Originally posted by Alopinto8. Bf4.
Really? After 7...f6 what were you planing to play if you actually considered that move during the game? Seriously, the point e5 can't be maintained by White after 7...f6. Instead, White placing a piece at d4 is thematical of the French or blocking the d4 point...
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo much for a discussion of a variation...
8. Bf4.
You posted the game for comments and we detected some mistakes by Black and White in the opening giving you plenty of feedback. Your answer to your plan after 7...f6 is not very enlightening and I do not intend to play correspondence chess in the forum against you...
7...f6 8.Bf4 Qb6 might follow with several ideas. However, it would be more interesting if you would engage the analysis or simply say "I didn't consider 7...f6 during the game" [ It is not the end of the world admiting missing a move or two during a game... ] Controling e5 is not likely in this game after 7...f6.
Originally posted by AlopintoI didn't post the game for comments, for starters. I posted it to show that I play against the French tactically. I said people could give comments, but I didn't ask for them.
So much for a discussion of a variation...
You posted the game for comments and we detected some mistakes by Black and White in the opening giving you plenty of feedback. Your answer to your plan after 7...f6 is not very enlightening a ...[text shortened]... game... ] Controling e5 is not likely in this game after 7...f6.
I don't care whether or not you were enlightened by my answer to your question. You asked, and I answered. I did know f6 was coming because f6 comes all the time against me in the French and it rarely does the opposition any good. If they choose to take my e5 P, then I have a wonderful advanced central outpost for my pieces. You're perfectly welcome to believe controlling e5 is not likely. I disagree. I rarely have problems holding that point. Possibly that's because I am a relatively weak player compared to you, yet you have not convinced me that I am wrong.
Actually, you might not be better than me any more. I now hold a higher rating than you ever have, apparently.
Since you don't want to 'play correspondence chess' here in the forum I won't address your idea about Qb6.
"Ok the game is finished. Feel free to comment if anyone cares to."
I started this thread with one of my games and then you posted yours asking for comments. Since I started this thread, the value of any opinions expressed is the same regardless of the level of who expresses them. That is: A question or variation calculated by anyone with a lower or higher rating than mine should have the same consideration and a polite answer.
In that sense, your rating or your perceived competence at chess compared to mine is irrelevant to me (the difference between our ratings is 2 points here at redhotpawn and in our individual encounter... Let's not even get there...) But then again, my rating at www.queenalice.com is ~1800 or www.schemingmind.com is around 1890. And my USCF rating is even higher [ I have beaten national masters over the board with ratings around 2400 USCF ] So let us not make this an issue about ratings but about having intelligent discussions.
I know that you must be tough both on the internet and in person and that given the chance you would mop the floor with me easily but why be obnoxious? what sort of pleasure do you derive from that?
A rude answer to a legitimate question asked in the spirit of friendship is not appreciated.
Now, if anyone could tell me how to ignore another user I would appreciate it...
Alopinto -
I started this thread with one of my games and then you posted yours asking for comments.
I think you genuinely mistake me. I posted a game as an example of a tactical attack against the French, and specifically asked people not to comment because I was still playing the game. When you gave me a hard time for posting my example when I wasn't finished yet, I made sure to let people know when I was finished since you at least seemed to really want to comment. Why else would you give me grief for posting the game and asking no one to comment? I really never asked for comments. If you read my statement that you quoted, it specifically says that I think it's now ok to comment, in contrast to before. It does not ask for comment.
Yes, the value of opinions is valid no matter who expresses them, and deserves the same respect no matter who offers them. I do respect your skill greatly. I didn't mention ratings because I wanted to play "my [member] is bigger than yours" but because I was assuming from our last encounter that you were better than me and then I realized I outrated you. This made the fact that you were being condescending (in my view) about my chess skill and knowledge seem that much more irritating and ridiculous.
why be obnoxious? what sort of pleasure do you derive from that?
I don't derive pleasure from being obnoxious. I would suggest you look at this thread and read your posts and mine again with as unbiased an attitude as you can. Can you honestly tell me I was more obnoxious than you?
I found this highly patronizing and irritating as well as unenlightening:
Really? After 7...f6 what were you planing to play if you actually considered that move during the game? Seriously, the point e5 can't be maintained by White after 7...f6.
You suggested 7...f6 and then implied I was too stupid to have seen that coming, when I absolutely did see it coming. You then make a statement about how e5 cannot be maintained without supporting the claim. Then you ask a question, and when I answer it clearly and without any obnoxiousness you respond:
So much for a discussion of a variation...Your answer to your plan after 7...f6 is not very enlightening and I do not intend to play correspondence chess in the forum against you... However, it would be more interesting if you would engage the analysis or simply say "I didn't consider 7...f6 during the game" [ It is not the end of the world admiting missing a move or two during a game... ] Controling e5 is not likely in this game after 7...f6.
I have played this line many, many times, and I see f6 all the time. It is not a new concept to me. I felt your attitude was patronizing, that's all. You ask a question, then when I answer your question clearly (not any hidden questions you might have been implying but didn't state, like asking me to in detail describe why I would have made that next move and how that would have held e5 - which should be obvious, I'm putting a piece in place to defend the square) you tell me the answer wasn't enlightening. If it wasn't, that's because you asked a poor question.
I would be happy to analyze the opening with you, but I have no need to. It seems our communication styles are very different, which might make such an analysis difficult and frustrating. In the future, when someone who I have no reason not to respect says something I find patronizing or offensive, I will try to explicitely say that instead of lashing back. In response, it would be nice if people would be careful not to criticize others if they are sensitive to people who find unsolicited criticism annoying. How's that sound?
Although I don't want to step into any ill feelings or reopen any feuds, Game 801783, which finished a couple of days ago, is another example of tactical play against a French defense. I don't pretend it's perfect or anything, but feel free to comment (or not) as you like.
Best regards,
Paul
Originally posted by prnIt would be easier to open another thread so that your game gets the attention it deserves.
Although I don't want to step into any ill feelings or reopen any feuds, Game 801783, which finished a couple of days ago, is another example of tactical play against a French defense. I don't pretend it's perfect or anything, but feel free to comment (or not) as you like.
Best regards,
Paul
Oh, I don't know that it deserves all that much attention. I am mentioning it mainly because it seems to be another example of the topic of this thread: tactical play against the French. I presumed you brought it up because of a perception that the French is a positional, solid and relatively steady opening. If that wasn't your point, I guess I'm off target. My game just shows a couple of the thematic tactics in various lines of the French, e.g., Qg4 and the sac of Nxd5.
Best Regards,
Paul
Originally posted by prnWell then, since the very first post in this thread was mine I will take the liberty of making constructive comments on your game not intending to make it personal and instead of just uttering the extremmely superficial "Great game!" and leaving it there I will play the game myself on my board and try to post honest questions about your game.
Oh, I don't know that it deserves all that much attention. I am mentioning it mainly because it seems to be another example of the topic of this thread: tactical play against the French. I presumed you brought it up because of a perception that the French is a positional, solid and relatively steady opening. If that wasn't your point, I guess I'm off target. ...[text shortened]... tactics in various lines of the French, e.g., Qg4 and the sac of Nxd5.
Best Regards,
Paul
In general it was very well played by you but both sides missed some tactical shots that were within easy calculation (Black was very cooperative and passive)
As a matter of principle, accepting the pawn sacrifice in the Alekhine-Chatard is just asking for an attack and letting White do whatever he pleases (I have played the Black side of this variation too and the trouble for accepting that pawn is not worth it...) So the choice of opening variation by Black is somewhat questionable (I know, opening manuals say that Black achieves an equal game but how difficult it is to play that variation as Black!)
Several things:
1. On move 12 Black could have taken at d4 12...Nxd4. What would you have done to justify the sacrifice of that pawn? 12...Nf8 looks too passive for my taste.
2. I didn't understand your move 15. By making 15.Nxe7 you win by arithmetic (Black's h-pawn is pinned and it will cost him a whole rook to recapture the queen)
I hope these questions are fair...
instead of just uttering the extremmely superficial "Great game!"
Are you referring to my post? I didn't want to put the time in to study this game as it's not a line I play. Therefore I didn't analyze it. It looks interesting, but it doesn't put as much support on e5 as the line I use does.
By the way, I based my line off of column 114 of the French Defense in MCO-13. A number of big names have used it, including Maroczy and Nimzowitsch. I did make a mistake on move 6. as you pointed out Alopinto but since TSP didn't take advantage of it it didn't matter.