|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Mar-30-07 |
| Silverstrike: <micartouse> <plang> Thanks both for responding. My idea behind 4.Qe2 was just something different and classical. I played this game against a 1981 rated player a few weeks ago: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Qe2 Bc5 5.Nc3 d6 6.h3 0-0 7.d3 Na5 8.Bg5 Nxc4 9.dxc4 Be6 10.0-0-0 h6 11.Bh4 g5 12.Nxg5 hxg5 13.Bxg5 Kg7 14.f4 Qe8 15.f5 Ke7 16.fxe6 fxe6 and here, up a pawn, I managed to lose my way and eventually I surrendered the game. But I think that Qe2 was helpful in this game, in that it allowed my rook to have free reign over the d-file, and made castling queenside easier. Another point is the gambit 5.b4 .
After the moves 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Qe2 Bc5 5.b4 . Any thoughts?
Thanks again for posting you previous responses. |
 |
| Apr-12-07 |
| Silverstrike: <Manic> I think that 8.Qf3 is considered inferior to 8.Be2, but I don't know the exact analysis. I'll post some a little later. |
|
| Apr-12-07 |
| Tactic101: I feel they are both good. With Qf3, white develops another piece and has a threat. h6 could be played here. Then Ne4. Nd5 holds the position for black. Then white has to play Be2. I think this position is pretty equal to the one reached by white immediately playing Be2. Thats my idea. But I'm no opening expert and I haven't played this line for a long time, prefering the play the more solid Petroff. |
|
| Apr-13-07 |
| Tactic101: I have now abandoned the two knights defense entirely. It's just too risky. If white is able to solidify his position, black is dead. I may pull it out for a blitz, but not for real matches. Bc5 after Bc4 is much more solid. |
|
Apr-13-07
 |
| refutor: Qf3 is the reason i gave up the two knights...i had used to try 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ Bd7!? as played by a bunch of people and had an article written on it in NIC a bunch of years ago, but that ended up giving too passive of a position. |
|
| Apr-13-07 |
| Manic: Well, mostly Be2 has been played in recent years but apparently Qf3 is now starting to make a come back, and I play the two knights so im not sure which one to use. Sometimes when I play Be2 I get too cramped up so I was thinking of switching to Qf3. |
|
Apr-13-07
 |
| keypusher: Manic, here is a recent Nigel Short win with Qf3. Short vs Hebden, 2006 The game page includes some interesting commentary and links about the Two Knights Defense generally. |
|
| May-01-07 |
| WTHarvey: Here are some traps and zaps in C55 miniatures: http://www.wtharvey.com/c55.html |
|
| May-23-07 |
| soughzin: That's no reason to give up the fun two knights refutor. Black has probably 6 plausible moves after Qf3, I'm sure one of them is equal or better. Perhaps h6 or Rb8, black still gets the same initiative for a pawn. Or there's the fritz. |
|
May-26-07
 |
| TheAlchemist: I was black here:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Nc3 e4 8.Ng1 Bf5 9.d4 exd3 10.cxd3 Nb4 11.Nf3 Nxd3+ 12.Kf1 Bc5 13.Be3 d4 14.Bg5 
click for larger view14...dxc3!? (<Another impulsive sacrifice, but I couldn't help it.>) 15.Bxd8 cxb2 16.Bxc7 bxa1=Q 17.Qxa1 Nxf2 18.Ne5+ Ke7 19.Qc3 b6 20.g4 Be4 21.Rg1 Rhf8 22.Ke2 Rac8 23.Nd7 Kxd7 24.Qxg7+ Kc6 25.Bg3 Rce8 26.Qc7+ Kb5 27.a4+ Ka6 28. a5 Bf3+ 29 Kf1 Nxg4 30.axb6 Bb7+ 31.Bf4 Nxh2# 0-1 The final position is quite nice:
click for larger view |
|
| Aug-01-08 |
| Silverstrike: A neat loss if mine in this opening:
Julius Schwartz (1679) v Richard Birkett (2042)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.e5 d5 6.Bb5 Ne4 7.Nxd4 Bd7 8.Bxc6 bxc6 9.0-0 Bc5 10.f3 Ng5 11.h4 Ne6 12.Be3 Qxh4 13.Nf5 Bxe3+ 14.Nxe3 Nf4 15.c4 d4 16.Ng4 Qg3 17.Qd2 h5 18.Nh2 h4 19.Qf2 Nh3+ 20.Resigns |
|
| Feb-18-09 |
| FiveofSwords: well in order to play the 2 knights, for either side, its very important to have excellent tactical vision and sense of danger. If you dont have that the opening cannot be recommended. You have to play what suits you. I experimented with various lines of the 2 knights, and finially settled on the classical variation, despite its poor results in general. For me, I find that the typical lines are easier to calculate accurately, and their conclusions there is a comforting clarity and logic. I actually CAN analyse those lines OTB and most people cannot, so my results with the variation are much better than average. For some of the sharper lines, there is simply too many interesting ideas that do not work, and I will fall for all of them. I dont understand how people play those lines successfully, they have awesome intuition or something. |
|
Apr-14-09
 |
| blacksburg: i'm having issues with the Italian Game in blitz...if i play the Two Knights, everyone plays 4.Ng5, and many times i can't seem to find the activity to compensate for the pawn that all the books tell me is there. if i play 3...Bc5, i get the Max Lange Attack a lot for some reason, which is underrated, IMO, and difficult to deal with in blitz. i'm not scared of the Ruy Lopez, not even a little bit. but i'm developing an irrational fear of 3.Bc4. |
|
| Apr-14-09 |
| MaxxLange: <blacksburg> what are you playing after 4. Ng5? |
|
Apr-14-09
 |
| parisattack: <i'm not scared of the Ruy Lopez, not even a little bit. but i'm developing an irrational fear of 3.Bc4.
>
You could try the Hungarian, 3. ...Be7. Its a tad passive, but solid and if white is looking for sharp tactics he can easily over-extend. |
|
Apr-14-09
 |
| Marmot PFL: This line is fun for black - Morozevich vs Timman, 1996 Of course most people play 7 Bf1! |
|
Apr-14-09
|
| Marmot PFL: <blacksburg> possibly the sharper lines with 3 Bc4 do offer white higher winning chances than 3 Bb5. The drawback is that black's winning chances are also much higher. Opening Explorer The easy answer is to play the Petroff, but if you score well against the Spanish you should keep playing 2...Nc6 cause probably 80% of your opponents will play 3 Bb5. For years i played 3 Bc4 nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 ed Na5 and now i play 5...Nd4 about as often. Both these lines favor the well prepared so can be very tricky especially in fast games, but they are fun. |
|
Apr-14-09
|
| blacksburg: <Maxx Lange> <what are you playing after 4. Ng5?> i've been going into the main line 4...d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 stuff. i might give 5...Nd4 a shot. or maybe the Traxler. :) <You could try the Hungarian, 3. ...Be7. Its a tad passive, but solid> i've always wondered why this has such a bad reputation. the bishop goes to e7 in the closed ruy lopez, why is it so much worse here in the italian? |
|
Apr-14-09
 |
| Pyke: <<Blacksburg:> i've been going into the main line 4...d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 stuff. i might give 5...Nd4 a shot. or maybe the Traxler. :)> Another possibility is interposing with the Bishop (6. ... Bd7) instead of the pawn (6. ... c6). |
|
Apr-14-09
|
| blacksburg: in general, in the 4.Ng5 main lines, i find myself really really annoyed with my stupid a5 knight and my broken pawn structure. white just slowly untangles, and i find myself trying to <prove something> on every move. i also think that maybe i'm not psychologically "built" to be down a pawn without a clear advantage for it. i'm probably going to have to start playing 3...Bc5, which is a shame, because i like every other line in the Two Knights except for the 4.Ng5 line, which just annoys the crap out of me. if there are any Two Knights specialists out there that would like to talk me out of playing 3...Bc5, i'm all ears. but these freaking 4.Ng5 lines are killing me. the game just becomes totally irrational, and i don't like it. |
|
May-19-09
|
| blacksburg: perhaps the opening of the day selection has something to do with naka's triumph in the final round of the US Championship? Nakamura vs J Friedel, 2009 |
|
Jul-18-09
 |
| radu stancu: I'm by no means an expert in this line (or any other for that matter :) ) but here are two victories of mine with black against 4. Ng5: [Event "55th GK tournament"]
[Site "http://gameknot.com/"]
[Date "2009.07.15"]
[Round "-"]
[White "wallaby66"]
[Black "radus"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1661"]
[BlackElo "1884"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Rb8 9. Bd3 h6 10. Ne4 Nxe4 11. Bxe4 Be7 12. d3 O-O 13. Qg3 f5 14. Bxh6 Bf6 15. Bf3 Rxb2 16. Na3 Qe7 17. Bc1 Qb4+ 18. Bd2 Qxa3 19. O-O Rxc2 20. Rfc1 Rxd2 0-1 [Event "Team match"]
[Site "http://gameknot.com/"]
[Date "2009.05.20"]
[Round "-"]
[White "blokhin2"]
[Black "radus"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1818"]
[BlackElo "1884"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Be2 h6 9. Nf3 e4 10. Ne5 Bd6 11. d4 exd3 e.p. 12. Nxd3 Qc7 13. h3 O-O 14. O-O c5 15. b3 c4 16. bxc4 Nxc4 17. Nd2 Nxd2 18. Bxd2 Bb7 19. Bb4 Bxb4 20. Nxb4 Rfd8 21. Nd3 Rac8 22. Rc1 Ne4 23. c4 Qa5 24. Qc2 Nd2 25. Rfd1 Qg5 26. Bg4 Rxc4 27. Qb2 Rxc1 28. Rxc1 Rxd3 29. Qxb7 Nf3+ 30. Bxf3 Qxc1+ 31. Kh2 Qf4+ 32. Kg1 Rc3 33. Be2 Rc1+ 34. Bf1 0-1 I've been equally successful against 4. d4:
[Event "44th GK tournament"]
[Site "http://gameknot.com/"]
[Date "2008.07.02"]
[Round "-"]
[White "brooksideboy"]
[Black "radus"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1837"]
[BlackElo "1884"]
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. e5 d5 6. Bb5 Ne4 7. Nxd4 Bd7 8. Bxc6 bxc6 9. O-O c5 10. Nb3 c6 11. f3 Ng5 12. f4 Ne4 13. f5 c4 14. Nd4 Qb6 15. Nc3 O-O-O 16. Nxe4 dxe4 17. Bg5 Bc5 18. c3 Rde8 19. f6 gxf6 20. Bxf6 Rhg8 21. Kh1 Bxd4 22. cxd4 Be6 23. Bh4 Bd5 24. Bg3 Rg6 25. Qh5 Reg8 26. Qxh7 e3 27. e6 Bxe6 28. Qh4 Rg4 29. Qe7 Rh8 30. Be5 Rhg8 31. Rxf7 Bxf7 32. Qxf7 Rxg2 33. Bg3 Rg2xg3 34. hxg3 Rh8+ 35. Kg1 Qxd4 36. Qe6+ Kb7 37. Qe7+ Ka8 38. Re1 Qd2 0-1 [Event "Team match"]
[Site "http://gameknot.com/"]
[Date "2009.01.25"]
[Round "-"]
[White "arrakis08"]
[Black "radus"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1845"]
[BlackElo "1884"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. e5 d5 6. Bb5 Ne4 7. Nxd4 Bd7 8. Bxc6 bxc6 9. O-O c5 10. Ne2 c6 11. Nbc3 f5 12. exf6 e.p. Nxf6 13. Bg5 Be7 14. Na4 O-O 15. Bxf6 Rxf6 16. Qd2 Qc7 17. Rfe1 Bd6 18. Ng3 Raf8 19. f3 Bxg3 20. hxg3 Qxg3 21. Nxc5 Bh3 22. Qf2 Qg5 23. Kh2 Bxg2 24. Qxg2 Qh4+ 25. Qh3 Qf2+ 0-1 Note that the ratings for each player are the current gameknot ratings, not the ones at the time of the game. I have one more game in progress against 4. d4 but it's inconclussive so far, still well within theory. |
|
Jul-18-09
|
| TheAlchemist: <radu stancu> Well done, especially in the second game! It's usually really fun playing with black against 4.Ng5 and it's always great seeing it defeated like that :-) I like 4.d4 exd4 5.O-O best as white, it always leads to very fun games. |
|
Jul-18-09
|
| radu stancu: Thanks. :) I'm particularly pleased to have found the plan starting with 14...c5, 15...c4 and the maneuver 23...Qa5, 24...Nd2, 25...Qg5. The still ongoing game is indeed in the 4.d4 exd4 5.O-O line, I'm curious to see what it leads to. |
|
Oct-14-09
|
| radu stancu: My 4.d4 exd4 5.O-O game ended in a quick draw when white decided to go for a perpetual: [Event "Slow Ladder"]
[Site "http://gameknot.com/"]
[Date "2009.08.27"]
[Round "-"]
[White "e20milla"]
[Black "radus"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "1949"]
[BlackElo "1871"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. O-O Nxe4 6. Re1 d5 7. Bxd5 Qxd5 8. Nc3 Qa5 9. Nxe4 Be6 10. Bd2 Bb4 11. Nxd4 Nxd4 12. c3 Be7 13. cxd4 Qd5 14. Bf4 c6 15. Be5 O-O 16. Nc3 Qd7 17. Qd2 Bb4 18. Bxg7 Kxg7 19. Qg5+ Kh8 20. Qf6+ 1/2-1/2 First new move was 16. Nc3 and after 18.Bxg7 it was a forced perpetual. I'll have to see what other options black has for moves 16 and mainly 17 to avoid the instant draw. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
