Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

3 games for a prize!


  • 20 months ago · Quote · #1

    Seraphimity

    The following 3 games I decided to copy the FEN at points I reached where I struggle for concepts or idea's on the best way to develop. 

    If anyone has a minute and has few thoughts I'd love to hear them. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #2

    chessmaster102

    if there games in progress we cannot help you its cheating.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #3

    Seraphimity

    no they are closed I would not want the help in a game ongoing Tongue Out that would sorta defeat the purpose learning about chess.  

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #4

    waffllemaster

    Very general comments...

    Game 1: 
    White will attack the knigside, and black will pray :p

    Well, white is a piece down I guess, and black threatens bxc and if white recaptures then the queen is lost.  So before this position white needed to deal with black's threat a bit differently first or prepare faster action vs the black king.


    Game 2:
    I like black a bit better, white's space is not convincing to me as he's a bit underdeveloped for such enterprises.  Meanwhile black will hit right away with c5.


    Game 3:
    Black's down a pawn, but his pieces are more active.  White will try to find the right time to play e3 and d4 eventually.  Both sides will maneuver to control central squares.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #5

    9thEagle

    On your first one, I don't think you have a need to develop so much as an easy win.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #6

    9thEagle

    Oh, if bxc, there are some other lines that may work. I'm not sitting down to heavily calculate it, but here's some more lines. I just jotted down what came to mind; some of it may not be accurate, but maybe it will give you an idea of what to look for in an attack.


    ome food for thought

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #7

    Seraphimity

    9thEagle wrote:

    On your first one, I don't think you have a need to develop so much as an easy win.

     

    I had figured the game won and let my focus drift to other games and made a critical error in timing the hpawn move.  allowed blacks king to sit on h7 and lost the game.  very frustating.  I did not see your continuation however so thank you for that.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #8

    Seraphimity

    wafflemaster in game 2 Im working on a d4 open with a g-pawn push.  It needs bishop d3, Qf3 and Nf5 normally to work.  bring rook over to g1 as opposed O-O.  

    Game 3 was fun but I did lose it.  Basically out manuevered into a forced mate in 5.  Its those games I need to work on.  I think that its my opening knowledge that's lacking at this point as tactics can't make up for poor position coming into a mid-game.  only some much can be made up for...

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #9

    waffllemaster

    Ooh, there is more poison in white's position than I thought, I guess black has to be careful.  I would be interested in seeing the game a few moves ago though to see if white missed a similar win... maybe before the piece was lost?  Or was it saced as part of the attack?

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #10

    Seraphimity

    9thEagle the second line is interesting as its opposite to what is obvious.  How I manage to lose that game.  well I was entertaining some company, making moves, baby sitting the oven..  

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #11

    9thEagle

    Seraphimity wrote:

     I think that its my opening knowledge that's lacking at this point as tactics can't make up for poor position coming into a mid-game.  only some much can be made up for...

    If you're implying that tactics is your strong suit, then I'd suggest the veresov. It's a crazy opening, not very liked by GMs because black can achieve "equality," but it's pretty insane, tactically. Lakdawala lists the qualities of a prime Veresover as 1.lazy about opening study 2.better tactical understanding than positional understanding 3.likes messy positions.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #12

    Seraphimity

    9thEagle wrote:
    Seraphimity wrote:

     I think that its my opening knowledge that's lacking at this point as tactics can't make up for poor position coming into a mid-game.  only some much can be made up for...

    If you're implying that tactics is your strong suit, then I'd suggest the veresov. It's a crazy opening, not very liked by GMs because black can achieve "equality," but it's pretty insane, tactically. Lakdawala lists the qualities of a prime Veresover as 1.lazy about opening study 2.better tactical understanding than positional understanding 3.likes messy positions.

    I just looked into it and I have to say that is kind of scary.  I do a d4 open as a standard and lately I've been unknowingly going with vaitions of the veresov.  It does seem to suit my style of play.  Basically I use these lines as they are less studied.  At my level it helps but I am looking to improve.  By the next few months I want my rating here to rest at about 1650.  I don't think you need to awful much study for that.  Just fundaments and good tactical accumen.  I beat 1600-1700 often enough to know that my game is only lacking in few area's and often its just my frame of mind at the time.  Veresov,  Thanks! I'll add those GM games to my study this week.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #13

    9thEagle

    The 2 GM's that play the Veresov most often (currently) are GM Hector and GM Khachian. Yeah, I suggested the Veresov because your first game reminded me of the kind of positions I would reach in it (that's also why I only looked at the first one--because it's a somewhat familiar setup).

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #14

    Seraphimity

    9thEagle, your live rating is impressive.  Do you do much book study, ie do you know alot of lines from study and memorising them or from basically just playing a ton?  if you don't mind my asking

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #15

    e4_guy

    9thEagle wrote:

    On your first one, I don't think you have a need to develop so much as an easy win.

     

    What if 23... bxc3 ?, Qe7 ? after quick check, white is in bad position to me.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #16

    9thEagle

    Nope, I know nothing Laughing. I'm just a much stronger tactical player than a positional player. If I get into a tactical game, I win (unless I blunder--see my games). I just have no positional understanding. Once I've developed all my pieces, I just start shoving h and g pawns into my opponent's kingside.

    BTW, what makes you say my rating is good? Yours is better. To be honest, I don't think my rating is a true reflection of my ability. I just tend to blunder a lot. When I ask masters to look at my games (or I play them in a simul) they are often quite impressed with my moves (I guess it helps that they think I'm some beginner playing 2.Nc3. I remember one master, when I was asking him about black openings before he looked at one of my games, showed a couple lines of the queen's gambit, and completely dismissed Nc3 as bad before I brought it up. When he looked at the game, he gave me this look like, "Really?" But then I proceeded to play brilliant sacrifices and ended up several pieces up in the endgame, where I promptly ran out of time.)

    In sharp open positions, I've beaten (and then drawn, in the rematch) a 1900. In closed positions, I've lost to a 900. Neither of those games involved a serious blunder. This is why I play the veresov.

     

    About my opening: I originally started with the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (because I got mixed up with the Queen's Gambit in my first tournament, but stuck with it because of my good results), but there was this line starting with 1...Nf6 that I didn't like, so I would go for a Veresov at that point.

     

    Eventually, I've migrated to playing a larger percentage of my games in veresov, instead of BDG, mostly because so many patzers on chess.com are familliar with the BDG, and have their own pet line against it.

    The way I used to study was to just play a whole bunch of games against myself, identify where one side started to lose, and change the move for that side. I would then check with games from a database (mostly Gedult's games). This method of study really helped me learn why certain moves were good, and why certain moves were bad. Then, when I see my opponent make 2 "developing" moves to his queenside with Bd7 and Nc6, I realize that he just wasted 2 tempo that I get to pile up on his castled kingside. Then I lauch a crushing mate (rather similar to your first position, but he's "wasted" moves that weren't really necessary, in light of my impending kingside rush).

    Mostly I've just used what I've learned from the BDG to help with my Veresov. I can't say I do any book study, or know any lines. I just put my pieces on Nc3, Qd3 or Qf3, Nf3 or Nd2, Bd3 and Bg6, castle queenside and shove my kingside pawns. That plan will fit pretty much regardless of what your opponent does. Sometimes, I'll even get in h4 before I start developing or castling. It just depends on the position, and my experiences with it.

    I also play a lot of blitz, and while I may not win in the end, I get to see a lot of lines against what I play (lots of french variations, which I am notorious at cracking). Rarely do I come out at a disadvantage in the opening, but when I do, I make note of it so I don't do it again. Basically, my tactics study and opening study are done at the same time (which is good because I don't have very much time). I probably get through one game a week from Cyrush Lakdawala's A Ferocious Opening Repertoire (which I highly reccomend if you want to play the veresov), but I'll look up lines if i see something new. Committing large lines to memory won't help you much in the veresov, because your opponent will likely deviate early (although, truth be told, any deviation that' I'm not aware of is generally losing because of how sharp it is).

    If you have any questions regarding certain lines (or maybe strategies in a certain position) I'll be happy to help. Sorry for the long rant.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #17

    Seraphimity

    no its fine and appreciated in fact our play and phrasology are similar.  I learned not to fear closed positions but still maintain an avid dislike for them.  I get nervous when i hear about alot of people knowing lines and defenses.  Mentioning your live rating because live is more representative of ones skill then online.  Online you can take alot of time, analyse, one guy Im playing even mentioned he pluged our positions into an engine last nite... I know he didn't mean anything by and probably didn't realize but that is cheating.  I have no chess program just a love of the game. live my goal is about 1400 without really cracking the books.  I think I'll stray over to amazon and pick up that book on the Versov and others.  Thanks again for your time.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #18

    9thEagle

    You're welcome. OTB I am about 1400 (I was close to 1500, but I just did really badly on my first tournament after a long break; ran out of time on ALL my games. Luckily I salvaged one because my opponent was willing to take a draw).

    By the way, a black opening that you might want to consider is the Sicillian dragon for e4 and the chigorin (a reversed veresov) for d4. I thought that the dragon would be too much theory for me (actually, the only opening book I've ever read is Lakdawala's . . . and i mostly refer to that for the french lines), but I've asked some IMs about it, and the said that it's actually rather simple in the sense that if I don't make a 100% accurate move, I'm not immediately dead. I can usually figure out any tactics OTB, so I haven't come across anyone winning because he was more booked up than me (and I actually calculated that I had close to a 90% win rate with it before my last 2 tournaments, and I lost most of those games to d4 or the smith-morra). I played it against an IM in a simul, and I was worried that I would be immediately blown out of the water because of tactics, but I actually lasted the longest of anyone else.

    And I absolutely fear closed positions. It's rather embarrassing, because I am the best player at my school by 200-500 points, when I can rattle off a tactical shot and declare one side won, but I can't give any advice on how to handle closed positions, besides "break it open, and trust that you're a better enough player to win from the resulting inferior position."

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #19

    Seraphimity

    I just entered a Sicilian tournament.  an attempt at adding some substance to my repetoire.  I'm actually on track to win 6/6 I beat a 1600 rated player in both games.  and the 1700 rated player I was paired I have one game in the bag and am equal on the other.  Im closing out the weakest player right now.  The theory on the Sicilian while enormous suits a tactical player.  When it comes to closed positions you have to relax and look for a weak spot in the opponents pawn structure.  usually a break happens with some form of 'exposed' threat or check.  I was told by a closed player that i was giving him to much time to plan.  So it made me study the games and realize that a more subtle form of tactics is required.  Problem with closed up positions is usually mistakes are fatal.  Bishops don't need to move to be tactical but tactics built around the lines they control or will.  

    If you were to go out and buy your first piece of chess software what would you get?

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #20

    9thEagle

    Umm, I don't have any chess software. At all. I've heard that you can get some for free though, but I haven't really looked into it. Maybe let me know how that goes?

    I know a lot of coaches that use Fritz.


Back to Top

Post your reply: