Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Open challenge to Uruk 6..c6 (Read 38439 times)
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 915
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Open challenge to Uruk 6..c6
Reply #20 - 05/15/09 at 17:08:08
Post Tools
I am saying, Uruk, since you regularly go into these BDG threads with the aim of dismissing the line- why don't you regularly go into the threads on the Evans, Belgrade etc, since they aren't likely to give White more than = either? 

Or how about the Milner-Barry against the French, which is certainly no sounder (unlike the Evans and Belgrade which probably are sound).

The patronising dismissive tone is the problem.  We have threads devoted to lesser lines that are devoted to finding out the truth of said lesser lines- be it =+, =, += or +/-.  For instance there's been a good debate on the Latvian which isn't objectively one of Black's best answers to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3- but that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve the high quality discussions that it ultimately got.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Uruk
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 351
Joined: 02/03/09
Re: Open challenge to Uruk 6..c6
Reply #19 - 05/15/09 at 04:15:19
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 05/15/09 at 03:01:08:
Btw, your central question already has been answered by Steinitz. The initial position is a draw.


The margin was too small for the proof, I presume.

MNb wrote on 05/15/09 at 03:01:08:
I am pretty sure your curiosity is not limited to your central question. If it were you would not post that much in BDG-threads.


Told you:
Uruk wrote on 05/14/09 at 11:40:03:
That said, it could be interesting to show that 1.d4 d5 2.e4 is worse than =


MNb wrote on 05/15/09 at 03:01:08:
Uruk, don't you think 12...g6 =+ a bit easy, perhaps even lazy? Wouldn't it be better to give a few sample lines? ArkHein and Craig E, what do you guys think the best reply?


13.O-O h6 14.Nxe6 hxg5 is funny, but not quite correct.
Just 13...Bg7, so Nxb7 is met by Qb4 and c4 by Nb6 when White's center crumbles.

Or more aptly put, the remnants of White's center
after the self-dynamiting of the 2nd move, crumble.
Tongue
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10756
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Open challenge to Uruk 6..c6
Reply #18 - 05/15/09 at 03:01:08
Post Tools
Uruk wrote on 05/14/09 at 11:40:03:
The central problem of opening theory is,
does a line exist that gives White a definite edge,
or Black can ultimately equalize ?


Probably. Being a teacher in maths and physics I still enjoy trying to find an answer to other questions - like is the Danish playable? You see, quite a few scientists are not only interested in the relevant questions, whatever they are. They also like the quest for answers for the sake of the quest itself.

Btw, your central question already has been answered by Steinitz. The initial position is a draw. From that perspective = or += does not matter. Now what? Are you going to quit chess? I don't think so. So I am pretty sure your curiosity is not limited to your central question. If it were you would not post that much in BDG-threads.

Concerning the question game or not, let's keep it simple. If the two of you enjoy it go ahead. If one doesn't, whatever his reason, everybody should show respect.

Now could we get some moves again? Eg Uruk, don't you think 12...g6 =+ a bit easy, perhaps even lazy? Wouldn't it be better to give a few sample lines? ArkHein and Craig E, what do you guys think the best reply?

See, chess may be solved, there are still a few things I would like to know.  Wink
  

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
 
Uruk
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 351
Joined: 02/03/09
Re: Open challenge to Uruk 6..c6
Reply #17 - 05/14/09 at 23:06:52
Post Tools

Fashion comes and goes, true; but is it by chance that the Blackmar has never been in fashion?

Like kylemeister I think the current eval of the initial position is =
and I agree with BPaulsen that's subject to change.

Just not with the Blackmar...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4901
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Open challenge to Uruk 6..c6
Reply #16 - 05/14/09 at 22:57:37
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 05/14/09 at 20:14:32:
If so what's the point of having a section on 1.d4 d5 since 2.c4 should lead to a += in all lines?


I don't know why you say that 1. d4 d5 2. c4 should lead to += in all lines; that seems to go against the usual view of recent times.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Open challenge to Uruk 6..c6
Reply #15 - 05/14/09 at 22:57:34
Post Tools
Uruk wrote on 05/14/09 at 22:40:38:
The openings you refer to (Evans...) are seldom played at the top, which should say something.
Still, rather give my b-pawn for a tempo than my e-pawn for none!

The point of having a section on 1.d4 d5 2.c4 is to look at equalising attempts from Black, of course!


Fashion comes and goes, so really that's a non-statement.

And since theory is always changing, it'd be naive to think something is "solved", since even positions long considered = can have novelties introduced that change the evaluation. Theory would've been dead a long time ago otherwise.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Uruk
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 351
Joined: 02/03/09
Re: Open challenge to Uruk 6..c6
Reply #14 - 05/14/09 at 22:40:38
Post Tools
The openings you refer to (Evans...) are seldom played at the top, which should say something.
Still, rather give my b-pawn for a tempo than my e-pawn for none!

The point of having a section on 1.d4 d5 2.c4 is to look at equalising attempts from Black, of course!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 915
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Open challenge to Uruk 6..c6
Reply #13 - 05/14/09 at 20:14:32
Post Tools
Quote:
The central problem of opening theory is,
does a line exist that gives White a definite edge,
or Black can ultimately equalize ?

For example, bragesjo's project "Drawing with the Dragon"
is a tentative answer to that question.

To analyse lines that give White = at best does not contribute to an answer.
This is not scornful, only logical.


That is a very narrow way to approach opening theory, which would limit us to only looking at the very objectively best lines.  In practice many people, particularly at lower levels, practice sidelines because while they might not objectively be as good, they provide good practical chances.  If a thread is devoted to a sideline, then it should analyse the objective merits of the sideline, not dismiss it if White cannot get more than =.  

Why not poke into the threads on the Evans, Ponziani, Belgrade, Colle, 4.d4 Two Knights etc and post the same thing?  After all White cannot get more than = with best play in those lines either.  And then we have the likes of 1.Nf3 d5 2.e4, where White can't even get equality.  Also by the same argument, should we dismiss everything for Black that cannot give more than +=?  If so what's the point of having a section on 1.d4 d5 since 2.c4 should lead to a += in all lines?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Uruk
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 351
Joined: 02/03/09
Re: Open challenge to Uruk 6..c6
Reply #12 - 05/14/09 at 18:25:35
Post Tools
CraigEvans wrote on 05/14/09 at 17:01:37:
I hate to disagree, Uruk, but you've taken a variation as far as 12...g6 and claimed =+. Now I'm not sure how strong a player you are, but I'm doubting that you are so strong that we have to accept your verdict as the ultimate authority on the classification of the position.


Even if 2800 I'd still be willing to prove my assertions.
I'm a mathematician you see.

CraigEvans wrote on 05/14/09 at 17:01:37:
you cannot dip your toes into other waters, claim "BDG is bad, white is worse lol!!!111" and then skulk away into the shadows without some people wishing to see that particular pudding eaten.


I twice said contributions are welcome, and am waiting for a response to 12...g6
So I don't see what you're talking about.

CraigEvans wrote on 05/14/09 at 17:01:37:
I feel from past experience that Arkhein's motives are pure enough,


I already said exactly that, look above.

CraigEvans wrote on 05/14/09 at 17:01:37:
and some of the games he has previously been involved with have shown the gambit to be far more robust than some people will accept.


A draw does not disprove =+
The problem is that we have more evaluations than possible results,
so a 1-to-1 correspondance is not available.

CraigEvans wrote on 05/14/09 at 17:01:37:
your position after 12...g6 is just that, a position, and I have to greet any claim of a definite assessment of =+ as simply an amusing opinion.
You have given your reasons as to why you believe 6.Ne5 inferior, but at the moment you have done nothing to convince me or anyone else.


I've been waiting for moves for some posts now.
So stop calling me Mr Bad Guy & try to contribute.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 915
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Open challenge to Uruk 6..c6
Reply #11 - 05/14/09 at 18:05:31
Post Tools
Further to some of the above posts, check out some of Tim Harding's openings articles at Chesscafe where he analysed a few of his own games- they were very illuminating.  For example the Najdorf Poisoned Pawn and the Scotch Gambit.

In addition the Scotch Gambit is certainly no more than = for White, and the same is probably true of the Poisoned Pawn, but it doesn't stop people from playing them and analysing them seriously.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
CraigEvans
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


If I can't sacrifice a
pawn, I'll throw my rook
in

Posts: 588
Location: Bryn, South Wales
Joined: 07/14/03
Gender: Male
Re: Open challenge to Uruk 6..c6
Reply #10 - 05/14/09 at 17:01:37
Post Tools
I hate to disagree, Uruk, but you've taken a variation as far as 12...g6 and claimed =+. Now I'm not sure how strong a player you are, but I'm doubting that you are so strong that we have to accept your verdict as the ultimate authority on the classification of the position. Clearly Arkhein feels there is compensation there for white and is willing to continue from that position to prove it.

If your goal is to find the ultimate line for white which gives the biggest advantage possible with the first move advantage, then go ahead, you have my blessing. But, you cannot dip your toes into other waters, claim "BDG is bad, white is worse lol!!!111" and then skulk away into the shadows without some people wishing to see that particular pudding eaten.

Further, not to go against my co-moderator, but I agree with Smyslov Fan that these forum games can have a profound benefit for those who participate and follow along, although I would also agree with the sentiments that there is no place for grudge matches and macho blitz challenges here. However, I feel from past experience that Arkhein's motives are pure enough, and some of the games he has previously been involved with have shown the gambit to be far more robust than some people will accept.

I would say that, if you could find a line which you could prove (to open-minded BDG players and to impartial observers - there will always be a few fanatics who can be ignored) to give an advantage for black, your place in history would be more than assured. At the moment, however, your position after 12...g6 is just that, a position, and I have to greet any claim of a definite assessment of =+ as simply an amusing opinion.
You have given your reasons as to why you believe 6.Ne5 inferior, but at the moment you have done nothing to convince me or anyone else. As a relatively impartial, open-minded person who intends to play the BDG next season, I would be very interested to see the ideas that yourself and Arkhein come up with as you try to discover the truth in this variation. But the final choice is yours. Just don't be surprised if your "black wins lol!!!111111" claims (with insufficient grounds to support) are met with some scorn by the more dedicated BDGers here - many have claimed similar thigns in the past, so far no-one has convincingly shown the gambit to be bad in any way.
  

"Give a man a pawn, and he'll smell a rat. Give a man a piece, and he'll smell a patzer." - Me.

"If others have seen further than me, it is because giants have been standing on my shoulders."
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Uruk
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 351
Joined: 02/03/09
Re: Open challenge to Uruk 6..c6
Reply #9 - 05/14/09 at 11:40:03
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 05/13/09 at 19:37:02:
But at the other end we have the scornful dismissal, like Uruk's "dismiss anything that isn't above = level" stuff.  


It seems you misunderstood my phrase, let me explain.

The central problem of opening theory is,
does a line exist that gives White a definite edge,
or Black can ultimately equalize ?

For example, bragesjo's project "Drawing with the Dragon"
is a tentative answer to that question.

To analyse lines that give White = at best does not contribute to an answer.
This is not scornful, only logical.

That said, it could be interesting to show that 1.d4 d5 2.e4 is worse than =
and that's what I claim to have shown.

But keep in mind that is really a secondary question for opening theory.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 05/13/09 at 22:20:48:
a game in which champions of White and Black have an open discussion of the variation is an excellent way to delve into the intricacies of an opening.


I agree.


SWJediknight wrote on 05/13/09 at 19:37:02:
After 5...Bf5 I suggested 6.Bd3 earlier, as Stefan Buecker mentioned in the other thread.  It gives White an extra tempo on a non-critical line of the Soller Gambit (Black hasn't played ...c6) and might give enough compensation.  
Quote:
Black better takes on d3: 6...Bxd3 (6...Bg6 7.Bxg6 hxg6 8.Qe2 gives White an attractive position) 7.Qxd3 c6 8.Bf4 e6 9.0-0-0, for example 9...Bd6 (9...Be7 10.h4) 10.Be5 Bc7 (10...Be7!? 11.Ne4) 11.Ne4 Bxe5 12.dxe5 Qxd3 13.Nxf6+ gxf6 14.Rxd3 f5 (14...Nd7 15.exf6 Rg8 16.g3 Nxf6 17.Ne5 Nd5 18.c4 Nb6 19.Rf1 Rg7 20.Rdf3 f5 21.g4) 15.Rhd1 Ke7 16.g3 and White has sufficient compensation for the pawn.



Like I said, I find 6.Bd3 more logical than 6.Ne5
White develops quickly to bring rooks for central pressure.
My first reaction would be 6...Bg6
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Open challenge to Uruk 6..c6
Reply #8 - 05/13/09 at 22:20:48
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 05/13/09 at 15:18:23:
Gambit wrote on 05/12/09 at 20:03:02:
What's wrong with playing a game here between ArKhein and Uruk?
I think it is perfectly fine. As for me challenging people to play me on ICC, let me say that I proposed longer time controls than Game/5. Only a couple of times were the challenges accepted.

Finally, it would be interesting to see how the game develops between ArKhein and Uruk. Markovich, you said it should be chess, correct? Well, a challenge to play a public chess game is chess. Personally, I do not think it is fair to delete such posts.


What's the point of playing a game on this website?  What's the point of issuing a challenge, for that matter?  What's it have to do with openings theory, which is the broad subject of this website?  

Also to me, it didn't sound very friendly, but more of a macho dude thing.  Correct me if I'm wrong.


I was part of one of the best threads I've seen here.  Yes, I am biased.

That thread was on the French Steinitz.  While I was one of the main participants in the game that was played, many people joined in, including IMs.  The opening covered one of the most important variations that was played that summer, and the publicans' research  was such that the thread is still probably one of the best resources available to anyone who wants to play that line.

While I agree that there isn't really any room for grudge matches here, a game in which champions of White and Black have an open discussion of the variation is an excellent way to delve into the intricacies of an opening.

Just as there are many styles of opening books, including ones that use complete games, the pub can accomodate many types of opening threads.  If the Chess publicans don't like a thread, they don't have to participate in it.  We currently have a thread in the chit chat section that has two people commenting on the Dutch League.  While that thread doesn't comport with the stated purpose of the Chess Pub, there is certainly no harm and some amusement that comes from its existence.

Again, I agree that this is not the place for grudge matches.

Cheers!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 915
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Open challenge to Uruk 6..c6
Reply #7 - 05/13/09 at 19:37:02
Post Tools
The problem in many of these BDG threads stems from point-scoring on both sides.  Some are only interested in showing that their opening is good, regardless of rebuttals (someone mentioned that to some, suggesting that the BDG is unsound is like telling a child that there is no Santa Claus).  But at the other end we have the scornful dismissal, like Uruk's "dismiss anything that isn't above = level" stuff.  

In either case it is a point scoring exercise rather than trying to find the ultimate truth.  This problem recurs with many other controversial gambit lines (see recent debate on the Belgrade for instance).  That's why the likes of Stefan Buecker, MNb, ArkHeiN are a breath of fresh air as they try to give objective analysis.

After 5...Bf5 I suggested 6.Bd3 earlier, as Stefan Buecker mentioned in the other thread.  It gives White an extra tempo on a non-critical line of the Soller Gambit (Black hasn't played ...c6) and might give enough compensation.  
Quote:
Black better takes on d3: 6...Bxd3 (6...Bg6 7.Bxg6 hxg6 8.Qe2 gives White an attractive position) 7.Qxd3 c6 8.Bf4 e6 9.0-0-0, for example 9...Bd6 (9...Be7 10.h4) 10.Be5 Bc7 (10...Be7!? 11.Ne4) 11.Ne4 Bxe5 12.dxe5 Qxd3 13.Nxf6+ gxf6 14.Rxd3 f5 (14...Nd7 15.exf6 Rg8 16.g3 Nxf6 17.Ne5 Nd5 18.c4 Nb6 19.Rf1 Rg7 20.Rdf3 f5 21.g4) 15.Rhd1 Ke7 16.g3 and White has sufficient compensation for the pawn.


White can also try 6.Bc4, but I'm not sure what to do against 6...e6 (7.Ne5 c6, 7.0-0 c6, 7.Bg5 Bb4, all leading to well-established problems).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Open challenge to Uruk 6..c6
Reply #6 - 05/13/09 at 15:18:23
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 05/12/09 at 20:03:02:
What's wrong with playing a game here between ArKhein and Uruk?
I think it is perfectly fine. As for me challenging people to play me on ICC, let me say that I proposed longer time controls than Game/5. Only a couple of times were the challenges accepted.

Finally, it would be interesting to see how the game develops between ArKhein and Uruk. Markovich, you said it should be chess, correct? Well, a challenge to play a public chess game is chess. Personally, I do not think it is fair to delete such posts.


What's the point of playing a game on this website?  What's the point of issuing a challenge, for that matter?  What's it have to do with openings theory, which is the broad subject of this website? 

Also to me, it didn't sound very friendly, but more of a macho dude thing.  Correct me if I'm wrong.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo