< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|Sep-26-05|| ||acirce: Yes, a random move giving checkmate is very unlikely but on the other hand the games would tend to be extremely long so there might be some room for that to happen. If this hasn't been tested empirically already it would be fun to see the results.|
|Sep-26-05|| ||euripides: It would also be fun to see what the rating of a machine playing random moves against human opposition would be. Probably very, very low. I guess anyone with a lower rating really might want to give chess up ....|
|Sep-26-05|| ||Averageguy: <DutchDunce> No, I meant from the black side.|
|Sep-26-05|| ||refutor: from the black side, play the slav...can be sharp or quiet, depending on your mood.|
|Sep-26-05|| ||Averageguy: <refutor> Sounds like good advice, but I really dislike the memorizing of opening theory, and from what I know the Slav has become very theoretical recently. Of course, I could be wrong, and as more of an authourity on these openings, what do you think on my views?|
|Sep-26-05|| ||TIMER: I have another question- You have white with just your king and e2 pawn, your opponent is a random moving computer with all his black pieces and pawns in the start position. I think that with the right strategy you will probably win, but you would have to be patient as you would not want to lose your pawn if it advanced too soon.|
|Sep-26-05|| ||refutor: <averageguy> realistically, at the level you claim you are, whether an opening is "theoretical" or not is irrelevant. when was the last time someone banged out 20 moves of theory against you? just look at the main ideas and good moves will follow. good moves and theory generally go hand in hand|
|Sep-26-05|| ||Swapmeet: <Averageguy> Any opening with alot of theory behind it can be very intimidating. The key is to take it slow and not just dive right in memorizing variations. Pick a main line and study the ideas behind the first 4-6 moves very carefully until you've mastered them, then keep adding on. This way you'll get into the middlegame with a stronger sense of the position. Even if you perfectly memorize long lines, you'll just end up in a position against a player who likely knows it better than you.|
|Sep-26-05|| ||Eric Schiller: <swapmeet> I'd say don't spend too much time on the "main line", because you'll find all sorts of alternatives played against you and will rarely meet it. Instead, I suggest going through a wide variety of games, examining typical tactical motifs and sacrifices, and also carefully examine the longer games to see what typical endgames arise from the pawn structure. |
In the QGD, make sure you look at minority attacks and Greek Gift sacrifices. You may also need to study isolated d-pawn structures, depending on your choice of variations. In the Tarrasch, the isolated d-pawn is critical to most common variations. The Semi-Slav rarely sees one, but you need to examine structures where Black captures at c4 and holds that pawn with ...b5.
Examining typical tactics and structures is the best way to get going with an opening. Study detailed lines only when you have problems playing against them at the board. And look at "theory" when you review your own games. A program like Chess Assistant does that automatically.
|Sep-26-05|| ||DutchDunce: <avgguy> I see. I prefer the QGA as black, but from your profile I see you've tried that...You're not trying to hang on to the pawn, are you? Because you can't.|
I don't have much experience with the Slav from the Black so I won't comment there.
This is probably not relevant below master level, but the traditional e6-QGD is almost unheard of among the top GM's these days. The Slav, Semi-Slav and an occasional QGA is all you'll ever see. It leads me to believe that the e6 version has secretly been discovered to be somewhat suspect.
|Sep-26-05|| ||square dance: <averageguy> have you given any thought to the modern benoni? its rarely seen at top gm levels these days,(one exception being the kramnik/leko wc match) but i doubt you'll be playing at that level anytime soon. ;-) its thought to be a fighting defense for black. white gains a space advantage with the a c4-d5-e4 pawn formation. i dont really know much else about it, but it might be worth giving a look.|
|Sep-26-05|| ||Swapmeet: <Eric Schiller> Main line was probably the wrong choice of words. I just meant any line, doesn't have to be popular or conventional by any means. Though unlike some I wouldn't reccomend the cabbage opening. ;-)|
|Nov-02-05|| ||pinandfork: 1d4 d5 2 c4 Nf6 is best met by 3cd Nxd
4 Nf3 .Now after 3cd Black cannot convert it into Grunfeld Exchange by playing g6 .Because then white will keep the pawn by playing 4 Qa4 + Bd7
5 Qb3 followed by NC3 and e4 which gives a healthy pawn.
|Sep-27-06|| ||TheKid: If you want something untheoretical and in your style, check out the Cambridge Springs Defense. That's not seen much anymore.|
|Jan-05-07|| ||Jared86: Does anybody know which books are best for learning the Queen's Gambit?|
I've heard that Chris Ward's book, "Play the Queen's Gambit" does not cover key lines and takes readers into ultra-sharp territory without the proper tools.
Richard Palliser's "Play 1.d4" is generally viewed as good, but half the book is devoted to other defenses, which i won't have to face because i use the Trompowsky.
Are there other really good books for learning the Queen's Gambit? I've been playing the Queen's Pawn openings against 1.d4 d5 for a while, the London System, the Queen's Bishop attack, ect, but i'm just not satisfied with them or the material out there to learn them so I've decided that it may be time to make the big switch.
Is there a really solid 1.d4 d5 opening repitoire for either the Queen's Gambit, or for some other Queen's pawn game opening? Anybody have any good recs?
|Jan-05-07|| ||euripides: <jared> Matthew Sadler's book was very well received a few years ago and may well still be worth looking at (I haven't read it myself).|
|Jan-05-07|| ||acirce: Sadler's book is really good. It has a question-and-answer explanatory format that goes into detail very instructively, but on the other hand it's very far from exhaustive and lacks coverage of many important systems. John Watson suggests that Lalic's book on Bg5 systems is used as a complement: http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_re...|
|Jan-05-07|| ||Jared86: Thank you both for the advice. Unforutnately I already have Sadler's book and I didn't find it too useful... Actually, I have a thread about the best Queen's Gambit books on another forum, because my entire reply to you guys is too long to post here.... http://www.chesspublishing.com/yabb...|
|Jun-04-07|| ||tonsillolith: If Black is going to decline the Queen's Gambit, why does he ever play dxc4 before White's king bishop has moved? It seems like then he should just have accepted the gambit.|
Also, why would Black accept the gambit instead of declining it, which seems to be much more popular according to GMs?
|Jan-10-08|| ||MadBishop: The reason why I feel that the Queen's Gambit Declined, Marshall Defense(1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6?!) as bad for Black is because it gives the centre completely to White by the following continuation: 3.cxd5 <Nxd5> 4.e4! whereby White attains a classical centre with relatively little effort. If Black chooses to continue <3. ..Qxd5> 4.Nc3 Qa5 5.Bd2 and once again White stands ahead! It amazes me how many people still choose this method of development today!!|
|Jan-10-08|| ||MaxxLange: <MadBishop> After 1. d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Nxd5, the correct move is 4. Nf3!|
If White plays 4.e4 at once, Black can equalize with 4...Nf6 5. Nc3 e5!; playing Nf3 before e4 prevents this. (Watson, Mastering the Chess Openings vol. 2, pps. 12-14, has a good discussion of this).
|Jan-14-08|| ||MadBishop: <MaxxLange> I bow down to your superior knowledge on this topic! I tested it out and this was the result:|
<MadBishop> - <NN>, Playchess.com (15min + 10sec), 14-Jan-08
1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.cxd5 Nxd5 <4.Nf3!> e6 5.e4 Nb4 6.Bc4 N8c6 7.a3 Na6 8.0-0 f6 9.Nc3 e5 10.dxe5 fxe5 <11.Nxe5> Nxe5 12.Qh5+ Ng6 13.Bg5 Qd4 <14.Rad1> Qxc4 15.Rd8+ Kf7 16.Qf3+ Kg8 17.Nd5 Nc5 <18.Ne7+> Nxe7 19.Qxf8# 1-0
Now I don't claim this game to be accurate at all, but it sure was fun!! Anytime you would like to give some advice, please don't hesitate!! ;-)
|May-26-09|| ||blacksburg: hey you guys, what's the deal with 2...Bf5, <Baltic Defense>? it seems to make obvious sense, solves the c8-bishop problem immediately, but no one ever plays it. why? i don't see any obvious reason that this is unsound, is there some concrete reason that this is not played?|
|May-26-09|| ||gus inn: <blacksburg> something with early c4/Nc3 / Qb3 ideas , putting pressure on the vulnerable d/b7 points is to my knowledge
the refutation.Your 2-Bf5 is logically and very likeable - but it is twisting the nature of chess too much.In other words :Sometimes we have some thoughts and ideas which are very logically constructed - but reality will never be less than nr.1.|
Good news are that it is not this easy
to equalize with the black pieces.But this is also the bad knews ):
|Jan-21-12|| ||Penguincw: Opening of the Day
Queen's Gambit Declined, Marshall Defense
1.d4 d5 2.c4 f6
click for larger view
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·