| |
Main
Date: 06 Aug 2007 12:58:37
From: Chess One
Subject: Dilworth, Revisited
|
This thread follows up on something Timman wrote a few years on the worth of
opening books, which he thought were often nonsense! Adorjan reported his
attitude, and recently advised Kasparov of his view in preparation for the
forthcoming Predecessors volume.
I note with interest that Shamkovich and Schiller state in their Spanish
Gambits, that much revision is necessary to what was previously thought
playable, and with whom the advantage lies.
So - here is a conversation piece on The Dilworth, a line from the Ruy
Lopez:-
1 e4 e5
2 Nf3 Nc6
3 Bb5 a6
4 Ba4 Nf6
5 0-0 Nxe4
Okay - the idea with 6. d4
Which brings us to 6. ... b5 [6. ...Be7 is Walbrodt Var. hardly played for a
century, and seems to offer White gambit&attack opportunities.]
White's 7. d5 is the Advance var. which gets brief mention say S&S, and Euwe
1982 is better on it. A recommendation is 7 . ... ba! but 7 . ... Ne7 8 Re1
ba 9. Rxe4 d6 - Korchnoi says black is better, Keres says equal.
So...
7. Bb3 d5
is the Dilworth. I'll pause here with the moves to ask a few things - one
is, does anyone play this as black, and has anyone faced the line as white?
S&S comment that Vernon Dilworth's line has 'suffered unjustly at the hands
of the theoretical pundits.'
They offer the position at move 12 with the comments that 'most sources give
these as favoring White, but actually Black is at least equal. Kasparov and
Keene had a chance to re-evaluate these positions when they worked on
Batsford Chess Openings, and they agreed, black is no worse in the formerly
+= lines"
Here are moves 8-12
8 de Be6
9 c3 Bc5
10 Nbd2 0-0
11 Bc2 Nxf2
12 Rxf2
The commentary continues, "Among the players who have been willing to play
the Black side are Botvinnik, Tukmakov and Polugayevsky."
extracts above from: Shamkovich and Schiller, Spanish Gambits, copyright
1986, Collier/Macmillan
More anon!
Phil Innes
|
|
| |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 18:42:38
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Dilworth, Revisited
|
On Aug 7, 8:16 pm, Ron <[email protected] > wrote:
> 6.Re1 is not even remotely frightening. Black gets easy equality and the
> chance to play for the win. Furthermore, any player of the black pieces
> sees this a lot until they start playing stronger opponents, because
> it's such a "natural" move, so that it won't have much surprise value.
How things have changed. When I was a young
bot, the world champion was known to play R-e1
in his most important games, but now even Rob
Mitchell considers it to be inferior, even going so
far as to imply that only weak players like it!
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 18:37:46
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Dilworth, Revisited
|
On Aug 7, 1:20 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > I have faced this as White, playing Fritz 5.32 with no book.
> > (Generally, I lose.)
>
> Ah ! - the point of the thread...
The point was to embarrass me for losing to Fritz?
Hey -- I'm not the only one! In a few days, GM Joel
Benjamin will be joining a long list of players beaten
by their vast superiors, the siliconoids.
> > I never quite understood the reasoning behind the move
> > 6.d4, since Black is allowed to get away with ...Nxe4
> > when by all rights he should be PAYING for his arrogant
> > pawn-snatch.
> Because it avoids very drawish lines [says Nunn].
Well then, by that line of reasoning, 6.Qd2 is a fine
move, since it, too avoids drawish play.
> > As for why so many "pundits" and grandmasters differ,
> > I think they rely far too heavily on the eventual outcome
> > of games, rather than a more rational assessment; you
> > can't just back up the ultimate result of a game and use
> > that as the evaluation for positions in the opening.
>
> Enough talk!! - after you capture with 12. Rxf2
>
> does Fritz play f6** [?]
I can capture the Knight on f2? (Sh*t!) Uh, maybe
this is one of the reasons I have to use the handicap
levels.
> ** What does Fritz think of
>
> 12. ... Re8 [maybe not so good?]
> and
> 12. ... Bg4 [avoids all known theory?]
My version of Fritz is far too old to worry about what
it thinks about some theoretical line in the opening.
In fact, even the best programs come preloaded with
rote moves, apparently because their programmers
are not up to the task of making them play openings
well for themselves.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 03:13:58
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Dilworth, Revisited
|
On Aug 6, 7:58 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> 1 e4 e5
> 2 Nf3 Nc6
> 3 Bb5 a6
> 4 Ba4 Nf6
> 5 0-0 Nxe4
>
> Okay - the idea with 6. d4
>
> Which brings us to 6. ... b5 [6. ...Be7 is Walbrodt Var. hardly played for a
> century, and seems to offer White gambit&attack opportunities.]
>
> White's 7. d5 is the Advance var. which gets brief mention say S&S, and Euwe
> 1982 is better on it. A recommendation is 7 . ... ba! but 7 . ... Ne7 8 Re1
> ba 9. Rxe4 d6 - Korchnoi says black is better, Keres says equal.
>
> So...
>
> 7. Bb3 d5
>
> is the Dilworth. I'll pause here with the moves to ask a few things - one
> is, does anyone play this as black, and has anyone faced the line as white?
I have faced this as White, playing Fritz 5.32 with no book.
(Generally, I lose.)
> S&S comment that Vernon Dilworth's line has 'suffered unjustly at the hands
> of the theoretical pundits.'
>
> They offer the position at move 12 with the comments that 'most sources give
> these as favoring White, but actually Black is at least equal. Kasparov and
> Keene had a chance to re-evaluate these positions when they worked on
> Batsford Chess Openings, and they agreed, black is no worse in the formerly
> += lines"
>
> Here are moves 8-12
>
> 8 de Be6
> 9 c3 Bc5
> 10 Nbd2 0-0
> 11 Bc2 Nxf2
> 12 Rxf2
>
> The commentary continues, "Among the players who have been willing to play
> the Black side are Botvinnik, Tukmakov and Polugayevsky."
Perhaps they consider this playable because in spite of
losing a bit on the f2 exchange, White has managed to
waste four moves just shuttling his KB around the board!
I never quite understood the reasoning behind the move
6.d4, since Black is allowed to get away with ...Nxe4
when by all rights he should be PAYING for his arrogant
pawn-snatch.
As for why so many "pundits" and grandmasters differ,
I think they rely far too heavily on the eventual outcome
of games, rather than a more rational assessment; you
can't just back up the ultimate result of a game and use
that as the evaluation for positions in the opening.
Here's an example: in many of the games between GMs
Tal and Botvinnik, the latter seized the advantage on the
board, only to lose anyway. The same thing happened
in many other "key games", but the books love to end a
given line with reference to a key game, and its eventual
result.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 18:20:22
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Dilworth, Revisited
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Aug 6, 7:58 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> 1 e4 e5
>> 2 Nf3 Nc6
>> 3 Bb5 a6
>> 4 Ba4 Nf6
>> 5 0-0 Nxe4
>>
>> Okay - the idea with 6. d4
>>
>> Which brings us to 6. ... b5 [6. ...Be7 is Walbrodt Var. hardly played
>> for a
>> century, and seems to offer White gambit&attack opportunities.]
>>
>> White's 7. d5 is the Advance var. which gets brief mention say S&S, and
>> Euwe
>> 1982 is better on it. A recommendation is 7 . ... ba! but 7 . ... Ne7 8
>> Re1
>> ba 9. Rxe4 d6 - Korchnoi says black is better, Keres says equal.
>>
>> So...
>>
>> 7. Bb3 d5
>>
>> is the Dilworth. I'll pause here with the moves to ask a few things - one
>> is, does anyone play this as black, and has anyone faced the line as
>> white?
>
>
> I have faced this as White, playing Fritz 5.32 with no book.
> (Generally, I lose.)
Ah ! - the point of the thread...
>> S&S comment that Vernon Dilworth's line has 'suffered unjustly at the
>> hands
>> of the theoretical pundits.'
>>
>> They offer the position at move 12 with the comments that 'most sources
>> give
>> these as favoring White, but actually Black is at least equal. Kasparov
>> and
>> Keene had a chance to re-evaluate these positions when they worked on
>> Batsford Chess Openings, and they agreed, black is no worse in the
>> formerly
>> += lines"
>>
>> Here are moves 8-12
>>
>> 8 de Be6
>> 9 c3 Bc5
>> 10 Nbd2 0-0
>> 11 Bc2 Nxf2
>> 12 Rxf2
>>
>> The commentary continues, "Among the players who have been willing to
>> play
>> the Black side are Botvinnik, Tukmakov and Polugayevsky."
>
>
> Perhaps they consider this playable because in spite of
> losing a bit on the f2 exchange, White has managed to
> waste four moves just shuttling his KB around the board!
>
> I never quite understood the reasoning behind the move
> 6.d4, since Black is allowed to get away with ...Nxe4
> when by all rights he should be PAYING for his arrogant
> pawn-snatch.
Because it avoids very drawish lines [says Nunn]. True, White has little to
fear, but also little to hope for. And black will get an even position in
half a dozen more moves. White hope that black will err, otherwise a draw in
less than 20 moves.
> As for why so many "pundits" and grandmasters differ,
> I think they rely far too heavily on the eventual outcome
> of games, rather than a more rational assessment; you
> can't just back up the ultimate result of a game and use
> that as the evaluation for positions in the opening.
Enough talk!! - after you capture with 12. Rxf2
does Fritz play f6** [?]
Then white has an array of choices:
13. Nf1
13. Qe2
13. Nb3
13. ef.
[Qe1 fe :: Nb3 Bxf2 :: Qxf2 Bf5 :: Bxf5 Rxf5 17. Qc5, is a transposition.
13. Nd4 is not good. [Larsen Eriksen, 1965.]
So to continue the question; what do White players like here at 13? [I sound
like I am interviewing Tiger Woods about the difficult par-5].
Phil Innes
** What does Fritz think of
12. ... Re8 [maybe not so good?]
and
12. ... Bg4 [avoids all known theory?]
> Here's an example: in many of the games between GMs
> Tal and Botvinnik, the latter seized the advantage on the
> board, only to lose anyway. The same thing happened
> in many other "key games", but the books love to end a
> given line with reference to a key game, and its eventual
> result.
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 18:16:51
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Dilworth, Revisited
|
In article <GJ2ui.5104$7m5.3102@trndny02 >,
"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > I never quite understood the reasoning behind the move
> > 6.d4, since Black is allowed to get away with ...Nxe4
> > when by all rights he should be PAYING for his arrogant
> > pawn-snatch.
>
> Because it avoids very drawish lines [says Nunn]. True, White has little to
> fear, but also little to hope for. And black will get an even position in
> half a dozen more moves. White hope that black will err, otherwise a draw in
> less than 20 moves.
6.Re1 is not even remotely frightening. Black gets easy equality and the
chance to play for the win. Furthermore, any player of the black pieces
sees this a lot until they start playing stronger opponents, because
it's such a "natural" move, so that it won't have much surprise value.
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 14:04:42
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Dilworth, Revisited
|
> So - here is a conversation piece on The Dilworth, a line from the Ruy
> Lopez:-
>
> 1 e4 e5
> 2 Nf3 Nc6
> 3 Bb5 a6
> 4 Ba4 Nf6
> 5 0-0 Nxe4
> 7. Bb3 d5
>
> is the Dilworth. I'll pause here with the moves to ask a few things - one
> is, does anyone play this as black, and has anyone faced the line as white?
I don't think it's the Dilworth until 11. ... Nf2. Right now, this is
all main-line open Spanish.
I play this as black.
> Here are moves 8-12
>
> 8 de Be6
> 9 c3 Bc5
> 10 Nbd2 0-0
Most opponents avoid the main Dilworth gambit lines by using a 9.Nbd2,
to which the most popular response is Nc5.
Everybody wants to play like Karpov (and later Kasparov) with 9.Nbd2 Nc5
10.c3 d4 11.Ng5!? when ...dxc is busted unless someone's resuscitated it
recently, but both Qxg5 and Bd5 are perfectly reasonable plays for black
(although I'm more inclined to decline the sacrifice).
> 11 Bc2 Nxf2
> 12 Rxf2
>
> The commentary continues, "Among the players who have been willing to play
> the Black side are Botvinnik, Tukmakov and Polugayevsky."
Flear devotes 6 games to this variation in "Open Ruy Lopez," but black
can vary at move 11 with either ...f5 or ...Bf5. The former is extremely
theoretical, and but the later is solid.
-Ron
|
| | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 12:17:12
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Dilworth, Revisited
|
"Ron" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
Ah - a player!
> Most opponents avoid the main Dilworth gambit lines by using a 9.Nbd2,
> to which the most popular response is Nc5.
>
> Everybody wants to play like Karpov (and later Kasparov) with 9.Nbd2 Nc5
> 10.c3 d4
10. ... Bg4 is playable, though white may still have an advantage. I think
there are few illutrative games in this line,
> 11.Ng5!? when ...dxc is busted unless someone's resuscitated it
> recently, but both Qxg5 and Bd5 are perfectly reasonable plays for black
> (although I'm more inclined to decline the sacrifice).
Ay. I think Korchnoi has been the main pioneer of blacks resources, +maybe
Tal and Smyslov, whose Qxg5 is the one you cite. It goes
12. Qf3 0-0-0
13 Bxe6 fxe6
14 Qxc6 Qxe5
15 b4 Qd5
16 Qxd5 exd5
17 bxc5 dxc3
"with good compensation for the piece, Timman-Smyslov 1979.
>> 11 Bc2 Nxf2
>> 12 Rxf2
>>
>> The commentary continues, "Among the players who have been willing to
>> play
>> the Black side are Botvinnik, Tukmakov and Polugayevsky."
>
> Flear devotes 6 games to this variation in "Open Ruy Lopez," but black
> can vary at move 11 with either ...f5 or ...Bf5. The former is extremely
> theoretical, and but the later is solid.
Agree - Interestingly, perhaps the line should be named after Flear or
Larsen? The f5 line is commented on [but unplayed by?] Larsen. Whereas Bf5
is well illustrated; Fischer-Larsen, Santa Monica 1966, which continued
12. Nb3 Bg4
13 h3 [Fischer] <ibid >
I have other moves to 20, which is =
> -Ron
I wonder, Ron, since its very difficult to actually reach a Dilworth, do
people avoid it because they fear it, or prefer other lines for White since
they occur earlier in the game, and they can seem to be 'making a choice' in
conducting the game? This is interesting psychological questions for all
openings.
The question about the Dilworth is indeed, who is better? But not
theoretically better, but better able to negotiate the position when the
clock is going tick-tock? ;)
Cordially, Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 08:37:11
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Dilworth, Revisited
|
In article <cviui.2406$mw4.1476@trndny09 >,
"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I wonder, Ron, since its very difficult to actually reach a Dilworth, do
> people avoid it because they fear it, or prefer other lines for White since
> they occur earlier in the game, and they can seem to be 'making a choice' in
> conducting the game? This is interesting psychological questions for all
> openings.
Honestly, I think most players who haven't studied the Open Spanish
(which few have - I've been pleasantly surprised by how many of my
oponents are unprepared) vary not out of fear, but out of ignorance.
eg, 6.Re1 is the "obvious" move, which feels like it should punish the
pawn grab. If the player has gone over a few open Spanish games, they'll
know the 6.d4 idea, but then, on move 9, c3 is not obvious.
Instead the inexperienced played of the white pieces will (in my
opinion) look at the board, and say, "Hrm, I want to get rid of that on
e5. It's a very strong piece in black's position. Is there a way I can
challenge it while developing a piece?"
And, of course, there is. So they play 9.Nbd2 ... and all of a sudden I
have a choice to make. Do I think they'll play 10.Nxe4, which leads to
positions I don't particularly like.
> The question about the Dilworth is indeed, who is better? But not
> theoretically better, but better able to negotiate the position when the
> clock is going tick-tock? ;)
Well, the reason I like it as black is that I think black has excellent
practical chances. I don't play the Spanish as white, but if I did, I'd
probably choose to avoid it for just that reason.
-Ron
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 17:53:42
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Dilworth, Revisited
|
"Ron" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <cviui.2406$mw4.1476@trndny09>,
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I wonder, Ron, since its very difficult to actually reach a Dilworth, do
>> people avoid it because they fear it, or prefer other lines for White
>> since
>> they occur earlier in the game, and they can seem to be 'making a choice'
>> in
>> conducting the game? This is interesting psychological questions for all
>> openings.
>
> Honestly, I think most players who haven't studied the Open Spanish
> (which few have - I've been pleasantly surprised by how many of my
> oponents are unprepared) vary not out of fear, but out of ignorance.
Fascinating!
It really is!
This 500 year old opening still has people flumuxed at move 11, in 'the
Information Age'. :)))
> eg, 6.Re1 is the "obvious" move, which feels like it should punish the
> pawn grab. If the player has gone over a few open Spanish games, they'll
> know the 6.d4 idea, but then, on move 9, c3 is not obvious.
Yes, white can win back the pawn by an Re1 at 6, but at the cost of allowing
a certain mobilization on Blacks forces. Ha! Here we are discussing maybe
the oldest opening of all [apart from the G. Piannissimo] and its
all-to-seek at 6. At move 6!
And yes, like in the Sveshnikov c3 is not obvious, yet has grandmasters
giving up the black side, because they are looking for 'a bit more' out of
the opening, being not content to draw.
> Instead the inexperienced played of the white pieces will (in my
> opinion) look at the board, and say, "Hrm, I want to get rid of that on
> e5. It's a very strong piece in black's position. Is there a way I can
> challenge it while developing a piece?"
>
> And, of course, there is. So they play 9.Nbd2 ... and all of a sudden I
> have a choice to make. Do I think they'll play 10.Nxe4, which leads to
> positions I don't particularly like.
This year I saw Spanish Chess people instigating a tournament in the name of
Ruy Lopez. Is there really any other opening that can cause such
speculations on the fate of both sides, with a named variation seeminly
every move?
People 'know' about the shall, but here we have no apparent takers for
the Dilworth, which I think, would reward the white player with plenty of
headaches OTB, and of course, if players avoid it, irrespective of its
theoretical merits, this is already a form of winning - as you have noted.
I just asked Adorjan his opinion of it this morning and he threw his hands
up and said he hadn't played. 1. ... e5 since he was a kid. This is a bit of
a cop-out explanation as far as I am concerned so will tease him about being
a duffer with black ;))
But first i have to do something with his new book. [which we can presume,
covers none of the above, but I hope Garry does something more with. The
funny thing with Schiller and Shamkovich is that I thought their commentary
lightweight - but where is any other commenatary? So often they say,
'untested in practice']
>> The question about the Dilworth is indeed, who is better? But not
>> theoretically better, but better able to negotiate the position when the
>> clock is going tick-tock? ;)
>
> Well, the reason I like it as black is that I think black has excellent
> practical chances. I don't play the Spanish as white, but if I did, I'd
> probably choose to avoid it for just that reason.
Fascinating response! What sort of level are you OTB, Ron, and can you
distinguish any pattern in your opponents responses based on their rating?
You don't have to answer those questions - I think already we established
the major point.
Cordially, Phil Innes
> -Ron
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 05:11:30
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Dilworth, Revisited
|
In article <Gqnui.3971$jQ3.2390@trndny06 >,
"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Fascinating response! What sort of level are you OTB, Ron, and can you
> distinguish any pattern in your opponents responses based on their rating?
I have no idea what my OTB strength is, as I haven't played in a
tournament in over ten years. I never made it past class C (although my
last several tournament ratings were in the 1700s), but currently my
FICS rating is above 2000 (although feels high, since I end up getting a
lot of absurdly-easy wins over FICS-1850s) usually played 30 30 or so,
but I have scored a couple of draws recently against FMs.
Wish I could give you more detail than that, but I don't have time for
tournament chess these days.
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 16:01:10
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Dilworth, Revisited
|
Thanks Pete, I stand corrected. Phil
> Options for White and Black before Nxf2 along the line you give are:
>
> 8.a4 Nxd4 (Schlechter)
>
> 8.c4 (Harksen)
>
> 8.... Ne7 (Zukertort)
>
> 9.Qe2 (Howell)(and later, Adam variation)
>
> 9......Nc5 (Berlin)
>
> 9.....Be7 (Classical)
>
> 10Qd3 (Motzko)
>
> and, now, and only now, if White plays 10.Nbd2 and Black plays 10...Nxf2,
> do you get the Dilworth Variation. I used the Oxford Companion to Chess
> for the list of variations.
>
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 13:49:55
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Dilworth, Revisited
|
> I think you have a misplaced "is the Dilworth." Nxf2 is the signature
> move of the Dilworth.//Pete Tamburro
> 7. Bb3 d5
> 8 de Be6
> 9 c3 Bc5
> 10 Nbd2 0-0
> 11 Bc2 Nxf2
> 12 Rxf2
--
Hi Pete,
while I am willing to be corrected, is any other named variation possible
after 7. ... d5? 11. Nxf2 is for sure a signature move in the sense of it
being the dramatic one in the sequence. Maybe you are correct even though
S&S show no other named lines which begin 7. ... d5 and in fact no
deviations before 12. First deviation or optional sequences come at 15, but
most at 16.
Phil Innes
|
|
