"Any opening is good enough, if its reputation is bad enough." - Tartakower
Many grandmasters including Carlsen have played Owen occasionally.
Owen's defence ?
Sort:
Optimissed a écrit :
pfren wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
This isn't how to play Owen's, of course. In the 80s, the conclusion was reached that black must start with the moves e6 and b6. One reason for that is that playing e6, which is a solid move, prevents some of the calamities which can befall black through not knowing the variations properly. I don't know about nowadays; but I would prefer to trust the pre-engine analysis of the 80s, in such a potentially sharp opening, because engines don't do deep positional stuff at all and one of the points of Owen's is to try to reach a better ending.
It is not important if ...Bb7 will be played before ...e6 or not.
What is very clear is that 3...f5? is unsound.
Yes, of course f5 is no good. However, the GMs of the 80s considered 2. ...Bb7 incorrect and e6 to be the correct move. I do understand why .... it's black's most flexible approach by far but also, e6 is a solid move which should be played.
As pfren said, there is no difference playing e6 or Bb7.
1.e4 b6 2.d4 e6 3.Fd3 (Nc3) Bb7
1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Bd3 (Nc3) Bb7
Maybe 1.e4 e6 then b6 and Bb7? It can be effective against white players using "anti" french variations. I mean not playing 2.d4.
poucin wrote:
Optimissed a écrit :
pfren wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
This isn't how to play Owen's, of course. In the 80s, the conclusion was reached that black must start with the moves e6 and b6. One reason for that is that playing e6, which is a solid move, prevents some of the calamities which can befall black through not knowing the variations properly. I don't know about nowadays; but I would prefer to trust the pre-engine analysis of the 80s, in such a potentially sharp opening, because engines don't do deep positional stuff at all and one of the points of Owen's is to try to reach a better ending.
It is not important if ...Bb7 will be played before ...e6 or not.
What is very clear is that 3...f5? is unsound.
Yes, of course f5 is no good. However, the GMs of the 80s considered 2. ...Bb7 incorrect and e6 to be the correct move. I do understand why .... it's black's most flexible approach by far but also, e6 is a solid move which should be played.
As pfren said, there is no difference playing e6 or Bb7.
1.e4 b6 2.d4 e6 3.Fd3 (Nc3) Bb7
1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Bd3 (Nc3) Bb7
Maybe 1.e4 e6 then b6 and Bb7? It can be effective against white players using "anti" french variations. I mean not playing 2.d4.
It is only clear that 3...f5 is unsound, _because_ it has been analyzed to a win for white. It doesn't make sense to say that we should not present this analysis. 3...f5 is theoretically crucial for _white_ to know, because if it worked for black, or if white did not know the analysis, then white should prefer some other move like 3.Nc3 or 3.f3 or 3.Nd2, instead of 3.Bd3.
Hugh Myers liked the King's Indian Attack for white, and also thought 1...e6 was a better move order for black than 1...b6, to avoid 1.e4 b6 2.d3. My own opinion is this is a better than usual KIA for white, but it's also a better than usual Owen's Defense for black!
Although ...e7-e6 features in many variations, black sometimes does not play it. For example, 1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.f3 d5 ("!" by Kapitaniak), or 1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Bd3 Nc6 4.c3 e5 (Blatny), also 3...Nf6 4.Qe2 Nc6 5.c3 e5.
Dec 23, 2021
0
#65
when i started playing owen's i liked to play 2.e6 because it psychologically discouraged my weak opponents to play an early d5 for some reason which i found harmless but kind of annoying (1.e4 b6 2.d4 bb7 3.d5?!).
But there is little reason to play e6 so early, in all lines black will play bb7 whereas in most but not all lines, black will play e6. In fact, they are two good reasons to avoid the early e6 move order.
1. White can transpose to a more flexible version of the english defense via 1.e4 b6 .d4 e6 3.c4 where has not forced white to commit to any piece development. (contrast for example, with (1.d4 b6 2.c4 bb7 where to get e4 now, white has to commit at least one pieces placement to allow it)
2. They are certain lines, especially ones resembling French defenses, where black is better served playing nf6 before e6. For example. 1.e4 b6 2.d4 e6 3.nf3 bb7 4.bd3 and if nf6 , e5 right away , or if the c5?! d5! is annoying.
actually a lot of owen lines with early c5 are suffering big because of early d5 sacs. i am fortunate that the lines i play are of a different flavor than those traditional lines.
Dec 23, 2021
0
#66
Optimissed wrote:
Bill_C wrote:
I played this as White (or rather against it) and I had a basic set up involving 1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 e6 4. c3 d5 5. e5 c5 6. Nf3 Ne7 7. 0-0 Ng6 8. Be3 c4 and played 9. Be2 which lessened Black's tension. I should have played 9. Bc2 and then began attacking the pawn chain to simplify into a positionally winning endgame. By not doing so, I ended up allowing Black to have a near equal standing. In the ending, Black simplified to an imbalance of K + 7p v. K + N+ 5p. The ending looked like this:
Had I taken the Knight, Black would have promoted as well and would be able to get his King to b8, with a draw.
After playing, I found that this was the right way to go in the opening save for my 9th move. 9. Bc2 gives White significant advantage in the late opening and early middle game.
But of course, here 4. ...d5 was incorrect. By playing that, black concedes that he should just have played the French because now he has a bad French with b6 and the B misplaced on b7, which is yet another reason why black never plays 2. ...Bb7. That is, shouldn't play it, because it seems that modern GMs have no idea of the subtleties and they play it anyway. The point of not playing Bb7 except at the right time is that in some variations, black may want to enter a g6 setup and retain options for the c8 B which may be best placed on s6 or perhaps on d6 as in the Queen's Gambit Declined, Tartakower Defence. It should be clear that since black prefers Be6 in that QGD variation, to play Bb7 and then d5 was an abject blunder. Nobody seems to be listening about not playing 2. ....Bb7 but it's completely wrong from a strategic point of view and no amount of computer lines or IMs who think they know better will change that. They are simply unaware of the theory, because it's a line they don't really play.
The point being that Bb7 takes two moves to put right whereas c3 only takes one. Some people just can't count.
I honestly dont know what you are talking mate. Idk what secret theory you referring to, bc but its not what kapitaniak, or bauer, or lackdawala or oddessky or any reference book i have read up on the owens. Maybe there is some niche reason to play e6 over b6 in specific cases (maybe you can trick someone who would play KIA vs owens but normal vs french into an owen's via 1.e4 e6 2.d4 b6, or something like that).
but practically everyone plays 2.bb7. I have never seen anyone enter a hippo via b6 without finachettoing on b7 really early, i for the life of me cant see any advantage to that. You may as well enter it via the modern defense move order if you so hesitant on bb7.
Optimissed wrote: "Nobody seems to be listening about not playing 2. ....Bb7"
Maybe you are right about this and everybody else is wrong. It's hard to know because you keep repeating it like a mantra but you don't give any good reasons. Maybe if you backed up this statement with a couple of variations, one with 2...Bb7 and another with 2...e6 instead, then you could start to become convincing.
Dec 23, 2021
0
#69
Optimissed wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
im a bullet player XD. ok bro.
I like confidence. I'm also confident about what I know of how Owen's was approached in the 80s, because I was around then, I read a lot and I have a good memory. Let's just agree that we have different perspectives on it.
i would like to know your source on owen's being played different in the 80's. But even if that were the case, that's 40 years of opening theory advancing you not considering. The first serious book on b6 was Bauer's in the early 2000. before that only the kapataniak monograph was around but its of limited value.
show us some high level owen games from your time that are played as you say.
Okay then, it's your confidence and good memory versus:
- engines (that) don't do deep positional stuff at all (#61)
- modern GMs (who) have no idea of the subtleties (#81)
- IMs who think they know better (#81)
Without any variations to back up your claims, it's not a hard choice. By the way, I also played Owen's Defense in the 1980s (including many, many wins), I also have a good memory, and I don't remember any firm conclusion that ...Bc8-b7 before ...e7-e6 is wrong.
Dec 23, 2021
0
#71
Optimissed wrote:
On second thoughts, it isn't worth answering because you're a bullet player with a bullet rating of 2200, possibly without playing games because it's such a nice round figure.
man hasn't played like a single rated game on chess.com though
Dec 23, 2021
0
#73
@optimissed GM Duncan Suttles has played the same setup as Curtis at top level and gets good results. There was a Dutch chess player whose name I can’t remember that used the same setup to win the Dutch championship.
Dec 23, 2021
0
#74
lmao 2.Bb7 is called finishing what you started, not system chess.
so you are naming class players over master analysis on the owen's? ok, now im really puzzled.
Actually, Bauer had a pretty fruitful section on the hippo and the different subtleties on the move order in his b6 book.
Dec 23, 2021
0
#75
you really dont know how to discuss concrete lines do you? You name dropping these household b6 names like they are agreeing with you on anything. At this point, i dont even know what your argument or line vindicated is. Just something something "back in my day, we played b6 different" and little clue what you mean.
Dec 23, 2021
0
#76
It's a sign that productive exchanges have ended when:
1. a GM is listed as a player of an odd variation
2. people start posting in yellow text
Dec 23, 2021
0
#77
Optimissed wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
@optimissed GM Duncan Suttles has played the same setup as Curtis at top level and gets good results. There was a Dutch chess player whose name I can’t remember that used the same setup to win the Dutch championship.
That's interesting. I think I remember a few people trying it about 15 years after Curtis. It's fairly logical and extremely hard to crack if white plays it well. I've a feeling I did once face it, played by a stronger player and I could only draw. But my criticism that it's slow stands and I think black should expand quickly on the queenside and try to use that as a lever to target the weak dark squares around white's king.
Yeah, objectively it's just not that good compared to similar alternatives. But you do have much more room for creative play.
Dec 24, 2021
0
#78
I usually play it in bullet and blitz, every once in a while in rapid. Got me to 2400 bullet for the first time. Played it otb twice, as black against the London system vs a 2000 UScF player. I was much better by move ten but ended up dropping many pawns (carelessness and moving too fast) so it ended up as a draw. I was rated 1790. The second time was against a floor 1900. I was rated 1720. He played the botvinnik system. I played Nh6, f6, Nf7, f5, all that stuff. Ended up winning.
Works best against system openings. Botvinnik? Just Nh6. London? Same. Colle? Works too.
Dec 24, 2021
0
#79
B1ZMARK wrote:
I usually play it in bullet and blitz, every once in a while in rapid. Got me to 2400 bullet for the first time. Played it otb twice, as black against the London system vs a 2000 UScF player. I was much better by move ten but ended up dropping many pawns (carelessness and moving too fast) so it ended up as a draw. I was rated 1790. The second time was against a floor 1900. I was rated 1720. He played the botvinnik system. I played Nh6, f6, Nf7, f5, all that stuff. Ended up winning.
Works best against system openings. Botvinnik? Just Nh6. London? Same. Colle? Works too.
how you can play owen's vs a london system? o.O?
unless you mean 1.d4 b6 which is actually a little harder to play because you need to know, your owen's your english defense and all the unique 1d4 without 2.c4 configurations. usually when i see 1.d4 b6 .bf4 i immediately prepare for d6, g6, stuff preparing e5 (After the obligatory bb7 of course ). the extra expense of the queen fianchetto is not particularly detrimental, esp since most london players are not rushing to play e4
Dec 24, 2021
0
#80
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
I usually play it in bullet and blitz, every once in a while in rapid. Got me to 2400 bullet for the first time. Played it otb twice, as black against the London system vs a 2000 UScF player. I was much better by move ten but ended up dropping many pawns (carelessness and moving too fast) so it ended up as a draw. I was rated 1790. The second time was against a floor 1900. I was rated 1720. He played the botvinnik system. I played Nh6, f6, Nf7, f5, all that stuff. Ended up winning.
Works best against system openings. Botvinnik? Just Nh6. London? Same. Colle? Works too.
how you can play owen's vs a london system? o.O?
unless you mean 1.d4 b6 which is actually a little harder to play because you need to know, your owen's your english defense and all the unique 1d4 without 2.c4 configurations. usually when i see 1.d4 b6 .bf4 i immediately prepare for d6, g6, stuff preparing e5 (After the obligatory bb7 of course ). the extra expense of the queen fianchetto is not particularly detrimental, esp since most london players are not rushing to play e4
I thought I was answering optimissed’s comment about the Nh3-f3-Nf2 setup thing.
This isn't how to play Owen's, of course. In the 80s, the conclusion was reached that black must start with the moves e6 and b6. One reason for that is that playing e6, which is a solid move, prevents some of the calamities which can befall black through not knowing the variations properly. I don't know about nowadays; but I would prefer to trust the pre-engine analysis of the 80s, in such a potentially sharp opening, because engines don't do deep positional stuff at all and one of the points of Owen's is to try to reach a better ending.
It is not important if ...Bb7 will be played before ...e6 or not.
What is very clear is that 3...f5? is unsound.