Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

My refutations of openings (early pawn sacs)


  • 8 months ago · Quote · #121

    ajian

    Now i'm looking for ways to refute the stonewall dutch

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #122

    jetfighter13

    Um mm lol that ain't hapnin

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #123

    ajian

    I need to find a way to show black's e5 weakness in a concrete line, along with f3 e4 breakthroughs by white

  • 7 months ago · Quote · #124

    ajian

     THE SLAV, THE QGD, AND THE GRUNFELD WERE ALL REFUTED ACCORDING TO ANAND, ARONIAN, KRAMNIK, AND CARLSEN WHO SHOWED THAT WHITE HAS A FORCED WIN IN THE GRUNFELD AND BIG ADVANTAGES IN THE OTHER OPENINGS. ALSO THE ALAPIN WAS REFUTED BY THESE SUPER GRANDMASTERS

  • 7 months ago · Quote · #125

    clunney

    The Slav is extremely popular at the moment.... As is the Grunfeld.  But okay.

  • 7 months ago · Quote · #126

    achja

    ThrillerFan wrote:

    I'm not going to claim "refute", but I always get an EXCELLENT GAME as Black using the Chicago Defense!  The key is don't develop the Bishop to e7 and allow the 12.Na4 garbage.  Against the "Main Line", Black should play the 7 pawn moves, Nc6, Ra7, Rd7, and either 11...Na5 (my preference) or 11...Bb7.  Both are fine for Black, and it's sheerly a matter of personal taste as to why I prefer 11...Na5.

    I really liked the Chicago defense for black in the Smith-Morra, and I've played it several times in the past.

    But white can play an early Be3, and then Ra7 is not possible.

  • 7 months ago · Quote · #127

    cornbeefhashvili

    ajian wrote:

    Now i'm looking for ways to refute the stonewall dutch

    I think in Euwe's book (The Middlegame 1) shows how to play against the Dutch Stonewall properly without tricks.

  • 7 months ago · Quote · #128

    Jamalov

    the smith morra gambit is pretty good but not as good as the good old reliable 2. Nf3 according to this paper:

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2415203

  • 7 months ago · Quote · #129

    badger_song

    There is a misunderstanding in this thread as to the chess definition  of  refute.Refute doesn't mean,one's game becomes more difficult,in chess "refute" means one's winning chances are few to none,draws are still very possible but essentially one has no chance of winning.The side playing a refuted line is essentially passing on the oppertunity to win and will struggle for a draw.

  • 7 months ago · Quote · #130

    TheMushroomDealer

    ajian wrote:

    I've never lost to the KID even against a 2435. (who i beat) However, due to the massive complexity of the main line, I will be wrong

     in some cases.

    It seems that even the great ajian can lost when playing against the KID http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=82360306


Back to Top

Post your reply: