Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) 2. a3 (Read 25769 times)
kamiel
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 43
Location: vlaanderen
Joined: 08/23/04
Re: 2. a3
Reply #43 - 01/05/05 at 13:38:28
Post Tools
Quote:
Kamiel, I have posted some comments on the Fianchetto against the Morra in other threads. I also own Palkovi's book and found it disappointing. His chapter 8 contains not much new compared to Flesch' treatment of the early 80's.
1.e4 c5 2.a3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.c3 dxc3 5.Nxc3 Bg7 6.Bc4 d6 7.Nf3 Nf6 8.o-o o-o with the idea 9...Bg4 and 10...Ne5 almost forces 9.h3 Nd7 and 10...Nde5 and Black is more than OK.


Maybe but white should play 8.e5! as bezgodov analyses with the following lines:

8. e5 Ng4 (8... dxe5 9. Qxd8+ Kxd8 10. Nxe5 Rf8
11. Nxf7+ Ke8 12. Ng5 +=) 9. e6 fxe6 (9... f5 10. O-O with compensation) (9... Bxe6 10. Bxe6
fxe6 11. Qa4+ Nc6 12. Qxg4 +-) 10. Ng5 Bxc3+ 11. bxc3 Ne5 12. Bb3 Qc7 13. O-O d5 14. Bf4 O-O 15. Bg3 Rf5 16. h4 h6 17. Nh3 Kg7 18. Bf4 Bd7 19. Bc2 +/-

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10475
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: 2. a3
Reply #42 - 01/05/05 at 06:46:45
Post Tools
I do not know, alas! I know that Van Duijn has played the opening and has written some articles, but I have not access to them.
  

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
 
Panda
Guest


Re: 2. a3
Reply #41 - 01/05/05 at 06:37:06
Post Tools
Quote:
MNb wrote:

Remains the positional 1.e4 c5 2.a3 g6 3.b4 Bg7 4.Nc3, which was also the recommendation of the most important devotee of this opening, Roel van Duijn.


In Hans Ree's article at The Chess Café, he gave some games van Duijn - Ree, but there van Duijn preferred Bc4 and a later Ba2 instead of b2-b4.

How does van Duijn propose White should play against 2...Nf6?

I don't like Bezgodov's main line here, so after 3.e5 Nd5 I prefer his extra options 4.Bc4 / 4.Nc3 which may not be an advantage but it's easy to play!  Cheesy
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10475
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: 2. a3
Reply #40 - 01/04/05 at 21:22:31
Post Tools
I am pretty sure, that Bezgodov was not influenced at all by Van Duijn, who has written a few articles on de Van Duijn Opening some years ago. But Dutch is not a very common language, of course. Having said this, I can not deny Bezgodov's very important contribution of course.
Kamiel, I have posted some comments on the Fianchetto against the Morra in other threads. I also own Palkovi's book and found it disappointing. His chapter 8 contains not much new compared to Flesch' treatment of the early 80's.
1.e4 c5 2.a3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Bg7 5.Bc4 d6 6.Nf3 Nf6 7.o-o o-o with the idea 8...Bg4 and 9...Ne5 almost forces 8.h3 Nd7 and 9...Nde5 and Black is more than OK.
  

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
 
kamiel
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 43
Location: vlaanderen
Joined: 08/23/04
Re: 2. a3
Reply #39 - 01/04/05 at 13:19:00
Post Tools
Yes, Roel van Duijn is the creator of the line 2. a3, but the way they handle the opening is almost completely different in all lines.
For example: van Duijn played 1.e4 c5 2.a3 e6 3.b4 cxb4 4.axb4 Bxb4 5.c3!?
While Bezgodov suggests 1e4 c5 2.a3 e6 3.b4 cxb4 4.axb4 Bxb4 5.Bb2!? which is a whole other story.

So Bezgodov really can claim he invented a whole new attacking system, although he may not be the first to analyse the second move.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kamiel
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 43
Location: vlaanderen
Joined: 08/23/04
Re: 2. a3
Reply #38 - 01/04/05 at 13:03:10
Post Tools
Quote:
I do not trust 1.e4 c5 2.a3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.c3 at all. The fianchetto is an underestimated Defense against the Morra Gambit - especially with Nh6 - and a3 is just a loss of tempo. That should be deadly in a gambit, in which the compensation is the lead in development.
After 1.e4 c5 2.a3 g6 3.c3 Bg7 4.d4 cxd4 5.cxd4 d5 White's 2nd move again is a loss of tempo, both after 6.exd5 (compare Panov with g6) and 6.e5, which is a kind of Gurgenidze system.
Remains the positional 1.e4 c5 2.a3 g6 3.b4 Bg7 4.Nc3, which was also the recommendation of the most important devotee of this opening, Roel van Duijn.


I don't really thrust  the morra kind of sacrifice either, although I don't agree that fianchetto variation is underestimated in the morra, I studied the book of Palkovi and white seems to get the upper hand against g6 lines. Also a3 is not a complete tempoloss as it may be somewhat usefull for a later b4 push or for a bishop retreat to a2.

Your second comment about 1.e4 c5 2.a3 g6 3.c3 Bg7 4.d4 cxd4 5.cxd4 d5 6.exd5 (Nf6!) completely agrees with the book, he also refers to it as a caro kann with a tempo less, BUT that's why he doesn't play 4.d4? but first 4.Nf3 with the difference that after 4. ... d5 5. exd5 black can't play 5. ... Nf6 because of 6.c4 and black probably hasn't got complete compensation for the pawn. So black needs to retake with 5.... Qxd5 which transposes to the main line he gives in his book
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Ben_Hague
Full Member
***
Offline


I'm always happier when
I'm a pawn down.

Posts: 157
Location: Oldham
Joined: 06/20/03
Gender: Male
Re: 2. a3
Reply #37 - 01/04/05 at 12:48:20
Post Tools
Quote:
<on an odd gambit written by its creator>
Not true. The creator is, I have to repeat it again, the Dutchman Roel van Duijn, who plays it almost 40 years now.


Bezgodov clearly considers himself to be the creator judging by his introduction to the book where he talks about the difficulty of creating a new opening system, so my point about the loss of objectivity of a creator still applies, even if he recreated it rather than being the original creator. Unfortunately there isn't anyway of searching Bezgodov's book for players so I don't know if there are any van Duijn games included. I can't find any in my database, and it appears that he is unrated, so I doubt he had much influence on Bezgodov's work.

Incidentally my database gives the earliest game as being Juri Ranviir v Paul Keres from 1943. Does anyone know of an earlier example?


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10475
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: 2. a3
Reply #36 - 01/04/05 at 08:27:08
Post Tools
<on an odd gambit written by its creator>
Not true. The creator is, I have to repeat it again, the Dutchman Roel van Duijn, who plays it almost 40 years now.
After 1.e4 c5 2.a3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 e6 with the idea Nge7 and d5 I am not sure, if a3 is a useful move.
  

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
 
Ben_Hague
Full Member
***
Offline


I'm always happier when
I'm a pawn down.

Posts: 157
Location: Oldham
Joined: 06/20/03
Gender: Male
Re: 2. a3
Reply #35 - 01/04/05 at 08:03:49
Post Tools
Bezgodov mainly looks at a3 as a sort of delayed wing gambit. He does mention quieter lines when black declines the sacrifice, but as you would expect most of the work is on the accepted lines as they are the most critical.

I don't find myself agreeing with TopNotch that often, but I do agree that this is a good book, it's much less one-sided than you would expect for a book on an odd gambit written by its creator. The amount and quality of analysis is pretty good as well, comparable with a normal opening book rather than the sort of rubbish that Chess Digest produced on this sort of opening.

There are a few weaknesses, in particular a lack of practical examples, most of the games in the book are blitz games which are fun but don't prove much. It's already been mentioned that one of his recommendations against g6 is a dodgy version of the Morra , and I think he's too quick to give white an advantage in positions that look to be unclearly equal. However I must say that whenever I've looked at a position in his book, thought "No way does white have enough for the material" and actually worked on the position he's always been right, and I've always been wrong.

My overall impression is that this isn't the refutation of the Sicilian, but that it deserves to become fairly popular as it is sounder than the straight Wing gambit, and the declined lines are more interesting than the c3 Sicilian transpositions in the Morra gambit.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
alumbrado
God Member
*****
Offline


Esse quam videri bonus
malebo

Posts: 1418
Location: London
Joined: 02/17/03
Gender: Male
Re: 2. a3
Reply #34 - 01/04/05 at 04:14:32
Post Tools
A while back, I was looking at some odd move orders, attempting to circumvent main-stream theory.  One of these was 1.Nf3 d6 2.Nc3!? when one Black try is to anticipate e2-e4 and reach a Sicilian with 2...c5.  I was then looking at various ideas to avoid an Open Sicilian, with the set-up I decided looked most promising being essentially a King's Indian Attack, but with a sort of Panno twist, i.e. g3, Bg2, a3, Rb1, b4, d3, Bd2.

Is this the sort of thing Bezgodov looks at (obviously with e4 already in, which is not quite what I was looking at)?
  

If sometimes we fly too close to the sun, at least this shows we are spreading our wings.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10475
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: 2. a3
Reply #33 - 01/03/05 at 21:45:47
Post Tools
I do not trust 1.e4 c5 2.a3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.c3 at all. The fianchetto is an underestimated Defense against the Morra Gambit - especially with Nh6 - and a3 is just a loss of tempo. That should be deadly in a gambit, in which the compensation is the lead in development.
After 1.e4 c5 2.a3 g6 3.c3 Bg7 4.d4 cxd4 5.cxd4 d5 White's 2nd move again is a loss of tempo, both after 6.exd5 (compare Panov with g6) and 6.e5, which is a kind of Gurgenidze system.
Remains the positional 1.e4 c5 2.a3 g6 3.b4 Bg7 4.Nc3, which was also the recommendation of the most important devotee of this opening, Roel van Duijn.
  

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
 
kamiel
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 43
Location: vlaanderen
Joined: 08/23/04
Re: 2. a3
Reply #32 - 01/03/05 at 18:33:46
Post Tools
2. ... g6 is a good move to avoid a tactical mess and will probably lead to equality with correct play but it's unlikely to be the refutation of the system.
I think if the opening will be refuted it's most likely it will happen in the crazy variations after 2. ... e6.
Against 2. ... g6 bezgodov offers 3 different plans, the b4 thrust 3.b4 Bg7 4.Nc3 often with Rb1 and kingside fianchetto to follow leading to a very positional battle.
the second option is going in some kind of alapin with 3.c3 claiming that the pawn on g6 gives some problems for black when he tries to complete development like in the main lines of alapin with d5 or Nf6.
A third option he analyses is the gambit 3.d4 cxd4 4.c3 dxc3 5.Nxc3 when he says that it is hard to believe at first sight that the insertion of 2.a3 g6 can possibly be good for white but when you consider that g6 lines aren't very good against the morra gambit there may be something in it. Although he admits that at high level black should be able to equalise without much problems in the gambit line he dares to claim a small advantage for white in the other 2 lines.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10475
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: 2. a3
Reply #31 - 01/03/05 at 16:54:50
Post Tools
I guess White can take benefit of the inclusion of 2.a3 a5 in the GP-attack, the Bb5 systems and the Open Sicilians.
In my opinion 1.e4 c5 2.a3 g6 is critical.
  

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
 
kamiel
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 43
Location: vlaanderen
Joined: 08/23/04
Re: 2. a3
Reply #30 - 01/03/05 at 07:09:56
Post Tools
Bezgodov says about 2. ... a5? :"This is a very weak move from the point of view of positional play. Black weakens the b6 and b5 squares without getting anything in return" 3.Nf3 Black cannot hope now to get a satisfactory position because white can get a big advantage in numerous ways
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
lnn2
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1503
Location: nc
Joined: 09/22/04
Re: 2. a3
Reply #29 - 01/03/05 at 06:16:55
Post Tools
2...a5 can't be good. It actually justifies your 2. a3!?
I suppose you should just play practical chess and try to make some use of the b5 square.

It appears that the latest New in chess yearbook features a sneak peek at 2. a3 by Bezgodov himself.

Of course the coverage in the yearbook can't compare to Bezgodov's book itself, but is the coverage sufficient enough to play 2. a3? I don't want to invest so much money on a WHOLE book on such crap...  Grin
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo