Is black really attacking?

kindaspongey
IMBacon wrote:

… Two of the most overused, and misused words in chess are "aggressive" and "attacking"

"... many of the lines one sees played at club level are gambits, which lead to the kind of exciting open play that many players find attractive. ... Openings such as the Blackmar-Diemar Gambit, Albin Counter-Gambit, Latvian Gambit, etc., are all played regularly at club and league level, ... there is much to be said for playing such systems at lower levels of play, particularly if you enjoy playing sharp attacking lines. Many players find it uncomfortable to defend against an opponent who is prepared to sacrifice material in return for speculative attacking chances. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2003)

kindaspongey
MarriedMenHMU  wrote:

… In chess what is good for one side is bad for the other.  The best, fighting chess is to play accurate moves or moves with good EV.   Speculative attacking chances are fine if it is backed up with strength, understanding and threats.  The OP posted weak chess.

Nevertheless, I do not see what is to be gained by making a fuss about word choice.

RubenHogenhout
MrG33k schreef:

Just played a game and like certain things about it, now wondering if from 3rd party perspective it looks like black is aggressively attacking? here is the game.

MrG

In this game black could win the white Queen with 24...Qxg4.  And white was dead lost anyway. But in general the Latvian Gambit is more or less refuted.  After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5!? In stead of Nc3 I thougth someting like 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4! ( better than 4.d4 because white need this pawn later to play d3! ) 4...fxe4 5.Nc3 Qg6 6.d3! and after 6....exd3 7.Bxd3 white is much better.

 


 

 

kindaspongey
MrG33k wrote:

... now wondering if from 3rd party perspective it looks like black is aggressively attacking? ...

I am not sure, but I would guess that you are concerned about Black being successful after a move like 2...f5. Indeed, there is some cause for concern, as the move has a very bad reputation, but, at the same time, it might be noted that the Latvian Gambit has been used with success by club players against unprepared opponents. Still, the highest priority should probably go to examination of other aspects of what happened in the game.

kindaspongey
"... Two of the most overused, and misused words in chess are 'aggressive' and 'attacking'" - IMBacon (~5 days ago)
MarriedMenHMU wrote (~13 minutes ago):
kindaspongey  wrote:

... I do not see what is to be gained by making a fuss about word choice.

Nobody made a fuss about word choice, ...

See above.

kthprog
ArtNJ wrote:

This was a beginner game with lots of positional and tactical mistakes on both sides.  You could learn a lot by going over it in more detail and then asking questions.  And maybe some kind person will annotate it for you if you ask.  (Not me, I'm good for spot help, but a whole game I don't have time for.)

But do go over it yourself first.  I'm sure some things will jump out.  For example, what did black miss on move 24?

Lol saw it in a couple seconds. The bishop was pinned, he could've take the queen and threatened mate even.

kindaspongey
MarriedMenHMU wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
"... Two of the most overused, and misused words in chess are 'aggressive' and 'attacking'" - IMBacon (~5 days ago)
MarriedMenHMU wrote:
kindaspongey  wrote:

... I do not see what is to be gained by making a fuss about word choice.

Nobody made a fuss about word choice,  if that seems to be the issue you have a big gap in your understanding.  

See above.

He did not make a fuss about word choice.  He communicated that "aggression" or "attacking" in the sense of trying to be proactive for the sake of it,  are simply unimportant.  It was a criticism of the OP's attitude and in no way a fuss.  

It seems to me that "overused, and misused" does not communicate "unimportant" very well. As for whether or not "fuss" is the right word, that seems to me to be unimportant. At any rate, everyone can judge for themselves.

kindaspongey
MarriedMenHMU  wrote:

… Upon two counts you are very unusual and for both,  deal with it.  haHAA

I do not know what you mean by "two counts", but it does not really matter since, as far as I can tell, you have no authority to issue orders here. Perhaps you will find it helpful for yourself if you find a way to deal with that.

pfren
kindaspongey έγραψε:
MarriedMenHMU  wrote:

… Upon two counts you are very unusual and for both,  deal with it.  haHAA

I do not know what you mean by "two counts", but it does not really matter since, as far as I can tell, you have no authority to issue orders here. Perhaps you will find it helpful for yourself if you find a way to deal with that.

 

DFTT

Elkapan11

clown chess

RubenHogenhout

 

Thats why black plays 5...Qf7 instead but also then after 6.Ne3 c6 7.d3! exd3 8.Bxd3 d5 9.0-0  Black is almost lost.

kindaspongey
MarriedMenHMU wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
MarriedMenHMU  wrote:

… Upon two counts you are very unusual and for both,  deal with it.  haHAA

I do not know what you mean by "two counts", but it does not really matter since, as far as I can tell, you have no authority to issue orders here. Perhaps you will find it helpful for yourself if you find a way to deal with that.

Orders?  Now I don't even know what you're on about.

Mutually assured confusion.

mariners234

Pfren already warned you this is an obvious troll. Too bad you keep replying to it.

ghost_of_pushwood

Unfortunately, he didn't do it obviously (I had to look it up).

goodbye-stalkers

17......d5!! bang!!!! then there would have been no need for all those horrible blunders. the Latvian ? love it! thumbup.png