Originally posted by Northern Lad First point: simply wrong. Over a period of time you will find that GMs have played 4.Nc3 more often than 4.d3. And as I said before, the main attraction of 4.d3 is to avoid the tactical complications of 4.Nc3.
Second point: yes I have. For example only last year one of England's leading GMs played 4.d3 against me, and I obtained an excellent pos oints I am making. I'm more than happy to continue playing the Schliemann the way I like to.[/b]
First point: simply wrong. Over a period of time you will find that GMs have played 4.Nc3 more often than 4.d3. And as I said before, the main attraction of 4.d3 is to avoid the tactical complications of 4.Nc3.
I have pointed out that top GMs (including Anand) in recent tournaments against Schliemann have used 4.d3. That`s the fact! Or do you think that top GMs is not the strongest amongst other GMs?
Second point: yes I have. For example only last year one of England's leading GMs played 4.d3 against me, and I obtained an excellent position as black with more than enough compensation for the pawn (as admitted by the GM himself). I only lost in a wild mutual time scamble.
Could you post that game please if it`s not secret?
There doesn't seem much point continuing this debate, since you are clearly not going to accept the points I am making. I'm more than happy to continue playing the Schliemann the way I like to.
Your arguments about harmlessness of 4.d3 simply is unconvincing. You are ignoring facts (look at my response to your first statement) and also avoided my question - where is the significant difference in "objective evaluation" between 4.d3 and 4.Nc3 if in both of them black is OK?
Nobody makes you to play Schliemann in the way you dislike as I have always stated that each player have right to choose opening he likes.
I just played a ripping schliemann game in blitz that I would like to share.
Black deviated early when I was on auto pilot so I do drop a piece, but after that minor inconvenience I thought my play was pretty spot on.
Originally posted by Korch I have pointed out that top GMs (including Anand) in recent tournaments against Schliemann have used 4.d3. That`s the fact! Or do you think that top GMs is not the strongest amongst other GMs?
Korch seems to be right about this. In actual games played, the majority of elite players (over 2700) now prefer 4.d3 to 4.Nc3.
Since 2007, 4.d3 was chosen by elite players in 9 games (eg. Carlsen, Anand, Topalov), and 4.Nc3 in 7 games (eg. Kramnik, Polgar, Shirov).
However in nearly all cases Radjabov has been defending (attacking!) with the Black side.
So maybe this has something to do with the lines that Radjabov prefers against these two moves?
Originally posted by David Tebb Korch seems to be right about this. In actual games played, the majority of elite players (over 2700) now prefer 4.d3 to 4.Nc3.
Since 2007, 4.d3 was chosen by elite players in 9 games (eg. Carlsen, Anand, Topalov), and 4.Nc3 in 7 games (eg. Kramnik, Polgar, Shirov).
However in nearly all cases Radjabov has been defending (attacking!) with the Blac ...[text shortened]... So maybe this has something to do with the lines that Radjabov prefers against these two moves?
Yes, in my previous posts I meant over a period of years, not just recently with the lines super GMs currently play against Radjabov. It is clear that Radjabov has rehabilitated an important line against 4.Nc3 (at least for the time being). In all the time I've been playing the Schliemann, the worry has always been 4.Nc3. Indeed I've given up the Schliemann from time to time when I haven't been able to find anything convincing against 4.Nc3. I wouldn't ever remotely consider giving it up for 4.d3.
The strongest player (GQ) in the locality that we play chess in always used to play 4.d3 but got absolutely nowhere with it in many games against me. So he was forced to change to 4.Nc3, and then he started to cause me some problems. I very much doubt whether you'll find many strong Schliemann players who would consider 4.d3 more critical or more of a problem than 4.Nc3.
I have to agree with Korch and Tebb on this one. Nearly all of the recent games in the Schliemann have focused exclusively on Radjabov defending against 4. d3. I think Black has shown that he's completely fine after 4. Nc3 fxe4 5. Nxe4 Nf6! (White may claim an edge after the older 5...d5), for instance, this game (I'm not claiming perfect play for White. That said, if Polgar can't rip apart the Schliemann, I don't know who can!):
I played the Schliemann for a while with great success, but just stopped, mostly because I was sick of getting Scotch's and such. That said, this game always worried me:
In games after this one, Radjabov subsequently tried 7...Nd4 against Svidler. He also had an incredible game against Mamedyarov, in which some great preparation yielded him an unfortunate half point (instead of a full one) after some great defense from White:
Anyway, 4. d3 might be more critical these days because it might just guarantee White an easy edge where Black can never hope to win. I think people on www.chesspublishing.com have been looking for ways to improve on Topalov-Radjabov but haven't found anything, and they don't seem to like the Davie's line either if I remember correctly.
Originally posted by Korch [b]First point: simply wrong. Over a period of time you will find that GMs have played 4.Nc3 more often than 4.d3. And as I said before, the main attraction of 4.d3 is to avoid the tactical complications of 4.Nc3.
I have pointed out that top GMs (including Anand) in recent tournaments against Schliemann have used 4.d3. That`s the fact! Or do you think you dislike as I have always stated that each player have right to choose opening he likes.[/b]
I wish you'd read my answers before blithely accusing me of things I haven't said. I've made the point that over a longer period of time (say 10 or 20 years) it is clear that stronger players have preferred 4.Nc3. The fact that a number of 2700 players currently prefer 4.d3 against Radjabov is irrelevant to my main point.
Complying with the general regulations of RHP, I do not wish to openly identify myself, though Dave Tebb knows the game I'm referring to. As I said earlier, I've played the Schliemann many times against IMs and GMs and cannot think of a single occasion when I had any real problems in the opening except when my opponent played 4.Nc3.
I wish these stupid PGNs were less fussy... It was the same problem as last time - I put Qd2 instead of e2- I seem to have a bit of a blind spot for the e and d files.
Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschex [b]I just played a ripping schliemann game in blitz that I would like to share.
Black deviated early when I was on auto pilot so I do drop a piece, but after that minor inconvenience I thought my play was pretty spot on.
This is a game just to show an example that the f5!? response against the ruy Lopez is involves sharp play and that one mistake can cost you the game
In this game I as black made a mistake at the beginning; white made a mistake with Bd3 when Be2 should've been played, that allowed to save the game
🙂Game 4750044
Originally posted by Northern Lad I wish you'd read my answers before blithely accusing me of things I haven't said. I've made the point that over a longer period of time (say 10 or 20 years) it is clear that stronger players have preferred 4.Nc3. The fact that a number of 2700 players currently prefer 4.d3 against Radjabov is irrelevant to my main point.
Complying with the gene occasion when I had any real problems in the opening except when my opponent played 4.Nc3.
The fact that a number of 2700 players currently prefer 4.d3 against Radjabov is irrelevant to my main point.
So the fact that strongest world players (including world champion) now prefers 4.d3 against other top player is irrelevant to your point? Do you really think fact that GMs have preferred 4.Nc3 before and prefers 4.d3 now may be used as argument that 4.Nc3 is better????
Complying with the general regulations of RHP, I do not wish to openly identify myself, though Dave Tebb knows the game I'm referring to.
Isn` it possible to post text of game without reference to names?
As I said earlier, I've played the Schliemann many times against IMs and GMs and cannot think of a single occasion when I had any real problems in the opening except when my opponent played 4.Nc3.
If your opponents (which were not top GMs) wasn`t able to reach something with 4.d3 it does not mean that its impossible at all. Did you have met 4.d3 in 2007-2008? If not then reference to your own practice is useless as argument.
Originally posted by Korch [b]The fact that a number of 2700 players currently prefer 4.d3 against Radjabov is irrelevant to my main point.
So the fact that strongest world players (including world champion) now prefers 4.d3 against other top player is irrelevant to your point? Do you really think fact that GMs have preferred 4.Nc3 before and prefers 4.d3 now may be used as arg ...[text shortened]... have met 4.d3 in 2007-2008? If not then reference to your own practice is useless as argument.[/b]
I'm sorry, but it is impossible to have a reasonable debate with you, since you simply refuse to try to understand the points I am making. So I won't bother any more. However, I am prepared to discuss the Schliemann with others of a more open mind. I will soon be publishing some original analysis on this site.
Originally posted by Northern Lad I'm sorry, but it is impossible to have a reasonable debate with you, since you simply refuse to try to understand the points I am making. So I won't bother any more. However, I am prepared to discuss the Schliemann with others of a more open mind. I will soon be publishing some original analysis on this site.
Avoiding of answer and dogmatic baseless claims are not arguments.
help me with a schliemann game?
15 Jul '08 21:476 edits
Back to Top