|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-17-04 | | Kaspy2: Kindermann wrote the book on it. 1867 first play by Winawer, however, first 3...Bb4 play 1861 by Ignatz Kolisch |
|
| Dec-01-04 | | suenteus po 147: I just finished playing a game (starting 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4 Bb4) where I realized I had accidently transposed into the French Defense! My opponent played 4.Bd2 to which I responded 4...c5. There aren't many games in the database with this setup, and none with the following move 5.dxc5. Has anybody else faced this situation in the French, Winawer before? Anybody else not a French player who finds themselvces transposed into them? What do you do? |
|
Dec-01-04
 | | Sneaky: I don't know whether you were White or Black, but here's my advice to both: WHITE: Stop being a weenie with this 2.Nc3 move. Not even Kramnik is THAT boring! Play 2.c4 like a man and contest the center. It's your birthright as White! BLACK: When faced with such weenies as White, do not be so quick to hem in your queen's bishop with ...e6. The old adage that it's hard for Black to develop his QB in d4 lines is true only when White plays c4, so that moves like Qb3 and Qa4+ are at his disposal. Instead, play the opening with a mind to take over e5, using moves like ...g6, ...Bg7, ...Bg4 (to pin the f3 knight), ...Nbd7, and finally of course ...e5. An excellent model game illustrating this strategy is Hort vs Kasparov, 1988. |
|
Dec-01-04
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: I'm puzzled. A Steinitz-Winawer game with 4.exd5 from 1867 is in the database but not in the above list. A Mortimer-Winawer game from 1883 is in the database but not in the above list. Unless I'm unusually blind by my standards, there are no Winawer Winawers in the list. What gives? |
|
| Dec-01-04 | | suenteus po 147: <Sneaky> I was black (which is why I responded with 4...c5). It's interesting that you provide the game example that you did, since I have recently been developing an interest in adding an Indian defense to my 1.d4 repetoire as black, and the King's Indian has been the one that has been yielding me the best results. In lines like this, though, returning to the opening here, I often don't have any trouble developing my Queen's bishop. But then again, it's not like I often see 1.d4 2.c4 either. :) |
|
Dec-01-04
| | Sneaky: Englishman: there are other ECO designations for the Winawer, see French, Winawer (C16)
French, Winawer, Advance (C17)
French, Winawer (C18)
French, Winawer, Advance (C19) |
|
| Dec-28-04 | | e4Newman: Any thoughts on 9...c5 in this variation that I faced as white. Is it some sort of gambit? 9...Nc6 seems more logical developing a piece. ===
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4.a3
4...Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.Qg4 (A tricky move I researched which allows me to regain the pawn, and keep black from castling to the king-side. On the down side, black can gain time in chasing my queen with his rook.) 6...Nf6 7.Qxg7 Rg8 8.Qh6 Rg6
9.Qe3, and now...
9...c5 (I never did understand this move. 9...Nc6 developes a piece. Is this a gambit? One benefit, it has the effect of now tripling white's pawns on the c-file. Not a desirable situation.) 10.Ne2 (!? I wanted to create complications by initiating an attack on the e4 pawn by getting this knight to g3. My research suggests that this novelty needs more work. The typical sequence is to attack black's advanced e-pawn with my f-pawn, then develop my knight to f3.) 10...Nc6 (!? An interesting move which could negate my knight efforts, forcing it to defend my d-pawn. As my position is not terribly strong, I should be compelled to play 11.dxc5 to maintain a material advantage. If this truly is a gambit, it's a complicated one.) ==================
The game continued with black developing a minor advantage and accurately turning that into a win. Oh well, lesson learned if I could get a little help. |
|
| Dec-28-04 | | Dave Murray: I used to play this line before, 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.Qg4 but I usually ended up losing even though my games were very exciting. So I swithed to 6. f3!? i had better practical results here, but black doesn't really have that many problems, and they have this annoying 6...e3 move. |
|
| Dec-28-04 | | Dave Murray: According to the graph it looks like Winawer is not really popular anymore, I didn't think so at all. |
|
| Dec-29-04 | | sneaky pete: <Dave Murray> Most whites play 4.e5 .. which leads to C16/C17/C18/C19. C15 is reserved for less promising lines where white doesn't play 4.e5 .. but 4.Ne2 .. 4.a3 ..and other move 4 alternatives, except 4.exd5 .. which is C01 the exchange variation. |
|
| Dec-29-04 | | e4Newman: In the line I posted, black's advanced e-pawn was a real thorn. I've played similar queen adventures as white, but where black's KN is on e7 instead of f6, and doesn't protect the pawn on e4. I can't remember the exact line, but in that case the queen captures the e-pawn instead of the g-pawn - problem solved. |
|
| May-12-05 | | refutor: any opinions on the immediate 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qg4 alekhine beat euwe with it in 1935...i'm not a fan (as white) of the winawer...is it a good alternative? |
|
| May-12-05 | | WorldChampeen: As for 4. Qg4 by White, the onus is up to Black to have precision play to avoid trouble. With White, you probably won't run into things causing great consternation on your behalf; but the upswing of it for black is to possibly place a Rook at g8, black's king knight goes to e7 and protects him there.... I'll keep it short... that is one opening I understand, talk of the French; the advance and exchange is seen all the time in internet games, kind of like the way one can see the Queen's Gambit Accepted all the time in such games...but one isn't going to see that "accepted" or the "advance" and "exchange" that much in a tournament...but your more classic stuff for some reason. |
|
| Jun-12-06 | | sitzkrieg: A little question on a line i saw.
What is the idea behind black's last move (Qd8-d7) leading to this position?;
click for larger view
Is the idea to cover g7 after f6 or 5? Something else? |
|
| Nov-03-06 | | drukenknight: an interesting Q sack that came up out of a winawer, the crappy chess lab computer seems a little confused about it. It's always fun to see how pc's evaluate these crazy sacrifices, so what do you guys think of the follow up to this; 1 e4 e6
2. d4 d5
3. Nc3 Bb4
4. Bd3 Nc6
5. Be3 dxe4
6. Bxe4 Bd7
7. Nf3 Nf6
8. Bg5 Nxe4!?
|
|
| Mar-18-07 | | Plato: In World Championship play, the Winawer was adopted a total of 18 times. The players to use it as Black were Alekhine, Euwe, and Botvinnik. From these games, the overall score is 67% for White: +9 -3 =6 |
|
| Mar-18-07 | | laskereshevsky: <sitzkrieg:....What is the idea behind black's last move (Qd8-d7)...> the idea is to play 5. ...b6 and 6. ...♗a6 for change the light squares ♗, wich one is often a very sad piece for the black in the winnawer french. if the black play at once 4. ...b6 in place of ♕d7. when the wihte move 5.♗b5+, forcing 5. ...c6 its unpleasant for the black. So ♕d7 prevent this. ( of course after 5.♗d2 b6 6.♗b5 the move 6. ...c6 its forced, but in black favour there is the not activ position of the white's ♗d2) another point is in case of 5.♕g4 is possible to defend the g♙ with 5. ...f5, and after 6.♕h5+ the black can play ...♕f7 and g6 either, its a matter of taste....even if several theorist considering ♕f7 quite better |
|
| May-14-07 | | slomarko: i didnt know this opening even has its own webpage. |
|
| May-14-07 | | Plato: <slomarko> Every opening variation does. Just search by ECO code and click on it, or click on the ECO code on the game page of any given game. BTW, for Winawer fans like myself: the stats above are not meant to imply anything bad about the Winawer; I was just doing some research on opening variations that have been used in World Championship games. |
|
| May-14-07 | | slomarko: <Plato> thanks i didnt know that.
I'm curious was Botvinnik the last one who played the Winawer in a world championship match? (as far as i remember Karpov played the Tarrash against Korchnoi's french.) and if the answer is yes what do you think is the reason for this 50 years absence? |
|
| May-14-07 | | Plato: <slomarko> The answer is yes (as you can gather from my Mar-18 post). And the reason was, as you know, that either the players with White or the players with Black did not choose to go for it. Very simple. It did not suit their style either with White or Black, so they chose different systems instead. For example, when Korchnoi played the French against Karpov in 1978, both times Karpov played 3.Nd2 -- avoiding the Winawer, which he knew was what Korchnoi played almost invariably against 3.Nc3. Instead, Karpov chose the Tarrasch. If you're going to judge a system's soundness by whether or not it has been played in a World Championship match in the last 46 years (which I know is what you're getting at, given the context of our previous discussion), then I'm afraid you'll have to wrongly conclude that *many* systems are unsound, saying that those systems are "for dinosaurs," or "antiquated," or "dead, refuted, finished!" like you said about the Winawer. |
|
| May-14-07 | | slomarko: <Plato> would you at least agree that the najdorf for example is much more flexable? |
|
| May-14-07 | | Plato: That's a very general question. The Winawer is flexible, too, as it offers many very different ways for Black to proceed against any variation. I would consider it much more flexible than 3...Nf6, for example. Note that this doesn't mean I think it's objectively better, just that it offers more flexibility. Having played both, I believe the Winawer offers a wider range of different kinds of lines and types of positions to choose from (compared to the Classical). If you don't think of the Winawer as a flexible opening, then we either disagree on the meaning of "flexible" as it applies to chess, or else you might not know the relevant theory of the Winawer and its many sub-variations (which is to be expected since you don't play it as Black). |
|
| May-14-07 | | slomarko: well i dont know but you are always without the black bishop and the center is usualy blocked with e5, i dont know how much can you vary there. same goes for the 3...Nf6 french but it least its much easier to play. |
|
| May-14-07 | | Plato: <slomarko> You don't even have to trade the Black bishop on c3, necessarily. For example there are even lines like the "Swarm" (Swiss-Armenian variation) with 4.e5 c5, 5.a3 Ba5!? There too the bishop is often traded, eventually, but the game has a very different character. But of course even after trading on c3 Black still has many different kinds of options, such as the "Poisoned Pawn" variation which is completely different from the 7....0-0 variation, etc. And that's not even scraping the surface. It's a fascinating opening, truly! |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
