In Thread 136117
I was ask why I sometimes played the Delayed Exchange Ruy Lopez…
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. Bxc6 dxc6
…and why wait till the Knight comes to f6 before swapping.
The chop on c6 and d3 idea gives a nice solid centre so
a flank attack on the K-side can be carried out without allowing
Black any distracting play in the centre (no d5).
I wait till the Knight comes to f6 because if I saved a tempo
and chopped on c6 at move 4. Black can hold e5 with Bd6.
And you can see Black can play Ne7-g6, 0-0 and f5.
It’s not what I want to play against, not part of the plan.
Also allowing the Knight to go to f6 means I can sometime pin it
with Bg5, chop it and have often have this pawn formation.
A Knight lands on f5 and these positions you cannot lose.
Now the pasty-faced spotted ones will be aghast and spin in horror
at my willingness to swap Bishops for Knights.
Some dim witted nugget once wrote Bishops are better than Knights,
everyone has had copied him and free spirited chess players have
been winning games ever since.
There is no such thing as a good Bishop.
You either have a bad Bishop (hemmed in by it’s pawns) or a Bishop.
But you can have a Super Knight,. On an outpost in your opponents half
of the board such a piece is a powerhouse, a game winner, a conquering hero.
Granted Bishops can perform better than Knights in some endings.
Though if you scan GM games for B v N endings you will find
the score is approximately equal.
In the Informator 1966 - 2005 Data Base, a DB made of GM & IM games only.
White has the sole Bishop v sole Knight.
White has the sole Knight v sole Bishop
Pretty close. A lot closer than these dull dopey writers who sit there in
their corduroy trousers copying each others words would have you believe.
Right back to Delayed Exchange Ruy Lopez.
So you have this.
Now under no circumstances do you move that pawn on c2.
This wee chappie holds the thing together.
You move that pawn and the d3 pawn is a mug on an open file.
Remember the plan is stroll in on the Kingside without allowing
any counter play. Even if checked you do not move the c3 pawn.
You play Ke2 or Kf1.
The chief ingredient is getting a Knight to f5.
If you see the other game in the thread and these two you get the idea.
Not a refutation of chess just a soft idea that gives me a plan from move 4.
If Black does not underestimate what is coming then it’s nothing.
Think I got the idea from one of Anderssen’s games.
There is a lot to be picked up (and discarded) by looking at the older games.
Ideas that failed against the best players of that era need not be ignored if
you are playing just a normal bod.
Instead of showing you all the crushes I’ve had with this line I offer instead
two OTB games v two lads who were over 2000 when the game was played.
These are good players but because of the missing d-pawn could not generate
any counter play in the centre to distract me and found themselves in an awkward
position with me saccing Knights on f5.
G. Chandler v P. Roberts, Edin C.C. v Edinburgh West Edinburgh, 1990
G. Chandler - C. Tweedie v Hamilton National League 2005