TradeKingsAndParty wrote:
I am pretty sure you can do either and then play the other.
but they're kinda different
Bf5 or c5 in the Advanced Caro Kann?
Sort:
TradeKingsAndParty wrote:
One doesn't preclude the other. I am in no way a Caro Kann expert, but I do play advance as white in both Caro Kann and French.
I guess you have to ask yourself, do you want to attack the queenside or get a piece in the action like with the London for white?
Aronian and Carlsen played a bunch of London games, not recently, but in a previous tournament. In this game, white used it more as a defending piece. Can we say the same for black in a Bf5 Caro Kann?
In the Caro Kann game, black has to use their queen. So, the question I would be looking into is can black find a way to bring a rook onto their 8th rank (1st rank) to make it worth it? Or, is this just a matter of accepting a trade later on?
Here is a more recent game. Trading was the fate of the LSB again, and this would be my conclusion so far. Perhaps c5 keeps the bishop on the board giving black chances to get a win, whereas Bf5 plays it safe and gets rid of the LSB to reach a draw or complicated endgame. I'll look for endgame examples after posting this one.
thanks, I've played c5 for a bit and the positions I get tend to be more complex than Bf5
Jul 2, 2021
0
#4
Bramblyspam wrote:
I'll make sure to those books! They'll probably be my first chess books
3..c5 has a lot less theory even now i think. Although in the main lines black doesn't get his pawn back or would rather gambit it, so it's completely different if you are used to maneuvering in the closed positions after 3..bf5.
dude i play both bf5 and c5 and i am talking out of experience. i am not saying c5 has a lot less theory because i saw it in some other comment here. i took the time to study both. a lot of time. i just don't like assuming that my opponent is an idiot who never bothers to learn after being crushed repeatedly with the same concept. while it is true that it may never happen over the board at all, it is still the prime example of how to extract the maximum out of the position and so you learn how that is done.
regarding the first, there's no need to measure that. i don't believe in playing "good enough to beat this rating range" approach and only then change when the opposition becomes stronger. i believe in playing correctly no matter who. it's easier to maintain that in my opinion.
as for the second, i don't care whether my opponent knows his theory or not. that's not my problem. i cannot rely on that variable. if i know my own, then that is enough to give me confidence.
as for the third, dude this is not academia, there is established theory with bf5 and c5. bf5 gives white a wide range of positional and tactical options. all of them have bite and have to be dealt with differently. it is white to chooses and this is the most important. with c5 white can also choose but only dxc5 has any venom and so the effort can be funneled here.
following is easy. you are not forced to think about anything really. actually taking up the repertoire is a hard task. i don't think you have even tried that yet, so don't trivialize.
i suppose your comment would make some sense if i had lazily given mine without any experience or thought. but you don't seem to be better in specific caro kann theory than i am, as if you were you wouldn't need to be "following" games. you should've at least checked whether i actually played the caro kann, but why bother when you can just make comments and cross your fingers.
Based off of what I've heard so far, c5 is more dynamic and active; Bf5 is more solid and maneuvering. Correct?
to puffyfoot,
it's not that clear cut. you have more opportunities to maneuver in the positional lines that white has in the bf5 advance if he doesn't create any central tension early and just tries to clamp down on your main pawn breaks c5 and f6.
while in the c5 line of the advance you mostly expect dxc5 and from there you have to play dynamically as black as you don't want white to just consolidate his extra pawn and win. however, in the non-critical lines you may get some maneuvering games. for example if white just plays it like a french advance and you get to play bg4 it usually ends up with a fixed center and maneuvering ensues.
king5minblitz119147 wrote:
to puffyfoot,
it's not that clear cut. you have more opportunities to maneuver in the positional lines that white has in the bf5 advance if he doesn't create any central tension early and just tries to clamp down on your main pawn breaks c5 and f6.
while in the c5 line of the advance you mostly expect dxc5 and from there you have to play dynamically as black as you don't want white to just consolidate his extra pawn and win. however, in the non-critical lines you may get some maneuvering games. for example if white just plays it like a french advance and you get to play bg4 it usually ends up with a fixed center and maneuvering ensues.
ok
Jul 2, 2021
0
#12
PuffyFoot wrote:
Based off of what I've heard so far, c5 is more dynamic and active; Bf5 is more solid and maneuvering. Correct?
I'd imagine so given that most bf5 Advance lines result in a trade of the LSBs and then black playing e6 and slowly building up the c5 and f6 breaks, while in the c5 lines the lsb hasn't been committed to anything yet
although I don't play Caro so take with grain of salt
I play Bf5, but I want to try c5. Do any of you guys have any tips on playing c5?