16 May 06
1 edit
The little known Webster variation is the key to refuting this opening. Full credit for the discovery of this system goes to Ian Webster, noted theoretician. 1. e4 c6?!, 2. d4 d5, 3. Nc3 de, 4. Bc4 Nf6, 5. f3! ef , 6. Nxf3 Bf5, 7. Ne5 e6, 8. g4! Bg6, and now white can choose between the aggressive 9. h4!? and the safer but equally good 9. NxB. The move c6 is completely superflous and black is worse.
Anyone care to vent some thoughts of this variation?
16 May 06
1 edit
Not much of a refutation considering that Black has won every game in that variation. In fact, by 6. Bf5, Black scores an excellent 70% out of 23 games. (Chessbase statistics) Furthermore, Hiarcs 10 evaluates the final position as -0.45. Not only is this not a refutation, it's just plain bad.
16 May 06
Originally posted by coentjeHoe gaad het met je ! 😀
The little known Webster variation is the key to refuting this opening. Full credit for the discovery of this system goes to Ian Webster, noted theoretician. 1. e4 c6?!, 2. d4 d5, 3. Nc3 de, 4. Bc4 Nf6, 5. f3! ef , 6. Nxf3 Bf5, 7. Ne5 e6, 8. g4! Bg6, and now white can choose between the aggressive 9. h4!? and the safer but equally good 9. NxB. The move c6 is ...[text shortened]... ompletely superflous and black is worse.
Anyone care to vent some thoughts of this variation?
Ik denke dat Webster had een gek idee !!!
16 May 06
Originally posted by coentjeJust wish the Caro-Kann were that easy to refute! Actually the line given may not be that bad in that white is essentially striving for a reasonable version of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3). With a similar idea in mind I once tried 4.Bg5?! (instead of 4.Bc4), but I found myself having to gambit a second pawn after 4...Qb6. My feeling about the line given is that white probably has just enough for the pawn, so hardly a clear refutation, but maybe playable. Black probably also has reasonable alternatives on the 4th and 5th moves, if he doesn't want to accept the gambit in this way.
The little known Webster variation is the key to refuting this opening. Full credit for the discovery of this system goes to Ian Webster, noted theoretician. 1. e4 c6?!, 2. d4 d5, 3. Nc3 de, 4. Bc4 Nf6, 5. f3! ef , 6. Nxf3 Bf5, 7. Ne5 e6, 8. g4! Bg6, and now white can choose between the aggressive 9. h4!? and the safer but equally good 9. NxB. The move c6 is ...[text shortened]... ompletely superflous and black is worse.
Anyone care to vent some thoughts of this variation?
16 May 06
Originally posted by coentjeI don't think c6 is superfluous in the end position you have given. Without the pawn on c6 white may be able to push on with d4 - d5 and break up the black king's pawn cover.
The little known Webster variation is the key to refuting this opening. Full credit for the discovery of this system goes to Ian Webster, noted theoretician. 1. e4 c6?!, 2. d4 d5, 3. Nc3 de, 4. Bc4 Nf6, 5. f3! ef , 6. Nxf3 Bf5, 7. Ne5 e6, 8. g4! Bg6, and now white can choose between the aggressive 9. h4!? and the safer but equally good 9. NxB. The move c6 is ...[text shortened]... ompletely superflous and black is worse.
Anyone care to vent some thoughts of this variation?
16 May 06
ok, i'll consider myself scolded by all of you and agree that stating it is a rubbish opening based on the line i posted was a little bit too strong.
I still consider it a rubbish opening though, not for it's lack of strength but for it being one of the most ugly openings i ever saw, but i agree, that is a personal matter of taste. 😀
16 May 06
Originally posted by coentjeyou sir, are ignorant. How come I knew you would not have a stellar rating just based on your statement about the caro-kann? The simple reason is that to make such ridiculuous statements about what is often called THE most solid reply to e4 only shows a combination of arrogance and total lack of chess understanding.
ok, i'll consider myself scolded by all of you and agree that stating it is a rubbish opening based on the line i posted was a little bit too strong.
I still consider it a rubbish opening though, not for it's lack of strength but for it being one of the most ugly openings i ever saw, but i agree, that is a personal matter of taste. 😀
You must know some things that world champions karpov and botvinnik did not know because they loved this defense!
The move c6, which you just don't 'get', can lead to a very good pawn structure for black and in some lines he has a French pawn structure without the problem of the closed in French bishop!!
Total ignorance. keep studying though...someday you'll look back and be embarrassed.
16 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by hypermo2001like i already stated in my previous post i did consider myself scolded for the statement. With that i tried to say that i was not so happy with my earlier (too) strong statement about the caro kann.
you sir, are ignorant. How come I knew you would not have a stellar rating just based on your statement about the caro-kann? The simple reason is that to make such ridiculuous statements about what is often called THE most solid reply to e4 only shows a combination of arrogance and total lack of chess understanding.
You must know some things that wo p!!
Total ignorance. keep studying though...someday you'll look back and be embarrassed.
Me, I do not have a stellar rating nor will i ever have a stellar rating. Caro Kann maybe the most solid reply to e4 but does that mean that i have to like the opening....
by the way, how about the Panov-Botvinnik Attack with 3.ed-cd 4.c4 trying to take the Caro-Kann into some queenside openings like the Queen's Gambit or the Tarrasch Defense. Would that be a better way to make the CK more playable/enjoyable for me?