I want to know the answer too lol +1
I'm not sure on why, but someone just used against me and the blunder was called a "book move" by the report. I mean, what?!?!
Because chess.com doesn't have a very good opening database? 365chess is better for that and shows the move played twice in over 2,500 games in the database.
Huh that’s so strange, no clue, maybe it’s some sort of OP gambit?
so, not solved yet?
a lot of unsound lines have names
yes, it makes no sense
another example is that after e4 f5 all kinds of moves are shown before exf5, for the same reason
Luckily, Yates has more solid variations to his name in the King's and Queen's Indian, even in the Ruy Lopez
Yates *never played* this blunder with White in the Sicilian, and it is very odd to see an opening blunder given a "variation" name.
It's complete nonsense. It isn't a variation and it loses a knight.
Why comment when he misses taking the knight. Giving it a name is ridiculous and misleads people.
It's complete nonsense. It isn't a variation and it loses a knight.
Why comment when he misses taking the knight. Giving it a name is ridiculous and misleads people.
It makes sense- look at #8 which shows a quite trendy Najdorf variation. It's no secret that the ChessDot Com database is terrible regarding transpositions.
And the O.P. may not get much from the comments, as he closed his account more than six years ago.
Indeed; and it should be obvious that this Yates variation is bogus. If anything it's just a way of playing games at knight odds and its inclusion in a database means that database is disreputable.
Still, it could be interesting to others.
Indeed; and it should be obvious that this Yates variation is bogus. If anything it's just a way of playing games at knight odds and its inclusion in a database means that database is disreputable.
Still, it could be interesting to others.
The variation took its name from the following game (where the correct move order was used) and white did NOT blunder a knight.
Indeed; and it should be obvious that this Yates variation is bogus. If anything it's just a way of playing games at knight odds and its inclusion in a database means that database is disreputable.
Still, it could be interesting to others.
The variation took its name from the following game (where the correct move order was used) and white did NOT blunder a knight.
Well played by white there.
The lack of any available explanation for why Yates' name - or anyone else's for that matter - is attached to an unplayable blunder seems to explain itself.
There are no examples to be found in databases of any master player hanging the d4 knight on move 6.
There is no compensation for the Knight. White would continue simply a piece down.
The only game in chessgames.com with this move order, despite the fact that they label it "Sicilian: Yates Variation", was played by an untitled White player of no serious competitive reputation; he resigned on move 7 (the classiest reply).
It is simply a mistake and a bit insulting to leave Yates' name attached to what would rightly appear in beginner manuals as "NN vs. anyone who can see a hanging piece"
