A Satisfying Win

Here’s a really nice game of mine with lots of tips and themes to remember.

In typical Torre Attack style I succeeded in quickly busting open his K-Side in a well known favourable variation after patient preparation and then converting my extra material with rock-solid positional style.

I haven’t yet analyzed the game; most of my comments are straight from my thoughts during the game:

In summary here are some simple lessons to learn from this game:

1. Be prepared for whatever unorthodox/unpopular openings your opponent may throw at you.

2. Very rarely try to play on the same same side of the board your opponent is! It will only create more weaknesses. Instead try to deflect the action to another area of the board.

3. Always play with a plan while taking into consideration what your opponent's plans are at the same time. This will allow you to find truely the best squares for your pieces, not just the ones which look the best/are the most advanced up the board.

4. Almost always when you have a winning advantage, the most important low-risk strategy to aim for is to take away all of your opponent's possible resources for possible counter-play. And liquidate the position by simplifying the material.

Thanks for reading!

ian

Interesting game, and interesting notes... not sure I agree with all of them, but good stuff.

A strategic point that I'm just starting to get a grip on is when to close pawns vs. when to maintain tension or open files. Your opponent's c4 was a mistake as you said, but I find it's an easy mistake to make... it looks like it's gaining space, and I suppose it is... but at the cost of shutting down activity in the very spot where Black needs activity.

I thought your "it's just technique" ending was great. There were lots of ways to flub it and muck around for another 30 moves, but you made it look very easy. If your opponent had spotted your promotion tactic he might instead have tested you a bit longer with 46...Bg4

Your summary point 4 has been very much on my mind lately... I recently violated it and nearly got very badly burned (by a player rated 400 pts below me). It's funny -- A Kasparov game inspired me to break open a position that I otherwise had a choke hold on, then the next day I was reading a Seirwan instructional book and it made exactly the point you've made: Risk taking is not for when your winning! Just take away your opponent's counterplay and enjoy suffocating him.

Kasparov games should carry a little warning label, "Kid's, don't try this at home."

thanks for the game and the extensive annotations... I do the same with my games, and am occassionally disappointed by the limited amount of response they generate.

Thanks for your reply!

Absolutely I violate rule 4 all the time aswell! I blew my 8th most recent game through choosing the most aesthetically pleasing yet more complex move from which I then slipped up, which allowed him to draw via a perpetual..

Thanks for saying that. I thought 46. Be8 would have been the most testing, but I had Nf5+! prepared for that.. Basically at move 46 it was a full board zugzwang!

Please tell me what you don't agree with, I'm happy to learn.

thanks for sharing!

Really interesting game and possibly sparked my interest in looking into the Torre Attack. You truly have a gift for explaining complex ideas and moves in a very straightforward and easy to understand manner.

this post was article worthy

 Atomichicken: I thought 46. Be8 would have been the most testing, but I had Nf5+! Doh -- you're right, my suggested 46 just blunders away his b pawn... you're right, he's in a world of pain...

Thanks everyone! Please check out some of my other content as well.

Nice one! well-played atomicchicken!

I believe that your note #4 is not completely right. For example when we're talking about just aesthitically better moves then it's completely right, but you know when we're talking about the quality of the move made in my opinion we should choose the most promising variation and not the easiest one, because sometimes the easier one won't be there...

Thanks!

Yes, of course but I don't think you're understanding quite what I mean. I said to always try and AIM for the simplest winning strategy. Of course if it isn't there then we shouldn't just play the safe option if it won't win..

JG27Pyth Can you tell me what notes you disagreed with please?

Okay, you want quibbling? I got quibbles...

Quibble the first:

Disagree? I never said I disagreed with anything... I said: "I'm not sure I agree" -- a tentative and less combative stance than outright disagreement. I am unconvinced.  It's like the difference between "?!" and "?"

Quibble the second --

4...h6?!  I think the dubious mark ?! is itself dubious: ergo: (4h6?!)?!

Quibble the third

it's not a quibble... but the whole analysis of Ne4 for Black is fairly deep and would require quite a lot of thought on my part to form an opinion of, so I'm SURE, that I don't know if I agree with it... of course, if I actually delve into it I suppose I'm likely to agree -- you seem like you know your stuff -- but I haven't delved into it yet. ;)

Quibble the fourth --

I have no fourth quibble. I like your note to his 16...g6? move. One doesn't generally give question marks to moves that don't result in immediate negative consequences... but I have to agree his g6 and his N manuvering are really bad. He's trying to be Mr. Fancy Pants positional manuver guy... (I sympathize having a tendency toward that sort of thing myself) and it isn't working!

Quibble the fifth --

Since I had no fourth quibble, technically this is my fourth quibble, rendering my I have no fourth quibble statement itself quibblable (a spelling which can be quibbled, I believe) However I have no fourth quibble masquerading as a fifth quibble, either... so the point is moot, and all previous quibbles stand, unquibbled.

Quibble F

"logically bringing all my pieces to their best squares before starting my assault on his King's position"

I see nothing logical about this -- nor am I convinced your pieces are on their best squares. I'm not sure what the best squares are... or what that means... Aagaard talks about best squares in his "Excelling at Positional Chess" and it has me confused there, too.

(g4 and rxh5 are just lovely. )

Mistaken quibble -- I thought I disagreed with: Forced, if 24. Nxh5?? 25. Qxh5 Kg7 26. Qh6+ Kg8 27. Bxg6! Fxg6 (again forced or else mate next move) 28. Qxg6+ Kh8 29. Rf3 with checkmate coming on the h-file..

Specifically I thought 25...Kg7 was a defensive inaccuracy that gave you an extra tempo and that 25...Kg8 was more accurate. Turns out it's six of one, half dozen of the other.

That's it... I'm out of quibbles... a really well played game on your part, atomic chicken.

skeuophylakion

lol Point taken.

Thanks but I think articles should have some sort of theme to them..