Chess - Play & Learn


FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store


lebesgue72 v. Jyrutman: B40: Sicilian Defense

Dec 30, 2015, 12:19 PM 0

Hi everyone! Here's another recent game. This time I had the white pieces in the sicilian. I made an early move to fianchetto my light-squared bishop. I think this is a dubious idea, since the pawn is already on e4, and the way that the game developed, I tried to make sure that this didn't block my bishop in. I guess it's a little harder to detect long-term moves that are bad, but I think i'd need to do some more analysis of these kinds of positions to learn more about the intricacies down the line that can result from that simple, early move. Anyway, the game was tactically and strategically interesting to me. I was playing against black's backward d pawn, and I tried to put more pressure on it in various ways. Black found a way to make my c-pawn backward, given the way that my minor pieces were developed and arranged. During this process, on move 17, it may have been interesting(but definitely very tactical) to see what would happen with b3-b4 instead of a4xb5. Maybe this is something I would consider and calculate, if I were to play this game again. Another thing to think about is the capture on move 26. I figured that my rook would be enough to protect the backward c-pawn, and that if I exchanged the light-squared bishops off, then it might be hard to attack my opponents dark-squared pawns. Whether or not this is true is a bit hard to tell. Also, if I were to play this game again, I would change my move 29 to instead get my remaining rook on the c-file after the exchange, to be able to protect the backward c-pawn. Finally, on move 33, I think I would have made a move that gave my kingside pawns more options to close up the position. This is something that definitely could be transferable to other games, where the opponent is trying to stir up some tactics in some place of the board that you would rather have closed up. Here's the game: 

Online Now