Play online chess
Johnny asked for games from the April Fool's Tournament. Here are my comments on the above game:
4. ...a6 Black deviates from the normal Nf6 and gives White a free move.
7. ...Be7 if Black was going to retreat why check and allow White to develop another piece?
8. ...Na5? violates opening principles by moving the same piece twice and placing a "Knight on the rim". d6 or developing the King Knight was called for.
9. Bxf7+!? I felt that this sac was justified because Black was sadly under developed and had just placed his Knight out of play.
10. ...Kf8 the best move. If Ke8 White plays Qh5+ with a great attack.
11. d5? with the idea of trying to trap the Knight on a5. f4 should have probably been played.
14. ...Nf6 Black finally developes the King Knight!
19. ...Ke8 Black voluntarily places his King in a pin.
20. Re6?? Intending to double the Rooks on the e file, completely over looking 20. ...Bxd5! and Black wins material and probably the game.
32. Nxf6?? Dave resigned here ?? because he thought the knight was poison. But if he had played 32. ...Re1+ the Knight could have been taken after 33. Kh2 and White would have had to demonstrate the win and in such short time control anything could have happened.
Both Dave and I should be ashamed to have played this game. I'm sure Dave was tied and I was sick; but this was indeed a "comedy of errors". Most game 30 or game 45 are. That's why I don't "Fritz" my games, I prefer to do my own analysis and learn from my mistakes. I already know that the computer plays better than me. If you read my comments you will find that I tried to be honest and not present a "glorified win" when I was just plain lucky to win this game. I'm not picking on Dave, my other games ended in me not keeping score after I was under 5 minutes on my clock. I would have liked to have shown my game against Joe Farrell, but all the "good" and "instructive" play occured long after I had stopped keeping score!
5 comments:
Jerry, nice annotations! I think you hit the mark on the development mistakes. 9.Bxf7+ certainly is worth considering and not easy to calculate in that time control. Instead you played it intuitively which I commend you on. I tried calculating some lines and not seeing anything concrete that is winning but you do have compensation. I would bet the simple 9.Bd3 is best and is a way of asking black "Why is your knight on the rim?"
One line that drew my attention was 11.Qh5 (threatening mate). Of course, 11...Nh6 12.Bxh6 wins and if 11...g6 12.Nxg6+ hxg6 13.Qxh8 looks winning. So 11...Qe8 seems the only defense. 12.Nxd7+ Qxd7 13.Qxa5 Qxd4 14.Be3 looks strong. Or maybe 14.Qxc7 is best.
For 20...Bxd5, 21.Rxe7+ is good I think.
You're right about 32...Re1+.
Ernie, thanks for the catch! My comment reference 20. ...Bxd5 was dead wrong. It wasn't in my original notes; but added as I was posting the game at 02:30 in the morning, obviously my brain had already gone to bed. Thanks again!
Jerry it looks like we both missed the obvious: 20...Qxe6! 21.dxe6 Bxf3 22.gxf3. This isn't about winning the exchange as much as it is simplifying. Black is completely winning here. It's too bad I didn't see this easy line but that's why I like to go over this stuff (after I've manually analyzed) with a strong chess program (Houdini in this case). In the case of 20...Bxd5, Houdini likes 21.Rxe7+ but it likes 21.Nxd5! much better because after 21...Qxe6 then 22.Nxc7+ winning the queen.
I did calculate an interesting line earlier which Houdini says is correct. 11.Qh5 Qe8 (only move) and I looked at the zwischenzug 12.Qf3+ Nf6 13.Nd5 (threatening a fork on c7) but I didn't get any further.
Of course I realize everything cannot be calculated during a game and we can't use a chess program while playing. But in post-mortem I think computers are helpful in pointing out tactical oversights that we commonly miss and may even show us defensive or attacking ideas that we are not aware of.
Ernie, 20. ...Qxe6! is absolutely winning. The sad part is that I vaguely remember considering that during the game but played Re6 anyway. I was in a fog most of the tournament and only played half way normal in the 2nd round.
You and I continue to agree to disagree about computers. I may not see it but you may live to see computers be the death of chess. I just don't want to be part of it; but I don't begrudge you your opinion, everyone learns differently and has different ways of studying. You must be careful not to get carried away playing blitz on line and miss a rated tournament!
If we agreed how would we keep a dialog going?!
I know what you mean about "fog"--been there done that many times. No matter how hard you try you just can't see it!
To me chess programs are just tools to show me some of the mistakes I am making in a game or analytical mistakes after attempting to solve puzzles. They can answer simple questions like "What defenses did I miss in the line I thought was winning?" or "What's wrong with a move that looks winning?" They also raise questions like "Why didn't I see the much stronger and obvious move?" after the computer points it out. I think computers can be used in this way to help us become more aware of the simple mistakes we keep making over and over in order to minimize them from happening again. On the flip side, they're not going to tell you about strategy or what's the most practical way to win. A chess program may choose a very complicated win over a simple one when it's not necessarily the best way for a human to play it out. That's because a chess program isn't going to miscalculate anything when a human player can.
If computers are going to be the death of chess, I assure you there's nothing you or I can do about it so we may as well use the tools we have available. But like you said, we all have different ways of learning and there's nothing wrong with honest disagreement. Hopefully I won't miss another tournament because I "lost track of time" playing blitz! :-)
Post a Comment