|
Oh my gosh, guys, imagine this line: 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. d4 Bg4 4. Bb5+ Nd7 5. f3 Bf5 6. g4?! Bg6 7. c4 e6 8. Nc3 exd5 9. g5  Black to move. Goodbye, horse.
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
bman in 2288 posted:But please note that they haven't been playing perfectly as of the second move. Should we plan for cookie-cutter moves, or should we plan for more aggressiveness from them? They're trying gambits, so technically they're playing perfectly according to their plan. We should expect them to want to continue their plan. I think the above line offers them plenty of chances to gently caress up spectacularly while not really offering them any other choices in terms of their responses except, perhaps, a6 at some point instead of a different pawn move, the result of which is only a weakening of their queen-side structure while me maneuver our bishop into a not-much-different spot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Oh god slow down, my brain can only handle so much information at one time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Bb5+, btw.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Okay, now that I got a few moments to understand what the hell is going one, agreeing with Bb5, mostly because it doesn't mean immediately almost sacrificing one of our knights. The check should stop them if even for a turn.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
I'm sold on Bb5+ as well. Its risky, but i doubt they expect it, and unless we gently caress up there arent many ways for it to truely backfire.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Oh, hey, posts! My apologies  ^^^^ bman in 2288 posted:But please note that they haven't been playing perfectly as of the second move. Should we plan for cookie-cutter moves, or should we plan for more aggressiveness from them? If they play aggressively (i.e. they block our Bishop with their Pawn, which can threaten it) they will lose their Bishop in exchange of a Pawn. Added Space posted:If we go Bb5+ they're only going to be in check for 1-2 turns, and the second they're out of check their bishop takes our queen. They have to use their move after our check to defend. If we cannot check them again or take the Queen after they move we can chase their Bishop away before they can take our Queen. The only scenario they take our Queen is because it's in our advantage to let them to do so (we end up trading giving up a Pawn in exchange or a Bishop) bman in 2288 posted:Oh god slow down, my brain can only handle so much information at one time. My post with the reasoning, step by step. Covering our asses first is a perfectly valid move, and if this wasn't a Let's Play I'd do it. Covering our asses first because we fear to lose the Queen is not, because it's not going to happen (because of this move, at least, we'll have plenty of chances to lose it later).
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Question, does the + mean check? I could go back and check the notation rules... but gently caress it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Bb5 Should open up some real opportunities for our pawns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
bman in 2288 posted:Question, does the + mean check? I could go back and check the notation rules... but gently caress it. Yessir
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
jon joe posted:Oh my gosh, guys, imagine this line: Hmm, I see a problem with this compared to the line in which we do not have our bishop in that spot. Namely if our opponents select to go c6 at this point. Retreating could not be the correct set of moves or we'd end up all the way back on c2 with our bishop against an essentially immovable pawn structure (black pawns on c6, b5, and c4). If anyone figures out what we should do in this spot then g4?! might be a good move, but otherwise I'm not sure I can recommend it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Actually I take that back, if we retreat Ba4 and our opponents move to b5, then we capture with cxb5, which is then captured via our bishop and leaves us in a pretty good spot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Good news, everyone! I managed to get my hands on a book dedicated SPECIFICALLY to the Scandinavian defense, with over 200 pages talking only about the Portuguese gambit. Let's see if it's any good...
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Obviously I can't share the entire book as that would be  , but I'll share relevant pages as they come up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Wow, you're moving all in on this. Hell yeah, let's kick some rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
jon joe posted:Good news, everyone! I managed to get my hands on a book dedicated SPECIFICALLY to the Scandinavian defense, with over 200 pages talking only about the Portuguese gambit. How did Pratchett put it? A collection that makes one ponder the viability of razing the planet and starting again from bacterium? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Well, I have bad news. 1. The book is written from Black's perspective. 2. A quote from the opening of the book: David Smerdon posted:Moreover, even against the trusted main lines this sacrificial Scandinavian has held up remarkably well, as my years of experience support. This book will not demonstrate the definitive refutation of the 3 ...Bg4 system, but only because I don't know what it is. lf you're just browsing this book in order to find one - shame on you! - let me save you some time by directing you to the chapter of Section One entitled 'The Correspondence Refutation', which is a good start. I'm sure I can still mine it for some valuable info, but it's not going to be as a cut-and-dry win and I had hoped.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Added Space posted:How did Pratchett put it? A collection that makes one ponder the viability of razing the planet and starting again from bacterium? "REMIND ME AGAIN, he said, HOW THE LITTLE HORSE-SHAPED ONES MOVE."? jon joe posted:I'm sure I can still mine it for some valuable info, but it's not going to be as a cut-and-dry win and I had hoped. While I'd appreciate some help, please do not make us play following a script the entirety of the game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:While I'd appreciate some help, please do not make us play following a script the entirety of the game. That would be literally impossible, I think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
 Some interesting background to this move, if anyone cares. These earliest sections can be found in the ebook preview on amazon. Also here is a chess.com review about the book.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
The man who wrote the book also has an hour long lecture here on the move that I haven't watched yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Bishop to B5+ seems like a good plan. And yeah, we can just block off the Bishop threatening our Queen with a Pawn once they get out of check. If they try to take that (they won't, or at least I'm hoping they're not dumb enough to do that), now our Queen can take said Bishop, causing it to be in active play, and in a safe position to boot. Araxxor fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Jul 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Voting Bb5+.Fat Samurai posted:
I feel the temptation won't be strong enough, and they'll counter with bxc6, making us play Ba4 (Not Bxc6+?, since Nxc6!). But we'll cross that bridge when we get there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 23:55
|
|
[Black to move]
|
Cloud Potato posted:Voting Bb5+. We have to remember that we're playing a hivemind--we have to assume they won't make any straight up errors. Which means they will be choosing that taking our queen is worth positioning their board in that way. Do we think they will do that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
If we move Bb5 that initiates a pawn war on c6 that they win. We'll then face a choice as to whether we want to retreat that bishop or start defending the queen. Bb5 is a trade of a pawn and a bishop for one pawn. It's a terrible move. https://lichess.org/editor/rn1qkbnr/p3pppp/2p5/1B6/6b1/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK1NR_w_KQkq_- Added Space fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Jul 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
Added Space posted:If we move Bb5 that initiates a pawn war on c6 that they win. We'll then face a choice as to whether we want to retreat that bishop or start defending the queen. Bb5 is a trade of a pawn and a bishop for one pawn. It's a terrible move. At which point we move f3, they retreat we retreat. If they take we take. What problem?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
jon joe posted:At which point we move f3, they retreat we retreat. If they take we take. What problem? If we move F3 at that we lose that bishop. We'll have traded a bishop for a pawn and ended right back here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Added Space posted:If we move F3 at that we lose that bishop. We'll have traded a bishop for a pawn and ended right back here. At which point we capture their bishop with our pawn.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
Bb5+ seem like it will make things interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
One thing I do want to mention, is how much I appreciate the varied number of lines that were discussed this turn. As play progresses, it's going to be a better and better thing to have multiple people brainstorming and making a case for a particular move. I think that process will lead us to make the best plays we can. More importantly, I think it'll be the best way for all of us to learn chess deeper than just if we just played theory I pulled out of book. Even if the theory ends up being the move we go with in the end, the fact that we considered multiple paths and had a discussion is, I think, really positive. If you have any ideas at all for plays to make, even if you're inexperienced, I think we would all benefit from hearing them plus your reasoning why. A big thanks to all of you wonderful teammates so far for putting up with my know-it-all attitude, haha.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
Yeah, don't worry if things seem a little rigid so far. The opening is essentially the setup phase, and not much can really be done as of yet since both of the pieces in the back rows on either side aren't really in active play yet. That'll definitely change as the game goes on. Already, we're starting to have multiple valid choices to take.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
Cloud Potato posted:Voting Bb5+. Yeah, but at that point they have completely screwed up their pawn line on the left, a single paw on the c column without pawns on b or d is a sad thing. We're still one pawn ahead and our board position is better. It's still improving our position.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
They're trying to throw us of balance with aggression. I'm currently looking at f3 as per this: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1766047 Bb5+ does seem really strong w/r/t taking that bishop though which may force them into a more conservative stance. I'm trying to find (recorded) lines of play that go in the Bb5+ direction but I can't see jack. Yeah in review I'm LOVING Bb5+ if they think we are off balance, counter with aggression Gridlocked fucked around with this message at 08:38 on Jul 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
We're on 9 votes for bishing it up, right? I guess I'll retract my previous vote for Nf3 and jump on the Bb5+ bandwagon so we can move on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
Calling the vote for Bb5+, with 10 votes. (actually only 9 needed for majority now since one player has dropped out)
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
Dammit the website I was using has a paywall 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.d4 Bg4 4.Bb5+ Black has 24 hours to decide on a move.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Covski posted:Calling the vote for Bb5+, with 10 votes. (actually only 9 needed for majority now since one player has dropped out) We had an add earlier too, so shouldn't it still be 10 votes? Also, who was it that dropped?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
Sebzilla joined up before the end of the first vote, so in effect you have always been 18 players, until now when Faerie Fortune dropped.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 15:54
|
|