|
On December 12 2009 08:22 jfazz wrote:Yeah, the Yugoslav type formation will not work here. The accelerated dragon he is entering can actually come from a line in the english (1.c4 c5 2.e4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Nc6 6. Be3). My thoughts + Show Spoiler +I play a lot of games from this position (otherwise you end up in a king's indian, and why would you want to let them use their heavy home prep?). 5.c4 is THE move of choice in this position. Otherwise, black can equalise fairly comfortably after normal developing moves and a quick d5, even if it comes as a sacrifice (black's positions holds A LOT potential engergy).
The real question for us, is, do we want do meet Nc6 with Be3, or a knight retreat (c2 would be standard, to eventually come to e3 later in the game to attack the d5 square). This may seem slow, but it works, given the space advantage white has (and that we can play for b4 and f4 as well).
That's what I was thinking when you overcame with joy at 4. - g6! That "this sure can be developed from an English opening after 1. c4 c5 2. e4" Heh, no wonder you're happy now unlike when we first encountered an open Sicilian variation 
+ Show Spoiler +To answer your question, after reviewing my old theory books, I would recommend Nc2 in that situation. The few Maróczy binds I played, it was doing that and it worked pretty well. Let's just see if our next move is indeed 5. c4 first though 
|
Yeah...Sicilians are not my thing. I dabble mostly with 1.d4, but also a small amount with 1.Nf3 and 1.c4 (the former for tournaments, the latter for special prep for certain opponents, mostly Gruenfeld dudes). Getting into a line from the English is like, my backyard, especially this particularly line, which arises out of the symmetrical english AND the reti.
extra thoughts
+ Show Spoiler +there are really two main versions of the maroczy. the classical with b4 and f4, or the more modern, less ambitious option with b3 and f3, and central expansion. I wouldn't mind saying the classical - I don't think he will know it that well, and regardless, we should be able to squeeze him rather well...the b4 line especially really hurts back on the queenside, which can then lead to a massive kingside attack via the f5 break (f1 rook never moves in this line), once black is tied down on the queenside...that and any endgame is much easier for us due to the space and activity advantage!
|
if he does Bg7 we *should not* Nc3, correct?
|
I want to vote Nxc6 but I have a question seeing so many people voting c4. Is c4 better than Nxc6 ? Because what I was thinking
+ Show Spoiler +
5 Nxc6 exc6
6 Qxd8 Kxd8 and he can't castle which is good for us.
or
5 Nxc6 bxc6
6 ?
|
Nxc6 is the worst move in the position.
Nxc6 bxc6 and black is equal.
|
On December 13 2009 07:49 proberecall wrote:I want to vote Nxc6 but I have a question seeing so many people voting c4. Is c4 better than Nxc6 ? Because what I was thinking + Show Spoiler +
5 Nxc6 exc6
6 Qxd8 Kxd8 and he can't castle which is good for us.
or
5 Nxc6 bxc6
6 ?
Brief explanation below.
+ Show Spoiler +NxC6 leads to bxC6, which leaves black with 3 very strong pawns in the center and makes d5 a real problem. You are basically wasting a move, while black develops a pawn into a stronger position.
|
is our next move likely Be3
|
Hey guys, you should all make the effort to check out the games from the London Chess Classic:enjoy!
I would reccomend above all others Kramniks most recent two games with the Black pieces - Big Vlad is back and winning!
Also, he is my hero
|
thx for explaining citizen. I vote c4 then
|
|
|
Just played 5....... Bg7
updated and next voting closes Tuesday.
boy I really want to play Dragon !
jfrazz, I was so angry Kramnik losing to Anand. Back in the 90s my friends and I always said if there was one player who could stop Kasparov that was Kramnik and hold championship throughout the 2000s. Vlad's one of the greatest players in the history of chess, I would like to see him regain the title (although it's hard w Carlsen now).
|
|
|
Yeah I doubt Kramnik will ever regain the title now, he just probably does not have it in him to make the needed repetoire and psychological changes. Still, I feel he is the greatest player of all time, and I prefer to look over his games in preference to anyone else.
6.Be3, just following theory.
|
While chess is quickly becoming a young player's game, Kramnik is still a top 3 player and will be for a long time if he sticks with chess. He's still quite young by chess standards. What usually stops players from attaining the tile is all the bureaucractic shit. It makes people even leave chess like Kasparov. He couldn't get a rematch versus Kramnik for so long because Kramnik didn't want to play a rematch and no one could force him to. Everything he did was within his rights as well I'm sure. There was so much confusion anyways because the Kasparov-Kramnik match wasn't even FIDE sanctioned yet most of the world recognized it as a world title match.
Also, if people want to know what's going on in the chess world, I recommend chessbase.com It's the "teamliquid" for english chess news and always has games from recent tourneys. You can dig up old games too using the archives. Although, I didn't look at the games, the site has the London Chess Classic games with analysis provided. You can play through them at your leisure and understand some of the ideas by reading the analysis as you go. For example:
http://www.chessbase.com/news/2009/london/games/saunders04.
6. Be3
|
6. Be3
Not to derail the thread, but why is Kramnik one of the greatest players of all time? He hasn't revolutionized the game, he doesn't display dominance like some of the other world champions showed and his accomplishments aren't all that great either (again, compared to the other world champions).
He's still a really good chess player and one of the best in the world right now, but greatest of all time is a really strong statement.
|
People say he's the greatest of all time because he beat Kasparov in a match when no one thought it was possible and Kasparov is often said to be one of the all time greats. The greatest of all time title is always debatable since it is hard to compare different eras of the game. It is probably best not to compare them at all and just say that all of these champions were great. How do you measure greatness anyways? Difference in class between your contemporaries? Number of years reigned champion? Raw chess talent? Overall skill? Maybe its a mixture of qualities. Not all chess players have the same environment to nurture their skill. In Fischer's time, he was basically the only person playing chess at the level of the soviets. Anand had little benifit from the russian chess schools.
|
JCU thanks for that webpage. I was really looking for a place to start getting acquainted with the current top-players, from my recent research most of the players that are mentioned are gone. Keeping up with the champions is one of the things that keep me interested (that's why I follow and love StarCraft, more so than the gameplay itself).
This thread is a blessing for anyone that want's to get started with playing REAL chess. If you take the time to analyze all the good posts and play out the different scenarios that people predict you learn a lot.
6.Be3
*So now that we got our Maróczy Bind set-up and lightman is playing his accelerated Dragon we start to see the interesting and not by-the-book stuff? I sure hope so! I can learn opening by reading websites I wanna see some deep "strategizing." :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
