| |
Main
Date: 03 Jan 2006 14:57:19
From: Brad Filippone
Subject: seldom used openings
|
Has anyone here ever actually used the now seldom seen Evans Gambit? What
kind of success have you had with it?
Same question too for the Alekhine.
Thank you
Brad
|
|
| |
Date: 04 Jan 2006 17:37:29
From: richard stanz
Subject: Re: seldom used openings
|
I used to play the Alekhine and had pretty good results with it.
Against players rated up to about 2300, I tended to get dynamic
positions and good chances. I liked being able to "name the opening"
with my first move and I seemed to be more familiar with the resulting
positions than my opponents. Against higher rated players, I tended to
lose badly. It's hard to say why, since sometimes they crushed me
tactically and sometimes positionally. Maybe I would have lost to
these guys anyway, but I felt that the Alekhine's just wasn't solid
enough against that level of opposition and I was having trouble
especially with the modern (Nf3) lines. I wound up switching to the
Sicilian. With the Sicilian, I tended to have fewer quick wins against
lower rated opposition -- I think the lower rated players had a better
idea of what to do against the Sicilian than they did against the
Alekhine -- but I did better against the higher rated guys and, even
when I lost, I felt like I was in the game longer. Your mileage may
vary. But by all means, give it a try and see if you like it.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Jan 2006 19:36:30
From: Arfur Million
Subject: Re: seldom used openings
|
"richard stanz" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I used to play the Alekhine and had pretty good results with it.
> Against players rated up to about 2300, I tended to get dynamic
> positions and good chances. I liked being able to "name the opening"
> with my first move and I seemed to be more familiar with the resulting
> positions than my opponents. Against higher rated players, I tended to
> lose badly. It's hard to say why, since sometimes they crushed me
> tactically and sometimes positionally. Maybe I would have lost to
> these guys anyway, but I felt that the Alekhine's just wasn't solid
> enough against that level of opposition and I was having trouble
> especially with the modern (Nf3) lines. I wound up switching to the
> Sicilian. With the Sicilian, I tended to have fewer quick wins against
> lower rated opposition -- I think the lower rated players had a better
> idea of what to do against the Sicilian than they did against the
> Alekhine -- but I did better against the higher rated guys and, even
> when I lost, I felt like I was in the game longer. Your mileage may
> vary. But by all means, give it a try and see if you like it.
Interesting comments, it is mistifying to me why the Alekhine's is not
played more at club level. Not that I play it myself any more, but it was
the first non-symmetrical defence to 1 e4 that I played as a schoolboy - it
is not a conincidence that it was the first one listed in MCO!
What is your grade, by the way? Just asking, because I don't think that too
many players would change their opening repertoire based on their results
against 2300+ opposition.
Regards,
Arfur
|
| |
Date: 03 Jan 2006 23:05:38
From: Ron
Subject: Re: seldom used openings
|
In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] (Brad Filippone) wrote:
> Has anyone here ever actually used the now seldom seen Evans Gambit? What
> kind of success have you had with it?
>
> Same question too for the Alekhine.
I play used to play the Evans as white whenever possible (although in
the last year I've switched from 4.b4 to 4.d4).
I had more success with it than I had with either the Ruy or 4.c3 in the
Giuoco Piano.
The Evans isn't "seldom seen" among amateur players. It's quite popular,
and with good reason. I know several players who chose the Two Knights
rather than the Italian game specifically because they don't want to
face the Evans.
-Ron
|
| | |
Date: 25 Jan 2006 03:21:02
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: seldom used openings
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Brad Filippone) wrote:
>
>> Has anyone here ever actually used the now seldom seen Evans Gambit? What
>> kind of success have you had with it?
>>
>> Same question too for the Alekhine.
>
> I play used to play the Evans as white whenever possible (although in
> the last year I've switched from 4.b4 to 4.d4).
>
> I had more success with it than I had with either the Ruy or 4.c3 in the
> Giuoco Piano.
>
> The Evans isn't "seldom seen" among amateur players. It's quite popular,
> and with good reason. I know several players who chose the Two Knights
> rather than the Italian game specifically because they don't want to
> face the Evans.
>
> -Ron
I play Sloan Thrust whenever I get a chance, especially against the
distaff side of tender years. 1.g4! any 2.g5!! any 3.g6!!! ... ; around
here I start pounding all I got against whatever resistance is offered.
And when I say "any" I do mean any, as long as they're young enough not
to know better.
-Sam
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Jan 2006 18:04:02
From: Amarande
Subject: Re: seldom used openings
|
Sam Sloan wrote:
> I play Sloan Thrust whenever I get a chance, especially against the
> distaff side of tender years. 1.g4! any 2.g5!! any 3.g6!!! ... ; around
> here I start pounding all I got against whatever resistance is offered.
> And when I say "any" I do mean any, as long as they're young enough not
> to know better.
Probably not the most outlandish line there is. Nor completely hopeless
for White, even against some reasonable Black play ...
E.g.:
1 g4 d5 2 g5 c5 3 g6?! hxg6
Ignoring the Pawn clearly isn't going to give Black a better position
and may even allow White an advantage in the long run; and fxg6 is much
inferior, though still should give the better game.
4 d3 Nf6 5 Bg5 Bf5
As ... e6 is indicated, Black should develop this B first. A competent
White is not going to castle short, and so a fianchettoed QB is not
going to really be of much good.
6 Bg2 Nc6 7 e3 e6 8 Nc3 Bd6
Aggressive, and pointing at White's weak h2 that this mis-gambit
provides. However, the development of the B to e7 may be more solid.
9 e4!?
Giving rise to unforeseen complications, which are exactly what White
should be looking for when doing something weird like his first three
moves. Black probably expected to simply win a war of attrition with his
extra Pawn (and near constant threat to win another at h2) and solid
position, but now things start to get odd.
As 9 ... Bg4? actually loses (10 Bxf6!), it is compulsory for Black to
follow White's thread.
9 ... d4 10 exf5 dxc3 11 fxg6 cxb2
He could just recapture on g6, but why?
12 gxf7+ Kxf7 13 Rb1 Qa5+ 14 Bd2 Qxa2 15 Nf3
Black -should- be winning here with two extra pawns, but coming up with
a suitable winning line is far from easy. Black's pawn formation is
rather broken, White has the two Bishops, and the Black King is somewhat
exposed while the Queen is out in left field.
Ideally, at this point, Black should be looking to consolidate and
carefully go for the win. But in this sort of position it is inviting to
go for the throat - which is exactly what gives White chances. For
instance -
15 ... Nd5 16 0-0 Raf8 17 c4 Nf4 18 Bc3
Not, of course, 18 Bxf4? Bxf4 and ... Bc1 with an overwhelming bind. On
no account should White give up any of the advantages he does have.
Again, Black should be winning, but there are perfectly plausible ways
to throw away most of the advantage. Here is one.
18 ... Nd4?
This seems good, but it allows favorable exchanges and a general
collapse of the scaffolding.
19 Nxd4! cxd4 20 Rxb2! Qa6 21 Bxb7!
Not 21 Rxb7+? Ke8 and White is lost, for both Bishops are en prise. Now
the Black Queen must go hide her guilty head again.
21 ... Qa3 22 Bxd4 Nxd3
It would be inferior to exchange Queens with Qxd3. Now it seems White
must move the Rook, and suffer after Rxh2 or Bxh2+. There is another
resource, however.
23 Qg4!
and now if Black were to capture the Rook, he would be mated by checks
at g7, c6, and d7; similarly if he were to take the Pawn with the Rook.
The only way Black can now preserve any advantage is with -
23 ... Bxh2+ 24 Kg2 Ne5
Black would still be mated if he captured the Rook.
25 Bxe5 Bxe5 26 Rb5
and while Black still has an extra Pawn and general advantage (eval
-0.85, depth 11/22 by Shredder 6.02), it is unclear if he will actually
be able to win the game.
In fact, the position as it stands appears essentially drawn; there are
Bishops of opposite colors, and almost all the Pawns are gone while all
the heavy pieces remain. Under such circumstances an endgame victory
will normally not be possible, especially given the activity of the
defending pieces. Thus, if there is a victory, it would have to be by a
decisive attack.
In this light, Shredder's selected move of 26 ... Qc3 seems entirely too
passive. But nothing much is to be gained either from -
26 ... Rh2+ 27 Kg1 Bc7
Interesting is 27 ... Bd6 and now White eliminates Black's entire
advantage with the neat sacrifice, 28 Bd5! For if 28 ... exd5, 29 Rb7+
wins at once; Ke8 leads to mate by 30 Qc8, so the Black King must come
out to f6, and after this there follows 30 Re1 (Rxg7 wins too, but this
threatens mate at once) Be7 (other alternatives are worse) 31 Re6+ Kf7
32 Rbxe7+ Qxe7 33 Qg6+ Kg8 34 Rxe7 Rh7 35 Qe6+ Kh8 36 Re8 and the
Pharaoh's tomb is complete.
Therefore, after 28 Bd5, Black would have to defend the e6 pawn instead
with, e.g., 28 ... Rh6, there then follows 29 Re1, and Black still may
not capture the Bishop on account of disastrous line opening. Best for
Black then is the counterbait 29 ... Be5 (White may not take this,
either, propter 30 ... Qa1+ (or even 30 ... Qc1+) and wins), whereupon a
likely continuation is 30 Rb7+ Kg8 31 Bxe6+ Kh8 32 Rf7 (and now White
would even be mated if he had taken the B) Re8 33 Bd5 Rd8! (it's amazing
how long you can leave something en prise sometimes) 34 Qf3 Qxf3 35 Rxf3
Bd4, with a clear draw in sight.
Now the Putsch at b7 is not possible, so White instead prefers a more
peaceful withdrawal in order to secure an advanced Rook position -
28 Be4 Qd6
The threat of 29 ... Rh1+ is very serious, but easily defused.
29 Rd1 Qe7 30 Qg6+ Kg8 31 Rh5 Rxh5 32 Qxh5
and the game is a step closer to the endgame, while both sides' tactical
threats have been mainly defused; the draw approaches.
32 ... Rd8 33 Rxd8+ Bxd8 34 Qh7+ Kf7 35 Qh5+ Kf6
If the King retreats, then simply checks at h7, h8, and h5 ad nauseam,
and the game is no less drawn after 35 ... g6.
36 Bd3 a5
Other moves do not make any serious difference now.
37 c5!
Black would have a slight advantage after Qg6+, as the King would get to
the Queen's wing and the checks would stop. Whether this is enough to
win is unclear, most likely not.
After this move, Black can concede a draw, as all reasonable moves allow
a perpetual check.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Jan 2006 18:37:16
From: bellatori
Subject: Re: seldom used openings
|
If you play a lot of CC chess then both the Evans and the Vienna are quite
popular. funny thing about the Alekhine is that it is very not popular in
CC which suggests that it has an underlying weakness. The following is a
game Spassky-Fisher from '72. Given that Fisher becam a folk hero and
scored +1=1 with it against the next strongest player you might have
thought that this would give the opening some street cred as it were but
it was not to be and once again the opening has sunk back into relative
obscurity. I would rate it along with the Budapest as a great OTB surprise
opening but definitely not CC at any useful level.
[Event "Wch28-Reykjavik"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1972.??.??"]
[Round "13"]
[White "Spassky, B."]
[Black "Fischer, R."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B04"]
[WhiteElo "2660"]
[BlackElo "2785"]
[PlyCount "148"]
[EventDate "1972.??.??"]
1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. Nf3 g6 5. Bc4 Nb6 6. Bb3 Bg7 7. Nbd2 O-O
8. h3
a5 $1 {Purdy} 9. a4 dxe5 10. dxe5 Na6 11. O-O Nc5 12. Qe2 Qe8 13. Ne4
Nbxa4 14.
Bxa4 Nxa4 15. Re1 Nb6 16. Bd2 a4 {=/+ Purdy} 17. Bg5 h6 18. Bh4 Bf5 19. g4
(19.
Nd4 Bxe4 20. Qxe4 $146 {Smyslov}) 19... Be6 20. Nd4 Bc4 21. Qd2 Qd7 (21...
Bxe5
22. Qxh6 {/\ 23.Sg5}) 22. Rad1 Rfe8 $1 23. f4 Bd5 24. Nc5 Qc8 {
/\ 25... a3! Purdy} 25. Qc3 (25. e6 $1 Nc4 26. Qe2 Nxb2 27. Nf5 $1 $13
{Smyslov
}) 25... e6 $1 {Purdy} 26. Kh2 Nd7 $1 {Purdy} 27. Nd3 c5 $1 {Purdy} 28.
Nb5 Qc6
29. Nd6 Qxd6 30. exd6 Bxc3 31. bxc3 f6 32. g5 hxg5 (32... c4 $1 33. Nb4
hxg5
$15 {Purdy}) 33. fxg5 f5 34. Bg3 Kf7 (34... a3 $1 35. Ne5 Nxe5 36. Bxe5
Red8
37. Rf1 Ra4 38. Kg3 a2 $17 {Smyslov}) 35. Ne5+ Nxe5 36. Bxe5 b5 37. Rf1 $1
{
/\ 38.Rf4, 39.Rh4 Purdy} Rh8 $3 {Purdy} 38. Bf6 a3 39. Rf4 a2 40. c4 $1
{Purdy}
Bxc4 41. d7 Bd5 42. Kg3 {Abgabezug / sealed} Ra3+ 43. c3 Rha8 (43... Rb8
44.
Be5 Rd8 45. Rh4 $10 {Purdy}) (43... a1=Q $2 44. Rxa1 Rxa1 45. Rh4 $3 Rg1+
(
45... Raa8 46. Bxh8 Rd8 47. Bf6 $10) 46. Kf2 Rg2+ 47. Kf1 Rxh4 48. d8=Q
Rf4+
49. Ke1 Rg1+ 50. Kd2 Rf2+ 51. Ke3 Rf3+ 52. Ke2 Rg2+ 53. Ke1 $10 {Purdy})
44.
Rh4 e5 45. Rh7+ Ke6 46. Re7+ Kd6 47. Rxe5 Rxc3+ 48. Kf2 Rc2+ 49. Ke1 Kxd7
50.
Rexd5+ Kc6 51. Rd6+ Kb7 52. Rd7+ Ka6 53. R7d2 Rxd2 54. Kxd2 b4 55. h4 Kb5
56.
h5 c4 57. Ra1 gxh5 58. g6 h4 59. g7 (59. Bxh4 b3 60. Kc3 Rg8 $19 {Purdy})
59...
h3 60. Be7 Rg8 61. Bf8 (61. Rxa2 $4 Rxg7 $19) 61... h2 62. Kc2 Kc6 63. Rd1
b3+
64. Kc3 h1=Q (64... f4 65. Rd6+ Kc7 66. Rd1 f3 67. Kb2 $10 {Purdy}) 65.
Rxh1
Kd5 66. Kb2 f4 67. Rd1+ Ke4 68. Rc1 Kd3 69. Rd1+ $2 (69. Rc3+ $10 Kd4 70.
Rf3
c3+ (70... Ke4 71. Rc3 f3 72. Rxc4+ Ke3 73. Rc1 {/\ 74.Kb3 = Purdy}) 71.
Ka1 c2
72. Rxf4+ Kc3 (72... Kd3 73. Rf1 {/\ 74.Kb2 +- Purdy}) 73. Rf3+ Kd2 74.
Ba3
Rxg7 75. Rxb3 Rc7 76. Bb2 $10 (76. Kxa2 $4 Ra7 $1 $19)) 69... Ke2 70. Rc1
f3
71. Bc5 Rxg7 72. Rxc4 Rd7 $1 {Purdy} 73. Re4+ Kf1 74. Bd4 f2 (74... f2 75.
Rf4
Rxd4 76. Rxd4 Ke2 77. Re4+ Kf3 78. Re8 f1=Q 79. Rf8+ Ke2 80. Rxf1 Kxf1 81.
Ka1
Ke2 82. Kb2 Kd3 83. Ka1 Kd2 84. Kb2 a1=Q+ 85. Kxa1 Kc3 86. Kb1 b2 87. Ka2
Kc2
$19 {Purdy}) 0-1
|
| |
Brad Filippone wrote:
> Has anyone here ever actually used the now seldom seen Evans Gambit? What
> kind of success have you had with it?
>
> Same question too for the Alekhine.
>
> Thank you
>
> Brad
I've tried the Evans Gambit a couple of times, just to see if I liked
it, but I haven't used it enough to give you any real information. I
think I played it poorly, just because I didn't know what I was doing.
I still play the Giuoco Piano / Two Knights as white, but not the
Evans.
I haven't played the Alekhine as black, but as a 1. e4 player, I've
faced 1. ... Nf6 a few times as white. I was told by one guy that he
was always happy when his opponents played 2. e5 and let him play the
book lines, but whenever someone brought out a knight instead (either
one?!?), he ended up in trouble, so he had actually given up playing it
because of that. Since I always play 2. Nc3 against it (especially
after talking to that guy), I've never technically faced the Alekhine
Defense.
One of these days, I ought to try to learn something about the Vienna,
since it seems that's what we transpose into after 1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e5.
It would also give me something less well known than the Giuoco Piano /
Two Knights to play as white on a regular basis.
As long as we're on the subject of seldom used openings, and I
mentioned the Vienna, does anyone play it? I've only seen this once or
twice, and never in tournament play, despite the fact that I used to
play 1. e4 e5 as black. I've since switched to the French as black, so
obviously, I haven't faced it lately.
--Richard
|
| | |
Date: 04 Jan 2006 10:44:19
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: seldom used openings
|
[email protected] <[email protected] > wrote:
> I haven't played the Alekhine as black, but as a 1. e4 player, I've
> faced 1. ... Nf6 a few times as white. I was told by one guy that he
> was always happy when his opponents played 2. e5 and let him play the
> book lines, but whenever someone brought out a knight instead (either
> one?!?), he ended up in trouble, so he had actually given up playing it
> because of that. Since I always play 2. Nc3 against it (especially
> after talking to that guy), I've never technically faced the Alekhine
> Defense.
Anything that starts 1.e4 Nf6 and doesn't transpose into anything else,
such as a Petroff after 2.Nf3 e5, is Alekhine's defence. So 1.e4 Nf6
2.Nc3 is still the Alekhine. The lines with 2... d5 3.e5 seem quite
promising to me for White -- Black doesn't have the possibility of
undermining the white centre with ...d6 and White can sometimes push the
pawn to e6 (even sacrificially) to really cramp the black centre and
kingside.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Surprise Carnivorous Umbrella (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like an umbrella but it eats
flesh and not like you'd expect!
|
| | |
Date: 03 Jan 2006 23:57:23
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: seldom used openings
|
>> Thank you
>>
>> Brad
>
> I've tried the Evans Gambit a couple of times, just to see if I liked
> it, but I haven't used it enough to give you any real information. I
> think I played it poorly, just because I didn't know what I was doing.
> I still play the Giuoco Piano / Two Knights as white, but not the
> Evans.
>
> I haven't played the Alekhine as black, but as a 1. e4 player, I've
> faced 1. ... Nf6 a few times as white. I was told by one guy that he
> was always happy when his opponents played 2. e5 and let him play the
> book lines,
He obviously never played against ME.
That said, the book lines are extremely difficult to play against as White,
and definitely require a learning curve.
|
|
