2015 New year's resolutions

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: 2015 New year's resolutions

1.d4 c6 2.Bg5 Qb6 3.Nc3 h6 4.Bh4? and the variations you analyzed thereafter illustrate that it is you playing 'hope chess' ;)

No, after 3...h6, the move is 4.Bc1, mission accomplished and making Black wonder why he played ..Qb6 and ..h6. What are you going to do now Kevin? Huh, huh, huh

I actually gave 4.Bc1 a passing thought, in jest to myself. White is simply undeveloping with not a lot of purpose, since ...Qb6 usefully has developed the queen to a semi-stable square (Na4 will not do too much for White at present) and it continues to put pressure on b2 (not to mention d4), which the B/c1 now must be concerned with if it desires to re-develop. If I wished to continue the joke, Black can play 4...d5 and then likely be two useful tempos ahead of a line of the Veresov (1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 c6) since ...h6 is probably going to prove a useful extra move in the long run (guards g5 square, h7 possible retreat for the B/c8, h7 possible luft for Black's king if he castles short). White might be able to regain the time in the long run if he plays Rb1 (a2-a3 may not be satisfactory in case of ...Bf5), re-develops the B/c1 to f4, plays e3/Qd2 and/or eventually castles short, and finally plays Na4 (or may hint at doing so sometime), when Black may have nothing better than ...Qd8, but the upshot will be that White has committed himself to this sort of plan on the queenside, and Black can adjust his play to all this, and White probably can't be too happy he didn't play Bf4 on move four in the first place, and just have offered the pawn.

This reminds me, for those into offbeat play, the Caro-Kann can be a bit of a challenge to find early deviations from the main lines that are remotely worthwhile for Black. I can suggest 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Qb6 (or 4...h6, for that matter), which has been tried, and may not be quite as fishy as it looks.

[edit: here's a few examples of slightly more purposeful undevelopment of a minor piece:

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 b6 5.Qg4 Bf8. Black's retreat occurs only after White has closed the postion with e4-e5 (eliminating the tension in the centre) and in closed positions wasted tempi are less important than, say, guarding g7 without creating a weakness - plus in closed positions fully developing and connecting the rooks is less of a priority, frequently;

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Ng8(?!). A line that was played a while. Again, the position was closed before Black retreated his knight, hoping to redevelop it to a better square than it could reach if the usual 4...Nfd7 had been played. Whatever the reason this line became less popular, at least some people noticed that the same position could be reached after 3...Bb4 4.e5 Bf8, which would be a bit silly since Black clearly could do better at move four;

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Ng8(?!). An example of extreme undevelopment that has never been popular. Black is arguing that, on top of White making the usual second move commitment against the Alekhine's with a non-developing move, he does not wish to present his knight as a target on d5 and 'hopes' to profitably redevelop it more purposefully than, say, having it wind up on b6.]

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: 2015 New year's resolutions

Of course the Alekhine's (Accelerated Petroff) is not such a terrible opening. I believe it is the only opening in World Championship history to have a plus score for Black (2.5/4).

As you pointed out if you're an Alapin player against the Sicilian you can employ the Chase variation against the Alekhine's and possibly transpose.

Your line against the Alekhine's is an interesting one but I wouldn't describe the position after ...d5, d2-d4 as being Winawer-like because Black hasn't parted with his King's bishop but with his King's knight so it's a different kettle of fish.

2.Nc3 is a very respectable move against the Alekhine's and is why I suspect the opening isn't more popular. Against this 2...e5 is thought to be the most respected move but lo and behold you're back in a 1.e4 e5 opening where White wouldn't normally play 2.Nc3 and where Black would probably prefer seeing 2.Nf3 as well.

I would hardly describe the Alekhine's as Petroff-like either (indeed, the Alekhine's is actually an accelerated Nimzovich Sicilian [1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6]), but I think I know you didn't mean it that way. Similarly, the line I gave against the Alekhine's (3.Nc3 Nxc3 4.bxc3) is one that I recall I wrote saying it (i.e. in case of ...d5) has a Winawer structure, i.e. pawn structure. Still, the piece play can be similar for some, if not most, of the pieces involved (e.g. a White R may go to the half-open b-file). I also wrote that a Winawer player (from either side) would appreciate the differences and similarities, perhaps faster than other players learning the line.

As far as 2.Nc3 goes, it is definitely not the move most players on the Black side (or your average opening theoretician) would respect most. That would be the standard 2.e5. Some might be a little disappointed not to get to play their favourite lines (in case of 2.e5), however, but they would expect an easier game after 2.Nc3 whether they liked transposing to a Vienna with 2...e5, or played independently (usually) with 2...d5. Of the more infrequent replies, steering for a Pirc with 2...d6 is one idea.

[Hugh Siddeley]

Re: 2015 New year's resolutions

I actually gave 4.Bc1 a passing thought, in jest to myself. White is simply undeveloping with not a lot of purpose, since ...Qb6 usefully has developed the queen to a semi-stable square (Na4 will not do too much for White at present) and it continues to put pressure on b2 (not to mention d4), which the B/c1 now must be concerned with if it desires to re-develop. If I wished to continue the joke, Black can play 4...d5 and then likely be two useful tempos ahead of a line of the Veresov (1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 c6) since ...h6 is probably going to prove a useful extra move in the long run (guards g5 square, h7 possible retreat for the B/c8, h7 possible luft for Black's king if he castles short). White might be able to regain the time in the long run if he plays Rb1 (a2-a3 may not be satisfactory in case of ...Bf5), re-develops the B/c1 to f4, plays e3/Qd2 and/or eventually castles short, and finally plays Na4 (or may hint at doing so sometime), when Black may have nothing better than ...Qd8, but the upshot will be that White has committed himself to this sort of plan on the queenside, and Black can adjust his play to all this, and White probably can't be too happy he didn't play Bf4 on move four in the first place, and just have offered the pawn.

Alright, alright. You may have a point, but I wasn't the one who played 2.Bg5, it was your move! And while 2.Bg5 may have some merit in the Pseudo-Tromp after 1.d4 d5, it certainly doesn't after the sneaky 1...c6 which allows your devious ...Qb6-Qxb2 idea.

Retracting back to 1.d4 c6: Now if I was a 1.d4 player I would continue with 2.c4, but following the advice of a once famous grandmaster who exclaimed "1.e4, best by test" I'm going to transpose into that way of thinking and play 2.e4, punishing you for not playing 1...d5 or 1...Nf6. I like White's position here.

[Hugh Siddeley]

Re: 2015 New year's resolutions

the Alekhine's is actually an accelerated Nimzovich Sicilian [1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6]

I would agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.

As far as 2.Nc3 goes, it is definitely not the move most players on the Black side (or your average opening theoretician) would respect most. That would be the standard 2.e5. Some might be a little disappointed not to get to play their favourite lines (in case of 2.e5), however, but they would expect an easier game after 2.Nc3 whether they liked transposing to a Vienna with 2...e5, or played independently (usually) with 2...d5. Of the more infrequent replies, steering for a Pirc with 2...d6 is one idea.

I don't recall writing 2.Nc3 is the move players on the Black side (or your average opening theoretician) would respect most. I believe I wrote that 2.Nc3 was a respectable move (I can't easily check because I'm tapping away on a tablet).

A while ago I experimented with the Alekhine's on the net, always hoping for 2.e5 of course, but more often than not getting 2.Nc3. I tried many second moves here but was left wondering about the independent value of the opening. From what I remember I found 2...d5 to be a bit dull (not that it had to be). Despite good results I gave the Alekhine's up a short while after.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: 2015 New year's resolutions

I don't recall writing 2.Nc3 is the move players on the Black side (or your average opening theoretician) would respect most. I believe I wrote that 2.Nc3 was a respectable move (I can't easily check because I'm tapping away on a tablet).

You wrote that 2.Nc3 was a very respectable move, a provocative statement which I think even most players rated in the 2200s (if not a bit lower) would not agree with. The move I suspect is played nowadays almost exclusively below GM level, largely/simply to duck the 2.e5 theory Black hopes to get into. Otherwise it does not have a lot of punch to it. In any case, I was not aiming to quote you regarding that particular part of your post when I made my reply. Rather, I was trying to approach that part another way, by aiming to imply that 2.e5 is given the overwhelming lion's share of the respect that is up for grabs. There is practically zero respect by modern GMs for anything else, I would suppose. Perhaps you can single out at least one modern GM (GMs being leaders for respectability/fashionability) who plays 2.Nc3 as a favourite choice, if any play it much at all? If not, your provocative statement would not seem to have much of a leg to stand on.

I thought I once read that Nimzovich was inspired to play 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 (Nimzovich Sicilian) by the Alekhine's Defence (1.e4 Nf6) - or was it Alekhine who was inspired the other way around(?) - in any case I can't find the source. Wikipedia is one source that points out the similarity between the two move sequences.

A while ago I experimented with the Alekhine's on the net, always hoping for 2.e5 of course, but more often than not getting 2.Nc3. I tried many second moves here but was left wondering about the independent value of the opening. From what I remember I found 2...d5 to be a bit dull (not that it had to be). Despite good results I gave the Alekhine's up a short while after.

The common wisdom I seem to recall having read is that it is a good idea to keep playing something you are doing well with until you are compelled to change. I gather that would be if your results got significantly worse with it, or the opening had a theoretical crisis for you, or the opening was a fishy one that you were only experimenting with or knew did not work if you were to get to a higher rating level. If you believe the Alekhine's deserves more respect since it has a positive record in Wch play, then maybe the latter reason isn't the case for you.

As I alluded to, 2.Nc3 should not be seen as a problem in my view (it's definitely not the reason the Alekhine's is not more popular, especially at 2200+ level) - yes, 2...d5 can be rather dull (after 3.e5 d4 etc., though Black might risk, say, 3...Nfd7), but Black can just play 2...e5 when White is committed to Nc3. In this case, Black should not mind that this has left Alekhine's Defence territory - even if he is not a double king pawn player normally, the amount of theory he would need to know from this point doesn't need to be great. Black gets a good winning percentage from here in my biggest database even in 2600+ vs. 2600+ games.

If that does not satisfy Black, he can, for example, steer for a Pirc with 2...d6, if it's in his repertoire, and White meanwhile may have wasted time on the clock or at least been a little unsettled by his man/mouse decision at move two. A Nimzovich Defence sideline can be steered for with 2...Nc6, too. One slight downside that doesn't matter is that it may be more arduous or problematic to check your performance rating with all this in your personal games' database (I have this trouble with playing 1.e4 Nc6, since I always wonder whether I should count Scotches reached by the 1.e4 e5 move order in my games, for example).

Examples of respectable openings I dropped playing altogether for quite a while would be the Slav (6 losses in a row, after a good start in 10+ games) and the Nimzo-Indian, which I didn't do so well with since 1990. An example of a widely resepected defence (but not by some, ahem) that I cut back a lot on for a while in the 1980s was the French, since the Tarrasch variation was causing Black fits as far as avoiding a clear slight disadvantage, at least in the theory books at the time.

An example of an opening I dropped in spite of very good results was the Budapest (the Fajarowicz Variation in particular), a fishy opening which I supposed would never do on a regular basis against 2400+ players, if I hoped to challenge them. Still, I recall I once beat a US player in the mid- or high 2300s (if not 2400+). The opening went terribly for me, but Black's cheapo potential slowly kicked in. The guy was visably and audibly steamed almost from start to finish - demonstrating one possible drawback (or advantage) of offbeat openings, depending how sociable one is.

Openings that I so far have concluded are keepers (soon after adopting them in relatively recent times) would include the Caro-Kann and Grunfeld. In short, if it ain't broke don't fix it (or, if a cow keeps producing milk, keep milking that cow, or don't look a gift horse in the mouth, or don't throw away the gift that keeps on giving, or shoemaker, stick to your trade...).

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: 2015 New year's resolutions

Originally Posted by Kevin Pacey

Daily tactical study and a reasonable amount of sleep are what I estimate will do me the most good, and probably the same is true for many other players too.

True. Browsing through other GM games helps too. Long breaks are not helpful.

I long ago slapped together a more detailed chess improvement plan than what you quoted, but what you quoted is the part that will likely do me the most good as far as the plan goes, and it simpler/streamlined as far as its execution (as Tom O. has pointed out in similar case[s], many people fail at the execution part in chess improvement schemes - how many can stick to a difficult diet regime, for long, would be an analogy). In my survey of my games that I took for a couple of recent years, for my losses and undesirable draws, about 50% of the time the decisive factor was miscalculation/tactics. As I said, about 25% was due to the opening. A further 20% could be blamed on strategy. Only 5% could be blamed on poor endgame play (hard to distingish from tactics and strategy though). I suspect the latter is because most endings that I reach (if the game even gets past a middlegame) would be no-brainers for most people to play, unless in serious time trouble.

[edit: By 'poor endgame play' I would include violating endgame principles, or forgetting endgame knowledge that would be difficult to make up for with calculation or planning while at the board.]

[edit: By 'undesirable draws' I would include games where I stood much better at some point, or where I was playing a lower rated player plus a draw would not do, or where I was fully playing for a win against anyone, but allowed the game to become too dull unnecessarily.]


Btw, I added much content to my previous post, for those who may not have noticed.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: 2015 New year's resolutions

8 regular defences to 1.e4? That would include pretty much every reputable defence, unless you're counting sub-variations. Seems a bit much in my humble C-class opinion, unless your goal is variety and exposure to lots of new ideas.

There are books that include a discussion of the advatages of specialized vs. wide repertoires. The more modern of these books put value on variety, at least if your games can be found in databases, as nowadays is the case even for many relatively low rated players. Even older books seem to recommend variety a lot of the time, at least for people who played internationally. Otherwise, your opponents have an easier time preparing for you. Not only that, but playing different types of positions is good for developing your chess strength overall, although there are some notable exceptions even nowadays. For them the advice can be summed up as: learn something about everything, and everything about something. In any case, playing just one opening and having only one variation in mind against something an opponent might play against you is definitely too narrow and easy to prepare for, according to old advice given by the late GM Edmar Mednis. He noted that an opening can have a theoretical crisis from time to time, and you would be left without something reliable if you didn't always have at least two choices (openings or variations) in mind for any situation.

[edit: By an opening/variation/move being 'reliable' I imagine Mednis would mean that you to some degree trust it; in my case that means that it is ideally well tested, evaluated as being stisfactory for my side by one or more strong players in books, with no opinions to the contary in print out there, and on top of that, a strong chess engine would not feel differently. Not only that, but there would be every sign or comment that my side can realistically play for a win with it, if that is a criteria too (usually is).]

[edit: I would add that Mednis seemed to have the mature objectivity of many contemporary GMs in his views about the opening phase. An example of what I mean would be for such a GM not to ever expect a well-tested opening ever to be 'busted' anymore, rather just for any to have a theoeretical crisis from time to time. In one book meant for lower ranked players, I suppose, Mednis regarded White's five 'perfect' opening moves as 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.c4, 1.Nf3 and 1.g3 (with 1.b3 following close behind), and he gave about seven or eight 'perfect' first move responses by Black to each, all with reasons to justify them. Unfortunately, I can't recall the name of the book.]

[Hugh Siddeley]

Re: 2015 New year's resolutions

You wrote that 2.Nc3 was a very respectable move, a provocative statement...

Whether I wrote it was respectable or very respectable, I feel you are splitting hairs here.

The move I suspect is played nowadays almost exclusively below GM level. There is practically zero respect by modern GMs for anything else, I would suppose. Perhaps you can single out at least one modern GM (GMs being leaders for respectability/fashionability) who plays 2.Nc3 as a favourite choice, if any play it much at all? If not, your provocative statement would not seem to have much of a leg to stand on.

A quick search for "1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3" on Google reveals the following, among others, have played this line: Radjabov, Harikrishna, Almasi, Vallejo Pons, Rozentalis, and Kosteniuk. The last time I checked all these guys, and gal, were well above GM level, and at GM level, respectively. And I'm sure there are several more GM's who play 2.Nc3 as well but I'm not going to look any further. Perhaps it would be prudent of you to do a little more research before making such provocative statements yourself there Kevin.

The whole idea of the Alekhine's is to provoke 2.e5. Hence, 2.Nc3 is a good psychological move, telling Black that he isn't going to play ball. I'm a little surprised you think it's a second-rate move and that only 2.e5 is critical.

I thought I once read that Nimzovich was inspired to play 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 (Nimzovich Sicilian) by the Alekhine's Defence (1.e4 Nf6) - or was it Alekhine who was inspired the other way around(?) - in any case I can't find the source. Wikipedia is one source that points out the similarity between the two move sequences.

I believe in "Beating The Sicilian 3" by Nunn and Gallagher, in the chapter on the Nimzovich Sicilian, the authors point out the similarity to the Alekhine's, but I can't verify with my copy because I'm not in Canada right now.

2...d5 can be rather dull (after 3.e5 d4 etc., though Black might risk, say, 3...Nfd7)

Risk 3...Nfd7? I don't think White has anything much better than 4.d4, and Black can then transpose into a French Steinitz with 4...e6. Unless you think the Classical French is a risky opening...

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: 2015 New year's resolutions

Sure, Adams has played 2.Nc3 at least once too (it's in a footnote in ECO 4), but does he (like any of the GMs you listed) use it personally as a favourite choice, or much at all? You didn't mention that. You can't spin this as saying I am splitting hairs here, as that is the minimal circumstantial evidence of 2.Nc3 being 'very respectable' I asked for (yes, the onus of proof for that provocative statement should be on you - check the amount of theory devoted to 2.e5 compared to 2.Nc3). I did not say any modern GMs didn't ever play it at all. Nigel Short once played the Budapest, too. He later called it a condom opening for him (use it once, throw it away). He clearly had not much respect for it. Maybe someone can ask him for a quote about 2.Nc3 against the Alekhine's, too. :)

[edit: I'll save you some trouble. Someone informed me Thursday night that a book they have on the Alekhine's claims that GM Jonny Hector plays 2.Nc3 regularly (or at least he did at one point). I would grudgingly note that Hector is not your typical GM, and uses offbeat stuff frequently. There may be a handful of other 'deviant' GMs who play it regularly too.]

Fwiw, MCO-15 puts 2.Nc3 in it's last two columns of covering the Alekhine's Defence (under "Minor Variations"). Plus, the only GM I found so far in my biggest database on my laptop who has used 2.Nc3 even twice going back to 2011 there is Noguieras - not sure that he's even a regular 1.e4 player. Bu used it once that I could find, and Glek (a guy who uses slightly offbeat stuff at least at times) used it once, but I know he's also played 2.e5 at least once, from my books alone. Those are the only GMs whose names I recognized. My desktop has a large database that I know how to search by rating better, but it's being repaired.

In ECO 4 after 2.Nc3 d5 3.e5 Nfd7, 4.f4 is supposed to lead to a slight edge for White, although there are two suggestions in total for Black provided in two footnotes (i.e. a Black move suggested in each footnote, no evaluation given in either case). I don't know if that reflects the current 'best' or 'latest' appraisal of 4.f4 though.