Short, Strange, Tactical game !

This was  a recent 10 min blitz game, where I played as black, and though my opponent's opening was strange, so too was my response!

In what has the feel of a 'queenside'  Alkehine Defence, my 3 first moves are knight moves, but when the pawn formations take hold, an aggressive barrage of tactical positions and a messy, battle-ridden board made for an exciting short game, ending in a striking tactical blow:

7. g3. This is just the first of many winning moves white missed, in addition to his many losing blunders.

White had lots of winning opportunities here, and just blundered away his lead at the end. Most notably 15. c5??, losing massive amounts of material, and 16. Kf1??? walking into a mate in two after 16. ... Qxf2+ 17. Qxf2 Rxf2#. 15. Be4 is much better, but even after 15. c5?? Nxd3!, white is not totally lost after 16. Qxd3 Qxf2+ 17. Kd1 Qxg1+ 18. Kc2 Qxg3 19. Qe4. He is down two pawns and his king is somewhat exposed with his queenside very cramped, but black's light bishop is completely useless as is his queenside rook, and white has a dangerous pawn on h5 (in particular, dangerous maneuvers like Rg4 followed by h6 or Bh6). I would be interested in seeing a game from this position, although black still looks much better.

Well I am the first to admit that a 10 min blitz game will have several innacuracies.

This game was highly... experimental, to say the least.

That was in fact the idea behind the post, to showcase this 'experiment' which, though riddled with flaws, has many examples of good tactical threats and combinations which may be helpful for future battles.

Your analysis is much appreciated, and for more serious, longer games, I would take those more cautious routes. However, I have noticed that several people have a very rigid understanding about what is a 'winning' move and when material trumps position and such. A good example being that the great majority feel that sacrificing on the exchange is losing. Very frequently, this is not the case, as the innactive rook vs the active bishop, plus their similar range of squares accessed, can be very much on par, or often, in shorter games where the rook is not yet developed anyways, it is the party losing the bishop who looses more!

I am continuing to explore such situations and both tactical and longer-term positional strategies, with particular focus on material imbalances (especially when playing as black!) and starting to notice some surprising (in that they are not necessarily intuitive like the exchange sacrifice) trends...

That's why I try something crazy like this once in a while, for fun, yes, but for learning purposes mostly, sound or not sound.

Afterall, we learn from every game...

Well, the exchange sacrifice is only losing if the game reaches an endgame (or even late middlegame). In the early to middlegame, the active bishop is more powerful.

But overall I did enjoy the game. I just saw some missed lines (come on, it was mate in two!) and felt the need to comment.

this opening commonly transposes to ruy lopez after E4 Nc6 Nf3 E5 BB5 but does not have to if white plays d4  the position can get very messy

This is called the "Nimzowitsch Defence" - it has lots of opportunities for a dedicated player!

Tarius, your written notes are very entertaining, and the game was also.

Your use of !'s and ?'s could use some rethinking. As pointed out above 16. ... Bxg3 was a mistake, deserving a ? and not two !'s. A move getting !! should be a mind blower, something difficult to see coming, not just pinning a queen left exposed on an open diagonal. And they should be forward-looking. For example, 6. ... Nh4 should have been ?! (dubious, if not an outright ?) not !? (interesting) since the knight is put in a position with no escape. And while you considered 8. ... Bd6 a blunder and gave it a ?, in fact the knight was already lost and the move, positionally, wasn't a blunder (Be7 was better materially, but after 9. gxh4  Bxh4 White plays 10. Nf3 forcing the bishop to retreat, developing with tempo).

Thanks for sharing the game.

a whole lot of exclams there...

on move 2, you claim that Ne5 "values your pawn structure".

As black, I would welcome white to capture on c6 - the pawn structure actually favors black as after dxc6 black has opened a diagonal for his light bishop, strengthened the center, and gained the bishop pair. Thus, better is 2...e5!?

LOL i did go a little 'buck' with the exclams and such on this one ...

Shuttle - regarding your last comment, I see what you mean, it's just more of a matter of preference and comfort rather than theoretical soundness that I meant what I said. I am not as comfortable displacing my pawns or with the whole c6 strucutre as I am with using the knight(s) more and going more for flank attacks with the pawns. Anyways, that the approach I've been gravitating towards recently, with the idea to make a good central pawn stab at a critical juncture later in the game (midgame).

I am usually more judicious about my 'punctuation use' in games, but I flat out 'didn't care' in posting this one, and premitted myself some embelishments, as it were.

Anyway, I appreciate everyone's comments and insights and I'm glad that the game could serve as good entertainment.