Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Noteboom / Abrahms move order (Read 14088 times)
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10764
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Noteboom / Abrahms move order
Reply #27 - 12/17/08 at 00:04:48
Post Tools
The Cambridge Springs (5...Nbd7 6.e3 Qa5+ 7.Nc3) is difficult stuff indeed.
MNb wrote on 12/04/08 at 20:33:03:
This transposition is a bit irritating from Black's point of vew of course; so is 4...f5 5.g3 transposing to Stonewall main lines. That's why 4...dxc4 and 4...Bd6 have been tried, but I don't know their status these days.

  

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
 
Strategy_Rules
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 226
Joined: 08/05/06
Gender: Male
Re: Noteboom / Abrahms move order
Reply #26 - 12/16/08 at 17:19:03
Post Tools
5.Bg5 is intersting instead. Black can react in a similar way, but things are not so clear. Maybe black has full equality after some more precise moves,but maybe not. Difficult stuff.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Noteboom / Abrahms move order
Reply #25 - 12/12/08 at 17:44:29
Post Tools
Strategy_Rules wrote on 12/12/08 at 14:51:59:
4.Qc2 is an intersting move, but after 4...Nf6 5.g3 is very harmless, black can immediatly equalize by playing 5...dxc4 6.Qxc4 b5 7.Qc2 Bb7 8.Bg2 Nbd7 (intending c5,Rc8). 9.Ne5 is possible now but leading to almost a forced draw after Qb6 and so on.


Yeah, looking at it, I think you're probably right about that.  So I am wrong that this is a good way to get a Catalan.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Strategy_Rules
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 226
Joined: 08/05/06
Gender: Male
Re: Noteboom / Abrahms move order
Reply #24 - 12/12/08 at 14:51:59
Post Tools
4.Qc2 is an intersting move, but after 4...Nf6 5.g3 is very harmless, black can immediatly equalize by playing 5...dxc4 6.Qxc4 b5 7.Qc2 Bb7 8.Bg2 Nbd7 (intending c5,Rc8). 9.Ne5 is possible now but leading to almost a forced draw after Qb6 and so on.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TNich
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 75
Location: Lansing, MI
Joined: 04/19/08
Gender: Male
Re: Noteboom / Abrahms move order
Reply #23 - 12/11/08 at 21:52:30
Post Tools
I once decided to use the Noteboom as my main weapon as black. After studying alot of games I felt I was ready to go! The problem? I never got to play it. Almost nobody allows it! For me it didn't make sense to include a sharp unbalanced line into my repertoire when the chances of playing it were so slim that I would forget how to play it when I did get the chance. I think that study time would be better spent on the semi-slav. As you are much more likely get your preparation on the board.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Noteboom / Abrahms move order
Reply #22 - 12/09/08 at 01:17:12
Post Tools
kylemeister wrote on 12/09/08 at 00:53:01:

I would say that it's implausible on its face to state that something like 4. Qc2 (as in a very early, known, normal sort of move, against mainline play by Black) is "very strong" or "good for White."


We could argue over the correct meaning of these terms for a long time.  To me, "good for White" means that White has as least the same advantage that he had in the initial position, maybe more.  I modestly claim that that is true after 4.Qc2.  White's play is strong and good: my opinion.  It surprises me as well if you regard Black's triangle setup as "mainline play by Black."  Call me "Tarrasch" if you like, but my opinion is that Black's play quite compromising, and there should be more than one way for White to play well against it.
  

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



Posts: 4947
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Noteboom / Abrahms move order
Reply #21 - 12/09/08 at 00:53:01
Post Tools
A personal preference for 4. Qc2 isn't the same as a claim/opinion that 4. Qc2 leads to an advantage for White -- I get the impression that you're conflating the two.

I would say that it's implausible on its face to state that something like 4. Qc2 (as in a very early, known, normal sort of move, against mainline play by Black) is "very strong" or "good for White."

I didn't say anything about a line with ...Bd6 and then ...dc.  I referred to 4. Qc2 Nf6 5. g3 dc -- thought to be equal or unclear by NCO and at least the last three editions of ECO, from the mid-90s to the mid-2000s.  I know, it's all a bunch of little symbols, easily overruled by ...well, I'm not sure what.   It seems a common sort of view here, though.   

As for that line 4...Bd6 5. g3 Nf6 with ...Nbd7 and ...0-0, I don't think I'd call it a closed Catalan (or maybe I should say I don't think I'd call it a Closed Catalan?) -- at least it isn't what I normally think of under that term. 

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Noteboom / Abrahms move order
Reply #20 - 12/08/08 at 21:01:35
Post Tools
Bonsai wrote on 12/08/08 at 20:05:09:
Markovich wrote on 12/08/08 at 18:56:02:
3.Nf3 is a move that has definite costs, but Palliser advocates it and 4.Qc2 if Black plays the triangle.

Actually, I think Palliser (if you refer to "Play 1.d4!") recommends 4.Bg5. Not that 4.Qc2 isn't a good move.


Thanks, my mistake.
  

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



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Noteboom / Abrahms move order
Reply #19 - 12/08/08 at 20:56:04
Post Tools
kylemeister wrote on 12/08/08 at 20:41:16:
(@Markovich)

I take "4. Qc2 is good for White" to mean that it apparently leads to advantage for him.  In part of what you say, you seem to be considering it as a statement of personal preference (or of what you think you would find annoying as Black, or the like).  Then you seem to shift to the idea that "ECO/NCO/etc. are not gospel"  -- certainly true, but quite different from saying that they're irrelevant, i.e. that they have no bearing on such a claim.

If you are indeed referring to Palliser's "Play 1. d4!", I wonder if you would also say that e.g. the Slow Slav with 5. cd and the 4. Nf3/5. Bg5 Gruenfeld are "good for White."  It seems to be in the very nature of that book to recommend (in many cases) lines that, while decent and solid and so forth, aren't likely to lead to an advantage against best play. 

For the record, ECO and NCO are also tempted (so to speak) by 4...Bd6 5. Bg5, but they don't think it's better for White.  I would wonder about 5. Nc3 with the idea of 5...f5 6. Bg5 followed by e3.


Well, since this isn't a place where we usually analyze deeply from move five to prove our points, one might safely assume that yes, I am expressing my opinion when I say that 4.Qc2 is good.  It is in general safe in this life, I think, to assume that if someone opens his mouth and says that X is the case, he means that in his opinion, X is the case.

If you don't agree about 5.Qc2, that's fine with me.  I would find it more interesting to discuss the chess, however, than the little signs at the end of the manual variations.

Particularly with regard to 4...Bd6 5.g3 Nf6 6.Bg2, 6...dxc4 isn't a move that I would be too eager play as Black.  I would probably sooner play 4...Nbd7 and ...0-0. Do I think White has an advantage here?  Well, it's a closed Catalan, which is reasonably solid for Black.  As I recall, Raetsky and Chetverik maintain that Black is safe enough. But I nevertheless think White's side of a closed Catalan is worth playing for the win.
  

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



Posts: 4947
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Noteboom / Abrahms move order
Reply #18 - 12/08/08 at 20:41:16
Post Tools
(@Markovich)

I take "4. Qc2 is good for White" to mean that it apparently leads to advantage for him.  In part of what you say, you seem to be considering it as a statement of personal preference (or of what you think you would find annoying as Black, or the like).  Then you seem to shift to the idea that "ECO/NCO/etc. are not gospel"  -- certainly true, but quite different from saying that they're irrelevant, i.e. that they have no bearing on such a claim.

If you are indeed referring to Palliser's "Play 1. d4!", I wonder if you would also say that e.g. the Slow Slav with 5. cd and the 4. Nf3/5. Bg5 Gruenfeld are "good for White."  It seems to be in the very nature of that book to recommend (in many cases) lines that, while decent and solid and so forth, aren't likely to lead to an advantage against best play. 

For the record, ECO and NCO are also tempted (so to speak) by 4...Bd6 5. Bg5, but they don't think it's better for White.  I would wonder about 5. Nc3 with the idea of 5...f5 6. Bg5 followed by e3.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bonsai
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 622
Joined: 03/13/04
Gender: Male
Re: Noteboom / Abrahms move order
Reply #17 - 12/08/08 at 20:05:09
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 12/08/08 at 18:56:02:
3.Nf3 is a move that has definite costs, but Palliser advocates it and 4.Qc2 if Black plays the triangle.

Actually, I think Palliser (if you refer to "Play 1.d4!") recommends 4.Bg5. Not that 4.Qc2 isn't a good move.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Noteboom / Abrahms move order
Reply #16 - 12/08/08 at 18:56:02
Post Tools
kylemeister wrote on 12/08/08 at 17:06:15:
I would indeed think that if Black wants a Stonewall setup, he would try to reach it via 4...Bd6, due to 4...f5 5. Bf4.  But after 4. Qc2 Nf6 5. g3 it is quite normal to play 5...dc there too.  Saying that it is "good for White" again raises the question of how sources like ECO and NCO (which think that this, like 5. Bg5 dc, should be equal or unclear) have got it wrong.  Also if 4. Qc2 were good for White, it should be generally known/played as, to a significant extent, "the answer" to the Triangle/Noteboom -- which isn't the case as far as I know.


I don't think that saying that something is good for White raises a question of what ECO or NCO have to say on the subject.  You raise that question, I don't.  This would be a rather dull place if we always echoed the evaluations in openings manuals.  I certainly do not assume that something's not being hailed in the manuals signifies that it isn't good.  I suppose if I did, I would pay much more attention to the manuals than I do.

3.Nf3 is a move that has definite costs, but Palliser advocates it and 4.Qc2 if Black plays the triangle.  Not that I care that much what Palliser advocates, but at least it shows that I'm not out in left field.  If I were a triangle player I would find this sequence quite annoying.

As White after 4.Qc2 Bd6, I might be tempted by 5.Bg5.
  

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



Posts: 4947
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Noteboom / Abrahms move order
Reply #15 - 12/08/08 at 17:06:15
Post Tools
I would indeed think that if Black wants a Stonewall setup, he would try to reach it via 4...Bd6, due to 4...f5 5. Bf4.  But after 4. Qc2 Nf6 5. g3 it is quite normal to play 5...dc there too.  Saying that it is "good for White" again raises the question of how sources like ECO and NCO (which think that this, like 5. Bg5 dc, should be equal or unclear) have got it wrong.  Also if 4. Qc2 were good for White, it should be generally known/played as, to a significant extent, "the answer" to the Triangle/Noteboom -- which isn't the case as far as I know.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Noteboom / Abrahms move order
Reply #14 - 12/08/08 at 15:29:37
Post Tools
Sleepy kitten wrote on 12/06/08 at 05:54:55:
Hmm. I hadn't noticed 5...Qa5+ and knew only dxc (which looked like a Meran where the queen's knight is not threatened by ...b4, the queen helps to prevent ...c5 and the bishop is outside).

I still find 4.Qc2 awkward, but I had missed some Black ressources.


I think 4.Qc2 is indeed good for White. For one thing, after 4...Nf6 he can play 5.g3 and achieve a Closed Catalan; for another, 5.Bg5 looks good, after which I don't think 5...Qa5+ 6.Nbd2 is so hot for Black.   

Also after 4.Qc2, 4...f5 is not good because of 5.Bf4, I opine.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Sleepy kitten
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 27
Joined: 07/28/08
Re: Noteboom / Abrahms move order
Reply #13 - 12/06/08 at 05:54:55
Post Tools
Hmm. I hadn't noticed 5...Qa5+ and knew only dxc (which looked like a Meran where the queen's knight is not threatened by ...b4, the queen helps to prevent ...c5 and the bishop is outside).

I still find 4.Qc2 awkward, but I had missed some Black ressources.
  
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