30 Rxe6+
Chess Analysis (2)
Sort:
Rxe6+ is a possibility, It actually could have changed the game, but white had a mere mintute and resigned, but I dont think neither of us seen that until the end of the game.
Clouseau741 wrote:
after that ">>>" symbol are my comments or my analysis.
Thanks for your analysis on this.
I ran through my engines on this and 9. e5 was a what it preferred. I just hate playing e5 nowadays in the sicilian as d5 is then a weakness.
The bishop sac you mentioned could have been a possibility as well. But please keep in mind we where extremely low on time after about move 20!
Thanks for analyzing my game though, I learned from it a lot. :-)
Mm40 wrote:
What was the time control for this tournament?
It wasnt a full 2 hour game, it was Rapid 25 minutes, at one of my local chess clubs.
Clouseau741 wrote:
SMCB1997 wrote:
Clousea Yes, I do know that, but the thing is, I used to play the dragon variation, and played e5. That was a mistake as I didnt know the sicilian that well back then. A lot of the time my Najdorf variations sometime convert into Scheveningen like in my game above. When I play e5 in the Najdorf the knight ( on d4 usually ) usually pulls back to b3, and the knight on c3 can sometime manouvre to d5 ! Thats why Iu741 wrote:
after that ">>>" symbol are my comments or my analysis.
Thanks for your analysis on this.
I ran through my engines on this and 9. e5 was a what it preferred. I just hate playing e5 nowadays in the sicilian as d5 is then a weakness.
The bishop sac you mentioned could have been a possibility as well. But please keep in mind we where extremely low on time after about move 20!
Thanks for analyzing my game though, I learned from it a lot. :-)
You play Najdorf, do you know that the original idea of 5...a6 for black was to be able to play e5 immediately?
If you don't like it you probably play a wrong variation, try Scheveningen or Taimanov, or something much more strategic that relies more on understanding and less on memorisation.
My opinion is that you should focus on middlegame and endgame.But because you are a club player you must have something that will give you a descent position from the opening.Sicilian(and especially Najdorf) is not a good choice as it needs lots of hours of study and personal analysis.Don't believe that you will find your way out through Najdorf's complicated variations always unscratched.You could lose that game right from the opening.
Your coach maybe knows more than me , but I have a lot of experience guiding young club players and I think you made a wrong choice............. but it's only my opinion and I can be wrong.
Yes, I do know that, but the thing is, I used to play the dragon variation, and played e5. That was a mistake as I didnt know the sicilian that well back then. A lot of the time my Najdorf variations sometime convert into Scheveningen like in my game above. When I play e5 in the Najdorf the knight ( on d4 usually ) usually pulls back to b3, and the knight on c3 can sometime manouvre to d5 ! Thats why I play d5 instead of e5 . In the diagram below, is e5 okay here? As I said, when I play e5 the knight moves to d5, where the weakness is created.
In my second diagram, is d5 better than e5?
Thanks again for reading my questions, it means a lot for a 14 year old like me who is still learning. :-)
Clouseau741 wrote:
First diagram it's white's move so It is not easy to answer , but the placement of the bishop at d7 is not usual when you want to play e5.I think that for most of white's logical moves e5 is premature.
On the second diagram you give again a position where is white's move so again the answer is difficult yet the pieces are significantly better placed for a possible e5 although some more preparation is maybe needed.
For now e4 is threatened , if white plays 1.f3 then 1...b4 2.Nd1 d5 is very good.
When you play e5 , the greatest immediate problem you should deal with is Nf5.It is not always dangerous and if e5 can be followed byan immediate d5 then usually black is more than good.The long term problem when you play e5 is d5 weakness.Usually black has more than adequate counterplay for this weakness so what you have to know is that e5 should be followed either by a quick d5 or by a quick attack at queenside.
d5 is usually good if white can't play e5 or if white can play e5 but a quick f6-exf6-Bxf6 can follow with black having increased piece activity for his pawn structure weaknesses.The dangers you have to face when playing d5 ,is either e5 (may give to white a good version of French defense type pawn structure) or the exchange at d5 that may leave black with an isolated pawn.
In the first case white gets d4 for his pieces so black must either have e4(if white has played f4) or a quick f6 and attack at the queenside.The second case is rare as usually black has enough pieces supporting d5 and can avoid an isolated pawn.The pawn structure that occurs is a typical French Rubinstein pawn structure but significantly more double edged.
A lot of young players in my club have the same problem so I try to find typical games with good and bad "e5s" and "d5s".I will send them to you with the analysis, maybe they will help you.
ahh, apoligies for my diagram. I spent about 30 minutes on that quote and it kept messing up. Black is to move, not white, but never mind.
Thanks again, looking forward to the analysis messages of their games ! :-)
I don't think 7.b5 isn't a good move, after Bf3 white gets an advantage, Qc7 should probably be played first to prepare it. I also think 9.d5 was quite bad and that e5 had to be played, white should have played 10.exd5 and I think white has a good position and there might even be possibilities of Ndxb5 in some cases. I'm also not sure why your opponent resigned when he did, although he is lost I think it is a bit premature and not resignable just yet. And yeah 29.Rxe6+ looks quite string, even stronger than on move 30 which is also ok
After losing my first game, winning my second and letting my opponent escape a draw on the third, I needed at least a draw to finish up second in the tournament.
Please Comment on what you thought of my game (above).
Thanks! :-)