<My mind is occupied with so much useless stuff, that I can't get much important things in anymore.>

Alchemist has the power to transform something useless into something special..

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...

Ok, on the chessgames.com's main page, right at the top of the page, in the middle, it says: "SEARCH OVER 376,000 CHESS GAMES". Directly under that, under the search bar, it says: "ADVANCED SEARCH"
"Year is"
"Player is"
"Opposing player is"
"Number of moves is"
"Opening is"
"ECO code is"
"Result is"

Leave all the search bars empty, EXCEPT FOR the ECO code search bar. In that bar, type the code you want, then press "Find Chess Games!". You will get this page: King's Indian, Orthodox (E94)

On that page, under the picture of the chess board, it says:

"Search for sacrifices in this opening."
"Explore this opening using the all-new Opening Explorer."

Click on "Explore...". You'll get this page: Opening Explorer

According to that page, the opening follows as such: 1.d4 Nf6, 2.c4 g6, 3.Nc3 Bg7, 4.e4 d6, 5.Nf3.

Whereas your opening begins: 1.d4 Nf6, 2.c4 g6, 3.Nc3 Bg7, 4.Nf3 d6, 5.e4.

Mar-03-06

<17.Bxg7> This is a sample of Kramnik's fans arguments in this forum. If you repeatedly fill the forum with this comments, you can make the number of pages as big as you want:

- "Kramnik defeated Kasparov in a comercial exhibition match of Braingames, but he defeated Kasparov, anyway, so he is the world champion."

- "Kramnik promotes Blancpain because as well as watches, he is a more accurate player."

- "Kramnik prefers to face computers than grandmasters in tournaments because his chess level is beyond humans' play"

- "Kramnik was not willing to face Kasparov again in 2001 or 2002, despite Linares 2004 he did not won any supertournament after 2000 not because of being pathologically afraid to lose, just because he had artistic issues that took his time"

- "Kramnik's performance in the 90's in matches was terrible +0 -3 =0, because he says he prefers supertournaments. Kramnik's performance in this decade is terrible in supertournaments, because he says he prefers matches"

- "Kramnik barely plays because he is an artist"

- "If you hate some Kramnik's short draws and don't understand the beauty behind them, is not Kramnik's fault, is simply that you don't understand chess"

I just returned home from my game today, so my thoughts are really fresh and my comments probably full of errors. Anyway, I was White. My local rating is 1525, Black's is 1943.

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 O-O 8.Bc4 Nc6 9.Qd2 Bd7 10.O-O-O Rc8 11.Bb3 Ne5 12.h4

(<Here, I was obviously hoping for the h4-h5 push. But because of Black's next move, I wonder whether 12.g4 is better.>)

12...h5 13.Rdg1 Nc4 14.Bxc4 Rxc4 15.Kb1 a6 16.g4

(<This probably isn't sound, but I decided to play this tournament for fun, and try to enjoy. You will see, however, that this was not to be :-) >)

16...hxg4 17.fxg4 Bxg4

(<In the post-mortem, I showed what I had in mind after 17...Nxg4: 18.Nde2 Nxe3 19.Qxe3 followed by h5 and Black's position doesn't look comfortable.>)

18.Nb3

(<In many variations, the Nd4 hangs, so I moved it away, also preventing Qa5>)

18...Qc8 19.Bh6 Bh5 20.Bxg7 Kxg7 21.Rg5

(<A little trap and preparing to double Rooks.>)

21...Nxe4 22.Nxe4 Rxe4 23.Rxh5!

(<This was what I was hoping for. 23...gxh5 24.Qg5+ is obviously not an option.>)

23...Rh8 24.Rxh8 Qxh8 25.a3????

(<It's here that I threw it away. I "saw" that after 25.h5 gxh5 26.Qg5+ Kf8 27.Rxh5 I would lose after 27...Re1+, as I didn't see 28.Nc1 covers up. In fact, I didn't see that the the Pawn on h4 was hanging at all. Immediatly after making my move, I realized what I had done. Like so many times before, I cracked psychologically whan the win was closest. It's here that the "fun" I was talking about before was suddenly gone. I entered a difficult ending and adding my notorious time pressure (I had about 20 minutes left, I didn't stand a chance.>)

25...Rxh4 26.Qc3+ f6 27.Rxh4 Qxh4 28.Qc7 Qe4 29.Na5

(<Here I started with a probably faulty plan, trying to win th Q-side Pawns. But as the game progressed, I became more and more scared of Black's K-side Pawns.>)

29...b5 30.Nc6 Kf7 31.Nd8+ Kg7 32.Nc6 Kf7 33.Nd8+

(<Now, I was just trying to draw the game. Perhaps 33.Qb7 was better, but I didn't see anything concrete. Plus, as I said, I was in time pressure. Still, that shouldn't be an excuse.>)

33...Ke8 34.Nb7

(<Some of the other players suggested 34.Qc8 here. I saw it, but again, I didn't find it too appealing after 34...g5. My play and my concentration were significantly deteriorating now.>)

34...g5 35.Nxd6

(<The Pawns were scaring me too much, so I decided to give the piece back. I was getting totally desperate by now.>)

35...exd6 36.Qxd6 Kf7 37.Qxa6??

(<The final blunder, ending the agony. I didn't even think about the move, I just played it, thinking "what could happen?". Oh, it could, it could :-) >)

37...Qe1+ 38.Ka2 Qe6+ 0-1

The other thing you should remember is that success just confirms & reaffirms what you started out with. & if you started out with a misconception or a faulty reasoning, then success will just make it more entrenched. That's why in science, a great many, if not most, of the leaps & strides made happened because of failure, not success. For the failure of the experiment, hypothesis etc., illuminated an issue, an aspect etc. that the scientist was until then blind to & unaware of, since they had proceeded & conducted themselves according to a premise, which meant looking at the data & the picture through a lens that prevented them from seeing all there was to see, from seeing the true patterns at play, or all of them, as the case may be.

So take this opportunity to learn. For it is a most valuable opportunity that you shouldn't pass by. If you'd won, you'd have just gone home thinking "Weeeeee! I won! I won! Hurray!" etc. & even if you analyzed the game, your & your opponent's moves, strategies etc. would just re-inforce your belief in & intention to continue doing the same, regardless whether or not it is good & effective or not (unbeknownst to you)! I hope this will have persuaded you to a different attitude towards failure! :)

Failure is so under-rated, even though it's so important & a great many things (including the crops we eat) wouldn't exist without it! [I mentioned crops because obviously if the plant released the seed as it's supposed to, it would spread itself & the pattern would continue. Failing to release the seed allowed humans to begin agriculture! & while I'm on this subject, I highly recommend to you & any & everyone else reading this to read Dr. Jared Diamond's book: "Guns, Germs & Steel: The Fates of Human Societies & its sequel. You won't regret it, I promise you that! :)]