And Bogo has quite good results. Much underrated.
Playing against the Queen's Indian as White
Sort:
Jan 6, 2020
0
#103
SpiderUnicorn wrote:
And I don't understand why did you intend to start a forum about the QID, when you clearly have a preference for the Nimzo-Indian and/or the Bogo-Indian
I prefer the Bogo to the Queen's Indian as Black. My question was what to do against the Queen's Indian as white
Jan 6, 2020
0
#104
Also, a question about the 4. e3 system against the QID. Is it like the Rubinstein Nimzo where white will go Bd3, Qc2, etc. to try to get e4 in? Also, wouldn't this be harder than in the regular Rubinstein, because you also have to combat the Bb7 which is controlling e4?
Jan 6, 2020
0
#105
By playing the QID, Black is accepting that White can steer the game towards a draw with 4. g3. However, if white wants to play aggressively with 4. a3, Black can also play dynamically with ...Ba6 and ...c5
Jan 6, 2020
0
#107
Silly talk. Maybe at master level is draw. But still winning chance for either side.
Jan 6, 2020
0
#108
Obviously Kasparov was wrong to play a3 then... @Optimissed is a better player.
Jan 6, 2020
0
#109
Clearly @Optimissed is not very bright. And his comments and insults suggest much anger, possibly due to such. Giving opinion is no problem. But just declaring something a fact with no substance? Mr Optimissed has declared
A BogoIndian is rubbish
B a3 in QID is a certain draw
C His opinion is relevant because of his superior intelligence
And in reply
A BogoIndian scores at least as well as d5 or QID. And a german GM, yes GM, posted 3 or 4 games where he crushed opponent.
B a3 QID is not a certain draw. No opening is. Neither is a3 rubbish. As demonstrated by Kasparov scoring a fine win over Pomiemarov, an ex fide world champion.
C If he were intelligent... he might recognize when he is wrong? Insread of snarling insult at anybody who disagree? But simple is, simple does, lol.
Jan 6, 2020
0
#110
Lol... haha. Cannot answer 1 question above not 1? So resorts to the usual nasty insults. Brexit is coming my friend. And you are the one attacking and being rude to everybody? So... Go away.
Jan 6, 2020
0
#111
Optimissed wrote:
SpiderUnicorn wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Maybe I'm not as accurate a player as I was but I certainly found out the hard way that 4. a3 is rubbish in the Queen's Indian against a good player who is booked up.
Show us some of your 4.a3 games please, so we can see what happened.>>>
I started with e4, then went to c4 which I played for ten years or something, but I was getting tired in the final games of tournaments. I wanted something that won faster. I started playing 1. Nf3, for about two years. Then went back to e4 for a year to sharpen up, knowing that my grade would take a hit, because a stronger player had told me that if he could get positions out of the opening like I did he'd win every game he played. After that I started playing 1.d4 and had most trouble against the Nimzo so I avoided it for maybe ten years and concentrated on learning to play against KID, QGA, and so on. But I only played 4. a3 against QID for about a year and there were only probably about ten games in all. I won most of them at first but then I think I had two draws and a loss against people who really knew the 4 a3 lines. The loss was from pushing too hard so there's no point looking for the scoresheet, which probably still exists among a thousand or so in various boxes. I looked at the draws and couldn't find any improvements. The players in question knew the modern lines with ...Ba6, probably off by heart for 20 moves in all variations. I think then I started playing quite random stuff against the QID like Bf4 and even trying Bg5, all of which was just as good objectively as 4. a3 and I did better with it because I was making it all up. But then I decided to face the Nimzo and play the Samisch, which became a delayed Samisch. I was getting tactically good enough to get good positions.
The point was that I was ready to learn to play against the Nimzo, having become fairly competent against everything else. This might have been about ten years ago when I stopped playing 3. Nf3. Now I prefer playing against the Nimzo to just about anything else. I generally use pretty much the same thing, which is 4. e3 and generally Bd3 and a3, depending on what black does. I really like the positions where white has f3, e3, Bd3, Ne2 etc and plays for a very early e4. I would never go back to playing 3. Nf3.
Nobody cares sir. What a club patzer nobody has played or not played for decades is of interest to... Nobody.
Jan 7, 2020
0
#112
In recent times, white is struggling to find any advantage at all in the Bogo line 1.d4 Nf6 2c4 e6 3Nf3 Bb4ch 4Bbd2 BxB 5QxB d5. The positions after 6e3 are very similar to Lasker Queens Gambit, and in the catalan positions 6g3 white has to spend several tempos with queen preparing e4. Many FIDE 2700+, including Carlsen have played the positions after 6g3 with black.
Jan 7, 2020
0
#113
There are countless ways to play for a win after 4.g3. "Steer into a draw on move 4." That's noob's forum slang. Yet another pet line of mine:
5.b3 b5!?
Jan 7, 2020
0
#114
Very strong for White are nowadays those gambits with d4-d5. There's a book about all those lines, https://www.newinchess.com/a-cutting-edge-gambit-against-the-queen-s-indian
I just had it once otb, game of mine recently, unfortunately some mistakes and my advantage has gone:
Jan 7, 2020
0
#115
Optimissed wrote:
And what a mentally ill person thinks about a club patzer is probably of interest to even fewer of us.
Being honest sir... the above quote, along with much other nasty stuff you have spouted on this forum, confirm what sort of person you are. And what I suspected about you for many months. Honestly @Optimissed... you used to have some interesting stuff to contribute. But not anymore. Much of that ranting was childlike. But that what happens when a large ego gets burst?
Oh, btw... Lion remembered you as a bit of an amateur psychologist? So... can't believe you fell for such a crude, obvious goad, lol. But you did. And exposed the real person beneath. 
Jan 7, 2020
0
#116
Optimissed wrote:
Maybe I'm not as accurate a player as I was but I certainly found out the hard way that 4. a3 is rubbish in the Queen's Indian against a good player who is booked up.
I think we're seeing the fundamental error that assumes that no-one can play accurately for a whole game unless their grade (rating) is at least 2311 +/- 62.3. I also think that the advent of computers has caused this error of judgement and made people worse players into the bargain when they try too hard to find the perfect move each time. Such players are often a pushover.
So I guess Kasparov is a fan of repeatedly playing rubbish? Not only that, but his grandmaster opponents are fans of repeatedly losing to rubbish?
Jan 7, 2020
0
#117
BL4D3RUNN3R wrote:
There are countless ways to play for a win after 4.g3. "Steer into a draw on move 4." That's noob's forum slang. Yet another pet line of mine:
5.b3 b5!?
I agree. I was looking at my Queen's Indian stuff, and I came across this line. It unbalances the position and is very interesting, I'll have to look into it.
Jan 7, 2020
0
#118
misayan07 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Maybe I'm not as accurate a player as I was but I certainly found out the hard way that 4. a3 is rubbish in the Queen's Indian against a good player who is booked up.
I think we're seeing the fundamental error that assumes that no-one can play accurately for a whole game unless their grade (rating) is at least 2311 +/- 62.3. I also think that the advent of computers has caused this error of judgement and made people worse players into the bargain when they try too hard to find the perfect move each time. Such players are often a pushover.
So I guess Kasparov is a fan of repeatedly playing rubbish? Not only that, but his grandmaster opponents are fans of repeatedly losing to rubbish?
Well, to be fair @Optimissed did concede that anybody rated 2311 or better... might be able to steer the draw into a possible win? But he is a better logician than Kasparov, obviously.
Jan 7, 2020
0
#119
Slav2Luv wrote:
misayan07 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Maybe I'm not as accurate a player as I was but I certainly found out the hard way that 4. a3 is rubbish in the Queen's Indian against a good player who is booked up.
I think we're seeing the fundamental error that assumes that no-one can play accurately for a whole game unless their grade (rating) is at least 2311 +/- 62.3. I also think that the advent of computers has caused this error of judgement and made people worse players into the bargain when they try too hard to find the perfect move each time. Such players are often a pushover.
So I guess Kasparov is a fan of repeatedly playing rubbish? Not only that, but his grandmaster opponents are fans of repeatedly losing to rubbish?
Well, to be fair @Optimissed did concede that anybody rated 2311 or better... might be able to steer the draw into a possible win? But he is a better logician than Kasparov, obviously.
But by that logic, Kasparov's opponents were also rated higher than 2311, so...?
Jan 7, 2020
0
#120
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
I think we're seeing the fundamental error that assumes that no-one can play accurately for a whole game unless their grade (rating) is at least 2311 +/- 62.3.
wth?
Approximately, of course.
lol
One question.
Where did you get 2311 from?
Otherwise, I see no need to degrade this thread into a flame war.
The underrated Bogo: having the light-squared Bishop Black often adapts a dark-square strategy. I am an expert in that c5 system and I had quite some success against decent opposition.
Some sample lines, long tournament games (5-6 hours):
Win against FM:
Nice win in summer 2019 against say 2100 ("I know what you did last summer")