is memorizing 20 moves deep with ideas against an opening while being 1200elo is a bad idea? • page 3/3 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

[is memorizing 20 moves deep with ideas against an opening while being 1200elo is a bad idea?]

As an intermediate player, it's a wasteful idea - in general for openings it's best to go wide rather than narrow. ...

Well, my counter is, it increases Opening knowledge and punish more easily if they make inaccuracies

... It cannot be expected that one will be able to "punish" any departure from a line that one has memorized. 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 O-O is only 8 moves, and, already, there are lots of viable alternatives for various Black moves along the way.
"... Now jump ahead sixty years to 2020. ... the Berlin Defense to the Spanish (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6), which was considered a dubious sideline in Fischer’s day, is now considered to be very close to equal. Also the Marshall Gambit in the Spanish is now considered to be close to a draw, and good counters have been found to the various ways by which White used to avoid the Marshall. ..." - GM Larry Kaufman ...

@swimmerBill said in #13:

Not to quibble but Kaufman's quote
"Also the Marshall Gambit in the Spanish is now considered to be close to a draw, and good counters have been found to the various ways by which White used to avoid the Marshall. ..." - GM Larry Kaufman
is really about higher level players than most of us. Marshall is played a lot in my club and I dont think I've ever had a draw in a Marshall game. One of the Marshall fans and I spent an hour accepting it against each other in blitz games. I dont recall any draws there either. I think it's still formidable for most of us normal humans.

As for anti-Marshalls, I just had a short win as white with one vs an FM in a 3 day/move game.

@kindaspongey said in #15:

I agree that the GM Kaufman quote should not cause one to doubt that the Marshall Gambit is still formidable for many of us normal humans. For me the conclusion (relevant to this discussion) is that one cannot expect to be able to "punish" someone who departs from 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 O-O by going for the Marshall Gambit.

... Do you want to claim that your win establishes that one can expect to be able to "punish" someone who departs from 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 O-O by going for the Marshall Gambit?

@swimmerBill said in #20:

... I dont see how one can deduce that conclusion from my comment. ...

Neither do I, which is why I was asking a question when I referred to your win.
My guess was that your answer would be, "no", but I wanted to be sure, thus perhaps establishing agreement on the idea that the anti-Marshall does not justify an expectation of being able to "punish" someone who departs from 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 O-O by going for the Marshall Gambit.

@swimmerBill said in #20:

... A more plausible deduction is that neither Marshall nor anti-Marshall lead to dead draws. ...

The word, "draw", does not appear at all in MY words in #13, and "dead draw" does not appear in the quoted words of GM Kaufman.
I would guess that GM Kaufman would agree that neither the Marshall nor the anti-Marshall necessarily leads to a dead draw "for most of us normal humans."
I would also guess that GM Kaufman agrees that one cannot expect to be able to "punish" someone who departs from 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 O-O by going for the Marshall Gambit.

@JustAChessPlayer177 said in #1: > [is memorizing 20 moves deep with ideas against an opening while being 1200elo is a bad idea?] @AlexiHarvey said in #8: > As an intermediate player, it's a wasteful idea - in general for openings it's best to go wide rather than narrow. ... @JustAChessPlayer177 said in #9: > Well, my counter is, it increases Opening knowledge and punish more easily if they make inaccuracies @kindaspongey said in #!2: > ... It cannot be expected that one will be able to "punish" any departure from a line that one has memorized. 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 O-O is only 8 moves, and, already, there are lots of viable alternatives for various Black moves along the way. "... Now jump ahead sixty years to 2020. ... the Berlin Defense to the Spanish (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6), which was considered a dubious sideline in Fischer’s day, is now considered to be very close to equal. Also the Marshall Gambit in the Spanish is now considered to be close to a draw, and good counters have been found to the various ways by which White used to avoid the Marshall. ..." - GM Larry Kaufman ... @swimmerBill said in #13: > Not to quibble but Kaufman's quote > "Also the Marshall Gambit in the Spanish is now considered to be close to a draw, and good counters have been found to the various ways by which White used to avoid the Marshall. ..." - GM Larry Kaufman > is really about higher level players than most of us. Marshall is played a lot in my club and I dont think I've ever had a draw in a Marshall game. One of the Marshall fans and I spent an hour accepting it against each other in blitz games. I dont recall any draws there either. I think it's still formidable for most of us normal humans. > > As for anti-Marshalls, I just had a short win as white with one vs an FM in a 3 day/move game. @kindaspongey said in #15: > I agree that the GM Kaufman quote should not cause one to doubt that the Marshall Gambit is still formidable for many of us normal humans. For me the conclusion (relevant to this discussion) is that one cannot expect to be able to "punish" someone who departs from 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 O-O by going for the Marshall Gambit. > > ... Do you want to claim that your win establishes that one can expect to be able to "punish" someone who departs from 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 O-O by going for the Marshall Gambit? @swimmerBill said in #20: > ... I dont see how one can deduce that conclusion from my comment. ... Neither do I, which is why I was asking a question when I referred to your win. My guess was that your answer would be, "no", but I wanted to be sure, thus perhaps establishing agreement on the idea that the anti-Marshall does not justify an expectation of being able to "punish" someone who departs from 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 O-O by going for the Marshall Gambit. @swimmerBill said in #20: > ... A more plausible deduction is that neither Marshall nor anti-Marshall lead to dead draws. ... The word, "draw", does not appear at all in MY words in #13, and "dead draw" does not appear in the quoted words of GM Kaufman. I would guess that GM Kaufman would agree that neither the Marshall nor the anti-Marshall necessarily leads to a dead draw "for most of us normal humans." I would also guess that GM Kaufman agrees that one cannot expect to be able to "punish" someone who departs from 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 O-O by going for the Marshall Gambit.