|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
posted December 08, 2003 09:23 PM |
|
Edited By: Wub on 8 Dec 2003
|
Hello Valkyrica,
Quote:
I still am interested yes, it's a fascinating game, and the strategic possibilities in it are infinte, or so I think, i will be a good student if you wish to undertake me, I promise !
Well, then let me know when you’re ready with my study advices. You can also post your answers if you wish, so I can look at them. Please tell me as well if you think the practices were of the right difficulty.
Hello Lews,
You wrote that the chances for a draw in the Maroczy bind were lower than I suggested. I agree with you that asymmetry is often an ingredient for a game to have a winner. I reasoned that the sharper and more open a position, the smaller a chance for a draw (similar to what you wrote, I thought thereby at a king’s gambit, Italian Greco attack or Sicilian dragon Yugoslavian attack). The alternative for the bind, 5. Nc3, seemed to me to lead more to such positions, hence my statement. On the other hand I do recognize that the bind does not lead to a lifeless draw, of course. By the way, at my level of play I do not need to fear the overanalysis of openings, so you can bet that when I play against the Sveshnikov it is always deadly (not necessarily for my opponent though  ).
I noticed that the Richter-Rauzer line can eventually transpose into a regular Sicilian dragon when black plays 7. ...0-0. This move is also in my opening repertory. However, I know that with 7. …Qa5 you can force white to castle kingside and thus prevent that transposition. Knowing your dislike against the dragon and considering that you played Qa5 in the dragon too, I assume that you play the line with 7. …Qa5 in the accelerated dragon as well. Do you judge that line as superior to 7. …0-0?
I have consulted the chessbase database for games that follow the strategies you suggest in the Maroczy bind. Combined with your comments I can understand these matches a lot better. I found an instructive game where white countered black’s 15. …e6 and 16…Be5 with a carefully planned f4 (since first the knight at c5 had to be driven away). Of all 421 bindgames with 14…Nc5 there was indeed only one game in which Be5 was met with Bf4 and -as you wrote- black gained a nice square for his knight (d4). I also see the tendency of Black to meet a3 with a4 after which b4 gives the knight the possibility to go to b3. That black knight can be a very active piece indeed. I noticed that often the white knight is played to b5 (and d4) instead of d5. Or that the queen is played to b4, pressurizing the knight at c3. I must say that when playing through various games, the diversity of the Maroczy-bind is a bit overwhelming (but nevertheless interesting) for somebody who has only just started to study it  .
Maybe you are right that I am trying to see player styles too much in black and white and should not try to categorize them as much as possible. Problem is that it is very tempting to do such when you keep winning in game type A, while you get grounded again and again in game type B –even when you read up on theory after your loss. So I hoped that by using knowledge about my playing style, I could arrive at openings that I like to study. I agree that what matters eventually when you construct an opening repertory is how you feel when playing an opening. But your emotion about a game is easily colored by other things than whether the opening style suits you and trying how every opening ‘feels’ is rather time consuming with all those possible lines and theory to read up with. But probably I should – like you – worry less about if the kind of position I get in fits my playing style and instead try to fulfill the demands of the game type.
On a somewhat related note: I have been eagerly looking for 1. d4 players to try out my new openings, but it is frustrating that those players tend to play 2. Nf3 (without ever playing c4) or even 2. Nc3 and 3. Bf4. Not only it makes for a fairly monotonous and symmetrical game, but also it prevents me from trying an opening such as the benko-gambit.
Thank you for posting your game. It is always helpful to replay a game from a good player with comments added to it. I will certainly see what I can learn from it before my next post.
Hello Redsoxfan,
I have looked at the moves you suggested in the position that I posted. I see there is a misunderstanding about the notation that I failed to address earlier. I didn’t explain that 0-0 is the notation for castling kingside (castling queenside = 0-0-0) and thus you probably thought that black was to move in that position. However, white is.
 .
But let’s say black should indeed make a move now. I hope I understood you correctly, because d2-d3 is not a legitimate move and I don’t really understand d5xd4 . But you probably meant 8. …Nc6-b4 9. a2-a3, d7-d5. That idea is interesting and the plan in itself to tackle the white center is a good one. However, a better way for black to attack the center if he were to move is 8. … Nf6 x e4! If 9. Nc3 x e4, then black can play 9. …d5 which helps in the development of his bishop and decreases white’s spatial advantage. However, white is to move here and therefore theory suggests 8. Bc4-b3 to prevent this. Usually black continues with 8. …d7-d6. I think the move 8. …Nf6-g4 is interesting, but does not lead to equality. I read in your last post that you are still having a bit of trouble with the notation. Maybe this picture after move 10 for Lews’ game helps you on the way:
____________
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted December 09, 2003 06:16 AM |
|
|
I have a new idea for an opening that doesn't seem to have been tried before. It starts with the English opening. Followed by Nc3.
Here is where some variation occurs. The defense gives no contest to control over the d5 square at least in the beginning...
With a few variations, I will play 3:b3, 4:Bb2. The idea behind this is to open up the queen side early rather than the king side. My english opening gives solid control over the d5 square. I can almost assume that my opponent will play e5. Who wouldn't? Since this opening leaves me vulnerable to a quick checkmate. Bc5, and Qe6. I can easily counter with e3. I do not want to move out all my king pawns early.
If my opponent plays d6 or d7 I will play h3. This will allow me to play a well-protected Ne3. Now I have the option of moving Qe2 for a great queen side castle or Be2 for a king-side castle. This will depend on my opponents response. This is something I have not figured out as of yet.
My queen side castle will give me a great option of a pawn rush my opponents king side castle. My opening moves now come to life.
The only problem with this to me is that I'm a bit too passive and looking too far ahead rather than now. There are too many turns to account for; too many things my opponent can do to mess things up. However, the nice thing is that with all the different things I have thought of that my opponent can do only leads to further solid defensive positioning. An example would be to attack the pawn at c4. I can simply play Bxc4. This is a wonderful position for my black bishop even if I retreat from this position it will still be a great move to return to at a later time.
Well I'd like to perhaps try out some opening moves here in theory.
I'll start with the English Opening. Could you please respond with some moves to counter this?
I noticed earlier you mentioned something about exploiting the space in the marcozy bind. This brings me to realize that I truly know nothing about this. I also often find myself advancing my pawns in a haphazard fashion that only seems put myself into a weaker position.
My new opening would involve this type of pawn rush, however I would not know how to even perform this. Is there any book I can study that contains a good explanation of properly executed pawn rushes?
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 09, 2003 04:58 PM |
|
|
Hello Wub,
Quote:
I reasoned that the sharper and more open a position, the smaller a chance for a draw (similar to what you wrote, I thought thereby at a king’s gambit, Italian Greco attack or Sicilian dragon Yugoslavian attack). The alternative for the bind, 5. Nc3, seemed to me to lead more to such positions, hence my statement.
yes, sharpness of the position is a factor for decisive results, of course. But I don´t think that this has anything to do with open-/closedness. The Petroff for example is as open as it can get, and leads to early mass exchanges and dull draws more often than any other opening. The classical King´s Indian mainline is both as closed as it can get and as sharp as it can get.
You´re right that the Richter-Rauser attack is more likely to be decisive as the Maroczy, but I don´t think that this extends to other 5.Nc3 lines as well.
Quote:
I noticed that the Richter-Rauzer line can eventually transpose into a regular Sicilian dragon when black plays 7. ...0-0. This move is also in my opening repertory. However, I know that with 7. …Qa5 you can force white to castle kingside and thus prevent that transposition. Knowing your dislike against the dragon and considering that you played Qa5 in the dragon too, I assume that you play the line with 7. …Qa5 in the accelerated dragon as well. Do you judge that line as superior to 7. …0-0?
I´m not sure which line is best for black there. I played 7. ... Qa5 for some time, but dropped it when a friend of mine totally outprepared me there in a tournament game we had, and I was very lucky to escape in a draw. There´s been an Anand game that put Qa5 under a black cliud some years ago, and I couldn´t find any improvement, so I started to look out for something else.
The pawn sac line with 0-0 and a5 may be objectively best, but that´s too much theory to learn for my taste. That´s why I´ve come to play 7. ... 0-0 8.Bb3 d6 9.f3 Bd7 10.Qd2 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 b5, which is very similar to the regular dragon R-R. This line has a theoretical problem, too, but as long as I don´t have a game with it in the database, I don´t worry much about it. I´ve played it on ICC alot, and not even the IMs found the correct path to white´s += position.
Quote:
I found an instructive game where white countered black’s 15. …e6 and 16…Be5 with a carefully planned f4 (since first the knight at c5 had to be driven away).
Yes  , that line is quite dangerous for black, too. When I´m happy with a draw, I rather opt for the main line with its slow queen maneuvers.
Quote:
I also see the tendency of Black to meet a3 with a4 after which b4 gives the knight the possibility to go to b3.
Yes, that knight can become very strong there. But you need to be careful, a5-a4 and Nc5-b3 can often be met by a quick Be2-d1 and suddenly there´s no escape quare left.
Quote:
I must say that when playing through various games, the diversity of the Maroczy-bind is a bit overwhelming (but nevertheless interesting) for somebody who has only just started to study it .
Don´t worry, I´ve been playing the Acc.Dragon for some years, and I find that very difficult, too. Even when you know all its plans and motifs, it´s hard to understand when which one is best. Fortunately the white player has the same problem .
Quote:
Problem is that it is very tempting to do such when you keep winning in game type A, while you get grounded again and again in game type B –even when you read up on theory after your loss. So I hoped that by using knowledge about my playing style, I could arrive at openings that I like to study.
Then such an approach certainly makes sense. I can only talk from my own experience ... whether I´m good at a certain position or not does not have much to do with whether it´s more strategical or more tactical. But I suppose that for example Karpov and Shirov have made different experiences in that regard ... .
Quote:
On a somewhat related note: I have been eagerly looking for 1. d4 players to try out my new openings, but it is frustrating that those players tend to play 2. Nf3 (without ever playing c4) or even 2. Nc3 and 3. Bf4. Not only it makes for a fairly monotonous and symmetrical game, but also it prevents me from trying an opening such as the benko-gambit.
You could try 1. ... c5 . I admit that it combines better with my Modern Benoni than with your Benkö, as white can continue 2.d5 Nf6 3.Nc3. But this line is manageable, and most white players will go for 3.c4 anyway.
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 09, 2003 05:15 PM |
|
|
Hello Redsoxfan,
Quote:
With a few variations, I will play 3:b3, 4:Bb2.
there are reasons why what you suggest hasn´t been tried much before . If you play b2-b3 too early in the English opening, I just go for a line where white is required to play for an early b2-b4 (this would for example be a setup
with the moves e5, Nc6, d6, g6, Bg7, f5, Nf6).
Alternatively I can play 1. ... c5, 2. ... Nf6 and 3. ... d5, and go into a Maroczy with swapped colors, where the move b2-b3 is not particularly dangerous for black either.
Quote:
The idea behind this is to open up the queen side early rather than the king side.
Q-side castling with pawns on b3 and c4 is not a particularly good idea. Black will have a pawn on a4 to open the a-file in two moves ...
Quote:
I noticed earlier you mentioned something about exploiting the space in the marcozy bind. This brings me to realize that I truly know nothing about this. I also often find myself advancing my pawns in a haphazard fashion that only seems put myself into a weaker position.
Space-gaining moves make sense when you are able to control that space and restrict opponent´s pieces. If you don´t, you´re likely to create serious weaknesses. A problem with pawns is that they can´t move backwards ...
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted December 10, 2003 01:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Space-gaining moves make sense when you are able to control that space and restrict opponent´s pieces. If you don´t, you´re likely to create serious weaknesses. A problem with pawns is that they can´t move backwards ...
Thanks, I think I have a better understanding of this now. I have just not been advancing any pawns at all, because I think it will leave me vulnerable every time I advance my pawns, however, now I realize that if I can control the space that I gain from making that move, I will gain an advantage, because I can make more moves than my opponent can.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 12, 2003 11:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
My new opening would involve this type of pawn rush, however I would not know how to even perform this. Is there any book I can study that contains a good explanation of properly executed pawn rushes?
Just came to my mind that I didn´t anser on this one. Hmm, I know there´s a book written by Kmoch that focuses on pawn play, and has a very good reputation. But I haven´t read it myself.
A rule of thumb says that an opponent´s wing attack is best answered by a quick counter in the center. So of course pawn storms work best when the center is closed.
The other most common reason to attack with pawns is opposite castling, as you have already suggested. But when you castle Q-side with such an intention, it´s extremely important to have an unweakened king. A white pawn on a3 or b3 makes it rather easy for black to open lines on that side. It also has to be taken into account that Q-side castling takes longer than K-side, as there´s a Queen in the way, and it usually is necessary to play Kc1-b1 sooner or later. On the positive side, the Q-side rook very often gets into an active place immediately after castling.
That said, I must add that there are thousands of exceptions - for example in a large number of opposite castling Modern Defense (1. ... g6) positions, both players push the pawns in front of their Kings forward.
____________
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 13, 2003 12:57 AM |
|
Edited By: Wub on 12 Dec 2003
|
Hi Lews,
You explained that the degree in which a position is open or closed does not really have a lot to do with its drawing chances. On second thought I agree with you. My statement clearly shows my poor understanding of closed games. I have come to realize –for an important part through your posts in this thread- that this is the area that I should work on to improve. My question what to play against 1.d4, my problem with the benoni against white’s d5, my losses against 1.d4 followed by 2.Nf3, my assumed annoyance with 7. d5 in the king’s Indian, my unacquainted feeling for the bind – they all point in the same direction. My games are usually as open as they can get, so my weakness is merely a matter of inexperience. But studying these closed positions (which I have started with as you have seen) is a first step to improvement.
On a related note, today I received my copy of Euwe’s judgment and planning in chess. It seems like a great book indeed, with a lot of explanation and a collection of strategies that seem very useful to study. Thanks again for the advice .
Quote:
This line has a theoretical problem, too, but as long as I don´t have a game with it in the database, I don´t worry much about it. I´ve played it on ICC alot, and not even the IMs found the correct path to white´s += position.
Ah ok, then I don’t think I have to worry too much about my opening repertory in this regard either . For me, 7. …0-0 has the advantage that white’s natural looking response (8. 0-0) is inaccurate, while white’s natural looking response to 7. …Qa5 (0-0) is exactly according to the theory.
On the internet I like to play blitz games and I usually challenge stronger players. This has resulted in my first two Maroczy-bind games with the black pieces after I had studied it. I obtained satisfactory play in both cases, although my opponents deviated from theory rather early. One time my opponent played 6. Nxc6 and the other time 8. f4 . Still it is encouraging to see an opening occur when you studied it.
My decision to play the Benkö is not at all decisive. I have not had the opportunity to play many Blitzgames with it and I haven’t used it in a real game either. So playing 1. …c5 is still a serious option, together with a few other lines that just seem interesting.
I have studied the game that you posted. As you might have guessed, I usually find these kind of games very enjoyable to play. What I found interesting is the following.
The way you explain it, it makes sense to me that if white’s pawn were on e4 instead of e3, white would be better of than now (he could then play Be3 as you suggested). I therefore find it amusing that renowned grandmasters such as Alekhine, Korchnoi and Huebner were all lured in this seemingly inferior position . I found that here. By the way, it is not that I doubt your analysis because the win/lose ratio for black in this position indeed appears to be very positive as well. After 6. Be2 I would have played the same moves as you did, including 8. …d5, although the database shows that d6 was more often and more successfully played. On the other hand I realize I should be very careful with these statistical data, especially when it is based on a rather mediocre number of games.
At move 13, where you played Rb8, bigger problems would arise for me. I think the imminent loss of the c-pawn would have bothered me (especially because the compensation that black has due to the weak bishop would have been a bit less apparent to me). I probably would have played Rb8 as well, but more as a try to get a pawn back. I notice that I find assessing the amount of positional compensation in comparison with material quite difficult.
Whether I would have played 14. …Rd8 is questionable. Seeing that Qxc6 costs a rook is on the edge of what I would notice in a game, I estimate. But as a natural move I would certainly take it in consideration. Anyway, it is definitely a good move. 15. …Qc4 would be my choice too, probably, but I probably would have missed 16…Rb6 and played an inferior move such as Bf5. Nice one! I do wonder if you calculated up to move 23 (as in the variation you gave) when you played 18…Be6.
In the rest of the game I would probably make similar moves (but that is easy talking, now ), though it would still be an awful lot of calculating. I can’t say if I would have played 22. …Qc3, but it is possible. All in all a very nice game, I would say.
You say you can copy/paste this game easily from your database. I would be interested in seeing a closed game where you play black (with comments of course). I found replaying your game very instructive, so it may help me overcome my problems with closed positions.
____________
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted December 17, 2003 08:41 AM |
|
Edited By: csarmi on 17 Dec 2003
|
Quote:
DON speak in foreign languages that we don understand,please!!
Olyan nyelven beszélek, amilyenen akarok, sokeszû!
ON topic.
Another chess player here. I followed your conversation, but it was a bit too much for the 20 minutes I had for it.
How old are you, Wub? Why do you want to learn a new opening? Do you attend chess courses?
As for my playing, I have problems with 1.d4 too, because I forgot most of my opening book, and usually play the Stonewall defense against it (for example 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.c4 d5 4.Nc3 c6, you get the idea), which is kind of solid, but not a good one. Still I do not have big problems with it, because I play only in the division 2 (hungarian chess team championship), and the opponents are not too strong. Last time I played I tried a KI's, but without knowing it. OK, I know the ideas, but I must have played very inaccurately. As for 1.e4, I love it. Someone said that 1.e4 e5 and black stands a bit better. While this is questionable, I still believe that "Black is OK" for 1.e4, I play sicialian and have impressing results with it. I had, that is, because I seldom play anymore.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 18, 2003 12:10 AM |
|
|
Hello Wub,
glad to hear you like Euwe´s book ! Yes, I was quite surprised when I later found this line played by guys like Korchnoi, Hübner and Timman, too. I would be curious to know how many of them just played the standard 5.Nc3 quickly and then felt like cursing about the unobstructed Bg7. In the database, the lines with 6.Nc2 Bxc3+ show a devastating score for white, so it might actually be a correct decision to keep it safe with e2-e3. White at least gets good chances for a draw there .
Quote:
Nice one! I do wonder if you calculated up to move 23 (as in the variation you gave) when you played 18…Be6.
Thank you . In that line, my calculation more or less stopped at 18. ... Be6, because it very much looked winning for me. After I played 21. ... Qd3, I totally expected his resignation, went into the neighbouring room and chatted with other players of my team. Through a window I saw him take his notation formula and fold it, so I rushed back to receive the handshake ... but when I was at the board, he was just sitting there, the clock was ticking, and after awhile I noticed that he had actually made a move. And quite a tricky one, 22.Rb2. That whole thing threw me off-balance a bit, so nervous me just wanted to find a safe continuation, that would bring the game home (Be6-d7). Qd3-c3 is not a very difficult move, but in my psychological shape at that moment it was an impossibility .
Quote:
On the internet I like to play blitz games and I usually challenge stronger players. This as resulted in my first two Maroczy-bind games with the black pieces after I had studied it. I obtained satisfactory play in both cases, although my opponents deviated from theory rather early. One time my opponent played 6. Nxc6 and the other time 8. f4 .
Taking on c6 is almost always bad, unless it´s combined with an immediate e4-e5 push, as black gets an additional center pawn and controls the most important square in the world d5. But some lines in the Maroczy with early f2-f4 are not without sense. Even though I doubt that in the eight move, probably without Bf1 developed, it´s a good idea. One good way to counter such a setup is the usual Nc6xd4 and Bd7-c6, followed by a quick a7-a5-a4. Opening the a-file with b2-b4 isn´t such a good idea for white anymore, after he commited himself on the K-side and weakened his center.
Where on the internet do you play chess, by the way?
Quote:
I would be interested in seeing a closed game where you play black (with comments of course). I found replaying your game very instructive, so it may help me overcome my problems with closed positions.
You got me thinking alot about which games I could post. I found that most of the ones that can be called instructive I´ve played with white. And the Benoni is rather new in my opening repertoire.
In spring I played a rather good closed-position game, in the final round of a swiss-style tournament. My opponent was rated around 2150 Elo, and I very much needed a win to get myself back to an acceptable overall result. Hope you´ll find it useful, interesting, or at least entertaining .
1.d4 Sf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Sc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.h3 Lg7 8.Sf3 0-0 9.Ld3
It´s interesting how white´s play against the Modern Benoni has developed during the last decades. For a long time, the positional treatment of this opening has consisted of the natural development Nf3, Be2, 0-0. It was only in the early nineties when the top grandmasters, Karpov among them, recognised that there´s a more efficient setup possible, that keeps better cover of the e4 pawn, prevents Bc8-g4, and at the same time secures the later strong position of the Bc1 on the h2-b8 diagonal.
This is the so-called “modern mainline”. For the second time in this tournament I had to deal with it. The first one was an unlucky game against the young IM Vitaly Kunin, where I continued 9. ... Nh5, later obtained a winning position and declined a draw offer, only to play a blunder at the crucial moment. The following endgame was drawish, but I chose the wrong plan and even lost.
My opponent in this game according to the database had not played this variation before, so I suspected that he had read the tournament bulletin and prepared something nasty against Nh5. I decided to deviate immediately, even though this would mean entering unfamiliar terrain for me, too.
9. ...Te8 0.0-0 c4
Later it turned out that my opponent knew this line rather well, but had never seen 9. ... Nh5 before .
White can either swap his e-pawn for black´s c-pawn, or keep them on the board. The first option leads to a rather open position, where white tries to make use of his slightly better development. My opponent went for the second one ...
11.Lc2 b5 12.a3 a6
Well, I have achieved a large queenside expansion, which in the average Benoni game would require a large number of preparatory moves. The downside: Black´s Q-side pawns are immobile at the moment, and white is in control of the important d4 square. In the next moves I had to take preventive measures against a quick e4-e5 by putting indirect pressure on the d5 pawn.
13.Lf4 Lb7 14.Te1 Db6 15.Dd2 Sbd7 16.Tad1 Tad8 17.Le3 Dc7 18.Ld4 Sc5?!
18...Lc8 would have been a safer way to play. Now that e4-e5 is stopped for the moment, white has difficulties finding a plan. Given enough time, I can follow-up Qc7-b8, a6-a5 and b5-b4.The game move takes cover from where white puts pressure on, and this is exploited immediately. With computer analysis, black seems to hold, but it´s a tightrope walk and not at all easy to do at the board.
19.Dg5! Sfd7 20.Lxg7 Kxg7 21.Sd4
Now white has dangerous K-side threats, involving moves like Nd4-f5 and Re1-e3, and I decided to weaken the white squares in order to survive on the black ones.
21...f6 22.Dh4 Se5
Black on the other hand must regroup pieces, in order to be able to defend on the K-side and keep control of the white squares c6, e6, f5. If he´s able to consolidate, a knight on d3 at some point will offer good counterchances.
23.Te3
23.f4 Sed3 24.Te3 Sxb2 25.Sf5+ Kf8 26.Dxf6+ Df7= looks dangerous for black, but doesn´t promise more than a draw by repitition.
23...Lc8 24.Tg3 Scd3?
better was 24...Db6 when for example 25.Sc6 Sxc6 26.dxc6 Dxc6 27.Sd5 Te6 28.f4 Tf8 29.e5 dxe5 30.Lxg6 hxg6 31.Txg6+ Kxg6 32.f5+ Kg7 33.Dg4+ Kh8 34.Dh5+ Kg7 35.Dg6+ would lead to perpetual check.
25.Lxd3?!
During the game, my worst concern was 25.Tf1 followed by a quick f2-f4. But there´s the surprising resource 25...g5 26.Lxd3 (26.f4? Sg6) 26...Sg6 27.Dh5 Sf4 28.Df3 Sxd3 and the position is difficult to access.
Instead, white could have obtained a clear advantage with 25.Sc6! Sxc6 26.dxc6 Dxc6 27.Sd5 Te6 28.Lxd3 cxd3 29.Tgxd3.
25...Sxd3 26.Td2?
And this is just too passive. Now black will take over the initiative.
26.Sc6 Td7 27.b3 Tf7 and the position is still double-edged.
26...Db6 27.Sf5+
27.Sc6 Td7 28.Tf3 Tf7 followed by Bc8-d7 and black is also better.
27...Lxf5 28.exf5 Te1+ 29.Kh2 Tde8 30.fxg6 hxg6 31.Sd1?
It´s understandable that white would like this knight on f5, but now he gets into serious trouble. The e4 square had to be kept covered.
31.Dh5!? is an interesting attempt to get some activity, but black´s material advantage should decide the day after 31...g5 32.h4 Sxf2 33.Txg5+ fxg5 34.Dxg5+ Kf7 35.Df4+ Ke7 36.Txf2 De3.
I think the correct move was 31.b3! Dc5 32.bxc4 Dxc4!? 33.Dxc4 bxc4 and black has an endgame advantage, but nothing is decided yet.
31...T8e4 32.Tg4 Dd4 33.Se3?
33.Txe4 Txe4 34.Dg3 De5 35.Dxe5 Txe5 36.Sc3 f5 with a large advantage for black, thanks to much more active K, R and N.
33...De5+ 34.g3?
the final mistake, but 34.Dg3 Txg4 35.Sxg4 Dxg3+ 36.Kxg3 Tb1 was hopeless, too.
34...T4xe3 35.fxe3 Dxe3 36.Tg2 Sf2 0-1
Too bad I don´t have webspace at hand to post a diagram of the final position .
____________
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted December 18, 2003 04:14 PM |
|
Edited By: csarmi on 18 Dec 2003
|
Here you go:
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 18, 2003 04:19 PM |
|
|
Thanks alot !
____________
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 22, 2003 03:48 AM |
|
|
Hello Csarmi,
It’s good to see you posting here again. I can understand that it takes a lot of time to read up on this thread, so let me tell you that almost all posts focused on the opening (especially the Sicilian accelerated dragon, the King’s Indian defense and various Benoni lines). The reason why I asked for advice against 1.d4 was that I realized that my Budapest gambit (1.d4, Nf6 2. c4, e5) was an inferior opening. Previously it had sufficed because many players seemed to have a remarkable amount of fear for accepting unknown gambits and refusing the gambit with 3. d5 gives black a great game. But lately I am mainly playing against people who are often better prepared and in that case the gambit is accepted and I usually get unsatisfactory play.
I consider the Budapest gambit a bit as a sideline and I wanted a more mainline opening, which I can keep playing when my ELO-rating keeps rising. I have been playing chess from age 8 and followed chess courses until age 13, but it wasn’t until age 16-17 that I started gaining 100-150 rating points a year. Now I am 20 and my rating has risen from 1300 to 1800, but I still see lots of room for improvement. So I want an opening repertory with which I can keep continuing that trend.
Since I am also a 1. e4 player, I never really played with or against the Stonewall. But it is one of the recommendations that my opening book from Euwe gives. Or actually he advises 1. d4, f5 2. c4, e6 3. g3, Nf6 4. Bg2, Be7 5. Nf3, 0-0 6. 0-0, d6 but that opening seems related (with 6. …d5 it looks like you get a stonewall formation). I don’t know which line you play in the Sicilian and what your ELO-rating is (was), but you say to be successful with that opening and say to have some problems against 1.d4. Maybe you would (just as me) profit from learning a queen-pawn opening that is somewhat related to your response against 1. e4? Assuming that you are planning to start playing chess again, of course .
Hello Lews,
Your description of how a psychological factor influenced the move you came up with is interesting. Especially because I personally like to think that my thought process is objective and therefore unrelated to my mood (this is clearly false of course ). I even learnt the other day that if, before a chess game, you concentrate your mind on either professors or on the supermodel Claudia Schiffer, you play better .
Quote:
Taking on c6 is almost always bad, unless it´s combined with an immediate e4-e5 push
I know that the knight on d4 also plays an important role in limiting the dragonbishop and consolidating the spatial advantage (even though my chess program keeps advising me to capture on c6  ). Therefore, in the 5. Nc3 lines of the accelerated dragon I never really paid much attention to the line 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Nxc6 bxc6 8. e5. However, two weeks ago I happened to face this line during interclub competition and had to improvise a lot. I chose for the pawn sac line with 8…Nd5 and did fairly well, but four and a half hours later the game was drawn. Upon further study of this line, I had the idea that white seems to be able to obtain a good advantage. Maybe the ‘ugly’ 8. …Ng8 is better after all?
Quote:
Where on the internet do you play chess, by the way?
I play on www.spelpunt.nl, a dutch gamesite. I discovered this site a few years ago, but it still suffices. Though the chatroom is often filled with senseless chitchat lately, I usually don’t have trouble finding a good opponent. Importantly, the site is free and I don’t get junkmail from it.
Quote:
Hope you´ll find it useful, interesting, or at least entertaining.
All three actually. I decided to experiment mainly with 1. …c5 against 1.d4, which avoids all kinds of annoying openings, as you described. And I found that I can still reach a benkö-gambit often (which I am also trying out as you know). But since I should be prepared to face a closed line in this repertory as well (and since I have to work on these kind of positions), your game is very valuable to me.
Quote:
It´s interesting how white´s play against the Modern Benoni has developed during the last decades.
It’s good that you explain this. I was already wondering why 7. h3 wasn’t in my opening repertory books. This way of development doesn’t seem unnatural to me either, though. By the way, the difference in win/loss statistics between 7. Be2 and 7. h3 seems to be strikingly in favor of the latter move.
Quote:
My opponent in this game according to the database had not played this variation before, so I suspected that he had read the tournament bulletin and prepared something nasty against Nh5.
I find it rather interesting that at your level of play, game preparation is so much focused on your opponent. It suggests that you need to have a wide variety of sidelines at your disposal in your opening repertory. I figure you must be using online databases a lot; do you use other or better databases than those at chessgames.com and chessbase.com?
Quote:
I decided to deviate immediately, even though this would mean entering unfamiliar terrain for me, too.
I noticed that at this stage, no less than eight different lines could be played. The direct idea behind at least six of those seems to advance the queen pawns. Considering black’s queen pawn majority, that is no surprise to me. But it is remarkable that the line you are most confident with (8…Nh5) seems to serve another goal. I guess the idea is to keep white’s bishop from the h2-b8 diagonal, but the move itself looks a bit awkward. By the way, I find the tactic 9. … c4 to be an original and surprising way to advance the queen pawns.
Quote:
In the next moves I had to take preventive measures against a quick e4-e5 by putting indirect pressure on the d5 pawn.
With white to move here, I wonder why this line is overly attractive to black. He is slightly behind in development, has a spatial disadvantage and white has the initiative. Black’s compensation must be in his queen pawn majority and his well-aimed bishop at g7, but due to his disadvantages, it is hard for me to see how this will provide concrete counterplay at the moment. It is good that you mention that white intends to play e4-e5, because I often have problems assessing such strategies. I think I can now see the benefits of this pawn push: an increased spatial advantage for white and a fairly well defendable passer pawn. This does seem logical now, but I first had to understand that obtaining an isolated pawn was no disadvantage in this case.
Quote:
18...Lc8 would have been a safer way to play. Now that e4-e5 is stopped for the moment, white has difficulties finding a plan. Given enough time, I can follow-up Qc7-b8, a6-a5 and b5-b4.
I do not fully grasp this. Of course I understand that advancing your queen pawns is desirable, but I have the idea that it is not the right time for this yet. Isn’t it necessary for this advance to be successful that you first try to control some important squares in front of the pawns? I have the feeling that these pawns would become weak when the manoeuvre that you mention is being executed now.
You give a line to show that 23. f4 is less dangerous for black than it looks. To me that move seems quite threatening too. You must either have been quite confident on your intuition or very much willing to take risks when you played Ne5.
Quote:
It´s understandable that white would like this knight on f5, but now he gets into serious trouble.
Maybe he just wanted to protect the pawn at f2, because he had missed the discovered check after 31. Nxf2, Rxf2 32. Qxf2 (or maybe I am just thinking too simplistically ). The mating combination is a nice end of the game by the way.
All in all this was a very nice match: asymmetrically, very complicated and very sharp. It was interesting that not a breakthrough at the queenside but the grip of the centre was decisive. As expected, I find this closed game much harder to follow than your previous game. I am glad that I understood the main ideas behind the moves (at least I think ) but when it comes to the more subtle reasons behind every move, I know that I have still much to learn.
Quote:
I found that most of the ones that can be called instructive I´ve played with white. And the Benoni is rather new in my opening repertoire.
In that case I would be very interested in one of those games you refer to. I just noticed that closed games too can be captivating .
____________
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted December 23, 2003 01:28 PM |
|
|
|
Merry Christmas, I am off to take a break. See you next year.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 25, 2003 03:08 AM |
|
|
Hello Wub,
yes, I think that psychology can play a large role in chess. I for example find it extremely hard to stay objective and go for a draw after I´ve spoiled a clear winning position. This has lost me quite a number of half points ...
Quote:
I chose for the pawn sac line with 8…Nd5 and did fairly well, but four and a half hours later the game was drawn. Upon further study of this line, I had the idea that white seems to be able to obtain a good advantage. Maybe the ‘ugly’ 8. …Ng8 is better after all?
I switched from Nd5 to Ng8, too. Difficult to say which line is objectively better, but I find withdrawing the knight much easier to play. And 7.Nxc6 is a rare line, if a white player really goes for it, it can be expected that he knows it, possibly even has prepared it for this game.
Quote:
I find it rather interesting that at your level of play, game preparation is so much focused on your opponent. It suggests that you need to have a wide variety of sidelines at your disposal in your opening repertory. I figure you must be using online databases a lot; do you use other or better databases than those at chessgames.com and chessbase.com?
Hmm, first I find out what my opponent can be expected to play against my lines, and then I prepare for the specific variation(s) that is most likely to be on the board.
If I very strongly get the impression that my opponent has done the same, and I am likely to be on the worse end of all this, I consider to deviate.
The wide variety of sidelines ... well, I know that they exist and what they are about, and when it´s necessary, I can play them, but of course I feel less secure there than in my mainlines. In the abovementioned game, I was very glad that my opponent didn´t exchange c- and e-pawns, as this is much harder to play correctly for black without knowing the theory.
As a database program, I´ve Chessbase 7.0 installed, and I use the megabase 2003 CD. Online databases have a large number of games, too, but when I intend to prepare for a specific opponent, they´re rarely sufficient.
Quote:
But it is remarkable that the line you are most confident with (8…Nh5) seems to serve another goal. I guess the idea is to keep white’s bishop from the h2-b8 diagonal, but the move itself looks a bit awkward.
White has taken a very effective piece placement against the normal Q-side plans, and the 8. ... Nh5 move (like 8. ... b5 and the 9. ... c4 line that I played in the game) tries to exploit the few gaps and downsides that it has. H2-h3 has slightly weakened dark squares on the K-side, and the B on d3 would have rather gone to e2, had it known that black would move Nf6-h5 . Ideally, black wants to follow-up Nb8-d7-e5, and after an exchange of knights place the B on e5 and (possibly with a Q on f6) the other N on f4. The white pawn on h3 can very well mean a weakness, as there are tactics possible that involve Nh5-g3 (if white plays f2-f4 at some point), and more importantly, white can no longer control the f4 square with g2-g3, as there´s a h3 pawn hanging. On top of this, with a black N on f4, g6-g5-g4 can be considered later, to open lines against the white K.
Quote:
With white to move here, I wonder why this line is overly attractive to black. He is slightly behind in development, has a spatial disadvantage and white has the initiative. Black’s compensation must be in his queen pawn majority and his well-aimed bishop at g7, but due to his disadvantages, it is hard for me to see how this will provide concrete counterplay at the moment.
Yes, white is slightly better developed, and all his pieces are harmoniously placed. And he has the beautiful d4 square. On the other hand there´s an important factor that favors black: His position is much easier to be improved. Black has two clear plans (advance Q-side pawns, orientate both knights to the d3 square), and in the long run it is impossible for white to prevent both.
White on the other hand cannot do much neither on the Q-side nor on the K-side, he has just one obvious plan: The e4-e5 push. If black is able to keep enough control of the d5 or e5 square to prevent e4-e5, white´s position is not at all easy to play.
That said, I do not think that the position is overly attractive for black, it´s okay and playable, maybe slightly += but rather good for a practical game.
Quote:
I do not fully grasp this. Of course I understand that advancing your queen pawns is desirable, but I have the idea that it is not the right time for this yet. Isn’t it necessary for this advance to be successful that you first try to control some important squares in front of the pawns? I have the feeling that these pawns would become weak when the manoeuvre that you mention is being executed now.
Maybe, but advanced pawns often become weak in the Benoni , sometimes you even have to sacrifice them in order to make the game dynamics work in your favor. In this case I´m not sure how white is going to attack them. To do that, he would ideally like his B on f1. The Bc2 instead does a great job overprotecting e4, but has no way to threaten the pawns - even stands in the way of a possible Rc1, and serves as a target for a potential b4-b3 thrust.
The pawns are rather difficult to attack for the moment, and black can for example consider Qb8-b5 and Nd7-c5, to solve the momentary problem of his pieces that you mentioned.
Quote:
You give a line to show that 23. f4 is less dangerous for black than it looks. To me that move seems quite threatening too. You must either have been quite confident on your intuition or very much willing to take risks when you played Ne5.
Unlike the first game I posted, during the above one I wasn´t very much confident and in control. My opponent had surprisingly built up a dangerous attacking position, and I was looking for counterplay. The variations that I gave are an attempt to reach an objective assessment of the moves and the position, I didn´t calculate all of them during the game.
Quote:
All in all this was a very nice match: asymmetrically, very complicated and very sharp. It was interesting that not a breakthrough at the queenside but the grip of the centre was decisive. As expected, I find this closed game much harder to follow than your previous game.
Thank you, I´m glad to hear you liked it. Well, the game was much harder to follow the first, much more complicated and double-edged with chances for both sides ... so I don´t think this necessarily must have to do with its having been a closed position. I like closed positions, but unlike the first game, which was mainly a copy+paste thing, I´ve been sitting there for hours gathering ideas and rejecting them again when I commented the second one .
Quote:
In that case I would be very interested in one of those games you refer to. I just noticed that closed games too can be captivating
Okay , I have one in mind that I think was rather good (a very very unlucky draw), but I need to post it another time ... right now I´m at work, and I don´t have access to my bigger database.
Merry Christmas, by the way !
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 26, 2003 05:47 AM |
|
|
Okay, here´s the promised game. My opponent was the german senior champion at that time, Efim Rotstein. He has a FIDE rating of around 2380, and is known to treat technical positions like a strong GM. But his opening choices are often dubious and inaccurate, and there I was able to outplay him ...
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e5 4.Nc3 d6 5.e4 g6
By transposition we have reached an Old Benoni/King´s Indian hybrid. The normal Benoni continuation would have been Bf8-e7, in order to employ Be7-g5 ideas later. In the King´s Indian, black usually keeps his pawn on c7, and only considers to play c7-c5 later, if white commits himself to a plan where a black pawn on c5 is a hindrance. A typical example for this is the line 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0–0 6.Be2 e5 7.0–0 Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 9.Nd2 c5 -> to prevent a later c4-c5 and Nd2-c4, and thus make the Nd2 look somewhat misplaced.As I have not moved my king´s knight yet, black´s choice is a little bit dubious, because I can move that piece to a much better square now.
6.Nf3
The Sämisch move f2-f3 leads to a good line for white, too. 6...Bg7 7.Be2 0–0 8.0–0
Both players´ plans lie open now. White will try to penetrate on the Q-side, with b2-b4, and most probably a doubling of rooks in order to invade on b8. Such a plan looks rather slow, but once it has succeeded, it´s very hard for black to unravel his pieces without liquidation into a very bad ending. Black on the other hand does what he almost always does in closed King´s Indian positions: Attack on the K-side, starting with f7-f5. The Nf6 needs to make way for the f-pawn, but he usually has more than one choice of how to do this.
8...Ne8
8...Nh5 is the most active choice, in order to combine f7-f5 with the threat of a quick Nh5-f4, and possibly force white to play the weakening g2-g3. However, here it looks dubious, as white can play 9.Re1 Nf4 10.Bf1 with the threat 11.Bxf4 exf4 12.e5. Note that such a transformation would be much less unpleasant for black if he had his pawn still standing on c7 (and also a tempo more to spend).
10...Nd7 can be answered with g2-g3, as black does not have the answer Nf4-h3 any longer.
9.Ne1
It´s also a standard plan for white to move the Nf3 to a more useful square, and at the same time open the way for the f-pawn (to support the center with f2-f3 at some point) and the Be2 (to prevent Nf6-h5 in similar positions; also sometimes Be2-g4 is a threat, because the exchange of light square bishops would highly favor white.)
9...f5 10.Nd3
This is the good square for white´s former f3 knight in this kind of position (Q-side attack against c5/d6/e5 structure). It supports b2-b4 and bxc5, and controls the potentially important squares e5 and f4. When the knight has done its job on d3, it will withdraw to f2 where it serves as white´s best defensive piece, controlling g4 and overprotecting e4 and h3 squares.
10...Nd7 11.Rb1 Ndf6
A typical King´s Indian motif: If Black wants to play f5-f4, he has to force f2-f3 first, because of 11...f4? 12.Bg4 with a large advantage for white.
12.f3 f4 13.b4 b6 14.bxc5 bxc5 15.Bd2 g5 16.Nf2 h5 17.h3 Rf7 18.Qa4 Bf8 19.Rfc1!
Possibly the best and certainly the most difficult move I made in this game. The rook looks silly on c1, and I even felt slightly embarassed when I placed it there. White´s maneuver is very time-consuming, but it will shut down black´s g5-g4 advance for a very long time, and this is the only plan that exists for black in this position. After the game I looked into the database and found out that Seirawan had the same position on the board, but allowed the advanace of black´s g-pawn, after which (if I remember well) the game quickly simplified to a draw. The online database that I can access from here (work) shows two games with the position, both in which white continued with the logical Rb1–b2 and scored 25%. 19.Rb2?! g4 20.fxg4 hxg4 21.hxg4 Rg7 and black gets good play on the K-side.
19...Rg7
19...g4 To exploit white´s time-consuming maneuver, this pawn sac looks like the most plausible thing to do. But after 20.fxg4 hxg4 21.hxg4 Rg7 22.Qd1 black is still unable to solve the problem of his knights´ stepping on each others´ toes, while white threatens to slowly penetrate with Rb1–b2, Rc1–b1 and Rb2-b8. Now an interesting attempt would be 22...Nd7 23.Rb2 Rh7 24.Rcb1 Qh4 but white can keep the door shut, for example: 25.Nh3 Qg3 26.Be1 Qe3+ 27.Kf1 Nb6 28.Qd2 with an exchange of queens and a clear advantage for white.
20.Qd1 Kh8
I don´t really understand the exact ideas behind all of black´s maneuvers now. He´s trying to improve his pieces while waiting for an chance to crash through with g5-g4, as soon as I give him the opportunity by concentrating forces on the Q-side too much.
20...Rg6 would be a logical move, in order to transfer the queen to the K-side. But it fails after 21.Rb3 Qe7 22.Rcb1 Qg7 23.Rb8 Rxb8 24.Rxb8 Bd7 25.Rb7
21.Rb2 Be7 22.Rcb1 Nd7
black prevents Rb2-b8, but now the pressure on g4 is gone, and my queen can finally join the Q-side attack.
23.Qa4 a6
Frees the a7 square for the Ra8, as Qa4-c6 was threatened. But now the b6 square is weakened, which white will exploit in the following moves.
24.Ncd1 Nef6 25.Ba5 Qf8 26.Qc6 Ra7 27.Nc3 Rg8 28.Na4 Nh7 29.Bc7!
with the idea to have this bishop on c7 after Na4-b6 Nd7xb6 Rb2xb6, rather than on a5.
29...g4!?
and black makes use of his last chance to muddy the waters ...
30.fxg4 hxg4 31.hxg4 Ng5 32.Bf3 Qh6 33.Nb6 Nxb6 34.Rxb6 Qh4 35.Kf1?!
an unneccessary loss of time. I could have won the game easily here, either with the cautious 35.R1b3+- or by simply taking the pawn and forcing mate after 35.Bxd6 Bxd6 36.Qxd6 Nxf3+ 37.gxf3 Qg3+ 38.Kf1 Qxf3 39.Qxe5 Kh7 40.Qh5+ Kg7 41.Rg6+ Kf8 42.Rf6+ Ke7 43.Qf7+ Kd8 44.Qxg8+ Kc7 45.Rc6+ Kd7 46.Qe6+ Kd8 47.Rxc8#
35...Qg3 36.Ke2??
and this terrible move spoils the game for me. Instead of simply destroying black´s position, white spends two moves to worsen his own king´s safety, which cannot go unpunished ...
36.Bxd6+- still wins.
36...Nxf3 37.gxf3
37.Rh1+? Bh4
37...Bh4 38.Rf1 Bxg4! 39.Nxg4 Rxg4 40.Rb8+
40.fxg4 Qg2+ and it´s only black who has winning chances
40...Rg8 41.Rxg8+ Qxg8 42.Kd3 Qg2 43.Qe8+ Kg7 44.Qd7+ Kh8 45.Qe8+
draw by perpetual check.
½–½
____________
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 29, 2003 04:12 AM |
|
Edited By: Wub on 28 Dec 2003
|
Hello Lews,
Thank you for your explanation of that Nh5 line in the Benoni. I noticed that Euwe dedicates a chapter in his strategy book to weaknesses at the kingside, including the h3 weakness. He too mentions the advantages of placing a knight at f4. So I can place your comments in a bigger picture now. I find it very interesting how strategic features mentioned in that book can be recognized in your game for example. Pawn majority on the queenside, strong squares, weakness at the kingside, the opening you played features them all and it is enjoying to see how the various possible ideas are gathered from strategic advantages.
I can agree with your assessment of this position. If white can be stopped from making too much progress, his lead in development will evaporate. A slight advantage for white is quite usual and no reason to reject an opening as black of course. It is a pity that playing for a win seems so hard for black here, but that is no major deficit either naturally.
You wrote that in this game, advancing the queenside pawns would not have made them overly weak. I looked at that again from white’s perspective. I don’t see a way indeed that he could win one of these pawns. The idea that I originally had in mind was to let the queenside majority be more of a static presence that could lead to an endgame advantage. Getting a grip in the center and stopping white’s kingside attack would be the plans to obtain that advantage (in fact you did that in the game). On the other hand, your plan gives black more space to maneuver and is less passive, so I can see why it is preferable.
Quote:
unlike the first game, which was mainly a copy+paste thing, I´ve been sitting there for hours gathering ideas and rejecting them again when I commented the second one
I really appreciate that hard work . You may like to know that for me your game was a good reason to invest a lot of time as well, so I really tried to learn something from it. Your posts have already been very useful to me, so you shouldn’t feel any obligations of course. I am happy with everything I get and luckily, this time that includes a new game for me to analyse as well .
The game is especially interesting for me because a benoni-like opening is played. I even played a similar line at the club this year (though the rest of the game shows little resemblance ). It is remarkable that from move 6 my chess program, which does not have that large an opening book, completely and solely advises the exact same moves as in your game. It even gives the opening the name “Czech Benoni: King’s Indian system.” The normal Benoni continuation would seem more logical to me too. In a previous post you already confirmed that with this closed centre, the bishop at g7 is not very well placed, so I do not see why black should even spend an extra move to place his bishop there. That is probably also what you meant with inaccurate opening choices. His opening choice can also be called inaccurate because during his preparation he could have seen that you like to play king’s Indian/benoni systems .
Quote: Both players´ plans lie open now.
I have studied this position to see if I would come to the same conclusion about strategies as you. It is clear that black cannot operate at the queenside, since a b7-b5 breakthrough is no option. He is also undeveloped at the queenside. It makes sense that an f7-f5 breakthrough is more of an option and also easier to implement. I guess the bishop at g7 has got a useful function after all, because its presence helps limiting the danger of a g6-g5-g4 advance for black’s own kingside position. So I think I do understand blacks plan. However, planning white’s strategy is less easy for me, because it seems that he can force both a b2-b4 or an f2-f4 breakthrough. The bishop at c1 is well placed to assist at the kingside and white also seems to have enough material near his king to justify the weakness of f2-f4 to his kingside. As your game shows, an attack on the queenside is possible too. So eventually I guess that white should operate at the queenside because his advantage there is larger, but not because his pieces are ill placed for kingside action.
Quote:
19.Rfc1!Possibly the best and certainly the most difficult move I made in this game.
If this move is an improvement on the known 19. Rb2, you should consider writing it down as 19.Rfc1N . Maybe this move was difficult for you to make, it sure took me a while too to understand that it serves to let the rook join the queenside attack before it gets bound on the kingside by a necessary Qd1.
Quote:
19...g4 To exploit white´s time-consuming maneuver, this pawn sac looks like the most plausible thing to do.
Besides 22…Nd7, an interesting attempt after 20.fxg4 hxg4 21.hxg4 Rg7 22.Qd1, would be 22…Nxg4 23. Bxg4 Bxg4 24. Nxg4 Qg5, winning the pawn back in what to me looks like a drawish position (and also solving the problem of the cramped knights ).
Quote:
I don´t really understand the exact ideas behind all of black´s maneuvers now.
Maybe your opponent underestimated the danger of you queenside attack and thought he had time enough for a manoeuvre like 20 …Kh8, 21…Ng8 22. …Nh6 23. …Nf6 to force a g5-g4 advance. Or maybe this is me just underestimating your opponent again .
I must say that it surprises me how deadly your queenside invasion is. If I had been in your shoes, I would have felt very unsure about those advancing kingside pawns, while only the b-line was opened at that moment. I think I am still overestimating the danger of a kingside attack too often, while underestimating the danger of other strategies such as this queenside attack. But it is amazing how at move 39 already, the computer announces checkmate in 9 if 35.Bxd6 Bxd6 36.Qxd6 Nxf3+ 37.gxf3 Qg3+ 38.Kf1 Qxf3 had been played. It’s really a terrible way to draw indeed. On the somewhat positive side, you managed to stay objective enough not to play 37 Rh1+ or 40 fxg4 which could have cost you that ½ point (I think that such a turn in the game would have quite a psychological impact on me too).
I think this was the most instructive game of the three you posted. That made it very useful for me to analyse. This type of game is completely new to me, because virtually the only time that a game with attacks at opposite sides occurs, it is with opposite castling in an open position. Also this game is a very pure example of a queenside attack that is not focused on getting a passer pawn or targeting enemy pawns, but on penetrating the ‘enemy lines’. I don’t play this type of games very often, so this was a great way to familiarize myself with such positions.
As you know by now, in case you feel like posting more games and have time for it, they are very much welcome to me. There is just so much I am still interested in: 5. Nc3 accelerated dragons, 2. c3 sicilians (I am curious to see how you deal with that line), more of these closed position games as the last one you posted or maybe something completely else which you think I may find interesting…
For now I wish you a prosper 2004 that will hopefully bring you your FM title .
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 02, 2004 04:14 AM |
|
|
Hello Wub,
I´m glad you liked my game against Rotstein. I had almost forgotten about it, one might say "repressed it" , until I looked though my database for a white game with the desired characteristics.
Quote:
The normal Benoni continuation would seem more logical to me too. In a previous post you already confirmed that with this closed centre, the bishop at g7 is not very well placed, so I do not see why black should even spend an extra move to place his bishop there.
Yes, I think that the whole opening line, where black commits himself to a c5-d6-e5 structure, isn´t a very good one in general, but as white I find the 4. ... Be7 setup harder to break down, too.
Still, the bishop fianchetto is not completely without sense, it can be seen as some kind of prophylaxis against white plans that include f2-f4. Whenever black gets the opportuniy to move his e-pawn, the Bg7 can be expected to become a strong piece.
And the move g7-g6 isn´t that much of a loss of tempo, because it´s necessary to prepare f7-f5 (as a c5-d6-e5 position with a white N on e4 is highly unpleasant for black) anyway.
Quote:
His opening choice can also be called inaccurate because during his preparation he could have seen that you like to play king’s Indian/benoni systems .
He´s an old man who doesn´t prepare for his games . That´s a big part of his opening weakness.
Quote:
However, planning white’s strategy is less easy for me, because it seems that he can force both a b2-b4 or an f2-f4 breakthrough.
My mistake, you´re completely right. Playing for f2-f4 is a very reasonable option for white here, too.
Quote:
If this move is an improvement on the known 19. Rb2, you should consider writing it down as 19.Rfc1N .
Yes, I suppose it was a "novelty" , but I´m trying to take myself not so serious about that ... after all, it´s an unattractive line for black that on high level has only been played a few times.
Quote:
Besides 22…Nd7, an interesting attempt after 20.fxg4 hxg4 21.hxg4 Rg7 22.Qd1, would be 22…Nxg4 23. Bxg4 Bxg4 24. Nxg4 Qg5, winning the pawn back in what to me looks like a drawish position (and also solving the problem of the cramped knights ).
That´s a very good idea, and definately an improvement both on the game and on my analysis. Yes, 22…Nxg4 would have probably been black´s best choice in the position.
But it seems to me that your evaluation of the resulting endgame may be a bit too optimistic. After 23.Kf1 Qxg4 24.Qxg4 Rxg4 25.Rb7, I think that white has still a large advantage, and very good winning chances.
Quote:
Maybe your opponent underestimated the danger of you queenside attack and thought he had time enough for a manoeuvre like 20 …Kh8, 21…Ng8 22. …Nh6 23. …Nf6 to force a g5-g4 advance.
Yes, Kg8-h8 in oder to play a knight to the g4 square is a standard maneuver in the King´s Indian. But I think that he must have been aware of my intention to double rooks on the b-file next, which is much faster than such a repositioning of his knights.
Quote:
On the somewhat positive side, you managed to stay objective enough not to play 37 Rh1+ or 40 fxg4 which could have cost you that ½ point (I think that such a turn in the game would have quite a psychological impact on me too).
Yes, to blunder a whole point is certainly much more depressing than to blunder a half one . But this was the third time out of three games that I had spoiled a ridiculously easy winning position against this man (the other two were even easier ...). If I believed in that kind of stuff, I would have thought that he would be using some kind of vodoo tricks on me .
Quote:
this type of game is completely new to me, because virtually the only time that a game with attacks at opposite sides occurs, it is with opposite castling in an open position. Also this game is a very pure example of a queenside attack that is not focused on getting a passer pawn or targeting enemy pawns, but on penetrating the ‘enemy lines’. I don’t play this type of games very often, so this was a great way to familiarize myself with such positions.
In the King´s Indian, this kind of situation (same side castle, opposite side attack) is everyday life . The only difference to "normal" KI positions is that black usually keeps his pawn on c7, so that white plays for c4-c5 and uses the c-file as the main road of his attack.
Quote:
2. c3 sicilians (I am curious to see how you deal with that line)
I´m curious about that, too ... I do not very much like to play the Alapin as black, been switching systems against it alot. Some years ago I played a rather good game with the pawn sacrifice 2. ... d5 and 4. ... e5, but I´m not very much convinced that this line is a good choice, apart from its psychological effect (after accepting the pawn, white must defend for a long time). I´ve been intending to look at the line with 2. ... d5 and an early g7-g6 for some time, maybe next time when I manage to overcome my laziness I´ll actually do it .
I´ll take another look at my games when I have more time, probably next week. Should be possible to find something potentially interesting there ... and I´ve come to find that it´s been good training for me, too . Analysing your own games is quite different, when there´s an external motivation in that the results are put open to criticism later ...
Happy new year 2004 Wub, too, and may you cross the 2000 mark soon ...
____________
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 10, 2004 01:28 AM |
|
Edited By: Wub on 9 Jan 2004
|
Hello Lews,
I have been having quite a busy week as well, so that’s why my answer had to wait to the weekend.
Quote:
Still, the bishop fianchetto is not completely without sense, it can be seen as some kind of prophylaxis against white plans that include f2-f4.
It’s good that you mention the word prophylaxis. I have seen this word quite a few times, but I must frankly admit that the only thing I knew about it was that Nimzovich ‘invented’ it, so I thought it was time for some research. I found an interesting site which was dedicated to that term and contained some tests about prophylactic play, so I feel again a bit enlightened now . But in any case you’re right of course that the bishop at g7 helps preventing the f2-f4 advance.
Quote:
But it seems to me that your evaluation of the resulting endgame may be a bit too optimistic. After 23.Kf1 Qxg4 24.Qxg4 Rxg4 25.Rb7, I think that white has still a large advantage, and very good winning chances.
Yes, white has an advantage in my opinion too, but with reasonable play from black’s side I doubt if this is enough for a win. I think that white’s advantage lies mainly in the fact that he has placed a rook at the seventh row and that black’s rook on a8 is for the moment tied to his pawn at a7. However, black can limit the power of white’s rook at b7 with a Rg7 at some time and with 25…Nf6 he can bind white’s knight to the pawn on e4. A possible plan for white is to advance his a-pawn. However, to me it seems white should be cautious for manoeuvres such as a5 followed by Ra7 and Rg3-d3-d4, which may give black enough to draw. Also I think the weakness of the pawn at g2 is a burden.
Quote:
I do not very much like to play the Alapin as black, been switching systems against it alot.
I know that problem. I recently realised that I kept losing against this opening, even though I read up on theory and felt that I knew the ideas behind the opening well. On top of that, this line is immensely popular among people of my strength. I played a 2…Nf6 line which was in theory ideal, because it can also be used well against the smith-morra gambit and against 2. Nf3 and 3. c3. The line is very sound as well according to win-loss statistics, in fact 2…Nf6 is said to equalize immediately. But apparently the playing type didn’t suit me, because I kept having problems in the midgame.
I happen to have a book in which the c2-c3 complex is discussed extensively, so I studied various alternative lines, including 2…e6, 2…d5, 2…b6, 2…g6 and 2…d6. Ultimately I chose for 2…d5 too, but I am still experimenting with the exact line I want to follow (at the moment I am trying something like 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. d4 Nc6 5. Nf3, Bg4 with reasonable success until now).
Quote:
Some years ago I played a rather good game with the pawn sacrifice 2. ... d5 and 4. ... e5, but I´m not very much convinced that this line is a good choice, apart from its psychological effect
The book I mentioned is from 1981, so it may be somewhat outdated, but about lines with e5 it says that it is generally not recommended for black to force the position this way. White doesn’t have to accept the gambit after 5. dxe5 because Nf3 is also good. But after 5. dxe5, Qxd1 6. Kxd1, Nc6 7. Nf3 Bg4 8. Bf4, white can keep a good advantage either after 8. …Nge7 or 8. …0-0-0 (according to Fuller and Pickett, who analysed this more extensively). This is only theory of course and you may have read a similar analysis, but it does justify your feeling that this line is not overly sound. The book doesn’t mention 2…d5 followed by g6 by the way.
Yesterday I played my first official game with 1.d4, c5. My opponent played 2. Bf4!?, lost two tempi and the game was more or less over already. I like that the reply 1…c5 poses black for a ‘problem’ immediately, which disrupts the natural move order that less booked up opponents often use and the fact that 1…c5 avoids many theory is nice too. So I think I will keep using your advice.
I’m curious what ‘potentially interesting’ games you can find, but –as always- take your time.
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 14, 2004 12:32 AM |
|
|
Hello Wub,
Quote:
Yes, white has an advantage in my opinion too, but with reasonable play from black’s side I doubt if this is enough for a win. I think that white’s advantage lies mainly in the fact that he has placed a rook at the seventh row and that black’s rook on a8 is for the moment tied to his pawn at a7. However, black can limit the power of white’s rook at b7 with a Rg7 at some time and with 25…Nf6 he can bind white’s knight to the pawn on e4. A possible plan for white is to advance his a-pawn. However, to me it seems white should be cautious for manoeuvres such as a5 followed by Ra7 and Rg3-d3-d4, which may give black enough to draw. Also I think the weakness of the pawn at g2 is a burden.
I think that, even with perfect play by black, the ending gives white very good winning chances. The line that I suggested in my last posting was 23.Kf1 Qxg4 24.Qxg4 Rxg4 25.Rb7, after which you suggested 25.…Nf6. After a possible 26.Rcb1 Rg7 27.Rxg7+ Kxg7 28.Rb7+ Kg6 29.Ke2, I do not see how you activate the Ra8 without loss of material. My King will walk to f3, after which the Nc3 is mobile again, also g2-g3 becomes a possibility. I´m not sure it´s a winning position, but IMO it looks very difficult for black.
Quote:
The line is very sound as well according to win-loss statistics, in fact 2…Nf6 is said to equalize immediately. But apparently the playing type didn’t suit me, because I kept having problems in the midgame.
For the a long time, 2…Nf6 was in my repertoire, too. Luckily I never had it in a real OTB game, but in a large number of blitz games I made exactly the same experiences that you describe. Difficult to play for black, and extremely dangerous as soon as you make an imprecise move.
[...]
About the …e5 pawn sac you´re right, the fact that white can get a good position both by accepting and refusing the pawn is the reason why I dumped it. It´s just that in the two OTB games that I played it, both times the pawn was taken and the white players were not able to handle the resulting positions. Most white Alapin players feel very unhappy when they find themselves forced to defend from move 5 on.
When I prepared for my game last sunday, I decided once and for all to play the 1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 g6 line in the future. The fianchetto discourages white from expanding c3-c4 and d4-d5, Isolani positions become less desirable too ... and the lines where d4xc5 happens at some point IMO do not look very dangerous for black either.
Quote:
Yesterday I played my first official game with 1.d4, c5. My opponent played 2. Bf4!?, lost two tempi and the game was more or less over already. I like that the reply 1…c5 poses black for a ‘problem’ immediately, which disrupts the natural move order that less booked up opponents often use and the fact that 1…c5 avoids many theory is nice too. So I think I will keep using your advice.
I´m glad to hear that . Yes, that´s quite a nice effect of 1…c5, although there probably won´t be too many players who will follow in your opponent´s footsteps with 2.Bf4 .
Quote:
I’m curious what ‘potentially interesting’ games you can find, but –as always- take your time.
On Sunday I played another Benoni game, if work keeps to be quiet here, maybe I can analyse and post it later tonight ...
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 16, 2004 02:04 AM |
|
|
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5
When I can be sure that my opponents are going to play 'classical' opening treatment, I prefer to put this move order into the databases .
3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.Bb5+
This is the dangerous Taimanov attack. Due to the threat e4-e5-e6, black is forced to slightly misplace his pieces.
8...Nfd7
8...Bd7? 9.e5±
8...Nbd7 9.e5 dxe5 10.fxe5 Nh5 11.e6 Qh4+ 12.g3 Nxg3 13.hxg3 Qxh1 14.Be3 has occasionally been tried on GM level, but with correct play by white, he's the only one who can play for a win in the resulting N+B vs. R positions.
9.a4
Why does white play such a "slow" move in such an aggressive system? Well, it enables him to withdraw the Bb5 after a possible a7-a6, without allowing b7-b5. Sooner or later, a2-a4 is almost always played by white in the Modern Benoni, so in the long run it is in much less danger to become a loss of tempo than black's Nf6-d7.
9...a6
9...0-0 10.Nf3 Na6 is the "normal" way to play this position, following up either Na6-c7 or Na6-b4.
10.Bd3 Qh4+ 11.g3 Qd8
If the white B had gone back to e2 or c4, my Q would have withdrawn to e7. However in the Bd3 line, e4 is well covered, and I prefer d8, where I am safe from later e4-e5 d6xe5 d5-d6 ideas, and able to put x-ray pressure on the d5 pawn.
12.Nf3 0-0 13.0-0 Nf6
By help of the Qd8, e4-e5 is prevented, as it would lose the d5 pawn. The benefits of the time-consuming Q-maneuver are apparent now: White's K-position is weakened, and Bc8-h3 cannot be prevented with h2-h3. In most games of this variation, white gives back the "lost" tempo by playing Kg1-g2. Another less obvious but very important benefit: The g3 pawn potentially blocks white's Bc1, who could otherwise join the fight in the center and on the K-side via Bc1-d2-e1-g3/h4. This maneuver is slow, but extremely strong in a position of mutual restraint.
14.Bc4!? Judging that against my arrangement of pieces, the B is not needed on d3, white improves its position and threatens e4-e5 immediately. Theory moves are 14.Qb3, 14.Kg2 and 14.f5, all directed against Lc8-g4. Here's an example of how the white-square weaknesses can be exploited to the maximum, if white avoids the bind: 14.Qb3 Bh3 15.Re1 Ng4 16.Qxb7 Nd7 17.a5 Qe7 18.Bxa6 Rab8 19.Qc7?? Nde5 0-1 Garcia-Pigusuv
14...Bg4 e4-e5 must be prevented.
15.Qb3 Bxf3 16.Rxf3
16.Qxb7?! Nbd7 17.Rxf3 Qe7 looks quite dangerous for white.
16...Nbd7
I would have loved to play 16...Qe7 first, before white's Ra1 is able to protect e4. But after 17.e5 dxe5 18.fxe5 white gets a very strong position.
17.Bd2
Now that Dd8-e7 can be met by Ra1-e1, I had to accept (after a long think) that play on the K-side is not possible for black. From a strategical point of view, the position is very difficult for both sides, because the standard breakthroughs e4-e5 and b7-b5 are both under strict control, and sacrificial motifs like e4-e5 d6xe5 f4-f5 do not work very well here either. Fortunately there's still a plan left for black, but first I had to overprotect the e5 square ...
17...Qc7 18.Re1 Rfe8 19.h3?!
my opponent was rather unhappy with this rather planless move. After the game, he suggested instead 19.Qc2 with the idea to follow-up Nc3-d1 and Bd2-c3. But after 19...Rab8 20.Qd3?! (to keep b5 under control after a later knight withdrawal) 20...Nb6 21.Ba2 Nfd7, black has a good position, following up c5-c4 and Nd7-c5 soon.
19...Nb6
it looks ugly to block the b-pawn with a knight, but this is probably the only way for black to make progress. After the Bc4 withdraws, black plays Nf6-d7 with the possibility of a later c5-c4, like in the variation above.
20.g4?
White must not allow this exchange of pieces. Now it's only black who can be better. 20.Bf1 Nfd7 21.Nd1 c4 22.Qc2 a5 23.Nf2 Nc5 should IMO offer relatively equal chances.
20...Nxc4 21.Qxc4 Nd7 22.Nd1 Rab8 23.Bc3 b5 24.axb5 axb5
24...Nb6?! 25.Qf1 axb5 26.Bxg7 Kxg7 27.Qxb5 Nxd5 is less convincing.
25.Qf1 Bxc3 26.bxc3 b4 27.cxb4 cxb4 28.Nb2 Qc5+?!
I was attracted to this variation because I "win" a few tempi here, but the immediate exchange of queens makes white´s defense easier.
28...Nf6!? was interesting, as white has to play very precisely ... 29.Rfe3 Qc5 30.Qc4 (30.Qf2 h6! =+) 30...Rbc8 31.Qxc5 Rxc5 32.g5 Nh5 33.Nd3 Rc4 and I think that black only has a marginal plus.
28...f6! looks best, to control e5 with pawns and knight, and penetrate with the heavy pieces. Occasionally even g6-g5 may become an idea ... Now for example 29.Rfe3 Rec8 looks not easy to defend for white.
29.Qf2 f6 30.Qxc5 Nxc5 31.Rfe3 b3 32.e5 fxe5 33.fxe5 dxe5 34.Rxe5 Kf7 35.Rxe8
35.d6 Rxe5 36.Rxe5 Ne6 and d6 is very weak.
35...Rxe8 36.Rxe8 Kxe8
Unfortunately, with precise play by white this interesting ending is only a draw ...
37.Kf2 Ke7 38.Ke3 Nd7 39.Kd4 Kf6 40.h4 g5 41.hxg5+ 41.h5? Ne5 loses
41...Kxg5 42.Kc3 Kxg4 43.Nc4 Nf6
43...h5 44.Kxb3 h4 45.Ne3+ Kf3 46.Nf1 h3 47.d6 Kf2 48.Nh2 Kg2 49.Ng4 Kg3 50.Ne3=
44.d6 h5 45.Kxb3 h4 46.Ne3+
46.Kb2 h3 47.Ne3+ Kf3 48.Nf1= was a nice alternative solution.
46...Kf3 47.Nf1 Ke2 48.Nh2 Ne4 49.Kc4 Nxd6+ 50.Kd5 Ne8 51.Ke4 Kf2 52.Kf4 Kg2 53.Kg4 h3 54.Nf3 Nf6+ 55.Kh4 ½-½
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
