Sep-21-05
 | | sisyphus: To second-guess Irving Chernev ("Logical Chess, Move by Move") 7. d5 is not so bad. White's big mistake is 13. Bxh6. Instead, White should give back the pawn with 13. Nd2 Nxg4 14. Nf3 and hold. |
|
| Sep-22-05 | | Dudley: This is one of those games in Logical Chess where I think Chernev is trying to show that the KP opening for White is just not that good. I think he has a couple games won by Black in this variation of the Guico and also shows the effectiveness of the Schliemann variation vs. the Ruy. He later makes a strong case for the strength of 1.d4, being the Capablanca fan that he was. This was the book that convinced me to start learning 1.d4 openings such as the Colle system and later the Queen's Gambit. Of course, when he wrote the book openings like the Kings Indian and Benoni were practically unheard of. |
|
| Oct-16-05 | | MUG: This game is a fine example of Chernev's bias towards the eventual winner. In Logical Chess, after 10 Qe2 (admittedly a dubious move), Chernev writes:
<A developing move, but it may be too late>. What? Why? Doesn't 10.Nbd2 or 13.Nbd2 keeps White in a comfortable position? Admittedly, Logical Chess is targeted more at the beginner and is not about the details, but to simply dismiss a position as simply lost without good reason seems a little lazy. |
|
| Jan-19-06 | | Kriegspiel: <MUG> Personally I doubt that you are in a position to make such assertions (couched as questions) with any authority. But then, both the fatuous smirk of your icon and your name fit you very well. Also, you might learn English as a second language, and then you will understand the difference between "may" and "is". Kriegspiel
:p |
|
| Jan-30-06 | | Chess Classics: <MUG> and <Kriegspiel> Chernev took advantage of hindsight. MUG was simply asking a question Kriegspiel, he wasn't claiming any authority. Regards,
CC |
|
| Jan-31-06 | | Kriegspiel: <Chess Classics> Please. <MUG> did more than ask a question: he asserted that Chernev dismissed a position as lost without good reason, that Chernev was lazy, and that the book in question reflects intellectually lazy qualities because it is "targeted at the beginner". Such assertions implicitly claim an authority exceeding that of the author, which was considerable, if only because he had the leisure of hindsight and considerable experience analyzing chess games (which analysis no doubt utilized the consultative wisdom of a number of more experienced persons than Chernev himself, who had a good deal of personal experience to start with). Kriegspiel
:p |
|
| Oct-10-06 | | priapus56: I think Kriegspiel would do well to read posting guideline No.3.... |
|
| Feb-10-07 | | Octavia: I've got to agree with Kriegspiel for once: Chernev was saying that 10. Qe2 "may be too late" to develop his pieces. He didn't say the game was lost - by not developing earlier, white made it difficult to complete the development. |
|
| Feb-18-08 | | peterkein: Re Dudley- It seems to me Chernev is rather clear on what he is admonishing- White's neglect of developing pieces as well as weakening the King's defense after castling (by h3). Not sure this can translate into "KP openings are bad for White". |
|
| Jan-20-10 | | njchess: Where White's game begins to go awry is with 8. Bd3. This is an unnecessary move since Black's capture of the e4 pawn leaves the e-file half open for White. Better would have been to simply ignore the threat and play 8. a4. White should retain a slight edge throughout. |
|
| Dec-12-12 | | Wulebgr: 8.Bd3 is a fine move, despite violating the principles noted by Chernev. Indeed, the move is good enough to be the choice in Hiarcs' opening book. 9.h3 is also in Hiarcs' book, but 9.Nbd2 seems better. No less a player than Ernst Gruenfeld has lost on the Black side after 9.Nbd2. <gid>1040766</gid> |
|
| Nov-01-13 | | satkul: Black has conducted the attack beautifully and taken advantage of weakness created by whites h3. |
|
| Jan-24-21 | | LouE: Necroposting by a degree of almost a decade, but 8.Bd3 is the move that I really take issue with (aside from the obvious blunders). I'm not sure what White (or Stockfish, who also doesn't hate the move) are trying to achieve with it, but as much as I disagree with Chernev that 7.d5 is a bad move (it forces Black to undevelop a piece, for Christ's sake!), I think Bd3 is a slightly odd follow-up. After some light analysis I find 8.Nbd2 to be a much more agreeable move, and much more in line with Chernev's teachings with respect to the opening. After 8.Nbd2 0-0 9.a4 a5 10.Re1 White should have a clear positional edge: 
click for larger view |
|
Feb-09-21
 | | TerryMills: It seems clear that Black was a much better player than White. |
|
| Jan-04-22 | | jbuczyna: I agree TerryMills, black seems like a much stronger player--white seems like around 1800-2000 FIDE level. Regarding the remarks of others with Chernev's analysis, it is definitely true that he misses some things! At most, he was about FM-level. However, he had such great experience with analysis that his comments are not to be dismissed lightly--when they are wrong, they can illustrate some nice learning opportunities. My recommendation for people reading Chernev's books: (1) Go through the game with moves only first, such as on a site like this. Get a good idea of what's going on and what moves you think are bad and good. Do this at least twice before proceeding further. (2) Read through the game with Chernev's comments and make notes of where you disagree. (3) Now, and ONLY after having already done (1) and (2) FIRST, run the moves through an analysis engine and see who is right. There will definitely be points, especially in the opening, where your idea of the best move is better than Chernev's (or Capablanca's for that matter)--these are games often played around 100 or more years ago, and ideas of opening theory have come a long way since then, and even a long way since the 1940s and 1950s when Chernev was finishing his books. |
|
Kibitzing
