Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Sämisch vs. the Old Indian (Read 16677 times)
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Sämisch vs. the Old Indian
Reply #31 - 06/30/13 at 01:57:35
Post Tools
I'm away from my books (on vacation), and it would be of great service if you would say what position(s). Otherwise it just makes no sense.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
HgMan
God Member
*****
Offline


Demand me nothing: What
you know, you know

Posts: 2327
Location: Up on Cripple Creek
Joined: 11/09/04
Gender: Male
Re: Sämisch vs. the Old Indian
Reply #30 - 06/30/13 at 01:30:42
Post Tools
Watson was talking generally about the Old Indian (not about f3 at all), but noted that while the ...f5 strike was an important theme in the KID, it did little to activate the Bishop on e7 (as distinct from the Bishop on g7 in the KID, when the whole game can hinge on this break). I'll leave out his further details—posed in his chapter on "Modern Pawn Play" in Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy—but add the caveat that he suggests his reasoning for Black not playing for ...f5 is hardly a "principle." Hiis outline, however, is pretty interesting, and it is nice to see some coverage of the Old Indian, which is all too frequently not examined.
  

"Luck favours the prepared mind."  --Louis Pasteur
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2513
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: Sämisch vs. the Old Indian
Reply #29 - 06/29/13 at 01:32:28
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 06/29/13 at 00:34:20:
Maybe better ask just what position(s) Watson was talking about.


Good point.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Sämisch vs. the Old Indian
Reply #28 - 06/29/13 at 00:34:20
Post Tools
Maybe better ask just what position(s) Watson was talking about.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2513
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: Sämisch vs. the Old Indian
Reply #27 - 06/29/13 at 00:31:22
Post Tools
HgMan wrote on 06/29/13 at 00:26:05:
John Watson seems to advocate opening Black's position with the advance of the c-pawn and playing on the queenside. He seems to think that plans with ...Ne8 and ...f5 are frequently unsuccessful.


I obviously agree with him; where did John Watson look at this? 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
HgMan
God Member
*****
Offline


Demand me nothing: What
you know, you know

Posts: 2327
Location: Up on Cripple Creek
Joined: 11/09/04
Gender: Male
Re: Sämisch vs. the Old Indian
Reply #26 - 06/29/13 at 00:26:05
Post Tools
Great stuff, all, and thank you for your insights. I look forward to playing through all this and analyzing in due course. In the meantime, coming back to an earlier comment, John Watson seems to advocate opening Black's position with the advance of the c-pawn and playing on the queenside. He seems to think that plans with ...Ne8 and ...f5 are frequently unsuccessful.
  

"Luck favours the prepared mind."  --Louis Pasteur
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Sämisch vs. the Old Indian
Reply #25 - 06/27/13 at 19:20:06
Post Tools
I apologize if I mischaracterized what you said.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1516
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: Sämisch vs. the Old Indian
Reply #24 - 06/27/13 at 18:06:11
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 06/27/13 at 16:12:10:
@Lee Roth: I don't think that 3.f3 in the Pirc (sorry to introduce more nomenclature, but that is what you propose) is supposed to be any good, is it? Black has 3...d5, for one thing. If the Old Indian move order is used, then 3.Nc3 e5 4.d5, and Black's QN is not yet committed to d7. All that, not semantics, is why I said that my previous advocacy was about the traditional move order.


Just to be clear, I was not advocating or proposing 3.f3 vs the Pirc.  In response to HGMan's comment that this was a curious or unusual move order, I was merely pointing out that Schandorff recommended 3.f3 -- albeit from a 1.d4 d6 2.e4 Nf6 move order -- in his book.  But, in response to your question, I tend to agree with you.  In my own praxis, I rejected 3.f3 some time ago because I thought Black could favorablly transpose to an Old Indian, so I will have to compare my old notes to Schandorff's recommendations and see if he changes my view. 


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Sämisch vs. the Old Indian
Reply #23 - 06/27/13 at 17:04:19
Post Tools
Hard to add to a long post with hand-held (here at Lake Tahoe that's all I have), so I post afresh.

One point worth mentioning is that one of Black's themes when White's knight is not on f3 is ...Ne8 and then ...Bg5.
« Last Edit: 06/27/13 at 19:21:32 by Markovich »  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Sämisch vs. the Old Indian
Reply #22 - 06/27/13 at 16:12:10
Post Tools
I am sorry if the tone of my posts here has irritated.

@Lee Roth: I don't think that 3.f3 in the Pirc (sorry to introduce more nomenclature, but that is what you propose) is supposed to be any good, is it? Black has 3...d5, for one thing. If the Old Indian move order is used, then 3.Nc3 e5 4.d5, and Black's QN is not yet committed to d7. All that, not semantics, is why I said that my previous advocacy was about the traditional move order.

@MNb: So far as I know, White has no way to force Black to play ...Nbd7 before playing ...e5, except by playing 3.Nf3. Unless he does, the analyses below are not exactly critical to my point that White does not do well to play Saemich-like against the Old Indian.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10574
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Sämisch vs. the Old Indian
Reply #21 - 06/27/13 at 14:47:30
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 06/27/13 at 04:05:11:
You're wrong. See Lee Roth in #7.

But fine, does anybody believe 3.Nc3 e5 4.d5 is a problem for Black? I sure don't.

Yes, Schandorff. And if you had read #7 properly you would have known. I also refer you to #9 and #10, which answer #7.
May we see your antidote to e4xf5 and Nc3-e4 in answer to ...Nf6-e8 and ....f7-f5 in the foreseeable future? Which problem has been mentioned a couple of times in this thread? I hate to tell you, but the level of your contributions here is way below your normal level. Perhaps you have debated some of the more infamous members too much.
  

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
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2513
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: Sämisch vs. the Old Indian
Reply #20 - 06/27/13 at 07:15:00
Post Tools
Markovich, I agree that after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 e5 White probably has better moves than 4.d5.  That's why I proposed the alternative move order 1.d4 d6 2.e4 Nf6 3.f3 Nbd7 4.c4 e5 5.d5 c6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Be3 0-0 as much more logical for arriving in this system.   Yes I think that Black has problems to solve in this position.  See the plans I outlined earlier; can we take them one by one and do a little analysis?  Propose alternative plans?

For once around here, can we not argue over nomenclature or move orders?  It gets tiresome.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Sämisch vs. the Old Indian
Reply #19 - 06/27/13 at 04:05:11
Post Tools
You're wrong. See Lee Roth in #7.

But fine, does anybody believe 3.Nc3 e5 4.d5 is a problem for Black? I sure don't.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10574
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Sämisch vs. the Old Indian
Reply #18 - 06/26/13 at 02:42:12
Post Tools
Nobody is talking about some move order without White's pawn on c4. Schandorff's chapter begins with the moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 when after 3...e5 he recommends 4.d5 and after 3...Nbd7 4.e4 e5 5.d5.
  

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
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Sämisch vs. the Old Indian
Reply #17 - 06/26/13 at 02:20:38
Post Tools
The Old Indian arises from 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6. That, not some move order without White's c-pawn on c4, is what I was talking about. Schandorff is talking about something else. So I will stand by what I said, and I don't think that Schandorff contradicts me. Btw, with White's pawn on c4, I would unhesitatingly accept the exchange of queens on d8.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo