|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 817 OF 963 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Mar-18-12
 | | Domdaniel: <Neme> I've forgotten Quant already, but feel free to crush him like a bug anytime he comes back. That's what friends are for. |
|
Mar-18-12
| | Domdaniel: <An actual chess position> -- I've been trying to analyse this, and it's doing my head in. Engines are also confused, as Black has at least six plausible moves, and the evaluations keep shifting around.
click for larger view I was Black. White has just played 25.f5. I played what I thought was the safest and most solid reply, 25...g5, which keeps my king safe for long enough to sort out the queenside and even counter-attack. The problem is the 'switchback' 26.Ra1, when the pin is a nuisance. White can maybe play Rf2-a2 next. On the other hand, Black can probably just lose a bishop and still win with a pawn mass. It seems that both 25...gxf5 and 25...exf5 are playable, though they get pretty wild. I didn't want to let the white queen into h6, but it's survivable. The other defensive try, 25...Kh7, doesn't seem to work too well. In RL, I played 25...g5, my opponent missed Ra1 and played 26.f6, and I soon won. Any thoughts? |
|
| Mar-18-12 | | frogbert: just for the record: this is the same game, only at an earlier point, where you showed us the nice finish with a half-open g-file where g3! sealed it, right? |
|
| Mar-18-12 | | twinlark: <Dom>
You were born to be wild, guv! And that's a really wild position... The switchback doesn't seem to be a problem, objectively speaking although it's a mindfcuk OTB. If <25...g5 26. Ra1>, then it seems <26...Qd3> earns the <!>, and if you can find this OTB when you've got a terminal pin, then I'd give it a double, viz: <!!>. So now if 27. Rf2 then 27...b4:
click for larger viewInteresting position. So now 28. cxb4 is forced otherwise his goose is cook, and he's a plucked duck down on his luck, so after you exchange queens and then protect the rook <from the front> with <29...Bb5> you arrive here: 
click for larger viewNow if White doubles with 30. Rfa2 then voila! <30...Bc1> attacking the loose knight and gaining a tempo: 
click for larger viewThe lovely part is that if he takes your rook, then the knight goes with check, and after you take the d-pawn, both his rooks are attacked: 
click for larger viewThere are other variations (White doesn't have to take the rook on a6, he can play <30. Kg2> instead of <30. Rfa2> (hope the numbering is right), but then the problem caused by the pin is neatly dissolved in your favour after Bxb4) as your aching head probably knows all too well, but this seems to be the main variation in your thematic switchback you're concerned about. |
|
Mar-18-12
 | | Annie K.: <I've forgotten Quant already, but feel free to crush him like a bug anytime he comes back. That's what friends are for.> This is WAY out of line.
And you need to look up Stockholm Syndrome.
Yuck. |
|
| Mar-18-12 | | twinlark: From the first FEN in my post, if White tries to be active and initiates the queen exchange with 27. Qxd3 cxd3 and then increases pressure on the pin with 28. Rfa2:
click for larger viewthen simply 28...bxc3 strolls all over his position in what would have to be a crowd pleasing display. |
|
| Mar-18-12 | | frogbert: <And you need to look up Stockholm Syndrome. > we're supposed to feel empathy and defend terrorists, is that it? |
|
Mar-18-12
| | Domdaniel: <frogbt> Indeed it is. I've also previously posted the opening, which went 1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 c5 4.d4 Nf6 5.e5 Ne4! (I'm pretty sure that the usual French ...Nfd7 was expected, and this came as a shock - but I'd been taking my time and planning it, or something like it, since around move 3). Then 6.Bd3 Nxc3 7.bxc3 c4 8.Be2 Be7
click for larger view
I think you said you didn't care for this position for either side? In fact White won the only previous example that I know of (Baklan-Danneel, Gent 2002) which arose via Alekhine's Def. Sometimes in the French it's wrong for White to develop knights on the traditional squares c3 and f3. A Nc3 interferes with the base of the d4-e5 pawn chain, and one on f3 blocks its f-pawn and is vulnerable to pawn attacks from e4 or g4. A certain kind of traditional-minded player - one often sees this in notes from the pre-computer era - would argue that there can't be anything wrong with White's position, as he has made sensible developing moves, usw. But sensible isn't necessarily good. The last time I played this opponent, I won with 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 a6. He tried to get his improvement in first with 2.Nf3, but deviant French lines are my favorite turf. As is perhaps obvious. |
|
Mar-18-12
 | | OhioChessFan: My first thought was 25..Kg7 which allows Rh8 as a nice offensive/defensive move. I tried it in Fritz, and he agreed with <lark> that 26. Ra1 Qd3 is strong. However, the only move along the back rank he ever goes for is Rc8, so the Ra8 idea never comes into play. And if anywhere White plays f6+, then Kh7 and the h file is blocked again. Of course, that allows Black's LSB to enter the fray on the Queen side.....I guess I'd offer a draw from either side. |
|
| Mar-18-12 | | frogbert: <I think you said you didn't care for this position for either side? > true. too "well-defined" where each player is going to play: black on the queenside and white on the kingside. i much prefer less static game plans and hence avoid typical sicilian dragons, classical kids and very closed french defences. etc. :o) |
|
Mar-18-12
| | Domdaniel: <twinlark> That's a beaut, thanks -- I'd missed the idea of ...Bb5 protecting the rook from the front ( ...Bc8 is ugly and much worse), though ...Qd3 was on my to-do list, and actually got played a move or two later. My current engine (ahem, Fritz 8 on a slow laptop) keeps changing its mind about the position. The game actually went like this:
25.f5 g5 26.f6 Qd3 27.Qe1 b4 28.Be2 Qe4 29.Qd2 bxc3 30.Qxc3 Rb6!? The obvious 30...Qxe2 seems to be good, but at the time I worried that White would regain the piece (my Ba3) and get some counterplay, though in fact he hasn't time. But 30...Rb6 disentangles and clarifies things, and at worst I'll be a couple of pawns up. I worried a bit about 31.Rxb6 axb6 32.Bxc4, but ...dxc4 and ...Bc6 opens him up on the long diagonal. The end was 31.Rxb6 axb6 32.Qxa3 Qxe2 33.Qe7 Ba4 34.Qa3 b5 35.Qh3 Kh7 36.Qa3 Re8 37.h4 Qxg4 ... playing rather quickly here, though with 30" increments you can't call it time-trouble ... 38.Rf3 Qxd4 39.Kh1 g4 ... I considered ...Qxe5 just to see if I could win all his pawns, and promote all mine to knights if he played on ... 40.Rf4 Qd1+ 41.Kh2 Bc2 42.h5 Be4 ... My Bad Bishop finally becomes a Very Good Bad Bishop ... ... and the finale, as seen before:
43.Qa7
click for larger view
43... g3+ 44.Kxg3 Rg8+ 45.Kh4 Qh1#.
Phew. I have only, I think, won four games against players rated over 2100 in the last couple of years. My unfortunate opponent here accounts for three of them. Ironically, the fourth, J.Joyce, was playing on the same team, one board up. They'll have the last laugh, as they look like winning the Munster league, where this was played. |
|
| Mar-18-12 | | frogbert: but as i pointed out before, i don't mind <imbalance> as such. here's a "reversed fen" (seeing the position from black's pov) of my latest classical game (1,5h/40, 0,5h/rest):
click for larger viewwhite to move, with c4 f5!? being the last moves. the position is probably about equal, but white managed to lose it in only a few moves: 1. c5?! Bxd2 2. Nxd2 Qf4!? (not correct, but rewarding) 3. Rc3?! fxe4! 4. Nxe4? f5! and black's got a won position: 
click for larger viewit wasn't a rated game, and i could've chosen to play it more positionally earlier on, but when my opponent kept playing at a rate of one minute per move roughly, i felt pretty certain that he wouldn't defend correctly against an attack (he was rated some 250 points below me, but i didn't know - i'd only guessed that he was considerably weaker than me based on his opening play). it's kind of interesting how the black king "in the center" is never in any danger, while the castled white king eventually is checkmated. a colleague and team mate (and not a club player) was worried about my king placement and pawn structure during the game, and even after around 2 hours of analysis and explanations the next day he wasn't entirely convinced that the black setup is basically sound. why are we? |
|
| Mar-18-12 | | frogbert: dom, comparing the positions after move 25 with the one on move 43, it nearly looks like one of smullyan's retrograde analysis exercises: move 25:
click for larger viewmove 43:
click for larger viewquestions for investigation might be:
a) did the white queen capture a pawn on a7?
b) which captures took place on b6?
ps! of course i used the page unparser... :o) |
|
Mar-18-12
| | Domdaniel: <Annie> It's OK, he's human. Don't they have, yanno, *christians* in your part of the world? OK, maybe it's seen as a pathology. But there's a nice Buddhist equivalent to do with karmic adjustments. Forgive, turn other cheek, etc? Not Stockholm Syndrome at all, though I do in fact have a number of innaresting Swedish conditions. In any case, what I seem to have inadvertently said is that friends are for crushing like bugs, which isn't very xtian. ;} |
|
Mar-18-12
| | OhioChessFan: <They'll have the last laugh, as they look like winning the Munster league, where this was played.> Here's their top 5 boards:
http://cbswrbq.files.wordpress.com/... |
|
| Mar-18-12 | | frogbert: what's their line-up? and which board did dom play on? |
|
Mar-18-12
| | Domdaniel: <Ohio> -- <I guess I'd offer a draw from either side.> I *might* have accepted a draw offer a few moves earlier, and then berated myself for being, well, chicken. Both sides were playing to win, though, and a draw was never really on the table. By the time 25.f5 was played I was reasonably sure that I was winning, if I could find a path through the murk. Luckily, his 26.f6 -- essentially staking everything on trying to mate me on g7 -- made this easier. My current rule of thumb is that draws by mutual terror are acceptable in sudden-death finishes, with both players in time trouble, when the result becomes a matter of reflexes plus randomness. But in games with an increment, like this, one plays on in complex positions, and only agrees to a draw when it's drawn. Or if losing. My open and agreeable nature (heh) used to make me say 'yes' to draw offers. Bad habit, that I've trained myself out of. Though I still say "no thanks" or "I think I'll play on" ... I don't like the habit some players have, of rejecting a draw offer by ignoring it and then making a move, all without acknowledging that they've been spoken to. Bad bloody manners, that is, in my book. |
|
Mar-18-12
| | Domdaniel: <frogbt> The retro-question that struck me was "How did the LSB cross the pawn chain?" Which amounts to the same thing, I suppose, but it amused me that the ultimate b5 pawn wasn't the original. As for -- <true. too "well-defined" where each player is going to play: black on the queenside and white on the kingside.> -- I agree, up to a point. I don't much like opposite-side attacks with opposite-side castling, a la Sicilian. Here both kings are on the same side, which makes it subtly different. And I like to attack on the side where there isn't an enemy king, before suddenly changing direction. It's all very sub-Korchnoi, really. Viktor's games got into my head 30+ years ago, but I'm only now starting to play the style halfway properly. |
|
| Mar-18-12 | | frogbert: <I don't like the habit some players have, of rejecting a draw offer by ignoring it and then making a move, all without acknowledging that they've been spoken to.> it entirely depends on who's business it is to offer the draw, imo. if my opponent is clearly worse and tries to "swindle himself" to half a point by means of an unwarranted draw offer, i might acknowledge the draw offer only by writing it down (as the rules are you should). if the position is basically unclear, i'll typically say "i think i'll play on for some more moves". only under exceptional circumstances will i offer or accept draw offers - i'm there to play chess. apropos swindling: on move 43 in your game, i think throwing out 43. Qe7!? looks like a better attempt than the limp 43. Qa7 - in particular if there weren't increments. :o) |
|
| Mar-18-12 | | frogbert: <The retro-question that struck me was "How did the LSB cross the pawn chain?" Which amounts to the same thing, I suppose, but it amused me that the ultimate b5 pawn wasn't the original.> but that's too direct for sherlock holmes. the lsb having crossed the pawn chain is the *big clue* that will make it possible for mr holmes to say that "no, my dear watson, it's absolutely impossible that the white queen captured a pawn on a7. and that's quite elementary, my friend!" |
|
Mar-18-12
| | Domdaniel: <frogbt> -- < he wasn't entirely convinced that the black setup is basically sound. why are we?> Because we have faith in the fundamental solidity of e6, the sacred frogspawn? Though I admit I spent a few minutes looking for ways that White might throw material at it in an effort to break it down. An old habit, as I often have that sort of king position. You have plenty of counterplay, and open lines like the g-file and long diagonal. Most promising. Speaking of retro-analysis, my first idea was that it was one of those lines in the French or Caro-Kann where knights are exchanged on f6, black recapturing with the g-pawn. But as White has two knights, this is unlikely. So White played Bxf6 and Black played gxf6, which could be a French ... or a Tromp, or a Nimzo-Larsen, with the Bishop coming from b2 rather than g5. Quite a few things, in fact. Could even be a St George, or my old standby, the Kangaroo Defence. Apart from there still being a pawn on d7, there's not enough central structure left to be sure. |
|
| Mar-18-12 | | frogbert: which tactical motif comes first to mind here? (responses might be subject to psychological analysis ;o)
click for larger view(continuation of previously mentioned game)
black to move - where in the coffin does he put the final nail? |
|
| Mar-18-12 | | frogbert: <So White played Bxf6 and Black played gxf6, which could be a French ... or a Tromp, or a Nimzo-Larsen, with the Bishop coming from b2 rather than g5. Quite a few things, in fact.> certainly. and actually neither of the ones you mentioned. the game started 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Be2 Qc7 6. 0-0 a6 - a taimanov sicilian (sort of - at least i tried) where white plays slowly. |
|
| Mar-18-12 | | frogbert: <Though I admit I spent a few minutes looking for ways that White might throw material at it in an effort to break it down. An old habit, as I often have that sort of king position.> the fact that white has no dsb also contributes to making a king on e7 defended by pawns on f7, f6, e6 and d7 (d6 later if needed) rather safe. and as you say, pawns on both f7 and d7 makes e6 rather rock solid - i could even allow myself to open the e-line with f5!? (making exf5 an option) and still be safe. and of course: some good diagonals and heavy material in the semi-open lines don't leave much space for white to play in. |
|
Mar-18-12
| | Domdaniel: <the final nail>
Innaresting. 1...Qf2+ can't be bad, but may be redundant: but it's good to force the white king to h1, so that Rh8xh3 is a threat. I reckon 1...Rh8 does best, forcing 2.Rxe6+ dxe6, and White gets mated as soon as he runs out of checks.1...Bxf3 may also win, though white has some queen checks. So I'll go for 1...Qf2+ 2.Kh1 Rh8 3.Rxe6+ dxe6 0-1 Psychological auto-analysis: a bit of that, and a bit of the other ... |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 817 OF 963 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
