15 Dec 12
This is the Marshall defense to the QGD. It's not one of the better options for black
1.d4 d5
2.c4 Nf6?! Marshall Defense
3.c4xd5! Nf6xd5
4.Nf3 (this stops blacks thematic freeing move which comes after 4. e4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5)
White has a better position with control of the center and knight on d5 that can be hit with tempi
Originally posted by vivifyCould you take a look in opening books or databases before posting such a crap in forum?
Just when I thought the Queen's Gambit was unstoppable (because I haven't found a counter for it), here comes this opponent, with a great answer for it. The Queen's Gambit is typically the ultimate opening for taking control of the center, but black has an unexpected counter.
[pgn][Date "????.??.??"]
[Result "*"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP ...[text shortened]... most likely would've lost, if not for his mistake on move #20. }
*[/pgn]
15 Dec 12
Thus far, I've only played against the Queen's Gambit once, and this was my response as black:
I don't have a database or anything, so could someone tell me how strong/weak my moves were? Was my opponent weak?
And I may have missed something around move 12, what I believe could have been a lost pawn, which I later resolved with a5
Originally posted by PacifiqueAw P that was a wee bit harsh.
Could you take a look in opening books or databases before posting such a crap in forum?
There is a lot more crap in the chess forum these days.
This was refreshing chess. The lad will learn a lot more about
this opening from the rest of the lads on here than he would
seeing it tagged with a ? in some opening database.
Yes it is yet another opening twist attributed to Frank Marshall.
Montreal 1893
a 21 year old Pillsbury is in town to give a blindfold simul.
One of his adversaries was a 16 year Frank Marshall.
Here is the game. It appears Marshall slung on 2..Nf6 to get Pillsbury
out of the book and attack him.
after 2...Nf6.
Marshall writes in 'My Fifty Years of Chess.'
"An inferior move which permits White to gain control of the centre.
2...e6 or 2...c6 are better second moves for Black."
Although Marshall knew it was dodgy he did on occasion play it
a few more times throughout his career. Once against Alekhine.
In his game notes Marshall writes after 7...exf4 he felt that
Pillsbury perhaps underestimated him.
(Of course we have to remember Pillsbury was playing 10 other
players blindfold as well.)
H.Pillsbury - F.Marshall Montreal 1893
And here is how Alekhine dealt with 2...Nf6.
A.Alekhine - F.Marshall, Baden Baden, 1925
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by 64squaresofpainI don't think white was weak, but b6 was a great counter to the gambit. I've just learned something from your game. Thanks for posting it.
I don't have a database or anything, so could someone tell me how strong/weak my moves were? Was my opponent weak?
And I may have missed something around move 12, what I believe could have been a lost pawn, which I later resolved with a5[/b]
And GP, I admit, I didn't read the Frank Marshal blog. The one time I don't read your blog, it turns out you've already covered my opponent's opening. That's what I get.
Originally posted by PacifiqueSee it's very easy to look in an opening book or database and translate a question mark you see there into a disparaging remark on a forum without proving that you understand why a move is worthy of a question mark to someone who genuinely does not know.
Could you take a look in opening books or databases before posting such a crap in forum?
After 1. d4 d5, 2. c4 attacks Blacks d pawn. Black decides not to waste tempo or give up the centre by taking the pawn, neither does he want to block in his Queen Bishop with e6 or block his Queen's Knight's ideal square with c6, so he develops with a piece to defend d5. 2...Nf6. So is it move that has an out and out refutation, is it a dubious punt, or a move theory has not smiled upon because the inventor rubbished it, and Alekhine crushed it?
It's such a natural move I have seen it played in OTB club chess a number of times and despite me knowing that it is a theoretical weak move and knowing some lines against it, I have never managed to convert. Doesn't matter - my games don't contribute to theory.
I have two opening books that feature this line. Both disagree about the best way for White to proceed after 3. cxd5. I am also aware of the Alekhine game GP has just quoted but neither of my books like his early e4.
Finally, were the OP to have looked in a database he might find the following game, played by no less a 2600+ luminary as Zvjaginsev drawing easily against a fellow Russian GM and still think 2...Nf6 is a good move.
15 Dec 12
Good post Raggers.
We are now getting somewhere.
History:
A 16 year Frank Marshall tosses it out in a simul to make
things awkward for the blindoflded Pillsbury and opening theory
takes another branch.
Theory snubs it and you won't see on many GM boards (except one
day Carlsen may try it because computers don't like it. This is how he winning
his games, playing anti box moves to befuddle his 'the box is my crutch' opponents.'😉 😉
At the lower levels it does appear to offer practical chances.
On here in the thematic Queen's Gambit tournament of 2008 this position....
....arose 45 times. White wins - 20 Draws =1 Black wins = 24.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitI like your post but the irony is maybe you should read your post and apply your medicine...! ;-)
Could you take a look in grammar checker before posting such a crap in forum?
(BTW don't want to start a spelling/grammar war as I'm not particularly good at wither)
