| |
Main
Date: 27 May 2006 03:53:17
From: ben carr
Subject: I sac 4 pawns and the exhcange in 12 moves, analyses anyone?
|
I dont know if my sacs are correct or not, but the positions I got
seemed good enough. I welcome any criticism.
1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 e5 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.OO (Is this correct?) 4...Bc5 5.b4 Bxb4
6.c3 Ba5 7.d4 Nxe4 8.Ba3 d5 9.Bb3 Nxc3 10.Nxc3 Bxc3 11. Rc1 exd4 ( in a
previous game black played Bxd4 and lost quickly)
12. Rxc3!? dxc3 13.Re1+ Be6 14.Bxd5 Qf6
15. Bxe6 fxe6 16. Qd5 Nd8 17. Ng5??
I didnt take the pawn on b7, pressing my attack too much. I dont know
why i didnt really take it, the rook would be pretty much free. Any
analysis will be appreciated.
|
|
| |
Date: 28 May 2006 00:57:15
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: I sac 4 pawns and the exhcange in 12 moves, analyses anyone?
|
Thanks, it was enlightening reading through the analysis posted by
yourself and Ron. I did underestimate king safety. Both alternate lines
of attack (11. Rb1 and 15. Bxc6) make the position even more
uncomfortable for Black, and the miniatures from Keres and the
Boden-Kieseritzy gambit were fun to play through.
I guess the lessons are:
+ Avoid pawn-grabbing too much when your opponent leads in development
+ Let your opponent pawn-grab if it allows you to lead in development
+ Opening central files is to the advantage of the castled opponent
+ Moves that prevent castling, such as Ba3, are strong
+ When attacking, you must anticipate and avoid attempts to simplify
I read about the Two Kings Defense in Seirawan's book and Wikipedia.
There are apparently many ways for Black to avoid the Fried Liver and
Lolli attacks:
4. ... Bc5 (Traxler Variation)
4. ... d5 5. exd5 Na5 (Main Line, Morphy, or Steinitz Variation)
4. ... d5 5. exd5 b5 (Ulvestad Variation)
4. ... d5 5. exd5 Nd4 (Fritz Variation)
I know you said 6. ... Ba5 was not an error, but 6. ... Be7 seems to
avoid many of the problems Black faced. As White I would still skip the
rook-for-bishop sacrifice. Pawn sacrifices are easier to recover from
in case the attack fizzles.
|
| | |
Date: 28 May 2006 11:33:53
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: I sac 4 pawns and the exhcange in 12 moves, analyses anyone?
|
En/na [email protected] ha escrit:
> Thanks, it was enlightening reading through the analysis posted by
> yourself and Ron. I did underestimate king safety. Both alternate lines
> of attack (11. Rb1 and 15. Bxc6) make the position even more
> uncomfortable for Black, and the miniatures from Keres and the
> Boden-Kieseritzy gambit were fun to play through.
>
> I guess the lessons are:
>
> + Avoid pawn-grabbing too much when your opponent leads in development
I would say: "be careful with" in the place of "avoid" because there are
some cases where it can be a good choice.
There are some known opening positions where one player best choice is
to grab some pawns no matter the opponent lead in development. The most
known is "Najdorf poissoned pawn"
Chess is so rich that there are not absolute rules without exceptions, I
think you must analyze some similar positions and adquire your own
intuition about when it can be possible and when not.
> + Let your opponent pawn-grab if it allows you to lead in development
The same comment as in previous one.
> + Opening central files is to the advantage of the castled opponent
> + Moves that prevent castling, such as Ba3, are strong
There is a line in semi-Slav defence 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 e6 4.e4 de4
5.Nxe4 Bb4 6.Bd2 where black best choice is to allow a Ba3 bishop with
6...Qxd4! 7.Bxb4 Qxe4 8.Be2 obtaining a extra pawn and having a hard
fight to be played.
> + When attacking, you must anticipate and avoid attempts to simplify
True, very important!! ... but that has also counterexemples: In some
Benko lines (black sacrifices a pawn in queen wing) has been demostrated
that black has compensation enough in many endings (black can allow
simplifications here).
> I read about the Two Kings Defense in Seirawan's book and Wikipedia.
> There are apparently many ways for Black to avoid the Fried Liver and
> Lolli attacks:
>
> 4. ... Bc5 (Traxler Variation)
Some players think (have published) it can be refuted (white can obtain
a pawn plus in a position with not enough compensation) with the line
starting with 5.Bxf7. I'm not an expert here.
> 4. ... d5 5. exd5 Na5 (Main Line, Morphy, or Steinitz Variation)
> 4. ... d5 5. exd5 b5 (Ulvestad Variation)
> 4. ... d5 5. exd5 Nd4 (Fritz Variation)
>
> I know you said 6. ... Ba5 was not an error, but 6. ... Be7 seems to
> avoid many of the problems Black faced. As White I would still skip the
> rook-for-bishop sacrifice. Pawn sacrifices are easier to recover from
> in case the attack fizzles.
I think it's very difficult to improve from other players comments, I
think a player should analyze himself those positions and extract his
own conclusions. In mathematics you would learn more solving exercises
than reading solved exercises.
Antonio
|
| | | |
Date: 28 May 2006 19:58:31
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: I sac 4 pawns and the exhcange in 12 moves, analyses anyone?
|
If there were a faster and easier way than practice, everyone would be
doing it. I saw a huge jump in my performance when I began drilling,
but now progress is slower. I use CT-ART and a variety of other tools,
like most people.
|
| | | |
Date: 28 May 2006 20:41:46
From: ben carr
Subject: Re: I sac 4 pawns and the exhcange in 12 moves, analyses anyone?
|
The game ended exactly how Antonio assumed with Qxg5. I missed the
king's escape when I played it. This was at a fast time limit for me (15
moves in 15 minutes) and my tactics at this speed are off by a little.
For instance, I saw 15.Bxc6, but couldnt work it out thouroughly enough
to satisfy me that it was correct. Does anyone have anny suggestions as
to what areas I should try to improve on? Also, how could I Improve my
tactical ability? Is it a practice thing or are there other way to
improve your tactics?
|
| |
Date: 27 May 2006 20:38:56
From: ben carr
Subject: Re: I sac 4 pawns and the exhcange in 12 moves, analyses anyone?
|
Thanks for the advice. It helped me alot. I lost the game after playing
Ng5. Black played c6 and I then played Qd6, a bad move which I thought I
could force a draw with. I chased his king until it found a good spot
and I had to resign. I play around the 1500-1600 level also, so anyone
can help me improve. The next time I play that guy I am confdent I will
get the win. Again...thanks.
|
| | |
Date: 28 May 2006 11:11:28
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: I sac 4 pawns and the exhcange in 12 moves, analyses anyone?
|
En/na ben carr ha escrit:
> Thanks for the advice. It helped me alot. I lost the game after playing
> Ng5. Black played c6 and I then played Qd6, a bad move which I thought I
> could force a draw with. I chased his king until it found a good spot
> and I had to resign. I play around the 1500-1600 level also, so anyone
> can help me improve. The next time I play that guy I am confdent I will
> get the win. Again...thanks.
Can you post the remaining moves?
I understand them started as 17.Ng5 c6 18.Qd6 ... and maybe here game
continued 18...Qxg5 19.Rxe6 Nxe6 20.Qxe6 Rd8 21.Qd6 Kc8 22.Qe6 Kc7!
23.Qd6 Kb6! and blck queen help his king to be secure.
thanks
Antonio
|
| |
Date: 27 May 2006 03:56:05
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: I sac 4 pawns and the exhcange in 12 moves, analyses anyone?
|
By the way, I play around the 1500 level and Antonio's rated 2400. I
hope that puts our respective comments into proper perspective. ;-)
|
| | |
Date: 27 May 2006 18:30:23
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: I sac 4 pawns and the exhcange in 12 moves, analyses anyone?
|
En/na [email protected] ha escrit:
> By the way, I play around the 1500 level and Antonio's rated 2400. I
> hope that puts our respective comments into proper perspective. ;-)
Hello,
You wrote your thoughs and here there is a nice oportunity to improve
checking what were correct and what ones you misevaluate.
In my opinion you underestimated the problems of a king chased in the
center thanks to the Ba3 bishop. Maybe if you analyze the position after
15.Bxc6 bxc6 16.Qa4 you will find many problems for black king and would
understant better not only that position but many similar ones.
Another important concept when we play gambits is "simplification", you
found the right move 15...Ne7!! but you did not feel it was important
enough. Once simplification oportunity dissapear black has problems.
But the importance of that defence only proves that white played an
inacuracy allowing it. White has some other intertesting moves between
moves 9th and 14th and the analysis of them would help us to evaluate
more deeply those sacrifices.
I would like to add I remember a very similar sacrificial idea in the
following analysis from Keres I knew:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb4+ 7. Nc3
Nxe4 8.O-O Nxc3 9. bxc3 Bxc3 10. Ba3 d6 {10...Ba1 loses} 11. Rc1 Ba5
12.Qa4 a6 13. Bd5 Bb6 14. Rxc6 Bd7 15. Re1+ Kf8 16. Rxd6 cxd6 17. Bxd6+
Kg8 18. Ng5 Qxg5 19. Qxd7 1-0
Antonio
|
| |
Date: 27 May 2006 03:49:22
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: I sac 4 pawns and the exhcange in 12 moves, analyses anyone?
|
> 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 e5 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.OO
This is the Two Knights Defense, often open and tactical. The e4 pawn's
being attacked by the knight on Nf6, so you have to defend or
counter-attack.
4. O-O is a mistake. It's not a game loser, but an alert opponent would
snatch your pawn on e4. 4. Nc3 is a lesser mistake, because of 4. ...
Nxe4 5. Nxe4 d5.
Your safe move here is 4. d3, defending e4. 4. Ng5 is a counter-attack
and give you the choice of two gambits--the Lolli Attack and the Fried
Liver Attack.
> 4...Bc5 5.b4 Bxb4
You sacrifice a pawn. Your compensation is central control.
> 6.c3 Ba5 7.d4 Nxe4
Black takes your e-pawn and your central control. You have no
compensation.
> 8.Ba3 d5 9.Bb3 Nxc3 10.Nxc3 Bxc3
Black takes another free pawn. You're down 3 points, and have a 1-piece
lead in development.
> 11. Rc1 exd4
Black takes another free pawn. You're down 4 points, and have a 1-piece
lead in development.
> 12. Rxc3!? dxc3
Black wins the exchange. You're down 6 points, and have a 2-piece lead
in development.
White's development lead will allow him to launch a quick attack. If
Black is able to withstand the attack, his lead in material will result
in an eventual win.
I would prefer to play Black in this position.
> 3.Re1+ Be6
Nice moves.
> 14.Bxd5 Qf6
Bxd5 is fine, but Ne7 is better for Black. It ends the threat sooner by
unpinning his bishop, blocking the enemy bishop, and paving the way
towards a kingside castle. White may be able to swipe a pawn or two,
but that's fine given Black's huge lead in material.
> 15. Bxe6 fxe6
Black would be more afraid of 15. Bxc6 bxc6. That would mean no
castling for him.
> 16. Qd5 Nd8
This is a great move. It took me several minutes to calculate Black's
best reply. It's easy to go wrong... Ne7, Kf7, and Nc4 all have
problems.
> 17. Ng5 ??
Ng5 is a fine continuation. Again, Black could go wrong.
No, I don't like White's game at any point from move 4 onwards. If
you're willing to sacrafice some material in return for a good attack,
I encourage you to consider the Fried Liver Attack or the Lolli Attack.
Anything but this. ;-)
And so you don't feel bad, I'll let you know I played 4. c3 earlier
this week (-1 point)! Unfortunately for my opponent, that was my only
"sacrifice", and I've studied enough endgames that I was able to score
after 61 moves of maneuvering.
|
| | |
Date: 27 May 2006 18:52:24
From: Ron
Subject: Re: I sac 4 pawns and the exhcange in 12 moves, analyses anyone?
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 e5 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.OO
>
> This is the Two Knights Defense, often open and tactical. The e4 pawn's
> being attacked by the knight on Nf6, so you have to defend or
> counter-attack.
>
> 4. O-O is a mistake. It's not a game loser, but an alert opponent would
> snatch your pawn on e4. 4. Nc3 is a lesser mistake, because of 4. ...
> Nxe4 5. Nxe4 d5.
4. 0-0 isn't really a major mistake - it offers a transposition into the
Boden-Kieseritzky gambit, which while probably not good for better than
=, can give white lots of attacking chances.
The key to this gambit, however, is not Antonio's 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.Nc3 Nxc3
6.bxc3?! but rather 6.dxc3!
(Here's a recent miniature I played in that gambit:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bc4 Nxe4 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. O-O Nxc3 6. dxc3 Be7 7.
Qd5 O-O 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9. Qxe5 c6 10. Re1 d5 11. Qxe7 dxc4 12. Bf4 Qb6 13.
Qxf8+ 1-0; obviously, black's 12th is a major blunder)
> Your safe move here is 4. d3, defending e4. 4. Ng5 is a counter-attack
> and give you the choice of two gambits--the Lolli Attack and the Fried
> Liver Attack.
4.Ng5 is the most popular main line, although the problem is that white
can't force a fried liver or lolli attack. The main line goes 4.Ng5 d5!
5.ed Na5! and black has gambited a pawn for some initiative. This gambit
is rock-solid and gives black good chances in a double-edged position.
Therefore, I personally recommend 4.d4! ed 5.e5! (5.0-0 is also
playable; Nxe4 6.Re1 d5 7.Bxd5! Qxd5 8.Nc3 gets white his material back
in a complex position).
The main line then runs 5. ... d5 6.Bb5 Ne4 7.Nxd4 Bd7 8.Bxc5 bxc6 when
the basic battle lines have been drawn: white has given up the bishop
pair for central space, and will fight for the dark squares on the
queenside. Usually he puts a B on e3 and a N on b3, hoping to land a N
on c5.
> > 4...Bc5 5.b4 Bxb4
>
> You sacrifice a pawn. Your compensation is central control.
>
> > 6.c3 Ba5 7.d4 Nxe4
6. ... Ba5 looks like a major error to me here, giving you strong
initiative. The issue is that this isn't an Evans gambit. Usually in the
Evans black develops his KN to e7, to keep his king from getting stuck
in the center. That's not an option.
> Black takes your e-pawn and your central control. You have no
> compensation.
Nonsense. The king in the center is clear compensation. In fact, I
believe Nxe4 is a major error: pawn grabbing, opening lines to your
king, when you're behind in development.
7. ... 0-0 gives black much better practical chances. Maybe a very
strong defensive player could get away with Nxe4, but my rule of thumb
is not to put myself in positions where I have to be a very strong
defensive player.
> > 8.Ba3 d5 9.Bb3 Nxc3 10.Nxc3 Bxc3
>
> Black takes another free pawn. You're down 3 points, and have a 1-piece
> lead in development.
Again, I think black is simply grabbing pawns he shouldn't grab here.
White's development advantage is much more than one piece: he's castled,
and black not only hasn't, but black has no immediate prospects for
castling.
Here, for black, I'd probably play 9 ... Be6 with the idea of Qd7 and
0-0-0, although black still has to be careful. 9. ... Be6 10.Qd3 Qd7
11.Ba4! f6! 12.de f5! (black has to avoid Nxe5 at all costs).
> > 11. Rc1 exd4
>
> Black takes another free pawn. You're down 4 points, and have a 1-piece
> lead in development.
At this point, black doesn't have much choice, but since your exchange
sac is bad, it looks like he can get away with this.
> > 12. Rxc3!? dxc3
>
> Black wins the exchange. You're down 6 points, and have a 2-piece lead
> in development.
This is a very tempting exchange sacrifice. The problem, of course, is
that 14. ... Ne7 appears to refute it.
This, to me, calls into question 11.Rc1. What about Rb1?
There are some crazy variations here. For example: 11.Rb1 e4 12.Ba4!!
(another reason why Bb5 may make more sense to begin with than Bb3) Bxd4
13.Qxf3 Bxd4 14.Qe2+ Be6 15.Rxb7 Qd7 16.Rc1 (crafty helped with these
variations) and white gets his material back with interest.
This line demonstrates just how dangerous your position can get when
your king is stuck in the center. The idea of capturing on b7 to weaken
the a4-e8 diagonal is fairly thematic.
> No, I don't like White's game at any point from move 4 onwards. If
> you're willing to sacrafice some material in return for a good attack,
> I encourage you to consider the Fried Liver Attack or the Lolli Attack.
> Anything but this. ;-)
The problem is that white doesn't always get a Fried Liver or a Lolli.
The main line Two Knights is a perfectly reasonable gambit for black.
-Ron
|
| | | |
Date: 27 May 2006 23:38:07
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: I sac 4 pawns and the exhcange in 12 moves, analyses anyone?
|
En/na Ron ha escrit:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 e5 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.OO
>>
> 4. 0-0 isn't really a major mistake - it offers a transposition into the
> Boden-Kieseritzky gambit, which while probably not good for better than
> =, can give white lots of attacking chances.
>
> The key to this gambit, however, is not Antonio's 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.Nc3 Nxc3
> 6.bxc3?! but rather 6.dxc3!
I'm sorry, ... typo error!! :-(
>>>4...Bc5 5.b4 Bxb4 6.c3 Ba5 7.d4 Nxe4
>
> 6. ... Ba5 looks like a major error to me here, giving you strong
> initiative. The issue is that this isn't an Evans gambit. Usually in the
> Evans black develops his KN to e7, to keep his king from getting stuck
> in the center. That's not an option.
>
>>Black takes your e-pawn and your central control. You have no
>>compensation.
>
> Nonsense. The king in the center is clear compensation. In fact, I
> believe Nxe4 is a major error: pawn grabbing, opening lines to your
> king, when you're behind in development.
>
> 7. ... 0-0 gives black much better practical chances. Maybe a very
> strong defensive player could get away with Nxe4, but my rule of thumb
> is not to put myself in positions where I have to be a very strong
> defensive player.
I know very little about those lines but in Evan Gambit I agree black
can develop with Nge7 but also white plays 0-0 not as soon: 1.e4 Nc6
2.Nf3 e5 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c4 Ba5 6.d4 (and not 6.0-0). That can
mean that any side has not clearly a better version of Evans.
I think 6...Ba5 is not a mistake, at least not for this reason.
About 7...Nxe4, I wrote "maybe is playable but seems risky, very risky"
because I have not studied it (I mean it can be a "mistake" but only
from teoretical point of view and a high level chess). I agree that to
defend that position with black can be a very difficult task.
But there are many moves here to study:
- I proposed 7...0-0 which seems safer gaining security for black king.
Looking at my database it has been played by Adolf Anderssen, Dufresne,
Morphy, Chigorin ...
- I can see that 7...exd4!? has been played too: Adolf Anderssen, Max
Lange, Herman Pilnik. I think that move is very risky too but if those
strong players played it, maybe it's not as bad as it seems (or yes but
only after tons of analysis, ...)
- The move played in the game 7...Nxe4 has been played by Adolf
Anderssen too!!
Once I have checked those old historical players have played those 3
moves, I would not call any of them "mistakes" (at least not an obvious
one).
Antonio
|
| |
Date: 27 May 2006 11:43:59
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: I sac 4 pawns and the exhcange in 12 moves, analyses anyone?
|
En/na ben carr ha escrit:
>
> I dont know if my sacs are correct or not, but the positions I got
> seemed good enough. I welcome any criticism.
>
> 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 e5 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.OO (Is this correct?) 4...Bc5 5.b4 Bxb4
> 6.c3 Ba5 7.d4 Nxe4 8.Ba3 d5 9.Bb3 Nxc3 10.Nxc3 Bxc3 11. Rc1 exd4 ( in a
> previous game black played Bxd4 and lost quickly)
> 12. Rxc3!? dxc3 13.Re1+ Be6 14.Bxd5 Qf6
> 15. Bxe6 fxe6 16. Qd5 Nd8 17. Ng5??
>
> I didnt take the pawn on b7, pressing my attack too much. I dont know
> why i didnt really take it, the rook would be pretty much free. Any
> analysis will be appreciated.
- 4.0-0 is correct and white must be prepared to play being a pawn down
but with attacking chances after 4...Nxe4 5.Nc3 Nxc3 6.bxc3
- 4...Bc5 is correct too (no matter if 4...Nxe4 was better or not, that
is unkonwn for most player in the world but Ray)
- 7...Nxe4 maybe is playable but seems risky, very risky.
A safer player would have played 7...0-0 and only after 8.dxe5 Nex4.
- 9.Bb5 seems strong, but maybe your choice was good too. A king in the
center can be compesation enough (or more) for many pawns.
- I think you should play 14.Ba4 avoiding Qd7, 0-0-0 (and also the
extravagant Kd7-c8). The problem is that after 14.Bd5? black has
14...Ne7!! forcing simplifications.
- After 14...Qf6? white is in the top with 15.Bxc5 bxc6 16.Qa4.
- The line you played is not a blunder because in the final position you
have attacking chances enough (and b7 is defended!!!), for example
17.Ng5 c6 18.Qc5 b6 (with the idea 19.Qe3 c5 followed by 0-0) 19.Qd6!!
Qxg5 20.Rxe6! with draw.
I'm interersted in game continuation, because I think the mistake came
later.
As a general view: you played in gambit style obtaining good atacking
chances and your pawns sacrifice and quality offer are justified.
The mistakes come son or later at almost all levels (Except in 1 minute
Ray games) and you only played one blunder 14.Bd5? allowing
simplifications, that mean you played well and the complete analysis of
the game would help you playing a little better next time.
Antonio
|
|
