If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
My opponent played this against me once. As I recall, he played 1. f4 many times in that Olympiad with success. This was how I handled it. I meant to give it a try sometime as white but never got to it. Back then I was playing the King's Gambit as white but it got too hard to beat the computer programs as the new ones came out. That's when I stopped playing that gambit.
Do you think your opponent could have played on, playing for the loss :)?
White certainly has room to vary at move 7 or 8 anyway.
I think it's hard to beat modern playing programs using just about any opening. True, wildly tactical ones seem least likely to succeed.
It's been almost a decade since we played it but I recall spending a lot of time on the game. While trying to win, there were at least a couple of times I thought I was in trouble.
I looked back at his results in this event with that opening. From 5 games as white he had 2 wins, 1 loss and 2 draws.
The computer programs weren't as strong in 2000. I don't think it would have been a good idea to turn the game over to the computer and expect much of an overall result..
On the topic of the Bird's Opening, a way I like to play it is with a Leningrad Dutch Reversed setup. However White has to be careful. In my Databases White tends to get destroyed, even at GM level, if he plays 1.f4 d5 2.g3, when Black replies 2...h5!, and so it seems 2.Nf3 is the prudent man's way to go.
I tend to play 2. Nf3 and Rybka plays Nf3 100% of the time. Even so, some engines have played 2... h5, but it isn't much of a threat
Hi Kevin, and others who are replying, I just want to say thanks for starting and continuing this series of offbeat threads. It is just great fun to reconsider these! :)
don't care for 3.g3 in this position, not against a KID type of setup... but I really don't care for 6.d3
I played a CC game against IM Yelena Dembo on Chessworld.net and she immediately went into a KID style setup. Needless to say that I was dispatched with ease in that game...
The thing with the Birds opening, is that rarely is someone prepared for it. It may be 'unambitious', but you are at least going to get out of theory quickly... :) In the Last Langley labour day open, I scored 3/6... all three wins with white (Birds opening every game) and lost every game with black... so I guess there's something to be said for surprise factor.
From MCO-15 (under Miscellaneous Flank Openings):
"...Moves such as 1.h3, 1.h4, 1.Na3 (The Durkin), or 1.Nh3 (the Paris Gambit) require no opening analysis." :) ....
Btw, what should White do in case of, say, 1.Na3 Na6 (?) :)
Hmmmm... well, I guess 1. Na3 and 1. Nh3 haven't been analyzed at all.
So here's an interesting question: Lets say you are in some kind of a tiebreak game to decide 1st place in a tournament. Colors are drawn, but the rules of the tiebreak allow the player drawing Black to have a choice: either play with Black as drawn, or play as White but begin the game with either 1. Na3 or 1. Nh3. Which would you choose and why?
Again, I'm trying to get an opinion as to whether it is preferable to actually play as Black or to try to "fake" playing as Black by starting with one of these Knight moves. I don't expect there to be a definitive answer, just opinions.
That is an interesting tiebreak rule... someone should institute it for a major tournament!
Also, just for fun, some club organizer might want to consider having an Opening Theme tournament, where one of the openings is the one Kevin gives above (1. Na3 Na6). Here's another one, I'm calling this the Meeting of the Knights opening: 1. Nc3 Nc6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nb5 Nb4 4. Ng5 Ng4 5. Nd4 Nd5 6. Ne4 Ne5
Does White have a huge advantage by virtue of being to attack the center first?
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Hmmmm... well, I guess 1. Na3 and 1. Nh3 haven't been analyzed at all.
So here's an interesting question: Lets say you are in some kind of a tiebreak game to decide 1st place in a tournament. Colors are drawn, but the rules of the tiebreak allow the player drawing Black to have a choice: either play with Black as drawn, or play as White but begin the game with either 1. Na3 or 1. Nh3. Which would you choose and why?
Again, I'm trying to get an opinion as to whether it is preferable to actually play as Black or to try to "fake" playing as Black by starting with one of these Knight moves. I don't expect there to be a definitive answer, just opinions.
That is an interesting tiebreak rule... someone should institute it for a major tournament!
Also, just for fun, some club organizer might want to consider having an Opening Theme tournament, where one of the openings is the one Kevin gives above (1. Na3 Na6). Here's another one, I'm calling this the Meeting of the Knights opening: 1. Nc3 Nc6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nb5 Nb4 4. Ng5 Ng4 5. Nd4 Nd5 6. Ne4 Ne5
Does White have a huge advantage by virtue of being to attack the center first?
If you can get hold of Myer's Opening Bulletin (USA) or examples of opening analysis by Germany's Steffan Bucker, you might find coverage of even such totally unorthodox moves as 1.Nh3/Na3. As I sort of alluded in my previous reply to you, there are most probably books/articles on even these first moves, published somewhere at some point in history. My vaguest of memories even suggests to me that this is true.
I don't think anyone would have much luck getting your proposed tiebreak rule put into practice; I can think of a number of objections: other rule changes would be needed too, to have such games rated, since such tinkering with the means to deciding the starting position of a game is not in accordance with established rules. I imagine most players wouldn't want such a tiebreak rule, since they'd need to prepare specially for fourth-rate opening moves. There would also be the arguments about why not have other first move(s) instead, or drawn randomly if necessary (chess may come to that someday, like checkers did, unless Fischerrandom or some other varient becomes the new standard).
Supposing your proposed tiebreak rule did get used in practice, first of all let me say I think I'd prefer 1.Na3 to 1.Nh3 if I were to be White. In case of 1.Nh3 e5 White's Kt can't go to f4, nor probably would the move f2-f4 be attractive to me personally anytime soon. One plan might be to play a reversed Modern Defence, or Rat as Canuck players say, possibly with f2-f3 followed by Nf2, but ...h5 in reaction to g2-g3 is a concern. If c2-c3 is played early on, hoping for d2-d4, then Black might try to discourage that with ...c5 (if still possible).
Looking at 1.Na3, if 1...d5, to take away c4 from the Kt, then an early c2-c4 in contrast might be much more palatable to me. The move 1.Na3 also fits in with more respectable opening lines than a 1.Nh3 does, i.e. I imagine there are more transpositions to respectable stuff that may happen (not necessarily reversed openings), though even with 1.Na3, rather than 1.Nh3, Black may not have too much trouble proving White has committed the Kt (offside!?) too early to hope for an opening edge.
Based on what I've wrote, I would assess the position after 1.Na3 as just being equal, while 1.Nh3 e5 is already slightly better for Black - White may even do best to soon retreat his Kt to g1 (the line 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Ng8 is a bit similar from Black's point of view). Consequently I think having White after 1.Na3 would in theory be ever so slightly better than being Black in the standard start position, with White to move. However I imagine a lot of people might prefer to be Black in the latter case, since in most cases their opponent would probably play a normal opening that they would feel more comfortable playing against in practice. Btw in large databases White normally scores 55% in all games included, but there is too small a sample of 1.Nh3 or 1.Na3 to draw any statistical 'conclusions'.
When I suggested 1.Na3 Na6, it was of course to point out that Black might stubbornly refuse to allow White to play a reversed opening. I imagine this 'opening' would not be popular even with most club players as a theme tournament opening. Such players seem largely to want to practice against openings that could happen far more often in their lifetimes in serious or casual games. Gambits, which have been featured here in Ottawa at my club's occasional theme events, seem to attract enough participation that club organizers have repeatedly used such openings.
Your 'Meeting of the Kts' opening would be even more unpopular, if possible, since moves 3 & 4 involve Kt excursions that involve unacceptably illogical play to players of any reasonable standard, since after those particular moves the Kts beg to be beaten away with gain of time :p :). However I did find 3 examples of the starting postion (i.e. after move six, which is not so easy to evaluate at a glance) by various move orders in my largest database. All three suggested the players (all 2100+!) were up to something fishy - two ended in swift draws (one game had Kts put en prise left and right), while the one decisive game transposed to a standard opening after the players sent all their Kts back to their home squares.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Saturday, 1st August, 2009, 10:16 PM.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
I think if someone were to hold a number of themed tournaments, some with 1. Na3 as the opening and some with 1. Nh3, and the games were all recorded, this would at least partially address the problem of having too small a statistical sample size to assess these openings. If it turned out that one or both of these openings equalized, that would make it an ideal solution to situations where a single game must be played for tiebreak purposes (a rare situation, I'm assuming). Such games could be unrated if players agreed, but further objections based having to know an unorthodox opening are like objecting to having to know how to mate with Bishop and Knight, it seems to me. As long as it's legal, it's part of the game.
The "Meeting of the Knights" opening, I totally agree, is one that neither player involved would voluntarily allow to happen. Rather, it's an example of perhaps the most unorthodox of all possible openings, yet one that is perfectly legal and so could be used as a themed opening for a tournament. Just a bit of silliness, really :)
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Colors are drawn, but the rules of the tiebreak allow the player drawing Black to have a choice: either play with Black as drawn, or play as White but begin the game with either 1. Na3 or 1. Nh3. Which would you choose and why?
Again, I'm trying to get an opinion as to whether it is preferable to actually play as Black or to try to "fake" playing as Black by starting with one of these Knight moves. I don't expect there to be a definitive answer, just opinions.
That is an interesting tiebreak rule... someone should institute it for a major tournament!
In the abstract games community, a different rule is in place. The following rule was created to balance games where white has a huge advantage due to initiative:
Player A plays any move for white. Player B then chooses which color to play.
In some games, it goes a step further: A moves for white, B moves for black, A moves for white, B chooses a side.
So
E.g. 1. f4 e5 2. g4 (player B chooses black) Qh4++
1. d4 h5 2. e4? (better maybe f3!) (player B chooses white)
The point is, Mr. A must ensure a balanced position, because if it isn't balanced, he will get the losing side.
if 1.e4 c5 2.Na3 is playable, 1.Na3 is likely playable as well...there's lots of d4 and english games where the knight retreats from d4 to c2 so why not from a3 to c2 like they do in the 1.e4 c5 2.Na3 with a further c3 and Nc2.
if 1.e4 c5 2.Na3 is playable, 1.Na3 is likely playable as well...there's lots of d4 and english games where the knight retreats from d4 to c2 so why not from a3 to c2 like they do in the 1.e4 c5 2.Na3 with a further c3 and Nc2.
Yes, these are among the sort of transpositional possibilities which I referred to in my previous post in this thread.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
In the abstract games community, a different rule is in place. The following rule was created to balance games where white has a huge advantage due to initiative:
Player A plays any move for white. Player B then chooses which color to play.
In some games, it goes a step further: A moves for white, B moves for black, A moves for white, B chooses a side.
So
E.g. 1. f4 e5 2. g4 (player B chooses black) Qh4++
1. d4 h5 2. e4? (better maybe f3!) (player B chooses white)
The point is, Mr. A must ensure a balanced position, because if it isn't balanced, he will get the losing side.
Has this abstract games rule been applied to the oriental game of Go-Moku (sp?), as played on a Go board, where I understand that the player to move first [actually Black] in theory should win (and easily?!). If so, would this rule being applied make it impossible to know who should win, in theory?
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
8.Nf3! was known to me back in 1974, being shown by someone after my game where I played this as Black against GM William Lombardy (draw).
What made me give up this line was 3.Bd3 e6 4.Nf3 (or other move order) Nf6 5.Nd2 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.a3!, with a later b2-b4 being annoying to face. Although I did beat GM Walter Browne with this line in 1975, after being worse, I've never managed to demonstrate reliable active play for Black.
8.Nf3! was known to me back in 1974, being shown by someone after my game where I played this as Black against GM William Lombardy (draw).
What made me give up this line was 3.Bd3 e6 4.Nf3 (or other move order) Nf6 5.Nd2 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.a3!, with a later b2-b4 being annoying to face. Although I did beat GM Walter Browne with this line in 1975, after being worse, I've never managed to demonstrate reliable active play for Black.
By 8.Nf3!, I assume you refer to my original post of this thread.
In the line you give in your second paragraph, ECO 4th edition, B00 (footnote 16) gives 7...d5 8.e5 Nd7 9.0-0 a5, etc., as in A. Ivanov-Blatny, Philadelphia 2000. It's an Informant game (79/70), with Black eventually equalizing in Ivanov's notes to the game, if he had played properly. Unfortunately White can deviate at moves 3-5, and probably obtain at least a slight edge in theory.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
In the line you give in your second paragraph, ECO 4th edition, B00 (footnote 16) gives 7...d5 8.e5 Nd7 9.0-0 a5, etc., as in A. Ivanov-Blatny, Philadelphia 2000. It's an Informant game (79/70), with Black eventually equalizing in Ivanov's notes to the game, if he had played properly. Unfortunately White can deviate at moves 3-5, and probably obtain at least a slight edge in theory.
In my largest database there are a handful of examples of 9.b4 (instead of 9.0-0), when Black reacts with 9...c4. After 10.Bc2 there a small number of examples each with 10...b5 and 10...Be7 (the latter intending ...Qc7 and ...0-0-0, as in a line of the French KIA that's well-known nowadays). Black did okay with either approach result-wise, though a theoretical evaluation might be a matter of taste, or might involve more experience with the line.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Tweet
Comment