Latest Updates:
Normal Topic Strange Omission from Play 1 e4 e5! (Read 5950 times)
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4488
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Strange Omission from Play 1 e4 e5!
Reply #8 - 12/19/13 at 03:24:10
Post Tools
I further notice that 9. Rd1 and 12. d5 was the main line in a 2002 Yearbook article by GM Fogarasi, who considered it better for White.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paddy
God Member
*****
Offline


The truth will out!

Posts: 900
Location: Manchester
Joined: 01/10/03
Gender: Male
Re: Strange Omission from Play 1 e4 e5!
Reply #7 - 12/19/13 at 00:40:45
Post Tools
Anonymous3 wrote on 11/24/13 at 22:02:23:
In the June 2004 1 e4 e5 update, http://www.chesspublishing.com/content/1/jun04.htm, Nigel Davies states that after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Qe2 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.Rd1 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7, "I suspect that the only challenging move is 12.d5" (and this is recommended in the book Play the Ruy Lopez). However, in his book Play 1 e4 e5! he doesn't even mention 12.d5. Davies also doesn't mention White's d5 idea in the very similar 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7.


I've grown to expect good sense and clear explanations from Nigel Davies's books, rather than  encyclopedic coverage. Nobody's perfect, and as we used to say, "even Homer nods".

As has been noted here many times before, the 'complete annotated games' approach (as opposed to the 'variation tree' format) is very prone to such gaps in coverage.

I suppose that in mitigation one can plead that at the time of publication (2005) Qe2 lines had been pretty much confined to being a minority interest among the GMs ever since the 1950s and it was only the following year (2006) that Greet's book began to stimulate some interest in them again.

But it's definitely an important omission, since 12 d5 is Greet's recommendation, has scored very well (64% from 252 games in Megabase 2013) and has been played at least six times by the main current GM supporter of Qe2 lines in the Spanish, Sergei Tiviakov.

However, I think we can definitely let Davies off the hook for not foreseeing that such an unlikely-looking move as 6 Qf3 in the Scotch would ever warrant serious coverage. Although it was played by Max Lange as early as 1862 (!) it really only began to take off as a serious try for advantage from 2006 onwards.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4488
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Strange Omission from Play 1 e4 e5!
Reply #6 - 12/18/13 at 23:38:15
Post Tools
Seems surprising to me.  I notice that those 12. d5's were at least mentioned in some old-timey (from the 1990s) encyclopedias.  Reminds me of 12. d5 in the main line Chigorin, which I recall as a "book" move of some significance.

On the other hand, I sometimes think that one might be driven crazy by incessant scrutiny and comparison of opening-advocacy products ...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Strange Omission from Play 1 e4 e5!
Reply #5 - 12/18/13 at 22:45:07
Post Tools
Does no one else find this omission strange?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Strange Omission from Play 1 e4 e5!
Reply #4 - 12/10/13 at 22:10:49
Post Tools
gillbod wrote on 12/10/13 at 13:16:50:
An even more striking line is missing from the mainline Scotch 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Bc5 5.Nxc6 Qf6 and now Davies doesn't consider what might well even be the best move, 6.Qf3.

True, but 6.Qf3 only became popular after the book came out. The d5 omission is mentioned by Davies himself here on Chesspublishing well before the book came out and he even said "I suspect that the only challenging move is 12.d5"
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
gillbod
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 139
Joined: 03/26/13
Re: Strange Omission from Play 1 e4 e5!
Reply #3 - 12/10/13 at 13:16:50
Post Tools
An even more striking line is missing from the mainline Scotch
and now Davies doesn't consider what might well even be the best move, 6.Qf3.

I think it's unreasonable to expect a watertight e4 e5 repertoire from one volume, but Davies does get you well on your way and his verbal guidance is very useful, imo.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Strange Omission from Play 1 e4 e5!
Reply #2 - 11/30/13 at 03:56:11
Post Tools
Seth_Xoma wrote on 11/30/13 at 01:41:29:
Uhh, I thought Davies recommended 11...Nd7 in his book.

Not against the Worrall Attack.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Seth_Xoma
God Member
*****
Offline


FM with 2 IM Norms - (2381)

Posts: 558
Location: Lansing
Joined: 11/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Strange Omission from Play 1 e4 e5!
Reply #1 - 11/30/13 at 01:41:29
Post Tools
Uhh, I thought Davies recommended 11...Nd7 in his book.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Strange Omission from Play 1 e4 e5!
11/24/13 at 22:02:23
Post Tools
In the June 2004 1 e4 e5 update, http://www.chesspublishing.com/content/1/jun04.htm, Nigel Davies states that after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Qe2 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.Rd1 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7, "I suspect that the only challenging move is 12.d5" (and this is recommended in the book Play the Ruy Lopez). However, in his book Play 1 e4 e5! he doesn't even mention 12.d5. Davies also doesn't mention White's d5 idea in the very similar 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo