Steinietz Defense
Sort:
So tell me, what do you think guys? Is the Steinietz defense so horrible? It was reccomended by Grandmaster Roman Dzindzichashvili as a easy way to learn a system against the Ruy Lopez as black. Capablanca often employed it to good effect, but I've never seen anyone exchange the bishop so soon, it can't be that good of an idea.
It's not objectively bad (then again, neither is 1.a3) but it does lead to passive positions. In general, when a player blocks in a bishop on the second move, when there are other options available, the game will steer in directions where the player finds it necessary to defend a cramped position before being allowed any possibly chance at gaining counterplay.
Fezzik wrote:
Actually, it is objectively bad. White gets to play d4 without consequences.
If you are Dzindzi or perhaps Maxim Novikov (+2500), you might be able to get away with it.
A better way to play the Spanish as Black that doesn't involve 3...a6 is 3...Nf6. This contests the center and gets an interesting game that Kramnik and other strong GMs have turned into a nasty weapon.
The Steinitz Defense suffers from a bad reputation because it, like the Philidor Defense, is passive and allows White to control the center.
So do you feel that 3...Nf6 would be a easier system to learn than the steinietz? I deplore learning alot of opening theory, but I would consider looking into it if it's not too complicated to adopt into my opening repertoire.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.