28 Oct 06
Originally posted by BedlamI agree with this. IN GENERAL, 3. Nc3 leads to sharper play, especially in the Winawer/MacCutcheon variations..
I think you misunderstand....maybe you dont play tournament chess? Nd2 is more drawish than a risky Nc3. Nd2 is playable but when people play it their aim in the game is different to those times they play Nc3. Ie last round of a tournament if you needed a win on the board to come first you would essay Nc3 if you just needed a draw then Nd2 might be the better option.
28 Oct 06
Originally posted by !~TONY~!You said "I think Nc3 is definitely better than Nd2. Not to mention it just looks better, aesthetically." Do you not remember your own posts? YOU need to learn how to intelligently READ and also REMEMBER what it is you actually wrote. As I said, if 3.Nc3 is "better than 3.Nd2, why did Kasparov play 3.Nd2 so frequently and chalk up so many wins with it as well. There is nothing wrong with my attitude and you need to grow up and learn to accept when you're wrong.
I didn't say what you said I said. Look at the first two words of my post dude. READ. And come into the forums with a better attitude. I state my OPINION, and you attack me. Grow up. And do I have to name all the top GM's that have played 3. Nc3? I think that might be a little excessive, since it's everyone. Just because Adams plays the move doesn't mean it ...[text shortened]... c-pawns in the Winawer, check out the line 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. Bd2!?
You also seem to have no capacity for intelligent debate as you're comletely changing what I said. You state: "Just because Adams plays the move doesn't mean it's better". For starters, I gave a list of Super GM's that play 3.Nd2, not just Adams. Secondly, nowhere in any of my posts did I say that 3.Nd2 was better. It was YOU that was strutting about how 3.Nc3 is "better".
28 Oct 06
Originally posted by BedlamIt's you that doesn't understand and I would probably beat you ten out of ten games in tournament chess.
I think you misunderstand....maybe you dont play tournament chess? Nd2 is more drawish than a risky Nc3. Nd2 is playable but when people play it their aim in the game is different to those times they play Nc3. Ie last round of a tournament if you needed a win on the board to come first you would essay Nc3 if you just needed a draw then Nd2 might be the better option.
28 Oct 06
Originally posted by MerchantParkProI am not going to accept that I'm wrong until I'm proven wrong. I do THINK 3. Nc3 is definitely better than 3. Nd2. Simple as that. I refuse to be swayed because Adams, Pono, Kasparov, etc.. have played 3. Nd2. Your argument that Kasparov won with this move doesn't mean it's better than 3. Nc3. I am sure he cracked some skulls with 3. Nc3 too, although I am too lazy to actually check. I don't even have to. Kasparov beat pretty much everyone in everything he played. Just because he beat some people with 3. Nd2 doesn't actually say anything about the move itself. It says something about Kasparov. Maybe he knows that his opponents will be prepared for 3. Nc3, so he booked up on alot of 3. Nd2 to through them off. This type of stuff happens all the time at the top level. Kasparov beat Karpov in the Reti, does that mean this discussion is moot because 1. Nf3!! is the best move on the board because Kasparov beat Karpov with it!?!?! Your name dropping of GM's who have played 3. Nd2 in no way shape or form shows that 3. Nc3 is not the better move. Indeed I checked chessgames.com, and there are just as many Winawers, exchanges, and 3. Nc3 lines as the Tarrasch. Not impressed. Lastly, leave the attacks behind when you post. Don't belittle me, telling me I have no capacity for intelligent debate. I think you have no room to talk sir, considering I had to spend a half hour modding your attacks on Sicilian Smaug, then have to read a PM by you, calling me a hypocrite. It seems to me like you should deal with some anger management issues before you respond to this post.
You said "I think Nc3 is definitely better than Nd2. Not to mention it just looks better, aesthetically." Do you not remember your own posts? YOU need to learn how to intelligently READ and also REMEMBER what it is you actually wrote. As I said, if 3.Nc3 is "better than 3.Nd2, why did Kasparov play 3.Nd2 so frequently and chalk up so many wins with i ...[text shortened]... ay that 3.Nd2 was better. It was YOU that was strutting about how 3.Nc3 is "better".
28 Oct 06
Originally posted by Northern LadAh ok, I see what you're saying. The only problem that I have with 3.e5 is that it seems to positional, the original reason I used it was to avoid theory and get a tactical game, which isn't what I found. I generally look for the most tactical openings even if it requires learning a lot of theory (Adv. Caro-Kann, KG, Dragon Soltis, etc.).
I wasn't claiming it to be a scientific sample, just an impression I got. I think 3.e5 in the hands of strong positional players who like a spacial advantage in a closed position and are prepared for a long game can be slightly unpleasant for black, who may struggle to get activity. But it's not everyone's cup of tea!
28 Oct 06
Originally posted by !~TONY~!A lot of people act like 12 year olds on the forums, I wouldn't bother sending any more responses to him, it's not getting anywhere.
I am not going to accept that I'm wrong until I'm proven wrong. I do THINK 3. Nc3 is definitely better than 3. Nd2. Simple as that. I refuse to be swayed because Adams, Pono, Kasparov, etc.. have played 3. Nd2. Your argument that Kasparov won with this move doesn't mean it's better than 3. Nc3. I am sure he cracked some skulls with 3. Nc3 too, although I am ...[text shortened]... like you should deal with some anger management issues before you respond to this post.
28 Oct 06
Originally posted by !~TONY~!"Your argument that Kasparov won with this move doesn't mean it's better than 3. Nc3."
I am not going to accept that I'm wrong until I'm proven wrong. I do THINK 3. Nc3 is definitely better than 3. Nd2. Simple as that. I refuse to be swayed because Adams, Pono, Kasparov, etc.. have played 3. Nd2. Your argument that Kasparov won with this move doesn't mean it's better than 3. Nc3. I am sure he cracked some skulls with 3. Nc3 too, although I am ...[text shortened]... like you should deal with some anger management issues before you respond to this post.
Seriously Tony.....did you get dropped on your head alot as a baby? I just finished telling you that nowhere in any of my posts did I say that 3.Nd2 was better than 3.Nc3. I don't know how I can be any clearer than i've already been with you. Read, comprehend, understand this.
" I do THINK 3. Nc3 is definitely better than 3. Nd2. "
And I responded that you must know better than Adams, Ivanchuk, Svidler, Leko, Rublevsky, Akopian, Ponomariov, and Gary Kasparov, because none of them agree with you on this. They play both 3.Nc3 and 3.Nd2. If 3.Nc3 was better than 3.Nd2 this wouldn't be the case. Again, this concept is pretty simple. Are you starting to get it?
Remember that i'm not the one claiming that one particular move is "better" than the other. It doesn't sound like you follow chess theory very much, if at all, but if you did read publications such as NIC and follow the latest developements in opening knowledge, you would see that it's a big deal when something deep into the opening, such as the Gothenburg variation of the Sicilian, gets cracked and is defined as "busted". We're nowhere near being able to come up with anything conclusive about the definition about 3.Nd2 and 3.Nc3. It was thought that the Rubinstein variation (3.......dxe4) was a poor opening choice for black until Shirov revived it, beating several GM's, in the process.
You really need to learn how to debate intelligently and stick to the facts instead of childishly trying to change the premise of the discussion by misquoting people.
Read over this post a few times and make sure you understand it before replying.
28 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by MerchantParkProI'm pretty sure you're the internet troll. You're obviously new to the forums, but if you had been here for a while you would know there are a few player's that consistently contribute to this section of the "fora". Off the top of my head a few are Tebb, RahimK, Tony, Xanthos (As long as you don't say something stupid), Northern Lad, Wulebgr,FatLady (or laddy...), Bedlam, Dragon Fire, Smaug, and others. Note that your name isn't on that list, and isn't included in the others. If you have an opinion then make it, but you don't have to insult people's intelligence or ability to debate because you disagree with them.
It seems to me you're a frustrated little internet troll with too much time on your hands. Have you ever once made a post that actually had something to do with the thread?
28 Oct 06
I have to be honest, the Tarrasch is fascinating and I keep on playing it, but my experience with it is that I'm usually tempted into futile Bishop sacrifices on h7 which - combined with my psychological distaste for open games and inability to see isolani as anything other than a weakness - tends to make it drawish for me. I have only a very shallow understanding of it, but it generally feels like White is releasing central pressure a little early.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
28 Oct 06
1 edit
As someone who has tried just about everything against the French Defence, I think that 3.Nc3, 3.Nd2 and 3.e5 are about equal in strength. Also these 3 choices are all better than 3.exd5 which usually gives Black an easy game.
Probably the most objective way to assess the moves is to compare the statistics. Out of appoximately 150,000 French's played on my database:-
3.Nc3 was played in 61,896 games and scored 56%
3.Nd2 was played in 42,662 games and scored 57%
3.e5 was played in 24,077 games and scored 51%
3.exd5 was played in 17,178 games and scored 47%
So statistically 3.Nd2 is the strongest move, but is played less often than 3.Nc3.
28 Oct 06
Originally posted by David TebbInteresting post! But i'm not sure I agree that this data indicates that "Statistically 3.Nd2 is the strongest move". There are a plethora of factors involved, such as the rating differential of the players....ie; if a 2600 player is playing a 2200 player the result of the game will likely have less to do with the opening selection. Also, some games might have been decided on a blunder later in the game, which isn't really putting the opening to a proper test. Not to mention, your database, or my database for that matter, is only a small sample of the total number of games played.
As someone who has tried just about everything against the French Defence, I think that 3.Nc3, 3.Nd2 and 3.e5 are about equal in strength. Also these 3 choices are all better than 3.exd5 which usually gives Black an easy game.
Probably the most objective way to assess the moves is to compare the statistics. Out of appoximately 150,000 French's played ...[text shortened]... b]47%
So statistically 3.Nd2 is the strongest move, but is played less often than 3.Nc3.[/b]