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?
Hi Gary,
He discontinued his online mag, and store just recently. It could have just been my imagination re. seeing ref, but ...h6 is a beginners move anyways, no? Crunch, crunch for white.
He discontinued his online mag, and store just recently. It could have just been my imagination re. seeing ref, but ...h6 is a beginners move anyways, no? Crunch, crunch for white.
Tim did his thesis on CC a year or two ago. The result (other than the thesis) is a book that will soon be published by McFarland ( http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/searches...eisure%2FChess ) . McFarland is a well known chess book publisher (among many other topics) although they rarely meet the dates specified on their website. Tim's book has already been moved back once.
Details of the sale of the book on Amazon.ca are at:
Re: What 1.e4 defence is objectively best to try to upset an unknown 2500+ player?
[QUOTE=David McTavish;27369
It could have just been my imagination re. seeing ref, but ...h6 is a beginners move anyways, no? Crunch, crunch for white.[/QUOTE]
I checked his games in my database and he seems to play the Caro-Kann quite a bit. Usually has decent results. He's ICCF rated over 2300.
Re: What 1.e4 defence is objectively best to try to upset an unknown 2500+ player?
I'd give the Scandinavian a go! There is a lot of unexplored territory from the Black side. GM Anand thought it was worth a shot against World Champion Kasparov in their 1995 New York match. Vishy eventually lost the game but had many good positions during it. :) :)
I've had good results with the Marshall Retreat Variation, specifically 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6, with the knight later recapturing on d5, then retreating to f6 (instead of b6, which is the main line), when chased by White's c2-c4. It is more solid than it looks, with potential for active counterply, because Black's unorthodox play 'demands' a refutation by White, who may overpress.
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.
Humour me, Ed. The question poser (me) is trying to pose the question in a way consistent with Gary's apparent view that the French (and the Winawer in particular) is (in practice, if not objectively) a bad choice. I want to see if the vast majority of chesstalk viewers who respond agree with him. Apparently not, unless the ones who chose the French (with Winawer if allowed) are largely having fun dishonestly disagreeing at Gary's expense.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Saturday, 31st July, 2010, 12:02 PM.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
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.
Fwiw, ECO gives 6...h6 punctuated as dubious and quotes Tal-Oll up to move 15, ending with "+-". Tal chose 11.0-0 and Oll replied 11...c5"?!". ECO gives Tal's suggestion of 11...Qc7!? intending ...b6 followed by ...Bb7 instead, without giving an evaluation.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
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.
Under a), lots of playable Open Sicilian alternatives to the Najdorf, though I am not sure Black can win as well with them if White wants a draw.
Under b), I'm not loaded down with all the latest theory, but it does seem Black has lots of playable (to some extent, at least) choices in the mainlines of 6.Bg5 that result from Black's major options at move 7 (after 6...e6 7.f4).
Under c), I am not sure if Black has to settle for a draw if White is determined to make one.
Under d), 15...Bf6 seems a viable alternative to 15...Qe7, if that move dissatisfies.
Under e), experimenting with a new sub-variation is not so great a chess sin in my eyes, than say infidelity to one's overall repertoire of major defences to 1.e4.
Under f), 11...gxf6 or 10...h6 do seem to be slightly inferior choices, based on the theory I've seen for a long time.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Saturday, 31st July, 2010, 11:59 AM.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Fwiw, ECO gives 6...h6 punctuated as dubious and quotes Tal-Oll up to move 15, ending with "+-". Tal chose 11.0-0 and Oll replied 11...c5"?!". ECO gives Tal's suggestion of 11...Qc7!? intending ...b6 followed by ...Bb7 instead, without giving an evaluation.
I didn't see ECO but have the Tal game. The game varied from Tal at move 11. It went 0-0 Qxb2. Why be satisfied with being a knight up when you can take a pawn as well. That 11. ... c5 by Tal's opponent is not the best try for black.
Humour me, Ed. The question poser (me) is trying to pose the question in a way consistent with Gary's apparent view that the French (and the Winawer in particular) is (in practice, if not objectively) a bad choice. I want to see if the vast majority of chesstalk viewers who respond agree with him. Apparently not, unless the ones who chose the French (with Winawer if allowed) are largely having fun dishonestly disagreeing at Gary's expense.
Did you notice what Pascal did to Sambuev, a seasoned French Defence player, with his French Tarrasch? I'll grant you Jean defeated a French Tarrasch in round 7 against someone or other. I forget who. I didn't look over the game because it took 110 moves to win. Like it must be real fun to have to play 110 moves in round 7. I'm too old to play through such long games. :)
Humour me, Ed. The question poser (me) is trying to pose the question in a way consistent with Gary's apparent view that the French (and the Winawer in particular) is (in practice, if not objectively) a bad choice. I want to see if the vast majority of chesstalk viewers who respond agree with him. Apparently not, unless the ones who chose the French (with Winawer if allowed) are largely having fun dishonestly disagreeing at Gary's expense.
Well, if you are going to ask a question and want a good answer it's best that your question be well formed and at least not internally inconsistent which, it seems to me, both the original and your restating of it still are.
For instance the "best way to win" could mean different things depending on the context. You might intend the meaning "What is the best way to win at any risk since I will likely lose anyway and a draw won't help?" or "What is the best way to obtain the chance of a win while keeping a draw a realistic possibility and minimizing the chances of a loss?", and that's only two possibilities.
For one thing the best answer to either form would depend on how much you know about both your weaknesses and strengths, and your opponent's. But then you use the word "objective" which seems to me to contradict the spirit of the question as otherwise expressed.
Objectively the best way is simply to play without mistakes. In practice it is not possible or often even desireable to do that.
Well, if you are going to ask a question and want a good answer it's best that your question be well formed and at least not internally inconsistent which, it seems to me, both the original and your restating of it still are.
An important part of my original comment seems to get lost. That being the French Winawer is a poor choice for a lower rated player to play against a higher rated and particularly a higher rated titled player.
There are exceptions. Sometimes the database shows a higher rated player doesn't have much success against the Winawer. Then it's worth seeing if he's learned to handle the defence.
In these days, when pairings are posted before the rounds, I think the entire poll is flawed. It assumes a certain method of preparation.
I do my preparation differently. I find my opponents games in the databases. Then the idea is to find what he plays poorly and see if he's learned to play it better. There's no point playing a defence to which white hasn't lost in a decade, unless I can find a bust for the line he uses.
An important part of my original comment seems to get lost. That being the French Winawer is a poor choice for a lower rated player to play against a higher rated and particularly a higher rated titled player.
There are exceptions. Sometimes the database shows a higher rated player doesn't have much success against the Winawer. Then it's worth seeing if he's learned to handle the defence.
In these days, when pairings are posted before the rounds, I think the entire poll is flawed. It assumes a certain method of preparation.
I do my preparation differently. I find my opponents games in the databases. Then the idea is to find what he plays poorly and see if he's learned to play it better. There's no point playing a defence to which white hasn't lost in a decade, unless I can find a bust for the line he uses.
Hi Gary
The word "upset" in the poll's question I asked implies that Black is a lower rated player than the 2500+ player. To upset someone higher usually means to beat or even just draw them.
If you or Ed can formulate a short enough question to try to articulate your viewpoint/theory about the French/Winawer in a way that respondents can either endorse or reject your viewpoint/theory (however you'd put it in short form) then be my guest.
The poll responses seem to be slowing down, but the data so far collected can be made sense of, in my view.
There is a large segment that may think mainly solidity with Black is the way (Caro-Kann).
Then there is a similarly large segment that may think mainly dynamism is best (Sicilian - of which most think the Najdorf is the best Sicilian period, perhaps).
Then there is a similarly large segment that may think a combination of solidity and dynamism is the way to go (French - of which 3.Nc3 is best met by the Winawer).
Then there is a similarly large segment that may think trying to get the 2500+ player out of his most familiar comfort zone with more offbeat choices is the way to go (1...other as Black vs. 1.e4).
Nobody so far seems to think that trying to carefully equalize, first navigating the tricks and traps of Double King Pawn with Black, is the way to go.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
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.
here's a game from the recently completed ICCF World Championship...will have to take a look...
here's a game from the recently completed ICCF World Championship...will have to take a look...
I used the black side of the Ruy Lopez to draw with Cesar a few years ago. It went more than 50 moves. I think it was on board 1 of the Pan Am games but maybe it was Olympiad.
Tweet
Comment