|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 1784 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-02-07 | | sanyas: Well, we can't really tell whether 1.e4 or 1.d4 is the strongest move, can we? Now, everyone seems to want 1.d4 because we're sure he'll reply with a King's Indian. But it's an exhibition game, so he'll be seeing this as an opportunity to try out his new ideas. I'm wondering if we could find a way to avoid mainstream lines altogether. <kellmano> lol, but that's not what I meant. |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | Bridgeburner: The first two GMs the World played were trying out opening innovations. GMGT may be inclined to do so as well, but in which opening? Repertoire Explorer: Gert Jan Timmerman (black) provides a cross section of his defences as Black and I notice from the <Stickies> that <Boomie>'s already done some preliminary homework on GMGT's openings. Is there any point in undertaking a systematic look at his games in the next four weeks before the game starts? |
|
Jul-02-07
 | | Stonehenge: Let's call him GMT, I think <Artar1> was the first to call him so. |
|
Jul-02-07
| | Stonehenge: O yes, and I voted 1.e4! |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | Temugin73: 1.e4 at this moment for me, even if statistics are not the best...
but i go to read deeply the User: boomie Forum... |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | TheaN: Why not try Nimzovich-Larsen Attack or English? Something completely different of nature? But that probably won't happen. Well, I'm voting 1.c4. |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | GHOST19: Hello team !
I think we must avoid the highly theoretical lines and go for rare, imbalanced positions.
I'd be happy to play a wild gambit line with lots of tactical action. |
|
Jul-02-07
 | | Open Defence: I think we should go with a solid approach .. set the stage for a radical improvement a la 18.Qd2 in our game with GMAN... but an attempt to get out of the books at all costs might end up costing us... |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | Bridgeburner: <GHOST19> I really hate to be a wet blanket but wild gambit lines with lots of tactical action are fine in one-on-one over the board games when there's not enough time to fully calculate the tactical complexities. Correspondence play in the modern era with powerful computers that can calculate to 30 or more ply rules out tactical surprises as there is simply too much time available to work it all out. Sound moves are essential. |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | whiteshark: <GHOST19: <Hello team !
I think we must avoid the highly theoretical lines and go for rare, imbalanced positions. I'd be happy to play a <wild gambit line> with lots of tactical action.>> I believe the opposite is true. Have you ever played a <wild gambit> against a strong corr player ??? |
|
Jul-02-07
| | Open Defence: the question.. can we crack the Berlin wall ? ... an English Kings Indian may not be a bad idea.... |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | djmercury: Don't think we will crack him in a Ruy, especially as it is likely that we may finish in a positional anti marshall if we follow that path.
Because of this I am more inclined to play d4 hoping for a kid for the moment, still early to decide however. |
|
Jul-02-07
 | | chancho: I vote 1.d4 for this one. (we already played 1.e4 in the Nickel game) But whatever move wins out in the vote is a ok by me. |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | Judah: 1. f4 is a sound opening that usually leads to interesting (asymmetric) positions. It's much less studied than other openings, which gives us that much more latitude in playing it. And it was favored by no less a master than Henry Edward Bird. I vote for Bird's opening. |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | whiteshark: <chancho> ¡Exacto! ¡Le seguiré! |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | Youjoin: How about the Grob attack? It´s too risky, but exciting. |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | Judah: The Grob doesn't seem like a great choice for correspondence: none of the traps will work, so it's just a weakening first move. |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | amadeus: Greetings all, g3 for me.
For when the odds are against it, and there's daaangerous work... |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | kellmano: Opening explorer tells us that in 1.Na3 games, white has a 100% record. Ergo, we play 1.Na3 and we have a guaranteed victory. I suspect it would be met by resignation from GMT. |
|
Jul-02-07
 | | SwitchingQuylthulg: <kellmano> It is just because of the small sample; 1.Na3 as a move makes absolutely no sense. What does it aim at? Merely control of the square b5 and a Q-side initiative. For any other function having it as move 1 makes no sense; we can always move it there later. In addition, it can become weak at a3 should it spend more time there. Thus, if this is our plan, the only sensible move is 1.a4! further controlling b5 and ensuring some space on the Q-side, besides protecting the square a3 with QR. <Then> it is time for 2.Na3. (I actually use this plan sometimes at internet blitz...) |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | Marcelo Adaes: I am voting e4. Just because I dont know much about opening theory, and I am comfortable with 1.e4 |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | Marcelo Adaes: <SwitchingQuylthulg>, I think <kellmano> was just joking... |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | 2Towers: I'm voting for <e4> at this time. It's the sharpest with less strong defenses compared to <d4>. I'll investigate how good GMT is and his defenses against it <I think one is Ruy Lopez>. Let's learn the nature of his style of playing. |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | mack: Hey ho. Consider me signed up and properly on board this time. |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | rayyan: yea!!!! |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 1784 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
