Originally posted by paultopiaInstead of the terrible Na4, why not just castle queenside?
Thanks everyone. I need to learn how to calaculate this positional stuff. I never sae Ba6 until he played it, didn't seem like a threat.
I don't get what you say here... 'Castle queenside straight into an open B file?' Your king would be on the c file after castling.
I don't think I would have played 5. d4 either, for one because it gives him a chance to remove a doubled pawn, and 2, you leave yourself open for the Ba6. I probably would have done Nc3 or d3. I don't think I'd have castled there, maybe wait a move or two for some more development.
D
I'm going through the blunder plateau right now, and it's hard for me to get out of it once it starts. Look at my recent post, argh, what an ugly move that was, very noobish. My chess playing always comes in streaks, when I win, I win often, however, when I start to lose, I lose often. Right now I'm playing two games I positionally outplayed my opponents until then, and I made tactical miscalculations, or acted just plain stupid for ONE move. I'm worried more throw aways may come, my rating may dip down to the 1400's by the time I'm done this week. I've said such before, I can come back from games I blunder to even win, but seriously, in these two games I'm running out of options.
The hardest thing ever on earth is not screwing up a won position, I really hate players who play crappy throughout the game and set up little traps, they always seem to be the hardest to beat, it's like they win off phycology instead of strategy. It's in human nature to underestimate a player, many times without realizing it, if you outplay them throughout a long game. I have no respect for such players, I think chess should strictly be a strategic game, but what they are doing is within the rules, and they are simply doing what it takes to win, so I cannot complain really, but man, it's depressing...
Originally posted by mateuloseBoo hoo hoo 🙁
I'm going through the blunder plateau right now, and it's hard for me to get out of it once it starts. Look at my recent post, argh, what an ugly move that was, very noobish. My chess playing always comes in streaks, when I win, I win often, however, when I start to lose, I lose often. Right now I'm playing two games I positionally outplayed my opponent ...[text shortened]... are simply doing what it takes to win, so I cannot complain really, but man, it's depressing...
Originally posted by mateuloseIf I studied chess 3-4 hours a day and still sucked and was upset about it, I'd give it up and do something more useful with my life - like collecting stamps.
Cut the sarcasm, if you studied chess 3-4 hours everyday and still sucked, you would be upset too, or are you just gonna reply to this post with "boo hoo hoo"? (Predictable, in fact I'm betting you will).
Oh, and boo hoo hoo 🙁
Originally posted by lucifershammerFirst of all, I don't have money to collect stamps, and second of all, why should I quit something I work hard at?
If I studied chess 3-4 hours a day and still sucked [b]and was upset about it, I'd give it up and do something more useful with my life - like collecting stamps.
Oh, and boo hoo hoo 🙁[/b]
Originally posted by lucifershammerBecause I suck at everything, sorry, but god didn't make us all normal and with the ability to have a great life, he made me mentally retarded, so shut your yap, you arrogant neo conservative. . .
The pertinent question would be - why should you work hard at something you "suck"(sic) at?
Originally posted by mateulose
Because I suck at everything, sorry, but god didn't make us all normal and with the ability to have a great life, he made me mentally retarded
Hey! I'm not disagreeing with you there ...
, so shut your yap, you arrogant neo conservative. . .
That's one I haven't heard before ... LOL
I don't play 3. Bb5, and I am uncomfortable with it.
4. Bxb5 let him strengthen his center and gave him a white square advantage. Neither of these moves was game ending or anything, but they feel weak to me.
5. d4 could have been played on the third move. Now he's got an extra c pawn, so he can take d4 and still have four center and center flank pawns.
5...Ba6 exploits your lack of White B, and the tempo you gave him by taking his N. He was able to move the P out of the way of his B so it could develop faster. Now you can't castle and he has the initiative. He also has an open file.
10 Na4 tends to be a weak kind of response to this kind of threat. Normally I'd just finish developing and gambit the P, but you can't really castle because of his white square B and the open (for Black) b file. In this case b3 is another choice, but when he took your other B you gained a black square weakness, so this kind of P formation with weak black squares can be dangerous. Rb1 might have been good, or just go with b3.
10...Qb4+ Woops. I didn't see that. Yeah, the Na4 move wasn't too hot. Otherwise you could have taken his c5 P in exchange for your b2 P, though that would have given you doubled isolated Ps.
I need to go. I'll finish this later.
Originally posted by PrashantAs the opponent in this game I guess I should post here. First to Prashant. Yes I did expect 3. d4 in the game. However this wouldn't have led to the main line. I play a pet system here (3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Qb6?!).
Taking the sicilian on with the main line 3. d4 especially after 2...e6 was a better try.
I don't know exactly where Paul went wrong. I was surprised by Qxa7 and I think this hastened the end. However there were problems before that.
I guess I'd have to look at it closer or stick it in Fritz to find out exactly what moves were inaccuracies.
I am back.
I prefer 12. Rd1 to Kd2. I'd have played for a Kingside castle with Ne2 blocking the Bishop.
Re: 16 Qd4 - did you want him to advance his c Pawn? I don't know if it's better for you to have it on c3 or c4.
17...d5. He's attacking in the center before he castles. That's something I'd consider trying to take advantage of. 18 exd5 Rxd5 looks pretty bad, though you may be able to sneak out of it. How about 18 Nc6? You're forking his dangerous Rook and that horrible Bishop.
Paul, your game is in no way over at this point. It's not even close.
Ragnorak, your icon is way cool.
This is a good game that illustrates perhabs why moves like Bg5 as white were not even considered in past games vs the Sicilian. Nowadays it's accepted as sound, but there was a time ppl would never play the "Rossolimo", as they call it, and I'm sure it was considered in the past. I think players are having trouble against the Rosso now, because nobody really knows how to respond to it.
There has to be a reason why Morphy, perhabs the pioneer of chess opening theory, rejected any ideas behind Bg5 and opted for nothing but his open Sicilian lines. Fisher did much of the same. Black, by essentially ignoring the "menacing" bishop, allowing the exchange, and then with some nifty safe early queen development, illustrated tactical abilities for black that may make the Rosso unsound. These tactics are not regular opening theory, so perhabs they considered in the past, the Rosso to be unsound, not because of position, but because of tactics that can be used against it with irregular looking moves, the kinda tactics prevalent in the era of Sicilian infacy.
Although this game isn't beteewn the two best players on Earth, and has it's big time mistakes, it deserves some study. I've always pondered how to respond to the Rossolimo considering the fact it was rejected as unsound for hundreds of years and now suddenly it's a great opening and reccomended for young players wanting to throw out the books of Sicilians.
Thanks for this game Paul, helpful, after seeing it I really wonder if the Rosso is such a good opening for a chess novice who hates Sicilians.