My Opening Invention

Sungolian wrote:
nameno1had wrote:

It does use different names than my Chessmaster uses, which I find puzzling. I will assume that both names are valid and its a matter of preference for some reason, as Yereslov is trying to do and get us to follow suit, but without the accolades to pull it off.

The Chessmaster DB is more accurate than the crappy DB they have here. I would go with whatever CM says.

Thanks for that tip. I had been wondering for a while and didn't really feel like trying to figure out the differences beyond the few openings I noticed that have more than one name possibility.


yeserlov I found a game from the 1800's played with the opening. you hardly have a right to name it just like Botnivik didn't but alas Damn Soviets.


stop feeding the troll people. He just wants attention. 


actually, i find his "attention grabbing" quite inspiring. you know what, im gonna invent an opening myself!          +1 Yereslov. you rock dude!


Jovanka Houska has dedicated several pages in her Caro Kann book at the 3...c5 variation.

However, I'm almost sure she does not refer to it as the Yereslov variation.

Same applies for grandmaster Igor Khenkin, who has been playing that variation since the mid-eighties against all sorts of competition.

And- it seems that 3...Bf5 is "slightly" more popular- 30,425 games in my database vs. 4,159 for 3...c5.


so is a troll someone who posts something with sole intention of provoking someone in some way?


also, instead of the caro-kann, how about we call it "the dark shadow of hell" or "satan's black wing"


"Caro-Kann  with 3...c5 is stupid. "  how is this stupid when is it the 2nd most common move ?


hey could someone please define troll? and be specific. just someone who posts things to get a reaction from people or what? really, I seriously just want to know.


The idea of 3...c5 is rather apparent- a quick ...Bg4, and to achieve that Black is taking a certain risk.

White can counter in three different ways (4.dc5, 4.Nf3 and 4.c4) but none of them leads to a "clear" plus for white.

On the French advance, you have to cheat a bit to place the bishop on g4.

Labeling the variation as "stupid" proves... stupidity. Not of the player that employs the variation, though. Here is a stupid 2700 super-GM, who did not know how to deal with it (he rejected a draw by repetition around move 25 for sure, but he had achieved nothing at all at that point):

How better than that Mr. Kaufman could do? Remains to be seen, against a GM rated some 300 points higher.

Sungolian wrote:

Sutovsky should have played 4.dxc5. As you even pointed out, white had an easy draw, but he got greedy and lost.

Why don't you apply for being a second to the ignorant 2700+ Sutovsky?

Apparently, he did not know 4.dc5 is the right move- or maybe not?


Shirov's game is a rapid one, in case you did not notice. What you surely did not notice (any woodpusher wouldn't) is that Black had a fine game after 10...Ng6 or 10...Qc7, which weren't played.

The variation Chucky played is effectively abandoned at top level- apparently for a good reason:


Next lesson will not be free.


No free lessons anymore, I'm sorry. I don't mind doing that for players with some potential (quite the opposite) but I see no good reason arguing like a fool with arrogant subpatzers.


Unfortunately I cannot pay you, I have no bananas.


you people give this pfren guy a hardtime. he's just trying to talk some sense into you. here's a game an IM showed me featuring an off-beat line in trompowsky attack that was played at a high level. 


While it's not the norm catching a super-GM unprepared, this may well happen, as in the above game. Of course this isn't enough to win in 13 moves- Aliosha tried to play very sharply, as he usually does, blundered, and lost.

Peter Wells usually does a great home preparation- I know it myself, as I caught him in the only game we have played "unprepared" in a murky Rossolimo variation- or so I thought, as after a while I realized he has thoroughly worked the whole thing at home (the game ended peacefully right after the time pressure).


and 12 years earlier...

Sungolian wrote:
alexlaw wrote:

that's cos c5 is a new variation, and there are more frenchmen than caromen.

Also, the French is played approx 5:3 times more frequently than the Caro according to most databases I checked (Chessmaster,, ChessBase, etc.)

This still doesn't explain the 8:1 discrepancy between playing 3...c5 in the French and Caro. It's pretty clear that that move in the Caro is worse than its French counterpart.

There's no real logic there, statistically speaking.  You're talking across variations.  It's like saying 4...dxB in the Ruy Lopez exchange is better than playing 2...d6 in the Sicilian, because it's played in virtually 100% of Ruy Lopez exchanges, while ...d6 is only played in 33% of Sicilians.

Sometimes, it's just that the position itself makes one move overwhelmingly the most obvious choice.  That's ...c5 in the French advance, whereas the case isn't as obvious in the Caro.

I tend to agree that ...Bf5 is the more principled move against the CK advance, but the above argument just doesn't hold water.


A hundred strong GMs once played 1.d4 and lost. Isn't that a blatant proof that 1.e4 is better ?


(I'm not sure if I got Sungolian's logic right, but it sounds like that)

pfren wrote:

Unfortunately I cannot pay you, I have no bananas.

There's a fruit store on our street
It's run by a Greek.
And he keeps good things to eat
But you should hear him speak!

When you ask him anything, he never answers "no".
He just "yes"es you to death,
And as he takes your dough, he tells you...

"Yes! We have no bananas
We have no bananas today...