17 ( +1 | -1 ) i played 4.c4 in a tournament game a couple of weekends ago. if you can get familiar with that, you might be able to take some people off guard. i'm pretty sure it's playable...
80 ( +1 | -1 ) Here's what Gallagher says about the position reached after 11...Qxb6:
"It may look as if White is a pawn up for not much but the real question is, in fact, if he can survive the next few moves unscathed. Black threatens to take on b2. The obvious move is Qd2, but after 12...Rb8 13 b3 (what else?) Black has the tactical shot 13...Nxe5!, the point being that after 14 dxe5 Bb4 15 Nc3 Black can now play 15...d4 with the better game. White probably should play 12 b3 but after 12...Bb4+ he will have to play 13 Kf1. I would prefer Black in this position. "We have, in fact, just rewritten chess theory as most sources claim that White is doing well after 9 Bb5+. Don't forget, though, that there are still alternatives that lead to a roughly equal game."
94 ( +1 | -1 ) Be3 and Bxh6 is not consistent. If White is going to give back the pawn, he should do it right away and not lose a tempo on the Be3-xh6 maneuver. After Bxh6 gxh6, White's position really isn't that great: Black has doubled and isolated h-pawns, but he also has the open g-file and two bishops to compensate him and White cannot hold onto the pawn on c5. The doubled and isolated h-pawns aren't really as weak as they may seem.
Nothing is wrong with 3... Bf5, though. If I am not mistaken, 3... Bf5 is still far and away the main line after 3. e5. The point of 3... c5 is that Black often finds it extremely difficult to get this move in after 3... Bf5, and also White is forced to take the pawn on c5, which is not the case in the French. The positions which arrive after 3... Bf5 are usually fundamentally different from the positions after 3... c5 (for example, 3... Bf5 4. g4 Bg6 5. h4 h6 6. e6!?). As a matter of personal preference, I would rather play the 3... c5 lines, but then I may be biased because I am a French player.
90 ( +1 | -1 ) WellI am not an expert on the Caro-Kann, so I'll leave the difficult theory for other players :) 3... c5 is a relatively new line that is growing in popularity. It first gained prominence when Botvinnik used it in his return match with Tal in 1961, but didn't really catch on until the 1980s. However, I don't think it has even come close to overtaking 3... Bf5 yet.
A few words on 3... Bf5: I don't think that 4. g4 is best, even though it is interesting; 4. Nc3 or 4. Nf3 set Black with more problems. What I meant to illustrate is that it is not so clear that developing the bishop on f5 favors Black as opposed to leaving it on c8, since it can no longer defend the queenside and can be treated as an object of attack on the kingside. One would imagine that the development of the bishop would favor Black, but it is not so clear--ideally Black would like to have his bishop on g4, but you don't get something for nothing. All in all, I would rather play 3... c5, but most Caro players would prefer 3... Bf5.
After 7.Bd3 Bxd3 8.Qd3 e6 playing g5 leads to a magnificent position for Black, who has managed to close kingside and therefore has pretty much free hands for his usual queenside counterplay. Playing gxh5 gives h-file for Black and leaves h4-pawn weak...
IMO 6.e6!? looks better, although after 6...Qd6!? 7.exf7+ Bxf7 Black has lots of counterplay.
The reason 6.e6!? looks better than 7.e6 is IMO pawn in h4 favours Black, for example compared to 6.e6!? lines after 7.e6 Qd6 8.exf7+ Bxf7 annoying Qg3+ is threatened, and one cannot say White has gained anything by playing pseudo-agressive 6.h4?!
Thanks for the analysis. It is very interesting. I'm beginning to feel tempted to play the Caro again, :)
In the last years mi repertoire with black against 1.e4 has been very limitated: The Sicilian Defense (that I love), particularily the Acelerated Dragon. I used to play with gusto another variations of the Sicilian, but nowadays, one has to be very well prepared and do not, repeat, do not make experiments in the opening. I like the Pelikan-Sveshnikov-Kalashnikov complex a lot, but... just look at my actual game with black against evian: it is the kind of positions for which IM Jeremy Silman recommends: "Stay away as far as the board as possible so that the spectarors don't be aware that you are the owner of such a horrible position", (I love Silman's eloquency), :)))
The moral is:
1. Lazy or not, one needs to study the modern openings theory. 2. If one wants to make experiments against such a high caliber players as evian, please, probe them in your "personal laboratory" before use them in a real game. Otherwise, the punishment will be severe and fast.
Your Mexican friend,
Post scritpum: ¡Viva Finlandia!, The land of the great Linus Torvalds, creator of LINUX!
53 ( +1 | -1 ) Also, as mentioned in another thread recently...
If Black plays 3...Bf5, it is a mistake for White to play g4 before Black plays e6. For example: 1 e5 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 Bf5 4 Nc3 Qb6 5 g4?! Bd7! and White's pawn on g4 looks very, very stupid.
Also, don't think that one can "develop the queen's bishop without problems" in the caro kann. After e6, the whole point of the g4 advance is to create positional weaknesses in Black's position by chasing the QB all over the place. It's caused enough problems for 3...c5 to be a serious alternative to 3...Bf5, which can lead to highly theoretical lines after 4 Nc3 e6 5 g4
I agree with your first paragraph. About the second, when I said "develop the queen's bishop whitout problems", I made a generalization, based in the majority of the circumstances.
In the same vein, I would be more specific about to the Frech when I said: "it is difficult to movilize the queen's bishop". There are as you know many circumstances in wich black applies the scheme: ...b6->...Ba6, with the queen knight in its original square, trying to change its queen's "bad" bishop for white's "good" one. If white changes in a6->...Nxa6, giving extra support to the ...c5.
When one discusses about openings, one must be conscious that there are a lot of counterexamples that refute the naïve main purpose of the opening in question.
11 ( +1 | -1 ) My 2 cents...IMHO, 3.g4!? doesn't give much to White. After 4...Be4 5.f3 Bg6 I could prefer 6. e6!? or 6. Ne2 as 6. h4!? donesn't harm Black ... 6. ... h5!
6 ( +1 | -1 ) that's happenedI've to play against it (4.g4!?) It would be seen what experience I'd get.
6 ( +1 | -1 ) loreta, you have the move order wrong. 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 Bf5 4 Nc3 e6 5 g4!? and Be4 is prevented.
8 ( +1 | -1 ) NOI play against variation 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 Bf5 4 g4!? Be4 5. f3 and it has in my mind when wrote these messages....
15 ( +1 | -1 ) but your move order is still incorrect because 4 Nc3 is a big *improvement* over your 4 g4?! Bd7!... Now tell me what your g pawn is doing way out there?
10 ( +1 | -1 ) :-) misunderstanding?anaxagoras, I play Black :-) As White I as ussually play Nc3 variations (1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3) [but, sometimes, others as well]
33 ( +1 | -1 ) I play the black side of the caro kann as well! ;-) I don't venture 1 e4 very often, but if I'm on the white side of the ck I can't help myself from attacking lines like 4 Nc3... 5 g4..., it's just not what someone wants to deal with when he plays 1...c6. Consequently, from the black side, after 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 Bf5 4 Nc3 I play the sideline 4...Qb6, then if 5 g4?! Bd7!
27 ( +1 | -1 ) A more opinion.I consider that in the advance of c5 in the aperture carokhan this it being transferred to the French opening, therefore we must study the French defense in the line: 1.e4, e6 2.d4, d5 3.e5, c5 . we observe that the white side must so long exert the attack by the side of king
58 ( +1 | -1 ) And my 2 centsIt's the Steinitz variation of the French:Advance with an extra tempo for White. It has scored well OTB (although I suspect largely on surprise value and superior tactical play not owing to any inherent advatange in the position) and is principally an attempt to find new theoretical ground in the heavily-studied Advance variation.
I look at it and say, would I play the Steinitz variation of the French:Advance and let White move twice in a row? And then I don't play 3...c5 if White is a quality opponent in CC Chess. OTB is another story though....
If you're White, I would simply urge you to resign upon facing 1...c6. :)
11 ( +1 | -1 ) The caro is so weak, it's just like the french, a draw at best for black if white plays it right.
83 ( +1 | -1 ) The same appliesTo all openings.
If Caro and French are so weak, I assume you have never lost against 1...c6?! or 1...e6?! :-)
With all due respect I suggest you to send a letter to Anatoly Karpov and tell him 1...c6?! is no good. I am sure he will appreciate your advice :-) Not to forget Anand, Bologan and other patzers who have played it!
Seriously, Caro has been good enough for champs, 2700+ players, Linares winners (with 2900+ performance) etc. But apparently not good enough for amateur players...?
I know chess players follow super GMs and keep switching to state-of-the-art Sicilian variants (like there is any difference between Sicilian/Pirc/Caro/French at amateur level). But the truth is without 2600+ rating and access to (secret) home analysis of top GMs you have no clue why they play what they play.
127 ( +1 | -1 ) BTWEven though I agree _in general_ Caro is less "agressive" opening than Sicilian, it is far from "lose or draw" for Black. There are lots of different lines to choose from, some lead to quiet endgames, some lead to tactically complex middlegames. If Caro player knows his positional play and endings (not to forget tactics, of course), his opponent has to play pretty damn well to pull off a draw - in fact better than 99% of chess players are capable of. Same applies to Sicilian player, his opponent can choose between sharp main lines and supposedly quiet Alapin variation, but unless we are talking about games between (super) GMs, winning chances are always there. Here is my claim - in 90% of cases where Caro player complains he played better but failed to win, analysis proves winning chances were there, but he missed them! Most games of the remaining 10% are from super GM level, where all openings are drawish :-)
All WE know is all main line openings are equal or unclear = good enough for us :-)
The rest is a mystery even for much stronger players than us. This "Sicilian Najdorf is stronger and better for me because Kasparov plays it" theory is ridiculous IMO...
18 ( +1 | -1 ) It's interesting.....to see that this thread discusses the Botvinnik-Carls gambit with move 4...e6 whilst the book I'm reading is concentrating in 4...Nc6 alone.