Throughout my chess games, I have played some good moves.  I saw a mate from 8 from the start, I played a mate in 9 unintentionally.  However, those games were always spoilt by something like a huge blunder, and I have never submitted anything to the games showcase forum.

But this game neither side made any major blunders, one that doesn't feel like what i call the "sucker punch" chess i usually play.  Basically, I wait for my opponent to screw up (often baiting him, but not attacking) and pound him until he dies.  This game, I used this amazing thing called strategy, and its the most solid game I've ever played.  Enjoy, some annotations for easier understanding.  1 in depth explanation of why my opponent picked the right move.

The first time somebody resigned for positional reasons as well.

Hello,

The opening was a big theory line. Some big name players like Anand, and Adams have played the black side, although dont understand it myself, they must think get enough play for pawn after 12Nxb5. The game followed Acs v Blehm 2000 upto 21Bb5. Think black should of found something else before going that far. There was a correspondence game with 15...Ne4, have no idea of standard of players, but if that works tactically then evaluation of line would be changed.

Good quality game.

Bye John S

at move 16, why not move your rook to b4 and the next move to e4-e5 to threathen both the horse, and h7 checkmate? because your knight on f3 already attacks/defends e5 so the black queen can't get the remaining pawn after pawn trade.

 Just an option, correct me if I am wrong...

Hello,

If you mean 17Rb4 then this has been played before too, and white won. The original poster referred to this move in his notes, and preferred the exchange sac. Don't know for sure of course, but my impression is that the OP was more aware of what had been played before than his opponent. Which is quiete useful in such a sharp opening.

Bye John s

Indeed a nice game, gratz for you and your oponent since for a good game to be played you need two good players.

Hi, OP here.  I think prehaps I overstated the advantage of 17. Nc3 over 17. Rb4, but finding I had the option to shift the game in the direction I did is why I gave myself an !, not because the line avoided some major problem.  I also simply prefer the continuations positions and sharpness.

Can anybody check if 17. Nc3 is a novelty?  I feel conceited whenever I give myself an ! =/.

First off, nice analysis of the game. However, I can't help but pointing out that you missed a huge move that was on the board for several turns. From move 5 until move 14, the king's pawn was totally undefended and could have been taken by the knight. I don't know if you were 'gambitting' it, or what, but black should have taken the pawn in my opinion, especially given how the game ended. But other than that, most of the moves were pretty good (I never get that far in a Ruy Lopez, but usually play the Latvian Gambit or something, so that type of game isn't exactly my style...)

The Gambit King

Gambit king, black generally does not play Nxe4, although its not nessecarly unsound.  White generally continues with d4 next to recover his pawn, and black is unwise to solidify his gain with exd4.  If he does, he opens a file to his king and white has more then enough compensation for the loss of a pawn.  I would suggest looking up some theroy on it yourself.

Great game, I enjoyed it.

Hello,

No 17Nc3 is not a novelty, your game followed Acs v Blehm 2000 upto 21Bb5, and the other option 17Rb4 had been played before too.

Quite funny comment on whether to play Nxe4 on move 5 until move 14, whoosh hundred's of years of opening analysis never happened....

In fact, whether 15...Nxe4 is good, has played in a correspondence game maybe critical for 12...exd4 line choosen by black.

Bye John S

I definitely enjoyed this game.  Congrats!

MikedaSnipe wrote: Gambit king, black generally does not play Nxe4, although its not nessecarly unsound.  White generally continues with d4 next to recover his pawn, and black is unwise to solidify his gain with exd4.  If he does, he opens a file to his king and white has more then enough compensation for the loss of a pawn.  I would suggest looking up some theory on it yourself.

---

Thanks for telling me. I'd never really analysed Ruy Lopez very much because I'm more likely to do either King's Gambit or Danish Gambit or Urusov Gambit or Fried Liver Attack than that. But I like that theory of sacrificing a pawn for initiative. If only the 'main line' was taking the pawn...

The Gambit King

Twomove, thanks for looking that up, but it makes me sad T_T.  Wahhhhhh... I want it to be a novelty =(.

I don't know...it seems like you would have to really understand that line Nxb5...maybe it is me, but I don't like the look of the isolated b-pawn and then later offering an exchange sacrifice...I know, that is just me...I am nowhere near as good as guys like Anand.  But I would prefer to bind Black rather than play lines like Nxb5.  They seem forcing to me.

Thanks for explaining your moves. Very interesting!

Hello,

Well don't be too sad. Acs is very strong GM, so that means the standard of your game was pretty good.

Bye John S

This game was intense from the very start and you made the best out of nothing. GRATZ!!