A tough game
Sort:
This is my game with a person who is rated higher than me. I had a tough tournament and never had a easy game. This is because I won against someone rated 1600. It was a four round tournament and the first game was with someone rated 2000 and I lost and then round 2 was with the 1600 player and I won that, then the third player I played was rated 1700 and I lost a drawn position and lastly it was this game here. I tried to use all my time on the clock and all my wit but I lost in failure. Any more comments or suggestions of this game would make me learn more of what I should have done. I hope you enjoy watching my game!
never do a gambit when you are playing someone better
than you
oh forks ask someone else
Jul 4, 2008
0
#5
but wrote: never do a gambit when you are playing someone better
Its better than playing something you are unfamiliar with. If the gambit is not unsound, and you know it well, then by all means play it regardless of opponents rating. Play the board, not the man.
Playing gambits in OTB is fine as time is a factor and there is no reference to databases and books that show the traps. In OTB you put on a lot of pychological pressure with the opening iniative and the opponent having to calculate all possible traps especially if he has never confronted that opening.The Smith Morra is very trappy. The e5 pawn push that comes in many variations where black plays an apparently decent move like 6- Nf6 etc is really astounding sometimes. But in correspondence chess forget it. No 1900 player is going to fall for opening traps in correspondence chess. That player is going to spend hours in his database and opening books learning about that opening and its traps. I am not against gambits just not gambits in correspondence chess where time is not a factor and the opponent has time to work out all the possible threats and see how grandmasters played against the same opening. I guess the only way I would play something like the Smith Morra in Correpsondence Chess is in unrated set position games in which the only purpose is to learn the opening more deeply for OTB play. But never in a CC tounament.
Jul 4, 2008
0
#7
onehandgann wrote: Playing gambits in OTB is fine as time is a factor and there is no reference to databases and books that show the traps. In OTB you put on a lot of pychological pressure with the opening iniative and the opponent having to calculate all possible traps especially if he has never confronted that opening.The Smith Morra is very trappy. The e5 pawn push that comes in many variations where black plays an apparently decent move like 6- Nf6 etc is really astounding sometimes. But in correspondence chess forget it. No 1900 player is going to fall for opening traps in correspondence chess. That player is going to spend hours in his database and opening books learning about that opening and its traps. I am not against gambits just not gambits in correspondence chess where time is not a factor and the opponent has time to work out all the possible threats and see how grandmasters played against the same opening. I guess the only way I would play something like the Smith Morra in Correpsondence Chess is in unrated set position games in which the only purpose is to learn the opening more deeply for OTB play. But never in a CC tounament.
You're obviously looking at gambits in a very negative light. In your post you wrongly believe the "only" use of gambits is opening traps, and that is a very wrong assessment. To correctly judge a gambit, one must look at the compensation one receives, and not how many traps can sprout from the gambit.
The benko gambit for example is well respected and gives compensation in fluid queenside play and a compact pawn structure. Another example is the albin counter gambit, which usually leads to crazy attacking games, which would be desirable for some players.
If the gambit is not busted, the worst case scenario is that an opponent will equalize easily, or maybe even have a slight advantage at the end of the opening, but there will always be some compensation, and some players enjoy the imbalance gambits bring.
No no no I am not just looking at gambits for their opening traps and nowhere did I say ¨only¨. Just happened to mention that because the Smith Morra is very trappy in the opening. My main point was that in correspondence chess it is much easier to play against them.
Jul 4, 2008
0
#9
onehandgann wrote: No no no I am not just looking at gambits for their opening traps and nowhere did I say ¨only¨. Just happened to mention that because the Smith Morra is very trappy in the opening. My main point was that in correspondence chess it is much easier to play against them.
but you did say you were against gambits in CC, and the only thing you used to back this up is how people fall for traps less CC. Perhaps it was unintentional, but you previous post was unjustly looking down upon gambit play.
There is usually compensation in any gambit play, and even if the compensation is not enough, the mere imbalance or game it creates can make it playable. Now, if opponents were allowed to use computer help, than gambit players are screwed, but that is against the rules. So, there will always be some players happy to trade a pawn for a boost in activity regardless whether the opponent knows the best way to to handle the pawn sac.
My main reason for that is that I find a lot of beginner and intermediate players take up the Smith Morra just for that - the traps. They see a lecture say from Alex Lenderman on ICC and see a couple of hours of nothing but traps and get excited about it and take it up as their opening. I do not know if that was the case with Dragon16 but I think that is the case with many that play the Smith Morra. So my main point is that all those traps you learn about in the Smith Morra are pretty pointless in cc chess. I do not think we disagree with anything. I do not think gambits should be taken up just because they are trappy. Yes I agree gambits offer compenations in development etc or like the Benko a positional compenation. I really do not see any disagreements between us. Personally I do not think the Smith Morra(and some others) offers sufficient compensation in correpsondence chess and maybe even more so in the case of a low rated player going against a much higher rated player. Yes I should have not said all gambits. Big difference between something like the Smith Morra and the Benko Gambit imo. I agree with everything you say well other than what you think I think. I hope I did not scare away Dragon16 from all gambits(and maybe my post did seem too negative) but IF he took up the Smith Morra or any others because of quick opening traps he might want to reconsider.
Jul 4, 2008
0
#11
<onehandgann> Well said, and I'm glad we came to an agreement. I was merely put off by the lack of emphasis regarding how bad learning opening traps can be in your first post. It indeed felt like you were looking down upon gambit play.
To add, I myself wouldn't play the smith morra as I also think its not quite sufficient in compensation, but whenever I see it as black I rarely think that I'm up a pawn and I'm winning. Especially if my opponent is known to be an attacker =).
You lost cause you think alot about the knight on a4
if he kept ur develpment u would won
anyway.. why u are so sad!
its a game and sometimes u dont do good and sometimes u be so amazing..
my opionion u did g8 ..
but chess need more trust in urself..
u lost cause u was so care not to loose when there is no danger..
u run for pointless target that was ur fault
anyway tell me when u go in another tourment and I'll play in it as i didnt do that b4 as am a new member in chess.com
and i hope u watched my puzzles and my last game in the new topic..
Madii
onehandgann wrote: My main reason for that is that I find a lot of beginner and intermediate players take up the Smith Morra just for that - the traps. They see a lecture say from Alex Lenderman on ICC and see a couple of hours of nothing but traps and get excited about it and take it up as their opening. I do not know if that was the case with Dragon16 but I think that is the case with many that play the Smith Morra. So my main point is that all those traps you learn about in the Smith Morra are pretty pointless in cc chess. I do not think we disagree with anything. I do not think gambits should be taken up just because they are trappy. Yes I agree gambits offer compenations in development etc or like the Benko a positional compenation. I really do not see any disagreements between us. Personally I do not think the Smith Morra(and some others) offers sufficient compensation in correpsondence chess and maybe even more so in the case of a low rated player going against a much higher rated player. Yes I should have not said all gambits. Big difference between something like the Smith Morra and the Benko Gambit imo. I agree with everything you say well other than what you think I think. I hope I did not scare away Dragon16 from all gambits(and maybe my post did seem too negative) but IF he took up the Smith Morra or any others because of quick opening traps he might want to reconsider.
If you did not know, many strong players have fallen for the early traps in the Morra gambit they have a point to them and even if they survive in the opening, many strong players have also fell for middle game traps that come from the gambit as well. Like my Na4!! move for instance. Many players would have played b5? It looks good because of the fork but Bd5 wins. But as I have said if the rook was on a8 the game would be ruined for black. My mistakes are shown in this game and I would like some hints on what to do in this game for playing these particular setups.
Just to clear things up for you onehandgann, I picked this opening because it makes me feel confortable against the Sicillian. No just the many opening and middlegame traps, but also the reputation of the opening, like it is not refuted. It puts you up two tempi, gives you rook power to make them work for you at their full potential by being on the c and d files and it helped to beat even Garry Kasparov defensive power.
I think you played pretty well until move 25 maybe rook d2 there though funny you mentioned putting the rook on d2 all the way back on move 13. Would have been interested to see how that would have worked out because then black would not have had any tactics on the 7th rank in the end and interesting how the rook on c1 never really came into play. I like your idea of doubling up on the d file and pressuring the pawn on d6.
When i have moves to use in a postion of doubt i tend to use them to acheive a knight to d2 looks good but to be honest i think you spoted your mistakes!Personally i dont rate the moro gambit though i lack experiance in the line.The line going e4 c5 nf3 d6 c3 is my favourite but it is not realy the opening that lost you this!
Good try any way an interesting case of lack of an obvious move game!