Originally posted by EladarAs black I have always played ...a5 before ... Nc5 out of reflex, simply to avoid white's early b4.
Purdy says that we should always look to see if there is a better move. He uses this game between Jose Raul Capablanca vs Efim Bogoljubov from 1929 to make his point:
[pgn]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. e4 d6 6. Ne2 Nbd7 7. O-O e5 8. d5 Nc5 9. Nbc3[/pgn]
Purdy says that Capablanca actually plays a bad move with 9.Nbc3. I thought this was absolutely amazing how such a natural move could be wrong.
It seems to me that allowing white to get in such a quick b4 with tempo gives white the best parts of two systems- the Bayonet Attack's quick queenside initiative paired with the Fianchetto Variation's more secure kingside structure.
The latest high level game I could find with 9. b4 (but note that the move order is different- black played an early ...Na6 which precluded an early ...a5):
Originally posted by iChopWoodForFree" See how ridiculous your line of reasoning is? "
In my database black is scoring better(and playing more often) with 8...Nc5 in that position. I think the reasoning is that after b4 by white and the knight retreat ...a5 gives black initiative on the qside because of the lever since white playing bxa5 would be much better for black and if b5 then the qside becomes blocked and black can now go for his ...[text shortened]... not play 7.b4 to prevent it in the first place? See how ridiculous your line of reasoning is?
This line of invective ruined your otherwise excellent post. BDG had a good point. It is entirely reasonable to disagree with it (that's why we find this position with good players on both sides in the database), but "ridiculous" was merely provocative and tangent to the discussion.
Getting back to the theory: The reason why Capablanca did not play 7. b4 was because Black had not yet played ...e5, and the center was not closed. The move b4 usually only makes sense after the center has closed with ...e5 and a subsequent d4-d5 by white.
This approach was refined in the USSR in the 1940's, popularized in the 50's, became mainstream in the 1960's, and has been a staple of King's Indian structures ever since.
Hi Paul,
"The reason why Capablanca did not play 7. b4 was because Black had not yet played ...e5."
What is it with this position that has people posting wee mistakes.
I suppose this is what happens when people post without diagrams.
Black has played e5.
My idea of walking into the trap with Ncxe4 getting the Knight trapped
for two pawns was tugging at my fading memory cells.
I've played over and even had games where I sacced a Knight for a central
pawns in the KID but the link - the stem - has so far failed.
Kotov kept popping up (that Zurich 1953 game...nah) Kotov as White
....Kotov - Geller!
Dug it out and recalled the tactical battle and the Bg2/f3 pattern was there,
(strange how the mind works when it's struggling for links) but it's not the game.
Just had a thought, if you play over an instructive game that you want to
recall again and again why not play in the background on a continuous loop
a piece of of music.
When we hear a tune we like we are immediately transported back to the
moment we first heard it and can see faces and places.
So if we associate each game with a piece of music then all you need do
to recall the game is play the tune again!
But then you would have to remember which tune went with which game. 🙁
Here is a sub variation from Kotov- Geller USSR Ch 1949.
Spent ages playing out all kinds ideas here.
It's meaty but it's not the game I'm after.
(the game I could well be one of mine! In which case the sacrifice would have been unsound.)
Originally posted by greenpawn34Geoff, you need to go back to the original post. Black did not play ...e5 until move 7, after which white replied 8. d5.
Hi Paul,
"The reason why Capablanca did not play 7. b4 was because Black had not yet played ...e5."
What is it with this position that has people posting wee mistakes.
I suppose this is what happens when people post without diagrams.
[fen]r1bq1rk1/ppp2pbp/3p1np1/2nPp3/2P1P3/6P1/PP2NPBP/RNBQ1RK1 w - - 0 9[/fen]
Black has played e5.
My idea ...[text shortened]... nds of variations from here. Spending much more time on time on it than the actual game.} [/pgn]
That's why I said 7. b4 would be premature in Capablanca's game. We have other games and ideas posted in the thread with different move orders, so I can understand the confusion.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Perhaps we are not talking about the same thing.
Hi Paul,
Stuck with the opening post where e5 and d5 have been played.
No diagrams with later posts are lost on me.
The OP asked BDG the question "Then why not play 7. b4?"
When it is white's 7th move, black had not yet played ...e5, and the center was not yet closed. That is the point. If you are not looking at later posts, then you just need to go back to the original post and look at the position when it is white's 7th move.
In your diagram, it is white's NINTH move, not the SEVENTH. This is important -the 8th moves by both players fundamentally altered the position, and different ideas come into play.
I referred to the other posts to give you plausible deniability, but you are making it hard. 😉
Hi Paul,
The first post is talking about White's 9th move.
Capa played 9.Nc3, Purdy said it's wrong 9.b4 should been played.
It was Elador who started the thread. He never mentions 7.b4.
7.b4 was mentioned (without a diagram) by iChopWoodForFree.
He and bigdog then had a minor sqabble.
We must be on different threads. 🙂
Well it was minor - it only lasted 2-3 posts.
I still recall that one you had with No1.
I've just found it. Thread 110605
It was April 2009. (ahh the good days)
I butted in on page 4 with:
"Intermission
In case you have just joined this thread.
I cannot recall the details but apparently a player thought he was
mated - the system said he was not - so Admin informed the
player he could get out mate by En Passent.
A number of good chess players have had an intelligent conversion
about this and you join it at the bit where Swiss Gambit wants
No1 Marauder to join the IRA.
read on...."
Originally posted by greenpawn34Haha, good times indeed.
Well it was minor - it only lasted 2-3 posts.
I still recall that one you had with No1.
I've just found it. Thread 110605
It was April 2009. (ahh the good days)
I butted in on page 4 with:
"Intermission
In case you have just joined this thread.
I cannot recall the details but apparently a player thought he was
mat ...[text shortened]... you join it at the bit where Swiss Gambit wants
No1 Marauder to join the IRA.
read on...."
No1, a devious snake of an argumentative New Yorker if I ever met one. I rib him for wasting time discussing Irish independence and he claims I'm saying the 'tell people they can en passant' issue is as important as the issue of Irish Independence.
IIRC, he also argued vehemently (against me, naturally) for chess tiebreaks to be decided by flipping a coin. Whenever I think I am argumentative, I go read some of his posts and I feel better. 😛
Originally posted by greenpawn34If you looked at my response, then you would know what I was referring to, and you would not have labeled it a mistake. I think you just read too quickly and jumped to an unwarranted conclusion.
Hi Paul,
The first post is talking about White's 9th move.
Capa played 9.Nc3, Purdy said it's wrong 9.b4 should been played.
It was Elador who started the thread. He never mentions 7.b4.
7.b4 was mentioned (without a diagram) by iChopWoodForFree.
He and bigdog then had a minor sqabble.
We must be on different threads. 🙂
