|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-26-04 | | azaris: Almost any gambit line will do as long as it's not ridiculously unsound or theoretically exhausted (and few gambit lines are). Also there are plenty of sharp non-gambit lines GMs avoid in serious play but might go into for the fun of it in casual or simul games. |
|
Oct-26-04
 | | Gypsy: < azaris: Almost any gambit line will do as long ...> In other words, a mostly tactical high-variance approach? |
|
| Oct-27-04 | | RisingChamp: <Azaris>Ok I suppose if you study some unusual opening very well you can easily kill higher rated players.I have killed quite a few 2000 plus players with the Morra Gambit though I am only 1900 at best. |
|
| Dec-14-04 | | Knight13: So the point is to fianchetto in the first few move, right? |
|
| Dec-14-04 | | EnglishOpeningc4: b3 ♗b2 f4 ♘f3 d3 e4 ♘d2 I beilieve |
|
| Dec-29-04 | | Backward Development: interesting opening of the day. flouting the principle of 'forcing the issue' as white. but a fine percentage. |
|
| Dec-29-04 | | AgentRgent: Ah, my old stomping grounds. I specialized in the Nimzo-Larsen for about 8 years, before switching to the Reti. The idea here is that white is content to "save" his opening move advantage and to cash it in at a more critical time. The critical response is of course 1...e5 where Black intends to close the diagonal and keep it closed, White intends to undermine Black's center and unleash the Bishops power. |
|
| Dec-29-04 | | square dance: a 1750 uscf player who regulary plays an advocate of 1.b3 says that 1.Nf3 then 2.b3 is better than just 1.b3. any opinions on this matter? |
|
| Dec-30-04 | | sneaky pete: <square dance> It depends on what sort of position you're aiming for as white. The system introduced by Nimzowitsch is characterized by (absolute) control of square e5 and is really the combined Queen's Indian and Nimzo Indian defences with reversed colours. It works best if black develops "automatically" as he would against any d4-opening, so .. d5 .. c5 .. Nf6 .. Nc6 (Bb5 ..) etc. It doesn't work so well if black uses a King's Indian set-up or plays .. d5 (.. c6) .. Bg4 as Vidmar did against Nimzowitsch in New York, 1927. Bird sometimes reached a similar position after 1.f4 .. (in Nimzo's system ideally white plays Ne5 .. followed by f4 .. and Nb1-d2-f3 at some point. 1.b3 .. as played by Larsen and Ljubojevic allows 1... e5 and leads to a completely different type of play is 1... e5 is actually played. I sometimes played Nimzo's set-up long ago, impressed by some of his games and because it was easy to play. You don't have to know any theory, just understand the basic idea. Of course I started with 1.Nf3 .. because after 1.b3 e5 I would have been at a loss what to play. Larsen is another original (as were Bird and Nimzowitch). I admired his play in the 60ies and 70ies, but as I failed to understand most of his ideas I never tried to imitate his style of play. |
|
| Dec-30-04 | | AgentRgent: <square dance> The primary difference between 1. b3 and 1. Nf3 when attempting to play the Nimzo-Larsen is that while 1. Nf3 prevents 1...e5 if Black plays 1...g6 then the true Nimzo-Larsen lines are virtually unattainable. |
|
| Jan-04-05 | | Flo: I think that the Nimzovich-Larsen attack is a good opening. Many players say that this opening isn't good because it doesn't control the center. But Bb2 controls the center very well! With the moves c4 and/or f4 has white a good position! |
|
| Feb-15-05 | | NakoSonorense: why is this opening named after Aron Nimzowitsch? He only has 3 games in this database where he uses this opening: 1 win, 1 draw, & 1 lose. Larsen, on the other hand, played over 40 games with this opening. |
|
| Feb-15-05 | | NakoSonorense: and why is Nimzowitsch misspelled in the name of the opening? <Nimzovich-Larsen Attack (A01)> shouldn't it be <Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack (A01)>? |
|
Feb-15-05
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: NakoSonorense, many of Nimzo's games are tough to classify. His game against Vidmar (I think it was NY 1927) can be classified as a Nimzo-Indian, Queen's Indian, Bogo-Indian or even a Dutch! For a while, he was fond of opening 1.e3 (see New York 1927), which is technically the vant Kruys, but which he used to transpose into almost anything else (including the Nimzo-Larsen). Nimzowitsch didn't like to permit 1...e5, so he preferred to open with 1.Nf3 first. So look around; you should find quite a few games with the early Queen side fianchetto. |
|
| Feb-15-05 | | karnak64: <NakoSonorense> asks, "why is Nimzowitsch misspelled in the name of the opening?" I'll hazard an amateur's guess (and you get what you pay for): Since Nimzowitsch was born in Latvia during a time of Russian domination, his name was perhaps originally spelled in the Russian Cyrillic alphabet. "Nimzovich" and "Nimzowitsch" are probably two close transliterations into the Latin alphabet that we are presently using. I'm guessing neither is exactly wrong or exactly right. However, there must be at least one Latvian on this board under whose correction I most humbly stand. |
|
| Feb-16-05 | | NakoSonorense: thanks so much <An Englishman> and <karnak64> for answering my questions! <An Englishman> I'll look for those games |
|
| Feb-16-05 | | Swindler: Acctually his name should be spelled "Niemzowitsch", but the passport agency misspelled it when he went into exil in 1919. He was happy he got the passport and didn't want to risk a fuzz, so he kept it. |
|
| Mar-14-05 | | OpusDecorum: I played Larsen in simul some 15 years ago when the Nimzo-Larsen was beginning to disappear completely from standard GM-repertoire. When he came to my board and saw 1.b3 (which I thought was pretty cheeky) he smiled and praised the virtues of "his" opening" for a few moments. I told him I was trying out some new ideas and he said he thought the openings basic idea was nowhere near refuted as someone (Karpov I think) had just claimed. Later in the game I was two pawns down in what was becoming a Queen endgame and was starting to think about resigning, when Larsen suddenly made an unexplainable pawn move, that allowed perpetual check. I can still recall the feeling of making that first check and offering the draw. Larsen accepted and smiled. Thinking back, I think Larsen might have done it on purpose not to discourage me from 1.b3. And I still play it regularly - to the absolute frustration of all those black players who are stuck with all their fancy sicilian theory :-) |
|
| Mar-14-05 | | NakoSonorense: Very interesting story, <OpusDecorum>. I thought that when you played in simuls the grandmaster always got white and the amateur black. |
|
| Mar-14-05 | | Dick Brain: <Nako & Opus> Larsen played alternate white and black in his simuls. As an interesting coincidence, I played 1. b3 against him as White in a simul as well, but this was more like 30 years ago. IIRC, the first few moves were 1. b3 c5 2. Bb2 Nc6 3. c4 e5 4. e3 d6 5. Nc3 f5 |
|
| Mar-15-05 | | whiskeyrebel: I'm a humble class "A" player. I seem to most often face opponents in the 1800-2200 range. I've found that opening with b3 can work out well in several ways. Black can either react too aggressively..or too passively. If black has prepared and replies with lines from books..that's alright with me. I'll still be more familiar with what's happening. I find that often black just starts slapping pieces out figuring b3 is just a joke..or that there's no danger developing "routinely". I play the Reti setup too. It's nice to have both tools handy. I tend to spend a lot of time in the opening looking for weaknesses brought about by lazy, routine looking developement by black. I've picked up a few surprise lines I can't wait to use by reading the "Everyman" book from cover to cover twice. |
|
| Mar-15-05 | | OpusDecorum: I destinctly remember that it was black-white alternate because Larsen played the Ruy Lopez with the white pieces next to me - he almost never did. I guess he tried to use the opportunity to play some stuff he usually only played with the black pieces. If it was me I guess I'd stick to similar systems across the boards in a simul. But not Larsen. He played all kinds of weird systems conceeding only two draws on 20 boards. I never play classic rated games anymore, but I can highly recommend 1.b3 as a weapon against agressive Internet Blitz players. They always "slap out the pieces" as Whiskeyrebel said and suddenly find themselves tangled up in some no good attack with their clock just tick-tocking away.... |
|
| Apr-28-05 | | olaf4lena: Here is an example of Black not closing down the diagonal and paying for it: I Johannesson vs H Duncanson, 2005 |
|
| May-18-05 | | olaf4lena: As an ameteur, I have been looking for an opening that will take opponents out of their well practiced Sicilian/pirc/whatever, so I can focus on learning tactics rather than simply getting swatted by mistakes early in the game? Might the N-L Attack be a good choice for this? Its strategy seems simple enough, and it seems solid, however, is it too passive, giving up White's tempo from move 1? Or should I just stick with trying to play Guico Piano and just grit my teeth and fight when someone pulls out their defense? |
|
| May-18-05 | | e4Newman: Don't worry about the tempo <olaf4lena>, you're building a strong position with ideal piece placement once the game opens up. I tend to start with 1.Nf3, then follow with 2.b3 - scroll through the kibitzing on this page, it's good. A word of caution, my experience has been this - I still study the common openings because I see them from both sides of the board. More than 75% of the N-L or Reti games I play are from the white side of the board. Therefore, I have less appreciation for black's resources in this one. Stick with it until you know it well enough to learn others, you'll do fine that way :) |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
