Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Collins / Hansen on BDG (Read 18397 times)
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Collins / Hansen on BDG
Reply #42 - 09/19/05 at 22:22:55
Post Tools
X, it aint often that Toppy are on the same page saying the same stuff, so I don't mind his Matrix reference.  This time. Cheesy
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
X
God Member
*****
Offline


Education is a system
of imposed ignorance.Chomsky

Posts: 571
Joined: 10/04/03
Re: Collins / Hansen on BDG
Reply #41 - 09/19/05 at 21:31:20
Post Tools
There you go again with the Matrix references...   Smiley
  

Power to the People!&&http://www.gravel2008.us/           http://www.nationalinitiative.us/&&Mike Gravel for President 2008
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


I only look 1 move ahead,
but its always the best

Posts: 2211
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: Collins / Hansen on BDG
Reply #40 - 09/19/05 at 21:21:16
Post Tools
Another deja vu BDG thread

Where all the same arguments are repeated in a cycle.

The argument that you will lose regardless of what you play against a GM or any titled player is a stupid one, the fact is if you play crappy openings against a strong player chances are you will get smashed, play something more reliable and you have better chances to score.

I remember as a 2200 defeating my first GM with black at an Olympiad in 27 moves using the Old Indian defence, had I tried The Zilbermints Weed Whacker variation of the Snake Benoni, then chances are things might not have turned out so well.   

BDG REVOLUTIONS I envisage to be the next title thread on this apparently indefatigable topic.

Lets see if my prediction comes true, till then.

Sayonara

Toppy Grin
  

The man who tries to do something and fails is infinitely better than he who tries to do nothing and succeeds - Lloyd Jones Smiley
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ArKheiN
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 728
Location: Belgium
Joined: 03/30/05
Re: Collins / Hansen on BDG
Reply #39 - 09/14/05 at 13:13:05
Post Tools
Quote:
The main reason Kramnik sought complications, as you correctly pointed out, was that his position was worse.  I know you don't think White's position is worse before he offers the BDG.  But perhaps your logic works after he's offered the BDG? 


At the moment my opponent accept the pawn, I have NO FEAR. I am very curious of which defense my opponent will use, and I like my position. But what I have said before is to keep a good mental for the whole game, if I have nothing concrete after the middle-game for example. But this is a form of bluff to play the BDG quicky and confidently against your opponent's responses, and despite the fact that you may know the lines as White, you have a psychollogical advantage when your opponent is thinking "oh he seems to know it, but I really don't, can I have an advantage? Which move to use now, I have a lot of choices" and later "Did I play the best defense? Is is theorical until now? etc" (the guy on the Black side who have never faced the BDG have doubts in the firsts moves while his opponent is relax) The real challenge is when my opponent seems to know how to play the Black side because he admitted that the BDG could be dangerous and have prepared a serious defense against it (like Markovich in our game) At the moment I have a score of 12W 1L and 2draw with the BDG on correspondance play, good score in rapid, but didn't try on OTB yet. My actual results is not going to make me stop the BDG for the moment!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Collins / Hansen on BDG
Reply #38 - 09/14/05 at 12:32:02
Post Tools
Quote:
Even top GM's plays sometimes risky moves at a moment of the game, to put some fire in the board with a provocative move where this is the only chance to play for a win and not for a draw, which is not always totally sound after a deep analysis, but which is impossible to calculate over the board, and the opponent generally decline it, because he had less mental than his opponent. One example is a game Kramnik-Leko in the Wch in a Caro, where Kramnik was clearly worse with White, and wanted to complicate the position, and after a move offered draw, and Leko, could decline the draw advantageously and play for a win, but he was not sure of what Kramnik had prepared to continue, and didn't want to risk to lose when a draw was good enough, even if in the analysis he had -/+. .


The main reason Kramnik sought complications, as you correctly pointed out, was that his position was worse.  I know you don't think White's position is worse before he offers the BDG.  But perhaps your logic works after he's offered the BDG?  Grin
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ArKheiN
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 728
Location: Belgium
Joined: 03/30/05
Re: Collins / Hansen on BDG
Reply #37 - 09/14/05 at 12:24:24
Post Tools
Quote:
@Arkhein
Just wondering about your limited theory argument. What do you play against 1..Nf6? You probably need to go into something like a tromp to keep it limited and 2 Nc3 doesnt allow a Bdg I think and leaves you with the Veresov.

Just curious not trying to catch you in a discussion 


Against 1..Nf6 I play 2.Nc3, if Black play something like 2..d6 or 2..g6, 2..e6, I will enter in the Pirc and French, against 2..c5, into a benoni. Against 2..d5 I will play 3.e4 (3.Bg5 : Veresov is playable, but not the same subject), to enter into the Hübsh gambit after 3..Nxe4, or BDG after 3..dxe4 4.f3

Another common move  order by BDGers is 1.d4 Nf6 2.f3 d5 3.e4 dxe4 4.Nc3 (BDG), this have the advantage of avoiding the Hübsh gambit, but you have to like to play against theses moves : 2..c5; 2..e6 or even 2..d6/2..g6 but the BDG expert : Peter Leisebein plays mostly the BDG with that move order, and is not affraid to faces theses lines.

Quote:
If 2...e4 is wrong, then we can assess the position at once as either e.g. "black can equality more easily than he should be able to" or "black is now slightly better if he continues accurately". If with best play white has sufficient compensation for the pawn, then we can assess the position as "white has sufficient compensation".


I think myself that White have enough compensation, but we can't necessary see it immediately. But because I can't say for sure that it's 100% compensation against every Black's defense, I think that it could be possible that I fail somewhere to have 100% compensation, and for this reason, Black could possibly get =/+ in somes variations, it's just an objective evaluation of the Gambit. My subjective idea is that White can have 100% compensation for the pawn everywhere and have = if both side play perfect. And when I am playing the BDG, this idea help me to have a strong mental when I play it, if not, it would be quite masochist to think everytime "oh I play this gambit, but I hope to not allow a =/+ or more" in every moves. The mental is the factor number one in OTB. If the guy as Black is too relax with his pawn up, but the guy on the White side really want to win at everycost, without using his concentration to think if his compensation is sufficient or not, Iso in this case, I am not sure that Black will win. Patrik Shoupal and Gambit explained that idea maybe better than me, that you have to be a bit overoptimistic when you play the BDG, and objective when the game is finished.

Even top GM's plays sometimes risky moves at a moment of the game, to put some fire in the board with a provocative move where this is the only chance to play for a win and not for a draw, which is not always totally sound after a deep analysis, but which is impossible to calculate over the board, and the opponent generally decline it, because he had less mental than his opponent. One example is a game Kramnik-Leko in the Wch in a Caro, where Kramnik was clearly worse with White, and wanted to complicate the position, and after a move offered draw, and Leko, could decline the draw advantageously and play for a win, but he was not sure of what Kramnik had prepared to continue, and didn't want to risk to lose when a draw was good enough, even if in the analysis he had -/+. Mental and bluffing is a part of OTB games, not only home preparation or chess skills!! (theses factors are important also, but every human have somes doubts at a moment. The lack of fear of the computer, and no psychollogical advantage against it, is one of the reason that any strong GM don't try to play in the same way than against an human, the other reason is that you can't generally bluff a computer : he calculate faster and deeper than you.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bonsai
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 622
Joined: 03/13/04
Gender: Male
Re: Collins / Hansen on BDG
Reply #36 - 09/14/05 at 11:19:02
Post Tools
Quote:
Sholar said :

Why should he lose to the Queen Gambit also? Generally it's his own repertoire for Black to play 1..d5 and face 2.c4, with lot of classical games by champions, books, databases on it, that show how to play the opening like a champion. If I beat him with the Queen Gambit, it will be in an advanced middle game or an ending where Black's position have been well analysed, and where my opponent played many games on it. 

You wouldn't believe how many games I have won as white against opposition in the 1800-2100 range when black played variations like e.g. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bf5 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3 b6 7.e4! or 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Nbd2 Nbd7 6.b3 Bd6 7.Bb2 0-0 8.Bd3 Re8 9.Ne5 Qc7 10.f4. And I think it's a misconception to think that in Queen's Gambit games the opening is boring, even if one side doesn't do something dubious as in the above examples.
Quote:
I think we can assess a BDG position only until the middle game, where the real play began.

If 2...e4 is wrong, then we can assess the position at once as either e.g. "black can equality more easily than he should be able to" or "black is now slightly better if he continues accurately". If with best play white has sufficient compensation for the pawn, then we can assess the position as "white has sufficient compensation".
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Willempie
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 4312
Location: Holland
Joined: 01/07/05
Re: Collins / Hansen on BDG
Reply #35 - 09/14/05 at 10:57:23
Post Tools
@Arkhein
Just wondering about your limited theory argument. What do you play against 1..Nf6? You probably need to go into something like a tromp to keep it limited and 2 Nc3 doesnt allow a Bdg I think and leaves you with the Veresov.

Just curious not trying to catch you in a discussion Wink
  

If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ArKheiN
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 728
Location: Belgium
Joined: 03/30/05
Re: Collins / Hansen on BDG
Reply #34 - 09/14/05 at 10:33:33
Post Tools
Sholar said : Quote:
In order for this argument to be relevant, one has to assume that his opponents will play perfectly against any number of mainline variations -- it is not like White is without aggressive options besides the BDG, and if Bob's ideal opponent can't defend the BDG, why should we assume he can defend againt the Queen's Gambit?


Why should he lose to the Queen Gambit also? Generally it's his own repertoire for Black to play 1..d5 and face 2.c4, with lot of classical games by champions, books, databases on it, that show how to play the opening like a champion. If I beat him with the Queen Gambit, it will be in an advanced middle game or an ending where Black's position have been well analysed, and where my opponent played many games on it. With the BDG, the theory is underground, he will surely not have serious experience against it, not have seen it in books or anywhere, and will go wrong somewhere, in the middle game or even in the opening! With the BDG, it's really easy to go wrong with Black, and it's for that there is so many wins under 20 moves by White with the BDG.


Smyslov fan have said : Quote:
Fluffy stated flatly that accepting the gambit gives Black a slight edge.  That's blunt enough for most of us, but Arkhein responded that Nxf3 is unclear (here, Arkhein admitted that it's at best equal.  So let's presume it's unclear/equal.)


Before Black can hope for a real = or =/+, he have to survive to the attack, where the pawn up will be a real factor. After the immediare 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3, I say that it is unclear, because it's too early to have a real assesment of this position. And in a lot of variations White can have more than equality. In the game against Eric
Prié, Patrik missed my improvement : Rdf1! instead of his Qf2, to have a clear +/= at least, and that's not what Eric Prié wanted to allow, but luck for him, Patrik's Qf2 was inferior to  my recommandation.

I think we can assess a BDG position only until the middle game, where the real play began.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Scholar
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 557
Location: Chicago
Joined: 04/26/04
Re: Collins / Hansen on BDG
Reply #33 - 09/14/05 at 01:26:32
Post Tools
@Sacapawn
I don't think the BDG is common anywhere, but it does have a vocal following, so on a forum like this it may seem more popular than it is.  At least that is my impression, and as far as I can recall, I have only played a couple of games with it.

@Smyslov_Fan
You are, of course, correct that it is on the gambitter to prove the worth of the gambit.  The BDG cannot survive such tests: there are dozens of adequate replies, and many good ones.  We have already seen a couple in the challenge matches here.  The typical response to any line for Black, which I see Gambit has already gotten around to in the other thread, is to give one win in rapid chess, and call it a day.  Selfishly, I am curious to see what the state of the art is in the line that I would play against the BDG, but perhaps I am just encouraging nonsense.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Sacapawn
Full Member
***
Offline


International Master

Posts: 119
Location: Stockholm
Joined: 05/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: Collins / Hansen on BDG
Reply #32 - 09/14/05 at 00:48:42
Post Tools
The BGD isn't common at all in Sweden, actually I have never met it OTB!

I can understand that (some at least) BDG players have good results against opposition of equal strength. But I think that primarily has to do with the fact that the defending skills of the Black players at these rating levels are not as good as the attacking skills of the White players.

What White players learn is this:
If I sac a pawn and get some compensation I will win most games. They learn to win games with unsound attacks against poor defenders and they unconsciously expect their opponents to make mistakes.

This style of play won't work against higher rated opponents, who can defend better and don't make the same kind of mistakes.

In order to improve these players must unlearn this style of play.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Collins / Hansen on BDG
Reply #31 - 09/14/05 at 00:15:00
Post Tools
There's another thread going on now which challenges people to offer specific lines to "refute" the BDG.  That thread has it all wrong.  As with any gambit, the onus is on the person sacrificing the pawn to prove that the sacrifice is worthwhile.  Fluffy stated flatly that accepting the gambit gives Black a slight edge.  That's blunt enough for most of us, but Arkhein responded that Nxf3 is unclear (here, Arkhein admitted that it's at best equal.  So let's presume it's unclear/equal.)

Let's see, giving up the pawn is at best unclear, so why give it up?  There are plenty of openings that survive five moves with White's natural initiative in tact, so why give it up so early without a fight.

I'm not going to sully that other thread with dreaded words, and I'm not going to argue that any one line "refutes" the gambit.  Rather, I will wait to see if White actually can prove an advantage.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Scholar
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 557
Location: Chicago
Joined: 04/26/04
Re: Collins / Hansen on BDG
Reply #30 - 09/13/05 at 23:59:27
Post Tools
In general, some of my most enjoyable games have come by fighting hard against players who simply outclass me, and yes, by grabbing the occasional point (or, more frequently, defending a long and painful draw).  It's unfortunate that players should simply concede the point as white.

But let's set that aside, and consider our hypothetical BDG player, Bob.  Bob says that he cannot defeat a GM and so it doesn't matter what the opening's theoretical worth is; the strongest players that he can hope to beat never play the best continuations against the BDG anyway.

In order for this argument to be relevant, one has to assume that his opponents will play perfectly against any number of mainline variations -- it is not like White is without aggressive options besides the BDG, and if Bob's ideal opponent can't defend the BDG, why should we assume he can defend againt the Queen's Gambit?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10757
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Collins / Hansen on BDG
Reply #29 - 09/13/05 at 23:08:13
Post Tools
Most posts here miss the big point again. ArKheiN is right, when he says that he will lose anyway against a GM, playing the BDG or the Ruy Lopez. But the real issue is that there is so much more in chess. Why limit yourself to the BDG - or the French Fort Knox, to give a completely opposite example?
While I try to be an attacking player, I have tried a whole variety of openings the last 20 years and enjoyed a lot of them. Personally I think the Velimirovic Attack far more exciting than the BDG, to name just one opening. And yes, it is possible to start a furious attack in the French Exchange.
  

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
 
Scholar
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 557
Location: Chicago
Joined: 04/26/04
Re: Collins / Hansen on BDG
Reply #28 - 09/13/05 at 21:45:05
Post Tools
@Willempie
Indeed, the dragon is one of the examples I had in mind, so perhaps offbeat was not the proper adjective.

@ArKheiN
I'm not saying that it isn't fun to muck around in unexplored territory, but it just isn't so useful to one's chess.  It's nice to try and force your opponent onto your territory, but there are always two players in the game.  Perhaps I am wrong, but I feel like eventually you will find that opponents that you should beat easily with white become a chore because the BDG simply is not complex enough.

I don't think Bxf3 is best.  But this is my point: Black no longer needs to play the best available moves in order to equalize, or really, to stay a little bit better.  This is, in my opinion, the problem with the BDG, and maybe is the point that I am trying to make.  Look at Prie's game.  I followed that fairly loosely, so my comments here are probably not that valuable, but I think I anticipated all of Prie's moves without really any thought -- he was simply playing to equalize, and it was easy to see which pieces could safely be traded.  I remember having to spend some time to find Rh7, but this solved all of Black's problems, and after Prie played that move, I stopped following.  If Black only needs one precise move in order to equalize, then White's opening choice is suspect.

@Smyslov_Fan
On this point, I think you'll find that the anti-BDG voices are almost as guilty, which is why I have tried to avoid these discussions.  Here, we were finally looking at lines that I might find myself playing as Black, so I figured I'd put down some moves.  We are still talking about chess, right?  At the end of the day, the BDG is =+/=; incredibly, on this point we have agreement.  It is a matter of whether or not you think this is a bad thing.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo