Originally posted by chessicleyou gotta give up squares to get others, defence? what's that
Bishops are good attacking and defending pieces. Look at all those nicely controlled light squares on the kingside (after 10-12 moves, or so), and vulnerable dark squares on the same side - and then think about which bishop you'd rather still have?
Originally posted by nimzo5thanks Nimzo, I find these minor piece exchanges to be the most difficult decisions upon the board. At the moment i am studying Fischers games as he is reputed to be the ultimate in this area, in an attempt to get some kind of inkling. I find that for example Silmans type of thing, if its a closed position, knights are better etc to be too simplistic, chess is not that simple.
Interesting game Robbie. Probably the dark square bishop exchange was a bit much, although you had a plan that makes sense for not needing it. Not much else to say except that now you have a new tactical pattern to keep in mind when playing down the h file.
Originally posted by TarpeyLol, well if it raised a smile my friend it is enough for me
Hi Robbie, enjoyed your game & commentary particularly "look at my bishop... ...radiantly sending out death rays"
Please go forth and lose some more so you can post games here for our enjoyment!
Originally posted by Mad RookThere's nothing wrong with using an engine, although I think one should try to form your own opinion so you have the practice and also a basis for comparision.
I also enjoyed your annotations, very entertaining!
But about move 10, Robbie says, "Now i was faced with the problem of which piece to capture with. I have envisioned that me dark squared bishop will remain passive for some time, therfore i chose him. [b]Even yet i am not sure if this was the right decision."
When you're not sure of ...[text shortened]... didn't pick up on it. (Yeah, I know, having to stoop to using one of those evil engines.)[/b]