One of my new students was telling me about the 'forced win for White' in chess. I told him that as of this date in time there was no 'forced win' on record and asked him why he thought there was?
So he showed me this line: 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Qf3 Bc5 4.Qxp checkmate.
So I asked him, "Why would this be a forced mate when Black could've easily parried the threat on move 3 by playing 3...Nf6 ?
"Doesn't matter", he said. "My friend told me that the attack on Black's f7 square is a win. Always wins."
Amazingly, I had another student who was trying to learn the Sicilian and asked me about defending against the attack on f7.
So it would appear to me that our new chess playing friends could use some help against Fools Mate and early attacks by White. Since I've already mentioned how Black defends the attack after 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Qf3 by playing 3...Nf6, let's look at the other line.
After 1.e4 c5 (a matter of personal preference) 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 I was asked, "How does Black defend against the attack on f7?"
Ah, it's important as you progress in chess to understand the terms used for annotations. In this example, there is no attack on f7. While it's true that White's bishop 'attacks' the f7 square, this is not what we call an 'attack'. The f7 square would only be under attack if it was threatened with more pieces than the number defending it. In this case the Black king defends f7, so to make a clearer assessment of the position we say that the bishop 'puts pressure' on the f7 square.
Now let's look at the position after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 g6 4.Ng5?
This is what we call a 'premature attack' since White is attacking w/o completing his development. All premature attacks should fail unless the other side has created weaknesses in their position.
What should Black do here? Simply play 4...e6. The White knight is now attacked by the Black queen so White has to play a move like 5.d3 (if 5.d4 than Black simply plays 5...cxd), then Black will continue with 5...Bg7 and castle shortly. White has wasted two important tempo - One by playing his knight to g5 and the second tempo when he will be forced to retreat it which is very soon.
If this is a popular thread with new players please show your support by making a reply with something like, "Like it" so that I know whether or not to continue this series.
Arrakis
Edit: Lotsa edits getting the fen position right.
Sure, I've seen this before - it's usually followed up with a Qf3 pretty quickly, trying to get extra attacking pieces. While you have to recognize and respond to the threat, it's by no means a mating combo.
just for kicks, and because I'm pretty poorly versed in theory, what's wrong with 4...Ne5?
i always like to see Bc4 when i'm playing a sicilian like that although i dont play g6 i play it like a closed sicilian and dont play a6 if he plays Bc4 then the knight to g5 or his queen f3 e6 is a great feeling knowing that your opponent plays that opennig wrong and you will have a much better chance making your pawn breaks.
Originally posted by Eric CartmanYou get an A+ 😵
what's wrong with black playing Ne5 instead of e6, which I think is ok, but in my opinion e6 is much more solid, since it can lead to d5 and I think the knight is on an awkward square early in the game there.
If Black were to play 4...Ne5 he would be guilty of doing the same thing White is doing:
A) Moving the same piece twice in the opening before developing the other pieces.
B) Attacking before developing his pieces
C) Neglecting development
D) Failing to improve his position.
Black's knight stands well on c6, but not e5 at this stage of the game. In fact, after White moves his bishop he threatens to gain a tempo in his attack with f4.
4...e6 which also threatens d5 at some point is much superior, as Eric Cartman pointed out.
Originally posted by Arrakissorry, I don't believe any of your students told you that. your post is too "educationally made up" that it's just annoying.
One of my new students was telling me about the 'forced win for White' in chess. I told him that as of this date in time there was no 'forced win' on record and asked him why he thought there was?
So he showed me this line: 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Qf3 Bc5 4.Qxp checkmate.
So I asked him, "Why would this be a forced mate when Black could've easily parried t ...[text shortened]... d. "My friend told me that the attack on Black's f7 square is a win. Always wins."
no, I didn't say no patzer would go attacking f7 with no developement. I actually know it's true, from myself. he says,
One of my new students was telling me about the 'forced win for White' in chess. I told him that as of this date in time there was no 'forced win' on record and asked him why he thought there was?
So he showed me this line: 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Qf3 Bc5 4.Qxp checkmate.
So I asked him, "Why would this be a forced mate when Black could've easily parried the threat on move 3 by playing 3...Nf6 ?
"Doesn't matter", he said. "My friend told me that the attack on Black's f7 square is a win. Always wins."
I just said I didn't believe such conversation took place. and of course, I'm not "so sure", I'm just almost sure.
I don't like that teaching style where the "teacher" makes up a story of a stupid student (so stupid in this case that the student actually claims he has put an end to the sport of chess, and with just the "saying" of "a friend" ?!) and makes a lesson out of it. very hard to believe, and just annoying.
Originally posted by diskamyl[/b]Although I agree it is annoying that someone makes up a story to make a lesson out of (which may well be possible), it is also very rude to accuse someone of doing such a thing.
no, I didn't say no patzer would go attacking f7 with no developement. I actually know it's true, from myself. he says,
[b]One of my new students was telling me about the 'forced win for White' in chess. I told him that as of this date in time there was no 'forced win' on record and asked him why he thought there was?
So he showed me this line: 1.e4 and makes a lesson out of it. very hard to believe, and just annoying.
There are thousands of posts here that you can never be sure is true or not, but accusing someone of lying isn't the right way to go about it.