I just finished up this funny game on ICC. The position was pretty unusual. Unfortunately he blundered quite badly instead of playing the best move. I would enjoy some analysis of this game (the obvious improvements are 12. Bh6 +- and 14...Nxc4!, which defends)
[Event "ICC 15 0"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2008.03.01"]
[Round "?"]
[White "TonyRo"]
[Black "Psychojonesy"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B20"]
1. e4 c5 2. Na3 a6 3. c3 Nf6 4. e5 Nd5 5. d4 cxd4 6. Qxd4 e6 7. Nf3 Bxa3 8. bxa3 Nc6 9. Qg4 Qa5 10. Bd2 O-O 11. c4 Qa4 12. Bd3 f5 13. Qh5 Nb6 14. h4 Qxa3 15. Ng5 h6 16. Qg6 hxg5 17. hxg5 Qxd3 18. Rh8+ Kxh8 19. Qh5+ Kg8 20. g6 Qe4+ 21. Kf1 1-0
I had seen the game up through 20. g6 Re8 21. Qh7+ Kf8 22. Qh8+ Ke7 23. Bg5# when I played 14. h4, but I missed some things. At first I intended 14. Ng5 h6 15. h4, but this inaccurate on account of 15...Nxe5. I also missed that 14...Nxc4 interferes with my mate construction since he can take the pawn on g6 at some point. 17...Nxe5 is also very unclear after something like 18. Qh7+ Kf7 19. Be2! when White will still have a very big attack. Instead of the terrible 20...Qe4+, when Black can't really stop mate, 20...Qxd2+! gives Black a boatload of pieces for the Queen, and it appears that white just has to take the draw after 21. Kxd2 Re8 22. Qh7+ Kf8 23. Qh8+ Ke7 24. Qh4+, etc....
Hopefully everyone finds the game as interesting and fun to analyze as I did.
Originally posted by !~TONY~!Man, that is a mess of complexivity there, that would be a real pain to work out otb in a 15-0. Nice win, always sweet to beat those arrogant masters. 😛
I just finished up this funny game on ICC. The position was pretty unusual. Unfortunately he blundered quite badly instead of playing the best move. I would enjoy some analysis of this game (the obvious improvements are 12. Bh6 +- and 14...Nxc4!, which defends)
[Event "ICC 15 0"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2008.03.01"]
[Round "?"]
[White "To ...[text shortened]...
Hopefully everyone finds the game as interesting and fun to analyze as I did.
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexIt's an Anti-Sicilian, !~Tony~! seems to have some inside information on it. 🙂 It's probably totally sound actually.
What was Na3 all about - is it some sort of way to play thre c3 sicillian but develop the knight to c2.
I think the knight generally goes to c4, btw.
Yeah, there was this time period during the summer I believe where a few strong grandmasters tinkered with this move. The basic idea is to play c3 and Nc2, d4 etc...., but there is also this second point, where on move 2 Black has to declare some kind of plan, so White can switch to a Rossolimo set-up or a Grand Prix Attack. So it's basically like a waiting move that has a concrete idea, but you might switch to some other known system if Black plays something silly. Very often the knight takes a journey to g4, a great square if Black fianchetto's. I got the chance to chat with Alex Shabalov about it for a couple weeks and he let me in on some ideas and showed me some interesting unpublished games. It's a cool little move.
It seems sensible enough, not an instinctive looking move but it is useful later on - also these c3 systems are more annoying when black is left guessing as to where white is going to deploy his forces.
I am surprised at you playing a line like this with white - would this not really annoy you if you had to face it as black? I think the c3 sicillian is a quite good line for white but I would never play it on general principle.
Hahaha, yeah, well I have this problem where I generally cannot decide on a set opening repertoire. I normally play really aggressive choices. Dragon, Grunfeld, KID, Modern Benoni as Black, Four Pawns Attack, f3 against the Nimzo, Open Sicilians, Scotch Gambits, the list goes on. But in the course of not deciding, I've learned alot about pretty much everything, so I kinda just play what I feel. That said, it's weird, because I don't like playing 2. c3 as White, but I like 2. Na3. Hmmmm....😀
It's nice that you won, but the game was really one crazy roller coaster ride. At first, you had a fantastic position, even without Bh6!! and then Black gets a fantastic position and the cycle ends with you winning. I don't think such games are worthy of deep analysis even though they are entertaining.
I think those are the games that are worthy of the most analysis, because there were alot of mistakes. For instance, that variation I gave after Nxe5 Qh7 Kf7 Be2 has some absolutely crazy variations, and I feel like a lot could be learned. If everyone only analyzed games that agreed with your standards, there would be about 6 chess books out to this day, filled with boring chess. Exciting and interesting games very often contain a lot of mistakes.
A game with this time control is not a good representation of each player's strength and a lot of the ideas are misguided. I think it is much more useful to analyze games in which each player has had ample opportunity to think things through. In longer games, the mistakes are more subtle but infinitely more valuable in the lessons they teach. They tend to result as a consequence of good strategy and are very instructive. It's especially remarkable that the mistakes weren't seen even when the players were playing at their best ability. In blitz, is so much learned from simply seeing pawns or pieces being essentially blundered? Not to me.
Moreover, I think longer games are FAR FAR more interesting and instructive than a blitz game full of not so subtle errors. Longer games often allow scope for much more complex tactics and richer strategic play. Just look at some of the Sicilian games at the highest level. They are often full of life, tactics, a battle for the initiative and latent dynamism. In addition, there is a lot to be learned even from the myriad of tactics that were avoided. I'm not saying that sloppy games shouldn't be analyzed at all. However, a game in blitz is not just sloppy, it doesn't even come close to representing your strength and what you would normally play. It contains gross mistakes. Rather than asking if your overall strategic approach was correct, you're more likely to ask how not to get mated or blunder massively.
If you think roller coaster blitz games are worth the time and effort for in-depth analysis, you're welcome to do that. I'm not stopping you, I'm just not going to do it myself. Although, as I mentioned, I enjoy looking at them.
BTW: There would be just as many chess books based on my standards. If you think otherwise, you're misunderstanding me.