Trying to get back on track:
4.Be3?! is not particularly good. 4...cxd4! is the critical response and scores quite well for Black, but 4...Qb6!?/?! is interesting and has been played.
The one game between masters that I found actually showed an interesting idea. White offered a pawn and Black didn't take it. I liked Black's position after ~10 moves, but White won the game. The game was only a blitz/rapid internet game, but it was still interesting:
After reading this thread I came to the conclusion that Xplayer's aggressive illiteracy is the problem. I like the way he writes "whatever" as two words while defending his reading mistake because "ill-timed" was not hyphenated. This is especially egregious because the use of "whatever" as a mild dismissive is idiomatic. Due to this lack of attention to detail, the sentence "[t]hey said they spent 5 mins or what ever" can be read as a poorly punctuated interruption by infinity that distracts the speaker. In this case, the sentence should read "they said they spent 5 mins or…" "What, ever?"
This post is patently ridiculous, but this misreading is as equally plausible as reading "ill timed" to mean pouchin's move is making pfren sick right now. Nothing anybody else said or did derailed this thread. Except maybe this post.
Pfren, that was from the same tnmt that I posted from. I chose not to use that game because Black didn't play 4...Qb6.
Fiveofswords,
The O.P. asked about 4...Qb6 (which is decorated as an interesting move) after 4.Be3, and this is pretty clear. I guessed that even you would understand this, but... alas, no such luck.
Expecting FoS to execute common sense? That's really bold pfren!
I must ask X-player : is your first language English ? While I dont expect anyone's English to be perfect ( mine certainly is NOT ) I do expect an American's English to be better than a Germans , a Greeks and a Frenchman's ! The fact is that US schools are doing an awful job these days as is indicated by the very fact that the English of many US students is worse than the English of foreigners who are speaking/writing English as a second or third language ! My wife is Portuguese and her English is better than many Americans ... this is a condemnation of our educational system . She also knows more about US history than do many Americans .. which is truly sad .
Well, dear FivefSwords... 3.Be3 is a nonsense gambit (I don't remember its name, shame on me), 4.Be3 is a nonsense move with no name, 4.c3 Nc6 5.Be3 is the Kupreichik variation which may be nonsense, and your posts are nonsense from head to foot. I hope I was more clear now- or not?
Alapin variation ?
I must ask X-player : is your first language English ? While I dont expect anyone's English to be perfect ( mine certainly is NOT ) I do expect an American's English to be better than a Germans , a Greeks and a Frenchman's ! The fact is that US schools are doing an awful job these days as is indicated by the very fact that the English of many US students is worse than the English of foreigners who are speaking/writing English as a second or third language ! My wife is Portuguese and her English is better than many Americans ... this is a condemnation of our educational system . She also knows more about US history than do many Americans .. which is truly sad .
It all depends on the school. Don't generalize.
I must ask X-player : is your first language English ? While I dont expect anyone's English to be perfect ( mine certainly is NOT ) I do expect an American's English to be better than a Germans , a Greeks and a Frenchman's ! The fact is that US schools are doing an awful job these days as is indicated by the very fact that the English of many US students is worse than the English of foreigners who are speaking/writing English as a second or third language ! My wife is Portuguese and her English is better than many Americans ... this is a condemnation of our educational system . She also knows more about US history than do many Americans .. which is truly sad .
I am actually a Latin American.
from a humanistic side attacking xplayer is simply wrong. its not making any positive difference in the word. and from a logical standpoint your argument is totally invalid anyway....if you seriously think you are trying to call attention to something important. please. this is known as a case study logical fallacy...xplayer is one person from the us who misunderstood the meaning of one post? therefore us education system is terrible? it does not follow. get smarter please.
Huh?
X_Player's posts have been long-winded drivel. Your one post of substance that I saw had nothing to do with the question, but about another French position involving Qb6.
While I'm no fan of personal attacks, I haven't seen anything from either of you that is germane and useful to this topic.
i think this thread is rather fascinating from a psychological standpoint. lets just sit back and observe the indisputable facts. first of all the op asked about 4...qb6 in the french advance. the op did not specify what whites 4th move was an in fact gave a strange 4th move. poucin focused on the exact strange line the op gave. i took a more generalized approach stating how qb6 is not rare in the french because of pressure on d4..but i stated that whether qb6 is good or not obviously must depends on the specific position and the fact the op did not provide a 4th move from white shows he isnt thibking of specific positions. i offered one variation where i know qb6 is a good and logical move...and i felt it illustrated well the way black can force white to clarify his intentions by putting pressure on d4 while also how taking on b2 may be unwise...this was apparently a terrible thing for me to do and provoked outcries from pfren who i suppose didnt notice that the qb6 move in that line does in fact pressure d4...and his attitude was assisted by by various irrelevant minions who i suppose dont think i might know that the tarrasch is not the advance....whatever...all of it was unecessary and useless. meanwhile poor xplayer takes issue with this trolling from pfren and most unfortunately for xplayer he seems to misunderstand pfrens comments relating to poucin...which people could have just ignored and let go and dealt with the more relevant fact which is that pfren and smyslovs attitude is very negative and unnecessary and actually quite wrong. but people preferred to jump all over xplayer with cavailing details of how he could misunderstand the language used by pfren. now we cant speak about qb6 in the french anymore now this is a circus of petty bickering. where did it start? pfren.
After a few days of people saying my English is terrible, My translation is terrible, and my understanding is terrible.
Those people have came up with phrases which translates what Pfren comment said below:
4...Qb6 looks ill timed to me after Poucin's suggested move 5.Nc3.
The text in green is what Pfren originally said.
A few commenters interpreted the text in green with below statements:
Now lets take the first sentence from above.
In the above sentence if we wanted to flip the subject and predicate of the sentence around how would we do it?
Poucin's suggested move 5.Nc3 makes the move 4...Qb6 look ill to Pfren.
Now take out the moves!
Pouncin's suggested move is making Pfren Ill.
What did I say?
Pouncin move is making him Ill?
In the above sentence the only thing they can critize me on is my use of the word "him"
Since it could cause confusion on who "him" is.
However, The "him" I am refering to in this sentence is Pfren.
At which case I could of wrote the sentence like below:
Pouncin move is making Pfren Ill.
I guess I do not see how I am misinterpreting what has been said by flipping the sentence around.
from a humanistic side attacking xplayer is simply wrong. its not making any positive difference in the word. and from a logical standpoint your argument is totally invalid anyway....if you seriously think you are trying to call attention to something important. please. this is known as a case study logical fallacy...xplayer is one person from the us who misunderstood the meaning of one post? therefore us education system is terrible? it does not follow. get smarter please.
Huh?
X_Player's posts have been long-winded drivel. Your one post of substance that I saw had nothing to do with the question, but about another French position involving Qb6.
While I'm no fan of personal attacks, I haven't seen anything from either of you that is germane and useful to this topic.
obviously not true. you are a fan of personal attacks. and you are a little bit stupid as well because you cant grasp how speaking of qb6 in the french in general could possibly be relevant to qb6 in a particular position. i made one simple innocent post and then was forced to make posts to clarify why the hell i made that post...which should not have been confusing to anyone with a brain...and then i felt it was necessary to call attention to the immature behavior coming from pfren and you and others because really people should recognize this. beyond ruining this thread you guys make this forum a negative experience in general. because of your love of personal attacks...which you laughably claim to not be a fan of.
Well said FOS
The OP of this thread was asking about the move Qb6 specifically.
FOS diagram addressed the idea of Qb6.
The OP was not trying to dwell on white's 4th move.
The OP was wanting feed back on the idea of 4...Qb6 itself.
As it turned out the move 4...Qb6 was a bad move after seeing whites move 4.Be3.
However, If white's 4th move was 4.c3 the move 4...Qb6 is playable.
For further vindication post #19 by the OP himself settles this issue.
Okay, I did not intend for this to turn out into a debate or anything, it was just a question on whether..qb6 is logicsl and safe or not.
JSYK, ..be3 is not my line nor recommended choice; it was just a move I threw out, and obviously there are better choices.
Qg4 also happens to be another line I'm studying. Any ideas there? :)
i think this thread is rather fascinating from a psychological standpoint. lets just sit back and observe the indisputable facts. first of all the op asked about 4...qb6 in the french advance. the op did not specify what whites 4th move was an in fact gave a strange 4th move. poucin focused on the exact strange line the op gave. i took a more generalized approach stating how qb6 is not rare in the french because of pressure on d4..but i stated that whether qb6 is good or not obviously must depends on the specific position and the fact the op did not provide a 4th move from white shows he isnt thibking of specific positions. i offered one variation where i know qb6 is a good and logical move...and i felt it illustrated well the way black can force white to clarify his intentions by putting pressure on d4 while also how taking on b2 may be unwise...this was apparently a terrible thing for me to do and provoked outcries from pfren who i suppose didnt notice that the qb6 move in that line does in fact pressure d4...and his attitude was assisted by by various irrelevant minions who i suppose dont think i might know that the tarrasch is not the advance....whatever...all of it was unecessary and useless. meanwhile poor xplayer takes issue with this trolling from pfren and most unfortunately for xplayer he seems to misunderstand pfrens comments relating to poucin...which people could have just ignored and let go and dealt with the more relevant fact which is that pfren and smyslovs attitude is very negative and unnecessary and actually quite wrong. but people preferred to jump all over xplayer with cavailing details of how he could misunderstand the language used by pfren. now we cant speak about qb6 in the french anymore now this is a circus of petty bickering. where did it start? pfren.
After a few days of people saying my English is terrible, My translation is terrible, and my understanding is terrible.
Those people have came up with phrases which translates what Pfren comment said below:
4...Qb6 looks ill timed to me after Poucin's suggested move 5.Nc3.
The text in green is what Pfren originally said.
A few commenters interpreted the text in green with below statements:
"4...Qb6 looks ill-timed to me after [I saw] Poucin's suggested move 5.Nc3".He was saying that poucin's move, far from being bad, is actually the reason 4...Qb6 is not the correct move.
Now lets take the first sentence from above.
"4...Qb6 looks ill-timed to me after [I saw] Poucin's suggested move 5.Nc3".In the above sentence if we wanted to flip the subject and predicate of the sentence around how would we do it?
Poucin's suggested move 5.Nc3 makes the move 4...Qb6 look ill to Pfren.
Now take out the moves!
Pouncin's suggested move is making Pfren Ill.
What did I say?
Pouncin move is making him Ill?
In the above sentence the only thing they can critize me on is my use of the word "him"
Since it could cause confusion on who "him" is.
However, The "him" I am refering to in this sentence is Pfren.
At which case I could of wrote the sentence like below:
Pouncin move is making Pfren Ill.
I guess I do not see how I am misinterpreting what has been said by flipping the sentence around.
What the hell? How did "ill-timed" become "ill" in your interpretation?
Amazing how fast these posts train wreck...Someone asks 1 simple question, and it turns into...well...a train wreck.
Amazing how fast these posts train wreck...Someone asks 1 simple question, and it turns into...well...a train wreck.
Agreed and that is the biggest problem with this site.
Fiveofswords often posts interesting stuff on openings for people of my lowly level, but seems to be regularly attacked for it, mainly by so-called "titled" members.
Their motives for so doing are, frankly, a mystery to me; and as for an NM coming on to attack a fellow member for his bad English?? ...What the hell is the point of that?
Until the Moderators keep the chess forums on point, I will continue to be a very occasional visitor. I have a lot to learn about chess and I learn far more elsewhere, where this petty squabbling is actively discouraged.
i think this thread is rather fascinating from a psychological standpoint. lets just sit back and observe the indisputable facts. first of all the op asked about 4...qb6 in the french advance. the op did not specify what whites 4th move was an in fact gave a strange 4th move. poucin focused on the exact strange line the op gave. i took a more generalized approach stating how qb6 is not rare in the french because of pressure on d4..but i stated that whether qb6 is good or not obviously must depends on the specific position and the fact the op did not provide a 4th move from white shows he isnt thibking of specific positions. i offered one variation where i know qb6 is a good and logical move...and i felt it illustrated well the way black can force white to clarify his intentions by putting pressure on d4 while also how taking on b2 may be unwise...this was apparently a terrible thing for me to do and provoked outcries from pfren who i suppose didnt notice that the qb6 move in that line does in fact pressure d4...and his attitude was assisted by by various irrelevant minions who i suppose dont think i might know that the tarrasch is not the advance....whatever...all of it was unecessary and useless. meanwhile poor xplayer takes issue with this trolling from pfren and most unfortunately for xplayer he seems to misunderstand pfrens comments relating to poucin...which people could have just ignored and let go and dealt with the more relevant fact which is that pfren and smyslovs attitude is very negative and unnecessary and actually quite wrong. but people preferred to jump all over xplayer with cavailing details of how he could misunderstand the language used by pfren. now we cant speak about qb6 in the french anymore now this is a circus of petty bickering. where did it start? pfren.
After a few days of people saying my English is terrible, My translation is terrible, and my understanding is terrible.
Those people have came up with phrases which translates what Pfren comment said below:
4...Qb6 looks ill timed to me after Poucin's suggested move 5.Nc3.
The text in green is what Pfren originally said.
A few commenters interpreted the text in green with below statements:
"4...Qb6 looks ill-timed to me after [I saw] Poucin's suggested move 5.Nc3".He was saying that poucin's move, far from being bad, is actually the reason 4...Qb6 is not the correct move.
Now lets take the first sentence from above.
"4...Qb6 looks ill-timed to me after [I saw] Poucin's suggested move 5.Nc3".In the above sentence if we wanted to flip the subject and predicate of the sentence around how would we do it?
Poucin's suggested move 5.Nc3 makes the move 4...Qb6 look ill to Pfren.
Now take out the moves!
Pouncin's suggested move is making Pfren Ill.
What did I say?
Pouncin move is making him Ill?
In the above sentence the only thing they can critize me on is my use of the word "him"
Since it could cause confusion on who "him" is.
However, The "him" I am refering to in this sentence is Pfren.
At which case I could of wrote the sentence like below:
Pouncin move is making Pfren Ill.
I guess I do not see how I am misinterpreting what has been said by flipping the sentence around.
What the hell? How did "ill-timed" become "ill" in your interpretation?
Well I interpreted "Ill-timed" as in "not good".
"Ill-timed" = not good = bad = ill = terrible.
I was reading the statement as:
Poucin's suggested move 5.Nc3 makes the move 4...Qb6 look bad to Pfren.
However, I see my mistake.
When I tryed to convert the sentence into a broad statement.
It made the sentence lose its meaning.
I admit I am wrong in my attempt to convert this sentence.
Pfren is justified.
Pfren was not talking bad about Poucin.
However, Pfren did talk bad about FOS.
My agruement was Pfren is being mean to other players.
I had Pfren pinned for being mean to 2 different players.
As it turns out he is only accountable for 1.
My agruement which was geared to Pfren being mean to others is still right except Pfren is being mean to 1 less player now.
As far as the below statements:
No matter how you say them or which interpretation you chose to use.
They are still all wrong in the world of chess.
The move 5.Nc3 is not what makes 4...Qb6 a terrible move.
The reason 4...Qb6 is a terrible move is because Black had a stronger continuation which could have been played.
The continuation which happens after 4...cxd4 would have given black a slight advantage.
Amazing how fast these posts train wreck...Someone asks 1 simple question, and it turns into...well...a train wreck.
Agreed and that is the biggest problem with this site.
Fiveofswords often posts interesting stuff on openings for people of my lowly level, but seems to be regularly attacked for it, mainly by so-called "titled" members.
Their motives for so doing are, frankly, a mystery to me; and as for an NM coming on to attack a fellow member for his bad English?? ...What the hell is the point of that?
Until the Moderators keep the chess forums on point, I will continue to be a very occasional visitor. I have a lot to learn about chess and I learn far more elsewhere, where this petty squabbling is actively discouraged.
This post is just 1 example of how bad pretty much any post on "Openings" can be. You get hundreds of opinions ranging from titled players, to players that wouldnt know the difference between an opening and a hole in the gound, but because a chess engine told them +.2 its a good line.
Dont misunderstand what im saying...there are some good players here (titled and untitled) that know there opening stuff.
And people at the chess club have the nerve to ask me why I don't study openings!!! 
Read through the entire four pages and count up how many dealt specifically with the original question directly.
Fiveofswords wrote:
i think this thread is rather fascinating from a psychological standpoint. lets just sit back and observe the indisputable facts. first of all the op asked about 4...qb6 in the french advance. the op did not specify what whites 4th move was an in fact gave a strange 4th move.
Yes, it's a fascinating thread alright. At this point you don't even need any additional input from anyone - they can just sit back and observe you bury yourself in the indisputable facts.