Opening Snobs

Originally posted by DeepThought
No, it developes a piece which supports the pawn on d5, so unless you can demonstrate that there's an immeadiate tactical problem then it's fine. If white plays 3. Nc3 then e6 or c6 will transpose straight into one of the main lines ...[text shortened]... - apparently Karpov was pretty shocked by white's first move ...

here's the problem. After 3.c x d, any recapture by black leads to loss of time due to a timely Nc3 or e4 depending on if black used the queen or knight to recapture.

I didn't realize people were counting the number of question marks.

I agree it can have only 1 question mark since it is wrong. In the context of opening moves though, it is pretty bad.

Originally posted by DeepThought
No, it developes a piece which supports the pawn on d5, so unless you can demonstrate that there's an immeadiate tactical problem then it's fine. If white plays 3. Nc3 then e6 or c6 will transpose straight into one of the main lines and I'm sure that you wouldn't claim that those are faulty.
The best openings are the ones that lead to positions th ...[text shortened]... om/perl/chessgame?gid=1068157) - apparently Karpov was pretty shocked by white's first move ...

you are not considering white taking the pawn 3. c x d. That's where you went astray...

Originally posted by Dfthd
Next you'll be telling us Alekhine's defense is crap... and that Alekhine sounds like Uncle Scrouge from Duck Tales.

The comment about Alekhines' defense is utterly ridiculous and I don't see how it relates to something about a queen pawn opening based on a symmetrical, classical response such as d5 by black. Nothing wrong with Alekhines' defense!

Originally posted by hypermo2001
you are not considering white taking the pawn 3. c x d. That's where you went astray...

1.d4 d5 2 c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qa5 then maybe 5.e4 e5 and black's no worse than in a lot of other openings.

Originally posted by DeepThought
1.d4 d5 2 c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qa5 then maybe 5.e4 e5 and black's no worse than in a lot of other openings.

"no worse" sounds pretty subjective...

maybe we can compare your position to the others that black has after move 5 using other defenses after 2. c4

If we use fritz (e.g.) I bet the variation you gave does not get as good a score as ALL the other accepted variations including QGA.

p.s. with black's queen on a5, white can develop as Bd2 and black's queen will likely move a THIRD time in the opening! not so good. A similar argument is made against the Scandinavian where black takes with the queen instead of the Icelandic version where he plays a gambit and tries to regain the pawn with a knight or just get a good attack.

Originally posted by hypermo2001
"no worse" sounds pretty subjective...

Well yes probably, I think the point I'm making is it's playable not that it's the strongest move black can make.

Originally posted by hypermo2001
I didn't realize people were counting the number of question marks.

It's convention to give "??" only in the case of a blunder that loses material or leads to mate. I would give 2...Nf6 a "?!" at worst. "?!" means a dubious move, but not necessarily a losing move.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
It's convention to give "??" only in the case of a blunder that loses material or leads to mate. I would give 2...Nf6 a "?!" at worst. "?!" means a dubious move, but not necessarily a losing move.

I agree. Of the same order as 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5?! Many books give this a "?". I wonder if they still will after Morozevich won against Topalov in the Amber tournament a month ago.

Originally posted by Mephisto2
I agree. Of the same order as 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5?! Many books give this a "?". I wonder if they still will after Morozevich won against Topalov in the Amber tournament a month ago.

I am aware of the convention but you are not aware that sometimes, in the context of discussing the opening only, we may disregard that convention somewhat to make a point. Look in Seirawan's book Winning Chess Openings and you will see that, to make a point, he does things like 1.e4 c5! or 1. d4 Nf6! He is saying that in the grand scheme of chess and the evolution of opening theory, these were brilliant moves; one would certainly not give them the exclam today!! (!)

Originally posted by hypermo2001
I am aware of the convention but you are not aware that sometimes, in the context of discussing the opening only, we may disregard that convention somewhat to make a point. Look in Seirawan's book Winning Chess Openings and you will see that, to make a point, he does things like 1.e4 c5! or 1. d4 Nf6! He is saying that in the grand scheme of ches ...[text shortened]... ing theory, these were brilliant moves; one would certainly not give them the exclam today!! (!)

point taken.

Originally posted by hypermo2001
The comment about Alekhines' defense is utterly ridiculous and I don't see how it relates to something about a queen pawn opening based on a symmetrical, classical response such as d5 by black. Nothing wrong with Alekhines' defense!

1.e4 Nf6???????? 2.e5!!!!!!!!!!!!! OH NOES LOST OF TIME!

Originally posted by Dfthd
1.e4 Nf6???????? 2.e5!!!!!!!!!!!!! OH NOES LOST OF TIME!

Is this supposed to be coherent?
I would never say e5 is a loss of time as it forces the knight to move again! It comes "WITH TIME".

You do not understand the concept of tempi in chess my friend!

Originally posted by hypermo2001
Is this supposed to be coherent?
I would never say e5 is a loss of time as it forces the knight to move again! It comes "WITH TIME".

You do not understand the concept of tempi in chess my friend!

He was stating that Nf6 loses time to e5. Which it does.

Originally posted by hypermo2001
I am aware of the convention but you are not aware that sometimes, in the context of discussing the opening only, we may disregard that convention somewhat to make a point. Look in Seirawan's book Winning Chess Openings and you will s ...[text shortened]... nt moves; one would certainly not give them the exclam today!! (!)

I would like to see an example of an annotator giving a move "??" in the opening when the only flaw is loss of tempo.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
He was stating that Nf6 loses time to e5. Which it does.

You are very confident in your reply...but incorrect.

There is no loss of time...nor is there a gain of time; white moves his pawn AGAIN and black moves his piece AGAIN. The pawn move e5 comes "WITH" time...no loss or gain.

A loss or gain of time occurs when the situation is NOT symmetric as it is above (e.g. in developing my knight off its original square, the FIRST move the knight, I force a developed queen to move a SECOND time)

Now, to be perfectly clear, subsequent pawn moves in the Alekhine (e.g. c4) are often GAINS of time. It is a tradeoff; white gains time and a big center but black feels it may be overextended and liable to attack...i.e. it is somewhat of a liability as well as an asset. So the loss of time comes with some compensation...Chess is full of misbalances and tradeoffs between time, space, material, position etc.

In contrast...black does not get any compensation from 1 d4 d5 2 c4 Nf6 due to loss of time with no compensation.

Got it????????