What is this??? It must be one of the WEAKEST games I ever saw!!! Both pawn structures are a TOTAL MESS!!!
Disreputable Sicilian Defence: Alapin Variation
Sort:
Hi! First of all, thanks for seeing my game. If you read or come across what Nimzowitsch called pawn chain, this is of one example and the topic of John Watson in his book Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy ( Advances since Nimzowitsch ) page 41. And I am one of the many what Philidor's saying " pawn is the soul of a chess ".
For me, I think this is one of my finest game I ever played. As you can see in my game, the pawns who are mostly the one who done most of the attack or the damage. In the end game, the pawn in d2 will promote if white rook will not capture if after black rook to 50. ...c1.
I hope I enlighten you with my reason.
Stay safe.
Please, put the game on an engine and see what it says about your pawn moves! You open up diagonals with no purpose, you weaken squares, etc.
Hi. Thanks again for precious comment. Let me answer my position by qouting what been said by John Watson on his book "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy Advances since Nimzowitsch ".
Part 2 of this book will begin its examination of
modern chess with a whole chapter emphasizing its 'rule-independent' nature. But is modern
chess therefore somehow less 'principled' than
that of older times? There are several ways of
answering this question. The first, least disturbing, answer was expressed by Richard Reti in
his magnificent classic Modem Ideas in Chess,
when he was describing the modern style:
"What is really a rule of chess? Surely not a
rule arrived at with mathematical precision, but
rather an attempt to formulate a method of winning in a given position or of reaching an ultimate object, and to apply that method to similar
positions. As, however, no two positions are
quite alike, the so-called rule, if applied to an
apparently similar position, may possibly be
wrong, or at least as regards that particular position, there may exist a more suitable or effectual method of play. It is the aim of the modem
school not to treat every position according to
one general law, but according to the principle
inherent in the position. An acquaintance with
other positions and the rules applicable to the
treatment thereof is of great use for the purpose
of analysing and obtaining a grasp of the particular position under consideration ... the source
of the greatest errors is to be found in those
moves that are made merely according to rule
and not based on the individual plan or thought
of the player." [italics mine]
This eloquent exposition contains the relatively benign notion that in chess, general rules
will never have universal application, and the
rather more daring one that each position has a
principle inherent in it. That insight is closely
related to another fundamental tendency of
modern chess: the increasing reliance on concrete analysis. That phrase ( 'concrete analysis') has been a favourite of a whole series of
leading players and theoreticians from what
was often called 'The Soviet School of Chess'.
Whether they formed such a 'school' or not can
be argued, and of course, they claimed a variety
of philosophic tenets. But the unifying claim
which most clearly distinguishes the post-war
generation of dominant players was the rejection of dogma and primacy of concrete analysis
over abstract evaluation. Or, stated slightly differently, the replacement of general rules by an
emphasis on the characteristics and consequences of the position at hand. In this respect,
it is interesting to consider the recent books of
super-trainer GM Mark Dvoretsky, which are
making a huge impression on the European and
American chess worlds. Among the many ideas
and practical techniques he presents in his
books, a powerful and consistent theme (and
interestingly, the one singled out for praise by
Kasparov) is the value of 'the analytic approach', which assigns paramount value to actual analysis. It would be hard to think of a
modern world-class player who does not take
this approach.
There is another way to answer the question
'Is modern chess less principled?' . A more radical response is to say that there are, indeed, a
great number of new principles and even 'rules'
implicit in modern play. But these principles
and rules have not been explicitly stated; or in a
very few cases, they have been stated, but not in
a way that has infiltrated the conscious thinking
of contemporary players. The reasons for this
12 SECRETS OF MODERN CHESS STRATEGY
lack of exposition are quite simple: the subtlety
and complexity of such new principles would
tend to require pages of painstakingly qualified
prose for them to be adequately described, and
it is both more natural and efficient for players
to simply internalize this type of 'rule' during
the over-the-board solution of hundreds of relevant positions. In fact, it may be said of any
chess rule that the concrete experience of an individual player gives him a more accurate and
subtle understanding of its application than any
conceivable verbal statement could.
Regardless of which of these two apparently opposing models we prefer, the days of
easily expressible general guidelines are over.
Thus, there is very little possibility that players
or researchers will ever undertake to extend the
project begun by Steinitz, Tarrasch, and Nimzowitsch, that is, the codification of chess principles on a large scale. Ironically, although
chess students are always warned to see the big
picture rather than get lost in a morass of variations, the reality is that the modern player derives his perspective and intuition from the
detailed analysis of great numbers of positions.
When you combine this fact with the growing
irrelevance of so many of the classical rules, it
is hardly surprising that writers are reluctant
even to address the subject of modern principles, preferring to give examples of modern
play which they deem typical.
I hope I answer you but if you have more question or comment, please feel free to do so and I will try to answer it.
Stay safe.
Please, you are rated about 1200 (not even a weak 1600), and you "quote" books and players, when you don't understand basic pawn structures.
Hi! Thanks again for your comments. Please feel free to see my games on Chessmaster 10th Edition and Chessmaster Grandmaster Edition here by clicking My Topics and last or 7th page. There I will prove to you that my rating here in Chess.com do not reflect my actual strenght. It is just a rating and I read on other article ( i cannot remember what it was ) just that you have a low rating means you cannot play a good game.
I hope you try to see my games and enlighten you with my reason.
Stay safe.
U tried to turn an alapin into a wing gambit (which doesnt work as c3 is now attacked).
Hi! Thanks for seeing my game. First of all, I do not know much of every opening in chess until I tried what Fred Reinfeld on his book ": Beginners Guide in Winning Chess" page 163. There, he said Philidor Defence 2. ...d6 gives Black a very cramped position and is therefore not recommended. I tried to use it and experiment with it and fiancheto both my bishop and put my knight on d7 after I move my pawn in a6 and d6. On this Opening, all opening used by my opponent almost adhere of this my kind Opening. I almost win 46% on my games which for me is not bad and encountered almost every variation of it for using it almost over a year and learned a little about any opening used by my opponent.
I don't know much of wing gambit but I expose to you what Opening I used in almost of my games.
If you have any question or comment, please feel free to do so and I will try to answer it.
Stay safe.
Here's a pro tip: People are not going to read extremely long posts like yours. Try to keep it shorter and more focused. No one wants to read long blocks of quoted material
Hi! Thanks for seeing my game and on my quoted answer. I'm not good at answering or explaining in English word or sentence that's why I used quoted word, sentence or paragraph. Next time, I will to make it shorter if is needed. But then, I will not promised you to do it again. This is only the first time I used such a long quoted paragraph if I remembered it right.
Thanks for your pro tip.
Stay safe.
Jul 26, 2022
0
#12
As per my understanding, OP is trying to discredit the alapin? First, it wasn't an alapin it turned into a very dubious alapin-ish blunderfest. Also, try seeing some games of GM Vajda Levente and you will see how strong and fatal the alapin is when played correctly. Your opponents around 1200 clearly do not know how to play the alapin.
[Event "BULGARIA vs FRIENDS CHESS CLUB - Board 54"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2022.05.28"]
[Round "?"]
[White "caballoverde"]
[Black "johnpaul888"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B22"]
[WhiteElo "1109"]
[BlackElo "1242"]
[TimeControl "1/259200"]
[EndDate "2022.07.22"]
[Termination "johnpaul888 won by resignation"]
1. e4 c5 2. c3 a6 3. b4 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. f3 h6 6. g4 d6 7. a3 Nd7 8. d3 Qc7 9.
Nh3 e5 10. g5 g6 11. Qe2 Bg7 12. Be3 f6 13. Bg2 hxg5 14. Nd2 d5 15. Nb3 d4 16.
Bd2 b5 17. O-O c4 18. dxc4 bxc4 19. Na5 d3 20. Qf2 Bc8 21. Kh1 Nb8 22. Rfb1 Bxh3
23. Qg3 Bxg2+ 24. Qxg2 Nc6 25. Qg4 Nce7 26. b5 axb5 27. Rb2 Rxa5 28. Rab1 Qc6
29. a4 Rh4 30. Qg3 Nh6 31. Rxb5 Rxa4 32. Bxg5 fxg5 33. Rb8+ Kf7 34. Qxg5 Bf6 35.
Qg3 Ra2 36. Kg1 Qc5+ 37. Kh1 g5 38. Rf1 Rf4 39. h3 Re2 40. Rbb1 d2 41. Rbd1 Qe3
42. h4 gxh4 43. Qh3 Re1 44. Qg2 Rxd1 45. Rxd1 Qe1+ 46. Qg1 Qxg1+ 47. Rxg1 Rxf3
48. Rd1 Bg5 49. Kg2 Rxc3 0-1
Game Review
67.5
Accuracy
0-1
76.6
Accuracy
0
Brilliant
0
0
Great Move
1
10
Best Move
14
15
Excellent
14
5
Good
7
2
Book
1
11
Inaccuracy
9
5
Mistake
3
1
Blunder
0
0
Missed Win
0
coach
Intense — Nice win. You were never in trouble.
Show Best Moves
1.
e4
c5
2.
c3
a6
Sicilian Defense: Alapin Variation
3.
b4
b6
4.
g3
Bb7
5.
f3
h6
6.
g4
d6
7.
a3
Nd7
8.
d3
Qc7
9.
Nh3
e5
10.
g5
g6
11.
Qe2
Bg7
12.
Be3
f6
13.
Bg2
hxg5
14.
Nd2
d5
15.
Nb3
d4
16.
Bd2
b5
17.
O-O
c4
18.
dxc4
bxc4
19.
Na5
d3
20.
Qf2
Bc8
21.
Kh1
Nb8
22.
Rfb1
Bxh3
23.
Qg3
Bxg2+
24.
Qxg2
Nc6
25.
Qg4
Nce7
26.
b5
axb5
27.
Rb2
Rxa5
28.
Rab1
Qc6
29.
a4
Rh4
30.
Qg3
Nh6
31.
Rxb5
Rxa4
32.
Bxg5
fxg5
33.
Rb8+
Kf7
34.
Qxg5
Bf6
35.
Qg3
Ra2
36.
Kg1
Qc5+
37.
Kh1
g5
38.
Rf1
Rf4
39.
h3
Re2
40.
Rbb1
d2
41.
Rbd1
Qe3
42.
h4
gxh4
43.
Qh3
Re1
44.
Qg2
Rxd1
45.
Rxd1
Qe1+
46.
Qg1
Qxg1+
47.
Rxg1
Rxf3
48.
Rd1
Bg5
49.
Kg2
Rxc3
Adjusted Accuracy After Retries
76.7
+0
https://www.chess.com/game/daily/405455851
<iframe id="9369411" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" style="width:100%;border:none;" src="//www.chess.com/emboard?id=9369411"></iframe><script>window.addEventListener("message",e=>{e['data']&&"9369411"===e['data']['id']&&document.getElementById(`${e['data']['id']}`)&&(document.getElementById(`${e['data']['id']}`).style.height=`${e['data']['frameHeight']+30}px`)});</script>