The only other move I can see is Nh5 to hit an undefended piece, threatening to remove a defender from e5 while you're at it.
lol, nvm, somehow I stopped short of the last page, loomis answered this hours earlier 
Here's the position for those who requested it.
My best friend and teacher on how to play chess. told me to play defensively. He was right.
My best friend and teacher on how to play chess. told me to play defensively. He was right.
No, he wasn't.
Paraphrasing Nimzovitch:
Learn to take pleasure in modest accomplishments on the board.
For example a good player gets as much pleasure from inflicting a pawn defect to the opponent as a rookie gets from capturing his queen.
nice, read that quote just a hour ago in my system!
I will say "view the position from another perspective before making your move" this helped me alot non falling in love with some ideas when there are better ones and avoiding blunders
"When you found a good move, keep thinking, there could be an better one" Lasker
My best friend and teacher on how to play chess. told me to play defensively. He was right.
No, he wasn't.
Hey Nuke don't be so rude please. Playing defensively is certainly not "wrong". It's just a style choice more suited to some people than others. It certainly worked out well for former world champion Tigran Petrosian.
Learning to play defensively AND alertly is a very important skill.
I've often thougth that one of the worst pieces of "advice", or really wisdom is the "knight on the rim is dim".
Especially true since early on I started working on the Ruy Lopez and almost immediately discovered that the black Knight goes to the "rim" in some of the most common variations to kick the white KB. Maybe I should have made the thread what the best AND worst advice you've ever gotten?
But that's an exception to the rule. Usually a knight on the rim is dim--except in certain cases, for example in the example you mentioned and the Polar Bear System (bird's opening).
The POINT is that there cases in almost every game where a move (for white or black) of N-R4 either is a worthy move deserving of attention. That doesn't mean its always best. What however if you've been told a "knight on the rim is dim" and you fail to consider that sortie as a "rule" then you're going to miss a lot of import themes in a tons of positions.
I've often thougth that one of the worst pieces of "advice", or really wisdom is the "knight on the rim is dim".
Especially true since early on I started working on the Ruy Lopez and almost immediately discovered that the black Knight goes to the "rim" in some of the most common variations to kick the white KB. Maybe I should have made the thread what the best AND worst advice you've ever gotten?
Often, the knight is indeed badly placed on the rim, but in those openings there was a clear purpose everytime it happened. Now, is there such a deep explanation (for example in the ruy to chase a bishop) for moves like Nf3? Well sometimes the choice between say Nf3 and Ne2 is plausible like in the english but more often Nf3 is obviously better. In fact in the ruy the a5 knight often becomes badly placed and gets redirected after it served its purpose of attacking the bishop and perhaps clearing the c pawn.
I mean if a knight on the rim only controls a few squares, you better make sure those are damn important squares.
Yes, but the idea of kicking the bishop is completely valid and is a central theme many critical Ruy lines, right? If you reject the idea of "rim" knights then you've got a problem there. By your reasoning any time you limit the scope of your pieces you better have a good reason. I couldn't agree more. At a certain point the knight's job is done and hopefully it moves and it fines "greener pastures" :)
And: As I just replied: The POINT is that there cases in almost every game where a move (for white or black) of N-R4 either is a worthy move deserving of attention. That doesn't mean its always best. However if you've been told a "knight on the rim is dim" and you fail to consider that sortie as a "rule" then you're going to miss a lot of import themes in a tons of positions.
Hey Nuke don't be so rude please. Playing defensively is certainly not "wrong". It's just a style choice more suited to some people than others. It certainly worked out well for former world champion Tigran Petrosian.
Learning to play defensively AND alertly is a very important skill.
Rude? I'm just telling it as it is. I know playing defensively isn't wrong, but a good coach wouldn't just tell their students which style to use, they'd let them follow their natural instincts.
I think there's confusion between Playing Defensively vs. "think defense first" on your move.... crowbar separation between the two!
I think there's confusion between Playing Defensively vs. "think defense first" on your move.... crowbar separation between the two!
Interesting, but if someone isn't a defensive player, why should they generally think like that?
"Think defense first" would merely imply "threat-checking to make sure I'm not ignoring anything my opponent can do to make the position worse than it already is for me." (or less winning than it already is for me, if you're winning!)
Even the most menacing attacking players would still do this as this is a part of a good thought process. This also explains why stronger players can win "won" games better ... they prevent any counter-play and avoid complications when things are looking good for them.
Playing "defensively" as a general rule IMHO just doesn't make sense => You play in a manner that the position on the board tells you to. (assuming you are skilled enough to listen!)
If the position requires that you attack or be aggressive immediately ... and you don't because of some defensive-playing dogma ... that just doesn't sound right?
The idea of prophylaxis was definitely eye opening -- preventing opportunities before they can become threats. I still don't have it down.
I agree Shivsky, although we all have our own preferences to which type of positions we want to steer our games into. It's good to know our own style.
My best friend and teacher on how to play chess. told me to play defensively. He was right.
No, he wasn't.
Yes he was.
@Loomis. Yes, ...Nh5 is a rather killer move.
What can white do? Bg3 loses. Bc1, Bd2 all fail. "Fail" means loses a piece. So that leaves bxc3 and g3. During the game I thought that g3 Nxf4 gxf4 Bxe5 fxe5 was best. Then white has achieved something (g pawn moved so King has air). But black has eliminated the dark squared bishops, and still has an extra pawn, plus the a8-h1 diagonal will be tough for white after ...b6 and ...Bb7. But perhaps Bxe5 is just wrong in that line, because it gives up the bishop pair, it straightens out white's pawns, and it solves white's logjam of knights. Generally, white doesn't like the Ne5 and Nf3, because the Nf3 is just a backup. So maybe tempo isn't as important, and black can just play Nxf4 gxf4 and Bb4 or something.
The game went differently.
16.Rc1 Nxf4 17.Rxc3 Qxc3 18.Qe4 Qc1+ 19.resigns
Play 1 d4
+1!
Can you show it in a chess diagram? I stared at the board for 10 minutes and I couldn't see any moves for black that would somehow give him a huge advantage other than to possibly retreat the bishop (and thus gain a pawn).