chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing
Andrei A Zaremba vs Rogelio Antonio Jr
Troy Chess Classic (1995), Troy, MI USA, rd 5, Apr-23
Nimzo-Indian Defense: Three Knights Variation (E21)  ·  0-1

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

Get this game explained with Decode Chess
explore this opening
find similar games 381 more games of R Antonio
sac: 23...Rg3+ PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: If you register a free account you will be able to create game collections and add games and notes to them. For more information on game collections, see our Help Page.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jun-07-22  Granny O Doul: <However, your "After 12....f5, the game's nigh salvageable" is not correct.>

It's certainly confusing. I'm guessing he meant "nigh unsalvageable".

Jun-20-22  Brenin: I have nothing to add to comments on this POTD earlier this month.
Jun-20-22
Premium Chessgames Member
  raymondhow: Isn't two weeks a bit soon to be repeating a Monday puzzle?
Jun-20-22
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <raymond>, why stand on ceremony? Might as well get this repetition out of the way to prepare the ground for another!
Jun-20-22  Brenin: Black to move and self-mate in two.
Jun-20-22  saturn2: The Bh2 cannot defend both squuares g3 and h1.
Jun-20-22  Cheapo by the Dozen: 1. Heavy piece sacrifice on the g-file for a quick mate. That's one file away from the Monday stereotype.

2. Lots of ways to mate quickly, including the obvious ... Rxh2. Not much of a puzzle.

3. If the puzzle is run as many weeks as there are moves that win quickly, we could see it yet again.

Jun-20-22  Granny O Doul: Look at a position with 40 ways to win, then try it two weeks later. Then, look at a position with 39 ways to win, and try again THREE weeks later. And so on.

That's my study method. I'm sure there are others equally valid.

Jun-20-22
Premium Chessgames Member
  agb2002: Level 1: 27.?
Spassky vs A Vilup, 1949


click for larger view

Jun-20-22
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <Granny>, your methodology recalls Kotov's comments on Keres vs Filip, 1956 in <Think Like A Grandmaster>, in which White analysed a position, came up with five lines he believed led to a win, but sussed out a sixth which he also thought would bring the full point home, only to learn to his misfortune that it was lost for him.
Jun-20-22  TheaN: <Granny O Doul: <However, your "After 12....f5, the game's nigh salvageable" is not correct.>

It's certainly confusing. I'm guessing he meant "nigh unsalvageable".>

Yeah, I did, my bad.

<Besrqe: reply to my post>

First of all, apologies on the name, it's with the underscoring; you copy something, shorten it and add the name again and mistype it.

As for the post: the gist of it seems to be that 1) you claim the position after 12....f5 is a Dutch Defense and 2) that Black wanted to play this in the first place.

Regardless of the very informative post, I still only agree with the former. Black started with an Indian, which is already weird if one intends a Dutch setup (as the f-pawn is immediately blocked). That, and Black is way too much dependent on White's choices to be able to play this. If he chooses to remove the f3-Knight and play f3-e4, it will be a while for Black to get f5 in and it's probably not recommended early on.

I'll say, though I'm partially criticizing what you posted there's some useful info. I'm no major opening expert, I play mostly by principles. I've only played the Dutch occasionally (I prefer regular Indian defenses or Moderns with early c5) but I've had my share of games with it, and what you added here is useful. Thanks.

Jun-20-22  Besrqe: <TheaN> The difficulty here stems from the fact that you're taking issue with (or what you called "partially criticizing") my posts to this game when you can't demonstrate a proper understanding of the area my comments went into fully enough to do so.

The first time you commented on my note in this fashion, I responded by helping.

However, for you to persist in doing so a second time strikes me as obtuse, if not downright belligerent.

I know you mean well, and I do acknowledge your interspersed words of appreciation for that which you did find helpful, but I already addressed how to determine the Black player's headspace properly in my previous two notes. If you're not able to see it and want to see it differently, that's absolutely fine. I covered everything I wanted to get into with this game, thanks.

Jun-21-22  paavoh: <...go to the opening explorer for White's 6th move to see the more satisfactory options for White>.

Indeed, 6.a3 has +2, =0 and -7 which cannot be claimed as a White opening success, whereas 6.e3, 6.Nd2 or 6. Q/R moves ar3 more common and productive.

Jun-22-22  TheaN: <Besrqe: <TheaN> (...) when you can't demonstrate a proper understanding of the area my comments went into fully enough to do so.

(...) strikes me as obtuse, if not downright belligerent.>

Just stating what first comes to mind, this is unnecessary belittling, using words like "can't demonstrate a proper understanding" and "obtuse", up to a point where I don't really get what the added value is. In fact, it comes across as pretentious. I haven't posted anything out of the ordinary and have in fact given my backed-up viewpoint why I think Black didn't plan this in advance. That you consider that differently, that's fine; no need to become personal.

For what it's worth, I've gladly conversed with and helped out hundreds of chess players on the daily puzzle for 15 years, and I would like to continue doing so, but personal lashes like this make it ever slightly less rewarding. The fact that my posts sometimes come across as a bit sloppy is firstly, English is still not my native language despite 20 years of experience, and I sometimes post too fast. For this post, I took a bit more time.

For sake of chess knowledge, I'm going to give two more points as to why <I think>, not know, that Black played this setup out of opportunism, rather than planning, which in itself is an interesting observation if true.

First of all, player's setup experience. I went through some QP games of Antonio. In the 382 games on the site, he played exactly zero Dutch, White and Black. In QP as Black he often plays a Benoni or KID which pretty much rules out this setup straight away. From most Bogos, NIDs or QIDs I've checked, where this game arrives from, I haven't seen another f5: White usually opts for Nbd2 or Bd2 in the Bogo or goes with more mainstream options in the NID/QID. White simply surrendered e4 in this game and Black took it.

Second, tying in with the first, opponent's dependence in general. In comparison, this is similar as claiming that someone plays the Scotch Gambit to get into a specific variation of the Two Knights; you're so dependent on responses to either opening that it just isn't true. For what it's worth, that's a system I am familiar with and I can give some specifics on the variations here but it's beyond the scope of this interaction. In this game, among others, if White had followed the modern Duchamps line of 6.Nd2, intending f3 as I <posted before> (kind of arguing your claim of "not demonstrating a proper understanding"), Black no longer has the option to play this system. Therefore I think it goes too far to claim Black intended a setup with 12....f5 when he played 1....Nf6, 3....Bb4+ or 4....b6.

Jun-22-22  Besrqe: <TheaN>Don't you dare start crying and playing the victim now lmao This is now your third time posting where the only point you're trying to make is something that is based on nothing but pure speculation.

If this was a courtroom proceeding, opposing council would object on the grounds of speculation, which would be sustained, and since it represents the entirety of your case, your case would be thrown out.

The fact that you're not able able to see this makes you obtuse. The fact that youre still trying to force your speculation regardless (with three! successive posts) makes you belligerent and would get you placed in contempt of court.

Now that you're making a futile attempt at guilt tripping me for calling you out on this, we can now add you're a typical passive/aggressive as well.

I looked over this guy's games and you can see in just the 13 Bogo games substantiation of everything I've said. The first divisional grouping to make is whether he plays the Dutch classical variation small center of d6 and e6 or starts playing c, d, or e pawns to the 5th rank. Where he plays the classical center, he ROUTINELY attempts to get the N to e4. Games where White makes that N move undesirable, he varies. The fact you said you when through his games and were not able to see this verifies my claim that you have not demonstrated sufficient understanding to weigh in on my posts.

The moral to the story is: Stay off my posts in the future, put me on your ignore list if you have to. I'm done with this pathetic crap.

Jun-22-22
Premium Chessgames Member
  Stonehenge: <Besrqe>

Please tone it down a bit.

Jun-22-22  Besrqe: <Stonehenge> I didn't come out swinging if you bothered to read my previous posts. This is the logical result of having my posts trolled by a member of this site repeatedly.
Jun-22-22
Premium Chessgames Member
  Stonehenge: You were not trolled and certainly not with <pathetic crap>.
Jun-22-22
Premium Chessgames Member
  moronovich: I agree with <Stonehenge>.

You were not trolled.

Jun-22-22  Besrqe: <Stonehenge> <moronovich>

This one member made a series of assertions. I addressed several that were all discounted including, but not limited to,

1)he's playing a reversed dragon
2)Qside fianchetto is not typical in the dutch
3)"After ...f5 the game is well nigh salvageable" etc.

After all these were addressed and discounted, what did this member do?

He proceeded to desperately hang on to the only thing he had left, which was try to drive home a point that was nothing other than sheer speculation. "What Black intended to play after such and such a move"

This is why I brought up the court reference in my recent post because speculative points fall under the heading being belligerent since speculation can be argued ENDLESSLY.

Points that are based on speculation are, in fact, crap. And, the fact that this member fell back on this speculation as his last point to endlessly argue in reply to my posts makes it pathetic.

You're probably coming to the defense of a friend of yours, but that changes nothing nor does your opinion.

Jun-22-22  TheaN: <<Besrqe> I looked over this guy's games and you can see in just the 13 Bogo games substantiation of everything I've said. The first divisional grouping to make is whether he plays the Dutch classical variation small center of d6 and e6 or starts playing c, d, or e pawns to the 5th rank. Where he plays the classical center, he ROUTINELY attempts to get the N to e4. Games where White makes that N move undesirable, he varies. The fact you said you when through his games (...)>

Why didn't you start the post with this? Point taken. Missed those games, wasn't intending to check every single one and didn't skip them willingly. On first glance I saw a wide variation to d-pawn opening and no f5 in the Bogos.

<(...) and were not able to see this verifies my claim that you have not demonstrated sufficient understanding to weigh in on my posts.>

But why add this and the rest of the post? This is the first time I've been called a troll on CG. If you've just posted that he played the f5 setup in 13 other games at least it's clear it's part of his somewhat regular repertoire (13/384 is still not incredibly regular but as it is a Black system, of course, depends on White, as I noted myself in my previous post).

To close; no, I'm not putting you on my ignore list but your last post is disproportional for the argument we have. I have not trolled you and actually added two points to reinforce what I thought was the case, but you proved me otherwise.

Jun-22-22  TheaN: <Besrqe> for what it's worth, my previous post was made to your second-to-last post.

I'm a tad bit worried about your last post. What on Earth happened to you to be so demeaning towards another person on a <chess website> whom's trying to have an otherwise friendly discussion about chess openings?

Besides the very clear personal jabs you're making now; talking about me in third person like I'm not here and thrashing pretty much every word I post, you also make an <incredibly big deal out of nothing>!

As for the three points you're listing which apparently make my posts oh so terrible: 1 and 3 were word misuses (reversed instead of mirrored and salvageable instead of unsalvageable) and the second I haven't said at all.

What the *bleep* do courtroom proceedings have to do with this? I'm not on trial. As an example, <"He proceeded to desperately hang on to the only thing he had left"> this is seriously messed up; I'm not hanging on to anything because I'm not defending anything in the first place!

Up till your second post I had fun in this interaction as I was learning new details about the opening system and was genuinely interested in Black's motives, and found it unlikely a NID or Bogo transposes into a Dutch. I felt a bit more uneasy because you made it unnecessarily personal and started demeaning me for sake of... yeah what exactly?

I'm not sure how to continue this interaction. I wanted to tie in to an otherwise useful discussion about opening choices and nomenclature, and instead got demeaned like I barely know how the pieces move. You're probably a better player than me, so I wish we could have ended this after me thanking you for your contribution. I'd still like to, but I don't think the ball's in my court. Be well.

Jun-23-22  Besrqe: <TheaN>Many posts ago, I addressed your "criticisms" and, in a kindly and cordial fashion, asked you that if you still disagreed, to let it go at that. And yet, you're STILL at it with the same barrage of non-productive content as your usual posts. At this point, I simply won't allow you to incessantly badger me with this insatiable need to "be right".

It looks like you consider instigating people minding their own business well after they've already addressed you and are asking you to stop shadowing their posts a "fun discussion", huh?!?!?! Well, I tried to help you out, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and let your "fun" go on more than enough to show you don't know when to stop. It has nothing to do with ratings or otherwise.

Speaking of fun, I found the ignore list in the profile settings and guess who's on there? ;)

Jun-23-22  TheaN: I took the liberty to ask CG to remove this exchange starting <from my second reply to you>, which was apparently an issue.

We've since concluded Black has indeed played this setup before, and White allowed him with the otherwise passive 6.a3. I'll definitely keep this mirrored Dragon position in mind for Black, and the possibility as White to block it off with Nd2-Pf3.

Thanks for the insights!

Jun-23-22
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: As any search of Informator would quickly confirm, this line was a tabiya in the 1980s; White's sixth move, however, is a loss of tempo, as Bxc3(+) is bound to come anyway.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 3)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.


NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.

<This page contains Editor Notes. Click here to read them.>

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
magnus carlsen
by sk.sen
23...? (June 6, 2022)
from Monday Puzzles, 2018-2022 by Phony Benoni
Nimzo-Indian Defense: Three Knights Var (E21) 0-1 23...?
from Spearheads DE (Batteries involving the Queen) by fredthebear
Nimzo-Indian Defense: Three Knights Var (E21) 0-1 23...?
from 3 Knights Knights Knights of Fredthebear Advice by fredthebear
24...Qh1#
from 85_#OTB_How to get away with Checkmate 2 by whiteshark
Mate Recognition
by LRLeighton
23...? (Monday, June 6)
from Puzzle of the Day 2022 by Phony Benoni
Agreeable miniatures
by Swedish Logician

Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC