| Aug-19-03 | | evertoexcel: Has anyone ever seen/heard of the line 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Bb4 referred to as the "Kramnik-Shirov counterattack?" My (very weak) computer program identified it as such. |
|
Aug-19-03
 | | AgentRgent: I believe I've seen that referred to as the Anglo-Indian Defense. |
|
| Feb-13-04 | | marcus13: It is also play as white (1.e4 c5 2.Nc6 Bb5) |
|
| Mar-25-04 | | ruylopez900: <ete> My computer's database doesn't name it, just gives it the ECO A21. |
|
| Apr-06-04 | | PaulKeres: < marcus13: It is also play as white (1.e4 c5 2.Nc6 Bb5) >,
that doesn't make sense?! do you mean <2.Nc3 Bb4> ? |
|
| Apr-06-04 | | apprenticetocaissa: That doesn't make sense either. <2...Bb5> |
|
| Jul-02-04 | | cuendillar: 1. e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5, the Rossolimo Sicilian, is probably what marcus was thinking of. |
|
| Jan-22-08 | | JustWoodshifting: Isn't this the A20: English Opening/ Nimzowitsch Variation? |
|
| Oct-07-08 | | 0o0o0o0o0: I was looking for the opening, 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Bc5.
It was identified as A21 on the game I played. A21 the Kramnik-Shirov counter. However, 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 d6 was also A21 but with the Kramnik-Shirov bit dropped. I found 8 Kramnik games with the code A21 on this site, but none were against Shirov. So it's still all a bit of a mystery to me. |
|
| Oct-07-08 | | 0o0o0o0o0: If I had kept my mouth shut and my peepers open I would have found this before my first post. Salov vs Kramnik 1-0 40 moves 1993 Linares Spain.
I would have made it a handy little link for you, but don't have a Scooby how to do that :) |
|
| Oct-07-08 | | FICSwoodpusher: Salov vs Kramnik, 1993 |
|
| Oct-11-08 | | 0o0o0o0o0: Thanks |
|
| Aug-05-09 | | Robin01: I have been thinking about playing for black the following line over the board when facing the English: 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 f5 Anybody have any experience with this line? Good or Bad! |
|
| Aug-05-09 | | nescio: <Robin01> I would have liked to play against 2...f5 but nobody has been interested, it seems. Usually Black plays ...f5 a move later. After 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 f5 or 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 d6 3.Nf3 f5 he can reply to 4.d4 with tempo 4...e4. The position after 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 f5 is crying out for 3.d4, weakening the black structure considerably. In Bagirov vs Nezhmetdinov, 1965 things didn't go well for White, but Taimanov came up with a few improvements: 6.Nf3 Nf6 7.Nd5! as played in Azmaiparashvili vs H Westerinen, 1992 6.Nh3 Nf6 7.Qd2!? Bb4 (7...h6 8.Nf4 followed by g3, Bg2 and Nd5) 8.a3 Bxc3 9. Qxc3 d5 10.Ng5+ and White is doing well according to Taimanov. Nevertheless, it's just analysis and, as Tartakower said, "dubious, therefore playable" if you are aware of the risks. After all we rarely encounter a grandmaster. |
|
| Aug-10-09 | | Robin01: <nescio>Thanks. I did play that line the other day, and my opponent did not reply with 3.d4. I posted the game at my site if anyone wants to look at it and post any comments (either good or bad). |
|
| Aug-13-09 | | nescio: <Robin01: I posted the game at my site if anyone wants to look at it and post any comments (either good or bad).> I wouldn't mind looking at it if I could find the game, but you don't provide a link to your site, either here or in your bio :) |
|
| Aug-17-09 | | Robin01: <nescio>Just click on my name and you can go to my site. It is just an entry near the bottom of my site. |
|
Kibitzing
