc3+ 7.Qxc3 0-0 8.b4! (this is for the purpose of
> bringing his Bishop b2 as well as to c4 and giving it a retreat square on
> b3) d5?! (preventing Bc4) 9. Bb2 f6 10.Bd3, and, in the game Black played
> Kh8.

Obviously, I'm not fit to carry Vganisev's jockstrap, but I think more
straightforward play may pay higher dividends in games between weaker
players.

Instead of 8.b4, 8.Bg5 looks interesting (... d5 9.0-0-0!), leading to a
complex, tactical position where white's development advantage is not
trivial in practical play.

-Ron

Date: 09 Apr 2006 16:27:01
From: Ken Lovering
Subject: Re: Center Counter Game

"Ron" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Ken Lovering" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Does anyone see the neccessity behind Kh8?
>
> Last things first.
>
> It looks to me like a prophylactic move - and one I'd strongly encourage
> you to play. The point is that having played ...f6, black is going to
> have lots of tactical opportunities based on moves like Qb3+ or Qc4+.
> No, neither of those win material right now, but any time you have an
> unprotected piece, that check is giving him a key tempo to put together
> a double attack.

This is what I figured, and, should I get into a position that I had not
previously found with Fritz prior to the match, and have no other useful
move, I'll make the Kh8 move at that time. Fritz, however, is giving me some
good play in the line where White doesn't take back on c3 with the b-pawn.
I'm early in the works of bxc3, as I really don't expect him to play this,
however, if you believe it gives White more play, I'll work as hard at
learning my lines in that variation as well.

What's really interesting, is that after Black's 8.....d5 in response to
White's 8.b4 move (1.e4 e5 2.d4 ed 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.c3 dc 5.Nxc3 Ne7 6.Qd4 Bxc3
7.Qxc3 0-0........

By not taking back on c3, White aligns himself to setup a battery with his
bishops down the two diagonals! a1-h8 & a2-g8. The a2-g8 diagonal seems to
be more dangerous than the b1-h7. The a1-h8 diagonal being the priy, so,
taking with the c-pawn creates the problem of how to get the pawn out of the
way.

After 8.b4 d5!, White no longer finds it so easy to post a bishop on the
a2-g8 diagonal, and in most lines, finds himself having to settle for the
b2-h7. He cannot exchange centre pawns and he cannot push! 9.e5 Bg4 11.ef
Rxf6 12.Ne5 Re6 and the knight is pinned. 13.f3 Nbc6! And White, having
failed to castle before getting aggressive, finds himself in trouble :)

For instance: 15.Be2, in an attempt to unpin his knight and prepare to
castle. 15.....d4! 16.Qxd4? Nd3+! :) And White can resign.

I know Black is living on the edge here............however, were you not
living on the edge in your 2Knights Game? It helps when you know the tree
variations :)

That's the reason I elected to stay away from the Scotch...........it
appears that Black can get into lines that reflect a mirage upon White,
where he thinks he is getting Black in trouble, when in fact, Black's
counter-tactics prevail :)

> 4. dxc3 5.bxc3!
>
> Now 5. ... Bc5 6.Bc4 Ne7 (Nf6? 7.e5! Ng4 8.Bxf7+!) 7.Ng5 d5 (7. ... 0-0
> 8.Qh5! h6 9.Nxf7 winning) 8.ed 0-0 9.0-0 with a position which, while
> computers may evaluate as close to even, looks to me like it's much
> easier to play for white. My gut tells me that's a position where white
> will score very well in practical play between amateurs.

Now, in the above line, we have a game: Xie 2225 v. Solomon 2347, where
Black played 6....d6! instead of Ne7.
It continued: 7.0-0 Nc6 8.e5 de 9.Qxd8 Nxd8 10.Nxe5 Be6 11.Na3 f6 and Black
went on to win in 29 moves.

>
> Alternatively 5 ... Ba5 (often a better way to play for the win in
> similar positions) 6.Bc4 Ne7 (Nf6 7.e5 d5 8.ef dc 9.Qa4+ Nc6 10.fg Rg8
> 11.0-0 +/-) 7.Ng5 (noticing a pattern here?) d5 8.ed 0-0 9.0-0 and
> again, computers say this looks pretty equal but it sure looks easier to
> play for white. He's got very gambit-like play without being down a
> pawn; black has defensive resources but do you really want to be
> defending going into the middlegame like this?

No! I won't be playing 5....Ba5............the plan is 5....Bc5

>
> > The game continues 6......Bxc3+ 7.Qxc3 0-0 8.b4! (this is for the
purpose of
> > bringing his Bishop b2 as well as to c4 and giving it a retreat square
on
> > b3) d5?! (preventing Bc4) 9. Bb2 f6 10.Bd3, and, in the game Black
played
> > Kh8.
>
> Obviously, I'm not fit to carry Vganisev's jockstrap, but I think more
> straightforward play may pay higher dividends in games between weaker
> players.
>
> Instead of 8.b4, 8.Bg5 looks interesting (... d5 9.0-0-0!), leading to a
> complex, tactical position where white's development advantage is not
> trivial in practical play.

Thanks Ron! That's what I'm looking for: "complex tactical positions"

In the above line, I have no analysis! I've been working so hard on the b4
line. So, I'm going to have to get to work. I own three computers, with
Fritz running on all 3 at the moment. While Fritz runs............I test
myself on the lines with chessbase and review my notes to the ideas.

Part of the rush in the game comes from: knowing you reviewed this line
prior to the game and reviewing the ideas in your head and hopefully
remembering the best line :)
I play chess for fun, and the rush comes from studying these type positions
in books for the 1st time and finding myself finding the winning line more
and more often. Tal is one my heros.

Ken

Date: 10 Apr 2006 01:11:30
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Center Counter Game

In article <[email protected] >,
"Ken Lovering" <[email protected] > wrote:

> After 8.b4 d5!, White no longer finds it so easy to post a bishop on the
> a2-g8 diagonal, and in most lines, finds himself having to settle for the
> b2-h7.

But is b2-h7 really settling? On the contrary, it's often the most
useful diagonal for that bishop when going after the castled king.

> He cannot exchange centre pawns and he cannot push! 9.e5 Bg4 11.ef
> Rxf6 12.Ne5 Re6 and the knight is pinned. 13.f3 Nbc6! And White, having
> failed to castle before getting aggressive, finds himself in trouble :)

But he doesn't have to do either. 9. Bd3 and white can play ed after he
castles. You're opening the center for a player who's already got the
bishop pair. Is that wise?

> I know Black is living on the edge here............however, were you not
> living on the edge in your 2Knights Game? It helps when you know the tree
> variations :)

Well, honestly, I wouldn't have gone into that line if I knew it was as
bad as it was. I got lucky in that my opponent found the best
continuation. My goal is to find opening lines where the play favors me,
where I don't have to find only moves.

>
> > 4. dxc3 5.bxc3!
> >
> > Now 5. ... Bc5 6.Bc4 Ne7 (Nf6? 7.e5! Ng4 8.Bxf7+!) 7.Ng5 d5 (7. ... 0-0
> > 8.Qh5! h6 9.Nxf7 winning) 8.ed 0-0 9.0-0 with a position which, while
> > computers may evaluate as close to even, looks to me like it's much
> > easier to play for white. My gut tells me that's a position where white
> > will score very well in practical play between amateurs.
>
> Now, in the above line, we have a game: Xie 2225 v. Solomon 2347, where
> Black played 6....d6! instead of Ne7.
> It continued: 7.0-0 Nc6 8.e5 de 9.Qxd8 Nxd8 10.Nxe5 Be6 11.Na3 f6 and Black
> went on to win in 29 moves.

6 ... d6 is a logical and strong improvement, but e5 seems downright
foolish. It's too early for white to push through in the center.

> >
> > Alternatively 5 ... Ba5 (often a better way to play for the win in
> > similar positions) 6.Bc4 Ne7 (Nf6 7.e5 d5 8.ef dc 9.Qa4+ Nc6 10.fg Rg8
> > 11.0-0 +/-) 7.Ng5 (noticing a pattern here?) d5 8.ed 0-0 9.0-0 and
> > again, computers say this looks pretty equal but it sure looks easier to
> > play for white. He's got very gambit-like play without being down a
> > pawn; black has defensive resources but do you really want to be
> > defending going into the middlegame like this?

> > Instead of 8.b4, 8.Bg5 looks interesting (... d5 9.0-0-0!), leading to a
> > complex, tactical position where white's development advantage is not
> > trivial in practical play.
>
> Thanks Ron! That's what I'm looking for: "complex tactical positions"

But I think you need to find complex tactical situations where the
strategic position is in your favor. Because of his development
advantage in the above line, I think white's going to score rather well.

> In the above line, I have no analysis! I've been working so hard on the b4
> line. So, I'm going to have to get to work. I own three computers, with
> Fritz running on all 3 at the moment. While Fritz runs............I test
> myself on the lines with chessbase and review my notes to the ideas.

In my experience, it's best to count on being taken out of your
preparation, and to be in the better position when that happens.

>
> Part of the rush in the game comes from: knowing you reviewed this line
> prior to the game and reviewing the ideas in your head and hopefully
> remembering the best line :)
> I play chess for fun, and the rush comes from studying these type positions
> in books for the 1st time and finding myself finding the winning line more
> and more often. Tal is one my heros.

Well, honestly, I get very little thrill in winning games because of a
memorized bit of preparation. I know a fair bit of theory at this point,
but I don't get much satisfaction out of copying Alekhine's moves, in
playing a win he played.

But I don't really have that problem too often: my opponents don't play
as well as Alekhine's opponents. So now I have to figure out how to beat
a normal & reasonable move on my own. If I've done things like give my
opponent the bishop pair in an open position, well, that's a lot harder.

-Ron

Date: 09 Apr 2006 23:04:36
From: Ken Lovering
Subject: Re: Center Counter Game

Ron,

I'm agreeing with you, and had I discussed the line with you prior to
preparing, I would have given up on my idea, especially since your rated
2000 and I'm a 1550 player. I'll let you know how the game turns out. I'll
probably find myself out of my preparation before move 12 :)

However, hours of work have gone into this, so I'm stuck with what I
have..............but, looking over the lines with Fritz, Black's play looks
so sensible and it's so easy for White to lose the initiative.

As far as memorization goes: I can't memorize all these lines, I can only
get a feel for the ideas behind the different positions. I will only know
1/2 dozen lines 20 moves deep when it's game time, and then, it will be
priily the main line, where Fritz found the best move for each side. I
will have to find the others again over the board. And.........isn't that
the way GMs prepare for a match against one another? Not with Fritz, but by
preparing a line against their opponent's favorite opening? I understand
Kasparov had thousands of novelties in his war chest, waiting to spring on
the right opponent.

As far as giving him the bishops in a open position, I agree with you,
however, Fritz is giving clear ideas of how to neutralize them, and, as I've
said before, without exact play by White, Black gets the best of the game.
Especially when I let Fritz study each move 17 ply deep, which I have done.

In any event, I'm here, I've got the hours of analysis in hand, so there's
no starting over now, as the match is tomorrow. Who knows, maybe he studied
my games, found that I play a weak Ruy Lopez, and has prepared to come at me
that way. :)

Either way, I've still learned a lot from studying this line with Fritz,
even if I never play the line...........Of course, I say that now, but I
have yet to play a standard match without Fritz by side, as I will be
tomorrow, as I've been watching the Masters and preparing for my match.

Take a look at this line, where White takes back on c3 with the pawn:

1.e4 e5 2.d4 ed 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.c3 dc 5.bc Bc5 6.Bc4 0-0 7.Bg5 Ne7 8.0-0 Nbc6
9.Nbd2 d6 10.Nb3 Bb6 11.Nbd4 Qe8

Fritz 9, after the moves 1.e4 e5, gives White a .20 advantage.

After the above 11 moves, Fritz gives Black a .55 advantage(Fritz is only at
15 ply though). That's a .75 swing, or 3/4 of a pawn in only 11 moves. And,
all the moves seem like logical moves for an avg 1550 player. :) White has
forced Black to post his King's Knight on e7 instead of its natural f6
square. White has a Knight posted on d4, and f3. He has all of his pieces
out except his Queen, which is the only piece between his Rooks. So, what is
the problem?!

The problem is: He has three weaknesses: the e-pawn, the c-pawn and the
a-pawn are isolated and subject to attack, or pressure at a future time, and
will be a cronic illness in the endgame. His dark Bishop does not have the
scope Black's does and his light squared bishop is pretty much useless on
c4, as I'll just put my King on h8, play f6 further limiting the scope of
White's dark Bishop & Ng6. And, his light squared bishop would even be more
useless on d3, as he can't push the e-pawn.

White was never in a position to push his e-pawn. He cannot play Qb3,
because of Na5. So, both of the long diagonals are useless to him, mainly
because of his pawns, or Black's pieces that will blockade. The a1-h8
diagonal is out, because of the pawn on c3, and he doesn't have time to push
it to c4. Plus, in the line where White takes on c3 with his b-pawn, I get
to keep my bishop pair.

In any event, this is the first time that I've studied a line so thoroughly
and have learned a lot. I appreciate all you've contributed and hope you'll
take the time to look at the one line I presented and see if I'm seeing
clearly.

Don't get me wrong! I don't think I'm right!? I'm telling you what a 1550
player sees, or gives as the reasoning behind Fritz giving Black a .55
advantage in the above position. I wish I had $5000.00 to spend on 100 hours
of coaching at $50.00 an hour from a Master, but I don't.
So............Fritz is my coach. :)

Best regards,
Ken

"Ron" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Ken Lovering" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > After 8.b4 d5!, White no longer finds it so easy to post a bishop on the
> > a2-g8 diagonal, and in most lines, finds himself having to settle for
the
> > b2-h7.
>
> But is b2-h7 really settling? On the contrary, it's often the most
> useful diagonal for that bishop when going after the castled king.
>
> > He cannot exchange centre pawns and he cannot push! 9.e5 Bg4 11.ef
> > Rxf6 12.Ne5 Re6 and the knight is pinned. 13.f3 Nbc6! And White, having
> > failed to castle before getting aggressive, finds himself in trouble :)
>
> But he doesn't have to do either. 9. Bd3 and white can play ed after he
> castles. You're opening the center for a player who's already got the
> bishop pair. Is that wise?
>
> > I know Black is living on the edge here............however, were you not
> > living on the edge in your 2Knights Game? It helps when you know the
tree
> > variations :)
>
> Well, honestly, I wouldn't have gone into that line if I knew it was as
> bad as it was. I got lucky in that my opponent found the best
> continuation. My goal is to find opening lines where the play favors me,
> where I don't have to find only moves.
>
> >
> > > 4. dxc3 5.bxc3!
> > >
> > > Now 5. ... Bc5 6.Bc4 Ne7 (Nf6? 7.e5! Ng4 8.Bxf7+!) 7.Ng5 d5 (7. ...
0-0
> > > 8.Qh5! h6 9.Nxf7 winning) 8.ed 0-0 9.0-0 with a position which, while
> > > computers may evaluate as close to even, looks to me like it's much
> > > easier to play for white. My gut tells me that's a position where
white
> > > will score very well in practical play between amateurs.
> >
> > Now, in the above line, we have a game: Xie 2225 v. Solomon 2347, where
> > Black played 6....d6! instead of Ne7.
> > It continued: 7.0-0 Nc6 8.e5 de 9.Qxd8 Nxd8 10.Nxe5 Be6 11.Na3 f6 and
Black
> > went on to win in 29 moves.
>
> 6 ... d6 is a logical and strong improvement, but e5 seems downright
> foolish. It's too early for white to push through in the center.
>
> > >
> > > Alternatively 5 ... Ba5 (often a better way to play for the win in
> > > similar positions) 6.Bc4 Ne7 (Nf6 7.e5 d5 8.ef dc 9.Qa4+ Nc6 10.fg Rg8
> > > 11.0-0 +/-) 7.Ng5 (noticing a pattern here?) d5 8.ed 0-0 9.0-0 and
> > > again, computers say this looks pretty equal but it sure looks easier
to
> > > play for white. He's got very gambit-like play without being down a
> > > pawn; black has defensive resources but do you really want to be
> > > defending going into the middlegame like this?
>
> > > Instead of 8.b4, 8.Bg5 looks interesting (... d5 9.0-0-0!), leading to
a
> > > complex, tactical position where white's development advantage is not
> > > trivial in practical play.
> >
> > Thanks Ron! That's what I'm looking for: "complex tactical positions"
>
> But I think you need to find complex tactical situations where the
> strategic position is in your favor. Because of his development
> advantage in the above line, I think white's going to score rather well.
>
> > In the above line, I have no analysis! I've been working so hard on the
b4
> > line. So, I'm going to have to get to work. I own three computers, with
> > Fritz running on all 3 at the moment. While Fritz runs............I test
> > myself on the lines with chessbase and review my notes to the ideas.
>
> In my experience, it's best to count on being taken out of your
> preparation, and to be in the better position when that happens.
>
> >
> > Part of the rush in the game comes from: knowing you reviewed this line
> > prior to the game and reviewing the ideas in your head and hopefully
> > remembering the best line :)
> > I play chess for fun, and the rush comes from studying these type
positions
> > in books for the 1st time and finding myself finding the winning line
more
> > and more often. Tal is one my heros.
>
> Well, honestly, I get very little thrill in winning games because of a
> memorized bit of preparation. I know a fair bit of theory at this point,
> but I don't get much satisfaction out of copying Alekhine's moves, in
> playing a win he played.
>
> But I don't really have that problem too often: my opponents don't play
> as well as Alekhine's opponents. So now I have to figure out how to beat
> a normal & reasonable move on my own. If I've done things like give my
> opponent the bishop pair in an open position, well, that's a lot harder.
>
> -Ron

Date: 10 Apr 2006 07:09:36
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Center Counter Game

In article <[email protected] >,
"Ken Lovering" <[email protected] > wrote:

> I'm agreeing with you, and had I discussed the line with you prior to
> preparing, I would have given up on my idea, especially since your rated
> 2000 and I'm a 1550 player. I'll let you know how the game turns out. I'll
> probably find myself out of my preparation before move 12 :)

Ug. No I'm not. Or, well, I am on FICS, currently, but I'm convinced
that has more to do with the lack of accuracy of the rating system than
with me actually being any good.

But good luck with the game. It may well work out. But bear in mind that
with the kind of work you're doing, yes, he's playing into your
preparation, but you're also playing into his.

Good luck!

> However, hours of work have gone into this, so I'm stuck with what I
> have..............but, looking over the lines with Fritz, Black's play looks
> so sensible and it's so easy for White to lose the initiative.

I think it's dangerous to rely too much on computers in preparation.
Yes, they can help spot mistakes in your plans, but the truth is you
don't need to know whether the position on move 12 is +.5 or -.5; you
need to know how to plan your next ten moves.

> As far as memorization goes: I can't memorize all these lines, I can only
> get a feel for the ideas behind the different positions. I will only know
> 1/2 dozen lines 20 moves deep when it's game time, and then, it will be
> priily the main line, where Fritz found the best move for each side. I
> will have to find the others again over the board. And.........isn't that
> the way GMs prepare for a match against one another? Not with Fritz, but by
> preparing a line against their opponent's favorite opening? I understand
> Kasparov had thousands of novelties in his war chest, waiting to spring on
> the right opponent.

Kasparov was probably the best-prepared player in history, but so what?

The fact is that Kasparov's massive opening war chess was backed up by
the fact that his tactical vision was better than everybody else's, and
his strategic understanding was as good as any of his contemporaries.

Unlike, say, Fischer, who generallly was looking for truth over the
chessboard, Kasparov's novelties (while often very theoretically
important) were at least as much about presenting his opponent's with
positions where Kasparov could outthink them. Bluster and bluffing were
big parts of Kasparov's game.

> As far as giving him the bishops in a open position, I agree with you,
> however, Fritz is giving clear ideas of how to neutralize them, and, as I've
> said before, without exact play by White, Black gets the best of the game.
> Especially when I let Fritz study each move 17 ply deep, which I have done.

Fair enough. If you're studying enough to feel like you're picking up
the themes in the middlegame positions, then you're studying the right
way.

But you've got to be really careful. Just because Fritz tells you a
move is solid at 17 ply doesn't mean those 17 ply are easy to evaluate.
Here's a simple example from a recent game of mine:

1r1r3k/ppq1n1pp/2n1Bp2/b3pP2/7Q/B1P2N2/P4PPP/1R2R1K1 w - - -1 21

Black has just played ...Ba5. Computers evaluate the position as
slightly favorable for white, and suggest something like Re3.

Instead I played 21. Re4 - a worse move from a computer's perspective
(reducing my advantage from about .7 to about .5). Why is it a worse
move? Because it's based on a parry-able threat. Black didn't see the
threat - a momentary lapse of tactical vision: 21. ... Bxc3? 22.Qxh7+!
1-0.

But when Fritz looks at a position like the original one, it says, "not
much to fear here. Moves like Re4 are inferior.

The problem is that you're likely to find yourself exploring these
"inferior" pathways - and you need to be careful that you don't end up
on the wrong side of a two-mover which Fritz would never miss.

Remember: when Fritz sees a position where ten plausible moves lose
quickly, but a key defensive move holds, it rates the position strongly.
But we humans tend to play one of those plausible losing moves more
often than not. Don't put yourself in a position where lots of plausible
moves lose - even if the position is objectively good for you.

> Take a look at this line, where White takes back on c3 with the pawn:
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.d4 ed 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.c3 dc 5.bc Bc5 6.Bc4 0-0 7.Bg5 Ne7 8.0-0 Nbc6
> 9.Nbd2 d6 10.Nb3 Bb6 11.Nbd4 Qe8

6. ... 0-0 is illegal. I'm assuming you meant 6. ... Ne7 and 7. ... 0-0

> Fritz 9, after the moves 1.e4 e5, gives White a .20 advantage.
>
> After the above 11 moves, Fritz gives Black a .55 advantage(Fritz is only at
> 15 ply though). That's a .75 swing, or 3/4 of a pawn in only 11 moves. And,
> all the moves seem like logical moves for an avg 1550 player. :) White has
> forced Black to post his King's Knight on e7 instead of its natural f6
> square. White has a Knight posted on d4, and f3. He has all of his pieces
> out except his Queen, which is the only piece between his Rooks. So, what is
> the problem?!

The problem is that black is up a pawn. Quite frankly, against a fairly
materialistic program like Fritz, I'm not comfortable being up only .55
when I'm down a pawn.

> The problem is: He has three weaknesses: the e-pawn, the c-pawn and the
> a-pawn are isolated and subject to attack, or pressure at a future time, and
> will be a cronic illness in the endgame.

Agreed. All endgames are likely to be very favorable to black. He is,
after all, up a pawn.

> His dark Bishop does not have the
> scope Black's does and his light squared bishop is pretty much useless on
> c4, as I'll just put my King on h8, play f6 further limiting the scope of
> White's dark Bishop & Ng6.

On the contrary, I think white's pieces are all very active. He's got
lots of open lines for his pieces. Opening the a2-g8 diagonal, opens
your king up to a LOT of tactics, even on h8. (The lack of flight
squares isn't reassuring. See the winning combination in the above game
frament I posted. It was only possible because white voluntarily game my
bishop a lot of scope.)

White's dark-squared bishop has lots of options. I'm not thrilled with
the N on g6 (although from there it could come to useful life on e5 or
f4).

> And, his light squared bishop would even be more
> useless on d3, as he can't push the e-pawn.

But he can push the e-pawn. Right now it costs him a pawn. But he's not
playing for pawns. He's playing for activity.

I'd strongly encourage you to spend more time with the classics - good,
old-fashioned pre-1930 chess. E-pawn sacrifices to open the diagonal to
h7 were very popular back then. You're going to be restraining this
advance for a long time.

> White was never in a position to push his e-pawn. He cannot play Qb3,
> because of Na5.

He can't play it now. But his queen's got lots of useful squares to go
to other than b3.

> So, both of the long diagonals are useless to him, mainly
> because of his pawns, or Black's pieces that will blockade. The a1-h8
> diagonal is out, because of the pawn on c3, and he doesn't have time to push
> it to c4. Plus, in the line where White takes on c3 with his b-pawn, I get
> to keep my bishop pair.

You seem to be looking at the position in a very static way. Things
like "push the c3 pawn to c4" - sure, you're right, he's never going to
push that pawn to c3.

But why the hell would he want to? On c3, it protects his knight. If you
trade, he gets a strong center. The pawn will be weak in an endgame but
you're not in an endgame yet.

But the static situation is only half the game. Piece activity is really
important. Compare pieces: His queen has much more mobility than yours.
His rooks have open files. His DS bishop is unopposed on the kingside
dark squares because your DS bishop is stuck on b6 for the forseable
future. His bishop attacks f7 and is ready to shift to attack h7 at a
moment's notice. His QN is posted on the fourth rank, yours on the
third. His KN is on the third rank, yours on the second. Your pieces are
cramped and want for squares.

Only your undeveloped LS bishop threatens to be as actively posted as
one of his pieces.

I don't know the ultimate truth of this position. I'd HATE to play white
against a computer - but I suspect I'd do better with white than with
black against people.

Good luck in the game! Post it and let us know how it goes.

-Ron

Date: 09 Apr 2006 10:27:11
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Center Counter Game

>> Does anyone see the neccessity behind Kh8?
>
> Last things first.
>
> It looks to me like a prophylactic move - and one I'd strongly encourage
> you to play. The point is that having played ...f6, black is going to
> have lots of tactical opportunities based on moves like Qb3+ or Qc4+.
> No, neither of those win material right now, but any time you have an
> unprotected piece, that check is giving him a key tempo to put together
> a double attack.
>
> Kh8 gets your king off the dangerous a2-g8 diagonal, which is almost
> certainly worth a tempo - especially in a game between amateurs which
> will probably be decided because somebody misses a tactic.

As opposed to those perfectly played games by GMs <snicker >.

Actually, he should make sure the queens are going to be on the board
indefinitely before using up time with Kh8, as if there is an exchange of
queens he may want to approach the center afterwords to provide support to
rooks on an open central file.

> Fritz doesn't look for a move like that because Fritz never misses a
> tactic. You and me, on the other hand, miss tactics. Notice how a Bg4 is
> a potential target for a queen check on c4.

Computers actually do play moves like Kh8/Kh1, when they want to improve
king safety. They usually just find slaughtering tactics which take
priority over it.

Date: 09 Apr 2006 17:15:14
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Center Counter Game

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> Does anyone see the neccessity behind Kh8?
>>
>> Last things first.
>>
>> It looks to me like a prophylactic move - and one I'd strongly encourage
>> you to play. The point is that having played ...f6, black is going to
>> have lots of tactical opportunities based on moves like Qb3+ or Qc4+.
>> No, neither of those win material right now, but any time you have an
>> unprotected piece, that check is giving him a key tempo to put together
>> a double attack.
>>
>> Kh8 gets your king off the dangerous a2-g8 diagonal, which is almost
>> certainly worth a tempo - especially in a game between amateurs which
>> will probably be decided because somebody misses a tactic.
>
> As opposed to those perfectly played games by GMs <snicker>.
>
> Actually, he should make sure the queens are going to be on the board
> indefinitely before using up time with Kh8, as if there is an exchange of
> queens he may want to approach the center afterwords to provide support to
> rooks on an open central file.
>
>
>> Fritz doesn't look for a move like that because Fritz never misses a
>> tactic. You and me, on the other hand, miss tactics. Notice how a Bg4 is
>> a potential target for a queen check on c4.
>
> Computers actually do play moves like Kh8/Kh1, when they want to improve
> king safety. They usually just find slaughtering tactics which take
> priority over it.
>
>
>
>

I agree with Ron on this one.

Regards

Date: 09 Apr 2006 03:01:40
From: David Emerling
Subject: Re: Center Counter Game

"Ken Lovering" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've got a match coming up against a guy who plays 1.e4 100% of the time,
> for which I reply 1....e5 and he replies 2.d4 100% of the time. We have
> never played each other.

If you're going to do some research on this opening, you should know that it
is called the Center Game, not to be confused with the Center Counter
Defense.

The Center Counter Defense is characterized by 1 ... d5.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Date: 09 Apr 2006 02:36:16
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Center Counter Game

>> I've got a match coming up against a guy who plays 1.e4 100% of the time,
>> for which I reply 1....e5 and he replies 2.d4 100% of the time. We have
>> never played each other.
>
> If you're going to do some research on this opening, you should know that
> it is called the Center Game, not to be confused with the Center Counter
> Defense.

His title for it is more descriptive.

Date: 08 Apr 2006 23:48:12
From: Ken Lovering
Subject: Re: Center Counter Game

David,

1.e5,d5 is universely known as the Scandinavian

1.e4, e5 2.d4 is the Center Game.

2....exd4 3.c3 is the Danish Gambit.

Best regards,
Ken

"David Emerling" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ken Lovering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I've got a match coming up against a guy who plays 1.e4 100% of the
time,
> > for which I reply 1....e5 and he replies 2.d4 100% of the time. We have
> > never played each other.
>
> If you're going to do some research on this opening, you should know that
it
> is called the Center Game, not to be confused with the Center Counter
> Defense.
>
> The Center Counter Defense is characterized by 1 ... d5.
>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
>

Date: 09 Apr 2006 02:36:52
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Center Counter Game

> 1.e5,d5 is universely known as

Illegal.

>
> 1.e4, e5 2.d4 is

Unsound.

> 2....exd4 3.c3 is

too kinky.

Date: 09 Apr 2006 03:25:01
From: Ken Lovering
Subject: Re: Center Counter Game

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > 1.e5,d5 is universely known as
>
> Illegal.
>
> >
> > 1.e4, e5 2.d4 is
>
> Unsound.
>
> > 2....exd4 3.c3 is
>
> too kinky.

LOL :))

>
>
>

Date: 09 Apr 2006 00:02:56
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: Center Counter Game

On 2006-04-09, Ken Lovering wrote:
> David,
>
> 1.e5,d5 is universely known as the Scandinavian

Presuming you meant 1.e4, it is also widely (or more) known as the
Centre Counter Defence or Centre Counter Game.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Date: 09 Apr 2006 00:38:07
From: Ken Lovering
Subject: Re: Center Counter Game

You're right! I've never known it to be called that. I looked it up. I'm
glad I didn't learn that nickname, as it may have confused me with the
Center Game.

Of course, now, I have the problem of having attained the bad habit of
calling the Center Game the Center Counter Game on occassion, which is
incorrect, especially since it is the nickname of the Scandinavian
Defense.!.

My Bad!
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2006-04-09, Ken Lovering wrote:
> > David,
> >
> > 1.e5,d5 is universely known as the Scandinavian
>
> Presuming you meant 1.e4, it is also widely (or more) known as the
> Centre Counter Defence or Centre Counter Game.
>
> --
> Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
> ===================================================================
> Author:
> Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Date: 09 Apr 2006 06:10:55
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Center Counter Game

"Ken Lovering" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You're right! I've never known it to be called that. I looked it up. I'm
> glad I didn't learn that nickname, as it may have confused me with the
> Center Game.
>
> Of course, now, I have the problem of having attained the bad habit of
> calling the Center Game the Center Counter Game on occassion, which is
> incorrect, especially since it is the nickname of the Scandinavian
> Defense.!.
>
> My Bad!

Not sure it matters what you call it :-)

Regards

Date: 09 Apr 2006 02:10:53
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: Center Counter Game

On 2006-04-09, Terry wrote:
>
> "Ken Lovering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> You're right! I've never known it to be called that. I looked it up. I'm
>> glad I didn't learn that nickname, as it may have confused me with the
>> Center Game.
>>
>> Of course, now, I have the problem of having attained the bad habit of
>> calling the Center Game the Center Counter Game on occassion, which is
>> incorrect, especially since it is the nickname of the Scandinavian
>> Defense.!.
>>
>> My Bad!
>
> Not sure it matters what you call it :-)

Only if you want other people to know what you are talking about.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Date: 09 Apr 2006 02:34:19
From: Ken Lovering
Subject: Re: Center Counter Game

So, when someone tells you: I won a game today against an expert.

You ask: What opening was it?

He replies:
It was the Center Game.......

There would be absolutely no question in your mind that he was not talking
about 1.e4,d5?

:)

"Chris F.A. Johnson" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2006-04-09, Terry wrote:
> >
> > "Ken Lovering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> You're right! I've never known it to be called that. I looked it up.
I'm
> >> glad I didn't learn that nickname, as it may have confused me with the
> >> Center Game.
> >>
> >> Of course, now, I have the problem of having attained the bad habit of
> >> calling the Center Game the Center Counter Game on occassion, which is
> >> incorrect, especially since it is the nickname of the Scandinavian
> >> Defense.!.
> >>
> >> My Bad!
> >
> > Not sure it matters what you call it :-)
>
> Only if you want other people to know what you are talking about.
>
> --
> Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
> ===================================================================
> Author:
> Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Date: 09 Apr 2006 02:57:03
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: Center Counter Game

On 2006-04-09, Ken Lovering wrote:
> So, when someone tells you: I won a game today against an expert.
>
> You ask: What opening was it?
>
> He replies:
> It was the Center Game.......
>
> There would be absolutely no question in your mind that he was not talking
> about 1.e4,d5?

None whatsoever. The Center Game is e4 e5, d4;,why would I assume
anything else?

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Date: 09 Apr 2006 07:45:12
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Center Counter Game

"Ken Lovering" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So, when someone tells you: I won a game today against an expert.
>
> You ask: What opening was it?
>
> He replies:
> It was the Center Game.......
>
> There would be absolutely no question in your mind that he was not talking
> about 1.e4,d5?
>
> :)

If somebody told me it was the centre game - I still wouldnt be sure :-)

Regards