< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
|Apr-01-04|| ||caballos2: 29...Nc2! wins. |
|Apr-01-04|| ||square dance: im surprised moro missed that easy fork. |
|Apr-01-04|| ||kevin86: It isn't that easy-but it WAS a matter of chess blindness;black missed the fact that the knight fork also pinned the rook-making it incapable of taking the knight.|
Another odd fork at the end-the rook must either move and leave the knight unprotected or the knight must protect the rook-but there are no safe square to do so.
A quaint game-barely six days old!
|Apr-01-04|| ||kevin86: Today's game could have been:
1 f4 e6 2g4 h4# or
1 f4 e5 2 g3 exf4 3 gxf4 h4#
|Apr-01-04|| ||nikolaas: I'm surprised to see someone playing albin's counter gambit nowadays. It's very uncommon.
<kevin86> Why do you think that those grandmasters would play such a stupid kind of games? |
|Apr-01-04|| ||hickchess99: I don't understand kevin86's remark either. |
|Apr-01-04|| ||Calchexas: Fool's Mate. Today is April Fool's. |
|Apr-01-04|| ||Hanada: <I'm surprised to see someone playing albin's counter gambit nowadays. It's very uncommon. <kevin86> Why do you think that those grandmasters would play such a stupid kind of games?> |
What's wrong with the Albin? I mean it is not played regularly but there is alot of area for original play contained within its lines. Check out the games Keres played with it. I mean if it is good enough for, probably, the best player to have never becom champ, then it is good enough for me.
Seriously, I have won a good number of games with it and this was a game taken from a speed chess game so there you go. I wouldn't charactrize it as a "stupid" opening at all. With a litttle creativity, which Moro has, it could be used, at least as a surprise weapon.
|Apr-02-04|| ||kevin86: The Albin gambit is a bit out of date and is very risky;isn't that the true meaning of gambits? People play them rarely,so the element of surprise is another asset to them,especially this one. |
|Apr-02-04|| ||nikolaas: I also wouldn't caracterize it as "stupid", but it IS uncommon, that's all I said.
That you won some games with it doesn't mean anything if you don't mention your opponents. |
|Apr-03-04|| ||motionknight: what about 38. Be4! |
|Apr-04-04|| ||nikolaas: <motonknight> If 38.e4 then d4 |
|Apr-09-04|| ||Hanada: <nikolaas:> Who I beat is not really important nor is it the point that I was trying to convey. |
You said, "Why do you think that those grandmasters would play such a stupid kind of games?" In a later post you reply, "I also wouldn't caracterize it as "stupid"'. Well, wich of your contradictory quotes are you going to stick to?
Even this is beside the point...all I am asking is this..is "uncommon" a bad thing? What the chess world needs right now is originality not conformity and the Albin certainly has originality.
|Apr-09-04|| ||nikolaas: That quote "Why do you think that those grandmasters would play such a stupid kind of games" was a reaction on your post "today's game could have been 1.f4 g6 2.g4 h4# or 1.f4 e5 2.g3 xf4 3.xf4 h4#."
That was before Calchexas said it was April's fool's day (my own day).
I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. |
|Apr-09-04|| ||Hanada: "today's game could have been 1.f4 g6 2.g4 h4# or 1.f4 e5 2.g3 xf4 3.xf4 h4#." was not my quote to begin with. It was another user and I remeber the post. |
However, this is all still beside the point. I just want to get to the bottom of your aversion to the Albin Counter Gambit. It's not really that important, I was just curious and was surprised that you would call it a "stupid" opening. If you were indeed speaking about the fool mate then I am sorry for the mix up. I just thought it was cool that a top 10 player used it on more than one occasion in the same tournament and had a positive score with it...that's all.
|Apr-09-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: This conversation looks a bit silly, Nikolaas was clearly talking to Kevin86. |
"Today's game could have been:
"1 f4 e6 2g4 h4# or
1 f4 e5 2 g3 exf4 3 gxf4 h4# "
"<kevin86> Why do you think that those grandmasters would play such a stupid kind of games? "
On the other hand Hanada, hasn't the Albin been refuted? Helloween has the details on the Albin Countergambit page.
|Apr-09-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: Queen's Gambit Declined, Albin Counter Gambit (D08) |
|Apr-09-04|| ||Honza Cervenka: I like Albin Counter Gambit and I used it formerly in correspondence games with quite good results. Here are two examples.|
[Event "CZE corr"]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Bg4 6.Bg2 Qd7 7.0-0 0-0-0 8.Bf4 Bh3
9.Bxh3 Qxh3 10.Nbd2 h6 11.Nb3 g5 12.Bc1 g4 13.Nh4 Be7 14.Nf5 h5 15.Nxe7+ Ngxe7 16.Bg5 h4
17.gxh4 Nxe5 18.Nxd4 N7g6 19.Qb3 Rxd4 20.Qxh3 gxh3 21.f4 Nd7 22.Rac1 Nxh4 23.e3 Re4 24.Bxh4 Rxh4
25.Rc3 Rg4+ 26.Kh1 Re8 27.Rg1 Reg8 28.Rxg4 Rxg4 29.Rc1 Nf6 30.Rg1 Rxg1+ 31.Kxg1 Ne4 32.b3 Kd7
[Event "CZE-Cup corr"]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.a3 Bg4 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.h3 Bxf3 8.Nxf3 0-0-0
9.Qd3 h6 10.g3 g6 11.Bg2 Bg7 12.0-0 Nxe5 13.Nxe5 Bxe5 14.b4 Qe6 15.c5 Ne7 16.b5 Nd5
17.Bb2 Nc3 18.Bxc3 dxc3 19.Qe4 c6 20.bxc6 bxc6 21.Qa4 Rd7 22.Qa6+ Kd8 23.Rad1 Ke7 24.Rxd7+ Qxd7
25.Bxc6 Qc7 26.Qa4 Rc8 27.Qh4+ Kf8 28.Bf3 Qxc5 29.Qxh6+ Kg8 30.Bg4 Rd8 31.Qg5 Rd5 32.Bf3 Rd2
33.Kg2 Qd4 34.Ra1 c2 35.Rc1 Bd6 36.Qd8+ Kg7 37.Qa5 Bc5 38.h4 Qxf2+ 39.Kh3 Qe3 40.Qc7 Bd6
41.Qc4 Rd1 0-1
By the way, Albin is not so uncommon on lower level (2000-2200) and for example IM Milos Mozny plays it quite often even against GMs. (I have submitted some of his Albin games today and so they will appear soon in the database.) But on the top level it is really pretty rare, although this game was only rapid.
|Apr-09-04|| ||Sneaky: I think the Albin Countergambit is a wonderful opening. Like all the best openings, it embodies a plan of development, and a good one, too. While White struggles with that thorn on d4, Black's pieces flood easily into the game, usually Black castles long and the Queen/bishop battery quickly strips the White king of his light-square protection.|
Honza, I haven't gone through your games above (why don't you submit them?) but I notice you play the "normal" 5...Bg4 variation. Have you looked into the alternatives: 5...Be6 and 5...Bf5? I have a book on the Albin but I'm a little confused as to which of these three moves is the best.
I've learned that 5...Be6 looks like a great idea, because it attacks the c4 pawn while it develops a piece. But then I learned that White can effectively gambit that pawn, since ...Bxc4 is met with Nbd2, and suddenly it's Black who is losing too much time. I've also learned that 5...Bf5 can be tricky, because in some lines White can be very embarassed with ...Nb4, but since "a3" is a good idea for White anyhow, that shouldn't pose much of a threat. So assuming that White is aware of these nuances, I guess 5...Bg4 is still objectively the best way to play it?
|Apr-09-04|| ||Honza Cervenka: <Sneaky> I did not try to play 5...Be6 nor 5...Bf5 and so I don't feel myself to be any authority here. Another possibility is 5...Nge7 with intention to play Ng6 like Morozevich in this game. In blitz games I played several times 5...f6, but it is probably too optimistic for serious game. |
|Apr-10-04|| ||Hanada: <Benjamin lau>
"hasn't the Albin been refuted?"
I have seen no convincing evidence that the Albin has been refuted and Helloween's superficial analysis does not convince me otherwise. If the Albin has been refuted why would the world's number 7 player use it, along with many other grandmasters? Moro is the #7 by the way.
|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.
|Apr-10-04|| ||Hanada: <Ben>
Here you go man.... I played one just for you.
[Event "Live 30/15"]
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.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·