Crazy things can happen in a blindfold game.
I agree with you on 5.Nf3, jojo. After that white firmly holds the e5 square and black has nothing better than ..e6 or ..Bf5, both of which are uninspiring. Black is simply playing a typical Queen's gambit position a tempo down. Is it lost for black? No, not at all. There's loads of chess left to be played. But why choose a line where you are a move down over a line where you aren't a move down?
what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?


ummm, jojojopo, why are posting your analysis of a game by Pillsbury vs. Marshall on this thread? Yaroslavl did refer to that game as an example of a particular opening, to illustrate a point he was making but is there a reason I don't understand why you're posting your analysis of that game on here jojojopo?
Maybe you want to open a new thread to post your analysis of master games?
I would normally keep this to myself, but I posted it here because of two reasons: First, I think that the game illustrates many of the things which were spoken (mainly, how moves are justified based on threats and targets, and how, taking that on account, some powerful moves "break" a few "maxims"), and since it was useful for me to see it (as some kind of reinforcement of what was said, taken from the game of a high level player), I thought it would be pertinent to share it here. And second, because I think that White's problems in that game don't come from the 3.cxd5 that was discouraged earlier, so I hoped that this would invite some clarification on that subject.
But perhaps you didn't perceive it that way? I didn't think it would be out of place. In fact, I'm a little surprised by your comment. In any case, I apologize if it did bother you, but I'd thank you if you could explain what seems to be wrong (so that I don't repeat the mistake).

ummm, I just read frommutoyou's comment on jojojopo's posting.
This isn't a catch-all thread to discuss just anything nor a place for people to fight with each other. I am happy so far with how this thread has been playing out, but I want to step in here and establsih that its not a free for all, its not a grab bag, its not a place to just post anything you want, and its not an openings theory forum. ITs very specifically a place where people, both lurkers and active posters, have been benefitting from an analysis of my games, and a discussion, really intiated by the generosity of Yaroslavl and Jaglavak, on chess pedagogy, specifically as it pertains to my development as a chess player.
That's what has attracted people to it, and that's what created its uniqueness.
FromMutoyou and jojojopo, please try to post in the spirit of this thread. thanks.
I"m perfectly comfortable with therenot being a whole lot of action on this thread when there isn't a specific game of mine being discussed, or a specfic opening or pedagogical topic relating to my development being disucssued; I don't want the absence of discussion around my development as a chessplayer to be used as an opportunity for other topics to move and and try to colonize this thread. There are infinite possibilities for creating new threads on chess.com and I think that keeping a thread to a relatively narrow focus is the best way to manage a thread.
Somebodysson wrote:
Yaroslavl wrote:______________________________________
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
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.
_______________________________________________________________
The Pillsbury vs. Marshall game is a QGD/Marshall Defense. In your game the Gruenfeld could only come about with Black's cooperation as I explained in post # 161.
Both openings can result after 3.cxd5 by transposition one, the Gruenfeld, only with Black's cooperation, the other if Black decides not to cooperate.
Somebodysson wrote:
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.
____________________________________________
Excellent. How to think Ahead will help you tremendously.
I liked especially all the step by step diagrams not requiring the reader to have to get out a chess board and pieces. Also, the explanation IN WORDS of tactics and strategy every step with very little chess notation

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 Whitie 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.
I just woke up and read this Yaroslavl. I have to say that I read the whole thing without referring to a board, and followed everything you wrote. Something about the way you wrote made it possible for me to follow a long explanation, really, again, for the first time. I thank you.
I imagine the jump formation and the ram terms are from the book on pawn structures by Kmoch. Altho the terms are new to me, I can still follow the discussion, and can visualize your explanation of the Bh5 and the ...Rxe5 twice attacking the B. Of course, I hadn't visualized that on my own.
@FromMutoYou: what are you doing.
@jojojopo: thanks for your explanation. :)

Somebodysson wrote:
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.
____________________________________________
Excellent. How to think Ahead will help you tremendously.
I liked especially all the step by step diagrams not requiring the reader to have to get out a chess board and pieces. Also, the explanation IN WORDS of tactics and strategy every step with very little chess notation
yes! I found I could read it without a chess board, with the diagrams and very clear words! Very reassuring, to be able to read a chess book that way.

1...c6 followed by 2...d5. Also, you should answer 1.d4 with 1...d5 right?
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.
You will play ...d5 against all moves that do not attack the d5 square with a pawn. If that happens, you will play ...c6 first and then ...d5. You will not play ...c6 at all if white does not attack with a pawn. In that case you will play for ...c5 perhaps preparing it with ...e6.
Then you will stop concentrating on the openings because you do not learn openings by memorizing variations first. You learn the main idea behind your opening from someone or some book, and then the main idea behind the variation you intend to play, and then the main idea behind the main varitions your opponent can play. Then you can start memorizing lines.
yes, thanks Jaglavak. I will be focusing on tactics pattern recognition. That's for sure. I will definitely not be memorizing opening variations! I will be looking at the Horowitz book to see how he teaches 'how to think ahead'. My first sense of it is that he walks you through different tactical pictures, and different strategic pictures, clearly picturing different scenarios. I (we) have definitely diagnosed that I insufficiently visualize different future scenarios at the board; I need to get stronger at that.
I will be playing a 90/+.45 game tomorrow, in the Dan Heisman slow chess league; I will follow the openings recommendations we have for now, and I will post the game. Thanks everyone.
Somebodysson wrote
I juI just woke up and read this Yaroslavl. I have to say that I read the whole thing without referring to a board, and followed everything you wrote. Something about the way you wrote made it possible for me to follow a long explanation, really, again, for the first time. I thank you.
I imagine the jump formation and the ram terms are from the book on pawn structures by Kmoch. Altho the terms are new to me, I can still follow the discussion, and can visualize your explanation of the Bh5 and the ...Rxe5 twice attacking the B. Of course, I hadn't visualized that on my own.
Very good as time passes you will find that you can read any chess book without pulling out a chess board and you will be able to read the chess notation from any game and visualize the entire game in your mind.
Yes, the terms "Ram Formation", "Jump Formation", etc. are all from, "Pawn Power In Chess", by Hans Kmoch.st woke up and read this Yaroslavl. I have to say that I read the whole thing without referring to a board, and followed everything you wrote. Something about the way you wrote made it possible for me to follow a long explanation, really, again, for the first time. I thank you.
________________________________________
Very good as time passes you will find that you cZan read any chess book without pulling out a chess board and you will be able to read the chess notation from any game and visualize the entire game in your mind.
Yes, the terms "Ram Formation", "Jump Formation", etc. are all from, "Pawn Power In Chess", by Hans Kmoch.

thank you Aronchuck. Wow, I wish I could have laughed at ...g5 in that first game! There is a more recent game, that I actually won, on page 7. Would you care to look at that one? thanks.

thank you Aronchuck. Especially for the last comment! (I know, I imagine that your info on the opening moves is 'more important', but that is where communication is a two way phenomenon.).
I had been wondering for the last couple of hours if you guys (i.e. Jaglavak, Yaroslavl) are encouraging me to play QG because I'm so weak, and I'll get slaughtered with king pawn openings, so I should take the chicken way, and play Queen pawn.
So I'm not going to ask it. I'm just going to trust you guys who are so much stronger and experienced, and stick with this Queen Pawn opening, and deal with those silly emotions elsewhere. Mostly.
So thanks for affirming that the QG is so instructive. That's what I want. Instructive. Perfect. Now back to study...

Jaglavak, thank you for your brilliant translation of the positional shorthand into target mobility terms; that is exactly what I need to do; that is exactly what 'understanding the ideas' means. Thank you for implicitly explaining to me what 'understanding the ideas' means. That too, 'understand the opening ideas' was a meaningless mystery expression to me until your sample translation.
And thank you to Aronchuck for your support of Jaglavak; he has clarified so many things already, and he has made the path ahead clearer too; and that is an understatement.
And, Jaglavak, thank you also for the clarification of d4 vs e4. There is so much that is written and said in chess that people think they understand, and don't really. I am not alone.

Jaglavak, you are very, very clear. You are crystal clear. Yes, and you make perfect sense to me.

Somebodysson,I looked over your game and frankly I thought you were doing well until moves 12 and 13.As others in this thread have stated you lost the game do to simple, unforced errors.That left you with the queens exchanged and two pawns down.I don't see a problem with your basic approach to your opponents junk opening.The problems that I do notice when players are faced with junk openings is a desire or pressure to refute them immediately,which is simply playing into your opponents hands.The best solution ,when faced with unsound openings,like the one you faced,is to do what others have suggested:develope your pieces to central squares and protect your king.In this particular opening,sooner or later blacks advancing pawns will become vulnerable;when that happens a pawn break or sac will will allow you to penetrate blacks position and cause chaos.In fact, I would say whites job is to crack open blacks undeveloped position,after that happens blacks game will collapse like a house of cards.Others have pointed to the disparity in space by the two sides;that disparity only helps white,but to take advantage of it requires the patience to develope your pieces rather than rush in and attempt to force the issue.
Getting back to the specifics of the game,the advanced players on this thread are probably right about there being stronger white replies to certain moves up to move 12,but my guess is that they are probably minor improvements.What lost this game is the recapture on move 12 with the B rather than the R,followed by Be4 on move 13 rather than Nxc. Rxf on move 12 stops Qxd.Even if you continue with 12.Bxf cxd,13.Nxc also holds your postion together because after 13....Qxd ,14.Be3 runs the black Q off .In this second line white is down a pawn,but white retains it's Q and open lines to exploit ,and I think, a rather good-looking position.One doesn't have to look too hard at the position on move 12 to see that white has a large number of well positioned pieces in the center of the board,hence it is probably true(without even calculating) that white must have the resources available to meet what happened on move 12 and 13.I think,had white not fallen prey to a tactical misstep on moves 12 and 13,white would have been well positioned to win this game.
One last thought about this game,with a time control of G90/30 one would think that there would be enough time to calculate more thoroughly.The mistakes you made could be expected from a G/5 or G/10 blitz but not from a G/90.Perhaps one area to address in the near future is "thought process" ...how you organize you chess thoughts during a game.You would probably get better results from working on that ,at the moment,than from positional study.In any event,I believe your approach to the game was reasonable,giving you good chances, but was sabotaged by tactical mistakes on moves 12 and 13.

thank you badger song. What you write agrees with what others have been telling me, and I thank you for taking the time to write. Yes, the feeling is unanimous that I should have taken with the rook.
Jaglavak had the insight, from reading my annotation, of why I took with the rook and not the bishop. He noticed that I was 'thinking' via misunderstood positional maxims, like 'give my bishop access to more squares', instead of thinking hard about what targets I can find, and which of my pieces need to be where to assault those targets. He correctly diagnoses that if had been thinking 'targets' the decision to take with the rook would have become quite obvious, after some relatively minor calculation.
So, yes, it is the thought process that we are diagnosing as the illness. Specifically, it is 'too much thinking' and 'not enough looking' that is the problem. The tactical mistakes have a reason. the reason is, in no particular order, a. lack of familiarity with tactical patterns, b. lack of habits of looking for and selecting suitable targets, c. lack of habit of asking what is the opponent targetting, and what is the best response, d. given that a pawn cannot move backward, is there an unequivocally good reason to move a pawn forward. e. what are the forcing moves from both sides, for the foreseeable future f. what pieces of mine are vulnerable, and who squares do I weakly control/weakly defend. g. what pieces of the other player are vulnerable, and what squares does he weakly control/weakly defend.
there has been an addition that Jaglavak added, which I think is important, and that is to look at the whole board, and think about both my pieces and my opponents pieces, and evaluate their strengths (target-aim) and weaknesses (attackability) as well as all of the squres, much like I do when I do a t actics puzzle, but don't do in a game, because in a game my thought processes' are muddled by misconceptions.
It is inadequately developed looking and reading the board skills, exacerabted by 'thinking' I understand positional concepts.
We are proceeding at an amazing pace.
We have also, badger_song, we have also been discussing openings, and Yaroslavl and Jaglavak have been helping me choose a repertoire to focus on.
Yaroslavl keeps reminding me, implicitly, that if I start to 'think' that I 'understand' something...I probably don't.
Yaroslavl's contribution reminds me of a quote I read somewhere. I don't know who said it, but it went something like this,"He who thinks he understand chess...understands nothing".
I think it is this spirit, not of undertanding, but instead of looking and reading realities on the board, that informs the learning group we have here.
I'm playing another game as white tomorrow night, in the Dan Heisman league. I'll post the game later tomorrow night, probably late.
then Saturday morning I'm playing White in another live game in the Dan Heisman league and then Saturday and Sunday I'm going to study tons of tactics, and I'm going to read a bit from my openings book recommended by Yaroslavl, which looks great and accessible, and I'm going to go over the annotations and notes by McHeath, Yaroslavl, Jaglavak, FromMutoYou to the two previous games, and aronchuck's notes on QGD.

I was showing your game to my Wife & Daughter last night as I am coaching them at the moment. We analysed it from a positional point of view rather than analyisng it move by move. They are starting to study openings & I wanted to show them what you can expect OTB when your opponent doesn't play by the rules!
The 1st 7 or 8 moves Black plays absolute rubbish but not to the point when there is an immediate crushing defeat. After that Black slowly plays himself back into the game. I was trying to show them that you have to be able to exploit bad play & weaknesses otherwise if your opponent is a very good calculator you may be in for a nasty surprise.
You did everything right with development & taking the centre but what was the plan with 7/- e5. I'm not saying it is the wrong move but had you analysed the weaknesses in Blacks position & the strengths in yours?
One of the things I heard over & over during my tournament days was the lament "I had him beat in the opening then it all went wrong"
Knowing how to exploit weaknesses is an art & takes experience. I'll show you an opening I had played against me once. There is a long story to it & it is an illegal move but I elected to play it to indulge a potential new club member. The point is what do you do when confronted by something you know is wrong but haven't seen before.
This is what I was faced with as Black, so how do you refute a move?? that breaks all the opening principles?
@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.
That explains it, thanks for the advice!
Here is the game, humbly analized by me. I tried to find the reasons behind the moves, what is being threatened, etc. I did not struggle to suggest lines for both sides, but it is the first time I analize a game (that is not mine) and this really gave me insight into how much is being done on a move by move basis. Before you ask, I didn't check this with an engine (since I was not going to suggest variations anyways). Comments and corrections are welcome!