Need backup for Caro-Kann?

shambo wrote:

The O'kelly sicilian is what I recommend (1.e4c5 2.Nf3 a6)

I find it interesting, and the c4 advance is playable in it, eventually.

The O'Kelly is an excellent surprise weapon - its only drawback as a 2nd opening is that it allows the full bunch of Anti-Sicilians, and thus requires lots of preparation...

Seems like Alekhines Defense would be a good back up for a carokann player  same strategy of gettting bishop outside the pawn chain and then pushing e6.  ie main line

e4 Nf6

e5 Nd5

d4 d6

Nf3 Bg4

Be2  e6(or c6)

Yes, the Alekhine is interesting, I already sometimes play (usually in blitz) a side line of the King's Indian which is rather Alekhine-like.

d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 o-o

Here I think e5 Ne8 is premature, but

Nf3 c6 e5 Ne8. I often get a good game as black, as long as I don't asphyxiate over the next half-dozen moves.

Ozzie, if you like the KID with d4 why not use the Pirc as your #2 against e4?

I don't typically play the KID -- I just know a lot about it because I am a d4 player and it is so popular on the black side.

It's a good idea though - I think you have to be an expert KID player though (which I'm not) in order to translate that to a good Pirc player, since I believe black gives up more early on when the white pawn is on c2.

Actually, I think the Pirc and KID are not that close : KID is very much about space, and play on the wings around a close center, while in the Pirc the battle for the center is tense and white attacks his opponent's king much more often !

Well, that's only my impression.

NM ozzie wrote> But you were commenting on one relative disadvantage of playing the Center Counter... isn't a fair follow-up Q whether you feel the same way about the C-K?

:-)

True :) And I never thought otherwise, only misunderstood the question a little bit :)

Anyway, for other readers  - yes, I have the same 'yawn' feeling about the CK as I do about the CC  :)

MrZugzwang wrote:

FWIW, MCO-15 (The Revised Standard Bible) has changed the note to read (pg 186, note (j) -- "Riskier are ... (B) 6...dxc4 7. Bxc4! Qxd4 8. Qxd4 Nxd4 9. 0-0-0 e5  10. f4 Bg4  11. Nf3 Nxf3  12.gxf3 Bxf3 13. dxe5 Bxh1  14. exf6 +/= Grischuk - Bareev Moscow  2004"

Oh thanks, i didnt even KNOW MCO-15 was out. Is Nick (di fermian) still the editor? He is otherwise quite good, I like his style...

normajeanyates: Not only is MCO-15 out, but it is on the cover of the current Chess Life! The complete review is by Alexander Shabalov.

re: "yawning" over the CC and C-K. I like the Caro-Kann because it gives black a great solid game. Against lower-rated players, there are usually _just_ enough imbalances in the position to work with. Against equal players, it's a decent enough way to fight for equality. Black usually has a little less space, but is playing in a semi-open position with no obvious weaknesses. There isn't a clear attacking plan for white (for an obvious example of a clear attacking plan, look at the black side of the KID). Against higher-rated players, similarly it gives good chances for equality. Even a slightly cramped position (+/=) is ok, perhaps even expected. What I avoid is getting a +/= position where the advantage is more long-lasting, e.g. a queenside majority for white with no counterplay for black.

Oh as I said I am no longer a serious chess player (no longer = since 1982) :)

Plus, haven't looked at Chess Life  since 1991 - Chess Life had Life when Larry Evans used to be in full flow -with his polemics! 1960s-to-early-1980s. Or else, I've grown old and nostalgic and dogmatic ;)

MCO-14 did mention 10. f4 but only to say '(10.f4 is unclear)'.

normajeanyates wrote "While on Caro-Kann, let me warn readers of a blunder in MCO-14: (the panov-botvinnik-attack variation) p. 182 endnote (j)(B). MCO-14 (Nick di Fermian) says "black lands in trouble after.. [1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4. [c4 omitted] Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bg5] 6..dxc4 7. Bxc4 Qxd4 8. Qxd4 Nxd4 9. O-O-O e5 10. Bb5+ Bd7 11. Bxf6  gxf6 (the line goes on until white's 14th with a +- eval: Ginzberg-Salas Argentina 1991)]. Fermian missed the obvious 11..Nxb5 12. Bxe5 f6 =+ or -+. And so did I, in an ongoing game, because I was blindly following MCO :(. (Opp of course played the natural and correct 11..Nxb5 but luckily missed 12...f6 so it is '=' now..)" The GM cited is de Fermian not di Fermian or Fermian. I believe the player cited is not Ginzberg but Marcelo Fabian Guinsburg who played Salas in the Argentine Cup Corr 1991 (1-0,42). The evaluation "=+ or -+" is a stretch. =/+ is better due to Black's two bishops. I suggest 10.f4! Bg4 11.Nf3 Nxf3 as in G.Mainka-P.Buecker, Dortmund 1989. If you prefer 11...Bxf3 12.gxf3 Re8! 13.fxe5 Rcx4 14.exf6 g6 is S.Hansen-P.Nielsen, Copenhagen 1996.

Ozzie, you are NM ozzie_c_cobblepot - you play very serious competitive chess. I am not and do not! So your repertoire has different goals!

I OTOH am more serious about contract bridge than chess, and not so serious about bridge for that matter...

I play the French exclusively against E4. I've been looking into the Caro-Kann as a backup. I find the French a real joy to play - it depends on my opposition whether it opens up or closes. Have you decided the Caro-kann isn't your bag any more or are you just looking for some variety?

PS I've started playing the Dutch against D4, so this may effect how seriously you take my opinion!

It was brought to my attention when I read the primary and backup openings for the top players in the current Chess Life issue. I think all but two of the players had backups. I distinctly remember that Kramnik did not. Also, there was an offhand comment somewhere else that said "Kramnik has the narrowest opening repertoire of any world champion".

So - though I think that e4 c6 suits my style well, it would be nice to have an alternative (which is why I started the thread).

normajean: Yes, I see. But I'm not sure that our goals are that far apart, just perhaps our personalities. Let's face it, chess.com is a website, it is not affecting "real" ratings, be it USCF, FIDE, or <insert national federation here>. The way I approach the game is the same whether I am active or not. (I play about one rated tournament per year these days).

GreenLaser wrote:

normajeanyates wrote "While on Caro-Kann, let me warn readers of a blunder in MCO-14: (the panov-botvinnik-attack variation) p. 182 endnote (j)(B). MCO-14 (Nick di Fermian) says "black lands in trouble after.. [1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4. [c4 omitted] Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bg5] 6..dxc4 7. Bxc4 Qxd4 8. Qxd4 Nxd4 9. O-O-O e5 10. Bb5+ Bd7 11. Bxf6  gxf6 (the line goes on until white's 14th with a +- eval: Ginzberg-Salas Argentina 1991)]. Fermian missed the obvious 11..Nxb5 12. Bxe5 f6 =+ or -+. And so did I, in an ongoing game, because I was blindly following MCO :(. (Opp of course played the natural and correct 11..Nxb5 but luckily missed 12...f6 so it is '=' now..)" The GM cited is de Fermian not di Fermian or Fermian. I believe the player cited is not Ginzberg but Marcelo Fabian Guinsburg who played Salas in the Argentine Cup Corr 1991 (1-0,42). The evaluation "=+ or -+" is a stretch. =/+ is better due to Black's two bishops. I suggest 10.f4! Bg4 11.Nf3 Nxf3 as in G.Mainka-P.Buecker, Dortmund 1989. If you prefer 11...Bxf3 12.gxf3 Re8! 13.fxe5 Rcx4 14.exf6 g6 is S.Hansen-P.Nielsen, Copenhagen 1996.

Well thanks for the correction and he continuation of the f4 line.

I have been misreading the name as Nick di Fermian for years - and I refer to MCO-14 continuously :) I checked it and it had magically become 'de Fermian' now! ;)

I have left-right disorientation probs since childhood -- maybe i transposed the 'i' in nick and made the it italian-armenian-american :) In a taxi i sometimes say 'left turn please' while pointing right, I have been occasionally badly scolded specially by 3rd-world taxidrivers for this - on the lines of 'if you want to die do it alone, don't maneuvre to get me killed along with you' .. :)

Once, only once, I opened Grob thinking I was playing the Sokoloski ! :) (But I won that game... :) Opp was more shoked than me! )

But 'Ginzburg' is Nick de Fermian's and my mistake :)

I mean, de Fermian wrote 'Ginzburg', I misread 'Ginzberg' [Alan Ginsberg being one of my favourite poets) and it is actually 'Guinsburg'!

I think the centre counter is a good backup plan that can be transposed into the caro or visa versa.

I too am a karo-Kann player against 1.e4 , and never played anything else in years.

However, I wonder if this opening is good for black and i dont know the name:

1.e4   e5

2.Nf3  Bc5

3.Nc3  d6

ps- If it dosent have a name, I call it the Muscalu opening!

I think it is the Kings Pawn Game: Busch-Gass Gambit.

I don't know of a single NM who does no opening preparation at all. Most of them have a good general knowledge of openings and know or at least understand the main line of their variations.