|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 53 OF 129 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Feb-27-07
 | | jessicafischerqueen: Dang it correction on last part of my last post there: I meant of course if they try <18.Nd5> we have <18.Qd8> |
|
Feb-27-07
| | jessicafischerqueen: Dagnabbit I am tired. Correction on my correction.... From the FEN I posted, I was right the first time:
If they try <17.Nd5> we have <18.Qd8>. I'm not looking at a chess board until tomorrow.
G'day, G'day |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | hitman84: Great analysis guys!
<12...Qc7>
13.h5 Na5 ? 14.g6 hg6 15.hg6 Rh1 16.gf7+ Kf7 17.Qf3+ Nf6 18.Qh1 Nc4 19.0-0-0 Ne3 20.fe3  
click for larger viewBlacks' plan is in jeopardy, 20...b5 cannot be played in view of 21.e5 Bb7 22.Bg2 e6 pawn is very weak and so is the king safety.
Now if 13...b5
14.Nc6 Qc6 15.Qd4 Ne5 16.Bg2
click for larger viewThe position looks really awful for us,
If 16. Bg2 f6
17. O-O-O fxg5
18. f4 Nc4
19. fxg5 Nxe3
20. Qxe3 Qc5
21. Qxc5 dxc5
22. g6 hxg6
23. hxg6 Rxh1
24. Rxh1 Bb7
25. Rh8+ Kd7
26. Rh7 Bf6
27. e5 Bxg2
28. exf6  |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | brankat: <CG Team> Why does Life have to be so complicated? :-) Serves You right, should have not accepted the invitation to participate in the contest :-) Since all of You players are still very young ( ahem, should have said most of You:-)), hopefully, this will be a valuable experience: how NOT to do things :-) |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | hitman84: 
click for larger view13. h5 Nc-e5
14. f4 Nc4
15. Bxc4 Qxc4
16. Qd2 b5
17. f5 e5
18. Nf3 Bb7
19. Qd3 Rc8
20. Qxc4 Rxc4
21. Nd2 Rc8
22. Rc1 Bd8 
Idea Bb6 and later d5.
-------------
13. h5 Nc-e5
<14. Bg2 Nc4
15. Qc1 b5>
14. f4 Nc4
15. Bxc4 Qxc4
16. Qd3 Qc7
<<16. Qd3 Qc7
17. f5 Nc5
18. Qd2 b5
19. fxe6 fxe6
20. a3 Bb7
21. O-O-O e5
22. Nf5 Nxe4
23. Nxe4 Bxe4
24. Nxg7+ Kf7
25. g6+ Kxg7
26. Bh6+ Kg8
27. g7 Bxh1
28. Rxh1 Qc6
29. Rg1 Kf7
30. Rf1+ Ke6
31. Qd3 d5
32. Qf5+ Kd6
33. gxh8=Q Rxh8
34. Bg7 Re8
35. Bxe5+ Kc5
36. Qf2+ d4
37. Qxd4# >
17. f5 Ne5
18. Qe2 Nc4
19. b3 Nxe3
20. Qxe3 h6
21. gxh6 gxh6
22. fxe6 fxe6
23. Qg3 Bg5
24. Qh3 Bf6  >
17. O-O-O Nc5
18. Qd2 b5
19. a3 Bb7
20. f5 Nxe4
21. Nxe4 Bxe4
22. fxe6 Bxh1
23. exf7+ Kxf7
24. Rxh1 Qc4
25. g6+ Ke8
26. Nf5 Qe4
27. Nxg7+ Kf8
28. Rf1+ Kxg7
29. Bd4+ Kg8
30. g7
Ok I dont like 12...Qc7 :)
|
|
| Feb-28-07 | | TTLump: here are my thoughts on the current position. I am voting O-O and here is why: after after 12... O-O.
<13.F4> then 13... Qb6. I think this pretty much forces 14.Rb1 and then 14...Nxd4, 15.Bxd4 Qc6 and black looks very solid to me. I also like <JFQ>'s 13...e5 for the reasons that she eloquently stated ... <13.h5> (now Qb6 is not as potent because White's dark bishop is protected by the f-pawn), but still, 13...Nxd4 14.Qxd4 (Bxd4 loses the g-pawn immediately!) Ne5, 15.O-O-O Nf3, 16.Qd3 Bxd5, 17.Bxd5 Qxd5+, and we are in great shape I think ... <13.Qh5> I looked at this and it doesn't really threaten anything substantial that I can see. Black just continues with normal development ... Nxd4, b5, Bb2, etc. <13.Bg2> this threatens e5, pretty much forcing 13...Nde5, followed by
??? not clear to me all where this might lead except it seems fairly drawish ... <13.Be2> this doesn't seem to threaten anything but looks very solid for white. I expect this move and am not sure how we should respond to it, but still thine 12...O-O is best. |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | Marco65: <Jessica> 12...O-O 13.f4 e5 15.Nf5 exf4 16.Bxf4 Nde5 17.Nd5 (no way I would play Nxe7 if I were White) White is much better, the two knights dominate the board and if 17...Bxf5 White is still dangerous with pawns on the kingside and has the control of d5 <hitman84> Sorry no way I'll follow you up to move 30 and beyond! I just think now the right way to play 12...Qc7 13.h5 is 13...b5 14.Nxc6 Qxc6 15.Qd4 e5 as I think you proposed yourself and not 15...Ne5 as I proposed. Have to quit now |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | hitman84: <TTLump>
12. h4 Qc7
13. h5 b5
14. Nxc6 Qxc6
15. Qd4 e5
16. Qd5 Bb7
17. O-O-O Qc7
18. Qd2
click for larger view
I dont like the hole on d5, our K♗ is dead as well. |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | Marco65: <hitman84> There are problems with your notation, you move ...Qc7 twice, and don't retreat the white queen soon after Bb7. Anyway, the "hole" on d5 is something that we must accept BOTH with ...O-O and with ...Qc7, in the variations: 12...O-O 13.f4 Nxd4 14.Qxd4 b5 15.h5 the variation that still nobody examined in depth and I think most dangerous for us, were I think it's best to play 15...Qc7 (all the same!) 16.h6 e5 12...Qc7 13.h5 b5 14.Nxd4 Qxd4 15.e5
I know Sveshnikov a little, and my opinion is that such "holes" shouldn't worry us too much when a pari of knights has been exchanged, because White has only one knight that can occupy d5 and we still have our LSB to exchange it if it gets really fastidious. |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | hitman84: <Marco>I'm copy posting the moves from the gameknot analysis board. The coloured variations are side lines. 12. h4 O-O
13. h5 Nxd4
14. Qxd4 b5
15. f4 e5
16. Qd5 Rb8
17. Ba7 Bb7
18. Qd2 Ra8
19. Be3 exf4
20. Bxf4 Nc5
21. Qe3 Ne6
22. Rg1 d5
looks great for us with the threat Bc5. |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | Zebra: <I know Sveshnikov a little, and my opinion is that such "holes" shouldn't worry us too much when a pari of knights has been exchanged, because White has only one knight that can occupy d5 and we still have our LSB to exchange it if it gets really fastidious.> I don't know the Sveshnikov that well, but I thought that the hole was accepted in exchange for kingside action (where white is usually castled). I don't see a lot of kingside action for us in the position we get here. |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | hitman84: 12. h4 O-O
13. f4 Nxd4
14. Qxd4 b5
15. O-O-O Bb7
16. Rg1 Qa5
17. a3 Rf-c8
18. f5 Rxc3
19. Qxc3 Qxc3
20. bxc3 Bxe4
21. fxe6 fxe6
click for larger viewPlayable.
12. h4 O-O
13. f4 Nxd4
14. Qxd4 b5
15. O-O-O Bb7
16. Rg1 Qa5
17. a3 Rf-c8
18. Bd2 Qc7
19. Rg3 Nc5
20. Bg2 a5
click for larger view21.Nb5 ?? Nb3+
-----------
12. h4 O-O
13. f4 Nxd4
14. Qxd4 b5
15. O-O-O Bb7
16. Rg1 Qa5
17. Kb1 b4
18. Ne2 Nc5
19. Ng3 Na4
20. Rg2 Ra-b8
21. Bd2 Rf-c8
Black is ready to go for the kill! |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | Marco65: <hitman84> I was referring to the analysis you posted for <TTLump>, there were no subvariations. Other analysis are ok. <Zebra> <I thought that the hole was accepted in exchange for kingside action> Well... hmm... I guess this is part of the truth! But we have some play on the other side :-) Put it this way: if you don't like such hole, don't play neither ...O-O nor ...Qc7, because it can happen in both cases! I think it's sad but it's time to realize that we don't have the upperhand in this position, we are one tempo ahead over a position which is normally very favourable to White. We hoped that meant  while it's probably  I think only ...e5 saves us from a difficult position in some cases when White put his queen on d4 and starts pushing h5-h6. <hitman84> You're doing a great job. I just think the critical variations arise when White postpones castling to attack us on the kingside. But there are some analysis on that as well. This convinces me (if it was needed) that we can survive with O-O. It doesn't mean I like it! I still think O-O is more risky and a waste of time, just forces White to spend a tempo with 13.f4 or 13.Qd2 that are useful moves anyway. But I'll gladly accept your opposite votes of course. |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | Swapmeet: Still voting 12...0-0 here. |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | Zebra: <Marco: Put it this way: if you don't like such hole, don't play neither ...O-O nor ...Qc7, because it can happen in both cases!> I realize it happens in many variations of the Scheveningen when warranted by particular (usually tactical) considerations, but is not usually a strategic weapon in quite the same way as in the Sveshnikov. I am not afraid of it if we have to play it. You're right, the issue doesn't immediately affect the question of our next move. Thank you for all your analysis - it must represent a lot of work, and I'm sorry I haven't been able to put nearly as much into it. I am a bit less decided than I was, but I still have a slight preference for 0-0. |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | Zebra: Hi guys, is anybody around to post our move? If I'm not mistaken it is due in another 20 minutes. |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | hitman84: <Zebra>Shall I post the move ? |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | Zebra: <hitman> Please do. Thanks. |
|
Feb-28-07
 | | TheAlchemist: Thanks. |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | Marco65: Well done <hitman84>. Strange TheAlchemist missed the deadline a second time... Maybe we should try to rearrange the deadline (by moving some time before) at a time that is more convenient for him. |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | Marco65: <TheAlchemist> Sorry I overlapped posts. So you were in at the last minute ready to post the move |
|
Feb-28-07
| | TheAlchemist: No, it's no that, it's just that I was studying and kind of lost track of time (although I set my alarm on). I was here and ready but <hitman> beat me to it by a minute or so. Luckily there are more of you that can jump in (thank you once again!!). This is now getting truly embarassing, but I am, after all, still just an immature kid. |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | Marco65: 9 to 1 for O-O, it's really a knock-out for me! I feel like I made you waste a time-out. The good point is that there is much more analysis now about O-O than Qc7, so we shouldn't have such a difficult task in the next moves. Hoping they will stay "predictable" for a while. Do we know anything about MFO members' level? |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | hitman84: <TheAlchemist>/<Marco>No probs! Time for a quick nap. :) |
|
Feb-28-07
| | TheAlchemist: <Marco> <Do we know anything about MFO members' level?> I have no idea, maybe <Akavall> posted some games on the Beer page, but I have no idea on the others. They should have more information on us |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 53 OF 129 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
