Author: Günther Simon
Date: 02:26:47 12/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 2002 at 16:11:45, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 30, 2002 at 16:03:27, Kurt Utzinger wrote: > >>Engine/Engine-Match >>Dur 1.3/64 MB hash >>Fritz7-GUI >>ponder=off >>kurzbuch.CTG >>4-men TB's >>time control 40'/40+40'/40+40 >>tester Kurt Utzinger, Switzerland >> >>An unexpected heavy loss of List504 vs Shredder7. Maybe a result of using the so >>called kurzbuch.cgt (short book with only some moves in each opening). If I find >>time, I am going to repeat this match with the drawbook.ctg. >> >>The games can as usual be downloade under section "Matches" at our homepage >>"Kurt & Rolf Chess": http://www.beepworld.de/members39/utzinger >> >>Kind regards >>Kurt > >This is not so bad relative to this game that was played in Leo's tournament. > >I can understand 2...d5 by lack of positional knowledge but >I do not understand why List gave a pawn in the opening by 3...e4 instead of >3...Qxd5. > >Can List504 play better with no book? > >[Event "WBEC4 3rd Div.Gr.B"] >[Site "DUAL-P3-933"] >[Date "2002.12.29"] >[Round "9.2"] >[Number "270"] >[White "TSCP 1.73"] >[Black "List 4.61"] >[Result "1-0"] >[TimeControl "40/2400"] > >1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. exd5 e4 Theory (at least my 1988 'Elephant Gambit' book) says that Qxd5 is condsidered much weaker (reaching a bad position from the Scandinavian) than 3...e4 which seems to be the one of two main choices here.(other main line 3...Bd6) 7.c4 is not even mentioned as a sideline and I suspect that 7...Nb4? is a positional error (7...Nb6 followed by 0-0 and Re8 seems better to me). Of course one might perhaps maintain that 2...d5?! is already losing (: Regards, Günther
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.