I agree that openings need to be proven to be bad, and that it's stupid to declare things. I brought this up more than once in a long thread on the Traxler a while back. It sucks, but you can't just say, you have to prove it to me. I've lost to PCG once or twice, but I can claim I was much lower rated. 😀
Originally posted by !~TONY~!Ultimately chess is about winning wouldn't you say. Winning is more than playing 'the best' moves.
... I am 100% baffled by the lack of principality here. One guy says he'll decline the free pawn and transpose to a Reti, and the others think it's fine for Black! I feel like I'm in some kind of parallel universe where bad chess is good chess ....
Why give your opponent the game he wants, even if it is 'best' to take the pawn. A player who wants to Gambit a pawn would probably not enjoy being on the black side of a Reti too much.
That said, I'm sure your right in that 2. Nf3 can't be the most critical response to 1. ... d5. That doesn't necessarily mean taking the pawn is the best or even easiest way to win the game.
Originally posted by !~TONY~!It's not a free pawn until black makes it so. 1. c4 d5 2. cxd5 could be followed by Qxd5. At this point I don't know that black will play silly gambits so I'd play 2. Nf3 and go for a Reti. If that is bad chess you might try telling Richard Reti, I'm sure he'll be pleased to hear your opinion.
There is no such thing as 90% awful. It's either bad or it's fine. It's not fine. I am 100% baffled by the lack of principality here. One guy says he'll decline the free pawn and transpose to a Reti, and the others think it's fine for Black! I feel like I'm in some kind of parallel universe where bad chess is good chess. A pawn is a pawn. White will have very little in the way of problems, and then Black will just be lost.
Originally posted by KeplerYou're scared of 2. ... Qxd5?
It's not a free pawn until black makes it so. 1. c4 d5 2. cxd5 could be followed by Qxd5. At this point I don't know that black will play silly gambits so I'd play 2. Nf3 and go for a Reti. If that is bad chess you might try telling Richard Reti, I'm sure he'll be pleased to hear your opinion.
That I find surprising.
Originally posted by JonathanB of LondonNot scared exactly but black must have a reason for playing d5 and possibly following up with Qxd5. Two possibilities spring to mind. 1) Black has made a mistake, maybe he intended e5, maybe he is an idiot. 2) Black intended to play d5 and knows what he is doing. If we assume no. 2 then I would rather play something I am familiar with than play into lines that black knows and likes.
You're scared of 2. ... Qxd5?
That I find surprising.
Let me ask you this: If you were a Queen's pawn player, and some one played 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6, would you not take the pawn on d5? Would you not deduce that 2...e6, 2...c6, and 2...dxc4 were the best moves because the dealt with the tension in the center in the best ways? It's basic positional chess that you want more pawns in the center than your opponent. As far as Jonathon's post goes, taking the pawn HAS to be the best move. Your opponent is giving you a central majority and a pawn. 3. d4 allows your opponent to weasel his way back into a Slav. Maybe he wouldn't want to play that, but 3. dxc6 IS the best move. The best move against the Morra is to clearly accept the pawn, and it's the same here, except here Black will get nearly nothing, since he's a tempo down. It's too easy for White to deal with the ...e4 break if he has another move.
EDIT, and digression: It seems to me that a lot of players lack a principality about the game. No one cares about precision or trying to find the very best move, or prove something over the board. They just want to play what they're used to, instead of playing the best move. I can't help but feel a little bit of dismay towards this, as I feel it's a crime against the game. Maybe it's a fault of mine. In some ways, this tendency can be excused a little bit in the opening, because no one can be sure what line is best, and it's very much a personal choice, but I think it's a pretty clear cut case here that White should take the pawn and just hold on to it. There's a reason no one plays this way, a reason why Black doesn't play 1...d5 at all, even if he takes with the queen, etc....Black can't play this way in a game of chess and expect a good position.
Originally posted by !~TONY~!
... I am 100% baffled by the lack of principality here. One guy says he'll decline the free pawn and transpose to a Reti, and the others think it's fine for Black! I feel like I'm in some kind of parallel universe where bad chess is good chess ....
I agree if you give that position to two GMs at a standard tournament time control, White scores 75% or better. There's no question in my mind, that from a theoretical perspective, the gambit is unsound. However, if you speed up the time control sufficiently or reduce the strength of the players sufficiently, then the unplayable becomes playable.
Originally posted by !~TONY~!Just to clarify ... I'm not disputing that cxd5 is objectively the best move. I'm sure you're right about that.
... As far as Jonathon's post goes, taking the pawn HAS to be the best move....
Where we disagree, perhaps, is whether or not chess about always trying to play the objectively best move. I say it's not. I say the 'best' move of all is the one that gives you most practical chances to win. Often this will be the objectively best move but not always.
Out of interest ... how many games have you played where you've found the best move every time? ... half the time? ... a quarter of the time?
not many I suspect. At amateur level - and even GM level but to a less extent of course - it's not possible. Chess is just too hard.
Originally posted by !~TONY~!I agree with !~Tony~!, there's no point in playing crap like 1.c4 d5 2.cxd5 c6?!. ( 😛 ha..)
I never anywhere claimed I play perfect chess, because that would be stupid. The lazy attitude that you should not try to do so with moves like 1. c4 d5 2. Nf3 is the one I am lamenting.
Although there are some benefits to the move:
First, how many white players are prepared for a line like that? Definitely takes English players away from their typical position.
Second, how much worse is that line than most other lines in the English? I mean, if white plays 1.c4 and you really want to play for the win as black, what options do you have? I think that 1...Nf6 might be a try, but even then black could cop out with 2.Nc3 and create like a Botvinnik Formation or something if he wanted. Or white could probably try the 1...e5 2...Bb4 line that I suggested earlier, and I think is quite awesome with 3.Nd5 Be7.
Originally posted by cmsMasterI've faced that more than once. In blitz games mainly. It doesn't really throw you off since black is basically playing a morra down a tempo (assuming he plays e5) you have a lot of freedom to develop as you see fit.
I agree with !~Tony~!, there's no point in playing crap like 1.c4 d5 2.cxd5 c6?!. ( 😛 ha..)
Although there are some benefits to the move:
First, how many white players are prepared for a line like that? Definitely takes English players away from their typical position.
Second, how much worse is that line than most other lines in the English? I ...[text shortened]... the 1...e5 2...Bb4 line that I suggested earlier, and I think is quite awesome with 3.Nd5 Be7.
Originally posted by !~TONY~!Shirov did, not sure about Topalov (Topa might have been white?). I believe they got to this really cool and complex position...and then copped out with a draw.
Yeah, actually I worked a little bit with Larry Christiansen over the summer, and he suggested 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Bb4 3. Nd5 Be7. Didn't Topalov just give this line a shot recently in Morelia/Linares?
Originally posted by zebanoNot everybody is as cool and calm as you. 😉
I've faced that more than once. In blitz games mainly. It doesn't really throw you off since black is basically playing a morra down a tempo (assuming he plays e5) you have a lot of freedom to develop as you see fit.