A Heroic Defense in the Sicilian Najdorf - Kids, don't try this at home!

blueemu

I'm playing top board for my club team in a rated match, The Canadian Team vs Team Malaysia.

I will allow the game to speak for itself. I'm Black.

https://www.chess.com/daily/game/200865884

 

And that's how I earned the respect of the Yardies!

 

cyboo
I like Malaysia. Good job anyway!
Chessko18

Nice game! It's worthy spend some time analyzing positions considered discredited and try understand why they receive that evaluation.

ghost_of_pushwood

 Zowie!  Okay, I think I finally got all that figured out. happy.png

MainframeSupertasker

Wow! thrilling!

 

AnthonyAtanasov
YoungGirlNiceRack wrote:
blueemu wrote:

I'm playing top board for my club team in a rated match, The Canadian Team vs Team Malaysia.

I will allow the game to speak for itself. I'm Black.

https://www.chess.com/daily/game/200865884

 

And that's how I earned the respect of the Yardies!

I wonder what that did to my rating?

 

+108 points! Ka-Ching!

1 c5 was a serious mistake. You only allow your queen to move 4 squares.  Better is e6 or e5, allowing your queen, king and kings bishop to move a whole lot.

ignore @younggirlnicerack btw, troll

verylate

nice game. 

Rat1960

8. ... b4 is book and off the e-pawn.
9. ... I go with castling and expect Nf6 to become Nf8
14. ... BxBe3 works for me.
17. Bxf7+ ?! everybody knows black does not need pawns around the king in the Najdorf.
18. ... What about Qd7 and losing rook and h-pawn for the knight.
I guess ... Ne5 is stronger but it gives up the off chance of a smothered mate (pawns get in the way)
21. Rae1 ?! Cool white wants to lose.
21. ... Bxg2+ hard to resist so you have to chant bishop pair.
22. ... Bd4 yeah Qh8# would have hurt.

23. ... BxNc3 I would have thought and game over.
24. ... I thought about Qe5 but Qh4 is better than tricks.

28. IM Sznapik vs Ljangov, wow!
+++
23. ... BxNc3 24. RxRf7+ QxRf7 25. QxQf7+ KxQf7 26. bxBc3 Rd2 27. Rg1 Rxc2 28. a3 Rxc3

DeirdreSkye

So you played 27 moves theory and 5 moves on your own!

Well done man! Huge accomplishment!

KeSetoKaiba

I'd like to say: 

1) Congratulations on a nice game blueemu - and thanks for showing it in annotated detail for us. 

2) What matches the adventure in this game? ... A James Bond reference to match of course! 

3) I feel like I am watching history here. Your 28...Kc5!! is a nice improvement - and yes I think it deserves a double exclaim happy.png

blueemu
DeirdreSkye wrote:

So you played 27 moves theory and 5 moves on your own!

Well done man! Huge accomplishment!

Refuting established theory in this line? Yeah, I felt like I'd accomplished something.

Thanks for the kind remarks, peeps.

DeirdreSkye
blueemu wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:

So you played 27 moves theory and 5 moves on your own!

Well done man! Huge accomplishment!

Refuting established theory in this line? Yeah, I felt like I'd accomplished something.

Thanks for the kind remarks, peeps.

      I have bad news for you. Established theory is refuted in real tournaments. Unless you think theoreticians and GMs are following your on line games(and I won't be surprised if you do).

But one thing I don't understand. You analysed the game like you were actually playing it when the only thing you  did was repeating moves someone else played. None of the decisions was yours so comments like "Counter-attack! My King will see to his own defense."  rather show you try to show off or you are delusional. Next time maybe follow a Kasparov's game , present it as yours , add some fancy comments in the moves like you played them,  play 5 different moves and be proud about it. 

      

blueemu
DeirdreSkye wrote:

      I have bad news for you. Established theory is refuted in real tournaments. Unless you think theoreticians and GMs are following your on line games(and I won't be surprised if you do).

But one thing I don't understand. You analysed the game like you were actually playing it when the only thing you  did was repeating moves someone else played. None of the decisions was yours so comments like "Counter-attack! My King will see to his own defense."  rather show you try to show off or you are delusional. Next time maybe follow a Kasparov's game , present it as yours , add some fancy comments in the moves like you played them,  play 5 different moves and be proud about it. 

      

To take your points in order:

If you define "established theory" as only "only in real tournaments", then your remarks are irrefutable. Circular, but irrefutable.

I'll put it this way:

The line that I played for Black (after Bxe3+) has been tried in Master games, always with bad results for Black. In the free online 365-chess database, there is not a single win for Black in that line. Not one... so no, I wasn't just parroting someone else's game. The IM Sznapik game that I quoted was NOT a win for Black... quite the contrary, Black somehow salvaged a draw out of a clearly lost ending.

The line that I played was discredited decades ago, but my improvement completely reverses the picture. Now that the game is over, get your Stockfish and follow the Sznapik game out to White's move 28, then play my new move 28. ... Kc5 (which of course is not in the database) and evaluate the position.

Stockfish at depth 22 gives me over +1000 centipawns. More than a Queen. The idea is new, it is sound, and it is mine, not a move copied from a Master game. Your charge of plagiarism is without foundation. And since I'm the first person to play this and win, that gives me a certain measure of proprietary interest in moves leading up to the winning position. So don't expect me to change my style of annotation.

Rat1960

In this line the move 9. Qf3 is what almost everybody plays over 9. f4. Well about 5 to 1 anyway

https://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=40&n=5279253&ms=e4.c5.Nf3.d6.d4.cxd4.Nxd4.Nf6.Nc3.a6.Bc4.e6.Bb3.b5.O-O.Be7.f4.Bb7.e5.dxe5.fxe5.Bc5.Be3.Nc6.exf6.Bxd4.fxg7.Bxe3.Kh1.Rg8.Bxe6.Rxg7.Bxf7.Rxf7.Qh5.Ne5.Qxe5.Qe7.Qh5

Rat1960

@blueemu
23. ... BxNc3 24. RxRf7+ QxRf7 25. QxQf7+ KxQf7 26. bxBc3 Rd2 27. Rg1 Rxc2 28. a3 Rxc3 
which I have added to:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1155089

DeirdreSkye
blueemu wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:

      I have bad news for you. Established theory is refuted in real tournaments. Unless you think theoreticians and GMs are following your on line games(and I won't be surprised if you do).

But one thing I don't understand. You analysed the game like you were actually playing it when the only thing you  did was repeating moves someone else played. None of the decisions was yours so comments like "Counter-attack! My King will see to his own defense."  rather show you try to show off or you are delusional. Next time maybe follow a Kasparov's game , present it as yours , add some fancy comments in the moves like you played them,  play 5 different moves and be proud about it. 

      

To take your points in order:

If you define "established theory" as only "only in real tournaments", then your remarks are irrefutable. Circular, but irrefutable.

I'll put it this way:

The line that I played for Black (after Bxe3+) has been tried in Master games, always with bad results for Black. In the free online 365-chess database, there is not a single win for Black in that line. Not one... so no, I wasn't just parroting someone else's game. The IM Sznapik game that I quoted was NOT a win for Black... quite the contrary, Black somehow salvaged a draw out of a clearly lost ending.

The line that I played was discredited decades ago, but my improvement completely reverses the picture. Now that the game is over, get your Stockfish and follow the Sznapik game out to White's move 28, then play my new move 28. ... Kc5 (which of course is not in the database) and evaluate the position.

Stockfish at depth 22 gives me over +1000 centipawns. More than a Queen. The idea is new, it is sound, and it is mine, not a move copied from a Master game. Your charge of plagiarism is without foundation. And since I'm the first person to play this and win, that gives me a certain measure of proprietary interest in moves leading up to the winning position. So don't expect me to change my style of annotation.

      Can you explain me what's the point on commenting  moves that someone else played and you just immitated?

    Why didn't you just say on move 28 " till now it's theory but this move is mine" or something like that? No one would argue with your ability to improve over theory but all the comments before that move rather verify that you are just a delusional.

   By the way you say various doubtful and very suspicious things during the game:

14. fxg7... and it was probably at this point that the game started going off the rails for both players, since I KNEW that Rg8 was the 'correct' move; but I decided instead to play a discredited line, one in which (if the 365-chess data base can be trusted) Black has NEVER won a game.

   Really? Black hasn't won even a game?

null

As everybody can see 14...Bxe3+ is the  move preferred(24 times played out of 27 , 8 out of 10 players over 2300) and not 14...Rg8 as you claim and Black has won half(12) of the 24 games. Your comment clearly shows you were following moves you didn't understand. You couldn't  even evaluate the position on your own and you let yourself be fooled by a database. You announce in pompous style that you know 14...Rg8 is the best move when you actually have no idea what you are talking about and these were  moves you probably saw for the first time in your life!

       Well done for 28...Kc5 , great move indeed. Maybe theory will write your name with gold letters as the one that reformed a lost line in Najdorf  but all the rest was an unecessary ridiculous "circus" that can hardly fool anyone.

 

 

blueemu
DeirdreSkye wrote:

Can you explain me what's the point on commenting  moves that someone else played and you just immitated?

Of course! Now I understand! That's why annotated collections of games never give any comments on any of the moves until the players have reached move 30 or so, and leave the book! It's because if they explained the purpose of the moves, DierdreSkye would accuse them first of plagiarism, then of being delusional! Now it makes sense!

You used to be more than just another Troll, DierdreSkye. Only a few months ago you were a useful contributor to the forum, and your posts were worth reading. Not sure what's changed in your life or in your head... and I suppose it's not my place to speculate.

Regarding the database confusion... yes, my bad. Instead of marking move 14 as the inflection-point, I should have marked move 17 (where, just as I claimed, "Black has never won a recorded game" until now). But how you twist my unfamiliarity with the database into your claim that I'm just an ignorant database monkey, I will never understand. You seem to be claiming exactly the opposite of what the evidence indicates.

And how I refuted Master praxis in a line that "I was just following moves I couldn't understand, in a position that I couldn't evaluate"... that's anybody's guess.

Would you like to show us some of your own contributions to Chess?... aside from your slander, insults, character assassination and trolling, of course, which don't really count as a contribution IMO.

 

DeirdreSkye
blueemu wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:

Can you explain me what's the point on commenting  moves that someone else played and you just immitated?

Of course! Now I understand! That's why annotated collections of games never give any comments on any of the moves until the players have reached move 30 or so, and leave the book! It's because if they explained the purpose of the moves, DierdreSkye would accuse them first of plagiarism, then of being delusional! Now it makes sense!

You used to be more than just another Troll, DierdreSkye. Only a few months ago you were a useful contributor to the forum, and your posts were worth reading. Not sure what's changed in your life or in your head... and I suppose it's not my place to speculate.

Regarding the database confusion... yes, my bad. Instead of marking move 14 as the inflection-point, I should have marked move 17 (where, just as I claimed, "Black has never won a recorded game" until now). But how you twist my unfamiliarity with the database into your claim that I'm just an ignorant database monkey, I will never understand. You seem to be claiming exactly the opposite of what the evidence indicates.

And how I refuted Master praxis in a line that "I was just following moves I couldn't understand, in a position that I couldn't evaluate"... that's anybody's guess.

Would you like to show us some of your own contributions to Chess?... aside from your slander, insults, character assassination and trolling, of course, which don't really count as a contribution IMO.

 

     

       But you explained nothing. In your coments you say that 14...Rg8 is the best move and you claim you know that and there is no explanation at all why the natural 14...Bxe3+ is not. Additionally there is obviouly total absence of thinking. I only needed  30 seconds looking on the position before I realise that something is terribly wrong with your comment and start looking.You didn't do even that. You just blindly followed the moves of a database. How else can you explain that I saw it in 30 seconds and you didn't? This was an important theoretical crossroad of this line. The line is viable because the move you rejected as wrong is the correct one.

     What does that tell us about your understanding of the position and the line? If someone else did that , what would you think? That he understands the position or that he has no idea what he is talking about? Answer that to yourself , I have all the answers I need. 

   

AnthonyAtanasov

Okay, I've blocked @deirdreskye grin.png

 

...The 2nd google definition of a troll is:

 

"a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post."

 

So yeah. surprise.png

Rat1960

It does say DAILY game. That to me implies a very different beastie. It implies if you have out researched and then innovate it is actually *all* yours.