< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 29 OF 29 ·
|Apr-01-11|| ||SirChrislov: Joshua/Chris time40/120 Expo Park CC, Los Angeles
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.Nf3 Bg4 4.Bb5+ Nbd7 5.h3 Bh5 6.g4 Bg6 7.Ne5 a6 8.Nxg6 hxg6 9.Bc4 Ne5 10.Bb3 Nexg4 11.d4 Qd7 12.Nc3 0-0-0 13.Qf3 Nh6 14.Bxh6 Rxh6 15.Qe3 e6 16.dxe6 Qxe4 17.exf7 Qxf3+ 18.fxe3 Bb4 19.a3 Bxc3+ 20.bxc3 Ne4 21.Be6+ Kb8 22.Rb1 Nxc3 23.Rb3 Ne4 24.Bd5 Nd6 25.0-0 Rf8 26.Kh2 g5 27.c4 Rf6 28.Rxf6 gxf6 29.c5 Nxf7 30.Rxb7+ Kc8 31.Ra7 Kd7 32.Rxa6 Ne5 33.a4 Nd3 34.Bc4 Nxc5 35.Bb5+ Kd8 36.Ra8+ Ke7 37.Rxf8 Kxf8 38.a5 Ke7
click for larger view
39.Bd3(!?) I don't know if this is ! or ?. It's good for him if I take it but since I didn't, doesn't it just waste a move?
39...Kd6 40.Be2 Kc6 41.Kg2 Nb3 42.a6 Kb6 43.Bc4 Nc5 44.Kf3 Nxa6 45.Kg4 Nc5 46.Kf5 Nd7
|Apr-01-11|| ||SirChrislov: 47.Ke6 Kc5 48.Ba2 Nb6 49.Kxf6 Nd5+ 50.Bxd5 Kxd5 51.Kf5 c5 52.e4+ Kd6 53.Kf6 Kd7 54.Kxg5 Ke6 55.Kf4 c4 56.Ke3 Ke5 57.h4 c3 58.h5 Kf6 59.Kd3 Kg5 60.Kxc3 Kxh5 61.Kd4 Kg6 62.Ke5 Kf7 63.Kd6 Ke8 64.e5 |
click for larger view
1-0. sucks to lose by a mere pawn.
|Apr-01-11|| ||Phony Benoni: <SirChrislov> Does 39.a6 wins the knight immediately? Black's king is too far away, and the knight can't get to b6 without being captured. That leaves 39...c6, but then 40.a7 promotes immediately.|
|Apr-02-11|| ||SirChrislov: Sir<PB> True. it wins the N. <39.Bd3?> only gave me time to get closer with <39...Kd6>.|
I returned the favor with <52...Kd6??>
<52...Kd4!> would have queened. 53.e5 c4 54.e6 c3 55.e7 c2 56. e8Q c1Q 57.Qe4+ Kc5 58.Qe7+ Kc6 59.Qxg5 Qf1+ Kg4 looks like a draw.
|Apr-02-11|| ||Phony Benoni: <SirChrislov> <After 52.e4+>
click for larger view
It's an interesting position, and I think 52...Kd6 is actually the right move. After 52...Kd4, White wins after 53.e5 c4 54.e6 c3 55.e7 c2 56.e8Q c1Q 57.Qd8+!. Now Black cannot play 57...Ke3 58.Qxg5+ winning the queen, but also losing is 57...Kc3 58.Qc8+ followed by trading queens and winning on the kingside.
52...Kd6 doesn't seem right at first glance, since it allows the pawn to advance with check. But Black has enough time to survive this, and his king is headed to c7 to stop any skewer checks by White on the c-file.
After <53.Kf6>, the fatal error was <53...Kd7?>. Black draws after 53...c4 54.e5+ Kd7! 55.Kf7 c3 56.e6+ Kc7 57.e7 c2 58.e8Q c1Q. Now White cannot trade queens, and even if should he be able to win the g-pawn that won't be enough to win the game.
The problem with 53...Kd7 was that it allowed White to take the g-pawn while his king was still in the square of the c-pawn and his pawns far enough apart to protect each other.
A good case for counter-intuition.
|Apr-04-11|| ||SirChrislov: I reckon.
You're right about the 52...Kd4? wht does win with 57.Qd8+! I missed that one.
|May-30-11|| ||goodevans: Today's player of the day is one of many that have scored quick wins against the Scandanavian: Jonkman vs T Ellenbroek, 1996|
CG.com has 435 miniature wins (25 moves or less) by white compared with only 178 for black. Given how so many reasonably able players manage to lose quite quickly with this opening it's surprising it's as popular as it is.
|May-30-11|| ||parisattack: <CG.com has 435 miniature wins (25 moves or less) by white compared with only 178 for black. Given how so many reasonably able players manage to lose quite quickly with this opening it's surprising it's as popular as it is.>|
I've always considered it a fast (and loose) Caro-Kann. Not for me, but some players seem to have good success with the Scandinavian.
|May-30-11|| ||goodevans: <parisattack> True. Sergei Tiviakov has managed to get a plus score with it.|
I notice that after <1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3> Tiviakov always chooses <3 ... Qd6> whereas the popular <3 ... Qa5> is the move that so often finds black in trouble.
I see that two other major proponents of the opening, Jacques Mieses and Ian Rogers both prefer <3 ... Qa5> and both have a minus score with it.
|May-30-11|| ||parisattack: <I notice that after <1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3> Tiviakov always chooses <3 ... Qd6> whereas the popular <3 ... Qa5> is the move that so often finds black in trouble.>|
I was thinking I recently (6 months or so?) saw a game with 3. ...Qd6 where white introduced a move giving black some new problems?
Larsen's ZOOM Grunfeld-like 2... Nf6, 3... g6 appears to be under a cloud at this time.
|May-30-11|| ||Phony Benoni: It's axiomatic that White has a better chance to win miniature games because of the iniitative given by the first move. Those numbers for the Scandinavian look scary, but are they really out of line?|
There are approximately 43,405 games in the database that end decisively in 25 moves or less, which is about 7.33% of the entire database. Of these, White wins 26,903, Black wins 16,502. That's 62% White wins, or 1.63 White wins for each Black win.
Now let's look at the figures for Black's move one responses to 1.e4:
Miscellaneous (ECO B00)
W 231 B 123 65% 1.88
W 435 B 178 71% 2.44
W 313 B 173 64% 1.81
Modern, Pirc, etc. (B06-B09)
W 990 B 511 66% 1.94
W 939 B 429 69% 2.19
W4985 B3174 61% 1.57
W1720 B 900 66% 1.91
1.e4 e5 (C20-C99)
W6428 B4107 61% 1.57
By this criteria, the Scandinavian does appear to have the highest risk of losing a miniature game with Black. Of course, by this criterion, the Caro-Kann is the 2nd most dangerous, which I think most would find counter-intuitive (though it does back up <parisattack>'s comment about their similarity). The equality of the Sicilian and 1.e4 e5 is also interesting.
Of course, this does not mean the Scandinavian is unplayable. But you do need to be aware of the risks.
|May-30-11|| ||parisattack: Great study, <PhonyBenoni> - this is the good side of CG.com!|
I would think the close figures of the Sicilian and Open Games might be skewed by the non-Ruy Lopez games of earlier years, especially the 19th century? Certainly in modern times the Sicilian seems more likely to result in sudden death - or 'Sicilicide' as the chapter in Soviet Miniatures refers.
|May-30-11|| ||MaxxLange: I have the same worry as does <parisattack> - the older games may be skewing to White in the Scandinavian, which was not investigated seriously by theoreticians and GMs until, oh, about 20 years ago. |
The same stats across openings, but normalized to a time period of say 1970-2010, would be interesting
thanks for the work on this! very cool
|May-30-11|| ||Phony Benoni: <MaxxLange> OK, here's the number of decisive Scandinavian miniatures before and after 1970:|
W 66 B 28 .702
W369 B150 .711
Let's look at all the Scandinavian games, by the same time period:
W278 Bl66 D138 .596 (582 games)
W2169 B1239 D1380 .597 (4788 games)
Again, roughly the same in the two periods, so these dates are probably not a significant factor.
|May-30-11|| ||parisattack: "A beautiful theory, slain by an ugly fact."|
|May-30-11|| ||bartonlaos: <<goodevans: I notice that after <1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3> Tiviakov always chooses <3 ... Qd6> whereas the popular <3 ... Qa5> is the move that so often finds black in trouble.>|
parisattack: I was thinking I recently (6 months or so?) saw a game with 3. ...Qd6 where white introduced a move giving black some new problems?>
Shirov vs Tiviakov, 2010 1-0
|May-30-11|| ||MaxxLange: <Phony Benoni> thanks! that's not what I expected|
|May-30-11|| ||parisattack: < bartonlaos: <<goodevans: I notice that after <1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3> Tiviakov always chooses <3 ... Qd6> whereas the popular <3 ... Qa5> is the move that so often finds black in trouble.>
parisattack: I was thinking I recently (6 months or so?) saw a game with 3. ...Qd6 where white introduced a move giving black some new problems?>|
Shirov vs Tiviakov, 2010 1-0>
YESSIR! that is it; grazie. I'll look at the comments tonight. Any games more recent off this line?
|May-30-11|| ||bartonlaos: There was Svidler's win, but don't know...drop Dr.Schiller a note, he's taken an interest in both games.|
|May-31-11|| ||parisattack: < bartonlaos: There was Svidler's win, but don't know...drop Dr.Schiller a note, he's taken an interest in both games.>|
Thx! That was quite a pounding, also!
The game that scared me away from the Scandinavian originally was Fischer's miniature against Addison. I think Robatsch also took a drubbing from Bobby.
|Sep-16-11|| ||meppi: hello i would like to show anyone who reads my pet variation against the Qa5 Scandinavian as white|
1. e4 d5
2. exd5 Qxd5
3. Nc3 Qa5
b4 is a gambit, it gives away the pawn with Qxb4 but you get at least 1 tempo to attack the queen and usually two depending on where the queen moves.
4. b4 Qxb4
5. Rb1 Qa5
black must move Qa6 and this sure looks uncomfortable,(in my experience of about 2 years playing the b4 gambit variation wherever possible, this Qa5 retreat on move 5 happens quite often)
6. Qa6 and now the good thing is after a developing move from white such as..
7. Nf3 if black plays c6 (to attack the rook) - there is no danger to white rooks. on account of cxb5 Bxb5+ winning the black queen for a bishop and rook.
so white can play something like 8. d4 if black plays Nd7 or Bd7 or the like, I move my rook back to Rb1 if i am playing someone good or Re5/Rg5 if i am feeling adventurous.
Now for my own vanity and perhaps those who want to see an example of this variation here is a game starting with the gambit and featuring a double rook lift along the open b file (a positive of this gambit).
1.e4 d5 2. exd4 Qxd4 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. b4 Qxb4 5. Rb1 Qa5 6. Rb5 Qa6 7. Nf3 c6 8. d4 Nf6 9. Bd3 Nbd7 10. Rg5 Qb6 11. 0-0 h6 12. Rg3 c5 13. Be3 e6 14. Qd2 g6 15. Rb1 Qa5 16. Rb5 Qc7 17. Bf4 Qd8 18. Rh3 h5 19. Qe2 Be7 20. dxc5 a6 21. c6 bxc6 22. Rg5 Nh7 23. Rxg6 Qa5 24. Bd2 fxg6 25. Bxg6+ Kd8 26. Rxh5 Qc7 27. Rxh7 Rxh7 28. Bxh7 Nf6 29. Bd3 Bb7 30. Nd4 Bc8 31. Ne4 Nxe4 32. Ba5 Qxa5 33.Nxc6+ 1-0
In the end, i think if you play as white exd5 and Nc3 and white plays Qa5 it may be worth it on occasion to play 4. b4!, i mean its only the b pawn and the position afterward are not that different from regular lines in many variations.
|Sep-28-11|| ||wordfunph: from Jovanka Houska's Starting Out - The Scandinavian..|
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qe5+
Scandinavian 3...e5+ or a so-called Patzer Variation, got its nickname from the saying "Patzer sees a check, patzer plays a check."
|Oct-06-11|| ||jbtigerwolf: Someone mentioned the Blackmar on here - simply play 2.d4 instead of 2.exd5. But I'm not sure about the viability of giving up a pawn when you can probably beat the Scandinavian anyway.|
I'm not wholly convinced on the soundness of this opening, even though it seems to work for some really good players. I think it needs some real study by White. I do know myself and all the other e4 players hate this opening.
|Mar-14-12|| ||The Finisher: Phony Benoni: <edbermac: 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qf5>|
"I've never seen that, and it's not in the Openings Explorer. It does not look trustworthy--exposing the queen while blocking the effective development of the Bc8 and all that--but there appear to be some points as well." [Phony Benoni quote].
It doesn't work if: 4.d4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Nb4 6.Bd3 Qh5 7.Bf4 Bg4 8.Bxc7 Bxf3 9.Qxf3 Qxf3 10.gxf3 Nxd3 11.cxd3... white has doubled pawns, but black has no kingside development and won't castle: 11...Nf6 12.Be5 g6 13.Nd5 Rc8 14.Nxf6+ exf6 15.Bxf6 Rg8. White is two pawns up, black is in disarray.
With reasonable play, white should win easily. Play the game out a few times. Qf5 just wastes time. Maybe 5.Bd3 is better for black, but I haven't played that out yet.. though I doubt it. I'd avoid Qf5.
|Nov-06-13|| ||Kikoman: <Opening of the Day>|
1. e4 d5
click for larger view
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 29 OF 29 ·