I thought this thread might be a good place to adverise a series of articles I wrote exploring the Muzio and Double Muzio from a historic perspective with statistics and a ton of illustrative games:
I thought this thread might be a good place to adverise a series of articles I wrote exploring the Muzio and Double Muzio from a historic perspective with statistics and a ton of illustrative games:
It feels like a complete reference section to me. My book only covers 15 pages of the muzio (I KEEP ON REPEATING ON THAT BOOK THAT IT IS best MOSTLY FOR THE SHORT & BLITZ GAMES!!!). I have tried it on the blitz games, and I have a good record of 9-3-0. It adds even more knowledge. Thanks, Sarah!
The KG shouldn't be about just blitz, not even the wilder lines such as the Muzio (the double and triple Muzio's aren't really sound and are mainly blitz openings). Most openings are less dependant on the opening itself than on the relative skill of the two players. If I play a KG at standard time control against someone less skilled, I intend to win; if I play against someone stronger, I expect to lose (but I plan of fighting tooth and nail); if I play someone about equal, then it can go either way. A Muzio isn't just for Blitz; it's a quite solid opening that hands tremendous initiative to White at the cost of a Knight. Black must eventally give back material to break the attack and survive. I think it possibly the most classic example of time vs material: something that every player has to learn to deal with.
that style is the epitome of art. why people enjoy 80 move positional struggles is beyond me I prefer that quick elegant mate. or atleast fighting chess that shows to your average Joe chess your average 1600 can apriciate.thats why the first games you are shown when you start studying are Morphy Anderssen Tal even Fischer, then you start getting immersed in the K's and eventually you can begin to understand the modern players but it all stems from the romantic style of play.
That's interesting because most 19th century players, even into the last quarter, thought of chess as precisely that, an art. Like all art, there were techniques to learn and concepts to master, but ultimately is was the creative process and the end result - a beautiful game - that drove amateurs like Anderssen, Morphy, Blackburne, and even Zukertort and Tarrasch - and this is why they are called Romanticists. Steinitz was more interested in the science of the game and experimented with convoluted ideas that confounded his opponents but produced grotesque yet successful things. Lasker saw chess as pragmatism personified and, perhaps rightly, saw beauty in the pragmatism. But Romanticists, while never giving up winning over losing, strove to win beautifully. I think this explains, in part, some of the mistakes computers find in their games today. Sacs and combinations were thought of as the highest form of chess art, even to the point of playing somewhat loosely. Later players were also quite capable of producing lovely games, but I don't think that was ever one of their uppermost considerations.
Today chess is like an exam, just memorise moves deemed best by engines and play it on the board. The players say something like " What would houdini do in this position???" It's a formula now and people often dont make even the most sound sacs.They say that they have refuted the ART, which doesnt make sense. I think the art of the KG is the pressure and the obligation white gives to the black with ONE point. However, many of the downfall of black is the psycho edge white got. In chess, you play the person in front of you, not the pieces.
POSSIBLE CONTINUATIONS:
I had seen the game between GM Nakamura and
. And frankly, I was really astounded! It was as if the opponents in this game were not trying even their best!
meh Bc5+ isn't really Blacks most testing reply.
Yeah, though White is back materially, he has really good counter chances!
I thought this thread might be a good place to adverise a series of articles I wrote exploring the Muzio and Double Muzio from a historic perspective with statistics and a ton of illustrative games:
Muzio Madness I
Muzio Madness II
Muzio Madness III
A Muzio Trio
I thought this thread might be a good place to adverise a series of articles I wrote exploring the Muzio and Double Muzio from a historic perspective with statistics and a ton of illustrative games:
Muzio Madness I
Muzio Madness II
Muzio Madness III
A Muzio Trio
It feels like a complete reference section to me. My book only covers 15 pages of the muzio (I KEEP ON REPEATING ON THAT BOOK THAT IT IS best MOSTLY FOR THE SHORT & BLITZ GAMES!!!). I have tried it on the blitz games, and I have a good record of 9-3-0. It adds even more knowledge. Thanks, Sarah!
The KG shouldn't be about just blitz, not even the wilder lines such as the Muzio (the double and triple Muzio's aren't really sound and are mainly blitz openings). Most openings are less dependant on the opening itself than on the relative skill of the two players. If I play a KG at standard time control against someone less skilled, I intend to win; if I play against someone stronger, I expect to lose (but I plan of fighting tooth and nail); if I play someone about equal, then it can go either way. A Muzio isn't just for Blitz; it's a quite solid opening that hands tremendous initiative to White at the cost of a Knight. Black must eventally give back material to break the attack and survive. I think it possibly the most classic example of time vs material: something that every player has to learn to deal with.
there is a triple muzio :O
Yes, there is.
Triple muzio seems to me like a one Morphy would play against Anand, and guess what?! Anand loses. Oh, how I love the romantic play of the 1800s!
that style is the epitome of art. why people enjoy 80 move positional struggles is beyond me I prefer that quick elegant mate. or atleast fighting chess that shows to your average Joe chess your average 1600 can apriciate.thats why the first games you are shown when you start studying are Morphy Anderssen Tal even Fischer, then you start getting immersed in the K's and eventually you can begin to understand the modern players but it all stems from the romantic style of play.
That's interesting because most 19th century players, even into the last quarter, thought of chess as precisely that, an art. Like all art, there were techniques to learn and concepts to master, but ultimately is was the creative process and the end result - a beautiful game - that drove amateurs like Anderssen, Morphy, Blackburne, and even Zukertort and Tarrasch - and this is why they are called Romanticists. Steinitz was more interested in the science of the game and experimented with convoluted ideas that confounded his opponents but produced grotesque yet successful things. Lasker saw chess as pragmatism personified and, perhaps rightly, saw beauty in the pragmatism. But Romanticists, while never giving up winning over losing, strove to win beautifully. I think this explains, in part, some of the mistakes computers find in their games today. Sacs and combinations were thought of as the highest form of chess art, even to the point of playing somewhat loosely. Later players were also quite capable of producing lovely games, but I don't think that was ever one of their uppermost considerations.
Today chess is like an exam, just memorise moves deemed best by engines and play it on the board. The players say something like " What would houdini do in this position???" It's a formula now and people often dont make even the most sound sacs.They say that they have refuted the ART, which doesnt make sense. I think the art of the KG is the pressure and the obligation white gives to the black with ONE point. However, many of the downfall of black is the psycho edge white got. In chess, you play the person in front of you, not the pieces.
Very well said, jetfighter and batgirl.
I simply say, what would morphy play. and I also like to go for guts so my opening rep is a violent and bloody mess.
as white.
e4. against Sicilian mainline.
against french Tarrach
against carro. crush them
against Alekhine crush them
as black
against d4 Dutch
against e4 Sicilian Dragon.