|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Apr-10-04 |
| Benjamin Lau: I think the fact that you are attached to the opening so much is keeping you from being objective. If you turn your eyes to the label, it clearly says "13th Amber Rapid." Players are much more likely to take on suspect openings in quick games because their opponents are less likely to have well thought out preparation for them. If you think there is no refutation, good for you. But I would like to see actual analysis rather than some whiny post. Show me some improvements for Helloween's "superficial analysis." Whether you are wrong or you are right, we both learn something. |
 |
Apr-10-04
 |
| Hanada: <Benjamin> Ok man, you want to throw around insults like "whiny"? That's cool... Like the guy in his car who flips the bird and speeds away. Anyways, let me be the gentleman and try and convey my argument with facts instead of slurs. To begin with, I am not really "attached" to the opening. I use it on occasion and believe that it has a vast amount of area for original analysis. As for analysis on the opening, just go to google and type in albin counter gambit. When I did it 30 pages of analysis popped up all containing much more detail and analysis than what Helloween basically paraphrased from someone elses analysis. The opening still has proponents among master strength players. And I don't do other people's analysis for them...I figure if someone is truly curious he will do the work for himself. And besides, with all the chess programs out there you have a vast wealth of resources at your fingertips. Now, if you really want to prove to me that the opening unsound I see one really good way of settling the argument. How about a game? Then you can express all your ideas and analysis through action instead of rambling kibitzing and insults. Hanada |
|
Apr-10-04
|
| Hanada: <Ben>
Here you go man.... I played one just for you.
[Event "Live 30/15"]
[Site "caissa.com"]
[Date "04/04/10"]
[Round "?"]
[White "MSU31"]
[Black "Hanada"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1840"]
[BlackElo "1995"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 d4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. g3 f6 6. exf6 Nxf6 7. Bg2 Bb4+ 8. Bd2
Bc5 9. O-O O-O 10. a3 a5 11. b3 Qe7 12. Bg5 Bg4 13. Re1 h6 14. Bc1 Ne4 15. Rf1
Qe6 16. Bb2 Rad8 17. Ne1 Nxf2 18. Rxf2 d3 19. Nf3 dxe2 0-1 |
|
Apr-10-04
|
| Hanada: <Honza>
I used 5)...f6 in the posted game and have been using it alot more recently. Of course, this guy I played did not handle it to well but I have found it surprisingly effective. The practical application of this opening can be very good and the there is still alot of theory to be explored. The Albin is for real in my humble opinion. It just needs an advocate on the top level for it to re-emerge. |
|
Apr-10-04
 |
| acirce: I don't understand. How is that rapid Internet game between two amateurs even close to proving anything? |
|
Apr-10-04
|
| Hanada: This is just the rating of the players on this particular site which is not equivalent to elo. I am actually rated 2269 USCF. Anyway, the game is what is important, not the rating. |
|
Apr-10-04
|
| acirce: Yeah ok, but the other player seems to be much inferior to you. You don't win as black in 19 moves without white playing badly. I don't know what to think about this opening, but a game like this tells me nothing. It needs to be tested between strong, and equally strong, players. |
|
Apr-10-04
|
| Hanada: I'm just trying to show that the opening is practical and quite usable, no matter the rating. You have a point though. Want a game. :) |
|
| Apr-10-04 |
| Benjamin Lau: Hanada, I laugh at your response. Let you be the "gentleman?" Hahahaha, you're the one who just insulted Nikolaas on various pages a day ago for a post which was not even related to yours, and now you claim some sort of noble magnanimity!? Ha! You really have some distorted sense of reality. Btw, saying stuff like, "I don't do other people's analysis for them...I figure if someone is truly curious he will do the work for himself" is just a lazy excuse and you know it. The thing is that I've seen Helloween's analysis before as well as that of other GMs. And I see nothing wrong with them. So unless you provide some of your own corrections, I see no reason to believe your word over that of theorists with 400 points more than you. Acircle brought up a good point about ratings. Van Wely is rated 2616. Moro is rated 2732. And Van Wely still won even though it was a rapid game. I'm not saying that the Albin cannot be used. Since it is rarely played anymore, the sheer shock value could probably kill a ton of players (for instance, Anand lost a King's Gambit with black a while ago, who would believe it?), but I think you need to be more objective. And that's not an insult. Your challenge to acirce and me shows you missed the point completely. You need to play a couple of people in *classical* games *at your level* to determine the soundness of the opening (you should also probably make sure your opponents know the "refutatory lines", that is after all what is being tested.) |
|
| Apr-10-04 |
| Benjamin Lau: It's okay, I expected as much from you. Maybe come up with some counter analysis one day and I will take you seriously. |
|
| Apr-10-04 |
| Benjamin Lau: My ego? You're the one who thinks everyone will take your word for it even without analysis. As DK once said, "show me your winning line!" (Btw, if you really do, post it next to Helloween's analysis so I can compare, don't post it on this page cause no one will ever bother looking here.) |
|
Apr-14-04
 |
| Honza Cervenka: <Hanada> Your game is quite good example of Albin treated like real gambit. I am not sure that black can get full compensation for sacced pawn after 5...f6!?, but white has not easy play. Of course, white blundered in the 17th move but it is not easy to find any reasonable continuation there for him. For example 17.Qd3 Bb6 (with intention Nc5) 18.Qc2 Nc5 (18...d3 19.exd3 Nxf2 20.Rxf2 Bxf2+ 21.Qxf2 Bxf3 22.Bxf3 Rxd3 23.Nd2 Rxd2 24.Qxd2 Rxf3 25.Re1 looks equal) with advantage of black. |
|
| Apr-17-04 |
| nikolaas: <Benlamin Lau> Am I insulted somewhere? Please tell me where; I want to defend myself and my opinion against everybody. And eventually accept that they're both wrong... About this thread: The only thing I sayed was, that it's rarely played. I think Queen's Gambit Declined, Albin Counter Gambit (D08) proves it. |
|
| Apr-17-04 |
| Benjamin Lau: E J Diemer vs Heiling, 1984
You said you would not be posting until a week later and Hanada replied "Thanks for the schedule update. We'll all be waiting with bells on." This was right after Hanada thought you were making fun of the Albin countergambit, and so Hanada tried to insult you by displaying a distaste for your posts, but amusingly, you did not detect the sarcasm in his post and responded with good nature. There is another attempt at an insult but I don't want to bother looking for that one as well. The past is the past. |
|
| Apr-18-04 |
| nikolaas: <Benjamin Lau> Thanks. And sorry for the foult in your name in my last post here. Beside, you're right: the past is past so we'd better forget this misunderstanding and stay friends. |
|
Apr-18-04
|
| Hanada: <nikolaas>
It's cool man, all this stupidity started because I misunderstood one of your previous posts. My apologies... However, I do take issue to the way Benjamin Lau replies to posts. I have read a number of his previous kibitzes and I can safely say that I am not the only one on this site that feels this way. Of course, I'm sure he is going to give his usual reply of, " <Hanada> Provide specific quotes where I...yada yada yada..". You know what though, I am too lazy to do that so let's call it a day. :) |
|
| Apr-18-04 |
| Benjamin Lau: Hanada, I can say the same for you. |
|
| Apr-19-04 |
| nikolaas: <Hanada&Benjamin Lau> Please forget it all and stay friend, okay? At least, try it! The past IS past, so why longer offending one another? We all can become angry, no? Come on, it's not worth an argument. |
|
Aug-15-04
 |
| patzer2: Fritz found an amazing resource that turns the tables and gives Black a win via a Queen Sacrifice! Fritz 8 indicates Black wins after 30...Bxg2!! 31. Ng6+ Rxg6 32. Rxe7 Bh3! 33. Re1 Nxf4 34. Rxb4 Ne2+ 35. Kh1 Re6! 36. b6 c5 37. Rb2 Rf2 38. Ra8+ Kh7 39. Qd5 Re5 40. Ra8 Nc3 41. Rbb1 Nxb1 42. Rxb1 Ree2 43. Kg1 (43. b7 Rxh2+ 44. Kg1 Reg2+ 45. Kf1 Rh1#) 43...d3 44. Qe4+ Rxe4 45. Kxf2 Re2+ 46. Kf3 Bg2+ 47. Kf4 d2 48. Rd1 g5+ 49. Kf5 c4 50. b7 Bxb7  . The final position is an obvious win, and the Fritz assessment is huge (-19.00 @ 12/40 depth & 1441kN/s). |
|
| Feb-03-05 |
| Poisonpawns: This gambit has the same problem is many other gambits.Blsck gives up a pawn for a lead in development, or in this case to hinder whites natural development by setting a wedge in the position.Which doesn`t work because white developes his pieces to fine posts.Then white allows black to regain the pawn, but his position is filled with weaknesses.On move 13. whites position looks great, while blacks looks awkward, look at the queen on d7 blocking the bishop,and the rooks.All black has for compensation are those 2 pawns in the center which are quickly undermined by e3.Then black has an iso.All i can say is i like when i play against this in tourneys.I think if someone likes these positions as black they should play the tarrach defense, for an isolated pawn, you are guarenteed free piece play without being down a pawn. |
|
| Feb-06-05 |
| FUNFZEHN: This opening is nice at any level. An hour of study to learn blacks ideas and anyone 2200 level and below can play this openinng with no trouble. IM competition doesnt know the lines then easy for black to get attack on kingside. This is fine for any level. |
|
| Feb-07-05 |
| RisingChamp: <Poisonpawns>,Benjamin Lau,and on another page Helloween make this sound so simple,that you would think they would win every game they faced against it no matter how strong the opponent(which should be the case for any opening which is refuted as they claimed)However the succeses in recent classical chess games of Sokolov(2685)-Morozevich 0-1 and Dreev (2704)-Nakamura 0.5-0.5 confirm the fact that this opening is fully viable at the high levels,let alone being refuted.As for the debate between Hanada and Benjamin Lau,I side with Hanada,it is clear that as a refutation of an opening which is enjoying a rennaisance,Helloweens postings are highly superficial,and his claims highly exaggerated<"has been proven thotoughly unsound">when in fact even Boris Alterman says that is considered unsound more on principle,because the compensation isnt clearly established,rather than that any specific forced line has been demonstrated leading to a clear white advantage.Benjamin Lau says "as DK said show your winning line-well somebody saying this opening is refuted should do so.I can envisage this opening enjpying a rennaisance as the Chigorin did. |
|
| Feb-07-05 |
| Poisonpawns: <RisingChamp> Well said, but I never said the Albin was refuted.I was stating some of the known problems black has in the opening, and that i like to play against it as white.I cannot speak for the other fellows who said it is refuted, that is obviously an exagerration to say the least.On the other hand the problems i pointed out in the albin are part of the reason it is frowned upon,there are just simply better openings for black to play against 1.d4 than the albin,Tarrach,Dutch,Budapest all have better reputations.One more point,I am also a correspondance chess player and in high level correspondance games black will NEVER play this opening unless it is against a weak opp.My Question to you all is WHY? :-) |
|
| Feb-08-05 |
| RisingChamp: I have one counter question for you-a serious one to which I never figured out the answer,and since you are a good correspondence player,I will ask you-How is that even the highest level of correspondence play,for example Estrin vs Berliner etc see openings which are considered poor,and hardly ever seen in top OTB chess games.Surely given the fact that there is no surprise element,and that refutations can be leisurely sought,how come correspondence chess openings are more experimentational than OTB openings? Of course the Albin doesnt have a very good rep-but that is changing a bit I think,and being an e4 player myself,I have no idea whether it is easy or difficult to face,but my quarrel is mainly with the folks who speak about the opening in terms of inaccurate objective evaluations,rather than an entirely correct statement that is considered dubious.It looks interesting to me and I will study it some time,but using it seems remote,since they are too many declinations which will leave me uncomfortable-like the Budapest.For now I am sticking to the Leningrad Dutch. |
|
| Feb-08-05 |
| Poisonpawns: Estrin vs Berliner 1965 was played because Estrin was a renowned expert in this opening at the time and berliner could count on estrin playing into this line, so he prepared a special line for him.The rest is history.Actually on the contrary, you see openings such as Kings gambit,Latvian etc mostly in theme tourneys.If you chk the top CC players like Umansky,Oim,berliner,you will see ruy lopez and queens gambit etc.OTB ANYTHING well almost anything is playable at least for the suprise value.Susan Polgar uses this game in her article in this month`s chess life article in her discussion on the albin.Susan Polgar on the albin: "The albin-counter gambit is certainly a risky opening to play as black on a regular basis.However, it can be interesting to use it once in a while as a suprise weapon."Moving on she says;"As white,there is not much to fear.The plan is usually clear:Try to win the advanced d-pawn!White is also looking for the right opportunity to givre the e5-pawn back." |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
