In playing the Ruy Lopez why do great players including Gary Kasparov play an anti-marshall variation with 8.d4 8.a4 8.h3 instead of c3
Mastering the Ruy Lopez
Sort:
Oct 31, 2017
0
#23
lexbabu wrote:
In playing the Ruy Lopez why do great players including Gary Kasparov play an anti-marshall variation with 8.d4 8.a4 8.h3 instead of c3
Because the Marshall is a forcing variation where it's difficult for white to get anything concrete if black knows his stuff. 8.a4 is my favorite but 8.h3 is strong too.
Oct 31, 2017
0
#24
Clearly the OP doesn't give a shit about this thread. And even if he did, to think that one can teach how to play one of the most positionally complex openings in chess on an internet forum is naive at best.
TheSiliconCarne wrote:
Do you really think these lines give black complete equality? White is a pawn up and has a good position
the end position is a pretty obvious draw.
Black has a pawn less, but spare tempo and a powerful passed pawn on e4.
I am not certain about the correctness of the full line, as you can see, this is wild trading stuff,
typical of engines and not humans, and that is why I don't play it.
But, when I check with Stockfish, I am getting fully equal early on, due to
lots of exchanges and early simplification.
In the other lines, Berlin, 3...a6, etc., closed or open, black never gets so near to equality so early into the game.
pfren wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov έγραψε:
Because it is extremely tactical, and top players, just like everyone else, like getting
their play in familiar systems.
With the Schliemann-Jaenisch, it is constant tactics, similarly to the Traxler Gambit
of the Two Knights.
Who is playing the Traxler on top level?
I have seen many theoretical books, where 3...f5 gets !?, so more good than bad, but it is very difficult
to investigate until the end.
I tried to do that with Stockfish, and am getting fully equal in all lines quite soon, but of course,
I might have skipped something.
3...f5 is an OK move, and actually a solid choice: Black is aiming at an opposite color middlegame where his piece mobility will compensate the minus pawn. The resulting positions are technical, and not sharp at all.
The sharp old main line (4.Nc3 dxe4 5.Nxe4 d5) as well as the so-called Bulgarian variation (4.Nc3 Nd4) have been archived many years ago, and their revival is highly unlikely.
I have played many official games with the Jaenisch, but I gave up on it, as the modern treatment is rather too peaceful for my taste.
Well, that might be true of modern theory, but maybe my Stockfish has resuscitated
an overwhelmingly tactical system of lines.
I don't understand how could the opening not be full of trades and tactics, when the center is asymmetrically challenged(f5 undfefended pawn attacking e4 undefended pawn), and in some lines white has even the option of playing d4, so both central pawns are levered?
I really have not studied modern theory on this, what does it advise after 3...f5?
This is the modern treatment for white : seems unambitious, but no easy equality for black...
Nov 1, 2017
0
#28
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
the end position is a pretty obvious draw.
Black has a pawn less, but spare tempo and a powerful passed pawn on e4.
I am not certain about the correctness of the full line, as you can see, this is wild trading stuff,
typical of engines and not humans, and that is why I don't play it.
I agree that this should be draw with correct play, but still I think only white has winning chances so not a line Id like to play as black. Btw this line is almost the main line against the 3... f5 Spanish.
poucin wrote:
This is the modern treatment for white : seems unambitious, but no easy equality for black...
Is not that a tacit recognition 3...f5 is objectively best?
In the other Ruy Lopez lines, black has to fight for equality.
4...Nf6 seems fully equal.
TheSiliconCarne wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
the end position is a pretty obvious draw.
Black has a pawn less, but spare tempo and a powerful passed pawn on e4.
I am not certain about the correctness of the full line, as you can see, this is wild trading stuff,
typical of engines and not humans, and that is why I don't play it.
I agree that this should be draw with correct play, but still I think only white has winning chances so not a line Id like to play as black. Btw this line is almost the main line against the 3... f5 Spanish.
I don't think white has any advantage, I assess it as fully equal.
Besides, the game is already very simple, so not big chances to go wrong.
In other Ruy Lopez lines, white still has some advanatge, but the positions is not
simplified, so white can press harder.
That is why I said it is easier to draw in the Ruy Lopez with 3...f5
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov a écrit :
poucin wrote:
This is the modern treatment for white : seems unambitious, but no easy equality for black...
Is not that a tacit recognition 3...f5 is objectively best?
In the other Ruy Lopez lines, black has to fight for equality.
Your words just prove u don't know what u are talking about.
4.d3 seems passive but keeps game more alive than drawish lines after 4.Nc3.
It became the main line since several years : white keeps an edge with "simple" means.
Silman made a good article on schliemann defence on chess.com :
https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-jaenischschliemann-gambit
Still, this defence is playable and a good way to play Ruy Lopez as black. But telling it gives easy/instant equality is just ignorance : or u understand/know it much better than top players maybe...
poucin wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov a écrit :
poucin wrote:
This is the modern treatment for white : seems unambitious, but no easy equality for black...
Is not that a tacit recognition 3...f5 is objectively best?
In the other Ruy Lopez lines, black has to fight for equality.
Your words just prove u don't know what u are talking about.
4.d3 seems passive but keeps game more alive than drawish lines after 4.Nc3.
It became the main line since several years : white keeps an edge with "simple" means.
Silman made a good article on schliemann defence on chess.com :
https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-jaenischschliemann-gambit
Still, this defence is playable and a good way to play Ruy Lopez as black. But telling it gives easy/instant equality is just ignorance : or u understand/know it much better than top players maybe...
Well, I read Silman's article, and it only supports the point, that black has excellent play:
in any case he provides just black wins and draws, even after 4. d3
Some of his games are also a bit old.
I guess the top players have a sufficiently good understanding the Schliemann is quite good, but
there are unwilling to implement it more often because of its hugely tactical implications, where all their swotted playing setups just fall apart.
Everyone wants to beat the opponent easily on theory, and here there is not much firm theory, so they
are just avoiding it for the most part.
I have not investigated this myself deeply, I just went through most main lines with Stockfish up
to maybe depth 30(15 moves), and it almost always says 0.0, or even a small black edge.
What of above lines ends with a fully drawish position at around move 25?
I.e., white has more chances to press harder in the rest.
Some might more or less equalise at move 60 or so, which is mcuh longer than move 25.
Open Ruy is certainly weak.
From waht I know, the Archangelsk is bad too.
The Marshall might barely hold in a range of limited lines, but will lose in most.
Fischer has proven that many times.
The 2 reasons why top players would more often choose these systems is:
- the offer the possibility for fixed setups, which GMs can prepare in advance
- they offer good fighting chances, and many like to play for a win
Nov 1, 2017
0
#38
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
Open Ruy is certainly weak.
From waht I know, the Archangelsk is bad too.
The Marshall might barely hold in a range of limited lines, but will lose in most.
Wrong on all three points.
pfren wrote:
Fixing_A_Hole έγραψε:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
Open Ruy is certainly weak.
From waht I know, the Archangelsk is bad too.
The Marshall might barely hold in a range of limited lines, but will lose in most.
Wrong on all three points.
That's because he did not have a fourth point.
Here is a game I finished recently, being white in a critical line of the Arkhangelsk. It's very sharp (9...h6 is safer than 9...0-0), but at a high level it can be archived as a draw.
The computer says in the final position that white is winning, which is not true, of course. Actually ALL the moves in that game after 9...0-0 are optimal, and have been played before!
How does black hold the final position? I'm embarrassed to say I don't see it. After just a couple minutes looking on my phone, but still. Thanks.
Do you really think these lines give black complete equality? White is a pawn up and has a good position