Dear TalJechin,

  I stated that 4. ...Kte7!? was an interesting attempt at refutation, which implies that White does not have a forced draw of course. Rather Black can force one after 5. Rh3, which is partly why I gave other lines.

I certainly don't intend to play this rubbish in a serious game. Even if it turns out that there is no straightforward refutation for Black, White certainly has no advantage against forceful play. His chances come only when Black meekly develops and allows him to do the same. Then White's Kingside attack truly does become strong.

I really don't see why you feel the need to be so confrontational and jeering. I am simply charing a funny idea, which is in fact sounder than many mindless gambits which are constantly advocated on this forum.

I sincerely hope our discussions will be more civil in the future.

                                                                    Regards,
                                                                         Hubert

Dear TalJechin,

 [b]I[/b] was wrong. It [b]is[/b] a bad opening, and as such deserves a silly name such as the Willy Wonka Wariation.

However, your suggestion of 4. ...Kte7!? does not strike me as being a convincing refutation, although it is an interesting attempt. For example :


- 5. Rh3 Ktg6 ; 6. Ktf3 Qc7 ; 7. Rh5!? (more lifting) Ktf4 ; 8. Rh4 is a draw
- 5. f4 Ktg6 ; 6. Rf3 (not ideal of course, but the Knight is also not beautifully placed. 6. Qg4/6. Kth3) f6 ; 8. Bd3 fe ; 9. Bxg6+ hg ; 10. fe
- 5. Rg3 Ktf5 (5. ...Ktg6 ; 6. Qh5) ; 6. Rh3 followed by g4
                                                             
                                                                                 Regards,
                                                                                         UD

Dear Markovich,

  You are absolutely right. As I have already mentioned 4. ...Ktc6 ; 5. f4 f6 (or 4. ...f6  ; 5. f4 Ktc6) is the most critical line. Now the only way to hold -e5 while completing the Rook manoeuvre is 6. Bb5 but after 6. ...Bd7 ; 7. Rg3!? (threatening Qh5+) fe ; 8. Bxc6 Bxc6 ; 9. fe White seems to be holding his own.
I've noticed that this line is very rarely chosen in practice, even by strong players, maybe because although ...f6 is completely thematic in the French, one isn't used to playing it so early. So 5. ...f6 is perhaps the opposite of dogmatic thinking!
3. ...f6 , on the other hand, truly is premature. White should forget about the Rook swing idea and concentrate on the Kingside weaknesses with 4. d4

                                                      Regards,
                                                            Hubert

[quote author=TalJechin link=1112717848/60#71 date=1145874031]
Well, in my mind you have to be pretty dogmatic to get worked up over whether someone enters the french via 1.Nc3 or 1.e4... [/quote]

The quote you chose had nothing to do with the French. Where is the connection?? I don't remember getting worked up, but I backed up my claim that 1. Ktc3 is theorecticaly irrelevant with analysis (cf. in particular the thread "Switching from 1. e4 to 1. d4" in the "General Chess" section), which is more than can be said for those who persistantly "disagree". So who is being dogmatic ? Those who say that 1. Ktc3 is of independant relevance simply because it is a different move, or those who have actually given the matter some thought and come to the conclusion that it carries no point ?

[quote]But your 2.a4 idea may of course put you in an entirely different category... [/quote]

I do not consider myself to belong to any particular school of thought. I'm simply a chess nut. By the way I don't call you "a desperately romantic has-been" just because you play the King's Gambit. There is more to the definition of one's style than one's choice of openings.

[quote]Btw, my first thought was that 1.e4 e6 2.a4 could perhaps be met by 2...e5 as white has possibly weakened b4 in the following open game. And there are plenty of other 2nd moves as well, though they may not have too much point they might stop white from lifting the rook.[/quote]

After 2. ...e5, the best way to take advantage of the extra move is perhaps 3. Bc4 with a Bishop's Opening, where a4 is useful.
Of course Black has several ways of simply preventing the Ra3 idea, 2. ...Ktf6/ 2. ...Ktc6 etc, but White has adequate replies.

[quote]One way to cut black's option could be the move order 1.e4 e6 2.f4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.a4 with a position which I'd guess white would be allowed to reach in 75-90% of the games. Or is there a problem with this that makes you prefer 2.a4,? [/quote]

Not really. 2. f4 is also possible. But note that in the line 2. a4 d5 ; 3. e5 c5 ; 4. Ra3 c4 ; 5. Rh3 Ktc6 , I prefer 6. Ktf3. Of course Black can bypass this with 4. ...Ktc6 ; 5. f4 c4 .

[quote]Well, I asked for a *good name* - Nimzowitsch could get away with naming everything after himself, but nowadays it suggests a lack of imagination, doesn't it?[/quote]

Call it what you want then. I'm not particularly keen on silly names for chess openings, but I certainly don't want to fight over it.

                                                Regards,
                                                     UD

Very true. The Black side of the Budapest is probably the opening that offers the most opportunities for a Q Rook swing to the Kingside. This is one of the themes that makes it a dynamic defence and one of the reasons why I play it myself.
But there are of course numerous examples for either side in many other lines.
However, I am not aware of any instance apart from 1. e4 e6 ; 2. a4 where a Rook is the first piece to be developped.      

Dear TalJechin,

 Could you tell me why you wish to assign me to the dogmatics' doghouse? I would very much appreciate that you back up your claim with an argument or at least a quote.
Actually my Black repertoire is made up almost entirlely of unorthodox openings of my own design and I've got quite a few White variations in the same vein as well (most of them much better than 2. a4).
Since you've asked me to come up with a name, let's call it the Uberdeker Advance for the moment as opposed to the "Immortal Überdeckung" Advance (2. h4), thought up by Hans Kmoch for the purpose of his brilliant Nimzowitschian parody.

As I have already mentioned, I have not yet played a standard game with this, but I will reproduce some recent blitz games soon, if my cluttered memory allows it.

As regards Viking's suggestion of 2. ...c5, I meet this with 3. f4 when 3. ...d5 ; 4. e5 transposes and otherwise White's a4 may actually be more to the point in the Grand Prix Attack than the standard Ktc3.

                                               Regards,
                                                       UD

Just when you thought you could place Überdeker in the Neodogmatic School of Chess Though, he comes up with 2.a4!? vs. the french!

Without having tried it (yet!) I'd think it has some potential, at least it's an original idea to 'punish' black's 1...e6 - losing control of h3. The idea actually reminds me of an old game by Walter Browne iirc, where he uses this Ra3-h3 (or was it -g3?) in a Queen's Gambit and wins pretty easily.

Anyway, Uberdeker, if you want some input it would probably help if you 1) give us some example games and 2) come up with a good name for this variation!

(if you need inspiration, how about The Rook Lift Attack / The ERA (i.e. Elevated Rook Attack) / The Elevator / The Willy Wonka Attack ? (WW has an elevator than goes in all directions...))

Btw, a check in the database came up with the following 2 horrendous/hilarious games. Still, white manages 50% in the database - so it can't be bad! 

Istaal - Oort [C00]
ICS rated blitz match localhost, 20.11.1998

1.e4 e6 2.a4 ¤f6 3.¦a3 ¥xa3 4.bxa3 0-0 5.¤c3 ¤c6 6.h4 d5 7.exd5 exd5 8.¤xd5 £xd5 9.¦h3 ¥xh3 10.gxh3 ¦fe8+ 11.¤e2 ¤d4 12.¥b2 ¤f3# 0-1

trunkspiccolo9 - BULLDOG#1 [C00]
VOGChess VOGChess

1.e4 e6 2.a4 £f6 3.d4 £xf2+ 4.¢xf2 ¤c6 5.h4 ¤xd4 6.£xd4 ¥e7 7.¥b5 ¥f6 8.£xd7+ ¥xd7 9.¥xd7+ ¢xd7 10.¤h3 ¢d8 11.¦d1+ ¢c8 12.¦a3 ¤h6 13.¦d4 ¢b8 14.¦d7 ¦c8 15.¦ad3 ¥xh4+ 16.¢g1 ¥e1 17.c4 ¤g4 18.¦d8 ¦xd8 19.¦xd8# 1-0

Well Uberdecker,

2.a4 and 5.Ra3 just can't be sound in a theoretical sense, but....

As a blitz weapon or a weapon against a dogmatist, it may score points.  I've seen this at the local Renaissance Festival once or twice, but White usually loses by move 15.  For a stronger player to suggest it means that I have to re-evaluate it on concrete terms.  This is something I can't do right now, but am curious about what black's worries are in any practical game with standard FIDE/USCF time controls.