|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted November 17, 2003 04:16 PM |
|
|
Hello Wub,
Quote:
Although I don't post at HC that often
Which is a pity 
Quote:
Players usually confuse the accelerated with the regular dragon  and insert the move f3!? somewhere, or simply play 8. 0-0!? instead of 8. Bb3 which allows me to play 8...Nxe4 followed by the freeing move 9...d5.
Yes, it´s amazing how quickly white gets worse there after making just "natural" moves.
Quote:
I completely agree. You don't want to know how often people play 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. d5 Lc5 4. Bg5? after which I can choose from 3 nice tricks to gain
a big advantage .
I think 3.d5 is terrible and deserves a big question-mark already ... King´s Indian type where the problem piece g7 spends one move less to become best piece on the board on c5, that´s really ugly .
Quote:
and among the things that looked attractive was the benko-gambit
Yes, that´s a good one if you want activity without suffering lack of space.
Quote:
I happen to have some experience with the c5 move already, because when opponents play 1.d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 I can't play the budapest so I play 2..c5 (yes I know, no opening book mentions it but I am feeling desperate at that time already  ).
For similar reasons I have recently changed my move-order against 1.d4. I usually play the Modern Benoni (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6) as black, and have recently decided to play c5 in move 1.
That avoids the Trompovski, the most dangerous Maroczy-type transposition (where white plays an early g3), and some Queen Pawn stuff like the one you mentioned.
In return, white gets the possibility to play Benoni with his pawn on c2. Which is far less weakening for him (d3-square!), but on the other hand, after swapping the e-pawns, there´s no e4-e5 push threatened. I´ve come to like a setup with Ne7-g6 and Be7 there, to avoid weaknesses on my side, too. But that´s the kind of position where you definately lack space ...
2.dxc5 also has to be looked at a little bit more closely.
Quote:
But certainly I am going to look at the KID as well and see how I like it.
In the classical KI, I personally like the Glek variation (7. ... exd4 following up Re8, Nc6). The main line with closed centre is very interesting, I´ve been studying it alot for more than 10 years, but it´s really an awful lot of work to understand its nuances.
____________
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2003 11:32 AM |
|
Edited By: Wub on 18 Nov 2003
|
Hey Lews,
I have been looking at that glek variation you mentioned, though I'm not sure if I got the right one. Since I never studied the King's Indian before, I was dependent on my computer and internet, but there the variation was probably known under a different name. Anyway, I believe you are talking about something similar to 1. d4 g6 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. Be3 exd4 8. Nxd4 Re8 9. f3 Nc6 10. O-O. The similarities with the maroczy bind in the accelerated dragon are striking in this position of course. I understand better now why the King's indian is the accelerated dragon's cousin. When I reach the level of play where opponents will apply the bind effectively, it is likely that I either switch to the regular sicilian dragon or against 1. d4 start playing the king's indian too. This depending on how much I like to be binded of course.
The Maroczy bind is said to be the biggest challenge for the accelerated dragon and since at clublevel the bind is applied not so well, I see the system as superior to the regular dragon. After all you are one tempo ahead on a normal dragon line. Until then I feel that the KI is too difficult for me to be useful and I will probably stick to a benoni. Since you also say this is viable option I need to try it in some games.
Since I played that mixed up Benoni of mine before (1.d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 c5!?), I had already looked at some openingtheory of the Benoni as well. The lines seemed to be rather strange to me though. For example, after 1. d4 c5 2. d5 e5 3. e4 d6 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. Bb5+ you are expected to play Kf8. Also the line that you mention looks complicated after 1. d4 c5 2. d5 e5 3. e4 d6 4. Nc3 Ne7 5. Nf3 Ng6 6. Nd2 Be7 7. Nc4 a6 8. a4 b6 9. g3 0-0 10. h4.
But even before you answered my original question I had the feeling that your elo is above 2000 (that's right isn't it?) so that these lines have difficult theory and are not learnt in a day or two does not come as a surprise .
EDIT: When I wrote this post this morning, I had no time left to reread it, so I didn't notice a few errors. Sorry for that. Now every line should make sense. I misunderstood the exact line which you described as white not playing c4 and black playing Ng8-e7-g6. Reason for that is that the openingbook in my chessprogram doesn't know the line you were talking about, but only a similar line. Now everything is clear to me.
EDIT 2: If it wasn't for the fact that I can't enter the zone, I too would have joined your tournament, Redsoxfan. It is not that I don't like playing chess over the internet or something.
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2003 03:25 PM |
|
|
Hello Wub,
Quote:
Anyway, I believe you are talking about something similar to 1. d4 g6 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. Be3 exd4 8. Nxd4 Re8 9. f3 Nc6 10. O-O
yes, that´s a transposition to the Glek Variation, but usually white castles at move 7, as 7.Be3 gives black extra possibilities like 7. ... Ng4.
Quote:
The similarities with the maroczy bind in the accelerated dragon are striking in this position of course.
Yes, it´s just that the e-pawn´s been switched to c7 . Strategically they are a bit different, though. From a structural point of view, the Maroczy is better because you have two central pawns. This may sound a bit academic, but when you are able to play e5 under favourable circumstances (for example an unexchangeable N/B on d4 or f4, or a follow up with d6-d5), the difference makes itself felt.
In the KI positions on the other hand, you can use the quick employment of the Re8 to go for various tactical solutions. For decades, 7. ... exd4 has always been connected with the attempt to play c6 and d5 quickly, where white´s pieces on the e-file can become vulnerable after exchanges in the centre. One problem is, if d6-d5 does not happen, there´s a vulnerable pawn on d6. And the other: Even if d6-d5 is succesful, white tends to be slightly ahead in development, and has such possibilities as e4xd5 and c4-c5 or cxd5 and Be3-g5.
Then in the nineties, GM Glek made a line popular where black does not even think of d6-d5, and instead puts more piece pressure on the centre. If white develops normally (Qd2), there follows up Nh5, and next move either Nf4 or f7-f5, with a large number of tactics keeping your position from getting ugly . After white exchanges on c6 (which he is mostly forced to at some point), you have good central control and even d6-d5 can become an option. White´s most dangerous lever tends to be c4-c5 at some point ... to either build a blockade on dark squares after d6-d5 or make both of your centre pawns targets after cxd6.
It´s still a sideline of the King´s Indian, but one that I like for black ... the line is not bad from an objective point of view, and very difficult to play as white.
Quote:
When I reach the level of play where opponents will apply the bind effectively, it is likely that I either switch to the regular sicilian dragon
Bad idea IMO . I dumped the regular Dragon after playing it a few times against IMs. I played the line with early Qa5 against the Rauzer at that time, and really liked its kind of position, but unless you spring some big opening novelty it just seems to lead to black being mated. Of course there are playable lines in the regular dragon, but after the slightest inaccuracy it´s either mate or the kind of typical Dragon position where white has his king completely safe, and all the time in the world to build up his K-side attack.
Much easier to play the Maroczy IMO. And you have some active choices there, too.
Quote:
Since I played that mixed up Benoni of mine before (1.d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5!?)
That´s not mixed up, just the normal Benoni move-order. I think you´re refering to 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 c5 ...
Quote:
The lines seemed to be rather strange to me though. For example, after 1. d4 c5 2. d5 e5 3. d6 e4 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. Bb5+ you are expected to play Kf8.
Yes, that´s a line where black intends Bxf3 and Be7-g5, in order to reach a position with knight against bad bishop. But after 6.Bb5+ Nd7 7.h3 Bxf3 8.Qxf3, black has only managed to exchange his good bishop, as 8. ... Bg5?? does not work due to 9.Bxd7+ Kxd7 10.Qg4+  . That´s why 6. ... Kf8 is better, now black can carry out his plan and swap the pieces he wants to be off. The king´s position is not such a big deal when the centre is closed.
But the Old Benoni, with centre pawns on e5 and c5, is not one I´d recommend to play ... and it also doesn´t sound like it´s the type of position that you want you enjoy having on the board.
Quote:
Also the line that you mention looks complicated after 4...Ne7 5. Nf3 Ng6 6. Nd2 Be7 7. Nc4 a6 8. a4 b6 9. g3 0-0 10. h4.
Hmm, I´m not sure how you put the N to e7 on move 4 ... what I mean is something like:
1. d4 c5 2.d5 e6 3.e4 ed 4.ed d6 5.Nc3 a6 6.a4 Ne7 7.Nf3 Ng6 8.Be2 Be7
I just think it´s a good offbeat line, position is quite okay and ignored by theory. But if opponents start to prepare for it, I may just go for a different setup ... I don´t consider the positions with open e-file to be particularly dangerous in general.
Quote:
that your elo is above 2000 (that's right isn't it?)
Yes, I´m around 2250 FIDE
Quote:
so that these lines have difficult theory and are not learnt in a day or two does not come as a surprise .
Yes, but most important is to understand what they´re about. As a rule of thumb, the more written text an opening book has, the better ...
____________
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2003 03:40 AM |
|
Edited By: Wub on 20 Nov 2003
|
Hi Lews,
Thank you very much for your thorough explanation of the Glek variant . I am unaccustomed to such kind of positions, so this kind of analysis makes me a better allround player. I tend to get annoyed when people limit my space and am aiming for the first the best breakthrough no matter the cost. But now I understand better the subtlety of this kind of positions and how strategic they really are. They are a great exercise on themes such as bad bishop, weak squares, weak pawns etc. I realize I've only looked at a few basics, but for me these are the key to experiencing more fun in trying to escape from a bind. I also studied conditions in which white plays 7. d5 (because that seemed to be a line that I would be annoyed with most) and I found that the openingbook of the computer mostly confirmed my ideas to handle that line (trying to exchange your black bishop which is now closed in and putting a knight on the weakened square c5).
All this encourages me to follow your advice and stick with the accelerated dragon when opponents start to apply the bind effectively, instead of switching to the regular dragon. I have studied the dragon extensively from the white side, since I face it often at my club. When I checked some chess databases online, I noticed that players such as Korchnoi, Sosonko, Khalifman, Shirov and Piket have used it as black, so I thought the opening was sound. On the other hand, the games I looked at were not that recent, and I know that the dragon is very liable to the newest theory. It may be one of the most bookish openings in chess I think. I'm interested though what line is the biggest challenge for black, since I know that after 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. O-O-O Rc8 11. Bb3 Ne5 12. h4 Nc4 13. Bxc4 Rxc4 14. h5 Nxh5 15. g4 Nf6, not less than 7 possible moves are possible for white. I usually play Bh6 here. On the other hand, the line with ...h5 may be more promising for black. I like to study and play this opening a lot because of its dynamic and sharp play, but I too noticed that you have to know very precisely what you are doing or the game is over in a few moves.
Your explanation of the benoni-line with Kf8 once again shows clearly that knowing the strategy is more important than knowing the moves. I'm glad I don't have to rely only on the openingbook of my computer, because I wouldn't understand half the moves I played  . I find that knowing the strategical ideas behind openings is quite improving for midplay too.
When I look at the line you showed me -1. d4 c5 2.d5 e6 3.e4 ed 4.ed d6 5.Nc3 a6 6.a4 Ne7 7.Nf3 Ng6 8.Be2 Be7- it seems to me that white should try to get a knight on c4 to pressure the weak pawn d6. Ideally, he should get his black bishop a the diagonal h2-b8 to pressure that pawn further. I guess black should try to exchange his black bishop for white's black bishop. I think he will have to put extra effort in finding good squares for his knight on b8 and white bishop. Both players should vie for the e-line. Well, all this is probably quite flawed, but these thoughts do reflect the altered way in which I now try to look on these kind of positions.
On a lighter note, when are you planning to become an IM?
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2003 06:36 AM |
|
|
Hello Wub,
Quote:
I tend to get annoyed when people limit my space and am aiming for the first the best breakthrough no matter the cost. But now I understand better the subtlety of this kind of positions and how strategic they really are. They are a great exercise on themes such as bad bishop, weak squares, weak pawns etc. I realize I've only looked at a few basics, but for me these are the key to experiencing more fun in trying to escape from a bind.
When you play against the Maroczy bind, there are basically two ways to go (and a few sidelines that I personally do not think very highly of):
Either try to get b7-b5 breakthrough done very quickly (sometimes even as a pawn sac), with B on e6, P on a6, Q mostly on a5, and a rook on c8 trying to pose tactical threats against white´s Nc3.
Or accept your lack of space and play slow maneuvers on the black squares, after exchanging knights on d4 place a bishop at c6, and a pawn on a5. Then you aim for a midgame or ending with a strong knight against white´s white square bishop, mostly on d4 or c5.
I think it´s a matter of taste, they´re both with an edge for white, but complicated enough for a good game.
Quote:
I also studied conditions in which white plays 7. d5 (because that seemed to be a line that I would be annoyed with most) and I found that the openingbook of the computer mostly confirmed my ideas to handle that line (trying to exchange your black bishop which is now closed in and putting a knight on the weakened square c5).
Yes, securing c5 square by playing 7. ... a7-a5 is the main line in the King´s Indian Petrosjan (7.d4-d5). The early exchange of dark-square bishops is a common theme in closed KI positions, but not your main goal (often it´s too time-consuming for black); and in the line we´re talking about it hardly happens at all because after 7.d5 a5, white tries to restrict black´s kingside play with 8.Bg5 h6 9.Bh4 - out of the c1-h6 diagonal. These positions should offer equal chances for black, you can follow up with moves like Qe8, Nh7, and then either f7-f5 or h7-h5 (threatening to win a piece and enabling Bg7-h6). Try to get kingside attack in any case. On the queenside you slow down white´s play by keeping an eye on a4 square (Bc8-d7 if necessary), so that b2-b4 is only possible after the preparatory moves Rb1, b2-b3 and a2-a3.
Quote:
I'm interested though what line is the biggest challenge for black, since I know that after 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. O-O-O Rc8 11. Bb3 Ne5 12. h4 Nc4 13. Bxc4 Rxc4 14. h5 Nxh5 15. g4 Nf6, not less than 7 possible moves are possible for white. I usually play Bh6 here. On the other hand, the line with ...h5 may be more promising for black. I like to study and play this opening a lot because of its dynamic and sharp play, but I too noticed that you have to know very precisely what you are doing or the game is over in a few moves.
Yes, both Ra8-c8 and h7-h5 may very well be playable, but I don´t like to play them for practical reasons (and never spent much time to look into them): As you said, it´s white who has the choice between 7 different reasonable moves, whereas black needs to balance on a very small path to stay in the game. The variation I played before I dumped the regular Dragon was 10. ... Qa5, 11. ... Rfc8, that was manageable, but in the line with an early Kc1-b1, every road seemed to lead to a more or less forced loss.
Quote:
I find that knowing the strategical ideas behind openings is quite improving for midplay too.
Yes, if you know what you´re doing from the start, many of your midgame decisions are just a matter of logical conclusions.
Quote:
When I look at the line you showed me -1. d4 c5 2.d5 e6 3.e4 ed 4.ed d6 5.Nc3 a6 6.a4 Ne7 7.Nf3 Ng6 8.Be2 Be7- it seems to me that white should try to get a knight on c4 to pressure the weak pawn d6.
Yes, with your pawn standing on c2, putting a knight to c4 at some point is more or less mandatory. But pressure against d6 is not as effective as it is in the Modern Benoni positions, as d6 is well-protected by Be7 for the moment. White also has to worry about blocking the f1-d6 diagonal - black plays a7-a6 and (after a2-a4) b7-b6, Ra8-b8, and whenever a white knight appears on c4, b6-b5 is possible. Not necessarily good (as Nc4-a5 can make a mess out of an unprepared black´s position), but possible and, well, black doesn´t have to hurry it.
Quote:
Ideally, he should get his black bishop a the diagonal h2-b8 to pressure that pawn further.
I don´t think that´s a good diagonal: Black will play Ng6 anyway, and if you withdraw to g3 (or h2), he will gladly play f7-f5. White can´t allow f5-f4, so f2-f4 seems forced and your bishop on g3 looks a bit like a pawn.
Quote:
I guess black should try to exchange his black bishop for white's black bishop.
Yes, that would be very desirable, but not easy to achieve.
Quote:
I think he will have to put extra effort in finding good squares for his knight on b8 and white bishop.
I think the Nb8 will always find a good perspective, either e5 square or (in the case of f2-f4) move to f6 at some point. When I looked at some games, I saw that the Bc8 was often played to g4 and exchanged. Makes sense, but I´d rather keep it on c8, keep control of white squares, and if I get active play at some point, it´s an imporant piece.
Quote:
Both players should vie for the e-line.
Yes, when you invade there without making too many concessions, you´re likely to win. Hard to achieve anything but mass exchanges though, as it´s the only open file.
Quote:
On a lighter note, when are you planning to become an IM?
Tonight, in my dreams . Sooner or later I´ll become an FM, but that´ll be it ... I´m too old to make another jump of 150-200 points .
____________
|
|
valkyrica
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2003 07:40 AM |
|
|
hi lews, wub ...
i don't suppose you can train a total newbie at this game ? (i know how the pieces move, but for tactics and such, i am a gonner ), i play h4 a lot and some other strategy games, but chess won't stick to me, maybe i need a good teacher, or 2 in this case
____________
I'm Guybrush Threepwood, mighty pirate
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
posted November 28, 2003 04:14 AM |
|
Edited By: Wub on 27 Nov 2003
|
Hello Lews,
Thank you very much for your thorough analyses . I studied them carefully, especially the strategic plans behind the moves. It isn't too long ago that my strategy mainly consisted of just getting my pieces out and starting a kingside attack . My strategic insight has been improved somewhat meanwhile, but your explanation of -for example- aiming for a midgame or endgame with a strong knight vs a weak bishop in the Maroczy bind really boosts the number of ideas that I can try to use in my games.
Previously, my idea to use against the Maroczy bind in case anyone would start to play it against me, was 7. ...Ng4. My preference for this move was still based on my disliking for cramped positions so I figured that the sooner I would be able to exchange a piece the better. When reading your explanation however, I figured this was one of those sidelines you did not think very highly of. Also, my view on countering the bind is much more complicated now, so I changed my opening repertoire to 7. ... 0-0. I have learnt that a lack of space isn't as problematic as I thought before, so I think I can handle a line such as 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. c4 Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Nc3 0-0 8. Be2 d6 9. 0-0 Bd7 10. Qd2 Nxd4 11. Bxd4 Bc6 12. f3 a5 13. b3 Nd7 -at my level of play that is. To my surprise I seem to like this line better than the line where black goes for the quick b5 breakthrough. Your point on switching to the regular dragon is well taken, so I think that by using the 7. ... 0-0 line in the bind I can stick to the accelerated dragon (although future will still have to decide on this one).
Your comments on the 7. d5 line in the King's Indian are interesting too. I used to have problems finding ideas to execute in closed positions (which often -again- led to breaking open the position as quickly as possible). But now I actually see various strategies to choose from. I have been training my strategic-positional abilities by playing against computers lately (since fighting them in open, tactical positions is suicide) and see good improvement. It occurred to me that you emphasize strategy in your posts a lot and stress the use of tactics as a means to get a strategic advantage. It makes me wonder if either that is a way of thinking that is typical to players of your level or that it is typical to your playing style (or that maybe you are more of a tactical player after all).
It is encouraging that my ideas for that benoni-line weren't thát far-fetched generally (though I recognize now that trying to control the h2-b8 diagonal is not a good plan). Your explanations are fully clear, though I wouldn't have thought of blocking that f1-a6 diagonal myself.
I feel that with an opening repetiore against 1. d4 I have sufficient opening knowledge to get an edge at my level, but I think I do need to work at my mid- and endgame. It's not that they are particularly bad, but I see lots of room for improvement. Are there any basic comprehensive books about mid- and endgames that you can advise me (considering also the level at which I play of course)? I'm asking because you do seem to know your way around in chess literature. Thanks in advance .
Hello Valkyrica,
If you wish I can teach you some basics about chess. At my club I also teach, so I do have some understanding about the best way to learn chess. Since you need exercises to master the theory and it is very difficult to post chess diagrams here, I will have to refer to a lot to internet links. But if you allow me some time I will gather the needed material. If you are still interested of course.
In case other people want to have a bit of training too, that gives no extra trouble of course .
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 01, 2003 03:57 AM |
|
|
Hello Wub
Quote:
Previously, my idea to use against the Maroczy bind in case anyone would start to play it against me, was 7. ...Ng4. My preference for this move was still based on my disliking for cramped positions so I figured that the sooner I would be able to exchange a piece the better. When reading your explanation however, I figured this was one of those sidelines you did not think very highly of.
Yes , I´ve played that old Larsen line 9. ... Ne6 for a short time myself ... never really got anything that looked like a position against good white play.
Quote:
Also, my view on countering the bind is much more complicated now, so I changed my opening repertoire to 7. ... 0-0. I have learnt that a lack of space isn't as problematic as I thought before, so I think I can handle a line such as 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. c4 Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Nc3 0-0 8. Be2 d6 9. 0-0 Bd7 10. Qd2 Nxd4 11. Bxd4 Bc6 12. f3 a5 13. b3 Nd7 -at my level of play that is. To my surprise I seem to like this line better than the line where black goes for the quick b5 breakthrough.
Well, that´s just the line that I play myself . After 14. ... Nc5 most games contain those slow maneuvers Qd8-b6, Rf8-c8, Qb6-d8, with even more funny Queen moves yet to come. That´s not bad at all I think, but if you want to play for a less solid but more active position, you can instead leave your f-rook on f8 and play Bg7-e5 and e7-e6. Qd8-h4-e7 can follow, to provoke g2-g3 (unless white takes precautions, a bishop sac on g3 can be deadly) and prepare for a later f7-f5 (e4xf5 g6xf5). Very double-edged stuff.
A good book about the whole Accelerated Dragon is P. Heine Nielsen´s The Sicilian Accelerated Dragon
The author´s become a 2650 player in the past few years, too bad he doesn´t play the Dragon anymore ... .
Quote:
It occurred to me that you emphasize strategy in your posts a lot and stress the use of tactics as a means to get a strategic advantage. It makes me wonder if either that is a way of thinking that is typical to players of your level or that it is typical to your playing style (or that maybe you are more of a tactical player after all).
Difficult question ... but I think I´m just following the objective requirements of the position. Modern Benoni, Dragons or King´s Indian would not work without the large variety of tactical motifs and solutions.
I think I tend to consider myself to be rather more of a positional player (there´s nothing I love more than a boring minimal advantage no danger Catalan as white ).
Quote:
It is encouraging that my ideas for that benoni-line weren't that far-fetched generally (though I recognize now that trying to control the h2-b8 diagonal is not a good plan).
When you play against Modern Benoni (black´s B on g7), Nc4 and Bf4, as you suggested, is the ideal piece placement for white.
Quote:
I feel that with an opening repetiore against 1. d4 I have sufficient opening knowledge to get an edge at my level, but I think I do need to work at my mid- and endgame. It's not that they are particularly bad, but I see lots of room for improvement. Are there any basic comprehensive books about mid- and endgames that you can advise me (considering also the level at which I play of course)?
Hard to say because I´m not sure that I´m able to estimate your level of play very well. An absolutely great old book about chess strategy that just came to my mind is Max Euwe´s Urteil und Plan.
Regarding purely endgame books ... well, it´s hard to find one that is not boring . If you see one that you personally find entertaining to read, it´s most probably worth buying.
____________
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted December 01, 2003 05:02 AM |
|
|
I haven't read any books or studied any opening moves, however I have stuck with one base set of opening moves for white that I like especially.
All this stuff about the Accelerated Dragon is confusing.
And the discussion using notations is something I haven't learned. Kind of like reading music. I need a board to understand your discussion.
I'll make an attempt to ask for your opinion of my opening moves.
My first move is queen pawn out 2 spaces. Followed by king pawn out one space.
Ideally, these two pawns will not be attacked by other pawns and my opponent moves out his queen pawn first move as well. This allows me to trade my queen side bishop pawn creating a hole in either my opponents king or queen row giving me control over the center of the board.
This also creates a strong closed game for me on the left-side and forces my opponent usually to a king side castle eliminating the pawn rush to my king-side castle. I have experimented with queen-side castling and a majority of the time, I have encountered a middle to end game downfall because my pawns often get pinned.
Also a defense such as this operates best with queen side rook pawn out one space to prevent bishop trades with my knights. This is where my trouble with late to mid game pins become deadly with queen side castles.
I have also found that my queen is the essential piece to this defense as it protects virtually both knights, both bishops and often some pawns as well.
My main difficulties have occurred when black moves queen pawn out one space followed by the king pawn out two forcing a trade. I have tried moving out my pawns to create a pawn wedge deep into my opponents territory, but that often leaves me too open for a defensive, closed style that suits me best.
My ideal gameplay will win by not a strong attack, but more of a strong defense that eeks forward, trading to gain better positioning.
My mid gameplay is very unpredictable for me. There are times when I will completely dominate an opponent with crafty and risky counterattacks. These either result in bad blunders or quick checkmates.
I feel that with experience I will begin to see what is a good counterattack and what will be a blunder.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 02, 2003 01:18 AM |
|
|
Hello Redsoxfan,
Quote:
My first move is queen pawn out 2 spaces. Followed by king pawn out one space.
Ideally, these two pawns will not be attacked by other pawns and my opponent moves out his queen pawn first move as well. This allows me to trade my queen side bishop pawn creating a hole in either my opponents king or queen row giving me control over the center of the board.
what you describe is a rather unambitious version of a very good opening, the Queen´s Gambit. The way you play it it´s still very solid and not at all bad, but on the other hand not very dangerous for the black player either.
The unambitious move that you make is the second one, when you place your King´s pawn one step forward (e2-e3). You protect a centre that is not under attack at the moment, and the bad thing about that is that you block your Bishop c1 inside your pawn chain. He would be more active on f4 or g5 instead.
After white pushes his Queen´s Pawn two steps in move 1 (d2-d4), he would ideally want his King´s Pawn to make a space-gaining doublestep (e2-e4), too. Most of black´s good options include preventing this, the most obvious one being the doublestep of his own Queen´s-pawn (d7-d5). Now the Queen´s Gambit is entered after white pushes the pawn before his Queen´s Bishop two moves forward (c2-c4), to immediately put pressure on the black centre and force a small concession.
Hard to explain anything without using the notation, if you are interesting in learning more about chess, there´s no way around getting used to it. Anyway, there´s nothing seriously wrong with your opening play, and no need to change it if you play chess on a hobby player level.
____________
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted December 03, 2003 04:32 AM |
|
|
Thanks for your recommendation.
I am familiar with Queen's Gambit and did not realize how difficult it was to attack the bishop. After trying it out in a couple casual play games at the zone I realized the advantages to this Opening move. In fact I have recently played 3 rated zone games since then and have gone up 50 points. My initial thoughts to the Queen's Gambit were that the bishop would be vulnerable to attack, but now I understand that the bishop rows (c,f) or is it (3,6)?
I feel that my white openings are now certainly much improved and most likely above my level of play. I felt I had already improved when I put together a hodge-podge set of openings after skimming through some chess openings online.
I think that I might try the pirc defense. I know that if played properly it is a very hard defense to break.
btw, I'd like to get a game against one of you two some time.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 04, 2003 03:56 AM |
|
Edited By: Wub on 3 Dec 2003
|
Hello Lews,
Using your advice I have studied the Maroczy bind somewhat further. It appears to me that the drawing chances with this opening are very high. It seems white’s main goal is to sit on his space by preventing any breakthroughs and avoiding too many exchanges. The function of white’s black square bishop seems somewhat ambiguous to me, since exchanging it with the knight on c5 makes black’s dragonbishop invulnerable, while trading it for that bishop is probably too much in line with black’s plan to obtain a strong knight versus weak bishop endgame. And black appears to be sentenced to very strange Queenmoves indeed (I watched a game where black’s queen moved 4 times in 5 moves from d8 to b6 to d8 to f8 to d8). It is interesting to try and understand the reason behind these moves. Qf8 is played as a reaction at the unnaturally looking Bf1. I suspect however that Bf1 is played to make Qf2 possible (in an attempt to trade the knight under favorable circumstances) while Qf8 is invented to allow for Bh6 (pinning white’s bishop at the c1-h6 diagonal and thus preventing Qf2). Trying to grasp these motives definitely makes replaying master and grandmaster games captivating. I do not fully see why the plan with Be5 is that dangerous for white though, since Bf4 as a reaction seems to smother black’s attacking chances at the kingside quite easily (but maybe Be5 is implemented at the wrong move or something in that case).
Quote:
“When you play against Modern Benoni (black´s B on g7), Nc4 and Bf4, as you suggested, is the ideal piece placement for white.”
It is interesting that after 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.d4 0-0 6.Be2 in the King’s Indian defense, the game transposes to the modern Benoni after 6…c5 7.d5 e6 8.0-0 exd6 9.cxd6. That helps me to see how both openings are related.
I have read an article on the web where player styles were defined on two dimensions: tactical versus strategical and positional versus calculative. Since I think that knowing your playing style is vital for choosing your opening repertory, I thought it was an interesting read. I classified myself as a tactical-calculative player, although I was not sure about that at all. I sometimes hear I am more of a positional player. Also, the fact that I think I am a tactical player, may be very well caused by the fact that sophisticated strategies appear to occur merely by 2000+ players. And finally the fact that I think I am a calculative player may be caused by the fact that I generally use more time than my opponent and due to an age difference (players at my club are usually +/- 25 years older than I am). However, since you play the accelerated dragon too, I was interested if you would classify yourself as a tactical-calculative player as well. But from what you say about that, your preferences seem to be more strategical-positional to me as well. Also I think that the accelerated dragon at your level tends to be strategical-positional (5. c4 changes the character of the game a lot) while at my level it is tactical-calculative (due to the fact that the d5 breakthrough is usually not prohibited). By the way, if you enjoy the catalan as white, you must be a 1.d4 player. To my knowledge those openings tend to lead to more positional play than 1.e4 so that in itself is a clue as well.
Thank you very much for your advice on a good book for middlegames. I happen to have part 3 opening repertory in the series practical chess lessons from Max Euwe. I planned on buying part 4 and 5 about mid- and endgames too, but found that they were sold out. That’s the reason why I asked for your advice. Coincidentally, you guide me to that very book and even show me where to get it . So yeah, I guess that book was exactly what I was looking for . Many thanks .
Hello Redsoxfan,
You write that you have never learnt how to use notations in chess. However, knowing that is the key to a huge variety of chess resources, also on internet. It also makes communication at HC a lot easier. And since chess notation is very easy, I figured I could explain it to you right here.
Each language uses a different notation, but the American notation is most often used. At the sides of a chessboard you can usually see the number 1-8 vertically and the letters a-h horizontally like this:
White’s pieces always start at the first and second row and black’s at the seventh and eighth. Each square is simply defined by a number and a letter. For example, the white Queen is at d1 and the black King at e8. Also, the d5 square for example is always white. Every piece (except a pawn) is abbreviated with a single letter as follows:
King = K
Bishop = B
Knight = N (since the K is already in use)
Rook = R
Queen = Q
Very logical as you see. No letter is used for a pawn. Now, by writing down the name of the piece in short and naming the square it came from and where it goes to, you can define moves. For example, moving white’s king pawn two squares ahead from the beginning position can be described as e2-e4. Moving the knight at the queenside in front of the bishop can be written down as: Nb1-c3. If you capture a piece, that is usually described with an x. For example: e6xf7. Or Qd1xb3. Finally, the number of the move is added (in this case a move implies one move of white ánd black). You may encounter some deviations and extra rules in notations, but figuring those out yourself shouldn’t be too hard. In the posts above abbreviated notation is used: the place where pieces come from is left out and thus only the name of the piece and the place where it goes to is defined. For example: Bg5, Kc6 or exf2. If you get the idea behind the notations, you could try to play the following moves:
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Bc4 0-0.
If you did that right, you should have arrived at the following position:
 .
This is a well-known position in that ‘confusing’ accelerated dragon.
I only have a very basic understanding of the queens gambit, since I am an 1. e4 player myself and don’t answer 1.d4 with 1…d5. But your move 2.e3 is indeed not very challenging for black, while 2.c4 is more often played. What I can advise to you is to go to this site and enter some moves there. This way you can get familiar with what is often played at high level and you can see at what kind of positions you arrive. If you want to know more about the ideas behind the queen’s gambit, there is an abundance of material to find on the web.
You say you want to adopt the pirc-defense. It is indeed a very solid opening, which is also used by grandmasters. In my opinion, it depends greatly on your level of play what kind of chess theory you should study and what kind of openings you should play. I have no idea how good you are, so I can’t give you good advise on what to study. But if you consider yourself a beginner, it is a good idea not to study openings too much. After all, what is the use of knowing an opening ten moves deep when you still just give away pieces in the midgame? I think that beginners should instead study basic tactics a lot, since knowing every way to win a piece is vital. Studying basic endgames is useful too. In my opinion beginners should play an opening with basic ideas. This means for example occupying the centre with a pawn right away and developing your pieces aggressively. A good opening to learn that is by answering 1. e4 with 1…e5 (that’s the way how I learnt the basics of openings at least). If you consider yourself a more advanced player, you would profit from learning openings a lot more and you can also start learning about strategy and more advanced tactics. A more extensive description of what I said can be found here. Hope this helps you.
Hello Valkyrica,
I have looked up some chess resources for you that I think you should master if you want to learn some tactics. You may find this too easy, but since you say you are rather new to the chess, I thought this was the best way to begin. I teach the basics of chess on my club and I will post that theory here.
First, I advise you to read what I wrote about chess notation earlier this post. It will make communicating a lot easier. You say you already know the way the pieces move and stuff like that. However, just knowing is not enough, you should master it. I can advise you to practice a bit on the following way:
Place a white queen, rook and king on the board and a black king. Try to mate the king (you can also let a computer play as black, if you have a chess program). If you can do this without trouble, try it with two rooks and a king instead. After that, try it with only a queen and a king. That should be enough for now. However, if you want more of a challenge, try the same with two bishops and a king vs a king or a rook and a king vs a king.
Put the following pieces on the board: white pawns on d4, g5, g3 and h2, a white knight on h4, a white bishop on c5, a white rook on f2 and a white king on d2. Also, a black king g8, black pawns on h7 and g6 and a black rook on f7. In this position, white is to move. First, try to find out, which of his pieces is attacked. Then look if you can find all moves that prevent white from merely losing a piece. You should be able to come up with a total of 11 moves. Try to divide these moves into categories. Finally make a decision on which of these 11 moves is best according to you.
Finally you should check if you master more advanced chess rules, such as castling, stalemate and the en-passant rule. You can read about that here. If you master all this (and playing games helps in practicing and determining this), you have successfully learnt virtually all theory that I have to teach 10 year old kids in one year (one hour a week). Good luck .
____________
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted December 04, 2003 04:24 PM |
|
|
I would move to Nc6-b4.
This should prompt a2-a3 by white. This should prompt d2-d3.
If white attacks the center pawn by black. It will result in a long complex trading system ending with two vulnerable pawns simultaneously being attacked. This will only result in the benefit black after trading. This gives black more control of the center of the board. If black takes the knight, d5xd4(is that right) pawn takes the bishop. This allows white to move Bc8-e6. Thus gaining position after the trade. At the beginning white has a huge advantage with the huge possibilities at holds. This is taken away through this trading sequence.
However if white does not move d2-d3 after Nc6-b4. Black can gain control of the middle with e7-e5, attacking the knight at d4.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 04, 2003 06:51 PM |
|
|
Hello Wub,
Quote:
Using your advice I have studied the Maroczy bind somewhat further. It appears to me that the drawing chances with this opening are very high.
I don´t think so. The Maroczy is not a Benoni or an opposite castling Sicilian, but still very asymmetrical and complicated. Of course it´s always difficult to play for a win as black against correct white play.
In march I was at a tournament with some IMs, who were lamenting all the time that their Sveshnikov Sicilian were useful as nothing more than a drawing weapon . It´s funny, I had always considered it to be one of the sharpest and most unbalancing openings that exist. But when it became subject of theoretical discussions between the likes of Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand and Leko, it´s been overanalysed, with many lines leading to a clear and lifeless =.
Quote:
It seems white’s main goal is to sit on his space by preventing any breakthroughs and avoiding too many exchanges.
You´re right that it´s very important for white to restrain black´s position (especially in the Gurgenidze variation, where black wants to push b7-b5 quickly), but I would not consider this to be his main goal - but rather a first step to it. Once white is in control, the squeeze can begin ... in the above-mentioned system, he will always put a knight to d5 and eventually threaten to increase the pressure with Be3-g5. If black takes on d5, without having gained sufficient queenside space, or some other source of concrete counterplay, there follows exd5, and white will put strong pressure on the e7 pawn. This pressure can be combined with a crushing kingside attack.
Quote:
The function of white’s black square bishop seems somewhat ambiguous to me, since exchanging it with the knight on c5 makes black’s dragonbishop invulnerable, while trading it for that bishop is probably too much in line with black’s plan to obtain a strong knight versus weak bishop endgame.
Taking the knight on c5 is hardly ever a good option. In the line with black´s Pa5 and Bc6, black plays Nf6-d7 at some point and white has a basic choice to make: Either swap bishops on g7 and play on the kingside, or keep them on the board (withdraw to e3 and f2) and expand on the queenside. The latter plan is considered to be the more dangerous one by theory.
Quote:
And black appears to be sentenced to very strange Queenmoves indeed (I watched a game where black’s queen moved 4 times in 5 moves from d8 to b6 to d8 to f8 to d8). It is interesting to try and understand the reason behind these moves.
Black readies himself against white´s queenside expansion plan, when the a-file will be opened. He connects rooks and transfers the queen to better squares in terms of dark-square control.
Quote:
Qf8 is played as a reaction at the unnaturally looking Bf1.
I don´t think there´s any direct causal connection between Qf8 and Bf1. Qd8-f8 is part of a black standard maneuver, to prepare for either Bg7-h6 (as you´ve already suggested), or Bg7-f6/e5 and Qf8-g7. The alternative is Larsen´s bizarre h7-h5, Kg8-h7, Qd8-h8 .
Quote:
I do not fully see why the plan with Be5 is that dangerous for white though, since Bf4 as a reaction seems to smother black’s attacking chances at the kingside quite easily (but maybe Be5 is implemented at the wrong move or something in that case).
Be3-f4 can almost always be met with Be5xf4 Qd2xf4 e7-e5 -> Nc5-e6 and a good position for black.
Quote:
It is interesting that after 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.d4 0-0 6.Be2 in the King’s Indian defense, the game transposes to the modern Benoni after 6…c5 7.d5 e6 8.0-0 exd6 9.cxd6. That helps me to see how both openings are related.
Yes, transpositions of this kind are possible against almost every white system. In the King´s Indian Four Pawn´s Attack, it´s even the mainline to transpose into a Benoni.
Quote:
I have read an article on the web where player styles were defined on two dimensions: tactical versus strategical and positional versus calculative.
Hmm, yes, different playing styles do exist of course. But as these factors most of the time are working hand in hand, it´s all very much shades of gray. For myself I can´t really say ... just that I have an extremely logical approach to chess.
Quote:
By the way, if you enjoy the catalan as white, you must be a 1.d4 player. To my knowledge those openings tend to lead to more positional play than 1.e4 so that in itself is a clue as well.
Yes, you´re right about this tendency, but it´s not a very big one. In the eighties, the young an extremely aggressive Kasparov mainly played 1.d2-d4, while the prototype positional player Karpov almost exclusively opted for 1.e2.e4.
Even if you take the Catalan, which is considered to be more positional style than anything else, there´s a player like Romanishin who very succesfully uses it to implement all kinds of sacrifices. Are these sacs positional or calculative? Well, they´re both ...
In my opinion, the question of which opening you are going to learn should not so much be tackled on an intellectual level, but rather on an emotional one. You´re most likely to be succesful with an opening if you enjoy looking at it, studying it and playing it.
I´ve been playing the Slav for many years, which suited my supposed positional playing style very well. But ... I hated my position, as soon as my pawn stood on d5, which unfortunately is on move 1 in the Slav . So I studied the Modern Benoni, an opening where you have to lookout for all kinds of pawn and exchange sacrifices to stay in the game, and it´s working quite well for me .
____________
|
|
valkyrica
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted December 05, 2003 04:01 AM |
|
|
Hi boys,
I still am interested yes, it's a fascinating game, and the strategic possibilities in it are infinte, or so I think, i will be a good student if you wish to undertake me, I promise !
Val
____________
I'm Guybrush Threepwood, mighty pirate
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted December 05, 2003 06:13 AM |
|
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 08, 2003 06:23 AM |
|
|
As I´ve been talking about the benefits of 1. d4 c5 compared to 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 lately, I just have to show the little game I played today in an OTB team competition. I entered it into my database, so I just have to copy+paste and here it is ...
1.d4 c5 2.Nf3 cxd4 3.Nxd4 Nc6 4.c4 g6 5.Nc3?! This natural move is an inaccuracy already. White must hurry in order to hold the d4 point with pieces.
5.e4 Bg7 6.Be3 would have let to a normal Maroczy.
5...Bg7 6.e3?! Now white´s bishop c1 is a problem piece, and the rest of the game develops around this theme.
6.Nc2 was necessary, after which black has many interesting possibilities, among them the unclear and double-edged 6...Bxc3+
6...Nf6 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0 d5 9.cxd5 Nxd5 10.Nxd5 Qxd5 11.Bf3 Qc5 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.Qa4 Rb8 14.Rb1
after 14.Qxc6 Qxc6 15.Bxc6 Rd8 16.Ba4 Bd7 17.Bxd7 Rxd7 , black has more than sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn, but white should be able to hold the draw with precise play.
14...Rd8 15.b4
a typical way to lose the game quickly was 15.Qxc6? Qxc6 16.Bxc6 Ba6 17.Re1 Bc3
15...Qc4 16.Bxc6? The decisive mistake. White had to play
16.e4 in order to bring his obstructed bishop to life. After 16...Be6 , black only has a small advantage, thanks to his more active pieces.
16...Rb6 17.Bf3 Ra6 18.Qb3 Be6 19.Rd1
19.b5 Rxa2 20.Rd1 Qc7 21.Rxd8+ Qxd8 22.Qd1 Qxd1+ 23.Bxd1 Bf5
19...Rxd1+ 20.Qxd1 Rd6 21.Qa4 Qd3 22.Rb2 Bd7?!
and I won the exchange (0-1 after 52 moves). After 22. ... Qc3 instead, white would have resigned immediately.
White was not forced to go into an inferior line before he made the careless move 5. Nc3. But first, as we have just seen it´s nice to play a move order that requires the opponent to play more cautiously . And second, there´s also a big objective benefit to the delay of the Ng8 development. Black avoids the extremely unpleasant g3 system that usually arises from the English opening:
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nf3 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.g3 Bg7 6.Bg2 0-0 7.0-0 , and white is slightly better according to theory, as black cannot play both d7-d6 and Nb8-c6 without giving up a pawn.
____________
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted December 08, 2003 05:17 PM |
|
|
There must be some miscommunication between in notations. After about move 10 I'm completely lost. I see you attacking pieces that don't exist. Assuming that you are in the marcozy bind. I can say that white holds pawns on both c4 and e4 is that not correct. After Bg7 white is forced to move the knight retreats. However you said that Be3 is a bad move. I don't understand why this is a bad move. Then your notations of d7-d5. Then white attacks the pawn. Now here's what I don't get. It says that black takes the pawn??? Here is where I'm confused. The notation seems off for me.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 08, 2003 05:37 PM |
|
|
Hello Redsox,
bold text = game moves
normal text = commentary
?! inaccurate move
? bad move
____________
|
|
Delfontes
Known Hero
Sorcerer Extraordinaire
|
|
posted December 08, 2003 06:03 PM |
|
|
You know, I love chess .
Recently I found out that the Chessmasters don't actually think when playing. According to researchers, they are only accessing the "memory" section of the brain while playing. This means they are just thinking about previous games, and what someone else (or even they) did on another occasion, and not actually trying to figure anything out.
Quite an eye opener for me, who seems to lose everytime I think anyhow .
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
