A Chess Confession

Originally posted by greenpawn34
This is the analysis postion in the game where I adivse playing d6
to keep the developed Bishop and not the h1 undeveloped Rook.
Blackburne as Black here gave up the Rook.

[fen]r1bq2nr/pppp1k1p/6p1/2b1Q3/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNB1K2R b KQ - 0 7[/fen]

In that analysis position what is wrong with Qe7, keeping bishop and rook? Qxe7 Nxe7 and now black has a material advantage, better development and the rook can get into the game. d5, not d6, also seems good. If then Qxh8 Qh4+ and white really is in the poo. Of course if saccing is the name of the game Bxf2+, returning the sacced material and disrupting white's kingside might be fun.

Edit: Ah, what a difference a missing pawn makes. Memo to self: Count the bloodty bits when setting up the board. I still reckon Qe7 is good though. And when did the number of edits thingy disappear?

I've done that before looked at the wrong position.
You set up the position from memory (very dodgy at my age)
or skip through the game missing out a move and you
waste 30 minutes of your life.

Saving the developed piece instead of the Rook leads
us to one of the most famous instructive games in Chess.

N.N. - Blackburne.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi

I've played a few London Systems at blitz (always good to try out
an opening you might have to play against - someone will play
something and you will get ideas and spot things you don't like
in that opening you can use to play against it.)

I'm not having a go at you Paul but I've seen some of your games.

If you want to play something like ...[text shortened]... ost likely do not have the book and just say
you have to pysche out future opponents. 😉

I know where you are coming from, GP, but I think you don't give enough credit to Johnsen and Kovacevic's book.

Here's an example of the objectivity they bring to the book.

In the section "Other 1st moves", they look at the transpositional 1. ... d6 and 1. ... g6. At the end, they give:

"Conclusion
You should play the London System against 1. ... d6 and 1. ... g6 only if you are more concerned with reaching a familiar-looking position than with obtaining an opening advantage."

GM Kovacevic has played the London, Colle, Torre, and other systems as transpositional possibilities where he takes advantage of early move order sequences to get positions he can exploit.

I have followed his games for some time, and I thought it was great that he finally broke down and collaborated on a book where he shares his insights.

I suppose it's also a matter of style, but I like it when people deviate and offer me concessions of one form or another simply to avoid perceived preparation. An open-minded player well-grounded in basics often eats deviations for lunch and records the win on the tournament pairing sheet for desert.

Most of the time, anyway!

Judit Polgar just ordered a copy of the "Shabby Pawn Sac!- her Arctic Rapid game vs Magnus

Move 12




Where is the Bishop going?!? Nowhere....

Hi Paul.

"but I think you don't give enough credit to Johnsen and Kovacevic's book..."

Most likely because I have not read Johnsen and Kovacevic's book. 🙂

Who is Johnsen?

Here is how Scam No. 34 works.

Some lad, let us call him Johnsen puts all of Kovacevic's games through
Fritz and fills in the gaps with some fancy writing.

He contacts friend Kovacevic and asks him to put his name on the book
as a co-author.

Words to use in blurb are.

Easy to learn, Win very easily, no work invovled, overnight succes.
You don't have to read the book, simply owining it will guarantee success.

Zak & Korchnoi's book on the King's Gambit is a prime example.

"As I had written a book on the King's Gambit I thought I had better
play a game with it."

Said by Korchnoi in Korchnoi's Games with the White pieces.

I like what they say about v d6 and g6.
It means they have nothing v d6 and g6.
Nice piece of gloss writing that one. It shows hints of scam No.117 with
a bit of scam No 13 thrown in.

But if you are happy, then I am happy.

(Most likely because I have not read Johnsen and Kovacevic's book.)

Because the bloody thing does not exist.

This is scam No. 199 and I am not falling for it.

Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromfics
On a lighter note, I think I found someone related to greenpawn.

Game 7591401

Note e5, followed by Be6. It looks a lot better this time though.

This is not a London System, I don't even know what it is. I played 3. Bf4 hoping for a response like e6, Bf5, Nf6 and transposition to London System, unfortunately my opponent had other ideas and in the end was very unlucky to get only a draw.
There's nothing special about this opening. The basic idea is to have pawns on e3, d4 and c3 (or c4 if Black plays Bf5 or Nc6 with a pawn still on c7), bishops on f4 and d3/e2, knights on f3 and d2, and then look for the e3-e4/c3-c4 break at the right time and attack Black's king/queen side.
Black can equalize easily by playing what he usually plays against the d4 openings - Slav, King's Indian, Grunfeld, even Dutch, whatever. The strength of London System is that White, since he plays it regularly, is familiar with the ideas, positions, subtle nuances, and can often capitalize on some inaccuracies in Black's play. Perhaps it can be compared with the 1. b4 opening in this regard.
The common mistakes Black does are:
a) plays c5-c4 (very tempting to chase the bishop from d3, but after e3-e4 White looks very good);
b) plays cxd4 too early (Black can afford to delay it, and after the retake with the e pawn White has an open e file and is set for a king side attack).
I think a good way to tackle it as Black is to organize an e5 break (although not on move 2!) after playing the King's Indian formation or exchanging dark-squared bishops via d6 (in the latter case Black perhaps should wait until White plays Nf3, otherwise after the bishops exchange White will be able to play f4 and will have Stonewall formation, but without a bad bishop). After the e5 move White faces a dilemma: to lose the d4 pawn after dxe5, or wait for e5-e4 to chase the knight to e1 (if the d2 spot is taken by another knight). In both cases White will look a bit constricted.
Another idea, which I found quite uncomfortable to play against, is to play c5 very early on, and then Qb6 attacking the b2 pawn, to which White may have to respond with Qb3, Qc1 or something like that, and position may look very drawish. But very few players seem to be choosing this.
Overall I found out that this opening is not really effective against players of higher standard. If you want to beat them you will usually need at least some kind of advantage after the opening, so QG is probably a better choice. But if someone wants to try a safe and easy system, without opening traps, crazy pawn sacrifices, all that nonsense, then why not.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Latest reports are that the publishers have whole warehouses full
of books on the French Defence.

All these French Defence books will be bought by Vatican/Islamic organizations and replace the Bibles/Korans all over the planet.

If that were to happen, the world would be so much better place to live...

Originally posted by greenpawn34
1.d4 d5. 2.Bf4 e5!?

[fen]rnbqkbnr/ppp2ppp/8/3pp3/3P1B2/8/PPP1PPPP/RN1QKBNR w KQkq e6 0 3[/fen]

You won't find that in your precious book.

There you are sitting at the board and £14.95 (or how ever much this
futile trash has cost) has just been flushed down the toilet.

It's only move two and nobody has told you what to do.

What is the bes ...[text shortened]...
not World Champion?

It's the Old Opening Con Trap and you lot have just been caught.

So after 1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 e5 3. dxe5 Be6 what about 4.e4!? as after ..dxe4 Qxd8 ..Kxd8 black cannot defend his extra pawn with the f-pawn and must surely lose it eventually, if not come under considerable strain defending it...

Hi Marin.

This was mentioned a few posts ago.
You will have to go back and read the whole thread.

However you said...



"as after ..dxe4..... "

Stop there!

I've moved two pawns in the opening.

No more pawn moves.

I would never play ....dxe4 even if 1,000 computers all wired up
together said it's the best move.

Hi Kes.

Agreed that if chess replaced religion then what a wonderful world it would be.

I know you are not too fond of 2...e5!? but my point is I've slung the book
out of the window on move 2 with a move Bf4 was designed to prevent.

I'm trying to get them thinking chess rather than playing by rote.
They will thank me for it one day.

I'd play it OTB v an under 1800 just to see the look on their face.
They would play timid swapsy and walk into a Biffo.

Look how they are floundering about with the naff 3.dxe5.
I talked them into it. They must learn not to believe what they
read but look for themselves and judge for themselves.

1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 e5 3. Bxe5 Nc6 4. Nf3. NxB 5.NxN



White is keeping his extra pawn and NOT falling behind in development.

That is how I would play it. But these lads have heard Bishops are better
than Knights, and the London Bishop must be saved.

Having said that I'd still take this as Black if I had too.
I don't mind being a pawn down, and I have the two Bishops. 😉
You have to be an optimist to play Chess.

I also think 2.c4 is the best after 1.d4 d5.
And I'd be a 100% 1.d4 player if I knew for sure I was getting 1...d5 back.

The London Reversed

1.d4 d5 2.c4 Bf5!?



It's not good, it's not bad, it's Chess.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Paul.

"but I think you don't give enough credit to Johnsen and Kovacevic's book..."

Most likely because I have not read Johnsen and Kovacevic's book. 🙂

Who is Johnsen?

Here is how Scam No. 34 works.

Some lad, let us call him Johnsen puts all of Kovacevic's games through
Fritz and fills in the gaps with some fancy writing.

He cont bloody thing does not exist.

This is scam No. 199 and I am not falling for it.

You are not alone in your concern about joint authorship, but Johnsen addresses your concern right at the beginning of the book.

Edit- Rick Kennedy's review of the book paraphrases the author's preface as follows:
"In the Preface, Johnsen – an FIDE-rated but untitled player – explains how the two authors split their duties. He gathered, organized and checked out the illustrative games, adding prose and producing a very preliminary draft. Kovacevic, who has analyzed and played the London System for many years, then sliced and diced, added and subtracted – reworking everything with a Grandmaster’s flair, from positional nuances to strategic plans to resulting endgames; looking for improvements for both Black and White. (Yes, Virginia, there are still many things that grandmasters do better than computers.) There is much new here!"

Carsten Hansen also reviews the book for chesscafe.com, and he actually quotes the preface at length in his review on his way to giving it a 5 star rating, because he thought the question was important, and answered well- and he reinforces your point about the value of GM analysis over boxes. The review is here:

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen85.pdf

But I do think you are right about the Zak and Korchnoi book- Korchnoi putting his name on a book about an opening he doesn't play is like someone reviewing a book they've never read. His name is still good, but his putting it on the book doesn't doesn't add anything but cost.

Well I guess it says something that book was published 5 years ago and it is still relevant haha.

Well Paul I have to hand to hand it you.

I've seen some stunts before and I've pulled a few in my time.

But getting Rick Kennedy in on it and even faking a review page
is a work of art. Sheer class. This beats me getting a dog on the
grading list hands down. Well done.

The King's Gambit by Zak and Co, is actually OK as far as opening
books go. At least this book exists.

I was going to ask you to send this London System book as proof
but I bet you have knocked one together in anticipation.
I bow to a master. Paul I salute you.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Well Paul I have to hand to hand it you.

I've seen some stunts before and I've pulled a few in my time.

But getting Rick Kennedy in on it and even faking a review page
is a work of art. Sheer class. This beats me getting a dog on the
grading list hands down. Well done.

The King's Gambit by Zak and Co, is actually OK as far as opening
books go ...[text shortened]... I bet you have knocked one together in anticipation.
I bow to a master. Paul I salute you.

Well, I actually slapped together a fake pamphlet, but my fake publisher insists that I call it a book to increase sales...😀

Hi Geoff,

I thought about this, and I think it is worth point out that I think I proved that your point is valid, but more importantly, I showed that Johnsen thinks your point is valid- which is why I think the book is the exception that proves the rule.

In the very first line of the preface, Sverre Johnsen says the thinks the very same thing you do, which is why he goes to such great lengths to share who wrote what and how the book was put together.

My point is only that I think this book is an exception in that regard, but I of course think the same thing you do- and it is with full disclosure that I own the Zak and Korchnoi book as well!

I don't think I expressed myself clearly on exactly what my beef was, so I hope this clarifies things for everyone!

Paul

The final analysis on the shabby pawn sac as played on RHP.