Thanks a lot for this great video. By watching your content i really started to understand what is master level chess is about. i'll try to remember these tips next time i play the Steinitz ;)
Master, thank you for the amazing video. I wanted to ask you about the position on the 19.00. I opened the Lichess book of openings and I saw that dxc5 is the second choice. The first choice is a3. For example, I found several interesting games where I believe that white achieves a better position than the variant that you showed. For example 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e5 Nd7 5 f4 c5 6 Nf3 Nc6 7 Be3 ( Boleslavsky Variation ) a6 8 Qd2 b5 9 and here not cxe5 but a3 Qb6 10 Ne2 Qc7 11 c3 Na5 12 Qc2 Be7 13 Ng3 Bb7. In this position Stockfish valutes + 0.6 and there are four matches bewtween masters in the Lichess Book with 4 victories for white. ( For example Pfiffner Peter vs Anhalt Dr.Horst Peter in 2012 ). Moreover at the 7° move an other chance for black is Be2. It's possible to have an other video with these lines ? Thanks again.
Now at six and one half minutes, c5 plays more into white's plan, and they have accomodated our pawn play strategy then we hit back with a change up of strategems
I dissagree with your assesment on the knight to e5 move, as the correct response to Bc4 would not be to break witht he usual c5 but on the contrary make proceed with a6 b5, facilitating the C5 thrust by making the white bishop a target. GM Simon Williams analyses this sideline interestingly
Today we uploaded the next video on the French Defense where we cover typical plans and ideas after the move 4.Bg5, including the Burn Variation. If you play the French Defense, then this video might also be interesting for you. As we try to have a mix of the videos that we upload on TH-cam and due to the fact that the videos within a series follow a given order, the video about the Winawer Variation cannot be uploaded immediately. We can promise you that the next video on the French Defense will be the Winawer Variation 😄. Just be a bit patient.
I disagree with the assessment of the line 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Nce2 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Nf3 (at about 6:55 in the video) as just an inferior version of the Advance Variation. The differences compared to the Advance Variation are that the white queen's knight is on e2 instead of b1 and the black king's knight on d7 instead of g8, and intuitively both of these factors should favour white: the b1-knight is often a passive piece in the Advance which really suffers from the fact that its natural square on c3 is occupied by a pawn, while the g8-knight goes to f5 and plays an important role in pressuring white's centre. The fact that this line has been played as white by Vitiugov - one of the world's strongest French players - and recommended by Harikrishna in a Chessable course makes it even harder to believe that this isn't at least a slightly improved version of the Advance Variation.
There is no such a problem as a passive b1-knight in the Advance Variation: Black either captures d4 voluntarily or white forces cxd4 with their b4-move. In both cases the knight gets its c3-square, which is by the way only good in the sense of Nc3-a4-c5 or (in some cases) Nc3-e2-f4 maneuvers. If black closes the position with the c5-c4, then the knight can be maneuvered by Nd2-f1-g(e)3 or support b2-b3 from d2. The position of black’s knight on d7 is indeed worse than on e7 if we talk about the direct attack on d4. From d7, though, the knight exerts additional pressure on e5 making the f7-f6 plan (typical for this structure) more efficient. The facts like „someone played something“ don’t prove anything. On the top level, the absolute quality of the line isn’t necessarily the decisive factor. You don’t „prepare the line“ but rather „prepare against the particular opponent in the particular tournament situation“. Absolutely different approach. Conclusion: We all have our opinions about various things based on our theoretical and practical knowledge. Thanks for sharing yours!
@@Chessfactor Of course we can make abstract arguments in favour of both the Advance Variation and this Nce2+Nf3 line. Perhaps I overstated my case, but the most important point is that from a purely abstract point of view white has made some legitimate improvements compared to the Advance, and so it will at the very least require concrete analysis to assess which is more promising. Certainly I think just dismissing it with a rhetorical question like "Why not just play the Advance?" does it a disservice. I can tell from your comments that you have in mind the traditional mainlines with 5... Qb6 6. a3, where white does indeed solve the problem of the knight albeit of spending two valuable tempi on potentially weakening (and also potentially space gaining of course - it's give and take) pawn moves on the queenside. But I don't think the fact there are lines where white solves the problem at the price of other concessions means there is no problem. In other critical lines white instead opts for the maneuver Na3-c2 (e.g. 5... Bd7 6. 0-0 Nge7 7. Na3), and in this case I think it is pretty hard to dispute my claim that the b1-knight is something of a problem piece for White in these structures. As regards my appeal to Vitiugov and Harikrisha I would add a few points. Firstly, Vitiugov is a French expert who was the higher rated player and would have been hoping to win. Given that the French is an opening where white can legitimately fight for an advantage and which players of his calibre don't get to face too often as white I think his choice should be taken seriously. It would be one thing to play a line once against the Berlin or Najdorf that you can expect regularly and where it is widely accepted that black is objectively equal; it's another thing against the French when you know enough about the French not to have to rely on one game surprise weapons against it. If you won't take my word for it then take Jan Gustafsson's, who said in the live broadcast that Nf3 instead of f4 is the critical move.
Well, if you have a line or several showing the real power of Nf3, please do share them with us. Gustafsson certainly had something specific, most likely results of his analysis, in mind saying that. If you have performed a similar study - great, you are on the right track. If your judgments are based on trust in what different experts say, it’s not very efficient in the sense of improvement.
@@Chessfactor To be honest it's not so easy to give one specific line, because theory is still developing, play is not so forcing, and a proper 'mainline' has yet to be established. I suppose what I could do would be to give examples of mainlines in the Advance that are not possible with the insertion of Nf6-d7 and Nc3-e2. The problem with this approach would be that almost none of black's mainlines in the Advance are viable! Obviously black can't play any lines with an early ...Bd7 or ...Nge7/Nh6, but even the line 7... Qb6 8. a3 c4 is quite dubious for black, since the knight on d7 prevents black from completing the standard development with ...Bd7 and ...0-0-0. Really the only important lines after 7... Qb6 8. a3 that have analogues in the Advance are 8... f6 and 8... a5. In both cases there is then a debate about who benefits from the insertion of Nc3-e2 and Nf7-d7, while black can also choose something other than 7... Qb6 (in particular 7... Be7 is stronger than in the analogous Advance Variation position). To be clear, I'm not saying that this 7. Nf3 line is the end of chess, my point is only that it's an interesting and fairly critical line which is done a disservice with a claim like "it's not clear what white has achieved in addition to just normal Advance Variation stuff". My appeal to Vitiugov, Harikrishna and Gustafsson was in service of that point, rather than an attempt to maximise my personal improvement. I think listening to experts is a great way to find out about the theoretical assessment of opening lines, and in light of that also to discover directions for independent investigation; I would not claim that learning how experts assess certain lines without any understanding of their reasoning is a good way to improve at chess.
Very cool video! Thanks Andrey!
Thanks a lot for this great video. By watching your content i really started to understand what is master level chess is about. i'll try to remember these tips next time i play the Steinitz ;)
very good explanations....i like your logical approch.
Excellent video!
Master, thank you for the amazing video. I wanted to ask you about the position on the 19.00. I opened the Lichess book of openings and I saw that dxc5 is the second choice. The first choice is a3. For example, I found several interesting games where I believe that white achieves a better position than the variant that you showed. For example 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e5 Nd7 5 f4 c5 6 Nf3 Nc6 7 Be3 ( Boleslavsky Variation ) a6 8 Qd2 b5 9 and here not cxe5 but a3 Qb6 10 Ne2 Qc7 11 c3 Na5 12 Qc2 Be7 13 Ng3 Bb7. In this position Stockfish valutes + 0.6 and there are four matches bewtween masters in the Lichess Book with 4 victories for white. ( For example Pfiffner Peter vs Anhalt Dr.Horst Peter in 2012 ). Moreover at the 7° move an other chance for black is Be2. It's possible to have an other video with these lines ? Thanks again.
That is another popular direction. Just like in the vast majority of cases, your choice depends on your taste.
Now at six and one half minutes, c5 plays more into white's plan, and they have accomodated our pawn play strategy then we hit back with a change up of strategems
great video, FYI at 4:15 the line is suboptimal: stockfish recommends 10...exf6 capturing en passant (evaluated at +2.6, with the video line at +1.2)
Great Content. Thank you 🙏❤
You're welcome 🙂
I dissagree with your assesment on the knight to e5 move, as the correct response to Bc4 would not be to break witht he usual c5 but on the contrary make proceed with a6 b5, facilitating the C5 thrust by making the white bishop a target. GM Simon Williams analyses this sideline interestingly
Please explain winawar variation.
You will be happy to hear that we will also show the Winawer Variation at some point.
@@Chessfactor I'll be waiting...
Today we uploaded the next video on the French Defense where we cover typical plans and ideas after the move 4.Bg5, including the Burn Variation. If you play the French Defense, then this video might also be interesting for you. As we try to have a mix of the videos that we upload on TH-cam and due to the fact that the videos within a series follow a given order, the video about the Winawer Variation cannot be uploaded immediately. We can promise you that the next video on the French Defense will be the Winawer Variation 😄. Just be a bit patient.
I disagree with the assessment of the line 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Nce2 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Nf3 (at about 6:55 in the video) as just an inferior version of the Advance Variation. The differences compared to the Advance Variation are that the white queen's knight is on e2 instead of b1 and the black king's knight on d7 instead of g8, and intuitively both of these factors should favour white: the b1-knight is often a passive piece in the Advance which really suffers from the fact that its natural square on c3 is occupied by a pawn, while the g8-knight goes to f5 and plays an important role in pressuring white's centre. The fact that this line has been played as white by Vitiugov - one of the world's strongest French players - and recommended by Harikrishna in a Chessable course makes it even harder to believe that this isn't at least a slightly improved version of the Advance Variation.
There is no such a problem as a passive b1-knight in the Advance Variation: Black either captures d4 voluntarily or white forces cxd4 with their b4-move. In both cases the knight gets its c3-square, which is by the way only good in the sense of Nc3-a4-c5 or (in some cases) Nc3-e2-f4 maneuvers. If black closes the position with the c5-c4, then the knight can be maneuvered by Nd2-f1-g(e)3 or support b2-b3 from d2.
The position of black’s knight on d7 is indeed worse than on e7 if we talk about the direct attack on d4. From d7, though, the knight exerts additional pressure on e5 making the f7-f6 plan (typical for this structure) more efficient.
The facts like „someone played something“ don’t prove anything. On the top level, the absolute quality of the line isn’t necessarily the decisive factor. You don’t „prepare the line“ but rather „prepare against the particular opponent in the particular tournament situation“. Absolutely different approach.
Conclusion: We all have our opinions about various things based on our theoretical and practical knowledge. Thanks for sharing yours!
@@Chessfactor Of course we can make abstract arguments in favour of both the Advance Variation and this Nce2+Nf3 line. Perhaps I overstated my case, but the most important point is that from a purely abstract point of view white has made some legitimate improvements compared to the Advance, and so it will at the very least require concrete analysis to assess which is more promising. Certainly I think just dismissing it with a rhetorical question like "Why not just play the Advance?" does it a disservice. I can tell from your comments that you have in mind the traditional mainlines with 5... Qb6 6. a3, where white does indeed solve the problem of the knight albeit of spending two valuable tempi on potentially weakening (and also potentially space gaining of course - it's give and take) pawn moves on the queenside. But I don't think the fact there are lines where white solves the problem at the price of other concessions means there is no problem. In other critical lines white instead opts for the maneuver Na3-c2 (e.g. 5... Bd7 6. 0-0 Nge7 7. Na3), and in this case I think it is pretty hard to dispute my claim that the b1-knight is something of a problem piece for White in these structures.
As regards my appeal to Vitiugov and Harikrisha I would add a few points. Firstly, Vitiugov is a French expert who was the higher rated player and would have been hoping to win. Given that the French is an opening where white can legitimately fight for an advantage and which players of his calibre don't get to face too often as white I think his choice should be taken seriously. It would be one thing to play a line once against the Berlin or Najdorf that you can expect regularly and where it is widely accepted that black is objectively equal; it's another thing against the French when you know enough about the French not to have to rely on one game surprise weapons against it. If you won't take my word for it then take Jan Gustafsson's, who said in the live broadcast that Nf3 instead of f4 is the critical move.
Well, if you have a line or several showing the real power of Nf3, please do share them with us. Gustafsson certainly had something specific, most likely results of his analysis, in mind saying that. If you have performed a similar study - great, you are on the right track. If your judgments are based on trust in what different experts say, it’s not very efficient in the sense of improvement.
@@Chessfactor To be honest it's not so easy to give one specific line, because theory is still developing, play is not so forcing, and a proper 'mainline' has yet to be established. I suppose what I could do would be to give examples of mainlines in the Advance that are not possible with the insertion of Nf6-d7 and Nc3-e2. The problem with this approach would be that almost none of black's mainlines in the Advance are viable! Obviously black can't play any lines with an early ...Bd7 or ...Nge7/Nh6, but even the line 7... Qb6 8. a3 c4 is quite dubious for black, since the knight on d7 prevents black from completing the standard development with ...Bd7 and ...0-0-0. Really the only important lines after 7... Qb6 8. a3 that have analogues in the Advance are 8... f6 and 8... a5. In both cases there is then a debate about who benefits from the insertion of Nc3-e2 and Nf7-d7, while black can also choose something other than 7... Qb6 (in particular 7... Be7 is stronger than in the analogous Advance Variation position). To be clear, I'm not saying that this 7. Nf3 line is the end of chess, my point is only that it's an interesting and fairly critical line which is done a disservice with a claim like "it's not clear what white has achieved in addition to just normal Advance Variation stuff". My appeal to Vitiugov, Harikrishna and Gustafsson was in service of that point, rather than an attempt to maximise my personal improvement. I think listening to experts is a great way to find out about the theoretical assessment of opening lines, and in light of that also to discover directions for independent investigation; I would not claim that learning how experts assess certain lines without any understanding of their reasoning is a good way to improve at chess.
Greetings from India
Nice VDO Pl b SLOW in showing Game
thank you😊