|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-10-04 | | Dudley: When I played on chess.net I didn't encounter the English often enough to really work up a special line for it, so I always just used whatever I was playing at the time for 1.d4, including the system you just mentioned <Gypsy>. I really like that Lasker-New York line-it doesn't look like much but seems so solid that white doesn't know what to do. I have a theory that many people are tempted to "play over their heads" with super positional stuff like the Reti, English, etc. I avoid them because I don't have the patience or subtlety to play them correctly, although the KI attack worked well for blitz. |
|
Jun-10-04
 | | Gypsy: <...Lasker-New York line-it doesn't look like much but seems so solid that white doesn't know what to do.> A summary of it as good and succint as I ever read <Dudley>. <...super positional stuff like the Reti, English, etc. I avoid them because I don't have the patience or subtlety to play them correctly> Seems to me you have plenty of common sense. And that, in turn, is what positional play is essentially all bout. |
|
| Jun-10-04 | | Dudley: Thanks, I may be more positional than I think, but still don't like to maneuver too much. Perhaps I need to play more regular games instead of blitz to have more time for planning. It usually is tactics in the end, but first you have to create the right situations. |
|
| Jun-10-04 | | Dudley: You seem to have a balanced perspective on a lot of things here,<Gypsy>. With a forum like this, there are naturally going to be a lot of hyper-opinionated people who will argue almost anything, so voices of reason are always appreciated. Its really the only on-line chat I've ever done, but my son tells me that ferocious debates and flaming are commonplace with his (non-chess) sites also. |
|
| Jun-10-04 | | ruylopez900: Here's one such opinion :) I like the Hedgehog defence to the English. Luckily/unfortunately? theres only one guy around here who plays the English :) |
|
Jun-10-04
| | Gypsy: Thank you <Dudley>, I admit you made my day! <...my son tells me that ferocious debates and flaming are commonplace...> Yes, flaming seems to come in as a general property of Web interactions; chess is not any more or less of a culprit than would be any other human endeavor, say cactus collecting. The saving grace is that even the flame throwers say smart things here and there. :-)) |
|
| Jun-11-04 | | ruylopez900: Does anyone know if the Hedgehog has its own code? |
|
Jul-11-05
 | | TheAlchemist: In the CM10k opening book, under this ECO code (A13) there's also the "Wimpy System" in the English Opening: 1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.b3 Nf6 4.Bb2 c5 5.e3
Lol, I guess the CM team have a good sense of humor. |
|
| Mar-06-06 | | Kaissa: I need some help with this certain A13 line. I've seen it called many things:Neo-Catalan, Bogo-Catalan, Againcourt, etc. This is the line
c4 Nf6
g2 e6
Bg2 d5
Nf3 Bd6
I played the next two moves:
0-0 c6
d3 0-0
Black's 4th move is the one I can't find in my English books. Fritz says it's book but I can't find commentary on it even on the net. I only find the name of the line. Fritz 8 says I went out of book with 6.d3
I have the Kosten book but I can't find this line up to moves 4 and 5. I like to play the white side, but this line has me puzzled. What are black's themes, goals, target squares, files, diagonals, pawn breaks?
What are whites?
Help please.
|
|
| Mar-06-06 | | Dudley: I think this line is covered in Chap. 10 of the Kosten book, the "Keres-Parma variation." As soon as Black plays ...d5 you should play cxd5. I think you have to be willing to transpose into the White side of the Tarasch Defense by playing d4 at some point, should Black reply exd5 instead of Nxd5. This is one of those lines in the English where White needs to know some d4-Catalan. Its probably not too hard to play, just dull. |
|
| Mar-07-06 | | Kaissa: Dudley, thanks a lot. I'll look into that right away. |
|
| Mar-07-06 | | Kaissa: Dudley, Chap. 10 is close but it doesn't fit. My opponent never played c5. The first 4 moves of my game match the first 4 of Chap. 15 which is on 1...e6. It's Black's 4th move Bd6, that I can't find a line or note for in Chap. 15. There are notes for 4...c6, 4...c5, 4...d4, 4...dxc4, but not 4...Bd6. My opponent did eventually play c6 but there were no exchanges of the d and c pawns that note b of Black's third move talks about. The related lines in Chap. 14 on 1...c6 didn't help either. Got any other ideas? Is 4...Bd6 some kind of novelty? |
|
| Mar-08-06 | | Dudley: Right you are, the Keres Parma involves ...c5. I would think the diadvantage of Bd6 as opposed to ...Be7 as covered in the sample game is that it lessens the protection of Black's d5 pawn, makes ...d4 impossible for the time being, and allows a pin with Bg5 if White desires. The d6 Bishop "bites on granite" at g3. I know that in the Black side of the Tarasch, the KB belongs on e7 in lines where White fianchettos. Also, White usually does pin with Bg5 in that setup. So, perhaps the reason that Bd6 is not usually played is that Black doesn't want White to play d4 and transpose into a Tarasch where his bishop is misplaced on d6. That's about all the light I can shed on it, sorry I didn't look at the moves closely enough. |
|
| Mar-08-06 | | Dudley: There are 14 games in the database with your position. A couple of them are Reti vs. Yates 1925 and Sultan Khan vs. Yates 1932. |
|
| Aug-06-06 | | soughzin: I've jumped around from one d-pawn defense to another but I think I'm finally starting to be satisfied with the QGA, decent space,decent development.Anyway,this is not quite as easy to use against c4 and nf3 as say the KID or the dutch. Can anyone offer some help as to try to transpose to a QGA like position? Perhaps something like 1.c4 e6 2.nc3 d5 3.d4 dxc. Or is taking the cpawn just what white wants since it opens up the long diagonal? |
|
| Aug-06-06 | | ganstaman: One thing to remember is that you can't force white to play d4. If you want a QG, white may keep the game an English. Of course, you can always try to transpose, but you have to be prepared for white to be stubborn. |
|
Aug-06-06
 | | Eric Schiller: <ganstaman> I)n the English if Black plays 1...e6 and 2...d5 it is hard for White to avoid d4 because Black can often favorably play ...d4, especially if White plays Nc3. So most games transpose to some kind of Queen's Gambit. I use this move order to get to the Tarrasch Defence. |
|
| Aug-06-06 | | ganstaman: Why does it seem that I'm always wrong and Eric Schiller has to correct me... :( (don't worry, I'm not taking it personally or anything). But can't white go with the set-up similar to:
click for larger viewHe doesn't play Nc3, and he's prepared to handle ...d4. And otherwise, white can still get a different set-up and play it like a reverse Benoni, right? Maybe it's just not optimal, but I think it's certainly playable, and therefore will be played. |
|
| Aug-06-06 | | ganstaman: Ah, but I see he's talking about 1.c4 e6 2. Nc3 d5. So maybe I should have said, if white doesn't play Nc3, it's hard to force him to play d4. |
|
| Aug-29-06 | | yanez: I like the move order 1.c4 b6 2.d4 e6 3.e4 Bb7 4.Bd3 then ...c5 or ...Ne7 and ...d5 |
|
| Nov-07-06 | | Strelz: Do people think the line 1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 Na6 is playable? |
|
Jan-26-10
 | | GrahamClayton: How did the Wimpy System of the Agincourt Defence get its name? L Karlsson vs V Poley, 2007 |
|
| Jan-26-10 | | whiteshark: <GrahamClayton: How did the Wimpy System of the Agincourt Defence get its name?> Probably it's from <Caxton Named Opening List> compiled by Eric Schiller which is also adopted by chessgames.com as it stands (I believe I've read it here somewhere). List for download: http://www.chesscity.com/PDF/NamedO... A beautiful, notable game is surely Taimanov vs Kaidanov, 1988 |
|
| Jul-16-11 | | waustad: How far down do you have to get to call it the Agincourt defense? I saw a comment about c4 English vs e6 French, which made sense for the name, but I've often thought of it as having a Q side fiancetto by white. I thought of the bishops as bowmen giving it the name. |
|
| Mar-28-17 | | disasterion: <waustad: How far down do you have to get to call it the Agincourt defense?> I had thought the Agincourt defence was 1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 d5, but perhaps English vs French (1.c4 e6) is sufficient. And there's always the Agincourt gambit:
https://xkcd.com/1078/ |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
