Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) The Queens Gambit Reversed (Read 11796 times)
BladezII
Senior Member
****
Offline


Member of chesspublishing
.com and STC Club

Posts: 402
Joined: 11/01/04
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #30 - 11/19/05 at 03:10:57
Post Tools
Quote:
My view (which I take to be the traditional one) is that saying that (for instance) the Tarrasch "doesn't offer equality" doesn't equate to saying that it is "bad."  I think that to describe a defence as "bad" implies that it enables White (with best play) to reach a clear (or indeed decisive) advantage, not just a slight one.  (Naturally these categories are somewhat arbitrary, evaluations are made in the light of imperfect knowledge, and presumably a "+=" will become "=" if the analysis [with best play on both sides] goes deep enough.)  It seems a possible state of affairs that the Tarrasch (in its most critical line[s]) is (at least more like) "+=" while some other defences are (more like) "=".  This state of affairs would (on this view) be consistent with the following statements, the first two of which I would say are equivalent:  1.  The Tarrasch is playable; 2.  The Tarrasch is not bad; 3.  There are better defences than the Tarrasch.  



 



Better ??  Why?  And do you know of a line which stops Black from being equal in this opening?  The Tarrasch is a fighting approach, an ambitious defense to 1.d4.  Why is it worse than other defenses?   IF you don't know the cold hard facts (or moves ir you prefer) of the  issue, if you dont know the truth of this line, you can not say it  is worse or better than....

  

I am a participating member of chesspublishing.com since 1998.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
castlerock
God Member
*****
Offline


Erro Ergo Sum

Posts: 842
Location: Chennai
Joined: 02/24/05
Gender: Male
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #29 - 11/17/05 at 21:24:28
Post Tools
Now, I definitely see Horizon Effect.  Wink
  

CastleRock
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4641
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #28 - 11/17/05 at 16:18:16
Post Tools
My view (which I take to be the traditional one) is that saying that (for instance) the Tarrasch "doesn't offer equality" doesn't equate to saying that it is "bad."  I think that to describe a defence as "bad" implies that it enables White (with best play) to reach a clear (or indeed decisive) advantage, not just a slight one.  (Naturally these categories are somewhat arbitrary, evaluations are made in the light of imperfect knowledge, and presumably a "+=" will become "=" if the analysis [with best play on both sides] goes deep enough.)  It seems a possible state of affairs that the Tarrasch (in its most critical line[s]) is (at least more like) "+=" while some other defences are (more like) "=".  This state of affairs would (on this view) be consistent with the following statements, the first two of which I would say are equivalent:  1.  The Tarrasch is playable; 2.  The Tarrasch is not bad; 3.  There are better defences than the Tarrasch.  



 

 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BladezII
Senior Member
****
Offline


Member of chesspublishing
.com and STC Club

Posts: 402
Joined: 11/01/04
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #27 - 11/17/05 at 15:29:12
Post Tools
MNB,

What about my issue with this ?

--You ask, and I will tell you when and where you said the Tarrasch is bad.  I quote you:  " As the Tarrasch does not offer equality, there are better defences - against 1.d4 the Nimzo-Indian and Queen's Indian..."

MNB, when you say the Tarrasch does not offer equality think really hard on what that implies.  Why would anyone play this or that if it does not offer equality might be a question of style but objectively, it is a good question.  If it does not offer equality, it is bad in my opinion.

There is no truth in the idea that with perfect play, White is better.   You can not say you have evidence of that.  That is just a theory, a hypothesis, an idea... NOT A FACT.   
--------------------------

Should we leave it at that ?  It's fine with me.
  

I am a participating member of chesspublishing.com since 1998.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
castlerock
God Member
*****
Offline


Erro Ergo Sum

Posts: 842
Location: Chennai
Joined: 02/24/05
Gender: Male
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #26 - 11/16/05 at 23:07:22
Post Tools
Do I see Horizon Effect here?

Thank you, X and where are you? Wink
  

CastleRock
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BladezII
Senior Member
****
Offline


Member of chesspublishing
.com and STC Club

Posts: 402
Joined: 11/01/04
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #25 - 11/16/05 at 22:50:51
Post Tools
Quote:
This last post gives me (again) another good reason not to debate with you, Bladez.

Where did I write that the Tarrasch is bad? I wrote that Black has better defences available than the Tarrasch.
And I also could go on and on answering your irrelevant rhetorical questions.
In stead I will paraphraze your words:
before this thread gets nasty, I am out.
Bye.  Wink Tongue Lips Sealed


You ask, and I will tell you when and where you said the Tarrasch is bad.  I quote you:  " As the Tarrasch does not offer equality, there are better defences - against 1.d4 the Nimzo-Indian and Queen's Indian..."

MNB, when you say the Tarrasch does not offer equality think really hard on what that implies.  Why would anyone play this or that if it does not offer equality might be a question of style but objectively, it is a good question.  If it does not offer equality, it is bad in my opinion.

There is no truth in the idea that with perfect play, White is better.   You can not say you have evidence of that.  That is just a theory, a hypothesis, an idea... NOT A FACT. 

There is no perfect play since humans are not perfect.  It looks like in every major opening White one day is better and tomorrow Black is equal or better and then the cycle repeats.  Sometimes some lines for white or Black are found no good until... if  an impovement comes, I should add.

I can say that with perfect play Black will always show white that the game is equal.  Who has the evidence to tell me I am wrong.  No one does.  That is food for thought.

The better prepared or the better player wins.  However, the truth must be sought and only when the truth is known are we able to make statements that this is bad and this is good. And I mean all the possibilities must be known and the outcome of those possibilities known as well.

When you dont know the truth, making statements like this opening is good or the opening does offer anything, thos statements hold no water, they are just fluff, regardless of who makes them.
  

I am a participating member of chesspublishing.com since 1998.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10506
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #24 - 11/16/05 at 20:54:03
Post Tools
"So I maintain that "+=" is indeed White's birthright and that Black's choice is merely what sort of += he wants."

While this is a very legitimate point of view, shared by Fischer and Karpov, there is also another one: that after a couple of moves the position is so complicated, that this birthright is meaningless. I only want to point out this other option, once expressed by Tal. I don't want to convince you.

"There is, altogether among strong players, too much aping of what GMs play."
Yes, very true, but you hardly can accuse me of this, with my repertoire ... So just like Bladez you should keep on playing the Tarrasch, if you feel comfortable with it. Variety keeps chess alive.
  

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
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #23 - 11/16/05 at 10:15:08
Post Tools
Quote:
Here I disagree. I think the initial position is about equal. As the Tarrasch does not offer equality, there are better defences - against 1.d4 the Nimzo-Indian and Queen's Indian; against 1.e4 the Sicilian Najdorf.
I also remember the time, that Kasparov had success with the Tarrasch. Everybody was curious, what Karpov would play. The answer was convincingly given in their first match.

But of course, all this is no reason to avoid the Tarrasch Defence at lower levels. There the handling of the resulting middle game positions is the deciding factor.


Well, it appears that we disagree.  I think you misunderstand what "+=" means.  I doubt that many would maintain that the initial position is won for White, or that it is necessarily won in any subsequent positions customarily evaluated "+=."  It merely means that with highly skillful but not necessarily perfect play by both players, White is more likely to achieve the win than Black.

An evaluation like "+=" would make no sense as a prediction of what would happen with perfect play by both players: the only evaluations that would make sense in that context would be +-, =, and -+.  That is why we don't see "+=" in discussions of the theoretical endings, since that subject is entirely concerned with what consitutes perfect play.

In this customarily sense of "+=," it does most definitely apply to the initial position.  It is almost universally conceded  that with good play from that position, Black's task is significantly more difficult than White's.  I personally believe -- and I think many share this view -- that with good play, White can continue to impose upon Black the burden of defending a somewhat worse position, until a theoretical ending is reached and "+=", assuming good play by Black all along the way, resolves into "=".

So I maintain that "+=" is indeed White's birthright and that Black's choice is merely what sort of += he wants.

On the subject of the Tarrasch, I think that Black is not lost, nor is his position terribly difficult to defend if he understands how to play IQP position down to the bitter end.  There is a good section in Aagard's Tarrasch book, by the way, on how to defend these uncomfortably simple IQP endings.  I do concede that against good play, it is fairly easy in the Tarrasch for Black to fall into a position where all the winning chances are White's.  That, more than any belief that it is unsound, is why it isn't played very much at the highest levels.

Since Black is lost neither in the Tarrasch nor in the Nimzo, the choice between them should depend on which sort of positions a player considers himself to be more skillful in.  I know that I personally do not have the skill at structural, blockading chess that I have at simple, classical chess in which the pawns take central space, the pieces flow easily forward, and dilatory play by my opponent is met by my siezing the initiative.  I further submit that for most people reading this, the same is true.  It seems obvious to me that for these people, the Tarrasch is definitely not a worse choice than the Nimzo. 

There is, altogether among strong players, too much aping of what GMs play.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10506
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #22 - 11/16/05 at 05:47:17
Post Tools
This last post gives me (again) another good reason not to debate with you, Bladez.

Where did I write that the Tarrasch is bad? I wrote that Black has better defences available than the Tarrasch.
And I also could go on and on answering your irrelevant rhetorical questions.
In stead I will paraphraze your words:
before this thread gets nasty, I am out.
Bye.  Wink Tongue Lips Sealed
  

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
 
BladezII
Senior Member
****
Offline


Member of chesspublishing
.com and STC Club

Posts: 402
Joined: 11/01/04
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #21 - 11/15/05 at 23:31:07
Post Tools
" Why do we see it hardly on 2700+ level then?"

You dont know the answer ?  If you are implying it is because the Tarrasch is bad...  I refer you again to my comments on opening fashions.

Why do we see it hardly on 2700+ level then?
Is not a correct answer that sheds the true light.  You can not conclude it is bad because " we hardly see it at the 2700+ level."

 That is not solid and concrete basis.  

Grischuk has played many openings and has stopped playing some, are they bad ??  Kramnik stopped playing 1.d4 in general , is it bad ?  Kasparov stopped playing Grunfeld, is it bad ?  Shirov stopped playing French regularly, is it bad ?  Should I go on about this ??

Theory on the Tarrasch has changed (as you should expect) since Karpov -- Kasparov.  Until you know that the Tarrasch has no lines for Black to equalize YOU can not say White will always be better.  If you dont know the truth, you can't claim this.

Last, I was not challenging you to a game.  I was challenging to put forth the evidence, the moves, the line in which White absolutely stops Black from equalizing.  IF you dont know it, you should do the true thing and withdraw your input that Black can not equalize.
  

I am a participating member of chesspublishing.com since 1998.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10506
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #20 - 11/15/05 at 22:04:22
Post Tools
"Even at the GM level the Tarrasch is good."

Why do we see it hardly on 2700+ level then? While I agree with your comments on opening fashion in general, your beloved KID is much more popular.
Since 1984 Kasparov has never played the Tarrasch anymore. Grisjuk has played it several times, but it seems he has given it up too. To me it looks like the Tarrasch Defense is in about the same position as the KG.
By no means I want to convert you, Bladez. If you think the Tarrasch is good, then play it. As I have played 1.e4 all my life and my available time is not unlimited, I must decline your challenge. But I might turn it around: I challenge you to improve on Kasparov's play in 1984. Who knows, when I grow tired of the Dutch, I might consider the Tarrasch myself ....
  

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
 
BladezII
Senior Member
****
Offline


Member of chesspublishing
.com and STC Club

Posts: 402
Joined: 11/01/04
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #19 - 11/15/05 at 20:16:47
Post Tools
Quote:
Here I disagree. I think the initial position is about equal. As the Tarrasch does not offer equality, there are better defences - against 1.d4 the Nimzo-Indian and Queen's Indian; against 1.e4 the Sicilian Najdorf.
I also remember the time, that Kasparov had success with the Tarrasch. Everybody was curious, what Karpov would play. The answer was convincingly given in their first match.

But of course, all this is no reason to avoid the Tarrasch Defence at lower levels. There the handling of the resulting middle game positions is the deciding factor.



Even at the GM level the Tarrasch is good.  Dont misinterpret the fad.  The popularity of openings come and go.   I wrote about this in the thread about : " A suitable defense to 1.d4 " . 

I mean, what "proof"  or better yet, what line in the Tarrasch takes away the possibility to be equal ?  Do you know it?  Do you know the moves?  If you do know, please publish it, there are lots of people who would pay for this info or they would really want to know it, me being one of them.

I found out that the popularity of an opening is affected many times by perceptions and many perceptions are not based on concrete and solid evidence, only ideas.

I remember when the KID was huge then it was not, then it looks  like it is on the rise again.  It was the same thing with the QGA.  It was the same thing with the Tarrasch.  I dont want to say too much about this issue of popularity and about preaching to play only what is popular and avoid what is not popular because I have said a lot about this on the other thread I mentioned.

To those who prepare well, the Tarrasch will give them a good game.  I am of the opinion that the Tarrasch suits those who want to fight for the initiative and are ambitious and want to play with energy.

I challenge the statement that the Tarrasch is += for White.  I challenge you and whoever says it to show the line.   I also play the King's Indian defence, the Tarrasch and the KID are both ambitious defenses and I challenge those who think that White can stop Black from ever finding equality i these two openings.

Remember theory comes and goes, it changes with time and practice.  But it all happens when one is searching, finding, and discovering the truth of chess, the truth about a position or a line (s).
  

I am a participating member of chesspublishing.com since 1998.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BladezII
Senior Member
****
Offline


Member of chesspublishing
.com and STC Club

Posts: 402
Joined: 11/01/04
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #18 - 11/15/05 at 19:56:23
Post Tools
Quote:
2...c5 is a perfectly respectable move, and probably his best move if he is willing to play a Tarrasch.   Best play then is 3. c4 e6.  



In case you did not know, Black is not forced to play a Tarrasch.  Where is the statement " ...if he is willing to play a Tarrasch"  coming from ?

For example,  3. c4 dxc4 4. d5 e6   as in the Anand -  Ivanchuk game is also good.
  

I am a participating member of chesspublishing.com since 1998.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4641
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #17 - 11/15/05 at 01:05:13
Post Tools
I certainly agree that most players shouldn't worry about whether the Tarrasch is ultimately "=" or "+=".  I was thinking of the theoretical aspect.

It seems that the development of opening theory in recent years/decades hasn't been kind to White's "birthright" (or as the late American GM Edmar Mednis called it, White's "normal opening advantage").

[Parenthetically I would like to say I believe that Mednis was a fine writer and, having worked with him at several chess camps, a gentleman.]

I suppose we can take the evaluations given in ECO as a decent index.  My recollection is that, in the early editions of ECO, White was considered to be able to reach (at least) "+=" in most openings, but that has no longer been the case in the recent editions.  Major defences such as the Petroff, the QGA and the Slav which used to be given (in the "best play" lines) as += are now considered = (or, perhaps equivalently for purposes of this discusssion, "unclear" or "with compensation").  I think the first couple of editions of "the blue ECO" showed a path to += for White in every line of the Ruy/Spanish with the exception of the Marshall (where "unclear" and "with compensation" were ubiquitous).  In a recent edition, I believe I counted five systems in which Black could avoid +=.  (I believe they were the Marshall, the "Neo-Archangel" [with ...Bc5 instead of ...Bb7], the Flohr-Zaitsev, Romanishin's 11...Nc6 and 11...Bb7 in the 9...Na5 Closed lines.)

I guess this can be seen in light of the fact that a "correctly" played game is (almost certainly) a draw, and as opening analysis becomes deeper/more sophisticated it is pushing the evaluations in that direction, thus many "+="s are becoming "="s. 
     
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10506
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #16 - 11/14/05 at 22:00:52
Post Tools
Here I disagree. I think the initial position is about equal. As the Tarrasch does not offer equality, there are better defences - against 1.d4 the Nimzo-Indian and Queen's Indian; against 1.e4 the Sicilian Najdorf.
I also remember the time, that Kasparov had success with the Tarrasch. Everybody was curious, what Karpov would play. The answer was convincingly given in their first match.

But of course, all this is no reason to avoid the Tarrasch Defence at lower levels. There the handling of the resulting middle game positions is the deciding factor.
  

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
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo