Strategically pleasing game

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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 .. xb5 46.Nxb6 Bxd3 47.Rxc5 Rxb6 48.Rc8+ Kg7 49.Rc7 Kf6 50.Be5+ 1/2-1/2[/pgn]

If White has initiative in queen side - it`s not good for Black in Ruy Closed systems usually, as Black has a problems to create counter play in king side.

Originally posted by Pacifique
If White has initiative in queen side - it`s not good for Black in Ruy Closed systems usually, as Black has a problems to create counter play in king side.

Its really quite interesting, perhaps this explains Shabalovs, 14...Ne8, ..g6 and ...f5,
generating play on the Kingside and finachettoing the knight on g7.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its really quite interesting, perhaps this explains Shabalovs, 14...Ne8, ..g6 and ...f5,
generating play on the Kingside and finachettoing the knight on g7.

Speaking on Shabalov`s game posted by you - Shabalov was unable to create serious counter play in king side and had very unpleasant position almost during whole game.

Originally posted by Pacifique
Speaking on Shabalov`s game posted by you - Shabalov was unable to create serious counter play in king side and had very unpleasant position almost during whole game.

he did rather well all things having been considered and demonstrated an excellent
grasp of the dynamics, I particularly liked the fianchettoed knight. I must note that he
thwarted all of whites strategic ideas, did he not. Also in the game that you posted i
don't understand blacks 17....Qc8, it appears to me that ...a5 was a better move,
ridding black of his weakness, the backward a pawn, but then again, i am not a
grandmaster, so what do i know? 17...Qc8 I simply don't understand.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
he did rather well all things having been considered and demonstrated an excellent
grasp of the dynamics, I particularly liked the fianchettoed knight. I must note that he
thwarted all of whites strategic ideas, did he not. Also in the game that you posted i
don't understand blacks 17....Qc8, it appears to me that ...a5 was a better move,
r ...[text shortened]... then again, i am not a
grandmaster, so what do i know? 17...Qc8 I simply don't understand.

Shabalov`s opponent wasted time with 23.Nc2 (instead of 23.Be3 or 23.Qe2) and 24.Na3 (instead of 24.Ne3) maneuver losing most part of his advantage.

Speaking on Gashimov - Inarkiev game: 17...Qc8 is played to defend a6 pawn after 24...Nd8. 17...a5 does not seem to solve Blacks problems too, after 18.Rea2 for example.

robbie - how about 18 ... B-KB1 instead?

Originally posted by chessicle
robbie - how about 18 ... B-[b]KB1 instead?[/b]

hi chessicle, 18....Bf8 is a good idea, but why preserve the bishop, its only a defensive piece as it stand and the f5 knight is way more menacing, i would be happy for white to trade it fir th dark squared bishop, wouldn't you?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
hi chessicle, 18....Bf8 is a good idea, but why preserve the bishop, its only a defensive piece as it stand and the f5 knight is way more menacing, i would be happy for white to trade it fir th dark squared bishop, wouldn't you?

Only a defensive piece? What is this gung-ho tacticality? I thought we were hoping to be Karpovian strategists?

Originally posted by chessicle
Only a defensive piece? What is this gung-ho tacticality? I thought we were hoping to be Karpovian strategists?

LOL, chess is all about the mobility of the pieces, Karpov i am sure would have also not
been aggrieved of the exchange of an opponents active knight for a passive bishop,
although even here there are exceptions as Fischer himself proved against Petrosian.