2-3 moves isn't a line. Show me black's "strong initiative" after:
Palliser in Dangerous Weapons Flank Openings proposes 3...e4 with this sample game :
There are improvments for both sides (as Palliser pointed out), but not easy for white to avoid black's initiative.
The next chapter, he gives another line for black, delaying c6, thus going for exd4-Qxd4, and uses Na6 set up with this introducing game :
I don't see any reason for black to complain here.
2-3 moves isn't a line. Show me black's "strong initiative" after:
Who said about 2-3 moves? I typed the entrance of the line, not all the Tabiyas, unless you expect to learn for free...did you? Oh no...Here : pay 21 $ plus travel cost and you will learn what you wish for
https://www.newinchess.com/attacking-the-english-reti
As for far for the board question you make i don't see any gambit line here, does anyone? All i see is White giving up the center for free. Not an ideal way to play the English....does it?
And this is not only on g3 without Nc3.
Black can reach the same ideas with Nc3 move orders :
White can avoid this playing Nf3 like this 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3, then it is another story...
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7608.pdf
Bishop_g5 wrote (~1 day ago): ... Attacking the English with the Keres attack, 1...e5 followed by 2...c6 against 2.g3 and 2...Nf6 3...c6 against 2.Nc3.
Black gambits the d5 pawn and takes back strong initiative for the rest of the game. If White doesn't accept the pawn he's position becomes passive comparing to other English opening lines.
The line is fresh and half unexplored, so you may find original ideas on the way.
For more information look for the book of GM Delchev : Attacking the English/Reti
Optimissed wrote (~10 hours ago): This is completely illogical because it effectively claims that black is better whether white accepts or declines the pawn, early in an opening that's known to be objectively one of the strongest, if not the strongest, available to white. The line is not original at all.
It's nonsense. Don't believe what chess writers claim in order to sell their own books.
Bishop_g5 wrote (~4 hours): If there is a doubt about the soundness of the opening line neither you or me are capable to criticize and judge a GM paperwork. Before you open your mouth please go and play a dozen of games in this line, analyze afterward, use examples of GM games and then type your nonsense. I have read and studied many books written by GM Delchev and i saw enough games played in this line that make me believe in comparison with other 1...e5 lines that is unquestionably the strongest one. Especially after 2.g3 Whites main weapon the last two decades.
IM pfren wrote (~4 hors ago) (to Optimissed): OK, I believe you... but where is your proof?
What makes you think that GM Delchev (and actually GM Mikhalevski as well, who has authored another very recent book and advocates the very same line) are wrong?
It's a hard choice- which should I trust? Two widely known GM's and theoreticians, or our ordinary wise woodpusher?
Is the issue about what "two widely known GM's" said or about what Bishop_g5 said?
2-3 moves isn't a line. Show me black's "strong initiative" after:
Who said about 2-3 moves? I typed the entrance of the line, not all the Tabiyas, unless you expect to learn for free...did you? Oh no...Here : pay 21 $ plus travel cost and you will learn what you wish for
https://www.newinchess.com/attacking-the-english-reti
As for far for the board question you make i don't see any gambit line here, does anyone? All i see is White giving up the center for free. Not an ideal way to play the English....does it?
Your previous post told me nothing because it only went a few moves deep. You can show a single gambit line to let us know what you're talking about (like poucin did). This one line would obviously not replace a whole book.
2-3 moves isn't a line. Show me black's "strong initiative" after: [1. c4 e5 2. g3 c6 3. d4]
Bishop_g5 wrote (~1 hour ago): Who said about 2-3 moves? I typed the entrance of the line, not all the Tabiyas, unless you expect to learn for free...did you? Oh no...Here : pay 21 $ plus travel cost and you will learn what you wish for
https://www.newinchess.com/attacking-the-english-reti
As for far for the board question you make i don't see any gambit line here, does anyone? All i see is White giving up the center for free. Not an ideal way to play the English....does it?
poodle_noodle wrote (~26 minutes ago): Your previous post told me nothing because it only went a few moves deep. You can show a single gambit line to let us know what you're talking about (like poucin did). This one line would obviously not replace a whole book.
(Just trying to make it easier to keep track of who said what to whom.)
I do not know if it will help at all, but this link shows some of the contents of the book:
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7608.pdf
Some comments about the book can be seen here: http://www.davidsmerdon.com/?p=1888
2-3 moves isn't a line. Show me black's "strong initiative" after:
Who said about 2-3 moves? I typed the entrance of the line, not all the Tabiyas, unless you expect to learn for free...did you? Oh no...Here : pay 21 $ plus travel cost and you will learn what you wish for
https://www.newinchess.com/attacking-the-english-reti
As for far for the board question you make i don't see any gambit line here, does anyone? All i see is White giving up the center for free. Not an ideal way to play the English....does it?
Your previous post told me nothing because it only went a few moves deep. You can show a single gambit line to let us know what you're talking about (like poucin did). This one line would obviously not replace a whole book.
No, i don't want to show you, because then i have to explain to you how strong is the initiative, otherwise, you will understand again Jack shit...
The fact that White players avoid taking the pawn at first glance and instead prefer to go into this line means something. In the below game stands the theory in 2.g3 c6 lines when it comes to evaluating it soundness. This is Whites best hand, like it or not. IM Poucin posted Gelfands premature Qb3 now it comes in a better version....until the next one.
The background of the opening gambit line begins with this game back in 58.
IMO white's best hope for an advantage in those lines is (1.c4 e5 2.g3 c6) 3.Nf3!, or 2...Nf6 3.Bg2 c6 4.Nf3!
In the second line GM Delchev advocates 5.e4 Nd4 followed by 6.Qb6! when white has to choose between retreating the centralized knight on c2 or a passive Bishop if he protects it with d3. I don't really understand how White can solve all of his development problems and fight for an advantage but that's beyond my class to ,,, understand, i guess.
2-3 moves isn't a line. Show me black's "strong initiative" after:
Who said about 2-3 moves? I typed the entrance of the line, not all the Tabiyas, unless you expect to learn for free...did you? Oh no...Here : pay 21 $ plus travel cost and you will learn what you wish for
https://www.newinchess.com/attacking-the-english-reti
As for far for the board question you make i don't see any gambit line here, does anyone? All i see is White giving up the center for free. Not an ideal way to play the English....does it?
Your previous post told me nothing because it only went a few moves deep. You can show a single gambit line to let us know what you're talking about (like poucin did). This one line would obviously not replace a whole book.
No, i don't want to show you,
Then don't bother joining the conversation re: main line against english opening because your comments wont be useful, just like when I called you on posting 2 or 3 moves as if it means anything to anyone.
because then i have to explain to you how strong is the initiative, otherwise, you will understand again Jack shit...
I easily got a sense of it from the games poucin took the time to produce.
Also, judging from your chess.com ratings, you wouldn't be able to explain much to me in any case, due to your being 100-200 points weaker than me...
But the one thing you did that was useful was mentioning that book, so thanks for that. If I want to learn these lines I'll consider it. Right now I feel like my lines against 1.c4 are a bit wimpy. I play the rossolimo as white, so I tend to go for 1.c4 e5 with Bb4 (or sometimes Bc5) after an eventual Nc3. Of course these are solid high quality lines, but maybe not as much chances to crush a less prepared opponent.
All in all, there's too much pomposity here, from higher rated players, and not enough willingness to try to grasp simpler, logical propositions about our game.
I agree on too much pompous BS.
Not sure what you mean by simpler logical propositions though. If you want to be good at an opening it takes a lot of specific study. Maybe at _____ rating it's not worth it, but that's what it takes to make a dangerous repertoire.
... Your previous post told me nothing because it only went a few moves deep. You can show a single gambit line to let us know what you're talking about (like poucin did). This one line would obviously not replace a whole book.
No, i don't want to show you,
Then don't bother joining the conversation re: main line against english opening because your comments wont be useful, ... But the one thing you did that was useful was mentioning that book, so thanks for that. ...
As far as I could tell us, when Bishop_g5 joined the conversation (in post #6, about 1 day ago), the purpose was to tell us a little about the book.
"Right now I feel like my lines against 1.c4 are a bit wimpy. I play the rossolimo as white, so I tend to go for 1.c4 e5 with Bb4 (or sometimes Bc5) after an eventual Nc3. Of course these are solid high quality lines, but maybe not as much chances to crush a less prepared opponent."
I am not sure you have understood too much. The Keres line, with c6, and d5, is specifically designed against 1c4 e5 2g3, and conceptually black hopes to show g3 is not a useful move. For a long time 2g3 was viewed as something of a side-line.
Against 1c4 e5 2Nc3 the book goes into the Bb4 line you were talking about. In the 2016 candidates tournament this line was played a lot, and the games wern't at all wimpy.
"Right now I feel like my lines against 1.c4 are a bit wimpy. I play the rossolimo as white, so I tend to go for 1.c4 e5 with Bb4 (or sometimes Bc5) after an eventual Nc3. Of course these are solid high quality lines, but maybe not as much chances to crush a less prepared opponent."
I am not sure you have understood too much. The Keres line, with c6, and d5, is specifically designed against 1c4 e5 2g3, and conceptually black hopes to show g3 is not a useful move. For a long time 2g3 was viewed as something of a side-line.
Against 1c4 e5 2Nc3 the book goes into the Bb4 line you were talking about. In the 2016 candidates tournament this line was played a lot, and the games wern't at all wimpy.
Exactly, my problem is I haven't studied any English lines, so I don't understand (and what I play ends up feeling wimpy).
... Your previous post told me nothing because it only went a few moves deep. You can show a single gambit line to let us know what you're talking about (like poucin did). This one line would obviously not replace a whole book.
No, i don't want to show you,
Then don't bother joining the conversation re: main line against english opening because your comments wont be useful, ... But the one thing you did that was useful was mentioning that book, so thanks for that. ...
As far as I could tell us, when Bishop_g5 joined the conversation (in post #6, about 1 day ago), the purpose was to tell us a little about the book.
Well, I just got done saying I know nothing about it, but I do know the absolute basics, i.e. that 2...c6 (after 2.g3) is the keres line. I wasn't aware of a line that gambited a pawn though (and he was answering the title, because he starts out "yes there is")
All in all, there's too much pomposity here, from higher rated players, and not enough willingness to try to grasp simpler, logical propositions about our game.
I agree on too much pompous BS.
Not sure what you mean by simpler logical propositions though. If you want to be good at an opening it takes a lot of specific study. Maybe at _____ rating it's not worth it, but that's what it takes to make a dangerous repertoire.>>>
Thanks, I appreciate your somewhat guarded agreement. By pomposity, I mean the number of people who seem to want to use a ratings superiority as some kind of weapon in discussions. But the good point is that there's less "ganging up" here on Chess.com than in some other places I could mention. Different people have their different opinions and most are open to discussion.
The kind of general principles I'm alluding to might be pointed to best by example. I play the 2. ...a6 Sicilian and have done so for 25 years. Some time ago, some people criticised it, saying that white knows not to play 3. d4 against it in any case, due to the strength of black's ...e5 lines. But I'd already done a general, dynamic assessment, years ago, where I concluded that merely in terms of dynamic tempos, ...e5 by black with gain of tempo doesn't amount to an overall tempo gain since black had played ...a6. What's more, black's forces are split in half and it becomes very difficult for black to defend against a well-constructed, positional attack by white.
Many GMs are very strong tactically and they play dubious lines because that's a good way to catch out the GM opposition ... in prepared lines in tricky positions. But strong club players are probably more aware of general principles and they play accordingly. Thus over 50% of players encounter play 3. d4. They understand that ....e5 may not be so strong, despite all the false claims.
I agree that practical considerations are often ignored by club players. That's part of my reasoning behind any (well, almost any) opening is dangerous if you're studied it... but you have to study it. You can't talk about it in general terms like ____ loses a tempo or like you're warning againt _____ consensus is it's sub optimal.
In the end I'll still go for the reversed Sicilian. Even though it's a bit tricky. I think I know enough now not to let it blow it up in my face.
How about playing either 1... e6 or 1... c6, perhaps with the intention of steering the play away from English lines?
Now there's a game whose strategic ideas I'm familiar with. Pretty early we see black gets the c4 square and aims at the queenside, while white tries f3 and attacking the center pawns.
As black, in general I'm not comfortable with the structure after 5...e4 because white's idea is so obvious and easy to play. I'm not saying it's winning of course, just very comfortable (IMO).
2-3 moves isn't a line. Show me black's "strong initiative" after: