Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 
Topic Tools
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Hodgson Attack (Read 19020 times)
Strptzr
Full Member
***
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 207
Location: Gent
Joined: 11/05/05
Re: Hodgson Attack
Reply #4 - 03/01/06 at 12:56:40
Post Tools
Well  I do not need 'convincing' as to who the main practitioner is, but I am not to eager to see a lot of names attributed to one opening :  as a 1.Nc3-player I know but too well what the 'effects' are.
Besides there are lots of openings who derive their name from players who seldom used the line, isn't it, Mr Gligoric ?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TimS
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 458
Location: London
Joined: 11/02/05
Re: Hodgson Attack
Reply #3 - 03/01/06 at 12:04:43
Post Tools
Sounds pretty convincing to me
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Nietzsche
Senior Member
****
Offline


Huggy Bear is coming.
You'd better run.

Posts: 394
Location: USA
Joined: 02/13/06
Gender: Male
Re: Hodgson Attack
Reply #2 - 03/01/06 at 01:29:44
Post Tools
RE: Why not use the existing name of 'levitsky attack' ?

It may well be that the naming rights are already 'set in stone' but I think not, and I'd like to make a few points:

1.) It is not commonly referred to as the 'Levitsky Attack' in most literature (DVD, video, software, etc). In fact, I had not heard that name before (although perhaps it is common in specialist literature? I must plead ignorance on this...) 
In standard reference texts or introductory guides, it is usually called the Pseudo-Trompowsky or simply the Queen's Bishop Attack (when it gets a name at all).

2.) Levitsky himself only played it twice in serious praxis as far as my database can tell.  He drew one and lost the other.  This was certainly not a system that he played frequently or one he fine-tuned into a dangerous weapon.  Many players had dabbled with it (even Alekhine and Gulko tried it twice) but none of them seems to have stuck with it or gave it prominence in tournament play.  Certainly not Levitsky.  It stayed obscure and "dubious" for many decades. 

3.) Hodgson, however, played it 79 times and scored 66%.  He also used it many times against world class opposition (including wins over Gurevich, Sokolov, van Wely, etc).  In fact, Hodgson played in almost as many games with it as I have in my entire database before his first game. {I have 87 games before Hodgson and white scores a horrific 45%}. Shocked

Basically, Levitsky neither introduced the opening nor made it even remotely popular in serious play.  Other players have dabbled with it and I see no reason why Levitsky should get naming rights over anyone else. Levitsky didn't write any articles or books that convinced strong players it was a seriously viable system.
Hodgson, however, inspired several british GMs to "give it a go" and then others around the world began to try this idea and the theory expanded immensely.  He played it many times over many years and helped shape it into something that looked respectable. 

Anyway, I mainly think it would be a nice gesture since Hodgson obviously won't be getting his name added to the Trompowsky or have it named after him. (Although the same arguments may easily be made again, since Trompowsky himself niether introduced it and only used it 8 times with bad results while Hodgson played it something like 215 times, scoring an amazing 73% and also pushed for its popularity in print and on video).  It seems unfair that a man who dedicate so much of his time and energy to a completely obscure line, who shaped it into a coherent system and helped it become respectable, and also inspired people all over the world to use it as their main system should take a back seat to an unknown played from nearly 100 years ago who never used it much, did not score well with it the few times he did try it, and didn't convince strong players to take it up as a serious weapon.

I just hate to see Hodgson get completely passed over twice!   
He will not be getting his name added to 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 since the name is well established. 

But I don't think the 'Levitsky Attack' is anywhere near as well established yet, and I think it would be a nice tribute to the man who has helped convince millions of people play 1.d4/ 2.Bg5 against almost everything. But maybe I'm totally wrong and there is no way to convince people that Levitsky attack or pseudo-Tromp is not the best name.

  

"By some ardent enthusiasts Chess has been elevated into a science or an art. It is neither; but its principal characteristic seems to be what human nature mostly delights in - a fight." - Em. Lasker
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Strptzr
Full Member
***
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 207
Location: Gent
Joined: 11/05/05
Re: Hodgson Attack
Reply #1 - 02/26/06 at 17:15:52
Post Tools
Why not use the existing name of 'levitsky attack' ?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Nietzsche
Senior Member
****
Offline


Huggy Bear is coming.
You'd better run.

Posts: 394
Location: USA
Joined: 02/13/06
Gender: Male
Hodgson Attack
02/25/06 at 02:53:14
Post Tools
I was wondering why the cumbersome name of Pseudo-Trompowsky is used so much for 1.d4 d5 2.Bg5

Wouldn't the "Hodgson Attack" be more appropriate and so much less pedestrian?
We really ought to give Julian his due...


Queen's Bishop Attack is even worse...obviously.

Anyone else agree?
  

"By some ardent enthusiasts Chess has been elevated into a science or an art. It is neither; but its principal characteristic seems to be what human nature mostly delights in - a fight." - Em. Lasker
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