Won? I don't think so. Slight edge for the endgame, possibly.
Shouldn't the ...exf6 variation of the CK just lead to a lost ending?
Sort:
White gets a slight edge. It's not much, and it's not more than he normally gets. Black gets fluid piece play and is surprisingly solid. Have fun proving much in a real game against experienced practitioners of this line, who have historically included Yasser Seirawan, Victor Korchnoi, Tony Miles, and Ian Rogers, among others.
0
#4
dpnorman wrote:
White gets a slight edge. It's not much, and it's not more than he normally gets. Black gets fluid piece play and is surprisingly solid. Have fun proving much in a real game against experienced practitioners of this line, who have historically included Yasser Seirawan, Victor Korchnoi, Tony Miles, and Ian Rogers, among others.
I'm not trying to prove anything and it was just a question, where I use the adage about the Ruy Lopez exchange as a strawman. Plenty of players who defend the Ruy with 3...a6 end up defending the Exchange variation too, not least of whom Carlsen (and btw I loved his 5...Be6 in that line against Naiditsch in 2006)
Wasn't there a game between Jobava and Karjakin in which Jobava captured knight with e-pawn on f6 and went on to win in 31 moves? The variation was slightly different but still, white ended up with the queen-side pawn majority and black had a dismal king-side pawn structure.
Yeah Carlsen tends to be very good at any endgame where his opponent lets him have the bishop pair.
You might be right that a bare bones K+P ending gives white strong chances, but the chances of that happening are not so great. In the middlegame black's doubled pawn on the kingside can become a strength- he often plays f5 and sometimes even f4 and causes white problems.
A bare K+P ending doesn't White give strong chances, it is simply 1-0. So yes, I guess Black is well advised to avoid that scenario, either by getting rid of the f-pawn and/or by getting enough play in the middlegame.
0
#9
lolurspammed wrote:
With that attitude the Nimzowitsch attack in the Petroff is also refuted.
I've tried that variation without much success against strong opponents, who seem to be able to easily parry anything White can whip up on the kingside. I've even tried the Morozevich idea of Qd4!? and Qf4 getting the queen over in front of the queen's bishop.
@Jenium no it's not necessarily 1-0 because the circumstances of the game could cause changes. For example, if black's king ends up much better placed than white's, then it may not be 1-0. All we know about the pure K+P ending is that the structure would hypothetically be the same.
0
#11
dpnorman wrote:
@Jenium no it's not necessarily 1-0 because the circumstances of the game could cause changes. For example, if black's king ends up much better placed than white's, then it may not be 1-0. All we know about the pure K+P ending is that the structure would hypothetically be the same.
He means all else being equal.
Just because you have a structural weakness, it doesn't me a worse position. Black has better control of the center, a better defended kingside, and a few other things.
Yeah, my point is that you can't say that if it goes to a K+P ending that white wins automatically because in the process of getting to a K+P ending the pawns could become fixed, or the white king could end up less active than the black king, or so on
0
#13
Fiveofswords wrote:
G0INGP0STAL wrote:
lolurspammed wrote:
With that attitude the Nimzowitsch attack in the Petroff is also refuted.
I've tried that variation without much success against strong opponents, who seem to be able easily parry anything White can whip up on the kingside.
thats because they are stronger than you. its not like an opening can just win by itself. hell i often get a clearly won game from the opening and then proceed to lose because i stopped caring while the opponent switched on their engine
You really are an arrogant SOB aren't you
0
#14
pfren wrote:
The Jobava- karjakin game mentioned before was a tad different- white had played Nf3 in place of d4. Still, the positions frequently are the same.
Between the opening and the endgame, goddess Caissa placed the middlegame- and there not only Jobava wins with that variation as Black.
I love that quote: "Between the opening and the endgame, goddess Caissa placed the middlegame" -- who said that? As for the game, presumably there's got to an improvement over letting Black play 11...Qc7 and force that nasty hole on White's kingside when he responds g3.
0
#15
Fiveofswords wrote:
thats because they are stronger than you. its not like an opening can just win by itself. hell i often get a clearly won game from the opening and then proceed to lose because i stopped caring while the opponent switched on their engine
You really are an arrogant SOB aren't you
no...theres nothing arrogant about it. if your opponent just outplays you then it proves nothing about the position. an engine can beat a gm with pawn odds...does that mean its bad to have extra material? no of course not. just try using common sense.
I was referring to your statement implying that you only lose when opponents use engines.
0
#16
Fiveofswords wrote:
G0INGP0STAL wrote:
Fiveofswords wrote:
thats because they are stronger than you. its not like an opening can just win by itself. hell i often get a clearly won game from the opening and then proceed to lose because i stopped caring while the opponent switched on their engine
You really are an arrogant SOB aren't you
no...theres nothing arrogant about it. if your opponent just outplays you then it proves nothing about the position. an engine can beat a gm with pawn odds...does that mean its bad to have extra material? no of course not. just try using common sense.
I was referring to your statement implying that you only lose when opponents use engines.
well thats an interesting idea. first of all we can observe quite simply that it is not implied. secondly even if i did make that claim it still does not suggest arrogance per se because computer play can be suggested by more than merely being stronger than me.
When I said implied I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. And who knows WTF your trying to say with the rest of your above statement.
0
#18
Fiveofswords wrote:
well one of the things i find so amusing about this forum, and why i like posting here...is the depth of insanity which you simply cant get from most normal places. So with no sense of irony you are accusing me of arrogance, because i can lose a won game against and engine...because you yourself dismissed a highly critical and frequent gm choice in the petroff because you, personally, often fail to make anything of your kingside pressure when your opponent is strong.
Sure...im the one being arrogant.
I said I don't do well with the line, I didn't "dismiss it". And yes, it is arrogance of the first degree for anybody other than top-flight GM's to state that you only lose when your opponents use computers.
Ive recently started reading/studying Cyrus Lakdawala's book on the Caro Kann whereby he recommends 4..Nd7 instead of 4..B-f5 (and 4...N-f6). Thus, you might consider 4..N-d7 as an option to avoid the doubled pawn on f6 if white chooses to exchange knights.
White then has some choices on 5th moves (Bc4 and Ng5), as well as 5) Nf3. I'm currently studying 5...Nf6 6) Ng3 whereby instead of 6...e6, Lakdawla suggests 6... c5 as being another good alternative. citing Ye Jiangchuan- Karpov, 2000 and black had a good game. I am currently trying to see if this line would appeal to me as black. When I tried a practice game against 'Houdini' though, it played 7) c4 which I didnt see on 365 chess, so I need to further investigate it.
http://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=13&n=5860&ms=e4.c6.d4.d5.Nc3.dxe4.Nxe4.Nd7.Nf3.Ngf6.Ng3.c5
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
OK, so you hear all the time that in the Ruy Lopez exchange variation White should have a won ending if he can exchange all the way down to a pawn ending due to his pawn majority on the Kingside. That's considered a "big if" though considering White gave up the bishop pair.
What about in the following variation of the Caro Kann though? White doesn't even give up the bishop pair, the exchange is knight for knight. So shouldn't this be a won ending for White based on his queenside pawn majority?