J-dog wrote on 02/27/08 at 06:47:30:



I do believe the Grunfeld to be the most ambitious of Black's defenses.   

But, there is a difference between ambition and goal acquisition.  And there is usually (and I suspect it exists here) a difference between what one likes and what one could objectively argue as being "the best".


From a purely empirical standpoint, both the Grunfeld and the Dutch can make no claims to being the best, if we define "best defense" as the one that makes losing the most remote possibility.  The word "defense" means "capability of resisting attack."  Instead, the Grunfeld & Dutch are counter-attacks, and not defenses at all.   

There is a difference, and its not just semantics; its expressed in the play itself, and even in the words people use to desscribe these openings.


The QNID and the QGD have historically proved to be empirically the best "defense" v. 1.d4 despite the propensity of people's personal picadilloes.

MNb wrote on 02/26/08 at 21:23:56:



The QNID?
AKA: The Vermicious Knid.
Agreed.

There's an unbelievable degree of support for the Dutch in the survey responses.

I voted Gruenfeld.  I admit that not many would consider it best, and that it is under some pressure.  But it is in many ways the most principled defense, and it offers some winning chances.

MNb wrote on 02/26/08 at 16:30:44:


All openings are equal, but some are more equal than others. 



I am always entertained watching/reading the butthurt positions people ensconce themselves in when their affinity for something is not matched or embraced with the same degree of sangfroid.

MNb wrote on 02/22/08 at 21:08:30:


Well, let us see if this is true:



Bacrot,Etienne (2709) - Kamsky,Gata (2705) [A81]
Wch Candidates sf Elista (1.2), 28.05.2007
[Marin,M]

1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.b4 c6 6.c4 White has adopted a strategically aggressive and not very well analysed system of development. His spatial advantage on the queenside could eventually become threatening if Black develops slowly in the classic tradition of the Leningrad Dutch. 6...d5 Kamsky immediately adopts counter-measures: he starts fighting for space, too, even if this means transposing to some sort of hybryd between the Leningrad and the Stonewall setup. If White had known Black's intentions, he would have probbaly chosen a different move order: 5.c4 and only after 5...0-0 (5...c6 is too committal and would have restricted Black's choice after 6.0-0 followed by 7.¤c3) push the b-pawn. [Here is a somewhat related game, where Black combined the ideas of the Leningrad Dutch with those from... the Grünfeld! 6...Na6 7.Qb3 d5 8.Nc3 dxc4 Giving up the centre for the sake of a blockade on light squares. 9.Qxc4 Nc7 10.Qd3 Nfd5 11.Nxd5 Qxd5 12.0-0 Qb5 13.Qc2 Be6 Everything seems to work quite fluently for Black. 14.Bf4 However, we can feel that two of his minor pieces are actually competing for the d5-square. 14...Nd5 15.Rab1 Nxf4 In order to install his bishop on d5, Black decides to give up his knight, but this strengthens White's control on the centre. It is true that allowing the exchange of the dark-squared bishops with ¥e5 would hardly have been better. 16.gxf4 Bd5 17.Qd2 Rd8 18.e3 0-0 19.Rfc1 Qa4 Black has solved the problem of developing in satisfactory way, but he cannot question White's advantage of space in the centre in any way, since neither ...e5 now ...c5 are possible. 20.Rb2 Rd6 21.Ne5 Bxg2 22.Kxg2 Bxe5 Rubinstein,A-Alekhine,A/Karlsbad 1911/HCL (1-0, 76). A new exchange that allows White to capture towards the centre. To a certain extent this evolution is similar to that from a classic game (where a completely different opening was played, though). 23.fxe5 Rd5 24.Rc5 Rfd8 25.Qc2 Qxc2 26.Rbxc2 Kf7 27.h4 Ke6 28.Kf3² Sakaev,K (2656)-Minasian,A (2499)/Moscow 2004/CBM 100 (1-0, 52). Black's position looks solid, but he cannot free himself easily. On the next move he captured on c5, which, after bxc5, only increased White's influence in the centre and opened the b-file for the rook.] 7.Nbd2 [7.Qc2 Be6 This might be a bot premature. (7...Ne4!?) 8.c5 An adequate reaction. Now that the bishop has been developed, the typical plan ...b6, ...a5 followed by ...¥a6 is connected with loss of time already. 8...Ne4 9.a4 Nd7 10.Bb2 0-0 11.Nbd2 Qc7 12.0-0 Kh8 13.e3 Bg8 14.Ne1 e5 15.f4 exd4 16.exd4 Ndf6 17.Nd3 Ng4 18.Rfe1 White is minimally better in an almost symmetrical position, because of his attacking possibilities on the queenside. 18...Nxd2?! (18...Rae8) 19.Qxd2 Rae8 20.Ne5 Nxe5 21.dxe5 Be6 22.Bd4² Georgiev,V-Ferkingstad,S/Geneve 2004/CBM 098 ext (1-0, 55). and White's advantage took more concrete forms already.] 7...Ne4 8.Bb2 a5 Very originally played. Kamsky attacks the second pawn from White's attacking formation before White consolidates his advantage of space on that wing. If White had played c4 and only then b4, it is possible that we would have got this position with Black's castle and some more useful white move on the queenside, which would have made Black's counterplay less effective. 9.bxa5 Strategically speaking, this is the least ambitious reaction, after which White cannot claim a palpable advantage any more. [The most principled continuation was 9.b5 but maybe Bacrot felt that his development is not good enough to embark such sharp variations: 9...dxc4 (9...cxb5 10.cxd5 Qxd5 11.Ng5²; 9...0-0 10.Qc2²) 10.Nxc4 (10.Nxe4 fxe4 11.Ng5 cxb5 12.Bxe4 looks threatening (¤xh7), but what to do after 12...b4 followed by ...c3 with a crushing advantage of space on the queenside... for Black.) 10...cxb5 11.Nce5 Be6 12.Qd3 b4 13.a3 bxa3 14.Bxa3© This is probably the critical line for the final evaluation of Kamsky's plan.; 
9.a3 maintains White's queenside flexibility, but allows Black develop with gain of tempo: 9...axb4 10.axb4 Rxa1 11.Qxa1 Na6 12.Qa4 dxc4„] 9...Qxa5 10.0-0 0-0 11.a4 Be6 12.cxd5 This looks like a further concession. White gives up his second "attacking" pawn without producing any structural damage in Black's camp. [12.c5 loses a pawn to 12...Nxc5; 
but 12.Qc2 was more consistent, for instance 12...Na6 13.Rfb1 Nb4 14.Qb3 with interesting play.] 12...cxd5 13.Nb3 Qa6 14.Ne5 This knight stands well here, but does not threaten anything concrete yet. 14...b6 15.Qd3 Nd7 [15...Qxd3? 16.exd3±] 16.a5?! It is questionable whether White has an advantage here, but his last move leads to further simplifications and absolves Black of most of his worries. [16.Rfc1 would have been more natural, although it seems that Black can maintain the balance even: 16...Nxe5 (16...Rfc8 17.Qxa6 Rxc1+ 18.Rxc1 Rxa6 19.Rc8+ Nf8 might be playable, but it certainly looks risky.) 17.dxe5 Rfc8 18.Qxa6 Rxc1+ 19.Rxc1 Rxa6 20.f3 Nc5 21.Nxc5 bxc5 22.Rxc5 Rxa4 23.f4 Ra2=] 16...Rfc8 17.Qe3 Not really consequent. I cannot see a logical connection between White's last moves. 17...bxa5 18.f3 Although the e5-knight is more stable on e5, the necessity to resort to such a weakening move speaks for the eficiency of the e4-knight, too. 18...Nef6 19.Nxa5?! White's pieces will be hanging after this careless move. [19.Nxd7 Bxd7 20.Qxe7? Qb5!-+; 19.Rxa5!?] 19...Qb6 20.Nd3 Bf7 21.Qd2 e5³ Black is better coordinated now and has an advantage in the centre already. 22.Qb4 e4 23.Qxb6 Nxb6 24.Nc5 Nfd7 25.Nab3 Nxc5 26.Nxc5 Nc4 27.Bc3 Rxa1 28.Bxa1 Bf8 29.fxe4 dxe4 30.Bc3 Ne3 31.Ra1 Nc2 32.Rc1 Bxc5 33.dxc5 Bb3 34.e3 Rxc5 35.Bb2 Kf7 36.Kf2 Ke6 37.Bf1 Bd5 38.Be2 Rc6 39.Bd1 Nb4 and White lost on time in what could have been a defensible position. 0-1

Gelfand,Boris (2736) - Ivanchuk,Vassily (2787) [A80]
Wch Blitz Moscow (29), 22.11.2007

1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 d5 4.e3 e6 5.Nf3 Be7 6.Bd3 c5 7.0-0 0-0 8.dxc5 Nc6 9.Na4 e5 10.Bb5 h6 11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.c4 dxc4 13.Bxc4+ Kh7 14.Qxd8 Rxd8 15.Rad1 Bd7 16.Nc3 e4 17.Nd4 Rac8 18.Ne6 Ne5 19.Nxd8 Rxd8 20.Be2 Rc8 21.Nd5 Rxc5 22.Nxf6+ gxf6 23.Rc1 Ra5 24.Rc7 Kg6 25.Rxb7 Rxa2 26.h3 Bc6 27.Rb8 a5 28.Rc1 Bd5 29.Rb5 Bf7 30.f4 Nd3 31.Rc7 Ra1+ 32.Kh2 Re1 33.Rbb7 Rxe2 34.Rxf7 Rxe3 35.Rg7+ Kh5 36.Rb5 Kh4 37.Rxf5 1-0

Radjabov Teimour (AZE) (2742) - Ivanchuk Vassily (UKR) (2787) [A89]
Cup World (active) Odessa (Ukraine) (2), 06.01.2008

1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 d6 4.Nf3 g6 5.g3 Bg7 6.Bg2 0-0 7.0-0 Nc6 8.b3 e5 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.Ba3 Re8 11.e4 Nd4 12.Re1 c6 13.exf5 Bxf5 14.Nh4 Bc2 15.Qc1 e4 16.Bb2 Bd3 17.Rd1 Qa5 18.Qd2 Rad8 19.Rac1 Qh5 20.Kh1 g5 21.Nd5 Nxd5 22.cxd5 gxh4 23.h3 hxg3 24.fxg3 Rxd5 25.g4 Qg6 26.Re1 Red8 27.Qf2 Rf8 28.Qd2 Bh6 29.Qb4 Bxc1 30.Bxd4 Bd2 31.Qxd2 Rxd4 32.Qe3 Rd7 33.Qxa7 Rdf7 34.Qe3 Qf6 35.b4 Qf4 36.Qc5 Rg7 37.a4 Qf2 38.Re3 Bf1 39.Bxe4 Kh8 40.a5 Bc4 41.Bg2 Bg8 42.Qc3 Qf6 43.Qe1 Bd5 44.Bxd5 cxd5 45.Kg1 Rgf7 0-1

rossia wrote on 02/24/08 at 18:00:49:

You are, of course, right.

I am just a little allergic to people that go "good openings? my BDG is good enough at my level... I don't need endgames at my level, nobody knows them well..." etc etc and then wonder why they stay at that level.

So I thought I should mention another side of the argument

Scarblac wrote on 02/23/08 at 22:44:17:

Well if you consider Malaniuk and Kindermann as a crap I can't see a reason why then we, amateurs, should play chess!