< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Feb-17-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: I think black thought "Dang, there goes a piece." |
|Mar-29-04|| ||ArturoRivera: I think the respose of black was to agresive instead of the nicer (and with better position) bremen variations wich leads to a reversed sicilian with a move more for white, however, black must have been very stupid or very unconcious for eating that pawn. |
|Jul-30-12|| ||Xeroxx: Nxe4 was the wrong medicine|
|Sep-25-12|| ||Abdel Irada: This line is not entirely unplayable with 3. ...c6. White gets to keep the pawn, but Black gets pressure on the d-file if he does.|
|Sep-25-12|| ||FSR: <Abdel Irada> I agree. Compare 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.c4 c6, where 4.dxc6 is considered dubious.|
|Sep-25-12|| ||perfidious: <Abdel Irada: This line is not entirely unplayable with 3. ...c6. White gets to keep the pawn, but Black gets pressure on the d-file if he does.>|
In the 1980s, Harry Lyman played 1....d5 twice against me. In both games I responded 2.cxd5 Nf6 3.Nc3, as I had a healthy respect for my opponent's tactical acumen and was content to keep the game in quieter waters.
< FSR: ....Compare 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.c4 c6, where 4.dxc6 is considered dubious.>
When I was about 2100, I played straight into this, grabbed the pawn and won after a struggle, discovering only after the game that this was well-known to offer Black lots of play-which I discovered at the board, of course! In later games, I smartened up and played into the Panov, even though I was playing the Caro-Kann as Black quite often by then.
|Sep-25-12|| ||The Last Straw: Wow, this opening is named after Schulz!|
|Sep-25-12|| ||FSR: <perfidious: ... < FSR: ....Compare 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.c4 c6, where 4.dxc6 is considered dubious.>|
When I was about 2100, I played straight into this, grabbed the pawn and won after a struggle, discovering only after the game that this was well-known to offer Black lots of play-which I discovered at the board, of course!>
I grabbed this pawn sac once as a 1600, but knowing full well that it was supposed to be good for Black. I crushed the guy - but I wouldn't play the line now.
|Sep-26-12|| ||Abdel Irada: <perfidious>: <...In both games I responded 2.cxd5 Nf6 3.Nc3, as I had a healthy respect for my opponent's tactical acumen and was content to keep the game in quieter waters.>|
There is such a thing as too much respect. I used to play blitz regularly against someone who had a c-pawn fetish: He'd always open with 1. c4, and with Black 1. ...c5 if any.
I'm not sure if it was a matter of misplaced "respect" or a desire to avoid book lines, or if he was simply too stubborn to change move order, but we played many games in which, with White, he'd open 1. c4 as always, and I'd aim for a Grünfeld with 1. ...d5, expecting the continuation you described. However, he'd reflexively play 2. ♘c3 and after 2. ...d4, he'd retreat the knight and cede the initiative.
This became still worse when he had Black and played the Sicilian. I used to play the Smith-Morra against him, and he'd decline it as follows: 1. e4, c5; 2. d4, ♘c6?!; 3. d5, ♘b8; 4. f4, d6; 5. ♘f3, ♘f6; 6. ♘c3, g6?!, whereupon he almost invariably fell into a miniature with some such continuation as 7. e5, dxe5; 8. fxe5, ♘fd7?!; 9. e6, ♘f6?; 10. ♗b5†. Various vagaries would ensue, and he'd resign a few moves later. (The curious thing was that he wasn't nearly as bad a player as this makes him sound, and could even be tactically dangerous when not irremediably positionally compromised. He never did quite seem able, however, to admit that this "system" didn't work.)
But at least he handled his English with White better than a Charles Savery whom I once played in a tournament in San Francisco in the mid-1980s. Before I faced him, I learned precisely one thing about him: that he always opened with the English. Not having much time for scholarship in the opening (about which I knew very little at the time), I looked into _MCO-12_ and found a cute trap — a completely aleatory trap, I should add, that White can easily avoid — and deliberately played for it.
The result was almost as if I'd controlled the White pieces: 1. c4, ♘f6; 2. ♘c3, d5; 3. cxd5, ♘xd5; 4. e4?!, ♘b4; 5. d4?, ♕xd4; 6. ♗e3, ♕xd1†; 7. ♖xd1, ♘c2†; 8. ♔d2, ♘xe3; 9. ♔xe3, e5; 10. ♘f3, ♗c5†; 11. ♔e2, f6; 12. ♔e1, ♗e6; 13. ♗d3, ♘d7; 14. ♔e2, o-o-o; 15. ♖he1, g5, and White resigned.
What I've since realized is that many English players use the opening precisely because they don't feel comfortable with tactical complications and think that by playing "quietly," they can avoid them. Unfortunately for such players, tactical timidity is often its own punishment; for it is precisely with the sorts of tactics that they most hope to avoid that they find themselves battered.
|Sep-26-12|| ||FSR: <Abdel Irada: ... What I've since realized is that many English players use the opening precisely because they don't feel comfortable with tactical complications and think that by playing "quietly," they can avoid them. Unfortunately for such players, tactical timidity is often its own punishment; for it is precisely with the sorts of tactics that they most hope to avoid that they find themselves battered.>|
Interesting thought. Reminds me of an old guy named Richard Guetl whom I knew when I was a kid. He always played 1.c4 as White, and wasn't a bad player as long as the game stayed in positional mode. But whenever his opponent started attacking him, soundly or not, he fell to pieces.
|Sep-26-12|| ||Abdel Irada: It seems to me that a lot of English players are like that: They want to avoid tactics and sharp lines. The trouble is that one has to learn about those lines sooner or later, because the tactics used in them can emerge in other openings — even the English.|
I also think that I'm the richer as a chess player for having studied the old-fashioned open games, such as the Möller Attack in the Giuoco Piano, and grounded myself in chess as it was played by the Romantic school. I may no longer use those openings today, but I think I have a deeper understanding of the game thanks to my past studies of them. And there is a certain joy to be found in those old games, flawed though they may be, where players thought for themselves and created opening theory over the board, with often entertaining results.
|Sep-26-12|| ||perfidious: < Abdel Irada: There is such a thing as too much respect....>|
Most certainly there is, but I made adjustments to individual opponents who were familiar; as you'll see by playing through some of Harry Lyman's games, he was most capable tactically, though less so in a positional struggle, and my approach was predicated on this knowledge.
Playing at the board isn't always about making the objectively best move: there are often alternatives, and my aim was to set maximum problems for my opponent. When I play poker, I do things the same way when possible, especially against the top players I've faced. It was fine for Fischer to state, 'I don't believe in psychology, I believe in good moves', but we mortals aren't quite so adept in that regard.
|Sep-26-12|| ||FSR: <perfidious: ... It was fine for Fischer to state, 'I don't believe in psychology, I believe in good moves', but we mortals aren't quite so adept in that regard.>|
Fischer said that, but I doubt that he actually lived it. One example that has always struck me: recall that in the first issue of the American Chess Quarterly (Summer 1961), edited by Larry Evans, Fischer opined that "the King's Gambit is busted. It loses by force." http://www.academicchess.org/images... Do you think it's a coincidence that Fischer played his first-ever King's Gambit (as White in a tournament game, that is) <against Evans> two years later? Fischer vs Larry Evans, 1963 My bet is that Evans was a wee bit surprised, and that that was Fischer's intention. Fischer crushed Evans (his first-ever win against Evans) en route to his historic 11-0 triumph in the U.S. Championship. He waited almost five years - until Vinkovci 1968 - to play the King's Gambit again in a serious game. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...
|Sep-26-12|| ||perfidious: <FSR> Most ironic indeed that it's Evans whose name you cite, for he quoted that psychology line in his column in Chess Life on at least one occasion.|
|Sep-26-12|| ||Abdel Irada: Of course Fischer didn't believe in psychology. And psychology returned the favor.|
|Aug-23-13|| ||FSR: As <Abdel Irada> has said on the Rogoff page, 3.Qa4+! is a better attempt at refutation. I think that that move, rather than 3.e4!?, is the reason that almost no one plays this line for Black. If everyone played 3.e4, a lot of people (quite possibly including me) would be interested in playing this for Black.|
|Aug-24-13|| ||FSR: After further consideration, and consultation with my friend Houdini 3, I think that simply 3.d4! Nxd5 4.Nf3! transposing to the QGD, Marshall Variation is best. Both 3.e4 c6! and 3.Qa4+ Bd7 (or 3...c6, which can tranpose) give Black sufficient compensation for a pawn.|
<1.c4 d5!? 2.cxd5 Nf6> (2... Qxd5 3.Nc3 +0.48 Houdini 3) and now
<3.e4> c6! 4.Qc2 cxd5 5.e5 Nfd7 6.d4 Nc6 7.Nf3 g6 8.Nc3 Nb6 9.Be2 Bg7 10.Qd1 O-O 11.O-O Bf5 12.Bf4 Rc8 13.Rc1 a6 14.h3 f6 15.exf6 exf6=
<3.d4> and now:
a. 3... Nxd5 tranposes to the Queen's Gambit Declined, Marshall Variation. Then:
1) 4.Nf3 Bf5 (4...f5!? Houdini) is the main line. Houdini analyzes as best 5.Nbd2 Nf6 6.Qb3 Qc8 7.g3 c6 8.Bg2 Nbd7 9.O-O e6 10.Nc4 Be7 11.Bf4 O-O 12.Nd6 Bxd6 13.Bxd6 Rd8 14. Nd2 Nb6 15. Bc5 Bg6 16.Rfd1 Qc7 17. e4 +0.54
2) 4.e4!? Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Nf3 exd4 7.Qxd4 Qxd4 8.Nxd4 Bc5 9.Ndb5 Na6 10.Bf4 O-O 11.Be2 Be6 12.Rc1 Bb6 13.O-O +0.33
b. 3...c6!? 4.dxc6 Nxc6 5.Nf3 e5 (5... Bg4 6.Nc3 Bxf3 7.exf3 Qxd4 8.Qb3 Qd7 9.Be3 e6 10.Rd1 Qc7 11.a3 Be7 12.Be2 O-O 13.O-O Rac8 14. Rc1 +0.43) 6. Nxe5 Nxe5 7. dxe5 Qxd1+ 8. Kxd1 Ng4 9.Ke1 Bc5 10.e3 O-O 11.Bd2 Nxe5 12.Bc3 Re8 13.Nd2 Bf5 14.Nb3 Bb6 15.Be2 Rac8 16.h4 h6 17.h5 Be4 18.Kf1 Bd8 19.Nd4 a6 20.Rd1 +0.62
<3.Nc3> Nxd5 transposes to an offbeat but playable English line, and is likely to further transpose to a Gruenfeld (e.g. 4.d4 g6 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 - Gruenfeld, Exchange Variation) or QGD, Semi-Tarrasch (4.d4 e6 5.Nf3 c5).
<3.Qa4+> (This materialistic move was played only once out of 126 games in Mega Database 2013.) 3...c6 (equally good is 3...Bd7 4.Qb3 c6 5.e4 Nxe4 6.Qxb7 Qb6 7.Qxb6 axb6 8.Nc3 Nxc3 9.dxc3 cxd5 10.Be3 Nc6 11.Nf3 e5 12.O-O-O Rxa2 13.Rxd5 Be6 14.Rd1 Ra1+ 15.Kd2 Ra2 16.Kc1 Ra1+ draw) 4.dxc6 (4.e4 Bd7 5.Qb3 Nxe4 6.Qxb7 Qb6 transposes to the above line.) 4...Nxc6 and now:
1) 5.Nf3 Bd7 6.e3 e5 7.Nc3 h6 8.d3 Rc8 9.Be2 Bd6 10.O-O O-O 11.Qb3 a6 12.Bd2 Be6 13.Qa4 Qb6 14.Rab1 Qa7 15.h3 b5 16.Qd1 Rfd8 17.Rc1 Bf5 18.e4 Be6 19.Be3 Qb7 20.a3 Bb8 21.Qd2 a5 22.b4 axb4 23.axb4 Bd6 (23... Nxb4?! 24.Rb1 Bd6 25.Rfc1 Qb8 26.Rb2 Bd7 27.d4 exd4 28. Nxd4 Bf8 29.Bf1 Qe5 30.Nf3 Qe6 31.e5 Ne8 32.Ne2 Rxc1 33.Nxc1 Qe7 34. Nb3 +0.39) 24.Qb2 Bxb4 +0.19
2) 5.g3 e5 6.Nc3 Bc5 7.Nf3 Qb6 8.e3 O-O with sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn.
|Dec-22-13|| ||Dr Esenville: Dr. Heinz Lehmann vs. Wolfgang Schulz|
|Mar-06-14|| ||Xeroxx: quality game|
|Mar-06-14|| ||whiteshark: With such brilliant imagery one invariably finds oneself questioning why the <Schulz Gambit> hasn't become more popular.|
|Apr-26-14|| ||GumboGambit: I guess Schulz really did KNOW NOTHING . . . .
Im sure Hoffstetter and Burkhalter would not have fallen prey to such a trap. Klink, perhaps.
|Jun-02-14|| ||WJW147: Why is this game included in your Database?|
|Jun-02-14|| ||WJW147: Is it because "I know nothing", or because HH died with Bob Crane AND his murderess. The poor old sergeant is always turning a blind eye.|
|Jun-02-14|| ||Granny O Doul: Interesting that almost nobody ever tried 3. Qa4+. That was the move endorsed by Larry Christiansen, in explaining "frankly, I would not recommend 1...d5 to anybody but my opponents".|
|Aug-09-17|| ||whiteshark: <anno 2017> Hurra, der Kasper kommt in die Stadt... http://www.nachdenkseiten.de/upload...|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·