Bulldog Chess with Witch and Guard (PerpetuallyPinned vs Marks1420)

Matthew, think about it: Trading the dark square bishop is like trading a fianchetto bishop. Black wants to keep the bishop, especially if he is castling that way.

Haha you're the first person here to actually call me by my name. 

I think the problem is that if for some reason white succeeds in trading a knight or even a rook or witch for your dark bishop, this will make his dark bishop a monster. Unless your f pawn is staying where it is, then g6 is a weak square and a potential outpost for a knight or witch. If white is allowed to park a witch there, his dark bishop comes alive despite your fianchetto. A knight there is also a huge problem for black. You could be forced to give up your bishop for a different piece. No way would I want to be castling that way. 

I'd be happy to play this position with you unrated so we can test our ideas.

I've got too many games on with an infinite chess game due to start, I couldn't give it any serious time so it probably not worth it, sorry. I mean, we can play it for fun in this thread if you want, but neither of us should feel obliged to move in any amount of time or with any serious effort.

The issue I have with b6 and Gb7 is that blacks guard is still inactive afterwards.

You also get disadvantageous endgames if your king and guard is on the same side of the board, so I hope you also have some aggressive intentions.

I don't mind an inactive guard in the opening and middlegame. They tend to come alive in the latter stages of middlegame, and of course endgame.

For me, there's pros and cons to castling guardside (there's a new chess word). Yes the king and guard on the same side is certainly problematic in a pawn endgame, but most endgames have at least one rook each, and it will be harder for guards to dominate such endgames. On the other hand, when one player castles guardside and the other witchside (bing, another one), the player who castled guardside can attack the enemy king with the guard faster. So while you're facing potential endgame weakness, that's somewhat balanced by the slightly stronger attacking potential. 

Fine by me

Ok well Ng3 seems like the clear move for white so 

Ng3

LoL, same thing I played

It's logical, I wouldn't allow BxG. It's not easy to compare the value of the two pieces because it really does depend on the position, but I certainly don't want to lose the guard early on.

6... Bh7

Can you not flip the board coordinates on that board? 

f3

e6

Unfortunately I can't :/

I didn't even mean to post from black's perspective; that's supposed to be just so I can analyze better.

7... Nb6

Interesting move there...and the knight on h1 an oopsy

Don't understand how that happened.

Thanks for flipping the board. And I just want to say, as this is a casual game, I'm quite happy for observers to comment. Obviously discussing live tactics or suggesting moves is not something I want to see, but talking about who is better, and missed tactics (when they are no longer relevant), that's fine by me. I'll share some of my thoughts as I go, I mean Mark already knows I intend to exploit the weakness of g6, either directly by using it as an outpost, or indirectly by stopping him ever playing f6/f5. It will be interesting to see if and when Mark does move the f-pawn.

At the moment, I'm not using an analysis tool, just mentally calculating, but that might change.

new page board

Would my comment be frowned upon in a rated game?