You can just look at an online database. 7. Bxe4 is statistically weaker--gives White a slightly lower percentage of wins--than the main line. You can see why: White gets his knight driven off and suffers from various threats of pieces getting pinned against his king or queen. Otherwise, it looks survivable for White.
Petrov's Defense Question
Sort:
What is right about it? Black has a well defended central pawn and white's knight is pushed from his spot. You also gave away the bishop pair.
Let's flip the question back at you. WHY would you want to do this? There are multiple issues with it:
1) After 7...dxe4, Black gains a tempo on the Knight
2) If 8.Ne5, then Black can either play 8...Bxe5 9.dxe5 and basically have gained a tempo as now you have a symmetrical position with Black to move. White has lost a tempo.
3) If 8.Ng1, then White is undeveloping in an open position.
4) If 8.Nd2, then he must spend another move to get the Bishop out.
5) All of these possibilities that are dismal for White are the WORST that Black has. He could have something even stronger than 8...Bxe5 after 8.Ne5.
The problem with 7.Bxe4 is it's the type of move that a beginner would make who feels that the moment trading is legal, trading must be done, like Tension is the worst thing ever! These are the naive chess players that will never succeed until they learn the concept of tension on the chess board.
ThrillerFan wrote:
Let's flip the question back at you. WHY would you want to do this? There are multiple issues with it:
1) After 7...dxe4, Black gains a tempo on the Knight
2) If 8.Ne5, then Black can either play 8...Bxe5 9.dxe5 and basically have gained a tempo as now you have a symmetrical position with Black to move. White has lost a tempo.
3) If 8.Ng1, then White is undeveloping in an open position.
4) If 8.Nd2, then he must spend another move to get the Bishop out.
5) All of these possibilities that are dismal for White are the WORST that Black has. He could have something even stronger than 8...Bxe5 after 8.Ne5.
The problem with 7.Bxe4 is it's the type of move that a beginner would make who feels that the moment trading is legal, trading must be done, like Tension is the worst thing ever! These are the naive chess players that will never succeed until they learn the concept of tension on the chess board.
Jesus Christ, no need to be so dramatic. It's not that terrible a move, it's just a regular poor move.
I look it at an engine. It suggested 7...Qg5. Looks like a very strong move.
jengaias wrote:
"...But it's impossible to demonstrate that as all games played with this line are very poor(I will be very surprised if I see any descent player playing this move)..."
The main reason that it seems impossible to demonstrate (given that as all games played with this line are vey poor) is because most advantages/disadvantages in the opening are dynamic time and space advantages/disadvantages. Space advantages are notoriously difficult to exploit even for the best of players. Time and space advantages are dynamic in nature. Which means that they are only temporary advantages that tend to dissapate over a few moves. This adds to the difficulty even if you know the correct technique to exploit these 2 advantages.
Even having the material static advantage of having been given the minor exchange via 7.Bxe4, it is still neccessary for Black to know the correct techniques for exploiting the advantage of having the B pair.
Nowadays using a chess engine would simplify the task of demonstrating why 7.Bxe4 is weak. But, it would not help you acquire the chess technique necessary to exploit these types of advantages.
jengaias wrote:
Usually a good player's game helps demonstrate the long term disadvantages of a move.That is what I meant.
In the low level that the move was played , it didn't really play any role in the outcome.Even the one game Black won , he could easily lose it.
No it doesn't. Not at the level chess is here. That would be suitable if everyone here was at least a master. That's what they tell you in books sometimes where it's assumed (usually wrongly) that the reader is really good. Usually an unannotated example will do nothing.... the poorer the player the more they need annotations and comments.
Here verbal explanation is good, not just throwing out a game as an "example" for this type of mistake, don't make me laugh.
Of course his suggestion of what its "performance" was from the database was even stupider. A database? Looking up a game in a database for this beginner's principle? Then there was the other guy that went on a dramatic way over the top lunacy at just a poorly principled move.
This is in many ways a perfect question for this board, something nice and easy that could be explained and everyone could agree with and go home happy. And you guys couldn't even get this right without completely messing it up in the first few posts.
jengaias you are right.
Here are some clues to correctly assess the position from both sides.
1. Pawn structure- after 7...dxe4 the pawn structure is unbalanced a. Material advantage -White has a 4 vs. 3 pawn advantage on the Qside. Black has a 4 vs. 3 pawn advantage on the Kside
b. Space advantage - White has a slight space advantage on the Q side because of the White pawn on d4.
Black has a slight space advantage on the Kside because of the Black pawn on e4. This pawn has advanced into enemy territory and is in some danger of being captured. Convert into advantage if possible.
2. The use of an intermezzo move. In other words instead of recapturing immediately, delay the recapture by at least one move in order to gain time and space advantage(s). After 7.Bxe4 a move to consider instead of the immediate 7...dxe4 is the move 7...Qe7.
3. Black has the B pair. Operating from a distance the Bs are excelllent for hemming in enemy Ns and pawns.
4. Almost always select a move that will kill counterplay on the part of your opponent.
This I believe should be sufficient to give you some hints of what it takes to analyze the position after the move 7.Bxe4!?
jengaias wrote:
I gave the example only to show that even these opening mistakes in levels under 2200 usually don't matter at all.
7.Bxe4 is one of these cases of the weird moves that are wrong but to prove they are wrong you need to play good chess or very good chess.How many know how to use the 2 bishops?And how many know how to play Black's position correct.
Already in the example game a 2100+ player totally messes the position and he could lose.
I would say that anyone with Black would feel relieved with 7.Bxe4 but that doesn't mean much.The game is far from over and Black still needs to prove that he has some kind of understanding of the position .A game is not lost on it's own becuase of a bad opening move.
All these though doesn't mean the move isn't "wrong".Personally I love unpopular lines but in this case the line is not unpopular without a reason.It is clearly a mistake for reasons already explained on post #6
You have good points. But there are points that I disagree. Opening mistakes can matter too below 2200. Even at lower levels, having the bishop pair(position that favors them) is a luxury. Yesterday in in a tournament, I saw 3 below 1900 players winning their game using the bishop pair. My point is that even at below 1800, there are players who are good at handling the position of the two bishop. You might saw a 2200 player messed up the bishop pair(heck even GM can messed it up) but it does not mean you will not see below master players handling well position like this. The important thing here, you need to study all the aspects of chess. But more priority must be given with middle games, endgames and tactics.
jengaias wrote:
jambyvedar wrote:
jengaias wrote:
I gave the example only to show that even these opening mistakes in levels under 2200 usually don't matter at all.
7.Bxe4 is one of these cases of the weird moves that are wrong but to prove they are wrong you need to play good chess or very good chess.How many know how to use the 2 bishops?And how many know how to play Black's position correct.
Already in the example game a 2100+ player totally messes the position and he could lose.
I would say that anyone with Black would feel relieved with 7.Bxe4 but that doesn't mean much.The game is far from over and Black still needs to prove that he has some kind of understanding of the position .A game is not lost on it's own becuase of a bad opening move.
All these though doesn't mean the move isn't "wrong".Personally I love unpopular lines but in this case the line is not unpopular without a reason.It is clearly a mistake for reasons already explained on post #6
You have good points. But there are points that I disagree. Opening mistakes can matter too below 2200. Even at lower levels, having the bishop pair(position that favors them) is a luxury. Yesterday in in a tournament, I saw 3 below 1900 players winning their game using the bishop pair. My point is that even at below 1800, there are players who are good at handling the position of the two bishop. You might saw a 2200 player messed up the bishop pair(heck even GM can messed it up) but it does not mean you will not see below master players handling well position like this. The important thing here, you need to study all the aspects of chess. But more priority must be given with middle games, endgames and tactics.
The point is , despite the "terrible" , "awful" and "disgusting" 7.Bxe4 , the best player will win.The type of advantage Black gets is important only for players with high understanding .For all the rest the position tends to be practically equal(in my humble opinion).
I have seen myself how little role any opening mistake plays in tournaments under 2200(I am not talking about opening mistakes that lose by force but for positional opening mistakes like the one we are discussing here).Even when the player that gets the advantage wins , it is usually because many mistakes followed the initial mistake.The rule is that the other player , surprised by the move will mess up and the game will turn in a tactical blunderfest where anything can happen.
Here is another game with the same line , this time played by a 1900+ player.
Black needed just 6 moves to throw away all advantages surrendered by white with 7.Bxe4.
Both players over 1900 failed miserably to exploit the disadvantages of the move(the 3rd game is a win with white of a 1500 player against an unrated).
When you analyse it's easy to condemn and curse anti-theoretical moves, but when you play , it needs much more than that to win a game.
I am not only talking about tactical mistakes in opening. I am also talking about positional mistakes. Your example proves nothing(or moot) as I told I also saw below 1900 players handling well and winning positions where they get positional advantage from the opening.
I also disagree with the best player will win. For example you can see 2600 player drawing against a top 10 player because of opening preparation. Below even at below 2200 player of equal strength, having good opening knowldge is a luxury.
By the argument of jengaias, bad moves are OK because at a low enough level, some of them won't matter. That isn't a good attitude; a bad move is a bad move, no matter who plays it.
If you look at the masters, they care less about the result of their game, and more about the quality of how it was played.
Bxe4 is bad because it gives up the active light squared bishop for a knight that wasn't sticking on e4 for much longer.
Black has a clear, aggressive plan of attacking with f5 and f4, the standard majority attack on the kingside. He will hope to push f3, and use the queen and bishop pair to attack white on the kingside. A rook lift may also occur.
The 1900 player in the game failed to realize this plan, and he played the poor Bxh2+, which seems good because it makes the king move, but gives away the advantage, as white's king is totally safe. He essentially exchanged his strong e4 pawn for the weak h2 pawn, which is bad.
At a low level, a lot of things can happen, but that doesn't mean that Bxe4 should be played.
I know how 2600 prepare. Yeah he looks at endgame positions from the opening. But a 2600 also memorize variations. I just pointed out the thing that you told that the best player always win regardless of opening is wrong.
jambyvedar,
I wouldn't bother trying to reason with that user. I believe he/she is here only to disrupt things, if you know what I mean: personal insults, bad logic, and with little or no helpful information ever coming out of them, mostly opinion. Maybe it's a woman with permanent PMS or somebody off their meds. To get any kind of logical discussion with that user I would have to have to teach them math from scratch: Venn diagrams, logic formulas, variance, logical fallacies, provisional ratings, etc., and then their ego/arrogance still would not allow them to accept anything I wrote anyway. That user is here to disrupt, not to help. I put him/her on my blocked list days ago.
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d4 d5 6. Bd3 Bd6.
What is wrong with 7. Bxe4?