22 Aug 07
Originally posted by Policestateindeed, exposing the king is just weak, but planning ahead so far is just impressive.
I think that we (the mere mortals) have to take great care in deciding to bypass the theory and guidlines that have evolved over the lifetime of competitive chess. To understand how and when to deviate from the 'norm' one has to have a mastery of the game. I agree fully with the comment made in this post that to deviate from opening theory, just to 'thro ...[text shortened]... them, just because we know they are a better player, would miss the point considerably.
22 Aug 07
Originally posted by Lolettebah. there's nothing wrong with pushing the castle pawns if your opponent can't get at them. on the contrary, the pawns will often create a lethal attack, gain space and restrict your opponent. KIA, KID, leningrad, polar bear, grob, borg, king's gambit, the list goes on.
indeed, exposing the king is just weak, but planning ahead so far is just impressive.
of course, you have to know what you're doing, but you can't learn that without experimenting on the concept.
22 Aug 07
Originally posted by wormwoodBobby Fischer was I believe the first to truly popularize moveing the g pawn for advantage. Specifically g4/g5.
bah. there's nothing wrong with pushing the castle pawns if your opponent can't get at them. on the contrary, the pawns will often create a lethal attack, gain space and restrict your opponent. KIA, KID, leningrad, polar bear, grob, borg, king's gambit, the list goes on.
of course, you have to know what you're doing, but you can't learn that without experimenting on the concept.
22 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by zebanoAlekhine did make popular g-pawn advance in this game:
Bobby Fischer was I believe the first to truly popularize moveing the g pawn for advantage. Specifically g4/g5.
[Event "Match, Utrecht NED"]
[Site "Match, Utrecht NED"]
[Date "1935.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "7"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Alexander Alekhine"]
[Black "Max Euwe"]
[ECO "C15"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "81"]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nge2 dxe4 5. a3 Be7 6. Nxe4
Nc6 7. g4 b6 8. Bg2 Bb7 9. c3 Nf6 10. N2g3 O-O 11. g5 Nxe4
12. Nxe4 Kh8 13. Qh5 Qe8 14. Nf6 Bxf6 15. gxf6 gxf6 16. Qh4
Qd8 17. Bf4 e5 18. Bg3 f5 19. dxe5 Rg8 20. Bf3 Qd3 21. Be2 Qe4
22. Qxe4 fxe4 23. Bh4 h6 24. O-O-O Rae8 25. Bf6+ Kh7 26. f4
exf3 27. Bxf3 Na5 28. Bxb7 Nxb7 29. Rd7 Nc5 30. Rxf7+ Kg6
31. Rxc7 Nd3+ 32. Kb1 Kf5 33. Rd1 Nxe5 34. Rf1+ Ke4 35. Rxa7
Nc4 36. Rd7 Ke3 37. Re1+ Kf3 38. Rxe8 Rxe8 39. Rd4 Ne3 40. Rh4
Nf5 41. Rb4 1-0
This game was forefather of Keres attack in Sheveningen - 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.g4! - Keres started to play it in 1943.
[Event "Salzburg"]
[Site "Salzburg"]
[Date "1943.06.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Keres,Paul"]
[Black "Bogoljubow,Efim"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "B81"]
1.e4 c5 2.Ne2 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.g4 Nc6 7.g5 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 Nd7
9.Be3 a6 10.Be2 Qc7 11.f4 b6 12.f5 Ne5 13.fxe6 fxe6 14.a4 Be7 15.h4 Qc5 16.Qd2 Qc7
17.Rf1 Bb7 18.Bd4 Rf8 19.0-0-0 Rxf1 20.Rxf1 Bd8 21.Qf4 Ng6 22.Qg4 Qe7 23.Qh5 e5 24.Be3 Bc7
25.Qxh7 Nf4 26.Bxf4 exf4 27.Bh5+ Kd7 28.Bg4+ Kc6 29.Qf5 b5 30.Qd5+ Kb6 31.Qd4+ Kc6 32.Nd5
1-0
22 Aug 07
"Book moves are fine, but your own moves are better." - Tartakower
One can almost always deviate from the "book" lines without incurring a disadvantage. As long as your "novelty" doesn't find you on the wrong side of a tactical shot, and as long as your move doesn't create a major positional weakness, then there is probably nothing wrong with your move.
My Motto: "Seek the advice of people whom you respect, but in the end make and accept the responsibility for your own decisions."
23 Aug 07
Originally posted by PolicestateI think that this post by Policestate should be read by everyone. I believe that the point he is making is incredibly valuable to those who wish to really improve their understanding of the game, instead of just continuing to play inferior moves and then win later on tactics (all the while patting themselves on the back for their brilliance😉)
I think that we (the mere mortals) have to take great care in deciding to bypass the theory and guidlines that have evolved over the lifetime of competitive chess. To understand how and when to deviate from the 'norm' one has to have a mastery of the game. I agree fully with the comment made in this post that to deviate from opening theory, just to 'thro ...[text shortened]... them, just because we know they are a better player, would miss the point considerably.