What's wrong with 1.b4?

Sort:
DarthMusashi

TetsuoShima  

btw is Clyde Nakamura related to Hikaru Nakamura?

No I am not directly related to Hikaru Nakamura. But I did see him at one of
the Hawaii International tournaments that I played in. I played his brother
Asuka Nakamura (2100+) and played a Khan Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 d5) and drew that
game. I was sitting on thet same table where Hikaru played. He was playing
several times Hawaii State Champion Leslie Au and lost that game. Hikaru at
the time was only about 8 years old and was rated around 1800+. 


Nakamura in Japanese means Inside Village. But it is quite possible we are

somehow related because all Nakamuras are related. Although Hikarus mom

caucasian and I am a Japanese American who lives in Hawaii. My dads familly came
from Fukuoka Japan and my mothers family came from Okinawa Japan.

Best Regards
DarthMusashi 

 

 

 

 

Martin0

The Orang Colorado Gambit looks interesting. I had never heard of it before.

TetsuoShima
[COMMENT DELETED]
TetsuoShima
[COMMENT DELETED]
TetsuoShima
[COMMENT DELETED]
TetsuoShima

sorry my fault you were right!!! weird normally when you google Asuka Nakamura you get a totally different answer

Irontiger
DarthMusashi wrote:
The Orangutan is highly transpositional in nature. I can
easily transpose into other opening positions.

This is a joke, right ?

You know many other openings where a white pawn ends on b4 ? Only the Evans gambit for me, and, huh, the way to transpose there from 1.b4 is not obvious to me...

TetsuoShima
Irontiger wrote:
DarthMusashi wrote:
The Orangutan is highly transpositional in nature. I can
easily transpose into other opening positions.

This is a joke, right ?

You know many other openings where a white pawn ends on b4 ? Only the Evans gambit for me, and, huh, the way to transpose there from 1.b4 is not obvious to me...

then look at the games Musashi just posted, they were highly dynamic i would think. But still he might have expressed it incorrectly

Irontiger
TetsuoShima wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
DarthMusashi wrote:
The Orangutan is highly transpositional in nature. I can
easily transpose into other opening positions.

This is a joke, right ?

You know many other openings where a white pawn ends on b4 ? Only the Evans gambit for me, and, huh, the way to transpose there from 1.b4 is not obvious to me...

then look at the games Musashi just posted, they were highly dynamic i would think. But still he might have expressed it incorrectly

You know what "transposition" means, right ?

And the games were... huh... "Dynamic", that's the word.

TetsuoShima
Irontiger wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
DarthMusashi wrote:
The Orangutan is highly transpositional in nature. I can
easily transpose into other opening positions.

This is a joke, right ?

You know many other openings where a white pawn ends on b4 ? Only the Evans gambit for me, and, huh, the way to transpose there from 1.b4 is not obvious to me...

then look at the games Musashi just posted, they were highly dynamic i would think. But still he might have expressed it incorrectly

You know what "transposition" means, right ?

And the games were... huh... "Dynamic", that's the word.

yes you are right, i shouldnt use the internet when under influence ;) usually i think first and than i talk ;)

pfren
Irontiger wrote:
And the games were... huh... "Dynamic", that's the word.

I did not know that "laughable" is spelled "dynamic" in Hawaiian slang.

TetsuoShima

it looks like a crazy opening but he still has beaten high level players.

TetsuoShima

i still like his attacks though

TetsuoShima
[COMMENT DELETED]
falcogrine
pfren wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
And the games were... huh... "Dynamic", that's the word.

I did not know that "laughable" is spelled "dynamic" in Hawaiian slang.

no, they're just synonyms

schlechter55

I am guest here now, I have no intention to participate again in a forum where trolls dominate and harass me.

But hasn't all that been said by me, and havent i been harassed for exactly saying this ? (I mean about the psychological aspect of every opening, and the belief that 1.b4 is giving Black at most a small edge, objectively .)

About the fency gambit 1.b4 e5, 2.f4 ?! (yes, it is not good) exf4, I agree completely with FirebrandX:

3.Nf3 Bxb4, 4.Bb2 Nf6, 5.e3 !? (wrestling in the mud) fxe3, 6.Bd3 exd2+ (Clear and simple. White either loses the right to castle or is forced to trade queens), 7.Nbxd2 Qe7+, 8.Qe2 (8.Be2 Nd5!) Qxe2+, and without queens white has no compensation for the 3 pawns.

It is interesting that the opponents did not play 6....exd2+.

Perhaps since it is a HUMAN move.  Engines suggest 6....Bc5 (at least first, with short horizon), having 'trust' that the white attack will fail.

kco

Might pay to stay away from engine and use your grey matters instead.

TetsuoShima
Estragon wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:
DarthMusashi wrote:

That "Orang Colorado gambit" seems completely refutable. On move 6, all black had to do to ensure the win was 6...exd2 7.Nbxd2 Qe7+ and what the hell is white going to do? He's just losing badly. That IM should be ashamed of losing that game.

+1

 

Clyde Nakamura is a true gambiteer.  He takes the craziest gambits and plays them against any opposition.  You have to admire that, and you have to admit he's found dozens, maybe hundreds of ideas which are extremely difficult to meet over the board.

But that doesn't make them good, or even necessarily sound.  Seeing it even once beforehand might completely defang most of them, as in the given example. 

 

The idea of 1 b4 is more to hope the opponent errs, through unfamiliarity or hubris, than to obtain any objectively tangible advantage from the opening.  And the same premise holds for many of the weird gambits, the surprise value is a significant part of their attraction.

If enough opponents blow it to satisfy the player, he can claim 1 b4 has been successful in practice for him, but he still can't say it's a "good opening."

yes i agree

Irontiger

The "discussion" has begun to loop (you won't find anything that was not already in pages 1 to 15). It was time to go a long time ago, but I'm tired. I'm offtracking. Bye.

DarthMusashi

That "Orang Colorado gambit" seems completely refutable. On move 6, all black had to do to ensure the win was 6...exd2 7.Nbxd2 Qe7+ and what the hell is white going to do? He's just losing badly. That IM should be ashamed of losing that game.

That IM was a chess engine on the Internet Chess Club. And the other opponent
Thomas 2200 was also a chess engine. Chess Engines do not makes mistakes
like human players do.

Best Regardes
DarthMusashi