23 Mar 09
Originally posted by GarnothGood game - at work ATM so will give it a more relaxed going
Here I have another game that fits your theme. I play the king's bishop gambit for exactly this reason, most players react as my opponent in that game, with Na5 he essentially wastes 1 tempo and loses.
Here it is: Game 6126515
over later.
Pity the King's Rook was a never used. Game reminded me of
some my Latvians when White tries to crush Black, is beaten back
and mated.
23 Mar 09
Originally posted by black beetleActually, if you read Tarrasch's The Game of Chess, you'll see that he understood the concept of time quite well. In fact, he identified the three main elements of chess to be force, space and time.
Tarrasch was not aware of the fact that you can win solely through the accurate understanding and evaluation of the Time😵
23 Mar 09
Originally posted by gaychessplayerSure thing, my friend!
Actually, if you read Tarrasch's The Game of Chess, you'll see that he understood the concept of time quite well. In fact, he identified the three main elements of chess to be force, space and time.
I like Tarrasch although sometimes he was too much; he was building his positions gradually, reflecting the spirit of the classical Physics of his era, and you are right to state that he was quite aware of the value of the Time.
How can I dislike the maitr who quoted that "Chess, just like love and music, has the power to make the Human happy!"?
So I stand corrected and I agree that my humor turned ugly😵
23 Mar 09
Originally posted by black beetlePurdy states that Tarrasch was talking nonsense, and relates how Capablanca tried to add a fourth element, which he defined as position, but happily mentioned no more about it such was the vagueness of the term.
Sure thing, my friend!
I like Tarrasch although sometimes he was too much; he was building his positions gradually, reflecting the spirit of the classical Physics of his era, and you are right to state that he was quite aware of the value of the Time.
How can I dislike the maitr who quoted that "Chess, just like love and music, has the power to make the Human happy!"?
So I stand corrected and I agree that my humor turned ugly😵
23 Mar 09
Originally posted by greenpawn34Well, he didn't defend in the best way, Nf6 instead of Ne7 would have made it more difficult (although I think I managed to find the way for white to break through in post analysis), but I played the sac instantly, no calculating needed, I am not going to pull the bishop back to d3 😛
Good game - at work ATM so will give it a more relaxed going
over later.
Pity the King's Rook was a never used. Game reminded me of
some my Latvians when White tries to crush Black, is beaten back
and mated.
But yeah, in those 3...Qh4+ king's bishop gambits, the king's rook is the only poor piece you have, it's hard to get it into the game!
24 Mar 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThen Purdy is right. I think we have to compare each personage according to the standards of his time; Tarrasch went beyond Steinitz and this fact makes him brilliand, however he succumbed to Lasker and he was definately inferior to Capa. Anyway I prefer to study Bronstein, Botvinnik and Kasparof instead of Steinitz, Lasker and Capablanca, and when it boils down to the strategy I definately prefer the Soviet School and Suba and Dvoretsky than Tarrasch😵
Purdy states that Tarrasch was talking nonsense, and relates how Capablanca tried to add a fourth element, which he defined as position, but happily mentioned no more about it such was the vagueness of the term.
24 Mar 09
1 edit
I'm just starting "The Development of Chess Style" by Max Euwe and John Nunn....so will be getting onto Tarrasch ("the first great virtuoso" ) in a few chapters time. The premise of the book is that the evolution of chess itself sort of mirrors how an individuals understanding of chess develops... and that studying the old masters is instructive. I'm on Greco today..a Kings Gambit from around 1625!
24 Mar 09
Originally posted by MahoutFine; Tarrasch was too strong and in many occasions he prefered to keep his pieces free and dynamic instead of putting pressure against a static pawn structure, however he was very dogmatic.
I'm just starting "The Development of Chess Style" by Max Euwe and John Nunn....so will be getting onto Tarrasch ("the first great virtuoso"😉 in a few chapters time. The premise of the book is that the evolution of chess itself sort of mirrors how an individuals understanding of chess develops... and that studying the old masters is instructive. I'm on Greco today..a Kings Gambit from around 1625!
Since Lasker we know that the pieces and the pawns are getting different value according to their relative ability to contribute towards achieving the object of the game, and that this force should be released the right time into kinetic energy. And after Coles' "Dynamic Chess" in 1956 we passed from Classicism and Hypermodernism to the concept of Dynamism... My studies are dated, I am stuck at the mainstream theory of the '90s -I cannot go back, and I cannot move on because there are too many aspects that I cannot understand. It seems that stuck I will remain in the matrix "Why do I play this move and what am I prepared to do?"...
But maybe this matrix is the cornerstone of the Royal Game afterall
😵
I would love to read a chess book by greenpawn -an institution of the concept of the Sacrifice and Time at every level and at every phase of the game, with the title "After Dynamism, what?"
😵
24 Mar 09
Originally posted by zozozozoI am not good; I just do the same training again and again again till perfection -which it never seems to come!
thats how i play too! why am i not as good as you then?😛
I just follow the opening theory of a specific strategy that I understand in full, so after all those years I know by means of trial and error analyses when I have to quit it.
You as well can do it easily once you establish your own repertoire. For example, my White 1.d4 repertoire is consisted of folders regarding each of the 19 basic defensive systems of the Black, and game after game each folder becomes even more sophisticated and deep. I know very well what exactly I have to expect from the Black after my 1.d4, for this is a well known path of mine.
And my Scheveningen datas are so well worked out that now I have established quite deep lines after the basic 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 for the following continuations:
6.Be2
6.f4 Nc6
6.Be3 Nc6
6.Be3 a6
6.Bc4
6.g3
6.g4
and the differ ...f3 variations, whilst I have strong back up regarding Wing Gambit, Smith-Morra, Grand Prix, Closed and 2.c3.
Every single game I have ever played with the Black since 1988 after 1.c5 is Scheveningen, and against 1.d4 is KID. And every single game I played since that year with the White is 1.d4!
I hope you comprehend😵
24 Mar 09
Originally posted by black beetlemaybe i should first learn what all the openings are:p
I am not good; I just do the same training again and again again till perfection -which it never seems to come!
I just follow the opening theory of a specific strategy that I understand in full, so after all those years I know by means of trial and error analyses when I have to quit it.
You as well can do it easily once you establish your own repert ...[text shortened]... d every single game I played since that year with the White is 1.d4!
I hope you comprehend😵
24 Mar 09
Originally posted by zozozozoThis is very easy to be understood once you place the chessmen on the chessboard in front of you.
maybe i should first learn what all the openings are:p
Well, the Scheveninghen Black controls all the central squares with the pawn formation d6-e6 and he is ready to advance by means of e5-d5 whilst he counterplays on thec file. The White will have to look for activity in the centre and on the kingside, and after f4 he will try e5 -f5 or he will try a huge assault a la Keres by means of g4. As you see, the power of the Black is his flexibility; once this flexibility is denied (fixed pawns, closed c file etc), he dies.
Furthermore, the idea of the White regarding the Sicilian Wing Gambit is to sac a side pawn in order to built a full pawn centre and to have it later mobilized;
The idea of the White behind Smith-Morra is to sac a pawn in order to develop with tempo;
The 2.c3 indicates that the White will try to built a strong pawn centre and establish a small but lasting advantage hoping that later it could be transformed into a more substant initiative;
Grand Prix allows the White to play f4 before developing his King's Knight, thus pressing harder in the centre;
And finally the Closed is a constant pain in the ass, because the Knight on e2 and the fianchettoed king's Bishop they press d5 to the hilt and the Black is many times forced to react symmetricaly -and this is too bad.
Clear now?