Originally posted by mateuloseI think based on your last post you are mixing up a few systems.
Well, most of my books and vedios are in the 1990's, when the Sicilian was an epic. And all of them include Nb3. Why would Nb5 be good? It's possibly a new kid on the block move to try and refute the Sicilian, personally I don't think it's good at all, but what do I know?
The Sicilian with 2..d6 (Najdorf, Dragon, et al), the Sicilian with 2...e6 (Paulsen, Taimanov, Four knights, Pin Variation), and the Sicilians with both d6 and e6 are all very different beasts which require different white set-ups and plans. Which is why so many non-professional White players duck out of the main lines 🙂
You guys have played mountains since I last took a look at this game.
Okay...you were playing through the book...right until 7. Bd2 where the book ran out...
Comments on the opening: 6...Bb4 is tactically sound even though the book claims that it's not. What's up with that?
7. Bd2 looks like a blunder on White's part. 7. a3 was a stronger move that got rid of the bishop.
On the tenth move, White played 10. Qf3 which is tactically incorrect. At this point...Black is strongly threatening 10...Qf6 which inevitably will lead to the horrible fork at 11...Nxf2. 10. Qg4 would have been stronger with the decisive threat 11. Qxe4.
10...Nxc3 was a strong move...but I think 10...d5 would have secured the position more...
Hope this helps!
Originally posted by yamiyokazeOooh, 10. Qg4 is terribly sharp, and definitely a good move... Not, however, "decisive," I think. Maybe I'm missing something?
10. Qg4 would have been stronger with the decisive threat 11. Qxe4.
I think black is still better after 10. Qg4 d5 11. Qxg7 Qf6 forcing a queen trade after which material is equal, black owns the center outright, can start a nice little minority attack on the queenside, has an open file for a rook, and has better-placed pieces. Admittedly, black also has three pawn islands to white's two, but that includes some menacing center pawns. White does have the bishop pair, though. I think black's plan from that position is to immediately start storming the queenside pawns and attack with pieces up the center. White would probably castle long and try and bring rooks to bear on the center, but he would be on the defensive.
(or maybe even 10. ... f5? then d5 can be pushed without penalty immediately after and black has a vastly superior center)
11 QxNc3
Game 643185
As per previous analysis.
I don't particularly like castling Q-side here as it would be easier for Black to advance his Q-side pawns.
I will try to make one of Black's two center pawns a target.
11 ... O-O
Game 643185
Getting my king somewhere safe. I now intend to quiet the game down and simplify as much as possible, with the goal of getting to a nice endgame.
I also considered b5, to threaten a fork and thus allow me to get some queenside attacking going without loss of tempo. Problem being that it is highly loosening -- the immediate consequence would be that any movement of the d pawn would hang the knight. It couldn't be exploited immediately (11. ... b5 12. Qc5 Qd7) but I still don't like it. So I shall first complete development and get king safe.
Also condiered immediate d5, but he can't prevent it next turn, so why do it now?
Originally posted by ZaBlancA 1570 with an attitude? 🙂
A 1300 with a novelty? 🙂
What, pray tell, does rating have to do with it? An idea is just that, an idea -- it is either right, in which case it will succeed, wrong, in which case it'll get punished, or, like most ideas, simply different, in which case it'll change the flow of the game.
The novelty in question ha actually worked for me in most of the games I've tried it in. None of my opponents have managed to refute it outright yet, although some have beaten me due to my subsequent errors.
I'm trying to not be insulted here. Very hard. It's not working. Between the amazingly one dimensional "a 1300" characterization (Why not "a lawyer" or "a guy" or "an activist" or anything else? Besides, my rating usually hovers around the 1400 level), and the insulting implication ("stupid, uncreative, bad at chess" etc.) of such characterization, I take offense. Rightfully, I think. The smiley-face doesn't mitigate the insult.
You might as well have said:
"A moron with an idea? That's funny."
Lets make two things perfectly clear, ok?
1. The quality of my extensively considered ideas is not to be judged based on a rating.
The following is going to sound extremely arrogant, but it is true. I am in at least the top 1% of the population, intelligence-wise. That is a very conservative estimate. The last standardized test I took, the LSAT, I scored in the 99.7th precentile. I skipped high school. All of high school. I entered college just before my fourteenth birthday. I graduated from Harvard Law School just before my twenty-first birthday, at an age when most people have not even finished their undergraduate degrees. I am, in short, very intelligent. To be perfectly frank, I am probably smarter than you.
My chess skills and rating do not reflect that because of (a) inexperience -- although I learned the game at age 9, I never played on a regular basis or studied, and I cracked my first chess book and started playing seriously about a year ago, tops. A year ago, I didn't even know what a fork was; (b) carelessness and laziness, as expressed in blunders and (c) lack of practice in visualization. None of those provides any particular reason why an extensively considered idea, and one that is relatively new, and hence on record as an error, is to be discounted.
2. I've beaten a number of players at or above your exalted 1570 rating. Sometimes brutally. Admittedly, I've lost more from that rating, but that is only to be expected. See (a), (b) and (c) above. You do not have standing, merely by virtue of your, not particularly impressive, albeit higher than mine, rating to pooh-pooh my ideas.
So keep your snotty little comments to yourself please.
(Note to moderators: I have not alerted ZaBlanc's post. Please don't remove it. Although I do find it offensive and personally insulting, I'd rather have it out in the open and publicly answer it than have it removed. Thank you.)
Originally posted by paultopiaI think this actually isn't quite true, because chess is a specific body of knowledge/skills, with (IMO) a somewhat tangential relationship to general intelligence. Furthermore, we know that some of the greatest chess minds of all time have studied this position, so we have to ask ourselves how likely it is that they would not have found an improvement.
You might as well have said:
"A moron with an idea? That's funny."
If a relatively inexperienced player claims to have found an opening improvement that all the grandmasters have missed, a little skepticism is certainly in order, regardless that player's intelligence. Just IMO.
Originally posted by jgvaccaroOh, no question. However, the following is the relevant text from the original post:
If a relatively inexperienced player claims to have found an opening improvement that all the grandmasters have missed, a little skepticism is certainly in order, regardless that player's intelligence. Just IMO.
"Riding straight up the Pelikan mainline. I promise, the book moves will end soon. I actually have what I *THINK* is an improvement that I wanna try out shortly.
Anyway, yada yada, this forces the white knight home, gaining a tempo in the process of having some center space, and is the characteristic move of this variation. The price, of course, is that the d pawn will be forever backward on an open file and the d5 square will be a big hole, in which white invariably plunks a knight. At least, that is, unless my improvement works, as opposed to just wasting a tempo and burying the initiative. (I say "improvement" but lets be realistic, I'm sure it's known to theory, simply to a bit of theory that I don't know.)"
(underlining added)
As you can see, this is hardly an arrogant declaration that I've found an opening improvement that all the grandmasters have missed. Rather, I said (and emphasized!) that I "think" it's an improvement, and followed that up with a remark that, being "realistic," all the grandmasters had NOT missed that move, but in fact I was most likely treading familiar ground.
So ZaBlanc's snotty little "Oh, look, the monkey thinks he knows how to play chess" comment was completely out of order, because I made no over-inflated claim to be breaking new ground.
Just on point of form, incidentally, the chessgames.com database reveals 5 games in which this move was played from the move order given.
(and the link is so long that it messes up the threat viewing, so I won't post it, but check out via the opening explorer)
- Joined
- 03 Sep 03
- Moves
- 87628
Originally posted by paultopiaTalk about blowing your own horn.......nice post.....
[b]A 1570 with an attitude? 🙂
I wonder if the fact that you have almost 6 times as many concurrent games as your detractor has anything to do with the rating difference. On a side note, after learning all that about you; it makes my win against you that much more prideful.
Keep playing strong, I look forward to a rematch someday.
Tim
Originally posted by jgvaccaroBaahh.. There is probably no attitude that disturbs me more
I think this actually isn't quite true, because chess is a specific body of knowledge/skills, with (IMO) a somewhat tangential relationship to general intelligence. Furthermore, we know that some of the greatest chess minds of all time ...[text shortened]... ly in order, regardless that player's intelligence. Just IMO.
than this. Its forever been a thorn in my side in all areas and
its very widespread. To dissmiss an idea on the mere
assumption that its already been disproven, is the worst form
of sloppy thinking. Can anyone here refute the idea, conclusively?
Or does anyone know of such a refute, and can post it to us?
If not, this attitude is just religion, an overly strong faith in the perfection of one being. Yet GM:s loose games.... Hey.... Maybe they missed something? Remember Einstein?
Simple ideas are usually very hard to evaluate.
Take a look at the story behind Fermat, and the attempts to
rediscover his proof of his last theorem, to get an idea of the
intrinsic arrogance in all and every athority in any subject. This is their flaw. Protecting their reputation. Avoiding to stick their neck out to protect against having to look the fool.
I'm behind Paultopia in his valiant effort to reach *new* knowledge.
And I admire his curage to proclaim his efforts. I also pitty all those that would rather sit complacantly in the mud, pondering the futility of
life. Prayning to their gods for salvation.
Horrible.
12 Bd3
Game 643185
I want to castle, but I'm worried about the pawns on the Q-side, so castling K-side seems safer long term.
12 ... d5
Game 643185
This is a rare sight -- Paul being sensible! (For a game where Paul is completely insensible, and for comic relief, see Game 665390).
I had to make the d5 push at SOME point -- it's the whole point of the last 6 moves, after all. Grabs center space, allows me to complete development, yada yada yada. Onea those "duh" moves. It also takes away his only other good square for the knight.
Nonetheless, there were several other tempting possibilities.
12. ... e4?! The pawn could not be captured, in view of Re1 followed by d5, winning a piece, so basically that would amount to a pawn push with tempo, forcing his bishop to somewhere less active like e2. I almost played that just on general principle. Arguably, it's prophalactic too, in the sense that it cuts off the diagonal leading to my vulnerable (without a kingside knight) h7 square. However, that move would make my d pawn backward AGAIN, which seems rather to defeat the point. If I wanted a backward d pawn, I could have had one right in the mainline without all that work and flamewars and giving up the bishop pair and all the rest.
Plus I have a really bad record with "just to be flashy" moves (see the insensible game linked above for example) and so just not gonna.
12. ... Re1 -- this is insane. All the same, it is tempting. The idea would be 13. o-o Re3 followed by Rh3 and d5, sacing a pawn if necessary, with the point being to lift a rook prepare a very warm reception for the castled king. Unfortunately, there's a word for trying that kind of stuff before development is done. That word is "stupid." Maybe in a blitz game I'd try that... but it would take so long to get that attack going here that zucc would have ample time to defend and/or prepare a counterattack.
Oh, and Tim, Chasparos? Thank you.
13 0-0
Game 643185
Castling K-side as outlined.
My pieces are pretty cramped right now. So I'll have to work to free my position.