10 Feb 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe fact that Black can`t avoid 5.d4 exd4 6.Qxd4 if White wants to play it, does not mean that White is obliged to play this line. If your "only pawns" evaluation is correct, why should you avoid this line?
you dont say, black cannot avoid double pawns, what a revelation! d4 i would not play
d4??, i would play as Capa did with d3, d4 opens the position up and black has two
bishops, why should i open the position up for blacks two bishops?
[pgn] [Event "St Petersburg"] [Site "08"] [Date "1914.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Jose Raul Capablanca"] [Bl ...[text shortened]... /pgn]
excellent doubled pawns! and a half open f file, you were saying ?
About Capa game 1) 5.0-0 (planning to play 6.d4 in next move) is considered the best nowadays.
2)Only several inaccucariex made by Janowski 5...Bc5?! 7...Bxe3?! 8...Qe7?! 9...0-0-0?! 10...Nh6?! (marks by Kasparov in his "My Great Predecessors, Part 1) allowed Capa to attack.
3) Don`t you know this famous game (from the same tournament)?
Originally posted by Proper KnobBeetles comments were well received, Greenpawn became mad because i dared to
Beetle and Greenpawn or Robbie Carrobie? I know where i'm putting my money.
question his methodology and instead tried to point out a different approach, he then
went on the rampage and my comments and posts were taken out of context, Pacific
owes me two pounds for a chess lesson on the Ruy Lopez exchange and you need to
state why my brilliant appraisal of how to place ones pieces in the opening is flawed. I
challenge the world to state why its flawed and i will give odds of a queens knight and
pawn to anyone in a game to prove that its fundamentally sound!
- Joined
- 08 Apr 09
- Moves
- 20054
10 Feb 12
1 edit
I don't understand why this discussion is so heated up. But that's probably not even related to this topic, nor chess in general. Nevertheless, the topic contains chessential wisdom!
What I learned so far:
- looking at the pawn structure will help in determining where to place pieces in the opening
- whenever tactics are there, use them
- if there are no immediate tactics, evaluate the position/imbalances (that chess.com article from Pacifique was a very interesting read)
- there are no general rules
- switch of your phone while playing chess
- all chess-related topics come down to tactics vs. strategy
Edit: And please stop showing games to prove a point about a specific move/idea, because the final result is hardly determined by those things, but rather by the overall strength of the players. (Also, it takes a lot of time to read, so I hardly look at them 😉)
Originally posted by Pacifiqueconsidered the best by whom? not by me and Capa, i have already provided reasons
The fact that Black can`t avoid 5.d4 exd4 6.Qxd4 if White wants to play it, does not mean that White is obliged to play this line. If your "only pawns" evaluation is correct, why should you avoid this line?
About Capa game 1) 5.0-0 (planning to play 6.d4 in next move) is considered the best nowadays.
2)Only several inaccucariex made by Janowski 5...Bc5 Bc8 38.Nxd7 Bxd7 39.Rh7 Rf8
40.Ra1 Kd8 41.Ra8+ Bc8 42.Nc5 1-0 [/pgn]
why i think its fundamentally flawed, it opens the position for blacks two bishops. Are
you wanting me to evaluate the position from white or blacks perspective, you haven't
said.
10 Feb 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is a great post and something that I have really started to think about. Great example too, one of the most common patterns that you will see in some Caro Kann and some Slav lines. A lot of people just learn the moves and never really understand the positions, but when you start thinking about the positions, themes and patterns that come out of particular openings you can truly become an expert in that opening.
yes! and the secret is, you dont need to learn opening theory, you simply need to
understand the relevant pawn structures, plans and piece placements associated
with those structures. You play the Queens pawn? You need to understand the
structures which ensue,
[fen]8/pp3ppp/2p1p3/8/3P4/4P3/PP3PPP/8 w - - 0 1[/fen]
where are you going to ...[text shortened]... r learning will become joyful as you really
understand the position. Wish you well - Robbie.
BV
10 Feb 12
Originally posted by StampI would not advice to do it. Playing QGD myself I can say that without good knowledge of opening theory your opponent may hammer you very quickly. The same can be said about Scandinavian (rather dubious opening IMHO). To be honest - it`s not easy to play Black without opening knowledge. As White it`s easier as you can make your favorite setups (Colle, KIA etc.).
If you hate opening theory as black you can play queen''s gambit declined (d4, e6, Nf6, Be7, 0-0) against everything but 1. e4 against which you can play the scandinavian defence, as white you can start with 1. e4 and then play the center game against ...e5, french exchange against ...e6, caro kann exchange against ...c6 and against sicilian just play center game again with 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. Qxd4 Nc6 4. Qe3.
10 Feb 12
Originally posted by BillyVoltairegulp, after all the flak, after all the ridicule, after all the 'you are just a patzer and I
This is a great post and something that I have really started to think about. Great example too, one of the most common patterns that you will see in some Caro Kann and some Slav lines. A lot of people just learn the moves and never really understand the positions, but when you start thinking about the positions, themes and patterns that come out of particular openings you can truly become an expert in that opening.
BV
wont be taking lessons from you', I truly thankyou for this commendation.
10 Feb 12
Originally posted by tvochessI became indignant because i was being taken out of context, i cannot speak for
I don't understand why this discussion is so heated up. But that's probably not even related to this topic, nor chess in general. Nevertheless, the topic contains chessential wisdom!
What I learned so far:
- looking at the pawn structure will help in determining where to place pieces in the opening
- whenever tactics are there, use them
- if there are ...[text shortened]... l strength of the players. (Also, it takes a lot of time to read, so I hardly look at them 😉)
anyone else.
10 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieconsidered the best by whom?
considered the best by whom? not by me and Capa, i have already provided reasons
why i think its fundamentally flawed, it opens the position for blacks two bishops. Are
you wanting me to evaluate the position from white or blacks perspective, you haven't
said.
By Kasparov, Fischer & modern chess professionals, employing Ruy Lopez exchange on regular basis, GMs like Rozentalis, Kokarev, Deviatkin, Smeets etc.
not by me and Capa, i have already provided reasons
These reasons are 1 game played against much weaker opponent? Or defeat from Lasker in 5.d4 line?
why i think its fundamentally flawed
Tell it to Lasker, who has many wins in Ruy Lopez Exchange and employed it also in WC match (the best known is 1st game in Lasker-Tarrash match). Tell it also to Capa, who did not allowed Lasker to play Ruy Lopez Exchange in their WC match. Also Bobby Fisher and modern GM`s mentioned above would be very happy to take opening lessons from you. 😉
it opens the position for blacks two bishops
quoting wikipedia "at the cost of a weakened pawn structure, due to his doubled pawns on c6 and c7" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruy_Lopez,_Exchange_Variation 😉
Originally posted by PacifiqueI am sorry but I have my own mind and my own evaluations, quoting what other
[b]considered the best by whom?
By Kasparov, Fischer & modern chess professionals, employing Ruy Lopez exchange on regular basis, GMs like Rozentalis, Kokarev, Deviatkin, Smeets etc.
not by me and Capa, i have already provided reasons
These reasons are 1 game played against much weaker opponent? Or defeat from Lasker in 5.d4 line?
[ his doubled pawns on c6 and c7" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruy_Lopez,_Exchange_Variation 😉[/b]
players have done or said has no relevancy to me, their chess truths are theirs not
mine, i provided reasons why i think d4 is flawed, you may make references to those,
the fact that Capas opponent was weaker is irrelevant to Capas choice of move, he
played the most objective continuation. Wikipedia?? I laugh in its face! I am sure I
have an ICC blitz game where i played the exchange variation, i cant remember if i
played d4 or not.
10 Feb 12
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere is some misunderstanding - I though that "fundamentally flawed" & "opens position for Black bishops was about whole Ruy Lopez Exhange. If its only about 5.d4 then counter argument is that it gives White extra pawn in kingside while Black is unable to exploit extra pawn in queenside, due to weakened pawn structure.
i am sorry but I have my own mind and my own evaluations, quoting what other
players have done or said has no relevancy to me, their chess truths are theirs not
mine, i provided reasons why i think d4 is flawed, you may make references to those,
the fact that Capas opponent was weaker is irrelevant to Capas choice of move, he
played the most objective continuation. Wikipedia?? I laugh in its face!
You argued that 5.Nc3 is better than 5.0-0 despite fact that chess professionals (who understands chess and Ruy Lopez Exchange much better than you) tend to prefer 5.0-0 while other two moves 5.d4 and 5.Nc3 are employed not so often.
Argument "Capa played it once and won" is for dummies - Lasker played 5.d4 much more often and has more wins over strong opposition, including Capa who after being defeated in 5.d4 line never allowed Lasker to play it again in their next games.
Originally posted by PacifiqueI have argued nothing for Nc3 over anything, i have simply stated that i would not play d4 as i feel
There is some misunderstanding - I though that "fundamentally flawed" & "opens position for Black bishops was about whole Ruy Lopez Exhange. If its only about 5.d4 then counter argument is that it gives White extra pawn in kingside while Black is unable to exploit extra pawn in queenside, due to weakened pawn structure.
You argued that 5.Nc3 is better fter being defeated in 5.d4 line never allowed Lasker to play it again in their next games.
that its flawed, i provided reasons, the fact that other GM's, super GM's and the ghost of Bobby
Fischer disagree with me is tosh, they are not me and i am not them, you need not follow my
recommendations, at the very least, I have evaluated the position myself and understand
why i would not play d4, all you have done is taken another's recommendation without thought
because, its what GM's play, a practice of the gravest folly! You are not a GM, your chess truths
are not their chess truths, start to think for yourself! I don't care what Lasker played, i am not
Lasker, do you understand?
"Beetle and Greenpawn or Robbie Carrobie? I know where i'm putting my money."
I said somewhere in here Robbie is helping in his own little way.
I'm speculating, but I think he has picked up a book on pawn structures
and unlike most chess players he has read it. (or thumbed through it.)
No doubt it it flooded with many one sided examples that make the reader
think chess is easy.
The author(s) choose well clean cut examples that do indeed give the
notion that pawn structures are the answer to all of mankinds problems.
Hats of to Robbie for trying to put these ideas into his games.
Hats back on when he tries to convert the rest of us into this new way of thinking.
A sound pawn structure is important...sometimes.
The higher up the ladder you go the more important they become.
At the main level here where the pawn structure hardly figures in games.
It's trick, traps and blunders.
His statement that looking at pawn structures will make you avoid
blunders, side step traps and help you with your tactical ability etc is utter nonsense.
White to play and mate in three!
That is him thinking. I doubt very much he got that from a book.
I took issue with Robbie because this running before you can walk method
if left unchallenged will screw people up and for his own good.
They would never capture with a pawn away from the center.
They will trade a good well placed Knight for poxy Bishops just to double a pawn.
Never never never take an IQP. etc...etc...
It restricts their thinking, boxes them in and it can take years (if at all) to undo.
A lot of players who never post read this forum. A lot who are not even
members of RHP come here. I know 4 or 5 from my chess clubs alone.
Of course Robbie persisted....
He does this in the Religious Forum as well quoted one lad.
He is on safe ground there because until God logs on and tells them
he does exist then every argument is equal.
Here though tactically and with other players games played by the standard
of player he tempting. It can be proved that he not correct.
Not wrong. Not correct.
The difference being he is on the right path but he has many bends and
crossroads to negotiate and that road is laden with thieves who will steal
the point from your pocket whilst you are admiring your pawn structure.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Actually i watched a video somewhere and it made a deep impression on me, i cannot find it for
"Beetle and Greenpawn or Robbie Carrobie? I know where i'm putting my money."
I said somewhere in here Robbie is helping in his own little way.
I'm speculating, but I think he has picked up a book on pawn structures
and unlike most chess players he has read it. (or thumbed through it.)
No doubt it it flooded with many one sided examples that m ves who will steal
the point from your pocket whilst you are admiring your pawn structure.
the life of me, anyway, it was simply about Caro Kaan exchange variation and the author (an
amateur) described so well where to put ones pieces based on the pawn structure that you had
to know about it GP.
I have never seen a master game where white plays Bf4 in a Sicilian set up from the opening,
never! and i still feel that if that dude from Israel understood why his bishop goes to either e3 or
g5 (because of the pawn structure), he would have been spared the humiliation of being forked.
This has to my knowledge has not been refuted.
I persist because these are my chess truths GP, not because i simply like to argue, i don't really
like to argue, but truth is truth and it has a potency all of its own, this is what chess is about,
truth, I am sure i don't need to quote you Lasker from the foreword in My sixty memorable
games, both objective and personal. Pacific cannot grasp this, he quote reams of GM's, they
have their own chess truths to hammer out, i am simply interested in thinking for myself, is it so
bad?
10 Feb 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou statement "all you have done is taken another's recommendation without thought" is blatant lie. For example - in my previous post I stated that 5.d4 "gives White extra pawn in kingside while Black is unable to exploit extra pawn in queenside, due to weakened pawn structure."
I have argued nothing for Nc3 over anything, i have simply stated that i would not play d4 as i feel
that its flawed, i provided reasons, the fact that other GM's, super GM's and the ghost of Bobby
Fischer disagree with me is tosh, they are not me and i am not them, you need not follow my
recommendations, at the very least, I have evaluated the ...[text shortened]... think for yourself! I don't care what Lasker played, i am not
Lasker, do you understand?
And your argument about 5.Nc3 is "its played by Capa". So who is "taking another`s recommendation without thought" ?
To say nothing about fact that 5.d4 is the best according to your own "only pawns" evaluation method, defended by you with passion. So if 5.d4 is "fundamentally flawed" according to your own words, then also evaluation method preached by you in the beginning of this thread is flawed.