Originally posted by diskamylI just noticed it was a french since I'm on my mobile and know that Bd2 is a good move for white in the french but of course you have to save the pawn first but not by Be3... If you wanted to protect the pawn Bb5 would be better.
"Its useless overprotection of the d4 square and its a passive placement for the bishop... It doesn't do anything to help the position."
well I think that's wrong. it's not useless, not all defensive squares for the bishop is passive, and it does help to the position, actually right at the point where the battle is going on.
and Bd2 is losing a pawn. bishop takes back, white simply swaps the bishops off and goes for a kingside initiative.
Edit: Bd2 in this position and sacrificing the pawn seems like an interesting idea for a gambit at first glance though.
Originally posted by diskamylIt is a mistake and a strategically daft move. It loses time and abandons White's initiative. The bishop's scope is unchanged on e3 and its optimum placement is unclear at this early stage. Moving it so early provides a target and facilitates Black's development of a cohereny plan since he is still flexible enough to mold his position into the perfect fold to White's. For example, ideas with Qb6 gain in strength. Developing the knight to f3 attacks new squares, helps development and retains flexibility because it's unlikely to go to h3 or e2 due to the lack of time and Black's central pressure. Given the alternatives, Be3 is not a good move. It doesn't lose by force or anything but I think Black is already slightly better.
"Its useless overprotection of the d4 square and its a passive placement for the bishop... It doesn't do anything to help the position."
well I think that's wrong. it's not useless, not all defensive squares for the bishop is passive, and it does help to the position, actually right at the point where the battle is going on.
and Bd2 is losing a pawn. goes for a kingside initiative which forces black to postpone his queenside developement.
As already mentioned, this is the kind of mistake that Experts+ would rarely committ. Moves like this will still be played but only to surprise booked opponents or ease the workload, not because the player believes in its objective merit.
Originally posted by exigentskyThanks for that... The way you said it is much better than my wording. Here is a quick line I thought of on the go that I think may shed some light. 5....Nge7 (threatening ...Nf5) 6.Bd3 Qb6 7.Qd2 c4 8.Be2 (can't keep the bishop on the b1-h7 diagonal because of ....Qxb2) 8...Nf5 and I think that "refutes" 5.Be3.
It is a mistake and a strategically daft move. It loses time and abandons White's initiative. The bishop's scope is unchanged on e3 and its optimum placement is unclear at this early stage. Moving it so early provides a target and facilitates Black's development of a cohereny plan since he is still flexible enough to mold his position into the perfect fol ed opponents or ease the workload, not because the player believes in its objective merit.
Edit: and after 9.Bf4 black can play ...h6 and ....g5 to snag some space and force the bishop to the useless g3 square.
Originally posted by exigentskyAccording to http://www.chesslab.com/PositionSearch.html, the move 5 Be3 has been played 16 times by players rated above 2100 in 2007 and 2008 alone including 3 times by 2300+ and 1 each by a 2400+ and 2500+. White's score is negative in those games (3W, 5L, 8D) but I'd hardly call a move played that often by players above Master level as "strategically daft".
It is a mistake and a strategically daft move. It loses time and abandons White's initiative. The bishop's scope is unchanged on e3 and its optimum placement is unclear at this early stage. Moving it so early provides a target and facilitates Black's development of a cohereny plan since he is still flexible enough to mold his position into the perfect fol d opponents or ease the workload, not because the player believes in its objective merit.
The position stats on chesslab for the move 5 Be3 for White is 37%W 36% L and 27% D. For 5 Nf3 it's 39%W 34%L and 27%D. The difference is trifling. On the Shredder and ChessGames Opening Explorer, it scores higher than Nf3 (though there are far less games).
I think the move is perfectly playable.
Originally posted by diskamylYou shouldn't feel bad in the slightest. The "Be3 in the French" lesson was one I learned as an A-player.
I feel kind of bad for asking this, but I don't see why 5.Be3 is a mistake. I mean, it may not be the best move, but is it really a blunder?
It's not a blunder, but it is a mistake as it limits White's development possibilities. Which square is the best for this bishop? It's too early to tell, and there are other moves (Nf3 primarily) which are more flexible and therefore better. Black now has more development options - moves like f6 exf6 Nxf6 without having to worry as much about Bg5 (since it would lose a move). Any future K-side attack by white (e.g., involving Bxh6) would likewise be a move down.
We aren't computers but sometimes it's useful to think in computer terms. I'd say 5.Be3 gives up about a quarter of a pawn. Again, a mistake but not a blunder. White is still fine - it's just that the position is much closer to equality than normal lines. Can Black force a win? No. But he's that much closer to taking the initiative.
BTW I don't care for 5.Bd2 for similar reasons. That one may be worse as it blocks Nd2 and also the Q's influence up the d file. An early Bd2 is usually wrong in Nimzo / QID lines, as is an early Bd7 for Black in the Nimzo / QGD / Slav.
Some of this is timing. A move like h3 for White is almost always wrong at moves 3-6, but it's more likely to be fine at moves 8-12.
Originally posted by exigentskyOk, I think I'm kind of being stubborn here, you are right. Here's the mainline I was considering (from a database), I just couldn't find any improvement for black after Be3 on this line, and thought white has a valid initiative after the last move, but yes, Nf3 instead looks more logical.
It is a mistake and a strategically daft move. It loses time and abandons White's initiative. The bishop's scope is unchanged on e3 and its optimum placement is unclear at this early stage. Moving it so early provides a target and facilitates Black's development of a cohereny plan since he is still flexible enough to mold his position into the perfect fol ...[text shortened]... d opponents or ease the workload, not because the player believes in its objective merit.
In the line I payed above I found a very interesting idea that I think would definitely rattle and opponent OTB. After 9....h6 I have thought of the idea of 10.Kd1! and 11.Kc1!? For white... The idea is to get the king away from the kingside to attack there without having to worry about black sneaking in behind the attack and now you only have to worry about the queenside attack but you already knew that was coming and there will be nothing sneaky about it and black still has his king in the center and it seems it will be stuck there so after 11.Kc1!? Comes g4 and h4.... This is sort of irrelevant but I thought it would be interesting to share. 10.Kd1 also prevents ...g5 because of g4.
I may not have picked the clearest example of an Expert-level mistake. Folks are right to question this for themselves. I still don't care for 5.Be3, but even if my pessimism is warranted, it's still playable, as almost everything is playable. I mean, people play the Exchange Slav for a win, and it simply cannot be the most challenging line. But you avoid reams of theory, keep the draw closer in hand, and it may draw your opponent outside his/her comfort zone - factors distinct from the inherent chess merit of 3.cxd5.
The key feature I was looking for is premature commitment to a specific development square. I thought up the line as an illustration.
Perhaps this line would better make the point I was trying to make.
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Be3?
Originally posted by no1marauder
According to http://www.chesslab.com/PositionSearch.html, the move 5 Be3 has been played 16 times by players rated above 2100 in 2007 and 2008 alone including 3 times by 2300+ and 1 each by a 2400+ and 2500+. White's score is negative in those games (3W, 5L, 8D) but I'd hardly call a move played that often by players above Master level as "strategically daft".
The position stats on chesslab for the move 5 Be3 for White is 37%W 36% L and 27% D. For 5 Nf3 it's 39%W 34%L and 27%D. The difference is trifling. On the Shredder and ChessGames Opening Explorer, it scores higher than Nf3 (though there are far less games).
I think the move is perfectly playable.
Objective merit and statistics or frequency are not synonymous. Even if the statistics showed White winning 60% of the games and it was played in hundreds of games, my evaluation would not change. This is early enough in the game and the position is simple enough that I have full confidence in my positional evaluation. Moreover, the statistics you listed show a poor performance (even more considering that Black would have been surprised) and that it is extremely rare.
I never doubted that Be3 is playable; it's just not as strong as the alternatives. If you like it, play it. You will probably do better with it than with something stronger but that you dislike and don't understand. I sometimes play lines I know are weaker because I prefer the type of plan they offer and the positions that arise or I want to avoid theory and get my opponent in positions he hate or understands less.
Originally posted by exigentskyI play the KIA against the French, so it doesn't affect me at all. But you should at least retract your arrogant statement that the move is "strategically daft" if 18 players at above Master strength were willing to play it in tournament games in the last 2 years alone. The move is at least forcing (threatening to win the c5 pawn) and does tend to get White's bad bishop exchanged reasonably early in most of the games. Whether that compensates for its seeming deficiencies in your mind or not, it's seems enough strong players are willing to play it to make it unjustified to give it a "?".
[/b]Originally posted by no1marauder
According to http://www.chesslab.com/PositionSearch.html, the move 5 Be3 has been played 16 times by players rated above 2100 in 2007 and 2008 alone including 3 times by 2300+ and 1 each by a 2400+ and 2500+. White's score is negative in those games (3W, 5L, 8D) but I'd hardly call a move played that often by pl e or I want to avoid theory and get my opponent in positions he hate or understands less.
Originally posted by no1marauderLike I said, Kasparov could play this and given the alternatives, I'd still consider it strategically daft. A move's strength does not change based on who plays it. Maybe there are games with masters which start with 1. f3 .... 2. Kf2 but I won't suddenly change my evaluation of this opening. The reverse is also possible. Good moves may score poorly because they are not played correctly or for other reasons. Moreover, even inferior openings have ideas, but they are not as relevant or timed less accurately.
I play the KIA against the French, so it doesn't affect me at all. But you should at least retract your arrogant statement that the move is "strategically daft" if 18 players at above Master strength were willing to play it in tournament games in the last 2 years alone. The move is at least forcing (threatening to win the c5 pawn) and does tend to get Wh ems enough strong players are willing to play it to make it unjustified to give it a "?".
Anyway, there are many reasons for playing certain openings. Strength is only one component. I am not insulting masters by claiming that Be3 is objectively an error and I suspect they would agree. Chess is a sport, not a math test. Players are graded on their performance, not the perfection of their play. Sometimes weaker moves fit better in bringing about stronger results. To say that some moves are weaker or stronger than others and offer good reasons is not arrogant, it is just logical (and somewhat subjective). If all moves were equal, all games would be drawn. They are not equal and this starts in the early opening. However, at our level and even at master level to a lesser extent, the opening tends to have limited consequences. It's also likely that with best play, virtually all reasonable openings would result in a draw anyway. Thus, play what you like and don't worry too much about what's supposed to be strongest this month.
BTW: I'd give it a !? because I don't consider it an outright blunder - just a bit inferior.
Originally posted by exigentskyThe reason I think I'll be able to achieve this is because it is very important for me to do this, and I have the time necessary to dedicate to this goal.
If you think you can get to Expert so quickly, you understand just how much skill and work is involved. The difference between 1600 and Expert is night and day. Moreover, the higher up you go in chess the harder it is to improve (almost exponentially).
Originally posted by diskamyl
that looks a little optimistic. I just felt the need to say this for you to not become frustrated later.