Sokolsky Opening. Has anyone had success persisting with the lines

Finally for now another game I won last week, although I admit this is a show-off (me 1844 vs 1407 elo points). My Black opponent must have had little knowledge of the Orangutan. This didn't matter in the opening phase, as I had to be watchfull of course as well against unfamiliar moves. However after fastening his center (meaning I could only operate on the flanks), Black made 2 crucial mistakes.

A nice game that shows also the Orangutan / Sokolsy can be swift and deadly!

Wiii

Here is a recent game I gave up yesterday in the Exchange Variation, played with move 5. g3 as advocated by Hansen in his opening book. You could also play 5. e3 first like Magnus Carlsen did, and later play g3 and the Bishop turning up on g2 as well.

I am not entirely sure where things went wrong, but afterwards am not per se happy with 16. a6, that might have resulted in the ensueing problems later in the game for me as White. And perhaps during this time I should have played Ne5 sooner (didn't do it at all in the game), to activate the knight and my light squared Bishop on g2, which actually did little to nothing in the game...

Comments are welcome ;-) Always ready to learn more!

It looks like the advancing white a pawn may have been at the expense of developing a piece in positional play possibly

You might well be right; further comments on recent games posted here more than welcome.

Your development was far too slow and it enabled black to get a more active position. I don't like g3 together with e3. Again it's too slow imo. I think you need to keep pieces on, try to make space on the Q side and prepare an attack in the centre or the K-side. I would think that it's g3 which is really at fault. It doesn't seem to be playing for a win. It's a double fianchetto and you lost your black squared bishop whereas it might be the other one on the K side you should get rid of. But I just don't see what a2-a4-a5 achieves without development of pieces. Those three moves you could have developed and maybe planned a more effective attack. a5-a6 was incorrect unless you planned to capture with the R. That pawn was useful for black.

Question.

When we play White in the Exchange variation and have the following sequence of moves: 1. b4 e5 2. Bb2 Bxb4 3. Bxe5 Nf6 4. c3 Be7, than why would we actually continue in the fashions of Hansen and Carlsen with either 5. e3 or 5. g3?

Why not continue with 5. d4. and next get the White knights to d2 and e2 and the White light square Bishop to d3 (even when Black can play c5 and d5 and later c4, forcing this White bishop to c2)? (I have also played 5. Nf3 before)

I think that 5 g3 is an ultra cautious, positional approach. Makes me wonder if Carlsen prefers knights to bishops, since the pawn chains are flexible and perhaps more suited to manoeuvring with knights than with bishops, which would be restricted. What seems clear to me is that 6.e3 is simply wrong. Too many white squared holes on white's k-side and it's slow. I would play 5g3 in a long or classical game, where I can work out the positional nuances. It should combine very well with the half-open b-file.

I think that your suggestion of 5 d4 is absolutely excellent in a quicker game or one where you are not averse to risk-taking. In that case, though, you must not exchange B for N on f6, in my opinion, since that clears the e file for black and alllows black to exert pressure on it before white can organise. Instead, on something like ...d6, drop the B back to g3. Black cannot play both ...Nh5 and ...h5 at the same time ... hence your position is safe. If ...Nh5 simply play e4 and recapture on g3 with hg. The half open e file is still blocked by black's B, since you haven't helped black develop it. Hence playing e4 looks completely safe and you can follow up with Bd3 and Nd2 etc. Maybe also Ne2. That looks like an interesting position to play. The K should be safe in the centre for the time being at least. No hurry to castle and you can develop and see what happens.

https://www.chess.com/game/daily/557633629

Comments and constructive criticism welcomed.

At first sight a very nice game!

Thanks Erwin.

48) e7,... was a blunder that threw away a won game I think. I should have checked him first with the rook. Then played e7 and I think he has to give me his rook in exchange for the queening pawn.

Well, I thought your second move, Bb2, was wrong, because there's no target. Hold it back and maybe play 2. c4 because the B may not belong on B2. Might be a3 but don't play Bb2 yet. The result was a passive position for white.

Chessterd5….. You have played an opponent 300 elo points higher for a draw using the Sokolsky opening. That’s excellent I think……Trying to match a stronger player like that with that elo difference with white would be that much harder with c4, d4 and e4 openings . I would also suggest if the elo difference was say 600 or greater it would be even harder again to draw with those 3 standard openings with variation compared to the polish. Simply because it’s the road less travelled for your highly ranked opponent.Even better, the result had some less preferred moves which were highlighted on analysis…..yet you still achieved a well fought draw. That is something I aspire to as an irregular social only player. It’s a strategic tactic.

Yes sir, I agree 👍. And thanks for the kind words.

The highest elo opponent that I have played the Polish from the white side against was 2200something. I lost both games but they were due to Tactical errors much later in the middle game right before it turns into an endgame.

The Polish opening is much stronger than a lot of people think. I have been playing it exclusively in the chess.com daily chess tournament.

I have not lost a game with it yet.

You said you would welcome constructive criticism and yet you didn't comment on my suggestion. You thanked aflfooty because he praised you. No more constructive criticism will be forthcoming from me.

Do you promise?

Let me make sure that I learned what great knowledge that you were trying to bestow upon me.

Different pieces can go on different squares at different times depending on the needs of the position?

In this case, ( move #2 remember?) the true needs of the position have not been established yet because black has not committed a pawn move to determine pawn structure or lines of mobility for his pieces but I should commit a center pawn move. Not knowing whether black may play c6, b5, or even a5 and now c4 cannot be redacted regardless?

Is this where I say " thank ya, Gov'na!" And where do I mail your shilling to?

You can tell that black probably won't give you a target. After all, if you play Bb2 right away, black can play ...e5 and you might be in a main line exchange variation. There again, black has indicated that quite possibly there will be no target. Since you're going to expand on the Q-side anyway, do it now or play something like e6 if that's part of your normal setup.

The main idea in chess is to outwit your opponent. You aren't going to manage that playing automatic moves that aren't the best moves in a given position. If you prefer another move than c4 then play it instead. Use your brains. It's a good test to see if you have any. Jury's not out yet.

I just looked at the remainder of the game past move four. You've moved your white square bishop twice in the opening and you're behind in development. If your opponent hadn't made a fundamental, strategic error at this point, you would probably lose since he outrated you. He attempted to attack in the centre and it just didn't work. He had to attack you on the kingside and he would probably have won. It wasn't a good game.