also is can rise from d4 Nf6, Nf3 g6, Nbd2
What is wrong with this opening?
Sort:
3...d5 4. c4 Bg7 5. cxd5 Qxd5
I think this equalises for black, white cannot play e4 so easily and black has good development.
I'm not sure what else white can play on move five, Qc2 maybe...
Hi there:
I dont know if this has a name, but is something like Colle Opening. I dont think is that good for white for many reasons:
1- if black wants, they can play a pirc defense (d6), and get a confortable position because after e4, the knight is d2 is not as well placed as in c3. is the dream of every pirc player.
2- Black can play as well d5, and after white's c4, of course they wont take, just can hold the center with c6, and again black can have a confortable position. its even possible to play e6 (because the white c1 bishop is locked up) and then, after castling, play c5, taking initiative, because the knight is not in c3.
Then the best option for white, after d5, could be play a solid colle with e3-Bd3-b3-Bb2, etc and later try to break in e4. In either case, black has nothing to fear...
What I wonder is, if you want to play like a KID (c4-d4-e4 structure) why not Nc3? Afraid of Grunfeld Defense? With a good preparation white has nothing to fear.
Hope this help. Good Luck!
Jun 2, 2011
0
#6
also this could arise from this
http://www.chess.com/opening/eco/A48_Indian_Game_London_System
follow by 3...Bg7 4.Nbd2
SCID calls it a A48 Neo-King's Indian.
Jun 2, 2011
0
#10
@Clouseau:
I'm gonna use numbers, because quoting you is too long! 
1-Modern defense.
1a: I never said the line was "winning". I said that line is better for black THAN the normal lines with the knight in c3. You have to agree if you are white and you place your knight in d2 you are giving away the best chances than the first moves are suppose to give you (at least, in this kind of defenses).
1b: In chess, the best player is always going to win even if the position is bad. So, the masters you mentioned that used to play this line, if they are better than the opponent, (and that is not difficult because those names were -and still are!- the best in their time) of course they are going to outplay the opponent. An equal position (this means dinamically equal) but 2 or 4 hundred points of difference in rating is not that equal.
1b: A curious fact, some of this grandmasters use(d) to play pirc... a reasonable doubt is if they didnt want to play other main lines that could be used later against them. Or just the psicological factor: "I cant beat my pet" syndrome.
1c: I still maintain the opinion that this line, chesswise speaking, is not as good as the main lines with a knight in c3. Just common sense.
2a: The first game is useless. Is a massacre where a rated 2600 lion has a low rated punchingbag. There is many mistakes, and the first and most notorious is leaving the bishop in e4. Of course retreating it it doesnt means white are better, but neither black . If you read again my comment, I said first b3, Bb2, in the spirit of colle opening, and later, maybe, e4. I didnt mean neither it was enough for a real advantage.
2b: Ftacnick is known expert in grunfeld defense, So Izoria, of course, wanted to avoid a theoretical battle with this encyclopedic author. This was a real opening surprise, and in the move 12th black commited a serious mistake compromising his position, that in the end lead to a defeat. It was a conceptual mistake, maybe for the chosen opening, not because b4 shows a real advantage for white (like the second game it seems to show).
But of course you said that the best wins: Just compare ratings.
3: The last comment; I wont even get deep on it: I dont know why players have this misconception of "cutting edge openings" like only the grandmasters are able to play that. It happens that if you dont want to get deep in the study of openings theory (as grandmasters do) like in other stages of the game, you never will be one of those grandmasters. And I'm not the author of the thought. But that is another topic, another day, another time: is 2:45 am here.
Have a good day all of you.
PS: Of course, I could be wrong.
Clouseau741 wrote:
Mark Taimanov(who is one the more deep studied grandmasters ever) believed that the knight is better at d2 than at c3.Petar Trifunovic also thinks the same , (he is considered one of the best Yugoslav grandmasters ever).The great Tigran Petrosian also used that line regularly.These 3 either don't know your"common sense" or don't agree with it.You disagree with them not with me.I am only saying that if players like them decided to play it regularly that means 2 things(common sense):
1)the line is perfectly playable and good(not the best , but good) and
2)even deep studied grandmasters choose to play lines, considered inferior to the main lines, ALL THE TIME because they obviously believe that playing the cutting edge of theory is not necessary.
The games I posted were examples , not an extensive study of the line , trying to answer to each one of them is misleading(at least I made a research and tried to help while it was enough for you to simply reject them without even care of giving other examples).
Finally a question.
If the line was adequate for Trifunovic , Taimanov, Petrosian and Benko why should be inadequate for every one of us?
p.s. I know tha you will continue to disagree but I am quite sure that you(and noone else) wouldn't dare to disagree with Petrosian or Taimanov.
My friend Clouseau: You are deflecting your opinion in those grandmasters, and not continue this debate with arguments, like those I wrote before; You just said: "ok, is not me, those supergms were who played this line, so it has to be gooood; hence you are wrong". My dear greek friend: Socrates methods does not apply here. We both can be right.
I repeat (again!), I never said the line in debate is wrong, I said the night in c3 is better. Why? Well, let's apply your methods: you mentioned 5 or 6 grandmasters who used to play Nbd2, but what happens with the other hundreds and hundreds of grandmasters around the world now and yesterday? Are they wrong? if you make a percentage of everything, i'm sure the number will be under 1%. Hmmm.
But, let continue with your reasoning: Tahl and many others used to play Indobenoni defense with great success... is that meaning the indobenoni defense is great? Actually, this defense is having problems, and if is grandmaster is conducting white pieces, black has a hard task. I can continue this with a lot of lines and defenses, like, for example, the botvinnik variation in the slav or the polugayevsky in the najdorf, or the benko gambit! (to name one of your examples)... and so on. This lines are beeing deconstructed by deep analysis and common sense. Is this meaning that I'm arguing with the best chess minds in the past? of course not.
Im doing this in a short time I got, and I'm not able to consult databases right now, but i can do it if is necessary to contribute to this forum.
Well, let me know if I'm wrong again
Peace!
Like I always say, I could be wrong.
Clouseau741 wrote:
The games I posted were examples , not an extensive study of the line , trying to answer to each one of them is misleading(at least I made a research and tried to help while it was enough for you to simply reject them without even care of giving other examples).
I re-read the post, and found this a little confrontational. I answered each one because I thought the chosen examples were not the best ones;not because I tried to mislead someone (why in the first place would I want that?) if I'm writing here is just to help people who wants to get better at chess. Misleading is post dubious examples, but Im 100% sure you didnt want that either.
We are here for the same, my greek friend, γένος μία sumus, remember?. Truce?
My friend, we are in a point where any of us is going to understand the other's reasons. This could continue forever.
I could say that if stastistics are not important, well, databases neither; Also I could say I don't understand why you say that when you all the time are mentioning gm's games, supernames, even examples extracted from databases. Thats kinda stastistical, dont you think?
I could that I couldn't agree with whatever you said about Najdorf and Taimanov (because the reasoning is more or less strange. Anyway I think you didnt understand what I said about the Najdorf);
I could say you are right respect encouraging people to play lines they can understand, but I cant in this case, because if you read from the beginning, the original poster do not understand.
Besides, I could say that I know from my experience as coach, the harmony of the pieces between each other is a thing you teach from the opening, and if somebody do not understand why one is better than the other, well... (you can read above) of course you dont know me, and for that you cant know what I teach and my opinions about "cutting edge theory".
I could, as well, say that everything else you said I already answered it in previous comments, but I cant repeat myself that much as three times...
Why should I say that... again?
Too much socratic debate in benefit of an original poster that is not even posting. I wanted to help him, not convince you.
Καλή τύχη, my dear greek friend.
One of the problems with teaching students to play sidelines, especially "dubious" sidelines is that there are very few, if any, high level games for them to study in order to better understand middlegames and endings that often arise. I have had this problem with students that like to play Alekhine defense for example..... they often complain that there are not many recent high level games for them to study/analyze. I had this problem myself as a class player decades ago when I was playing only the alekhine defense against 1 e4 and I think today the problem may be even worse in that particular opening. I remember looking at many GM Alburt and Bagirov games back in the 70s......
Clouseau741 wrote:
True , lack of good games can be a problem.
But you don't need hundreds of games to understand a line(although it would certainly help to have them), you only need some good games and someone to guide you and help you in the analysis not only of the moves but of the plans also and you also need lots of personal work to attain the familiarisation needed for the line and the positions it produces.
Since you also teach I think that you have already realised that it is more important to play lines you like and feel comfortable with(we are humans and we like some things while we don't like some others, sometimes without even a reason) a line than playing a main line that you don't like and don't feel comfortable with, or not?
Yes, I agree that its important to like/understand the lines we play . One of the problems I have had when taking lessons from GMs is that too often they want to change my openings to openings they play/undrestand and I think this is simply wrong from the start . I know from experience that I immediately lose interest/enthusiasm when they do this and so as a teacher I do NOT do this with any student I try to help. In fact my wife likes to play the BDG gambit which I dont think highly of at all but I work with her on this opening and did so a lot in past years. She has defeated players with 2100+ fide in this opening and they are several hundred points higher than her so who am I to tell her to NOT to play it ? After working with her on this opening it had a surprise benefit for me in a tournament game in Portugal. My opponent played 1...d5 in response to my 1 e4 and was ready for the scandinavian and I knew he had prepared well for my usual lines against it ( I play two ) so I thought what can I play that he will NOT be prepared for and force him just to play chess with me ? I played 2 d4 !? and gambled that he would not know how to defend the BDG and was right.... he lost in under 30 moves ! My wife got a bigger kick out of this than me !
If your opinion as a teacher is to adapt to your students needs and the student thinks they stick to what they feel comfortable with,
then who of you is going to learn more? I think it's actually the teacher, because he is embracing every idea with an open mind while the student stays in the comfy shallow water.
(edit: needless to say, a student with no enthusiasm is not going to learn much either ;))
I can't find a name for this opening and I'm not sure if it even is a proper opening. What is wrong with it?
The basic idea behind white's setup is to immediately push the e4 pawn without having to wait for 3. c4 Bg7 4. Nc3 O-O 5. e4 d6, allowing black to stop the pawn from doing any damage. It also makes it harder for the knight to move to b3. Here are examples of what might happen:
Please let me know if I missed anything. Feedback is appreciated :)