| |
Main
Date: 25 Jul 2006 17:52:19
From: [email protected]
Subject: re: When tactical shots are gone...
|
On Tues, Jan 20 2006 8:53pm [email protected] wrote:
> It's often more useful to judge what someone should be studying based on
> their losses than on their wins. Wanna post a couple of losses in which
> you feel you played reasonably well?
>
> -Ron
These are G/15, but decided before either player had time trouble.
In the first game, I sacrificed a knight to destroy my opponent's pawn
shield, but I couldn't find the winning follow-up 13...Qh5! I started
at the position for 30 seconds, so I suppose I need harder tactical
puzzles to spot moves like this faster.
[Event "FICS Game"]
[Date "2006.07.25"]
[White "pescaderotarzan"]
[Black "likesforests"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bc4 Bg4 6. O-O e6 7. h3
Bh5 8. d3 c6 9. Bd2 Nbd7 10. a3 Ne5 11. g4 Nexg4 12. hxg4 Bxg4 13. b4
Qc7 14. Kg2 h5 15. Rg1 h4 16. Bg5 h3+ 17. Kh1 Bd6 18. Bxf6 gxf6 19.
Rxg4 h2 20. Ne4 Be5 21. Nxe5 Qxe5 22. f4 Qd4 23. c3 Qe3 24. Qf1 Qh3 25.
Qxh3 Rxh3 26. Rg3 Rxg3 27. Nxg3 O-O-O 28. Kxh2 f5 1-0
In the second game, there were zero tactical shots. I was up against
either a computer or a strong player--it's hard to tell online. Ignore
39...Re1. I had <5 seconds per move and the loss was clear anyway. I'm
not sure what would help me spot better moves here.
[Event "FICS Game"]
[Date "2006.07.24"]
[White "CCondor"]
[Black "likesforests"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nf3 Bg4 5. Be2 e6 6. O-O Nc6 7. c4
Qd7 8. Be3 O-O-O 9. Qb3 h6 10. Nbd2 Bxf3 11. Nxf3 Ng4 12. Rfd1 Nxe3 13.
Qxe3 Nb4 14. Rd2 Be7 15. a3 Na6 16. b4 Bg5 17. Nxg5 hxg5 18. Qxg5 Qd6
19. Qg3 Qxg3 20. hxg3 Rh6 21. f3 Rdh8 22. Kf2 Rh1 23. Raa2 Nb8 24. d5
Rb1 25. dxe6 fxe6 26. f4 Rhh1 27. Bg4 b6 28. Bxe6+ Kb7 29. Bf5 Rbe1 30.
Kf3 Rh5 31. g4 Rf1+ 32. Kg3 Rhh1 33. b5 a6 34. Be4+ Ka7 35. g5 axb5 36.
cxb5 g6 37. Rac2 Rc1 38. Rxc1 Rxc1 39. Rc2 Re1 40. Rxc7# 1-0
|
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2006 20:25:07
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Giving Knight for 2 pawns Not always.
|
Sanny wrote:
> When you are having more pieces than Opponent one can think of
> sacrifices.
http://tinyurl.com/k3ul3
Material was even, but White sacrificed his bishop with 11. Rg1?!. He
then succeeded to sacrifice both his rooks... and a queen sacrifice
secures an amazing checkmate!
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2006 11:13:25
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Giving Knight for 2 pawns Not always.
|
> That's close. Whether to sacrifice or not depends on the position, but
> it's not so simple as "unless pinning or looking for mate".
>
> http://tinyurl.com/zmq47
>
> Believe it or not, White sometimes sacrifices his knight here with
> Nxf7?! in return for one pawn, and his only compensation is the exposed
> enemy king.
In the above game White is already a Pawn up. So killing one more makes
2 pawns for one knight.
When you are having more pieces than Opponent one can think of
sacrifices.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2006 11:10:57
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Giving Knight for 2 pawns Not always.
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Your Sacrifice was succesful only because the Opponents Knight was
> > Pinned against Queen. Else you would have lots of difficulty.
>
> What? You mean that whether a sacrifice works depends on the
> position?
I am saying that Sacrfice a Knight for 2 pawns is successful only when
after doing so one is able to trap opponents King or some pieces are in
pin like in the above game White Knight was Pinned by Queen. If Knight
Moves Queen will be captured.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2006 10:34:20
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Giving Knight for 2 pawns Not always.
|
Sanny wrote:
> It is not a good Idea to sacrifice Knights for 2 pawns unless you are
> Pinning something or looking for Mate Threath.
That's close. Whether to sacrifice or not depends on the position, but
it's not so simple as "unless pinning or looking for mate".
http://tinyurl.com/zmq47
Believe it or not, White sometimes sacrifices his knight here with
Nxf7?! in return for one pawn, and his only compensation is the exposed
enemy king.
It's called the Cochrane Gambit, and no less than S.Sulkis(FIDE:2545)
won with this sacrifice in the 2005 European Championship.
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2006 03:43:44
From: Sanny
Subject: Giving Knight for 2 pawns Not always.
|
>
> White has few good moves. For example, after 13. b4? Black plays
> 13...Qh5! threatening Bxf3 and Qh1#. In one fell swoop Black has won
> the game.
>
Your Sacrifice was succesful only because the Opponents Knight was
Pinned against Queen. Else you would have lots of difficulty.
Looking at Recorded games at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
It is not a good Idea to sacrifice Knights for 2 pawns unless you are
Pinning something or looking for Mate Threath.
As if the Opponent Suceeds in defending its King, he will have 1 point
advantage and can easily get a draw.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jul 2006 12:34:12
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Giving Knight for 2 pawns Not always.
|
Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> Your Sacrifice was succesful only because the Opponents Knight was
> Pinned against Queen. Else you would have lots of difficulty.
What? You mean that whether a sacrifice works depends on the
position?
Dave.
--
David Richerby Portable Sushi (TM): it's like a raw
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ fish but you can take it anywhere!
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2006 02:42:04
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: When tactical shots are gone...
|
Sanny wrote:
> What is a PAWN SHIELD. What are the formation which are strong.
In this game, White's g- and h-pawns are a shield protecting his king.
Before Sacrifice: http://tinyurl.com/qhc3j
I sacrifice a knight to remove both pawns. 11...Nxg4?! 12. hxg4 Bxg4
After Sacrifice: http://tinyurl.com/r9tko
White has few good moves. For example, after 13. b4? Black plays
13...Qh5! threatening Bxf3 and Qh1#. In one fell swoop Black has won
the game.
> any formation/defence can be removed by pawn exchange.
Using pawns to remove pawns is like using a screwdriver. Using knights
to remove pawns is like using a hammer. Sometimes you don't have time
to screw around.
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2006 02:19:02
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: When tactical shots are gone...
|
> In the first game, I sacrificed a knight to destroy my opponent's pawn
> shield, but I couldn't find the winning follow-up 13...Qh5! I started
> at the position for 30 seconds, so I suppose I need harder tactical
> puzzles to spot moves like this faster.
What is a PAWN SHIELD. What are the formation which are strong.
I want to put these shield in my Game
http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Is putting all pawns in Diagonal Where each pawn is saving one above it
or All in same rank Which one is Shield?
I have many times heard pawns formation what are they any idea. I feel
any formation/defence can be removed by pawn exchange. Just promote
your pawns and the opponents formation will break. Is there any way to
hold on these formations?
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 27 Jul 2006 23:47:52
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: When tactical shots are gone...
|
Ron wrote:
> In this game you give up the bishop pair for no real reason.
> You move pieces twice when your development is incomplete.
> You make facile threats like Nb4 when your development is still incomplete
> You then give up a pawn for the open h-file without any sort of plan
> You then drop another pawn for no real reason,
Thanks, it sounds like you agree planning / strategy is my weakest
point and studying some annotated master games in my opening is
probably not a bad idea.
> and eventually just flounder and ignore your king saftey.
That one was mostly time trouble.
> And to top it all off, you accuse your opponent of being a computer.
I said they might be as they seemed to make no mistakes and wouldn't
speak during the game (hello, good game, etc). Based on David's
analysis, they're human.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jul 2006 01:06:28
From: Ron
Subject: Re: When tactical shots are gone...
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Thanks, it sounds like you agree planning / strategy is my weakest
> point and studying some annotated master games in my opening is
> probably not a bad idea.
Yes and no.
The problem is that a book on the scandinavian isn't going to be focused
on middlegame strategy. The holes in your game are bigger than that.
Start with the fundamentals, and THEN worry about the specifics of the
scandinavian.
> > and eventually just flounder and ignore your king saftey.
>
> That one was mostly time trouble.
>
> > And to top it all off, you accuse your opponent of being a computer.
>
> I said they might be as they seemed to make no mistakes and wouldn't
> speak during the game (hello, good game, etc). Based on David's
> analysis, they're human.
Lots of people play games online in silence mode. But people make
mistakes when they're forced to make mistakes. I could play "mistake"
free chess against a weak-enough opponent.
-Ron
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jul 2006 11:06:10
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: When tactical shots are gone...
|
[email protected] <[email protected] > wrote:
> I said they might be as they seemed to make no mistakes and wouldn't
> speak during the game (hello, good game, etc).
Quite a lot of people turn off chat during games to avoid distraction
and, more importantly, to avoid idiots who like to make offensive
comments during the game or try to badger for a draw. Thankfully,
there are very few such idiots on FICS.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Incredible Addictive Cheese (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a lump of cheese but you
can never put it down and it'll blow
your mind!
|
| |
Date: 27 Jul 2006 23:31:14
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: When tactical shots are gone...
|
David Richerby wrote:
> > 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. d4 Nf6
>
> Why not the immediate 3... Nc6 to pressure White's premature pawn
> advance?
You're onto something here. I checked my games database and in the line
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.d4 Nf6 I've racked up 4 losses and 0 wins.
When I was playing 3...Nc6 looked good, but I played 3...Nf6 hoping to
transpose to the mainlines. That's never worked. Time to switch to
3...Nc6.
> > 4. Nf3 Bg4 5. Be2 e6 6. O-O Nc6 7. c4 Qd7 8. Be3 O-O-O 9. Qb3 h6
>
> Why? White has a queen and two bishops pointing at your king: is he
> threatening anything on g5?
I think this was one of my better moves. It prevents White from moving
his knight or bishop to g5 at a key moment. I see two top games in my
database where this move was played. P.Vasic-M.Djurkovic 0-1 and
O.Molkova-M.Turcheniac 1-0... it's difficult to say objectively whether
this was the right or wrong move.
> > 10. Nbd2 Bxf3 11. Nxf3 Ng4 12. Rfd1 Nxe3 13. Qxe3 Nb4 14. Rd2
>
> Your opponent isn't a computer. :-) The threat of 14... Nc2 is
> illusory as White has 14.d5 threatening 15.Qxa7.
You are right. He made a small mistake, so he's probably human!!
> > 14... Be7 15. a3 Na6 16. b4
>
> The standard plan in games with opposite-side castling is pawn storms
> at the enemy king, backed up by pieces. Here, he has one; you don't.
> I think you need to be looking at something like Bg6, f5 and g5 (not
> necessarily in that order; the problem is that f5 gives him an outpost
> for his knight on e5) so you can start to rattle his king a bit.
> > 23. Raa2 Nb8 24. d5 Rb1
> > 25. dxe6 fxe6 26. f4 Rhh1
>
> Why? After the exchange on e6, you have two very weak pawns.
>
> The command of the eighth rank looks nice but doesn't seem to achieve
> very much. You can't attack his king because f1 is covered and you
> can't attack his pawns from behind as he can just shield them with his
> rooks. If you exchange, you're making the endgame easier for him; if
> you don't, you're not getting anywhere.
I realized I needed to keep at least one rook on-board. That's a rule
of thumb when a pawn or two down if you can't calculate the endgame.
Thanks, it looks like I had two bad plans. I missed the pawn storm, and
the rooks on the eigth were impotent. I bought a book on the
Scandinavian today and plan to review the plans and annotated games in
the lines I did worst. That may help me next time.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jul 2006 01:04:36
From: Ron
Subject: Re: When tactical shots are gone...
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > 4. Nf3 Bg4 5. Be2 e6 6. O-O Nc6 7. c4 Qd7 8. Be3 O-O-O 9. Qb3 h6
> >
> > Why? White has a queen and two bishops pointing at your king: is he
> > threatening anything on g5?
>
> I think this was one of my better moves. It prevents White from moving
> his knight or bishop to g5 at a key moment. I see two top games in my
> database where this move was played. P.Vasic-M.Djurkovic 0-1 and
> O.Molkova-M.Turcheniac 1-0... it's difficult to say objectively whether
> this was the right or wrong move.
Sorry, I meant to comment on this, too.
It's the wrong move - for you - because you don't have a good reason for
playing it. Maybe Mr. Djurkovic or Mr. Turcheniac did. But let me ask
you this:
Are Ng5 or Bg5 meaningful threats right now?
Ng5 just hangs a piece. Bg5 hangs a pawn.
Why on earth would you want to stop your opponent from making those
moves? (If you're worried about the doubled f-pawns after Bxf6, all I
can do is reiterate the fact that you really need a good middlegame
book. You'd LOVE white to open your g-file for you here.)
You have more important things to do than defend against threats that
aren't, actually, even close to being threats yet. You can't play this
passively.
-Ron
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jul 2006 00:56:04
From: Ron
Subject: Re: When tactical shots are gone...
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I bought a book on the
> Scandinavian today and plan to review the plans and annotated games in
> the lines I did worst. That may help me next time.
You'd do better to study a good middlegame book, like Silman's "How to
Reassess Your Chess" or a book of annotated GM games from the early part
of the last century. You've got fundamental holes in your planning and
evaluation, and you'll benefit more from studying broader than by just
focusing on the Scandinavian.
-Ron
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jul 2006 12:31:11
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: When tactical shots are gone...
|
[email protected] <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>>> 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. d4 Nf6
>>
>> Why not the immediate 3... Nc6 to pressure White's premature pawn
>> advance?
>
> You're onto something here. I checked my games database and in the
> line 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.d4 Nf6 I've racked up 4 losses and 0
> wins.
Well, I think 3... Nc6 is better but 3... Nf6 doesn't look game-
losingly bad. I recommended Nc6 on general principles: I know nothing
about the Scandinavian. Nc6 develops a piece and takes the
initiative; Nf6 just develops.
>>> 4. Nf3 Bg4 5. Be2 e6 6. O-O Nc6 7. c4 Qd7 8. Be3 O-O-O 9. Qb3 h6
>>
>> Why? White has a queen and two bishops pointing at your king: is
>> he threatening anything on g5?
>
> I think this was one of my better moves. It prevents White from
> moving his knight or bishop to g5 at a key moment.
And? It's all very well preventing a move but, unless that move would
actually be good for your opponent, you're just wasting time. Right
now, neither Ng5 nor Bg5 is good. 10.Ng5 is a howling blunder because
it drops a piece; 10.Bg5 h6 and now either 11.Bxf6 gxf6 opening a line
for your rooks against his king, 11.Bh4 g5 12.Bg3 giving you a pawn
storm with tempo or 11.Be3, and you got h6 in for free.
> P.Vasic-M.Djurkovic 0-1
Huh. Huhuh. He said `Djurkovic'.</beavis-and-butthead >
> I bought a book on the Scandinavian today and plan to review the
> plans and annotated games in the lines I did worst. That may help me
> next time.
Going through master games is a good plan. In the sorts of openings
you play, doubly so. But it seems to me that what you need most is
not more opening knowledge but a greater level of general strategic
understanding so make sure you concentrate on that. A good way to go
through master games is to cover the moves with a sheet of paper and
try to work out what the winning side's moves are going to be. Only
reveal the next move when you're sure what you're going to play.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Disposable Sushi (TM): it's like a raw
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ fish but you never have to clean it!
|
| |
Date: 27 Jul 2006 01:52:11
From: Ron
Subject: Re: When tactical shots are gone...
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> In the first game, I sacrificed a knight to destroy my opponent's pawn
> shield, but I couldn't find the winning follow-up 13...Qh5! I started
> at the position for 30 seconds, so I suppose I need harder tactical
> puzzles to spot moves like this faster.
It's worth pointing out that the N sac may not be sound. 13.Nd5! holds
onto the extra piece.
> In the second game, there were zero tactical shots. I was up against
> either a computer or a strong player--it's hard to tell online. Ignore
> 39...Re1. I had <5 seconds per move and the loss was clear anyway. I'm
> not sure what would help me spot better moves here.
My question here is simply, what did you do to think you deserved any
tactical shots?
Tactical shots don't just appear out of the ether. You set them up by
developing a strong attack.
In this game you give up the bishop pair for no real reason. You move
pieces twice when your development is incomplete. You make facile
threats like Nb4 when your development is still incomplete - allowing
your opponent to progress with the correct strategic plan (queenside
pawn storm) with a gain of tempo.
You then give up a pawn for the open h-file without any sort of plan of
attack. You then drop another pawn for no real reason, and eventually
just flounder and ignore your king saftey.
And to top it all off, you accuse your opponent of being a computer.
This seems highly unlikely, as the real source of your loss was a loss
of time and planless play, followed by hanging pawns for no compensation.
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 26 Jul 2006 14:23:39
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: When tactical shots are gone...
|
[email protected] <[email protected] > wrote:
> [Event "FICS Game"]
> [Date "2006.07.25"]
> [White "pescaderotarzan"]
> [Black "likesforests"]
> [Result "1-0"]
>
> 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bc4 Bg4 6. O-O e6 7. h3
> Bh5 8. d3 c6 9. Bd2 Nbd7 10. a3 Ne5 11. g4 Nexg4 12. hxg4 Bxg4 13. b4
> Qc7 14. Kg2 h5 15. Rg1 h4 16. Bg5 h3+ 17. Kh1 Bd6 18. Bxf6 gxf6 19.
> Rxg4 h2 20. Ne4 Be5 21. Nxe5 Qxe5 22. f4 Qd4 23. c3 Qe3 24. Qf1 Qh3 25.
> Qxh3 Rxh3 26. Rg3 Rxg3 27. Nxg3 O-O-O 28. Kxh2 f5 1-0
>
> [...] I couldn't find the winning follow-up 13...Qh5! I started at
> the position for 30 seconds, so I suppose I need harder tactical
> puzzles to spot moves like this faster.
The knight sac is nice. :-) On the other hand, 13... Qh5 should be
immediate doesn't deserve an exclam. It puts a second attacker on a
piece that cannot be further defended so it wins that piece immedi-
ately. (14.Kg2 doesn't help because of 14... Qh3+ 15.Kg1.) It turns
out that it does more than that (because it gets your queen close to
his naked king) but that's a bonus.
This is elementary compared to `harder tactical puzzles.'
> [Event "FICS Game"]
> [Date "2006.07.24"]
> [White "CCondor"]
> [Black "likesforests"]
> [Result "1-0"]
>
> 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. d4 Nf6
Why not the immediate 3... Nc6 to pressure White's premature pawn
advance?
> 4. Nf3 Bg4 5. Be2 e6 6. O-O Nc6 7. c4 Qd7 8. Be3 O-O-O 9. Qb3 h6
Why? White has a queen and two bishops pointing at your king: is he
threatening anything on g5?
> 10. Nbd2 Bxf3 11. Nxf3 Ng4 12. Rfd1 Nxe3 13. Qxe3 Nb4 14. Rd2
Your opponent isn't a computer. :-) The threat of 14... Nc2 is
illusory as White has 14.d5 threatening 15.Qxa7.
> 14... Be7 15. a3 Na6 16. b4
The standard plan in games with opposite-side castling is pawn storms
at the enemy king, backed up by pieces. Here, he has one; you don't.
I think you need to be looking at something like Bg6, f5 and g5 (not
necessarily in that order; the problem is that f5 gives him an outpost
for his knight on e5) so you can start to rattle his king a bit.
> 16... Bg5 17. Nxg5 hxg5 18. Qxg5 Qd6 19. Qg3 Qxg3 20. hxg3 Rh6
> 21. f3 Rdh8 22. Kf2 Rh1
Here, I think you need to keep the rooks on. A pawn down, with
less-advanced pawns and knight against bishop, you're going to have
trouble in the endgame if the rooks come off.
> 23. Raa2 Nb8 24. d5 Rb1
Why? After the exchange on e6, you have two very weak pawns.
> 25. dxe6 fxe6 26. f4 Rhh1
The command of the eighth rank looks nice but doesn't seem to achieve
very much. You can't attack his king because f1 is covered and you
can't attack his pawns from behind as he can just shield them with his
rooks. If you exchange, you're making the endgame easier for him; if
you don't, you're not getting anywhere.
> 27. Bg4 b6 28. Bxe6+ Kb7 29. Bf5 Rbe1 30. Kf3 Rh5 31. g4 Rf1+
> 32. Kg3 Rhh1 33. b5 a6 34. Be4+ Ka7 35. g5 axb5 36. cxb5 g6
> 37. Rac2 Rc1 38. Rxc1 Rxc1 39. Rc2 Re1 40. Rxc7# 1-0
Dave.
--
David Richerby Incredible Beer (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a refreshing lager but it'll blow
your mind!
|
|
