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

I thought I did, but I just went over it and clearly I didn't. I 'figured' the grunfeld you were talking about was something entirely different, not something that would come from 3. cxd   ...Nxd.  SO easy to think/assume I understand, when I don't understand one bit.  Ok. So that rules out the 365chess.com database as well, because obviously when they show that  3. cxd Nxd 4.e4 is hugely winning for white, they're talking about accomplished players who know how to win against that defense. 

a tiny bit of knowledge, or should I say the illusion of a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing. When I look at the 365chess.com database and it tells me 'white wins in 72% of cases after 3...Nxd. I should just...not look at that kind of information, because it's deceptive and in my hands its tantamount to a lie. 

yaroslavl, I have as a project tonight going over another question you asked me in another post. So I'm going to get back to that right now. I'll check in soon, my last for the night. 

ok. I set up my board to answer this. After 3...dxc4  4.e3  Be6   5.Qa4+  Qa7

(not 6.QxQ+  since ...NxQd7  and Black is doing much better)  6.Qb4  c5  7. Qxc5  Qc6  8. b4  cxb3 e.p. 9 axb3  Bxb3  and Black seems up a pawn except for 10. Bb5 pinning and capturing the black queen.

I've never done anything like this before. I've never tried to answer a question like this before, and I've never tried to figure out a sequence this long before. How did I do Yaroslavl? It all seems very far fetched, such a long string of moves, but what I tried to do was 1. find the best moves for white, and 2. find the best moves for Black, given 3...dxc  4. e3  Be6  5. Qa4+.

@Yaroslavl, perhaps a little less far fetched,  3...dxc4   4. e3  Be6  5. Qa4+  Qd7  6. Qb4  c5  7.  Qxc5  Qc6  8. b4  QxQ  9. bxQ   b5  10.Nxb5  and White has regained the pawn.

I just find it odd how he has talked so poorly of obeying maxims post after post after post then gives Be1 a ! and cites a maxim as justification.

actually, I don't think preserving a half pawn advantage is a maxim, and if it is, it is consistent with Jaglavak's 'maxim' of the material basis of chess, and the need to win and preserve material advantages, which is not the same as choosing moves on the basis of the maxims of positional chess. And here Jaglavak has very good company in Dan Heisman (who calls such gobbledygook maxims "hand waving".). To quote Dan Heisman  "Hand-waving is the error of using general principles to make moves in analytical positions."   In the article by Heisman at the following link he writes that making decisions by general principles (hand-waving) is a worse practice than his much more famous "playing hope chess".  http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman111.pdf 

It's jojojopo (three times jo) ;). And it's fine, I don't have many friends here so I didn't know it could get messy.

By the way, if you are studying tactics, have you checked http://www.chesstactics.org/? I have found it really useful, even though I have not finished it yet, specially because it deals with the thought process and with how you could come up with then on the board (by spotting targets and patterns you can take advantage of), and how to solve obstacles when you find the potential of a tactic (which very often involves other tactics), not only with the tactis per se. The author really insists on making you consider important things before making the moves, as Jaglavak and Yaroslav are suggesting (each in its own way). Check it out if you have the time!

(As a funny side note, it's SO target oriented that it's called "Predators at the Chess Board", and it has a picture of a herbivorous dinosaur on a board and it says something on the lines of "if you are thinking that herbivorous dinosaurs are not predators, you are right... they are your prey! You have to look at the board as a predator." It may be a funny joke but I think that it portrays the mentality which one needs to stimulate when playing chess).

Somebodysson wrote:

Yaroslavl wrote:

___________________________________________

Did you read and understand my post #161?

I thought I did, but I just went over it and clearly I didn't. I 'figured' the grunfeld you were talking about was something entirely different, not something that would come from 3. cxd   ...Nxd.  SO easy to think/assume I understand, when I don't understand one bit.  Ok. So that rules out the 365chess.com database as well, because obviously when they show that  3. cxd Nxd 4.e4 is hugely winning for white, they're talking about accomplished players who know how to win against that defense. 

a tiny bit of knowledge, or should I say the illusion of a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing. When I look at the 365chess.com database and it tells me 'white wins in 72% of cases after 3...Nxd. I should just...not look at that kind of information, because it's deceptive and in my hands its tantamount to a lie. 

yaroslavl, I have as a project tonight going over another question you asked me in another post. So I'm going to get back to that right now. I'll check in soon, my last for the night. 

______________________________________

Here is a sample old game that will show what happens when Black doesn't cooperate and allow White to transpose into the Gruenfeld Defense:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1094406

thanks jojojopo! and thanks for understanding. I think being friendly on these threads is much more important to me than collecting friends on a list. The only other advantage to having friends on a list is that makes it easier to arrange live games...and I will be playing very very few live games. A few months ago I played a lot of live games, and I found it made my chess worse, because I was practicing bad habits. This thread is so far, by far, the strategy that is most effective at improving my chess, much much more than playing lots of live games.

I plan to play a maximum of three live games a week, one at the chess club and two on this live server. And I plan to submit all two or three of them to this thread, unless I play so terribly that there is no educational value to submitting them except for giving myself a slap across the face!

Analyzing these games, reading Yaroslavl's questions (wasn't that cool how he asked me...'okay, Qe4+, what does Black do now?...' forcing me to work out the answer, something I had never done before...wasn't that educational!!?), taking very very seriously Jaglavak's emphases and generous annotations, the analyses offered by McHeath, FromMutoYou, LIMark, and the discussions between us...this is soooo much more important than playing lots of unanalyzed live games, so much deeper and more thoughtful.

just my 2 cents! Stay active on here jojojopo!

what a mess! White's 'winning advantage' after ...Qxd4  Nc3 ...Qd8 seems completely obliterated with ...e5  d5  and White seems to be playing a losing defense for the rest of the game. Interesting lesson. Thank you Yaroslavl.

I have a beginner question. So I look at this Pillsbury Marshall game, and I look up Gruenfeld defence in Wikipedia, and I watch a video on Gruenfeld defence on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7KGYXxg_zo  and I don't understand why you call this Gruenfeld defence. I am not arguing...I am just not understanding. On chessgames.com they call this Marshall Defence to Queen's Gambit, on the youtube video he says Gruenfeld defence has ...g6...so please teach me what makes this game a Gruenfeld defence.

I realize this is too advanced for me, and is not important to understand names of openings and understand transpositions now...I just wonder if there could be a simple explanation that you could give to how this is a Gruenfeld defence.

Thank you. 

I just want to tell everybody two things, one of them is very very humble bragging, and the other is an observation. First, let's get the bragging out of the way.

I have just broken 1200 on the tactics trainer on here. I know I know, its a tiny little number, and these are very simple tactics puzzles at 1200. But they are an advancement for me. I was barely 1000 three weeks ago,,,I got to 1100 about a week ago and had trouble holding it there, and now a week later I'm at 1200, and having trouble holding it there. The puzzles have become less clear...they don't all start with a check or a capture anymore...they require more thinking, more target-mindedness.

That brings me to the second point, the observation. I play the tactics puzzles very differently from playing my games. With the tactics puzzles I'm just looking to win material; so I'll push a king pawn, I'll move a piece twice, I'll put a knight on a rim,  all to win material and win the puzzle. All maxims are out the window. Winning the puzzle means forgetting all the gobbledygook, and catching the prey, as jojojopo put it, being a predator, forgetting all the rules except the rule of catching comething to eat.

Its interesting. I see myself going "oh no, I can't move that pawn, that makes my king vulnerable, but of course I have to move that pawn because it catches me a knight or a bishop... and tha'ts obviously the winning move for this puzzle"....so I then make the maxim-free move, and I win the puzzle.

Interesting...when I play a game I am more a victim of maxim thinking than I am in the tactics puzzles. Gotta play them more and more.  

And then something else will have to happen. I'll have to learn something about endgames I'm sure. But we'll get there. First I have to continue learning to threaten pieces, get material advantages, and keep trading down, magnifying my material advantage, as I did in last Monday's game at the chess club. 

I plan to open 1. d4 as white no matter what, and as black I plan to answer 1. e4  c6 and 1 d4  c6. Any ideas of how to answer 1 c4? 

Man, I just analysed the game Yaroslav suggested, posted it here, and it never appeared anywhere!!! It is the second time this happens to me on this forum. I'll redo the analysis later and post it, I have to go (and am too pissed off to do it again anyways).

I'll just say this, I don't think the problem was 3.cxd4, since after the queen retreats a few moves later I think White has a good advantage. The complications arise after f2-f4. I think White was intending to Ng1-f3 and e4-e5!, forking two Black pieces, but did not see that Black would pin the knight. And because of that he got a pawn down and a position where Black's advanced pawn causes a lot of trouble (while White's advanced pawn is not really doing much). It got worse when White castled kingside... And I also find it interesting that Black didn't castle because it would make his attack lose steam!

I hope it makes sense, I'll post the game again later... if the damned page will let me.

And, besides, do practice endgames! I've been training the basic matting technique with KQvK, QRvK and KBBvK, and my pattern recognition ability really increased! And it is easy to do so, it will not take you a lot of time to understand the technique.

glad I asked. So 1. d4 d5.  Yes. Check. Over and out. So I don't try to force a Caro Kan to 1. d5, because white can  2. c4.  Instead go to a Slav. and start learning from there. What if 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 c6 3. c5 Nf6 4. Nc3 Do I 4...e6 or do I dxc4?  If I 4. ..e6 I'm playing what my opponent played on Monday night. 

Yaroslavl, I know, I didn't get to that Horowitz book yet. Maybe I will this weekend. I hope to. 

nice jojojopo. Do you do it on a board, with a book, with a program? I bought a diamond membership on here, and so far I've only used the tactics trainer. Maybe I'll check out some endgames, mating patterns. Yes. So much to do, not knowing where to put the time. Anyways, I know the time spent on here on this forum is well spent. Thank you everyone.

I checked the basic technique on YouTube (lots of videos covering it) or on another website. Then practiced it with a board against myself to get the hang of it. And then I set up a random position and play it against an engine.

I haven't tried KBNvK yet, I only toyed with it, but the other ones are really simple once you understand them.

alright, I have to go to work. Yaroslavl, I just spent ten minutes with the Horowitz book,  the Lasker defense chapter, because I want to learn something simple and effective for Black responding to 1. d4.

The book is a very easy and clear read; it may be the first chess book that I read  after those terrible lessons in chernev .  nonono, I don't want to get into a fight about Chernev. but, boy oh boy, did that guy ever put some wrong ideas into my head. I just read four games in that book and that was enough to teach me a year's worth of nonsense to unlearn. 

There's no issue in keeping it simple and playing 1..c6 2..d5 vs anything.  White can try literally anything and you get a fine game after these two moves.  2.c4 doesn't pose a problem to this move order: 1.d4 c6 2.c4 d5 and you are in the Slav.

@jojojopo
If you take a really long time annotating a game to post on the forum it will time out and be lost.  This problem has persisted on chess.com for as long as I can remember.

Somebodysson wrote

ok, I need a little help. Everyone seems to agree that my f4 was unnecessary, that my knight was safe. I'm missing something. If ...BxN and dxB, then ...Rxe and I am down a pawn. what am I missing? That is precisely why I moved f4, to prevent ...Rxe. What am I missing?

________________________________________

Once again the answer is simple if you look at the pawn structure. If you take all the pieces off the board it is easy to see that the characteristic pawn formation that has resulted is the Ram formation, where the opposing pawn walls are connected by at least one ram. The ram in the position of your game is the 2 pawns face to face (white pawn at d4, Black pawn at d5. Notice that the center is blocked, so flank attacks have to be seriously considered. Because as you recall blocked center does not allow the defender to counter attack in the center against the enemy flank attack. With the characteristic Ram pawn formation White has his choice of a flank attack on the Kingside or a flank attack on the Queenside also known as the Minority Attack. The reason it is known as the Minority Attack is because White has 2 pawns at a2 and b2 on the Queenside. Black has 3 pawns on the Queenside at a7, b7 and c6. White also has the half-open c-file. The indicated pawn break square is at b5.

On the Kingside White presently has 4 pawns (h2,g2,f2, and e3). Black has 3 pawns on the Kingside at (h7,g7, and f7. Black has the half-open file. The indicated break square for Black on the Kingside is f4.

All of the above information above is a necessary preface to answering your question about your move 13.f4.

To answer your question, let's say that you played 13.Bh5 instead of 13.f4, Putting a double attack on the f7 pawn with our N at e5 and your B at h5. As soon as Black plays 13...bxe5 one of your 2 attacking pieces against f7 is off the board, and there is no better move for White than 14.dxe5 Rxe5. Now your only attacking piece the B at h5 is attacked twice by the N at f6 and the R at e5 and you are down a pawn with no compensation for the pawn. And, to make things worse the characteristic pawn structure that arisen is a Jump Formation with Black having a clear 3 vs. 2 pawn majority on the Queenside.

The answer to your question is 13.f4 is necessary to keep from losing a pawn, allowing Black to change the pawn structure in his favor and gaining a clear 3 vs. 2 pawn majority on the Queenside.

The above are the disadvantages of not playing 13.f4. The advantages of playing 13.f4 are: it keeps White from losing a pawn, f4 is the first move in a flank attack by White against Black's Kingside castled position with a blocked center, and it activates your DSB at e1. In case Black plays 13...Ng4 attackingS White's undefended pawn pawn at e3 he loses a piece to Bxg4! The long term disadvantage to 13.f4 is that he now has a backward pawn at e3 that cannot be defended by any other White pawn and the pawn is on a half-open file half-open on Black's side so that Blakck can attack it and White's piece(s) will have to defend it. It is almost never a good idea to have to defend a pawn with a piece, it is much better for a pawn to be defended by pawn(s).

So, yes 13.f4 was the right move.