| |
Main
Date: 19 Oct 2006 10:59:59
From:
Subject: Analyse my match from last night
|
I was playing the black peices, and the match went like this:
I have annotated as best I can.
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "WHITE"]
[Black "BLACK"]
[Result "*"]
1. e4 e6
2. d4 a6
3. Bd3 b5
4. Nf3 c5
5. c3 Bb7
6. O-O Nf6
7. Re1 Nc6
8. a4 cxd4
9. axb5 axb5
10. Rxa8 Qxa8
Lining up the queen and bishop down the long diagonal. Is this better
than Bxa8?
I wonder if the queen is out of place here.
11. Bxb5
My computer says Na7, followed by taking the e-pawn. Is that better
than what I did?
... dxc3
12. Nxc3 Bc5
Bc5 seems the only active move. The bishops are all pointing in the
right direction
13. h3 Ne7
I was worried about e5. this move allows a knight on d5 and uncovers
the bishop on b7.
14. Bg5 O-O
uh-oh. O-O gives up the d-pawn to tuck the king away. But I will get
the two bishops
15. Bxf6 gxf6
16. Qxd7 f5
I don't know if this was right. I felt if I didn't play it now, I
wouldn't get another opportunity.
Perhaps Kh8, Rg8 was a better option. Rd8 is answered by Qc7; it
doesn't seem to do very much.
17. Qd2 fxe4
Post match analysis suggest 17 Ng5 is better for white, threatening to
sacrifice on e6.
Does black have an answer?
18. Ng5 e3
19. fxe3 h6
20. Nf3 Bxf3
21. gxf3 Qxf3
22. Qg2+
Everything comes off, opposite bishops, draw agreed.
I felt I was behind for most of that match, did I have compensation I
missed, or was I lucky to escape with a draw?
Where did it start to go wrong?
Thanks for any advice.
Phil.
|
|
| |
Date: 23 Oct 2006 09:19:55
From: Larry Tapper
Subject: Re: Analyse my match from last night
|
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
> >> > 1. e4 e6
> >> > 2. d4 a6
> >>
> >> 2...d5 please.
> >>
> > Miles beat Karpov with this.
>
> Not for anything that counted.
The occasion was the first round of the European team championship at
Skara in 1980. As a result of this upset, the USSR team only achieved a
tie against England. So I think Karpov, his teammates, and Russian
chess fans might dispute the claim that there was nothing at stake in
this game.
LT
>
>
> --
> Money is not "game."
> Looks are not "game."
> Social status or value is not "game."
> Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.
>
> A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
> teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
> get women and laughs that "AFCs pay my rent."
|
| |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 16:20:07
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Analyse my match from last night
|
>I was playing the black peices, and the match went like this:
> I have annotated as best I can.
>
> [Event "?"]
> [Site "?"]
> [Date "????.??.??"]
> [Round "?"]
> [White "WHITE"]
> [Black "BLACK"]
> [Result "*"]
>
> 1. e4 e6
> 2. d4 a6
2...d5 please.
--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.
A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "AFCs pay my rent."
|
| | |
Date: 23 Oct 2006 07:39:52
From: Martin S
Subject: Re: Analyse my match from last night
|
In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] says...
> > [Event "?"]
> > [Site "?"]
> > [Date "????.??.??"]
> > [Round "?"]
> > [White "WHITE"]
> > [Black "BLACK"]
> > [Result "*"]
> >
> > 1. e4 e6
> > 2. d4 a6
>
> 2...d5 please.
>
Miles beat Karpov with this. So this isn't a problem at this point.
It's not easy to play though.
tin S
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------- >>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Oct 2006 07:43:43
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Analyse my match from last night
|
>> > 1. e4 e6
>> > 2. d4 a6
>>
>> 2...d5 please.
>>
> Miles beat Karpov with this.
Not for anything that counted.
--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.
A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "AFCs pay my rent."
|
| |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 13:10:08
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Analyse my match from last night
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> I was playing the black peices, and the match went like this:
> I have annotated as best I can.
>
> [Event "?"]
> [Site "?"]
> [Date "????.??.??"]
> [Round "?"]
> [White "WHITE"]
> [Black "BLACK"]
> [Result "*"]
>
> 1. e4 e6 2. d4 a6 3. Bd3 b5 4. Nf3 c5 5. c3 Bb7 6. O-O Nf6 7. Re1
> Nc6 8. a4 cxd4 9. axb5 axb5 10. Rxa8 Qxa8
>
> Lining up the queen and bishop down the long diagonal. Is this better
> than Bxa8?
Just a suggestion but when posting games, it help if you enclosed your
comments in braces, {like this}. That way, people can cut and paste
your entire post into a chess program and have it display the moves
automatically, rather than having to make all the moves by hand.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Incredible Dangerous Whisky (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a single-malt whisky but it
could explode at any minute and it'll
blow your mind!
|
| |
Date: 19 Oct 2006 21:17:20
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Analyse my match from last night
|
In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] wrote:
> I was playing the black peices, and the match went like this:
> I have annotated as best I can.
>
> [Event "?"]
> [Site "?"]
> [Date "????.??.??"]
> [Round "?"]
> [White "WHITE"]
> [Black "BLACK"]
> [Result "*"]
>
> 1. e4 e6
> 2. d4 a6
I don't like this at all. While I understand your desire to give your
dark-square bishop scope, normal is ...d5 here, hitting at the white
center. If you want to fianchetto, simply b6 followed by Bb7 saves you a
tempo and doesn't create so many queenside weaknesses.
> 3. Bd3 b5
> 4. Nf3 c5
White is already substantially better, because he's ahead in development
and has a strong center.
> 5. c3 Bb7
> 6. O-O Nf6
7.e5 and you're kingside is vulnerable, as well, should you castle
there. And if you don't castle, then you can never strike back in the
center via ...d6
> 7. Re1 Nc6
> 8. a4 cxd4
> 9. axb5 axb5
> 10. Rxa8 Qxa8
>
> Lining up the queen and bishop down the long diagonal. Is this better
> than Bxa8?
> I wonder if the queen is out of place here.
Well, ask yourself what you want her to do. My feeling is that you need
to strike back at the white center with ...d5! - which means that you
might want your queen supporting that push.
OTOH, ganing up on the e-pawn isn't terrible, either.
> 11. Bxb5
>
> My computer says Na7, followed by taking the e-pawn. Is that better
> than what I did?
> ... dxc3
> 12. Nxc3 Bc5
>
> Bc5 seems the only active move. The bishops are all pointing in the
> right direction
>
> 13. h3 Ne7
>
> I was worried about e5. this move allows a knight on d5 and uncovers
> the bishop on b7.
You need to look harder at e5. You can't just be reflexifly scared of
it. The question is, after Nh5, can he play g4 to win the knight - or is
your pressure down the long diagnal too much.
That pressure is your one tump card here.
> 14. Bg5 O-O
>
> uh-oh. O-O gives up the d-pawn to tuck the king away. But I will get
> the two bishops
>
> 15. Bxf6 gxf6
> 16. Qxd7 f5
>
> I don't know if this was right. I felt if I didn't play it now, I
> wouldn't get another opportunity.
But what are you trying to accomplish?
> Perhaps Kh8, Rg8 was a better option. Rd8 is answered by Qc7; it
> doesn't seem to do very much.
Putting a R on the g-file makes sense to me. Look at how much material
you can pile on to attacking g2.
> 17. Qd2 fxe4
>
> Post match analysis suggest 17 Ng5 is better for white, threatening to
> sacrifice on e6.
> Does black have an answer?
What's the threat? I don't see the followup to that sac as being
particularly dangerou.
> 18. Ng5 e3
> 19. fxe3 h6
> 20. Nf3 Bxf3
> 21. gxf3 Qxf3
> 22. Qg2+
>
> Everything comes off, opposite bishops, draw agreed.
Everything comes off? How so. I see a pair of knights on the board and a
pair of rooks on the board, as well as weak pawns to attack.
I agree that if everything but the bishops comes off that this is a draw
despite your superior pawn structure. But the addition of knights and
rooks changes things ... a lot! It means that each of you has a piece
that can attack something that the other player's bishop can't defend.
If you agreed to a draw here then I strongly think you made a mistake -
not because you're better, but because the position is more-or-less even
(you have a slight advantage in pawn structure) and you need to play
these out. Don't be afraid of losing - accept a draw because you see how
you can lose, not because you don't see how you can win.
22. ... Qxg2+ 23.Kxg2 24.Rb8! and you already are forcing black's pieces
onto defensive squares. Or 24. ... Nf5! and you're getting your N into
the game.
> I felt I was behind for most of that match, did I have compensation I
> missed, or was I lucky to escape with a draw?
You were behind for most of the match, because you neglected your
development and the center. However, white's passive queen retreat game
you the time to consolidate, after which you were not worse.
> Where did it start to go wrong?
Move two. You have to develop your pieces and contest the center much
more vigorously.
|
|
