Morphyesque

This game I played reminded me of the way Paul Morphy (one of my chess hero's) played.

Not only did I employ a gambit and one with his namesake "The Morphy Gambit", I also had accelerated development, a queen sacrifice, and a pretty miniture. 

My opponent got caught up fighting for material, while missing the danger of no kingside development...

Hats off to my opponent who fought hard and it is to bad we couldn't finish as shown here.

You mean this game?

Pretty cool. Well punished for leaving almost his whole K-Side undeveloped..

But all the games I've seen from you so far have been beautiful for tactical reasons, can you do slow strategy as well?

 You must have seen a different game than I. The opening after move 7 has a reputation of being pretty dry positional chess (it's usually reached nowadays via 1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 Nc6 5.Nf3 cxd4 6.cxd4 Bg4 7.Be2, but it's the same position). White then played strong strategic moves, while Black didn't. The logical conclusion to that is a winning combination, but that doesn't mean this was a tactical game.

Very nice!

Ok, you're probably right. I just flicked through the game and I don't know any theory about that line.

Nice play Immo, was this a fast game?

Actually I withdraw that statement. You may apparantly have a Fide rating of 1999, but I know enough about chess to be able to confidently agree with immortalgamer that this was clearly more of an aggressive tactical game on White's part more than anything. There being a "strategy" to most of his moves doesn't make it a slow strategical game..

No no...it was correspondence (turn based) chesss

You misunderstand. I meant "slow" in the sense of a closed anaconda-like squeeze.. Not the time control.

I wasn't responding to you atom :)...I know what you mean.  Petitboom asked if it was a fast game.

As far as slow long positional and strategic play.  I would say that I try not to make strategic errors when I play and in that way I'm a pretty good defensive player.  I really believe that players like Karpov (who you could call slow, methodical, strategic players) are very rare.  And when I do face players like this I smash up against them like a ship hitting a reef...the Reef always wins, but not without some bloodshed.

Yeah, sorry I didn't see that comment. I'm not sure they are that rare really from my experience.. The level I play at I don't come across many who play that sort of game well, but some that at least try.. And at a high level the proportion of styles I think are kind of balanced.. Looking at the WCs there's a lot of strategical players in there IMO: I can think of Karpov, Capablanca, Petrosian, Euwe, Steinitz (for most of his career), Kramnik, Botvinnik and Lasker (kind of). For what it's worth I'm also enjoying playing closed positions a lot lately..

Reminds me of this game, taken from chessgames.com:

Heh, sorry if It sounded like I was trying to argue from authority. 1999 is utter crap, doesn't mean I understand chess. I'm just arguing for discussion's sake.

I do believe that it's a false dichotomy to say that something is either "slow strategy" or "aggressive tactics". You can play extremely aggressively without tactics! This an aggressive game where White held on to the initiative, prevented Black from getting his pieces out and finished him off with a nice combination starting with 16.Qa4+. That big combination at the end is the only tactics I see, it's not as if this is a game where both sides constantly have a couple of pieces hanging or so.

Nice game. I really liked how you used the fact that you pinned his bishop.

Not at all, sorry looking at my post again my tone was a bit brash.

That's modest! Anyone 1999 OTB should be able to get to 2400 on this site at least if they put in the effort.. If that's utter crap what does that make the other 99.9 percent of us on this site?!

Anyway, I guess we all have our own opinions..

Personally I don't think 1999 is utter crap.  I think I come up with some really great games, but also I have moments where I can't play at all.  Great players play great all the time, even when they lose, they are still better than the rest of us.