Can someone analyze this game?

This kind of nonsense is set to become a regular fixture in the chess only forum, I should imagine.
Cheers Russ!

Originally posted by Zygalski
This kind of nonsense is set to become a regular fixture in the chess only forum, I should imagine.
Cheers Russ!

But still entertaining in some way.

Originally posted by morgski
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?

Well, no1narauder is the only one that makes since to me. However,
someone like Kasparov may be able to gain an advantage even with
an inferior opening.

Why don't we settle this. I challenge thee, silicon ron, to a two minute blitz game.

So, what is the plan of the future?

Originally posted by RJHinds
[bKings and Pawns has already said this ending is a draw and he is
rated over 2400 on this site so I am sure he knows better than the rest
of us because he even taught chess for 16 years, I think is what he has
written on his profile page.[/b]

To be fair SR, his profile was always dodgy. Perhaps you forget the "old man in the hat" debacle? Get real.. (in more than one way 😉 )

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, no1narauder is the only one that makes since to me. However,
someone like Kasparov may be able to gain an advantage even with
an inferior opening.

You don't really deserve this, but just in case some other inexperienced players are following this conversation:

The Scotch is hardly an "inferior" opening. I play it all the time both OTB and here with excellent results. A major advantage OTB is psychological; when Black plays 2 ....... Nc6 he's usually expecting the Lopez with tons of theory that I'm too lazy to memorize or has some kind of pet counterattacking line against the Piano. The Scotch has been around for a while and is well-respected and sound.

As far as opening theory which you plainly know only the basics of, 3 d4 pretty much forces Black to cede the center with 3 ...... exd4 removing his pawn bulwark on e5. White can play the Scotch Gambit as you suggest, but there is no theoretical advantage in any of its major lines. Simply, 4 Nxd4 is better and actually a bit more forcing.

Black has various 4th move choices with the most popular being Bc5 or Nf6. There are various nuances to the first; Kasparov usually (always?) responded to it with 5 Nxc6 though 5 Be3 is also certainly popular and threatens to win a piece if Black is a noob: Nxc6 attacking the Queen followed by Bxc5. There's various lines stemming from there; they can get quite tactical or remain rather staid depending on the choice of the players.

Back to 4 Nf6; why does White play 5 Nxc6 moving his Knight a third time? For two very good reasons which John Emms calls "massive positives" in his book on the Scotch:

1) White gets rid of the perennial problem of having to protect the Knight in the centre;

2) Black's queenside pawn structure will become compromised.


The second factor pervades Scotch theory; White has inflicted on Black an inferior pawn structure at little cost. Again Emms: "Nearly all king and pawn endings are winning due to White's ability to create a passed pawn from his kingside pawn majority and Black's inability to do the same from the other side."

Of course, there's a lot of play before White gets to post that 1-0. But that's the basic rationale behind the Nxc6 in the Scotch. As a side note, I've won a whole lot of games doubling up Rooks on the open or half-open d-file and penetrating Black's position from there. If Black plays for exchanges, he faces an inferior endgame for the reasons given.

IF YOU ARE NEW TO THE SITE AND READING THIS THREAD, PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING:

1) There are 1000's of players on the site, and only a small percentage actually post in the forum.

2) There are a large number of quality players on the site, but they are not necessarily the same ones who post on the forum.

3) Chess ratings are a funny thing, and they are especially funny here, so do not place too much confidence in them when assessing the playing strength or knowledge of any single player.

4) Don't believe everything you read.

There is value to reading a diverse set of perspectives and opinions, but in a site where individuals can play and post on forums for free, you will find cogent analysis and insightful commentary mixed in with some pretty stupid stuff.

If you choose to read, the best you can do is read it all and do your best to separate the wheat and the chaff. Good luck!

To my friends on the forum: If I had known my post on this thread would let out the genie that escaped from this particular bottle, I would have refrained. I love playing and posting here, and I would not want visitors to make unfair judgments based on what they see in this thread. Thanks to everyone who helped to try to clean up the mess!

Originally posted by no1marauder
You don't really deserve this, but just in case some other inexperienced players are following this conversation:

The Scotch is hardly an "inferior" opening. I play it all the time both OTB and here with excellent results. A major advantage OTB is psychological; when Black plays 2 ....... Nc6 he's usually expecting the Lopez with tons of th ...[text shortened]... Black plays for exchanges, he faces an inferior endgame for the reasons given.

Thanks for posting this- I think our motivations are very much alike here, and you perform a good deed for the chess community.

Originally posted by gambit05
Are you real?

nope. 😵



hilarious thread.

Originally posted by wormwood
nope. 😵



hilarious thread.

Agreed.
I'm not sure what PL is trying to sweep under the rug... I didn't do any box analysis or matchup crap...

But the force is just too strong with this one Obie Wan.


Q

Assimilation is inevitable. Resistance is futile.

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.

Study the opening in question with a stronger player. Chess is a game of "give and take" as well as "balance".
If you really want to know what was going on in the game (and why) ask the two players to annotate their game on this forum. BTW - I'm not sure White really violated any basic chess principles. Also, the line was "book" - one of many alternative moves in that opening. Choosing one particular path in an opening depends on many things - ie. who your opponent is, what type of positon you prefer...also what mood you are in at the time.
BTW - the "rules" of chess are made by humans.

Originally posted by kbear1k
Study the opening in question with a stronger player. Chess is a game of "give and take" as well as "balance".
If you really want to know what was going on in the game (and why) ask the two players to annotate their game on this forum. BTW - I'm not sure White really violated any basic chess principles. Also, the line was "book" - one of many alternative m ...[text shortened]... .also what mood you are in at the time.
BTW - the "rules" of chess are made by humans.

Study the opening in question with a stronger player.

There's only 33 people on this website with a higher rating than him?! 😕

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Study the opening in question with a stronger player.

There's only 33 people on this website with a higher rating than him?! 😕[/b]

I know but data bases (loose term) don't come with explainations :>😉 My daughter is nine and has started started taking art classes. Up till now she has been learning by copying what she observes. We told her that if she wants to progress further she needs to learn the "mechanics" behind the art. The same can be said for lots of chess players. I know I am "speaking to the choir" to many on these boards.