1 d4 d6 2 Nf3 Bg4

[Ben Purton]

Yes as previously mentioned usually you can get smashed through on f file and even if you castle long you get screwed on e6 . The amount of times Ive had to try and fluke wins online in this line is probs in the hundreds.

[John Hickman]

I used to play the Czech and 1 d4 d6 2 Nf3 Bg4 a while back, based on Soltis's d6 book (which is heavily scribbled with my notes, improvements and spot of the line where he loses Black's Queen). Soltis calls the title variation the "Phantom Pin" I've got the Andrew Martin Foxy Vids too.

The best lines are the ones which follow the Emms "game" but dont take on e4(obviously), Nge2 stuff......
e4 d6
d4 Nf6
Nc3 c6
f4 Qa5
e5 Ne4
Qf3 d5
Bd3 Na6?!..............................See Emms-Hodgson if you dont have the video!
Nge2

My concern in this line was that after Nb4, the immediate 9. f5 just bust the line, although Black might be able to hold it.
I had a brief dalliance with 6. ...f5!?, but after an embarrassing loss in this line, I stopped playing the whole system (well except for the Neo-Old Indian, aka the Oxymoron defence ).

[Jon Mahony]

Jonathan Mahony
Standardplay grade :
YCA Grading Code : 2635
ECF Grading Code : 276212C

Games Club
45 Leeds
25 No club

Standardplay
2635 2007 2008 2009
Games 0 0 0
Points 0 0 0
Grade

I’ve actually made it to 96 now, but it’s only because of the ECF grades going up

Anyway apologies if I offended anyone, I’m not sure what the original disagreement was about now.

[Roger de Coverly]

I’m not sure what the original disagreement was about now.

Probably don't tell players graded 100 points higher that their pet openings are rubbish.

[Mick Norris]

Jon

Hope your grade keeps going up

[Geoff Chandler]

Probably don't tell players graded 100 points higher that their pet openings are rubbish.

I even took the trouble of checking out the Forum rules.

I cannot find the bit that states:

"... and a players must never disagree with a player graded 100 points more than them."

The lad had the termerity to express an opinion. That is all.

The first thing some of you lot did was to find out his grade to
see if he was worthy to discuss such matters.

"There's no one of your posting name in the ECF grading list,
the FIDE list or even the Yorkshire one."

To actually go and search the FIDE grading list to find out a posters
grade before you take him seriously is totally beyond me.

Grades were originally introduced to cut out the Brown. Smith, Jones scenario.

Brown can beat Smith, Smith can beat Jones, Jones can beat Brown.
Who is the better player?
It was a guide to help captains sort out board order.

To some of you it's a phallus symbol. or even worse, an IQ marker.

Some of you are totally grade obsessed.

Anyway the ECF grading sytem is now so corrupt Ben & Jon may well,
by this time tomorrow. have the same grades.

Geoff Chandler, (and I'll save you the trouble of looking me up).

born Bethnal Green, London. 1951.

(me and Karpov went to different schools together)

Scottish Grade. 2001. (No Odyssey jokes - I've heard them all)

I have a FIDE grade, over 2000 but I honestly do not know what it is. 2025?
I honestly do not know what it is.

I have two FIDE grades as some of my results went under another name.
I've no idea why, computer screw up. I'm also Guy Willis Chandler. (Who he?)

My 2001 SCA grades tranposes to an ECF grade of 2890 if there is an 'R'
in the month, if not then it's 1365.

[Leonard Barden]

Geoff Chandler wrote

"I'm also Guy Willis Chandler (who he?)"

Guy W Chandler was the founder and longtime secretary of the British Chess Problem Society.

[Alex Holowczak]

Geoff Chandler wrote

"I'm also Guy Willis Chandler (who he?)"

Guy W Chandler was the founder and longtime secretary of the British Chess Problem Society.

Can't help but think that society could do with a well-placed hyphen in it somewhere.

[Geoff Chandler]

Geoff Chandler wrote

"I'm also Guy Willis Chandler (who he?)"

Guy W Chandler was the founder and longtime secretary of the British Chess Problem Society.

Thank you Mr. Barden.

On some database he appears to have some of my games attached to his name
which is a great shame as I'm sure they are losses. (most of them are).

Wait a minute....

http://www.chesslive.de/

type in Chandler as Black and you will see Guy's name attached to games
I played in 1994. (and lost).

I also looked up my FIDE grade: 2053.

Damn! That means (on here) I can only discus Latvian Gambits with -1800 players.

And my IQ is so low I cannot even tie my own shoe laces.

I'll check that site that has the list of problem composers. I'll see if any
of Guy's chess problems have been credited to me.

(I bet I get the cooked ones).

Hmmmmm....

I know a lot of famous combinations have been found wanting by
Rybka and Fritz. I wonder how The problem World has been affected.

Have some of their prized classics been 'corrected'.
I 'd like to think not.

On that subject, I ran through a few opening traps in the book.

Traps on the Chessboard by Znosko-Borovsky

I was looking to see what cold move the box would suggest instead
of setting the trap.

I discovered Rybka not only walks into these traps it gets out of them as well!
It turns on it's head some of ZB's variations.

Is it Guy Willis or Guys Wills - it too seems to differ at some sites.
Mansfield has Wills (a typo?).

[Matt Mackenzie]

I used to play the Latvian a lot, but have - sadly and reluctantly - come to the conclusion that it is busted.......

So I don't, anymore

[Richard James]

Is it Guy Willis or Guys Wills - it too seems to differ at some sites.
Mansfield has Wills (a typo?).

It's Guy Wills (not Willlis) Chandler.

I have his complete WW1 service record, running to 23 pages, in front of me at the moment.

He was living at 117 Whipps Cross Road, Leytonstone, Essex at the time if anyone's interested.

[Geoff Chandler]

What's your grade? Can we talk? Are we evenly matched?

I've dropped it as well.

(unless I met GM's in simuls(!) fluked draws v Aagaard and Shamkovitch with Latvians)

3.Nxe5 is lorded about but Black can wriggle and create.

3.d4!

OTB is very difficult for Black. I have a 100% with it as White.
And I play 1.e4 2.Nf3 all the time so I have met it often.

It was the only move I hated seeing as Black.
You certainly do NOT get what you after as Black - unclear complications.

[Matt Mackenzie]

My Elo is 2080 Geoff BCF 179 in "old" money, 189 in new.........

Actually I have never been so bothered about 3d4 (don't think I ever lost against it)

What killed the Latvian for me is 3Nxe5 Qf6 4Nc4! (though 4d4 is very good for White as well - and indeed is what I have played on the odd occasion I have had it played against me - 100% record I think! )

Of course if White were forced to reply 3Bc4 I am sure we would both still be playing it all day

Hardly anybody does that these days tho'

[Richard Bates]

1...d6 is a move played by people who don't have any convincing response to 1.d4.

So it must be rubbish

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Matt,

It's all styles and taste. the Nc4 line I was glad to see as you
just knew the guy had prepped up and did not know all the wrinkles.

it's always dodgy going into someone's pet line OTB.
They will know the the dirty and unclear lines.

Their prep will stop and then the more experinced player in that set up
will know what is going on.

Ben mentioned something about this in this thread.

3.Bc4 now that is real Chess. Some of the most unique positions on
a chessboard can come from that line.

3.d4. The White piece sac line. the Queens are off, your King is on b6/c6.
It's just not a 'me' position. Blergh!