| |
Main
Date: 22 Dec 2006 22:21:32
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: analyzed game
|
Hello,
a young player (well, ... for me 20y is young) of my chessclub sent a
game to a chesssite which kindly offer a free analysis.
He has shown it to me and I think they wrote some interesting concepts
but in some aspects I disagree.
Anyone would like to post here something about that game?
Some days later I will post the chesssite analysis and then my comments
[Event "friendly game - slow control time"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2006.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "foment"]
[Black "minguell"]
[Result "0-1"]
1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 g6 4. c4 Bg7 5. cxd5 O-O 6. O-O Nxd5 7. Nc3
e5 8.Nxd5 Qxd5 9. d3 Nc6 10. Be3 Qd8 11. Qa4 Nd4 12. Nxd4 exd4 13. Bf4
c6 14. b4 Bg4 15. Rfe1 Re8 16. Qc2 Qd7 17. Rab1 Rad8 18. a4 a6 19. Qb2
h6 20. h4 Re7 21.Rbc1 Rde8 22. Rc2 Kh7 23. Bf1 Bf6 24. Qc1 Bg7 25. Qb2
f6 26. Rb1 g5 27. hxg5 fxg5 28. Bc1 Rf8 29. b5 Ref7 30. f4 Bh3 31. Bd2
Qg4 32. Kh2 Bxf1 33. Rxf1 Qxe2+ 34. Kg1 Qxd3 35. Bb4 Qxg3+ 36. Rg2 Qe3+
37. Rff2 Rxf4 38. Bd2 Qxf2+ 39. Rxf2 Rxf2 40. bxc6bxc6 41. Qb4 c5 42.Qa5
c4 0-1
|
|
| |
Date: 17 Jan 2007 02:16:20
From: Matt
Subject: Re: analyzed game
|
"Antonio Torrecillas" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hello,
>
> a young player (well, ... for me 20y is young) of my chessclub sent a
> game to a chesssite which kindly offer a free analysis.
>
> He has shown it to me and I think they wrote some interesting concepts
> but in some aspects I disagree.
>
> Anyone would like to post here something about that game?
> Some days later I will post the chesssite analysis and then my comments
>
Hi Antonio, I have written some commentary - added to the pgn. I am not a
Kasparov or anything, but I want to offer my thoughts in case they are of
help or at least of interest.
If there is one thing I do know about chess - you always have to strive to
understand more about the game. There are always layers of understanding of
which you just keep building upon each one.
I tend to notate by my personal thoughts rather than the standard ks,
because I don't consider myself at the level where those ks would be
accurate just yet.
Nice work by both players - they showed heart!
[Event "friendly game - slow control time"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2006.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "foment"]
[Black "minguell"]
[Result "0-1"]
1. Nf3
{Starting out with a modern opening with Reti or King Indian Attack
possibilities.}
1... d5 {Playing for an immediate Classical control of the center.} 2. g3
{Plans to apply hypermodern bishop control of center.} 2... Nf6
{Protecting d5 while striving to control the same light colored squares that
will soon be contended by Bg2, developing, making ready kingside castling
after e6 and Be7 or other B move.}
3. Bg2 g6
{This opening choice is a matter of taste, black prepares to fight in a
similiar manner in the center as white. Black has good scope for the
C-bishop and now aims to use the F-bishop to control the center and lend to
the fight which should take place queenside.}
4. c4
{This is a Reti-like development, similiar to the Queens Gambit idea, but
without the F-bishop in place to recapture and without the B-knight
developed to block a pawn advance after capture. I think 0-0 would have been
better to gain development and maintain a lead in tempo.}
4... Bg7 {Black proceeds towards completing king development via castling.}
5.
cxd5
{Losing development time and helping black to develop a piece forward - the
knight.}
5... O-O
{Black wastes no time and now is ready to develop pieces more freely. The
pawn on d5 is doubled and will cost white more time if trying to save it,
the effort would be futile as well, and the attempt would only assist blacks
development.}
6. O-O Nxd5
{Besides the piece capture the bishop eyes b2 and the rook after that. This
ties down the c1-bishop until the g7 bishop attack is either blocked or the
rook is moved.}
7. Nc3
{This does challenge the knight in the center, if an exchange, then white
can improve the center after Nd5xc3, bxc3. This would also give the rook the
half open b file. The only downside is the pawn majority of black vs the
lone a-pawn, which would also require constant supervisation to keep it on
the board.}
7... e5
{Black does not force a trade, but instead takes hold of more territory by
controlling d4 and f4. The game seems about even with both sides still
developing.}
8. Nxd5
{This move does prevent the lone a-pawn situtation. Qb3, Qc2 or Rb1 are some
other options. e2-e4 blocks the e5 pawn from attacking the knight, but
blocks the g2 bishop. d2-d4 is not good because of e5-e4. There are a few
problems that need resolved for white: moving the c1 bishop off the back
rank, and moving the a1 rook from the attacking bishop line.}
8... Qxd5
{The black queen enjoys some safety because of the missing b1 knight and
because the revealed attack via Nh4 or Ne1 do not really help white - they
can be done, but why? A problem for white may be e5-e4 followed by
f7-f5-f4.}
9. d3
{This frees the c1 bishop - good - and works against e5-e4 - also good.
White will want d2-e4 and Bc1-e3 followed by Qd1-d2 to setup a diagonal
attack via Be3-h6.}
9... Nc6
{Black is developing. The possibility of Nc6-d4 can be refuted by e2-e3,
which is better than Nf3xd4 because of e5xd4 which makes enpassant an
annoyance because it leaves an isolani (aka isolated pawn) at d3. Isolated
pawns can be good if pushed to the end, but that would be difficult here.}
10. Be3
{This move presumes Ra8-b8 perhaps? I don't like it because it blocks the e2
pawn which would be useful against the c6 knight.}
10... Qd8
{Black moves from the bishop line to a more secure position. Looks like a
good idea considering the two bishops attack lines and the knight.}
11. Qa4
{This move does not appear to accomplish anything. A move that does nothing
gives the opponent tempo, if the opponent can make a good followup move that
is...}
11... Nd4
{Notice the weakness left behind by the queen is now attacked by the knight
at e2.}
12. Nxd4
{That does solve that problem, but creates another where white loses tempo.}
12... exd4 13. Bf4
{Another problem for white is the lack of coordination of pieces. The queen
is not working with either bishop to attack, pin, or assist with a good pawn
move. The rooks are not using any open lines, which suggest moving pawns and
then exchanging pawns to try an open up some lines. White should try to gain
space, black should use the queenside pawn majority against white.}
13... c6
{This is probably a signal that the c8-bishop will be put to use soon, or
black will launch an avalance of pawns. Black will want to move the a8 rook
before doing that of course because of the bishop attack line.}
14. b4
{White feels a rambo-like instinct and acts on it. Maybe its not a bad idea,
but the queen in front of the pawns instead of behind looks akward.}
14... Bg4 {Black chips away at the weak spot in whites armour.} 15. Rfe1
{This is better than trading bishops or blocking via f2-f3, and also leaves
the possibility for opening up the e-file.}
15... Re8 {Black puts the pressure on.} 16. Qc2
{The pawn at e2 becomes a focal point with both sides holding even at the
moment.}
16... Qd7
{Black may intend to double the rooks on the e file, good for black, bad for
white.}
17. Rab1
{White may intend to push e2-e3 and prepares the rook in case an enpassant
opens up the bishop attack line from g7.}
17... Rad8 {Not as good a move as Re8-e7 followed by Ra8-e8.} 18. a4 a6 19.
Qb2
{A queenside battle ensues. Black has the majority but could use a little
reinforcement from behind.}
19... h6
{Possibly a defense against Bf4-g5 attacking the rook, which looks like it
would do black a favor by suggesting the rook move to a better square, such
as b8. This move does not appear to do much.}
20. h4
{One bad move deserves another? This move opens up a lot of territory around
the king, which usually has bad results.}
20... Re7
{Black decides to focus an attack on e2 and prepares for the doubling of the
rooks.}
21. Rbc1 {White proposes Rc1-c2 to defend the e2 pawn.} 21... Rde8 22. Rc2
Kh7
{Black senses the danger of Qb2-c1 which engages an attack on h6.} 23. Bf1
{White works to overprotect the pawn in an attempt to force black to switch
to a different plan. There are a variety of options for both sides here
having a bit of risk involved that could open up attacks against either
king.}
23... Bf6
{Black seems interested in losing the pawns around the king by g6-g5, h4xg5,
h6xg5 or similiar. Looks like a risky idea, but it does still have some
merit if black can open up lines for the rooks and attack with the queen, it
may actually work. So black has a plan, but does white see it? and what is
whites plan? It looks like white is in a defensive position and lacks the
coordination of pieces for an attack. The biggest problem is the rooks have
no clear paths.}
24. Qc1
{White tries to affect the outcome of blacks plan, but Re8-g8 will make that
difficult.}
24... Bg7 {Black overlooks a winning idea and assumes a defensive position.}
25.
Qb2 {Will black see the potential of the rook move?} 25... f6
{No, but this idea may work.} 26. Rb1
{White is really cramped for space and it can be seen by the limited moves
that are available.}
26... g5
{Black continues with the idea of cracking the castle and attacking the
king. Notice that black has an active plan, but white is uncertain.}
27. hxg5 fxg5
{This is a bad move, h6xg5 is much better because then the rooks can be used
on the h-file after the h7-king moves. It takes time to understand pawn
moves, they can seem simple, yet the correct choice is much more rewarding.}
28. Bc1
{Bf4-d3 may have been better because the back rank limits the scope of the
bishop, in this circumstance.}
28... Rf8
{Black has to resort to a slower attack because of the choice of pawn
recapture.}
29. b5 Ref7
{This idea looks like it can work until you consider f2-f3. There could be
some potential attack by sacrificing the bishop, but it is unclear and white
may still be able to escape an attack.}
30. f4 Bh3
{Better was g5xf4, g3xf4, Bg7-e5 to open up the file for the rook, followed
by attacking with the rook, queen and bishops.}
31. Bd2 Qg4 {Black is trying to force an awkward attack.} 32. Kh2 Bxf1 33.
Rxf1
{Piece trade. Both sides have equal points, black has a strong attack,
better placed pieces and more space.}
33... Qxe2+ {Black starts working some minor tactics.} 34. Kg1 Qxd3 35. Bb4
Qxg3+ 36. Rg2 Qe3+ 37. Rff2 Rxf4 38. Bd2 Qxf2+
{Better was Rf4xf2 because if Bxe3, then Rf2xb2, Rg2xb2, followed by the
clincher d4xe3 where black has a passed pawn on the 6th plus a pawn and
bishop advantage and can back up the pawn with the rook, and an attack on
the rook at b2 by the bishop. Essentially a won game.}
(38... Rxf2 39. Bxe3 Rxb2 40. Rxb2 dxe3) 39. Rxf2 Rxf2 40. bxc6 bxc6 41. Qb4
c5
{White lost steam at this point. The pieces are equivalent, but black has an
overwhelming pawn majority.}
42. Qa5 c4 0-1
|
| |
Date: 25 Dec 2006 16:29:34
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: analyzed game
|
Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
> Question 2
>
> En/na k Houlsby ha escrit:
> >>- There are three important moments which have been not menctioned about
> >>them I have some doubts:
> >>
> >>1) what move is preferable 12.Bxd4 or 12.Nxd4?
> >>In the game the Be3 had some problems to have good squares.
> >
> > To me, this is unclear.
> >
> >>>>[White "foment"]
> >>>>[Black "minguell"]
> >>>>[Result "0-1"]
> >>>
> >>>here the www,chessacademy.com analysis:
> >>>I would like to see any comments about the advice done here.
> >>>
> >>>1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 g6 4. c4 Bg7 5. cxd5 O-O 6. O-O Nxd5
> >>>7. Nc3 e5 8.Nxd5 Qxd5 9. d3 Nc6 10. Be3 Qd8 11. Qa4 Nd4
> >>>12. Nxd4 exd4 13. Bf4 c6 (...)
>
> Knowing what was game continuation I can see that Bf4 had some trouble
> finding god squares. Then it cmes to my mind 12.Bxd4 wityh the idea that
> the Nf3 seems good placed, blocks the Bg4 action to e2 and can go to
> d2-c4 in the future.
>
> There are two problems: first that to concede the pair of bishops can be
> a problem in mahy positions and second tha in f3 blocks the axction of Bg2.
>
> 12.Bxd4 is a move I would play with many doubts but it can be considered.
>
> AT
Thanks very much Antonio. I do hope that I am not the only one who has
read this thread.
MH
|
| |
Date: 25 Dec 2006 15:31:55
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: analyzed game
|
Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
> Question 1.
>
> En/na k Houlsby ha escrit:
> > Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
> >>Some own comments and some questions:
> >>- I disagree with the question k of 7.Nc3 and 8.Nxd5
> >>k and chessacademy seems to condene them but some GM (Polugaievski,
> >>Taimanov, Vaganian) have played those moves and one of them (Taimanov)
> >>have repeated them in a second time.
> >
> > My dear Antonio, I defer to you. You asked for my opinion, and I gave
> > it. To Vaganian, certainly, I defer, and as for Taimanov... to him I
> > defer both as a chessplayer and as a musician....
> >
> >>>>[White "foment"]
> >>>>[Black "minguell"]
> >>>>[Result "0-1"]
> >>>
> >>>here the www,chessacademy.com analysis:
> >>>I would like to see any comments about the advice done here.
> >>>
> >>>1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 g6
> >>>4. c4 Bg7 5. cxd5 O-O 6. O-O Nxd5 7. Nc3 ?
> >>>
> >>>Taking control of the center is the key............Try to understand
> >>>that all your middlegame play which revolved around protecting e2 pawn
> >>>happened due to this mistake.The move 7...e5 should be prevented at all
> >>>costs and that is what precisely, 7.d4 would have done !
> >>>
> >>>7..... e5 8.Nxd5?
> >>>
> >>>Another mistake...why are you exchanging pieces even before you have
> >>>completed your development ? Let you opponent exchange on c3..then you
> >>>can get a good c3, d4, e3 central pawn chain to neutralize the power of
> >>>g7 bishop. Your opponent's control of the center is getting stronger
> >>>by the move.
> >>>
> >>>8.... Qxd5 9. d3 No option ? Right (...)
>
> 1) An statistical argument:
> I compare with Siclian Dragon
> 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6
> and here 6.g3 is considered a non critical line, which can continue:
> 6...Nc6 7.Bg2 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 Bg7 9.0-0 0-0
>
> We have the same position with colous reversed but with the extra Nc3
> move which seem useful. And in that positin white results are not good
> (a little down 50%).
>
That's very interesting. What was the average Elo rating? Were there
mitigating circumstances which skewed the statistics (for example, one
side's having to play for a win to secure a prize, or qualification to
another tournament...)? Is the Sicilian simply an indecipherable
labyrinth? Is it too late to ask Polugaevsky's opinion about this? Am I
capable of writing a sentence without a question k at the end? Will
I ever shut up?
> 2) To allow ...e5 is not a problem, in Sicilian type positions one side
> has a center pawn in e4 (or e5 in reversed position) but the opponent hs
> two central pawns and a semioipen "c" line.
> And to exchange in d5 is not a lose of tempo because the Qd5 need to
> made a move
>
> I think chessacademy advice is good in the sense of forcing white player
> to understand what were the pros and cons of the decision made but the
> veredict is a little dogmatic and maybe far from reality.
>
Indeed, this was the motivation behind some of the more sensible of my
questions above.
> But I'm many doubts here, I consider a question k excessive but I'm
> not sure if them were the best moves or not
>
Yes, perhaps if I had considered more carefully I might have given d5 a
?! but not worse....
> Antonio T.
k H.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Dec 2006 01:00:11
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: analyzed game
|
En/na k Houlsby ha escrit:
> Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
>>Question 1.
>>1) An statistical argument:
>>I compare with Siclian Dragon
>>1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6
>>and here 6.g3 is considered a non critical line, which can continue:
>>6...Nc6 7.Bg2 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 Bg7 9.0-0 0-0
>>
>>We have the same position with colous reversed but with the extra Nc3
>>move which seem useful. And in that position white results are not
>>good (a little down 50%).
>
> That's very interesting. What was the average Elo rating? Were there
> mitigating circumstances which skewed the statistics (for example, one
> side's having to play for a win to secure a prize, or qualification to
> another tournament...)? Is the Sicilian simply an indecipherable
> labyrinth? Is it too late to ask Polugaevsky's opinion about this? Am I
> capable of writing a sentence without a question k at the end? Will
> I ever shut up?
In Sicilan Dragon with g3:
597 games white 45%
average rating of white 2358, performance 2329
But I know that are not a correct argument because there are many
factors which can have influence in it.
The true argument is that 6.g3 in not concidered very promising by theory.
--------------
With reversed colors (as in analyzed game)
85 games (21 rated games)
white results 52% white average rating 2432 performance 2420
>>2) To allow ...e5 is not a problem, in Sicilian type positions one side
>>has a center pawn in e4 (or e5 in reversed position) but the opponent hs
>>two central pawns and a semioipen "c" line.
>>And to exchange in d5 is not a lose of tempo because the Qd5 need to
>>made a move
>>
>>I think chessacademy advice is good in the sense of forcing white player
>>to understand what were the pros and cons of the decision made but the
>>veredict is a little dogmatic and maybe far from reality.
>
> Indeed, this was the motivation behind some of the more sensible of my
> questions above.
>
>>But I'm many doubts here, I consider a question k excessive but I'm
>>not sure if them were the best moves or not
>
> Yes, perhaps if I had considered more carefully I might have given d5 a
> ?! but not worse....
|
| |
Date: 25 Dec 2006 14:50:04
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: analyzed game
|
Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
> Some own comments and some questions:
>
> - I disagree with the question k of 7.Nc3 and 8.Nxd5
> k and chessacademy seems to condene them but some GM (Polugaievski,
> Taimanov, Vaganian) have played those moves and one of them (Taimanov)
> have repeated them in a second time.
>
My dear Antonio, I defer to you. You asked for my opinion, and I gave
it. To Vaganian, certainly, I defer, and as for Taimanov... to him I
defer both as a chessplayer and as a musician....
> Here I would like to hear any opinion.
>
> - The 11... e4 line is not so clear for me.
>
> First: after 11...e4 12.Qxe4 white has 2 central pawns vs 2 flank pawns.
> Second: after 11...e4 12.dxe4 Bxb2 13.Rad1 white has development
> advantage which can be more important than an advantage in a far endgame
> which maybe never happen.
>
Maybe, but I try to play with the endgame in mind. Of course, I usually
get mated on move 7, but I try to regard this as a quibbling little
detail... ;-)
> - There are three important moments which have been not menctioned about
> them I have some doubts:
>
> 1) what move is preferable 12.Bxd4 or 12.Nxd4?
> In the game the Be3 had some problems to have good squares.
>
To me, this is unclear.
> 2) was 20.h4 a mistake?
> 20.h4 allowed black to open later the "f" line obtaining a winning
> attack. If no better defence can be found that mean 20.h4 was bad.
>
20.h4 may have been bad in any event, but what do I know?
> 3) was b5 possible for white in some moment between moves 19th ad 23th?
> If white did not have the possibility of playing b5 in some moment, that
> mean his entire conception was wrong.
>
> Antonio T
>
> En/na [email protected] ha escrit:
> > Antonio Torrecillas ha escrito:
> >
> >>[Event "friendly game - slow control time"]
> >>[Site "?"]
> >>[Date "2006.??.??"]
> >>[Round "?"]
> >>[White "foment"]
> >>[Black "minguell"]
> >>[Result "0-1"]
> >
> >
> > here the www,chessacademy.com analysis:
> > I would like to see any comments about the advice done here.
> >
> > 1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 g6
> > 4. c4 Bg7 5. cxd5 O-O 6. O-O Nxd5 7. Nc3 ?
> >
> > Taking control of the center is the key............Try to understand
> > that all your middlegame play which revolved around protecting e2 pawn
> > happened due to this mistake.The move 7...e5 should be prevented at all
> > costs and that is what precisely, 7.d4 would have done !
> >
> > 7..... e5 8.Nxd5?
> >
> > Another mistake...why are you exchanging pieces even before you have
> > completed your development ? Let you opponent exchange on c3..then you
> > can get a good c3, d4, e3 central pawn chain to neutralize the power of
> > g7 bishop. Your opponent's control of the center is getting stronger
> > by the move.
> >
> > 8.... Qxd5 9. d3 No option ? Right 9...... Nc6 10. Be3 Qd8 11. Qa4 Nd4
> > ?
> >
> > Here your opponent made a mistake...11......e4 12.de4 Bb2 gives a 3-1
> > queenside pawn majority..a winning advantage indeed.
> >
> > 12. Nxd4 exd4 13. Bf4 c6 14. b4
> >
> > This is the time to take stock of the situation.....We have got a semi
> > open center now and only piece maneuvers or central pawn thrusts can
> > help. Flank side pawn attack is a no-no..... 14. Qb4 is a b etter
> > move.. it restricts the motion of C8 Bishop,that of b7 pawn and also if
> > need be, can be brought on the c1 -h6 diagonal to help white exchange
> > off the dark squared bishops.
> >
> > 14.....Bg4 15. Rfe1 Re8 16. Qc2 Qd7 17. Rab1 Rad8 18. a4 a6 19. Qb2
> >
> > Your queenside pawn attack is absolutely hollow since the queen has to
> > constantly keep an eye on the terribly weak e2 pawn
> >
> > 19.... h6 20. h4 Re7 21.Rbc1 Rde8 22. Rc2 Kh7 23. Bf1 Bf6 24. Qc1 Bg7
> > 25. Qb2 f6?
> >
> > 25....Qf5 is definitely a better move Now if 26.e4 de3 (en passant)
> > and a discovered attack on queen by g7 bishop.
> >
> > 26. Rb1 g5 27. hxg5 fxg5 28. Bc1 Rf8 29. b5 Ref7
> >
> > .... and black wins The rest of the game doesn't require much
> > comment.
> >
> > 30. f4 Bh3 31. Bd2 Qg4 32. Kh2 Bxf1 33. Rxf1 Qxe2+ 34. Kg1 Qxd3
> > 35. Bb4 Qxg3+ 36. Rg2 Qe3+ 37. Rff2 Rxf4 38. Bd2 Qxf2+
> > 39. Rxf2 Rxf2 40. bxc6bxc6 41. Qb4 c5 42. Qa5 c4
> >
> > AT
|
| | |
Date: 26 Dec 2006 00:43:37
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: analyzed game
|
Quetion 3
En/na k Houlsby ha escrit:
> Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
>>2) was 20.h4 a mistake?
>>20.h4 allowed black to open later the "f" line obtaining a winning
>>attack. If no better defence can be found that mean 20.h4 was bad.
>
> 20.h4 may have been bad in any event, but what do I know?
>>>>[White "foment"]
>>>>[Black "minguell"]
>>>>[Result "0-1"]
>>>
>>>1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 g6 4. c4 Bg7 5. cxd5 O-O 6. O-O Nxd5
>>>7. Nc3 e5 8.Nxd5? Qxd5 9. d3 Nc6 10. Be3 Qd8 11. Qa4 Nd4
>>>12. Nxd4 exd4 13. Bf4 c6 14. b4 Bg4 15. Rfe1 Re8 16. Qc2 Qd7
>>>17. Rab1 Rad8 18. a4 a6 19. Qb2 h6 20. h4 Re7 21.Rbc1 Rde8 (...)
20.h4 is a move which can be considered bad in general.
The general rule stats that advancing pawns in king wing (after short
castlled) make our king position more exposed and makes easier the task
of opening lines of our opponent.
But in some cases it can be good (an exception to general rule). In this
case I do not find good reasons to think we are looking an exception.
I find strange that move did not attracted any comment from chessacademy.
AT
PS: I recommend to people here to send any interesting game (preferable
a pain loss) to that page (www.chessacademy.com) asking for a free kind
analysis and then to post here to have a deep look from all interested
people.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Dec 2006 00:34:03
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: analyzed game
|
Question 2
En/na k Houlsby ha escrit:
>>- There are three important moments which have been not menctioned about
>>them I have some doubts:
>>
>>1) what move is preferable 12.Bxd4 or 12.Nxd4?
>>In the game the Be3 had some problems to have good squares.
>
> To me, this is unclear.
>
>>>>[White "foment"]
>>>>[Black "minguell"]
>>>>[Result "0-1"]
>>>
>>>here the www,chessacademy.com analysis:
>>>I would like to see any comments about the advice done here.
>>>
>>>1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 g6 4. c4 Bg7 5. cxd5 O-O 6. O-O Nxd5
>>>7. Nc3 e5 8.Nxd5 Qxd5 9. d3 Nc6 10. Be3 Qd8 11. Qa4 Nd4
>>>12. Nxd4 exd4 13. Bf4 c6 (...)
Knowing what was game continuation I can see that Bf4 had some trouble
finding god squares. Then it cmes to my mind 12.Bxd4 wityh the idea that
the Nf3 seems good placed, blocks the Bg4 action to e2 and can go to
d2-c4 in the future.
There are two problems: first that to concede the pair of bishops can be
a problem in mahy positions and second tha in f3 blocks the axction of Bg2.
12.Bxd4 is a move I would play with many doubts but it can be considered.
AT
|
| | |
Date: 26 Dec 2006 00:26:31
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: analyzed game
|
Question 1.
En/na k Houlsby ha escrit:
> Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
>>Some own comments and some questions:
>>- I disagree with the question k of 7.Nc3 and 8.Nxd5
>>k and chessacademy seems to condene them but some GM (Polugaievski,
>>Taimanov, Vaganian) have played those moves and one of them (Taimanov)
>>have repeated them in a second time.
>
> My dear Antonio, I defer to you. You asked for my opinion, and I gave
> it. To Vaganian, certainly, I defer, and as for Taimanov... to him I
> defer both as a chessplayer and as a musician....
>
>>>>[White "foment"]
>>>>[Black "minguell"]
>>>>[Result "0-1"]
>>>
>>>here the www,chessacademy.com analysis:
>>>I would like to see any comments about the advice done here.
>>>
>>>1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 g6
>>>4. c4 Bg7 5. cxd5 O-O 6. O-O Nxd5 7. Nc3 ?
>>>
>>>Taking control of the center is the key............Try to understand
>>>that all your middlegame play which revolved around protecting e2 pawn
>>>happened due to this mistake.The move 7...e5 should be prevented at all
>>>costs and that is what precisely, 7.d4 would have done !
>>>
>>>7..... e5 8.Nxd5?
>>>
>>>Another mistake...why are you exchanging pieces even before you have
>>>completed your development ? Let you opponent exchange on c3..then you
>>>can get a good c3, d4, e3 central pawn chain to neutralize the power of
>>>g7 bishop. Your opponent's control of the center is getting stronger
>>>by the move.
>>>
>>>8.... Qxd5 9. d3 No option ? Right (...)
1) An statistical argument:
I compare with Siclian Dragon
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6
and here 6.g3 is considered a non critical line, which can continue:
6...Nc6 7.Bg2 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 Bg7 9.0-0 0-0
We have the same position with colous reversed but with the extra Nc3
move which seem useful. And in that positin white results are not good
(a little down 50%).
2) To allow ...e5 is not a problem, in Sicilian type positions one side
has a center pawn in e4 (or e5 in reversed position) but the opponent hs
two central pawns and a semioipen "c" line.
And to exchange in d5 is not a lose of tempo because the Qd5 need to
made a move
I think chessacademy advice is good in the sense of forcing white player
to understand what were the pros and cons of the decision made but the
veredict is a little dogmatic and maybe far from reality.
But I'm many doubts here, I consider a question k excessive but I'm
not sure if them were the best moves or not
Antonio T.
|
| |
Date: 24 Dec 2006 05:42:04
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: analyzed game
|
Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
> En/na k Houlsby ha escrit:
> > foment - minguell
> > friendly game - slow control time, 2006
> >
> > 1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.c4 Bg7 5.cxd5 0-0 6.0-0 Nxd5 7.Nc3 e5 [
> > 7...Nc6 8.d4 Bf5 9.Re1 Nxc3 10.bxc3 Be4 11.e3 Na5 12.Nd2 Bxg2 13.Kxg2
> > c5 14.Nb3 cxd4 15.Nxa5 Qxa5 16.cxd4 Rfc8 17.Bb2 Rc4 18.Qb3 b5 19.Rec1
> > Rac8 20.Rxc4 Rxc4 - D74 Poulsson,E-Zwaig,A/Oslo CI 1973 (5)/=BD-=BD/30]
> > 8.Nxd5 [ 8.e4 Nxc3 9.bxc3 id2-d4( 9.dxc3) ;
> > 8.d4 e4 ( 8...exd4 9.Nxd5 Qxd5=3D/+) 9.Ne5 ( 9.Nd2 e3 10.Nf3 exf2+ with
> > an initiative) 9...Nxc3 10.bxc3 Bxe5 11.dxe5 Nc6 12.Bf4 unclear]
>
> I suppose you propose two different alternatives because you do not like
> 8.Nxd5
>
> > 8...Qxd5 9.d3 [i preventing e5-e4] [ 9.d4 exd4-/+ ( 9...e4 10.Nd2 Bf5
> > 11.e3) ] 9...Nc6 10.Be3 Qd8 11.Qa4 Nd4!? 12.Nxd4 exd4 13.Bf4 c6 14.b4!?
> > [=D7c6] 14...Bg4 15.Rfe1 Re8 16.Qc2 [ 16.Bf1!?] 16...Qd7 17.Rab1
>
> I suppose you propose 16.Bf1 as an alternative not neccesarily better
> than the game.
>
> > [ia2-a4, b4-b5] 17...Rad8 18.a4 a6 19.Qb2 h6 [i preventing Bg5; iRe7]
> > 20.h4 Re7 21.Rbc1 Rde8 [=D7e2] 22.Rc2 Kh7 23.Bf1 Bf6?! [=D7h6] 24.Qc1 B=
g7
>
> I suppose you think 23...f6 to be better than the game.
>
> > 25.Qb2 f6 26.Rb1 g5 27.hxg5 fxg5 28.Bc1 ONLY Rf8 29.b5!? Ref7 30.f4 Bh3
> > 31.Bd2 Qg4 with attack [ i31...Bxf1 32.Rxf1] 32.Kh2 Bxf1 33.Rxf1 Qxe2+
> > 34.Kg1 Qxd3 35.Bb4 Qxg3+ 36.Rg2 Qe3+ 37.Rff2 [ 37.Rgf2 d3 38.Qd2 Bd4
> > with attack] 37...Rxf4 38.Bd2 Qxf2+!-+ 39.Rxf2 Rxf2 40.bxc6 bxc6 41.Qb4
> > c5 42.Qa5 c4 0-1
> >
> > k
>
> I asume when you write "i ..." you mean "with the idea of ..."
>
> Antonio T.
In every case you are correct in what you assume and what you suppose.
I did warn you about my being a patzer ;-)
k H.
|
| |
Date: 24 Dec 2006 03:25:17
From:
Subject: Re: analyzed game
|
Antonio Torrecillas ha escrito:
> [Event "friendly game - slow control time"]
> [Site "?"]
> [Date "2006.??.??"]
> [Round "?"]
> [White "foment"]
> [Black "minguell"]
> [Result "0-1"]
here the www,chessacademy.com analysis:
I would like to see any comments about the advice done here.
1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 g6
4. c4 Bg7 5. cxd5 O-O 6. O-O Nxd5 7. Nc3 ?
Taking control of the center is the key............Try to understand
that all your middlegame play which revolved around protecting e2 pawn
happened due to this mistake.The move 7...e5 should be prevented at all
costs and that is what precisely, 7.d4 would have done !
7..... e5 8.Nxd5?
Another mistake...why are you exchanging pieces even before you have
completed your development ? Let you opponent exchange on c3..then you
can get a good c3, d4, e3 central pawn chain to neutralize the power of
g7 bishop. Your opponent's control of the center is getting stronger
by the move.
8.... Qxd5 9. d3 No option ? Right 9...... Nc6 10. Be3 Qd8 11. Qa4 Nd4
?
Here your opponent made a mistake...11......e4 12.de4 Bb2 gives a 3-1
queenside pawn majority..a winning advantage indeed.
12. Nxd4 exd4 13. Bf4 c6 14. b4
This is the time to take stock of the situation.....We have got a semi
open center now and only piece maneuvers or central pawn thrusts can
help. Flank side pawn attack is a no-no..... 14. Qb4 is a b etter
move.. it restricts the motion of C8 Bishop,that of b7 pawn and also if
need be, can be brought on the c1 -h6 diagonal to help white exchange
off the dark squared bishops.
14.....Bg4 15. Rfe1 Re8 16. Qc2 Qd7 17. Rab1 Rad8 18. a4 a6 19. Qb2
Your queenside pawn attack is absolutely hollow since the queen has to
constantly keep an eye on the terribly weak e2 pawn
19.... h6 20. h4 Re7 21.Rbc1 Rde8 22. Rc2 Kh7 23. Bf1 Bf6 24. Qc1 Bg7
25. Qb2 f6?
25....Qf5 is definitely a better move Now if 26.e4 de3 (en passant)
and a discovered attack on queen by g7 bishop.
26. Rb1 g5 27. hxg5 fxg5 28. Bc1 Rf8 29. b5 Ref7
.... and black wins The rest of the game doesn't require much
comment.
30. f4 Bh3 31. Bd2 Qg4 32. Kh2 Bxf1 33. Rxf1 Qxe2+ 34. Kg1 Qxd3
35. Bb4 Qxg3+ 36. Rg2 Qe3+ 37. Rff2 Rxf4 38. Bd2 Qxf2+
39. Rxf2 Rxf2 40. bxc6bxc6 41. Qb4 c5 42. Qa5 c4
AT
|
| | |
Date: 25 Dec 2006 01:56:01
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: analyzed game
|
Some own comments and some questions:
- I disagree with the question k of 7.Nc3 and 8.Nxd5
k and chessacademy seems to condene them but some GM (Polugaievski,
Taimanov, Vaganian) have played those moves and one of them (Taimanov)
have repeated them in a second time.
Here I would like to hear any opinion.
- The 11... e4 line is not so clear for me.
First: after 11...e4 12.Qxe4 white has 2 central pawns vs 2 flank pawns.
Second: after 11...e4 12.dxe4 Bxb2 13.Rad1 white has development
advantage which can be more important than an advantage in a far endgame
which maybe never happen.
- There are three important moments which have been not menctioned about
them I have some doubts:
1) what move is preferable 12.Bxd4 or 12.Nxd4?
In the game the Be3 had some problems to have good squares.
2) was 20.h4 a mistake?
20.h4 allowed black to open later the "f" line obtaining a winning
attack. If no better defence can be found that mean 20.h4 was bad.
3) was b5 possible for white in some moment between moves 19th ad 23th?
If white did not have the possibility of playing b5 in some moment, that
mean his entire conception was wrong.
Antonio T
En/na [email protected] ha escrit:
> Antonio Torrecillas ha escrito:
>
>>[Event "friendly game - slow control time"]
>>[Site "?"]
>>[Date "2006.??.??"]
>>[Round "?"]
>>[White "foment"]
>>[Black "minguell"]
>>[Result "0-1"]
>
>
> here the www,chessacademy.com analysis:
> I would like to see any comments about the advice done here.
>
> 1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 g6
> 4. c4 Bg7 5. cxd5 O-O 6. O-O Nxd5 7. Nc3 ?
>
> Taking control of the center is the key............Try to understand
> that all your middlegame play which revolved around protecting e2 pawn
> happened due to this mistake.The move 7...e5 should be prevented at all
> costs and that is what precisely, 7.d4 would have done !
>
> 7..... e5 8.Nxd5?
>
> Another mistake...why are you exchanging pieces even before you have
> completed your development ? Let you opponent exchange on c3..then you
> can get a good c3, d4, e3 central pawn chain to neutralize the power of
> g7 bishop. Your opponent's control of the center is getting stronger
> by the move.
>
> 8.... Qxd5 9. d3 No option ? Right 9...... Nc6 10. Be3 Qd8 11. Qa4 Nd4
> ?
>
> Here your opponent made a mistake...11......e4 12.de4 Bb2 gives a 3-1
> queenside pawn majority..a winning advantage indeed.
>
> 12. Nxd4 exd4 13. Bf4 c6 14. b4
>
> This is the time to take stock of the situation.....We have got a semi
> open center now and only piece maneuvers or central pawn thrusts can
> help. Flank side pawn attack is a no-no..... 14. Qb4 is a b etter
> move.. it restricts the motion of C8 Bishop,that of b7 pawn and also if
> need be, can be brought on the c1 -h6 diagonal to help white exchange
> off the dark squared bishops.
>
> 14.....Bg4 15. Rfe1 Re8 16. Qc2 Qd7 17. Rab1 Rad8 18. a4 a6 19. Qb2
>
> Your queenside pawn attack is absolutely hollow since the queen has to
> constantly keep an eye on the terribly weak e2 pawn
>
> 19.... h6 20. h4 Re7 21.Rbc1 Rde8 22. Rc2 Kh7 23. Bf1 Bf6 24. Qc1 Bg7
> 25. Qb2 f6?
>
> 25....Qf5 is definitely a better move Now if 26.e4 de3 (en passant)
> and a discovered attack on queen by g7 bishop.
>
> 26. Rb1 g5 27. hxg5 fxg5 28. Bc1 Rf8 29. b5 Ref7
>
> .... and black wins The rest of the game doesn't require much
> comment.
>
> 30. f4 Bh3 31. Bd2 Qg4 32. Kh2 Bxf1 33. Rxf1 Qxe2+ 34. Kg1 Qxd3
> 35. Bb4 Qxg3+ 36. Rg2 Qe3+ 37. Rff2 Rxf4 38. Bd2 Qxf2+
> 39. Rxf2 Rxf2 40. bxc6bxc6 41. Qb4 c5 42. Qa5 c4
>
> AT
|
| |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 16:04:32
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: analyzed game
|
k Houlsby wrote:
> Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
>
> > En/na k Houlsby ha escrit:
> >
> > > Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
> > >
> > >>Hello,
> > >>
> > >>Anyone would like to post here something about that game?
> > >>Some days later I will post the chesssite analysis and then my commen=
ts
> > >
> > > Hello Antonio
> > >
> > > Thanks for posting this.
> > >
> > > I am a patzer, as you know. My intention in reposting the game score =
is
> > > to insert a space between White's and Black's 40th moves, so that the
> > > PGN loads properly. I look forward to reading your comments...
> > > Regards,
> > > k
> >
> > Thank you k,
> >
> > And ... would you like to write your thoughts about that game?
> >
> > All we are patzers compared by anyone stronger (well, all except
> > Kasparov, Rybka
>
> > and Ray)
>
> :-)
>
> > but that do not mean we have not an opinion
> > (which can be defended and sometimes with success).
> >
> > Antonio T.
>
> Ok... after a cursory glance, I came up with this idiosyncratic
> nonsense:
>
>
>
> foment - minguell
> friendly game - slow control time, 2006
>
> 1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.c4 Bg7 5.cxd5 0-0 6.0-0 Nxd5 7.Nc3 e5 [
> 7...Nc6 8.d4 Bf5 9.Re1 Nxc3 10.bxc3 Be4 11.e3 Na5 12.Nd2 Bxg2 13.Kxg2
> c5 14.Nb3 cxd4 15.Nxa5 Qxa5 16.cxd4 Rfc8 17.Bb2 Rc4 18.Qb3 b5 19.Rec1
> Rac8 20.Rxc4 Rxc4 - D74 Poulsson,E-Zwaig,A/Oslo CI 1973 (5)/=C2=BD-=C2=BD=
/30]
> 8.Nxd5 [ 8.e4 Nxc3 9.bxc3 id2-d4( 9.dxc3) ;
> 8.d4 e4 ( 8...exd4 9.Nxd5 Qxd5=3D/+) 9.Ne5 ( 9.Nd2 e3 10.Nf3 exf2+ with
> an initiative) 9...Nxc3 10.bxc3 Bxe5 11.dxe5 Nc6 12.Bf4 unclear]
> 8...Qxd5 9.d3 [i preventing e5-e4] [ 9.d4 exd4-/+ ( 9...e4 10.Nd2 Bf5
> 11.e3) ] 9...Nc6 10.Be3 Qd8 11.Qa4 Nd4!? 12.Nxd4 exd4 13.Bf4 c6 14.b4!?
> [=C3=97c6] 14...Bg4 15.Rfe1 Re8 16.Qc2 [ 16.Bf1!?] 16...Qd7 17.Rab1
> [ia2-a4, b4-b5] 17...Rad8 18.a4 a6 19.Qb2 h6 [i preventing Bg5; iRe7]
> 20.h4 Re7 21.Rbc1 Rde8 [=C3=97e2] 22.Rc2 Kh7 23.Bf1 Bf6?! [=C3=97h6] 24.Q=
c1 Bg7
> 25.Qb2 f6 26.Rb1 g5 27.hxg5 fxg5 28.Bc1=E2=84=A2 Rf8 29.b5!? Ref7 30.f4 B=
h3
> 31.Bd2 Qg4 with attack [ i31...Bxf1 32.Rxf1] 32.Kh2 Bxf1 33.Rxf1 Qxe2+
> 34.Kg1 Qxd3 35.Bb4 Qxg3+ 36.Rg2 Qe3+ 37.Rff2 [ 37.Rgf2 d3 38.Qd2 Bd4
> with attack] 37...Rxf4 38.Bd2 Qxf2+!-+ 39.Rxf2 Rxf2 40.bxc6 bxc6 41.Qb4
> c5 42.Qa5 c4 0-1
>
> k
Ahem that should have been an "only move" sign, not a tradek sign,
after 28.Bc1. Pesky Usenet font.
|
| |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 16:01:35
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: analyzed game
|
Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
> En/na k Houlsby ha escrit:
>
> > Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
> >
> >>Hello,
> >>
> >>Anyone would like to post here something about that game?
> >>Some days later I will post the chesssite analysis and then my comments
> >
> > Hello Antonio
> >
> > Thanks for posting this.
> >
> > I am a patzer, as you know. My intention in reposting the game score is
> > to insert a space between White's and Black's 40th moves, so that the
> > PGN loads properly. I look forward to reading your comments...
> > Regards,
> > k
>
> Thank you k,
>
> And ... would you like to write your thoughts about that game?
>
> All we are patzers compared by anyone stronger (well, all except
> Kasparov, Rybka
> and Ray)
:-)
> but that do not mean we have not an opinion
> (which can be defended and sometimes with success).
>
> Antonio T.
Ok... after a cursory glance, I came up with this idiosyncratic
nonsense:
foment - minguell
friendly game - slow control time, 2006
1=2ENf3 d5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.c4 Bg7 5.cxd5 0-0 6.0-0 Nxd5 7.Nc3 e5 [
7=2E..Nc6 8.d4 Bf5 9.Re1 Nxc3 10.bxc3 Be4 11.e3 Na5 12.Nd2 Bxg2 13.Kxg2
c5 14.Nb3 cxd4 15.Nxa5 Qxa5 16.cxd4 Rfc8 17.Bb2 Rc4 18.Qb3 b5 19.Rec1
Rac8 20.Rxc4 Rxc4 - D74 Poulsson,E-Zwaig,A/Oslo CI 1973 (5)/=BD-=BD/30]
8=2ENxd5 [ 8.e4 Nxc3 9.bxc3 id2-d4( 9.dxc3) ;
8.d4 e4 ( 8...exd4 9.Nxd5 Qxd5=3D/+) 9.Ne5 ( 9.Nd2 e3 10.Nf3 exf2+ with
an initiative) 9...Nxc3 10.bxc3 Bxe5 11.dxe5 Nc6 12.Bf4 unclear]
8=2E..Qxd5 9.d3 [i preventing e5-e4] [ 9.d4 exd4-/+ ( 9...e4 10.Nd2 Bf5
11.e3) ] 9...Nc6 10.Be3 Qd8 11.Qa4 Nd4!? 12.Nxd4 exd4 13.Bf4 c6 14.b4!?
[=D7c6] 14...Bg4 15.Rfe1 Re8 16.Qc2 [ 16.Bf1!?] 16...Qd7 17.Rab1
[ia2-a4, b4-b5] 17...Rad8 18.a4 a6 19.Qb2 h6 [i preventing Bg5; iRe7]
20.h4 Re7 21.Rbc1 Rde8 [=D7e2] 22.Rc2 Kh7 23.Bf1 Bf6?! [=D7h6] 24.Qc1 Bg7
25.Qb2 f6 26.Rb1 g5 27.hxg5 fxg5 28.Bc1=99 Rf8 29.b5!? Ref7 30.f4 Bh3
31.Bd2 Qg4 with attack [ i31...Bxf1 32.Rxf1] 32.Kh2 Bxf1 33.Rxf1 Qxe2+
34.Kg1 Qxd3 35.Bb4 Qxg3+ 36.Rg2 Qe3+ 37.Rff2 [ 37.Rgf2 d3 38.Qd2 Bd4
with attack] 37...Rxf4 38.Bd2 Qxf2+!-+ 39.Rxf2 Rxf2 40.bxc6 bxc6 41.Qb4
c5 42.Qa5 c4 0-1
k
|
| | |
Date: 24 Dec 2006 12:35:50
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: analyzed game
|
En/na k Houlsby ha escrit:
> foment - minguell
> friendly game - slow control time, 2006
>
> 1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.c4 Bg7 5.cxd5 0-0 6.0-0 Nxd5 7.Nc3 e5 [
> 7...Nc6 8.d4 Bf5 9.Re1 Nxc3 10.bxc3 Be4 11.e3 Na5 12.Nd2 Bxg2 13.Kxg2
> c5 14.Nb3 cxd4 15.Nxa5 Qxa5 16.cxd4 Rfc8 17.Bb2 Rc4 18.Qb3 b5 19.Rec1
> Rac8 20.Rxc4 Rxc4 - D74 Poulsson,E-Zwaig,A/Oslo CI 1973 (5)/�-�/30]
> 8.Nxd5 [ 8.e4 Nxc3 9.bxc3 id2-d4( 9.dxc3) ;
> 8.d4 e4 ( 8...exd4 9.Nxd5 Qxd5=/+) 9.Ne5 ( 9.Nd2 e3 10.Nf3 exf2+ with
> an initiative) 9...Nxc3 10.bxc3 Bxe5 11.dxe5 Nc6 12.Bf4 unclear]
I suppose you propose two different alternatives because you do not like
8.Nxd5
> 8...Qxd5 9.d3 [i preventing e5-e4] [ 9.d4 exd4-/+ ( 9...e4 10.Nd2 Bf5
> 11.e3) ] 9...Nc6 10.Be3 Qd8 11.Qa4 Nd4!? 12.Nxd4 exd4 13.Bf4 c6 14.b4!?
> [�c6] 14...Bg4 15.Rfe1 Re8 16.Qc2 [ 16.Bf1!?] 16...Qd7 17.Rab1
I suppose you propose 16.Bf1 as an alternative not neccesarily better
than the game.
> [ia2-a4, b4-b5] 17...Rad8 18.a4 a6 19.Qb2 h6 [i preventing Bg5; iRe7]
> 20.h4 Re7 21.Rbc1 Rde8 [�e2] 22.Rc2 Kh7 23.Bf1 Bf6?! [�h6] 24.Qc1 Bg7
I suppose you think 23...f6 to be better than the game.
> 25.Qb2 f6 26.Rb1 g5 27.hxg5 fxg5 28.Bc1 ONLY Rf8 29.b5!? Ref7 30.f4 Bh3
> 31.Bd2 Qg4 with attack [ i31...Bxf1 32.Rxf1] 32.Kh2 Bxf1 33.Rxf1 Qxe2+
> 34.Kg1 Qxd3 35.Bb4 Qxg3+ 36.Rg2 Qe3+ 37.Rff2 [ 37.Rgf2 d3 38.Qd2 Bd4
> with attack] 37...Rxf4 38.Bd2 Qxf2+!-+ 39.Rxf2 Rxf2 40.bxc6 bxc6 41.Qb4
> c5 42.Qa5 c4 0-1
>
> k
I asume when you write "i ..." you mean "with the idea of ..."
Antonio T.
|
| |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 15:00:29
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: analyzed game
|
Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> a young player (well, ... for me 20y is young) of my chessclub sent a
> game to a chesssite which kindly offer a free analysis.
>
> He has shown it to me and I think they wrote some interesting concepts
> but in some aspects I disagree.
>
> Anyone would like to post here something about that game?
> Some days later I will post the chesssite analysis and then my comments
>
Hello Antonio
Thanks for posting this.
I am a patzer, as you know. My intention in reposting the game score is
to insert a space between White's and Black's 40th moves, so that the
PGN loads properly. I look forward to reading your comments...
Regards,
k
[Event "friendly game - slow control time"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2006.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "foment"]
[Black "minguell"]
[Result "0-1"]
1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 g6 4. c4 Bg7 5. cxd5 O-O 6. O-O Nxd5 7. Nc3
e5 8.Nxd5 Qxd5 9. d3 Nc6 10. Be3 Qd8 11. Qa4 Nd4 12. Nxd4 exd4 13. Bf4
c6 14. b4 Bg4 15. Rfe1 Re8 16. Qc2 Qd7 17. Rab1 Rad8 18. a4 a6 19. Qb2
h6 20. h4 Re7 21.Rbc1 Rde8 22. Rc2 Kh7 23. Bf1 Bf6 24. Qc1 Bg7 25. Qb2
f6 26. Rb1 g5 27. hxg5 fxg5 28. Bc1 Rf8 29. b5 Ref7 30. f4 Bh3 31. Bd2
Qg4 32. Kh2 Bxf1 33. Rxf1 Qxe2+ 34. Kg1 Qxd3 35. Bb4 Qxg3+ 36. Rg2 Qe3+
37. Rff2 Rxf4 38. Bd2 Qxf2+ 39. Rxf2 Rxf2 40. bxc6 bxc6 41. Qb4 c5
42.Qa5
c4 0-1
|
| | |
Date: 23 Dec 2006 00:16:28
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: analyzed game
|
En/na k Houlsby ha escrit:
> Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>Anyone would like to post here something about that game?
>>Some days later I will post the chesssite analysis and then my comments
>
> Hello Antonio
>
> Thanks for posting this.
>
> I am a patzer, as you know. My intention in reposting the game score is
> to insert a space between White's and Black's 40th moves, so that the
> PGN loads properly. I look forward to reading your comments...
> Regards,
> k
Thank you k,
And ... would you like to write your thoughts about that game?
All we are patzers compared by anyone stronger (well, all except
Kasparov, Rybka and Ray) but that do not mean we have not an opinion
(which can be defended and sometimes with success).
Antonio T.
> [Event "friendly game - slow control time"]
> [Site "?"]
> [Date "2006.??.??"]
> [Round "?"]
> [White "foment"]
> [Black "minguell"]
> [Result "0-1"]
>
> 1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 g6 4. c4 Bg7 5. cxd5 O-O 6. O-O Nxd5 7. Nc3
> e5 8.Nxd5 Qxd5 9. d3 Nc6 10. Be3 Qd8 11. Qa4 Nd4 12. Nxd4 exd4 13. Bf4
> c6 14. b4 Bg4 15. Rfe1 Re8 16. Qc2 Qd7 17. Rab1 Rad8 18. a4 a6 19. Qb2
> h6 20. h4 Re7 21.Rbc1 Rde8 22. Rc2 Kh7 23. Bf1 Bf6 24. Qc1 Bg7 25. Qb2
> f6 26. Rb1 g5 27. hxg5 fxg5 28. Bc1 Rf8 29. b5 Ref7 30. f4 Bh3 31. Bd2
> Qg4 32. Kh2 Bxf1 33. Rxf1 Qxe2+ 34. Kg1 Qxd3 35. Bb4 Qxg3+ 36. Rg2 Qe3+
> 37. Rff2 Rxf4 38. Bd2 Qxf2+ 39. Rxf2 Rxf2 40. bxc6 bxc6 41. Qb4 c5
> 42.Qa5 c4 0-1
|
|
