1. Joined
    26 Jan '12
    Moves
    637
    14 Feb '12 19:152 edits
    IMHO the main problem with Black are problems to have positions you like to play. SwissGambit has given one example already - Black wants to play sharp KID lines & attack king side, but opponent exchanges Queens and sharp tactical game is not possible anymore.
  2. Joined
    15 Jun '06
    Moves
    16334
    14 Feb '12 20:583 edits
    Originally posted by nimzo5
    To further illustrate my point about not needing openings knowledge. This is my game last friday vs a 1900 where I was out of book more or less at move 4 in the mainline QGA.

    [pgn][Event "DC Chess League"] [Site "?"] [Date "2012.02.11"] [Result "1-0"] 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 e5 4. Nf3{my book knowlege is limited to having thumbed through a couple key g which was 30/90 sd1} Kf8 27. Rxh7 Kg8 28. Ra7 Rc8 29. Rhc7 Rxc7 30. Rxc7 Bf7 1-0[/pgn]
    Did you consider trying for a more decisive end via 28. g4 fxg4 {if he doesn't exchange you can play 29. gxf4 gxf4 and then freely march your h pawn to h6 when Rag7+ ...Kf8 Rh8 is mate}} 29. fxg4 with h4-h5 to come. I know that with both rooks on the seventh the key to getting a mate is to be able to support one of the rooks with another piece or pawn so that the other one can step to the eighth rank and deliver mate and I don't see how black can stop this... he/she doesn't have much counterplay.
  3. Standard membernimzo5
    Ronin
    Hereford Boathouse
    Joined
    08 Oct '09
    Moves
    29575
    14 Feb '12 21:16
    Originally posted by Pacifique
    It seems to me that your opponent did not know the opening too - 4...exd4 is the best according to theory. Black should be OK after 5.Qxd4 Qxd4 6.Nxd4 Nf6 7.Nc3 Bc5. The most popular response is gambit - 5.Bxc4 Nc6 6.0-0 and both sides need good knowledge of theory.
    I think you miss the point, my opponent as you correctly state chose a sideline with Bb4+ and then followed it up with a move from a different line. The point is I can know the "gambit" line with exd Bxc4 Nc6 0-0 Be6 and then either Bxe6 or Bb5 but it would be less useful than having the skill to figure out what to do in the "new position".
    I also contest that in the gambit line you need knowlege of theory unless you are playing someone over 2000 for precisely the reason I listed above.
  4. Joined
    26 Jan '12
    Moves
    637
    14 Feb '12 21:37
    Originally posted by nimzo5
    I think you miss the point, my opponent as you correctly state chose a sideline with Bb4+ and then followed it up with a move from a different line. The point is I can know the "gambit" line with exd Bxc4 Nc6 0-0 Be6 and then either Bxe6 or Bb5 but it would be less useful than having the skill to figure out what to do in the "new position".
    I also contest th ...[text shortened]... of theory unless you are playing someone over 2000 for precisely the reason I listed above.
    My point is that your opponent played "sideline with Bb4+" due to lack of knowledge. It`s easier to play without knowing theory if also your opponent lacks knowledge.
  5. Standard membernimzo5
    Ronin
    Hereford Boathouse
    Joined
    08 Oct '09
    Moves
    29575
    14 Feb '12 22:11
    Originally posted by Pacifique
    My point is that your opponent played "sideline with Bb4+" due to lack of knowledge. It`s easier to play without knowing theory if also your opponent lacks knowledge.
    It's far easier to play if my opponent lacks tactical/strategic strength. If they have both good opening knowledge and tactics/endgames.. they aren't sub 2000 anymore and thus not really the concern of the OP.
  6. Standard membernimzo5
    Ronin
    Hereford Boathouse
    Joined
    08 Oct '09
    Moves
    29575
    14 Feb '12 22:49
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    Did you consider trying for a more decisive end via 28. g4 fxg4 {if he doesn't exchange you can play 29. gxf4 gxf4 and then freely march your h pawn to h6 when Rag7+ ...Kf8 Rh8 is mate}} 29. fxg4 with h4-h5 to come. I know that with both rooks on the seventh the key to getting a mate is to be able to support one of the rooks with another piece or pawn so t ...[text shortened]... deliver mate and I don't see how black can stop this... he/she doesn't have much counterplay.
    tomtom - g4 looks promising although I would suspect black would play f4 and then have to sacrifice the Bishop to prevent the mating net.

    I considered at move 28 the position pretty trivial though and was more concerned about making the time control as I have been plagued with blowing positions by getting low on time and having literally seconds to bang out a couple moves.
  7. Joined
    15 Jun '06
    Moves
    16334
    14 Feb '12 22:512 edits
    Originally posted by nimzo5
    tomtom - g4 looks promising although I would suspect black would play f4 and then have to sacrifice the Bishop to prevent the mating net.

    I considered at move 28 the position pretty trivial though and was more concerned about making the time control as I have been plagued with blowing positions by getting low on time and having literally seconds to bang out a couple moves.
    Ok, thats along the lines of what I was thinking. I was just curious if there was some sort of refutation I was missing.

    Thanks for the verification 🙂
  8. Joined
    26 Jan '12
    Moves
    637
    14 Feb '12 23:422 edits
    Originally posted by nimzo5
    It's far easier to play if my opponent lacks tactical/strategic strength. If they have both good opening knowledge and tactics/endgames.. they aren't sub 2000 anymore and thus not really the concern of the OP.
    Could you show the game in which your opponent knows theory better than you, but fails in tactics or strategy? It would be much better illustration of your point about not needing knowledge in opening.
  9. Joined
    16 Feb '07
    Moves
    27653
    15 Feb '12 00:204 edits
    Originally posted by Pacifique
    Could you show the game in which your opponent knows theory better than you, but fails in tactics or strategy? It would be much better illustration of your point about not needing knowledge in opening.
    Here's an old game of mine from an OTB tournament in Chicago in the early 80s sometime, where I'm playing black against a USCF 2138. At the time, I was playing the Tartakover defense to the QGD (With 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6
    4. Bg5 Be7 5. 0-0 b6) and had no idea how to play the exchange variation. 7 Qb3 was a surprise (and I played a book move accidently). I'm quite certain I thought 8. g4 was a bad move, (even though it is in modern databases). 8... Be5 is definintely out of book, as its not in the chessde database, for example. The whole idea was to get white to play f3 and be annoying on the kingside. It worked too, sort of, and I got a nice upset against a player rated 200 points higher than me at the time.


  10. Standard membernimzo5
    Ronin
    Hereford Boathouse
    Joined
    08 Oct '09
    Moves
    29575
    15 Feb '12 01:22
    I will post 2 games one against a 1900 where they played their pet system of the slav and another by a 2288 fide player who on a 90+30 time control finished the opening with about 10 minutes of positive time.

    first the 1900 game.
  11. SubscriberPaul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    The Stacks
    Joined
    21 Aug '09
    Moves
    113496
    15 Feb '12 03:231 edit
    Originally posted by Pacifique
    Could you show the game in which your opponent knows theory better than you, but fails in tactics or strategy? It would be much better illustration of your point about not needing knowledge in opening.
    I am thinking that any book of Capablanca's best games fills the criteria here quite nicely.

    Of course, games from nimzo5 or Erekose are also nice to see (better than I am, but close enough for me to "get what they're saying" ), and we have the advantage of being able to question them and interact about the games.
  12. Joined
    26 Jan '12
    Moves
    637
    15 Feb '12 08:00
    Originally posted by Paul Leggett
    I am thinking that any book of Capablanca's best games fills the criteria here quite nicely.

    Of course, games from nimzo5 or Erekose are also nice to see (better than I am, but close enough for me to "get what they're saying" ), and we have the advantage of being able to question them and interact about the games.
    I think we discussed about level below 2000. Games from nimzo5 & Erekose are good illustration. Thanks.
  13. Joined
    08 Apr '09
    Moves
    19493
    15 Feb '12 09:37
    Nimzo, that's an inspiring sacrifice of the rook. Mate only 6 moves later. Chapeau.
  14. Joined
    28 Dec '11
    Moves
    16268
    15 Feb '12 12:19
    The first-move advantage in chess is the inherent advantage of the player (called White) who makes the first move in chess. Chess players and theorists generally agree that White begins the game with some advantage. Statistics compiled since 1851 support this view,


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess
  15. Standard memberkingshill
    Mr Ring Rusty
    Wales
    Joined
    02 Jun '11
    Moves
    28718
    15 Feb '12 12:40
    The score should be White 54% - 46% Black between 2 equal opponents.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree