An early knight sacrifice.- Reti opening

Originally posted by SwissGambit
No, your opponent's weakness is that he makes unsound sacrifices on move 3. You'd have to be crazy not to try and exploit that weakness. 😛

This isn't about opening preparation. Opening preparation is for getting slight edges with white and equality with black.

I agree that the sac in question here isn't very good (ok bad). It seems to me that you should not sac material hoping that your opponent can't defend himself well enough to take advantage of the material advantage you've just given him, especially when you don't have a huge advantage in development.

I was just commenting on the idea of taking your opponent out of preparation by getting out of book early on in the game. I know paulbuchmanfromfics likes to do this, or at least he used to. I haven't seen him around much anymore.

Originally posted by Eladar
I agree that the sac in question here isn't very good (ok bad). It seems to me that you should not sac material hoping that your opponent can't defend himself well enough to take advantage of the material advantage you've just given him, especially when you don't have a huge advantage in development.

I was just commenting on the idea of taking your oppone ...[text shortened]... fromfics likes to do this, or at least he used to. I haven't seen him around much anymore.

ok its not a 'master' opening - but there is some fight in it; White has a lot of tempo, they can castle , and the posistion naturally leads to an attack on the f file whilst black looses time playing defensive moves.

but with a correct defense its probably hopeless 🙂

Originally posted by e4chris
ok its not a 'master' opening - but there is some fight in it; White has a lot of tempo, they can castle , and the posistion naturally leads to an attack on the f file whilst black looses time playing defensive moves.

but with a correct defense its probably hopeless 🙂

Perhaps you could wait until you are forced to sac your knight or retreat and see if the position turns out better at a later point.

The Instructor

Originally posted by e4chris
ok its not a 'master' opening - but there is some fight in it; White has a lot of tempo, they can castle , and the posistion naturally leads to an attack on the f file whilst black looses time playing defensive moves.

but with a correct defense its probably hopeless 🙂

Just looking at your first game in the original post, I'd say that the final pawn move wasn't very good. Of course I'm not very good, so I won't say that I'm right!

Instead my natural move would be to play Be7 or Bd6. If black plays either of those two moves, he has two pieces developed while white has zero! All black needs to do is develop the rook on h8 and he can safely castle by hand.

Of course if black likes to play Leningrad Defense he could choose to play 4.g6 for a similar pawn structure and fianchetto defense. It would take an extra move to complete castling, but at low levels I don't know if that would make much of a difference.

Originally posted by Eladar
Just looking at your first game in the original post, I'd say that the final pawn move wasn't very good. Of course I'm not very good, so I won't say that I'm right!

Instead my natural move would be to play Be7 or Bd6. If black plays either of those two moves, he has two pieces developed while white has zero! All black needs to do is develop the rook on ...[text shortened]... complete castling, but at low levels I don't know if that would make much of a difference.

c6 is quite clever actually it stops bc4 which is a big threat as the sg game shows, thats why the computer plays it...

I don't know, it just seems like it results in such a cramped position. I'd prefer a quick d5, it would open the diagonal for the bishop on c8 as well as opening up room for the queen or the knight.

I think after playing g6, Bc4 isn't much of a threat.

I believe that it is better to have an eye toward development is better than pawn moves made to prevent something that you think might be bad. I'm just not seeing that bishop as that great a threat, as long as you don't block in your pieces.

Originally posted by Eladar
I don't know, it just seems like it results in such a cramped position. I'd prefer a quick d5, it would open the diagonal for the bishop on c8 as well as opening up room for the queen or the knight.

I think after playing g6, Bc4 isn't much of a threat.

I believe that it is better to have an eye toward development is better than pawn moves made to preve ...[text shortened]... t not seeing that bishop as that great a threat, as long as you don't block in your pieces.

Thats a preconcieved idea. You dont believe it so you wont even when it has been proven to be a great threat, it might not be winning but it makes the game very difficult for black to play. I notice that you think pawn moves are what creates cramp but the inactivity and immobility of the pieces is what creates cramp and this is an effect of Bc4 because of the pressure it put on the kings position black is put into a long term bind whereas after ...c6 the bind is only temporary if not illusory.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Thats a preconcieved idea. You dont believe it so you wont even when it has been proven to be a great threat, it might not be winning but it makes the game very difficult for black to play. I notice that you think pawn moves are what creates cramp but the inactivity and immobility of the pieces is what creates cramp and this is an effect of Bc4 because of ...[text shortened]... ack is put into a long term bind whereas after ...c6 the bind is only temporary if not illusory.

Yah, I'm sure that if you know what you are doing, the pawn move wouldn't be bad. I'm just saying that it would be bad for me. Although I suck at chess, I'm not as bad as I used to be. I think that taking piece activity into consideration is one of things major ideas that have made my improvement. Development of board vision is more important, but not putting myself in cramped positions has made my games more enjoyable and improved my play.

If you are used to this kind of pawn structure and are used to the ideas of working from a cramped position, then I'm sure the c6 is a very good move.

I don't see the long term bind since I wouldn't mind trading bishops on the diagonal. I don't see very far and the results of further complications, but if I did, then I'd be better. I have to work with what I can see.

Originally posted by Eladar
Yah, I'm sure that if you know what you are doing, the pawn move wouldn't be bad. I'm just saying that it would be bad for me. Although I suck at chess, I'm not as bad as I used to be. I think that taking piece activity into consideration is one of things major ideas that have made my improvement. Development of board vision is more important, but not put ...[text shortened]... r complications, but if I did, then I'd be better. I have to work with what I can see.

Losing quickly isnt bad? Also, after ...c6, ...d5 is pretty unstoppable. My point is this, knights on the rim are grim but sometimes the only path to a great square requires you to make a stop on the rim. Its the same in every aspect of chess, its a game of flux so just because a pawn is on c6 this move doesnt mean it has to stay there for the rest of the game just like the knight moving to the edge. I think a big thing with the pawns is that a lot of people cant imagine moving a pawn two squares using two seperate moves because it seems a waste so they live with the cramping effects of the pawn long after it has served its purpose instead of just moving it again. I would also say that because you are better in certain positions, getting those positions doesnt improve your play just your performance, a sad truth I have come to find about myself. I think being in a position you are uncomfortable with and ignorant of means your whole proccess of play is likely to be wrong, this gives you the opportunity to refine a whole proccess instead of nitpicking at one or two moves every time you lose... But im rambling.

Now, having said that your preference for d5 is fine because that is also a good move but dont discount moves that challenge your style or preference because sometimes these moves are the best.

I didn't just say why I thought it wasn't so good. If I had simply said it is terrible without explanation, then I can see the tongue lashing. I think I simply said that I prefer other moves because I thought c6 led to a cramped position. I think I further mentioned the fact that I'm pretty bad, so I don't think people should take my advice without thinking about why and agreeing that it is better. Sorry to offend.

I agree that choosing to play a more comfortable position doesn't make you a better player, but I'm not interested in finding truth in chess, simply to play games I enjoy. I don't have a better player to let me know that I'm getting better, all I can do is judge my play by how often I win or lose. I'm surely not good enough to determine that I'm improving, although I'm choosing to play difficult positions which leads to few victories.

Originally posted by Eladar
I didn't just say why I thought it wasn't so good. If I had simply said it is terrible without explanation, then I can see the tongue lashing. I think I simply said that I prefer other moves because I thought c6 led to a cramped position. I think I further mentioned the fact that I'm pretty bad, so I don't think people should take my advice without thinkin ...[text shortened]... ving, although I'm choosing to play difficult positions which leads to few victories.

Nothing i said was in anger and i wasnt offended so I dont understand the reference to a lashing tongue. The point is, when you go over a loss how much is to gain? If your loss was due to a tactical blunder then what did you learn? My opinion is that i learned to do tactical puzzles which I do anyway.

I know that you dont play chess simply to win or have fun, of course those are enjoyable but if that was it then why not play checkers? Its because the ideas are fascinating right? Well, when you lose a game because you had no clue how to play a position that arose then you are winning a golden opportunity to learn new ideas.

Thats all im trying to say.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Nothing i said was in anger and i wasnt offended so I dont understand the reference to a lashing tongue. The point is, when you go over a loss how much is to gain? If your loss was due to a tactical blunder then what did you learn? My opinion is that i learned to do tactical puzzles which I do anyway.

I know that you dont play chess simply to win or ha ...[text shortened]... ose then you are winning a golden opportunity to learn new ideas.

Thats all im trying to say.

Because checkers sucks! - reason enough.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Nothing i said was in anger and i wasnt offended so I dont understand the reference to a lashing tongue. The point is, when you go over a loss how much is to gain? If your loss was due to a tactical blunder then what did you learn? My opinion is that i learned to do tactical puzzles which I do anyway.

I know that you dont play chess simply to win or ha ...[text shortened]... ose then you are winning a golden opportunity to learn new ideas.

Thats all im trying to say.

I play chess because I like it. I like the competition. I'm not really one much for puzzles other than for how it can help me improve for the sake of improving. The better I get, the more I lose to better players!

No, I don't play chess to win. I used to, but not now. That was a very frustrating time for me, but I did achieve my original goal which was to be good enough to beat most people I meet. 😀 I was really frustrated by my lack of understanding what I was trying to do and lack of board vision.

Why not play checkers? I do play checkers from time to time, but find that it is pretty simplistic. I enjoy the complexity of chess.

As for learning, I don't learn from individual loses. If I burn my hand too much, I remember to look at the board better, but it took more than one burning to catch on to that one. It was a very painful lesson, but I still have my fingers. 😀

I don't learn new ideas very well from losing. I learn them better when I'm aware of the idea and can effectively put them into practice! That's why I try to read up and study chess. Much of it is beyond me, but at times I understand something and try to incorporate it, usually pretty badly at first 😀.

After a day of thinking about what I was trying to say, I think I've got a better explanation of what I'm trying to do in chess at the moment. I'm trying to understand the position.

How do I come to understand things? Usually it isn't through experience, but through having a concept explained to me. I usually have to be told things, then I can grasp things quite well. I suppose it is an intellectual shortcoming, but I am what I am.

Not that I blindly follow what I'm told, more like I can see how what it is being said is true or false. I have to incoporate it into my present point of view. For chess this includes my limitation when it comes to computations and board vision.

Oh the injustice! I have lost in 25 moves! On move 16 off course it is white to play and win 🙂 I have won the queen! But..... move 22...Rc1xc3 dastardly! Seriously a very clever move was quite impressed. And my queen is not looking so clever 🙁



So where did white go wrong in this game? (taking f7 does not count as an answer!)