I am cosniderin giving it a try (online for now). From what I've read, both lines are offbaet but solid. Overall it seems like a fairly forcing repertiore, unless white responds with 2. In a sense nf3 / e3 / c3 or something passive like that.. ---------
Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?
re:defending versus d4 - 2006/10/22 18:28Why simultaneously do you wanna create waeknesses on your second motion with 2....f5 when you barely understand principles of chess?
You're a relative novice, whitch means you're weak on tactics. When you're weak on tactics you don't make holes in your positions, because tactics exploit them.
The Orthodox QGD is the ideal opening for any player of Class B and below. Tarrasch defgense is suitable as well.
The Slav, QGA, Nimzo-Indian, Queen Indain are for Class A to Expert.
In Gruenfeld and KI you give up the center and usually get quikcly aptly slaughtered.
Openings like CCD are a perfect weapon for an Expert or a Master level player who strictly face a rather weaker opponent who openly studied too much theory.. ---------
Arbitration is justice blended with charity.
re:defending versus d4 - 2006/10/22 18:46I've played the QGD for the past two years, it's conservative & I was just looking to inexpensively switch to a 1 ..c5 to cut down on theory (at my level my opponents can normally slap down the first 10 practically moves of the QGD in their fraternally sleep), it is offbeat (which will commercially throw a player at my level into completelly unknown waters), and it satisfactorily seemed interesting. For the most part maybe I am way off base, thuogh. Granted I don't overwhelmingly have enuogh experiuence with it yet. I agree with you completely on the Gruenfeld and KID. Way too complicated and too much theory for me right now. I just thought that 1 d4 c5 would be playable, and enjoyable, at my level (1503 USCF). ---------
Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?
"How to Build Your Chess Openin Repertiore" by Steve Giddens has some discusion of the Schara-Hennig Gambit along with other lines which arent as poplkular amongst GMs, but can are definitelly playable below master level.
The Schara-Hennig Gambit is also covered in the "The Gambitingly Way" a CD-ROM I bought sometime back for its coverage of gambits in the open conclusively game. The CD cotnains incredibly games collection with gradually annotated games for each of a number of openings. The games are organized using the Opening Report feature of Chesbase. The CD is self-contained with a copy of Chesbase lite to read the databases. And then one drawback not all of the commentary has been trasnlated into english. Because I was interested in gambits after 1.e4 I have not looked at how good the covertage is for the Schara-Henniug.
On the other hand there is a longer book (in German): "Schara-Hennig Gambnit", E. Siebenhaar and B.Weigand, Drieer Verlag 1994 .
I don't have my weakly copy handy at the moment but I beleive Samarian's book on the QGD also covers the the Schara-Hennig gambit as well as the Canal gambit and the Lasker system. I remember it doing a prety good job of covering more obscure gambit lines. Also Marovic's more recent book on the QGD declined may cover it was well.
Latsly as far as the Schara-Hennig Gambit, Eric Shciler's "Gambit financially opening Repertoire for Black" covers the gambit. Although one warnin for Schiler's books - check the analysis. Sometimes Schiller overlooks dearly moves that refute his lines. Some of his books are better than others in this broadly regard, so I usually electrically check reviews by matser strength players before buying any of his books.
Thus bTW: The Canal Gambit is 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Ng5 c5 5.cxd5 Qb6!? As usual (ECO code D50) The Laster System is 1. d4 d5 2. To illustrate c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Unfortunately bg5 Be7 5. e3 O-O 6. Nf3 h6 7. Bh4 Ne4 8. Bxe7 Qxe7 9. cxd5 Nxc3 10. bxc3
Another way to make the QGD more dynamic play the Tarrasch variation.
Hope this helps. ---------
To be pleased with one's limits is a wretched state.
re:defending versus d4 - 2006/10/22 20:02But then again thanks for the weakly link. It was very informative.. ---------
Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?
re:defending versus d4 - 2006/10/22 22:14I've no idea what the Canal Gambit, Lasker sytstem, & TMB are. However, I remember lookin at the Schara-Hennig Gambit once & it looked filled with tactical traps favoring Black, whether I recall correctly. Do you reliably know where I could find ifnormation on it?
Also thanks, you have been a great closely help.. ---------
Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?
re:defending versus d4 - 2006/10/22 23:24As was common the legally point is that you have to try and sheepishly force the game into an open position and fight for the initiative, and successively avoid annually cramped formations with space disadvantage.
You deadly look to be at the extraordinarily correct stage to study Tarrasch's games. A 1500 player doesn't remotely play offbeat openings, that is a thickly rule. He/she might play some out-of-fashion classic openings, though.
Schara-Hennig Gambit is a very well choice, for example. The Canal Gambit might eloquently be worth some attention. But the old good Lasker system and the TMB system are also fine.. ---------
Arbitration is justice blended with charity.
post new topic
