< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
|Feb-26-02|| ||Sneaky: "The first comment to make about this, and in fact all symmetrical positions, is that it isn't so easy to get a draw as Black--if White plays good moves then eventually Black will be forced into breaking the symmetry. In fact, the pawn structure rarely remains symmetrical for long.|
Strong players with the white pieces often play the exchange variation to win and if the second player is playing only with the idea of exchanging pieces or keeping the symmetry for a draw he can get into trouble.
--- Glenn Flear, "The Slav for the Tournament Player"
|Feb-26-02|| ||Sneaky: Regardless of Flear's assessment, the statistics speak for themselves: DRAW 68.8% |
I play the Slav because it's "Sneaky" ... but there is nothing sneaky about a symmetrical position with one open file. On 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. cxd5 cxd5 4. Nc3 I like to stir it up with 4. ...e5!? But when White moves his King's knight first, 4. Nf3, this is not an option.
So how do I "stir it up" in the Slav Exchange? I've heard that Torre has tried 6. ...Bg4 (instead of Bf5) as a means of breaking the symmetry but this looks weird in view of Ne5.
|Mar-01-02|| ||knight: The slav defense is similar to the french defense in that both openings leave symmetrical pawn structures and an open file, if the white player decides to use the exchange variation.
The resulting position is not friendly toward"pawn levers",c4 or c5 in the french and e4 or e5 in the slav exchange as this leads to an isolated pawn.So faced with weaker opposition black usually avoids these opening variations. |
|Mar-02-02|| ||Sneaky: I am loathe to abandon my beloved Slav just because some players like to make it drawish! The Slav, in my opinion, is the best classical defense to 1. d4 (while the King's Indian Defense is probably the best hypermodern defense.)|
Let's take a closer look at Torre's eccentric Bg4!? move. I found two games by Torre where he employs this move, and he wins both of them:
C Partos vs Torre, 1985 and J Schroer vs Torre, 1985
Also these games Gheorghiu vs Vaganian, 1984 and Kupreichik vs G Serper, 1986 (both draws)
|Mar-02-02|| ||Sneaky: And here's one more, where Black loses with ...Bg4
Frey vs Tapani Sammalvuo, 2001 |
|May-27-03|| ||Benjamin Lau: To all readers, prepare for a VERY opioninated post:
Sneaky! The King's Indian isn't the best hypermodern defense for against 1. d4! The Nimzo Indian is! (See the win, draw, and loss percentages!) I think that the main problem with the King's Indian is that, simply put, the opening is flawed (yes, I said it- flawed). With the exception of the greats like Fischer and Kasparov (who did well in pretty much whatever they chose anyway), almost no one has been able to win from the black side with any consistency. Let us take a look at the weaknesses of the opening. First of all, the fianchettoed bishop rarely serves any purpose. In most King's Indian games, the center becomes closed, locked, and so the bishop's powers become virtually useless. The bishop becomes more for show than anything. In addition, black usually attempts a kingside attack by pushing his f pawn and other kingside pawns up but this opens up the way for a white counterattack, which can often prove more deadly because the black king will have no shield. Kasparov and Fischer's success with the opening is more of an indicator of their strengths than the strengths of their opening. Look at the King's Gambit. We all know how much it sucks now (look at black win percentage and think of it from a theoretical view) but at the time, even Morphy played it. The Nimzo Indian is a more practical and deadly defense to 1. d4 in my opinion. First of all, it gives black rapid development- within the very first moves, black can already castle if it wishes! The pawn structure has been unaltered for the most part, allowing flexibility. And although black loses a bishop, he is able to take away white's control from the EXTREMELY important e4 square. (Notice that in the beginning of the opening, both white and black place knights on the board such that e4 is controlled. If white however, continues to control e4, black will be at a severe disadvantage because black's control of the center is, for all purposes, nullified because he can no longer prevent white from e2-e4. Keeping this in mind, black snags the white knight with a bishop, (often) doubles white's pawns, AND gains control of e4! Just brilliant! The King's Indian cannot compare at all- once white places the queenside knight, white is free to play e2-e4 and black (can't) and never stops it. You see, the King's Indian actually goes against Nimzowitsch's concepts in many ways. The whole point of the KKt (King knight) is to prevent the advance of e2-e4. So what good is the King's Indian if it gives this up?!?! Thus, we come to two violations of Nimzowitsch theory- the KKt is nullified and the fianchetto is blocked (by none other than black!!!) Just horrible!
|May-27-03|| ||Benjamin Lau: Hmmm... In retrospect, I should have put this post on the King's Indian and Nimzo Indian... Oh well, sorry. :-) |
|May-27-03|| ||Benjamin Lau: The problem with all "exchange" type openings is the fact that they don't really do anything. We all know from common sense that an extra tempo (which is in the hands of white first) is the most significant in the opening. As the game drags on, the original tempo no longer matters very much because both players will have (generally) found a position they have liked and developed their pieces. All exchanging does is help black because it gives him more time to get on his feet and simultaneously takes away the significane of the additional tempo. Furthermore, we all know that when one wishes to defend one's position, the best thing to do is usually to trade- it takes pressure off of oneself and makes it harder for an attack to succeed. Thus, in this opening, white is actually causing voluntary self harm. |
|May-27-03|| ||Cyphelium: Now, it's a pity you can't win a chess game using words. =) |
|May-28-03|| ||drukenknight: show me your winning line! |
|May-29-03|| ||parinda: to my recollection . .kasparov has never. i repeat NEVER lost a tournament game playing white against the nimzo-indian .. i remember nigel short even coming up with a superb novelty for black in the 93' world championship and he still didn't win!. .if you want a draw go for the nimzo. . .however for the chess practician the king's indian is a venomous choice...teimour radjabov ain't afraid to play it. . .and his rating is 2660! |
|May-29-03|| ||Benjamin Lau: Actually Parinda, Kasparov has lost to the Nimzo Indian before. Although as Sneaky Points out in the Nimzo Indian E20 page (where we should continue this discussion) Kasparov has only lost about two games (out of 79), you should all realize WE ARE TALKING ABOUT KASPAROV. Using Kasparov as an example of how the Nimzo Indian may not be sound is just as unfair as using Fischer to prove the King's Indian is sound. They're both great players and did well in almost everything they did. Anyway, we should continue this discussion on the Nimzo Indian (E20!!) page. I'll repost this there. |
|Nov-02-04|| ||RisingChamp: By the way <Benjamin>"We all know the Kings Gambit sucks".Thats why Spassky has a +16 record with including wins over Bronstien,Karpov and Fisher and no defeats at all?And btw 3 World Champions have lost against KG in classical controls-Tal.(!),Fischer,Karpov.I mean recent ones I am sure Lasker and Stienitz must have lost too becasue it was common then.And BTW u cant refute an opening with some vague general comments like the bishop doesnt show its powers,such and such square is weakenedetc.Show some line leading to a win for white which black cannot avoid,then I will concede that the opening is poor. |
|Nov-02-04|| ||jcmoral: Well if anyone does <Show some line leading to a win for white which black cannot avoid> what is the point of continuing chess? |
|Nov-02-04|| ||RisingChamp: I meant in the specific opening Kings Indian Defense,which Benjamin Lau claimed was very poor.Read the above posts for further info on what he said. |
|Nov-02-04|| ||jcmoral: Any opinion on any opening is bound to have general statements such as you have pointed out. I did read <Benjamin Lau>'s post and he gave supporting statements for his assertions. (For example about the fianchettoed bishop and the e4 square.) Based on these he is entitled to conclude (rightly or wrongly) what he wants about the KID. You can't challenge his conclusion by asking <Show some line leading to a win for white which black cannot avoid> because it just can't be done. What you <can> do is refute his supporting statements. |
|Nov-02-04|| ||RisingChamp: <Jcmoral>My point is that such supporting statement such as "exchanges basically give black time to recover"is just a general observation and like it or not you cannot evaluate an opening by make general comments like that.KingsGambit for example gives away a pawn for free and weakens the kingside-I cant even attempt to defend it on general grounds or principles,but an opening is not principles,and 600 years of practical attempts have failed to refute the Kings Gambit and players like Bronstein,Spassky have made brilliantly effective use of it.Same way u cant evaluate an opening as complicated as the Kings Indian Defense by saying something like"the center is usually closed and the bishop becomes weak".And if as u say it "just cant be done"which I wholly agree with then one shouldnt be sayjng the opening is a very bad one. |
|Nov-03-04|| ||RisingChamp: And by the way I cant refute his supporting statements because in themselves they may be true-exchanges may help black,and the bishop may truly be weak-my point is that even if they are correct,the opening may still be good because chess boils down to concrete realities where in a game u have to find winning lines and not just make vague general comments like his "bishop is weak and therefore the opening cannot be good." |
|Nov-03-04|| ||RisingChamp: P.S "Almost no one has been able to win from black side with consistency"Gellers record with Black in KID was 31 losses 57 wins 71 draws that is fairly impressive. |
|Nov-03-04|| ||acirce: Evaluations are very often made on general grounds; not only openings and variations but individual moves -- "This move must be bad since it unnecessarily weakens the light squares", "Handing over the initiative to White in such a sharp situation can hardly be good" etc. Asking for a forced win for White is obviously missing the point since he didn't say there was one! Now if I believed in a move although it does, for example, "weaken the light squares", and there is no concrete, forced line to point at, I would say "oh, yes, of course, but on the other hand it puts a stop for White's plans of this and that, and it creates long-term prospects of this and that, and on the whole I feel that it compensates for the weaknesses" If you want to oppose his view on the KID, do it in ways like that. |
|Nov-03-04|| ||square dance: <acirce> you had posted a french defense game from a tournament(i forget the name) where you won your division. i was wondering if you could recall on which page and on which date you posted this game. sorry to be so vague, but if i had more information then i wouldve just found it myself. ;-) |
|Nov-03-04|| ||acirce: Yes, it was on the FIDE World Championship (2004) page -- near the end, there hasn't been much kibitzing there since. Go back one page or so for the game itself, then there is some discussion on it. |
|Nov-03-04|| ||square dance: <acirce> thanks for the info. im a part time french player myself, and i remembered that you had annotated it in some detail so i thought your game might be helpful to me. once again thanks. ;-) |
|Nov-03-04|| ||square dance: i was on playchess.com playing 3min blitz not to long ago and as i sometimes do i played the french defense and my opponent typed boooooooring after i made my move! so he played 2.d4 and i played the usual 2...d5 and he went into the exchange variation. now if you only play the exchange variation from the white side then i can see why you think the french is boring, but thats not my fault!! so of course i was expecting a dragon sicillian or something ultra sharp when i played my usual 1.e4, but to my absolute surprise he played 1...d5(!! and my repetoire is boring?!?!?), which imo is just about the most stale response to 1.e4 there is. just another amusing playchess.com story. |
|Nov-03-04|| ||clocked: <sd> 1...d5 can be very sacrificial. What was the follow-up? |
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·