its perfectly possible to gain winning chances in the rubenstein in a practical game.
is the french practical? how can i play it without not much theory?
Sort:
IronSteam1 wrote:
cogadhtintreach wrote:
IronSteam1 wrote:
Kowarenai wrote:
LordVandheer wrote:
Who said French is garbage?
"its a S*** opening but i have done so much work to make it kind of basically correct"
I'd say the French is almost certainly a draw with best play. But black needs to know what he's doing (which is kind of a pointless statement, as this is true with all defenses).
Also, the first time I beat an International Master, I used the French Defense - so I'll always have a fondness for it, even if it's no longer part of my repertoire.
The Rubinstein is relatively easy, if you want something simple and clean that'll just suck the wind right out of white's sails. Learn the basic ideas of it. Then just use your tactical/positional skills to outplay your opponent from an even position (the Carlsen approach!).
Here's one example line:
A6 is theory? Seems like a waste of a tempo given that white doesnt want anything on B5, and B5 is very weakening for black if they play it
Theory there is an immediate ...c5
But ...a6 is playable, since it's a quiet position. Anand played ...a6 against Ivanchuk, via transposition. This was their game:
After many more moves, they went on to draw.
Why did Vishy play A6?
Apr 11, 2023
0
#64
a6 could prepare for a b5 and queenside expansion as is what happens in the french sometimes
Apr 11, 2023
0
#65
Even in the Rubinstein and Fort Knox variations, Black has to know what he is doing or things like this happen quickly
Sea_TurtIe wrote:
a6 could prepare for a b5 and queenside expansion as is what happens in the french sometimes
C6 seems far more logical to prepare B5 as you want to play A5 not A6 and then A5
Apr 11, 2023
0
#67
cogadhtintreach wrote:
C6 seems far more logical to prepare B5 as you want to play A5 not A6 and then A5
Then you are just transposing into an inferior Caro-Kann.
PawnTsunami wrote:
cogadhtintreach wrote:
C6 seems far more logical to prepare B5 as you want to play A5 not A6 and then A5
Then you are just transposing into an inferior Caro-Kann.
This is nothing like a Caro
Also yes i know the french is garbage...
It's never too late to educate yourself.
Apr 11, 2023
0
#70
cogadhtintreach wrote:
PawnTsunami wrote:
cogadhtintreach wrote:
C6 seems far more logical to prepare B5 as you want to play A5 not A6 and then A5
Then you are just transposing into an inferior Caro-Kann.
This is nothing like a Caro
If you take the Vishy game shown in #60 and play C6 instead of a6, you are back into Caro territory, but one where you left your light-square bishop in prison. Hence, an inferior version of the Caro.
B1ZMARK wrote:
its perfectly possible to gain winning chances in the rubenstein in a practical game.
It is possible yes, but afaik in this line Bb5+ c6 Bd3/Bc4 is better than Bd3, and then White is much better early on. As I said, with inaccuracies from White it's possible, but by that token the Damiano has winning chances for Black (I've been checkmated after winning the rook in the Damiano) but we all know that with proper play the Damiano loses and with proper play the Rubinstein loses or draws. Winning chances come after a blunder or multiple inaccuracies.
edit: checked and White scores 75 points after Bb5+ c6 instead of Bd3 immediately in the line shown. SEVENTY FIVE!!! Stockfish 15+ NNUE says the position is +1.4 at depth 30. Again, many inaccuracies or a blunder and you can get winning chances, but the Rubinstein is dubious at the very best.
Apr 11, 2023
0
#72
Ethan_Brollier wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
its perfectly possible to gain winning chances in the rubenstein in a practical game.
It is possible yes, but afaik in this line Bb5+ c6 Bd3/Bc4 is better than Bd3, and then White is much better early on. As I said, with inaccuracies from White it's possible, but by that token the Damiano has winning chances for Black (I've been checkmated after winning the rook in the Damiano) but we all know that with proper play the Damiano loses and with proper play the Rubinstein loses or draws. Winning chances come after a blunder or multiple inaccuracies.
edit: checked and White scores 75 points after Bb5+ c6 instead of Bd3 immediately in the line shown. SEVENTY FIVE!!! Stockfish 15+ NNUE says the position is +1.4 at depth 30. Again, many inaccuracies or a blunder and you can get winning chances, but the Rubinstein is dubious at the very best.
You are correct. However, I have yet to play an opponent who played perfectly, and white's advantage is merely a theoretical one. Practically speaking, it is somewhat easy to get piece trades in those positions, and that lowers white's advantage easily.
I have also played the czech benoni with great success otb, and I don't think anyone would rate it higher than the rubenstein.
B1ZMARK wrote:
Ethan_Brollier wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
its perfectly possible to gain winning chances in the rubenstein in a practical game.
It is possible yes, but afaik in this line Bb5+ c6 Bd3/Bc4 is better than Bd3, and then White is much better early on. As I said, with inaccuracies from White it's possible, but by that token the Damiano has winning chances for Black (I've been checkmated after winning the rook in the Damiano) but we all know that with proper play the Damiano loses and with proper play the Rubinstein loses or draws. Winning chances come after a blunder or multiple inaccuracies.
edit: checked and White scores 75 points after Bb5+ c6 instead of Bd3 immediately in the line shown. SEVENTY FIVE!!! Stockfish 15+ NNUE says the position is +1.4 at depth 30. Again, many inaccuracies or a blunder and you can get winning chances, but the Rubinstein is dubious at the very best.
You are correct. However, I have yet to play an opponent who played perfectly, and white's advantage is merely a theoretical one. Practically speaking, it is somewhat easy to get piece trades in those positions, and that lowers white's advantage easily.
++ True, but why would you not simply play the Petroff or something, where it's much easier to get a draw but you also have winning chances? You'd still find that people won't play the Petroff perfectly.
I have also played the czech benoni with great success otb, and I don't think anyone would rate it higher than the rubenstein.
++ I would, as at least Black fights for a win rather than a draw. It may be dubious but Black does have ideas like the b and f pawn breaks playing for a win rather than ideas that boil down to 'trade everything for a draw'.
Apr 11, 2023
0
#74
Kowarenai wrote:
recently i have been looking more into the better dutch setups transposing into a stonewall with black with 1.e6 rather than Nf6 due to the annoying Bg5 move white has in a normal dutch.(...)
Did you consider 2. ...h6? For example the following is not bad for black and feels intuitive, so it's not hard to remember.
cogadhtintreach wrote:
IronSteam1 wrote:
cogadhtintreach wrote:
IronSteam1 wrote:
Kowarenai wrote:
LordVandheer wrote:
Who said French is garbage?
"its a S*** opening but i have done so much work to make it kind of basically correct"
I'd say the French is almost certainly a draw with best play. But black needs to know what he's doing (which is kind of a pointless statement, as this is true with all defenses).
Also, the first time I beat an International Master, I used the French Defense - so I'll always have a fondness for it, even if it's no longer part of my repertoire.
The Rubinstein is relatively easy, if you want something simple and clean that'll just suck the wind right out of white's sails. Learn the basic ideas of it. Then just use your tactical/positional skills to outplay your opponent from an even position (the Carlsen approach!).
Here's one example line:
A6 is theory? Seems like a waste of a tempo given that white doesnt want anything on B5, and B5 is very weakening for black if they play it
Theory there is an immediate ...c5
But ...a6 is playable, since it's a quiet position. Anand played ...a6 against Ivanchuk, via transposition. This was their game:
After many more moves, they went on to draw.
Why did Vishy play A6?
It's a threat of gaining tempo on white's Bc4, with a ...b5 followup (which would then allow black to play ...Bb7, either before or after ...c7-c5).
It's a common idea in several QGD/QGA lines, and also in some lines of the Najdorf ...
IronSteam1 wrote:
cogadhtintreach wrote:
IronSteam1 wrote:
cogadhtintreach wrote:
IronSteam1 wrote:
Kowarenai wrote:
LordVandheer wrote:
Who said French is garbage?
"its a S*** opening but i have done so much work to make it kind of basically correct"
I'd say the French is almost certainly a draw with best play. But black needs to know what he's doing (which is kind of a pointless statement, as this is true with all defenses).
Also, the first time I beat an International Master, I used the French Defense - so I'll always have a fondness for it, even if it's no longer part of my repertoire.
The Rubinstein is relatively easy, if you want something simple and clean that'll just suck the wind right out of white's sails. Learn the basic ideas of it. Then just use your tactical/positional skills to outplay your opponent from an even position (the Carlsen approach!).
Here's one example line:
A6 is theory? Seems like a waste of a tempo given that white doesnt want anything on B5, and B5 is very weakening for black if they play it
Theory there is an immediate ...c5
But ...a6 is playable, since it's a quiet position. Anand played ...a6 against Ivanchuk, via transposition. This was their game:
After many more moves, they went on to draw.
Why did Vishy play A6?
It's a threat of gaining tempo on white's Bc4, with a ...b5 followup (which would then allow black to play ...Bb7, either before or after ...c7-c5).
It's a common idea in several QGD/QGA lines, and also in some lines of the Najdorf ...
Well A6 IS the Najdorf
AtaChess68 wrote:
Kowarenai wrote:
recently i have been looking more into the better dutch setups transposing into a stonewall with black with 1.e6 rather than Nf6 due to the annoying Bg5 move white has in a normal dutch.(...)
Did you consider 2. ...h6? For example the following is not bad for black and feels intuitive, so it's not hard to remember.
This Dutch line is actually very interesting. I'm not a Dutch player but I currently don't have a great anti-d4 repertoire so I might try this out.
Ethan_Brollier wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
its perfectly possible to gain winning chances in the rubenstein in a practical game.
It is possible yes, but afaik in this line Bb5+ c6 Bd3/Bc4 is better than Bd3, and then White is much better early on. As I said, with inaccuracies from White it's possible, but by that token the Damiano has winning chances for Black (I've been checkmated after winning the rook in the Damiano) but we all know that with proper play the Damiano loses and with proper play the Rubinstein loses or draws. Winning chances come after a blunder or multiple inaccuracies.
edit: checked and White scores 75 points after Bb5+ c6 instead of Bd3 immediately in the line shown. SEVENTY FIVE!!! Stockfish 15+ NNUE says the position is +1.4 at depth 30. Again, many inaccuracies or a blunder and you can get winning chances, but the Rubinstein is dubious at the very best.
Not really. White is in a much better position but it's far from won. Think about how you can't say the Fried Liver is won with proper play because it's a draw with even better play, and Damiano is left in a far more playable situation than the Fried Liver for black.
It's like the Bongcloud - if you play the Bongcloud suddenly white is far worse off. But you can't say he loses with proper play. Chess is a draw from move 1, I am pretty sure after 2 or 3 more moves that don't lose material it is still almost always a draw no matter how bad the moves are. It's incredibly hard to claim any position near the opening is a forced win with proper play.
Apr 11, 2023
0
#79
Ethan_Brollier wrote:.
++ True, but why would you not simply play the Petroff or something, where it's much easier to get a draw but you also have winning chances? You'd still find that people won't play the Petroff perfectly.
++ I would, as at least Black fights for a win rather than a draw. It may be dubious but Black does have ideas like the b and f pawn breaks playing for a win rather than ideas that boil down to 'trade everything for a draw'.
I personally enjoy closed positions more, and I don't mind a lack of space.
Also, trading everything down doesn't necessarily mean a draw. Sure, maybe with perfect play, yes. But you can create your own chances and imbalances. Just make sure to study them.
cogadhtintreach wrote:
IronSteam1 wrote:
cogadhtintreach wrote:
IronSteam1 wrote:
cogadhtintreach wrote:
IronSteam1 wrote:
Kowarenai wrote:
LordVandheer wrote:
Who said French is garbage?
"its a S*** opening but i have done so much work to make it kind of basically correct"
I'd say the French is almost certainly a draw with best play. But black needs to know what he's doing (which is kind of a pointless statement, as this is true with all defenses).
Also, the first time I beat an International Master, I used the French Defense - so I'll always have a fondness for it, even if it's no longer part of my repertoire.
The Rubinstein is relatively easy, if you want something simple and clean that'll just suck the wind right out of white's sails. Learn the basic ideas of it. Then just use your tactical/positional skills to outplay your opponent from an even position (the Carlsen approach!).
Here's one example line:
A6 is theory? Seems like a waste of a tempo given that white doesnt want anything on B5, and B5 is very weakening for black if they play it
Theory there is an immediate ...c5
But ...a6 is playable, since it's a quiet position. Anand played ...a6 against Ivanchuk, via transposition. This was their game:
After many more moves, they went on to draw.
Why did Vishy play A6?
It's a threat of gaining tempo on white's Bc4, with a ...b5 followup (which would then allow black to play ...Bb7, either before or after ...c7-c5).
It's a common idea in several QGD/QGA lines, and also in some lines of the Najdorf ...
Well A6 IS the Najdorf
Yes ... I'm aware of that. 
What I mean is, the a6+b5+bb7 idea is seen in some Najdorf lines, but not all.
It's somewhat common in ...e6 Najdorfs (Najdorf with a Scheveningen structure, as Kasparov liked to play it). But not something you usually see in ...e5 Najdorfs.
(If Pfren were still around, he might argue with me that Kasparov played the Scheveningen with an early ...a6, and not the Najdorf ... but I digress ...)
i remember there was that joke that since fischer sucked against the caro super badly during the time that when tal played him, he pushed the pawn one square on c6 and moved it to c5 as a kind of subtle joke which got fischer laughing in the interview but in the game tired
Fischer was a showman, so I am sure he played it up, despite knowing it to be anything but the truth. He finished with a record close to +33=12-7 against the Caro-Kann.
Tal did this, not Fischer ( the joke with the c-pawn )
I was talking about laughing it off. I knew what you were referring to.