New Trap Against the Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack (For Black) - Chess Forums - Page 2

BlackLawliet

Jun 9, 2021

0

#21

aMazeMove wrote:

BlackLawliet wrote:

Elaborating on my last comment, the Stafford gambit is marked as +1.40 for white. Would you call this an epic fail? If so, it was popularized by another IM who is just as strong as you (Eric Rosen).

ok, you're line is dubious, just like the stafford or brooklyn. No trap is really good, since most of the time, the opponent has the fall into it. If you stop trying to develop dubious traps, I think you would find that you have a lot of free time to do something else more productive.

I find this comment quite comedic as it took me no time to develop it. I literally just got the position in a game and played it out of curiosity.

aMazeMove

Jun 9, 2021

0

#22

BlackLawliet wrote:

aMazeMove wrote:

BlackLawliet wrote:

Elaborating on my last comment, the Stafford gambit is marked as +1.40 for white. Would you call this an epic fail? If so, it was popularized by another IM who is just as strong as you (Eric Rosen).

ok, you're line is dubious, just like the stafford or brooklyn. No trap is really good, since most of the time, the opponent has the fall into it. If you stop trying to develop dubious traps, I think you would find that you have a lot of free time to do something else more productive.

I find this comment quite comedic as it took me no time to develop it. I literally just got the position in a game and played it out of curiosity.

whatever, you are wasting time doing this you know. And since you posted it here, more people (and more of your opponents) will know how to refute it.

BlackLawliet

Jun 9, 2021

0

#23

pfren wrote:

BlackLawliet έγραψε:

Elaborating on my last comment, the Stafford gambit is marked as +1.40 for white. Would you call this an epic fail? If so, it was popularized by another IM who is just as strong as you (Eric Rosen).

Yes, the Stafford is total trash, and IM Rosen has never played it in a regular game - just blitz and bullet ones, where even third-rate openings can bring some fruit.

At blitz, I have a score like 11-0 or 11,5-0,5 as Black using 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Ng8, but this does not make this opening (Brooklyn variation or something like that) worth playing in a regular game.

Of course, I would never recommend this trap in a "Normal game". It is for speed chess were the stakes are low and your opponent could quite possibly make a mistake

aMazeMove

Jun 9, 2021

0

#24

BlackLawliet wrote:

pfren wrote:

BlackLawliet έγραψε:

Elaborating on my last comment, the Stafford gambit is marked as +1.40 for white. Would you call this an epic fail? If so, it was popularized by another IM who is just as strong as you (Eric Rosen).

Yes, the Stafford is total trash, and IM Rosen has never played it in a regular game - just blitz and bullet ones, where even third-rate openings can bring some fruit.

At blitz, I have a score like 11-0 or 11,5-0,5 as Black using 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Ng8, but this does not make this opening (Brooklyn variation or something like that) worth playing in a regular game.

Of course, I would never recommend this trap in a "Normal game". It is for speed chess were the stakes are low and your opponent could quite possibly make a mistake

look, at low levels in blitz and bullet games, any opening line or trap can be played

BlackLawliet

Jun 9, 2021

0

#25

aMazeMove wrote:

BlackLawliet wrote:

pfren wrote:

BlackLawliet έγραψε:

Elaborating on my last comment, the Stafford gambit is marked as +1.40 for white. Would you call this an epic fail? If so, it was popularized by another IM who is just as strong as you (Eric Rosen).

Yes, the Stafford is total trash, and IM Rosen has never played it in a regular game - just blitz and bullet ones, where even third-rate openings can bring some fruit.

At blitz, I have a score like 11-0 or 11,5-0,5 as Black using 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Ng8, but this does not make this opening (Brooklyn variation or something like that) worth playing in a regular game.

Of course, I would never recommend this trap in a "Normal game". It is for speed chess were the stakes are low and your opponent could quite possibly make a mistake

look, at low levels in blitz and bullet games, any opening line or trap can be played

Which is the reason I made it. Because it is certainly playable and has a potential pay-off

Ilampozhil25

Jun 9, 2021

0

#26

so second rate openings are suboptimal but still ok?

ThrillerFan

Jun 10, 2021

0

#27

aMazeMove wrote:

ThrillerFan wrote:

In the OP's second-to-last diagram, just take the Knight!

After 11...Rd8 12.Qxd8+ Kxd8 13.Bxe5 (13...Qg5+ is answered by 14.f4), White has Rook, Bishop, and Knight for Queen and Pawn.

Also, this will almost never happen! White does not play 4.c4 if they know what they are doing. It is 4.Bb5 Bd6 and only now 5.c4 or 5.f4 (personal preference - one is not better than the other).

c4 is not a bad move, i play it, trying to get into a reverse sicilian. but Nb4 after c4 is not good

Does not change the fact that 4.Bb5 is stronger than 4.c4.

NM darkunorthodox88

Jun 22, 2021

0

#28

all of these trap lines are just cheap shots.

but im surprised no one has mentioned that 4.c4 in this instance is plain bad after the simple 4...d4. Stockfish 13 for example at depth 30 gives it a -1.3 in black's favor! even if the engine is only half right and its a mere half pawn advantage , c4 is clearly a bad move here. 4.bb5 is the obvious move here

p.s oh i saw thrillerfan briefly mentioned it, but i dont think its been expressed just how bad c4 here is