tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post3022322244568363148..comments2023-12-28T02:11:22.501+00:00Comments on The Streatham & Brixton Chess Blog: A point of orderTom Chivershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09850710685193416732noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-80218155688457605332007-02-10T21:44:00.000+00:002007-02-10T21:44:00.000+00:00Dogging with the cat...I try and win with the beas...Dogging with the cat...<BR/>I try and win with the beast and have the following "queues":<BR/>(i) after 1d4 nf6 2c4 e6 3g3 c5 is it worth trying to hold back on d5 ( to side step the benoni or benko ) with 4nf3 to keep the cat? There seem to be so many ways for black to have fun after 4..cd4. Though 4d5 b5!? is more than mouse to my cat.<BR/>(ii)even R&C concede in chapter 2 that the slav approach of 4..c6 and 5..bd6 is reasonable, adequate even; and, this is the problem, obvious. Not even a case of belling the cat.<BR/> <BR/>For cat cats only....(Martin).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-14833942624807844992007-02-10T19:44:00.000+00:002007-02-10T19:44:00.000+00:00But the odd thing here of course is that they were...But the odd thing here of course is that they weren't copying what went before. Or at least I thought not, until you mentioned MCO.<BR/><BR/>What's <I>most</I> curious is Donaldson's certainty that they must have known about it.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, in my Team Championship of Aragón match this afternoon I played 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Bg5 rather than 4.g3. Nothing to do with the R&C question, though, just a preference for the QGD against a lower-rated player (my Catalan's for the stronger players).ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-19922014198379635412007-02-10T19:24:00.000+00:002007-02-10T19:24:00.000+00:00Batsford's Modern Chess Openings only gives the va...Batsford's Modern Chess Openings only gives the variation:-<BR/><BR/>d4 Nf6<BR/>c4 e6<BR/>g3 d5<BR/>Bg2 dxc4<BR/>Nf3 Be7<BR/><BR/>no mention of 6. Qa4+ at all. Neither does the book say that in the more standard move order 6. ... dxc4 transposes back to lines they give earlier.<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't be surprised if the authors of the book did know full well about the move order trick. I'm sure any number of authors fail to publish (or mention) private analysis in critical lines.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure a lot of books just copy what's already been written before. It's a lot less effort than actually conducting an original analysis of a key position (or a minor subvariation for that matter).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-81150837943497094962007-02-10T19:03:00.000+00:002007-02-10T19:03:00.000+00:00Hearing always the phrase "the book move" -- which...Hearing always the phrase "the book move" -- which suggests some uniformity in theory -- you have to wonder when you see major points of contention about seemingly standard lines. One writer's book may not be as good as another's, and they all leave stuff out--sometimes out of laziness and sometimes to protect their secrets. <BR/><BR/>I think anyone who becomes immersed in chess theory emerges with a healthy dose of skepticism--realizing that they inevitably have to think for themselves and that they can not trust "the book" to offer them the Truth.Michael Goellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14512012158305281566noreply@blogger.com