|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-25-04 | | PaulKeres: What should White do next? Any opinions welcome |
|
| Mar-25-04 | | actual: White can play 3.d3 4.Nf3 and if black doesn't play c6 and d5 then white plays c3 with the intention of playing d4 later. |
|
| Mar-25-04 | | Helloween: 3.Nf3 is an inferior line of the Petrov, therefore 3.d3 probably the soundest move, leading to quiet, Giuocco Piano-like positions. 3.d4 has also been tried quite a bit, and is White's riskiest attempt; 3...exd4 4.Nf3(certainly not 4.e5? d5! and Black is definitely better)4...Bc5 5.0-0 d6 6.c3 dxc3 7.Nxc3 0-0 and Black is slightly better. |
|
| Mar-25-04 | | actual: <3.d3 probably the soundest move, leading to quiet, Giuocco Piano-like positions.> I think that they are more like ruy lopez positions unless white is content to stay in the pianissimo line. |
|
| Mar-25-04 | | Helloween: I disagree. You are probably referring to the closed Ruy Lopez, right? The positions are not that similar to a closed Spanish game, however, they often transpose directly into the Italian. |
|
| Mar-25-04 | | actual: S Beshukov vs L Elamri, 2004 in this game the position after 10. d4 resembles a closed spanish. |
|
| Mar-25-04 | | ruylopez900: I don't think that they would really transpose into the Guioco Piano because of attacks on pawns, and weird replies. They might transpose into the Guioco Pianissimo with all four Knights out though. 1.e4 e5 2.♗c4 ♘f6 3.d3 ♗c5 4.♘f3 ♘c6 5.0-0 0-0 6.♘c3 d6 But I'm not sure that's all sound. |
|
| Jul-31-05 | | BaranDuin: I don't think 3. d4 is sound at all
I recently played in a local tournament against a 2093-rated opponent (I only have 1586). He played 3. d4 and I simply grabbed the pawn and nearly won the game! (Lost because of time trouble.) |
|
| Jul-31-05 | | SneechLatke: I rather like the straightforward 3.♘c3, provoking black to play 3...♘xe4 and enter the relm of complications known as the Frankenstein-Dracula. (after 4. ♕h5 ♘d6 5. ♗b3 etc.) <BaranDuin> I quite agree. 3.d4 looks like a premature attempt at seizing the initiative, which should be rebuffed with accurate play. |
|
| Jul-31-05 | | WMD: Of course 3.d4 is sound. A trap which Black often falls for in blitz play is 3...Nxe4?! 4.dxe5 Nxf2? (4...Bc5? 5.Qd5) 5.Qf3. |
|
| Jul-31-05 | | SneechLatke: <WMD> however, if Black plays the natural 3...ed4, (and if 4. e5 Qe7) he should be at least equal, no? |
|
| Jul-31-05 | | SneechLatke: On second thought, I see your point <WMD>. 3...ed4 4. e5 Qe7 5. Qe2 could be dangerous for black, but what about 3...ed4 4. e5 d5!?, where black should have a fine position, something like an improved (for Black) form of the Max-Lange Attack. |
|
| Jul-31-05 | | WMD: Of course, but can you demonstrate an advantage for White after 3.d4 in mainline Sicilians? |
|
| Jul-31-05 | | SneechLatke: <Of course, but can you demonstrate an advantage for White after 3.d4 in mainline Sicilians?> What is this supposed to mean?
I'm not saying my analysis is fool-proof or set in stone, and bishop's opening is a long way from the Open Sicilian. |
|
| Jul-31-05 | | WMD: I switched over to playing the Bishop's Opening shortly before Tim Harding came out with his review of the opening in general, and the Urusov Gambit in particular: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibit...
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibit...
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibit...
I'm the first to admit it doesn't give White much if Black knows the score, but it's become like a family pet which I haven't the heart to put down. |
|
| Jul-31-05 | | WMD: <What is this supposed to mean?> Is the soundness of the Urusov Gambit and Open Sicilian to be judged on the basis of 3.d4? |
|
| Jul-31-05 | | SneechLatke: <WMD> Sorry, if my meaning was unclear: I was only analyzing the Urusov Gambit in particualar, starting with 1.e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d4. I make no claims to the soundness of the Open Sicilian or any other line involving 3.d4. |
|
| Jul-31-05 | | ughaibu: 3.d4 is a reversed elephant, surely as worth a go as anything. |
|
| Jul-31-05 | | WMD: There's some excellent analysis of the gambit at:
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller... |
|
| Jul-31-05 | | Koster: Anything to avoid the Petroff I guess. |
|
| Jul-31-05 | | ughaibu: 1.d4 is an easy way to avoid the Petroff. |
|
| Aug-01-05 | | mack: Surely not playing chess in the first place is the easiest way to avoid the Petroff? What does everyone think of 3.Qe2? That can cause all sorts of long thinks from black. |
|
| Aug-01-05 | | SEMENELIN: what can you say about qf3 thats more counteractive :) nyahahahehahah |
|
| Aug-08-05 | | SneechLatke: <mack> I had a game at the MN open a few years back which started with 1.e4 e5 2.♗c4 ♘f6 3.♕e2 where I played 3...♗c5, which ECO14 evaluates as =. I don't see what's so great about this move either, since white doesn't really challenge black at all. |
|
| Mar-01-06 | | LluviaSean: So much for the "Knights Before Bishops" rule... |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
