Can someone analyze this game?

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
I was a little caught off guard about the comment about Nxd4 violating opening principles by moving a piece twice in the opening.

I suppose it is literally true, but I don't think the opening principle applies in the case of recaptures-otherwise we would have to categorically state that the Open Sicilian violates opening principles.

Larsen remarke ...[text shortened]... ally suspect because white trades a center pawn for a wing pawn, but that's as far as he went.

Actually he went on to move the knight three times before developing
another piece. The general rule is move one or two pawns in the opening
to obtain a fair share of the center and to allow good posts for the minor
pieces to develope. Develope the knight before the bishop unless there
is good reasons to do otherwise. Develope with an attacking move when
possible. Try not to move a piece twice in the opening until all pieces
have moved once.

When I played him, he had posted on his profile page that he had taught
chess for 16 years, so I would like to know what makes that a good
opening, if one has to move one knight three times before developing
another piece.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Actually he went on to move the knight three times before developing
another piece. The general rule is move one or two pawns in the opening
to obtain a fair share of the center and to allow good posts for the minor
pieces to develope. Develope the knight before the bishop unless there
is good reasons to do otherwise. Develope with an attacking move w ...[text shortened]... hat a good
opening, if one has to move one knight three times before developing
another piece.

That opening is of preference to him obviously. Those aren't necessarily "principles of law" rather abstract guidelines to be lead by. Regulating yourself by such a system will hinder you - at some point they should be violated.

I find it interesting though, by the time I reached 16-1800 playing strength I was beginning to realize how many of chess's "rules" were made to be broken (thats just about all of them)... You must have a very keen talent and eye to have reached 2200 without having ever had the need to bend and break these guidelines.

Q

Originally posted by PhySiQ
That opening is of preference to him obviously. Those aren't necessarily "principles of law" rather abstract guidelines to be lead by. Regulating yourself by such a system will hinder you - at some point they should be violated.

I find it interesting though, by the time I reached 16-1800 playing strength I was beginning to realize how many of chess's "ru ave reached 2200 without having ever had the need to bend and break these guidelines.

Q

Game 8821766

Randomly chosen. Note how many time the knights leap by move elevem. All logical btw.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Actually he went on to move the knight three times before developing
another piece. The general rule is move one or two pawns in the opening
to obtain a fair share of the center and to allow good posts for the minor
pieces to develope. Develope the knight before the bishop unless there
is good reasons to do otherwise. Develope with an attacking move w ...[text shortened]... hat a good
opening, if one has to move one knight three times before developing
another piece.

5.Nxc6 has been played nearly 11000 times according to the www.chesslive.de database & the game stays in book until 19.g3.
It's obviously well-established opening theory, so your comments make no sense whatsoever.

Originally posted by Zygalski
5.Nxc6 has been played nearly 11000 times according to the www.chesslive.de database & the game stays in book until 19.g3.
It's obviously well-established opening theory, so your comments make no sense whatsoever.

Alekhine's defense also comes to mind...
🙄


Q

Originally posted by RJHinds
Actually he went on to move the knight three times before developing
another piece. The general rule is move one or two pawns in the opening
to obtain a fair share of the center and to allow good posts for the minor
pieces to develope. Develope the knight before the bishop unless there
is good reasons to do otherwise. Develope with an attacking move w ...[text shortened]... hat a good
opening, if one has to move one knight three times before developing
another piece.

How does a man rated 2250 come out with such schoolboy questions?

Originally posted by RJHinds
In my opinion 3.d4 is played for quick opening development.
I think Black should take the d4 pawn and white should continue his
development of his pieces by playing 4.Bc4 (Scotch Gambit). White
however, plays 4. Nxd4 in order to maintain a material balance, but
it seems to violate opening principle by moving the knight twice. The
result of White's last wn34 so
I will let greenpawn34 continue and only post if I see anything he does
not cover.

Trenchant analysis. Only a real patzer would violate basic opening principles by playing 5 Nxc6 moving a Knight three times! http://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer?pid=15940&side=white&node=1805597&move=5&moves=e4.e5.Nf3.Nc6.d4.exd4.Nxd4.Nf6&nodes=21720.21721.21722.21723.62545.62546.1805596.1805597

EDIT: It is true that this particular player always played 6 e5 (the Mieses Variation) rather than allowing the game to transpose into the Scotch Four Knights with 6 Nc3 as White did here. Of course I'm sure RJHinds will remind us that 6 e5 moves a pawn for a second time while 6 Nc3 develops a piece (and a Knight before a Bishop naturally) so the latter move is certainly more in keeping with the opening principles he is generously reminding us of. So this player in the link obviously doesn't know what he is doing.

Touché, No.1 🙂

Originally posted by PhySiQ
That opening is of preference to him obviously. Those aren't necessarily "principles of law" rather abstract guidelines to be lead by. Regulating yourself by such a system will hinder you - at some point they should be violated.

I find it interesting though, by the time I reached 16-1800 playing strength I was beginning to realize how many of chess's "ru ...[text shortened]... ave reached 2200 without having ever had the need to bend and break these guidelines.

Q

Violations of principles and rules of chess should be punished.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
How does a man rated 2250 come out with such schoolboy questions?

It's a BIG FAT MYSTERY.

Originally posted by Phlabibit
It's a BIG FAT MYSTERY.

If there was a game mod team in place to look at the FPT i raised, the mystery would be gone.

Originally posted by Phlabibit
It's a BIG FAT MYSTERY.

I am trying to learn to play better chess. So I wish to understand why
this violation of basic chess principle is an exception, or if it is not, why
it should not be punished like any other violation of God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am trying to learn to play better chess. So I wish to understand why
this violation of basic chess principle is an exception, or if it is not, why
it should not be punished like any other violation of God.

Are you real?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am trying to learn to play better chess. So I wish to understand why
this violation of basic chess principle is an exception, or if it is not, why
it should not be punished like any other violation of God.

I was going to give this a proper answer, but on a hunch I went to the Spirituality forum first to see if you'd been active. Have you?! Wow.

Do you really need explaining from someone lowly like me that rules in chess openings are just guidelines, or does your 2200+ rating come from purely divine intervention?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
If there was a game mod team in place to look at the FPT i raised, the mystery would be gone.

You and I are in the same boat.