|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 37 OF 58 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-02-08 | | Defiler: Thanks alot for your help everyone. |
|
Jan-07-08
 | | Sneaky: Sneaky vs NN (ICC blitz)
1. d4 e6 2. c4 Be7 3. Nc3 h6 4. e4 d6 5. Bd3 Nd7 6. Be3 e5 7. d5 Ngf6 8. Qd2
O-O 9. f3 Nh7 10. Nge2 Bg5 11. O-O-O Bxe3 12. Qxe3 Nc5 13. Bc2 Qg5 14. f4
exf4 15. Nxf4 Nf6 16. h4 Qe5 17. Rde1 <a pathetic imitation of Nimzowitsch: pile everything I have onto e4, for lack of a better plan> Ng4 18. Qf3 Nf6 19. Rhf1 Bg4 20. Qf2 Rae8 21. g3 b6 22. Nb5?! <abandoning my "overprotection" strategy, probably not advised> Ncxe4 23. Qe3 Bf5 24. Nxc7 Qe7 
click for larger view<I think objectively Black is better here due to my inaccurate play. But I called myself "Sneaky" for a reason...> 25. Nh5? <An ill conceived plan, which I got away with like a bandit.> Qxc7 26. Rxf5 Nc5? <What we both overlooked was: 26...Nxh5 27.Rxh5 Nf6! and white loses> 27. Nxf6+ gxf6 
click for larger view<Like most weak players, I usually hesitate to give up my queen for two rooks. But in this case I was sure those rooks would maul him to death> 28. Qxe8 Rxe8 29. Rxe8+ Kg7 30. g4 Qd7 31. Re3 b5 32. g5
hxg5 33. hxg5 bxc4 34. gxf6+ <I'm not sure if there was a forced mate earlier but I'm sure it's forced now!> Kf8 35. Rh3 
click for larger view35...Qxf5 <Too little, too late.> 36. Rh8# |
|
| Jan-08-08 | | refutor: <Poker is a boring game> i agree! i get more tactics work with CT-ART done when i'm playing online poker than anything else (during the folding and waiting, keeping an eye on the table) |
|
| Jan-10-08 | | timhortons: <sneaky>id seen youre posted game at fics and youre opponent "nn", are you intentionally hiding the name of youre opponent or it is not descent to put his name in there? in 1 minute blitz game it is sometimes so annoying to lost a game on time when in fact youre already delivering a mate...i hold to.....im trying to get my self acquainted lately of carokann de bruycker...i think it is good to have something that is not so familiar ....what can u say of that defense? |
|
| Jan-10-08 | | refutor: <timhortons> i can't speak for sneaky, but i don't think it's decent to put my opponent's name in games which is the de bruycker? with ...Na6? |
|
Jan-10-08
| | Sneaky: <are you intentionally hiding the name of youre opponent> Refutor is right, yes that's intentional. If I named the person it would look like I'm trying to rub his face in it, but really I just want to share the game or some position within the game. I would make an exception if the person I played was a famous player/author/etc. Case in point: I got crushed by IM Rashid Ziatdinov and I posted my game on that page, with his name right on it. If--by some miracle--I had won that game, I still would have used his name. That's the price you pay for making chess your profession: you're no longer "NN" ;-) |
|
| Jan-11-08 | | timhortons: <refutor> right with na6.....<sneaky>im at home with o kelly but the problem is my oppponnent already know what i well be doin so better to find an alternative defense...im posting the name of my opponent in my page and right it annoy them so much...one is frankgrime at icc rated 2100...i beat him once and only once, i post our game in my page and he saw it....he gave me a beating again and again with fury that the last game that we had he kibitz "post that as well in youre blog"( i feel that posting there name gave ligitimacy to my claim) |
|
Jan-15-08
| | Sneaky: I need to find a better defense to 1.e4 than the 150+ year old nonsense I'm playing now (the Lowenthal Sicilian). I do like the Sicilian but I want to avoid main lines. No matter how much theory you memorize, some geek out there has all that memorized plus 5 more moves... |
|
| Jan-16-08 | | Jesspatrick: Just strap on a pair, bite it, and play the Svezhnikov (aka the Lasker-Pelikan). The spirit is similar to the Lowenthal, but the middle games are richer, deeper, and full of surprises. Usually, the game doesn't get to move 30. Yes, there's a lot of theory, but don't sweat it. Most opponents aren't going to play the main lines. Usually, you will get into 6th move deviations and get fairly easy equality as Black. If White does play 6.Ndb5, the main lines are rather forcing and not that difficult to understand. That's my penny's worth. |
|
| Jan-17-08 | | square dance: <No matter how much theory you memorize, some geek out there has all that memorized plus 5 more moves...> then you'll probably lose to that guy. oh well. what about the other 99 out of 100 you get a good game against? the "someone might know more than me" attitude is so counter productive in chess. there's really no "might" about it. there are indeed plenty of individuals who will know more than you. but thats why you're ~1800 and not ~2800. ;-) |
|
| Jan-17-08 | | brankat: <Sneaky> <square dance> Over the years I've learned not to worry to much about memorizing specific moves/lines. Although it is helpful, and, more or less, comes with the territory, I believe the notion is of secondary importance. Learning, understanding, and then remembering a number of ideas/principles and patterns, is far more important. Indeed: critical. I subscribe to:
"Remember that good moves come from intelligence and not from memory!" Alberic O'Kelly |
|
Jan-18-08
| | Sneaky: <the "someone might know more than me" attitude is so counter productive in chess.> I see what you're saying, but as long as you stick to "trendy" openings the chances of your opponent being booked to the gills goes up dramatically. If "trendy" meant "best" then I'd have to admit that you are right, and that I should play whatever modern GMs are playing, since it must be so superior. But I don't believe that's the case. Perfectly sound openings are often glossed over, not due to some refutation, but just that they are not popular. Then one day some GM notices this, and takes advantage by mastering the openings system, much like Kramnik did with the Catalan. Suddenly the long forgotten opening becomes the hottest thing. Then there's another attitude, which works anywhere below master level: go ahead and play openings which truly are unsound, but make sure first you understand the refutation to your own opening. If you intimately understand how to defeat your own play, then you're in great shape to handle inferior attempts at refutations. I happen to know a rock-solid refutation of the Lowenthal Sicilian. But I am loathe to discuss it! That goes in the top-secret Sneaky files ;-) |
|
| Jan-18-08 | | square dance: <I see what you're saying, but as long as you stick to "trendy" openings the chances of your opponent being booked to the gills goes up dramatically.
If "trendy" meant "best" then I'd have to admit that you are right, and that I should play whatever modern GMs are playing, since it must be so superior. But I don't believe that's the case.> thats not really what im saying. i think one's repertoire should be built around his own tastes rather than fear of some uber nerd who has memorized mco, or megabase 2007. |
|
| Jan-18-08 | | square dance: <sneaky> i know you're quite the fischer fan so i would like to extend to you a sincere e-pat on the back. i know it sounds silly, but i just couldnt e-hug you. i just couldnt do it... ;-) |
|
| Jan-19-08 | | micartouse: <Sneaky> I got to thinking about your question (not that I'm really qualified to give advice to a superior player, but I do think you're lucky that there are so many great Sicilian lines that are less "booky" and very active). I see strong players using things like the Classical setup with ... Nc6, e6, d6, a6 (to avoid the Nb5 lines) and just playing straight up Sicilian chess. Taimanov Variation may have themes comfortable for you already. Paulsen/Kan looks very interesting because White has to be very positionally patient to take advantage of it (basically subtle dark square weakness stuff). White's development can be very clunky and you could be getting advantages earlier. Plus, you can do all those crazy combos with ... h5 and ... Ng4 and ... Ba7. All these ideas are GM standard, and of course people can book them up but it is much more awkward and less common to do so than in a Yugoslav or Poisoned Pawn or Keres Attack. I don't blame you if you're finding troubles with a Lowenthal from a practical standpoint. I play a line as White that gets me excellent positions with very few tricks to remember. I'd much rather face an expert or master in this line than the above lines I mentioned where I'd expect to be ground down quickly. Good luck trying new ideas. |
|
Jan-21-08
| | Sneaky: <square dance> Thanks! That actually means a lot to me. I know we've "crossed swords" here many times on the ever controversial subject of Fischer, but you (and many others) have really shown genuine class these past couple of days. |
|
| Feb-08-08 | | Hesam7: <Sneaky> quite a while ago you told me that you did not have any books on semi-slav and that you learned it by yourself. I think you should take a look at "Play the Semi-slav": http://www.qualitychessbooks.com/pr.... There is a generous excerpt (click on "MORE"). |
|
Feb-08-08
| | Sneaky: Hesam, thanks for that. I actually got a semislav book about a year go for Christmas but it's been sitting on the shelf collecting dust. |
|
| Feb-08-08 | | Hesam7: <Sneaky> what is the book that you got as a gift?? The book I linked to is pretty remarkable it covers the Moscow (I think it is the only book that covers the Moscow in detail) and Botvinnik variations. |
|
Feb-11-08
| | Sneaky: The Semi-Slav
by Matthew Sadler (1998)
Amazon preview: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/190... My favorite opening book--possibly my favorite chess book of all time outside the classics (60MG, My System etc.) is one so obscure I doubt you could find it in print any more. It's called "Kasparov's Chess Openings" written by german IM Otto Borik. It's one of these "ideas behind the openings" type books, it covers a lot of ground but Borik always speaks in terms of the goals and critical squares, and doesn't just drown the reader in variations. |
|
| Feb-11-08 | | Hesam7: Sadler's book is 10 years old! Not so good for an opening book particularly the Semi-slav. |
|
Feb-23-08
| | Sneaky: I'm not so worried about trendy variations. The way I see it, if I understood the Slav defense as well as Alekhine understood it in the early 20th century, I'd be a grandmaster. |
|
| Feb-24-08 | | KingG: <Sneaky> I agree with you. At below master level I think it's much more important to understand the opening you are playing rather than trying to memorize all the latest theoretical moves. After all, how many players are you ever going to play who are that booked up? And even if they are, and they get an advantage out of the opening, they will probably make a few mistakes later on in the game anyway. IMO the only lines that really should be memorized are traps and plausible looking varations that lead straight to a lost position. |
|
| Feb-25-08 | | positionalgenius: <Sneaky><Kingg> You guys interested in a yahoo tournament? |
|
| Feb-25-08 | | KingG: <positionalgenius> Unfortuantely I'm too busy at the moment to play. And in any case, I find it impossible to play on yahoo, it gives me a headache. Thanks for the invite though. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 37 OF 58 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
