Originally posted by PhySiQWhite can't get this position
So ... this is a position you would want to play on as black? White is in complete control as far as I can tell... If Qe2 he can play on to try and squeek off a few more pawns before simplification... or he can Qg6 and force the queens off straight away and play with a material advantage.. So... why does black like this at all? I don't think black does - b /PPB2PP1/R2QR1K1 w - - 0 1"]1. a4 bxa4 2. Rxa4 Rxa4 3. Bxa4 b5 4. Bc2 [/pgn]
Q
unless black allows it.
28 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by tomtom232Ok sorry I see
White can't get this position
[fen]r7/1b1nq1k1/pp1p3p/1p1Pp1pQ/5r2/2P3NP/PPB2PP1/R3R1K1 b - - 9 5 [/fen]
unless black allows it.
[pgn][SetUp "1"][FEN "r5k1/1b1n2q1/pp1p3p/1p1Pp1p1/5r2/2P1N2P/PPB2PP1/R2QR1K1 w - - 0 1"]1.Nf5 Qf6 2.Ng3 Qf7 3.Ne4 Qe7 4.Ng3 Nf6 {and white can't get the queen in}[/pgn]
[pgn][SetUp "1"][FEN "r5k1/1b1n2q1/pp1p3p/1p1Pp ...[text shortened]... - - 0 1"]1. a4 bxa4 2. Rxa4 Rxa4 3. Bxa4 b5 4. Bc2 Nf6 5.Bf5 {followed by Be6} [/pgn]
28 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by iustusMr. iustus, I showed you in my previous post.
What is black going to do to dispute this position Mr. TomTom?
.. I can see the bishop on the forward pawn is desirable - but I don't see an immediate choker from it being there... There is probably something in the cards though.
What is black going to do to stop white from obtaining that position? What would you do instead of the variation I listed on the previous page?
Q
You posted the correct variation but the incorrect position that results from it.
28 Jan 12
I'm not sure why anyone signs their posts with my "Q" ..(you don't want to be anything like me sir) but I guess I'll let that slide.
I think your Be6 idea is strong. My reply to a4 probably isn't right with knowing thats coming down the road. I doubt many would realize that mistake in game though. Though I'll have to agree with the almost "Q" above that black doesn't have alot of running room - I think for the most part things get worse if he doesn't run from all the forks.
Q (the original!)
28 Jan 12
Originally posted by PhySiQI copied the post and pasted into here and quoted Mr. Tomtoms post. I didnt mean to leave your Q at the bottom that just happened by accident because you leave it so far down from the rest of the stuff you write. I didnt mean anything by it and I didnt end up copying your game post because I didnt know how to edit it the right way
I'm not sure why anyone signs their posts with my "Q" ..(you don't want to be anything like me sir) but I guess I'll let that slide.
I think your Be6 idea is strong. My reply to a4 probably isn't right with knowing thats coming down the road. I doubt many would realize that mistake in game though. Though I'll have to agree with the almost "Q" above tha ...[text shortened]... most part things get worse if he doesn't run from all the forks.
Q (the original!)
About the "black has to let white get to this position" thing... I'm curious Mr. Tomtom, what black should do otherwise?
Previously you had posted "Nf5 Qf6 2. Ng3 Qf7 3. Ne4 Qe7" so I'm assuming you're still O.K with things up to that point (was there another route you had in mind?) So I guess I'm wondering what black does after Qh5 instead of Kg7 myself (to allow white suddenly into this position).
But it does sound like we agree that black is not looking healthy here?
Q
01 Feb 12
Originally posted by tomtom232Just read with horror tomtom's sweeping statements!
In Thread 144634 there was a discussion about the relation between tactics and strategy. To be honest, I was dismayed at the general lack of understanding of these two concepts. Some said strategy and tactics are intertwined and this seems like a dodge that stems from not knowing. Some said strategy is a long term plan to improve favorable t ...[text shortened]... just have to learn to assess the position to find the correct goal.
Have a good day. 
To achieve a strategic goal, one devises tactics to reach this. This is true in all walks of life, so there is a clear difference but also an undeniable link.
In a chess sense tactical "complex" variations are used either directly or indirectly for strategic ends. Take Petrosian, a classic example of a "positional" player: he was a razor sharp tactician who was able to avoid his opponents shorter term shots to complicate positions whilst his strategic aims were slowly realised. A young Tal on the other hand, his strategic goals were less to do with precise piece placement but rather to generate postions where fast analysis of concrete variations were required: his tactics achieved this
01 Feb 12
2 edits
Originally posted by queenabberWhat exactly are you saying here that is different from what I said?
Just read with horror tomtom's sweeping statements!
To achieve a strategic goal, one devises tactics to reach this. This is true in all walks of life, so there is a clear difference but also an undeniable link.
In a chess sense tactical "complex" variations are used either directly or indirectly for strategic ends. Take Petrosian, a classic example of ostions where fast analysis of concrete variations were required: his tactics achieved this
It is clear to me that you didn't even read my original post.