0.3 according to which engine ? I remember seeing a SF8 eval about 0.7. Either way, the line is trash.
Austrian defense
Sort:
savagechess2k wrote:
0.3 according to which engine ? I remember seeing a SF8 eval about 0.7. Either way, the line is trash.
I use lichess stockfish 8
Sep 30, 2017
0
#4
savagechess2k:
I disagree the line is trash. I had to study it for a while because one chess program (Bluebush Chess) used to play it against me all the time.
PAWNSFORPRESIDENT:
If you decide to start playing that line, contact me, and I'll try to find my old analysis to help you out.
Sep 30, 2017
0
#5
pfren wrote:
It does not mean that the variation is good. Bezgodov likes to author books about weird, semi-refuted openings.
Wow, a whole book on it! I didn't know anybody bothered to analyze it that much. Great find, Pfren.
Sep 30, 2017
0
#6
Sqod wrote:
pfren wrote:
It does not mean that the variation is good. Bezgodov likes to author books about weird, semi-refuted openings.
Wow, a whole book on it! I didn't know anybody bothered to analyze it that much. Great find, Pfren.
If you pay attention to the upcoming publications of all the major chess book publishing companies (Everyman, Quality Chess, New in Chess, Chess Stars, Russell Enterprises, Thinkers Press, Chess Evolution, Informant, etc), you'd realize that just about anything that is even remotely close to borderline normal, there's probably something published on it.
Case in point, I'm currently on page 55 of a book that is 400 pages of nothing but the Greek Gift Sacrifice when the other book I'm actively reading right now is a book on Sacrifice and Initiative (not one specific sacrifice) and it's only 255 pages, so go figure!
Other whacko openings that have entire books written on them include the 3...Ne4 Budapest, the Vulture (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Ne4), the Dangerfield Attack (1.d4 f5 2.Bf4), etc.
Sqod wrote:
savagechess2k:
I disagree the line is trash. I had to study it for a while because one chess program (Bluebush Chess) used to play it against me all the time.
PAWNSFORPRESIDENT:
If you decide to start playing that line, contact me, and I'll try to find my old analysis to help you out.
No i dont want to know how to play it because it is trash, im just wondering why it is.
Oct 3, 2017
0
#8
PAWNSFORPRESIDENT wrote:
No i dont want to know how to play it because it is trash, im just wondering why it is.
What? You just called it trash, and you don't even know why?
Sqod wrote:
PAWNSFORPRESIDENT wrote:
No i dont want to know how to play it because it is trash, im just wondering why it is.
What? You just called it trash, and you don't even know why?
I mean it gives black a disadvantage, a big one, and there are few gm games that use this. it's like old benoni and albin counter gambit mixed together.
Nov 20, 2018
0
#10
PAWNSFORPRESIDENT wrote:
Sqod wrote:
PAWNSFORPRESIDENT wrote:
No i dont want to know how to play it because it is trash, im just wondering why it is.
What? You just called it trash, and you don't even know why?
I mean it gives black a disadvantage, a big one, and there are few gm games that use this. it's like old benoni and albin counter gambit mixed together.
Nonsense. I use this opening and it's fine for black:
This is the best that white can get from it and it's just a +0.2 advantage on both
fun trap in the Austrian
Sqod wrote:
pfren wrote:
It does not mean that the variation is good. Bezgodov likes to author books about weird, semi-refuted openings.
Wow, a whole book on it! I didn't know anybody bothered to analyze it that much. Great find, Pfren.
It's also the opening Rubinstein started advocating near the very end as he went insane. He apparently became really interested in symmetry in chess and felt that since it was symmetrical it should at some point bring equality.
https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/rubinstein1.html
I feel like austrain defense is very underrated it's only been played 125 times and gives white an advantage of only 0.3, i don't play it i'm just wondering why people don't play it