Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 31 Jan '09 21:30
    In the Ruy Lopez, if on move 4 the white Bishop takes Knight on c6, should black take back with the b7 or d7 pawn. The books say to capture toward the middle, but engines suggest to take with the d7 pawn (i.e., the Queen's pawn). What is better and why?
  2. Standard member Korch
    Chess Warrior
    31 Jan '09 21:39
    Originally posted by Jakal
    In the Ruy Lopez, if on move 4 the white Bishop takes Knight on c6, should black take back with the b7 or d7 pawn. The books say to capture toward the middle, but engines suggest to take with the d7 pawn (i.e., the Queen's pawn). What is better and why?
    After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 any modern opening book will suggest you to play 4...dxc6.
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    31 Jan '09 21:48
    Originally posted by Korch
    After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 any modern opening book will suggest you to play 4...dxc6.
    You forgot the "why". MCO says:

    4 ....... bxc6?! 5 d4 exd4 6 Qxd4 leaves White in control of the center.

    Seems reasonable to me.
  4. 31 Jan '09 22:53
    It is not completely unplayable to play bxc6 but why not allow your light square bishop a quicker route to activity with dxc6 - it plays almost like a gambit type position for black, except he will only feel the 'pawn down' effect if the game reaches an endgame.
  5. 31 Jan '09 22:58
    Originally posted by Jakal
    In the Ruy Lopez, if on move 4 the white Bishop takes Knight on c6, should black take back with the b7 or d7 pawn. The books say to capture toward the middle, but engines suggest to take with the d7 pawn (i.e., the Queen's pawn). What is better and why?
    Why not play 3...f5 & avoid a whole stack of theory?
  6. 31 Jan '09 23:02
    Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschex
    It is not completely unplayable to play bxc6 but why not allow your light square bishop a quicker route to activity with dxc6 - it plays almost like a gambit type position for black, except he will only feel the 'pawn down' effect if the game reaches an endgame.
    The "pawn down" effect? I don't understand.
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    31 Jan '09 23:06
    Originally posted by Squelchbelch
    Why not play 3...f5 & avoid a whole stack of theory?
    There's plenty of theory in the Schliemann.
  8. 31 Jan '09 23:13
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    There's plenty of theory in the Schliemann.
    Yes, but
    http://tinyurl.com/b3k2p7
    is the secret weapon!
  9. Standard member Jie
    31 Jan '09 23:28
    Originally posted by Squelchbelch
    Why not play 3...f5 & avoid a whole stack of theory?
    That would result in a generation of ignorant nihilists walking about in a zombie state unable to contribute to meaningful discussions on chess. I thought the OTB club taught its people to do their talking OTB?
  10. 31 Jan '09 23:45
    Originally posted by Jakal
    In the Ruy Lopez, if on move 4 the white Bishop takes Knight on c6, should black take back with the b7 or d7 pawn. The books say to capture toward the middle, but engines suggest to take with the d7 pawn (i.e., the Queen's pawn). What is better and why?
    here is a very interesting game in which black plays fianchetto variation of 3...g6 and manages to put the former world champion Anatoly Karpov under some pressure. Not only that, but black has doubled c pawns from early on, but as greenpawn states in his recent book, Rampant chess, for every doubled c pawn, there is a half open file waiting for some Rook fun!

    the game is between former world champion Anatoly Karpov and international master Mark Condie, played in a simultaneous exhibition, Glasgow, 1984



    I provide the details to demonstrate that this opening variation variation is playable, certainly at my measly level and that doubled pawns , even against the best positional player in the world, are not necessarily a bad thing.
  11. Standard member Korch
    Chess Warrior
    31 Jan '09 23:45
    Originally posted by Jie
    That would result in a generation of ignorant nihilists walking about in a zombie state unable to contribute to meaningful discussions on chess. I thought the OTB club taught its people to do their talking OTB?
    I see you have started your z00ting again.....
  12. Standard member Jie
    31 Jan '09 23:57 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Korch
    I see you have started your z00ting again.....
    Are you in the OTB Club or they kicked you out? You want to tell me someone who plays OTB for real can afford to be ignorant of the Ruy? No wonder Fat Lady was complaining of beating 1200 players in FICS .
  13. 01 Feb '09 00:02
    Originally posted by Mad Rook
    The "pawn down" effect? I don't understand.
    Well if you played the resulting position as a pawn endgame then black would be unable to break through on the queenside because of his doubled c pawns. This means that although the material is level, white gains an effective extra pawn on the kingside with which he can orchastrate a pawn breakthrough, force the black king back and then transfer to the queenside where he gobbles up all the remaining pawns and wins.
  14. 01 Feb '09 00:12
    Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschex
    Well if you played the resulting position as a pawn endgame then black would be unable to break through on the queenside because of his doubled c pawns. This means that although the material is level, white gains an effective extra pawn on the kingside with which he can orchastrate a pawn breakthrough, force the black king back and then transfer to the queenside where he gobbles up all the remaining pawns and wins.
    Ah, OK, thanks for the clarification.
  15. Standard member Korch
    Chess Warrior
    01 Feb '09 00:23 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by Jie
    Are you in the OTB Club or they kicked you out? You want to tell me someone who plays OTB for real can afford to be ignorant of the Ruy? No wonder Fat Lady was complaining of beating 1200 players in FICS .
    Only ignorant patzer like you will accuse in ignorance someone who recommends Schliemann (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5), which is sometimes used even in top GM level. Or maybe you are going to claim that Carlsen and Radjabov are ignorant?

    Btw. Whats your OTB rating?

    P.S. And feel free to explain why are you such a coward and afraid to be beaten in blitz by me?