@Optimissed: Have you ever heard the expression "When you are in a hole, stop digging"
This Thread was really interesting to me, with strong players contributing; why do you have to post this nonsense and ruin it?
Maroczy Bind Help Evaluating
Sort:
Optimissed wrote:
I have been consistently polite
Optimissed wrote: You're a good chess player but sometimes you're a silly old man, so get over yourself.
Optimissed wrote:
I'm afraid you haven't a clue. You're just repeating out-of-date ideas.
Optimissed wrote: In my opinion, there are some strong (ish) chess players here who are failures as people
Optimissed wrote:
I no longer feel the need to be polite to them
It's the next one that's the most annoying:
Optimissed wrote: He has now told us that "The Maroczy Bind isn't applicable to the Dragon", which is just stupid as I'm sure you'll accept, and he does it simply to dishonestly win a point, like a senile old man might.
I have tried to point out that you're not correct here twice, let me try for one final third time (and mainly to clear it up for the forum members that may still not be sure):
The Dragon is: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6
The Maroczy Bind is not applicable here - the Nc3 blocks the key move c4 and White doesn't have time to move it and then set it up.
The Accelerated Dragon is. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 (or via transposition)
Here, the Maroczy Bind is applicable immediately with 5.c4 and is a main option for White.
Optimissed wrote:
When people make personal attacks and continue to do so then it is acceptable to reply in kind. I expect I'll bump into you some day in real life because you live in Lancaster, Mr Waller. I hope you're more polite face to face. When I meet you, I'll let you know who I am.
Up until now you didn't make any attempt to communicate. The Bind versus the Dragon is only one small issue and the main issue is that Pfren doesn't understand how white can play against the e5 sequence after 2 ... a6 in the Sicilian and he continues that theme all over the place. Although players stronger than me have come in previously, agreeing with me, he sticks to his outworn ideas. It wouldn't matter but he also attacks people personally and THAT is not acceptable.
I haven't been impolite - quote me if you have a problem with what I said. I'm sure you will - and please do.
Will you finally clarify that the Bind works only vs. Accelerated Dragons, and not the regular Dragon, as I communicated in posts #42, #69 and #74?
About the 2...a6 Sicilian - I have no experience with this, so I'll let you two debate that one.
Mar 4, 2019
0
#25
Optimissed wrote:
The Maroczy Bind is a position or formation rather than a move order. I've read through the thread and there's some indication that this isn't clear. Hence Pfren's insistence that the Bind isn't achievable in Dragon positions where Nf6 has forced Nc3 to support the e-pawn.
Jesus man, your cognitive dissonance is painful to watch. You can't accept you were wrong, so you rationalize how it must be the IM who didn't know basic 1200 level knowledge (that the Maroczy is a structure not a move order).
Well, congratulations, you worked hard to kill the topic and may have succeeded.
Optimissed wrote:
This is my last word and it's relevant. The Maroczy Bind is a position or formation rather than a move order. I've read through the thread and there's some indication that this isn't clear. Hence Pfren's insistence that the Bind isn't achievable in Dragon positions where Nf6 has forced Nc3 to support the e-pawn. However, and this is very clear when one reads old literature on the subject, since the bind is a position, it's possible to achieve it even after Nc3 has blocked the c-pawn, later in the opening or early in the middle-game. Decades ago when the Bind was thought to be devastatingly strong for white, some players would go to great lengths to establish it against the Dragon. Hence, the Bind was generally considered to be applicable to all forms of the Dragon. I see now that some people have been basing their discussion on the idea that the Bind is a move order.
I suppose...sounds about right anyway. It gets confusing on the forums for sure....because while it seems to me its clear the OP was talking about now, a lot of times people are bringing up historical understanding all the time. If for example the Dragon is still mention as Marcozy....through the possible sequence of 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 f3 g6 6 c4. I dont know why black would play 5...g6 after f3. One would have to say that that 5...g6 was Accelerated Dragon which would be ridiculous because black is moving into the Dragon as slow as ice.
A lot of arguing about what I dont know. We know c4 is played against Accelerated Dragon....or what transposes to Accelerated. I dont have anything to add because at this point in history, its a useless term. Its just c4...another opening move with pros and cons...but in general if you get too narrow focused then you get nothing accomplished.
Optimissed wrote:
This is my last word and it's relevant. The Maroczy Bind is a position or formation rather than a move order. I've read through the thread and there's some indication that this isn't clear. Hence Pfren's insistence that the Bind isn't achievable in Dragon positions where Nf6 has forced Nc3 to support the e-pawn. However, and this is very clear when one reads old literature on the subject, since the bind is a position, it's possible to achieve it even after Nc3 has blocked the c-pawn, later in the opening or early in the middle-game. Decades ago when the Bind was thought to be devastatingly strong for white, some players would go to great lengths to establish it against the Dragon. Hence, the Bind was generally considered to be applicable to all forms of the Dragon. I see now that some people have been basing their discussion on the idea that the Bind is a move order.
Really? So why against the Sicilian Taimanov people avoid playing the Maroczy Bind?
If the move order 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.c4?! Bb4 makes the bind looks like crap why should White's achieve this position? Does your logic have some explanation or should i give you my dentist phone number?
OK, here is one of the games. White used the one and only setup (Bc4/Qd3) that avoids the ...Nxe4 and ...d5 ideas. Can you tell us where he played weak moves?
Thanks you for sharing your game.
I never thought before, but is this Smith Morra or O'Kelly?
My initial (low quality) thoughts were white doubling pawns (10.bxc3) and moving King's rook to d-file (11.Rd1) were weak (not developing DSB. Then returning LSB to f1 looked passive.
Just to get back on track, I'll try and comment on your thoughts:
- 10.bxc3 is necessary - Qxc3 would drop the e4 pawn.
- 11.Rd1 is to pile up on Black's weakness without losing time I think. If Black can consolidate, then White's double pawns will be too weak in the long run - therefore, White's priority is to create a weakness in Black's camp.