17 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by moteutschOn a novice level, Cecil Purdy, in his book "Guide to Good Chess", states that it's OK to play this opening to prepare for fianchettoing your f-bishop, as long as you don't plan on moving your e-pawn early. Sounds like his advice is consistent with your idea of playing an early c4. Purdy doesn't say why you don't want to move your e-pawn early, although I suspect it's because you'd be blocking the diagonal of your fianchettoed bishop.
[pgn]1. d4 d5 2. g3[/pgn]
What do you think of this opening? After fianchettoing the Bishop you usually play c4.
If Purdy thought it was OK to play this opening, that's good enough for me.
Edit - One other thought about why Purdy said you should only fianchetto your f-bishop if you weren't planning an early e-pawn move. Purdy also states in his book that you should not consider fianchettoing a bishop if you can simply develop it via conventional means. Maybe that was his reasoning, although only a guess on my part.
17 Aug 08
Originally posted by moteutschI thought novice was a fairly well understood term. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
Define "novice".
Slightly stronger than an absolute beginner, but not as strong as an intermediate player. At least that's my definition. If you want an elo range, I'm sure that's subjective, but my guess would be somewhere around 1100 to 1400 elo. (And I expect some here will argue with my numbers. 😀 )
18 Aug 08
Originally posted by zebanoi just did, and showed him a trick to avoid in the bird. 1.f4 and if 1..e6 avoid 2.g4?! an agressive attack but can be countered too well in modern chess.
I was starting to wonder who was going to inform Kramnik that his preferred opening is for novices.
so watch him avoid both lines come championships, im guessing hes going to try 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5!!, but didnt tell it to him myself, wanted to make him work for it 😉
anyway, why not just play the catalan in normal move order, isnt that slightly better for white?
18 Aug 08
Originally posted by Mad RookGlad to see somebody quoting Purdy! He is one of my favorite chess writers, and I think that anyone rated below 1800 would benefit from reading his Guide to Good Chess.
On a novice level, Cecil Purdy, in his book "Guide to Good Chess", states that it's OK to play this opening to prepare for fianchettoing your f-bishop, as long as you don't plan on moving your e-pawn early. Sounds like his advice is consistent with your idea of playing an early c4. Purdy doesn't say why you don't want to move your e-pawn early, although I s ...[text shortened]... ia conventional means. Maybe that was his reasoning, although only a guess on my part.
19 Aug 08
Originally posted by Mad RookA reasonable guess but I would offer up 2 thoughts.
On a novice level, Cecil Purdy, in his book "Guide to Good Chess", states that it's OK to play this opening to prepare for fianchettoing your f-bishop, as long as you don't plan on moving your e-pawn early. Sounds like his advice is consistent with your idea of playing an early c4. Purdy doesn't say why you don't want to move your e-pawn early, although I s ...[text shortened]... ia conventional means. Maybe that was his reasoning, although only a guess on my part.
1. if you play e4, you have restricted that bishop's scope that you spent two moves putting on the long diagonal.
2. By moving e3 or e4 and g3 you have created a weakness on on f3 which probably isn't attackable in the short term, but may be if black frees his pieces.
19 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by zebanoRe your #1 comment, that's exactly what I meant when I said that you'd be blocking the diagonal of your fianchettoed bishop. (I assumed that e4 would likely be played, although I didn't state it explicitly.)
A reasonable guess but I would offer up 2 thoughts.
1. if you play e4, you have restricted that bishop's scope that you spent two moves putting on the long diagonal.
2. By moving e3 or e4 and g3 you have created a weakness on on f3 which probably isn't attackable in the short term, but may be if black frees his pieces.
Good point on your #2 comment - I hadn't considered that possibility.
Yep, it would have been nice if Purdy had given his reason for this rule of thumb.