Originally posted by WilfriedvaFischer said of Alekhine, you seen one game you seen them all! I must admit of all the
yet the other greatest player of all time,Alekhine,relished in complications
world champions i find Alekhine and Kasparovs games the least appealing, Capas and
Fischers games are crystal clear.
Originally posted by greenpawn34GP, I won two games in a week right in the opening after the last 1. e4 post of yours I read, and I can't wait to try this.
Hi Robbie.
Why, all you are doing is playing what your opponent will be expecting you to play.
Opening books are published in the thousand, not just one copy.
What you know, the chances are they will know.
The perfect game you seek will eventually come down to this position.
[fen]4k3/8/3PK3/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1[/fen]
With White to play it's a ...[text shortened]... on f5 (or f4 when Black plays it is the most common win on here in the Englund.)}[/pgn]
I'm going to have to call Sandy Bells (sp?) and see if they will take an American Bank CC over the phone!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI can relate to that.
Fischer said of Alekhine, you seen one game you seen them all! I must admit of all the
world champions i find Alekhine and Kasparovs games the least appealing, Capas and
Fischers games are crystal clear.
But I couldn't pass the opportunity to say 'other greatest player' 😉
Originally posted by Paul LeggettI'll settle for a picture of your fridge....any fridge.
GP, I won two games in a week right in the opening after the last 1. e4 post of yours I read, and I can't wait to try this.
I'm going to have to call Sandy Bells (sp?) and see if they will take an American Bank CC over the phone!
The post that was quoted here has been removedHi, thanks for the encouragement dear Dutchess, i really appreciate it, however, will
you consider my theory? Here it is, I want to play chess strategically, by this, I
mean, I want to create positions where the dynamics are such that its not a tactical
melee, but the static aspects are the most important, for example a stonewall, or a
Marocy bind, this is not only a matter of taste, but of practicality, for it is clear that
the weakest aspect of my game is tactics and the strongest strategy. Yes i know,
the two are interdependent, this is understood, but it appears to me that one should
play towards ones strengths and aim for positions were ones 'feels', comfortable, is
it not the case? Of course tactics are decisive and flow from a superior position, but
i cannot explain it, the most joy I get is from trying to exploit the static elements,
pawn structure, weak squares etc, pure tactics and winning material from double
attacks, forks etc feels cheap in comparison, unless its accompanied by strategy. I
illustrate it with a game, a 10 min blitz game, simply because it illustrates what I am
talking about.
Hi Robbie.
Just a few words about the notes.
Black has just played 10...c6
"a losing move, not solely because the Knight is trapped, but because the
c5 square will be weak for the entire game, this has much more significance
than winning the hapless knight."
I think most of us would consider the taking of the Knight more important
especially as the square c5 is not weak till Black's move 11...b5.
What you have (apart from being a whole piece up) is a potential weakness
at c6 after, and if, Black should play b6 to cover c5.
"look at this structure, its the stuff dreams are made of,
a weak c5 square and a backwards pawn on c6."
No mention of being a piece up. That is the stuff dreams are really made of.
It's easy being a piece up to carry out any strategical idea that takes
your notion. Your pieces cannot be challenged from going to good
squares because every exchange (a strategical aim when a piece up)
will take Black closer to a resignable position.
(it's close to that now.)
You write a good positional game, however...
Here you played 12.Bb3 holding the a-pawn.
Better, and in line with your thoughts of the weak c5 sqaure would have been
12.Qc1
Holding the a-pawn, spotting the c6 pawn and leaving the b3 square vacant for
(after castling) Nb3 hitting the Queen and Nc5 occupying the weak square with a Knight.
Later on you waste a tempo playing 18.Bb3-a2 to free b3 for the d2 Knight.
Spotting weak squares is easy, working out routes (usually via that dirty
word - 'tactics'😉 to exploit them is not so easy. Here you failed and that
can cleary be seen in 18.Ba2.
Really the whole game was blitz with little in it.
White was given a piece, Black dug in hoping to win on time.
No mention of 24.Bxe6+ here.
(You treated this Bishop pretty badly in this game.)
But we can get something from it:
Other pieces and pawns taking potential Knight squares.
First we learn not to place our pieces and pawns en prise.
We get better and learn not place our pieces and pawns where
they could block or hinder our other pawns and pieces.
This game showed a tactical example. 10...c6 blocking the Knights retreat
and a positional example 12.Bb3 requiring a later 18.Bb3-a2 and 21.Qc5-b4
to undo it.
No mention of being a piece up. That is the stuff dreams are really made of.
Think about it GP, I did nothing to gain that piece, it was not engineered, it had nothing
to do with my chess skill or application of knowledge, it was a mistake made by my
opponent and entirely coincidental. Had i engineered the hapless knights downfall then
yes, we could talk of dreams and the stuff they are made of, but it was nothing on my
part, my opponent simply blundered and it brought me little satisfaction to see it! yes
Qc1 was better and i have no explanation why i didn't take on e6 other than i am
mince.
for those who wish - you can follow the death of the scando plopzilla vs Pacifique 😉
Game 19780
The post that was quoted here has been removedI cannot count the number of times i have been mated on g7 because of the French
defence advance variation, I dont like the way the knight gets pushed back from f6
after the e5 advance and its ends up e7 blocking my kings bishop 🙁
Originally posted by plopzillaScando lives!
for those who wish - you can follow the death of the scando plopzilla vs Pacifique 😉
Game 19780
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell I think the first thing you should do is throw out all your opening books. They are a waste of time and money until you are a good player. Even the most basic looking line has a huge amount of theory to learn, so why go through the pain for so little gain.
dear chess addicts, after having experimented with , modern, najdorf, caro khan,
French, owens, philador, pirc and various gambits, what's the easiest opening to play as
black, against 1.e4, please note, I do not mean the best, i mean the easiest, the
equivalent of the colle of the 1.e4 for black openings. suggestions should be bullet
proof, ...[text shortened]... avian, but never tried it, someone said it was a poor
mans caro kan, could it be the easiest?
Play from the start just using opening principles. You will be surprised after the game to see that you have played moves grandmasters can't improve on.
The problems come in the middle game, but that is all about tactics at our level. Which is my point, few games are won in the opening. Most are decided by a tactical error in the mid/endgame.
Don't use opening books as a crutch, there is no cure all. Chess is supposed to be hard work, and the more fun for it.