Sally Simpson: ***
I've always played 2..Nf6 v 2.Qh5 and get a game I enjoy to play. Nc6 instead 0-0 and if Qg3 Nd5 gets you more play. Kd1 0-0 c3 d5 sac the Knight, you have moved it enough, it's done it's job.
Actually have a great game with this which I used in an after tournament - waiting for the prize money to get sorted - lecture attended by GM's, IM's, not yet M's and never will be M's.
Great round of applause, suggestion from someone to write a humorous yet instructive chess book and Rampant Chess appeared.
'The authors asked 13 Scottish GMs and IMs to send 5 games, without notes, for the authors to annotate.
Most of the games were sent with notes anyway, so the authors pitched the notes and started in on their own! No respect for authority.
As annotators, Chandler and Ruxton explicitly value fun above truth (not that they sacrifice the latter, exactly), so most of the notes are verbal, and usually silly. As far as I can see, their analysis is perfectly good; but if a long variation is required, they often prefer to insert a joke.
Somehow it works, partly because the games are so entertaining. But also because Chandler and Ruxton are having such a good time making fun of everybody (and themselves) that they don't lose perspective, treating the games lightly while making sure to hit the important points and get them right."
John Watson:
All came from a Qh5 game. (have to submit it.)
https://theweekinchess.com/john-wat...
---
Looks like here:
when Narayanan went into his 'combination' with 19...Qa1+ missed that here White could play 22.Kxd1.
The obvious 22.Rxd1, the kind of move you skip past without looking for an alternative when calculating, drops the c7 Bishop after Bxb4 cxb4 to Rc8.
Kibitzing
sac: 19.Qc4
