Areg7 wrote:
Ok now you're just trolling lol
No way Sir!
I only troll along on Sundays!
Which is the best defence against 1.d4?
Sort:
I had a lot of ideas here. But its still C4.
It is now recognised as a solid opening that may be used to reach both classical and hypermodern positions. Mikhail Botvinnik, Tigran Petrosian, Anatoly Karpov, Garry Kasparov and Magnus Carlsen employed it during their world championship matches. Bobby Fischer created a stir when he switched to it from his customary 1.e4 late in his career, employing it against Lev Polugaevsky and Oscar Panno at the Palma de Mallorca Interzonal in 1970 and in his 1972 world championship match against Boris Spassky.
I do look for openings where I can overturn popular misconceptions, but unlike Christopher Hitchens, I am neither a contrarian nor a lone heretic. I like to have a significant number of academics watching my back.
jengaias wrote:
SaintGermain32105 wrote:
It is now recognised as a solid opening that may be used to reach both classical and hypermodern positions. Mikhail Botvinnik, Tigran Petrosian, Anatoly Karpov, Garry Kasparov and Magnus Carlsen employed it during their world championship matches. Bobby Fischer created a stir when he switched to it from his customary 1.e4 late in his career, employing it against Lev Polugaevsky and Oscar Panno at the Palma de Mallorca Interzonal in 1970 and in his 1972 world championship match against Boris Spassky.
I do look for openings where I can overturn popular misconceptions, but unlike Christopher Hitchens, I am neither a contrarian nor a lone heretic. I like to have a significant number of academics watching my back.
I have no idea what are you talking about.Are you talking about 1.d4?
Yes, compared to 1.c4.
jengaias wrote:
SaintGermain32105 wrote:
jengaias wrote:
SaintGermain32105 wrote:
It is now recognised as a solid opening that may be used to reach both classical and hypermodern positions. Mikhail Botvinnik, Tigran Petrosian, Anatoly Karpov, Garry Kasparov and Magnus Carlsen employed it during their world championship matches. Bobby Fischer created a stir when he switched to it from his customary 1.e4 late in his career, employing it against Lev Polugaevsky and Oscar Panno at the Palma de Mallorca Interzonal in 1970 and in his 1972 world championship match against Boris Spassky.
I do look for openings where I can overturn popular misconceptions, but unlike Christopher Hitchens, I am neither a contrarian nor a lone heretic. I like to have a significant number of academics watching my back.
I have no idea what are you talking about.Are you talking about 1.d4?
Yes, compared to 1.c4.
Both 1.d4 and 1.c4 are recognised as "solid" openings that can lead to classical and hyperomodern positions since the days of Reti and Nimzowitch.Not "now".Unless "now" means "the last 100 years"
Possibly true, but not as much as 1.c4 and 1.Nf3. The 1.Nf3 player can embark in almost anything. Say for instance the sequence 1.Nf3 d6 2.e4 e5 ( c5 ).
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 b6 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.Nc3 Be7 6.O-O O-O 7.Re1
I don't think so.
Someone says "play the Queen's Indian defense" and you say "I don't think so" giving a line that is not Queen's Indian defense.
Are you sure you take the right meds?
We can always call the police. Your insinuations are for people who want to go to prison. Shall we? It's called the Anglo-Indian.
So how the Anglo Indian is relevant with the Queen's Indian?And why it's a reason not to play Queen's Indian?Is that a refutation or something?
Yeah, the Petroff is refuting to play a myriad of other lines as well, and I'm not playing it. I'm not playing the London either. lol
http://tws27.weebly.com/goring-gambit.html
Speaking of refutations.