| |
Main
Date: 31 Aug 2008 19:13:08
From: John Salerno
Subject: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
It seemed pretty even the whole way through, but I feel like I lost
sight of what I was doing toward the end. I think my biggest problem
right now is after about move 10, I just don't know what to do anymore.
I don't know what I should be looking for and what types of plans to put
together. I tried to have a reason for every move I made, but they
weren't necessarily long-term plans.
[Event ""]
[Site ""]
[Date "8-31-2008"]
[Round ""]
[White "John"]
[Black "Marius"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "c) U"]
1. e4 c5
2. b4 cxb4
3. d4 Qb6
4. Nf3 b3
5. axb3 Qb4+
6. Bd2 Qb6
7. Bc4 Nc6
8. Nc3 e6
9. O-O Nf6
10. Bf4 Na5
11. Bb5 Bb4
12. Qd3 a6
13. Bc4 Qd8
14. Bg5 h6
15. Bxf6 gxf6
16. e5 fxe5
17. Nxe5 Bd6
18. Rfe1 Nc6
19. Qg3 Bxe5
20. dxe5 Qg5
21. Re3 Nd4
22. Qh3 Nxc2
23. Rg3 Qxe5
24. Rd1 b5
25. Be2 b4
26. Rc1 Nd4
27. Bf3 bxc3
28. Bxa8 Ne2+
29. Kf1 Nxc1
30. Rxc3 Qe2+
31. Kg1 Qd1#
0-1
|
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 10:08:02
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
"John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It seemed pretty even the whole way through, but I feel like I lost sight
> of what I was doing toward the end. I think my biggest problem right now
> is after about move 10, I just don't know what to do anymore. I don't know
> what I should be looking for and what types of plans to put together. I
> tried to have a reason for every move I made, but they weren't necessarily
> long-term plans.
Thanks for the comments guys. I plan to study them more when I get home. But
generally speaking, I think I've figured out one of my problems, as some of
you have stated. After the opening, I find myself playing too defensively. A
lot of my moves are more in response to my opponent than actually setting up
my own plans and trying to attack. I think what I need to learn is how to
spot weaknesses and go after them, and not be too slow in the middlegame.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Sep 2008 04:13:20
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
John Salerno wrote:
> Thanks for the comments guys. I plan to study them more when I get home. But
> generally speaking, I think I've figured out one of my problems, as some of
> you have stated. After the opening, I find myself playing too defensively. A
> lot of my moves are more in response to my opponent than actually setting up
> my own plans and trying to attack. I think what I need to learn is how to
> spot weaknesses and go after them, and not be too slow in the middlegame.
Wot you need is a good fuck with a member of the opposite sex Jon. What
happens after this marvellous occurence is a clarity of vision see?..
You now know or feel that yes 'I would rather it was me screwing my
babe' than that geekish, bespectacled, chess-playing nerd that I asked
into dinner the other night - see?..
The nature of chess jon is that there's usually a winner & although it's
all ostensibly very civilised, after the consumation of red meat that
is, the loser will look to you as somehow dominant see?..
His wife will somehow pick up on this dynamic & start casting doeish,
submissive & flirtatious looks @ you..
Any idea where this exchange is heading jon?..
No. Thought not..
t.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 07:17:32
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
On Sep 2, 9:08=A0am, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "John Salerno" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > It seemed pretty even the whole way through, but I feel like I lost sig=
ht
> > of what I was doing toward the end. I think my biggest problem right no=
w
> > is after about move 10, I just don't know what to do anymore. I don't k=
now
> > what I should be looking for and what types of plans to put together. I
> > tried to have a reason for every move I made, but they weren't necessar=
ily
> > long-term plans.
>
> Thanks for the comments guys. I plan to study them more when I get home. =
But
> generally speaking, I think I've figured out one of my problems, as some =
of
> you have stated. After the opening, I find myself playing too defensively=
. A
> lot of my moves are more in response to my opponent than actually setting=
up
> my own plans and trying to attack. I think what I need to learn is how to
> spot weaknesses and go after them, and not be too slow in the middlegame.
Also, don't be afraid to lose games from being too aggressive. Better
a dead lion than a live 'nearly an IM 2450' any day.
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 18:08:24
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:6d0bffbe-f4ca-4502-b475-d6e0d6893788@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 2, 9:08 am, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "John Salerno" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > It seemed pretty even the whole way through, but I feel like I lost
> > sight
> > of what I was doing toward the end. I think my biggest problem right now
> > is after about move 10, I just don't know what to do anymore. I don't
> > know
> > what I should be looking for and what types of plans to put together. I
> > tried to have a reason for every move I made, but they weren't
> > necessarily
> > long-term plans.
>
> Thanks for the comments guys. I plan to study them more when I get home.
> But
> generally speaking, I think I've figured out one of my problems, as some
> of
> you have stated. After the opening, I find myself playing too defensively.
> A
> lot of my moves are more in response to my opponent than actually setting
> up
> my own plans and trying to attack. I think what I need to learn is how to
> spot weaknesses and go after them, and not be too slow in the middlegame.
Also, don't be afraid to lose games from being too aggressive. Better
a dead lion than a live 'nearly an IM 2450' any day.
---------
Says a solid 1350 player. Maybe only a 1350 players /can/ say that?
John wants quick results, he is entirely on the wrong track tracking gambits
when he still needs to learn tactics and principle of openings. Chess books
are sold this way, cheap opinion offered, same as here on usenet. And if he
follows it he will become a solid 1500 player, which is at least the same as
most here, since that is the average, and all they know. Besides, he will
get there quickly.
But stay there. These bananas take years to unwind, and countless students
do take years to say - OK, I don't even know why I am losing. You have to
admit that, and then its hard work recovering bad habits and cheap shot
plays. And you have to start all over again. :((
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 01 Sep 2008 09:19:07
From:
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
On Aug 31, 7:13=A0pm, John Salerno <[email protected] > wrote:
> It seemed pretty even the whole way through, but I feel like I lost
> sight of what I was doing toward the end. I think my biggest problem
> right now is after about move 10, I just don't know what to do anymore.
> I don't know what I should be looking for and what types of plans to put
> together. I tried to have a reason for every move I made, but they
> weren't necessarily long-term plans.
1.e4 c5 2.b4
I don=92t think much of the Wing Gambit, but de gustibus non est
disputandum. In any event, it works well here, as Black has no idea
how to play against it.
2=85cxb4 3.d4 Qb6 4.Nf3 b3 5.axb3 Qb4+ 6.Bd2 Qb6 7.Bc4 Nc6 8.Nc3 e6 9.0=96
0 Nf6 10.Bf4
When you have a big advantage in center control and development like
this, a central pawn push is often very effective. How about 10.d5!
Nb4 [if 10...exd5 11.exd5 Na5 12.Qe2+ Be7 (or 12...Kd8 13.Ng5 Nxc4
14.Nxf7+ Kc7 15.Qxc4+ Kb8 16.Nb5 intending 17.Ba5 and wins.) 13.Rfe1
or 13.d6 and wins.] 11.d6! and Black is really stuck for a good move.
If 11=85Qxd6 or 11=85Bxd6 12.e5 wins.
10...Na5 11.Bb5?!
Gives away much of your advantage. Black has no business moving that
knight again when he's so far behind in development, and you need not
fear exchanging it for your bishop. If you must move the B, 11.Bd3 was
much better. You could also have tried the aggressive 11.e5 or 11.Nb5.
When you have an early developmental advantage like this, you must be
aggressive. Development is a *_temporary_* advantage, and if you don=92t
use it, you lose it.
11...Bb4 12.Qd3 a6 13.Bc4 Qd8 14.Bg5 -- 14.e5!? -- 14...h6 15.Bxf6
gxf6 16.e5 fxe5 17.Nxe5 Bd6?
Better 17...d6
18.Rfe1
18.Ne4! was just crying out to be played, aiming at the weak squares
d6 and f6. A likely continuation then was 18...Be7 19.Qf3 Rf8 [if
19...0=960 ? 20.Qg4+ Kh8 (or 20...Kh7 ?? 21.Nf6+! Bxf6 22.Bd3+ Kh8
23.Qe4 Bxe5 24.Qh7#) 21.Bd3 f5 22.Qh5] 20.d5 Nxc4 21.Nxc4 d6 22.Qf4 e5
(22...exd5 23.Nexd6+ Bxd6 24.Nxd6+ Kd7 25.Nb5 Kc6 26.c4) 23.Qxh6 and
White is clearly winning.
18...Nc6 19.Qg3 -- 19.Ne4 again was better. -- 19...Bxe5 20.dxe5 Qg5
21.Re3 =96 At the risk of sounding like a broken record, 21.Ne4! was
better -- 21...Nd4 22.Qh3?
This pretty much starts giving away the store. Better, yet again,
was 22.Ne4, a likely line then being Qxg3 23.Nd6+ Ke7 24.Rxg3 Nxc2
25.Rd1 with a terrific positional bind.
22...Nxc2 23.Rg3 Qxe5 24.Rd1 b5 25.Be2
25.Bd3 was better. If then 25...Qxc3? 26.Be4 Qc7 27.Bxa8.
25...b4 26.Rc1?
26.Bd3 bxc3 27.Bxc2 was preferable.
26...Nd4 27.Bf3??
27.Re3 was relatively best, though Black is still much better.
After the text, it's all over.
27...bxc3 28.Bxa8 Ne2+ 29.Kf1 Nxc1 30.Rxc3 Qe2+ 31.Kg1 Qd1# 1=960
John, I would take a lot of encouragement from this game. For a
novice, you played pretty darn well. Your early moves showed that
you=92ve learned quite well the general principles Chernev, Seirawan et
al are teaching you. With more study and experience, you will learn
how to use this kind of advantage once you have one.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Sep 2008 07:59:04
From: SBD
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
On Sep 5, 9:34=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> **To follow my own point, there are a couple of simple systems here which
> are playable for white and black at 1200 level and 2500 level. It may be
> that Mr. Salerno will follow the advice of Neil Brennen, and Dan Heisman,
> and deliberately engage tactically and very early by sharp play, yet this
> may or may not suit him -
It is the only way to go for a beginner.
I've let a few players who sought me out for teaching convince me that
they would be better off playing positionally from the get-go - in
each case their chess careers were utter, dismal failures. You have
to slash-and-burn early to get any good at all.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Sep 2008 07:53:09
From:
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
On Sep 5, 10:34=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 5, 8:34 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > **Here is an illustration of how not to learn chess - while Taylor
> > Kingston's analysis below is perfectly fine, he is an 1800 player and
> > besides has taken more than a few minutes to make his analysis.
>
> > (A) Your 19.Nxc4 Bc7, when 20.d5! looks quite strong, viz.
> > 20...exd5? 21.Ned6+ Kf8 22.Qf5 Bxd6 23.Nxd6 Qe7 24.Qf4 Rh7 25.Rfe1+-,
> > or 20...0-0 21.d6 Bb8 and Black has more cramps than a dysentery
> > victim.
>
> > (B) 19.bxc4 Bc7 20.Qg3 Kf8 21.Qf4 f5 [if 21...Qe7 22.Ng6+ Kg7
> > 23.Qxc7 Kxg6 (or 23...fxg6 24.Qe5+ Kg8 25.Nf6+ Kf7 26.Nd5 and wins)
> > 24.c5 and the N will settle in nicely on d6] 22.c5 (preventing the d-
> > pawn from moving), to be followed by Ra1-a3-h3, and White will soon
> > have all his pieces attacking on the kingside while most of Black's
> > are "still in the box."
>
> > > An alternative is 18. Nxf7 Kxf7, 19, Qf5+ winning a pawn.
>
> > Nope, loses a piece. The Na5 is defended.
>
> > **When strong players say 'don't rote learn the openings', its not that
> > that
> > doesn't have value, LOOK! here we are way down the opening tree with a
> > couple of sub-sub-sub gambit variations at move 24.
>
> =A0 No, Phil. We left the opening quite a ways back. These are middle-
> game variations. And your comment about rote learning is totally
> misplaced here -- this game left the books around Black's 3rd or 4th
> move.
>
> **Taylor - I have decided to write with you on the condition that you are
> able to state what point you think you are arguing.
Already did that, Phil, but of course, as you almost always do, you
show yourself incapable, or you pretend to be incapable, of
understanding plain English. I am arguing that in the analytical
variation in question, 18.Nxf7 does not win a pawn, it loses a piece.
That's it. Period.
Andrew B., to whom my comment was addressed, understood immediately,
once I showed him 19.Qf5+ Kg7 20.Qxa5 Qxa5 21.Rxa5 Bb4-+. I could not
care less whether you understand or not.
> You have progressed
> through 24 moves! The first dozen constitute an opening, wherever it left
> the books, which you are instructing your correspondent take in, - the po=
int
> being the rote-method - then micro-managing sub-sub variations based on 1=
2
> ply horizons, when your student needs to apply himself in avoidance of 4 =
ply
> blunders.
Amazing what Phil claims to see. I've advised him to lay off the
hallucinogenics, but does he listen?
|
| | |
Date: 05 Sep 2008 06:04:58
From:
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
On Sep 5, 8:34=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> **Here is an illustration of how not to learn chess - while Taylor
> Kingston's analysis below is perfectly fine, he is an 1800 player and
> besides has taken more than a few minutes to make his analysis.
>
> =A0 (A) Your 19.Nxc4 Bc7, when 20.d5! looks quite strong, viz.
> 20...exd5? 21.Ned6+ Kf8 22.Qf5 Bxd6 23.Nxd6 Qe7 24.Qf4 Rh7 25.Rfe1+-,
> or 20...0-0 21.d6 Bb8 and Black has more cramps than a dysentery
> victim.
>
> =A0 (B) 19.bxc4 Bc7 20.Qg3 Kf8 21.Qf4 f5 [if 21...Qe7 22.Ng6+ Kg7
> 23.Qxc7 Kxg6 (or 23...fxg6 24.Qe5+ Kg8 25.Nf6+ Kf7 26.Nd5 and wins)
> 24.c5 and the N will settle in nicely on d6] 22.c5 (preventing the d-
> pawn from moving), to be followed by Ra1-a3-h3, and White will soon
> have all his pieces attacking on the kingside while most of Black's
> are "still in the box."
>
> > An alternative is 18. Nxf7 Kxf7, 19, Qf5+ winning a pawn.
>
> =A0 Nope, loses a piece. The Na5 is defended.
>
> **When strong players say 'don't rote learn the openings', its not that t=
hat
> doesn't have value, LOOK! here we are way down the opening tree with a
> couple of sub-sub-sub gambit variations at move 24.
No, Phil. We left the opening quite a ways back. These are middle-
game variations. And your comment about rote learning is totally
misplaced here -- this game left the books around Black's 3rd or 4th
move.
> Last year I played at
> least 100 Pelikans, which in some lines I know to move 30 - and no positi=
on
> repeated another after move 12! The second factor here is that our learne=
r
> misses what Taylor is illustrating, since he overlooks 1 and 2 move piece
> loses. The main issue about learning away from the board is what to spend
> your time on that will be useful over the board.
>
> **If you play typical club chess at maybe 15 minutes a game you are makin=
g
> about 3 moves a minute, or allowing 20 seconds each, and can you really
> afford to either remember or calculate 2x6 move sequences in complex midd=
le
> games which will result in better endgames, when attempting 2 or 3 move
> tactical plays is challenging enough in that time for even stronger playe=
rs?
>
> **Who exactly is encouraging this player to spend time he won't have OTB
> with lines in the Sicilian going to move 24 - or use that defence at all?
Certainly no one in this thread, least of all me. Especially since
the player seeking advice, Mr. Salerno, had White in this game, and
thus the choice of playing the Sicilian was not his.
> **Better he found an all purpose opening that he can play and know well f=
or
> 8 moves, which may be 2 moves more than almost any opponent he may
> encounter. Then he can get into the middle game and probably lose against
> tactical finesses, but at least he can get into the game without too much
> grief and concentrate on tactics.
>
> Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Sep 2008 10:34:05
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sep 5, 8:34 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> **Here is an illustration of how not to learn chess - while Taylor
> Kingston's analysis below is perfectly fine, he is an 1800 player and
> besides has taken more than a few minutes to make his analysis.
>
> (A) Your 19.Nxc4 Bc7, when 20.d5! looks quite strong, viz.
> 20...exd5? 21.Ned6+ Kf8 22.Qf5 Bxd6 23.Nxd6 Qe7 24.Qf4 Rh7 25.Rfe1+-,
> or 20...0-0 21.d6 Bb8 and Black has more cramps than a dysentery
> victim.
>
> (B) 19.bxc4 Bc7 20.Qg3 Kf8 21.Qf4 f5 [if 21...Qe7 22.Ng6+ Kg7
> 23.Qxc7 Kxg6 (or 23...fxg6 24.Qe5+ Kg8 25.Nf6+ Kf7 26.Nd5 and wins)
> 24.c5 and the N will settle in nicely on d6] 22.c5 (preventing the d-
> pawn from moving), to be followed by Ra1-a3-h3, and White will soon
> have all his pieces attacking on the kingside while most of Black's
> are "still in the box."
>
> > An alternative is 18. Nxf7 Kxf7, 19, Qf5+ winning a pawn.
>
> Nope, loses a piece. The Na5 is defended.
>
> **When strong players say 'don't rote learn the openings', its not that
> that
> doesn't have value, LOOK! here we are way down the opening tree with a
> couple of sub-sub-sub gambit variations at move 24.
No, Phil. We left the opening quite a ways back. These are middle-
game variations. And your comment about rote learning is totally
misplaced here -- this game left the books around Black's 3rd or 4th
move.
**Taylor - I have decided to write with you on the condition that you are
able to state what point you think you are arguing. You have progressed
through 24 moves! The first dozen constitute an opening, wherever it left
the books, which you are instructing your correspondent take in, - the point
being the rote-method - then micro-managing sub-sub variations based on 12
ply horizons, when your student needs to apply himself in avoidance of 4 ply
blunders.
> Last year I played at
> least 100 Pelikans, which in some lines I know to move 30 - and no
> position
> repeated another after move 12! The second factor here is that our learner
> misses what Taylor is illustrating, since he overlooks 1 and 2 move piece
> loses. The main issue about learning away from the board is what to spend
> your time on that will be useful over the board.
>
> **If you play typical club chess at maybe 15 minutes a game you are making
> about 3 moves a minute, or allowing 20 seconds each, and can you really
> afford to either remember or calculate 2x6 move sequences in complex
> middle
> games which will result in better endgames, when attempting 2 or 3 move
> tactical plays is challenging enough in that time for even stronger
> players?
>
> **Who exactly is encouraging this player to spend time he won't have OTB
> with lines in the Sicilian going to move 24 - or use that defence at all?
Certainly no one in this thread, least of all me. Especially since
the player seeking advice, Mr. Salerno, had White in this game, and
thus the choice of playing the Sicilian was not his.
**Laugh- you analysis through 24 moves is not encouragement? Electing the
wing-gambit means that the opening cannot transpose /from/ a Sicilian
variation. As we know strong players say that Black needs to know much less
about openings than White; the black player being able to choose among any
of half a dozen systems to 1.e4, whereas White has to compass all of them.
**In this instance black chose the Sicilian after White invited it with his
opening 1.e4, and White didn't transpose out of it, into any of a number of
other option, for example, an English - which would then be more within his
own knowledge of the first half-dozen moves. White's placement is e4 and c4,
Nc3, Nf3. Black may have a typical c5, e6, Nf6 Nc6. The sort of thing that
Lev Alburt did very well with back in the 80s.
> **Better he found an all purpose opening that he can play and know well
> for
> 8 moves, which may be 2 moves more than almost any opponent he may
> encounter. Then he can get into the middle game and probably lose against
> tactical finesses, but at least he can get into the game without too much
> grief and concentrate on tactics.
**To follow my own point, there are a couple of simple systems here which
are playable for white and black at 1200 level and 2500 level. It may be
that Mr. Salerno will follow the advice of Neil Brennen, and Dan Heisman,
and deliberately engage tactically and very early by sharp play, yet this
may or may not suit him - in the short term he needs to see some plys deeper
in order that the tactics do not backfire, but also in the long term, Neil
has a strong mentor available to him with Dan - and that is an expense of
time and money.
**I wonder what other people think about these matters - and what they
recommend for white and black play against practically everything? I have a
couple of electable opening courses associated with my chess course, which
will suit stronger students with time anb energy to learn them. Phil Innes
> Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 05 Sep 2008 05:35:51
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
On Sep 5, 7:02=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:bc4b1a99-f6f7-43de-889f-01f88cc05a4b@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Another opinion is not to mess around in the openings as a beginner, an=
d
> > avoid gambits in preference to developing all your pieces, which is the
> > strongest possible practical option in all cases. If beginners think th=
ey
> > can tactically out-finesse non-beginners, they deceive themselves.
>
> I suggest you read Dan Heisman's The Improving Annotator.
>
> **As a matter of fact I have talked quite a bit with Dan Heisman, who lik=
ed
> to write at Chessville's forum, and indeed, I am including one of his tit=
les
> in my chess course. Dan's opinion is absolute steady on the issue of open=
ing
> play - principles are enough, and they should attend to be basics of
> tactical play, trying to keep out of trouble or going too deep until they
> develop their pieces!
Dan's opinion has changed in the decade since I took lessons from him,
provided your comment can be trusted - and it probably can't. He
specifically encouraged his students to adopt sharp opening play as a
way to improve and learn tactics. I recall advancing from 1100 to 1680-
something (ratings verifiable, unlike yours) due to his teaching and
my choosing to play sharply.
But let's turn to Dan's own practice. In The Improving Annotator, NM
Heisman presents his notes written shortly after the games, along with
some comments based on his glancing back from 1995.
The games presented in the book are wins against stronger players,
including Dan's first defeat of a master (real, not "nearly"). Dan was
1600 at the time. The first six games show Dan playing the O'Kelly
Sicilian and the Blackmar-Diemer as a player with less than a year's
experience. One of his notes explains he was "looking for trouble (and
usually finding it)" and hoping for a "wild" game.
I submit that those games from NM Heisman's first year of playing
refute your silly comment that beginners cannot out-tactic non-
beginners. It may not be a daily happening, but such upsets do take
place.
Why Neil Brennen should make a vague recommendation or
> suggestion is unknown to all strong players.
>
> **The main point for the beginner is to beware those who will recommend y=
ou
> the very process by which they themselves became stuck - then frustrated,
> then played less, then not at all; eventually giving up chess technique a=
s a
> practice to completely concentrate on 'theory' &c. =A0[ROFL]
>
> Phil Innes
>
> > Opening theory in these instances is of far greater importance than the
> > esoterica of learned lines.
>
> > What is important is to understand the position you elect as soundly as
> > possible, and you don't need to give up a pawn to do that. If offered
> > gambits, prefer development, since there is no such thing [for a beginn=
er]
> > as a free pawn.
>
> > Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Sep 2008 10:11:07
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:26b301de-1b41-48d3-8d65-d6b5c26974f9@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 5, 7:02 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:bc4b1a99-f6f7-43de-889f-01f88cc05a4b@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Another opinion is not to mess around in the openings as a beginner, and
> > avoid gambits in preference to developing all your pieces, which is the
> > strongest possible practical option in all cases. If beginners think
> > they
> > can tactically out-finesse non-beginners, they deceive themselves.
>
> I suggest you read Dan Heisman's The Improving Annotator.
>
> **As a matter of fact I have talked quite a bit with Dan Heisman, who
> liked
> to write at Chessville's forum, and indeed, I am including one of his
> titles
> in my chess course. Dan's opinion is absolute steady on the issue of
> opening
> play - principles are enough, and they should attend to be basics of
> tactical play, trying to keep out of trouble or going too deep until they
> develop their pieces!
Dan's opinion has changed in the decade since I took lessons from him,
provided your comment can be trusted - and it probably can't.
**Kasparov's opinion all right with you?
He
specifically encouraged his students to adopt sharp opening play as a
way to improve and learn tactics. I recall advancing from 1100 to 1680-
something (ratings verifiable, unlike yours)
**You mean you never played a strong player before? Or you don't recognise
strong play? Dan's idea is a fine one since it /does/ encourage tactical
play, not because of rote learning of openings - which is the point being
made here. It is for sure not the /only/ advice for 1200-1500 players, in
fact in another book I am using for the course another NM does not recommend
any specific opening style, and instead says avoid tactics early on. So,
there are varieties of opinions.
due to his teaching and
my choosing to play sharply.
**But you an illustration of my point! 1680 as a high point is not exactly
stellar, even though it is above average - and if you don't really play any
more... varoom?
**The particular benefit of Dan's recommendation is that it might accelerate
progress. The perhaps equivocal aspect of it is that such progress may be
limited [since after all it is a style, rather than more systemic].
But let's turn to Dan's own practice. In The Improving Annotator, NM
Heisman presents his notes written shortly after the games, along with
some comments based on his glancing back from 1995.
The games presented in the book are wins against stronger players,
including Dan's first defeat of a master (real, not "nearly"). Dan was
1600 at the time.
**He wrote me some time ago about another teacher "i was the first master he
beat'.
The first six games show Dan playing the O'Kelly
Sicilian and the Blackmar-Diemer as a player with less than a year's
experience. One of his notes explains he was "looking for trouble (and
usually finding it)" and hoping for a "wild" game.
**Sure - but this would suit someone who is a tactical brawler [like me -
and it seems, like you too], but perhaps not everyone?
I submit that those games from NM Heisman's first year of playing
refute your silly comment that beginners cannot out-tactic non-
beginners. It may not be a daily happening, but such upsets do take
place.
**But such is a trite reference to advice on playing chess based on
occassional material suitable for some players - whereas what I wrote is
possibly deeper than your own ideas. They are certainly different than your
paraphrase - since I recommended that Beginner players do not try to
out-tactic stronger ones, not that they /could/ not succeed on occasion.
Apart from some training games with students where I can't win any points at
all, over the past 2 years and 600 games I haven't played anyone [hardly]
/less/ than 1680.
**Why Neil Brennen should make a vague recommendations /as if/ Dan Heisman's
experience was typical for most players, and /as if/ most players had a
personal trainer to support that tactical orientation, would only be
sustainable if Neil himself had progressed further than the 1600s. The fact
is that Dan Heisman is untypical of players generally. Neil Brennen is
progressed to a level where I might take him as a student with an
/individualised/ curriculum.
**Neil's won history is an /illustration/ of the point I make immediately
below. Phil Innes
> **The main point for the beginner is to beware those who will recommend
> you
> the very process by which they themselves became stuck - then frustrated,
> then played less, then not at all; eventually giving up chess technique as
> a
> practice to completely concentrate on 'theory' &c. [ROFL]
>
> Phil Innes
>
> > Opening theory in these instances is of far greater importance than the
> > esoterica of learned lines.
>
> > What is important is to understand the position you elect as soundly as
> > possible, and you don't need to give up a pawn to do that. If offered
> > gambits, prefer development, since there is no such thing [for a
> > beginner]
> > as a free pawn.
>
> > Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 05 Sep 2008 01:14:12
From: Andrew B.
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
On 5 Sep, 00:56, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sep 4, 5:20=A0pm, "Andrew B." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4 Sep, 14:56, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 4, 5:04=A0am, "Andrew B." <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > An alternative is 18. Nxf7 Kxf7, 19, Qf5+ winning a pawn.
>
> > > =A0 Nope, loses a piece. The Na5 is defended.
>
> > Defended by the queen but attacked by the rook on a1, unless I've got
> > the position wrong.
>
> =A0 What do you do then after 19...Kg7 20.Qxa5 Qxa5 21.Rxa5 Bb4, forking
> the Ra5 and Nc3?
Oops :-)
|
| | |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 20:26:22
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
On Sep 4, 4:59=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:fa76af57-6bf5-497d-b30f-0ca823755618@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 1, 7:43 pm, Frisco Del Rosario <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <06c59b25-df02-4ff0-aa8b-9acec590c...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >> > =A0 I have no interest in getting into a detailed theoretical discus=
sion
> >> > of the intricacies of the Wing Gambit. My comments are intended in a
> >> > general sense to aid Mr. Salerno.
>
> >> You said: "I might make a few comments on Black's handling of the
> >> opening, lest John get too enthusiastic about the Wing Gambit."
>
> >> I think imaginative chessplayers ought to be most enthusiastic about
> >> wing gambits on both wings, with both colors.
>
> > I think new chessplayers who want to improve can do far worse than
> > play gambits of any kind. There's so much to learn from them. Back
> > when I was playing regularly, I routinely offered the Vienna, King's
> > Gambit, and Blackmar-Diemer, with an occasional Evans thrown in. As
> > Black I favored sharp lines in the French and Dutch.
>
> Another opinion is not to mess around in the openings as a beginner, and
> avoid gambits in preference to developing all your pieces, which is the
> strongest possible practical option in all cases. If beginners think they
> can tactically out-finesse non-beginners, they deceive themselves.
I suggest you read Dan Heisman's The Improving Annotator.
> Opening theory in these instances is of far greater importance than the
> esoterica of learned lines.
>
> What is important is to understand the position you elect as soundly as
> possible, and you don't need to give up a pawn to do that. If offered
> gambits, prefer development, since there is no such thing [for a beginner=
]
> as a free pawn.
>
> Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Sep 2008 08:02:23
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:bc4b1a99-f6f7-43de-889f-01f88cc05a4b@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Another opinion is not to mess around in the openings as a beginner, and
> avoid gambits in preference to developing all your pieces, which is the
> strongest possible practical option in all cases. If beginners think they
> can tactically out-finesse non-beginners, they deceive themselves.
I suggest you read Dan Heisman's The Improving Annotator.
**As a matter of fact I have talked quite a bit with Dan Heisman, who liked
to write at Chessville's forum, and indeed, I am including one of his titles
in my chess course. Dan's opinion is absolute steady on the issue of opening
play - principles are enough, and they should attend to be basics of
tactical play, trying to keep out of trouble or going too deep until they
develop their pieces! Why Neil Brennen should make a vague recommendation or
suggestion is unknown to all strong players.
**The main point for the beginner is to beware those who will recommend you
the very process by which they themselves became stuck - then frustrated,
then played less, then not at all; eventually giving up chess technique as a
practice to completely concentrate on 'theory' &c. [ROFL]
Phil Innes
> Opening theory in these instances is of far greater importance than the
> esoterica of learned lines.
>
> What is important is to understand the position you elect as soundly as
> possible, and you don't need to give up a pawn to do that. If offered
> gambits, prefer development, since there is no such thing [for a beginner]
> as a free pawn.
>
> Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 16:56:33
From:
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
On Sep 4, 5:20=A0pm, "Andrew B." <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 4 Sep, 14:56, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Sep 4, 5:04=A0am, "Andrew B." <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > =A0 18.Ne4! was just crying out to be played, aiming at the weak sq=
uares
> > > > d6 and f6. A likely continuation then was 18...Be7 19.Qf3 Rf8
>
> > > =A0Maybe not so clear if Black plays 18. ...Nxc4, 19. Nxc4 Bc7 ?
>
> > =A0 That is probably about as viable as 18...Be7, but I still much
> > prefer White. After 18.Ne4 Nxc4, White seems to have two main
> > choices:
>
> > =A0 (A) Your 19.Nxc4 Bc7, when 20.d5! looks quite strong, viz.
> > 20...exd5? 21.Ned6+ Kf8 22.Qf5 Bxd6 23.Nxd6 Qe7 24.Qf4 Rh7 25.Rfe1+-,
> > or 20...0-0 21.d6 Bb8 and Black has more cramps than a dysentery
> > victim.
>
> Another option here is 19. ... Bxh2+, 20. Kxh2 d5.
>
> > =A0 (B) 19.bxc4 Bc7 20.Qg3 Kf8 21.Qf4 f5 [if 21...Qe7 22.Ng6+ Kg7
> > 23.Qxc7 Kxg6 (or 23...fxg6 24.Qe5+ Kg8 25.Nf6+ Kf7 26.Nd5 and wins)
> > 24.c5 and the N will settle in nicely on d6] 22.c5 (preventing the d-
> > pawn from moving), to be followed by Ra1-a3-h3, and White will soon
> > have all his pieces attacking on the kingside while most of Black's
> > are "still in the box."
>
> > > An alternative is 18. Nxf7 Kxf7, 19, Qf5+ winning a pawn.
>
> > =A0 Nope, loses a piece. The Na5 is defended.
>
> Defended by the queen but attacked by the rook on a1, unless I've got
> the position wrong.
What do you do then after 19...Kg7 20.Qxa5 Qxa5 21.Rxa5 Bb4, forking
the Ra5 and Nc3?
> 18. Ne4 may be the better move; I just thought 18. Nxf7 was an
> interesting possibility to bring up.
Only if White is intent on suicide.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 14:20:23
From: Andrew B.
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
On 4 Sep, 14:56, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sep 4, 5:04=A0am, "Andrew B." <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > =A0 18.Ne4! was just crying out to be played, aiming at the weak squa=
res
> > > d6 and f6. A likely continuation then was 18...Be7 19.Qf3 Rf8
>
> > =A0Maybe not so clear if Black plays 18. ...Nxc4, 19. Nxc4 Bc7 ?
>
> =A0 That is probably about as viable as 18...Be7, but I still much
> prefer White. After 18.Ne4 Nxc4, White seems to have two main
> choices:
>
> =A0 (A) Your 19.Nxc4 Bc7, when 20.d5! looks quite strong, viz.
> 20...exd5? 21.Ned6+ Kf8 22.Qf5 Bxd6 23.Nxd6 Qe7 24.Qf4 Rh7 25.Rfe1+-,
> or 20...0-0 21.d6 Bb8 and Black has more cramps than a dysentery
> victim.
Another option here is 19. ... Bxh2+, 20. Kxh2 d5.
> =A0 (B) 19.bxc4 Bc7 20.Qg3 Kf8 21.Qf4 f5 [if 21...Qe7 22.Ng6+ Kg7
> 23.Qxc7 Kxg6 (or 23...fxg6 24.Qe5+ Kg8 25.Nf6+ Kf7 26.Nd5 and wins)
> 24.c5 and the N will settle in nicely on d6] 22.c5 (preventing the d-
> pawn from moving), to be followed by Ra1-a3-h3, and White will soon
> have all his pieces attacking on the kingside while most of Black's
> are "still in the box."
>
> > An alternative is 18. Nxf7 Kxf7, 19, Qf5+ winning a pawn.
>
> =A0 Nope, loses a piece. The Na5 is defended.
Defended by the queen but attacked by the rook on a1, unless I've got
the position wrong.
18. Ne4 may be the better move; I just thought 18. Nxf7 was an
interesting possibility to bring up.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Sep 2008 03:29:04
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> On Sep 1, 8:43 pm, Frisco Del Rosario <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article
> > <06c59b25-df02-4ff0-aa8b-9acec590c...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > I have no interest in getting into a detailed theoretical discussion
> > > of the intricacies of the Wing Gambit. My comments are intended in a
> > > general sense to aid Mr. Salerno.
> >
> > You said: "I might make a few comments on Black's handling of the
> > opening, lest John get too enthusiastic about the Wing Gambit."
>
> Yes. Black played very badly early on. I wanted to make sure John
> realized his success in the opening phase of the game was due to
> Black's bad play, not to any inherent virtue of the Wing Gambit.
>
> > I think imaginative chessplayers ought to be most enthusiastic about
> > wing gambits on both wings, with both colors.
>
> I quite agree. I just think the Wing Gambit is not a very good
> gambit. In my time I've played Danish, G�ring, Vienna, King's,
> Blackmar-Diemer, Smith-Morra, Benko and other gambits. The Wing
> Gambit, never, though I did win the only time I faced it as Black.
Ok..
What we have here are the greatest ..
I've had a look, I can't see any fabulous game-notation..
I've checked the header..
It's from a John Salerno. A newby with some worthless academic
qualification in language & two seasoned & reasonably strong
chess-players are tusseling over _his_ virgin words like whores in some
Texas bordello?..
Git a hold of yourselves..
Taylor & Frisco..
Any, & I mean any young euro master fro' the Dutch free/smoke hole-in
the-wall 'n the Vienna/cafe snip/snip players would actually bust you
two dudes apart ovb..
Get over it..
Both..
I know what you're into Taylor - little bit of correspondence chess etc.
& I find that pathetic - like listening to Brahms all day on the radio..
& you Frisco? yeh I know you're such a tight latino - you're style etc.
..
Picked up on Capa. some time ago. Great..
Why waste time on this newby with his "sighs" etc.? - silly..
t.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 06:56:24
From:
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
On Sep 4, 5:04=A0am, "Andrew B." <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 1 Sep, 17:19, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 31, 7:13=A0pm, John Salerno <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > It seemed pretty even the whole way through, but I feel like I lost
> > > sight of what I was doing toward the end. I think my biggest problem
> > > right now is after about move 10, I just don't know what to do anymor=
e.
> > > I don't know what I should be looking for and what types of plans to =
put
> > > together. I tried to have a reason for every move I made, but they
> > > weren't necessarily long-term plans.
>
> > 1.e4 c5 2.b4
>
> > =A0 I don=92t think much of the Wing Gambit, but de gustibus non est
> > disputandum. In any event, it works well here, as Black has no idea
> > how to play against it.
>
> > 2=85cxb4 3.d4 Qb6 4.Nf3 b3 5.axb3 Qb4+ 6.Bd2 Qb6 7.Bc4 Nc6 8.Nc3 e6 9.0=
=96
> > 0 Nf6 10.Bf4
>
> > =A0 When you have a big advantage in center control and development lik=
e
> > this, a central pawn push is often very effective. How about 10.d5!
> > Nb4 [if 10...exd5 11.exd5 Na5 12.Qe2+ Be7 (or 12...Kd8 13.Ng5 Nxc4
> > 14.Nxf7+ Kc7 15.Qxc4+ Kb8 16.Nb5 intending 17.Ba5 and wins.) 13.Rfe1
> > or 13.d6 and wins.] 11.d6! and Black is really stuck for a good move.
> > If 11=85Qxd6 or 11=85Bxd6 12.e5 wins.
>
> > 10...Na5 11.Bb5?!
>
> > =A0 Gives away much of your advantage. Black has no business moving tha=
t
> > knight again when he's so far behind in development, and you need not
> > fear exchanging it for your bishop. If you must move the B, 11.Bd3 was
> > much better. You could also have tried the aggressive 11.e5 or 11.Nb5.
> > When you have an early developmental advantage like this, you must be
> > aggressive. Development is a *_temporary_* advantage, and if you don=92=
t
> > use it, you lose it.
>
> > 11...Bb4 12.Qd3 a6 13.Bc4 Qd8 14.Bg5 -- 14.e5!? -- 14...h6 15.Bxf6
> > gxf6 16.e5 fxe5 17.Nxe5 Bd6?
>
> > =A0 Better 17...d6
>
> > 18.Rfe1
>
> > =A0 18.Ne4! was just crying out to be played, aiming at the weak square=
s
> > d6 and f6. A likely continuation then was 18...Be7 19.Qf3 Rf8
>
> Maybe not so clear if Black plays 18. ...Nxc4, 19. Nxc4 Bc7 ?
That is probably about as viable as 18...Be7, but I still much
prefer White. After 18.Ne4 Nxc4, White seems to have two main
choices:
(A) Your 19.Nxc4 Bc7, when 20.d5! looks quite strong, viz.
20...exd5? 21.Ned6+ Kf8 22.Qf5 Bxd6 23.Nxd6 Qe7 24.Qf4 Rh7 25.Rfe1+-,
or 20...0-0 21.d6 Bb8 and Black has more cramps than a dysentery
victim.
(B) 19.bxc4 Bc7 20.Qg3 Kf8 21.Qf4 f5 [if 21...Qe7 22.Ng6+ Kg7
23.Qxc7 Kxg6 (or 23...fxg6 24.Qe5+ Kg8 25.Nf6+ Kf7 26.Nd5 and wins)
24.c5 and the N will settle in nicely on d6] 22.c5 (preventing the d-
pawn from moving), to be followed by Ra1-a3-h3, and White will soon
have all his pieces attacking on the kingside while most of Black's
are "still in the box."
> An alternative is 18. Nxf7 Kxf7, 19, Qf5+ winning a pawn.
Nope, loses a piece. The Na5 is defended.
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Sep 2008 08:34:04
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
**Here is an illustration of how not to learn chess - while Taylor
Kingston's analysis below is perfectly fine, he is an 1800 player and
besides has taken more than a few minutes to make his analysis.
(A) Your 19.Nxc4 Bc7, when 20.d5! looks quite strong, viz.
20...exd5? 21.Ned6+ Kf8 22.Qf5 Bxd6 23.Nxd6 Qe7 24.Qf4 Rh7 25.Rfe1+-,
or 20...0-0 21.d6 Bb8 and Black has more cramps than a dysentery
victim.
(B) 19.bxc4 Bc7 20.Qg3 Kf8 21.Qf4 f5 [if 21...Qe7 22.Ng6+ Kg7
23.Qxc7 Kxg6 (or 23...fxg6 24.Qe5+ Kg8 25.Nf6+ Kf7 26.Nd5 and wins)
24.c5 and the N will settle in nicely on d6] 22.c5 (preventing the d-
pawn from moving), to be followed by Ra1-a3-h3, and White will soon
have all his pieces attacking on the kingside while most of Black's
are "still in the box."
> An alternative is 18. Nxf7 Kxf7, 19, Qf5+ winning a pawn.
Nope, loses a piece. The Na5 is defended.
**When strong players say 'don't rote learn the openings', its not that that
doesn't have value, LOOK! here we are way down the opening tree with a
couple of sub-sub-sub gambit variations at move 24. Last year I played at
least 100 Pelikans, which in some lines I know to move 30 - and no position
repeated another after move 12! The second factor here is that our learner
misses what Taylor is illustrating, since he overlooks 1 and 2 move piece
loses. The main issue about learning away from the board is what to spend
your time on that will be useful over the board.
**If you play typical club chess at maybe 15 minutes a game you are making
about 3 moves a minute, or allowing 20 seconds each, and can you really
afford to either remember or calculate 2x6 move sequences in complex middle
games which will result in better endgames, when attempting 2 or 3 move
tactical plays is challenging enough in that time for even stronger players?
**Who exactly is encouraging this player to spend time he won't have OTB
with lines in the Sicilian going to move 24 - or use that defence at all?
**Better he found an all purpose opening that he can play and know well for
8 moves, which may be 2 moves more than almost any opponent he may
encounter. Then he can get into the middle game and probably lose against
tactical finesses, but at least he can get into the game without too much
grief and concentrate on tactics.
Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 02:04:48
From: Andrew B.
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
On 1 Sep, 17:19, [email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 31, 7:13=A0pm, John Salerno <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > It seemed pretty even the whole way through, but I feel like I lost
> > sight of what I was doing toward the end. I think my biggest problem
> > right now is after about move 10, I just don't know what to do anymore.
> > I don't know what I should be looking for and what types of plans to pu=
t
> > together. I tried to have a reason for every move I made, but they
> > weren't necessarily long-term plans.
>
> 1.e4 c5 2.b4
>
> =A0 I don=92t think much of the Wing Gambit, but de gustibus non est
> disputandum. In any event, it works well here, as Black has no idea
> how to play against it.
>
> 2=85cxb4 3.d4 Qb6 4.Nf3 b3 5.axb3 Qb4+ 6.Bd2 Qb6 7.Bc4 Nc6 8.Nc3 e6 9.0=
=96
> 0 Nf6 10.Bf4
>
> =A0 When you have a big advantage in center control and development like
> this, a central pawn push is often very effective. How about 10.d5!
> Nb4 [if 10...exd5 11.exd5 Na5 12.Qe2+ Be7 (or 12...Kd8 13.Ng5 Nxc4
> 14.Nxf7+ Kc7 15.Qxc4+ Kb8 16.Nb5 intending 17.Ba5 and wins.) 13.Rfe1
> or 13.d6 and wins.] 11.d6! and Black is really stuck for a good move.
> If 11=85Qxd6 or 11=85Bxd6 12.e5 wins.
>
> 10...Na5 11.Bb5?!
>
> =A0 Gives away much of your advantage. Black has no business moving that
> knight again when he's so far behind in development, and you need not
> fear exchanging it for your bishop. If you must move the B, 11.Bd3 was
> much better. You could also have tried the aggressive 11.e5 or 11.Nb5.
> When you have an early developmental advantage like this, you must be
> aggressive. Development is a *_temporary_* advantage, and if you don=92t
> use it, you lose it.
>
> 11...Bb4 12.Qd3 a6 13.Bc4 Qd8 14.Bg5 -- 14.e5!? -- 14...h6 15.Bxf6
> gxf6 16.e5 fxe5 17.Nxe5 Bd6?
>
> =A0 Better 17...d6
>
> 18.Rfe1
>
> =A0 18.Ne4! was just crying out to be played, aiming at the weak squares
> d6 and f6. A likely continuation then was 18...Be7 19.Qf3 Rf8
Maybe not so clear if Black plays 18. ...Nxc4, 19. Nxc4 Bc7 ?
An alternative is 18. Nxf7 Kxf7, 19, Qf5+ winning a pawn.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 06:37:34
From: help bot
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
[email protected] wrote:
> I might make a few comments on Black's handling of the opening, lest
> John get too enthusiastic about the Wing Gambit. British GM Joe
> Gallagher, in "Beating the Anti-Sicilians" (Henry Holt & Co., 1994)
> comments:
>
> "The Wing Gambit is forgotten relic, having hardly set foot in a
> tournament hall since the days Frank Marshall and Rudolf Spielmann
Does Chessbase in any way support this
comment?
My own experience is that while such
gambits may or may not be "dead" at the
lower levels, in one game against Emory
Tate (now an IM, I think) he sprang a
very similar wing gambit against me, and
it seemed he had made a study of it-- it
was not a random or anomalous fluke.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 06:02:06
From:
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
On Sep 1, 8:43=A0pm, Frisco Del Rosario <[email protected] > wrote:
> In article
> <06c59b25-df02-4ff0-aa8b-9acec590c...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > =A0 I have no interest in getting into a detailed theoretical discussio=
n
> > of the intricacies of the Wing Gambit. My comments are intended in a
> > general sense to aid Mr. Salerno.
>
> You said: "I might make a few comments on Black's handling of the
> opening, lest John get too enthusiastic about the Wing Gambit."
Yes. Black played very badly early on. I wanted to make sure John
realized his success in the opening phase of the game was due to
Black's bad play, not to any inherent virtue of the Wing Gambit.
> I think imaginative chessplayers ought to be most enthusiastic about
> wing gambits on both wings, with both colors.
I quite agree. I just think the Wing Gambit is not a very good
gambit. In my time I've played Danish, G=F6ring, Vienna, King's,
Blackmar-Diemer, Smith-Morra, Benko and other gambits. The Wing
Gambit, never, though I did win the only time I faced it as Black.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Sep 2008 18:22:41
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
On Sep 1, 7:43 pm, Frisco Del Rosario <[email protected] > wrote:
> In article
> <06c59b25-df02-4ff0-aa8b-9acec590c...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > I have no interest in getting into a detailed theoretical discussion
> > of the intricacies of the Wing Gambit. My comments are intended in a
> > general sense to aid Mr. Salerno.
>
> You said: "I might make a few comments on Black's handling of the
> opening, lest John get too enthusiastic about the Wing Gambit."
>
> I think imaginative chessplayers ought to be most enthusiastic about
> wing gambits on both wings, with both colors.
I think new chessplayers who want to improve can do far worse than
play gambits of any kind. There's so much to learn from them. Back
when I was playing regularly, I routinely offered the Vienna, King's
Gambit, and Blackmar-Diemer, with an occasional Evans thrown in. As
Black I favored sharp lines in the French and Dutch.
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 17:59:19
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:fa76af57-6bf5-497d-b30f-0ca823755618@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 1, 7:43 pm, Frisco Del Rosario <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article
>> <06c59b25-df02-4ff0-aa8b-9acec590c...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> > I have no interest in getting into a detailed theoretical discussion
>> > of the intricacies of the Wing Gambit. My comments are intended in a
>> > general sense to aid Mr. Salerno.
>>
>> You said: "I might make a few comments on Black's handling of the
>> opening, lest John get too enthusiastic about the Wing Gambit."
>>
>> I think imaginative chessplayers ought to be most enthusiastic about
>> wing gambits on both wings, with both colors.
>
> I think new chessplayers who want to improve can do far worse than
> play gambits of any kind. There's so much to learn from them. Back
> when I was playing regularly, I routinely offered the Vienna, King's
> Gambit, and Blackmar-Diemer, with an occasional Evans thrown in. As
> Black I favored sharp lines in the French and Dutch.
Another opinion is not to mess around in the openings as a beginner, and
avoid gambits in preference to developing all your pieces, which is the
strongest possible practical option in all cases. If beginners think they
can tactically out-finesse non-beginners, they deceive themselves.
Opening theory in these instances is of far greater importance than the
esoterica of learned lines.
What is important is to understand the position you elect as soundly as
possible, and you don't need to give up a pawn to do that. If offered
gambits, prefer development, since there is no such thing [for a beginner]
as a free pawn.
Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 01 Sep 2008 17:30:16
From:
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
On Sep 1, 7:43=A0pm, Frisco Del Rosario <[email protected] > wrote:
> In article
> <632d89a0-7f50-4f5c-8e9d-9a710c131...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > =A01. e4 c5 2. b4
> > =A0I might make a few comments on Black's handling of the opening, lest
> > John get too enthusiastic about the Wing Gambit. British GM Joe
> > Gallagher, in "Beating the Anti-Sicilians" (Henry Holt & Co., 1994)
> > comments:
>
> > =A0 "The Wing Gambit is forgotten relic, having hardly set foot in a
> > tournament hall since the days Frank Marshall and Rudolf Spielmann
> > [who died in 1944 and 1942, respectively -- TK]. White sacrifices a
> > pawn for ... well, not a lot. Maybe he hopes to build a big centre,
> > but Black can easily counter this with ...d5."
>
> > 2=8Acxb4 3.d4 Qb6?!
>
> > =A0 Black goes wrong quickly here. Better 3...d5, as recommended by
> > Gallagher. The main line then is 4.e5 Nc6 5.a3 and _now_ 5...Qb6.
>
> I disagree with Gallagher's suggested "main line", and prefer 4. exd5
> Qxd5 5. c4 bxc3 6. Nxc3.
In that case Gallagher prefers not 4...Qxd5 but 4...Nf6.
I have no interest in getting into a detailed theoretical discussion
of the intricacies of the Wing Gambit. My comments are intended in a
general sense to aid Mr. Salerno. I think that we can at least agree
that Black handled his side of things rather badly in this particular
game.
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Sep 2008 17:43:25
From: Frisco Del Rosario
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
In article
<06c59b25-df02-4ff0-aa8b-9acec590ca55@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >,
[email protected] wrote:
> I have no interest in getting into a detailed theoretical discussion
> of the intricacies of the Wing Gambit. My comments are intended in a
> general sense to aid Mr. Salerno.
You said: "I might make a few comments on Black's handling of the
opening, lest John get too enthusiastic about the Wing Gambit."
I think imaginative chessplayers ought to be most enthusiastic about
wing gambits on both wings, with both colors.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Sep 2008 15:49:44
From:
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
On Sep 1, 12:19=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 31, 7:13=A0pm, John Salerno <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > It seemed pretty even the whole way through, but I feel like I lost
> > sight of what I was doing toward the end. I think my biggest problem
> > right now is after about move 10, I just don't know what to do anymore.
> > I don't know what I should be looking for and what types of plans to pu=
t
> > together. I tried to have a reason for every move I made, but they
> > weren't necessarily long-term plans.
>
> 1.e4 c5 2.b4
>
> =A0 I don=92t think much of the Wing Gambit, but de gustibus non est
> disputandum. In any event, it works well here, as Black has no idea
> how to play against it.
>
> 2=85cxb4 3.d4 Qb6 4.Nf3 b3 5.axb3 Qb4+ 6.Bd2 Qb6 7.Bc4 Nc6 8.Nc3 e6 9.0=
=96
> 0 Nf6 10.Bf4
>
> =A0 When you have a big advantage in center control and development like
> this, a central pawn push is often very effective. How about 10.d5!
> Nb4 [if 10...exd5 11.exd5 Na5 12.Qe2+ Be7 (or 12...Kd8 13.Ng5 Nxc4
> 14.Nxf7+ Kc7 15.Qxc4+ Kb8 16.Nb5 intending 17.Ba5 and wins.) 13.Rfe1
> or 13.d6 and wins.] 11.d6! and Black is really stuck for a good move.
> If 11=85Qxd6 or 11=85Bxd6 12.e5 wins.
>
> 10...Na5 11.Bb5?!
>
> =A0 Gives away much of your advantage. Black has no business moving that
> knight again when he's so far behind in development, and you need not
> fear exchanging it for your bishop. If you must move the B, 11.Bd3 was
> much better. You could also have tried the aggressive 11.e5 or 11.Nb5.
> When you have an early developmental advantage like this, you must be
> aggressive. Development is a *_temporary_* advantage, and if you don=92t
> use it, you lose it.
>
> 11...Bb4 12.Qd3 a6 13.Bc4 Qd8 14.Bg5 -- 14.e5!? -- 14...h6 15.Bxf6
> gxf6 16.e5 fxe5 17.Nxe5 Bd6?
>
> =A0 Better 17...d6
>
> 18.Rfe1
>
> =A0 18.Ne4! was just crying out to be played, aiming at the weak squares
> d6 and f6. A likely continuation then was 18...Be7 19.Qf3 Rf8 [if
> 19...0=960 ? 20.Qg4+ Kh8 (or 20...Kh7 ?? 21.Nf6+! Bxf6 22.Bd3+ Kh8
> 23.Qe4 Bxe5 24.Qh7#) 21.Bd3 f5 22.Qh5] 20.d5 Nxc4 21.Nxc4 d6 22.Qf4 e5
> (22...exd5 23.Nexd6+ Bxd6 24.Nxd6+ Kd7 25.Nb5 Kc6 26.c4) 23.Qxh6 and
> White is clearly winning.
>
> 18...Nc6 19.Qg3 -- 19.Ne4 again was better. -- 19...Bxe5 20.dxe5 Qg5
> 21.Re3 =96 At the risk of sounding like a broken record, 21.Ne4! was
> better -- 21...Nd4 22.Qh3?
>
> =A0 This pretty much starts giving away the store. Better, yet again,
> was 22.Ne4, a likely line then being Qxg3 23.Nd6+ Ke7 24.Rxg3 Nxc2
> 25.Rd1 with a terrific positional bind.
>
> 22...Nxc2 23.Rg3 Qxe5 24.Rd1 b5 25.Be2
>
> =A0 25.Bd3 was better. If then =A025...Qxc3? 26.Be4 Qc7 27.Bxa8.
>
> 25...b4 26.Rc1?
>
> =A0 =A026.Bd3 bxc3 27.Bxc2 was preferable.
>
> 26...Nd4 27.Bf3??
>
> =A0 =A027.Re3 was relatively best, though Black is still much better.
> After the text, it's all over.
>
> 27...bxc3 28.Bxa8 Ne2+ 29.Kf1 Nxc1 30.Rxc3 Qe2+ 31.Kg1 Qd1# 1=960
>
> =A0 John, I would take a lot of encouragement from this game. For a
> novice, you played pretty darn well. Your early moves showed that
> you=92ve learned quite well the general principles Chernev, Seirawan et
> al are teaching you. With more study and experience, you will learn
> how to use this kind of advantage once you have one.
1.e4 c5 2.b4
I might make a few comments on Black's handling of the opening, lest
John get too enthusiastic about the Wing Gambit. British GM Joe
Gallagher, in "Beating the Anti-Sicilians" (Henry Holt & Co., 1994)
comments:
"The Wing Gambit is forgotten relic, having hardly set foot in a
tournament hall since the days Frank Marshall and Rudolf Spielmann
[who died in 1944 and 1942, respectively -- TK]. White sacrifices a
pawn for ... well, not a lot. Maybe he hopes to build a big centre,
but Black can easily counter this with ...d5."
2=85cxb4 3.d4 Qb6?!
Black goes wrong quickly here. Better 3...d5, as recommended by
Gallagher. The main line then is 4.e5 Nc6 5.a3 and _now_ 5...Qb6.
4.Nf3 b3?
What?? This gives back the pawn for nothing.
5.axb3 Qb4+
Just what is this supposed to accomplish?
6.Bd2
Good, but perhaps even better was 6.c3, and White's center is
extremely imposing.
6...Qb6
Black has moved his queen three times to accomplish nothing.
Meanwhile White has about three or four extra tempi, and Black has not
even so much as a pawn in compensation.
7.Bc4 Nc6 8.Nc3 e6 9.0=960
Already it's not too soon to start opening things up with 9.d5!
9...Nf6 10.Bf4
And back to the above annotations.
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 10:35:18
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:632d89a0-7f50-4f5c-8e9d-9a710c13110f@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 1, 12:19 pm, [email protected] wrote:
1.e4 c5 2.b4
I might make a few comments on Black's handling of the opening, lest
John get too enthusiastic about the Wing Gambit. British GM Joe
Gallagher, in "Beating the Anti-Sicilians" (Henry Holt & Co., 1994)
comments:
---
To be honest, the only reason I even played it was because I was always at a
loss for how to respond to the Sicilian Defense, and then in one of my books
I saw the Wing Gambit used and finally I had something logical to do in
response. The point of it seems to be to trade a more centralized pawn for a
outside pawn and also to open the b-file for the rook. Of course, I never
took advantage of this open file, but I was at least confident that 2.b4
made sense. Otherwise I probably would have played 2.Nf3 out of habit.
I don't think I'm quite ready to start studying the openings in any depth
right now, so for now I sort of play based on the principles I've learned,
and in this case I tried a specific move that I learned from a book (which
may not be good since I didn't know how, if possible, to follow up properly
after 2.b4).
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Sep 2008 16:43:36
From: Frisco Del Rosario
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
In article
<632d89a0-7f50-4f5c-8e9d-9a710c13110f@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com >,
[email protected] wrote:
> 1. e4 c5 2. b4
> I might make a few comments on Black's handling of the opening, lest
> John get too enthusiastic about the Wing Gambit. British GM Joe
> Gallagher, in "Beating the Anti-Sicilians" (Henry Holt & Co., 1994)
> comments:
>
> "The Wing Gambit is forgotten relic, having hardly set foot in a
> tournament hall since the days Frank Marshall and Rudolf Spielmann
> [who died in 1944 and 1942, respectively -- TK]. White sacrifices a
> pawn for ... well, not a lot. Maybe he hopes to build a big centre,
> but Black can easily counter this with ...d5."
>
> 2�cxb4 3.d4 Qb6?!
>
> Black goes wrong quickly here. Better 3...d5, as recommended by
> Gallagher. The main line then is 4.e5 Nc6 5.a3 and _now_ 5...Qb6.
I disagree with Gallagher's suggested "main line", and prefer 4. exd5
Qxd5 5. c4 bxc3 6. Nxc3.
It's better still if there's a black knight on c6. 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6
3. b4 cxb4 (or 3...Nxb4 4. c3 Nc6 5. d4 cxd4 6. cxd4 d5 transposing) 4.
d4 d5 5. exd5 Qxd5 6. c4 bxc3 7. Nxc3 Qa5 8. d5 Qxc3+ 9. Bd2, and so on.
I'm a big believer in wing gambits on both sides of the board, and for
both colors. For three years, I wrote a regular feature "This Issue's
Obligatory Wing Gambit" for the California Chess Journal.
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 17:52:12
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
"Frisco Del Rosario" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article
> <632d89a0-7f50-4f5c-8e9d-9a710c13110f@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> 1. e4 c5 2. b4
>> I might make a few comments on Black's handling of the opening, lest
>> John get too enthusiastic about the Wing Gambit. British GM Joe
>> Gallagher, in "Beating the Anti-Sicilians" (Henry Holt & Co., 1994)
>> comments:
>>
>> "The Wing Gambit is forgotten relic, having hardly set foot in a
>> tournament hall since the days Frank Marshall and Rudolf Spielmann
>> [who died in 1944 and 1942, respectively -- TK]. White sacrifices a
>> pawn for ... well, not a lot. Maybe he hopes to build a big centre,
>> but Black can easily counter this with ...d5."
>>
>> 2Scxb4 3.d4 Qb6?!
>>
>> Black goes wrong quickly here. Better 3...d5, as recommended by
>> Gallagher. The main line then is 4.e5 Nc6 5.a3 and _now_ 5...Qb6.
>
> I disagree with Gallagher's suggested "main line", and prefer 4. exd5
> Qxd5 5. c4 bxc3 6. Nxc3.
>
> It's better still if there's a black knight on c6. 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6
> 3. b4 cxb4 (or 3...Nxb4 4. c3 Nc6 5. d4 cxd4 6. cxd4 d5 transposing) 4.
> d4 d5 5. exd5 Qxd5 6. c4 bxc3 7. Nxc3 Qa5 8. d5 Qxc3+ 9. Bd2, and so on.
>
> I'm a big believer in wing gambits on both sides of the board, and for
> both colors. For three years, I wrote a regular feature "This Issue's
> Obligatory Wing Gambit" for the California Chess Journal.
There is even the opportunity of declining it. I think Adorjan has some
analysis of what black may do.
But this is all theory - and otb, what use is that? How will you behave if
offered a wing-gambit? Already out of your book? Then the other player for
sure is in his, and tick tick tick is the reality of things - and will you
be a genius if you can't access your database? Experience says no.
The gambiter seeks to lure you away from sound opening practice by
maintaining the pawn or giving up the centre entirely. Tarrasch recommended
cohesive piece development, if at the cost of a counter-gambit. And why not
counter-gambit? White will lose another tempo in accepting it, and that
makes 2 in all, and that is 2/3 of a pawn.
That is a pregnant strategy to consider.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 31 Aug 2008 16:54:11
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: ::sigh:: Comments on this game?
|
On Aug 31, 6:13 pm, John Salerno <[email protected] > wrote:
> It seemed pretty even the whole way through, but I feel like I lost
> sight of what I was doing toward the end. I think my biggest problem
> right now is after about move 10, I just don't know what to do anymore.
I thought you had a great position in the opening. What you might want
to do is force the position open. Your play was too timid when you
needed to pull the trigger.
> I don't know what I should be looking for and what types of plans to put
> together. I tried to have a reason for every move I made, but they
> weren't necessarily long-term plans.
>
> [Event ""]
> [Site ""]
> [Date "8-31-2008"]
> [Round ""]
> [White "John"]
> [Black "Marius"]
> [Result "0-1"]
> [ECO "c) U"]
>
> 1. e4 c5
> 2. b4 cxb4
> 3. d4 Qb6
> 4. Nf3 b3
> 5. axb3 Qb4+
> 6. Bd2 Qb6
> 7. Bc4 Nc6
> 8. Nc3 e6
White can play 9. d5, starting to bust Black open.
> 9. O-O Nf6
Again, 10. d5 forces the position open. With his King in the center
and his pieces underdeveloped, Black doesn't want the center open.
> 10. Bf4 Na5
Black might have tried 10... Nxe4, leading to "the fork trick" 11.
Nxe4 d5.
> 11. Bb5 Bb4
> 12. Qd3 a6
> 13. Bc4 Qd8
> 14. Bg5 h6
> 15. Bxf6 gxf6
> 16. e5 fxe5
> 17. Nxe5 Bd6
> 18. Rfe1 Nc6
> 19. Qg3 Bxe5
> 20. dxe5 Qg5
> 21. Re3 Nd4
> 22. Qh3 Nxc2
> 23. Rg3 Qxe5
> 24. Rd1 b5
> 25. Be2 b4
> 26. Rc1 Nd4
> 27. Bf3 bxc3
> 28. Bxa8 Ne2+
> 29. Kf1 Nxc1
> 30. Rxc3 Qe2+
> 31. Kg1 Qd1#
> 0-1
|
|
