Edinburgh FIDE Challenge

Hi Chaps

I covered the first 4 rounds. ( a few RHP bods taking part).

Five good attacking short games here - very nice Queen Sac in one game.

And this humerous way to wrap up in another game.

C.Sreeves v G.Saxton

Whie wants to play 1.Rxe6+ Qxe6 2.Nxe6



But cannot because after 2.Nxe6 Rd1 is mate. So......

http://chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandlerarticle.php?ChandID=331

Everything is quite neatly placed for forking there isnt it...

This was played in round 2 and in between rounds Clement was chatting about Opening Theory and suggested the Spanish as an opening you could play without knowing any theory at all (he normally opens 1.Nf3). The game quoted is his first ever Spanish.

Hi, I mention that on the Corner, Dave told me.

It's testament to something I've always believed in, you do not need
to know any opening theory as long you know the 'spirit' of an opening.
You can get this by playing over half a dozen instructive games in
that particular opening.

All opening openings are guided quite clearly by the principles of development.
There are sharp gambit lines that are worth knowing to save OTB time
and studying these 'tricks and traps' gives you a suitcase full of tactcial ideas.

The sad news is that Clem might now get a book on the Ruy Lopez
to learn some lines and his fresh approach will be crippled.

Here is how he finished it.

Hence my comment about forking, he he.

I have never owned a ruy lopez book either (mainly because there are so many and I am not quite sure which one would be suitable) but have been playing it for a few years now and been fairly successful - it is one of those openings where you dont always have to be fighting for the best move in every position, least black hit you back with a nasty counter blow, and teaches a player alot about manouvering of pieces to where they are needed, then there are also big tactical explosions as seen here.

It is also an opening which I feel black can play for a win once he reaches equality, and often whites ong term positional ideas do allow black quite a free hand in the middlegame.

I played the Latvian for about two years before I got my first book on it.
A wee pamphlet thing with no words just the analysis.

it scared me witless when I saw all the stuff I had been playing
had 'busts'. By then I had already beaten quite a few good players
with it who had failed to find the bust OTB.

What to do? Carry on playing the 3...Nf6 line v 3.Nxe5 knowing it's
most likely a forced loss or start with this new (to me) 3...Qf6 stuff.
I felt as though my wings had been clipped.

I too like the Lopez, you can 'off the cuff it' and I often do.

The Spanish priest Lopez only suggested it as sub variation.
He thought 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 was the best move (A Philidor 150 years
before Phildor was born). He said 2...Nc6 can be answered by 3.Bb5
so it was best to play 2...d6.

It's correct pronounciation is 'Ru-ey Lopeth'.

So there. Now we know. 😉

Originally posted by greenpawn34
I played the Latvian for about two years before I got my first book on it.
A wee pamphlet thing with no words just the analysis.

it scared me witless when I saw all the stuff I had been playing
had 'busts'. By then I had already beaten quite a few good players
with it who had failed to find the bust OTB.

What to do? Carry on playing the 3...N ...[text shortened]... 2...d6.

It's correct pronounciation is 'Ru-ey Lopeth'.

So there. Now we know. 😉

Off-topic but I think to know that Philidor never played the Philidor himself...

I'm sure you are right.

There is not a recorded game of him playing the Phildor.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
it scared me witless when I saw all the stuff I had been playing
had 'busts'. By then I had already beaten quite a few good players
with it who had failed to find the bust OTB.

Isn’t that the way of things. I remember when I was starting out I played the Centre-counter against e4 because I thought it was quite simple and not much to learn. Made the mistake of buying a book on it(Winning with the Scandinavian- Harman/Taulbut, my vote for second worst chess book of all time) and the reams of analysis put me right of it. Almost 20 years I’ve had that book and haven’t played a single game otb with it since.

Originally posted by peacedog
Isn’t that the way of things. I remember when I was starting out I played the Centre-counter against e4 because I thought it was quite simple and not much to learn. Made the mistake of buying a book on it(Winning with the Scandinavian- Harman/Taulbut, my vote for second worst chess book of all time) and the reams of analysis put me right of it. Almost 20 years I’ve had that book and haven’t played a single game otb with it since.

I have to asked.

You have told us the 2nd worse book of all time.

And the worst is......?

Originally posted by greenpawn34
I have to asked.

You have told us the 2nd worse book of all time.

And the worst is......?

HAHA. I thought you’d never ask.

For me it has to be MASTER THE GAME OF CHESS(ISBN 81-304-0565-2) by Neeta Sehgal. An Indian chess book in English(). The name sounds familiar to me so perhaps there is some classic with the same title.

This one is in a class of its own though. For example: In the chapter on “Moves in Chess”(read that as opening moves in chess), it recommends for black 1.e4 a6 2.d4 a5. It goes on to say:

“If you want to con your opponent into thinking you are an absolute beginner who hasn’t got a clue what they’re doing then try this. This opening is recommended more for a laugh than to be played seriously, don’t expect all your opponents to fall for this trick. This will give them a bit of a shock when they find out that you are actually a reasonably good player.”

Its so bad its good. I was actually going to start a threat about terrible books and give a review of this one, but I don’t think I can do it justice.

Maybe you would like to do the honours?

Hmmmm.... That title is little too close for comfort.

He's right though, it would work, your opponent would think
he was playing an absolute beginner.

1. e4 a6 2. d4 a5