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

Bishops???

@ Sombodysson

I'm still digesting your game & it occurred to me that you had issues with both your Bishops. You are reaching a level of play now which requires very good placement of minor pieces in the opening & the Bishops can be somewhat problematic especially if the opening brings specific threats & other issues for your bishops. In your game there was a specific way to deal with a pawn attack on the DSB but without knowing that line it became a problem & wobbled around a bit & was eventually exchanged off. The LSB then had trouble finding its best position as well.

So I just checked the Forum & aronchuck has come to a similar conclusion & posted an excellent analysis of the Bishops role in the Kings Indian so I will try & tackle it from a more general point of view.

Bishops are a unique & valuable piece, they like long open diagonals but are also good up close & personal when pinning a Knight in the opening. They are probably responsible for more pins in Chess than any other piece. At lower levels the importance of a Bishop pair in the endgame is probably more of a distraction than a reality. I have seen many lower level players lose in the middle game by trying to preserve a Bishop pair because of what they read in an endgame book so leave that alone for now. If you happen to go into an endgame with a pair of Bishops then its a bonus.

So where is the best place for the Bishop if I have to relocate it? The biggest problem is if it is going to take more than 1 move which often is the case in closed openings like the French. The simple answer is go back to basics. We tell beginners that Bishops like long open diagonals so that's your starting point. Should it be a defender or an attacker …... or maybe both! If you can't find a good diagonal take the next step, are any of the diagonals likely to be opened up? You can do it as a process of elimination if you can't see an obvious good square. The other option is can you swap off a troublesome Bishop for an opponents better Bishop or Knight.

Choice of opening is a big consideration in what role your Bishops will play in the game. Example, in the French defence or the Stonewall attack the player accepts the problem of a bad Bishop with compensation in other areas like the rapid Kingside assault in the Stonewall Attack. My Wife has adopted the Caro-Kann after trying the French Defence purely on the basis of avoiding the bad Bishop.

Possibly the most interesting way to reduce your Bishop problems is to use a fianchetto opening. The Grunfeld, Kings Indian & the Sicilian Dragon all come to mind. In these openings the problem of the DSB solves itself. It sits in its own little bunker helping to protect the King, it exerts pressure on the important d4 centre square & eyes off the Rook on a1. Best of all if your opponent wants to get rid of that Bishop he is going to have to plan & set it up. A fianchettoed Bishop is safe from pawn attacks until well into the game. It doesn't get much better than that. As you have seen in the Stonewall Attack the fianchettoed Bishop will blunt certain styles of attack on the King eg the Bishop sacrifice on h7 is no longer an option. So a fianchetto opening can solve 50% of your Bishop problems.

As you can see from aronchucks analysis when you play a certain opening there can be specific lines that concern the placement of Bishops. There are too many lines to learn them all but often you get an idea from learning the underlying principles behind the opening. Quite often you will find mention of this in a books introduction to an opening. Virtually every book written on the French Defence will say something about a bad bishop in the introduction for example. Also in many situations it is better to accept a bad Bishop & plan for it rather than develop it to the wrong square & waste a few tempi relocating it as it gets kicked around the board by pawns.

One word of warning about playing a Kingside fianchetto, it is important to preserve your bishop well into the middle game. I remember one particularly bad loss when I was learning the Grunfeld. My opponent lined up his Bishop & Queen on the c1 h6 diagonal, I didn't see the threat & he played Bh6 & forced the exchange of Bishops. My entire counter attack on the centre collapsed & then it got worse. He launched a Kingside attack on my weakened Kings position & won the game.

Hope this helps a bit, if you have any questions we can take it further. This is one way to avoid information overload by addressing the problems as they arise OTB rather than trying to learn everything in anticipation.

very nice QTKO. Happy New Year everyone! @QTKO: I love that I could read your whole article and follow it. I'm definitely getting better at reading aronchuck's and QTKO's posts that are 'technical' stuff that I wouldn'thave read two months ago, and follow every bit of what you guys are writing. 

And yes, that Q and B lined up forcing the exchange of the fianchettoed bishop king fortress is the death of that king's fortress, to my understanding. Point very well taken. 

I'm not going to post my current game. I just blundered my rook. There's no point in analyzing it. It was good until then. Please somebody else post  game. I'll post one soon. The reason for the blunder was obvious, not checking my move before making it. I saw a weakness, and didn't falsify. 

That sucks when you blunder like that, all the preperation & no result. No games from me for 24 hours at least. Just got back from the Hospital with 28 stiches in my leg & a head full of pain killers. Someone elses turn til I can think straight again

14 Nd2 was a day late and a dollar short

28 stitches! That's a ton of stiches. I wish you speedy recovery, and I send you appreciation. 

@Tower_ofJoseph: umm, have you been following this thread? I think it would be nice if you'd contribute to this very rich thread if you'd like your games commented on. I think we'll do it, but I don't mean this thread to be a grab bag of anybody submitting games to the thread; that invitation was really to people like jojojopo, QTKO, aronchuck, and any others who have been contributing. But don't remove your game now. Just start contributing if you'd like to particpate in the thread. thanks. 

Question #2 before I start annotating this game: did you resign before your 29. ? Why? What about 29. Nd1 protecting both pawns. 

Something came up that demanded my full attention, but you are right Nd1 would do it. But due to Inattentiveness miss 12. Nd2 which I think would have given me a much better position and game, especially with king rook still at f1 supporting the f pawn push for a king side attack in mind. And please accept my apologies.

Just a quick examination of the end game & it looks tricky for white a pawn down, 3 pawn islands & doubled isolated e pawns. It would need very precise play just to hold a draw let alone find a win

thanks aronchuck. I didn't have a chance to look at the game, but I will later tonight when I get home to a cimputer (my phone can't show games). I appreciate your instructive comments. I'll review it tonite. Thanks again.

@aronchuck

Nice analysis as usual.

I think there is an important lesson here in choice and understanding of openings. If you are going to play a Gambit you must understand & take advantage of what you gain in return for the pawn. White failed to do this & entered the endgame still a pawn down that can be traced back to the start of the game. Gambit openings are good in most cases, they sharpen up the play & give good chances if played correctly.

Most ppl kearn the Queens Gambit as a start & it isn't really a Gambit in my opinion as the pawn is so easily regained. Its more of delayed exchange. But when ppl move up to more complex openings the situation is very different & that pawn will eventually lose you the game if you don't use the compensation & many beginners don't have the skills to do that.

Tower_of_Joseph played a solid game with no blunders but the mistakes were more subtle & added up to a loss eventually. Players of the Sicilian are usually aggressive & sharp at tactics, if you are going to give them a pawn you really need to know how to take maximum advantage of it.

@Somebodysson, this game is a good example of what we have been talking about, understanding the basic ideas & principles behing the opening. If you don't understand them you don't have to blunder to lose

I made an analysis of this game. I wanted to say that there's been a lot being said on this thread that is fantastic and the original concept is starting to expand and take form (but without going astray). I wanted to thank to all the contributors for that.

Here's the analysis, it was an interesting game. I didn't know of this gambit, I'll give it a try since I'm using them to learn better attack and defense.

I'll read the analysis the others made now.

@Tower_of_Joseph: next time try to follow the guidelines suggested, as it makes analysing more interesting. That is, give us the game without stating which side you were playing and don't give your thoughts and ideas of the game until after we are finished analysing it. This is to allow the players who want to analyse it to do it without being influenced.

I made these notes before reading anyone else's. I will only have time to read the other notes tomorrow. I look forward to reading aronchuck's QTKO's and jojojopo's notes. Thank you tower of Joseph for posting the game. And welcome to the thread.  

oh yes, and what jojojopo wrote is true. I really feel biased when I know what color won ahead of time. Better to leave out the names of the combatants, and the result. Let us be in suspense until the end. Better this way.

I realize in my analysis I didn't ask the questions. But I am very tired. I will remember tomorrow. Good nite everyone. And QTKO, again, speedy recovery. 

Thanks everybody for looking at my game.  Have learned alot.  This is one opening that fascinates me and will continue to strive to get a better grip on it. Somebody once recommended to me the Alapin but find the Smith-Morra more exciting. All your notes and suggestions well taken. 

@aronchuck, thank you.  10.  Nd5 is something that will try at next opportune match and see what happens. 

Good sirs, we have a copycat. I played this blitz (3min) game a few days ago, and I recognized my opponent's opening right away, having seen this thread before. I play pretty poorly, and made some blunders under time pressure, but he resigned in the end. In case it's not clear, I'm a bit of a patzer.

@aronchuck: a couple of things. 1. I trust you so much with this thread, so much. 2. I can't look at your analysis of the Smith Morra tonight, and I haven't been on for most of the day, but I will look at it tomorrow. 3. I read your few words at the intro to your above post, and I find it very instructive already, that you post that not all your analysis was 100% correct. I find that instructive, and helpful.

I want to tell you and the thread that I found some info on 'stoyko exercises' which is basically looking at a position and writing all one can say about the position, list all the lines, all the possibilities, all the analysis one can.

Although I haven't done any formal stoyko exercise yet, I let myself become influenced by it, by looking for more, looking, looking for more in my tactics problems, looking wider, looking longer. I'm not getting any points on the tactics trainer on here, becasue I'm taking too long, but my success rate is going way up. I believe that one of the primary mistakes I was making was not looking wide enough at move choices, seeing the first move that looked like it might be good, but since I don't have good chess instincts yet, its not good enough to make the first move that looks like it might be good, its important to look deeper, look longer, look wider. So that's my focus. 

I love how jojojopo and aronchuck have taken this thread so seriously, and I send my warmest regards to QueenTakesKnightOops for his recovery from 26 stitches for surgery. 

I look forward to looking over this SmithMorra game tomorrow, looking over TOJ game more carefully, looking over my analysis and the analyses of the others who posted analysis, and looking at aronchuck's posted game and notes tomorrow.

I saw a beautiful movie tonight; its an old movie, but a good one. Its called something like The Diving Bell and The Butterfly. Its based on a true story. Its worth watching. Its about being careful, paying close attention, thinking deep. Its a good movie for chessplayers to watch.

I had a peek at Sombodyssons accidentally drawn game last night & it got me thinking about a number of things. I've been talking about knowing the underlying principles of an opening & understanding what the opening is trying to achieve (apart from basic development & centre control). My question is how far into an opening do we need to go to understand it.

The game in question started as a Stonewall Attack but on move 3 it took a major deviation from which there was no way back to a Stonewall. To Somebodyssons credit he played himself into a winning position & then accidentally offered a draw which black accepted. I looked at blacks position & I would have done the same as fast as I could click the mouse.

In the game I saw some Stonewall like moves even though the opening no longer was a Stonewall, they weren't bad moves but it looked as if White was still trying to use some Stonewall theory.

So, in the Stonewall Attack it takes 4 moves to set up the pawn structure that the Attack is named for. These must be supported by 2 minor piece moves, so that 6 moves. To complete development it needs another 4 moves making a total of 10 moves & we are ready to start the middle game. In some lines it can go as far as 12 moves depending on what black is playing.

We don't want this thread to become an openings forum there are already countless numbers of those, but I think it should be addressed as to how much attention should be devoted to openings. Lets face it you can't start the game without an opening & every opponent will have some degree of opening study under their belt, a lot in some cases & not much in others.

Openings will vary, some set you up for a middle game or deviation from the opening very early other require you to play out certain moves to achieve their goals. Its also of interest that this same problem arose in Tower_of_Josephs recently posted game when the opening theory demanded that White play quickly & precisely to gain compensation for the pawn it only took 1 or 2 seemingly harmless but imprecise moves for Black to gain the advantage.

So, Sombodysson, how about posting the game with analysis & we look at it from this point of view. If we can reach a solution on exactly how much opening theory is needed & how many moves you need to follow we can then move on to combinations & other stuff & not worry about opening theory again.