English Chess Forum

The sequence 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 should be well known. Black then has the choice of madness with 4. .. Bc5 or normal 4. .. d5. Against 5. exd5 there's a choice with normal being 5. .. Na5. Also possible but madness again is 4. .. d5 5. exd5 Nd4. The obvious 5. .. Nxd5 allows the sacrifice 5. Nxf7 Kxf7 6. Qf3 when 6. .. Ke6 can attempt to hold the piece and can be theory critical. Deferring the sacrifice by playing 5. d4 is also possible as in a famous Barden-Weaver Adams game back in 1950.

But if the move order runs 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6, some Black players get confused by 4. Ng5. I've seen both 6. .. Qf6 and 6. .. Ke8 played. The Ke8 move was even played in a 4NCL game against Mike Yeo. I was at the next board and hoping to watch a theory update. Actually the Mike Yeo game started as a Petroff. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bc4 Nc6

You can confuse things by varying move order. At Guernsey 2022, Philip Giulian vs me went 1.c4 Nf6, 2.Nc3 c5, 3.Nf3 Nc6, 4.e3 d5, 5.cxd5 Nxd5, 6.d4 cxd4, and we got a position I didn't know, and I was surprised when he told me afterwards we had reached a Caro Kann line. Chessbase agrees.

Is this strategy (transposition) not just a standard weapon of anyone with a reasonable amount of opening theory, and certainly part of the arsenal of anyone at the level of IM or above? As I know Kevin and Roger are both familiar with the concept of transposition, I suspect they mean something subtly different?

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 25, 2024 1:51 pm

I suspect they mean something subtly different?

If you learn openings by move sequences rather than knowing the tabiya positions, transpositions can trip you up. It can even apply to authors. In the 1970s book on the Pirc, Keene and Botterill discuss the Austrian attack with the line 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. f4 Bg7 5. Bc4 being mentioned. Elsewhere in the book they discuss Bc4 lines with 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4 .Bc4 Bg7 and now 5. f4 . One of the suggested replies, the idea of a tempoary pawn sacrifice by 5. .. d5 isn't mentioned at all in the other chapter.

I have a fairly limited opening repertoire, but know the basic ideas in a lot of the ones I don't play. I was just surprised that I had got into a Caro without noticing - Philip seemed a bit disturbed, even though he knew it was a Caro position. Perhaps we both wanted to play the other side of the board.

I did once play a club colleague who always played the French Defence, so just for amusement, I played 1.d4 d5, 2.e4 against him, and sure enough he went 2....e6. Another colleague always went 1.f4 and after my 1....e5, 2.e4. In fairness he frequently played 1.e4 and if 1....e5, 2.f4. I had the advantage that I expected his move 2, several opponents in matches were stunned when he went 2.f4, not that the From has many adherents.

I've won a few games that started 1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e5 3.d4. Alekhine's Defence players aren't typically up with all the wrinkles in the Centre Game.

Keith Arkell once met Michael Franklin's 1.d4 with 1...c5, expecting the latter to try to get into his favourite Colle System with 2.e3. The game then continued 2...cxd4 3.exd4 d5 and they were in a Caro-Kann.

Kramnik once opened 1.Nc3!

"1.Nc3!"

Any why not? If 1...e5, 2.e4 leads to a Vienna. 1....c5, 2.e4 is a closed Sicilian, 1...d5, either 2.d4 or 2.e4 allowing main line Dunst, with 2....d4, 3.Nce2 etc. There are many possibilities.

I have a current correspondence game with White that is now a line of the Albin Counter-Gambit (which I do not normally allow) but we got there via Chigorin Defence.

Interesting!

Youu can reach an Exchange French from the Icelandic Gambit.

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. d4 exd5 5. Nf3

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. d4 exd5 5. Nf3

The position can also be reached from the Petroff
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d3 Nf6 6. d4 d5 7. c4

With an extra plausible move from the Queens Gambit Accepted
1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e3 e5 4. Bxc4 exd4 5. exd4 Nf6 6. Nf3

At least once I arrived at a French via Scandinavian and Blackmar-Diemer: 1e4 d5 2 d4 e6.

Another pair are the Scotch (Goring Gambit declined) and Chigorin.

Scotch
1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. c3 d5 5. exd5 Qxd5 6. cxd4 Bg4 7. Nc3 Bb4 8. Be2
Chigorin
1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6 3. cxd5 Qxd5 4. Nf3 e5 5. e3 exd4 6. exd4 Bb4 7. Nc3 Bg4 8. Be2

Authors of books on how to defend with 1. .. e5 against 1. e4 usually suggest the Capablanca inspired continuation which runs 8. .. Bxf3 9. Bxf3 Qc4 10. Bxc6 bxc6 and now analysed endings are reached after either 11. Qe2 or 11. Qb3

Authors of works on the Chigorin aren't nearly as bothered about simplification to avoid potential disadvantage.

Richard Thursby wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 27, 2024 12:45 pm

At least once I arrived at a French via Scandinavian and Blackmar-Diemer: 1e4 d5 2 d4 e6.

Getting to a Ziegler Variation of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit allows a huge multiplicity of transposition possibilities

1. d4 d5 2. e4 de: 3. Sc3 Sf6 4. f3 ef: 5. Sf3: c6

Answers on post card for all of the other transpositional options.

For example, Caro-Kann, Scandinavian (Center Counter), BDG, Queen's Pawn Opening

Don't include nonsense such as Barnes Openings, Dunst or van Geet Opening move orders!

There is a type of position with White having an IQP that is accessible from at least three major openings systems - the Semi-Tarrasch variation of the QGD, the 2 c3 Sicilian answered by d5, and the Panov attack in the Caro Kann.

There's a line in the Alekhine which reaches a position from the c3 Sicilian.

Alekhine
1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. c4 Nb6 4. c5 Nd5 5. Bc4 e6 6. d4 d6 7. cxd6 cxd6

c3 Sicilian
1. e4 c5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. Bc4 e6 5. d4 cxd4 6. cxd4 d6