Originally posted by Pacifique
I don`t see anything strategically pleasing in games, decided by blunders like 18.Nf5??
Yes it was a blunder, but it was hardly decisive, at best it gave up a pawn and the
initiative and clearly putting a piece on f5 is a common strategy in the Ruy Lopez, it
simply lacked preparation. It was strategically pleasing from my point of view
because I am aware of the general strategies at whites disposal in the Ruy Lopez,
which I outlined and made reference to and included in my annotations. It also
demonstrated play against, among other things, backward pawns, virtually isolated
pawns (my own term for a pawn which is so far advanced that although its not
isolated in the common sense having no pawns on adjacent files, it practically is)
and play against two weakness.
Here is a thought for you, chess is a game of errors, unless there are errors, the
game is theoretically a draw, this is important because many of the most beautiful
manoeuvres and combinations are only possible because of the presence of errors
are they not? and no one complains about their presence, do they? It also took me
another thirty odd moves to conclude the game. Now I understand what you are
saying but the game was pleasing from my perspective, if you did not find it
pleasing then I understand that its not to everyone's taste, if you didn't like it that's
also fine but i myself found it quite exhilarating and not a little exhausting either.
Also worthy of note is tvochess's comments, who stated that he does not think in
these type of terms but tactically and its interesting to get other chess players
perspective, again, if you look at the game, there was hardly any tactical
combinations except near the end. The game was a complete contrast in style to
Morgskis game with Swiss gambit, which was essentially a tactical melee!
I hope you appreciate my diplomacy - regards robbie.