Scandinavian
Sort:
greg455
Apr 27, 2016
0
#1
I don't get it. Why all the random pawn moves?
FrenchDefender wrote:
White should not play 3. c4. 3...c6! gives black a very comfortable position, and white's pawn center will easily collapse.
I prefer to play 3. d4. This keeps the pressure.
Why so?
3.c4 c6 4.Nc3 cxd5 5.d4 is a Caro, Panov Attack, which is a highly respectable opening for white.
3.c4 is purely a matter of taste, and it's a fine move overall.
Did you refute the Panov? If so, please show us!
3. c4 e6
4. dxe6 bxe6
5. d4 bb4+
6. nc3 ne4
the icelandic gambit
May 1, 2016
0
#7
Or 3.c4 c6 4.d4 cxd5 5.Nc3 also transposes into a Caro type set-up. Black should realize that if he goes for the 3...c6 line, he's likely to head into some kind of Caro-Kann stuff.
The Icelandic gambit can probably transpose into a French Defense after 4.d4, but people usually just grab the pawn with 4.dxe6. If you're playing the Scandinavian and you see 3.c4, I think e6 is the best try for a lot of complication and taking your opponent out of his "comfort zone".
melvinbluestone wrote:
In the Icelandic, white is marginally better off with 6.Bd2, but the position is not as simple as it seems.......
You mean Black is a little bit better after 6.Bd2? I agree! (although 6...Bxd2+ isn't best).
But the problem is: you won't find many whites which will play 5.d4?!
FrenchDefender wrote:
Black has nothing to be afraid of after 3. c4. I have analyzed the line before. It leads to dead equality.
Can you understand that noone will take you seriously after that?
Me guesses you can't...
But you have to decide: Is it "dead equality" or "no serious advantage"?
Please tell us...
There is no such thing as "symmetrical pawn structure" in the Panov. It's (mostly) either IQP positions, or an almost typical queenside majority vs central majority structure in the Gunderam variation, where white goes for an early c4-c5 push.
Actually the IQP position after 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 e6 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.Nf3 Be7 7.cxd5 Nxd5 is classified as Queen's Gambit declined, Semi-Tarrasch variation. Even today, using computer aid, Black faces certain problems. Some illustrated games for that kind of problems in a few games- including a classical one where 17.Ba4! was introduced, and costed Tolya Karpov a short, painful loss:
Ftacnik, commenting on Chessbase on the Kobalia game, claimed that 18...Qxd5 is dubious, and 18...exd5 should lead to equality. However, you can see that even there Black has a few difficult problems to solve- the way white managed to create threats with the opposite colored bishops is very instructive.
(Ftacnik's analysis stripped due to copyright issues).
Black can play earlier in a few different ways, but none of them is an easy stroll.
I dare to say that the claim about "easy equality for Black" is slightly exaggerated... 
theRonster456 wrote:
Or 3.c4 c6 4.d4 cxd5 5.Nc3 also transposes into a Caro type set-up. Black should realize that if he goes for the 3...c6 line, he's likely to head into some kind of Caro-Kann stuff.
The Icelandic gambit can probably transpose into a French Defense after 4.d4, but people usually just grab the pawn with 4.dxe6. If you're playing the Scandinavian and you see 3.c4, I think e6 is the best try for a lot of complication and taking your opponent out of his "comfort zone".
after the bishop trade you pay your queen on e7 and you have some discover ideas
FrenchDefender wrote:
pfren wrote:
Actually the IQP position after 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 e6 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.Nf3 Be7 7.cxd5 Nxd5 is classified as Queen's Gambit declined, Semi-Tarrasch variation. Even today, using computer aid, Black faces certain problems. Some illustrated games for that kind of problems in a few games- including a classical one where 17.Ba4! was introduced, and costed Tolya Karpov a short, painful loss:
Ftacnik, commenting on Chessbase on the Kobalia game, claimed that 18...Qxd5 is dubious, and 18...exd5 should lead to equality. However, you can see that even there Black has a few difficult problems to solve- the way white managed to create threats with the opposite colored bishops is very instructive.
(Ftacnik's analysis stripped due to copyright issues).
Black can play earlier in a few different ways, but none of them is an easy stroll.
I dare to say that the claim about "easy equality for Black" is slightly exaggerated...
I wasn't aware chess moves could be copyrighted.
Moves can't be copyrighted but analysis can. Why else would a GM write a chess book if all the analysis can just be copied into another book by someone else.
FrenchDefender wrote:
pfren wrote:
There is no such thing as "symmetrical pawn structure" in the Panov. It's (mostly) either IQP positions, or an almost typical queenside majority vs central majority structure in the Gunderam variation, where white goes for an early c4-c5 push.
I looked at my database and there has been a heavy shift in favor of black since 2014, but most games still end in a draw.
This is the kind of misinformation i find harmful. What does it matter to class players, what GM's are currently playing? I have had to listen to people telling how the Benko Gambit is busted because it isnt played at GM level. What do i care, if it isnt played at the GM level?
FrenchDefender wrote:
I wasn't aware chess moves could be copyrighted.
You don't seem to be aware of pretty much everything.
A titled player's work published in a commercial magazine, like Chessbase Magazine, IS coyprighted, and the last thing I would do is asking for permission to re-publish it here to persuade hopeless cases like yours.
Regards.
jengaias wrote:
FrenchDefender wrote:
pfren wrote:
FrenchDefender wrote:
I wasn't aware chess moves could be copyrighted.
You don't seem to be aware of pretty much everything.
A titled player's work published in a commercial magazine, like Chessbase Magazine, IS coyprighted, and the last thing I would do is asking for permission to re-publish it here to persuade hopeless cases like yours.
Regards.
The commentary, yes, but not the actual chess moves.
The analysis is considered "intellectual property" and is copyrighted unless you can prove that it's not his analysis and he illegally reproduced it.
I am not sure I translated the law term correct(translating laws is a bit complicated).It's the same law that forbids reproducing of songs , poems , novels and others, without the permission of the creator or the publisher.
I can prove the author has been using an engine, prove me wrong.
FrenchDefender wrote:
Diakonia wrote:
FrenchDefender wrote:
pfren wrote:
There is no such thing as "symmetrical pawn structure" in the Panov. It's (mostly) either IQP positions, or an almost typical queenside majority vs central majority structure in the Gunderam variation, where white goes for an early c4-c5 push.
I looked at my database and there has been a heavy shift in favor of black since 2014, but most games still end in a draw.
This is the kind of misinformation i find harmful. What does it matter to class players, what GM's are currently playing? I have had to listen to people telling how the Benko Gambit is busted because it isnt played at GM level. What do i care, if it isnt played at the GM level?
It speaks about the quality of the opening. If I am playing a game, I want to press with a consistent advantage. I do not want to be constantly under pressure and pressing for intitiative as you usually are in the Benoni.
Where did you find my games with the Benoni?
Pressure? What pressure are you referring to?