Chess Online

Play online chess!

Pages:  1 2 Next »
From	Message
tactical_abyss 26-Jan-13, 14:00	Sokolsky Opening tidbits.... Ok.This thread/post is only for the Sok and nothing else.Other posts can be for other openings,whether it be the Basman Defense,Trompowsky Attack or others. So what the heck is this Sok about?Why is it not very popular?Is it a bad or terrible way for white to open up with?When should a player use such an opening and at what level of chess experience should one even consider using the Sok? Well,lets begin with my experiences with it.When I first started playing at the Manhattan Chess Club in NYC,I noticed 2 or 3 very high rated chess players(2100-2200)employing the Sok against some of the lesser rated players around 1900-2000 level.This is still a very respectable rating level(1900-2000),but I was wondering why some of these guys were using what appeared to me to be such a weak opening(or weaker)instead of the better e4 or d4 openings.I mean,even the English(1.c4)is much superior,right?Hmmmmm.Dosen't make sense to me,I thought.Then I noticed that,not only were the 1.b4 players winning,but they were winning many times in less than 30 moves!Hmmmmmm.What the heck?I began to question the b4 players,did some research and asked GM Denker about the Sok.at the time when he was alive,of course.So putting all the ingredients in a pot and cooking it over and tasting the stew,I came up with these conclusions: 1.b4 really is not a bad opening,nor is it even very weak an opening. 2.So why isn't it very popular on most levels of play?Well,the answer is that there is practically no opening theory on the Sok,atleast in detail,like,for example,the Ruy,and most players like to play openings they have learned from various opening books.But does this make the Sok a bad choice?No!Well,not in many circumstances,anyway. See,by playing an openings that avoids theory,this forces the opponent(or some computer program)to think on their own and out of book.Well,whats the advantage of that?Plenty! If,for example,the 1.b4 player is a very talented middle game player,then first playing an opening that avoids theory,it forces the other player to move into murky uncharted waters,then the black player may very well and indeed play a move that is weak or blunder like since he is steering his boat down weird water channels.Hogwash?No!So the white player who is good at long term positional play starting in the middlegame,can swiftly gain an advantage,even though he opened up with something that is considered weaker than 1.e4 or 1.d4 or 1.c4!!!!Its a psychological ploy,and one that I have mastered over the years.But use it sparingly,for it does bite back!You must be careful on who you employ it against.That is where analyzing past game strengths in the middlegame of your opponents sometimes becomes critical before employing some of these offbeat openings.Keep in mind again that by move 3 to move 5,my opinion is that some of the resulting positions will result in looking like no other opening position,which inturn makes it an uphill battle for the black player. Thus,many of the Sok games become wins in less than 40 moves,sometimes only 30 moves or less.Proof?I can give you hundreds of game "proofs"...but i'm not going to spend the time on that!Lets give you one of my GK games(again)and two from rmannstaedt which he previously posted on my other absyss club thread.... game In this game above I beat a close to 1900 rated player in only 14 moves!!!! game In this game above rmann wins against an almost 1700 rated player in only 21 moves game In this game above rmann wins in 31 moves against an almost 1700 rated player So why all these short games?Well read my statements above!!! So,you think the Sok is weak,bad or stupid to play? Think again and learn! I will get into more detail as time goes on,but for now,consider this something to reflect upon. So I didn't answer your question about "when"to use it?Yes I have.When your middlegame play becomes better(like rmanns is)and you use it against lesser or equal rated opponents that you have done your homework on! TA
tactical_abyss 26-Jan-13, 14:10	Windmill Sok... Here is a video you might find interesting that illustrates some of the positional play with some file tactics i'm writing about using the Sok for winning results!Notice how white opens up the file and causes complete windmill havoc!!! www.chesstape.com
tactical_abyss 26-Jan-13, 14:44	Another basic Sok video... www.youtube.com In this basic video from whites perspective(its a short one,less than 4 minutes)you get the attack idea behind the sok.Notice how he mentions the 1.b4 to b5 advance.This can occur right from the first few moves to a bit later in the game and can prove devastating to the black player if he is unwary of sok tactics...which many black players are fumble experts at!
tactical_abyss 26-Jan-13, 15:07	Hmmmmmm...... Just by rare coincidence,I just accepted a game post challenge from grasul2009 who opened up with,guess what?The Sok!Its rare,because most players of his rating would not use a Sok.I'm on the black side this time,however.While I cannot discuss the game while it is going on,lets all keep an eye on the game as it moves forward.I only played one game with this opponent in the past and we had a draw,so he is a formidable opponent.So lets see what happens!In a sense,I hope he wins!!!!Not that I will play for a loss or draw,certainly not,but perhaps he can teach the Abyss something!Yes,even I have things to learn!
archduke_piccolo 28-Jan-13, 00:47	Here's a rare Sokolsky Opening... ... From my early GK archives. I called it the Polish Attack or Orangutan, forgetting the Sokolsky appellation. gameknot.com I had the Black pieces, an I'm bound to say I did not handle the opening at all well. The game is mostly ending, but what an ending!
tactical_abyss 28-Jan-13, 01:18	Well,you handled it quite well from midgame onward.You handled the opening ok,although I would have played the black either....2.Bb2,Bxb4 3.Bxe5,Nf6 4.Nc3,Ba5 keeping pressure on whites King Diagonal by posting my black Bishop on a safe a5 square.His open B file could easily give him problems later in the game. Or 2.Bb2,Nf6 3.Bxe5,Bxb4 4.Nc3,Ba5 with similar opening pressure. I think the Sok is underrated and has rich possibilities.Unlike your opponent,however,I can't even remember when I actually lost as white with 1.b4.It was a common postal move,for sure.But so was 1.g4
archduke_piccolo 28-Jan-13, 01:45	1.g4 - I've never really had the courage to play this opening, not really having a clear idea what it is meant to achieve. It has the look of a boxer 'leading with the right', the hallmark of an inexperience boxer, I gather. In my postal days I played the English for the most part, and it became my favoured OTB opening as well with the White pieces. At the time (1970s) it was a little out of the ordinary, and, despite its reputation, could lead to surprisingly tactical games. A different thread perhaps. Have I played 1.b4 on GK (I don't recall ever playing it in a serious OTB game)? Probably only against very inexperienced opposition, by way of a change... I've faced it on 3 or 4 occasions, and I think I played 2...d6 every time. As second moves go it doesn't seem to meet much favour. The thing is, the alternative look so ... horrible. If I play 2...f6 I fear for the light squares about the K-side, and they are by no means inaccessible to White. If I play 2...Bxb4, I see a centre pawn vanish (3.Bxe5) for a flank one. That White's centre is as yet unformed is no reassurance. Possibly these are legitimate and significant downsides to the 2...f6 and 2...Bxb4 responses, against which there are upsides to show for Black. As it happens, 2...d6 has never led to comfortable games for me either...
tactical_abyss 28-Jan-13, 01:56	Ion, Well,I cannot discuss an ongoing game right now,but I will say that my present opponent(grasul2009) opened up with 1.b4 and my moves correspond to something you would not do for the reasons you mentioned.But never underestimate the Abyss!Therein lies a plan even with a center pawn missing!Can't say anymore!Keep an eye on that game.Its rare,because very few players in the 2400 range will open up a rated GK game with 1.b4.So I had to scoop it up when I seen it posted in the "join game"section.
tactical_abyss 28-Jan-13, 01:59	as to 1.g4....not a great opening,of course,but postalites admired it for the out of book play,oddball pawn chains that could form and general confusion to the players and old chess programs they were using.
archduke_piccolo 28-Jan-13, 02:40	I think the telling argument... ... against 1.g4 was presented by GM Ray Keene, who when facing Michael Basman's debut, crushed it out of sight with, as RK observed, playing 'normal' centralised development. Now, I am oddly attracted to chess behaviour that gets treated in books and articles that view eccentric openings with, at best, sneering derision, and worse, as if its practitioner were some kind of criminal. I recall a magazine article by Harry Golombek that had some snide comments to make about Mike Basman's approach to the game. But where I was happy to explore things like the Greco-Countergambit, or the Queen's Pawn Countergambit, flank debuts involving 2-square advances generally I steered clear of... But I have always rather admired Mr Basman's persistence, and I am easily persuaded that there are chess secrets hidden within these lines that are there to be found for those with the courage to look. I guess that is a lesson to be learned. I'll keep an eye out for that game you are referring to TA.
clippery 28-Jan-13, 03:59	Confused already ! I believe that I stated previously that I probably wouldn't get involved in this discussion as I wouldn't be brave enough to attempt this opening. Despite that however, I have started to read some of the posts and I am already struggling to understand some things. I have been looking at the first of the games you listed (TA)., that is your game against rogubravo . It seems to me that after moves 10 Black's position is at . least okay. From there, I don't see anything devastating in the following moves which forced the resignation. This may well be down to my limited knowledge of chess theory but if anyone could help me out here, I would be very grateful.
clippery 28-Jan-13, 04:20	Annotated games ? Do any of you guys have any annotated games featuring this opening?
tactical_abyss 28-Jan-13, 07:04	Ion Since you mentioned about "Basmans persistance"...are you sure you are not speaking about 1.e5,g5?That would be the Basman Defense,which can be crushed fairly easily,except sometimes in fast blitz.But yes,it is true that Basman and Skembris had some decent respectable games with the Grob.The Grob,of course,is a totally different game than the Basman(e4,g5) 1.g4....The spike still has some decent attacking capabilities.But I would not recommend it.I find some of these weaker openings a good educational experiment for those learning.For if they cannot defeat the Basman Defense as white or defeat the Grob as black...then these players should reinvest some study time on central control,pawn chain configurations and tactics.So even losing to these weak openings may be a good thing. But in the future,i'm going to bring up the Basman and other even weaker openings like the Sodium Attack and use these two bad opening/opening defenses to actually illustrate winning strength and advantage....but in blitz tactics,not long corresp games.
tactical_abyss 28-Jan-13, 07:58	clippery, Very sharp observation on that rogubravo game!First of all did you check the computer analysis result on that game?Its a +2.66 for white which perhaps is not totally accurate,but explains alot.I usually do not annotate my games much,although I will get into annotations of other players games which you can find from time to time in the GK forums.With annotations,sometimes (I must admit),I do not want some of my 2400+opponents actually being able to understand MY thought process and strategies!It is another "tool"they can use against me,like when I would spring into a critical position relative to light square control vs an increased point value knight pair,ect ect. Rogubravo,resigned like a master.He is way ahead of his rating,in my opinion.He basically resigned on my superior position,not a mating net.The foreseen disintegration of his central pawn structure with my Rooks and probably seen my one pawn advantage within about 10 moves later approaching.If not that,then I simply spooked him psychologically with the rating differences as he may have seen a disconnected pawn or two coming up on his side.I'm actually not sure,but either way,he threw in the towel. 14.d4,exd4 15.Rc1,f5 16.Bxc5,Nxc5 17.Qxc5,Qxc5 18.Rxc5!,f4 19.Rxd5,fxg3 20.hxg3,Rb8 21.f3,Rb1+, 22.Kf2,Ra1 23.Rh4,Rxa2 24.Rhxd4! And thus with this probable game succession,even 5 moves later(move 18)he probably seen my +1 pawn advantage coming up.Here is one probable position after 24 moves.Notice his disconnected weak pawn on a7 and his weakened defensive Kings position.Central control with my connected Rooks is very powerful....and my 4 pawn structure(even with a slightly less pawn value on the doubled g file),is still enough for a pawn storm attack as opposed to his weaker g7 and h7 pawns.The open H file for black is much weaker than from whites perspective relative to my Rook pair which could easily dominate that file farther down the line. Here is what the board would look like after another 10-11 moves: I too,would have probably resigned with this foreseen position.But thats life in the master lane! I cannot count on how many opponents of mine resigned being only 1 pawn down,especially if they were rated above 2200.Thats why I said my opponent here was very wise to resign early,although many below,say,1700 in rating probably would not have resigned.
clippery 28-Jan-13, 08:11	A little clearer Thanks, things are a little clearer now. I think this goes some way to high lighting the difference between players like myself and those much higher. I would probably have played on a little longer. I do have a tendency to perhaps resign a little too early but in the game in question, I would have played on until I was surer that the game was slipping away from you. I can see what you mean about annotations. I actually annotate all my games but I don't make them public. The reason for this is that I thought reading my thoughts on games might give opponents some kind of edge. In the meantime, I have found some suitable annotated games and I am working through these at the moment. I may well be back again a bit later.
tactical_abyss 28-Jan-13, 08:30	Oh yes,it is very wise to play on,even to mate.It all depends upon a few factors like your opponents board strength.If your opponents are say 1300-1400,then in this game it is smart to play on,since they could have easily blundered somewhere within those next 10 moves.My opponent in that game is close to a 1900 rating which is a class "A" rating which is very respectable,so I imagine he had assumed the position was going to be hopeless.Again,I do not annotate for myself and rarely annotate many games publically.However,for the sake of learning in this club,I will eventually annotate some games and blitz games as time goes on.BUT not necessarily the "entire"game,just some of the critical positions or openings.Wait till you hear about my Sodium Attack blitz games!Terrible,horrible way to open for white(or even black)...but then I win 98% of the time in 2 or 3 minute games(sudden death).Why would that be?Hmmmmm.Later my friend! TA
clippery 28-Jan-13, 08:48	Resignations etc. I am not a great one for playing on in the hope that my opponent might make a mistake. I have often resigned in disgust after playing a particularly stupid move. I find that annotating games helps me later to understand where my thinking was incorrect and this is my main reason for doing it. Of course the whole thing would be much more beneficial if I could actually remember where I went wrong when faced with a similar situation. Anyway, we are wandering slightly off topic, so I will shut up for now and get on with studying the games I found.
tactical_abyss 28-Jan-13, 09:02	Not really off topic,since the chat was about that SOK game and the thought process behind it. In that game black really did not blunder or make a stupid move,I simply outplayed him and theres a big difference.So playing on in this game,as you mentioned would be wise.Sometimes playing on to mate is also very wise so that you can absorb in your memory key positions with pairs...like N+B,B+P ect ect that led up to your demise.Its an avoidance factor that may be stirred up in a future game.
rmannstaedt 28-Jan-13, 09:54	Playing on I believe in playing on as long as there is counterplay on the board. That is, if the situation is hopeless and I don't have anything left that can even remotely be brought to bear on the opponent - if I am devoid of threats and possibilities - then I will resign. But I won't resign as long as I can mix things up sufficiently for him to miscalculate! Another aspect of this - though possibly more relevant for OTB games? - I read about a grandmaster once who very much recommended playing on until the end, simply because it would give you a reputation as a fighter and thus a more formidable opponent. It is always an advantage to have your opponent be a little bit afraid or wary of you; it makes them more timid - and that is never a good thing to be in chess.
clippery 28-Jan-13, 10:27	Moving on I think I have probably absorbed about as much as I can of this opening for the moment, although I will still be interested in following the discussions on it. The great thing is that I have moved from having little or no interest in it to seriously thinking about giving it a whirl at the next possible opportunity. If I do, I'll let you know how I get on. These type of threads are excellent as they make you look things up and think about things that you might not otherwise consider. I will take a break now from the Sokolsky and move on to the Trompowski, which is at least something I have heard of.
archduke_piccolo 28-Jan-13, 12:30	Basman Defence... Yes, I think you are right, TA. Even when I wrote that posting I was starting to have doubts, as my memory seemed to be suggesting Keene had the White pieces. Rethink. I only glanced at the rogubravo game, and the impression that I got from the final position was that Black was about to lose a piece. How wrong can you be, eh? clippery: check my posting 28 Jan 13, 00:47 the game is aiel vs ionadowman fully annotated by me. I have to admit that my handling of the Black side of the opening was fair at best, but I thought the game was interesting.
clippery 28-Jan-13, 12:46	Okay, okay I will delay moving on to the Trompowski while I have a look at Ion's game. Seriously though, thanks Ion, and sorry that I missed this one the first time round.
archduke_piccolo 28-Jan-13, 14:56	TA vs rogubravo Being a bit puzzled by my first impression of the final position and the subsequent discussion, I went and has another look. Sure enough: White is winning a piece. Here's the position, Black to play b 14...exd4 15.Rc1 ... This is the classic siege; immobilizing the target by pin or blockade (here, pin), and then piling on the pressure. In this position, Black can call upon no additional defenders, so the c5-Knight will fall. Nor would 14...e4 have done any good: 15.dxc5 Nxc5 16.Bxc5 ... Good as 14.d4! is, White could have obtained the same material advantage by 14.Rc1! In setting up the board, or perhaps relying on memory, TA inadvertently placed his Knight on g3. With it on f3, where it should be, Black's ..f5 counterattack has nothing to strike at.
tactical_abyss 28-Jan-13, 16:30	Thanks for the correction ion.Yes,I was relying on memory and misplaced a piece,(getting old!)but the idea remains the same and black would have been down in material either way.Yes the 14.Rc1 would have been equally as good,but the level of pressure is approx equal with 14.d4
archduke_piccolo 28-Jan-13, 18:19	Imminent loss... ... of a minor piece, and no hope of counterplay, would have persuaded me to resign quickly. I have found, by the way, the one other Sok game in my archives: again I have the Black. This one was a bit more tactical, probably owing to the kind of Dutch Defence system that I adopted. game This is one game that shows up a bit of a shortcoming with the GK engine (which I ran the game through before posting it here). It calls 19...f4 an inaccuracy or a mistake, when it clearly maintains an edge already obtained. Possibly the move it suggests is as good or even better, but during the game I was pretty sure the pawn thrust would do the job. But you can see that I have no real idea how to combat the 1.b4 opening. I recall at an early stage getting into a bit of a panic, thinking I had really made a mess of things. Hence my mistake at about move 10. The engine does not like my 3rd move at all.
clippery 29-Jan-13, 01:50	aiel v ionadowman I enjoyed the game, aiel v ionadowman . I thought it was an excellent annotation, very clear and interesting. The downside is that it has slightly dampened my enthusiasm for giving this opening a try with the White pieces. I think I need to view a few more games from the Black perspective. The annotation was so clear that it has left me with no real questions. It has however caused me to consider the difference between the way I would think about positions v the thinking of higher rated players such as Ion. As an example, if we look at the position after White's move 11. Ne2. ionadowman responded with 11. Bh6. with the comment "Freeing up the rook to move to f8. Naturally, 11...Bg7 merely lost the bishop". I have no doubt that this is correct, well, it makes sense to me at least, but my focus would have been different here. I would have accepted that castling King side was out of the question and would have been looking towards castling Queen side. As a step in this direction I would have been thinking about moving the light squared Bishop somewhere, probably to f5 to temporarily obstruct the f file. In fact, Black does play this move a little later but I think, not for quite the same reasons. My fixation with castling probably comes from the fact that I am a little behind the times as far as chess is concerned. Before the middle of last year, I had not played chess for some 10 years, possibly even a bit longer. The impression I get since starting again is that fashions have changed in chess in the same way as everything else. This is only my impression and may not be correct but it seems to me that players are less concerned about castling these days, particularly at the higher levels. I enjoy following other folks games and even in those that are not annotated, I can almost see the player who loses the castling option shrugging his shoulders and getting on with life instead of fretting about it quite as much as I do. I think I have detected a few other changes too but I will not mention them here in order to avoid straying too far from the point of this thread.
archduke_piccolo 29-Jan-13, 03:21	Some insightful remarks... When I started playing on Gameknot I had been out of the game a lot longer than 10 years, though I had played a few pick-up games in that time. But I've had the same feeling of being pretty much out of touch - as far as openings are concerned at any rate. The middle game not so much... In the above position, I probably did consider 11...Bf5. It looks a natural and plausible move. But White would no doubt have moved a knight to g6, preparing to exchange it off. Not especially enamoured of that notion, I looked around for something else. Castling is a long way off in this position, and White has the more active pieces. So I was really looking for active defence with threats of my own. Castling would certainly been in the background of my mind, but I was making a serious bid for the initiative. After 11....Bh6 12.Qf7ch Kd8 Black threatens 13.Rf8, whereat the Queen would have to bug out. Basically I was deferring castling until a more convenient moment.
tactical_abyss 04-Feb-13, 08:33	For any one interested now,or in the future,here are some comments about the Sok by Jeremy Silman and his recommendations of a 1.b4 book from authors Lapshun & Conitcello. www.jeremysilman.com
archduke_piccolo 04-Feb-13, 13:25	Quite an informative little article... ... with some ideas I had never thought of in this line (not that that's saying much, my experience with it so limited). I wonder if it might be worthwhile transcribing to this thread the lines Silman mentions - leaving out Silman's review remarks? It appears too that the only responses that come into consideration ate: 1.b4 e5 2.Bb2 Bxb4 2.b4 e5 2.Bb2 f6 1.b4 d5. My 2...d6 doesn't get a look in. Is it so bad?
tactical_abyss 04-Feb-13, 18:41	ion, 2....d6 appears playable,according to one of my best databases,but the statistical win ratio with a "?" places it at a lower ratio relative to the other book openings.Also,2....f6 in "my" book is not that good. My book lists d6 and others as follows: N % Av Perf Fact Prob % 2...d6? 18 61.1 2459 2533 0 0 2...Nf6!! 39 56.4 2662 2658 1.6 24.8 2...Bxb4!! 305 52.3 2565 2580 98.4 75.2 2...f6!? 11 31.8 2382 2246 0 0 2...d5!? 1 0.0 2578 1776 0 0 Not that stats mean alot in actual play below the senior levels,but stats are stats! Actually, 2.a3,d5 is also very good.
Pages:  1 2 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, chess clubs, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, chess teams, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.