Is this a “USCF Issue”? Wasn’t the “All Things Chess” area created for discussions like this?
White is a solid pawn up. Black might try …f6 or even …g5 to generate some activity. I have played against both successfully. A problem with lower rated players is to think there is a shortcut to playing chess. There isn’t. The game isn’t over until there is checkmate. Just be happy to have the advantage out of the opening after only a few moves, and figure and play chess to convert to the full point.
A pawn up without a potential mating net, you should convert from one advantage to another. As the pieces trade, your pawn advantage will be glaring!
All the best, Joe Lux
New Jersey Delegate
Sorry to rely on an engine - and a rather outdated one at that (Fritz 8, circa 2004 or so). But in this case its analysis coincides with what intuition tells some of us: that White’s pawn advances in the line Joe so smugly cites are likely to end badly.
I guess it could use more time than the 15 minutes or so I put in just now, and could use a bit more human judgment to temper the engine’s ideas.
But hopefully what follows will be still be an instructive correction to some of the vague platitudes being voiced on this thread:
- d4 d5 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 d4 4. e4 Nc6 5. f4 f6 6.exf6 Nxf6 7. Bd3 Bb4+
- Nd2
(8. Bd2 Qe7 9. Qe2 O-O 10. Nf3 Nh5 11. g3 Rxf4 -0.48; 8. Kf1!? -.05)
8… Qe7
(8… Ng4 9. a3 Ne3 10. Qh5+ g6 11. Qe2 +0.54; 8… O-O 9. Ngf3 Ng4 10. a3 +0.85)
- Qe2
(9. e5 Ng4 10. a3 (10. Qe2? O-O 11. g3 Ncxe5 12. fxe5 Nxe5 -+) 10…Ncxe5 11. fxe5 Nxe5 12. axb4 O-O -1.15)
9… Bg4 10. Ngf3 Nh5 11. g3 O-O 12. e5 (12. O-O Rxf4) 12… g5
- Unclear and hard to evaluate (even for Fritz) - but hardly in line with Joe’s evaluation, especially since (in view of the branches examined above) this position appears to be the BEST White can get from the 5.f4 line.
Jon: What would be the rating of Fritz? Even your 2300 rating needed a machine. You don’t have one in a face-to-face game. Remember this line the next time we play…I’m playing Tuesday.
All the best, Joe Lux
4.e4 Nc6 5.f4 f6 6.ef Nf6 7.Bd3 Bb4 8.Bd2 Qe7 9.e5 O-O 10.Ne2 with a pull
Unfortunately, this thread has been moved from the USCF issues forum. Now the rest of the world can see this amazing analysis. 
Upon reflection (and running Rybka), I’ve lost faith in the line I just gave. But hey, just play a3.
Here’s Avrukh’s model game for White (hmm, Topalov lost with White against this utter crap…)
[Event “Amber-rapid 14th”]
[Site “Monte Carlo”]
[Date “2005.03.26”]
[Round “7”]
[White “Topalov, Veselin”]
[Black “Morozevich, Alexander”]
[Result “0-1”]
[ECO “D08”]
[WhiteElo “2757”]
[BlackElo “2741”]
[PlyCount “76”]
[EventDate “2005.03.19”]
[EventType “tourn (rapid)”]
[EventRounds “11”]
[EventCountry “MNC”]
[EventCategory “20”]
[Source “ChessBase”]
[SourceDate “2005.05.01”]
- d4 d5 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 d4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. a3 Nge7 6. b4 Ng6 7. Bb2 a5 8. b5
Ncxe5 9. Nxe5 Nxe5 10. e3 Be6 11. Bxd4 Nxc4 12. Qc2 Nd6 13. Bd3 Qg5 14. f4 Qh4+ - g3 Qh5 (15… Qh3 $5) 16. Nc3 Nf5 17. O-O O-O-O 18. Ba7 $1 Qg4 19. Ne4 $16
(19. Na4 $1 $18) 19… Rd7 20. Rfd1 Qf3 21. Ng5 Nxe3 22. Nxf3 Nxc2 23. Bxc2 b6 - Ne5 Rxd1+ 25. Rxd1 Bxa3 26. f5 Ba2 27. Ra1 Bc5+ 28. Kf1 Re8 29. Re1 f6 30.
Nd3 Rxe1+ 31. Kxe1 Bd6 32. Nc1 Bd5 33. Bb3 Be4 34. Bxb6 cxb6 35. Be6+ Kc7 36.
Ke2 Be5 37. Nd3 Kd6 38. Ke3 Bd5 0-1
By the way, Jon, is 5. ef forced? It just helps black’s development. What is wrong with white developing with 5.Nf3? I don’t own an engine…too old-fashioned I guess. 
All the best, Joe Lux
Bill, what’s wrong with a simple developing move like 5…Bg7? If 6.Nd5 then Qd8. Black can play the same idea as white. 
All the best, Joe Lux
6.Nf3 may indeed be best, but does White get a pull? 6…fxe5 7.fxe5 meh.
No one ever thought of 2.Qh5 as Steinitzian before!
So maybe 6.Nge2 and play for eventual f4 break.
Returnig to Joe’s Albin line, after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de d4 4.e4 Nc6 5.Nf3 f6: First, when you presented the line earlier on this thread, it was you who gave 6.ef - followed by lots of confident verbiage (based on general principles unsupported by concrete variations) about how White will win easily by virtue of his extra center pawn.
Now proposing 6.Nf3 (I assume that’s what you meant, not 5.Nf3) represents a dramatic about-face from those assertions. White’s “extra center pawn” - which did look proud in your earlier line (for the next 6 moves or so - until the reality of White’s exposed king set in) - would then devolve into a rather pathetic isolated, doubled extra pawn (unless you planned on answering 6…fe with f4-f5). Which it’s hard to believe can be held in the long run.
It’s not for nothing that opening books barely even mention 4.e4 as a choice against the Albin. (One respected reference I checked last night, Nunn’s maybe, showed it as “4.e4?!” Perhaps in view of the lines cited in my preceding post, that book gives 8.Kf1 in answer to …Bb4+, and ends there.)
Whether I could beat Joe or anyone else from any of these positions is of no interest or relevance. Those of you who spend your days instructing 600-players about how to beat 800-players, and are therefore more concerned with opening tricks and traps that work only against unwary opponents than with real chess analysis, are free to disagree.
Those two e pawns control alotta squares. I like it from which to play for a win! You’re still up a passed pawn.
All the best, Joe
OK, Jon. I meant Nf3 after f4. I’m just sitting here by the computer doing stuff from my head. White is still up a pawn with a lot of center control. I don’t consider this position an opening trap. Real chess analysis, as you put it, while an honorable pasttime, is for 2600 players. That is something neither of us are about to achieve.
All the best, Joe
PS: I guess your engine could not refute 6. Nf3 
Jon: Checking the thread, where do I suggest 6.ef? That was your idea.
All the best, Joe
PS: See you Tuesday?
You’re right, Joe, I blithely assumed (without going back to check the details of your earlier posts) that your intent was for White to answer 5…f6 with 6.ef. That’s the most natural move, the only one considered in the few books that even bother with this obscure line, and Bill Brock seems to have made the same assumption in his comments here.
On the one hand, I owe you an apology for misstating your position since you evidently preferred 6.Nf3 all along. On the other hand, turning the discussion toward 6.ef instead, might actually amount to doing you a favor! (I stand by my earlier diagnosis of 6.Nf3. At the risk of committing the very same sin I’ve been taking you to task for - relying on positional “feel” divorced from concrete analysis - I think White will have to fight for the draw after 6.Nf3 fe 7.fe. The advanced e-pawn isn’t likely to survive very long, and White’s pawn structure is clearly inferior, to the point where most endgames will be lost for him.)
As for “real analysis is for 2600 players” - that statement would be laughable even coming from someone rated 1800. From someone who advertises himself as an NM, I hope you’re joking (but I fear you aren’t).
All I and other serious players can do is shake our heads sadly and say, “Speak for yourself!”
Your students really deserve a teacher with a better attitude.
Here’s a suggestion: I know of one in your own community (northern New Jersey). His rating is lower than yours, but he publishes reams of excellent, instructive game and opening analysis. I’m referring to Michael Goeller, on the Kenilworth Chess Club blog.
What I remember most about reading Chess Life in the late '60s and early '70s was the Larry Evans column devoted to readers who wrote in with questions about openings, famous game positions and the like.
Time and again, I would see people with 1900, 1800 and even sometimes 1600 or 1500 ratings, suggest moves that differed from the “book” or from what some great had played in some famous game.
And time and again, Evans would respond along the lines of, “Your analysis appears sound. Your recommended move, Xyz, looks better than the standard Vwx, and is worth a practical test.”
That was quite inspiring. I still remember that whenever I see some rating-snob on Daily Dirt or elsewhere dismiss someone else’s suggestion without considering the analysis, just because the person isn’t a GM.
To drain personalities out of this: until we have 32-piece tablebases, computers will never replace the human brain.
However, it’s not too hard for players above (say) 1500 to do original research in their favorite openings. (Is it the best use of their time, if they’re ambitious? That’s debatable–I doubt it. Is it fun? Yes.)
I think the normal outcome of such a session would be for 1500 to show 2200 friend the findings, and 2200 would say “Yuck! That new move is ugly!” But often the 1500 would be right! And 2200 (if sufficiently flexible) would then help 1500 understand why 2200 jumped to the wrong conclusion, and add comments on the things that computers will never understand.
I don’t consider the natural move is to help black’s development with 6.ef. An obscure line in an obscure opening can become main line if the right person wins with it. Books are a guide, which must be judged with critical thinking. As GM Evans frequently said, the longer the annotation, the greater chance for a mistake…or something like that.
On the positional merits of 6.Nf3 fe 7.fe…it is difficult for black to win the e5 pawn without loosening its control on the pawn on d4.
I was not dismissing analysis from players lower rated than 2600. I was saying that only players rated 2600 really need such analysis in their play!
Yes, you are a serious student of the game, Jon. Perhaps too serious, and that can take the fun out of playing. I play in tournaments for the enjoyment. I like the mode of tournament play over off-hand games or internet play.
My students learn to enjoy the act of playing. Let’s call it chess appreciation, like music and art appreciation in school. Will they all become life-long tournament players? No. Will they feel that their individual worth as a human being will be measured by their rating, as I have seen numerous times in youthful players, and in a few older ones? No.
My students get focused on critical thinking, a skill they can apply anywhere in life. They will leave my classes with a positive feeling for the game.
You had a very successful youth in chess, Jon! But you left organized chess for many years. Too bad you haven’t developed your game to the fullest extent that was once possible. Don’t return to chess just to rekindle your youth.
All the best, Joe Lux
I have been off of this forum for a few days, I guess it was the weekend… and much has already been said. Yet I do feel compelled to post here- primarily because I inadvertently started the topic with a somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment about the ACG back in the moderator-infested “USCF Issues” forum. After a few comments about the ACG itself it was appropriately reengaged “over here”.
And also, I was “called out”, to an extent, for offering non-analytical attributes and observations about the opening, which were deemed of little or no value. While I admit that some of my allure to the ACG was of that nature, and accurately described as such, I do not think that my comments (or certainly my thoughts) were limited to this – the element of “shock value”, if you will, associated with this opening. I said then and repeat now that I see a number of possible attack lines arising for Black – lines that give this opening some measure of technical credibility. Specifically mentioned was the possibility of strong Kingside attack after the White adopts the fianchetto option, particularly, with the confluence of Black’s …Bg4, …Qd7, ….0-0-0, and ….h7-h5, …h4 maneuvers. Of course those require time and skill to execute properly, and the flexibility to adjust Black’s plans to the variations chosen by White. I do not think it’s fair to dismiss this approach out-of-hand as one that only relies on a blundering opponent.
But I am somewhat reticent about replying here, too, for several reasons. For one, I am obviously by skill and experience less-qualified than others who have posted here – and to some, not qualified to analyze openings at all. In fact I am not at 2600 – but I can probably find a mathematician that will attest that I am approaching 2600. I might not be doing so in a practical sense – the projected date to get there is probably around year 2180. 
There has also been a distinction made here between “theoretical analysis” (i.e., sound; masterful) and “vague positional generalities” (i.e., unsound; amateurish). Perhaps I’m guilty of the latter – which I’ll refer to as “VPG” for short. However it has been my personal observation and experience that VPG is the label that some conveniently apply to degrade another’s – perhaps relatively limited – depth of analysis. It seems like the same person will refer to analysis that may be not quite as deep as their own as VPG, but then refer to another’s thinking – which happens to be more in line with their own depth of analysis (or better yet: their conclusions) as “theoretical”. In other words, this quality index is very much in the subjective eyes of the beholder. The rich man’s VPG is the poor man’s theoretical analysis.
Another inhibitor to posting is simply the high noise level in this thread. A couple posters keep saying the ACG is obscure, or even “crap”, but amusingly they continue to discuss 2. Qh5! If as was suggested the measure of “seriousness” (or again, ‘theoretical soundness’!) is the frequency with which move sequences are used in high-level play, I think it’s pretty clear that this other opening (does it even have a name?) fails miserably, even alongside the ACG! Just looking at ChessGames.com as a comparative example: the number of games that have seen 2. Qh5 is miniscule, and fewer than 5% of the analogous number… of games that have involved the ACG! Of the scant 13 games with 2. Qh5 in this database subset, moreover, three are clearly jokes – and one was between Kasparov and… Boris Becker! Come on, gents – I call “foot fault”, at the very least here!
Last, there is clearly some complex interplay (baggage??) between the two leading posters in this thread that escapes most readers, including me - and that I won’t even try to follow or address.
All that background aside, I obviously decided that the factors compelling me to post outweighed the inhibitors. And simply and directly to the point of the main ACG variation that has been broached here: I simply do not agree that 4. e4 Nc6 5. f4 f6 6. Nf3 fxe5 7. fxe5 Bb4 clearly leaves White better, or even equal. As has been noted the White pawn structure is miserable, and Black is also mounting the Kingside attack that the ACG yields. And as Silman’s treatment of this opening has shown (by multiple examples) the “wedge pawn” can be a significant, sustained problem for White as well.
More common play in the AUG (again not looking for the “blunder” lines) does not involve 4.e4, but instead - 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. g3 Bg4 6. Bg2 (or Nbd2) Qd7 7. Nbd2 (or Bg2) 0-0-0 8. 0-0 h5; etc. Black’s chances here are very strong, as has been corroborated by games in Master-level play and even higher (reference made prior to the Silman article). Or avoiding the fianchetto, an alternative which I think was mentioned earlier: 5. a3 Bg4 6. Nbd2 Qe7 (now a different focus) 7. h3 Bh5. I do not see how White is markedly better in either case, and is probably behind in the first (more commonly followed) sequence. Black’s development there is strong and attacking prospects real.
Just more VPG? Maybe so. But I also think it’s clear that nobody here has investigated all possible lines, nor is that a practical expectation. As such VPG that have played out concretely in a number of games are indeed important.
To imply that every move of opening line employed has to be the “theoretical best” is foolish and even arrogant. If carried to the extreme there would be only one opening sequence (I don’t know what it would be), and only one truly useful chess problem: 32 pieces and Pawns in their original position – “White to Play and Win”. In real play, however, the contest is my moves against yours, ALWAYS in a relative value sense. In other words if my moves cause you to follow an inferior line – NOT necessarily as obvious as the dreaded 4. e3 in the ACG – then it is up to me to take advantage of this response. Likewise, if I don’t fully capitalize on this (maybe subtle) weakness, it is back to you to capitalize. Back and forth, until one has a decisive advantage. So it is not bad play, I suggest, to introduce complications that might, in turn, yield me a relative advantage. And just because two players may be stronger than others, or some quantitative standard - in a given game or analysis - it is not assured that these two will always follow “theory” and make the “best moves”. (If it were so, variety in chess games would eventually converge to zero. This isn’t happening any time soon.)
So unless your game(s) reflect perfect play, according to whatever-rated machine or GM analysis, then you, too – and your esteemed opponent – are living by the same approach and under the same dynamics that that A, B, and even C players (shudder) live by. You move; I move; repeat. What am I missing?
I think I’ll give another look-see to that 2. Qh5 thing. Hey - maybe I can trap somebody with it!
Thanks for that story - amusing and preposterous on the part of your opponent… I agree. But the term “bully opening” conjures up modes of play and motivation that I have never seen or felt before. If I am playing a clearly-weaker opponent, I try to win as efficiently as possible and treat that person with as much respect as possible (e.g., never ‘calling mate’) - and willing to go over the game with them to whatever extent they’d like (including none if that is their preference). Often this is a younger player and my main (sometimes only) piece of advice is to take more time thinking through their moves.
But back to your point - I guess I don’t think the Albin even comes close to such a tactic. To me, it simply opens up a lot of possible lines that the opponent (of ANY rating) may have never prepared for. As such it gives me some chances to gain an advantage (tactical, not ‘bully’ in any way) early in the game - and if I am skilled enough, I might convert that into a win. Heck, in addition to never feeling motivation to “bully”, I doubt I’d be good enough to pull that off - even if I tried! For me, a line like that played by your nemesis - with his silly double Knight move in the Ruy - would be suicidal. That’s just a silly sequence of moves by any measure - and not at all an appropriate comparison to the Albin, or more important: not at all an appropriate comparison of motives to someone playing the Albin.
I reiterate what I said in my previous (long-winded) post. Chess is a sequence of moves made by humans, and the winner is the one who’s moves are more closely correct (which EQUALS ‘least incorrect’), allowing that player to finally gain the lasting advantage. And I believe that over a fairly wide range of skill levels an approach like the ACG will yield some very interesting possibilities, and at the very least reduce the likelihood of a drawn outcome. But of course it is a double-edged sword. I recently tried the Schliemann Defense against the Ruy (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 f5), and my opponent (about 400 points better than me) worked into a variation that I myself did not know well. There are a number of lessons in there for me - but suffice it to say that my analysis was not indefinitely exhaustive, I made at least one inferior move, and as a result - he won the chess game. This is the nature of chess, and it always will be - regardless of the capabilities of computers and the depth of “theoretical analysis”.
Thanks for posting your ideas - very instructive in several areas.
Thanks, TP.
Regarding the “Bully” concept, I knowingly muddied the waters a bit with my anecdote about my obnoxious opponent’s 3…Nce7? move some 40 years ago.
I need to make very clear that my use of the term “Bully” refers not to a player’s behavior or demeanor, but the choice of openings designed to intimidate the opponent (usually a much lower-rated opponent). The defining characteristic of such openings is they are not quite sound, but aim for attacking chances that can produce a lightning win if the opponent doesn’t know the standard counter. Scotch/Goering Gambit, Wing Gambit, Falkbeer, maybe the Morra… when I was first getting started, the Giocco Piano (the ancient Moeller attack, with 4.c3 and 5.d4 - not today’s very popular quiet Giocco with 4.d3) was favored by some such players. Also, turbo-charged variations within many non-gambit openings - particularly those that involve an early h4 and/or g4 for White (or …h5 and/or …g5 for Black).
So, that 3…Nce7 non-idea doesn’t really qualify - since its sole evident purpose was to show contempt for the opponent (in that case, me). The intimidation value stemmed only from what my opponent said aloud, rather than from any chessic qualities of the move or the positions it could lead to.
Given the above definition of “Bully,” Hikaru Nakamura would be one of my main examples. (AGAIN: Use of this word isn’t meant to imply anything about his behavior - it is purely a chess judgment.) And 2.Qh5 is the perfect “bully” opening.
In a nutshell, my answer to “How to Beat Up a Bully” is: fight fire with fire. Which is why Monokroussos’ analysis of 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nf6! came in so handy for me: it exemplifies exactly the kind of reaction I advocate. (Another example: If someone attacks you with an early g4 and/or h4 while you’re castled and he isn’t, blast open the center if you can - even at the cost of a pawn. That’s long been standard positional advice - but it also comports with my principle of going right for your opponent’s jugular as soon as you catch a whiff that he’s attacking you prematurely.)
And coming back to the ACG: I recall unleashing that opening against someone who I knew employed the “bully” style. It worked like a charm!