u/CrunchMoose

Hi guys, I’ve been running into some troubles facing the dutch as a g3-english player recently. I know objectively White is doing better than in a Dutch proper, since the pawn stays on d3 in some lines. Especially the leningrad however, poses some problems for me.

A sample line from a course of mine:

1. c4 f5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 g6 4. b4!? Bg7 5. Bb2 0-0 6. Nf3 d6 7. Nc3 e5 8.d3 +-

This very standard setup from Black should be pretty harmless since White’s pawn in on d3 instead of d4, making the e5-e4 break a lot less scary. And although the queenside expansion with 0-0-a4-b5-Nd2 is easy enough, it is Blacks f5-f4 that troubles me. I never really know what to do after that move. Do Iignore and allow fxg3? How should I recapture? Should I aim to play f4 myself as soon as possible? Should I take on f4 and utilise the open g-file after tucking my king away on h1?

Any middlegame plans here would be greatly appreciated, also from any 1.d4 or Dutch players ofcourse!

Should politicians switch parties every election?

Every electioncycle, just after the election results are in, all politicians at random get assigned to a political party. From that point on they must argue their party’s point to the letter.

This would get rid of voting based on politicians likeability, instead voters can only vote based on ideas. Furthermore this would get rid of any emotions in the political debate. It would also get rid of this incredible hunger politicians feel to get more votes the coming year. If 20% of a polulation votes a certain party and adheres to a certain ideology, then 20% of the parlement should be representing them. There should be no need to concede points to gain more support. Parties should not change their view to gain more votes the coming year. Parties should not promise things to gain votes this year, even though there is no intention to act upon those promises. The current system promotes such acts however.

By switching politicians every election, politicians would simply defend the position given to them to the best of their abilities. If they are unable to represent a position they disagree with they have fundamentally misunderstood their role as a public servant. They’re opinion does not matter. Atleast not more than the single vote they cast. They are mere representatives of the views of a population.

These views are most directly related to a British, Dutch or German parlementary climate, i.e. there are different parties working together instead of a dictatorship or the US system.

Is this a well known idea? Is there a glaring issue with it? Any input would be greatly appreciated

Should politicians switch parties every election?

Every electioncycle, just after the election results are in, all politicians at random get assigned to a political party. From that point on they must argue their party’s point to the letter.

This would get rid of voting based on politicians likeability, instead voters can only vote based on ideas. Furthermore this would get rid of any emotions in the political debate. It would also get rid of this incredible hunger politicians feel to get more votes the coming year. If 20% of a polulation votes a certain party and adheres to a certain ideology, then 20% of the parlement should be representing them. There should be no need to concede points to gain more support. Parties should not change their view to gain more votes the coming year. Parties should not promise things to gain votes this year, even though there is no intention to act upon those promises. The current system promotes such acts however.

By switching politicians every election, politicians would simply defend the position given to them to the best of their abilities. If they are unable to represent a position they disagree with they have fundamentally misunderstood their role as a public servant. They’re opinion does not matter. Atleast not more than the single vote they cast. They are mere representatives of the views of a population.

These views are most directly related to a British, Dutch or German parlementary climate, i.e. there are different parties working together instead of a dictatorship or the US system.

Cheers

Hi everyone, i fear you great this question quite often.

I’m a long time chessplayer who has been getting embarrassed in every single checkers game he plays in a bar setting. Figured it might be time to invest some time, say 50ish hours, on this beautiful game too. Ofcourse this will not be sufficient to even become an amateur, but I’d mostly just like to beat my fellow chessplayer. Maybe I’ll fall in love with this on the way too.

What is the best way to start? Are there practicebooks or videos you recommend? What website is best? Should I just play a lot of games or is a basic understanding helpful first? Any other general tips?

Cheers!

Hi lovely Catalan players who play via the 3. g3 moveorder, what is your answer to 3… c5?

Do you play the lines against the black IQP after 4. Nf3 cxd4 5. Nxd4 d5? Or do you face the benoni head on in the fianchetto variation, in which case: what is your line of choice and why?

Hi guys,

I (~1950 fide) have been happily playing the accelerated dragon for a while, and have booked up pretty nicely. Whenever white didn’t play sicilian sidelines or Nc3, and opted for the maroczy bind with 5. c4 however, I’ve basically been winging it.
I’ll get around to learning the Maroczy lines from my chessable course at some point, but I’ve considered another approach.

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6?!

Via this moveorder black gets the desired accelerated dragon positions after 6. Be3

The refutation of this concept, 6. Nxc6 is played ~25% on 2200+ lichess. After 6… dxc6 7. Qxd8+ Kxd8, I get Black really never should be winning these games, but they seem practically just fine to hold?

Marin advocates for this approach in his Modern Chess article under the name Pseudo-Dragon , though I haven’t seen what his recommendation is after 7… Kxd8

After 8. Bc4 there are two approaches for Black, either 8… Ke8 or 8… Bg7

In Giri’s e4 course he gives the following under the less flattering name of ‘Bad Dragon Endgame’:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Nxc6 dxc6 7. Qxd8+ Kxd8 8. Bc4 Bg7 9. a4 Rf8 10. Bf4 Be6 11. Bxe6 fxe6

And the (according to him) better 8… Ke8 line

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Nxc6 dxc6 7. Qxd8+ Kxd8 8. Bc4 Ke8 9. e5 Nd7 10. e6 fxe6 11. Bxe6 Bg7 12. Be3.

Yes it looks slightly miserable, but white probably has less experience in these positions than Black will and the alternative of allowing a Maroczy is often not considered superb either.

Saric’s chessable course extends the line with 12… Nf8 13. Bb3 Be6 14. O-O-O Bxb3 15. axb3 also claiming a nice endgame for white

Miguel Santon’s chessable course gives the same line as Giri against 8… Ke8. And against 8… Bg7

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Nxc6 dxc6 7. Qxd8+ Kxd8 8. Bc4 Bg7 9. a4 Rf8 10. Bf4 Ke8 11. a5

FM Nemec’s Stomp the Sicilian gives the same line as Giri and Santon

Is it crazy to decide to spend some time learning the ideas in this endgame instead of the hundreds of Maroczy lines? Do you guys have any experience in this endgame?

Tldr: wishing to avoid the Maroczy for a bit, or as a fun surprise, I’m considering the endgame after 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Nxc6 dxc6 7. Qxd8+ Kxd8 8. Bc4 with either 8… Ke8 or 8… Bg7. Thoughts?