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

Sort:
Somebodysson

ahhh qtki, you make a verry strong case for returning the Q to her home square, and you hit it in the head why I didn/t.the imperative to develop your pieces and if I return her to d1 I have underveloped her. Ny dsb would have been soo much more mobile if !d1, and the ! would have been more mobile too. I will remember your important lesson. Taking with the Q was a mistake, but not returning her to d1 was an even bigger mistake. thanks. 

QueenTakesKnightOOPS
Somebodysson wrote:

ahhh qtki, you make a verry strong case for returning the Q to her home square, and you hit it in the head why I didn/t.the imperative to develop your pieces and if I return her to d1 I have underveloped her. Ny dsb would have been soo much more mobile if !d1, and the ! would have been more mobile too. I will remember your important lesson. Taking with the Q was a mistake, but not returning her to d1 was an even bigger mistake. thanks. 

Sometimes books are our worst enemy, things stick in our heads for no apparent reason & resurface under pressure. I caught my daughter making a strange Knight move a while back, when I asked her the reason she said she was "Connecting her Knights", like you connect Rooks! She had read it somewhere & it only referred to a specific position but the way the book phrased it was somewhat ambiguous. And this comes from a guy who had a 6.500 book library, I love books, but not every book Smile

jojojopo
Somebodysson wrote:

thank you jojojopo. I enjoyed reading your annotation! And welcome back. We miss you when you're not here!

Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed it. I try to keep up with the activity of the thread.

By the way, I think that now that the list of games to analyze is down, perhaps this can be a good moment to post the game I talked about. I don't want to give any spoiler, so I'll just say that I selected it because I think I mishandled it. It's an online game (3 days/move) on this server, of a thematic tournament on the vienna game.



jojojopo
aronchuck wrote:

@jojojopa - well done on trying to understand the opening moves and various side lines in the last few annotations you have done.  I suggest you now consult the theory of the lines so that you can compare your analysis with that.  It will highlight many differences and this should further your understanding of the lines.  You have to remember that theory has developed over many decades with the best players in the world constantly looking for improvements so it is no surprise that you will have many incorrect lines and assessments.  But the fact that you have done the analysis will improve your understanding and this is a good goal as you need to understand every move you play and not just regurgitate theory.  You will find it easier to remember because you will understand the reasons for the moves.

Thank you aronchuk. That advise sounds like something I'll enjoy doing, and a good way to study openings, but I'm afraid I don't know where to find the theory. Is there a book/source you can recommend? I also remember the openings you suggested and have been trying that repertoire when the opportunity arises, but it'd be nice to have a reference.

Somebodysson

hehe, and thank you jojojopo for asking the question I also had, but didn't want to ask. I didn't want to ask it, because I figured when it becomes 'my turn' to look up theory I'll ask it then. But I was curious as to where people look up theory. In the past, tho not recently, I looked at 365chess.com, which is a database of opening moves. But I don't think that's all of what people mean when they say ''look up theory''. So, I'm going to piggyback on the answer, just so's I know for when its relevant to me. You're definitely much more advanced than me in your ability to talk about openings. I find your verbal style of annotating openings simply marvelous.

QueenTakesKnightOOPS

Nice advice on openings aronchuck!

I come from an era where we all studied openings if we were serious about improving our game, if we had a loss we went home & studied them harder. This was at a point where our tactical play was good & we weren't dropping pieces. We also studied endgames & kept our tactics sharp with puzzles etc. so we weren't totally fixated on openings but the emphasis was much higher than today. The Philosophy is far different these days as is thematic to this thread.

So what interests me in the current era is choice of openings for the Novice – Lower intermediate player.

Somebodysson has been playing Caro-Kanns as Black & the Stonewall Attack & Queens Gambit as White (have I missed any?) I've already covered the Stonewall so lets skip that & look at what else is suitable. The Queens Gambit I think is an excellent choice, it leads to many very tactical positions, is easy to understand the basic concepts behind it & as Black can throw up many many defences to it you get to learn so much more as you encounter them. My old philosophy of “If you can play an opening you should be able to play against it” still works for me, if anyone tries to play a Stonewall against me they had better know what they are doing. So by learning an opening you should also be learning the different defences from your opponents.

Next is the old adage that novices should avoid closed openings until they gain more experience. Yasser Seirawan reiterated that in a lecture my Wife & daughter were watching recently. The theory behind it was that a closed centre requires much more strategy & fewer tactics until someone makes a centre break & opens it up & novices usually misjudge that critical timing. Hmmmm does that sound familiar? So should novices avoid the French as Black for example?

Now we come to Gambits, I'm excluding the Queens Gambit here as it is more of a delayed pawn exchange than a true gambit. The old argument was to avoid them because novices lack the skill to take advantage of the position & subsequently just play out a mediocre game with a material disadvantage. I see this as still valid but I'm interested to any alternative points of view. (Speaking of Gambits jojojopo has just posted a Vienna Gambit so I'm looking forward to analysing that)

jojojopo, are you working with an openings study group or similar, if you are I'd be interested to hear how it works for you?

Finally some GM's suggest everyone should have a classical opening in their repertoire, maybe a Ruy Lopez or something like that. I'm not sure on that advice, does anyone have an opinion on that?

So are there any suggestions for suitable openings for the novice to adopt & allow the player to follow the 3 questions without a heap of technical theory to worry about. I know the 3 Questions work in any situation but some openings may be easier to implement them that others. Conversely are there any (Lets limit it to popular openings not the 1/-Na3 weirdo's) openings that novices would be advised to leave alone until they reach a higher level?

Just for interests sake my 4 openings as a novice (in a different era) were the Stonewall Attack & Queens Gambit & later the Kings Gambit as White & as Black the Grunfeld Defence, Sicilian Dragon & later the Najdorf & maybe a Dutch for variety. They worked for me but I am happy to take any criticism of their suitability for novices.

 

I'm not trying to open aronchucks can of worms here just a quick look at what may be the best choices & why.

Somebodysson

thank you aronchuck. this will take some study, and as I'm moving in the next days, I will have to get back to it. Thanks very much for taking the time to put all the thought into this. I'm sure other readers will appreciatge this too. 

jojojopo
QueenTakesKnightOOPS wrote:

jojojopo, are you working with an openings study group or similar, if you are I'd be interested to hear how it works for you?

What do you mean an openings study group? You mean a group on this page? If that is what you mean, I don't. In fact, the only information I looked about openings where some videos or wikipedia articles (I discarded material that gave infinite lines and went for the stuff that could briefly explain the main idea) from time to time when something picked my interest, but I didn't delve into that too deeply. It was more an informational search (I got tired of hearing "King's Gambit", "Queen's Gambit", etc and don't having a clue as to what it meant), . I do find it an interesting subject, but I have more fun seeing a position and trying to formulate a plan (which involves development) than outright studying and applying it.

@aronchuk: I'm grateful for your reply. Honestly, you were ahead of every question I could possibly have and gave a really complete answer, including references to studying material. I'm sure it'll be useful for everyone looking at this thread, so thank you.

QueenTakesKnightOOPS

@ jojojopo

It was just the note in your Vienna Gambit game (I'm still trying to finish the analysis) "Thematic Game - This is the starting position." that made me wonder. I did something similar when I started, bought a copy of MCO & worked right through it so I had some idea of what ppl were talking about & a few openings got my attention enough to actually study & play them.

QueenTakesKnightOOPS

Finally jojojopo's Vienna Game.

I had a hard time finding good moves for Black after move 6/- Did I miss something or is this a particularly difficult line for Black?

Looking forward to other ppls analysis, I struggled a bit with this one.

Somebodysson

keep it up everyone. @jojojopo; yes, aronchuck's instructiv answers are really award-winning. He's a precious resource. ATKo and jojojopo: I'll get to look at your game this weekend, and I'll read aronchuck's notes more. These recent notes on openings were really amazing. we're still going to focus on annotated games, and the three questions. I don't think think aronchuck was suggesting an openings study group on here...I think he was answering your question with a guide to openings you should be using, and using books like MCO or FCO to learn the main ideas. Probably move by move series books, or things like Mcdonald annotated games would give the ideas behind the openings. or even things like the updated Fine books, but I forget their names. FCO is considered a good openings book, I think the author is something like ven der sterren. 

Anyways, I'll check in later this weekend. I have an apartment move I have to get going. somebodys

QueenTakesKnightOOPS

This is one of the most satisfying games I have played in a long time.

I've been messing around with the English opening since aronchucks recent post on openings & I liked what I saw. Because of the other openings I play & my liking for fianchettoed Bishops I started to see a lot of structures that I was familiar with & liked. I remember years ago leaving the English opening alone because I didn't like some of the transposition lines like the Caro-Kann, but having worked on the Caro-Kann with my wife I decided I could live with that.

I have also been having a lot of trouble with focus OTB especially solving puzzles & playing the computer. Basically I have been playing such a load of rubbish its downright embarrassing!

My Wife said she didn't think I was playing with enough pressure to take it seriously. So I set up a board & notepad & played the game out there just like I used to do in tournaments. I set up a 30 moves in 60 minutes time control using a stopwatch & set the computer to “Hard” Usually it Mates me in the middle game at that setting & I know I am not playing at my best. (or former best)

The game got interesting on move 1 where the Computer played a somewhat obscure Gambit at me so my recent practice with the English was of little help, but I had checked out that Gambit a few days ago as the Computer seems to like it & plays it every 7 or 8 games but all I could remember was White was Ok to accept the pawn & play smart & it was ok. It also meant that being out of the book it forced me to focus on the 3 questions a bit more rigorously. So I'm pretty happy, its a major step towards playing at the level I used to & an interesting point that I seem to need the pressure to get focussed these days.

So here it is, I haven't analysed it yet, I'll start that after I post it while its fresh in my mind.



QueenTakesKnightOOPS

@ aronchuck

Nice analysis (as usual) It will be interesting when I post my analysis to see how what i was thinking matches with what you posted. Next step is for me to do this against humans but that will take some doing as I can't get a reliable Internet connection for chess.com live games yet. I'll finish my analysis tomorrow & then compare it to yours. From a very brief look it should make for an interesting comparison.

Somebodysson

hi everyone. I haven't been able to spend much time on here. I will have more time after Feb 9. I started following aronchuck's annotation of QueenTakesKnight's game, but didn't have time to finish it. It is very very rich, and I thank you aronchuck for putting the time into the rich annotation, and thank you to QueenTakesKnight for posting it. I have to closely read aronchuck's notes on the openings, and the annotated game, but I won't have time until after the 9th, because I'm working a lot, and having to pack and move on the ninth. All the time I spend on here is doing tactics puzzles in little short spurts. 

Please keep up the conversation. I will get back to this, my textbook, as soon as I can. Thanks so much, somebodysson.

QueenTakesKnightOOPS

Spoiler Alert

I'm posting my analysis for the last game while the thread is quiet. If anyone else is analysing it just ignore this post for now & publish your own analysis first if you want. I want to move on to playing some more English games but there is a question for aronchuck from this one before I do that.

 

@aronchuck

I've done some more analysis & it seems to me that Black is lost after 15Ne5. I've done all the lines & I can't find a defence that holds the position let alone counters it. If you have a spare moment could you confirm that or show me anything I missed pls?



Somebodysson

hi I just checked in for a two minute peek, this is nice...very nice...like I said, I'll be able to devote time after Feb 9. I love aronchuck's analyses, I have a couple of games scheduled in a week. I'm interested to see how they go. 

QueenTakesKnightOOPS

@ aronchuck

Thanks, I'll keep what you said in mind, I played out quite a few lines on the Queenside & in them the pawns were unstoppable even the one with a Queen exchange. I'll try another game tomorrow hopefully with a more mainline English

@Somebodysson

Hope the moving goes well. I've done it way too many times & its seldom easy, best of luck.

jojojopo

I'm sorry for my absense after posting that game. I had to travel and it was difficult to participate here while doing so.

I wanted to thank you very much for you analysis, it shows that, as I thought, white's play was far from optimal and it gave me a glimpse of what I need to improve. I hope you don't mind that I posted a game that I won, but I thought that this one would be the most instructive, and, honestly, while playing the game I was sure that there had to be better moves but I couldn't find them (even if I applied the method of the 3Q).

Here are a few observations on how I played this game that I hope can be of value to others.

I'll start with the issue of targetting the weaknesses. I find it instructive that even if you can spot a weakness and know it is there (or as it was with black's position in this game, more than one) you need to have the skill of knowing which weaknesses to focus on (is this part of what is called "positional" knowledge?). I have the feeling that this is not only an issue of tactics. Of course I'm sure that being a fast calculator helps as well as seeing the tactical motifs instantly, but as the experienced players have pointed out here a lot of times, a strong player only calculates when necessary. In this game I spent *a lot* of time calculating (since it was a correspondance game, so I had the time), and even if I searched for moves that had to do with the weaknesses in the position, I focused on the wrong ones. This is probaly due to lack of experience causing bad jugdments.

I also notice that the moves that weirder (and probably dibious) are the ones that I spend more time on, which is kind of funny.

Let's speak of concrete moves: The dubious 8. Qb5+. The idea behind this was that not only I would be able to capture the e-pawn on the next move, but that I would give black problems because of the threat to b7 and that I'd unblock the LSB (which was obstructed because of the Qe2). I knew that it was dangerous to post the queen on that advanced location, and that I wasn't listening to one of the "basic rules of openings" (at the moment I thought I could get away with this but now I see that this check forces black to develop a piece, so I'm actually giving him free development without much compensation), but since black had to block with the knight I thought that having that knight pinned against the king and later pinned against the queen with Rd1 would justify the move. It's true I overlooked the value of ...c6 forcing the queen to retreat and returning time to black, but what surprises me is that even if I looked at 8. dxe5 (which I think is one of the more natural moves available that you have to look at in this position), the uncertainty of what black would play next (even if I knew that there was not a way to avoid 9. Bxf4, which would regain the pawn and officially settle white's advantage) made me prefer an inferior move because I could foresee an exact reply instead of playing a natural move that I didn't know exactly how the opponent would reply to. This kind of "illusion of control" is something I'll have to deal with if I want my chess to grow and I guess that many beginners have this same problem. That made me overlook that the Qe2 was actually doing a lot in the position and that it was inferior on b5.

15. Bxa6: this is another interesting moment in the game for me. I decided on this move after calculating so many variations (on other moves) and "not finding anything", so I probably was tired and overlooked 15... Ra8, which creates some complications. 15. Qe4 is way better. What strikes me is that I considered this move! So, why did I discard it? I understood that black had a hole on g6 and that the diagonal leading to the king was weak, so why didn't I look for more ways to exploit this weaknesses? In truth, 15. Bxa6 felt like a "consolation prize" to me when I played it, because I was sure that there had to be something stronger, but I couldn't find so I took a consolation pawn. I knew that I had to focus on the king (this being the main weakness) and that winning a pawn on the flank was just inferior. Besides looking at the simple Qe4, I even looked at sacrifices that would expose the king, but I ended up discarding those options. I completely misevaluated the meaning of that hole on the kingside, and for the same reason I also missed Qe4 on the next move. Of course, I failed to tactically calculate the variations to perceive how damaging a check on the e8-h5 diagonal would be, but I wonder if had I spent more time on this weakness instead on the others would I have been able to play Qe4? I don't know, but I'll start to pay more attention to holes and ways to exploit them. And, also very important, I'll start to try to play simpler chess and because of this issue of being practical that aronchuk quoted. I won't get far by being tricky after all, so I think I have to learn to be solid.

I'm very interested in adopting the English to play games that'll make me grow more completely, so I'll try to analyse the game QTKO posted as soon as I have the time.

Meanwhile, I have played a game that made me happy, it being the longest game I've played and the most complete (even if it was only 41 moves long) where I had to struggle to convert a small advantage (at least I think it was a small advantage) in the endgame, which was not easy but felt a lot different than the game always ending in the opening and middlegame because someone blunders a piece. It kind of felt more like chess :P. It's a Four Knights. I'd like to post it here if you want.

I hope no-one is bothered by the long post. Until later!

QueenTakesKnightOOPS

@ jojojopo

The thread is a bit quiet & Somebodysson is busy til the 9th, I'm happy to analyse anything you care to post. I'm going to try & do a couple of English openings this weekend, I'd be interested to compare notes if you are going to try it. Like aronchuck said it is a good choice for the focus of this thread, you don't need a heap of theory, just the basics & then play sensibly & apply the 3 Q's

I got the basics down just by watching a couple of videos on Youtube although I had looked at it many years ago but never really played it.

QueenTakesKnightOOPS

@jojojopo & most others following this thread.

I think I can give an example of what aronchuck is talking about when he says

“A stronger player on the other hand first looks for moves that are positionally desirable to try and continually put his opponent under pressure. He uses tactics to ensure that his moves are not blunders and to fullfill his short term positional goals. This means he is always improving his pieces or pawn structure and trying to restrict his opponent's pieces and worsen his structure. He knows that when the positional advantage has grown large enough there WILL be a combination to convert this into a material advantage, winning endgame or mating attack on the king. Until then he just grows the advantage little by little always looking for mistakes along the way.”

Yasser Seirawan produces (in my opinion) the best video lectures available. I have downloaded most of them & many apply directly to this thread. The one I am talking about now is a 2 part lecture featuring a 1978 game vs Jan Timman, French Defence with Seirawan playing Black.

Seirawans games are very complex & I don't think many of us here could understand his games fully without some help, but when he goes through a game himself it all becomes clear.

If you don't like video as a study format try this as an experiment. Download it from Youtube & run it on your TV as entertainment. Glass of wine etc & just relax & watch. Let Seirawan do all the explaining & you may be amazed at what sticks in your brain by osmosis.

In the game in question an 18 year old Seirawan is playing the top rated player in the tournament on board 1 in round 1. Jan Timman was in the World top 10 players as this time so the play by White is top quality. Seirawan plays a French Defence that would bewilder most ppl if they just downloaded the PGN & played it out on the computer. Even engine analysis is of little help here.

I'll post the 1st few moves as a teaser, if you can figure out move 6 by Black then you probably should be lecturing on this thread rather than learning. Aronchuck you get to go last & anyone who knows this game pls don't give it away. But really I just want to get ppl to watch the video Smile

It's also a good game to apply the 3 Q's to & see how they match up with Seirawans strategic play. Seirawan is renowned as a Master Strategist so you need to look a bit deeper into the game but (for me anyway) it demonstrates precisely what aronchuck is talking about in his last post & also this is probably a very good demonstration as to why we should study Grand Master Games.

I won't post the link here, it's not my thread & I don't want to set a precedent. Just go to Youtube & type Yasser Seirawan into the search box & look for "Lecture with GM Yasser Seirawan (Part 1) The part 2 link should come up when you load Part 1.