I think it's important to play an opening you're comfortable with...
Two Knights Defense?
Sort:
Why did you played Nf6 in 3rd move?!
behdad-mostafaiy wrote:
Why did you played Nf6 in 3rd move?!
Pretty sure that's explained in the first sentence.
May 12, 2013
0
#5
3...Nf6 is the 2 Knights Def, behdad, so it's the whole point of the thread.
The Qf3 line is not the most common, but I have seen it. It isn't all that good for White, but it does offer practical chances, especially if Black isn't ready for it.
Be ready & don't worry.
uhohspaghettio wrote:
The computer doesn't always favour material, for some known bad gambits (Smith-Morra, Danish), it gives them as relatively equal.
Are you using a program like Houdini on a good system for this analysis and leaving it on for quite a while?
Oh heavens no, and you probably have a great point. I just use shredder on my iphone. However I wouldn't be totally surprised to know that houdini on a proper platform gives white an advantage in the diagrammed position.
uhohspaghettio wrote:
xAsnl wrote:
uhohspaghettio wrote:
The computer doesn't always favour material, for some known bad gambits (Smith-Morra, Danish), it gives them as relatively equal.
Are you using a program like Houdini on a good system for this analysis and leaving it on for quite a while?
Oh heavens no, and you probably have a great point. I just use shredder on my iphone. However I wouldn't be totally surprised to know that houdini on a proper platform gives white an advantage in the diagrammed position.
Nope, after extensive analysis Houdini gives it as EXACTLY +0.00. Its current line goes: 11. d3 Be7 12. Ne4 Bb7 13. Qc4 Rc8 14. Qb3 Rb8 15. Qc4 Rc8
NEVER use anything except a professional engine like Houdini on a proper system to study openings. For tactical shots Shredder on iphone might be okay in a pinch. As is evidenced by this it's crap otherwise.
And now at a depth of 21 Houdini is actually giving -0.06 (black is winning) starting with: 11. d3 Be7.
Interesting! Thank you for evaluating the position for me.
uhohspaghettio schreef:
And now at a depth of 21 Houdini is actually giving -0.06 (black is winning) starting with: 11. d3 Be7.
Did you just say that "-0.06" means black is winning?
Both are probably fine and there are many GM's who employ the 2 knight defence. It is more risky than the Italian game but more risk in this case also means your opponent has bigger chances to lose.
I play Bc5 because is do not like the positions rising from the 2 knights and even though they might be equal (not going to start that discussion) i slightly distrust them.
kikvors wrote:
uhohspaghettio schreef:
And now at a depth of 21 Houdini is actually giving -0.06 (black is winning) starting with: 11. d3 Be7.
Did you just say that "-0.06" means black is winning?
(I was thinking the same thing... must've been a type-o. nonetheless -.06 is much different from .61)
Congrats, "slightly winning" is a new chess term for me, after a few decades of reading about the game.
I think most people see anything between say -0.3 and 0.3 or so as just equal, 1.0 as clearly better for white, and 2.0 as winning.
-0.06 is just noise. That's 0.
uhohspaghettio wrote:
In english the phrase "winning" can mean winning by any amount, even the slightest.
Sometimes in the chess literature "winning" is defined as.... a clear win. I guess the only way to tell the two apart is just the context it's said in. However I was quite correct to use it as I did above.
but if its not enough to win its not winning. what would we call the endposition if its -0.6? black is winning a draw?
but on a more serious note, before you decide to change opening you should see if you like the alternatives to 8...Rb8. I for example prefer 8...h6 because the positions is to my taste
Analyse at 30-ply. Let it take over your life for a week. Then wake up one morning wondering if you have become a total doofus.
May 16, 2013
0
#17
Personally, I like the Two Knights Defense, but I play the Ulvestad Variation (5...b5) since I've never felt comfortable playing 5...Na5 (though, oddly, I've found it to be an enormous pain to play the White side of it too).
In many lines the Ulvestad is pretty wild tactically, and if White doesn't know what he's doing Black often wins in a miniture. If White knows what he's doing, (for example, "undeveloping" with 6.Bf1 is the best sixth move) then Black ends up a pawn down with good play against a backward White d-pawn which (in my experience) he usually wins back with good chances to win.
May 16, 2013
0
#18
Unfortunately the Ulvestad/Fritz is refuted, but I guess it's playable at club level.
hehe.
May 17, 2013
0
#20
@Expertise87: That doesn't surprise me at all; do you have a source or a link?
Regardless of the objective soundness, it offers great practical chances playing against mere mortals. If I start playing seriously, I'd probably have to bite the bullet and really learn 5...Na5 (or 3...Bc5) -- at least against stronger players. 
When I picked up 1...e5, the book I was reading on the topic suggested the two knights defense against the italian. However I continually feel uncomfortable reaching (theoretical) positions such as the following:
The computer (and I know it favors material, and not initiative etc) spits out .61 or something like that I believe. I've won alot of games as black in this position, but I kindof dread going into them. A gambit of two pawns for development and the necessity of attack (or something).
I'm thinking of taking the time to switch to the mainline italian games. MCO says that the italian isn't as theoretically complex as the ruy lopez (which I have no problems playing against... though I did a good bit of homework for that comfort).
What do you guys think of this defense (though I know it isn't white's best try with Qf3, I do see it most often)? Do you think I should take the time to switch to mainline italians? Can anyone out there that meets 3.Bc4 with 3...Bc5 lend some insight?
Also, trust me I know amateurs shouldn't study openings extensively, so please don't lecture me on how I should just play and not worry about openings, study other things, etc. I get it.
-Jack