Cookies? I like cookies!!!

Josh

It's one of the lines in the Bird's, and one of the funnest lines to play, period!

Basically, the Recipe variation is more or less 1...d5, 2...Bg4 with 3...Nd7 aiming for a e5 push. Almost all opening books use this as a one line fits all recipe against the Bird's (if they even cover it at all) so it's called the Recipe and is quite common. The great Bent Larsen actually switched to the Nimzo-Larsen to avoid the line, but thankfully Danielsen has come up with a awesome line against it that either annihilates black or forces him to gambit a pawn or two for insufficient compensation. One of my favorite games of all time (a Danielsen game against a fellow GM, 22 move rout for white with some incredibly original moves ) is with this line, I'll repost my comments and analysis on the game later today once I get home and can access cg.com

I'll probably repost it in my Bird's forum.

Ah, a post about it would be really cool. It actually sounds like I would like the Recipe (the Bg4 part is trompowsky-ish). Although if it's busted...I guess not.

Well I made a post of cg a while back, slightly edited, here it is:

Warning: extremely irregular!

So we of course start out with the Bird's.

1.f4 d5
2.Nf3 Bg4 the recipe
3.e3 Nd7 black plans to take on f3, then play e5, this is the best square for the knight as on c6 you have the very annoying Bb5 to worry about and here the knight still protects e5.

4.h3!? Danielsen's move and hence I call it Danielsen's recipe

4...Bxf3 5.Qxf3 and now white is threatening the pawn on d5. Here black can either play normal developing moves, or gambit the pawn. Timothy Taylor says that black pretty much MUST gambit a pan either here or next move if he wants to stay in the game. I'll have to dig out some old analysis of did of this pawn sac, in general black gets some compensation, but not enough and white should be signifigantly better.

The vast majority of people will play the other line so 5...Ngf6 6.g4!? (Danielsen's move!) and now we have a crossroads


If 6...e6, then white continues with g5 and with right play should just totally steamroll black on the k-side.

Or black can try the other pawn gambit 6...e5 and after 7.g5 e4, white calmy plays 8.Qe2! which is crucial! Here the queen guards all the squares and forces the knight back, and after 8...Ng8 (forced) then white has several moves here which lead to perfectly satisfactory positions, but i think the strongest is simply 9.Qb5 winning a sound pawn. This is similair to the other lines in that black gets some compensation, but not enough and white should be excellent.

Overall, white ends up either a pawn up with advantage but some pressure or else a crushing k-side attack. As unusual and irregular as it is it's the brainchild of the leading expert in the world and the greatest Bird's player of all time Larsen has given it his seal of approval. Now I'll try to post the game by Danielsen that first introduced me to this line.

Okay, so here's the Danielsen game in replay form:



Now, a while back on cg I compiled a bunch of the notes of Taylor and some things from Danielsen's lecture on the game and added a bit of my commentary and posted them. Unfortunately I color coded them (<>) and that colorcoding doesn't show up here so the comments inside <> are from Taylor and the others are from either Danielsen or me.

Note: Yes I know the pgn is weird as I handtyped it all and used a different way then is done apparently.

Now without further ado:



This is one of my favorite games, it was a GM vs. GM game that ended in a 22 move route despite black making no real bad moves (Bb4+ is probably innacurate but other than that...). The annotations i will be giving will come mostly from Timothy Taylor's "Bird Opening". It is an extraordinary game and in my opinion at least a very fun game. All highlighted comments are Taylor's, so without further ado:
H. Danielsen vs. T. Luther
Petermaenchen GM 1999


1. f4 d5
2. Nf3 Bg4
<If black plays the other 'recipe order' with ...2 Nf6 3. e3 Bg4 4. h3 Bxf3 5. Qxf3 Nbd7 we have a transposition to the main game, but that black cannot gambit the d-pawn with e5, since he has played Nf6 only earlier> 3. e3 Nd7
4. h3 here Taylor recomends <to hit back immediately or you'll be overwhelmed.> Bxf3 5. Qxf3 Ngf6 Here Taylor says that this may already be a mistake and that black should play e5 and gambit the d-pawn in an unclear sacrifice, he goes on to says that white does not have to take the proferrd pawn and can instead calmly develop. Danielson however says that he does not trust this pawn sacrifice as sound for black, so with the best current Bird player saying untrustworthy and the second best saying unclear, it's probably not all that sound. 6. g4 the bayonet! <All i can say for definite is that black must fight back quickly or the pawns and bishops will overwhelm him. If black succeeds in breaking up the pawns, some weaknesses might be left behind which the knights could exploit> ...6 e6 Taylor here reccomends the gambit with e5 again this time of the b-pawn with ...6 e5 7. g5 e4 8. Qe2 (best) Ng8 and Qb5 winning a pawn. Danielsen says that there is a good response other than Qb5 but it slips my mind right now, i also beleive that this line is very good for white. I spent an entire afternoon playing games from this position against a former FM and a 2000 (both substantially stronger than me i beleive) and i won 4 drew 1 with my opponents coming to the conclusion that white stands very well. Now back to the game...

continued (Edit: this was two posts there)

7. d3! (simply planning e4 with a comfortable plus and space advantage) 7...Bb4+ (i would give this a ?! as the bishop goes to d6 anyway but with a lost tempo) Taylor also says Bd6 was more logical but doesn't give the move a ?! or ? or anything. 8. c3 Bd6 9. e4 dxe4
10. dxe4 e5 <This invites the pawns to roll forward but in the case of ...10 Ng8!? 11. g5 (11. Be3 is also good) ...11 c6 12 Nd2 intending Nc4 white drives black with advantage> 11. g5 Ng8 12. f5 h6 <Runnng to the queenside is black's only hope, s preferable is ...12 Qe7 13. Qh5 0-0-0 14. Bc4 f6 15. h4 and white is clearly better though black survives> I would also like to add how uncommon it is for a GM vs. Gm game to be described as "black's only hope" as early as move 12, lol. 13. h4 (according to Danielsen his next move played here would have been more accurate, although Taylor doesn't mind the move) ...13 Be7 <Again ...13 Qe7 is preferable. I imagine that black missed white's next move. With nothing but the queen developed one hardly expects that peice to move again - yet it does, and with devestating effect.> I would like to add before white's next move that here Danielsen has made 8 straight pawn movs, and only developed his queen, which makes his next move even more incredible IMHO. 14. Qh5!! <Immobilizing black's entire position with a key pin of the h6 pawn (f7 is monitored too.) White is practically winning in definace of every beginner's book that say develop your minor peices and not your queen> One of my favorite moves. ...14 Nb6 directed against the deadly Bc4 15. Be3 <the cramping 15. g6 f6 16. Be3 is also very strong> ...15 Qd6 16. Na3 c6 <Black's problem is that he can't flee with 0-0-0 because the f-pawn hangs while ...16 g6 17. Qf3 hxg5 18. hxg5 Rxh1 19. Qxh1 gxf5 (...19 0-0-0 loses to 20. Nb5 as ...20 Qc6 loses the queen to the fork on a7, while ...20 Qd7 allows 21. fxg6! , threatening a fatal pin) 20. Rd1 Qe6 21. exf5 opens up for white's attack> 17. Nc4 Nxc4 18. Bxc4 0-0-0 <black runs with his king. ...18 g6 19. Qf3 is just as bad as the ...16 g6 variation above. 19. Rh2! Beautiful! <Another unorthodox but extrmeley strong move. White prepares Rd2, nipping in the bud any counterplay. Black's kingside is destroyed in any case, so there is no need to capture material immediately.> ...19 Qc7 <Alternatives are no better: ...19 g6 20. Qg4 with too many threats, or ...19 f6 20. Be6+ Kb8 21. Rd2 Qc7 22. O-0-0 and black is wrapped up tight> 20. Bxf7 hxg5 <Desperation, which is elegantly refuted by Danielsen> 21. Qxh8 Nh6 22. Qxg7 Ng4 23. f6! 1-0 black resigns! This has got to be one of the most complete GM vs. Gm crushses of all time and a great game by Danielsen!

Well I've recently discovered http://www.queenalice.com/index.php and have since started a dozen correspondence games and entered a tournament. So far I'm really enjoying it, here's my first correspondence game and the only one currently finished:



In the final position after he moves his king then I trade queens and fork a rook with Bg5. Not that great a game, but historic

Just saw:
Venus 8/10: Okay I've gotta ask this question: Where's Peter O'toole's Oscar? You'd think that a great actor like this would have gotten at least 1 (if not more) in his lifetime, but apparently no (although Forrest Whittaker was spectacular and fully deserving of it as well...ideally I would have awarded it as a tie (both perfect performances but in totally different roles) what do you guys think?). Anyways, Venus is a extremely well acted film by all it's characters (well, except for the boyfriend, but why gripe) and is both warm and poignant and includes some beautiful scenes (the bathtub scene and the scene where he's saying goodbye to his wife) yet the film also has some flaws. Overall, it's a excellent film with some terrific acting and well worth watching...although it might not be for all tastes.

Thanks for posting Danielsen's recipe. That some good stuff! And that game was really a stomping. White gets a monster pawn wave. I'll remember not to try this vs. the Bird's opening.

Well I've now finished up my first correspondence mini-match, it was me vs. BrunoBr who was rated in the high 1500's when the match began. We play 5 games, 2 in a tournament 3 outside of it and I ended up winning all three, my rating there is now 1865p after 7 games (4 white, 3 black, all victories). So in celebration of my recent cc success I am posting the 5 games against BrunoBr (already posted the first one above). So game two:



Well he dropped his queen early on and resigned (must not have been paying much attention) so not really much to say about this game

Game 3:

This was I think my second experience with the Saemisch ever (really loving it now, no more 4 pawn's attack! ) and it ended up with as expected a interesting middlegame position. h6 drops a pawn of course (laziness?) but it's by no means lost then. After that with Be2 (to protect the g4 square) and f4 I try to open up the kingside and he misses the danger of f5 (the game is pretty much over I think after f5) and ends up getting slaughtered there although I think I handled the situation there very well with Nf5! (both times) and whatnot.

Game 4:

Another Saemisch but a very different line this time. My b-pawns are doubled early on, but I think they're strong in this case and didn't mind that at all. The crucial point I think is to recapture on d5 with which pawn. In the game I chose the c-pawn and still thinks that's right, although Fritz disagrees with me (what do you guys think?) and followed up with b4 to lock up that section of the board. After that the game really swung to the k-side where I was able to stir-up some action with my g4 push. I think that the whole exf5+g5 idea is very strong and ends up being largely responsible for my win, Fritz disagrees and wants the ultra-materialistic gxf5 gxf5 exf5 grabbing a pawn in exchange for serious pawn weaknesses (I still think this is a much weaker line, thoughts guys?). Qb1! is a strong move I think, preparing the planned light square invasion
. Finally my opponent just gives up after g6. My opponent played several mistakes here as well, but I think my play was nice, especially how I was in several areas unmaterialistic which is a big change from my previous philosophies about chess. What do you guys think?

Game 5:

To be honest I think this was my best game of the match. I was playing a Benoni against him already (Game 1) so decided to experiment with the QID and ended up liking it. Anyways, he drops a pawn (again) early on and makes some innacuracies (I don't like e5 for example), but I think I did earn the win anyways with my play afterwards. Nxe5! for example is a nice tactical shot that picks up a second pawn. After the queens are traded off I wanted to set up either a winning pawn endgame or make him give up material, hence I really advanced my k-side pawns After his g4 I think that's the most critical position of the game. I firmly think that my hxg4 fxg4 fxg4 hxg4 Rh6 is the best regardless of computer evaluations (Fritz analyzes this significantly lower than some of the other options) and after Kf3 (the fatal mistake, although he was lost anyhow I think) I had a easily won game. Ke4 is of course a terrible move walks right into a mating net, although I'm actually sad that I didn't get to play it on the board. After my last move, his Kd5 is forced, now if I could only find a way to cover c4 while maintaining the protection on e5 then Rd6# is inevitable (unless he sacks material to prolong it), this can only be accomplished with Bb2! (!! possibly?). Anyways, my opponent made some mistakes again, but I think I played it really well. EDIT: I'm black in this game, just not in the game replayer

So those are my 5 games against him, in each game my opponent's play wasn't stellar by any means, but I do feel I played well. Please feel free to comment or post analysis or whatnot on the games. Thanks!

Well a couple more of my cc games are finished, also wins, I'm going to enter a 1600-2000 tourney in a bit now to get some more games going.

Also, finally I can review another movie, whoohoo!

Touch of Evil 10/10: Classic, Orson Welles's film noir masterpeice (lucky enough to see the director's cut even) absolutely terrific. Welles gives a great performance and Heston (as a Mexican!!!) and Leigh are also good, But this movie is all about directing and cinematography. It's very well scripted and directed (the lighting is incredible) and it's one of the best cinematographed movies (the classic complicated 3 minute opening sequence, legendary scene where you first see Welles stepping of the car, etc.). Really, I'll sum up my review by: Just see it if you haven't!

Note: Really it's sad that Welles had so many personality clashes with the establishment, he was an incredibly good director but he never really made that many. He was also a terrific actor but such a primadonna that he was often passed over. It's a shame.

Well over the last few days I've finally gotten around to another couple movies, so here goes:

Paradise Now 9/10: Phenomenal look at the motives and ideologies of terrorists and how fragile these are yet can have such real consequences. It won a bunch of awards (Golden Globe for Best Foreign Film, nominated for Oscar in that category) yet I hadn't heard about it till a friend mentioned it, glad she did. Some might characterize it as slow, but I at least found it captivating.

Children of Men 8/10: This is another one of those anti-utopian future movies, and it's received a lot of praise. The directing's good, the plot is thick, the cinematography is absolutely superb, only thing really missing is acting. Michael Caine was good (and to a lesser extent the actor who play Sid whoever he is) and Clive Owen is fine, but other than that it's not much to write home about and this kinda hamstrings the movie IMHO. Still definitely worth watching mind you, just missing that little spark.

Gattaca 9/10: We just finished watching this in Biology today, truly a excellent movie. Fascinating premise with exquisite acting all around and very well directed, unfortunately formulaic and lacking a little something at the end. Still a very good film, highly recommend it.

Mark Twain 10/10: I don't think that this is the actual title or not, but it's a video recording of Hal Holbrook impersonating Mark Twain for 90 minutes. He gives a unbelievable performance, absolutely stunning. In addition to which...it's Mark Twain! Very funny, also philosophical and very moving at the same time, hard to really describe it, just see it if you can get your hands on it!

The Mark Twain thing sounds really interesting. How did you end up seeing it?

Well apparently it was broadcast on tv when it was first done and my dad (as well as something like 30 million others according to him) saw it then. Then we were going through the library and saw it so we picked it up.

Well I'm drowning under the endless waves of school work being thrust upon me I'm afriad so have had to majorly cut back on time for movies and chess for this last few weeks. But yesterday I still managed to sandwitch in:

A Man For All Seasons 10/10: Gorgeously realized masterpeice about Thomas Moore (the former friend that Henry VIII had beheaded eventually). I had never heard of the film or it's leading actor until about a year or so ago, but but it's nevertheless a much loved film (won 6 Oscars including Picture, Actor, and Director). Anyways, the film itself is spectatularly in everyway, although Moore himself was a fool, although still a good man (at least in my opinion).

Thanks themofro, I've been meaning to check out "A Man For All Seasons" for a long time, and you just reminded me

Sorry about the work though. Hope it calms down soon.