Post your stonewall games here!

For analysis or to share info and etc. Ill post some of my old ones.

what would be your response if on move 5 black plays e5 strikning the center

d5 kicking the knight.

oh never thought of that way, i thought u would have to capture the pawn because it can occupy the e4 square and be a real pain but with ur move black loses a tempo

thanks

This is a recent game I played at chesscube.

Wasnt a very good middle game for black but a sturggling aggressive end game.

A game I played today at chesscube.

dude u are a monster

Hello, all!  This is a bit lengthy list of games, but this is a forum for our Stonewall games.  I've tried to analyze these to the best of my ability.  Hopefully someone with a strong engine can help me out.

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

GAME #1 - I played this game in Live Chess earlier today.  When I think of chess tactics, I don't merely think of combinations that lead to material gain or a checkmate.  Along with these, I look for a third tactic.  If I can provoke weaknesses in my opponent's camp that helps cement my strong points and hurts him, then I can shift gears at will and milk my own advantages.

          In this game, I intially contemplated a kingside attack.  When I began the attack, I had the sole intention of ensuring that my pawn on e5 would stay there for a long time and making sure that my queenside pawns would make something of themselves by pushing through into the center.  However, Black's inaccurate responses to my threats allowed me to go all out on the kingside and win several pawns.  There will come a time in a game where you're forced to commit to a plan.  If you don't, you will be crushed.

          I think one of the best lessons I've learned is that a vicious attack doesn't always have to end with massive material gain or checkmate.  Sometimes, you're forced to settle for less than what you were expecting and make the most of it.  That's what I planned on doing here.  I didn't want to make a massive blunder by getting impatient or thinking that my reward was less than ideal.

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

GAME #2 - In this game, I found myself playing against my favorite opening.  This friend of mine, sadly, has now been banned for cheating.  At any rate though, I was blessed to have this game with him before that happened.  It really taught me how to plan against my favorite weapon.  In the end, I ended up with a solid draw against a much stronger opponent.

          Just because an opening looks intimidating or it's your favorite, don't think that it's the end-all be-all system.  You have to know your own openings' downsides and how to exploit them.  Otherwise, you likely won't know what to do when you find yourself on the receiving end of one of them.

          On a side note, I am currently in a deep discussion of this same game and specifically my play against it in a different thread in chess.com's general forums.  I suggest you follow the exchanges between "erikido23" and myself.  We've been picking apart my opening play for several days now!

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/let-me-analyze-your-games

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

GAMES #3 AND #4 - I'm putting these two games together because they both illustrate the same strategy.  Black can often get into big trouble by castling queenside in the Stonewall.  In these two older blitz games, I employed the strategy of ganging up on f7 early on in order to try and coax Black into castling queenside.  My plan worked, and these games illustrate just how easy it is for White to start stuff on the queenside if Black is not careful.

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

GAME #5 - I'm not just here to play my own patzer self up.  I've taken my share of lumps with the Stonewall, and this is a recent one where I misplayed an endgame and ended up losing thanks to sad inaccuracies in the home stretch.  It just goes to show that you can't win them all.

          Endgames can be crazy, and quite frankly...I'm pretty sure that he could have won the final endgame by not trading rooks.  I don't know.  I'm not that well versed in endgames.

          At any rate, I think the ultimate cause for my loss here was my indecision.  I dithered between kingside and queenside action, and it ended up costing me.

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

GAME #6 - This time, I forgot when to make which moves and got miniatured!  Just goes to show that disaster can strike at any point in a game.

I didnt do too good on the stonewall either.

This proves that the bishop on B7 is no joke. Especially if your castled king side. Watch out!

Indeed.  This 1700 came to play.

I honeslty felt that I may have been cheated because as I played him, I noticed that it would take 30 seconds for him to make even the first move. Analyzed with rybka and white only made an error with the knight move and noticed that black was too solid, like white is just waiting for an oppurtunity or mistakes that you could poke a stick at, its just stalling and white going first has to be the offensive one and keep going. Rybka suggested that white should have played passively but at the same time, cope with the inferior position being played at best. The accuracy of black was 40% at first then to 100% accuracy level and all of Rybkas move. Humans dont play like this which is how Eric got banned.

are u sure some of those moves dont seem computerish, almost all computers regardless of color play attacking chess, many of his moves seem passive

This is still active. Post any stonewall game here.

Can you feel the crushing positional bind Black bungled into here?

Im gonna analyze weapons game with Rybka.

[COMMENT DELETED]

? Bringing Back the Stones Strong