16 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRec'd.
keeping the balance is the hardest thing in the world, it requires patience, playing the board rather than our own creative ideas. i will soon lose a game simply for having an idea that did not work, where is the justice in that? it was a brilliantly creative idea, a little too ambitious perhaps. my opponent simply kept the balance, how annoying is that?
16 Aug 09
4 edits
"ah one sees the folly of the assumption, i did not for one moment mean symmetry, what is symmetry but a reflection? what i and Steinitz was referring to was the balance between our pieces, their mobility and any chances that we have for an attack. i do not hold the view that Mr.Silman holds, as to the nature of imbalances (yes i have read his books, both of them, well one and a half i suppose). it is a good place to start, but is too simplistic, for everything is relative to the position and as Fischer has shown, an active knight may be exchanged for a poor bishop, if the position merits it! this is further enhanced when one considers that a bishop with little scope, may be an excellent defensive piece, so as for Mr.Silmans imbalances, yes one must try to create them and take advantage of them, but i do not buy his idea wholesale, for everything is relative to the position.
rather interestingly, what is positional play? how would you define positional play my friend?" -robbie carrobie
.....................
“The tactician must know what to do whenever something needs doing;
the strategist must know what to do when nothing needs doing”
-Savielly Tartakover
.....................
“It is the aim of the modern school, not to treat every position according
to one general law, but according to the principle inherent in the position”
-Richard Reti
20 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think you need to read some Kasparov, and you'll change your mind
my friend black beetle says that the advantage of the first move is hidden, i wish he were here to explain this.
as for positional play, the best i have heard so far is Purdys, in which he states that it simply means to strengthen our own position or weaken our opponents, or if neither course is possible, a minimal weakening of our own position. ...[text shortened]... others of the royal game, that this is the art of positional judgement, and who can fathom it?
on the worth of initiative.
-GIN
23 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOh I just noticed this interesting thread🙂
my friend black beetle says that the advantage of the first move is hidden, i wish he were here to explain this.
as for positional play, the best i have heard so far is Purdys, in which he states that it simply means to strengthen our own position or weaken our opponents, or if neither course is possible, a minimal weakening of our own position. ...[text shortened]... others of the royal game, that this is the art of positional judgement, and who can fathom it?
It seems to me that during the opening/ development we have to bring up positions with non-fixed pawn structures and pressure and/ or control of the centre, because then we may apply asymmetric attacking plans (ie 0-0 vs 0-0-0 etc.), and also we may initiate our pieces development according to our pawn formation by means of rigid calculation, constant evaluation of the time and appropriate use of the given classical principles (ie transforming a specific advantage or advantages into other, more solid and permanent ones). In such dynamic openings (defences for the Black), I beleive that the advantage of the first move is often hidden -and I will offer as an example some Slav/ Semi-Slav variations:
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nf3,
and instead of the classical 4. …dxc4 that the Black was anyway replying 20 years ago we have nowdays the 4. …a6, which urges the White to make asap a decision (5.cxd5, 5.c5, 5.a4, 5.e3).
Of course the Black can always play 4. …dxc4, virtually pushing the White to enter the Geller Gambit (5.e4) or to take his pawn back by means of 5.e3 or 5.a4, which they both have drawbacks because after 5.e3 the white blacksquared B is restricted and the Nc3 has to retreat to a less energetic square due to 5. …b5 6.a4 b4 7.Na2 e6 8.Bxc4 Bb7 and the Black is OK after …c5, …Be7, …0-0, …a5, …Nbd7 and …Qb6; otherwise, after 7.Nb1 Ba6 8.Qc2 e6 9.Bxc4 Bxc4 10.Qxc4 Qd5 the position is equal.
On the other hand, by playing 5.a4 the White misses a tempo and suffers a hole on b4, and after the obvious 5. ..Bf5 he is forced to choose between the folowing:
6.Nh4 e6 7.Nxf5 exf5 -does the White has really an advantage here thanks to his pair of B and to his pawn structure?
6.e3 e6 7.Bxc4 Bb4 8.0-0 (preparing e3-e4 and sharp fights over the control of the centre, and at the same time establishing a defence over the possible …e5 and/ or …c5).
6.Ne5 (and the Black goes 6. …e6 7.f3 Bb4 8.e4 Bxe4 9.fxe4 Nxe4 10.Bd2 Qxd4 11.Nxe4 Qxe4+ 12.Qe2 Bxd2+ 13.Kxd2 Qd5+ 14.Kc2, or
6. …Nbd7 7.Nxc4 Qc7 8.g3 e5 9.dxe5 Nxe5 10.Bf4 etc).
You see Robbie my trusty feer, we almost covered some variations of the opening -but, due to the dynamism of the position, it is still very hard (to me, that is) to notice a clear advantage of the first move (and this is maybe the reason why my results are poor).
I apologize for the long post, I hope you comprehend😵
24 Aug 09
2 edits
Originally posted by black beetleoh beetle, peace to you my friend, it is a wonderful post, for only very recently, within the last week was i looking at the Slav after some time, after haven given it up being crushed easily by our friend Ulysses!
I have to stand corrected: the main position derives from 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 and of cource 4.Nc3.
Excuse me for the inconvenience;
here is a game i want to share with you, for it contains the elements that you were talking of, but also a wonderful sacrifice which when realised changes the whole nature of the position for black.
5.c5, a move championed by Topalov i think, perhaps to take advantage of the little hole on b7 and stifle blacks queen side play.
10.Rc1, is interesting move, rook gets off long diagonal and in case of pawn break ...e5, white makes sure there is no accident with c5 pawn hanging,
19...Nxg3!, wonderful sacrifice which unbalances the whole position! for white was planning f4 and establishing a king side pawn majority, and thus the statics of the position favour white, but with this sacrifice, the balance is completely changed! is this not the practical thing to do in such a situation?
22.Nb6, this is whites extra piece, but it becomes almost obsolete during the game and to some extent is completely dominated by the bishop on e6.
29. ...a5, black realises that he cannot win with queen and rook on f file alone, so creates a second weakness!
hope you enjoyed it beetle, i will post some more, for i want to try the Slav again at some point.
24 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFine game, and not only for the sac and the fine technique of the Black, for during the opening the White declined the solid 5.cxd5 and the Black refused to enter the usual Kamsky's 4. ...Qb6 and the 4. ...Bf5 5.Qb3 or 5.cxd5. Over here both players (who are they?!) were spectacularly commited to do or die😵
oh beetle, peace to you my friend, it is a wonderful post, for only very recently, within the last week was i looking at the Slav after some time, after haven given it up being crushed easily by our friend Ulysses!
here is a game i want to share with you, for it contains the elements that you were talking of, but also a wonderful sacrifice which w ...[text shortened]... le, i will post some more, for i want to try the Slav again at some point.
24 Aug 09
4 edits
Originally posted by black beetleah, the solid cxd5, i have not come to yet my friend, but this game was played in 2006, Alexander Huzman with the white pieces Evgeny Bareev with the black. You do not favour the move 5.c5 my friend but prefer the solid cxd5 ? (question mark is grammatical, not as in chess notation)
Fine game, and not only for the sac and the fine technique of the Black, for during the opening the White declined the solid 5.cxd5 and the Black refused to enter the usual Kamsky's 4. ...Qb6 and the 4. ...Bf5 5.Qb3 or 5.cxd5. Over here both players (who are they?!) were spectacularly commited to do or die😵
i like the way that the black unbalanced the white, as one would in a real martial arts competition, using our opponents weight against themselves!
24 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe game is spectacular indeed!
ah, the solid cxd5, i have not come to yet my friend, but this game was played in 2006, Alexander Huzman with the white pieces Evgeny Bareev with the black. You do not favour the move 5.c5 my friend but prefer the solid cxd5 ? (question mark is grammatical, not as in chess notation)
i like the way that the black unbalanced the white, as one would in a real martial arts competition, using our opponents weight against themselves!
Unfortunately I do not give time to the opening because I was always trying to understand in full how each permanent or temporary advantage is related to every other, so I feel not confident enough to promote a tempo missing strategy based at the hole up there on b7 and, therefore, to apply tactics that I am not sure that they will ease my thesis at the centre preparing at the same time a kingside attack. To be frank, I am afraid that once landed over there, the white N is too far away from the critical central squares, as it is demonstrated too from the Black of the game that you posted.
My opening theory is dated and stuck in the late 80s/ early 90s, so it ‘s hard for me to analyse and evaluate in depth the consequences of 5.c5. Since I am aware of the fact that this miserable bug is not Bareev, I rather prefer to promote positions that I understand instead of entering positions that their meaning is Greek to me😵
25 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAhhhh. Robbie Robbie my friend.
oh beetle, peace to you my friend, it is a wonderful post, for only very recently, within the last week was i looking at the Slav after some time, after haven given it up being crushed easily by our friend Ulysses!
here is a game i want to share with you, for it contains the elements that you were talking of, but also a wonderful sacrifice which w ...[text shortened]... le, i will post some more, for i want to try the Slav again at some point.
Point 1. Any patzer vs patzer game is hardly going to produce any solid conclusion about any opening and any line. So if you based your decision to give up the Slav on our game is worth having black beetle (drunk of course) over your head singing Greek turbofolk (believe me this one is a fiendish punishment).
Point 2. I think GP has said (if he has not then I am sure he’ll say it in the future) that our little woodpushing conclave is not going to rediscover America. Some wise guys have done it in the past for us. When I tried to discover a new continent I always ended up naked in Antarctica (too damn frozen to death). When we try to explore something new we always get some maps (see books, articles, analysis) first. We research to see what suits us and what doesn’t.
Point 3. Even so it is unfair to punish yourself about the Slav because you blundered a piece on a bad position.
Point 4. GMs must have a very good reason to choose Slav\SemiSlav as their favorite (at least the majority) weapon against d4 (Count Radjabov and his KID plus Gelfand and his Gruenfeld out). They must know something better. This is not modern hype. All openings/defenses are solid in our level. But how can we learn from the great if we do not try to follow their footsteps?
I can hardly say anything about the lovely game you posted. Only that my question comes with 10. Rc1 I think it is a little bit inconsistent with the earlier 5. c5. This Karpov’s favorite (in QGD lines I have to be honest) was coming only when he intended to play cxd5 and thus take advantage of the semi open c-file. Maybe we can ask the forum opinion.
Marvelous plan by black to deploy the lightsquared bishop (a well known problem in Queen pawn openings). After 19 moves the piece finally landed in e6 waited patiently for 20 moves to grab the hanging a2 and played a significant role afterwards.
Greetings my friend. I wish I had the time to post more often.🙂
27 Aug 09
Originally posted by Ulysses72Friki, ti tou eipes tora tou filou mas, eimai kai faltsos oh the horror😀
Ahhhh. Robbie Robbie my friend.
Point 1. Any patzer vs patzer game is hardly going to produce any solid conclusion about any opening and any line. So if you based your decision to give up the Slav on our game is worth having black beetle (drunk of course) over your head singing Greek turbofolk (believe me this one is a fiendish punishment).
Point 2. I th ...[text shortened]... significant role afterwards.
Greetings my friend. I wish I had the time to post more often.🙂
Ama laskareis ligaki challenge me gia ena matsaki me B&W -kai polla filia sta koritsia sou (na pioume kai kana kafe sto Golden Mall)
😵
27 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"Though most people love to look at the games of the great attacking masters,
i heard a funny quote once Paps, i dunno who said it, but it went something like this
'when the tactician meets the strategists, the strategist better be wearing his seat belt'.
some of the most successful players in history have been the quiet positional
players. They slowly grind you down by taking away your space, tying up your
pieces, and leaving you with virtually nothing to do!" -Yasser Seirawan 😉
28 Aug 09
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySir Yasser yes Sir😵
"Though most people love to look at the games of the great attacking masters,
some of the most successful players in history have been the quiet positional
players. They slowly grind you down by taking away your space, tying up your
pieces, and leaving you with virtually nothing to do!" -Yasser Seirawan 😉