Popov Attack

I trust your analysis, Elubas, but I'm not going to give up on a possible variation because one or two lines look bad. I'm not sure why that annoys you. If you have your mind made up about the merits of every opening ever conceived, why do you continue posting and reading on the forums? Obviously you have the whole game figured out by now.

As I said, if the variation is clearly inferior, I'll stay clear of it. But to label something BAD before you even examine it at all, is an easy way out. If chess was that simplistic, everybody would be grandmasters. I know many, many openings inside and out, but that doesn't mean I give up my quest to learn more.

I believe that at some level, every opening is playable. I feel I can (and will) play this on occasion, maybe at his level elubas shouldn't.

For me, half the fun is in the rubbish.

For the longest time, the Tennison Gambit was my main weapon, even in OTB play. 3...Nf6 is what I most often faced.

3...e5, the line shown is the strongest move for sure. Otto Tennison's reply was the sacrificial Nxf7. It's got potential, but I played it a bunch of times against a computer and the extra material was always enough for Black to win. White has to really maintain the attack, but once it fizzles, the material deficit is losing.

4. Nxe4 is even worse. I have a book on the Tennison and I also have Schiller's Unorthodox Openings. The monograph on the Tennison shows many other options, since it is the hardest move for White to face.

I should note that the one and only time I played the Popov Variation in an OTB game, it was against a master, Neil Sharp. He'd ripped apart my Alekhine, gutted my Caro-Kann, so on my third try I gave him this funny Spanish. It didn't fare any better.

I always play h4. It looks bad for obvious reasons, but the alternatives  (d3 and d4) give no chance for an advantage.

I'm at work right now, and I don't recall any specific continuations. When I get home, perhaps later tonight I can share a few of the better lines from the book. For such an oddball opening, I'm actually amazed at how many recorded games there are with it.

Well, for this one we can take a shortcut (don't forget about shortcuts). It's clear that the plan behind ...a5 is giving white way too much and any way to make it work without white getting the same type of position in the analysis seems pretty far fetched. It's annoying because you assume there is a way to make it work when you couldn't have any less new concrete ideas (you had some vague ones but it's just not enough. It's just like how you hope h4 wouldn't be bad for white and then come up with some tiny idea and then have faith in the move just like that.) Why is it that just because I'm analyzing bad openings and not finding anything mean my mind is already made up? If I actually found a way for black's plan to work that would be great, but logically there is no way it could work at this stage of the game (for reasons mentioned earlier) and it's clear aside from trying to trap the bishop (which of course won't happen if your opponent is sane) black has no tactical chances. So the simple answer is, for this opening not much analysis is necessary. Well, that's all I have to say. I won't bother you with this anymore, because at your level I bet you would even do decent with such a poor move but I'm not intrigued. But I doubt many people prepare for ...Nge7 so I think that could have the same effect but much more reliable. I think this will really be the end of our discussions (well, the big ones anyways).

It's defintley not lost positions.

 If I lose a game because I blundered in a drawish-looking endgame or made a series of mistakes that cost me a piece, I won't blame the opening. That would be like blaming the Caro-Kann for being unsound simply because I lost a game using it.

However, if I play the book moves of a particular opening and believe I've made the most reasonable moves in that line of play and I still lose with it again and again and I can't find any improvements, I will abandon the opening. 

Also, when analyzing a position, I don't ask "Am I better?" or "Am I worse?" I look at the tangible and potential qualities that the position has to offer. Like if there's an open file, I'll try to exploit it. Or if my opponent has castled K-side, I determine that Q-side castling gives me attacking chances, that sort of thing.

If guys like Elubas have convincing answers as to why I shouldn't play a certain opening, thanks for sharing. That's exactly what I'm seeking here. But I urge you to not get ticked off simply because I posed the question. It seems to me that this forum is becoming less and less about learning and helping others improve, and more and more about other people's vanity and showing off with the I'm-better-than-you attitudes.

I never state 3...a5 works for Black. I simply asked the question, Does it work? There's a huge difference.

Every strong player will tell you that knowing whether you are better or worse in every position is essential. In fact it's probably the 1st thing you should consider. If you actually listened to stuff like this you would surely stand a better chance of improving.

Yeah, if you're worse, you may have to do a more defensive strategy than for example to try to counterattack by castling on the opposite side because your opponent would probably land the first blow.

Does that mean that Black should always be defensive? In almost every main line opening white does a a slight edge (most noticeably the QGD) though black can usually equalize(maybe not completly) with accurate play.

No, not necessarily. In many sicilian opposite castling lines white may be just a tad better, but it will probably be the better player whose attack works first. But don't castle on opposite sides voluntarily if your opponent has more pieces out for no compensation as your opponent will just have the fun of attacking while your counterattack won't scare him. Instead try to quietly catch up and exchange off some pieces.

nuclearturkey & Elubas, your points are well taken.

I remember a guy telling me that he always played well and had good middlegame fights but then messed up somewhere along the way and went into the endgame a pawn down. He tended to win or draw these positions. He said that after awhile he started sacrificing pawns either right away as in a gambit or else later. Being a pawn down made him feel "normal". Being even materially or a pawn up, it made him too relaxed. He had winning positions that he could never win. Yet when he reached losing positions, he usually won.

Perhaps his is an uncommon phenomena, but his reverse psychology intrigued me nonetheless.

My reason for playing these oddball lines is more for the sake of broadening my horizons. I know certain openings inside and out, and they have lost their appeal for me. So I try new stuff now and then. It's like saying MGD is my favourite beer ... that's not to say I want to drink it every time I order a beer.

The sicilian is one of the most sharpest openings choose something more positional such as the QGD exchange(or maybe the rubinstein for some fun =)) or the classical variation of the nimzo or some of the quite vars. of the slav or of the english maybe even the reti.

YouLostheGame, I can post some Tennison Gambit lines if you're still interested. Should I start a new forum for that? I know we discussed it here earlier, but it has nothing to do with this funny Spanish line.

1. Nf3 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. Ng5 e5 4. h4

Given the bad results with 4. Nxe4 and 4. d3, this is regarded as White's best.

4...Nc6 and 4...Be7 are the main lines.

4...h6 and 4...Bf5 are listed as alternative lines.

4...f5 and 4...Nf6 lose.

No, one should choose what fits their preferences best.

See, if only that guy could play that well in winning, better, equal positions etc. They only wake up when they're in trouble and play well, which is great, but it should still be used as a last resort. But I have no problem proving a win or making use of an advantage (which addmittedly isn't so easy!). I feel desperate when worse or losing and it makes me take less energy to find complicated moves, the complicated ones that annoy the opponent trying to win. I feel like even if I play great I'm relying on luck, or kind of "hanging by a thread" which is uncomfortable because you don't know if you will ever get out of it.

Sometimes I take on the role of a wounded dog. There's nothing to lose, so you put up more of a fight.

And I put up less of one because I know all I can do is desperately try to trap my opponent or play passively even if I play well. Not that I don't try of course.

Not to come across as pretentious, but if you equate chess with life as some people do, learning how to fight back from worse positions should be admired. Even when we make wise decisions, life throws us garbage from time to time. No one has a soft life from birth until death.

For that reason, I look at being a pawn down or being in a cramped position as a learning experience, not as something to be labelled as Good or Bad.

Would I rather be up a pawn? Of course! Would I prefer to have active, well-developed pieces? Of course!

I think it's called the Bulgarian Variation