I want to post on an offbeat approach to the Ruy Lopez - Bird's Defense.
My friend recommended to me that I give it a look. I tried it once against my GM teacher a couple of years back in a simul and got spanked (imagine that!). But I really didn't understand any theory at all to the opening, and so even the beginning phases was a shot in the dark.
One of the interesting features to this opening is the advanced d-pawn. This crowds much of White's traditional development schemes, and gives Black time for some interesting development ideas of his own.
I wanted to post a game I played last night (to the best of my memory). It was a 10+5 game... I apologize that it is not from this site, as I am totally new to this server. But in spite of that, I hope you enjoy the game, and that it invites discussion about both sides of the board per Bird's Defense to the Ruy Lopez.
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game.html?id=25285675
Originally posted by heinzkatThank you kindly for doing that for me. I would have done it myself, but I am still getting the hang of the forums on this site. You have done a very kind act for me! :-)
[pgn]1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nd4 4. Nxd4 exd4 5. O-O c6 6. Bc4 Bc5 7. d3 h5 8. Qf3 Qe7 9. Bg5 Nf6 10. Nd2 d6 11. Nb3 Bb6 12. Nd2 Bg4 13. Qf4 O-O-O 14. h3 Be6 15. Bxe6+ fxe6 16. Nc4 Bc7 17. Qd2 Rdf8 18. a4 d5 19. e5 dxc4 20. exf6 gxf6 21. Bf4 e5 22. Bh2 cxd3 23. cxd3 Rhg8 24. b4 Qd7 25. Kh1 f5 26. f4 e4 27. dxe4 fxe4 28. Rad1 d3 29. Rde1 Qf5 30. b5 Rg6 31 ...[text shortened]... 32. Re3 Bb6 33. bxc6 Rxc6 34. Ree1 e3 35. Rf3 e2 36. g4 hxg4 37. hxg4 Qd5 38. f5 Qxf3# 0-1[/pgn]
What is considered Bird's Defense is 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nd4. There are many variations of this order, and it is not as popular as Morphy's Defense (3...a6), or the Berlin Defense (3...Nf6), or even maybe as the Jaenisch Defense (3...f5). But it is playable, and I have had reasonable results with it, including this win, which I felt was a nice win for me.
Originally posted by heinzkatThis defense was often essayed by Henry Bird. This, and Bird's Opening, are two openings that I know of that have his name on them. There was another back in the day that he played, a variation of the Sveshnikov, that now Larsen has his name on, if I recall correctly.
What's up with the name?
Here is a Bird's that I've been looking at, it was played a few weeks
ago by two IM's.
It's an anti delayed exchange weapon so I like to keep abreast
of openings I know I'll get involved in.
Note White delays d3 to obtain the pressure down the e-file.
Most players play 7.d3 which I think gives Black an OK game.
I liked White's play but he seems (to me anyway) to go astray
and I've not yet found a way of keeping the pot boiling. (but I will).
When this positon from the game appeared on my board...
...I wanted to play 21..Nxe4 right away. (there was a note with the
original game saying this was a good shot). So Black got back into it.
I'll let you work out fo yourself why Black cannot use the old caslte trick here.
Because 13...0-0 14.Qxe7 Rae8 wins the Queen.
The game was resigned by Black on move 35. I've played on to
show you the lovely 3 piece mate lurking in the position.
Candlerlerio - Nieto, Ruy Lopez Memorial, 2009.
A few months back, I began to really study this variation. There are two books (maybe more) devoted to 3. ... Nd4. I bought the one by Mc Cormick and Soltis. It is a very nice hardback (but dated from the 1980's). It includes a historical introduction to the move and even a mini-bio on Bird himself. I truly love the book. Every varation is covered, and I suggest you get a used copy if you can find one that isn't too expensive.
To update the book, I did a net search for Ruy Lopez Bird and found the page devoted to it at chessgames.com. Under advocates for black, you should find Victor Kupreichik. I think he had about 20 games in the database, including encounters with Kasparov (draw), Short (loss) and Karpov (loss). Even though he lost some of them, he still believed it in enough to venture it against the world elite.
Other games I made a note of were:
Anand-Tseshkovsky 1986 ... A Black Win
Rohde-Christiansen 1986 ... Black Win
Short-Ivanchuk 1989 ... Black had equality at move 10 and was won around move 18 !!! ... Black Won
Kasparov-Khalifman had two battles in the Bird (Draw/Kasparov Win)
Morozevich-Najer was a Moroz loss so he took it up in ...
Leko-Morozevich My notes say move 16 was equality but Leko won
They must have played twice because in the second game, Ihave 16.a4 f5 = also.
And my last "update" game was Bacrot-Morozevich Black Win
These are some interesting games that I used to update my Soltis book and check out modern GM practice.
I also have a game collection from when I began to play the system myself in blitz. I had many games, but I lost the original file. Now, I am left with the first 11 only. They do demonstrate the learning process (for me) in understanding the bird.
*Note ... I don't play the Bird as much lately. I recently purchased Marin's two book set on 1.e4 e5 and am trying it out, especially his recommendation against the Ruy Exchange (which is why I took up the Bird in the first place).
The Bird Defense is better suited for timed chess games (without opening manuals). It is a nice surprise weapon and leads to unexplored positions where the better player (or one more familiar with it) should prevail.
Correspondence chess is another story. It's still playable, but every amateur has access to what all the top GM's use against it. This makes it harder on black because he has to go all the way into a preplayed early middlegame before he can deviate and be creative.
The other Bird book is from the 90's. It's by Camino, but I don't have it. I do have one of Camino's other books in the series. It is mostly a few lines and then a dump of unannotated games in the back of each chapter. You can decide whether this is a good or bad thing.
Upon request, I will post some of my early encounters using Bird with black.
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficswhere have you been dude ?, my goodness the forum could do with a boost from your knowledge and assistance 🙂
A few months back, I began to really study this variation. There are two books (maybe more) devoted to 3. ... Nd4. I bought the one by Mc Cormick and Soltis. It is a very nice hardback (but dated from the 1980's). It includes a historical introduction to the move and even a mini-bio on Bird himself. I truly love the book. Every varation is ...[text shortened]... ng.
Upon request, I will post some of my early encounters using Bird with black.
I've been playing a little more Over The Board with a friend lately. Between that and the massive burnout I gave myself here, I haven't had much drive to post. I'm over it now though.
I did catch up on a little reading too.
I played through:
The Selected Games Of Lajos Portisch
Larsen's Games
All 100 of Fischer's Games in Bobby Fischer Rediscovered
& 45 of the 100 (or so) in How Karpov Wins
I am studying more and hoping I can get somewhere with it. 🙂
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficshi, i have that Fischer book, but i gave up on it, for something more my level, 'a first taste of Morphy', will go back to it in time. how did you find the Larsen book? did he not champion the bishops opening in the eighties and somehow managed to squeeze wins with it from little advantages? anyhow its good to hear from you my friend and no doubt all the studying and the OTB play shall reap tangible results. 🙂
I've been playing a little more Over The Board with a friend lately. Between that and the massive burnout I gave myself here, I haven't had much drive to post. I'm over it now though.
I did catch up on a little reading too.
I played through:
The Selected Games Of Lajos Portisch
Larsen's Games
All 100 of Fischer's Games in Bobby F ...[text shortened]... r so) in How Karpov Wins
I am studying more and hoping I can get somewhere with it. 🙂
Oddly enough, I didn't get as much out of Fischer either. His games are fully of opening preparation, deep calculation, and nice tactics. I think he was a great calculator and analyst. His wins, to me at least, are not as instructive as Karpov's. I'm am not saying Karpov is superior to Fischer. I just learn more from studying his games, personally. Their styles are like comparing apples to oranges, I guess. I prefer Karpov (and Petrosian) because they tend to get more from less. Karpov will take 5 or more moves to stop counterplay before he embarks on his attack. Fischer didn't mind counterattacks. He always got his attack going faster! Karpov's opponents seem to never get anything going.
Take this game for instance:
His opponent is David Bronstein, World Champion Candidate and author of Zurich 1953 and The Sorcerer's Apprentice (among others).
The first glimpse of Karpov's calm positional style is 6.Be2. Most players prefer the aggressive Bg5 or sometimes Bc4. Karpov just develops a piece to a modest square and waits for the game to progress.
After move 14, you see the type of game Karpov was aiming for. After clamping b6 and capturing there, black is left with a weak a pawn on an open file. He has counterplay, but Karpov has something to work on.
Look at the position after move 23. White has won a pawn and has a firm grip on the d5 square. At this point, Bronstein, correctly, decides to go for complications. It's his only hope. Karpov hasn't really done all that much up to this point, nothing exciting really. He has however obtained an advantage without the slightest risk. I find this kind of play very instructional and enjoyable. It's not that I don't like tactical games too. (I have played through Clarke's book on Tal's games as well.) I just feel like I get more from a game like this.
The remainder of the game is just a demonstration of Karpov's wonderful technique.
Bronstein never got a chance to be Bronstein.
By the way, this is game 1 in How Karpov Wins (2nd Enlarged Edition), and the annotations by Mednis are quite nice. How To Beat Bobby Fischer is another excellent Mednis book also. Both are in Descriptive Notation, however.
*** Edit : I'm sorry. I didn't mean to hijack the thread. I will still gladly post some of my Bird games if anyone is interested.
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficswhich book would you recommend to study karpov's games?
Oddly enough, I didn't get as much out of Fischer either. His games are fully of opening preparation, deep calculation, and nice tactics. I think he was a great calculator and analyst. His wins, to me at least, are not as instructive as Karpov's. I'm am not saying Karpov is superior to Fischer. I just learn more from studying his games, pers l still gladly post some of my Bird games if anyone is interested.
I've heard a great deal about "how karpov wins," and I'm thinking about ordering it. I have karpov's own game collection and his 1.c4 book as well. any suggestions?
*** Edit : I'm sorry. I didn't mean to hijack the thread either 🙂.
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsno, it is wonderfully instructive, and beautifully subtle. I read somewhere that for Fischer to get anything out of the game, counter play had to be present, i am not sure if this meant that he enjoyed the 'drama', of counterplay or that he realised that to get squares one had also to give up control of others, but one must remember he was at heart, a classical player. What is interesting Paul, after his comeback in Yugoslavia, i read one commentary which stated that Fischer style had changed, it was 'pure Karpov and Kasparov', were the exact words, but i don't know enough about it myself to state if this was the case or not.
Oddly enough, I didn't get as much out of Fischer either. His games are fully of opening preparation, deep calculation, and nice tactics. I think he was a great calculator and analyst. His wins, to me at least, are not as instructive as Karpov's. I'm am not saying Karpov is superior to Fischer. I just learn more from studying his games, pers ...[text shortened]... l still gladly post some of my Bird games if anyone is interested.
yes i can understand your liking for Karpov, its so wonderfully subtle, just gently chipping away at the mortar, creating exploitable weakness, the effects of which are cumulative. i may get the book myself, for i have never been able to understand his brilliant play.