Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules

Forum rules

(1) Posts are to be made in the relevant forum. Users are asked to read the forum descriptions before posting.
(2) Off topic posts are limited to active members who have actually posted on-topic in one of the chess-oriented sections in the past. Any user whose first post does not relate to chess will be banned permanently. Posts in the Introduction section do not count.
(3) Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users. Be tolerant at any time. Flaming or abusing users in any way will not be tolerated.
(4) Discussions on political and religious topics are not allowed. Posts containing elements thereof will be redacted or deleted and a temporary or permanent ban may be placed upon the user.
Discussions on politics in chess organisations and the way politics affect chess are allowed.
(4a) Drug use references are not allowed and discussions on drugs are not allowed.
(5) Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". If members have something to report they are welcome to bring it to the attention of moderator either by a PM or in this thread: http://www.chessforums.org/forum-new...moderator.html
(6) If you wish to report a PM please forward the PM to a moderator and leave a post here: http://www.chessforums.org/forum-new...moderator.html. Don't hesitate to report a PM if you believe it violates the forum rules, even if someone else has already reported a (similar) PM by the same user; having more reports makes it easier for the moderators to take action.
(7) These rules apply to forum posts as well as private messages (PMs).
(8) Members should post in a way which is consistent with "normal writing". That is users should not post excessive numbers of emoticons (smilies), large, small or coloured text, etc. Similarly users should not SHOUT or use excessive punctuation (e.g. ! and ?) in topic titles or posts.
(9) Members should use an appropriate, descriptive title when posting a new topic. Examples of bad titles include; "Help me!", "I'm stuck!", "I've got an error!", etc. Examples of good titles include; "New Game: Perseus - SomeOtherPlayer", "Two Knights Defense: Fritz Variation and sidelines", etc.
(10) Spam is not tolerated here under any circumstance.
(11) Continuously linking your own website to promote it is not allowed. You may use your signature (which will come up beneath all your posts) for this purpose.
(12) Members should refrain from posting without adding to the discussion. Posting just to increase postcount is not allowed.
(13) Combine your comments into one post rather than making many consecutive posts to a thread within a short period of time. This can be done by clicking the 'edit' button next to your post.
If your last post, which is the last in the thread, is very old you may use the following trick to make sure it's bumped up to the new posts. Click on the 'edit' button of your last post. Copy the content of the post. Click delete and delete your last post. Paste the content of the now-deleted post in a new post, add what you will and click 'submit reply'.
(13a) You are not allowed to make consecutive posts. If you post more than once without a reply from another user, all posts after the first will be deleted.
(13b) Exceptions may be made for specific types of threads.
(14) Warez are intellectual property (software/music/movies/tv-series/tv-shows/etc) either through download, serial, or crack in a manner that breaks its copyright and/or license. You are not allowed to give/link to/ask for/advocate/provide information for obtaining and the use of warez.
Bittorrent links are not allowed.
(14a) The following international treaties apply:
-Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention) (Berne, 1886)
-Universal Copyright Convention (UCC) (Geneva, 1952)
-Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (Marrakesh, 1994)
-World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (WIPO Copyright Treaty) (Geneva, 1996)
(15) Books published before 1920 are considered free of copyright and e-books thereof are not warez. Books published after 1920 with permission from the author are considered free of copyright and e-books thereof are not warez provided it can within reason be established that permission has been given. All other books are considered copyrighted and e-books thereof are considered warez.
(16) Usernames that contain obscene or vulgar language or denigrate individuals and/or organisations are not allowed.
(17) Users may only delete their own posts on the grounds that they constitute a severe breach of these rules. Even when this is the case, the editing of the post to effect repairs must at all times be considered first.
The emptying of posts (substituting the content by non-content) is explicitely considered a breach of this rule.
Deletion of whole batches of posts harms thread continuity and the forum as a whole and the Moderation team will take action; in the most extreme case an account may be permanently banned to preserve the posted.
(18) Administrators (Admins) and Moderators (Mods) reserve the right to edit or remove any post at any time. The determination of what is construed as indecent, vulgar, spam, etc. is up to them and not to forum members.
(19) Aforementioned Admins and Mods reserve the right to edit this list of rules at anytime.
See more
See less

1.b4 IDEAS...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I think that your idea that white gets an initiative with this opening is way off. Sorry.. I will state this again: White's move 1. b4 is in the area of "unsound" openings and therefore it's refutation is sound principled chess.

    IT GIVES UP PRINCIPLED CHESS!

    The only reason white in the least gets a good game is if black allows it.
    I am a proud supporter of the GM Igor Smirnov way of teaching. If you would like to see the system and want to try out his teaching methods please follow this link: http://chess-teacher.com/affiliates/...?id=1517_2_3_1

    If you have questions/want a tutor inquire with messages. I am going to rewrite my web page and it will also go here.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by CookieMonster View Post
      I think that your idea that white gets an initiative with this opening is way off. Sorry.. I will state this again: White's move 1. b4 is in the area of "unsound" openings and therefore it's refutation is sound principled chess.

      IT GIVES UP PRINCIPLED CHESS!

      The only reason white in the least gets a good game is if black allows it.
      Precisely so.
      Have you read the Forum rules?

      Queeg: Pawn to King Four. Holly: Horsie to King Bish Three.
      Rimmer: It's called a "knight," actually, Holly...
      Queeg: Knight to King Bishop three. Holly: Queen to Rook Eight. Checkmate.
      Queeg: That's an illegal move. Holly: Oh, sorry. Queens don't move like that. I was thinking of poker.
      Holly: Cleudo? You could be Colonel Mustard.
      Cat: If it's any help, I've been studying his tactics and there's a pattern emerging: Every time you make a move, he makes one too. *Winks to Holly*
      Holly: *Winks back* Thanks, Cat.
      --Red Dwarf

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by CookieMonster View Post
        I think that your idea that white gets an initiative with this opening is way off. Sorry.. I will state this again: White's move 1. b4 is in the area of "unsound" openings and therefore it's refutation is sound principled chess.

        IT GIVES UP PRINCIPLED CHESS!

        The only reason white in the least gets a good game is if black allows it.
        And, I think YOU are Joining the Bandwagon.... Is Chess NOT a Thinking game? Or, does Deep Blue do ALL the Thinking "Calculating" while us Humans play Only the Popular Move, namely e4, because it works more often than NOT of the time..... which is especially True, up the Ladder... Well??? What makes 1.b4 so Good, that it was used to BEAT BRONSTEIN with? Can any of you Beat BRONSTEIN?
        "Without sensibility, no object would be given to us. Without understanding, no object would be thought. Thoughts without content are empty. Intuitions without concepts are blind." Immanuel Kant - "Critique of Pure Reason."

        Comment


        • #19
          Yes, and Naka can play 1. anything and beat other GMs in bullet on the ICC. Doesn’t mean what he’s playing is sound, it means he comes up with strong ideas *in spite* of the bad opening used.
          Alexander Alekhine is my chess hero.

          An eerie chess short story: The Empty Chair

          My newest chess story: Gamble: A Supernatural Chess Tale

          Comment


          • #20
            It does not matter if 1.b4 work in bullet, it's not chess. Interesting the king of bullet Naka told before that bullet is not chess, which is actually true many bad stuff will work in bullet. For example(get in chesscafe review) in Nakamura's book where he annotate, he gives question mark on a move that win a queen because it took the opponent four seconds to see it. In one of the annotation the author give 29..Rb6 a !. A move courageously ignoring white mate threat of mate in 1.
            Last edited by ryan_c; 07-31-2012, 02:27 AM.
            " Deep calculation is not what distinguishes the champions. It does not matter how far ahead you see if you don't understand what you are looking at. When I contemplate my move, I first must consider all the elements in the position so that i can develop a strategy and develop intermediate objectives"

            -- Garry Kasparov--

            "Tactics must be guided by strategy"

            --- Garry Kasparov--

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by dustinkinney View Post
              And, I think YOU are Joining the Bandwagon.... Is Chess NOT a Thinking game? Or, does Deep Blue do ALL the Thinking "Calculating" while us Humans play Only the Popular Move, namely e4, because it works more often than NOT of the time..... which is especially True, up the Ladder... Well??? What makes 1.b4 so Good, that it was used to BEAT BRONSTEIN with? Can any of you Beat BRONSTEIN?
              Uh, not trying to pick more nits than necessary here, but maybe the bandwagon is there for a reason?

              Chess is a thinking game and this thread contains a good number of excellent thoughts about the reasons 1.b4 isn't up to snuff. Can you get an equal game as white? Quite possibly. Can you win with it? Very definitely. But, contrary to what the romans believed (see: probabilitas), there is a difference between possibility and likelihood. It's just as possible you'll win playing b4 as you will playing e4 or d4, just not near as likely.

              We humans play a lot of moves. I see 1.d4 almost as much as 1.e4. Then there are your english systems with c4, fluid systems with g3 and Nf3, the rare 1.d3 and 1.e3, the Nimzo-Larsen.. regardless of what first move is played, there are many many sub-trees to be found, many roads to travel.
              GM x or y playing an opening says next to nothing when it's unqualified. How often was it used? Was it a primary weapon or just a one-off jape? How strong was the opponent? When it comes to Nakamura's exotic opening tastes in blitz... I mean come on, 2.Qh5 against the Sicilian? By your analogy, I should take that seriously too. And the Grob, the Crab and all those other circus acts.

              Monkeys in trees will win a few rounds, but man waiting on the ground with a shotgun will have monkey brains for dinner most of the time.
              Have you read the Forum rules?

              Queeg: Pawn to King Four. Holly: Horsie to King Bish Three.
              Rimmer: It's called a "knight," actually, Holly...
              Queeg: Knight to King Bishop three. Holly: Queen to Rook Eight. Checkmate.
              Queeg: That's an illegal move. Holly: Oh, sorry. Queens don't move like that. I was thinking of poker.
              Holly: Cleudo? You could be Colonel Mustard.
              Cat: If it's any help, I've been studying his tactics and there's a pattern emerging: Every time you make a move, he makes one too. *Winks to Holly*
              Holly: *Winks back* Thanks, Cat.
              --Red Dwarf

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by dustinkinney View Post
                And, I think YOU are Joining the Bandwagon.... Is Chess NOT a Thinking game? Or, does Deep Blue do ALL the Thinking "Calculating" while us Humans play Only the Popular Move, namely e4, because it works more often than NOT of the time..... which is especially True, up the Ladder... Well??? What makes 1.b4 so Good, that it was used to BEAT BRONSTEIN with? Can any of you Beat BRONSTEIN?
                What's funny about this comment is.. (I am sure you won't think it's funny) I don't need to beat Bronstein. I only need to beat you. Or any other player under 2200. You can't refute me by bringing a top player in as a defense.

                You are trying to justify the opening beyond its limits. I back you playing it, but if you give it more then it is I will place my objections in. Like I said.. Play it if you like but you really must admit the faults and you can't claim something it's obviously not. I mean you claim its principled, yet anyone who studies principled chess can name at least 3 'real' not made up principles that this opening breaks.

                1. The principle of the center - it outright neglects this principle from move 1¡
                2. The principle of the least active piece - this opening GLORIFIES the bishop and neglects the knights. In some lines it neglects the knights for a long time.
                3. The principle of maximum activity - again it glorifies the bishop. Blacks best line not only proves this, but gets him way ahead in development.

                How about basic principled EVERYONE knows.

                1. Principle of the center
                2. Knights before bishops
                3. Don't move the same piece twice in the opening - Admit it many many many lines in this break this simple idea as part of its main plan.

                Sorry..Like I said if its fun play it, but the only real reason is because it is fun 'to you'.
                Last edited by CookieMonster; 07-31-2012, 06:33 AM.
                I am a proud supporter of the GM Igor Smirnov way of teaching. If you would like to see the system and want to try out his teaching methods please follow this link: http://chess-teacher.com/affiliates/...?id=1517_2_3_1

                If you have questions/want a tutor inquire with messages. I am going to rewrite my web page and it will also go here.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by CookieMonster View Post
                  [...]
                  1. The principle of the center - it outright neglects this principle from move 1¡
                  2. The principle of the least active piece - this opening GLORIFIES the bishop and neglects the knights. In some lines it neglects the knights for a long time.
                  3. The principle of maximum activity - again it glorifies the bishop. Blacks best line not only proves this, but gets him way ahead in development.
                  1 The bishop on b2 does play a large impact on the center. Perhaps 1 b3 is a tad sounder in this regard, but there are also many lines where e5 is traded for b4, giving white an extra center pawn. Think of the Sicilian.
                  There is also an indirect influence on the dark squares because b5 pushes away the c6 knight--in this manner it is similar to the Ruy Lopez.

                  2/3 If the center does not open immediately, white can lag behind in the development and activity. If it does, white is in trouble. If the center gets locked, then White's Queen bishop will be inactive, but he has already started queenside activity.
                  I've found it very difficult in my games to open the center as the black player. This opening is extremely annoying to play against.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by CookieMonster View Post
                    What's funny about this comment is.. (I am sure you won't think it's funny) I don't need to beat Bronstein. I only need to beat you. Or any other player under 2200. You can't refute me by bringing a top player in as a defense.

                    You are trying to justify the opening beyond its limits. I back you playing it, but if you give it more then it is I will place my objections in. Like I said.. Play it if you like but you really must admit the faults and you can't claim something it's obviously not. I mean you claim its principled, yet anyone who studies principled chess can name at least 3 'real' not made up principles that this opening breaks.

                    1. The principle of the center - it outright neglects this principle from move 1¡
                    2. The principle of the least active piece - this opening GLORIFIES the bishop and neglects the knights. In some lines it neglects the knights for a long time.
                    3. The principle of maximum activity - again it glorifies the bishop. Blacks best line not only proves this, but gets him way ahead in development.

                    How about basic principled EVERYONE knows.

                    1. Principle of the center
                    2. Knights before bishops
                    3. Don't move the same piece twice in the opening - Admit it many many many lines in this break this simple idea as part of its main plan.

                    Sorry..Like I said if its fun play it, but the only real reason is because it is fun 'to you'.
                    This is a 1-sided Discussion about b4 IDEAS.... and it's NOT even about 1.b4 -the opening with Lines that say it's BAD without Bashing me.... (Don't shoot the messenger for bringing up the idea.... saying I only need to beat you!) , virtually everyone isn't even exploring the thought of b4, they are exploring their: Classical Chess Theory BOX trying to win against players <2200. And, while Im Below 2200 too.... This is still a Disscussion without any points about 1.b4 .... they're talking past me. (A Good Refutation would be telling me a Line that works against it - and then disscussing the Line). This was Not done. There is No 'Real' disscussion Here. No one is on the same page... (perhaps, it was because of my poor English skills? in communicating the idea that was to be disscussed....) Plus, my bullet points sucked, as Persus pointed out! Was this Opening ever really discussed? Any Variations, explored? NO!
                    "Without sensibility, no object would be given to us. Without understanding, no object would be thought. Thoughts without content are empty. Intuitions without concepts are blind." Immanuel Kant - "Critique of Pure Reason."

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Well I don't know about that. They did kind of discuss the c6 line where they trade rooks. And the idea of e5, f6 blocking the diagonal for the white b2 bishop.

                      I checked ECO last night and I couldn’t believe it. They’ve given the Polish Opening their highest rating – A00. While my beloved Classical King’s Indian Defense is practically an F grade.

                      Relax. Just kidding.

                      ECO lists about a dozen lines for 1.b4 with c6, d5, e5, and mostly f5.

                      I found my Sokolsky Opening book near the bottom of my box of chess books. Only the Gruenfeld book was physically below it. Thus making my “filing system” incomprehensible.

                      OK. The book was published in 1981. Written by M. Thomas and A.J. Gillam. A book you too can own from Amazon for only $27 used or $5 new. Which leads to all sorts of wonderful questions. Why do they only use their initials instead of their first names? Who else does that? Do you know anyone named M.? Maybe the Polish is the opening of choice for James Bond afficionados. What opening did Bond play in the chess game he played against his arch-villian? Why is a used book worth five times a new book? Was the used book formerly owned by G. Kasparov complete with pencil notes in the margin on how to beat the Berlin Wall variation of the Polish? Who has a “NEW” chess book that was published over 30 years ago?

                      Just glancing through the book, there are basically six main replies to 1.b4. White plays 2.Bb2 in almost every line.

                      1) c6 followed by Qb6
                      2) d5 followed by Bf5
                      3) e5 followed by Bxb4 or d6 or e4 or f6
                      4) e6
                      5) f5 followed by Nf6, e6, Be7 and O-O
                      6) Nf6 followed by either d5 or g6 (leading to a KID setup with Nb8-Nd7)

                      I'll look at the variations and see if I can't contribute something a little more in depth.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by dustinkinney View Post
                        This is a 1-sided Discussion about b4 IDEAS.... and it's NOT even about 1.b4 -the opening with Lines that say it's BAD without Bashing me.... (Don't shoot the messenger for bringing up the idea.... saying I only need to beat you!) , virtually everyone isn't even exploring the thought of b4, they are exploring their: Classical Chess Theory BOX trying to win against players <2200. And, while Im Below 2200 too.... This is still a Disscussion without any points about 1.b4 .... they're talking past me. (A Good Refutation would be telling me a Line that works against it - and then disscussing the Line). This was Not done. There is No 'Real' disscussion Here. No one is on the same page... (perhaps, it was because of my poor English skills? in communicating the idea that was to be disscussed....) Plus, my bullet points sucked, as Persus pointed out! Was this Opening ever really discussed? Any Variations, explored? NO!
                        Nobody's bashing you; disagreement is something else entirely. It's not surprising you'll not find many supporting 1.b4 as a great way to start a game of chess. I've seen a good number of fair points about it too scattered around.
                        Just "1.b4" isn't a line though, it's merely a move. The number of actual lines discussed here is one. It's customary for the thread starter to give a line or two and more as needed along the way, not much to work with for the non-Sokolsky players here, which I would guess is everyone else here. I mean, come on, help us help you

                        Lack of lines (even idea variations) inevitably results in a discussion in generalities. If that's not what you wish, give actual moves and you'll be served better. People are honestly trying to help you, even if it's maybe not what you wish the aid to be.

                        If I may make two observations here without causing offense;
                        First and foremost: Go easy on the capitolization. A few basic rules:
                        -1. The first letter at the start of a sentence.
                        -2. When using the first-person singular; I
                        -3. While using geographical names such as Arizona, United States,
                        -4. In the use of personal names: José Raúl Capablanca, Alekhine, Sokolsky etc.
                        -5. Lots of words get lower casing, where non-native english speakers might not expect it; eastern China, the Netherlands. The same goes for names, eg Maarten van 't Kruijs and Van 't Kruijs. I'll not confuse you with the nitty of it. With 1 through 4 in mind, use lower casing in other cases.

                        Generally, you'll find that people capitalize opening names too (eg Sicilian Defense) but that's established fashion (sicilian defense is proper english as well see 5). Don't feel bad if you're still doing it wrong after a while. It still confuses the heck out of me sometimes; the rules on caps are quite different in dutch, german and english. But make the effort because you're overdoing the caps, frankly.

                        Second: Use fewer periods in your posts to increase readability. It's quite hard to read posts that end every other sentence with "....", or at least that's my experience. All fairly meant.
                        Have you read the Forum rules?

                        Queeg: Pawn to King Four. Holly: Horsie to King Bish Three.
                        Rimmer: It's called a "knight," actually, Holly...
                        Queeg: Knight to King Bishop three. Holly: Queen to Rook Eight. Checkmate.
                        Queeg: That's an illegal move. Holly: Oh, sorry. Queens don't move like that. I was thinking of poker.
                        Holly: Cleudo? You could be Colonel Mustard.
                        Cat: If it's any help, I've been studying his tactics and there's a pattern emerging: Every time you make a move, he makes one too. *Winks to Holly*
                        Holly: *Winks back* Thanks, Cat.
                        --Red Dwarf

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Really, you don't win or lose a game with an opening (unless someone blunders badly).

                          The purpose of the opening is to reach a playable middlegame.

                          So the consensus on the Polish seems to be that it gives black the flexibility to choose between several formations that he can choose practically unimpeded. That it allows black too much freedom to grab the center uncontested.

                          It seems in most lines that white is behind in development.

                          Since it's black that gets to decide which variation to play, I would have to agree that white appears to put himself at a disadvantage for the middlegame.

                          ECO seems to evaluate the 1...c6 line as better for white. The 1....d5 lines as equal. And the 1....e5 2....f6 lines as better for black.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by ryan_c View Post
                            It does not matter if 1.b4 work in bullet, it's not chess. Interesting the king of bullet Naka told before that bullet is not chess, which is actually true many bad stuff will work in bullet. For example(get in chesscafe review) in Nakamura's book where he annotate, he gives question mark on a move that win a queen because it took the opponent four seconds to see it. In one of the annotation the author give 29..Rb6 a !. A move courageously ignoring white mate threat of mate in 1.
                            You are correct, sir; I only brought up bullet because Naka beats other GMs in it like they learned chess yesterday. Don’t think he could beat another GM with 1. b4 in classical time controls? Maybe not a super GM, but quite possibly a 2500, which is no joke.

                            Objectively, as has been mentioned, the move is bad. It ignores all basic chess/opening principles, and is definitely attackable/questionable.

                            That being said, I like a good challenge. Cmonster brought up the point that he doesn’t have to beat a GM with it, he just has to beat YOU. I have to agree.

                            Bad or good is almost always relative. That is why we quote engine lines or GM games when we try and figure out if a move is objectively good or bad.

                            If I make a move to threaten mate in one, but missed that my opponent has mate in one, then I’m going to get mated. My move was a blunder, and a game losing one. but what if my opponent doesn’t see his mate and instead defends against mine, and I go on to win the game?

                            Now, *objectively*, my move was a really bad blunder. But if it’s missed and I win the game, that is a non-issue. So, when we answer questions by saying something is good or bad, we are talking objectively, which is at the big GM level.

                            The fun about chess is that there are so many levels of understanding, that the exact same game can be a completely different game to someone else. Thus, we try to go with objective things.

                            1. b4 is bad, objectively. But it can be fun! so play it!
                            Alexander Alekhine is my chess hero.

                            An eerie chess short story: The Empty Chair

                            My newest chess story: Gamble: A Supernatural Chess Tale

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              OK. Let's discuss a specific line. Someone mentioned a preference for a Dutch defense setup. The book I have gives this line.



                              1. b4 f5
                              2. Bb2 Nf6
                              3. e3 e6
                              4. b5 Be7
                              5. c4 O-O
                              6. Nf3 d6
                              7. d4

                              Black will have a hard time unravelling his queenside. White needs to get castled.

                              So who stands better? Are there better moves for black in this 1...f5 line?

                              Does white play Bc4 and Qb3? Does white castle into Black's kingside attack?

                              Are white's queenside pawns too far advanced to do any good? If black eliminates them, does it help black to get his queenside developed?

                              Last edited by thedarkknight; 07-31-2012, 10:29 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by thedarkknight View Post
                                1. b4 f5
                                2. Bb2 Nf6
                                3. e3 e6
                                4. b5 Be7
                                5. c4 O-O
                                6. Nf3 d6
                                7. d4

                                Black will have a hard time unravelling his queenside. White needs to get castled.

                                So who stands better? Are there better moves for black in this 1...f5 line?

                                Does white play Bc4 and Qb3? Does white castle into Black's kingside attack?

                                Are white's queenside pawns too far advanced to do any good? If black eliminates them, does it help black to get his queenside developed?

                                Looking up to d6:
                                That's one highly plausible line, equal as far as I can tell. Black can nudge white with a6 or c6, but doesn't necessarily have to rightaway. Nbd7-Nc5-Bd7 is the general idea, with the hole on c5, though Nb6 is also a way to go. Taking Nc5 one step further would be Nce4, that helps black along nicely. The flaw in black's position is the vulnerable e-pawn (Ng5) but it's rather easily defended. White is a long way from posting pieces along the a2-g8 diagonal because the c-pawn is in the way.

                                After 7.d4
                                7... Nbd7 8.Bd3 Ne4 and there's not a cloud in the sky. Black can peck away at the queenside, reinforce the center, develop a bit and still be safe. Equal, all things considered; now that isn't a great crime, but it's no challenge to be equal in these positions for black.
                                Have you read the Forum rules?

                                Queeg: Pawn to King Four. Holly: Horsie to King Bish Three.
                                Rimmer: It's called a "knight," actually, Holly...
                                Queeg: Knight to King Bishop three. Holly: Queen to Rook Eight. Checkmate.
                                Queeg: That's an illegal move. Holly: Oh, sorry. Queens don't move like that. I was thinking of poker.
                                Holly: Cleudo? You could be Colonel Mustard.
                                Cat: If it's any help, I've been studying his tactics and there's a pattern emerging: Every time you make a move, he makes one too. *Winks to Holly*
                                Holly: *Winks back* Thanks, Cat.
                                --Red Dwarf

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X