I just want to thank Robert for giving me a shoutout.
Four Knights Defense
Sort:
Sqod wrote:
cavelorum wrote:
@Sqod, 29. Rxd8+
Yes, thanks, I fixed that notation error (Rxd8+ should have been Rxe8+) by the time you posted. I had various problems posting that PGN text this morning, partly because I had inadvertently inserted a line of text between the tag section and the move section, and the upload software didn't know what kind of file it was viewing until I deleted that line. Then I discovered that transcription error you mentioned.
BoardOfWar,
I'm not so sure beginners should shy away from studying openings. Openings, tactics, and strategy all fit together, at least eventually, so it makes sense to study them together right from the start, though admittedly in smaller doses than an experienced player would do. For example, you wouldn't study pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary in separate months when studying a given foreign language because you need all three right from the start. They all fit together as a cohesive whole.
The problem is that this theory, while theoretically correct, is not practical in chess.
This theory assumes that there is some mastery in the areas you mentioned but in chess that isn't the case at all. Most games at club level are won by tactics and blunders. It occurs so often that strategy becomes irrelevant since pieces don't stay on the board long enough for it to work.
And even strategy does work out the positions won't win themselves. Sooner or later someone has to attack and you get back to the tactics problem again. That's why tactics tend to be what people recommend. When you can learn to attack and defend decently then strategy and openings start to get a little more important.
This line for black might score against distracted players. Also works for white if black mirrors castling.
What do you guys think? Dubious?
Nov 12, 2015
0
#25
kkl10 wrote:
What do you guys think? Dubious?
A good player(s) would never reach this position because they wouldn't have lost a tempo with 4. a3 or 4...a6, and they probably would have reacted with The Fork Trick after 5. Bc4 (via 5...Nxe4 6. Nxe4 d5) or 5...Bc5 (via 6. Nxe5 Nxe5 7. d4).
a3 doesnt lose a tempo...
For instance, after 4.a3 a6, now 5.d4 exd4 6.Nxd4 and black cannot play Bb4...
On 4.a3 (Gunsberg variation), black cannot really play 4...Bc5 5.Nxe5, so black has to chose between 4.d4 playing reverse, and 4...g6 playing Glek reverse.
On 4...d6, white may have a slight edge after 5.d4, black blocked his Bf8 bishop with d6, but they can play a kind of Ruy Lopez Steinitz position.
In all these variations, a3 can be useful, controlling b4 square, u can play b4 somtimes, and black cannot really avoid entering a reverse 4 knight.
So its an interesting reply, really not a loss of tempo.
melvinbluestone wrote:
4.a3 is certainly solid enough for white.
It seems you are ready to enter Anish Giri's speciality 4.h3.
Snowgrace95 wrote:
A bit off topic, but what do you think about this variation?
Interesting- and equal.
Since Kramnik revived it, it was tested in several top level games, and ways for Black towards full equality have been found.
Yet, it's very playable- white's plan is very clear and simple to achieve, and memorizing is not a premium.
There is a well known variation which has a good pedigree :
Giri played this with White, gaining h3 move which can be useful.
You don't say. Any other suggestion? The main reason why Capablanca is even today a good read is that no matter how simplistic it may seem, following some simple rules as for instance the one that knights are at their best when they are placed on f6 and c6, and poorly placed on a6,b6,g6 and h6 helps, but we are better than that, and anyway it's an old book that nobody ever reads.
I think that a 1400 player should surely know the above, great compiled list btw, but I would be concerned if an 800 player did not know those. I am no opening specialist by any means, but I know the basic lines for the Ruy, Gioco Piano, QG, KG, Four Knights, Sicilian (Najdorf, Alapin, Dragon, Smith-Morra), Nimzo-Indian, etc. I tend to prefer either extreme attacks (such as from Tal, Alekhine, or Kaspy) or tense positional play (such as from Karpov, Steinitz, Nimzovich, etc). I'm no GM, I don't claim to be, but I think that different learning methods work for different people.