Originally posted by !~TONY~!Not sure, I remember hearing that Shirov was at least partially responsible for popularizing the variation from the black side though, and has played it with at least some frequency. It seems really interesting, and maybe pretty sharp too.
Okay yeah that must have been it. Maybe against Aronian, I am mixing up the games.
Originally posted by !~TONY~!Yes I understand that ... the point I was making is that it's impossible to find the perfect move every time so it doesn't necessarily make sense to try.
I never anywhere claimed I play perfect chess ....
I don't necessarily accept playing to your style and playing the man and not the board is "lazy" as you put it - although no doubt it *can* be.
It's a way of playing for a win - nothing more nothing less.
Originally posted by !~TONY~!I think this depends why we play chess. You wish to strive for perfection even if it is not achievable. That is an admirable goal. I play for fun, to relax after work or even during work. Less admirable maybe, but I think it is just as valid a reason to play.
I never anywhere claimed I play perfect chess, because that would be stupid. The lazy attitude that you should not try to do so with moves like 1. c4 d5 2. Nf3 is the one I am lamenting.
1 edit
Originally posted by !~TONY~!On seeing 1. c4 d5, I would play 2. cd5 in a second-- a flank pawn for a center pawn has got to be a good deal for White!! But I can see people playing 2. d4 or 2. Nf3 to try and "outfox" their opponent's weird opening try. Especially 2. Nf3 -- who really wants to be on the black side of a reti opening?
[b]Let me ask you this: If you were a Queen's pawn player, and some one played 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6, would you not take the pawn on d5?
As far as 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6, I would certainly play 3. cd5-- then 4. Nf3, not 4. e4.
Originally posted by !~TONY~!I suppose "objectively", you're right. Using your logic, then The Smith-Morra Gambit is either "bad" or "fine." If both players are rated 2750, then Black probably wins almost every time. But at my level (1825 USCF), I suspect that a survey would find White has a plus score. If I win most of the time with the Smith-Morra against my fellow 1800-players, then it's "fine" from a practical, sporting point-of-view, right?
There is no such thing as 90% awful. It's either bad or it's fine. It's not fine.
1 edit
Originally posted by gaychessplayeralthough I dislike almost all gambits, I think that should be true. Maybe in chess, "good play" can be defined as 'making it difficult for the opponent'.
I suppose "objectively", you're right. Using your logic, then The Smith-Morra Gambit is either "bad" or "fine." If both players are rated 2750, then Black probably wins almost every time. But at my level (1825 USCF), I suspect that a survey would find White has a plus score. If I win most of the time with the Smith-Morra against my fellow 1800-players, then it's "fine" from a practical, sporting point-of-view, right?