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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[ECO "B14"] 1. d4 c6 2. c4 g6 {So I have nothing prepared against this system.}3. Nc3{I considered e4 as my alternative} Nf6 4. e4 d5 5. exd5{e5 would be logical but I wanted to stir the pot early} cxd5 6. Qb3{not exactly genius but simply put my intuition about my opponent told me putting him to work calculating was preferable to quieter standard play.} e6{questionable choice, with white you can get away with a move or two like this but extra pawn moves have a way of biting you in the butt as Black} 7. Nf3 dxc4{Black wants to attack the d pawn without getting safely developed. I knew at this point both the disposition of my opponent and the best way to test him.} 8. Bxc4 Nc6 9. Bg5{Black wants to capture d4 and Bg5 is a simple attempt to force concessions if he wants the pawn. Probably 0-0 is better but OTB I don't completely ignore the vibe I get from my opponent.} Be7 10. Bh6{I suspect I fell in love with my idea here, but casting a sober look at things now Black has some awkward elements but probably isn't worse here.Nonetheless you need to see the Nxd4 line clearly included not only the text to move 19 but also the declining my sacrifice and going down the exchange.} Nxd4{he takes the bait} 11. Nxd4 Qxd4 12. O-O{Rd1 was more accurate but I was comfortable after 0-0} a6 13. Rad1 Qh4 14. Bg7 Rg8 15. Nb5{it is easy to calculate and understand this if you have ever looked at Paul Morphy's games} axb5 {declining it is probably better with Rxg7 etc.} 16. Bxb5+ Nd7 17. Rxd7 {from here the different mates should be clear.} Bxd7 18. Bxd7+ Kxd7 19. Qxb7+ Ke8 20. Qc6+ Kd8 21. Rd1+ Bd6 22. Rxd6+ Ke7 23. Qd7#{I greatly enjoyed the symmetry of this as my hanging Bishop is crucial in the mating net.} 1-0
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.
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.
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,