28 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by Fat Ladymaybe, I have not checked it, probably it was risky, but i think i get at least two pawns and the exchange, is that not correct? I am sure i was thinking something like that when i was calculating the variations in damage control mode. I give up two minor pieces and get a rook and two pawns, is that not the case at very least?
25. ... Qa6 was horrible. What if he played, say, 25. ... Qd7 instead. Isn't White just material down then?
29 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by MontyMoosethey could have been deeper, but its hard to get a balance, no one wants to read reams of engine analysis and as i dont analyse my games with an engine i suspect they lack accuracy, but its a small price to pay. Thanks moose.
Good job with the notes, they really help as I go through the game. Thanks.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou played a pretty good game, but along with the other posters I would like to make a few comments from my observation if you don't mind.
[pgn][Event "Clan challenge"] [Site "http://www.timeforchess.com"] [Date "2013.03.02"] [Round "-"] [White "robbie carrobie"] [Black "ViA"] [Result "1-0"] [BlackElo "1861"] [WhiteElo "1829"] [BlackRating "1861"] [EndDate "2013.06.28"] [WhiteRating "1829"] 1.c4 e5 {interesting choice and probably the most principled move} 2.g3 {the main line is Nc3 bu tleman and very tough opponent, thanks for taking the time} 1-0[/pgn]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell the two pawns advantage are double isolated rook pawns that are blocked and will be easy to attack. In fact the a7 pawn is about to fall, so I don't think you would have enough of an advantage to win without that mistake that gave up the knight.
maybe, I have not checked it, probably it was risky, but i think i get at least two pawns and the exchange, is that not correct? I am sure i was thinking something like that when i was calculating the variations in damage control mode. I give up two minor pieces and get a rook and two pawns, is that not the case at very least?
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindswhy must you subject me to inane drivel? is there not some other fellow that you can inflict yourself upon? If i had wanted engine analysis i would have downloaded one and used it, statements like, 'i fail to see why the Botvinnic system is so good', or 'black already has an avenue for his bishop therefore he should develop his knight instead', betray a lack of understanding of basic fundamentals, you really dont know anything about chess and please stop trying to pretend that you do.
Well the two pawns advantage are double isolated rook pawns that are blocked and will be easy to attack. In fact the a7 pawn is about to fall, so I don't think you would have enough of an advantage to win without that mistake that gave up the knight.
The Instructor
30 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have to admit, I wondered about his statement about the Botvinnik system on move 5. Acting as though "If I don't understand it, it must be dumb" and claiming a lack of understanding in a way that implies it is the other person's problem is an unholy blend of arrogance and ignorance.
why must you subject me to inane drivel? is there not some other fellow that you can inflict yourself upon? If i had wanted engine analysis i would have downloaded one and used it, statements like, 'i fail to see why the Botvinnic system is so good', or 'black already has an avenue for his bishop therefore he should develop his knight instead', bet ...[text shortened]... ls, you really dont know anything about chess and please stop trying to pretend that you do.
World Champion Botvinnik understood it's value, and a host of GMs after him understand its value, so if he lacks understanding, there are plenty of quality examples over the last 50 years from which to choose.
Technically, only the first four words of his sentence are an accurate evaluation of the situation.
30 Jun 13
Originally posted by Paul LeggettYou are right that I do not understand any advantage the Botvinnik system gives White. I know robbie said he was concentrating on control of the d5 square. But I informed him that c6 for black at the right time would stop that. So it looks to me like it is easy for Black to get equality in that system. But I am no Botvinnik and neither is robbie.
I have to admit, I wondered about his statement about the Botvinnik system on move 5. Acting as though "If I don't understand it, it must be dumb" and claiming a lack of understanding in a way that implies it is the other person's problem is an unholy blend of arrogance and ignorance.
World Champion Botvinnik understood it's value, and a hos ...[text shortened]... lly, only the first four words of his sentence are an accurate evaluation of the situation.
Of course robbie already told me of his plan as I was looking at the game, so I might not have been looking to stop his plan, if I had not known about it. And Botvinnik may have other things in mind if that does not work that I would not know to look out for.
I said I thought he played a good game and did not mean to down him for using that system. I was just trying to make some helpful comments. I would like to find why he likes it other than he just happened to win that game. I might even try it if I could understand how it is good. I don't want to have to be as good as Botvinnik to be successful with it.
The Instructor
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, I learned the classical rules of chess and it seems that g6 was a violation of a rule by moving a side pawn when a developing move can be made. I am not quite up on all the hyper-modern defenses or whatever they are called. The bishop became committed to move to g7 to protect those weakness made by g6. So it looked to me that developing the knights made more sense. But whatever, Dude.
why must you subject me to inane drivel? is there not some other fellow that you can inflict yourself upon? If i had wanted engine analysis i would have downloaded one and used it, statements like, 'i fail to see why the Botvinnic system is so good', or 'black already has an avenue for his bishop therefore he should develop his knight instead', bet ...[text shortened]... ls, you really dont know anything about chess and please stop trying to pretend that you do.
The Instructor
01 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsThat seems fair to me.
You are right that I do not understand any advantage the Botvinnik system gives White. I know robbie said he was concentrating on control of the d5 square. But I informed him that c6 for black at the right time would stop that. So it looks to me like it is easy for Black to get equality in that system. But I am no Botvinnik and neither is robbie.
Of c ...[text shortened]... d. I don't want to have to be as good as Botvinnik to be successful with it.
The Instructor
02 Jul 13
Originally posted by hamworldI think 8...Nc6 can be played, but from what robbie has said, the idea of this Botvinnik system in this KID fianchetto English opening is to gain control of the d5 square to place his Knight and if captured with a piece he recaptures with the bishop pawn and creates a juicy half open file for a rook to use to put pressure on blacks position. So by playing 8...Nbd7 if 9.Nd5 then 9...c6 immediately drives the knight away and if 10.Nxf6 Nxf6 and Blacks position is good. However in this game Black never played c6 anyway.
Hmm what about 8...Nc6 to prevent 9. b4? From my experience, if I'm playing KID, the habit is to play Nc6 all the time. Is that a bad idea in this position(routine habit, I guess).
The Instructor