Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) What didn't I understand about this game? (Read 6181 times)
MartinC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 2115
Joined: 07/24/06
Re: What didn't I understand about this game?
Reply #14 - 02/08/14 at 00:13:49
Post Tools
Well the pawn structure looks a bit French by now Wink

While I'm really not sure if white should go Qf2 direct after 18.. b5, even something as naive/direct as 18 .. b5 19 Qf2 b4 20 b3!? Qxc3 21 f5 etc does look likely enough to draw. 
(with some chances for either side.).   

The Nd4/Be3 construction/pawn on e4 all make whites position a lot less rickety than it actually looks so the counter attack isn't as lethal as you might expect.

White might actually even just about be able to go Qxe4 directly after b5(!). Still some moral compensation of course but not trivial to get anything to that white squared diagonal. 
(Rac8 stops Qxe4 dead due to the pin on the Nd4 so Bc6 etc.). 

Its all much nicer than the game of course!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2534
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: What didn't I understand about this game?
Reply #13 - 02/07/14 at 22:29:47
Post Tools
MartinC wrote on 02/07/14 at 21:53:00:
18.. Rac8 19 Qf2 is quite fast and dangerous.


Well it could be the crazy Sicilian (the first of my father's family to come to America was a Sicilian) in me, but 18...b5 19.Qf2 b4 really looks somewhat better for Black.  White should probably play a different 19th move, and that's part of the point--the queenside play is going to distract White.   

The French in me (no joke, my Sicilian great great grandfather married a French woman and moved to New York) sympathizes with 15...g5, though.  Still...you're playing a Sicilian Wink.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MartinC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 2115
Joined: 07/24/06
Re: What didn't I understand about this game?
Reply #12 - 02/07/14 at 22:24:55
Post Tools
That book includes a6 early on Smiley This is one of the (multiple) non Najdorf approaches....
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
gewgaw
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 687
Location: europe
Joined: 09/09/04
Re: What didn't I understand about this game?
Reply #11 - 02/07/14 at 22:14:12
Post Tools
I lent my GM6 to a clubmember; I was very impressed by Ftacnik's coverage, very likely you'll find everything worked out.
  

The older, the better - over 2200 and still rising.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MartinC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 2115
Joined: 07/24/06
Re: What didn't I understand about this game?
Reply #10 - 02/07/14 at 21:53:00
Post Tools
Well if Ne8 is the best move for black you do more or less get the impression that he should organise differently earlier on Smiley Not short of options.

Back to my game, asides from needing the full truth of proverbs about opposite coloured bishops absolutely drilling into my head, the other thing was maybe being used to the sorts of French defense positions where you can often happily counter attack on the kingside/center against this sort of play. 
(Rather than via the Q side.).

Not that I even blame myself for Bc5 x d4 too much - having played with it a bit, whites attack after (say) 18.. Rac8 19 Qf2 is quite fast and dangerous. The cure was of course worse than the disease but natural to want that knight off the board Smiley

Probably too late for e3 to do much by move 23 Sad You get a pretty line up down the long diagonal but white can seemingly stay organised while defending it then just shove f5,f6. Maybe a bit better though.

To be honest I think I prefer the g5 ideas in retrospect. That's the French defense player in me again Wink Centers are there to be bashed to bits as violently as possible!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4989
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: What didn't I understand about this game?
Reply #9 - 02/07/14 at 19:26:20
Post Tools
It could be added that the perhaps yucky 12...Ne8 was played by Beliavsky against Spassky, and in the 12...Ne4 line, 16...Bc6 (instead of 16...Nxb3) 17. Qc2 Bd5 "with compensation" was given by Minić.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MartinC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 2115
Joined: 07/24/06
Re: What didn't I understand about this game?
Reply #8 - 02/07/14 at 19:10:31
Post Tools
Yes, probably Qc7/Rd8 that deserves that instead. Although not playing that 9.. e5 stuff almost does Wink

Some background likely handy - the whole point of this set up is indeed meant to be Bd7/Rd8/Be8 then Nfd7 as needed. This is old theory from Prichett's modern Schevy book. 

It has a sort of pleasing curling up thing going on, and quite a few dangerous d5 gambits. A bit recondite perhaps.

In the game move order, where white wastes half a tempo on 11 Qd2 you can indeed go 11.. Be8 and I nearly did.

However one of the main lines is actually:


Tsehovsky - Jansa, 1974. What I got in the game is getting on for a tempo up on this so quite natural to aim at it Smiley

That gambit has apparently 'long had a good reputation', and it looks that way but.... Comps not sure. They point out that white can put his bishop on d3, gaining a tempo/weakening blacks kingside or preparing Be4. The exchange sac on d3 (after b6 to allow Ba8, Qb7 etc) might well work in practice but not at all sure in principle. Oh well Smiley

Might do better with 14 .. g5!? (mad) or even 12 .. Ne8 (yuck!).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2892
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: What didn't I understand about this game?
Reply #7 - 02/07/14 at 15:50:54
Post Tools
Well, it's been a long while since I played the open Sicilian for either side, so maybe I'm completely out of tune when wondering why 9...Bd7 is "!?", I suppose you mean that you gain "the half-tempo Nb3" but Nb3 holding c5 doesn't look too bad, and isn't the Bd7 just in the way?

In the game, after 12.g4 I would prefer 12...Be8 and reassign Nf6 to d7, and probably play for a6, b5 instead of ...d5 (especially if it must be followed up by ...Ne4 Nxe4 dxe4), or perhaps something involving ...b6 and Nd7-c5.

Just my two cents  Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dink Heckler
God Member
*****
Offline


Love-Forty

Posts: 900
Joined: 02/01/07
Gender: Male
Re: What didn't I understand about this game?
Reply #6 - 02/07/14 at 15:16:56
Post Tools
I also want to play 22...e3, or 28...e3, not for any concrete reasons, but because it should give you decent defensive / counterattacking resources down the line. Of course, the easiest thing in chess is sacc'ing other people's bits  Smiley
  

'Am I any good at tactics?'
'Computer says No!'
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2534
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: What didn't I understand about this game?
Reply #5 - 02/07/14 at 12:58:51
Post Tools
I'm not actually saying that Black is better, more that he seems to have "good play" and some things to work with.  I'd prefer Black but like I said earlier, it might only be objectively equal.  

Anyway it'd be good to hear other opinions. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MartinC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 2115
Joined: 07/24/06
Re: What didn't I understand about this game?
Reply #4 - 02/07/14 at 11:52:53
Post Tools
Oh yes, the early g5 is in many ways a last resort Smiley

You're probably right about roughly what to do, although I suspect starting with 18.. Rac8 instead of b5 might be important. Holding up white from playing b3 could well make quite a difference.

I do think you're probably overrating black a bit with hoping for an advantage mind. White does have a very nice knight on d4 and basic plans like of Qg2/f2,f5 (f6) etc.

I'm not actually at all sure if Na5 - c4 was half as big a gain as it looks. Light squares great of course but tricky to exploit and it organised whites position a lot too. Probably forced in self defence though - allowing Qxe4 then Bd3 is unlikely to end terribly well.
(iirc that sort of thing is what makes the theoretical position non trivial for black.).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2534
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: What didn't I understand about this game?
Reply #3 - 02/07/14 at 10:10:10
Post Tools
True, you can't force White to take on e4 I don't think.  I thought briefly about 22...e3!? initially, but don't think that it comes to anything as you can't arrange a good battery on the long diagonal (White sometimes has c3-c4).  

Still, at move 18 it really feels like Black has something to me.  You have the two bishops, a safe king, sound structure, and White has weakened his kingside and light squares tremendously.  He's also walking himself into a lot of pins, i.e. the c-pawn is pinned to the queen on c2, the knight is pinned to a queen on e4 if the pawn is captured, and the knight is pinned to the bishop on e3 after ...Bc5.

Your ...g5 ideas might be fine, but they would certainly not be the first ones I considered.  I want to keep Black's advantages of a safe (for now) king and sound structure.  How about gaining space and creating weaknesses in White's queenside?  I.e. creating a second weakness?  I also like 18...b5 and 18...Rac8 very much, just creating pressure down the queenside files for Black's rooks.  With enough queenside space, it's possible that a later ...e4-e3 pawn sac will work because Black will introduce a rook into the attack or be able to create the powerful Q+B battery.  Something plausible like 18...b5 19.Rfe1 Rac8 20.Qe2 Qd5 21.a3 a5 still looks pretty good for Black, and you're keeping your two bishop advantage, not going into that opposite-colored bishops position you did in the game.  

That's just my take on the position.  I'm not saying that I'm right and you wrong, but sometimes you just need to hear other people's ideas about a position to think a little differently.  

I really didn't like 18...Bc6 for some reason, partly because you aren't giving White enough chances to go wrong (accepting the sacrifice on e4), partly because you're blocking the c-file, and partly because I think that you can still "build" your position for a while (minority attack on the queenside).  Your minority attack on the queenside has the benefit of opening another front, so that White can't as easily just "blockade the pawn then shove the kingside."  In fact, I think that only in the pure opposite-colored bishop middlegame can White think about doing that, as then your bishop on c6 is too passive behind the blockading pawn.  I also strongly disliked 28...b4, because after 29.c4 White is keeping the queenside lines closed while depriving you of access to b5 and d5 (some of the squared you need to put your queen on to get a light-squared counter attack working).  

Hmmm...I think that may be the crux, you needed open lines on the queenside for your rooks to distract White from his slow build-up.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MartinC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 2115
Joined: 07/24/06
Re: What didn't I understand about this game?
Reply #2 - 02/07/14 at 09:30:20
Post Tools
Thing is, white basically isn't ever going to go Qxe4. Like in the game - which I think white controlled quite nicely for the most part - he'll just blockade the pawn then shove the kingside.
(Even if there are some positions where white can get away with taking on e4 it'd be very impractical to keep checking it.).

The whole Bc6/Bc5 x d4 thing was no doubt very wrong as it solidifies whites position so much, but finding quite what else black should do is harder. The immediate g5 does seem playable but also somewhat crazy.

One other thing I do find slightly scary is that in the theoretical position - take Qd2 and Rfd8 out - the computers seem to suggest that white *can* just go c3, Qc2xe4 as there's some concrete stuff that stops blacks 'automatic' compensation from working.

Might actually have to g5 there to justify things.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2534
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: What didn't I understand about this game?
Reply #1 - 02/06/14 at 22:23:26
Post Tools
I hope to benefit from this "feature" myself before long, so I'll chime in.

My first instinct around move 16ish is that White has seriously weakened his kingside light squares, and that you have an unopposed light squared bishop.  I want to just give away the e4-pawn, which clogs your play on the long diaganol.  Something like 18...Bc5 19.b3 (19.Qxe4?? Bc6! and Black wins) Qa6 20.Qxe4 Bc6 looks very promising for Black, doesn't it?  Note that 21.Nxc6 Qxc6 doesn't solve White's problems because the bishop is hanging on e3.

Just my first instinct, for what it's worth.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MartinC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 2115
Joined: 07/24/06
What didn't I understand about this game?
02/06/14 at 21:57:27
Post Tools
Well it was suggested Smiley Lets try this one. Its me somehow surviving with black against a fellow ~2100 on a low board in about as 'serious' a match anyone is likely to let me play in. Average team strength ~2200 over 8 boards, Yorkshire weekend league at stake. 

Nice trophy actually. One of those big, old silver ones.

The interesting bit isn't so much the later middle game, which is mostly me trying to provoke trouble rather than dying slowly and rather luckily surviving. Or even the ending which we both made a rather understandable mess of with time pressure, nerves etc.

Its ~move 15-22 where black gets himself into a terrible mess strategically. Interesting that comps seem relatively content to wonder into it too.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo