Good opening to play against d4 Nf6 Nc3

Sort:
ThrillerFan

Give it up dpnorman - clearly his IQ is below 40.

He even thinks there are two Chigorin Defenses.

There is only 1!  One is a "Defense", the other is a "Variation"!

 

Chigorin "Defense":  1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6

Chigorin "Variation" of the "Ruy Lopez":  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 O-O 9.h3 Na5

X_PLAYER_J_X
ThrillerFan wrote:
X_PLAYER_J_X wrote:
Lastly to address Thriller post below:

ThrillerFan wrote:

Look moron!  We don't need a lecture by someone that has no clue what he's talking about.  And your speel in post 23 is useless as the topic of this thread is the Veresov, fool!

The Veresov is 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 OR 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg5

To claim that the Veresov is a "Grunfeld" is like Claiming a "Pirc" is a "King's Indian Defense" simply because Black's moves are the same.  THEY ARE NOT!

After 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3, 2...d5 3.Bg5 leads to the Veresov unless play proceeds 3...e6 4.e4 (White has independent lines, but 4.e4 is a direct Transposition to the French), most other moves will transpose to something else.  2...c5 3.d5 e5 is the Closed Benoni (not to be confused with the Czech Benoni where White's c-pawn is on c4).

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d6 3.e4 g6 is a direct Transposition to the Pirc Defense.

However, in NONE of these cases do you have a Grunfeld, no matter how much you want to argue it, FOOL! 

Good opening to play against d4 Nf6 Nc3

Only moron in this thread is you Thriller ^^^^ 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 does not classify the position a Veresov Attack?

Furthermore, White can not force the position into a Veresov Attack.

Simply because it is black to move.

The person who showed a Veresov Attack on post #3  was not the OP.

After the post was shown the OP said he didn't know if he would play the move 2...d5

 

What I said on post #23 helped the OP because he likes playing the Gruenfeld.

At which point I do not see why he doesn't play the other Gruenfeld as well.

He can play the Gruenfeld.

If he doesn't want to play 2...d5

Than the OP can play 2...g6  or 2...d6

 

Look, if you are going to try to quote people, quote what they said you GDMF'ing MORON!

NOWHERE DID I EVER SAY THAT 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 IS A VERESOV!

RE-READ POST 26, FOOL!  

QUOTE:  "The Veresov is 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 OR 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg5"

AND:  "After 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3, 2...d5 3.Bg5 leads to the Veresov unless play proceeds 3...e6 4.e4 (White has independent lines, but 4.e4 is a direct Transposition to the French), most other moves will transpose to something else.  2...c5 3.d5 e5 is the Closed Benoni (not to be confused with the Czech Benoni where White's c-pawn is on c4)."

NOWHERE IN THAT GDMF'ING MESSAGE DID I EVER SAY THAT 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 IS A VERESOV, AND NOWHERE DID I EVER SAY IT WAS WHITE TO MOVE AT THAT POINT, FOOL!

IF YOU ARE GOING TO GO AROUND CORRECTING PEOPLE, GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF WHERE THE SUN DOESN'T SHINE, AND QUOTE PEOPLE PROPERLY!  MAYBE YOU WOULDN'T SOUND LIKE SUCH A MORON IF YOU LEARNED SOME COMMON SENSE!

 

I will show POST 26 AGAIN FOR YOU

ThrillerFan wrote:

Look moron!  We don't need a lecture by someone that has no clue what he's talking about.  And your speel in post 23 is useless as the topic of this thread is the Veresov, fool!

The Veresov is 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 OR 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg5

To claim that the Veresov is a "Grunfeld" is like Claiming a "Pirc" is a "King's Indian Defense" simply because Black's moves are the same.  THEY ARE NOT!

After 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3, 2...d5 3.Bg5 leads to the Veresov unless play proceeds 3...e6 4.e4 (White has independent lines, but 4.e4 is a direct Transposition to the French), most other moves will transpose to something else.  2...c5 3.d5 e5 is the Closed Benoni (not to be confused with the Czech Benoni where White's c-pawn is on c4).

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d6 3.e4 g6 is a direct Transposition to the Pirc Defense.

However, in NONE of these cases do you have a Grunfeld, no matter how much you want to argue it, FOOL!

The Topic Title of this thread is the big green header at the top.

Good opening to play against d4 Nf6 Nc3

Once you read the big green header you should understand it is not the Veresov which means you claiming 1.d4 Nf6  2.Nc3 as a Veresov thread wrong!

As for my color choice of red and green.

I decided to use those colors since we are approaching Christmas!

I am keeping in the Christmas Spirit.

I am happy you have seen the error of your ways.

Hopefully my early Christmas gift of sharing the knowledge of the Veresov starting position has helped you understand the Veresov move order more better.

Your welcome buddy.

X_PLAYER_J_X
ThrillerFan wrote:

Give it up dpnorman - clearly his IQ is below 40.

He even thinks there are two Chigorin Defenses.

There is only 1!  One is a "Defense", the other is a "Variation"!

 

Chigorin "Defense":  1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6

Chigorin "Variation" of the "Ruy Lopez":  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 O-O 9.h3 Na5

They do call it the Chigorin Defense

The moves you showed are not correct because they are incomplete.

Black can still deviate

 

Spanish Game/Closed Variations/Chigorin Defense

ECO C97

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d6 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7 12.Nbd2 Nc6 13.dxc5

 

If you use your set of moves and stop at move 9.

Than you would call the below position the Chigorin Defense as well which is wrong.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d6 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Nd7

11...Nd7 makes the position the Keres Defense.

 

Spanish Game/Closed Variations/Keres Defense

ECO C96

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d6 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Nd7

dpnorman

I hope you understand it "more better" too! 

"Your welcome" as well. Thanks for entertaining us with your pearls of wisdom :)

X_PLAYER_J_X
dpnorman wrote:

I hope you understand it "more better" too! 

"Your welcome" as well. Thanks for entertaining us with your pearls of wisdom :)

I wouldn't call them pearls of wisdom lol.

Some things I know other things I don't know.

When I don't know I just say "I don't know" or I stay quiet.

When I know something than I say something.

 

Furthermore, They are the ones who came to this thread and begin talking about me.

I didn't go to a thread and start talking about them.

Huge difference!

dpnorman

They're trying to help you though...and for good reason

X_PLAYER_J_X
dpnorman wrote:

They're trying to help you though...and for good reason

Calling me names does not help me.

dpnorman

I didn't call you a name at any point lol. I'm just saying that you're wrong about the opening thing and you should listen to the people who know what they're talking about

X_PLAYER_J_X
dpnorman wrote:

I didn't call you a name at any point lol. I'm just saying that you're wrong about the opening thing and you should listen to the people who know what they're talking about

I'm not wrong its a ECO code.

They are the ones who are wrong.

Quasimorphy

Anyone a member of the forum at chesspub.com? That's where the openings fanatics hang out. I'd be interested in hearing their opinions on the issue. I can't remember who's in charge of the Veresov board over there.

X_PLAYER_J_X
Quasimorphy wrote:

Anyone a member of the forum at chesspub.com? That's where the openings fanatics hang out. I'd be interested in hearing their opinions on the issue. I can't remember who's in charge of the Veresov board over there.

I showed 3-4 different databases which call it the Gruenfeld Defense.

Even if they prove one of them is wrong they still have 3 more to go lol.

I would be interested in hearing them trying to disprove 4 different database sites which have nothing to do with each other lol.

They are claiming 3-4 different databases sources are using terrible people to label ECO codes lol.

They have stopped responding because they have no agrument.

You see Quasimorphy when a high ranked person disagrees with you and you go get supporting evidence and facts to support your agrument.

It is kind of hard for them to make a rebuttal.

Instead of admitting how wrong they are they try to save face by leaving the thread lol.

What is even more funny is you said the line was named the Gruenfeld Defense as well by using another database which I didn't use lol.

To be truthful the only reason they said anything was because they don't like me and love to jump at the chance to prove me wrong.

The problem is they pick wrong battles.

The battles they chose to have with me are battles were the evidence flows in my favor.

So yeah Quasimorphy the name of the line is below.

Queen Pawn Game/Veresov Attack/Two Knights System/Gruenfeld Defense

1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 Nbd7 4.Nf3 g6

 

I still call it the Gruenfeld Defense for short.

However, the green text is the full name and those are the moves.

X_PLAYER_J_X
Quasimorphy wrote:

Anyone a member of the forum at chesspub.com? That's where the openings fanatics hang out. I'd be interested in hearing their opinions on the issue. I can't remember who's in charge of the Veresov board over there.

The truth always prevails Quasimorphy.

No matter how low a person rank is.

The good will always win over the evil.

Do not let there ranking silence your truth.

N0S0UP4Y0U  <<  His account is closed.



dpnorman

Databases give their own names for these openings, and probably copy from each other. Those are not the official names.

The official names would probably be found in MCO, and I'm sure it does not call this line of the Veresov a "Grunfeld".

This point has been made numerous times throughout the thread and you refuse to pay attention.

But here is the key, and if you don't get anything else out of this thread you should at least understand the following: Even if it were officially called the Grunfeld Variation of the Veresov, that does not make it the same as the Grunfeld Defense after 2. c4. It is NOT the same thing, and it is in fact a completely different opening.

X_PLAYER_J_X
dpnorman wrote:

Databases give their own names for these openings, and probably copy from each other. Those are not the official names.

The official names would probably be found in MCO, and I'm sure it does not call this line of the Veresov a "Grunfeld".

This point has been made numerous times throughout the thread and you refuse to pay attention.

But here is the key, and if you don't get anything else out of this thread you should at least understand the following: Even if it were officially called the Grunfeld Variation of the Veresov, that does not make it the same as the Grunfeld Defense after 2. c4. It is NOT the same thing, and it is in fact a completely different opening.

You are using the same agrument N0S0UP4Y0U did.

The point is even if it is a completely different opening it is still named the Grunfeld Defense and when you address the line.

You will address it as the Grunfeld Defense.


My post 23 was directed to the fact N0S0UP4Y0U said the purpose of the Grunfeld was to target the c4 pawn which is not true.

The OP liked the line as well so I showed the Grunfeld Exchange Variation for some amusement.

After which I made a joke saying if you like the Grunfeld than you should play the "Grunfeld" against the Veresov.

Which I was implying the following Grunfeld.


Queen Pawn Game/Veresov Attack/Two Knights System/Gruenfeld Defense

However, I don't care any more to be honest.

If they want to call the line white and black are both playing the Veresov Attack like poptarts than let them.

I guess when ever people play the black side of the Sicilian Dragon and white choices to play the Yugoslav attack. I guess using there logic they call the line the Yugoslav Attack for both white and black as well.


kindaspongey

As far as I know, there is no "official" authority for terms like "Gruenfeld". What feels right probably depends on where one hangs out. As a practical matter, if one wanted to read about 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 Nbd7 4.Nf3 g6, one would want to try going to a Veresov book rather than a Gruenfeld book.

kindaspongey

I suppose one could also try books like Grandmaster Repertoire 11: Beating 1 d4 Sidelines by Boris Avrukh.