|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-22-05 | | Saruman: <suenteus po 147> 14.-♗d3?! might be dubious, but I am not sure if 16.-Bd3!? is. Now white cant play 17.♖fd1 due to ♘b2. And maybe black could exploit the weak lightsquares on the queen-side with his bishop. Whereas Nh4 seems to be stranded on the far-right flank.
If executed correclty black could start to advance with the e and f-pawns and begin to attack the kingside. I would argue that the black position is more dynamic then it first may seem. The only hazard would be if white could mount an effective assault on the white king with a4 and b5. |
|
Feb-22-05
 | | suenteus po 147: <euripides> and <Saruman> Thanks for the analysis, guys! It's not exactly the turnaround one wants, but it certainly offers more chances than what I played. I don't know why I didn't consider 16...Bd3 OTB. I just needed to know there was a better option than 16...b5, which I pretty much didn't even think about because I was so rattled by the implications of 14.Qa4 (which had surprised me, unfortunately). <With best play the position is probably lost after 14 Qa4.> That's most likely true, but lost positions are the most fun to try and win! |
|
| Feb-22-05 | | euripides: <suenteus> Chacun a son gout, but I must admit to a preference for won positions ;) On reflection 16 ...Nxe3 followed by 17 ...Bd6 (or even ...f5) is tricky for White to face. Black can think about ...Bxg3 and also ...h5. White might be able to get some control with e4, but would have to be careful. Black may well have enough for the pawn here. |
|
| Feb-22-05 | | euripides: ... but if 16...Nxe3 17 fe Bd6 then White might consider 18 Bxc6 getting a position with three united passed pawns for the piece. |
|
Feb-22-05
| | suenteus po 147: <euripides> I do remember at some point in the game seeing the bishop sac on c6 in order to force an exchange of queens and thus promote the three connected passed pawns by way of his two rooks. Unfortunately, I can't recall at what point I saw it or what my plan was to try and stop it (if I had any any). |
|
| Feb-22-05 | | Saruman: <suenteus po 147> Also note that 16.-Bd3 guards Nc4 after Nxc6 bxc6 Qxc6+ if necceseary.
Nh4 after 16.-Bd3 is a sitting duck with few options to regroup to a better square. If the knight moves, h5-h4 might prove difficult to meet. Also its interesting to note that the black queen is already aiming at h2 :-). |
|
| Feb-24-05 | | Saruman: <suenteus po 147> I am sorry to say it but 16.-b5 was a big mistake, the point being that it aids white by advancing the kingside-pawns, which in turn allows a4 etc. Furthermore it seems that Vigorito erred with 17.♕a6+, instead the calm 17.♕b3 intending a4-axb5 seems very dangerous for black. If 17.-♘b6 (intending ♘a4) in response to that, 18.♗xc6 is crushing. |
|
| Feb-24-05 | | Backward Development: wow, this game is getting rather popular for analysis isn't it Peter? I suppose I'll give it a whirl one of these days... |
|
| May-30-05 | | Montreal1666: <suenteus po 147:> 13...Ne5 seems to be the turning point. It is a brave move, but what were you trying to achieve? what is wrong with Nb6(then Nc4) ? |
|
| May-31-05 | | black knight c6: In fact Nb6 was needed to stop the queen invasion. it also hits all the white squares.c5 or e5 were also needed, so Ne5 was the losing move. Be3 is obviously to attack the a7 pawn, and theres nowhere else it can go that move (bf4 gets e4 in the face)
just some quick comments. |
|
| Jul-02-05 | | dvigorito: ArtNJ!! holy crap. email me at dvigorito@msn.com if you ever find your way back here.... |
|
Jul-02-05
 | | samvega: <Mr Vigorito> fyi, in case you aren't familiar with the site, if you click on "ArtNJ", it links to his profile, which shows that he last logged in on 13-May-05. Also, when people create a username, they may give their email to Chessgames.com. Now CG obviously can't divulge another user's email, but they might be willing to forward your email to him... just a thought. |
|
| Jul-03-05 | | dvigorito: samvega- good idea I will try that. ArtNJ and I were best friends from childhood for a good 10 years, but I haven't been in touch with him for 15! |
|
| Jul-21-05 | | Backward Development: Part I.-The Opening.
OK Peter, I've read all the kibitzing and I'd like to analyze it myself. Well, up to 12.Be3, it's all been played before in Watson-Singh 1985, which continued <12.b4 Bd6 13.a4 Rhg8?! 14.b5 Nb8 15.Qf3 f5 16.c4 f6 17.Rb1 Qd7 18.d5 cd 19.cd e5 20.Bh3! e4 21.Qc3+ Qc7 22.Nxf5!!<very pretty finish; 22.Qxc7+ and 23.Nxf5 is also winning, but less inspired.>22...Qxc3 23.Nxd6+ Kc7 24.Bf4! Qe5<forced>25.Bxe5 fxe5 26.Nc4 and with a material and positional advantage, white won easily.>12.Be3 is a decent move, but I think the best move is 12.Bf4 and after 12...e5<12...Bd6 13.Bxd6 Qxd6 14.Qf3 is a no risk advantage for white.>13.Be3! when neither 13...ed 14.Bxd4 Bc5 15.Re1 Qb6 16.Qg4! or 13...Nb6 14.Qe2 Bd6 15.a4 Kb8 16.a5 Nd5 17.a6! are sufficient for equality. That's it for the opening. |
|
| Jul-21-05 | | Backward Development: Part II. Middlegame
12...Be7 13.b4!?<an aggressive move against the king's position, but 13.Nxg6 hxg6 14.Qa4 is a better way to play the attack; gaining the bishop pair and preparing to place the King's rook behind the b-pawn.>13...Ne5?<Black's pieces aren't actively enough placed for such action in the center.>14.Qa4!<Now white snatches a pawn.>14...Nc4 15.Qxa7 Qb8<a sad move, which would consign black to a very difficult defense.>16.Qa4!?<The simple 16.Qxb8 Kxb8 17.Nxg6 hxg6 18.a4 is almost winning for white. The text plays for more than a superior endgame, a decision justified by...>16...b5??<a grievous misjudgement. A good maxim to remember is "Never move pawns on the side of the board where you are weaker, as it will be easier for your opponent to open lines there." Worse in this case, is that the pawns are in front of his king.>17.Qa6+ Qb7 18.Qxc6+ Qxc6 19.Bxc6<  >19...Nxe3?<black's best minor piece, and easing the technical task for the opponent.>20.fe?!<20.Nxg6! hg 21.fe is simpler.>20...Bd3! 21.Rfd1 Bc4 22.a4!<now the weakness of black's 16th move is shown.>22...ba 23.Bxa4 e5?<Nimzovich once pointed out that many "freeing moves" often don't free one's position at all; but weaken it further! At this point, ...e5 merely creates a weakness on f5 and doesn't liberate black's pieces at all.>24.Nf5! Bf8 25.Bc6<Besides material, a good way to evalulate positions is to compare the activity of the minor pieces. The difference is clear.>25...Kc7 26.Be4?!<26.b5!>26...Be6?<returning the favor; 26...Kb6 struggles a little more.>27.Ra7+ Kc8? 28.Rda1 Rd7? 29.Ra8+ Kc7 30.R1a7+ 1-0 |
|
| Nov-26-05 | | Chopin: <Suenteus Po 147> < My first game against an FIDE Master, and I can't believe I resigned!!!> My thoughts exactly, but you played well regardless. I can't say I would have done any better. |
|
| Nov-26-05 | | VinnyRoo2002: How many people here are from Las Vegas? I'm a frequent visitor of the Clark County Chess Club. For those who are aware of its existence, I'm saddened that it's closing down. |
|
Nov-26-05
| | suenteus po 147: <VinnyRoo2002> I was living in Las Vegas and a member of the Clark County Chess Club until June this year. It's closing down?!?!?! That's horrible. |
|
| Dec-17-05 | | VinnyRoo2002: Yes, the man in charge has some personal obligations that he wished to attend to. Fortunately, there is another club around Palace Station if you ever move back to Vegas. And while the strength of the Clark County Chess Club might not be the greatest in the country; I personally believe it was the best organized club I've ever visited (that includes the Manhattan Chess Club). It truly is a shame that it's closing down because many players have increased drastically in playing strenght since its inception. |
|
| Apr-11-06 | | estebanchess2: wow!!! whos he????
|
|
Apr-12-06
 | | Benzol: Who's who? |
|
| Oct-13-08 | | just a kid: <suenteus po 147>Why did you want to trade Queens when you were down material? |
|
Nov-17-08
| | suenteus po 147: <just a kid> I figured I was pretty much toast at that point, so the queen exchange was my version of "damage control." I was lost anyway. |
|
| Feb-02-10 | | qjuice14: <VinnyRoo2002: > <And while the strength of the Clark County Chess Club might not be the greatest in the country; I personally believe it was the best organized club I've ever visited (that includes the Manhattan Chess Club). It truly is a shame that it's closing down because many players have increased drastically in playing strenght since its inception.> Completely agree. I was a member of the Clack County Chess Club at this time, I also attended this simul, and Chris Bird was hands down the best club organizer I have had the priveledge to be a member of. I became a member there in January '05 rated 1400 and by June '05 I was 1800 playing at about a 1900 strength. All thanks to the players and organizers their willing to help people out. It was a shame it closed down, because the clubs that took its place were not comparable. This made many players, like myself, lose interest in the club and made it increasingly difficult for me to improve. |
|
Jun-07-11
 | | Richard Taylor: < suenteus po 147: <just a kid> I figured I was pretty much toast at that point, so the queen exchange was my version of "damage control." I was lost anyway. > Courageous to out game you lost up! |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
