Originally posted by Pacifique
I have some questions
Well Mr. Pacifique, thanks for taking a look at the game. I think with some more time invested you may agree with some of my comments and disagree with others. That's the fun in game annotations - proving the annotator wrong is an amazingly good feeling. Quite a few of my ideas I would say are incorrect, but not necessarily wrong.
1.)it opens the long diagonal for black. The black bishop can be unpinned. White unpins his bishop by Rg1.
2.) The queen is defending d7 and f6 while pinned. White gets to play e4 freely and perhaps one sharp form is Qc2 with intentions of a4 and a later c pawn push.
3.) the threat of force is often better than force itself. My c pawn isn't gone so at some point it may become free. In this game it didn't happen that way. I don't like Qc7 much, maybe Qb8 would have been better.. at the time it was hard to choose one over the other. I was certainly hanging onto a possibility of still castling.
4.) Whites undisputed dark bishop and ability to take the b file early is enough counter-play for white. The removal of the dark bishop and non-opposition on the b file I think turned a draw into a loss. A pawns advantage is often not enough to win. (Quite often).
5.) I didn't like them.
I would agree with your assessment of our styles nimzo. I think there must be a better way to approach the defense of the grob. I don't think my manner of defense was accurate. I would say a classical style with a strong center might be better. Its hard to say without doing study (which I haven't). Its disturbing to think there is such a silly thing as "grob theory". It would seem as though it should be refuted instantly. Although I'm certain its not. I place its ridiculousness alongside the KG, perhaps irrefutable...but annoying in the same way to a player like me.