Interesting Way To Transpose into the French Defense from the Owen Defense - Chess Forums - Page 4

NM darkunorthodox88

Jun 1, 2020

0

#61

Dsmith42 wrote:

Most people who play chess are classically trained, @ThrillerFan, and the Owen simply doesn't work that way. Unlike some openings (like the French Defense) which kind of work in both a classical and hypermodern sense (though better in the latter, in my experience), the Owen Defense does NOT work if playing in the classical style.

John Owen beat Wilhelm Steinitz with this defense. I know at least one local GM in my area plays it as his standard. It's neither dubious nor unsound, it just has to be played in the hypermodern style, which many folks (including the Expert level) never bother to learn.

Steinitz & Tarrasch proved you can get to low-master level (about 2200 rating) without knowing a lick about hypermodernism, but you can't play hypermodern openings effectively with Tarrasch's dogmatic approach. I would not have been able to use it effectively before I read My System, but since I have it has become a very effective weapon for me.

which GM is that? Bauer, Miezis, Akobian, Blatny?

Prometheus_Fuschs

Jun 1, 2020

0

#62

ThrillerFan escribió:

Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:

ThrillerFan escribió:

Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:

ThrillerFan escribió:

darkunorthodox88 wrote:

You serious going to compare the latvian with the Owen's? SERIOUSLY? Latvian is objectively busted. At best black might limp home to a nasty draw being 1.2 down the whole game. Owen's at worst is 0.4-0.5

So I guess that's why the Latvian Gambit is still popular in Correspondence Chess, because it's busted, huh? If you are going to tell me that I'm making an invalid argument about Owen's Defense, I'm going to throw it right back at you with your invalid argument about the Latvian Gambit. Even Tony Kosten says "The Latvian Gambit Lives".

However, despite this, I still claim it is highly dubious, once again, because "Sound" and "Refuted" are not the only two ways to describe an opening, and only someone who is naive will assume that "dubious" has only one degree, and that it's 3 fixed points. No! There are different levels of dubiousness. Just like how there are different levels of high blood pressure, or high cholesterol, or different levels of being on the spectrum, or different degrees of crime.

The Latvian may be MORE DUBIOUS than Owen's Defense, but yes, they are both dubious, as are the Fajarowicz, 5...Nxd5 in the 4.Ng5 Two Knights, the St. George Defense, the Elshad System (both the one for Black and the one for White), and the Closed Benoni (not to be confused with the Czech Benoni), along with numerous others and the list is way too long to spell them all out.

Who the hell plays the latvian in correspondence chess?

ICCF players. Not chess.com scrubs.

Which ICCF players?

Let's see. This is strictly games that ended in the month of May

Ivo Graber (2217) played it

Masuzyo Chilwesa played it.

April

Zdeno Barbalic (2081) played it

Eric Lebeveu (1490) played it

If I look at all games that ended in 2019 (64282 games):

It was played 43 times in games that ended in 2019. Black won 7 of them with 4 draws.

So white won 74% of games while black only won 16%, yeah sure that's not busted

NM darkunorthodox88

Jun 1, 2020

0

#63

Optimissed wrote:

A bit of an odd conversation perhaps? Owen's doesn't lose by force, it isn't to the taste of most people but there are going to be people who play it, which needs patience and concentration.

Lakdawala who has a perchant for very interesting language ( and wrote the 2nd big book on the Owen's after Bauer's classic play 1.b6!) compared a lot of positions in the Owens to Gorgonzola cheese. And he has a point, a lot of these lines you get can be rather claustrophobic and lots of patient maneuvering. It's easy to get impatient when learning to play it.

Uhohspaghettio1

Jun 1, 2020

0

#64

darkunorthodox88 wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

A bit of an odd conversation perhaps? Owen's doesn't lose by force, it isn't to the taste of most people but there are going to be people who play it, which needs patience and concentration.

Lakdawala who has a perchant for very interesting language ( and wrote the 2nd big book on the Owen's after Bauer's classic play 1.b6!) compared a lot of positions in the Owens to Gorgonzola cheese. And he has a point, a lot of these lines you get can be rather claustrophobic and lots of patient maneuvering. It's easy to get impatient when learning to play it.

Name a single advantage of playing the Owen's defence that you cannot get better out of a different opening.

Oakus

Jun 1, 2020

0

#65

Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:

darkunorthodox88 wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

A bit of an odd conversation perhaps? Owen's doesn't lose by force, it isn't to the taste of most people but there are going to be people who play it, which needs patience and concentration.

Lakdawala who has a perchant for very interesting language ( and wrote the 2nd big book on the Owen's after Bauer's classic play 1.b6!) compared a lot of positions in the Owens to Gorgonzola cheese. And he has a point, a lot of these lines you get can be rather claustrophobic and lots of patient maneuvering. It's easy to get impatient when learning to play it.

Name a single advantage of playing the Owen's defence that you cannot get better out of a different opening.

It's unorthodox?

Uhohspaghettio1

Jun 1, 2020

0

#66

Oakus wrote:

Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:

darkunorthodox88 wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

A bit of an odd conversation perhaps? Owen's doesn't lose by force, it isn't to the taste of most people but there are going to be people who play it, which needs patience and concentration.

Lakdawala who has a perchant for very interesting language ( and wrote the 2nd big book on the Owen's after Bauer's classic play 1.b6!) compared a lot of positions in the Owens to Gorgonzola cheese. And he has a point, a lot of these lines you get can be rather claustrophobic and lots of patient maneuvering. It's easy to get impatient when learning to play it.

Name a single advantage of playing the Owen's defence that you cannot get better out of a different opening.

It's unorthodox?

1. Nf3 d5 2. Ng1 is "unorthodox", there has to be some kind of point to it.

Why will someone choose it above for example a French, other than to practice the modern-day equivalent of Catholic self-flagellation.

Dsmith42

Jun 1, 2020

0

#67

"Name a single advantage of playing Owen's defense that you cannot get better out of a different opening" - I can name two:

1) Both of black's bishops are mobile from the outset, in other openings (the French Defense most notably), black's light square bishop has a hard time getting loose.

2) Black fights back in the center immediately, so white has to react to tactical and positional threats right out of the gate, rather than being able to dictate the course of play.

I don't know of any 1. e4 defense which offers either of these.

For those who asked which GM, I don't know his name, I just know he runs a chess school in the area, as I run into his students from time to time, and they ask me why their teacher plays the Owen, since I also play the Owen.

Uhohspaghettio1

Jun 1, 2020

0

#68

Dsmith42 wrote:

"Name a single advantage of playing Owen's defense that you cannot get better out of a different opening" - I can name two:

1) Both of black's bishops are mobile from the outset, in other openings (the French Defense most notably), black's light square bishop has a hard time getting loose.

The Pirc. Black's development is rapid and he is almost ready to castle after putting the bishop on g7, two moves more quickly than the Owen's.

Dsmith42 wrote:

2) Black fights back in the center immediately, so white has to react to tactical and positional threats right out of the gate, rather than being able to dictate the course of play.

I... what? The Owen's surrenders the centre entirely. Black can only seriously fight for the centre later on.

Dsmith42

Jun 1, 2020

0

#69

@Uhohspaghettio1 - You are clearly not familiar with the Wild Snail opening, which starts with 1. Nf3 d5 2. Ng1 and continues 2. ..e5 3. Nc3 d4 4. Nb1. I know someone who beat a >2100 with it in an OTB tournament. It's quite playable, but like the Owen, only for a hypermodern.

The point is that only hypermodern principles allow you to restrain and then destroy the big pawn center. The pawn roller can be devastating if not restrained, but if it is overextended it becomes a liability very quickly.

Dsmith42

Jun 1, 2020

0

#70

@Uhohspaghettio - The Pirc results in light-square weakness which is often positionally crippling, and many players (at least in my area) excel at exploiting light-square weakness.

As for your assertion that the Owen "surrenders the center entirely" - that's a classical mind talking, unable to break free of Tarrasch's dogma. 3. ..Bb7 and the e4 pawn becomes a target, and if 4. e5 the d4 pawn becomes backwards and easily blockaded on a d-file which black can now open by force. White has space, but his control of the center is tenuous at best.

Dsmith42

Jun 1, 2020

0

#71

@Optimissed - if you've read My System, you can play the Owen effectively. Just know that Staunton's recommendation of an early c5 push is wrong. The pawn thrust you're preparing is d5, and only once you've developed enough pieces to support it. Your positional target is d4, fix, undermine (if necessary, many opponents play c4 which weakens the square for you), then destroy. Also, be wary of white trying to move a minor piece (a knight especially) to b5.

The Owen requires thought, which is why it's not popular, but it's flexible and active, which for me makes it fun to play.

Uhohspaghettio1

Jun 1, 2020

0

#72

Dsmith42 wrote:

@Uhohspaghettio - The Pirc results in light-square weakness which is often positionally crippling, and many players (at least in my area) excel at exploiting light-square weakness.

As for your assertion that the Owen "surrenders the center entirely" - that's a classical mind talking, unable to break free of Tarrasch's dogma. 3. ..Bb7 and the e4 pawn becomes a target, and if 4. e5 the d4 pawn becomes backwards and easily blockaded on a d-file which black can now open by force. White has space, but his control of the center is tenuous at best.

And in the Owen's you have a dark squares weakness. It's a swap of light squares for dark squares, except white has no direct way to utilize his light squares in an attack against the king because of the fianchettoed defence. Meanwhile in the Owen's white has devastating mating threats from the start of the game on the light squares which you claim to be black's good squares.

That's not dogma, that's just common sense. I don't know what you're talking about this hypermodern vs classical theory for, the hypermodern school also thought Owen's was a dubious piece of ****. The hypermodern school advocated the Pirc, the Alekhine and so on, the Owen's was only a pragmatically pointless curiosity, an academic exercise. I asked for a clear reason to play it in a real game and received no credible answer, even for as a surprise weapon which even the (also bad) Latvian Gambit could lay claim to.

ThrillerFan

Jun 1, 2020

0

#73

Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:

ThrillerFan escribió:

Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:

ThrillerFan escribió:

Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:

ThrillerFan escribió:

darkunorthodox88 wrote:

You serious going to compare the latvian with the Owen's? SERIOUSLY? Latvian is objectively busted. At best black might limp home to a nasty draw being 1.2 down the whole game. Owen's at worst is 0.4-0.5

So I guess that's why the Latvian Gambit is still popular in Correspondence Chess, because it's busted, huh? If you are going to tell me that I'm making an invalid argument about Owen's Defense, I'm going to throw it right back at you with your invalid argument about the Latvian Gambit. Even Tony Kosten says "The Latvian Gambit Lives".

However, despite this, I still claim it is highly dubious, once again, because "Sound" and "Refuted" are not the only two ways to describe an opening, and only someone who is naive will assume that "dubious" has only one degree, and that it's 3 fixed points. No! There are different levels of dubiousness. Just like how there are different levels of high blood pressure, or high cholesterol, or different levels of being on the spectrum, or different degrees of crime.

The Latvian may be MORE DUBIOUS than Owen's Defense, but yes, they are both dubious, as are the Fajarowicz, 5...Nxd5 in the 4.Ng5 Two Knights, the St. George Defense, the Elshad System (both the one for Black and the one for White), and the Closed Benoni (not to be confused with the Czech Benoni), along with numerous others and the list is way too long to spell them all out.

Who the hell plays the latvian in correspondence chess?

ICCF players. Not chess.com scrubs.

Which ICCF players?

Let's see. This is strictly games that ended in the month of May

Ivo Graber (2217) played it

Masuzyo Chilwesa played it.

April

Zdeno Barbalic (2081) played it

Eric Lebeveu (1490) played it

If I look at all games that ended in 2019 (64282 games):

It was played 43 times in games that ended in 2019. Black won 7 of them with 4 draws.

So white won 74% of games while black only won 16%, yeah sure that's not busted

Actually, White's score is 79% and Black's is 21%.

Of course, I did indeed labelled this dubious, but if it were refuted, White would be scoring 100%, ESPECIALLY in Correspondence!

ThrillerFan

Jun 1, 2020

0

#74

Dsmith42 wrote:

"Name a single advantage of playing Owen's defense that you cannot get better out of a different opening" - I can name two:

1) Both of black's bishops are mobile from the outset, in other openings (the French Defense most notably), black's light square bishop has a hard time getting loose.

2) Black fights back in the center immediately, so white has to react to tactical and positional threats right out of the gate, rather than being able to dictate the course of play.

I don't know of any 1. e4 defense which offers either of these.

For those who asked which GM, I don't know his name, I just know he runs a chess school in the area, as I run into his students from time to time, and they ask me why their teacher plays the Owen, since I also play the Owen.

I can counter your second bullet.

Scandinavian immediately fights the White center (on move 1) - Sooner than Owen's Defense!

NM darkunorthodox88

Jun 1, 2020

0

#75

Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:

Dsmith42 wrote:

@Uhohspaghettio - The Pirc results in light-square weakness which is often positionally crippling, and many players (at least in my area) excel at exploiting light-square weakness.

As for your assertion that the Owen "surrenders the center entirely" - that's a classical mind talking, unable to break free of Tarrasch's dogma. 3. ..Bb7 and the e4 pawn becomes a target, and if 4. e5 the d4 pawn becomes backwards and easily blockaded on a d-file which black can now open by force. White has space, but his control of the center is tenuous at best.

And in the Owen's you have a dark squares weakness. It's a swap of light squares for dark squares, except white has no direct way to utilize his light squares in an attack against the king because of the fianchettoed defence. Meanwhile in the Owen's white has devastating mating threats from the start of the game on the light squares which you claim to be black's good squares.

That's not dogma, that's just common sense. I don't know what you're talking about this hypermodern vs classical theory for, the hypermodern school also thought Owen's was a dubious piece of ****. The hypermodern school advocated the Pirc, the Alekhine and so on, the Owen's was only a pragmatically pointless curiosity, an academic exercise. I asked for a clear reason to play it in a real game and received no credible answer, even for as a surprise weapon which even the (also bad) Latvian Gambit could lay claim to.

really? why would anyone play the pirc when the dragon formation achieves the same structure while also taking on d4? why would anyone play scandinavian when you get the same structures as the caro-kahn with a misplaced queen? this chain of reasoning is moronic. You are not respecting the unique intricacies of each opening.

i play Owen and prefer owens to other defenses because

1. i get very closed positions with lots maneuvering where intuition and understanding triumph tactics.

2. common "principled responses" like 3.nf3 4.nc3 actually equalize fairly quick

3. its niche enough that even if someone tried to prepare agaisnt me, i know my lines better than even them with their prep

4. i get french like structures without dealing with the boring french exchange.

5. unlike the latvian, there is no refutation. White has at best a 0.5 advantage or so, in most lines, the advantage is smaller than that.

6. i get to expand chess frontiers, as my analysis in fool-proofing my defense often take me to novelties not played in any master games yet, heck i probably accidently contribute more to the cloud of Owen sidelines than valuable info i get from.

7. i have done very well with it, need i say more?

8. the positions you get as black are fairly unbalanced and black can play for a win. he often has winning chances due to a queenside pawn storm, or you did structural damage and gave white doubled c-pawns, or you ended up with a healthier pawn formation ala QID.

this idea of mating threats on the Owen happens mostly to noobs, you virtually never castle kingside in the french like lines of the Owens which is how i mostly play them, and even in the other lines, black has enough defensive resources (usually a well timed f5 where the king knight can take back if en passant). This is like someone saying off the armchair, "bro why do you play that KID nonsense? you get your queenside torn wide open!" things are a little more subtle than that!

NM darkunorthodox88

Jun 1, 2020

0

#76

Oh you probably mean smirnov!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpEJdebvXQY

NM darkunorthodox88

Jun 1, 2020

0

#77

the hate this opening gets always astounded me. I just assume its people that once gave it a try and sucked big time with it and blame their incapacity to play on the opening and not themselves, or they played enough noobs giving it a try and assume that's as good as it gets. I have been playing b6 since the beginning of my chess career as a 1200 and 1000 points later, its still my favorite defense to play, and it still works well for me.

ThrillerFan

Jun 1, 2020

0

#78

darkunorthodox88 wrote:

the hate this opening gets always astounded me. I just assume its people that once gave it a try and sucked big time with it and blame their incapacity to play on the opening and not themselves, or they played enough noobs giving it a try and assume that's as good as it gets. I have been playing b6 since the beginning of my chess career as a 1200 and 1000 points later, its still my favorite defense to play, and it still works well for me.

I don't hate the opening. In fact, I LOVE it! 1.e4 b6 is music to my ears! I play 2.d4!! Clear advantage for me!

NM darkunorthodox88

Jun 1, 2020

0

#79

ThrillerFan wrote:

darkunorthodox88 wrote:

the hate this opening gets always astounded me. I just assume its people that once gave it a try and sucked big time with it and blame their incapacity to play on the opening and not themselves, or they played enough noobs giving it a try and assume that's as good as it gets. I have been playing b6 since the beginning of my chess career as a 1200 and 1000 points later, its still my favorite defense to play, and it still works well for me.

I don't hate the opening. In fact, I LOVE it! 1.e4 b6 is music to my ears! I play 2.d4!! Clear advantage for me!

is that why your suggestion is a fairly toothless white sideline? nbd2 and qe2 idea?

Uhohspaghettio1

Jun 1, 2020

0

#80

darkunorthodox88 wrote:

Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:

Dsmith42 wrote:

@Uhohspaghettio - The Pirc results in light-square weakness which is often positionally crippling, and many players (at least in my area) excel at exploiting light-square weakness.

As for your assertion that the Owen "surrenders the center entirely" - that's a classical mind talking, unable to break free of Tarrasch's dogma. 3. ..Bb7 and the e4 pawn becomes a target, and if 4. e5 the d4 pawn becomes backwards and easily blockaded on a d-file which black can now open by force. White has space, but his control of the center is tenuous at best.

And in the Owen's you have a dark squares weakness. It's a swap of light squares for dark squares, except white has no direct way to utilize his light squares in an attack against the king because of the fianchettoed defence. Meanwhile in the Owen's white has devastating mating threats from the start of the game on the light squares which you claim to be black's good squares.

That's not dogma, that's just common sense. I don't know what you're talking about this hypermodern vs classical theory for, the hypermodern school also thought Owen's was a dubious piece of ****. The hypermodern school advocated the Pirc, the Alekhine and so on, the Owen's was only a pragmatically pointless curiosity, an academic exercise. I asked for a clear reason to play it in a real game and received no credible answer, even for as a surprise weapon which even the (also bad) Latvian Gambit could lay claim to.

really? why would anyone play the pirc when the dragon formation achieves the same structure while also taking on d4? why would anyone play scandinavian when you get the same structures as the caro-kahn with a misplaced queen? this chain of reasoning is moronic. You are not respecting the unique intricacies of each opening.

I'm not respecting the unique intricacies of each opening? lol! I am asking an incredibly basic and fair question - what is the point of the opening. Do you ever read an opening analysis and you see the annotation "the point"? ie., it has become clear what the moves were for. You talk up the opening so much yet seem to be unable to answer the simplest question - what are its advantages? The whole point of playing an opening.

The dragon gets an attack down the c-file while allowing the open d-file and knight placed in the centre. The Scandanavian gets a complicated position that can be like the Caro-Kan but can potentially use the queen to good effect. It isn't simply a worse Caro-Kan, it's different. The Owen's is not just different, it doesn't seem to have any merits over a normal opening. The Owen's basically a worse everything - like I said, prove me wrong if you can.

I have repeatedly asked you to give me one reason why to play the Owen's and couldn't could provide a single thing, then you accuse me of "not understanding the uniqueness of chess openings".

darkunorthodox88 wrote:

i play Owen and prefer owens to other defenses because

1. i get very closed positions with lots maneuvering where intuition and understanding triumph tactics.

This doesn't mean anything, you could say the same thing about the French. I could move e6, d6, c6 and claim to have the same sort of position where I have a "complicated manouvering position".

darkunorthodox88 wrote:

2. common "principled responses" like 3.nf3 4.nc3 actually equalize fairly quick

Absolute tripe. There is NO WAY that you are any sort of normal NM saying stuff like that. 4. Nc3 absolutely destroys black in the statistics AND in the computer evaluation. There is something to be said for Nbd2 and c3 against the Owen's, and it's a bit neater that way, but it is a total mistake to think that is the only good way - or even the strongest way - to play. Saying that proves you haven't a clue how to play your own pet opening.

darkunorthodox88 wrote:

3. its niche enough that even if someone tried to prepare agaisnt me, i know my lines better than even them with their prep

But what's the point in knowing the book move if their position is easy to play and blowing you off the board lol? At least with the Latvian and similar gambits you are hoping for a slip up that could potentially happen. With the Owen's if white commits a massive blunder in the opening pretty much the worst he can end up with is equality.

darkunorthodox88 wrote:

4. i get french like structures without dealing with the boring french exchange.

Take with the queen then. It's probably not a great move, but literally anything would be better than the Owen's.

darkunorthodox88 wrote:

5. unlike the latvian, there is no refutation. White has at best a 0.5 advantage or so, in most lines, the advantage is smaller than that.

Again you go with the computer numbers for openings. It was already explained to you why this is ridiculous.

darkunorthodox88 wrote:

8. the positions you get as black are fairly unbalanced and black can play for a win. he often has winning chances due to a queenside pawn storm, or you did structural damage and gave white doubled c-pawns, or you ended up with a healthier pawn formation ala QID.

A queenside storm because he has moved to b6? That is ridiculous. I am looking for a concrete plan for the Owen's defence. What is black trying to achieve? It's startling to me that you can sit there and decide to play such a strange opening without having any objective reason why and just saying "it's unique".

Honestly just forget it at this point. You clearly can't provide a good explanation for why you or anyone else would play it and the last thing we need is something paraphrased you get off wikipedia.

darkunorthodox88 wrote:

this idea of mating threats on the Owen happens mostly to noobs, you virtually never castle kingside in the french like lines of the Owens which is how i mostly play them, and even in the other lines, black has enough defensive resources (usually a well timed f5 where the king knight can take back if en passant). This is like someone saying off the armchair, "bro why do you play that KID nonsense? you get your queenside torn wide open!" things are a little more subtle than that!

Well really, I don't know if you're just trolling or not at this point but this is obviously tripe. Mating ideas and attacks on the h7 pawn are a mainstay of the main line Owen's defence. f5 is absolutely a weakening move in general.

The idea that you would even MENTION the KID, a world class defence used at the highest levels in the most important games to this day, in the same SENTENCE as the Owen's shows how off-the-deep-end barmy your idea of these openings is.

darkunorthodox88 wrote:

the hate this opening gets always astounded me. I just assume its people that once gave it a try and sucked big time with it and blame their incapacity to play on the opening and not themselves, or they played enough noobs giving it a try and assume that's as good as it gets. I have been playing b6 since the beginning of my chess career as a 1200 and 1000 points later, its still my favorite defense to play, and it still works well for me.

If you live in your head long enough and refuse to listen to others - especially chess experts and grandmasters - these are the sort of ridiculous delusionary ideas you can come up with.