13 Oct 04
2 edits
Originally posted by paultopiawhy do you ASSUME white allows the same black setup as in other lines?
Apart from being a gratuitous insult, what is that supposed to mean? I assume that "opening theory" in this case does not mandate sacrificing the d4 pawn with no visible compensation?
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~dregis/DR/Openings/french_d.html#RTFToC11
13 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by hypermo2001Uh, because I don't know this variation. I said that. Instead of resorting to insults, you simply could have answered the question by saying "white's plan is to capture on c5 and give black an IQP." And I would have said "oh! how interesting! Thank you!"
why do you ASSUME white allows the same black setup as in other lines?
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~dregis/DR/Openings/french_d.html#RTFToC11
13 Oct 04
Originally posted by paultopiai guess I get frustrated with your combination of ignorance and arrogance on the french...sorry if I insulted you
Uh, because I don't know this variation. I said that. Instead of resorting to insults, you simply could have answered the question by saying "white's plan is to capture on c5 and give black an IQP. And I would have said "oh! how interesting! Thank you!"
13 Oct 04
Originally posted by paultopiayou once mentioned that...but when you give lines/variations to back up your opinions I always forget you're not really serious 🙂
Well, I'm sorry if I come off arrogant. Please understand that at least 60% of my disparagement of the french is intended to be light-hearted.
13 Oct 04
Originally posted by paultopiaThe Queen can defend the d4 pawn from g4 after the e pawn goes to e5. White in the Tarrasch is usually trying to simply develop pieces and maintain the central pawn wedge. The Tarrasch is considered safer and more positional, but not as aggressive as 3 Nc3 which is why I don't play it.
So? In the advance variation, the d4 pawn ends up being attacked by black's c pawn, c6 knight, and queen: 3 attackers, and being defended by white's c pawn, f6 knight, and queen: 3 defenders. Same with the winnawer after the knight is traded.
In the tarrasch, the d4 pawn can still be attacked by the same three attackers. However, it can only be d ...[text shortened]... in, in traditional Nimzowich style. So what is it? Anyone have Karpov's e-mail address? 🙂
And besides what is this nonsense about "defending a pawn", paultopia? You're ready to throw one away on the 2nd move with your prehistoric King's Gambit!! Who needs 'em anyway, they just get in the way of the big boys!
13 Oct 04
Originally posted by paultopiaThere is no law saying you HAVE to play the Ng1 to f3, is there? Nb1-d2-f3, Ng1-e2 and there is very little trouble with the d-pawn. The slower build up is justified by the fact that Black obviously got cramp on move 1 when trying to play e7-e5 😉
So? In the advance variation, the d4 pawn ends up being attacked by black's c pawn, c6 knight, and queen: 3 attackers, and being defended by white's c pawn, f6 knight, and queen: 3 defenders. Same with the winnawer after the knight is traded.
In the tarrasch, the d4 pawn can still be attacked by the same three attackers. However, it can only be d ...[text shortened]... in, in traditional Nimzowich style. So what is it? Anyone have Karpov's e-mail address? 🙂
13 Oct 04
Originally posted by OsseTo be honest, a brief look through my MCO didn't find anything and I don't play the Tarrasch, so the answer is no. But as the Queen often goes to g4 in the Winawer, I don't really see a theoretical objection to it in the Tarrasch. I was talking off the top of my head, so perhaps there might be a problem that is not immediately apparent. I'll try to find something when I have the time.
This idea I've NEVER seen. Got any lines or game references?
13 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder😀 Black can't REALLY hold onto the pawn in the KG. I mean, black CAN, in certain variations (the 3. ... g4 variations, as well as the fischer defense come to mind) but doing so often gives white a massive attack.
And besides what is this nonsense about "defending a pawn", paultopia? You're ready to throw one away on the 2nd move with your prehistoric King's Gambit!!
I think the secret to the KG is that every tempo black spends messing around with kingside pawns is another tempo that white gets to make a central breakthrough. Current example of many (insert usual disclaimers about not commenting on ongoing games): Game 713916. It's true, black held onto that extra f pawn for quite a while. However, if black by exceedingly precise defense avoids being (a) mated in the next 2 or 3 moves in the center or (b) king-hunted across the board and mated in about 8 or 9 moves in the queenside, he will unquestionably face (c) massive material loss.
13 Oct 04
Originally posted by OsseYou asked; I found. There is a game Oim v. Kovaliov, 2001 Parnu/Tallinn which started 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nd2 Nf6 4 e5 Nfd7 5 c3 c5 6 Bd3 Nc6 (this is the "main line" of the Tarrasch according to MCO-14) then 7 Qg4. So you never know! The game ended in a draw and the line might not be good but, hey, a 2300 played it!
This idea I've NEVER seen. Got any lines or game references?
13 Oct 04
Originally posted by AlopintoPure desperation. 😀
Excuse me... I am just a non-paying member in this wonderfull website of correspondence chess. Can I ask French defence aficionados why all the passion defending the Black side of this opening?
(NOTE: the smiley-face above indicates a joke...)