29 Jan 05
In the game below, my opponent used a move order that is unfamiliar to me and I wound up having to play Nxc6 allowing ...bxc6 and strengthening black's center. This can't be right, but I don't see anything better. Thus I assume I should have done something differently.
Can anyone tell me where I went wrong? (Obviously the result was OK, but had black simply castled short I think he had equality at least.)Game 918913
29 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by RaulGroomI wouldn't have played 9. Nxc6. 9. Ndb5 looks interesting. More conservative would be to play 9. Nf3.
In the game below, my opponent used a move order that is unfamiliar to me and I wound up having to play Nxc6 allowing ...bxc6 and strengthening black's center. This can't be right, but I don't see anything better. Thus I assume I sho ...[text shortened]... castled short I think he had equality at least.)Game 918913
When Black played 8...e5 he introduced a huge weakness into his position; d5 has become a dream outpost for White. As White, I'd put the light Bishop on c4 and then start throwing my Kingside Pawns at the enemy Kingside. I'd make sure to keep control of d5 at all costs unless I thought my Kingside attack was immediately devestating.
Take a look at this game. It may give you some idea of what I mean by taking control of d5. I didn't end up winning; he should actually have gotten the win at the very end due to a small tactical trick but he missed it and we drew; but the way I approached this game might help you understand what I mean.
Game 761570
30 Jan 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI've got another game which would be an even better example but it's not done quite yet.
I wouldn't have played [b]9. Nxc6. 9. Ndb5 looks interesting. More conservative would be to play 9. Nf3.
When Black played 8...e5 he introduced a huge weakness into his position; d5 has become a dream outpost for White. As White, I'd put the light Bishop on c4 and then start throwing my Kingside Pawns at the enemy Kingside. I'd ma ...[text shortened]... ; but the way I approached this game might help you understand what I mean.
Game 761570[/b]
01 Feb 05
Originally posted by RaulGroomWhy not play the knight to b3 instead of exchanging? Then you can play against the backward d-pawn with advantage.
In the game below, my opponent used a move order that is unfamiliar to me and I wound up having to play Nxc6 allowing ...bxc6 and strengthening black's center. This can't be right, but I don't see anything better. Thus I assume I should have done something differently.
Can anyone tell me where I went wrong? (Obviously the result was OK, but had black simply castled short I think he had equality at least.)Game 918913
03 Feb 05
I'm not a pro or anything but I don't think Kxc6 was a bad move but I think 0-0 and f4 were in that position I would have 0-0-0 and gone for a english attack .. f3 g4 with both rooks attacking kingside .. Also Knight b3 is fine there aswell in my opinion .. Just don't fall for the rook sac at c3 (RxNc3) if you ever do castle long it could be a bitch to deal with .. I personally like that setup though, you may not. Its a matter of style..
03 Feb 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBig difference in the line of play, my friend... You played Bb5, pinning Black's knight instead of what the poster played. After his move of Be2 I stand by my recommendation.
Nb3 takes away b3 for the Bishop later. I'd rather have the B there to maintain control of d5 and threaten the enemy King.
03 Feb 05
Originally posted by arrakisPersonally I see nothing wrong with 9 Nxc6; I prefer to not retreat if I can exchange with advantages and it seems to me that Black is giving up the half-open c file which is a primary motif in the Sicilian.
Why not play the knight to b3 instead of exchanging? Then you can play against the backward d-pawn with advantage.
Black castling Queenside is generally suicidal in the Sicilian as you're going to have an open file directly attacking your castled position. It certainly proved quickly disasterous in this game.
03 Feb 05
Originally posted by no1marauderNxc6 would rather give black an advantage. He now has an open b file for the open c file and if he plays d5 he gets the centre+if you hit d5 he'll get the c file back again.
Personally I see nothing wrong with 9 Nxc6; I prefer to not retreat if I can exchange with advantages and it seems to me that Black is giving up the half-open c file which is a primary motif in the Sicilian.
Black castling Queenside is generally suicidal in the Sicilian as you're going to have an open file directly attacking your castled position. It certainly proved quickly disasterous in this game.
(I agree on the castling)
04 Feb 05
Originally posted by TestriderYou don't understand the theory behind the Sicilian if you believe a half-open b file is equal to the half-open c file. I might also mention that Black's a-pawn becomes isolated another weakness, though a common one. And unless White totally screws up, Black ain't gonna get to play d5.
Nxc6 would rather give black an advantage. He now has an open b file for the open c file and if he plays d5 he gets the centre+if you hit d5 he'll get the c file back again.
(I agree on the castling)
05 Feb 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't understand the theory, I guess. Why is the half-open c-file so much better than a half-open b-file in the Sicilian, and how is White going to prevent d5?
You don't understand the theory behind the Sicilian if you believe a half-open b file is equal to the half-open c file. I might also mention that Black's a-pawn becomes isolated another weakness, though a common one. And unless White totally screws up, Black ain't gonna get to play d5.
05 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by arrakisThat's true. Normally I play Bc4, actually. I still think that since d5 has become a weak square for Black, White should make dominating that square a primary theme for the game, which would involve playing Bc4 at some point and then probably retreating it to b3 when necessary.
Big difference in the line of play, my friend... You played Bb5, pinning Black's knight instead of what the poster played. After his move of Be2 I stand by my recommendation.
07 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by RaulGroomIt was an interesting game.
In the game below, my opponent used a move order that is unfamiliar to me and I wound up having to play Nxc6 allowing ...bxc6 and strengthening black's center. This can't be right, but I don't see anything better. Thus I assume I sho ...[text shortened]... castled short I think he had equality at least.)Game 918913
In my opinion 6.Be3 is premature because the bishop doesn't really know where is it that it wants to go. For instance, in some cases you may want to put it at g5 and exchange it for a knight on f6 to take control over d5 or you may want to play it at e3. Far more interesting is 6.Be2, 6.Bc4 or 6.f4 but 6.Be3 is not a bad move by any means.
The move 8...e5 creates a hole in Black's structure. In this case you may want to keep a knight to gang up on d5 at a later time. I don't like your 9.Nxc6 because it helps Black cover the weakness d5. Much more to the point is 9.Nb3 because in this way the knight doesn't obstruct the f pawn and doesn't deprive the bishop at e2 of its f3 square where it can influence the long diagonal, control the point d5 and prepare an attack on the Black king by supporting an eventual g4. I believe that 9.Nf3 is not consistent with the requirements of the position. Move 10 of yours 10.f4 is fantastic but move 11 is inconsistent...
By playing 11.fxe5 you would have attained several goals:
1.Render Black's c pawn isolated and protected by a valuable resource (the bishop at b7)
2.Open your f-file to prepare an attack on the King side
3.Massage positionally Black by doing Na4-c5 dominating Black's bishop at b7
4.Disuade Black from castling queenside.
If you didn't like that plan then 11.f5 would have allowed you to:
1.Initiate a bayonet attack on Black's king side with g4-g5, Kh1 - Rg1, etc.
2.Grab space at the King side
I didn't understand Black's 17...Rhf8. Instead, g5-g4 and then transferring the other rook to the king side to attack would have been more to the point [ Both sides are attacking in opposite flanks and he who hesitates... ]
I think it was an interesting game...