1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6?
Rick Kennedy
I played over a friend's game recently, which went 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4
h6. Surely, I told myself, that last move for Black must be bad! Try as I
might, though, I couldn't find a way to quickly take advantage of that
"lost" move for Black... So many of the sharp moves for White with a
Bishop at c4 seem to rely on a Knight at g5!
Not too long ago, this line was listed under the thread considering
"country chess openings" - lines out of the main-stream that have
developed a local following and theory, and are played as energetically as
main lines elsewhere.
Anybody have any experience with this line?
Do you stay with the now-modern Scotch with 4.d4 ed 5.Nxd4, or is this
some form of the Two Knights after 5...Nf6? I've never seen, for example,
the line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 ed 5.Nxd4 h6?
Even a direction to start in would help... By transposition, I've found
one master game that went 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d3 h6, but that's
not been a lot of help.
Thanks!
Rick
gnohm...@my-dejanews.com
rken...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Rick Kennedy) wrote:
>
> I played over a friend's game recently, which went 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4
> h6. Surely, I told myself, that last move for Black must be bad! Try as I
> might, though, I couldn't find a way to quickly take advantage of that
> "lost" move for Black... So many of the sharp moves for White with a
> Bishop at c4 seem to rely on a Knight at g5!
Yes, it is bad, but it doesn't mean that there must be an immediate sharp
rejoinder.
Black has almost wasted a tempo: if the center gets opened, or if defending
g5 turns out to be useless, then ...h6 was a wasted move. Black has
potentially created a weakness: if he Castles there and you do a Pawn-storm,
then ...h6 could turn out to be worse than a wasted move.
In order to Pawn-storm, you'd want to O-O-O, which seems unlikely; threfore,
the classical approach would be something like 4. d2-d4, e5:d5 6. O-O; or 4.
O-O, Ng8-f6 5. Rf1-e1, Nf6:e4?! 6. Nf3:e5!?!?
A modern approach with 4. d3 merely makes it more likely that ...h6 will turn
out to be an okay move. Philidor might have played 4. c2-c3, when Ng8-f6 5.
Qe2 would have been good style in 18th century chess. (5....Be7!)
In every single case, Black can defend successfully by playing good moves
from here on in -- never can you prove that ...h6 was a directly losing move.
Instead, the result of ...h6 will be that Black must play more carefully from
here on in, and that any mistake may be fatal.
If you understand things in this way, you will see that there are many
logical ways to take advantage of the move, and that every one of those ways
gives White the better chances.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Ron Moskovitz, Jr.
like 3.h6?!
Black has to be careful not to play a system where that pawn move
becomes useful, but otherwise, he should simply play to maintain his
lead in development and open the center. 4.d4 is the most obvious
attempt at an immediate refutation, following the adage that the player
with the advantage in development should try to open the position.
If play castles quickly then you can consider castling long and
launching a pawn storm, which willbe all the more effective because of
his h-pawn move. Otherwise, he's weakened his kingside. You should be
able to take advantage of that in the long run, but, of course, it's a
small mistake--it's unlikley to result in a forced loss.
-Ron
gnohm...@my-dejanews.com
course of action,
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 h6 4. d4 ed4 5. Nd4, and at this point Black
should simply feel uncomfortable and queasy.
Hmm, I said that a bad move does not always have an immediate sharp
refutation, but of course sometimes it does. After 3...h6? 4. d4 ed4 5. Nd4,
black's position is really on the edge of the cliff.
Fred Galvin
1966, cited in _The Scotch_ (ISBN 0-7134) by Botterill and Harding:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. c3 dxc3 5. Bc4 h6 6. Nxc3 Bb4 7. 0-0
Bxc3 8. bxc3 d6 9. Qb3 Qf6 10. Nd4 Bd7 11. f4
Jeff Hamm
This is the closest game (of my own) I have where Black played an
early h6. Although this is not the line you mentioned specifically, I
think it shows that White can get a pretty nasty attack early on even
without the black knight on f6.
- Jeff
Rated Blitz match, initial time: 5 minutes, increment: 10 seconds.
Move Jeff -------
---- ---------------- ----------------
1. e4 (0:05) e5 (0:02)
2. Nf3 (0:04) Nc6 (0:03)
3. Bc4 (0:02) Bc5 (0:05)
4. c3 (0:04) h6 (0:16)
5. b4 (0:05) Be7 (0:07)
6. Qb3 (0:35) Nf6 (0:48)
7. Bxf7+ (0:21) Kf8 (0:04)
8. Bg6 (0:08) d5 (0:11)
9. O-O (0:33) Nxe4 (0:11)
10. Re1 (0:53) Nf6 (0:19)
11. Nxe5 (0:10) Nxe5 (0:12)
12. Rxe5 (0:25) Qd6 (0:36)
13. d4 (0:10) c6 (0:10)
14. c4 (0:28) Ng4 (0:13)
15. Qf3+ (0:11) Qf6 (0:47)
16. Qxf6+ (0:46) Bxf6 (0:19)
17. Re8+ (0:11)
{Black checkmated} 1-0
Spencer R. Lower
>Do you stay with the now-modern Scotch with 4.d4 ed 5.Nxd4, or is this
>some form of the Two Knights after 5...Nf6? I've never seen, for example,
>the line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 ed 5.Nxd4 h6?
>Even a direction to start in would help
P-R3 is a luxury for both White and Black. Black is almost always
better off developing. The proper response is 4.d4, and although
demonstrating a forced win is beyond human capabilities, it is obvious
that Max Lange, Goering, and maybe even Danish Gambit ideas will be
more virulent than usual. I refrain from a quick Nxd4 though; My
experience shows the gambit ideas offer more. Try 5.c3 or 5.0-0. I
prefer the latter.
The truth is the players who try h6 against me are usually much
weaker, mortified of N or B - g5, and trying to get me out of book.
What they don't realize is that the gambit attacks work even better a
tempo up, and their one possible benefit, deferring Nf6 in favor of a
possible Nge7, does not really give Black a dream position. If I know
they are playing it only to get out of book, I go for the Danish!
Rick Kennedy
I've taken to heart the suggestions posters have made on the line
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6.
Ron's comment about not playing in the modern style is reflected
in some of the games in Gary Lane's _Winning With The Bishop's
Opening_ where there are several instances of an early ...h6 vs
White's e4, Nf3, Bc4, etc.
In particular, Lane looks at Nunn - Christiansen, London 1982,
which began 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 Nc6 4.Nf3 h6. He notes "This
move has been played a number of times by weak players [rats! he
gives no examples!!] merely to rule out Ng5 before developing
normally. In this case, the plan is somewhat deeper and is based
around ...g6, ...Bg7 and ...O-O. Black intends to adopt a type of
Closed Ruy Lopez formation without wastingtime with ...Be7,
...O-O, ...Re8, ...Bf8 and ...g6. If White continues passively
then these extra moves ensure at least equality..." Nunn wins
his game in 54 moves - after an early d3-d4. Nothing fatal about
...h6 in Lane's book.
I've looked at the gambit line suggested, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4
h6 4.d4 ed 5.c3 dc 6.Nxc3 Bb4 7.O-O Nf6, and figured out that
White's "extra" move might make e4-e5 more effective, like here:
8.e5 Ng4 9.h3 Ngxe5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Re1 followed by 12.f4 with
an advantage. Ah, but what about 8.e5 Nh7!?, an opportunity that
...h6 creates?
Thanks for the many interesting postings. I'll share what I figure
out - as I figure it out.
Rick
Yke Smit
idea is behind the move. It's even possible to play 2..h6 on the second move
with the idea
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 h6?! 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5! (the idea) 6.Nb5 d6. Now
it's inpossible to play Bg5 with pressure on square d5, which is an important
move for white. I think this idea is also playeble in your varition.
Yke Smit
Rick Kennedy schreef:
> I played over a friend's game recently, which went 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4
> h6. Surely, I told myself, that last move for Black must be bad! Try as I
> might, though, I couldn't find a way to quickly take advantage of that
> "lost" move for Black... So many of the sharp moves for White with a
> Bishop at c4 seem to rely on a Knight at g5!
>
> Not too long ago, this line was listed under the thread considering
> "country chess openings" - lines out of the main-stream that have
> developed a local following and theory, and are played as energetically as
> main lines elsewhere.
>
> Anybody have any experience with this line?
>
> Do you stay with the now-modern Scotch with 4.d4 ed 5.Nxd4, or is this
> some form of the Two Knights after 5...Nf6? I've never seen, for example,
> the line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 ed 5.Nxd4 h6?
>
Richard Bean
>I played over a friend's game recently, which went 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4
>h6. Surely, I told myself, that last move for Black must be bad! Try as I
>might, though, I couldn't find a way to quickly take advantage of that
>"lost" move for Black... So many of the sharp moves for White with a
>Bishop at c4 seem to rely on a Knight at g5!
The book ``Chess Master vs Chess Amateur'' by Max Euwe (former World
Champion) contains a collection of 25 amateur vs master games, showing
how the master takes advantage of the amateur's mistakes. One of the
games shows how to take advantage of an early ...h6. The first three
moves are the same, then it continues 4. d4 ed 5. c3. I remember
that the comment was that it was hard to say whether 5. c3 or 5. Nxd4
was better, but that the master could show what was wrong with 3... h6?
(it got a question mark in the annotation) more convincingly by
playing the c3 gambit. Email me if you want the whole game.
I am starting to have my doubts about the way the book gives question
marks out in the openings, though, because it gives 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Nc3 Nf6 4. g3? a question mark. GM Igor Glek (2620) plays it
regularly. (Also GM Shaked (2500), Taivainen (2245), IM Lima (2480), FM
Illner (2320), GM Romero Holmes (2485), GM Slobodjan (2525), and IM
Eero (2335) have all played it). I still think the book is a very good
one, but I think that if Glek plays it, the move should not get a
question mark. Of course, he wasn't around when the book was written.
>Even a direction to start in would help... By transposition, I've found
>one master game that went 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d3 h6, but that's
>not been a lot of help.
I think that's a standard line because it's in ``Batsford Chess Openings 2''.
(It has a ``?!'' notation, but it's not a footnote, it's a column line.)
Richard.
gnohm...@my-dejanews.com
r...@maths.uq.edu.au (Richard Bean) wrote:
> rken...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Rick Kennedy) writes:
>
> >I played over a friend's game recently, which went 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4
> >h6. Surely, I told myself, that last move for Black must be bad! Try as I
> >might, though, I couldn't find a way to quickly take advantage of that
> >"lost" move for Black... So many of the sharp moves for White with a
> >Bishop at c4 seem to rely on a Knight at g5!
>
> The book ``Chess Master vs Chess Amateur'' by Max Euwe (former World
> Champion) contains a collection of 25 amateur vs master games, showing
> how the master takes advantage of the amateur's mistakes. One of the
> games shows how to take advantage of an early ...h6. The first three
> moves are the same, then it continues 4. d4 ed 5. c3. I remember
> that the comment was that it was hard to say whether 5. c3 or 5. Nxd4
> was better, but that the master could show what was wrong with 3... h6?
> (it got a question mark in the annotation) more convincingly by
> playing the c3 gambit. Email me if you want the whole game.
>
> I am starting to have my doubts about the way the book gives question
> marks out in the openings, though, because it gives 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6
> 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. g3? a question mark. GM Igor Glek (2620) plays it
> regularly. (Also GM Shaked (2500), Taivainen (2245), IM Lima (2480), FM
> Illner (2320), GM Romero Holmes (2485), GM Slobodjan (2525), and IM
> Eero (2335) have all played it). I still think the book is a very good
> one, but I think that if Glek plays it, the move should not get a
> question mark. Of course, he wasn't around when the book was written.
Beginner's books have to do that, you see. 4. g3? is in fact a bad move when
played by a beginner. When a strong player plays it, the move is part of a
plan and so it is not a bad move.
In the beginning of the game, many moves are possible. A raw beginner who has
no idea of the center nor of development might start with 1. a2-a4?, and it
would be a bad move; and yet the winner of the 5th American Chess Congress
regularly adopted this Nimzovichean debut...
Ron Moskovitz, Jr.
> I am starting to have my doubts about the way the book gives question
> marks out in the openings, though, because it gives 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6
> 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. g3? a question mark. GM Igor Glek (2620) plays it
> regularly. (Also GM Shaked (2500), Taivainen (2245), IM Lima (2480), FM
> Illner (2320), GM Romero Holmes (2485), GM Slobodjan (2525), and IM
> Eero (2335) have all played it). I still think the book is a very good
> one, but I think that if Glek plays it, the move should not get a
> question mark. Of course, he wasn't around when the book was written.
Well, it's a book for beginners. And it's worth noting that a the same
move may be a question mark at the hands of a beginner and an
exclamation point at the hands of a grandmaster.
The most obvious example would be the "loss" of a piece. If sacrifice a
piece and can't take advantage of the compensation, then the sacrifice
deserves censure. On the other hand, a stronger player might understand
the compensation better, and thus be able to ride the same piece
sacrifice to a win. For him, it might result in a brilliancy prize.
A move like g3, in the instance given, may be a similar situation. It's
only a good move if it helps as part of a deep strategic plan, as I'm
sure it does when Glek, Shaked, et al play it. When played by a weaker
player, however, white is simply setting himself difficulties which he
may not understand how to get out of. The bishop is, in many ways,
passively placed on g2 compared to c4 or b5. Unless you understand how
to take advantage of the potential of the bad bishop on g2, then
fianchettoing /is/ a mistake.
-Ron
Ron Moskovitz, Jr.
>
> > Well, it's a book for beginners. And it's worth noting that a the same
> > move may be a question mark at the hands of a beginner and an
> > exclamation point at the hands of a grandmaster.
> >
> > The most obvious example would be the "loss" of a piece. If sacrifice a
> > piece and can't take advantage of the compensation, then the sacrifice
> > deserves censure. On the other hand, a stronger player might understand
> > the compensation better, and thus be able to ride the same piece
> > sacrifice to a win. For him, it might result in a brilliancy prize.
>
> poor move,
> but some subsequant move which fails to exploit the advantage properly?
I don't completely agree. On one level, yes, you're right, but on
another I think that moves which set yourself practical problems which
you are unlikely or unable to solve at the board deserve censure. In
this hypothetical example, if I have a strong enough position that I
have a justified sacrifice of the piece--although I don't understand the
justification--I ought to try to win the game by methods I do
understand.
Similarly, a questionable or interesting (?! or !?) move which sets
your opponent problems which they are unlikley to be able to solve at
the board are laudable. Tal made his living doing this. (Or, as he said,
"There are two kinds of sacrifices: sound ones, and mine.")
> Perhaps
> in a book for beginers, the notation for such moves (i.e., the above
> sacrifice) should
> indicate that this move "leads to advantages via complex and precise
> play only",
> but that the teaching of how to find your way through this tangle is
> beyond
> the scope of the book (because you wouldn't understand that explanation
> until you
> completely understand what this book already covers) and therefor it is
> recommended
> that the begining player avoid this line.
Well, when it comes to sacrifices, I don't think most books for
beginners are going to have lots of highly complex sacrifices. In fact,
I'd say that including games with such sacrifices goes counter to the
purpose of the book.
On the other hand, with the move which started this discussion (g3), I
would hope that the book then makes clear the difficulties inherent in
that move. The process of explaining those difficulties would probably
end up alluding to moves neccesary to salvage play from the position
after that move. (A hypothetical comment might run: "Now f4 is required,
to force e5 and enhace the scope of the bishop. This, however, is the
sort of move which involves some danger: it exposes the king, and
therefore should only be made when you're confident in your ability to
contain your opponent's attacking chances" or some such.)
-Ron
Jeff Hamm
> move may be a question mark at the hands of a beginner and an
> exclamation point at the hands of a grandmaster.
>
> The most obvious example would be the "loss" of a piece. If sacrifice a
> piece and can't take advantage of the compensation, then the sacrifice
> deserves censure. On the other hand, a stronger player might understand
> the compensation better, and thus be able to ride the same piece
> sacrifice to a win. For him, it might result in a brilliancy prize.
But, is it not the case that it's not the sacrifice per se that is the
poor move,
but some subsequant move which fails to exploit the advantage properly?
Perhaps
in a book for beginers, the notation for such moves (i.e., the above
sacrifice) should
indicate that this move "leads to advantages via complex and precise
play only",
but that the teaching of how to find your way through this tangle is
beyond
the scope of the book (because you wouldn't understand that explanation
until you
completely understand what this book already covers) and therefor it is
recommended
that the begining player avoid this line. I suppose authors are
reluctant to blatently
admit that their book is not designed to be the only source you would
ever possibly
need, but then, it would allow them to reference a second work which is
aimed at the
"next level of player".
- Jeff
gnohm...@my-dejanews.com
rm...@micron.net wrote:
> Richard Bean wrote:
> [snippage of Ron saying exactly what I said]
I can't believe rmosk is a C player. He knows everything, has all the right
ideas about everything, including how to train oneself and learn tactics. It
is simply impossible for anybody with that much knowledge and understanding
of the game to be less than an expert.
At least, that's the opinion of this FM.
MSN/che...@email.msn.com
I do not own the book so i can not cite an example.
Tim
--
http://www.geocities.com/athens/academy/3459
When responding to me via email use this address...
chek...@email.msn.com
Richard Bean wrote in message <710l53$pse$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>...
>rken...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Rick Kennedy) writes:
>
>>I played over a friend's game recently, which went 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4
>>h6. Surely, I told myself, that last move for Black must be bad! Try as I
>>might, though, I couldn't find a way to quickly take advantage of that
>>"lost" move for Black... So many of the sharp moves for White with a
>>Bishop at c4 seem to rely on a Knight at g5!
>
>The book ``Chess Master vs Chess Amateur'' by Max Euwe (former World
>Champion) contains a collection of 25 amateur vs master games, showing
>how the master takes advantage of the amateur's mistakes. One of the
>games shows how to take advantage of an early ...h6. The first three
>moves are the same, then it continues 4. d4 ed 5. c3. I remember
>that the comment was that it was hard to say whether 5. c3 or 5. Nxd4
>was better, but that the master could show what was wrong with 3... h6?
>(it got a question mark in the annotation) more convincingly by
>playing the c3 gambit. Email me if you want the whole game.
>
>I am starting to have my doubts about the way the book gives question
>marks out in the openings, though, because it gives 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6
>3. Nc3 Nf6 4. g3? a question mark. GM Igor Glek (2620) plays it
>regularly. (Also GM Shaked (2500), Taivainen (2245), IM Lima (2480), FM
>Illner (2320), GM Romero Holmes (2485), GM Slobodjan (2525), and IM
>Eero (2335) have all played it). I still think the book is a very good
>one, but I think that if Glek plays it, the move should not get a
>question mark. Of course, he wasn't around when the book was written.
>
Rick Kennedy
Wall's 500 Italian Miniatures has two games with the lines 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3
Nc6 3.Bc4 h6?:
Watkinson - NN,
London 1863
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 ed 6.e5 Nh7 7.O-O dc 8.Nxc3 Be7
9.Qd3 O-O 10.Qg6 d5 11.Nxd5 fg 12.Nxe7+ Kh8 13.Nxg6 mate.
F. Foreman - R. Webb
Pittsburgh, 1979
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Nf3 h6 4.Qe2 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nb4 6.d4 d6 7.O-O Bg4 8.de de
9.Bxf7+ Ke7 10.Rd1 Qc8 11.Bg6 Bxf3 12.Qxf3 c6 13.Be3 Qg4 14.Bc5+ Ke6
15.Qf5+ Qxf5 16.ef mate
The second game seems to star a couple of club players, and it's not just
...h6 that's weak or causes Black's loss.
The first game, especially 9.Qd3, has the feel of an exhibition game,
although I've not heard of Watkinson.
Anyhow, not liable to find a Kasparov - Karpov game arguing the issue, but
always glad to see how someone/anyone works against the line.
The 4.c3 5.d4 6.e5 idea is worth my delving into, too...
Rick
gnohm...@my-dejanews.com
rken...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Rick Kennedy) wrote:
>
> Wall's 500 Italian Miniatures has two games with the lines 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3
> Nc6 3.Bc4 h6?:
Fred Foreman was not a "club player"! Fred was great! I hope he's still
around somewhere and is still great...
Fred Foreman was an 1850-rated player who had almost a 50% winning percentage
against masters and experts;
> [snip]
>
> F. Foreman - R. Webb
> Pittsburgh, 1979
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Nf3 h6 4.Qe2 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nb4 6.d4 d6 7.O-O Bg4 8.de de
> 9.Bxf7+ Ke7 10.Rd1 Qc8 11.Bg6 Bxf3 12.Qxf3 c6 13.Be3 Qg4 14.Bc5+ Ke6
> 15.Qf5+ Qxf5 16.ef mate
The game above is typical of Fred's playing style. Boom! Smash!
Anybody know where or how he is?
Rick Kennedy
The game from Euwe & Meiden's _Chess Master vs Chess Amateur_:
("Semi-Italian Opening") 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.d4 ed
5.c3 ("It cannot be stated
objectively which of the two methods {5.c3 or 5.Nxd4} is the
better. But by the sacrifice of a Pawn, White can demonstrate
more convincingly the futility of Black's ...h6") dc 6.Nxc3 d6
7.Qb3 Qe7 8.Nd5 Qd7 9.Bd2 Be7 10.O-O Nf6 11.Bc3 Nxe4 12.Rfe1
Nxc3 13.Nxe7 Nxe7 14.Bxf7+ Kf8 15.bc d5 16.Ne5 Qd6 17.Rad1 c6
18.c4 Bf5 19.cd Nxd5 20.Bxd5 cd 21.Rxd5 Qf6 22.Rd7 Be6 23.Ng6+
Qxg6 24.Rxe6 Re8 25.Qb4+ Resigns
Rick
Bruce_L...@transarc.com
League.
"Club player" in a large city usually means about Class A (U.S. designation).
This is about where Fred is at or was at the time of the game. In better
times, about the early 1960's, he was rated about 2100 and won the Pittsburgh
Chess Club championship a couple of times. Then he dropped out of rated chess
for a few years, then returned in the 1970's. At that time he could only
maintain a Class A rating, but he beat some of the strongest players in the
Pittsburgh area, notably Richard Costigan (now an IM, then already a Senior
Master), and the late Rick Abrams (former Pennsylvania state champion), as well
as a slew of Experts. Fred is still active, but since I play in so few
tournaments myself I don't know what he is up to.
How about you, "gnohmon8715"? Guess you must be an old Pittsburgh player if
you know about Fred, but I can't figure out who.
Bruce Leverett