|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 12 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Nov-27-06 |
| Stellar King: Did this variation exist before Najdorf was born? |
 |
Nov-27-06
 |
| AdrianP: <Stellar King>
Earliest 'Najdorf' in Megabase (although note the weird move order) is Yates,F - Tartakower,S [B90]
Budapest Budapest (3), 28.06.1926
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.Nde2 g6 8.0-0 Bg7 9.Qe1 0-0 10.f4 Nb4 11.Kh1 Kh8 12.Be3 Ng4 13.Bg1 f5 14.Rd1 Nxd3 15.cxd3 e5 16.h3 Nf6 17.fxe5 dxe5 18.d4 Nxe4 19.dxe5 Qe8 20.Nxe4 fxe4 21.Rxf8+ Qxf8 22.Nc3 Bf5 23.Bd4 Re8 24.Nxe4 Bxe5 25.Bxe5+ Rxe5 26.Qc3 Qe7 27.Rd5 Bxe4 28.Rxe5 1-0 ... i.e. before Najdorf was born in 1929.
Earliest 'Najdorf' played by Najdorf
Euwe,M - Najdorf,M [B84]
Buenos Aires/La Plata Buenos Aires (4), 1947
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e6 7.0-0 Be7 8.f4 Qc7 9.Kh1 Nc6 10.a4 Bd7 11.Nb3 Na5 12.Nxa5 Qxa5 13.Bf3 Bc6 14.Qe1 Qc7 15.e5 dxe5 16.fxe5 Nd7 17.Bxc6 bxc6 18.Bf4 0-0 19.Qg3 Kh8 20.Ne4 Nb6 21.Nf6 Nd5 22.Qh4 gxf6 23.exf6 Bd6 24.Qg3 Rg8 25.Bxd6 Qb6 26.Qa3 Qd4 27.Qc5 Qe4 28.Rf3 e5 29.Qf2 Rae8 30.Re1 Qxa4 31.Bxe5 Rg5 32.Rf5 Rg6 33.b3 Qb4 34.Rf1 Qg4 35.h3 Qe4 36.Re1 Qb4 37.c4 Reg8 38.Rg1 Nb6 39.Rh5 Nd7 40.Qf3 Nxe5 41.Rxe5 Rg3 42.Qe4 h6 43.Re8 Qxb3 44.Rxg8+ Rxg8 45.Qxc6 a5 46.Qd5 Rf8 47.Re1 Qc3 48.Rf1 a4 49.Rf3 Qc1+ 50.Kh2 a3 51.Qa5 Qxc4 52.Qxa3 Rg8 53.Qd6 Kh7 54.Rg3 Rg6 55.Qe5 Qh4 56.Rf3 Qg5 57.Qxg5 Rxg5 58.h4 Rg4 59.Kh3 h5 ½-½ Earliest B90 - 6 Be3
Wantz,F - Badilles,G [B90]
Moscow ol (Men) fin-C Moscow (9), 1956
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 b5 8.Qd3 Nbd7 9.Be2 Qc7 10.g4 h6 11.h4 Be7 12.0-0-0 b4 13.Nd5 Nxd5 14.exd5 a5 15.g5 a4 16.Nd2 Ba6 17.Nc4 Rc8 18.b3 Nc5 19.Bxc5 Qxc5 20.Rhg1 hxg5 21.hxg5 g6 22.Qe3 Qxe3+ 23.fxe3 Bxc4 24.bxc4 Rh2 25.Bd3 Rh5 26.Be2 Rxg5 27.Rxg5 Bxg5 28.Kd2 Ke7 29.Rb1 Rb8 30.Kd3 f5 31.e4 Rh8 32.Bf1 Rh1 33.exf5 gxf5 34.c5 dxc5 35.Kc4 Kd6 36.Rd1 Rh2 37.Bd3 e4 38.Rg1 exd3 39.Rxg5 Rxc2+ 40.Kxd3 Rc3+ 41.Kd2 Kxd5 42.Rxf5+ Kc4 43.Rf4+ Kb5 44.Rf8 Ra3 45.Rb8+ Kc4 46.Rg8 Rxa2+ 47.Kc1 b3 48.Rg4+ Kc3 49.Rg3+ Kb4 50.Rg4+ c4 51.Rg7 a3 52.Rb7+ Kc3 0-1 |
|
| Nov-27-06 |
| Stellar King: oh...I see so Najdorf just revolutionized even though it already existed |
|
Nov-27-06
 |
| WannaBe: Yep, other notable openings that's been 'revitalized' are: Nimzo-Larsen Attack, Fischer-Sozin (Sicilian), Canal-Sokolsky (Rossolimo) Attack, etc... |
|
Mar-19-07
|
| WannaBe: Makes you wonder, why black doesn't play Bxb3 and double white's pawns...
click for larger viewDoes anyone know why it's bad for black? |
|
Mar-19-07
 |
| ganstaman: <WannaBe> This is mostly a guess as I haven't played over nearly enough games with this opening to see what pieces are most useful where and which squares are most vital. Firstly, it doesn't look to me that the b3 knight has anywhere it can go (besides a1, which hardly even qualifies as a square). Therefore, the immediate capture of the knight doesn't seem as that necessary. It will still be available in a few moves, so black should work on more important things first. Secondly, that light square bishop black has looks useful. His pawns on d6 and e5 have left him with weakened light squares in the center. I wouldn't want to give up that bishop without some real tangible compensation. And putting the two together, it's possible that black can sometimes take on b3 later when it creates all types of tactical problems for white (just eyeballing this, maybe something like Rc8, b4, then Bxb3 and Qa5 -- of course, getting 4 moves in a row almost always wins, but you get the idea). So black waits as I said he could and only trades when it creates nice threats as I said it should. It's nice that I can agree with myself. |
|
Mar-19-07
 |
| micartouse: <WannaBe> I agree with <ganstaman>. I don't think it causes an immediate problem, but Black would be giving up one of his best minor pieces for one of White's worst (and also giving up a bishop for a knight in a somewhat open position is risky). So once both sides get their attack rolling, White would have a massive advantage. I think sometimes we have to order the minor pieces in our head in terms of value when we contemplate exchanges. We'd say Black likes Be6 and Nf6 but could do without Nd7 and Be7 is bad. White likes Nc3 and Be3 quite a bit, but wouldn't lose sleep exchanging the Nb3 and the ugly Bf1. The pawn structure just isn't as important here since the board is about to go up in flames. Only the possibilities of attacking and defending the kingsides should be really evaluated. |
|
Mar-19-07
 |
| e4Newman: i've seen opponents use black's dsb to help with a counter attack on the k-side, especially ...f5 my gut feeling is that exchanging for the white knight on b3 leaves you worse off, the resulting pawn on b3 is still protected, and there are no new weaknesses except for the open a-file (a very-long-term plan at best). |
|
Mar-19-07
|
| e4Newman: woops, i mean lsb (light square bishop) |
|
Mar-30-07
 |
| Bob726: Why can't white recapture cxb3 instead of axb3? It seems safer to hold onto the kingside |
|
Mar-30-07
|
| Bob726: 
click for larger view |
|
Mar-30-07
|
| Bob726: In this picture, it seems as if black must play hxg6, if even it unportects its king along the h file because if he captured fxg6 the pawn on e6 is very, very weak. But in <Wannabe> diagram, if black plays bxb3, cxb3 dosn't weaken anything and seems to protect the king on b1 better than if he captured with his a pawn. |
|
| Apr-08-07 |
| IMDONE4: <WannaBe>, being a najdorf player for years, I must say that the light squared bishop is vital for several reasons. First, it is needed to exchange for the other knight if it ever comes to d5; using the knight on f6 to exchange leaves the kingside too defenseless. Second, it has important attacking possibilities on the queenside. Third, whites e3 bishop and blacks e6 bishop are the "good bishops," u dont want to go trading them for no reason. Fourth, there are variations where blacks bishop will go to c4, force the white bishop to trade, then have the semi-open b file for his disposal. And finally, a white pawn on b3 (and possibly a white knight on a4) completely blots out black's counterplay on the queenside. Doubling white's pawns really does not do much, even if the game does go to an endgame. |
|
Apr-09-07
|
| WannaBe: Thanks everyone! |
|
May-22-07
|
| WannaBe: The (%) differences between ...e5 and ...e6 are huge!!! Opening Explorer |
|
| May-22-07 |
| Vash854: AdrianP, Najdorf was born 1910, not 1929. |
|
May-24-07
|
| AdrianP: <Vash> Oh, OK. Thanks. <Wannabe> Bxb3 - all the points mentioned have their force (and control of the d5 square is v. important) but the main point is that after cb, although the pawn structure looks weak, it is all but impregnable in terms of an attack on the king. It is counterintuitive but this structure is even stronger than pawns on a2, b2, c2 - Black will not in the near future get a half-open file and white can contest the c-file. Meanwhile, White's kingside attack rages unabated. |
|
| May-26-07 |
| tonsillolith: Is there a difference in name between the e6 Najdorf and the e5 Najdorf? Are there common terms for all Sicilians where black plays e5 as opposed to e6 or vice-versa or e6 and eventually e5, regardless of having played a6? |
|
May-26-07
 |
| paulalbert: <tonsillolith> Naming systems of openings do get very confusing because of transpositions. I consider e5 to be true Najdorf because I think idea of a6 was to keep N off b5 after attack by e5. e6 leads more to Scheveningen type positions. In fact if you play e6 on move 5 and then immediately a6 on move 6 it gets classified as Scheveningen: See Gligoric vs. Najdorf 1946 game. I guess the real point is that to understand openings and opening theory as GMs do ( and I'm nowhere near that description ) you must understand the purpose of each move and the nuances of the exact move order. Mere memorization does not get very far against a player with geater understanding. Paul Albert |
|
Jul-22-07
 |
| notyetagm: Does anyone know where I can find more information about the line <6 h2-h3!?> against the Sicilian Najdorf, the so-called <Adams Attack>?
click for larger viewAn SOS article from New In Chess magazine that describes this line is exactly what I would be looking for. Thanks.
|
|
| Mar-05-08 |
| Whitelouts: My opponent played 9...d5 in the English attack, basically exchanging off a load of pieces and going for the draw. It doesnt seem such a bad idea and I cant find an obvious refutation. Anyone have any ideas? The line is:1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be7 8. f3 Nbd7 9.Qd2 d5 10. exd5 Nxd5 11. Nxd5 Qxd5 12. Qxd5 Bxd5 |
|
Apr-24-08
 |
| KingG: <Whitelouts> I assume you meant 8...Be6 instead of 8...Nbd7.
click for larger viewI think the problem with this is after 13.0-0-0 Black must lose one of his bishops after 13...Be6 14.Nc5 or 13...Bc6 14.Na5. Alternatively Black can play 13...Bxb3. So White has a slight lead in development, control of the open d-file, and two Bishops in a fairly open position. This must give White a significant advantage in this endgame. It would take a strange person to play the Najdorf only to simplify into a much worse endgame in the hope of maybe getting a draw after a lot of suffering. |
|
Apr-25-08
 |
| MaxxLange: <Whitelouts> are all those exchanges forced? |
|
Sep-08-08
 |
| Funicular: Funny thing, najdorf and fischer are not among the list of practitioners |
|
| Sep-08-08 |
| RookFile: Excellent point Funicular. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 12 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
