MikeA VS. MusiqueWand (Etremely interesting analytical debate!)

All this analysis took place at Pete Tamburro's Forum.


[Event "ICC"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2011.02.08"]
[White "MikeA"]
[Black "MusiqueWand"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2201"]
[BlackElo "2333"]
[ECO "C72"]
[Opening "Ruy Lopez"]
[Variation "Modern Steinitz defense, 5.O-O"]
[TimeControl "5400+30"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. O-O Bd7 6. Nc3 g6 7. d4 Bg7 8. d5 Nce7 9. Bb3 f5 10. Ng5 Nf6 11. Ne6 Bxe6 12. dxe6 c6 13. exf5 gxf5 14. Re1 Qc7 15. Bg5 O-O-O 16. Qe2 h6 17. Bd2 Rhg8 18. Rad1 Bh8 19. Bxh6 d5 20. Na4 Ng4 21. Be3 e4 22. g3 d4 23. Bf4 Be5 24. Bxe5 Nxe5 25. Kg2 c5 26. Rf1 Nf3 27. Qc4 Nh4+ 28. Kh1 Rh8 29. f4 b5 30. Qe2 bxa4 31. Bxa4 Qb7 32. gxh4 Rxh4 33. Bd7+ Kb8 34. Rg1 Rdh8 35. Rg2 Nd5 0-1

***

Perseus said:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. O-O Bd7 {Been a while since I played the King's Indian kind of approach, I'm quite happy with Bg4.} 6. Nc3!? {The main move is 6. c3, Nc3 is a reasonable enough move, but white won't be able to use the c-pawn to fight for the center as he normally would. A bit of a strategic error if you ask me, but experience has taught me never to underestimate silly-looking developing moves.}6. ... g6 7. d4 Bg7 8. d5!? {I think 8. Bg5 first would be somewhat more problematic for black.} 8. ... Nce7 9. Bb3 f5?! {I would've definitely played 9. ... h6 first. Allowing a knight or bishop to come to g5 is asking for trouble. If 9. ... h6 10. Re f5, though, the king being on e8 is a problem if white plays exf5-Ne2-Nf4, and the kingside is softened up after h6 of course.} 10. Ng5 Nf6 11. Ne6 Bxe6 12. dxe6 c6 13. exf5 gxf5 14. Re1 Qc7 15. Bg5? {This is white getting there late. Black can go queenside, making Bg5 rather superfluous, black can kick the bishop back and he'll be able to push d5 and just about equalize.} 15. ... O-O-O 16. Qe2 h6 17. Bd2 17. ... Rhg8!? {Same thought as Dave, I think d5 equalizes immediately. I'm fairly confident Rhg8 and then d5 will do, but it seems rather like the wrong order in which to do things.. Plus that rook on g8 isn't doing all that much with that bishop in the way.} 18. Rad1 Bh8! {Certainly creative. I don't think white has better than to take the pawn, opening up a second file towards the white king. Black's position looks deceptively closed but there are a lot of pieces that can get quickly 'open up' on white's kingside.} 19. Bxh6 d5 20. Na4 Ng4 21. Be3 e4! 22. g3 d4! {Without these two moves, black's plan has little merit.} 23. Bf4 Be5 24. Bxe5 Nxe5 25. Kg2 c5 {White is in 'it' now, c4 is coming, one quick way to lose a game is: 26. Rf1 c4? 27. Bxc4 Qxc4?? 28. Nb6+ alternatively 27. ... Nxc4? 28. Qxc4 Qxc4 29. Nb6+ etc. For that purpose, I think 26. ... Kb8 would've been best.} 26. Rf1 Nf3 27. Qc4 Nh4+ 28. Kh1 Rh8 29. f4 b5 30. Qe2 bxa4 31. Bxa4 Qb7 {I like.} 32. gxh4 Rxh4 {32. ... e3+ is worth considering, threatening e2 among other things.} 33. Bd7+ Kb8 34. Rg1 Rdh8 35. Rg2 Nd5 0-1

***

MusiqueWand said:

[1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. O-O Bd7 6. Nc3 g6 7. d4 Bg7 8. d5 Nce7 9. Bb3 f5 10. Ng5 Nf6 11. Ne6 Bxe6 12. dxe6 c6 13. exf5 gxf5 14. Re1 Qc7 15. Bg5 O-O-O 16. Qe2 h6 17. Bd2 Rhg8 18. Rad1 Bh8 19. Bxh6 d5 20. Na4 Ng4 21. Be3 e4 22. g3 d4 23. Bf4 Be5 24. Bxe5 Nxe5 25. Kg2 c5 26. Rf1 Nf3 27. Qc4 Nh4+ 28. Kh1 Rh8 29. f4 b5 30. Qe2 bxa4 31. Bxa4 Qb7 32. gxh4 Rxh4 33. Bd7+ Kb8 34. Rg1 Rdh8 35. Rg2 Nd5 0-1]

Perseus,

I’m not sure Nc3 deserves any annotation; it’s just a normal move.

But yes I agree with you about 8. d5, it was pretty bad and combined with 6.Nc3 it’s pretty obvious my opponent didn’t know the opening.

[reference position: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. O-O Bd7 6. Nc3 g6 7. d4 Bg7 8. d5 Nce7 9. Bb3 f5]

This is a good point to stop and have a nice conversation :0)

I saw 9…h6 and maybe I’m wrong in my assessment I’m not saying that I’m right but from playing over MS games, especially ones in this forum, I’ve noticed that unlike in the KID here White rarely benefits from having a pawn on e6 is quite inefficient since (again from what I’ve seen so far) he can’t keep it there and lose it with out compensation to speak of.

I think you are right to give 9… f5 a “!?” or even a “?!” but not because of what White played! Had he played 10. Ng5 Nf6 11. f4! He would have a better game! So yes, 9…h6 was better.
The flip side of that is what I said before, I can’t see a way for White to benefit from that pawn, I think it’s strategically false. Black gets a massive centre, especially after his 13. exf5 gxf5! Black has a clear strategic plus.

Maybe I’m taking it too far now but with the open g-file and centre majority it’s more or less a theoretically technical win.

After the move …

[1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. O-O Bd7 6. Nc3 g6 7. d4 Bg7 8. d5 Nce7 9. Bb3 f5 10. Ng5 Nf6 11. Ne6 Bxe6 12. dxe6 c6 13. exf5 gxf5 14. Re1 Qc7 15. Bg5]

You said: “This is white getting there late. Black can go queenside, making Bg5 rather superfluous, black can kick the bishop back and he'll be able to push d5 and just about equalize.”

Firstly, I don’t think Black needs to equalize I think Black is clearly better but regardless… believe it or not I was considering 0-0!
I’m actually not sure which is better.
When I played 14… Qc7 I wasn’t yet sure which side I should go to and wanted to keep the options while strengthening the e5 point. 
I’m not sure about it, I have a feeling Bobby (as Black) would of played …0-0 / …Kh8 / …Rg8-g7 etc. any thoughts?


To answer both Dave’s question and yours I’d simply say that I didn’t see any reason to give anything to White. If this were a correspondence game I would consider 17…d5 for its technicalities but I’m not sure I would play it even then. I don’t like the idea of allowing my centre to be dismembered. I think that there is a great value in positions such as the one in mention to play slowly and carefully because in the end the win more or less will happen by its own right and in its own time. But I’m not blind to your question, it is correct to ask that at this point.
I looked at: 17... d5 18. Qxe5 Qxe5 19. Rxe5 Ne4 20. Nxe4 Bxe5 21. Nc5 Bxb2 and as the German’s say Sicher (for sure) Black is better but practically and perhaps even strategically White has better chances now. His e-pawn is suddenly strong, Black’s centre has been dismembered and after 22. Rb1 White has chances to attack as well. His c5 Knight is nicely places as well. So no I don’t like 17…d5 as much, I feel it’s better to wait.

Perseus: “Plus that rook on g8 isn't doing all that much with that bishop in the way”

I’m not so sure.
It’s a potent threat, sometimes potent threats are much dangerous than direct threats.

[1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. O-O Bd7 6. Nc3 g6 7. d4 Bg7 8. d5 Nce7 9. Bb3 f5 10. Ng5 Nf6 11. Ne6 Bxe6 12. dxe6 c6 13. exf5 gxf5 14. Re1 Qc7 15. Bg5 O-O-O 16. Qe2 h6 17. Bd2 Rhg8 18. Rad1 Bh8 19. Bxh6]

Perseus: “I don't think white has better than to take the pawn” 

No, I don’t agree, at all!
I think 19. Bxh6 was utterly suicidal and quite crazed!
I would give 19. Bxh6??? at the very least!

You forgot to give 19… d5 a !!, it was quite good :0)


[1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. O-O Bd7 6. Nc3 g6 7. d4 Bg7 8. d5 Nce7 9. Bb3 f5 10. Ng5 Nf6 11. Ne6 Bxe6 12. dxe6 c6 13. exf5 gxf5 14. Re1 Qc7 15. Bg5 O-O-O 16. Qe2 h6 17. Bd2 Rhg8 18. Rad1 Bh8 19. Bxh6 d5 20. Na4 Ng4 21. Be3 e4 22. g3 d4 23. Bf4 Be5 24. Bxe5 Nxe5 25. Kg2 c5]

Actually, I played 25…c5 to secure the fruit of …b5 

Thank you very much for taking the time and looking at my game. I whole heartedly appreciate the effort and feedback. Cheers!


Now, for my own (full) analysis:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. O-O Bd7 6. Nc3 g6 7. d4 Bg7 8. d5? 

(8. Bg5 f6, should be ok) 

8... Nce7 9. Bb3 

(9. Bxd7+ Qxd7) 

9... f5!? 

(9…h6!)

10. Ng5 Nf6 11. Ne6 

(11. f4!) 

(11. exf5 gxf5 12. Ne6 Bxe6 13. dxe6 c6 14. Bg5 O-O) 

11... Bxe6 12. dxe6 c6 13. exf5 gxf5 14. Re1 Qc7 

(14... O-O 15. Qe2 d5 16. Qxe5 Ne4 17. Qf4 Ng6 18. Qe3 Qe7 19. Nxe4 fxe4 20. c4, should be good for White.) 

15. Bg5 O-O-O 16. Qe2 h6 

(16... Rdg8 17. Rad1 h5) 

(16... h5 17. a4) 

(16... Ng6) 

(16... Rhg8 17. Rad1) 

17. Bd2 

(17. Be3 Rhg8 18. Na4 c5) 

17... Rhg8 

(17... d5 18. Qxe5 Qxe5 19. Rxe5 Ne4 20. Nxe4 Bxe5 21. Nc5 Bxb2) 

(17... e4) 

18. Rad1 

(18. g3) 

18... Bh8

(18... d5 19. Qxe5) 

(18... e4 19. Bf4 Ng4 20. Bg3) 

(18... Ng4) 

19. Bxh6 d5 

(19... Ng4) 

(19... Rg6 20. Bd2 Rdg8 21. g3 f4) 

20. Na4 

(20. Qxe5 Qxe5 21. Rxe5 Ng4) 

20... Ng4 21. Be3 

(21. Bc1 e4 22. g3 Be5) 

21... e4 22. g3 d4 23. Bf4 Be5 24. Bxe5 Nxe5 25. Kg2 c5 26. Rf1 Nf3 

(26... Nd5 27. Bxd5 Rxd5 28. Qh5) 

(26...b5 27. c3 (27. f3 c4 28. fxe4 cxb3 29. cxb3 f4) 27... d3) 

(26... f4 27. Qxe4 f3+ 28. Kh1) 

(26... Qc6 27. f3 c4) 

(26... Rd6 27. Kh1 Rxe6 28. Bxe6+) 

(26... Rg6 27. h4 Rdg8) 

27. Qc4 Nh4+ 

(27... b5) 

28. Kh1 Rh8 29. f4 

(29. gxh4 Qxh2+ 30. Kxh2 Rxh4+ 31. Kg3 Rg4+) 

29... b5 30. Qe2 

(30. Qxc5 bxa4 31. Qxc7+ Kxc7 32. Bxa4 Nf3) 

30... bxa4 

(30... c4 31. Bxc4 bxc4 32. gxh4) 

31. Bxa4 

(31. Qxa6+ Qb7 32. Qxb7+ Kxb7 33. Bxa4) 

(31. gxh4 axb3) 

31... Qb7 32. gxh4 Rxh4 33. Bd7+ Kb8 34. Rg1 Rdh8 35. Rg2 Nd5 36. Qc4 0-1

I didn't verbally annotated this game I know. No Arrow madness Diagrams as well, yes I know!
The reason?
In the next few days I'll publish a more extensive annotation with 20 arrowed Diagrams and verbal explanations. I'll post a link once I've set it up.

Again, thanks!


***


FM Dave said:


[1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. O-O Bd7 6. Nc3 g6 7. d4 Bg7 
8. d5 Nce7 9. Bb3 f5 10. Ng5 Nf6 11. Ne6 Bxe6 12. dxe6 c6 13. exf5 gxf5 
14. Re1]



John Shepherd (in Reply #4): "...believe it or not I was considering 0-0! I’m actually not sure which is better.
When I played 14… Qc7 I wasn’t yet sure which side I should go to and wanted to keep the options while strengthening the e5 point.
I’m not sure about it, I have a feeling Bobby (as Black) would of played …0-0 / …Kh8 / …Rg8-g7 etc. any thoughts?"

Believe it or not, I had thought of 14...O-O and 15...Kh8 not with the intention of ...Rg8, but of ...Nfg8 in the variation 14...O-O 15. Bg5 Kh8 16. Qd2 Nfg8. This would prepare ...d5 by unsheathing the bishop, reinforce the blockade of White's e-pawn, and prevent Bh6... and the exchange of bishops (which would have weakened Black's dark squares and control of the e5-square). 

After 15. Qe2 (suggested by John), Black might still try 15...Kh8, but I'm not sure whether Black should then play ...Nfg8 with ...d5; ...e4 with ...d5; ...b5 (intending ...b4 to kick White's knight away from the center) with or without also advancing in the center, or some other plan. I'd need to look at this more, maybe a lot more. 8^) 

Dave

*** 

[1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. O-O Bd7 6. Nc3 g6 7. d4 Bg7 8. d5 Nce7 9. Bb3 f5 10. Ng5 Nf6 11. Ne6 Bxe6 12. dxe6 c6 13. exf5 gxf5 14. Re1]


[position correction, it is Black to move!]

Well Dave, this is a very interesting way to utilize the blasted Knight.
It’s a nice plan but I still feel that in some ways it is theoretically (if only slightly) imprecise. The reason I feel that way has less to do with your plan because I think it’s good but I have this intuitive gut feeling that Black shouldn’t play too fast here. I think he should wait for it.

I feel Black should focus his game on the g-file. It’s hard for me to imagine anything more thematic than central pawn majority and pressure via a half open file. This is like the pillar stone of chess for me.

Also, in some strange way I find this plan too slow. Yes, I know I said Black should wait for it but what I meant was that he shouldn’t commit his centre, well, not just yet anyway. It’s just doesn’t strike me as either forcing or potent enough… obviously after something like:

[1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. O-O Bd7 6. Nc3 g6 7. d4 Bg7 8. d5 Nce7 9. Bb3 f5 10. Ng5 Nf6 11. Ne6 Bxe6 12. dxe6 c6 13. exf5 gxf5 14. Re1]

14... O-O 15. Bg5 Kh8 

(15... d5 16. Rxe5!? Ne4 17. Nxe4 Bxe5 18. Nc5 Qd6 19. Nxb7 and White is still better.) 

16. Qd2!

(But Dave, surely after White plays Qd2 Black can’t play …Bh6 anyway!) 

16… Nfg8 17. Rad1 d5 18. Na4 {with the same idea of breaking in the centre with c4} 18… e4 19. c4 dxc4 20. Qc1 Qe8 21. Bxc4 b5 22. Nb6 Rb8 23. Nd7 bxc4 24. Nxf8

[Black to move]



Quick assessment: right, Black has pressure here. Especially with his DSB and Rook. But White has pressure too doesn’t he… he has the d-file, his Queen attacks Black pawns and he’s ready for the f2-f3 leaver.
I wouldn’t want to play Black here, massively dismembered pawns. An active endgame? Maybe but not aesthetic.

How shall I put it… mmm… I just find this a concession on Black’s part.
I consider Black to have a clear strategic plus after the move 12…c6 so for me seeing his game reduced to unclear dynamic play is not that impressive.  

***

Dave:


[1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. O-O Bd7 6. Nc3 g6 7. d4 Bg7 8. d5 Nce7 9. Bb3 f5 10. Ng5 Nf6 11. Ne6 Bxe6 12. dxe6 c6 13. exf5 gxf5 14. Re1] 



14...O-O 15. Bg5 Kh8 16. Qd2

John Shepherd (Reply #7): "(But Dave, surely after White plays Qd2 Black can’t play …Bh6 anyway!)"

I had meant that 16...Nfg8 prevented 17. Bh6. 

16...Nfg8 17. Rad1 d5 18. Na4 b5

Here I deviate from John's suggested continuation of 18...e4. The text impedes the c4... break by White. 

19. Nc5 Qd6 20. Nd7 Rfe8 21. c4

21. Nb6 would seem a dead end after 21...Ra7. 21. f4 e4 22. Ne5 would be met by 22...Qxe6 (but not 22...Bxe5, which would seriously weaken the dark squares).

21...bxc4 22. Bxc4 Ng6

22...Qxe6 might work, but 23. Nxe5 Bxe5 (23...dxc4 would lose material after 24. Qd6, on account of the latent threat of Nf7 mate) 24. f4 dxc4 25. Rxe5 might get tricky due to the weakness of Black's dark squares (particularly along the a1/h8 diagonal).

The text (22...Ng6) seems much safer, reinforcing Black's e-pawn before capturing White's, after which I'm not sure what compensation White has for the pawn.

John Shepherd: "I feel Black should focus his game on the g-file. It’s hard for me to imagine anything more thematic than central pawn majority and pressure via a half open file. This is like the pillar stone of chess for me."

I would agree that pressure along a half-open file is often effective, but in the pawn structure reached by 12...c6, I'm not sure it's that easy for Black to organize effective play against White's g-pawn. I also suspect that White could have put up far more resistance.

[1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. O-O Bd7 6. Nc3 g6 7. d4 Bg7 8. d5 Nce7 9. Bb3 f5 10. Ng5 Nf6 11. Ne6 Bxe6 12. dxe6 c6 13. exf5 gxf5 14. Re1 Qc7 15. Bg5 O-O-O 16. Qe2 h6 17. Bd2 Rhg8 18. Rad1 Bh8]



Rather than the game's 19. Bxh6 (which I agree helped Black), I think White should try to expose Black's king by advancing the a- and b-pawns (I acknowledge that White's piece placement for this is hardly ideal), or to penetrate along the g1/a7 diagonal. 

19. f3

Restraining Black's e-pawn while preparing to defend the g-pawn along the rank.

19...Rg7

To actually threaten the g-pawn, Black will need to attack it with several pieces. For example, he might pile all three major pieces along the file, or double along the file in conjunction with ...Ng6-h4. The latter idea has the advantage that while the knight is occupying the g6-square, it protects the e-pawn and thus may facilitate the advance ...d5. 

20. Qe3

To meet 20...Rdg8 by 21. Re2, but also possibly threatening to penetrate at the a7-square.

20...Rdg8 21. Re2 Kb8 22. Kh1

22. Qxh6 would open lines to Black's apparent benefit. 22. a4 would apparently fail to 22...Ng6 23. Qd3 Nh4 24. g3 f4 25. Be1 fxg3 26. hxg3 Nh5. The text avoids this by unpinning White's g-pawn, so that g3... would threaten an h4-knight and deny Black time to play ...f4.

22...Ng6 23. Qd3 f4

So that White can no longer meet ...Nh4 by g3...

24. Be1 d5 25. Na4 e4 

Denying White the time for 26. c4. 

26. fxe4 Nxe4 27. Rxe4 dxe4 28. Qxe4, with White's having some play for the material.

The plan of 14...Qc7 and 15...O-O-O may be fine, but I prefer 14...O-O because Black's king seems perfectly safe at the h8-square and does not inhibit the mobilization of his queenside majority.

Dave

***

MusiqueWand:

Yes, you’re right, it looks solid.

[1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. O-O Bd7 6. Nc3 g6 7. d4 Bg7 8. d5 Nce7 9. Bb3 f5 10. Ng5 Nf6 11. Ne6 Bxe6 12. dxe6 c6 13. exf5 gxf5 14. Re1 O-O 15. Bg5 Kh8 16. Qd2 Nfg8] 

[Thread Diagram 2]



Dave’s main line: 17. Rad1 d5 18. Na4 

(I was considering the following moves: 

A) 18. f4 e4 19. Na4 b5 20. Nc5 Qd6 but it’s roughly the same 

B) 18. Qe3 Qd6 19. Na4 Qxe6 where the pressure on the e-pawn is meaningless 

C) 18. Qc1, at first I thought it’ll prove effective but alas, 18…Qd6 19. Na4 b5 20. Nb6 Rae8 21. Nd7 Qxe6 22. Nxf8 Rxf8 23. c3 Ng6 24. f4 e4 25. Qe3 Qd6 is fine) 

18... b5 19. Nc5 Qd6 

(BTW, 19... h6 trying to elevate the pressure on e7 also seems to work. 20. Bxe7 Qxe7 21. Nd7 Qxe6 22. Nxf8 
(22. Nxe5 Bxe5 
(22... Rae8 23. f4)
23. f4 Bxf4 24. Qxf4 Qg6) 
22... Rxf8) 

20. Nd7 Rfe8 

(20... Qxe6 21. Nxf8 Rxf8 22. Qb4 e4 23. c3 Be5 looks pretty strong as well.) 

21. c4 bxc4 22. Bxc4 Ng6!!

(…Ng6 is brilliant. Far less clear would be: 22... Qxe6 23. Nxe5 Bxe5 24.
f4 Ng6 25. fxe5 dxc4 26. Qc3 Qf7 27. e6+ Qg7 28. Qh3 where Black has a few interesting moves

A) 28…N8e7 
B) 28... Ne5
C) 28... f4

But 22… Ng6 is a Yeti! 

Your understanding of the position overwhelms me and I’m learning a lot from you. Thank you very much for your precious time Dave. 


Alternative line: starting from Diagram 2,

17. Re3 

{Main intention, centre control and King side play.} 

17… d5 

{Currently being played automatically with accordance to your plan, a prophylactic improvement may be at hand}


18. Rd3 

(quite childish will be: 18. Rh3?! Qd6 19. Qe2 Qxe6 20. Qh5 Qg6) 

18... Qd6 19. Re1 

[Thread Diagram 3]


{It is not my intention to prove any advantage for White; you plan works and works well. This is merely for the sake of analysis}

{And now… What is Black to play?}

(not so clear and probably decent for White will be 19…Ng6?! 20.
Nxd5! cxd5 21. Bxd5 so the thematic continuation may not be best here.)

Considering what we’ve seen so far it might be most accurate to assume that 19…b5 would be good here.
If you don’t mind, Dave, I have a few questions.

Can you try to verbally explain your own thinking process and what brought you to think about this plan? Specifically … 14… O-O / … Kh8 / … Nfg8

[Thread Diagram 2]


I’ve read your two articles, probably 20 times. 

But that is a fixed game, like my new thread ‘Thinking Process, Improving pieces’. It’s much easier (as Chuck pointed out) to find this plan once there. It’s much harder to bring about its creation. 
Okay, pawn structure, space, centre pawns, but what orients one to think about … Nfg8 ?

***

I’ve read your posts a few times and analyzed the positions, variation and sub lines for probably… mmm. About 7 hours by now!
I don’t know if that’s impressive or pathetic :0)

I don’t know if it’ll be efficient to post all these lines but I decided to do it nonetheless.

I’ve considered what you’ve said and I haven’t changed my mind about it. I still consider it a slight theoretical inaccuracy.

I’ll try to explain why, I think it’ll make a wonderful debate because your approach is far more original than mine and you’re a better player but as much as I love analysis (I enjoy correspondence and value it more than OTB and I have critical views on Blitz) I feel that your thinking is not practical enough.

How do I think that?

I look at your analysis; it’s deep, profound and original. I admit I envy your free approach and your understanding is lovely…

But my feeling is that your method “solves” the position rather than win it.
You resolve everything to a manageable balance and that makes the imbalances difficult to quicken. 

If you get the chance listen to Watson’s interview with GM Jonathan Rowson
He wrote ‘Chess for Zebras’ and ‘The Seven Deadly Chess Sins’ both highly praised for their psychological mastery.

Rowsen talks about the significance of chess as a sport. He talks about how sometimes, when we solve chess problems too much and study Nimzovich etc. we forget that chess has one clear objective – winning.
When we forget that we lose track to what we’re doing. In a way, this is probably why Pete doesn’t appreciate the Colle. It doesn’t provide the necessities.

I love talking philosophy (as everyone here know) but I’ll make it short.
I don’t fancy the analytical chances of your plan. It is a better plan! I’m not blind to it, really it’s brilliant but… if this were a correspondence game of let’s say… 14 days per move plus 7 days time bank. Yes, this would be perfect! It’s a clear plan and the centre should be enough to provide a late positional win.

How about its practicality of tic toc?
Probably not
You need the g-file pressure if you expect to fulfill the objective. 
I don’t see where else the necessary chances can come from.

I suppose we should define the objective of an attack?
The way I see it chess has a biological life cycle that one can observe as a shape. But since I don’t feel like painting that shape and positing it (too much work) I’ll annotate is as: 

Opening - middle game - endgame.

You see the way I see it the attack on the g-file is not meant to win with tactical shots or disregard other aspects of the game and disturb its natural cycle.
It’s meant to give chances, provide potent threats {if only just to make them, not even to execute} and set challenges for White. This is all very practical

Having potent threats gives you chances that pure structural play doesn’t.
Perhaps you risk a certain amount of soundness in the process but setting challenges is important. Not just because we’re human but because were meant to win games.
I do think draws are natural outcomes, I have no issues with draws (I do with loses because they imply mistakes) but it’s important to make decisions and act upon them.

If I was asked to describe it I’d say that it’s important to use your ego when playing. You need to feel overly confident and have clear cut definitions of why your position is superior (while being analytically equal) because if you find this reason some of it has to be true!
On the other hand, once the game is over you should put your ego back in your pocket and have an open mind and humility when analyzing.

The will to win, that’s what I’m talking about.

How do you will a win in a resolved position Dave?

I can imagine your reply, you don’t see it as resolving anything, you see it as correct play. Perhaps, I’m not so sure. I feel that you need chances, even if they’re not enough to beat someone like you it’ll will make you tired!

If one plan is, let’s call it “very good” while the other is “great” (great being more than very good) but the very good plan is trickier and harder for you opponent than I’d play the very good one.

An example of the new hyper modern theory is:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 Bg4

Most tactically oriented players will sense Legal’s mate coming together and may try to “help” it!

It’s funny, a computer will now favor 4. h3 and if you think about it in purely analytical terms (assuming your opponent makes zero mistakes and you’re meant to strive for purely ideal play) it has a point!! Yes, 4. h3 may be best here.
But surely if you understand that you yourself need to let some rope slip to “lure” the imbalances and provide winning chances you should play 4. Nc3 because it meets opening and developing criteria but allows your opponent room for mistakes. For instance 4…h6 will fall to 5.Nxe5 

That’s what I’m feeling here, I just don’t really see the chances. Your plan is amazingly deep but how do you win it?

So it’ll be nice to hear you explanations
I know I’ve asked some elaborate questions but hopefully you’ll enjoy this conversation too :^]

***

Back to the game.

This response is in relation to your suggestions of a White imporement. 

[1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. O-O Bd7 6. Nc3 g6 7. d4 Bg7 8. d5 Nce7 9. Bb3 f5 10. Ng5 Nf6 11. Ne6 Bxe6 12. dxe6 c6 13. exf5 gxf5 14. Re1 Qc7 15. Bg5 O-O-O 16. Qe2 h6 17. Bd2 Rhg8 18. Rad1 Bh8]

 


Suggestion for improvement by Dave: 

19. f3! Rg7 

(It’s worth considering the immediate 19... f4 because your plan of g1-a7 diagonal is quite decent. I think that …f4 is the one of Black’s best moves {if not now then soon} because it provokes further King side attack, stops White’s Be3 and allows …Nf5.) 

20. Qe3 Rdg8 21. Re2 Kb8 22. Kh1 

(22. a4 f4 (22... Ng6 23. Qd3 Nh4 24. g3 f4) 23. Qd3 d5, White’s pieces seem to be misplaced) 

22... Rg6 

{I feel that this is more accurate, if not purely analytically then perhaps practically}




(Other tries are less potent.

A) 22... f4 23. Qd3 d5 24. Na4 e4 25. fxe4 Nxe4 26. Rxe4 dxe4 27. Qxe4 Nd5

B) 22... Ng6 23. Qd3 f4 24. Be1 d5 25. Na4 e4 26. fxe4 Nxe4 (26... Ne5!?) 27. Rxe4 dxe4 28. Qxe4) 

23. Qg1 

(This is the only way I’ve found to both defend and keep your plan going.

I looked at these lines as well:

A) 23. Rg1 Nh5 24. Qf2 Ng7!! 
( 
A1) 24... d5 25. Qh4 Ng7 26. Rxe5 Nxe6 27. Re2 Bf6 

A2) 24... f4 25. Na4 c5 26. c4 Nf5 
)
25. Na4 d5 26. Nc5 
(26. c4 Nxe6 27. cxd5 cxd5 28. Rc1 Qd6 29. g3 e4) 
26... Nxe6 27. Nxe6 Rxe6 28. c4 d4 29. c5 Nd5) 

B) 23. Qd3 Nh5 24. Na4 (24. Bc1 d5) 24... d5 25. c4 e4 26. fxe4 fxe4 27. Qh3 Nf4 28. Bxf4 Qxf4 29. cxd5 cxd5 30. Nb6 Rg5 31. g3 Qf3+ 32. Qg2 Qh5 33. Nd7+ Ka8 34. Kg1 Be5) 

C) 23. Na4 Nfd5 

{Other ides are: 23... f4 and 23... c5}

24. Bxd5 Nxd5 25. Qb3 Rxe6 26. c4 Nf6 27. c5 d5 28. Nb6 e4) 


23... f4 {eliminating Be3 ideas}

(I also tried these lines:

A) 23... Nh5?!! 24. Be3! d5 25. Ba7+ Ka8 26. Qc5 Nf4 
(26... Qd8 27. Bb6 
(27. Bxd5 Nxd5 28. Nxd5 cxd5 29. Rxd5 Qh4) 
27... Qf8 28. Bxd5 cxd5 29. Nb5 Nc6 30. Nc7+ Kb8 31. Qxd5, I wouldn’t want to be Black here) 
27. Bb6 Nxe6 28. Bxc7 Nxc5 29. Bxe5 Bxe5 30. Rxe5 R6g7 31. g3 f4 32. g4 Ng6 33. Rh5, unclear. I don’t like Black here.) 

 


B) 23... c5!!? 24. f4 

(24. a4 d5 25. a5 d4) 

24... c4 

(Also interesting are 24... e4 and 24... Nh5) 

25. fxe5 dxe5 26. Ba4 f4! 

(26... b5??! 27. Bxb5 axb5 28. Nxb5 Qb7 29. Qc5 Nfd5 30. Qd6+ Kc8 31. a4 
(31. Qc5+ Kb8 32. Qd6+ Kc8 33. Qc5+ draw) 
31... Rd8 32. Bb4 Rxd6 33. Nxd6+ Kb8 34. Nxb7 Nxb4, White is better) 

27. Qf1 Rg5 

(27... Nh5 28. Qf3 Ng7 29. Bxf4) 

28. Qf3 b5 29. Bxb5 axb5 30. Nxb5 Qc5 31. a4 Ned5) 


24. Na4 Nf5 25. Qb6 Qg7 26. e7 Qxe7 27. Bxg8 Rxg8 28. Bxf4 Nh5 29. Be3 
(29. Qb3 d5) 
29... Nfg3+ 30. hxg3 Nxg3+ 31. Kg1 Nxe2+ 32. Kf1 Nd4 33. c3 Nb5 

{With … Qh4 to follow. 0-1}


***


Dave:


John, your Reply #11 contains many interesting thoughts. This present post will try to convey how I found the idea 14...O-O, 15...Kh8, and 16...Nfg8. I'll post separately on the other topics.

[1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. O-O Bd7 6. Nc3 g6 7. d4 Bg7 8. d5 Nce7 9. Bb3 f5 10. Ng5 Nf6 11. Ne6 Bxe6 12. dxe6 c6 13. exf5 gxf5 14. Re1] 



In this position, I was pondering what Black's middlegame plan should be. (I like to engage in planning whenever the game either is about to reach a position envisioned in my previous planning, or reaches a position that radically differs from positions I had considered.) 

Being that Black's d-pawn is on a half-open file, he'd like to play ...d5 so that the pawn is protected by a peer. But that would hang Black's e-pawn. Therefore, before playing ...d5, Black must protect the e-pawn. One way would be ...e4, when that pawn would be admirably protected. However, this would create a hole at the f4-square (which White could occupy with a minor piece), give up the possibility of ...f4, and weaken the d4-square. Therefore, I'd prefer to keep Black's e- and f-pawns abreast on his fourth rank until advancing one of them to the fifth rank brings a concrete benefit.

Black could instead protect the e-pawn directly (that is, using a piece). Since White could add a second attacker by playing Qe2..., Black would need to defend the e5-square either by two major pieces or by a minor piece. The queen could defend the e-pawn from the c7-square, but White's e-pawn would block a Black rook on the e-file. Therefore, a second defender of the e5-square must be a minor piece, but in that case, Black's queen need not also defend that square.

One way to defend the e-pawn would be by ...Ng6, but this would leave the f-pawn undefended and inhibit Black from castling kingside (due to the discovery e7+...). Were Black to castle queenside, this would inhibit the advance of Black's queenside pawn majority; however, leaving the queenside pawns where they are would still leave Black's king somewhat vulnerable on the queenside, due to the weaknesses at the b6-square and along the g1/a7 diagonal.

The e-pawn could instead be defended by Black's bishop if the f6-knight were to move. ...Ng4 would subject the knight to being kicked back by f3... or h3... 

The other two feasible squares for the f6-knight are e8 and g8. Either would allow the knight to reach the f6-square. From the e8-square, the knight could also reach c7 (possibly with ...Nxe6 to follow) or d6, but at either e6 or d6, the knight would block a central file and lack access to an obviously better square. In contrast, putting the f6-knight on the g8-square would leave the central files unblocked and support the blockade of White's e-pawn. Another benefit is that it would prevent Bh6... (if White should line up queen and bishop along the c1/h6 diagonal), because Black's bishop is needed to support the e-pawn and potentially other squares along the a1/h8 diagonal, were that diagonal to open. 

Were Black to castle kingside, the g8-square would be denied to Black's f6-knight, but this could be remedied by ...Kh8 (which also evades potential discovered check along the a2/g8 diagonal). After ...O-O, ...Kh8, and ...Nfg8, Black's f8-rook would be supporting the f-pawn and thereby make a later ...Ng6 more feasible. 

Would this plan enable Black to meet White's doubling along the d-file? Let's see: 14...O-O 15. Bg5 Kh8 16. Qd2 Nfg8 17. Rad1 d5 (just in time). Hence the idea seems tactically playable.

Dave

***

Dave: 

Hi John, 
This post addresses some of the "philosophical" content in Reply #11. 

John: "But my feeling is that your method 'solves' the position rather than win it.
You resolve everything to a manageable balance and that makes the imbalances difficult to quicken." 

This approach also tends to deny the opponent counterplay. I think it's ideal to have a superior position that can be nursed until it becomes winning or nearly winning, with the opponent's having nothing better than to wait passively while his or her position deteriorates. 

John: "You see the way I see it the attack on the g-file is not meant to win with tactical shots or disregard other aspects of the game and disturb its natural cycle.
It’s meant to give chances, provide potent threats {if only just to make them, not even to execute} and set challenges for White. This is all very practical"

But, grinding out a position also challenges the opponent. Positional threats are often more difficult to anticipate than tactical ones. And I haven't encountered many opponents who have the patience and skill to sustain passive defense for 20 moves or longer. If the player with the positional advantage simply maneuvers patiently, the opponent will often create further weaknesses. 

John: "Perhaps you risk a certain amount of soundness in the process but setting challenges is important. Not just because we’re human but because were meant to win games."

If winning chances aren't present, I don't mind taking sensible risks to create them. I just didn't see this as necessary in the position reached after [1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. O-O Bd7 6. Nc3 g6 7. d4 Bg7 8. d5 Nce7 9. Bb3 f5 10. Ng5 Nf6 11. Ne6 Bxe6 12. dxe6 c6 13. exf5 gxf5 14. Re1], because I felt and still feel that 14...O-O / 15...Kh8 / 16...Nfg8 would have given Black a winning position without additional risk.

John: "I don’t fancy the analytical chances of your plan. It is a better plan! I’m not blind to it, really it’s brilliant but… if this were a correspondence game of let’s say… 14 days per move plus 7 days time bank. Yes, this would be perfect! It’s a clear plan and the centre should be enough to provide a late positional win.

"How about its practicality of tic toc?
Probably not
You need the g-file pressure if you expect to fulfill the objective.
I don’t see where else the necessary chances can come from."

In addressing this, I will be referring to the position reached in the main line for the first analysis of my Reply #8...

[1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. O-O Bd7 6. Nc3 g6 7. d4 Bg7 8. d5 Nce7 9. Bb3 f5 10. Ng5 Nf6 11. Ne6 Bxe6 12. dxe6 c6 13. exf5 gxf5 14. Re1 O-O 15. Bg5 Kh8 16. Qd2 Nfg8 17. Rad1 d5 18. Na4 b5 19. Nc5 Qd6 20. Nd7 Rfe8 21. c4 bxc4 22. Bxc4 Ng6]



I'm not sure what prevents Black from redeploying over the next 6-10 moves in preparation for an attack along the g-file. If anything, I'd expect the attack to be even stronger than in the game because here virtually all of Black's pieces have ready access to the kingside. 

However, I suspect it would be sounder to prepare an advance in the center and occupy the vacated squares with pieces. Although Black's d-pawn is passed, I'd be more inclined to prepare the advance of the e-pawn because placing the center pawns on light squares would restrict White's light-square bishop (the one for which Black lacks a counterpart). Playing ...e4 would then create a vacancy at the e5-square for a Black knight, which might have access to the d3- or g4-squares. Hence, further expansion in the center could quite possibly be the basis for a kingside attack, as this would further diminish the kingside space at White's disposal.

But setting this aside, White actually faces a major "challenge" after 22...Ng6. In addition to the vulnerability of White's c4-bishop and knight (once White's e-pawn is captured), Black may be threatening to trap White's g5-bishop by ...f4. Perhaps White can avoid further material loss (besides losing the doomed e-pawn), but certainly he's under tactical "pressure" despite Black's restrained play. White could have refrained from 18. Na4 (which I analyzed in order to test the tactical resilience of 14...O-O / 15...Kh8 / 16...Nfg8), but I suspect that many players would try it, for the reasons I've mentioned above.

Dave

***

MusiqueWand:


You make good points.

Grinding has its own special character; here too, the correct approach.

I appreciate the positional mastery but considering the position after: 

[1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. O-O Bd7 6. Nc3 g6 7. d4 Bg7 8. d5 Nce7 9. Bb3 f5 10. Ng5 Nf6 11. Ne6 Bxe6 12. dxe6 c6 13. exf5 gxf5 14. Re1] 



It’s extremely hard for me to imagine how anyone (in none correspondence games) can effectively nurture sound prospects (variations, sub variations and tactics) of some 15-20 moves later with decent accuracy.

Analytically, your plan and your approach are praised. I feel less certain about their ability in modern practical games.

For the record, most of your plans are equal according to Rybka. The much talked about 22…Ng6 is given a slight edge for White. This is by no means a strategic certainty but it must be accounted for. 

While the position reached after:

[1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. O-O Bd7 6. Nc3 g6 7. d4 Bg7 8. d5 Nce7 9. Bb3 f5 10. Ng5 Nf6 11. Ne6 Bxe6 12. dxe6 c6 13. exf5 gxf5 14. Re1 Qc7 15. Bg5 O-O-O 16. Qe2 h6 17. Bd2 Rhg8 18. Rad1 Bh8 19. f3 Rg7 20. Qe3 Rdg8 21. Re2 Kb8 22. Kh1 Rg6]

Is a forced win for Black.
Rybka gives most lines -1.0 to -2.5 which is not negotiable at this point. It’s a won game.


Dave: “But, grinding out a position also challenges the opponent. Positional threats are often more difficult to anticipate than tactical ones. And I haven't encountered many opponents who have the patience and skill to sustain passive defense for 20 moves or longer. If the player with the positional advantage simply maneuvers patiently, the opponent will often create further weaknesses.”

I’m not sure I feel the same way.
Below 2100 I would agree but since I’m above that mark and most players I face are either 2200 or above I have to slightly disagree.

Perhaps defensive skills are better studied today. 
Andy Soltis is probably to be blamed :0)
Perhaps I should speak of myself… it’s less likely that I’ll miss a positional threat than a tactical one. 

When I lose games (most often) it’s the imbalances that I found hard to cope with. I decide on a plan that 20 moves later proved to be faulty and I lose the endgame because… mmm. I played …h6 rather than …h5 and that allowed a resource. 
I don’t consider that a limitation of understanding at all. I consider this a limitation of talent.
Unfortunately I can’t see a great deal in advance and I can’t even play one Blindfold game. I get confused by move 16. 
One time I managed to play 25 decent moves but that was a record.

Dave: “I'm not sure what prevents Black from redeploying over the next 6-10 moves in preparation for an attack along the g-file. If anything, I'd expect the attack to be even stronger than in the game because here virtually all of Black's pieces have ready access to the kingside.”

This is too speculative for me. Not that I refute its effectiveness of course. I’m sure you’re right but at this point it’s a fixed game.


We have an agreement on most things here. I too feel that 0-0 was better than 0-0-0 and obviously it was my intention to advance with …d5 and …e4 and …f4 by using the left space for piece occupation.
Where we separate is the preparation.
I feel that the pressure along the g-file forces White to shorten his strategic panning and keep his positional occupation close to his King.

For instance, after the much talked about 22…Ng6 Rybka (which I’m reminding gives a slight score for White) likes moves as 23. Qa5 or 23. Qc2 or 23. Nb6 or 23. Qe3 or 23. b4

None of these moves have been greatly analyzed here, yet.
Most of them will be imaginary or futile had White needed to stay home and guard the King side. That would give Black the freedom to occupy the centre and calmly place his pieces where they matter.

It will be hard for me to prove any White advantage of course. I already mentioned Black is strategically better by move 13 so the question is not why Black is better, the question is whether he has the necessary to win. 

This plan, by itself is correct but we would have to include too many moves to render its soundness undeniable.
Moves that come to mind: (along the way)

[Considering that sequence: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. O-O Bd7 6. Nc3 g6 7. d4 Bg7 8. d5 Nce7 9. Bb3 f5 10. Ng5 Nf6 11. Ne6 Bxe6 12. dxe6 c6 13. exf5 gxf5 14. Re1 O-O 15. Bg5 Kh8 16. Qd2 Nfg8 17. Rad1 d5 18. Na4 b5 19. Nc5 Qd6 20. Nd7 Rfe8 21. c4 bxc4 22. Bxc4 Ng6]

In descending order:

21. Qa5
21. a4
21. h4
21. c3

20. Qe3

19. Nc3!?

18. Ne2! (given 0.74 by Rybka after leaving it for the night, should definitely check this one)
18. Qc1
18. h3 (why not)
18. Qe3 (-Qh3)

17. h3 (Rybka gives White a full pawn after that move)
17. a3
17. g3

16. Qf3

15. Qd3
15.f3

11.f4!

Etc.

Somehow, when you’re tied down defending your king you have fewer resources and as Black you’d have less to include.

You never know how one of these harmless looking g3 moves will affect your plan 18 moves later.

I especially like 11.f4, it’s not as innocent as it looks. You have to be prepared for stuff like 11…h6 12. Nf7 – WHAT? Yes!

It’s not that clear after 12… Kxf7 13.fxe5 dxe5 14. d6+ Be6 15. dxe7.
I saw this while playing, I checked it with Rybka, it give’s White slightly less than a pawn but believe me, it’s not that easy and in a Swiss TC I’d bet on White!

I would argue that having the g-file is appealing as well but I feel that I made my point about its practicality by now.

Next time I get the chance, I’ll try to play your method, it appeals to my meticulous nature and I love slow positional play. I just like winning too :0)

I’ll conclude by repeating myself, I do believe (analytically) that your plan is correct and if chess was not bound by time it would be the best plan.

I’d try it in a Correspondence or a very slow TC but mostly I just think that it is analytically best.

***

MusiqueWand:

"Chess is agony," Alekhine :0)

[Consider this move order: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. O-O Bd7 6. Nc3 g6 7. d4 Bg7 8. d5 Nce7 9. Bb3 f5 10. Ng5 Nf6 11. Ne6 Bxe6 12. dxe6 c6 13. exf5 gxf5 14. Re1 O-O 15. Bg5 Kh8 16. Qd2 Nfg8 17. Rad1 d5 18. Ne2] 



White’s intentions:
Preparing c2-c4 and f2-f4 where the Knight cleared the way for a2-a4 and g2-g4, all as leavers.

Redeployment of the Knight itself: it can later go to c1 (a la Silman) and emerge again via d3 to hit the “hole” on c5. or, to a2 (after playing a2-a4) to reach b4 and hit c6. 

Lines:

A) 18... Qd6!? 19. c4! d4 20. f4 e4 21. g4! {and here Black is facing some problems after…} 21… c5 22. Ng3 Qxe6 23. gxf5 Nxf5 24. Rxe4


B) 18… b5! {Stopping c2-c4} 

B1) 19. a4 Qd6 20. f3 

(20. f4 e4 21. axb5 axb5 22. Nd4 Ng6 

(Also worth considering: 22... h6; 22… Rab8 and I’ve looked at: 22... c5!? 23. Nxb5 Qc6 24. c4 d4 25. g4 h6 26. Bxe7 Nxe7 27. gxf5 Rxf5, where Black seems fine) 

23. Re3) 

20... Qxe6 21. Nf4 Qd6 22. Nd3 Ng6 23. Be3 and now I found it hard to find a winning plan for Black.) 


B2) {My artificial plan} 19. Nc1 19... Qd6 20. f3 Qxe6 21. c3, this is quite artificial but it might very well work! 


***