(UTC)
  ChessPub Forum › General › General Chess › Chess opening classification
(Moderators: RoleyPoley, proustiskeen, trw)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Topic Tools
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Chess opening classification (Read 9283 times)
gwnn
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 472
Joined: 03/21/11
Re: Chess opening classification
Reply #15 - 05/16/12 at 07:15:09
Post Tools
BTW one pet peeve I have is people somehow thinking that 1 d4 itself is the "queen's gambit". Apparently so does Kaufman but I guess he was just careless in his wording.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
gwnn
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 472
Joined: 03/21/11
Re: Chess opening classification
Reply #14 - 05/16/12 at 07:12:25
Post Tools
Schandorff said that in the context of the light squared bishop. I looked it up yesterday but forgot to post. The sentence goes something like this: "in contrast to the QGD with 2 .. e6, here Black elects to develop his light squared bishop early", or maybe even ".. here Black doesn't block his light squared bishop". It makes sense to use that tautology because it reinforces the idea that the bishop is blocked by the pawn on e6. But even disregarding the context, we often hear stuff like "Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney said..." - it doesn't mean that there is more than one Rooney.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Uhohspaghettio
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 515
Joined: 02/23/11
Re: Chess opening classification
Reply #13 - 05/15/12 at 21:43:38
Post Tools
barnaby wrote on 05/02/12 at 20:04:26:
Fair enough!  But one last salvo to fire first since I had already loaded it into the gun before I read your post 

.... from wikipedia:

"The Slav is one of the primary defenses to the Queen's Gambit."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slav_Defense


Nobody's saying it's not a part of the Queen's Gambit, but it's not a part of the queen's gambit declined. Nobody would argue that 1. d4 d5 2. c4 isn't the queen's gambit.   

We know that you can "decline" to take the pawn in different ways, that doesn't make them all part of the name. You're not supposed to take the name of an opening as a precise, literal description of it. Opening names can be idiomatic. 

barnaby wrote on 05/02/12 at 20:04:26:
also, check out the language on page 72 of the Schandorff book where he makes point to compare c6 with other versions of the QGD with e6 ... it's subtle, but it's there.

"in contrast to the Queen's gambit declined with e6 ...."

If the QGD was defined exclusively by e6 then there would be no need to be superfluous here.


We don't even know the context he said that. Your best point is that ECO often throws in the term "QGD" for Slav openings in its classification. 

I just don't get people's problem with this, it's the same on chess.com People automatically think "but I declined to take the pawn, therefore I have played the QGD", when they have not. It would be like claiming they played the "two knights defence" when they played the Berlin because they brought out the two knights. Nobody said opening names had to be logical... but I do think the name QGD is appropriate because it's the original way of declining it. 

As for openings classification through transposition... I never like it. 5. ...e6 is the Scheveningen, it doesn't turn into a Najdorf after 6. ...a6. They can say they entered the Najdorf positions, but don't reclassify the opening they played as a Najdorf. 
   
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Chess opening classification
Reply #12 - 05/15/12 at 20:53:44
Post Tools
Well, I will have to abandon my insistence that frequency should always determine classificaition, for otherwise, the position arising from 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 would be classified as an Indian system of some sort and not as a QGD.  The plain fact is that in modern practice, it arises more frequently that way than via 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6.  Or at least, in my data base it does.
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Chess opening classification
Reply #11 - 05/05/12 at 17:15:21
Post Tools
fling wrote on 05/04/12 at 19:46:43:
Markovich wrote on 05/04/12 at 12:05:30:


Where to classify the position arising from 1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.exd5, Alekhine or Scandinavian?  It seems to me that the frequency of play should determine it.  This is, I admit, a data-dependent system, but at least it's perfectly objective.


I have to agree with Eric on this. It is a Alekhine, even if it transposes into a Scandinavian. I think the problem with frequency is well pointed out in the latest answer.


Of course the classifications should change over time, that's what I meant when I said classification is data-dependent.  Otherwise you're stuck with outmoded classifications like the main lines of the Four Pawns Attack being classified in the Modern Benoni.   The goal of a classification system should be to group together lines actually played together.

"Scheveningen" lines with the early a6 today are effectively branches of the Najdorf, and calling them anything else really just creates confusion.  Someday if the Scheveningen move order becomes sufficiently popular, they may once again be classified as Scheveningens.  Likewise if the transposition from the Sicilian Four Knights ever becomes sufficiently popular, the Sveshnikov will descend from 2...e6.  Today it's about 9-to-1 in favor of 2...Nc6.
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
fling
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1591
Joined: 01/21/11
Gender: Male
Re: Chess opening classification
Reply #10 - 05/04/12 at 19:46:43
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 05/04/12 at 12:05:30:


Where to classify the position arising from 1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.exd5, Alekhine or Scandinavian?  It seems to me that the frequency of play should determine it.  This is, I admit, a data-dependent system, but at least it's perfectly objective.


I have to agree with Eric on this. It is a Alekhine, even if it transposes into a Scandinavian. I think the problem with frequency is well pointed out in the latest answer.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2534
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: Chess opening classification
Reply #9 - 05/04/12 at 15:10:50
Post Tools
And if the frequency changes over time, what then?  Rename the opening?  Is the Hanham a Philidor or a Pirc?  

I think we should give deference to history and some of the first analysts and players who worked on a variation, as well.  If Noteboom and Abrahams, for instance, both thought of "their" variation as a Semi-Slav, I'm all for calling it a Semi-Slav.
« Last Edit: 05/04/12 at 16:13:31 by ErictheRed »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Chess opening classification
Reply #8 - 05/04/12 at 12:05:30
Post Tools
ErictheRed wrote on 05/03/12 at 22:23:24:
Markovich wrote on 05/03/12 at 01:22:58:
Just to keep quibbling a while longer, that 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 is a QGD, no one would disagree, and likewise that 2...c6 is a Slav. If we further agree that any given line's descent from one of these positions is best determined by frequency of play along possible paths, then the Triangle is a branch of the QGD, not of the Slav, and by a substantial preponderance. This is true even if, as some here have argued, the Slav is a branch of the QGD. I rest my case.


Well you've rested your case, but I don't agree that a system's name is best determined by the frequency of the move order at which it arrives.  On the other hand I'm not very interested in arguing semantics.  

Personally I think of the Noteboom/Triangle as a Semi-Slav in philosophy: threaten to take the c-pawn and hold onto it.  It's certainly closer in philosophy to the Slav than the QGD.   


Well this is a rather subjective basis for chess opening classification.  Quite a few variations of the Closed Spanish are rather similar to a Benoni, for example, and many variations commonly considered to belong to the King's Indian complex look much more like Benko Gambits.

Where to classify the position arising from 1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.exd5, Alekhine or Scandinavian?  It seems to me that the frequency of play should determine it.  This is, I admit, a data-dependent system, but at least it's perfectly objective.
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2534
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: Chess opening classification
Reply #7 - 05/03/12 at 22:23:24
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 05/03/12 at 01:22:58:
Just to keep quibbling a while longer, that 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 is a QGD, no one would disagree, and likewise that 2...c6 is a Slav. If we further agree that any given line's descent from one of these positions is best determined by frequency of play along possible paths, then the Triangle is a branch of the QGD, not of the Slav, and by a substantial preponderance. This is true even if, as some here have argued, the Slav is a branch of the QGD. I rest my case.


Well you've rested your case, but I don't agree that a system's name is best determined by the frequency of the move order at which it arrives.  On the other hand I'm not very interested in arguing semantics.   

Personally I think of the Noteboom/Triangle as a Semi-Slav in philosophy: threaten to take the c-pawn and hold onto it.  It's certainly closer in philosophy to the Slav than the QGD.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Chess opening classification
Reply #6 - 05/03/12 at 01:22:58
Post Tools
Just to keep quibbling a while longer, that 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 is a QGD, no one would disagree, and likewise that 2...c6 is a Slav. If we further agree that any given line's descent from one of these positions is best determined by frequency of play along possible paths, then the Triangle is a branch of the QGD, not of the Slav, and by a substantial preponderance. This is true even if, as some here have argued, the Slav is a branch of the QGD. I rest my case.
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10778
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Chess opening classification
Reply #5 - 05/02/12 at 23:48:00
Post Tools
ferdia wrote on 05/02/12 at 15:20:50:
I think most Whites would rather play 5 Nf3 because it is more flexible if Black transposes back to the Meran.

IM Bronznik in Beating the Guerrilla's disagrees because of 5.Nf3 f5 and 6...Nh6. So he recommends either 5.Bd3 or 5.Qc2, arguing that Nf3 is always possible and that White sometimes has better.
  
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
 
barnaby
Senior Member
****
Offline


The night is dark and
full of terrors.

Posts: 345
Joined: 01/09/12
Gender: Female
Re: Chess opening classification
Reply #4 - 05/02/12 at 20:04:26
Post Tools
Fair enough!  But one last salvo to fire first since I had already loaded it into the gun before I read your post 

.... from wikipedia:

"The Slav is one of the primary defenses to the Queen's Gambit."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slav_Defense

also, check out the language on page 72 of the Schandorff book where he makes point to compare c6 with other versions of the QGD with e6 ... it's subtle, but it's there.

"in contrast to the Queen's gambit declined with e6 ...."

If the QGD was defined exclusively by e6 then there would be no need to be superfluous here.

again, great book and we have been blessed recently with a spate of good ones.  One of the better Everyman efforts in the openings arena of recent memory.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
gwnn
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 472
Joined: 03/21/11
Re: Chess opening classification
Reply #3 - 05/02/12 at 19:10:25
Post Tools
The Queen's Gambit is 1 d4 d5 2 c4, just as the King's Gambit is  1 e4 e5 2 f4. Schandorff's book might be translated as "playing 1 d4 d5 2 c4 with white". Anyway, I'll stop now, let's just all agree that this Triangle book is great! Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
barnaby
Senior Member
****
Offline


The night is dark and
full of terrors.

Posts: 345
Joined: 01/09/12
Gender: Female
Re: Chess opening classification
Reply #2 - 05/02/12 at 18:51:06
Post Tools
gwnn wrote on 05/02/12 at 08:06:16:
barnaby wrote on 05/02/12 at 06:56:30:
Markovich wrote on 05/02/12 at 00:15:49:
Actually though, I maintain that the Triangle system is not a Semi-Slav at all, but a variation of the Queen's Gambit Declined, with c6 being played on move three.. That is how it arises in a large majority of cases.

Why indeed would you play 2...c6 if you were intending to play this?


Some would argue that the entire Slav complex is itself merely a large branch of the Queen's Gambit declined and in some books I own it is certainly handled that way. (Lars Schandorff for example!)

Either way, this new Triangle book is great ... very objective.  

I bought it for the White side and have not been disappointed.  Very dense analysis (which I enjoy).

Strange, so in this supposed classification it is only QGD vs QGA? Kind of like Open vs Closed Spanish, even though the Open Spanish is a much smaller variation compared to the whole opening. But what makes you think that Schandorff treats the Slav complex in this way? The only thing he does is have a small section with the title QGD in the semi-slav chapter, but that is because Black can transpose back to some passive non-exchange QGD lines from the 5 Bg5 Semi-Slav.

Anyway, there is no easy answer to the question 'what is the semi-slav?' - there are lines which are clearly semi-slav, such as the Moscow/Anti-Moscow, Meran/Anti-Meran, but the Triangle for example? Who knows? The title of the Scherbakov book would suggest he thinks the Triangle is a kind of Semi-Slav ("... and other semi-slav lines") but it is not clear.



Well, for one including it all these slav and semi slav lines in a book called: Playing the Queens Gambit is persuasive for me.   Smiley

In addition, based on ECO codes and from way back in the book Chess Opening Theory and Practice as well as 500 Master Games of Chess (Tartakover).

I do not mean to be dogmatic here, only suggesting that the pawn structures dictate and that the 'triangle' and its echoes crop up in QGD Exchange all the time.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ferdia
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 10
Location: Liverpool
Joined: 11/27/09
Gender: Male
Re: Chess opening classification
Reply #1 - 05/02/12 at 15:20:50
Post Tools
Laramonet wrote on 03/28/12 at 12:27:18:
In the position after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e3, Ruslan Scherbakov gives three options, 4..., f5, Bd6 or Nd7. The section on 4..., f5 does a pretty convincing job on making this seem dubious. 4..., Nd7 is directed against the plan of Nf3-e5 and f4. When this is played against 4..., Bd6, the white position is very solid and he comments that black has few winning chances if any. However, doesn't 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e3 Nd7 5.Bd3 condemn black to a worse pawn structure if he wants to stick to the Stonewall ? E.g. 5.Bd3 f5 6.cd cd and black will need to play a6 and would have preferred to be able to play Nc6. The line given after 4..., Nd7 5.Nf3 f5 6.Qc2 Nh6 does look attractive but how achieveable is getting it on the board ?
Not having found an answer I'll stick to 4..., Bd6. I am thoroughly enjoying the book so far.

I tried out 4...Nd7 recently in the 4NCL (my opponent and I are 2200 level) and we went straight down Scherbakov's line. I agree that 5 Bd3 would be a problem if trying to get a Stonewall but White is not likely to play this if faced with the position for the first time. I think most Whites would rather play 5 Nf3 because it is more flexible if Black transposes back to the Meran. So I think 4 ...Nd7 is a viable practical choice, especially against the type of White player who always play g3 against the Stonewall or who plays the Staunton/2 Bg5/ 2 Nc3 against the Dutch.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
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