New St. George: Three Pawn Attack

Yigor

Well, I got it several times recently while playing St. George as black.

 

 

Your analysis of white's and black's prospects ? explorer.pngpeshka.png

blueemu

3. c4 is usually considered dubious for exactly this reason: 3. ... d5.

Better are 3. Nf3 or 3. Bd3.

Yigor
blueemu wrote:

3. c4 is usually considered dubious for exactly this reason: 3. ... d5.

Better are 3. Nf3 or 3. Bd3.

 

Thanks, I think that U are right. happy.png However, my experience shows, that many players with intermediate ratings prefer this Three Pawn Attack that looks natural and aggressive. tongue.png

Hadron
blueemu wrote:

3. c4 is usually considered dubious for exactly this reason: 3. ... d5.

Better are 3. Nf3 or 3. Bd3.

By who?

I, for the life of me, do not understand just why one would want to play an opening and then avoid the established theory for something that is potentially many times worse.

 

 

DeirdreSkye
Hadron wrote:
blueemu wrote:

3. c4 is usually considered dubious for exactly this reason: 3. ... d5.

Better are 3. Nf3 or 3. Bd3.

By who?

I, for the life of me, do not understand just why one would want to play an opening and then avoid the established theory for something that is potentially many times worse.

 

 

I don't know about on line but in OTB it has a couple of purposes to play something that avoids the established theory.

Your opponent is out of his preparation and usually under psychological pressure because he feels that he must punish it.

 
In his good days Karpov rarely lose more than 2 games a year and even more rarely with the white pieces.So this was quite a notable defeat.The surprising is that  Raymond Keene's comments treat the opening with the utmost respect and there is no clear advantage for white at any point(according to Keen and Miles). 
I won't claim that 1.e4 a6 is good  but do you think it is easy to play against it?Not even close. 
DeirdreSkye
hawretto wrote:

St. George defense can easily refuted by 1. Nf3. I had a game with one fan of this silly opening.
1. Nf3 a6 2. c4! and black must change plans; black's pawn avalanche is stopped.

Trying to prevent St George means it's good.

There is really no reason to prevent it and no sensible chessplayer plays 1.Nf3 because he considers it a refutation of 1...a6(and it's not).

DeirdreSkye
hawretto wrote:

1) If you are playing and advertising that silly pawn avalanche, it means you had been deprived from opportunities to play Turkish draughts. Chess is to be played with light and heavy pieces, you must not ruin your pawn structure at the opening.
2) There is no reason to refute time-proven principles of piece development! 
3) 1. Nf3 is more sensible move than 1. e4, as 1. Nf3 welcomes almost any solid opening and accepts DIVERSITY of playing experience.

   If you bother to read carefully what I say you wouldn't respond with so much nonsense.

I never said that St George opening is good.I said that it's difficult to play against it in OTB.

    As for the statement that 1.Nf3 is more sensible than 1.e4 , and allows more diversity ,what can I say.It left me speechless.You are confusing diversity with something else or you don't even know what it means.There is no move more diversed than 1.e4.From King's gambit to Pirc , we are talking for literally hundreds of different pawn structures.Reti opening might be equally diversed(personally I think it's not) but certainly not more diversed.

Yigor
hawretto wrote:

St. George defense can easily refuted by 1. Nf3. I had a game with one fan of this silly opening.
1. Nf3 a6 2. c4! and black must change plans; black's pawn avalanche is stopped.

 

Refutation ?!? tongue.png LMAO grin.png I played St. George a lot vs players in the range 1800-2100 and never had any troubles during the opening stage. peshka.png

Yigor
[COMMENT DELETED]
Robhad

I mean, it's basically a French defense in which black has played a6 early. Whether that can be exploited in any way is up to the skill of both players, but with accurate play and assuming roughly equal skill level between the two players, there's no real advantage for either player out of the opening.

pfren
hawretto έγραψε:

St. George defense can easily refuted by 1. Nf3. I had a game with one fan of this silly opening.
1. Nf3 a6 2. c4! and black must change plans; black's pawn avalanche is stopped.

Just curious: How the hell 1.Nf3 a6 2.c4 stops 2...b5? It looks mighty playable to me...

 

In the #1 position, 4.exd5 exd5 5.Nc3 looks best: French exchange is not the most ambitious opening, but Black is committed to an early ...a6 which is just a tad useful. If white likes IQP positions, then he should be happy with his chances.

Hadron
pfren wrote:
hawretto έγραψε:

St. George defense can easily refuted by 1. Nf3. I had a game with one fan of this silly opening.
1. Nf3 a6 2. c4! and black must change plans; black's pawn avalanche is stopped.

Just curious: How the hell 1.Nf3 a6 2.c4 stops 2...b5? It looks mighty playable to me...

 

In the #1 position, 4.exd5 exd5 5.Nc3 looks best: French exchange is not the most ambitious opening, but Black is committed to an early ...a6 which is just a tad useful. If white likes IQP positions, then he should be happy with his chances.

I think the Mastro is correct but you could go one step further and just play 4.Nc3 which gives Janowski's variation of the Queens Gambit from the turn of the 20th century. I believe it does not have a good reputation for Black

Hadron

And while on the subject:

  • Just why is it that why the subject of the "St. George" occurs there is always someone who trots out Karpov v Miles Skara 1972? Where not unsurprisingly the much more forthright 5. e5! Nd5 6. Ng5! e6 7.Qf3! is always conveniently ignored.
  • Why is it always assumed by some noddys that the "St. George" is a set of ridge moves in a specific order? Case in point 1.Nf3 refuting the "St. George", why not just play 1...b5? The relationship between the St George and the Polish Defense is a fine line.

     
pfren
Hadron έγραψε:
pfren wrote:
hawretto έγραψε:

St. George defense can easily refuted by 1. Nf3. I had a game with one fan of this silly opening.
1. Nf3 a6 2. c4! and black must change plans; black's pawn avalanche is stopped.

Just curious: How the hell 1.Nf3 a6 2.c4 stops 2...b5? It looks mighty playable to me...

 

In the #1 position, 4.exd5 exd5 5.Nc3 looks best: French exchange is not the most ambitious opening, but Black is committed to an early ...a6 which is just a tad useful. If white likes IQP positions, then he should be happy with his chances.

I think the Mastro is correct but you could go one step further and just play 4.Nc3 which gives Janowski's variation of the Queens Gambit from the turn of the 20th century. I believe it does not have a good reputation for Black

I don't think 4.e4 is the most appropriate way to "refute" Janowski's line- e.g. (1.e4 a6 2.d4 e6 3.c4 d5 4.Nc3) dxe4 5.Nxe4 Bb4+ compares unfavorably to Marshall's gambit (where Black has played ...c6 in place of ...a6): Now the gambit line 6.Bd2 does not work, 6...Qxd4 7.Bxb4 Qxe4+ 8.Be2 Nc6, and 6.Nc3 c5 looks just fine for Black.

followthebuzzard
[COMMENT DELETED]