Maroczy Bind Help Evaluating

Sort:
pfren
Optimissed έγραψε:

Try d4, if you're a good, positional player. c3 and c4 are similar. g3 is superior to them both because in that line .... a6 is genuinely wasted as black normally plays Rb8 anyway. But d4 is the strongest move. However, nobody bothers to really analyse and study it. They assume the stuff about e5 being equal is correct, but it isn't.

 

In that case, you do not know the openings you are playing: 3.d4 is surely enough a rather straightforward equality for Black

pfren
Optimissed έγραψε:

You're speaking without experience, surely. I've been playing it for years and many master-strength players prefer 3. d4. In naive hands, 3.d4 leads to pitfalls for white but in the hands of a strong positional player, black's forces can be cut in two after the ...e5 sequence. I don't play it and really, how many games have you played with it against decent opposition?

 

Three games (as Black), all starting from the move order 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.Nf3 a6. No problems at all.

3.c3 and 3.c4 are better choices. I would prefer the latter, especially if white likes to meet the Kan with 5.c4. Under the O'Kelly move order, white can achieve the same positions cutting down some of the good white options (since d4-d4 can be played at the most appropriate time).

nighteyes1234
AlphaZeroDark30 wrote:
 

I'm  booked solid through move fifteen of the Maroczy, but why should I share my hard work?

 

There are many games for this garbage Dragon. Anyone can go over the lines.

 

poucin

Once again u compare 2 differents creatures.

Najdorf with Be2-e5 and O'Kelly with a6-d4 and e5 later have nothing in common.

The structure ok, but different piece placement, not at the same time, and other things, threats on e4 for black, etc... Chess is a concrete game, and u cannot generalize e5 for black in sicilians.

Telling an IM who also plays in correspondance chess, that he plays low oposition, when u are about 2000 here and show that u don't know so much what u are talking about is just ridiculous.

pfren

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?

 

Chessflyfisher
AlphaZeroDark30 wrote:

1 e4 c5 2 c4!  Open Sicilian players HATE this.

I agree. I usually either win or draw and even my losses are long hard fought struggles. By doing this, I transform the game into a Symmetrical English (Botvinnik Variation) and in the games where Black chooses to not fianchetto his Bishop on f8, I have had my most wins. In my personal OTB experience, I think that 2 c4 has a psychological (I`m not into head games, though) factor in that Black has been forced to think on his own and now has to play (in their eyes) a dull positional game with not so many tactical fireworks. That`s fine with me. 

pfren
Optimissed έγραψε:

Your opponent obviously played badly. Firstly, although the "books" say retreat the N to f3, I think that b3 is better. Bc4 is a standard move but it doesn't get white anywhere and really it's just a trap. Supporting it with Qd3 was weak. If white is going to play Bc4, I think he has to be willing to give up a pawn with 8. Bb3.

If my opponents played that badly, irrespective of their grade or rating, I wouldn't have been so keen to give up the e5 sequence. Your opponent obviously didn't know what he was doing and he played book lines which are bad for white. If you disagree with me, take a look at the position after 20 moves. That is NOT a winning attempt for white. It's an appalling mess and your opponent was lucky to survive with a draw.

 

You have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe even worse: Every single statement in your post is damn wrong.

- The opponent, Joop Theo Simmelink, is a strong correspondence chess veteran, active in the correspondence chess scene since the mid seventies- actually he became IECG/LSS World Champion a few years ago. He knows about opening some one thousand times more than you do, and he has a huge playing experience.

- Nb3 is considerably worse than Nf3 after ...e5.

- Bc4 is the only sensible  way to prevent ...d5, which would put white in trouble. Acxtually this has been universally played by all 2400+ players that reached this position as white, with one exception.

- By suggesting Bb3 instead of Qd3, you don't even realize that Black will probably take at c3 sooner, or later, but not bother picking up the c3 pawn before playing some sane developing moves.

- White was not worse (at all) in any part of the game.

 

Ghost_Horse0
poucin wrote:

U have some knowledge about it and u expect answers here which will help you?

These positions are too rich to be solved here, especially by players who don't have a clue (most the case in chess.com).

These was bad news, now the good ones : there are good books for that.

Especially the 2 volumes by Shipov on Hedgehog.

And Chess structures by Flores which has a very good chapter on it.

(This is my topic by the way, I was Stiggling)

Oh, I thought this topic wouldn't ever get a reply.

I'm glad to see it has a lot of posts.

Yes, I know this isn't really a question fit for the forums, but I was hoping a titled player might say a few words.

Thanks for the book recommendation.

Ghost_Horse0
Optimissed wrote:

This would be a much better forum if some stronger players didn't have so many ego problems and were more willing to be open and honest, instead of trying to bully people who disagree with them.

So it's not that your were incorrect, it's that they are dishonest and bullying.

Who has an ego problem?

Pfren is rarely courteous, but even more rarely makes a bad post. In an ocean full of children and beginners I'm thankful for the occasional IM. The level of knowledge, experience, and frankly dedication to the game is incomparable.

And I hate to sound like one of these obsequious morons who heaps praise on every titled player that posts, no matter how mediocre their posts are, but Pfren and Poucin make high quality posts. If all they had were titles I wouldn't care about them.

-waller-
Optimissed wrote:
pfren wrote:
Optimissed έγραψε:

It was always supposed to be quite good against the Dragon.

 

The Maroczy is not applicable against the Dragon.>>>

Suffice it to say you are wrong here. It was primarily an anti-Dragon weapon. You should stop shooting your mouth off as a reflex action.

 

@Optimissed:

this is your first interaction with pfren in this thread:

1) you were in the wrong (Maroczy is against Accelerated Dragon not Dragon)

2) you started the insults.

I don't know whether this antagonising is carrying over from some other thread, but this is all the rest of us can see.

-waller-
PawnstormPossie wrote:
pfren wrote:

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.

Toire

@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?

-waller-
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.

-waller-
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.

pfren
Optimissed έγραψε:

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. 

 

Actually for the ignorant that "Dragon thing" is a non-issue. Just accept that you had one of your usual brain farts, and let it be.

And I have played the 3.d4 O'Kelly against 3 strong correspondence players (none of the games starting with 2.Nf3 a6, but this hardly matters), so I happen to know all the mainlines and possibilities in some depth (playing correspondence means that you have days to consult databases, and analyse with every possible means- for DAYS), so I know quite a bit about it, and certainly enough tons more than you do. OK, genius?

Ghost_Horse0
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.

nighteyes1234
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.

 

Bishop_g5
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?