PDA

View Full Version : Sweeney vs Jeo (Game 1)



skip to my lou
11-02-2004, 09:32 PM
Time: 30min each
White: M Sweeney (0)
Black: Jeo (1)

1.e4 e6 2.f4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.Nf3 Be7 5.b3 Nc6 6.Bb2 Nh6 7.d4 cxd4 8.Bxd4 Nxd4 9.Qxd4 0-0 10.c4 Qa5+ 11.Nbd2 Ng4 12.h3 Bc5 13.Qb2 Ne3 14.a3 dxc4 15.b4 Bxb4 16.axb4 Qxa1+ 17.Qxa1 Nc2+ 18.Kd1 Nxa1 19.Bxc4 Bd7 20.Kc1 Ba4 21.Kb2 Nc2 22.Bb3 Bxb3 23.Kxb3 Ne3 24.g4 Rfd8 25.Rc1 Rd3+ 26.Ka4 Nd5 27.b5 Nc3+ 28.Ka5 Na2 29.Ka4 Nxc1

0-1

Owned :owned:

Kevin Bonham
12-02-2004, 10:47 PM
You two playing these in person, or over the 'net?

Not a big fan of 2.f4 for White. A few years ago an opponent rated c.1800 played this against me without adequate preparation, and I don't think he'll be doing that again in a hurry:

1.e4 e6 2.f4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Bb5 Bd7 6.Bxc6 Bxc6 7.d4 Qb6 8.c3 Rc8 9.Qb3 Qa6 10.Qc2 Bb5 11.Nbd2 Nh6 12.h3 Nf5 13.Nb3 Ba4 14.dxc5 Bxb3 15.Qxb3 Ng3

0-1.

skip to my lou
12-02-2004, 10:55 PM
Over Play Chess on Chess Kit.

I win more with black (french) and draw more with white (d4). Weird.

Kevin Bonham
13-02-2004, 02:29 AM
I win more with black (french) and draw more with white (d4). Weird.

The French is a particularly strong opening against lower-rated players. They tend to be unable to hold d4 properly.

antichrist
14-02-2004, 02:02 PM
The French is a particularly strong opening against lower-rated players. They tend to be unable to hold d4 properly.

At the low level that I teach I say it is very important that the F pawn is not moved unless one exactly what they are doing or forced to do so, as crucial for defense of King. I have seen stronger players lose to weaker ones just because of F pawn move. How say you KB and others?

Kevin Bonham
14-02-2004, 08:50 PM
At the low level that I teach I say it is very important that the F pawn is not moved unless one exactly what they are doing or forced to do so, as crucial for defense of King. I have seen stronger players lose to weaker ones just because of F pawn move. How say you KB and others?

Maybe "exactly" is a bit strong but I would certainly not advise anyone to take up any of the 1.e4,2.f4 type lines without a decent understanding of the theory of the line they're playing.

PHAT
15-02-2004, 11:31 AM
Maybe "exactly" is a bit strong but I would certainly not advise anyone to take up any of the 1.e4,2.f4 type lines without a decent understanding of the theory of the line they're playing.

I have no idea what the theory of the 1.e4.2.f4 line is - except that it is called the Kings Gambit with 1.e4 e5, and when people play 2.c5 it is the Sicilian and I have no idea what they are up to. However, that is me, I like to learn what is going on, pro de novo by playing it OTB. The exitement of discovering it for yourself.

It is true, losing 75% of chess games does not leave me smiling during the most mortem, but it is a lot less painful than studying and losing 25%. Training for a game/sport at amateur level seams to me, a bit like cheating. I cannot see the point. I mean, it is the fun of playing that matters - isn't it? Training/studying is not fun, it is hard work. So, if you are going to do hard work, you might as well become a professional and get paid for it.

I suppose that for some people, the joy is in beating the other player. But I do not feel good in those last few moves of a win, I feel like am being mean and nasty - I do not like it. And wiining on a blunder feels shameful. However, chalking up that point after the game feels very good. But that's just me.

ursogr8
15-02-2004, 07:28 PM
It is true, losing 75% of chess games does not leave me smiling during the most mortem, but it is a lot less painful than studying and losing 25%.



Which is probably why you took to the Fischer-Random challenge.

Kevin Bonham
16-02-2004, 12:04 AM
I have no idea what the theory of the 1.e4.2.f4 line is - except that it is called the Kings Gambit with 1.e4 e5, and when people play 2.c5 it is the Sicilian and I have no idea what they are up to.

1.e4 c5 2.f4 is the Grand Prix Attack and has a medium-large body of theory behind it, quite popular at club levels at times.

1.e4 e6 2.f4 is sometimes called the Labourdonnais French and is generally considered harmless.


Training for a game/sport at amateur level seams to me, a bit like cheating. I cannot see the point. I mean, it is the fun of playing that matters - isn't it? Training/studying is not fun, it is hard work.

Depends how much of it you do and if you enjoy it or not.

I'm not a real theory-hound. I have a bad memory for variations and cannot stand rote learning. What I do like to do though, is use most games to extend my opening knowledge a little further. If I missed a chance to get a good game, I try to learn that line better for the future.

If I'm trying out a new line, I like to play it with relatively little preparation and play in a fresh and original manner. The opponent won't expect the opening so it's unlikely that not being booked up too much will matter. Then in successive games I can start adding little bits of theory.

And yes, the fun of playing matters but it is not much fun being dead lost on move 12 because of inferior opening knowledge/understanding.

ToRnaDo
16-02-2004, 01:43 AM
Time: 30min each
White: M Sweeney (0)
Black: K Rajendran (1)


0-1

Owned :owned:


ohh my God... U WON! :owned: :owned: :lol: :lol:

good work mate!!! :wall: :whistle: :whistle: :clap:

skip to my lou
16-02-2004, 01:48 AM
ohh my God... U WON!

good work mate!!!

It was actually really easy. I was Programming, Listening to music, chatting with 3 people and playing two games of chess at the same time. :eh: :uhoh: :owned:

ToRnaDo
16-02-2004, 04:36 AM
hahaha lol!!!

arosar
16-02-2004, 10:33 AM
A mate of mine once observed that in chess, the more you know and learn, the harder it gets. Whaddya fellaz reckon?

AR

skip to my lou
16-02-2004, 02:22 PM
mmm no, since if you learn strategy for whatever you are learning properly, you can dismiss a number of variations immediately, which cuts down on tactical thinking. Therefore if your strategy is right, it shouldn't be hard. But if you are dragged into a line that you do not know, then you are calculating anything and everything which makes it extremely tough.

PHAT
16-02-2004, 03:06 PM
mmm no, since if you learn strategy for whatever you are learning properly, you can dismiss a number of variations immediately, which cuts down on tactical thinking. Therefore if your strategy is right, it shouldn't be hard. But if you are dragged into a line that you do not know, then you are calculating anything and everything which makes it extremely tough.

I don't think that is what he ment.

For a novice, the hardest thing to know is, "Is this a legal move?" For a new player it is, "Is this safe." And so on up the ladder: Simple tactics; Plans; Strategies; then Styles. With greater knowledge, the number of factors a player will feel he has to take into account, increases. The balancing act between tactics and strategy, becomes more difficult because you can see more tricks and fear worse position.

I think that that is what arosar's mate was suggesting.