In that game 4. Bg5 looks a bit like a substantial strategic blunder to me. After 4. .. dxc 5. a4 Qa5 black looks much better. And for the 'standard' 5. e3? b5 6. a4 b4 7. Na2 Ne4 8. Bf4 b3 and white is completely lost.

Its the reason I think playing queens pawn openings might not be the best idea for players until a certain level. When you make a blunder in an open game its usually pretty obvious but in queens pawn they are often so subtle. Like if you played 4. Nf3 Nd7 then 5. Bg5 is standard and good. Do you see the difference?

I see what you mean about why that is a bad move, but I don't consider that a reason to stop playing the opening. It's just a reason to learn why that was a mistake and not make similar ones in the future. (Also, I feel pretty comfortable with d4 and know absolutely nothing about e4 at all and don't wanna start from scratch anytime soon).

And it just so happens that the same 4. Bg5 move got me into trouble in a game I was playing simultaneous to you making that post, so well-timed.

4.Bg5 is just slightly inaccurate and the line you gave certainly cannot be much better for Black according to any chess logic after something like 6.Nf3. The "beginners should be banned from playing queens pawn openings" idea seems pretty terrible as well. May I ask where all this expertise is coming from? You certainly post with a air of authority.

I once lost a game with black in which i specifically prepared for 4. Bg5. It's not the best move, but black is not instantly better by any means.

I played Queen's pawn openings right from the start and it certainly served me much better than the usual 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d3 d6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. h3 h6 7. 0-0 0-0 8. a3 a6 9. "wtf i have most of my pieces out and moved my rook pawns, what do i do now" that my peers at school played all the time.

@Kyle: Playing against the slav with white is no rocket science at lower levels. Play 4. Nf3, if he goes 4...e6 play 5.Bg5 because no one ever plays the Botwinnik against that, but you see countless opponents going into inferior QGD lines with 5...Be7. After 4....dxc4, play 5. a4 followed by 6.e3, regain the pawn, go Qe2 at some point and try to force through a well-timed e4. Another common idea is to chase black's developed bishops to gain the bishop pair, either the one that commonly appears on f5 with Nh4 or the one that usually moves to b4 with Qb3 and Na2.

This is why i shouldn't play chess at 3 am right before bed. Luckily he got greedy and gave me a swindle.

I saw the forced draw, if he didn't defend properly, so that was swindle #1, then swindle #2 when he got greedy and went for a win in a position that was completely busted for him.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Bc5 4. O-O Nf6 5. c3 Nxe4 6. Re1 Bxf2 7. Kh1 Bxe1 8. Qxe1 f5 9. d3 Nd6 10. Bxc6 dxc6 11. Qxe5 Qe7 12. Qf4 O-O 13. Na3 b5 14. Bd2 Bb7 15. Re1 Qd7 16. Ne5 Qe6 17. Nxc6 Qxa2 18. Ne7 Kh8 19. Qh4 Qxb2 20. Ng6 Kg8 21. Ne7 Kh8 22. Ng6 Kg8 23. Ne7 Kf7 24. Qh5 Kf6 25. Bg5 1-0 {Black checkmated}

IIRC, 4.Bg5 is the line recommended for White in Attacking With 1.d4 by Dunnington.

After 6. Nf3 black has nothing short of a super slav and is at worst somewhat better. After the natural 6. .. Ne4 7. Bd2 Nxd2 8. Nxd2 black is scoring 70%. Do you have some improvement in mind? I tend to be more critical than 'slightly inaccurate' when a move leaves white in a position, more or less by force, where he is scoring 30%.

I actually didn't believe you until I googled that. The second hit is a review from Silman here: http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_rev...cking_1d4.html

Cutting out Silman's tact:

These numbers mean nothing. Even if white scores 0% in an equal position, its still equal. And this position is about equal, black cant defend Pc4. However Id play e4 instead of a4, white must have some kind of compensation there. So yes Bg5 isnt very accurate but its not bad enough to lead to a worse position.

As said above, the position after 8.Nxd2 seems equal. The 70% might be caused by, for example, the fact that in the games reached with the position Black players are expected to score 70% based on the rating difference (strong players are more likely to be on the Black side of 4.Bg5).

The average rating of white as 2252. The average rating of black was 2307. White performed roughly 100 points below expectation, black about 100 points above. And every single one of whites wins came in 1996 or earlier, when information and preparation was obviously much different than today. If you only account for games past 1996 you get black scoring 92% performing more than 300 points above expectation. White scoring nearly 400 below expectation. That 92% comes from +5 =1 -0. The white's single draw took an act of god even though white was about 100 points higher rated. Black decided to make a very unjustified exchange sac turning a much better position into a worse position and letting white get away.

Again black basically has a slav type structure but a million times improved over normal positions. He gets the two bishops, has the initiative, easy development and white has basically no counterplay and substantial queenside darksquare weaknesses. If you call that equal, what type of position do you think is better for black? I don't think you're being obstinate but I just don't see any logic whatsoever you could use to try to say its equal after Nd2.

I wont discuss the % of wins as it really means n o t h i n g. Even if white loses every single game in this position it wont affect its evaluation, which is approximately =. What black has is some kind of Scandinavian, not a typical Slav. No its not "million times improved" over standard. Yes black has two bishops but I dont see any reason why a bishop is better than a knight here. Lol at black "has the initiative, white has no counterplay", its like saying that after 1 e4 d5 2 ed Q:d5 3 Nc3 Qa5 black has the initiative, white has no counterplay. Black has only queen developed and it will have to leave a5 soon when the knight eats Pc4. Yes b4 square is weakened but its very typical for Slav or Queens Gambit Accepted, white often plays a4 to prevent b7b5.

There are basically two reasons why this position is roughly equal:
1) white has some advantage in development and in the centre
2) black has no weaknesses

A scandinavian? What in the world are you talking about? Please tell me you're not just saying that because the queen is on a5. Unless you are talking about some variation I'm completely unaware of the positions aren't even remotely comparable.

Position in question:


A common slav sideline:


Standard scandinavian tabiya:

Being obstinate, something natural like 8.-g6 9.Nxc4 Qc7 0-0 10.e3 Bg7 11.Be2 0-0 12.0-0 a5 13.f4 for example, still looks equal to me. You skipped this above, would you care to explain what makes you so supremely sure about your positional judgment? If you really are a strong player I'll be happy to use this discussion to fix my poor understanding.

Well not only Q is on a5 but also d pawn is gone and c pawn is on 6th rank just like in Scandinavian. It doesnt really matter how do we call that though, what matters is the eval of the position.

8. .. e5 works so there's no reason to not play it. Eg - 8. .. e5 9. Nxc4 Qb4 10. Nxe5 Qxb2 11. Rc1 Bb4 12. Qd2 Qxd2+, etc

I think that endgame is very favorable for black.

Avoiding the endgame is 10. e4 ed 11. Qxd4 Be6 12. O-O-O Nd7 but I don't see how white is supposed to do anything. He has serious dark square issues and black can easily increase the pressure if white doesn't do something fast. Going to the computer since I can't find a single decent plan for white in that position it wants to simply play 13. Nd6+ and go into the worse ending. Can't say that seems like a bad idea to me, but that is also definitely admitting white is clearly worse. Maybe you have an idea for white in that position or a different idea to respond to e5 than the above two?

As for my credentials, consider me a 900. Over scrutinizing everything I say is a million times more useful than taking anything I say for granted. I'm engaged in this conversation because I think its interesting and fun - not because I want to 'win' it. I definitely think I'm right, but I'd be more than happy to be proved wrong as well. Add a few "In my opinion", "I feel", "I think", etc to some of my earlier statements if my tone bothers you too much. I'm much too lazy for tact on the internet!

OK I just felt like I was being patronized, which I am not very happy with unless it is someone who has the "spurs" to do so. I looked at 8.-e5 earlier as well with an engine (really tried to be objective at least), checked the same endgame line and it just seems equal/unclear with Bs bishop pair vs. Ws better development and central presence.
Usually I try to evaluate the extent of opening failures by thinking "would I be happy with this as Black". If the answer is yes, it's probably equal :P I would definitely be happy with this White position as Black -> equalish for me.

btw it would be interesting to see how Dunnington manages to dress the variation up well enough for a repertoire suggestion

Just out of interest, do you prefer 1.d4 middlegame positions to 1.e4 for a particular reason? If not its worth considering trying e4 and seeing how you like it. Personally e4>>>>>>>>>d4 (not an exaggeration) because I get a lot more open games which give interesting positions and greater tactical opportunites.

Nice forced mate from this position:



Funny final position:



White to move.
All from my 5 0 games online yesterday.

I prefer the middlegame positions from d4 because I picked an opening at random to learn (Queen's Gambit), and that's all I've ever played in a serious game at this point, so I've got a few hundred games worth of experience with it vs. 0 for e4.

I know players my level aren't supposed to do too much opening study, but one of my goals for this year (in addition to tactics training tactics training tactics training and some other key trainings) is to become comfortable playing a few key openings from chess history, and the Ruy Lopez is first on that list (for both colors). Hopefully once I've spent some time with that, e4 in general will seem more comfortable for me.

So you don't know if you prefer them yet if you haven't tried it . I always feel you should play what you're comfortable with, for example with me I tried a few different responses as black to 1.d4 and didn't like anything at all until I found the Dutch. I felt that it really suited my style (this is when I was around 1500), and I was able to play natural looking moves rather intuitively in the later opening/early opening. I think this is pretty key, if you find an opening where you generally start "guessing" the right moves I think you can improve a lot quicker. Eventually you'll probably end up playing main lines of common openings when you're 2100+, but I think its greatly speeds up the learning process.

I don't think its that useful to learn openings just because they are well known or have been under great scrutiny throughout years in chess history.

Hmm. You make some very good points. Can't avoid things I need to know just to save some rating points at this level.

And lol, I love when people say "When you're 2100+." As if high expert is just around the corner for a guy like me

Hackdeath,