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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 14 Jul '09 00:35
    This was a 3 0 I just played on FICS. At the time, 12 Nxb5 seemed promising, but I don't know whether or not it was worth it. I know we both made a lot of mistakes near the end, (some I would hope I would not make were it not for time pressure) but I think up to 25 Kb4 I was doing pretty well. Anyway, to return to the point, was 12 Nxb5 the correct move?

  2. 14 Jul '09 01:39 / 1 edit
    I fail to see what you had in mind with 12. Nxb5. I would give it a huge ???. You were lucky to come away with the win. I consider it a blunder. Especially since you gained nothing from trading a knight for a pawn.
  3. 14 Jul '09 01:44 / 1 edit
    I think that is a bit exaggerated; it is not a huge blunder, but neither does it promise white any great advantage. It wasn't unsound, but I feel white probably had better ideas than Nxb5. Also, white should've started pushing his queenside pawns earlier, around move 24 or 25 or so. The ending was completely won for black by about 10 moves later.
  4. 14 Jul '09 01:46
    Originally posted by chesskid001
    I think that is a bit exaggerated; it is not a huge blunder, but neither does it promise white any great advantage. It wasn't unsound, but I feel white probably had better ideas than Nxb5. Also, white should've started pushing his queenside pawns earlier, around move 24 or 25 or so.
    I was correcting to eliminate huge from the post. You're right. Not huge, just unsound.
  5. 14 Jul '09 02:04
    Well, there was some logic behind the move. I actually calculate it as three pawns for a knight with the natural continuation I had in mind being played from moves 12-16 -- in that sense I figured not only did I get equal material (at least by conventional wisdom) but I also got three passed pawns on my queenside. It seemed to me if I were to get into the endgame I would be able to advance those and queen if I played correctly. Nevertheless, I am giving up an important piece early in the game. It would be a shame if I could have gotten trounced early and not seen it. Furthermore, it would also be a shame if my calculation about getting my passed pawns to queen further in the game was incorrect.
  6. 14 Jul '09 02:30
    Originally posted by amolv06
    Well, there was some logic behind the move. I actually calculate it as three pawns for a knight with the natural continuation I had in mind being played from moves 12-16 -- in that sense I figured not only did I get equal material (at least by conventional wisdom) but I also got three passed pawns on my queenside. It seemed to me if I were to get in ...[text shortened]... hame if my calculation about getting my passed pawns to queen further in the game was incorrect.
    I figured you would say that. I thought that was your thinking upon further review of the game. We all blunder, after all. Against a stronger player you would have been toast in my opinion. First, although indeed you would have several passed pawns you would also open up a file where opponent could double up and should have doubled up his rooks. Your passed pawns would have been easy pickings. chesskid correctly sees you failed to push these queenside pawns sooner. You played well in the end.
  7. 14 Jul '09 02:34
    Move 25 onward was piss-poor in my opinion, but both sides played the last 25 moves of the game in less than a minute or so. I wholly intended to start pushing my pawns with move 26 after placing my king in what I thought was a better position but I missed the check which forced my King back.
  8. 14 Jul '09 02:42
    Originally posted by amolv06
    Move 25 onward was piss-poor in my opinion, but both sides played the last 25 moves of the game in less than a minute or so. I wholly intended to start pushing my pawns with move 26 after placing my king in what I thought was a better position but I missed the check which forced my King back.
    Not too bad for 3' 0 increment. I have seen much worse. I do not do nearly as well in blitz under 5. Piss poor sums up most of us. Some blunders are worse than others. Fortunately, is it truly a blunder if you end up winning? No one, but no one plays mistake free chess. Look up Fisher-Petrosian, 1962, Blad on chessgames.com Petrosian, normally rock solid makes a colossal blunder. makes me feel better about my blunders.
  9. 14 Jul '09 02:52 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by amolv06
    Well, there was some logic behind the move. I actually calculate it as three pawns for a knight with the natural continuation I had in mind being played from moves 12-16 -- in that sense I figured not only did I get equal material (at least by conventional wisdom) but I also got three passed pawns on my queenside. It seemed to me if I were to get in ...[text shortened]... hame if my calculation about getting my passed pawns to queen further in the game was incorrect.
    The weapon of choice here is usually 12. g4 with 12. Nc6 a distant second [sic] however 12. Nb5 did win an interesting game in Dang-Nguyen, 2004 In that game white continued with 12. Ndb5 ab5 13. Nb5 Qb8 14. Nd6 ( 1-0 in 54) transposing to your game.

    Your idea seems more than sound, at the very least for blitz.
  10. 14 Jul '09 03:06
    Originally posted by kuoni
    The weapon of choice here is usually 12. g4 with 12. Nc6 a distant second [sic] however 12. Nb5 did win an interesting game in Dang-Nguyen, 2004 In that game white continued with 12. Ndb5 ab5 13. Nb5 Qb8 14. Nd6 ( 1-0 in 54) transposing to your game.

    Your idea seems more than sound, at the very least for blitz.
    Good analyisis, kuoni. Again, upon further review it does not seem as unsound as upon first look.
  11. 14 Jul '09 05:25 / 2 edits
    I think that is a good move, but not the best, at least, white should not get a lose. I like white sudden attack on the d-file and the treat of e5. Thing we poor humans may miss. Consider even trying it in slow games.


    Just an analysis that show my toughts, Sure, I have a friend named rybka, but I can understand many thing in his play, they were clear. true tactical play. I play that move when I can. Great one.

    We will go righ after Rxd6, since all move played after Nxb5 were considered best one.

    Look at this position.


    Your opponent best defense is maybe Na5 then Nxb3,m no miracles there, you have a good game. but he blundered with 0-0

    Now let's look


    The bishop is no more protected by the king, I've seen your play were based on the removal of the guard, you've done with Bg5, but that only treat an exchange of pieces as he can remove the attack bishop.
    Two choice, 1 e5 which after 1... Nxe5 2. Bd4 Ne8 3. Bxe5 Nxd6 4. Bxd6 win two knight for the rook.

    or 1. Rhd1 after ... Rfd8 2. e5 Nxe5 3 Bd4 Ne8 4. Bxe5 Nxd6 5.Rxd6 Bb5. Now you puss those passed pawn right away.

    On material, this position is even, a bishop and two pawn, versus a rook. I just love it.
    Good game and good sac.

    The endgame was fun. The win was simple.
    Plyaing with the bishop on c8 and b7-square and he let you pass a pawn with h6, what an horrible blunder...