As you're talking about pawn play in this game, 7...e3 certainly deserves consideration
The Importance of Pawn Play
Sort:
Yeah your opponent didn't play so well. You can't really judge how well you're playing unless you play a strong opponent.
Oct 26, 2008
0
#4
Wasn't really talking about how well I'm playing...the point was actually putting something I feel is a key in good chess play into practice. Whoever the opponent is. Look at the pawn play by Kramnik in this latest draw for instance.
Oct 26, 2008
0
#5
ummmm....of course? That would be the challenge. I think you just like being contrarian, and there is really nothing in this post to argue about. Just making a point about pawn play.
oh my god, the smiley variation:|
I like the idea of 7.. e3!
Way to shoot him down people, real confidence boost...
That was a great game immortalgamer and just shows what you can do with a central preponderance if your opponent play innacurately...
Oct 26, 2008
0
#8
con·trar·i·an
(k
n-trâr
-n)
n.
One who takes a contrary view or action, especially an investor who makes decisions that contradict prevailing wisdom, as in buying securities that are unpopular at the time.
n.
One who is a chess snob.
Oct 26, 2008
0
#9
You are just a little kid...doubt you can even play. Play live against someone
Contrarian is certainly a word. I'm called one (by and large justly) all the time.
Matthias is right that the game isn't a great example of "the importance of pawn play" -- it's a great example of dominating the center, taking space, and attacking an underdeveloped opponent...
But it's not fair to say that the opponent plays so badly that the game is worthless. The opponent doesn't hang any pieces that I saw -- his bad moves are positional or tempo-wasting (or both), which is blundering, but a different level of blunder than say just leaving a piece up for grabs. Immortal isn't gobbling up stray pieces... he plays sound center controlling chess pushes his pawns aggressively doesn't throw away tempos and develops a very legit overwhelming attack out of it. It is absolutely an instructive game IMHO -- I'm sure it doesn't have anything to teach you, Matthias, but I don't think Immortal thought he was trying to teach players at your level anything. I've seen plenty of games posted on chess.com that I thought were basically worthless because the whole game hinged on some gross material-losing blunder... but this isn't that game. It's a good game by a developing player showing the winning player snowballing his postional and dynamic advantages into a crushing win. Could it have had a better title? Sure, but that doesn't seem a very generous point to fixate on.
Oct 26, 2008
0
#11
JG27Pyth wrote:
Contrarian is certainly a word. I'm called one (by and large justly) all the time.
Matthias is right that the game isn't a great example of "the importance of pawn play" -- it's a great example of dominating the center, taking space, and attacking an underdeveloped opponent...
But it's not fair to say that the opponent plays so badly that the game is worthless. The opponent doesn't hang any pieces that I saw -- his bad moves are positional or tempo-wasting (or both), which is blundering, but a different level of blunder than say just leaving a piece up for grabs. Immortal isn't gobbling up stray pieces... he plays sound center controlling chess pushes his pawns aggressively doesn't throw away tempos and develops a very legit overwhelming attack out of it. It is absolutely an instructive game IMHO -- I'm sure it doesn't have anything to teach you, Matthias, but I don't think Immortal thought he was trying to teach players at your level anything. I've seen plenty of games posted on chess.com that I thought were basically worthless because the whole game hinged on some gross material-losing blunder... but this isn't that game. It's a good game by a developing player showing the winning player snowballing his postional and dynamic advantages into a crushing win. Could it have had a better title? Sure, but that doesn't seem a very generous point to fixate on.
I really appreciate you comment. You understood completely where I was coming from and at the same time can encourage someone to get better.
BTW. Who would love to see a 1 min. exhibition by Matthias! I would love to see him play live. Since he can beat Rybka in 1 min. and in 30 min., I'm sure it would be amazing to watch him play a few.
Please Cast your vote to see a live demonstration of dominating 1 min. Play.
Oct 26, 2008
0
#12
I think it is a worthy challenge and one many of us Amatures would love to see and learn from.
But if you want to decline the challenge that is your choice. I don't see how anyone would compare to Rybka on here.
Um... pardon me while I tiptoe away from what looks to be developing into a full-blown INTERNET ARGUMENT complete with personal aspersions being cast by one party while the other adopts a frotsy impersonal tone... my God...(*shudders*)... how ghastly....
Oct 26, 2008
0
#14
Please! I never accused anyone of anything. Just asked for a demonstration of your skills live. If you don't want to give us a demonstration that is fine. Honestly never looked over your games pass the 90% win percentage. I guess that means you are really good.
Would love to see ya play still...LIVE
Oct 26, 2008
0
#16
Stop flaming each other NOW.
You're both being childish, magnifying a critical comment and trying to argue about it, and now throwing back and forth mud more than politicians.
Immortalgamer, read his comment and don't respond to it--he was just trying to be helpful, and if you see his comment as negative, ignore it.
So I've been trying new things in my opening play...getting away from set lines and trying to work my pawn play better. I've noticed as I look over the games of master players, one thing which really sets them apart is their pawn play. Here is a recent blitz match where I thought my pawn play really played a part in creating my advantage in the game.