what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?

hehe, thanks Jaglavak.

@QueenTakesKnightOOPS

Its interesting. I know you mean well. I really do. We're having a conversation. Its been going on for three weeks. And you enter and comment on the first word of the conversation, my game that I posted in the first post. We've come a long way since then! This is a super interesting laboratory we have going here! Jaglavak is right. Read what is here. There's lots, but its interesting, and will probably be helpful to you too, as it has been interesting to others as to me.

We've been talking for three weeks. Its like trying to join a conversation that has been going on for three hours by responding to something said three hours ago, and ignoring what's been said for the past three hours! The conversation will have likely produced all kinds of stuff, discoveries, thoughts, proposals, arguments, etc., and acting as if none of that has happened just won't work!

At least with a thread like this you have the benefit of being able to read the entire conversation. So enjoy, and check back in.  Welcome!

Sorry if my previous post disrupted the flow of the thread. I looked at your game when it was 1^st posted & mentally bookmarked it as instructive for dealing with an unfamiliar & potentially flawed opening. It wasn't until last night that I actually got an opportunity to use it for that so I thought I would share a few of my thoughts after I had actually used it. I've gone back over the last 200 (approx) posts & you are correct it has come a long way & is a super interesting laboratoy.

In retrospect my post would have been more relevant on day 1 but I thought I would share the fact that you are not alone in that situation & your game has helped 2 others, well I guess 3 because I learn every time I teach too.

@Jaglavak

The reason my analysis was positional was purely based on what I was trying to demonstrate to 2 beginners without analysing it move be move with all the variations. The posts I saw 2 – 3 weeks ago had pretty much covered the tactical side of it so there was no point me rehashing that. For me positional analysis is just 1 of many tools that can be applied in my own game or when instructing, I don't have a philosophy of using positional analysis as a method of improving my game it just another tool in the shed. My quote "I had him beat in the opening then it all went wrong" comes from my earlier playing career & was often asked when I was working with lower rated players in my Club in post game analysis.

I hope that explains my post, sorry if it was out of context with the current position of the thread.

Queen,no need to apologize,all contributions are welcome

@QueenTakesKnightOOPS

Tread carefully.  Apparently several people here think their philosophy on chess is the only approach to chess.

I haven't bothered reading any of the posts, so I'll just mention where I thought you went wrong. Moving your pawn to f4 early on I believe was the correct Idea because his kingisde was very weak. Just look at his undefended f7 pawn around move 12. That pawn has no defenders and is a critical square for most chess games. The f4 move you made makes room for your rook to come into the game.

In your commentary for move 12. You contemplated taking with your rook instead of with the bishop. You should have taken with your rook because:
(1) this follows through with the philosophy of pressuring the f7 square. (Idea behind this is that you can bring your queen to the h file because his g pawn is gone, and then you can look for checkmates by doubling your rooks on the f file).

f3 was actually a better move than f4 if I remember correctly.  f4 isn't so bad though.

I don't under stand your play at all, after he snached a pawn of you, you just started to trade pieces which is good for him, you gave him freely another pawn, and you even bothere to repair his double pawns on the c file. How can you expect to have a win?

Concerning posts #227, #228, and #229

On post #30 I wrote the following:

"Better than 11.f4?! is 11.cxd5 because if 11...exd5 the center remains blocked which maintains your space advantage, and you have a half-free protecteda passer pawn at e5. In addition Black's B at b7 is blocked by his own pawn at d5. White also has a half open c-file which later may be exploited. If 11...Bxd5 12.Nxd5 exd5, the center remains blocked maintaining your space advantage, also you have now gained the minor exchange(N for B), you have the additional advantage of the powerful weapons of the 2Bs. Finally, you have the half-open c- file which you may exploit later. If 11...Bxd5 12.Nxd5 Qxd5?? 13.Be4 you have skewered Black's Q and R gaining material with no compensation for Black not even compensation in the form of counterplay."

I am sure that you have heard the advice, 'when you find a good move, look for another one that might be better before making a move.

I had Houdini analyzing your game from the position with White to move after Black's 10...g5. It chose and analyzed 3 candidate moves for White (+4.01 11.cxd5, +3.49 11.f4', and +3.30 11.Qh5. I will write in my next post which move Houdini chose to make and the notation thru move 21.

There is a rule in chess: KILL COUNTERPLAY

That is exactly what 11.cxd5 does. The analysis that Houdini gave is: 11.cxd5 exd5 12.f4 Nc6 13.Qh5 Qd7 14.Be2 Kf8 15.Rf2 Nd8 16.Raf1 Qe7

I think much of this discussion ,although very insightful and valuable,is way over the head of the OP in terms of his level of chess developement and possibly counterproductive.Furthermore,it's rendered mute by the course of the actual game in question:the OP didn't lose the game because of a lack of technique in the finer points of positional play;he lost it because he made 2-ply tactical errors and lacks a simple,coherent,chess thought process.Those are the two areas he needs to address first and foremost if he wishes to improve.Until one stops making simple tactical errors one can't improve at all.Start there.

badger_song wrote:

I think much of this discussion ,although very insightful and valuable,is way over the head of the OP in terms of his level of chess developement and possibly counterproductive.Furthermore,it's rendered mute by the course of the actual game in question:the OP didn't lose the game because of a lack of technique in the finer points of positional play;he lost it because he made 2-ply tactical errors and lacks a simple,coherent,chess thought process.Those are the two areas he needs to address first and foremost if he wishes to improve.Until one stops making simple tactical errors one can't improve at all.Start there.

_____________________________________

What you suggest in your post is exactly what he is doing. But, there is no reason he can't be given information regarding the deeper reasoning in his games for information purposes only. Eventually his knowledge of the game will absorb that deeper reasoning. Important ideas bear repeating.

Point taken.

I am a bit confused - I am fairly new at chess and have been watching alot of Yasser Seirawan and am learning heaps - now he seems to teach positional chess quite often. He doesn't ignore tactical chess but teaches both. My question is why should one be followed to the exclusion of the other? If you do that aren't you limiting yourself??

You should study one topic at a time to fully automate it.  Study one for a month then move onto the other.  Then eventually move onto more specialized areas such as a month of rook endings, a month of pawn endings, a month of Carlsbad structures, etc. 

I agree that is why I am working on certain areas now and will work on others later:)  But my question is - don't you limit yourself if you only study tactical chess or positional chess and not both? Doesn't leaving one out put a hole in your game??

If you are new,I'd reserve the majority of your time(50%+) for simple 1 to 3 ply tactical problems.The remainder I'd distribute learning the very basics of end games(pawns,rooks,and kings),opening theory(and a single opening and defense),as well as the very basics of postional chess(files,weaker vs stronger pawns,outposts),and finally,developing a simple thought process that works for you.This should carry you a long way,for a start.

I guess I should clarify relatively new - I played family members when I was young so know the basic moves and some stratagy - they didn't know about some basics like castling and en passant - I know those now - I am relatively new to the world of books and teaching videos on chess ( started 6 months ago) . I have planned out how to tackle learning to a goodly extent and have help.

But I see in this thread people dismissing positional chess (which surprises me as I find positional chess and positional analysis quite helpful ) and suggesting using only tactical chess. - Isn't that putting yourself at a disadvantage against those who learn both??

That makes so much sense tyyyyy see when I came in 6 months ago I had tactics out the yang and didn't know there were anything like official openings, knew nothing about anything positional - knight on the side of the board as a first move? Np ... till I learned about positional chess.. so in some areas I am farther ahead than others.

I have all of Yassars books and am working with openings at the moment as I have the biggest weakness in that area. But his positional chess explinations in his videos has taught me alot. Luckily I am at the point where I rarely make a simple blunder ( yay!) :)

I didn't mean to imply that postional chess was of lesser importance;ultimately it is of great importance.However,below about 1600 elo it most definately is of secondary importance to tactics.Good moves come from good positions,and bad moves comes from bad postions,not getting into bad positions is positional chess in a nutshell.On the other hand,if one drops material to 3-ply combinations then all the positional ability in the world won't save the game.Until one is confident that they won't fall prey to combinations in the 3 to 4-ply range then tactics takes precedence or positional study.

correct. no need to apologize, and you didn't interrupt the flow of the thread. you just 'missed a beat' to use a musical metaphor. We were just helping you find the beat. Glad you found it!

perfect explanation of why Rook take would have been superior to Bishp take. thank you. your explanation is consistent with everything we've been talking about here, and is helpful. thanks.