This is probably the best win I've ever had. I had just read GM Gserpers' article on the Petroff and I noticed I could use this very strong attacking motif from positions arising in the London system (which is probably my favourite opening)  I was inspired to play an early (and probably innacurate) h4 and it paid off!


p.s thanks alot GM Gserper if you read this =)

edit - I just realised my commentary is out of synch, I've spent too much time trying to post this game and I can't be bothered to fix it. Soz ;)

very well played!

Great win! A text-book victory! Magnificent!

PS. There's no need to challenge me!

You recognised this nice pattern, and used it in the most effective way. No doubt that it is well played by you...but I just can't stand not to say something about this system you employed. If you would like to develop in chess, you have to stop playing such anti-chess-openings as Trompowsky Attack, Torre Attack, London System etc. Theese are for IMs and GMs who know a lot of other openings very well, but want to confuse their opponents SOMETIMES. But confusing and playing for tricks just cannot always work. I see you are good at tactics, so why don't you play 1.e4 and go for open games? At least if you like 1.d4 so much, then use sharper lines. Im an e4 player, so I cant give you proper advice with mainstream 1.d4, but there are gambit lines almost in every major opening system. After all, this was a good game indeed.

I don't know about amazing.  More amazing to me are 74 move wins and such.  But nice game!  :)

I think you have overlooked many qualities.

-It nearly always gives white a solid position
-Little theory to learn
-Leads to a positional game
-Not very popular

These characteristics make it useful against higher rated opponents. Would you rather slowly and safely build your attack or just go in all guns blazing? It would be easy for your opponent to beat you in a tactical game where combinations can be calculated. If you're armed with positional ideas he/she isn't going to spot those unless they know the system themselves.

=========================================================

I am developing my chess by aiming for positional games because I want to balance my game and not just improve my tactical abilities. I do play 1.e4 I have no idea why you think I don't. It really depends what I'm feeling for.

You can't go slating "anti-chess" opening as you call them. Fair enough some opening are too flawed to play (Grob's, Halloween gambit etc.) but there is nothing wrong with the openings you mentioned. Unless you think there's something wrong with them because the computer says so. A computer is not clever. It is a machine that crunches 1's and 0's and nothing more. So why would you emulate that?

 Don't get me wrong, computers have helped a alot and there is something to be said for them. I will say they have very strong tactical abilities, but they can't comprehend qualitative information! That is why you must think about the character of the opening because the pc can't!! Look up at that list of qualities exhibited by this sytem, did your pc tell you about those?

 Anyway I hope you (and others) have learned something from my post, because it took bloody ages

well, its not so true that "unpopular openings" are always bad and have no tactics...for example, the latvian gambit is a very sharp opening where you sacrifice a lot and if u dont know tactics, then you cant play it because it is based on tactics!

nice

great post, thanks!

Yet if black had played like this, he would have saved himself, no?

regardless of this, though, you played very well.

isn't this like the greek gift or something (as in Bxh7?) and the way to avoid it was not take the bishop? (in this case there was the Nf6 though) If you don't take though you lose a pawn =(

You used the greek gift. Nice

Thanks for the pointers from Brazen and Tony. Next time there will be a white pawn on e5 :p