4. ..d5! 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5 c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Be2 h6!(Ba4 Be7) the line I play
two games, and some questions
Sort:
Is there a way to refute it without losing a pawn? Thanks very much btw :)
The first game is the start of a famous opening 4) Ng5 Qe7 is the wrong defense
4) Ng5 d5 5) exd5 Na5 is the usual line for black.
The second game is pretty even I would have played 14) d4 to open up the strong rook file in the centre.
Black should have defended with 26) Raf1 Rf8 instead of c6
The opening in game 2 is insipid. The 4 Knights game seems attractive, as you quickly develop 3 minor pices and prepare to castle. But notice how the position lacks dynamism. Your pieces get in the way of your pawns, and it is hard to "do" anything. I would much prefer other openings:
1.e4 e5 2.f4! King's Gambit. The most important things to learn at your level are tactics, calculation, attacking/defending and the importance of time.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3! Goering Gambit/Scotch Gambit (4.Bc4/5.c3 is the other way to play it). See above comments.
If you refuse to play a gambit (which is too bad, as playing gambits will accelerate your development), then: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 The Scotch Game. Lively, but not crazy.
Basically, open that center and get to fighting. There is plenty of time for grinding out endgames when you're a master. :)
yes i thought about d4 as well, but I wanted to get my bishop out and i didn't want to open up the board too much for the black queen.
GlennBk wrote:
The first game is the start of a famous opening 4) Ng5 Qe7 is the wrong defense
4) Ng5 d5 5) exd5 Na5 is the usual line for black.
The second game is pretty even I would have played 14) d4 to open up the strong rook file in the centre.
Black should have defended with 26) Raf1 Rf8 instead of c6
Yes I agree with this it probably would have been a better move because it defends that pawn.
I agree with you about the openings, I need to try some more openings. It is hard for them to really "do" anything. I suppose I should just be prepared to take more risks (but not sutpid ones) in the beginning of the game :)
The kings gambit kind of scares me, i've got a bit of a phobia about moving the f-pawn :(
I don't like it when the answer is always "read these books," but I am going to tell you to... read these books! (or use a database):
200 Open Games by Bronstein. Everyone below 1600 should go through this book. Wild King's Gambits, positional Ruy Lopezes. It will show you how diverse 1.e4 e5 can be.
Find a collection of Spassky's games with the King's Gambit. He never lost with it in tournament play. Beat guys like Fischer and Bronstein (of course not solely because of opening, but still!).
A collection of Paul Morphy's games. Generally positionally sound, but very aggressive and quick to sacrifice pawns for time and open lines. Also, he played the Dutch! How cool is that?
I'd like some analysis on both of these, I won the second one stylishly but I lost the first one pretty badly, against the same opponent.
OK so the second game of these I just played and am quite proud of.However the first one I lost in six moves. I know i seem pretty stupid. But this is a trap I seem to keep falling into, I would like to know how to refute this more effectively because it's pretty embarrassing:
Any thoughts basically on either game? be as honest as you like tbh ...