Dutch Defence, 2.d5
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
Why do you think it should be refutable? The Game Explorer has 254 master games in the main 2..c5 line and white won 49.6% of the games in the that line, drew 23.% and lost only 27.2%. The other lines had only 6 games total.
c6 or e6 seem fine. You could also continue with the normal line of nf6, I think.
notmtwain написал:
Why do you think it should be refutable? The Game Explorer has 254 master games in the main 2..c5 line and white won 49.6% of the games in the that line, drew 23.% and lost only 27.2%. The other lines had only 6 games total.
Well, this move is quite pretentious, I don't believe it can bring any advantage for White.
Here is a recent game by Yasser Seirawan in the 2..c5 line (by transposition):
miellago98 wrote:
notmtwain написал:
Why do you think it should be refutable? The Game Explorer has 254 master games in the main 2..c5 line and white won 49.6% of the games in the that line, drew 23.% and lost only 27.2%. The other lines had only 6 games total.
Well, this move is quite pretentious, I don't believe it can bring any advantage for White.
"Pretentious" is not a chess term. Also, "I don't believe it can bring any advantage for white" is far from saying it should be refutable.
Do you have anything definite related to weak squares, doubled pawns, king weakness, etc. to say about it? I didn't think so.
The fact that it is unusual doesn't mean it should be refutable.
miellago98 wrote:
miellago98 wrote: This seems to be a very rare continuation in Dutch Defence, so I would like to know how to refute it. Do you have any ideas?
This seems to be a very rare continuation in Dutch Defence, so I would like to know how to refute it. Do you have any ideas?
notmtwain написал:
miellago98 wrote:
notmtwain написал:
Why do you think it should be refutable? The Game Explorer has 254 master games in the main 2..c5 line and white won 49.6% of the games in the that line, drew 23.% and lost only 27.2%. The other lines had only 6 games total.
Well, this move is quite pretentious, I don't believe it can bring any advantage for White.
"Pretentious" is not a chess term. Also, "I don't believe it can bring any advantage for white" is far from saying it should be refutable.
Do you have anything definite related to weak squares, doubled pawns, king weakness, etc. to say about it? I didn't think so.
The fact that it is unusual doesn't mean it should be refutable.
Well, the d5 becomes weak and defending it takes much time and can lead to underdevelopement. Otherwise, the pawn will be just captured and that's it. For example, 1. d4 f5 2. d5 e6 3. g3 exd5 4. Bg2 c6 and what to do?
2.d5 goes against all opening principles. Perhaps Nf6-d6-g6-Bg7-e6, trying to undermine the pawn? Also c5 seems to be good.
@ miellago : why don't u take d5 with white?
Anyway, 1.d4 f5 2.d5 e6 (or e5) 3.d5xe6 seems better for white in the endgame after 3...d7xe6 4.Qxd8.
But maybe 3...d5 followed by Bxe6 with a strange Stonewall.
