Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschex1) Show me chess player with attacking style who dislike to sacrifice and attack.
In tals case, it was probably not all that brave because he liked to sacrifice and attack.
Bravery to him would have been accepting and defending against gambit attacks.
2) So in your opinion bravery is playing in style you dislike? I would use much more harsh word.
Well not so much a style I dislike - just one I have yet to find a suitable counter system to.
For example, over the years I have hated and developed counter measures against the following openings - french defence, classical sicillian, caro kahn, english, reti and most queens pawn openings.
I have a challenge for you - show me a game where black gets an advantage against a c3 sicillian player in under 20 moves - I bet even tal found himself restricted by this annoying opening - if it can be shown that white is not just playing a risk free position then I might possibly be convinced there is some bravery in it.
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexActually right you are about Tal - he had problems to face Sicilian 2.c3. This is the main benefit of the 2.c3 Sicilian - it makes your agressive minded opponent to defend and feel uncomfortable. And the fact that black has problems to get opening advantage against 2.c3 Sicilian its good argument to use it. And if playing against 2.c3 Sicilian is so annoying for you then you can be sure that I`ll play it against you.
Well not so much a style I dislike - just one I have yet to find a suitable counter system to.
For example, over the years I have hated and developed counter measures against the following openings - french defence, classical sicillian, caro kahn, english, reti and most queens pawn openings.
I have a challenge for you - show me a game where ...[text shortened]... ust playing a risk free position then I might possibly be convinced there is some bravery in it.
Avoiding to play opening systems in which you have higher chances then your opponent and which create more problems for him is contrary to whole idea of game. It`s not bravery - its stupidity.
P.S. Actually your first post of this thread is absurd request to your opponents asking them to create less problems for you 😀 Such kind of requests cant be considered as bravery. If you are really brave and not afraid problems you should solve these your problems yourself (finding the way how to create problems for safe players) instead of asking them to solve them instead of you.
But it ruins the game for any new players as well - in fact it is the very reason most strong players quit playing the game, because they are sick of facing such positions and wasting hours of their time to still be in a slightly inferior situation with white smugly sitting there knowing he can bail out and turn it into a draw if things start going against him.
The only c3 systems I have ever seen black win are when white tries some sort of early attack or sacrifice which goes wrong.
Even kasparov hated the c3 sicillian and he was one of the best theorists of all - if white players dont like sicillians then there is an even easier solution for them, dont play 1.e4 - that way you can bow out with some grace rather then being a big pussy.
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexCould you name players which have quited playing the game because of positions in 2.c3 Sicilian?
But it ruins the game for any new players as well - in fact it is the very reason most strong players quit playing the game, because they are sick of facing such positions and wasting hours of their time to still be in a slightly inferior situation with white smugly sitting there knowing he can bail out and turn it into a draw if things start going ...[text shortened]... r them, dont play 1.e4 - that way you can bow out with some grace rather then being a big pussy.
Without Sicilian there are some other possible sharp replies to 1.e4 - 1...g6, 1...b6 and 1...d5 for example (to say nothing about Latvian gambit and Schliemann defense). also against 2.c3 Sicilian there are some interesting options for black (like 2...d6, 2...b6 or 2...g6).
If player has, talent, imagination and fighting spirit he can complicate position even if opponent is trying to play safe. And players leaving chess only because of their inability to create positions they like to play are not worth of regret.
Originally posted by KorchThey are a big regret to me when I try to get them to play for my team and are not intrested!
Could you name players which have quited playing the game because of positions in 2.c3 Sicilian?
Without Sicilian there are some other possible sharp replies to 1.e4 - 1...g6 1...d5 for example (to say nothing about Latvian gambit and Schliemann defense).
If player has, talent, imagination and fighting spirit he can complicate position even if opponent ...[text shortened]... s only because of their inability to create positions they like to play are not worth of regret.
I would happily take on an f5 type system (even if they are slightly annoying sometimes).
The trouble with those fighters is that as soon as they do find a system to mess things up and make a game of it - all the squares will gang up and computer analyse the position to equality then memorise everything to be sure it never happens again (or, worse still, write a book about it so others dont have to do the work).
That is most likely why novelties are only revealed by top GMs on an occasional basis - so they can have just one nice intresting game before it gets squashed out by analysis.
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexIf your opponent has found the way to meet your system whats problem with finding new one?
They are a big regret to me when I try to get them to play for my team and are not intrested!
I would happily take on an f5 type system (even if they are slightly annoying sometimes).
The trouble with those fighters is that as soon as they do find a system to mess things up and make a game of it - all the squares will gang up and computer an ...[text shortened]... basis - so they can have just one nice intresting game before it gets squashed out by analysis.
Statement "novelties are only revealed by top GMs on an occasional basis" is untrue - many novelties are often find by non-GM players. For example Chebanenko (author of many novelties and opening systems, the best well known is system in Slav defence with early 4...a6) was only national master.
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexYou need more counter examples? No problem. Some of theoretics which are coming first in mind:
One counter example does not disprove my statement - you are about to see how true chess should be played - keep an eye out for in the next few minutes I will post one of the best games you will ever see and it even features a drawish opening.
Vsevolod Rauzer (Sicilian, Rauzer attack) - master
Veniamin'Sozin (Sozin attack, later made popular by Fischer) - master.
Benjamin Markovich Blumenfeld (Blumenfeld gambit) - master
Adolf Albin (Albin counter gambit) - master
Dragoljub Velimirovich (Sicilian,Velimirovich attack) - average GM
Evgeny Sveshnikov (Sveshnikov system and many novelties) - average GM
Ilya Kan (Sicilian, Kan) - International master
Kenneth Smith (Smith-Morra gambit) - without international title
John Watson (many opening ideas) - International master
Igor Glazkov (Many lines in Kings gambit, together with Y.Estrin have written book about that opening) - Master candidate
Alvis Vitolinjsh (second of M.Tal, author of many Sicilian lines and Cohrane gambit) - International Master.
Anatoly Ufimtsev (one of the first contributors in Pirc defence) - national master
Gavriil Veresov (Queens pawn opening,Veresov attack) - master
Alexander Ilyin-Zhenevsky (Dutch, Ilyin-Zhenevsky system) - master
Aleksander S Nikitin (second of Kasparov, author of many opening ideas) - without international title.
lya Odessky (contribution in theory of English defence 1.d4 e6 2.c4 b6) - International master.
Actually many their ideas top GMs have taken from lower rated players. For example Kasparov have beaten Anand in Evans gambit (Riga, 1995) with novelty found by some master candidate.
Need more examples?
what a wonderful argument you guys are having, I never realised that the c3 Sicilian was so feared by players of the Sicilian, why have i never heard of any books, the Bb5 Sicilian yes, but never the c3, and its a great point that Korch makes in that a decent player should be able, by whatever means, creativity, imagination to impose his style on the game when even taking opponents style of play into consideration. I suppose at my measly level this has less of an effect but at higher levels is it not whoever is able to impose his will, that one eventually overcomes his opponent? anyhow thanks for great debate - regards Robert.