29 Nov 09
Lately, I've been making (or trying to make) the transition from speed chess to slower time controls. I know game in 15 isn't really very slow, but I think it's a little better than my usual 1, 3, and 5 minute games. I have attempted two 15-Minute games at ICC lately. The pairings are automatic. The first was a sloppy win against a 1500 (or so) rated player. My play was very inaccurate, and I was lucky to keep my advantage/win the way I did. Here is my second attempt (Bear in mind that I haven't played much lately, as I have been working my way through the first 400 pages of My Great Predecessors Vol. 1.):
First a note about the ratings: White is rated over 1900 but has an all time high rating of 2180 at 15-Minute! My rating is over 1900 only because of a single win and is still provisional.
1.d4 d5
I prefer a more classical game most of the time. It costs me winning chances some of the time, but at least I know that I am always solid.
2.c4 e6
Again, I take the classical approach. 2. ... c6 has too many followers and too much attention from professionals and amateurs alike. I'd rather just play chess than a memory game. 2. ... dxc4 is fine too, but I prefer not to give up the center. The only problem with 2. ... e6 is that you better learn (not memorize) how to play against the Exchange Variation (3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5). The minority attack in that variation must be met precisely, or black's queenside can easily crumble.
3.Nc3 Nf6
Standard Stuff
4.Nf3 !?
The most usual are 4.cxd5, entering the Exchange Variation and 4.Bg5, Pillsbury's move. Here is a brief explanation of both. 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 Be7 6.e3 c6 7.Qc2 0-0 8.Bd3 Nbd7 (These moves are transposable.) brings about several plans. 9.Nge2 is Botvinnik's contribution. The idea is to castle (most often kingside), play f3,Ng3,and e4, and storm black with his center. 9.Nf3 is white's other plan. After 9.Nf3 Re8 10.0-0 (10.0-0-0 is possible.) Nf8 11.Rab1 is usual. The idea is a minority attack with b4, b5, and bxc6 (which severely weakens black's queenside pawn structure). While white is doing all this, black must create counterplay on the kingside (Black also has an advanced option of f5, f4, and fxe3, with a minority attack of his own!).
White's other option (4.Bg5) is one of the main lines. This move didn't catch on until Pillsbury used it to beat opponent after opponent around the time of Hastings 1895. Here are some ways for black to defend. A. 4. ... Be7 5.Nf3 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 b6 (The Tartakower ... very popular)/ B. Same 7.e3 Ne4 (The Lasker ... based on trades)/ C. 5.Nf3 Nbd7 6.e3 0-0 (The Solid Orthodox)/ D. 4. ... Nbd7 5.e3 c6 6.Nf3 Qa5 (The Cambridge Springs Defense).
My opponents 4.Nf3 is a nice waiting move. 4.Bf4 used to be played (pre-Pillsbury), but it became known that it commited the bishop to early (4. ... c5!).
One of the ideas of 4.Nf3 is to make black play a waiting move before Bf4 (4.Nf3 Be7 5.Bf4 c5 6.dxc5 sooner or later and the Be7 move has cost black a tempo).
One of the downsides of 4.Nf3 (or upsides depending on your preference) is that it allows other moves. 4.Nf3 c6 is a proper Semi-Slav and 4.Nf3 c5 is the Semi-Tarrasch defense. It is thought when black gets in c5 he is equal, but life isn't so simple in the Semi-Tarrasch.
4. ... Be7 5.e3 !?
He wasn't going for Bf4 at all!
5. ... 0-0 6.b3
I assume this has two purposes. First, white doesn't want to just move his white squared bishop. 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 a6 (or c5), and black is a whole tempo ahead of a regular Queen's Gambit Accepted (In that one, the bishop goes directly from f1 to a capture on c4.). 6.b3 also prepares to bring the other bishop to b2, where it will bear down on the center and e5 square in particular.
6. ... c5
The proper thrust in such positions. If black can get in c5 safely in double queen pawn openings he is doing good. (If he gets in e5 safely, he is at least equal but that's another story.) The game has now transposed into a Symmetrical Tarrasch defense (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.e3 Nf6 5.Nf3 Nc6) where black has avoided the deadly g3 system created by Akiba Rubinstein.
7.Bb2 Nc6 8.Bd3 dxc4
This was played with the idea of simply loosening white's center. If 9.Bxc4 cxd4 and white has an isolated queens pawn to deal with. The bishop doesn't usually go in b2 in such poisitions, prefering a more active post at g5 (in connection with a Bc2/Qd3 mating battery).
9.bxc4 cxd4 10.exd4 Qa5 ?!
9. ... b6 may have been alright, but 10. ... b6 was a really nice move (pointed out by the computer). The idea is to fix the hanging pawns and just go on developing. Na5 and maybe Ba6 would become possibilities for black. In being out of practice, I had to actually analyze 10. ... Nxd4? 11.Nxd4 Qxd4??, which runs right into 12.Bxh7+ winning the queen on d4. I think the computer's other suggestion was 10. ... Kh8, avoiding the check when the bishop gets to h7 and renewing the d pawn threat. 10. ... b6 is truly the great move though. The purpose of my 10. ... Qa5 was merely to clear the d8 square for a rook. I have something like Rd8, Bd7, Be8, and Rac8 with a slow defensive game in mind. Another problem with Qa5 was that the knight is denied a5 after a d5 thrust from white.
11.0-0 Rd8 12.Qe2 !? Nxd4 !?
12.Qe2 was a bit of a surprise. He is now daring me to grab the pawn. Something simple like 12.Re1 was fine for him. After 12.Qe2, I went into another think. I think the silicon beast had two moves here, but truthfully, I'm not too crazy about either one. 12. ... Qh5 was one of them. I don't really see the point in shuttling the queen around. The other, I think, was 12. ... Nb4 and after a later a3 the knight returns. I'm from the school of thought that a bad plan is better than no plan at all, so I decided to make the game really interesting with my intended exchange sacrifice. Given the position again, I'm still not sure that I wouldn't play my move!
13.Nxd4 Rxd4 14.Nd5!
This forks e7 and d4. My hand is forced.
14. ... Rxd5 15.cxd5 Nxd5
This was what I envisioned when I played Nxd4. I didn't really see a way for white to do anything too active. Again, my long term plan is Bd7, maybe Bc6, and find a good square for the rook. I think my outpost on d5 (and knight and 2 vs rook) is good compensation, although I think the comp has me down 3 quarters of a pawn.
16.Qh5
This was the main move I had calculated with Nxd4 also. Before the exchange sacrifice, I just had to make sure I wasn't getting myself mated. After the coming g6 and Bf8, white simply doesn't have a way in.
16. ... g6 17.Qh6 Bf8 18.Qh4 Bd7?!
This was a bad innacuracy by me. I overlooked the strength of 19.Qd4!. Then, 19. ... f6 would hold but my position would be compromised. The computer gives white an advantage in that line, but it's less than a pawn. I think the computer liked 18. ... Qb4, hitting the queen and queen's bishop. This was evaluated as equal, unless I am mistaken. Maybe, my mental evaluation wasn't too far off the mark!
19.Bc4 ?! Be7 !
This doesn't give white another chance to play Qd4 (20.Qd4 Bf6). I also looked at 19. ... Qb4, pinning one bishop and attacking the other one, but 20.Qd4 solves both problems.
20. Qh6 Bf8 21.Qh4 Be7 22.Qh6 Bf8 23.Qh4
Here, white claimed the draw by repetition. Only white can deviate, but he must be careful.
My play wasn't especially great, but I still kind of like this game. I hope that you enjoyed my lengthy annotations
05 Dec 09
Hi Paul,
Nice annotations and game. 12...Nxd4 was an interesting move. 2 pawns and a
knight for a rook and white's pawn center is completely wiped out. I never would
have considered it. I'm surprised nobody has commented on it yet. I guess nobody
wanted to break out the board and pieces or print your notes so they could follow
along.
Maybe this will help. I took your annotations and put them in with the pgn. Only
took a minute. Now all anyone has to do is hit the PGN tag under the board and
they can scroll through your notes while playing through the game.
05 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDon't think I haven't tried to make the Albin work, but I can't do it. I own Lambert's book on it, Schiller's book on it, and a nice multi-language(/languageless) book with variations and annotated games. I even have a video on it! The problem is that the white attack on the queenside tends to get their faster than black's on the kingside in the g3 lines (for me at least). Also, the plans are so obvious that white almost always knows what to do. You just don't get as much nice gambit play because the game isn't open enough and black doesn't really have a lead in development. On the plus side, that d4 pawn can be a real pain in the neck for white. Speelman did have a nice game with black in his book of games though. I think Lambert nudged him into trying it out. I can't say its busted, it's just not my cup of tea.
and what was wrong with 2...e5 Mr Buchmanfromfics?
Try this gambit sometimes ...
Black threatens both Nb4 and Nd4.
In fact, it is so rare (They don't know what to do! ... a gambit plus!!!) that I caught a GM with it. He played 9.a3 and after 9. ... Nd4 he resigned (in a speed game)!!!
The bust isn't all that obvious. 9.e3 Nb4 10.Bb5+ Ke7 and 11.Kf1 or 11.Ke2. The game is still complicated and can really go either way below master level.
7. ... Bd7 8.Nf3 Nf6 9.Qd1 Bc5 10.e3 Qe7 is another way to play it. Black can castle to either side.
It is necessary to know this because 5.Qa4+ Bd7 (b5 !?) usually transposes.
06 Dec 09
Originally posted by BlacksonI wasn't playing for a draw all along, but I felt the position looked like a draw there in the end. I couldn't make more out of it. Of course, I would have rather have won, but a draw isn't all that horrible considering my inaccuracies in the early middlegame. 22. ... Bf6 may be fine, but I don't think I could play it. (In fact, the computer says it only gives white a slight edge.) I'd be a little worried about the dark squares (and f6 in particular with the combination of e6 and g6). It is true that I would have had to make this trade in other lines too, but I wasn't going to force it on myself. I think it's more of my style too. I don't mind taking draws against lower rated (or even) players rather than going into wild complications or taking positional chances. Sometimes, playing for a win at all costs can be a real roll of the dice, and I don't do that often (usually only against higher rated players that I am trying to upset).
With Mr Buchmanfromic's annotated game were you content with the draw? I see 22 ...Bf6, does this work at all or does it lead to black having a worse position?
08 Dec 09
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsComputer says no 😀 . Until the computer can tell you why I think you should stop consulting it.
(In fact, the computer says it only gives white a slight edge.)
If we're just playing for fun I would've played on. Pawn majority on both sides (nice trade earlier) would make for interesting end game. And is your dark square weakness any real weakness seeing how he has no knights or his dark square bishop?
Nevertheless I respect your decision, thanks for the game and taking the time to type up annotations for it.
08 Dec 09
Originally posted by Blackson"Computer says no 😀 . Until the computer can tell you why I think you should stop consulting it."
Computer says no 😀 . Until the computer can tell you why I think you should stop consulting it.
If we're just playing for fun I would've played on. Pawn majority on both sides (nice trade earlier) would make for interesting end game. And is your dark square weakness any real weakness seeing how he has no knights or his dark square bishop?
Nevertheles ...[text shortened]... respect your decision, thanks for the game and taking the time to type up annotations for it.
I try not to rely on computers too much. I mostly use them for a blunder check or to see if my opponent used one on me (after a loss where I don't see my obvious mistakes). Too many people do rely on them. In fact, I was going or a game online with someone 500 points below me. I was showing him moves and explaining them to him, and he kept interrupting me by telling the the Rybka move. Chess engines are really just high tech calculators. They play differently (visualing every single move/ moves deep), whereas we use systematic approaches. Trying to beat a computer at chess is like trying to beat a calculator at math problems. Eventually you will make a mistake or miss something.
"And is your dark square weakness any real weakness seeing how he has no knights or his dark square bishop?"
Very True !!! Sometimes, I just have a bad feeling and can't really explain why I don't like a move. That trade just didn't feel right to me. In this particular position, I agree that the weakness isn't a problem. I get too dogmatic sometimes.
"Nevertheless I respect your decision, thanks for the game and taking the time to type up annotations for it."
Thank you very much. I am happy that you (and others) enjoyed it/found it even the least beat useful. 🙂 All The Best ... Handshake