I prepare all the time, but my approach is a little different than most. It is probably more psycological than analytical. The standards keep getting raised and the halflife of the value of everything you know gets shorter.

Well now that quite a surprise for me! I always considered you as being a rock solid player. Is my assessment of your playing style wrong?

If you try to copy yourself after Fisher you will have to keep reinventing your novelties because you are afraid that your next opponent will find a refutation for it.

I am sure that Fisher's rating at correspondence level would not be very high considering his adventurous sozin attacks and many more IMO unsound openings where its success was based on sociological factors imposed on time pressure.

Ken, correspondence chess at top level tries to improve the best known theory for a given position.

OTB even at GM level except for a few like Anand etc are trying to put their opponents on unfamiliar grounds and hope that the clock will help to win the game.

Therefore in cc play preparations is of utmost importance. An example would be my game against G.Mititelu from Romania a well experienced top player.

My thoughts at the start of the game was to exploit his perceived impatiens. Because of his statue I assumed that he will try to overpower me avoiding any simplifications. As the game progressed I could feel his desire to complicate position to reach over my horizon.

My opening preparation was very simple. Replaying some of his games suggested to me that there was no way for me to break his opening lines. This assumption made me look at his style as to temper, aggressiveness or passive counter ploys etc. And found a possible weakness, his playing style reflects mainly OTB experience and little corres play. Thus I kept the positions closed to the point of monotony with one window open which would allow a regrouping at the last moment before opening this window. I used this method also with black against the former Hungarian Master Zoltan Sarosy.

C4 is my favored opening also.
We should play Nf6 which may transpose into our desired lines. If he trys to get in e4 we could look at my game against D.Mcleod. It may be possible to improve blacks line.

Widmann,K - MacLeod,D [A17]
K-41 CCCA (1), 01.01.1985

Widman won K-41 with 12.5/14; a few of his games are missing. MacLeod was second with 12 pts.

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Nc3 b6 4.e4 Bb7 5.Bd3 c5 6.0-0 Nc6

[ 6...d6 7.Bc2 Be7 8.d4 cxd4 9.Nxd4 0-0 10.b3 Nc6 11.Bb2 a6 12.Kh1 Qd7 13.Nxc6 Bxc6 14.Qd3 b5 15.cxb5 Bxb5 16.Nxb5 Qxb5]

7.e5 Ng4 8.Be4 f5 9.exf6 Nxf6 10.Bxc6 Bxc6 11.d4 Bxf3 12.Qxf3 cxd4 13.Nb5 Rc8 14.b3 Bc5

[ 14...a6 15.Nxd4 Bc5 16.Be3 0-0 17.Qe2 b5 18.cxb5 Qb6] 15.Bb2 a6 16.Nxd4 0-0 17.Rae1 b5 18.cxb5 Qb6 19.Qd3 Nd5 20.Re4 Rf4 21.Nf3 Qxb5 22.Qe2 Rcf8 23.Be5 Rxe4 24.Qxe4 Qb4 25.Qc2 d6 26.Ng5 Qh4 27.Nf3 Qg4 28.h3 Qh5 29.Bh2 Nf4 30.Bxf4 Rxf4 31.Qd3 a5 32.Re1 e5 33.Re2 h6 34.Re4 Qf5 35.Qc4+ Kh8 36.Rxf4 exf4 37.Qc1 Qd3 38.Qd2 Qb1+ 39.Kh2 Qf1 40.Nd4 Qa1 41.Ne6 Qe5 42.Nxc5 f3+ 43.g3 Qxc5 44.Qe3 Qc2 45.g4 Qxa2 46.Kg3 d5 47.Qd3 d4 48.Qxd4 Qxb3 49.Qd8+ Kh7 50.Qxa5 Qb8+ 51.Kxf3 Qh2 52.Qf5+ Kh8 53.g5 hxg5 54.Kg4 Qg2+ 55.Kh5 g4 56.h4 ½-½

Kurt, I have had to make a big adjustment to coresspondence chess. OTB I am willing to sac if I can't see a refutation. I don't do that if my opponent has access to computers, databases, and books. I give the illusion of being rock solid, but I am constantly baiting my opponent to behave like my OTB personna. The Botterill and Knudsen games are good examples.

Repertoire Explorer: Arno Nickel (white)

<1. d4> - 102 of 146 games (70 %)

<1. Nf3> - 15 games (10 %)

<1. c4> - 14 games (10 %)

<1. e4> - 13 games (9 %)

While d4/c4/Nf3 can easily transpose, we can see that GMAN is very much a d4-player. Of course he can surprise us with <1. e4>, but IMO the opening preparation should concentrate on <1. d4>

==> The first task should be a discussion of Black's options after <1. d4 Nf6 2. c4>.

<2...e6> Nimzo/QID/QGD/Semi-Slav

<2...g6> KID

I don't think it's necessary to go very deep now, before we have first reached some kind of understanding of the general character of the above openings. The team consist of patzers (like me) who can't really evaluate the positions in the end of the long variations, or the correctness of those variations.

What I'd like to see is a more like list of advantages and disadvantages with <2...e6> and <2...g6>. Only after that we should proceed with further choices in either opening.

I have some opinions about these, but I'll save them for later discussion (if there will be any).

click for larger view

What would be the best black reply in a CC game?

4...0-0

4...d5

4...c5
>

<ismeria>, mainline theory is 4...O-O 5. a3 bxc3+ 6. Qxc3 & then i'll suggest 6...Ne4 7. Qc2 d5

click for larger view

Let me state my assessment of your opening choice.

If i am correct, you suggest to move a knight twice and exchanging our BCB for a knight which hands him the bishop pair on a platter early in the game.

With your suggested pawn setup e6/d5 the BCB would be a strong asset while the LCB is a liability in search of a trade.

Your idea would be ok if we are satisfied with a draw.

Otherwise any trade of pieces should be avoided as not to impede our chances to create the most complex positions which are hopefully beyond GMAN,s horizon to solve them successfully.

What other defence against d4 would lead us into positions which would allow us to outwork him?

If i am correct, you suggest to move a knight twice >

indeed. horrors. You seem to be implying that a tempo is lost :-)

<..and exchanging our BCB for a knight which hands him the bishop pair on a platter early in the game. >

you're pretty worked up about handing him the bishop pair on a platter early in the game, like as if that's a big decision in a NimzoIndian!? (I suppose you aren't the first).

<Your idea would be ok if we are satisfied with a draw.

Otherwise any trade of pieces should be avoided as not to impede our chances to create the most complex positions which are hopefully beyond GMAN,s horizon to solve them successfully. >

I really have no doubt that the NimzoIndian is kind of drawish, and this does kind of rub me the wrong way, too (however, it is possible to get carried away w/this point).

< With your suggested pawn setup e6/d5 the BCB would be a strong asset while the LCB is a liability in search of a trade. >

true, as far as it goes, though you neglect to mention that Black is not conceding central space. This is all kind of sounding like an Orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined.

I might aim for something like this:

8. Nf3 Nd7 9. Bf4 c5 10. dxc5 Nxc5 11. b4 Nd7 12. Rd1 Nf6

click for larger view

Here is the mainline with d5 as I see it.

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 d5 5. cxd5 Qxd5

(5... exd5 6. Bg5 h6 7. Bh4 c5 8. dxc5 Nc6 9. e3 g5 10. Bg3 Ne4 11. Nf3 Qa5 12. Nd2 Nxc3 13. bxc3 Bxc3 14. Rb1 Qxc5 15. Rb5 Qa3 16. Rb3 Bxd2+ 17. Qxd2 Qe7 18. Be2)

6. e3

(6. Nf3 Qf5 7. Qxf5 exf5 8. Bd2

(8. a3 Be7 9. Bf4 c6 10. e3 Nbd7 11. Bd3 Nb6 12. O-O Be6 13. Rfc1 Nfd5 14. Bg3 Nxc3 15. bxc3 Nc4 16. a4)

8... c6 9. g3 Be6 10. Bg2 Nbd7 11. a3 Be7 12. O-O O-O 13. b4)

6... c5 7. a3

(7. Bd2 Bxc3 8. Bxc3 cxd4 9. Bxd4 Nc6 10. Bc3 O-O 11. Nf3 Rd8 12. Be2 Qe4 13. Rc1 Qxc2 14. Rxc2 Ne4 15. O-O f6 16. Bc4 Rd6 17. Be1)

7... cxd4 8. axb4 dxc3 9. bxc3 b5 10. Nf3 O-O 11. c4 bxc4 12. Bxc4 Qe4 13. Qxe4 Nxe4 14. O-O

This is rather intemperately phrased, & The NimzoIndian is rather more popular than one be led to expect. Although I am actually quite sympathetic to this view that it's a bit drawish. I haven't made any bones about this, either.

<Here is the mainline with d5 as I see it.

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 d5 5. cxd5 Qxd5 .. >

Ah, and here is my line (again):
<DanLanglois: <ismeria>, mainline theory is 4...O-O 5. a3 bxc3+ 6. Qxc3 & then i'll suggest 6...Ne4 7. Qc2 d5>

I'm still willing to argue for my line, & you aren't actually impressed by yours--a fine distinction? In other words, I like Black & you may take White :-)

hmmm...
>

well I think that a mainline Benko Gambit Accepted, for example, might be ideal.

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 (3. Nf3 cxd4 is fine w/me) b5 4. cxb5 a6 5. bxa6 g6 6. Nc3 Bxa6 7. e4 Bxf1

click for larger view

The Benko Gambit is a chess opening characterised by the move 3...b5 in the Benoni Defense arising after

1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 c5
3. d5 b5

Theory

The main line continues with the moves 4.cxb5 a6 5.bxa6 Bxa6 followed by Black fianchettoing the f8 bishop. (Black players leery of the double fianchetto system, where White plays g3 and b3, and fianchettos both bishops, have preferred 5...g6 intending 6.b3 Bg7 7.Bb2 Nxa6! The point is that it is awkward for White to meet the threat of ...Nb4, hitting d5 and a2, when Nc3 may often be met by ...Nfxd5 because of the latent pin down the long diagonal.) Black's compensation for the pawn takes several forms. Firstly, White must solve the problem of developing the f1-bishop. After 4.cxb5 a6 5.bxa6 Bxa6 6.Nc3 d6, if White plays 7.e4, then Black will play 7...Bxf1, and after recapturing with the king, White will have to spend time castling artificially with g3 and Kg2, as in the line 7....Bxf1 8.Kxf1 g6 9.g3 Bg7 10.Kg2. If White avoids this by fianchettoing the bishop, it will be in a rather passive position, being blocked by White's own pawn on d5.

Apart from this, Black also obtains good control of the a1-h8 diagonal and can exert pressure down the half-open a and b files. These are benefits which can last well into the endgame and so, unusually for a gambit, Black does not generally mind if queens are exchanged; indeed, such an exchange can often usefully remove the sting from a kingside attack by White.

Although the main line of the Benko is considered acceptable for White, there are various alternatives which avoid some of the problems entailed in the main line. The simplest is to just decline the gambit with 4.Nf3 or 4.a4. Another idea, which is popular at the Grandmaster level as of 2004, is to accept the pawn but then immediately give it back with 4.cxb5 a6 5.b6.

After <1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5> there's a risk that the team will choose <3...e6> (Modern Benoni). And in Benoni the positional concessions might be too big. It's a good OTB opening if one likes the tactical complications that will arise, but I doubt it's playability in CC.

<Calling it a "draw tool" is misleading>

YES, NOW WE ARE TALKING!

AGREED!

What we need to do is post promising positions likely reachable via specific lines. In other words <where is the beef?>

This would give us all a chance to evaluate those suggested positions as to their acceptability or targets we should aim for.

This is the method I would like to see adopted by the whole team or at least by the main core or most influential members.

We will then gain the necessary confidence of how to assess positions as to their weaknesses and strength as well as the various roads leading to it.

OK, what is your opinion about it?

What exactly are our individually most desirable positions likely reachable via known theory or a suggested novelty which we belief is winnable?

So pls let.s all post diagrams including the most important reasons:

1)<< What>> - favorable pawn structure - piece mobility - space etc.

2)<<Why>> - potential creation of opponents king safety or passers - position unbalance - minority or majority pawn attacks - favorable endgame with extra tempo or value of our pieces due to certain pawn structure increased etc.

3)<<How>> - following footsteps of known theory with suggested improvements - potential successful options to exploit identifiable opponents weaknesses etc.

The system of focusing on the ideas, works perfectly in the Benko Gambit Accepted (a rather great gambit).