| Jul-11-04 |
| shr0pshire: I was reading about this variation in chess cafe. By the way it was described, I thought it was almost an "urban legend" opening. It is very interesting, and I think I will have to try it out sometime. Also I think the opening explorer underestimates this opening. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb6 Qe7. Very intersting. Gives me something to think about at least. |
 |
Jul-12-04
 |
| IMlday: After 4.Nc3 Nd8 5.Nd5 Qd6 6.d4 c6 7.dxe5 Qb8 8.Bc4 is a piece gambit but I doubt it's sound. Do you recall where at Chesscafe it was discussed? |
|
| Jul-12-04 |
| Phoenix: I read it too, this is the link: http://www.chesscafe.com/lane/lane.... |
|
| Jul-12-04 |
| shr0pshire: it is a very interesting article, and something for me to chew on in conjunction with the mountains of ruy lopez theory that there is out there. I think that it is playable under master level.
Though I would say that it is courageous to play it in a master level game. I would be weary of trying this against anyone over 2200. I just don't think it is that strong positionally. And I can see masters just clining on to that positional advantage, and not letting go. And <Phoenix> posted the link to the article that I referenced. |
|
Jul-12-04
|
| IMlday: Interesting article. I roomed with Biyiasas at Skopje, 1972 but had forgotten that game completely.
I'll put some brief commentary into Bailey-Day Canadian Open 1988.
Leafing through a book on uncommon openings in a book stall I found it seriously misevaluated.
Incidentally in Canada 3..Qe7 is known as The Incredible Defence. |
|
| Jul-12-04 |
| shr0pshire: What do you mean you found it seriously misevaulated? Did he or she under-evalutate the opening? It doesn't look positionally sound to me.
I could get into the intricacies of why that is, but I am sure you have heard those critiques before. Just my thoughts./ |
|
| Jul-12-04 |
| samvega: Strangely, I see no examples of 3..g5 in this database. |
|
Jul-13-04
 |
| chessgames.com: Samvega, we just added a few examples of that rare move, dating as far back as Teichmann vs Schlechter, 1904 |
|
Jul-13-04
|
| IMlday: No shroPshire, the odd openings book misevaluated the endgame in Bailey-Day 1988 which it gave as a mainline.
In the cafe article Markland-Biyiasas makes a much more rational 'main line'.
The best that can be said about the 'incredible' 3..Qe7 is that it is far better than it looks. but of course it looks aweful. Great psychological weapon sometimes, but obviously from this game, unsuitable against Dutch juniors looking for IM scalps. |
|
| Jul-13-04 |
| shr0pshire: lol, thanks |
|
| Jul-13-04 |
| samvega: <Samvega, we just added a few examples of that rare move, dating as far back as Teichmann vs Schlechter, 1904> Thanks Chessgames. I had seen some of Prof. Brentano's analysis mentioned by vonKrolock in the Teichmann vs Schlecter, and have been interested in seeing real examples ever since. |
|
