|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-29-03 | | parinda: to my recollection . .kasparov has never. i repeat NEVER lost a tournament game playing white against the nimzo-indian .. i remember nigel short even coming up with a superb novelty for black in the 93' world championship and he still didn't win!. .if you want a draw go for the nimzo. . .however for the chess practician the king's indian is a venomous choice...teimour radjabov ain't afraid to play it. . .and his rating is 2660! |
|
| May-29-03 | | Benjamin Lau: Actually Parinda, Kasparov has lost to the Nimzo Indian before. Although as Sneaky Points out in the Nimzo Indian E20 page (where we should continue this discussion) Kasparov has only lost about two games (out of 79), you should all realize WE ARE TALKING ABOUT KASPAROV. Using Kasparov as an example of how the Nimzo Indian may not be sound is just as unfair as using Fischer to prove the King's Indian is sound. They're both great players and did well in almost everything they did. Anyway, we should continue this discussion on the Nimzo Indian (E20!!) page. I'll repost this there. |
|
| Nov-02-04 | | RisingChamp: By the way <Benjamin>"We all know the Kings Gambit sucks".Thats why Spassky has a +16 record with including wins over Bronstien,Karpov and Fisher and no defeats at all?And btw 3 World Champions have lost against KG in classical controls-Tal.(!),Fischer,Karpov.I mean recent ones I am sure Lasker and Stienitz must have lost too becasue it was common then.And BTW u cant refute an opening with some vague general comments like the bishop doesnt show its powers,such and such square is weakenedetc.Show some line leading to a win for white which black cannot avoid,then I will concede that the opening is poor. |
|
| Nov-02-04 | | jcmoral: Well if anyone does <Show some line leading to a win for white which black cannot avoid> what is the point of continuing chess? |
|
| Nov-02-04 | | RisingChamp: I meant in the specific opening Kings Indian Defense,which Benjamin Lau claimed was very poor.Read the above posts for further info on what he said. |
|
| Nov-02-04 | | jcmoral: Any opinion on any opening is bound to have general statements such as you have pointed out. I did read <Benjamin Lau>'s post and he gave supporting statements for his assertions. (For example about the fianchettoed bishop and the e4 square.) Based on these he is entitled to conclude (rightly or wrongly) what he wants about the KID. You can't challenge his conclusion by asking <Show some line leading to a win for white which black cannot avoid> because it just can't be done. What you <can> do is refute his supporting statements. |
|
| Nov-02-04 | | RisingChamp: <Jcmoral>My point is that such supporting statement such as "exchanges basically give black time to recover"is just a general observation and like it or not you cannot evaluate an opening by make general comments like that.KingsGambit for example gives away a pawn for free and weakens the kingside-I cant even attempt to defend it on general grounds or principles,but an opening is not principles,and 600 years of practical attempts have failed to refute the Kings Gambit and players like Bronstein,Spassky have made brilliantly effective use of it.Same way u cant evaluate an opening as complicated as the Kings Indian Defense by saying something like"the center is usually closed and the bishop becomes weak".And if as u say it "just cant be done"which I wholly agree with then one shouldnt be sayjng the opening is a very bad one. |
|
| Nov-03-04 | | RisingChamp: And by the way I cant refute his supporting statements because in themselves they may be true-exchanges may help black,and the bishop may truly be weak-my point is that even if they are correct,the opening may still be good because chess boils down to concrete realities where in a game u have to find winning lines and not just make vague general comments like his "bishop is weak and therefore the opening cannot be good." |
|
| Nov-03-04 | | RisingChamp: P.S "Almost no one has been able to win from black side with consistency"Gellers record with Black in KID was 31 losses 57 wins 71 draws that is fairly impressive. |
|
| Nov-03-04 | | acirce: Evaluations are very often made on general grounds; not only openings and variations but individual moves -- "This move must be bad since it unnecessarily weakens the light squares", "Handing over the initiative to White in such a sharp situation can hardly be good" etc. Asking for a forced win for White is obviously missing the point since he didn't say there was one! Now if I believed in a move although it does, for example, "weaken the light squares", and there is no concrete, forced line to point at, I would say "oh, yes, of course, but on the other hand it puts a stop for White's plans of this and that, and it creates long-term prospects of this and that, and on the whole I feel that it compensates for the weaknesses" If you want to oppose his view on the KID, do it in ways like that. |
|
| Nov-03-04 | | square dance: <acirce> you had posted a french defense game from a tournament(i forget the name) where you won your division. i was wondering if you could recall on which page and on which date you posted this game. sorry to be so vague, but if i had more information then i wouldve just found it myself. ;-) |
|
| Nov-03-04 | | acirce: Yes, it was on the FIDE World Championship (2004) page -- near the end, there hasn't been much kibitzing there since. Go back one page or so for the game itself, then there is some discussion on it. |
|
| Nov-03-04 | | square dance: <acirce> thanks for the info. im a part time french player myself, and i remembered that you had annotated it in some detail so i thought your game might be helpful to me. once again thanks. ;-) |
|
| Nov-03-04 | | square dance: i was on playchess.com playing 3min blitz not to long ago and as i sometimes do i played the french defense and my opponent typed boooooooring after i made my move! so he played 2.d4 and i played the usual 2...d5 and he went into the exchange variation. now if you only play the exchange variation from the white side then i can see why you think the french is boring, but thats not my fault!! so of course i was expecting a dragon sicillian or something ultra sharp when i played my usual 1.e4, but to my absolute surprise he played 1...d5(!! and my repetoire is boring?!?!?), which imo is just about the most stale response to 1.e4 there is. just another amusing playchess.com story. |
|
| Nov-03-04 | | clocked: <sd> 1...d5 can be very sacrificial. What was the follow-up? |
|
| Nov-03-04 | | square dance: <clocked> just the standard scando stuff. ive played against the scandinavian quite a few times and ive come to think thats its a VERY dry and not so fun opening to play. im fine with other people using the scando, but dont call my repetiore boooooooring when you go into the french exchange and then play 1.e4 d5. thats all im saying. btw, it was a 3...Qa5 line. i dont remember the rest, but the opening was very standard iirc. also most, if not all, openings can be very exciting, but in general the 2...Qxd5 variation is very dry imo. i would say its at least as much of a buzz kill to 1.e4 players as the french is. maybe im not good enough to understand the subleties of these openings, but i think the 3.Nc3 lines in the french are quite interesting, especially in comparison to the scandinavian defense. on the other hand i think that the scando is one of the finest ways of sucking the life out of an 1.e4 opening. ;-) now before i have a hoard of angry 1.e4 d5 advocates storming after me i would like to point out that this is my own opinion and not any definitive statement about the scandinavian defense. for the record, i started playing the french because i hated to see it from the white side, so i completely understand how the game feels different depending on which side of the board you're on. |
|
| Nov-03-04 | | square dance: if anyone has any follow ups on either the scandinavian or the french perhaps we should post them on their respective pages. i apologize for already taking up quite a bit of space on this page. |
|
| Nov-03-04 | | RisingChamp: <Acirce>"Black usually begins a kingside attack by pushing his f pawn but this often opens up the way for a white counterattack which can often prove more deadly"How am I supposed to argue with something so vaguely general-especially in such highly tactical positions.Secondly I think ur missing a point-I dont mind general evaluations in a position-u can hardly play sensible chess without them.What I do mind is labelling an entire opening as flawed based upon some such generalization.For example Sveshnikov labelling 1 e4 e5? because it allows the Ruylopez to me that is ridiculous. |
|
| Apr-17-05 | | who: Back to the exchange variation. Is there anyway for black to spice the game up (if white is intent on drawing I mean)? |
|
| May-09-05 | | refutor: <is there a way to spice up the slav exchange if white wants to draw> yes! refer to sneaky's posts from may 2002 |
|
| May-21-05 | | Backward Development: http://www.geocities.com/packdlikes... The ending for black after 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.cxd5 cxd5 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.e3 e6 6.Bb5 Bb4!? 7.Ne5 Qa5 8.Bxc6 bxc6 9.0-0 Bxc3 10.bxc3 Qxc3 11.Qc1 Qxc1 12.Rfxc1 Nd7 13.Nxc6 is surprisingly difficult to hold. The main strategic factors are <1.)The activity of the rooks.>If white succeeds in activating both of his rooks while restraining black's, he'll have a clear advantage. If Black succeeds in activating his rooks without being punished, the game is equal. <2.) The activity of the Knights.>White 's Knight, for the time being, will be the most active piece on the board, alternating between the 6th and 7th ranks usually. If White keeps it active and forces awkward placement of the black knight, he'll have a clear advantage. If Black succeeds in exchanging the knight or placing it aside, he'll have equality. <3.) The activity of the bishops.>This factor is of less importance in and of itself, mainly because they're of opposite colors, but if the other pieces remain on the board, it's of high importance. The axiom "Opposite colored bishops favor the attacking side" comes to mind. <4.) King position.>Black's king will usually be better, because he hasn't castled. However, it is liable to be cut off from a side of the board by white's other pieces or find it self tied to weak pawns in the middle. King activity becomes paramount after the exchange of a few pieces. |
|
| May-22-05 | | refutor: so what do you give as an improvement over 6. ...Bb4!? actually there are probably many...5. ...Bf5 for instance. |
|
| May-22-05 | | Backward Development: After <1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bf4 Bf5 7.e3 e6 8.Bb5>
There isn't much of an alternative at that point. 8...Bd6 9.Ne5 Rc8<9...Bxe5 10.Bxc6 bxc6 11.Bxe5 0-0 12.Bxf6 Qxf6 13.0-0  >10.Bxc6 bxc6 11.0-0 0-0 12.Rc1 Qe7 13.Na4 Bxe5 14.Bxe5 Nd7 14.Nc5 Kasparov vs Dolmatov, 1979
That's right, Kasparov played the exchange variation.Now, an earlier alternative is the relatively untested 6...a6!? which seems to leave the game in a middlegame, and not a difficult ending. For example 7.Ne5 e6 8.e3 Nxe5 9.Bxe5 Bd7 10.Bd3 Bc6 11.Qf3 Nd7 = Hodgson-Sadler, 1996 |
|
| Dec-23-08 | | Cactus: If you follow the main line to move 12, there isn't a single win for white or black. 78 draws. Amazing, really. |
|
| Jan-20-13 | | Tigranny: Pretty boring considering the draws... |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
