Hi,
So, one of the 'innovations' that has appeared while I disappeared off the site for over 5 years is that the game opening is identified once the game is over.
I've used this a couple of times to do some low-level research on openings. Something I'm not terribly familiar with.
Apparently in this game we engaged in a... (deep breath) Lundin (Kevitz-Mikenas) defence.
Game 9809205
When I looked this up in a (randomly selected) online database, it seemed to suggest that my 2nd move was an exceptionally WEAK one - it led to black losing far more often than the alternative moves.
This rather surprised me given that I had a great deal of success in the early part of the game, nabbing several pieces. I subsequently made a mid-game blunder that caused a scramble to regain control, but the opening part of the game seemed to go very well.
Did I just get lucky? Do people agree that my 2nd move was weak? If so, can you explain why?
Thanks in advance.
Originally posted by orfeoAt your level, you shouldn't really worry about that.
Hi,
So, one of the 'innovations' that has appeared while I disappeared off the site for over 5 years is that the game opening is identified once the game is over.
I've used this a couple of times to do some low-level research on openings. Something I'm not terribly familiar with.
Apparently in this game we engaged in a... (deep breath) Lundin (Kevitz- ...[text shortened]... Do people agree that my 2nd move was weak? If so, can you explain why?
Thanks in advance.
You did nab several pieces, but that had nothing to do with your opening choice. It had to do with the fact that your opponent gave them away, starting with move 3, which drops a pawn.
His counterattack later in the game also had nothing to do with the opening: you allowed it by playing sub-optimal moves.
That opening is indeed inferior, but that would be a problem only in higher levels.
Originally posted by orfeoForget about the second move...what was up with that 3rd move? Where is that poor beast going to go from a5?
Hi,
So, one of the 'innovations' that has appeared while I disappeared off the site for over 5 years is that the game opening is identified once the game is over.
I've used this a couple of times to do some low-level research on openings. Something I'm not terribly familiar with.
Apparently in this game we engaged in a... (deep breath) Lundin (Kevitz- ...[text shortened]... Do people agree that my 2nd move was weak? If so, can you explain why?
Thanks in advance.
1 edit
Originally posted by orfeoThe second move for Black seems okay to me. The idea of that 2...e6 seems to be to open up lines for a Bishop and Queen and prepare the pawn push 3...d5. Your opponent preempted that move by playing his own pawn to d5. Therefore some players prefer to attack the center immediately with 2...d5, however I do not see any need to abandon 2...e6 if you are doing well with it. If you start losing then you might want to consider 2...d5. Below is some more comments on the opening line you played:
Hi,
So, one of the 'innovations' that has appeared while I disappeared off the site for over 5 years is that the game opening is identified once the game is over.
I've used this a couple of times to do some low-level research on openings. Something I'm not terribly familiar with.
Apparently in this game we engaged in a... (deep breath) Lundin (Kevitz- ...[text shortened]... Do people agree that my 2nd move was weak? If so, can you explain why?
Thanks in advance.
The normal response by Black is shown below:
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitWho says he's going to go anywhere? He's just going to sit there a while and affect the moves of white-square bishops while being quite fairly from attack. 😀
Forget about the second move...what was up with that 3rd move? Where is that poor beast going to go from a5?
EDIT: I seem to remember he was going to head to b7 if necessary, as any attack against him would take a couple of moves to prepare. But there definitely was some attraction in stifling the bishop diagonals over there.
Originally posted by orfeoKings in the centre tend to be more vulnerable than kings that have been tucked away. Delaying castling so you can attack is fine, but you are giving up safety for time - if your attack stalls then you could find your king under a lot of pressure in the middle.
Also, regarding castling... I certainly recognise it's likely to be a 'level' thing, but I don't castle very often at all and I absolutely love it when opponents castle. I've dismantled plenty of people in the 1300 range when they've done so.
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI agree. I have had personal experience that makes me believe that castling is the safe thing to do in the majority of games. There are, however, situations in which castling on the wrong side can result in a strong attack against the king and one must be aware that the opponent may be building up a position to attack the castled king and adjust for it.
Kings in the centre tend to be more vulnerable than kings that have been tucked away. Delaying castling so you can attack is fine, but you are giving up safety for time - if your attack stalls then you could find your king under a lot of pressure in the middle.
1 edit
Originally posted by orfeoHe's going somewhere if white wants him to:
Who says he's going to go anywhere? He's just going to sit there a while and affect the moves of white-square bishops while being quite fairly from attack. 😀
EDIT: I seem to remember he was going to head to b7 if necessary, as any attack against him would take a couple of moves to prepare. But there definitely was some attraction in stifling the bishop diagonals over there.
Or, white can simply ignore him and continue reinforcing his center. And wait for the moment when a timely b4 traps the thing.
But the main point is that the N can't even do the thing you wanted him to do if white simply plays Bd2.
Originally posted by orfeoTheir castling is not why you dismantled them.
Also, regarding castling... I certainly recognise it's likely to be a 'level' thing, but I don't castle very often at all and I absolutely love it when opponents castle. I've dismantled plenty of people in the 1300 range when they've done so.
And if you think that it is easier to attack a castled king than it is to whack an uncastled king sitting like a target in the middle of the board, then at least you know you could improve dramatically by learning some simple attacking themes. Good luck!
Originally posted by SwissGambitThe knight is not stuck on b7. Don't you see the d6 square?
He's going somewhere if white wants him to:
[pgn]
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/pppp1ppp/4p3/n2P4/4P3/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 4"]
[SetUp "1"]
4. Bd2 b6 5. b4 Nb7 {and now the N is stuck on b7 where it blocks the Bc8 from using that square}
[/pgn]
Or, white can simply ignore him and continue reinforcing his center. And wait for the moment when a timely b ...[text shortened]... oint is that the N can't even do the thing you wanted him to do if white simply plays Bd2.