IncrediBill vs zrylam (with kibitzers)

  • #41

    I agree Bc4

  • #42

    I agree that it's no deal to trade a bishop for a pawn, but then why do we rush out to make these (pointless?) pins?

  • #43
    Forked52 wrote:

    I agree that it's no deal to trade a bishop for a pawn, but then why do we rush out to make these (pointless?) pins?


     You are correct.  However, the actual trade would be my Bishop for his Knight, 8. Bxc6, which would then double up his pawns when he recaptures.  It does look pointless to threaten the Knight and then not take it, but my original objective was to get my Bishop out past the d-pawn, so I could then move my d-pawn out to d3 without trapping my Bishop (I also wanted to move my Bishop out so I could castle). 

    So at the time when I was moving my Bishop out I had two choices,  either c4 or b5.  I just happenned to pick b5.  The threatening of the Knight was more incidental, than an actual future object of capturing it.  Although, I did like to have that option if I choose to exercise it.

    However, for now I would rather keep my Bishop and play . . .  8. Bc4

     

  • #44

    b5 is almost a certainty before he can play a4 and I get to move with tempo. Am I missing anything?

  • #45

    no youre not missing anything b5 is a must in this kind of positions

  • #46

    8. ...b5


  • #47

    possible is Bd5 pinning the knight to the rook and Bb3 (c4?? dxc4 bxc4 Bxc4!)

    I suggest Bd5

  • #48

    I think that Bd5 is going to lead to some even exchanges.  @zrylam's next move is probably to castle, so I think I would like to keep my Bishop's guns focused in that direction.  Also, if he chooses to push the b-pawn up one more square, I wouldn't mind having that d5 square as an option for my Knight.

    Therefore . . . . 9. Bb3

  • #49

    your g5 bishop isnt pointing on the kingside...

    anyway i am between castling and Qc7 or Qb6 unpinn the knight(yes i am afraid of Nd5)

  • #50

    Now that my Nc6 is no longer threatened by the Bishop, I feel comfortable with allowing a temporary Nd5 while I hide my King away. There's only one move (that gains position, not material) that I'd rather not see, but I'll have to let it slide for now.

    9. ...0-0

  • #51

    Ok i found a very interesting idea you might play it if you want incredibill

    Qd2!? preparing for Bh6 aiming to create a weakness... It is a typical idea of this kind of positions (any chess book mentions it)

  • #52

    I like the 10. Qd2 move followed by 11. Bh6.  It would create a bit of a standoff between our Bishops, since he would not want to do the exchange and end up with my Queen sitting on the h6 square. 

    However, I would like to try and be a bit more agressive and get some more pieces into his territory and create some more threats.  I think that I am going to go advance my Knight and play . . . . 10. Nd5

    .

  • #53

    Pretty much no choice:

    10. ...Kh8


  • #54

    Hmmmm.  Well, I'm thinking 11.Nxe7 and trading off Knights.  I feel that would solidify the pin on his remaining Knight and create other opportunities for my other pieces to start coming in.  I wouldn't mind if someone could suggest some other alternatives.

  • #55

    11.Nxe7 Nxe7 12.Qd2 f6 13.Bh6 and Bxg7 Kxg7 14.Nxe5

  • #56

    what would you say of Bf6?

  • #57

    I like Bf6, but I think it creates the same standoff as would be created with Qd2 & Bh6.  I think that I am going to go with my original thoughts in Post #55 and play . . . . 11.Nxe7

  • #58

    Nxe7

  • #59

    Odd, I thought I set this as a Conditional Move Tongue out

    11. ...Nxe7

  • #60

    With the trade off of the Knights complete, @zrylam's remaining Knight is securely pinned against his Queen.  I can now safely bring my Bishop into the d5 square and continue to apply some pressure.  So unless someone comes up with a diffferent idea, I will make that move official in a few hours.

or Join

Online Now