I recently played a game and in the opening i had a diffucult decision to make after e4 c5 Nf3 g6 c3 Bg7 d4 cxd4 cxd4 d5 e5 Bg4 Bb5+ I played Nbd7 after a while, simply because I wasnt sure how to handle the position after Nc6 Bxc6. The pawn on c6 after the recapture is on an open file and a knight could eventually get to c5. I checked the database and couldnt find a single game with Bx c6, so there should be a way to handle this position. It would be nice to explain some ways.

Thanks Kinghunter

Hello Dennis,

I have two questions about the Ruy Lopez, both concerning the move h3 for white:

1) So the main line is 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. 0-0 Le7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 0-0
and now white plays 9. h3 to stop Bg4. What I don't quite understand is this: If Bg4 is a good move for black, why not play it one move earlier? I don't see an immediate problem with delaying castling and playing 8... Bg4 as black. Still, this is hardly ever played so I think there must be some major drawback for black. Could you please explain what the problem is? Why is Bg4 a threat that white wants to prevent on the 9th move but not a move black wants to play on his 8th?

2) In the position after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. 0-0 Le7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 0-0 black can play the Marshall gambit after 8. c3 d5. Often white wishes to avoid this and therefore plays 8. h3. But in what way exactly does this avoid the Marshall? Black can still play 8...d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Re5 and now 11... c6 or 11...Nf6. Could you please help me understand what the big difference is here? I see that having the possibility of Nc3 can come in handy for white in some lines but is that small nuance really enough to diffuse the gambit entirely? Or is there something else I'm missing?

Thanks in advance!

I shouldn't really ask two questions in one post but I do have a couple of things nagging me. Hope you don't mind (if you do, please take question 1 as the one to be answered)

1 - A question of trust

I don't know how to word it simply, but have you ever had problems with studying analysis (not just on openings) then reading or seeing contradicting advice from the same author on the same subject? I'd like to be naive and say that the authors/presenters are honest and have made new discoveries, but is this really the case? What is your professional opinion on the subject?

Whenever I decide a change to my repetoire is needed, I will study an opening video first to get a flavour for the positions etc, then take them to games. However, I have been studying a video from Andrew Martin from the Foxy series of videos on the 2...Nf6 Scandinavian. It's an old video from mid 90's and since then he has produced a video refuting all previous analysis on the lines - which he himself advocated. The main problem lies with the Jadoul gambit after 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. d4 Bg4!? when 4. f3 is actually the best move.

2 - The London System

Perhaps an opening you will not have played too much in your career (if at all) judging by your style. In your opinion, how would you feel is best to attempt to equalize as Black against the first 4 London System moves d4, Nf3, Bf4 and e3? All DVD's focusing on the white side are far too optimistic about whites opening being a success, and I don't trust that every Black line is inferior as seems to be suggested in DVDs (The DVD's I've seen are by Nigel Davies and Andrew Martin)

Is this something you've ever played against before? If so, how did you react to it, because I've heard a lot of players say they hate playing against this system.



Thanks a bunch,
Frenchie

Hi Mr. Monokroussos,

I have a couple questions about computers. I read on Wikipedia that Deep Blue can evaluate about 200,000,000 positions per second, and that Hydra also "evaluates about 200,000,000 chess positions per second, roughly the same as the much older Deep Blue, but with several times more overall computing power". What does it mean to have "more overall computing power" and how does this affect the computer's playing strength? The engine on my laptop evaluates about 200,000 positions per second, so does this mean that Deep Blue/Hydra can find in an instant the moves that would take my computer 1000 seconds to find?! Despite this, it seems to me today's Rybka (running on a good computer) is really no weaker than the old Deep Blue.....How would you explain this?

Thank you so much!

Hi Dennis,

I have a question concerning the Ruy Lopez. What do you personaly think about the variation of the Berlin Defence recommended (for the white player) by Mr. Martin in his DVD on the Ruy Lopez?

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc5 3. Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5. Re1 Nd6 6. Nxe5 Nxe5 7. Rxe5+ Be7 8. Bd3 ?

Is it sound? Does it give more practical advantage than the "normal" lines of the Berlin?

Thank you in advance

I studied the french winawer recently and there is a gambit line which should be bad for black but it frightens me a bit:


1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Be3 Qb6 8. Na4
Qa5+ 9. c3 c4 10. b4 Nxb4 11. cxb4 Bxb4+ 12. Kf2 b5

Is there a way to show why this is not played on the highest level? White should be fine if he knows how to play it I think.

Hi Dennis.

My question: I seem to have trouble handling the black side of the Lopez exchange variation. I know a little about what's going on, that white plans to use his kingside majority, but in practice I feel uncomfortable and I'm not sure the best way to try and open the position and utilize my bishops. I'm sure there's a lot of stuff I could read about it that would help me but if you would like to talk about it that would be great. Since a lot of the positions are endgames I figure it would be relevant even to people who don't play either side. Thanks.

Hey Dennis, I'm interested in seeing how you would analyse a position, like picking the canidate moves, finding plans and tactics. I mean how do you find canidate moves? Do you look at every single move and pick a reasonable one? and how do you improve calculation skills?

Along the lines of gooeyjim's question, I had the following:

How do you train yourself to think slower so that you do not make mistakes in calculation? How do you organize variations in your brain so that when you have to come back to one on the next move, you don't misstep? Finally, do you have any visualization techniques that allow you to see in your mind the different candidate moves and the opponent's possible responses, on down the line? One thing I noticed is that your explanations and thoughts seem to be EXTREMELY highly structured, whereas us lower rated chumps are more likely to just not be methodical - to find a single move for our opponent and assume that's the one they're going to make.

I ask these questions because when I took up chess in college, I was an "okay" student. But studying chess taught me to slow the heck down and just concentrate - I think probably before that, I had troubles concentrating and focusing for longer than a couple seconds; my mind would ramble quite often. Nowadays, as a programmer, I'm finding my ability to calculate chess variations increasing, and my skill as a programmer are also increasing along with them. I would like to see if there are ways to continue to improve, or if it's just a matter of playing more. I've been playing more 15 minute games online at FICS, and I think it's helping.

Sorry for the long one - also just wanted to say I like your new site, Dennis.

This is pretty basic- perhaps you've covered it- in which case, just ignore. My question concerns K+P endings. I'm puzzled about the concept of opposition. Not the concept itself- that's pretty clear cut, esp in K+P vs K. But when there is more than 1 pawn, it can get confusing. It seems that opposition is important in some positions and unimportant or irrelevant in others. I read recently (Rowson?) that the author believed that there has been too much emphasis on the concept of opposition precisely because of some of these exceptions. Of course I understand that all positions can theoretically solved by accurate calculation but I'm just wondering if there are any guidelines you use about the application of the concept. Thanks Dennis!

on edit...

Actually, never mind- I think it's probably a ridiculous question and difficult to answer. I'm studying endgames at the moment and growing my knowledge. If I were to answer it myself I would say that calculation determines whether opposition is in effect in a given position. Sorry to clog up the forum...

Thanks for all your great contributions to this site.

Hi Dennis!

Thanks for doing this videos!
My question is: I am a 1.d4 player and in online blitz I usually get a weird position against the hippo set up.
Do you have any suggestion about and quite but somehow dangerous set up against the hippo when white starts with 1.d4/2.c4?
Thanks!

Hi Dennis

I read about the KIA that is is peferable for White to play this setup if black cannot make e5 in one move, e.g. after e4 e6. I played recently a game with following opening moves.

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 g6 3. d3 Bg7 4. g3 Nc6 5. Bg2 e6 6. O-O
Nge7 7. c3 O-O 8. Re1 d6 9. Nbd2 b6 *

The idea is from your video suggestion against the closed sicilian. But the question is: In this system I play e6 voluntarily after I saw that he was playing the KID. Is this playable or is it better to play for an early e5:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 g6 3. d3 Bg7 4. g3 Nc6 5. Bg2 e5 6. O-O
Nge7 *

Thanks!

Can you go over 6. h3 in the najdorf sicilian? It stops black from playing natural moves like e5 and Be7 due to control of the f5 and d5 squares. However, I cant find anything against 6 ..e6, because 7. g4 goes into the keres attack a tempo down, and black and play d5.

In the last video you explained a line in the dutch. I often get opponents who play there queen to b3 ,bishop to c4(1.d4 f5 2.B4 or 1.d4 f5 2Nf3 Nf6 3.Bc4), a structure with a pawn on d5 and then a knight attacking my weak fields on e6 and f7. To make a ;ong story short is there a good way to protect youreself from such attacks?

Schleichnaldo, can you restate your question? The notation doesn't make sense.