< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Sep-25-06|| ||Phony Benoni: I thought these hypermodern players didn't bother using their center pawns.|
|Sep-25-06|| ||Llera: Re: "Phony Benoni: I thought these hypermodern players didn't bother using their center pawns."
Precisely:(Taken from: http://184.108.40.206/search?q=cache:...)
"Hypermodern openings are what we call just about anything that does not try to occupy
the center with pawns (which is what we usually call classical play). They even encourage
the other side to take over the center with a big pawn mass that can then be attacked
from the sides by pieces and wing pawns. "|
|Sep-25-06|| ||lvlaple: Awesome pun, this was one of those games with a total gridlock of queens and rooks that I always lose, and have nothing but respect for those who can play them.|
|Sep-25-06|| ||Phony Benoni: <Liera> Sorry--I should have made it clearer that I was making a joke based on the final position, where Reti was indeed using his center pawns quite effectively.|
|Sep-25-06|| ||IMlday: When this was played in 1923 the theoretical disputes between Classicism and Hypermodernism were in full bloom. Chess theory evolved parallel to new movements in art, dance, music etc. Reti's Opening appeared weird to supreme classicist Rubinstein: "The stupid double hole variation" he supposedly called it. 'Holes' were a Steinitz term for squares that couldn't be covered by pawns, e.g. 1.g3 makes a 'hole' at h3. The formation favoured by Staunton with c4, e3, g3 also makes holes at f3 and d3. Nowadays we can look back and see that both Reti's fianchetto openings and Rubinstein's Semi-slav 'Meran' stuff have passed the 'test of time'. Such a fertile period for 'new' chess as 1922-24 provides rich study material for a deep understanding of chess. Probably elo 1700-2100 would learn the most imo.
A file of the time period, e.g, 1922,
can be had easily by filling in the year line in the CG search but nothing else.
|Sep-25-06|| ||CapablancaFan: <kevin86><Reti,set,go!> Lol.|
|Sep-25-06|| ||OhioChessFan: I like to quickly click through games just to get a feel for them. 20...a5 looks awful.|
|Oct-18-07|| ||parisattack: <syracrophy: ...A charming victory for the father of the hipermodernism.>|
One of the great hypermodern victories. I love the center pawns held back, rolling through and winning the game for White. Having the center pawns 'in reserve' is definately a '+' of many hypermodern openings.
|Sep-29-08|| ||Benzol: I find it somewhat strange that the beginning of this game isn't considered a Reti Opening.|
|Oct-31-08|| ||mannetje: A wonderfull clean game, in the Reti opening by Reti himself. Kasparov annotated this game, he thinks Reti didn't make a single mistake. That was allmost unique back in '23.|
|Jan-02-09|| ||WhiteRook48: Reti crashes his master opponent|
|Mar-10-09|| ||WhiteRook48: I would have played 50 Ke5|
|Sep-11-09|| ||WhiteRook48: outsmarted in the endgame|
|May-23-10|| ||Eric Farley: This is wrongly called a King's Indian Attack game. There's no e4 by white. As a matter of fact, white only moved the e-pawn at move 37 and even so it was to take the rook on d3. This is a Reti-Barcza. ( Nf3,g3,c4). If there's a d4 then it's a Catalan|
|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.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·