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

thanks for the game qtko. I started to annotate it last night, I just couldn't resist, but it got too late and I had to go to sleep, so I saved my work in a notepad pgn file, and I'll get back to it tonight. I appreciate that you posted it without your side or the winner; it really helped with the annotating so far. thanks again.  also, I like your correction of 'guess the move' to 'calculate the move'. Much better and eduational that way. 

While we wait for comments on the last game posted I thought I might throw something into the mix for possible future study. Jaglovak said on one of his final posts that we are almost ready to tackle combinations & I am inclined to agree. I was playing a game with my wife last night & it went fairly well, she played a solid QGD opening, I played along the main line until a couple of minor inaccuracies gave me an opening to attack her Kings position. I sacrificed a Bishop on h2 & launched an attack with Queen & knight with Rooks waiting on the open e file. It was all over in a few moves. She asked me “How the hell do you do that?” Do What? Give up a Bishop & Checkmate me in 5 moves. That got me thinking, how do I do it? I explained that it all comes down to combinations & a combination that ends in Mate is easy because it doesn't matter how much material you lose if the combination is successful. We then watched one of Yasser Seirawans videos where he points out that very fact.

But it goes deeper than that, I realised that the reason I am good at sacrifices is because I got a lot of practice & that was due to one opening in particular, my old friend the Stonewall Attack. So my questions are 1/- are we ready to look at combinations & 2/- should a beginners opening repertoire include an opening like the Stonewall Attack that is invariably won with a sacrifice like I did after reading the Horowitz Reinfield book “How to Think Ahead in Chess”.

@qtko: while we wait for the answer I'd like to ask another question, and voice appreciation to you for carrying forward the curriculum that Jaglavak had suggested. 

My question is probably elementary, but I guess I have to ask it. How is a combination different from a tactic? If a tactic ends in mate, and begins with a sacrifice, isn't it still just a tactic? I'm not being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative (I'm a pretty non-argumentative person) but hopefully my question will be of some use to the discussion you're initiating.  

Strategy and tactics are one and the same. The culmination of a strategy is a successful tactic. The strategy makes the tactic possible

@ Somebodysson

Good question, had to think for a minute to get it straight. Ok, tactics are the tools you use to get a result, Mate, material advantage etc. Pins, Forks, Skewers etc are all tactics. A combination is a set of forced moves which uses tactics as the forcing element. Thats the simple version but you get the picture.

Missed Yaroslavls post, it must have gone up while I was typing. If you combine his post & mine it pretty much covers everything.

@ aronchuck

It made sense to me, I think the only thing we need to concern ourselves with here is that Somebodysson & all of us know what is meant when a specific term is used in this discussion.

I probably should expand my last post a little. When my wife asked me how I calculate a sacrifice & mate I had to think before I explained it because I do it instinctually to a degree i.e. I see a position instinctually then I calculate it out. Like my Wife, Somebodysson is still developing that level of skill & it doesn't happen overnight but it will happen over time & many games. So until he reaches that level we need to use at least a few terms that help to convey the concept.

what aronchuck wrote made perfect sense to me! Perfectly clear. To me, it makes no sense to distinguish between tactical patterns and combination patterns, they're both patterns that I may develop conscious competence in by calculating now, and unconscious competence in eventually by repetition. thanks aronchuck and qtko. What Yaroslavl wrote didn't make sense to me, unless by writing strategy and tactics are the same he meant both will rely on familiarity with patterns. But I think he was saying something different, i.e. that correct strategic aims will produce the conditions for tactics, and that is more advanced than I can handle now, because I think that to get those strategic competencies I would have to read Pawn Power and My System etc., which are too advanced for me now. 

So we'll stick to pattern recognition, annotating using calculate the move, and post our games for group annotation for now, unless someone comes up with some new insights. Aronchuck's thinking process i.e. opponent's ideas, weaknesses, and improving a piece is still the operational guidepost here.

By the way, qtko, I think there is no oppostion to your proposition that the stonewall is a good policy for white. How do you feel about Horowitz'  suggestion of the dragon for black? I've never played the dragon, and haven't even learned the first ideas in it. We were talking about me playing a caro as black. what is your opinion on this. 

I analized the game QTKO proposed, it took me some time because of the festivies but I did my homework.

@ Somebodysson

Ahhh!! The Sicilian Dragon for Black. Well I like it & for club level play I think its fine. It is not popular at high levels & has not been for a long time, but it refuses to go away so it must have some merit.

What drew me to the Dragon apart from Horowitz was the introduction to it in another book that described it as a counter attack rather than a defence. That really got my attention, I'd rather counter attack than defend any time.

You do need to understand the fundementals behind the opening & learn a few lines but that is the same for the Caro-Kann or any other opening but the Dragons setup with a flank attack on Whites centre with the c Pawn & a Fianchettoed Bishop on the Kingside makes for an asymmetric structure on the board & lots of tactical play in the middle game. It avoids the complexity of a closed centre that can occur in openings like the French & the Caro-Kann & no bad Bishop problems to solve as well.

I would definately give it a try & if it suits your style it will serve you well for a year or 2 while you get the rest of your game sorted & then expand your opening repertoire as you gain more experience. I think everyone should have an opening using a fianchetto in it in their repetoire, it not only teaches you a diffent way to play the Bishop but as you learn the fundementals & get beaten a few times it also teaches you how to play against it.

Horowittz chose his openings very carefully in that book specifically with players around your level in mind so read a few basic texts on it & give it a try is my reccomendation

@aronchuk I understood your point and I agree. I think that definitions, for the purposes of this thread, are only useful so that we can understand what we are talking about, not an academic kind of discussion (which could be fun but is not relevant here).

Respecting the comments on the openings suggested, I frankly don't know about that. I can only say that I started to play the King's Gambit to sharpen my attacking skills, and that it's been fun so far. I have read a few times that gambits are a good excercise to begginers and so I made the decision to play one. But I think that this probably reinforces what QTKO said, that if you familiarize yourself with certain themes (for example, the bishop sacrifice on h7 on the Stonewall Attack, which I am unfamiliar with but sounds nice) then you will absorb the pattern and will start to spot those kind of ideas more quickly.

However, I don't know if it is better to always play just one opening to get to know it better, or to try different ones to get a taste for different kind of games, which is what I am personally doing since I am curious about that, have fun in the process, and still don't know what kind of games I enjoy more (well, I know I'm clueless in closed positions :P). But I suppose it will depend both on your goals and your personal preferences.

@qtko: please don't publish your analysis of your game yet. I am not on my computer today so couldn't continue my annotation, but I plan to get to it tomorrow nite. I see that jojojopo has posted his analysis, but I'm not going to read it until I've completed and posted mine. Please wait for me! Thanks!

Ok, I'm holding off on posting my analysis of the game until everyone who wants to has had a go at it. I'm impressed with jojojopo's analysis particularly of the opening it reflects a good understanding of the principles behind the Grunfeld. Somebodysson, this is what I mean by understanding the basic themes behind an opening. You don't have to learn every line out of a book but understanding what the opening is trying to achieve & how will take you a long way. The best example I can give is that in the Dragon Black usually attacks Whites Queenside & White attacks blacks Kingside. A player who doesn't understand this as black & tries to attack Whites Kingside is in for a world of pain because he doesn't understand what the opening is trying to achieve.

jojojopo has correctly pointed out that there is a certain amount of dilemma in only playing one opening but the other side of the coin is you can't learn every major opening, even just the basics, there is too much information overload. Just look at any thread that asks What opening should I play? Everyone reccomends their favourite & it becomes even more confusing. So you need to find what works for you. I am using a modified Horowitz approach with my wife. She is working on 3 openings to get her started but is devoting a little of her time to other openings as she goes. To make things more interesting I throw an unexpected defence at her every now & then, eg, She opens as White with d4 & plays a QGD, but the look on her face when I played 1/- .... f5 (Dutch defence) at her was priceless. That also raise another point. I had a running start on understanding the Dutch, particularly the Dutch stonewall because I played it as White with the Stonewall Attack so everytime you learn 1 specific opening as White you are forced to learn several defences so you are not just learning 3 openings. If you get beaten by a particular defence & like how it was done you can try it as Black & you already know a bit about how it works.

To summarise, there is NO opening system that works for everything you encounter OTB, but there are certain choices you can make with openings that will make the journey a little less painful. And to keep some focus on the original theme of this thread a little knowledge of a few openings & sticking to the idea of targets & mobility etc will get you through when you encounter a new situation

@ aronchuck

You make some very valid points. We should not let openings become the dominant theme here, but there does need to be some discussion on them & we need to keep them in perspective to the main theme of this thread. My view on openings is to limit them so as not to be overwhelmed, but aronchuck makes a valid point to study a wide variety. We need to find the middle ground between these 2 points & only Somebodysson can be the final judge of what works best for him.

So the question still stands, which openings & to what depth should they be studied. Aronchuck says only to the level you need & I made the point of understanding the basic concepts underlying them. I think these ideas are compatable.

I think there needs to be some discussion here & I will hold off on any further comment until Somebodysson has a chance to digest all this & give us his thoughts.

@Somebodysson

To get an idea of what you can do as far as openings go, how many games are you playing each week & what type i.e. computer, online, live & club OTB? My reason for asking is it is pointless to study more openings than you can play, that may be the ultimate limiting factor here.

@UltraLaser

Thanks for that info, I am still playing catchup with modern trends after a long layoff from Chess.

Here's my analysis. I feel that when i annotate I'm al over the place. Not systematically calculating, not systematically looking ahead. Not systematically asking what is the plan. Here it is. i will now read jojojopo's and other any other analysis.   oh, by the way, in my notes ctm means "calculate the move". Its my calculation of a continuation. 

I was wondering how you were going to deal with that prediction of one's 'eventual maximum'! 

aronchuck, I find you analysis very helpful and very instructive. First, I am relieved to see that my analysis of the opening, although I didn't know it was the Grunfeld, was not completely off. I think I did note some of white's weaknesses. I was very interested in your note to 16...a6, the lazy move. I tbought it was a good move, and you teach that it was unnecessary and weak.  Your variations to 16...a6 are very instructive and helpful. 

Ah, and your notes to 18. a3. Excellent. Very helpful and important. You demonstrate the importance of doing careful and thorough analysis in positions which look unimportant to me. Clearly, some of the differences between the beginner and the advanced player are 1. In positions which are not obvious the beginner makes useless moves based on phantom threats. The more advanced player makes careful analysis especially in positions which are not obvious, in order to uncover the potentialities in the position. The advanced player slows down precisely where the beginner speeds up.

Your note to 19. Ng5 is also very interesting.  I would therefore be tempted to play Na5 to encourage Nxf7, Rxf7, Bxf7, Kxf7 followed by Nc4 when Black's Knight is superb. In my note I  noted that 19.Ng5 looked dubious but I did not analyze how Black could optimally take advantage of the dubious move.  It is sooo interesting how much time and energy you spent on 19. Ng5, writing out many variations. You see a dubious move, and you slow waaay down to calculate possibilities. I see a dubious move and I speed up with excitement. Very very instructive to me. 

Thank you aronchuck for teaching how to annotate! 

Qtko, we look forward to your analysis. I will learn from all of you, from jojojopo, who uses many words to brilliantly describe positions and possibilities. I appreciate your words jojojopo; there is no need to apologize for the long text. I find it very helpful. I will learn from aronchuck to analyze and to calculate when I have instincts that tell me something is not right. I have some of the correct instincts, but I don't analyze fully in those situations. I react quickly, as if I say "aha. you made a mistake. I caught you. I'm going to get you now" and I move fast to 'get him' usually squandering my advantage. aronchuck sees "aha, you made a mistake. I'm going to carefully analyze right here, to make you pay in full for your mistake. I will slow down here, to make sure I extract full value from your error". 

I find aronchuck's notes on the mobile pawns and making them mobile and moving them a bit above my level of understanding. I'm going to go back to those notes later tonight to understand them more fully. (update two hours later. I re-read, and now understand. It wasn't that difficult to understand. The difficulty is otb making the right decisions

It was pretty clear from this game that white could have had an advantage, but squandered it with a premature, unnecessary and reckless knight sac, followed by losing the exchange on d4. 

Regarding study of openings and my study plan. I do not play to study openings at this point. I will play my rudimentary Caro Kan, QG for white and Black, stonewall attack for white and maybe I will look into the Sicilian Dragon, which I have never played nor do I know anything about.

I see from aronchuck's and jojojopo's anaylses exactly what I need to do. I need to more systematically ask the question what is the idea, where are the weaknesses, and what can I improve. Also, I will add that I have felt most weak in the area "what can I improve" and I see that making such determinations involves dramatically increasing the amount of calculation that I do. I see from aronchuck how important the calculations are.

My main study strategies are 1. tactics puzzles, aiming for increasing accuracy in the puzzles, calculating the opponent's best responses to achieve falsification, and predicting continuations before I make my move, and 2. reading this thread and doing more and more annotations and 3. playing games...there are a few coming up in the next week, and submitting them to this thread for reading your annotation and submitting mine.  

you suggested it a few days ago, and its already on order. Should be here in a week or so.