Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 13:14:38 10/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 2004 at 13:40:00, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 23, 2004 at 12:33:07, Vasik Rajlich wrote: > >>On October 23, 2004 at 12:12:25, Dan Andersson wrote: >> >>> According to Ed it's not a Nommen book. I have fond memories of meeting 9. ... >>>Bd7 Especially when I was up against a wunderkind. He was under the impression >>>that he was good in a tactical skirmish and that I was a positional player :) >>> >>>MvH Dan Andersson >> >>I play this move 9. .. Bd7 myself - it seems ok. Sjeng played it horribly though >>- 12. .. Qa5 is suspicious and then 15. .. Nc4 is just a blunder no human would >>make - not even blindfold while casually browsing CCC :) ... >> >>Vas > >I do not understand why do you think that no human will play 15...Nc4 > >One of the things that players learn is that pair of bishops is good and if they >can see that they can trade one of themby mean of Nc4 they may be happy to do >it. > >The only reason that I find not to play this move is some fear from attack >against the king but I do not know if black has better alternative and >unexperienced humans may not know about that danger(you can find a lot of humans >with no exprience or little experience in chess). > >I believe that there is no problem to find humans that will play Nc4 if you ask >them what is the best move. > >Uri Well - no Dragon-playing human will play 15. .. Nc4. In this variation with 9. 0-0-0 Bd7, this knight always stays on e5. If black ever plays .. Nc4, he'll be either one or two tempi down on the main lines with 9. Bc4 Rc8. Vas
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.