| May-04-10 | | iking: nice combination ... . |
|
May-04-10
 | | al wazir: Why didn't black play 19...Qxb5 ? After 20. Rxe7+ Kxe7 21. Qg7+ Ke8 22. Qxh8+ Kf7 23. Qxh7+ Kf8 24. Qxg6+ Qd7 25. Qxf6+ Qf7, black is two ♙s down, but with opposite colored ♗s on the board that's better than what happened. |
|
| May-04-10 | | SpiritedReposte: Great pun! Refering to all the pieces white had hanging? And it being a baseball term and all. |
|
| May-04-10 | | rodantero: After 19...Qxb5 black will be mated after 20.Rxe7+ Kxe7 21.Qg7+ Ke8 22.Bd6 (or 22.Kd8 Bc7+ 23.Ke8 Bd6). |
|
| May-04-10 | | Once: I really don't like 14...Qxc3. Okay, black grabs a pawn, but he invites Rc1 (hitting the queen) followed by Rc7. As Black, I'd rather be developing pieces. The winner is usually the fella who gets his rooks working first. One of my favourite strategies is to gambit my c or f pawn if that enables me to grab an open or semi-open file with a rook. Then the attack almost plays itself ... double the rooks on the open file, invade on the seventh rank, chuck some more pieces forwards, threaten back rank mates, some tactical fireworks, a quick handshake, thanks for the game. Of course, it doesn't always work out that way. Every now and again, Mr Dour will take the proferred c or f pawn, grimly repulse the attack and then win the king and pawn endgame. But, hey, life would be dull if it was too easy. |
|
| May-04-10 | | TheaN: <Once: Of course, it doesn't always work out that way. Every now and again, Mr Dour will take the proferred c or f pawn, grimly repulse the attack and then win the king and pawn endgame. But, hey, life would be dull if it was too easy.> Hehe. True though, I think it is in fact the beginner to experienced players (<2000, possible <2100) that should play more gambit systems. In the end, defense is much harder than attacking. It shows in the romantic era of the King's Gambit and the rare occurences of brilliant Albin wins (which is actually based on countering development which you also mentioned). |
|
| May-04-10 | | newzild: <Hehe. True though, I think it is in fact the beginner to experienced players (2000, possible 2100) that should play more gambit systems. In the end, defense is much harder than attacking. It shows in the romantic era of the King's Gambit and the rare occurences of brilliant Albin wins (which is actually based on countering development which you also mentioned).> I'm not so sure. I think it comes down to a player's style. I'm in the 2000 to 2100 range, and I'm relatively weak at playing gambits. I'm also not very good at attacking an enemy king. It's true that attack is easier than defence, but some people are (like myself) just positional players who would rather just avoid tactics altogether. |
|
| May-04-10 | | themindset: <newzild> i used to be like you. the best way to get around it is to force yourself to play the games/positions you're weakest at. remember reti's famous quote:
A knowledge of tactics is the foundation of positional play. This is a rule which has stood its test in chess history and one which we cannot impress forcibly enough upon the young chess player. A beginner should avoid Queen's Gambit and French Defence and play open games instead. |
|
| May-04-10 | | newzild: <the best way to get around it is to force yourself to play the games/positions you're weakest at.> Maybe, but I'm a casual player who plays for fun, and I tend to enjoy positional games. The point, in relation to the original topic, is that gambits don't necessarily suit everybody in the under-2100 elo range. |
|
| May-04-10 | | kevin86: Nice combo-white squeezes the king out. |
|
| May-04-10 | | Lorenzon: reminds me of a Kasparov game... |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
sac: 22.Rxe7+