Chess Forum
[ mod this thread ] << - < - > - >>
| From | Message |
| spurtus 1/18/2006 08:45:57 [ report this post ] |
 Subject: Scotch openingMessage: Is it at all deprecated these days? I'd like to learn about its weaknesses... but perhaps I ought to understand it strengths first? Can you help please? Spurtus. |
| hardland 1/18/2006 19:10:44 [ report this post ] | Scotch... why for? Message: When I try to play an opening, is because it brings me something I feel I want to have. (Or at least I imagine it will bring it). Scotch seems not much interesting from other 1.e4 e5 openings. Will you find something in it? The only thing I can imagine, is the surprise, as your opponents (on the board) might no expect you to play it. |
| i_play_slowly 1/18/2006 22:40:14 [ report this post ] | can't be that bad Message: |
| naamloos 1/19/2006 04:40:27 [ report this post ] | Scotch Message: |
| naamloos 1/19/2006 04:43:35 [ report this post ] | Scotch Message: |
| ionadowman 1/19/2006 11:35:30 [ report this post ] | Scotch Game/Scotch Gambit Message: (My last completed game was a Scotch. I can't find its board number, sorry). Cheers, Ion |
| naamloos 1/20/2006 14:30:00 [ report this post ] | Scotch Message: [Event "Club Intern"] [Site "?"] [Date "2006.01.19"] [Round "?"] [White "Loos, Rudolf"] [Black "Batterink, J."] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "C45"] [BlackElo "1616"] [PlyCount "34"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 {At this point my opponent started to think for a long time. After the game Batterink explained that he used to play Qh4, but was recently beaten severely by a small by in this variant.}Nf6 5. Nxc6 bxc6 6. e5 Nd5 {Unuasual but not bad}(6... Qe7 7. Qe2 Nd5 8. c4 Nb6) 7. c4 Nb6 {Bd3 is probably better} 8. Nc3 Bb4 {Fritz says that Qg4 was necessary to maintain an advantage.} 9. Bd2 {But this move seemed natural and I was not worreid yet} Qe7 { This move changed my feeling of the game, I felt that white wasn't going to get an advantage here.} 10. a3 ?! {With the idea that after he captures on c3 and I capture back, the pawn would be defended again. I missed that capturing the pawn would give him a extra tempo due to a check.} Bd6 ?! {My opponent missed it too.} (10... Qxe5+ 11. Be2 Bd6 {White has nothing for the pawn.}11. Be3 ? {I did not consider f4, because I felt it would ruin my position and that the pawn would be gone anyway. I had actually already given up a bit.} Bxe5 12. c5 {Trying to block in the Knight which was ofcourse easely defendable.} Bxc3+ 13. bxc3 Nd5 14. Qd4 Nxe3 15. fxe3 O-O 16. Bd3 Re8 17. O-O Qxe3+ {I resigned, probably a bit prematurely, but I sure was not in a nice position.} 0-1 I hope that above is a bit understandable. I tried to translate a small portion of my annotations that were in Dutch. |
| ionadowman 1/21/2006 01:04:19 [ report this post ] | Naamloos... Message: Don't give up up on the Scotch yet - especially if it is still fairly new to you. I would recommend 8.Bd3 instead of Nc3 though! :-) Cheers, Ion |
| naamloos 1/21/2006 03:32:40 [ report this post ] | ionadowman Message: My doubts about the variation were a bit strengthend by my opponent and a personal trainer (as part of a chess course for beginners I also got an coach who would review my games played in the club) who said that 5.Nxc6 was very inaccurate and certainly inferiour to Nc3. They did not even believe it was actually a - now very popular - theoryline. I like playing open games, but always have great worries about king safety. That is why I see myself refraining a lot from playing f4 even in cases when it is necessary. Resigning was premature. After the game my opponent and I looked at some followups and black always gets an advantage, but never a won game and black had still a lot to do. These bad decisions are starting to become a trademark of mine as I have in a recent Tournament: resigned a game which was theoratically drawn, accepted a draw in a totally won pawn endgame. This behaviour was caused by another game in which I refused more than 10 draw offers (this resulted in quite a scandal as my opponent was in deep timetrouble and we had a even position. Some said that it was very unfair of me not to agree to a draw and that you should never bring time into these sort of calls. Others said there was nothing wrong with this and that my opponent was unfair for proposing that many draws) and got mated when my opponent had still had 3 seconds left on the clock (I missed a mate in one). The story on this game was even more great, because my opponent was rated 1770 and I was just a beginner and I had a won position for the first 40 moves. You can imagine that in the weeks after this I would accept any drawoffer that was trown at me. In my short history in this club I had already quite a few stir-ups, but this is not the place to discuss this. Discussions on what is ethicall are still going. ionadowman, thanks again for taking time to analyse my game, I appreciate it. |
| ccmcacollister 1/21/2006 04:58:56 [ report this post ] | ionadowman Message: board #3877700 *** Some info if anyone has trouble finding board # for their games, since some ways to find it have changed. I think there are are couple more, but here's some that will get the job done: 1) From your Profile page that others see (not your Profile changing page) just click "Active Games" and it will show Game# for all those. 2) From your My Games page, click on "Completed Games" and it shows all your board numbers for completed games {not on Past Game History, as It does not show game numbers} 3) Go into any Active Game or any Completed Game and just look at your browser's address box showing: h t t p : / / and the Game Number for that game will be in the h t t p *** Here is the linc to the Scotch I played here at GK board #1662315 *** It involves a somewhat tricky line, needing some tactical care to be exercised. And at the time, i thought of it as my own 'pet' line to play, but just to prove there is 'nothing new under the sun', i noticed it also shows up in the GK d-base a few times! Ah well . . . it remains a fun and enterprising subvariation, that I play when not in a Goring Gambit mood. *** Regards, Craig A.C. }8-) |
| ccmcacollister 1/21/2006 05:27:01 [ report this post ] | PS // Message: his overview of the opening would be to the effect that: White has little to fear in playing the opening, but at the same time, BL can equalize with proper play, which can leave WT with little in such variations. And I think that the impression I got at that time was that it could tend toward drawishness at the GM level. And for that reason other openings are often preferred. At the same time, I know from experience of playing it heavily in the 70's in OTB, back in Class B, that BL CAN get himself into trouble if he takes the opening lightly and perhaps gives away a tempo or plays the more passive set-ups. In that case WT Can get a very good position, with more space, activity, and real good attacking chances. For instance if WT can get set-up with his pieces like this: o-o-o/Nc3/Bc4/e4/f3/Qd2/Bg5/Nd4 then he will do Very Well ! Or similar set-up with pawn on c4 for a position of similar concept to the Maroczy Bind of Sicilian fame. ... The problem is, WT should probably not be able to quite establish those positions. Unless BL enters a passive line, or gives a tempo away, then WT should come up about a tempo short of being able to do it. But BL can do fine, as long as he stays with ACTIVE lines that challenge WT in the opening. Active lines such as 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 ... 4... Nf6 {5.Nc3 Bb4} 4... Bc5 ****** As opposed to a docile set-up from such as: 4... d6 4... Be7 or 4... Nxd4 ?! {Note that this is generally considered Inferior for BL to play. In this instance it is Not a case of the WT Queen representing a significant target on which to gain tempos chasing. In fact, WT could ask for no Better placement for his Queen, which BL has kindly centralized for him upon squares where it will have unusual scope and mobility. Note that attempts to harrass it, such as ...c5 really serve to weaken BL's position, moreso than any positive function. I'm aware that a lot of Chess Computers WILL make the trade; it's still bad. Has been for decades. ***** }8-) |
| ionadowman 1/21/2006 12:35:19 [ report this post ] | Thanks Craig... Message: Naamloos - I can understand your reaction to the controversy. In my young days I had much the same kind of trouble owing to inexperience. In one game (in a match between clubs) my opponent attacked two of my minor pieces, at the same time maintaining a running complaint about my not resigning a dead lost game. His assessment of the state of play was accurate enough! In sheer desperation I placed a third minor piece 'en prise', whereupon my opponent took the wrong piece and got crushed. In exculpation, there was a little more point to my move than merely to confuse the issue, but not much! The upshot was that my opponent decided that morally he didn't lose the game, and went off to claim the draw. I was young, pretty new to the club (and the city), and didn't really know anyone, so was something at a loss what to do. Back to your game, I understood that 5.Nxc6 was reasonably viable. It's likely, though, that the theory I have available is out of date. I had the line played against me several months ago on GK, though: White 'supergustavo'; Black 'ionadowman' 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nc3 (?!)(not my favorite line, this!) 5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.Bd3 d5 7.Qe2 dxe4 8.Nd2 Bb5 (I was quite proud of this move. Theory, no doubt!) 9.Bxe4 Nxe4 10.Qxe4+ Qe7 11.O-O Qxe4 12.Nxe4 Bf5 13.c3 Bxe4!? (Here some disruption the White's Q-side pawns seemed preferable to maintaining the B-pair) 14.cxb4 O-O-O 15.Be3 Kb7 16.Rac1 Bd5 17.a3 Rhe8 18.Rhd1 a6 19.Rd4 Re4 20.Rxe4 Bxe4 21.f3 Bf5 22.g4 Be6 23.Re1 Bd5 (I was already fairly confident this was a draw...) 24.Kf2 Re8 25.h4 f5 26.gxf5 Rf8 27.Rg1 Rxf5 28.Rxg7 Rxf3+ 29.Ke2 Rf7 30.Rg5 Bf3+ (Draw offered...) 31.Kd3 (No!) Rd7+ 32.Kc3 h5 33.Bd4 Rf7 34.Be5 Rd7 35.b3 Bd1 36.Rg8 Be2 37.Bd4 Bd1 38.Rg5 Be2 39.Re5 Bg4 40.Kc4 Bd1 41.Re3 Rf7 42.Be5 Rf3 43.Rxf3 Bxf3= 44.Kc5 Be2 45.a4 Bd1 46.Bc3? (A mistake, but it's still drawn) Bxb3 47.a5 Bd5 48.Bd4 Bf3 49.Bf6 Be2 Draw. White might have made the game more interesting earlier on by going after the h-pawn. One possible line has him giving up the rook for Black's B+RP, whilst the Black King is still stranded on the Q-wing. Having seen the possibilty I had worked out a defence, but decided not to set it up until forced to do so. But you can see that with due care Black can leave White with few opportunities in this line. I made no effort to try and win the game, I admit, but White had what play there was in the position. All Black can do is hang on, but it wasn't difficult... Cheers, Ion |
| ionadowman 1/21/2006 12:38:29 [ report this post ] | Oops. Message: |
| schnarre 1/23/2006 17:22:03 [ report this post ] | Hmmnn... Message: |
| ionadowman 1/23/2006 19:10:40 [ report this post ] | I've been surprised... Message: 'cheapoking' vs 'ionadowman' Goring Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 dxc3 5.Bc4 [Here 5.Nxc3 leads to a "semi" Danish Gambit] 5...Nf6 6.Nxc3 Bb4 7.O-O Bxc3 8.bxc3 d6 9.e5 Nxe5 10.Nxe5 dxe5 11.Qb3 Qe7 12.Re1 O-O!? 13.Ba3 c5 14.Rad1 b6 15.Re3 Bb7 16.Rde1 e4 17.f3 Rad8 18.Bd3 Qc7 19.Bxe4! Bxe4 20.fxe4 Ng4 [White has regained one of his pawns, but has he enough attack to compensate for the other?] 21.Rg3 Ne5 22.Rf1 Qc6 23.Rf4 Rd2 24.Bc1 c4 25.Qa3 Rd1+ 26.Rf1 Rfd8 27.Bh6?? Ng6?? 28.Qxa7?? Rxf1+ 29.Kxf1 Ra8, trapping White's Q. A further possibility at move 4 is 4.Bb5, the Relfsson Gambit. I don't know what merits it may have. Cheers, Ion |
| schaakhamster 1/24/2006 02:43:18 [ report this post ] | well Message: |
| ionadowman 1/29/2006 11:47:39 [ report this post ] | I agree... Message: For example (one of my GK games): 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.O-O Nxe4 6.Re1 d5 7.Bxd5 Qxd5 8.Nc3 Qh5 9.Nxe4 Be6 10. Bg5 Bd6 11. Nxd6+ cxd6 12.Bf4 Qd5 13. c3 Rc8 14.Qd3 O-O 15.Nxd4 Nxd4 16.Qxd4 Qxd4 17.cxd4 d5 18.Rac1...Draw agreed. Not very exciting, is it? Not very original either. Can White improve? Can Black? It might be lines like this that explain the preference for 4.Nxd4. Cheers, Ion |
| ionadowman 1/29/2006 11:49:36 [ report this post ] | Mind you... Message: |
| naamloos 1/30/2006 09:25:46 [ report this post ] | Is it Message: 1. e4 - e5 2. d4 - ed4 3. Nf3 - Nc6 Seemingly it would leave black not the option of playing [2. ... d6] or [2. ... Nf6]. Ofcourse black can play [3. ... Nf6], but that seems the be a inferior variant within the Petroff. Could somebody clearify why this isn't played/possible. In first look (A Patzers look, I confess) it seems OK. It also messes a bit with the opponent who first thinks he will have a easy time against the centergame and ends up with a Scotch. |
| ionadowman 1/30/2006 10:52:33 [ report this post ] | Yes... Message: Ion |
| naamloos 1/30/2006 12:06:30 [ report this post ] | I just Message: It does not mention your (that is inonadowmans) move Bc5, but you are right that black looks good. link: -> www.csm.astate.edu |
| ionadowman 1/31/2006 10:59:37 [ report this post ] | Fair comment... Message: Cheers, Ion |
| naamloos 1/31/2006 11:14:46 [ report this post ] | I'm not Message: But I'm afraid I'm going a bit off topic now as this is thread is not about the Kieseritsky but about the Scotch. |
| ionadowman 2/01/2006 00:00:47 [ report this post ] | I suppose... Message: In partial response (rather belated!) to Spurtus's original question, though, maybe we could consider what responses have been tried after 4.Nxd4 (the Scotch Game proper). The following have been tried more than once: 4...Bc5, 4...Nxd4 (these two might be called the Main lines) 4...Nf6 (The Schmidt Variation. A bit lifeless in my view, but OK if Black is satisfied with a draw) 4...Qh4 (The Pulling Counterattack - apparently a favorite of Steinitz. One of my current games features this line...) 4...Qf6, 4...d6, 4...Bb4+ (might be worth further investigation...) 4...Be7, 4...g6, 4...Nge7. What do you reckon? Cheers, Ion |
| naamloos 2/01/2006 05:06:29 [ report this post ] | I have not ... Message: [4. ...Nxd4] Is especially common against beginning players and is supposed to be very good for white, because black can't win tempo's on the centraliced queen (except c5, but that weakens black more than it does good for him). I believe I won the games against [4. ...Nxd4], but was slightly uncertain where the queen has to go later on. I have not meet any of the others you mentioned (except Qf6 once, can't remember how that went though). After [4. ...Bb4] isn't [5. c3] good, it seems to win a tempo for white while black does not get anything further. c3 Is the most natural square for the queenknight, but not a very big problem. The bishop has to go back ([5. ...Nxd4]-[5. Qxd4]-[5. ... Be7] is obviously bad for black) to [5. ...Bc5] (similar to the normal [Bc5] variant, but white has an extra tempo), [5. ... Be7] (probably best of evils) or [5. ... Bh5]. None of the these seem to be any good for black. I always found [4. ... Bc5] the most challenging (this is what I am using in my Scotch tourney) |
| naamloos 2/01/2006 05:10:13 [ report this post ] | I have not ... Message: [4. ...Nxd4] Is especially common against beginning players and is supposed to be very good for white, because black can't win tempo's on the centraliced queen (except c5, but that weakens black more than it does good for him). I believe I won the games against [4. ...Nxd4], but was slightly uncertain where the queen has to go later on. I have not meet any of the others you mentioned (except Qf6 once, can't remember how that went though). After [4. ...Bb4] isn't [5. c3] good, it seems to win a tempo for white while black does not get anything further. c3 Is the most natural square for the queenknight, but not a very big problem. The bishop has to go back ([5. ...Nxd4]-[5. Qxd4]-[5. ... Be7] is obviously bad for black) to [5. ...Bc5] (similar to the normal [Bc5] variant, but white has an extra tempo), [5. ... Be7] (probably best of evils) or [5. ... Bh5]. None of the these seem to be any good for black. I always found [4. ... Bc5] the most challenging (this is what I am using in my Scotch tourney) |
Post a reply to this message: |
