How do I refute this?

Some guy was playing all these pawn moves against me but I couldn't beat him. He claimed that even Kasparov played like this (yeah, right) and I shouldn't tell him to learn to develop the pieces.

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e6 7. f3 b5 8. g4 h6 I told him I had mate in 25 here, but lost before I could show him. It continued 9. Qd2 b4 10. Nce2 e5 11. Nb3 a5 12. Ng3 a4 13. Nc1 d5 He didn't want to resign even though only his knight is developed after 13 moves and it's my turn! I don't know how I lost. What should I do here to refute it?

Originally posted by schemlin
Some guy was playing all these pawn moves against me but I couldn't beat him. He claimed that even Kasparov played like this (yeah, right) and I shouldn't tell him to learn to develop the pieces.

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e6 7. f3 b5 8. g4 h6 I told him I had mate in 25 here, but lost before I could show him. It continued ...[text shortened]... ter 13 moves and it's my turn! I don't know how I lost. What should I do here to refute it?

8.g4?! might be the answer to your problems, you were trying to break into his position, but it is very difficult to do against that sicillian - the pawns and pieces have too far to travel to get anything meaningful in the opening.

That is a known line called the sicillian Najdorf - kasparov has recently published books on it and it was known to be one of his more formidable weapons.

Joke thread.

The ironies of modern chess. It seems as if Chess principles are out the window in favor of dynamism and initiative. Who would have thought that Black could get an equal or even acceptable game against fairly Classical development while in 13 moves Black only has a knight developed to White's three (plus an extra move). What happened to making no more than two pawn moves in the opening and developing quickly? Black has made 12 pawn moves! Black has even moved the same pawns multiple times, such as e6 only to play e5 and d6 to play d5, etc. This seems positively absurd and would probably have been frowned upon fifty years ago. Yet, I would be surprised if White has any advantage at all here and I would actually prefer Black. I guess once you reach a certain level you realize that all these "rules" are chock full of exceptions and that instead of using these rules to guide play, perhaps other guidelines should be followed.

Here is the FEN:

13. ...d5 White to move

BTW: 8. g4 is the most popular move by theory and almost certainly the best. f3 prepares g4 and defends e4. If g4 isn't played now it will be after Qd2. It can transpose or Black can take advantage and play Nb6 instead of h6.

Bad example. White isnt really developed in that position either.

Originally posted by Kaworukun
Bad example. White isnt really developed in that position either.

it's the game the guy played.

I see nothing badly wrong with black. white gave him space for free, and he took it.

I don't know if anyone has looked at this thread since November '07, but I would suggest:

A) 8. Qd2 would be a slightly more logical move, although g4 is perfectly sensible and playable.

B) More importantly, on 10. ... e5, 11. Nf5! looks strong to me. White has a strongly placed knight, which cannot be dislodged by 11. ...g6? (12. Nxh6, Bxh6 13. Bxh6 leaves white up a pawn, with strong positioning.) And, if 11. ...Bxf5, a worthwhile trade for such a strong knight, gxf5 leaves white with an advantage, and plenty of chances for both sides.

Originally posted by Brettwith2ts
I don't know if anyone has looked at this thread since November '07, but I would suggest:

A) 8. Qd2 would be a slightly more logical move, although g4 is perfectly sensible and playable.

B) More importantly, on 10. ... e5, 11. Nf5! looks strong to me. White has a strongly placed knight, which cannot be dislodged by 11. ...g6? (12. Nxh6, Bxh6 13 ...[text shortened]... ch a strong knight, gxf5 leaves white with an advantage, and plenty of chances for both sides.

on part A...it doesn't really make much difference if Qd2 is played sooner...just like black in the sici can play Nd7-e5 instead of Nc6-e5 and everything turns out the same.

Originally posted by schemlin
Some guy was playing all these pawn moves against me but I couldn't beat him. He claimed that even Kasparov played like this (yeah, right) and I shouldn't tell him to learn to develop the pieces.

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e6 7. f3 b5 8. g4 h6 I told him I had mate in 25 here, but lost before I could show him. It continued ter 13 moves and it's my turn! I don't know how I lost. What should I do here to refute it?

Development really means "are you pieces mobile and on open lines or are they in a position to do so quickly?" so technically black is better developed here than white is. but with correct play I think the weakness of whites too far advanced pawns and the wake they have left behind them will show.

Originally posted by schemlin
Some guy was playing all these pawn moves against me but I couldn't beat him. He claimed that even Kasparov played like this (yeah, right) and I shouldn't tell him to learn to develop the pieces.

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e6 7. f3 b5 8. g4 h6 I told him I had mate in 25 here, but lost before I could show him. It continued ...[text shortened]... ter 13 moves and it's my turn! I don't know how I lost. What should I do here to refute it?

Looking over the database games, Black's theoretical error here appears to have been 11...a5, which with White's game reply allows him to take this into what seems to be a good line for White. The results for 11...Nc6 look better for Black.

Here, from the db games (I'm not a Najdorf player AT ALL) it looks like 14.Bb5+ Bd7 15.Bxd7 Qxd7 is one winning line for White (though consolidating the win is not at all simple) after either 16.g5 or 16.exd5. There is also a third game where White wins after 15.Bd3.

I'm not so sure that the play here is really all that contrary to classical principles. Development is important when the center is open: but when the center is closed, as it is with a hedgehog in a game like this, play may shift to the wings. (Play may also continue in the center, provided it isn't locked, but it needn't.) The way to play on the wings is to use pawn moves to deny one's opponent forward squares for his pieces, to gain space, to cramp one's opponent, and at an auspicious moment, to open files for one's heavy pieces. Here we see the typical Najdorf race on opposite wings. Toward the end of the opening, we see play shifting back to the center, which is also a classical dictum: the best response to an attack on the wing (provided you don't have a better attack on the other wing) is counterplay in the center. And that's exactly what Black does. All of this embodies classical ideas.

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
Looking over the database games, Black's theoretical error here appears to have been 11...a5, which with White's game reply allows him to take this into what seems to be a good line for White. The results for 11...Nc6 look better for Black.

Here, from the db games (I'm not a Najdorf player AT ALL) it looks like 14.Bb5+ Bd7 15.Bxd7 Qxd7 is one winnin e center. And that's exactly what Black does. All of this embodies classical ideas.

Don't just go by a game result. If a game is won, it doesn't mean that the variation is winning or even good. Bb5+ Bd7 Bxd7 Qxd7 is NOT a winning line. A winning line would lead to a forced win and I don't see how one can claim that here. I wouldn't be so sure White has an advantage. I don't think Black made any meaningful theoretical errors here. For example, a5 is typical in the Scheveningen.

Even so, the opening is VERY strange by the classical standards. Out of 13 moves, Black has only developed one piece and all the rest were pawn moves. Moreover, the center is not locked and could blow open quickly. It's not even a closed position because pawns have been traded. You woudln't find this many pawn moves without development even in closed openings with a locked center like the advanced French or Caro-Kann. The play only seems normal to some of you because we are so familiar with modern chess that you can no longer distinguish. However, I doubt you would find Lasker or Capablanca ever play like this as Black.

Originally posted by exigentsky
Don't just go by a game result. If a game is won, it doesn't mean that the variation is winning or even good. Bb5+ Bd7 Bxd7 Qxd7 is NOT a winning line. A winning line would lead to a forced win and I don't see how one can claim that here. I wouldn't even be so sure White has an advantage. I don't think Black made any meaningful theoretical errors here. Ev ...[text shortened]... guish. However, I doubt you would find Lasker or Capablanca ever play like this as Black.

I think that blowing open the center would benefit black as even though he is less developed his pieces appear to be more mobile...just a thought 🙂

Originally posted by tomtom232
I think that blowing open the center would benefit black as even though he is less developed his pieces appear to be more mobile...just a thought 🙂

Yes, I think so too. That's why Black played d5 himself.

Originally posted by exigentsky
Don't just go by a game result. If a game is won, it doesn't mean that the variation is winning or even good. Bb5+ Bd7 Bxd7 Qxd7 is NOT a winning line. A winning line would lead to a forced win and I don't see how one can claim that here. I wouldn't even be so sure White has an advantage. I don't think Black made any meaningful theoretical errors here. Ev guish. However, I doubt you would find Lasker or Capablanca ever play like this as Black.

I didn't say that it was a winning line, merely a good one. But you're right, the mere fact that all three database games after Bb5+ Bd7 are wins for White, doesn't necessarily indicate anything, since there are so few games. On the other hand, in addition to the results, limited (but suggestive) as they are, there is the fact that Black plays three times more games with the Nc6 line than the a5 line (I count 6 master level games), and the players using the former seem to include bigger names as well. But all this is admittedly tenuous.

As for whether it is consistent with classical principles, I stick with what I wrote earlier. I doubt that the figures you named would play this either. But I've seen much more radical openings (hypermodern) than this in special-collections databases, including the ultra-hypermodern scorpion -- also known as Pafu's opening, but played by Spassky I believe in a world championship game in the 1960s) -- in games dating from the 19th century.

The question is not how many pawn moves, but under what circumstances. I didn't say the center was locked, merely that it was closed (and it is with a hedgehog, given the game moves); if you wish to call this semi-closed, be my guest. The question is whether White intends to open it -- Black certainly does not early on. If White does not, because a kingside pawnstorm is more to his advantage, then it is as good as stable until the time when (if) Black decides he needs central counterplay because his queenside wing play is slower than White's kingside wing play. Meanwhile, if White does continue playing in the center, Black is free to develop his pieces instead of playing with pawns. He did not here because White didn't force him to. And I think that is perfectly consistent with classical principles as well: in a classical game, if your opponent plays to control the center, with few pawn moves and piece development to that end, you do too. If he moves a piece twice (without justification), or commits some other solecism under classical principles, then YOU are not only free to do the same in response, but indeed, obligated to, because deviating from standard play is the best way to punish non-standard play initiated by your opponent.

The real deviation from classical principles here is not so much by Black, I think, as by White, with his early kingside attack, leaving Black free to play on the queenside with the same end in mind.

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
I didn't say that it was a winning line, merely a good one. But you're right, the mere fact that all three database games after Bb5+ Bd7 are wins for White, doesn't necessarily indicate anything, since there are so few games. On the other hand, in addition to the results, limited (but suggestive) as they are, there is the fact that Black plays three t ...[text shortened]... kingside attack, leaving Black free to play on the queenside with the same end in mind.

If you didn't say it was a winning line then I don't know what this means "it looks like 14.Bb5+ Bd7 15.Bxd7 Qxd7 is one winning line for White (though consolidating the win is not at all simple) after either 16.g5 or 16.exd5." I suppose you meant to say winning try.

As for the center structure and plans employed, I am not really disagreeing with you too much. I only claim that such play by both players is provocatively modern. Consider that the English Attack itself started being played in the 80s. Moreover, I don't see a good plan for white after f3 if he doesn't intend g4.