| |
Main
Date: 09 May 2007 00:06:58
From: [email protected]
Subject: What should my plan have been in this game?
|
{axiom vs likesforests}
1. e4 d5 2. f3
{Opening: Scandinavian-Possum. The Possum is an opening some
Australians are experimenting with,}
dxe4 3. fxe4 e5 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. Bc4 Nf6 6. Nc3 a6 7. h3 0-0 8. g4 Nc6 9.
d3 Na5 10. Bb3 Nxb3 11. axb3
{I feel my position is very solid. My opponent can't castle, they have
doubled pawns, and I have the bishop pair. But how to proceed? A queen-
side pawn advance would undouble his pawns, while a kingside pawn
advance would weaken my king. I don't see any immediate way to attack
his king while it's stuck in the center. I'm looking for something
more specific than "open the position" -- doh. :) }
c6 12. Qe2 Re8 13. Nd1 b5 14. Ne3 h6 15. g5 hxg5 16. Nxg5 Nh7 17.
Nxh7 Qh4+ 18. Kd1 Qxh7
{I had been waiting for 15.g5 and had the whole tactical response
planned out. I still have the bishop pair, he still has doubled pawns,
and two files are half-open with his king in the center, but I can't
come up with any plan to take advantage of these pluses.}
19. Qg2 Be7
{Probably a mistake... I cede a good diagonal to my opponent.}
20. Ng4 f6 21. Be3 Kf8 22. Kd2 Be6 23. Raf1
{Now his pieces seem better placed than mine, and I'm wary of his
potential attacks.}
Bd6
{ Oops. Rybka says we both missed a 12-move tactical sequence. ;-) }
24. d4 exd4 25. Bxd4 Bxg4
{I give up the bishop pair to reduce the pressure on my f-pawn.
Calculating the long tactical sequences is giving me a headache, and
I'm bound to miss one.}
26. hxg4 Qg6 27.Rf5
{We adjourned for 6 months. When I returned, I noticed my opponent's
pieces are better placed and so decided to trade down to an endgame,
aiming for a draw}
Be5 28.Bxe5 Rad8+ 29.Kc1 Rxe5 30. Rxe5 fxe5
{The sequence went exactly as expected! I'm one step closer to a
draw.}
31.Qf2+ Ke7 32.Qc5+ Qd6 33.Qa7+ Rd7 34.Qxa6
{I've mostly been trying to block my king from checks. I'm a pawn
down, but now I see an opportunity to trade away our rooks. And a
queen endgame, one pawn down, is usually a draw.}
Qd2+ 35.Kb1 Qg2 36.Re1 Qxg4 37.Qxc6 Rd1+ 38.Rxd1 Qxd1+ 39.Ka2
{We're down to K+Q+3P vs K+Q+2P, after the exchange sequence went
mostly as expected.}
b4
{Perhaps Qd8 was better. I was hoping for perpetual checks, moving my
queen along the e1-a5 diagonal. I think I made this move too hastily.}
40.Qc5+ Kf7 41.Qc4+ Kg6 42.c3
{Qxb4 was probably better for my opponent--our errors canceled out.}
bxc3 43.bxc3 Kh5 44.Qf7+ g6 45.Qh7+ Kg5 46.Qe7+ Kf4 47.Qf7+ Kxe4
48.Qxg6+ Kf4
{Further simplification.}
49.Qh6+ Kg4 50.Qe3 Kf5 51.b4 e4 52.Kb2 Qf3
{1/2-1/2. He played the last few more moves hoping I would goof up,
and seeing I didn't, agreed to the draw.}
|
|
| |
Date: 10 May 2007 16:36:43
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: What should my plan have been in this game?
|
On May 9, 3:29 pm, Ron <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> But you should offer a draw not because you don't see how you're going
> to win, but rather because you see how you could lose.
>
> -Ron
Thanks for the insights. I'll definitely be thinking over these as I
look over my game again. Soltis' Grandmaster Secrets: Endings sounds
like a good book. The strategy in there is probably complementary to
the exact positions I've been studying in Minev and Dvoretsky.
|
| |
Date: 10 May 2007 16:31:48
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: What should my plan have been in this game?
|
On May 10, 12:32 pm, "Bark!" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Please provide ELO's of players. My guess is - around 1800 rating?
White's 1900 FIDE and I'm approximately 1200 FIDE.
|
| | |
Date: 13 May 2007 14:34:13
From: Bark!
Subject: Re: What should my plan have been in this game?
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On May 10, 12:32 pm, "Bark!" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Please provide ELO's of players. My guess is - around 1800 rating?
>
> White's 1900 FIDE and I'm approximately 1200 FIDE.
Above all, good job man. But how on earth can that guy be 1900? And he can't
beat you. What were the time controls?
|
| |
Date: 10 May 2007 21:16:30
From: Bark!
Subject: Re: What should my plan have been in this game?
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> {axiom vs likesforests}
>
> cut
Hmmmmm..... I didn't see anyone comment 20...f6. It hangs the queen. Nxf6
for free and forks the king and the queen.
|
| | |
Date: 10 May 2007 22:11:24
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: What should my plan have been in this game?
|
Bark! <[email protected] > wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> 1. e4 d5 2. f3 dxe4 3. fxe4 e5 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. Bc4 Nf6 6. Nc3 a6
>> 7. h3 0-0 8. g4 Nc6 9. d3 Na5 10. Bb3 Nxb3 11. axb3 c6 12. Qe2 Re8
>> 13. Nd1 b5 14. Ne3 h6 15. g5 hxg5 16. Nxg5 Nh7 17. Nxh7 Qh4+
>> 18. Kd1 Qxh7 19. Qg2 Be7 20. Ng4 f6 [...]
>
> Hmmmmm..... I didn't see anyone comment 20...f6. It hangs the queen.
> Nxf6 for free and forks the king and the queen.
You seem to have missed ...Bxf6 in reply. Did you have the right
position?
Dave.
--
David Richerby Frozen Windows (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ graphical user interface but it's
frozen in a block of ice!
|
| | | |
Date: 11 May 2007 01:14:17
From: Bark!
Subject: Re: What should my plan have been in this game?
|
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:ykC*[email protected]...
> Bark! <[email protected]> wrote:
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 1. e4 d5 2. f3 dxe4 3. fxe4 e5 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. Bc4 Nf6 6. Nc3 a6
>>> 7. h3 0-0 8. g4 Nc6 9. d3 Na5 10. Bb3 Nxb3 11. axb3 c6 12. Qe2 Re8
>>> 13. Nd1 b5 14. Ne3 h6 15. g5 hxg5 16. Nxg5 Nh7 17. Nxh7 Qh4+
>>> 18. Kd1 Qxh7 19. Qg2 Be7 20. Ng4 f6 [...]
>>
>> Hmmmmm..... I didn't see anyone comment 20...f6. It hangs the queen.
>> Nxf6 for free and forks the king and the queen.
>
> You seem to have missed ...Bxf6 in reply. Did you have the right
> position?
>
>
> Dave.
Oops. I entered 19...Bd7 instead of Be7. My bad. But Bd7 would be
interesting :)
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 May 2007 01:17:35
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: What should my plan have been in this game?
|
Bark! <[email protected] > wrote:
>"David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Bark! <[email protected]> wrote:
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 1. e4 d5 2. f3 dxe4 3. fxe4 e5 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. Bc4 Nf6 6. Nc3 a6
>>>> 7. h3 0-0 8. g4 Nc6 9. d3 Na5 10. Bb3 Nxb3 11. axb3 c6 12. Qe2 Re8
>>>> 13. Nd1 b5 14. Ne3 h6 15. g5 hxg5 16. Nxg5 Nh7 17. Nxh7 Qh4+
>>>> 18. Kd1 Qxh7 19. Qg2 Be7 20. Ng4 f6 [...]
>>>
>>> Hmmmmm..... I didn't see anyone comment 20...f6. It hangs the queen.
>>> Nxf6 for free and forks the king and the queen.
>>
>> You seem to have missed ...Bxf6 in reply. Did you have the right
>> position?
>
> Oops. I entered 19...Bd7 instead of Be7.
Thought that might have been it.
As an aside, it would be useful if people who posted games like this
put their comments in {braces} so that the game could be read by any
PGN reader rather than entered manually.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Adult Goldfish (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ fish that you won't want the children
to see!
|
| | | |
Date: 11 May 2007 01:11:01
From: Bark!
Subject: Re: What should my plan have been in this game?
|
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:ykC*[email protected]...
> Bark! <[email protected]> wrote:
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 1. e4 d5 2. f3 dxe4 3. fxe4 e5 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. Bc4 Nf6 6. Nc3 a6
>>> 7. h3 0-0 8. g4 Nc6 9. d3 Na5 10. Bb3 Nxb3 11. axb3 c6 12. Qe2 Re8
>>> 13. Nd1 b5 14. Ne3 h6 15. g5 hxg5 16. Nxg5 Nh7 17. Nxh7 Qh4+
>>> 18. Kd1 Qxh7 19. Qg2 Be7 20. Ng4 f6 [...]
>>
>> Hmmmmm..... I didn't see anyone comment 20...f6. It hangs the queen.
>> Nxf6 for free and forks the king and the queen.
>
> You seem to have missed ...Bxf6 in reply. Did you have the right
> position?
>
>
> Dave.
Obviously not. I entered something wrong. I'll check it out again.
|
| | |
Date: 10 May 2007 20:51:58
From: Ron
Subject: Re: What should my plan have been in this game?
|
In article <[email protected] >, "Bark!" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Hmmmmm..... I didn't see anyone comment 20...f6. It hangs the queen. Nxf6
> for free and forks the king and the queen.
21. Nxf6+?? Bxf6.
There's a black bishop on e7.
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 09 May 2007 12:35:34
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: What should my plan have been in this game?
|
>> Sure! But central action is a great response to activity in the center.
> I think Ron meant to write, `But central action is a great response to
> activity *on the wings*.'
Heh. I guessed that's what he meant. ;-)
|
| |
Date: 09 May 2007 12:32:16
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: What should my plan have been in this game?
|
On May 9, 1:22 am, Ron <[email protected] > wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> I also hate the move 6. ... a6, by the way. What the hell are you afraid of?
A USCF 2200-rated player had this to say about 6...a6: "Black can play
6...0-0 or 6...Bg4 but then 7. Na4 exchanges the bishop hence 6...a6.
Now white really is in unknown territory as there is no 'best' move in
the books." The idea is to retain my bishop on the long a7-g1
diagonal, where it prevents White from castling king side.
>> 11.axb3
> The fact that you think the position is "solid" to me explains your
> problem handling it. It is, in fact, a very dynamic position. You need
> to be thinking aggressively.
>
> So long as the center is closed, his kingside attack is very strong, and
> you need to react dynamically in the center. I'd be thinking in terms of
> playing for the f7-f5 pawn level to undermine his e-pawn and, yes, open
> the center, so that you can take advantage of the fact that his king is
> stuck there, and that you have the bishop pair.
>
> Does that weaken your kingside? Sure! But central action is a great
> response to activity in the center. Your king is fundamentaly safer than
> his, because his is in the center, but that's not true if the kingside
> is wide open and the center is closed.
Thanks, so that's the plan I was missing. After reading the Amateur
Mind, I recognize imbalances but I'm still clueless when it comes to
choosing plan to exploit them.
> 18. Kd1 Qxh7
> Despite the fact that my computer likes your position, I hate it. He's
> got an active plan (open files on the kingside and attack) and you
> don't.
> 14. ... h6 is a terrible move, as it allows him to open the g-file. This
> is EXACTLY what he wants. Instead 14.Be6 g5 15.Nd7 g6?! 16.hg! and
> you're preparing f5, breaking open the center. As it goes, you give him
> the g-file without giving yourself any compensation.
> And the doubled pawns are a non-issue. You're a long way from an
> endgame. You talk about the two half-open files but the half-open files
> in this position are not created equal. Your half open file aims at d3,
> a strongly defended spot. His half-open file points at g7, traditionally
> the weakest spot in the black king's defenses.
When you tell me he was trying to open files on the king side, it make
sense. While we were playing, I thought his only goal was to overrun
my king with pawns.
> > 24. d4 exd4 25. Bxd4 Bxg4
>
> > {I give up the bishop pair to reduce the pressure on my f-pawn.
> > Calculating the long tactical sequences is giving me a headache, and
> > I'm bound to miss one.}
>
> This is a weird choice at this time because he's just opened the center
> for you, and given you an avenue to his king. If you're worried about
> f6, Be7 makes more sense. You're finally getting the open center you
> need to take advantage of his centralized king and your bishop pair ...
> and you start trading off your pieces!
Yeah, I guess a bad choice.
> > 26. hxg4 Qg6 27.Rf5
>
> I admit to not being crazy about your chances here, but I think they're
> better if you play actively and try to seize the initiative. Why not
> Rad8?
We agree I have the worse position, and my opponent is higher-rated. I
think exchanging away pieces and aiming for a drawn endgame was the
sensible thing to do.
> > down, but now I see an opportunity to trade away our rooks. And a
> > queen endgame, one pawn down, is usually a draw.}
>
> Not really. Actually, rook endings are much more drawish than queen
> endings.
> It's too late for me to evaluate this ending with any accuracy, but
> honestly, I like white's chances. I don't feel like aiming for this
> ending was wise.
How so? In Rook + Pawn vs Rook you can draw if your king can get to
the queening square first ala Philidor. In Queen + Pawn vs Queen, you
can draw in a similar manner. In addition, you have the possibility of
perpetual checks. After 39.Ka2, White has to take care to avoid
perpetual checks.
> > 49.Qh6+ Kg4 50.Qe3 Kf5 51.b4 e4 52.Kb2 Qf3
>
> > {1/2-1/2. He played the last few more moves hoping I would goof up,
> > and seeing I didn't, agreed to the draw.}
>
> I'm surprised he agreed to the draw here. I'd have kept playing.
At depth=20 with a 4-man table base, Rybka scores it 0.00. I can't
read his mind, but I'm glad I offered the draw, and that he accepted
it. A draw is still better than a loss against a higher-rated opponent!
|
| | |
Date: 10 May 2007 19:43:43
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: What should my plan have been in this game?
|
[email protected] <[email protected] > wrote:
> After reading the Amateur Mind, I recognize imbalances
But do you? It seems to me that you recognize features of the
position that might be imbalances (doubled pawns, kings stuck in the
centre, bishop pairs, open and semi-open files and so on) but don't
really have much idea of how these features contribute to the balance
or otherwise of the position. Picking out the *relevant* features of
the position is the difficult part! :-)
Well, and exploiting them.
OK, so almost all of chess is hard, really. ;-)
Dave.
--
David Richerby Chocolate Monk (TM): it's like a man
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of God that's made of chocolate!
|
| | |
Date: 09 May 2007 22:29:46
From: Ron
Subject: Re: What should my plan have been in this game?
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> On May 9, 1:22 am, Ron <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
>
> > I also hate the move 6. ... a6, by the way. What the hell are you afraid of?
>
> A USCF 2200-rated player had this to say about 6...a6: "Black can play
> 6...0-0 or 6...Bg4 but then 7. Na4 exchanges the bishop hence 6...a6.
> Now white really is in unknown territory as there is no 'best' move in
> the books." The idea is to retain my bishop on the long a7-g1
> diagonal, where it prevents White from castling king side.
Well, that's stronger than me. But the way I think about it, if he wants
to waste time trying to remove your bishop, let him and punish him for
wasting time. As for him castling kingside, so what? His kingside
position is weaker than yours.
> Thanks, so that's the plan I was missing. After reading the Amateur
> Mind, I recognize imbalances but I'm still clueless when it comes to
> choosing plan to exploit them.
It gets easier with experience. Which is not to say that the plan I
found was the "right" plan, but you have to be willing to be aggressive
to exploit the imbalances which favor you.
> > I admit to not being crazy about your chances here, but I think they're
> > better if you play actively and try to seize the initiative. Why not
> > Rad8?
>
> We agree I have the worse position, and my opponent is higher-rated. I
> think exchanging away pieces and aiming for a drawn endgame was the
> sensible thing to do.
The problem is that all you may be doing is exchanging down into a worse
endgame. The connected passers he ends up with are much more dangerous
than your solo passer.
The other issue is that it's generally a bad idea to trade material when
down material. He's got a pawn advantage. If there's a lot of material
on the board, that pawn doesn't amount to much. If there isn't, then
that extra pawn is often decisive.
The rule of thumb is that if you're ahead in material, trade pieces. If
you're behind in material, trade pawns (fewer pawns make it harder for
him to convert one for the win.)
But ultimately, like all rules of thumb, that one has plenty of
exceptions. Ultimately, the right move here depends on the evaluation of
the endgame on move 39.
8/4k1p1/2Q5/1p2p3/4P3/1P6/KPP5/3q4 b - - 1 39
You have an outsider passer. He's going to get connected passers. Heck,
for all I can tell, your outside passer might be more valuable. The
right strategy for black might be to push, push, push that g-pawn and
threaten to queen it, to force him into a defensive posture so that he's
trying to earn a draw, or you can swing your queen over to pick off his
queenside pawns.
My intuition says that, no matter what the ultimate evaluation of this
position is, that's the right plan. Not passive "um, swap off stuff and
hope I can draw" but active: "Make him stop me from queening my g-pawn."
Outside passers are valuable. In fact, I think he gives you the draw
here because, from moves 39-50 he lets you advance your passed pawn
(turning it into a passed e-pawn, which is less valuable than a g-pawn)
without advancing his passed pawns.
In fact, it looks to me like if he gets his pawns rolling, you basically
have no choice but to start trying to get a perpetual. But he doesn't
get his pawns rolling.
> How so? In Rook + Pawn vs Rook you can draw if your king can get to
> the queening square first ala Philidor. In Queen + Pawn vs Queen, you
> can draw in a similar manner. In addition, you have the possibility of
> perpetual checks. After 39.Ka2, White has to take care to avoid
> perpetual checks.
The issue is that rooks are more limited, unless it's in front of a
pawn, can't both protect a pawn and attack a piece that blockading that
pawn. The queen, with it's greater mobility, can.
Yes, there's the added risk of perpetual.
> At depth=20 with a 4-man table base, Rybka scores it 0.00.
I don't play as well as Rybka. Do you? Does your opponent in this game?
The fact that the computer rates the position as even doesn't mean that
both players don't have chances to play for the win. After all,
computers rate the starting position as nearly even and yet very few of
my games are drawn.
I think you really need to read Soltis' "Grandmaster Secrets: Endings."
> I can't
> read his mind, but I'm glad I offered the draw, and that he accepted
> it. A draw is still better than a loss against a higher-rated opponent!
Not if by playing on you would have learned more, and won more later.
I dunno. Upon further reflection that ending is trickier than I thought
it was. His connected passers are better, but your pawn is more
advanced. (Ironically, this may be an ending that's drawn with queens
but winable with rooks - which doesn't invalidate the general principle
- because rooks are notoriously weak against connected passed pawns, and
he might be in a position where he could sac his rook for your passer
and then drive his two pawns home to victory.)
But you should offer a draw not because you don't see how you're going
to win, but rather because you see how you could lose.
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 09 May 2007 01:22:16
From: Ron
Subject: Re: What should my plan have been in this game?
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> {axiom vs likesforests}
>
> 1. e4 d5 2. f3
>
> {Opening: Scandinavian-Possum. The Possum is an opening some
> Australians are experimenting with,}
>
> dxe4 3. fxe4 e5 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. Bc4 Nf6 6. Nc3 a6 7. h3 0-0 8. g4 Nc6 9.
> d3 Na5 10. Bb3 Nxb3 11. axb3
>
> {I feel my position is very solid. My opponent can't castle, they have
> doubled pawns, and I have the bishop pair. But how to proceed? A queen-
> side pawn advance would undouble his pawns, while a kingside pawn
> advance would weaken my king. I don't see any immediate way to attack
> his king while it's stuck in the center. I'm looking for something
> more specific than "open the position" -- doh. :) }
The fact that you think the position is "solid" to me explains your
problem handling it. It is, in fact, a very dynamic position. You need
to be thinking aggressively.
So long as the center is closed, his kingside attack is very strong, and
you need to react dynamically in the center. I'd be thinking in terms of
playing for the f7-f5 pawn level to undermine his e-pawn and, yes, open
the center, so that you can take advantage of the fact that his king is
stuck there, and that you have the bishop pair.
Does that weaken your kingside? Sure! But central action is a great
response to activity in the center. Your king is fundamentaly safer than
his, because his is in the center, but that's not true if the kingside
is wide open and the center is closed.
I also hate the move 6. ... a6, by the way. What the hell are you afraid
of?
> c6 12. Qe2 Re8 13. Nd1 b5 14. Ne3 h6 15. g5 hxg5 16. Nxg5 Nh7 17.
> Nxh7 Qh4+ 18. Kd1 Qxh7
>
> {I had been waiting for 15.g5 and had the whole tactical response
> planned out. I still have the bishop pair, he still has doubled pawns,
> and two files are half-open with his king in the center, but I can't
> come up with any plan to take advantage of these pluses.}
Despite the fact that my computer likes your position, I hate it. He's
got an active plan (open files on the kingside and attack) and you
don't.
14. ... h6 is a terrible move, as it allows him to open the g-file. This
is EXACTLY what he wants. Instead 14.Be6 g5 15.Nd7 g6?! 16.hg! and
you're preparing f5, breaking open the center. As it goes, you give him
the g-file without giving yourself any compensation.
And the doubled pawns are a non-issue. You're a long way from an
endgame. You talk about the two half-open files but the half-open files
in this position are not created equal. Your half open file aims at d3,
a strongly defended spot. His half-open file points at g7, traditionally
the weakest spot in the black king's defenses.
> 19. Qg2 Be7
>
> {Probably a mistake... I cede a good diagonal to my opponent.}
>
> 20. Ng4 f6 21. Be3 Kf8 22. Kd2 Be6 23. Raf1
>
> {Now his pieces seem better placed than mine, and I'm wary of his
> potential attacks.}
>
> Bd6
>
> { Oops. Rybka says we both missed a 12-move tactical sequence. ;-) }
>
> 24. d4 exd4 25. Bxd4 Bxg4
>
> {I give up the bishop pair to reduce the pressure on my f-pawn.
> Calculating the long tactical sequences is giving me a headache, and
> I'm bound to miss one.}
This is a weird choice at this time because he's just opened the center
for you, and given you an avenue to his king. If you're worried about
f6, Be7 makes more sense. You're finally getting the open center you
need to take advantage of his centralized king and your bishop pair ...
and you start trading off your pieces!
> 26. hxg4 Qg6 27.Rf5
>
> {We adjourned for 6 months. When I returned, I noticed my opponent's
> pieces are better placed and so decided to trade down to an endgame,
> aiming for a draw}
I admit to not being crazy about your chances here, but I think they're
better if you play actively and try to seize the initiative. Why not
Rad8?
> Be5 28.Bxe5 Rad8+ 29.Kc1 Rxe5 30. Rxe5 fxe5
>
> {The sequence went exactly as expected! I'm one step closer to a
> draw.}
>
> 31.Qf2+ Ke7 32.Qc5+ Qd6 33.Qa7+ Rd7 34.Qxa6
>
> {I've mostly been trying to block my king from checks. I'm a pawn
> down, but now I see an opportunity to trade away our rooks. And a
> queen endgame, one pawn down, is usually a draw.}
Not really. Actually, rook endings are much more drawish than queen
endings.
It's too late for me to evaluate this ending with any accuracy, but
honestly, I like white's chances. I don't feel like aiming for this
ending was wise.
> Qd2+ 35.Kb1 Qg2 36.Re1 Qxg4 37.Qxc6 Rd1+ 38.Rxd1 Qxd1+ 39.Ka2
>
> {We're down to K+Q+3P vs K+Q+2P, after the exchange sequence went
> mostly as expected.}
>
> b4
>
> {Perhaps Qd8 was better. I was hoping for perpetual checks, moving my
> queen along the e1-a5 diagonal. I think I made this move too hastily.}
>
> 40.Qc5+ Kf7 41.Qc4+ Kg6 42.c3
>
> {Qxb4 was probably better for my opponent--our errors canceled out.}
>
> bxc3 43.bxc3 Kh5 44.Qf7+ g6 45.Qh7+ Kg5 46.Qe7+ Kf4 47.Qf7+ Kxe4
> 48.Qxg6+ Kf4
>
> {Further simplification.}
>
> 49.Qh6+ Kg4 50.Qe3 Kf5 51.b4 e4 52.Kb2 Qf3
>
> {1/2-1/2. He played the last few more moves hoping I would goof up,
> and seeing I didn't, agreed to the draw.}
I'm surprised he agreed to the draw here. I'd have kept playing.
|
| | |
Date: 09 May 2007 20:20:09
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: What should my plan have been in this game?
|
Ron <[email protected] > wrote:
> Does that weaken your kingside? Sure! But central action is a great
> response to activity in the center.
I think Ron meant to write, `But central action is a great response to
activity *on the wings*.'
Dave.
--
David Richerby Dangerous Indelible Postman (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a man who delivers the mail
but it can't be erased and it could
explode at any minute!
|
|
