One embarrassing way I lost in the Traxler once.
Two Knights trap
Sort:
HashRib wrote:
after 7exc6 bxc6 8.Be2?...
i would have played 8.Qf3 Bb7 9.Ba5..then u can continue...there is no trap in fact white will have advantage ...and white will enjoy better end game if we assume both player played perfect and equal
Begginers will fall to this trap.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5(bad move) d5! 5.ed5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.ec6 bc6 8.Be2 h6 9.Nf3 e4 10.Ng1 Bc5 11.a3 Qd4! 0-1
@newengland7 if e4 e5 nf3 nc6 bc4 nf6 ng5 bc5 n×f7 B×f2 then y K×f2? instead play Kf1
Lasker1900 wrote:
As I said, the last 20 years have been catastrophic for Black in the Traxler
GMs don't play it because it's mostly been worked out to a draw. I have a good book on it by Jan Pinski. However, the software he used is probably obsolete. Someone could probably revise it with a more up to date engine.
In statistical databases, black is doing beyond fantastic.
Lasker1900 wrote:
Which is why the statistics database is pretty useless for assessing an opening. If the Traxler has been worked out to a draw, why does Black lose the vast majority of games between strong players?
What database are you looking at?
Of the 188 master games in the chess.com database, black is winning 54.% compared to white winning only 29.7% with 17% being draws.
Chessgames.com:
312 games
black wins 59.9%
white wins 24%
16% draws.
5.Bxf7:
black wins 49.1%
white 42.9%
18% draws
I have this book by a master, Jan Pinski titled "the two knights defense," in lower case letters. It was published in 2003. So it's not up to date. He used fritz 8, which is obsolete now. So someone should review this book with a strong engine, but keep in mind that many of these lines and variations are "forced."
Anyway, the Traxler is covered in chapter 5, page 60. Most evaluations favor black.
Nov 24, 2015
0
#28
Justs99171 wrote:
Lasker1900 wrote:
As I said, the last 20 years have been catastrophic for Black in the Traxler
GMs don't play it because it's mostly been worked out to a draw. I have a good book on it by Jan Pinski. However, the software he used is probably obsolete. Someone could probably revise it with a more up to date engine.
In statistical databases, black is doing beyond fantastic.
The Traxler HAS NOT been worked out to a draw. And you'll find a lot of crappy openings that seem to do well in databases because the players themselves are crappy. Or the stronger of the two will be counting on his opponent not knowing what to do. I've looked at some of the games -- they feature IM's playing against complete nobody's. The only thing I'm impressed with is Beliavsky's handling of the Black side of 5.Bxf7+
N0S0UP4Y0U wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
Lasker1900 wrote:
As I said, the last 20 years have been catastrophic for Black in the Traxler
GMs don't play it because it's mostly been worked out to a draw. I have a good book on it by Jan Pinski. However, the software he used is probably obsolete. Someone could probably revise it with a more up to date engine.
In statistical databases, black is doing beyond fantastic.
The Traxler HAS NOT been worked out to a draw. And you'll find a lot of crappy openings that seem to do well in databases because the players themselves are crappy. Or the stronger of the two will be counting on his opponent not knowing what to do. I've looked at some of the games -- they feature IM's playing against complete nobody's. The only thing I'm impressed with is Beliavsky's handling of the Black side of 5.Bxf7+
I played in a two or three Two Knight's Defense tournaments here at chess.com, and when I had time, I used one of my books. I didn't lose any of the games where I used my books and I never even got to the point where I had to make a move that wasn't in the book. So I checked all these lines, and most of them ended in checkmate for black, drawn by perpetual check, equal, or better for black.
Nov 24, 2015
0
#30
Justs99171 wrote:
N0S0UP4Y0U wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
Lasker1900 wrote:
As I said, the last 20 years have been catastrophic for Black in the Traxler
GMs don't play it because it's mostly been worked out to a draw. I have a good book on it by Jan Pinski. However, the software he used is probably obsolete. Someone could probably revise it with a more up to date engine.
In statistical databases, black is doing beyond fantastic.
The Traxler HAS NOT been worked out to a draw. And you'll find a lot of crappy openings that seem to do well in databases because the players themselves are crappy. Or the stronger of the two will be counting on his opponent not knowing what to do. I've looked at some of the games -- they feature IM's playing against complete nobody's. The only thing I'm impressed with is Beliavsky's handling of the Black side of 5.Bxf7+
I played in a two or three Two Knight's Defense tournaments here at chess.com, and when I had time, I used one of my books. I didn't lose any of the games where I used my books and I never even got to the point where I had to make a move that wasn't in the book. So I checked all these lines, and most of them ended in checkmate for black, drawn by perpetual check, equal, or better for black.
Dude, you're a 1500 player, so your experience really isn't worth a lot compared to GM's (and I've mentioned Beliavsky a couple of times now). Ok, so I've only been 1900+ OTB and 2000+ correspondence which only makes me a couple of classes stronger, but right here in this very thread IM Poucin agreed with me about a different line.
The Traxler is not a forced draw, especially not the 5.Bxf7+ line. Top GM's DO NOT avoid the Traxler -- Nakamura played 4.Ng5 a few years ago. I tried the Traxler when I was 12 years old or something. I also tried the Scandinavian. Then I grew up.
Arjun316694 wrote:
BTW you spelled beginners wrong.
lol
Nov 24, 2015
0
#32
I'm going to let Komodo 9.2 chew on the position after 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ all day while I work. It's going to work very quickly because there are only 3 legal moves -- it's already to depth 31 after less than half an hour.
So far it thinks things are pretty equal in the line 6.Kxf2 Nxe4+ 7.Ke3 Qh4 8.g3 -- I've also found this draw at chess365.com where GM Finegold (possibly not a GM at the time) as Black can't beat a 2300-player
However Komodo 9.2 so far thinks White has quite a sizable edge (1.33) at depth 31 after 6.Kf1. It will be interesting to see what depth it gets to and what it's evaluations are after another 7+ hours.
Nov 24, 2015
0
#34
amsikh wrote:
Hey moron we're actually discussing an opening here so go spam some other thread or get reported
N0S0UP4Y0U wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
N0S0UP4Y0U wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
Lasker1900 wrote:
As I said, the last 20 years have been catastrophic for Black in the Traxler
GMs don't play it because it's mostly been worked out to a draw. I have a good book on it by Jan Pinski. However, the software he used is probably obsolete. Someone could probably revise it with a more up to date engine.
In statistical databases, black is doing beyond fantastic.
The Traxler HAS NOT been worked out to a draw. And you'll find a lot of crappy openings that seem to do well in databases because the players themselves are crappy. Or the stronger of the two will be counting on his opponent not knowing what to do. I've looked at some of the games -- they feature IM's playing against complete nobody's. The only thing I'm impressed with is Beliavsky's handling of the Black side of 5.Bxf7+
I played in a two or three Two Knight's Defense tournaments here at chess.com, and when I had time, I used one of my books. I didn't lose any of the games where I used my books and I never even got to the point where I had to make a move that wasn't in the book. So I checked all these lines, and most of them ended in checkmate for black, drawn by perpetual check, equal, or better for black.
Dude, you're a 1500 player, so your experience really isn't worth a lot compared to GM's (and I've mentioned Beliavsky a couple of times now). Ok, so I've only been 1900+ OTB and 2000+ correspondence which only makes me a couple of classes stronger, but right here in this very thread IM Poucin agreed with me about a different line.
The Traxler is not a forced draw, especially not the 5.Bxf7+ line. Top GM's DO NOT avoid the Traxler -- Nakamura played 4.Ng5 a few years ago. I tried the Traxler when I was 12 years old or something. I also tried the Scandinavian. Then I grew up.
Hey dude, you're an absolute F______G IDIOT! You're also a 1500 player!
This is the problem. I didn't at any point ever state my "1500" opinion. I cited sources: books and statistical databases. I gave you the authors name, the book, the chapter and page number as well as two web sites. You're not arguing with me. You're arguing with the sources I listed.
Also, I'm not a 1500 rated player. My deflated chess.com blitz rating is usually over 1700.
Lasker1900 wrote:
My source is the Chessbase Big Database 2014, searching for all games between 1995 and 2015 where both players were rated at least 2350 FIDE. There were only 12 games and White scores 10.5 - 2.5
I then did a search of all games since 1980 where both players are 2300 FIDE or above and White chooses 5.Bxf7+ I found 19 games, and Black did a bit better but White still scores +11 -4 = 4 or 13 - 6
The statistical databases have more practical value as they indicate how humans perform against other humans, but on a scientific level, it's irrelevant.
I agree that 5.Bxf7+ is superior to 5.Nxf7 and it's 5.Nxf7 that has actually been worked out to checkmate or draw in most lines.
Most people chicken out and won't even play 4.Ng5 ...
Anyway, thanks for the update. I don't have megabase 2014.
Is there anyway you can tell me why white is doing so much better since ... whatever year you said it was - 1990? I know it's software analysis, but what specific new moves did the software discover?
Nov 24, 2015
0
#37
Justs99171 wrote:
N0S0UP4Y0U wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
N0S0UP4Y0U wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
Lasker1900 wrote:
As I said, the last 20 years have been catastrophic for Black in the Traxler
GMs don't play it because it's mostly been worked out to a draw. I have a good book on it by Jan Pinski. However, the software he used is probably obsolete. Someone could probably revise it with a more up to date engine.
In statistical databases, black is doing beyond fantastic.
The Traxler HAS NOT been worked out to a draw. And you'll find a lot of crappy openings that seem to do well in databases because the players themselves are crappy. Or the stronger of the two will be counting on his opponent not knowing what to do. I've looked at some of the games -- they feature IM's playing against complete nobody's. The only thing I'm impressed with is Beliavsky's handling of the Black side of 5.Bxf7+
I played in a two or three Two Knight's Defense tournaments here at chess.com, and when I had time, I used one of my books. I didn't lose any of the games where I used my books and I never even got to the point where I had to make a move that wasn't in the book. So I checked all these lines, and most of them ended in checkmate for black, drawn by perpetual check, equal, or better for black.
Dude, you're a 1500 player, so your experience really isn't worth a lot compared to GM's (and I've mentioned Beliavsky a couple of times now). Ok, so I've only been 1900+ OTB and 2000+ correspondence which only makes me a couple of classes stronger, but right here in this very thread IM Poucin agreed with me about a different line.
The Traxler is not a forced draw, especially not the 5.Bxf7+ line. Top GM's DO NOT avoid the Traxler -- Nakamura played 4.Ng5 a few years ago. I tried the Traxler when I was 12 years old or something. I also tried the Scandinavian. Then I grew up.
Hey dude, you're an absolute F______G IDIOT! You're also a 1500 player!
This is the problem. I didn't at any point ever state my "1500" opinion. I cited sources: books and statistical databases. I gave you the authors name, the book, the chapter and page number as well as two web sites. You're not arguing with me. You're arguing with the sources I listed.
Also, I'm not a 1500 rated player. My deflated chess.com blitz rating is usually over 1700.
Dude your USCF rating is 1500-something it says so right in your profile -- mine has been 1900+ (and 2000+ at correspondence). Yeah my profile says 1716 and that's where it currently sits, but here is a screenshot of my rating history from nearly 20 years ago when in my early/mid 30s (BTW, I came in a tie for second in that Omaha championship, and a couple of years previously in the next to last round of the Portland, OR championship, I lost on time in a pawn up bishop ending, which, had I won, would have seen me playing for the championship in the final round)
If you're just looking at my chess.com games, my rating hasn't had a real opportunity to go up because I've played about a half dozen games. Even if I were a 1500 player, I'm not the 1500 player running around saying idiotic things like GMs avoid the Traxler because it's a forced draw.
Nov 24, 2015
0
#38
Justs99171 wrote:
Lasker1900 wrote:
My source is the Chessbase Big Database 2014, searching for all games between 1995 and 2015 where both players were rated at least 2350 FIDE. There were only 12 games and White scores 10.5 - 2.5
I then did a search of all games since 1980 where both players are 2300 FIDE or above and White chooses 5.Bxf7+ I found 19 games, and Black did a bit better but White still scores +11 -4 = 4 or 13 - 6
The statistical databases have more practical value as they indicate how humans perform against other humans, but on a scientific level, it's irrelevant.
I agree that 5.Bxf7+ is superior to 5.Nxf7 and it's 5.Nxf7 that has actually been worked out to checkmate or draw in most lines.
What BS -- after 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kf1 White currently stands at +1.5 according to Komodo 9.2 at depth 35. So you are "arguing with my sources". It's also still giving White a small edge in the 6.Kxf2 line but never mind that. In the 6.Kf1 line it is only looking at 6...Qe7 7.Nxh8 Bb6, and not 7...d5. After letting it go all day and posting it's results as to White's 6th move(s), I will let it analyze Black alternatives at move 7 in the 6.Kf1 line overnight.
And most people don't "chicken out" and not play 4.Ng5, or if they do it's not because of the crap-tastic Traxler -- it's because Black is fine after 4...d5 5.exd5 Na5. In engines-on correspondence against the Traxler, giving the 3 variations 5.Bxf7+, 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kf1 and 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kxf2, I bet I could score 2.5-0.5 as White.
N0S0UP4Y0U wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
N0S0UP4Y0U wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
N0S0UP4Y0U wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
Lasker1900 wrote:
As I said, the last 20 years have been catastrophic for Black in the Traxler
GMs don't play it because it's mostly been worked out to a draw. I have a good book on it by Jan Pinski. However, the software he used is probably obsolete. Someone could probably revise it with a more up to date engine.
In statistical databases, black is doing beyond fantastic.
The Traxler HAS NOT been worked out to a draw. And you'll find a lot of crappy openings that seem to do well in databases because the players themselves are crappy. Or the stronger of the two will be counting on his opponent not knowing what to do. I've looked at some of the games -- they feature IM's playing against complete nobody's. The only thing I'm impressed with is Beliavsky's handling of the Black side of 5.Bxf7+
I played in a two or three Two Knight's Defense tournaments here at chess.com, and when I had time, I used one of my books. I didn't lose any of the games where I used my books and I never even got to the point where I had to make a move that wasn't in the book. So I checked all these lines, and most of them ended in checkmate for black, drawn by perpetual check, equal, or better for black.
Dude, you're a 1500 player, so your experience really isn't worth a lot compared to GM's (and I've mentioned Beliavsky a couple of times now). Ok, so I've only been 1900+ OTB and 2000+ correspondence which only makes me a couple of classes stronger, but right here in this very thread IM Poucin agreed with me about a different line.
The Traxler is not a forced draw, especially not the 5.Bxf7+ line. Top GM's DO NOT avoid the Traxler -- Nakamura played 4.Ng5 a few years ago. I tried the Traxler when I was 12 years old or something. I also tried the Scandinavian. Then I grew up.
Hey dude, you're an absolute F______G IDIOT! You're also a 1500 player!
This is the problem. I didn't at any point ever state my "1500" opinion. I cited sources: books and statistical databases. I gave you the authors name, the book, the chapter and page number as well as two web sites. You're not arguing with me. You're arguing with the sources I listed.
Also, I'm not a 1500 rated player. My deflated chess.com blitz rating is usually over 1700.
Dude your USCF rating is 1500-something -- mine has been 1900+ (and 2000+ at correspondence). If you're just looking at my chess.com games, my rating hasn't had a real opportunity to go up because I've played about a half dozen games.
Even if I were a 1500 player, I'm not the 1500 player running around saying idiotic things like GMs avoid the Traxler because it's a forced draw.
My 1500 rating is 1500 because I quit playing in 2002.
It doesn't matter, anyway. You have not undermined my credibility and my credibility is not what is being questioned. The way you're behaving is like an uneducated degenerate. Don't attack me. Attack my points. Check my sources. It's not like I analyzed this position, came to a conclusion, and then started arguing. As I said before and I will say again, I listed my sources.
Also, every single peak rating of mine here at chess.com is higher than yours.
GMs probably avoid the Traxler because they don't want to play each other's software. I doubt that in the past 15 years, any human has come up with a novelty in all of the Two Knight's Defense. It's just a memorization contest.
Nov 24, 2015
0
#40
Justs99171 wrote:
N0S0UP4Y0U wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
N0S0UP4Y0U wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
N0S0UP4Y0U wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
Lasker1900 wrote:
As I said, the last 20 years have been catastrophic for Black in the Traxler
GMs don't play it because it's mostly been worked out to a draw. I have a good book on it by Jan Pinski. However, the software he used is probably obsolete. Someone could probably revise it with a more up to date engine.
In statistical databases, black is doing beyond fantastic.
The Traxler HAS NOT been worked out to a draw. And you'll find a lot of crappy openings that seem to do well in databases because the players themselves are crappy. Or the stronger of the two will be counting on his opponent not knowing what to do. I've looked at some of the games -- they feature IM's playing against complete nobody's. The only thing I'm impressed with is Beliavsky's handling of the Black side of 5.Bxf7+
I played in a two or three Two Knight's Defense tournaments here at chess.com, and when I had time, I used one of my books. I didn't lose any of the games where I used my books and I never even got to the point where I had to make a move that wasn't in the book. So I checked all these lines, and most of them ended in checkmate for black, drawn by perpetual check, equal, or better for black.
Dude, you're a 1500 player, so your experience really isn't worth a lot compared to GM's (and I've mentioned Beliavsky a couple of times now). Ok, so I've only been 1900+ OTB and 2000+ correspondence which only makes me a couple of classes stronger, but right here in this very thread IM Poucin agreed with me about a different line.
The Traxler is not a forced draw, especially not the 5.Bxf7+ line. Top GM's DO NOT avoid the Traxler -- Nakamura played 4.Ng5 a few years ago. I tried the Traxler when I was 12 years old or something. I also tried the Scandinavian. Then I grew up.
Hey dude, you're an absolute F______G IDIOT! You're also a 1500 player!
This is the problem. I didn't at any point ever state my "1500" opinion. I cited sources: books and statistical databases. I gave you the authors name, the book, the chapter and page number as well as two web sites. You're not arguing with me. You're arguing with the sources I listed.
Also, I'm not a 1500 rated player. My deflated chess.com blitz rating is usually over 1700.
Dude your USCF rating is 1500-something -- mine has been 1900+ (and 2000+ at correspondence). If you're just looking at my chess.com games, my rating hasn't had a real opportunity to go up because I've played about a half dozen games.
Even if I were a 1500 player, I'm not the 1500 player running around saying idiotic things like GMs avoid the Traxler because it's a forced draw.
My 1500 rating is 1500 because I quit playing in 2002.
It doesn't matter, anyway. You have not undermined my credibility and my credibility is not what is being questioned. The way you're behaving is like an uneducated degenerate. Don't attack me. Attack my points. Check my sources. It's not like I analyzed this position, came to a conclusion, and then started arguing. As I said before and I will say again, I listed my sources.
Also, every single peak rating of mine here at chess.com is higher than yours.
GMs probably avoid the Traxler because they don't want to play each other's software. I doubt that in the past 15 years, any human has come up with a novelty in all of the Two Knight's Defense. It's just a memorization contest.
Again all BS. So you haven't played since 2002 - fine. But again, my chess.com ratings are all because I've played a mere handful of games. I told you this but you didn't bother to check, so here's the bloody screenshot:
Next as to the 2-Knights/Traxler, we can just end at your quote: "GMs probably" because this just shows that it's mere speculation on your part.
Finally "I doubt that in the past 15 years, any human has come up with a novelty in all of the Two Knight's Defense." -- I posted one higher in this thread:
lol i said from the start that bc5 is fine and just a different line. it simply doest agree with my intuition. meaning that if i looked at the position in a logical way and without knowing from experience and calculation that bc5 is fine it would look illogical to me. c3 just doesnt seem bad enough to use a whole move to provoke it. but sure maybe it is thats fine. all i was explaining is why i chose to show bd6 as the main line. the fact that c3 obstructs b3 and bb2 is something useful that you would learn from the main line for example. to say white is struggling for equality seems like a misunderstanding however. black obviously has a better position but white has an extra pawn. white is struggling really to maintain a static advantage and blunt blacks initiative and if he does this then he has good winning chances with his extra pawn.
Ok so the thing White needs to remember in the line c3 Bc5 0-0 b4 is to castle at his very earliest opportunity, otherwise it won't be a matter of struggling for equality, it will be a matter of struggling not to lose.
I recently had a not dissimilar position not once but twice on the ficgs.com correspondence server where engines are allowed. White played a new move against the Siesta (tried on iccf twice in 2013, and against Timman OTB by an IM in 2014). White had a new sequence of moves that won a pawn and needless to say I was concerned at first. However I won my pawn back and got a draw in one game, and completely annihilated my opponent in the other game.
After the sequence the line c3 Bc5 0-0 b4 I would probably have the same level of confidence in the outcome if I were playing on FICGS -- I think the moves c3 and b4 in tandem can be evaluated "?!" in a position where Black already has the initiative.
In any case though, White has moves other than c3 and b4 respectively where he does not have such a narrow path.