HoemberChess wrote on 11/08/09 at 23:06:02:


Question a: When I'm in good form, I don't give away half and full points in such fashion. However, it happens to everyone. 

The solution to fainting is simple: Eat throughout the game. In such a situation, the best thing to do (provided you aren't low on time) is to either take a jog outside the venue for a few minutes, or failing that, just allow yourself to faint, and when you come around, you will be able to win easily. 

As for books, Houska and Wells would be my recommendations, but you should also have a look at Karpov's book as well.

Yes, 6..Nxd4 has been played by a few strong players according to databases.
I was actually thinking about the move, but eventually I chose a calmer continuation. But on 6.Qe2 I would certainly have captured the d4-pawn.

In this particular game, the arising pawn structure was _not_ unique to the 5..Qc7 variation. Just take a look at the game--minority attack vs. kingside attack.   
What book?

BTW, please, enlighten me about the traditional mainline. I am a follower of the Houska-book.

Antillian wrote on 11/08/09 at 23:51:37:

This link points to a very recent game in which I was Black.
Check it out, and answer the questions.


I usually walk back and forth during games, at least a dozen times between the table and the toilet in about four hours (first time control), and when the last 30 minutes are added, I am no longer able to continue the habit. Then comes superficial play.
My physical condition is not the best, and this time again I felt I was about to faint, that's why I failed to win the "-+ 5.04" (Rybka3, depth=21) position in the rook endgame, but it's still annoying. Reaching the position of my dreams, being two pawns up in a rook endgame with a protected passed pawn and very weak pawns in the enemy's camp, and what's more without real counterplay from the opponent, etc, etc, then I start to play as though I were a complete beginner. Half-points and full-points thrown out of the window in this manner are still not untypical of me. These opponents are often not aware what's happening in the game, but when I start making these "?"/"??" moves due to the above-mentioned reasons, confidence is on their faces again, as if they had an awful much to do with their "won" points. This opponent, for example, told me after the game that he had had the superior positions--while his knight was still on the board. But I felt I stood at least slightly better almost the whole game, and Rybka agrees.
For me, it is better to accept a draw offer early when it is still equal. The danger is that when the next game comes after weeks later, the memories of the missed opportunities emerge...

Another question.
Please, give me tips as to which books I should read to learn the usual Caro-Kann middlegame themes. (I was not too confident in this Exchange Variation, even though my opponent seemed even less so.)

"As to your specific line: Isn't this just the line Vigus is recommending not to play?"

Yes, it is and I was aware of that during the game.
What I wanted to emphasize is that he truly believed an Exchange Slav line with an early ..e6 couldn't possibly be good for Black... (He was shaking his head. And even more so after my ..Nh5. But he didn't know the antidote. I was the one who screwed it up shortly by taking on g3 with the knight prematurely, thus tearing up my kingside for White to attack it.)

The other FM I mentioned had also been around for a while, as a NID player at that, yet he played against me:
1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 e6 3. Bg5 c5 4. e3 b6? 5. d5 exd5 
(5... Be7 6. Nc3 exd5 7. Nxd5 Bb7 8. Bxf6 Bxf6
9. c3) 
6. Nc3 Be7 7. Nxd5 Nxd5? 8. Qxd5 

It is only 8 moves and White is already much better. (After a few further moves and mass exchanges it became "+/=" with zero winning chances for Black, and a draw was agreed, but I could have played the "+/-" position more ambitously--for a win.)
This 4..b6? is a classic mistake of Black's. Basic books on the Torre Attack start with it. (And he had been a NID/QID player for decades...)
---
I guess you and Willempie are both FMs.
---
BTW, at the bottom of the previous page, I "hid" a question, in bold blue letters...



Papageno wrote on 07/25/09 at 20:30:42:

True.
I just wanted to say that the position was new to him. I saw that on his face during the game and he also admitted it when we were analyzing.
He, with his FM title, and with his 60+ years being twice as much as mine, had not seen the classic games of the variation.

And it was not the first and only time. Also this year, against another FM (2300+), I reached a +/- (near +-) position just repeating the moves of Jussupov - Karpov (1987!?) of a Torre Attack with the white pieces. (Just by me knowing the theory better than him, another experienced 60+ years old FM got into a losing position...)


Willempie wrote on 07/25/09 at 18:54:46:

I am working on my Black repertoire vs 1.d4. (The last issue, hopefully.)

I liked the Slav and played it for a few games, but found it to be very theorethical. One has to remember a lot of sharp lines just to remain in the game. (I have the book by Vigus.)   
As Black, I like entering endgames even with a small advantage. 
I prefer strategical play to tactical one.

So, I have recently decided on the Nimzo-Indian (very flexible--by choosing the NID, one didn't yet commit to any pawn structure; it leaves plenty of room to manoeuvering play) and complemented it with the QGD (Tartakower Variation, but I may replace it in the future and choose the Ragozin), depending on White's move-order. (w/ or w/o an early Nf3)

Do you also think the Slav (after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6, including the lines 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5) in general is sharper than these (NID + QGD/Tartakower), thus needs a better memory?
I need some feedbacks.

Perhaps this FM should have had some awareness of 6...Nh5, at least if he plays that way frequently, but it's been my impression that for the last few decades it has generally been considered suboptimal and not accorded great significance.  For example, I just looked at 8 relevant books from the 1970s to the 2000s; most of them (including some of the more recent ones) either don't mention it or just give something like 7. Bd2 +=.  Also I don't recall seeing a NIC yearbook article on it (I know that there has been some stuff in there on 6...a6 and 6...Ne4).    

Shame on that FM (who is apparently representative of his entire class), having the temerity to win the game despite perhaps not being up on recent opening theory (at least in that particular line)!