Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 17:58:35 10/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 29, 2001 at 04:36:52, Simon Finn wrote:
[Many snips]
>On October 29, 2001 at 01:30:12, Dieter Buerssner wrote:
>
>>[ECO "D37"]
>>[Opening "QGD"]
>>[Variation "4.Nf3"]
>>1. d4 {0s} d5 {0s} 2. Nf3 {2s} Nf6 {0s} 3. c4 {2s} e6 {0s} 4. Nc3 {1s} Be7
>>{0s} 5. Bg5 {1s} h6 {0s} 6. Bxf6 {2s} Bxf6 {0s} 7. e3 {2s} O-O {0s} 8. Qc2
>>For the opening experts. You may see how Yace calls the opening and the ECO
>>code. In my database I actually have
>>
>>1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3
>>
>>for this name. Is it correct, to call it the same with the transposition of
>>moves?
>
>Yes - I would classify the position after White's 4th move as D37.
>
>>Shredder 5 calls it D55 classical Queens gambit (my translation from the German
>>"klassisches Damengambit).
>
>After White's 5th move, the position has transposed into D55.
>(The entry in D37 in my - first edition - of ECO just says
>"5. Bg5 - D55".)
>
>I think that it is normal (and most useful) to classify games by the
>ECO code of the last recognisable position, so I would say that
>Shredder is correct here.
Thanks. At least my idea of classifying the openings seems right. But my
database for this (from the net) seems to be wrong. For D55, the shortest line I
have is:
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 O-O 6. Nf3
So, this line is already too long for D55 - correct?
Other lines, with ECO D55 are even longer, but start with the same sequence QGD:
"Pillsbury attack", "Neo-Orthodox variation", "Neo-Orthodox variation, 7.Bxf6",
"Petrosian variation" and "Neo-Orthodox variation, 7.Bh4"
Regards,
Dieter
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.