A small statistical difference between different variations based on master games doesn't mean a hill of beans, IMO, when considering what to play at my (USCF 1801) level. After 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 de 4 Ne4 Nf6 5 Nf6 ef, Black finds it easy to develop his pieces, and the pawn at f6 makes a kingside attack by White almost impossible. White's big trump in the variation is that White will have a winning pawn endgame, if and when it can be reached. Super-GM Ulf Anderrsen played it often and with success in the 1970's and 1980's. A friend of mine who was a master also had excellent results with it.
Originally posted by FreidenkerThis looks playable to me, and is a great way to get away from the easily found online book moves. If you know a few of the early responses, and have a plan based on using the (potentially) open g-file, and perhaps prepare a couple of traps which still leave you a playable position if your opponent doesn't fall for them, you are on to something fun. This is the method of quite a few of RHP's page one players...
Against e4 I play mostly the Caro-Kann (with the French being my second weapon). After the moves 1.e4? c6! 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxd4... I like to play 4...Nf6?!
[fen]rnbqkb1r/pp2pppp/2p2n2/8/3PN3/8/PPP2PPP/R1BQKBNR w KQkq - 0 5[/fen]
This response is often considered a little dubious, still, in practice it seems to be doing fine. In the Megabase 20 ...[text shortened]... ght seem bad, but in practice, it seems to be doing very well, why is it considered so dubious ?
Just a post to say 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6 exf6 is NOT rubbish.
I get a bit annoyed when people cast aspertions on openings they have never in all likely hood played.
My best mate OTB has been playing this for the last couple of year against VERY good oppostion.
His results with it have been better than with other more 'sound' openings, like the Sveshnikov that he has played.
Originally posted by najdorfslayer1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6 exf6 is not bad, but personaly I would prefer 5...gxf6 (used by Nimzowitsch and Bronstein) which seems to be more risky, but also more aggressive.
Just a post to say 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6 exf6 is NOT rubbish.
I get a bit annoyed when people cast aspertions on openings they have never in all likely hood played.
My best mate OTB has been playing this for the last couple of year against VERY good oppostion.
His results with it have been better than with other more 'sound' openings, like the Sveshnikov that he has played.
And its really annoying when people cast aspertions on openings they dont understand - they are showing their arrogance and ignorance.
Originally posted by nmdavidbYes, but maybe that's not a bad thing. Immediately, sure it may hurt your results and lead to games you dislike, but it may help you develop a more universal style, as Kramnik is trying to and Spassky has. This is worth a lot more than the pain along the way. Plus, most opening suit both positional and aggressive players. Even the CK can be played fairly aggressively and it's considered to be one of the meekest responses to e4.
I just don't like the fact that the OP put 1.e4?
If you look through all of my games...and yes as Schliemann you will see what I mostly played...and it was 1.e4
Fischer ( please no anti semitic comments or whatever ) said it was "best by test"
Now against 1.e4 I would NEVER play the Caro Kan...or the french...why...they don't fit my style.
You p ...[text shortened]... er
Dave
No offense to the OP...just felt someone should finally bring this back up
First of all, I apologize if "e4?" offended some people; it was, of course, a joke 🙂
Also, I have not created this topic to defend the Caro-Kann 4...Nf6, it's not even my favourite response to Nxe4. My question is; why is it considered unsound even though, in practice, this response is doing well. Obviously, there're compensations to the structural weakness; fast development, it's easy to find a square for the c8 bishop, the open g file could be used for an attack and the extra f pawns (in case of gxf6) help black in the center. On the other hand, it's harder to protect the king and the pawn structure won't help in the endgame. It's why I prefer another variation.
In all the databases I could examine, 4...Nf6 was doing fine. In fact, it was doing better than the very common reply 1.e4 e5. My question is not really about this opening, it's about all the openings that are labeled as "unsound" or "dubious" because they violate some general principles, even though some of them are very strong. If I remember correctly, even the French Winawer was considered dubious at some point.
Originally posted by FreidenkerIt's not accurate to label 4...Nf6 "unsound", but it is accurate to label it "unpopular". As to why it is not played more frequently, you've essentially answered the question yourself. Most C-K players prefer to play a game where if it reaches an endgame, they will be at least equal. 4...Nf6 does the exact opposite - it trades a long term static disadvantage for more shorter term dynamic advantages. If that type of game was desired by Black, they might as well just play the Sveshnikov or Boleslavsky variations of the Sicilian.
.....My question is; why is it considered unsound even though, in practice, this response is doing well. Obviously, there're compensations to the structural weakness .... On the other hand, it's harder to protect the king and the pawn structure won't help in the endgame. It's why I prefer another variation.
In all the databases I could examine, 4...Nf6 was doing fine. ....
As far as databases are concerned, if you want to know the "truth" about a variation (as opposed to the practical aspects), then only consider games in that variation where both players are very strong, i.e. 2500 or higher. I did a brief examination of one database and for 2007, I could only find a few games with 4...Nf6 where both players were very strong and in all those games, Black played 5... gxf6 e.g. Zu Chen - V. Akopian, Rublevsky - Ponomariov. Based upon that, I would conclude that 5...gxf6 is playable at all levels. On the other hand, while 5...exf6 may be quite playable for amateurs against other amateurs (and by strong players as Black against weaker opponents), it is rarely played when both players are very strong and is therefore somewhat suspect.