The first of these games teaches us to 'never give up' LOL... the second is an instructive game against a line that supposedly 'refuted' the Nakamura variation of the Latvian. Needless to say, Black gets his punches in. Comments please.
-
-And here is the second game:
The Gambit King
First game: 25.Re2?? is a horrible blunder and loses the game for white. However prior to that move I would give white an advantage. instead of 25.Re2?? either 25. Rf1, giving back the exchange and trading off your attacking pieces, and he retains a three pawn lead. Another even better move is 25. d5!, winning the knight because if the knight moves, 26.Qxc7+ Ke8 27.Nd6+ wins the black queen for the white knight.
In the first one, had 25.d5 Ne5?? been played, I think Qxc7+ Ke8 Nd6+ and it looks pretty clear to me. Also, your strategy seems wrong with the Bishop check. The knight seems quite happy coming across to f3 via d2.
In the second game, after the 9th move it looks like white is better. He's up a pawn and has two bishops, and has none of his pawns committed in the centre. Also, I think Nf6 was required, instead of d5, to prepare castling and guard h5. I dont see how 14.Bxb8 prevents you from castling, and white has already ceded the right to castle but it was a long time ago. I'm not sure about your endgame generalisation. I think here black is certainly helped by the state of white's pawns and his own piece activity. A famous capablanca game in the Riga variation of the Ruy Lopez shows 2 pieces winning out against a rook and 2 pawns.
Btw, your inexplicable use of descriptive notation makes it unnecessarily difficult and confusing to read what you write. Somewhat unnecessary given your D.O.B. It seems like if i was to convert all my prices into pre-decimal currency which ceased to be used before I started using money, before telling them to you, and then you having to convert them all back to real money.
Thanks for the advice guys. Just remember, I'm not asking anyone else to make descriptive notation, but for me it just makes more since. I think in descriptive better than algebraic. For instance if you were to say "Both players opened with P-Q4 and prepared P-K4 as fast as possible" I think descriptive reflects the symmetry of the board better. And btw, I always put the square in algebraic also (in parentheses) after I write the move, so it shouldn't be too hard to follow. I disagree slightly with your assessment of the second game, as first of all I think that for the fifth move the king has to move up to KB3 (f3) if white is trying for any sort of advantage, and I think the two rooks were certainly worth a lot more than you might have expected in the endgame, since they were able to make it to the next to last rank and keep the bishop pinned for a long time. And remember, you can just BARELY checkmate with a knight and bishop, but you can EASILY checkmate with just a rook OR just a pawn (so long as you have the opposition). sstteevveenn, I like your suggestion about moving Kt-KB3 (f6) to prepare castling instead of P-Q4 (d4), although I'd need to test it to see if it's better or not.
I tried e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 f5 during a few games on live chess, until an opponent played the obvious exf5 d5 Bb5, which is more than a little awkward to meet.
1st board...19. f3, 2nd board 21. a1 probably gives better odds 4 white?
yeah, it's mostly stuff like Kt-KB3 (f6) that got me. Either I will spend ages thinking you're trying to move the king, or I will think you're trying to move pawn to f6. The thing is, most moves in chess are not like you describe with "Both players opened with P-Q4 and prepared P-K4 as fast as possible". Most moves when you annotate are stuff like, 'move this piece here'. Unless you're writing a book, I doubt you'll really need to describe both side's plans at once like that, and even then it seems just as neat to say "opened with d4 d5, and prepared e4 and e5". For example Kt-KB3, first I have to work out whose move it is, then, once i've figured out it's a knight and not a king moving, I have to work out it's on the kingside, then the bishop file, then the third rank, and by the time i've done all that, there's very little memory left over for remembering any previous moves. Whereas with Nf3, I immediately know white is developing his knight to its best square, and am ready for more moves. You can use descriptive of course, if you like; I just think since you're not stuck with it, that you're unnecessarily handicapping yourself. I think eventually it could start to be a real pain for you when everything you read is in a notation that you dont instinctively know. The difference really between algebraic and descriptive, is algebraic describes a move, and descriptive describes a piece and a square, so there isnt really such a thing as putting the square in algebraic, as f6 means pawn to f6. Putting Kt-KB3 (Nf6) would be much less confusing than Kt-KB3 (f6)
NotKasparov wrote: I tried e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 f5 during a few games on live chess, until an opponent played the obvious exf5 d5 Bb5, which is more than a little awkward to meet.
How about this?
In the second game, it doesn't look so trivial to win after 21Rh1. Obviously it is not so ideal to play so a passive move, but connected passed pawns are lethal in rook endings. What's going to be black's plan then, to try to get the other rook to second rank maybe?
TwoMove wrote: In the second game, it doesn't look so trivial to win after 21Rh1. Obviously it is not so ideal to play so a passive move, but connected passed pawns are lethal in rook endings. What's going to be black's plan then, to try to get the other rook to second rank maybe?
Maybe White could eke out a draw, but I'd say black has all the winning chances if he activates his king and starts to advance the two connected pawns with the help of the king and rook. Of course, I'm no expert, but I think that the pawn majority should give him an edge, even though I'm sure I might misplay it...
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.