Author: martin fierz
Date: 08:54:07 11/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2003 at 11:30:32, Uri Blass wrote: [snip] >It is possible that I was too influenced by games of chess system tal when I saw >cases when chess system tal took advantage of the lack of the g2 bishop and made >the wrong generalization that I need the bishop at least when there are a lot of >pieces on the board. that's the point. there are not a lot of pieces on the board after d4. because after ed4 Qd4 Bg2 Kg2 you are going to exchange the rooks (and maybe the queen) on the e-file. so what's left is very little. besides, it's usually worst if he keeps the light-squared bishop and you lose it, or if he has e.g. a N vs. your black-squared bishop which cannot defend the white-squared weaknesses - which could happen if you allow his B to be exchanged for your N, but then he has the same type of problem as you do... i believe that the line i'm giving is a small but totally safe plus for white, so perhaps black should play like the computers recommend without ed4, allowing de5 Re5 Re5 de5, although i also believe that white is better there. at least black has some plans of his own in this type of position. cheers martin
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.