|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Feb-08-08
 |
| ganstaman: <utssb: As a member of this site and various other forums where stubborn stupidity is common I am easily ready to accept that a user can not be moved from their incorrect belief. It would do no good to go through these ridiculous arguments which are irrelevant to the topic at hand. I've probably said too much already.> Let me make sure I am reading this situation correctly: as soon as we present actual facts to counter your arguments, you decide it's time to stop arguing? <I suppose there is nothing that can be said to someone who believes that Owen's Defense or St. George's Defense is sound.> Well to start, you could actually say why they are unsound, something you have yet to do. I am amazed that you think you can show an opening to be unsound without providing even a 1-ply analysis or positional evaluation. This has got to be one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen. |
 |
| Feb-08-08 |
| MaxxLange: It is not illegitimate to argue from the fact that that no top level player has considered these openings suitable as a main repertoire. But, the problem is, the truth as consensus comes and goes. At one time, the Sicilian and Indian Defences were thought to be inferior by the leading masters. It may be that we do not understand yet how to play correctly after 1....b6 or whatever. Without actual chess variations, who can say? |
|
| Feb-08-08 |
| Shams: As Kasparov said, you can divide up all openings into two groups: those which have been played in World Championship matches, and those which haven't. So, it depends what you mean by sound. I think it's legitimate to use the word "sound" to refer to some openings in the second category. |
|
| Feb-13-08 |
| Tomlinsky: The soundness, or otherwise, of an opening strategy is dependant upon two main factors. 1) The opposition against who it is being employed and 2) the understanding of the strategy being presented. Against equal or lesser opposition the 'unsoundness' of a chosen opening means very little practically. The Kramnik's of the world would destroy my 'sound' English, French or Lopez repertoire while they could play 'unsound' lines in the very same openings which I have no chance of exploiting over the long/short haul. Up to a point what is considered 'sound' at GM level has little to do with the game most mortals play. There are plenty of 2300+ and GM's playing what many an internet-analyst would consider 'unsound'. Until faced with it that is. ;) |
|
| Feb-13-08 |
| realbrob: When I look at games which start 1.e4 b6, my first thought after 10 moves or so is that the setup seems very similar to a Pirc Defense, or something like that. That's because after he fianchettoed the bishop Black will often play ..e6 and ..d6. I don't think 1..b6 or 1..a6 are so bad, and after all your first move isn't so important, especially if your opponent doesn't take it seriously (I remember that someone, maybe Anthony Miles, beat Anatolij Karpov with the St.George Defense once). Anyway, if you're considering only the “soundness” of the opening, I think the Owens and the St. George are a bit too passive. Especially the St.George, after 1.e4 a6 Black is going to play 2..b5 and then 3..Bb7, it really looks like wasting a tempo, okay, the b5 pawn is more advanced than a b6 pawn, but that's not a great deal after all. It often happens that White has complete central dominance.
I personally prefer the so-said “sound” openings which challenge White's centre (Sicilian, Ruy Lopez, QG, Nimzo-Indian, and so on). |
|
Feb-13-08
 |
| SwitchingQuylthulg: <realbrob: When I look at games which start 1.e4 b6, my first thought after 10 moves or so is that the setup seems very similar to a Pirc Defense, or something like that. That's because after he fianchettoed the bishop Black will often play ..e6 and ..d6.> Plans involving either ...g6 or ...d6, let alone both, are very rare in the Owen and are usually considered dubious. Whose games have you been looking at? Or did I misunderstand your meaning somehow? |
|
| Feb-13-08 |
| FHBradley: The magnificent Aleksandr Morozevich had this to say about uncommon openings (he is speaking about the Tchigorin Defence, but the point, evidently, applies more generally): "I don't accept any unfounded criticism, and everything has to be shown and demonstrated to me. One can argue for a long time about various abstract matters, but we have a board, and we have pieces: if you think that this or that move is bad, then show me why". |
|
| May-15-08 |
| Alphastar: Ofcourse the main advantages of playing the likes of 1. ..a6 or 1. ..b6 is that 1) you (probably) know more theory than your opponent and know the type of positions better and
2) many players will try to prove that the opening is unsound or will not take it seriously, and then misplay the opening. However if white handles the opening well I think he or she will get a moderate advantage. There is always the debate between surprising your opponent and obtaining a sound (equal) position from the opening as black. |
|
| Aug-12-08 |
| drukenknight: Genius sack or time to check medication levels? I'll let you guys make the call. Dont you hate Owens defense? I know I do. So here goes: 1. e4 b6
2. Nf3 Bb7
3. Bc4 (please 3...Bxp)
3... Nf6 (apparently a novelty, Reti/Nimzo. went 3..e6) 4. e5 Ng8
5. e6 (played on principle alone)
5.. dxe6
6. d4 Nf6
7. Nc3 a6
8. Qe2 (to set up a sack on f7)
8... Bc8
9. Bg5
why Bg5 not Bf4? I had to ask was there any advantage to threaten BxN? Yes I could work pins on e file if
p(e7)xB and also work d file by 000 and d5 by removing one of d5 defenders... 9...b5
10. Bb3 Bb7
11. Ne5 Nbd7
12. Nxf7 Kxf7
Position after 12...Kxf7 Genius or just off my meds. Which side do you wish to play?? 
click for larger view |
|
| Aug-16-08 |
| Cactus: I noticed the opening of the day is 1.e4 g5, the 'Borg' (Grob backwards). Can this also be called the Basman, or is the Basman only 1...h6 and 2...g5? |
|
| Aug-16-08 |
| MaxxLange: <5. e6 (played on principle alone)> damn straight! that pawn sac looks super strong here
13. Qxe6+ Kg8
14. h4
and Black has to try ...h6, I guess. On 14..Qd7, 15. g4 threatens Qf5#, and I don't see a defense I'll take White, thanks
|
|
Aug-16-08
|
| ganstaman: <MaxxLange: <5. e6 (played on principle alone)> damn straight! that pawn sac looks super strong here > Really? What's so great about it? Here's the position after white's 7th move: 
click for larger viewCan't black just play ...g6 and ...Bg7 now, eliminating much of the problem of having a pawn on e6 an e7? I just don't see what white has gained from all this. I personally think black played poorly after the gift, and that's the only reason that white's play seemed justified. |
|
| Aug-16-08 |
| MaxxLange: Black's development is delayed by the e6 pawn sac. That push also freed e5 for the White KN. from your diagram: ...g6 Ng5 Bg7 Nxf7 may even work. Black's position is very vulnerable |
|
Aug-16-08
|
| ganstaman: After 9...Kxf7, we have:
click for larger viewI think white is lost now. How would he continue?
The problem I see with all this is that black's position is open enough. His pieces can find reasonable ways to develop quickly, and a blitz attack like the one suggested won't work (at least I don't believe it will). White definitely has compensation, but I don't think it's worth a whole pawn. |
|
| Aug-16-08 |
| MaxxLange: OK, I am going to have to spend some time analyzing concrete variations to fully meet your challenge. I will get back to you. I still think that 5 e6 is a thematic and promising pawn sacrifice in this kind of position. Black will have serious difficulties completing his development. |
|
| Aug-16-08 |
| MaxxLange: In the diagram, Qe2 keeps the pressure up. |
|
Aug-16-08
|
| ganstaman: <MaxxLange> The pawn sac does look better now than I first thought, though I'm still not sure it's entirely sound. The knight sac, on the other hand, I do not believe to be sound at all. After 1. e4 b6 2. Nf3 Bb7 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. e5 Ng8 5. e6 dxe6 6. d4 Nf6 7. Nc3 g6 8. Ng5 Bg7 9. Nxf7 Kxf7 10. Qe2 black can play either 10...Qd7 or 10...Bd5 and again, I don't see where white will be attacking (a whole piece down). Black is close to freeing the h8-rook and then tucking away his king. Besides the b8-knight, black's other pieces are developed, so there shouldn't be many more problems despite the pawn structure. |
|
| Aug-17-08 |
| MaxxLange: very interesting...the Knight sac may have been too much, yes. it looks like the kind of thing I always used to play:) maybe too hasty. I'll fire up the computer tomorrow and see how it wants to play against 5 e6!? |
|
| Aug-20-08 |
| drukenknight: in the variation I played there came a ROok sack near the end...I'll have to pull this out again, it's getting late here in Maryland...I'm glad you guys are enjoying debating it! This what really makes the game fun, yes? |
|
| Aug-20-08 |
| drukenknight: generally speaking the N sac usually doesnt work in positions like this but the B sack is hard to defend, the N on e6 hits vulnerable pts compare the sack in this game:
Tal vs Botvinnik, 1960 or better known sack, in the najdorf sicilian:
Parma vs Szabo, 1968
|
|
Aug-21-08
|
| ganstaman: <drukenknight: generally speaking the N sac usually doesnt work in positions like this but the B sack is hard to defend, the N on e6 hits vulnerable pts
compare the sack in this game:
Tal vs Botvinnik, 1960
or better known sack, in the najdorf sicilian:
Parma vs Szabo, 1968 >
These games show when sacrificing a piece can be ok -- they both win 2 pawns for the piece instead of 1, and they force the king to stay centralized for a little bit, opening up a way to attack (instead of drawing the king behind a barrier on f7). |
|
| Oct-17-08 |
| Amarande: Is not Owen's playable with the Double Fianchetto? The purpose being, that Black eventually plays d6 and e5, the pawn formation should end up resembling the KID, with additional difficulty for White in enforcing c5 due to the Black Pb6 ... A recent game of mine:
1 d4 b6 2 e4 Bb7 3 Nc3 g6 4 Nf3 Bg7 5 Bd3
(Perhaps Bc4 is more enterprising here. This Bishop never properly gets into play after this point) 5 ... d6 6 0-0 Nd7 7 Be3 e5 8 d5
(I have not really considered the effects of 8 dxe5 in depth. But after 8 ... Nxe5 an exchange of minor pieces is forced, and it seems not clear how White might attain an advantage any more significant than in other openings with an e4 vs. d6 central formation.) 8 ... Ne7 9 Qd2
(The classical attempt at weakening the Black kingside. ... f5 is indicated, and Black can now neither play 0-0 nor Rf8 without the valuable Bg7 being exchanged via Bh6) 9 ... h6
(Avoiding this. At this point I had decided essentially to forgo 0-0 entirely. 0-0-0 should prove playable, and the King could even remain in the center, as the position is very closed and even ... f5 does not open lines that White could easily exploit) At this point my engines suggest White has something of an advantage (  ), but it is not easy to see a clear plan for White at this point, while Black's roadmap has begun to settle into place, ... f5 now being unavoidable. Therefore, White plays for the c-file break, but this proves too passive. 10 Rac1? f5! 11 Qe2
(Preventing the Bishop from being lost via f4. If 11 exf5? gxf5 the threat to the Bishop is still there and the d5-pawn is hanging as well.) 11 ... f4 12 Bd2 a6!
(I want to play Nf6 and g5, to get the King's side pawn roller going. However, a6 must be played first to avoid Bb5+) 13 a4 g5 14 Ra1 Nf6 15 h3
(It would have been better to play a5 at once)
15 ... Qd7 16 a5 b5 17 b4?
(Thematic as it is considered 'book' strategy to fix a pawn before seeking to use it to open a file. However, this was hardly necessary in this case, as once White plays c4 the reply ... b4 can hardly be considered, as the b-pawn will be weak and quickly lost. Moreover the text loses valuable time, all the more important in this case as the White attack will be slow even after opening the c-file as he must turn a flank in order to access my King, whereas I am very quickly able to seize on the weakness generated by 15 h3) 17 ... Nh7 18 Rac1 h5 19 Na2 g4! 20 hxg4 hxg4 21 Nh2
(If 21 Ne1 Ng5 and ... f3 and White's King is soon completely stripped) 21 ... Nf6 22 c4
(See the note to White's 17th, this comes too late and the followup even later.) 22 ... bxc4 23 Rxc4 c6! 24 Rfc1 Kf7!
(The King is absolutely safe here. White could almost resign here, as there is no good defense to ... Rh5 and ... Rah8) 25 g3
(If 25 f3 g3 and the Rooks on the h-file will likewise be fatal) 25 ... f3 26 dxc6 Bxc6 27 Qe3 Rh5 28 Qb6
(Desperation. Relatively best was to give up the Knight with 28 Nxf3 but White would surely lose here too) 28 ... Rah8! 29 Bg5 Rxh2! 30 Bh4 R8xh4!! 31 gxh4 g3
(Threatens mate in two. White defends with the only reasonable move Bf1 but this opens other mating possibilities - there is no saving move) 32 Bf1 g2! 33 Bxg2
(If 33 Kxh2 gxf1Q 34 Rxf1 Qg4, and the mate at g2 can only be covered by 35 Rg1, but that runs into 35 ... Qxh4 mate instead) 33 ... Rxg2+ 34 Kf1 Rg1+!!
('The Rook in the ointment!', as Chernev and Reinfeld once said about a similar sacrifice.) 35 Kxg1 Qh3 0-1 |
|
| Apr-09-09 |
| WhiteRook48: 1 e4 is not uncommon! |
|
| Sep-13-09 |
| mrandersson: I know its a bit late but Amarande what a great game played here. i play the owens defense my self and ur ideas have gave me some thinking about. |
|
Sep-13-09
 |
| parisattack: Yes, nice game. I like the Owen, also and I like <Amarande>'s move order getting into the Double F. In regard to his first note - Bc4 would leave e4 as a nice targer for black. The Hippos Rises has a good discussion of all of this. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
