3.Bb5 is ruy lopez. Which is considered more strong. Bc4 is good move against amateur because there are so many possibilities at f7.A weak square for black all through the years.
why is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Nc3 so popular?
Sort:
hi ilgambittoo. you are correct in what you say but after Bc4 white should continue with d3 followed by c3 to prepare d4 when the time is right, or just c3 followed by d4 directly. evans gambit (4.b4!). i dont see that white get anyting at all after 4.Nc3 and its also boring line to face but still i face it an overwhelming amount of times
i will take a look into this canalstuff
Ruy lopez is a gradual king side attack on black. There are many combination for white in the very opening of the game. Personally I love ruy lopez or Kings' gambit or Danish gambit.
Love
Ilgambittoo i might have been a bit unclear here. Im black
Elephant gambit for black. But always take care of f7.
1.e4 ..e5
2.Nf3 ..d5
Now both the black bishops have open lines.
Attack attack and attack..
Love
tigergutt wrote:
at least 8 of 10 games i play 3...Bc5 i get Nc3 as response and play gets supersymmetrical and lifeless. should i really leave 1.e4 e5 because of this line?
If you want life, play the Two Knights Defense, 3...Nf6.
BTW, as my blog states my "online" (correspondence) rating is totally inaccurate: http://www.chess.com/blog/Chessislife2013/correspondence-quotonlinequot-chess.
Chessislife2013 wrote:
tigergutt wrote:
at least 8 of 10 games i play 3...Bc5 i get Nc3 as response and play gets supersymmetrical and lifeless. should i really leave 1.e4 e5 because of this line?
If you want life, play the Two Knights Defense, 3...Nf6.
BTW, as my blog states my "online" (correspondence) rating is totally inaccurate: http://www.chess.com/blog/Chessislife2013/correspondence-quotonlinequot-chess.
That leads to fried liver attack and thats bad.Very bad.
actually i have played the two knights alot and i like it. i just decided i want to try out the Bc5 stuff.from now on i will not play supercomplicated positions because i dont feel i have the memory or time for it.
if anyone curious im trying to follow jan gustaffsons dvd on 1.e4 e5 exept i play berlin defense instead of marshall gambit
h3 stops Bg4 and Ng4 but also weakens whites kingside
pfren wrote:
quadriple wrote:
That leads to fried liver attack and thats bad.Very bad.
For whom?
For the beginner who plays Nxd5 as black after Ng5 d5 exd5.
pfren wrote:
crtexxx wrote:
pfren wrote:
quadriple wrote:
That leads to fried liver attack and thats bad.Very bad.
For whom?
For the beginner who plays Nxd5 as black after Ng5 d5 exd5.
But still, nothing scary. White has adequate compensation for his piece, and that is that. The Lolli is certainly more scary, although I seriously doubt white getting an advantage with it if he is not fully booked up.
I don't play 5...Nxd5 myself, but I think the move is not that bad- certainly it's better than 5...Nd4 or 5...b5, which have a good reputation, and I was playing as Black for decades.
I looked up Nxd5 stats on 365chess.com. Unfortunately, I am not a premium member, so I only got access to the big and not masters data base. After Nxd5, white wins almost 3/4ths of the games by playing the fried liver w/Nxf7. However, it includes a lot of unrateds and a lot of weak players rated in the low 1000s, which indicates that a lot of weaker players who likely don't know anything else simply do the "natural" recapture. The stats can't be trusted to show the quality of the line, of course, due to the level of a lot of the players.
So the beginners who play the Nxd5 generally are in trouble since usually they don't know what they are doing. There are some really bad losses as black...
As Pfren said, the Italian with 4 symmetric knights on c3, c6, f3, f6 only seems lifeless. There is a lot of strategic understanding necessary (good/bad bishops, gaining a pawn center, and giving it up for some other advantage, like an open file or a pawn superiority on a wing, that is good in an upcoming endgame... all this in closed or half-open situations). In fact, too much for a beginner.
The popularity comes from the attitude of some chess trainers to use that Italian setup to illustrate the 'right order' in building up your game : 'first develop knights, then bishops, then castle...'. This is ok, but some trainers forget that the system is perhaps not the best one to start with understanding tactics and strategy of the middle game.
Imo, a better start (and more excitement for a beginner!) offers the Scottish opening because files are opened quickly so that the whole army can act and tactics is present. Because exchanges are probable, the middle game is often short, (thus strength for an endgame is saved). Don't forget, kids lose concentration when you discuss with them the ups and downs of a full game, if it was a long one.
pfren wrote:
Yes, this is one of the two. Black was always close to equal, but this was not enough to neutralize the squeeze.
The other one is vs. Grigoriev- actually there Black played symmetrically 6...Bg4, instead of entering the Canal, and Capa showed that copying the opponent's moves is, mostly, a dubious experiment -although he missed in the opening the stong zwischenzug 9.Qa4+! after which Black is in real trouble early on, and later on he picked Nxb6, which gives Black equality, but Capa has proved in a few instances that he could handle this particular pawn structure with his eyes closed. Factly, even with some analysis it's hard to believe Black is totally lost after the rook exchange, despite his h-passer.
Why not play 34. ...bxc or 36. ...dxc5 37.bxc5 Kxc5 ?
Thanks for posting those Capablanca games. Amazing to play through; it's like sometimes I don't even realize that White's completed his plan until he has; it hits outta nowhere.
quadriple wrote:
Chessislife2013 wrote:
tigergutt wrote:
at least 8 of 10 games i play 3...Bc5 i get Nc3 as response and play gets supersymmetrical and lifeless. should i really leave 1.e4 e5 because of this line?
If you want life, play the Two Knights Defense, 3...Nf6.
BTW, as my blog states my "online" (correspondence) rating is totally inaccurate: http://www.chess.com/blog/Chessislife2013/correspondence-quotonlinequot-chess.
That leads to fried liver attack and thats bad.Very bad.
Do tell *eye roll*... Of course that's bad! this is what I am talking about: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 The point! A positional pawn sacrifice. 6.Bb5+ c6 7.exc6 bxc6. There is no Fried Liver.
Chessislife2013 wrote:
quadriple wrote:
Chessislife2013 wrote:
tigergutt wrote:
at least 8 of 10 games i play 3...Bc5 i get Nc3 as response and play gets supersymmetrical and lifeless. should i really leave 1.e4 e5 because of this line?
If you want life, play the Two Knights Defense, 3...Nf6.
BTW, as my blog states my "online" (correspondence) rating is totally inaccurate: http://www.chess.com/blog/Chessislife2013/correspondence-quotonlinequot-chess.
That leads to fried liver attack and thats bad.Very bad.
Do tell *eye roll*... Of course that's bad! this is what I am talking about: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 The point! A positional pawn sacrifice. 6.Bb5+ c6 7.exc6 bxc6. There is no Fried Liver.
IM pfren claims hes played as black for decades, and that Nxd5 is not terribly dangerous to black. Na5 is definitely more comfortable though.
at least 8 of 10 games i play 3...Bc5 i get Nc3 as response and play gets supersymmetrical and lifeless. should i really leave 1.e4 e5 because of this line?