While the foaming at the mouth continues, I'm going to return to the original subject and mention that there's a slightly out-of-favor line Black has against the English that still contains a lot of venom if White doesn't remember exactly how to deal with it. I'm speaking of the 10 ... a5 line. Naroditsky has a really interesting video talking through beating a 2100 player with it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEqoGIgzk1E
The English attack vs Najdorf siccilian
Sort:
tlay80 wrote:
While the foaming at the mouth continues, I'm going to return to the original subject and mention that there's a slightly out-of-favor line Black has against the English that still contains a lot of venom if White doesn't remember exactly how to deal with it. I'm speaking of the 10 ... a5 line. Naroditsky has a really interesting video talking through beating a 2100 player with it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEqoGIgzk1E
10...a5 is positional suicide (11.a4 is correct, the bishop isn't really needed at b5 yet). Suitable only for blitz, although even there there are better lines to play.
Feb 5, 2024
0
#65
I think that's putting it a bit too stongly. You're right that 11. a4 is better than what was played in the game, but that's a concession too. Black gets the b4 square, which means they can play Nc6-b4, which pressures c2 and helps prepare a d5 break. Yes, the engines say White has an advantage, and with correct play that's no doubt true. But since it's not seen very often, I'd be surprised to see both sides play all of this correctly below about the IM level. (IMs and GMs are right not to play the line, but I doubt any of them are reading this thread...)
tlay80 wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
theswooze wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
AvalancheDePions wrote:
woah woah woah
hes resorting to talking to himself so he can feel fulfilled and still argue
No, Mr. Angry, I am specifically talking to YOU!! Now would you like an explanation about ratings math or would you just rather continue to go through life embracing your ignorance?
You have been talking to/with yourself for a past few hours, desperately trying to get a response out of me. Your texts take up 70% of the last few pages.
I'm done talking to him too.
I still wonder what he wanted the OP to do differently. Six years ago, the OP registers the account, naming himself a beginner, which, for all we know, was true back then. Then, last month -- six years after naming his level -- he decides to play one game, which he wins. As a result his opponent loses -- count 'em! -- SIX rating points. Which I think is slightly fewer than said opponent would normally lose, because the chess.com rating system actually understands that ratings of players without many recent games are unreliable.
What does this guy think he was supposed to do? Supplicate before chess.com to raise his rating so he wouldn't artificially hurt his opponents feelings? And wait to get it sorted out before having the effrontery to play chess?
Oddly enough, he didn't do that. Like a normal person, he just played a game of chess, which apparently is grounds for being treated as a parriah.
i thought that was logical, but to him i guess not. ill let him bicker more and enjoy watching him pout while he thinks hes some slick detective pro-unbreakable debater
theswooze wrote:
well my original "argument" that you responded to was that IF the OP was actually a sub 1000 player it would be more effective for him in terms of improvement to focus on blunder reduction than dive into sicilian theory.
++ If you said this, nobody would have had a problem with what you said. What you REALLY said though was "dude: your rapid rating is 932. why not just focus on making fewer blunders???", which is incredibly abrasive if we give you the benefit of the doubt, but instead you said words and got incredibly defensive and aggressive for... 4 full pages of forums in merely a day or two? so blunt is far too generous.
however, while making this observation, I also suspected that he was a higher rated person playing under the guise of a lower rated one, which i described as a 'd-bag' thing to do.
++ I would say you and I both know this is complete nonsense, but again... that might be too generous. He has played ONE GAME!! He isn't "playing under the guise of a lower rated player", heck, he isn't playing at all. Anyways, if you could, you'd have read the original post in which OP explains that he's facing problems in the late middlegames of his club matches.
Anyways, please stop trolling. Offer meaningful contribution about the English Attack in the Najdorf Sicilian or just unfollow this thread.
Feb 8, 2024
0
#68
I found a model game of English Attack against Najdorf.
Adorjan vs Ribli 1979
Thank You all for answers. I would especially thank the @theswoose for his raw but fair exhortation. I hereby solemny promise to never again pretend to be more inteligent then I really am.
As for games - @play4fun64 thanks this is a model game i was looking for. @tlay80 i will investigate the move. I have seen this idea once in Sirow-Wojtaszek, Pamplona 2005 ( or more strictly here - can't find a .pgn anywhere to post it).
play4fun64 wrote:
I found a model game of English Attack against Najdorf.
Adorjan vs Ribli 1979
That was a nice attacking game from White. Very nice.
Although these days, most Najdorf players would play 11...b5 in that position, rather than 11...Nb6?! (which simply blocks Black's b-pawn and slows down his own queenside counter-attack).
Feb 11, 2024
0
#71
The game Adorjan,-Ribli ,1979 probably inspired Short, Nunn and Chandler to use 6. Be3 as main weapon against the Najdorf and Schevenigen. The.English Attack is named after the English GMs.
theswooze wrote:
MichalMalkowski wrote:
Thank You all for answers. I would especially thank the @theswoose for his raw but fair exhortation. I hereby solemny promise to never again pretend to be more inteligent then I really am.
As for games - @play4fun64 thanks this is a model game i was looking for. @tlay80 i will investigate the move. I have seen this idea once in Sirow-Wojtaszek, Pamplona 2005 ( or more strictly here - can't find a .pgn anywhere to post it).
That is what you took away from my comments?
you are quite petty
woah woah woah
hes resorting to talking to himself so he can feel fulfilled and still argue
No, Mr. Angry, I am specifically talking to YOU!! Now would you like an explanation about ratings math or would you just rather continue to go through life embracing your ignorance?
You have been talking to/with yourself for a past few hours, desperately trying to get a response out of me. Your texts take up 70% of the last few pages.
I'm done talking to him too.
I still wonder what he wanted the OP to do differently. Six years ago, the OP registers the account, naming himself a beginner, which, for all we know, was true back then. Then, last month -- six years after naming his level -- he decides to play one game, which he wins. As a result his opponent loses -- count 'em! -- SIX rating points. Which I think is slightly fewer than said opponent would normally lose, because the chess.com rating system actually understands that ratings of players without many recent games are unreliable.
What does this guy think he was supposed to do? Supplicate before chess.com to raise his rating so he wouldn't artificially hurt his opponents feelings? And wait to get it sorted out before having the effrontery to play chess?
Oddly enough, he didn't do that. Like a normal person, he just played a game of chess, which apparently is grounds for being treated as a parriah.