Utilisateur:Philgin/Brouillon
Principes fondamentaux du jeu d'échecs
Utilisateur:Philgin/Opening Hacker Files
Le modèle {ouvrage} en biblio et le modèle {harvsp} pour les notes. Cela permet d'indiquer la référence de façon très brève (auteur, année, page) et de renvoyer à la biblio pour les détails sur l'ouvrage. Le champ id (sur {ouvrage}) et réf (appel sur {harvsp}) rend généralement l'usage plus simple.
2009 : Nicolas Giffard et Alain Biénabe, Le nouveau guide des échecs : Traité complet, Paris, Robert Laffont, , 1710 p. (ISBN 978-2-221-11013-3).
- (en) Alex Dunne, Great Chess Books of the Twentieth Century in English, McFarland & Company, Inc., , 200 p. (ISBN 978-0786-42207-4), p. 30.
[8].
Daniel Harrwitz : Harrwitz-Morphy, 1858, 1-0
Parties d'exemples
[modifier | modifier le code]louvoiement->Louvoiement : Aaron Nimzowitsch-> le louvoiement : ce stratagème consiste à repérer deux faiblesses ennemies et à les attaquer alternativement. Comme il est impossible d'attaquer et de défendre à la fois (a fortiori sur deux points différents), ce louvoiement va susciter chez l'adversaire des affaiblissements structurels qu'il conviendra de reconnaître et d'exploiter par la suite.
(en) Partie commentée sur ChessGames.com
- 1.e4 {Notes by Nimzowitsch} e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3
Qb6 6.Bd3 {More natural would have been 6 Be2, for the pawn at d4 is the "base", and as such should be protected as thoroughly as possible. Be2 "protects" more thoroughly than Bd3.} Bd7 {A very plausible move. Since White still delays ...dxc5, Black intends his hand with ...Rc8. the right course was 6...csd4 7 cxd4 and thus to pass into quite other channels. See Paulsen-Tarrash, 1888 and Nimzowitsch-Tarrasch, 1912.} 7.dxc5 {!!} Bxc5 8.O-O f6 {Black swells in triumph and throws himself hungrily on the last remaining menber of the once so proud chain-family, top destroy him. His war cry is "Room for the e-pawn!" But it happens quite otherwise.} 9.b4 {In order to be able to provide his e5 with an enduring defence. 9 Qe2 would also have been a defence, but no enduring one, for there would follow 9...fxe5 10 Nxe5 Nxe5 11 Qxe5 Nf6 and the blockading queen at e5 will be easily driven away.} Be7 10.Bf4 fxe5 {Again we have the exchange operation which we have so often discussed; this time however, it is not really justified, for the new blockader, the bishop at e5, proves to be a stout fellow.} 11.Nxe5 Nxe5 12.Bxe5 Nf6 {For the otherwise desirable ...Bf6 would fail against 13 Qh5+ g6 14 Bxg6+ hxg6 15 Qxg6+ Ke7 16 Bxf6+ Nxf6 17 Qg7+.} 13.Nd2 {If 13 Qc2? O-O 14 Bxf6 Rxf6 15 Bxh7+ Kh8 16 Bg6 (or Bd3) e5!, White it is true has won a pawn, but black has overcome the blockade, and now stands ready to march in the center. White should lose.} O-O 14.Nf3 {! The blockading forces are to be reinforced by the knight.} Bd6 {14...Bb5 would yield little profit, for 15 Bd4 Qa6 16 Bxb5 Qxb5 17 Ng5 would win a pawn.} 15.Qe2 {The manouver 15 Bd4 Qc7 16 Qe2 might be considered with the intention of following with 17 Ne5. However, this plan to widen the blockading ring is impracticable, for, after 16 Qe2 Ng4!! 17 h3 e5!, the Black pawns assert themselves whatever counterchances be taken.} Rac8 16.Bd4 Qc7 17.Ne5 {The immobility of the e-pawn is now greater than ever. White has utilized his resources very economically. The possibility of a successful occupation of the points d4, e5, hung on a hair, on taking advantage of the terrain (the points d4, e5, c2 and e2.} Be8 18.Rae1 Bxe5 19.Bxe5 Qc6 20.Bd4 {In order to force Black's queen bishop, who also has his eye on h5, to come to a decision.} Bd7 21.Qc2 {the decisive re-grouping.} Rf7 22.Re3 b6 23.Rg3 Kh8 24.Bxh7 {!} e5 {24...Nxh7 loses because of Qg6.} 25.Bg6 Re7 26.Re1 Qd6 27.Be3 d4 28.Bg5 Rxc3 29.Rxc3 dxc3 30.Qxc3 Kg8 31.a3 Kf8 32.Bh4 Be8 33.Bf5 Qd4 34.Qxd4 exd4 35.Rxe7 Kxe7 36.Bd3 Kd6 37.Bxf6 gxf6 38.Kf1 Bc6 39.h4 1-0
(en) Partie commentée sur ChessGames.com
- 1.Nf3 {Notes by Alekhine} Nf6 2.c4 e6 {As for the merit of this
system of defence, compare the game Reti vs. Yates in the sixth round.} 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 Bd6 5.O-O O-O 6.b3 Re8 7.Bb2 Nbd7 8.d4 {To our way of thinking, this is the clear positional refutation of 2...e6, which, by the way, was first played by Capablanca (as Black) against Marshall and is based upon the simple circumstance that Black cannot find a method for the effective development of his Queen's Bishop.} c6 9.Nbd2 {In the game referred to, Capablanca, in a wholly analogous position, played ...Ne4 and likewise obtained an advantage thereby. Of course, Reti's quieter development is also quite good.} Ne4 {If the liberating move of 9...e5, recommended by Rubinstein and others, is really the best here-then it furnishes the most striking proof that Black's entire arrangement of his game was faulty. For the simple continuation 10.cxd5 cxd5 11.dxe5 Nxe5 12.Nxe5 Bxe5 13.Bxe5 Rxe5 14.Nc4 Re8 15.Ne3 Be6 16.Qd4, would have given White a direct attack against the isolated Queen's pawn, without permitting the opponent any chances whatsoever. Moreover, the move selected by Bogoljubow leads eventually to a double exchange of Knights, without moving the principal disadvantage of his position.} 10.Nxe4 dxe4 11.Ne5 f5 {Obviously forced.} 12.f3 {The proper strategy. After Black has weakened his position in the center, White forthwith must aim to change the closed game into an open one in order to make as much as possible out of that weakness.} exf3 13.Bxf3 {Not 13.exf3, because the e pawn must be utilized as a battering ram.} Qc7 {Also after 13...Nxe5 14.dxe5 Bc5+ 15.Kg2 Bd7 (after the exchange of Queens, this Bishop could not get out at all) 16.e4, White would have retained a decisive advantage in position.} 14.Nxd7 Bxd7 15.e4 e5 {Otherwise would follow 16.e5, to be followed by a break by means of d5 or g4. After the text move, however, Black appears to have surmounted the greater part of his early difficulty and it calls for exeptionally fine play on the part of White in order to make the hidden advantages of his position count so rapidly and convincingly.} 16.c5 Bf8 17.Qc2 {Attacking simultaneously both of Black's center pawns.} exd4 {Black's sphere of action is circumscribed; for instance, 17...fxe4 clearly would not do on account of the two-fold threat against h7 and e5, after 18.Bxe4} 18.exf5 Rad8 {After 18...Re5 19.Qc4+ Kh8 20.f6, among other lines, would be very strong.} 19.Bh5 {The initial move in an exactly calculated, decisive manouver, the end of which will worthily crown White's model play.} Re5 20.Bxd4 Rxf5 {If 20...Rd5 21.Qc4 Kh8 22.Bg4, with a pawn plus and a superior position.} 21.Rxf5 Bxf5 22.Qxf5 Rxd4 23.Rf1 Rd8 {Or 23...Qe7 24.Bf7+ Kh8 25.Bd5 Qf6 26.Qc8, etc. Black is left without any defence.} 24.Bf7+ Kh8 25.Be8 {A sparkling conclusion! Black resigned, for, after 25...Bxc5+, he loses at least the Bishop. Rightfully, this game was awarded the first brilliancy prize.} 1-0
Notes et références
[modifier | modifier le code]- Giffard & Biénabe 2009.
- Giffard & Biénabe 2009.
- Frits van Seters 1972, p. 295.
- Frits van Seters 1972, p. 296.
- Alex Dunne 2005, p. 25.
- Alex Dunne 2005, p. 26.
- Paul Choisnard : Son influence cent ans après chez les astrologues sur le site d'Yves Lenoble.
- « Cercle Zetetique : Défi : historique et bilan provisoire », sur www.zetetique.org (consulté le )
Influence
[modifier | modifier le code]
louvoiement->Louvoiement : Aaron Nimzowitsch-> le louvoiement : ce stratagème consiste à repérer deux faiblesses ennemies et à les attaquer alternativement. Comme il est impossible d'attaquer et de défendre à la fois (a fortiori sur deux points différents), ce louvoiement va susciter chez l'adversaire des affaiblissements structurels qu'il conviendra de reconnaître et d'exploiter par la suite.
- (en) David Hooper et Kenneth Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess, Oxford University Press, , 2e éd. (ISBN 978-0-19280-049-7), p. 273
https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/breyer.html
« After 1. e4, White's game is in its last throes » que l'on peut traduire par : « 1. e4 est le début de la désagrégation du camp blanc »[1]. Une autre traduction est : « Après 1. e4, les Blancs sont à l'agonie »[2]. Le raisonnement de Breyer est le suivant : le pion en e4 occupe classiquement le centre, mais ne contrôle pas la case où il se trouve et donne même une cible aux Noirs[3]. De fait, à part les ouvertures pratiquées lors de sa simultanée à l'aveugle de 1921, Breyer a surtout joué 1. d4 à la fin de sa vie. Quant-à l'École hypermoderne, elle a conduit à un intérêt accru pour les ouvertures qui refusent d'occuper prématurément le centre et préfèrent le contrôler par des pions ou des pièces, ou qui attaquent un centre adverse dont on a volontairement permis la constitution.
Notes et références
[modifier | modifier le code]- Jérôme Maufras, Le jeu d'échecs, Paris, Presses universitaires de France, coll. « Que sais-je? », (ISBN 978-2-130-54386-2)
- Réti 1997, p. 67
- Nicolas Giffard et Alain Biénabe, Le nouveau guide des échecs. Traité complet, Paris, Robert Laffont, coll. « Bouquins », , 1710 p. (ISBN 978-2-2211-1013-3)
Bibliographie
[modifier | modifier le code]- (en) Jimmy Adams, Gyula Breyer: The Chess Revolutionary, New in Chess, , 880 p. (ISBN 978-9-0569-1721-0).
- (en) David Hooper et Kenneth Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess, Oxford University Press, , 2e éd. (ISBN 978-0-19280-049-7)
- Richard Réti, Les Idées modernes aux échecs (1997), Éd. Payot, 94 p. (ISBN 2-22889-080-4) (version originale : Die neuen Ideen im Schachspiel, Vienne, 1922)
- Gyula Breyer - Jan F. Esser (en), Budapest, 1917[1] :
- 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. e3 Cf6 4. Cc3 e6 5. Fd3 Fd6 6. f4! 0-0 7. Cf3 dxc4 8. Fb1! b5 9. e4 Fe7 10. Cg5 h6 11. h4! g6 12. e5 hxg5 13. hxg5 Cd5 14. Rf1!! Cxc3 15. bxc3 Fb7 16. Dg4 Rg7 17. Th7+!! Rxh7 18. Dh4+ Rg7 19. Dh6+ Rg8 20. Fxg6 fxg6 21. Dxg6+ Rh8 22. Dh6+ Rg8 23. g6 Tf7 24. gxf7+ Rxf7 25. Dh5+ Rg7 26. f5! exf5 27. Fh6+ 1-0.
Paul Morphy, théoricien des échecs
[modifier | modifier le code]| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |      | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Une position fermée a peu de lignes ouvertes (colonnes ou diagonales), ce qui tend à réduire la puissance des Dames, Fous et Tours (en revanche, les Cavaliers peuvent toujours bondir par-dessus les obstacles). La position fermée se caractérise généralement par des chaînes de pions imbriquées, des positions à l'étroit avec peu d'opportunités d'échanges et de nombreuses manœuvres derrière les lignes. Une telle position peut cependant évoluer et devenir plus tard une position ouverte, où les échanges ont ouvert des colonnes et des diagonales, et où il y a peu de pions au centre.
Défense de Méran : Antoaneta Stefanova - Nana Dzagnidze
- Jeu positionnel
- Vladimir Kramnik-Deep Junior, Dortmund, 2000[2].
- 1. d4 d5 2. e3 Cf6 3. Fd3 e6 4. f4 Fe7 5. Cf3 c5 6. c3 0-0 7. Cbd2 Cg4 8. De2 c4 9. Fc2 f5 10. Tg1 Cc6 11. h3 Cf6 12. g4 Ce4 13. Dg2 g6 14. Dh2 Rh8 15. h4 Cxd2 16. Fxd2 fxg4 17. Cg5 De8 18. h5 gxh5 19. Txg4 Tf6 20. Th4 Th6 21. 0-0-0 a5 22. Th1 b5 23. Fd1 Ta7 24. Fxh5 Df8 25. e4 Fd8 26. f5 b4 27. Fg6 Txh4 28. Dxh4 bxc3 29. bxc3 Ff6 30. Dxh7+ Txh7 31. Fxh7+ Rg8 32. Ff7+ Dxf7 33. Txf7 1-0.
Franklin K. (Knowles) Young
[modifier | modifier le code]{Voir homonymes|Franklin Young|Young}
https://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=3045
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/franklink-k-young-chess-books
He wrote The Fieldbook of Chess Generalship au début du XXe siècle. Il a essayé de faire cadrer dans son ensemble la tactique militaire du XIXe siècle avec le jeu d'échecs.
Franklin K Young was known for books where he tried to claim that chess strategy was akin to a real battlefield.
The Fieldbook of Chess Generalship contains many Young victories (unfortunately mostly undated and unplaced. It includes notably the following game : Daly - Young, correspondance, PNCCA (Pillsbury National Correspondence Chess Association), début du XXe siècle
11. Dxd5?? : les Blancs transforment une position désavantageuse (après par exemple 11. Rxd2) en une position totalement perdante
24. Dd6? (24. Dxe4)
Analysis of the brilliancy élégance de sa façon de jouer
Edward Winter annote la partie en consultation
The Grand Tactics of Chess, Google Books has an 1898 edition: Young's introduction pas facilement compréhensible : to figure out what he is trying to say <"Chaque fois qu'un point de jonction est le sommet d'une figure mathématique formée par l'union du symbole logistique d'un pion avec le symbole oblique, diagonal, horizontal ou vertical de n'importe quelle pièce analogue, alors la combinaison donnée de deux pièces analogues l'emporte sur n'importe quelle pièce adverse donnée."> que de nombreuses personnes ont raillé
the kind of game with which Young could have propagated his singular teaching system : Sacrifice (échecs)
[Sacrifice (échecs)]
An oft-discussed case of duplication in chess concerns the games Young v Doré, Boston, 1892 and Atkins v Jacobs, London, 1915: 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 c3 dxc3 4 Bc4 Nf6 5 Nf3 Nxe4 6 O-O Nd6 7 Nxc3 Nxc4 8 Re1+ Be7 9 Nd5 Nc6 10 Bg5 f6 11 Rc1 b5 12 Rxc4 bxc4 13 Ne5 fxg5 14 Qh5+ g6 15 Nf6+ Bxf6 16 Nxg6+ Qe7 17 Rxe7+ Bxe7 18 Ne5+ Kd8 19 Nf7+ Ke8 20 Nd6+ Kd8 21 Qe8+ Rxe8 22 Nf7 mate. Young published the game on pages 412-413 of his book The Grand Tactics of Chess (Boston, 1898 and 1905):
Primary (reprinted by Hippocrene):
(with Edwin C. Howell) The Minor Tactics of Chess (1894) The Major Tactics of Chess (1898) The Grand Tactics of Chess (1897) Chess Strategetics (1900)
Secondary (NOT reprinted by Hippocrene):
Chess Generalship, Vol.1: Grand Reconnaissance (1910) Chess Generalship, Vol. 2: Grand Manoeuvres (1913) Field Book of Chess Generalship: Grand Operations (1923)
https://thezugzwangblog.com/franklin-knowles-young/
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/the-grand-tactics-of-chess
Future world champion Bobby Fischer scored notable wins against world-class grandmasters Samuel Reshevsky and Miguel Najdorf, and future grandmaster Julio Bolbochán, using the Adams Attack against the Najdorf Variation of the Sicilian Defense: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.h3!?, preparing the pawn thrust g2–g4.
Attaque de minorité
[modifier | modifier le code]- avancée de pion sur un flanc où le joueur a moins de pions que son adversaire ; l'objectif est d'affaiblir la chaîne de pions adverse.
- Chess from Morphy to Botvinnik: A Century of Chess Evolution, Imre König (en) : Konig states that Tarrasch's theory <that a Pawn minority should not advance against a majority> held sway until Capablanca's revival of the system in 1921.
Lasker-Capablanca, 1921, attaque de minorité par les Noirs
« Dans une phase ultime du match de championnat du monde contre Alekhine en 1927, Capablanca utilisa l'attaque de minorité comme arme nouvelle qui se révéla très sûre contre la défense orthodoxe du Gambit dame. »[3]
Capablanca-Alekhine, 1927, attaque de minorité par les Blancs
- Alex Yermolinsky-Gildardo Garcia, 1993[4]
- 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 c6 6.e3 Be7 7.Qc2 Nbd7 8.Bd3 O-O 9.Nf3 Re8 10.O-O Nf8 11.h3 Ng6 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.b4 Be7 14.b5 Bd6 15.bxc6 bxc6 16.Nb1 Qf6 17.Nbd2 h6 18.Rfc1 Ne7 19.Qd1 Rb8 20.Nb3 Rb6 21.Rc2 Nf5 22.Nc5 g6 23.Rac1 Kg7 24.Na4 Rb4 25.Rxc6 Bd7 26.Ra6 Nxe3 27.fxe3 Rxe3 28.Nc5 Bxh3 29.Rxd6 Qxd6 30.Bf1 Qg3 31.Rc2 Bf5 32.Rf2 Rc3 33.Qd2 Rc2 34.Qe3 Qxf2+ 35.Qxf2 Rxf2 36.Kxf2 Rb2+ 37.Ke3 Rxa2 38.Ne5 a5 39.g4 Ra3+ 40.Kd2 Bc8 41.Bb5 h5 42.gxh5 gxh5 43.Bc6 Be6 44.Ned3 h4 45.Nf4 Kf6 46.Nxd5+ Bxd5 47.Bxd5 h3 48.Nd3 Ke7 49.Nf2 Kd6 50.Bxf7 h2 51.Bc4 Ra1 52.Kc2 Rg1 53.Kb3 Rg2 54.Nh1 Rd2 55.Bf1 Rxd4 56.Ka3 Kc5 57.Bg2 a4 58.Ba8 Kb5 59.Nf2 Rf4 60.Nh1 Rf8 61.Bb7 Re8 62.Bd5 Re3+ 63.Ka2 Kb4 64.Kb1 Re5 65.Bf3 Kb3 66.Bd1+ Ka3 67.Bf3 Rb5+ 68.Kc1 Ka2 69.Ng3 Rc5+ 0-1
Notes et références
[modifier | modifier le code]- Coups et annotations : Nicolas Giffard et Alain Biénabe, Le Nouveau Guide des Échecs. Traité complet, Paris, Robert Laffont, coll. « Bouquins », , 1710 p. (ISBN 978-2-221-11013-3)
- Partie commentée sous Chessgames.com
- Anthony Saidy, La lutte des idées aux échecs, p. 30.
- The Road to Chess Improvement pdf (page 69 et suivantes)
Notes et références
[modifier | modifier le code]Pot-pourri
[modifier | modifier le code]Discussion:Stephen Boyd (joueur d'échecs)/Admissibilité
Tigran Petrossian : Petrosian's king march
Après 1.d4 d5 2.c4, 2...c5 est la défense autrichienne
Les Blancs font pression sur d5 avec le fianchetto (2. c4 + g3) : Ouverture néo-Grünfeld
étude dont la variante principale est : 1. Rd2 f2 2. Td1 Rd5 3. Re3+ Re6 4. Rf3 Re5 5. Rxg3 f1=D 6. Txf1
Mladá Fronta, 1946
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |      | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Discussion:Défense Benoni : Pierre Meinsohn
Utilisateur:Philgin/École française des échecs
Utilisateur:Philgin/École anglaise des échecs
Utilisateur:Philgin/Compléments prévus à l'article "Histoire des échecs"
Utilisateur:Philgin/Eugene Perelshteyn voir Eugene Perelshteyn (en) -> Eugene Perelshteyn
Pierre Meinsohn-Gilles Andruet[1]
Tigran Petrossian-Vlastimil Jansa, Bar (Monténégro), 1980[2]
de:Wiener Variante Variante de Vienne Utilisateur:Philgin/Variante de Vienne
Utilisateur:Philgin/Victor Soultanbeïeff -> Victor Soultanbeïeff voir en:Victor Soultanbeieff
en:First-move advantage in chess AdQ -> Avantage du trait aux échecs
Utilisateur:Philgin/Adjudication
en:Adjournment (games)-> Ajournement
Utilisateur:Philgin/Réti - Alekhine, Baden-Baden, 1925 voir Réti - Alekhine, Baden-Baden, 1925 (de) -> Réti - Alekhine, Baden-Baden, 1925
Utilisateur:Philgin/McDonnell - De La Bourdonnais, match 4, partie 16, Londres 1834 voir McDonnell - De La Bourdonnais, match 4, partie 16, Londres 1834 (en) -> McDonnell - De La Bourdonnais, match 4, partie 16, Londres 1834
+ voir Match d'échecs La Bourdonnais - McDonnell
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |        | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |  | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Johner - Nimzowitsch (Dresde, 1926)
- Gambit Stafford : 1. e4 e5 2. Cf3 Cf6 3. Cxe5 Cc6 4. Cxc6 dxc6 5. d3 Fc5 6. Fe2 h5 7. c3! (7. 0-0? Cg4 8. h3 Dd6 9. hxg4 hxg4 10. g3 Dxg3#) 7...Fb6 8. Cd2 Cg4 9. d4 c5 10. h3[3]
Références
[modifier | modifier le code]Utilisateur:Philgin/Gambit Stafford The Stafford Gambit, 1. e4 e5 2. Cf3 Cf6 3. Cxe5 Cc6, is considered dubious, but it sets a few traps. After 4. Cxc6 dxc6, White wins a pawn but must play carefully. After 5. e5 (5. d3 is better) Ce4 6. d3?? (White should play 6. Cc3, 6. d4, or 6. De2) 6...Fc5! and White resigned in Lowens-Stafford, US correspondence game 1950[1],[2]
- Partie commentée sous Chessgames.com
- Győző Forintos & Ervin Haag, Petroff's Defence, Batsford, 1983, (ISBN 0-7134-3202-0), p. 110.
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |          | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Euwe - Landau, 1939 : Landau delays castling ; Euwe reacts by sacrificing a piece to open up the center and bring hell to Landau
A good defense vs. the London System
[modifier | modifier le code]- Roman Blaeser-Ievgueni Gleizerov (en)[1]
- 1. d4 e6 2. Cf3 f5 3. Ff4 Cf6 4. e3 g6 5. c4 Fg7 6. Cc3 d6 7. h3 0-0 8. Fe2 De7 9. Dc2 Cc6 10. 0-0 e5 11. Fg5 Df7 12. Fxf6 Fxf6 13. d5 Ce7 14. Cb5 Fd7 15. Db3 Tfc8 16. Tfd1 b6 17. Tac1 g5 18. Ch2 h5 19. Dc2 Rg7 20. g4 hxg4 21. hxg4 a6 22. Cc3 Th8 23. Rg2 Th4 24. Th1 Tah8 25. Dd1 e4 0-1.
- 1. d4 e6 2. Cf3 f5 3. Ff4 Cf6 4. c3 d6 5. h3 Cc6 6. e3 De7 7. Fe2 e5 8. Fh2 g6 9. a4 Fg7 10. 0-0 0-0 11. Ca3 e4 12. Cd2 g5 13. b4 Rh8 14. b5 Cd8 15. c4 Ce6 16. Dc2 f4 17. Cxe4 Cxd4 18. exd4 Dxe4 19. Dd2 Dg6 20. Ff3 Ce4 21. Dd1 Ff5 22. Tc1 Df6 23. Te1 Tae8 24. Fxe4 Fxe4 25. f3 Dxd4+ 26. Rh1 Dxd1 27. Tcxd1 Fg6 28. Fg1 Fc3 29. Txe8 Txe8 30. Cb1 Fb4 31. Fd4+ Rg8 32. Cc3 c6 33. bxc6 bxc6 34. Ca2 Te1+ 35. Txe1 Fxe1 36. Cc1 Fc2 37. Fxa7 Fxa4 38. Fb8 d5 39. Cd3 Fc3 40. cxd5 cxd5 41. h4 Fb5 42. Cf2 h6 43. hxg5 hxg5 44. g3 fxg3 45. Fxg3 Fd2 46. Rg2 d4 47. Ce4 Fc1 48. Fe5 d3 49. Ff6 d2 50. Fxg5 0-1.
Références
[modifier | modifier le code]- Hicham Hamdouchi-Roland Weill, Lyon, 1993[1]
- 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Fg7 3. Cc3 d6 4. Fe2 c6 5. Fe3 b5 6. a3 a6 7. Dd2 Cd7 8. h4 h5 9. Ch3!
Notes et références
[modifier | modifier le code]
- (en) Cet article est partiellement ou en totalité issu de l’article de Wikipédia en anglais intitulé « Ekaterini Pavlidou » (voir la liste des auteurs).
[Catégorie:Ouverture d'échecs]
Références
[modifier | modifier le code]- Dunne 2005, p. 12.
- Dunne 2005, p. 17.
- annotation tirée du livre Les professionnels de Fabien Libiszewski (2014).
- Nicolas Giffard et Alain Biénabe, Le nouveau guide des échecs. Traité complet, Paris, Robert Laffont, coll. « Bouquins », , 1701 p. (ISBN 978-2-221-11013-3)
Less space – how to play?
[modifier | modifier le code]What if your opponent pushes you back into a cramped position… how should you avoid the usual traps and still play for equality? Hint: look for your opponent’s strengths first.
Endgames
[modifier | modifier le code]Players that systematically worked on the endgame saw the quickest overall improvement. They gained Elo points. Won tournaments. Obtained FIDE titles. Surprisingly, even their tactics and positional play improved faster than their peers.
Reminder : 1. d4 d6
[modifier | modifier le code]can lead to a Leningrad, a czech Pirc or a Wade defense.
KID
[modifier | modifier le code]The King’s Indian Defense is a popular opening choice at all levels and is the choice of players looking to win as Black against 1.d4. The reason for this is that many positions in the King’s Indian Defense promise Black more active play than in most other openings. Black is able to avoid early simplifications and can enter unbalanced positions, which allows him to play for more than equality.
Smyslov’s Quiet System (4. Cf3 au lieu de e4 suivi de 5. Fg5) takes the sting out of the King’s Indian. King’s Indian players thrive in crazy positions with mutual pawn storms and deadly sacrifices. Smyslov’s system leaves them frustrated in a dry positional game where White calls the shots.
White can begin with the 1.Nf3 Reti and, if his opponent tries to play his favorite Dutch Defense, meet it in the style of Magnus Carlsen with the setup 2.d3 (taking advantage of his d pawn not having moved). This 2.d3 was popularised by Magnus Carlsen who used it to crush Sergey Dolmatov when he was just 13 and put the whole 1..f5 line against the Reti out of fashion.
The fianchetto variation
[modifier | modifier le code]White does not score well in the main line of the Yugoslav variation (1. d4 Cf6 2. c4 g6 3. Cf3 Fg7 4. g3 0-0 5. Fg2 d6 6. 0-0 6...c5). This sharp variation tends to give Black everything the second player wants.
The Gallagher variation (1. d4 Cf6 2. c4 g6 3. Cf3 Fg7 4. g3 0-0 5. Fg2 d6 6. 0-0 Cbd7 7. Cc3 e5 8. e4 exd4 9. Cxd4 Te8 10. h3 a6) leads to chaos.
Grünfeld
[modifier | modifier le code]The Grünfeld is THE choice for fighters who don’t like the cramped positions on the King’s Indian.
Wojo's Weapons vol. 3 : The blurb on the back of the book tells us, the authors "claim to have found a sure route to an advantage against the Grünfeld". Well, the authors do make such a claim, but I cannot really agree with them, for two reasons:
First: The authors claim White gets an advantage in the line 1. Cf3 Cf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Fg7 4. Fg2 0-0 5. d4 d5 6. cxd5 Cxd5 7. 0-0 Cb6 8. Cc3 Cc6 9. d5 Ca5 10. Dc2!? Even if that might be the case: In the introduction to Chapter 2 ("The Fianchetto Grünfeld, Main Line with 10. Dc2!?") they say "Rowson [in his book on the Grünfeld] goes so far as to try to avoid 10.Qc2 altogether by playing …d7-d5 and …Nf6xd5 before castling." It is perhaps not without reason that also Dembo and Delchev recommend the same strategy to Black in their respective books on the Grünfeld, and indeed it appears to avoid the variation put forward by Hilton and Ippolito. What’s strange is that this strategy is not at all mentioned in their book any further. I, for one, have not been able to find the slightest remark about what the authors suggest White should do after 1. Cf3 Cf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Fg7 4. Fg2 d5 (before castling!). MegaBase 2013 has 4 games in which this position was reached with Wojtkiewicz playing White; twice he played 5. d4, twice 5. cxd5. Of these 4 games Wojo (ca. 2575 ELO) managed 'only' 1 win (in a blitz game against Kempinski 2528) and 3 draws, admittedly against decent opposition (Jasnikowski 2425, Schmidt 2440, Stohl 2578).
Second: As for "Black’s Solid Grünfeld with …c7-c6", the authors claim that the line 1. Cf3 Cf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Fg7 4. Fg2 0-0 5. d4 c6 6. Cc3 d5 7. Db3 is "almost certainly plus-over-equal for White". Then they devote Chapter 8 of their book to the "drawish move" (their own words) 7…Db6 and call it "Black Grovels with 7…Db6". The implication seems clear … However, listen to what Boris Avrukh (Quality Chess, 2011) has to say about 7…Db6: "This is a thematic (!) response to White’s queen sortie in positions with a Slav pawn structure, and it works well for Black (!) here." If we now compare Hilton and Ippolito’s recommendation against 7…Db6 with Avrukh’s recommendation against this, we get 'best play from both sides', ending up with the line 8. Cc3 Td8 9. Td1 Ff5 10. Ce1 Fe6 11. c5 Dxb3 12. axb3 Cbd7 13. b4 (Hilton and Ippolito: "[this] was a little better for White in Anic–Nataf, Vichy 2000") 13…a6. (Avrukh: "Black had absolutely no problems in Anic–Nataf, Vichy 2000"). – Make sense who may. Judging fom the course of the game mentioned (drawn on move 48), Avrukh appears right. The only other game in MegaBase 2013 to reach the position after 13…a6 was Borovikov (2586) – Heimann (2459) 2012, drawn on move 15. I should add that, for some reason, Hilton and Ippolito do not list Avrukh’s essential work on the Grünfeld in their bibliography
Regarding Anic-Nataf, ECO had this: 12...Ca6! 13. h3 Cd7! 14. f3 Cb4! 15. Ta4 a5, equal according to Nataf.
In the Open Fianchetto Grunfeld Black can simply delay castling and avoid the lines with 9. d5. This seems to be the main line these days and all my four sources on the Grunfeld (Dembo, Delchev, Kaufman and Jansa: Dynamic Chess Strategy) recommend it, which makes the omission all the stranger. For example 1. Cf3 Cf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Fg7 4. Fg2 d5 5. cxd5 Cxd5 6. 0-0 Cb6 and white has to go for either 7. d4 Cc6 8. e3 which lays outside of the repertoire or 7. Cc3 Cc6 8. d3 which is not covered either. Or 1. Cf3 Cf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Fg7 4. Fg2 d5 5. cxd5 Cxd5 6. d4 Cb6 7. Cc3 Cc6 when 8. d5 is met with 8...Fxc3+ and 8. 0-0 with 8...Cxd4 which again leaves 8. e3.
Anti-Slav
[modifier | modifier le code]The sneaky 5. Ch4! puts immediate pressure on the Black position. The “natural” 5…Fg6?! walks into a hammer blow ("1. d4 Practical Repertoire for White" by FM Yuriy Krykum).
Brouillons
[modifier | modifier le code]- Variante Barcza-Larsen: 1. d4 c5 2. d5 e6 3.c4 exd5
- Franco-Sicilienne/Franco-Benoni: voir Ouverture d'échecs irrégulière
- Alberic O'Kelly de Galway-Bent Larsen, Palma de Mallorca, 1967, 0-1[1] : 1. d4 c5 2. d5 e6 3. e4 exd5 4. exd5 d6 5. Cf3 Cf6 6. Cc3 Fe7 (ou 1. e4/1. d4 1...e6 2. d4/2. e4 2...c5 3. d5 exd5 4. exd5 d6 5. Cc3 Cf6 6. Cf3 Fe7 7. Fe2 = Rafael Vaganian-Luis Marcos Bronstein (es), São Paulo, 1977[2]).
- Variante Basman-Sale de la Sicilienne : 1. e4 c5 2. Cf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Cxd4 Fc5!?, cf. "Lazy man's Sicilian".
Références
[modifier | modifier le code]Ennui
[modifier | modifier le code]Dans son ouvrage intitulé Pensées, le philosophe Blaise Pascal définissait l'ennui en ces termes [1]
« Ennui ː rien n'est si insupportable à l'homme que d'être dans un plein repos, sans passions, sans affaire, sans divertissement, sans application. Il sent alors son néant, son abandon, son insuffisance, sa dépendance, son impuissance, son vide. »
C’est pour échapper à cela que l’homme se jette dans l’agitation qui le détourne de ses préoccupations existentielles et de sa condition de mortel.
The aesthete, Kierkegaard predicts, realizing and responding to the futility of one's hedonistic finite aims, will yearn to experience a more meaningful life.
- S'il ne reprend pas explicitement le concept freudien de narcissisme, Jung élabore à la fin des années 1920 le concept de persona (en latin : masque) qui — selon la psychologue clinicienne Martine Gallard — s'en rapprocherait : « ce qu'il dit de la relation du moi avec la persona me semble être une façon d’aborder un aspect du narcissisme tel que Freud le définit, la persona étant l’image qu’une personne cherche à donner d’elle-même. Je pense que c’est une image de soi dans le miroir de l’autre dont on recherche la reconnaissance. Le concept de persona (...) contient des éléments importants qui permettent de saisir le rapport narcissique du sujet avec lui-même. Ce masque social derrière lequel se cache l’individu n’est pas que négatif, il protège l’intimité, il permet de s’intégrer dans son groupe relationnel, d’en respecter les codes, de s’adresser adéquatement aux autres et d’être reconnu par eux. C’est un pseudo-moi, sorte d’instance narcissique qui permet de s’adapter à la société. Il devient pathologique quand il tient lieu d’identité et n’est qu’une enveloppe extérieure servant à cacher un vide, une carence dans la constitution du complexe moi ».
Références
[modifier | modifier le code]- Site sur l'ennui, page "l'ennui selon Blaise Pascal", consulté le 21 septembre 2018