Chess Forum
[ mod this thread ] << - < - > - >>
| From | Message |
| indiana-jay 6/09/2005 21:38:10 [ report this post ] |
 Subject: KI versus DutchMessage: I haven't seen any reason why I have to leave the defense but I would like to practice Dutch defense soon (So any challenges are wellcome). It seems that there may be more possibilities resulting from 1. d4 f5. So I have questions: 1) Is there really many possibilities, and hence different game styles resulting from d4 f5? 2) How is the style of the game? Is Dutch like French? 3) Which one do you prefer (KI vs. Dutch), and why? Thanks! |
| abiyazchess 8/09/2005 11:13:17 [ report this post ] | Dutch Defence Message: that an f-pawn move leaves a king exposed in a diagonal which is why the Fool's mate all started. However , through all the opening theories I read , the best continuation for White towards f5 , is c4 or Bg5 . Usually Bg5 however , many people don't know that becuase they bother to wander of with c4,Nc3 and then e4 and and e-pawn is not worth trading in for an f-pawn . As well , as for 2. Bg5 . The best continuation as it pins the e-pawn however if Black played 2... h6 , White can get away with 3. Bh4 . Reason . 3... g5 4. e3 gxh4 5. Qh5++ . 3... g5 4. e3 d6 5. Bg3 f4 6. exf4 gxf4 7. Bh4 and the Bishop is saved. |
| tyekanyk 8/10/2005 00:35:10 [ report this post ] | suggestion Message: |
| bonsai 8/13/2005 07:25:32 [ report this post ] | Message: abiyazchess: 2...h6 is not necessarily best after 1.d4 f5 2.Bg5, 2...g6 is just as playable and less committing. Another example of different types of positions in the Dutch. |
| ccmcacollister 8/14/2005 20:18:13 [ report this post ] | Personally Message: Also the KI has only produced one variation that I find hard to deal with as BL, and it did not lose to any of the other variations during my postal career; which was more than 10 years. So I have faith in the KI ! (There is actually a saying that there are two kinds of people; those who believe in the King's Indian, and those who do not :) This is something to remember when they say the KI Is Dead (AGAIN) *** The thing is, BL has to be prepared to sac pieces when the time is right for it, whether passive sac's on his Q-side, or active sac's on his King-side. I don't believe the opening can be played successfully overall if BL is not willing to sac when called for. The games can be very close. One of the most common is...Bxph3. *** One advantage of the KI: some of the standard attacks will exceed computer horizon. A computer may be seeing WT like this: +0.2 +0.5 +0.7 +0.6 +0.6 +0.7 +0.6 +0.7 {"OOPS! Whoa! Hold-on here, I'm drop'n a ROOK or I get mated! UhOH!"} -4.7 {OUCH!!} *********** }8-) *** PS// But to say something nice about the Dutch; I do consider it my Lucky Opening (had a draw vs Ian Brooks who is now a CCGM :D) So I can't dislike it at all ! And myself, I find it often harder to play against than the KI is for me. And several players on GK seem to be very successful with it as their mainstay defence to d4. |
| jstack 8/16/2005 10:55:25 [ report this post ] | ccmcacollister Message: drainman (1845) - jstack (1579) Team match -> gameknot.com?, 03.05.2003 1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.d4 0-0 5.Bg2 d6 6.0-0 Nc6 7.Nc3 Rb8 8.d5 Na5 9.Qd3 c5 10.e4 Nd7 11.Bf4 a6 12.Rac1 b5 13.cxb5 axb5 14.Rfe1 c4 15.Qd2 Nc5 16.e5 Nd3 17.b4 Nxe1 18.Rxe1 Nb7 19.Nd4 Ra8 20.Nc6 Qd7 21.exd6 e6 22.dxe6 fxe6 23.Nxb5 Ra6 24.Nba7 c3 25.Qe2 Nxd6 26.Nxc8 Rxc8 27.Qxa6 1-0 |
| ccmcacollister 8/29/2005 03:57:56 [ report this post ] | jstack Message: So first to the matter of the knight fork. You trade a strong knight off for the rook. Indeed what is the purpose of such a knight if it doesnt hinder R's among other things. But it seems to me that the trade is wrong as it appears not worth the disarray coming to your pieces. Thus my first Q to look at: Can the knight take the other rook more effectively?! (which i didnt even look at now, & know you would already) But can it Remain where it is and the Threat of taking Rc1 Still cause WT some dismobility? 2: Could it take Nxb4 instead, and get a better position? If NO to all the above then (and this was my first impression till seeing you nab material, then decided maybe it can be okay) perhaps the c4 push is premature. 3:Could it not be made more effective by first developing the pressure behind it; the standard procedure. How nice it would have been to have Q moved. Build some pressure on the a-pawn? ****************** So if any of those Questions get a possitive answer, you can keep the advantage you seem to have in the line. IF not, then looking to earlier, first at move 12, can ...e6 be played here? Or e5!? Since ...e5 would stop his later e-file activity it seems to me. Or e6 at least may take away the e-pawn he shoves at you later if he used it to capture back. And then it has a feel like a 4 pawn attack , which you like. Where presumably he'll need to then switch to trying to shift to pusing his f-pawn into your position, as in it ehn the e-pawn is gone. But he'll have to take a tempo or two here to deal with his B being in the way on Bf4. The only thing I've actually analyzed is if ...e6 will hold up to dxe6 and it looks like a nice game for BL to me, if that happens after ...Bxe6. And havent looked at fxe6 yet. The furthering of this Ques., then will be to be sure its not harmful if ...exd5 is called for and answered by Nxd5. Can he afford Not to take tho, if you have played ...e6 and threaten following with ...e5? So, can/should that exd capture be delayed? And at what points could ...e6 or ...e5 be played later, and be better? (and I ahvent looked to ...e5 at all, it occurred to me without the board ... and as you know from my Xerox comment to you, my Blindfold is not exactly up to par :)) *** This is how far along I am right now. And hope you dont mind I am presenting this much as a logical proposition, to show others how I appoach a completely unfamiliar game variation. Now I need to look at the ideas. Hope I brought up anything to think about? Regards, Craig |
| bogg 8/30/2005 00:56:27 [ report this post ] | jstack Message: CTC (Bogg) |
| jstack 8/30/2005 18:04:36 [ report this post ] | Bogg...Craig Message: |
| jstack 8/30/2005 18:08:47 [ report this post ] | Thanks for the comments Message: |
| atrifix 9/09/2005 15:05:01 [ report this post ] | jstack Message: 1. c4 Nf6 2. g3 g6 3. Nf3 Bg7 4. d4 0-0 5. Bg2 d6 6. 0-0 Nc6 7. Nc3 Rb8 I would probably prefer 7... e5 here, but that is a matter of preference; alternatively, 7... a6 is very popular. 7... Rb8 is fine, though. 8. d5 Na5 9. Qd3!? White normally plays 9. Nd2 or 9. b3 here. The Queen doesn't stand particularly better on d3 than on d1. 9... c5 10. e4 Nd7?! The only GM game I could find with this line, Baburin-Hebden, 2001, continued 10... e5 11. dxe6 Bxe6 12. Nd5 Nxd5 13. cxd5 Bd7 with an equal position. My preference would be for 10... a6 intending ...b5. It's too early for ...Nd7, partly because White could have prevented Black from playing ...b5, and partly because the Knight can go to other places, like h5 or sacrifice itself on e4 if White plays b3. 11. Bf4?! The Bishop is misplaced on f4, which makes sense only in conjunction with an e4-e5 advance. Better is 11. Rb1 a6 12. b3, intending Bb2, and preventing Black from playing ...b5. This would give White a slight advantage. 11... a6 12. Rac1 b5 Obviously ...e5(e6) is impossible after 11. Bf4 because of dxe6 and Bxd6, but the text poses no problems for Black. 13. cxb5 axb5 14. Rfe1 c4 14... b4!? (or 15... b4) is also worth considering. I would give serious thought to playing 14... Nc4 in this position, preventing White from playing e5 and also establishing a Knight there. If White tries to win a pawn with 15. b3 Nce5 16. Nxe5 Nxe5 17. Bxe5 Bxe5 18. Nxb5 Ba6 19. a4 Bxb5 20. axb5, then we have a very likely draw. If anything, Black probably stands better because his Bishop will eventually be superbly placed on d4, whereas White's Bishop has slimmer prospects. 15. Qd2 Nc5 16. e5!? Nd3 17. b4 This is the critical position. Now 17... Nxb4 is a big improvement on 17... Nxe1. After 18. exd6 exd6 19. Nd4 Nd3 20. Ndxb5 Be5 21. Bxe5 dxe5 22. d6, then I think best is 22... Bb7, followed by exchanging the Bishops and playing ...Nb7(xd6). If 23. Bf1 then 23... Nxc1 seems to be playable. 19. Ne4 (instead of Nd4) might be playable, but Black seems to be doing well after 19... Nd3 20. Bxd6 f5, e.g. 21. Nf6+ Bxf6 22. Bxb8 Nxc1 23. Rxc1 Bb7 looks fine for Black. So that leaves only 18. Bf1, but that should give Black time to regroup his pieces with a maneuvre like 18... dxe5 19. Nxe5 Na6 and ...Nc5, possibly followed by ...Na5-b7 or ...Bb7. At any rate I think Black has at least an equal game. It's also worth noting that Black could have played 17... dxe5!? at this point, although I think 17... Nxb4 is better. 17... dxe5 would have probably saved the trouble of defending the coming attack, though. 17... Nxe1? Now White has a big advantage. The Knight on d3 played an important role in interrupting White's communications between his pieces and had some threats of exchanging itself at some point on c1, e1, or f4, but the rook on c1 (the one that is eliminated through this exchange) wasn't doing anything at all, so Black should definitely have delayed this exchange for a few moves. All of White's pieces come into the attack very quickly now. It's hard to suggest any moves for Black after this. 18. Rxe1 Nb7 19. Nd4 Ra8 20. Nc6 Qd7 21. exd6 e6 22. dxe6 fxe6 23. Nxb5 Ra6 24.Nba7 c3 25.Qe2 Nxd6 26.Nxc8 Rxc8 27.Qxa6 1-0 |
| jstack 9/10/2005 12:32:13 [ report this post ] | More on 9. Qd3 Message: Kleiman,J (2238) - Nakamura,H (2601) [E66] New York Masters 112th New York (1), 03.08.2004 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.Nf3 d6 6.0-0 Nc6 7.d4 a6 8.d5 Na5 9.Qd3 c5 10.e4 b5 11.cxb5 axb5 12.Nxb5 Ba6 13.a4 Qb6 14.b4 cxb4 15.Be3 Qb7 16.Rab1 b3 17.Nd2 Bxb5 18.axb5 Rfb8 19.b6 Qa6 20.Qxa6 Rxa6 21.Bf3 b2 22.Be2 Raxb6 23.Bxb6 Rxb6 24.Rfd1 Rb4 25.f3 Nd7 26.Nf1 Nc5 27.Kf2 Na4 28.Rd2 Nc3 29.Rbxb2 Nxe4+ 30.fxe4 Bxb2 31.Kf3 Nb3 32.Rd1 Nd4+ 33.Kf2 Nxe2 34.Kxe2 Rxe4+ 35.Kf3 Ra4 36.Ne3 Bd4 37.Nc2 Bc5 38.h4 h5 39.Rd3 Kg7 40.Ne1 Ra2 41.g4 hxg4+ 42.Kxg4 Ra4+ 43.Kh3 e5 0-1 - So the question is if I wanted to play this line, why did I not play 7..a6? instead of 7. Rb8. I don't know I must have been confused. But, more importantly, I had a chance at a similar position by playing 10..a6 The reason I played Nd7 instead was because for some reason I was worried about 11. e5. I don't know why I was worried. (11...pxp 12. Nxp b5 and black is looking better to me). Sometimes I have some very strange chess thoughts when I am playing a game. - I would like to talk about the line you gave"11. Rb1 a6 12. b3, intending Bb2, and preventing Black from playing ...b5." What I am wondering is if I can play b5 anyway sacrificing a pawn temporarily. For example, 12..b5 13. pxp pxp 14. Nxp Ba6 15. a4 Qb6 followed by 16..BxN White will have a weak isolated b pawn. However, white will have the Bishop pair. On the other hand, white does not have to take the pawn. But then black may still be okay. 11. Rb1 a6 12. b3 b5 13. Bb2 pxp 14. pxp Ne5 15. NxN BxN 16. f4 Bd4+ |
| atrifix 9/12/2005 18:42:53 [ report this post ] | Well Message: 7... a6 is certainly the most popular, but 7... Rb8 has been tried quite a few times, sometimes to get the game out of "book" lines, I imagine, although I'm not so familiar with the nuances of this opening. If you were truly worried about the possibility of an e4-e5 advance at some point, you could have played 10... e5 as in Baburin-Hebden, but 10... a6 is my preference. The mistake which leads to a lost position is 17... Nxe1, but the main thing I would take from this game is that I would probably have played 14... Nc4, at least in an OTB game. This wouldn't get into all the complications of the e4-e5 advance and would shut down White's attack with the better position. Of course, White could probably achieve a draw with the line I gave, but if Black can achieve a draw on the 14th move then he has more or less succeeded in the opening strategy. |
Post a reply to this message: |
