< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Jul-22-11|| ||SirChrislov: A triumph of hypermodernism. -R. Fine|
|Sep-18-11|| ||Xeroxx: brilliant game|
|Sep-18-11|| ||perfidious: <IMlday: ...Reti's Opening appeared weird to supreme classicist Rubinstein: "The stupid double hole variation" he supposedly called it.>|
This statement, or something on those lines, was definitely made, but I thought it was Richard 'The Fifth' Teichmann, another player of marked classical style, to whom it was attributed.
Can anyone clarify this? <FSR>? <jess>? <TheFocus>?
|Dec-21-11|| ||Eric Farley: This is not the KIA! The KIA is characterized by an early e4. An early
c4 makes the opening a RETI, or maybe a transposition to the ENGLISH. An early d4 makes the opening a CATALAN or a GRUNFELD reversed.|
|Dec-21-11|| ||Fusilli: Beautiful game. I especially liked 33.Qxb6!|
|Feb-17-12|| ||King Death: This is the one of the nicest examples of an in between move I've ever seen with Reti cleverly throwing in 34.c5.|
|Jan-10-13|| ||Everett: The nomenclature can be a funny thing in chess, of course we all know that... but even the KID does not necessarily have a pawn on e5, so why must the KIA have a pawn on e4?|
Take this game, for instance, much like a KID but than quite like a Benoni.
I Aloni vs Bronstein, 1956
And this: ..c5 is often played long before ..e5 vs the Saemisch.
Averbakh vs Spassky, 1956
So... relax. The King's House of Nf3, g3, Bg2 and 0-0 is a King's Indian Formation. Afterwards it can morph into something more specific (like Radjabov's follow-up of d4 before e4 Radjabov vs Aronian, 2009), but the initial name is not wrong.
|Jan-18-14|| ||Domdaniel: <why must the KIA have a pawn on e4?> Because it simplifies the opening classification. After 1.Nf3, White may subsequently play for a central pawn break with c4, d4, or e4.
In general the e4 systems are the King's Indian Attack (except for early e4 gambits, eg the Lisitsyn Gambit, 1.Nf3 f5 2.e4); the c4 systems are a Reti, sometimes an English; and the d4 systems may transpose to various Queen Pawn openings, or to the Reversed Gruenfeld or Neo-Gruenfeld.
There are other possibilities, of course, eg a Nimzo-Larsen with 2.b3. And with so many possible transpositions, it is not surprising that opening nomenclature is confusing.|
But this is a Reti System - or Reversed Benko/Benoni, at least to my eyes. I've often played this kind of thing as White. Calling it a Zukertort opening - which usually refers to 1.Nf3 and no more - is not particularly helpful.
As an example of transpositional possibilities, I've had games go 1.Nf3 (Reti? Zukertort?) ...f5 (Dutch?) 2.e4 (Lisitsyn Gambit) ...e5 (no, a Latvian!). In such cases the later position is canonical.
|Jan-18-14|| ||Wyatt Gwyon: Going over games like this and Capablanca's classic 1914 win over Nimzowitsch (Nimzowitsch vs Capablanca, 1914), I'm surprised that the Benko Gambit was not developed much earlier than it was.|
|Jan-18-14|| ||Domdaniel: <Wyatt Gwyon> -- < I'm surprised that the Benko Gambit was not developed much earlier than it was.>|
In a sense, it's not so surprising. If the basic gambit idea was thought to be just playable for White, it must have seemed very risky for Black.
Full development of the Benko had to wait for the idea that a gambit could be positional, and not just a tactical prelude to an attack.
|Jan-18-14|| ||RedShield: I discern 4 reasons:
i)smaller pool of players good enough to establish theory;
ii)lower frequency of games between said players;
iii)slower rate of information transmission impeded the development of theory;
iv)chess theory preoccupied with development of all the other openings.
|Apr-28-17|| ||hudapri: The classic delayed reversed Benko.|
|Apr-28-17|| ||JimNorCal: <perfi>: This statement, or something on those lines, was definitely made, but I thought it was Richard 'The Fifth' Teichman|
Yeah that's what I always heard, too
|Apr-28-17|| ||Pawn and Two: <JimNorCal & Perfidious>|
William Napier's book, "Paul Morphy and the Golden Age of Chess", includes a chapter on Teichmann, titled "Teichmann Nuggets", in which Napier stated Teichmann acquired the nickname, "Richard the Fifth", from the frequency in which he finished in 5th place in tournaments.
A review of Teichmann's career, in which I may have missed a few of his tournaments, I noted 5th place was a frequent finishing place for Teichmann:
Monte Carlo 1903 - 5th
Vienna 1903 - 5/7 - with (Maroczy & Mieses)
Ostend 1905 - 5/6 - with (Marco)
Ostend 1906 - 4/6 - with (Bernstein & Burn)
Vienna 1908 - 5th
Prague 1908 - 5th
Hamburg 1910 - 5th
Pistyan 1912 - 4/6 - with (Duras & Schlechter)
Budapest 1912 - 5/6 - with (Vidmar)
|Apr-28-17|| ||thegoodanarchist: OMG this is an AWESOME GOTD pun!!!
2006 was part of "the good ol' days" on cg.com, when puns didn't stink.
Only one man's opinion
|Apr-28-17|| ||JimNorCal: <P+2>: It's not "the Fifth" being referred to. It's the "double hole" description's author that we're trying to ID|
|Apr-29-17|| ||Pawn and Two: <JimNorCal> Sorry about my error. In checking Golombek's book, "Reti's Best Games of Chess", Chapter V, The Reti Opening, 1923-1924, it is stated that Teichmann, shocked at the twofold fianchetto, referred to it as the stupid double-hole variation.|
|Apr-29-17|| ||MJCB: Why not 41... RxR; 41. PxR, Kd7? Black king is in the "b" pawn square, while white king seems too far from the "a" pawn. I am sure Reti and Rubinstein saw something else beyond this, but I am not sure what. Any help for enlightment is appreciated.|
|Apr-29-17|| ||MJCB: Sorry, I meant to start the sequence by black on move 40|
|Apr-29-17|| ||JimNorCal: Thanks, <Pand2>. A real pleasure to have you and your library willing to confirm aging memories :)|
|Apr-29-17|| ||perfidious: Ageing, he says? Dang, mah memory is jest old! (laughs)|
|Apr-29-17|| ||Boomie: <MJCB: Why not 41... RxR; 41. PxR, Kd7?>|
White has 42. e5-e6 and the black king can't stop both pawns. One of them will queen in time to stop the black passer. Notice the subtlety of 41...Kd8, which avoids the e6 check. But white has enough time anyway.
|Apr-30-17|| ||MJCB: Thanks Boomie, went through your idea and it is quite amazing - you are right, it wins. Subtle chess is quite pleasant to watch!|
|Apr-30-17|| ||morfishine: The problem with opening nomenclature is some "openings" are based on White's move order, while others are based on Black's. Thats where the problem starts. Chess would do itself a big favor by simplifying the naming procedure.|
Further muddying the waters is that some openings have the simplest of names, "Modern Opening" for example; Others are named after cities, "Budapest Opening" for example; while others are named after people, "Pirc Opening" for example. No wonder people argue over what particular opening a game starts with: There is no basis to begin with
Finally, chess hasn't even settled on whether an opening is based on what move came first, or what was transposed into. As for me, I could care less if a game transposed into a Schevingen when the opening was a Najdorf. In my eyes it was, is and will always be a Najdorf.
And double-finally, there are those "irregular" openings. Couldn't we at least give these "irregular" openings some sort of name? The term "irregular" is somewhat laughable in that this assumes the other openings are "regular"!? This can hardly be the case what-with the chaos that exists in trying to name chess openings
|Jun-19-17|| ||TerryMills: Would 4.. dxc4 have been better for Black than 4..d4 ?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·