|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-13-03 | | Ribeiro: Do you think this line is only "psychology"? |
|
| May-13-03 | | refutor: how do you mean? white can get very good positions in this... |
|
| May-14-03 | | Ribeiro: <refutor> Based on my poor experience, I agree with you. But it is interesting to notice that there seems to be a kind of psychological association behind the exchange (Lasker, Fischer etc.), maybe because it is an "uncommon variant". The overall record presented above surprised me. |
|
| May-14-03 | | dalilama: it's because a pair of bishops is considerably stronger than a bishop and a knight. With the two bishops you control the diagnols. This is why the exchange is not played often, especially with players rated above 2000 |
|
| May-14-03 | | refutor: not true...take the pieces off the board and white has a won endgame, take off white's d-pawn and black's e-pawn and it's a win for white. black can't create a passed pawn with his queenside majority, while white can create one on the kingside. if you aim for a position where black can't take advantage of his lightsquare bishop and aim for the endgame (and aim for both throughout) there's no reason why this is any weaker than the "mainline" ruy lopez |
|
| May-14-03 | | dalilama: Refutor,
The statistics clearly point otherwise. In this opening BLACK wins 33.1% of the time while white only wins 26.7% of the time, pretty bad considering when you open a game white is suppose to have an advantage. With the ruy lopez closed white wins 33.6% while black only wins 26.9% and the ruy lopez open white wins 37.6% while black wins 21.6%. I have spoked with my friend (rated 2350) and he says taking the knight only causes problems because of the bishops dominating the board... |
|
| May-14-03 | | dalilama: its suppose to say "spoken" not "spoked" |
|
| May-15-03 | | refutor: statistics are skewed in this line. In New In Chess Yearbook #41 (1996), Andras Adorjan states in his survey on the 7. ... Bd7 Sicilian Najdorf that (CAPS added by me) "I think most (if not all) of us do the same thing before playing over a game : take a look at the result. And if it is not the desired one from our point of view, we sometimes don't even bother checking the way it came about. Or if we do, out objectivity is heavily influenced by the outcome. An opening variation may get out of fashion because of *BAD STATISTICS*, We don't realize that all what happened was: the stronger players beat the relatively weaker ones. Should we turn the boards around, the same/similar record would be noticed. Only in favour of the other side." I definitely think this is the case with C68. C68 is basically the garbage lines (for white) in the Exchange. If you look at C69 (ruy lopez exchange 4.♗xc6 dxc 5.O-O f6 6.d4) white wins 31.9%, while black wins 22.9%, which is very similar to the 33.6% and 26.9% you gave for the ruy lopez closed above. if you look at the top players for C68 - alekhine - 12 wins, 7 losses, 3 draws, lasker - 11 wins, 1 loss, 2 draws, fischer (C68+C69) - 9 wins, 0 losses, 3 draws. what i'm trying to say is that the stats for white, particularly in the C68 line, are skewed by lower rated White players taking on a more theoretical GM and trying to "avoid" theory by playing the exchange with moves like 4.d4, 4.Nc3, etc. and getting what (i think) they deserve. |
|
| May-15-03 | | dalilama: You are saying that the stronger players beat the weaker ones. This also means that relatively weak players are playing the exchange. The reasons the boards are not switched is because MOST strong players do not play the exchange (kasparov only 8 games, karpov only 12 as opposed to karpov 61 on the closed, and kasparov 57). The exchange is played where weak players are trying to gain position on their opposition. This can work, but if black can activate his bishops with smart moves, then black gains a major advantage. |
|
| May-16-03 | | egarcillanjr: I wanted to play some fellow |
|
| May-17-03 | | Shadout Mapes: Take a look at Lasker's games. If he could beat Stienitz, Chigorin, Tarrach, Janowski, Capablanca (!), and Marshall with it, I have full confidence that an experienced player could beat another of about the same skill with it. |
|
| May-17-03 | | dalilama: notice that in most, if not all of the games that lasker wins it is because black exchanges one of his bishops for a knight almost immediatley. This is well basically stupid, since the point of the exchange is to have a pair of bishops, black not only evens the pieces, but also loses the position that he had given up by the first exchange. The game that was won against lasker is the one that the bishops were kept the longest, and the reason the pawn taking was easier at the end was because of the bishop. So if you play ruy lopez on the black side, keep your bishops... |
|
| May-17-03 | | refutor: give credit where credit is due...the exchange is no worse than any other opening...that's like saying that the nimzo indian is losing for black because black gives up the bishop pair. that's garbage. openings are a matter of fashion...if kasparov, kramnik or one of the other top masters started playing the exchange, it would be back in fashion and played around the globe, just like the main line berlin line which krammy used to beat kasparov (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8) wasn't very fashionable before 2000 but is played all the time now because of the krammy-kasparov match. the RL exchange is no worse than any other ruy lopez line, it's just not very fashionable right now...if you don't believe me check out the followers it had in the 1970s when fischer played it ;) |
|
| May-17-03 | | dalilama: The nimzo indian does not involve giving up a pair of bishops. |
|
| May-18-03 | | Bears092: It usually does... |
|
| May-18-03 | | dalilama: bears092,
The "nimzo indian" ECO code E20 does not involve taking the knight for the bishop. The line is 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4. The rest is up to the player. Many times (look at kasparov's games) the bishop does not take the knight. |
|
| May-18-03 | | Bears092: dalilama - I've played upwards of 1,000 games as both black and white in the Nimzo-Indian, and at least 90% of the time, the exchange is made. |
|
| May-18-03 | | Shadout Mapes: Spassky vs Fischer, 1972
Spassky vs Fischer, 1972
Both of these games are Nimzo Indians. In one game, bobby keeps the bishop and loses. In the second, he trades it for the knight and wins. I'm not saying it's better to exchange than not, I'm just saying that it doesn't decide the game. |
|
| Dec-09-03 | | Whitehat1963: I tend to agree with refutor. The exchange variation has merely gone out of fashion, but only because the truly elite players (2600 and above) would rather not exchange a bishop for a knight. That doesn't mean that it can't work for you and me. Sure, Lasker, Alekhine, Fischer, etc. trotted it out now and then, but none of them played it regularly. It is more often a surprise because of the conventional wisdom of keeping the bishop pair. Still, among players of equal skill, there's probably nothing wrong with it. Fischer played it in both of his matches with Spassky, but then Fischer liked to use less than common lines in big games because he had confidence in his superior memory, preparation and skill, not necessarily because he had found novelties or because the line is consistently superior. Note his occasional use of the King's Gambit, even though he published an article saying that it was basically unsound. I bet if Kasparov, Kramnik and Anand started using the exchange variation against lesser players (and, of course, winning with it consistently -- as they probably would because they're great players), it might come back into vogue. But if it was Topolov, Ivanchuk, Shirov, Leko, Khalifman, etc. using it instead, it wouldn't be nearly as popular, even if they came away with the rare upset of one of the big three. |
|
| Dec-09-03 | | Catfriend: I play 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.B:Nc6, a variation of the exchange.. I don't know about Kasparov,
but I use it really successfully. Maybe I"ll write here a good game by me after 5.B:Nc6 |
|
| Dec-09-03 | | technical draw: As I mentioned in my post at Wolf v. Jacob, I have played the exchange variation quite often with good success. In fact, right now I am playing it all the time. My greatest concern is a concentrated attack on weak f2. An early Qe2, Rd1 is my main vision. |
|
| Dec-09-03 | | InspiredByMorphy: The only form of the Ruy Lopez I enjoy. It leaves blacks pawn structure crippled. If white can hold out until the end game with good piece coordination ( not pawns ), a win should result. However black does have one very good defense.. 5. Bg4 |
|
Dec-09-03
 | | Eggman: Catfriend, what is the point of letting Black play ...Nf6 and only then playing Bxc6? |
|
| Dec-09-03 | | ughaibu: Black often supports the e-pawn with f6. |
|
| Dec-09-03 | | OneBadDog: This is an irritating opening to face as black. All the fun is in the Marshalls, Opens, and Flohr-Zaitsevs. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
