Qa4+ isnt possible.
Should I play Qa4+ after 1.Nf3 e5?
Sort:
May 30, 2018
0
#9
if you feel confortable with that move. It sure is playable (in the database i'm looking at it's the 3rd most chosen move after e3 and Na3)
May 30, 2018
0
#10
if you play e3 and he b5 than it's very good for you after a4. Overprotecting the c pawn against developpement and structure is rarely a good move by black (unless he know exactly what he is doing ofc)
I play the Reti, and after 1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 dxc4, I usually play 3. Nc3 with 4. e3 to follow. Black will still have a hard time holding the pawn on c4, and if he tries to do so, having both knights, the queen, and the king's bishop mobilized will make an eventual check or pin with Qa4 or Bb5 more effective, and leave black's pieces largely blocked in, which is more than suitable compensation for the pawn.
In fact, black seems to be best served by simply giving up the c4 pawn, continuing his development, and castling kingside before such a check can be effectively played, but that still leaves white with better development, more queenside space, and a slightly better pawn structure.
May 30, 2018
0
#12
suhaasvaliveti wrote:
Sorry I meant Nf3, d5 2. C4 dxc4 3.Qa4+
I wonder why this isn't played on high-level chess. After recapturing with Qxc4 white can basically transpose to a catalan opening with g3, Bg2, d4, 0-0, Nc3.
May 30, 2018
0
#13
catdogorb wrote:
666Buffchix wrote:
catdogorb wrote:
As for orthodorks, I don't agree with all of it either, but beginners need to start somewhere. Telling someone to learn the opening principals do a lot of tactics, for example, will probably help them.
Not everyone learns the same. That's the problem that the chess orthodocks/dorks make. They assume their teachings are universal when they're not. Let me give you an example from another area in life. I taught myself to read in preschool and kindergarten. When I got to first grade, most of the class couldn't read (let alone as well as me), so the teacher started teaching phonics. As an aside, I would venture that most of these kids are the same people that insist on playing Snorespondence chess instead of actual chess where games finish in one sitting sometime this century.
Anyway, phonics were and continue to be incomprejensible goobeldygook to me, and do not mesh with how I operate. My teachers knew well enough to leave me alone instead of giving me an F in phonics, when it was clear I already surpassed the goal of learning phonics. Now, if you're still with me, here is where people like MC Baconbreath fit in to the analogy. People like MC Baconbreath and the other chess orthodocks come off as the type to insist that phonics are the ONLY way for kids to learn how to read, and post their belief (almost like prostlelyzation, sp?) in 3093821094803 different topics. The way they defend their beliefs is by making excuses like for say 90% of people, the e4 OPEN game hazing is how the people learn best. Of course this is completely unsubstantiated and also reeks of hazing culture (wanting the people to go through the same losses that the dorks already went through). And nevermind the other "10%" of people who actively do NOT learn best this way. The orthodocks can't resist opening their windpipes to comment and preach the same crap to all 100% of people, why, because they're windbags. In a way they are pitiable, like an internet troll.
A lot of advice in the forums is BS, for various reasons.
For example I think a lot of people suggest methods and books they haven't even tried themselves. They're just parroting something they've heard.
But between you and the bacon guy maybe I'm somewhere in the middle (?)
For example I think long OTB tournament games are good for improvement, but I wont say to never play blitz.
I think a lot of noobs waste tons of time trying to learn openings in depth, but I wont say to ignore openings (they deserve at least some study from every level of player).
I think it's useful to open classically, with a pawn in the center for your first move as white or black... but I wouldn't demand a new player do it, if they love to play e.g. 1.g3.
I don't think low rated players have a style the way well rounded players have a style, but obviously even noobs have a style in the sense that they might prefer to sacrifice or play like a turtle.
I don't think a beginner should play 1. g3. A beginner should play classical openings first to understand the basics of chess like tactics, central control, lead in developement, space advantage.
After learning these concepts + some endgames a player can choose another opening like e.g. 1. g3. The knowledge the player gained by playing classical openings first will be valuable even if he decide to not play 1. d4 or 1. e4 anymore.
May 30, 2018
0
#15
666Buffchix wrote:
LaskerCompensation wrote:
The knowledge the player gained by playing classical openings first will be valuable even if he decide to not play 1. d4 or 1. e4 anymore.
No it won't, it's literally wasted time for many people. That's the uncomfortable truth the #chessorthodoxy doesn't want to admit.
Catdog (interesting cartoon btw) is right that people have styles. Whereas you chess orthodocks want to insist they play the style YOU demand. A player who is inclined to turtle doesn't mesh with e4 OPEN games, just because you people think they should be hazed like you were. They would be better going with a hippo-like structure from the get-go and developing their own way from there.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't play sidelines or that sidelines are bad. But most of the time sidelines require more precise play and some concepts are difficult to understand if you're a beginner. Playing openings where you control the center pawns will teach you how to use your space advantage.
May 30, 2018
0
#16
666Buffchix wrote:
LaskerCompensation wrote:
666Buffchix wrote:
LaskerCompensation wrote:
The knowledge the player gained by playing classical openings first will be valuable even if he decide to not play 1. d4 or 1. e4 anymore.
No it won't, it's literally wasted time for many people. That's the uncomfortable truth the #chessorthodoxy doesn't want to admit.
Catdog (interesting cartoon btw) is right that people have styles. Whereas you chess orthodocks want to insist they play the style YOU demand. A player who is inclined to turtle doesn't mesh with e4 OPEN games, just because you people think they should be hazed like you were. They would be better going with a hippo-like structure from the get-go and developing their own way from there.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't play sidelines or that sidelines are bad. But most of the time sidelines require more precise play and some concepts are difficult to understand if you're a beginner. Playing openings where you control the center pawns will teach you how to use your space advantage.
Not when you play against jonorable CLOSED #Chixxy positions that feast on the chess orthodocks like they are boneless wings..someday I should really write My System by 666Buffchix..it is gamechanging.
What are you talking about???
666Buffchix wrote:
Let's see if I can summarize the helpful teachings of chess orthodocks on this site.
"Let's be frank, you don't have a style. Your style is blundering. And your first problem is the knight move. Beginners MUST ONLY play e4 OPEN games. Tactics,tactics,tactics. Make sure you concentrate on the CENTER, ALL games ALWAYS revolve around the center. Resist playing Blitz and play boring slow time controls so that we can drag out the hazing for longer".
There, I think I got most of it.
You are wrong, 1.Nf3 is a perfect move, maybe even better than any other, as you keep your pawns in their initiall position, following Philidor to not spoil your pawn structure, look at this game I manage to draw with a higher rated player by playing 1.Nf3
Also, please tell me what to improve on.