Blitz chess is not...

WW- your line pretty much will force Bb5 and e5 type ideas. In fast blitz (I checked I have seen the Bc4 stuff in almost 400 games now) I almost always opt for e6 ne7 and then d5 which is pretty much dead = with Black getting easy development for a doubled pawn but I think Robbie is right that a6 b5 Queen expansion is the right way to go.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I think the problem as you outlined wormdude was that the bishop gets hit, one can
even play ...a6 and ...b5 and its gets kicked around. In the variation that you gave I
always wondered what would happen if white played e5 kicking the f6 knight, and for
that reason I generally play as one does against the grand prix, with ...e6 ...g6 ...Bg7,
...Ne7 and then ...d5! I want a pawn on d6 before my knight comes to f6.

generally against off-beat openings, I try to avoid early pawn moves (same reason why I don't go Ne7 like nimzo, kinda want that square for my bishop). I feel they give time for the attacker, and you just KNOW an off-beat opening in blitz means the guy is going to throw the kitchen sink at you the second you're off the book. so I look at breaks and pawn sacs, forcing moves to gain time & development.

against Bc4-Nc3-e5 (which is kinda rare), I simply push d5 anyway. if white takes the g-pawn I'll happily take the open file + big lead in development. mostly though white checks or retreats the bishop and leaves his e-pawn to the wolves.

Originally posted by wormwood
generally against off-beat openings, I try to avoid early pawn moves (same reason why I don't go Ne7 like nimzo, kinda want that square for my bishop). I feel they give time for the attacker, and you just KNOW an off-beat opening in blitz means the guy is going to throw the kitchen sink at you the second you're off the book. so I look at breaks and pawn sac ...[text shortened]... pment. mostly though white checks or retreats the bishop and leaves his e-pawn to the wolves.

yeah, sure, makes a lot of sense, i was thinking more of 1.e5 c5, Bc4 e6, Nf3 Nf6 and then e5 🙂

Originally posted by wormwood
generally against off-beat openings, I try to avoid early pawn moves (same reason why I don't go Ne7 like nimzo, kinda want that square for my bishop). I feel they give time for the attacker, and you just KNOW an off-beat opening in blitz means the guy is going to throw the kitchen sink at you the second you're off the book. so I look at breaks and pawn sac ...[text shortened]... pment. mostly though white checks or retreats the bishop and leaves his e-pawn to the wolves.

I'd be willing to bet that this is probably your blitz problem. You can't play better chess faster unless you attempt to play better chess faster. If you take shortcuts and play ideas that are easier to understand of course you will be able to play faster but if you push yourself to play the best moves (with some provocative sacs thrown in) as fast as you can you will get faster at playing the best moves... you will also grow more confident in your calculations for slow chess.

Originally posted by wormwood
generally against off-beat openings, I try to avoid early pawn moves (same reason why I don't go Ne7 like nimzo, kinda want that square for my bishop). I feel they give time for the attacker, and you just KNOW an off-beat opening in blitz means the guy is going to throw the kitchen sink at you the second you're off the book. so I look at breaks and pawn sac pment. mostly though white checks or retreats the bishop and leaves his e-pawn to the wolves.

I don't really think of 2.Bc4 as off-beat. It has had on and off popularity as an anti-sicilian. I would bet there is a book on it, or featuring it as the cure all for the adult novice player who wants to just get a game of chess but can't bother with learning the Colle...

haha.

COLLE!

Originally posted by tomtom232
I'd be willing to bet that this is probably your blitz problem. You can't play better chess faster unless you attempt to play better chess faster. If you take shortcuts and play ideas that are easier to understand of course you will be able to play faster but if you push yourself to play the best moves (with some provocative sacs thrown in) as fast as you ...[text shortened]... aying the best moves... you will also grow more confident in your calculations for slow chess.

nah, my problem is the opposite of that.

Originally posted by nimzo5
I don't really think of 2.Bc4 as off-beat. It has had on and off popularity as an anti-sicilian. I would bet there is a book on it, or featuring it as the cure all for the adult novice player who wants to just get a game of chess but can't bother with learning the Colle...

haha.

COLLE!

yeah, probably. a lot of openings like that you can just SMELL someone's recommended somewhere, then at some point you find the rec in 'reassess your chess' or some other beginner favourite, and suddenly it all makes sense.

Originally posted by wormwood
yeah, probably. a lot of openings like that you can just SMELL someone's recommended somewhere, then at some point you find the rec in 'reassess your chess' or some other beginner favourite, and suddenly it all makes sense.

I always scan opening book reviews so I can anticipate what the current trend will be. For example, I used to play the Acc. Dragon but once it became the recc. line of a series of club player books by the likes of Alburt etc. I ditched it. Even when it is a high quality book like Avrukh's or such, you are just asking to take on more prep/theory than you need to.

Back in form although my opponent blundered big time oddly enough I have never seen this move this early in a KGA but I new the pattern well enough however it was a mite different than usual.

Originally posted by nimzo5
I don't really think of 2.Bc4 as off-beat. It has had on and off popularity as an anti-sicilian. I would bet there is a book on it, or featuring it as the cure all for the adult novice player who wants to just get a game of chess but can't bother with learning the Colle...

haha.

COLLE!

I usually consider 2. Bc4 as a potential transpositional device until I see the white d-pawn move to d3 instead of d4, but my only real experience with it is as a Dragon player, so non-fianchetto Sicilian players will certainly have a more sophisticated approach!

2.Bc4 is anti positional, for given the chance, id put a pawn on c4 against Sicilian every
time. if you play f3 against Nardof or Dragon, instead of Nc3 after cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6, you
can frustrate Dragon and Nardorf players who are looking for either a theoretical or
tactical battle with the simple bind, turning the game instantly strategic, rather than
tactical.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
I usually consider 2. Bc4 as a potential transpositional device until I see the white d-pawn move to d3 instead of d4, but my only real experience with it is as a Dragon player, so non-fianchetto Sicilian players will certainly have a more sophisticated approach!

I don't think 2.Bc4 is a useful transpositional device a couple examples.

after 2... e6
3.d4 cxd4
4. nf3 (Qxd4 runs into the thematic Nc6) Nf6
5.Qxd4 Nc6

and Black has no problems.

if 3. Nf3 just hit him with d5 (same with e5 or c3 ideas)
simple stuff.

if 3. Nc3 you just develop Nf6 Nc6 and probably their best play is Nf3 and then Bb5 moving into a Rossolimo.

If Qe2 then you just develop normally. Qh5 and Qf3 are also nothing.

So I don't really see any clever ways to steer you into anything but a Rosso a tempo down.

On that note, when you are facing "anti" opening lines I think it is important not to marry yourself to your typical pawn structure. There will be times where the fianchetto is simply not a good way to develop, it pays to be familiar with many different types of pawn structures.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
2.Bc4 is anti positional, for given the chance, id put a pawn on c4 against Sicilian every
time. if you play f3 against Nardof or Dragon, instead of Nc3 after cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6, you
can frustrate Dragon and Nardorf players who are looking for either a theoretical or
tactical battle with the simple bind, turning the game instantly strategic, rather than
tactical.

The Maroczy bind has it's theory as well. It also requires a real understanding of how to make use of a space advantage with a bad light squared bishop.

Originally posted by nimzo5
The Maroczy bind has it's theory as well. It also requires a real understanding of how to make use of a space advantage with a bad light squared bishop.

yes, but its easier than learning squillions of theory for every new najdorf and dragon
variation, its simply more practical and the variations you need to know in order to get
a playable middle game are minimal, plus, its positionally and strategically sound to do
so. Sicilian traditionally has weakness on d5 square and d6 pawn, in the dragon its
traded off for piece play. If there are ever any trades on d5, white shall retake with
the e pawn and simply pile up on the backward e7 pawn, its strategically sound and
easy to play and for noobs at my level, what more can you ask for!

Originally posted by nimzo5
The Maroczy bind has it's theory as well. It also requires a real understanding of how to make use of a space advantage with a bad light squared bishop.

At one point (1950's-1960's), the Maroczy Bind was so feared (along with the Richter-Rauzer Attack) that Dragon players moved from the 2. Nc3 to the 2. d6 move order specifically to avoid it.

Funny how the world turns! I think it is valuable to learn both sides of the Maroczy Bind, simply because it is good for your chess. It's practically a laboratory for Hans Kmoch's Pawn Power in Chess in action.