lebesgue72 vs. byrne926: B01 Scandinavian (Center Counter) Defense 9/20/2015

Sep 27, 2015, 2:24 PM |

Hi all! This is a game that I played a couple of days ago. White gained a tempo on black's queen, with possibilities for center control and development, but black's queen had a moderately decent spot to go to(the a5 square), especially considering what happened in the game. There was tension in the center for a while. Black developed their knights to their classical squares. The main dubious decisions made by white were to put pawns on light and let the dark-squared bishop be exchanged, meanwhile providing a great outpost for black's queenside knight. It turned out that this was made even worse by the white recapture with the knight on d2 - white's kingside pieces weren't developed, while black had a fast-track to piece development and pressure against the d2 point. Black made a move that put a total of 4 white pawns in a chain on all light squares, which made white's light-squared bishop look pretty silly. This game basically shows how development principles, applied haphazardly and without regard for the concepts of good vs. bad bishop, or knight outposts, or for "piling up on pinned pieces" can look o.k. but just plain aren't. What I'm taking away from the game are:

- how not to deploy bishops in the opening.(don't deploy them just to stare at & babysit your pawns)

- don't play moves that allow an opponent to exchange off one of their average pieces for a good piece of yours, or at least a piece that's important. In general, this means thinking more actively about the differences between the pieces, and their values given the pawn structure(or future value) during the game. 

- the concept of chasing pieces away to squares that they already want to go to anyway. 

In general, I think I was thinking about very specific tactics, and wasn't thinking at all how they looked from the positional, strategic standpoint. The strategic long-term considerations, looking at what's in the position, and how likely, whatever it is, is to change in the long-run. Basically, tactical considerations without the guidance of positional considerations can lead to pretty ugly results. Here's the game: