That Winawer, Again!!!

[Kerry Liles]

Ben... get in here and tell these kids to shut up

ben... where are you when we need you, really, really NEED you.

Put a smackdown on these two.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Ben... get in here and tell these kids to shut up

ben... where are you when we need you, really, really NEED you.

Put a smackdown on these two.

Kerry, as a member of the Scarborough Club the same time I was, you and I have to give Mavros some respect. If he wants to pretend he plays like a GM, the least we can do is teat him like one.

I meant to ask you if you're retired yet. I can't recall how much younger than me you are.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Ben... get in here and tell these kids to shut up

I don't know Mavros and have no idea about his playing strength OTB or otherwise (and I suppose it would be redundant to mention I don't care one way or the other). There are GMs and there are other GMs. :)

I haven't retired yet. My financial advisor is optimistic and now claims I only have to work 5 years after I die...

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Ben... get in here and tell these kids to shut up

I don't know Mavros and have no idea about his playing strength OTB or otherwise (and I suppose it would be redundant to mention I don't care one way or the other). There are GMs and there are other GMs. :)

I haven't retired yet. My financial advisor is optimistic and now claims I only have to work 5 years after I die...

I don't know him either. Just what's in this thread. I think you'd probably agree it went badly. :)

Retirement isn't all that bad. You'd be amazed how many way a person can serve up premium dog kibble. My dog, Beware, doesn't seem amused, but it gives another meaning to the term "table scraps". I take it you know I'm joking. :)

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: That Winawer, Again!!!

I don't know why Kevin is wasting his time trying to tell a know-it-all like you his thoughts.

But, as you can surely see, I am sharing my thoughts with more people than just Gary :).

Much as I regret, I shall interrupt this lively exchange of sparkling witticisms with ...chess!

In properly keeping with the title of this thread, I will now discuss the French, along with Winawer - albeit, it has been mentioned for the nth time on this message board.

The claim has been made that in the French as a whole Black suffers from a lack of space. As John Watson pointed out in Play the French, 3rd edition, this is untrue - "Black's share of the centre is greater than in most other defences to 1.e4, arguably only less than that after 1...e5 (which tends to cede space early on anyway). Thus the risk of being overrun is small and at the same time White is hard-pressed to make his first-move advantage count at all."

I would add that few people complain that Black has too little space to manage in a King's Indian defence, and yet in terms of central pawn structure it (or the Closed Ruy Lopez for that matter) is often the mirror image of the French Defence. Moreover, in the French, Black often has excellent chances of displacing a White pawn from e5, e.g. using his f-pawn lever, while in the King's Indian a White pawn on d5 tends to stay there, or be replaced by the White pawn on c4.

But what of the Winawer? Well, what I wrote about the French as a whole certainly applies to the normal lines of the Winawer as well. Now, let's look at the hallowed position after the main line beginning with 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e4 c5 5.a3



The first thing I should note is that on the previous turn each side had a plethora of choice (though admittedly White's fourth move now is widely considered best, and Black's has only one widely respected alternative at move four [...Ne7]).

In the diagrammed position Black's usual choice is 5...Bxc3+ (though 5...Ba5 has always had a cult following, to a greater extend than the possibly underestimated 5...cxd4!?). After 6.bxc3 Black again has choices, the main one being 6...Ne7 (but 6...Qc7 and [nowadays] 6...Qa5 come into the picture as respectable alternatives).

So as you can see, Black has no lack of choice along the way. With such a multiplicity of plausible choices, it would seem foolhardy to believe that every Black alternative should lead to poor prospects for the second player regardless. The Winawer suits players of many styles, given the richness of choice for both sides.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: That Winawer, Again!!!

But, as you can surely see, I am sharing my thoughts with more people than just Gary :).

Much as I regret, I shall interrupt this lively exchange of sparkling witticisms with ...chess!

In properly keeping with the title of this thread, I will now discuss the French, along with Winawer - albeit, it has been mentioned for the nth time on this message board.

Thanks for getting back to chess. Probably Mavros has lost interest in tawdry self promotion and bragging about the depth and breath of his chess knowledge and increase in his meager rating. :)

Actually, my original contention was that the Winawer is a poor choice for a weaker player to use against a strong player. A lower percentage try than some other openings. While some strong players don't have a good record against the Winawer, there are others who are quite good at beating it. It depends if white knows what he's doing or not knowing. Other versions are OK. One of the guys told me he switched from the Winawer to the Burn, I think it was, and something else which was working better for him. If white wants, the Tarrasch gives an OK game, particularly if it's a Swiss Gamibt round where all you really want is a draw and a rest.

This thread was never really about the Winawer. It was about a simple tip for players wanting to improve their game. Simply to assess the three main parts of their game and try to make each one equal strength.

The baiting which followed is either a feature or fault, depending on your view, of message boards which are mostly unmoderated. Any benefit one might take out of this thread is probably gone and you would be best to post your excellent comments in a different thread.

Gary

[Mavros Whissell]

Re: That Winawer, Again!!!

Kevin,

You make a good point, you can reach more than deaf ears. I guess I erred letting the pedantic nature of others take over my thoughts. I had originally posted to suggest some thoughts on a good book for learning about chess, and contributions to chess strength. I still believe that original post is good, suggesting there are more factors than most people think.

I recently suggested the Winawer to a young friend of mine about a half a year ago. The result was an almost immediate tournament win in Ottawa (he was in the U1600 section) because white players were not sure how to reinforce their centers against the pressure black quickly puts on them. Classical kingside attacks never materialized as white players hoped they would. It was a terrific choice against 1.e4 in this rating category, as born out through my friend's games.

And what about the highest levels of chess? Its worth noting that Kasparov had an almost equal amount of games with both 3.Nc3 and 3.Nd2, not allowing the Winawer. Its also worth noting that one of the greatest players of all time, Bobby Fischer, habitually had problems against the Winawer.

Mavros

[Eric Hansen]

Re: That Winawer, Again!!!

Thanks for getting back to chess. Probably Mavros has lost interest in tawdry self promotion and bragging about the depth and breath of his chess knowledge and increase in his meager rating. :)

Actually, my original contention was that the Winawer is a poor choice for a weaker player to use against a strong player. A lower percentage try than some other openings. While some strong players don't have a good record against the Winawer, there are others who are quite good at beating it. It depends if white knows what he's doing or not knowing. Other versions are OK. One of the guys told me he switched from the Winawer to the Burn, I think it was, and something else which was working better for him. If white wants, the Tarrasch gives an OK game, particularly if it's a Swiss Gamibt round where all you really want is a draw and a rest.

This thread was never really about the Winawer. It was about a simple tip for players wanting to improve their game. Simply to assess the three main parts of their game and try to make each one equal strength.

The baiting which followed is either a feature or fault, depending on your view, of message boards which are mostly unmoderated. Any benefit one might take out of this thread is probably gone and you would be best to post your excellent comments in a different thread.

Gary

You may very well be right about the winawer usage. I just tend to be opposite so I use the winawer solely against stronger players. I looked at my stuff and I only have 6 winawer games I've played in the last 2 years against higher rated I think. Why? I play it against higher rated because I don't have to worry about the exchange variation and it tends to be a very solid choice. The games typically last 4+ hours and I think I usually have better stamina then my opponents and can outplay them as the game goes down to the wire (usually time trouble occurs). I also used to think that black had a nice game in the line I played (qa5 after bc3). My opinion of this line has changed recently, so I cannot explained why I played it this year. I get good positions but it just requires WAY too much effort to cash it in. I'm the sort of player who likes to finish fast and then go hang out, so the winawer just doesn't suit me. To sum it up: I'm too lazy to play the winawer as black. Funny enough, I score VERY well on the white side and happen to finish my opponents off very fast! It could be because I know black's ideas so I can anticipate them.

These are fide ratings. White avg: 2452 Black avg: 2257

Gicev (2333) Hansen (2132) 0-1 (White tried attacking queenside which was a mistake)
Shabalov (2626) Hansen (2132) 1-0 ( Equalized with black fairly easily but he came up with good attacking moves, got outplayed simply because he was a much better player)
Adamson (2349) Hansen (2240) 0-1 ( Messed up move order ended up in bad position, sacrificed pawn for some play and he started to go astray with the help of time trouble)
Ghati(2350) Hansen (2240) 1-0 ( Achieved clear winning position out of the opening proceeded to completely blowup)
Castellanos (2446) Hansen (2398) 1/2 1/2 ( Equalized in the opening and pushed for win (declined draw offer))
Becerra (2609) Hansen (2398) 1-0 (outplay Becerra until I have an advantage and he is forced to give up a pawn. I didn't take it and allowed him to equalize and then proceeded to get killed in massive time trouble)

2.5/6 but considering I was playing up a lot generally it wasn't too bad. Shabalov safely decided to play 1.d4 against me in our next encounter. The only bad opening was against Adamson, I was asleep at the board and totally messed up the opening move order. My king decided to get some much needed exercise, eventually having a nice vacation on the b7 square. Pretty interesting game and I got lucky for sure.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: That Winawer, Again!!!

Gary and Mavros

Advice to class players and novices can surely include a tip or two on choice of opening for tournament games. Style is one big key to choice of opening, along with whether one is playing for a win or is satisfied with a draw. However at this level, at least, style is largely a function of strengths and weaknesses, the latter usually being the commission of too many gross tactical errors.

Consequently, at this level, double king pawn in practice games with Black can be recommended to learn classic traps and improve one's skills in attack and defence, but if one wishes to survive as long as possible against a stronger player in a serious tournament game, as well as giving both players more chances to make mistakes, then semi-open or closed positions, such as often reached in the Winawer, are a better bet in my view.

In my early days as a player, I finally beat my nemesis Bob Gelblum (now an NM) when I took up the Winawer, albeit using it in casual games at first. He had pointed out that Fischer had trouble against it, and that gave me an idea ;). After his first close shave against my Winawer, Bob remarked that he had created a monster :). Kasparov is another tough customer who's had trouble against the French (compare it to his results against the Sicilian in a large database).

I should also say that early in one's career one should try lots of openings, at least in practice games, in order to find (or be sure of) one's preferences. Later one might narrow things down, or try the more difficult openings that really ought to require more memorization to just survive, as one advances. These days database programs make it easier to see one's performance rating with/against any given opening, and against lower/higher rated opponents, though statistics don't always tell the whole story.

Up to now my advice has been for otb players. Correspondence chess is a different game. Even in the pre-playing program era correspondence players could commit far fewer blunders, if they were diligent, I imagine. Based on my own limited experience, the stronger player usually wins in spite of computer assistance, since both sides make few tactical errors, but positional judgement and endgame skill, where computers still have problems, are the factors that favour the strong. As an aside, a feud such has been going on within this thread could probably be settled more or less fairly if a correspondence match were played, even though Gary has the experience with this form of chess :D.

Gary mentioned the Tarrasch variation of the French. In top chess it does require either side to take considerable risks to play for a win. However I have to admit that White's chances of obtaining a draw are probably greater than after 3.Nc3, particularly in correspondence chess where short to medium term tactical errors are harder to come by thanks to computers (especially I'm thinking of the isolated d-pawn positions which are preferred by top players). Black's best bet could be 3...Nf6 or 3...Nc6 (I personally prefer the latter). The fashionable 3...Be7 can unfortunately reduce to isolated d-pawn positions in some cases.

[Dan Scoones]

Re: That Winawer, Again!!!

I bet that caught your attention but it's not the topic of this post.

I've been looking through some games in databases. What catches my attention is the different strength of play in the sections of the game. Here's a tip and it should help weaker players. Strong players know everything so probably don't need this.

The games is roughly broken into 3 sections.

1. The Opening.
2. The Middle Game.
3. The Endgame.

Mostly, if you are poor at the openings you won't take much of a game into the middle game. If your middle game play is poor, you'll get poor endgames. And, if your endgame play is poor you won't be able to capture the full point or realize your draw.

No matter what class you play, you should identify the part of your game which is the weakest and work on that. Strive to make each section of your game equally strong. That should improve your overall play and your rating as well.

My policy is to strive for a superior post-mortem.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: That Winawer, Again!!!

To sum it up: I'm too lazy to play the winawer as black. Funny enough, I score VERY well on the white side and happen to finish my opponents off very fast! It could be because I know black's ideas so I can anticipate them.

I know what you mean about the length those games can go. I played one where the game went over 90 moves.

Probably you're right about why you do well against black when he plays that defence. Once you get to the point where you can beat that defence, you can usually do it often.

Do you play the Caro Kann? I have a harder time playing against that defence.

Before computer got really good I used to like to play the King's Gambit in CC events. The opponents had to be able to play a bit. When the computers got better I had to stop playing it because I'd simply end up with a game where the play was taken down and I was a pawn down. Another favourite of mine was the Ruy Lopez Marshall as black but very few accept it anymore. It used to be good for at least a draw against most opponents.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: That Winawer, Again!!!

I use the winawer solely against stronger players. I looked at my stuff and I only have 6 winawer games I've played in the last 2 years against higher rated I think. Why? I play it against higher rated because I don't have to worry about the exchange variation and it tends to be a very solid choice.

The Exchange French isn't a worry at all for me when facing weak or equal opposition. Check Alekhine's record as Black against it in a database. Also check how long most of his games lasted in this rather open variation. Should please you ;).

The games typically last 4+ hours and I think I usually have better stamina then my opponents and can outplay them as the game goes down to the wire (usually time trouble occurs).

I don't have particularly good health, but even when I play stronger opponents they are normally the ones in time trouble against my Winawer since I am familiar with it. In your case your stamina is a factor in favour of continuing to play the Winawer. Alas, you throw away this advantage if you prefer quick games (though you may get them in other variations of the French). Perhaps GM Jonny Hector should be your model since he always wants to win quickly. Then again, I'm sure he didn't become a GM by not working at the board.

I also used to think that black had a nice game in the line I played (qa5 after bc3). My opinion of this line has changed recently, so I cannot explained why I played it this year. I get good positions but it just requires WAY too much effort to cash it in. I'm the sort of player who likes to finish fast and then go hang out, so the winawer just doesn't suit me. To sum it up: I'm too lazy to play the winawer as black.

It sounds like you don't really want to abandon 6...Qa5 in particular, since it's brought results. Fine, just use it now and then, when you feel like doing hard work, such as when you know the local bar is closed early :). Me, I'm an experienced player, I just sort of use the force, rather than calculating or planning my brains out. Almost have to these days, with fast time controls. I've seen typical plans and tactics by studying lots of books and games at home, albeit mostly long ago.

Funny enough, I score VERY well on the white side and happen to finish my opponents off very fast! It could be because I know black's ideas so I can anticipate them.

Yep, if you're playing against a defence that you use yourself, it often gives you a big edge. Fortunately many strong opponents aren't Winawer players themselves.

These are fide ratings. White avg: 2452 Black avg: 2257
2.5/6 but considering I was playing up a lot generally it wasn't too bad.

Considering your reward for playing the Winawer (unless you've done better with all your other defences), why chuck it away? Like I said, at least use it when you're in the mood for work and a long game.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: That Winawer, Again!!!

My policy is to strive for a superior post-mortem.

I hate when that happens. :) My best memory of that is from the Scarborough - Indianapolis Peace Games in 1976, I think it was. At that time I was 6 ft 3 inches. (Shorter these days.) Their board 1 was an American expert or master, I forget which. I got to play him in the last round and beat him. Played the Larsen Opening 1. b3.

This guy towered over me. Must have been close to 7 feet tall. He wanted to do a post mortem so we did. He showed me all these variations and after each one asked me how I liked my position that way. I kept protesting "but the game didn't go that way". I got the feeling he was upset.

It was 5 boards and I put my opposite on the other team up for the weekend.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: That Winawer, Again!!!

You may very well be right about the winawer usage. I just tend to be opposite so I use the winawer solely against stronger players.

Some rough statistics for 2009:
Total game: 300 (>2200 players)
1-0 39%
1/2-1/2 - 35%
0-1 26%

White - avrg 2400; performance 2444
Black - 2395; 2359

Conclusion: statistically the variation is preferable for White. Practically, it just another opening with huge possibilities.

[Event "Nalchik FIDE GP"]
[Site "Nalchik"]
[Date "2009.04.22"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Karjakin, Sergey"]
[Black "Kamsky, Gata"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C19"]
[WhiteElo "2721"]
[BlackElo "2720"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. Qg4 cxd4 8. Qxg7 Rg8 9. Qxh7 Qc7 10. Ne2 Nbc6 11. f4 dxc3 12. Qd3 d4 13. Ng3 Bd7 14. Be2 O-O-O 15. O-O Qb6 16. Ne4 Nd5 17. Nd6+ Kb8 18. Nxf7 Rdf8 19. Nd6 Nce7 20. Bf3 Bc6 21. a4 Nb4 22. a5 Qc5 23. Qh7 d3+ 24. Kh1 d2 25. Bxd2 cxd2 26. Qxe7 Rxf4 27. Rab1 Rgf8 28. c4 a6 29. h3 Ka8 30. Qg7 Qe3 31. Kh2 1-0

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: That Winawer, Again!!!

Some rough statistics for 2009:
Total game: 300 (>2200 players)
1-0 39%
1/2-1/2 - 35%
0-1 26%

White - avrg 2400; performance 2444
Black - 2395; 2359

Conclusion: statistically the variation is preferable for White. Practically, it just another opening with huge possibilities.

In 'The Chess Advantage in Black and White', IM Larry Kaufman shows how the advantage of the White pieces is worth 35 rating points (based on large database sample of games regardless of opening). So I wouldn't give White much more of a statistical edge than is normal. Especially based on only 300 games.

Your quoted 26% Black win record with the Winawer is nice to see, though no surprise, based on my own largest database. At the highest levels (2700+ vs. 2700+ players, preferably) I personally would like Black to score at least 12.5% wins with an opening if I'm going to use it as a winning attempt. Based on that criteria the Nimzo+QID+Catalan complex vs. 1.d4, for example, is okay, as the Catalan with Black barely qualifies in my database. The Winawer also makes the grade.