Favorite defense?

[Soviet]

why would I play an online correspondence game using an opening I don't even play/don't like?

read my post again...I didn't say it's a bust for white when he plays the four pawns line. I said it was a tricky line to play as white if you don't know the theory and your trying to calculate it yourself playing 1/0 online. it doesn't work very well, you usually end up losing a pawn or more and that snowballs towards the rest of the game (thinking too much, losing on time, etc).

Luce- ya, agreed. personally I don't play e5 against it. I try to transpose, play nc3, all sorts of stuff. anything but e5 since I'm not very good with white in that line.

there are lines where you don't play f4 but do play d4 and c4...stuff like e4 nf6 e5 nd5 d4 d6 nf3 bg4...I think white plays c4 eventually, be3, stuff like that...I looked at it awhile ago, didn't really use it (I only play e4 in online blitz...), but it looked good.

meh

 

[Myzenium]

why would I play an online correspondence game using an opening I don't even play/don't like?

read my post again...I didn't say it's a bust for white when he plays the four pawns line. I said it was a tricky line to play as white if you don't know the theory and your trying to calculate it yourself playing 1/0 online. it doesn't work very well, you usually end up losing a pawn or more and that snowballs towards the rest of the game (thinking too much, losing on time, etc).

It sounds like you're trying to weasel out of a challenge.

I said that you get the Black pieces. Therefore, I get the tricky game, not you. Plus, you can't easily lose on time in an Internet correspondence game. I will allow you a week per move, and I will allow myself 48 hours per move.

Are you unwilling to stand behind your own analysis of Alekhine's Defence, or are you afraid of losing?

 

[Soviet]

It sounds like you're trying to weasel out of a challenge.

I said that you get the Black pieces. Therefore, I get the tricky game, not you. Plus, you can't easily lose on time in an Internet correspondence game. I will allow you a week per move, and I will allow myself 48 hours per move.

Are you unwilling to stand behind your own analysis of Alekhine's Defence, or are you afraid of losing?

your taking this too seriously, and you aren't interpreting my post correctly. tricky to play as white in a 1.0 game playing a four pawns attack line. Why would I be afraid of my own analysis? I'm saying it's playable and isn't a forced bust. what you wrote was in effect saying because white has a nice center, black is losing which isn't correct. to prove that, look at the gruenfeld, which well, is very well playable even in GM circles, nice center or not. however, there's got to be a reason the alekhine's isn't played in long games very often.

I don't see why your so anxious to play online correspondence. I don't play the alekhines, I don't see the need for this. I know the line doesn't lose by force but I still don't like it and not because of the four pawns attack line. i'd never play it in a tournament, even against a 900.

make sense? if your really anxious to play me (alekhines or not), match me on ICC- if you wish i'll PM you my handle

i'm only like a 1650 USCF player here, take it easy dude

 

[Myzenium]

Geez, no need to make a long post. "Yes" or "no" will do. Oh, one more thing. Stop saying I don't read posts. I do. Every word. If you think your replies are readable, think again. Half of your sentences are totally ambiguous.

So you refuse to duel on my terms? That's okay; I didn't think you were man enough to accept anyway. Next time you want to make a joke of someone, show some backbone.

 

[Ribannah]

Black could go wrong, too ...

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 e6 (novelty) 4. c4 Bb4+(?) 5. Ke2! 1-0

 

[Chieftess]

Don't know about any defenses in chess, but when I used to play in the chess club in highschool, my favorite defense was phsycological.

Just take my time, and then stare at the pieces when my opponent was moving. It would make for a long game, causing them to get tired, and make a mistake. Oh, another was trapping the king, and moving my unit back and forth a few times, forcing the opponent to move where I wanted him to, causing him to get frustrated, and then make a mistake.

 

[Soviet]

ambiguous...i'm 15 give me a little leeway here. my writing skills aren't going to be as clear and concise as an adult. next, I wasn't making 'a joke of someone'. if you write something which in effect says "because he has a nice center, he wins" I don't see why you didn't expect someone to argue with you. read modern chess strategy by IM John Watson. other than being a fascinating book, it also shows how general statements like "big centers are good" don't mean anything without analysis to back it up, and how many exceptions to general principles there are. I don't need to show you how the alekhines playable (I don't play it and therefore wouldn't know how to play with it without looking it up in MCO), it's been proven by GM games. The last thing to mention is that you wrote something to the effect of "I can't believe alekhine played it"...well to be honest he didn't play it very often. He was I think? the first person to use it, but he didn't play it much.

you also wrote I was "afraid to stand by my analysis". I didn't present much analysis other than "it's not a bust like your trying to say, it's playable".

 

[Richard Cribb]

Soviet - if you are only 15, I think you are mature and probably a much better player than I was at the same age - unfortunately I only learned playing chess at 13. So keep up the good work!
It is correct that Alekhine introduced this defence in master play - I think he played some nice games against Mieses and Steiner. He was however inspired by Nimzowitsch's line in Sicilian: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6!? A very tricky line indeed. As a historical curiosity an amateur played it a couple of times against Adolf Anderssen. In the book written by von Gotschall about Anderssen, von Gotschall (not at all a weak player) comments thus: 1.e4 Nf6??"The decisive error". And yes, the Watson book is great, in general everything John Watson ever wrote is worth studying.
I also agree that sometimes people overestimate the strength of a big center - it can sometimes be more of a weakness than a strength.
Chieftess - cheeky tactics, psychological warfare certainly is an important part of chess. However, it has to be followed up with good moves, and anyway there is such a thing as unsporting behaviour. My method of coping with such things would usually be to follow the Charousek/Najdorf/Gheorghiu - school, after having made my move I just quietly left the table...

 

[Myzenium]

ambiguous...i'm 15 give me a little leeway here.

Really? I like this cop-out much more.

next, I wasn't making 'a joke of someone'.

Either grow up, or read your first post in this thread again.

if you write something which in effect says "because he has a nice center, he wins" I don't see why you didn't expect someone to argue with you.

*sigh* I said nothing of the kind. You exaggerate. In the first five moves, White dominates the center. This leads to a winning position. Winning positions, as every master knows, do not translate to a win. It takes a cool head to get the win.

Perhaps you belong to the camp that prefers to control the flank in the opening? If this is so, I could recommend a well-known opening to you. I think it starts, 1 h4.

What do you expect me to do when two people, not including you, have already claimed I don't know what Alekhine's Defence means? Blow them off? Is that what my lack of posts meant, did you think?

It was two against one. You didn't need to add your body to the dogpile, unless what you wanted was an apology to all parties who testified against me. In which case, I say I'm sorry for being ignorant of Alekhine. Satisfied, Soviet?

 

[Ribannah]

In the first five moves, White dominates the center. This leads to a winning position.

No, it doesn't.

Winning positions, as every master knows, do not translate to a win. It takes a cool head to get the win.

It has nothing to do with a cool head here. In his best lines of this variation, white has a tiny advantage. In addition, most of the opening theory of this line is well-established and there is much less room for surprises than in other variations that white can play against the Alekhine defence. And Black, being the one to choose the Alekhine, will surely come properly prepared (right?).

Perhaps you belong to the camp that prefers to control the flank in the opening?

White does not control the center in this position. He only occupies it. The fight for control still has to begin.

What do you expect me to do when two people, not including you, have already claimed I don't know what Alekhine's Defence means?

It depends. If you want to learn something, one would expect you to listen to the advice you get from better players. No apology is needed. It is quite normal that there are things you still have to learn!

 

[Myzenium]

Great, great. Okay, I'm in an argument with three people who disagree with me. What should I do? You won't accept an apology? Then I suppose I should resign, unless you three have a better idea. Everyone knows that the majority is always right. It would be irrational to disagree with so many people.

This little argument has continued long enough. It's only about my knowledge of Alekhine's Defence. It is an opening that the general community of chess players knows to be unpopular today. Enough, already. You're better, I'm worse. I hope you're happy.

I didn't come to this thread to get a lesson in chess. You three should start a thread somewhere to teach worse chess players about openings few people use, unless you already have one. Link, please.

 

[Ribannah]

I didn't come to this thread to get a lesson in chess.

You asked for one nonetheless.
But if you rather sulk than improve your game, there is nothing we can do for you. Still expect to receive corrections to any erroneous statements you make, for while you may not wish to learn, others do.

 

[spy]

I voted for Dutch - I have played it against 1.d4 all my life. Against 1.e4 I usually play Sicilian against normal opponents but Russian defense against stronger players.

In the first five moves, White dominates the center. This leads to a winning position.

I am sorry, but that's not true. Otherwise noone would play it.

Smash, are you still here? We have to finish our game!

 

[Soviet]

look myzenium. we aren't trying to hound you, we're trying to help you a little bit. everybody makes mistakes, there's always something people don't know and we aren't trying to berate you for it, just correct erreoneous statements. you don't have to apologize for making an honest mistake. i'm sure you aren't the only person who has said things like you did (stuff about the center, etc...no need to rehash it the millionth time).

no I don't play flank openings. I do play the grunefeld which maybe you might consider a flank opening...and the sicilian. h4- actually h4 while i'd never play it, GM Skembris (I think that's the spelling) has played it before. Several times. GM Johnny Hector probably has too but i'm not sure about that, he's the same kinda weird experimenter. I actually know a guy who was about 1750 who played h4 vs a 2000 player and ended up losing in the ending, so I think the fatal mistake wasn't h4 but somewhere in the middlegame. h4 isn't something i'd advocate, but...it's marginally playable to some extent. not something i'd ever play though.

 

[Ribannah]

There is Salov-Vaganian, 1. h4 ½-½, World Cup Rotterdam 1989.
The best defence against the April Fool is of course 1...d5, since after 1...e5 2. c4 White has an easy game.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Yes, soviet, Jonny Hector has played 1.h4 against pretty strong opposition. A Hungarian master by the name of Kadas also played it; for instance this line 1.h4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3, turning tit into a Scandinavian gambit with a possibly useful extra move thrown in.
About the Grünfeld, I think that that fine opening can possibly be termed as a flank opening, after all its key-motif is to pressurize white's center with your pieces.
However speaking about flank openings,I associate that more with pure fianchettos, 1.b3 or 1.g3. I used to play g3 quite a lot myself in my active days, it is very elastic and also be transformed into other openings, e.g. 1.g3 e5 2.c4 and you have an English opening, or 1.g3 d5 2.Nf3 and presto - a Reti! In both cases black already has comitted him-/herself to a certain pawn formation.

 

[Mongols_rule]

I usually play Sicilian against normal opponents but Russian defense against stronger players.

Ah, Russian defense! Love it, always confuses the other player. Why does everyone think Sicilian is so good? Anyone want a game? Try to use Sicilian on me!

I can't believe I'm the only one who picked Slav/Semi Slav def.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Mongols_rule - Regarding the Sicilian. I can only speak for myself, but I feel that many will agree with me in what I write here.
The attraction of the Sicilian is that it is a good opening when you are playing for a win, since you usually get unbalanced dynamic positions with chances for both sides. This also usually result in exciting games. Among the motives are, from black's point of view, the attraction of getting a pawn-majority in the centre- very often if white's initiative runs out, he will be left with annoying positional problems. Typical examples of those problems is that black achieves the break d6-d5 under good circumstances or that his pieces floods white's queen-side. In many lines the exchange-sacrife Rxc3 is also a dangerous possibility white must look out for.
Needless to say, the black player also runs bigger risk in this opening than certain others. The ******** development can someties result in smashing white attacks against the king. Also in lines like Scheveningen and Najdorf black never achieves any active play and is completely smothered. There is an old, not completely correct saying that in the Sicilian white wins the short games and black the long ones.
About playing a game with it... You would probably beat me, but then it would be I, rather than the opening that should be blamed.
I deduce from your opening repertoire that you are a player who rather prefer clear positions and that Russian -also an excellent opening - is a very good choice on your part.
I also had the Slav on my repertoire for a while, as well as the Dutch and the modern Benoni.But eventually my fascination for the King's Indian prevailed...

 

[Soviet]

I think your evaluation of the sicilian greatly depends on what line is in question. I play a four knights sicilian for example, which is NOTHING like most sicilian lines. The only problem is, it's often hard to get more than a draw out of it, but regardless, it's a lot different than most lines.

 

[Red Threat]

Mongols_rule - Regarding the Sicilian. I can only speak for myself, but I feel that many will agree with me in what I write here.
The attraction of the Sicilian is that it is a good opening when you are playing for a win, since you usually get unbalanced dynamic positions with chances for both sides. This also usually result in exciting games. Among the motives are, from black's point of view, the attraction of getting a pawn-majority in the centre- very often if white's initiative runs out, he will be left with annoying positional problems. Typical examples of those problems is that black achieves the break d6-d5 under good circumstances or that his pieces floods white's queen-side. In many lines the exchange-sacrife Rxc3 is also a dangerous possibility white must look out for.
Needless to say, the black player also runs bigger risk in this opening than certain others. The ******** development can someties result in smashing white attacks against the king. Also in lines like Scheveningen and Najdorf black never achieves any active play and is completely smothered. There is an old, not completely correct saying that in the Sicilian white wins the short games and black the long ones.
About playing a game with it... You would probably beat me, but then it would be I, rather than the opening that should be blamed.
I deduce from your opening repertoire that you are a player who rather prefer clear positions and that Russian -also an excellent opening - is a very good choice on your part.
I also had the Slav on my repertoire for a while, as well as the Dutch and the modern Benoni.But eventually my fascination for the King's Indian prevailed...

I completely agree with you - because I'm a Najdorf player.

Against 1. d4 I usually play the King's Indian, exspecially the 6...Nc6 play against the Saemisch variation and the g2-g3 lines. I hate the lines with c7-c5, so I prefer playing e7-e5 supporting this move with the Queen's knight (Nb8-a6, if you want an example). I can play the Nimzo-Indian and Queen's Indian defence also.