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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 25 Mar '15 02:02
    Purdy says that we should always look to see if there is a better move. He uses this game between Jose Raul Capablanca vs Efim Bogoljubov from 1929 to make his point:



    Purdy says that Capablanca actually plays a bad move with 9.Nbc3. I thought this was absolutely amazing how such a natural move could be wrong.
  2. Subscriber BigDoggProblemonline
    The Advanced Mind
    25 Mar '15 03:18
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Purdy says that we should always look to see if there is a better move. He uses this game between Jose Raul Capablanca vs Efim Bogoljubov from 1929 to make his point:

    [pgn]
    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. e4 d6 6. Ne2 Nbd7 7. O-O e5 8. d5 Nc5 9. Nbc3[/pgn]

    Purdy says that Capablanca actually plays a bad move with 9.Nbc3. I thought this was absolutely amazing how such a natural move could be wrong.
    My guess is Capa was supposed to play 9.b4! preventing the N from getting 'permanent' on c5 with ...a5.
  3. 25 Mar '15 04:21 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
    My guess is Capa was supposed to play 9.b4! preventing the N from getting 'permanent' on c5 with ...a5.
    Doesn't that drop the e4 pawn?(nvm the knight is trapped if it takes) But black can still drop the knight back then play ...a5 after. I think purdy is off his rocker here.
  4. 25 Mar '15 04:43
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Purdy says that we should always look to see if there is a better move. He uses this game between Jose Raul Capablanca vs Efim Bogoljubov from 1929 to make his point:

    [pgn]
    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. e4 d6 6. Ne2 Nbd7 7. O-O e5 8. d5 Nc5 9. Nbc3[/pgn]

    Purdy says that Capablanca actually plays a bad move with 9.Nbc3. I thought this was absolutely amazing how such a natural move could be wrong.
  5. Subscriber BigDoggProblemonline
    The Advanced Mind
    25 Mar '15 04:55 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by iChopWoodForFree
    Doesn't that drop the e4 pawn?(nvm the knight is trapped if it takes) But black can still drop the knight back then play ...a5 after. I think purdy is off his rocker here.
    White wants Black to make concessions like retreating a piece he just advanced and stunting development.

    Edit: Let's put it this way. If your plan is to play ...Nd7, then ...Nc5, then get kicked away, back to d7, then play ...a5 in attempt to reclaim the c5 square, then shouldn't Black have saved himself the trouble with 8...a5! before moving the N to c5?!
  6. 25 Mar '15 08:11 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
    White wants Black to make concessions like retreating a piece he just advanced and stunting development.

    Edit: Let's put it this way. If your plan is to play ...Nd7, then ...Nc5, then get kicked away, back to d7, then play ...a5 in attempt to reclaim the c5 square, then shouldn't Black have saved himself the trouble with 8...a5! before moving the N to c5?!
    In my database black is scoring better(and playing more often) with 8...Nc5 in that position. I think the reasoning is that after b4 by white and the knight retreat ...a5 gives black initiative on the qside because of the lever since white playing bxa5 would be much better for black and if b5 then the qside becomes blocked and black can now go for his ...f5 plan without fear of counterplay on the qside.

    Edit: The center is closed and black often plays moves like ...Ne8 in these positions anyway so black has time to play ...Nd7 ...a5 and ...Nb6 After whites b4. The position changes after every pawn advance. Lets put it this way, if ...a5 first followed by ...Nc5 was such a good plan, white wanted to play b4 and didn't want a knight on c5 why not play 7.b4 to prevent it in the first place? See how ridiculous your line of reasoning is?
  7. 25 Mar '15 11:51
    It's a very common idea for Black to play a5 before Nc5 to prevent it being kicked by b4. Of course White would have liked to have played b4 to prevent a5, but he can only play one move at a time and in the opening you have to prioritise things.

    In this case, at first sight I thought Purdy was correct to say that 9. Nc3 was not the best move. I dare say Capa (and indeed Bogoljubov) didn't realise that the black knight was trapped after 9. b4 Ncxe4 10. Qc2. However that line with 9. b4 Ncd7 10. Bb2 (seems to be necessary) a5 11. a3 looks very comfortable for Black. Perhaps Capa and Bogo saw all that after all, who knows?
  8. Subscriber BigDoggProblemonline
    The Advanced Mind
    25 Mar '15 15:06
    Originally posted by iChopWoodForFree
    In my database black is scoring better(and playing more often) with 8...Nc5 in that position. I think the reasoning is that after b4 by white and the knight retreat ...a5 gives black initiative on the qside because of the lever since white playing bxa5 would be much better for black and if b5 then the qside becomes blocked and black can now go for h ...[text shortened]... hy not play 7.b4 to prevent it in the first place? See how ridiculous your line of reasoning is?
    I take database stats with a grain of salt, since a TN may be found after the database games that changes the assessment of the line.

    Fat Lady's post shows that White is by no means obligated to reply to ...a5 with b5. [Though I appreciate the condescending tone, you should look up if you wish to speak directly to me. 😀]

    There is a world of difference between ...Nd7 and ...Ne8 [see how much more natural it feels for both of us when I talk down to you?]. ...Nd7 blocks the c8 Bishop, and it's the Queen's Knight returning from whence it came, whereas ...Ne8 is usually the King's Knight, coming from f6 to make way for the key ...f5 move. The latter is an essential component of black's strategy; the former is arguably just a waste of time.

    It's a mistake to think 'oh, it's a closed position. I have time to do any amount of maneuvering I want!' What a closed position really means is that you have more time than you usually do for maneuvering. It does not mean that you can get away with poor planning and wastefulness.

    Your edit only shows your ignorance of common strategic themes in the King's Indian pawn structures. In the Petrosian variation, it is very common for Black to play ...a5 before ...Nc5. On the other hand, White gains nothing by 'crying before he is hurt' by playing b4 before black has played ...Nc5. What makes the b4 move attractive is that it gets played with tempo in a position that is only semi-closed and usually comes down to a race of white's Qside play vs. black's Kside play. Tempi matter very much in this kind of race.

    So, what I see is - your panties are still bunched up from our last encounter, and you're trying so hard to score a point against me in a debate that you are now the one guilty of a 'ridiculous line of reasoning.'

    Did you need some help installing that GM script? I find that most of my users have zero trouble, but, despite our past disagreements, I'm happy to lend a hand if you should need it. 😉
  9. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    25 Mar '15 16:26 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Purdy says that we should always look to see if there is a better move. He uses this game between Jose Raul Capablanca vs Efim Bogoljubov from 1929 to make his point:

    [pgn]
    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. e4 d6 6. Ne2 Nbd7 7. O-O e5 8. d5 Nc5 9. Nbc3[/pgn]

    Purdy says that Capablanca actually plays a bad move with 9.Nbc3. I thought this was absolutely amazing how such a natural move could be wrong.
    I don't think 9. Nbc3 is bad as such, it doesn't make white's position worse, it just doesn't attempt to exploit that the knight on c5 can be pushed away. Capablanca tended to take the opening fairly easy and rely on outplaying his opponents later in the game. So, as a pedagogical point it's reasonable enough - assuming that b4 is a stronger move, but I think Capablanca's decision probably had as much to do with playing style as not considering the move.
  10. 25 Mar '15 18:02 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
    I take database stats with a grain of salt, since a TN may be found after the database games that changes the assessment of the line.

    Fat Lady's post shows that White is by no means obligated to reply to ...a5 with b5. [Though I appreciate the condescending tone, you should look up if you wish to speak directly to me. 😀]

    There is a world ...[text shortened]... trouble, but, despite our past disagreements, I'm happy to lend a hand if you should need it. 😉
    Your post only shows ignorance of everything chess related. Nobody said that in a closed position there is time for any useless maneuver but there is time for black here to retreat and play ...a5 as I showed in a previous post.

    The petrosian version is outdated as it is more common to play Nc5 first now. Which means that theory backs up what im saying but somehow doesn't seem to support your skinny legs? I wonder how that could possibly be? I mean, you're just so knowledgeable and all. Shucks, I'd love to learn from a master like you! You are a master right? You seem to say everything as if you were a master...
  11. 25 Mar '15 18:07 / 2 edits
    First of all I think the example given by Purdy is too open ended.
    (look at the debate above.)

    There are 100's of other more drastic and instructive examples he could have used.

    So why did Capa play 9.Nc3 instead of 9.b4?

    According to Nimzovitch in the Tournament book Capa was depressed
    over the World Title squabble and the fact it was Bogoljubov who was
    to play Alekhine. This explains his up and down results in this tournament.
    (He lost a piece in 10 moves v Samisch then dug in forcing Samisch to play 60+ moves.)

    At the time this game was played Capa had a a nice P.5 W.5 plus v
    Bogoljubov so he slipped into I'm going to win anyway mode.

    Did He moved too quick or paid little attention to the opening?

    In the Samisch game he arrived 55 minutes late and according to Samisch
    was playing the opening whilst reading a letter!.

    If this is the sort of disrespect he showed towards Samisch what was he
    like v Bogoljubov a player who Nimzovitch says in the tournament Book
    Capablanca regarded none too highly.

    But let us suppose Capa saw 9.b4 Ncxe4.


    10.Qc2 (wake up Datafly) does not win the piece. (10.....Bf5)

    It's the ugly move 10.f3...


    ....and if we do not stop at the piece being lost (sacced?) )we can go on.

    10. f3 Nxg3 11. hxg3 a5 12. b5 Nd7 13. Bb2 f5


    There is work there to be done as White.
    Still winning but Black is solid - 2 pawns up and White will need to break in.

    So we have Capa sitting there facing an opponent he does rate who may be
    willing to sac a Knight for two pawns.

    "This is possibly a positional trap. Typical Bogoljubov trickery - playing for
    opening traps - Alekhine will murder him. I'll ignore it I am going to win anyway."

    What if the Knight does not take on e4, The a1 Rook is look non-too happy,
    The Knight drops back...have I loosened my Queenside leaving myself open to a5?"


    and so Capa plays 9.Nc3. There is nothing wrong with a developing move.

    All good players out there have felt the same (don't get involved
    in a stramash - there is no need) when playing a so called weaker player.
    Play it safe and wait for the blunder is the way to go.

    As the game pans out we see the blunder never came and we witness Capa
    resorting to risky middle game complications ( a rarity for him) in an effort to
    try and win and this nearly blows up his face.

    Capablanca - Bogoljubov, Carlsbad 1929.

  12. 25 Mar '15 21:36
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    wake up Datafly
    Doh! Well if White has to play f3 to win the piece then it's no wonder Capa didn't go for that line. I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that Capa was a better player than Purdy.
  13. Subscriber BigDoggProblemonline
    The Advanced Mind
    25 Mar '15 22:09
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Purdy says that we should always look to see if there is a better move. He uses this game between Jose Raul Capablanca vs Efim Bogoljubov from 1929 to make his point:

    [pgn]
    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. e4 d6 6. Ne2 Nbd7 7. O-O e5 8. d5 Nc5 9. Nbc3[/pgn]

    Purdy says that Capablanca actually plays a bad move with 9.Nbc3. I thought this was absolutely amazing how such a natural move could be wrong.
    Did he say WHY it was bad?
  14. 25 Mar '15 22:10 / 2 edits
    I'm not too sure how many databases that Purdy had to use for research. 😀

    Yes, the move was b4

    In any case, his point was that one should always check for things to exploit. He gives credit to some guy named Znosko-Borovsky for pointing out the missed good move. Z-B classified it as a blunder, but Purdy thought that was going a bit too far.

    In any case always look to for a way to capitalize when an opponent gives you an opportunity, even in the opening.


    I suppose that Purdy just thought that b4 was better and Z-B thought it was a move.
  15. 26 Mar '15 00:14
    "some guy named Znosko-Borovsky"?

    "How Not to Play Chess" is well worth a read. You can pick it up for chicken feed on ebay.

    Here is a remarkable win that Mr Z-B had against the great Capablanca. Black looks lost all the way through, but somehow finds just enough, just in time.