Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Topic Tools
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) 4 Qe2 vs. Two Knights Defence?! (Read 7366 times)
mad_knight
Junior Member
**
Offline


aargh!

Posts: 86
Location: antwerp
Joined: 11/25/04
Gender: Male
Re: 4 Qe2 vs. Two Knights Defence?!
Reply #16 - 05/01/07 at 20:49:41
Post Tools
TalJechin wrote on 04/28/07 at 10:27:20:
How come you gave it up?


I gave it up because after Qe2 White usually plays d3, whereas I'd hoped to be able to play c3 and d4 instead.  Besides, what's the use of playing Qe2 if you're playing d3 anyway?!

But thanks for your input anyway Smiley
  

Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale her infinite variety - William Shakespeare
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2892
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: 4 Qe2 vs. Two Knights Defence?!
Reply #15 - 04/28/07 at 10:27:20
Post Tools
mad_knight wrote on 04/25/07 at 16:17:03:
Well, it looks like 4 Qe2 is not such a good idea after all. 

So I had another look at the Two Knights and came across a variation which I think suits my style better; it goes like this:

e4 e5
Nf3 Nc6
Bc4 Nf6
d4 exd4, and now
e5 instead of the more complex 0-0.

I'll try it out in practice and hope it'll turn out all right...

Anyway, thank you all for your input Smiley



How come you gave it up?

It seems a quite reasonable set-up for white if he's more interested in getting a full board middlegame without having to learn a lot of forced variations.

Besides, when looking at the games of the most succesful whites I noticed that they seemed to prefer the move order 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Qe2 Nc6 4.Nf3 - which could certainly appeal to the lazy as white plays a 'Spanish light' with c3, d3 etc more or less reducing black to either a Be7 or a Bc5 set-up. And it avoids the Petroff - so it's not unlikely that white would be able to play this in at least 80% of his e4 e5 games...

As for winning chances, one shouldn't expect to win quickly as there are few traps when the pawns aren't in contact. Still, some of the white players have very impressive stats, e.g. the Italian IM Renzo Mantovani has 9½ of 10 with it - and the draw was an eight move quicky vs Arlandi. So below GM level it doesn't seem to hurt white's chances too much.

Here's a pgn with some games from the most frequent and successful Qe2-users plus a few known names to get white below 90%  Wink
  

e4e5Bc4Nf6Qe2Nc6Nf3.pgn ( 30 KB | 102 Downloads )
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10519
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: 4 Qe2 vs. Two Knights Defence?!
Reply #14 - 04/27/07 at 20:45:02
Post Tools
Willempie wrote on 04/27/07 at 06:05:35:
MNb wrote on 04/26/07 at 20:57:06:
This is sligthly incorrect. While 5.e5 d5 indeed does not transpose, 5.e5 Ng4 6.0-0 Bc5 is the same as 5.0-0 Bc5 6.e5 (only this is the pure Max Lange) Ng4.

Point taken. My memory is not entirely reliable, but I thought this was a bad line for black.

That is why I called it "slightly incorrect". Indeed ...Ng4 is the worst regular defence available to Black.
  

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
 
mad_knight
Junior Member
**
Offline


aargh!

Posts: 86
Location: antwerp
Joined: 11/25/04
Gender: Male
Re: 4 Qe2 vs. Two Knights Defence?!
Reply #13 - 04/27/07 at 10:59:41
Post Tools
ErictheRed wrote on 04/27/07 at 07:28:45:
I think Johnny Hector used to specialize in this line, so you might want to check out his games.

Do you mean Jonny Hector? Apparently, Johnny Hector used to be an NFL football player.  And according to chessgames.com, Jonny the chess player rather specialised in the Vienna game  Huh
Perhaps you have other sources?!
  

Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale her infinite variety - William Shakespeare
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2502
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: 4 Qe2 vs. Two Knights Defence?!
Reply #12 - 04/27/07 at 07:28:45
Post Tools
I think Johnny Hector used to specialize in this line, so you might want to check out his games.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Willempie
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 4312
Location: Holland
Joined: 01/07/05
Re: 4 Qe2 vs. Two Knights Defence?!
Reply #11 - 04/27/07 at 06:05:35
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 04/26/07 at 20:57:06:
This is sligthly incorrect. While 5.e5 d5 indeed does not transpose, 5.e5 Ng4 6.0-0 Bc5 is the same as 5.0-0 Bc5 6.e5 (only this is the pure Max Lange) Ng4.

Point taken. My memory is not entirely reliable, but I thought this was a bad line for black.
  

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


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10519
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: 4 Qe2 vs. Two Knights Defence?!
Reply #10 - 04/26/07 at 20:57:06
Post Tools
This is sligthly incorrect. While 5.e5 d5 indeed does not transpose, 5.e5 Ng4 6.0-0 Bc5 is the same as 5.0-0 Bc5 6.e5 (only this is the pure Max Lange) Ng4.
  

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
 
Willempie
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 4312
Location: Holland
Joined: 01/07/05
Re: 4 Qe2 vs. Two Knights Defence?!
Reply #9 - 04/26/07 at 15:00:51
Post Tools
dsanchez wrote on 04/26/07 at 14:53:32:
mad_knight wrote on 04/25/07 at 16:17:03:
So I had another look at the Two Knights and came across a variation which I think suits my style better; it goes like this:

e4 e5
Nf3 Nc6
Bc4 Nf6
d4 exd4, and now
e5 instead of the more complex 0-0.

I'll try it out in practice and hope it'll turn out all right...

Anyway, thank you all for your input Smiley


Is this considered a Max Lange, or does Black need to have ...Bc5 thrown in?

It is not a Max-Lange and I dont think there is a direct transposition possible (not if some silly moves are played). Iirc black has basically 3 moves: 5..Ng4, 5..Ne4 and 5..d5. Only the latter could transpose, but 6.0-0 isnt exactly a good move.
  

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


24.Nh1!?N

Posts: 182
Joined: 01/24/06
Re: 4 Qe2 vs. Two Knights Defence?!
Reply #8 - 04/26/07 at 14:53:32
Post Tools
mad_knight wrote on 04/25/07 at 16:17:03:
So I had another look at the Two Knights and came across a variation which I think suits my style better; it goes like this:

e4 e5
Nf3 Nc6
Bc4 Nf6
d4 exd4, and now
e5 instead of the more complex 0-0.

I'll try it out in practice and hope it'll turn out all right...

Anyway, thank you all for your input Smiley


Is this considered a Max Lange, or does Black need to have ...Bc5 thrown in?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
mad_knight
Junior Member
**
Offline


aargh!

Posts: 86
Location: antwerp
Joined: 11/25/04
Gender: Male
Re: 4 Qe2 vs. Two Knights Defence?!
Reply #7 - 04/26/07 at 14:09:56
Post Tools
Thanks, Markovich, that's encourageing...
  

Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale her infinite variety - William Shakespeare
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: 4 Qe2 vs. Two Knights Defence?!
Reply #6 - 04/25/07 at 16:22:22
Post Tools
mad_knight wrote on 04/25/07 at 16:17:03:
Well, it looks like 4 Qe2 is not such a good idea after all. 

So I had another look at the Two Knights and came across a variation which I think suits my style better; it goes like this:

e4 e5
Nf3 Nc6
Bc4 Nf6
d4 exd4, and now
e5 instead of the more complex 0-0.

I'll try it out in practice and hope it'll turn out all right...

Anyway, thank you all for your input Smiley


That's a much better try at winning, imho.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
mad_knight
Junior Member
**
Offline


aargh!

Posts: 86
Location: antwerp
Joined: 11/25/04
Gender: Male
Re: 4 Qe2 vs. Two Knights Defence?!
Reply #5 - 04/25/07 at 16:17:03
Post Tools
Well, it looks like 4 Qe2 is not such a good idea after all.  

So I had another look at the Two Knights and came across a variation which I think suits my style better; it goes like this:

e4 e5
Nf3 Nc6
Bc4 Nf6
d4 exd4, and now
e5 instead of the more complex 0-0.

I'll try it out in practice and hope it'll turn out all right...

Anyway, thank you all for your input Smiley
  

Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale her infinite variety - William Shakespeare
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10519
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: 4 Qe2 vs. Two Knights Defence?!
Reply #4 - 04/23/07 at 14:39:44
Post Tools
kylemeister wrote on 04/22/07 at 21:47:39:
MNb wrote on 04/22/07 at 20:26:36:
4.Qe2 is not in my sources: Pachmann's Moderne Schachtheorie and Heyken/Fette's Theorie der Schacheröffnungen. I recall having seen it in an obscure English book called Black Countergambits (Hartston?).


You might be thinking of "Counter Gambits" by Tim Harding, which originally came out in something like 1973.  The biggest chapter in it was on the Benko/Volga (his definition of "countergambit" was an opening sacrifice by Black, regardless of whether White had offered material first).


Ah yes, that is the one. It has been a long time, since I have seen it.
  

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: 4 Qe2 vs. Two Knights Defence?!
Reply #3 - 04/23/07 at 14:11:08
Post Tools
Who am I to disagree with an IM, but I don't give this idea nearly as much credit as Emms does.  4. Qe2 Bc5  5. 0-0 d6 and already White has to decide whether to allow Black's bishop to come to g4.  If he plays h3, this weakens his kingside and, perhaps, increases Black's inclination to castle queenside and launch a kingside pawn storm.  Or for that matter 6. h3 a6! intending 7...Be6 with a routine, perfectly adequate game for Black.  But if Black's bishop does land on g4, d2-d4 will be rather difficult to play anytime soon, will it not?

I doubt if it leads to outright disadvantage, but 4. Qe2 looks quite lame to me.
  

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



Posts: 4655
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: 4 Qe2 vs. Two Knights Defence?!
Reply #2 - 04/22/07 at 21:47:39
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 04/22/07 at 20:26:36:
4.Qe2 is not in my sources: Pachmann's Moderne Schachtheorie and Heyken/Fette's Theorie der Schacheröffnungen. I recall having seen it in an obscure English book called Black Countergambits (Hartson?).


You might be thinking of "Counter Gambits" by Tim Harding, which originally came out in something like 1973.  The biggest chapter in it was on the Benko/Volga (his definition of "countergambit" was an opening sacrifice by Black, regardless of whether White had offered material first).
  
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