Steinitz Attack

Originally posted by AudreyxSophie
I do not misunderstood you, I can perfectly understand what you mean by ( After Qf6, Bg5 and black lose time. ) You are saying black is not better, but you are too fast to jugde this. These are the same kind of commet I heard from some grandmaster.

A master played with said about that line. 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Bc4 Bg7 5.Qe2 0-0.


o god. so please, sotp being the almighty great master who is always right, that is not you.

do you understand what I mean by small advantage.

The kind of advantage white get by playing e4 is what I call a small advantage. it is too soon to say if it is equal or not.

Originally posted by MISTER CHESS
Hardly. I pointed out it my previous post that d6 is not the best square for the bishop so it will have to move again anyway. I also pointed out earlier that I will have a superior pawn center after 4.d4.

It seems that the best way to refure whites opening, or at least nullify his intentions is simply to develop sensibly, and rather than oblige him by playing 2...d5, simply to develop with a threat, (more 1300 rated dogma?) thus instead of 2...d5, we play 2...Nc6 and may end up with a similar position as this. Who can deny that black is already ahead in development and at least showing signs of equality.

Hi Mister Chess.

I'm all for 'odd' opening ideas as long as they don't violate too many
Opening Principles and create a few complications.

But e4-e5-exd6 is just a waste of the White pieces - Black has equalised
(so Black is better - Larsen).

It's not what you want from your tempo wasting pawn moves.
You have only helped Black develop.

Of course good players have beaten weaker with it and it is a
Blitz weapon - every bad move is good in blitz.
But it is a bad habit to be sticking to.

You are not a bad tactician so give yourself a better chance to display
your skill and try to present your opponent with an opening problem
or two to solve rather than letting Black off the hook so early.

See the second game in Thread 118837

I play an early d5-d4-d3 but this hinders White's development and
weakens d3, (the reason why my trap worked).

How did you guys get such a high rating when you still support 1300 dogma?😛

Interestingly, I find three OTB games this year where this opening was played in games involving at least one Expert or higher rated player. Black won all three, including Rodriguez-Toledo at Las Palmas where Black was rated almost 600 points below White.

I have a few White wins on my DB buit if you look at the grades
White was going to win no matter what he played.

Black froze on their good position - White got back into it and won.

If White does it to try get a weaker player out of the book and Black
plays it solid but with some ambition then the stronger player will find
it hard to complicate things and will have to resort to a gamble.

On the whole the majority on my DB are Black wins.

If the Steinitz isn't so hot, how about the Reti Gambit for those 1.e4 players who don't like the French? Does it have better results?

My high rating is just a mysterie, I often lose something like 20 points when I am defeated, so, my rating tend to suffer.

My opponent are generous, a 1900 give me piece in two games, that help.

Back for the subject, 2. Nf3 is something more interesting then the Steinitz attack. even 2. d3 would be respectable. I am not messing with order of thing can get a french advance player in a bad position.

2.Nf3 was my favourite 'French Buster' for ages.
I still sling it out in blitz games.

This is lifted from another post:

1.e4 e6 2.Nf3!

I have had this game twice in serious OTB play and numerous
times in skittles and 5 minutes games.

Players seem oblivious to the Greek sac I think it's because White
has not yet castled.

Reveal Hidden Content

Thats a good hiding spot for the hidden answer

Ouch, I would not have seen that naturelly, but when you said that it was not easy, I seen it..


My first move did not work, so I tried to inverted the order and it work.

This is quite a coincidence. I was going through interference tactics on CT-art a bit ago and right after that I went to do some problems in "Chess" and I was on queen and rook mating patterns. Sorry if that drops too much of a hint.

and how did steinitz advocate the opening? i saw his games and many of his opponents chose to play d5. didnt he notice he lost the tempo? i believe he must have been a little bit stuck to it but im just curious what he said about it. and one more question. probably stupid but im a bad chess player so forgive. every 19th century master to employ this attack in their games defended the e-pawn with the f-pawn. why not d?