French traps


French traps

Back to forum

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13)
French traps

The French defence is one of the best replies to 1 e4 - accidents however are always possible as the following correspondence game shows with black playing into a lost position after just 13 moves: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Be3 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Qb6 9.Qd2 Qxb2 10.Rb1 Qa3 11.Bb5 Nxd4 12.Bxd4 Bb4 13.O-O O-O ?? (black had to play 13 ..a6 although he will still be under pressure) 14 Rb3 Qa5 15.Qe3 Nb6 16.Qg3 Nc4 17 f5! and the correspondence game finished Rd8 18.Rf4 Bf8 19.Rg4 Kh8 20.f6 g6 21.Rh4 h6 22.Kh1 Kg8 23.Qh3 Kh7 24.Bc5 Rd6 25.g4 Qd8 26.g5 h5 27.Rxh5+ These things happen OTB but French defence players have known of this since Rechlis (2525) - Zueger (2448) 2001 which went 19 f6 g6 20 Rh4 a6 21 Qh3 h5 22 Rxh5!! gxh5 23 Qxh5 axb5 24 Kf2 and white won. since then 13 0-0 has been avoided. Of course at cc a player has time to research the databases and access to powerful chess engines at no cost.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13 12:07:15)
Trusting engines

I should add that if you play through the game with an engine it will show black doing ok and even better some time after the position is lost. So its a good example of not just playing the move the engine suggests but actually analysing the position.

Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 12:54:06)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0

My obsessive fan is quoting my game with Bucsa Ioan played last year. Actually you have it backwards Stephenson. I trusted my database, which wasn't up to date. I wasn't even consulting an engine until around move 18, when it's already lost for Black. I thought quite a bit about alternative lines in this game, but found myself agreeing with the Psakhis analysis. That line is recommended by Psakhis in his book "French Defence - Steinitz, Classical, and other Systems". Additionally, 13...0-0 has been played by the likes of GM Dreev, as well as GM Marjanovic, as recently as 2003. But alas, it pays to keep your databases up to date for correspondence chess.

The game was a valuable learning experience for me. I'm very happy that it occurred. My otb opponents will never get me in that position as a result :)

I can't help but feel sorry for you Stephenson. Firstly I'm sorry that you don't have any of your own games worthy of publication, and that you need to vicariously live through me and post my chess games. Secondly, I'm sorry that you don't play otb chess and appreciate the joy of playing chess using your own mind. But then again, in your case, maybe that's a good thing. :)

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13 13:57:40)
Databases and books

Well I dont think a book should ever be trusted for cc no matter who has written it. It should always be critically examined - playing 18 moves from the book without switching on the engine seems very risky. I think the position is lost after 13..0-0 14 Rb3 Qa5 15 Qd3 and I see no defence here. The only Dreev game I have in this line continued .. Nb6 16 Qg3 Nc4 and a draw was agreed.(Ivanchuk-Dreev 1993) Chess engines were not as good then and 17 f5 wins as was later discovered. Where are these GM games from 2003?? Its strange that your database does not have Rechlis (2525) - Zueger (2448) 2001 In fact an earlier game Ernst - Grigutavicus (1999)had seen white crash through with 15 Qf2 Nb8 16 f5 - although Nb8 does not look a very good move. Whats the date of this Psakhis book? I hope its not after 2001!

Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2008-05-13 14:10:21)
Books .....

I have the opening books of Ludek Pachman, 1976 edition, in Spanish. A little old but still good!

Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 14:17:46)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0

I really couldn't care less what an internet troll with a <1500 otb chess rating, whom I've already crushed in correspondence chess, thinks about anything. Send emails to GM Dreev and GM Marjanovic, who have also played 13...0-0 and see if they feel differently.

Re-read my post a few times until you're able to understand what I said. Everything I stated is correct. I'm not going to hold your hand and spoon-feed everything to you.

As I said before Stephenson, it's sad that you don't have any of your own games worthy of publication, and that you need to vicariously live through me and post my chess games. I've never met anyone this obsessed with me. I don't think it's very healthy for you. In more ways than one.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13 14:19:23)

Yes its true there is a lot of great stuff in these old books Rudolfo but I like to check 'em I have got some Nunn stuff from the same time - incredibly accurate he may have been the best writer of opening books of modern times. Although I am basing that on his Najdorf books not other stuff on the Pirc etc which I dont know so well.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13 14:33:15)
Opening books

I think the truth is that a lot of opening books are not always objective and someimes do not give the best lines or give assessments that are not always accurate. Active GM's someimes keep things back for there own use .. which is understandable I suppose. John watson seems to be an exception to this and produces very high quality opening work. The bottom line is you have to check them all IMO. Incidentally I am not sure there is much need to keep databases up to date - I suppose that refers to downloading games from TWIC. Most databases are up dated automatically.

Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 14:43:09)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0

No, it looks like my comment was a bit over your head, once again. By keeping databases up to date, I don't mean just mindlessly adding random games, as perhaps a <1500 otb player might do. I was talking about updating the database with current theory and critical lines.

What you're sure or not sure of is of no consequence. This is what chess players do.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13 14:57:54)
Updating databases

The professional chess players I know down load TWIC then filter the stuff they are interested in into sub-databases. But what has this got to do with not having a 2001 game in 2007??. Unless a person has some ancient chess base data base - but then why would they not look online and cross check?? It took me about 3 minutes to find some relevant games including the 2001 game showing 13 ...0-0?? as losing.

Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 15:15:32)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0

You don't know any professional chess players Stephenson. Who are you trying to kid here? You don't even know that the word is "download" not "down load", and "database", not "data base", lol. This is the problem with a mental midget mindlessly trusting machines, as you are doing with the spelling software. It is for this reason it was so easy to beat you in chess. I only had to outplay a machine, not outsmart a human who has the ability to THINK.

If you're such a "whiz" at correspondence chess, as you keep trying to convince me, and have such wonderful databases, why did I beat you? I think saying that I beat you is even a bit of an understatement. It was more like a slaughter!

Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 15:25:34)
Elo rating system

I trust I didn't use any "biggie" words you were unable to comprehend Stephenson. Hopefully you now understand your error and realize that the elo system is not only peculiar to FIDE chess ratings, but indeed used by many chess organizations, as well as other games.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13 16:00:22)

Well like I stated elsewhere talking of ELO points I take to refer to FIDE rating not national ratings irrespective of the underlying methodology used to calculate the national rating. I guess we will have to agree to differ on that one. Sorry I cannot respond to the grammer stuff - its against the rules. On the game we played check out the available database games and that may give you an answer. Like I said in another post the line I believe is the refutation is not what you played - I will put up the analysis when I have more time. At the risk of repeating myself I still dont understand why you cannot find a 2001 game or what sort of databases you are looking at but I guess we have reached a dead end there too.

Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 21:16:02)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0

No, as I just explained to you in the way a small child should be able to understand, elo is not exclusive to FIDE ratings. Not even exclusive to chess in fact. I realized you weren't overly intelligent when we played chess and I crushed you, but this is ridiculous. This has been explained to you already. Do some research and see for yourself.

I normally don't go after someone for grammar, but when I'm dealing with who says down load and data base, I ask myself who's wiping the drool from their chin.

I'm not about to do any serious chess analysis with you. I don't give free chess lessons. Post whatever you like. It won't change the fact that I CRUSHED you in chess. Fair and square.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-15 23:14:37)
Books and databases

This thread is really about how reliance on books and lack of research can get someone into trouble ie a lost position after 13 moves in a main line opening - even with plenty of time and powerful chess engines available. Actually its not even necessary to own an up to date database to avoid this - the resources are freely available to anyone with an internet connection. The point about ELO is dead I think referring to ELO points is associated with FIDE ratings irrespective of the fact that most national rating systems use ELO's methodology. Mr Repa does not agree - thats it. "but when I'm dealing with who says down load and data base ..." I don't read anything into the omission of the word "someone" here nor the numerous spelling mistakes that have cropped up. Incidentally the book I referred to with analysis of the dodgy siscilain variation is called Experts V the Sicilian with different chapters by various GM's and IM's including a chapter on the pin variation about which one reviewer says: "we get no less than 12 pages on the “silly” Pin Variation, and in the end Aagaard seems unable to prove a certain advantage!" Whatever the truth about that variation its highly risky and not recommended for cc!

Jason Repa    (2008-05-16 00:23:32)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0

Geez Stephenson, I thought you were done stalking and harassing me and had found something else to amuse your little mind with. Something shiny and metallic perhaps? But here you are continuing your trollish ways.

Actually, what this thread is REALLY about, is a pathetic little character who doesn't handle losing at chess very well. As was stated before, it's pretty sad that you don't have any chess games of your own worthy of publication or discussion, so you post one of mine and continue to rant, and rant, and rant about nonsense. I already BEAT YOU in chess. Quite easily, in fact. Could there be anything more ridiculous than a guy who loses at chess criticizing the play of the victor?

Normally when someone obsesses over me like this it's a female doing the obsessing. But hey, each to their own.

And yeah, it's pretty obvious you're someone with a lot of time on your hands. Nice of you to share that with us. But you only speak for yourself in that regard. Even with all your free time I was still able to beat you easily when we played chess.

Just look at this latest drivel you're posting. You go on and on and on about why I shouldn't have lost a chess game I played a year ago like this is some life and death event for you. It's really not a big deal to me. So why is MY game such a big deal to you? If you're trying to make an argument that I'm such a terrible correspondence chess player based on this game, why did I beat you so easily when you and I played? I'm also higher rated than you as well. If you're going to harass me with one of my losing games, at least have enough intelligence and imagination to vary the game once in awhile. You have 5 more to choose from.

Sorry but I've never met anyone clued out enough to put DOWN LOAD and DATA BASE before. This isn’t a minor spelling mistake or typo. This is a surprising lack of education. What’s next, “COMP -UTER”? A chess player should especially be familiar with the word DATABASE. But as I said earlier, some people mindlessly trust machines, and don't have the capacity to think for themselves. People like that like to brag about their meticulous spelling, because even a chromosome-deficient inebriate can figure out how to use spelling software. Most of us couldn't be bothered, because we realize that spelling is not important when making casual internet forum posts.

And no, Stephenson, the "point" about ELO is not dead. It's your ability to learn and understand simple concepts that appears quite dead here. This has nothing to do with me not "agreeing" with you. This has to do with objective fact. An ELO rating could be talking about GO, Backgammon, or other games, that FIDE has absolutely nothing to do with, in addition to national rating organizations. You were wrong. End of story. Continuing to defend your ignorance of the meaning of ELO is just making it all the more obvious what it is you are to everyone reading this. Again, Stephenson, LOOK IT UP.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-16 18:32:40)

"I was talking about updating the database with current theory and critical lines. " So what are you doing if not examining the latest games played and what better source is there than TWIC? How do you examine these if not downloading and filtering out the openings you are interested in by high rated players? Anything else is going to be taking other peoples selections eg New In chess opening surveys or subscribing to a chess opening service. Even then the best way of keeping a database up to date is with TWIC.