confession is good for the soul they say, so I will start. I basicaly had a bad day today, chess wise that is. Twice in the same day, in two different openings i dropped a king's rook to a similar tactic, and i'm not exactly sure where I went wrong, or what line I could have played with less devastating results, but i gotta admit, I do get a bit miffed at times when an opponenet violates the principals of opening play, blatently, too, and still manages to cause considerable damage to my position.
I have to refer to them as "cheap tactics,", or "hitting below the belt", or what have you.
The first principal? Don't bring out your queen too early! you might find her harassed by enemy pieces or, even worse, trapped and lost!
how many times have you heard that one? Seems good and right, does it not?
so how about this: 1e2-e4, B8 -C6, 2F1-B5, G8 -F6, 3D2-D3, D7-_D5, 4E4-D5, D8xD5, 5 B1- C3-, D5 x G2, D1-F3, 6C8 -H3, and the rook is a goner! Ouch! That's gotta hurt!
Or since i'm a glutton for punishment, let's drop another rook with a similar cheap shot: Here goes; ! e2-e4, e7-e5, 2 f2-f4, d7-d5, 3f4xe5, d8-h4+, 4g2-g3, h4xe4+, 5d1-0e2, e4xh1, and another rook bites the proverbial dust.
O.K. analysis, please. Better lines for staying out of trouble in these situations would be greatly appreciated here, and especially helpful would be suggestions for replies to blacks Nc6 reply to whites 1 e2 -e4. I own a copy of eric Schillers Standard Chess Openings, an exhaustive work, of close to 800 pages, and it seems that 1 e2-e4, b8-c6, (The Nimzowitsch defense) has just an exiguous amount of replies and theory. It is almost the smallest section in the book. why is that? Is the defense just THAT good that no one can really succesfully refute it to any degree? If I reply by trying to move d-4, then Nxp, and i am forced to bring out my OWN queen early, and unfortunately, she has not the option of gobbling an early rook meal like black in the previous example. If i move D2-d3, then i will waste a tempo when I later get to advance that pawn to the d4 square in two move instead of one.
Seems their is really no good answer. I could bring out my king's knight, but then black could easily transpose into the lopez, which, in this case, is was trying to avoid.
I'm gonna lose sleep over this one, fellas, unless someone has had experience with this and would be willing to open up and share a "most excellent" line or two, here.
Hope you can come through on this one, as realy, it has irked me for a number of years, but today's games just sort of brought it to a head.
As Popeye said "I've stood all I can stand, and I cant stands no more!"
Originally posted by kingisdeadNot familiar with the theory on the nimzowitsch defense,but when I face it I just try to develop my pieces as I would normally do: 2.d4 2.Bc4 2.Nf3 2.Nc3 2.f4 all seem ok to me,play will most likely transpose into some other opening.
confession is good for the soul they say, so I will start. I basicaly had a bad day today, chess wise that is. Twice in the same day, in two different openings i dropped a king's rook to a similar tactic, and i'm not exactly sure where I went wrong, or what line I could have played with less devastating results, but i gotta admit, I do get a bit miffe ...[text shortened]... ght it to a head.
As Popeye said "I've stood all I can stand, and I cant stands no more!"
You say you don't like 2.d4,Nxd4 'cause it brings out your queen early,which is true.BUT,you'd win a knight for a pawn!That's more than enough compensation for bringing out the queen 🙂
I think the reason that this opening has such a small amount of theory is not because it's so good,but because it is rarely used and highly transpositional.
That line in the king's gambit,I dunno,it seems very bad.Maybe 3.exd5 instead of 3.fxe5 would be better?
Sir Lot.
I'll give this a try, in the first game, try these ideas out. On move 4, instead of e4xd5 look at Qe2 which avoids the Queen trade on the d-file and permits Nf3 and 0-0. Or, as an option, after 4. e4xd5 (the move you played) Qxd5 5. Bxc6+ Qxc6 6. Nf3. Now you have given up the bishop pair, but your development is easier and black has lost time.
In the second game, if you are playing 2 f2-f4 then you have to be ready for a tactical fight. You've asked for it by exposing your king so early. Instead of 3. fxe5, try exd5. Then if black tries Qh4+, you can tighten it up with g3 which doesn't lose here. You still have a very exposed k-side and will have to be on your toes though.
Brian
With this problem, the first thing you need to start realizing is that as soon as you develop a Bishop, you leave that Knight's Pawn unguarded, and the Rook trapped and unguarded to an attack by a Bishop or Queen.
In the first game, you simply made a tactical blunder. It wasn't the weakness of your position that caused this Rook loss. When your opponent played 3...d5, he did so knowing that you cannot take it with your Pawn, because if you did you'd lose either a Bishop or Rook. You simply didn't see that tactical factor, which is not at all obvious.
The best answer is to just get good enough at general tactics that you see this kind of thing coming. Until you do that, you should instinctively feel that Knight Pawn weakness as soon as the Bishop is developed. To avoid this happening, develop your own Knight and castle early.
You say you're trying to avoid the Ruy Lopez, but you pinned his Knight with your Bishop. That makes it really hard to avoid Ruy Lopez like positions.
Instead of taking 4. exd5, you should have played something like Nf3, e5, Nc3, really any logical move. The one you picked happened to be a trap.
exd5 was generally not so hot anyway. You knew you wouldn't win the Pawn. Instead you would centralize his Knight or Queen and leave yourself with an awkward (sp?) d pawn.
Always makes sure to develop both Knights and Bishops and to castle before you start fighting, unless you can win a center Pawn or a piece, or need to defend yourself, or can delay his development at the same rate you're delaying yours.
In the other game, your opponent played the Falkbeer Counter Gambit. For whatever reason, 3. exd5 is the "correct" move, not 3. fxe5. See http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=C32
Oh, I see why fxe5 is not the correct move...because of exactly what happened to you.
This is a case of not knowing your opening, combined with the previous issue of having insufficient tactical skill to see the consequences of your moves several moves later - not an easy skill! I don't have great tactical skill. In this case, you simply didn't know this well known variation of your chosen opening.
Oh, would you mind using small letters for your file notation? The big letters are for pieces, and it gets confusing because Bishops are B.
Originally posted by SirLoseALotI'm going to put on my king's gambit player hat and say that Sir Lot is 100% totally right here. (This is about the only time in the near future I'll ever get the moral authority to approve of what Sir Lot, a much better player than I, says about chess...). In general, in the KG declined, you simply do not want to play fxe5 -- at least not until well after castling and shoring up the center. NONONONO. Just about the only way to 3. fxe5 in the KGD and NOT lose on the spot is if your opponent played 2. ... Nf3 -- and even that's dubious.
That line in the king's gambit,I dunno,it seems very bad.Maybe 3.exd5 instead of 3.fxe5 would be better?
As AThousandYoung has pointed out. The notation that kingisdead has used is a little confusing. Therefore, for the convenience of others, I have converted the games to a more standard notation:
Game 1
1. e4 Nc6
2. Bb5 Nf6
3. d3 d5
4. exd5 Qxd5
5. Nc3 Qxg2
6. Qf3 Bh3
Game 2
1. e4 e5
2. f4 d5
3. fxe5 Qh4+
4. g3 Qxe4
5. Qe2 Qxh1
Lau
In game 1 you aren't that bad and it may be possible to fight you way out of it only going down a pawn. For instance, given the moves so far, I think the following series is likely,
7. Be3 Ng4 8. O-O-O
Now white has counter-attacking chances. The key is to realize there is a sort of truce on the kingside, your peices are tied up, but so are his. So quickly develop while preventing his (in this situation you want to continue the truce by insuring the knights have no role).
Originally posted by kingisdeadI can never understand why when someone takes advantage of poor moves in the opening, its considered to be "cheap tactics", whereas doing it in the middle/end game is applauded.
I have to refer to them as "cheap tactics,", or "hitting below the belt", or what have you.
I'm not an opening afficiando, but looking at the first game, you should have spotted the double attack on your bishop and g2 pawn and played 5. Bxc6 which would have given you a move to protect the g2 pawn.
D