10 Feb 12
1 edit
Good you agree.
I was thinking you might call me dogmatic.
'Never open the game if the guy has two Bishops.' Is a ROT I've always
had trouble with. Here is seems sound but in other positions the players
failure to open the game left him with a cramp (no pawn breaks) position.
And the two Bishops are an advatage (in some positions) not a forced win.
That is the position I saw coming. Black is about 3-4 moves behind on
creating any distraction on the Kingside. (the Queen sniff at the b-pawn did this.)
My 1.e4 idea might be a different way to lose but I choose how I lose.
And I like to go down with all guns blazing.
I have pulled many lost OTB games out the fire. Infact too many.
Getting lost postions has became a habit I cannot get out of. 🙂
The trick is reacting as soon as possible. Most players (as always talking about
the lads on here.) wait till it is far too late.
(ROT = Rule Of Thumb.)
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
10 Feb 12
Originally posted by greenpawn34Hmm... how about... (and you know who this is coming from, so mock it as much as you like)
'Never open the game if the guy has two Bishops.' Is a ROT I've always had trouble with. Here is seems sound but in other positions the players failure to open the game left him with a cramp (no pawn breaks) position.
"If you have the bishops open the centre; if your opponent has the bishops, open the wings"?
Richard
Originally posted by PhySiQOk better late than never. Apologies, I have been pretty busy.
This is a game that finished here recently between Morgski and I. Morgski says he'll be adding annotations here momentarily.
Q
So this was a hard fought game, and highlights one of my main weaknesses in chess. Quite often (and the games versus velvetears are testament to this) I will try and bait my opponent into a trap, a gambit or a precarious position. In doing so, I often weaken my own position a little. I've been thinking about whether this style of play is worthy of a name. I guess "Angler" might be a good word. I think both Velvetears and I are both of this sort of chess player, which means our games are often chaotic.
Clearly, Q is much more sensible than me and refused to bite on any of my lures, and was rewarded with a passed pawn to win. It was fairly clear about half way into this game that I was playing a better player than myself (I've had similar feelings in games against the likes of Paul Leggett and ChessPraxis). So credit where it is due, Q's superior positional understanding is what did it for me.
To the game then!
A near faultless performance from Q. I felt I made three suspect moves in the whole game, but boy were they punished. Well won 🙂
12 Feb 12
Originally posted by morgskiAye well done Morgski you lasted longer than i did, I think its Q 5 Robbie 0, lets hope he gets a
Ok better late than never. Apologies, I have been pretty busy.
So this was a hard fought game, and highlights one of my main weaknesses in chess. Quite often (and the games versus velvetears are testament to this) I will try and bait my opponent into a trap, a gambit or a precarious position. In doing so, I often weaken my own position a little. I've been ...[text shortened]... three suspect moves in the whole game, but boy were they punished. Well won 🙂
girlfriend, that'll sort him out! In one of our games a kind of blitz game i hung my queen trying to
avoid a queen exchange! Its my opinion of Q's game that he likes clear positions, for he plays
them exceptionally well, a gambit option might be more unsettling for him than trying to slug it out
in a positional battle.
12 Feb 12
Originally posted by morgskithere is actually a rather interesting gambit try against the English, but like you say it has to be
The only trouble there Robbie is that gambits have to be accepted, I didn't get the feeling I could tempt Q into doing something foolish.
Incidentally, this month I'm trying to play the Danish in every game as white. Only about 20% of folk are letting me.
accepted, i tried it twice against q he never played the gambit line once. It comes from the
mainline English as well, its not obscure or anything.
12 Feb 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePut it in a pgn and show us Robbie, I like to see these things, whether they're obscure or not 🙂
there is actually a rather interesting gambit try against the English, but like you say it has to be
accepted, i tried it twice against q he never played the gambit line once. It comes from the
mainline English as well, its not obscure or anything.
12 Feb 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI do play the Marin fianchetto in the English at times. Its not a weapon I pull out all that often. I don't much like playing e4 with the Marin. e4 is a delicate place that white must treat with his most severe consideration at all times.
there is actually a rather interesting gambit try against the English, but like you say it has to be
accepted, i tried it twice against q he never played the gambit line once. It comes from the
mainline English as well, its not obscure or anything.
I don't proclaim to be right or the most knowledgeable by any means. I do however feel like the English has momentum that can be gathered on the Queen-side and the light squared bishop is a fantastic "weapon in waiting" on both d3 and e2. As I said I don't pretend to say this is the "right way" to play the English. There are many connoisseurs of this opening who enjoy the Marin and reap wins regularly with it.
I however practice it less often. When I do, I typically play d4 rather than d3 and have not been unknown to sac a piece on e4 if black begins throwing pawns at my kingside (One of my first games on this site was with Paul Leggett in which I was forced to do so). Its merely a question of flexibility and personal taste. The c4 d3 e4 pawn structure is not one of my favorites.
As far as gambits are concerned - I play the Queens gambit. Outside of that, I rarely stray into that realm. There are probably constant and countless losses awaiting me there. I very highly detest the albin - and it has nearly single-handedly tipped my openings to 1. c4.
Q
12 Feb 12
Originally posted by greenpawn34This is a good run. It'd certainly test me at the board. It would probably take several minutes of my clock before I decided my plan. However trying to keep in mind that it is an at the board decision, I think I'd choose to ignore you right back. These pawns if ignored seem like they can become a steamrolling terror. I would have to light the house on fire to keep things hot.
Good you agree.
I was thinking you might call me dogmatic.
'Never open the game if the guy has two Bishops.' Is a ROT I've always
had trouble with. Here is seems sound but in other positions the players
failure to open the game left him with a cramp (no pawn breaks) position.
And the two Bishops are an advatage (in some positions) not a forced win ...[text shortened]... hold my head up high. I played how I wanted to play.}[/pgn]
(ROT = Rule Of Thumb.)
King's to you Mr. Pawn.
Q
13 Feb 12
Originally posted by PhySiQthe Queens gambit me thinks is not a true gambit but a temporary pawn sacrifice, in
I do play the Marin fianchetto in the English at times. Its not a weapon I pull out all that often. I don't much like playing e4 with the Marin. e4 is a delicate place that white must treat with his most severe consideration at all times.
I don't proclaim to be right or the most knowledgeable by any means. I do however feel like the English has ...[text shortened]... detest the albin - and it has nearly single-handedly tipped my openings to 1. c4.
Q
my book on the English, which i have flicked through but have not read it terms the
fianchetto system with e4 as a Botvinnik set up, playing for d4. Rather interestingly,
well at least to me, I was following a Natalia Pogonina game in the Ruy where instead
of the usual continuation, c3, she played c4 and obtained an excellent position, but for
the life of me i cannot find that game again. I have a system against the Najdorf and
the Dragon which encompasses playing f3 and c4 so these things are of some interest
to me.
13 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by PhySiQ
This is a good run. It'd certainly test me at the board. It would probably take several minutes of my clock before I decided my plan. However trying to keep in mind that it is an at the board decision, I think I'd choose to ignore you right back. These pawns if ignored seem like they can become a steamrolling terror. I would have to light the house on fi b - b3 0 3"]3. ... Rae8 4. b5 Nh7 5. Qb1 f5 6. a5 [/pgn]
King's to you Mr. Pawn.
Q
c5 is a good move for black, no?
it prevents opening of the b-file and after
1...c5 2.b6 axb6 3.axb6 Qe7 black might have a go on the kingside later on
13 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by watchyourbackrankI don't know. It doesn't seem bad to me, but I don't think it answers all questions, or solves all problems. If white gets his Queen on b5, he protects d4 by the checking tactic. cxd4 exd4 Bxd4? Qd5+ winning the bishop.
[fen]4rrk1/ppq3bn/2pp2pp/PP3p2/2PPp3/4P2P/2BB1PP1/RQ2R1K1 b[/fen]
c5 is a good move for black, no?
it prevents opening of the b-file and after
1...c5 2.b6 axb6 3.axb6 Qe7 black might have a go on the kingside later on
This position I think is a likely continuation after c5:
2. b6 axb6 3. axb6 Qc8 {this looks like a promising square for many purposes.. maybe b8 for similar reasons...but I like c8 better... more aggressively e7 may be looked at as well) 4. Qb5 (if cxd4 exd4 I think things are getting progressively worse for black).
I think marching those pawns unwinds blacks attacking chances a bit. Though I think its still not a clear win. GP may have found a good continuation. Their is still work to be done for both sides.
Q