Different (new?) try for Black in the English

  • #21
    pfren wrote:
     

    Here are a couple of them. I could not find many more, because only psycopaths play like that with Black.

    Your last ...h5 idea is great for the circus.

    I object. Some of my best friends are psychopaths, and only a few of them play like that.

  • #22
    pfren wrote:

    Yes, an idiot would play 11.h3. A regular player, would simply ignore you and play 11.Rd1, when you may start wondering how you can put the rest of your pieces into play... (+0.76 according to Houdini, but I'm pretty sure that Black is painfully close to losing outright).


    10.Qe2 h4 11.Rd1 hxg3 12.hxg3 Be5 13.b3 Kf7 14.Bb2 Qf8 15.Nf3 Qh6 & Black gets his pieces in play.

  • #23

    Così è (se vi pare).

  • #24

    why would black ever play ...c5 in the leningrad? seems like a fool's decision. I can not name a decent opening in which white or black plays f4 and c4 (or f5 and c5), and not be clearly worse. Black heavily exposes himself in the center with such play, and often huge gaping holes arise.

  • #25
    Oran_perrett wrote:

    why can't the 1400rated player see that prehaps the IM is maybe right?

    Because I was wrong. After 10.Qe2 h4 11.Rd1 hxg3 12.hxg3 Be5 13.Nd5, the new engine evaluation is +1.13, so my previous post was totally misleading.

    I am sure that I would not win this position OTB: my laughter would be so annoying, that the ref would stop the clock and disqualify both players- white for disturbing the tournament, and Black for defaming chess.

  • #26

    Excuse me, but is it really necessary to insult someone quite so much for the crime of suggesting poor chess moves?  I appreciate the explanations for why Black's idea is misconceived, but I find the cackling that accompanies it kind of shrill.

  • #27
    GargleBlaster wrote:

    Excuse me, but is it really necessary to insult someone quite so much for the crime of suggesting poor chess moves?  I appreciate the explanations for why Black's idea is misconceived, but I find the cackling that accompanies it kind of shrill.

    It usually happens when the debate is over something either ridiculous or obvious, and the other person simply will not "get it".

  • #28
    GargleBlaster wrote:

    Excuse me, but is it really necessary to insult someone quite so much for the crime of suggesting poor chess moves?  I appreciate the explanations for why Black's idea is misconceived, but I find the cackling that accompanies it kind of shrill.

    It is also because the OP is a troll, that relies on engine evaluations of the opening....a terrible decision since engines are HORRIFIC at openings.

  • #29

    I'm not arguing the point that the original idea is dubious, just that respectfully pointing it out and moving on would probably suffice, especially if the OP is trolling (which I rather doubt).

  • #30

    Regularly, it doesn't happen even in that case, but if the OP does precisely the same thing (nonsensical posts with utter crap which, despite his claims, do not hold any water even inside an ocean) endless times, then we can certainly excuse you, but not him.

  • #31
    Randomemory wrote:
    GargleBlaster wrote:

    Excuse me, but is it really necessary to insult someone quite so much for the crime of suggesting poor chess moves?  I appreciate the explanations for why Black's idea is misconceived, but I find the cackling that accompanies it kind of shrill.

    It is also because the OP is a troll, that relies on engine evaluations of the opening....a terrible decision since engines are HORRIFIC at openings.

    Actually the OP isn't even relying on the engine. His moves are far worse than anything the engines would play.

  • #32
    Oran_perrett wrote:

    anyway it's ovious that playing a move like h5 isn't going to be great in the opening  since it defies all principles

    umm...there are exceptions in the english where black randomly starts pushing h5-h4.

  • #33
    pfren wrote:

    Regularly, it doesn't happen even in that case, but if the OP does precisely the same thing (nonsensical posts with utter crap which, despite his claims, do not hold any water even inside an ocean) endless times, then we can certainly excuse you, but not him.

    Sorry, I honestly don't understand what that means - you're excusing me if the OP posts utter crap?  How very generous. :)

    Incidentally, I enjoy your curmudgeonly contributions to this site very much, pfren, but sometimes the caustic glee you take in mocking those you are presumably trying to help strikes me as a bit overbearing.  For instance, in this case, the OP wasn't insulting anyone or engaging in otherwise trollish behavior, he simply was tossing out lines that he doesn't grasp as being bad.  As far as I can tell, the only rudeness might have been that of omission - he didn't thank you for your help (which, to be fair, was a bit snarky even to begin with) or express joyful wonder and awe at the fact that you deigned to comment on his humble post, which, while clearly a forum faux pas, perhaps isn't worth the fully vented outrage of chess.com's resident Council of Elders.

  • #34
    GargleBlaster wrote:

    Sorry, I honestly don't understand what that means - you're excusing me if the OP posts utter crap?  How very generous. :)

    Well, you kindly asked to excuse you in your previous post- didn't you?  Tongue Out

    I also have the sad duty to disagree with FireBrandX: These are precisely the moves an engine would suggest, if the operator had forgotten to put the computer plug in the socket.

  • #35
    pfren wrote:
    GargleBlaster wrote:

    Sorry, I honestly don't understand what that means - you're excusing me if the OP posts utter crap?  How very generous. :)

    Well, you kindly asked to excuse you in your previous post- didn't you? 

    Sigh, I can't tell who's trolling who anymore here. :)

  • #36
    pfren wrote:
    Oran_perrett wrote:

    why can't the 1400rated player see that prehaps the IM is maybe right?

    Because I was wrong. After 10.Qe2 h4 11.Rd1 hxg3 12.hxg3 Be5 13.Nd5, the new engine evaluation is +1.13, so my previous post was totally misleading.

    I am sure that I would not win this position OTB: my laughter would be so annoying, that the ref would stop the clock and disqualify both players- white for disturbing the tournament, and Black for defaming chess.

    10.Qe2 h4 11.Rd1 hxg3 12.hxg3 Kf7 (instead of Be5) 13.Bd5ch e6 (Now the Queen can come into play) 14.Nxe6 dxe6 15.Bxc6 Qc7 16.Bf3 Bxc3 17.bxc3 Ne5 18.Bg2 Qxc4 19.Qxc4 Nxc4 & Black may hold the ending.

  • #37
    pfren wrote:
    GargleBlaster wrote:

    Sorry, I honestly don't understand what that means - you're excusing me if the OP posts utter crap?  How very generous. :)

    Well, you kindly asked to excuse you in your previous post- didn't you? 

    I also have the sad duty to disagree with FireBrandX: These are precisely the moves an engine would suggest, if the operator had forgotten to put the computer plug in the socket.

    I stand corrected.

  • #38
    sloughterchess wrote:
    pfren wrote:
    Oran_perrett wrote:

    why can't the 1400rated player see that prehaps the IM is maybe right?

    Because I was wrong. After 10.Qe2 h4 11.Rd1 hxg3 12.hxg3 Be5 13.Nd5, the new engine evaluation is +1.13, so my previous post was totally misleading.

    I am sure that I would not win this position OTB: my laughter would be so annoying, that the ref would stop the clock and disqualify both players- white for disturbing the tournament, and Black for defaming chess.

    10.Qe2 h4 11.Rd1 hxg3 12.hxg3 Kf7 (instead of Be5) 13.Bd5ch e6 (Now the Queen can come into play) 14.Nxe6 dxe6 15.Bxc6 Qc7 16.Bf3 Bxc3 17.bxc3 Ne5 18.Bg2 Qxc4 19.Qxc4 Nxc4 & Black may hold the ending.

    At a Depth of 35 Houdini 3 has this as +.67, +/=

  • #39

    A different move order might be 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 f5?! 3.d4 e6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.d5 d6 6.Ng5 exd5 7.cxd5 Be7 8.e4 O-O 9.exf5 Bxf5 10.Bd3 Qd7 11.O-O Na6 12.Bxf5 Qxf5 13.Ne6 Re7 14.a3 Ne8 15.g4 (f4 h5 =) Qf3 16.Bg5 Qxd1 17.Raxd1 Bxg5 18.Nxg5 Rd7 19.Ne6 Nac7 20.Rfe1 b5 =

or Join

Online Now