We need more amateurs to post their annotated games.

Thanks!

Hey, white was my opponent, it's him who should explain his intentions, I only can guess. I f you play Pirc defence as Black and black bishops are exchanged, your castled king is weakened, I can tell you that. That's why I didn't castle until I had the need to connect my two rooks.

thanks. thats probably because I play it against almost everyone. lol

Hello, I played a 15 minute game. I ended up with 2 minutes on the board, so I used 13 for 30 moves. 

I wonder...whats the expected number of moves in a 15 move game) or whats the recommended progression move per time) 

Here is the game. >>>

Time per move should never be static but depends on the position. One move may require as long as one to several minutes or more, whereas sometimes twenty moves can be dished out in a single minute, although that isn't too common except when players are following book lines (yawn).

Judging by what your opponent played, which was about as passive as can be the first ten moves, there probably wasn't a need for much thinking. However, by being careful with an unfamiliar opening you certainly did win in the end. In general, conserve your time for those moves where you sense opportunity or danger. That third sense will only gradually come into being after many games for most people. As you keep playing your brain will start to file away certain positional patterns, strategic principles and combinations that will become easy to recall rapidly. For now just play long games because they are more instructional and analyze as much as you can, because your brain is building that memory bank up. Once you saturate your memory then you can rise up to plateau at your natural level which is based on your brain's calculating speed, which will also vary depending on your energy level, age and a lot of other factors.

Thanks, talapia.

I don't see a reason to buy any book like that when Edward Lasker's 1911 masterpiece is available for free on Project Gutenburg, and by the way, you know where you can go for spamming, or if your GPS is not working then one of our friendly bunch can give you directions.

Reading a digital book is just no the same.

Black actually seems a bit better off after all of those tactical fireworks, with a piece for two pawns, although your king safety is better, and Black is not out of the woods yet. Your opponent made a mistake in the early opening, I think. Let's see...

one of my best games in recent months :)

I haven't post for a while, so here it is, truly a gem for what I think ;)

btw Tony, its 10 min game, it's ok right ? :P

Here's the final moves of the game, played with a positional crush !

C & F's are appreciated !

nah, If I had the chance to squeeze someone to death like this game, I would love too ! But if given a tactical game, I am ready for it as well ! :D

material is something that I dont hold too dearly, if I have to sac it to win, I will !

Planned the kingside attack to make him weaken his chances for counterattacking my center, and it ended up being where the death blow arrived.

I played Grob's Attack twice this evening. The first game, I played against a guy rated a hundred points higher than me. He was arrogant, telling me my opening was stupid and calling me names. I crushed him in less than twenty moves, and then he quit playing and waited for his ten minutes to expire to punish me. His game is not even worth posting because there is nothing to learn from it. I added that player to my ban list (Account|Privacy Settings) due to his foul mouth and poor sportsmanship and moved on.

In my second game, I played the Grob against someone rated fifty points below me, but he actually gave me a better game by far, both in terms of sportsmanship and in quality of play. His is the game I have chosen to analyze. He erected a kind of Stonewall defense which was difficult for me to overcome, and to be sure I made mistakes, although I haven't identified all of them yet, but I think that I got lucky. Here is my game.

I didn't even know that is a variation lol.

I played it by exp, and knowing some main lines from wikipedia. The rest ? technique ;)

gg from you though, I was just wondering where did Bxa3+ comes from, as I can't see any Bxa3 even possible lol (your notation on move 20)

I have some kind of disorder where I mix up notation unless I proofread. It comes from learning descriptive notation (1. P-K4 P-K4) when I was a young whippersnapper, using it for decades, and then converting to algebraic late in life.

I don't think that was one of my better Grobs though. This one's better, the gambit variation which I used to play exclusively.

Talapia,

the grob is interesting to study but not because its good for white. It does contain certain ideas that black must respect but it also a limited set of ideas that black can manage easily and gain good counterplay. The positions are unusual at times so players with the black pieces can not just play automaticly or can drift into a dangerous positions but its not hard to grasp with a little study.

I use studying how to play against this sort of overt aggression and early wing attacks as one of my first lessons with students. White is "ok" in some lines but if black avoids a few easy tricks he has a great game and white has to take great care to avoid the weaknesses they have created on kingside dark squares and lack of central control. Most players study these for the fun and tricky wins rather than work hoping they can catch their opponents in something unusual but black can learn 1 way to deal with the opening that works great while white has to be ready to play the tricks AND know what to do against the serious challenges where he is going to lose if they dont play accurately (not equalize as most white mainlines but lose)

here is some of my notes i gathered.

I do agree with your observations, but don't share the conclusion that Grob is bad for White. I have won many games against players rated over a hundred, even two hundred points higher than me using the Grob. Most of us play blitz online, so any opening really can work in a fast-paced game, even 1. f3, as we are feeble human beings with so many vulnerabilities in our thinking. But even in a long game, White gains a key advantage, which can't be dismissed, of avoiding book-lines and the familiar openings to which almost any player of the Black pieces will be accustomed. Imagine how easy my task is with the Grob after so much preparation, when my opponent has only played it a dozen times at best. These are advantages that apply to human competition, but against a computer, no, I might not play the Grob, although computers can beat me no matter what I play, as can many good players such as yourself! I think if I played e4 or d4 against you, there is little doubt, you would win. With g4, I might maneuver you into unfamiliar territory, there is such a chance, and under time pressure you might miscalculate, being a human being, although a very clever one!

I agree with your analysis and do not support the gambit line at all. In your example, a3 is indeed the correct response to d5. I studied the gambit line for many hours OTB, because I hated playing a3, but it just doesn't work against competent play by Black, which is unfortunate, because that means Grob is limited to one solid line in which the best first two moves are fixed, and that is a substantial weakness allowing Black to prepare if the Grob is the main opening in one's repetoire. So that is why Grob is not used by many high-level players, although it certainly is used by some.

In the gambit line, White can gain the pawn back sometimes (I'm not sure your analysis is exhaustive), but at a prohibitive cost in terms of development and position. If White launches a half-cocked attack with the Queen (as in many gambit lines) then Black should gladly sac a pawn or two, maybe even a rook for a bishop, in exchange for a ferocious counter-attack. I wanted the gambit line to work, I really did, but I had to admit to myself in the end that it doesn't. Development and position are more important than material, and Grob's gambit fails to gain either.

a3 looks like a wasted move, but looks can be deceiving. A primary purpose of d5 is to develop Black's white-squared bishop, but after g4 its options are limited, and the g-pawn offers leverage in other ways as well, and as a psychological weapon can be distracting. The Grob goes to the heart of hypermodern theory and offers the starkest contrast between the classical and hypermodern schools of thought.