Re: New Idea for Caro-Kann players
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:02 pm
I mean, if you want to convince me that 7...e5 is playable based on that game, there's the small matter that Shankland flattened it...
The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
https://www.ecforum.org.uk/
It surprised Seirawan certainly. As it goes against conventional wisdom, quite likely there will be players who haven't been following the US Championships who don't know about it. That said, you have to know a little bit of Caro theory to get to the start position. Someone not confident in their knowledge might not play Qb3.
John Moore wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:18 pmWe will see whether more strong players (much stronger than you and me) play the idea.
So is there any point us patzers discussing opening theory, or not? Or only when we agree with you?John Moore wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:18 pmI doubt that Liang played the best line against Shankland
Because he was the better player, rather than any fundamental defect in that particular line?Chris Goodall wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:02 pmI mean, if you want to convince me that 7...e5 is playable based on that game, there's the small matter that Shankland flattened it...
What would it have looked like if Shankland had beaten Liang because of a fundamental defect in that particular line? It looks to me like the weakness of b7 and d5, the blocked bishop on f8 and the open h-file all forced Liang into castling queenside, and then Shankland attacked on the queenside and wherever Black's activity was, it wasn't in the vicinity of White's king.Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:03 pmBecause he was the better player, rather than any fundamental defect in that particular line?Chris Goodall wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:02 pmI mean, if you want to convince me that 7...e5 is playable based on that game, there's the small matter that Shankland flattened it...
Shankland (and others) consider Na5 to be forced after h3 and exf4 to be bad.Chris Goodall wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 12:16 amWhat would it have looked like if Shankland had beaten Liang because of a fundamental defect in that particular line? It looks to me like the weakness of b7 and d5, the blocked bishop on f8 and the open h-file all forced Liang into castling queenside, and then Shankland attacked on the queenside and wherever Black's activity was, it wasn't in the vicinity of White's king.Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:03 pmBecause he was the better player, rather than any fundamental defect in that particular line?Chris Goodall wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:02 pmI mean, if you want to convince me that 7...e5 is playable based on that game, there's the small matter that Shankland flattened it...
That is fine if they go for a challenging line. The trouble is that they tend to curl up in a ball with 3...e6.
It also threatens the idea 4. ..dxe4 5. fxe4 Qh4+, so White may have to treat the position in a manner similar to the Blackmar-Diemer by not recapturing on e4.NickFaulks wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:38 pmThe trouble is that they tend to curl up in a ball with 3...e6.
5.Bf4 6.O-O-O and an interesting game.Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 3:17 pm4. Nc3 Bb4 appears to be the main line in terms of popularity.