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

Ok, umm. Maybe this.

First part is pretty geometry.

2nd part seems to just be pure calculation and isn't very satisfying to me. (And Nxd5 isn't even necessary, it seems black's pawns are falling in any case).

Honestly what I'd like is to take all the position from chess 960.

Have an engine throw out the positions that give white a clear advantage.

Have Aronian or some other top 960 guys throw out boring positions like bishops starting on a1 and h1 (he mentioned this specific case in an interview)

Then with what you have left, poll the top 100 players for which positions they think are interesting.

Then, finally, you start the year with, say, 5 or 10 positions. From these 5 or 10 a random one will be chosen to start a game. Players can still do prep, but not soul crushingly massive prep.

Then next year usher in a new set of 5 or 10.

I'd be on board with that.

It's weird how that works isn't it?

I think partly it's because in an endgame, mistakes are much more game changing. In the opening if I have a passive minor piece or lose a pawn, meh, maybe I got some tempi somewhere. In the endgame your bishop is a little passive? 1 tempi or pawn short? You're just dead. 100% dead haha.

Yeah, the enormous skill gap is definitely part of the problem. The correct evaluation and proper play from move 38 may have been painfully obvious to Tal way back on move 33.

If those ideas and patterns were part of my knowledge, maybe I'd appreciate Nxd5 even more.

As for pawn grubbing... no, that's not boring, it's great

A quote from Karpov that helps explain how I feel... especially the last part when he says "ruthless logic." A game typical posters would call aggressive, to me, is childish. True brutality is tying up an opponent, and chopping off their pawns one by one...

"Let us say that a game may be continued in two ways: one of them is a beautiful tactical blow that gives rise to variations that don't yield to precise calculations; the other is clear positional pressure that leads to an endgame with microscopic chances of victory. I would choose the latter without thinking twice. If the opponent offers keen play I don't object; but in such cases I get less satisfaction, even if I win, than from a game conducted according to all the rules of strategy with its ruthless logic."

Yeah, in hopes of being a better player, I finally decided to study things I didn't like. A few years ago I finally gave a shot at making a proper opening repertoire. I started looking at games involving very dynamic play, like initiative based sacrifices. I chose some sharper openings.

In the end part of it comes down to laziness. Ideally I really would play main line Najrodfs and such... but to do that with every opening would just take too much work and too many years to prepare. So I satisfy myself with playing things like .1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+ and just hoping to grind something out when the chance arises.

So, the way I look at things, I'm focused on the b3 knight and the c8 bishop. They're the least happy pieces. I want to keep c8 sad, and find something useful for b3 to do.

The best way I see to get the b3 knight into the game is Bxc6 with Na5. Some calcluation says it works out tactically.

Queenside pawn majority? Split pawns with knights lurking around? Seems like a good way to do things.

Oh you made it a puzzle.

I didn't see that in the end you're winning an exchange hah, nice.

Winning like that is fine, because I can wrap my head around it

I'm not really familiar with his games, but when I took up the QGD, I was getting plenty of positions where either I or my opponent had an IQP or the hanging pawns. Those can be rich positions mixing strategy and tactics.

That looks really familiar, but I don't remember enough of it that I can't be sure I've seen it before.

Hah, for a minute I forgot who the players were and I thought white was going to win, but I was wondering why the e pawn wasn't good enough to go for a win.

The structure on move 11 is just enormously bad for white.

Which I can brag about knowing, almost 150 years later

The c, d, e files stand out a lot to me also.

Usually in such a structure you can break with c3 or e3 (and usually you're playing black and it's c6 or e6 )

But when the d pawn is sort of... immune like that (and when your knight is blocking the f4 break) I think it's very bad news.

But yes, also the rook pawns... actually it's kind of amazing black reached such a structure on only move 11. I'd be happy to get this far on move 20 (of course their pieces aren't developed yet, but just making an observation).

LOL. "Enjoy playing them".

When this game ended, my first reaction was NOT "Wooo-Hooo!". That was my second reaction.

My first reaction was "Well, thank Christ THAT'S over!"

Play 1...e5, problem solved.

Very nice!  Thanks for posting!

The biggest counter point to Deidre skyes opinion is that it's his opponents fault for playing into the theory that blueemu knew. If your opponent plays into your hands there is nothing wrong

Nice game blueemu, though too complicated for me.

Very nice discussion by @Farm_Hand and @ghost_of_pushwood !

Wow, thrilling match!! Much more thrilling than any James Bond movie..........

Black survived all attacks and turned around the power quick and merciless. 

This adrenaline gets more intense when we improve in chess. I imagine how it should be for GMs in big tournaments! In my modest games against high rated opponents I experiment a little of this adrenaline. The adrenaline increases when I face 2000+ players and win: Stronger players give us pleasure and pain (50 Openings Variations - the Movie !!!).
I hope to improve my rating and play more games against high rated opponents. 2000+ is sufficient at the moment.
Thanks for sharing!

well done!