^ Click here to remove ads! ^

Eliminating the Opening

Submitted by Patzer24 on Mon, 06/09/2008 at 7:36pm.

Here is a game from the 2008 National Open, GM Nakamura - NM Santalla with full annotations and commentary:

 

 

In this game we saw white employ a very interesting strategy in the beginning of the game. He chose to just play some very slow and solid developing moves and avoided any time of standard opening position and opening theory. This seemed to give white the psychological edge throughout the game and eventually black gave in to the pressure and made a decisive mistake to give white a winning position. Sometimes the opening stage and opening knowledge is not the most important factor. This game shows that it is more important to know how to play an overall good chess game and not just specialize and know more than your opponent in the opening.


» posted in Strategy
« Previous | 1 2 | Next »

Comments:

by jimmersw - 23 days ago
Hawaii United States
Member Since: Jan 2008
Member Points: 266

what about this?

5 bg5 


by Pawn_mower - 24 days ago
United States
Member Since: Dec 2007
Member Points: 31
Yes, we shouldn't play as "wood pushers," but play every move based on our opponent's last move-- that is, 3 ply.  My move, their move, my move after that.  Mark
by ChessBastard - 25 days ago
San Rafael, CA United States
Member Since: Oct 2007
Member Points: 28

For all that are asking why not Kh7 instead of resignation, please read the last comment in the game (there for follows and black is down pieces in the endgame).

 --------------------------

A great move to end the game! Now 42...Kxh7 is forced and white has 43. Nxg5+! and then next capturing the Queen and white will have an easily won endgame. Therefore black resigns here. White wins, 1-0


by Timson - 26 days ago
Almaty Kazakhstan
Member Since: Jun 2008
Member Points: 2
Oh...I see...Thanks!
by fahrierdem - 26 days ago
Ankara Turkey
Member Since: Mar 2008
Member Points: 6
Nxg5+ and white take back queen and have an easy end game
by Timson - 26 days ago
Almaty Kazakhstan
Member Since: Jun 2008
Member Points: 2

I don't understand... Ok, may be I'm not so highly skilled in chess.

But anyway, it would be great if someone explain me the following.

Take a look at the latest picture of the game. Why not 42... Kxh7?

In this situation black will have a great situation. Black queen, bishop, khight against white rook and khight. No evident checkmate to black king. No white pawns near the upper horizontal (a8-h8).

Please, someone explain! 


by ADK - 26 days ago
Santa Clarita, CA United States
Member Since: Aug 2007
Member Points: 5273

Wow, that was incredible!!!

ADK


by Miriki - 28 days ago
United States
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 2
if black's king took whites queen, he would have an advantage.nothing could attack the white king, and if the white knight threatened the king,it could be taken by the black knight, then black would take whites remaining rook, and then trap the king on the lower-left rankget another queen with the pawns on the left side, and then checkmate.
by Ransom_X - 28 days ago
Dominican Republic
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 8
Nakamura umiliated his opponent with great play out of theory to prove all around chess is what matter not oppenings
by qwerer - 28 days ago
United States
Member Since: Oct 2007
Member Points: 122
wow
by jojo20081973 - 28 days ago
PHILIPPINES Philippines
Member Since: Mar 2008
Member Points: 11
nothing is impossible,all gm have a weekness so find out why black was lost.
by lapin - 28 days ago
Katerini Greece
Member Since: Apr 2008
Member Points: 284
Very good game
by dcarwin - 28 days ago
San Francisco United States
Member Since: Dec 2007
Member Points: 18

Thanks for the explanation, and I appreciate the annotated game postings.

-Dan 


by Patzer24 - 28 days ago
United States
Member Since: Jun 2007
Member Points: 7474
I used the Rybka chess program to find some improvements on some of the moves.
by dcarwin - 28 days ago
San Francisco United States
Member Since: Dec 2007
Member Points: 18

Your comments on 9. Nd1

- Are you claiming to be better than Nakamura, or is this Fritz talking?  I am not clear on where the judgement call "better would have been" comes from, and I want to know if it really would have been better.

 Thanks.


by mrwrangler - 28 days ago
Fort Worth United States
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 37

Reminds me of a game I once saw between Dzindzichashvili and a class A player. Roman was playing black against white's Queen's gambit, Lev Alburt was doing annotations. White offered a poison pawn. The line was the pawn couldn't be taken as it would lead to the loss of material. Lev mentioned this to those garhered and demonstrated the line of moves.

Roman just looked at the players move sheet and saw his rating. He then boldly took the pawn. White lost the game on the 17th move due to time.

GM's seem to do that things like that to us mere mortals 


by Blackadder - 28 days ago
United Kingdom
Member Since: Dec 2007
Member Points: 53
I thought there was a bit of bias in the annotations though....white seems to get all these "this is genuis" remarks, I thought Black played rather well, but I guess you need to be a GM to recive any praise!
by jonloop - 28 days ago
United Kingdom
Member Since: Feb 2008
Member Points: 85
Great game, perhaps if Santalla had been playing against a weaker opponent he wouldn't have been psychologically beaten by a slower game
by bohinky - 29 days ago
Jefferson City, Missouri United States
Member Since: Apr 2008
Member Points: 23
Nice work Patzer.  I enjoyed the game and the annotations.  Well done!!!
by normajeanyates - 29 days ago
london [often in calcutta india] England
Member Since: Jan 2008
Member Points: 858
Oh it is just GM playing cat-n-mouse with NM - starts with noncommital benko (no relation to benko-volga gambit) - doesnt play best moves after move 3, sees that NM is clueless, the rest is history. [ now that 5-year old songs are "classic" and 10-year old songs are "golden oldies", it seems history is on meths, so this game is history now :) ]
« Previous | 1 2 | Next »

Add your comment:

Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.