@urk.
Have you heard about f4-f5, not as easy as you would want to blunt that bishop on b3.
Is the Fischer Sozin Attack Busted?
Sort:
Feb 6, 2017
0
#43
Optimissed wrote:
I don't believe the Sozin's any good, objectively. But when players put their B on c4, even though I have a pawn on e6 and f7, I know I'm always in danger. They can play f4-f5 and try to weaken my pawns. Especially if I've played a6 & b5 and then put my B on b7, this weakens e6 and I have to be very careful. So obviously the Sozin has sting but provided black makes counterplay in the centre and the q-side, all should be well and the Sozin Bishop can be blocked out of the game. It can become a weakness itself.
I definitely appreicate everyone's honesty...
bumping this because
im having an issue with early Na5 lines in the sozin
why is this inaccurate/not played?
Jun 21, 2023
0
#45
Defending against the Fischer-Sozin Attack:
A Heroic Defense in the Sicilian Najdorf - Kids, don't try this at home! - Chess Forums - Chess.com
Jun 21, 2023
0
#46
Ultimate-trashtalker wrote:
Too hard to play najdorf
It was hard to play without abandoning my comfort zone, yes.
But that's how you learn and grow.
woah i can speak agian
but i was talking about after white plays Bb3
Optimissed wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
but i was talking about after white plays Bb3
White wouldn't play Bb3 after ... Na5 because it makes sense of ...Na5..
im talking about this
Jun 22, 2023
0
#51
Look at the advantages and drawbacks of Na5.
Advantages:
1) It trades off the White Bishop on b3, for a Knight.
2) It clears the b7-e4 diagonal for the (eventual) Black Bishop on b7.
Disadvantages:
1) It loses a clear tempo (a Knight moves three times to trade for a Bishop that moved twice).
2) It exchanges one of Black's more influential pieces (that Knight should be heading for c4).
3) It moves White's a-Pawn to b3, where it controls the important c4 square and shields the weakness on b2.
4) It opens the a-file, making b7-b5 more difficult to arrange without simply dropping the Pawn to N(d4)xb5 (Black's a-Pawn is pinned).
5) Black gives up some of his central control and leaves White's d4-Knight unchallenged.
Optimissed wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
but i was talking about after white plays Bb3
White wouldn't play Bb3 after ... Na5 because it makes sense of ...Na5..
im talking about this
I know you are so what about it? Doesn't seem great for white does it.
Bb3 is literally the main line
the computer claims +0.7 after Na5 and i wanted to know why
Jun 22, 2023
0
#53
Optimissed wrote:
blueemu wrote:
Look at the advantages and drawbacks of Na5.
Advantages:
1) It trades off the White Bishop on b3, for a Knight.
But white can play a check.
2) It clears the b7-e4 diagonal for the (eventual) Black Bishop on b7.
Yes, that's a bad reason though ... slow for black and white can go f3.
Disadvantages:
1) It loses a clear tempo (a Knight moves three times to trade for a Bishop that moved twice).
2) It exchanges one of Black's more influential pieces (that Knight should be heading for c4).
3) It moves White's a-Pawn to b3, where it controls the important c4 square and shields the weakness on b2.
Well, c4 is no longer so important when black doesn't have a knight to put there.
4) It opens the a-file, making b7-b5 more difficult to arrange without simply dropping the Pawn to N(d4)xb5 (Black's a-Pawn is pinned).
Black has other modes of development. I'm not overly worried about white not having an a pawn if black has compen and by and large as black I like to get rid of a bishop on the c4 diagonal or blot it out by playing e6, a6, b5, d5 and c4 if white's played a closed Sicilian. But generally, get rid of it and it doesn't matter to black if a extra knight move was made. It's worth it. Black can use different development patterns. Maybe b6 and a5.
5) Black gives up some of his central control and leaves White's d4-Knight unchallenged.
The Sicilian is quite double-edged, innit.
- But white can play a check.
Irrelevant. Playing Ba4+ looks rather worse for White than just allowing Nxb3. Moving a Bishop four times (Bf1-c4-b3-a4+xd7) just to trade it for a Black Bishop that moved only once, and which has fewer prospects than Black's c6-Knight anyway?
- Well, c4 is no longer so important when black doesn't have a knight to put there.
Black has another Knight. N(f6)-d7-b6-c4.
- Yes, that's a bad reason though ... slow for black and white can go f3.
The Bishop on b7 does considerably more than just attack e4. It supports d6-d5, for one thing. Also, if White bases his center position on playing f2-f3, then he isn't going to be playing f4 (or f5).
Jun 22, 2023
0
#54
AngryPuffer wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
but i was talking about after white plays Bb3
White wouldn't play Bb3 after ... Na5 because it makes sense of ...Na5..
im talking about this
I know you are so what about it? Doesn't seem great for white does it.
Bb3 is literally the main line
the computer claims +0.7 after Na5 and i wanted to know why
Because Black wastes time with this maneuver, and provokes an exchange (on b3) which is strategically questionable anyway (because it increases White's control of c4 and shields the b2-Pawn. Black's Nxb3 move is TACTICALLY useful to him... it removes a dangerous attacker. But strategically it is a step in the wrong direction.
blueemu wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
but i was talking about after white plays Bb3
White wouldn't play Bb3 after ... Na5 because it makes sense of ...Na5..
im talking about this
I know you are so what about it? Doesn't seem great for white does it.
Bb3 is literally the main line
the computer claims +0.7 after Na5 and i wanted to know why
Because Black wastes time with this maneuver, and provokes an exchange (on b3) which is strategically questionable anyway (because it increases White's control of c4 and shields the b2-Pawn. Black's Nxb3 move is TACTICALLY useful to him... it removes a dangerous attacker. But strategically it is a step in the wrong direction.
ah thank you
could you provide a couple example lines in the classical sozin with e6 Bb3 Na5?
Jun 22, 2023
0
#56
Ivanov vs Yudasin (1985) URS-ch FL53 (365chess.com)
There's one.
Na5xb3 simply isn't that common among master-ranked players.
Jun 22, 2023
0
#57
Optimissed wrote:
blueemu wrote:
Ivanov vs Yudasin (1985) URS-ch FL53 (365chess.com)
There's one.
Na5xb3 simply isn't that common among master-ranked players.
Probably not but does it lose? That position's horrible for black but black wasted time with a6. You can't mix systems like that. Admittedly I play Sicilians where I try to delay the development of the b8 knight as long as I can, unless white plays Bd3. I also try to leave the d7 and e7 pawns on those squares for as long as I can, because sometimes black wants to play e5 or e6 and d5. The whole point is that even against an on form 1700 FIDE, you can't mess about. You have to play stuff that holds.
I doubt that it loses by force (even the Damiano, 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6? doesn't lose by force) but why would Black want to play such an anti-positional line?
When you talk about mixing systems, I assume that you mean mixing Nc6 with the Najdorf. Because there is absolutely nothing wrong with a Najdorf / Scheveningen mix (I play it myself) and the Knight BELONGS on c6 in the Scheveningen (if not in the Najdorf).
Jun 22, 2023
0
#58
The O'Kelly is a perfectly respectable system.
Its alleged vulnerability to anti-Sicilians is purely academic (IMO) because anti-Sicilians are SLOW compared to the Open lines, and if a6 is playable in razor-edged lines like the Najdorf, then it should certainly be playable against slower systems.
As White, I only play the Fischer-Sozin "in passing", on my way to the Velimirovic Attack.
AngryPuffer wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
but i was talking about after white plays Bb3
White wouldn't play Bb3 after ... Na5 because it makes sense of ...Na5..
im talking about this
I know you are so what about it? Doesn't seem great for white does it.
Bb3 is literally the main line
the computer claims +0.7 after Na5 and i wanted to know why
Bb3 isn't the main line (Be3 is far more common, and a3 quite trendy), Na5 is a rarity after Bb3, and finally the computer does not claim +0.7 (not even half of it), unless of course you're using the crappy chess dot com cloud engine.
And anyway, even that +0.7 is insignificant AND useless in human terms. What matters is understanding the plans and options for both sides, and trying to apply them in a logical way.
AngryPuffer wrote:
quick question:
i was going through computer analysis and my own and it looks like gambit ing the e4 pawn seems interesting in some variations
you claim that youre way ahead in development for the pawn and it seems playable
It doesn't seem playable to me at all. Only patzers play like that as Black. White has developed all his minor pieces, and has castled, and Black has weakened his queenside and left almost all his army at the starting block to just snatch a pawn?
White can simply do something like c3, open the c-file, and Black is dead.
And anyway, I don't get at all why Black put his Queen to a vulnerable square before snatching a "poisoned pawn". I'm pretty sure that no strong player would make such moves.
Fischer's favorite Bc4 is as least as good as a3, which elite players have tried in recent tournaments.
Ragozin is currently quite popular in GM chess, for example Aronian plays it a lot, and it is Hou's main 1.d4 defence. It is one of those openings which never filtered down to club player chess much, for some reason.