How do I refute this?

Not to speak about this game specifically, but some styles (and openings) lend themselves well to aggressive pawn play. The Pirc and Modern come to mind, although black develops rapidly in the Pirc, and often in the Modern too so they're maybe not such good examples.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that if your opp counters your rapid development with aggressive pawn play/expansion then you can't be let yourself be guided by classical opening principles alone or you'll be over run. So a few general ideas to keep in mind in situations like these:

1. Hit back with your own pawns to either try to break his up and/or open lines. A development lead does no good when he has more space and can cramp your game and/or close things up.

2. Don't let him close the center. When he's expanding on the wing(s) aggressively like that then he's doing it because he believes his K safe in the center and may even leave it there, or else postpone castling for quite a while. Look for pawn advances that will force the opening of the e or d file, or even the c or f file. If he has no development while your rooks are connected, or soon to be, then you have to take advantage of that by giving them a central file to put pressure down.

3. Be prepared to sac. With no development and so many holes and weak squares in his position a destructive sacrifice can create mayhem. Even if you can't see a way to win back the material immediately (thus making it a true sacrifice) at least look for th one that gives you a strong initiative with as much activity for your pieces as possible and that, ideally, exposes his K. Aside from whatever chances on the board it gives you, it can also be good psychologically. If its a positional sac he's likely not expecting it and being caught by surprise and having his plans upset may lead to panic or inaccurate play; while turning the tables and forcing him to try and close up and play defensively while you work the initiative can also wear him down. Plus he doesn't know the sac is speculative/positional and if thinks you've found something concrete he'll expend a lot of energy trying in vain to find it, and worrying when he can't.

By the way I'm not a very aggressive player personally, so this isn't my preferred style that I'm preaching, but in adapting to the needs of the position I'd prefer to look for a way to force things open, even if meant a speculative sac, to get some active play rather than waste my development lead being pushed back and just reacting to my opponent.

Besides, its been said by at least one top GM (I think you Euwe but I could be mistaken) that when you have a sizable lead in development you must attack. Its just a question of deciding where and how. The nature of a development lead is that its temporary and if given time and your opp catches up, its lost and in a position like this he also comes away with a space advantage as well.

My 2 cents.

Originally posted by exigentsky
If you didn't say it was a winning line then I don't know what this means "it looks like 14.Bb5+ Bd7 15.Bxd7 Qxd7 is one winning line for White (though consolidating the win is not at all simple) after either 16.g5 or 16.exd5." I suppose you meant to say winning try.

As for the center structure and plans employed, I am not really disagreeing with you t ...[text shortened]... in the 80s. Moreover, I don't see a good plan for white after f3 if he doesn't intend g4.

Yeah, you're right, I did say that after all. I was looking at my first paragraph where I said something about the line "looking good for White".

If you're right about f3 telegraphing g4, that might have been just the license Black needed to play another pawn move (...b5) starting a race on opposite wings.

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
Yeah, you're right, I did say that after all. I was looking at my first paragraph where I said something about the line "looking good for White".

If you're right about f3 telegraphing g4, that might have been just the license Black needed to play another pawn move (...b5) starting a race on opposite wings.

Yes, I think that's part of the reason that these pawn moves are still logical. Although, to a new chess player who just learned the principles, the development for both sides would be strange.

Originally posted by exigentsky
Yes, I think that's part of the reason that these pawn moves are still logical. Although, to a new chess player who just learned the principles, the development for both sides would be strange.

Yes, I agree. Chernev would tsk, tsk a lot -- and who knows: he might even be right.

Originally posted by scandium
Not to speak about this game specifically, but some styles (and openings) lend themselves well to aggressive pawn play. The Pirc and Modern come to mind, although black develops rapidly in the Pirc, and often in the Modern too so they're maybe not such good examples.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that if your opp counters your rapid development with agg ...[text shortened]... ion like this he also comes away with a space advantage as well.

My 2 cents.

only problem is that development doesn't necessarily mean that you have moved your piece from its starting square...it means that your piece is mobile and blacks pieces are more mobile than whites in the given position which is why it is black that played d5 to try to open things up a bit and it would be advised for white to not let this happen.

Originally posted by tomtom232
only problem is that development doesn't necessarily mean that you have moved your piece from its starting square...it means that your piece is mobile and blacks pieces are more mobile than whites in the given position which is why it is [b]black that played d5 to try to open things up a bit and it would be advised for white to not let this happen.[/b]

I have to wonder in reading this if, having gone from 1200-1600 in 2 months you feel obligated to show everyone how clever you are by ignoring the substance of what I wrote to try and lecture me about the Sicilian, which I never spoke of at all, or whether its just that you have trouble comprehending what you read.

The first sentence of what I wrote should help clue you in: Not to speak about this game specifically... and then I went on to give some general advice on dealing with aggressive pawn play, particularly on the wing(s) in situations where one player has a significant development lead. General advice that I specified was not about any particular opening, and not about this game in particular.

Here's another clue that, had you read it, might have given you pause before babbling on with irrelevant drivel, this time in the the second paragraph:

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that if your opp counters your rapid development with aggressive pawn play/expansion then you can't be let yourself be guided by classical opening principles alone or you'll be over run. So a few general ideas to keep in mind in situations like these.

Pay particular attention to the text in bold there. Better yet, go back and re-read what I wrote again, however many times it takes you to comprehend it. And please, don't ever give me a beginner style lecture on the definition of "development." Despite whatever recent progress you've made, or the sudden revelations it took you to wake up one morning and go "well gosh golly I might break 1300 today if I just drop my pieces a little less often", if you could just put that same intellect of yours into even glancing at the profile of the person you're about to lecture, you might realize that prior to your recent completion of Chess for Dummies (and I'm sure its a good book, not knocking it man, whatever worked for you) and learning yourself so recently all about what development is, the person you're quoting perhaps learned that a long time ago.

Originally posted by scandium
I have to wonder in reading this if, having gone from 1200-1600 in 2 months you feel obligated to show everyone how clever you are by ignoring the substance of what I wrote to try and lecture me about the Sicilian, which I never spoke of at all, or whether its just that you have trouble comprehending what you read.

The first sentence of what I wrote shou ...[text shortened]... hat development is, the person you're quoting perhaps learned that a long time ago.

He may have misread but you don't have to murder him for it.

Originally posted by exigentsky
He may have misread but you don't have to murder him for it.

And I won't. I made my point. The matter is settled as far as I'm concerned.

Originally posted by scandium
I have to wonder in reading this if, having gone from 1200-1600 in 2 months you feel obligated to show everyone how clever you are by ignoring the substance of what I wrote to try and lecture me about the Sicilian, which I never spoke of at all, or whether its just that you have trouble comprehending what you read.

The first sentence of what I wrote shou hat development is, the person you're quoting perhaps learned that a long time ago.

Shall I shoot the prisoner now sir or are we going to wait till after the trial with this one...

...in the first instance I'd assume he was just making a well intentioned comment. Perhaps in your shoes I might have had the same thoughts as you expressed but I probably would have waited a bit and written something milder rather than wade in with a Mark Adkins strength put down.

He also made a good point that I'd not considered in this way before....so if it had stood alone rather than being a reply to your post then perhaps it would have been ok.

EDIT: Your original post is well worth reading - thanks.

Originally posted by Mahout
Shall I shoot the prisoner now sir or are we going to wait till after the trial with this one...

...in the first instance I'd assume he was just making a well intentioned comment. Perhaps in your shoes I might have had the same thoughts as you expressed but I probably would have waited a bit and written something milder rather than wade in with a Mark Adk ...[text shortened]... hen perhaps it would have been ok.

EDIT: Your original post is well worth reading - thanks.

There are many ways he could have written what he did that would have allowed him to make whatever point he wanted to make without taking what I wrote completely out of context and then using that strawman to berate me on my "ignorance" as though I'd only just learnt how to move the pieces.

However well-intentioned your response and that of the previous poster's were in laying out a defense for him, keep in mind that you weren't the one being lectured, and without any merit to anything you'd written, as though you were an 8 year old scholastic player who'd just let the coach down in your big board 4 game.

I felt personally attacked by both the tone and content of his post, which after all was addressed to me personally, and without any provocation whatsoever. I responded in kind. But the important difference that seems lost on you both is that I was the one provoked in that exchange, and not the one doing the provoking.

By the way, you undermine yourself when you take the high road, on the one hand, by giving the person who started this whole exchange what, IMHO, is a completely unwarranted benefit of the doubt and suggest I should have taken a "milder approach" while in the same sentence taking an unprovoked cheap shot at Mark.

Originally posted by Mahout
...written something milder rather than wade in with a Mark Adkins strength put down.

[Whistling negligently and generally minding my own business]

I am the very model of a modern major-general. Wait, that's not right. Ah, I have it now. I am the very model of chivalrous amiability. It says so right in my autobiography. So nerts to you, limey.