25 Apr 07
Originally posted by ArrakisTo be fair as to it never being seen in GM play...how often do you see 3. Bc4 in modern GM chess in the first place?
When you sit down to teach basics you have to give some general rules. Of course there are times when those rules may be broken, but not in the line I have given. It's a good example.
As far as your variation, "the standard attack against the 2 knights defence: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Bg5, this line's been played with success for years and the ...[text shortened]... asters will play it in a serious game anymore. So please stop misleading my students.
25 Apr 07
Originally posted by ArrakisYes, I failed to spot a typo. 4. Ng5 has been used by Kasparov, Karpov, Nunn, Ivanchuck, Short, Morozevich and numerous other very strong grandmasters. What will leave your students mislead is a belief that chess is rule based, and that if you follow the formula everything will work out. This is why I'm saying that instead of giving "rules" as cast in stone they should be expressed in terms of risk and the actual consequences that you can get from them in a game.
When you sit down to teach basics you have to give some general rules. Of course there are times when those rules may be broken, but not in the line I have given. It's a good example.
As far as your variation, "the standard attack against the 2 knights defence: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Bg5, this line's been played with success for years and the ...[text shortened]... asters will play it in a serious game anymore. So please stop misleading my students.
Here's a strong grandmaster using the opening earlier this year:
[Event "ch-GER"]
[Site "Koenigshofen GER"]
[Date "2007.01.24"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Naiditsch, Arkadij"]
[Black "Graf, Alexander"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2663"]
[BlackElo "2610"]
[ECO "C58"]
[EventDate "2007.01.19"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ Bd7 7.Qe2 Be7 8.Nc3
O-O 9.O-O Bxb5 10.Qxb5 c6 11.dxc6 Nxc6 12.Qxb7 Nd4 13.Nge4 Nxc2 14.Rb1 Qd3
15.Qxe7 Nxe4 16.Qxe5 Ne3 17.fxe3 Nxc3 18.bxc3 Qxb1 19.Ba3 Qxa2 20.Bxf8
Rxf8 21.d4 f6 22.Qc5 Rb8 23.e4 Kh8 24.e5 fxe5 25.Qxe5 Qb3 26.h3 h6 27.d5
a5 28.d6 a4 29.d7 a3 30.Qd6 Rd8 31.Rf8+ 1-0
26 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThank you for your contribution to this thread.
Yes, I failed to spot a typo. 4. Ng5 has been used by Kasparov, Karpov, Nunn, Ivanchuck, Short, Morozevich and numerous other very strong grandmasters. What will leave your students mislead is a belief that chess is rule based, and that if you follow the formula everything will work out. This is why I'm saying that instead of giving "rules" as cast in .Qxe5 Qb3 26.h3 h6 27.d5
a5 28.d6 a4 29.d7 a3 30.Qd6 Rd8 31.Rf8+ 1-0
Now please tell us where we can find this game, where it took place and what the time controls were so that we might be able to give it some significance?
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5?! does not offer White good prospects to win against a strong opponent. I admit it's great for speed chess games or playing against a weaker opponent, but unless the line's been revised for White I have to go with the current thinking, which is that it is a bad line. Perhaps you'd like me to demonstrate to you that the best White can hope for is a draw in that opening? Challenge me in that line with White and if I win or draw then you lose.
26 Apr 07
Originally posted by JusuhYou've got some nerve posting that in a thread that's supposed to be for beginners... Jeez, believe it or not we sub-1600 players are not all total morons like the student referred to in Arrakis' post who believe they can force a win just by attaching f7... Give us some credit! ðŸ˜
well...cold fact is that sub-1600 players are total patzers. and you know how the saying goes; when patzer sees a check, patzer plays a check. and when patzer sees a possible mate, patzer plays for that mate no matter what.
26 Apr 07
Originally posted by B MoneyEspecially considering he himself is a "sub-1600 patzer"!
You've got some nerve posting that in a thread that's supposed to be for beginners... Jeez, believe it or not we sub-1600 players are not all total morons like the student referred to in Arrakis' post who believe they can force a win just by attaching f7... Give us some credit! ðŸ˜
26 Apr 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Ice ColdI had a real struggle against a player rated just over 1200 in the middlegame of thisGame 3469253
We are all patzers to a stronger player. At times we are all patzers to a weaker one too. 😉
Got a bit panicky for around 10 moves! Don't think 26.Qb2? is the best move I'll ever play...
😳
26 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by SquelchbelchNever belittle a person because of their rating. There are many genius minds out there who play chess as a hobby. Did you know Einstein played chess? Yes, I read his autobiography as well as a biography of him.
Especially considering he himself is a "sub-1600 patzer"!
Einstein played chess and even encouraged it among children, but was never very good at it. BTW, one of his closest friends was Emanuel Lasker.
26 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by SquelchbelchThis is a very good question. The premature attack after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5?! in the hands of a strong player could win quickly against a weaker opponent.
Isn't this thread supposed to be about openings for beginners?
4.Ng5 isn't subtle but it does force black's reply (unless they blunder & lose quickly) so why not?
But how can you teach a lesson that is known to be bad? If you teach that premature attacks are good and your students become better, at what point are you going to throw everything into reverse and say..."Well, that was good against your weak opposition, but now we have to adopt new principles in order for you to become better players."
No, teach them right from the beginning. I think I'll cover this theme more in lesson 2. I will be playing in the Great Lakes Open (Battle Creek, Michigan) over the weekend so lesson 2 will be presented in the middle of next week.
Cheers to all of you and thank you for showing your interest.
Arrakis
26 Apr 07
Originally posted by ArrakisHere is a game against Robert Oppenheimer (directed the Manhattan Project):
Never belittle a person because of their rating. There are many genius minds out there who play chess as a hobby. Did you know Einstein played chess? Yes, I read his autobiography as well as a biography of him.
Einstein played chess and even encouraged it among children, but was never very good at it. BTW, one of his closest friends was Emanuel Lasker.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1261614
Where did Oppenheimer go wrong?
26 Apr 07
Originally posted by lauseyThe retreat 10. Ne7 looks bad.
Here is a game against Robert Oppenheimer (directed the Manhattan Project):
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1261614
Where did Oppenheimer go wrong?
Arrakis:
GER - ch probably means German championship, so I'd imagine classical time controls, I tryed checking on chessbase but it doesn't give the time controls and it doesn't have a report on the championship.
I don't normally play 3. Bc4, but what I am saying is that opening "rules" should be taken with a pinch of salt, from the start, and chose it to illustrate an opening with a quick attack on f7, there's a line in the Caro Kann with something similar. The difficulty with the Scholar's Mate based attacks is not so much that the attack is easy to defend, but that the queen ends up getting in the way and subject to attack.
I'm really not sure what it would prove, we can play a game, but your rating is normally around 100 - 150 higher than mine, and as far as I can remember the only game between us I won was due to a blunder on your part. You are suggesting that a draw counts as a win for you. I'm certainly not accepting a challenge against a stronger player on those terms - a draw is a draw - it's diabolically difficult holding onto siege boards against 1,400s hell bent on a draw, never mind someone bouncing around the 1,900 mark.
Good luck in your tournament.
26 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by SquelchbelchI was going to ask the same thing. Seems like, if this is really a thread about "how to teach", that someone should explain WHY this particular attack is premature and HOW black takes advantage of hasty play and wins some material. Just looking at it, it doesn't look like a very bad mistake; white has put on pressure (rather than a full blown attack) which seems reasonable.
Isn't this thread supposed to be about openings for beginners?
4.Ng5 isn't subtle but it does force black's reply (unless they blunder & lose quickly) so why not?
So far, all we've really learned is that Ng5 is bad, that e6 is the best reply (even though it doesn't exactly aid in black development either). Shouldn't teaching chess include some explanation as to why? Should something be said here about how black is going to capitalize on white's mistake? I guess, in other words, do you reprimand a student for playing this, or just discourage it?
EDIT: these aren't rhetorical or sarcastic questions, I don't know the answers. please advise.
26 Apr 07
1 edit
Truth is, Arrakis doesn't like the opening, so it's bad.
I despise the Italian Game (I only use it to play the Evans Gambit) but that doesn't mean it's bad.
Kasparov beat Timman with 4.Ng5 in the 2-knights, Morozevich beat Sokolov.
4.Ng5 is only a mistake if you don't understand the opening.
4...Bc5?! is how I respond as black. Bet Arrakis is foaming at the mouth...
Game 3481987