| |
Main
Date: 08 Aug 2007 10:29:55
From: samsloan
Subject: Win with Damiano's Defense
|
Win with Damiano's Defense
I just got back from the US Open where I had a terrible result, my
worst performance in years. It was not that my score was so bad. I
scored 4.5 - 4.5, an even score shared by many strong players. It was
how I achieved that score. I lost three games in a row to players
rated hundreds of points lower than myself. Even the games I won
should not have been won. Polly Wright had me all rolled up. As she
uses a Monroi, our game was broadcast live on the Internet and all the
sports fans were rooting for her. It was nice the way I found a way to
survive her attack and win the game, but I should not have gotten into
such a busted position in the first place. Also, in round 8, I was
lost against a Denker player, Dan Aldrich, when he blundered and lost.
Even in round one, when I was paired against a lowly 1272 player, it
looked like we had reached a hopelessly drawn endgame but I managed to
squeeze out a win. So, I really only won one game by outplaying my
opponent. That was in the last round.
I have since been analyzing my losses and I have found that in each
game I lost, I missed at least one key move which would have nearly
equalized and given me a fighting chance. So, I did not lose because
of my openings. I lost because I played badly.
I played three games with my Damiano's Defense, 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6,
losing two of them. In the World Open I also played three games with
the Damiano's Defense. In each of those games my opponent declined to
take the pawn with 3. Nxe5. I won all three games and all of my
opponents were rated higher than me. In the US Open, all of my
opponents played 3. Nxe5. I won one, lost two. Two of my opponents
were rated hundreds of points below me.
I attribute this in part to the publicity my Damiano's Defense has
received. I believe that I am the first player in human history to try
to play 3. . . . . fxe5 consistently and win with it, not counting
beginners and those who simply do not know any better. My round 8
opponent admitted after the game that he had looked me up, learned
that I played that and prepared a line against it. That was an
important test for my defense and I passed the test as I won that
game. When he reeled off the standard book line against my defense, I
realized that he must have studied it, as the line is hard to find and
nobody has been able to find it over-the-board. He confirmed after the
game that he had studied and prepared for my defense.
Another factor is that during the tournament the organizers were
handing out free copies of the June 2006 issue of Atlantic Chess News
and on page 8 of that issue was an article by James R. West about how
he had defeated my Damiano's Defense after declining to take the pawn.
He wrote that I was "unaware" of the "refutation", which, he wrote,
was 3. Nxe5 fxe5 4. Qh5+ Ke7 5. Qxe5+ Kf7 6. Bc4+ d5 7. Bxd5+ Kg6 8.
H4 h5 9. Bxb7 Bd6 10. Qa5 Bxb7 11. Qf5+ Kh6 12. d4+ and White wins.
West concludes, "Apparently Sloan is unaware of this refutation".
OK. Just play it against me and see if I am unaware of it. By the way,
at a subsequent tournament, West again had white against me and he
avoided the opening altogether by playing 1. b3.
Here is my game against International Master Alex Lenderman. Lenderman
is only 16 but he was up among the leaders throughout the tournament.
His final score was only a half point out of a tie for first place. He
will undoubtedly be a grandmaster before long.
Thus, he was the ideal opponent for me to test my Damiano's Defense
against.
The Damiano's Defense goes 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 !!! The name comes from
a 17th century Italian opening theoretician who wrote that 2. . . . .
f6 was a poor move, and thus was condemned to have the opening named
after him.
Here are the games, then the analysis. Against Lenderman, the move I
missed was 11. . . . Qe5. That move would have given me a good
fighting chance. Also, 8. . . . Ka5 and 9. . . . . Nd7 need to be
analyzed. Against Brooks, I believe that 10. . . . Ne7 would have
given me a good playable game, remembering that I still have an extra
knight, and perhaps better yet was 11. . . . Rg8 sacrificing the
exchange but if White takes it Black might even have the advantage due
to superior development. Against Aldrich an interesting idea provided
by Fritz is 10. . . . Bb4 attempting to deflect the queen away from
the mating square of f5. Also, instead of 10. . . . Nc6 giving back a
knight, Black might consider just letting White take the rook on a8
thereby gaining a counter-attack.
[Event "US Open"]
[Site "Cherry Hill NJ"]
[Date "2007.08.01"]
[Round "02"]
[White "Lenderman,Alex"]
[Black "Sloan,Sam"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C40"]
[WhiteElo "2477"]
[BlackElo "1955"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+
d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.Qg3+ Qg5 9.Qxc7 Ne7 10.h4 Nxd5 11.Qxc8 Bb4
12.Qe6+ Qf6 13.Qxd5 Rf8 14.Qg5+ Qxg5 15.hxg5 Nc6 16.c3 Rae8
17.f3 Bd6 18.d4 Bg3+ 19.Ke2 Ne7 20.Kd3 Nc6 21.Be3 Rd8
22.Nd2 Ne5+ 23.Ke2 Nf7 24.f4 h5 25.f5+ Kh7 26.g6+ 1-0
[Event "US Open"]
[Site "Cherry Hill NJ"]
[Date "2007.08.03"]
[Round "07"]
[White "Brooks,Michael David"]
[Black "Sloan,Sam"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C40"]
[WhiteElo "1591"]
[BlackElo "1955"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+
d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.h4 h6 9.h5+ Kh7 10.Bf7 Nf6 11.Qg3 Bg4
12.Bg6+ Kg8 13.Qb3+ Nd5 14.Qxd5+ Qxd5 15.exd5 Na6 16.a3 Rd8
17.Nc3 Bc5 18.O-O Rf8 19.Ne4 Bb6 20.c3 Bf5 21.d4 Bxg6
22.hxg6 Rd8 23.Re1 Kf8 24.b3 Rxd5 25.a4 Ke7 26.Nc5+ Kd8
27.Ne6+ Kd7 28.Nxg7 Rd6 29.Nf5 Rxg6 30.a5 Rf8 31.Ng3 Nb4
32.cxb4 Bxd4 33.Rd1 Rg4 34.Be3 Kc6 35.Rxd4 Rg6 36.Rc1+ Kb5
37.Rxc7 Ka6 38.Ne4 b6 39.axb6 axb6 40.Nc3 Rfg8 41.b5+ 1-0
[Event "US Open"]
[Site "Cherry Hill NJ"]
[Date "2007.08.04"]
[Round "08"]
[White "Aldrich,Daniel F."]
[Black "Sloan,Sam"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C40"]
[WhiteElo "1677"]
[BlackElo "1955"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+
d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.h4 h6 9.Bxb7 Bd6 10.Qa5 Nc6 11.Bxc6 Rb8
12.Nc3 Nf6 13.d3 Rf8 14.Be3 Rxb2 15.Bc5 Rxc2 16.Kd1 Rb2
17.Kc1 Rb8 18.e5 Bxe5 19.Bxf8 Bf4+ 20.Kc2 Qxf8 21.Be4+ Kf7
22.Rab1 Rb6 23.Rxb6 axb6 24.Bd5+ Kg6 25.Qb5 Qa3 26.Qa4
Qxa4+ 27.Nxa4 Nxd5 28.Re1 Bf5 29.a3 Bd6 30.Kb3 Nf4 31.d4
Nd3 32.Rf1 Kh5 0-1
[Event "US Open"]
[Site "Cherry Hill NJ"]
[Date "2007.08.01"]
[Round "02"]
[White "Lenderman,Alex"]
[Black "Sloan,Sam"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C40"]
[WhiteElo "2477"]
[BlackElo "1955"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+
d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 {last book move} 8.Qg3+ Qg5 9.Qxc7 Ne7 10.h4
Nxd5 11.Qxc8 Bb4 ({ 7.00 Fritz 10:} 11... Qe5 12. h5+ Kf7
13. Qxb7+ 13... Nc7 {3.94/11}) 12.Qe6+ Qf6 13.Qxd5 Rf8
({8.91 Fritz 10:} 13... h5 14. a3 Be7 15. d4 Nc6 16. Bg5
Qf7 17. Qxf7+ Kxf7 18. c3 Bd6 19. Ke2 Rhf8 20. Nd2
{5.94/12}) 14.Qg5+ ({ 5.17 Fritz 10:} 14. h5+ 14... Kh6
15. Kd1 15... Bd6 {8.91/9}) 14...Qxg5 15.hxg5 Nc6 16.c3
Rae8 17.f3 Bd6 18.d4 Bg3+ 19.Ke2 Ne7 20.Kd3 Nc6 21.Be3 Rd8
22.Nd2 Ne5+ 23.Ke2 Nf7 24.f4 h5 ({12.60 Fritz 10:}
24... Nxg5 25. fxg5 Rde8 26. Kd3 Re7 27. Nf3 {9.19/13})
25.f5+ Kh7 26.g6+ 1-0
[Event "US Open"]
[Site "Cherry Hill NJ"]
[Date "2007.08.03"]
[Round "07"]
[White "Brooks,Michael David"]
[Black "Sloan,Sam"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C40"]
[WhiteElo "1591"]
[BlackElo "1955"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+
d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.h4 h6 {last book move} 9.h5+ Kh7 10.Bf7
({1.11 Fritz 10:} 10. Bxb7 10... Bd6 11. Qa5 Ne7 12. Bxa8
Nbc6 13. Bxc6 Nxc6 14. Qa4 14... Qe8 { 5.20/13}) 10...Nf6
11.Qg3 Bg4 ({4.57 Fritz 10:} 11... Rg8 12. O-O Nc6 13. e5
Ng4 14. e6 Nce5 15. Bxg8+ 15... Kxg8 {1.30/13}) 12.Bg6+ Kg8
13.Qb3+ Nd5 14.Qxd5+ Qxd5 15.exd5 Na6 16.a3 Rd8 17.Nc3 Bc5
18.O-O Rf8 19.Ne4 Bb6 20.c3 Bf5 21.d4 Bxg6 22.hxg6 Rd8
23.Re1 Kf8 24.b3 Rxd5 25.a4 Ke7 26.Nc5+ ({ 3.10 Fritz 10:}
26. b4 26... Kd8 27. b5 Nb4 28. cxb4 Bxd4 29. Ra2 Re8
30. Rd2 Rd7 31. a5 Ree7 32. Kf1 {4.64/12}) 26...Kd8 ({4.81
Fritz 10:} 26... Kf6 27. Nxa6 bxa6 28. b4 a5 29. b5 Kxg6
30. Ba3 Kf6 31. Rad1 31... Rc8 {3.10/14}) 27.Ne6+ Kd7
28.Nxg7 Rd6 ({6.16 Fritz 10:} 28... c5 {4.30/13}) 29.Nf5
Rxg6 30.a5 Rf8 31.Ng3 Nb4 32.cxb4 Bxd4 33.Rd1 Rg4 ({9.62
Fritz 10:} 33... Rd6 34. Bxh6 Bxf2+ 35. Kh2 Rff6 36. Bg5
Rf8 37. Kh3 Bd4 38. Rac1 Bb2 39. Rb1 Bf6 40. Bxf6
40... Rfxf6 {4.46/15}) 34.Be3 Kc6 35.Rxd4 Rg6 ({17.83 Fritz
10:} 35... Rxd4 36. Rc1+ Kb5 37. Bxd4 Rf7 38. Rc4 b6
39. Ne4 bxa5 40. Nc3+ 40... Ka6 {10.02/13}) 36.Rc1+ Kb5
37.Rxc7 Ka6 38.Ne4 b6 ({#6 Fritz 10:} 38... Rf5 39. Nc5+
39... Rxc5 {17.83/12}) 39.axb6 axb6 40.Nc3 Rfg8 41.b5+ 1-0
[Event "US Open"]
[Site "Cherry Hill NJ"]
[Date "2007.08.04"]
[Round "08"]
[White "Aldrich,Daniel F."]
[Black "Sloan,Sam"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C40"]
[WhiteElo "1677"]
[BlackElo "1955"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+
d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.h4 h6 9.Bxb7 Bd6 {last book move} 10.Qa5
Nc6 11.Bxc6 Rb8 12.Nc3 ({4.04 Fritz 10:} 12. e5 12... Qe7
13. h5+ 13... Kf7 {5.91/11}) 12...Nf6 13.d3 Rf8 14.Be3
({2.05 Fritz 10:} 14. e5 {4.11/11}) 14...Rxb2 15.Bc5 Rxc2
16.Kd1 ({1.22 Fritz 10:} 16. Ba4 16... Bxc5 17. Qxc5 Nd7
18. Bxd7 Bxd7 19. O-O Rf7 20. h5+ Kh7 21. f3 Be6 22. d4 Qh4
23. Rac1 {2.05/11}) 16...Rb2 17.Kc1 Rb8 18.e5 Bxe5 19.Bxf8
Bf4+ 20.Kc2 Qxf8 21.Be4+ ({1.23 Fritz 10:} 21. Rab1
21... Rb6 22. Qa4 Bd6 23. Rxb6 axb6 24. Kb1 24... Kh7
{2.38/12}) 21...Kf7 ({ 2.91 Fritz 10:} 21... Nxe4 22. dxe4
Rb6 23. Rhd1 Ra6 24. Qd5 Be6 25. Qd3 Qa3 26. g3 {1.23/12})
22.Rab1 Rb6 23.Rxb6 axb6 24.Bd5+ Kg6 25.Qb5 Qa3 26.Qa4
({-2.24 Fritz 10:} 26. Be4+ 26... Kf7 27. Re1 Bd7 28. Qb3+
Qxb3+ 29. axb3 c5 30. Bd5+ Kg6 31. g3 Bd6 32. Ne4
{2.59/12}) 26...Qxa4+ 27.Nxa4 Nxd5 28.Re1 Bf5 29.a3 Bd6
30.Kb3 Nf4 31.d4 Nd3 32.Rf1 Kh5 0-1
|
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 09:03:44
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Win with Damiano's Defense
|
On Aug 8, 2:15 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Aug 8, 12:29 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Win with Damiano's Defense
>
> > I just got back from the US Open where I had a terrible result, my
> > worst performance in years. It was not that my score was so bad. I
> > scored 4.5 - 4.5, an even score shared by many strong players. It was
> > how I achieved that score. I lost three games in a row to players
> > rated hundreds of points lower than myself. Even the games I won
> > should not have been won. Polly Wright had me all rolled up. As she
> > uses a Monroi, our game was broadcast live on the Internet and all the
> > sports fans were rooting for her. It was nice the way I found a way to
> > survive her attack and win the game, but I should not have gotten into
> > such a busted position in the first place. Also, in round 8, I was
> > lost against a Denker player, Dan Aldrich, when he blundered and lost.
> > Even in round one, when I was paired against a lowly 1272 player, it
> > looked like we had reached a hopelessly drawn endgame but I managed to
> > squeeze out a win. So, I really only won one game by outplaying my
> > opponent. That was in the last round.
>
> > I have since been analyzing my losses and I have found that in each
> > game I lost, I missed at least one key move which would have nearly
> > equalized and given me a fighting chance. So, I did not lose because
> > of my openings. I lost because I played badly.
>
> > I played three games with my Damiano's Defense, 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6,
> > losing two of them. In the World Open I also played three games with
> > the Damiano's Defense. In each of those games my opponent declined to
> > take the pawn with 3. Nxe5. I won all three games and all of my
> > opponents were rated higher than me. In the US Open, all of my
> > opponents played 3. Nxe5. I won one, lost two. Two of my opponents
> > were rated hundreds of points below me.
>
> > I attribute this in part to the publicity my Damiano's Defense has
> > received. I believe that I am the first player in human history to try
> > to play 3. . . . . fxe5 consistently and win with it, not counting
> > beginners and those who simply do not know any better. My round 8
> > opponent admitted after the game that he had looked me up, learned
> > that I played that and prepared a line against it. That was an
> > important test for my defense and I passed the test as I won that
> > game. When he reeled off the standard book line against my defense, I
> > realized that he must have studied it, as the line is hard to find and
> > nobody has been able to find it over-the-board. He confirmed after the
> > game that he had studied and prepared for my defense.
>
> > Another factor is that during the tournament the organizers were
> > handing out free copies of the June 2006 issue of Atlantic Chess News
> > and on page 8 of that issue was an article by James R. West about how
> > he had defeated my Damiano's Defense after declining to take the pawn.
> > He wrote that I was "unaware" of the "refutation", which, he wrote,
> > was 3. Nxe5 fxe5 4. Qh5+ Ke7 5. Qxe5+ Kf7 6. Bc4+ d5 7. Bxd5+ Kg6 8.
> > H4 h5 9. Bxb7 Bd6 10. Qa5 Bxb7 11. Qf5+ Kh6 12. d4+ and White wins.
> > West concludes, "Apparently Sloan is unaware of this refutation".
>
> > OK. Just play it against me and see if I am unaware of it. By the way,
> > at a subsequent tournament, West again had white against me and he
> > avoided the opening altogether by playing 1. b3.
>
> > Here is my game against International Master Alex Lenderman. Lenderman
> > is only 16 but he was up among the leaders throughout the tournament.
> > His final score was only a half point out of a tie for first place. He
> > will undoubtedly be a grandmaster before long.
>
> > Thus, he was the ideal opponent for me to test my Damiano's Defense
> > against.
>
> > The Damiano's Defense goes 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 !!! The name comes from
> > a 17th century Italian opening theoretician who wrote that 2. . . . .
> > f6 was a poor move, and thus was condemned to have the opening named
> > after him.
>
> > Here are the games, then the analysis. Against Lenderman, the move I
> > missed was 11. . . . Qe5. That move would have given me a good
> > fighting chance. Also, 8. . . . Ka5 and 9. . . . . Nd7 need to be
> > analyzed. Against Brooks, I believe that 10. . . . Ne7 would have
> > given me a good playable game, remembering that I still have an extra
> > knight, and perhaps better yet was 11. . . . Rg8 sacrificing the
> > exchange but if White takes it Black might even have the advantage due
> > to superior development. Against Aldrich an interesting idea provided
> > by Fritz is 10. . . . Bb4 attempting to deflect the queen away from
> > the mating square of f5. Also, instead of 10. . . . Nc6 giving back a
> > knight, Black might consider just letting White take the rook on a8
> > thereby gaining a counter-attack.
>
> > [Event "US Open"]
> > [Site "Cherry Hill NJ"]
> > [Date "2007.08.01"]
> > [Round "02"]
> > [White "Lenderman,Alex"]
> > [Black "Sloan,Sam"]
> > [Result "1-0"]
> > [ECO "C40"]
> > [WhiteElo "2477"]
> > [BlackElo "1955"]
>
> > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+
> > d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.Qg3+ Qg5 9.Qxc7 Ne7 10.h4 Nxd5 11.Qxc8 Bb4
> > 12.Qe6+ Qf6 13.Qxd5 Rf8 14.Qg5+ Qxg5 15.hxg5 Nc6 16.c3 Rae8
> > 17.f3 Bd6 18.d4 Bg3+ 19.Ke2 Ne7 20.Kd3 Nc6 21.Be3 Rd8
> > 22.Nd2 Ne5+ 23.Ke2 Nf7 24.f4 h5 25.f5+ Kh7 26.g6+ 1-0
>
> > [Event "US Open"]
> > [Site "Cherry Hill NJ"]
> > [Date "2007.08.03"]
> > [Round "07"]
> > [White "Brooks,Michael David"]
> > [Black "Sloan,Sam"]
> > [Result "1-0"]
> > [ECO "C40"]
> > [WhiteElo "1591"]
> > [BlackElo "1955"]
>
> > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+
> > d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.h4 h6 9.h5+ Kh7 10.Bf7 Nf6 11.Qg3 Bg4
> > 12.Bg6+ Kg8 13.Qb3+ Nd5 14.Qxd5+ Qxd5 15.exd5 Na6 16.a3 Rd8
> > 17.Nc3 Bc5 18.O-O Rf8 19.Ne4 Bb6 20.c3 Bf5 21.d4 Bxg6
> > 22.hxg6 Rd8 23.Re1 Kf8 24.b3 Rxd5 25.a4 Ke7 26.Nc5+ Kd8
> > 27.Ne6+ Kd7 28.Nxg7 Rd6 29.Nf5 Rxg6 30.a5 Rf8 31.Ng3 Nb4
> > 32.cxb4 Bxd4 33.Rd1 Rg4 34.Be3 Kc6 35.Rxd4 Rg6 36.Rc1+ Kb5
> > 37.Rxc7 Ka6 38.Ne4 b6 39.axb6 axb6 40.Nc3 Rfg8 41.b5+ 1-0
>
> > [Event "US Open"]
> > [Site "Cherry Hill NJ"]
> > [Date "2007.08.04"]
> > [Round "08"]
> > [White "Aldrich,Daniel F."]
> > [Black "Sloan,Sam"]
> > [Result "0-1"]
> > [ECO "C40"]
> > [WhiteElo "1677"]
> > [BlackElo "1955"]
>
> > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+
> > d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.h4 h6 9.Bxb7 Bd6 10.Qa5 Nc6 11.Bxc6 Rb8
> > 12.Nc3 Nf6 13.d3 Rf8 14.Be3 Rxb2 15.Bc5 Rxc2 16.Kd1 Rb2
> > 17.Kc1 Rb8 18.e5 Bxe5 19.Bxf8 Bf4+ 20.Kc2 Qxf8 21.Be4+ Kf7
> > 22.Rab1 Rb6 23.Rxb6 axb6 24.Bd5+ Kg6 25.Qb5 Qa3 26.Qa4
> > Qxa4+ 27.Nxa4 Nxd5 28.Re1 Bf5 29.a3 Bd6 30.Kb3 Nf4 31.d4
> > Nd3 32.Rf1 Kh5 0-1
>
> > [Event "US Open"]
> > [Site "Cherry Hill NJ"]
> > [Date "2007.08.01"]
> > [Round "02"]
> > [White "Lenderman,Alex"]
> > [Black "Sloan,Sam"]
> > [Result "1-0"]
> > [ECO "C40"]
> > [WhiteElo "2477"]
> > [BlackElo "1955"]
>
> > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+
> > d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 {last book move} 8.Qg3+ Qg5 9.Qxc7 Ne7 10.h4
> > Nxd5 11.Qxc8 Bb4 ({ 7.00 Fritz 10:} 11... Qe5 12. h5+ Kf7
> > 13. Qxb7+ 13... Nc7 {3.94/11}) 12.Qe6+ Qf6 13.Qxd5 Rf8
> > ({8.91 Fritz 10:} 13... h5 14. a3 Be7 15. d4 Nc6 16. Bg5
> > Qf7 17. Qxf7+ Kxf7 18. c3 Bd6 19. Ke2 Rhf8 20. Nd2
> > {5.94/12}) 14.Qg5+ ({ 5.17 Fritz 10:} 14. h5+ 14... Kh6
> > 15. Kd1 15... Bd6 {8.91/9}) 14...Qxg5 15.hxg5 Nc6 16.c3
> > Rae8 17.f3 Bd6 18.d4 Bg3+ 19.Ke2 Ne7 20.Kd3 Nc6 21.Be3 Rd8
> > 22.Nd2 Ne5+ 23.Ke2 Nf7 24.f4 h5 ({12.60 Fritz 10:}
> > 24... Nxg5 25. fxg5 Rde8 26. Kd3 Re7 27. Nf3 {9.19/13})
> > 25.f5+ Kh7 26.g6+ 1-0
>
> > [Event "US Open"]
> > [Site "Cherry Hill NJ"]
> > [Date "2007.08.03"]
> > [Round "07"]
> > [White "Brooks,Michael David"]
> > [Black "Sloan,Sam"]
> > [Result "1-0"]
> > [ECO "C40"]
> > [WhiteElo "1591"]
> > [BlackElo "1955"]
>
> > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+
> > d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.h4 h6 {last book move} 9.h5+ Kh7 10.Bf7
> > ({1.11 Fritz 10:} 10. Bxb7 10... Bd6 11. Qa5 Ne7 12. Bxa8
> > Nbc6 13. Bxc6 Nxc6 14. Qa4 14... Qe8 { 5.20/13}) 10...Nf6
> > 11.Qg3 Bg4 ({4.57 Fritz 10:} 11... Rg8 12. O-O Nc6 13. e5
> > Ng4 14. e6 Nce5 15. Bxg8+ 15... Kxg8 {1.30/13}) 12.Bg6+ Kg8
> > 13.Qb3+ Nd5 14.Qxd5+ Qxd5 15.exd5 Na6 16.a3 Rd8 17.Nc3 Bc5
> > 18.O-O Rf8 19.Ne4 Bb6 20.c3 Bf5 21.d4 Bxg6 22.hxg6 Rd8
> > 23.Re1 Kf8 24.b3 Rxd5 25.a4 Ke7 26.Nc5+ ({ 3.10 Fritz 10:}
> > 26. b4 26... Kd8 27. b5 Nb4 28. cxb4 Bxd4 29. Ra2 Re8
> > 30. Rd2 Rd7 31. a5 Ree7 32. Kf1 {4.64/12}) 26...Kd8 ({4.81
> > Fritz 10:} 26... Kf6 27. Nxa6 bxa6 28. b4 a5 29. b5 Kxg6
> > 30. Ba3 Kf6 31. Rad1 31... Rc8 {3.10/14}) 27.Ne6+ Kd7
> > 28.Nxg7 Rd6 ({6.16 Fritz 10:} 28... c5 {4.30/13}) 29.Nf5
> > Rxg6 30.a5 Rf8 31.Ng3 Nb4 32.cxb4 Bxd4 33.Rd1 Rg4 ({9.62
> > Fritz 10:} 33... Rd6 34. Bxh6 Bxf2+ 35. Kh2 Rff6 36. Bg5
> > Rf8 37. Kh3 Bd4 38. Rac1 Bb2 39. Rb1 Bf6 40. Bxf6
> > 40... Rfxf6 {4.46/15}) 34.Be3 Kc6 35.Rxd4 Rg6 ({17.83 Fritz
> > 10:} 35... Rxd4 36. Rc1+ Kb5 37. Bxd4 Rf7 38. Rc4 b6
> > 39. Ne4 bxa5 40. Nc3+ 40... Ka6 {10.02/13}) 36.Rc1+ Kb5
> > 37.Rxc7 Ka6 38.Ne4 b6 ({#6 Fritz 10:} 38... Rf5 39. Nc5+
> > 39... Rxc5 {17.83/12}) 39.axb6 axb6 40.Nc3 Rfg8 41.b5+ 1-0
>
> > [Event "US Open"]
> > [Site "Cherry Hill NJ"]
> > [Date "2007.08.04"]
> > [Round "08"]
> > [White "Aldrich,Daniel F."]
> > [Black "Sloan,Sam"]
> > [Result "0-1"]
> > [ECO "C40"]
> > [WhiteElo "1677"]
> > [BlackElo "1955"]
>
> > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+
> > d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.h4 h6 9.Bxb7 Bd6 {last book move} 10.Qa5
> > Nc6 11.Bxc6 Rb8 12.Nc3 ({4.04 Fritz 10:} 12. e5 12... Qe7
> > 13. h5+ 13... Kf7 {5.91/11}) 12...Nf6 13.d3 Rf8 14.Be3
> > ({2.05 Fritz 10:} 14. e5 {4.11/11}) 14...Rxb2 15.Bc5 Rxc2
> > 16.Kd1 ({1.22 Fritz 10:} 16. Ba4 16... Bxc5 17. Qxc5 Nd7
> > 18. Bxd7 Bxd7 19. O-O Rf7 20. h5+ Kh7 21. f3 Be6 22. d4 Qh4
> > 23. Rac1 {2.05/11}) 16...Rb2 17.Kc1 Rb8 18.e5 Bxe5 19.Bxf8
> > Bf4+ 20.Kc2 Qxf8 21.Be4+ ({1.23 Fritz 10:} 21. Rab1
> > 21... Rb6 22. Qa4 Bd6 23. Rxb6 axb6 24. Kb1 24... Kh7
> > {2.38/12}) 21...Kf7 ({ 2.91 Fritz 10:} 21... Nxe4 22. dxe4
> > Rb6 23. Rhd1 Ra6 24. Qd5 Be6 25. Qd3 Qa3 26. g3 {1.23/12})
> > 22.Rab1 Rb6 23.Rxb6 axb6 24.Bd5+ Kg6 25.Qb5 Qa3 26.Qa4
> > ({-2.24 Fritz 10:} 26. Be4+ 26... Kf7 27. Re1 Bd7 28. Qb3+
> > Qxb3+ 29. axb3 c5 30. Bd5+ Kg6 31. g3 Bd6 32. Ne4
>
> ...
>
> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Coward
|
| |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 21:27:11
From: Macchess
Subject: Re: Win with Damiano's Defense
|
samsloan a �crit :
> Win with Damiano's Defense
> I have since been analyzing my losses
So please whoever you are, keep this posting out of this newsgroup.
When we look for analysis, we go to the proper group.
And please do not cross-post.
|
| |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 21:14:03
From: max
Subject: Re: Win with Damiano's Defense
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Win with Damiano's Defense
>
>
> I have since been analyzing my losses and I have found that in each
> game I lost, I missed at least one key move which would have nearly
> equalized and given me a fighting chance. So, I did not lose because
> of my openings. I lost because I played badly.
>
That's usually my reason for losing, too.
> I played three games with my Damiano's Defense, 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6,
> losing two of them. In the World Open I also played three games with
> the Damiano's Defense. In each of those games my opponent declined to
> take the pawn with 3. Nxe5. I won all three games and all of my
> opponents were rated higher than me. In the US Open, all of my
> opponents played 3. Nxe5. I won one, lost two. Two of my opponents
> were rated hundreds of points below me.
>
> I attribute this in part to the publicity my Damiano's Defense has
> received. I believe that I am the first player in human history to try
> to play 3. . . . . fxe5 consistently and win with it, not counting
> beginners and those who simply do not know any better. My round 8
> opponent admitted after the game that he had looked me up, learned
> that I played that and prepared a line against it. That was an
> important test for my defense and I passed the test as I won that
> game. When he reeled off the standard book line against my defense, I
> realized that he must have studied it, as the line is hard to find and
> nobody has been able to find it over-the-board. He confirmed after the
> game that he had studied and prepared for my defense.
>
So - against prepared opposition you lose two out of three, and recommend
that we should use this opening?
|
| |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 10:12:57
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Win with Damiano's Defense
|
On Aug 9, 12:52 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Aug 9, 12:20 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > You have a standing invitation to play against me Sam
>
> I do not play chess with beginners.
>
> Sam Sloan
coward
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 22:52:29
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Win with Damiano's Defense
|
On Aug 9, 12:20 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> You have a standing invitation to play against me Sam
I do not play chess with beginners.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 22:34:23
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Win with Damiano's Defense
|
On Aug 8, 11:20 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> You have a standing invitation to play against me Sam
Don't do it, Mr. Sloan. I've seen what RM can do;
-----------------------------------
Rob Mitchell -- help bot
RedHotPawn
1.e4 c5
2.Nf3 Nc6
3.d4 cd
4.Nxd4 Nf6
5.Nc3 e6
6.Bg5 Bb4
As you can see, the opening play of Mr. Mitchell
is impeccable (quite unlike the opening play of Mr.
Sloan). No one can expect to defeat this caliber
of play, except perhaps a grandmaster. We
continue:
7. Nf3 h6
8. Bh4 g5
9. Bg3 Nxe4
10. Bd3 Nxc3
11. Qd2 Ne4
12. Bxe4 Bxd2+
13. Nxd2 f5
14. Bxc6 bxc6
15. Be5 O-O! (Improving on ...Rb8, as given in numerous texts as
leading to "unclear" play.)
16. O-O d6
17. Bc3 e5
18. b4 Be6
19. a4 Qc7
20. R/a-c8 c5
21. b5 a6
22. b6 Qxb6
23. Ba1 Qb4
24. c3 Qxa4
25. c4 R/f-b8
26. h3 a5
And Black's passed a-pawn proved decisive.
0-1
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 22:07:52
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Win with Damiano's Defense
|
On Aug 8, 11:17 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> The opening of the game went approximately as follows:
>
> 1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nc6 3. c4 e5 4. cxd5 Qxd5 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Nge2 Bg4 7. f3
> Bxf3??? 8. gxf3 Qxf3 9. Rg1
Well, here are some annoFritzations to these
moves:
1. d4 (Hackneyed, yet sound.)
...d5 (Ditto.)
2. e3 (Booooring. Bring back Alekhine or Tal.)
...Nc6 (I said Alekhine, not Nimzowitch.)
3. c4 (Finally, a decent plan emerges.)
...e5 (Bold, if perhaps stupid.)
4. cxd5 (Natural.)
...Qxd5 (Uh-oh; now a patzer's Queen will be chased around the
board for a while.)
5. Nc3 (Told you so.)
...B-b4 (Compromising already.)
6. N/g-e2 (Fair to middling.)
...B-g4 (Yet another dumb plan.)
7. f3 (Will a fool rush in?)
...Bxf3 (Yep.)
8. gxf3 (The rest is just technique.)
...Qxf3 (Very good -- you got one move right.)
9. Rg1 (The rest is... but I repeat myself.)
Note: I only let the program "think" for a split-second
per move, so if it missed any obvious tactics, that is why.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 21:20:59
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Win with Damiano's Defense
|
On Aug 8, 11:17 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> [quote="Brenan"]Sam, in all seriousness, who inspired you to play this
> stuff; and how much higher do you think your rating would be if you
> played decent openings? The Grob and Damiano are hardly the stuff of
> which great chess is born, even from my lowly patzer position.
> But I am glad I open with 1d4... :lol:[/quote]
>
> Actually, I have something against that too.
>
> Unfortunately, I have lost the scoresheet to my fifth round game
> against Anthony Andrews. It must have fallen out of my pocket while I
> was watching the final ninth round games on Sunday, because I remember
> pulling out that scoresheet and looking at it.
>
> If you are in contact with Mr. Andrews, please ask him to send me the
> score of that game. It was another very badly played game on my part,
> but I would still like to have the moves so that I can determine what
> I did wrong.
>
> http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12449414
>
> The opening of the game went approximately as follows:
>
> 1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nc6 3. c4 e5 4. cxd5 Qxd5 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Nge2 Bg4 7. f3
> Bxf3??? 8. gxf3 Qxf3 9. Rg1
>
> Sam Sloan
You have a standing invitation to play against me Sam
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 21:17:38
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Win with Damiano's Defense
|
[quote="Brenan"]Sam, in all seriousness, who inspired you to play this
stuff; and how much higher do you think your rating would be if you
played decent openings? The Grob and Damiano are hardly the stuff of
which great chess is born, even from my lowly patzer position.
But I am glad I open with 1d4... :lol:[/quote]
Actually, I have something against that too.
Unfortunately, I have lost the scoresheet to my fifth round game
against Anthony Andrews. It must have fallen out of my pocket while I
was watching the final ninth round games on Sunday, because I remember
pulling out that scoresheet and looking at it.
If you are in contact with Mr. Andrews, please ask him to send me the
score of that game. It was another very badly played game on my part,
but I would still like to have the moves so that I can determine what
I did wrong.
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12449414
The opening of the game went approximately as follows:
1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nc6 3. c4 e5 4. cxd5 Qxd5 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Nge2 Bg4 7. f3
Bxf3??? 8. gxf3 Qxf3 9. Rg1
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 23:08:06
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Win with Damiano's Defense
|
http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/ChessGames/SloanVsSloan/
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 18:14:41
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Win with Damiano's Defense
|
I still say Sloan is setting up to surprise someone with 3...Qe7 when
serious money is on the line. The move is not busted, but should win for
White.
That move is far more consistent with his behavior.
Why would he play something like that against me when I posted the
refutation here already? Does he think he can magically make a +5.27 go
away?
--
Ray Gordon
Foxhunting: The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
FREE e-books on how to get laid!
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 12:15:46
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Win with Damiano's Defense
|
On Aug 8, 12:29 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Win with Damiano's Defense
>
> I just got back from the US Open where I had a terrible result, my
> worst performance in years. It was not that my score was so bad. I
> scored 4.5 - 4.5, an even score shared by many strong players. It was
> how I achieved that score. I lost three games in a row to players
> rated hundreds of points lower than myself. Even the games I won
> should not have been won. Polly Wright had me all rolled up. As she
> uses a Monroi, our game was broadcast live on the Internet and all the
> sports fans were rooting for her. It was nice the way I found a way to
> survive her attack and win the game, but I should not have gotten into
> such a busted position in the first place. Also, in round 8, I was
> lost against a Denker player, Dan Aldrich, when he blundered and lost.
> Even in round one, when I was paired against a lowly 1272 player, it
> looked like we had reached a hopelessly drawn endgame but I managed to
> squeeze out a win. So, I really only won one game by outplaying my
> opponent. That was in the last round.
>
> I have since been analyzing my losses and I have found that in each
> game I lost, I missed at least one key move which would have nearly
> equalized and given me a fighting chance. So, I did not lose because
> of my openings. I lost because I played badly.
>
> I played three games with my Damiano's Defense, 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6,
> losing two of them. In the World Open I also played three games with
> the Damiano's Defense. In each of those games my opponent declined to
> take the pawn with 3. Nxe5. I won all three games and all of my
> opponents were rated higher than me. In the US Open, all of my
> opponents played 3. Nxe5. I won one, lost two. Two of my opponents
> were rated hundreds of points below me.
>
> I attribute this in part to the publicity my Damiano's Defense has
> received. I believe that I am the first player in human history to try
> to play 3. . . . . fxe5 consistently and win with it, not counting
> beginners and those who simply do not know any better. My round 8
> opponent admitted after the game that he had looked me up, learned
> that I played that and prepared a line against it. That was an
> important test for my defense and I passed the test as I won that
> game. When he reeled off the standard book line against my defense, I
> realized that he must have studied it, as the line is hard to find and
> nobody has been able to find it over-the-board. He confirmed after the
> game that he had studied and prepared for my defense.
>
> Another factor is that during the tournament the organizers were
> handing out free copies of the June 2006 issue of Atlantic Chess News
> and on page 8 of that issue was an article by James R. West about how
> he had defeated my Damiano's Defense after declining to take the pawn.
> He wrote that I was "unaware" of the "refutation", which, he wrote,
> was 3. Nxe5 fxe5 4. Qh5+ Ke7 5. Qxe5+ Kf7 6. Bc4+ d5 7. Bxd5+ Kg6 8.
> H4 h5 9. Bxb7 Bd6 10. Qa5 Bxb7 11. Qf5+ Kh6 12. d4+ and White wins.
> West concludes, "Apparently Sloan is unaware of this refutation".
>
> OK. Just play it against me and see if I am unaware of it. By the way,
> at a subsequent tournament, West again had white against me and he
> avoided the opening altogether by playing 1. b3.
>
> Here is my game against International Master Alex Lenderman. Lenderman
> is only 16 but he was up among the leaders throughout the tournament.
> His final score was only a half point out of a tie for first place. He
> will undoubtedly be a grandmaster before long.
>
> Thus, he was the ideal opponent for me to test my Damiano's Defense
> against.
>
> The Damiano's Defense goes 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 !!! The name comes from
> a 17th century Italian opening theoretician who wrote that 2. . . . .
> f6 was a poor move, and thus was condemned to have the opening named
> after him.
>
> Here are the games, then the analysis. Against Lenderman, the move I
> missed was 11. . . . Qe5. That move would have given me a good
> fighting chance. Also, 8. . . . Ka5 and 9. . . . . Nd7 need to be
> analyzed. Against Brooks, I believe that 10. . . . Ne7 would have
> given me a good playable game, remembering that I still have an extra
> knight, and perhaps better yet was 11. . . . Rg8 sacrificing the
> exchange but if White takes it Black might even have the advantage due
> to superior development. Against Aldrich an interesting idea provided
> by Fritz is 10. . . . Bb4 attempting to deflect the queen away from
> the mating square of f5. Also, instead of 10. . . . Nc6 giving back a
> knight, Black might consider just letting White take the rook on a8
> thereby gaining a counter-attack.
>
> [Event "US Open"]
> [Site "Cherry Hill NJ"]
> [Date "2007.08.01"]
> [Round "02"]
> [White "Lenderman,Alex"]
> [Black "Sloan,Sam"]
> [Result "1-0"]
> [ECO "C40"]
> [WhiteElo "2477"]
> [BlackElo "1955"]
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+
> d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.Qg3+ Qg5 9.Qxc7 Ne7 10.h4 Nxd5 11.Qxc8 Bb4
> 12.Qe6+ Qf6 13.Qxd5 Rf8 14.Qg5+ Qxg5 15.hxg5 Nc6 16.c3 Rae8
> 17.f3 Bd6 18.d4 Bg3+ 19.Ke2 Ne7 20.Kd3 Nc6 21.Be3 Rd8
> 22.Nd2 Ne5+ 23.Ke2 Nf7 24.f4 h5 25.f5+ Kh7 26.g6+ 1-0
>
> [Event "US Open"]
> [Site "Cherry Hill NJ"]
> [Date "2007.08.03"]
> [Round "07"]
> [White "Brooks,Michael David"]
> [Black "Sloan,Sam"]
> [Result "1-0"]
> [ECO "C40"]
> [WhiteElo "1591"]
> [BlackElo "1955"]
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+
> d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.h4 h6 9.h5+ Kh7 10.Bf7 Nf6 11.Qg3 Bg4
> 12.Bg6+ Kg8 13.Qb3+ Nd5 14.Qxd5+ Qxd5 15.exd5 Na6 16.a3 Rd8
> 17.Nc3 Bc5 18.O-O Rf8 19.Ne4 Bb6 20.c3 Bf5 21.d4 Bxg6
> 22.hxg6 Rd8 23.Re1 Kf8 24.b3 Rxd5 25.a4 Ke7 26.Nc5+ Kd8
> 27.Ne6+ Kd7 28.Nxg7 Rd6 29.Nf5 Rxg6 30.a5 Rf8 31.Ng3 Nb4
> 32.cxb4 Bxd4 33.Rd1 Rg4 34.Be3 Kc6 35.Rxd4 Rg6 36.Rc1+ Kb5
> 37.Rxc7 Ka6 38.Ne4 b6 39.axb6 axb6 40.Nc3 Rfg8 41.b5+ 1-0
>
> [Event "US Open"]
> [Site "Cherry Hill NJ"]
> [Date "2007.08.04"]
> [Round "08"]
> [White "Aldrich,Daniel F."]
> [Black "Sloan,Sam"]
> [Result "0-1"]
> [ECO "C40"]
> [WhiteElo "1677"]
> [BlackElo "1955"]
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+
> d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.h4 h6 9.Bxb7 Bd6 10.Qa5 Nc6 11.Bxc6 Rb8
> 12.Nc3 Nf6 13.d3 Rf8 14.Be3 Rxb2 15.Bc5 Rxc2 16.Kd1 Rb2
> 17.Kc1 Rb8 18.e5 Bxe5 19.Bxf8 Bf4+ 20.Kc2 Qxf8 21.Be4+ Kf7
> 22.Rab1 Rb6 23.Rxb6 axb6 24.Bd5+ Kg6 25.Qb5 Qa3 26.Qa4
> Qxa4+ 27.Nxa4 Nxd5 28.Re1 Bf5 29.a3 Bd6 30.Kb3 Nf4 31.d4
> Nd3 32.Rf1 Kh5 0-1
>
> [Event "US Open"]
> [Site "Cherry Hill NJ"]
> [Date "2007.08.01"]
> [Round "02"]
> [White "Lenderman,Alex"]
> [Black "Sloan,Sam"]
> [Result "1-0"]
> [ECO "C40"]
> [WhiteElo "2477"]
> [BlackElo "1955"]
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+
> d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 {last book move} 8.Qg3+ Qg5 9.Qxc7 Ne7 10.h4
> Nxd5 11.Qxc8 Bb4 ({ 7.00 Fritz 10:} 11... Qe5 12. h5+ Kf7
> 13. Qxb7+ 13... Nc7 {3.94/11}) 12.Qe6+ Qf6 13.Qxd5 Rf8
> ({8.91 Fritz 10:} 13... h5 14. a3 Be7 15. d4 Nc6 16. Bg5
> Qf7 17. Qxf7+ Kxf7 18. c3 Bd6 19. Ke2 Rhf8 20. Nd2
> {5.94/12}) 14.Qg5+ ({ 5.17 Fritz 10:} 14. h5+ 14... Kh6
> 15. Kd1 15... Bd6 {8.91/9}) 14...Qxg5 15.hxg5 Nc6 16.c3
> Rae8 17.f3 Bd6 18.d4 Bg3+ 19.Ke2 Ne7 20.Kd3 Nc6 21.Be3 Rd8
> 22.Nd2 Ne5+ 23.Ke2 Nf7 24.f4 h5 ({12.60 Fritz 10:}
> 24... Nxg5 25. fxg5 Rde8 26. Kd3 Re7 27. Nf3 {9.19/13})
> 25.f5+ Kh7 26.g6+ 1-0
>
> [Event "US Open"]
> [Site "Cherry Hill NJ"]
> [Date "2007.08.03"]
> [Round "07"]
> [White "Brooks,Michael David"]
> [Black "Sloan,Sam"]
> [Result "1-0"]
> [ECO "C40"]
> [WhiteElo "1591"]
> [BlackElo "1955"]
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+
> d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.h4 h6 {last book move} 9.h5+ Kh7 10.Bf7
> ({1.11 Fritz 10:} 10. Bxb7 10... Bd6 11. Qa5 Ne7 12. Bxa8
> Nbc6 13. Bxc6 Nxc6 14. Qa4 14... Qe8 { 5.20/13}) 10...Nf6
> 11.Qg3 Bg4 ({4.57 Fritz 10:} 11... Rg8 12. O-O Nc6 13. e5
> Ng4 14. e6 Nce5 15. Bxg8+ 15... Kxg8 {1.30/13}) 12.Bg6+ Kg8
> 13.Qb3+ Nd5 14.Qxd5+ Qxd5 15.exd5 Na6 16.a3 Rd8 17.Nc3 Bc5
> 18.O-O Rf8 19.Ne4 Bb6 20.c3 Bf5 21.d4 Bxg6 22.hxg6 Rd8
> 23.Re1 Kf8 24.b3 Rxd5 25.a4 Ke7 26.Nc5+ ({ 3.10 Fritz 10:}
> 26. b4 26... Kd8 27. b5 Nb4 28. cxb4 Bxd4 29. Ra2 Re8
> 30. Rd2 Rd7 31. a5 Ree7 32. Kf1 {4.64/12}) 26...Kd8 ({4.81
> Fritz 10:} 26... Kf6 27. Nxa6 bxa6 28. b4 a5 29. b5 Kxg6
> 30. Ba3 Kf6 31. Rad1 31... Rc8 {3.10/14}) 27.Ne6+ Kd7
> 28.Nxg7 Rd6 ({6.16 Fritz 10:} 28... c5 {4.30/13}) 29.Nf5
> Rxg6 30.a5 Rf8 31.Ng3 Nb4 32.cxb4 Bxd4 33.Rd1 Rg4 ({9.62
> Fritz 10:} 33... Rd6 34. Bxh6 Bxf2+ 35. Kh2 Rff6 36. Bg5
> Rf8 37. Kh3 Bd4 38. Rac1 Bb2 39. Rb1 Bf6 40. Bxf6
> 40... Rfxf6 {4.46/15}) 34.Be3 Kc6 35.Rxd4 Rg6 ({17.83 Fritz
> 10:} 35... Rxd4 36. Rc1+ Kb5 37. Bxd4 Rf7 38. Rc4 b6
> 39. Ne4 bxa5 40. Nc3+ 40... Ka6 {10.02/13}) 36.Rc1+ Kb5
> 37.Rxc7 Ka6 38.Ne4 b6 ({#6 Fritz 10:} 38... Rf5 39. Nc5+
> 39... Rxc5 {17.83/12}) 39.axb6 axb6 40.Nc3 Rfg8 41.b5+ 1-0
>
> [Event "US Open"]
> [Site "Cherry Hill NJ"]
> [Date "2007.08.04"]
> [Round "08"]
> [White "Aldrich,Daniel F."]
> [Black "Sloan,Sam"]
> [Result "0-1"]
> [ECO "C40"]
> [WhiteElo "1677"]
> [BlackElo "1955"]
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+
> d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.h4 h6 9.Bxb7 Bd6 {last book move} 10.Qa5
> Nc6 11.Bxc6 Rb8 12.Nc3 ({4.04 Fritz 10:} 12. e5 12... Qe7
> 13. h5+ 13... Kf7 {5.91/11}) 12...Nf6 13.d3 Rf8 14.Be3
> ({2.05 Fritz 10:} 14. e5 {4.11/11}) 14...Rxb2 15.Bc5 Rxc2
> 16.Kd1 ({1.22 Fritz 10:} 16. Ba4 16... Bxc5 17. Qxc5 Nd7
> 18. Bxd7 Bxd7 19. O-O Rf7 20. h5+ Kh7 21. f3 Be6 22. d4 Qh4
> 23. Rac1 {2.05/11}) 16...Rb2 17.Kc1 Rb8 18.e5 Bxe5 19.Bxf8
> Bf4+ 20.Kc2 Qxf8 21.Be4+ ({1.23 Fritz 10:} 21. Rab1
> 21... Rb6 22. Qa4 Bd6 23. Rxb6 axb6 24. Kb1 24... Kh7
> {2.38/12}) 21...Kf7 ({ 2.91 Fritz 10:} 21... Nxe4 22. dxe4
> Rb6 23. Rhd1 Ra6 24. Qd5 Be6 25. Qd3 Qa3 26. g3 {1.23/12})
> 22.Rab1 Rb6 23.Rxb6 axb6 24.Bd5+ Kg6 25.Qb5 Qa3 26.Qa4
> ({-2.24 Fritz 10:} 26. Be4+ 26... Kf7 27. Re1 Bd7 28. Qb3+
> Qxb3+ 29. axb3 c5 30. Bd5+ Kg6 31. g3 Bd6 32. Ne4
> {2.59/12}) 26...Qxa4+ 27.Nxa4 Nxd5 28.Re1 Bf5 29.a3 Bd6
> 30.Kb3 Nf4 31.d4 Nd3 32.Rf1 Kh5 0-1
You are welcome to try it out against me, a duffer, anytime on
chessworld or red hot pawn
|
|
