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.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
What 1.e4 defence is objectively best to try to upset an unknown 2500+ player?
Re: What 1.e4 defence is objectively best to try to upset an unknown 2500+ player?
Since the question asked depends on personal factors and therefore must be a subjective one, asking for an objective answer to it is illogical in the first place.
There is always a chance I am missing something. I sacrificed a knight in the first 10 moves. Here's the first 10 moves. The games is more than twice this far.
To play this in correspondence chess I had to feel certain it couldn't be beaten by a strong chess program and a fast computer.
that is the steinitz line of the caro-kann, correct? Interesting piece sac, I believe Tal played a line(the line is called the Tal Gambit, I believe) where he sac'd a pawn on e6 to screw up black, white is better in that line, but a whole piece I'm not so sure.
that is the steinitz line of the caro-kann, correct? Interesting piece sac, I believe Tal played a line(the line is called the Tal Gambit, I believe) where he sac'd a pawn on e6 to screw up black, white is better in that line, but a whole piece I'm not so sure.
Yes, Tal played it. I found one of his games but this game didn't follow his moves much farther. I don't recall seeing the game where he sac'd a pawn. In the game where he sacs the piece I don't recall his opponent.
I think the piece sacrifice busts that variation and will post the game when it's finished. He will soon be sacrificing his queen for some stuff. :)
The Sicialian Najdorf is a bit different. 6. Bg5 pretty near busts the defence. The only really saving variation is for black to play the poisoned pawn variation. My opinion anyhow. This assumes white knows what he's doing.
Yes, Tal played it. I found one of his games but this game didn't follow his moves much farther. I don't recall seeing the game where he sac'd a pawn. In the game where he sacs the piece I don't recall his opponent.
I think the piece sacrifice busts that variation and will post the game when it's finished. He will soon be sacrificing his queen for some stuff. :)
The Sicialian Najdorf is a bit different. 6. Bg5 pretty near busts the defence. The only really saving variation is for black to play the poisoned pawn variation. My opinion anyhow. This assumes white knows what he's doing.
I completely agree that the only saving try for white against Bg5 is the PP variation(white's position is so dominant in almost every other Bg5 line). I think blacks better in most PP lines, I've found some interesting busts to popular lines in the PP. The Najdorf always prevails...
There is always a chance I am missing something. I sacrificed a knight in the first 10 moves. Here's the first 10 moves. The games is more than twice this far.
To play this in correspondence chess I had to feel certain it couldn't be beaten by a strong chess program and a fast computer.
Sorry Gary,
While upon a random and usually worthless opening internet search, another strong corr player had just come to the same conclusion. It may have even been Harding. He had a strong game from practice to back it up w/ comprehensive annotations, as well. his main point was if White just grabs the B pair on move 9, black is strangely ok.If i stumble upon it , I' ll post the link. Keep sacking for the inish, even vs the rybkas!
While upon a random and usually worthless opening internet search, another strong corr player had just come to the same conclusion. It may have even been Harding. He had a strong game from practice to back it up w/ comprehensive annotations, as well. his main point was if White just grabs the B pair on move 9, black is strangely ok.If i stumble upon it , I' ll post the link. Keep sacking for the inish, even vs the rybkas!
I didn't know Tim is back to writing chess articles again. I subscribed to his Chess Mail magazine for years and bought some of his CC books and CD's. It was discontinued a few years ago.
I didn't know Tim is back to writing chess articles again. I subscribed to his Chess Mail magazine for years and bought some of his CC books and CD's. It was discontinued a few years ago.
Let me know if you find the article.
i don't think he ever stopped...he has a monthly article on www.chesscafe.com
i agree about Bg5 v. the Najdorf in correspondence. i had gotten decent games OTB in B99 with
10.g4 b5 11.Bxf6 Nxf6 12.g5 Nd7 13.f5 Bxg5+ etc. but suffered hard at the hands of some 2300s in correspondence in lines after 14.Kb1 Ne5 15.Qh5 Qd8 etc. etc.
so the alternatives are
a) give up the Sicilian
b) give up the Najdorf
c) play the poisoned pawn v Bg5
d) try to make 15. ...Qe7 work
e) play 13. ...Nc5 14.f6 gxf6 15.gxf6 Bf8 but that goes against my principle (same as c) not to play things in correspondence that i wouldn't play in real life
f) play 11. ...gxf6, 11. ...Nxf6 or even 10. ...h6 etc etc. etc.
Re: What 1.e4 defence is objectively best to try to upset an unknown 2500+ player?
Craig Sadler- option c) is the best,
The only super dangerous line for black is that new e5 line where white sacs 3-4 pawns for a nearly decisive attack, but I believe it was Carlsen who played this early h6 g5 system that gives black a nice playable position up a bit of material. the F5 line has two mainlines, the Kasparov drawn line and the 'new' B5 line where black often sacs an exchange but gets more then enough compensation. Bxf6 is basically busted, the H-pawn push followed by Bh6 gives black a good game in most cases. Be2 is probably the best try for white practically.
Since the question asked depends on personal factors and therefore must be a subjective one, asking for an objective answer to it is illogical in the first place.
The respondent is being asked implicitly to try to be objective, in spite of any personal preferences.
Fischer was once described (by Euwe) as trying to be utterly objective when choosing his moves. That is, he tried to make the best/strongest move regardless of his opponent. Of course you could argue that trying to be objective is illogical, as you put it, but is that pronouncement objective in itself? :). In short, one might say only God can be objective (or sin-free), but we are asked to try our best to come as close as we can to that.
The situation asked for in the question could theoretically arise in an internet chess match, if the players are told only the rating of their opponent, not the name (or it could be neither player has ever heard of their opponent).
In trying to make an objective decision respondents might vary on what their criteria is for objectivity. For my choice of the Najdorf I considered statistics for the opening to some extent, for example, in judging how good it was. I didn't let my love of the French Defence with Black get in the way. I am considering what is best for most underdogs when faced with a random 2500+ player.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Re: What 1.e4 defence is objectively best to try to upset an unknown 2500+ player?
One thing that's striking, so far, is that there are no votes for Double King Pawn as the best choice for attempting an upset against a superior 2500+ opponent. Perhaps that at least can be seen as objective evidence AGAINST certain choices, based on weight of numbers (0% or 100% as percentages are at least sometimes strong evidence statistically for conclusions - a jury needs all twelve members to convict someone, for example). The Sicilan Dragon also has no votes, though this may be partly based on its dubious reputation analytically at the moment.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Friday, 30th July, 2010, 03:14 PM.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
The respondent is being asked implicitly to try to be objective, in spite of any personal preferences.
Well he said "objective" but framed the question in such a way that "objective" doesn't seem to me to be applicable to the situation. So the question appears to internally contradict itself to me.
Tweet
Comment