| |
Main
Date: 25 Jan 2006 09:51:11
From: [email protected]
Subject: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
I recently had the opportunity to purchase this book as-new at a third
of the retail price, so decided after examination to buy it, even
though it is over my head, in the hope of growing into it and making
selective use of it in the meantime. (It is actually two volumes: the
first, Vol. 1, deals with 1.e4)
I have two questions. First, the more general: in the chapter on the
Four Knights, he examines the Scotch variation (4.d4) and the Spanish
variation (4.Bb4) but does not even mention the Italian variation
(4.Bc4). The closest he comes to dealing with this is in a note to the
Vienna Game on p.88, where he argues against a move transposing into
the Four Knights Italian on the grounds that Black can play the fork
trick. Is this truly conclusive? I note that the Italian variation of
the Four Knights is played at the Master level, e.g.,
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1201970 (though here the
fork trick is not played by Black).
The second question is specific to the following line in the Italian
Game: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Qe7 5.d4 and here Kallai
recommends against 5...exd4 on the grounds that after 6.o-o! dxc3
7.Nxc3 d6 8.Nd5 "and due to the threat of b2-b4, Black can only obtain
the silver medal in this game". What is wrong with, for example,
8...Qd7 and then if 9.b4, 9...Nxb4?
I should note that Kallai is himself a Grandmaster, while the book is
(in general) aimed at players rated between 1700 and 2300, so a lot is
taken for granted on the part of the reader (too much in my case I'm
afraid).
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2006 10:41:58
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Note that Chernev's book is no opening book: it is precisely what you
> > recommended, a book of games by Master players, with every move
> > annotated. If I were just following the game, without annotation, I
> > would be lucky to have surmised as much about even this one move as
> > Chernev describes. Yet, it appears that the move, or rather, the
> > reasoning about the implications of the move, either were wrong at the
> > time, or else have since become wrong as theory has advanced.
>
> You'll find plenty of holes like that in Chernev's book, which, IMO,
> doesn't reduce it's value too much. The fact is he's simplifying to
> help things make more sense - top-level chess is not easily explained in
> terms that are comprehensible to his target audience.
Agreed. Also, if the problem was 6...dcx3 (opening up the d-file and
allowing White to develop with tempo) rather than 5...exd4, then
Chernev and Kallai are both right up to a point. Kallai said don't do
5...exd4 but had in mind a line continuing with 6.o-o dxc3; Chernev
advised 5...exd4 but had a different continuation in mind and might
have advised against 6...dxc3 if 6.o-o. Mind you, I don't know that
5...exd4 is itself sound, and I'll likely avoid it on the general
principle that Black should wait for a better moment to act in the
center (and Black's bishop is going to need to move from c5 anyway).
>
> I wouldn't worry about it too much.
>
> You're doing the right thing by asking these questions, though. If
> something doesn't make sense, you shouldn't blindly accept it although
> it does, sometimes get to a point where people will want to say, "trust
> me one this one."
>
> -Ron
Likely I persisted too long, but it was interesting, and if nothing
else confirmed Chernev's comments that beginners try to dominate the
board with a lot of early pawn moves which initially require the
opponent to retreat, but which create exploitable weaknesses rather
than solid positions, which a better player can then take advantage of.
Honestly, some of my best games have been patiently developing and
waiting for the right moment to strike. I recall a game on Yahoo
against a player much higher rated than I was, and I was surprised by
the way he neglected development in favor of early pawn storms (and
when it looked like I would castle long, he started on the other side).
It was cramping, and dangerous, the way he did it, and some players
would panic, but he created some serious positional weaknesses, was
soon infiltrated, and, his king caught in the middle of the board with
no pawn cover, was eventually nailed, though he proved to be a quite
challenging defender once he stopped fiddling with his pawns and turned
to active piece play.
But it is a bit confusing, at least for me, to see some of the more
modern Master level games, which seem to involve an awful lot of pawn
moves early on. I suppose they know what they are doing and the
openings involved require it on both sides (?) but it does tempt the
duffers like me to wonder, if only in passing, whether some of the
positional principles advocated by past Masters have been superseded.
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jan 2006 20:08:34
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> But it is a bit confusing, at least for me, to see some of the more
> modern Master level games, which seem to involve an awful lot of pawn
> moves early on. I suppose they know what they are doing and the
> openings involved require it on both sides (?) but it does tempt the
> duffers like me to wonder, if only in passing, whether some of the
> positional principles advocated by past Masters have been superseded.
Er, meant to respond to this in the last post.
General principles always fall to concrete variations, and what's been
discovered is that there are specific pathways through various lines
which previously looked unplayable.
It's not that the principles are wrong, it's that they just don't always
apply. John Watson's "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy" (which is a
very, very complex book, I wouldn't recommend it to you yet) looks at
this phenomenon at a very high level.
But while you're developing your tactical and evaluative skills to the
point where you can start disregarding opening principles, you need
those principles. You need something to keep you oriented.
And, sometimes, at a high level it seems like chess is a battle of
ideas, of conflicting principles. "You think that a bishop in an open
position is better than a knight, but I think that in this position,
that knight secured on d5 is stronger than your bishop. Only one of us
can be right." Silman's "How to Reassess Your Chess" is a good place to
start with this sort of thinking about chess - but really, you need to
do a lot of tactical work first.
It's not that the principles are wrong, it's just that it's not clear
which one applies when.
-Ron
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jan 2006 20:02:33
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Agreed. Also, if the problem was 6...dcx3 (opening up the d-file and
> allowing White to develop with tempo) rather than 5...exd4, then
> Chernev and Kallai are both right up to a point. Kallai said don't do
> 5...exd4 but had in mind a line continuing with 6.o-o dxc3; Chernev
> advised 5...exd4 but had a different continuation in mind and might
> have advised against 6...dxc3 if 6.o-o. Mind you, I don't know that
> 5...exd4 is itself sound, and I'll likely avoid it on the general
> principle that Black should wait for a better moment to act in the
> center (and Black's bishop is going to need to move from c5 anyway).
I don't like exd4 at all, for what it's worth. 6.c3 d6 7.cd and black
is already getting pushed off the board, but there might be some
resources for black after 6. ... Ne5 but it looks really hairy. I'd
avoid it. If you want to play Qe7, meet d4 with d6. While there may be a
line which puts the question to this variation, you'll have a lot of
success with it at your level.
> Honestly, some of my best games have been patiently developing and
> waiting for the right moment to strike. I recall a game on Yahoo
> against a player much higher rated than I was, and I was surprised by
> the way he neglected development in favor of early pawn storms (and
> when it looked like I would castle long, he started on the other side).
> It was cramping, and dangerous, the way he did it, and some players
> would panic, but he created some serious positional weaknesses, was
> soon infiltrated, and, his king caught in the middle of the board with
> no pawn cover, was eventually nailed, though he proved to be a quite
> challenging defender once he stopped fiddling with his pawns and turned
> to active piece play.
Well, one of the reasons people play like that is because it usually
takes some imagination and tactical vision to beat it. Without moves
like 12.Rad1! (leaving the N on d5 after c6) or 20.Nd5! the line we've
been exploring might look like a positional crush for black.
And you will certainly have the experience, sooner or later, of being
very proud of a "positional crush" you've delivered to an opponent, only
to realize that he had a sacrifice which completely busted you.
Nobody lags behind in development just for the hell of it. Against
weaker opposition, your opponent had probably had a lot of success with
those "aggressive" pawn advances.
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2006 10:15:37
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
Ron wrote:
> I think you'd probably answer some of these questions for yourself if
> you slowed down a bit.
[...]
Yes, and at that point I still hadn't been to eat and was mentally
tired (hence mentally lazy and a little hazy).
Well, I got sidetracked somewhat anyway, and ended up playing half a
game via Usenet <g >. But I think your points are pretty well taken.
Black has too many positional defects, and even if Black manages to
overcome these through top-drawer play against a strong but lesser
opponent, the same talent could be put to better use developing a less
vulnerable position.
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2006 16:04:12
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
Ron wrote:
[. . .]
> > > > >
> > > > > After Nh6, white doesn't have to force the issue: 19.Rd2 Bb7 20.Rfd1
> > > > > 0-0-0 and white is doing just fine.
> > > >
> > > > What about 18...Nh6 19.Rd2 Qe7 20.Rfd1 Be6. Now how is White doing,
> > > > and what does White expect to accomplish with that rook battery? Is
> > > > White going to trade his nice active bishop for mine, or is White going
> > > > to cede that nice diagonal to me?
> > >
> > > Neither. 20. Nd5! cd 21. Bxd5! Rb8 22.Rxd4!
> >
> > 21...Bxd5 22.Rxd4 exd4 and explain to me why White is winning?
>
> You've confused me here. 21. ... Bxd5 is not a legal move. Notice that
> white plays Nd5! on move 20, not move 21 (there is still a rook on f1,
> the black B is on c8).
You're right. Earlier you had suggested that on move 21 and I
conflated the two lines. OK, then, 18...Nh6 19.Rd2 Qe7 20.Nd5 cxd5
21.Bxd5 and here, just offhand, I might play 21...Bb7 instead of the
suggested Rb8. If you take on d5 with the rook, and I recapture with a
pawn, and we exchange bishops, then I am a full rook ahead, if I'm
following this correctly, and the piece attrition is helping Black, not
White. Now tell me again why White is winning?
Also, as a clarification as to why this question arose to begin with:
Game 1 of Chernev's Logical Chess is an Italian Game with von Scheve vs
Teichmann. The latter was a pretty strong player. After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3
Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Qe7 Chernev has this to say about Black's queen
move: "Very good! Black develops a piece while parrying the threat.
If White persists in playing 5.d4, the continuation 5...exd4 6.cxd4
Qxe4+ wins a pawn. The capture with check gives White no time to
recover the pawn, and an extra pawn, everything else being equal, is
enough to win the game."
OK, now recall I said that I was going back over this again, this time
supplemented by Kallai. And that Kallai had written *against* 5...exd4
on the grounds that after 6.o-o! dxc3 7.Nxc3 d6 8.Nd5 "and due to the
threat of b2-b4, Black can only obtain the silver medal this game."
That was when I posted here asking, what about 8...Qd7 and if 9.b4 then
9...Nxb4 ? And you replied that you thought the answer must be 9.Bg5
and we were off on a merry tangent.
Note that Chernev's book is no opening book: it is precisely what you
recommended, a book of games by Master players, with every move
annotated. If I were just following the game, without annotation, I
would be lucky to have surmised as much about even this one move as
Chernev describes. Yet, it appears that the move, or rather, the
reasoning about the implications of the move, either were wrong at the
time, or else have since become wrong as theory has advanced.
So, if you're right that the position is crap, then Kallai came in
handy. But I was interested in following through on the analysis of
the position, because I'm not convinced that Kallai (or any other
author) should be regarded as the fount of inviolable wisdom.
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jan 2006 01:11:18
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Note that Chernev's book is no opening book: it is precisely what you
> recommended, a book of games by Master players, with every move
> annotated. If I were just following the game, without annotation, I
> would be lucky to have surmised as much about even this one move as
> Chernev describes. Yet, it appears that the move, or rather, the
> reasoning about the implications of the move, either were wrong at the
> time, or else have since become wrong as theory has advanced.
You'll find plenty of holes like that in Chernev's book, which, IMO,
doesn't reduce it's value too much. The fact is he's simplifying to
help things make more sense - top-level chess is not easily explained in
terms that are comprehensible to his target audience.
I wouldn't worry about it too much.
You're doing the right thing by asking these questions, though. If
something doesn't make sense, you shouldn't blindly accept it although
it does, sometimes get to a point where people will want to say, "trust
me one this one."
-Ron
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jan 2006 01:07:15
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> You're right. Earlier you had suggested that on move 21 and I
> conflated the two lines. OK, then, 18...Nh6 19.Rd2 Qe7 20.Nd5 cxd5
> 21.Bxd5 and here, just offhand, I might play 21...Bb7 instead of the
> suggested Rb8. If you take on d5 with the rook, and I recapture with a
> pawn, and we exchange bishops, then I am a full rook ahead, if I'm
> following this correctly, and the piece attrition is helping Black, not
> White. Now tell me again why White is winning?
I think you'd probably answer some of these questions for yourself if
you slowed down a bit.
Before you read on make the move 21. ... Bb7 on the board.
Now look at the position for a moment before reading on.
Does black have any loose pieces? Pieces that aren't defended, or are
only defended as many times as their attacked? Yes, it looks to me like
the b5 pawn is hanging, and the b7 bishop is attacked once and defended
once. White's down a piece, so the pawn isn't that important right
away. Is there any way he can attack the b7 bishop again /with tempo/
so that black doesn't have time to bring up an extra defender?
.
.
.
Say, maybe, by checking the black king?
.
.
.
.
.
21. ... Bb7 22. Qxb5+ Kf8 23.Qxb7 which gets the piece back a pawn up,
where a queen trade is basically forced and black so no meaningful
compensation going into the endgame. I'll leave it to you to figure out
why white keeps the piece AND extra pawn after 23. ... Qxb7 24.Bxb7 Rb8,
because it's a theme we've seen before.
(White's bishop is a little awkward, but it's no worse than black's
knight, and if the N moves than f2-f4 frees the bishop.)
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2006 15:06:54
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Ron wrote:
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > Just to be clear: After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Qe7 5.d4
> > > > > > > ed
> > > > > > > 6.0-0 dc 7.Nxc3 d6 8.Nd5 Qd7 9.Bg5 Ne5:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 10. Nxe5 de 11.Qf3 c6 12.Rad1 Bd4 (12. ... cxd5 13.Rxd5 Qc7 14.Rd8+
> > > > > > > &
> > > > > > > Qxf7mate but 13. ... f6 14. Rxd7 Bxd7 wins the queen for a rook and
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > minor, and doesn't slow down white's attack) is complex and quite
> > > > > > > possibly better for white. White can eventually win the bishop
> > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > with Ne3-f5, and it's not clear that black's king will be safe on
> > > > > > > either
> > > > > > > wing. (To free his pieces, black may have to play h6 & g5.) But the
> > > > > > > queenside doesn't look so safe, either, not with the half-open
> > > > > > > c-file
> > > > > > > and the c6-pawn being advanced (giving more effect to an eventual
> > > > > > > b4-b5
> > > > > > > thrust.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How about: 12...Bd4 13.Ne3 f6 14.Bh4 g5 15. Bg3 h5 16.h4 g4 17.Qe2 b5
> > > > > > 18.Bb3 for starters, to beat White back?
> > >
> > > > How about: 18...Nh6 (instead of Ne7, to give Black's other pieces a bit
> > > > more room to move and also to cover the f7 square) 19.f4 Rf8 and now if
> > > > 20.fxe5 then 20...fxe5 21.Rxf8 Kxf8 22.Qf2+ Ke8
> > >
> > > 23. Qf6! Bxe3+ 24.Kh1 Bd4 25.Qxh6.
> > >
> > > White simply threatens Bxe5, and if he tries to protect it by Qc7
> > > (otherwise Qxc6+ wins) then Qxh5+, Qf7+, etc. But the point is that
> > > black has so many weaknesses and hanging pieces that white can afford to
> > > let the N drop, even if it drops with check.
> >
> > And what happens if 22...Kg7 ?
>
> White wins by force starting with 23.Bxe5+.
>
> (You should have seen this one yourself. One thing you'll learn is how
> often the same ideas crop up in related variations. In this line, the
> pin on the d-file is one of white's key resources.)
Yes, and did, hence my disclaimer.
>
> > >
> > > After Nh6, white doesn't have to force the issue: 19.Rd2 Bb7 20.Rfd1
> > > 0-0-0 and white is doing just fine.
> >
> > What about 18...Nh6 19.Rd2 Qe7 20.Rfd1 Be6. Now how is White doing,
> > and what does White expect to accomplish with that rook battery? Is
> > White going to trade his nice active bishop for mine, or is White going
> > to cede that nice diagonal to me?
>
> Neither. 20. Nd5! cd 21. Bxd5! Rb8 22.Rxd4!
21...Bxd5 22.Rxd4 exd4 and explain to me why White is winning?
>
> I'm really not sure why you're so tied to the value of this line as
> black. It looks ugly. There are tactical minefields all over the place
> and they're all in white's favor.
I keep saying I'm not. And there are tactical minefields all over the
place in every chessgame against a strong opponent. All I am trying to
do is be convinced as to why 5...exd4 is a bad move for Black in this
opening. You're pretty convincing but I want to be reasonably
thorough. On general positional principles, it doesn't seem to be
5...exd4, but rather 6...dxc3 which is a bad idea, since the recapture
7.Nxc3 speeds White's development (Black has been making pawn captures
for two moves, while White has castled and developed a knight). Yet,
there are (at least superficially) similar opening positions where it
*is* strong to accept gambits and may even be unsound to decline them
(e.g., the Danish). And I've come across those openings too in the
Yahoo chess games I've played, and Kallai has helped a little. Now,
how am I supposed to decide whether this similar looking (to me) play
here is bad or good, without exploring it? That's what I'm doing, and
you're assisting rather ably with, and I appreciate it. I don't happen
to have a Fritz or Crafty to help me analyze positions and moves this
way.
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jan 2006 23:19:32
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > And what happens if 22...Kg7 ?
> >
> > White wins by force starting with 23.Bxe5+.
> >
> > (You should have seen this one yourself. One thing you'll learn is how
> > often the same ideas crop up in related variations. In this line, the
> > pin on the d-file is one of white's key resources.)
>
> Yes, and did, hence my disclaimer.
Yeah, I didn't see that until after this was posted.
> > > >
> > > > After Nh6, white doesn't have to force the issue: 19.Rd2 Bb7 20.Rfd1
> > > > 0-0-0 and white is doing just fine.
> > >
> > > What about 18...Nh6 19.Rd2 Qe7 20.Rfd1 Be6. Now how is White doing,
> > > and what does White expect to accomplish with that rook battery? Is
> > > White going to trade his nice active bishop for mine, or is White going
> > > to cede that nice diagonal to me?
> >
> > Neither. 20. Nd5! cd 21. Bxd5! Rb8 22.Rxd4!
>
> 21...Bxd5 22.Rxd4 exd4 and explain to me why White is winning?
You've confused me here. 21. ... Bxd5 is not a legal move. Notice that
white plays Nd5! on move 20, not move 21 (there is still a rook on f1,
the black B is on c8).
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2006 14:42:33
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Right now I am playing 1...e5 to try to learn about chess. I must say
> > that it is a good thing I had the sense to avoid encyclopedic or other
> > overly specialized opening books when first starting out, because it's
> > quite daunting to see all those lines and variations laid out. The
> > problem with playing 1...e5 as Black is that there is an enormous
> > amount of theory to be mastered, at least eventually, I suppose, since
> > White has the option of numerous continuations from there.
> > Realistically I ought to pick one good opening defense for Black
> > against 1.e4 that doesn't require that, and then concentrate on really
> > learning it, but some of those transpose easily into other openings
> > too, and frankly I think 1...e5 has something to recommend it. And a
> > number of them involve ceding the center to White and biding one's time
> > until the right moment to strike, and I'm not sure that I'm either up
> > to that or constitutionally inclined (at this time) toward it. The
> > Sicilian seems to involve about as much theory as the Ruy Lopez.
>
> The sicilian has far more theory than the Ruy Lopez. It's not even
> close. There are lines of the Ruy where theory is minimal, like the
> Moeller (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Bc5).
>
> I think playing 1. ... e5 is a good idea. Yes, you're going to run into
> a lot of different things, but in most of them, you're going to be able
> to guide yourself with basic principles, thus putting the focus on the
> tactical and strategic elements of the middlegame.
>
> The point is not to be scared of most of the gambits people will throw
> at you. Yes, white has a lot of choices, but most of them aren't that
> scary if you can keep a level head. And while you WILL lose some games
> because you fall into a known-to-be-inferior line, this will probably
> happen less than it will in an opening like the sicilian (where you'll
> constantly be asked to find only moves.)
>
> When you do lose a game because you feel like you fell into a line you
> don't know, simply look it up later. (Emms "Play the Open Games as
> Black" is a good reference).
>
> But the thing is, based on our discussion in other parts of this thread,
> I think you're making a huge mistake focusing on the opening. I think
> you'd do far better to play though games collections by Lasker,
> Capablanca, and Alekhine than to study Kallai's book.
I've recently been going over (again) Chernev's Logical Chess, or at
least the Italian and Spanish games, but I've been supplementing it
with Kallai's book. I don't like the idea of memorizing opening lines
because there are too many variations, and because I want to understand
*why* a move or countermove is good/bad, since all someone has to do is
depart slightly from a memorized move-order or variation and the rote
learner is lost.
>
> At least twice, when looking at those lines, you have simply completely
> mis-evaluated a position - regarding it as good for black when it is
> either winning or very close to winning for white. Opening books aren't
> going to help you with this. What will help you is watching how masters
> play the game: the complete game.
I think both will. General positional principles aren't going to get
me through tactical tricks and traps in openings I am unfamiliar with.
And positions can change from "winning" (or solid) to "losing" with a
single bad move. In this thread, I am simply pursuing a query to its
logical end. You seem to think I'm advocating this as a line of play,
or that I would play this way (well, to learn something I might).
>
> You'll get a feel for things like, "Hm, misplaced knight, undeveloped
> pieces, open files, king in the center - Capablanca's opponents end up
> with that kind of position all the time, but he doesn't." And you'll see
> how Capablanca exploits that. You'll start to see how moves like the
> pawn thrusts you were advocating for black to "push white back" tend to
> be weakening.
They can be. They can also gain space. Again, it requires evaluation
of a specific, tactical position to determine if a pawn advance is
weakening or not. And I've seen a lot of Master level games where
advancing lines of pawns play a role in wresting control of a game from
an opponent. But I'm inclined to agree with you in the general case.
>
> You have to understand that the purpose of opening theory isn't to give
> you wins directly. (Only Roy Gordon thinks that the game is won in the
> opening - although everybody agrees it can be lost there). The purpose
> of the opening is to get you into a middlegame position where you like
> your options and know how to play the position.
And exploring opening basics help one determine the best way(s) to
reach such positions.
>
> As you get stronger, it'll get more and more important for you to worry
> about playing the opening correctly. Right now? It's almost irrelevant.
> You're not going to lose games because you're openings are inaccurate,
> you're going to lose because your tactical skills are weak, and you
> mis-evaluate positions.
Good advice about paying attention to positional principles, but
remember that this thread is all about answering a specific, academic
question about what happens in a particular line. You're inferring
too much. No doubt my tactical skills are weak (certainly
inconsistent).
>
> But for now? That's a long way away. Don't worry about the subtleties of
> whether or not the fork trick is the best choice for black in the
> italian four knights. The odds of you actually having to play that are
> pretty remote, anyway.
>
> -Ron
Actually, I come across that all the time in Yahoo games, as Black:
sometimes directly, sometimes from transposition from the Vienna game,
sometimes from other transpositions. The Italian game is quite popular
among duffers like myself and as Black I see it all the time. General
positional principles often result in their posting both knights, too.
Combine the two and you see it all the time. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3
Nf6 4.Bc4 and there we are: fork trick time.
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2006 14:11:29
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
P.S. Whoops. Never mind 22...Kg7. I haven't eaten since 7am...time
to remedy that.
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2006 13:56:43
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Just to be clear: After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Qe7 5.d4 ed
> > > > > 6.0-0 dc 7.Nxc3 d6 8.Nd5 Qd7 9.Bg5 Ne5:
> > > > >
> > > > > 10. Nxe5 de 11.Qf3 c6 12.Rad1 Bd4 (12. ... cxd5 13.Rxd5 Qc7 14.Rd8+ &
> > > > > Qxf7mate but 13. ... f6 14. Rxd7 Bxd7 wins the queen for a rook and a
> > > > > minor, and doesn't slow down white's attack) is complex and quite
> > > > > possibly better for white. White can eventually win the bishop pair
> > > > > with Ne3-f5, and it's not clear that black's king will be safe on either
> > > > > wing. (To free his pieces, black may have to play h6 & g5.) But the
> > > > > queenside doesn't look so safe, either, not with the half-open c-file
> > > > > and the c6-pawn being advanced (giving more effect to an eventual b4-b5
> > > > > thrust.)
> > > >
> > > > How about: 12...Bd4 13.Ne3 f6 14.Bh4 g5 15. Bg3 h5 16.h4 g4 17.Qe2 b5
> > > > 18.Bb3 for starters, to beat White back?
>
> > How about: 18...Nh6 (instead of Ne7, to give Black's other pieces a bit
> > more room to move and also to cover the f7 square) 19.f4 Rf8 and now if
> > 20.fxe5 then 20...fxe5 21.Rxf8 Kxf8 22.Qf2+ Ke8 and though White
> > controls the open f-file, Black has a space advantage on both sides of
> > the board and White has nowhere to go and nothing to do. Black can
> > take his time formulating plans. Maybe putting his queen somewhere
> > behind his Black bishop on the same diagonal, his king on e7, and
> > seizing control of the f-file with Rf8 if feasible (not necessarily in
> > that order), as well as consolidating his space control on the
> > queenside. Black's uncastled king isn't a liability if White can't get
> > at it and is kept on the defensive and given no room for counterplay.
>
> Well, for starters, on Nh6 I no longer like f4, because if gxf3 followed
> by Ng4. That being said once again your final position is winning for
> white.
>
> 23. Qf6! Bxe3+ 24.Kh1 Bd4 25.Qxh6.
>
> White simply threatens Bxe5, and if he tries to protect it by Qc7
> (otherwise Qxc6+ wins) then Qxh5+, Qf7+, etc. But the point is that
> black has so many weaknesses and hanging pieces that white can afford to
> let the N drop, even if it drops with check.
And what happens if 22...Kg7 ?
>
> After Nh6, white doesn't have to force the issue: 19.Rd2 Bb7 20.Rfd1
> 0-0-0 and white is doing just fine.
What about 18...Nh6 19.Rd2 Qe7 20.Rfd1 Be6. Now how is White doing,
and what does White expect to accomplish with that rook battery? Is
White going to trade his nice active bishop for mine, or is White going
to cede that nice diagonal to me?
> Black's position is dangerous, and
> pointed out by the fact that white can play 21. Nd5 here: 21 ... cd 22.
> Rc1+ Kb7 23.Rxd4; (I wasn't sure this was best but then crafty saw ...
> Ka8 24.Rxd5! Bxd5 25.Bxd5+ Kb8 26.Rc6! which looks very strong).
>
> -Ron
Only in the line you chose for Black...after the line I just suggested,
what does White do?
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jan 2006 22:39:22
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Ron wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Just to be clear: After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Qe7 5.d4
> > > > > > ed
> > > > > > 6.0-0 dc 7.Nxc3 d6 8.Nd5 Qd7 9.Bg5 Ne5:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 10. Nxe5 de 11.Qf3 c6 12.Rad1 Bd4 (12. ... cxd5 13.Rxd5 Qc7 14.Rd8+
> > > > > > &
> > > > > > Qxf7mate but 13. ... f6 14. Rxd7 Bxd7 wins the queen for a rook and
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > minor, and doesn't slow down white's attack) is complex and quite
> > > > > > possibly better for white. White can eventually win the bishop
> > > > > > pair
> > > > > > with Ne3-f5, and it's not clear that black's king will be safe on
> > > > > > either
> > > > > > wing. (To free his pieces, black may have to play h6 & g5.) But the
> > > > > > queenside doesn't look so safe, either, not with the half-open
> > > > > > c-file
> > > > > > and the c6-pawn being advanced (giving more effect to an eventual
> > > > > > b4-b5
> > > > > > thrust.)
> > > > >
> > > > > How about: 12...Bd4 13.Ne3 f6 14.Bh4 g5 15. Bg3 h5 16.h4 g4 17.Qe2 b5
> > > > > 18.Bb3 for starters, to beat White back?
> >
> > > How about: 18...Nh6 (instead of Ne7, to give Black's other pieces a bit
> > > more room to move and also to cover the f7 square) 19.f4 Rf8 and now if
> > > 20.fxe5 then 20...fxe5 21.Rxf8 Kxf8 22.Qf2+ Ke8
> >
> > 23. Qf6! Bxe3+ 24.Kh1 Bd4 25.Qxh6.
> >
> > White simply threatens Bxe5, and if he tries to protect it by Qc7
> > (otherwise Qxc6+ wins) then Qxh5+, Qf7+, etc. But the point is that
> > black has so many weaknesses and hanging pieces that white can afford to
> > let the N drop, even if it drops with check.
>
> And what happens if 22...Kg7 ?
White wins by force starting with 23.Bxe5+.
(You should have seen this one yourself. One thing you'll learn is how
often the same ideas crop up in related variations. In this line, the
pin on the d-file is one of white's key resources.)
> >
> > After Nh6, white doesn't have to force the issue: 19.Rd2 Bb7 20.Rfd1
> > 0-0-0 and white is doing just fine.
>
> What about 18...Nh6 19.Rd2 Qe7 20.Rfd1 Be6. Now how is White doing,
> and what does White expect to accomplish with that rook battery? Is
> White going to trade his nice active bishop for mine, or is White going
> to cede that nice diagonal to me?
Neither. 20. Nd5! cd 21. Bxd5! Rb8 22.Rxd4!
When black's position is as ugly as his is here, you have to expect
tactical opportunities for white. Black just has too many loose pieces.
It seems almost impossible that it could be correct for black to shuffle
his queen around AGAIN.
(Although even if white misses this, I don't see black as being better
than =).
>
> > Black's position is dangerous, and
> > pointed out by the fact that white can play 21. Nd5 here: 21 ... cd 22.
> > Rc1+ Kb7 23.Rxd4; (I wasn't sure this was best but then crafty saw ...
> > Ka8 24.Rxd5! Bxd5 25.Bxd5+ Kb8 26.Rc6! which looks very strong).
> >
> > -Ron
>
> Only in the line you chose for Black...after the line I just suggested,
> what does White do?
Win. :)
I'm really not sure why you're so tied to the value of this line as
black. It looks ugly. There are tactical minefields all over the place
and they're all in white's favor.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2006 09:52:03
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
[email protected] wrote:
> [ . . .]
> How about: 18...Nh6 (instead of Ne7, to give Black's other pieces a bit
> more room to move and also to cover the f7 square) 19.f4 Rf8 and now if
> 20.fxe5 then 20...fxe5 21.Rxf8 Kxf8 22.Qf2+ Ke8 and though White
> controls the open f-file, Black has a space advantage on both sides of
> the board and White has nowhere to go and nothing to do. Black can
> take his time formulating plans. Maybe putting his queen somewhere
> behind his Black bishop on the same diagonal, his king on e7, and
> seizing control of the f-file with Rf8 if feasible (not necessarily in
> that order), as well as consolidating his space control on the
> queenside. Black's uncastled king isn't a liability if White can't get
> at it and is kept on the defensive and given no room for counterplay.
>
> k Adkins
> [email protected]
P.S. I also think that very early on if not first thing, I'd like to
force a bishop trade on e6 or else force White to move his off that
fine diagonal and station mine there. That would also free my other
(or remaining) rook.
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jan 2006 22:10:16
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> P.S. I also think that very early on if not first thing, I'd like to
> force a bishop trade on e6 or else force White to move his off that
> fine diagonal and station mine there. That would also free my other
> (or remaining) rook.
That's not the worst idea in the world, but do you have time for it?
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2006 09:31:47
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
David Richerby wrote:
> [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> > chesse4nf6 wrote:
> >> Nuttin on ! d4 :(
> >
> > Er, Vol. 2 deals with 1.d4 (and everything other than 1.e4). I don't
> > own it, because it wasn't available, but honestly I have my hands full
> > with Vol. 1. More than I can handle.
>
> In tournaments at my sort of level (107BCF), most people seem to
> follow 1.d4 with 2.Nf3 and don't play c4 in the opening, at least.
> They usually go for a Colle-type set up and, once you have a fair idea
> of how to defend against the natural attack from those positions,
> there's not really much more to it. I find I can defend quite happily
> against these lines without any specific preparation.
That's surprising, because the Queen's Gambit isn't all that uncommon
in the same general ratings area on Yahoo. Of course, that doesn't
necessarily mean that those individuals playing it are playing it
properly (much less that I'm playing against it properly). I also see
the English (or at least, 1.c4) and some other modern openings. In
queen's pawn openings, I usually end up (as Black) playing an early
...c5 whether or not White plays c4. But 1.e4 is far and away the most
common.
Right now I am playing 1...e5 to try to learn about chess. I must say
that it is a good thing I had the sense to avoid encyclopedic or other
overly specialized opening books when first starting out, because it's
quite daunting to see all those lines and variations laid out. The
problem with playing 1...e5 as Black is that there is an enormous
amount of theory to be mastered, at least eventually, I suppose, since
White has the option of numerous continuations from there.
Realistically I ought to pick one good opening defense for Black
against 1.e4 that doesn't require that, and then concentrate on really
learning it, but some of those transpose easily into other openings
too, and frankly I think 1...e5 has something to recommend it. And a
number of them involve ceding the center to White and biding one's time
until the right moment to strike, and I'm not sure that I'm either up
to that or constitutionally inclined (at this time) toward it. The
Sicilian seems to involve about as much theory as the Ruy Lopez. Nor
do I want to go with something cramped and passive like the Philidor
(my apologies to Philidor players if this is a misconception).
Petroff's is said to equalize for Black against even a slight
inaccuracy by White (presuming Black really knows it) but is also said
to offer little chance for "complications" favorable to Black. The
Scandinavian is low on theory (that's a good thing, for me) and has
been rehabilitated somewhat in its critical appraisal in recent years,
but I feel biased against it.
>
> Until you get good enough that your opponents start to play 1.d4 2.c4
> against you, I don't think there's much need for a repertoire book on
> queen's pawn openings, unless you're going to play the white side, of
> course. One of my opponents said he was surprised and wrong-footed
> when I followed 1.d4 with 2.c4 against him. (I only managed a draw in
> that game, though.)
>
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Unholy Dictator (TM): it's like a
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ totalitarian leader but it's also a
> crime against nature!
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jan 2006 22:09:36
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Right now I am playing 1...e5 to try to learn about chess. I must say
> that it is a good thing I had the sense to avoid encyclopedic or other
> overly specialized opening books when first starting out, because it's
> quite daunting to see all those lines and variations laid out. The
> problem with playing 1...e5 as Black is that there is an enormous
> amount of theory to be mastered, at least eventually, I suppose, since
> White has the option of numerous continuations from there.
> Realistically I ought to pick one good opening defense for Black
> against 1.e4 that doesn't require that, and then concentrate on really
> learning it, but some of those transpose easily into other openings
> too, and frankly I think 1...e5 has something to recommend it. And a
> number of them involve ceding the center to White and biding one's time
> until the right moment to strike, and I'm not sure that I'm either up
> to that or constitutionally inclined (at this time) toward it. The
> Sicilian seems to involve about as much theory as the Ruy Lopez.
The sicilian has far more theory than the Ruy Lopez. It's not even
close. There are lines of the Ruy where theory is minimal, like the
Moeller (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Bc5).
I think playing 1. ... e5 is a good idea. Yes, you're going to run into
a lot of different things, but in most of them, you're going to be able
to guide yourself with basic principles, thus putting the focus on the
tactical and strategic elements of the middlegame.
The point is not to be scared of most of the gambits people will throw
at you. Yes, white has a lot of choices, but most of them aren't that
scary if you can keep a level head. And while you WILL lose some games
because you fall into a known-to-be-inferior line, this will probably
happen less than it will in an opening like the sicilian (where you'll
constantly be asked to find only moves.)
When you do lose a game because you feel like you fell into a line you
don't know, simply look it up later. (Emms "Play the Open Games as
Black" is a good reference).
But the thing is, based on our discussion in other parts of this thread,
I think you're making a huge mistake focusing on the opening. I think
you'd do far better to play though games collections by Lasker,
Capablanca, and Alekhine than to study Kallai's book.
At least twice, when looking at those lines, you have simply completely
mis-evaluated a position - regarding it as good for black when it is
either winning or very close to winning for white. Opening books aren't
going to help you with this. What will help you is watching how masters
play the game: the complete game.
You'll get a feel for things like, "Hm, misplaced knight, undeveloped
pieces, open files, king in the center - Capablanca's opponents end up
with that kind of position all the time, but he doesn't." And you'll see
how Capablanca exploits that. You'll start to see how moves like the
pawn thrusts you were advocating for black to "push white back" tend to
be weakening.
You have to understand that the purpose of opening theory isn't to give
you wins directly. (Only Roy Gordon thinks that the game is won in the
opening - although everybody agrees it can be lost there). The purpose
of the opening is to get you into a middlegame position where you like
your options and know how to play the position.
As you get stronger, it'll get more and more important for you to worry
about playing the opening correctly. Right now? It's almost irrelevant.
You're not going to lose games because you're openings are inaccurate,
you're going to lose because your tactical skills are weak, and you
mis-evaluate positions.
But for now? That's a long way away. Don't worry about the subtleties of
whether or not the fork trick is the best choice for black in the
italian four knights. The odds of you actually having to play that are
pretty remote, anyway.
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2006 08:52:18
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Just to be clear: After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Qe7 5.d4 ed
> > > 6.0-0 dc 7.Nxc3 d6 8.Nd5 Qd7 9.Bg5 Ne5:
> > >
> > > 10. Nxe5 de 11.Qf3 c6 12.Rad1 Bd4 (12. ... cxd5 13.Rxd5 Qc7 14.Rd8+ &
> > > Qxf7mate but 13. ... f6 14. Rxd7 Bxd7 wins the queen for a rook and a
> > > minor, and doesn't slow down white's attack) is complex and quite
> > > possibly better for white. White can eventually win the bishop pair
> > > with Ne3-f5, and it's not clear that black's king will be safe on either
> > > wing. (To free his pieces, black may have to play h6 & g5.) But the
> > > queenside doesn't look so safe, either, not with the half-open c-file
> > > and the c6-pawn being advanced (giving more effect to an eventual b4-b5
> > > thrust.)
> >
> > How about: 12...Bd4 13.Ne3 f6 14.Bh4 g5 15. Bg3 h5 16.h4 g4 17.Qe2 b5
> > 18.Bb3 for starters, to beat White back?
>
> Does he really? Even just looking at that end position (assuming no
> improvements for white like throwing in 15. Qh5+, which costs black
> castling rights). Black's made a lot of aggressive-looking pawn moves,
> but his development is lagging and he may just be creating weaknesses.
You might be right. I'm exploring an academic point, though, not
advocating a position from deep personal conviction. Let's continue to
take a look:
>
> Is he really beating white back? eg, what's black's 18th move?
> [. . .]
> 18. ... Ne7 (to stop Nf5) 19. f4 looks like it opens the position
> favorably for white. 19. ... gf3 20.Qf3 Bb7? 21. Qxf6! and even though
> the knight falls with check, white is winning. (19. ... ef4 looks
> stronger, but black's position is still a mess).
How about: 18...Nh6 (instead of Ne7, to give Black's other pieces a bit
more room to move and also to cover the f7 square) 19.f4 Rf8 and now if
20.fxe5 then 20...fxe5 21.Rxf8 Kxf8 22.Qf2+ Ke8 and though White
controls the open f-file, Black has a space advantage on both sides of
the board and White has nowhere to go and nothing to do. Black can
take his time formulating plans. Maybe putting his queen somewhere
behind his Black bishop on the same diagonal, his king on e7, and
seizing control of the f-file with Rf8 if feasible (not necessarily in
that order), as well as consolidating his space control on the
queenside. Black's uncastled king isn't a liability if White can't get
at it and is kept on the defensive and given no room for counterplay.
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jan 2006 17:26:52
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I still think you have, but
> > as usual it is corrupted with a load of defective crap.
>
> For some reason you've decided to be downright rude to me, which I don't
> really understand since I've been helpful.
For some reason you've "decided" to be obtuse. As for why, as Major
Cad says, "stimulus -- response". So get bent, doofus.
>
> I'd gladly explain why the bishop moves were so suspect if you weren't
> being such a jackass, but quite frankly you're now being so rude - for
> no reason - that I have no further interest in answering any of your
> questions.
Good, you were getting pretty full of crap, and it was only a matter of
time until the big explosion and consequent poop-smearing of everything
in sight.
>
> Why is one bishop more active than the other? Why can black get a rook
> into play quickly and not white? These are questions that have very
> simple answers. But you'll have to get those answers from somebody else.
>
> -Ron
Oh yeah? Maybe you like asking rhetorical questions. Maybe you can't
recognize them either. Maybe you can't even see the answers when they
are presented to you with the questions. Maybe you're a faulty
inference engine which has failed the Turing Test. Or as you would
say, "bleah". Frankly, I don't think you can even see my pieces on
the board. There's a chess variant with that kind of blind play. And
it isn't called Battleship.
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jan 2006 20:39:29
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > > Just to be clear: After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Qe7 5.d4 ed
> > > > 6.0-0 dc 7.Nxc3 d6 8.Nd5 Qd7 9.Bg5 Ne5:
> > > >
> > > > 10. Nxe5 de 11.Qf3 c6 12.Rad1 Bd4 (12. ... cxd5 13.Rxd5 Qc7 14.Rd8+ &
> > > > Qxf7mate but 13. ... f6 14. Rxd7 Bxd7 wins the queen for a rook and a
> > > > minor, and doesn't slow down white's attack) is complex and quite
> > > > possibly better for white. White can eventually win the bishop pair
> > > > with Ne3-f5, and it's not clear that black's king will be safe on either
> > > > wing. (To free his pieces, black may have to play h6 & g5.) But the
> > > > queenside doesn't look so safe, either, not with the half-open c-file
> > > > and the c6-pawn being advanced (giving more effect to an eventual b4-b5
> > > > thrust.)
> > >
> > > How about: 12...Bd4 13.Ne3 f6 14.Bh4 g5 15. Bg3 h5 16.h4 g4 17.Qe2 b5
> > > 18.Bb3 for starters, to beat White back?
> How about: 18...Nh6 (instead of Ne7, to give Black's other pieces a bit
> more room to move and also to cover the f7 square) 19.f4 Rf8 and now if
> 20.fxe5 then 20...fxe5 21.Rxf8 Kxf8 22.Qf2+ Ke8 and though White
> controls the open f-file, Black has a space advantage on both sides of
> the board and White has nowhere to go and nothing to do. Black can
> take his time formulating plans. Maybe putting his queen somewhere
> behind his Black bishop on the same diagonal, his king on e7, and
> seizing control of the f-file with Rf8 if feasible (not necessarily in
> that order), as well as consolidating his space control on the
> queenside. Black's uncastled king isn't a liability if White can't get
> at it and is kept on the defensive and given no room for counterplay.
Well, for starters, on Nh6 I no longer like f4, because if gxf3 followed
by Ng4. That being said once again your final position is winning for
white.
23. Qf6! Bxe3+ 24.Kh1 Bd4 25.Qxh6.
White simply threatens Bxe5, and if he tries to protect it by Qc7
(otherwise Qxc6+ wins) then Qxh5+, Qf7+, etc. But the point is that
black has so many weaknesses and hanging pieces that white can afford to
let the N drop, even if it drops with check.
After Nh6, white doesn't have to force the issue: 19.Rd2 Bb7 20.Rfd1
0-0-0 and white is doing just fine. Black's position is dangerous, and
pointed out by the fact that white can play 21. Nd5 here: 21 ... cd 22.
Rc1+ Kb7 23.Rxd4; (I wasn't sure this was best but then crafty saw ...
Ka8 24.Rxd5! Bxd5 25.Bxd5+ Kb8 26.Rc6! which looks very strong).
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 26 Jan 2006 19:01:35
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
Ron wrote:
[. . .]
> Just to be clear: After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc4 4.c3 Qe7 5.d4 ed
> 6.0-0 dc 7.Nxc3 d6 8.Nd5 Qd7 9.Bg5 Ne5:
>
> 10. Nxe5 de 11.Qf3 c6 12.Rad1 Bd4 (12. ... cxd5 13.Rxd5 Qc7 14.Rd8+ &
> Qxf7mate but 13. ... f6 14. Rxd7 Bxd7 wins the queen for a rook and a
> minor, and doesn't slow down white's attack) is complex and quite
> possibly better for white. White can eventually win the bishop pair
> with Ne3-f5, and it's not clear that black's king will be safe on either
> wing. (To free his pieces, black may have to play h6 & g5.) But the
> queenside doesn't look so safe, either, not with the half-open c-file
> and the c6-pawn being advanced (giving more effect to an eventual b4-b5
> thrust.)
How about: 12...Bd4 13.Ne3 f6 14.Bh4 g5 15. Bg3 h5 16.h4 g4 17.Qe2 b5
18.Bb3 for starters, to beat White back?
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jan 2006 16:54:21
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > After 10.Qe2, Black has no lead
> > in development; nor does Black have a space or force advantage on the
> > kingside. But looking at the position, I see that the center is stable
> > and closed (locked pawns). That is an important consideration for
> > Black, I feel, and this is one of the few occasions when Chernev was
> > remiss in pointing out the implications of a position and the
> > justification for an attack. (He does say elsewhere, however -- Game
> > 3, p. 25 -- that "Counterplay in the center is the best means of
> > opposing a kingside attack, and to secure counterplay the pawn position
> > must be kept fluid.)
>
> Well, the center is looked. Notice how black's king bishop is more
> effective than white's. When you then recognize that black can bring a
> rook into play quickly, you realize that he does, in fact, have a lead
> in development, of sorts.
Why is Black's bishop more effective than White's, and why can Black
bring a rook into play quickly but not White? The positions are almost
identical after 9...h6. It is only after Black's aggressive pawn moves
10...g5 11...g4 and White's mistake of 13.Bxh6 (opening the h-file and
permitting Black to threaten White's bishop (among other things) with
13...Nxg4 that turns the tide in Black's favor.
>
> > But here is a more ambiguous example from my own experience. I will
> > not bother to give the whole game (available upon request), merely to
> > note that, (a) I was playing as Black against a strong computer chess
> > engine, and (b) I went on to win after 50 moves through a positional
> > struggle without (net) loss of material or fancy combinations. In this
> > instance, the center is not stable, and in fact opens up almost
> > immediately after identical pawn moves by me (11...h6 and 12...g5)
> > except that, here, my king *is* castled on the kingside before these
> > moves. I suffered no ill effects, and the computer seems to be a
> > rather strong opponent, so I assume that if tactical refutation
> > existed, I would have been overwhelmed rather quickly. Was I just
> > lucky? What justified my aggressive pawn moves here? The opening by
> > White was the Scotch game (with 4.Bc4). Here are the first 20 moves:
> >
> > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.o-o d6 6.Bg5 Nf6 7.Bb5 Bd7 8.a3
> > a6 9.Bc4 o-o 10.b4 Ba7 11.Bd5 h6 12.Bh4 g5 13.Bg3 Nxd5 14.exd5 Ne7
> > 15.Nxd4 Nxd5 16.Nf5 Bxf5 17.Qxd5 Qf6 18.Nd2 b5 19.c4 Be6 20.Qb7 Qd4
>
> This computer is rather weak, to be honest. (Bc4-B5-c4 makes no sense,
> for example) so I wouldn't draw any conclusions from it's play.
It could probably whip your ass handily, my man, so no more of your
guff, thank you. Also, if anything makes no sense here, it is your
symbolism. Just what the hell does "Bc4-B5-c4" mean? Are you saying
that it makes no sense for White to move a bishop to pin a piece, and
then later to move it again rather than taking, when threatened? I
don't think I would draw any conclusions from your unsupported
assertions, but I was soliciting your "opinion" in the hope that you
might offer some degree of useful advice. I still think you have, but
as usual it is corrupted with a load of defective crap.
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Jan 2006 01:29:51
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I still think you have, but
> as usual it is corrupted with a load of defective crap.
For some reason you've decided to be downright rude to me, which I don't
really understand since I've been helpful.
I'd gladly explain why the bishop moves were so suspect if you weren't
being such a jackass, but quite frankly you're now being so rude - for
no reason - that I have no further interest in answering any of your
questions.
Why is one bishop more active than the other? Why can black get a rook
into play quickly and not white? These are questions that have very
simple answers. But you'll have to get those answers from somebody else.
-Ron
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jan 2006 08:24:17
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Just to be clear: After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc4 4.c3 Qe7 5.d4 ed
> > 6.0-0 dc 7.Nxc3 d6 8.Nd5 Qd7 9.Bg5 Ne5:
> >
> > 10. Nxe5 de 11.Qf3 c6 12.Rad1 Bd4 (12. ... cxd5 13.Rxd5 Qc7 14.Rd8+ &
> > Qxf7mate but 13. ... f6 14. Rxd7 Bxd7 wins the queen for a rook and a
> > minor, and doesn't slow down white's attack) is complex and quite
> > possibly better for white. White can eventually win the bishop pair
> > with Ne3-f5, and it's not clear that black's king will be safe on either
> > wing. (To free his pieces, black may have to play h6 & g5.) But the
> > queenside doesn't look so safe, either, not with the half-open c-file
> > and the c6-pawn being advanced (giving more effect to an eventual b4-b5
> > thrust.)
>
> How about: 12...Bd4 13.Ne3 f6 14.Bh4 g5 15. Bg3 h5 16.h4 g4 17.Qe2 b5
> 18.Bb3 for starters, to beat White back?
Does he really? Even just looking at that end position (assuming no
improvements for white like throwing in 15. Qh5+, which costs black
castling rights). Black's made a lot of aggressive-looking pawn moves,
but his development is lagging and he may just be creating weaknesses.
Is he really beating white back? eg, what's black's 18th move?
Quick queenside castling can backfire: 18. ... Bb7 19.Nf5 0-0-0 20.Nxd4
ed 21.Rxd4! looks winning for white (the point being Qxd4? Be6+ & Rd1).
If he tries to stop that by 19. ... c5 then Be6! is strong.
18. ... Ne7 (to stop Nf5) 19. f4 looks like it opens the position
favorably for white. 19. ... gf3 20.Qf3 Bb7? 21. Qxf6! and even though
the knight falls with check, white is winning. (19. ... ef4 looks
stronger, but black's position is still a mess).
The move I look at the position, in fact, the more I like it for white.
With the caveat, of course, that it's quite possible black has resources
that I'm missing. But given black's numerous weaknesses, uncastled king
and lagging development, is going to require something pretty impressive
to get him out of here.
|
| |
Date: 26 Jan 2006 12:50:10
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The second question is specific to the following line in the Italian
> > Game: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Qe7 5.d4 and here Kallai
> > recommends against 5...exd4 on the grounds that after 6.o-o! dxc3
> > 7.Nxc3 d6 8.Nd5 "and due to the threat of b2-b4, Black can only obtain
> > the silver medal in this game". What is wrong with, for example,
> > 8...Qd7 and then if 9.b4, 9...Nxb4?
>
> I wonder if the answer is 9.Bg5 [. . .]
>
> But from your line: 9. Bg5 and now what? Black's development is a mess.
> White has open lines and aggressively-posted pieces. He can contemplate
> Re1 and e5, or Qd2 and Rad1.
OK, what about 9...Ne5 attacking both the f3 knight and the c4 bishop?
If 10.Nxe5 dxe5 and the e-file is fully-closed while White's knight on
d5 is pinned (barring an exchange of queens, and I see no way for White
to do that in a profitable manner) and can be dislodged at an early
stage with ...c6 (a good idea for Black to trade queens, I think,
though he needn't to dislodge the knight). The bishop on g5 is biting
on air and can be repelled. f4 isn't immediately possible; and though
the Black king is stuck in the center, castling to either side is still
an option.
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jan 2006 11:44:25
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
Postscriptum:
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > Agreed. Also, if the problem was 6...dcx3 (opening up the d-file and
> > allowing White to develop with tempo) rather than 5...exd4, then
> > Chernev and Kallai are both right up to a point. Kallai said don't do
> > 5...exd4 but had in mind a line continuing with 6.o-o dxc3; Chernev
> > advised 5...exd4 but had a different continuation in mind and might
> > have advised against 6...dxc3 if 6.o-o. Mind you, I don't know that
> > 5...exd4 is itself sound, and I'll likely avoid it on the general
> > principle that Black should wait for a better moment to act in the
> > center (and Black's bishop is going to need to move from c5 anyway).
>
> I don't like exd4 at all, for what it's worth. 6.c3 d6 7.cd and black
> is already getting pushed off the board, but there might be some
> resources for black after 6. ... Ne5 but it looks really hairy. I'd
> avoid it. If you want to play Qe7, meet d4 with d6. While there may be a
> line which puts the question to this variation, you'll have a lot of
> success with it at your level.
I think you must mean Bb6, not d6. This is the Italian Game (I know
we've been discussing a lot of lines so it's easy to get confused).
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Qe7 5.d4 and now the bishop must
retreat, 5...Bb6, if Black does not take the pawn with 5...exd4.
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2006 18:47:49
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I think you must mean Bb6, not d6. This is the Italian Game (I know
> we've been discussing a lot of lines so it's easy to get confused).
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Qe7 5.d4 and now the bishop must
> retreat, 5...Bb6, if Black does not take the pawn with 5...exd4.
Yeah, that's what I meant, sorry.
Writing moves down without looking at a board. Bleah.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jan 2006 11:29:09
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > But it is a bit confusing, at least for me, to see some of the more
> > modern Master level games, which seem to involve an awful lot of pawn
> > moves early on. I suppose they know what they are doing and the
> > openings involved require it on both sides (?) but it does tempt the
> > duffers like me to wonder, if only in passing, whether some of the
> > positional principles advocated by past Masters have been superseded.
>
> Er, meant to respond to this in the last post.
>
> General principles always fall to concrete variations, and what's been
> discovered is that there are specific pathways through various lines
> which previously looked unplayable.
>
> It's not that the principles are wrong, it's that they just don't always
> apply. John Watson's "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy" (which is a
> very, very complex book, I wouldn't recommend it to you yet) looks at
> this phenomenon at a very high level.
>
> But while you're developing your tactical and evaluative skills to the
> point where you can start disregarding opening principles, you need
> those principles. You need something to keep you oriented.
Yes, general principles have exceptions, and contrary to many critics
of Chernev, he points this out repeatedly, both in his own commentary
and in the games he selects for annotation. The principles remain
useful nonetheless, "especially in the opening, middlegame, and
ending".
Now, regarding aggressive pawn moves, Game 2 (Liubarski vs
Soultanbeieff) from Chernev's Logical Chess gives an interesting
instance of a counterexample which I would like to discuss with you.
Here is a link for easy reference:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1242925
9.h3 is a move which Chernev censures as creating an exploitable
weakness around White's castled king. It is a move which many players
would make without thinking twice, and against most of their opponents
their nonchalance is justified, but against someone who knows how to
take advantage of it, as here, it created a big target. But Chernev
lauds 9...h6, defending this on the basis that: (a) Black has not yet
castled; (b) it is not a "coffee-house move" to prevent a pin but the
first step in a kingside attack which will continue with 10...g5.
But note that Black's king is still in the middle of the board. And
now he is going to open up his kingside with aggressive pawn moves, and
though castling queenside is still an option I am not convinced it is a
good idea under the circumstances. Furthermore, I asked myself what
gives Black the right, other than a tactical opportunity, to undertake
a kingside attack at this early stage? After 10.Qe2, Black has no lead
in development; nor does Black have a space or force advantage on the
kingside. But looking at the position, I see that the center is stable
and closed (locked pawns). That is an important consideration for
Black, I feel, and this is one of the few occasions when Chernev was
remiss in pointing out the implications of a position and the
justification for an attack. (He does say elsewhere, however -- Game
3, p. 25 -- that "Counterplay in the center is the best means of
opposing a kingside attack, and to secure counterplay the pawn position
must be kept fluid.)
But here is a more ambiguous example from my own experience. I will
not bother to give the whole game (available upon request), merely to
note that, (a) I was playing as Black against a strong computer chess
engine, and (b) I went on to win after 50 moves through a positional
struggle without (net) loss of material or fancy combinations. In this
instance, the center is not stable, and in fact opens up almost
immediately after identical pawn moves by me (11...h6 and 12...g5)
except that, here, my king *is* castled on the kingside before these
moves. I suffered no ill effects, and the computer seems to be a
rather strong opponent, so I assume that if tactical refutation
existed, I would have been overwhelmed rather quickly. Was I just
lucky? What justified my aggressive pawn moves here? The opening by
White was the Scotch game (with 4.Bc4). Here are the first 20 moves:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.o-o d6 6.Bg5 Nf6 7.Bb5 Bd7 8.a3
a6 9.Bc4 o-o 10.b4 Ba7 11.Bd5 h6 12.Bh4 g5 13.Bg3 Nxd5 14.exd5 Ne7
15.Nxd4 Nxd5 16.Nf5 Bxf5 17.Qxd5 Qf6 18.Nd2 b5 19.c4 Be6 20.Qb7 Qd4
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2006 18:56:19
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> After 10.Qe2, Black has no lead
> in development; nor does Black have a space or force advantage on the
> kingside. But looking at the position, I see that the center is stable
> and closed (locked pawns). That is an important consideration for
> Black, I feel, and this is one of the few occasions when Chernev was
> remiss in pointing out the implications of a position and the
> justification for an attack. (He does say elsewhere, however -- Game
> 3, p. 25 -- that "Counterplay in the center is the best means of
> opposing a kingside attack, and to secure counterplay the pawn position
> must be kept fluid.)
Well, the center is looked. Notice how black's king bishop is more
effective than white's. When you then recognize that black can bring a
rook into play quickly, you realize that he does, in fact, have a lead
in development, of sorts.
> But here is a more ambiguous example from my own experience. I will
> not bother to give the whole game (available upon request), merely to
> note that, (a) I was playing as Black against a strong computer chess
> engine, and (b) I went on to win after 50 moves through a positional
> struggle without (net) loss of material or fancy combinations. In this
> instance, the center is not stable, and in fact opens up almost
> immediately after identical pawn moves by me (11...h6 and 12...g5)
> except that, here, my king *is* castled on the kingside before these
> moves. I suffered no ill effects, and the computer seems to be a
> rather strong opponent, so I assume that if tactical refutation
> existed, I would have been overwhelmed rather quickly. Was I just
> lucky? What justified my aggressive pawn moves here? The opening by
> White was the Scotch game (with 4.Bc4). Here are the first 20 moves:
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.o-o d6 6.Bg5 Nf6 7.Bb5 Bd7 8.a3
> a6 9.Bc4 o-o 10.b4 Ba7 11.Bd5 h6 12.Bh4 g5 13.Bg3 Nxd5 14.exd5 Ne7
> 15.Nxd4 Nxd5 16.Nf5 Bxf5 17.Qxd5 Qf6 18.Nd2 b5 19.c4 Be6 20.Qb7 Qd4
This computer is rather weak, to be honest. (Bc4-B5-c4 makes no sense,
for example) so I wouldn't draw any conclusions from it's play.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jan 2006 21:29:56
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > The second question is specific to the following line in the Italian
> > > Game: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Qe7 5.d4 and here Kallai
> > > recommends against 5...exd4 on the grounds that after 6.o-o! dxc3
> > > 7.Nxc3 d6 8.Nd5 "and due to the threat of b2-b4, Black can only obtain
> > > the silver medal in this game". What is wrong with, for example,
> > > 8...Qd7 and then if 9.b4, 9...Nxb4?
> >
> > I wonder if the answer is 9.Bg5 [. . .]
> >
> > But from your line: 9. Bg5 and now what? Black's development is a mess.
> > White has open lines and aggressively-posted pieces. He can contemplate
> > Re1 and e5, or Qd2 and Rad1.
>
> OK, what about 9...Ne5 attacking both the f3 knight and the c4 bishop?
> If 10.Nxe5 dxe5 and the e-file is fully-closed while White's knight on
> d5 is pinned (barring an exchange of queens, and I see no way for White
> to do that in a profitable manner) and can be dislodged at an early
> stage with ...c6 (a good idea for Black to trade queens, I think,
> though he needn't to dislodge the knight). The bishop on g5 is biting
> on air and can be repelled. f4 isn't immediately possible; and though
> the Black king is stuck in the center, castling to either side is still
> an option.
Just to be clear: After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc4 4.c3 Qe7 5.d4 ed
6.0-0 dc 7.Nxc3 d6 8.Nd5 Qd7 9.Bg5 Ne5:
10. Nxe5 de 11.Qf3 c6 12.Rad1 Bd4 (12. ... cxd5 13.Rxd5 Qc7 14.Rd8+ &
Qxf7mate but 13. ... f6 14. Rxd7 Bxd7 wins the queen for a rook and a
minor, and doesn't slow down white's attack) is complex and quite
possibly better for white. White can eventually win the bishop pair
with Ne3-f5, and it's not clear that black's king will be safe on either
wing. (To free his pieces, black may have to play h6 & g5.) But the
queenside doesn't look so safe, either, not with the half-open c-file
and the c6-pawn being advanced (giving more effect to an eventual b4-b5
thrust.)
I'm not strong enough to evaluate the ultimate truth of this position,
but my feeling - as someone who plays often transposes from an italian
game into a Goring gambit - is if you're the sort of player who likes to
gambit his c-pawn in the Italian game, you should be pretty happy here.
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 26 Jan 2006 12:23:09
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I have two questions. First, the more general: in the chapter on the
> > Four Knights, he examines the Scotch variation (4.d4) and the Spanish
> > variation (4.Bb4) but does not even mention the Italian variation
> > (4.Bc4). The closest he comes to dealing with this is in a note to the
> > Vienna Game on p.88, where he argues against a move transposing into
> > the Four Knights Italian on the grounds that Black can play the fork
> > trick. Is this truly conclusive? I note that the Italian variation of
> > the Four Knights is played at the Master level, e.g.,
> > http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1201970 (though here the
> > fork trick is not played by Black).
>
> John Emms, in "Play the Open Games as Black" recommends that black use
> the fork trick [. . .]
>
>
> I also note that black, in the game you cite, isn't rated. He may not be
> that strong, and therefore white may have been unafraid of the position
> of dynamic equality resulting from the fork trick. Emms isn't talking
> about the fork trick giving black the advantage, after all, just
> equalizing.
>
>
> -Ron
I took another look. Velasquez (White) was rated around 2350 in a 21st
Chess Olympiad game in 1974, so he's both rated and has been around
awhile. Black, as you say, has no associated rating *in the database
cited* but appears to have been a pretty active world tournament player
at the time of the game in question, so I'm reasonably sure he was
rated too. However, he would have been under 14 at the time. The game
in question came from Champions Cup 2001 which sounds like a big event,
and the pairing suggests that Pretelt, though young, was no ordinary
player; but I suppose it can't be ruled out that Velasquez was cutting
the kid some slack.
I'll have to take another look through the database and see if I can
find other games of this sort of recent vintage involving two adult
Masters. It isn't easy since the Opening Explorer doesn't permit (by
non-members) whittling down the results that far.
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
| |
Date: 26 Jan 2006 12:06:17
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
Moriarty wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > I have two questions. First, the more general: in the chapter on the
> > Four Knights, he examines the Scotch variation (4.d4) and the Spanish
> > variation (4.Bb4) but does not even mention the Italian variation
> > (4.Bc4).
>
> Check out page 32 in the Italian Game section. It's a transposition.
>
> -T
Well, there is a paragraph dealing with a transposition to one of many
possible later positions arising from the Four Knights Italian: a
symmetrical position with Black's bishop on c5 and both parties with
backwards pawns on d3 and d6; but that is not the same as dealing with
the opening per se, nor is the question of the fork trick addressed
there. Apparently the Four Knights Italian is generally passed over as
giving Black the chance for equalizing, but that doesn't explain its
absence since there are many lines analyzed in the book which permit
Black to equalize.
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jan 2006 04:11:38
From: Moriarty
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
> Well, there is a paragraph dealing with a transposition to one of many
> possible later positions arising from the Four Knights Italian: a
> symmetrical position with Black's bishop on c5 and both parties with
> backwards pawns on d3 and d6; but that is not the same as dealing with
> the opening per se, nor is the question of the fork trick addressed
> there. Apparently the Four Knights Italian is generally passed over
> as
> giving Black the chance for equalizing, but that doesn't explain its
> absence since there are many lines analyzed in the book which permit
> Black to equalize.
>
> k Adkins
> [email protected]
>
I think Kallai gives about as much attention to the Four Knights Italian
as I'd expect. It isn't often used among strong players. He probably
assumes his readers know the fork trick line (1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc3 3.Nc3
Nf6 4. Bc4? Nxe4 5 Nxe4 d5) and know it leads to quick equality. To the
extent he mentions other "black is equal" lines, it's usually because
he's trying to demonstrate something his readers wouldn't know. The book
isn't exhaustive of course, and can't please everyone as to what it
includes.
The lines on page 32 to seem to show the main lines of the Four Knights
Italian (with the c4/c5 bishops stopping any fork trick).
-T
|
| |
Date: 26 Jan 2006 12:01:06
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
chesse4nf6 wrote:
> Nuttin on ! d4 :(
Er, Vol. 2 deals with 1.d4 (and everything other than 1.e4). I don't
own it, because it wasn't available, but honestly I have my hands full
with Vol. 1. More than I can handle.
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jan 2006 09:09:16
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
[email protected] <[email protected] > wrote:
> chesse4nf6 wrote:
>> Nuttin on ! d4 :(
>
> Er, Vol. 2 deals with 1.d4 (and everything other than 1.e4). I don't
> own it, because it wasn't available, but honestly I have my hands full
> with Vol. 1. More than I can handle.
In tournaments at my sort of level (107BCF), most people seem to
follow 1.d4 with 2.Nf3 and don't play c4 in the opening, at least.
They usually go for a Colle-type set up and, once you have a fair idea
of how to defend against the natural attack from those positions,
there's not really much more to it. I find I can defend quite happily
against these lines without any specific preparation.
Until you get good enough that your opponents start to play 1.d4 2.c4
against you, I don't think there's much need for a repertoire book on
queen's pawn openings, unless you're going to play the white side, of
course. One of my opponents said he was surprised and wrong-footed
when I followed 1.d4 with 2.c4 against him. (I only managed a draw in
that game, though.)
Dave.
--
David Richerby Unholy Dictator (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ totalitarian leader but it's also a
crime against nature!
|
| |
Date: 26 Jan 2006 05:02:54
From: Moriarty
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
> I have two questions. First, the more general: in the chapter on the
> Four Knights, he examines the Scotch variation (4.d4) and the Spanish
> variation (4.Bb4) but does not even mention the Italian variation
> (4.Bc4).
Check out page 32 in the Italian Game section. It's a transposition.
-T
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2006 18:21:01
From: chesse4nf6
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
Nuttin on ! d4 :(
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2006 18:20:52
From: chesse4nf6
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
Nuttin on ! d4 :(
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2006 23:50:45
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I have two questions. First, the more general: in the chapter on the
> Four Knights, he examines the Scotch variation (4.d4) and the Spanish
> variation (4.Bb4) but does not even mention the Italian variation
> (4.Bc4). The closest he comes to dealing with this is in a note to the
> Vienna Game on p.88, where he argues against a move transposing into
> the Four Knights Italian on the grounds that Black can play the fork
> trick. Is this truly conclusive? I note that the Italian variation of
> the Four Knights is played at the Master level, e.g.,
> http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1201970 (though here the
> fork trick is not played by Black).
John Emms, in "Play the Open Games as Black" recommends that black use
the fork trick:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 (by transposition we've reached the
"Italian Four Knights") Nxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Bd3 de 7.Bxe4 Bd6 8.d4 ed
9.Bxc6+ bc 10.Qxd4 0-0 11.0-0 c5 leading to a position where "black's
bishop pair on the open board compensates fully for his slight
structural defects."
I also note that black, in the game you cite, isn't rated. He may not be
that strong, and therefore white may have been unafraid of the position
of dynamic equality resulting from the fork trick. Emms isn't talking
about the fork trick giving black the advantage, after all, just
equalizing.
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2006 23:14:02
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The second question is specific to the following line in the Italian
> Game: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Qe7 5.d4 and here Kallai
> recommends against 5...exd4 on the grounds that after 6.o-o! dxc3
> 7.Nxc3 d6 8.Nd5 "and due to the threat of b2-b4, Black can only obtain
> the silver medal in this game". What is wrong with, for example,
> 8...Qd7 and then if 9.b4, 9...Nxb4?
I wonder if the answer is 9.Bg5
This position has some things in common with lines you can reach via
inferior defenses to the Goring Gambit. He's actually two tempi ahead of
his target line, but the problem is that it's not completely clear if
he's used those tempi in the best possible way.
EG, a position I've reached (and consider favorable) several times
arises after: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4 ed 5.c3 dc 6.Nxc3 d6
7.Bg5.
Now 7. ... Qd7 is well met by 8.Qd2 intending 0-0-0.
While Nc3-d5 is a normal move for white in this type of position, it may
be premature, and of course white's castled kingside.
But from your line: 9. Bg5 and now what? Black's development is a mess.
White has open lines and aggressively-posted pieces. He can contemplate
Re1 and e5, or Qd2 and Rad1.
And black has to be very careful, eg: 9. ... h6 10.Bh4 Na5 11.Bd3 g5
12.Bg3 c6 13.b4! and black might not make it out of the opening alive:
13 ... cxd5? (13 ... g4!?) 14.bxc5 dxe4 (14. ... g5 15.ed! and the open
e-file kills black) 15.Bxe4 dxc5 (... Nf6? 16.Qd4!) 16.Qe1 winning the
knight.
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2006 18:09:23
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
An unprovoked flamewar, how wonderful...
[email protected] wrote:
> I was wondering what kind of a brat you were. Now I know: an "army"
> brat. Looks like you're AWOL -- Asshole WithOut Lucidity. (Leave it
> to the army to treat "without" as two words in an acronym.)
Since you are (ab)using the acronym "AWOL", it is a safe bet
that you do not think very highly of the Anglo-american armed
forces, do you? Oh, well, it is up to _them_ to ponder what kind
of citizenry they defend or represent...
>
> I also noticed that nowhere in your moronic diatribe do you answer his
> questions.
My "moronic" diatribe was referring to past posts. The poster
had a habit of responding to my posts without making any effort
to discern what I was saying or, even, whether the quotes were
from me or some other participant...
> So I don't suppose you're too much of a chess wiz, either.
I do not even know the "legal" moves... I just go by military
strategy alone!
> Kind of cheesy, though; I guess that makes you a Cheese Wiz.
Yes, the Wizard of _French_ Cheese... Now, for an uninvited
guest, that Exocet missile melted quite a bit of cheese in
the South Atlantic!
If I do not elicit a stridently nationalistic response I
will be _very_ disappointed!
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jan 2006 02:25:02
From: John J.
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
If you really are in the Army, it must be a different one than the one I
know. Making a joke based on a tragedy where many brave UK sailors perished
in the service of their country is something real military men know not to
do.
"Major Cat" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> An unprovoked flamewar, how wonderful...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> I was wondering what kind of a brat you were. Now I know: an "army"
>> brat. Looks like you're AWOL -- Asshole WithOut Lucidity. (Leave it
>> to the army to treat "without" as two words in an acronym.)
>
> Since you are (ab)using the acronym "AWOL", it is a safe bet
> that you do not think very highly of the Anglo-american armed
> forces, do you? Oh, well, it is up to _them_ to ponder what kind
> of citizenry they defend or represent...
>
>>
>> I also noticed that nowhere in your moronic diatribe do you answer his
>> questions.
>
> My "moronic" diatribe was referring to past posts. The poster
> had a habit of responding to my posts without making any effort
> to discern what I was saying or, even, whether the quotes were
> from me or some other participant...
>
>> So I don't suppose you're too much of a chess wiz, either.
>
> I do not even know the "legal" moves... I just go by military
> strategy alone!
>
>> Kind of cheesy, though; I guess that makes you a Cheese Wiz.
>
> Yes, the Wizard of _French_ Cheese... Now, for an uninvited
> guest, that Exocet missile melted quite a bit of cheese in
> the South Atlantic!
>
> If I do not elicit a stridently nationalistic response I
> will be _very_ disappointed!
>
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Jan 2006 01:27:10
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
John J. wrote:
>
> If you really are in the Army, it must be a different one than the one I
> know.
If you mean the "cousins", i.e., US, UK, English Canada, Australia
and New Zealand, yes, I have no connection whatsoever to their
"armies"...
> Making a joke based on a tragedy where many brave UK sailors perished
> in the service of their country is something real military men know not to
> do.
Really? Have you ever come across a "cousin" who shed any tears over
the sinking of the Belgrano? "Real military men" do not fight
imperialist
wars... However, it is highly ironic that the Exocet missile was
procured
from another imperialist European country! Even then, the European
Economic Community was quite a club...
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Jan 2006 22:21:29
From: John J.
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
"as we say in the army"
Please tell me which Army you belong to. As far as feeling bad for the
Argentina Sailors...I do. they were comrads in arms. I did greive for them.
After all, they were just folowing orders.
"Major Cat" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John J. wrote:
>>
>> If you really are in the Army, it must be a different one than the one I
>> know.
>
> If you mean the "cousins", i.e., US, UK, English Canada, Australia
> and New Zealand, yes, I have no connection whatsoever to their
> "armies"...
>
>> Making a joke based on a tragedy where many brave UK sailors perished
>> in the service of their country is something real military men know not
>> to
>> do.
>
> Really? Have you ever come across a "cousin" who shed any tears over
> the sinking of the Belgrano? "Real military men" do not fight
> imperialist
> wars... However, it is highly ironic that the Exocet missile was
> procured
> from another imperialist European country! Even then, the European
> Economic Community was quite a club...
>
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 Jan 2006 19:40:43
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
John J. wrote:
>
> "as we say in the army"
>
> Please tell me which Army you belong to.
Why this fascination? For the purposes of this off-topic dis-
cussion, let me just say that my country's last expansionist
venture took place about 2 centuries ago. My compatriots learned
not to interfere in other people's lives through military, economic
and ideological aggression. They are also ready to inflict quite
a bit of damage to expansionist invaders if it ever comes to that
thanks to our terrain...
> As far as feeling bad for the
> Argentina Sailors...I do. they were comrads in arms. I did greive for them.
> After all, they were just folowing orders.
Whoever fights for a nation-state may want to consider whether
the history of that nation-state is imperialist or not. More
to the point, one may want to ask if the populace is imperialist
or not. Now, imperialists may harbor a grudging admiration for
one another even when they are competitors (e.g., the British
and the Dutch since the 17th century). In the case of the
Falklands/Malvinas, British imperialism had been pitted against
Spanish imperialism by historical proxy. Argentina's history is
bloody enough when it comes to the extermination of its indigenous
peoples... Citizenship provides easy rationalist excuses and
historical alibis. Nationality and, even better, ethnicity tend
to be way more revealing! It is an imperialist populace that
causes governments to engage in imperialist adventurism and not
the other way around (it is fashionable to accept the latter
as a truism these days)...
Bottom line: predictably enough, the Anglo-saxon "cousin" populations
were on the side of British imperialism; Argentina's "cousin"
populations (including the Spaniards and the Italians) were on the
side of Spanish (Latin) imperialism. The armed forces of both sides
engaged in imperialist warfare as befits their populaces. Hence, I
do not grieve for them. Appropriately, some of them reaped the whirl-
wind...
P.S. The only type of military I respect is one that focuses
exclusively on the defense of their homeland. Additionally, the
military must count on the unwavering support of the civilian
population, including women and children. Lastly, the military
must be prepared to provide leadership in the event of a pro-
tracted guerilla struggle against imperialist/expansionist
occupation by any big power and its proxies. Hence, the need
for principled and well organized militias at the local level.
Yes, this is _not_ the kind of military that "cousins" are
used to...
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 28 Jan 2006 05:47:42
From: John J.
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
I ask a simple question and you reply with a bunch or political rhetoric.
Sounds like I caught you in a lie.
My compassion is not dependent on politics, as yours seem to be. Have you
ever been in combat? Since you are incapable of carrying on a simple
discussion this will be my last post to you. I've already unmasked you as a
fraud so I need not punish you further.
"Major Cat" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John J. wrote:
>>
>> "as we say in the army"
>>
>> Please tell me which Army you belong to.
>
> Why this fascination? For the purposes of this off-topic dis-
> cussion, let me just say that my country's last expansionist
> venture took place about 2 centuries ago. My compatriots learned
> not to interfere in other people's lives through military, economic
> and ideological aggression. They are also ready to inflict quite
> a bit of damage to expansionist invaders if it ever comes to that
> thanks to our terrain...
>
>> As far as feeling bad for the
>> Argentina Sailors...I do. they were comrads in arms. I did greive for
>> them.
>> After all, they were just folowing orders.
>
> Whoever fights for a nation-state may want to consider whether
> the history of that nation-state is imperialist or not. More
> to the point, one may want to ask if the populace is imperialist
> or not. Now, imperialists may harbor a grudging admiration for
> one another even when they are competitors (e.g., the British
> and the Dutch since the 17th century). In the case of the
> Falklands/Malvinas, British imperialism had been pitted against
> Spanish imperialism by historical proxy. Argentina's history is
> bloody enough when it comes to the extermination of its indigenous
> peoples... Citizenship provides easy rationalist excuses and
> historical alibis. Nationality and, even better, ethnicity tend
> to be way more revealing! It is an imperialist populace that
> causes governments to engage in imperialist adventurism and not
> the other way around (it is fashionable to accept the latter
> as a truism these days)...
>
> Bottom line: predictably enough, the Anglo-saxon "cousin" populations
> were on the side of British imperialism; Argentina's "cousin"
> populations (including the Spaniards and the Italians) were on the
> side of Spanish (Latin) imperialism. The armed forces of both sides
> engaged in imperialist warfare as befits their populaces. Hence, I
> do not grieve for them. Appropriately, some of them reaped the whirl-
> wind...
>
> P.S. The only type of military I respect is one that focuses
> exclusively on the defense of their homeland. Additionally, the
> military must count on the unwavering support of the civilian
> population, including women and children. Lastly, the military
> must be prepared to provide leadership in the event of a pro-
> tracted guerilla struggle against imperialist/expansionist
> occupation by any big power and its proxies. Hence, the need
> for principled and well organized militias at the local level.
> Yes, this is _not_ the kind of military that "cousins" are
> used to...
>
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Jan 2006 01:45:52
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
John J. wrote:
>
> I ask a simple question and you reply with a bunch or political rhetoric.
Yes, quite a few Anglo-americans seem to believe that politics and
culture have nothing to do with the military which is a...technical
job. Oh well...
>
> Sounds like I caught you in a lie.
What your contemporary Anglo-american mind and heart cannot comprehend
is a lie. Of course... Besides, why should I volunteer to give you more
personal information? Your posts have been in bad faith from the very
start. However, I have given you enough clues to discern my homeland
without major difficulties. I suggest that you hit the history books
instead of training who you will nuke next (a technical job, of
course)...
>
> My compassion is not dependent on politics, as yours seem to be.
Agreed. I have no compassion for imperialists and expansionists of
_any_ stripe. I am locally and defensively focused. I have a homeland,
not an expansionist jurisdiction.
> Have you ever been in combat?
Irrelevant. My homeland always prepares for defensive war. Fortunately,
it has not happened _yet_.
> Since you are incapable of carrying on a simple
> discussion
What discussion? You assume that your feigned universalist rhetoric of
compassion will be taken at face value? It is nothing but a tool aimed
at disorienting cultures that resist homogenization and absorption into
your imperialist sphere of influence.
> this will be my last post to you. I've already unmasked you as a
> fraud so I need not punish you further.
Ha, ha! Next thing you will post is that you got the combined
intelligence services of the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
to investigate a
certain Major Cat who does not bow to Anglo-saxon cultural imperialism.
Your reference to "punishment" is very revealing. Yearning for the days
of black slavery? Or, perhaps, the days of lording it over the
Sub-continent? Once
an imperialist, always an imperialist. What a fine specimen you are...
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2006 13:36:06
From:
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
Major Cat wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Major Cat wrote:
> > > Hey, it has been awhile... In case you have not noticed,
> > > the rec.games.chess.* newsgroups have been hosts to many
> > > a "moronic" diatribe of mine. I am looking forward to
> > > reading your posts about how much what I say and how I
> > > say it irritates you! Stimulus--response, my friend!
> >
> > What if he isn't a puling lackwit like you? Then stimulus--response
> > fails to stimulus--ignore.
>
> Do some research first before you intervene, ok? As far as
> your unprovoked insults, well, stick them where the sun
> "don't" shine, as we say in the army...
>
> Disrespectfully yours,
>
> Major Cat
I was wondering what kind of a brat you were. Now I know: an "army"
brat. Looks like you're AWOL -- Asshole WithOut Lucidity. (Leave it
to the army to treat "without" as two words in an acronym.)
I also noticed that nowhere in your moronic diatribe do you answer his
questions. So I don't suppose you're too much of a chess wiz, either.
Kind of cheesy, though; I guess that makes you a Cheese Wiz.
Dr. Pepper
:p
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2006 14:53:24
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Major Cat wrote:
> > Hey, it has been awhile... In case you have not noticed,
> > the rec.games.chess.* newsgroups have been hosts to many
> > a "moronic" diatribe of mine. I am looking forward to
> > reading your posts about how much what I say and how I
> > say it irritates you! Stimulus--response, my friend!
>
> What if he isn't a puling lackwit like you? Then stimulus--response
> fails to stimulus--ignore.
Do some research first before you intervene, ok? As far as
your unprovoked insults, well, stick them where the sun
"don't" shine, as we say in the army...
Disrespectfully yours,
Major Cat
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2006 10:29:23
From:
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
Major Cat wrote:
> Hey, it has been awhile... In case you have not noticed,
> the rec.games.chess.* newsgroups have been hosts to many
> a "moronic" diatribe of mine. I am looking forward to
> reading your posts about how much what I say and how I
> say it irritates you! Stimulus--response, my friend!
What if he isn't a puling lackwit like you? Then stimulus--response
fails to stimulus--ignore.
Dr. Pepper
:p
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2006 13:05:40
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Kallai's Basic Chess Openings
|
Hey, it has been awhile... In case you have not noticed,
the rec.games.chess.* newsgroups have been hosts to many
a "moronic" diatribe of mine. I am looking forward to
reading your posts about how much what I say and how I
say it irritates you! Stimulus--response, my friend!
[email protected] wrote:
>
> I recently had the opportunity to purchase this book as-new at a third
> of the retail price, so decided after examination to buy it, even
> though it is over my head, in the hope of growing into it and making
> selective use of it in the meantime. (It is actually two volumes: the
> first, Vol. 1, deals with 1.e4)
>
> I have two questions. First, the more general: in the chapter on the
> Four Knights, he examines the Scotch variation (4.d4) and the Spanish
> variation (4.Bb4) but does not even mention the Italian variation
> (4.Bc4). The closest he comes to dealing with this is in a note to the
> Vienna Game on p.88, where he argues against a move transposing into
> the Four Knights Italian on the grounds that Black can play the fork
> trick. Is this truly conclusive? I note that the Italian variation of
> the Four Knights is played at the Master level, e.g.,
> http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1201970 (though here the
> fork trick is not played by Black).
>
> The second question is specific to the following line in the Italian
> Game: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Qe7 5.d4 and here Kallai
> recommends against 5...exd4 on the grounds that after 6.o-o! dxc3
> 7.Nxc3 d6 8.Nd5 "and due to the threat of b2-b4, Black can only obtain
> the silver medal in this game". What is wrong with, for example,
> 8...Qd7 and then if 9.b4, 9...Nxb4?
>
> I should note that Kallai is himself a Grandmaster, while the book is
> (in general) aimed at players rated between 1700 and 2300, so a lot is
> taken for granted on the part of the reader (too much in my case I'm
> afraid).
>
> k Adkins
> [email protected]
|
|
