Page 2 of 2

Re: New Idea for Caro-Kann players

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:02 pm
by Chris Goodall
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...

Re: New Idea for Caro-Kann players

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:18 pm
by John Moore
Chris, I'm really not that bothered whether you are convinced or not. We will see whether more strong players (much stronger than you and me) play the idea.

I know I suggested it as an idea for club players and mainly for surprise value and you picked up on these points and I understand where you are coming from but maybe it will go further than that. I doubt that Liang played the best line against Shankland but we shall see shortly perhaps.

Re: New Idea for Caro-Kann players

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:42 pm
by Roger de Coverly
John Moore wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:18 pm
mainly for surprise value
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.

Re: New Idea for Caro-Kann players

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:06 pm
by Nick Burrows
After:
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. Bd3 Nc6 5. c3 Nf6 6. Bf4 Bg4 7. Qb3 e5 8. h3
Na5 9. Qc2 exf4 10. hxg4 Nxg4 11. Kf1 h5

Stockfish offers white no advantage whatsoever.

Re: New Idea for Caro-Kann players

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:15 pm
by Eric Gardiner
It's worth pointing out that the position before 7...e5 can also arise via a London move order. In 2016, I played the Black side of a game starting: 1.d4, d5; 2.Bf4, Nf6; 3.e3, c5; 4.c3, cxd4; 5. exd4, Nc6; 6.Bd3, Bg4; 7.Qb3. I have to confess the idea of 7...e5 didn't occur to me at the time! My opponent was aware we'd transposed to a line of the Caro-Kann and mentioned this to me after the game.

Re: New Idea for Caro-Kann players

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:52 pm
by Chris Goodall
John Moore wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:18 pm
We will see whether more strong players (much stronger than you and me) play the idea.
John Moore wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:18 pm
I doubt that Liang played the best line against Shankland
:? So is there any point us patzers discussing opening theory, or not? Or only when we agree with you?

Re: New Idea for Caro-Kann players

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:03 pm
by Matt Mackenzie
Chris Goodall wrote:
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...
Because he was the better player, rather than any fundamental defect in that particular line?

Re: New Idea for Caro-Kann players

Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 12:16 am
by Chris Goodall
Matt Mackenzie wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:03 pm
Chris Goodall wrote:
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...
Because he was the better player, rather than any fundamental defect in that particular line?
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.

Re: New Idea for Caro-Kann players

Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 9:59 am
by Phil Neatherway
After:
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. Bd3 Nc6 5. c3
what is the current thinking about Qc7, which prevents Bf4.

Re: New Idea for Caro-Kann players

Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 3:52 pm
by LawrenceCooper
Chris Goodall wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 12:16 am
Matt Mackenzie wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:03 pm
Chris Goodall wrote:
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...
Because he was the better player, rather than any fundamental defect in that particular line?
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.
Shankland (and others) consider Na5 to be forced after h3 and exf4 to be bad.