PDA

View Full Version : Analyse this!



Basil
12-10-2008, 08:41 PM
Here is my game from last week's Brisbane Club Champs. Apart from the usual (turning a winning position into a loss), the game is offered for a number of reasons.

1. IMO it's reasonably exciting.
2. It becomes quite tactical - especially in the form of ghosts!
3. The imbalance.
4. Two questions for you!

1. Can you identify white's move which drops +2.0 analysis points bringing the game to approximately level?
In the game, the move was made with a rush of blood to the head. Naughty Gunner - especially in light of the correct move which had been played for :doh: (Answers in white text for the next person).

2. In the game, would you have played 15.h3 or other?
No engines thanks - it defeats the purpose (as always). Answers in white text. All other commentary welcome in regular text.

[Event "Brisbane Club Champs"]
[Date "2008.10.09"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Howard Duggan"]
[Black "John Alkin"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1493"]
[BlackElo "1629"]
[ECO "D05"]

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 e6 4. Bd3 c5 5. b3 Bd6 6. Bb2 Nc6 7. O-O Bd7 8. Nbd2
Nb4 9. Be2 a6 10. Ne5 Rc8 11. a3 cxd4 12. Nxd7 Qxd7 13. axb4 dxe3 14. fxe3 Qc7
15. Bd3 Bxh2+ 16. Kh1 Be5 17. Bd4 h5 18. Nf3 Bg3 19. Ra5 Rd8 20. Rc5 Qd6 21.
Qa1 Nd7 22. Ng5 Qe7 23. Nh3 e5 24. Bb2 Nxc5 25. bxc5 O-O 26. b4 Rfe8 27. Rf5 g6
28. Rf1 Qh4 29. c4 d4 30. Qb1 e4 31. Be2 Be5 32. Rf4 Bxf4 33. exf4 Qg3 34. Qa1
Qe3 35. Bf1 Qd2 36. b5 e3 37. Ng1 axb5 38. cxb5 Ra8 39. Qb1 e2 40. Bxe2 Rxe2
41. Nxe2 Qxe2 42. f5 d3 43. fxg6 fxg6 44. c6 bxc6 45. bxc6 Qc2 46. Qf1 Rf8 47.
Qg1 Qxb2 48. Qc5 d2 49. Qd5+ Kh8 50. Qg5 d1=Q+ 51. Kh2 Qd6+ 52. Kh3 Qc3+ 53. g3
0-1

Please excuse white's rolling blunders in the last third while surfing the increment.

Miranda
12-10-2008, 09:24 PM
Not bad!

[I suck at chess, so I won't even TRY to analyse :P ]

ER
13-10-2008, 01:53 AM
Duggan, I don't understand your 23 Nh3, why not Nxf7?

WhiteElephant
13-10-2008, 09:07 AM
Duggan, I don't understand your 23 Nh3, why not Nxf7?

After Nxf7, Qh4 looks pretty good.

WhiteElephant
13-10-2008, 09:19 AM
Just a few brief comments.

Move 15 - tricky decision whether it is better to lose the c or h pawn. If black got the c Pawn he would get penetration along the c file and the b2 Bishop looks uncomfortable. Swapping it for the f6 Knight gives black the g file for some play. Having said that, I would have preferred to keep the h pawn because it looks dangerous had black co-ordinated his attack better.

Definitely would have swapped Bishops after 16. Be5, followed by Qf3. Looks fairly solid for white after that.

Not sure about the Ra5-c5 manouver. Maybe try to break instead with c4 or Qe2 followed by e4.

After 24. ...e5 black is looking good. :(

Aaron Guthrie
13-10-2008, 10:25 AM
Re 1), 22.Ng5 which was punished as per the game (Qe7!). 2), I lean towards Nf3 on a quick look.

Re WhiteElephant and c pawn vs h pawn, if Black takes on c2, White can play Rac1, which gets an ending up a piece for 2 pawns (I think), which should be winning. (Maybe it isn't so clear, I guess it is hard to make progress, and Black might get annoying central pawns.) Also if if 15.h3 Qxc2 16.Nc4!? might be even better (can't be bothered working it out, tricky).

WhiteElephant
13-10-2008, 10:40 AM
Yeah, Manga. After Rc1, Rooks and Queens get swapped off so probably better for white to simplify.

Basil
13-10-2008, 11:30 AM
Duggan, I don't understand your 23 Nh3, why not Nxf7?
As WE says, Qh4 mates.

ER
13-10-2008, 04:05 PM
As WE says, Qh4 mates.

lol sorry :)

MichaelBaron
14-10-2008, 11:48 PM
Obviously white did miss some stronger forced continuations.
But is that the main reason that white lost? Instead of throwing lines/moves at everyone let me ask a general question.

"What should you do if you are piece up"
And the answer is: Consolidate!

Therefore, white's first mistake was that he was happy with a double-edged game where he was attacking the black king, while his opponent was attacking the white king. This approach was wrong in principle!

IF YOU ARE PIECE UP ALL THAT YOU HAVE TO DO IS CONSOLIDATE AND START EXCHANGING PIECES!

eclectic
15-10-2008, 01:55 AM
IF YOU ARE PIECE UP ALL THAT YOU HAVE TO DO IS CONSOLIDATE AND START EXCHANGING PIECES!

but not before making sure you can do something effective with the piece you will be left with ;)

Basil
15-10-2008, 04:24 AM
Instead of throwing lines/moves at everyone let me ask a general question.
That's a shame. I was hoping to test you! It's a difficult position for a human OTB.


"What should you do if you are piece up"
And the answer is: Consolidate!
Agreed. But how? Are you talking about the one opportunity for the bishop exchange?


Therefore, white's first mistake was that he was happy with a double-edged game where he was attacking the black king, while his opponent was attacking the white king.
Wrong wrong wrong.
Wrong 1. Telling white what he was happy with, attributes powers of mind-reading to yourself well beyond your actual powers. I'm prepared to accept that I didn't have the ability to find the right ideas (which you haven't offered), but to say I was happy with a particular approach is simply wrong. White was very concerned about aspects of his position following the position that appeared after going a piece up.
Wrong 2. Were you so delighted with quoting the textbook principle of 'trading while material up' that didn't properly assess this game? it turns out that white could have achieved +3 in the game if he had not blundered and actually made the move he played for.


IF YOU ARE PIECE UP ALL THAT YOU HAVE TO DO IS CONSOLIDATE AND START EXCHANGING PIECES!
Again, how?

Having had the benefit of hindsight, no clock and an engine - and therefore no ghosts!, here are my comments, including the answer to my question(s).

1. After black's blunder of a piece (for the compensation of a pawn and shattering whites central pawns), white is +1.5 directly after the all-but-forcing continuation at 14... Qc7

2. In the game, white was concerned losing the c pawn on move 15 and therefore allowed 15... Bxh2. White drops to +1 after this.

3. The rook a5 manoeuvre was just as much about creating an a1-h8 battery with a queen on a1 as it was about
-- creating a threat against the black queen (Rc5)
-- seeking to exchange rooks on c8! (note for Michael Baron)
-- releasing the Ra1 from the eye of a bouncing black bishop

4. As it turned out in the game, the played for and achieved battery was ignored/ forgotten/ blood-rushed by white who had the chance to play 22.Bxg7 leaving white +3 with best play from both sides.

So the answer to question to is the move that loses 2.3 points is 22.Ng5

At this point, white has achieved a won game without trading the pieces as offererd by Michael Baron. Michael, I agree with your textbook suggestion that trading is the way to go is such a position (if possible).

Thanks JK, WE and MF for participating in a meaningful way.

MichaelBaron
15-10-2008, 02:01 PM
The first line i would consider (not sure if its good or not but definitely first one to consider is 15.Nf3 followed by 16.Bxf6 :)

lets look at simple moves first! Piece for two pawns is enough for clear victory

Dougy
15-10-2008, 03:50 PM
Again, how?

This is perhaps one of the rudest posts I've ever read. That aside, I think "planning" is the word your searching for. Every single move after 13. axb4 dxe3 should focus on not giving your opponent counterplay.

May I suggest reading When You're Winning, It's a Whole Different Game (http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman13.pdf) by Dan Heisman.

Dougy
15-10-2008, 04:36 PM
The first line i would consider (not sure if its good or not but definitely first one to consider is 15.Nf3 followed by 16.Bxf6 :)

lets look at simple moves first! Piece for two pawns is enough for clear victory

With the plan of consolidating and simplification, we can now look how to achieve it.

I quite like 14.Nf3 or 14.Bxf6. Why is White going pawn grabbing while Black's is getting ready for a counter-attack?

After 15.Nf3 Ng4 looks a bit like Black is achieving complications - why let him? 15.h3 makes sense to me - taking the g4 square from the knight and removing the attack on h2. Black can capture on c2 if he likes but has to accept the major swap-off into an easily won endgame. 15.h3 Qxc2 16.Rc1 Qxd1 17.Rxc8+ Kd7 18.Rxd1 Rxc8 19.Rc1 but watch out for 16.Nc4? Rxc4 17.bxc4 Qxb2.


3. The rook a5 manoeuvre was just as much about creating an a1-h8 battery with a queen on a1 as it was about
-- creating a threat against the black queen (Rc5)
-- seeking to exchange rooks on c8! (note for Michael Baron)
-- releasing the Ra1 from the eye of a bouncing black bishop

The first and second reasons here are the same - of course the queen will move. The third reason is weak since White dominates the a1-h8 diagonal. Increasing control over the critical e5 square is a good reason - intending to swap pieces via Be5. Also possible is 19.Qc1 followed by 20.Qb2 instead.


At this point, white has achieved a won game without trading the pieces as offererd by Michael Baron. Michael, I agree with your textbook suggestion that trading is the way to go is such a position (if possible).

White, of course, already had a won game. Also, how did you intend to win it without swapping any pieces?

Aaron Guthrie
15-10-2008, 04:50 PM
Intermizo, Dougy.

MichaelBaron
15-10-2008, 04:54 PM
I think we are having a very intersting discussion here :).

It actually reveals a difference in thinking patterns.

If you show the position after move 13 to any 2000+ player (and even majority of 1700+) players. They will start thinking in terms of 'planning" rather than in terms of "finding moves".

if a position is unclear you need to find a convincing line but if a position is clear (e.g. piece up) all you need to find is a plan! Dougy's reccomendation of Heisman's book is a very good one and a must to read for majority of club players. No wonder, Dougy is competitive against the likes of Guy West! In order to play with the masters - you need to start thiniking like one!

In some positions - you need to calculate various lines to find a forced win, but if you are piece up....all you need to find is a way to avoid complications.

I do not really care if there is some forced line that leads to +3 according to Fritz if there is a simple way to keep my extra piece and win the game in a few moves.

Therefore, if Howard wants to move from the U1600 category on to the next level - he needs to learn about planning and strategy rather than keep searching for 'best move" in every position!

Aaron Guthrie
15-10-2008, 04:58 PM
Hang on a sec, I can play the intermizo first! 16.Bxf6, but then this is a choice of a better ending, would have to actually look at it properly to tell which ending is betteredit-I should have mentioned I was talking about the Nc4 move

Aaron Guthrie
15-10-2008, 05:01 PM
I do not really care if there is some forced line that leads to +3 according to Fritz if there is a simple way to keep my extra piece and win the game in a few moves.Aside from swapping generally being better chess-wise, it is usually better practically. You want a position that you can handle with the least chance of mistakes, which a +3 doesn't capture.

Capablanca-Fan
15-10-2008, 05:49 PM
Aside from swapping generally being better chess-wise, it is usually better practically. You want a position that you can handle with the least chance of mistakes, which a +3 doesn't capture.
Yes, this is surely the main issue. Any player's strategy after winning a piece should be finding the surest way that HE can bring home the full point. This usually means simplification. A +2 position that is a fool-proof win in 40 moves is probably better than a +6 position that Fritz or Anand could win in 15 moves, but which an <1800 player might easily mishandle. My favorite example is: an otherwise normal K+P endgame with an extra passed P is +1, but that's often more straightforward than a rook up in a an otherwise normal middlegame position (+5), let alone a messy middlegame.

In the game in question, Gunner found an objectively strong continuation that gave a higher assessment than simplification, but he went wrong. So a pragmatic continuation for a 1600 player would have been one with a lower score but less chance of a 1600 player going wrong.

Simplification isn't always best, if it removes serious weaknesses or a lousily placed enemy piece. Compare the analysis of one of Southpaw's games here (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=3172&page=58) (from #867). Also, with B v Ps, it's often best to keep a pair of Rs on: the B can defend weak points cheaply, freeing your own R to attack then tie the enemy R down.

A more general rule of thumb is to exchange the pieces that don't contribute to your advantage.

Spiny Norman
15-10-2008, 06:00 PM
I totally agree with Dougy/Michael/Manga/Jono. As an example, I offer this game I played a few months ago. I won a pawn early, and that was enough for me to win ... I steadfastly pursued the realtively simple idea of:

1) make sure my pieces are more active than my opponent; and
2) swap off at virtually every opportunity

1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nc6 3.Nf3 e5 4.d4 cxd4 5.cxd4 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Qa5 7.d5 Bxd2+ 8.Qxd2 Qxd2+ 9.Kxd2 Nce7 10.Nxe5 f6
11.Nc4 Nh6 12.Nd6+ Kf8 13.Nc3 a6 14.Be2 Nf7 15.Nxf7 Kxf7 16.Rac1 Rd8 17.f4 d6 18.Bf3 Ra7 19.Na4 b5 20.Nb6 Rb7
21.Nxc8 Nxc8 22.Rc2 Nb6 23.b3 Rbb8 24.Bg4 Nd7 25.Bxd7 Rxd7 26.Rc6 Ra8 27.Rhc1 Ke7 28.Rc7 a5 29.R1c6 Kd8 30.Rxd7+ Kxd7
31.Rb6 Kc7 32.Rc6+ Kd7 33.a3 b4 34.a4 Rc8 35.Rxc8 Kxc8 36.Kd3 Kc7 37.g4 Kb6 38.Kd4 Ka6 39.e5 fxe5+ 40.fxe5 dxe5+
41.Kxe5 Kb7 42.Kd6 Kc8 43.Ke7 1-0

The simple plan worked well, and those active pieces and the +1 extra pawn was more than sufficient to bring home the point.

Dougy
15-10-2008, 06:45 PM
Hang on a sec, I can play the intermizo first! 16.Bxf6, but then this is a choice of a better ending, would have to actually look at it properly to tell which ending is betteredit-I should have mentioned I was talking about the Nc4 move

Indeed, I believe your line is an improvement on the one I gave. But the plan is to prevent counter-attack - not win material. There's still a lot of attack in Black after 15.h3 Qxc2 16.Nc4 Rxc4 17.Bxf6 Qg6 18.bxc4 gxf6 (or possibly even the immediate 18...Qg3), with a highly active bishop, rook and queen aiming at dark-square weaknesses. Despite this, I'm sure White can defend and go on to win.

Remember, in many lines here Black's f-, g- and h-pawns defend White's king - preventing Black's h8 rook from attacking.

The alternative 15.h3 Qxc2 16.Rc1, in my opinion, should be chosen because there is much less chance of an error.

Capablanca-Fan
15-10-2008, 07:01 PM
Intermizo, Dougy.
What's that? A snack between two courses of soya bean curd soup?

Rincewind
15-10-2008, 07:05 PM
Hang on a sec, I can play the intermizo first!

After the second usage I thought I should point out it is "intermezzo" and pronounced like it has a "d". (i.e. in-ter-med-zo)

Please return to the chess commentary, it is getting interesting.

I agree with the plan of keeping in simple if you have a won game. It is a bit of a trade off sometimes. You really have to give your opponent the least amount of wiggle room, often (but not always) exchanges promote that strategy. However I would be cautious about recommending to always exchange pieces in such situation because, for example, trading your good minor piece for an opponent's poor minor piece may increase the wiggle room.

Note too that trading to an endgame doesn't necessarily lengthen the game. Some opponents faced with a long losing endgame with little chance of saving will resign. Others probably should resign. :)

Capablanca-Fan
15-10-2008, 07:11 PM
I totally agree with Dougy/Michael/Manga/Jono. As an example, I offer this game I played a few months ago. I won a pawn early, and that was enough for me to win ... I steadfastly pursued the realtively simple idea of:

1) make sure my pieces are more active than my opponent; and
2) swap off at virtually every opportunity

1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nc6 3.Nf3 e5 4.d4 cxd4 5.cxd4 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Qa5 7.d5 Bxd2+ 8.Qxd2 Qxd2+ 9.Kxd2 Nce7 10.Nxe5 f6
11.Nc4 Nh6 12.Nd6+ Kf8 13.Nc3 a6 14.Be2 Nf7 15.Nxf7 Kxf7 16.Rac1 Rd8 17.f4 d6 18.Bf3 Ra7 19.Na4 b5 20.Nb6 Rb7
21.Nxc8 Nxc8 22.Rc2 Nb6 23.b3 Rbb8 24.Bg4 Nd7 25.Bxd7 Rxd7 26.Rc6 Ra8 27.Rhc1 Ke7 28.Rc7 a5 29.R1c6 Kd8 30.Rxd7+ Kxd7
31.Rb6 Kc7 32.Rc6+ Kd7 33.a3 b4 34.a4 Rc8 35.Rxc8 Kxc8 36.Kd3 Kc7 37.g4 Kb6 38.Kd4 Ka6 39.e5 fxe5+ 40.fxe5 dxe5+
41.Kxe5 Kb7 42.Kd6 Kc8 43.Ke7 1-0

The simple plan worked well, and those active pieces and the +1 extra pawn was more than sufficient to bring home the point.
Pretty much. The simplifying play left Black with few swindling chances. All the same, 25. Rc7 was quicker, if only because it can swap the Rs more quickly in the following move. However 25... Ke8 leaves Black tied down and White can play 26. R1c1 then R1c6.

Basil
15-10-2008, 07:53 PM
This is perhaps one of the rudest posts I've ever read.
You're kidding, right? I'd suggest your opinion is very heavily laden with personal bias. The post to which you refer is simply not of the calibre you describe. Ask any 20 people here :hand:


That aside, I think "planning" is the word your searching for. Every single move after 13. axb4 dxe3 should focus on not giving your opponent counterplay.
I think the difficulty that you are having here and Michael had with his first answer (as opposed to other highly rated commentators) is 'bedside manner'. Michael's first response was to suggest IN CAPS MIND YOU! what I was thinking. It's a simle fact he was wrong. Let's have some more of the gentle approach please when commenting on lesser rated player's games. It's one thing to be right about the assessment of the moves, it's an entirely different matter to attribute the motivation.

Next is your quote above, which itself can be taken as rude. You're suggesting I wasn't planning. Well I was planning. Again more bombastic rubbish :hand:


May I suggest reading When You're Winning, It's a Whole Different Game (http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman13.pdf) by Dan Heisman.
Thank you.


Why is White going pawn grabbing while Black's is getting ready for a counter-attack?
Again! More of the allocating white's reasoning without asking him! White is not going "pawn grabbing". White is killing both the 'protective pawns' which you refer to below and the h8 rook at the same time. Did you miss that white was winning the rook? Further, it happens to be the best move on the board. Given your rating, I can only assume your 'orrible commentary is either because you continue to be horribly biased or drunk.


The first and second reasons here are the same - of course the queen will move.
No, they're not. Distinct reason #1 for white's Ra1-a5 is white wants to limit the black queen's options on the long diagonal - and by forcing the queen to d6 ensures that in turn the black bishop is denied that square. And distinct reason #2 is to trade pieces. They are two separate reasons. They are two good objectives. They are both achieved with the one idea.


The third reason is weak since White dominates the a1-h8 diagonal.
Agreed. I referred to ghosts in my opening of this thread. I had many.


White, of course, already had a won game. Also, how did you intend to win it without swapping any pieces?
Your question smacks of more sarcasm. However, Aaron as already answered this and his answer was what was in my mind at the time.


I do not really care if there is some forced line that leads to +3 according to Fritz if there is a simple way to keep my extra piece and win the game in a few moves.
I think you might be over-stating the position Michael. It was a simple line. It was a short line. And it is vindicated. I simply neglected to play the final move after playing the position in the first place.


Remember, in many lines here Black's f-, g- and h-pawns defend White's king - preventing Black's h8 rook from attacking.
Agreed. And that was one of my ghosts.

Michael and Dougy, please don't doubt that I am not respectful of your talents OTB. This is why I/ we posts games for analysis and assistance. I would urge you both to assess your bedside manner and biases when assessing positions and giving commentary. Only two things can come out of such behaviour: Some players won't offer up their games again - others will simply send your rudeness back with interest.

Carry on!

Dougy
15-10-2008, 09:09 PM
In any case, it seems that you have gotten something from the responses here. Which is good (: Particularly if you read the Dan Heisman's article.

Basil
15-10-2008, 10:04 PM
In any case, it seems that you have gotten something from the responses here. Which is good (: Particularly if you read the Dan Heisman's article.
You're talking in generalities; actually vagueness is a fair comment about your post. If you'd like to say something which is both specific and polite, I'd be more than willing to digest it.

Basil
15-10-2008, 10:34 PM
Request: Would someone with Fritz or Rybka (in fact any engine) please plug the following into their box and set the computer to play itself on 10 mins v 10 mins please. White to move.

I have just done so and black won!!! I'm going to try again varying the parameters ever so slightly. *EDIT white wins this time. In both games, white spends a lot of time cramped on his first three ranks requiring accurate play in a psychologically difficult position.

Thanks.

2r1k2r/1p3ppp/p3pn2/3pq3/1P6/1P2P2P/2PNB1P1/R2Q1RK1 w k - 0 16

Basil
16-10-2008, 12:01 AM
Here's Sigma vs Sigma @ 45 mins each from one critical start position (15...Be5 after h3). White wins. A grindy game that would be beyond me.

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 e6 4. Bd3 c5 5. b3 Bd6 6. Bb2 Nc6 7. O-O Bd7 8. Nbd2
Nb4 9. Be2 a6 10. Ne5 Rc8 11. a3 cxd4 12. Nxd7 Qxd7 13. axb4 dxe3 14. fxe3 Qc7
15. h3 Be5 16. Bxe5 Qxe5 17. Rf3 O-O 18. Bd3 Qc3 19. b5 axb5 20. Rf2 b4 21. e4
Rfe8 22. Qe1 e5 23. Rf1 Qc5+ 24. Qf2 Qc6 25. Qf5 Qc3 26. Rad1 Qc5+ 27. Kh2 Qd6
28. Rf3 Rc3 29. Qg5 dxe4 30. Rxf6 Qxf6 31. Qxf6 gxf6 32. Nxe4 Rc6 33. Bb5 Ree6
34. Bxc6 Rxc6 35. Rd6 Rxc2 36. Nxf6+ Kg7 37. Nh5+ Kf8 38. Rd5 Rb2 39. Rxe5 Rxb3
40. Rb5 Rb1 41. Kg3 b3 42. Nf6 Ke7 43. Ne4 Kd7 44. Rxb7+ Kc6 45. Rb8 Rb2 46.
Ng5 h5 47. Nxf7 Kd5 48. Kh4 Rf2 49. Ng5 b2 50. g3 Kc4 51. Ne6 Rd2 52. Nc7 Kd3
53. Nd5 Kd4 54. Nf6 Kd3 55. Kxh5 Kc2 56. h4 Rd1 57. Rxb2+ Kxb2 58. Kg6 Kc3 59.
h5 Kd4 60. h6 Rh1 61. h7 Rxh7 62. Nxh7 Ke5 63. Nf8 Ke4 64. g4 Kf4 65. g5 Ke5
66. Kf7 Kf5 67. g6 Ke5 68. g7 Kd4 *

MichaelBaron
16-10-2008, 12:09 AM
1) make sure my pieces are more active than my opponent; and
2) swap off at virtually every opportunity



The simple plan worked well, and those active pieces and the +1 extra pawn was more than sufficient to bring home the point.

Yep, very solid game!:clap:

I know it is not a spectacular kind of game, but does it really matter? the important thing is that you made it look simple!

If you can keep playing consistently at this level your rating will soon be up 200+ points.

By the way, i think Croydon players are really lucky to have Guy West and Wong playing with them. I can feel their influence from the way other club members are improving.

This shows value of having strong and (equally importantly!) friendly chess players around!

MichaelBaron
16-10-2008, 12:11 AM
Back to the Duggan's game: I still do not see what was the problem with simple Bxf6 :).

Basil
16-10-2008, 12:16 AM
Back to the Duggan's game: I still do not see what was the problem with simple Bxf6 :).
I don't think there is a problem, Mike. I think it's a good move which follows the principles you have reminded us of. At which point are you proposing it? 15.Bxf6?

MichaelBaron
16-10-2008, 01:16 AM
I don't think there is a problem, Mike. I think it's a good move which follows the principles you have reminded us of. At which point are you proposing it? 15.Bxf6?

May be move 14.

Aaron Guthrie
16-10-2008, 07:20 AM
Indeed, I believe your line is an improvement on the one I gave. But the plan is to prevent counter-attack - not win material.There's still a lot of attack in Black after 15.h3 Qxc2 16.Nc4 Rxc4 17.Bxf6 Qg6 18.bxc4 gxf6 (or possibly even the immediate 18...Qg3), with a highly active bishop, rook and queen aiming at dark-square weaknesses.Which is why I suggested, in the post you quoted, 16.Bxf6, which forces 16...Qxd1. Which is also why I said, in the post you quoted, that this was a choice about endings.

Dougy
16-10-2008, 08:59 AM
By the way, i think Croydon players are really lucky to have Guy West and Wong playing with them. I can feel their influence from the way other club members are improving.

This shows value of having strong and (equally importantly!) friendly chess players around!

Indeed, we are quite lucky! N.Y. in particular has been an amazing support to the club as a whole.

We should probably post some of our less quality games to balance things out. (:

Dougy
16-10-2008, 09:20 AM
Which is why I suggested, in the post you quoted, 16.Bxf6, which forces 16...Qxd1. Which is also why I said, in the post you quoted, that this was a choice about endings.

Ah, I misunderstood. So your line is 15.h3 Qxc2 16.Bxf6 then if Black recaptures 16...gxf6 17.Nc4 where this time the rook cannot take, otherwise its losing the exchange without compensation. The idea of 16...Qg6 is no longer a problem since the g-file will remain unopen and White's knight can easily jump to f3. Well spotted.

Desmond
16-10-2008, 10:13 AM
Back to the Duggan's game: I still do not see what was the problem with simple Bxf6 :).Swaps a beautiful bishop for a knight, concedes the bishop pair, leaves a position with OCB (a saving resource, even at a piece down), opens the g-file for black to use. I really do not see what is good about it, other than it supports the dogmatic rule to exchange pieces while ahead.

For every commentator who says in one situation, "what was wrong with the simple ...", there is probably another one in another situation saying, "white errs by simply follows dogma, when he should be ..."

Aaron Guthrie
16-10-2008, 10:22 AM
Swaps a beautiful bishop for a knight, concedes the bishop pair, leaves a position with OCB (a saving resource, even at a piece down), opens the g-file for black to use. I really do not see what is good about it, other than it supports the dogmatic rule to exchange pieces while ahead.It means white can more easily play nf3 (instead of taking on e3), because exf2+ followed by Ng4 stuff might be annoying.

Desmond
16-10-2008, 10:29 AM
It means white can more easily play nf3 (instead of taking on e3), because exf2+ followed by Ng4 stuff might be annoying.Sure, it might be annoying, but what I mentioned Eg open g-file might be annoying too. That is why we need some actual lines, not just aphorisms.

Aaron Guthrie
16-10-2008, 10:38 AM
Sure, it might be annoying, but what I mentioned Eg open g-file might be annoying too. That is why we need some actual lines, not just aphorisms.Now I'm not so sure about this Bxf6, Nf3 idea. But I will say this anyway, I don't think the g-file is a big deal. The dark squares, however, are genuinely attackable.

Desmond
16-10-2008, 10:44 AM
Now I'm not so sure about this Bxf6, Nf3 idea. But I will say this anyway, I don't think the g-file is a big deal. The dark squares, however, are genuinely attackable.
All the more reason to keep your dark square bishop.

Aaron Guthrie
16-10-2008, 11:33 AM
All the more reason to keep your dark square bishop.This is just dogma! ;)

Desmond
16-10-2008, 11:40 AM
This is just dogma! ;)My point exactly! ;) For every true aphorism, there is an opposite one that is true in another situation. Therefore quoting one and saying "simply do this" is superficial.

Show me the lines!

MichaelBaron
16-10-2008, 08:23 PM
Swaps a beautiful bishop for a knight, concedes the bishop pair, leaves a position with OCB (a saving resource, even at a piece down), opens the g-file for black to use. I really do not see what is good about it, other than it supports the dogmatic rule to exchange pieces while ahead.

For every commentator who says in one situation, "what was wrong with the simple ...", there is probably another one in another situation saying, "white errs by simply follows dogma, when he should be ..."

I would agree with you..if i would not be piece up...when i am piece up..i am happy to swap off as many pieces as possible. Black's knight has potential to join the attack..so why not swap it off.

There is nothing dogmatic about it :). It is simply common sense :).

MichaelBaron
16-10-2008, 08:32 PM
My point exactly! ;) For every true aphorism, there is an opposite one that is true in another situation. Therefore quoting one and saying "simply do this" is superficial.

Show me the lines!


Boris, let me emphasize my point again. Tactics is of course important but there is also something called "positional understanding" positional chess often involves thinking in general terms by coming up with a plan such as "all i need to do is swap off this bishop for knight, exchange one pair of rooks, bring my bishop to d4 etc." this is what positional chess is all about.

Back in Russia, when i was getting coaching from some of the world's top coaches (e.g. i attended seminars run by Dvoretsky, Nikitin, Yurkov, Dolmatov etc.) this is exactly what they were teaching.

There is nothing superficial about using your positional understanding to find a good plan. I am a fairly weak tactical player. However, it does not stop me at playing chess at reasonable level because in many positons i do not need to calculate all lines till mate :). All that i have to do is to follow "superficial" principles and find good moves without looking at any concrete lines.

Desmond
17-10-2008, 08:04 AM
Boris, let me emphasize my point again. Tactics is of course important but there is also something called "positional understanding" positional chess often involves thinking in general terms by coming up with a plan such as "all i need to do is swap off this bishop for knight, exchange one pair of rooks, bring my bishop to d4 etc." this is what positional chess is all about.

Back in Russia, when i was getting coaching from some of the world's top coaches (e.g. i attended seminars run by Dvoretsky, Nikitin, Yurkov, Dolmatov etc.) this is exactly what they were teaching.

There is nothing superficial about using your positional understanding to find a good plan. I am a fairly weak tactical player. However, it does not stop me at playing chess at reasonable level because in many positons i do not need to calculate all lines till mate :). All that i have to do is to follow "superficial" principles and find good moves without looking at any concrete lines.
All the positional understanding in the world does not mean that sitting at the board you don't have to pick up a piece and move it. We all know that exchanging when ahead is a good plan. I don't need an FM to tell me that. What would be good though is for an FM to tell me how to carry out the plan.

MichaelBaron
17-10-2008, 09:51 AM
I don't need an FM to tell me that. What would be good though is for an FM to tell me how to carry out the plan.

Judging by your attitude you do not need anyone telling you anything :) - you ask questions - and you answer the questions by yourself.

As for carrying out a Plan, no need to rely on FMs - there are GMs who can teach you this. You can start by reading Kotov's book "Think like a grandmaster" and follow it up by Dvoretsky's Strategy book.

Desmond
17-10-2008, 11:18 AM
I would agree with you..if i would not be piece up...when i am piece up..i am happy to swap off as many pieces as possible. Black's knight has potential to join the attack..so why not swap it off.

There is nothing dogmatic about it . It is simply common sense .Fine. Then what?


Judging by your attitude you do not need anyone telling you anything :) - you ask questions - and you answer the questions by yourself.Umm what? :eh:


As for carrying out a Plan, no need to rely on FMs - there are GMs who can teach you this. You can start by reading Kotov's book "Think like a grandmaster" and follow it up by Dvoretsky's Strategy book.I have read Kotov. As far as I can remember, he didn't suggest a continuation to Gunner's position. It seems that you have that in common with him.

Basil
17-10-2008, 11:19 AM
I have read Kotov. As far as I can remember, he didn't suggest a continuation to Gunner's position. It seems that you have that in common with him.
LMFAO!

MichaelBaron
17-10-2008, 11:36 AM
Fine. Then what?


I have read Kotov. As far as I can remember, he didn't suggest a continuation to Gunner's position. It seems that you have that in common with him.

You should not just read. You should read slowly and learn! Not every position is in a chessbook :). However, when studying chessbooks you should try to learn thinking patterns rather than best moves in each respective position. Anyway, i feel like i am explaining the basics here, but if you would study Kotov's book properly you would not be asking such questions.

Looks like your study of Kotov's book was a waste of time...

Desmond
17-10-2008, 02:10 PM
How bout this then... we play 6 moves each in this game, to see how you would carry out your play.
14. Bxf6 gxf6
your move

MichaelBaron
17-10-2008, 04:39 PM
How bout this then... we play 6 moves each in this game, to see how you would carry out your play.
14. Bxf6 gxf6
your move

I do not have any desire to play my Fritz vs. your Fritz. I can count pieces..and can tell that white is piece up, therefore no need to play! I have a better idea..find 1 players over 2200 (plenty of strong players on this forum such as Igor, Jono etc) who thinks that white is not clear piece up.

Desmond
17-10-2008, 04:44 PM
I do not have any desire to play my Fritz vs. your Fritz. I can count pieces..and can tell that white is piece up, therefore no need to play! I have a better idea..find 1 players over 2200 (plenty of strong players on this forum such as Igor, Jono etc) who thinks that white is not clear piece up.
I won't use fritz. Surely you don't need to either if the position is so easy that it just wins itself? I don't care who wins. I don't want to play it out to the end. Just want to play a few moves to see how your plan unfolds.

MichaelBaron
17-10-2008, 09:18 PM
What is there to prove? Sorry, but i do not find this challenge interesting. Instead, lets re-read Kotov's book :)

Capablanca-Fan
17-10-2008, 11:41 PM
Swaps a beautiful bishop for a knight, concedes the bishop pair,
This is all correct. It's certainly worth considering in such cases when swapping would otherwise be desirable.

In this case, it is worth considering because it disrupts Black's K-side. So he won't want to castle there, since White has an extra piece to attack with. With the K in the centre, the extra centre Ps would be harder to use as compensation. Also, a major disadvantage of doubled Ps is that they reduce the mobility of a P majority, so this reduces Black's compensation for the piece.


leaves a position with OCB (a saving resource, even at a piece down),
This is not correct. The reasons that OCB is a saving resource in a pure P ending is that Ps on the opposite colour are out of range of the B's attack, and a B can hold up passed Ps and not be shifted by the enemy B. But if there are other minor pieces, then they can attack fixed Ps and lift a blockade.

Since this is a B+N v B(opp)+2P, the OCB can be a winning resource with the extra piece for precisely the same reason they are a saving resource when Ps down in a pure B endgame: it's easier to blocade the compensating Ps. But the extra piece together with the K can attack those fixed Ps.

In the middlegame, OCB can aid the attacker, which is more likely to be the side with an extra piece.


opens the g-file for black to use.
Hard for Black to get much on it though.


I really do not see what is good about it, other than it supports the dogmatic rule to exchange pieces while ahead.
It is a reasonable rule in many cases. There is less chance to go wrong. And that's the thing: Gunner played some pretty strong moves for a long time, probably objectively as good as the Bxf6 intermizo intermezzo, but eventually went wrong.

ER
18-10-2008, 10:04 AM
It is nice and encouraging to have very strong players like Jono and Michael sharing their knowledge with the rest of us.
IMHO Chess is a field that can not be explained in axioms and formulae although such approaches are often applicable.
I do have trouble for example in adjusting to positional requirements ie the exact stage at which you start changing your Pawn formation into squares not reachable by your opponent's Bishop, whilst you have taken so much care to keep them in the same colour as that particular piece in order to block it in the middle game.'
Many times I have seen "rules" contradicting each other. If we are to accept Michael's functioning according to the requirements of the position (which I try to follow) then ok.
However, Boris's and Gunner's cases aren't unjustifiable or "wrong"! A player must follow their insticts and knowledge OTB. Otherwise, a positive or negative result will have no real value. I mean I won a Queen in the opening vs Podgorac not because I play better Chess than my mate Jeljko but because I knew a Budapest trap which he didn't and fell for it.
A win is a win, a point is a point and the congratulations by onlookers after the game are fine! But in all honesty, what did I learn out of that game? Not much!

Here is my last night's effort at the 2008 BHHC Open. I am playing White vs Ion Kiopprogge.

1.e4 e5 2. f4 d6 3. Nf3 exf4 4. Bc4 Qf6 5. d4 Bg4 6. 0-0 Ne7 7. Nc3 c6 8. e5 dxe5 9. Ne4 Qg6 10. Qe2 {10. Nxe5! is maybe better but I have already seen the Qc4 ch manoeuvre so I stick with the plan!} f5 11. Bf7 Kxf7 {in this position materialwise I am lost but ...} 12. Qc4 Ke8 13. Nxe5 Qh5 14. Nd6 Kd8 15. Bxf4 Nd5 16. Nxb7 Ke8 17. Nxg4 fxg4 18. Bxb8 Qh6 19. Rae1 Kd7 20. Rf7 Be7 21. Bd6 Rhe8 22. Bg3 Qg6 23. Nc5 Kd8 24. Ne6 Kd7 25. Rxg7 Qh6 26. Nc5 Kd8 27. Rxg4 Rf8

Here Black blundered under extreme time pressure and eventually lost on time.
See what I mean? In my win vs Podgorac I played Chess according to the book
Last night I played Chess!
CAGLES to all!

MichaelBaron
19-10-2008, 10:28 AM
Here Black blundered under extreme time pressure and eventually lost on time.
See what I mean? In my win vs Podgorac I played Chess according to the book
Last night I played Chess!
CAGLES to all!


You could actually win easy "according to the book" :). Simpe 15.Nf7+ would leave you exchange up and in a completely winning position. You played really well between moves 10-14. All the complications that came afterwards were unnecessary.

The way you played was by far more spectacular. On the other hand, after 15.Nf7 he would resign on the spot.