Yeah, especially if Kramnik would have chosen 6...0-0 - then we would have had something to chew about, instead of that old Tartakower/Hromadka etcetera stuff.

HgMan wrote on 09/18/07 at 22:10:34:



And got absolutely nothing...of course.   

[quote author=MNb link=1189773873/0#2 date=1189804659]2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 Bc5 4.Nc3 (4.Nf3 d6 is a boring symmetrical variation) Nc6 5.f4 d6 (Ng4 6.f5!) 6.Nf3 is a King's Gambit Declined. According to Marin, Davies and TopNotch this is equal. According to most KGeers White may prove +=.[/quote]

It's also possible to maintain the independant status of the opening with 5. Ktge2 d6 ; 6. 0-0 0-0 ; 7. Kh1 intending h3 and f4.

Concerning my strength: ELO: 2085, but I am better if I get out of the opening, I also drew an IM yesterday.

I would describe my strength like this:
Openings: 1700.
Positional Understanding & Endgame: 2100
Tactics: 2400

Looking at games in the KG, I am not anymore impressed by it,
indeed you have committed yourself to f4 too early, black being much more flexible can adapt very good to your setup, that is why I will go for the bishop game with nf3 in most variations.

The more I think what it is that really good players prefer Nf3 over Bc4 and why it is better, I come to the conclusion that it is actually flexibility, the knight has to be moved to Nf3 in almost all cases,
but the bishop could stand well on e2, d3, c4, b5 ... actually you commited yourself too early to c4 with the bishop ... but I will chose the BG now ... I see many GM's playing it and also winning against 2600 opposition ... although I'm not too sure if it is regularly played by them or only a surprise weapon ...
I have to investigate in this opening ... what makes me chose the BG is my current lazyness for theory and my state of being disillusionend by the petroff games I saw so far and also played myself 2 times otb ... well 1. ... e5 is just no sicilian ... but Bc4 still gives me interesting games ... it's not as good as e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5, but not as boring as e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 ...

btw, on openings, I come more & more to the conclusion that opening books are almost useless, only good for a brief intro into an opening ... fritz powerbook and megabase are a much better opening guide ...

kylemeister wrote on 09/16/07 at 18:14:59:


Nice quote, and perfectly correct in my opinion.

Toppy

You are right Na5 is really good, you know very much on theory,
I am still quite new to the e4 complex, but I think the BG and KG could the best choice against e5 ...
(played the scotch and I think black gets very good compensation and you can still be manoeuvered in the petroff, and against the petroff I tried to play the 'sharp' variation with Nc3 and 0-0-0 and do not think it's giving you real winning chances, I think even shirov stated that black could build up with Be6 and Qd7 and 0-0-0 and then there is really nothing, but also in the mainvariations, Be3 and Bf4 and 0-0 by black you have almost nothing, and judging from the boring games in the normal ruy lopez and petroff that I regularly see on top level games, I will never bother to play and learn these openings).

John Emms has the Bishop's Opening covered in "attacking with e4",
but he choses to play this a bit more aggressive, with a later f4, if possible,
but I read from a Grandmaster (Kindermann I believe), that he thinks Nf3 instead of f4 is better,
personally I think the Emms way is better, I don't think you have that much with Nf3,
but if you like the normal Ruy Lopez, you could also like Nf3.

e2e4 wrote on 09/14/07 at 12:44:32:


Yes its a good alternative.

The critical line is Nf6 c6 d5.

Cheers,

Toppy