Moving a Pawn Twice in the Opening

I'd far rather play against the Budapest than the Albin. Can you prove that the Albin loses? Otherwise, it's alright.

Rumo  I disagree with you regarding the Albin Counter Gambit. I think it is a very inferior opening.

Regarding your catalan sequence. First, it seems to me that 7. Qc2 is a weak move. I agree 7. ...b5 is a strong move against 7. Qc2 but just off hand 7. Qc2 does not look good to me. What about 7. Ne5...

 After Black has played b5 in many openings and White responds a4 then there is often a good reason to play b4.  So this does not go against what I say at all. My theme is players should not move the same pawn twice in the opening without good reason. Here the pawn is attacked by the pawn on a4 and that is one reason to push it forward. This especially works after 7. Qc2.

Kinda off subject but of course the Budapest does not lose.

We are discussing the Albin, Ponz. Surely, if the Albin doesn't lose, then it creates counter-chances for Black without leading to anything like a forced loss. Therefore, surely it fails as an example of a means to criticise the movement of a pawn twice in the opening "without reason". Actually, there is a reason .... to cramp white's game. Black doesn't get over-extended because black got tempos for the pawn.

I am guessing the Albin does lose.  It seems fairly easy to defeat and the reason is that Black not only gambits a pawn in the opening but also moves the d pawn  twice in the very early opening.

There are many gambits Black can play and gambit a pawn in the opening and then get only a slight minus.  However the Albin gets more than a slight minus and the reasons are that not only does Black gambit a pawn in the opening, he moves the d pawn twice in the early opening.

Also, if one says an opening "does not lose" this does not automatically mean that the opening gets good counter chances.

[however I am saying the Albin Counter Gambit is such a bad opening that it probably does lose with best play by both sides.]

By the way, I do not say "without reason" if I said that then people could think of any stupid reason.  I always say "without very good reason". This makes all the difference in the world.

It doesn't actually alter the case, since we all tend to think of our reasons as being good reasons.

You are correct about that. I just am really saying, think once or twice or three times before moving a pawn twice in the opening.

I would not mention this except I have seen so many players push a pawn forward [in the opening] incorrectly in these forums and they do not even realize they may be making a mistake.

[and so they keep making the same mistake]

Optimissed  Some people want to improve their chess playing ability and some just want to play chess without necessarily any improvement.

I have given help via personal messages and analyzing games for a number of people. Because I noticed this problem in many of their games, the subject was brought up. 

One can improve by learning from his mistakes. However he/she needs to know what mistakes he/she is making in the first place.

Correction, for some it alters the case and for some it does not.

It does not alter the case for those who are content to keep playing and do not care if they improve their skill or not. There are a lot of people like this and there is nothing wrong with this.

However for people who wish to improve their skills at chess it is better to know when a mistake is being made and why is it a mistake--as then they can try and avoid making the same mistake over and over again.

But even those who care may not understand epistemology.

Yes!

No, there is only one chess theory that applies to everyone.

What I'm saying is there is no seperate version for below 1800 (or whatever number anyone wants to put here) players.

John Littlewood once played the Albin against me in a blitz game. I was pretty pissed off because I was holding my own and he played f6, really mixing it up, and then started to distract me by telling me to move faster. He won by gamesmanship, which did not please me. IMs shouldn't do that.

Yes, I know you disagree even after I refuted your reasoning, if it can be called such. After three moves black is a pawn down, yes. Development is even, no pieces have moved. You would need to show that the d-pawn's second move is detrimental in any way. But of course it isn't. The d-pawn is the main source of black's compensation. It's a strong pawn that puts pressure on white's position.

Your thesis is, to quote you, "don't move a pawn twice unless for very good reasons". Maybe I can help you correct it. First, you should have good reasons for any move you play, not just moves by pawns that have already moved. Second, you should have even better reasons for pawn moves, because they can't move backwards. But that goes for any pawn moves equally, not just for pawns that haven't moved yet! 1.e4 g6 2.e5? is bad for various positional reasons, as are 1.h3? and 1.f3? And these pawns haven't moved before. Likewise, 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 is a good pawn move that provides reasonable compensation, even though with best play white can emerge with an advantage.

And if it seems to you that 7.Qc2 is a bad move, than either you or half the world elite (who have been occasionally or regularly playing it) don't understand the Catalan. 7.Qc2 is almost always played in this position. In his book about the Catalan, Bologan contributes 80 of 233 pages to the position after 7.Qc2, which is usually followed by 7...a6 8.Qxc4 b5 9.Qc2 b5, and now white's best move is 10.Bd2, but to draw against a GM 10.Bg5 is a great option, and 10.Bf4 also has reason to exist. The main alternative for white is 8.a4. Your suggested 7.Ne5 is not too bad and occasionally played by good players (some days ago Kramnik used it to beat Adams), but 7...Nc6 is a good answer and leads to equality with precise play.

You say "here the pawn is attacked by the pawn on a4 and that is one reason to push it forward." Well, the same is true for the d5-pawn in the Albin, who is attacked by pawn c4 and needs to push forward! This is trivial, but the question should be: Is the concept of sacrificing my e-pawn in order to get a strong d-pawn justified? Or in the Catalan-case: Is the concept of losing time and weakening my queenside (long diagonale and square c4) for space gain and dynamic counterplay justified? I already said enough about the Albin. In the Catalan example, only very concrete analysis can answer the question. One of the critical lines after 8...b4 is 9.Ne5 Qxd4 10.Bxa8 Qxe5, and analysis leads to the result that black has temendous compensation. And this is what makes 7...b5 and 8...b4 good moves. Not those "very good reasons" that you seem to be bringing up rather arbitrarily anyway.

I do rather suspect the Albin is close to busted. I certainly wouldn't play it in an ICCF game.

But, in practical play it does give Black some chances to score a win, especially in fast time controls. Sure, GMs use it, but lately it's been almost exclusively reserved for blitz and rapid time controls above 2500 strength. According to chessbase, White wins 63% of the time in the line: 

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6, which is the main line. Is there a major opening where White scores so well? And one of the reasons for playing it is the surprise factor!

not how you properly play the opening as black there are new moves that are much better. Saw in a chess articl by a GM. It is a line that gives black a slight edge.

But I am not sure about it.