If you do not show the draw till king and king you did not analyze everything. 
You sound full of crap to me. And should I also mention White has 3 main piece setups in the 6.Bg5 mainline?
Clearly giving too many options is not a problem for GMs. And do not come with the stupid "argument" that the Najdorf is equal because no one knows that.
If you do not show the draw till king and king you did not analyze everything.
You sound full of crap to me. And should I also mention White has 3 main piece setups in the 6.Bg5 mainline?
Clearly giving too many options is not a problem for GMs. And do not come with the stupid "argument" that the Najdorf is equal because nGM PRAXISo one knows that.
OH MY GOD I just included 6.Bg5 in my last post.
I even said that the problem isn't pure number of choices but theoretically challenging ones.
And who said I analyzed anything? Can you not read the words GM PRAXIS? Can you read at all? Or are you just trolling?
Don't reply to me unless you actually read everything because all you're doing is bringing up things that were already covered. Good grief...
I do not think GMs believe the Najdorf gives equality to Black. If they did they would not be playing 1.e4
6.Bg5 6.Be3 6.Be2 and 6.h3 all pose their own problems to Black and they are all good answers that fight for an edge. Just in the English Attack you have tons of setups White can try to pressure black.
So what you said in your first post:
"- White has a lot of ways to play that are effective against it and GMs don't like giving White so many options against a defense."
Is wrong. Grandmasters do not care about giving tons of options to White.
What GMs do not like is that Black always ends up with the same positions in the Alekhine defense, it is unflexible and Black usually can not push for a win if he plays the Alekhine at top level chess. At least that is what I think. Feel free to correct me with arguments. Not with your GM Praxis crap.
Guys seriously? Please stop.
I do not think GMs believe the Najdorf gives equality to Black. If they did they would not be playing 1.e4
6.Bg5 6.Be3 6.Be2 and 6.h3 all pose their own problems to Black and they are all good answers that fight for an edge. Just in the English Attack you have tons of setups White can try to pressure black.
So what you said in your first post:
"- White has a lot of ways to play that are effective against it and GMs don't like giving White so many options against a defense."
Is wrong. Grandmasters do not care about giving tons of options to White.
What GMs do not like is that Black always ends up with the same positions in the Alekhine defense, it is unflexible and Black usually can not push for a win if he plays the Alekhine at top level chess. At least that is what I think. Feel free to correct me with arguments. Not with your GM Praxis crap.
If you want to ignore the theory and practice of better players than you and only believe in what you "think" is true that is certainly your prerogative.
Why should I stop? It is fun to hear penandpaper. He is a retard.
Here it is. A vague analysis of 6.Bg5, do you still think GMs care about giving their opponents too much options? I could probably keep spanking you with the Kings Indian and other lines of the Sicilian but I will stop because little kids may read this.
I repeat myself, I think (key word between me and your stupid posts) GMs do not play the Alekhine not because White has too many options, or because he gets an edge but because Blacks position is not flexible, the Black side of the Alekhine does not have many setups and it is hard to play for a win against GMs. At least that is what I believe, correct me if I am wrong.
This is just sad. When did this conversation went from a chess discussion about the Alekhine to a dude hiding his flawed arguments in "GM Praxis".
@LeifWulf: The reason why some defenses are less popular between GMs, isn't the number of possibilities to combat them, but that either they're thoroughly analyzed and any lower rated player can put them into "a draw is the best I can get here", or they concede too much space and, once again, they get into "a draw is the best I can get here".
Most titled players accept the risks and play things like the Najdorf, because the imbalances they create are difficult to handle for both sides; thus, there are more chances to go wrong and lose by playing them, but also more chances to win for the very same reasons (that is, compared to some solid defenses that don't create that many imbalances nor concede too much space).
That said, in online blitz just about everything works. In blitz it's more a matter of knowing the positions well (which are good for you, which aren't) to play fast and moderately precise. See, most online fast time control games are just for fun; there are no titles awarded in such games.
Why should I stop? It is fun to hear penandpaper. He is a retard.
Here it is. A vague analysis of 6.Bg5, do you still think GMs care about giving their opponents too much options? I could probably keep spanking you with the Kings Indian and other lines of the Sicilian but I will stop because little kids may read this.
I repeat myself, I think (key word between me and your stupid posts) GMs do not play the Alekhine not because White has too many options, or because he gets an edge but because Blacks position is not flexible, the Black side of the Alekhine does not have many setups and it is hard to play for a win against GMs. At least that is what I believe, correct me if I am wrong.
This is just sad. When did this conversation went from a chess discussion about the Alekhine to a dude hiding his flawed arguments in "GM Praxis".
When you can act like an adult and not a triggered child with your petty insults you'll get an answer. You do have the ability to be civil yes? You can control your emotions yes? You can post without making light of mental illnesses yes?
Like I said your opinion means nothing compared to the opinions of GM players which you constantly choose to ignore. That means that what you "think" is not the reality of the situation. You refuse to do real research in conclusions reached by GMs by practice and continue to post what you "think" as if it holds any water in a opening forum let alone anything that can be considered academic.
I told you to look at the informant which you haven't or the databases which you haven't. So I'm supposed to believe what you "think" over what GMs have actually said themselves? That's simply unreasonable.
Have a nice day.
I do not want to burst the bubble but...
Can anyone show their specific games?
pendandpaper knows crap about what he is talking about. JMurakami a super strong player already came and refuted his stupidity.
If you think that guy is roasting my life you better get a brain transplant son. I also find it funny that he thinks I have not looked at the databases, I play the Najdorf, I may not be a GM, but I know one or two things about the Najdorf, all the analysis I gave in post 47 was just from memory, I did not consult any database.
He knows his is just talking crap and likes to hide in his "look Chess Informant, databases etc..." retarded "argument".
I am still waiting for him to actually post analysis to sustain his argument that the whole Najdorf variation has been analyzed to the point where both sides reach an equal endgame.
Why is he talking about me saying "I think" when he just says "look at chess informant".
I am postulating my theory and asking for other people thoughts on it. Meanwhile he is saying he is right when he knows crap about this subject lol.
Are you gonna run away from this argument because I "insulted" you.
Nice, nice, I like it when they do that lol. Silence gives consent
The Emory Tate line with 4 a4 is fascinating.
The main line of the Four Pawns attack runs 18 moves into engine-level complications, and is one of White's only tries for an edge. It seems almost solved into a draw. The Tate, by contrast, is very rich positionally and has very little theory on it.
The Emory Tate line with 4 a4 is fascinating.
The main line of the Four Pawns attack runs 18 moves into engine-level complications, and is one of White's only tries for an edge. It seems almost solved into a draw. The Tate, by contrast, is very rich positionally and has very little theory on it.
If it is, this is excellent play. White is just throwing everything at black! Hmmmm I might have to follow more up on this.
Why is he talking about me saying "I think" when he just says "look at chess informant".
I am postulating my theory and asking for other people thoughts on it. Meanwhile he is saying he is right when he knows crap about this subject lol.
Are you gonna run away from this argument because I "insulted" you.
Nice, nice, I like it when they do that lol. Silence gives consent
Are you kidding me? I haven't logged on for a week. Get over yourself geez...
You ignore my proof so there's nothing else to say. You think that what you think is more relevant than GM analysis. That's your choice and you are free to it.
You have to prepare for 3. c4 and the Emory Tate variation (4. a4), or 4. c5, after 3...Nb6.
The Four Pawns Attack's main line runs eighteen moves and leads to a ridiculously complicated position where best play seems a forced draw, after Black sacrifices a queen.
There are positional approaches in the Four Pawns, most involving exd6, which leaves White with a bit of a spatial advantage.
You have to prepare for 3. c4 and the Emory Tate variation (4. a4), or 4. c5, after 3...Nb6.
The Four Pawns Attack's main line runs eighteen moves and leads to a ridiculously complicated position where best play seems a forced draw, after Black sacrifices a queen.
There are positional approaches in the Four Pawns, most involving exd6, which leaves White with a bit of a spatial advantage.
Which line are u talking about where black sacrifices a queen? Forced draw in 4 pawns attack?
@StupidGM Well done I didn't even see the mate that could occur! I still don't know if its that bad though. Yes black's king is open but what about instead of 7. c5, black plays 7. Nf6 stopping the queen from coming in and makes a space for the king to move if worse comes.
Maybe you are right though... oh well. Still very good to have in the back of my mind.
Actually it is not. White has 6 main moves against the Najdorf and I see it being played all the time. White has even more options against the King's Indian and It is the most famous defense to 1.d4
Those are just 2 examples that prove your theory wrong, I am sure I can think of more.
All of those 6 moves don't lead to an advantage for White. That's the whole point. There are a number of ways to an advantage in those other defenses with White being able to choose the type of game he wants with each. That's not easy to do at all in the Najdorf and get an advantage in the opening or the Berlin for that matter.
It's not about simply having options but options that give Black a hard time theoretically and allow White to dictate the game on his own terms without much say from Black.
But anyway this is a problem for titled players not everyone else. I play the Alekhine's myself and enjoy it but titled players may not play this defense as often as everyone else.
So you believe that white will be better off in most variations? (no sarcasm just seriously asking)
Theoretically White has a couple of ways to an advantage or at least a position that is much easier to play. But if you don't play at the titled level (like me) then it doesn't really matter. No one is going to press you that hard in the opening and even if they do there is still a middlegame and ending to play.