< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 7 ·
|Aug-17-07|| ||gmgomes: <From the white side you have: Ponziani opening, King pawn openings, Queen pawn openings, English opening, Bird's opening, Reti opening etc.> I think from white side usually some attacks: king´s indian attack, trompvsky attack, torre attack, english attack etc.|
|Aug-17-07|| ||Ziad: Contra...thank you for your reply… what you have said is 100% right in the majority of normal chess games, however I would like to mention that my definition for defence any defence (as black) is when you play to equalize the white’s starting advantage and as you know Dutch has totally different strategy, it is about creation your own game. you decide how the game should continue so… if you look at the black game from this point view you find that black does not react or defend but pro-act...plz point that my explanation was not from the theory point view but to explain why I love this defence...thanks|
|Aug-18-07|| ||contra: gmgomes,
As an exception I can think of the Marshall attack from black side.
From white side there is 1.b3 which is called Nimzowich-Larsen attack. Quite an attacking first move don't you think ? :)
Generally, the variations are named with a terminal attack or defense. For example : Chigorin Defense in the Queen's gambit declined. Sozin attack in the Sicilian defense etc.
This link from wikipedia sums it up for us. To continue the discussion would be futile.
Major changes in the rules of chess in the late fifteenth century increased the speed of the game, consequently emphasizing the importance of opening study. Thus, early chess books, such as the 1497 text of Luis Ramirez de Lucena presents opening analysis, as does Pedro Damiano (1512), and Ruy López de Segura (1561). Ruy Lopez's disagreement with Damiano regarding the merits of 2...Nc6 led to 3.Bb5 (after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6) being named for him as the Ruy Lopez or Spanish Opening. Opening theory was studied more scientifically from the 1840s on, and many opening variations were discovered and named in this period and later. Opening nomenclature developed haphazardly, and most names are historical accidents not based on systematic principles.
The oldest openings tend to be named for geographic places and people. Many openings are named after nationalities, for example English, Spanish, French, Dutch, Scotch, Russian, Italian, Scandinavian, and Sicilian. Cities are also used, such as Vienna, Berlin, and Wilkes-Barre. The Catalan System is named after the Catalonia region of Spain.
Chess players' names are the most common sources of opening names. The name given to an opening is not always that of the first player to adopt it; often an opening is named for the player who was the first to popularize it or to publish analysis of it. Eponymic openings include the Ruy Lopez, Alekhine Defense, Morphy Defense, and the Réti System. Some opening names honor two people, such as with the Caro-Kann.
A few opening names are descriptive, such as Giuoco Piano (Italian: "quiet game"). More prosaic descriptions include Two Knights and Four Knights. Descriptive names are less common than openings named for places and people.
Some openings have been given fanciful names, often names of animals. This practice became more common in the 20th century. By then, most of the more common and traditional sequences of opening moves had already been named, so these tend to be unusual or recently developed openings like the Orangutan, Hippopotamus, Elephant, and Hedgehog.
Many terms are used for the opening as well. In addition to Opening, common terms include Game, Defense, Gambit, and Variation; less common terms are System, Attack, Counterattack, Countergambit, Reversed, and Inverted. To make matters more confusing, these terms are used very inconsistently. Consider some of the openings named for nationalities: Scotch Game, English Opening, French Defense, and Russian Game — the Scotch Game and the English Opening are both White openings (White chooses to play), the French is indeed a defense but so is the Russian Game. Although these don't have precise definitions, here are some general observations about how they are used.
|Aug-18-07|| ||unsound: I'm with <Ziad> on this one. Even though of course the proper name for the Dutch (and, say, the Sicilian) is "defense," it would make more sense to describe such openings as "counterattacks."|
That's not to say that it's impossible to play the Dutch defensively (not that I recommend it) or the Caro-Kann aggressively, but the very idea of claiming a different part of the center with ...c5 or ...f5, rather than blocking or contesting e4 or d4 immediately, begs for a different nomenclature, it seems to me.
|Aug-18-07|| ||ganstaman: <contra: From white side there is 1.b3 which is called Nimzowich-Larsen attack. Quite an attacking first move don't you think ? :)>|
Actually, you should give it a try some time. It is much more aggressive than it may appear at first. That's one of the reasons I love it so much.
|Aug-19-07|| ||Ziad: Thank you <unsound> for your supporting opinion , that is exactly what I meant...I want also to add one more point which is supporting <unsound> idea; that based on the chess-player psychology the whole chess game created, for example I am sure that you still remember the beautiful game between Tal and Shamkovich Baku 1972 Tal vs Shamkovich, 1972 Shamkovich played Caro-Kan Defense and everyone knew that Shamkovich is a very aggressive chess player, and what happened??... Tal crushed him easily in 29th move... that is why I think that if we wanna choose any opening (defense) we should know exactly our selves and our psychology.. That will give us happiness and easier games|
|Jan-15-08|| ||FHBradley: Two reasons commonly cited behind the move order 1 d4 e6 2 c4 f5 rather than playing an immediate 1... f5 are (1) avoiding the Staunton gambit, and (2) avoiding anti-Dutch lines beginning with 1 d4 f5 2 Bg5. Are these reasons good enough to persuade reasonable persons to adopt the alternative move order? The problem is, I'm not particularly fond of the French defence, but would like to give the Dutch defence a serious try. Comments appreciated.|
|Jan-15-08|| ||unsound: Well, personally I decided, as a confirmed Dutch player, to give the French a go because of the very reasons you mentioned--and to my surprise I liked it and decided to play the French regularly against 1.e4 anyway.|
However, I have two comments. One is that I don't think there's a great need to avoid the Staunton Gambit or 2.Bg5--there are perfectly respectable lines for black in both, it just involves more preparation. The second is that maybe you don't need to play the French if the game should go 1.d4 e6 2.e4 (which isn't likely to happen very often anyway)? How about 2...c5?
|Jan-15-08|| ||MaxxLange: 1.d4 e6 2. e4 c5 3.d5 is supposed to be better for White; I am not convinced that White's advantage in this line is more than it is against other playable openings (such as the Dutch...)|
|Jan-17-08|| ||FHBradley: <unsound>: thanks for that; <MaxxLange>: in case of 1 d4 e6 2 e4 c5 3 Nf3 you'd have to be prepared to play the Sicilian, though.|
|Jan-17-08|| ||whiteshark: Is <A80> a common synonym for <Dutch> ?|
|Feb-03-08|| ||unsound: Fellow Dutch players: what do you do against the English (I'm assuming 1.c4 f5) when your opponent refuses to go into main lines, playing d3 instead of d4, so as to more easily force in e4? I don't really like playing against it; white's plan is easy and quite effective, it seems to me. But on the other hand, I feel that if I play ...e5 myself early and get into some sort of reversed grand prix attack, then I'm likely to be more on my opponent's favorite territory. (Sorry, I know that this is not really relevant to 1.d4 f5, but I thought this would be the most likely forum anyway.)|
|Apr-09-08|| ||2021: Anybody here heard of 2.g4 ? It's an interesting way to challenge the f5 pawn.|
But, of course, it's not really good e.g.:
1.d4 f5 2.g4 fxg4 3.h3 d5 4.hxg4 Bxg4 5.Bg2 Nf6 6.Nc3 Nc6 7.Bg5 Qd7 8.Nh3 e6 9.Nf4 Bb4 (NCO)
|Apr-10-08|| ||MaxxLange: If you aint Dutch, you aint much!|
|Apr-10-08|| ||MaxxLange: <unsound> you are thinking theory superficially. If ...e5 is to be a good move in your Dutch setup against the English, it is because it is well-prepared and properly timed . You are thinking statically in abstract classifications("I am playing a reversed Grand Prix") in a way that will not help you decide when, dynamically, you should break in the center. White English players are not "refusing to enter the main lines" when they do not transpose to 1. d4 f5; they are playing a different opening. You are Black, not White.|
|Apr-14-08|| ||unsound: <you are thinking theory superficially> This doesn't really come as a surprise to me, honestly. But thanks--suck it up and play the moves the position demands without worrying about the classification, is what I'm hearing.|
|Apr-17-08|| ||FrogC: Hi, can someone help me please? I'm learning the Dutch from Neil McDonald's Starting Out book. I've tried the Stonewall against players of similar strength to me (I'm around 1500) and they generally ignore the more sophisticated lines in McDonald's book. Instead they place a knight on e5, supported with pawns, and try to attack on the kingside - in other words exactly what I was going to do. Once I've done the same, the position ends up blocked and very dull. I don't think White has much chance of an advantage this way, but it ruins my hopes of doing anything interesting. Have you any suggestions, or should I move on to the Classical or Leningrad variations?|
|Apr-17-08|| ||FrogC: (My knight is on e4, of course.)|
|Apr-17-08|| ||ganstaman: <FrogC> Well, I don't know what the book says or the exact moves your opponents try, but I think I may have some useful advice.|
If you want to stick with the Stonewall, play over all of Botvinnik's games with it (well, here are all of his Dutch games: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... ). I found them to be somewhat helpful. Actually, if you are to play any form of the Dutch (except Leningrad), I'd find those useful.
I wouldn't suggest trying out the Leningrad. It seems to give a very different game to me. I found it harder to understand. Maybe it's theoretically better, but at the level we play chess, those better chances are very hard to find.
I would suggest trying the Classical. It feels a bit more like the Stonewall, only it's not as closed up. And again, if the book doesn't help, then see what sort of moves Botvinnik made to get an idea of what to do (I guess other players could be helpful too).
|Apr-18-08|| ||FrogC: Thanks, <ganstaman>, the Botvinnik games will be really useful. The sort of sequence I have in mind is this: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.e3 d5 5.Nf3 c6 6.Ne5. Now White will play Bd3, f4 and castle, Black will play Bd6, Nbd7, Ne4 and castle, leading to an almost symmetrical position, in which neither side is really sure whether to take the centralized knight or try to work up some kind of pawn break. I think you're right about the Leningrad. I tried it a couple of times but felt out of my depth. The Classical looks promising, though, and I have a feeling it's not so well-known among club-level players as the Stonewall.|
|Apr-18-08|| ||Open Defence: <FrogC> another link to games on the Stonewall http://www.exeterchessclub.org.uk/O...|
there are more links in my bio
|Apr-18-08|| ||FHBradley: <FrogC> Why not try queen side action then? I suppose that's the more modern and, I suppose, more sophisticated way of playing the Stonewall formation. I believe Mr. Gallagher says something to the effect that the Stonewall player should be ready to dissolve the center with d5xce followed with c5 or e5. But these are just a patzer's thoughts (I'm speaking of myself, not of Mr. Gallagher, of course).|
|Apr-19-08|| ||FrogC: Great links <Open Defence>, thanks. By the way, one of the sites recommends 1. Nf3 f5. I'm sure I read somewhere that that's considered unsound, though I can't remember why. It would be useful if I could play it, as I don't have a response to the Reti. <FHBradley> you're probably right. I am still working through McDonald's chapter on the Stonewall, and not yet sure of all the possibilities.|
|Apr-19-08|| ||unsound: I don't think ...f5 is unsound as a response to 1. Nf3. You do have to be ready to meet the Lisitsyn Gambit, 2.e4.|
|Apr-20-08|| ||FrogC: Come to think of it ...e6 might be a good answer to 1.Nf3. That would allow transpositions to the Dutch, French or Sicilian, all of which I'd be reasonably comfortable with|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 7 ·