|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-21-07 | | a.nugent: Arthur:Gerard
What made you decide to choose the wide repertoire you have?
Easier to play than today's opening lines?Your games and ideas about theory would make an interesting book! |
|
| Apr-22-07 | | whiskeyrebel: As I mentioned earlier, I'd love to see a book by IM Welling. I know though as a non-chess writer that a book can really rip a couple years or more out of your life. There's also the need to deal with book proposals and publishers. What a treasure it'd be though. He's gone where few have dared and done well. |
|
| May-27-07 | | Gejewe: <Thrajin>
About the Gausdal classics : nice tournament and well organised. Quiet hotel, nice swimmingpool, good food etc. Well, everything was very much ok except for my chess.. Might have been one of my worst under-performances ever..<a.nugent>
Yes, today's opening lines have to be adapted from day to day, according to the last highclass games. I prefer to have an easier time in studying openings, and to have room for some experiments. And I believe that on the level under GM-strength, the value of deep opening preparation is overestimated. Most of us do not know how to handle or even to recognise tiny advantages ( including myself ) so why bother ? The games are decided by mistakes later on ! <whiskeyrebel>
So true what you are writing. First of all I am flattered. But not being a professional player it will take to much spare time that I intend to use for other purposes. In the mid-80ties, right after finishing my studies- I started to work on a book about Simon Alapin. Never really made progress, after getting a job. But I used some of the material later to write three articles
- New in Chess : about the Ruy Lopez 3..Bb4!?
- Kaissiber ( Bücker's nice magazine )
* about 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 b6!?
* about 1.e4 e5 2.Ne2
So at least something resulted out of it ..
Recently, for the first time in about a decade, I have written something again, for Kaissiber, on the origins and the development of Chigorin's 1.e4 e6 2.Qe2. No modern material, but old ideas. There are so many unearthed treasures waiting to be discovered... |
|
| Jul-01-07 | | wolfmaster: Congratulations, Mr. Welling! You must be the only IM to have more than 1000 games in the database... |
|
| Oct-06-07 | | pawnofdoom: Welling is probably also the only player to have played every first move possible as white (except for f3). I checked his opening repertoire and he's played 19 different moves to start games. The only one that was missing was f3 |
|
| Oct-12-07 | | Gejewe: <pawnofdoom>
In fact 1.f3 has been among the first moves that I have adopted, but it is not one of the better moves ( besides 1.h4.. it is probably worst ). Two games from around 1974 and 1975, of which I lost the gamescores - as most of them from that period when I used to throw them away .. There was a game Welling-Tulkens from the Daf club championship that I won, it started 1.f3 e5 2.e4 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nxe4? 4.fxe4 Qh4+ 5.Kf1.. and white eventually consolidated the extra piece. When I am not mistaken the other one - Welling-G.Raymakers from the Eindhoven championship started 1.f3 e5 2.e4 Nc6 3.d4??! ( maniacal and plain bad ) 3..Nxd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Be3 Nxc2+ 6.Qxc2 Bxe3 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qb3+ d5 9.Qxe3 d4 ; black eventually won that game.
Many years later, after seeing Tartakower suggesting the "Barnes opening" 1.f3 with 1..e5 2.Nh3 and Nf2 in some old French chessmagazine, I took that up, but mainly in offhand and tournament games in open air chessevents we had in Eindhoven in the summers. That was probably around 1986, and I remember the Dutch ladies champion was very much annoyed being confronted with 1.f3.. which she replied with 1..f5?! when 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nh3 g6 4.Nf2 Bg7 5.e4 lead to interesting play, white eventually won.
That means that I have played literally every first move but some of them were "youth sins" ! |
|
| Oct-15-07 | | whiskeyrebel: Gejewe, great post as usual. I cringed when you mentioned throwing away game scores. That's like a musician erasing master tapes or a writer burning a hard fought story. |
|
| Dec-31-07 | | satch boogie: G Welling vs T Szakall, 1996 This is an interesting game. I haven't seen many games where you used this opening as much as some other one's like 1.b4 or 1.g4.
Is 1.Na3 one of your less used uncommon openings?
|
|
| Dec-31-07 | | whiskeyrebel: Wow! Mr. Welling is #18 on the CG database list of players who most often make winning sacrifices. He's one notch above Alekhine. Impressive. |
|
| Dec-31-07 | | Gejewe: <satch boogie>
You are right. I have been a regular 1.b4 and 1.g4 practitioner (did not play the latter for some time though)and have not played 1.Na3 often. In the late 70ties I got hold of Durkin's games from "Knightmare Nr.1" and liked his 1.Na3 e5 2.Nc4 Nc6 3.e4 because after 3..Nf6 4.d3 d5 4.exd5 Nxd5 5.g3 we get a perfectly 'normal' position which must be shocking for black after being confronted with 1.Na3.
Strangely enough Durkin played 2.Nc4 in most of the games, but recommended 2.e3 instead (which I did not like), After 1..d5 he used to play 2.f4.. but the one game with 1..d5 I preferred 2.g3 hoping to get into some Pirc or Kings Indian with colours reversed, where Na3.. might make sense. At the Budapest Spring Festival 1996 however, I was determined to play De Bruycker's defence 1.e4 c6 2.d4 Na6 ( or 1.e4 Na6 ) with both colours. Just thoroughly testing this flexible setup out in practice, see if it holds up.. And in fact I did it in the first four rounds, scoring three points, and then switched to 1.e3, the Jänisch etc..
<whiskeyrebel>
That is why we have to be careful with statistics. Alekhine has faced the best players of his time, and still was able to make so many winning sacrifices. The fact that I was able to make many winning sacrifices is because of the kind of tournaments, opens and clubmatches, where you get the opportunity when your playing strength is above average. It is because of the opposition... Thanks for the compliment, but others deserve it more ! |
|
| Dec-31-07 | | satch boogie: Interesting, thanks <Gejewe>, I've always been interested in that opening.
Since this site only has two of Robert Durkin's games, it's hard to find info on 1.Na3, especially when his games on this site don't even start with that opening.
Do know where I could find that "Knightmare Nr.1" book (I'm presuming that's what it is), or any info on his games? By the way, nice to meet you Mr. Welling. Happy new year, everyone! |
|
| Jan-01-08 | | Gejewe: <satch boogie>
First of all a happy and healthy 2008 for everyone who reads this..
“Knightmare Nr.1” is a typewritten pamphlet, A4 format and I once photocopied it at the Royal Library, the Hague – in a time that the chesscollection was easily available... Good old days.
But that is maybe 25 years ago and it probably got lost somehow.. In the early 1980ties I got in touch with Robert Durkin, through Mr. B.Wood, editor of CHESS magazine, as Durkin was supposedly writing an enlarged work on 1.Na3. He finished it but only printed a few and charged 100 USD which was more than I could afford as a student. The book had his 1.Na3 games, his wins against USCF masters , his theories about under what circumstances chess should be ideally played ( hight of the chair etc. ), and his new notation. This notation was an abbreviated algebraic. For 1.Na3 he wrote 1.Na ( because the is no other choice for the N on the a-file you do not have to mention the 3 ). And that NA is what gave the book it's name, “The Sodium attack”. Stefan Bücker has been trying to get that book, but did not succeed ( yet ),
I wonder if Robert T. Durkin is still alive, at that time, 25 years ago he was an old man touring around to tournaments on a Harley Davidson. I cannot be of much more help unfortunately, but even before getting hold of the photocopy that got lost, a chessfriend of mine copied some of Durkin's games and send them to me, handwritten. Here is that small collection, which still happens to be there ! Durkin-Steiner 1957
1. Na3 e5 2. Nc4 Nc6 3. e4 Nf6 4. d3 Bc5 5. Be3 Bxe3 6. fxe3 d6 7. Nf3 Be6 8.b3 b5 9. Ncd2 Ng4 10. Qe2 Nb4 11. Kd1 a6 12. h3 Nf6 13. c3 Nc6 14. g4 Qe7 15.Bg2 Rd8 16. d4 exd4 17. exd4 Bd7 18. Kc2 Nd5 19. Rae1 Nf4 20. Qf2 Nxg2 21. Qxg2 O-O 22. h4 Rde8 23. h5 Nd8 24. Nh4 Qg5 25. Nf5 Ne6 26. Nf3 Qf4 27. Rhf1 g6 28.Ne5 g5 29. Rxf4 Nxf4 30. Qf3 dxe5 31. dxe5 1-0 Durkin-Curtis, Corr.1955
1. Na3 e5 2. Nc4 Nc6 3. e4 Nf6 4. d3 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. Nf3 Bb4+ 7. Bd2 Bxd2+ 8. Qxd2 Qe7 9. O-O-O O-O 10. Re1 f6 11. g3 b5 12. Na5 Nxa5 13. Qxa5 Qb4 14.Qxb4 Nxb4 15. a3 Nc6 16. Bg2 Rb8 17. Nd2 Bb7 18. Bd5+ Kh8 19. Nb3 Na5 20. Bxb7 Nxb3+ 21. cxb3 Rxb7 22. Re4 Rd8 23. Rd1 c5 24. b4 cxb4 25. Rxb4 a5 26. Re4 Kg8 27. Kd2 b4 28. a4 Rc7 29. Ke3 Rc2 30. Rd2 Rdc8 31. d4 R8c4 32. f4 exd4+ 33.Rexd4 b3 34. Rd8+ Kf7 35. R2d7+ Kg6 36. Rg8 Rxb2 37. Rgxg7+ Kh6 38. Rxh7+ Kg6 39. g4 f5 40. Rhg7+ Kh6 41. gxf5 1-0 |
|
| Jan-01-08 | | Gejewe: Second part ( the message was to long .. )
Durkin-Fuster, G. USA 1957
1. Na3 Nf6 2. f4 d5 3. e3 c5 4. Nf3 g6 5. Be2 Bg7 6. O-O O-O 7. d3 Nc6 8. Qe1 b6 9. c3 Ba6 10. Bd2 Qd6 11. e4 Qd7 12. e5 Ne8 13. d4 Bxe2 14. Qxe2 f5 15. dxc5 bxc5 16. Be3 c4 17. Rad1 Na5 18. Nc2 Nc7 19. Rd2 Rfb8 20. Ncd4 e6 21. h3 Nc6 22. g4 Nxd4 23. Nxd4 Kh8 24. Rfd1 Bh6 25. g5 Bf8 26. h4 a5 27. h5 Na6 28. Nf3 Bc5 29. Nd4 Bxd4 30. Bxd4 Kg7 31. Kg2 Qc6 32. Qf2 a4 33. Rh1 Rh8 34. a3 Rac8 35. Kf3 Nc5 36. Bxc5 Qxc5 37. Qxc5 Rxc5 38. Rdh2 Rcc8 39. hxg6 h5 40. gxh6+ Kxg6 41. Rg1+ Kf7 42. Rg7+ Kf8 43. Rhg2 Rb8 44. h7 1-0 Durkin-Turiansky, M. USA ??
1. Na3 Nf6 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 c5 4. e3 a6 5. Be2 Nc6 6. d3 Qc7 7. c4 e6 8. Bd2 Be7 9. O-O Rb8 10. Nc2 dxc4 11. dxc4 Ne4 12. Bd3 Nxd2 13. Nxd2 b5 14. Qg4 Bf6 15. Rab1 bxc4 16. Nxc4 g6 17. Rfd1 Be7 18. e4 f5 19. Qg3 Kf7 20. N2e3 h5 21. Rd2 Bf6 22. exf5 gxf5 23. Be2 h4 24. Qh3 Nd4 25. Rf1 Bb7 26. Bd3 Rbd8 27. Rff2 Rhg8 28. Kf1 Rg7 29. Ne5+ Kg8 30. Bc4 Kf8 31. Bd3 a5 32. N3c4 Ba6 33. Qe3 Re8 34. Ke1 Bb7 35. Be2 Bd5 36. Bh5 Rb8 37. Qa3 Kg8 38. b3 Kh7 39. Qxa5 Bxe5 40. fxe5 Bxc4 41. Qxc7 Rxc7 42. bxc4 Rb4 43. Rf4 Rxc4 44. Kf2 Kh6 45. Rxh4 Kg5 46. g3
Rh7 47. Be2 Nxe2 48. Rxh7 Nd4 49. Rb7 Rc3 50. h4+ Kg4 51. Rg7+ Kh3 52. h5 Kh2 53. h6 f4 54. Kf1+ Kh1 55. h7 1-0 Durkin-Spielman USA 1957
1. Na3 e6 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 a6 5. Be2 Bd6 6. O-O Nbd7 7. d3 c6 8. Qe1 O-O 9. Qh4 Re8 10. g4 h6 11. g5 Nh7 12. Qh5 hxg5 13. Nxg5 Nxg5 14. fxg5 Ne5 15.d4 Ng6 16. Bd3 Be7 17. Rxf7 Nh8 18. Bh7# 1-0 USA 1958
Durkin – Bross USA 1958
1. Na3 d5 2. f4 c5 3. e3 a6 4. Nf3 g6 5. c3 Bg7 6. d4 c4 7. Be2 Nf6 8. O-O O-O 9. Qe1 Ne4 10. Ng5 b5 11. Qh4 h6 12. Nxe4 dxe4 13. Bd2 Be6 14. g4 f5 15. Rf2 Kf7 16. Rg2 Bf6 17. g5 hxg5 18. Qh7+ Ke8 19. Qxg6+ Kd7 20. d5 Rg8 21. Qh7 Rg7 22. dxe6+ Kxe6 23. Qh5 Qxd2 24. Bxc4+ bxc4 25. Rxd2 gxf4+ 26. Rg2 Rxg2+ 27. Kxg2 f3+ 28. Kf2 Nd7 29. Nxc4 Rh8 30. Qxh8 Bxh8 31. Rd1 Bf6 32. Kg3 Ne5 33. Nxe5 Bxe5+ 34. Kf2 Bxh2 35. Rd4 Bc7 36. Ra4 a5 37. b4 axb4 38. cxb4 Kd5 39. Ra6 e5 40. b5 f4 41. b6 fxe3+ 42. Kxe3 Bd6 43. b7 Bc5+ 44. Kd2 e3+ 45. Kc2 e2 46.b8=Q e1=Q 47. Qb3+ Ke4 48. Qd3+ Kf4 49. Rf6+ Kg3 50. Qxf3+ Kh4 51. Rh6+ Kg5 52.Rh5+ Kg6 53. Qf5+ Kg7 54. Rh7+ Kg8 55. Qf7# 1-0 |
|
| Jan-01-08 | | satch boogie: Thanks for Durkin's games, Gejewe, that was very helpful, I'll study them soon. I have one more question, you mentioned De Bruycker's defence 1.e4 c6 2.d4 Na6 ( or 1.e4 Na6 ), I have actually used this defence before, but didn't know it's name (until recently), where did that originate? |
|
| Jan-01-08 | | Gejewe: <satch boogie>
Bernard de Bruijcker is a former Belgian chess player, now in his 60ties. He had to quit chess on doctor's advice recently. Until then Bernard, residing in the city of Ghent was a wellknown figure in Belgian chess. It seems that the thought that black is better in the initial position - because white is the first to commit himself - which is his thesis, lead him to work out an "ideal defence" for black. Eventually that lead to the flexible 1.e4 Na6 2.d4 c6 and ( often )..Nc7, followed by ..g6,..Bg7 and the deployment of the other pieces based on white's setup. Around 1978 Bernard de Bruijcker played a lot of games with 1.e4 Na6 and 1.d4 Na6 and even 1.Na3 to test the resulting positions. His final conclusion was that it was best played against the e4-d4 center, in the moveorder 1.e4 c6 2.d4 Na6!?. It is interesting that some strong players also started to experiment with this formation, influenced by Bernard. Some German Bundesliga players and grandmaster Sahovic for example. Ar his best, our Belgian friend was probably of master strength, rated 2300-2400. In the years shortly before he had to give up chess for health reasons , it was still about 2200.
Other players have experimented with 1..c6 and 2..Na6, such as the American master Ted Dunst in the 1950ties , but none did it more systematicaly and chessphilosophically founded than de Bruijcker. |
|
| Jan-15-08 | | matiz: <Gejewe> question which of these openings that you play is better for a beginner to star with. thanks in adv |
|
| Jan-15-08 | | Gejewe: <matiz> To be honest I think that a beginner should first develop a general feeling for the game before starting to experiment. That is why I would recommend to start with classical openings, to learn about development and the center.
Later on one can start to play or research hypermodern openings like the Reti opening, Alekhine's defence and the Grünfeld defence that seem to bend the rules but don't. And finally, having grasped what is important in an opening, it is possible to start investigating experimental ideas. Build up your basic knowledge first ! I have seen players doing it the other way around, but they will always miss a vital part of general understanding - in my opinion - . |
|
| Jan-16-08 | | matiz: <Gejewe>thanks u. i did that already I study a lot of opening, but i stop playing for a while. Now my openings are kind of lame(forgot many of them) so i was thinking why dont give a offbeat opening for a spin. You know start with the middlegame from move one.:) |
|
| Jan-21-08 | | satch boogie: I have a question <Gejewe>, I've been working on a seperate line of the Reti which starts 1.Nf3 c5 2.b4 cxb4 3.Bb2
I've figured that White sacrifices material for a lead in development, but what would you conclude from this opening line? And what do you think is White's best move after Black's? |
|
| Jan-24-08 | | just a kid: Can you give me your thoughts on 1.Na3 e5 2.b3. It would really help.Also can you point out any mistakes in my games vs. a NN.(See Uncommon Opening (A00))Thanks for your time. |
|
Jan-29-08
 | | JointheArmy: Welling is still active I guess. He drew a 2500+ player with black today. |
|
Feb-01-08
 | | keypusher: Mr. Welling, if you ever get a chance, I would appreciate your comments on Anderssen vs Staunton, 1851, which is an early example of a variation of the Sicilian you've played a number of times. |
|
| Feb-03-08 | | Gejewe: <satch boogie>
Your idea 1.Nf3 c5 2.b4 cxb4 might well be playable but in my opinion 3.e4!? is right ( 3.Bb2 d5 and white's compensation is nebulous ). This transposes to 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 3.Nf3!? which has been suggested by an old chessfriend of mine, FM Michiel Wind. For example 3..Nc6 4.a3 e6 5.axb4 Bxb4 6.c3 Be7 7.d4 d6 8.Bd3 Nf6 9.0-0 0-0 10.Re1 Bd7 11.Qc2 h6 12.Qe2 Qc7 13.e5 dxe5 14.dxe5 Nd5 15.Bxh6! is a sample line he showed me last year. |
|
| Feb-03-08 | | Gejewe: <just a kid>
When you posted your question I was on vacation - playing chess. But this evening I have looked at it. Here are some remarks
a)-quite well played considering your USCF rating, so there certainly is room for progress ( black made some mistakes, ..0-0-0 was horrible )
b)-most of your pieces landed on very decent squares, except for that knight on a3.. ( Maybe 8.c4!? )
With the white pieces I have tried 1.Na3 e5 2.Nc4 myself, and after 2..Nc6 3.e4 Nf6 4.d3 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Nf3 f6 7.g3 and Bg2.. with a position that looks quite reasonable Pirc /Kings Indian setup with colours reversed ). However 1.Na3 e5 2.b3 d5 and it is not so clear what to do with the knight on a3. Many years ago Kottnauer, a strong master, commenting on a game from GM Lombardy that started something like 1.g3 Nf6 2.f4 c5 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nh3 ( and Nf2.. the knight controlling some vital squares ) suggested a similar construction on the queenside to be playable. This could go 1.b3 e5 2.c4 and then Na3.. and Nc2..
But from your game I get the impression that 1.b3 and a regular followup might suit you. Chessgames.com has an interesting collection of 1.b3 games played by Bagirov that I can recommend for further study. And there are some good games by Bent Larsen ( look at Larsen-Eley for a nice attack, or Larsen-Kavalek ) |
|
| Feb-03-08 | | Gejewe: <keypusher>
After the initial moves I prefer the active 5.Nc3 Qb6!? for example
1) 6.Na4 Qa5+ 7.c3 Bxd4 8.Qxd4 Nf6 ( two bishops but Na4 is clumsy )
2) 6.Be3 Nc6 and the pawn sacrifice 7.Ndb5 Bxe3 leads to an unclear position but control of e5 should help black. I remember a matchgame Harstston-Basman, England 1974 as a good example how black should play.
Staunton was a bit passive, 6..Qc7 was suggested in contemporary sources and Staunton was very critical on his play in this particular game in general. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
