|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Apr-10-09
 |
| blacksburg: <In that sense it doesn't take a genius to figure out which one is better for white.> <Maybe you could try providing actual logical analysis that shows the Slav is weaker than the CK instead of resorting to a meaningless attempt at an insult?> pot, meet kettle. |
 |
Apr-10-09
 |
| acirce: I wasn't insulting you, but I apologize if it seemed like it. No, I can't provide "logical analysis that shows" one thing or the other comparing the value of two mainstream openings - chess is too complex for that. |
|
Apr-10-09
|
| blacksburg: <Okay just take off the last two reasons and there you have it:> have what? what exactly is the <etc.> in <making development faster, stronger central control, etc.>? <Theoretically it is obviously (the CK) better for white than the Slav, simply because the white pawn is on e4 instead of c4.> the e4 pawn is liquidated or advanced in every main line of the CK. if white doesn't play the advance, he plays 3.Nc3, and black plays ...dxe4. the only CK line in which the e4 pawn stays on e4 is the sideline fantasy variation, 3.f3. the only other option is to exchange on d5. |
|
| Apr-10-09 |
| chessman95: <blacksburg>
<<Okay just take off the last two reasons and there you have it:>have what? what exactly is the <etc.> in <making development faster, stronger central control, etc.>?> Everything else that comes with having a pawn on e4!
What you "have" is exactly what you posted after that: Theoretically it is obviously (the CK) better for white than the Slav, simply because the white pawn is on e4 instead of c4. That is the <last> time I'm posting that stupid comment!! <<In that sense it doesn't take a genius to figure out which one is better for white.><Maybe you could try providing actual logical analysis that shows the Slav is weaker than the CK instead of resorting to a meaningless attempt at an insult?> pot, meet kettle.>
lol I didn't mean that as an insult. I really don't think I need 'logical proof' for that one. |
|
Apr-10-09
|
| blacksburg: <Everything else that comes with having a pawn on e4! What you "have" is exactly what you posted after that: Theoretically it is obviously (the CK) better for white than the Slav, simply because the white pawn is on e4 instead of c4. That is the <last> time I'm posting that stupid comment!!> ok, but this comment really doesn't make any sense. as i stated before, the e4 pawn is liquidated or advanced very quickly in every main line of the CK. |
|
| Apr-10-09 |
| chessman95: <blacksburg: the e4 pawn is liquidated or advanced very quickly in every main line of the CK.> True, but especially when it is advanced it remains strong. That is why many people fear the CK Advance as you noted before. With the pawn on c4, the e-pawn will never become as strong as it is in the CK, where playing c3 or c4 is always an option. |
|
Apr-10-09
|
| acirce: <as i stated before, the e4 pawn is liquidated or advanced very quickly in every main line of the CK.> So obviously the mainline Slav has to be better than the C-K for White since he is often going to advance the e-pawn to e4 later <without> it being liquidated by Black's d-pawn (or if Black stops this he usually has to make other concessions). Now that we've solved this little dispute, maybe we can go on. ;-) |
|
| Apr-10-09 |
| chessman95: <<as i stated before, the e4 pawn is liquidated or advanced very quickly in every main line of the CK.> So obviously the mainline Slav has to be better than the C-K for White since he is often going to advance the e-pawn to e4 later <without> it being liquidated by Black's d-pawn (or if Black stops this he usually has to make other concessions).> The value of an opening is not determined by where the e-pawn is. In identicle positions, a pawn on e4 is stronger than a pawn on c4. Just because it can be 'liquidated' does not mean it suddenly loses its influence on the game. As you've said yourself, <chess is not that simple>. |
|
Apr-10-09
|
| acirce: I added a ';-)' just in case somebody would think I was serious. You never know. |
|
| Apr-10-09 |
| chessman95: Oh sorry, I missed the <Now that we've solved this little dispute, maybe we can go on.> part. Remarkably, the area where you posted those particular words matched up exactly with the bounderies of my blind spots, resulting in my complete overlooking of that area! I've notified several leading scientists in the field to examin this phenomenon. Please ignore any "under construction" signs that are posted on this page, and DO NOT reveal this confidential information to ANYONE. If you do, I am afraid that I will have to 'remove' you. This website will be destroyed shortly. Please copy and save all evidence you can find for the ensuing lawsuits that will come after patent attempts are made. Thank you for participating in one of the greatest moments in human history, and remember: the CK is better for white than the Slav. <;-)> |
|
| Apr-10-09 |
| chessman95: One last thing: you will need to provide me with your email and social security numbers in order to correctly identify the witnesses of this remarkable phenomenon. Thank you for cooperating. :) |
|
Apr-10-09
|
| blacksburg: <the CK is better for white than the Slav.> nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
<pauses to catch breath> nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo |
|
| Apr-11-09 |
| chessman95: <nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo> ...taking a huge breath...
yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssss |
|
May-15-09
|
| blacksburg: what's this <Englund Gambit> all about? seems like fun to me, but i don't think i've ever heard of it. anyone know something about this thing? the opening explorer tells me 894 games went 2.e4 into the center game, which isn't scary for black, and only 117 games where white takes with dxe5. is this gambit really that good? |
|
May-15-09
|
| blacksburg: oh ok, nevermind the above stats, i got confused about the 894 games, which are just the center games that started with 1.e4 e5 2.d4. |
|
May-15-09
|
| acirce: To be frank, the Englund gambit is one of the worst gambits in existence. I wouldn't be too surprised if some time it turns out that White is already objectively winning after one single move. You don't even get realistic practical chances to equalize against sensible moves. |
|
May-15-09
|
| blacksburg: oh ok. is this one of those things where white shouldn't try to hold the pawn at all, just develop? like maybe 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.e4 Nxe5 4.f4 etc...? |
|
May-15-09
|
| acirce: Well no need to give the pawn back just like that, but it can be done under more favourable conditions. 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 and now 4.Bf4 is good although not the only good move. White just needs to know not to meet 4..Qb4+ with 5.Qd2?? Qxb2 6.Qc3 Bb4 or 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Bc3?? Bb4 7.Qd2 Bxc3 8.Qxc3 Qc1#. Couple of cute traps that are basically the Englund player's only hope. Slight exaggeration. 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Nc3 is great for White of course though. 5.Nc3!? is the same after 5..Qxb2 6.Bd2 and on 5..Qxf4 there's 6.Nd5. Anyway, most reasonable 4th moves for White in that line keep an edge even when it means returning the pawn. Of course, Black has other silly tries that don't involve even trying to get it back but those are just umm, ok, thanks for the pawn. |
|
May-15-09
|
| blacksburg: ok thanks |
|
May-15-09
 |
| whiskeyrebel: Most gambit's are more or less effective against the level of opposition. A 900 player would likely fair better against a 1300 using one of the more sound gambits than a 1700 against a 2100. That's just my opinion of course. What do you stronger players think? |
|
May-15-09
|
| whiskeyrebel: For instance, as a 1900 or so player, I wouldn't consider gambiting material to a player of Acirce's higher rating level. I'd try to play sound chess and hope he over-extends and plays too aggressively. On the other hand, if a 1400 rated friend was facing a 1700 I'd say go ahead and play a gambit you have studied the priciples of and played in some blitz games for practice. |
|
| Jun-15-09 |
| GrahamClayton: <Captain Scumbag>I play the Englund occasionally and have enjoyed a fair bit of success.
An interesting variation is 01.d4 e5 02.dxe5 Nc6 03.Nf3 Qe7 04.Bf4 Qb4+ 05.Nc3?! This database has one example of it following this line and none that follow 05..Qxf4. This is unfortunate because I think it leads to interesting play. Here's a game I played about three years ago. My opponent was a Class A player, which is quite amusing given the conclusion 01. 01.d4 e5 02.dxe5 Nc6 03.Nf3 Qe7 04.Bf4 Qb4+ 05.Nc3?! Qxf4?! 06. Nd5 Qe4 07.Nxc7+ Kd8 08.Nxa8 Qb4+ 09.c3 Qxb2 10.Rc1 Qxa2 11.e4 Bc5 12. Ra1?? Qxf2# 0-1 I welcome any comments on the above game. I would especially like people's thoughts on the position after 09..Qxb2. I'd be genuinely interested to know who people thought stood better. Captain Scumbag,
I think White was correct to sacrifice the a-pawn in order to save the c-pawn.
I looked at 10. b1, but after 10... c3+ 11. d2 e5 I think Black is doing well, with the obvious threat being 12...b8 picking up the errant Knight. After 10.b1 c3+ 11.d2 d2+ 12. d2 Black can play 12...ge7 & 13...g6 putting pressure on the White e5 pawn. |
|
Jul-31-09
 |
| parisattack: Anyone have experience (as black) with the Polish Defense? I have Kapitaniak's Polish and Zimmer's Polnische - but seeking feedback from someone who has played it (and the St. George) with some regularity. I like that black can get play on both sides of the board and how many variations transpose into structures similar to the French, the ...e6 Sicilians - even the Benoni and Dutch. Thanks! |
|
| Jul-31-09 |
| MaxxLange: <whiskeyrebel> I can see the value of your approach to playing someone with a good rating - sound and careful. But, think about this: according to the strong players I have worked with, players under 2000 overestimate the value of material all the time. We don't sac pawns that give us great chances. We cash out and win the exchange when it is better to keep up the pressure. All the time. |
|
| Jul-31-09 |
| MaxxLange: strong = expects to win against 2200 player |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
