CraigEvans wrote on 04/30/09 at 18:32:27:


This is very well put, so I started a thread about the quote at my blog (http://tinyurl.com/qtdw3h).

My main points in contention:

At the patzer level where I reside, the question is how many moves before the tactical fireworks begin, not whether there will be sharp clashes. Indeed, playing d4 against rank patzers like myself may be a good thing. We are likely to get impatient and prematurely attack. Games between patzers in d4 lines are not going to generate the kind of slow positional masterpieces you'd find in a strategy book written by a GM. Someone will make a mistake, and tactics will follow.

Don't get me wrong, I've had a lot of fun with my kooky gambit e4 lines, especially the Danish/Goring. But I also am starting to appreciate games where it takes longer for the fireworks to begin.

The most important things, in order, for a patzer in choosing an opening are:
1) Do I like it and am I comfortable playing it?
2) Does it have fatal flaws that people at my level are able to exploit in practice?
3) Are there other things I should focus on that will help my game more than opening study?
4) If the answer to 3 is no, then what opening should I focus on?

The above quote seems to invert the list, which would screw up a patzer's head by making him worry at all about openings.

Principles of the opening for patzers usually include the following:
a) Knights before Bishops.
b) Castle soon.
c) Move central pawns first.
d) Don't move the same piece twice.

While I have never seen a list that says "Open with e4 as white or else you will severely retard your growth as a chess player", rule b bears most directly on this discussion. Playing e4 lets you castle in fewer moves. Ironically, this points to the importance of closing ranks around the King early in the game.

At any rate, I hope this isn't too far off topic, but a very provocative and interesting claim from Craig!

Are there books, chapters of books, etc which cover either from
Black's point of view or White's point of view, lines where Black plays
an early Bc5?

Either on move, 3, 4, 5 or 6?

Thanks

najdorfslayer wrote on 05/08/09 at 20:03:39:



let's see; the Gajewski only surfaced in 2007 and shocked the whole chessworld because almost nobody thought that one could play that way. Hardly something you can hold against a book published in 2003 (I think Khalifman was one of the few that even considered the move back then).

I've won plenty of games with the Goring Gambit at the 1600-1800 level- most opponents don't know how to deal with it.  But I agree that it isn't a good reason to avoid 1...e5- for one thing, if Black wants to avoid the tricks and traps following 4...dxc3, but also avoid the drawish Capablanca endgames after 4...d5, then 4...Nf6 and 4...Nge7 are perfectly good responses.  4...Qe7 might also be playable but I think it gives White the additional possibility 5.Bd3 (as opposed to 3...Qe7 in the Danish against which White has nothing better than 4.cxd4 Qxe4+).

Note that after 4...d5 there is the deviation 5.Bd3 which does not promise an advantage but avoids those endings (5...dxe4, 5...Nf6 and 5...Bg4 are fine for Black, and the risky 5...dxc3 is playable).  3...d5 against the Danish has a similar problem after 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.cxd4 Nc6 6.Be3.

After 4...dxc3 5.Bc4 cxb2 6.Bxb2 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nf6, I think the approaches with 8.0-0!? are underestimated as well as being largely unexplored- checking through the lines with Fritz showed that it's surprisingly easy for Black to go wrong.  Still, there's probably a way for Black to get the better game even here.

MNb wrote on 05/07/09 at 20:28:21:


I fully agree.  I didn't know you had a son, by the way, still less one of 14 years.  Congratulations (sounds a little funny but I guess that's what I mean).  I'm glad he's with the game, too.

Schaakhamster wrote on 05/07/09 at 06:47:59:


You're too modest. Equality is not a real possibility, it's a fact. After 4.Bc4 (or 5.Bc4 in Görings move order) cxb2 it's even more. (Note, if Markovich were consequent, he would have called 5...Nc6 6.Nf3 Bb4 the Göring Gambit). White should play 4.Nxc3, a move some American nut baptized Half-Danish (brrrr). White has sufficient compensation then, but not more. No offense to Markovich of course; he is certainly not a nut.

The Göring Gambit via 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 is still a great opening for young improving players: all white pieces go to natural squares, there are some basic threats, moves are easy to find. My son has scared the other kids of his club to death last few months - nobody of them dares to play ...e5 anymore.

Markovich wrote on 05/07/09 at 12:24:59:



I'll take your word on it; to me the mainline and 3... d5 seem equal and a bit drawish. Haven't looked at other lines.

CraigEvans wrote on 05/06/09 at 20:55:05:


I haven't studied the Belgrade good enough to say anything about that but the Danish doesn't really bother me.

I do wonder if the suspect play of your opponents is down to lack of knowledge of how to play against these openings. Once you have navigated the tactical waters of the Danish equality seems a real possibilty early in the opening even if white doesn't make a mistake. In the Ruy this doesn't seem the case.

An other explanation could be the short-term consequences of mistake for black in the opening.  If black plays a faulty move against for instance the Danish the consequences are quite dire, often leading to defeat in a few moves. After a mistake in the Ruy Lopez you'll often, as black, suffer a long time but due to imperfect play at our level he might be able to escape due to mistakes of his oppponent.

These factors might explain the dominance of the Ruy Lopez at GM-level: they have the skills to punish black if he goes wrong and there are no easy equalisers for black.