luceafarul vs. stormbind (game 2)

[stormbind]

18. hxg5 Qg3+
19. Kh1

Here's me about to lose

 

[Richard Cribb]

18. hxg5 Qg3+
19. Kh1 Nf4

 

[stormbind]

19. Kh1 Nf4
20. Qe2

 

[Richard Cribb]

19. Kh1 Nf4
20. Qe2 Nxe2

 

[stormbind]

I think the same thing happened in both games: When you threaten to win something, I made a rash attack with half a plan.

Good game! It's ironic that on turn 10 aswell, I planned an attack of 12 turns (that is amazing for me) but decided it was too risky..

20. Qe2 Nxe2
21. Bxe2

 

[Richard Cribb]

I don't know exactly what attack you were planning, but it seems to me that your problem was that you didn't have any coherent plan, besides you really castled into it.
Your second move was also too rash, usually it is better to stay more flexible in the opening - your advanced pawn became more a liability than a strength. I wonder if I couldn't have played stronger at certain points. I will have a look at it later and if I find something interesting, I will post the analysis in this thread.
In any case, thanks for an exciting game!
Of course I will also grant you a revenge later, everybody can run into a bad opening, perhaps it is my turn next time...

 

[stormbind]

The real pain was seeing that Rd8 was protecting Nd5, and by then too many pieces had been commited. Doh!

 

[Richard Cribb]

The real pain was seeing that Rd8 was protecting Nd5, and by then too many pieces had been commited. Doh!

Well, I have been there many times... I mean miscalculated.
I think Miguel Najdorf described the feeling best: "Look at me, I am joking, I am laughing, but I know that I will not be able to sleep tonight!"

 

[Richard Cribb]

20. Qe2 Nxe2
21. Bxe2 Bd6
I am very sorry, I didn't notice your move - I thought you resigned. A bit to much wine, I am afraid...

 

[Richard Cribb]

Ok, I am hitting the sack, have to get up at about 6.00 tomorrow.
Have a good night, I think there is no reason to continue this game, my position is 100 % won, as a matter of fact instead of my last move 21...h6 or 21...h5 would have won at the spot. However nothing can prevent me in executing one of those moves on my 22th...

 

[stormbind]

my position is 100 % won

Yes, I had resigned. The move was made in the interest of completion. Sorry for not saying so.

I have thought about my games. In both of them I enjoyed pinning in your pieces. In the first game I liked that the threat of my knight had forced your knight to play defensive, which slowed down deployment of your own bishop and rook. In this game, and you may not agree, but I thought having the pawn so far forward was strong because it disrupted movement of your knight in a similar way.

However, also in both games, when you gained an agressive position (i.e. Knight attacking centre board) and it was my turn to get pinned back, I attacked instead of accepting it. For example, my Bishop led a doomed charge instead of accepting a weak position at d2.

Maybe I tire too quickly, and hope for ways to bring the game to a premature conclusion, or maybe I just don't like being pushed. Probably both

 

[Richard Cribb]

Yes, I had resigned. The move was made in the interest of completion. Sorry for not saying so.

I have thought about my games. In both of them I enjoyed pinning in your pieces. In the first game I liked that the threat of my knight had forced your knight to play defensive, which slowed down deployment of your own bishop and rook. In this game, and you may not agree, but I thought having the pawn so far forward was strong because it disrupted movement of your knight in a similar way.

However, also in both games, when you gained an agressive position (i.e. Knight attacking centre board) and it was my turn to get pinned back, I attacked instead of accepting it. For example, my Bishop led a doomed charge instead of accepting a weak position at d2.

Maybe I tire too quickly, and hope for ways to bring the game to a premature conclusion, or maybe I just don't like being pushed. Probably both

Most of your statements make sense to me. But yes, we seem to disagree about the value of the pawn push on your second move.

On the general level, your reasoning is right. Such a pawn can be a real asset. Having played tons of games with French and Caro-Kann, I know very well the danger of being positionally strangled with that bloody pawn on e5 spearheading white's offensive. What is not so good in this particular game however, is the timing.
Let's compare with to popular lines:
1. French: 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3.e5
2. Caro-Kann: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3. e5

The difference in both those lines is that black has commited himself to a certain pawn structure in the center. This makes the pawn on e5 more difficult to attack. Since white also has played d4, he has already got a firm hold in the center.

In our game however, I could start to hack away at your pawn immediately. In fact I think your best choice would have been to exchange at d6, confronting me with the dilemma how to react. If I had recaptured with the queen, then 4.d4 would have transformed to the Pytel-variaton in Scandinavian(!),while 3...exd6 4.d4 d5 is the French Exchange. I also had the posibility 3...e5 which leads to equal play after 4.d4.

So just to avoid any confusion, 2.e5 was not a grave error, just a bit rash. It loses the little advantage you have playing white, but it is an OK, if a bit tame option.
To make you feel a bit better , here is a game of Wilhelm Steinitz with a similar opening idea as the one of yours:

Wilhelm Steinitz - Max Weiss, Vienna 1882
1. e4 e6 2. e5 c5 3. f4 d5 4. exd6 Bxd6 5. g3 Bd7 6. Nf3 Bc6 7. Bg2 Nf6
8. O-O Nbd7 9. d3 O-O 10. Nbd2 Nb6 11. Qe2 Qc7 12. b3 Be7 13. Bb2 a5
14. a4 Nbd5 15. Nc4 Nb4 16. Rae1 Nfd5 17. Nfe5 Bf6 18. Qf2 Be8 19. g4
Rd8 20. g5 Be7 21. Ng4 Nc6 22. Qh4 Nd4 23. Be4 f5 24. gxf6 Nxf6
25. Nxf6+ Bxf6 26. Qxh7+ Kf7 27. Bg2 Rg8 28. Ne5+ Kf8 29. Rf2 b5
30. axb5 Bxb5 31. Bh3 Re8 32. Re4 Bc6 33. Rxd4 cxd4 34. Ba3+ Be7
35. Bxe6 Bxa3 36. Ng6# 1-0

Max Weiss may be almost unknown today, but he was in fact one of the strongest masters of his time, even sharing the first price in New York 1889 with Chigorin leaving players like Gunsberg, Blackburne, Burn, Mason, Showalter and Taubenhaus behind. So Steinitz used the same idea against French as you did against Caro-Kann to defeat a biggie...

Finally I also think you are right that you became to impatient. If you had withdrawn your bishop to d2, there would still be a game, even if I prefer Black's position. And for the pushing around thing, in chess you have to accept to be the anvil now and then - at least for a while. Then you just have to grit your teeth, dig in and make the best out of it.

Like I said, I will have a look at those games later, now duty calls.
Have a good day, luceafarul.

 

[stormbind]

I like that game, and I think Steinitz played that because he knew there would be no offensive Bg4. The rest of the game was really amazing, and completely outside my ability. I could never find a checkmate like that!

I looked up more games on http://www.chessgames.com, and he sacrifices a Rook for position then aswell. After going through his moves I think some of the play-structure is wearing off on me

 

[Richard Cribb]

I like that game, and I think Steinitz played that because he knew there would be no offensive Bg4. The rest of the game was really amazing, and completely outside my ability. I could never find a checkmate like that!

You are right in a sense, since Steinitz' idea was to gain control over e5, thereby getting a stronghold in the center as well as a space advantage. This was duly converted into a lethal attack. The depth of the concept is illustrated by the fact that a player of Weiss' calibre didn't realize the danger before it was far to late and went down in flames quite quickly.
I think however, that you would have found this mate, but the difficult thing is the whole build-up. As Rudolf Spielmann said about Alekhine: "I can combine just as well as him, but I never get those positions."

I looked up more games on http://www.chessgames.com, and he sacrifices a Rook for position then aswell. After going through his moves I think some of the play-structure is wearing off on me

Excellent! I used to be a chesscoach in my fair youth, and I think that it is a very good idea in order to learn positional play to study the game of the 19th and early 20th century - masters. This is because chess was, like so many other things, less complex back then, the games are more clear-cut. Please note, however, that this does not mean that those masters were weaker than the contemporary ones. IMHO the greatest player ever was Emanuel Lasker, I think he would have beaten either Fischer, Karpov or Kasparov in a set match.