Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 07 Nov '12 12:06 / 3 edits
    If the opponent offers keen play I don't object; but in such cases I get less
    satisfaction, even if I win, than from a game conducted according to all the rules of
    strategy with its ruthless logic. - Anatoly Karpov



    annotations are best viewed with swiss gambits annotation window script.
  2. 07 Nov '12 13:46
    I know you've had comments on your annotations in the past, but I liked to read this. Well done!

    It is likely to overlook tactical opportunities if you focus this much on strategy, but it shows a completely other way about thinking chess than I do myself. I tend to rely on tactics and calculation, but that is so exhausting (and I make mistakes).
  3. 07 Nov '12 14:46 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by tvochess
    I know you've had comments on your annotations in the past, but I liked to read this. Well done!

    It is likely to overlook tactical opportunities if you focus this much on strategy, but it shows a completely other way about thinking chess than I do myself. I tend to rely on tactics and calculation, but that is so exhausting (and I make mistakes).
    Hey tvochess dude, you are most welcome. Yes everyone thinks about chess
    differently, which is, I suppose why its so wonderful. The balance between strategy and
    tactics is a delicate one, for although we are thinking in positional terms, all our moves
    are kind of validated tactically to see whether they pass the test. It sometimes happen
    that we overlook tactical possibilities, but they tend to be the easier to spot when they
    do happen, for you get the sense that something is not quite right in the position. I
    myself try to avoid very tactical, complicated positions, I prefer a quiet life, thanks for
    your kind words of encouragement,
  4. 07 Nov '12 17:32 / 1 edit
    I don`t see anything strategically pleasing in games, decided by blunders like 18.Nf5??
  5. 07 Nov '12 20:14 / 5 edits
    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.
  6. 07 Nov '12 21:34 / 6 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    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 out h was essentially a tactical melee!

    I hope you appreciate my diplomacy - regards robbie.
    Speaking on errors - there are errors which are not obvious and demands some skills to exploit them and there are blunders. And after blunder in 18th move White is lost already.

    Speaking on strategy:
    1) I don`t understand why you did not play 8...Na5 (instead of 8...0-0) - eliminating White Bishop is dream of any modern Ruy player who plays Black. That`s the reason why White had to play 8.c3.
    2) Also I don`t understand your criticism on 12.d5. Closing center to attack king side (or queen side if Black plays too aggressive there) is very common plan, employed by many strong players including world champions. This move usually is prepared by 12.Nbd2 to play it after 12...Nc6 or 12...Bd7, but your comment dismisses the whole idea which is unjustified. For example your 12...c4 allows White to have initiative in queen side after 13.b4. Here is example from GM practice:


    I hope you appreciate my diplomacy too.

    upd. Also in your game White could have better position after 18.b4.
  7. 07 Nov '12 22:12 / 6 edits
    Hi pacifique,

    1. why i did not play 8...Na5, is quite interesting, i had looked at the move, but its not in my book. I have an old book, ironically termed, modern chess strategy, written by Harry Golembek in the 1950s, it diverges on move twelve, plus I knew the move from the games of Fischer I had studied with the white pieces. I understand ...d6 and the whole ...Na5, ...c5, manoeuvre.

    2. I also knew of the move d5, but only in certain variations, for example I knew that Nigel Short had played it on occasion, it seems only pertinent when it does something, like blunting a bishop that has committed to b7, here it simply seemed to me to deprive white of an option, although i understand your logic and did acknowledge that it was a known variation.

    3. Not a few top class players have played this line as black, Shabalov for example and its to my taste, i don't like sharp games, I am sure there is even a game where Kramnik gets beaten, i remember looking at it in my research, although not in the d5 line.

    In my opinion, when white starts play against the queenside, its the least of blacks worries, for its my understanding and i don't for one minute think that its the only perspective, the whole point of the Ruy is acquisition of the centre and a king-side attack, but then again, there is no use being dogmatic.

    3 thumbs down and three thumbs up, LOL, haters gonna hate! and lovers gonna love

  8. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    07 Nov '12 23:52
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    If the opponent offers keen play I don't object; but in such cases I get less
    satisfaction, even if I win, than from a game conducted according to all the rules of
    strategy with its ruthless logic. - Anatoly Karpov

    [pgn] [Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "?"] [Black "?"] [Result "0-1"] [PlyCount "118"] 1. e4 e5 {th ...[text shortened]...
    annotations are best viewed with swiss gambits annotation window script.
    You did not explain why you did not go ahead and prevent him from moving Nf5.
  9. 07 Nov '12 23:59
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You did not explain why you did not go ahead and prevent him from moving Nf5.
    R Jonah Hinds, I played you twice and got my ass handed to me on both occasions, my
    annotations are no good to a psychologically gifted player like you, i need a mind ray!
  10. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    08 Nov '12 00:11
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    R Jonah Hinds, I played you twice and got my ass handed to me on both occasions, my
    annotations are no good to a psychologically gifted player like you, i need a mind ray!
    I like Ronald (Jesus) Hinds better. It is more pleasing to my psychology.
  11. 08 Nov '12 00:13
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I like Ronald (Jesus) Hinds better. It is more pleasing to my psychology.
    I prefer Ronald Judas Hinds, its more realistic
  12. 08 Nov '12 01:06 / 1 edit
    Hi Robbie.

    Before RJHinds takes over yet another thread I thought I'd just post in his forum.

    Your quiet move.


    17...Bc8

    It may have tempted him into playing his blunder.
    Though I don't know what Alekhine would say about such a move.
    I recall one of his notes saying such moves, cutting off the comunication
    with the Rooks have to be very carefully thought out.

    I have a quiet move for you, my 15th. move.
    Like your game most of it had been played before. Infact I've
    played all the moves before a number of times.

    greenpawn34 - bigalorama2 RHP 2012



    OK RJ it's your thread, I'll start you off: "30 years ago...."
  13. 08 Nov '12 01:37 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    Hi Robbie.

    Before RJHinds takes over yet another thread I thought I'd just post in his forum.

    Your quiet move.

    [fen]r3r1k1/2qbbppp/p2p1n2/1pnPp3/2p1P3/2P1BNNP/PPBQ1PP1/R3R1K1 b - - 0 17[/fen]
    17...Bc8

    It may have tempted him into playing his blunder.
    Though I don't know what Alekhine would say about such a move.
    I recall one of his notes K RJ it's your thread, I'll start you off: "30 years ago...."
    hi GP, in all honesty i didn't know what to do with that queens bishop, it caused me no
    end of grief, it felt like it belonged on b7 but it was too committal i thought, all the time
    i had to be wary of the f5 square, but its small price to pay, i don't get nearly as much
    grief as i do when white players are pushing pawns to f3, g4 and h4 in the Sicilian, id
    love to play chess, like you and Morgski and Swissgambit, my style seems really bland
    by comparison.
  14. 08 Nov '12 02:05 / 1 edit
    Hi Robbie.

    Your a sub.

    Set up 10 challenges v under 1500.
    These guys are great. They love their chess, it's not about
    winning or grading, it's about playing.
    I hack and sac and attack them. Sometimes it does not work.
    I'm going to lose to 3 under 1500. I don't care about ratings points.
    (they are a bit of a joke on here - look at RJ's. grade.)

    My only regret with the current bunch of gmaes is that to my great shame
    some games did not the get the full attention. Far too many games at 1/3 and
    I drifted in dullish positions.

    Throw pieces and pawns up the board. Rule No1. retreating with the Queens on.
    After (and if) the Queens come off, then resort to normal chess.
    Remember no backward moves...forward....forward...forward!!!

    This finished today.

    greenpawn34 - jumblemaster13 RHP 2012

  15. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    08 Nov '12 03:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    hi GP, in all honesty i didn't know what to do with that queens bishop, it caused me no
    end of grief, it felt like it belonged on b7 but it was too committal i thought, all the time
    i had to be wary of the f5 square, but its small price to pay, i don't get nearly as much
    grief as i do when white players are pushing pawns to f3, g4 and h4 in th ...[text shortened]... play chess, like you and Morgski and Swissgambit, my style seems really bland
    by comparison.
    I think 16...Bd7 was just fine. I do not see any sense in moving the bishop back where it was. Instead you might have considered moving your king rook to a square that might open up or start your queenside pawn advance.

    P.S. As it turned out you could have played the simple 18...Bxf5 and then you would not have to worry about that bishop anymore.