Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 10 Aug '06 23:18
    i dont know if this is so good for white i was just thinking about it it would be like reversed caro-kann which i think would be much better but if:

    1.c3?! d4
    2.c4?!

    which would be pretty nice for white but maybe a waste of a tempo in some opinions...

    what do you think?
  2. 10 Aug '06 23:21
    Originally posted by moon 111
    i dont know if this is so good for white i was just thinking about it it would be like reversed caro-kann which i think would be much better but if:

    1.c3?! d4
    2.c4?!

    which would be pretty nice for white but maybe a waste of a tempo in some opinions...

    what do you think?
    What?!?! How is this good for white?? Fix your annotations. 1.c3? d4!!!!!!! An impossible move! 2.c4?? How does this help white out at all?
  3. 10 Aug '06 23:24 / 1 edit
    why is that try to prove yourself right tell me whats bad about it

    and if im wrong then hehe ive never been good at seeing the goods and bads in certin openings
  4. 10 Aug '06 23:24
    Originally posted by Sicilian Smaug
    Awful.
    Moon, do me a favor, explain the reasoning behind both white's and blacks move(s).
  5. 10 Aug '06 23:25
    Originally posted by moon 111
    why is that try to prove yourself right tell me whats bad about it
    Answer mine first and then I'll prove it.
  6. 10 Aug '06 23:30
    1.c3?! caro-kannish opening
    1.d4 blocking caro kannish opening
    2.c4 offering this gambit if he takes it will lead to: 2.dxc4 3.e3 3.b5 4.Nc3 4.a6 5.a4 and its over white wins
  7. 10 Aug '06 23:41
    Originally posted by moon 111
    1.c3?! caro-kannish opening
    1.d4 blocking caro kannish opening
    2.c4 offering this gambit if he takes it will lead to: 2.dxc4 3.e3 3.b5 4.Nc3 4.a6 5.a4 and its over white wins
    Caro-Kann only works for black, because it has a chance to offer equality. White wants an advantage, not equality. Also, white has already committed himself to the e4 square so it allows black an immediate chance to strike back in the enter with d5, with the line you gave white doesn't have a chance to fight for center control. Anyhow...
    1.c3? I guess this fights for d4? but why not gain more space by playing e4, d4, or c4 and fight for control of d5 or e5.
    1...d4 I told you, this isn't possible, you mean 1...d5 Black's already gaining space and fighting for e5, it looks like equality has been reached!
    2.c4? What? Wasting a tempo. Black can't win the pawn outright because of things like 2...dxc4 3.Qa4+, but black doesn't have to try to win the pawn. Here he could play 2...e5 2...Nf6 or many other moves and have a strong position before move 3!

    And the line you gave is by no means a win for white. I continued the line in F9 and got an even game (.24) after 8 moves. There are many problems with the opening you gave.
    1.It doesn't gain much space for white.
    2.It wastes a tempo for no reason....
    3.You aren't developing!
    4.It hands central control right over to black.
  8. 10 Aug '06 23:43
    Originally posted by cmsMaster
    Caro-Kann only works for black, because it has a chance to offer equality. White wants an advantage, not equality. Also, white has already committed himself to the e4 square so it allows black an immediate chance to strike back in the enter with d5, with the line you gave white doesn't have a chance to fight for center control. Anyhow...
    1.c3? I guess ...[text shortened]... no reason....
    3.You aren't developing!
    4.It hands central control right over to black.
    Also, you didn't even consider that black has many other options after 1.c3 i.e. 1...e5, 1...c5, and 1...Nf6.
  9. 10 Aug '06 23:46
    Originally posted by moon 111
    i dont know if this is so good for white i was just thinking about it it would be like reversed caro-kann which i think would be much better but if:

    1.c3?! d4
    2.c4?!

    which would be pretty nice for white but maybe a waste of a tempo in some opinions...

    what do you think?
    Better is
    1. d3 d5
    2. d4

    Until Fritz8 it was a good way of getting an engine out of the book.
  10. 10 Aug '06 23:48
    Originally posted by ThudanBlunder
    Better is
    1. d3 d5
    2. d4

    Until Fritz8 it was a good way of getting an engine out of the book.
    No that isn't better! Listen, you ready for this moon? You ready for the greatest way to open a game ever? You may want a board for this, because it's a complicated variation. Ok, got it? Ready?

    1.e4
  11. 10 Aug '06 23:57 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by cmsMaster
    No that isn't better! Listen, you ready for this moon? You ready for the greatest way to open a game ever? You may want a board for this, because it's a complicated variation. Ok, got it? Ready?

    1.e4
    As White I used to play 1. e3 and the game would go
    1.........e5
    2. e4 Nf6
    3. Nc3 Bb4
    Thus the game would be a reversed Ruy and the engine would be out of its book. If you prefer to play against centuries of theory, that's up to you.
  12. 11 Aug '06 00:02 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by ThudanBlunder
    As White I used to play 1. e3 and the game would go
    1.........e5
    2. e4 Nf6
    3. Nc3 Bb4
    Thus the game would be a reversed Ruy and the engine would be out of its book. If you prefer to play against centuries of theory, that's up to you.
    If you prefer to waste tempi that's up to you.
  13. 11 Aug '06 00:10
    so this thread is about "inventing" stupid openings that fail for white?

    THEN MINE IS THE BEST AT FAILING!
    1. f3 e5
    2. g4
  14. 11 Aug '06 00:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by cmsMaster
    If you prefer to waste tempi that's up to you.
    How many did you have in mind?
  15. 11 Aug '06 01:30 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by cmsMaster
    If you prefer to waste tempi that's up to you.
    As White I would be prepared to lose (not waste) a tempo in order to get a much better booked-up silicon opponent out of theory, especially if I knew the opening variation well.