Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) C47-C49: The Four Knights Game (Read 26924 times)
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3100
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: C47-C49: The Four Knights Game
Reply #25 - 04/13/14 at 12:01:39
Post Tools
RdC wrote on 04/13/14 at 07:26:23:
One doubt about the reliability of that game is that it was played in the European under 12. The winner later won the FIDE knock-out and both players are now GMs.

I meant you should look at Nigel's analysis to the game rather than the bare game itself. Still, the game wasn't so bad for a game between kiddies! Smiley
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
RdC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 865
Joined: 05/17/08
Re: C47-C49: The Four Knights Game
Reply #24 - 04/13/14 at 07:26:23
Post Tools
The Ponomariov-Azarov game was similar to mine except they removed the Bishops by throwing in Nxb4 and Nxb5 before the Knights returned to d4 and d5 to exploit the pins. This improves the idea for White as the Bishop can be evicted from f3 by Qe3 and White has f4 as a follow-up.

One doubt about the reliability of that game is that it was played in the European under 12. The winner later won the FIDE knock-out and both players are now GMs.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3100
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: C47-C49: The Four Knights Game
Reply #23 - 04/12/14 at 21:19:47
Post Tools
RdC wrote on 04/12/14 at 18:28:56:
So what's the best way to "refute" 7. .. Bg4, if indeed there is one? The idea of 8. Bxf6 gxf6 ( 8. .. Qxf6 would lose a piece after 9. Nd5) and 9 Bxc6 bxc6 has been tried to exploit the doubled pawns using the Knights.


Nigel Davies analysed Ponomariov-Azarov for the site many, many years ago, and wrote (about 7...Bg4): "It seems that there are a lot of errors and omissions in the book analysis of this line. It's not at all easy to refute and White might not even have an advantage." I suggest you look at this game.
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
RdC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 865
Joined: 05/17/08
Re: C47-C49: The Four Knights Game
Reply #22 - 04/12/14 at 18:28:56
Post Tools
One of the first chess books I ever read was the Penguin "The Game of chess" by Golombek and one of the first openings he discusses is the Four Knights sequence which runs 1 e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bb4 5. 0-0 0-0 6. d3 d6 7. Bg5 . Golombek now writes (with translation from English descriptive) of 7. .. Bxc3
"A necessary exchange, since White was threatening Nd5 followed by Nxf6+ when Black has to break up the Pawns in front of his King by gxf6, leaving his King thus open to attack"

So taking this as received wisdom, I would always take on c3 with Black and expect it by my opponents when White.

That is until today when my opponent retained the symmetry with 7. .. Bg4. I continued with 8. Nd5, but then 8. .. Nd4 and 9 Bc4 Bc5. I now duly weakened his King side pawns with 10 Bxf6 gxf6 and now punted 11 Qd2 in the interests of a rapid 12 Qh6, 13 Nxf6 and 14. Qxh7 mate. When he met this with 11. .. c6, I though I had blundered a piece, but found what looked an escape route with 12. Ne3, the point being that 12. .. Bxf3 can be met with 13. c3. Even so Black should snatch the pawn with 12. .. Nxf3 13. gxf3 Bxf3, the point being that 14. Nf5 can be met with 14 . .. Kh8 and the threat of Rg8 check fends off the White attack.

So what's the best way to "refute" 7. .. Bg4, if indeed there is one? The idea of 8. Bxf6 gxf6 ( 8. .. Qxf6 would lose a piece after 9. Nd5) and 9 Bxc6 bxc6 has been tried to exploit the doubled pawns using the Knights.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10512
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: C47-C49: The Four Knights Game
Reply #21 - 03/06/12 at 10:12:58
Post Tools
ghenghisclown wrote on 03/06/12 at 03:17:00:
Writing something more understandable and more basic is not the same as condescending,

That's not what I wrote, rather the contrary, for which I brought up Euwe as an example.
I did not even write "goofy is condescending". What I wrote was that "goofy writing is more suited for an ELO 1400-1800 audience" is condescending.
Edited:
Moderator's Note: Edited for content ~SF March 6, 2012

« Last Edit: 03/06/12 at 19:03:21 by Smyslov_Fan »  

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
 
ghenghisclown
God Member
*****
Offline


Pedicare Vestri Latin

Posts: 1022
Location: HollyWeird
Joined: 07/19/06
Gender: Male
Re: C47-C49: The Four Knights Game
Reply #20 - 03/06/12 at 10:01:12
Post Tools
Bibs wrote on 03/06/12 at 05:50:35:
ghenghisclown wrote on 03/06/12 at 03:17:00:
Writing something more understandable and more basic is not the same as condescending, especially these days with the breadth and width of data and complexity of chess. I don't know about the Goofy comment (never bought any of Lakdawala's works) but I have watched him play: He's very serious. And if by serious you mean dry, I'll take Goofy.


I don't mind goofy, I just expect thorough.
Funny that in the recent...d6 book, one of the lines already busted by Greet's suggestion. Same publishing house, would have had access.
Easy to see - just follow both books. See intersection, follow Houdini, white wins.



Greet's e4 book? Yes anyway, that's unfortunate...but every book has mistakes.
  

"Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it."
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2165
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: C47-C49: The Four Knights Game
Reply #19 - 03/06/12 at 05:50:35
Post Tools
ghenghisclown wrote on 03/06/12 at 03:17:00:
Writing something more understandable and more basic is not the same as condescending, especially these days with the breadth and width of data and complexity of chess. I don't know about the Goofy comment (never bought any of Lakdawala's works) but I have watched him play: He's very serious. And if by serious you mean dry, I'll take Goofy.


I don't mind goofy, I just expect thorough.
Funny that in the recent...d6 book, one of the lines already busted by Greet's suggestion. Same publishing house, would have had access.
Easy to see - just follow both books. See intersection, follow Houdini, white wins.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ghenghisclown
God Member
*****
Offline


Pedicare Vestri Latin

Posts: 1022
Location: HollyWeird
Joined: 07/19/06
Gender: Male
Re: C47-C49: The Four Knights Game
Reply #18 - 03/06/12 at 03:17:00
Post Tools
Writing something more understandable and more basic is not the same as condescending, especially these days with the breadth and width of data and complexity of chess. I don't know about the Goofy comment (never bought any of Lakdawala's works) but I have watched him play: He's very serious. And if by serious you mean dry, I'll take Goofy.
  

"Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it."
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: C47-C49: The Four Knights Game
Reply #17 - 03/06/12 at 01:42:53
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 03/05/12 at 21:44:33:
Yes. And it's still condescending. Try some books by Euwe, someone who understood a few things about chess and also was a qualified teacher. His explanations always were elementary but never goofy, not even slightly.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/Goofy.svg

I share not only your point of view about what sort of writing is good for teaching, but your admiration of Euwe's works.

  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
gwnn
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 472
Joined: 03/21/11
Re: C47-C49: The Four Knights Game
Reply #16 - 03/05/12 at 22:20:28
Post Tools
dfan wrote on 03/05/12 at 22:05:22:
gwnn said (or so I inferred) that the goofy writing style works better for 1400-1800 players than it does for a 2200, not that the goofy writing style works better for 1400-1800 players than a more formal approach does.

Thus there is no inconsistency with the belief (which I share) that a more mature writing style is better for all classes of players.

This is what I meant to say but I see rereading my short posts that I was far from clear. Perhaps it still sounds condescending - well fair enough, we will have to agree to disagree. I never said all 1400-1800 players like goofy chess writing or that no 1400-1800 player likes serious writing.

For what it's worth, I don't mind either style as long as it's well done (whatever that means - I don't have clear criteria). I don't have a clear preference and see advantages of both styles. And I believe that, on average, the advantages do not apply equally for a ~1600 than for a ~2000 player.

I'm sorry for derailing this thread.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
dfan
God Member
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 731
Location: Boston
Joined: 10/04/05
Re: C47-C49: The Four Knights Game
Reply #15 - 03/05/12 at 22:05:22
Post Tools
gwnn said (or so I inferred) that the goofy writing style works better for 1400-1800 players than it does for a 2200, not that the goofy writing style works better for 1400-1800 players than a more formal approach does.

Thus there is no inconsistency with the belief (which I share) that a more mature writing style is better for all classes of players.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10512
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: C47-C49: The Four Knights Game
Reply #14 - 03/05/12 at 21:44:33
Post Tools
Yes. And it's still condescending. Try some books by Euwe, someone who understood a few things about chess and also was a qualified teacher. His explanations always were elementary but never goofy, not even slightly.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/Goofy.svg
  

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
 
gwnn
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 472
Joined: 03/21/11
Re: C47-C49: The Four Knights Game
Reply #13 - 03/05/12 at 18:15:34
Post Tools
I am 1700 and I like to be taken seriously too. I just meant to say that it is more likely that it works for a 1400-1800 than for a 2200. Do you disagree with that?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10512
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: C47-C49: The Four Knights Game
Reply #12 - 03/05/12 at 16:52:11
Post Tools
gwnn wrote on 03/05/12 at 11:09:59:
The former approach works much better for 1400-1800.

How condescending. I am an 1800 and I like to be taken seriously by chess authors.
  

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
 
gwnn
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 472
Joined: 03/21/11
Re: C47-C49: The Four Knights Game
Reply #11 - 03/05/12 at 11:09:59
Post Tools
Gilchrist is a legend wrote on 03/05/12 at 04:28:44:
I had some responses about the Move By Move Nimzo book, and have been told that it was good even for my level (~2250). But I wonder how much is attributed to theory both in that book and also in this forthcoming book.

It really depends on the writer, methinks. Lakdawala seems to be slightly goofy when he writes, to keep his readers from getting bored. Emms treats you more seriously. The former approach works much better for 1400-1800.
  
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