lol London bridge is falling down, falling down, falling down!
Who plays Grunfeld and why is it awesome?
Sort:
There is actually a recognised gambit in the Bf4 line.
The modern players like ...Na6. However ...Bf5 and ...Nc6 have also been played, leads to quite sharp play
White apparently needs to be vewy vewy careful otherwise he/she walks the plank. gulp!
I am really struggling to find anything in the Grunfeld setup v The London. If we allow the following which can transpire after many move orders, its really difficult for black to get anything.
Some things are worthy of note.
1. Black needs to do something about the c pawn, white can capture and its not very easy for black to get it back. I personally don't like pushing c4, it leads to a stodgy lock up of the queen side.
2. Blacks Queens bishop has nothing really useful to do.
3. White can play Ne5 and as far as I can tell exchanges on e5 never really benefit black.
Any ideas most appreciated.
I had an epiphany last night as i was searching through endless variations trying to find something for black against the dreaded London system utilising a Grunfeld setup. It turns out dear chess friends that its little more than the Caro Kann exchange variation if black decides to take on d4. check it out.
Now as you know I am a patzer, some would say hopeless patzer, never the less it strikes me as being entirely playable for black with the ideas of attempting to play for e5 with moves like ....Nh5 and ...Qc7 or launching a minority attack on the Queenside? if you know anything about it please let it be known.
Against the London, the system suggested by Kiril Georgiev looks fine and easy to play:
Black wants to play ...Qc8, swap light squared bishops via a6, and then push on the queenside.
Of course there are many fine details and move-order specific adjustements, but they are all covered in Georgiev's "Anti-London" book.
Thanks IM pfren, I looked at all those ...b6 ...Bb7 lines but concluded that after Ne5 the best for black was ...Nfd7, I did not consider ....Qc8 to b honest, I like the positions after ...cxd and entering into the Caro Kann exchange, infact I like semi open positions generally. Will check out these ideas for sure.
robbie_1969 wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
I behave myself perfectly.
Conceptually:
3...d5, 4. cxd5 - trades semi-central c for central black d pawn, bad
4...Nxd5 5. e4 - gains tempo by kicking the black knight, bad
Black is playing black, bad.
Ohhh Lyudo, really? Chess is just not that simple. Yes we trade a central pawn for a wing pawn but what do we get in return, a weakened white queenside. How this could have escaped your keen powers of observations and almost superhuman analytical skills I cannot say.
Whites queenside pawns are weakened, considerably so and we can play against these weaknesses, all for exchanging a central pawn for a wing pawn. Is say that's good business.
I certainly know much more factors than you, so only you could be wrong.
13. dxe5 in your posted game is a big mistake.
13. d5 instead gives white SOLID advantage.
The proof the Gruenfeld is weak is very simple:
1) Ernst was a weak player
2) reversing colours, the white Gruenfeld, 1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 c5 3. Bg2 Nc6 4. d4 is favouring ONLY black after 4...cxd4 5. Nxd4 e5, by at least 15-20cps, I guess top engines will be able to confirm this, so how could the black side of this be good with a tempo LESS?
Does not make sense, does it?
So, it is again the usual routine - people stick to something and that is it.
I am one of the few people who really think, unfortunately.
And then, if the Reversed Gruenfeld is that good, why NO ONE ever plays it?
Why other openings with white are strongly preferred?
Think a bit, man.
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
I certainly know much more factors than you, so only you could be wrong.
13. dxe5 in your posted game is a big mistake.
13. d5 instead gives white SOLID advantage.
The proof the Gruenfeld is weak is very simple:
1) Ernst was a weak player
2) reversing colours, the white Gruenfeld, 1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 c5 3. Bg2 Nc6 4. d4 is favouring ONLY black after 4...cxd4 5. Nxd4 e5, by at least 15-20cps, I guess top engines will be able to confirm this, so how could the black side of this be good with a tempo LESS?
Does not make sense, does it?
So, it is again the usual routine - people stick to something and that is it.
I am one of the few people who really think, unfortunately.
And then, if the Reversed Gruenfeld is that good, why NO ONE ever plays it?
Why other openings with white are strongly preferred?
Think a bit, man.
It makes absolutely no sense. I am a human, I don't care about centi-pawns, I care about strategic concepts. If you cannot understand this what hope is there for you?
MetalRatel wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
robbie_1969 wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
3...d5 is TOO early and a big mistake.
Ceding around 15-20cps evaluation advantage at least.
Add to that the 15-30cps first move white advantage, and, with optimal play, the Gruenfeld is ON THE EDGE of losing for black.
Not quite, but almost.
Troll or not troll, 3...d5 is a bad move and one day, with much stronger engines and deeper analysis that will become evident.
Do people really think all openings could be equivalent?
Please behave yourself Lyudo. I am not a computer. I do not think or play chess like a computer. I am human. A 10-30 cps means nothing to me, absolutely nothing. Plans and conceptual ideas though I find very interesting. As I will not be playing much against computers because I already know I cannot beat them I would appreciate some human analysis.
The empirical evidence is that among humans its a perfectly fine and respectable opening leading to double edged positions which are very exciting.
I behave myself perfectly.
Conceptually:
3...d5, 4. cxd5 - trades semi-central c for central black d pawn, bad
4...Nxd5 5. e4 - gains tempo by kicking the black knight, bad
Black is playing black, bad.
3 small white advantages add up, bad.
Overall, a very neat conceptual framework.
I would abstain from playing the Gruenfeld, unless drunk.
?
Do you have a specific line in mind? I mean it's not like we're analyzing a tactical opening as heavily analyzed by engines as the Grunfeld, but at least - oh n/m we are...
Seriously though, what do you think is best path forward? I suppose I would favor the modern Be3 lines, but maybe you like the Classical. White has a big center - well yes, that is obvious. If Black can trade on c3, I don't consider this a tempo loss. Black has interesting dynamics in return for White's classical center. This opening is a headache for top players - well maybe you want to keep your secrets...
Not at all, just I am unable to post lines and diagrams now, takes too much time and I am very busy.
Look at top engine games, at TCEC and different tournaments in the Classical - 70%+ white performance, that is a lot.
White simply pushes a pawn to d5, and black should resign shortly, the pressure is too big.
That is the value of the numbers in my book - a central d5/e5 pawn is worth too much in the middlegame, especially when it is defended.
This is only confirmed by engines.
Reverse the opening for white, and black will still be better.
You really think such an opening could be good?
Of course, refuting each and every variation is a difficult task.
Other advantage for black Gruenfeld players is that, when they play the Gruenfeld, they will be prepared for it, while white players starting with 1. d4 might not.
That might somewhat distort human statistics.
Again, look at TCEC, CCRL games, etc., huge white prevalence.
I also think top engines play this line very good, the Classical I mean, so, if you want a good pattern to see, you might simply replay those games.
The position here is mostly open, so engine understand it rather well.
The last thing I will be looking at is engine games, I do not play or think like a chess engine and neither do most of my opponents.
As if we were few, grandma gave birth.
robbie_1969 wrote:
On some further investigation I think I can dismiss the ...Bg4 lines, they are simply too volatile and in my measly opinion anti positional giving white super attacking chances just for the exchange. If you check them with a chess engine you will see that black is doing fine, but its not that simple at the board.
White gives up the exchange but with the dark squared bishop gone gets a pretty raging attack and it will take good defence to withstand it. If black does withstand it then he/she probably stands better, but it takes nerves of steel.
I don't think this exchange sac is necessary.
White has some better options and should push d4-d5 without saccing anything.
White enjoys large evaluation advantage, no doubt about this.
Why would I play a line, where I am significantly worse?
pfren wrote:
IToldCha έγραψε:
Something went wrong in this game. Black didn't made the best move to convert his advantage.
I myself prefer Nbd7 which allows me to put a knight on e4.
Apparently lost on time on a flat equal position, and somewhere around move 40 white was completely winning. Say instead of the greedy 48.Nxd5 white could play 48.a6 Qxe3+ 49.Kh1 Qxc3 50.Nc2 when the game is over.
On the contrary, black missed to win at least 17 times.
SmyslovFan wrote:
You do realize, don't you, that when your opponent makes different moves, an opening rarely keeps the same name. For example, if you play "the French" 1...e6 and 2...d5 against 1.d4 and 2.c4, it's no longer the French. Same with the Grunfeld.
Indeed, this is already not a Gruenfeld, but a kingside fianchetto subline in the Colle/London.
Still, the setup is very good for black.
robbie_1969 wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
You do realize, don't you, that when your opponent makes different moves, an opening rarely keeps the same name. For example, if you play "the French" 1...e6 and 2...d5 against 1.d4 and 2.c4, it's no longer the French. Same with the Grunfeld.
Yes but we are not so much interested in names as the juxtaposition of the chess men. Even if an opening is reached through transposition it makes little difference if it came from the English or some Queen pawn opening.
But there is NO transposition here, this is simply a DIFFERENT opening.
Man, I should get back to this forum, when people learn some good openings.
Pulpofeira wrote:
IM Angus Dunnington favours 4. Bf4 in his book "Attacking with 1. d4".
Yeah, but that concedes at least 20cps advantage.
Capablanca was far from perfect, of course.
People FREQUENTLY prefer positions that suit them best rather than which are objectively best.
robbie_1969 wrote:
I am really struggling to find anything in the Grunfeld setup v The London. If we allow the following which can transpire after many move orders, its really difficult for black to get anything.
Some things are worthy of note.
1. Black needs to do something about the c pawn, white can capture and its not very easy for black to get it back. I personally don't like pushing c4, it leads to a stodgy lock up of the queen side.
2. Blacks Queens bishop has nothing really useful to do.
3. White can play Ne5 and as far as I can tell exchanges on e5 never really benefit black.
Any ideas most appreciated.
Well, in above line of yours instead of Nc6, 7...Nh5 wins you the bishop:
- 8. Bg5 h6 9. Bh4 g5 10. Bg3 Nxg3
- or 8. Be5 f6
Black is left much better.
actually the drawback of 7...Nh5 when black has already played ...c5 is that its not very easy for black to regain the pawn. e.g. 7...Nh5 8.Bxb8 Rxb8 and 9.dxc5, you did evaluate this line, right?
Now its rather self evident that white has pressure on d5 and tactical threats against the unprotected a7 pawn as well as an extra pawn that will be difficult for black to get back.
Probably it was a blunder? Maybe it was too early to agree a draw, but he was a nice guy. The thing I don't like about online chess is you can't go to have some beers after. Also, I was about to burn a shirt and someone would make a fuss about it, if you call making a fuss to rip my head off.