|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-29-04 | | Vischer: Since when is this the Canal-Sokolsky?? I have always known this as the Moscow Sicilian. |
|
| Mar-29-04 | | ruylopez900: My computer's opening book says this is the Moscow Variation as well, but then it identifies it as the Canal-Sokolsky Attack after 3...Bd7 |
|
| Mar-29-04 | | OneBadDog: This opening reeks of cowardice. |
|
| Mar-29-04 | | BiLL RobeRTiE: I couldn't agree more. The only honorable way of dodging the open Sicilian is with 2. c3. |
|
| Mar-29-04 | | SicilianDragon: The closed Siclian and Grand Prix Attack aren't exactly dishonorable either. |
|
| Mar-29-04 | | ruylopez900: But it must be kept in mind that it is barely honourable to dodge the Open Sicilian! Long live the Dragon, Najdorf and Scheveningen Variations! |
|
| Mar-29-04 | | OneBadDog: Well said, ruylopez900. |
|
| Mar-29-04 | | actual: I used to only play the open sicilian as white until I tried out the c3 anti-sicilian. I would rather play an anti-line in order to have a decent chance of winning instead of an open variation that my opponent knows 20+ moves deep ;-) |
|
| Mar-30-04 | | OneBadDog: I still like playing open sicilians. I really don't know anybody who knows the openings 20 moves deep. I don't anticipate playing any GMs or IMs in the near future so I thinks it's ok to play the really complicated stuff. |
|
| Mar-30-04 | | Vischer: RL900, you'd hate the games of Rublevsky, he's known for avoiding the open sicilians. I play open sicilians myself, unless 2...e6 is played, then I play 3.c3. |
|
| Apr-01-04 | | ruylopez900: <Vischer> True, 2...e6 kinda kills off the spirit of the Open Sicilian. One thing I don't mind though is when White plays the more dubious Wing or Smith-Morra Gambits =D. |
|
| Apr-01-04 | | acirce: Good players love meeting anti-Sicilians... there is no point to play worse moves than necessary to "avoid theory" or whatever. The 3. Bb5 variations are among the least bad ones though. |
|
| Apr-01-04 | | BiLL RobeRTiE: 2...Nc6 3. Bb5 is actually good. 2...d6 3. Bb5 is moronic. |
|
| Apr-02-04 | | shr0pshire: <BiLL RobeRTie>
Why is it moronic? It has been played on a very high level of chess. Let's see who is notable that has played this and won with each side. Black world champ wins:
Sokolsky vs Botvinnik, 1947
M Mukhitdinov vs Spassky, 1965
M Dvorietzky vs Tal, 1975
Ljubojevic vs Kasparov, 1991
Let's look at more contemporary black wins with current top 10 players: G Milos vs Judit Polgar, 1996
F Pierrot vs Topalov, 2001
Now let's see white world champ wins:
Smyslov vs Veresov, 1940
Tal vs Kupreichik, 1976
Kramnik vs Ljubojevic, 1995
(if you believe that kramnik is the world champ)
Kasparov vs Judit Polgar, 2002
Now let's see current top 10 playes play the white side: Topalov vs Karjakin, 2002
Adams vs Zvjaginsev, 2001
Morozevich vs M Marin, 1994
Okay I really don't know what is so moronic about 3.Bb5, this is played at a very high level and won on both sides. Even Kasarov played it against Polgar as white. So I don't know at all who of all the players I listed, or what in the opening is moronic. |
|
| Apr-02-04 | | ruylopez900: Good Job <sh0rpshire>. It is hard to argue with that many games, with wins from both sides and with both players up at that skill level. Presenting the game "Lasker .v. NN" to show that 1.h4 wins is not going to work, but with that much proff you kinda have to say its all right. |
|
| Apr-02-04 | | shr0pshire: I just don't like posts where they say a certain line is moronic without explaining their reasoning, or reasearching the line. The line is pretty equal, and I think my previous post shows that you can win on either side. However, the line may be falling out of fashion, or is not really popular, but that is completely different from being "moronic." |
|
| Apr-02-04 | | BiLL RobeRTiE: I say it's moronic because it offers little chance for advantage (contrasting with the 2...Nc6 3. Bb5 line) and is dull to play as black. Of course a player could have his reasons for choosing 3. Bb5+ and doing so does not make him a moron, but overall I find it a fairly stupid move invented to bore players such as myself to death. |
|
| Apr-02-04 | | acirce: Well... if it is dull to play as BLACK and bores HIM to death, it can hardly be such a stupid move from white's perspective, or? :) |
|
| Apr-02-04 | | morphyvsfischer: Of course, patzers would choose it just because they get to make a check... 8-}) |
|
| Apr-02-04 | | morphyvsfischer: But I do find this line good for 'drawers', even though I've never played it and never will. Black doesn't get any chances for the advantage, but here neither does White. |
|
| Apr-02-04 | | BiLL RobeRTiE: its boring for white too though =] |
|
| Apr-04-04 | | ruylopez900: <BiLL> Your point? Its hard (or impossible) for an opening to be totally boring and drawish for black while offering attacking chances and exciting play for white. |
|
| Apr-04-04 | | BiLL RobeRTiE: Indeed. Since this opening is boring from both sides, it is a mystery to me why people play it unless they dont know anything else or they're trying to avoid theory. |
|
| Apr-04-04 | | ruylopez900: <BiLL> Usually They play it against me wanting to avoid an open since that leads to the Dragon and a pt for me =D (ok maybe not that clockwork but usually =D) |
|
| Apr-05-04 | | waddayaplay: Visher < RL900, you'd hate the games of Rublevsky, he's known for avoiding the open sicilians. I play open sicilians myself, unless 2...e6 is played, then I play 3.c3. > Well the ...e6 is something at least I am impressed by because of all the possibilities black has! |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
