Ok, I'm stumped a bit. Anyone care to enlighten me a bit as to what black's basic plans are in the dutch leningrad? I've been trying to play it, and the results are either (a) white forces all my pieces off in trades, although I do seem to get a good endgame out of it, or (b) I blunder in the center somewhere and get skunked.
Originally posted by paultopiaI hope IronMan will post in this thread - having Leningrad expert of such caliber here, I would not dare to comment on the subject.
Ok, I'm stumped a bit. Anyone care to enlighten me a bit as to what black's basic plans are in the dutch leningrad? I've been trying to play it, and the results are either (a) white forces all my pieces off in trades, although I do s ...[text shortened]... of it, or (b) I blunder in the center somewhere and get skunked.
I've had the same experience as Paultopia. I think the plan is this:
1) Expose your king in exchange for counterplay in the center
2) Use your superior combinatorial capability to triumph in the ensuing complications.
3) Failing that, lose horribly.
I've had better luck with the classical Dutch. The Simon Williams book on it is good.
Originally posted by paultopiaThe Dutch Leningrad is a very aggressive opening, not for drawing purposes. The blackplayer aims at an attack to nothing less than the white king, while keeping the centre flexible. It is Dutch with a high degree of Kings Indian flavour. It is risky but powerful, with potential weaknesses on the white squares, especially the a2 - g8 diagonal. But when black succeeds in maintaining the initiative, the risks are reasonable.
Ok, I'm stumped a bit. Anyone care to enlighten me a bit as to what black's basic plans are in the dutch leningrad? I've been trying to play it, and the results are either (a) white forces all my pieces off in trades, although I do seem to get a good endgame out of it, or (b) I blunder in the center somewhere and get skunked.
Awaiting comments from the guru, here is my 2 cts. 😉
Thanks Mephisto. I do wuvs my sharp counter-attacking openings, but I'm begining to wonder if I'm not biting off a little more than I can chew with this one. It just seems too easy to blunder horribly, with that exposed king.
The following is a very short game I played at a slow time control on FICS last night, that prompted this post. Any comments on any of the moves other than the two huge obvious blunders?
1. d4 f5 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. e3 O-O 6. Bd3 d6 7. b3 c5 {lashing out at the center} 8. Bb2 Nc6 9. Rc1 cxd4 10. exd4 d5 {???? AAAAHHH! I spent several minutes on this move, calculating responses to the bishop pin on the KNIGHT, and failed to note that the anticipated line, which I'd planned to win a pawn, would subject me to a bishop pin on the QUEEN. I think Dan Heisman calls that a quiescience error, a.ka. "oh dear, there's a tactic at the end of my line!"} 11. cxd5 Nxd5 12. Nxd5 Kh8 {backing out at the cost of a piece} 13. Bc4 Na5 14. O-O b5 {nice of him to blunder the piece back, but I've got no endgame} 15. Bxb5 Qxd5 16. Bc4 Nxc4 17. bxc4 Qa5 18. Qb3 Ba6 19. Qa3 Qc7 {???? my desperate attempt at going after the queenside to compensate for my ruined position having failed, I blunder another piece, ending the game on the spot} 20. Qxa6
{Black resigns} 1-0
Then again, maybe the remedy is to practice more and start recognizing those patterns, rather than throw out an opening that fits my personal style? Like, I used to get nasty surprises on the equivalent diagonal leading to the castled king in the KG all the time, until eventually I just started recognizing the patterns leading up to that sort of thing and avoiding them. Maybe I can do the same in the Leningrad.
Well, was my plan of slapping around the center with the c and d pawns in the above game, apart from the tactical blunders, a decent plan?
Oy.
Originally posted by paultopiaJust a short comment:
Thanks Mephisto. I do wuvs my sharp counter-attacking openings, but I'm begining to wonder if I'm not biting off a little more than I can chew with this one. It just seems too easy to blunder horribly, with that exposed king.
The following is a very short game I played at a slow time control on FICS last night, that prompted this post. Any comments ...[text shortened]... h the c and d pawns in the above game, apart from the tactical blunders, a decent plan?
Oy.
c5 is definetely not the typical Leningrad move. e5 is the key move in this system.
Originally posted by TovMauzerThanks. I'd considered e5 first in place of c5, but I'd concluded that I'd be in a very bad way if he responded by pushing the d pawn, whereas with c5, if he'd pushed the d pawn, I could have kept up the pressure on the center with e6 and plans to recapture with the bishop. Did I miss something?
Just a short comment:
c5 is definetely not the typical Leningrad move. e5 is the key move in this system.
Originally posted by TovMauzerI agree with this. There was no attempt for kingside play by black. Which is what you could have done with e5 instead of c5. At different occasions:
Just a short comment:
c5 is definetely not the typical Leningrad move. e5 is the key move in this system.
- after 7.b3, which is also not my choice of move. Black's potential weakness is on that diagonal, and white puts his pawns on it. With 7. ... e5 8.dxe5 dxe5 black has the initiative for free (9.Nxe5? would be a mistake because of Ne4!)
- after 9.Rc1 (d5 was better)
- after 10.exd4 (instead of d5).
Originally posted by paultopiaI don't have a board right now - so my comments are rather superficial. If black cannot play e5 immediately, they usually prepare it with Qe8 (typical Leningrad move which supports e5 advance and lets queen to join attack via e8-h5 diagonal - h6, g5 moves are often part of black attack) or Nc6. I'm not sure if it is 100% correct, but I tried different Leningrad setups - with and without Nc6 and it seems that if black has the possibility to play Nc6 (white did not play early d5), it is the most aggresive plan (if d5 - then Ne5). Other general notes: h6 is often useful (prevents Ng5 and prepares g5), f4 advance and Ng4 worth considering sometimes.
Thanks. I'd considered e5 first in place of c5, but I'd concluded that I'd be in a very bad way if he responded by pushing the d pawn, whereas with c5, if he'd pushed the d pawn, I could have kept up the pressure on the center with e6 and plans to recapture with the bishop. Did I miss something?
Edit: of course e5 can be played immediately (thanks, Mephisto!) - blindfold chess are not for me:-)
Thanks y'all.
I'm in a weird situation. My style of play is clearly suited to certain combatative, highly theoretical openings -- ie. the Dutch Leningrad, any number of Sicilians -- and there's no way I'm gonna start playing stuff like the ruy or the QG. I'd rather be suffocated to death.
Yet, my ability isn't yet at the level where I'd really benefit from books on these openings.
Thus I'm left with nagging you guys for information on the general plans... thank you for providing it :-)
Wowwwww this opening is double-edged.
I present to you:
#1: Game 681809 I use the DL against Saint Nick's English. He strangles my position, and then finishes me off with murderous tactics.
#2: Game 683307 I use the DL against Saint Nick's English. I strangle his position, and then finish him off with murderous tactics.
I LIKE this opening. 😀 Try getting games like those in the slav!