11658 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
OK, lets make things clear: Only an idiot would claim that this "opening" is OK for White.
But fortunately enough, they are plenty of them available.
Damn guys, Nakamura is an idiot. He's only ranked 7th in the world, I guess that means there's 6 people in the entire world who play chess and aren't idiotic...
We all know he played this as a precocious kid, he's certainly dropped it since. But even since then his opening choice has often said "I can get away with this because I think I can outplay you" I recall some dutch games he lost spectacularly against the super-strong Kramnik
He's also said (about 2 years ago) that he doesn't like to specialize in an opening, he just wants to get to the point where he and his opponent are on their own, because, in his own words, he feels like he can play better chess than his opponent once the theory is gone.
Well, he's a pretty cocky player :) I wonder who he played it against. We all know how what's-his-name played 1...a6 against the then world champ Karpov (at a time, IIRC, that karpov had an unbeaten streak going). But that doesn't mean 1...a6 is theoretically best.
And like I said before, I don't think it's as bad as some other openings people try to play. Heck I frequent some gambit lines all the time online that I know are bad... because they're trapy and I count on my opponent screwing up.
But if I really wanted to win, and was against a peer/someone better than me, I don't think I'd be doing myself any favors by playing a slightly inferior move so early. At my level the game won't be decided in the opening by any means, but I'd try to make the most of my moves. I think the idea of tempo is valid, and Qh5 seems to waste a tempo and count on poor defensive play by my opponent.
I don't see how Qh5 wastes a tempo, and I, also Nakamura, don't believe this is an inferior move. But also, a6 seems like a move you would play just for attention. This actually makes sense. Finally, like you said, you play gambits to be aggressive, win if your opponent messes up, lose if they play solid. This is similar but you don't have to forfeit any material, which is why I love it.
Because you have to move the queen twice, that's why I mention tempo.
Naka was right that it has potential, in that it's not a losing move. I very much doubt he meant potential as a strong opening like other mainline and mainstream openings are.
And I don't care who played it by the way. Moves can be judged objectively for their own merits for what they do on the board. GMs make moves fashionable, but they don't make them any stronger than what they are.
a6 isn't that bad really, black goes right into a queenside expansion and fianchettos there. It can also transpose fairly easily into "real" openings too if white isn't careful.
Naka played this shit in regular time control against FYROM grandmaster Mitkov (he drew the endgame being a pawn down), and against patzers. He also played 1.e4 c5 2.Qh5 in regular time control against the Ukrainian super-GM Volokitin, and lost.
No, I don't think a6 is very good. Like you said something to play to get attention or make your opponent furious hehe :) But just like Qh5 it certainly isn't losing.
There some hippo game where the annotations say this. I wonder if the game is famous, or if I just came across it one day (maybe someone knows it). But supposedly the IM facing it became mad in the late middlegame that his position wasn't winning against this opening, so he sacrifices a few pieces for dubious compensation and ended up losing.
That Naka played the move doesn't make it better or worse than what it is. That a GM can draw a GM with a less than best opening move doesn't validate the move either.
Or in other words, just because it's not losing, doesn't make it good. There are GMs like Gashimov who took up playing the Benoni against top players, which isn't popular at high levels (don't know if he still does). Sometimes GMs pick up dubious (to them) openings. But his peers don't seem to agree, as I'm not aware of any other top player willing to use it like that.
If Naka played it more than a few times, maybe we could talk, but it seems he doesn't believe in it either. And certainly no other top players use Qh5. Like I said before, there's no reason to give up a tempo. g6 isn't bad for black's position, but moving the queen twice is.
Having seen that game (it's also annotated in Chessbase Magazine!) I saw that:
- Mitkov handled the opening a tad too cautiously, yet he achieved a very good game (equal, or a tad better for Black). In the middlegame Naka achieved some advantage after very clever knight manouvering, but trying to win he played a couple of serious inaccuracies, and in the end he was down a pawn for nothing- factly, Mitkov agreed to draw only because he was short on time.
I lost once as Black in just 13 moves following 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.a3, which is certainly enough "shit", and equally certainly better shit than Naka's 2.Qh5. But this was not because of the opening, but simply because I played nonsense.
Yes, opening moves can't be judged from the result either. They're strong or weak by their own merit.
The KG is much better than this crap, and saying it hangs a pawn does nothing to shoot it down, KASPAROV Lost convincingly enough to put the KG in a level of its own, it was the most popular opening from arround 1600 to the mid 1800's and there is no refutation, FISCHER NEVER BELIEVED THIS, he just chose to write the article to scare people off, and plus some of the moves in his analysis have been shown to be worse for white than most rational people would play. SPASSKY BEAT FISCHER with it.
If that constitutes crap, and makes it completely unsound, then what the hell makes you think that a GM who would loose to KASPAROV (NAKA) and who always looses to CARLSEN (who has played the KG before) strengthens the Parham, when I can follow in the footsteps of veritable legends, which NAKA will NEVER become. also The player who beat KASPY was SHORT.
anyway with that I rest my argument in favor of the KG
Hardly so. 2.Qh5 donates a couple of tempos to Black for nothing, while 3.a3 has some poison, which was apparent the stupid way I played: 3...d5?! 4.ed5 Nxd5 5.Qh5! (now THIS Qh5 is a good move!) and compared to the Scotch 4...Qh4 variation, the move a3 deprives Black of the natural sortie Nd5-b4.
Still, Black is equal, but I went on playing nonsense, and lost briefly.
I think Qh5 is actually less shit, cuz it at least has a purpose. 3 a3 just seems like skipping a turn.
Well that's the point isn't it? Qh5 then Qf3 a move or two later... technically speaking this is the definition of skipping a turn... that's what losing a tempo is.
Gavinator do I need Batgirl to show you all of the Games FISCHER played it, he only said it sucked cause he lost to a soviet player who played it against him. He also was a loon and plus having an undefeated record with it as white is better than your example NAKA who has a shit record with it
see you try and find Qh5 in books and either wall , schuller, batford seem to tell the same story, its not in the book, so it must be a bad opening or theory. Yet over the board experience tells me that it works, even in here also, with a 75 to 80 % . Which i will take that over any book player, who relys on hope chess, instead of know chess.
did you know that 44% of statistics are made up, including yours?
Did you know that 90% percent of people believe what they read? I know its true, because I read it in a book somewhere.
If you want to go about proving the Riemann Conjecture there are untold approaches....
I didn't know that you were at the 2+2 stage in your math. About the same as your chess, huh?
isn't 2+2 fish
I know its actualy 4 but I couldn't resist the chance to do that
Oh and the answer for serious people is right under that answer.
By the way how do you figure out the volume of a hemisphere
V=4/3 pir squared all over 2
answer is again above for serious folks
opos see I get messed up a bit I wrote squared its cubed, actually algebra II
Ok try this variation for white
Then Black plays ..d5 and wins.
How exactly does d5 refute the bishops gambit?
d5 does not refute the gambit, it just gives white a lot more for the pawn he sacced, take with the bishop and get the game over with
No Trust me the asians kill thier students with Homework and extra curriculars, its like they are trying to get the Chess Grandmaster Nuclear Physisist, Well read Futbol Letterman all in one, who happens to be a concert piannist
by Irontiger 3 minutes ago
The Lost Chess Set
by SMesq 5 minutes ago
Chess game developed by AI Factory Limited - difficulty translated to rank
by qrayons 5 minutes ago
Conclusions of my research
by Irontiger 8 minutes ago
5/22/2013 - Good Night to the Enemy
by szammie 12 minutes ago
Pre Banned ivory puzzle chest set RARE
by MatchStickKing 15 minutes ago
said i abandoned game when i didnt
by PoppyMcFireworks 17 minutes ago
Is Chess a 'Creative' Activity?
by ilgambittoo 23 minutes ago
5/21/2013 - The Power of Imagination
by szammie 23 minutes ago
by Schevenadorf 25 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com