and the fortune of playing against a player rated less than 1200.
Resign?,why would I do that?
Sort:
He was actually 1203 in this game I believe,But I know what you mean of course,and yes,QxF3 was certainly a mistake that perhaps a higher rated player would be able to take advantage of more fully.
The position after move 7 looks about even to me, or even with an edge to White. White can play Be3 and push e5 and be way ahead in development. I'd take White's position... no reason for you to resign here.
It was a bit strange to me too that my opponent thought he was so far ahead as to ask me if I want to resign.Why I'm not so sure,perhaps he thought he saw something in the move.
No offense...but that was a typical game between 1100 players.
Bb5 was great but don't try some of that as you progress further. You'll get steamrolled.
Jun 22, 2009
0
#10
Bb5 was an exellent move. Very interesting. I have no idea why he suggested you resign, there was no reason at all to resign there.
Covus wrote:
Bb5 was great but don't try some of that as you progress further. You'll get steamrolled.
so you mean I should try a safer line like 7. Be3?
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
I love the move Bb5!
It could go into tactics trainer!
Thanks!!,that's great to know that it was a good evaluation of the situation.Comeing from such a high rated player that means a lot,if I may so ask what in your opinion was my weakest or worse move?
jamesjudo wrote:
Covus wrote:
Bb5 was great but don't try some of that as you progress further. You'll get steamrolled.
so you mean I should try a safer line like 7. Be3?
No, I just mean in general. You're in too much of a rush to attack. Slow it down a little.
Bb5 was great agree with Ozzie_c_copplepot
@Gonnosuki - Good points. I am still learning myself.
:)
Jun 22, 2009
0
#16
Gonnosuke, no offense intended, but that style was very popular 150 years ago!
Gonnosuke wrote:
Play the sort of chess that feels most natural. If you're natural attacker, attack! If you're a natural defender or counter-attacker then defend and counter-attack. You'll have more fun playing the type of chess that comes naturally and if you're having fun you'll keep playing and if you keep playing you'll keep improving.
Play the openings that you enjoy playing, even if those openings have never been played by anyone rated 2700+. "They" will tell you 'If only you played the Serious Opening like GM SoAndSo you'd be a much better player. You won't be taken seriously playing that Insanely Fun opening. I read it was unsound so it must be unsound so you musn't play it or the earth will stop spinning on it's axis!"
Ignore Them and laugh when Their opponents, who are rated 1500 points lower than the GM's opponents, deviate on move 6 and bypass the countless hours they spent learning how to be a parrot.
In the introduction to Gambiteer I by GM Nigel Davies he offers the following:
"Having examined literally thousands of club players’ games over the years, I have noticed several things:
The player with the more active pieces tends to win. A pawn or even several pawns is rarely a decisive advantage. Nobody knows much theory. When faced with aggressive play, the usual reaction is to cower.Accordingly, I suggest that a different approach to that used by the ‘big boys’ and their opening science is in order, especially when one considers the fast time limits under which most club games are played. Activity is the key, pawns don’t matter too much, and if you play something your opponent hasn’t seen before he’s likely to respond very passively."
P.S.
Loved the Bb5 move.
Well said, Gonnosuke.
Jun 22, 2009
0
#18
Well put, Gonnosuke. I agree with all of it.
To each his own. What I get a kick out of is playing basic positions well. There's a very common IQP position in the Nimzo/QGD which I had twice in my most recent tournament, one with white and one with black. I won with white against a 2400 FM and drew with black against a 2500 IM. (I credit chess.com with expanding my knowledge of IQP type positions.) But if you get a kick out of sacrificial attacks - then play them. Let's face it, it's a game, and you should have fun.
Gonnosuke wrote:
Play the sort of chess that feels most natural. If you're natural attacker, attack! If you're a natural defender or counter-attacker then defend and counter-attack. You'll have more fun playing the type of chess that comes naturally and if you're having fun you'll keep playing and if you keep playing you'll keep improving.
Of course attacking chess is fine but there are times when an attack is completely unnecessary. He means only attack in a middlegame if your pieces are well placed for one because if they're not, then you'll just be lunging away from the center for nothing. Even if you have an attacking style and have openings that try to attack, you have to do what the position calls for or you can't expect an attack to work!
Gonnosuke wrote:
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
Gonnosuke, no offense intended, but that style was very popular 150 years ago!
Like most of us, players from the Romantic Era were amateurs. Amateurs and professionals have completely different motivations and expectations to say nothing about the differences in skill. The vast majority of players share more in common with players from 150 years ago than they do with any of the top GM's.
The Romantic Era players didn't worry about pleasing sponsors or maintaining their rating in order to collect appearance fees. Presumably, the Romantic Era players played for enjoyment -- whether it's the joy that comes from playing a beautiful game or simply the joy of competing. I can relate to that. I can understand it.
I can't relate to the players who offer and accept draws at move 20 and I can''t relate to players who play like the most important thing in the world is for them to avoid losing. I can admire a great Karpov game and appreciate the skill that it takes to play but I don't fool myself into thinking that I'll ever be able to play that well or waste my time trying to emulate something that I don't fully understand.
I admire anyone who can hit 100mph fastball but I've never fooled myself into thinking that I, too, could learn to play baseball like that. Instead, I play softball and have a blast. I leave the 100mph fastballs to the professionals and am perfectly happy playing the amateur version....
Why chess should be any different, I'll never understand.
@Gonnosuke, I think you're getting a little too deep into it. People strive to compete with one another and their motivations are different. That's why some people read chess books and some do not.
Some get pHDs and MBAs and some do not... Anyone can do any of these things, I don't understand your nihilistic viewpoint.
If he doesn't like what suggestions are given, isn't it his decision whether to listen or not?
A great game,pulled out in 17 moves that shows the virtue of careful play.What looks like a very bad postion for white turns into a game winner with a little careful thought.