Page 4 of 5

Re: Does anyone have analyses/theory in this position?

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 1:11 pm
by ethanara
lucasart wrote:
ethanara wrote:
I wish you good luck with this opening, because it seems double-edged from my patzer POV.
I (1200-1300) have played this everytime i can with white, my 2200+ trainer too.
I never came in bad positions as white, quite opposite. I once won against one of the best in my group in scholastic chess after 5.f4 Ng4 6.f5 Nf2 7. Qh5 O-O?? And i won in few moves.
Playing against a computer is not the best way to improve your chess. It may be very misleading, because this f4 move is certainly suboptimal, but your 2200(??) elo trainer must have some severe bug to lose this position with black (where he already has a significant edge) against a 1200-1300 player.
You should play on internet against human player of the same strength as you. Although a few games against computers every now and then is always good to teach you to be more precise and tactics that 1200-1300 elo players won't probably see.
I think you've misunderstood. My trainer plays this with WHITE against other 2200 players, not against me. This opening is not from any openings book, but more of a "system" to get alive out of the opening with attacking chances.
BTW my rating in Chesscube is approx. 1500-1600 And my chesstempo (only tactics) is 1500.
IMO It doesn't matter much to have a += against another player in my rating group if you lose 20 moves after because of a fork.
There is also a "trap " I have played many times, and won them all these times. After 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 , What do you think you should play?

Re: Does anyone have analyses/theory in this position?

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 1:36 pm
by Don
ethanara wrote:
lucasart wrote:
ethanara wrote:
I wish you good luck with this opening, because it seems double-edged from my patzer POV.
I (1200-1300) have played this everytime i can with white, my 2200+ trainer too.
I never came in bad positions as white, quite opposite. I once won against one of the best in my group in scholastic chess after 5.f4 Ng4 6.f5 Nf2 7. Qh5 O-O?? And i won in few moves.
Playing against a computer is not the best way to improve your chess. It may be very misleading, because this f4 move is certainly suboptimal, but your 2200(??) elo trainer must have some severe bug to lose this position with black (where he already has a significant edge) against a 1200-1300 player.
You should play on internet against human player of the same strength as you. Although a few games against computers every now and then is always good to teach you to be more precise and tactics that 1200-1300 elo players won't probably see.
I think you've misunderstood. My trainer plays this with WHITE against other 2200 players, not against me. This opening is not from any openings book, but more of a "system" to get alive out of the opening with attacking chances.
BTW my rating in Chesscube is approx. 1500-1600 And my chesstempo (only tactics) is 1500.
IMO It doesn't matter much to have a += against another player in my rating group if you lose 20 moves after because of a fork.
There is also a "trap " I have played many times, and won them all these times. After 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 , What do you think you should play?
A natural developing move would be good such as Nf3. You should never play for a trap if that it's what you are talking about unless the move is fully justified on it's own merits.

I get the impression that you are looking for openings that will confuse your opponents and give you cheap and easy wins. After 5. f4 for example there are a bunch of ways for black to go wrong and you get an easy win. However, if black simply plays correctly, you have lost the advantage which you deserve as white. You might get a lot of wins against people of your level the first time you play them, but you won't develop as a chess player.

As I mentioned in a post a few weeks ago I use to play 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 because it game me a lot of cheap wins when I was just learning chess and playing against other beginners, but I was playing very unsoundly.

So what is this cheapshot that you have in the position after the bishops come out? I enjoy a good cheapshot once in a while myself.

Re: Does anyone have analyses/theory in this position?

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:10 pm
by OliverUwira
ethanara wrote: There is also a "trap " I have played many times, and won them all these times. After 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 , What do you think you should play?
Ah, 4. Qg4 Nd4, the Vienna Poisoned Pawn :D

Re: Does anyone have analyses/theory in this position?

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:02 pm
by Don
OliverUwira wrote:
ethanara wrote: There is also a "trap " I have played many times, and won them all these times. After 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 , What do you think you should play?
Ah, 4. Qg4 Nd4, the Vienna Poisoned Pawn :D
But doesn't 4. Qg4 give the advantage back to black? It would be stupid for black to respond with 4... Nd4 wouldn't it?

Re: Does anyone have analyses/theory in this position?

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:20 pm
by OliverUwira
Don wrote:
OliverUwira wrote:
ethanara wrote: There is also a "trap " I have played many times, and won them all these times. After 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 , What do you think you should play?
Ah, 4. Qg4 Nd4, the Vienna Poisoned Pawn :D
But doesn't 4. Qg4 give the advantage back to black? It would be stupid for black to respond with 4... Nd4 wouldn't it?
Yes, 4. Qg4 is not good for white. It's tricky-trappy, however, and I don't remember ad hoc how to meet it properly. I have seen 4...Nd4 as a sharp attempt (recommended in "Dangerous Weapons against 1. e4) and as far as I remember 4...Qf6 is bad because of 5.Nd5 Qxf2+ 6. Kd1 and black is in trouble - maybe this is the trap Ethan was referring to?

I'll have a look into Marin's "Beating the Open Games" when I'm back home. I believe that 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 is part of his recommended repertoire.

Re: Does anyone have analyses/theory in this position?

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:51 pm
by bretti
ethanara wrote: This opening is not from any openings book, ...
Oh yes, it is: Have a look at the books from John Emms, "Beating 1e4 e5" and "Attacking with 1 e4".
By the way 5. f4 is not bad at all.

Re: Does anyone have analyses/theory in this position?

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:32 pm
by OliverUwira
OliverUwira wrote: I'll have a look into Marin's "Beating the Open Games" when I'm back home. I believe that 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 is part of his recommended repertoire.
Well well well, it turns out that I've played 1. d4 for too long :D

Marin recommends 3...Nf6, commenting that "this is more restricting than 3...Bc5 when White has the interesting 4. Qg4. Black has several ways to defend the g7-pawn, but none of them is without drawbacks".

My database has 4...g6 5. Qg3 as the main continuation. This wouldn't suit me much if was Black.

4...Nd4 seems to be sound (as I already suspected - they don't include complete drivel in the "Dangerous Weapons" series. It's not been tested at higher levels, though. I've got three games, two of which had an average ELO of ~2300 and went 5. Qxg7 Qf6 6. Qxf6 Nxf6 7. Bd3 Rg8 which looks like Black has compensation. It would be interesting to know what "Dangerous Weapons" has on offer here...

Re: Does anyone have analyses/theory in this position?

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:45 pm
by Don
bretti wrote:
ethanara wrote: This opening is not from any openings book, ...
Oh yes, it is: Have a look at the books from John Emms, "Beating 1e4 e5" and "Attacking with 1 e4".
By the way 5. f4 is not bad at all.
I think 5. f4 is bad, maybe not in the game losing sense but in the same sense that the goring gambit or the morra gambit is bad - it fails to give white the better position.

Re: Does anyone have analyses/theory in this position?

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:07 pm
by OliverUwira
Don wrote:
bretti wrote:
ethanara wrote: This opening is not from any openings book, ...
Oh yes, it is: Have a look at the books from John Emms, "Beating 1e4 e5" and "Attacking with 1 e4".
By the way 5. f4 is not bad at all.
I think 5. f4 is bad, maybe not in the game losing sense but in the same sense that the goring gambit or the morra gambit is bad - it fails to give white the better position.
Yes, I think this puts it well.

I'd say the best move is 5. Be3 as 5. Nf3 is a little tame.

Re: Does anyone have analyses/theory in this position?

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:05 pm
by elpapa
Don wrote:
bretti wrote:
ethanara wrote: This opening is not from any openings book, ...
Oh yes, it is: Have a look at the books from John Emms, "Beating 1e4 e5" and "Attacking with 1 e4".
By the way 5. f4 is not bad at all.
I think 5. f4 is bad, maybe not in the game losing sense but in the same sense that the goring gambit or the morra gambit is bad - it fails to give white the better position.
I buckled up and let loose my own engine "the thresher" on this one, and after some puffing and panting it produced 5. Na4. I don't really play chess myself, but Houdini 1.5 wasn't too unhappy with it.