I looked at Rh8, but I'm still working on it. I actually, believe or not, think white is winning with the two pieces off the board. If black could organize his pieces it would be different. Buts its almost like white has all the time in the world...
May you please mention how?
@hicetunc
I myself like building up my game based on experience of live games and the thinking I do during live games sitting in certain positions. But unfortunately there are sequences which would never occur to me during a live game. Once I looked into one of my games in the French with the engine and instead of my moves it suggested something that I would never have come to on my own. Since then I apply this sequnce in my live games with success.
This is a sequence which you can play if white just plays the dumb way ( completely equal, just not the hardest line to deal with ):
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3
Now, here you have a simple plan:
5. ... Bd7 6. Bd3 Rc8 7. O-O
All the maneuvering on the queenside now allows black to take on d5. If white now captures with the pawn black has a simple move:
7. ... cxd4 8. cxd4 Nb4!
Not that it is winning or anything. Just you can take this pesky ls bishop or otherwise white loses a rook ( the exchange, to be more precise ). Simple as that.
I would have never guessed this little trick without the help of an engine ( the engine suggests here Nc3 which admits that there is no way to save the bishop):
@hicetunc
I myself like building up my game based on experience of live games and the thinking I do during live games sitting in certain positions. But unfortunately there are sequences which would never occur to me during a live game. Once I looked into one of my games in the French with the engine and instead of my moves it suggested something that I would never have come to on my own. Since then I apply this sequnce in my live games with success.
This is a sequence which you can play if white just plays the dumb way ( completely equal, just not the hardest line to deal with ):
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3
Now, here you have a simple plan:
5. ... Bd7 6. Bd3 Rc8 7. O-O
All the maneuvering on the queenside now allows black to take on d5. If white now captures with the pawn black has a simple move:
7. ... cxd4 8. cxd4 Nb4!
Not that it is winning or anything. Just you can take this pesky ls bishop or otherwise white loses a rook. Simple as that.
I would have never guessed this little trick without the help of an engine ( the engine suggests here Nc3 which admits that there is no way to save the bishop):
That's right. If White tries to save the bishop on d3, Black will simply reply with 9...Nc2, which wins the exchange. In that case, it's fair to say that Black has a solid advantage being up the exchange. Losing the bishop pair is better than losing the exchange.
I don't criticize people using engines to analyze. But someone who posts his manual analysis and human mistakes shouldn't be trashed for doing so, especially if the critics are themselves using engines (but even if they're not). Aquarius is not claiming he has found the absolute truth (like some posters in other threads may do), but is simply sharing his ideas.
Besides, if you're refuting a human idea with an engine, I think it's more honest to say so - "the computer/Stockfish gives". Or if it's your own idea and has been checked - "the engine confirms that...".
I don't criticize people using engines to analyze. But someone who posts his manual analysis and human mistakes shouldn't be trashed for doing so, especially if the critics are themselves using engines (but even if they're not). Aquarius is not claiming he has found the absolute truth (like some posters in other threads may do), but is simply sharing his ideas.
Besides, if you're refuting a human idea with an engine, I think it's more honest to say so - "the computer/Stockfish gives". Or if it's your own idea and has been checked - "the engine confirms that...".
Obviously! We shouldn't turn a friendly debate about an opening into an argument.
In some cases, both the human and the engine (dis)like an idea. Again, the 9. Bxh7+?! sacrifice hasn't been completely "refuted". However, since the knight is on g1 instead of f3, the sacrifice somewhat "fails". I've actually seen the features of the Bxh7+ sacrifice. If you're playing as White, you USUALLY (not always) need a pawn on e5, a knight that can go to g5, a queen that can along the h-file, a bishop that attacks h7 (obviously), and a bishop along the c1-h6 diagonal. If you know that a sacrifice can be refuted, you can use an engine to give accurate lines. (Sorry for the overly long post!)
@watcha : once again, I'm not criticizing people using engines to analyze, and I agree engines will suggest a lot of ideas (and patterns) that you wouldn't find by yourself.
I believe manual/human analysis has some (different) virtues too, namely to become more familiar with what is possible or not in a given position.
In a discussion between a member analyzing by himself and an engine, the engine will be right in almost every case. Still, I believe it's possible to gently help the human player without overly criticizing its input. Besides, human-generated ideas have value, even if they happen not to work in a specific position.
To put it simply, 8...Nbc6 is simply better and more natural to play. The move 8...c4!? gives unnecessary complications. By looking at the game between Zlatin and Petrov, it becomes clear that if Black's not careful, White can begin a huge kingside attack by playing moves such as h4, g4, and applying pressure along the g and h-files. In some cases, the doubled f-pawns can also expose the Black king. It's best to play a simple move like 8...Nbc6 which sidesteps all those stuff.
Some good news to me: I looked at the Stoyanov, Zlatin (2350) vs. Belchev, Branimir Petrov (2344) game with the naked eye first. What struck me was 14. ... h5. This seemed a very bizarr move, unnecessary as well.
When I looked at the game with the engine this was the exact point where the computer started to dislike black's play.
I would really like to see super GM games in this line rather than the bizarro moves of mere 2350s ( lol, look at my rating ... ) , but I'm afraid that no such games exist.
Some good news to me: I looked at the Stoyanov, Zlatin (2350) vs. Belchev, Branimir Petrov (2344) game with the naked eye first. What struck me was 14. h5. This seemed a very bizarr move, unnecessary as well.
When I looked at the game with the engine this was the exact point where the computer started to dislike black's play.
I would really like to see super GM games in this line rather than the bizarro moves of mere 2350s ( lol, look at my rating ... ) , but I'm afraid that no such games exist.
Black allowed White to maneuver all the pieces to active squares. Still, the resignation was premature. The game still had to be won.
Show me a prepared Anand, who looked at this position at home thoroughly, play this line as black. Against anyone but Magnus Carlsen. Then I will believe.
Show me a prepared Anand, who looked at this position at home thoroughly, play this line as black. Against anyone but Magnus Carlsen. Then I will believe.
What will you believe?
I don't like the Bd3 line anyway. Let me give one of my crazy alternatives: dxc5. At first glance, white allows a monster attack on his king with Qa5, but watch how it goes.
I don't like the Bd3 line anyway. Let me give one of my crazy alternatives: dxc5. At first glance, white allows a monster attack on his king with Qa5, but watch how it goes.
That does look pretty crazy! Moving the king is very risky. Playing 9. Bb2 or 9. Bd2 seems much better. White must be prepared to lose a pawn after 10. Rb1.
Well I am not a very huge expert in the French.
From my understanding the main idea behind the French is to castle kingside and play on the queen side in most cases. Which is why they like to keep things open/pawn tension and not really shut everything down on that side.
However, I do remember an idea which may be wrong or out of date not to sure. The idea I remember was playing the move c4 with the intention of castling queen side than playing moves like Nc6-Na4. Bascially black intention is to castle queen side than close down the queen side making it hard for white to have any pawn breaks to open that position up. Which will give black plenty of time to switch to a king side attacking approach.
It makes plenty of sense to me because usually you don't want things to open up against your king. However, at the same time you want everything to open up against your enemy king.
The Winawer is one of them crazy openings. If it was me, I wouldn't castle at all. The most I'll do is Kf8....no castling for the Black King.
Yeah I also prefer the classical french to the Winawer. A lot safer.
Many experts have played 7...Kf8 in response to 7. Qg4. You're not alone. As you mentioned, the Classical variation (3...Nf6) keeps things simple and avoids all the sharp lines in the Winawer (such as the Poisoned Pawn, which is probably one of the sharpest opening lines in chess).
However, I do remember an idea which may be wrong or out of date not to sure. The idea I remember was playing the move c4 with the intention of castling queen side than playing moves like Nc6-Na4.
I know this idea well. I like to play this very much if white allows it.
The only little help you need is that white does not play the Nc3 line, rather the immediate e5 push and later plays a3. At this point c4 is beginning to make sense because white cannot push the b pawn any longer for free. Black can take and this will open the c file for attack on the weak c3 pawn. Also the Nb8-Nc6-Na5 maneuver is designed to block white's b pawn and control the important b3 and c4 squares. Indeed white has little attack in this structure on the queenside so queenside castle is possible. The only thing black has to be aware of is that white can attack on the kingside despite castling short. When I lose in this line is because I mess up things on the kingside rather than falling victim to an attack on my king on the queenside. May be white will work the h pawn close to promotion and black has little room to counter this.
The basic position in this line looks like this:
Interesting!
I have a new line against 8...c4 utilizing the Bxh7 motif. It seems you CAN play Bxh7, but you have to be able to play h4 in the case of f6, where black's pieces do not seem fast enough to stop h6 and subsequent mating patterns. This is not conclusive, but merely an idea. Tell me(in kind words, thank you) what you think.
The move 23. Qh4 wins back some material... After 23...Ba4! 24. Rh2 (or 24. Rf2) Nxg4 25. Qxg4, Black is up a piece for a pawn and I'm not sure how White will continue the attack. (Do you have any ideas?)