Good Grief...
Well, you were talking as if giving away that Pawn was automatically advantageous to White.
It isn't. It wins time (by luring the Bishop to the vulnerable b4 square) and allows White to quickly build a center with c3 and d4.
If Black plays 3. ... Bb4, White gets those advantages WITHOUT the need to give up a Pawn.
Is 1.e4 e5 2.nc3 nf6 3.bc4 bb4 4.c3 a very poor defense for black, in other words black is left with a very poor defense?
Yes.
You still haven't told us what you hope to accomplish with 3. ... Bb4.
What do you hope to achieve with the move?
Why is it poorly defended?
Is 1.e4 e5 2.nc3 nf6 3.bc4 bb4 4.c3 a very poor defense for black, in other words black is left with a very poor defense?
Yes.
You still haven't told us what you hope to accomplish with 3. ... Bb4.
What do you hope to achieve with the move?
Why is it poorly defended?
Because White gains all the advantages that a gambit could offer him... superior development, superior center, gain of time by chasing the exposed Bishop... without the need to gambit any material; while Black gains nothing in return.
You STILL haven't offered any supporting lines or ideas for Black in this variation.
Good Grief...
Well, you were talking as if giving away that Pawn was automatically advantageous to White.
It isn't. It wins time (by luring the Bishop to the vulnerable b4 square) and allows White to quickly build a center with c3 and d4.
If Black plays 3. ... Bb4, White gets those advantages WITHOUT the need to give up a Pawn.
A missing b-pawn gives increased activity at the expense of central control.
Having the b-pawn still present gives reduced activity than the Evans gambit, albeit with increased central control.
Both wins time.
Good Grief...
Well, you were talking as if giving away that Pawn was automatically advantageous to White.
It isn't. It wins time (by luring the Bishop to the vulnerable b4 square) and allows White to quickly build a center with c3 and d4.
If Black plays 3. ... Bb4, White gets those advantages WITHOUT the need to give up a Pawn.
A missing b-pawn gives increased activity at the expense of central control.
Having the b-pawn still present gives reduced activity than the Evans gambit, albeit with increased central control.
Both wins time.
You seem to be saying that "all other things being equal", the two lines are fairly even. But all other things aren't equal.
Your analysis ignores the fact that WHITE IS A PAWN DOWN in one of those lines, but not in the other. The game doesn't end in the opening (unless Black messes up completely).
Is 1.e4 e5 2.nc3 nf6 3.bc4 bb4 4.c3 a very poor defense for black, in other words black is left with a very poor defense?
Yes.
You still haven't told us what you hope to accomplish with 3. ... Bb4.
What do you hope to achieve with the move?
Why is it poorly defended?
Because White gains all the advantages that a gambit could offer him... superior development, superior center, gain of time by chasing the exposed Bishop... without the need to gambit any material; while Black gains nothing in return.
You STILL haven't offered any supporting lines or ideas for Black in this variation.
Greco attacked prematurely instead of fully developing his pieces yet was still able to take advantage of his opponents having a poor defense, does a poor defense always require worse development than your opponents, considering that Greco still attacked prematurely and succeeded due to his opponent having bad defenses yet greco failed to develop properly.
Good Grief...
Well, you were talking as if giving away that Pawn was automatically advantageous to White.
It isn't. It wins time (by luring the Bishop to the vulnerable b4 square) and allows White to quickly build a center with c3 and d4.
If Black plays 3. ... Bb4, White gets those advantages WITHOUT the need to give up a Pawn.
A missing b-pawn gives increased activity at the expense of central control.
Having the b-pawn still present gives reduced activity than the Evans gambit, albeit with increased central control.
Both wins time.
You seem to be saying that "all other things being equal", the two lines are fairly even. But all other things aren't equal.
Your analysis ignores the fact that WHITE IS A PAWN DOWN in one of those lines, but not in the other. The game doesn't end in the opening (unless Black messes up completely).
Does the activity advantage remain well into the middlegame?
Greco attacked prematurely instead of fully developing his pieces yet was still able to take advantage of his opponents having a poor defense, does a poor defense always require worse development than your opponents, considering that Greco still attacked prematurely and succeeded due to his opponent having bad defenses yet greco failed to develop properly.
In the first place, Greco's play is known only from the games that he published in his manuscripts. In other words, we only see the games that he decided to preserve in writing... which means that we only see what he wanted us to see.
In the second place, Greco's games (in the manuscripts) are widely suspected to be compositions, rather than actual play against real opponents.
In the third place, he was so much stronger than his contemporaries that he could probably have beaten them regardless of what he played.
In answer to your question... no, a poor defense does not always require inferior development. Development is only one factor, and is only really important in open positions. A bad defense MIGHT involve poor development, or it might involve an organic weakness (a backward or isolated Pawn, for example), or unnecessary loss of material, or some other factor.
- Does the activity advantage remain well into the middlegame?
The missing b-Pawn only gives increased activity to the Bishop as long as it remains on its home square. As soon as it moves, the missing b-Pawn no longer benefits the Bishop at all.
The open b-file for the Rook? Who puts their Rook on b1 in the Evans? Dispersing your pressure all across the board is a good way to lose your advantage completely. Pressure should be focused on important points.
Greco attacked prematurely instead of fully developing his pieces yet was still able to take advantage of his opponents having a poor defense, does a poor defense always require worse development than your opponents, considering that Greco still attacked prematurely and succeeded due to his opponent having bad defenses yet greco failed to develop properly.
In the first place, Greco's play is known only from the games that he published in his manuscripts. In other words, we only see the games that he decided to preserve in writing... which means that we only see what he wanted us to see.
In the second place, Greco's games (in the manuscripts) are widely suspected to be compositions, rather than actual play against real opponents.
In the third place, he was so much stronger than his contemporaries that he could probably have beaten them regardless of what he played.
In answer to your question... no, a poor defense does not always require inferior development. Development is only one factor, and is only really important in open positions. A bad defense MIGHT involve poor development, or it might involve an organic weakness (a backward or isolated Pawn, for example), or unnecessary loss of material, or some other factor.
- Does the activity advantage remain well into the middlegame?
The missing b-Pawn only gives increased activity to the Bishop as long as it remains on its home square. As soon as it moves, the missing b-Pawn no longer benefits the Bishop at all.
The open b-file for the Rook? Who puts their Rook on b1 in the Evans? Dispersing your pressure all across the board is a good way to lose your advantage completely. Pressure should be focused on important points.
Is 1.e4 e5 2.nc3 nf6 3bc4 bb4 4.c3 open or closed?
Is 1.e4 e5 2.nc3 nf6 3bc4 bb4 4.c3 open or closed?
The opening hasn't yet resolved into a position that can be considered either open or closed.
But the general rule is that superior development is increasingly important the more open the position is. In a position that has open lines for both Bishops and Rooks, development is quite important. In a blocked position (for example, a King's Indian Defense where the center Pawns are locked), superior development might mean very little.
Is 1.e4 e5 2.nc3 nf6 3bc4 bb4 4.c3 open or closed?
The opening hasn't yet resolved into a position that can be considered either open or closed.
But the general rule is that superior development is increasingly important the more open the position is. In a position that has open lines for both Bishops and Rooks, development is quite important. In a blocked position (for example, a King's Indian Defense where the center Pawns are locked), superior development might mean very little.
Is black able to keep the position closed?
Is black able to keep the position closed?
It's a lot harder to do so after 3. ... Bb4.
Consider this line:
Is black able to keep the position closed?
It's a lot harder to do so after 3. ... Bb4.
Consider this line:
So in other words the line discussed in this thread is bad for black because black is unable to keep the position closed and instead ends up in an open position where white is superior in development.
3. ... Bb4 commits Black to losing time (after 4. c3) which wouldn't be all that serious if the position could be kept closed.
But you still haven't offered any positive reasons for playing 3. ... Bb4. Why accept the loss of time if you gain nothing in return (compared to moves like Bc5 or Be7 instead of Bb4).
If you don't like the Fried Liver, then 3. ... Be7 is a perfectly acceptable alternative for Black.
3. ... Bb4 commits Black to losing time (after 4. c3) which wouldn't be all that serious if the position could be kept closed.
But you still haven't offered any positive reasons for playing 3. ... Bb4. Why accept the loss of time if you gain nothing in return (compared to moves like Bc5 or Be7 instead of Bb4).
If you don't like the Fried Liver, then 3. ... Be7 is a perfectly acceptable alternative for Black.
What is the best way to take advantage of having superior development in an open position?
Generally speaking, you need a superiority of two pieces to launch a combination. So if the opponent has one defender in the target area, you would need three attackers. This is just a rough rule of thumb, but it usually works. Then you look for tactics... pins, forks, skewers, overloads, decoying and diverting operations, etc.
A few examples:
From an over-the-board tournament in the Canadian Maritimes:
Another over-the-board game:
Generally speaking, you need a superiority of two pieces to launch a combination. So if the opponent has one defender in the target area, you would need three attackers. This is just a rough rule of thumb, but it usually works. Then you look for tactics... pins, forks, skewers, overloads, decoying and diverting operations, etc.
A few examples:
From an over-the-board tournament in the Canadian Maritimes:
Another over-the-board game:
So in an open position having inferior development leads to the side with inferior development losing material due to their being not enough pieces defending?
Typically, being too far behind in development in an open position can lead to the opponent having a local superiority great enough to launch a combination.
Not always, though. Each position is individual and concrete... this is what makes chess so hard: no "general rule" is absolute. With the proper Pawn structure... a Scheveningen center duo, for example... you can be appallingly far behind in development and still have a playable game.
Typically, being too far behind in development in an open position can lead to the opponent having a local superiority great enough to launch a combination.
Not always, though. Each position is individual and concrete... this is what makes chess so hard: no "general rule" is absolute. With the proper Pawn structure... a Scheveningen center duo, for example... you can be appallingly far behind in development and still have a playable game.
Which types of pawn structures enable a position to still be playable despite being behind in development in an open position?
Put it this way...
The Evans Gambit:
The Evans gambit isn't equal, it's imbalanced.
The Evans gambit is a pawn down compared to the other line, although the Evans gambit has a space advantage.
My point is that in the line you've offered, White gets ALL the advantages that the Evans Gambit offers WITHOUT sacrificing a Pawn. In effect, he's playing an Evans Gambit, a Pawn up.
In the Big Database (with players of all strengths included), the Evans scores 47.3% White wins, 18.9% draws, and 33.8% Black wins. Total: 56.75% for White.
In the Small Database (Master games only), Black does better (30/38/32, total 52% for Black) but those numbers are still well inside the "Equal" range.
The line you suggest (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bb4) scores 74.6% White wins, 10% draws and only 16.6% Black wins. Total: 79.4% for White. It isn't in the Masters database at all, since it's so obviously a bad move.
The missing pawn in the Evans gambit is also it's greatest strength, the line I have shown with the pawn still being there as opposed to its absence plays differently to the Evans gambit.
The fact that the Evans gambit is missing a pawn gives it a space advantage as well as an activity advantage that 1.e4 e5 2.nf3 nc6 3.bc4 bb4 4.c3 doesn't have, therefore it isn't necessarily superior to the Evans gambit for white.
Pawns determine space advantage. The missing b-pawn does not add to whites space advantage, The missing b-pawn gives white potential piece activity due to the semi open b-file.
So you recommend giving away all your Pawns?
Not all gambits offer increased activity, although lots do.
Being a pawn down dimishes central control, as having less pawns makes it harder to control the centre, being the Evans gambit's major downside.