20667 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
@Irontiger and @bresando: if you want, you are invited to play with me so you can prove that you are right.
I only play at a slow level (3 days for a move), because I do not have a big chuncks of time to spend with playing chess. We will play the Napoleon Opening, you will be white and I will answer with 2. ... c5. I don't mind if you want to play it rated or unrated.
@ LoekBergman : So you want to prove the concept is wrong on the basis of an example game ? Whether you win, or lose, or draw, there will be room to incriminate other moves from both sides. (we never said 2...c5 ? loses by force, but it certainly makes a much harder game)
Besides - and this without suspecting you in particular - I do not play games with stakes on the internet (the stakes being here to claim 'aha, I won' on this forum) by fear of computer use. So, I am sorry to decline your offer. Please spare me the "coward ! coward !".
We told you why the move is bad (it weakens a square without getting anything in counterpart), why the inspiration from the Maroczy bind of the Sicilian is irrelevant (there is still a pawn on the d file, plus this square control is less important that in the Sicilian) and your answer did not satisfy any of us. Actually, I did not ever understood it. I read the first part of #19 as "maybe it's bad, but I won games with it against clueless opponents" - probably that wasn't what you meant.
@Irontiger: Decline accepted, no offense taken. It was just a friendly invitation.
I have never played that line with c5. You could have understood that from the sentence in which I mentioned that move for the first time. I saw that move while typing, went to some site with openings bein curious how white would answer and saw that it was never played before, and was just wondering why it was never played. So, I did not mean what you were reading.
At 19 I was trying to say that whatever move you make, you will always have to bargain on the position. You can only make one move at the time and that implies that not all threads or possibilities can be handled with that one move. You have to make a choice between alternatives: win some, lose some. If you play e4, you have made a choice, just like playing d4 or c4 or Nf3.
When I wrote about the choice of c6 or Nc6 I was talking about a situation in which black had not yet played c5. Never mind, let it go, have fun.
@Moses2792796: wow, this is funny. I wondered about a move in an opening I have never played and two people reacted on that. Both calling it a blunder etc.. I just invited them to prove their words. It turned out that Irontiger had interpreted my words different then what I was trying to say (which made his posts also more comprehendible to me). Nowhere did we use the word theory and testing or suggesting that it would have implications or that it would prove anything (Irontiger correctly referring implicitely to the phallacy of overstrechting the example) and now are you telling that this variant can only become tested seriously in a WC match? Irontiger asked me about the concept and the example, but that was not my intention, because I agree with him about the value of an example with regards to a broader concept. Irontiger and bresando were using quite strong words - albeit in very acceptable language. Because they took the time to react I and used strong, but polite words, I invited them to take the proof of the pudding. That is all there is.
Your remark reminds me about the analogy off a butterfly in China and that storm in the USA. Which is off course not true, because the start of hurricanes in the USA are the highlands of Ethiopia. The butterfly was flying there.
However, I do have a question to the original poster of this thread. He must have had his tournament by now and might answer the questions if he faced a Napoleon and how his achievements in the tournament were?
Sorry loek, i am reading your reply just now. If you really want you can send me a challenge, but to be honest i think it would be rather pointless. We are weak amateurs and we can produce whatever result from whatever position. It wouldn't change the fact that 2...c5 makes no sense (i mean, what is the idea behind it?) and is bad on general principles. Of course 2.Qf3 is in itself a bad move and as a result black probably gets a playable game even after 2...c5?, but clearly he has much better alternatives avaiable.
Loek i will gladly play unrated game to my heart's content with this line. ( with c5)
Make a challenge.
bresando, you are a realist which means good for you! [though you overstate your "weak" amateur status.]
Better to think you are worse than you are than to think you are better than you are.
@bresando: I have never suggested that we could prove anything. I am aware of my limitations. You were saying that it is a positional blunder and not good etc.. First I was just wondering why it was never played, then I answered Irontiger how I would play. I used normal text, Irontiger making his text bold and using question marks etc..Then did you made use of extra question marks and the word positional blunder. At that time I decided not to prolong any discussion. That is useless, but if the both of you are so certain, prove it. Hence I challenged.
Reading your second post, I agree with ponz111 that you start more realistic about our capacities and the meaning of our opinions, but in the second part of the post you still know for certain that the idea is plainly wrong. I had an idea why playing it, and although this idea might be wrong (or wrong in my hands), it is an idea and there is a plan how to play it. The argument of better alternatives is indeed most probably right. If 2. .... c5 would have been a good move, then would someone have played it. I think your message is twofold and I have already challenged you. So it is your choice to accept or decline. Please let me know.
@KuzmickiMarek: done, I have challenged you.
yeah, but so guys, what do you do if you have opened with a rookie move as white and played the Napoleon Opening, and black has made the best response? sp, 1.e4 e5 2.Qf3 Nf6. I can find a lot about how black should defend this, but what is white's best next move??
It is forbidden to talk about ongoing games and you are definitely in a game playing this opening. Sorry, we can't help you now. After the game maybe.
There are enough sites where you have an opening explorer, but in that won't be of a big help with this opening.
I think this is a good blog, that you can read for your openings:
ah, thanks, Loek... I wasn't aware of the protocol, but of course that make sense... as you can tell from my opening, I am a noob... cool blog, thanks for that... lot's to learn... :)
The Napoleon opening loses by force to the Wellington Gambit.
That is true, but only when you can get it to the endgame.
When One Pawn Blocks Two, Gaining Opposition, Fox in the Chicken Coop, Trebuchet
by Congruity a few minutes ago
5/25/2016 - From Side To Side
by scibot1234 a few minutes ago
Significantly Weaker Computer-3 HARD Engine?
by alexm2310 2 minutes ago
Chess.com's Weekly Study: May 15th 2016
by n9531l 5 minutes ago
Chess Programs for Mac?
by George_Poet 9 minutes ago
My first win against Computer 4
by ChessOath 9 minutes ago
Unpopularity in America
by gerberk 10 minutes ago
Chess rating system
by SmyslovFan 10 minutes ago
Classic Mate in One
by fini10ia 12 minutes ago
TT accuracy calculation system incapable of doing simple math
by Julius-Geezer 15 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!