Originally posted by Fat LadyDid your opinion of 16. g4 change between when you were sitting at the board, and when you looked at it later, for better or for worse?
The opening - I've had bad results after 1.e4 c6 2. c4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. cxd5 Qxd5 5. Nc3. Black ends up with a Centre Counter without his lovely pawn on c6 which is key to holding his queenside together. I've lost several quick blitz games trying to defend that and I didn't fancy trying it in a proper one. I'm very happy with Old Indian positions and was ...[text shortened]... 1982 (an award sponsored, rather unfortunately, by the West Indian Tobacco Company).
In other words, is it best for white and would you still fear it if the position were to occur again, or do you now think you have a deeper understanding and/or a better response?
I have done the same thing OTB that you did- I see a potential threat from my opponent, and then take significant action to try to unbalance things and win in the confusion.
I've actually had games where I hit the "chaos button" and won in the confusion, and then the next Saturday at the club and as show it to the guys, one of them invariably refutes my opponent's perceived threat with a simple move I overlooked, making my subsequent crazy play much ado about nothing!
Originally posted by Paul LeggettI think 16.g4 is an excellent move regardless...
Did your opinion of 16. g4 change between when you were sitting at the board, and when you looked at it later, for better or for worse?
In other words, is it best for white and would you still fear it if the position were to occur again, or do you now think you have a deeper understanding and/or a better response?
I have done the same thing OTB ...[text shortened]... eat with a simple move I overlooked, making my subsequent crazy play much ado about nothing!
"Before the endgame the gods have placed the middlegame"
Hi Fat Lady
"I can quite understand GP's disdain for such stuff.
I was a very tactical, attacking player when I was young."
Thanks mate. I'll try out this positional stuff when I grow up. 😉
You are spot on. If YOU don't like the positions after 1.e4 c6 2. c4 d5
then that is all that matters. Often seen players take a position they did not
like or understand simply becasue it was book.
Hi Paul.
Showing games you have played and watching other players pick them over
is always instructive but in the heat of the battle, where it matters, your opponent
failed to find the best moves. Last to blunder loses.
So don't get too down hearted. It's all about holding you nerve on the battlefield
not in the classroom.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Oh I've done it so many times that I look forward to it. My hometown club is very good at this, and it's understood that the Saturday after a tournament is "look at the games" day.
Hi Fat Lady
"I can quite understand GP's disdain for such stuff.
I was a very tactical, attacking player when I was young."
Thanks mate. I'll try out this positional stuff when I grow up. 😉
You are spot on. If [b]YOU don't like the positions after 1.e4 c6 2. c4 d5
then that is all that matters. Often seen players take a position they did ...[text shortened]... down hearted. It's all about holding you nerve on the battlefield
not in the classroom.[/b]
Even the guys who don't regularly show up will make a point to drop in on the Saturdays following tournaments. Sometimes the debates are just like the forum here- equal parts erudite, crazy, and hilarious.
There's two guy who will always take the opposite sides of a complicated position, and then will want to debated it OTB with blitz the rest of the day. Invariably, they will forget the exact position resetting the pieces at some point, and lose the thread entirely!
Originally posted by kopatovYou really should do some research before you type.
If he is really a current OTB player over 2000, then that is the most idiotic comment I have ever seen by a 2000+ player. c6 leads for example to the CaroKann (played by World Champions such as Wilhelm Steinitz, Smyslvo, Karpov). I wouldn't expect you to know any of this though, Stockfish wouldn't tell you this (you posted on here that a beginner should learn chess from Stockfish as this is what you do).
Hi Paul
Every club has guys like that. Or should have.
I have always enjoyed watching and listening to someone playing over a game
they have played. No matter what strength. Sometimes the weaker and especially
the younger the better. (out of the mouths of babes etc...)
Tht joke I cracked about one of the other reasons for playing 1.e4 was to give
your King a flight square came from a youngster who was being serious.
The opening 1.c4 came up in a class and this was his comment.
The one that had me in stiches was overhearing two kids watching games
on the big demo boards.
"They don't go for the Queen mate." (Scholars mate.)
"They are using clocks, they have to make the game last 40 moves."
Going up a level and you do pick up ideas.
Here for instance Fat Lady plays 1....c6 filling his opponent with dread.
It's like how I felt when the school teacher said "Now for some more logarithms."
Then on move 2 he makes the game interesting again.
This playing with your opponents emotions is a good ploy.
------------------------------------------------------
Hi Nimzo.
Ignore the Kopatroll when he is cold turd mood.
------------------------------------------------------
Going back to that future Petrosian who said 1.c4 did not give the King a flight square.
He has a point.
jackjones - nortel RHP 2009
Originally posted by tomtom232Give us a variation how white would get the advantage if black did not play Rxf3. Saying g4 is an excellent move is like saying 11.. f5 is an excellent move in the position. You have been playing too much blitz, in long games your weaknesses are/can be seized upon while you are slowly watching.
I think 16.g4 is an excellent move regardless...
"Before the endgame the gods have placed the middlegame"
Originally posted by kopatovWeakness? Your eye is not keen it is black who is worse on the king side it only makes sense to open things up over there... but here you go
Give us a variation how white would get the advantage if black did not play Rxf3. Saying g4 is an excellent move is like saying 11.. f5 is an excellent move in the position. You have been playing too much blitz, in long games your weaknesses are/can be seized upon while you are slowly watching.
16.g4 Rf8 {where else?} 17.Bh6 Rg8 18.Nfg5 Bxg5 {forced otherwise its mate or the rook is lost} 19.Nxg5 Qf6 {19...Qe7 20.Qf3} 20.b4 {to keep the knight out of c5}
20.Ne4 is also a move 20...Qe7 21.Qf3 followed by moving the knight back to g5 and black is having some trouble. Lots of that long term pressure you like in either line.
1.You have gotten rid of blacks dark squared bishops now his dark square weakness is apparent
2.You have a knight that is going to be posted on e6 and a bishop that is on h6
3.the queen can come to the file to create mate threats on f7 with the knight
so as paul pointed out some things have to change here Bh6 has to be used at a more opportune moment.
16.g4! Rf8 17.Nfg5 Bxg5 {this seems forced} 18.Nxg5 Ng7
Originally posted by tomtom232I was thinking that black should just play back to f8 and let white expend the tempi and give up his dark-squared bishop if he really wants it. It will take two moves to capture it, and black can use those moves productively.
I think 16.g4 is an excellent move regardless...
"Before the endgame the gods have placed the middlegame"
Black's going to move his knight off the back rank after Bh6, and recapture with the queen, where she is ready to move in on the dark squares and make way for black's other rook.
It's not that easy to think that way OTB sometimes, especially when your clock is running in a shorter time control.
In that kind of position, it is often tempting to sac on the knight rather than aiming to get a bishop because the knight can be tactically dangerous in such positions- which is consistent with your middlegame vs endgame thinking.
I'm a longtime KID player, and I'd much rather have white's dark squared bishop, but I've also been busted by knights on my kingside as well, so it's really a matter of going with your gut to fill in where your calculations end.
Originally posted by Paul LeggettI don't think white has to give up his dark bishop to get blacks... he will be forced to trade it for a knight.
I was thinking that black should just play back to f8 and let white expend the tempi and give up his dark-squared bishop if he really wants it. It will take two moves to capture it, and black can use those moves productively.
Black's going to move his knight off the back rank after Bh6, and recapture with the queen, where she is ready to move in on ...[text shortened]... , so it's really a matter of going with your gut to fill in where your calculations end.
Fat Lady, your move 48. .... Qf5+ was best and winning, immediately seizing the advantage after White's mistake, and you should be very glad that you did not play 48. ....Qf7+? instead.
48. .... Qxf7+?
49. Qxf7+ Kxf7
50. Kxh6 Kf6
51. b5 Kf5
52. Kg7 ....
And now it is White who gets to the Black pawns, not the other way around, since Black can be forced to either capture the f-pawn or let it promote.
Congratulations on your win in a very difficult and interesting game.
regards,
Originally posted by Paul LeggettHasn't kopatov's credibility gone all the way down to zero already? I'm quite new here and I know little about chess, but I do know a troll when I see one. I cannot understand why people keep replying to his silly insults.
He has decades of OTB experience, is a published chess author, and was the 2010 Scottish Chess Player of the year. Who are you? Are you the chess player of the year anywhere?
Of course, you don't need to be, because I am not questioning your chess judgment or abilities at all- merely your forum behavior and intentions.
It's OK if you don' ...[text shortened]... .
I wonder if he thought he saw something tactically, and realized later that it failed.
Originally posted by WanderingKingYou are right in five things WanderKing. A piece of advice if I may. Change your profile. Nobody is interested in academic qualfications here.. especially if you got it at Harvard.
Hasn't kopatov's credibility gone all the way down to zero already? I'm quite new here and I know little about chess, but I do know a troll when I see one. I cannot understand why people keep replying to his silly insults.
Originally posted by thaughbaerI don't understand. What are the five things I'm right in?
You are right in five things WanderKing. A piece of advice if I may. Change your profile. Nobody is interested in academic qualfications here.. especially if you got it at Harvard.
I didn't get my qualifications at Harvard. I'll delete the profile.