 |
|
 ChessChess Discussion For posting: - invitations to games (you can also use the New Game menu or go straight to the Chess Invitation) - information about upcoming tournaments - discussion of games (please limit this to completed games or discussion on how a game has arrived at a certain position ... speculation on who has an advantage or the benefits of potential moves is not permitted) - links to interesting related sites (non-promotional) U hebt geen toestemming om berichten op dit forum achter te laten. Het minimaal vereiste lidmaatschap om berichten op dit forum achter te mogen laten is Brain Pion. Modus: Iedereen kan berichten achterlaten
27. oktober 2005, 17:12:33 The chance of unwittingly playing a game on-line against an opponent who is using a chess engine goes with the territory... 11. juli 2005, 19:11:04 Onderwerp: Re: a good refutation . . . ColonelCrockett: Again, 2.Nc3 is perfectly acceptable no matter what level of play. 11. juli 2005, 19:05:32 Onderwerp: Re: a good refutation . . . ColonelCrockett: I think I can say with confidence that there is absolutely nothing wrong with 2.Nc3 and if you ever want to try it with 3.g3 you should be able to find some good books. Spassky was a specialist in the Closed Sicilian and collected many scalps! The Grand-Prix Attack following 3.f4 is also well covered. As for the system with Bc4 and d3, you're right, I haven't seen much on it. Probably because, while somewhat popular at the club level, it is practically never seen in grandmaster games. 11. juli 2005, 18:45:43 Onderwerp: Re: a good refutation . . . ColonelCrockett: sorry for not making myself more clear. I see absolutely nothing wrong with 2.Nc3, or Bc4 followed by d3 for that matter. I was just wondering what the attraction to this set-up might be as I have never played the White side. As Black it seems to allow me a rather free development. Thanks for explaining some of the thinking behind it. 11. juli 2005, 18:27:52 Onderwerp: Re: a good refutation . . . ColonelCrockett: I have a serious question now, why do you play the Sicilian with Bc4 and d3. I never understood this much. I see it often online and have never lost to it. I supposed most players who choose 1.e4 are attacking style and should be looking forward to Sicilians in which they can maintain more of an advantage and have a more direct plan attack. 11. juli 2005, 17:51:40 Onderwerp: Re: a good refutation . . . ColonelCrockett: I think playing in person is great, I just don't want to be there when it happens. p.s. Beware of reverse psychology! I tried it in my home analysis and wound up in a horrible position. :-) 11. juli 2005, 13:42:52 Onderwerp: Re: a good refutation . . . ColonelCrockett: If you play Classical and/or Dragon variations then 2...Nc6 is good when white may avoid 3.g3, 3.f4, etc. and play an open Sicilian with 3.Nf3 followed by 4.d4 etc. Najdorf players often play 2...d6 for this reason. I consider 2...Nc6 as maybe best, but not a "refutation". 22. juni 2005, 16:39:45 Onderwerp: Re: rating systems and the BKR WhisperzQ: Thanks, I often refer to this anyway! 22. juni 2005, 16:22:39 Onderwerp: Re: rating systems and the BKR Stormerne: Well then, I hope you quit playing chess for a few years! May be the only way for me to get closer... 22. juni 2005, 16:05:28 Onderwerp: Re: rating systems and the BKR Stormerne: fair enough... still I prefer removal system :-) 22. juni 2005, 15:50:03 Onderwerp: Re: rating systems and the BKR Stormerne: Thing is, it loses relativity. Unless I investigate/calculate, I would'nt know if a player is 100 points below me or 100 points above me but just hasn't played in awhile. There was talk of removing inactive players from the list. I personally prefer that solution. |
Datum en tijd
Aanwezige vrienden
Favoriete Forums
Genootschappen
Tip van de dag
|
|
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, alle rechten voorbehouden. Terug naar boven |