1 edit
Originally posted by zin23What?
Rubbish, the opening is sound. Black gets sufficient compensation for the pawn..
I play it all the time, and so do (much stronger) players than me.
1.e4...d5
2.exd5...Nf6
3.Nc3...c6?!
4.dxc6...Nxc6
5.Bc4
That looks like a waste to me.
...Or do you mean the Scandinavian as black, in which case of course it's perfectly ok.
Originally posted by SquelchbelchI play it as black ...and it has worked better than sicilian for me.
What?
1.e4...d5
2.exd5...Nf6
3.Nc3...c6?!
4.dxc6...Nxc6
5.Bc4
That looks like a waste to me.
...Or do you mean the Scandinavian as black, in which case of course it's perfectly ok.
I try this line as well:
1.e4...d5
2.exd5...Nf6
3.Nc3...e6?!
Thats the icelandic gambit I believe...
Supposedly this lines of Scandi don't work well at IM/GM level, but so what?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 07
- Moves
- 27653
Originally posted by zin23Both these gambits (3... e6 and c6) work if white has played
I play it as black ...and it has worked better than sicilian for me.
I try this line as well:
1.e4...d5
2.exd5...Nf6
3.Nc3...e6?!
Thats the icelandic gambit I believe...
Supposedly this lines of Scandi don't work well at IM/GM level, but so what?
1 e4 d5
2 exd5 Nf6
3 c4
I'm pretty sure that after 3 Nc3, black should just play Nxd5
Originally posted by zin23how about a little more support for the line than:
Rubbish, the opening is sound. Black gets sufficient compensation for the pawn..
I play it all the time, and so do (much stronger) players than me.
"Rubbish, the opening is sound. Black gets sufficient compensation for the pawn..
I play it all the time, and so do (much stronger) players than me."
you might want to try to give us a line to play with...
i.e. what does black hope to achieve with his "advantage"
what is his advantage?
..In answer to your question, the scandinavian is very good for black all tho its not quite up there yet with the sicilian,its played at the very highest level,I myself play it on these sites aswell as blitz and OTB and i am quite a strong rated player OTB...as for the gambit its total rubbish... just look at the position,black gets nothing a pawn down for what? i dont belive nobody would play this in a serious game ive played it in 1min chess just for pure shock value nothing else as it has no other value....anyone that thinks this line is ok really needs to reassess there chess.
1 edit
Originally posted by PAWN RIOTyes, we've covered that...
..In answer to your question, the scandinavian is very good for black all tho its not quite up there yet with the sicilian,its played at the very highest level,I myself play it on these sites aswell as blitz and OTB and i am quite a strong rated player OTB...as for the gambit its total rubbish... just look at the position,black gets nothing a pawn down for ...[text shortened]... t has no other value....anyone that thinks this line is ok really needs to reassess there chess.
I am feeling dumber and dumber for suggesting it (the gambit, that is)...
but zinny boy here says its sound,
and I'd like to know why...
so, we can have two parts to thid thread...
one where zin tries to argue in favor of the gambit,
and the other where we try to figure out a little more to this opening past just:
1. e4 d5
2. exd5 Qxd5
3. Nc3 Qa5
4. (d4 or Bc4) Bf5
that's just for moves of some theory!
surely after hundreds of years of studying the game, this world's GM's (or Fritz) can give us something better than that?!?!
how about a comp. vs. comp battle with analysis afterwards?
1 edit
Originally posted by rubberjaw30I've done it before... black pretty much equalizes with Qxd5.
how about a comp. vs. comp battle with analysis afterwards?
It's a good, solid, slightly boring opening. The gambit line is retarded, the regular line is highly playable and (despite being boring as hell) not entirely drawish. I wouldn't suggest it to black but I won't even try to offer a refutation.
Originally posted by ih8senswow, it's amazing...
I've done it before... black pretty much equalizes with Qxd5.
It's a good, solid, slightly boring opening. The gambit line is retarded, the regular line is highly playable and (despite being boring as hell) not entirely drawish. I wouldn't suggest it to black but I won't even try to offer a refutation.
the boring aura from the opening itself is just killing this thread with boredom...
here's a question: if it's so drawish, and black is supposed to be happy with a draw, then WHY DON'T MANY GM'S PLAY IT AS BLACK TO NOT ONLY DRAW, BUT P. OFF THE OPPONENTS AS WELL! I LOVE CAPS LOCK BY THE WAY! MAKES THIS WHOLE PARAGRAPH MUCH EASIER TO TYPE THAN HOLDING DOWN SHIFT FOR 210 CHARACTERS, EXCLUDING SPACES AND COMMAS AND APOSTROPHES AND NUMBERS
go on, I dare you to actually count to see how many capital characters are there...
well, I have a life.
Here's a reason I was once given to explain why GM's don't do it.
Many GM's believe that computer analysis is a little off. They think that white actually gets a small positional advantage from the opening, an advantage that can be avoided through other openings. Though this small advantage means very little to us, GM's are very, very, good at pushing small advantages. Therefore, GM's tend to avoid it by playing the Pirc, the Sicilian, and e5.
Originally posted by ih8sensyou claim to have a life, yet you pay $30 a year to play chess...
well, I have a life.
Here's a reason I was once given to explain why GM's don't do it.
Many GM's believe that computer analysis is a little off. They think that white actually gets a small positional advantage from the opening, an advantage that can be avoided through other openings. Though this small advantage means very little to us, GM's are very, ...[text shortened]... l advantages. Therefore, GM's tend to avoid it by playing the Pirc, the Sicilian, and e5.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
and I understand the GM thing...
why are computers so, basically, horrible at understanding positional play while there isn't a single tactic they can't spot?
Originally posted by rubberjaw30quite wrong...
you claim to have a life, yet you pay $30 a year to play chess...
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
and I understand the GM thing...
why are computers so, basically, horrible at understanding positional play while there isn't a single tactic they can't spot?
Game 3967407 - The double sac. The blind spot of most engines.
and about the positional thing... it's cuz they are materialistic.. their positional play is simply setting up for tactics.. positional play is about knowing from experience where each piece should be.. engines never gain experience.
Originally posted by ih8sensaren't computers able to "learn from experience" by noticing patterns in their databases?
quite wrong...
Game 3967407 - The double sac. The blind spot of most engines.
and about the positional thing... it's cuz they are materialistic.. their positional play is simply setting up for tactics.. positional play is about knowing from experience where each piece should be.. engines never gain experience.
for example...
numerous games involve an h-pawn storm on the king...
shouldn't a computer be able to say, hey! this could be a good idea!