Chess - Play & Learn


FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store


sharpest reply against d4

  • #81
    Mainline_Novelty wrote:

    It might be ok as a surprise weapon, but the fact remains that Black's position simply isn't good after 2...f5...which is why nobody good uses it as more than a surprise weapon.

    Okay fair enough (it is in fact rarely used, as you say).  I respect your opinion since you are a fairly strong player.  So, I'd like to know your opinion about the Dutch defense in general.  Would you say that any of the Dutch main lines are good enough to recommend to a friend?

    I get the impression that many who play the Dutch think that 1.d4 c5 2.d5 f5 is just too risky.  

  • #82

    I believe 1 d4 c5  2 d5  f5  is classified under the old benoni .... 

  • #83

    The Dutch is a respectable (albeit slightly risky) defense. It's not completely trusted at elite levels, but Nakamura and Svidler still play it occasionally. Several GMs (ex. Simon Williams) and many titled players use it as their main answer to 1 d4. The Dutch is fine, the Benoni f5 thingy is dubious and doesn't make a whole lot of sense positionally.

  • #84

    1 d4  c5  2 d5 f5 =  A43 ,   Old Benoni: Mujannah formation

    This line does very poorly for black after 4 different 3rd moves for white : 3 e4 , g3 , Nf3 and even  g4 . 

  • #85
    fireflashghost wrote:

    Okay, here are my personal notes on all of this:

    1) Never, never trust engines with openings, especially on move 3.  Way too unreliable.

    2) 5-min games don't really mean much for an opening, too little time to think (although definitely much more preferable than 1-min bullet games).

    3) The Dutch isn't really considered "solid" at all, but it's definitely playable.  Just because the Clarendon Court looks similar to it doesn't mean the solidity of the Dutch applies to it.

    4) Yes, you are right that the Benoni focuses on queenside counterplay while the Dutch focuses on the kingside, and both are effective at their respective sides.  However, you can't really go for both at once without causing problems, and it's especially so in this case, because you're practically ignoring the center which has been weakened a TON by both c5 and f5 being played.  Plus, there's the issue with the d7 and e7 pawns, even more so with White's cramping d5 pawn.  In related Benoni structures, it's important to have a pawn on d6 to restrict the d-pawns advance, but doing so will leave the e7 pawn weak.  On the other hand, if Black tries to get rid of the pawn with a quick e6, Black's potential influence on the center decreases as he can't focus on a push to e5 (which is very useful in the Leningrad Dutch).  Essentially, by pushing both the c-pawn and f-pawn forward, he's unnecessarily weakened the center (and his overall position) by trying to focus on both the queenside and kingside, and in my opinion it isn't really viable as anything other than a surprise weapon.

    5) 3. c4 is definitely a bit suspect overall, but you really didn't do anything to address how to meet the other moves.  Honestly, I don't trust Black's game from the positions that result from the better moves, and I would rather play an opening where I still get a decent position even against best play, instead of one where I hope my opponents don't know the right moves.


    Overall, though, you're the one playing the opening, and there's nothing we can do to stop you from playing it (and plus I'm pretty sure some stronger players will pick at certain problems of my above statement).  If you want to play it, fine, go ahead, and good job for you if you do well with it.  That doesn't necessarily mean it's the best, though, and you'll have to accept these problems sooner or later if you decide to keep on playing it.

    Agree with all of the above Smile

  • #86

    That red font is frying my retinas.  How about typing in one font color like most normal humans?  

  • #87

    @XPLAYERJX, thanks for posting the interesting games related to discussion of the Clarendon Court defense.  I'm glad you found that approach worth exploring.

    I do take seriously the criticisms contributed by fireflashghost and NM Reb.  I accept that the Clarendon Court defense (1.d4 c5 2.d5 f5) is considered dubious/borderline-unsound by many knowledgeable players.  But I'm attracted to off-beat controversial openings.  Not only for their surprise value, but also because I enjoy studying unusual asymmetrical positions.

    With the riskiness of this opening fully in mind, I'll continue to experiment with it.  On those occasions when I chicken out and decide to play it safe (at a slow time control tournament), I will use related openings like the Dutch, King's Indian defense, or the Queen's Indian.

  • #88

    benoni is sharp

    and is the son of the sorrow

  • #89

    1. d4 e6

    This is quite sharp. If you don't find occasional transposition to french as a buzz kill you might even like it.

  • #90

    i have been playing the benko gambit.

    i find it nice and sharp

    but i am not sure it is sound.  it seems white gets a whole pawn.  and black gets open lines on the queen side. 

  • #91
  • #92

    Check out http://www.chess.com/blog/jackfast/the-infinity-gambit If white tries to keep the pawn, black becomes three tempos ahead. It is an equal position where all the tactics favor black. Not many people know about it so you can easily know more theory than them and crush very strong players in the opening.

    If you like it and use it, join http://www.chess.com/groups/home/infinity-gambiteers We are a rapidly growing group and could use some more people.


Online Now