A man whom I have studied, his games and his person, greatly influences
the coordination of my games. How I should conduct them, and the way
in which I conduct my training. He once played a game, which looked
just like this:
I created a position, which I had reached more than a few times, in which
I would create a discovered check, hanging my queen, in exchange for
amazing activity, and a great deal of compensatory material. I had no
idea how beautiful this interesting sacrifice would become.
Where Qg2 Rxg2 (Any move) and Rd2# (or any square from e2-a2)
Inspired sacrifice, Rubinstein's immortal is also one of my favorite games. You were, in terms of material, down a minor piece after 15...Bg4 and yet won. But I am curious what would have happened if he had played 16. f4. after 16...Bf6 he could simply move his queen to d3. Perhaps...Rac8 cxd ...Bxc3 dxe6 (Rxc3 ...Bb5 Qxb5 ...Rxc3 d6) ...Bxe6 Rxc3 and black is down somewhere around two exchanges. I wonder what would be black's best line after the sacrifice.
Originally posted by AudreyxSophieThe queen, that is a sacrafice. Centralizing his queen, his most valuable
Ouch, Rxc3 is just a killer move. This is not a sac ! but a very beautifull move that win right away. come on, how can you call it a sacrifice ?
asset, and then utilizing my materials greatest strength against this
central material.
What is my materials greatest strength?
Activity.
Originally posted by GoshenThe queen believe it or not, was not a mishap. That was a planned
Nice, tactically rich games. Just what I like! And in game 2 you came from being 3 points down, (after that mishap with your queen) and eventually won the game! well done.
By the way, was Rubinstein a tactical player? I haven't seen any of his games.
sacrafice. By no meens is it "Sound". This is something that I built for
function, overextension, and for the activity that can abuse the centrality
of whites pieces, and his space. Black controls more space. Black is also
more active.
These are underlying principles which aren't worth material, but instead
they enhance material. In the lost queen position black is definitely
down material, however, their are some invisible principles that make the
position desirable.
I think as a weapon over the board, it would be enormous. Here I'm
very shocked to be able to say it worked.
-GIN
Originally posted by GoshenRubenstein was a master of pressure and time. He built pressure, and
Nice, tactically rich games. Just what I like! And in game 2 you came from being 3 points down, (after that mishap with your queen) and eventually won the game! well done.
By the way, was Rubinstein a tactical player? I haven't seen any of his games.
with time, all things would crumble.
Once the position was eroded to its bottom, he would release his
combinational power. He was no doubt, a grand conductor of such prized
combinations. I dare say, no player was as feared a maneuverer, as
Akiba Rubenstein.
He was tormented by mental demons, that never allowed him to fulfill his
potential.
-GIN
Originally posted by NowakowskiIn your own game, why not 15...Nxg5 instead of Bxg5? Ok, you hit the rook, but your knight is not so well placed on h7 and with the bishop on e7 you can still play a5 with some nice play on the queenside, where all his weaknessess lie. Besides, moving his rook to the second rank might be something he wished to do anyway.
A man whom I have studied, his games and his person, greatly influences
the coordination of my games. How I should conduct them, and the way
in which I conduct my training. He once played a game, which looked
just like this:
[pgn][Event "Lodz"]
[Site "Lodz"]
[Date "1907.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Georg Rotlewi ...[text shortened]... (Any move) and Rd2# (or any square from e2-a2)
But other than that, I am flabbergasted. I have yet to create I game which I might call my immortal.
Originally posted by GarnothThe knight while in close proximity to the king, increases King safety. Even
In your own game, why not 15...Nxg5 instead of Bxg5? Ok, you hit the rook, but your knight is not so well placed on h7 and with the bishop on e7 you can still play a5 with some nice play on the queenside, where all his weaknessess lie. Besides, moving his rook to the second rank might be something he wished to do anyway.
But other than that, I am flabbergasted. I have yet to create I game which I might call my immortal.
though the Knight doesn't seem as active here, his radius of effect on the
board will not be of much value at g5. While it is a great increase, in this
specific position, I didn't feel it would be as productive as Bxg5. Bxg5 will
serve multiple purposes.
*Bxg5 captures a piece
*Bxg5 places the Bishop on an active diagnal
*Bxg5 attacks the rook on the c-file and encourages a move to c2
*Bxg5 encourages f4! limiting the space for the centralized queen to move
(limiting the queen's mobility, limits its worth, whereas my material can
still be active due to its multiplicative nature. This limitation, may in fact
neutralize his material, and mine.)
*Bxg5's new diagonal will encourage movement along light squares where
white can be attacked by my light squared bishop, this creates yet
another pieces activity.
Nxg5 while it does satisfy a few of these motif's, I do not view it as a
move which builds as much as Bxg5. This is why I chose Bxg5.
-GIN
Hate to break it to you, but the only reason that you won this game was that your opponent made blunder after blunder, starting with move 16. His Rook would have been much better placed on d1, and after 16...Rd8 he should have played 17.c5, after which your light-squared Bishop and Rooks are shut out the game, perhaps permanently. After playing such moves as f4, Rf3, etc... White's pieces are not only better, but he has good attacking prospects against your Kingside. He hung his Knight, and then a Rook, and by the time you actually won the game you had an overwhelming material advantage. The differences between your game and Rubinstein's are that he played a combination only after achieving overwhelming positional superiority, while you played a dubious Queen sac from what was, at best, an even position.
If White, in your game, had played to keep the position semi-closed, as was possible, your Bishops would have been able to do little.
Originally posted by MuushThe knight is not "hung". Once the pawn becomes isolated, that gain of
Hate to break it to you, but the only reason that you won this game was that your opponent made blunder after blunder, starting with move 16. His Rook would have been much better placed on d1, and after 16...Rd8 he should have played 17.c5, after which your light-squared Bishop and Rooks are shut out the game, perhaps permanently. After playing such moves as f eep the position semi-closed, as was possible, your Bishops would have been able to do little.
material is forced. Their are no doubt mistakes, although I don't believe
anything would qualify as a "blunder" other than perhaps the Rook capture
which, if you analyze carefully, I may have already had an upperhand at this
point.
I didn't pretend the game was perfect. I even stated my sacrafice should
not work in correspondence, however over the board it may be useful. The
fact that it worked is beautiful. Mistakes in a game of chess will always be
made, so pretending this is a disqualification of beauty, is not anything but
ridiculous.
Furthermore, I don't believe your solvent nullify's black's investment.
-GIN
if Bd8 isn't your cup of tea then look at:
16. Rcd1 Rac8 17. f4 Bf6 18. Qd3 Rxc4 19. Rc1 Bxc3
20. Rxc3 Bb5 21. Rcc1 Rxc1 22. Qxb5
When you say that Bxg5 tricks white into playing f4, that's simply hope chess. I think some of the points you make about Bxg5 are valid (some more than others, the knight on h7 does not increase king safety IMO, Rc2 might be a useful move for white so forcing it on him might not be useful, he can double his rooks more easily).
I just think that the knight on g5 is nicely active and with his long diagonal weakened I'd rather have the bishop on f6 than the knight.
Originally posted by Garnothtricked?
When you say that Bxg5 tricks white into playing f4, that's simply hope chess. I think some of the points you make about Bxg5 are valid (some more than others, the knight on h7 does not increase king safety IMO, Rc2 might be a useful move for white so forcing it on him might not be useful, he can double his rooks more easily).
I just think that the knight ...[text shortened]... y active and with his long diagonal weakened I'd rather have the bishop on f6 than the knight.
Encouraged
certainly no guarantee of that happening. However, we must recognize that
certain moves encourage responses. If we do not understand this, then we
are simply playing numb chess
-GIN
Originally posted by NowakowskiYou didn't get my point. You gave the encouragement part as a positive thing, but that's like saying e4 is better than d4 because there are more opening traps and even fool's mate.
tricked?
Encouraged
certainly no guarantee of that happening. However, we must recognize that
certain moves encourage responses. If we do not understand this, then we
are simply playing numb chess
-GIN
I just saw that your knight was out of the game until the last 3 moves, which is not really part of your activity plan. Maybe Nxg5 would have been a way to include it into the game, on h7 it is doing nothing.
Iam not ripping on your game or something, just had a little suggestion. Don't take these things to personal.