Latest Updates:
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) refuting the advanced - for black (Read 6629 times)
AndyFeng35
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 17
Joined: 08/02/23
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #31 - 08/28/23 at 18:20:41
Post Tools
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5. 4.nf3 cd4!!! Nf3 is a very popular stratigical mistake. Always take a pawn on d4 if you see this move.  Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Nernstian59
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 179
Joined: 12/15/21
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #30 - 03/27/22 at 19:08:24
Post Tools
FreeRepublic wrote on 03/25/22 at 01:57:18:
Stigma wrote on 03/24/22 at 23:21:23:
I thought this thread was about the Advance. But now when I return to look at it suddenly it's about the Winawer... What happened?


I am at least partly to blame for the hijacking of this thread. Sorry about that.

My apologies to the forum members since I also contributed to sidetracking the thread.  Nevertheless, as a forum newbie, I appreciate the informative comments from the other posters on that positional Winawer variation.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paddy
God Member
*****
Offline


The truth will out!

Posts: 964
Location: Manchester
Joined: 01/10/03
Gender: Male
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #29 - 03/26/22 at 17:36:31
Post Tools
If, as a French player, one is happy with the positions arrived at after
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 cxd4 5. cxd4 Ne7 6. Nf3 Nf5 7. Bd3 Nc6 8. Bxf5 exf5 9. Nc3 Be6 (Black scores close to 50% here, the position often being reached by transposition; GM Igor Glek used to get great results with this structure),
or something like 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 cxd4 5. cxd4 Ne7 6. Na3 (probably the most testing idea, in some move order or other) 6...Nbc6 7. Nc2 Nf5 8. Nf3 Qb6 (also often reached by transposition, with Black scoring overall a respectable 45%,

then unless there is some drastic early improvement for White, which I can't see at the moment, the early exchange seems perfectly playable, and has the great virtue (for some players anyway) of avoiding the recently popular improved Milner-Barry Gambit.

Perhaps some French Defence specialist could further enlighten us?

Just as "a weakness is not really a weakness unless it can be exploited", so it is with move orders.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Uberdecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 640
Joined: 03/21/06
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #28 - 03/26/22 at 07:03:49
Post Tools
My sincere apologies.
« Last Edit: 03/26/22 at 15:10:21 by Uberdecker »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ReneDescartes
God Member
*****
Offline


Qu'est-ce donc que je
suis? Une chose qui pense.

Posts: 1236
Joined: 05/17/10
Gender: Male
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #27 - 03/25/22 at 21:29:10
Post Tools
It's not false. As far as I can see, FMCharles is a FIDE master who got the title in 2007 at age 22. It show some restraint that he didn't bother to argue with the poster who disputed his title.
« Last Edit: 03/26/22 at 08:00:15 by ReneDescartes »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Confused_by_Theory
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 649
Location: Europe
Joined: 05/13/15
Gender: Male
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #26 - 03/25/22 at 14:54:24
Post Tools
Hi.

This line is also be reachable from 1.d4 e6 2.c4 c6 3.e4 d5 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.e5. Some other tries exist for white of course.

Have a nice day.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Uberdecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 640
Joined: 03/21/06
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #25 - 03/25/22 at 14:19:18
Post Tools
I thought this thread was about false claims of FIDE titles.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
FreeRepublic
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 761
Location: Georgia
Joined: 06/08/17
Gender: Male
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #24 - 03/25/22 at 01:57:18
Post Tools
Stigma wrote on 03/24/22 at 23:21:23:
I thought this thread was about the Advance. But now when I return to look at it suddenly it's about the Winawer... What happened?


I am at least partly to blame for the hijacking of this thread. Sorry about that.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3272
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #23 - 03/24/22 at 23:21:23
Post Tools
I thought this thread was about the Advance. But now when I return to look at it suddenly it's about the Winawer... What happened?

The ChessPub Forum works in mysterious ways.
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
FreeRepublic
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 761
Location: Georgia
Joined: 06/08/17
Gender: Male
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #22 - 03/24/22 at 20:09:48
Post Tools
In addition to the players already mentioned, Botvinnik played these kinds of Winawer lines as black. Nowadays Qg4 or h4 are more common than Nf3. Also, white often chooses to deny black use of the a4 square by playing a4 himself.

I liked those closed positions reached by Botvinnik and others. Perhaps 6...Qa5 7Bd2 is the somewhat modern move order most likely to give black a chance to occupy the a4 square with a piece or close the position with ...c4. For myself, I would rather occupy the a4 square with a bishop than a queen. However few white players will let that happen.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ReneDescartes
God Member
*****
Offline


Qu'est-ce donc que je
suis? Une chose qui pense.

Posts: 1236
Joined: 05/17/10
Gender: Male
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #21 - 03/24/22 at 01:04:30
Post Tools
The idea first seems to have been used by John Moles himself in the preliminary rounds of the Siegen Olympiad (1970). Moles puts his queen on a5, worms the Bd7 bishop out to the kingside via e8 and a5, and defends against an attack down the b-file using his queen at a6 and a rook on d7. His opponent sacrifices a piece for an attack and central outpost, but Moles eventually generates a successful mating attack himself using only his rooks and bishop. In the final position, Black can play 42...Rf7 and the rooks will give mate.


I have used this system personally quite a bit as Black, albeit in a more primitive way. If Black doesn't play a4, I  blockade the queenside with ...Ba4, put my queen on c7 or d7 (not a5), then castle long, if necessary plugging the b-file with ...b3 or ...b4. The idea is pretty simple--to maintain the blockade and use the queen with the heavy pieces on the kingside in a pawn storm. It can work well in practice if White tries a normal plan of castling short and trying to find a way to attack the queenside, but if White keeps his king in the center and advances his own kingside pawns, I don't think the system is that great.
« Last Edit: 03/24/22 at 03:39:37 by ReneDescartes »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Nernstian59
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 179
Joined: 12/15/21
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #20 - 03/20/22 at 19:47:16
Post Tools
AOC - Thanks!  The background information you gave on Chess Openings - Theory and Practice is much appreciated.  The publlication lag is a good explanation for the omission of those early 60s Uhlmann games. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 1687
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #19 - 03/20/22 at 03:07:59
Post Tools
Nernstian59 wrote on 03/20/22 at 00:53:34:
I happen to have Chess Openings - Theory and Practice, which was published in 1964.  There's no mention of 7...Bd7 8. Bd3, let alone the reply 8...c4.  Perhaps Horowitz wasn't aware of recent developments since a database search shows Uhlmann enjoying some success with 7...Bd7 in the early 60s.

Despite the "Copyright (c) 1964 by I. A. Horowitz", this book was subcontracted to some Dutch masters under the direction of Euwe. At that time Horowitz was mainly a bridge player and many of the titles appearing under his name in the 1960s were ghost-written. The main theoretical part seems to have been completed no later than 1960. Probably the publication delay was due to the need to translate to descriptive notation for the USA readers.

For example, in the Sicilian Defense I counted 36 references to 1958, 63 to 1959, and later than that only seven. Of those, only the reference on page 406 to Beverwijk 1960 (i.e. January) is in the theoretical "Practical Variations":
  • 1960 - pages 398, 406, 414, 434
  • 1961 - page 384
  • 1962 - page 409 (two)

The situation in the French Defense is similarly stale. I counted nine references to 1958, one (!) to 1959, and later than that only three. And again, only the reference on page 293 to Stockholm 1960 (i.e. the three-team tournament in January or possibly February) is in the theoretical "Practical Variations":
  • 1960 - pages 293, 309, 316
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4919
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #18 - 03/20/22 at 02:36:45
Post Tools
By the way, annotating Byrne-Smyslov in Chess Life & Review at the time, Benko gave 8. Bd3 as "!?".

(p. 617)
http://uscf1-nyc1.aodhosting.com/CL-AND-CR-ALL/CL-ALL/1976/1976_11.pdf
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Nernstian59
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 179
Joined: 12/15/21
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #17 - 03/20/22 at 00:53:34
Post Tools
@FreeRepublic - Thanks for directing me to that Byrne - Smyslov game.  It's a bit odd for me to see Smyslov playing Black in a Winawer game.  I guess I tend to think of him being a champion for the White side due to his games against Botvinnik in the 40s and 50s.

I happen to have Chess Openings - Theory and Practice, which was published in 1964.  There's no mention of 7...Bd7 8. Bd3, let alone the reply 8...c4.  Perhaps Horowitz wasn't aware of recent developments since a database search shows Uhlmann enjoying some success with 7...Bd7 in the early 60s.  Perhaps his results popularized that move because by 1975, it was covered by John Moles in his The French Defence - Main Line Winawer.  In fact, Moles describes 7...Bd7 as "favoured by Uhlmann".  It's in Moles' book that 8.Bd3 is given a ?! marking.  Gligoric's The French Defence from RHM Press also came out in 1975 and likewise gives 8.Bd3?!.  It's conceivable that Byrne's win changed the evaluation of 8.Bd3 (as you noted) since the first edition of Play the French in 1984 simply gives 8.Bd3 with no dubious marking.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
FreeRepublic
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 761
Location: Georgia
Joined: 06/08/17
Gender: Male
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #16 - 03/18/22 at 13:25:21
Post Tools
Nernstian59 wrote on 03/18/22 at 01:45:46:
Do you have any details on that Smyslov-Uhlmann game?


I was proceeding from memory. The best I can do today is to refer you to the game Robert Byrne - Smyslov, 1976, Biel IZT, won by Byrne. The opening moves were:

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bc3 6. bc3 Ne7 7.Nf3 Bd7 8. Bd3. Here Smyslov played 8...c4. I remember that as being the recommendation at the time.

Watson's first edition, 1984, of Play the French, which I have in my hands, gives both 8...c4 and 8...Ba4!? I no longer have general opening books from that era (Modern Chess Openings, Chess Openings - Theory and Practice).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2338
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #15 - 03/18/22 at 02:05:47
Post Tools
MartinC wrote on 03/16/22 at 19:20:23:
FreeRepublic wrote on 03/15/22 at 13:24:34:
Chess is a long game and I'm sure many players can play the early pawn trade at club level and have an interesting game. However, from the point of view of theory, the burden is definitely on black to demonstrate that 4...cxd is O.K.


Just to make a meta point here, but these days if Leela and SF14 think a move is OK - even at a quick glance - that's easily enough to move the burden of proof to the people trying to refute it!

There's been several cases of long held common sense beliefs getting overruled.

In this case I can't see any reason not to consider the move OK, the question is more whether black actually gains anything meaningful.

As I noted above, the most meaningful place would be in the c3 Sicillian where you can remove white's IQP options vs e6/d5. Otherwise, shrug. The worst thing in a practical sense is very likely simply that black is very considerably limiting their own range of playable set ups.


Not just v c3 sicilian, but also v Morra:

1.e4 c5
2.d4 cd
3.c3 e6
4.cd d5

I am happy enough with any such French type positions, and suppose that white will be less familiar (and online Morra players can be a bit one-dimensional, see also BDG) and punted it a few times. Not the best, but it's still chess.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Nernstian59
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 179
Joined: 12/15/21
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #14 - 03/18/22 at 01:45:46
Post Tools
FreeRepublic wrote on 03/17/22 at 01:31:30:
Even before computers, I remember cases where long-held dogmas were challenged and overturned by players. In one Winawer line, Watson said an early Bd3 was a mistake due to ...c4. Then Smyslov beat Uhlmann with that mistake! Watson revised his stance in the next edition of his book on the French.

@FreeRepublic - Do you have any details on that Smyslov-Uhlmann game?  I tried to search for it in Mega Database 2022, but only found three Winawer games between those two players, all dating from the 1960s, which is well before the first edition of Play the French was published in 1984.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
FreeRepublic
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 761
Location: Georgia
Joined: 06/08/17
Gender: Male
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #13 - 03/17/22 at 01:31:30
Post Tools
MartinC wrote on 03/16/22 at 19:20:23:
There's been several cases of long held common sense beliefs getting overruled.


Even before computers, I remember cases where long-held dogmas were challenged and overturned by players. In one Winawer line, Watson said an early Bd3 was a mistake due to ...c4. Then Smyslov beat Uhlmann with that mistake! Watson revised his stance in the next edition of his book on the French.

Quote:
As I noted above, the most meaningful place would be in the c3 Sicillian


Yes. I did a search on the position, restricting games to players rated 2400 and above. It seemed that most of the positions came from non-standard move orders. As a former Sicilian player, I remember ruling out lines where the game transposed to an advance French with the early trade of pawns.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MartinC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 2075
Joined: 07/24/06
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #12 - 03/16/22 at 19:20:23
Post Tools
FreeRepublic wrote on 03/15/22 at 13:24:34:
Chess is a long game and I'm sure many players can play the early pawn trade at club level and have an interesting game. However, from the point of view of theory, the burden is definitely on black to demonstrate that 4...cxd is O.K.


Just to make a meta point here, but these days if Leela and SF14 think a move is OK - even at a quick glance - that's easily enough to move the burden of proof to the people trying to refute it!

There's been several cases of long held common sense beliefs getting overruled.

In this case I can't see any reason not to consider the move OK, the question is more whether black actually gains anything meaningful.

As I noted above, the most meaningful place would be in the c3 Sicillian where you can remove white's IQP options vs e6/d5. Otherwise, shrug. The worst thing in a practical sense is very likely simply that black is very considerably limiting their own range of playable set ups.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Kerangali
Full Member
***
Offline


I am every one and every
zero

Posts: 167
Joined: 02/12/22
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #11 - 03/16/22 at 10:47:21
Post Tools
I don't know for corr/computer chess, but OTB the advanced French produces unusual positions with tension all over the board and many ways for each player to outplay their opponent.
Regarding 4...cxd4 which amounts to exchanging c5 for c3, I'm sure it's a playable move. It's premature since you give White extra possibilities, e.g. Na3-c2 and Bd3 or Nc3-e2 defends d4 or g3-Bh3xf5-Ne2-Nf4 with an easier game. But these possibilities don't amount to more advantage (just easier game for White), while cutting off annoying Bd3 gambits. If the tradeoff suits you, you can certainly play 4...cxd4.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 1687
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #10 - 03/16/22 at 01:09:06
Post Tools
I looked at database.chessbase.com, after 4.c3 they have these percentages in the Results column:
  • 4...Nc6 53%
  • 4...Qb6 53%
  • 4...Bd7 54%
  • 4...Ne7 57%
  • 4...cxd4 44%
  • 4...Qa5 74%
  • 4...a6 50%
  • 4...b6 57%
  • 4...Nd7 67%

I'm not sure how they order the list, 4...Nc6 is the most played but 4...Nd7 is not the least played. And after 4...cxd4 when white recaptures 5.cxd4 it's back to 57%, but I didn't notice that last night.

In the Advance French white gets a tiny edge at best. I've only played the solid lines from the black side, when I had white in the Advance I always chose 4.Nf3!? or 4.Qg4?!. But anyway in the hands of an expert a seemingly acceptable black opening can become a very uncomfortable middlegame.

About the Knight on c3. Sometimes it's good and sometimes it's not, but the point is that 4...cxd4 gives white the option at no benefit to black. White is not going to play d4xc5, so black can just wait with ...c5xd4 and remove that option. And in the particular line I gave, it's a known position but with the substitution of a2-a3 for Bf1-e2, which I think helps white. Of course black is solid and should equalize later with careful play, but it's not always the easiest thing.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
FreeRepublic
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 761
Location: Georgia
Joined: 06/08/17
Gender: Male
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #9 - 03/15/22 at 13:24:34
Post Tools
an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 03/15/22 at 04:32:22:
It also gives white a good square on c3 for the knight. But in the database white only scores 44% after 4...cxd4, so I will grant that it's not completely ridiculous, but it seems horribly mis-timed. I don't see why 4...cxd4 would improve on 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Nge7!? when black can still play 6...cxd4 and 7...Nf5, but white can't play Nb1-c3.

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 cxd4 5.cxd4 Ne7 6.Nf3 Nf5 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.a3 Bd7 9.h4!? seems like it could be good for white.


AOC, did you mean white only scores 56%? Aside from that, I agree with everything you said.

White scores 59% in my database after 7...Nc6. White scores above 60% with 8a3, 8Be3, and 8Bb5.

In general, the early trade, 4...cxd, has been frowned upon seemingly forever. The only thing that is new here is the contribution of computers. At move 8 Stockfish 14 gives a score of about .5, which is above average in chess openings.

The French is defense is a solid opening. Here, as elsewhere in the French, White may need to play energetically to prove the advantage.

Chess is a long game and I'm sure many players can play the early pawn trade at club level and have an interesting game. However, from the point of view of theory, the burden is definitely on black to demonstrate that 4...cxd is O.K.
« Last Edit: 03/15/22 at 19:09:14 by FreeRepublic »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MartinC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 2075
Joined: 07/24/06
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #8 - 03/15/22 at 09:34:27
Post Tools
an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 03/15/22 at 04:32:22:
FMCharless wrote on 03/12/22 at 02:51:12:
the best move for black is 4...cxd4!

this gives a clear plan for black which is to play for the pawn on d4.

It also gives white a good square on c3 for the knight. But in the database white only scores 44% after 4...cxd4, so I will grant that it's not completely ridiculous, but it seems horribly mis-timed. I don't see why 4...cxd4 would improve on 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Nge7!? when black can still play 6...cxd4 and 7...Nf5, but white can't play Nb1-c3.
]


Its actually much more reasonable than that Smiley Basically the white knight isn't actually that good on c3, so black can seemingly afford to give the option away early without damage.

The main tabia in in a way is that 4.. Nc6 5 Nf3 Nge7 6 Bd3 Nf5 7 BxN exf5 stuff. Well established theory of course, quite interesting. Absurd to call it a refutation of white's opening Smiley

Jones in Coffeehouse tries to avoid that black set up with various ideas vs black's moves orders. There - vs 5.. Nge7 but I think its the overlap here - he recommends that white go for Na3 -> c2 - while black has no Bxa3.

That's pretty testing, computers can seemingly draw the mad complications in one of his lines, who is doing better in practice I've no idea.

The a3 based ideas that you're referencing are of course OK, but both SF14 and Leela seem entirely content with black after 9.. Be7 10 h5 then Qb6 or h6.

Various Be3 based positions, again nothing bad there.

What black gains, I don't know. There's definitely an active benefit as a move order against the c3 Sicilian. Mostly I suppose you might make white think for a while, trying to find the way to take advantage?

... 5 .. Nge7 6 dxc5 is legal but not very threatening either.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
halbstark
Junior Member
**
Offline


Just an average FM

Posts: 61
Location: Germany
Joined: 03/14/19
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #7 - 03/15/22 at 08:54:08
Post Tools
I guess we all appreciate the effort if someone wants to keep the forum alive. It is just that the chesspub forum is traditionally the forum for high-quality discussions about chess. There are chess forums that are spammed with pointless threats about nonsensical variations or just provocative statements with very little substance.

1. No need to call something a refutation when it is clearly not
2. You literally only give one variation. And this variation leads to a position that is known for decades
3. As others have mentioned, it seems that you want to give the impression of some feats "FM", "after studying the advance..." but your statements don't really fit.

Just invite other people into a discussion by asking a question "How bad is the advance?", show some more lines, ... and people will happily discuss with you.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Uberdecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 640
Joined: 03/21/06
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #6 - 03/15/22 at 04:54:15
Post Tools
FMCharless wrote on 03/15/22 at 01:48:13:
you guys are very welcoming. this seems like an outdated forum with just a few people keeping it alive.
I thought I would bring some life to it by posting from time to time.

my post is very legitimate. in other words suggesting to play the advanced french by exchanging on d4 immediately.

nothing wrong with that.


No, I dont think there's anything wrong with posting one's musings, even if clearly not much thought has gone into them, although you might find it useful to check the existing theory (in this case which has been around for a hundred odd years) beforehand.

However, it is only natural to take issue with someone who claims accolades that he does not legitimately possess. You are not in fact a titled player, are you ?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 1687
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #5 - 03/15/22 at 04:32:22
Post Tools
FMCharless wrote on 03/12/22 at 02:51:12:
the best move for black is 4...cxd4!

this gives a clear plan for black which is to play for the pawn on d4.

It also gives white a good square on c3 for the knight. But in the database white only scores 44% after 4...cxd4, so I will grant that it's not completely ridiculous, but it seems horribly mis-timed. I don't see why 4...cxd4 would improve on 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Nge7!? when black can still play 6...cxd4 and 7...Nf5, but white can't play Nb1-c3.

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 cxd4 5.cxd4 Ne7 6.Nf3 Nf5 7.Nc3 (7.a3 immediately is also possible, with the idea 8.b4 and 9.Bb2) 7...Nc6 8.a3 Bd7 9.h4!? seems like it could be good for white.

E.g., Reefat - Lyell, BCF-ch 2003 https://www.365chess.com/game.php?gid=79612
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
FMCharless
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 199
Location: Pompano Beach Florida
Joined: 10/29/21
Gender: Male
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #4 - 03/15/22 at 01:48:13
Post Tools
you guys are very welcoming. this seems like an outdated forum with just a few people keeping it alive.
I thought I would bring some life to it by posting from time to time.

my post is very legitimate. in other words suggesting to play the advanced french by exchanging on d4 immediately.

nothing wrong with that.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Kerangali
Full Member
***
Offline


I am every one and every
zero

Posts: 167
Joined: 02/12/22
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #3 - 03/13/22 at 19:48:07
Post Tools
Full Member Charless,
take some resolve and go play actual chess! More fun, more experience, more facts. Don't put too much of yourself at stake. Woodpushing rather than mouseclicking, if you can.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2338
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #2 - 03/12/22 at 13:40:15
Post Tools
Respectfully, it does seem that all these questions and insufficiently formed thoughts would be better somewhere else, such as on an unread personal blog. All seems a bit ‘look at me’ and all a bit pointless, to be blunt.

Good luck though Charless. Genuinely. Get back to playing, and do your best. Expect to struggle at first and lose a big bundle of rating points. Don’t invest all of your being, all your emotional self in a board game though. That’s a recipe for unhappiness and a breakdown.

And the French stuff here. Yes, of course that structure is very well known. Moskalenko discussed it, among many others.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Uberdecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 640
Joined: 03/21/06
Re: refuting the advanced - for black
Reply #1 - 03/12/22 at 06:04:09
Post Tools
Buddy, I don't like to call you out, but there is no way you're a FM.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
FMCharless
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 199
Location: Pompano Beach Florida
Joined: 10/29/21
Gender: Male
refuting the advanced - for black
03/12/22 at 02:51:12
Post Tools
after studying the advanced briefly i came to certain conclusions. for instance, after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3, that the best move for black is 4...cxd4!

this gives a clear plan for black which is to play for the pawn on d4.

it is better than the b6 lines or all other lines which lead to insipid play.

now play can continue

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2022.03.11"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]

1. d4 e6 2. e4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 cxd4 5. cxd4 Ne7 6. Nf3 Nf5 7. Bd3 Nc6 8. Bxf5
exf5 9. Nc3 Be6 *

and black has a favorable imbalance. in certain positions he plays g5 and blow white off the board.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo