| Jan-06-03 | | ughaibu: Black sacrifices two pawns for control of central black squares. It's almost enough to win. |
|
| Jan-06-03 | | PVS: I used to hate games with pawn chains blocking my pieces. |
|
| Jan-06-03 | | ughaibu: How do you feel now? I dont know if Kotov enjoyed the game but he was impressed enough to use it in Think Like A Grandmaster. |
|
| Jan-06-03 | | PVS: I have not played serious chess in a long time. It was really a matter of what sorts of positions I played better. For most of my "career" I had an opening arsenal of the Scotch Game as white (2.c3 against the Sicilian; and played the King's Gambit for a change of pace) and against 1. e4 I played the Pirc (sometimes 1...e5 if I knew my opponent would not play the Ruy Lopez; once in a match I played the Centre Counter Gambit and lost in about 20 moves) and the Benko Gambit against 1. d4. Now I enjoy studying all types of games if they have points of interest. |
|
| Jan-07-03 | | THE GENERAL: would you still reccommend this scotch/pirc/benko approach? |
|
| Jan-08-03 | | PVS: The basics of my openings were all gleaned from the book An Opening Repertoire for the Attacking Player by Keene and Levy. I believe this sort of book is designed for someone who has achieved a 1400 level or so and wants to climb. I bought the book about twenty years ago. At the time the lines suggested were not well booked and forcing variations were provided. I never really abandoned it, but I added the Vienna Gambit and a couple of lines in the King's Gambit as white and some 1…e5 stuff as black. As I approached 1800 I bought separate monographs on the Scotch, Sicilian 2.c3, Pirc, and Benko. I hit a wall just over 2000 and for many reasons, including the time required for memorizing a lot of lines and my disinclination to do so, I gave up serious chess. History is unlikely to note the loss. For 2003, I think if someone is around 1400 a contemporary repertoire book suited to his or her style is probably a good way to start. However, I am unable to suggest any titles. |
|
| Jan-08-03 | | refutor: PVS, what's your opinion of Steinitz' 4. ... Qh4?! v. the Scotch. is it only good v. unprepared opponents? |
|
| Jan-08-03 | | ughaibu: Refutor: For a long time I have only played Qh4. Results have been good enough and it avoids white getting a straight-forward game. |
|
| Jan-08-03 | | refutor: thank you ughaibu...i get mixed results but that may be more because of my talent level as opposed to the line :) i haven't seen you on FICS lately, do you still go there? |
|
| Jan-09-03 | | ughaibu: Refutor: I haven't been to FICS since the occasion when we played. Although I have plenty of time to post on here I haven't got continuous time, so to speak, so it's difficult to get involved in play at the moment. Perhaps in a week or two I'll have more opportunity. |
|
| Jan-09-03 | | refutor: ok...drop me a line here or email me <craigsadler@hotmail.com> if you get a chance :) |
|
| Jan-09-03 | | ughaibu: I certainly will. |
|
| Apr-24-03 | | Rookpawn: In his book on the Zurich candidates tournament, Bronstein gives the following notes before analyzing this game: " In the struggle that is chess, the blockade is not just an important technique, but also one of the elements in the strategic plan. The methods for dealing with any enemy piece may be ranked in descending value as follows: capture, exchange, attack, blockade... In the general sense, a blockade may be employed against any piece, including the king, but when we speak of the blockade in practical terms, generally it is in reference to pawns. They are the easiest to blockade, and the most dangerous when set in motion." |
|
| Jun-15-09 | | sonsurvivor: 40...b3+! |
|
| Jun-15-09 | | ounos: Now those are two fun moves (oh! the things a chess player must do!):
14. Ng1 followed by Bf1
:) |
|
| Jan-06-18 | | Marmot PFL: Why doesn't black just play 27...b4 and a5 immediately instead of losing time with the rook moves? |
|
Dec-26-20
 | | plang: 7..c5!? had some popularity in the 50s but is rarely played nowadays; 7..c6 and 7..Nh5 are the main lines. 8..Nh5 was new; 8..Ne8 had been played previously. 11..e4! 12 fxe..f4 was a very clever positional sacrifice. Bronstein and Wood were both complimentary of Gligoric's second pawn sacrifice 21..f3!? but Kasparov was more sceptical. 27..Rab8 was a wasted move; 27..b4 would have been stronger. Kasparov recommended 31 Qd2: eg. 31..Rxg3 32 Rxg3..Ne2 33 Bxe2..Qxg3. Kasparov after 34 Nc1:
"Here, in contrast to the variations with 31 Qd2, White's queen and bishop are in each other's way, and Black has time to defend against f3-f4 and e4-e5." At the end of the time control White erred with 40 Kc2? and could have been punished with 40..b3+ 41 axb..axb 42 Kxb3..Qg7 with a strong attack for Black; missing this a draw was agreed after adjournment. The is a really interesting positional struggle with some creative play by both players. |
|
Kibitzing
