14 Feb 12
3 edits
Originally posted by nimzo5Did you consider trying for a more decisive end via 28. g4 fxg4 {if he doesn't exchange you can play 29. gxf4 gxf4 and then freely march your h pawn to h6 when Rag7+ ...Kf8 Rh8 is mate}} 29. fxg4 with h4-h5 to come. I know that with both rooks on the seventh the key to getting a mate is to be able to support one of the rooks with another piece or pawn so that the other one can step to the eighth rank and deliver mate and I don't see how black can stop this... he/she doesn't have much counterplay.
To further illustrate my point about not needing openings knowledge. This is my game last friday vs a 1900 where I was out of book more or less at move 4 in the mainline QGA.
[pgn][Event "DC Chess League"] [Site "?"] [Date "2012.02.11"] [Result "1-0"] 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 e5 4. Nf3{my book knowlege is limited to having thumbed through a couple key g which was 30/90 sd1} Kf8 27. Rxh7 Kg8 28. Ra7 Rc8 29. Rhc7 Rxc7 30. Rxc7 Bf7 1-0[/pgn]
14 Feb 12
Originally posted by PacifiqueI think you miss the point, my opponent as you correctly state chose a sideline with Bb4+ and then followed it up with a move from a different line. The point is I can know the "gambit" line with exd Bxc4 Nc6 0-0 Be6 and then either Bxe6 or Bb5 but it would be less useful than having the skill to figure out what to do in the "new position".
It seems to me that your opponent did not know the opening too - 4...exd4 is the best according to theory. Black should be OK after 5.Qxd4 Qxd4 6.Nxd4 Nf6 7.Nc3 Bc5. The most popular response is gambit - 5.Bxc4 Nc6 6.0-0 and both sides need good knowledge of theory.
I also contest that in the gambit line you need knowlege of theory unless you are playing someone over 2000 for precisely the reason I listed above.
14 Feb 12
Originally posted by nimzo5My point is that your opponent played "sideline with Bb4+" due to lack of knowledge. It`s easier to play without knowing theory if also your opponent lacks knowledge.
I think you miss the point, my opponent as you correctly state chose a sideline with Bb4+ and then followed it up with a move from a different line. The point is I can know the "gambit" line with exd Bxc4 Nc6 0-0 Be6 and then either Bxe6 or Bb5 but it would be less useful than having the skill to figure out what to do in the "new position".
I also contest th ...[text shortened]... of theory unless you are playing someone over 2000 for precisely the reason I listed above.
14 Feb 12
Originally posted by PacifiqueIt's far easier to play if my opponent lacks tactical/strategic strength. If they have both good opening knowledge and tactics/endgames.. they aren't sub 2000 anymore and thus not really the concern of the OP.
My point is that your opponent played "sideline with Bb4+" due to lack of knowledge. It`s easier to play without knowing theory if also your opponent lacks knowledge.
14 Feb 12
Originally posted by tomtom232tomtom - g4 looks promising although I would suspect black would play f4 and then have to sacrifice the Bishop to prevent the mating net.
Did you consider trying for a more decisive end via 28. g4 fxg4 {if he doesn't exchange you can play 29. gxf4 gxf4 and then freely march your h pawn to h6 when Rag7+ ...Kf8 Rh8 is mate}} 29. fxg4 with h4-h5 to come. I know that with both rooks on the seventh the key to getting a mate is to be able to support one of the rooks with another piece or pawn so t ...[text shortened]... deliver mate and I don't see how black can stop this... he/she doesn't have much counterplay.
I considered at move 28 the position pretty trivial though and was more concerned about making the time control as I have been plagued with blowing positions by getting low on time and having literally seconds to bang out a couple moves.
14 Feb 12
2 edits
Originally posted by nimzo5Ok, thats along the lines of what I was thinking. I was just curious if there was some sort of refutation I was missing.
tomtom - g4 looks promising although I would suspect black would play f4 and then have to sacrifice the Bishop to prevent the mating net.
I considered at move 28 the position pretty trivial though and was more concerned about making the time control as I have been plagued with blowing positions by getting low on time and having literally seconds to bang out a couple moves.
Thanks for the verification 🙂
14 Feb 12
2 edits
Originally posted by nimzo5Could you show the game in which your opponent knows theory better than you, but fails in tactics or strategy? It would be much better illustration of your point about not needing knowledge in opening.
It's far easier to play if my opponent lacks tactical/strategic strength. If they have both good opening knowledge and tactics/endgames.. they aren't sub 2000 anymore and thus not really the concern of the OP.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 07
- Moves
- 27653
15 Feb 12
4 edits
Originally posted by PacifiqueHere's an old game of mine from an OTB tournament in Chicago in the early 80s sometime, where I'm playing black against a USCF 2138. At the time, I was playing the Tartakover defense to the QGD (With 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6
Could you show the game in which your opponent knows theory better than you, but fails in tactics or strategy? It would be much better illustration of your point about not needing knowledge in opening.
4. Bg5 Be7 5. 0-0 b6) and had no idea how to play the exchange variation. 7 Qb3 was a surprise (and I played a book move accidently). I'm quite certain I thought 8. g4 was a bad move, (even though it is in modern databases). 8... Be5 is definintely out of book, as its not in the chessde database, for example. The whole idea was to get white to play f3 and be annoying on the kingside. It worked too, sort of, and I got a nice upset against a player rated 200 points higher than me at the time.
15 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by PacifiqueI am thinking that any book of Capablanca's best games fills the criteria here quite nicely.
Could you show the game in which your opponent knows theory better than you, but fails in tactics or strategy? It would be much better illustration of your point about not needing knowledge in opening.
Of course, games from nimzo5 or Erekose are also nice to see (better than I am, but close enough for me to "get what they're saying" ), and we have the advantage of being able to question them and interact about the games.
15 Feb 12
Originally posted by Paul LeggettI think we discussed about level below 2000. Games from nimzo5 & Erekose are good illustration. Thanks.
I am thinking that any book of Capablanca's best games fills the criteria here quite nicely.
Of course, games from nimzo5 or Erekose are also nice to see (better than I am, but close enough for me to "get what they're saying" ), and we have the advantage of being able to question them and interact about the games.
15 Feb 12
The first-move advantage in chess is the inherent advantage of the player (called White) who makes the first move in chess. Chess players and theorists generally agree that White begins the game with some advantage. Statistics compiled since 1851 support this view,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess