Its subtitle of A Practical Guide To Inducing Errors gives a clue as to the contents.
The book's blurb on Amazon runs: Which opening does better in practice: the wild, "unsound" and "refuted" Latvian Gambit (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5) or the solid Philidor Defence (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6)?----- As James Schuyler points out, referring to the definitive Megabase, the Latvian Gambit scores higher. How can such a discredited opening (and the same story is repeated with other "unsound" openings) do so well? The point is that playing like this throws the opponent off balance, makes them anxious and induces mistakes.
Leaving aside the poor grammar, incorrectly named database and unfortunate layout, the theme is clear.
I was reminded of it in round five at Mariánské Lázně after playing the Englund Gambit: 1.d4 e5!?
After the further moves 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 we reached the following tabiya.
 |
| This position occurs 2,885 times in ChessBase's 2024 Mega database |
*****
*****
*****
*****
The main continuations are developing the queen's knight with 4.Nc3, when both Nd5 and Nb5 are threats, and protecting the e5 pawn with 4.Bf4, while Stockfish16 and Komodo14.1 like the rare 4.Bg5.
My opponent (Fide 1456) preferred 4.g3!?, which has been tried by grandmasters, but suggests my opponent either has a very sophisticated opening repertoire or, more likely, has a repertoire with large holes in his knowledge.
I have played the Englund once before, four years ago.
On that occasion my opponent (rated about 1850) deviated from the norm even earlier by playing 3.e3!?
LESSON: there is a natural tendency to give opponents far more credit than they deserve. Because I have certain opening knowledge, I tend to think my opponent will know it too, and may even know it better. The truth, at least at club level, is that the player who gets in a 'surprise' move first. usually gets at least a psychological advantage.
No comments:
Post a Comment