Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Topic Tools
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Georgiev/Semkov on English (Read 2204 times)
Mtal
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 114
Joined: 05/15/07
Re: Georgiev/Semkov on English
Reply #22 - 08/07/18 at 01:36:09
Post Tools
Wow, I have not got the Cummings book yet, but I been wanting too. The nc3 lines look interesting. Another book in putting on my list. Wonder what they will give vs c5. The Anglo benoni (lines with d4) was never my thing. I usually played things like a3 going for b4 instead.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Glenn Snow
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1658
Location: Franklin
Joined: 09/27/03
Gender: Male
Re: Georgiev/Semkov on English
Reply #21 - 08/02/18 at 14:34:31
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 08/01/18 at 07:35:26:
Given the unforced character of the line I don't think a detailed discussion will yield useful results. However I'd like to point out - I forgot it thus far - that the variation with colours reversed also scores badly for White: 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 2.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 e6 6.f4 Nge7 7.Nf3 O-O 8.O-O d5. Apparently something weird is going on; all the more reason to look at the Closed Sicilian as well when incorporating this line in your repertoire.


I think there can be many reasons some variations score poorly besides the objective worth of the position.  Sometimes more accuracy is required for a few moves to give a plus or to achieve equality.  Maybe someone will use AlphaZero to play itself thousands of times in these positions to figure this out.  Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10237
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Georgiev/Semkov on English
Reply #20 - 08/01/18 at 07:35:26
Post Tools
Given the unforced character of the line I don't think a detailed discussion will yield useful results. However I'd like to point out - I forgot it thus far - that the variation with colours reversed also scores badly for White: 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 2.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 e6 6.f4 Nge7 7.Nf3 O-O 8.O-O d5. Apparently something weird is going on; all the more reason to look at the Closed Sicilian as well when incorporating this line in your repertoire.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Glenn Snow
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1658
Location: Franklin
Joined: 09/27/03
Gender: Male
Re: Georgiev/Semkov on English
Reply #19 - 07/31/18 at 17:48:09
Post Tools
Glenn Snow wrote on 07/30/18 at 03:01:51:
In the system with e2/Nge2 I can't find an equalizing line.

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.e3 f5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nge2 d6 6.g3 g6 7.Bg2 Bg7 8.O-O O-O and White scores sub par. Does White have a favourable deviation? [/quote]

No, I don't think so but I've been looking at 9.Nd5!? with the help of the computer and it seems promising to me (so far!).  (Should we continue this discussion in another thread perhaps?)

« Last Edit: 07/31/18 at 18:56:49 by Glenn Snow »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
gillbod
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 90
Joined: 03/26/13
Re: Georgiev/Semkov on English
Reply #18 - 07/30/18 at 13:31:26
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 07/30/18 at 06:17:46:
gillbod wrote on 07/26/18 at 23:35:53:
..... It is bad for black. Consequently, I think it's completely fine that it is not given any coverage by Cummings.

That's a non-sequitur unless you think that opening books can neglect all bad moves.


I believe authors can neglect lines which are both rare and bad, which I thought I stated clearly enough.

I propose we just agree to disagree here,  this discussion has nothing to do with the Georgiev/Semkov book at this point.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10237
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Georgiev/Semkov on English
Reply #17 - 07/30/18 at 06:17:46
Post Tools
gillbod wrote on 07/26/18 at 23:35:53:
..... It is bad for black. Consequently, I think it's completely fine that it is not given any coverage by Cummings.

That's a non-sequitur unless you think that opening books can neglect all bad moves. Also you carefully neglect the fact that page 107 has more than enough space left for an extra note. Perhaps you prefer empty space to an IM's take on a natural developing move?

Glenn Snow wrote on 07/30/18 at 03:01:51:
In the system with e2/Nge2 I can't find an equalizing line.

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.e3 f5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nge2 d6 6.g3 g6 7.Bg2 Bg7 8.O-O O-O and White scores sub par. Does White have a favourable deviation?
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Glenn Snow
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1658
Location: Franklin
Joined: 09/27/03
Gender: Male
Re: Georgiev/Semkov on English
Reply #16 - 07/30/18 at 03:01:51
Post Tools
After 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.e3 f5 4.d4 Nf6, 5.Nge2 seems like a decent enough move.  Maybe there's no advantage but it's English like in that it keeps a lot of pieces on the board and preserves some tension.

MNb wrote on 07/26/18 at 11:56:39:
Again: my point is that 3.Nf3 f5 4.d4 very well might be a better try for an opening advantage.


I started to look deeper into this recently and I'd say the reverse is true.  I used to play the 3.Nf4 f5 system as Black and it still seems to hold up well.  In the system with e2/Nge2 I can't find an equalizing line.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
gillbod
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 90
Joined: 03/26/13
Re: Georgiev/Semkov on English
Reply #15 - 07/26/18 at 23:35:53
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 07/26/18 at 06:53:54:
gillbod wrote on 07/25/18 at 20:34:44:
why not 5.d5?

Wrong question, so I'm not going to answer it. Better question: which famous opening sees White playing d4-d5, attacking Nc6, while Black needs several moves to prepare ...f5 ?
When you've found the answer you'll recognize that a) not being able to play ...Bb4 is irrelevant and b) that the most important difference is the pawn on d7 iso d6. So 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.e3 f5 4.d4 Nf6 5.d5 Ne7 6.d6 cxd6 7.Nb5. White has decent compensation, but again that's not the correct question.


I guess you mean the King's Indian? I'm not sure that I follow the analogy. This is a completely different position. Also, in many KID lines, black would love to exchange the dark-squared bishop.

Instead of your 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.e3 f5 4.d4 Nf6 5.d5 Ne7 6.d6 cxd6 7.Nb5, I would rather play 6.Nf3. Now if 6...d6, we have 7.Ng5, with a typical King's Indian Bayonet motif of landing it in e6 and grabbing the good bishop. If 6...Ng6, then 7.h4 leaves the knight looking short on squares, or leaves a gaping hole on g5 in the event of 7...h5.

This line is rare, and I believe it is bad for black. Consequently, I think it's completely fine that it is not given any coverage by Cummings.
« Last Edit: 07/27/18 at 09:56:15 by gillbod »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Pawnpusher
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 55
Joined: 01/04/18
Gender: Male
Re: Georgiev/Semkov on English
Reply #14 - 07/26/18 at 12:13:08
Post Tools
The Hansen book has a chapter (actually two) on f5 tries, and he generally argues that d4 is a good try at getting an advantage. As in 1 c4 e5 2Nc3 Nc6 3 Nf3 f5 4 d4 then e4.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10237
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Georgiev/Semkov on English
Reply #13 - 07/26/18 at 11:56:39
Post Tools
Again: my point is that 3.Nf3 f5 4.d4 very well might be a better try for an opening advantage.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Glenn Snow
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1658
Location: Franklin
Joined: 09/27/03
Gender: Male
Re: Georgiev/Semkov on English
Reply #12 - 07/26/18 at 09:45:24
Post Tools
After 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.e3 f5 4.d4 Nf6, 5.Nge2 seems like a decent enough move.  Maybe there's no advantage but it's English like in that it keeps a lot of pieces on the board and preserves some tension.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10237
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Georgiev/Semkov on English
Reply #11 - 07/26/18 at 06:53:54
Post Tools
gillbod wrote on 07/25/18 at 20:34:44:
that the analogous 5..Bb4 from the colours reversed line is an outright blunder.

After 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.f4 d5 4.Nf3 dxe4 I bet that 5.Bb5 is not exactly the very best move. 5.Nxe4 and 6.Bb5 is only promising if White can cripple Black's pawn structure with Bxc6 (...bxc6 being the only possible answer). So you actually confirm that IM Cummings should have given the English version more attention; it's far from obvious how White can show that the extra tempo is useful, this setup being far from the most ambitious one against the GPA. Lack of space is not an excuse as there is plenty room left on page 107.

gillbod wrote on 07/25/18 at 20:34:44:
why not 5.d5?

Wrong question, so I'm not going to answer it. Better question: which famous opening sees White playing d4-d5, attacking Nc6, while Black needs several moves to prepare ...f5 ?
When you've found the answer you'll recognize that a) not being able to play ...Bb4 is irrelevant and b) that the most important difference is the pawn on d7 iso d6. So 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.e3 f5 4.d4 Nf6 5.d5 Ne7 6.d6 cxd6 7.Nb5. White has decent compensation, but again that's not the correct question. The question is if White's chances for an opening advantage are better here than in 3.Nf3 f5 4.d4. I doubt it.
Also compare the Black Tango 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6. White's 3.e3 is pretty useless. Finally: have you looked at 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.f4 d5 4.Nf3 and now d4? Why would it be so much less popular than dxe4 ? IM Cummings' "3.e3 saves two tempi" only becomes more superficial.

Now we're at those GPA lines with colours reversed: even a more serious omission in Cummings'book is 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 f5 3.d4 exd4 4.Qxd4 Nf6, which is superior to 4...Nc6. For instance Peter Svidler realized that as a youngster.

My view that IM Cummings'book, with its many qualities, does need a complement stands only taller.

At the other hand, if you like 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.e3 f5 4.d4 Nf6 from White's perspective by all means play it.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
gillbod
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 90
Joined: 03/26/13
Re: Georgiev/Semkov on English
Reply #10 - 07/25/18 at 20:34:44
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 07/25/18 at 19:57:23:
he not recognizing that the variation is a joy killer with colours reversed: 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.f4 d5 4.Nf3 dxe4 5.Nxe4.


Does black really need to play 4...dxe4 here? Why not 4...d4? Some strong correspondence players have gone this way and most often have met 5.Bb5+ as the reply.

Quote:
So he doesn't consider 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.e3 f5 4.d4 and now the simple Nf6.


After 4...Nf6, continuing with our analog from the colours reversed, why not 5.d5? Makes even more sense now that the analogous 5..Bb4 from the colours reversed line is an outright blunder.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10237
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Georgiev/Semkov on English
Reply #9 - 07/25/18 at 19:57:23
Post Tools
IM Cummings actually recommends 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.e3 because compared to 3.Nf3 f5 4.d4 e4 5.Ng1 he wants to win two tempi. Unfortunately one of several flaws in his book (it's pretty good, but not as good as gillbod seems to suggest above) is he not recognizing that the variation is a joy killer with colours reversed: 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.f4 d5 4.Nf3 dxe4 5.Nxe4. So he doesn't consider 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.e3 f5 4.d4 and now the simple Nf6.
So I strongly consider buying Georgiev/Semkov's book as a complement.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4328
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Georgiev/Semkov on English
Reply #8 - 07/25/18 at 18:38:11
Post Tools
Speaking of e3, you can even play it a move earlier.  (Dennis Monokroussos on an article in Informant 135:  "GM Ivan Ivanisevic offers a compact white repertoire in the English built on 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.e3. He doesn't promise an advantage, but the positions are fresh and not easy for Black to solve at the board - especially if he doesn't play the Sicilian with White, as many of the positions transpose into reversed Sicilians.")
  
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