|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-06-03 | | Bears092: As a young lad, I used to play 2.e4, then f3 after he takes (foregoing the knight moves), and achieving the Blackmar Gambit. I enjoyed many games after 1. d4 d5 2. e4 Nf6?! (Black should grab the pawn) 3. e5 Ne4?? 4.f3 |
|
| Jul-12-03 | | Benjamin Lau: Against beginners who have never seen hypermodern systems before, you sometimes end up in the Queen's Pawn Game by accident. example:
1. d4 nf6 2. Nc3? (the player obviously thinks that black is a complete moron and that white can completely seize the center by supposedly nullifying the black knight.) d5! (now white's attempt to play an early e4 is eliminated and white has unfortunately locked his c pawn with his premature knight move. Given reasonable play, black should be able to achieve equality.) |
|
| Jul-30-03 | | Helloween: <Benjamin Lau> After 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 is by far not a "?" move. In fact, after 2...d5, this is the Veresov System, which can be quite aggressive and effective. White usually plays Bg5, f3, Qd2 and an early 0-0-0, then proceeds to storm the KS. So basically you have a Sicilian opposite wing race without Black having the open c-file. |
|
| Jul-30-03 | | Benjamin Lau: <Helloween>
Thanks for your reply. I have seen the Veresov System before, but in my opinion, it's not very good. After 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3? (strictly my opinion of course) d5 3. Bg5 (or almost any other move) c5! black easily reaches equality and possibly even has the better of it. The only decent move white can make in 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 is 3. e4!?. But 3... Nxe4 4. Nxe4 dxe4 looks like it will yet again bring black equality. |
|
| Nov-20-03 | | Bears092: 2. Nc3 should get more of a !? than anything. It leads to an easy game for black, but if he screws up, white can have a viscious kingside attack. |
|
Nov-20-03
 | | Eggman: If I recall correctly at the Ontario Closed (can't remember when it was, but sometime in the 90s) a 2400 player by the name of Michael Dougherty played 2.Nc3 in all his games as White (5 or 6 games in all) and won every game, finishing second in the tournament. Which of course brings up the other advantage of the move: taking your opponents out of book. I don't remember the exact move order but one game against IM Lawrence Day went 1.d4 ♘f6 2.♘c3 d5 3.♗g5 ♘bd7 4.♘f3 g6 5.e3 ♗g7 6.♗e2 b6 7.O-O ♗b7 8.♘e5 O-O 9.f4 ♘e8?? 10.♗a6! and Black loses material in all variations (e.g. 10...♗xa6? 11.♘c6 winning the Queen). |
|
| Nov-26-03 | | Benjamin Lau: Here're the statistics for the Veresov system... They don't look good for white. Richter-Veresov Attack (D01) |
|
| Nov-26-03 | | Benjamin Lau: After thinking about it a bit more, I guess I would give 2. Nc3 a ?!. I don't think that white should lock his c pawn in, getting his opponent out of book isn't worth getting a theoretically inferior position (for me anyway). |
|
| Nov-26-03 | | Shadout Mapes: <Eggman> It's pretty wierd that the player didn't play c5 at some point. Like BL pointed out, it's the most logical idea, and it's what I always do when i see Nc3. |
|
| Nov-26-03 | | refutor: <benjamin> i don't like the idea of blocking in my c-pawn either, but who among us has a problem playing (as black) 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6? ;) i'm sure in the veresov, similar to the ruy lopez or any other king's pawn opening, the knight has greater designs than staying on c3 |
|
| Nov-26-03 | | Benjamin Lau: Refutor, good point, but the key thing is that in d4 games, white's only way to put credible pressure on the center is with c4, because attacking d5 with pieces is simply not going to suffice (you probably already know this though of course), unlike in e4 games, specifically the Ruy Lopez where the knight is initially the only thing keeping the pawn from certain doom. Consequently, in e4, attacking the pawn immediately with pieces is much more effective, but pawns are more key in d4. |
|
Nov-26-03
| | Eggman: Comparing the Queen pawn game and the King pawn game with respect to 2.Nc3: In the former not only is Black's center pawn (...d5) better defended, but for White playing his second center pawn to the center (e4) is more difficult, and also Black has the additional resource of ...c6, while in the King pawn game the analogous ...f6 is compromising. Conversely, in the Queen pawn game attacking Black's center pawn with a wing pawn (c4) does not entail the same difficulties as the analogous f4 in the King pawn game. For all these reasons, c4 seems to be indicated in the Queen pawn game, and therefore one is reluctant to play 2.Nc3. Having said all this, I'm sure the above analysis is an oversimplification, and White's game can't be that bad. Even on Benjamin Lau's suggested ...c5, we simply wind up with a kind of Chigorin's Defense Reversed, and how bad can it be to play a borderline reputable opening with colours reversed so that one is a tempo ahead - especially with the added benefit of taking one's opponent out of book? |
|
| Nov-26-03 | | Benjamin Lau: In conclusion:
2. Nc3 probably is okay, but 2. c4 is usually better. :-) |
|
Nov-26-03
| | Eggman: Agreed. :-) |
|
| Nov-27-03 | | Shadout Mapes: how many here play the Torre attack? It's based on the twin bishops on g5 and d5 and a triangle at c3-d5-e3. It can lead to some nice attacks. The definitive Torre Attack game: Janowski vs Samisch, 1925 |
|
| Mar-09-04 | | rochade18: 2.e4? The Blackmar gambit? Just play 2...e6 or c6 and your opponent is maybe disappointed or so surprised that he would resign *lol* |
|
| Apr-03-04 | | Checkmate123: Yes, that's right, 2.Nc3 is playable, although it is a bit inferior to 2. c4. I played black with 2.Nc3 once, and I made a mistake, and white won. So it still works for white, just not as good. |
|
Apr-04-04
 | | tpstar: I like Benjamin Lau's suggestion of 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. e4!? Nxe4! 4. Nxe4 dxe4 equalizing, instead of 3 ... de 4. f3 and White gets to play the gambit anyway. Moreover, after 4. Nxe4 dxe4 5. f3 doesn't work so well.
Guy Baete vs I Timmermans, 2001 |
|
| Oct-04-04 | | azaris: Any thoughts on 1. d4 d5 2. ♘c3 ♗f5 from the Black perspective? White's response 3. f3 seems dangerous to me (for White that is) as 4. e4 is an invitation to madness as seen in K Shirazi vs S Krivoshey, 2001. |
|
| Nov-19-04 | | tacticsjokerxxx: why not simply play f3 first?
1.♘c3 - d5 2.d4 - ♘f6, 3.f3 - c5 (probably best) 4.e4! As seen played by ♖ichter, there's a game from 1929 not in this database, it followed: 4.-cxd4 5.♕xd4 - ♘c6 6.♗b5 - ♗d7 7.♗xc6-♗xc6 8.e5! - ♘d7 At this point 9.e6!-fxe6 has been played, but white has a reasonable edge anyway. My query is whether 4.-cxd4 really is best, and not perhaps... 4.-dxe4 which could follow 5.dxc5 - ♕xd1 6.♘xd1 with equality. |
|
| Nov-19-04 | | tacticsjokerxxx: <azaris> after 1.d4 - d5 2.♘c3 - ♗f5 white can play 3.♗g5 and transpose into the usual richter/veresov line. but 3.f3 4.e4 as played in that game looks good, not dangerous, just sensitive. Any comments on the fact that the richter-veresov line is a quite like the QGD Chigorin (reversed), but scores worse? |
|
| Jun-04-05 | | Swapmeet: does 1.d4 d5 2.Bg5 have a name? Someone played it against me for the first time tonight and I thought it was a little strange, and was surprised to see its white's third most common move in the database. What is the general idea of this move? |
|
| Jun-04-05 | | vonKrolock: <Swapmeet: does 1.d4 d5 2.Bg5 have a name?> "The Lewitsky Attack" <source: 'The King'> |
|
| Sep-02-05 | | Gazman5: After 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3, the Caro-Kann player in me would want to play 2...c6. Does white have any better move than 3.e4 following this reply? |
|
| Sep-02-05 | | Bent Bexley: There was a great interview with IM James Rizzitano the other night on ChessFM. He has a new book coming out within a month on the QGA. He also covers the various QP games black has to face and he seemed particularlry keen about black's chances in all the lines he covers. Particularly against the Veresov! He called it "dead" in many mays. It sounds like a book to check out for sure. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
