An unusual approach to the Marshall.

Before anyone trashes me for putting this here please let me explain that I didn't put in the analysis section because Fritz has already analyzed it and did not see that white's playing 14.Nd2 as the disaster that it was. It did see that black overlooked a mate late in the game, which is evident to anyone looking over the game.

Perhaps I should have put in the openings section because this is an unusual approach to the Marshall. Black had done no book study on the Marshall nor the Ruy. What he had done was lose to the Ruy at the hands of white enough to decide that he thought he should advance his pawn to d5 before white had a chance to play d4. He wanted to get his king castled before he did that, however. And he reasoned that if all white's bishop at b5 saw beyond black's knight on c6 was a pawn, and not his king, that white would be amenable to accepting his invitation to remove his bishop when black played a6 since it would no longer be pinning anything.

Black did not know he was playing a Berlin defense transposed into a Morphy transposed into the Marshall. He was just playing by ear. Speaking with him now he still thinks that, if he is to play the Marshall, he'll go about it this way than straight forward. It just seems more logical to him, and he understands why each move is made this way.

Questions to everyone, please: What's your opinion of learning an opening this way as opposed to studying a book and then trying it? And, based on this game, what would you estimate the ratings of these two players? I know it's impossible to state for certain a player's rating based solely on one game, but I am asking for an estimate. I think that the ratings here would roughly equate to the USCF ratings.

Thank you all for your comments.

Questions to everyone, please: What's your opinion of learning an opening this way as opposed to studying a book and then trying it? And, based on this game, what would you estimate the ratings of these two players? I know it's impossible to state for certain a player's rating based solely on one game, but I am asking for an estimate. I think that the ratings here would roughly equate to the USCF ratings.

CJBas,

                  Question #1:  What's your opinion of learning an opening by playing

                                      many games as opposed to studying a book and then

                                      trying it? 

Short Answer:  In the beginning it is okay to re-invent the wheel.  But later on it is not a good idea to be Columbus rediscovering America.  That is why we read in books about the mistakes others have made in the past so that we are not doomed to repeat them. 

     In other words, in the beginning of a chess player's development it is good to have the creative freedom to solve the chess problem in a way that makes sense to him.  However, as a player develops and faces stronger and stronger opposition those self taught solutions to an opening can become a hindrance to further improvement and winning or even just drawing against stronger and stronger opposition. They become bad mental habits.  The problem a player, as you describe above playing the Black pieces, faces against master strength or above are 1. move order finesses, positional pawn sacrifices, tactical traps, as you mention in your post transpositions, etc.  

This is why child chess prodigies are tutored at a certain stage in their development.  Even though like musical geniuses they hear the notes that make the beautiful music, it still requires refinement.  There are billions of possible moves on the chess board.  Some adequate moves will solve your opening problems against lesser players, but the slightest inaccuracies will cost you the game against the strongest opposition.  I don't know the age,sex or age of the player you want these two questions answered about, so it is not possible to be more specific with regard to any future plans, if any.

               Question #2:  I am asking for an estimate of; what you think a rough   

                                   estimate of the player's USCF rating would be based on    

                                   on only one game? 

                Answer:  Under 1800

I hope this helps. 

In response of the game itself, one has to be very careful when trading off to a opposite colored bishop endgame, as they tend to be very drawish even if the stonger side has two or three extra pawns. I've seen more than a few games where the weaker side managed to salvage a draw by trading off to an opposite colored bishop endgame.

 Other than that, nice game. And I believe that people should study the opening with books and such, then play a few practice games with said opening.

Thanks very much for your thoughts, transpositions. Neither of these guys are prodigies, nor are they kids. Speaking with Black; when he realized he was playing a transposition into the Marshall he did immediately start looking into what books have to offer on that attack, and playing over masters' games that used it. He still likes his way of reaching it better than the standard way, and it does make sense (perhaps no better sense technically, but psychologically).

I agree with what you said about learning openings from what others have already learned. But I do think this is a good way of finding an opening that suits you. If that's an opening that you come up with on your own (reinventing the wheel is a great way to describe it), then since you understand instinctively the ideas behind it, it's probably a good one to be delving into deeper. You're not starting from scratch since you understand the ideas behind it already.

Under 1800. Yes, I'd think it5's a safe bet that they're both under 1800. As to how far under 1800, I really don't know.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

Hydrocannon, thank you.  White is experienced in playing the Ruy and I don't think anyone had ever completely wiped out his king side in playing the Ruy before.

This game notwithstanding I think White is a better player than is Black.

well under 1800, IMO ... 1300-1400 USCF would be my guess. it would help to know the time control.

 from this single game, I certainly can't see any evidence that white is the better player; black thoroughly outplayed him throughout. it's a shame he tossed away so many easy wins at the very end.