this yoff's second post
In the game I tried to force something that just was not supported...but I could not simply not find a way forward...what would you have done?
this yoff's second post
In the game I tried to force something that just was not supported...but I could not simply not find a way forward...what would you have done?
And here is the funny bit by yoff;
Whoa! This was intended for the MAI group...how did it end up here?
as you can see that yoff has accidently posted in the general forum !! and my reply was ROFL !!
after 3...c5 you could go for Bb5+ 4.Bd7 0-0
instead of 9.Bd3 better was Be2 same thing for the 10th move.
10.Be2 e4 11.Nd2 is pretty equal from there.
@kco: Thank you for making the post :) I think that just having the Bishop on e3 will be fighting a very strong center.
@JokernTP: Interesting idea, I did not consider that. It seems it will be a pawn for a Bishop, though?
I think you actually have something there, JokernTP. It would certainly have been better than what I tried and even though it may not be quite enough compensation I think that is unclear. It would have been fun to play that variation, I think, it looks quite dynamic :)
I would go for the long castling and kingside pawn storm, I think
Yeah I would also play 0-0-0. I love playing dynamic, complex and unbalanced position. It's fun and excellent practice. When I play online I always opt for these kind of positions when given the chance. With this sacrifice white get active pieces and a good attack instead of misplaced pieces and being under attack.
It's probably not the best move, but it gives you practical chances. I've won plenty of game in this fashion, especially OTB when my opponents has much less time to refute my positional sacrifices.
I am doing this for yoff
Been far too long before I got around to this. This is a game where I got into troubles in the opening which translated into a difficult position in the midgame: