Here the test game with Nd2, there is no doubt white is better.
How do I counter the Smith-Morra Gambit?
Sort:
Refusing the gambit with d4-d3 also seems not to be the best approach.
SF gets to an obvious white edge.
Black has 2 central d and e pawns, but one of them will most probabaly become backward central, while the white pieces has significant development lead.
So that, seemingly, the only correct approach to the Smith-Morra is accepting it.
Is not that true for all gambits?
pfren wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov έγραψε:
Maybe we should communicate that to Anand, and then he might take me for his second.
Is anyone able to refute 13. Qe4?
Anand has bought your book. He was informed that there will be a shortage of sanitary paper at his home town, and took drastic measures.
Oh- for the record, your "novelty" 13.Qe4 has been played 180 times in the past, and is scoring below par. It's considered harmless because of 13...Qa4, when the Bd3 idea goes south, and something like ...Na5, effectively forcing a queen swap is difficult to prevent. White need not be desperate, as the line 14.Bg5 h6 15.Bf6!? leads to a rather forced draw, but...
You could learn a lot from buying my book, it is only 10 bucks now, please get it.
Sanitary paper would do fine, if you had written a book.
Unfortunately, you have not.
Authorship is a difficult thing, you know, is not like trolling on forums.
Or looking up ready-made databases.
14. Bg5 h6 15. Be7 Ne7 16. Nd2!, followed by Bb3 and trading of queens, should get the white knight through e4 on d6, where it is very strong.
White has definite advantage in this endgame, though it might still end in a draw.
Again, it is easy to look up databases, whcih are frequently wrong.
The difficult thing is to THINK.
If I remember correctly it's an h5 that Esserman didn't play. I don't remember the number of the move though.
No...its an opening move/opening explorer. So hows that pattern recognition going Lyudmil?
I could just say the move since we all know he is delusional, but then he will say he knows better than the computers. Just like post#1239 in the secret chess thread, where black has a +1 advantage in SF8&9, and he says white has the large advantage and Caro-Kann is refuted. And his pal Parsons agrees with him. And then there is the risk he will say he himself came up with it and relentlessly spam the thread with 1 min SF pop games....like he did in Alekhines.
pfren wrote:
Kenneth_Thomas έγραψε:
chesstauren wrote:
I'm a Smith Morra gambit initiator... What bothers me most when the opponent refuses to move the d7 pawn from its initial square... LOL
Esserman devotes a lot of space in his book to these lines. One of his innovations in them, that defeated Loek van Wely, was to import the Nd5 sacrifice from the Najdorf to the Morra. I am sure Anand knows this game because it is not often that an IM annihilates a 2700 player with a gambit.
Esserman's 11.Nd5 "novelty" was played before his game with Van Wely one dozen times- first time at an open tournament in Russia, anno 2001. And Van Wely is not the only GM who was unprepared in that line- you can add half a dozen more GM's. Actually taking the knight is a mistake- Black has a good game after 11...Rb8.
I think that the easiest way for Black to get a good (equal) game is the line 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dx3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 g6 6.Bc4 Bg7 7.e5 Nh6! (7...Nxe5 is unnecessarily complicated- white has quite enough for the pawn) 8.Bf4 0-0 9.0-0 d6! when Black returns the pawn and gets a perfectly good position (Esserman dreams white having some pull here, but his claim was convincingly refuted by GM Shaw). If Black wants to play for a win, I suggest a sharp and very complicated line:
Black has splendid compensation for the exchange: The knight at h8 has no good way to escape, and the e5 knight is very strong. My analysis suggests that chances are balanced, but the position is very hard to play OTB- particularly for white, who has so far scored the "impressive" 0/4 from that position.
pfren, thanks for the further information and excellent suggestions. I appreciate your willingness to engage with weaker players like myself.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
pfren wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov έγραψε:
Maybe we should communicate that to Anand, and then he might take me for his second.
Is anyone able to refute 13. Qe4?
Anand has bought your book. He was informed that there will be a shortage of sanitary paper at his home town, and took drastic measures.
Oh- for the record, your "novelty" 13.Qe4 has been played 180 times in the past, and is scoring below par. It's considered harmless because of 13...Qa4, when the Bd3 idea goes south, and something like ...Na5, effectively forcing a queen swap is difficult to prevent. White need not be desperate, as the line 14.Bg5 h6 15.Bf6!? leads to a rather forced draw, but...
You could learn a lot from buying my book, it is only 10 bucks now, please get it.
Sanitary paper would do fine, if you had written a book.
Unfortunately, you have not.
Authorship is a difficult thing, you know, is not like trolling on forums.
Or looking up ready-made databases.
14. Bg5 h6 15. Be7 Ne7 16. Nd2!, followed by Bb3 and trading of queens, should get the white knight through e4 on d6, where it is very strong.
White has definite advantage in this endgame, though it might still end in a draw.
Again, it is easy to look up databases, whcih are frequently wrong.
The difficult thing is to THINK.
You claimed 13.Qe4 is a novelty. What easier than take a look at the databases?
You talk about thinking and you are the one missing even the most elementary one.
We have some 1200 players that always think they discovered an opening. You don't seem to be very different.
Might be a novelty in terms of reassessment.
You think I am so crazy to learn by heart all lines 13 moves ahead?
And get rid of all creativity?
That is why I love chess so much, because it STILL gives us the chance to be creative.
I have deleted most databased from my computer and intend to so with the rest.
If I try learning openings by heart, I will not be creative.
It is a dilemma one has to face: do rote learning or be creative.
I have chosen the second one.
You can not play out all openings, ever, till depth 50, can you?
nighteyes1234 wrote:
If I remember correctly it's an h5 that Esserman didn't play. I don't remember the number of the move though.
No...its an opening move/opening explorer. So hows that pattern recognition going Lyudmil?
I could just say the move since we all know he is delusional, but then he will say he knows better than the computers. Just like post#1239 in the secret chess thread, where black has a +1 advantage in SF8&9, and he says white has the large advantage and Caro-Kann is refuted. And his pal Parsons agrees with him. And then there is the risk he will say he himself came up with it and relentlessly spam the thread with 1 min SF pop games....like he did in Alekhines.
Post a diagram so we know what you are referring to.
BobbyTalparov wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
Might be a novelty in terms of reassessment.
You think I am so crazy to learn by heart all lines 13 moves ahead?
And get rid of all creativity?
That is why I love chess so much, because it STILL gives us the chance to be creative.
I have deleted most databased from my computer and intend to so with the rest.
If I try learning openings by heart, I will not be creative.
It is a dilemma one has to face: do rote learning or be creative.
I have chosen the second one.
You can not play out all openings, ever, till depth 50, can you?
So, let me get this straight: you claim that you are more "analyst" than player, yet one of the key tools for research (opening databases), you want to ignore to use engines with misconfigured time controls and without one of their key tools (the same opening databases)? You probably should put that in the introduction to your books so that people can see that and instantly realize their worth ...
Have you really never read Asimov?
I really would not like to put myself in the place of a Trantorian scientist.
What is the purpose of learning by heart lines 30 moves long, when one of the sides can successfully deviate/improve play already on move 3?
I am not that stupid.
Chess is much more complex than what you think, and theory changes a lot.
I prefer to have my own elaborate system of assessment rather than learn everything by heart.
Borislav_Ivanov1987 wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
pfren wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov έγραψε:
Maybe we should communicate that to Anand, and then he might take me for his second.
Is anyone able to refute 13. Qe4?
Anand has bought your book. He was informed that there will be a shortage of sanitary paper at his home town, and took drastic measures.
Oh- for the record, your "novelty" 13.Qe4 has been played 180 times in the past, and is scoring below par. It's considered harmless because of 13...Qa4, when the Bd3 idea goes south, and something like ...Na5, effectively forcing a queen swap is difficult to prevent. White need not be desperate, as the line 14.Bg5 h6 15.Bf6!? leads to a rather forced draw, but...
You could learn a lot from buying my book, it is only 10 bucks now, please get it.
Sanitary paper would do fine, if you had written a book.
Unfortunately, you have not.
Authorship is a difficult thing, you know, is not like trolling on forums.
Or looking up ready-made databases.
14. Bg5 h6 15. Be7 Ne7 16. Nd2!, followed by Bb3 and trading of queens, should get the white knight through e4 on d6, where it is very strong.
White has definite advantage in this endgame, though it might still end in a draw.
Again, it is easy to look up databases, whcih are frequently wrong.
The difficult thing is to THINK.
You claimed 13.Qe4 is a novelty. What easier than take a look at the databases?
You talk about thinking and you are the one missing even the most elementary one.
We have some 1200 players that always think they discovered an opening. You don't seem to be very different.
Might be a novelty in terms of reassessment.
You think I am so crazy to learn by heart all lines 13 moves ahead?
And get rid of all creativity?
That is why I love chess so much, because it STILL gives us the chance to be creative.
I have deleted most databased from my computer and intend to so with the rest.
If I try learning openings by heart, I will not be creative.
It is a dilemma one has to face: do rote learning or be creative.
I have chosen the second one.
You can not play out all openings, ever, till depth 50, can you?
Play OTB now! Next tournament close to you, play in it!
So, the great Borislav Ivanov already here...
People still don't know.
I suggested to you that you open your own thread, not to post off-topic.
It will be very popular.
You demonstrated OTB you are very strong and can beat GMs easily.
I demonstrated the same with my book, OTB again, Off-the-board.
I hate playing online, but not you.
Can you demonstrate how strong you are by beating GMs here online, while not being caught as a cheater?
Don't get me wrong, I am one of the people who has taken your side on different occasions, on different forums.
Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The point is, I don't believe you are the real Borislav Ivanov.
Things get very funny as of late, don't they?
Yes, I am rolling 'The Secret of Chess' dice: www.secretofchess.com
If you get the paperback for less than 10, you can download the ebook FREE.
This dice prunes away unreasonable lines quite easily, based on sophisticated evaluation.
Like preferring the Alapin to accepting the gambit or returning the pawn with d4-d3.
Also, to tell you the truth, the line with a central backward d6 pawn is not the best possible option for black.
Although black has close to equal, white is still somewhat better.
How do I know that?
A d6 central backward pawn is a very substantial penalty, in all types of positions.
So, I don't need to study any lines to avoid that.
Pattern recognition, as always, comes to the rescue.
BobbyTalparov wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
Have you really never read Asimov?
I really would not like to put myself in the place of a Trantorian scientist.
What is the purpose of learning by heart lines 30 moves long, when one of the sides can successfully deviate/improve play already on move 3?
I am not that stupid.
Chess is much more complex than what you think, and theory changes a lot.
I prefer to have my own elaborate system of assessment rather than learn everything by heart.
No one said anything about learning openings by heart. You have asserted that you are more of an "analyst", and stated earlier that you are deleting your databases (and have implied you don't bother looking up opening theory when doing your analysis). Thus, you are admitting that you are a crappy analyst as well.
No, this only means the current level of opening theory is crappy.
Did not they think a century ago or so the King's Gambit is the best possible continuation for white after 1. e4 e5?
I don't want to learn lines/base my analysis on lines, that in another half a century or so will be considered as crappy.
Chesseract557 пишет:
9 said
This is an actual Smith-Morra Gambit situation unlike the previous thread.
I'd usually capture the pawn, but smart people would not capture back with the queen and instead play c3, which is the point of the gambit. Does anyone have a good way to counter the gambit?
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov пишет:
6 said to him that he was not the only
Borislav_Ivanov1987 wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
pfren wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov έγραψε:
Maybe we should communicate that to Anand, and then he might take me for his second.
Is anyone able to refute 13. Qe4?
Anand has bought your book. He was informed that there will be a shortage of sanitary paper at his home town, and took drastic measures.
Oh- for the record, your "novelty" 13.Qe4 has been played 180 times in the past, and is scoring below par. It's considered harmless because of 13...Qa4, when the Bd3 idea goes south, and something like ...Na5, effectively forcing a queen swap is difficult to prevent. White need not be desperate, as the line 14.Bg5 h6 15.Bf6!? leads to a rather forced draw, but...
You could learn a lot from buying my book, it is only 10 bucks now, please get it.
Sanitary paper would do fine, if you had written a book.
Unfortunately, you have not.
Authorship is a difficult thing, you know, is not like trolling on forums.
Or looking up ready-made databases.
14. Bg5 h6 15. Be7 Ne7 16. Nd2!, followed by Bb3 and trading of queens, should get the white knight through e4 on d6, where it is very strong.
White has definite advantage in this endgame, though it might still end in a draw.
Again, it is easy to look up databases, whcih are frequently wrong.
The difficult thing is to THINK.
You claimed 13.Qe4 is a novelty. What easier than take a look at the databases?
You talk about thinking and you are the one missing even the most elementary one.
We have some 1200 players that always think they discovered an opening. You don't seem to be very different.
Might be a novelty in terms of reassessment.
You think I am so crazy to learn by heart all lines 13 moves ahead?
And get rid of all creativity?
That is why I love chess so much, because it STILL gives us the chance to be creative.
I have deleted most databased from my computer and intend to so with the rest.
If I try learning openings by heart, I will not be creative.
It is a dilemma one has to face: do rote learning or be creative.
I have chosen the second one.
You can not play out all openings, ever, till depth 50, can you?
Play OTB now! Next tournament close to you, play in it!
So, the great Borislav Ivanov already here...
People still don't know.
I suggested to you that you open your own thread, not to post off-topic.
It will be very popular.
You demonstrated OTB you are very strong and can beat GMs easily.
I demonstrated the same with my book, OTB again, Off-the-board.
I hate playing online, but not you.
Can you demonstrate how strong you are by beating GMs here online, while not being caught as a cheater?
Don't get me wrong, I am one of the people who has taken your side on different occasions, on different forums.
Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The point is, I don't believe you are the real Borislav Ivanov.
Things get very funny as of late, don't they?
SF reaches approximate equality with this line, while still favouring white.
e7-e6 instead of e7-e5 SF sees as favouring black.
So, the Hippo seems a better approach here than the Sveshnikov.
Central backward pawns are a very heavy penalty.
The point is however, that white has even better with Bg5!(instead of the much weaker Ng5, is this theory?) Be7 Bf6!, and then placing a central knight outpost on d5.
Even though without a pawn, white has quite some edge, as the black d6 pawn is blocked by the knight and fully depreciated.
SF reaches big white edge, maybe even winning.
So that playing e7-e5 and leaving a gaping hole on d6 is simply bad.
I have investigated that for a long time, browsed and analysed thousands of top engine and top human games, before coming to similar conclusions and incorporating them as patterns in my book.
One of those patterns is the big penalty for a backward central pawn on d6/e6, as above.
It is in the tables of my book.
Some people ask me why do I need those tables?
Well, for cases like this, to be fully correct in evaluation.
A backward pawn in the center on d6 and one on a6/a5 have very different values.
Should not this fact be taken into account of in some way?
So that, my book is great value, no matter how much people denigrade it.
Thanks to patterns, I am able to recognise e7-e5 is weak, how many people are able to do so easily?
Well, I actually might not be that strong, but the patterns within are based on statistical relevance of innumerable top engine/top human games.
Anyone able to refute above lines?
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
One of those patterns is the big penalty for a backward central pawn on d6/e6, as above.
It is in the tables of my book.
Anyone able to refute above lines?
I guess not? Najdorf REFUTED per Lyudmil! Extra extra read all about it.
nighteyes1234 wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
One of those patterns is the big penalty for a backward central pawn on d6/e6, as above.
It is in the tables of my book.
Anyone able to refute above lines?
I guess not? Najdorf REFUTED per Lyudmil! Extra extra read all about it.
This is not Najdorf, but Sveshnikov.
Indeed, the Sveshnikov is one of the weaker defences in the Sicilian.
I have ascertained that many times during my analysis sessions.
Probably because of that Fischer and Kasparov mainly played the white side of it, with good success.
Does not evrybody teach holes are bad?
A central hole is even worse.
Mar 8, 2018
0
#59
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
nighteyes1234 wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
One of those patterns is the big penalty for a backward central pawn on d6/e6, as above.
It is in the tables of my book.
Anyone able to refute above lines?
I guess not? Najdorf REFUTED per Lyudmil! Extra extra read all about it.
This is not Najdorf, but Sveshnikov.
Indeed, the Sveshnikov is one of the weaker defences in the Sicilian.
I have ascertained that many times during my analysis sessions.
Probably because of that Fischer and Kasparov mainly played the white side of it, with good success.
Does not evrybody teach holes are bad?
A central hole is even worse.
Then a lot of the main lines in Njadorf are bad too since they involve the early ...e5 and create a hole at d5.
Black is busted after 6.Be2 e5 or 6.Be3 e5 , right?
If he says yes, then he really has no idea what he's talking about.
OK, in this critical position Mr. Talparov says white should play Bd2 and black had good play, as white has pawn weaknesses.
Is this so?
SF suggests Qe4 instead, threatening Bd3, and black should weaken the shelter with g7-g6 or something similar.
After that, white should have big advantage.
Again, what makes me think so?
The e5 white central backward-maker that renders the black king shelter weak.
Did we find a novelty on move 13, thanks to SF, that refutes black's play?
Maybe we should communicate that to Anand, and then he might take me for his second.
Is anyone able to refute 13. Qe4?
Again, you might laugh at me, but my lines are very very sound.
Anyone who would consider my book would get much much stronger after some effort to learn the patterns, but people prefer to ignore me and the knowledge the book heralds.
Qe4 is another book line. It goes like this:
With roughly equal chances on both sides.
If you had let Stockfish think for more than a split second, you would have noticed that all 5 of its top moves after 12. .. Qa5 work out to dead equality (Bd3, Rd1, Bd2, Qe4, Bf4).
I don't know what Qa4, book line or not.
All I know is that SF reaches a definite edge for white after Qa4 too.
I propose to SF the key move Nd2(the knight will aim to e4 and then d6), after which the ending seems to favour at least slightly white.
2 isolated pawns, but that outposted knight is excellent and the white pieces + c4 pawn coordinate extremely well.
So that, white seems to have the edge here too.
Please note, that I don't claim white could possibly win that, not at all, quite probably, with perfect play, it is still a draw.
The point is, why refuse accepting the gambit, which gives quite some black edge, only to enter a line that at most gives a draw, but is certainly even worse for black?
Does not make much sense, does it?