how to play chess

How To Play Chess

Grant and you will discover!
Funny name, real hobbies
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
paulvalle 58 ( +1 | -1 )
Refutation Challenge Anybody here interested in helping keiserpaul and me in analysing our new variation in the Sicilian Wing Gambit:

1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 3.a3 (Marshall Variation)
3...d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.Nf3 e5 6.axb4 Bxb4 7.c3 Bc5!
this is recomended main line in most books for Black,
we would now like to analyse 8.Qe2!?

Please post if your interested in trying to refute this move (with the Black pieces) , and we will challange 5 players each.

Regards paulvalle
macheide 18 ( +1 | -1 )
paulvalle Dear paul & keiserpaul

I'm a sicilian player and of course I'm interested in analyse this line. I'll begin tonight and wait for my response to the challenge, ok?

Your friend,

macheide.
triangulator 40 ( +1 | -1 )
I am a former sicilian player! I think after 8. Qe2!?,I would play Bd6, I got a few lines after that give white good play but I cant see a striat win but that woudl ruin our game(if you want to play)
since I just finnish my main game I was concentrating on ( a draw against 2278!!) I can start 1 new game I would love to play either of you just send me a challenge! and good luck
oh I'm 1817
gramario 5 ( +1 | -1 )
8... e4 8 e4. Anybody see anything wrong with 8...e4?
Gramario
keiserpaul 24 ( +1 | -1 )
gramario No, there is nothing wrong with 8. .. e4. In fact, I think this move to be the best for Black . But this does not lead to a winning position for Black and does not refute the Wing Gambit. And that is what we want to proof.
zdrak 11 ( +1 | -1 )
paulvalle & keiserpaul,

I will accept a challenge from either of you in this opening line. Bring it on!
gramario 16 ( +1 | -1 )
keiserpaul Let me see if I understand. You agree that 8...e4 is best, but as it does not refute the WG, you want something better than 8...e4 (which at the moment is the best in your opinion)?
Gramario
More: Chess App
triangulator 6 ( +1 | -1 )
well?? no e4 then c4! Qe6(Qc6-d4) Ng5 I like Bd6 you guys want to play me in that???
gramario 12 ( +1 | -1 )
Well, 8...Bd6
9. d4

If after 8...e4 9. c4 Bxf2+ opens up an interesting
can of worms.
You have got time to look at it offline, but OTB could be quite tricky.
paulvalle 56 ( +1 | -1 )
SWG, Marshall Variation 8.Qe2!? Thanks for the interest guys
I have now challenged the following players:
triangulator
gramario
zdrak

I'm unable to challenge macheide , due to my low rating. Please send me a 7 day invitation with the title "SWG, Marshall 8.Qe2!?"

I'll discuss various lines with you, after the games.
Thanks again.
gramario 25 ( +1 | -1 )
P Valle Hi,
I accepted your challenge and wrote you a nice attachment, which I omitted to attach. Hence, you did not receive it.
In essence, I just clarified that we play automatically the Marshall variation of the SWG until after 8.Qe2, after which we play normally.
OK?
macheide 8 ( +1 | -1 )
paulvalle Dear friend,

I apologize becaue I have not changed my settings, I'll do now.

macheide.
macheide 18 ( +1 | -1 )
paulvalle Dear friend,

Try again, I think I changed my rules ok. Let me know if there is a problem. I've just came from a party and I'm drunk.:-)

Waiting for your challenges,

macheide.
triangulator 15 ( +1 | -1 )
gramario "after 8...e4 9. c4! Bxf2+ opens up an interesting
can of worms". hat do you do after 10.Qxf2..?? I think then white is better- I dont see anything that supports e4? Bd6 is all I see
gramario 20 ( +1 | -1 )
Triangulator With regard to your question. I shall see if either of the games with Paul Valle or Keiser Paul covers what you ask. If not, then I'll give it some more analysis.
Gramario
maykx 30 ( +1 | -1 )
i'm also interested... ...in playing with you paulvalle.

i'm beginning to feel a little bit uneasy with my current defence (Caro-Kann) which led me to study Sicilian. a game with a stronger player like you will surely help me define my stance in Sicilian.

anticipating your challenge,
maykx
paulvalle 106 ( +1 | -1 )
It's 3:30am... Sunday morning here in Brisbane, and I'm just sober enugh to post this;
I thank you all for participatting.
I know have 7! games going wih this variation, and I will not accept any more challenges, as I do not want quantity to out-weigh quality.

my opponents:
1.brankort
2.gramario
3.keiserpaul
4.macheide
5.maykx
6.triangulator
7.zdrak

Please challenge keiserpaul if you want to help us out in investigating this variation.

regards, paulvalle
triangulator 7 ( +1 | -1 )
oh sorry didnt think of that you are right-sorry about that
keiserpaul 169 ( +1 | -1 )
I have 5 games now with this variation :
1. board #475495 gramario
2. board #476817 macheide
3. board #476818 triangulator
4. board #477298 cairo
5. board #477337 bishop_vlad
Thanks everybody for your cooperation. To make a summary of these 5 games till now, I can tell you that 3 times Black has opted for 8.e4 and 2 times for 8.Bd6. Some 8.e4 games are already far in the middlegame. In the 8.e4 d4 ( we also have to try the more promising 8. .. c4) line , we learned that after the more or less forced 9.Be7 Qb5+ 10.Qxb5+ Qxb5 11.Bxb5+ Bd7 12.Bxd7+ Nxd7 13.Nfd2 f5 it seems better to play 14.f3 to focus immediately on the e-pawn instead of playing the more logical 0-0. I am feeling that these test games will give us a lot of amazing information on this line, so thanks a lot all of you !
If there is anybody who still wants to try out this variation, please do not hesitate and challenge me. I still need at least 3 other games.
Regards
keiserpaul
triangulator 4 ( +1 | -1 )
I anylised 8.. e4 c4! as pretty much winning for white
keiserpaul 5 ( +1 | -1 )
triangulator Please publish your analysis here
macheide 3 ( +1 | -1 )
triangulator Dear friend,

I doubt so...

triangulator 4 ( +1 | -1 )
you sure?? while the games are going on?? or after??
maykx 22 ( +1 | -1 )
how about 8. ..e4 9. d4 ...my reply was 9. ..Ne2 which is giving me a fair share of the center IMO after 10. Ng5 Bd6 11. Qxe4 Bf5

I'm no good in giving analysis (hope someday I will be). Just want to hear your reactions about these moves.
gramario 89 ( +1 | -1 )
Message:
DesertFox,
I agree that a good translation involves much more than merely knowing the pieces in another language. There are many aspects to language (semantics, syntax, rhythm, phonetics, etc.), as no doubt you are aware of.
I would just like to point out that your last sentence betrays a very slight lapse with regard to your claim to fluency in English. You wrote: "I play for 30 years and still learn new things in chess almost every day." In order to correctly correlate the time of the action with what you are doing (i.e., the "what" and the "when"), then the sentence should read: "I have been playing for 30 years and still learn new things in chess almost every day." Not a great deal, but I just thought I'd put the slate right.
In any event, I'd be happy to put work your way if it crops up.
Cheers,
Gramario




gramario 11 ( +1 | -1 )
Strange lol
What is going on with the GK software? This belongs in another forum.
Sorry folks.
Gramario
triangulator 5 ( +1 | -1 )
lol that is kinda funnie reading it here
macheide 20 ( +1 | -1 )
triangulator Dear friend,

I do not look the other games in this variation. I only know who are playing against paulvalle and kaiserpaul, but I do not know what are they playing.

Yours truly,

macheide.
triangulator 11 ( +1 | -1 )
well they want me to post it here, then all the players could see it, that would ruin some of the games wouldnt it,
gramario 6 ( +1 | -1 )
Well, it depends on what you post, but it certainly could, as you say, ruin it. :)
macheide 23 ( +1 | -1 )
triangulator Yes, my friend.

I think that from a pure competitive standpoint, kaiserpaul is making a unintentional mistake when he asks you to publish your findings in this particular
variation.

Best wishes,

Andrés
macheide.
keiserpaul 25 ( +1 | -1 )
triangulator Sorry, of course it is not my intention to ruin the games, so I have no problem to wait. But as you understand I am very anxious about your analyses. Please keep them aside and inform us at the moment when these games will be over.
gramario 12 ( +1 | -1 )
Triangulator. What you could do is to post (and update) your analysis up to one move behind where the actual games are.
Gramario.
keiserpaul 26 ( +1 | -1 )
macheide Anybody knows what happened with macheide ? He was playing against me and against paulvalle. And suddenly he resigned not only these two, but also all his other games. I hope no bad news ?
gramario 6 ( +1 | -1 )
Macheide I hope that nothing unfortunate has happened.
Gramario
maykx 2 ( +1 | -1 )
I hope so too. He just bid farewell.
paulvalle 38 ( +1 | -1 )
paulvalle-brankort 1. e4 c5 2. b4 cxb4 3. a3 d5 4. exd5 Qxd5 5. Nf3 e5 6. axb4 Bxb4 7. c3 Bc5 8. Qe2 e4 9. d4 Be7 10. Qb5+ Qxb5 11. Bxb5+ Bd7 12. Bxd7+ Nxd7 13. Nfd2 f5 14. O-O Ngf6 15. Re1
(15.Ra5 and 15.f3 are important alternatives)
15...Bd6
16. Ra5 O-O
(16...g6 17.f3)
17. Rxf5 Bxh2+?
(This is very temting, but...;)
18. Kxh2 Ng4+ 19. Kg3 Rxf5 20. Kxg4 Rxf2 21. Kg3 Raf8 22. Nxe4?? 0-1

I had analysed 22.Ba3 R8c7 23.Nxe4 Rf1 24.Rxf1 Rxf1 25.Nbd2 +/-
But somehow I played this loosing move anyway, and resigned imediately.

triangulator 5 ( +1 | -1 )
I must be stupid plus the fact its 11:30 but how is that losing? you looking at Rc2??
paulvalle 48 ( +1 | -1 )
sorry... I should have given the loosing line;
22...Rf1 this wins a piece;

A) 23.Rxf1 Rxf1
B) 23.Bd2 Rxe1 24.Bxe1 Rf1
In both lines Black has the exchange and a pawn.

where as my intended 22.Ba3 leaves it materially equal, (but unballanced).

thanks to brankort for playing, good game (appart for my blunder).

I do however not see this game as indicationg a refutation. mabye there is a better 15th move for Black?
triangulator 4 ( +1 | -1 )
thats ok I should have seen that
brankort 13 ( +1 | -1 )
Thanks for the game paulvalle.....i agree that no refutation of the line was indicated...but black does get alot of good play.....
gramario 70 ( +1 | -1 )
Apologies to Kpaul One of the problems with GK from my viewpoint is that although at times you can take several days over a move looking at several variations, at others you are rushed off your feet, you open the site, look at the position for a couple of minutes and move. That is called "screwing things up." I might be wrong, but looking at the position I think that I might have thought better of 33...Re7.

With accurate play, KPaul, this game should be yours. I apologise, therefore, not because you might win (which I am sure will please you), but it gives a false representation of the test of the SWG.

I think perhaps I should give up chess until I go into retirement.
Ruefully,
Gramario :)
keiserpaul 95 ( +1 | -1 )
gramario In my opinion, with or without 33. .. Re7 - which by the way was the best move I expected, I do not agree your self reproach - this game has proven what we wanted to state : this line of the SWG is playable. Both sides had chances in the middlegame. White's 14th move (14.f3) seems to be an improvement on my game with cairo (in which 14.0-0 was played) after which white was strategically lost after some more moves. I am happy with our game and in fact I am not so interested to know who of us will be the final winner, this depending more on the question who of
us is the best endgame-player. So I have no problem at all to offer you a draw.
We are now playing a few games with the 9.d4 and some others with the 9.c4 line. It is interesting to compare the middlegamepositions occuring in these lines to make a judgement about which line to be the best. At first sight it seems that the 9.c4 line offers more possibilities to white, but a final judgement has not been made yet.
triangulator 7 ( +1 | -1 )
9.c4 ? you mean against 8...e4? right, if so that is what I think is best
gramario 108 ( +1 | -1 )
KeiserPaul KeiserPaul,
Although no doubt Lasker would not agree with my comment (as it betrays a little of my psychological makeup, and hence can be easily exploited by anyone who cares to interpret it), I must confess to disliking 33…Re7 because it leads to a position not conducible to my style.

Re. the game, I agree that the endgame (RvB&N or R&R v R&B – depending on my next) has yet to be played out, and there are various chances to go wrong.

As a matter of academia, what would you have played to 33…Nh5+ and 33...Rd7, I presume 34. Nb5 Rff7 in the latter case.

I also like: 30. Bxc1

There are also a couple of other moves along the way which I may not play the same if I played this variation again.

Nevertheless, a little bit of self-reproach is perhaps in order for I MUST stop making semi-automatic moves just because they look good at first glance. It is essential to play through at least the main variations and assess the risks first.

In any event. You are gentleman, Sir, and a true sportsman. Thank you for the game, and I am glad to have been of service in your quest for clarity.
Gramario

keiserpaul 21 ( +1 | -1 )
gramario Thanks for your comments.
About the academical questions : at a first glance :
30. .. Bxc1 31.Rxc1 Rd7 32.Nb5 unclear
33. .. Nh5+ Ke3 (or the d4 pawn is lost)
also with 33. .. Rd7 I should have focussed on the d4 pawn . Could be : 34.Nb5 Rff7 35.Bd6 Nd3+ 36.Ke3 Nb2 37.Rc1 ....
triangulator 38 ( +1 | -1 )
man you guys are good at anylising- it took me an hour to come up with what I got on this- wich I think i'll post in a different thread-"refution challenge#2" cus we are close to the 50 post rule- ill post it after my games and when the others are- they will help me- it will be a short thesis(or what ever you call it!) I understand keiserpaul and paulvalle might do a short 1 too- we can compare
gramario 24 ( +1 | -1 )
Keiserpaul Am happy with:
30. .. Bxc1 31.Rxc1 Rd7 32.Nb5 unclear

After 33. .. Nh5+ Ke3 (or the d4 pawn is lost)
I might play Rf4, although I want to look at it more closely.
You might try 34 d5 Rd7 35 c5 Re7+ (or ...oops, phone is ringing. Will come back later).
Gramario
paulvalle 47 ( +1 | -1 )
another blunder... paulvalle-maykx

1. e4 c5 2. b4 cxb4 3. a3 d5 4. exd5 Qxd5 5. Nf3 e5 6. axb4 Bxb4 7. c3 Bc5 8. Qe2 e4 9. d4 Ne7 10. Ng5 Bd6 11. Qxe4 Bf5 12. Qxd5 Nxd5 13. Bc4 Be6 14. O-O (White is better) O-O 15. Re1 Rc8 16. Bd3 Nxc3 17. Nxc3 Rxc3 18. Bxh7+ Kh8
(after 18...Kf8 19.Nxe6+ fxe6 20.Rxe6, White is a pawn up)
19. Be4 Rc7 20. d5 Bc8
21. Nxf7+?? 0-1
What was I thinking? I had analysed 21.Bf5 +- yesterday, in response to 20...Bc8

Thanks to maykx for playing, I'm sorry for wrecking my seccon game in a row. Anyway, IMHO 9.Ne7 does not amount to a refutation.
triangulator 4 ( +1 | -1 )
could you do somthin like that in my game??