24 Apr 08
2 edits
Originally posted by JonathanB of LondonDont hurry with your conclusions. For example 1...d5 is often used by strong GM Tiviakov who have managed to get good opening positions even against top GMs like Anand:
I don't think I need to suggest a detailed refutation -- afterall that would take several pages and whatever lines I suggested you could say (ah but what about this what about that etc).
Of course this is equally true the other way around. If asked you to demonstrate a line that white gets equal chances we'd have the same problem.
I'll rel d5 and fischer used to play the King's Gambit but they were both a long time ago.
[Event "Corus Wijk aan Zee"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee NED"]
[Date "2006.01.27"]
[EventDate "2006.01.14"]
[Round "11"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Viswanathan Anand"]
[Black "Sergei Tiviakov"]
[ECO "B01"]
[WhiteElo "2792"]
[BlackElo "2669"]
[PlyCount "100"]
1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qd6 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nf3 c6 6. Ne5
Nbd7 7. Bf4 Nd5 8. Nxd5 Qxd5 9. Be2 Nxe5 10. Bxe5 Qxg2 11. Bf3
Qg6 12. d5 Bg4 13. dxc6 bxc6 14. Qe2 Bxf3 15. Qxf3 Rd8 16. Rd1
Qe6 17. O-O Rxd1 18. Rxd1 h5 19. Qd3 Qc8 20. h4 Rh6 21. Kh2
Rg6 22. Bg3 Rg4 23. a3 a6 24. Re1 c5 25. c3 Rg6 26. Re5 e6
27. Rxh5 Rh6 28. Rxh6 gxh6 29. Qf3 c4 30. Bf4 Qc5 31. Qa8+ Ke7
32. Kg1 Qf5 33. Bg3 Qb1+ 34. Kh2 Qxb2 35. Qxa6 Kf6 36. Qxc4
Qxa3 37. Qd4+ Ke7 38. c4 Ke8 39. Qb6 Qc5 40. Qxc5 Bxc5 41. h5
Bd4 42. Kg2 Kd7 43. Bf4 Bg7 44. Be3 Kd6 45. Kf1 e5 46. Ke2 f5
47. f3 Kc6 48. Kd3 Bf8 49. Bc1 Bg7 50. Ba3 Bf6 1/2-1/2
24 Apr 08
Originally posted by adam warlockYou could also add game played today by Radjabov who has decent results against top GM using Schliemann:
I think that current analysis says that the Schliemann is sound. Unless of course the likes of Judit Polgars and Topalovs are just some patzers. 😛
Now seriously: I think that 4. d3 is the line that can cause black more trouble in the Schliemann but even so after the opening it seems like the position is equal. Of course than we have the middlegame a ...[text shortened]... sgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1033763
Edit: And a game of mine too: Game 4775143
[Event "Baku Grand Prix"]
[Site "Baku AZE"]
[Date "2008.04.24"]
[EventDate "2008.04.21"]
[Round "4"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "P Svidler"]
[Black "T Radjabov"]
[ECO "C63"]
[WhiteElo "2746"]
[BlackElo "2751"]
[PlyCount "82"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 f5 4. d3 fxe4 5. dxe4 Nf6 6. O-O Bc5 7. Qd3 Nd4
8. Nxd4 Bxd4 9. Nd2 a6 10. Bc4 Qe7 11. Nf3 Ba7 12. Nh4 d6 13. Bg5 Be6 14.
Nf5 Bxf5 15. exf5 O-O-O 16. Be6+ Kb8 17. c4 h6 18. Be3 Bxe3 19. fxe3 Nh7
20. Rad1 Ng5 21. Bd5 c6 22. Be4 Rd7 23. g3 Nxe4 24. Qxe4 Rhd8 25. Qf3 d5
26. cxd5 Rxd5 27. Rxd5 cxd5 28. f6 gxf6 29. Qxf6 Qxf6 30. Rxf6 d4 31. exd4
exd4 32. Kf1 d3 33. Ke1 Re8+ 34. Kd2 Re2+ 35. Kxd3 Rxh2 36. Kc3 h5 37. Rg6
h4 38. gxh4 Rh3+ 39. Kc2 Rh2+ 40. Kc3 Rh3+ 41. Kc2 Rh2+ 1/2-1/2
24 Apr 08
Originally posted by adam warlockAbsolutely ... at our level anything goes. But this is a very different thing to getting at the 'fundamental truth' of an opening.
It's just like you say at our level everything goes pretty much (sometime ago I ven read an article on the net about a guy that uses the Damiano defence in tournament play in the USA and wins games with it.) ....
Anyway, this Radjabov Schliemann thing is amusing and astonishing me in equal parts.
years ago i considered playing the line myself but concluded it was too risky in a certain line after 4. d3. At the time the most testing continuation for White was thought to be 4. Nc3 but that didn't seem to bad for me.
I played it once in a league match but that was enough for my taste.
Then Radjabov gives it a punt in the world cup last year and gets hammered by a lower rated opponent who used exactly the line I was worried about.
As far as I know, though Radjabov, hasn't lost a classical time limits game with it since even though his opponents must be prepared for him to play it now. I somehow doubt he'll still be playing it in a year or that he'll cause a stampede of his colleagues trying it out but we'll see.
Incidentally, I think it's worth pointing out the reason why he's playing ... f5 against the spanish but not (yet at least) trying the pure King's gambit is probably because taking the pawn just leads to a draw in the Schlieman. Something he'd probably be quite happy with. I rather suspect the reason why he's not going totally King's gambit on everybody is because he'd be less happy with Black taking his f4 pawn as White.
24 Apr 08
Originally posted by JonathanB of LondonTalking about the Kings gambit - its playable, but in my opinion black have several good defences that helps to reach equality without problems. And top GMs are not happy to playing White opening which cant offer more than equality.
I know but that's hardly relevant to whether it's sound with current knowledge of best play.
24 Apr 08
3 edits
Originally posted by KorchHi Korch...
Dont hurry with your conclusions. For example 1...d5 is often used by strong GM Tiviakov who have managed to get good opening positions even against top GMs like Anand:
yes I know Tiviakov plays 1. ... d5 (and with the ... Qd6 follow up too which is kind of amusing to me).
But I would say he rather proves my point rather than disproves it.
I'm guessing if we counted his games with 1. ... c5 against 1. ... d5 we'd find a much larger number of the former - which would rather suggest he at least thinks the two moves are not equally good.
Again, I'm not saying 1. ... d5 loses instantly (even for GMs) just that it's not equally as good as 1. ... c5 or 1. ... e5. I don't think this is controversial really but anyway, pointing out the odd GM who plays the move sometimes doesn't refute my position at all but in fact rather strengthens it.
[edit: I just did the Tiviakov count for Megabase 2004.
276 games with 1. ... c5 as Black.
0 games with 1. ... d5.
I guess he started playing it later.]
[edit 2:
chessgames.com have 32 Tiviakov games with 1. ... d5
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.[WORD TOO LONG]
but more than ten times as many with 1. ... c5
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.[WORD TOO LONG]
]
[edit 3:
oops forgot to exclude Tiviakov white games in that last link.
correct figure is 150 odd sicilian games with black
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.[WORD TOO LONG]
]
24 Apr 08
Originally posted by KorchSure ... but then when all those other non-Spanish openings against 1. ... e5 got fashionable (Evans, 4 Knights, 2 Knights) even then the King's gambit never really got taken up (although, yes, Short played it a few times and no doubt some other people did too: I'm not saying never just not often).
Talking about the Kings gambit - its playable ....
24 Apr 08
Originally posted by JonathanB of LondonI`m tired to repeat in this forum that less popular does not mean worse.
Hi Korch...
yes I know Tiviakov plays 1. ... d5 (and with the ... Qd6 follow up too which is kind of amusing to me).
But I would say he rather proves my point rather than disproves it.
I'm guessing if we counted his games with 1. ... c5 against 1. ... d5 we'd find a much larger number of the former - which would rather suggest he at lea ...[text shortened]... with 1. ... c5 as Black.
0 games with 1. ... d5.
I guess he started playing it later.]
24 Apr 08
Originally posted by KorchI didn't know about this game yet. But it is nice to see that an elite GM as added a very risky opening to his repertoire. I got the analysis of the game he played against Topalov too. But I still have to sudy it in a real way.
You could also add game played today by Radjabov who has decent results against top GM using Schliemann:
[Event "Baku Grand Prix"]
[Site "Baku AZE"]
[Date "2008.04.24"]
[EventDate "2008.04.21"]
[Round "4"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "P Svidler"]
[Black "T Radjabov"]
[ECO "C63"]
[WhiteElo "2746"]
[BlackElo "2751"]
[PlyCount "82"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 ...[text shortened]... 37. Rg6
h4 38. gxh4 Rh3+ 39. Kc2 Rh2+ 40. Kc3 Rh3+ 41. Kc2 Rh2+ 1/2-1/2
And to stay on topic I wouldn't really care for what opening an engine plays when I let it run. I already know that 1. d4 is winning for white. 😛 😉
24 Apr 08
Originally posted by JonathanB of LondonWell higher rated players aren't hammering him now so I'll stick to using the Schliemann for some time. 😏
Absolutely ... at our level anything goes. But this is a very different thing to getting at the 'fundamental truth' of an opening.
Anyway, this Radjabov Schliemann thing is amusing and astonishing me in equal parts.
years ago i considered playing the line myself but concluded it was too risky in a certain line after 4. d3. At the time the ...[text shortened]... on everybody is because he'd be less happy with Black taking his f4 pawn as White.
Yes the Schliemann is risky busyness but since I don't make a living out of playing chess I can play it. Well the GM's do make a living out of chess and on their shoes I'd play secure stuff too. Or at least I'd have a repertoire with more secure stuff. I mean I got book, lessons and whatever more to sell and tournaments to be invited on; so why should risk my rep and scare away potential clients? I think this can be the main obstacle in playing more risky openings for most GM's. Take Kramnik for instance. At the start of his carrer he was playing the Dutch and other crazy stuff. Now he just bore us to death. Why is that so? Well now he has a lot to lose I think...
24 Apr 08
2 edits
Originally posted by JonathanB of LondonTiviakov has 32 games at Chessgames playing the Scandinavian with 9W, 3L, 20D. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?page=1&pid=14003&playercomp=black&eco=B01&node=287531He has a victory over Kamsky with it at Corus in 2006. He's played it four times this year, though his results recently aren't as good (2 losses to Gashimov and Hua in January).
Hi Korch...
yes I know Tiviakov plays 1. ... d5 (and with the ... Qd6 follow up too which is kind of amusing to me).
But I would say he rather proves my point rather than disproves it.
I'm guessing if we counted his games with 1. ... c5 against 1. ... d5 we'd find a much larger number of the former - which would rather suggest he at lea with 1. ... c5 as Black.
0 games with 1. ... d5.
I guess he started playing it later.]
These types of arguments are absurd; if you can play an opening and beat Kamsky with it and draw against Anand, Svidler and others it's sound enough for a super GM. And certainly sound enough for tournament players.
24 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KorchNot necessarily I would agree but in this case I think it does.
I`m tired to repeat in this forum that [b] less popular does not mean worse.[/b]
e.g. would you not agree that 3. ... Qe7 in the Petroff (as discussed earlier) is both less popular AND worse than 3. ... d6.
And when i say worse I don't necessarily mean worse for any given game (for which there might be all sorts of practical reasons why it's in fact better) I mean worse in an absolute objective sense.
24 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI added my edit2 above before I saw this contribution.
Tiviakov has 32 games at Chessgames playing the Scandinavian with 9W, 3L, 20D. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?page=1&pid=14003&playercomp=black&eco=B01&node=287531He has a victory over Kamsky with it at Corus in 2006. He's played it four times this year, though his results recently aren't as good (2 losses to Gashimov and Hua in January).
...[text shortened]... d others it's sound enough for a super GM. And certainly sound enough for tournament players.
For the record, and I think I've made this clear, I've never said 1. ... d5 isn't playable but I still think (and the Tiviakov ievidence i would suggest supports my view) that 1. ... c5 and 1. ... e5 are 'better'😉.
Anyway, it's been a stimulating evening. i'm off to read a bit of My System now.
24 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by JonathanB of LondonI agree that 3...Qe7 in Petroff is not good, but its because i know how white can get real advantage, not because of its popularity.
Not necessarily I would agree but in this case I think it does.
e.g. would you not agree that 3. ... Qe7 in the Petroff (as discussed earlier) is both less popular AND worse than 3. ... d6.
And when i say worse I don't necessarily mean worse for any given game (for which there might be all sorts of practical reasons why it's in fact better) I mean worse in an absolute objective sense.
Popularity is not criteria which I would use to evaluate openings.
"Worse in an absolute objective sense" ? Please explain me what do you mean?
24 Apr 08
Originally posted by JonathanB of LondonDoes the fact that Tiviakov has played 1 ...... d5 32 times and 1 ...... e5 only once, "prove" that d5 is "better"?
I added my edit2 above before I saw this contribution.
For the record, and I think I've made this clear, I've never said 1. ... d5 isn't playable but I still think (and the Tiviakov ievidence i would suggest supports my view) that 1. ... c5 and 1. ... e5 are 'better'😉.
Anyway, it's been a stimulating evening. i'm off to read a bit of My System now.