|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Feb-05-07 |
| hicetnunc: <to simsim>
You're going to have problems reaching the Alapin main lines if black plays 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 as 3.c3 is well met by 3...Nf6! (the e5 push is no longer possibl) |
 |
| Feb-05-07 |
| simsim: yes the alapin mainlines are out of reach.
but i tought it is somehow possible to built a reasonable repertoire with a delayed c3 (without including the najdorf mainline), but i did not really think about it. maybe i'm wrong?after 3...Nf6! maybe 4.Le2 (the pawn is indirectly protected) but then 4...Sbd7 seems strong (at least it has a bad score). i don't like that. i think i should stick to 2.c3 until i switch to 1.d4 or 1.Sf3.
the c3-sicilian is like a drug. it is hard to get off, once you feel comfortable with it:) |
|
| Feb-25-07 |
| vaevictis: How should White respond to 1. e4 c5 2 c3 Nc6 ?
People play it against me a lot, theory finds the move not worth addressing, few masters play it, but I have trouble responding to it. What is weak about 2... Nc6 ? |
|
| Feb-25-07 |
| nescio: <vaevictis: How should White respond to 1. e4 c5 2 c3 Nc6 ?> What is your intention when you play 2.c3 ?
<What is weak about 2... Nc6 ?> I don't think 2...Nc6 is weak, but there are some counterattacking alternatives (2...Nf6, 2...d5) which are naturally more popular. After 2...Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.cxd4 White has nice centre and a good position but I can't say I see a significant advantage. You can give your confidence a boost by looking at this game: I A Horowitz vs Plankart, 1958 |
|
| Feb-27-07 |
| vaevictis: I'm interested in getting a positional game out of 2c3. Ahh, I'm new to this and did not understand that just because a move is eschewed in theoretical works it is not necessarily weak. So the theoreticians confine themselves to the more interesting possibilities, and do not try for comprehensive coverage of reasonable moves -- or am I missing something. Someone should write an article for novice players about what theoretical work on openings does and does not assume about moves they do not address. |
|
| Feb-27-07 |
| euripides: <vae> Lots of plausible moves don't get discussed in books on openings, typically because they haven't often been played and are either (a) bad or (b) OK but not as good as the main lines or (c) perfectly sound but no-one's taken an interest in them or (d) an innovation that the author of the work is planning to use themselves. Often it would be helpful for the author to explain what's wrong with the bad or OK ones. If one assumes that there are 3 reasonable moves in each position then there are of the order of 3^20 = about 2,500 million - reasonable sequences in the first ten moves. (Taking account of transpositions would reduce this a bit). The main current databases contain about 3-4 million games. So I think there must be plenty of interesting continuations out there that haven't been played. Sometimes even quite frequently played lines don't get covered in the books. I am not sure which category 2...Nc6 falls into.
|
|
| Feb-27-07 |
| nescio: <vaevictis: I'm interested in getting a positional game out of 2c3.> Sure, but isn't that true of all opening moves? My question was of a rhetorical nature to let you think for yourself what the plan behind 2.c3 is. It is a very classical continuation aiming to occupy the centre with pawns. Most players like to prevent that if only for psychological reasons. But 2...Nc6 not only doesn't prevent it, it encourages the forming of the e4/d4 pair. There isn't really anything wrong with such an approach as long as Black knows what he is doing. After all there are several ways to deal with a pawn centre. |
|
| Feb-28-07 |
| vaevictis: Thank you for your thoughful responses.
It is true that after 2Nc6 I tend to get the center occupied with pawns in e4 and d4. Now I just have to get better in taking advantage of that. |
|
| Mar-02-07 |
| hicetnunc: <vaevictis> The main idea of 2.c3 is to build a classical center (e4-d4) by recapturing with a pawn after Black plays cxd4 That's why Black's main lines are those that prevent this main idea, either by breaking the center (2...d5, the classical approach), or by inducing the center pawns to move (2...Nf6, the modern approach) 2...Nc6 is not bad per se, but it does nothing to prevent white building his ideal center, that's why it's not a main line - it will likely transpose into some other line (with ...d6 ...e6 or ...g6) |
|
Mar-26-07
 |
| WannaBe: A little study on the Sicilian, Alapin...
1. e4 c5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. d4 cxd4 5. cxd4 e6 6. Nf3 d6 7. Bc4 Nc6 
click for larger viewIf followed with 8. Bxd5 exd5, Opening Explorer shows 2 games, victory for white K Petousis vs Kosmas Karayiannis, 2001, and a draw E Krivoborodov vs Efthimios Kiratzopoulos, 2001. Yet, this is not played often, white trades the light squared bishop for a knight, and doubling white's pawns... You'd think this would be good for white... Anyone have any thoughts on this? |
|
| Apr-06-07 |
| atripodi: What's the advantage to playing the Alapin rather than the delayed Alapin with 2.Nf3 and then 3.c3? |
|
| Apr-06-07 |
| simsim: <atripodi>
i was thinking about playing the delayed alapin, but as <hicetnunc> pointed out above:
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6, then
3.c3 is well met by 3...Nf6!
and the pawn on e4 can't advance.
white cannot take the pawn after 4.Le2, since it is indirectly protected because of the queen-check on a4. but
d4 isn't possible anymore. so why play 3. c3 at all?
i think the delayed alapin is only good, if black doesn't play 2...d6. but it cuts down a lot of theory of the open sicilian, if you play the 3.d4 against 2...d6 and 3.c3 against any other move of black. |
|
| Apr-06-07 |
| simsim: mistake in second paragraph:
black cannot take the pawn after 4.Le2 ... |
|
| Apr-06-07 |
| atripodi: So why isn't 1.e4 c5 2.c3 d6 the main line against the Alapin? Sorry, I'm just really unfamiliar with these lines. Thanks for the response <simsim>. |
|
Apr-06-07
 |
| KingG: I've recently started playing 1.e4 c5 2.c3 e6!? against the Alapin, hoping to transpose into the Advanced French after 3.d4 d5 4.e5, as i prefer playing this position to any of the mainline Alapin lines. I also like the fact that it can basically be played without really needing to know any theory, contrary to the 2...Nf6 line for example. However, so far no one has actually played 4.e5 against me, instead prefering to exchange with 4.exd5 exd5. I think i also saw this recommended in a book on the Alapin. 
click for larger viewBut can White have any real advantage here?
And if this doesn't give any advantage, is there another move that does? |
|
| Apr-27-07 |
| labqi: i simply dont like alapin .. |
|
| Jun-22-07 |
| hicetnunc: <KingG> I don't know if white can prove an advantage in this variation, but he bets a sicilian player won't feel very much at home in this Tarrasch French set-up, especially if he has to defend a tedious isolated pawn middlegame :-) |
|
| Jun-22-07 |
| hicetnunc: <atripodi> After 1.e4 c5 2.c3 d6 white can safely play 3.d4, and if 3...Nf6 he protects his center with 4.Bd3, while after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.c3 Nf6, white doesn't have time for 4.d4 as e4 is hanging :-) |
|
| Jun-22-07 |
| euripides: <King> a quick look at the opening explorer shows negative statistics for White after either 4...exd5 or 4...Qxd5. I would have thought White might be a little better after 4...exd5 - he is meant to be slightly better in the Tarrasch French with 3...c5, isn't he ? - but I imagine it's really a question of whether one prefers to play with or against the isolated pawn. |
|
| Sep-22-07 |
| Chigorin: <WannaBe> After 1. e4 c5 2. c3  f6 3. e5 d5 4. d4 cxd4 5. cxd4 e6 6. f3 d6 7.  c4 c6, the move 8.xd5?! simply gives up the Two Bishops in an open position, not generally a good idea (see: S Rosenthal vs Steinitz, 1873 ; V Makogonov vs Keres, 1939 ; Gligoric vs Larsen, 1973 ). This would be the case even if Black's pawns were really going to remain doubled, but White's e5 pawn will soon be traded for Black's d6 pawn, after which the Black isolated pawn on d5 is not too big a deal (probably not as important as Black having the Bishop Pair). After 8.xd5?! Black is at least completely equal, maybe a tiny bit better. |
|
Sep-26-07
 |
| gambitfan: This opening appeals to me...
My personal statistics show that I succeed quite well with the Morra Gambit... which is similar to the Alapin... |
|
Oct-30-07
|
| KingG: <hicetnunc> <I don't know if white can prove an advantage in this variation, but he bets a sicilian player won't feel very much at home in this Tarrasch French set-up, especially if he has to defend a tedious isolated pawn middlegame :-)> Well, i'm not sure how tedious it is. I've recently read in Kasparov's book on the openings revolution of the 70's that he played this line as Black precisely against players he thought wouldn't transpose into the Advanced French, since he enjoyed the active piece play the isolated pawn gives Black. I would tend to agree with this. As i said above, i'm playing this in the hope of getting the Advanced French, but the positions after the exchange on d5 seem fine for Black as well. The only slight drawback of this line seems to be that you can't easily transpose into it from the Morra Gambit move order, contrary to the other Alapin lines. |
|
| Dec-05-07 |
| tal lover: i played quite well this line in internet blitz, i can say that this is my favorite line against 1...c5, this line is good because you dont have to know much theory (all you need is develop your pieces), and if black dont be careful white can gets a big gap in development. This line goes for an open and tatical game, the bad point is the isolated pawn, in classical games against a good adversary this can a problem, but i dont remember the last time that i lost a blitz game because the isolated pawn. |
|
| Jan-27-08 |
| Bodia: IMHO this is a good opening against Sicilian for such positional and lazy chess players like me. It can be studied for a day and does not entangle a lot of theory. |
|
Aug-01-08
 |
| Silverstrike: An interersting loss of mine in a similar opening.
Julius Schwartz (1679) v Connor Woods (1740)
May the 26th 2007
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.c3 Nf6 5.e5 Nd5 6.cxd4 d6 7.exd6 e6 8.Bc4 Nb6 9.Bb3 Bxd6 10.0-0 0-0 11.Nc3 Ne7 12.Bg5 h6 13.Bh4 Bd7 14.Qd3 Qb8 15.Bxe7 Bxe7 16.Bc2 f5 17.Re1 Bf6 18.d5 e5 19.g4 e4 20.Nxe4 Qf4 21.Ng3 Rac8 22.Re2 Rc5 23.gxf5 Bb5 24.Qe3 White Resigns Connor was around 14-15 at the time this game was played, now he's around 16 and rated 2013. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
