| Sep-18-04 | | xiaolin: first to kibitz, maybe the site is losing all its popularity |
|
| Sep-18-04 | | kevin86: White is lost:black exchanges all the pieces and wins easily with his two extra pawns. |
|
| Sep-18-04 | | pawnwolf: I don't post a lot (at all). Largely because I don't have much in the way of constructive advice and I am not well versed in chess theory or study. I do however value the efforts made by others to explain and explore games, moves and positions. I like to play and want to improve. So what do people see as the main 'error' of black in this game? I see a few moves, which in my eyes, lead to problems. Please note that I am well aware that I have both the advantage of hindsight and the disadvantage of ignorance. One move in particular stands out, not because it is immediately deadly but rather, because it seems to lead to bad things. I come to this site to learn, so I guess I shouldn’t be so timid about expressing my weaknesses, asking stupid questions and making faulty observations. So here is my thought/ question: White’s 15th move Rook- A2 seems to lead to a snowball of exchanges and a position that leaves Black better. Am I correct in assuming that the purpose is to protect the B2 bishop when he moves his Knight to E4? Why not 15th move Knight to A4? The knight moves to the edge but it opens and protects the bishop without the rook move. If Black takes the B2 Bishop the Knight slides back into a favorable position. If White exchanges bishops he can retreat the Knight to the newly freed B2 Square where it will be effective. If Black ignores the Bishop after the exchange and goes for the Knight, retreat the Bishop and maintain the diagonal. A Knight on B2 looks like it might have potential. And the alternative of keeping his bishop seems to be better then the resulting exchange that occurred after the Rook move. To my untrained eye the A2 Rook move seems to lead to the trades that favor Black. So this stands out in my mind as being the grain of sand in Black’s shoe. Any thoughts or advice will be welcomed. Thanks. |
|
| Sep-18-04 | | Gypsy: <pawnwolf> Wellcome to kibitzing. The way I see it, white trouble stem from his loss of time on the maneuver Bf1-e2-d3; therefore <12.Be2?> is an error. Thus Black now has the initiative, and White <14.Ra2(?)> indeed feels way to optimistic. Although 14.Rb1 seems dull, but it is more solid here because it keeps the rooks connected. Your 14.Na4 looks suprisingly playable at this place, at least, if Black tries to quickly force the issues. Unfortunately, Black has natural quiet ways to complete his development and build up his K-side attack. I'd bee most suprised if the knight at a4 or b2 would not eventually show to be out of play. Incidentally, squares a1, b2, and their symmetric brethern are generally considered to be the 8 worst squares for a knight (see Alburt: Chess Rules of Thumb). I think that <16.Nd4?> is the final mistake and that the game can not be saved afterwards. Move 16.Nd5 would have kept White in the game. The key difference is that 16.Ne4? completely surrenders f4 to Black. |
|
| Sep-18-04 | | pawnwolf: I guess I am trying to put myself in white’s shoes and play the position from the general ‘plan’ I think he may have been working with. It seems to me that he was feeling pressure in two areas (after 14). The first and ‘lesser’ being the A1-H8 diagonal pressure and the second being the Kingside pressure. White made the decision to deal with Knight/Bishop diagonal issue first and felt that if he came out of it even that he could regroup and deal with second pressure area. That’s what I read behind the rook and the Knight moves. It seems in his playing towards this end he opened the door to Black forcing greater pressure on his King side. Keeping that in mind I suggested the Knight to A4 as a temporary move (leading to relocation on B2 or an exchange). I agree that B2 is not ‘empowering’ the Knight’ but I am wondering if it doesn’t achieve White’s goals of forcing the A1-H8 issue and relieve the pressure without disastrous effects. It also adds minimal support to, and the promise of joining the Kingside. Plus it prevents the total disintegration of the position. Or does it?
I’m not even sure if I’ve guessed the white ‘plan’, let alone if it’s a viable one. However if I am on the right track then I was offering the A4 knight move as an alternative which keeps the ‘spirit’ of the plan alive. Lol Somebody shoot me now please… |
|
| Sep-18-04 | | pawnwolf: "white trouble stem from his loss of time on the maneuver Bf1-e2-d3; therefore <12.Be2?> is an error." This was very helful and an essential point to note in looking at this game. Thank you for pointing it out. |
|
| Sep-18-04 | | Gypsy: Your reasoning makes perfect sense <pawnwolf>. And in this particular position, the Nb2 position is half-way decent as the knight suports the Bd3 from there. |
|
| Sep-19-04 | | patzer2: Christiansen capitalizes on his superior position with the winning demolition of pawn structure combination 16... Nxd3 17. Qxd3 Nf4 18. Qe3 (18. Qc2 Bxf3! 19. gxf3 Qh3  with a quick mate to follow) 18...Nxg2!![19. Kxg2 Bh3+ 20. Kg1 (20. Kg3 Qg4#; 20. Kh1 Bxf1 ) 20...Qg4+ 21. Ng3 Rxe3 ] [19. Qd3 Nf4 20. Qe3 Nh3+ 21. Kh1 (21. Kg2 f5 ) 21...f5 ] [19. Nxf6+ Bxf6 20. Qh6 Bxb2 21. Ng5 f6 22. Rxb2 Nf4 ] and 19. Qh6 f6! wins as in the game continuation. |
|
| Sep-19-04 | | patzer2: I think White went wrong with the dubious 3. dxc5?! Much better is the standard 3. d5 maintaining a space advantage and tension in the center. After 3. dxc5?! White gives up too much center control, allowing Black easy equality or better with several moves. 3...e6 is the more popular choice and worked well in S Johannessen vs D Lobzhanidze, 2001. 3...e5 is also worth considering as in A Ushenina vs Y Solodovnichenko, 2002. And of course 3...Na6 is better than OK for Black as demonstrated in this game and H Wyss vs I Nemet, 2001. Note: In the 20 games where 3. dxc5?! was played in the Opening Explorer, Black wins 65% and draws 25%. The most serious test of the move seems to be the draw achieved by White in K Langeweg vs Hort, 1970. |
|
Kibitzing
