4. f3
Oops, I'll fix that. Thanks!
Why in Earth would black play like that?
It's a line.
Alburt (a GM) used to play 5. ... f6. So did Basman.
Why in Earth would black play like that?
It's a line.
Alburt (a GM) used to play 5. ... f6. So did Basman.
Well it's definitely not the critical test of the Alekhine. Most people consider dxe5 to be the critical response against the modern variation. Although g6 is playable (check my line against the modern from before). However, 5... f6 is a horrible move. If black simply plays 5...dxe5 6.dxe5 and Bg6. Black stands better.
Check this example:
Here is Bortnyk against the #2 Floridian in the state, GM Julio Beccerra drawing in OTB classical
cool to see Julio being able to hold but even awesome to see the Alekhin OTB, really bortnyk has shown that even the most dubious moves can sstill be super cool and can work well
It is a bad defense, if the pawn were to be taken than the queen would take the horse and result in a +2 trade.
what
I also have no idea what he is talking about, maybe he thinks that chess players like to give pawns for knights?
Iḿ saying it doesn't achieve anything
It is a bad defense, if the pawn were to be taken than the queen would take the horse and result in a +2 trade.
what
I also have no idea what he is talking about, maybe he thinks that chess players like to give pawns for knights?
Iḿ saying it doesn't achieve anything
what does not achieve what?
It is a bad defense, if the pawn were to be taken than the queen would take the horse and result in a +2 trade.
what
I also have no idea what he is talking about, maybe he thinks that chess players like to give pawns for knights?
Iḿ saying it doesn't achieve anything
what does not achieve what?
He's 400. He probably assumes the Alekhine's loses a knight in three moves to e4 e5 exf6.
It is a bad defense, if the pawn were to be taken than the queen would take the horse and result in a +2 trade.
what
I also have no idea what he is talking about, maybe he thinks that chess players like to give pawns for knights?
Iḿ saying it doesn't achieve anything
what does not achieve what?
The pawn can be marched forward or protected with a horse of queen's pawn.
It is a bad defense, if the pawn were to be taken than the queen would take the horse and result in a +2 trade.
what
I also have no idea what he is talking about, maybe he thinks that chess players like to give pawns for knights?
Iḿ saying it doesn't achieve anything
what does not achieve what?
The pawn can be marched forward or protected with a horse of queen's pawn.
That's literally the whole point of the opening.
It is a bad defense, if the pawn were to be taken than the queen would take the horse and result in a +2 trade.
what
I also have no idea what he is talking about, maybe he thinks that chess players like to give pawns for knights?
Iḿ saying it doesn't achieve anything
what does not achieve what?
The pawn can be marched forward or protected with a horse of queen's pawn.
That's literally the whole point of the opening.
none of those outcomes gain black anything
It is a bad defense, if the pawn were to be taken than the queen would take the horse and result in a +2 trade.
what
I also have no idea what he is talking about, maybe he thinks that chess players like to give pawns for knights?
Iḿ saying it doesn't achieve anything
what does not achieve what?
The pawn can be marched forward or protected with a horse of queen's pawn.
That's literally the whole point of the opening.
none of those outcomes gain black anything
The point of the opening is to provoke white to take more space than he can defense. Provoking whites, pawns forward.
It is a bad defense, if the pawn were to be taken than the queen would take the horse and result in a +2 trade.
what
I also have no idea what he is talking about, maybe he thinks that chess players like to give pawns for knights?
Iḿ saying it doesn't achieve anything
what does not achieve what?
The pawn can be marched forward or protected with a horse of queen's pawn.
That's literally the whole point of the opening.
none of those outcomes gain black anything
Every opening is a trade-off.
OR you can see it as an argument. Since protecting the pawn is obviously not challenging, only pushing the pawn must be considered. In that case, white is arguing that his space advantage will be lasting and restrictive, while black is arguing that the center is overextended and brittle and subject to attack.
The game revolves around white's center, and if he can keep his space and restrictions or not.
It is a bad defense, if the pawn were to be taken than the queen would take the horse and result in a +2 trade.
what
I also have no idea what he is talking about, maybe he thinks that chess players like to give pawns for knights?
Iḿ saying it doesn't achieve anything
what does not achieve what?
The pawn can be marched forward or protected with a horse of queen's pawn.
That's literally the whole point of the opening.
none of those outcomes gain black anything
Every opening is a trade-off.
OR you can see it as an argument. Since protecting the pawn is obviously not challenging, only pushing the pawn must be considered. In that case, white is arguing that his space advantage will be lasting and restrictive, while black is arguing that the center is overextended and brittle and subject to attack.
The game revolves around white's center, and if he can keep his space and restrictions or not.
Fair points. However, I can still argue there are much better defenses against kings pawn such as 4 knights game or Italian.
4. f3