PDA

View Full Version : Owen Defence 1. e4 b6 (Gunner Variation)



Basil
15-07-2007, 12:34 AM
Picture this ... Adelaide. Elysium Bar (or thereabouts). July 2007. Aaron Guthrie and Howard Duggan discussing responses to 1.e4 that aren't 1...d5 or 1... c5.

"What about 1... b6?" he enquires hopefully.
The rest of the conversation is classified.

I've subsequently discovered it's called the Owen Defence. Can anyone throw any light on this opening (from Black's perspective)? I'm guessing it's got novelty possibilities at club level, although not particularly good towards the upper echelons.

Garvinator
15-07-2007, 12:48 AM
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=710&highlight=owen%27s+defence

Basil
15-07-2007, 12:57 AM
Thanks G.

Garvinator
15-07-2007, 12:58 AM
Thanks G.
In the spirit of- there really is a thread on everything here ;)

Basil
15-07-2007, 01:01 AM
So ... what do we know? Not a lot, except that 1... b6 is a little off the beaten track (by comparison to others). I say let's create a variation known as the Chesschat Defence! based on 1... b6.

Together we will make history and bamboozle non BBers for years to come! Once we have have it all worked out, we will scramble the code :eek: Or at least take to CL where we will enlist our top operatives to work on it under cover!

Basil
15-07-2007, 01:26 AM
In the previous thread (linked above), there were no 3... Nc6. So I propose that, except against 2.d5!

1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Bd3 Nc6

Basil
15-07-2007, 01:35 AM
1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. d5 e6 4. dxe6 fxe6 =

Basil
15-07-2007, 01:56 AM
Here's a continuation from a comp after I have plugged in 4...Nb4. Score +.20 for white. This is a good score for black after 4 moves (the vagaries of computer scoring the openings notwithstanding).

Garvin, you and that box of bytes known as Rybka are on the team. Jono, Igor, Manga, Bonham (and anyone else who wants in - let's go!)

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Nb4 5. O-O e6 6. c4 Nxd3 7. Qxd3 Ne7 8.Nc3 Ng6

Basil
15-07-2007, 03:45 AM
and here's an unaided HIARCS v HIARCS game won by black barely leaving his own half while white knocks himself out!

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Nb4 5. O-O e6 6. c4 Nxd3 7. Qxd3 Ne7 8.
Nc3 Ng6 9. d5 Be7 10. Be3 O-O 11. Rad1 c6 12. Rfe1 cxd5 13. exd5 Rc8 14. b3 Bb4
15. Bd2 Be7 16. Be3 Bb4 17. Bd2 Be7 18. a4 Qc7 19. Nb5 Qb8 20. Bc3 a6 21. Nbd4
Rfe8 22. a5 bxa5 23. Bxa5 Nf4 24. Qe4 Bd6 25. Ng5 Ng6 26. Qf3 Bxh2+ 27. Kf1 Bf4
28. Nh3 Bh6 29. Kg1 exd5 30. Rxe8+ Rxe8 31. cxd5 Ne7 32. Nf5 Nxf5 33. Qxf5 Re5
34. Qxd7 Qa8 35. g4 Rxd5 36. Rxd5 Bxd5 37. g5 Be6 38. Qd8+ Qxd8 39. Bxd8 Bxh3
40. gxh6 gxh6 41. Bf6 h5 42. Kh2 Be6 43. b4 h6 44. Kg3 Kh7 45. Kf4 Kg6 46. Ke5
Bg4 47. Bd8 Bf3 48. Bh4 Bb7 49. Be7 Bc6 50. Bh4 Bf3 51. Bd8 Be2 52. Bh4 Bd1 53.
Bf6 Bb3 54. Bh4 Bc4 55. Bf6 Bd5 56. Be7 Bg2 57. Bh4 Bc6 58. Be7 Bd7 59. Bh4 Bf5
60. Bf6 Bh3 61. Bh4 Bg2 62. Be7 Bb7 63. Bd8 Bf3 64. Bh4 Be2 65. Bf6 Bd1 66. Bh4
Bb3 67. Bd8 Ba4 68. Bf6 Bb5 69. Bh4 Bd3 70. Be7 Bf1 71. Bf6 Bb5 72. Bh4 Be2 73.
Bf6 Bf1 74. Be7 Bd3 75. Bh4 Bc2 76. Bd8 Ba4 77. Bf6 Bb3 78. Bd8 Bc2 79. Bh4 Bf5
80. Bf6 Bg4 81. Bd8 f5 82. f4 Bf3 83. Bh4 Be4 84. Bf6 Bc6 85. Be7 Bb5 86. Bh4
Bc4 87. Be7 Bd3 88. Bh4 Bb5 89. Bf2 Bc4 90. Bh4 Bd3 91. Bf6 Be4 92. Bh4 Bf3 93.
Bf6 Bd1 94. Bh4 Ba4 95. Bf2 Bc6 96. Bh4 Bd7 97. Kd6 Ba4 98. Ke5 Be8 99. Bf2 Bf7
100. Bh4 Bb3 101. Bf6 Ba2 102. Bh4 Bf7 103. Bf6 Ba2 104. Bh4 Bc4 105. Bd8 Bf1
106. Bh4 Bg2 107. Bf6 Bb7 108. Bh4 Bh1 109. Bf2 Bg2 110. Bh4 Ba8 111. Bf2 Bg2
112. Bh4 Be4 113. Bf6 Kf7 114. Bh4 Bb1 115. Bf2 Bd3 116. Bh4 Be4 117. Bf6 Bb1
118. Bh4 Bc2 119. Bf6 Kg6 120. Bh4 Bb1 121. Bf2 Kg7 122. Bh4 Kf7 123. Be1 Bc2
124. Bh4 Kg6 125. Be7 Bb1 126. Bf6 Bc2 127. Be7 Bb1 128. Bf6 Be4 129. Bh4 Ba8
130. Bf6 Bb7 131. Bh4 Bf3 132. Bg5 h4 133. Bxh4 Kh5 134. Bf2 Kg4 135. Kd4 h5
136. Ke3 Bd1 137. Bg1 h4 138. Kf2 Kxf4 139. Bh2+ Kg4 140. Bg1 f4 141. Kg2 Bf3+
142. Kh2 h3 143. Bb6 Bg2 144. Bd4 Kf3 145. Be5 Ke3 146. b5 axb5 147. Bd6 f3
148. Kg3 Ke2 149. Bc5 b4 150. Bb6 b3 151. Bd4 b2 152. Bxb2 f2 153. Be5 f1=Q

MichaelBaron
15-07-2007, 10:23 AM
Picture this ... Adelaide. Elysium Bar (or thereabouts). July 2007. Aaron Guthrie and Howard Duggan discussing responses to 1.e4 that aren't 1...d5 or 1... c5.

"What about 1... b6?" he enquires hopefully.
The rest of the conversation is classified.

I've subsequently discovered it's called the Owen Defence. Can anyone throw any light on this opening (from Black's perspective)? I'm guessing it's got novelty possibilities at club level, although not particularly good towards the upper echelons.

I used to play 1..b6 from time to time. In fact one year, i played it in a couple of my black games at the Australian Masters tournament!

I can also recall beating Aaron Guthrie with 1..b6 some years ago so i guess its an opening like any other.

MichaelBaron
15-07-2007, 10:24 AM
In the previous thread (linked above), there were no 3... Nc6. So I propose that, except against 2.d5!

1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Bd3 Nc6

So what is the advantage of 3...Nc6 over the traditioal moves such as e6 or Nf6? :hmm:

Basil
15-07-2007, 10:32 AM
So what is the advantage of 3...Nc6 over the traditioal moves such as e6 or Nf6? :hmm:

Thanks Mike. Appreciate being pushed. Here's my idea ...

-- Nc6 threatens to hit the Bd3 (4...Nb4). Whether it wants to is another matter, but white can feel suitably out of preparation!
-- It tempts the pawn d5 to over-stretch.
-- It gives white nothing to aim at!
-- It's even more unknown!

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2007, 11:59 AM
I would meet 3... Nc6 with 4. c3.

Basil
15-07-2007, 12:05 PM
I would meet 3... Nc6 with 4. c3.
Me too! :eek: However, our job is to find a continuation for black!

White has no book to rely on.
We are doing the research.
We're looking for surprise value and coming out of the opening with either equality or compensation.

Basil
15-07-2007, 12:11 PM
How's this!?

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. c3 e5 5. d5 Nce7 6. Nd2 Ng6

and with equality

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. c3 e5 5. d5 Nce7 6. Nd2 Ng6 7. Nc4 c6 8. dxc6
dxc6

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2007, 12:58 PM
How's this!?

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. c3 e5 5. d5 Nce7 6. Nf3 Ng6 7. 0-0

and the Bb7 is misplaced with the Pd5 chain in the way. And this chain demands c4 and Nc3 followed by a Q-side attack. I delayed it for a bit to prevent Black swapping the dark-squared B.

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. c3 e5 5. Nf3 exd4 6. cxd4 Nb4 7. Nc3 Nxd3+ 8. Qxd3 with a lead in development and strong centre to compensate for the B pair.

Basil
15-07-2007, 01:24 PM
and the Bb7 is misplaced with the Pd5 chain in the way. And this chain demands c4 and Nc3 followed by a Q-side attack.
Thanks Jon. I agree with your positional assessment; I'm not sure if you're committing to a score. The game at post #9 (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=161029&postcount=9) of this thread has a very similar theme. While black won (HIARCS v HIARCS) I'm not proposing that that isolated example is anything more than that. I am however proposing that

-- black is not worse
-- black has the bishop pair (FWIW)
-- black's best course may lie in a hyper modern 'bring-it-on' approach

From what I can see, black is by no means bad.

EDIT:
I'd also add the the bishop may be misplaced, pro tem. Later, either the white pawns move or the bishop can!

Basil
15-07-2007, 02:11 PM
I have looked at a few more variations in these lines. I'll add that as white threatens to do something with his pawn front, black's knight could and should belong on g6. {Gunner analysis - not computer - computer wants Nf6, Be7 blah blah crap}

While the positioning of the Gunner knight expends time, white has to find a plan and black gives him nothing! Black unravels slowly to be sure, but is rock solid.

Perhaps this line will be extra effective against impatient attacking white players who were looking forward to some sharp 1.e4 stuff! :doh: :lol:

Here's another example where white thinks he's going somewhere only for it all to evaporate. Absolute equality.

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. c3 e5 5. Nf3 exd4 6. cxd4 Nb4 7. Nc3 Nxd3+ 8. Qxd3 Ne7 9. O-O Ng6 10. Bg5 Be7 11. Bxe7 Qxe7 12. Rac1 O-O 13. Rfe1 Rae8 14. h3 a5 15. Nb5 c6 16. Nc3 b5 17. e5 d5 18. exd6 Qxd6 19. Ne4 Qd5 20. a4 Nf4 21. Qb1 f6 22. Rc3

WhiteElephant
15-07-2007, 03:15 PM
I used to play the Owens Defense a lot as a junior (probably close to 30 tournament games). Gave it up because I ended up with cramped positions, especially Vs pawns on c4, d5 & e4.

Basil
15-07-2007, 04:18 PM
Gave it up because I ended up with cramped positions
Hi George. Yes, I had the same complaint about the Scandinavian. I find I have to be more aggressive with 1.e4 d5 to avoid suffocation (only when white wanted to develop normally and not get overly excited). Things are better now.

Perhaps no-one enlightened you with the Gunner Variation 3...Nc6 and the Gunner Knight (on g6)!

It is quite possible that it's no good, but I am yet to see it!


especially Vs pawns on c4, d5 & e4.
... c6 seems to be a respectable freeing move. One thing seems apparent - and that the 'normal' moves are bad and the odd ones work, viz c6 and Ng6.

ER
15-07-2007, 05:10 PM
I say let's create a variation known as the Chesschat Defence! based on 1... b4.


1 ... b4 illegal move! :)
Cheers and good luck!

Aaron Guthrie
15-07-2007, 05:14 PM
1 ... b4 illegal move! :)Doubly so if White has played 1.b4!

Basil
15-07-2007, 05:15 PM
1 ... b4 illegal move! :)
Cheers and good luck!
Fixed. Trouble-maker.

Kevin Bonham
15-07-2007, 05:20 PM
There are quite a few 3...Nc6 games in chessbase. IM Lawrence Day (as a Fox and James devotee Gunner should recognise a certain claim to fame of this gentleman) has played it five times, but scoring 2/5 against opponents all rated slightly lower than himself isn't that much of a recommendation. In total in games where both sides are rated over 2200 it seems to have scored 3/9, and Bacrot played it in a blitz game against a 2400 and lost. Gunsberg also played it once.

Against 3.d5, ...e6 is the commonest reply. But 4.dxe6 happens rarely - here's a game with 4...fxe6:

[Event "NED-chT"]
[Site "Netherlands"]
[Date "1992.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Zagema,Wieb", 2360]
[Black "Wind,Michiel A", 2315]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "B00"]
1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.d5 e6 4.dxe6 fxe6 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Bd2 Nf6 7.Bd3 0-0 8.Qe2 d5
9.exd5 exd5 10.0-0-0 Re8 11.Qf3 Nbd7 12.Qf4 Bd6 13.Qh4 d4 14.Nb5 Bxg2 15.Nh3 Bxh1 16.Rxh1 Ne5
17.Be2 Bc5 18.Rg1 a6 19.Bg5 Be7 20.Qg3 axb5 21.Qxe5 Kh8 22.Bxb5 Ra5 23.Bh4 c6 24.Rxg7 Kxg7
25.Nf4 Rxb5 26.Ne6+ Kh8 27.Qf4 Qd7 28.Nxd4 Rd5 29.c3 c5 30.Nf3 Qf5 31.Qe3 Qe4 0-1

Basil
15-07-2007, 05:39 PM
Thanks Kevin. I haven't checked any databases yet. I haven't checked that game against the computer for inaccuracies. My initial comments on the posted game (which black won :doh:) are

-- I don't recommend ...Bb4 (there's a knight heading there)
-- The f8 bishop shouldn't move first anyway - the Gunner knight needs to go g6 first


IM Lawrence Day ... has played it five times, but scoring 2/5 against opponents all rated slightly lower than himself isn't that much of a recommendation.
You're right; it's not. Perhaps he didn't know what he was doing ;)

Basil
15-07-2007, 05:52 PM
4.c3 e5 variation gives black equality - and that's assuming white knows what he is doing. Details in post #18 updated with further play in the game. HIARCS v HIARCS & Duggan.

Interestingly white took much more time (an hour allowed for each side) and went nowhere! Nowhere I tells ya! White's got bloody nothing!!!

Basil
15-07-2007, 05:57 PM
Garvin, how's that trumped-up box of bytes coming along? What's she got to say about one of the better variations analysed by yours truly this millenium? ;)

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2007, 06:28 PM
Here's another example where white thinks he's going somewhere only for it all to evaporate. Absolute equality.

Mainly because White has been most cooperative.;)

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. c3 e5 5. Nf3 exd4 6. cxd4 Nb4 7. Nc3 Nxd3+ 8. Qxd3 Ne7 9. O-O Ng6 10. Bg5 Be7 11. Bxe7 Qxe7 12. Rac1 O-O 13. Rfe1 Rae8 14. h3 a5 15. Nb5 c6 16. Nc3 b5 17. e5 d5? 18. a4 [not the suggested 18. exd6] 18... b4 19. Nb1 [combined with Nd2-b3 and that backward Pc6, 'orrible Bb7 and hole on c5 give Black a lost game]

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2007, 06:35 PM
... c6 seems to be a respectable freeing move.
How so? In this position, an attack against the head of the chain seems to help White more. As long as White has played c4, he can stand there and wait for Black to do something, while White improves his Q-side. An exchange on the c-file would more often play White's game for him because he has more space on that wing.

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2007, 06:42 PM
Against 3.d5, ...e6 is the commonest reply. But 4.dxe6 happens rarely - here's a game with 4...fxe6:
3. d5 seems too early. If Black plays e5, and if White can support it with c4, it makes good sense to annoy Black's Bb7. This would make Black wish that he had chosen the King's Indian setup which makes much more sense with this central pawn structure.

If White has to play dxe6, in this position it defeats the purpose of setting up a strong pawn centre.

Basil
15-07-2007, 06:51 PM
Mainly because White has been most cooperative.;)
Cooperative at 2500 strength!


1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. c3 e5 5. Nf3 exd4 6. cxd4 Nb4 7. Nc3 Nxd3+ 8. Qxd3 Ne7 9. O-O Ng6 10. Bg5 Be7 11. Bxe7 Qxe7 12. Rac1 O-O 13. Rfe1 Rae8 14. h3 a5 15. Nb5 c6 16. Nc3 b5 17. e5 d5? 18. a4 [not the suggested 18. exd6] 18... b4 19. Nb1


... combined with Nd2-b3 and that backward Pc6, 'orrible Bb7 and hole on c5 give Black a lost game
Really? I'll have to check. BTW you're meant to be on black's side developing this plan! Either you pull your weight :lol: or you're off the team where you seem happiest :wall:

A quick glance at your assessment:
-- Agreed with the 'orrible black c pawn
-- I think you fail to acknowledge the positives in black's position (including the Gunner knight).

Aaron Guthrie
15-07-2007, 07:02 PM
A quick glance at your assessment:
-- Agreed with the 'orrible black c pawn
-- I think you fail to acknowledge the positives in black's position (including the Gunner knight).If Black isn't clearly worse after the 11th Chess has thus been refuted! ;)

Basil
15-07-2007, 07:15 PM
If Black isn't clearly worse after the 11th Chess has thus been refuted! ;)
You and Jono are a pair of utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter unhelpful pinorcles!

I suppose you both belong to the same club that rubbishes the Scandinavian and The Tromp which HRH Rogers uses.

Now please get a grip and jump on board and get the baby off the ground! This is a team effort, and you have been invited to the team by President Duggan. Get busy boys and make this work! And stop standing inthe corbner and pissing on our ChessChat parade :lol:

PS If anyone were ever going to refute chess, it was going to be someone like me! ;)

Basil
15-07-2007, 07:16 PM
If Black isn't clearly worse after the 11th Chess has thus been refuted! ;)
Plug the position into your box of tricks and let me know how it assesses OUR position. OUR position being the black pieces. Chop chop.

Garvinator
15-07-2007, 07:17 PM
Garvin, how's that trumped-up box of bytes coming along? What's she got to say about one of the better variations analysed by yours truly this millenium? ;)
Still in the box, hasnt been unwrapped as of yet. Just waiting for the early variations to be agreed on before getting out the hardware.

Basil
15-07-2007, 07:20 PM
Still in the box, hasnt been unwrapped as of yet. Just waiting for the early variations to be agreed on before getting out the hardware.
Good man. Glad you're here. You're on the team for the moment ;)

I'd like her out of the box assessing the position after black's move 11. I either need a cork and a zipping or we need to run these two mealy-mouthed nay-sayers out of town. Let's go!

Mac, you're lurking! What say you?

Aaron Guthrie
15-07-2007, 07:20 PM
Objectivity is important in Chess! And refutation is constructive too!

Take a look at the position after Blacks 11th. White is ahead in development, has a good pawn center, has a good weakness to attack on c7. Is this really think this is the type of position you want to aim for from the opening?

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2007, 07:27 PM
Cooperative at 2500 strength!
Hard to believe that a 2500 human wouldn't relish the chance to leave that B and backward c-pawn looking 'orrible.


Really? I'll have to check. BTW you're meant to be on black's side developing this plan! Either you pull your weight :lol: or you're off the team where you seem happiest :wall:
OK, try 15...Bxe4. Or earlier, 3... e6 and c5. Can't say I'd be comfortable playing Black all the same. Hey, maybe it could be an idea for a handicap tournament, making the higher-rated player suffer through the Owen's ;)


A quick glance at your assessment:
-- Agreed with the 'orrible black c pawn
-- I think you fail to acknowledge the positives in black's position (including the Gunner knight).
Then Black must try to bring other pieces to cooperate with it. Allowing the B to be walled in behind his own Ps is not helping it.

Basil
15-07-2007, 07:28 PM
Objectivity is important in Chess!
Vital. And you two have clearly lost yours. While I accept the negatives in the assessments, I see no effort to acknowledge (as is part of the objectivity) the pluses for black; and I see no effort in developing black's cause (as was your sacred mission).


And refutation is constructive too!
It is! May I have some please :lol:


Take a look at the position after Blacks 11th.
I have.



White is ahead in development
Temporarily


has a good pawn center
What's he going to do with it? It's unsupported. If it moves, it collapses.


has a good weakness to attack on c7.
OK, let's try and prove it. I've been looking at how to do that. BTW do you recall our convo in Adelaide about trying to argue a position that is not necessarily one's own? The true mark of a Cardassian Warrior!


Is this really think this is the type of position you want to aim for from the opening?
ATM - I like it. And no-one and nothing has refuted it. But willing to learn. As I have said previously, white is all dressed up and has nowhere to go. Well Jono's created c pawn is one place.

Basil
15-07-2007, 07:33 PM
Then Black must try to bring other pieces to cooperate with it. Allowing the B to be walled in behind his own Ps is not helping it.

Yes. In your final position (with black's admittedly weak c pawn (I haven't checked if he had to allow it)) a timely Bc8 and Nf4. Can't be all bad while black is chasing peons.

Aaron Guthrie
15-07-2007, 07:38 PM
Vital. And you two have clearly lost yours. While I accept the negatives in the assessments, I see no effort to acknowledge (as is part of the objectivity) the pluses for black;His pawn structure is worse than Whites. His bishop and Knight are no better than their White counterparts. His queen placement is worse than whites. His king is slower than whites. His rooks are slower than whites. Where are the pluses?
and I see no effort in developing black's cause (as was your sacred mission).I would suggest black would be helped by finding some improvement before move 11.
What's he going to do with it? It's unsupported. If it moves, it collapses.He is going to control the centre with it.
OK, let's try and prove it. I've been looking at how to do that. See my positional refutation at the top of this post. :)
BTW do you recall our convo in Adelaide about trying to argue a position that is not necessarily one's own? The true mark of a Cardassian Warrior!Well I guess Black has the makings of a hack attack, but then I always think that regardless of the position. But in all seriousness I don't think that every position deserves defence, and I think that this is one of those positions.

Basil
15-07-2007, 07:41 PM
Jono

I've had a look at your variation (below). Your claim that black has a lost game from here is the second most preposterous piece of horse raddish you have ever perpetrated on this board ;)

The chances are equal. Black has compensation. HIARCS claims equality 0.00 (albeit after only 30 secs). Now make it work lads!!!

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. c3 e5 5. Nf3 exd4 6. cxd4 Nb4 7. Nc3 Nxd3+ 8. Qxd3 Ne7 9. O-O Ng6 10. Bg5 Be7 11. Bxe7 Qxe7 12. Rac1 O-O 13. Rfe1 Rae8 14. h3 a5 15. Nb5 c6 16. Nc3 b5 17. e5 d5? 18. a4 b4

Basil
15-07-2007, 07:43 PM
But in all seriousness I don't think that every position deserves defence, and I think that this is one of those positions.
Fair enough! You're outta here!
(And I've captured your quote for posterity! ;))

Aaron Guthrie
15-07-2007, 07:46 PM
Fair enough! You're outta here!
(And I've captured your quote for posterity! ;))Any response to my positional argument (i.e. the piece comparison, and the reason for my postericized pun)?

Basil
15-07-2007, 08:15 PM
Any response to my positional argument (i.e. the piece comparison...)?

Are you referring to this?


His pawn structure is worse than Whites. His bishop and Knight are no better than their White counterparts. His queen placement is worse than whites. His king is slower than whites. His rooks are slower than whites. Where are the pluses?

If so. I say that White's advantages as described, do exist. I say they are temporary. I say black's long term prospects are good. I say black's currently inactive pieces will unwind better than white's.

I also say it is a monstrous stretch that you have dismissed this quite playable position out of hand - an assessment which does you little credit. I wonder if you are this savage on other 'proven' playable variations, say in a Sicilian where black may be 'worse'?


... and the reason for my postericized pun)?
I don't understand this part.

Kevin Bonham
15-07-2007, 08:33 PM
The chances are equal. Black has compensation. HIARCS claims equality 0.00 (albeit after only 30 secs).

Ancient Fritz reckons Black is better! But it soon gets disabused, because the reason it thinks Black is doing well is ...f6 followed by ...fxe5 dismantling white's centre. Except it doesn't: 19.Nb1 f6 20.Nbd2 fxe5 21.Nxe5 and white is clearly better after either ...Nf4 or ...Nxe5.

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2007, 08:35 PM
Yes. In your final position (with black's admittedly weak c pawn (I haven't checked if he had to allow it)) a timely Bc8 and Nf4. Can't be all bad while black is chasing peons.
Black will probably need ... f6 to allow his heavy pieces to help [edit: just saw KB's post above, and it's as I thought: White can cope quite easily but it's still Black's only chance]. I don't trust computer evaluations of strategical positions; they are excellent for forced variations so are useful for tactical positions.


I say that White's advantages as described, do exist. I say they are temporary. I say black's long term prospects are good.
If anything, it's the opposite. Black will need to try for some short-term threats, because his long-term outlook is lousy because White's advantages are of a permanent nature.

Basil
15-07-2007, 08:38 PM
Roger. Thanks Aaron, Jon and Kev.

This strikes me somewhat familiar as the 'What's White's Plan' thread where the oh-so-obvious-knight-c1 was winning! Perhaps I have to assert that the "position for black is so lost, I dare anyone to save it routine" :lol:

OK, everyone back to the Sicilian ... well you lot anyway.

Basil
15-07-2007, 09:05 PM
Ancient Fritz reckons Black is better!
Excellent start!

Now how about an improvement zwischenzug on Acient Fritz, thus:

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. c3 e5 5. Nf3 exd4 6. cxd4 Nb4 7. Nc3 Nxd3+ 8. Qxd3 Ne7 9. O-O Ng6 10. Bg5 Be7 11. Bxe7 Qxe7 12. Rac1 O-O 13. Rfe1 Rae8 14. h3 a5 15. Nb5 c6 16. Nc3 b5 17. e5 d5? 18. a4 b4 19. Nb1 f6 20. Nbd2 Nf4

Now what!?

Kevin Bonham
15-07-2007, 09:11 PM
:clap: :clap: 20...Nf4 looks strong to me; I can't find any advantage for white.

Desmond
15-07-2007, 09:12 PM
If 9...Ng6 really gives Black such a fantastic knight, can't delay castling for a move and play 9.Bg5

Basil
15-07-2007, 09:14 PM
If 9...Ng6 really gives Black such a fantastic knight, can't delay castling for a move and play 9.Bg5
Hi mate, when I saw you pop in ... well you can imagine :doh: Then I saw your IF and 'fantastic', and I thought here we go again. Caaaarn, give a Howser a break and help me develop this opening ... Caaaaarn ... I'm looking for friends here!

How's bub and family?

Basil
15-07-2007, 09:16 PM
:clap: :clap: 20...Nf4 looks strong to me; I can't find any advantage for white.

Thank you thank you ... and we're only just a couple of moves on from the terminal evaluation from those naysayers of doom (and generally unhelpful team-mates).

Now, where's The Manager and his side-kick? ;)

Desmond
15-07-2007, 09:42 PM
Hi mate, when I saw you pop in ... well you can imagine :doh: Then I saw your IF and 'fantastic', and I thought here we go again. Caaaarn, give a Howser a break and help me develop this opening ... Caaaaarn ... I'm looking for friends here!

How's bub and family?ok fair enough. I don't like the way white played the opening, but that's not the point of the thread I guess. Since I'm making a post, I'll offer this suggestion for Black: it would be better to open the f-file asap, so I'd probably have a good hard look at 17...f6. At first I was worried about 18. exf6 Qxf6 19.Ne4 followed by Nd6, but 19.Qf4 seems to be satisfactory for black.

Garvinator
15-07-2007, 10:32 PM
General comment, I think I can improve the opening for white, or at least offer a few suggestions.


If 9...Ng6 really gives Black such a fantastic knight, can't delay castling for a move and play 9.Bg5

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. c3 e5 5. Nf3 exd4 6. cxd4 Nb4 7. Nc3 Nxd3+ 8. Qxd3 Ne7 9. Bg5 d5 and then what? Perhaps 10. e5 h6 11. Bd2 Nc6 12. 0-0 Qd7 and then black is ready to castle queenside

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2007, 10:49 PM
:clap: :clap: 20...Nf4 looks strong to me; I can't find any advantage for white.
It is definitely in the spirit of Black's plan.

However, I don't think you need to find an advantage because it was never lost in the first place ;) 21.Qc2 looks solid, and White will gain control of the e5 square, most likely. However strong the Gunner N might be, White has two Ns to cope with it, while Black's other minor is out of play. White has all the long-term pluses, so consolidation is all he needs for now, and exchanges on the e file will help.

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2007, 10:54 PM
General comment, I think I can improve the opening for white, or at least offer a few suggestions.
1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. c3 e5 5. Nf3 exd4 6. cxd4 Nb4 7. Nc3 Nxd3+ 8. Qxd3 Ne7 9. Bg5 d5 GG: and then what? J: 10. exd5 Bxd5 11.
Nxd5 Qxd5 12. 0-0 and while White has a theoretical weakness of an IQP and a theoretically bad B, Black has lost his B-pair, has a weak c-pawn and light squares on the Q-side, and is lagging in development.

Basil
15-07-2007, 11:07 PM
Thanks Jon & Garvin


J: 10. exd5 Bxd5 11. Nxd5 Qxd5 12. 0-0 ...

Another zwischenzug (10...f6!) first ... !

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. c3 e5 5. Nf3 exd4 6. cxd4 Nb4 7. Nc3 Nxd3+ 8. Qxd3 Ne7 9. Bg5 d5 10. exd5 f6

White can place his Bishop where he wants and then black takes with the (Gunner) knight. HIARCS eval =

Garvinator
15-07-2007, 11:17 PM
Howie, have a look at 9. ... f6.

Basil
15-07-2007, 11:20 PM
Howie, have a look at 9. ... f6.
I'm off to bed now. Will have a quick look. Would appreciate your analysis/ assessment..

MichaelBaron
15-07-2007, 11:20 PM
I would not play d5 against Gunner simply because...if you are facing a new line its best to avoid sharp continuations where your opponent is well prepared.

how about a3 to prevent Nb4? also Nb4-Nxd3 may still allow white to hold on to some edge even without 2 bishops as he will control the center? :hmm:

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2007, 11:25 PM
I would not play d5 against Gunner simply because...if you are facing a new line its best to avoid sharp continuations where your opponent is well prepared.
That's reasonable, unless your initials are JRCyG.


how about a3 to prevent Nb4? also Nb4-Nxd3 may still allow white to hold on to some edge even without 2 bishops as he will control the center? :hmm:
When does White play a3?

Basil
15-07-2007, 11:27 PM
Hi Mike

I would not play d5 against Gunner simply because...if you are facing a new line its best to avoid sharp continuations where your opponent is well prepared.
I think there is an important point deep within your comment. We are trying to assess this with best play - which is best for an ultimate determination of the system. However at the outset of this thread, I did mention some not too insignificant issues which include the unprepared player (club level blundering by over extending) as well as black allowing himself time while white thinks he's doing something. As I think you've suggested, no doubt many players of varying levels will slooooow right down against this line and allow black even more time than he already allows himself.


... how about a3 to prevent Nb4? also Nb4-Nxd3 may still allow white to hold on to some edge even without 2 bishops as he will control the center? :hmm:
Would you care to give us a pgn scenario? I like what you suggest (for white, for the sake of examination). My initial response is that the c6 knight merely threatens to go to b4 (didn't we rule that out with c3? - or is this after the exchange when the pawn d4 reappears on the board). He doesn't have to go there. If white wants to expend a tempo against black's developing Nc6 move, that can hardly be a bad thing. As to black's best continuation in the game, that remains to be seen. Perhaps the c6 knight goes walkies to e7, g1 and h6! :eek: Double Gunner knights - yowser! :lol:

Garvinator
15-07-2007, 11:28 PM
By the way, when does white play d5? Our main variation under discussion at the moment is:

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. c3 e5 5. Nf3 exd4 6. cxd4 Nb4 7. Nc3 Nxd3+ 8. Qxd3

Basil
15-07-2007, 11:37 PM
By the way, when does white play d5? Our main variation under discussion at the moment is:

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. c3 e5 5. Nf3 exd4 6. cxd4 Nb4 7. Nc3 Nxd3+ 8. Qxd3

I think Mike may have been talking generally in relation to objections from those who have avoided the traditional lines. It was raised as a principal by Jon at post #16 and again by George at #19.

The idea being that d5 snubs the Owen bishop in the immediate and mid term.

Aaron Guthrie
16-07-2007, 02:39 AM
Are you referring to this?Yes.
If so. I say that White's advantages as described, do exist. I say they are temporary. I say black's long term prospects are good. I say black's currently inactive pieces will unwind better than white's. So OK if I am forced to play devils advocate I can, but I don't think it will ever be convincing because the positional factors really are in Whites favour. All of the usual positional factors are either equal or favour white. Furthermore there is no real weakness in his position. What I mean is that if I were to say "Black has a potential attack with Nf4 because of the bishop on g2, and blah blah blah" it would seem to me to be a good response to say that this is just fantasy. How can white, with a good position, with no real weaknesses, fall to such an attack? Or one could try and run the line that the pawn centre is a long term weakness. But again this just seems too much of a fantasy. White can easily get his rooks to e1 and d1, his other pieces are already well developed, and the pawn center isn't fixed. The point is that I think any line that is run is just going to fail to the brute fact that White has a good position and a lead in development. There are cases where the positional advantage is only an optical advantage, but I do not see any reason to think that this is the case here.

The line of defence you indicate would be approximately best, I think. However I suggest to be viable it would take a lot more fleshing out (why will his pieces turn out better?). At the moment I can't be bothered fleshing out this position, nor further refining what I said in the previous paragraph to try and pre-refute a fleshing out.
I also say it is a monstrous stretch that you have dismissed this quite playable position out of hand - an assessment which does you little credit. I wonder if you are this savage on other 'proven' playable variations, say in a Sicilian where black may be 'worse'?If he is only 'worse' then no I would not be so savage. But if he is truly worse, then I would be.
I don't understand this part."defence" as in practical defence of a chess position, and defence as in argumentative defence of a position. "position" as in an argumentative position, and position as in a chess position. Or is this not an instance of a pun?

Basil
16-07-2007, 08:26 AM
Aaron, just to be clear - this is the game in which you say black is clearly worse after the 11th. Here's the position:

r3k2r/pbppqppp/1p4n1/8/3PP3/2NQ1N2/PP3PPP/R4RK1 w kq - 0 11

As it happens the game conitunes

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. c3 e5 5. Nf3 exd4 6. cxd4 Nb4 7. Nc3 Nxd3+ 8. Qxd3 Ne7 9. O-O Ng6 10. Bg5 Be7 11. Bxe7 Qxe7 12. Rac1 O-O 13. Rfe1 Rae8 14. h3 a5 15. Nb5 c6 16. Nc3 b5 17. e5 d5? 18. a4 b4 19. Nb1 f6 20. Nbd2 Nf4

where there is no advantage for white {HIARCS, Bonham, Duggan}.

But back to the position. I have agreed with your individual elemental assessments. I say they do not collectively amount to anything much; and therefore I support our (early days) development of a credible system against 1.e4

Let's test. Please (it's an invitation & I'd be grateful) advocate a solid/ credible/ plausible 12th move for white (or anyone else for that matter).

--------------------------------------
NOTE: Others have noted suggested improvements for white. I welcome them. Further, this is just one line for white as advocated by a strongish computer. I reiterate that this thread is not a call for adversarial jousting. It is better than that. It is call for the development of a credible system.

If participants are only available for negative testing, that's fine. Those available for input on the black side a very very welcome and appreciated. However, I might be prone to savage (verb) Johnny-Come-Latelys if we start to make progress.

The Owen doesn't have much of a reputation at present. It is not uncommon for a system to be completely out of favour for decades, until a collection of free-thinkers get 'stuck in'. Wouldn't it be great if here in dozy 'ol Striiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine we could be put our name to something?

Basil
16-07-2007, 09:33 AM
Dragged from the other Owen thread, which IMO is a foot-shuffling mutual agreement that there is little objective worth to the system. Brought over here to bear in mind at fine-tuning stage.

Quote: Jono
"One reason Miles chose 1... a6 is to get an improved version of the Owen's, with 2. ... b5, since in the main Owen's lines, Black plays ...b5 later."

Noted, thanks.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2007, 11:04 AM
1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. c3 e5 5. Nf3 exd4 6. cxd4 Nb4 7. Nc3 Nxd3+ 8. Qxd3 Ne7 9. O-O Ng6 10. Bg5 Be7 11. Bxe7 Qxe7 12. Rac1 O-O 13. Rfe1 Rae8 14. h3 a5 15. Nb5 c6 16. Nc3 b5 17. e5 d5? 18. a4 b4 19. Nb1 f6 20. Nbd2 Nf4

where there is no advantage for white {HIARCS, Bonham, Duggan}.
I seriously disagree with that. A computer is looking at short-term forced variations. But the onus is on Black to demonstrate compensation, otherwise the long-term features of the position will kill him.


But back to the position. I have agreed with your individual elemental assessments. I say they do not collectively amount to anything much;
I say it looks like a dream position for White in the Open Ruy. Capablanca wrote about this in his Chess Fundamentals, discussing the position after something like W22 in Capablanca vs Salwe and Allies, 1913 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1316947). Many in the audience thought that White had nothing, but Capa replied that his e-pawn would win because Black's backward pawn was useless for the purpose of obtaining a passed pawn.

This position looks even better, because Black has an 'orrible B. Compare Fischer vs Reshevsky, Santa Monica (1) 1966 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044252).


Let's test. Please (it's an invitation & I'd be grateful) advocate a solid/ credible/ plausible 12th move for white (or anyone else for that matter).
Black should try to avoid putting his Q-side and centre Ps on White squares, where they impede the B and leave 'orribly weak dark squares.

Basil
16-07-2007, 11:25 AM
I seriously disagree with that.
OK, I'll stop asserting black's merits. All parties have gone as far as they can to date, I believe.

Would you mind suggesting either a specific 12th move for white or else a 21st move for white. Appreciate it. Thanks Howard.

MichaelBaron
16-07-2007, 03:29 PM
To be honest i am not sure how discussion about move 21 can be instrumental evaluating 3..Nc6 :)

Lets focus on 4.a3? where will the knight go next from c6? anyway...next time i am playing internet blitz i will try 3.Nc6 and see how it feels to be black there.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2007, 03:44 PM
To be honest i am not sure how discussion about move 21 can be instrumental evaluating 3..Nc6 :)
True enough!


Lets focus on 4.a3? where will the knight go next from c6? anyway...next time i am playing internet blitz i will try 3.Nc6 and see how it feels to be black there.
Isn't the Pd4 en prise?

Igor_Goldenberg
16-07-2007, 03:53 PM
After 3.d5 e6 4.c4 I'd be reasonably happy with white's position.
3.Bd3 Nc6 4.c3 e5 - my preference is 5.d5 Nce7 6.Ne2.
After black places it's knight on g6 (where else?) it is not easy to put dark squared bishop on the big diagonal (Be7-f6 looks a bit awkward, where would king's knight go?). In that case f4 looks promising for white.
Queen side attack is another possibility. I don't think black pieces are well placed for that pawn formation.

Basil
16-07-2007, 04:10 PM
To be honest i am not sure how discussion about move 21 can be instrumental evaluating 3..Nc6 :)
It's not instrumental to evaluating 3...Nc6. It is instrumental in evaluating whether black is a dead duck in that particular position which reasonably results after ...Nc6 in one particular game! Certainly not crucial to the discussion. I'd leave for my book :lol:


Lets focus on 4.a3? where will the knight go next from c6? anyway ...
g6. The Gunner knight!

Basil
16-07-2007, 04:36 PM
After ...
Roger that, Squadron Leader. Thanks for visiting. Will digest.

Aaron Guthrie
16-07-2007, 09:14 PM
After 3...Nc6 4.Nf3 looks good to me.

And 0-0 after exd4.

I vote in favour of development, is what I am saying.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2007, 10:35 PM
Aaron, just to be clear - this is the game in which you say black is clearly worse after the 11th. Here's the position:

r3k2r/pbppqppp/1p4n1/8/3PP3/2NQ1N2/PP3PPP/R4RK1 w kq - 0 11
It occurred to me that you are willing to give up the B-pair for less in the Tromp, e.g.

1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 e6 3. e4 h6 4. Bxf6 Qxf6

The first position seems better for White than the second, because he has exchanged one of his wing pawns for a central one, and has better development.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2007, 10:44 PM
g6. The Gunner knight!

Is that really where you want it? Where White has pawns on e4 and d5, Black will often want to counter with f5. And if White takes, Black will often want to take with a pawn, because taking with a piece surrenders e4. In the game Botvinnik vs CHOD Alexander, Munich ol 1958 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032479), Black recaptured with a piece, Botvinnik dropped in a N then a B that dominated the board. Bronstein famously said that every Russian schoolboy knows that in such positions, you recapture with the P. But this is not possible when there is a N rather than a P at g6.

MichaelBaron
16-07-2007, 11:23 PM
3...Nc6 worked out Ok for me in some blitz games...but again i was playing against players below 2100.

Basil
16-07-2007, 11:33 PM
It occurred to me that you are willing to give up the B-pair for less in the Tromp, I'd rather not get into The Tromp in this thread if that's OK. I wish to assess Owen's in isolation. The reasons are many, but your point is noted FWIW.

I will digest what you have said in post #78. Thanks.

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2007, 10:52 AM
I'd rather not get into The Tromp in this thread if that's OK.
OK then. In mitigation, I would point out that strong players use analogical reasoning all the time to help assess a position. For example, when Botvinnik was complimented for his win over Ragozin in 1947 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032149), he said it was easy because all he had to do was follow Lasker's plan against Capablanca, Moscow 1935 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1258185). On a much lower level, I explain the analogous games I made use of in this win over Caoili (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1390279).

Basil
17-07-2007, 01:25 PM
OK then. In mitigation, I would point out that strong players use analogical reasoning all the time to help assess a position.
That's a fair addition to the discussion. However one of the reasons I don't want to get into the Tromp is that I feel there are broader considerations. I still accept that there are parallel concepts, although perhaps not as closely tied as you might suggest.

However, enough of that - there's worse to come in the next post!

Basil
17-07-2007, 01:57 PM
Another idea I'd like to explore in The Gunner Variation (3...Nc6) may not be met with enthusiasm in some quarters, because it goes against classical and proven opening ideas. However, I aim to show it is justified (after further examination).

The idea is that 3...Nc6 invites white to push his cramping pawn to d5. Black then drops the Nc6 back in his box! Then Nd7, and an eventual repositioning of the blunted bishop. Black's 'wasted time' is offset against white's misplaced and over-extended queen-side pieces. (There is a line in The Tromp where the wandering suicidal bishop returns to c1 after inviting black's pieces all over the shop on both sides of the board - I am happy to discuss that in the Tromp thread, I merely note the line's existence).

This system again allows
-- black to reach a credible middlegame without being razored by white's 1.e4 novelties
-- slows a sharp 1.e4 game to a more positional game (on black's terms)
-- enjoys some surprise value, where the prepared black player may be the only one with a claim to know what's going on! ;)

An example game (also played with HIARCS v HIARCS and Duggan)

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. c3 e5 5. d5 Nb8 6. Nf3 d6 7. Be3 Ne7 8. O-O Nd7 9. Na3 Ng6 10. Qa4 a6 11. Nc2 Be7 12. Nb4 O-O 13. Nc6 Qe8 14. Bc2 Bf6 15. b4 Nb8 16. Nxb8 Qxb8 17. Qb3 Qd8

Again, while not the duck's nuts, I hope to develop lines in the 3...Nc6 can be of use to the black player against the right opponent.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-07-2007, 02:04 PM
With all respect to HIARCS (no sarcasm intended whatsoever) in that particular instance it played crap. Instead of Na3-c2-b4-c6 white could just play normal c4, Nc3, b4, getting a typical pawn structure in a very good version (white bishop on d3 is fine, pawn b6 and Bb7 a clear liability for black).

Basil
17-07-2007, 02:20 PM
With all respect to HIARCS (no sarcasm intended whatsoever) in that particular instance it played crap. Instead of Na3-c2-b4-c6 white could just play normal c4, Nc3, b4, getting a typical pawn structure in a very good version (white bishop on d3 is fine, pawn b6 and Bb7 a clear liability for black).
No offence taken, Igor. The 'crap' would apply to me (and not HIARCS) I hope. Before I have a look, I recall thinking about the Na3 etc moves as they were happening and seeing that white wanted to exploit blacks queenside holes.

Now I'm off to have a look at your (respected) suggestions.

Basil
17-07-2007, 02:45 PM
Here is a more 'normal' treatment for white.
-- Black is certainly more cramped (as George suggested earlier)
-- There have been no captures
-- There is a long term weakness on c7 (which may or may not be liquidated)

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. c3 e5 5. d5 Nb8 6. Nf3 d6 7. Be3 Ne7 8. O-O Ng6 9. c4 Be7 10. Nc3 O-O 11. Qd2 Nd7 12. b4 Nf6 13. h3 *

Basil
17-07-2007, 04:33 PM
I'm going to look at trying to squeeze in a timely ...c5 to relieve the long term nasty on c7. Anyone help?

Desmond
17-07-2007, 04:43 PM
Here is a more 'normal' treatment for white.
-- Black is certainly more cramped (as George suggested earlier)
-- There have been no captures
-- There is a long term weakness on c7 (which may or may not be liquidated)

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. c3 e5 5. d5 Nb8 6. Nf3 d6 7. Be3 Ne7 8. O-O Ng6 9. c4 Be7 10. Nc3 O-O 11. Qd2 Nd7 12. b4 Nf6 13. h3 *Just looking at the final position here, looks a bit like a King's Indian where black has fianchettoed his QB instead of his KB and white's queenside play is much further advanced than black's kingside play. I would prefer white here by some margin. I find the Bb7 in this pawn structure is generally relegated to biting on granite.

PS I don't think h3 was a necessity there.

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2007, 05:48 PM
Here is a more 'normal' treatment for white.
-- Black is certainly more cramped (as George suggested earlier)
-- There have been no captures
-- There is a long term weakness on c7 (which may or may not be liquidated)

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. c3 e5 5. d5 Nb8 6. Nf3 d6 7. Be3 Ne7 8. O-O Ng6 9. c4 Be7 10. Nc3 O-O 11. Qd2 Nd7 12. b4 Nf6 13. h3 *

The cramp is not necessarily bad in itself. The main problem is that White has a clear plan to improve on the Q-side (I was actually thinking of Boris before he posted here, because he likes the Q-side play for White in the KID, and it seems even better here), but no clear plan of counterplay for Black. How is Black supposed to get in his usual ...f5 without a pawn on g6, and with the B AWOL on b7?

The weakness is not so much the c-pawn but the whole Q-side. See for example Rubinstein vs Duras, Karlsbad 1911 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1000625) which has Nimzovich's notes from My System.

Basil
17-07-2007, 06:49 PM
Thank you both for your input.

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2007, 07:22 PM
Another game very similar to the "main line" of this thread is Opocensky vs Nimzowitsch, Marienbad 1925 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1007362). All commentators are agreed that Nimzo took too many liberties with this opening, and had an 'orrid game after move 10. But instead of playing according to the position with h3 (to play Be3 without Ng4), Be3, Na4 and preparing c5, White went K-side where he had no advantage.

Basil
17-07-2007, 08:41 PM
How about this? Again dedicated to slowing down a hyperactive white who thinks he's got a million tricks - and he can't get any of them out of the bag ...

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. c3 e5 5. d5 Nb8 6. Nf3 d6 7. Be3 Nf6 8. O-O Be7 9. c4 Bc8 10. Nc3 Bg4 11. h3 Bh5 12. Be2 O-O

Ged
17-07-2007, 10:55 PM
how about ...bc8 ...f5 before nf6. I haven't looked into it and it is prob bad because of whites light bishop

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2007, 11:20 PM
how about ...bc8 ...f5 before nf6. I haven't looked into it and it is prob bad because of whites light bishop
But then why put it on b7 if you're just gonna move it back?

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2007, 11:25 PM
How about this? Again dedicated to slowing down a hyperactive white who thinks he's got a million tricks - and he can't get any of them out of the bag ...

Does it have any effect on a strategist who likes a slow Q-side crush? ;)

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. c3 e5 5. d5 Nb8 6. Nf3 d6 7. Be3 {c4 and Nc3 first, because White can be pretty sure he wants to play this, but the B might be another matter} Nf6 8. O-O Be7 {... Nbd7 threatens to bother White with ...Nc5} 9. c4 Bc8 10. Nc3 Bg4 {very rarely a good spot for the B in this structure. Because the P centre is already fixed, the B brings no pressure to bear. Instead it could be exchanged, and it's theoretically Black's good B, or cut off on the K-side and get in the way of ... f5.} 11. h3 Bh5 12. Be2 O-O

WhiteElephant
17-07-2007, 11:34 PM
Why does white play 4. c3 if the plan is to later play c4? Why not 4.Nf3, 5. d5 and 6. c4?

Ged
17-07-2007, 11:45 PM
I agree with you jono but i was going by the previous posts game where bc8 was played anyway and was just wondering if f5 could be considered before nf6, if we swapped the move order of the game in question.

really why bother with b6

Basil
18-07-2007, 12:44 AM
Jon, thanks again for your input.

One the plus side, I find it useful and knowledgeable. Certainly a bonus to have you around while trying to achieve my goal of developing new(ish) ground. There is no mention of 3...Nc6 in MCO. While some smart Alec may say that's for good reason ;), I would counter that MCO covers far worse openings. This simply appears to be relatively uncharted territory.

On the minus side (and it's not uncommon on this BB) I find some of your observations picky (just for the hell of it?).

What would be great is any suggestion for an improvement for black. There haven't been many - and that is what has been called for. The balance of sum commentary from all quarters tends to be just blasting away (for the hell of it?). As Tony Blair said "I'm not bovered!"

Just to clear, the comments from Aaron, Jon and Igor have been welcome. I would much rather have had them than not. I call again for stand-up guys to throw their knowledge and thinking caps behind this system for black as an exercise in its own right.


Does it have any effect on a strategist who likes a slow Q-side crush? ;) Appreciate the humour, I'm yet to be convinced that white can crush (it certainly looks possible). The fact that we have an 1.e4 opening which has switched to basically a 1.d4 must count for something, at least in psychological terms.

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2007, 12:45 AM
Why does white play 4. c3 if the plan is to later play c4? Why not 4.Nf3, 5. d5 and 6. c4?
It's a fair question. But 4. c3 also prevents ...Nb4, gaining the B-pair and playing d5 only after ... ensures that ... e6 won't undermine the chain. Sure, White loses one tempo, but Black loses two if he puts the B back to c8.

Basil
18-07-2007, 12:46 AM
Why does white play 4. c3 if the plan is to later play c4? Why not 4.Nf3, 5. d5 and 6. c4?
c3 was suggested by Jono as an answer to 3...Nc6 preventing hitting the d3 bishop. MCO suggests 2.Bd3 as viable, normal and good way to protect the e5 pawn from the molesting bishop b7.

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2007, 12:51 AM
What would be great is any suggestion for an improvement for black.
Well, OK, if you want to play Owen's, try to be kinder to the B you've put on b7. Unfortunately 3 ... f5 just loses by force against someone who knows what they're doing, so 3 ... e6, followed by Nf6, c5. It is just anti-episcopal bigotry to allow his line to be cluttered by immobile pawns, whether his own or his opponents.


Appreciate the humour, I'm yet to be convinced that white can crush (it certainly looks possible).
But if one side has a clear plan to improve, and the other doesn't, the former has achieved his aim in the opening.


The fact that we have an 1.e4 opening which has switched to basically a 1.d4 must count for something, at least in psychological terms.
It can, but you might face opponents who serve with both hands.

Garvinator
18-07-2007, 12:59 AM
so 3 ... e6Since this thread had started, I had been thinking that 3. ... e6 is a better move order than 3. ... Nc6. I think in this opening, the move order might be 'vital' to achieving some sort of playable position.

Basil
18-07-2007, 01:08 AM
Well, OK, if you want to play Owen's, try to be kinder to the B you've put on b7.
Given that there's some inherent too-ing and fro-ing in the line that I've chosen (3...Nc6), I've already tried to be kinder to the bishop with repositioning it. I claim white does not have the best time of it at all - although he looks more comfortable. What is he going to do??? The best I've seen so far is "White has an eventual win down the queenside".


Unfortunately 3 ... f5 just loses by force against someone who knows what they're doing
It does, that's why I've haven't ventured it.


... so 3 ... e6, followed by Nf6, c5.
OK, back to standard Owen type stuff. That's not in my gamut in this thread. I thought I'd clarified that numerous times. The standard stuff exists in the previous Owen thread which Garvin linked to at post #2.


It is just anti-episcopal bigotry to allow his line to be cluttered by immobile pawns, whether his own or his opponents.
I will persist with the line for the moment (including the repositioning) and I claim that white is starting to struggle for good moves. Have we reached the point that you're unlikely (as Aaron before you) to proffer hope or plans for black in this system, because it is essentially flawed?


But if one side has a clear plan to improve, and the other doesn't, the former has achieved his aim in the opening.
I claim white hasn't achieved anything of the sort. He is better (perhaps), but then he's likely to better anyway with his pet system.


It can, but you might face opponents who serve with both hands.For sure. I'm yet to see the crush. I would hope for help in defending/ refuting it.

Aaron Guthrie
18-07-2007, 01:21 AM
I will persist with the line for the moment (including the repositioning) and I claim that white is starting to struggle for good moves. Hhave we reached the point that you're unlikely (as Aaron before you) to proffer hope or plans for black in this system, because it is essentially flawed?Part of the reason I haven't said much in this thread is time constraints. My comments have been restricted to the position I chose for assessment (aside from the offhand comment I made about 4th move possibilities).

Garvinator
18-07-2007, 01:25 AM
Dare I speak for others, but I think most of us (that is everyone participating in this thread except for Howard) wants to go back to some of the early move options, instead of harping on about positions around move 15 that are hardly likely to occur.

If I have this wrong, then please say so :uhoh:

Basil
18-07-2007, 01:34 AM
... I think most of us want to go back to some of the early move options, instead of harping on about positions around move 15 that are hardly likely to occur.

I'm interested in finding out the merits (if any) on a system based on 3...Nc6.

Because closed positions eventuate, there are no (few) terminal traps and therefore terminal early outcomes. This is itself one plus for the system (for some). There are a couple of light-squared diagonal nasties if black isn't on the ball early because he has misplaced his b7 bishop :wall: :uhoh: ;)

So, I'm looking for 4th move continuations for black, and because of the closed nature of the positions, it's often necessary to pursue likely game continuations until move 10-15 or so for an evaluation. Part of this process requires credible 4th and 5th move continuations for white (which have been offered).

Igor_Goldenberg
18-07-2007, 10:28 AM
Given that there's some inherent too-ing and fro-ing in the line that I've chosen (3...Nc6), I've already tried to be kinder to the bishop with repositioning it. I claim white does not have the best time of it at all - although he looks more comfortable. What is he going to do??? The best I've seen so far is "White has an eventual win down the queenside".


Howard,
3...Nc6 does not lose by force. But white gets a sizable advantage.

Desmond
18-07-2007, 10:54 AM
I'm interested in finding out the merits (if any) on a system based on 3...Nc6.

Because closed positions eventuate, there are no (few) terminal traps and therefore terminal early outcomes. This is itself one plus for the system (for some). That can be a trap players fall into. They think that because the game lasted longer, that the game was not decided early.


There are a couple of light-squared diagonal nasties if black isn't on the ball early because he has misplaced his b7 bishop :wall: :uhoh: ;)Yes, I was looking at some possibilities of an early ...f5 and if exf5 Bxd5 in some lines. However this was always unstuck by an interposing Bb5+, when the Qd1 is then casting a glance at the Pd5, so it doesn't work. Actually, it might even be worth trying to sac a pawn to bust up white's centre, but if there is a decent way to do this I could not find it. In any event, it seems to me that this is more an exercise in trying to find a plan in a bad position rather that trying to find a decent opening system.


So, I'm looking for 4th move continuations for black, and because of the closed nature of the positions, it's often necessary to pursue likely game continuations until move 10-15 or so for an evaluation. Part of this process requires credible 4th and 5th move continuations for white (which have been offered).The problem with driving these variations so deep is that every ply increases uncertainty and complexity. You end up trying to evaluate a position 15 moves later which actually has nothing to do with the starting position and is essentially a waste of time. Another point, which I would suggest you are guilt of, is that it is easy to find the good moves for the side you want to while neglecting to do so for the other side.

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2007, 11:13 AM
That can be a trap players fall into. They think that because the game lasted longer, that the game was not decided early.

:wall: :wall: :wall: I get that all the time: "A master like you could beat me in four moves." Long ago I lost count of pointing out that shortness of game has no correlation with difference in strength, and moreover a much weaker player than I might very well trap you in Scholar's Mate, but it's beneath the dignity of any master to play crappy moves in the hope of a trap. One reason to play blindfold ... my Irish counterpart at the World Junior suggested that.

Not everyone would enjoy a position devoid of counterplay where you just have to wait to be throttled :uhoh:

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2007, 11:23 AM
OK, back to standard Owen type stuff. That's not in my gamut in this thread. I thought I'd clarified that numerous times. The standard stuff exists in the previous Owen thread which Garvin linked to at post #2.
I wasn't trying that. Rather, I was doing my best to work from first principles. E.g. Black has a B on b7 bearing down on the light central squares. How can Black best help the B? Otherwise Black is not really playing an opening system but a series of disjointed moves. And this is just asking for a worse position without his opponent's making much effort.


I will persist with the line for the moment (including the repositioning)
But if you have to reposition, then why position it in the first place?


For sure. I'm yet to see the crush. I would hope for help in defending/ refuting it.
I've given some examples of such crushes in the linked games. In practice, Black's antidote to a Q-side crush is not simply battening down the hatches there, but mating the White K on the K-side first. Yet in the given line, Black is not well placed to do that, unlike the KID [insert classic games here, starting with the pioneers from 1953, Gligoric's smashes of Eliskases (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1041023) and Najdorf (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1101261), Mar del Plata; then Najdorf learning from his defeat and smashing Taimanov (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1101288) in the Zurich Candidates later that year].

Basil
18-07-2007, 11:53 AM
Howard,
3...Nc6 does not lose by force. But white gets a sizable advantage.
It appears that way. No argument. If at the end of the day, the system is just 'bad', so be it - and I'll be richer for having received the input from you guys. I maintain we (I) haven't examined the situation sufficiently. It is my understanding that you guys say it doesn't require further examination - there's enough evidence already.

Basil
18-07-2007, 11:59 AM
That can be a trap players fall into. They think that because the game lasted longer, that the game was not decided early.
No argument with that principle. I'm still not satisfied that that applies here. I will concede white has opportunities down the q-side. I'm yet to be convinced that they actually win (or are winning). When (if) I reach that conclusion, I'll be sure to acknowledge it.


... In any event, it seems to me that this is more an exercise in trying to find a plan in a bad position rather that trying to find a decent opening system.
Not quite. Your statement presupposes that the element of the 'bad position' exists. With so many people better qualified than I advising that it is in fact a bad position, I feel I will have to succumb (mercifully!) quicker than I otherwise would.


Another point, which I would suggest you are guilt of, is that it is easy to find the good moves for the side you want to while neglecting to do so for the other side.
I've been looking for the best moves for white. I am actually quite serious in my endeavours to prove or disprove the system, as opposed to merely evaluating it on known principles.

Basil
18-07-2007, 12:02 PM
:wall: :wall: :wall: I get that all the time: "A master like you could beat me in four moves." Long ago I lost count of pointing out that shortness of game has no correlation with difference in strength, and moreover a much weaker player than I might very well trap you in Scholar's Mate, but it's beneath the dignity of any master to play crappy moves in the hope of a trap. One reason to play blindfold ... my Irish counterpart at the World Junior suggested that.

Not everyone would enjoy a position devoid of counterplay where you just have to wait to be throttled :uhoh:

While this is all true, it would be an (unintended) insult to believe I am guilty of that line of thought.

Basil
18-07-2007, 12:09 PM
... I was doing my best to work from first principles. E.g. Black has a B on b7 bearing down on the light central squares. How can Black best help the B?
Noted. Agreed. That's why it was repositioned.


...Otherwise Black is not really playing an opening system but a series of disjointed moves.
I agree that the moves appear disjointed. I hesitate to observe that the apparent disjointed nature appears in other known systems. I'm seeking to discover whether the disjointed nature has merit. So far we 'achieved'
-- a non typical 1.e4 game
-- a closed position

I agree that white is better.


And this is just asking for a worse position without his opponent's making much effort.
I agree that white is not being pushed at all - his moves fall into place. I am looking to ascertain how much better he is after those moves. Apparently the consensus is 'considerably'.



But if you have to reposition, then why position it in the first place?
Asked and answered. I appreciate the value of my answers may not amount to anything much - but I am yet to determine that for myself even you guys are way ahead of me.

I've given some examples of such crushes in the linked games.[/QUOTE]
You have - and for the effort and knowledge, I'm grateful.

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2007, 12:30 PM
While this is all true, it would be an (unintended) insult to believe I am guilty of that line of thought.

Not at all. I know that you know better. I was just relating my encounters with people lacking chess club experience.

Basil
18-07-2007, 01:13 PM
Not at all. I know that you know better. I was just relating my encounters with people lacking chess club experience.
All good.

Desmond
18-07-2007, 01:46 PM
No argument with that principle. I'm still not satisfied that that applies here. I will concede white has opportunities down the q-side. I'm yet to be convinced that they actually win (or are winning). When (if) I reach that conclusion, I'll be sure to acknowledge it.If white has a space advantage and attacking chances down the queenside and black's plan is to batton down the hatches without any counterplay, then IMO white already has a clear advantage.


Not quite. Your statement presupposes that the element of the 'bad position' exists. With so many people better qualified than I advising that it is in fact a bad position, I feel I will have to succumb (mercifully!) quicker than I otherwise would.A presupposition based on all the evidence, including that which you preferred to omit from the quote.



I've been looking for the best moves for white. I am actually quite serious in my endeavours to prove or disprove the system, as opposed to merely evaluating it on known principles.Yes, I'm sure you are trying to, but my point is that you are looking at it from black's point of view, and it is only natural that you will find better moves for black than for white.

Basil
18-07-2007, 02:41 PM
If white has a space advantage and attacking chances down the queenside and black's plan is to batton down the hatches without any counterplay, then IMO white already has a clear advantage.
I agree white has an advantage. I am looking for ways to minimise or extinguish that advantage. I haven't found any yet.


A presupposition based on all the evidence, including that which you preferred to omit from the quote.
Yes, the evidence (as to indicators of a poor position) is there, but I am a bit behind you in accepting that the evidence is terminal and can't be overcome. Because I haven't accepted the evidence as terminal, I can't accept the premise (yet) that the position is bad (I do accept that it is not great at the moment). The main difference is that I am still questing for compensation or mitigation, whereas my betters are saying essentially 'don't bother, the system is flawed in its essence' - a concept I understand and will concede once my investigations are complete. Can't be fairer than that!


Yes, I'm sure you are trying to, but my point is that you are looking at it from black's point of view, and it is only natural that you will find better moves for black than for white.
I'm not sure if I have found better moves for black. It is difficult to be objective. All I can do is keep asking for better white moves and inserting them into the process as they arrive.

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2007, 03:51 PM
Yes, the evidence (as to indicators of a poor position) is there, but I am a bit behind you in accepting that the evidence is terminal and can't be overcome.
This may well be true. I think 3... f5 is terminally bad, but I can't be sure about the main line, although I suspect that against a reasonably skilled strategist among your peers, Black's chances are slim. Lasker defended bad positions, but there should be a warning on some of his great escapes, "Don't try this at home!"


Because I haven't accepted the evidence as terminal, I can't accept the premise (yet) that the position is bad (I do accept that it is not great at the moment).
There is a story about Petrosyan, where a master showed him a recent lost game, and asked him where he could have done better. Iron Tigran replied, "I would not have gotten into such a position in the first place."


The main difference is that I am still questing for compensation or mitigation, whereas my betters ...
People who happen to have more skill in a particular game are not necessarily your "betters".


... are saying essentially 'don't bother, the system is flawed in its essence' - a concept I understand and will concede once my investigations are complete. Can't be fairer than that!
It is also reasonable to go from the known to the unknown; this has application in many fields. Hence my analogical reasoning, trying to find related positions.

Basil
18-07-2007, 05:42 PM
"Don't try this at home!"
Understood! That's why I'm beta testing here :lol:


"I would not have gotten into such a position in the first place."
Quite!


People who happen to have more skill in a particular game are not necessarily your "betters".
I was acknowledging the appreciated class difference in chess and analysis. I feel if you, George, Brian and Igor are going to spend time with me, and I in turn won't accept everything stated on it's face; I'd like to do so (because juniors can show old dogs new tricks) whilst acknowledging the respect and esteem in which I hold you all.

Basil
18-07-2007, 09:44 PM
Message / Request for The Garvinator with his most excellent box of bytes.

Garvin, if you can find the time and have the inclination, I would be most grateful for the position at post #92 to be plugged into Her Royal Highness and left to play to the end - say an hour a side - or whatever you feel appropriate.

This is for my edification, as a learning exercise for me on what a credible top level outcome could be. I certainly don't seek to use the result (if favourable for black) as total justification for what is clearly an embryonic and patchy idea ATM.

Garvinator
19-07-2007, 12:26 AM
Message / Request for The Garvinator with his most excellent box of bytes.

Garvin, if you can find the time and have the inclination, I would be most grateful for the position at post #92 to be plugged into Her Royal Highness and left to play to the end - say an hour a side - or whatever you feel appropriate.

This is for my edification, as a learning exercise for me on what a credible top level outcome could be. I certainly don't seek to use the result (if favourable for black) as total justification for what is clearly an embryonic and patchy idea ATM.
It is going around right now. Started at 11pm, 90+30.

Garvinator
19-07-2007, 01:49 AM
As asked by Howard, I played Rybka against itself. I only got to move 24 as I am starting to have some concerns that white is not really trying to push ahead with the qside attack.

This type of long term attack plan is a known 'weakness' in engine play.

So I thought I would throw the position up and see if it worthwhile to continue on tomorrow with the engine game, or if the engine play is not really justified in the given position.

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. c3 e5 5. d5 Nb8 6. Nf3 d6 7. Be3 Nf6 8. O-O Be7 9. c4 Bc8 10. Nc3 Bg4 11. h3 Bh5 12. Be2 O-O 13. b4 a5 14. a3 Nbd7 15. Qc2 h6 16. Rfe1 Bxf3 17. Bxf3 Nh7 18. Bg4 Bg5 19. Bxg5 Nxg5 20. Qd3 Nh7 21. Nb5 Ndf6 22. Be2 Qe7 23. Qe3 Rfc8 24. h4

Basil
19-07-2007, 06:14 AM
Thanks Garvin

I'm happy for you to stop. HIARCS played the position out twice to a win for black and a draw.

I am happy to accept that the trained human eye can see a better line or concept for white than the computer(s) - certainly not out of the question, and not unique.

CameronD
19-07-2007, 04:15 PM
I read in a chessbase article once that a grandmaster said that the average chess player would defeat the best computer at chess when played at correspondence time controls due to positional factors.

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2007, 04:18 PM
I read in a chessbase article once that a grandmaster said that the average chess player would defeat the best computer at chess when played at correspondence time controls due to positional factors.
It's plausible, but how old is that article? Certainly in the line in question, I disbelieve HIARC's positional assessment.

CameronD
19-07-2007, 04:22 PM
Dont know exact date, would say between 6-18 months.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-07-2007, 04:49 PM
I read in a chessbase article once that a grandmaster said that the average chess player would defeat the best computer at chess when played at correspondence time controls due to positional factors.

Assisted by a computer to avoid tactical mistakes - yes. Otherwise "the average chess player" would miss some complicated tactics.

I'd be happy to take on the computer at a correspondence time control, but doubt would be succesful without the computer assistance.

I remember once analysing a game with Eddy Levi and having 4(four!) IM looking at the position. Yet none of us saw a very simple combination that Pocket Fritz (which is much weaker then PC version) spotted immediately.

Garvinator
19-07-2007, 11:41 PM
Thanks Garvin

I'm happy for you to stop. HIARCS played the position out twice to a win for black and a draw.

I am happy to accept that the trained human eye can see a better line or concept for white than the computer(s) - certainly not out of the question, and not unique.
Ok I started again from move 12 and played the position out at 40 moves in 2 hours etc.

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. c3 e5 5. d5 Nb8 6. Nf3 d6 7. Be3 Nf6 8. O-O Be7 9. c4 Bc8 10. Nc3 Bg4 11. h3 Bh5 12. Be2 O-O 13. a3 a5 14. b4 h6 15. Qc2 Re8 16. Rfe1 Nbd7 17. g3 Nh7 18. Nxe5 Nxe5 19. Bxh5 Bf6 20. c5 axb4 21.axb4 Rxa1 22. Rxa1 Nc4 23. Bf4 bxc5 24. bxc5 g5 25. e5 Nxe5 26. Bxe5 Bxe5 27. Bxf7+ Kxf7 28. Qxh7+ Kf8 29. Rc1 Qf6 30. cxd6 Bxd6 31. Ne4 Qg7 32. Qxg7+ Kxg7 33. Nxd6 cxd6 34. Rc7+ Kf6 35.Rh7 Ke5 36. Rxh6 Kxd5 37. Rg6 Re5 38. Kf1 Kc6 39. Rh6 Re8 40. g4 Kd5 41.Rf6 Kc5 42. Rf5+ d5 43. Rxg5 Kc4 44. f4 d4 45. Re5 Rh8 46. Kf2 Rxh3 47. f5 Rh2+ 48. Kg3 d3 49. Re1 Rh6 50. g5 1-0

Basil
19-07-2007, 11:44 PM
Thanks G