play chess online

Play Chess Online

Vote and you will find!
Nutty name, real hobbies
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
mattdw 29 ( +1 | -1 )
GK Forum v Fritz: Round 1 - Page 2 lol, I think it was actually a combination of chunka-chunka-chunkas and gur-eRR-gur-eRR-gur-RRRs with a couple of swishes thrown in too - unfortunately no beer was consumed ;)
Aberlie, I tried what you suggested and it worked a charm! Thanks :) Everything is back on track...Fritz is just calculating right now....and it plays....
More: Chess
mattdw 41 ( +1 | -1 )
1...Nc3! The position so far:
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc3

No petroff! ..and by the sounds of it that's probably a good thing! :) I'll make a suggestion of 3. Bc4 as a candidate move.
+ Clears the king side for early castling
+ Contests centre
+ (for me) Its my most played opening, hoping for two knights defence...but..
- ...if black doesn't cooperate Guico Piano is a bit drawish?

I'll give some more indepth thoughts tomorrow, I fell asleep on the couch and it's nearly 2am now, oops. :P
basbos 6 ( +1 | -1 )
Hey Matt has Fritz started to play with white pieces :)
Nc3 !!
masros 2 ( +1 | -1 )
Nc3 !!?...wrong move!
mattdw 14 ( +1 | -1 )
Sorry! Nc6, lol. So far I have manged to write 50% of the moves down wrong! :P It's a ploy to lure Fritz into a false sense of security...honest! ;)
mattdw 1 ( +1 | -1 )
Correction. Position so far:
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6

mattdw 9 ( +1 | -1 )
Board Number: board #5448348
alberlie 2 ( +1 | -1 )
3. Bb5 jupp, let's take the Ruy.
bittersweet_ballad 1 ( +1 | -1 )
I'm for 3. Bc4 Not the Ruy, please!
alberlie 9 ( +1 | -1 )
afraid of the theory, eh? ;o) But 3.Bc4 is fine with me - it's only that I personally never play it...
ccmcacollister 11 ( +1 | -1 )
After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc3 There can be only one reply!
3.Nxc3 !
Let's grab the development while we can. We can always open lines later ...
basbos 12 ( +1 | -1 )
I prefer 3.Bb5 Ruy Lopez +Excerts a long term pressure on Black's king side
+Statistics give it more reliability than 3.Bc4
alberlie 38 ( +1 | -1 )
quite a chortler, Craig. Or was it a howler. What was that again: Beating the dead horse for as long as it's dead? No, wait... Maybe : Beating the dead horse dead? No, that doesn't work either.
Wait, that's it: Beating the dead horse lest it stays dead.
Makes me go chunka-chunka-chunkas and gur-eRR-gur-eRR-gur-RRRs :o))
Nevermind... I'm a bit stupid today...
mossberg4570 30 ( +1 | -1 )
Ugh See, this is what 2. f4 was supposed to avoid.

Deciding between 3. Bc4 and 3. Bb5 is like deciding between being eaten by a lion or a bear.

Fritz will avoid all of the traps in the Italian game and if black avoids all of the traps I can't think of a more painfully boring game.

Therefore I propose 3. d4, for reasons of fun.
sough 43 ( +1 | -1 )
If Bc5 is played to Bc4, we can opt for the max lange instead of the pure italian, although fritz often opts for the more boring line (1.e4 e5 2.nf3 nc6 3.bc4 bc5 4.0-0 Nf6 5.d4 Bxd) Instead of pxd. There's also the evans gambit but I have no experience with that. It's hard to really "vote" on a move when you don't know which will be better. I'd love to see a deep look at bc4 since I play that, so I'm biased and will refrain from voting this move.
luckypawn 8 ( +1 | -1 )
3.Bc4 I'm torn between 3.Bc4 and 3.d4, but am leaning towards there any major disadvantage from d4?
akisame 42 ( +1 | -1 )
Another "Not Ruy, please!" Mostly because I got so sick of seeing everybody and their pet rock play this in my early days, though - nothing techincal here.

I'll vote for d4.
+ leads more quickly to positions GK players are probably a bit less familiar with - we can thus get more quickly into move analysis rather than comparing opening repertoires.
- this may play into Fritz's analytical strength.
luckypawn 70 ( +1 | -1 )
I've decided d4 After thinking about it, I decided I prefer 3.d4.

I don't like Ruy too much, because I've always found it overrated when there are other good, and more fun moves.

Whenever I'm put in this position, I usually play Bc4 only because I'm more used to it than d4, but I've always thought d4 was good because it puts more pawns in the center (althought black might take one), and it gives white lot's of space.

I was going to go with Bc4 because I'm more used to the piano, but I've usually covered my instincts in my games (which were to give myself what seems like a more open and better game with d4), only to play Bc4 because I was more used to it.

So, I vote d4
ganstaman 91 ( +1 | -1 )
I like d4 To quote sough: "If Bc5 is played to Bc4, we can opt for the max lange instead of the pure italian, although fritz often opts for the more boring line (1.e4 e5 2.nf3 nc6 3.bc4 bc5 4.0-0 Nf6 5.d4 Bxd) Instead of pxd. There's also the evans gambit but I have no experience with that. It's hard to really "vote" on a move when you don't know which will be better. I'd love to see a deep look at bc4 since I play that, so I'm biased and will refrain from voting this move."

If PxP in that position is more exciting, then can't we play 3.d4, and follow up with 3...exd4 4.Bc4? I'm pretty sure that bishop move is part of some opening's theory, though I admittedly don't know the details. However, how important can details be? Like with the Evans Gambit, you just develop as much as possible and attack with all you've got. Yes, there's a good deal of theory out there, but can't we as a forum find logical, developing, aggressive moves on our own?
ccmcacollister 6 ( +1 | -1 )
alberlie When its my turn to beat the horse, I'm gonna take it!
sough 50 ( +1 | -1 )
ganstaman- I meant if we play 3.Bc4 and black responds with Bc5

Luckypawn-I think 3.d4 gives up the "ideal pawn center" of d4 and e4 since d4 isn't prepped with c3. But it does secure a lesser center and white should grab a small advantage. Kasparov rejuvanated this line not too long ago if I recall correctly, as well as the evans gambit. Not many SuperGMs play 3.Bc4 anymore, although I know morozevich does some. And of course you have the Ruy which is seen in every top class event.
mattdw 31 ( +1 | -1 )
Leaning towards 3.d4 I've played the scotch a few times, but not for a while - I seem to remember not really liking it when too many pieces were exchanged in the centre as I assumed that meant there would be less possibilitities for attack. I much prefer the open/semi open files in the centre though. I vote for 3.d4.
masros 1 ( +1 | -1 )
3.d4 is ok.Ruy is boring.
ccmcacollister 0 ( +1 | -1 )
I favor a Ruy 3.Bb5
alberlie 3 ( +1 | -1 )
hmm, looks like the majority is for 3.d4...
mattdw 13 ( +1 | -1 )
3.d4 Yep, looks like 3.d4 is favoured by the majority (5 or 6 votes versus a couple-ish), I'll go and put it into Fritz and see what we have to deal with! :)
mattdw 283 ( +1 | -1 )
Fritz plays 3...exd4! I think this was expected really, current position so far:
1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6
3.d4 exd4

I'll suggest 4.c3 the Goering gambit as a candidate move, but as for +ve's and -ve's I'm not so sure, could someone explain the aim of this move? I've played it before and I like the positions that come from it (open centre files etc..) from what I can tell it seems that white is tempting black to eat pawns at the expense of control in the centre - if black only chooses to take the first pawn then develop a piece afterwards (s)he will be equalising in terms of development (I have a question about this and gambits in general that I will put at the end) however if black gets greedy and eats another pawn then white can get that one tempo edge in development though I'm not sure how significant this is since as soon as white begins to attack to try to make the most of the advantage obviously (s)he has to move a piece that has already moved thus allowing black to equalise in terms of development (to some degree) I wasn't convinced that white has a strong enough ensuing attack to compensate for the material defecit. That said, I would still play it in my games! Purely because it would require white to attack before the possible compensation for the gambit began to decline - makes for interesting games!

Questions about gambits: I haven't done any study on openings yet, so I'm not too sure as to the real reasons behind gambits. Are they usually to do with trying to divert the oppositions pieces away from the centre (or some vital square) rather than a means in which to gain development? I was once told (or read somewhere) that a gambit was a means in which to gain development - if a gambit is supposed to gain a tempo (if this is considered to be practically the same thing) I don't see how this is possible as in most cases it will take a move to set up the gambit and a move by the opposition to accept it - thus tempo is equal. Only in cases where the opposition have the option of taking a second piece will there be any change in tempo (as in the Goering gambit). In some cases it appears to be an attempt to allow one side (usually white) to achieve something like a strong pawn centre (I think Evan's gambit tries to achieve this). I often allow my opponent to eat a pawn or two in situations that didn't require me to set up a gambit, thus allowing me to continue to develop or prepare for an attack. I can see how this gains time as the gambits/sacrifices I'm referring to don't require setting up, just the acceptance of an opportunity by my opponent. Also, is there a difference between a gambit and a sacrifice? ...or is it simply semantics? Both are the offer of material with the intention that some advantage will come of it - either in the short term or the long term. Thanks!
alberlie 9 ( +1 | -1 )
Bord: board #5466867
alberlie 140 ( +1 | -1 )
Bord: board #5466867

Matt, besides the material, the gambit-accepting side also usually gives up some positional aspects of his former position (like open files that exist now for his opponent but not for him, center control that he gives up by capturing towards the flanks etc.) So, if he would just take a pawn and then not care about it anymore, he would have a pawn (for now), no serious lag in developement but a structural disadvantage. If he keeps ignoring that extra pawn, the other side will eventually recapture it, making material even but leaving the positional disadvantages of the position intact.
So, with accepting the gambit, you not only say "I take a pawn when it's offered" but rather "I take a pawn and the positional disadv. is less than the pawn is worth".
But to be able to say that, you have to keep that pawn - and that can very easily be another few tempi that wt can spend developing his pieces rapidly, whereas black is trying to protect that pawn somehow.
Or, the piece that takes the pawn (let's say queen) is now open for attack and can be attacked like three times in a row, enabling the gambitteers side to dev. three pieces in a row while the other side is just trying to keep the queen out of danger.
Well, at least it's part of the additional reasoning behind gambits.
ganstaman 109 ( +1 | -1 )
Gambits, and 3.c3 Different gambits have different purposed. In the King's Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4), white is trying to open the f-file down which he will set-up an attack. Also, by playing 2...exf4, black gives up his central pawn, so white has more control there.

With the Smith-Morra Gambit (1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3), white is trying to give himself open c- and d-files, as well as open lines for the bishops. He also gets quick development, as after 3...dxc3 4.Nxc3 gets the knight out quickly.

The Goring Gambit seems similar, and I vote for it. We maintain the only pawn in the center of the board so far and open up the d- and c-files (probably want to put rooks there). We can develop all our pieces after this (likely Nxc3, Bc4, Bg5 I'd imagine). The gambit may be declined, though. In the Smith-Morra, a commone declining move is ...d3, which leaves us only with the d-file open, forces us to recapture the pawn by moving a piece to d3 that doesn't want to be there, and leaves us with a pawn awkwardly placed on c3. However, we haven't lost a pawn and we still have a pawn on e4, so it's not so bad.
far1ey 3 ( +1 | -1 )
Wrong Board Wrong Board Alberlie...
alberlie 9 ( +1 | -1 )
indeed.... board #5448348
alberlie 79 ( +1 | -1 )
Here's what ChessBase has to offer:

Three main moves suggest themselves:
4. Nxd4
4. Bc4
4. c3

Nxd4 is played roughly three times as often as Bc4, which itself is played almost three times as often as 4. c3.

After Nxd4 we can expect either Bc5 or Nf6. Nxd4 gives wt all the play.
After Bc4, it's more diverse. Nf6, Bc5, Be7, d6 and Bb4 have been played
4. c3 is often answered with dxc3 though others (... d5, ... d3, ... Nf6) have been played and don't seem outright bad for black. If we count on dxc3, then we have either Nxc3 or the even more challenging Bc4!

Well, maybe I'm just boring, but I would vote for Nxd4. It's still a central struggle, lot's of pieces still on the board, but we don't have to proove right away that we know where the comp. for a pawn is...
mossberg4570 49 ( +1 | -1 )
4. Nxd4 Leads to the normal scotch position.

The problem with 4. c3 is 4... d3, robbing white of time, where the queen's knight is dprived of it's best square, the bishop has to move again to go to c4 (after Bxd3), etc.

4. Bc4 Bc5 FORCES us to play a true gambit with 5. c3, and 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. e5 leads to a game that's so wild we ought to have just played 2. f4

4. Nxd4 Bc5 5. Be3 Qf6 6. c3 Nge7 7. Bc4 is the normal line in the scotch that we ought to shoot for. Check out the two Kasparov-Short games where Kasparov played the scotch.
sough 39 ( +1 | -1 )
Nxd4 nxd4 is my vote

+Straightforward,plants a knight in the center and recovers the pawn. If not 2.d4, why gambit now? The scotch is said to be unambitious but it can take an annoying persistant advantage and it's one of the reasons I stopped playing 2...Nc3. Although Fritz won't care about opening preparation like me but it won't be scared by any gambit either.
+White will have the option of doubling black's pawns if Nc6 is played
-Less wild
luckypawn 13 ( +1 | -1 )
I also vote Nxd4 To early for wildness, too late for a gambit, in my opinion. Fritz takes a pawn and we retrieve it, very simple. And not a bad position either.
ccmcacollister 55 ( +1 | -1 )
I like it All, but especially I like Bc4 here in my own games because A.I just like it B.It avoids the Qh4 reply, which I would have to study up to meet C.Being able to answer Nf6 with Nxd4. Then if Nxe4 Bxc7+ Kxf7 Qh5+ and recoups the Ne4 next move. Advancing the K is fatal if I recall right. No one ever does That! Ive not played this particular recoup vs a computer tho . . . and it is a little touchy vs peoples. A demo game, the only one i have online here. board #1662315
mattdw 39 ( +1 | -1 )
Fritz to move later today. I think I prefer the look of the games that come about from Bc4 but the votes seem to be in favour of Nxd4 (4 vs 1 or 2 for Bc4), I'm happy to play Nxd4 - but I have no real experience with it so I'll take this as a valuable learning opportunity. I'll program the move into Fritz later today (I'll leave it 'til early evening GMT) to give everyone a chance to (or not to) change their minds etc..
mattdw 51 ( +1 | -1 )
4. Nxd4 it is! ....and Fritz replies:


Expected? I have no idea - this is new to me! :) I would say this position leaves us with only two reasonable options, either Be3 to defend the threatened knight or to capture at c6 to avoid needing the extra defense, at first glance I thought this would leave black with doubled pawns but it can be avoided by playing the double attack 4...Qf6 - but Fritz may actually prefer the opened e-file. There is also the possibility of retreating the knight to b3 but I don't particularly like the look of that.
ccmcacollister 97 ( +1 | -1 )
In the event of Nxc6 by WT, computers often do play Qf6 in reply. The traditional book recapture is bxc6 in order that it will support Blacks pawn push to d5. I consider Bc5 as one of BL's good responses. Also Bb4+ or Nf6 are other active responses. But something like ...d6 there would be too passive imo. Yet one seems to see it a lot in otb Class play.
In a general note on the Scotch ... I have a monogram on it from GM Evans thats a couple decades old. But his analysis of the time supported his contention that the Scotch is largely drawish. (Wheres that book Now!? You know what I mean? Which basement was it last seen in>?)
It seems we would have a much better pawn formation if Fritz were to recapture with the d-pawn. And since it is justnot done in master praxis, there must be nothing to fear from the open line and Bishops development that results. Plus we have the only center pawn. I doubt this line will appear tho.
far1ey 14 ( +1 | -1 )
Isn't Bc5 bad? I read a book in which Lasker says the move 4...Bc5 is bad because of the pin 5.Be3... Unless Lasker's theroy on this has been proved wrong, I go for 5.Be3
ccmcacollister 52 ( +1 | -1 )
far1ey ... I'm not sure what you mean by "the pin" there. I dont have the latest theory right now either, on 4...Bc5. But it is GM David Bronsteins exclusive choice in his games that I have from his book, "200 Open Games". [A great book, btw. And he is an entertaining writer, besides having a great deal of knowlege to impart]
The games in there include:
R.Letelier-Bronstein 5.Nb3 Bb6 6.Nc3 d6 7.a4 a5 8.Nd5 Ba7 9.bb5 Bd7 10.0-0 Ne5
G.Stoltz-Bronstein 5.Be3 Qf6 6.c3 Nge7 7.Nc2 d6 8.BxB pxB 9.Ne3 0-0 10.Qc2 Be6 Yu.Randviir-Bronstein 5.Nb3 Bb6 6.c4 d6 7.Nc3 Qh4 8.c5 dxc5 9.Be3 Bb5 10.Qd2 Rd8
I gotta stop here, my computer is doing something freaky right now and needs to be throttled a bit!!~

ccmcacollister 128 ( +1 | -1 )
OK, back in touch ... with a chastened cpu. The first game drew, the second and third were won by BL.
I'll try to find them online somewhere at a d-base if I get time later today.
Here is some FYI for anyone that really wants to play the Scotch, tho we are past this point in the game. But I noticed in a former thread, quite some time back that it seemed some folks were having trouble as to how to meet the Qh4 move of Steinitz, after 4.Nxd4 Qh4 ...which does win a pawn, but GM's usually warn players off of it saying that WT will get an attack and compensation or more for his pawn. Yet it is not really that easy to see just how to play it. So you might want to see this book, where on page 77 in the notes to Letelier-Bronstein Mar del Plata 1960, Bronstein gives the main sequence 4...Qh4 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Qd3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Nf6 8.Nb5 Kd8 showing that there is no defense there to Qxe4 to follow. This shows BL can win the pawn. But GM Bronstein goes on to suggest alternatives for WT, to play for the attack, which he refers to as "formidable".
One alternative he suggests for WT is to play 7.QxB in that sequence, and follow 7...Qxe4+ with any of the obvious interpostions there.
But calls an earlier deviation, 5.Nb5 , the essential point and very strong.
There is additional variation given there for those who really wish to know.
far1ey 6 ( +1 | -1 )
Opps Sorry not pin, chance of discovered attack on the bc5 if the knight moves
ccmcacollister 103 ( +1 | -1 )
far1ey ... ok,gotcha. Good point too, since Nxc6 would be attacking the Queen as well as discovering on the Bc5, so it must be defended somehow or a Queen move like Bronstein does there, lest the B be lost. I was thinking at first that it would probably retreat to Bb6, till seeing Bronsteins ...Qf6.
I'm not sure, but on reflection maybe it is better suited to Bd6 (than Bb6); which needs ...d5 played first? Maybe that could be a bit of a problem. Tho it does go Bb6 in his Nb3 games.
Do you happen to recall a Lasker opponent for that line? I'm going to look up some Lasker when I get to the d-base. Or perhaps if I enter the position and Lasker for WT, that will get me something.
Something just occurs to me; that this ...Bc5/Be3 stuff here resembles a bit some of the play seen in an Accelerated Dragon!? And that Nc2 is a bit like in Maroczy Bind Sicilian. I'd noticed in the past some bit of similarity in Goring Gambit and Smith-Morra Sicilian too. But not this. Although in otb, Ive had occasion to play a set-up identical to a Yugoslav Attack, when BL played the passive 4...d6. hmmm!?
ganstaman 26 ( +1 | -1 )
Be3 Be3 looks good to me. It gets out another piece and adds to our central control (and since we forced black to get rid of he e-pawn, isn't that what we're trying to do?). It's a very natural looking move, and I think the most common. Very little reason not to play it, IMO.
ccmcacollister 11 ( +1 | -1 )
Letelier-Bronstein MdP 1960 1/2 .
ccmcacollister 66 ( +1 | -1 )
Stoltz-Bronstein 1948 0-1 This game is actually not very well played by WT. At first I thought he was doing alright, getting BL's c-pawn doubled. But even there, he would need to take some care re his d3 square, especially if ....c4 were played. But then he moves his Ne3; the 4th move of that knight in the opening(!). Then goes on to weaken his wt squares further with g3, and then drop a piece on e2. But for what its worth, it does show an interesting set-up, using 5.Be3 [which once again, strongly resembles the set-up used by Wt in Schiller-Collister, an Accelerated Dragon!]

ccmcacollister 16 ( +1 | -1 )
Randviir-Bronstein 1947 0-1 In this game WT plays differently with c4 ...

ccmcacollister 59 ( +1 | -1 )
LASKER ...Very SURPRISING !! No, SHOCKING actually I went to the d-base and put in Lasker and Scotch game. It shows 14 Scotch involving Lasker, NONE of which were won by WT !?? There were only three draws, and one of those Lasker had WT, but BL in the other 2. Needless to say, BL WON all 9 other games!??? I could hardly believe it.
The first one shown here is with ...Bc5 5.Be3 Qf6 as Bronstein played. The second shown is the WT that Lasker drew.

mossberg4570 8 ( +1 | -1 )
5. Be3 Is the standard response. I still think we ought to shoot for the 5. Be3 Qf6 6. c3 Nge7 7. Bc4 line.