Q+A for beginners(and everyone else)

Sort:
wollyhood

*feels like she will learn something from the answer to this question at #362

 

smartbryce

How do you play king of the hill?

Trexler3241

What should I play as Black?

GM_CharggiSparlove

Are you ready to beaten over the chessboard right now?

KeSetoKaiba

In the Queen's Gambit Declined after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 I choose to play the exchange variation with 4.cxd5 out of repertoire and me liking the positions that arise from this setup. My question has to do with the move 4.cxd5 right away: is it preferable to keep the pawn tension longer? Most GMs I know of would prefer to keep tension and "keep the complications" and I would be okay doing the same. However, other GMs like GM Lars Schandorff recommend the exchange variation (in Schandorff's book "Playing The Queen's Gambit") as a repertoire choice. Clearly both the exchange variation and the lines keeping the pawn tension are "mainlines" and with deep theory behind them - but are both solid choices. 

My question is: "Would you recommend me keeping the tension longer than simply exchanging right away (which still often leaves White slightly better due to the pawn structure and center)?" I currently play the Queen's Gambit exchange lines with White out of repertoire, but I've also had a few experimental off-hand games where I keep the pawn tension longer. Should I alter my repertoire to maintain the pawn tension, or are both lines equally strong against a human player? 

p.s. rychessmaster1 and other strong players probably know this, but I'll note it for everyone one else reading this forum: The exchange variation of the Queen's Gambit is renowned for giving White the ever so slight plus in almost all lines, but keeping the pawn tension in the center longer exchanges less off of the board and keeps more complications (which often times will favor the stronger player). White doesn't fear ...dxc4 because Black gives up the center and White either gets the pawn back in many theoretical lines, or simply takes the initiative as compensation for the pawn. This ...dxc4 is especially good for White if ...b5 can't be played to secure the pawn (but even if ...b5 does come in, then White has a4 to counter and many other strong lines from it). The idea is that Black usually won't ever take with ...dxc4 and so the pawn tension favors White as well. 

I guess ultimately, I'm asking, "Is keeping the pawn tension a stronger option, or is the exchange stronger (or equally as strong)?" "Are these similar openings so different that they are essentially treated as different (but equally good) options?" "Or finally, is keeping the pawn tension really stronger, or is it just betting that the opponent will slip up in the complications?"

wollyhood
KeSetoKaiba wrote:

In the Queen's Gambit Declined after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 I choose to play the exchange variation with 4.cxd5 out of repertoire and me liking the positions that arise from this setup. My question has to do with the move 4.cxd5 right away: is it preferable to keep the pawn tension longer? Most GMs I know of would prefer to keep tension and "keep the complications" and I would be okay doing the same. However, other GMs like GM Lars Schandorff recommend the exchange variation (in Schandorff's book "Playing The Queen's Gambit") as a repertoire choice. Clearly both the exchange variation and the lines keeping the pawn tension are "mainlines" and with deep theory behind them - but are both solid choices. 

My question is: "Would you recommend me keeping the tension longer than simply exchanging right away (which still often leaves White slightly better due to the pawn structure and center)?" I currently play the Queen's Gambit exchange lines with White out of repertoire, but I've also had a few experimental off-hand games where I keep the pawn tension longer. Should I alter my repertoire to maintain the pawn tension, or are both lines equally strong against a human player? 

p.s. rychessmaster1 and other strong players probably know this, but I'll note it for everyone one else reading this forum: The exchange variation of the Queen's Gambit is renowned for giving White the ever so slight plus in almost all lines, but keeping the pawn tension in the center longer exchanges less off of the board and keeps more complications (which often times will favor the stronger player). White doesn't fear ...dxc4 because Black gives up the center and White either gets the pawn back in many theoretical lines, or simply takes the initiative as compensation for the pawn. This ...dxc4 is especially good for White if ...b5 can't be played to secure the pawn (but even if ...b5 does come in, then White has a4 to counter and many other strong lines from it). The idea is that Black usually won't ever take with ...dxc4 and so the pawn tension favors White as well. 

I guess ultimately, I'm asking, "Is keeping the pawn tension a stronger option, or is the exchange stronger (or equally as strong)?" "Are these similar openings so different that they are essentially treated as different (but equally good) options?" "Or finally, is keeping the pawn tension really stronger, or is it just betting that the opponent will slip up in the complications?"

Thanks very much for your question, I could really follow 90% of it and will find the response very interesting. Just one question, what exactly is meant by your phrase "  out of repertoire "? Am very new sorry.

KeSetoKaiba
wollyhood wrote:
KeSetoKaiba wrote:

In the Queen's Gambit Declined after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 I choose to play the exchange variation with 4.cxd5 out of repertoire and me liking the positions that arise from this setup. My question has to do with the move 4.cxd5 right away: is it preferable to keep the pawn tension longer? Most GMs I know of would prefer to keep tension and "keep the complications" and I would be okay doing the same. However, other GMs like GM Lars Schandorff recommend the exchange variation (in Schandorff's book "Playing The Queen's Gambit") as a repertoire choice. Clearly both the exchange variation and the lines keeping the pawn tension are "mainlines" and with deep theory behind them - but are both solid choices. 

My question is: "Would you recommend me keeping the tension longer than simply exchanging right away (which still often leaves White slightly better due to the pawn structure and center)?" I currently play the Queen's Gambit exchange lines with White out of repertoire, but I've also had a few experimental off-hand games where I keep the pawn tension longer. Should I alter my repertoire to maintain the pawn tension, or are both lines equally strong against a human player? 

p.s. rychessmaster1 and other strong players probably know this, but I'll note it for everyone one else reading this forum: The exchange variation of the Queen's Gambit is renowned for giving White the ever so slight plus in almost all lines, but keeping the pawn tension in the center longer exchanges less off of the board and keeps more complications (which often times will favor the stronger player). White doesn't fear ...dxc4 because Black gives up the center and White either gets the pawn back in many theoretical lines, or simply takes the initiative as compensation for the pawn. This ...dxc4 is especially good for White if ...b5 can't be played to secure the pawn (but even if ...b5 does come in, then White has a4 to counter and many other strong lines from it). The idea is that Black usually won't ever take with ...dxc4 and so the pawn tension favors White as well. 

I guess ultimately, I'm asking, "Is keeping the pawn tension a stronger option, or is the exchange stronger (or equally as strong)?" "Are these similar openings so different that they are essentially treated as different (but equally good) options?" "Or finally, is keeping the pawn tension really stronger, or is it just betting that the opponent will slip up in the complications?"

Thanks very much for your question, I could really follow 90% of it and will find the response very interesting. Just one question, what exactly is meant by your phrase "  out of repertoire "? Am very new sorry.

Oh that's okay. Obviously, there are many openings a chess player must know how to handle because they don't know which one the opponent will try out on them. It would be a real challenge to try and discover such a counter in the game, so that is what pre-game-study is all about. Why try and figure it out on the spot if you can simply learn opening theory beforehand? 

"out of repertoire" simply means your pre-selected choice based on what your study and analysis reveals. For instance, if my opponent plays 1.e4 then most players already know they will play ...e5 in response (or ...c5 or whatever was chosen beforehand). In this example ...e5 is the "repertoire choice" against 1.e4 - the only difference is that usually repertoires refer to deep lines and variations versus a single move. It just means that I've studied the resulting positions and prefer move x over y, but didn't need to think it up in the spot. In my question, the exchange variation of the Queen's Gambit is my pre-selected move choice for that position if it arises, but I am curious to hear if that is also the recommendation of the original poster if I play the Queen's Gambit. 

wollyhood

Ahhhh excellent ! Thanks very much for the explanation. I will try and remember repertoire as acceptable-classical-theory-based-check-on-a-move/deepline.

I just watched / helped a computer win (lol because I had to take back moves and ask for hints) against another computer with the out of repertoire example you gave in your OP. I like your way as it is more attacky.

Right I see you are interested in how closely the OPer is following repertoire based on what you know of their style of play.

KeSetoKaiba
rychessmaster1 wrote:
#374
I play the QGD regularly, and I play 4. Bg5 and keep the pawn tension for three or four moves. But 4. cxd5 is equally good

Sounds good - thanks for the response happy.png

KeSetoKaiba

 

KeSetoKaiba
rychessmaster1 wrote:
#380 I have no idea

lol - all right thanks; I have no idea either. Sometimes databases do odd things wink.png

Trexler3241

Doesn’t 1.Bxh3 draw? (Look at the computer analysis)

KeSetoKaiba

In post #384, I am not sure what computer engine you used that said this was a draw. The chess.com quick analysis by stockfish claimed almost instantly that Black is crushing. After Bxh3, the computer recommends ...g3, but practically every possible move or line is winning for Black.

Trexler3241

If black starts with a king move or Bishop move, white just moves his king to f2-f1-g1-h1.

So the computer engine moves on this...

N_Nikunj

if our opponent play very aggressively then how should we can handle this situation?

KeSetoKaiba

 

Trexler3241

“Computer10 Elo 1748”

IMKeto
N_Nikunj wrote:

if our opponent play very aggressively then how should we can handle this situation?

Again....unless you post an example of what "aggressively" is, no one can answer this correctly.

KeSetoKaiba
Trexler3241 wrote:

“Computer10 Elo 1748”

When playing the computer in analysis mode, 10 is the highest rating I can find so that is why I played against level 10. I think you're confusing computer level to the ratings when you play in live chess. In live chess, the highest computer level is 20 and level 10 is only rated 1748, but in analysis mode (where I played), I think level 10 is the highest computer level. 

If you can find how I can play a stronger engine from this position, then I will instead. Personally, I think the whole thing is just a farce, regardless of my ability in the endgame; Black looks clearly better in the posted position. As long as Black is patient and knows what they are doing, I believe that the conversion to a win is really easy for Black. Trexler3241, perhaps if you let the engine run longer it will correct itself - I find it hard to believe that this is a draw if played properly. 

 

krazykat1975

Is playing Sicilian white more powerful or effective then playing e4?