May I choose the black pieces?

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife:
May I choose the black pieces?

Ok, I was trying to give others a fair chance to play too, but since there's been no response yet, I'll take you up on your offer http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif

So, 1. c4

Nice meeting you, Algernon!

Thanks anand.

Pleased to meet you. I've played quite a bit of chess over the years but I've given it up a few times. Just can't seem to finally kick it.
Anyway, some scare tactics my record is :

played lots
lost lots
won some
surprised a few

In the spirit of the site I offer:

1.c4 b6

because it's a wee bit off beam but appropriate for my adopted country.
I wish you the same luck I wish myself, but before mine preferably.

Feel free to shorten my name.

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3

Very apt choice of opening.

I would propose a few further gradations to your table, such as

"Landed myself in trouble in the opening. Tried desperately to stir up some complications and was rewarded by a blunder from my opponent in time trouble."

"Took forever to play the opening moves. Stared at the board so intently that my opponent felt obliged to return the favour. Swindled him in the ensuing time scramble."

These would apply nicely to me. It's too bad time isn't a factor in games like this one.

1.c4 b6
2.Nc3 e6

Don't talk to me about time trouble! Have you any idea what enormous part of a second a mechanical clock records even when you press it instantly?

One of my favourite ploys is to accidently play a couple of strong positional moves early on against a strong player and watch him go all cautious because he thinks I understand it. (hence e6, opening lines for my King's Bishop and my Queen.)

I've tried clicking on the smilie button but can't seem to get anything to work. So you'll have to catch my irony as it comes just now.

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4

I know from experience how much of a split-second-gobbler a mechanical clock can be! I often play 1-minute games online and do pretty well, but when I try it over the board I tend to lose on time.

Although, now that I think of it, shouldn't that be happening to my opponent as well?

Hmm, no. Better to have an excuse than to be right!

You can create smilies simply by typing ": )", and the posting program automatically replaces it with a "genuine" smiley. Of course don't include the space, I only put it there so that it wouldn't translate the smiley above http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7

Somebody once said they never won a game from a well man http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif

I have a better list of excuses than openings http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif (just practicing - hope they work)



------------------
It is very dangerous to leap a chasm in two bounds

Can I make an addition to the table too?

"Window-dressed for the last three moves, thus winning the adjudication at move 30."

(I admit it. It's true. http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/blushing.gif I taught my entire team how to do this in 1984, and consequently we never lost an adjudication and went on to win the league. http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/king2.gif )

------------------
"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage" - Anais Nin

[This message has been edited by stormerne (edited February 07, 2001).]

Stormerne

you are truly wicked <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0>

I played in Norwich a few years ago (at the British). But no adjudications so presumably I was safe <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/biggrin.gif" border=0>

------------------
It is very dangerous to leap a chasm in two bounds

[This message has been edited by Algernon Pondlife (edited February 07, 2001).]

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4

I don't understand the adjudication joke! Presumably this is an in-joke amongst British chessplayers? http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif Can someone please explain?

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4

It doesn't happen so much nowadays but in the past a lot of league chess in Britain used adjudication to resolve unfinished matches. Typically you would play a three hour session on a weekday evening (when you're dead beat from work and its going to be late and cold and dark when you get home from some totally remote corner of nowhere) at a quite fast time rate. In Glasgow in the sixties it was thirty moves an hour and then six moves in fifteen minutes. This would be teams of four to eight mostly. Then, if the captains couldn't agree a result in the unfinished games, they would be sent to an adjudicator with each side claiming either a draw or a win.

This was always unpopular because A) [ hope that's not a smiley] they cost a fee and B) the best you could get was a theoretical assessment of the position (if the adjudicator was good enough to get that right) which didn't take into account how the game was actually going between the actual players.
I once read of an incident in a London league where a strong player decided to overcome some stubborn resistance with a tactical sacrifice, rightly confident that his opponent would not have the experience and skill to cope. However a few moves later they reached the first time control and his opponent had enough reserve on his clock to sit out the short second period. So he didn't play another move and won on adjudication, being material up with no theoretically clear problems.

hope that's not too boring, but you know what chess players are like.

------------------
It is very dangerous to leap a chasm in two bounds

That's absolutely accurate Algernon! I was captain of Petersfield (Hampshire) and I read about this technique in Simon Webb's excellent book "Chess for Tigers". I used it mercilessly with 100% success.

The Portmouth and District leagues had teams of 6 players each. I can't remember the time controls but I think it was 24 moves an hour, or maybe it was 30 in 1+1/4 hours - yes that's more likely. Anyway I forced my players to bear this in mind if they knew they could hold off game resolution to an adjudication.

Adjudications cost £6 each in the 1984/85 season with the winner getting their money back. I just used to walk around the boards looking threatening if anyone was going to be too committal after move 24! Thereafter they removed any risk from their positions if they could, consolidated any material advantage, and showed off their positional advantages by a kind of "window-dressing" - moving pieces to strong positions without any concrete variations to follow.

Another trick I'll admit to here... http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/blushing.gif
All my team knew what colour they'd be playing before the match so that they could prepare, despite the team playing order being written down before the match and a toss of coin deciding the colour. All I did was take advantage of psychology. EVERY team captain who won the toss (except me) ALWAYS elected to have white on top board - their strongest. Me... I always chose black on top board if I won the toss, and always got it if I lost the toss! Consequently, since I always posted the team board order a week before the match, everyone knew what colour they'd be playing.

Truly wicked? Yes! http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage" - Anais Nin

Stormerne

you've been spying on me!

I did the colours trick for years and it only went wrong once ever (some dirty cheat of an opposition had thought it up too).

Better still, I did it at fitba' too. [I use the Glasgow rendition in case some of our friends get confused with a certain similarly named activity in a certain large English speaking country] It only had psychological advantage most times but I elected to concede the kick off if I lost the toss. Not many know that rule.

Anyway I'm not jealous of your adjudication trick because I have never been able to find a safe move in my life. I might dig out a couple of disasters that have happened to me when I wanted one last move to get to an adjournment, if you want a laugh.

By the way [no TLAs here], now that Anand has played his delayed 1.e4, I guess he's taking me seriously http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif.

------------------
It is very dangerous to leap a chasm in two bounds

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3

Ah, now I get it!

Although, I must say that I truly dislike adjournments, adjudications, and other such relics of the past. I much prefer chess in its current form: one time control followed possibly by another, and then sudden death.

Sure, this decreases the likelihood that you'll attain "perfection" in your games, but with me that's not a real danger anyway http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+

I once won a game where the only time I crossed the middle of the board was to exchange rooks on the open a-file. So this is line is a little bit on the bold side.

I had a match last night. This is my first season playng regularly for a few years. I felt as if you people were all watching me and I can only say thanks for the support because its my first win except for much weaker opponents all season (although he did have to give me some help, but then again that's how most games end up - the player of the second to last mistake normally wins)

------------------
It is very dangerous to leap a chasm in two bounds

If I'd been awake this morning I would have realized this:

if 6.g3 then .....Bxc3+

and then if 7.bXc3 then ....Qh5

------------------
It is very dangerous to leap a chasm in two bounds

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3

Congratulations on your victory Algernon, was it a tournament game that you won?

And... nobody wins without some help from the opposition.

Of course, the stronger you get the less help is needed http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5

Thanks Anand. It was a league match. Unfortunately we still lost 3.5 to 1.5 but they are the top team in the second division and the other games were close for a long time so we are not downhearted.

Harking back a couple of posts, I hate all forms of quickplay (well, not really hate, but I'm not very good at them) and the allegro finish is the worst of the lot because it is a change of pace in the middle of a game. nevertheless I do agree that it is a vast improvement on adjudication. Adjournments I can live with. As far as I know they are still the practice in the Edinburgh league but in most places they are impractical because of the time and travelling involved.

------------------
It is very dangerous to leap a chasm in two bounds

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5
9. Nf4

It's good to hear you're playing again Algernon. It sounds as though you're doing well, is this true? Or is it just wishful thinking on my part? <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0>

I'm too busy to play in tournaments this year (well, except for one tournament a few months ago). It was a welcome break for a while--I'd played in tournaments for six years straight before then--but now I'm beginning to miss it. I intend to resume playing next year.

However I'm still active on on-line servers, occasionally play casual chess at my club, and analyse games from current tournaments. You can find many of the latter, by the way, on


www.chesscenter.com/twic/twic.html (http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/twic.html)

(Games that is, not tournaments).


[This message has been edited by anand (edited February 11, 2001).]

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5
9. Nf4 Qf7

I've always found it hard to come up to my own expectations and this is even more true after a bit of a lay off. I've had three or four gaps over the years and I never seem to quite get back the consistency I used to believe I had.

So far I've beaten everyone who was clearly weak and I've had the better of the draw in three games against fair players and put up a good fight in most of the rest. So overall I'm quite pleased with it. One opponent who years ago had a plus score against me only managed to swindle a draw when in the time scramble (mine not his) I gave back the exchange to avoid a phantom mate.

I can't remember when I last played in a congress but two years ago I learned to drive (at 49!) so it should be fairly easy to start going again at least to some weekend events.

Thanks for the link. I think I'll check it out now instead of wandering through the civ minefield.http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/frown.gif

------------------
It is very dangerous to leap a chasm in two bounds

Something I've been meaning to ask you for a while - please excuse the importunity - but why did you choose the wonderfully whimsical name of "Algernon Pondlife"?

------------------
"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage" - Anais Nin

http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif The explanation is truly boring but it is probably the only creative moment I have ever had; so I like it. It must have been when starting a moo game or perhaps stars! (somehow that game seems to demand something different) I got fed up putting in boring variants of my name and had a sudden flash of inspiration.

The background is that I read a lot about the origins of life (Gould, Dawkins, Morgan, Dennett etc.). I told you it was boringhttp://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif

Just to get back on topic for a moment. I found a link to chessbase.com on "twic" and downloaded Chessbase light which is free and seems functional. Naturally I started to build a database with some of my more memorable games. So after I had put in about half a dozen I noticed they were all from 1987-9 and the system kindly estimated my performance at about 2280 (my grade at that time actually move from about 1740 to 1790)
I even included a loss in the list but it was Paul Motwani so it didn't hurt much!

Pity about the other few hundred games I will be adding.

------------------
It is very dangerous to leap a chasm in two bounds

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5
9. Nf4 Qf7
10. Bd3

Sorry about the delay... I was out of town and did not have easy net access.

Glad to hear about your results this season Algernon... very encouraging. The (near) destruction of an old nemesis surely bodes well! Is this the beginning of a comeback?

As for creating a database of selected games... I tried to do that once, but lost interest, or rather patience, after five games or so. Some day I'll try again.

Any memorable games that you'd like to post, by the way?

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5
9. Nf4 Qf7
10. Bd3 Ne7

One very important reason I want to compile a database is that I'm relying on bits of paper dating as far back as the mid-sixties as my sole record of hundreds of games. I've got twentyfour in now and I'm trying to get a few more every day.

By the way I won again last night. The opening was a little unusual (1.Nf3 f5 2.b4 I was white). I drew a winning game with this late in January against another player at the same club. (I used to always do well against the dutch when I opened 1.d4.) We won the match 3-2 and are now clear of relegation (phew!).

I think I will post a game or two. The first one might surprise you. I'll pop it in Stellar's thread (so he does not feel neglected http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif).

Am I doing something wrong? whenever I ctrl-c and ctrl-v the moves all but the first line is spaced to the middle of the panel and I have to del lots of spaces.

------------------
It is very dangerous to leap a chasm in two bounds

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5
9. Nf4 Qf7
10. Bd3 Ne7
11. 0-0

I admire your perseverance Algernon! In creating the database that is. Of course it would be a shame if any of the games were lost... those "bits of paper" must be fairly yellow by now, yes? http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif

No rib intended. http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif

Congratulations on yet another win; I am impressed by your form. That is indeed an unusual opening... although strangely enough I can relate to your reaction. There's something intensely grating about the Dutch that makes me adopt unconventional setups against it, too. http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif

Very nice game you posted -- very sporting of you to post a loss! Good play by your opponent, although I suspect any piece-less endgame would be lost for black as white can play h4 and gain a number of crucial tempi with king-side pawn advances.

You ought to post a win as well. http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif

I'll post one of my games too sometime soon.

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5
9. Nf4 Qf7
10. Bd3 Ne7
11. 0-0 g5

worn, torn, coffee-stained, folded, illegible, you name it. My scoresheets have been there and back again.

I'll pop another game on later. Probably one that one me a prize because then I know it's not just my imagination that it has some good points to it http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif

I look forward to seeing your game; might get some clues from it http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
It is very dangerous to leap a chasm in two bounds

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5
9. Nf4 Qf7
10. Bd3 Ne7
11. 0-0 g5
12. Ne2

I looked at the win you posted; very nice. Although it is probably hard to appreciate the psychology that must have accompanied the moves, even from an outsider's viewpoint I can definitely smell something there... overconfidence, and the shock of an unexpected counter-attack? http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif

I enjoy the psychological aspect of chess; I think that it has saved me many a game. Although I'm sure I've botched just as many games due to psychology as well...

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5
9. Nf4 Qf7
10. Bd3 Ne7
11. 0-0 g5
12. Ne2 h6

It's funny how little objective judgement has to do with the outcome of a game. Sometimes it seems to be all about confidence and motivation and of course the clash of styles can account for quite a large discrepancy in notional strength.

------------------
It is very dangerous to leap a chasm in two bounds

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5
9. Nf4 Qf7
10. Bd3 Ne7
11. 0-0 g5
12. Ne2 h6
13. Rb1

I couldn't agree more.

Another psychological quality of whose importance I have become increasingly aware is tenacity.

I have played quite a few FM's, and they varied greatly in their level of positional understanding. Some were quite impressive in this area, others less so. But the one attribute they appeared to have in common was tenacity -- they would not become demoralised by inferior positions, or at least would not allow it to affect their play; and they would milk a superior position for all it was worth.

With untitled players, you can sometimes sit back and expect a superior position to "win itself" (by virtue of their panic-induced mistakes). Not so with titled players.

There are many other psychological factors that often contribute to (or detract from) practical playing strength without being related to chess per se...

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5
9. Nf4 Qf7
10. Bd3 Ne7
11. 0-0 g5
12. Ne2 h6
13. Rb1 Nc6

I once "won" a game with my first move. I was playing someone who knew me very well and for the first (and so far only) time in my life I opened 1.e4. It threw him completely. Afterwards I felt a bit guilty but I think I did it because I was afraid he would beat me.

------------------
That's not the electric light my friend, it is your vision growing dim

I wouldn't give to much away about yourself Algernon, I watching you close, LOL

------------------
Goverment tends to strenghten what it would choose to prohibit

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5
9. Nf4 Qf7
10. Bd3 Ne7
11. 0-0 g5
12. Ne2 h6
13. Rb1 Nc6
14. f4

OK, this is probably rash, but unfortunately I don't have the time to give this position the deep analysis it deserves. I'll just have to hop into the water and hope for the best!

Between Johan threatening to destroy me http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif and you causing waves http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gifhttp://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif I've decided to adopt the old adage "never play at your opponents pace" http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gifhttp://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gifhttp://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif.

I have a three hour exam this morning and this will leave me exhausted so I doubt if I'll get a reply in before Saturday.

One thing I found about correspondence chess was that all the extra thinking time (compared with OTB) was (sometimes more than) compensated by a propensity to be influenced by your mood and for your mood to be different every time your opponent sent a move.

------------------
That's not the electric light my friend, it is your vision growing dim

Anand,

I notice 13.... Nc6 was ambiguous. I intended ...Nbc6. Apologies<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/blushing.gif" border=0>

Reason I spotted it is I discovered I can cut and paste this text into Chessbase Light to get the diagram up instantly but it ignores invalid notation.

P.S. don't let Stellar talk you out of the e4 check. It's much more "elegant"

------------------
That's not the electric light my friend, it is your vision growing dim

[This message has been edited by Algernon Pondlife (edited February 23, 2001).]

oh gosh! i thought that there was a pawn in the way! ok, you go on ahead and move there! sorry. ill go switch my move!

Good luck on your exam -- although I guess by now you've probably finished it...

Out of curiosity, what was the exam in?

Don't worry about the ambiguity; I caught it. I figured you had intended Nbc6 rather than the more exotic Nec6?!

And I think you are dead-on in your observation re: correspondence chess. I would also add that having all this extra time to analyse a position can sometimes be daunting; it can result in your putting off what promises to be a long and potentially difficult session of "deep" analysis.

[This message has been edited by anand (edited February 25, 2001).]

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5
9. Nf4 Qf7
10. Bd3 Ne7
11. 0-0 g5
12. Ne2 h6
13. Rb1 Nbc6
14. f4 Na5

Talking of deep analysis, I'm hoping your main reason for f4 was to get your pawn moves back to fifty per cent http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif If nothing else, the English Defence lends itself to that.

I need a big lump of luck cryogenically frozen for about eight weeks and then magically popping out the day they decide to tell me the result.

There is nothing exciting obout the exam. It has the high falutin title of Practitioner Exam in the PRINCE 2 Method, whivh is to say it is in project management. It's not the end of the world if I don't get it but since I run the odd project now and then.....

Stellar, have you been watching this game for entertainment or was it to keep tabs on Anand's thinking processes?

I enjoy looking at the other games. It is always good to be reminded just how many ways there are to play chess. And of course when I lose I take note that lots of other people do also http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gifhttp://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif and don't feel so bad.

------------------
That's not the electric light my friend, it is your vision growing dim

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5
9. Nf4 Qf7
10. Bd3 Ne7
11. 0-0 g5
12. Ne2 h6
13. Rb1 Nbc6
14. f4 Na5
15. exf5

Just enough time to get a move in this morning...

You're right about the idea behind my f4 move -- one can never make too many pawn moves. In fact, all that piece development was starting to make me nervous...

P.S. Congratulations on your phalanxhood.

It's strange that the phalanx is a weak offensive unit in Civ, considering it was the backbone of Alexander's army (which wasn't a particularly defensive arrangement).



[This message has been edited by anand (edited February 26, 2001).]

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5
9. Nf4 Qf7
10. Bd3 Ne7
11. 0-0 g5
12. Ne2 h6
13. Rb1 Nbc6
14. f4 Na5
15. exf5 exf5

You are right about the phalanx.

Nevertheless, just like in civ we are at the stage of the game where I could do with some extra defensive strength.

I remember when I was young getting a book out the library. It was called "Pawn Power in Chess" by H Kmoch (I think). I seem to remember he invented some strange technical terms to categorize his ideas, but I know I gained immense respect for the mighty pawn.

That such a simple and "lightweight" piece should engender almost unfathomable complexity and conceal such potency is part of the greatness of chess as a game.

Still, just for the moment, you have three islands to my twohttp://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
That's not the electric light my friend, it is your vision growing dim

Hans Kmoch's book "Pawn Power in Chess" is still available! And at £6.16 I reckon it's a bargain. http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif

I like this game. It's the sort I would see while wandering around the boards at a match, waiting for my own opponent to play.

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5
9. Nf4 Qf7
10. Bd3 Ne7
11. 0-0 g5
12. Ne2 h6
13. Rb1 Nbc6
14. f4 Na5
15. exf5 exf5
16. fxg5 hxg5


At last! clearly downhttp://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif. uphill struggles can be their own rewardhttp://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif.

Seriously though. If all is clear to you I hope you are wrong.

I think I might just buy that book. But first I'm going to have to remember where I packed away half my chess books just in case I got it fifteen years ago and put it away for later reading and then forgot I had ithttp://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/biggrin.gif.

One book I do know I have is "Chess by R F Green price 1/-." That is how it is depicted on the front cover. It is dated 1894 and cost me £4 in a little bookshop near Norwich Cathedral nearly ten years ago. This is the opening paragraph (I hope you will find it interesting):

"The game of chess has of late years become so popular among all classes in this country, that any statement of its attractions is almost superfluous. Coming to us as it has, invested with every dignity and importance that antiquity can give, it has kept pace for more than five centuries with the most rapidly advancing civilization. Never forgotten in any country where it has once set foot, it has only been neglected when art, science and every intellectual pursuit have been neglected also. It has been for centuries the favourite recreation of the greatest minds; it has emancipated itself from every social restriction and surmounted every national custom and prejudice; it has survived every political change and every distraction of fashion, and is, today, more widely known and practised than any other game in the world. Who, in view of these facts, and making the slightest claim to culture, can afford to neglect it?"

The book starts from teaching the moves and works through all aspects of play, concluding with a selection of Master games and a chess bibliography.

------------------
That's not the electric light my friend, it is your vision growing dim

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5
9. Nf4 Qf7
10. Bd3 Ne7
11. 0-0 g5
12. Ne2 h6
13. Rb1 Nbc6
14. f4 Na5
15. exf5 exf5
16. fxg5

How's that for greed?

I think I'm going to need a bit of defensive strength myself pretty soon.

Although, in the past I've often been willing to face some pretty nasty attacks as long as I got a pawn out of it. Or, as a different way of putting it, "If I suffer I might as well suffer a pawn up!"

I onced browsed through a copy of Kmoch but can't remember much of it. I do know that some people consider it a classic though.

Actually, I think Kmoch's book might have some relevance to our game; I don't think he actually says anything about THROWING YOUR PAWNS AWAY!! http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif

Glad you find our game worth looking at, Stormerne.

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5
9. Nf4 Qf7
10. Bd3 Ne7
11. 0-0 g5
12. Ne2 h6
13. Rb1 Nbc6
14. f4 Na5
15. exf5 exf5
16. fxg5 hxg5
17. Bxg5

Actually, I have no idea what the objective evaluation of this position is. It is very unbalanced; I just hope I'm not being led like a lamb to the slaughter!

That was a fun quote you posted; very 19th century. http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif

Around two years ago, I saw a book by Howard Staunton dated c. 1840 -- I can't recall the title. "The Chessplayer's Handbook"? Something like that.

Anyway, it was amusingly old-fashioned. For example, he has a section on the rules of the game, where almost in the same breath he also tells you about the game's etiquette and creed of sportsmanship.

Some of the chess judgements are likewise "old-fashioned", e.g. he gives "1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5! -- best." If only it was that easy to refute the French...

He notes that Bishops work well together, but that a single knight tends to be more powerful than a single bishop (!?).

He also presents the rather odd regulations of the London Chess Club (I believe)... I can't remember any particular examples, but he gives an elaborate and rather bizarre (to modern eyes) penal code for various over-the-board "offences". Something along the lines of, if player X makes an illegal move, and is made to take it back, and then makes another illegal move, then he loses the offending piece... or something to that effect.

I believe he also advises the reader to play for small stakes, since -- he says -- that heightens the excitement of the game!

He concludes with a section of Master games, but this is before Morphy, let alone Steinitz -- so most of the "masters" were unknown to me...

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5
9. Nf4 Qf7
10. Bd3 Ne7
11. 0-0 g5
12. Ne2 h6
13. Rb1 Nbc6
14. f4 Na5
15. exf5 exf5
16. fxg5 hxg5
17. Bxg5 Qh5


I think I had an attack of nerves last time. Fortunately there was little choice of moves and so I did not go completely off the rails. Unbalanced and utterly unclear is how this position reads. Every move is an adventure and this is how I like chess to be.

For the opening I was following Donner-Miles but 10.Bd3 seems to be an improvement on ef which looked very clever because it allowed the Bishop to be developed on the back of another Queen tempo.

Green gives "Chess-Player's handbook" by Howard Staunton (1847; new edition 1889) "Careful elementary instruction. Code of laws. Analysis of chief openings. Treatise on end games."

An intersting historical point from the book is that descriptive notation is referred to as English or Philidor's and "is employed in this and other English and Latin-speaking countries". Algebraic is referred to as the German system "used in Germany and the northern countries generally".

There are times when I long for those days when there was so much still to discover and unorthodoxy was a land of opportunity. But of course, in reality only the the very best players successfully developed new ideas and there was just as much a collection of perceived wisdom about the game as today and (most of all) there was not the body of brilliant twentieth century "master" games to admire. This calls for a new thread:

------------------
That's not the electric light my friend, it is your vision growing dim

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5
9. Nf4 Qf7
10. Bd3 Ne7
11. 0-0 g5
12. Ne2 h6
13. Rb1 Nbc6
14. f4 Na5
15. exf5 exf5
16. fxg5 hxg5
17. Bxg5 Qh5
18. h4

I also like deviating from book, as long as the resulting position is interesting enough. I was not aware of Donner-Miles... my source for the opening was Nunn's Chess Openings, a one-book theory volume. Your 11..g5 was a novelty, it seems, but then coverage of this opening is extremely skimpy.

With respect to unorthodoxy in the 19th century -- as far as I can tell, chess orthodoxy was even *more* deeply entrenched in those days. For one thing, for most of the 19th century, at least half the games started 1. e4 e5. Later 1. d4 d5 was added as well, but it wasn't until the 1930's that we saw a real proliferation in openings and opening ideas...

In a sense there was more unexplored hinterland back then, but for the most part, it was dogmatically denounced as unsound! For example, 1. e4 g6 was called "the joke opening" by Alekhine, I believe. http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5
9. Nf4 Qf7
10. Bd3 Ne7
11. 0-0 g5
12. Ne2 h6
13. Rb1 Nbc6
14. f4 Na5
15. exf5 exf5
16. fxg5 hxg5
17. Bxg5 Qh5
18. h4 Be4

I'm beginning to regret not thinking of 17... Nxc4 in time to play it. You would think that since I played the knight out there to overextend your Bishop I could at least follow through with it. Still we will see what happens.

I suspect Nunn is more recent than my book on the English Defence (Keene, Plaskett, Tisdall). Donner-Miles was a "made for TV" game. The BBC ran an excellent series called "Mastergame" in the late seventies.

I'm reasonably happy with 11...g5 at least for OTB since it seems to me that hurrying to castle could make white's strategy too easy with the clocks ticking and I'm not sure I understand enough to risk a central pawn move. It has the merit of cramping white's position since the knight is short of squares for a while.

I quite agree about nineteenth century orthodoxy. Ther are parallels with their understanding of physics for example where there was a prevailing confidence that all that was left was tidying up some loose ends. You can get a similar feeling from reading their histories as well, at least among British historians. I wonder if it stems from awareness of change, which was becoming more rapid and radical by then than it had generally been in earlier times, and thus we will show a similar naive attitude when people look back at our time.

By the way I tried the Modern for a few years but I gave it up when I realized how poorly I understood what I was doing. I kept finding that the flexibility of delaying Nf6 was overshadowed by my lack of restraint on white's development.

------------------
That's not the electric light my friend, it is your vision growing dim

[This message has been edited by Algernon Pondlife (edited March 02, 2001).]

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5
9. Nf4 Qf7
10. Bd3 Ne7
11. 0-0 g5
12. Ne2 h6
13. Rb1 Nbc6
14. f4 Na5
15. exf5 exf5
16. fxg5 hxg5
17. Bxg5 Qh5
18. h4 Be4
19. Nf4

I was considering 16...Nc4 for black...

11...g5 upsets the apple-cart, to be sure! It forces white to commit to a strategy, and it's fairly easy to pick the wrong one. I'm not so sure I didn't... <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0>

That's a good point about 19th-century orthodoxy. In general I think they assumed that there was much less to know about a field than there really was. I'd add the example of Hilbert's quest for axiomatic completeness in mathematics, which of course was later dealt a fatal blow by Goedel's incompleteness theorem.

As for 1.. g6 -- I sometimes play it when I really want to win against 1. d4. It is less solid than my beloved Nimzo-Indian, but offers more promise of early initiative for black.


[This message has been edited by anand (edited March 02, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by anand (edited March 02, 2001).]

By the way, it occurs to me that my last move might be termed "The Knight's Revenge"!

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5
9. Nf4 Qf7
10. Bd3 Ne7
11. 0-0 g5
12. Ne2 h6
13. Rb1 Nbc6
14. f4 Na5
15. exf5 exf5
16. fxg5 hxg5
17. Bxg5 Qh5
18. h4 Be4
19. Nf4 Qxd1

"Knight's revenge" ouch!

My other idea could have been to push on to g4 and try to storm down the h-file. That just has to be playable. I suppose I assumed you had considered it before playng f4 and of course you can push in the centre then (maybe get your knight into d4.

When I was at school, I only ever played 1.d4 until, one day, I was crushed by the Nimzo-Indian. Even though my opponent was a strong player I knew it was my utter lack of comprehension that let me down. I didn't have the time to study this weird opening, and so I stopped playing 1.d4 for years. Eventually I started to play it myself, but I have never gone consistently back to 1.d4.

Now that I think of it I really ought to because for the most part it suits my game very well. It's a funny life!


------------------
That's not the electric light my friend, it is your vision growing dim

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5
9. Nf4 Qf7
10. Bd3 Ne7
11. 0-0 g5
12. Ne2 h6
13. Rb1 Nbc6
14. f4 Na5
15. exf5 exf5
16. fxg5 hxg5
17. Bxg5 Qh5
18. h4 Be4
19. Nf4 Qxd1
20. Rbxd1

It looks like I'm coming down with something... luckily, today's move doesn't require a whole lot of "processing" http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif

The g4 idea was what I had in mind for black. After g4 I was looking at two moves for white: exf5 (exploiting the fact that black hasn't played h5 yet, so that Qxg4 is available on Nxf5) and d5. Of the two exf5 seems safer -- less chance of getting mated there -- but d5 seemed more promising.

You shouldn't have allowed a single loss to put you off playing 1. d4!! It is not so hard to cope with the Nimzo. You just need to find a single good line against it with white, one that suits your temperament. That reduces the entire dreaded Nimzo to just one line (or maybe 2-3, depending on how many choices black has).

(Just to clarify, I did not mean to annotate 1. d4 as being an excellent move -- although it is -- just to emphasize my words http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif )

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5
9. Nf4 Qf7
10. Bd3 Ne7
11. 0-0 g5
12. Ne2 h6
13. Rb1 Nbc6
14. f4 Na5
15. exf5 exf5
16. fxg5 hxg5
17. Bxg5 Qh5
18. h4 Be4
19. Nf4 Qxd1
20. Rbxd1 Nac6

Not much point getting ill while you are winninghttp://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif. Seriously though, I hope it goes away quickly.

It's quite possible that ef and d5 transpose since after d5 ed (although ...Na5 still looks playable to me) I think you have to recapture with the e-pawn.

I think what happened with 1.d4 is that I intended to go back to it once I had a little look at the Nimzo, but I got stuck on 1.Nf3 because it meant I was paying mostly fiancchetto positions with black and white (I played KID in those days and I have played Pirc since even before I knew its name).

Now I vary my white game between 1.Nf3 and the Sokolsky, but I have decided to add 1.d4 back in (I think I'll look at some Capablanca games as a starter!). Sometimes, of course, Nf3 transposes into a Q-pawn game and that suits me too.


------------------
I think we are in rat's alley
Where the dead men lost their bones.

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5
9. Nf4 Qf7
10. Bd3 Ne7
11. 0-0 g5
12. Ne2 h6
13. Rb1 Nbc6
14. f4 Na5
15. exf5 exf5
16. fxg5 hxg5
17. Bxg5 Qh5
18. h4 Be4
19. Nf4 Qxd1
20. Rbxd1 Nac6
21. Bxe4 (if 21..fxe4, 22. d5)

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife:

Not much point getting ill while you are winning<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0>. Seriously though, I hope it goes away quickly.



Thanks. It is a cold of the sort I always end up getting, at least once per winter.

I always find fluid positions of the sort that occur after 1. Nf3 or 1. b4 to be extremely challenging. When playing, I always like to have a clear strategic plan before me, and the positions your openings engender tend to be anything but.

What I mean is that I always aim to transform the position, e.g. via a central pawn thrust followed by a timely piece exchange -- so as to obtain a static or long-term advantage, such as good B vs. bad B.

But in fluid, semi-closed positions such as the ones resulting from the KIA this is hard to do, so I end up spending a lot of time on each move as I consider all of the ways to "transform" the position.

I admire people who are comfortable with these KIA-type positions!

[This message has been edited by anand (edited March 04, 2001).]

1. c4 b6
2. Nc3 e6
3. d4 Bb7
4. e4 Bb4
5. f3 Qh4+
6. g3 Bc3+
7. bc3 Qh5
8. Nh3 f5
9. Nf4 Qf7
10. Bd3 Ne7
11. 0-0 g5
12. Ne2 h6
13. Rb1 Nbc6
14. f4 Na5
15. exf5 exf5
16. fxg5 hxg5
17. Bxg5 Qh5
18. h4 Be4
19. Nf4 Qxd1
20. Rbxd1 Nac6
21. Bxe4 fxe4
22. d5 Ne5

You've hit a few nails right on the head there. Considering my first love was the Queens Gambit, it is strange I've opted for such amorphous openings. Perhaps it was all that psychedelia and the dogmatic rejection of everything conventional I was mixed up with in the late sixties.

And yes, I find I take too much time too early in the game too often. I put it down to an indecisive nature, but of course a more structured opening could help quite a bit.

The other thing that occurs to me is that we sometimes forget that the game starts at move one. Because the recorded game normally comes labelled with an opening (which we usually recognize) we look straight at the pattern. But many a time there has been thinking going on from the very start.

This season, being my forst for a while, I have deliberately taken a few seconds over even my first move as white. Sometimes I am actually deciding which to play, but part of it is to get me settled at the board. Perhaps if I'm going to add 1.d4 to my repertoire, I will get into time trouble before movinghttp://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif.

One of the things I admired about Tony Miles when I first followed his games, was his approach to the openings. It was as if he was saying "let's forget all this book rote. Let's see how well you understand chess". Playing the English Defense against the likes of Karpov is tantamount to a declaration of war. It was a case of psychology built on a deep understanding of opening theory. and there were a whole bunch of English players doing that at the time.

I found this web site: http://chess.liveonthenet.com/

It's where I got the Tartakover quote you should see below. It has a section on the Grob!

------------------
The tactician must know what to do whenever something needs doing; the strategist must
know what to do when nothing needs doing.

20. Rbxd1 Nac6
21. Bxe4 fxe4
22. d5 Ne5
23. Bf6

I'm posting this from work (my company's dollars at work) so I'll have to make it short...

Hopefully later I'll be able to respond to what you said RE: amorphous positions.

20. Rbxd1 Nac6
21. Bxe4 fxe4
22. d5 Ne5
23. Bf6 resigns

not with a bang but a whimper

Well played http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/mad.gifhttp://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/goodwork.gifhttp://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif and thanks for the game. I enjoyed (most of) it.

Sorry for another oversight; I had been looking at ...Ne5 coming after ...d6 (not that that is fantastic anyway). But ever since h4 I've been staring at losing lines and it was just a matter of time.

You are free to take on Johan now, although he does not seem to be making any moves lately.

If anyone is watching, I'm happy to start another game now (either colour).

------------------
The tactician must know what to do whenever something needs doing;
the strategist must know what to do when nothing needs doing.

I had overlooked Bf6 at first too. In fact, I stumbled on the whole d5 idea quite by accident...

Anyway, thank you for the game. It was an interesting one.

One thing I can say about it is that it was you who showed enterprising spirit and courage, whereas I just sat back and gobbled the material offered me with pacman-like mindlessness!

I think try to grab a new game now, although--as you said--Johan has not been especially active lately...

Just thought I'd pop back here for a moment to let you know the cryogenics worked out okay.

I am now a Prince 2 Practitioner or at least there is a certificate to say that I am.

I now have to go away and draw up a project mandate for my next civ game! And all moves will have to be sanctioned by a project bored.

------------------
"Ridicule can do much...but one thing is not given to it, to put a stop permanently to the incursion of new and powerful ideas"
-Aaron Nimzovitch

Glad to hear it! Congratulations.

So your planning ability is now officially acknowledged... little do they know how devious your plans can be (the Pirc and the English defense! Very sinister)...