|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-25-04 | | Lawrence: <florin>, welcome to the site! Which "spart" is that? |
 |
| Jun-25-04 | | AgentRgent: <rafaelluiz> White went bad with 5. Nc3 and even worse with 6. e4. If you're going to take on b5, you'd better have the guts to take on a6, "In for a penny, in for a pound". Positionally allowing black to trade an A pawn for a C pawn is bad enough, but allowing the e7-b4 pawn chain is just a gift to a Benko player. |
|
| Jun-25-04 | | PinkPanther: <AgentRgent>
Are you a fool? The Nc3 line in the Benko Gambit is PERFECTLY respectable, it's just that after Nisipeanu plays b4 a very sharp variation is entered that Bacrot came out on the losing side of. But as I already stated, there is nothing at all wrong the the Nc3 line. |
|
| Jun-25-04 | | Lawrence: <Junior 8> suggests that White's 19.♕b3 (19.♘f3) and 20.h3 (♕xd5) were weak but the real freefall started with 21.♘xe4? Better would have been 21.♘b5, though even the latter gets an eval of -1.06 (2 min. analysis). |
|
| Jun-25-04 | | AgentRgent: Am I a fool? quite possibly, but I'm also not wrong.. Opening Explorer
5. Nc3
69 games
31.9% won for white
20.3% drawn
47.8% won for black
5. Nc3 is Whites weakest choice against the Benko.
Perhaps you're thinking of 6. Nc3 (after 5. bxa6 Bxa6) which is the main line and perfectly acceptable. |
|
| Jun-25-04 | | PinkPanther: Only 69 games are in the database for this variation, that's hardly enough of a sample to gain an accurate depiction of how sound Nc3 actually is. |
|
| Jun-27-04 | | AgentRgent: According to Chesslab.com's 536 games featuring 5. Nc3 from 1991-Present the scores are: White won 36% Black won 45% Draw 19% As opposed to 5. bxa6 which scores: W 38% B 30% D 32%. |
|
| Jun-28-04 | | Shadout Mapes: Isn't this Sneaky's preferred line against the Benko? The NesFrappe(tm) Attack? |
|
| Jun-28-04 | | Shadout Mapes: <AgentRegent> What do you think of this: A Schmied vs Jan Rosenberg, 2001 ? |
|
| Jun-28-04 | | themindset: pink panther, why are you so abusive? chill out dude. |
|
| Jun-28-04 | | Ziggurat: 5. Nc3 can be rather unpleasant to meet for a Benko player (I used to be one myself). It may allow Black to equalize with best play, but he has to tread carefully as there are some pitfalls. |
|
| Jun-28-04 | | AgentRgent: <Shadout Mapes: What do you think of this: A Schmied vs Jan Rosenberg, 2001?> comments here: A Schmied vs Jan Rosenberg, 2001 |
|
| Jul-02-04 | | guyk: against the benko i enjoy 4. f3
very strong! |
|
Jul-02-04
 | | Sneaky: <Isn't this Sneaky's preferred line against the Benko? The NesFrappe(tm) Attack?> It's a walk down the road that leads to the attack but here White wimps out and doesn't play the 2-pawn gambit which is the Nescafe Frappe Attack. The improvement in the opening is this: instead of the sane-yet-boring plan of Nf3/O-O instead try 8.Bc4 g6 9.e5! dxe5 10.d6! exd6 11.Bg5 where White has such a burning initiative that requires a whole pale of water just to cool him down. |
|
| Jul-02-04 | | AgentRgent: <Sneaky: instead try 8.Bc4 g6> against 8. Bc4 8...Nbd7 is better than 8...g6. |
|
| Sep-14-04 | | RationalKing: <Lawrence> "L-a spart" means in romanian was destroyed |
|
| Sep-14-04 | | Lawrence: <RationalKing>, thanks. Are both you and <florin> Romanian, then? |
|
| Sep-14-04 | | samvega: <Lawrence> Did Junior not comment on 16.Nd2? This move seems to justify the sac -- or is it played to provoke it on the assumption the sac isn't sound? |
|
| Sep-15-04 | | Rowson: I haven't been this confused since i tried to understand Tal's games. |
|
| Sep-15-04 | | clocked: <AgentRgent> opening statistics don't make you right (or wrong). Black's diagonal strength is impressive. Bg4 or Ba6, Bd4 or Bh6, and Qh4 or Qa5 |
|
| Sep-15-04 | | Lawrence: <samvega>, Junior 8 considers 16.Nd2 a tad inferior to 16.h3 but both of them get an = sign. 16.....Nxf2 is spectacular, and probably jolted Bacrot psychologically (unless, as you say, he was purposely trying to provoke it), but 16.....f5 is Junior's first choice. Once again, both moves get an = sign, and the evaluation is f5 -0.25, Nxf2 -0.02 In other words, 16.Nd2 is not a bad move, and 16.....Nxf2 is not a winning one. (5 min. searches) |
|
| Sep-15-04 | | Lawrence: <samvega>, oops, left Junior running while I did some other stuff and now, after 35 minutes, it thinks that 16.....Nxf2 is a bit stronger than 16.....f5 (though -0.19 versus -0.14 really means they're both the same). |
|
| Sep-15-04 | | clocked: <Lawrence> I take back my statement that it is winning, but I don't trust Junior's eval without going deeper. |
|
| Sep-15-04 | | samvega: <Lawrence> thx
<clocked> I trust computer evaluation over my own simply because I'm not a strong player. The thing I dislike about computer analysis is that computers (at the moment) aren't very pedagogical.
At any rate, it seems to me that 16..Nxf2 is in a sense an obvious move, while 20..dxe4 is more "shocking". |
|
| Nov-28-07 | | litlepawn: Hi from JPN : registered just now after reading articles in this site for about 3 months . just one question : is there anyone here who actualy uses his/her brains to analys games here , or is everyone using machines ? 8 years old from JPN . Ps ;if I sound rude I apologize , and 4give my my bad speling and grammer , my english is 5 months old :-) |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 16...Nxf2