< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Aug-21-11|| ||Everett: <LIFE Master AJ: 2...h6?! 3...g5?|
Bad moves ... VERY bad!>
Wrong, after 2..h6, white has the lowest winning percentage! 3..g5 is uncompromising.
and please take some ammonium to tighten up your diarrhea of posts.
|Aug-21-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: A new book I have - A GM calls 2...h6? anti-positional. (Who am I to argue?)|
|Aug-21-11|| ||bengalcat47: If Black takes the Bishop at move 5 he falls into a variation of the Fool's Mate, where this time it is White who delivers the fatal blow!|
|Aug-21-11|| ||felix90: 19 Bxe6 Qxe6
20 Qg8+ Ke7
21 Qxa8 Qb6+
22 Kc1 Rf8
23 Rd7+ !
|Aug-21-11|| ||hedgeh0g: If you've already moved your f-pawn in the opening, it's hardly ever a good idea to follow it up with h3 or h6 as it opens up an array of violent tactical possibilities involving the sensitive e-h diagonal. I would be VERY wary of playing into my opponent's preparation like Black did in this game.|
|Aug-22-11|| ||Everett: Here is a question for all the free-thinkers on this site who want some sort of truth beyond "don't push pawns on the K-side early" or "I read it in a book so it must be true."|
Black has a few options on move 11, and one that seem to leave him with an advantage. Yes, advantage for black. The video offers it, but I imagine if you look at the position yourself it makes perfect sense.
Perhaps, maybe, just possibly, Simon Kim Williams was on the right path after all.
|Aug-22-11|| ||kellmano: Simon Williams says Gormally is the most naturally talented player he knows. Don't know why you'd play something this provocative if you hold your oppoenet in such high esteem. Probably because Williams does not take the game of chess too seriously.|
|Aug-22-11|| ||kevin86: Odd opening line-is it sound?|
|Aug-22-11|| ||Everett: <User: kellmano>|
Perhaps Williams will want to play the way he wishes, with his favorite Dutch Defense, which he's analyzed more than anything else he plays. The Dutch itself is already provocative anyway.
And, of course, chess itself is a game that shouldn't be taken too seriously.
<kevin86> regarding its soundness, I have no idea. I do know if it is not, white did not play the refutation, as 11..e6 seems to put Black in a good positon.
|Aug-22-11|| ||haydn20: I think Black is lost after 11...exf6. The best I could do after 11...e6 is 12. Be2 Qxf6 13. Bh5 Qxf2+ 14. Kd1 d5 15. Nd2 and I have no idea what's going on. One thing even patzers like me know is that the old dogmas about openings (e.g. h6 is "anti-positional") are valid only as guidelines, not gospel.|
|Aug-22-11|| ||4tmac: 5. Be2 Kf7!? 6. g4!? (or Bg3) That's ridiculous.|
|Dec-19-11|| ||FSR: The little-known 3.Bf4! is better than the usual 3.Bh4. Opening Explorer|
|Dec-19-11|| ||King Death: This whole line looks crazy to me, and the game is straight out of Morphy-NN where he just develops his pieces and squashes some hapless player who has no grasp of basic principles of developmemt.|
|Dec-19-11|| ||Domdaniel: This type of thing isn't unusual in England, where there has been a vast amount of research into 'Anti-Dutch' lines such as 2.Bg5 and 2.h3/3.g4.|
Much of it by Simon Williams, although he now plays the Dutch less frequently than he used to.
|Dec-19-11|| ||Penguincw: Right at the last minute, black realizes the unprotection of the rook on a8.|
|Dec-19-11|| ||Domdaniel: Gormally may have won this one. He may be a tough GM-punching kinda guy. But Williams is a better writer, and his DVDs are fun. I'm sorry to see him give up the Classical Dutch, but he realized that playing it against GMs wasn't a great idea.|
Gormally's book on tactics and calculation reads as if it was thrown together in a rush. Some good analysis, in no particular order, linked by clumps of dodgy prose.
|May-22-14|| ||Domdaniel: "After 6...Nf6 White has to play accurately to gain anything from the opening" -- Simon Williams, Dangerous Weapons: the Dutch.|
Black's line may be anti-positional: doesn't mean it's bad.
|May-22-14|| ||Domdaniel: 11...e6! is Williams' improvement.|
|May-22-14|| ||perfidious: <AJ: 2...h6?! 3...g5?
Bad moves ... VERY bad!>
Black's second move is not bad at all; have to admit that I am not wild about 3....g5, but that is a matter of style.
Never had either colour after 3....g5 in my playing days, even with a number of games as White in 2.Bg5.
In re <FSR>'s post, seems 3.Bf4 might be worth a look.
|May-22-14|| ||perfidious: <Dom> Another note, en passant: in the eighties, I recall having at least one game which began 1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 h6 3.Bh4 Nf6.|
Snatched the knight at f6 in a nanosecond, as I was more than happy to play this without Black throwing ....h6 in there--all the better when he did!
|May-23-14|| ||FSR: <Domdaniel: ... Black's line may be anti-positional: doesn't mean it's bad.<|
I agree. It's much like the so-called Poisoned Pawn Variation of the Najdorf Sicilian. Flohr thought, on general principles, that the PPV must be unsound. But general principles aren't enough, as Fischer and others have recognized. Concrete calculation may show that a gross-looking line is nonetheless playable.
|May-23-14|| ||Domdaniel: <perf> I've never actually played against 2.Bg5, because I normally sidle into the Dutch via 1...e6 and 2...f5. White has the option of a French, but almost nobody takes it.|
I used to think that this method avoided all the Anti-Dutch systems, until somebody hit me with 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.h3 Nf6 4.g4 ... the first time, I grabbed the g-pawn and lost. Next time I knew to play ...d5 instead.
|May-23-14|| ||perfidious: <FSR> That fine line between applying GPs and knowing when to calculate one's way through a minefield separates even some strong masters from the great players.|
<Dom> On occasion, I played 1.d4 e6 with either colour and even had a player take me up on the invitation to a French. That method has the drawback of not working so well when one wishes to play the Leningrad, though, as I did towards the end of my career.
That is a strange sideline you mentioned, and I should probably have played ....d5, as you did after that first go-round.
|May-23-14|| ||Domdaniel: <perf> There's always 1...g6 and 2...f5, though White players are more likely to play 2.e4 and transpose to a Modern/Pirc than they are to play e4 in the 1...e6 line.|
I often play 1.Nf3 and 2.g3 as White. I've been contemplating 1.g3 and 2.f4 -- a Reversed Leningrad or a Bird Polar Bear, though I haven't got round to it yet.
I did play the Bird a few times in the past, in conjunction with e3 and b3. I don't fully understand why the Bird is an inferior opening -- if other lines are playable in reversed form, such as the Sicilian/English or KID/KIA, why not the Dutch/Bird?
It may be that the Dutch is a counterpunching variation, a bit like Alekhine's Defence (which I've also tried in reverse!). As black, it works when white overreaches -- but as white, the same formation meets a more stable and solid formation.
I like all these transpositional possibilities and reversed openings. Many players ignore these in favour of a solid classical repertoire, but I'm fascinated by the nuances. Recently, I've been looking through Fundamental Chess Openings by Paul van der Sterren -- not particularly deep, but much better on transpositions than most general opening books.
|May-24-14|| ||perfidious: <Dom> My old adversary Joseph Fang used to play 1...g6 with an eye to reaching the Leningrad if allowed, though we never had one of those: I always played 2.e4 and won at least one game from him in the 3.c3 line.|
As to the Bird, I've a feeling many players do not care to face the From, which I always employed. Most all my games after 1.f4 e5 transposed into King's Gambits of one type or another, the only exception being a blitz game I lost to Michael Rohde long ago.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·