Gm's says that 2. c4 is the only Way to get an advantage.
Why (I think) castling early is a definite mistake
Sort:
mashanator wrote:
Seems to me like both of the players in this game has little knowledge of both opening principles and general 1. d4 theory.
Could you enlighten me then huh?
May 21, 2013
0
#4
or rather "why castling when your pieces are hanging and throwing away bishops for no reason" is a bad idea
dA_pIFSTER wrote:
or rather "why castling when your pieces are hanging and throwing away bishops for no reason" is a bad idea
Haha true true.
Also, why is it that beginners like myself are encouraged to focus on tactics instead of openings, then we get players like mashanator criticizing our lack of opening knowledge as a result? Ffs much.
May 21, 2013
0
#7
moving the queen twice, the first time into danger, and the second time blocking your bishop in.... try Bd2 next time if you want to stop NxN -> doubled pawns. It worked out here with a weak opponent, your queen was perfect to deal with blacks strange strategy of "mess up the pawns, then castle behind them".
good job at not taking the knight with pawn and instead keeping your eyes on the prize.
What exactly was the plan that began with 8Ne4, and what would your next move have been if he had played something like a6?
Here is my constructive criticism:
Having said that it was a nice game (you executed that attack very well)!
Why do you think players a good deal stronger than you will ever be, have been castling early for a thousand years?
Of course pieces were hanging left and right, but on move 11 you should have taken the bishop with one of your knights. Taking with the bishop threatens the queens and you're winning anyway, but taking with a knight threatens unstoppable mate on h7 (see for youself that black has no good defence).
Moral of the story: when you see a good move, look for a better one.
Moral of the story: Don't ever listen to low rated players justifying their statement with one of their own games.
Nice troll on the title. It's like having a title saying "Why running is dangerous for your health", and then in the article saying "or rather, why running is dangerous if you are standing on a narrow ledge high on a rock precipice".
Or why running is dangerous while stabbing yourself with a knife.
Rasparovov wrote:
Or why running is dangerous while stabbing yourself with a knife.
You just made pepsi shoot out of my nose, good swedish sir. Where in Stockholm do I send the bill to?
So what do you think? Did I control the king side well? Did I obey opening principles? And what, if any, were my mistakes/blunders?