|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
posted January 19, 2004 03:04 AM |
|
Edited By: Wub on 18 Jan 2004
|
Hello Lews,
I have been looking some more at the position that could have occurred if black had played 19. …g4 in the previous game you posted. I hope I understand you correctly about the exact line that is in question, because the move numbers differ from what I had in mind (although in my previous post I copied your notation). You wrote down 23. …Kf1 instead of 25. …Kf1. Just to be certain, I am talking about: 19. …g4 20.fxg4 hxg4 21.hxg4 Rg7 22.Qd1 Nxg4 23. Bxg4 Bxg4 24. Nxg4 Qg5 25. Kf1, Qxg4 26.Qxg4 Rxg4 27.Rb7 Nf6.
At this point you suggested 28. Rcb1. This move however, allows the manoeuvre Rg4-g3-d3-d4. With Rcb1, the rook does not protect the knight anymore, preventing the bishop to keep the rook out by Bd2-e1-f2. So in this case, black would play 28 …Rg3, I think. Note that there is no other way to prevent the rook from reaching d4, since the king is still tied to the g2 pawn and 29. Ne2 fails to Nxe4!. My computer advises 29. Rb8!? but it seems to me that black would eagerly exchange his weak rook.
Since 28. Rcb1 seems to have this clear disadvantage, it would seem logical to play 28. Be1 instead, to prepare for 29. Rcb1. Black will answer this with 29. …Rg7. Now white can either try 30. Rcb1 or 30. Rxg7+. However, it seems that after 30. Rcb1 black can play 30. …Nd7 to block the b-file, if desired, with Nb6, which also attacks the c-pawn. If white opts for 30. Rxg7+, then black has time to either activate his rook or again to play Nd7 to block the b-file.
In both cases black seems to be able to hold the draw, I think, although I must admit that he has to play more accurately than I thought at first.
Quote:
When I prepared for my game last sunday, I decided once and for all to play the 1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 g6 line in the future.
Well, the win-loss statistics seem very positive for black in this line, although one can wonder if this isn’t due to the fact that theory seems to avoid it. Together with 4…e5, 4…Nf6 and 4…e6 this is one of the lines I’ll consider to use too. Actually I even considered playing an Alapin Sicilian myself as well, since disliking to play against it may indicate that you like to play with it, I figured. It’s just that open Sicilian games are so much fun  .
Recently I have participated in my first tourney for one year. And since I was divided in a group with an ELO ranging from 1750-2450, that was quite instructive. It was satisfying to see my accelerated dragon score some wins. Also, my increased knowledge of the maroczy-bind made for a draw against a 2000+ player, after having had good winning chances. On the other hand, it was frustrating to discover that I needed more opening theory and experience of positions that arise after 1.d4 c5 2. e3 (or c3), but I feel that the opening in itself is not that challenging for black.
I am still analysing your latest game, which I won't be able to finish today anymore. I hope I can get that done tomorrow.
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 19, 2004 04:08 AM |
|
|
Hello Wub,
Quote:
At this point you suggested 28. Rcb1. This move however, allows the manoeuvre Rg4-g3-d3-d4. With Rcb1, the rook does not protect the knight anymore, preventing the bishop to keep the rook out by Bd2-e1-f2. So in this case, black would play 28 …Rg3, I think. Note that there is no other way to prevent the rook from reaching d4, since the king is still tied to the g2 pawn and 29. Ne2 fails to Nxe4!.
You´re absolutely right, I missed this maneuver. However, after 28.Be1 Rg7 29.Rxg7+ Kxg7 (…Bxg7 30.Rb1 +/-) 30.Rb1, I don´t see much of an improvement in black´s position. 30. …Nd7? loses a piece after 31.Rb7, and the attempt to bring the Ra8 to the seventh rank is not without problems either:
30. …Rd8 31.Bh4 Rd7 32.Bxf6 Kxf6 33.Rb8 Be7 34.Nb5 a6 35.Nc3 and with the bad pieces and weaknesses a6 and d6, black has a very difficult position.
Quote:
Recently I have participated in my first tourney for one year. And since I was divided in a group with an ELO ranging from 1750-2450, that was quite instructive. It was satisfying to see my accelerated dragon score some wins. Also, my increased knowledge of the maroczy-bind made for a draw against a 2000+ player, after having had good winning chances.
Glad to hear that  . How many points did you score overall?
____________
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 21, 2004 12:31 AM |
|
Edited By: Wub on 1 Feb 2004
|
Hello
It is interesting that you posted a Benoni-game again. Although I meet 1. d4 c5 2. d5 Nf6 3. c4 with 3…b5 as you know, I do need more experience with positions that arise after –for example- 3. Nc3 and your game helps with that.
Quote:
8...Nbd7 9.e5 dxe5 10.fxe5 Nh5 11.e6 Qh4+ 12.g3 Nxg3 13.hxg3 Qxh1 14.Be3 has occasionally been tried on GM level, but with correct play by white, he's the only one who can play for a win in the resulting N+B vs. R positions.
I see that correct play leads to the following position:
I understand that it is white that has the advantage here because of the exposed position of the black king. On the other hand, the path that leads to this position seems small and dangerous for white, according to win-loss statistics. Or more accurately said, they suggest that many white-players don’t know the refutation to 8. Nbd7. That would be interesting, because Nfd7 is an ‘ugly’ move that calls for explanation in my opinion.
Quote:
14...Bg4 e4-e5 must be prevented.
It took me a while to see how exactly this prevents e5, but I understand that after 15. e5 Nd7, white cannot maintain his strong centre. Nice piece of improvisation on a non-theory move there.
Your 15th move is Bxf3. I do not really see why this exchange must be done so quickly. Of course, the knight is unpinned by white’s 15. …Qb3, but moving it away doesn’t seem very useful for now, so capturing the knight can wait, in my opinion. Also, I think the bishop does a good job controlling the white squares, which are a weakness in white’s position as the cited game beautifully shows. Maybe the idea was to misplace rook f1 by playing Bxf3?
Quote:
16.Qxb7?! Nbd7 17.Rxf3 Qe7 looks quite dangerous for white.
Yes, I wouldn’t have played 16. Qxb7 either, nor on a later occasion. I know that this pawn is often poisoned. The computer however, eagerly wants to capture the pawn. Now it is a well-known fact that computers are reckless pawngobblers, but the move might still be correct.
Quote:
I would have loved to play 16...Qe7 first, before white's Ra1 is able to protect e4. But after 17.e5 dxe5 18.fxe5 white gets a very strong position.
I also looked at 16. …Qe7 17. e5 Ne8, but when white plays 18. e6 then he also has a good advantage (18. exd6? Nxd6 with mastery of the strong square d6 and the e-line, I figured). So it seems like you did well to play Nbd7 instead.
Quote:
Now that Dd8-e7 can be met by Ra1-e1, I had to accept (after a long think) that play on the K-side is not possible for black.
I think too that in this case a well aimed Bg7 and a pawn majority at the queenside is more important to justify play at the queenside, than that the weakened king’s position justifies play at the kingside.
Quote:
From a strategical point of view, the position is very difficult for both sides
Now that I have studied most of Euwe’s ‘Judgment and planning in chess’ I can wholeheartedly agree with this: the positions in that book seemed much easier . It is indeed very complicated for both sides to find a good plan, now that this equilibrium has occurred. I have studied this position for a long time and it seems indeed that black should vie for the c5 square. At first I wondered why white can’t simply try to prevent the knight coming to b6 with a well prepared a4-a5. But then I noticed that if white plays a5, black can easily get b7-b5 through. With a white pawn at a5, he now needs to secure the b6-square instead of the b5-square, which is a lot less difficult to accomplish for black. I think the misery for white is, that he cannot prevent both b7-b5 and the loss of the c5 square. Therefore, 17. …Qc7 definitely looks right to me.
18. Re1 seems reasonable to me. It’s hard to find a good plan for white and centralizing
the rook at least binds some black pieces to keep preventing the e4-e5 push. The answer 18. …Rfe8 is a somewhat unfortunate move in my opinion though, because now one of those sacrificial motives that you mentioned become possible: 19. e5! Now 19…dxe5 is met by 20. d6 and 19. …Ng4 allows 20. Ne4. An immediate 18. …Nb6 may have been better. Luckily white plays 19. h3, but I think this was the plan he was looking for.
Quote:
White must not allow this exchange of pieces. Now it's only black who can be better. 20.Bf1 Nfd7 21.Nd1 c4 22.Qc2 a5 23.Nf2 Nc5 should IMO offer relatively equal chances.
This position will easily become a tactical mess in which it is hard to judge the chances for me, although you are probably right. But despite those equal chances it is black that has improved his position at the expense of white here, so I can understand why white was unwilling to move his bishop. I do agree that he should have, though.
I wonder if there wasn’t any better plan for white than to exchange bishops. It is time consuming and the knight has to be decentralized for it, while it is now defending b5. On the other hand, black’s bishop ís superior to white’s of course. A king’s attack would be too slow for white, but maybe Rff1 is an option to try to get control of the a-file that soon will be opened. But I’m unsure about this move too.
Your 22th move is Rab8, but I wonder if Rfb8 is a better option. e4-e5 is still well prevented and the kingside rook can put a lot of extra pressure on the queenside attack, especially when that a-file will be opened.
Quote:
28...f6! looks best, to control e5 with pawns and knight, and penetrate with the heavy pieces.
Yes, I would think that is the best idea too. That is what I meant with my statement above about Rfb8 instead of Rab8.
Quote:
Unfortunately, with precise play by white this interesting ending is only a draw ...
Yes, that is a pity because it is obvious that black is the only one with winning chances here. I can’t find a win though, either. I looked at 42. …Nf6 instead of Kxg4 for example, but then too the white knight alone can stop the pawn and the king. That’s a very useful manoeuvre by the way, good to have seen that.
Thanks for posting this game. Especially the strategy in the midgame and the highly positional character of that game were very interesting. It surprised me that white had so little options despite of his spatial advantage. Too bad that the endgame was just within drawing boundaries. I wonder if it is usual for you to play these kind of games every Sunday .
Quote:
However, after 28.Be1 Rg7 29.Rxg7+ Kxg7 (…Bxg7 30.Rb1 +/-) 30.Rb1, I don´t see much of an improvement in black´s position. 30. …Nd7? loses a piece after 31.Rb7, and the attempt to bring the Ra8 to the seventh rank is not without problems either:
30. …Rd8 31.Bh4 Rd7 32.Bxf6 Kxf6 33.Rb8 Be7 34.Nb5 a6 35.Nc3 and with the bad pieces and weaknesses a6 and d6, black has a very difficult position.
While I agree with your analysis of 29. …Kxg7, I think that 29. …Bxg7 is not that bad for black. After 30. Rb1, I originally had 30. …Nd7 in mind. If 31. Rb7, then 31. …Nb6 32. Nb5 Nxc4 and the a-pawn is exchanged for the c-pawn. If 31. Nb5, then 31. …Rb8 (32. Rb3, Rb6 33. Nxa7!? Rxb3 34. axb3 Nf6). The computer however prefers 30. …Ng4 with the idea of 31. Bd2 Rf8. At this stage a win for white will become increasingly difficult I think, although black’s defending moves are not easy to find behind the board.
Quote:
How many points did you score overall?
I scored 3.5 out of 7 which was reasonable, but not quite satisfying either. I gained two and a half point playing Sicilian with black, so maybe I should work on my opening repertory with white a bit more . Most disappointing however, was that I blew a completely won position against the IM who eventually achieved the first place. On the positive side, I won an extremely useful and beautiful bottle opener .
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 21, 2004 03:29 AM |
|
|
Hello Wub,
great timing, again you send your posting during my boring nightshift  , so I hope I´ll be able to respond rather quickly.
Quote:
I understand that it is white that has the advantage here because of the exposed position of the black king. On the other hand, the path that leads to this position seems small and dangerous for white, according to win-loss statistics. Or more accurately said, they suggest that many white-players don’t know the refutation to 8. Nbd7.
When I was in Vlissingen last summer (where I visited Romana and beat Hexa in a tennis match, btw ), Daniel Stellwagen tried this gamble against a 2200 rated player and lost in a rather ugly way. The variation has a reputation to be rather incorrect, and I would presume that the win-loss statistics for black are inversely proportional to the players´ ratings ...
Quote:
Quote:
14...Bg4 e4-e5 must be prevented.
It took me a while to see how exactly this prevents e5, but I understand that after 15. e5 Nd7, white cannot maintain his strong centre. Nice piece of improvisation on a non-theory move there.
Thank you, but my intention was 15.e5 dxe5 16.fxe5 Nd7. After 15.e5 Nd7, I think both 16.exd6 and 16.e6 are not that clear.
Quote:
Your 15th move is Bxf3. I do not really see why this exchange must be done so quickly. Of course, the knight is unpinned by white’s 15. …Qb3, but moving it away doesn’t seem very useful for now, so capturing the knight can wait, in my opinion. Also, I think the bishop does a good job controlling the white squares, which are a weakness in white’s position as the cited game beautifully shows. Maybe the idea was to misplace rook f1 by playing Bxf3?
I spent a long time thinking about how I could delay the capture, really would have loved to keep my Bg4 for awhile. But Bxf3 is the only move that takes white´s e4-e5 out of the game.
I only just noticed that if I had played 15.…Nbd7 instead, I could have answered 16.e5 dxe5 17.fxe5? with 17.…Bxf3 18.exf6 Qxf6! and black is much better. But still, white can instead play 17.Nxe5, and I think that in the complicated position that follows, black is slightly worse.
Quote:
Yes, I wouldn’t have played 16. Qxb7 either, nor on a later occasion. I know that this pawn is often poisoned. The computer however, eagerly wants to capture the pawn. Now it is a well-known fact that computers are reckless pawngobblers, but the move might still be correct.
Hmm, frankly I just don´t see a satisfying evacuation plan for white´s Queen. He´s underdeveloped, his K-side is weakened and e4 needs protection. I think it´s the typical computer problem: He counts the pawn and the positional elements, but fails to see how hard it is to find a consolidation plan.
Quote:
I also looked at 16. …Qe7 17. e5 Ne8, but when white plays 18. e6 then he also has a good advantage
You´re probably right that 17.…Ne8 is probably preferable, but my point is: My whole opening concept can only be justified as long as I keep e4-e5 prevented. If white becomes able to push his pawn to e6, I have to ask myself why I have played the moves Bc8-g4 and Bg4xf3.
Quote:
Quote:
Now that Dd8-e7 can be met by Ra1-e1, I had to accept (after a long think) that play on the K-side is not possible for black.
I think too that in this case a well aimed Bg7 and a pawn majority at the queenside is more important to justify play at the queenside, than that the weakened king’s position justifies play at the kingside.
My view is a bit different: The Bg7 is a strong attacker on the K-side also (Bg7-d4+ can be thrown in anytime), my pawn minority gives me pressure on the half-open e-file, and white´s K-side is not only weakened structurally, but also lacks defending pieces: The Rf3 is the only piece on the right-hand side of the white player, while three of his pieces and the pawn a4 are clamping down on the b5 square. It hurt me not to be able to make use of this ... would have loved to play h7-h5-h4, in order to secure the g4 square and further weaken the white king´s position, but unfortunately, h7-h5 can always be answered with h2-h3  .
Quote:
At first I wondered why white can’t simply try to prevent the knight coming to b6 with a well prepared a4-a5. But then I noticed that if white plays a5, black can easily get b7-b5 through. With a white pawn at a5, he now needs to secure the b6-square instead of the b5-square, which is a lot less difficult to accomplish for black.
Yes. Still white usually plays a4-a5 when he cannot prevent b7-b5 by other means, in order to at least disrupt black´s pawn structure, and make the black weakness on a6 counterbalance white´s on b2. But with his rook no longer being on a1, the pawn a5 would become a weakness, and there would also be no pressure on the a-file after a5xb6.
Furthermore, if white plays a4-a5 to push back the Nb6, he could move to c8 and then to a7. After a later b7-b5 axb6 Rxb6, black has the unpleasant threat Na7-b5-d4.
Quote:
18. Re1 seems reasonable to me. It’s hard to find a good plan for white and centralizing
the rook at least binds some black pieces to keep preventing the e4-e5 push. The answer 18. …Rfe8 is a somewhat unfortunate move in my opinion though, because now one of those sacrificial motives that you mentioned become possible: 19. e5! Now 19…dxe5 is met by 20. d6 and 19. …Ng4 allows 20. Ne4. An immediate 18. …Nb6 may have been better. Luckily white plays 19. h3, but I think this was the plan he was looking for.
You´re right, and I missed this in my commentaries. During the game, I intended to either sacrifice the exchange with 19.…dxe5 20.d6 Qxd6 21.Bxf7+ Kh8 22.Bxe8 Rxe8 - which looked okay to me during the game, but the computer just showed me that after the simple Qb3-c2, there´s both e5-e4 prevented and d2 covered, white´s better here of course.
Or play 19.…dxe5 20.d6 Qc6, which leads to incredibly complicated tactics (this is the reason why my opponent refrained from e4-e5, btw): 21.Bxf7 Kh8 22.Rf2 and now either
22.…exf4 23.Bxe8 Rxe8 24.Rxe8+ Nxe8 which looks highly unclear, although I think that white has the slightly better chances. Or
22.…Red8 23.fxe5 Ng4 24.Bd5 c4 25.Bxc6 cxb3 26.Bxd7 Nxf2 27.Kxf2 Rxd7 28.Bf4 and white has the superior endgame, but - who could calculate this far at the board ?
Yes, 18.…Nb6 immediately, as you suggested, would have been correct.
Quote:
But despite those equal chances it is black that has improved his position at the expense of white here, so I can understand why white was unwilling to move his bishop. I do agree that he should have, though.
Yes, I would rather have the black pieces here, too. But black does not only have made progress, he has also weakened himself considerably. If the pawn c4 falls off the board and white keeps his weaknesses protected, I have a problem ...
Quote:
I wonder if there wasn’t any better plan for white than to exchange bishops. It is time consuming and the knight has to be decentralized for it, while it is now defending b5.
I think it was a good idea, as it´s the only way to bring e4-e5 back into the game. And it forces me to strike on the Q-side immediately. If white makes waiting moves, I just play b7-b6, Qc7-b7, Ra8-b8 and b7-b5, which is much stronger with my Bg7 still being on the board.
Quote:
A king’s attack would be too slow for white, but maybe Rff1 is an option to try to get control of the a-file that soon will be opened. But I’m unsure about this move too.
Hmm, Rff1 connects rooks again and sometimes prevents tactics on d5. But I think I would have just doubled rooks on the e-file, even though I am not sure whether I can win this, I think I´m the only one who´s going to have active play for the rest of the game.
Quote:
Your 22th move is Rab8, but I wonder if Rfb8 is a better option.
Yes, that´s an interesting alternative. But then, white has the option not to open the a-file after b7-b5, e4-e5 has better chances to become a threat, and I lack this useful pressure on the e4 pawn. A possible line is 22.…Rab8 23.Qc2!? b5 24.Bc3, and now I´d much rather have my Ra8 on e8.
Quote:
I wonder if it is usual for you to play these kind of games every Sunday .
It´s not every sunday, just one game in a month . Yes, so far I´m rather happy with my play in all of my games from the team competition, and the result 3.5/5 is okay, too. It´s just sad that I´ve lost in the first round, where I one-move-blundered my queen in a totally winning position.
***
Quote:
While I agree with your analysis of 29. …Kxg7, I think that 29. …Bxg7 is not that bad for black. After 30. Rb1, I originally had 30. …Nd7 in mind.
Okay, then Nd7-b6 is threatened, so I first have to cover c4: 31.Ke2. I think that white´s winning chances are very real here, an example line is 31.…Nb6 32.Kd3 Bf8 33.a4 Rb8 34.a4 Nd7 35.Rxb8 Nxb8 36.Bh4 a6 37.Bd8 Kf7 38.Nb5! Nd7 39.Bc7 +-.
Quote:
Most disappointing however, was that I blew a completely won position against the IM who eventually achieved the first place.
Arg, things like that always happen to me, too. What kind of game was it ... wouldn´t you like to post it here ?
And congratulations for the bottle opener , did you win it as some kind of a rating price?
____________
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 02, 2004 03:14 AM |
|
|
Hello Lews,
I wish I had those boring nightshifts too, but the fact that I have to be at the psychological lab every day and at the evening prepare my work for the next day, is effectively destroying my spare time .
Quote:
Okay, then Nd7-b6 is threatened, so I first have to cover c4: 31.Ke2. I think that white´s winning chances are very real here
Yes, I think you are right after all. I reasoned that the black rook being tied to a7 was the biggest problem of black's position, so when that was resolved, a draw should be possible. But when the white king arrives at d3, the weaknesses of the white position are well defended, while I see that blacks pawn chain is still vulnerable and his bishop is very bad. Whether white can really force a win is hard to say, but he does have very real winning chances indeed. Maybe that's why the computer advised 30. ...Ng4 instead of 30. ...Nd7 .
Quote:
The variation has a reputation to be rather incorrect, and I would presume that the win-loss statistics for black are inversely proportional to the players´ ratings ...
Yes, I was also reasoning that way. If I succeed in getting my ELO up, I'll probably have to change my opening repertory somewhat because I still do play similar lines that are successful at my level of play, but actually more or less refuted by theory. By the way, I have been reading some more about the modern benoni on a chessforum and I noticed that Taimanov himself confirms your words about this variation .
Quote:
Thank you, but my intention was 15.e5 dxe5 16.fxe5 Nd7.
Ah, I see now. Yes, black seems to get good chances as he can meet 17. e6 with something like 17. ...Ne5, I think.
Quote:
I spent a long time thinking about how I could delay the capture, really would have loved to keep my Bg4 for awhile. […]But still, white can instead play 17.Nxe5, and I think that in the complicated position that follows, black is slightly worse.
I was already wondering if I overestimated the strength of that bishop at g4. I find it rather hard to judge the position after 17. Nxe5, especially if you would have to calculate it from move 15. In that case the tactical mess that occurs must be partly judged by intuition I guess and I can understand that you choose not to allow a variation where white can play e4-e5 then. I assume that black should continue with something like 17. …Nb6, but the position stays somewhat unclear to me. So taking the knight seems to be a lot better than I thought it was.
Quote:
I think it´s the typical computer problem: He counts the pawn and the positional elements, but fails to see how hard it is to find a consolidation plan.
Yes, this is really a computer move. White cannot seem to hold his centre due to the queen’s awful position, so there’s plenty of compensation. White can probably prevent his queen from being captured, but now I too noticed there’s indeed no easy way out.
Quote:
You´re probably right that 17.…Ne8 is probably preferable, but my point is: My whole opening concept can only be justified as long as I keep e4-e5 prevented.
Hmmm, you mean that it is irrelevant that 17. …Ne8 may be better than 17. …dxe5, because white has come to the e4-e5 push then anyway? I noticed that following this idea of preventing the e4-e5 push has been a good heuristic, which saves you of many calculating. Assessing the position after 15. …Nbd7 is not necessary when strictly following this idea. I find it hard however to exactly estimate when to calculate a variation and when to trust on heuristics. Did you stop calculating during the game every time a move of yours didn’t prevent e4-e5?
Quote:
My view is a bit different: The Bg7 is a strong attacker on the K-side also (Bg7-d4+ can be thrown in anytime), my pawn minority gives me pressure on the half-open e-file, and white´s K-side is not only weakened structurally, but also lacks defending pieces: The Rf3 is the only piece on the right-hand side of the white player, while three of his pieces and the pawn a4 are clamping down on the b5 square. It hurt me not to be able to make use of this ... would have loved to play h7-h5-h4, in order to secure the g4 square and further weaken the white king´s position, but unfortunately, h7-h5 can always be answered with h2-h3 .
It is very interesting to read your strategic assessment of this situation. I have studied this position and thus black’s possibilities at the kingside for a long time, but I did not see enough possibilities for black to attack there. I looked at h7-h5 and Bg7-d4+, but I did not think of a minority attack to profit from that half open e-file. Even if h2-h3 were impossible, it just seems too dangerous to use the f-pawn to open the position. And then it takes quite a preparation to play f7-f5 as well, considering that e4-e5 must be prevented. So the reason why I found reading this interesting, was because it is quite a surprising possible strategy to me.
Quote:
You´re right, and I missed this in my commentaries. During the game, I intended to either sacrifice the exchange with 19.…dxe5 20.d6 Qxd6 21.Bxf7+ Kh8 22.Bxe8 Rxe8 - which looked okay to me during the game, but the computer just showed me that after the simple Qb3-c2, there´s both e5-e4 prevented and d2 covered, white´s better here of course.
Or play 19.…dxe5 20.d6 Qc6, which leads to incredibly complicated tactics (this is the reason why my opponent refrained from e4-e5, btw): 21.Bxf7 Kh8 22.Rf2 and now either
22.…exf4 23.Bxe8 Rxe8 24.Rxe8+ Nxe8 which looks highly unclear, although I think that white has the slightly better chances. Or
22.…Red8 23.fxe5 Ng4 24.Bd5 c4 25.Bxc6 cxb3 26.Bxd7 Nxf2 27.Kxf2 Rxd7 28.Bf4 and white has the superior endgame, but - who could calculate this far at the board ?
And I was even taking in consideration that I had found a move that both you and your opponent had missed during the game . In my opinion, the fact that white rather plays that planless 19. h3 than taking the gamble with 19. e6 is an indication that he still thinks he has the better game. After 19.…dxe5 20.d6 Qc6 21.Bxf7 Kh8 22.Rf2 exf4 23.Bxe8 Rxe8 24.Rxe8+ Nxe8, white does indeed have an advantage, because it seems that he can prevent Bd4 without doing major concessions. Since white has to prevent that move, his options are severely limited, which makes the position somewhat more clear, for example: 25. Qe6 Nf8 26. Qe7 Nxd6 27. Bxf4 Nf5 28. Qd8 Kg8 29. g4 Nd4.
Yes, I would rather have the black pieces here, too. But black does not only have made progress, he has also weakened himself considerably. If the pawn c4 falls off the board and white keeps his weaknesses protected, I have a problem ...
True, but that sounds rather hypothetically to me, because white’s a-pawn seems even weaker than black’s c-pawn. Also, an immediate Bxc4 can be met with Nxe4, which results in strong pressure along the c-file for black.
I think it was a good idea, as it´s the only way to bring e4-e5 back into the game. And it forces me to strike on the Q-side immediately. If white makes waiting moves, I just play b7-b6, Qc7-b7, Ra8-b8 and b7-b5, which is much stronger with my Bg7 still being on the board.
You’ve got a point there. It’s just that it occurred as quite illogical to me that white freely decreased his control of b5, while that is the breakthrough that black is trying to accomplish .
Yes, that´s an interesting alternative. But then, white has the option not to open the a-file
Hmmm, that’s nasty. You’re right that I incorrectly assumed that both files would open. While e4-e5 can still be prevented with Rab8, the rook at a8 indeed becomes rather weak of course.
It´s not every sunday, just one game in a month .
Ah, OTB is the same as what I unknowingly referred to as interclub competition in a previous post . Oh well, a few months ago I didn’t even exactly know the names of all chess pieces in English .
It´s just sad that I´ve lost in the first round, where I one-move-blundered my queen in a totally winning position.
As you have noted, I myself find it hard to spot concrete errors in your games, so at least it is somewhat comforting for me to hear that such things happen to you too.
Arg, things like that always happen to me, too. What kind of game was it ... wouldn´t you like to post it here ?
Well, it was a rapid-chess game, so not only didn’t I write down the moves, but the level of play wasn’t that high either. Also, at home I couldn’t exactly reproduce the moves, since it wasn’t the second game in a series of seven. Anyway, it was an Alekhine game where I of course played the white pieces. Unlike my opponent, I didn’t know the theory of that opening very well, so I started messing around a bit quite early. Just when it almost seemed like my pawn centre was being completely undermined, I succeeded in planting three strong pawns in the centre. And since I was more or less forced to castle queenside, I started storming his kingside. Surprisingly, the attack seemed to be decisive and my opponent had to give material to prevent being mated. He agreed being ‘completely lost’ at that moment. Unfortunately, in the sharp position that had arisen I overlooked a mate threat .
No, it’s better that you post one of your games again; if you’d like to that is. I’m still interested in a Sicilian, but your database surely contains other good games too, I assume . And I don’t necessarily expect games where you played perfectly, either.
And congratulations for the bottle opener , did you win it as some kind of a rating price?
Yes, thanks . Actually there were just a lot of prices and this was the only thing left . A friend of mine just got a new house, so that was a good reason to get rid of it (though somehow I felt obliged to include some other gifts too ).
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2004 02:32 AM |
|
|
Hello Wub,
do you study psychology? What exactly does a psychological lab look like? (In the natural sciences, that´s much easier to guess ...)
Quote:
If I succeed in getting my ELO up, I'll probably have to change my opening repertory somewhat because I still do play similar lines that are successful at my level of play, but actually more or less refuted by theory.
Well, dumping the Budapest looks like a good step in that direction . In my opinion, playing more healthy openings does help not only to get your elo up, but also your playing strenght. I mean, the games that you win by "tricking" the opponent where he´s unfamiliar with and lose by getting refuted tend to have the lowest learning effect of all.
Quote:
Yes, black seems to get good chances as he can meet 17. e6 with something like 17. ...Ne5, I think.
On the line 15.e5 dxe5 16.fxe5 Nd7 Yes, that´s correct.
Quote:
Hmmm, you mean that it is irrelevant that 17. …Ne8 may be better than 17. …dxe5, because white has come to the e4-e5 push then anyway? I noticed that following this idea of preventing the e4-e5 push has been a good heuristic, which saves you of many calculating. Assessing the position after 15. …Nbd7 is not necessary when strictly following this idea. I find it hard however to exactly estimate when to calculate a variation and when to trust on heuristics. Did you stop calculating during the game every time a move of yours didn’t prevent e4-e5?
You´re right that very often it´s not easy to judge the consequences of an e4-e5 push - if there were a dogma that says black mustn´t allow this breakthrough under any circumstances, the Benoni were not playable. In the line where white plays 10.Be2 (instead of 10.Bd3) it´s even the case that white always gets e4-e5 and black is forced to passively respond Nf6-e8 - and still that line is not bad for black.
But in the game, white´s pieces are well placed to become effective after e4-e5. My Bishop has already moved to g4 in order to restrict white´s central pawns. In fact the whole Qd8-h4-d8 maneuver was played to secure the g4 square for this purpose. In other words, so far I´ve spent my time not to get counterplay, but to restrain white´s activity. If white under such circumstances is able to play e4-e5 without getting any serious positional or material deficits in return, then black´s strategy must have gone terribly wrong.
Quote:
I have studied this position and thus black’s possibilities at the kingside for a long time, but I did not see enough possibilities for black to attack there. I looked at h7-h5 and Bg7-d4+, but I did not think of a minority attack to profit from that half open e-file. Even if h2-h3 were impossible, it just seems too dangerous to use the f-pawn to open the position. And then it takes quite a preparation to play f7-f5 as well, considering that e4-e5 must be prevented.
I think there aren´t any attacking possibilities, but what I meant to say is that the way white´s pieces are arranged plus his K-side weaknesses make play on that side the most attractive option for me. Only after I couldn´t find any lever there, I directed my attention to the Q-side.
I did not at all mean to suggest a classical 'Carlsbad-type' minority attack here - playing for f7-f5 in such a position looks like suicide to me.
I´ll try to explain. Well, what´s the purpose of a minority attack? To weaken the part of the pawn chain where you can exert pressure with your heavy pieces. How do you weaken him? By removing (exchanging) the pawn that is able to cover him and not standing on such a half-open file.
In the game, this goal has already been reached by other means: The pawn e4 is a target on the e-file, and cannot be protected anymore since white´s f-pawn has moved beyond f3. It´s unlikely that this pressure will ever be enough to win the pawn, but it binds white pieces, creates tactical threats on the e-file (for example against a Qe2, Be3 or an uncovered Re1), and if it really comes to an attack against white´s king, the active Re8 has the best chances to join quickly.
The idea of h7-h5-h4 would be to open the h-file, but most importantly to win control over the g4 square. Imagine a black knight on g4, a bishop on d4, the king going to g7, the rook to h8 - a square that can later also be used by the queen ...
Quote:
And I was even taking in consideration that I had found a move that both you and your opponent had missed during the game
Well, you´ve found the major improvement on white´s play, and my most serious error in the game, that´s not too bad either .
Quote:
In my opinion, the fact that white rather plays that planless 19. h3 than taking the gamble with 19. e6 is an indication that he still thinks he has the better game.
I don´t think that was the case, he just miscalculated the difficult 20.…Qc6 variation.
Quote:
Ah, OTB is the same as what I unknowingly referred to as interclub competition in a previous post .
OTB just means over-the-board chess , used in contrast to internet chess. But it also usually means long games with serious time controls ... no blitz or rapid.
Quote:
... so at least it is somewhat comforting for me to hear that such things happen to you too.
My last three losses were all from relatively easy winning positions. I don´t have the best nerves, and when I get into time trouble, I can become blind for tactics. Fortunately the game I played on sunday is an exception .
Quote:
No, it’s better that you post one of your games again; if you’d like to that is. I’m still interested in a Sicilian, but your database surely contains other good games too, I assume .
Yes, I can think of a few Sicilians that may be interesting.
Quote:
And I don’t necessarily expect games where you played perfectly, either.
Then the sunday game will be just perfect for you . I´ll post it right after I´ve submitted this one.
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2004 03:30 AM |
|
|
On Saturday I had delved deeply into the subtleties of the Tarrasch, that my assumed opponent would surely play. Unfortunately this time the other team played with a more complete line-up than usual ... and I not only had to face a different opponent, but also an opening that I don´t feel very familiar with: The closed Benoni.
1.d4 c5 2.d5 e5 3.c4 d6 4.e4 Be7 5.Nf3 Bg4?!
Black tries to carry out the standard maneuver, that aims at getting a knight vs. bad bishop position at the earliest possible opportunity. This move has been played a couple of times by grandmasters (even once against Kasparov!), but with an awful score. The reason is simple: As long as white´s Nb1 has not been commited to c3, he can prevent the exchange of his Bc1.
6.Nbd2
Of course 6.Nc3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 Bg5 is exactly what black wants.
6...Nf6 7.Bd3
This move is in itself is not bad, but I had a better way of developing, that easily leads to clear positional dominance on both wings. 7.Be2 Na6 8.0-0 0-0 9.Ne1! Nxe2 10.Qxe2 -> following up Nd3, a3, b4, Bb2, g3, f4
7...Na6 8.h3
An interesting alternative was 8.Nf1 0-0 9.Ng3 Nc7 10.h3 Bxf3 11.Qxf3 with play on the kingside.
8...Bxf3 9.Nxf3 Nc7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Rb1 Rb8 12.Qe2 Nd7 13.a3
With a series of non-commital moves, both players prepared themselves for a possible opening of the game on the Q-side. Having done that, the attention is turned to the other wing now.
13...Ne8 14.Be3?
This was intended to be a constructive waiting move, in order to provoke the "weakening" g7-g6 and then start play on the K-side. On account of these weaknesses, I allowed the following exchange of bishops. Well, even though my idea could not have been more succesful in the end, it must be said that white threw away all of his advantage for an extremely double-edged and unclear position.
14.b4 looks logical after all these preparatory moves, but I didn´t want to commit myself on the Q-side ... 'if it ever comes to a pure K-side attack with doubling of rooks on the f-file', I thought, 'the advanced pawns may help black´s counterplay'. Wrong! It´s exactly the opposite, white can later close the position there with b4-b5, and most importantly, by vacating the b2 square, white can keep his Bc1 on the board much longer.
But I think even better was 14.g3! in order to meet 14...g6 15.Nh2 Bg5 with 16.f4. I even considered this during the game, but for irrational reasons I didn´t want to "weaken" my king´s position. With black´s light-square bishop having left the board on move 9, there was no reason to worry about light squares of course.
14...g6 15.Nh2
In order to be able to meet 15. ... f5 with 16.exf5 gxf5 17.f4.
15...Bg5 16.f4 Bxf4 17.Bxf4 exf4 18.Rxf4
This is the position that I had envisioned a few moves earlier, and (wrongly) estimated to be good for white. Of course black has the desired strong knight on e5 vs. bad bishop now, but my idea was to prevent the Ne8 from reaching d7, and afterwards exchange my Nh2 for black´s Ne5.
18...Nef6
18...Ne5? 19.Rbf1 and my plan works out, the second knight will never see e5.
This is the position that I had envisioned a few moves earlier, and (wrongly) estimated to be good for white. Of course black has the desired strong knight on e5 vs. bad bishop now, but my idea was to prevent the Ne8 from reaching d7, and afterwards exchange my Nh2 for black´s Ne5.
18...Nef6
18...Ne5? 19.Rbf1 and my plan works out, the second knight will never see e5.
19.g4!?
19.Rbf1 had initially been my idea of course, in order to prevent Nd7-e5. But thanks to the knight-fork threat on g3, black can play 19...Nh5 20.R4f3 Ne5, 21.... Nf6 and 22. ... Nfd7
The idea of 19.g4 is to control h5 and later "hunt down" one of the knights on the other retreat squares.
19...Ne5 20.Bc2 Nfd7 21.Ba4
All according to plan, but unfortunately, this involves a pawn sacrifice ...
21...Nb6 22.b3
The first bridge burned now ... with many more to come
22...Nexc4!?
Give away the giant knight e5 just to win the pathetic a4 pawn?? But after closer look that doesn´t seem to be such a bad decision as I first thought.
22...Nxa4 23.bxa4 Qa5 was safer of course. On the other hand, white can always exchange the Ne5, and for the moment the Pa4 does a good job at keeping the Q-side closed. Now white should play 24.Qc2 and follow up Nh2-f3 and Rbf1. The position looks double-edged, with a perpetual check by one side or the other being a likely result.
23.bxc4 Nxa4 24.Rbf1 Qe7 25.Kh1!?
The idea is to burn the remaining bridges in order to bring my knight to g4. A safer alternative was 25.Nf3 f6 26.h4 and white has some compensation for the pawn.
25...b5! 26.g5! bxc4 27.Ng4 Qxg5 28.Nf6+ Kg7
White may very well be objectively losing here, as he is not only 3 pawns down, but also has to deal with dangerous counterthreats. But it´s not at all easy to defend for black and stay active at the same time ...
29.Tg4?
I refrained from 29.h4! because of 29...Qg3 , but after 30.Sh5+ (or 29...Qh6 30.Nd7 Rb1 31.Qf3 Rxf1+ 32.Qxf1 Re8 33.Rxf7+ Kh8 34.Qf6+ Kg8 35.Qf2 Kh8=) 30... gxh5 31.Rg1 Rb1 32.Rff1 Rxf1 33.Qxf1 Qg6! 34.Qxc4 Nb6 35.Qb5! we have an interesting position with mutual chances, and this time it´s been black who has and had the more difficult moves to find.
29...Qe5?!
29...Qh6 which I feared during the game, easily leads to a winning position for black. The threat against h3 wins the tempo that black needs to decisively bring the rook to b2 or b3. 30.Qh2!? Rb2 31.Qxd6 Qxh3+ 32.Kg1 Qe3+ 33.Kh1 Qh6+ 34.Kg1 Nc3 35.Ne8+ Kg8 36.Nf6+ Kh8 37.Rh4 Qg5+ wins - this is a computer variation of course .
30.Rh4
Now the position, even though it´s probably still objectively winning for black, becomes extremely unclear in the sense of practical play. Unfortunately, I had less than 10 minutes here, and more variations than ever to calculate ...
30...h6 31.Qe3
31.Rxh6 Rh8 does not bring the desired result for white.
31...Rh8 32.Qf3 Rb7 33.Rf4 Rf8?
33...h5! Easily spotted by the computer, but hard to find for a human. With an escape square on h6, his king doesn´t have much to worry about anymore - black is clearly winning.
34.Ng4 Qc3 35.Ne3 Re7 36.Rf6
With only seconds on the clock I didn´t care about much more than move 40. The threat Rg6 comes into play, but black can kick the rook back. 36.h4!? instead looks like the best way to continue the attack.
36...Qe5 37.Rf4 Nb6?
37...Nb2! 38.Ng4 Qd4 39.e5 Qd3 40.exd6 Qxf3+ 41.R4xf3 Re2 42.Nf6 Rd8 43.d7 Re7 44.Rc3 Rdxd7 45.Nxd7 Rxd7 46.Rb1 Nd3 47.Rxc4 Rxd5 48.Rb7 leads to a better endgame for black.
38.Ng4 Qb2 39.Rf6 Nc8?
The losing move.
39...Qd4 40.Rxg6+ Kxg6 41.Nf6 Re5 42.h4 Kg7 43.Qg3+ Kh8 44.Qf4 Kg7 45.Qg3+ draw.
40.Df4
Also possible was 40.Rxg6+ Kxg6 41.Rg1 Kh7 42.Qf5+ Kh8 43.Nf6, but I didn´t want to spend more than 2 seconds, especially since I thought it was move 39.
40...g5 41.Qf5
Here I relaxed, stood up, went to the bathroom ... and when I came back noticed to my pleasure that my threats are far too many to defend for black. The computer announces a mate in 7.
41...Rg8 42.Rxf7+ Rxf7 43.Qxf7+ Kh8 44.Nf6 1-0
____________
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 16, 2004 02:14 AM |
|
|
Hello Lews,
Quote:
do you study psychology? What exactly does a psychological lab look like? (In the natural sciences, that´s much easier to guess ...)
According to people’s reactions, when I tell my study sometimes involves spending a week in the psychological lab, that appears to sound very interesting. Many probably get images of all sorts of mind reading devices, lie detectors, apparatuses that can give electric shocks and injections of dubious neurotransmitters that can strangely alter human behavior. The reality is less exciting, though it also depends on the kind of psychological research that is done. Biological psychology for example can use electrodes for an EEG-scan, but the kind of psychology that I specialize in, social psychology, usually (but not always!) uses ways to study human behavior that speak less to the imagination. The social psychology lab is nothing more than a small labyrinth with a dozen very small chambers that each contain a Macintosh (yes, for some reason being a social psychologist is tied to using a Mac  ). My work was simply to give the participants of the experiment instructions, so you can imagine that 88 subjects later, I was kind of bored. However, social psychology is one of the few psychological directions in which occasionally the subjects are misled about the goal of the experiment. This was the case in our experiment too, so you can imagine that hatching ways to deceive the subjects when designing the experiment is the more interesting part .
Quote:
Well, dumping the Budapest looks like a good step in that direction . In my opinion, playing more healthy openings does help not only to get your elo up, but also your playing strenght. I mean, the games that you win by "tricking" the opponent where he´s unfamiliar with and lose by getting refuted tend to have the lowest learning effect of all.
Yes, that seems true to me too. But it seems I still have a long way to go, then. I still haven’t traded the Giuoco Piano for the Spanish for example. Also, because I answer the c3 sicilian with d5, I refuse the Smith-Morra gambit with d5 as well. But it may be more sound to just accept the gambit and learn the lines to defend against it.
Quote:
If white under such circumstances is able to play e4-e5 without getting any serious positional or material deficits in return, then black´s strategy must have gone terribly wrong.
In that case, it remains a matter of assessment, since ‘serious positional or material deficits’ isn’t easily defined. However, with your digression on black’s strategy, I too can understand now that it is clear that what black gets in return for allowing the e4-e5 push does not qualify as ‘serious’ compensation.
Quote:
The idea of h7-h5-h4 would be to open the h-file, but most importantly to win control over the g4 square. Imagine a black knight on g4, a bishop on d4, the king going to g7, the rook to h8 - a square that can later also be used by the queen ...
Thank you for the explanation, that was very instructive . I must admit that I’m quite new on the lever concept, because the first time that it was introduced by me, was when I read Judgment and Planning in Chess and there mainly that typical Carlsbad position was discussed. Therefore it is very interesting to see the strategy discussed in an other situation (where I wouldn’t expect it). I see now that h3 as a refutation of h5 also does not have the disadvantage of weakening the g3 pawn as much as is usual when confronted with a minority attack (I hope I got that right).
Quote:
My last three losses were all from relatively easy winning positions. I don´t have the best nerves, and when I get into time trouble, I can become blind for tactics. Fortunately the game I played on sunday is an exception .
This happens too often to me as well. I especially like to take my time for the middlegame, so if there’s an endgame I usually have to cope with serious time pressure. I think your latest game was not only an exception to how you say you usually play in time trouble, I even think that you won the game in that phase. I have spent some hours looking at that game already, but I don’t have time anymore to write down an analysis, so I’m afraid it has to wait to Tuesday.
____________
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2004 01:35 AM |
|
|
To write my previous post I had been studying pawn levers and pawn structures some more. I already found out that contemplating upon the very basic first moves of the open Sicilian has increased my understanding of that opening incredibly. Therefore I figured that analyzing the pawn structure that arose after the first few moves in your game should increase my understanding of it a lot. Of course, your game against Rotstein made me somewhat familiar with a closed benoni already, but some extra analysis never hurts I assume. So let’s see:
As Philidor said, ‘pawns are the soul of chess’, so this position should say a lot already about the strategy that both players should follow. White has managed to obtain a considerable spatial advantage; especially the d-pawn cramps black’s position a lot. So if this opening is any good for black, there must be some sort of positional compensation. However, I can’t really find any thus far, so maybe that explains the great score for white in this line (+/- 65%). Since black’s pawn chain is on black squares, he will have a bad dark bishop. For the same reason, white has a bad light bishop. Both sides must work on either a breakthrough on the b- or f-file. Since white has more space to maneuver, however, it is easier for him to keep both options open.
So much for my considerations, of which you already named anyway . But anyway, if they really follow directly from this position, then I should be able to use the same way of assessing the strategic abilities with other openings as well and that would be really useful for understanding chess.
Quote:
This move is in itself is not bad, but I had a better way of developing, that easily leads to clear positional dominance on both wings. 7.Be2 Na6 8.0-0 0-0 9.Ne1! Nxe2 10.Qxe2 -> following up Nd3, a3, b4, Bb2, g3, f4
This set-up follows from what I wrote above, although one can wonder if that wasn’t a case of ‘hineininterpretieren’ . This line would indeed guarantee a favourable bishop trade for white and more strategic possibilities for the midgame. I think that black should not allow Ne1 though, and trade his bishop for the knight beforehand. Playing Be2 a move earlier was also an option.
Quote:
An interesting alternative was 8.Nf1 0-0 9.Ng3 Nc7 10.h3 Bxf3 11.Qxf3 with play on the kingside.
A disadvantage of white’s manoeuvre may be that black can answer with 8. … Bxf3 9. Qxf3 Nd7 and then Ng3 would cause a bishop exchange. I understand that black’s 12. … Nd7 helps in exchanging bishops and is necessary to play f7-f5, but why not first play 12. …a6 to renew the threat of opening the queenside at the appropriate time? The weakening of the b6 square does not seem a big issue at the moment and then all preparatory moves of black to push b5 have more value (even though black does succeed in playing b5 later in the game).
With 13. …Ne8 black indeed shows that he wants to focus on the kingside now. I think that is a victory of your strategy so far, because you can push your b-pawn and he can’t. So I agree that actually playing b4 seems logical. I assume that if black plays cxb4, white has possibilities to rip up black’s centre in the future. But 14. g3 seems good too, indeed, or at least 15. g3 in order to prevent that Bg5.
Quote:
This is the position that I had envisioned a few moves earlier, and (wrongly) estimated to be good for white. Of course black has the desired strong knight on e5 vs. bad bishop now, but my idea was to prevent the Ne8 from reaching d7, and afterwards exchange my Nh2 for black´s Ne5.
Although this is a somewhat unfortunate example, it is interesting that you strategies are more advanced than the basic stuff in ‘judgment and planning in chess’. For me, seeing the bishop exchange and the weakness of the e5 square would be the point at which I would make an other plan, while you continue to look at the variation.
Quote:
21.Ba4
All according to plan, but unfortunately, this involves a pawn sacrifice ...
Creative, to delay the exchange of your bad bishop in the battle for e5. You’re right however that white is less in control than he was after the first 10 moves.
Quote:
22...Nxa4 23.bxa4 Qa5 was safer of course. […] Now white should play 24.Qc2 and follow up Nh2-f3 and Rbf1. The position looks double-edged, with a perpetual check by one side or the other being a likely result.
I guess the best response for black would be 24. Qc2 f6 25. Nf3 Nd7. White has open lines and initiative but a somewhat worse pawn structure the burden to keep defending e5 from the knight. But black doesn’t win that pawn here of course.
Quote:
A safer alternative was 25.Nf3 f6 26.h4 and white has some compensation for the pawn.
Safer yes, but I think white has some compensation already due to his strong initiative at the kingside (although the computer disagrees with me). I find it very hard though to estimate here how dangerous white’s attack actually is, so maybe the computer is right, but then its judgment often differs from what a player can achieve behind the board..
24. … Nc3 might have been a good alternative for black to get counterplay. Black can still continue with b5 and with a possible b5-b4 even create a strong square of c3, where the knight can pressurize the centre.
I think that Black would have been better off playing 28. … Kh8 instead of 28. …Kg7. It looks somewhat counterintuitive, but it deals with h3-h4 more efficiently.
Quote:
I refrained from 29.h4! because of 29...Qg3
I must admit that if I had seen that Qg3 wins me a queen against a rook and knight, that would make me quite eager to play the move. Maybe you are a bit less materialistic (read: take more positional factors into account ). By the way, 29. …Qe5 even deserves a ‘?’ in my opinion.
Quote:
30.Rh4
Now the position, even though it´s probably still objectively winning for black, becomes extremely unclear in the sense of practical play. Unfortunately, I had less than 10 minutes here, and more variations than ever to calculate ...
I can imagine…if black can save himself from a move like Nd7 (attacking 3 heavy pieces!), that usually means a heavily tactical position has arisen and then 1 minute for a move signifies stress….I have been in that position too often . My compliments for seeing that 31. Rxh6 fails. An improvement for white may have been 32. Ng4 instead of Qf3 though. However, your following moves (including 36. Rf6) look very solid when taking the time pressure into account.
Quote:
Nb6?
37...Nb2! 38.Ng4 Qd4 39.e5 Qd3 40.exd6 Qxf3+ 41.R4xf3 Re2 42.Nf6 Rd8 43.d7 Re7 44.Rc3 Rdxd7 45.Nxd7 Rxd7 46.Rb1 Nd3 47.Rxc4 Rxd5 48.Rb7 leads to a better endgame for black.
Though my computer also gives Nb6 (I really need something better than that chessmaster 3.0), I think this is an example of the typical human error to overlook an active move when pushed into the defense. On the other hand, that is easy talk when you’re not behind the board yourself.
Quote:
Here I relaxed, stood up, went to the bathroom ... and when I came back noticed to my pleasure that my threats are far too many to defend for black.
That must have been a wonderful feeling . It was nice to see such a dynamic match, where both sides had the edge at some time. The computer showed that you were lost all the time, so this game was a very good example of practical chess, where a king’s attack can be very hard to defend for a human. Most notable was that you played very well during that time pressure, hopefully you can continue that trend . Thanks again for posting the game and congratulations with your win.
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 22, 2004 05:35 AM |
|
|
Hello Wub,
yes, your considerations on the Closed Benoni are quite up to the point. Still, these positions are not easy to play for both sides, and some black players who are good in very closed structures like to go for them. A small positional mistake by white can quickly turn the tables.
Regarding 7.Be2 Na6 8.0-0 0-0 9.Ne1! Nxe2 10.Qxe2 -> following up Nd3, a3, b4, Bb2, g3, f4 you said:
I think that black should not allow Ne1 though, and trade his bishop for the knight beforehand. Playing Be2 a move earlier was also an option.
Black can do that, but taking on f3 both without h2-h3 being played and without the perspective of exchanging dark-squared bishops is quite a concession. Difficult to say which is more unplesant for black.
I don´t understand though why you suggest Be2 a move earlier. There would follow 6.Be2 Bxf3 7.Bxf3 Bg5 8.Nd2, and black has a better position than in the other line.
Quote:
A disadvantage of white’s manoeuvre 8.Nf1 0-0 9.Ng3 Nc7 10.h3 Bxf3 11.Qxf3 may be that black can answer with 8. … Bxf3 9. Qxf3 Nd7 and then Ng3 would cause a bishop exchange.
It wouldn´t, after 10.Ng3 Bg5 11.Nf5 white wins. But maybe 10.Ne3 is more precise, in order to keep more options open after a black g7-g6.
Quote:
I understand that black’s 12. … Nd7 helps in exchanging bishops and is necessary to play f7-f5, but why not first play 12. …a6 to renew the threat of opening the queenside at the appropriate time? The weakening of the b6 square does not seem a big issue at the moment (...)
After 12. …a6, 13.b4 looks very good for white. c5xb4 is no longer an option for black because of the weak b6 square. And if black answers 13.…b6, 14.a4 and 15.a5 breaks the thing open. 14.a4 a5 15.bxa5 bxa5 is another possible variation where white can obtain a good position either by 16.Rxb8 Qxb8 17.Bd2 or 16.Bd2 Rxb1 17.Rxb1 Na6 18.Rb7 Nb4 19.Bxb4 axb4 20.a5.
Quote:
24. … Nc3 might have been a good alternative for black to get counterplay. Black can still continue with b5 and with a possible b5-b4 even create a strong square of c3, where the knight can pressurize the centre.
He can´t, after 25.Qf3 the knight is forced to go back to where he came from ...
Quote:
I think that Black would have been better off playing 28. … Kh8 instead of 28. …Kg7. It looks somewhat counterintuitive, but it deals with h3-h4 more efficiently.
Yes, 28. … Kh8 may be better. During the game I was very curious about which king move he´d play. Kg8-h8 gets out of the way of later knight checks. On the other hand, f6 and f7 squares are more vulnerable. I´d probably have had to go for 29.Qxc4, and hope for Nd7 and Rxf7 at some point.
Quote:
I refrained from 29.h4! because of 29...Qg3
I must admit that if I had seen that Qg3 wins me a queen against a rook and knight, that would make me quite eager to play the move. Maybe you are a bit less materialistic (...)
Maybe I´ve just overlooked 30.Nh5+ during the game , and only found it afterwards while I was looking for an improvement. Still, getting a Q for RNPPP isn´t a good deal from a materialistic point of view. If I don´t manage to put black under serious pressure and bind his pieces, the game can be lost very quickly.
Quote:
By the way, 29. …Qe5 even deserves a ‘?’ in my opinion.
I didn´t give it a ‘?’, because it seems like black kept the winning position. Only after he left out 33.…h5, the game came back to being an unclear mess .
Quote:
An improvement for white may have been 32. Ng4 instead of Qf3 though.
Ah, yes, very good idea! I didn´t notice that after 32.… Qg5 I can ignore the attack on my queen and in return win black´s after 33.Nxh6. In the variation 33.…Qxh6 34.Rxh6 Rxh6 35.Rxf7+ Kxf7 36.Qxh6 c3 it seems like white gets the better end if he finds 37.e5!, so black probably has to try 32.… Qe7 33.Nxh6 f6. Now 34.Nf5+ doesn´t seem to work, but white has an advantage after 34.Rg1! Qe5 35.Nf5+ Kf7 36.Rxh8 Rxh8 37.Rxg6!.
Quote:
That must have been a wonderful feeling . (...) The computer showed that you were lost all the time, so this game was a very good example of practical chess, where a king’s attack can be very hard to defend for a human.
Yes, it was great . And that win was badly needed for our team also - in the case of a loss we would have drawn the overall match, and our chances to ascend to 2.Bundesliga would have been considerably lessened.
The computer surely was right between move 29 and 33, but in general it´s not a reliable source when it comes to evaluating sacrifices. Unless it spots something concrete, it (simply speaking) considers positional factors and subtracts the number of pawns missing - as a consequence its favorite lines are often those where the attacking side tries to regain at least one pawn .
____________
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 26, 2004 08:10 PM |
|
Edited By: Wub on 26 Feb 2004
|
Hello Lews,
Sometimes when reading your posts I realize that I still have a long way to go to even reach that 2000 mark. I should have understood, for example, that playing 6. Be2 instead of 7. Be2 was not an option. Also, overseeing 11. Nf5 in the line 8.Nf1 Bxf3 9. Qxf3 Nd7 10.Ng3 Bg5 was a serious mistake. But when I reread my advise of 24. …Nc3 I was really in disbelief. After all, even a d-class player would see its refutation. But upon further analysis it appeared that I had simply made a typo and meant 25…Nc3. I was already wondering why 24. …Nc3 didn’t look familiar to me . If white opts for 26. Qf3 now, then my idea was to play g5, which might exploit the double attack against e4. However, I find the resulting position after 25. …Nc3 quite hard to assess, so though I thought it was an interesting move to mention, I very much doubt if this move is better than b5.
Quote:
After 12. …a6, 13.b4 looks very good for white. c5xb4 is no longer an option for black because of the weak b6 square. And if black answers 13.…b6, 14.a4 and 15.a5 breaks the thing open. 14.a4 a5 15.bxa5 bxa5 is another possible variation where white can obtain a good position either by 16.Rxb8 Qxb8 17.Bd2 or 16.Bd2 Rxb1 17.Rxb1 Na6 18.Rb7 Nb4 19.Bxb4 axb4 20.a5.
I must admit that you make quite a convincing case of this as well, which is instructive. I see that I really underestimated the weakness of the b6-square. The variations that you give show that white is indeed better, so I looked at other black responses against 13. b4 as well. Considering the preparatory move 12. …a6 and that weakness at b6, 13. …b5 would make sense, but seems to be refuted too: 14. bxc5 bxc4 15. Rxb8 and now 1) 15. …Qxb8 16. Bxc4 dxc5 17. Nxe5 (with a pawn and a positional advantage) or 2) 15. … cxd3 16. Rxd8 dxe2 17. Rxf8+ Kxf8 18. Re1 Nxe4 19. cxd6 Bxd6 and white keeps a material advantage here too. So you’re right that 13. b4 looks very good in response to 12. …a6.
Quote:
I didn´t give it a ‘?’, because it seems like black kept the winning position. Only after he left out 33.…h5, the game came back to being an unclear mess
Yes, it has more to do with the fact that I always wonder why bad moves in a good position often get a ‘!?’, while bad moves in a bad position get a ‘?’. In my opinion it’s solely the size of the inaccuracy that counts, but that’s just me probably .
Quote:
Ah, yes, very good idea! I didn´t notice that after 32.… Qg5 I can ignore the attack on my queen and in return win black´s after 33.Nxh6. In the variation 33.…Qxh6 34.Rxh6 Rxh6 35.Rxf7+ Kxf7 36.Qxh6 c3 it seems like white gets the better end if he finds 37.e5!, so black probably has to try 32.… Qe7 33.Nxh6 f6. Now 34.Nf5+ doesn´t seem to work, but white has an advantage after 34.Rg1! Qe5 35.Nf5+ Kf7 36.Rxh8 Rxh8 37.Rxg6!.
I also came to the exact same lines, but I thought it to be a bit harsh to blame you for not seeing that in your time pressure . In that last line the bad position of the black knight and the fact that the white king is somewhat safer than his black colleague give you very good compensation for the pawn, though I think the position is still very hard to play (but that’s also the case for black).
Quote:
And that win was badly needed for our team also - in the case of a loss we would have drawn the overall match, and our chances to ascend to 2.Bundesliga would have been considerably lessened.
I was already wondering why, considering your personal results in the Bundesliga, it wasn’t time for you to move to a higher board, but apparently your complete team obtains very good results. I have no accurate impression of the strength of that 2. Liga, but I heard that the 1. Liga in Germany is the strongest in the world, having recruited all kind of ‘mercenaries’. So I assume that 2. Bundesliga will be quite up to IM level.
As I was complaining lately that I was not very good in closed positions and because of that asked you to post a closed game, you may like to know that I think there really is some progress. Last week I was for the first time in an OTB-game confronted with a closed Sicilian, that my opponent had specially prepared for me. That game led me to believe that my understanding of closed positions is not lacking that much for a player of my level.
I have, through internet games, also obtained more experience with 1. d4 c5. You’re right that (for some reason I don’t understand) many players seem to react with 3. c4 on 2. d5 Nf6. But sometimes I do get 3. Nc3 against me, so now I am studying lines with 3. …e6 and 3…g6. You said that black should be able to handle these lines fairly well, but the databases don’t show very good results for black. Did you mean that the lines were ok at my level or do many blackplayers play sidelines that are more or less refuted or is this just a case of databasechess from my side?
I have also studied 1. d4 c5 2. dxc5. The critical line seems to be 2. …e6 3. Nc3 Bxc5 4. Ne4.
It seems to me that white has quite an advantage here, because black cannot prevent the exchange of his good bishop, for example 4. …d5 5. Nxc5 Qa5+. Since this position is quite open, I’d rather keep my bishop on the board, though. Therefore my idea was to play 3. …Nf6, but that seems to be unusual. Is this move unsound then?
On an unrelated note, my IM system sometimes seem to be malfunctioning, so in case I didn’t answer a message, that’s the reason .
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 27, 2004 11:10 AM |
|
|
Hello Wub,
don´t be so hard on yourself , simple overlooks in an analysis are a matter of concentration and I don´t think correspond much with your actual over-the-board playing strenght.
Quote:
However, I find the resulting position after 25. …Nc3 quite hard to assess, so though I thought it was an interesting move to mention, I very much doubt if this move is better than b5.
Ah, I see now. That´s a good idea. I think I´m forced to play 26.Qg2 now, in order to tactically prevent 26.…g5. And the interposition of Qg2 and Nc3 seems to be in my favor, because I´m able to support g4-g5 now, and keep that important pawn.
Quote:
Yes, it has more to do with the fact that I always wonder why bad moves in a good position often get a ‘!?’, while bad moves in a bad position get a ‘?’. In my opinion it’s solely the size of the inaccuracy that counts, but that’s just me probably .
I never give bad moves in a good position an ‘!?’, but rather the ‘?!’. The way I use the symbols goes like this:
‘!?’ interesting move which is probably good.
‘?!’ doubtful/inaccurate move, which is relatively bad but doesn´t objectively influence the assessment of the position.
Now black had a winning position before and after 33.…Rf8 - no mistake, no single question mark. But for the human subject who plays the game, the task has become considerably more difficult, which makes the move inaccurate.
From a strict mathematical point of view, the only legitimate mark would be the ‘?’, as all the others are influenced by subjective considerations.
Quote:
I was already wondering why, considering your personal results in the Bundesliga, it wasn’t time for you to move to a higher board, but apparently your complete team obtains very good results. (...) So I assume that 2. Bundesliga will be quite up to IM level.
We´re not there yet ... right now we´re still playing 3rd league and trying to ascend. Last season I had +3 and the best result of my team, and this time I´m second with the same score after 6 out of 9 rounds. That´s something I´m quite happy about, but there´s still the fact that at the middle boards my opponents´ average Elo is around 2200-2250, while at boards 2-3 it goes up to 2350-2400. Their 50% is a much better performance than my 66% ...
Yes, if we make it up there, I´ll probably have opponents up to IM level. Will be difficult, but also a good opportunity to learn and grow better.
Quote:
That game led me to believe that my understanding of closed positions is not lacking that much for a player of my level.
In my view, closed positions are to a large extend a matter of logic and stringent thinking - I don´t think you´re lacking on that field (to say the least ), so if you are weaker there, it must be a lack of practice and/or knowledge. And that´s something that can be worked on rather easily.
Quote:
I have, through internet games, also obtained more experience with 1. d4 c5. You’re right that (for some reason I don’t understand) many players seem to react with 3. c4 on 2. d5 Nf6.
Main reason: To keep the opening repertoire as compact as possible. Steering into the Modern Benoni is a good choice for white, both after 1.…c5 and 1.…Nf6 2.…c5, so why learn another opening that isn´t necessarily better?
Quote:
But sometimes I do get 3. Nc3 against me, so now I am studying lines with 3. …e6 and 3…g6. You said that black should be able to handle these lines fairly well, but the databases don’t show very good results for black. Did you mean that the lines were ok at my level or do many blackplayers play sidelines that are more or less refuted or is this just a case of databasechess from my side?
I´m not exactly sure what the databases say, but the 3.Nc3 line had an outing at the very highest level in Linares 2000, in a game Kramnik-Leko. Black was able to hold the draw rather easily, and the GM commentaries that I´ve seen don´t show many improvements for white, only one chance late in the game to reach a += ending. Sure it was used as a surprise weapon there, but still, if it´s able to survive Kramnik and the following analysis, it´s good enough for me, too. I don´t worry much about it because black has many slightly different move-orders at his disposal, and even the theoretically inferior ones should work well if my opponent is unable to anticipate them and outprepare me.
1. d4 c5 2. dxc5 e6 3. Nc3
Quote:
I’d rather keep my bishop on the board, though. Therefore my idea was to play 3. …Nf6, but that seems to be unusual.
Yes, 3. …Nf6 is the normal move here, to prevent Nc3-e4 before taking back on c5. The loss of the bishop pair after 3.…Bxc5 may be okay for black, too, as the two central pawns should offer some compensation, but like you I find the other line preferable - black doesn´t have any problems there.
Quote:
On an unrelated note, my IM system sometimes seem to be malfunctioning, so in case I didn’t answer a message, that’s the reason .
Arg ... but I may have a copy of my last IM at work. After having accidentally closed a full-written window one time too often I usually put the stuff into text files first and keep them for a time ... next Tuesday I´ll see if it´s still there.
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 01, 2004 07:16 AM |
|
|
Yesterday our team kicked one of our strongest rivals out of the race, now we´re on the first place again (with 2 teams going up to 2nd league). My opponent was the highest rated one I had in this season (Elo 2285), but didn´t really play like it.
1. c4 c5 2. Nc3 b6 The early b7-b6 against the English opening is not just a random developing scheme: If black doesn't prepare to oppose white's fianchetto bishop on g2 immediately, he won't be able to do it at all. Later on, black can either set up a hedgehog structure (Bb7, Nf6, e6, Be7, d6, Nbd7, 0-0, a6, Qc7, ...), or play the double fianchetto that has succesfully been used in the Kasparov-Kramnik match.
3. g3
Closing the diagonal immediately by 3. e4 looks more logical and critical for the whole variation.
3. e3 intending d2-d4 was the other alternative.
3... Bb7 4. Nf3?! Ribli even applied a '?' here and called the move a "gruesome positional mistake". In my opening preparation I focused on Ribli's analysis and followed his recommendation, but now I think that this may have been somewhat superficial.
4. e4 was still possible, even though it's less flexible than it was one move earlier.
4... Bxf3 5. exf3 In return for white's pair of bishops, I have the better pawn structure and - most importantly - control of the vital square d4. The big question for the assessment of this line is: Can white break black's grip and play d3-d4?
5... Nc6 6. Bg2 g6 7. O-O Nh6?!
This is the move recommended by Ribli. The knight takes the fastest road to d4. I'm not convinced of its strenght anymore, though.
7... Bg7 8. d3 e6 and Nge7 is probably better.
8. g4 Without this move, white is just worse.
8... Bg7 9. d3 O-O 10. Be3 Now Qd1-d2 is threatened, so there's not much of a choice.
10... f5 11. Qd2 Nf7 12. h3? The wrong idea.
White could have contested black's opening concept with 12. g5 e6 13. f4 , as it was played in a drawn game Karlsson-D.Gurevich before. Black's pieces are now seriously restricted, and after some preparatory moves white can play Nc3-e2 and d3-d4, with good chances for an advantage. During my home preparation I looked at this line, but wrongly estimated it to be harmless.
12... e6 13. f4? And this may already be the decisive mistake.
13. g5 was still necessary, even though white can hardly hope for an advantage anymore. 13... d5 14. f4 Ne7 15. d4 Rc8 16. cxd5 Nxd5 17. dxc5 (otherwise black is clearly better with c5-c4. - 17. Nxd5 exd5 18. dxc5 d4 -+) 17... Nxc3 18. bxc3 Qxd2 19. Bxd2 Rxc5 and white will have a hard time fighting for a draw.
13... fxg4 14. hxg4 Qh4 15. f3 White is strategically lost already. His position has none of its former dynamic potential anymore, and sooner or later the f4 pawn will just drop off the board.
15. Bxc6 dxc6 16. f3 may have been slightly better.
15... Rad8 16. Rae1 d5 17. Bf2 Qf6 18. cxd5 exd5 19. g5 An attempt for some counterplay on the white squares, but it doesn't work out tactically.
19... Qf5 20. Kh2 Nb4 21. Rd1 d4 Strange that I never put a piece there in the whole game. But my knights have much better squares in reserve now: d5 and f5.
22. Ne2 Sad necessity, as the more active 22. Ne4 loses material already after 22... Nd5.
22... Nd6 To vacate f7 for my Queen, and discourage any Bg2-h3 and f4-f5 ideas immediately. And also in the hope that white would be desperate enough to go for the following transformation ...
23. Rfe1 Kh8 24. Bxd4 It's hard to criticise this decision - black will just move knights to d5 and f5 otherwise.
24... Bxd4 25. Nxd4 cxd4 26. Qxb4 Qxf4+ 27. Kg1 Nf5 28. Re4 Qxg5 29. Rde1
29. Qb5 Qf6 30. Qe5 looks a bit better, but white's still dead lost here after 30... Qxe5 31. Rxe5 Ne3 32. Rd2 Rf5
29... Ne3 30. Re2 Rxf3 31. Qe7 Qxe7 32. Rxe7 Nxg2 33. Kxg2 Rxd3 34. Rxa7 Re3 35. Rf2 Re5 36. Rff7 Rh5 37. Rad7?!
If white hadn't already been in serious time trouble, he would have played the better 37. b4, but after 37... d3 38. Rad7 Rxd7 39. Rxd7 Re5 40. Rxd3 Re2+ 41. Kf3 Rxa2 42. Rd6 Kg7, black has a winning endgame, too.
37... Rxd7 38. Rxd7 Rc5 and here white's flag fell. 0-1
In two weeks I´ll play a tournament in Bad Wörishofen, and afterwards the decisive match in the team championships, so there´ll be 10 more games before I get the opportunity to annotate another (new) one .
____________
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted March 04, 2004 05:19 AM |
|
|
QP's applied to Wub and Lews_Therin. This is amazing. This is really some great chess discussion.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 06, 2004 02:16 AM |
|
Edited By: Wub on 5 Mar 2004
|
Hello Lews,
Thank you for answering my questions about 1.d4 c5 lines . Your help is most welcome, because 1. …c5 is a somewhat offbeat move, which hampers finding good online info about it. I’m still very fond of it though; in yesterday’s OTB-game for example, I got a very familiar position after 1. d4 c5 2. Nf3 cxd4 3. Nxd4 Nc6 4. e4 .
Quote:
I never give bad moves in a good position an ‘!?’, but rather the ‘?!’.
I never realized that there’s a difference between ‘!?’ and ‘?!’. Good to know, it increases my ability to understand game-analyses a bit again.
Quote:
From a strict mathematical point of view, the only legitimate mark would be the ‘?’, as all the others are influenced by subjective considerations.
Yes, that is very true. It is remarkable, for example, how a tactical combination is usually rewarded with a ‘!’, even if it is a relatively simple and obvious one.
Quote:
Main reason: To keep the opening repertoire as compact as possible. Steering into the Modern Benoni is a good choice for white, both after 1.…c5 and 1.…Nf6 2.…c5, so why learn another opening that isn´t necessarily better?
I don’t claim that 3. c4 is an unsound move and it does indeed seem to lead to very playable lines for white, the more because it hampers a b5 breakthrough. But 3. Nc3 seems a bit more logical to me; it restricts the white bishop less, the d-pawn can be well protected anyway and (as you mentioned before) white can put a piece on c4 and does not need to fear a weakness at d3. But then again, you’re right that a compact opening repertory is desirable as well (though, for me, opposing players that just follow general opening principles is not uncommon).
Quote:
I´m not exactly sure what the databases say, but the 3.Nc3 line had an outing at the very highest level in Linares 2000, in a game Kramnik-Leko. Black was able to hold the draw rather easily, and the GM commentaries that I´ve seen don´t show many improvements for white, only one chance late in the game to reach a += ending.
Playing a line that is sound at world-class level is always nice of course, especially against a booked up opponent. But that does not necessarily mean that it is a good opening for a 1800 player. Take a Sicilian for example; I can play it rather successfully, but I’ll definitely teach my chess students a 1. e4 e5 opening to start with until their understanding of chess has increased. I know that for your opening play, the experience of world-class chess players is important; for my opening play, the experience of nearly FM players is important .
Quote:
We´re not there yet ... right now we´re still playing 3rd league and trying to ascend.
But with Sunday’s victory you are at least a huge step closer. Congratulations on your and your team’s win over your rivals . I have already done a fair amount of analysis on your game and I must say that you seemed to outplay your opponent with relative ease. I’ll look more extensively at it shortly.
Quote:
Arg ... but I may have a copy of my last IM at work. After having accidentally closed a full-written window one time too often I usually put the stuff into text files first and keep them for a time ... next Tuesday I´ll see if it´s still there.
Well, in case you sent something, I’m afraid I have bad news again … . I don’t know what it is; I don’t even have a pop-up killer, but in my experience IM’s simply don’t show up every time they are sent.
Oh, and Redsoxfan, thank you for your compliment; I even thought that everybody had run away from this thread .
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 06, 2004 02:39 AM |
|
|
Well, they actually have, Wub.
But dont worry. You two continue doing, whatever that is you are doing.
I like and play chess, but can't understand what's going on here. (don't have the time [or desire] to read).
Nevermind, good job you 2.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 08, 2004 12:53 AM |
|
Edited By: Wub on 7 Mar 2004
|
Quote:
Well, they actually have, Wub.
But dont worry. You two continue doing, whatever that is you are doing.
I like and play chess, but can't understand what's going on here. (don't have the time [or desire] to read).
Nevermind, good job you 2.
Yes, Svarog, I realize that this discussion isn’t really ‘mainline’ anymore . There are enough technical terms in chess to fill a dictionary with, so that explains the slang. And I can quite imagine that chess notation makes everything a whole lot harder to follow as well…
Hello Lews,
It’s good to see a new game again. An English game is interesting, because it is an opening that I too have to face sometimes of course. I normally play a line that is somewhat similar to an accelerated dragon Sicilian with the opposite colours to make learning opening theory easier. Therefore I choose a 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 d5 approach. But I see that you opted for a completely different line.
Quote:
3. g3
Closing the diagonal immediately by 3. e4 looks more logical and critical for the whole variation.
I think that white should strive for a Maroczy-bind setup, which can indeed be accomplished with 3. e4, though maybe 3. Nf3 first is a good idea. If black wants to prevent that, he could play 3. Nf3 Bb7 4. e4 Nf6, after which 5. e5 seems to lead to a good game for white in my opinion. A Maroczy-bind makes sense to me, as with 2. …b6 white does not occupy the centre and 3. g3 just seems to be what black wants.
Quote:
In return for white's pair of bishops, I have the better pawn structure and - most importantly - control of the vital square d4. The big question for the assessment of this line is: Can white break black's grip and play d3-d4?
If I judge the position at this moment, it seems as if black is just better. His opening concept is based on getting control of d4, while white’s is mainly focused on d5. But it is clear that black controls the d4-square more than white controls d5. If you compare this line with the Sicilian Sveshnikov, then black takes the weak d5 square and d6 pawn and a shattered pawn structure for granted, in trade for dynamic attacking possibilities, a pawn majority in the centre and a bishop pair. But in this position white has even captured away from the centre with exf3 and the position seems more closed than in a Sveshnikov, which should decrease the advantage of a bishop pair. If you look at that game Karlsson-Gurevich (1983), for example, the bishop pair did not at all become an advantage, in my opinion.
Quote:
This is the move recommended by Ribli. The knight takes the fastest road to d4. I'm not convinced of its strenght anymore, though.
Nor am I. In my opinion, developing a knight towards the side of the board is only justified when there is a clear positional reason to do so. To me it seems like g3-g4 largely refutes the knight move, especially because of that threat Be3 + Qd2 which forces weaknesses in black’s position and allows him to be bound. The alternative that you mentioned (7... Bg7 8. d3 e6 and Nge7) therefore seems more logical; it also facilitates d7-d5.
Quote:
White could have contested black's opening concept with 12. g5 e6 13. f4 , as it was played in a drawn game Karlsson-D.Gurevich before. Black's pieces are now seriously restricted, and after some preparatory moves white can play Nc3-e2 and d3-d4, with good chances for an advantage.
If my judgment of the diagram above is correct (which can be contested of course) then black must have done something wrong here, because his positional advantage seems to have been largely vanished. This also seems to point in the direction that developing the knight to e7 is better than to h6. Where your opponent played 11. Qd2 it seems to me that 11. g5 is a better idea already, as in the cited game. It keeps more options open for the queen.
Quote:
15. f3 White is strategically lost already. His position has none of its former dynamic potential anymore, and sooner or later the f4 pawn will just drop off the board.
15. Bxc6 dxc6 16. f3 may have been slightly better.
An other idea is 15. g5. The f5-square becomes horribly weak of course, but it keeps the bishop on g2 on the board without blocking its diagonal. White’s bishops are both very bad now, while your light pieces can employ great activity. And after 18. …exd5 your grip on the centre and pawn structure leaves little to be desired. The rest of the game looks like a technical exercise.
Quote:
19. g5 An attempt for some counterplay on the white squares, but it doesn't work out tactically.
White does not have many options left here, so finding a plan and good moves is difficult. Maybe he should double his rooks instead with Re2 and hope for a mistake from black.
From ‘Judgment and planning in chess’ I learnt that solidifying your king’s position to have an endgame as favourable as possible after an exchange of material is a good idea in a position where your opponent cannot really do anything. I assume that your move 23. …Kh8 was an example of that, as I don’t see any tactical threats. But I guess this was also a move to encourage the transformation that you mentioned in your post.
Quote:
24. Bxd4 It's hard to criticise this decision - black will just move knights to d5 and f5 otherwise.
I understand that. The alternative I guess was a3 followed by b4, but that is still hideous.
Quote:
If white hadn't already been in serious time trouble, he would have played the better 37. b4, but after 37... d3 38. Rad7 Rxd7 39. Rxd7 Re5 40. Rxd3 Re2+ 41. Kf3 Rxa2 42. Rd6 Kg7, black has a winning endgame, too.
When it comes to rook endgames, I find it very hard to convert an extra pawn (or sometimes even two pawns) to a win, for an important part due to inferior knowledge about that type of endgame. I do see that 37. b4 is better than 37. Rad7 of course, but I would probably have problems winning the game after that 37. b4 variation.
After some study of the endgame I come to the conclusion that black is indeed won here. I also noticed that in similar endgames where white has a rook at b8 and a pawn at b7, that the black king must stay on the g7 square and cannot close in due to a check or an x-ray threat. Well, apparently you are more certain of yourself than I am when it comes to rook endgames.
My conclusion about the game is that it was decided in the opening, so you’re preparation apparently wasn’t as ‘useless as always’ . Apart from my doubts about the soundness of the 2. …b6 line and the 7. …Nh6 move, I can not find any major errors in your moves (not really any minor ones either, by the way ). Therefore I think this was a very good technical performance from your side and quite nice to see.
Good luck with your tournament in Bad Wörishofen; I noticed that the first prize is €2000,- so I suspect that the competition will be quite heavy. But I hope you succeed in playing some nice games there .
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 17, 2004 04:35 AM |
|
|
Thank you Redsox and Svarog .
Hello Wub,
Quote:
Therefore I choose a 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 d5 approach. But I see that you opted for a completely different line.
I sometimes tried that kind of stuff in blitz, but as a lifetime d4-player it makes me very much feel like a stranger.
Quote:
A Maroczy-bind makes sense to me, as with 2. …b6 white does not occupy the centre and 3. g3 just seems to be what black wants.
Yes. I once read that GM Yudasin commented on his 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 b6 choice saying something like:"I know this is considered inaccurate, but I´m not afraid ...". Black can be forced to either play hedgehog-style or the double fianchetto - either choice looks somewhat awkward without a white fianchetto bishop on g2, but they still result in reasonable and playable positions.
This only applies to 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3. If white plays 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 (more often occurs 1.Nf3 c5 2.c4, where white prevents 1. ... e5), 2. ... b6 is one of the best choices by opening theory.
Quote:
In my opinion, developing a knight towards the side of the board is only justified when there is a clear positional reason to do so. To me it seems like g3-g4 largely refutes the knight move, especially because of that threat Be3 + Qd2 which forces weaknesses in black’s position and allows him to be bound. The alternative that you mentioned (7... Bg7 8. d3 e6 and Nge7) therefore seems more logical; it also facilitates d7-d5.
Well, there was a positional reason. An early e7-e6 in this kind of sicilian-like position can create a target for tactics on the dark squares, for example 8.d3 e6 9.Nb5. I agree with you that the g3-g4 move is far more unpleasant than anything that could happen if I had played 8. ... e6, but during the game that was far from clear to me.
Quote:
(...) black must have done something wrong here, because his positional advantage seems to have been largely vanished. (...) Where your opponent played 11. Qd2 it seems to me that 11. g5 is a better idea already, as in the cited game. It keeps more options open for the queen.
Yes, I agree with you, although I think that the 11.Qd2 move doesn´t hurt much, as it fits rather well into the position, and doesn´t give black enough time to play d7-d5.
Quote:
An other idea is 15. g5. The f5-square becomes horribly weak of course, but it keeps the bishop on g2 on the board without blocking its diagonal.
Yes, during the game I hoped he would do that. I think after for example 15.g5 Nd6, white is even worse than in the game. Both pieces are free in this line, but it seems to me that my Nf5 is far more effective than his Bg2. And now the structure is hopelessly beyond repair, while black has extra possibilities like h7-h6 to put further pressure on the pawns.
Quote:
White does not have many options left here, so finding a plan and good moves is difficult. Maybe he should double his rooks instead with Re2 and hope for a mistake from black.
Yes, he was trying to play actively, but waiting moves would have probably been the better option.
Quote:
(...) I learnt that solidifying your king’s position to have an endgame as favourable as possible after an exchange of material is a good idea in a position where your opponent cannot really do anything. I assume that your move 23. …Kh8 was an example of that, as I don’t see any tactical threats.
I don´t have a chess program here at work, but I think that 24.Bh3 Qf7 25.Nxd4 and 26.Be6 was a threat. I just wanted to shut out any possible tactics on the white squares before moving the knights to their ideal squares.
24.Bxd4Quote:
The alternative I guess was a3 followed by b4, but that is still hideous.
There isn´t time for 25.b4, as white is forced to protect f4 first.
Quote:
When it comes to rook endgames, I find it very hard to convert an extra pawn (or sometimes even two pawns) to a win, for an important part due to inferior knowledge about that type of endgame. I do see that 37. b4 is better than 37. Rad7 of course, but I would probably have problems winning the game after that 37. b4 variation.
I´m not an expert at rook engames either, but this one is really simple. Black doesn´t even have to keep the king on the g7/h7 squares as it´s usual in this kind of position, as my h-pawn provides perfect cover. In order to pose a threat, white will have to push the pawn to b7, with rook on b8. After that, I´ll just move my king forward on the h-file and let it support the push of the g-pawn. White can´t play Rh8, because Rxb7 will protect the Ph7.
Quote:
My conclusion about the game is that it was decided in the opening (...)
Yes, I think so, too. After he had made that fatal h2-h3? move, the position was a strategical win for me already, and as you said, more or less only a technical task.
Quote:
Good luck with your tournament in Bad Wörishofen; I noticed that the first prize is €2000,- so I suspect that the competition will be quite heavy. But I hope you succeed in playing some nice games there .
Thank you ! I think I´ll leave first place to Mr Korchnoi , but it would be nice to bring an IM or GM scalp home, the thing that I missed so closely last year.
Read you again in two weeks!
Lews
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 29, 2004 06:24 AM |
|
|
I´m back, and it looks like I played the tournament of my life (well, hopefully not ).
The first half was a rather mediocre performance, I beat all the "weaker prey" but lost miserably against a GM and an IM, so I was at 3/5. But out of the last four rounds I scored 3.5 points, and the single draw was made with Viktor "the terrible" . Moreover, with 6.5/9 and a performance of 2460, I have achieved an IM norm ...
On top of this, on sunday I won my game in the team competition, which helped our team´s 4,5-3,5 win over our closest rival, and by that secured our next year´s participation in 2.Bundesliga .
Here´s one of my games from the first half, and (of the three which I´d like to show) the easiest one by far to annotate. My opponent is the white player, with an Elo rating of 2124.
1. d4 c5 2. d5 Nf6 3. g3 e6 4. c4 exd5 5. cxd5 d6 6. Bg2 g6 7. Nc3 Bg7 8. Nf3 O-O 9. O-O Re8
The fianchetto system against the Benoni is frequently used by some positionally-minded players, but does not have the reputation to be dangerous for black. White overprotects the central pawns e4/d5, and in case of a later e2-e4-e5 or a knight wandering to c6, the now-blocked bishop on g2 may become the dominating piece on the board. On the downside, the control of the squares d3/c4/b5 is lacking, which makes it considerably easier for black to gain all kinds of counterplay. Another (smaller) annoyance for white is his pawn g3, who after Bc1-f4 (and h2-h3) blocks the important retreat square h2.
10. Re1
The main move here is 10. Nd2, with the possible continuation 10... a6 11. a4 Nbd7 12. Nc4 Nb6 13. Na3 Bd7 14. Bd2 Nxa4 15. Nxa4 b5 16. Nc3 b4 17. Nc4 bxc3 18. Bxc3 Bb5, resulting in a fairly equal position.
Another very interesting possibility is 10. Bf4 Ne4!? 11. Nxe4 Rxe4 12. Nd2 Rb4 13. a3 Rxf4 14. gxf4 Bxb2 15. Ra2 Bg7
10... a6 11. a4 Nbd7 12. e4 Qc7 13. h3?!
Well, Rf1-e1 and h2-h3 are normal moves in this line, but they are not well-timed here. 13.Nd2 is better, in order to meet 13. ...Rb8 with 14.Nc4 (or 14.Nb3!? b5? 15. axb5 axb5 16.Na5)
13... Rb8
Now white has to make a concession, and goes for the most plausible one: To split black's pawn structure at the price of a half-opened b-file ...
14. a5 b5 15. axb6 Rxb6
This transformation on the Q-side is standard of course, but in the fianchetto line it doesn't make as much sense for white as usual: With the bishop on g2 there's not much pressure on the a6 pawn.
16. Nd2?!
White neglects the d3 square for one moment, which will be punished immediately. 16.Qc2 would have been more careful.
16... Ne5 17. Bf1 c4 18. Qe2?!
with the idea 18. ...Nd3 19.Nxc4, but black doesn't have to hurry his invasion. Better is 18. Qc2 Nd3 19. Bxd3 cxd3 20. Qxd3 Bxh3 21. Rxa6 Ng4 and black has very good compensation for the sacrificed pawn.
18... Rb4
This protects the pawn, moves out of the range of a possible c4 knight, and indirectly eyes white's pawn on e4.
19. Qe3
19. Ra4 is what I expected during the game, but after 19. ...Rxa4 20. Nxa4 Nd3 21. Rd1 Nxd5 22. Nxc4 Nxc1 23. Rxc1 Nf6 black has a clear advantage.
19... Nd3 20. Bxd3 cxd3 21. Kg2
21. Qxd3 Bxh3 22. Rxa6 Bd7 and for just one pawn, black has strong pressure on all three parts of the board.
21... Nd7 22. Qxd3 Nc5 23. Qf1?
23. Qc2 is the lesser evil, although white's position is hardly enviable after 23... f5 24. f3 a5 and 25....Ba6
23... a5 24. f4?!
24. Re3 is somewhat better, though it's hard to imagine white surviving after 24... Ba6 25. Qd1 Bd4 26. Rf3 Nd3
24... Ba6 25. Qf3 Nd3 26. Rd1 Nxb2 27. Bxb2 Rxb2 28. Rac1 Rc8 29. Na2 Qb8 30. Rxc8+ Qxc8 31. Qa3 Qc2 0-1
____________
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 31, 2004 03:52 AM |
|
|
Hello Lews,
I’m really very happy that you were so successful in chess the last two weeks . Although you seem to be quite modest about it (which adorns you), I think you’ve got some reason to be proud. To begin with, I don’t think that 3 out of 5 in your first half of the tournament was that mediocre, considering that it is no shame to lose from an IM or GM. But scoring an IM norm after that is an incredible achievement; I mean a few months ago it looked like you had already given up hope to become an IM and had restricted yourself to try and become an FM and beating an IM now and then. But then the icing on the cake….a draw against Korchnoi himself! That guy is a living legend, having been in the world top for decennia. I bet that as a kid you have even replayed his games . Needless to say I expect this match to be included in the games you plan to post . The disadvantage of all this success is of course that I expect you to score more IM norms in the future and eventually become one yourself, because obviously the I-am-too-old-already-excuse is not valid anymore . Hmm, I would almost forget you to congratulate with your promotion to the 2. Bundesliga as well; it seems to me that your team can be quite happy with your +4 score. I think it’s a very nice result, since in my opinion having personal success is one thing, but contributing to the achievements of your team can be much more rewarding.
Before I post my analysis of your latest game, I’d like to make some remarks about your previous post. Hopefully that is not too much of an anti-climax .
Quote:
This only applies to 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3. If white plays 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 (more often occurs 1.Nf3 c5 2.c4, where white prevents 1. ... e5), 2. ... b6 is one of the best choices by opening theory.
That’s an interesting suggestion. My answer to 1. Nf3 is 1. …c5 as well and after that play a Sicilian-like accelerated fianchetto. But white often chooses the same setup, which leads to quite a boring symmetrical position.
Quote:
Yes, during the game I hoped he would do that. I think after for example 15.g5 Nd6, white is even worse than in the game.
I think that both lines are ugly, though you are probably right that just giving away the f5-square is a bit too cooperative.
Quote:
I don´t have a chess program here at work, but I think that 24.Bh3 Qf7 25.Nxd4 and 26.Be6 was a threat.
Hmm, you’re right, I missed this tactic. I think it is fully justifiable to try and prevent any complications in this position. My computer gives 23. …Rde8 instead which also rules out this combination.
Quote:
There isn´t time for 25.b4, as white is forced to protect f4 first.
Yes, this move was meant as a pawn sac to get some counterplay. You said yourself that sooner or later the f4 pawn would drop off the board anyway, so therefore I figured this move to be a good practical alternative to fleeing into a lost endgame.
Quote:
I´m not an expert at rook endgames either, but this one is really simple.
I fear I’m still not skilled enough to call this endgame really simple, but your explanations helped a lot . Though black must still play securely when the white king has arrived at c7, because then a timely advance of the h-pawn is necessary, I think. But I do believe that I can play this out without too many problems in an OTB-game now.
I’m still looking at your latest game, but since it is 4:00 am here, I’m afraid that posting the analysis has to wait for now.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
