Bg5 no good here? I was thinking of the Richter Rauzer when I played it

ToastyPosition

IF YOU ARE READING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME, WE HAVE ALREADY COVERED Bg5 NOT BEING GOOD. IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD FROM MOVE 10, PLEASE SHARE. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE.

 

I know it's not the same and would love to hear how it is different in that Bg5 is not a good move. A game I played months ago had someone comment that the Nf6 pawn could go to d5. So, the plan was to remove that possibility. Important or no? 

 

I'll focus on that position and anything in the game up until 16. e5 you see I should have done differently, please let me know. Thanks in advance.

 

 

blueemu

What are the crucial differences between Bg5 in the Richter-Rauzer and Bg5 in your game position?

In the Open Sicilian, White has traded off his d-Pawn for Black's c-Pawn. So Black has an important trump in the center... two center Pawns against one (both d- and e-Pawns vs an e-Pawn and a flank Pawn). In return White has trumps of his own such as faster development, more space control, an open d-file pointing at the important d5-square, and a centralized Knight.

Black's Pawn majority in the center makes the d5 square a critical square in the Open Sicilian. If Black were able to safely play d6-d5 (without incurring any other disadvantage) and trade off his d-Pawn for White's e-Pawn, then Black would be left with one center Pawn against NONE.

So both players will be battling for dominance on the d5 square in the Open Sicilian, and White's Bg5 move (pressuring the f6-Knight) fits into this plan.

So much for the Open Sicilian. Now, to consider your game position:

Black has no central majority of Pawns, since the d4-move was never played. White has no open d-file, and has traded off his light-squared Bishop. So his pressure on d5 is both less relevant and less powerful. 

What, then, is the point of Bg5 in this position? What is it supposed to accomplish, aside from exposing the Bishop to a possible exchange?

Also, this position has more in common with a Closed Ruy Lopez than it has with the Open Sicilian. Instead of looking for themes in the Sicilian that might work in this position, you should be looking for any Ruy Lopez themes that might be applicable... such as Re1 and transferring the b1-Knight through d2 and f1 to either g3 or e3. Another possibility is to play Re1 and arrange a d3-d4 push.

From that point of view... looking for parallels with the Ruy Lopez rather than with the Open Sicilian... the move 8. Be3 looks like the first mistake. The Bishop has no particular role at this point, and should just be left on c1 until the position clarifies. Either 8. c3, 8. h3 or 8. Re1 looks better.

ArtNJ

The points Blueemu raises are advanced ones, but the basic point that its sometimes ok to wait and see on that bishop is useful and easy to absorb.  There is an even simpler point as well.  If you had stuck to one bishop move on move 8, either be3 or bg5 would have been ok, if not optimal.  However, you played BOTH bishop moves.  Black was always going to play be7, so there was no reason to first play be3 and then bg5.  You flat out wasted a move; you had already developed that bishop.  

ajl721

Be3 was perfectly fine until you moved it again to g5. It was already developed and black could take its sweet time. It's good you saw the problem with e5.

blueemu
ajl721 wrote:

Be3 was perfectly fine...

Be3 requires h3 to prevent its exchange, and it also blocks the e-file so that Re1 no longer protects the e4-Pawn. This inhibits the d3-d4 push. Basically, putting the Bishop on e3 involves White in a number of commitments (must prevent Ng4, must find a way to guard e4 before playing d3-d4) while providing few benefits (the Bishop on e3 is not needed in order to play d3-d4 anyway).

The move is probably playable, yes. But is it good? What FOR?

I am not a fan of purely cosmetic development... of moving your pieces off the back rank just so that they LOOK developed. Each developed piece should play a role in the game. Otherwise, they might as well stay home.

king5minblitz119147

when you went for the bishop exchange on d7 you sort of narrowed your choice to either playing c3 d4 center type or c4 d4 type of positions. it is still playable to go for d4 cd, nxd4 positions but then there would be little point in exchanging bishops if you wanted a full fight in an open sicilian. in the c3 d4 type of center, you don't see the bc1 going anywhere anytime soon as it doesn't need to. in the c4, d4 cxd4, bind type of center it is usually on b2, or sometimes on e3, and rarely on g5 unless bxf6 wins the d5 square permanently or leaves black with a useless dark squared bishop vs a knight. you'd have to look at some gm games to get an idea of where the pieces go. what i know is that when you go for bxd7, you either go for c3 d4, or c4, and d4 later going for a bind, but also there are some subtleties in that you want to see if black will go bg7 or be7 and then choose the most annoying setup. c3 usually works against bg7 and c4 against be7. maybe right now you don't need all the subtle stuff but if you plan to keep playing this way it can't be bad to know some subtleties. you do have to be tactically strong enough to be able to wield them though. tactics is sort of your key to everything. you need it regardless of what style you want to play.

ToastyPosition

I don't know why they start us out at 1000 or 1200 in blitz and rapid but say we are 800 in daily. I feel I am more like a 1300-1400 player on chess.com, and on a good day I might throw out some 1500 moves. 


With that said, I was playing someone rated ~1684, almost 400 points higher than my average. So, the decision to trade LSBs was to simply learn from a higher level player how they would handle things. For example, they threw out this Na5 move I wasn't sure about. Stockfish doesn't seem to hate it, but it didn't seem like it accomplished much on its own. White's bad moves gave it a chance to get the DSB and simplify a position with at least an advantage. So, I would be curious what master or higher rated games incorporate this Na5 without the white move mistakes.

 

If I were playing a 1000-1400 rated player, I probably would have played 6. Nc3 with d4 in mind next. 

Marco
blueemu wrote:
ajl721 wrote:

Be3 was perfectly fine...

Be3 requires h3 to prevent its exchange, and it also blocks the e-file so that Re1 no longer protects the e4-Pawn. This inhibits the d3-d4 push. Basically, putting the Bishop on e3 involves White in a number of commitments (must prevent Ng4, must find a way to guard e4 before playing d3-d4) while providing few benefits (the Bishop on e3 is not needed in order to play d3-d4 anyway).

The move is probably playable, yes. But is it good? What FOR?

I am not a fan of purely cosmetic development... of moving your pieces off the back rank just so that they LOOK developed. Each developed piece should play a role in the game. Otherwise, they might as well stay home.

Sorry just casually going over your analysis but how does the d3-d4 pawn break benefit white?

ArtNJ

There are many potential problems with modifying your play because of the rating of your opponent, but one big one is that you aren't the only one that may not be accurately rated in daily chess.  Your opponent has a 965 puzzle rating with almost 2,000 attempts.  That is completely incompatible with a 1684 rating, so there is some sort of story there.  Not remotely invoking cheating, and I don't think its worth fussing over what the explanation actually is.  Just saying, most likely neither of you were accurately rated.    

ToastyPosition
ArtNJ wrote:

There are many potential problems with modifying your play because of the rating of your opponent, but one big one is that you aren't the only one that may not be accurately rated in daily chess.  Your opponent has a 965 puzzle rating with almost 2,000 attempts.  That is completely incompatible with a 1684 rating, so there is some sort of story there.  Not remotely invoking cheating, and I don't think its worth fussing over what the explanation actually is.  Just saying, most likely neither of you were accurately rated.    

 

That isn't for me or you to worry about. If I am actually playing a lower level player then I still want to play that position and see what they do to make sure I win. In this case I didn't.

 

The end result?

 

They played better than me regardless what the hooligans at chess.com did to evaluate them. This brought about looking at Bg5. 

congrandolor

Moving twice the same piece in the opening is not advisable. Maybe 8.h3, preventing Ng4, or 8.Nbd2, developing.

congrandolor

Sorry I mean 9.h3 or 9.Nbd2

ToastyPosition
congrandolor wrote:

Moving twice the same piece in the opening is not advisable. Maybe 8.h3, preventing Ng4, or 8.Nbd2, developing.

 

We have already discussed the general principle of not moving the same piece twice. As stated in the OP, and in the title of the thread I was interested in attaining a "Richter Rauzer" position. So, I played Bg5.

 

Please comment on that instead. What can the bishop do AFTER Bg5? (not before)

Optimissed

Hi, I would have thought that by general principles, 7. c3 was a bad move because why cause weaknesses for no reason, wasting a move, when white should develop?

Moving the bishop twice for no reason was simply awful. In that position there's no possible reason why it is not awful.

ToastyPosition
Optimissed wrote:

Hi, I would have thought that by general principles, 7. c3 was a bad move because why cause weaknesses for no reason, wasting a move, when white should develop?

Moving the bishop twice for no reason was simply awful. In that position there's no possible reason why it is not awful.

 

Your comments are bad too. You don't tell people what they should play. You only type negatives. You are a bad bad person.

ToastyPosition

*********IF YOU WANT TO PlSS AND M0AN ABOUT ME PLAYING Bg5 AFTER Be3 PLEASE DO IT ELSEWHERE*********

 

If you would like to comment on the idea of removing the f6 knight and how it relates to the d5 square, feel free to add your input. It is greatly appreciated. If you don't have anything constructive to add, then I ask that you move on to another thread. I know this is like putting up a billboard asking any troll to instigate more comments not on topic, but those that do want to help out and I can simply ignore them. 

 

Here is the position and some moves from that position. I welcome all discussion on the position and what moves can be played AFTER Bg5.

 

ajl721
ToastyPosition wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

Hi, I would have thought that by general principles, 7. c3 was a bad move because why cause weaknesses for no reason, wasting a move, when white should develop?

Moving the bishop twice for no reason was simply awful. In that position there's no possible reason why it is not awful.

 

Your comments are bad too. You don't tell people what they should play. You only type negatives. You are a bad bad person.

@ToastyPosition This is exactly the problem with you. You are very tunnel vision and don't always see the bigger picture in certain positions, which makes our comments seem like horsewash to you. So if YOU don't have anything constructive to add, maybe you should move to another thread.

ToastyPosition
ajl721 wrote:
ToastyPosition wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

Hi, I would have thought that by general principles, 7. c3 was a bad move because why cause weaknesses for no reason, wasting a move, when white should develop?

Moving the bishop twice for no reason was simply awful. In that position there's no possible reason why it is not awful.

 

Your comments are bad too. You don't tell people what they should play. You only type negatives. You are a bad bad person.

@ToastyPosition This is exactly the problem with you. You are very tunnel vision and don't always see the bigger picture in certain positions, which makes our comments seem like horsewash to you. So if YOU don't have anything constructive to add, maybe you should move to another thread.

 

I have already recognized Bg5 was not good. What more do you want from me? Are you saying we should allow takebacks? I am accepting Bg5 was a mistake, should I have resigned?

 

How about treating the position as is with Bg5 in the position and working from there? Last chance then I block you and you can flatulate elsewhere.

congrandolor

Your first post says «I would love to hear why Bg5 is not a good move...» then people tells you their opinion and you complain that YOU DON'T WANT HEAR MORE CRITICISM ON BG5.

Ok, then edit the headline if the thread and your first post, please.

ToastyPosition
congrandolor wrote:

Your first post says «I would love to hear why Bg5 is not a good move...» then people tells you their opinion and you complain that YOU DON'T WANT HEAR MORE CRITICISM ON BG5.

Ok, then edit the headline if the thread and your first post, please.

 

Or, we could use common sense. If someone already brought up an obvious principle that is "common chess practice" as not moving the same piece twice, subsequent replies don't need to address it.

 

Do we really need a person saying, "Don't move the same piece twice." and then 8 hours later, "Don't move the same piece twice." by another person?

 

We could move forward and address what to do after. Is it that difficult of an idea to walk through the game and not only address earlier bad moves ad nauseam? It was in the title and the OP because I ALREADY recognized it as a questionable move by Stockfish. If all I wanted was confirmation, there are hundreds of engines that would agree with Stockfish. One human confirmation is good enough. Let's move on in the game. Why h3 as shown in the chess diagram? Why not take the f6 N? Any other ideas from 10 onward?

 

Is it possible we can address these questions?