(UTC)
  ChessPub Forum › Chess Publishing Openings › 1. e4 e5 - Non-Spanish › 2 Knights › References for theory of two knights defense
(Moderators: Jupp53, trw, Smyslov_Fan)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Topic Tools
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) References for theory of two knights defense (Read 9188 times)
Alluren
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 33
Joined: 04/21/08
Re: References for theory of two knights defense
Reply #12 - 09/17/09 at 20:55:18
Post Tools
The line mentionned in Emms which goes 

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. O-O Nxe4 6. Re1 d5 7. Bxd5 Qxd5 8.
Nc3 Qh5 9. Nxe4 Be6 10. Bg5 h6 11. Bf6 Qg6 12. Nh4 Qg4 *

is wrong. Only 13. Qxg4 is given for White which is wrong.
In my opinion 13. Qd3 give white a good advantage.

I remember sending an email to Mr Emms a few years ago (the email was given in the book I think). I got an answer from him saying that he effectively missed or misjudged this move.

Anyway it doesn't really matter since everyone knows that Bd6 is a better move as shown in Play e4 e5 ny Nagel Davies.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 916
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: References for theory of two knights defense
Reply #11 - 09/17/09 at 17:10:36
Post Tools
I think Emms's sections on the Two Knights with 4.d4 are fine except for the aforementioned issue with the outdated Max Lange coverage, and the fact that after 4...exd4 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.Re1 d5 7.Bxd5 Qxd5 8.Nc3 Qh5 (8...Qa5 is also covered, and I can't fault his analysis there) 9.Nxe4 Be6 10.Bg5, he offers 10...h6 which is somewhat dubious.  He does offer 10...Bd6 as an alternative, correctly assessing it as equal, but he also says 10...Bb4 11.Nxd4 is equal when in reality White has a small but nagging edge in the endgame.

Kudos to Emms, though, for mentioning the more critical 8.fxg7 Rg8 9.Bg5 as a good alternative for White in the Max Lange instead of dismissing it as some other authors have done in the past.

I agree that his section on 4.Ng5 is not so convincing, and possibly the weakest chapter of the book.

I do not own the Pinski or Palkovi or Davies books, but having read Tim Harding's reviews of the Pinski books it does sound like he is a bit discouraging regarding White's chances in the Two Knights and Italian.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10778
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: References for theory of two knights defense
Reply #10 - 09/17/09 at 02:00:08
Post Tools
As it does not make much sense to start yet another thread on the Fritz-Ulvestadt I post the link here:

http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/files/charbonneau_dschneider_uscl2009.htm

Remark that neither Monokroussos on this page nor Gueller here

http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/

(september 15, 2009) pays attention to the critical 8.Ne4 Ne6.
  
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
 
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2892
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: References for theory of two knights defense
Reply #9 - 08/23/09 at 11:06:41
Post Tools
A couple of reviews comparing variations from Palkövi and Pinski - and some others.

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz115.pdf

http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_two_knights_defense.html

And for finding the books, just google the title:

http://www.google.se/#hl=sv&source=hp&q=Two+Knights%27+Defence+and+Traxler+Count...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Rimfaxe
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 16
Joined: 08/18/06
Re: References for theory of two knights defense
Reply #8 - 08/22/09 at 21:55:32
Post Tools
I do like the Pinski book very much, I used it to learn to play the Two Knight and I do enjoy playing it now, so I can recommed the Pinski book. 

However I don't have the other books, so I can't say which is better!

I first got interested in the Two Knight after reading "play 1.e4 e5" by Davies, which have 23 pages on the Two Knight.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
CaptainFuture
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 18
Location: Germany
Joined: 03/25/09
Gender: Male
Re: References for theory of two knights defense
Reply #7 - 08/22/09 at 20:45:41
Post Tools
Hi,

Quote:
micawber wrote:

More up to date and more comprehensive sources are books by Palkovi and Pinski. Even though Palkovi's book is slightly older I prefer it over Pinski as the latter contains more errors and is less well researched.


First of all, let me add that both Palkovi and Pinski wrote a complementary book about the Italian Opening and Evans Gambit too.

At a first look in these books i would agree with you, but after a closer look my opinion has changed. Yes, Palkovi's book is researched very deeply and i like it very much. But Pinski is more up to date and he refers to the book of Palkovi. So there should be fewer errors in the books of Pinski. Please micawber give some examples of errors in Pinski's book.  Huh

But there is one point that i would emphasize and that i don't like with Pinski's books: they are too pessimistic about the white possibilities. Cry

Kind Regards,
Robert
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
ArKheiN
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 728
Location: Belgium
Joined: 03/30/05
Re: References for theory of two knights defense
Reply #6 - 08/19/09 at 20:24:20
Post Tools
It has been debated in the forum in the past, the most recently was in the huge thread with mister "anonymous".
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BirdBrain
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 168
Joined: 05/29/09
Re: References for theory of two knights defense
Reply #5 - 08/19/09 at 19:42:46
Post Tools
I recently discovered the Fritz/Ulvestad variation of the Two Knights defense, 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 b5.

I don't know much about it, but it definitely piqued my curiosity.  I have played it twice, and both times my opponent played 6. dxc, which does not look as good for White (I have read that 6. Bf1 is the way to go, if I remember correctly).  So of course, I played 6...bxc4 and we saw something like 7. 0-0 h6 8. Nf3 e4...I lost the first game by an early blunder, but I won the second...Does anyone have a good site that they know of that covers this variation?  Or does anyone have any good ideas or advice after 5...b5?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10778
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: References for theory of two knights defense
Reply #4 - 07/20/09 at 01:30:27
Post Tools
Caissa Chess Books, which is Hungarian, so I won't bother you with the telephone number or address.

caissa@matavnet.hu
  
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
 
F22
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 306
Joined: 07/16/09
Gender: Male
Re: References for theory of two knights defense
Reply #3 - 07/19/09 at 01:17:08
Post Tools
micawber I can't find Palkovi's book. Who published it?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
micawber
God Member
*****
Offline


like many sneaks and skunks
in history he's a poet

Posts: 852
Location: Netherlands
Joined: 09/07/05
Gender: Male
Re: References for theory of two knights defense
Reply #2 - 07/19/09 at 00:36:27
Post Tools
Emms is more or less OK for the TK with 4.d4 (although his treatment of the Max Lange is outdated by now, as the author himself admitted in 1.e4,e5 dangerous weapons). 
But his repertoire against 4.Ng5 is the weakest part of his book. Somewhere in this section of the forum, you will find some examples of superficial analyses.
Still we shouldnt be to harsh with criticism as the book is by now 10 years old.

More up to date and more comprehensive sources are books by Palkovi and Pinski. Even though Palkovi's book is slightly older I prefer it over Pinski as the latter contains more errors and is less well researched.
Free resources on the internet are the columns of Tim Harding (Kibitzer) and Stefan Buecker (over the Horizon) on the site
www.chesscafe.com (dig into the archives for an interesting update on the Max Lange by S.Buecker for instance)

And of course you should consult this forum and the subscription area (for e4.e5 as well. Wink. 

In fact subscribers can spare most of the digging into a very large number of forum posts, as the digest of the forum TK has been collected and annotated (by someone named Micawber) in a small CB-database that can be downloaded there.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
dfan
God Member
*****
Offline


"When you see a bad move,
look for a better one"

Posts: 766
Location: Boston
Joined: 10/04/05
Re: References for theory of two knights defense
Reply #1 - 07/18/09 at 20:55:26
Post Tools
If you want a repertoire from Black's perspective, I highly recommend Play the Open Games as Black by Emms.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
F22
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 306
Joined: 07/16/09
Gender: Male
References for theory of two knights defense
07/18/09 at 19:59:32
Post Tools
Where is the best place to learn the theory of two knights defense.?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Topic Tools
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo
 
  « Board Index ‹ Board Top  

ChessPub Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge