| |
Main
Date: 25 Mar 2007 02:02:58
From: Sanny
Subject: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
Here is game between Chess_Freak and Master Level at GetClub.com
Chess.
White: Chess_Freak
Black: Master Level
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
1. e4 e5
2. d4 exd4
3. c3 Nc6 {is it a wrong move by White/ Black?}
4. cxd4 d5
5. e5 Qh4
6. Nf3 Qg4
7. Nc3 Bb4
8. Be3 Ne7
9. h3 Qe6
10. Bd3 f6
11. exf6 Qxf6
12. 0-0 h6
13. R-e1 0-0
14. Nh2 Bf5
15. a3 Bxc3
16. bxc3 Bxd3
17 Qxd3 Qg6
18. Qxg6 Nxg6
19. Nf3 R(a8)-e8
20. R(a1)-b1 R(e8)-b8
21. Re2 Rf6
22. R(b1)-e1 h5
23. B-d2 N-f8
24.Ne5 Rf5
25. Nxc6 bxc6
26. Re7 Rb2
27. R(e1)-e2 Rf7
28.Re5 Nd7
29. Re8+ Rf8
30. Bg5 Rb1
31. Kh2 Rf1
32. f3 a6
33. R(e8)-e7 R-f5
34. Bh4 Nf6
35. Rxc7 g5 {Master Level now a pawn down.}
36. Re7 Kf8
37. Rf7 Kg8
38. Rg7 Kh8 {Slowly moving king to corner.}
39. Bg3 h4
40. Be5 Ne8
41. Rh7 Kg8 {and Black Resigns.}
Complete Recorded Game can be viewed at:
http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM6988&game=Chess
In this game initially White sacrificed a pawn at move 2 But I do not
understand why Black exchanged pawns Instead of 3. ... Nc6 Black
should have killed the pawn at c3 with 1 pawn material advantage.
Secondly Black allowed white rooks to attack it's Queen was there a
way to stop the Rooks.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
You can play Chess with Computer as well as Human opponents here.
And your Games are Recorded. http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
|
| |
Date: 01 Apr 2007 04:51:38
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
On Apr 1, 1:46 am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On 30, 7:35 pm, "Inconnux" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You should join the next RGC tourny on chessworld.net
>
> > J.Lohner
> > Chessworld.net 'Inconnux'
>
> There ya go.
They claimed I hadn't played anyone since 1972, but
it's a big, fat lie, see? It's more like no one has played
*me*.
-- da bot
|
| |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 22:46:14
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
On 30, 7:35 pm, "Inconnux" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Am I being too harsh, too mean? Okay, here
> > is my offer: let the nearly-an-IM turned only
> > 2250 post a link to his USCF rating, where we
> > can all see how he has improved of late to the
> > tune of 2250-dom. IMO, it is not possible. (The
> > games analysis I have seen convinces me that
> > IM Innes is barely able to see the position, let
> > alone the possibilities! Seriously, they really
> > are farrrrrrrrrrr out there.)
>
> You should join the next RGC tourny on chessworld.net
>
> J.Lohner
> Chessworld.net 'Inconnux'
There ya go.
|
| |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 05:55:31
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
On 30, 3:41 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> > At RedHotPawn things are much tougher: I
> > lost two games already, very possibly on
> > account of my not-so-highly-rated opponents
> > getting computer help, though as yet I don't
> > know. But here's the funny part: not one
> > single draw!
> Well, this is fascinating. I just *had* to inquire RedHotPawn and see
> what type of competition you are facing (assuming "help bot" is your
> moniker), and in your past 25 games, your highest rated opponent is
> 1767.
It is important to note that unlike at GetClub, at
RedHotPawn one starts off with a rating of 1200,
and the rating is "provisional" until you have
completed 20 games.
> Given that this is essentially correspondence chess, therefore highly
> inflated ratings (probably 200-300 points I imagine)
Where, of where, are you getting this stuff?
Here are some facts: although many players may
well treat these games seriously, setting up a
board for analysis, others like me do or indeed
can not. In my case, I am making moves on a
laptop while sitting in my vehicle, and there is
no way on Earth I am going to try and "analyze"
on a separate board, the way I used to when I
played correspondence chess. In fact, this is
worse that playing in an OTB tournament -- much
worse! In rare cases, I have been able to
connect from home, in which case I might
consider doing a bit of real analysis, moving
the pieces around, etc.
> , you are playing,
> at best, "C" players, and mostly patzers.
That is correct, and my games show it.
BTW, can you see my games?
> I see you are really taking on some top-notch competition - NOT.
I expect the top-notch competition is averse to
playing people like me, who started off at 1200
not long ago. I expect they wish to protect their
hard-earned ratings from those players who
might show up (at 1200) with Fritz.
> But that is ok. I hope you learned from your two losses there and seek
> tougher competition.
What I learned is that there are *dangerous*
players with not-so-high ratings at ReHot. One
of these, of course, would be me. : >D
>Try taking on players rated over 2000 (if they
> exist on that site?)
So, you don't even know whether such players
even exist, yet you are whining that I ought to be
playing them? Very interesting.
> or at least of 'similar strength' to yourself -
Are there players that strong? I thought they
were tied up with the Linares tourney... . ; >D
> your rating, that is. That is the path to improvement. You should
> realize, in your infinite wisdom, that a record of 23-2 you are
> playing down to the competition.
Ah, then you *can* see my games. Have a look,
and tell us what you find. I have so far been
called a "star", a "genious", and all sorts of
other names by those who have seen my games,
or who are exceedingly jealous of me. One of
these guys is so jealous of my talent that he
remains in a perpetual state of denial, insisting
that I do not play chess.
> You might want to fix that, if your ego can take it, that is.
"Ego? I have no ego." -- anon.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 30 Mar 2007 12:41:53
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
On 30, 3:12 pm, "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 30, 1:47 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> --nothing of note--
>
> I see the nearly-got-away-with-it IM-not still
> chooses the path of bragging that he is way up
> there, though now revised somewhat downward
> to "only" 2250. Perhaps this is some strange
> manifestation of ratings deflation, as seen
> through the eyes of self-delusional psychosis?
>
> In any case, the proof is in the pudding, and I
> remain on top at GetClub, despite an inability
> to even play! A short time ago, there was quite
> a tussle over who was going to carry away the
> monthly prize, and I regret that I was unable to
> participate on account of my battery-depletion
> problems. Now that the program has once
> again been slowed down to a crawl, I expect
> this fight is over, whoever was leading having
> effectively clinched the prize.
>
> At RedHotPawn things are much tougher: I
> lost two games already, very possibly on
> account of my not-so-highly-rated opponents
> getting computer help, though as yet I don't
> know. But here's the funny part: not one
> single draw!
>
> Am I being too harsh, too mean? Okay, here
> is my offer: let the nearly-an-IM turned only
> 2250 post a link to his USCF rating, where we
> can all see how he has improved of late to the
> tune of 2250-dom. IMO, it is not possible. (The
> games analysis I have seen convinces me that
> IM Innes is barely able to see the position, let
> alone the possibilities! Seriously, they really
> are farrrrrrrrrrr out there.)
>
> The sad part is, this thread was started with
> the idea of quickly retrieving a move or two to
> "plug in" to Sanny's chess program, which is
> completely wrongheaded. Even so, were PI to
> take the job he would likely be so vague and
> incomprehensible as to leave Sanny in the
> dark as to what move to plug in at just move 2.
> LOL
>
> -- help bot
Well, this is fascinating. I just *had* to inquire RedHotPawn and see
what type of competition you are facing (assuming "help bot" is your
moniker), and in your past 25 games, your highest rated opponent is
1767.
Given that this is essentially correspondence chess, therefore highly
inflated ratings (probably 200-300 points I imagine), you are playing,
at best, "C" players, and mostly patzers.
I see you are really taking on some top-notch competition - NOT.
But that is ok. I hope you learned from your two losses there and seek
tougher competition. Try taking on players rated over 2000 (if they
exist on that site?) or at least of 'similar strength' to yourself -
your rating, that is. That is the path to improvement. You should
realize, in your infinite wisdom, that a record of 23-2 you are
playing down to the competition.
You might want to fix that, if your ego can take it, that is.
|
| |
Date: 30 Mar 2007 12:12:27
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
On 30, 1:47 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
--nothing of note--
I see the nearly-got-away-with-it IM-not still
chooses the path of bragging that he is way up
there, though now revised somewhat downward
to "only" 2250. Perhaps this is some strange
manifestation of ratings deflation, as seen
through the eyes of self-delusional psychosis?
In any case, the proof is in the pudding, and I
remain on top at GetClub, despite an inability
to even play! A short time ago, there was quite
a tussle over who was going to carry away the
monthly prize, and I regret that I was unable to
participate on account of my battery-depletion
problems. Now that the program has once
again been slowed down to a crawl, I expect
this fight is over, whoever was leading having
effectively clinched the prize.
At RedHotPawn things are much tougher: I
lost two games already, very possibly on
account of my not-so-highly-rated opponents
getting computer help, though as yet I don't
know. But here's the funny part: not one
single draw!
Am I being too harsh, too mean? Okay, here
is my offer: let the nearly-an-IM turned only
2250 post a link to his USCF rating, where we
can all see how he has improved of late to the
tune of 2250-dom. IMO, it is not possible. (The
games analysis I have seen convinces me that
IM Innes is barely able to see the position, let
alone the possibilities! Seriously, they really
are farrrrrrrrrrr out there.)
The sad part is, this thread was started with
the idea of quickly retrieving a move or two to
"plug in" to Sanny's chess program, which is
completely wrongheaded. Even so, were PI to
take the job he would likely be so vague and
incomprehensible as to leave Sanny in the
dark as to what move to plug in at just move 2.
LOL
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 30 Mar 2007 23:35:10
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
>
> Am I being too harsh, too mean? Okay, here
> is my offer: let the nearly-an-IM turned only
> 2250 post a link to his USCF rating, where we
> can all see how he has improved of late to the
> tune of 2250-dom. IMO, it is not possible. (The
> games analysis I have seen convinces me that
> IM Innes is barely able to see the position, let
> alone the possibilities! Seriously, they really
> are farrrrrrrrrrr out there.)
>
You should join the next RGC tourny on chessworld.net
J.Lohner
Chessworld.net 'Inconnux'
|
| |
Date: 30 Mar 2007 09:36:09
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
On 30, 9:58 am, "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 29, 9:17 am, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Your 'admiration' for "IM Innes" is growing thin.
>
> Actually, it has not changed much over time.
> Starting from a very low position, it did fall just
> a tad when I learned that he flat-out lied in the
> Shakespeare forum about his supposed title
> and rating. I'd say it moved less than an inch.
>
> > The move is obviously playable. It sacrifices nothing more than a
> > single tempo at worst.
>
> Sacrifices is an odd word choice. "Throws away"
> would seem more apt here.
>
> > It does not deserve your "?!". GM Ian
> > Neponiachtchi played it against Tomashevsky in the Russian
> > Championship Superfinal in 2006, and played it 3 times in the 6th
> > Aeroflot Festival against Harikrishna, Sargissian, and Vallejos-Pons.
>
> I remember them well! After leading the first
> six rounds, I took ill and began to lose game
> after game, ultimately finishing twelve points
> behind the winner, GM Nonesuchperson. The
> worst part is, there were only thirteen rounds!
>
> > If it is such a bad move, why would a GM be playing it at top-level
> > events?
>
> Many GM games are played after the winners
> have already been decided, and those bringing
> up the rear may wish to rest or avoid giving
> away any more of their openings prep. Thus,
> we get a lot of silly games from these guys,
> many of them draws.
>
> > Although his results were tepid (=2-2), he did not lose the
> > games from the opening.
>
> So?
>
> > Second, 2.d4 is NOT a sacrifice. White can reply 3.Qxd4 after
> > 2...exd4.
>
> Well done, grasshopper. Soon you will be
> able to calculate even deeper combinations,
> and ultimately, take on the sinister IM Innes
> himself!
>
> > As you'll note, I said "at worst it might get a '!?'". It is up to you
> > to explain why 2.d4 gets a "?!" which you haven't done in the least
>
> Because the best you can do here is transpose
> into a Scotch, which is okay. However, if you
> believe GM Kasparov, the QG has more pull.
> If I had my handy-dandy openings manual with
> me, I would look up the Scotch and tell whether
> it leads to any edge for White. My guess is that
> it fell out of favor because it doesn't. Mostly, it
> is played for surprise value, which is to say, to
> throw off the all-booked-up players who are not
> expecting it.
It is played frequently at the club level. And there are *many* valid
reasonsw why white may play this opening: To avoid the theoretical Ruy
Lopez; To Avoid the very drawish Petroff Defense; To take the fight
directly to black. Of course, you really have not explained why you
call it a dubious move. The giving away of a tempo is hardly a reason
- there are many, many openings that do the same.
>
> From my experience playing Black, there are
> plenty of openings where achieving equality is
> no easy task, even if you play the main lines.
> But most of the hyperactive gambits fall into
> this category. If you recall, the game we were
> looking at was an attempt at a Danish Gambit
> -- *not* a Scotch Game. Black mucked things
> up with ...Nc6.
>
> > bit...except for saying that 2.Nf3 is 'better'. Obviously. But a
> > 'better' move in itself does not make another a dubious move.
>
> Right. For instance, both moves might win.
>
> I also commented on 3.c3, saying that the
> *pieces* can move, too. This was intended to
> point out the fact that White had made three
> pawn moves in a row -- a fact that might go
> unnoticed if the "trend" were not to continue
> any further. BTW, I have won games in which
> I moved nothing but pawns, but that was done
> deliberately. Invariably, the opponent traps or
> forks one of his own pieces by an unwise
> attack.
Of course, I'm not talking about 3.c3...but don't let the facts tget
in the way. Please continue.
>
> > I myself play 2.Nf3 and never said [that] 2.d4 was 'the best move', and as
> > usual, you [insolently] slide words into peoples mouths [sideways] to forward your non-
> > argument [because you are a jackass]. Explain to us why 2.d4 is a dubious move.
Yes, that is what I meant. Especially the 'Jackass' part.
>
> As I recall, it was someone else who appended
> an inapt punctuation to this move, and I reacted by
> offering a "?!" in its stead. Perhaps you want it
> moved down to the next move, on account of the
> possibility of transposition to a Scotch? Perhaps
> the Scotch leads to an edge for White, or perhaps
> not, but the game in question was not a Scotch.
> And the "!?" notation tells us only that the
> annotator likes wild gambit-style play.
You are fixated on this Scotch thing...do you have a drinking problem?
Are you drunk now?
>
> > I would guess
> > that, you playing black, could not do much better than 50% against
> > similar strength competition against it.
>
> Irrelevant. I do not play the double Kings pawn
> games very often, so you should realize that my
> strength and my results are derived mostly from
> other openings. Besides, there are precious few
> players of "similar strength". IMO, these openings
> are not difficult so long as you keep in mind the
> ideas developed by Paul Morphy: rapid development,
> King safety, avoid weakening pawn moves like ...h6
> or h3.
If you do not play 1...e5 in response to 1.e4, then your opinion is
clearly sophomoric regarding the Center Game. Regarding 'similar
strength', I suppose you would deny that two mature players rated
within 100 points of each other are not of similar strength?
Amazing...I await your refutation of Quantum Mechanics, The Sicilian
Defense, and the NimzoIndian as well...
>
> > Addditionally [he stuttered], and this is hardly scientific or complete, but
> > Chessgames.com gives the following stats:
> > Center Game
> > White wins 54.9%
> > Black wins 30.5%
> > Draws 14.6%
>
> Okay, but as was pointed out in the discussion
> regarding Black is OK, you have not defined the
> database nor do we know if it includes simuls.
I did define it, oh Great Help Bot. == >Chessgames.com<==. It may
include simuls, it may not. That is for you to determine.
> If it does, the stats. are going to be horribly
> skewed. From what I have seen, even databases
> which are sold commercially are really mucked
> up, including duplicates, illegal moves, and so
> forth.
Naturally I should have realized that you posess the only legitimate
chess games database the world has seen. If that is so, please publish
the numbers for us so we can further our education.
>
> > Of course, this is just this Class A players opinion, GM help bot.
>
> Don't be so hard on yourself. Getting to Class A
> means we are in the top 10% of all tournament
"We"? I really doubt you are a class A player. Maybe "C" at best...do
you even play OTB chess?
> players, and this doesn't even account for those
> players who are not rated! From here, it is only
> a hop, skip and a jump to becoming a nearly-an-
> insane IM like Phil Innes... .
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 30 Mar 2007 06:58:57
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
On 29, 9:17 am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Your 'admiration' for "IM Innes" is growing thin.
Actually, it has not changed much over time.
Starting from a very low position, it did fall just
a tad when I learned that he flat-out lied in the
Shakespeare forum about his supposed title
and rating. I'd say it moved less than an inch.
> The move is obviously playable. It sacrifices nothing more than a
> single tempo at worst.
Sacrifices is an odd word choice. "Throws away"
would seem more apt here.
> It does not deserve your "?!". GM Ian
> Neponiachtchi played it against Tomashevsky in the Russian
> Championship Superfinal in 2006, and played it 3 times in the 6th
> Aeroflot Festival against Harikrishna, Sargissian, and Vallejos-Pons.
I remember them well! After leading the first
six rounds, I took ill and began to lose game
after game, ultimately finishing twelve points
behind the winner, GM Nonesuchperson. The
worst part is, there were only thirteen rounds!
> If it is such a bad move, why would a GM be playing it at top-level
> events?
Many GM games are played after the winners
have already been decided, and those bringing
up the rear may wish to rest or avoid giving
away any more of their openings prep. Thus,
we get a lot of silly games from these guys,
many of them draws.
> Although his results were tepid (=2-2), he did not lose the
> games from the opening.
So?
> Second, 2.d4 is NOT a sacrifice. White can reply 3.Qxd4 after
> 2...exd4.
Well done, grasshopper. Soon you will be
able to calculate even deeper combinations,
and ultimately, take on the sinister IM Innes
himself!
> As you'll note, I said "at worst it might get a '!?'". It is up to you
> to explain why 2.d4 gets a "?!" which you haven't done in the least
Because the best you can do here is transpose
into a Scotch, which is okay. However, if you
believe GM Kasparov, the QG has more pull.
If I had my handy-dandy openings manual with
me, I would look up the Scotch and tell whether
it leads to any edge for White. My guess is that
it fell out of favor because it doesn't. Mostly, it
is played for surprise value, which is to say, to
throw off the all-booked-up players who are not
expecting it.
From my experience playing Black, there are
plenty of openings where achieving equality is
no easy task, even if you play the main lines.
But most of the hyperactive gambits fall into
this category. If you recall, the game we were
looking at was an attempt at a Danish Gambit
-- *not* a Scotch Game. Black mucked things
up with ...Nc6.
> bit...except for saying that 2.Nf3 is 'better'. Obviously. But a
> 'better' move in itself does not make another a dubious move.
Right. For instance, both moves might win.
I also commented on 3.c3, saying that the
*pieces* can move, too. This was intended to
point out the fact that White had made three
pawn moves in a row -- a fact that might go
unnoticed if the "trend" were not to continue
any further. BTW, I have won games in which
I moved nothing but pawns, but that was done
deliberately. Invariably, the opponent traps or
forks one of his own pieces by an unwise
attack.
> I myself play 2.Nf3 and never said [that] 2.d4 was 'the best move', and as
> usual, you [insolently] slide words into peoples mouths [sideways] to forward your non-
> argument [because you are a jackass]. Explain to us why 2.d4 is a dubious move.
As I recall, it was someone else who appended
an inapt punctuation to this move, and I reacted by
offering a "?!" in its stead. Perhaps you want it
moved down to the next move, on account of the
possibility of transposition to a Scotch? Perhaps
the Scotch leads to an edge for White, or perhaps
not, but the game in question was not a Scotch.
And the "!?" notation tells us only that the
annotator likes wild gambit-style play.
> I would guess
> that, you playing black, could not do much better than 50% against
> similar strength competition against it.
Irrelevant. I do not play the double Kings pawn
games very often, so you should realize that my
strength and my results are derived mostly from
other openings. Besides, there are precious few
players of "similar strength". IMO, these openings
are not difficult so long as you keep in mind the
ideas developed by Paul Morphy: rapid development,
King safety, avoid weakening pawn moves like ...h6
or h3.
> Addditionally [he stuttered], and this is hardly scientific or complete, but
> Chessgames.com gives the following stats:
> Center Game
> White wins 54.9%
> Black wins 30.5%
> Draws 14.6%
Okay, but as was pointed out in the discussion
regarding Black is OK, you have not defined the
database nor do we know if it includes simuls.
If it does, the stats. are going to be horribly
skewed. From what I have seen, even databases
which are sold commercially are really mucked
up, including duplicates, illegal moves, and so
forth.
> Of course, this is just this Class A players opinion, GM help bot.
Don't be so hard on yourself. Getting to Class A
means we are in the top 10% of all tournament
players, and this doesn't even account for those
players who are not rated! From here, it is only
a hop, skip and a jump to becoming a nearly-an-
insane IM like Phil Innes... .
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 30 Mar 2007 17:47:44
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 29, 9:17 am, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > Your 'admiration' for "IM Innes" is growing thin.
>
> Actually, it has not changed much over time.
> Starting from a very low position, it did fall just
> a tad when I learned that he flat-out lied in the
> Shakespeare forum about his supposed title
> and rating. I'd say it moved less than an inch.
I think you have to be a mendacious twit on the Brennan-scale to come to
that conclusion - but given that that is entirely possible that that is a
prefererence, and since reputation is so important [to you!] I note I am
playing 2250 level at the moment while you are playing 1000-rated Sanny, and
I wrote to correct what Brennun had 'understood' about a chess painting
[utter nonsense], which of course he loved me for.
Can your own attitude be at all related? Everything you dislike seems to be
about players with more skill than yourself, and it is your endless topic
'to bring them down to size' ROFL While at the same time telling others how
to get better.
:)
But please - not down to your size!
You are so proud of it you think talking others down makes you big! What
massive self-conceit!
You will never be a greater player than you are because you are so AFRAID of
being wrong <horror! >. Only good players make mistakes all the time - and no
mistakes means no learning and no improvement. Get over that, and then tell
us about your insights into not-good-enough-for-me! Kasparov, and that
patzer, Fischer.
But I don't think you'll change since you can't even own your own name,
nevermind volunteer something of your own in chess which you can
self-criticize.
Content with being a B player bitch? yeah, I think so ;)
Getting better is nothing to do with book cramming and theoretical lines,
memorised aforehand, you gotta do something over the board and that takes
kissing momma goodbye, risking losing in order to win [and what momma will
say about it], and it takes balls, bitch.
Phil Innes
>> The move is obviously playable. It sacrifices nothing more than a
>> single tempo at worst.
>
>
> Sacrifices is an odd word choice. "Throws away"
> would seem more apt here.
>
>> It does not deserve your "?!". GM Ian
>> Neponiachtchi played it against Tomashevsky in the Russian
>> Championship Superfinal in 2006, and played it 3 times in the 6th
>> Aeroflot Festival against Harikrishna, Sargissian, and Vallejos-Pons.
>
> I remember them well! After leading the first
> six rounds, I took ill and began to lose game
> after game, ultimately finishing twelve points
> behind the winner, GM Nonesuchperson. The
> worst part is, there were only thirteen rounds!
>
>
>
>> If it is such a bad move, why would a GM be playing it at top-level
>> events?
>
> Many GM games are played after the winners
> have already been decided, and those bringing
> up the rear may wish to rest or avoid giving
> away any more of their openings prep. Thus,
> we get a lot of silly games from these guys,
> many of them draws.
>
>
>> Although his results were tepid (=2-2), he did not lose the
>> games from the opening.
>
> So?
>
>
>> Second, 2.d4 is NOT a sacrifice. White can reply 3.Qxd4 after
>> 2...exd4.
>
> Well done, grasshopper. Soon you will be
> able to calculate even deeper combinations,
> and ultimately, take on the sinister IM Innes
> himself!
>
>
>> As you'll note, I said "at worst it might get a '!?'". It is up to you
>> to explain why 2.d4 gets a "?!" which you haven't done in the least
>
> Because the best you can do here is transpose
> into a Scotch, which is okay. However, if you
> believe GM Kasparov, the QG has more pull.
> If I had my handy-dandy openings manual with
> me, I would look up the Scotch and tell whether
> it leads to any edge for White. My guess is that
> it fell out of favor because it doesn't. Mostly, it
> is played for surprise value, which is to say, to
> throw off the all-booked-up players who are not
> expecting it.
>
> From my experience playing Black, there are
> plenty of openings where achieving equality is
> no easy task, even if you play the main lines.
> But most of the hyperactive gambits fall into
> this category. If you recall, the game we were
> looking at was an attempt at a Danish Gambit
> -- *not* a Scotch Game. Black mucked things
> up with ...Nc6.
>
>
>> bit...except for saying that 2.Nf3 is 'better'. Obviously. But a
>> 'better' move in itself does not make another a dubious move.
>
> Right. For instance, both moves might win.
>
> I also commented on 3.c3, saying that the
> *pieces* can move, too. This was intended to
> point out the fact that White had made three
> pawn moves in a row -- a fact that might go
> unnoticed if the "trend" were not to continue
> any further. BTW, I have won games in which
> I moved nothing but pawns, but that was done
> deliberately. Invariably, the opponent traps or
> forks one of his own pieces by an unwise
> attack.
>
>
>> I myself play 2.Nf3 and never said [that] 2.d4 was 'the best move', and
>> as
>> usual, you [insolently] slide words into peoples mouths [sideways] to
>> forward your non-
>> argument [because you are a jackass]. Explain to us why 2.d4 is a dubious
>> move.
>
> As I recall, it was someone else who appended
> an inapt punctuation to this move, and I reacted by
> offering a "?!" in its stead. Perhaps you want it
> moved down to the next move, on account of the
> possibility of transposition to a Scotch? Perhaps
> the Scotch leads to an edge for White, or perhaps
> not, but the game in question was not a Scotch.
> And the "!?" notation tells us only that the
> annotator likes wild gambit-style play.
>
>
>
>> I would guess
>> that, you playing black, could not do much better than 50% against
>> similar strength competition against it.
>
> Irrelevant. I do not play the double Kings pawn
> games very often, so you should realize that my
> strength and my results are derived mostly from
> other openings. Besides, there are precious few
> players of "similar strength". IMO, these openings
> are not difficult so long as you keep in mind the
> ideas developed by Paul Morphy: rapid development,
> King safety, avoid weakening pawn moves like ...h6
> or h3.
>
>
>> Addditionally [he stuttered], and this is hardly scientific or complete,
>> but
>> Chessgames.com gives the following stats:
>> Center Game
>> White wins 54.9%
>> Black wins 30.5%
>> Draws 14.6%
>
> Okay, but as was pointed out in the discussion
> regarding Black is OK, you have not defined the
> database nor do we know if it includes simuls.
> If it does, the stats. are going to be horribly
> skewed. From what I have seen, even databases
> which are sold commercially are really mucked
> up, including duplicates, illegal moves, and so
> forth.
>
>
>> Of course, this is just this Class A players opinion, GM help bot.
>
> Don't be so hard on yourself. Getting to Class A
> means we are in the top 10% of all tournament
> players, and this doesn't even account for those
> players who are not rated! From here, it is only
> a hop, skip and a jump to becoming a nearly-an-
> insane IM like Phil Innes... .
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 30 Mar 2007 05:50:48
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
On 30, 8:22 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> If you think so, please explain
> >> why the top players prefer Nf3, 'cause I think
> >> we all could use a good chess lesson from
> >> somebody who knows everything. ;>D
>
> > Just out of curiosity, do you feel that black has something better than
> > transposing back into a scotch with the move order 1.e4 e5 2.d4 ed 3.Nf3
> > Nc6 - ?
>
> I looked at 3. ... d5, 3. ... c5 and 3. ...Bb4+ as tactical ideas rather
> than b6 & Bb7 as a strategic one.
>
> Looks like white's most challenging line against
>
> 3. ... d5 is 4. Qxd4 then 4. ... de?! 5. Qxe4+ [the Q exchange is the
> challenge for black, but looks okay since he keeps his extra pawn a long
> time otherwise the capturing knight can itself be pinned if it tries Ng5 ~
> Nxe4] then black has draw options after Qe7, or can play for more after Be7
>
> 3. ... c5 holds the pawn [which neverthless can be and aughta be returned at
> the right point - but temporarily restricts Nc3 and support of the e-pawn]
> and does white play 4. c3 because 4. ... d5
>
> 3. ...Bb4+ allows a pawn ex if c3, then the B retreats to e7 having gained a
> tempo on other lines - and if 4. Bd2 Qe7
>
> this are rather cursory examinations - and maybe there are some sharp
> continuations for each colour and each line worth giving a try OTB?
>
> Phil
>
>
>
> > I don't, which makes this a very logical move-order for somebody who
> > intends to play the scotch. But I'm open to the possibility that I might
> > be missing something.
>
> > -Ron- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You missed the two more popular continuations. After 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4
3.Nf3 Black has
3...d6 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Be7 6.Be2 0-0 7.0-0 Re8
Or
3...Nf6 4.e5 Ne4 5.Qxd4 d5 6.exd6 Nxd6 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.Qf4 g6 9.Bd2 Bg7
10.0-0-0 Be6 11.Bd3 0-0
As two main lines he can continue with. Both look 'playable' to me.
Regards,
k
|
| | |
Date: 30 Mar 2007 17:25:36
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 30, 8:22 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> If you think so, please explain
>> >> why the top players prefer Nf3, 'cause I think
>> >> we all could use a good chess lesson from
>> >> somebody who knows everything. ;>D
>>
>> > Just out of curiosity, do you feel that black has something better than
>> > transposing back into a scotch with the move order 1.e4 e5 2.d4 ed
>> > 3.Nf3
>> > Nc6 - ?
>>
>> I looked at 3. ... d5, 3. ... c5 and 3. ...Bb4+ as tactical ideas rather
>> than b6 & Bb7 as a strategic one.
>>
>> Looks like white's most challenging line against
>>
>> 3. ... d5 is 4. Qxd4 then 4. ... de?! 5. Qxe4+ [the Q exchange is the
>> challenge for black, but looks okay since he keeps his extra pawn a long
>> time otherwise the capturing knight can itself be pinned if it tries Ng5
>> ~
>> Nxe4] then black has draw options after Qe7, or can play for more after
>> Be7
>>
>> 3. ... c5 holds the pawn [which neverthless can be and aughta be returned
>> at
>> the right point - but temporarily restricts Nc3 and support of the
>> e-pawn]
>> and does white play 4. c3 because 4. ... d5
>>
>> 3. ...Bb4+ allows a pawn ex if c3, then the B retreats to e7 having
>> gained a
>> tempo on other lines - and if 4. Bd2 Qe7
>>
>> this are rather cursory examinations - and maybe there are some sharp
>> continuations for each colour and each line worth giving a try OTB?
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>> > I don't, which makes this a very logical move-order for somebody who
>> > intends to play the scotch. But I'm open to the possibility that I
>> > might
>> > be missing something.
>>
>> > -Ron- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You missed the two more popular continuations. After 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4
> 3.Nf3 Black has
>
> 3...d6 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Be7 6.Be2 0-0 7.0-0 Re8
Sure. d6 is as solid as a rock. but I thought about alternatives to shutting
in the KB
> Or
>
> 3...Nf6 4.e5 Ne4 5.Qxd4 d5 6.exd6 Nxd6 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.Qf4 g6 9.Bd2 Bg7
> 10.0-0-0 Be6 11.Bd3 0-0
>
> As two main lines he can continue with. Both look 'playable' to me.
yup. overall i would rather be white in both - but with this opening i think
white is getting away with something, and want to investigate it! ;)
Phil
> Regards,
> k
>
|
| |
Date: 29 Mar 2007 21:57:43
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
On 29, 5:21 pm, Ron <[email protected] > wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > If you think so, please explain
> > why the top players prefer Nf3, 'cause I think
> > we all could use a good chess lesson from
> > somebody who knows everything. ;>D
>
> Just out of curiosity, do you feel that black has something better than
> transposing back into a scotch with the move order 1.e4 e5 2.d4 ed 3.Nf3
> Nc6 - ?
No. From my perspective, most of these bozo
gambits have already been analyzed to the point
of near-extinction, for even those who never play
1.e4 may well be familiar with a refutation from
simply reading Chess Life, for instance, which
has covered this stuff a hundred times.
> I don't, which makes this a very logical move-order for somebody who
> intends to play the scotch. But I'm open to the possibility that I might
> be missing something.
Perhaps you are missing the overwhelming
popularity of the Sicilian Defense, which means
that your intended line is thwarted at move one?
: >D
Back when I played OTB, there were few strong
players in my area who played the double KP
openings, and those who did would hardly be
surprised by a Scotch. OTOH, many of the
weaker players who had learned about the
openings from old books, often in descriptive
notation, still clung to the old style chess, and
these are the ones against whom the Danish
Gambit, for instance, would have been an
effective weapon; but only if sprung on them
by surprise, for anybody can look up the main
line and thereby let the air out of the attacker's
balloon. And many of the average-strength
tournament players would be able to recall
such a line from memory at the board.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 29 Mar 2007 06:29:13
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
On 29, 7:56 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > We had been discussing the line:
>
> > 1.e4 e5
>
> > 2.d4 ed
>
> > ...in which case, your 3.Nc3 would hang a piece.
>
> > Maybe you meant 3. ...Nc6 instead, as after 3.c3?
>
> > IM Innes' move: 3.c3 "d3!", still allows a "normal"
> > development of White's QN after the advance c4,
> > and of course the Black pawn on the d3 square is
> > dead meat.
>
> So Black has achieved a position where he can conduct an English style
> defence with b6, attaining two good bishop diagonals against an absent white
> d pawn, which allows him to immediately capture the initiative after Bb7 and
> possibly with f5 ?!, (and maybe even including Miles' move Qh4
...winning easily. Oops, you forgot to let White make
any more moves! Maybe we should alternate, one
move for White, a move for Black, then another move
for White, then another for Black, like in real life,eh? ; >D
> if no Nf3
> appears immediately. [White often prefers Pf3] In which case black has an
> immediate kitchen sink attack, and throws everything down the K side to at
> least achieve massive spatial advantage out-weighing whites control of
> central light-squares, at no cost in material).
I immediately noticed a plethora of attacking
possiblities for Black against this oczy-bind
--not!-- setup. Indeed, fixing the pawns like this
(i.e.: 1.e4 e5 2.d4 ed 3.c3 d3 4.c4) allows Black
a free hand in choosing how best to work around
or apply pressure to them.
> The black Q knight can also develop normally to c6 and then exchange via Nb4
> for the white-squared bishop on d3 and control/occupy d5.
Um, no. Even if Black goes ...Nc6, ...Nb4, and ...Nxd3,
White will invariably *recapture* this piece thus quashing
any hopes of its further exploits, such as **insanely**
occupying d5, or even the more rational control of this
square from a safe distance. (Perhaps you missed the
subtle problem with occupying a square that is attacked
by not one, but TWO enemy pawns? Even against
Sanny's weakest level, this can be quite suicidal.)
Granted, there was that one game where Frank
shall successfully occupied a square attacked by
THREE enemy pawns... .
> Black is a tempo
> ahead at move 7 - no weaknesses, can castle either side, and does not suffer
> any threats!
And what's more, if White is not allowed any
moves Black will most likely win, and how!
> Any black knight appearing on c3 is pinned Bb4,
Um, no. Any Black Knight which somehow finds
itself on c3 will mercilessly be captured by the
White pawn on b2, long before he can be "pinned",
as you call it, by the move ...Bb4 (which BTW is
not a pin, as one can only pin pieces of the opposite
color). I will cover pins in a separate lesson.
> otherwise the
> black black-squared bishop can sit on c5, d6 [!] e7 - or play wait and see,
> while castling 0-0-0.
Um, no. Castling -- to either side -- involves not
the "black black-squared bishop", but rather the
King and one of the Rooks. It's a bit complicated,
so I will leave the details for another lesson. Suffice
it to say that the priy involvement as to Bishops
lay in their getting the heck out of the way!
> Easy game plan, no pressure, with black chosing the
> set-up.
Here you are right, except that Black has so
many choices against this setup that choosing
between them may prove anything but easy.
> Not bad easy-equality in less than 10 moves, even maintaining the
> initiative.
>
> White's moves are okay - but against active play it is white who is now
> fighting for equality, and indeed, against the f5 gambit,
I seriously doubt if White needs to fear any
...f5 gambit here.
> black punishes
> too-passive play - which white can continue by spending 4 moves castling on
> the Q side, or making his King a little protected target on the k side.
>
> Doesn't sound like a lot of fun unless you like to defend a lot.
I expect you might make more sense if you
tried to include the moves for BOTH sides and
not just one of them. In any case, the best line
would probably not involve any silly moves like
your ...Qh4 or even ...f5. At any rate, the point
is moot because the move p-c4 only arose in
response the comment that White's QN could
no longer develop "normally". This move may
not be best, and it certainly is not forced right
away. Likewise, the line where Black plays
...N-c6, ...Nb4, and then ...Nxd3 is anything
but relevant, since every decent chess player
knows to "guarde le leaper" via p-a3, or just
B-b1 after the silly assault: ...Nb4.
One major point is that Nc3 is not the only
"normal" development for this Knight. Consider
for instance the rough similarity to a Colle System
after: 1.e4 e5 2.d4 ed 3.c3 d3 4.Bxd3. In such
lines the QN is "normally" developed to d2, and
the pawn on c3 is used as a shelter for the KB,
which "normally" belongs right there, on d3.
But if you take nothing else away from this
lesson, let it be this: you can't just make moves
for one side and then pronounce him to stand
well. Both sides takes turns in chess!
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 29 Mar 2007 06:17:15
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
On 29, 12:50 am, "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 28, 4:45 pm, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 27, 9:15 pm, "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > d3!
>
> > > > > Then White Q knight cannot develop normally.
> > Just a note but there is nothing theoretically wrong with 1.e4 e5 2.d4
> > and does not deserve the "?!" laid upon it by help bot. At worst, it
> > might get "!?"...
>
> When you say that there is "nothing" wrong
> with the move, are you saying that it in no
> way gives up any advantage, or are you
> saying that it is "playable"? Obviously, White
> has an edge from the get-go and can get
> away with one inferior move without losing
> perforce, but that is not how I go about
> annotating games. No, if White has an edge
> I want him to keep it, and if he has a win I
> want him to keep that. If he is one tempo
> ahead he must try not to throw it away, etc.
>
> Your "!?" supposedly means an interesting
> move, which is quite irrelevant here. My "?!"
> means an inferior move, which is not the same
> as suggesting that it loses. IM Innes' "!" is
> supposed to mean a very good move, and
> it is not clear that this is warranted for d3.
>
> Oh, sure, the sacrifice 2.d4 is "interesting".
> It may even be fun to play. But is it the best
> move available? If you think so, please explain
> why the top players prefer Nf3, 'cause I think
> we all could use a good chess lesson from
> somebody who knows everything. ;>D
>
> -- help bot
Your 'admiration' for "IM Innes" is growing thin.
The move is obviously playable. It sacrifices nothing more than a
single tempo at worst. It does not deserve your "?!". GM Ian
Neponiachtchi played it against Tomashevsky in the Russian
Championship Superfinal in 2006, and played it 3 times in the 6th
Aeroflot Festival against Harikrishna, Sargissian, and Vallejos-Pons.
If it is such a bad move, why would a GM be playing it at top-level
events? Although his results were tepid (=2-2), he did not lose the
games from the opening.
Second, 2.d4 is NOT a sacrifice. White can reply 3.Qxd4 after
2...exd4.
As you'll note, I said "at worst it might get a '!?'". It is up to you
to explain why 2.d4 gets a "?!" which you haven't done in the least
bit...except for saying that 2.Nf3 is 'better'. Obviously. But a
'better' move in itself does not make another a dubious move.
I myself play 2.Nf3 and never said 2.d4 was 'the best move', and as
usual, you slide words into peoples mouths to forward your non-
argument. Explain to us why 2.d4 is a dubious move. I would guess
that, you playing black, could not do much better than 50% against
similar strength competition against it.
Addditionally, and this is hardly scientific or complete, but
Chessgames.com gives the following stats:
Center Game
White wins 54.9%
Black wins 30.5%
Draws 14.6%
Of course, this is just this Class A players opinion, GM help bot.
|
| |
Date: 29 Mar 2007 00:00:16
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
On 29, 2:45 am, "Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I found 3. .... N-c3 was played by Master level after thinking to
> higher depth. While When I replayed this game with Beginner Level it
> was killing the pawn with 3. ... dxc3
>
> May be on long calcuulation Master level found not accepting the pawn
> gambit as a better choice.
We had been discussing the line:
1.e4 e5
2.d4 ed
...in which case, your 3.Nc3 would hang a piece.
Maybe you meant 3. ...Nc6 instead, as after 3.c3?
IM Innes' move: 3.c3 "d3!", still allows a "normal"
development of White's QN after the advance c4,
and of course the Black pawn on the d3 square is
dead meat.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 29 Mar 2007 11:56:41
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 29, 2:45 am, "Sanny" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I found 3. .... N-c3 was played by Master level after thinking to
>> higher depth. While When I replayed this game with Beginner Level it
>> was killing the pawn with 3. ... dxc3
>>
>> May be on long calcuulation Master level found not accepting the pawn
>> gambit as a better choice.
>
> We had been discussing the line:
>
> 1.e4 e5
>
> 2.d4 ed
>
> ...in which case, your 3.Nc3 would hang a piece.
>
> Maybe you meant 3. ...Nc6 instead, as after 3.c3?
>
> IM Innes' move: 3.c3 "d3!", still allows a "normal"
> development of White's QN after the advance c4,
> and of course the Black pawn on the d3 square is
> dead meat.
So Black has achieved a position where he can conduct an English style
defence with b6, attaining two good bishop diagonals against an absent white
d pawn, which allows him to immediately capture the initiative after Bb7 and
possibly with f5 ?!, (and maybe even including Miles' move Qh4 if no Nf3
appears immediately. [White often prefers Pf3] In which case black has an
immediate kitchen sink attack, and throws everything down the K side to at
least achieve massive spatial advantage out-weighing whites control of
central light-squares, at no cost in material).
The black Q knight can also develop normally to c6 and then exchange via Nb4
for the white-squared bishop on d3 and control/occupy d5. Black is a tempo
ahead at move 7 - no weaknesses, can castle either side, and does not suffer
any threats! Any black knight appearing on c3 is pinned Bb4, otherwise the
black black-squared bishop can sit on c5, d6 [!] e7 - or play wait and see,
while castling 0-0-0. Easy game plan, no pressure, with black chosing the
set-up. Not bad easy-equality in less than 10 moves, even maintaining the
initiative.
White's moves are okay - but against active play it is white who is now
fighting for equality, and indeed, against the f5 gambit, black punishes
too-passive play - which white can continue by spending 4 moves castling on
the Q side, or making his King a little protected target on the k side.
Doesn't sound like a lot of fun unless you like to defend a lot.
Phil Innes
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 28 Mar 2007 23:45:52
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
> When you say that there is "nothing" wrong
> with the move, are you saying that it in no
> way gives up any advantage, or are you
> saying that it is "playable"? Obviously, White
> has an edge from the get-go and can get
> away with one inferior move without losing
> perforce, but that is not how I go about
> annotating games. No, if White has an edge
> I want him to keep it, and if he has a win I
> want him to keep that. If he is one tempo
> ahead he must try not to throw it away, etc.
>
I found 3. .... N-c3 was played by Master level after thinking to
higher depth. While When I replayed this game with Beginner Level it
was killing the pawn with 3. ... dxc3
May be on long calcuulation Master level found not accepting the pawn
gambit as a better choice.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 28 Mar 2007 21:59:20
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
On 28, 4:48 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Additionally, 3.c3 is the Danish Gambit and is completely playable at
> this level.
>
> "Pawns can move too!"
You know, the Fool's Mate is another of
those many lines that has a name. In fact,
it just occurred to me that having a name
doesn't really amount to anything, since
even the worst opening can have one.
IM Innes suggested the move d3 to thwart
the attacking idea of this gambit, adding that
White's QN can no longer develop normally.
Yet a decent player can see that after c4
the QN will in fact develop "normally".
I am not familiar with the precise level of
play to which you referred, but I would like to
point out that every reader of the miserable
publication Chess Life has probably seen
at least one "refutation" there over the years,
often as not, repeated again and again. In
other words, he may not know exactly why
the moves work, but he ought to have the
moves in his head from sheer repetition.
That can take the fun out of these hyper
gambits very quickly, like popping a balloon.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 28 Mar 2007 21:50:41
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
On 28, 4:45 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On 27, 9:15 pm, "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > d3!
>
> > > > Then White Q knight cannot develop normally.
> Just a note but there is nothing theoretically wrong with 1.e4 e5 2.d4
> and does not deserve the "?!" laid upon it by help bot. At worst, it
> might get "!?"...
When you say that there is "nothing" wrong
with the move, are you saying that it in no
way gives up any advantage, or are you
saying that it is "playable"? Obviously, White
has an edge from the get-go and can get
away with one inferior move without losing
perforce, but that is not how I go about
annotating games. No, if White has an edge
I want him to keep it, and if he has a win I
want him to keep that. If he is one tempo
ahead he must try not to throw it away, etc.
Your "!?" supposedly means an interesting
move, which is quite irrelevant here. My "?!"
means an inferior move, which is not the same
as suggesting that it loses. IM Innes' "!" is
supposed to mean a very good move, and
it is not clear that this is warranted for d3.
Oh, sure, the sacrifice 2.d4 is "interesting".
It may even be fun to play. But is it the best
move available? If you think so, please explain
why the top players prefer Nf3, 'cause I think
we all could use a good chess lesson from
somebody who knows everything. ; >D
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 29 Mar 2007 14:21:31
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote:
> If you think so, please explain
> why the top players prefer Nf3, 'cause I think
> we all could use a good chess lesson from
> somebody who knows everything. ;>D
Just out of curiosity, do you feel that black has something better than
transposing back into a scotch with the move order 1.e4 e5 2.d4 ed 3.Nf3
Nc6 - ?
I don't, which makes this a very logical move-order for somebody who
intends to play the scotch. But I'm open to the possibility that I might
be missing something.
-Ron
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Mar 2007 12:22:44
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
"Ron" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> If you think so, please explain
>> why the top players prefer Nf3, 'cause I think
>> we all could use a good chess lesson from
>> somebody who knows everything. ;>D
>
> Just out of curiosity, do you feel that black has something better than
> transposing back into a scotch with the move order 1.e4 e5 2.d4 ed 3.Nf3
> Nc6 - ?
I looked at 3. ... d5, 3. ... c5 and 3. ...Bb4+ as tactical ideas rather
than b6 & Bb7 as a strategic one.
Looks like white's most challenging line against
3. ... d5 is 4. Qxd4 then 4. ... de?! 5. Qxe4+ [the Q exchange is the
challenge for black, but looks okay since he keeps his extra pawn a long
time otherwise the capturing knight can itself be pinned if it tries Ng5 ~
Nxe4] then black has draw options after Qe7, or can play for more after Be7
3. ... c5 holds the pawn [which neverthless can be and aughta be returned at
the right point - but temporarily restricts Nc3 and support of the e-pawn]
and does white play 4. c3 because 4. ... d5
3. ...Bb4+ allows a pawn ex if c3, then the B retreats to e7 having gained a
tempo on other lines - and if 4. Bd2 Qe7
this are rather cursory examinations - and maybe there are some sharp
continuations for each colour and each line worth giving a try OTB?
Phil
> I don't, which makes this a very logical move-order for somebody who
> intends to play the scotch. But I'm open to the possibility that I might
> be missing something.
>
> -Ron
|
| |
Date: 28 Mar 2007 13:48:55
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
On 28, 4:45 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On 27, 9:15 pm, "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 27, 6:07 pm, Ron <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > In article <XReOh.1622$Rp2.930@trndny04>,
> > > "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > d3!
>
> > > > Then White Q knight cannot develop normally.
>
> > > As someone who plays this sort of gambit frequently, I have to say that
> > > defenses that involve e5xd4-d3 don't really bother me. The QN will find
> > > a happy home after c4 and Nc3 (after which ...d5 is basically
> > > impossible) and a bishop on d3 can prove to be a dangerous attacking
> > > weapon after a well-timed e5! thrust.
>
> > > -Ron
>
> > Well, you need to understand that IM Innes is really a
> > mediocre player, and as such his "analysis" can't be expected
> > to amount to much.
>
> > For instance, the first bad move in this game was never
> > even mentioned! LOL
> > And Black's second blunder is equally ignored by the
> > famous nearly-an-IM as well.
>
> > OTOH, he did at least make an attempt to help poor
> > Sanny -- a player who is too weak to make heads or tails
> > of such a game by himself; this speaks to IM Innes' kind
> > heart, for even a duffer can at times be of use, so long as
> > he steers clear of those things which are quite beyond his
> > grasp.
>
> > ----------
>
> > Here is a very brief explanation of what seems to me to
> > be the issue here:
>
> > Freak vs. so-called Master level
> > ------------------------------------------------
>
> > 1.e4 e5 (Probably by rote.)
>
> > 2.d4?! (Take a pill!) ...ed (Good move.)
>
> > 3.c3 (The pieces are also allowed to move.) ...Nc6? (Guffaw.)
>
> > 4.cd (Good move.) ...d5 (Nimzowitch/Kilroy was here.)
>
> > 5.e5 (Not having a board set up, I am *guessing* that this
> > technically "releases the tension too soon", blah, blah.
> > Things could be much worse; for instance, see Black's third
> > move.)
>
> > ...Qh4?
>
> > Now this, in conjunction with the rest of the game,
> > CLEARLY indicates that the program has a serious problem
> > with aimlessly bouncing its Queen around in the opening.
>
> > Take heed: the Queen is much too important a piece to busy
> > herself like this over harrying lowly pawns! Her proper role is
> > to stay by her husband's side, watching over him until such
> > time as he retires to his castled position to sleep (often as
> > not, with one of the Rooks or a fianchettoed Bishop, but this
> > is no time to dwell on morality).
>
> > Okay, I don't want to come off as overly dogmatic, so I will
> > admit there are a few opening lines where an active Queen
> > snatches a pawn or two, but these generally are the exception,
> > not the rule. With Sanny's program, the rule is that even the
> > tiniest of crumbs are hotly pursued from the get-go, and her
> > royal status as Queen seems quite irrelevant. That is, if and
> > when the program makes sufficient progress to even detect
> > the presence of loose crumbs (or here, pawns).
>
> > So then, where does the Black Queen belong in this sort
> > of opening? Well, she looks quite comfortable on here
> > home square to me, on d8. Let the lower ranked officers
> > develop first, the Knights and Bishops. For instance, after
> > the pawns are established on d5 and e5, Black would like
> > to get his QB out to, say, f5 or g4 before advancing the
> > KP to e6 (to free the other Bishop).
>
> > -- help bot
>
> Just a note but there is nothing theoretically wrong with 1.e4 e5 2.d4
> and does not deserve the "?!" laid upon it by help bot. At worst, it
> might get "!?"...
>
> Regards,
> k- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Additionally, 3.c3 is the Danish Gambit and is completely playable at
this level.
"Pawns can move too!"
:)
|
| |
Date: 28 Mar 2007 13:45:59
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
On 27, 9:15 pm, "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 27, 6:07 pm, Ron <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article <XReOh.1622$Rp2.930@trndny04>,
> > "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > d3!
>
> > > Then White Q knight cannot develop normally.
>
> > As someone who plays this sort of gambit frequently, I have to say that
> > defenses that involve e5xd4-d3 don't really bother me. The QN will find
> > a happy home after c4 and Nc3 (after which ...d5 is basically
> > impossible) and a bishop on d3 can prove to be a dangerous attacking
> > weapon after a well-timed e5! thrust.
>
> > -Ron
>
> Well, you need to understand that IM Innes is really a
> mediocre player, and as such his "analysis" can't be expected
> to amount to much.
>
> For instance, the first bad move in this game was never
> even mentioned! LOL
> And Black's second blunder is equally ignored by the
> famous nearly-an-IM as well.
>
> OTOH, he did at least make an attempt to help poor
> Sanny -- a player who is too weak to make heads or tails
> of such a game by himself; this speaks to IM Innes' kind
> heart, for even a duffer can at times be of use, so long as
> he steers clear of those things which are quite beyond his
> grasp.
>
> ----------
>
> Here is a very brief explanation of what seems to me to
> be the issue here:
>
> Freak vs. so-called Master level
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> 1.e4 e5 (Probably by rote.)
>
> 2.d4?! (Take a pill!) ...ed (Good move.)
>
> 3.c3 (The pieces are also allowed to move.) ...Nc6? (Guffaw.)
>
> 4.cd (Good move.) ...d5 (Nimzowitch/Kilroy was here.)
>
> 5.e5 (Not having a board set up, I am *guessing* that this
> technically "releases the tension too soon", blah, blah.
> Things could be much worse; for instance, see Black's third
> move.)
>
> ...Qh4?
>
> Now this, in conjunction with the rest of the game,
> CLEARLY indicates that the program has a serious problem
> with aimlessly bouncing its Queen around in the opening.
>
> Take heed: the Queen is much too important a piece to busy
> herself like this over harrying lowly pawns! Her proper role is
> to stay by her husband's side, watching over him until such
> time as he retires to his castled position to sleep (often as
> not, with one of the Rooks or a fianchettoed Bishop, but this
> is no time to dwell on morality).
>
> Okay, I don't want to come off as overly dogmatic, so I will
> admit there are a few opening lines where an active Queen
> snatches a pawn or two, but these generally are the exception,
> not the rule. With Sanny's program, the rule is that even the
> tiniest of crumbs are hotly pursued from the get-go, and her
> royal status as Queen seems quite irrelevant. That is, if and
> when the program makes sufficient progress to even detect
> the presence of loose crumbs (or here, pawns).
>
> So then, where does the Black Queen belong in this sort
> of opening? Well, she looks quite comfortable on here
> home square to me, on d8. Let the lower ranked officers
> develop first, the Knights and Bishops. For instance, after
> the pawns are established on d5 and e5, Black would like
> to get his QB out to, say, f5 or g4 before advancing the
> KP to e6 (to free the other Bishop).
>
> -- help bot
Just a note but there is nothing theoretically wrong with 1.e4 e5 2.d4
and does not deserve the "?!" laid upon it by help bot. At worst, it
might get "!?"...
Regards,
k
|
| | |
Date: 28 Mar 2007 21:13:54
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Just a note but there is nothing theoretically wrong with 1.e4 e5 2.d4
> and does not deserve the "?!" laid upon it by help bot. At worst, it
> might get "!?"...
Indeed, but to do that, you'd have to give a !? to the Scotch, which
seems kind of silly.
The move order 1.e4 e5 2.d4 ed 3.Nf3 is recommended by some as a way to
get into the Scotch, because it's not clear that black has any
reasonable deviations at either move 2 or 3, and you avoid the Petroff.
Obviously, black doesn't have to cooperate, but I'm not sure any of his
deviations deserve better than a ?! themselves.
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 27 Mar 2007 18:15:47
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
On 27, 6:07 pm, Ron <[email protected] > wrote:
> In article <XReOh.1622$Rp2.930@trndny04>,
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > d3!
>
> > Then White Q knight cannot develop normally.
>
> As someone who plays this sort of gambit frequently, I have to say that
> defenses that involve e5xd4-d3 don't really bother me. The QN will find
> a happy home after c4 and Nc3 (after which ...d5 is basically
> impossible) and a bishop on d3 can prove to be a dangerous attacking
> weapon after a well-timed e5! thrust.
>
> -Ron
Well, you need to understand that IM Innes is really a
mediocre player, and as such his "analysis" can't be expected
to amount to much.
For instance, the first bad move in this game was never
even mentioned! LOL
And Black's second blunder is equally ignored by the
famous nearly-an-IM as well.
OTOH, he did at least make an attempt to help poor
Sanny -- a player who is too weak to make heads or tails
of such a game by himself; this speaks to IM Innes' kind
heart, for even a duffer can at times be of use, so long as
he steers clear of those things which are quite beyond his
grasp.
----------
Here is a very brief explanation of what seems to me to
be the issue here:
Freak vs. so-called Master level
------------------------------------------------
1.e4 e5 (Probably by rote.)
2.d4?! (Take a pill!) ...ed (Good move.)
3.c3 (The pieces are also allowed to move.) ...Nc6? (Guffaw.)
4.cd (Good move.) ...d5 (Nimzowitch/Kilroy was here.)
5.e5 (Not having a board set up, I am *guessing* that this
technically "releases the tension too soon", blah, blah.
Things could be much worse; for instance, see Black's third
move.)
...Qh4?
Now this, in conjunction with the rest of the game,
CLEARLY indicates that the program has a serious problem
with aimlessly bouncing its Queen around in the opening.
Take heed: the Queen is much too important a piece to busy
herself like this over harrying lowly pawns! Her proper role is
to stay by her husband's side, watching over him until such
time as he retires to his castled position to sleep (often as
not, with one of the Rooks or a fianchettoed Bishop, but this
is no time to dwell on morality).
Okay, I don't want to come off as overly dogmatic, so I will
admit there are a few opening lines where an active Queen
snatches a pawn or two, but these generally are the exception,
not the rule. With Sanny's program, the rule is that even the
tiniest of crumbs are hotly pursued from the get-go, and her
royal status as Queen seems quite irrelevant. That is, if and
when the program makes sufficient progress to even detect
the presence of loose crumbs (or here, pawns).
So then, where does the Black Queen belong in this sort
of opening? Well, she looks quite comfortable on here
home square to me, on d8. Let the lower ranked officers
develop first, the Knights and Bishops. For instance, after
the pawns are established on d5 and e5, Black would like
to get his QB out to, say, f5 or g4 before advancing the
KP to e6 (to free the other Bishop).
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 27 Mar 2007 20:09:27
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
"Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Here is game between Chess_Freak and Master Level at GetClub.com
> Chess.
>
> White: Chess_Freak
> Black: Master Level
>
> Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> 1. e4 e5
> 2. d4 exd4
> 3. c3 Nc6 {is it a wrong move by White/ Black?}
see below
> 4. cxd4 d5
> 5. e5 Qh4
> 6. Nf3 Qg4
> 7. Nc3 Bb4
> 8. Be3 Ne7
> 9. h3 Qe6
> 10. Bd3 f6
> 11. exf6 Qxf6
> 12. 0-0 h6
> 13. R-e1 0-0
> 14. Nh2 Bf5
> 15. a3 Bxc3
> 16. bxc3 Bxd3
> 17 Qxd3 Qg6
> 18. Qxg6 Nxg6
> 19. Nf3 R(a8)-e8
> 20. R(a1)-b1 R(e8)-b8
> 21. Re2 Rf6
> 22. R(b1)-e1 h5
> 23. B-d2 N-f8
> 24.Ne5 Rf5
> 25. Nxc6 bxc6
> 26. Re7 Rb2
> 27. R(e1)-e2 Rf7
> 28.Re5 Nd7
> 29. Re8+ Rf8
> 30. Bg5 Rb1
> 31. Kh2 Rf1
> 32. f3 a6
> 33. R(e8)-e7 R-f5
> 34. Bh4 Nf6
> 35. Rxc7 g5 {Master Level now a pawn down.}
> 36. Re7 Kf8
> 37. Rf7 Kg8
> 38. Rg7 Kh8 {Slowly moving king to corner.}
> 39. Bg3 h4
> 40. Be5 Ne8
> 41. Rh7 Kg8 {and Black Resigns.}
>
> Complete Recorded Game can be viewed at:
> http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM6988&game=Chess
>
> In this game initially White sacrificed a pawn at move 2 But I do not
> understand why Black exchanged pawns Instead of 3. ... Nc6 Black
> should have killed the pawn at c3 with 1 pawn material advantage.
Game may end sooner by taking the pawn. Approx 3 tempi = pawn. Also pawns
which cover king have special value, and moves which allow easy attack of
king have too. The e-pawn already moved twice, and rather than move again to
allow fast development of white pieces, it should give itself up by
advancing
d3!
Then White Q knight cannot develop normally.
Black's problems of tempii are then made worse by 2 queeen moves at 5 and 6
and another at 9 [= loss of 1 pawn] and another at 11. By move 11 White has
developed 4 minor pieces.
Phil
> Secondly Black allowed white rooks to attack it's Queen was there a
> way to stop the Rooks.
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>
> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
> You can play Chess with Computer as well as Human opponents here.
> And your Games are Recorded. http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
|
| | |
Date: 27 Mar 2007 22:07:24
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.
|
In article <XReOh.1622$Rp2.930@trndny04 >,
"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> d3!
>
> Then White Q knight cannot develop normally.
As someone who plays this sort of gambit frequently, I have to say that
defenses that involve e5xd4-d3 don't really bother me. The QN will find
a happy home after c4 and Nc3 (after which ...d5 is basically
impossible) and a bishop on d3 can prove to be a dangerous attacking
weapon after a well-timed e5! thrust.
-Ron
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 18:48:59
From: Amarande
Subject: Danish Gambit Declined with 3 ... d3 (was Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.)
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <XReOh.1622$Rp2.930@trndny04>,
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> d3!
>>
>> Then White Q knight cannot develop normally.
>
> As someone who plays this sort of gambit frequently, I have to say that
> defenses that involve e5xd4-d3 don't really bother me. The QN will find
> a happy home after c4 and Nc3 (after which ...d5 is basically
> impossible) and a bishop on d3 can prove to be a dangerous attacking
> weapon after a well-timed e5! thrust.
d3 has advantages written all over it.
It's hard to say if it's objectively better than e.g. 3 ... Nc6 or 3 ...
d5. However, there are several undeniable advantages to it -
* it prevents White from forming a classical center pawn-roller phalanx;
* White must either develop the QN to d2, or accept the consequences of
c4 (which does create a nice bind but also weakens d4 and loosens
White's Q side considerably, especially as in many cases Qc2 and Bd3
will be wanted, so a3 is also indicated in order to prevent ... Nb4, and
b3 to maintain the bind after ... b5).
* Capturing the pawn leaves White somewhat tangled as either Q or B will
probably have to move again, unless White plays e5. However, e5 may not
always be feasible, and may require a preceding f4, or the e5 pawn may
become weak and need support by f4. This gives Black attacking chances
as well, particularly if he posts his Bishops on b7 and c5 (against
which having the e5-f4 formation is decidedly dangerous, viz.
Rotlevi-Rubinstein where Rotlevi loses precisely because the Black
Bishops get entirely too much latitude against his K field) - there is
little help for this, as unlike Black, White is definitely going to have
to play O-O.
* There is also the psychological advantage as White has been diverted
from the 'normal' lines of play that involve either dxc3 or allowing
White the center phalanx.
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Apr 2007 16:56:35
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Danish Gambit Declined with 3 ... d3 (was Re: Tough Game Please Analyze.)
|
In article <[email protected] >,
Aande <[email protected] > wrote:
> * There is also the psychological advantage as White has been diverted
> from the 'normal' lines of play that involve either dxc3 or allowing
> White the center phalanx.
Obviously you make some good points, which is why the ... d3 defense is
pretty popular.
But, honestly, as a player of white in these lines, you'll see d3 almost
as often as you see dxc3. The notion that white is going to be in some
way unfamiliar or uncomfortable in the resulting positions is, in my
opinion, misguided.
You don't play those gambits if you aren't happy with the position after
the gambit is declined.
In my experience, white still has the better practical chances at the
class level because his attack based on central expansion is easier to
play. YMMV.
-Ron
|
|
