Interesting game, and a very forceful finish!
One question: In your note on 3...c6, I assume you meant "prevent 4. Nd5 Qd6"? Unless I'm misunderstanding...
nice small game with greek gift
Sort:
Qd6, you are right krt.
RainbowRising, you are too kind but my rating has suddenly taken a massive hike. A week or two ago I dropped from the 1200s into the 1100s and since then, somehow, have managed to enter my highest in the 1300s quite comfortably now. Needless to say, i am very happy with my rating now . I think the turning point was when I stopped becoming so obsessed with my rating and really started to enjoy playing again, which, ironically, was responsible for a rise in my rating.
I don't know why 8. Nde2 was given a '!'. I though 8. Nb5 threatening Nc7+ and Nd6+ would have been good.
From the sac on, you've got it right, well done...
A little criticism, hopefully constructive --
Your opponent dithered in the opening playing weak attacks that neglected coordinated development... I think you should have been more aggressive about increasing your development lead and turning it into an attack! You eventually had a nice lead in development that led to an attack, but it wasn't so much from your best efforts as it was from your opponent's repeated failings.
I understand why you didn't want doubled-pawns on the queenside -- but they aren't as bad as you think! You've learned that pawn structure is important. Great. Pawn-structure is important, but many many players early in their chess career slowly come to over-emphasize pawn structure. I know, because I did. It can be a real block in your progress. Learn that accepting screwed up pawns is just like gambitting a pawn, you trade a static weakness (material, structure) for a dynamic strength -- freedom of movement, tempo, initiative. Learning players often prefer static advantages, because they lack confidence in their ability to really use a dynamic advantage to its full worth... and that's probably true and smart in the short term -- but in the long term, progress is made by learning to use dynamic advantages. Don't automatically flinch and defend when your pawn structure is threatened. Really look at the situation and consider -- What do you lose -- what can you gain? Is there some advantage to be had.
This kind of thinking is what motivates Loomis to offer Nb5 over Nde2... you give Nde2 an exclamation point because it lets you keep your pawns tidy, certainly there are times when that is the right thing, but in this case neither Loomis nor I think that is as important as you think, we prefer initiative and attack to static pawn sturcture.
Look for attacking moves -- 13.exd5?! well, it does open the e-file, but he can 0-0 his K away... bolder and stronger IMO was 13.Qxd5... you threaten Qxa8, and Qxd7 (if he moves his N) ... and after Bc4 you'll threaten Qxf7 as well.
When you have an advantage in development, try to leverage it into an attack before your opponent can catch up.
I could blab on, but I've already taken up enough space.
Thank you both, I'll reply in full later, got s--- to do, but thanks for the help, i do aree with your different suggestions for moves 8 and 13.
JG27Pyth wrote:
From the sac on, you've got it right, well done...
A little criticism, hopefully constructive --
Your opponent dithered in the opening playing weak attacks that neglected coordinated development... I think you should have been more aggressive about increasing your development lead and turning it into an attack! You eventually had a nice lead in development that led to an attack, but it wasn't so much from your best efforts as it was from your opponent's repeated failings.
I understand why you didn't want doubled-pawns on the queenside -- but they aren't as bad as you think! You've learned that pawn structure is important. Great. Pawn-structure is important, but many many players early in their chess career slowly come to over-emphasize pawn structure. I know, because I did. It can be a real block in your progress. Learn that accepting screwed up pawns is just like gambitting a pawn, you trade a static weakness (material, structure) for a dynamic strength -- freedom of movement, tempo, initiative. Learning players often prefer static advantages, because they lack confidence in their ability to really use a dynamic advantage to its full worth... and that's probably true and smart in the short term -- but in the long term, progress is made by learning to use dynamic advantages. Don't automatically flinch and defend when your pawn structure is threatened. Really look at the situation and consider -- What do you lose -- what can you gain? Is there some advantage to be had.
This kind of thinking is what motivates Loomis to offer Nb5 over Nde2... you give Nde2 an exclamation point because it lets you keep your pawns tidy, certainly there are times when that is the right thing, but in this case neither Loomis nor I think that is as important as you think, we prefer initiative and attack to static pawn sturcture.
Look for attacking moves -- 13.exd5?! well, it does open the e-file, but he can 0-0 his K away... bolder and stronger IMO was 13.Qxd5... you threaten Qxa8, and Qxd7 (if he moves his N) ... and after Bc4 you'll threaten Qxf7 as well.
When you have an advantage in development, try to leverage it into an attack before your opponent can catch up.
I could blab on, but I've already taken up enough space.
coming back to this thread, I realise how much this comment has developed my chess playing abilities. thank you.
tell me what you think. Proud of this game, and analysing it for my own benefit;