< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Apr-06-04 | | PaulKeres: If white doesn't play 4.c4 (which he obviously doesn't otherwise it would be ECO B14) then this is a terribly dull opening from white, and Black will be very comfortable I believe.
Anyone disagree/ want to presuade me otherwise? |
|
Apr-06-04 | | dafish298: agreed |
|
Apr-06-04 | | ruylopez900: Isn't this the Exchange Variation? |
|
Apr-06-04
 | | chessgames.com: Yes it is, I think we should label this "Caro-Kann, Exchange." |
|
Apr-06-04 | | Kenkaku: <PaulKeres> 4. Bd3 Nc6 5. c3 can lead to a good game for white, though admittedly it is more passive. |
|
Jun-24-04 | | BaranDuin: Can this be compared with the exchange french? |
|
Jun-24-04 | | refutor: no, not particularly. positionally, this is better than the exchange french, because the exchange french takes away black's main weakness...the light squared bishop is no longer locked in. |
|
Nov-28-04 | | Knight13: I usually play 4. c4. It is just like 1. e4 d6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. c4, French Defence, Exchanged. |
|
Nov-28-04 | | suenteus po 147: <Knight13> 4.c4 leads into the Panov-Botvinnik Attack, as shown here: Caro-Kann, Panov-Botvinnik Attack (B14). Enjoy! |
|
Dec-01-04 | | EnglishOpeningc4: The panov only works in the caro since in the french 4...Bb4+ is possible |
|
Dec-02-04 | | BiLL RobeRTiE: Of course the Panov is better than the Exchange French with 4. c4 for the reason <refutor> outlined, but is 4...Bb4+ really that strong? |
|
Dec-02-04
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: I always played 4.c4, but the Exchange should not be underestimated: Fischer thought highly enough of it to try it versus Petrosian in the USSR-World match. Alekhine played it 11 times against much weaker players, but with dismal results: +5, -4, =2. When facing the Exchange, I was always able to scrape up some complications. |
|
Dec-02-04 | | EnglishOpeningc4: <BiLL RoBeRTiE>
4...♗b4 5 ♘c3 ♘e7 6 ♘f3 O-O 7 ♗e2 dxe4 8 ♗xc4 ♗g4 9 O-O ♘bc6 (Play the French) looks better for black. |
|
Feb-03-05 | | Backward Development: I don't think that this is the 'best play' v. the Caro-Kann, but it's usually good enough for a decent attacking position. Shock value counts for something, and the position is not always as equal as it seems... basically, the plans for white are as follows: Bishops to d3 and f4, usually played before moving the Knight to f3, when black has ...Bg4 with an annoying pin. The Knights then go to f3 and d2. white plays an early c3 push, and if the queen's attacked, she'll go to either b3 or c2. Once white gets the a-rook to the e-file, he'll play Ne5 and go for a kingside attack, usually followed with f4 and a rook lift(Rf3, Rh3.) Black's plans are to put the knights on their natural squares(c6 and f6), Bg4 to move the Queen and keep the bishop over their to dull a kingside attack, exchange bishops on d6, and then minority attack onto c3. Gallagher in his "Starting Out" book puts it pretty straightforwardly like that. It's a fairly interesting opening, although the fair result is a draw. any comments? |
|
Feb-03-05 | | Abaduba: This opening seems to be the same setup as the QGD exchange, with colors reverse. I can;t imagine that the extra tempo is that important given a long-term advantage like the pawn weakness caused by the minority attack. Doesn't this opening just leave White fighting for a draw in an inferior endgame, unless Black makes a mistake and allows an initiative? Shouldn;t the lines given above lead to a slight Black plus? |
|
Feb-03-05 | | me to play: When I was playing tournaments on a fairly regular basis back in the 1980's (!) I use to play this against the Caro with the set up of B on d3 and the rest pretty much the way Backward Development described it...often I would also play h3 and end up tucking my other bishop in at h2. Anyway I had a fair amount of success with it and won a few nice attacking games. I also agree about "shock value" counting for something, because everyone else back then seemed to play either the classical main line or the advance as white , and my opponents did seem to be surprised when I went into this line. |
|
Feb-03-05 | | me to play: Here is the game that got me interested in trying this variation....Fischer vs Petrosian, 1970. |
|
Feb-03-05
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: My favorite means of stirring up trouble as Black in this line was 4.Bd3,Nc6; 5.c3,Qc7!?; 6.Ne2!,Bg4!?; 7.f3,Bh5; 8.Nf4!?,Nf6; 9.g4!?;Bg6; 10.g5,Nh5; 11.Nxd5,Qa5. Sound? Probably not. But it was fun and successful enough in blitz that no one ever challenged me in a tournament game. |
|
Feb-03-05 | | InfinityCircuit: <An Englishman> Well the two qualities you mentioned make it worth it, no matter how sound it is! <quoting Reuben Fine> 3 exd5 bxd5 4 Bd3 is the quiet simplification line, must less promising than [4 c4]. After the normal 4...Nc6 c3...Here White's source of strenth is his control of e5 which should be occupied with a N at an early stage...But [White] has not long-term prospects, in the ending he is inferior to Black [because of the pawn majority on the queenside] |
|
Feb-04-05 | | Backward Development: as usual, Fine is concise and authoritative, if not dogmatic. The Fischer game posted above is probably the most well known exchange variation game. |
|
Feb-04-05 | | azaris: I posted elsewhere that Fischer played really weird stuff against the Caro-Kann, I wouldn't try to emulate him. |
|
Feb-04-05 | | dragon40: Though I agree that in my opinion, the Panov-Botvinnik is much more dangerous and even more promising than the Exchange Variation, you must also think of how the "boring" Exchange Ruy Lopez won so many games for White in the 70's and early 80's.
Allot just goes to preparation and general understanding of the opening and how to play against such an "innocent" opening as the Exchange Caro...
the Panov-Botvinnik is in fact, more dangerous, but the Ecahnge is not encountered as much and could serve well to an over-ambitious player of the black pieces or an unsuspecting player as well.
It is all in what you understand/and know/and comprehend first and foremost... |
|
Feb-04-05 | | Backward Development: I would think that the Fantasy or the 2.d3 variation would be considered weird. The exchange is very straightforward and playable. |
|
Feb-10-05 | | suenteus po 147: <chessgames.com> Hmmm.... After quite a bit of game hopping I see that a good many of these games are actually Panov-Botvinnik Attacks. Would it be easier just to email a complete list of the games on this page that transpose so they can be fixed all at once instead of one at a time? |
|
Mar-24-05 | | ionnn: I use to play Panov attack against the Caro-Kann. Some months ago one of my opponent played that opening and the game was very wild. I would like to know if the black sacrifices on it are "books moves". During the game, i really believed black had blundered with 13 ... Bc5 but after the game my opponent told me that is "a well know move". I was out of book after 11 ... e5 (and still are :-)). If it's really a theoric move what was the black error then. Any help will be graceful, and please forgive my poor english. 1. e4 c6
2. d4 d5
3. exd5 cxd5
4. c4 Nf6
5. Nc3 Nc6
6. Nf3 Bg4
7. cxd5 Nxd5
8.Qb3 Bxf3
9. gxf3 Nb6
10. d5 Nd4
11. Qd1 e5
12. dxe6 fxe6
13. Be3 Bc5
14. b4 O-O
15. bxc5 Nxf3+
16. Ke2 Qh4
17. cxb6 Rad8
18. Qa4 Nd4+
19. Kd3 Nf5+
20. Kc2 Nxe3+
21. fxe3 Qf2+
22. Be2 Rc8
23. Rae1 Qxe3
24. Qb3 Rf2
25. bxa7 Rxe2+
26. Rxe2 Qxe2+
27. Kb1 Qa6
28. Re1 Re8
29. Qb5 Re7
30. Qxa6 bxa6
31. a8=Q+ 1-0 |
|
 |
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |