Originally posted by kr1dude1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2
I don't understand this 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. knight to queen2? is that a good move I know queen bishop 3 is better. then after knight to queen2 black plays p-qb4!
That is the Tarrasch Defense of the French. I don't know anymore but the name, but it has to be good, some great players play it.
lol, i know next to zip about the french, my games speak for that, but if you go to http://www.chessgames.com/ you should be able to find games in the database there. Or check out the exeter chess club website......just went and checked :-)
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/~dregis/DR/Openings/french_d.html
and
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/~dregis/DR/Openings/frencheg.html
Hope thats helpful :-)
Originally posted by kr1dudeI thoroughly disagree with the second statement, not to be a butt....after that black can play the moves: de Be4 Nf6, attacking the bishop. 3. Nd2 is widely regarded as one of the best responses, and although 3..c5 is a main line, it doesn't deserve an ! mark.
I don't understand this 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. knight to queen2? is that a good move I know queen bishop 3 is better. then after knight to queen2 black plays p-qb4!
Originally posted by kr1dude3.Nd2 leads to positions where White has a small, stable advantage - rather than trying to bust the French outright in the 3.Nc3 lines.
I don't understand this 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. knight to queen2? is that a good move I know queen bishop 3 is better. then after knight to queen2 black plays p-qb4!
Karpov was fantastic with 3.Nd2 - worth searching for games in this line with him as White for a demonstration of just how powerful White's small initiative can be.
In all seriousness, I don't understand the tarrasch variation either. At all. The normal white plans in every other serious (by which I mean advance and winnawer) variation of the french (save gambit variations) amount to "(a) hold the d pawn by the skin of your teeth, (b) grab kingside space, attack." That Nd2 business makes it impossible to do (a) and (b) at the same time, because it blocks the queen's defense of the d pawn, and thus forces white to trade the e pawn. At the same time, it impairs (c) too, because it makes it difficult to develop the q-side bishop. WHY? WHY?
I mean, obviously Karpov knows the secret, but does anyone else? I guess it has the benefit of making the knight functionally unpinnable and permitting a later c4 advance. Nonetheless... in the winnawer, white gets the bishop pair, more kingside space, and a semi-open file for the q-side rook (although I've been burned a little by trying to exploit that too quickly and dropping a bunch of q-side pawns to the enemy queen). How can the tarrasch be better?
Originally posted by paultopiabut white can then play c3 to support d4!
In all seriousness, I don't understand the tarrasch variation either. At all. The normal white plans in every other serious (by which I mean advance and winnawer) variation of the french (save gambit variations) amount to "(a) hold the d pawn by the skin of your teeth, (b) grab kingside space, attack." That Nd2 business makes it impossible to do (a) ...[text shortened]... y and dropping a bunch of q-side pawns to the enemy queen). How can the tarrasch be better?
Originally posted by hypermo2001So? In the advance variation, the d4 pawn ends up being attacked by black's c pawn, c6 knight, and queen: 3 attackers, and being defended by white's c pawn, f6 knight, and queen: 3 defenders. Same with the winnawer after the knight is traded.
but white can then play c3 to support d4!
In the tarrasch, the d4 pawn can still be attacked by the same three attackers. However, it can only be defended by TWO of those defenders: the queen is no longer able to defend it, because there's a knight in the way.
Doesn't this mean that the d4 pawn must be lost?
That's what I fundamentally don't understand about this variation. It appears that the pawn must fall to a concerted attack here, because the position of the q-side knight means that white will have one less defender for the pawn. From this, I conclude that the plan in this variation for white must be totally different from every other serious variation of the french, which depend on the d4 pawn being protected and overprotected and protected again, in traditional Nimzowich style. So what is it? Anyone have Karpov's e-mail address? 🙂
Originally posted by paultopiayou'll never understand opening theory
So? In the advance variation, the d4 pawn ends up being attacked by black's c pawn, c6 knight, and queen: 3 attackers, and being defended by white's c pawn, f6 knight, and queen: 3 defenders. Same with the winnawer after the knight is traded.
In the tarrasch, the d4 pawn can still be attacked by the same three attackers. However, it can only be d ...[text shortened]... it, because there's a knight in the way.
Doesn't this mean that the d4 pawn must be lost?