Chess politics - 1 e4 e6 2 e5

Author

1 e4 e6 2 e5

Bruce Leverett

2004-12-24, 6:45 am

Taylor Kingston wrote:

quote:

> NoMoreChess wrote:
But[vbcol=seagreen]
> those
> example:
> even you or
>
> Actually 2.e5 against the French was not a "random" line, but one
> Steinitz experimented with seriously back then. It was an advanced,
> hypermodern idea, to trade off the advanced pawn but retain control

quote:

> e5. A game with this line, Steinitz-Weiss, Vienna 1882, is considered
> to have influenced Nimzovitch's concepts of overprotection and

central

quote:

> control from the flanks; see for example R.N. Coles' "Dynamic Chess"
> pp. 28-9. The position after White's 16th move is striking: Kg1, Qe2,
> Re1, Rf1, Bb2, Bg2, Nc4, Nf3, a4, b3, c2, d3, f4, g3, h2; Kg8, Qc7,
> Ra8, Rf8, Bc6, Be7, Nb4, Nb6, a5, b7, c5, e6, f7, g7, h7.
>
> The line is not considered White's best now, but the fact that
> Steinitz would use it in a major tournament against a GM-caliber
> opponent indicates that he was hardly playing in a "random" manner.
> Taylor Kingston

I remember going through a copy of the book of the tournament, Vienna
1882, where Steinitz beat Weiss, when I was in college (around 1970).
I was amazed at that game. I do not know exactly what Steinitz thought
of the theory behind 2 e5, but Taylor Kingston is correct that Weiss
was an extremely strong opponent and one can assume that Steinitz took
him seriously. Also, my dim recollection is that the game
(Steinitz-Weiss, not Steinitz-Elson) was pretty good. You couldn't
easily pinpoint where Black went wrong.

Let me tell you, I haven't forgotten the little lesson I got about
opening theory from that game. The truth, in opening theory, doesn't
stay true for long, and the path of progress doesn't follow a straight
line. Not that I have any particular desire to take the White side of
1 e4 e6 2 e5 in my own games; I'd probably just butcher it. But when
I'm annotating games, I am sparing with "?" and "?!" on opening moves.
You just never know what people will come up with.

By the way, in Steinitz-Elson, I kind of like 5 f4. It's logical:
Black was threatening 5 ... e5, so White stops it. I guess Greg
Kennedy doesn't like it because it's committal. But Black's 4 ... Nc6
is also committal (blocking the c-pawn). Sometimes you have to take
the bull by the horns!

Bruce

NoMoreChess

2004-12-24, 6:45 am

quote:

[vbcol=seagreen]

Take a closer look at these two snippets above. Can you not see the
difference between claiming *moves* are weak or inferior, and claiming -- as
Taylor Kingston has done -- that Steinitz played a random opening *line*? A
random opening *line* is not the same as random, inferior *moves,* and
attempting to equate them in this way was quite dishonest.

[vbcol=seagreen]

This is (and was) very interesting. However, it seems the talking heads are
overlooking the fundamental difference between the Weiss game and the (drawn)
Elson game.
In the Elson game, Black did not play ...c5, while in the Weiss game, he not
only played it, he played it *immediately,* thus changing the character of the
game considerably.

[vbcol=seagreen]

"Now," as TK says, is when I made the comments to which he has objected. It
makes no difference to what I wrote whether or not this was ever considered by
some to be great stuff. That is only relevant to what *TK* wrote (not to be
confused with what *I* wrote).

[vbcol=seagreen]

Irrelevant. As I pointed out before, Weiss played differently from Elson,
and so it was quite impossible for Steinitz to play the same inferior, random
*moves* in that game as he did against Elson.
In fact, I have not yet commented on the Weiss game, although I am about to
(see below).

[vbcol=seagreen]
>indicates that he was hardly playing in a "random" manner.

Again, TK has misconstrued what I wrote. My description was of the *moves*
in the Elson game, not the manner in which Steinitz played. I never suggested
that Steinitz had no plan to follow, or that he was choosing his "opening line"
at random.
Rather, I suggested that his random, inferior *moves,* aforded Elson an
opportunity to draw. As far as I can tell, the inferior *moves* halted after
move five, three of which I queried like so: (?!), meaning dubious, yet not
blunders. This can simply be checked by objective comparison to any of the
opening manuals, if anyone should tire of the ad hominem games (which I
seriously doubt).

quote:

>I remember going through a copy of the book of the tournament, Vienna
>1882, where Steinitz beat Weiss, when I was in college (around 1970).
>I was amazed at that game. I do not know exactly what Steinitz thought
>of the theory behind 2 e5,
>but Taylor Kingston is correct that Weiss
>was an extremely strong opponent and one can assume that Steinitz took
>him seriously

When you two are done beating up that poor strawman, let me know. :-)

quote:

> Also, my dim recollection is that the game
>(Steinitz-Weiss, not Steinitz-Elson) was pretty good. You couldn't
>easily pinpoint where Black went wrong.

Move ten: ...Nb6 was one obvious error.
Bouncing the Knights around looks nice, but it doesn't accomplish anything.

Black had to get in ...e5, or else launch a minority attack with 10. ...b5.
It looks to me like the former plan is impossible, given White's control in the
center. Later on, Black continued to waste valuable *time* with boring moves
like ...Be7 and ...Rd8 -- precious titme he didn't have, as we saw.

In the other game, the one against Elson that is, Fred is correct in pointing
out that ...Nc6 was "committal." In fact, he may very well be the first one
here (apart from myself) who has recognised any difference between this game,
and the game with Weiss.

Another game between them had Steintz' opponent recapturing on d6 with the
c-pawn, which keeps pesky White Knights away from the e5 square.
Unfortunately, Elson's very next move was the overly committal ...d5,
transposing back into Steinitzian I-will-quickly-mate-you type play.
It is sometimes difficult to "watch" these games being replayed without
flinching. In this game (which Steinitz won), White *still* played 5.f4,
despite the fact that Black was *not* threatening ...e5. Apparently, he
preferred to have a pawn on f4, so that when his hapless opponents eventually
took his Knight at e5, he could recapture with the f-pawn, then sac, sac, mate.
It goes without saying that there is no counterplay -- just as with Fischer.

After 1.e4 e6 2.e5 d5 3.ed Bxd6 4.d4 Nc6, Black is threatening ...e5 --
but only because White has wasted valuable time, adavancing and then
liquidating his e-pawn.

quote:

> Sometimes you have to take the bull by the horns!

Most of Steintz' opponents did "get it" by the horns, and then wished they
have gone for the tail or the legs, instead! :-)

Randy Bauer

2004-12-24, 5:45 pm

"Bruce Leverett" <bleverett@spinnakernet.com> wrote in message
news:1103875307.446968.34510@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

quote:

>
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
> But
> of
> central
>
> I remember going through a copy of the book of the tournament, Vienna
> 1882, where Steinitz beat Weiss, when I was in college (around 1970).
> I was amazed at that game. I do not know exactly what Steinitz thought
> of the theory behind 2 e5, but Taylor Kingston is correct that Weiss
> was an extremely strong opponent and one can assume that Steinitz took
> him seriously. Also, my dim recollection is that the game
> (Steinitz-Weiss, not Steinitz-Elson) was pretty good. You couldn't
> easily pinpoint where Black went wrong.
>
> Let me tell you, I haven't forgotten the little lesson I got about
> opening theory from that game. The truth, in opening theory, doesn't
> stay true for long, and the path of progress doesn't follow a straight
> line. Not that I have any particular desire to take the White side of
> 1 e4 e6 2 e5 in my own games; I'd probably just butcher it. But when
> I'm annotating games, I am sparing with "?" and "?!" on opening moves.
> You just never know what people will come up with.
>
> By the way, in Steinitz-Elson, I kind of like 5 f4. It's logical:
> Black was threatening 5 ... e5, so White stops it. I guess Greg
> Kennedy doesn't like it because it's committal. But Black's 4 ... Nc6
> is also committal (blocking the c-pawn). Sometimes you have to take
> the bull by the horns!
>
> Bruce

Back in 1984, IM Lawrence Day wrote an intriguing little pamphlet entitled
"The Big Clamp, an Anti-Sicilian System." Back in those days, white players
were scoring pretty well with the line 1.e4 c5 2.f4, with white often
setting up a pawn formation including d2-d3, c2-c3, and even advancing the
rest of the kingside pawns as well.

One game that made an impression on me at the time was Day-Benko, New York
1980, which went 2...g6 3.d3 Bg7 4.c3 Nc6 5.Be3 d6 6.Be2 Nf6 (6...f5!?, from
Day-Christiansen, World Open 1980, is probably a better way for black to
deal with the white kingside pawn advance) 7.Nd2 0-0 8.g4! b5 9.a3 Bb7
10.Bf3! a5 11.h4 b5 12.h5 and black is already in big trouble.

Eventually, Tal's sacrifice with 2...d5 3.exd5 Nf6 became popular, and white
players, to avoid it, had to play 2.Nc3 followed by 3.f4, which removed the
opportunity to set up this pawn formation. It bummed me out for a long
time, because I had used the formation to good effect as white.

Day's book also explored setting up a similar type of pawn structure in
other openings, such as1.e4 Nf6 2.d3 d5 3.e5 Nfd7 4.f4 c5 5.c3, and 1.e4 c6
2.d3 d5 3.Nd2 g6 4.f4.

In Day's discussion of the French Defense, he notes that "although I have
tried 1.e4 e6 2.f4!? a couple of times I would hardly recommend it as after
2...d5 3.e5 c5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Nge7 black equalizes without much trouble."

He then goes on to say that "An even more extreme anti-French method is 1.e4
e6 2.e5!? (his punctuation) which Steinitz played in a few games a hundred
years ago." He then analyzes Steinitz-Schwarz, Vienna 1882 where white got
a nice game after 2...c5 (Day notes that other tries were 2...f6 by Winawer
and 2...b6!? played by Blackbourne, and 2...d5, when Steinitz would take en
passant, reaching "fairly normal looking positions after 4.d4") 3.f4 Nc6
4.Nf3 Nh6 5.g3 Be7 6.Bg2 0-0 7.d3 f6 8.exf6 Bxf6 9.0-0 Nf7 10.c3 Rb8?!
11.Na3! b6 12.Nc2 Bb7 13.Ne3 d5 14.Ng4! e5 15.Nxf6+ gxf6 16.Nh4 Ne717.fxe5
fxe5 18.Qg4+ Kh8 19.Qh5 Qe8 20.d4! Ba6 21.Re1 cxd4 22.cxd4 e4 23.Bf4 Rd8?!
24.Rac1 Kg8 25.Rc7 Nh8 26.Qg5+ Nhg6 27.Rxa7 Bd3 28.Rc1 Nc6 29.Rxh7 Rxf4
30.Rh6 Rd6 31.Nxg6 1-0.

Day's final comment is fitting -- "As is often the case in Steinitz's
conduct of the opening it is difficult to tell where strategy runs into
provocation."

It is interesting to note, however, that Steinitz was willing to play this
against the likes of Blackbourne, one of the stronger players in the world
at the time. I assume Steinitz didn't consider the line to be random.

Randy Bauer

NoMoreChess

2004-12-25, 6:45 am

..
As Fred noted, the line played by Steinitz with 2.e5 was common in his games,
even the serious ones.

But much of the quoted material had no bearing on the line against the
French, because those games had a different character altogether.

In the 2.e5 games against the French, White had considerable success with
Kingside onslaughts, helped along by frequent time-wasting on Black's part. In
many cases, Black would "reorganise" his pieces in the middlegame, allowing
Steinitz to launch a sudden -- and brilliant -- attack! This explains why one
writer used the !? annotation ro describe his 2.e5 move. It is difficult to
argue with success. In the vast majority of those games, Steinitz, as White,
did not pass up the opportunity to exploit his "free" gain of time.

quote:

>"The Big Clamp, an Anti-Sicilian System." Back in those days, white players
>were scoring pretty well with the line 1.e4 c5 2.f4, with white often
>setting up a pawn formation including d2-d3, c2-c3,

In the big clamp, White establishes a broad line of pawns, akin to a movable
wall.

In Steinitz' line against the French, he immediately liquidates what would
have been the vital center of that wall, intending piece play, rather than
pushing a wall-of-pawns gradually forward, to smother the enemy.

quote:

> "An even more extreme anti-French method is 1.e4
>e6 2.e5!? (his punctuation) which Steinitz played in a few games a hundred
>years ago.

More than a few, I would say. The practice of using such "optimistic"
annotation symbols was widespread at the time. Then along came the "Winning
with the...[insert random blunder here]" type books.

quote:

>Steinitz-Schwarz, Vienna 1882 where white got
>a nice game after 2...c5 (Day notes that other tries were 2...f6 by Winawer

Here is one, rare instance, where Steinitz messed up his "attack." Winawer
won after weathering a vicious assault on his King.

quote:

>I assume Steinitz didn't consider the line to be random.

Fred, you are in complete agreement with Taylor Kingston on this.

Bruce Leverett

2004-12-27, 12:45 am

NoMoreChess wrote:

quote:

> [I said ... TK said ... dishonest ... etc.]

How do you stay awake while writing this stuff? Of course, I didn't
intend to get involved in a dispute between you and Taylor Kingston.

quote:

>
>
> Move ten: ...Nb6 was one obvious error.
> Bouncing the Knights around looks nice, but it doesn't accomplish

anything.

I don't know if Steinitz-Weiss has already been posted in this thread,
so I'll post it here, for the benefit of readers who don't have it at
hand: 1 e4 e6 2 e5 c5 3 f4 d5 4 exd6 Bxd6 5 g3 Bd7 6 Nf3 Bc6 7 Bg2 Nf6
8 O-O Nbd7 9 d3 O-O 10 Nbd2 Nb6 11 Qe2 Qc7 12 b3 Be7 13 Bb2 a5 14 a4
Nfd5 15 Nc4 Nb4 16 Rae1 N6d5 17 Nfe5 Bf6 18 Qf2 Be8 19 g4 Rd8 20 g5 Be7
21 Ng4 Nc6 22 Qh4 Nd4 23 Be4 f5 24 gxf6 Nxf6 25 Nxf6+ Bxf6 26 Qxh7+ Kf7
27 Bg2 Rg8 28 Ne5+ Kf8 29 Rf2 b5 30 axb5 Bxb5 31 Bh3 Rde8 32 Re4 Bc6 33
Rxd4 cxd4 34 Ba3+ Be7 35 Bxe6 and mate next move.

I agree that 10 ... Nb6 is an ugly move, but I think that it's more a
symptom of Black's problems than the cause. In other words I think
Black was already hurting and Weiss was already beginning to realize
it.

quote:

> Black had to get in ...e5, or else launch a minority attack with 10.

....b5.

quote:

> It looks to me like the former plan is impossible, given White's

control in the

quote:

> center. Later on, Black continued to waste valuable *time* with

boring moves

quote:

> like ...Be7 and ...Rd8 -- precious titme he didn't have, as we saw.

I agree that ... e5 was necessary. If Black had fully appreciated
this, he would not have played ... Bd7 and ... Bc6, but would have gone
directly for some plan to immediately achieve ... e5, such as ... Nc6,
.... Nge7, ... O-O, and so on. If he had done this, I don't think that
White could long have prevented ... e5 and equality. On the other
hand, after 5 ... Bd7 and 6 ... Bc6, it may already be too late. At
least that's what I currently think, but I am open to correction.

I find it unintuitive to think of the position this way, even though I
think it's correct. My seat-of-the-pants rule for evaluating the
defense is that if you can easily finish your development and castle,
you're OK. But Black easily brings out his minors and castles, and not
only is he not equal, but he might already be losing. Can this be
right?

Another annotator suggested deviating as early as the third move
(instead of 3 ... d5), fianchettoing the queen bishop, castling
queenside, and eventually counterattacking with ... f6. This is
interesting and might be OK, but I'm having a hard time admitting that
3 ... d5 is an outright mistake.

quote:

>
> In the other game, the one against Elson that is, Fred is correct

in pointing

quote:

> out that ...Nc6 was "committal." In fact, he may very well be the

first one

quote:

> here (apart from myself) who has recognised any difference between

this game,

quote:

> and the game with Weiss.

Are you referring to me (Bruce) here?
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts on the two games.

Randy Bauer

2004-12-27, 6:45 am

"Bruce Leverett" <bleverett@spinnakernet.com> wrote in message
news:1103875307.446968.34510@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

quote:

>
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
> But
> of
> central
>
> I remember going through a copy of the book of the tournament, Vienna
> 1882, where Steinitz beat Weiss, when I was in college (around 1970).
> I was amazed at that game. I do not know exactly what Steinitz thought
> of the theory behind 2 e5, but Taylor Kingston is correct that Weiss
> was an extremely strong opponent and one can assume that Steinitz took
> him seriously. Also, my dim recollection is that the game
> (Steinitz-Weiss, not Steinitz-Elson) was pretty good. You couldn't
> easily pinpoint where Black went wrong.
>
> Let me tell you, I haven't forgotten the little lesson I got about
> opening theory from that game. The truth, in opening theory, doesn't
> stay true for long, and the path of progress doesn't follow a straight
> line. Not that I have any particular desire to take the White side of
> 1 e4 e6 2 e5 in my own games; I'd probably just butcher it. But when
> I'm annotating games, I am sparing with "?" and "?!" on opening moves.
> You just never know what people will come up with.
>
> By the way, in Steinitz-Elson, I kind of like 5 f4. It's logical:
> Black was threatening 5 ... e5, so White stops it. I guess Greg
> Kennedy doesn't like it because it's committal. But Black's 4 ... Nc6
> is also committal (blocking the c-pawn). Sometimes you have to take
> the bull by the horns!
>
> Bruce

NoMoreChess

2004-12-28, 6:46 am

quote:

>How do you stay awake while writing this stuff?

They have these new drugs which improve the ability to play chess, to
concentrate, and to stay awake while typing endlessly all night.
Unfortunately, I have taken the maximum dose, but the effect on my chess play
in imperceptable. The doctors say I must be immune (to improving at chess,
that is).

quote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
>I agree that 10 ... Nb6 is an ugly move, but I think that it's more a
>symptom of Black's problems than the cause. In other words I think
>Black was already hurting and Weiss was already beginning to realize
>it.

I agree. The "plan" starting with Bd7 is dubious, yet I am at a loss as to a
much better plan for Black. Steinitz was a monster when it came to launching
powerful Kingside attacks in this opening. Even the rapid minority attack may
not be sufficient to stop a determined Steinitz from going after the Black
King's head, and getting it.

quote:

>Are you referring to me (Bruce) here?

Yes Fred, I am. (Nomo)

quote:

>1 e4 e6 2 e5 c5 3 f4 d5 4 exd6 Bxd6 5 g3 Bd7 6 Nf3 Bc6 7 Bg2 Nf6
>8 O-O Nbd7 9 d3 O-O 10 Nbd2 Nb6 11 Qe2

Fischer has a very similar game (KIA) for which he has been given the credit
for a brilliant attack on the Black King. In reality, he probably recalled
this game (or another just like it), and just duplicated the Kingside attack.
The difference was that Fischer didn't advance his Kingpawn, and then liquidate
it.
It is very deceptive in that White's KB is pointing the other way, yet in a
heartbeat the direction of attack is reversed via B(g2)-e4.

NoMoreChess

2004-12-28, 5:47 pm

quote:

[vbcol=seagreen]

Take a closer look at these two snippets above. Can you not see the
difference between claiming *moves* are weak or inferior, and claiming -- as
Taylor Kingston has done -- that Steinitz played a random opening *line*? A
random opening *line* is not the same as random, inferior *moves,* and
attempting to equate them in this way was quite dishonest.

[vbcol=seagreen]

This is (and was) very interesting. However, it seems the talking heads are
overlooking the fundamental difference between the Weiss game and the (drawn)
Elson game.
In the Elson game, Black did not play ...c5, while in the Weiss game, he not
only played it, he played it *immediately,* thus changing the character of the
game considerably.

[vbcol=seagreen]

"Now," as TK says, is when I made the comments to which he has objected. It
makes no difference to what I wrote whether or not this was ever considered by
some to be great stuff. That is only relevant to what *TK* wrote (not to be
confused with what *I* wrote).

[vbcol=seagreen]

Irrelevant. As I pointed out before, Weiss played differently from Elson,
and so it was quite impossible for Steinitz to play the same inferior, random
*moves* in that game as he did against Elson.
In fact, I have not yet commented on the Weiss game, although I am about to
(see below).

[vbcol=seagreen]
>indicates that he was hardly playing in a "random" manner.

quote:

>I remember going through a copy of the book of the tournament, Vienna
>1882, where Steinitz beat Weiss, when I was in college (around 1970).
>I was amazed at that game. I do not know exactly what Steinitz thought
>of the theory behind 2 e5,
>but Taylor Kingston is correct that Weiss
>was an extremely strong opponent and one can assume that Steinitz took
>him seriously

When you two are done beating up that poor strawman, let me know. :-)

quote:

> Also, my dim recollection is that the game
>(Steinitz-Weiss, not Steinitz-Elson) was pretty good. You couldn't
>easily pinpoint where Black went wrong.

quote:

> Sometimes you have to take the bull by the horns!

Most of Steintz' opponents did "get it" by the horns, and then wished they
have gone for the tail or the legs, instead! :-)