TN wrote on 02/22/10 at 10:11:31:


Thanks for both the answer and the attention. 

Do you mean the ending? (I set up threats against his king only in that phase of the game.)

About my recent game in team championships,
played yesterday, Febr. 21, 2010, 
in which I was Black.
Caro-Kann Defence, Panov-Botvinnik Attack with 5..e6 6..Bb4.
Here is a link to the annotated game.

Please tell your opinion about the ending, from 38.Rb1, the point where there remained only a Queen+Rook+pawns vs. Q+R+Ps+my extra passed pawn. 

(I didn't rush to push the b-pawn but instead tried to loosen up his king's position, in which White cooperated, to my luck. What should I have done otherwise?)

Don't displace a bad piece!

Looking at it for 60 secs. There are three candidates at first sight for me (forgive if there are more or better ones): 1.Bxa7; 1.Nxd6; Bxh6 all three winning a pawn and having further attacking prospects.

At the first sight I don't get the advantage of 1.b5 over the three candidates. What was your reasoning in the game?

Independent of this you should train to calculate one line till the end +1 move, evaluate this line, calculate the next line, evaluate this line, compare the two evaluations, store the better evaluation, calculate the next line, etc.

@BPaulsen:
The repertoire problems had been solved -- 1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 c5. 
Not the best, but it is rare _at "my" level_ that after this move-order the opponent plays 3.c4. 

@MNb: 
4..Nf6 was not the best of the choices possible against a young opponent whose skills are trained chiefly in tactical area, I fully agree (with you and Nigel Davies), but nevertheless I blundered in a winning position at move 27. (I can't blame the opening.)

-----------
Nobody seems to have checked out the game I linked. But if there was anyone, then he could share what he thinks of the mistakes. 
The game was played at a not-too-high level, I agree. It wasn't a good game, there were blunders in it. 

An issue was that I had been kind of afraid of this little girl (11), which I (three times older) think was a stupid thing (I can't think of any other player besides her who makes me feel like this), especially that I am much less afraid when facing opponents rated 5-600 hundreds of points above her. I am much less worried when I play against a 2300- or 2400-player. (If I lose, I lose. What's more, they make the kind of moves I expect--nothing in their play makes me toughtless.) Below that rating, I kind of expect the victory from myself, and in addition, they make the kind of moves that have the ability to make me toughtless. (Maybe in the subconscious.)
In the course of the game, I was kind of preoccupied with the thought of what will happen if I lose. (That everybody will laugh at me,  that the next game I can play (and win) is due after a couple of weeks, etc.)
The result is known to everyone: she won the game with a naive approach / attitude(?). (She kind of expected blunders from me, she thought plenty of my moves to be a blunder--even when she blundered herself.)
What is more, I could tell from her face that she was kind of expecting the victory again. Very odd, given that at the end of each and every tournament we both had participated in I came in points ahead of her and that I had been aware that she was able to lose to opponents I defeated with ease.)

We have an idiom for cases like this in my mother language but I can't translate it into English... 
(It involves a hunter, and a rabbit who carries a gun, which is supposed to be with the former.)

My remark still holds up - 5...h5 leads to a very sharp game. It should say enough that my hero Rudolf Spielmann played this as White invariably and beat Alekhine with it once.

You may attach, because of Davies' advise, a questionmark to 4...Nf6 as well. It's a very sharp move (I assume your opponent played 5.Nxf6+).
Regarding your repertoire: it looks somewhat inconsistent. Why not 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 ? Or, if 2.Nf3 c5 3.d5 e6 4.c4 exd5, why not 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3/3.g3 c5 ?

this weekend in a game against a 2367-player (master) i accepted a draw offer in a +/- 1.04 position on move 22. i don't mean to say that it was a great game, and not much happened in it, but i have no really strong players around to tell me clever things.
i have been warned against accepting draws in superior positions in this very topic, but this time i can handle that. (i am looking forward to playing again this sunday.) recently i have been practicing not-losing. maybe.  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
i already have a 1.d4-white rep., much thanks to tn, 
with the french (2.e4 d5) included against 1..e6 (and 1..f5 2.nc3 anti-dutch),  which i am satisfied with.
--

i have found a few variations... what do you think about the black rep. below?
(this is the last time i am posting such thing, i promise.)
i am not sure about the variations highlighted in blue

1.d4-rep. 
     a) 1..nf6 
                 2.c4 e6 3.nc3/nf3/g3 bb4(+)
                 2.nf3 c5 (against a lot of lazy opponents)
                             3.e3/c3 d5
                             3.d5 b5 4.bg5 qb6/4.c4 bb7
                             3.c4 cxd 4.nxd4 e6
                 2.bg5 d5 3.bxf6 exf (or 3..gxf)
     b) 1..e6 2.c4 f5 mostly stonewall according to moskalenko's cbm theory, win with the stonewall, etc
                 2.nf3 f5 (or 2..d5 with transposition->1.nf3 d5 2.d4 e6)

1.e4-rep. 
     a) 1..c6 jovanka houska, viktor bologan, etc
     b) 1..e6 moskalenko, neil mcdonald, john watson, etc

1.c4-rep.
     a) 1..e5 2.nc3 nf6 3.nf3 nc6 4.g3 bb4 (i love these positions)
     b) 1..f5 moskalenko, win with the stonewall (i don't yet have this, but i am working on it)

1.nf3-rep. 
     1..d5 
           2.c4 d4 (i also play the schmid benoni as the first player) palliser's book
           2.g3 nf6 (or 2..bg4 aagaard's book) 3.bg2 bf5 palliser
           2.d4 (tricky) e6 (i have decided on this move, i was inspired by a few games of thomas luther)
                 3.bf4 bd6 4.bg3 nf6 aagaard's meeting 1.d4 (or 4..f5!?)
                 3.bg5 be7 aagaard 
                 3.g3 b5 4.bg2 nf6 (i saw kramnik play this)
                 3.e3 f5 
                 3.c4 (or 3..a6!? -- i don't know much about it but i don't like 3..c6) 
                             3..dxc 4.e3 a6 5.bxc4 
                                   5..c5 6.0-0 Nf6 //a normal queen's gambit accepted with early nf3 + e3
                                   but tn told me about 
                                   5..b5 as being an interesting and dangerous try and now i am looking for something on it...
     
and when an opponent is expected to play around with move-orders, 
1.c4/nf3 _nf6_ (instead of an immediate ..e5/..d5), using palliser's book.
(there is not much risk in giving away these opening moves, as no opponent bothers google-ing me.)


ps.: i have started to stick with one defense, game after game, which was not an easy task even in the last team championship season. but it is a good thing to have a favorite defense and to try to prove its viability in various positions. this season i am trying playing solidly, for in this event almost everybody is higher-rated than me, thus wants to win.