In this forum I am not asking any questions I just am tired of these great games forums and none of them were positional so I just want to see those positional games especially if the win had to do with a good knight vs bad bishop or something a long those lines. Also I wouldn't mind A converstation being started about this topic.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
I played white in this. The once I saw the weakness on d5 the plan of swapping off blacks knight which controled that square then putting a knight on there which blacks bishop wouldnt be able to move was pretty easy to see.
[Event "?"]
[Site "playchess.com #066752"]
[Date "2006.05.13"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Caffeinated"]
[Black "Jonnypravda"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B23"]
[WhiteElo "1874"]
[BlackElo "1957"]
[PlyCount "47"]
[EventDate "2006.05.13"]
[EventType ""]
1. e4 {1} c5 {4} 2. Nc3 {5} d6 {41} 3. f4 {8} e5 {52} 4. Bb5+ {29} Bd7 {61} 5.
Bxd7+ {39} Qxd7 {20} 6. fxe5 {3} dxe5 {20} 7. Nf3 {23} Nc6 {25} 8. d3 {62} Nf6
{183} 9. O-O {6} O-O-O {136} 10. Bg5 {59} Be7 {115} 11. Bxf6 {21} gxf6 {4} 12.
Nh4 {136} h5 {351} 13. Nf5 {160} c4 {358} 14. dxc4 {273} Bc5+ {10} 15. Kh1 {12}
Qe6 {198} 16. Nd5 {121} Rdg8 {55} 17. h3 {144} Rg5 {170} 18. a3 {107} Rhg8 {54}
19. b4 {11} Bd4 {297} 20. c3 {72} Bb6 {114} 21. b5 {57} Rd8 {105} 22. bxc6 {13}
bxc6 {33} 23. Nxb6+ {1} axb6 {9} 24. Qe2 {
Jonnypravda resigns (Lag: Av=0.49s, max=1.2s) 53} 1-0
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
I guess part of making a great piece is making a great square and knowing which piece to put on that square. Nimzowitsch said that outposts on ab-gh should have heavy pieces put on them, the more central files would prefer minor pieces.
One of the problems that I used to run into in my games (and still do sometimes) is finding a square for a piece and putting the piece there then realising that the piece has nothing to do. I remember one OTB game when I was first learning square strategy where I spent about 10 mins looking at squares for knights and then working out how to put them there, once they got there they were totally pointless 😛
[Round "?"]
[White "Max"]
[Black "Alex)"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A57"]
[Annotator ",Moo"]
[PlyCount "69"]
[EventType "simul"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[TimeControl "5400+5"]
{80MB, SilQb6.ctg, BOO} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. a4 bxc4 5. Nc3 d6 6. e4
Ba6 7. f4 Nfd7 8. a5 g6 9. Nf3 Bg7 10. Qa4 O-O 11. Bxc4 Qc8 12. O-O Bxc4 13.
Qxc4 Na6 14. Bd2 Ndb8 15. e5 Nb4 16. Ne4 N8a6 17. Rac1 Qd8 18. Bc3 Qxa5 19.
exd6 exd6 20. Nxd6 Qd8 21. Ne4 Qxd5 22. Qxd5 Nxd5 23. Bxg7 Kxg7 24. Ne5 Rfc8
25. Nd6 Rc7 26. f5 f6 27. Nec4 g5 28. Rfe1 Rd7 29. Ne8+ Kf8 30. Ncd6 Nac7 31.
Nxc7 Rxc7 32. Re6 Rd7 33. Rd1 Nf4 34. Rxf6+ Kg8 35. Kf2 1/2-1/2
Looking at move 14 now its clear Rb8 is the move of choice, putting the knights like that was just a totally flawed plan 🙁
Originally posted by BedlamI know I have been doing that a lot lately plus not trying to find out what my opponents plan should be I also recently got checkmated in a game where I had just caught my opponent in a trap to get queen for rook. I had a nice game going against leepound in my favorite kind of position but then lost it at the end.
I guess part of making a great piece is making a great square and knowing which piece to put on that square. Nimzowitsch said that outposts on ab-gh should have heavy pieces put on them, the more central files would prefer minor pieces.
One of the problems that I used to run into in my games (and still do sometimes) is finding a square for a piece and p ...[text shortened]... e of choice, putting the knights like that was just a totally flawed plan 🙁
Originally posted by cmsMasterI know that is why I made this because no one seems to realize that the more positional knowledge there is the more likely something tactical is to happen.
It's a pretty advanced topic, so there's likely to be less of these. Also, positional brilliancies tend to be forgotten quicker than tactical brilliancies.
Originally posted by tomtom232Hm, that's an interesting comment, although possibly not really true.
I know that is why I made this because no one seems to realize that the more positional knowledge there is the more likely something tactical is to happen.
Positional skill offers better long term plusses and chances for winning, but I'm not so sure it actually increases the amount of tactics. That might be an interesting statistic, although it would be extremely difficult to calculate...
BTW😛ositional knowledge below 1600 isn't as important as tactics (in general) and usually doesn't offer the fast and huge rating boosts that tactical training offers. However learning positional chess is a fundamental part of the game, and so I would, of course, be interested in seeing some brilliant positional games. I can't think of any that I've got, but if you want to see a KG game...
🙂
Originally posted by cmsMasterI didn't mean that more postitional knowledge would make a person better a tactics but would make the chances of there being a tactic or combination greater
Hm, that's an interesting comment, although possibly not really true.
Positional skill offers better long term plusses and chances for winning, but I'm not so sure it actually increases the amount of tactics. That might be an interesting statistic, although it would be extremely difficult to calculate...
BTW😛ositional knowledge below 1600 isn't as ...[text shortened]... tional games. I can't think of any that I've got, but if you want to see a KG game...
🙂
Originally posted by cmsMaster"As usual, tactics flow from a positionally superior game."
Hm, that's an interesting comment, although possibly not really true.
Positional skill offers better long term plusses and chances for winning, but I'm not so sure it actually increases the amount of tactics. That might be an interesting statistic, although it would be extremely difficult to calculate...
BTW😛ositional knowledge below 1600 isn't as ...[text shortened]... tional games. I can't think of any that I've got, but if you want to see a KG game...
🙂
-Robert J. Fischer
Originally posted by aenrko"I busted the King's Gambit."
"As usual, tactics flow from a positionally superior game."
-Robert J. Fischer
-Robert J. Fischer
Oops.
This may be true, at higher levels especially. But I am yet to see proof of this - especially at lower level and club level chess.
Originally posted by cmsMasterHaha, good come-back!
"I busted the King's Gambit."
-Robert J. Fischer
Oops.
This may be true, at higher levels especially. But I am yet to see proof of this - especially at lower level and club level chess.
But, positionally superior games do bring advantageous tactics to the table. Fischer wasn't the only one to say this, he was just the first one that sprung to mind. I've read many a book that try to illustrate this point to convince the beginner that positional chess IS worth study. I know that people just saying this is true isn't any proof so I'll try to drum up some interesting games that show this.
I thought this was a fairly good game, positionally, with little in the way of tactics. I got a better position in the centre, and tied to keep a small pull rather than blow black away. It must have been pretty much equal for most of it, but I think it was easier for me to play. Eventually, I got to a good bishop vs bad bishop ending, with the more active king. The king and pawn ending is interesting, too.
Game 2400097
Game 2287634
Scroll to move 25, and have a little study of the game right I until I (as black) resigned.
What do you notice?, well, what I see is a completely usesless black Rook, hence the attempts to trade it. (and the "waste" of 2-3 ply trying to get it an active square)
now scroll back to move 25. and now you may actually see my positional blunder.
I played Rcd8, moving a reasonably placed Rook to a better square.
but, the most obvoius improvement to the position is Rhd8, which brings both rooks into the fray....that inactive, passive, H-Rook is now controling and challengeing that oh-so important file.
had I of played this move, i would have stood much better, and would have been able to muster a stronger defence. (although, it still may even be lost)
this positional error certainly didn't do me any favours, maybe, It even cost me the game.
post game analysis also showed Rcd8 (after Ke8) was also a tactical error (which my opp. missed), i'll leave it to you guys to work that one out.....(hint:- its all forced, black wins material)
the point is, Positional concepts need to be understood just as much as tactics do.
positional and tactical moves are like yin and yang, there is dynamic interplay between them, and one wouldn't/couldn't exist without the other.