help me with a schliemann game?

Just went over this game of mine.Some things I couldn't figure out.Could check fritz but prefer human input.Anyone have some comments/ideas.Would be appreciated 🙂

Game 5171922

[Event "Open invite"]
[Site "http://www.timeforchess.com"]
[Date "2008.07.02"]
[EndDate "2008.07.14"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Nazgul12"]
[Black "Katastroof"]
[WhiteRating "1525"]
[BlackRating "1536"]
[WhiteELO "1525"]
[BlackELO "1536"]
[Result "1-0"]
[GameId "5171922"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 f5 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. Nxe5 {Taking me out of book.It's
probably a common move but it's not covered in my book and I don't use DB's.
} Qd4 {Ok,this allows the intresting 6.Qh5+,as played in the game,with a
knightsac.Still,i'm convinced it's the best move for Black.In fact,it's the
only decent move I can think of.} 6. Qh5+ g6 7. Nxg6 hxg6 8. Qxg6+ Kd8 9. d3 {
Up untill now all my moves were more or less forced.Now I took some time to
assess my position and plan a course of action.I got a knight for 3 pawns,
that's ok,but my king's a bit out in the open.On the other hand,white can't
really get to it yet cause he lacks development,the queen is his only piece in
play.So I decide to develop as quickly as possible and mount an attack on his
king.} Ne7 10. Qg3 {10.Bg5,Qxb2 11.Qf6,Qxf6 12.Bxf6,Rg8 looks fine for black.}
fxe4 {Maybe Rg8 was better allthough I don't really see how.I played fxe4 to
get my knight to f5,kicking the queen and getting the knight closer to the
enemy king.In retrospect,it doesn't seem such a grand idea.On the other hand,
there doesn't seem to be much else.Ideas anyone?} 11. Nc3 Nf5 12. Bg5+ Be7 {
This,I think,is a mistake.My bishop could've proven very useful,on b4 perhaps,
or on d6.Instead Ke8,only other option because I'm not gonna sac my queen and
I'd rather resign than play Kd7,was called for.} 13. Bxe7+ Kxe7 14. Qxc7+ Bd7
15. Nxe4 Qxb2 16. O-O Rac8 17. Qa5 b6 {Designed to get the white queen out of
the action in case she captures a7.Surely that would aid my attack,right?Now I
think the straigthforward Rcg8 is better.} 18. Qxa7 Qe5 19. g3 Nd4 20. f4 Ne2+
{This gave me a headache.still does actually LOL!I considered Ne2,Nf3 and Qh5.
20...,Qh5 got ruled out quickly,it fails to 21.Qxd7+,Kxd7 22.Nf6+ forking K
and Q.But I still can't decide between Ne2+ and Nf3+.No matter how I shuffle
the pieces I always end up worse.Maybe my position is simply worse?In the game
I opted for Ne2 for the sole reason it was the first move to enter my head.
Your first idea is usually best,you know?Any ideas would be welcome here.} 21.
Kg2 Qh5 {Guess what I forgot all about.....yup,the knightfork.HA!} 22. h4 {
He doesn't see it.Or he decided it wasn't good enough.} Rcg8 {Bringing up the
last reserves.I now deliberate ignore the knightfork tactic.he didn't see it/
play it earlier,let's just gamble he won't do it now either.Not the best way
to play chess,I know,I know.} 23. Rae1 Nxg3 {Seeing my attacking aspirations
demolished I tried this sac.Thought I could wriggle my way into a draw.How
wrong I was...} 24. Nxg3+ Kd6 25. Re4 Qg4 26. Rd4+ Kc5 {Walking into a mate in
6.Maybe Ke7 would've saved,but still don't like my position after that.} 27.
Qa3+ Kxd4 28. Qd6+ Kc3 29. Qe5+ Kb4 30. Rb1+ Ka3 31. Qb2+ Ka4 32. Qb4#

Edits: Couldn't get it to show up on a board.Says "invalid pgn inserted" 🙁

Originally posted by Katastroof
Just went over this game of mine.Some things I couldn't figure out.Could check fritz but prefer human input.Anyone have some comments/ideas.Would be appreciated 🙂

Game 5171922

[Event "Open invite"]
[Site "http://www.timeforchess.com"]
[Date "2008.07.02"]
[EndDate "2008.07.14"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Nazgul12"]
[Black "Katastroof"]
[White on a board.Says "invalid pgn inserted" 🙁

4.Bxc6?! is obviously harmless. The most popular response is 4.Nc3, the most problems for Black White can create with 4.d3!.

5.Nxe5?! Another second-class move. White should have think about development with 5.Nc3.

6.Qh5+? After this careless move black will exchange a piece for 3 pawns but being behind in development they should lose. There still wasn`t too late to continue development with 6.Nf3 and after 6...Qxe4+ 7.Qe2 Nf6 white is only slightly worse.

12....Be7? weakening defense of black king which changes evaluation in White`s favour. Better was simple 12...Ke8 and White lacks constructive ideas - after 13.Qf4 (g4) exd3 queens will be exchanged and white will have only 2 pawns for piece + unpleasant position. After 13.Qxc7? Bd6 14.Qa5 (14.Qd8+ Kf7 15.Qa5 changes nothing) Bb4 white can resign as they cant save queen avoiding Bxc3+ with quick defeat.

15.Nxe4?! Personally I would prefer 15.0-0-0! when uncovered black king should feel uncomfortable. Endgame after 15...Qd6 16.Qxd6 Kxd6 17.fxe4 also should not be good for black.

15....Qxb2? Greed is one of the mortal sins my son! You should be more generous and play 15...Rac8 and if 16.Qxb7 then 16...Nd6 and if white will take on d6 (better is equal endgame after 17.Qb3 Nxe4 18.dxe4 Qxe4+ 19.Qe3 Qxe3) then king on d6 will appear to be very comfortable but White will have problems to decide where to place their king.

17.Qa5?! Wrong way. Queen is more useful more closer to center and to Black king after 17.Qf4 and black would have in trouble.

21....Qh5?! too straightforward way to attack - much smarter was 21...Qf5 when white can defend h3 only with 22.Ng5 with unclear position which I would like to play for black.

22.h4! The best option which gives advantage. After "knightfork" with 22.Rae1? black will got 2 pawns - 22...Qxh2+ 23.Kf3 Nd4+ 24.Ke3 Nxc2+

22....Rcg8? Fatal mistake. The less of evils was 22...Qg4 with a little bit worse but defendable endgame after 23.f5 Rxh4 24.Qxd7! Kxd7 25.Nf6+ Kd6 26.Nxg4 Rxg4 27.Kf3 Rxg3+ 28.Kxe2 Rf2+

26....Kc5 leads to mate, but also after 27.Re1+ Kf8 28.Re3 black can resign.

Thanks for the analyses,Korch.Much appreciated 🙂 I knew 15...,Qxb2 wasn't great,just couldn't find anything better.I did consider 15...,Rac8,obviously as I played it 1 move later,but never saw your idea so didn't see much point to it.21....,Qf5 never even entered my mind.Very nice move!

Schakur,how did you make it work?I see you removed my annotations.I guess this system doesn't allow annotations?

Hi Korch.

I always play 4.d4 against this (poor man's Latvian) and sac a piece.

You mentioned the sad 4.Bxc6 and 4.Nc3 and 4.d3 but no 4.d4!

I was inspired by a 1981 game and have played it since 1982
with a fair amount of success over the years. Last time 2007.

I don't know any of the theory. I know it up until the piece sac.
And I know the following game. I pick it up OTB from there.

It's one of these openings that throws up a position I enjoy playing
so I play it. Most likely frowned upon by theory but last year the
bloke I played it against said he had never seen it before.

(book players - What do you do with them?)

I used the following game as a guiding light and have had some
cracking games with it.

I really am not interested if there is a book ref. for the piece sac.

I'll still play it. When my opponent has played his book refutation.
I'll still win cos I am a better chess player than him and I know
this position and game very well.

(Confidence and 100% faith in my abilty, that's me)

Actually when I come to think of it all my openings are based around
about 25-30 games that I know very well and I have found stimulating.
If it heads for a position I enjoy playing, then that will do for me.

You will like this game - what a finish. Enjoy.

Lovely finish. Easy to see the win in the final position (threat is 22. Rxc8+ Rxc8 23. Bd8), but he must have worked it out from move 19. I'll show this one to the kids I coach as we looking at the blocking the defence to the queening square idea a few weeks ago.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Korch.

I always play 4.d4 against this (poor man's Latvian) and sac a piece.

You mentioned the sad 4.Bxc6 and 4.Nc3 and 4.d3 but no 4.d4!

I was inspired by a 1981 game and have played it since 1982
with a fair amount of success over the years. Last time 2007.

I don't know any of the theory. I know it up until the piece sac.
And I know th Qg4+ Kb8 17.dxe7 Rc8 18.Rd8 Qc6 19.Bf4+ Ka8 20.Qxc8+ Qxc8 21.Bc7[/pgn]

Yes I know about that crazy 4.d4 line (shame on me that I have forgotten to mention) and according to books its evaluated as unclear.

Nigel Davies in his book Gambiteer II describes those who think that 4.d3 against the Schliemann causes black any serious problems as indulging in "wishful thinking". I have to say I agree with him. Objectively I feel that only 4.Nc3 can cause black any real difficulties. However, I have to admit that 4.d4 can be dangerous in practice, because there are a lot of sharp theoretical lines to remember and one slip can be fatal. In view of the relative infrequency of 4.d4 I prefer to avoid the piece sac lines. I've even tried 4...Nxd4!? a couple of times with reasonable results.

Originally posted by Northern Lad
Nigel Davies in his book Gambiteer II describes those who think that 4.d3 against the Schliemann causes black any serious problems as indulging in "wishful thinking". I have to say I agree with him. Objectively I feel that only 4.Nc3 can cause black any real difficulties. However, I have to admit that 4.d4 can be dangerous in practice, because there are ...[text shortened]... id the piece sac lines. I've even tried 4...Nxd4!? a couple of times with reasonable results.

Nigel Davies in his book Gambiteer II describes those who think that 4.d3 against the Schliemann causes black any serious problems as indulging in "wishful thinking".

If 4.d3 is so harmless, dont you know why this move is chosen by top GMs?

Originally posted by Korch
[b]Nigel Davies in his book Gambiteer II describes those who think that 4.d3 against the Schliemann causes black any serious problems as indulging in "wishful thinking".

Only don`t you know why top GMs choose 4.d3 if it`s so harmless?[/b]

4.Nc3 is more frequent than 4.d3 at GM level. However, you can argue that 4.d3 is easier to play, because there are fewer long tactical lines to remember. So it suits those who prefer a quieter and more positional game.
You can compare it to the Marshall where various anti-Marshall systems are popular, not because they are objectively better (they certainly aren't), but because they avoid the extremely long, complicated, tactical lines of the Marshall Attack.
I've been playing the Schliemann now for many years. Believe me 4.d3 is not dangerous for black. I have though had problems at times finding an adequate response to 4.Nc3, though at the moment I think black's OK.

Originally posted by Korch
...and according to books its evaluated as unclear.[/b]

Unclear - Good.
If it's unclear for me, then it's unclear for him.
We shall play chess.

Originally posted by Northern Lad
4.Nc3 is more frequent than 4.d3 at GM level. However, you can argue that 4.d3 is easier to play, because there are fewer long tactical lines to remember. So it suits those who prefer a quieter and more positional game.
You can compare it to the Marshall where various anti-Marshall systems are popular, not because they are objectively better (they cer ...[text shortened]... lems at times finding an adequate response to 4.Nc3, though at the moment I think black's OK.

Anand, Carlsen and Leko have preferred 4.d3 which witnesses about quality of this move. You should know that if top GM in top tournaments plays some opening line with white, it usually means that he considers this line to give at least slight advantage.
Also Radjabov (strongest GM using this system) have been beaten in 4.d3 line by weaker GM - Macieja. So I have reason to doubt about harmlessness of 4.d3.

I doubt if Marshall Attack could be considered "objectively better" for white. At least in GMs practice I dont see confirmation of this statement. "More theory" or "More complicated" and "objectively better" may not be the same.

I have real doubts also about 4.Nc3 as "objectively better" in Schliemann, as it seems also to me that black is really OK there. And even if after 4.d3 black is also OK, then there arises question "what`s difference?"

Also I dont think that it`s always worth to follow these "objectively better" lines, if you will not reach positions which you like to play.

Originally posted by Korch
Anand, Carlsen and Leko have preferred 4.d3 which witnesses about quality of this move. You should know that if top GM in top tournaments plays some opening line with white, it usually means that he considers this line to give at least slight advantage.
Also Radjabov (strongest GM using this system) have been beaten in 4.d3 line by weaker GM - Macieja. So I h ...[text shortened]... objectively better" lines, if you will not reach positions which you like to play.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the relative merits of 4.d3 and 4.Nc3. I think over the years there is no doubt that stronger players have generally preferred 4.Nc3. I don't know if the Schliemann is part of your repertoire. It has been part of mine for many years. I have done a considerable amount of analysis on it and have played many tournament games (including against GMs and IMs) with this opening, so all I can comment on is my experience. I could also point out that Nigel Davies (Gambiteer II) and Glenn Flear in one of his books on the Spanish have both shown that 4.d3 Nf6 5.0-0 Bc5 is perfectly playable for black.
You seem to have misunderstood my point on the Marshall (also part of my repertoire for many years). I was comparing the Marshall with anti-Marshall lines from a comparative white perspective, the point being that white doesn't really achieve much objectively speaking by avoiding the Marshall. (I've rarely had much trouble as black when facing anti-Marshall systems.) As for a definitive assessment of the Marshall itself, I certainly wouldn't consider myself competent to deliver one. I rather suspect that if white plays ultra accurately, he may obtain a slight advantage, though frequently this isn't enough for serious winning chances. However, if white isn't very careful, catastrophe may befall him, which is why the Marshall remains so popular at the highest levels.

Originally posted by Northern Lad
We'll just have to agree to disagree on the relative merits of 4.d3 and 4.Nc3. I think over the years there is no doubt that stronger players have generally preferred 4.Nc3. I don't know if the Schliemann is part of your repertoire. It has been part of mine for many years. I have done a considerable amount of analysis on it and have played many tourname rophe may befall him, which is why the Marshall remains so popular at the highest levels.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the relative merits of 4.d3 and 4.Nc3. I think over the years there is no doubt that stronger players have generally preferred 4.Nc3.

You ignore the fact that the strongest players have preferred 4.d3.

I don't know if the Schliemann is part of your repertoire. It has been part of mine for many years. I have done a considerable amount of analysis on it and have played many tournament games (including against GMs and IMs) with this opening, so all I can comment on is my experience.

Do you have many experience playing against 4.d3 in hands of strong opposition, if you have stated (probably also by your own experience) that stronger players have generally preferred 4.Nc3 ?

I could also point out that Nigel Davies (Gambiteer II) and Glenn Flear in one of his books on the Spanish have both shown that 4.d3 Nf6 5.0-0 Bc5 is perfectly playable for black.

At least some top GMs would disagree with them. Also you have been criticized Nigel Davis (and other gambit book authors) in this forum before so you will agree thet this is not unarguable authority.

You seem to have misunderstood my point on the Marshall (also part of my repertoire for many years). I was comparing the Marshall with anti-Marshall lines from a comparative white perspective, the point being that white doesn't really achieve much objectively speaking by avoiding the Marshall. (I've rarely had much trouble as black when facing anti-Marshall systems.) As for a definitive assessment of the Marshall itself, I certainly wouldn't consider myself competent to deliver one. I rather suspect that if white plays ultra accurately, he may obtain a slight advantage, though frequently this isn't enough for serious winning chances. However, if white isn't very careful, catastrophe may befall him, which is why the Marshall remains so popular at the highest levels.

I would suggest you to compare opening results achieved in Marshall and anti-Marshall in topGMs practice last years. As Tal have pointed out - practice is the safest criterion of opening quality.

Originally posted by Korch
[b]We'll just have to agree to disagree on the relative merits of 4.d3 and 4.Nc3. I think over the years there is no doubt that stronger players have generally preferred 4.Nc3.

You ignore the fact that the strongest players have preferred 4.d3.

I don't know if the Schliemann is part of your repertoire. It has been part of mine for many years. I ha st years. As Tal have pointed out - practice is the safest criterion of opening quality.

[/b]First point: simply wrong. Over a period of time you will find that GMs have played 4.Nc3 more often than 4.d3. And as I said before, the main attraction of 4.d3 is to avoid the tactical complications of 4.Nc3.

Second point: yes I have. For example only last year one of England's leading GMs played 4.d3 against me, and I obtained an excellent position as black with more than enough compensation for the pawn (as admitted by the GM himself). I only lost in a wild mutual time scamble.

Third point: their analysis looks pretty sound to me. I'd certainly be prepared to play it. I also think there are other playable lines against 4.d3.

There doesn't seem much point continuing this debate, since you are clearly not going to accept the points I am making. I'm more than happy to continue playing the Schliemann the way I like to.