Move 9

henryzz · 2012-11-28, 18:46

They have done Nd4. Should we take? With the bishop or the knight?
In move 8 we considered doing O-O next.

Brian-E · 2012-11-28, 19:36

I'm glad to see their move. It moves an already developed piece when they have yet to complete their development, transgressing opening principles.

No, I don't think we should take the knight off. 9.Nxd4?? cxd4 costs us a piece due to the pawn fork, and 9.Bxd4 cxd4 10.Ne2 e5 gives up the bishop pair for no compensation that I can see.

9.O-O is certainly possible.

9.Qd2 pretends to them that we are considering queenside castling and might leave that option genuinely open to us in some circumstances. In any case it is a move which avoids showing our hand. I think the reply 9...Qb6 can be adequately answered with 10.Rb1.

Are there other moves worth considering too?

Zeta-Flux · 2012-11-28, 23:14

I don't think that there is any question at this point (or at least in another move or two) that we will be castling kingside. So I don't see much value in holding off if that is the best move available.

Besides Qd2 and O-O, there are a few other options. The move Nh4 opens up the line our queen is on, puts pressure on f5 to counteract their knight, prevents the exchange of pieces, our knight cannot quickly be dislodged from its new position, and it also frees up our fianchettoed bishop a bit. However it also gets in the way of some straightforward pawn pushes later, and we might end up bringing it back to f3 eventually.

There seem to be two main lines if we do Bxd4.

9. Bxd4 Bxd4
10. Nxd4 cxd4
11. Ne2 e5
12. fxe5 dxe5
13. O-O

At this point we have a rook on an open file, but our pawns in the center are trapped where they are and our white bishop is useless unless we can somehow bring it onto the next diagonal. The other line is:

9. Bxd4 cxd4
10. Ne2 e5

and I agree with Brian-E that this is a net negative (trading a bishop for a knight with no real compensation).

One other option is 9. e5. We open up the line our fianchettoed bishop lies on and block their bishop. In exchange we lose pressure on f5, d5. However, I think this leads to a loss of a pawn. If 9. ... dxe5 10. fxe5 Nxf3 11. Bxf3 they can defend their hanging c pawn with 11. ... Qb6! simultaneously attacking a new pawn.

I kind of like 9. O-O because it makes a move we eventually need to make anyway, defends the knight from another angle if they do exchange (although I'd probably take with the queen), and gets things rolling for our eventual king-side pawn storm. I think Qd2 is good too. If they do trade knights, if prevents them from exchanging the bishop for the knight on c3, and thus opening up the b-file.

I vote O-O unless someone offers something more here.

henryzz · 2012-11-29, 00:48

To summarize it seems down to O-O, Qd2, Nh4 as safe, sensible moves.
O-O seems like the obvious move. It needs to be done at some point soon.

Is there any point in pushing the g and h pawns? It would weaken kingside protection and weaken the f pawn.
Should we be doing anything about the possibility of him doing b5 and generally pushing the pawns on the queenside? a4 and then b3 if necessary look like they would protect that reasonably well. Their previous move could have been to set up b5.

Brian-E · 2012-11-29, 09:10

[QUOTE=henryzz;319888]To summarize it seems down to O-O, Qd2, Nh4 as safe, sensible moves.[/QUOTE]
I dislike 9.Nh4 as things stand at the moment. I agree with Zeta-Flux that the knight may simply have to return to f3 later. Such a move, putting a knight offside and no longer contesting the centre, should only be done if there are immediate, concrete reasons to do so in my opinion.

[QUOTE]O-O seems like the obvious move. It needs to be done at some point soon.[/QUOTE]Agreed.

[QUOTE]Is there any point in pushing the g and h pawns? It would weaken kingside protection and weaken the f pawn.[/QUOTE]It would indeed be premature and weakening to do that now. We should complete our development first. But, with good preparation first, pushing these pawns might later aid us in a kingside attack. But it all depends on circumstances at the time. We will need to weigh up then whether our attack is stronger than the weaknesses we are causing by pushing these pawns. It could be that the main conflict is taking place elsewhere on the board when we get that far.

[QUOTE]Should we be doing anything about the possibility of him doing b5 and generally pushing the pawns on the queenside? a4 and then b3 if necessary look like they would protect that reasonably well. Their previous move could have been to set up b5.[/QUOTE]If Black is planning such a queenside advance, and they well be, it's quite a good idea [I]not[/I] to make any pawn advances of our own there. Forming any sort of queenside pawn chain of our own actually gives our opponents something to attack there. At the moment they have little to attack on the queenside except our knight on c3, and that can retire to e2 provided that we have b2 adequately protected by then.
I agree, though, that we should watch out for Black's threats on the queenside.

Zeta-Flux · 2012-11-29, 18:59

Now that you mention it, what is wrong with g4?

Brian-E · 2012-11-29, 22:48

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;319954]Now that you mention it, what is wrong with g4?[/QUOTE]
Without being able to demonstrate an immediate tactical reason, my instincts tell me to wait with such a move until we have completed our development and until Black's king is committed to the kingside. g4 is a very weakening move: Black may have tactical possibilities with ...e5 (when the pawn on g4 and the f4 square are weakened for us), and also ...Nxf3+, ...Ne7-somewhere, and ...Qh4.

With good preparation (our pieces fully developed), g4 may well be a good move in the near future. I just think it's a dangerous move right now and that it's a risk we don't need to take.

henryzz · 2012-11-29, 23:14

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;319954]Now that you mention it, what is wrong with g4?[/QUOTE]

It weakens the f pawn and doesn't really gain much. g4 then g5 might be worth something but that still weakens the f pawn and also makes it a target as it is protecting the high up g pawn.

What would we do after 9. O-O e5? Looks like taking has some interesting lines. It opens us up to attack on the kingside.

Zeta-Flux · 2012-11-30, 01:10

I agree with you both. I'm still for O-O.

henryzz · 2012-11-30, 03:39

richs?

richs · 2012-11-30, 04:46

I believe that O-O is our best move now.

2012-11-28, 18:46	#1
henryzz Just call me Henry "David" Sep 2007 Liverpool (GMT/BST) 17FD₁₆ Posts	Move 9 They have done Nd4. Should we take? With the bishop or the knight? In move 8 we considered doing O-O next.

2012-11-28, 19:36	#2
Brian-E "Brian" Jul 2007 The Netherlands 2·11·149 Posts	I'm glad to see their move. It moves an already developed piece when they have yet to complete their development, transgressing opening principles. No, I don't think we should take the knight off. 9.Nxd4?? cxd4 costs us a piece due to the pawn fork, and 9.Bxd4 cxd4 10.Ne2 e5 gives up the bishop pair for no compensation that I can see. 9.O-O is certainly possible. 9.Qd2 pretends to them that we are considering queenside castling and might leave that option genuinely open to us in some circumstances. In any case it is a move which avoids showing our hand. I think the reply 9...Qb6 can be adequately answered with 10.Rb1. Are there other moves worth considering too? Last fiddled with by Brian-E on 2012-11-28 at 19:37 Reason: redundant notation removed

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Stockfish game: "Move 9 poll", not "move 2^74,207,281-1 discussion"	MooMoo2	Other Chess Games	1	2016-10-25 18:03
Stockfish game: "Move 8 poll", not "move 3.14159 discussion"	MooMoo2	Other Chess Games	5	2016-10-22 01:55
Stockfish game: "Move 5 poll", not "move 0 discussion"	MooMoo2	Other Chess Games	0	2016-10-05 15:50
Stockfish game: "Move 4 poll", not "move 100 discussion"	MooMoo2	Other Chess Games	0	2016-09-28 19:51
Stockfish game: "Move 2 poll", not "move 2 discussion"	MooMoo2	Other Chess Games	0	2016-09-19 19:56

2012-11-28, 23:14	#3
Zeta-Flux May 2003 7×13×17 Posts	I don't think that there is any question at this point (or at least in another move or two) that we will be castling kingside. So I don't see much value in holding off if that is the best move available. Besides Qd2 and O-O, there are a few other options. The move Nh4 opens up the line our queen is on, puts pressure on f5 to counteract their knight, prevents the exchange of pieces, our knight cannot quickly be dislodged from its new position, and it also frees up our fianchettoed bishop a bit. However it also gets in the way of some straightforward pawn pushes later, and we might end up bringing it back to f3 eventually. There seem to be two main lines if we do Bxd4. 9. Bxd4 Bxd4 10. Nxd4 cxd4 11. Ne2 e5 12. fxe5 dxe5 13. O-O At this point we have a rook on an open file, but our pawns in the center are trapped where they are and our white bishop is useless unless we can somehow bring it onto the next diagonal. The other line is: 9. Bxd4 cxd4 10. Ne2 e5 and I agree with Brian-E that this is a net negative (trading a bishop for a knight with no real compensation). One other option is 9. e5. We open up the line our fianchettoed bishop lies on and block their bishop. In exchange we lose pressure on f5, d5. However, I think this leads to a loss of a pawn. If 9. ... dxe5 10. fxe5 Nxf3 11. Bxf3 they can defend their hanging c pawn with 11. ... Qb6! simultaneously attacking a new pawn. I kind of like 9. O-O because it makes a move we eventually need to make anyway, defends the knight from another angle if they do exchange (although I'd probably take with the queen), and gets things rolling for our eventual king-side pawn storm. I think Qd2 is good too. If they do trade knights, if prevents them from exchanging the bishop for the knight on c3, and thus opening up the b-file. I vote O-O unless someone offers something more here.

2012-11-29, 00:48	#4
henryzz Just call me Henry "David" Sep 2007 Liverpool (GMT/BST) 17FD₁₆ Posts	To summarize it seems down to O-O, Qd2, Nh4 as safe, sensible moves. O-O seems like the obvious move. It needs to be done at some point soon. Is there any point in pushing the g and h pawns? It would weaken kingside protection and weaken the f pawn. Should we be doing anything about the possibility of him doing b5 and generally pushing the pawns on the queenside? a4 and then b3 if necessary look like they would protect that reasonably well. Their previous move could have been to set up b5.

2012-11-29, 09:10	#5
Brian-E "Brian" Jul 2007 The Netherlands 2×11×149 Posts	[QUOTE=henryzz;319888]To summarize it seems down to O-O, Qd2, Nh4 as safe, sensible moves.[/QUOTE] I dislike 9.Nh4 as things stand at the moment. I agree with Zeta-Flux that the knight may simply have to return to f3 later. Such a move, putting a knight offside and no longer contesting the centre, should only be done if there are immediate, concrete reasons to do so in my opinion. [QUOTE]O-O seems like the obvious move. It needs to be done at some point soon.[/QUOTE]Agreed. [QUOTE]Is there any point in pushing the g and h pawns? It would weaken kingside protection and weaken the f pawn.[/QUOTE]It would indeed be premature and weakening to do that now. We should complete our development first. But, with good preparation first, pushing these pawns might later aid us in a kingside attack. But it all depends on circumstances at the time. We will need to weigh up then whether our attack is stronger than the weaknesses we are causing by pushing these pawns. It could be that the main conflict is taking place elsewhere on the board when we get that far. [QUOTE]Should we be doing anything about the possibility of him doing b5 and generally pushing the pawns on the queenside? a4 and then b3 if necessary look like they would protect that reasonably well. Their previous move could have been to set up b5.[/QUOTE]If Black is planning such a queenside advance, and they well be, it's quite a good idea [I]not[/I] to make any pawn advances of our own there. Forming any sort of queenside pawn chain of our own actually gives our opponents something to attack there. At the moment they have little to attack on the queenside except our knight on c3, and that can retire to e2 provided that we have b2 adequately protected by then. I agree, though, that we should watch out for Black's threats on the queenside.

2012-11-29, 18:59	#6
Zeta-Flux May 2003 7·13·17 Posts	Now that you mention it, what is wrong with g4?

2012-11-29, 22:48	#7
Brian-E "Brian" Jul 2007 The Netherlands 110011001110₂ Posts	[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;319954]Now that you mention it, what is wrong with g4?[/QUOTE] Without being able to demonstrate an immediate tactical reason, my instincts tell me to wait with such a move until we have completed our development and until Black's king is committed to the kingside. g4 is a very weakening move: Black may have tactical possibilities with ...e5 (when the pawn on g4 and the f4 square are weakened for us), and also ...Nxf3+, ...Ne7-somewhere, and ...Qh4. With good preparation (our pieces fully developed), g4 may well be a good move in the near future. I just think it's a dangerous move right now and that it's a risk we don't need to take.

2012-11-29, 23:14	#8
henryzz Just call me Henry "David" Sep 2007 Liverpool (GMT/BST) 13775₈ Posts	[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;319954]Now that you mention it, what is wrong with g4?[/QUOTE] It weakens the f pawn and doesn't really gain much. g4 then g5 might be worth something but that still weakens the f pawn and also makes it a target as it is protecting the high up g pawn. What would we do after 9. O-O e5? Looks like taking has some interesting lines. It opens us up to attack on the kingside.

2012-11-30, 01:10	#9
Zeta-Flux May 2003 7·13·17 Posts	I agree with you both. I'm still for O-O.

2012-11-30, 03:39	#10
henryzz Just call me Henry "David" Sep 2007 Liverpool (GMT/BST) 3×23×89 Posts	richs?

2012-11-30, 04:46	#11
richs "Rich" Aug 2002 Benicia, California 2×859 Posts	I believe that O-O is our best move now.