Classic aggression wins! (Morphy tribute)

I would like to provide this miniature I just played to point out something I can't stop thinking about:

Modern styles promote a lot of fancy pawn movements at the opening to set up the battle field as it were, and intricately command the centre. This is all fine and dandy, and the greats such as Kasperov, Fischer, that Namakura (wrg. spllng.) fellow - they all employ this strategy with great success.
HOWEVER, other than being a bit more dry, it also distracts some players from the time-proven efficiency of classic aggression and fast minor piece development. The following game reminded me of the great Morphy, who was a great inspiration for me in my acceleration of my chess undertaking several years back.

It has multiple sacs, early queen action, traveling king - it's a beaut.

(Note my oponents focus on pawns at the opening vs my focus on fast development and aiming my pieces at his kingside.)

Enjoy!

please ignore the spelling mistake in the commentary :)

that was pretty nice ;).

Hi,

I am new to chess. I love the style you have taken here as I fail to be aggressive.Just wondered why on white move 11 you didnt finish with b.g5?

;)

9. f5? Qb6 10. Be3 e5

12...Ndf6??, g6 could have probably kept things equal.

Nice miniature. :)

you cant give a6 ?! it  is a standard najdorf move

Black was playing Sicillian Njardof btw - well along the lines.

5. Nc6 is better as you point out.

i see Nd5 instead of Nc6 blacks only big mistake

and 10 Qb6+ was better for black

edit: not Qb3 ->Qb6

 You must be referring to move 12 - Bg5 for white. The reason I didn't do that is because he had 2 knights and 1 pawn that he could block with. I knew that by taking with my e pawn, it would give way to further action, king movement, and hence mating possibilities. There would not have been a Queen capture if that's what you're thinking - trust me, I was looking for it the whole time!

Black's mistakes were Nd7 instead of Nc6 as has already been pointed out, and the fatal 10...fxe6. If he plays 10...Qb6+, he has time to take the knight with a new escape square for the king after Qh5+. He'd probably win, then.

 9. f5 is not ?, But I did give it !? (you have to admit, it is interesting!) Your proposed response of 9. ... Qb6 is better, but you miss-assume my response - I would have taken the knight sac and simply played 10. fxe!? and I feel that play would have continued to prove the pawn on f5 well placed to help me either win the h rook, or mate.

12. ... g6 would have lead to the eventual loss of the rook, not to mention such poor structure that black would have had to resign eventually. Also, my black bishop could pin the knight if Nf6 was attempted.

 This, and the a6? move - ok, perhaps a6 does not deserve the ?, but in my books it does! That was the whole point I was trying to make, that these elaborate pawn strucutre setups cost valuable tempi that can be exploited by white especially.  I believe the results speak for themselves!

Black could have farred better though, it's true. But I do believe that I would have held the advantage with proper play, to a winning game. I have several other similar opening-style games against all sorts of players, where, when played correctly, I came out on top - e.g. not relying on oponent error/poor play.

Can you provide an example of how this defence would crush the opening style that I employed as white? If so, please do share, I would certainly like to know about it!

You are thinking way too optimistically, 10. fxe6 Qxd4+ 11. Kh1 fxe6, and then what, Qh5+? the black king can easily retreat to d8. You definitely don't have enough compensation for the knight lost.

i dont think you can compare that to morphy!

He was absolute genius!

Black just played very very badly in that game to allow white to attack like that

Morphy just mauled people back when he was around. These guys played good chess by then standards and he overwhelmed them with aggression. (when chess players werent as good as they were nowadays and also i dont think they studied and had as much information available to them)

Edit: I would also like to add that white did play well in that game to exploit blacks poor responses!

Its been said that although Morphy was a great player if he was around nowadays many players would be able to deal with his aggression alot better and he wouldnt beat masters so easily.

Unfortunately for black, this isn't a Najdorf. You can't play an opening from one side of the board. If black just goes forward making the moves of the Najdorf while white isn't following that opening, black can get in big trouble. With 2. f4, white made this a Sicilian Grand Prix -- an agressive attacking opening for white.

Thank you, as usual, Loomis for pointing that out, I think that helps to clarify what I had intended to discuss. Though such systems (e.g. Najdorf) have their place, they must be altered, or transposed flatout when white's agression is so flagrant. If nothing else, such aggressive style keeps the oponent in line, and thwarts their attempts to control the game development. A psychological edge at the very least!

Incidentally, black's best response to the Grand Prix is to respond with equal aggression, 1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 immediately challenging white's central pawns. And of course, developing his pieces.