Originally posted by malingaOf course you are welcomed to join in!
Mind if I join in?
It is very appreciated with comments from hi-rating players as lo-rating players as well as in-between-rating players. Every comment is valuable.
Questions like "Why did he do that?" and "Why didn’t he do this" can shed some light over the varying peculiarities of this game. No questions are meaningless. No comments are meaningless.
The only one forbidden to comment is me myself – I know how the game progresses in advance and who will win, resign or offering for a draw. Wouldn’t be fair to bias any line of commenting.
Thank you, everyone, for feed-back of this concept of presenting a game.
Originally posted by FabianFnasDo we know for sure that the players in this game are any good?
Of course you are welcomed to join in!
It is very appreciated with comments from hi-rating players as lo-rating players as well as in-between-rating players. Every comment is valuable.
Questions like "Why did he do that?" and "Why didn’t he do this" can shed some light over the varying peculiarities of this game. No questions are meaningless. No com ...[text shortened]... e of commenting.
Thank you, everyone, for feed-back of this concept of presenting a game.
Nc3 and d4 look obvious. I agree with everyone who says that Nc3 looks better than d4.
However, I think white will play a3.
Originally posted by Red NightThis question leads to the philosophical observation if there is any way for a inferior player to correctly evaluate a game that is played by a far better player than oneself...
Do we know for sure that the players in this game are any good?
If I encounter a move I recognize as bad - perhaps I just don't understand the brilliancy of that move or just being a blunder. I'll just have to wait and see the effect of it.
Now - is this game a good played game or a bad played game? Perhaps it is far over my horizon or it is played in the local Kindergarten Championship? Is it played by Fisher vs Karpov during their informal meeting at the opium dungeon of Reykjavik or is it played by the waitresses at the same place? How would I really know? Or do I know more than I will tell at this very moment? Or not at all?
When the game is over I'll tell you everything I know about this game. Not before.
Originally posted by FabianFnasWay out there!
This question leads to the philosophical observation if there is any way for a inferior player to correctly evaluate a game that is played by a far better player than oneself...
If I encounter a move I recognize as bad - perhaps I just don't understand the brilliancy of that move or just being a blunder. I'll just have to wait and see the effect of it. ...[text shortened]... at all?
When the game is over I'll tell you everything I know about this game. Not before.
h3 is also a possibility.
h3 Qe7
Be2 Nf4
Nc6
With a3 to follow shortly.
I think the opening moves are very strange for white and I think white is playing very strange. As for black, he's playing normal moves and I don't have anything to say about black play. The only thing for black I found weird was 1...e6. But that's personal taste.
From whites moves, to me it seems that white is not a master or was not a master when he played that game, or white could be a master but back in the day, before the 90's. How could you not play d4 yet? Speechless.
As for black, no comments. His play is perfectly logical.
1 edit
Originally posted by Mephisto2OK, OK maybe not h3. Or maybe not Be2. I don't even know if there is another option.
7.h3? Qe7+
8.Be2? Nf4!
9.Nc3 Nxg2
10.Kf1 Nf4 and black must be winning
Maybe it's a3. My orignal thought.
All I know is that white is either a genius or a moron. So, I'm trying to think of moves that don't immediately make sense to me.
I'd probably play Nc3. But, I would have played d4 awhile ago.
Originally posted by BLReidIf Qe7+, wouldn't Kd1 be an alright move? With the threatening of pinning the queen while still attacking the knight?
1... Qe7+ appears to be on tap now, for all the reasons stated in previous posts. I'm guessing that this game is likely some well known GM handling the white pieces, before they achieved enlightenment.
Or have I overlooked something? Didn't look at it to long so I wouldn't be surprised.
Originally posted by GalaxyShieldMephisto pointed this move out earlier in the thread. The idea is that White must lose a tempo with the bishop, or move the king like you suggested. If he goes to d1, aiming for the pin with the rook, then Black plays Nf4 and is looking just fine.
If Qe7+, wouldn't Kd1 be an alright move? With the threatening of pinning the queen while still attacking the knight?
Or have I overlooked something? Didn't look at it to long so I wouldn't be surprised.
Originally posted by BLReidOk, I can see that. Would this line make any sense?
Mephisto pointed this move out earlier in the thread. The idea is that White must lose a tempo with the bishop, or move the king like you suggested. If he goes to d1, aiming for the pin with the rook, then Black plays Nf4 and is looking just fine.
Qe7+ Kd1 Nf4 Re1 Ne6(?) Bxe6 Bxe6 (or fxe6 but that's a bad center island pawn it looks like) then Qxb7 picking up a pawn in looks like since the rook can't move over (yet) cause of Qxc6+. Looks interesting but probably flawed 😛.