Annotated Games

@eladar said
@Duchess64

You do seem to babble on about nothing as if this discussion was in the debates forum. The chess forum is not an appropriate place for your needless blatherings.

eladar - Duchess and FMDAVIDHLEVIN are both players you could learn a lot from here. If you could manage to tone down your petty insults and pay closer attention to what they have to say, you wouldn't "suck" as much as you once did.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

On 16...Bd7 17. bxc3 Bb5 18. c4 Qd4+ 19. Be3 Qxc4 20. Qxc4 Bxc4 21. Rfe1 Bxa2 22 Rxb7 Bf6, 23. Rb6 seems to force elimination of the queenside pawns.

But I agree that 17 ... Bc5+ 18 Kh1 Rae8 retains an edge.

I haven't looked up the opening, but it seems to me that having played f4... so early, White should have developed the light-square bishop to d3. This would have given White an extra tempo for Qe2... and Be3... if necessary.

I was wondering whether you had any comments about 13...Re8 (as an alternative to the game's 13...Bd7).

@mchill said
eladar - Duchess and FMDAVIDHLEVIN are both players you could learn a lot from here. If you could manage to tone down your petty insults and pay closer attention to what they have to say, you wouldn't "suck" as much as you once did.

I don't see eladar's "petty insults" as necessarily having started the friction in that discussion.

@mchill said
eladar - Duchess and FMDAVIDHLEVIN are both players you could learn a lot from here. If you could manage to tone down your petty insults and pay closer attention to what they have to say, you wouldn't "suck" as much as you once did.

D is a jerk. There is no enjoyment dealing with her. She is best left alone. I thought this being the chess forum things would be different, but a jerk is a jerk. There is nothing to be learned from a jerk, other than it is not worth it.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

"13... Re8, eyeing the Qe2 and Ke1, was a natural plausible alternative.
I decided to connect my rooks first before placing one on the e-file.
I did not expect that putting immediate pressure on White's e-pawn would be decisive, so why hurry?"

It seemed to me that Black's d4-pawn would soon be lost and that to offset this, Black shouldn't delay in applying pressure against White's c-pawn or e-pawn. That there would be potential tactics involving ...Bf5 (after ...Re8) helped persuade me that the e-pawn should be targeted and that developing the light-square bishop should be deferred until I'm sure where it's needed.

"If Judit Polgar is 'Tal in a skirt' (to quote Smyslov), I am more like 'Smyslov in a frock'."

I've noticed your flair for applying general grounds to accurately assess positions that still contain a lot of tactics. For example, in the variation starting with 12. e5 and ending with 16. O-O, you seemed to intuitively realize that Black would retain the advantage, and you quickly honed in on what moves Black should be considering.

My ability in this area is less pronounced. The above-mentioned position was so open and contained so many moves that were plausible (to me at least), that it took a lot of analysis for me to be confident that Black was better.

Posting test.

Something has gone wrong with another thread, just seeing if it the same here.

EDIT: this one seems OK. Thread 189816 has gone bad -
no Edit button there either.

Nice game, thanks for sharing and giving detailed analysis

@Duchess64
I've long found chess satisfying in that one gets to solve problems. Winning a game due primarily to preparation doesn't give me much pleasure. Consequently, I've always had a narrow opening repertoire, and my preparation was often spotty. But the main upside was that if my out-of-book moves were at least playable, they would put my opponents on their own, and I usually could outplay them. Occasionally, I would come up with a move that improved on published play, which was extremely satisfying.

"He did say, however, that he thought that I was 'too nice' and 'lacked a killer instinct' to become a great player."

Although chess is a kind of combat, I approach it as a way to test myself. When I'm at the board, I'm not focused on there being an opponent.

"Applying John Nunn's precept of DAUT, I hope to conserve my energy for an endgame where I may need much precise calculation in order to convert a win or hold a draw."

Being fortunate to have a lot of energy and to calculate fairly quickly, I decided to leverage these attributes by being aware of every possible move. Probably overkill, but it made me extremely steady tactically.

"That's very reasonable; I was worried about my d-pawn too. But I play some gambits as Black. I was hoping to become less attached to material."

I resonate with that. But I found that I would often create complications when not justified. To curb this, I resolved long ago to refrain from material sacrifices or significant positional concessions except where necessary.

Applying this approach, I would prefer 13...Re8 with 14...Bd8 to the actual continuation.

I've also found that when a position lacks overt tactics, the increased latitude this appears to give the opponent often brings about subtle mistakes.

"I think that I could learn much from you. I would feel kind of amazed if you thought that you could learn anything about playing chess from me!"

It didn't take many analysis discussions on this forum for me to realize that you're a very strong player. So, I definitely expect to learn from our interactions.

@FMDavidHLevin

What you are saying is that you try to understand the position and take advantage of people who do not.

PaulfromFICS used to post here years ago and had a similar point of view. He said he that he preferred to avoid book moves to force the opponent to get out of preparation. He felt that it exposed them.

@eladar said
@FMDavidHLevin

What you are saying is that you try to understand the position and take advantage of people who do not.

PaulfromFICS used to post here years ago and had a similar point of view. He said he that he preferred to avoid book moves to force the opponent to get out of preparation. He felt that it exposed them.

I agree that the approach taken by PaulfromFICS (as described) is similar to my approach.

But I don't deliberately play any move that I feel isn't first rate.

If I know the book move and agree that it's correct, then I play it.

If I don't know the book move, then I try to find the best move. If I find two moves that seem equally correct, then I select the one that I believe will make my life easier or the opponent's harder (such as a move that allows more apparent latitude or where the correct reaction might seem nonintuitive).