Fred-Splott wrote:
What amuses me is that Pacifique seems to think that one move (viz. 5 ..... Ne7) is the universal panacea. Well, the Albin panacea.
What amuses me is your inability to refute it.
What well known gambits are unsound?
Sort:
The two candidate moves that spring to mind after Ne7 are Bg7 and d3. I've played both and won with both. I don't think I've been defeated by 5 .... Ne7.
A refutation would involve an exhaustive analysis of every possible permutation of moves Pacifique. What amuses me is your considerable, self-confident naivite and also of course, your charm.
Ponz in your game Black had no problems to draw all the time before 33...Bc8?? as White can`t win after 33...dxc5+ 34. Kxc5 axb5 35.Bxb5 Ke736.d6+ Kd8!
Fred-Splott wrote:
The two candidate moves that spring to mind after Ne7 are Bg7 and d3. I've played both and won with both. I don't think I've been defeated by 5 .... Ne7.
6.Bg2 Ng6
6.d3 is impossible move.
Fred-Splott wrote:
A refutation would involve an exhaustive analysis of every possible permutation of moves Pacifique. What amuses me is your considerable, self-confident naivite and also of course, your charm.
So you are unable to refute it. What amuses me is your arrogance taking into account that you are obviously weaker player.
I'm also amused by the considerable naivite shown in this sort of article written by chess masters, which I just found on the web:
<<With Black doing well with a variety of answers to 5.g3, attention has shifted to 5.Nbd2! which has been recomended (e.g.: by Eric Schiller and Angus Dunnington) as the easiest anti-Albin line, but few sources discuss the Morozevich and Nakamura response of 5...Nge7, which may now be one of the most important theoretical lines for the evaluation of the Albin as a whole.>>
And specifically, I'm drawing attention to the presence of the exclamation mark shown after white's move 5, which seems to suggest that Nbd2 is the best move in the position. Indeed, that is if one wasn't aware of the tendency of semi-idiotic chess masters to place a "judicious" exclamation mark not in the position calculated to most improve chess understanding in others but in the position calulated to sell most semi-worthless books!
ponz111 wrote:
I was not trying to show myself as an expert, I was trying to answer your question.
Moving a d or e pawn twice in an opening often is a bad idea -to give one eample:
It`s absurd to compare 1.e4 d5 2.e5?! c5 (where Black has not better, but easy, equal game) and 1.d4 d5 2. c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4. In first case it`s really waste of time, because Black has no development problems and White can`t dominate in center. In Albin 3...d4 prevents 4.e3? (so White has more limited options to develop pieces) and Black has space advantage.
Fred-Splott wrote:
I'm also amused by the considerable naivite shown in this sort of article written by chess masters, which I just found on the web:
<>
And specifically, I'm drawing attention to the presence of the exclamation mark shown after white's move 5, which seems to suggest that Nbd2 is the best move in the position. Indeed, that is if one wasn't aware of the tendency of semi-idiotic chess masters to place a "judicious" exclamation mark not in the position calculated to most improve chess understanding in others but in the position calulated to sell most semi-worthless books!
Haven`t heard about Dunnington, but Schiller is well known for his crappy books. 5.Nbd2 were considered as dangerous for a long time, but hardly any Albin player afraids it today.
Incidentally, Pacifique ... your ability as a chess player may be greater than mine. I tend to value general intelligence a bit higher than chess intelligence but that's by the bye. I also value good manners and a relative absence of egotistically-derived personality problems.
The point is that for all your pronouncements that I haven't "refuted" 5 ... Nge7, although I've looked hard I don't see where you "refuted" 6 d3 either, although perhaps of course your saying it's "impossible" refutes it. But at first sight it doesn't look bad to me, so what am I missing?
And why does Ng6 "refute" 6 Bg7? I'd be so grateful to find out.
BTW
You're quite right that Schiller is noted for writing chess books in his sleep. However, the exclamation mark was not his so your comment about him is irrelevant. Do please try to follow! :)
Robert_K_Forney wrote:
It seems to me that Pacifique doesn't like to challenge the opinion of higher-rated players, but DOES like to condescend needlessly while professing some kind of superior knowledge of chess without any support for that claim.
So prove that what you say is true, Pacifique. It's only fair, you demand that we provide a lengthy, book-quality analysis of a refutation for your one move that is very easy to throw out there and call the best move.
So according to your logic if someone has made claim without being able to back it up (claim abput "unsound" Albin), his opponent needs to prove something???
Fred-Splott wrote:
Incidentally, Pacifique ... your ability as a chess player may be greater than mine. I tend to value general intelligence a bit higher than chess intelligence but that's by the bye. I also value good manners and a relative absence of egotistically-derived personality problems.
The point is that for all your pronouncements that I haven't "refuted" 5 ... Nge7, although I've looked hard I don't see where you "refuted" 6 d3 either, although perhaps of course your saying it's "impossible" refutes it. But at first sight it doesn't look bad to me, so what am I missing?
And why does Ng6 "refute" 6 Bg7? I'd be so grateful to find out.
Should I consider your inability to read as sign of "intelligence"?
Here is the position after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Nge7. Could you explain how the move 6.d3 is possible?
And please explain what White should do after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Nge7 6.Bg2 Ng6.
Black is going to take back pawn with good position due to space advantage.
I think that, logically, you're trying to be all things to all men and to argue from both ends at once.
Personally I believe the Ponz to be incorrect and the Albin to be sound. But it's borderline, you know. I believe the Smith Morra to be sound and he doesn't reckon it is. By his standards (I've been following the arguments!) that would mean that Black gets an advantage of less than 0.4 in the Smith Morra. Now, they say three moves in the opening is worth a pawn but what does White actually get? Isn't it about 2.5 moves? :) That would make it technically sound if the criteria held true that -0.4 is a loss. According to my calculations White would be - 0.2.
If White can be ascribed the full three moves then it's even. If White really gets 2 moves then White is still only -0.33, which according to Ponz isn't a loss! But I think it depends on the position: after all, in an ending -2.0 can easily be a draw. I've found in practice that the Smith Morra is about drawing. Ken Smith thinks so too doesn't he? I did have his book at one time.
Fred-Splott wrote:
I think that, logically, you're trying to be all things to all men and to argue from both ends at once.
Personally I believe the Ponz to be incorrect and the Albin to be sound. But it's borderline, you know. I believe the Smith Morra to be sound and he doesn't reckon it is. By his standards (I've been following the arguments!) that would mean that Black gets an advantage of less than 0.4 in the Smith Morra. Now, they say three moves in the opening is worth a pawn but what does White actually get? Isn't it about 2.5 moves? :) That would make it technically sound if the criteria held true that -0.4 is a loss. According to my calculations White would be - 0.2.
If White can be ascribed the full three moves then it's even. If White really gets 2 moves then White is still only -0.33, which according to Ponz isn't a loss! But I think it depends on the position: after all, in an ending -2.0 can easily be a draw. I've found in practice that the Smith Morra is about drawing. Ken Smith thinks so too doesn't he? I did have his book at one time.
I agree that it depends on position and openings can`t be evaluated by blind counting of moves.
Hi Pacifique. In my game trying to show how to exploit a positional advantage
you gave the improvement of 33. ...dxc5+ 34. Kxc5 axb5 35. Bb5 Ke7 36. d6+ Kd8! and white cannot win. All this proves is White's move of 33. c5 was premature and an error. White can go slower and set some things up on the king side and keep the pawn on c4 for a while and can always later play the moves bxa6 bxa6 saddling
Black with a very weak a6 pawn at the appropriate time. This endgame would be very difficult for Black and not something that Black would really want to happen.
However, I commend you for pointing out the error of my 33rd move!
<<<How is 6.d3 possible?>>>
I've racked my brains but I cannot see the illegality of the move. So what's wrong with it? In my opinion the natural counter looks like Bg4. Have you anything better?
Are you a Frenchman? :)
@ Pacifique: The Q was not for me, but I will try answering it.
The critical line seems to be 7.0-0 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Na3! Be7 10.Nb5 0-0 11.Nxd4 Nxc4 12.b3 Bf6 (12...Nd6 is playable, but somewhat passive) 13.e3! (13.bc4 Bxd4?! 14.Rb1, as played in a recent blitz game between Chucky and Moro, should be better for white a bit, but 13...Qxd4 is an equalizer) 13..c5 14.bc4 cd4 15.ed4 Bxd4 (15...Qxd4 16.Qxd4 Bxd4 17.Rb1 is comfortably better for white) 16.Rb1 Be6! when white is certainly more active, but the material is quite reduced, and I doubt if white's advantage can spell something more than the better part of a draw.
What amuses me is that Pacifique seems to think that one move (viz. 5 ..... Ne7) is the universal panacea. Well, the Albin panacea.