Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Topic Tools
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) C03,C10: French Fort Knox (5.d5) (Read 11147 times)
ReneDescartes
God Member
*****
Offline


Qu'est-ce donc que je
suis? Une chose qui pense.

Posts: 754
Joined: 05/18/10
Re: French Fort Knox (5.d5)
Reply #22 - 06/20/10 at 22:42:22
Post Tools
A little more unbalancing is (after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nxc3 4.Nxc3 Bd7 5.d5 cxd5 6.Qxd5 Nc6 7.Bg5) 7...f6!?, followed by either ...Ne7 kicking the queen (and heading to ....Ng6 if Qh5) or pushing on with ...f5, and then ...Nf6 again kicking the queen. Since Black can easily castle long soon, and since the White pieces are a little loose, ...f6 is not too weakening here, it seems to me.

Admittedly the pawn structure, in the long run, allows the exchange of heavy pieces on the central files. But the Fort Knox is not the Poison Pawn. To the White queen Black's d-pawn tastes a little sour at worst. I think that with 5.d5 White just gives up his long-lasting +/=, and no more severe punishment awaits him.

I fed 7...f6 to Rybka, which validated its tactical soundness and invented the witty ...f5 (after 7...f6 8.Be6). Then Black can aim for opposite-side castling, since White is pretty clearly going to go long.

------
By the way, the variation of the Winawer to which talfan was referring above certainly exists, as I have played it many times. It is the branch of Alekhine's variation in which Black retreats the Bb5 to e7, then follows up with ...Nc6 preparing ...e5.  White then often answers ...e5 with d5, producing the structure in question. See for example Lillienthal-Botvinnik, Moscow 1936. Of course, Black's piece placement is fine there, whereas it is awkward, to say the least, in the proposed Fort Knox variation, which BPaulsen refuted pretty completely--though I don't think talfan (or anyone else) deserves to be humiliated for being wrong.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ArKheiN
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 704
Location: Belgium
Joined: 03/30/05
Re: French Fort Knox (5.d5)
Reply #21 - 06/20/10 at 16:26:57
Post Tools
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxd4 Bd7 5.d5 exd5 seems to be "simple chess": 6.Qxd5 Nc6 7.Bg5 Be7 8.0-0-0 h6 9.Bxe7 Qxe7. From that position, White got 1bishop and heavy pieces vs a knight vs heavy pieces, every pawns are safe and symetrical in the game Milosevic(2400 ELO) - Geoges(2300 ELO) 1993. I think the bishop favours White only very slightly here. Draw was the normal result. But if you want an unbalanced game as Black, that 5..exd5 is just too tame.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MilenPetrov
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


Winnie the Pooh Rules
:)

Posts: 353
Location: Varna, Bulgaria
Joined: 04/03/08
Gender: Male
Re: French Fort Knox (5.d5)
Reply #20 - 06/20/10 at 15:30:17
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 06/16/10 at 18:03:50:
talfan wrote on 06/16/10 at 16:39:09:
Now you are not even reading what I posted, and again did not adress my points... There is a variation within the Winawer that reaches thta exact ppawn structure, and is not acessed as bad to black, just because there's no Qh5 idea. And I am not anymore arguing in favor of that move, only pointing out why you did not had the correct justification for why it was bad. If you can't understand this, please do not respond to things i do not said, and I will repeat: White did not increase his spacial advantage, and this is not the source of black problems.


Bolded #1) I played the Winawer for a full 10 years, and the variation that reaches that exact structure escapes me, do enlighten me.

Bolded #2) And I was dead-on on as to why it was bad - the structural change didn't favor black when combined with his awkward Bd7. Then you act surprised when white has a way to take a clear initiative.  Grin

Bolded #3) d5 did increase his spacial advantage, and it's obviously the source of black's problems if black feels compelled to reply with ...e5.

Quit trying to salvage the fact that ...e5 just plain sucked, and that I was right. It's not that hard.

It's like you're mad that I called your move wrong, and even mentioned the solution, but then you're trying to save face by claiming I didn't understand the reason ...e5 was wrong.  Grin Too funny. If I were you I'd quit posting for awhile, it's embarrassing to watch.

Guys, please keep up the good tone of communication. And if you think that someone is not right in his opinion, please provide some lines which prove your opinion. It is not a good shape to ask someone to be silent and not to post in the forum because he is not right or his analysis are wrong somehow. Everyone has the right to have his/her own opinion in some position or variation. But at the end concrete variations determine the final verdict on any line  Smiley
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: French Fort Knox (5.d5)
Reply #19 - 06/16/10 at 18:03:50
Post Tools
talfan wrote on 06/16/10 at 16:39:09:
Now you are not even reading what I posted, and again did not adress my points... There is a variation within the Winawer that reaches thta exact ppawn structure, and is not acessed as bad to black, just because there's no Qh5 idea. And I am not anymore arguing in favor of that move, only pointing out why you did not had the correct justification for why it was bad. If you can't understand this, please do not respond to things i do not said, and I will repeat: White did not increase his spacial advantage, and this is not the source of black problems.


Bolded #1) I played the Winawer for a full 10 years, and the variation that reaches that exact structure escapes me, do enlighten me.

Bolded #2) And I was dead-on on as to why it was bad - the structural change didn't favor black when combined with his awkward Bd7. Then you act surprised when white has a way to take a clear initiative.  Grin

Bolded #3) d5 did increase his spacial advantage, and it's obviously the source of black's problems if black feels compelled to reply with ...e5.

Quit trying to salvage the fact that ...e5 just plain sucked, and that I was right. It's not that hard.

It's like you're mad that I called your move wrong, and even mentioned the solution, but then you're trying to save face by claiming I didn't understand the reason ...e5 was wrong.  Grin Too funny. If I were you I'd quit posting for awhile, it's embarrassing to watch.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Tan Kien Wei
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 3
Joined: 06/14/10
Re: French Fort Knox (5.d5)
Reply #18 - 06/16/10 at 17:28:59
Post Tools
Hi all,

All of your ideas are really interesting. Personally, I feel that the move "e5" doesn't fit the spirit of the Fort Knox system. After all, the reason why Black wants to play the Fort Knox variation is because he wants a compact and solid set-up. The move "e5" seems to open up the position quite a bit and after the move Qh5, Black's position looks a little unsecured.

I think Mangler raised a very good point about the "clean equalizer" Bg4. I missed that move completely. Maybe the sequence " exd5, followed by Nc6" is playable after all. I will definitely give it a try.

Interestingly, someone played the same line against me yesterday. Like what BPaulsen said, the best way to counter such an unconventional move is to be unorthodox oneself. And that was exactly what I did.
1.e4 e6
2.d4 d5
3.Nc3 dxe4
4.Nxd4 Bd7
5.d5
Instead of playing Qe7 as suggested in the forum, I attempted Qh4!?, attacking the seemingly weak e4 Knight.
5.....Qh4
6.Qe2 Nf6
7.dxe6 Qxe4
8.exd7+ Nbxd7
And I got a rather comfortable game, albeit a little passive.
Although Black is very solid, it is rather passive and seems to lack counter-play i.e. no pawn break. Moreover, White has the bishop pair in an open position. I am not sure if the bizarre move Qh4 equalizes for Black, but I must admit that most of the winning chances must surely lie with White. Any thought?

Thank you all for your responses.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
talfan
Junior Member
**
Offline


ironic ,me?

Posts: 85
Location: Brasil
Joined: 03/18/06
Gender: Male
Re: French Fort Knox (5.d5)
Reply #17 - 06/16/10 at 16:39:09
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 06/16/10 at 15:19:44:
talfan wrote on 06/16/10 at 15:02:31:
Of course. The fact is the move is mediocre for tatical reasons, and not because of the positional factors you said. If white played Nf3 for example the same positional factors would still be there, but black's position would be fully playable (my point in the first post). In fact this idea exists in the Winawer and never saw these considerations about space make it inferior.
But you seem to judge that you have the right to impose your opinion, and that you can't be wrong, so you just bash me for thinking differently. I also don't get why I should stop posting my views after changing my mind about the merits of this move. I don't have a problem in being wrong, so I promply admited that my analisys had flaws, and would so so if the Qh5 + Bg5 idea was pointed out anytime, but please respect my point of vies, regardless if you think them wrong or right.


It's no great mystery that tactical threats come out of better positions, and all ...e5 did was give white the better position. Why do you persist in arguing in favor of a move you think is poor?!

The Winawer shouldn't even be mentioned - the positions there have zero in common with this one. There black gives up the bishop pair and space in order to battle against white's compromised structure. Unlike the Winawer, white's structure is totally healthy here.

Just as this position shouldn't be compared to typical Fort Knox lines, either.


Now you are not even reading what I posted, and again did not adress my points... There is a variation within the Winawer that reaches thta exact ppawn structure, and is not acessed as bad to black, just because there's no Qh5 idea. And I am not anymore arguing in favor of that move, only pointing out why you did not had the correct justification for why it was bad. If you can't understand this, please do not respond to things i do not said, and I will repeat: White did not increase his spacial advantage, and this is not the source of black problems.
  

French defence forever
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: French Fort Knox (5.d5)
Reply #16 - 06/16/10 at 15:19:44
Post Tools
talfan wrote on 06/16/10 at 15:02:31:
Of course. The fact is the move is mediocre for tatical reasons, and not because of the positional factors you said. If white played Nf3 for example the same positional factors would still be there, but black's position would be fully playable (my point in the first post). In fact this idea exists in the Winawer and never saw these considerations about space make it inferior.
But you seem to judge that you have the right to impose your opinion, and that you can't be wrong, so you just bash me for thinking differently. I also don't get why I should stop posting my views after changing my mind about the merits of this move. I don't have a problem in being wrong, so I promply admited that my analisys had flaws, and would so so if the Qh5 + Bg5 idea was pointed out anytime, but please respect my point of vies, regardless if you think them wrong or right.


It's no great mystery that tactical threats come out of better positions, and all ...e5 did was give white the better position. Why do you persist in arguing in favor of a move you think is poor?!

The Winawer shouldn't even be mentioned - the positions there have zero in common with this one. There black gives up the bishop pair and space in order to battle against white's compromised structure. Unlike the Winawer, white's structure is totally healthy here.

Just as this position shouldn't be compared to typical Fort Knox lines, either.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
talfan
Junior Member
**
Offline


ironic ,me?

Posts: 85
Location: Brasil
Joined: 03/18/06
Gender: Male
Re: French Fort Knox (5.d5)
Reply #15 - 06/16/10 at 15:02:31
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 06/16/10 at 14:37:25:
talfan wrote on 06/16/10 at 13:42:10:
No you do not know how I am thinking. I said that the closing of the position makes the loss of  tempo less of a problem and you didnt adress that. What do you thnik if I said that you are on autopilot because you deem the bishop's pair an absolute advantage regardless of the position?
About Qh5 it really seems pretty good because of not only what you pointed out ( again the loss of the bishop pair is not so relevant as in the normal fort knox ) but also if Bg5 seems strong against both Bd6 or Qe7 aiming to damage blacks structure after  ...Nf6. That Qh5 idea ( which I did not saw at first ) may be even +/- so after seeing that I think ...e5 is indeed inferior.

So I must think other moves now Sad .


So even you think ...e5 is mediocre now and obviously the Bd7 is in the way. It's not about the loss of tempo, it's about the fact it screws up black's piece coordination which is an issue when he has less space.

Did you really need to try to argue about it?


Of course. The fact is the move is mediocre for tatical reasons, and not because of the positional factors you said. If white played Nf3 for example the same positional factors would still be there, but black's position would be fully playable (my point in the first post). In fact this idea exists in the Winawer and never saw these considerations about space make it inferior.
But you seem to judge that you have the right to impose your opinion, and that you can't be wrong, so you just bash me for thinking differently. I also don't get why I should stop posting my views after changing my mind about the merits of this move. I don't have a problem in being wrong, so I promply admited that my analisys had flaws, and would so so if the Qh5 + Bg5 idea was pointed out anytime, but please respect my point of vies, regardless if you think them wrong or right.
  

French defence forever
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: French Fort Knox (5.d5)
Reply #14 - 06/16/10 at 14:37:25
Post Tools
talfan wrote on 06/16/10 at 13:42:10:
No you do not know how I am thinking. I said that the closing of the position makes the loss of  tempo less of a problem and you didnt adress that. What do you thnik if I said that you are on autopilot because you deem the bishop's pair an absolute advantage regardless of the position?
About Qh5 it really seems pretty good because of not only what you pointed out ( again the loss of the bishop pair is not so relevant as in the normal fort knox ) but also if Bg5 seems strong against both Bd6 or Qe7 aiming to damage blacks structure after  ...Nf6. That Qh5 idea ( which I did not saw at first ) may be even +/- so after seeing that I think ...e5 is indeed inferior.

So I must think other moves now Sad .


So even you think ...e5 is mediocre now and obviously the Bd7 is in the way. It's not about the loss of tempo, it's about the fact it screws up black's piece coordination which is an issue when he has less space.

Did you really need to try to argue about it?
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
talfan
Junior Member
**
Offline


ironic ,me?

Posts: 85
Location: Brasil
Joined: 03/18/06
Gender: Male
Re: French Fort Knox (5.d5)
Reply #13 - 06/16/10 at 13:42:10
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 06/16/10 at 08:59:07:
talfan wrote on 06/15/10 at 22:02:40:
Don't know why do you know how I am thinking but then again since it will be harder to open the position the extra tempo should be of less significance, and not more. Also, white surely has a space advantage but not more than he had before.
Instead of demeaning my thought process could you please point out any flaws you think my suggestion had?


Check what I put in bolded letters from your last post - that's how I know what you're thinking.

White has a bigger space advantage after d5 being met by ...e5 than the Pd4 versus a Pe6. It's not a change in structure black desires. The problem is the idea itself, while playable (+=), doesn't attempt to challenge white's idea at all.

That's not even mentioning the concrete issue that white can pick up the bishop pair with 6. Qh5 if he so pleases (6...Bd6 is nearly forced, and white can play Nxd6 at will).


No you do not know how I am thinking. I said that the closing of the position makes the loss of  tempo less of a problem and you didnt adress that. What do you thnik if I said that you are on autopilot because you deem the bishop's pair an absolute advantage regardless of the position?
About Qh5 it really seems pretty good because of not only what you pointed out ( again the loss of the bishop pair is not so relevant as in the normal fort knox ) but also if Bg5 seems strong against both Bd6 or Qe7 aiming to damage blacks structure after  ...Nf6. That Qh5 idea ( which I did not saw at first ) may be even +/- so after seeing that I think ...e5 is indeed inferior.

So I must think other moves now Sad .
  

French defence forever
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: French Fort Knox (5.d5)
Reply #12 - 06/16/10 at 08:59:07
Post Tools
talfan wrote on 06/15/10 at 22:02:40:
Don't know why do you know how I am thinking but then again since it will be harder to open the position the extra tempo should be of less significance, and not more. Also, white surely has a space advantage but not more than he had before.
Instead of demeaning my thought process could you please point out any flaws you think my suggestion had?


Check what I put in bolded letters from your last post - that's how I know what you're thinking.

White has a bigger space advantage after d5 being met by ...e5 than the Pd4 versus a Pe6. It's not a change in structure black desires. The problem is the idea itself, while playable (+=), doesn't attempt to challenge white's idea at all.

That's not even mentioning the concrete issue that white can pick up the bishop pair with 6. Qh5 if he so pleases (6...Bd6 is nearly forced, and white can play Nxd6 at will).
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
mangler
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 152
Location: Orlando
Joined: 10/30/06
Gender: Male
Re: French Fort Knox (5.d5)
Reply #11 - 06/16/10 at 00:58:01
Post Tools
Tan Kien Wei wrote on 06/15/10 at 09:50:50:
Hi all,

My opponent took the d5 pawn with Qxd5.

For instance after
6. Qxd5 Nc6
7. Bg5 Be7
8. O-O-O, with pressure on d7 and the option of Qb5 and Bc4, depending on how Black responds. In certain lines, if you were to chase away the g5 bishop with h6, the bishop can retreat to d2 and then c3, controlling the a1-h8 diagonal.


I think you are making this too hard. 8...Bg4 looks like a clean equalizer to me. Black hits the rook, forces material off the board.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
talfan
Junior Member
**
Offline


ironic ,me?

Posts: 85
Location: Brasil
Joined: 03/18/06
Gender: Male
Re: French Fort Knox (5.d5)
Reply #10 - 06/15/10 at 22:02:40
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 06/15/10 at 18:20:25:
talfan wrote on 06/15/10 at 17:26:58:
White already had a space advantage before 5.d5, and I don't think he gained much more with it. Of course Bd7 shall move agian, but so it is anyway in the normal variation, What black wants in the fort knox is easy development and rock solid position, albeit slight worse, and I still don't see what would refeute 5...e5. Of course I may be wrong, and 5...e5 may be poor, but I don't see yet.


The bolded is auto-pilot thinking. The nature of the position after 5. d5 e5 has nothing in common with a standard Fort Knox.

White should be slightly better (with much less effort than your typical Fort Knox) due to the space advantage. Of course there's no refutation because it doesn't lose by force.


Don't know why do you know how I am thinking but then again since it will be harder to open the position the extra tempo should be of less significance, and not more. Also, white surely has a space advantage but not more than he had before.
Instead of demeaning my thought process could you please point out any flaws you think my suggestion had?
  

French defence forever
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: French Fort Knox (5.d5)
Reply #9 - 06/15/10 at 18:20:25
Post Tools
talfan wrote on 06/15/10 at 17:26:58:
White already had a space advantage before 5.d5, and I don't think he gained much more with it. Of course Bd7 shall move agian, but so it is anyway in the normal variation, What black wants in the fort knox is easy development and rock solid position, albeit slight worse, and I still don't see what would refeute 5...e5. Of course I may be wrong, and 5...e5 may be poor, but I don't see yet.


The bolded is auto-pilot thinking. The nature of the position after 5. d5 e5 has nothing in common with a standard Fort Knox.

White should be slightly better (with much less effort than your typical Fort Knox) due to the space advantage. Of course there's no refutation because it doesn't lose by force.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
talfan
Junior Member
**
Offline


ironic ,me?

Posts: 85
Location: Brasil
Joined: 03/18/06
Gender: Male
Re: French Fort Knox (5.d5)
Reply #8 - 06/15/10 at 17:26:58
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 06/15/10 at 15:47:36:
talfan wrote on 06/15/10 at 14:51:14:
I think 5... e5 is possible, folowing up with Bd6, Ne7, f6 if necessary, 0-0, maybe Bg4(f5) and Nd7, when black has easy and solid development and white lacks pawns breaks since he already played d5.

Any thougths?


After 5...e5 I'd be wary of the awkward Bd7, long-term.

White's 5. d5 does gain space, so losing out on pawn breaks isn't that big of a deal.


White already had a space advantage before 5.d5, and I don't think he gained much more with it. Of course Bd7 shall move agian, but so it is anyway in the normal variation, What black wants in the fort knox is easy development and rock solid position, albeit slight worse, and I still don't see what would refeute 5...e5. Of course I may be wrong, and 5...e5 may be poor, but I don't see yet.
  

French defence forever
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo