Chess - showing off

[pannonian]

Just preening my feathers after a game I've won. The ending could have been tidier by doubling my rooks, but my time was running out and I couldn't resist simplifying. 10 minutes to start with, 15 seconds added per move. I'm Black. Comments welcome.

1. e4 c5
2. Bc4 e6
3. d3 a6
4. Qf3 Nc6
5. c3 b5
6. Bb3 Bb7
7. a3 Qc7
8. Bf4 Bd6
9. Nh3 Nge7
10. Qg3 Bxf4
11. Nxf4 O-O-O
12. a4 g5
13. Nh5 f5
14. axb5 Ne5
15. bxa6 Ba8
16. O-O f4
17. Qh3 g4
18. Qh4 Nxd3
19. Bc2 Ng6
20. Qxg4 Nde5
21. Qd1 Rdf8
22. f3 Nc4
23. Re1 Rhg8
24. g4 fxg3
25. Nxg3 Nh4
26. Rf1 Rxg3+
27. Kh1 Rg2
28. f4 Ne3
29. Qh5 Nxf1
30. Qxh4 Rxh2+
31. Qxh2 Nxh2
0-1

[Octavium]

[q]Comments welcome.[/q]

I wish I could learn to 'read' chess matches from the stuff you've written below. I play chess semi-regularly and it still looks like code to me.

Congrats though, you won in just over 30 turns, which seems quick.

[pannonian]

[q]Comments welcome.[/q]

I wish I could learn to 'read' chess matches from the stuff you've written below. I play chess semi-regularly and it still looks like code to me.

Congrats though, you won in just over 30 turns, which seems quick.

a4, cxd4: Pawn moves, aka pawn-a4, c-pawn takes on d4.
Qb5, Qxc7: Queen moves, aka Queen-b5, Queen takes on c7.
Rab1, R2xe4: Rook moves where more than one rook can move to a square, aka a-file Rook moves to b1, 2nd rank Rook takes on e4.
B: Bishop.
N: Knight.
K: King
0-0: Castle kingside.
0-0-0: Castle queenside.

Play it through with something like Winboard. Moves given in pairs, first White's move followed by Black's move.

[Le Beotien]

4. Qf3

Is this move theoretical ? I don't like studying openings so I don't know much about them, but this move seems clearly strange to me.

7. a3 Qc7

Same here. and black's move seems doubtul too.
I think White should have developped their position by playing Ke2 ok maybe Be3 (or Bf4).

17. Qh3

Your sacrifice seemed more than just interesting until I asked Fritz 10 what he thought. He answered me Qxg5!!, and I have to agree. As long as you don't have the diagonal the attack is not that powerful.

Look:
17. Qg5 Nf3+ (I guess that's what you intended to play)
18. gxf3 Rhg8
19.Ng7 Nf5
20. Kh1 Rxg7
21. Qh5 Qe5
22. Qh3 Rg6
23. Rg1 Rh6
24. Qf1 Ne7
25. Nd2 Qh5
26. Rg2
And black give up because there's no more attack...

19. Bc2

Another mistake, Qxe7 would have won easily. And you should have played Kg6.

22. f3

White tried to close the game but made it far more difficult to protect their Kh5 and gave an excellent position to your knight in e3.

23. Re1

Hehe, he didn't see things coming. Rf2 was obviously better. For the rest of the game, although he did not defend well, your attack was pretty unstoppable, good game (especially as it was a "rapid game") !

[pannonian]

Is this move theoretical ? I don't like studying openings so I don't know much about them, but this move seems clearly strange to me.

Same here. and black's move seems doubtul too.
I think White should have developped their position by playing Ke2 ok maybe Be3 (or Bf4).

Thanks for the comments. My guess about his development is that he was used to the Scholar's mate setup in internet games, and thus started with Bc4 and Qf3. After I blocked his bishop with e6, I had to find a diagonal for my lightsquared bishop, hence the fianchetto, and everything else on the queenside that served that fianchetto (Nc6, Qc7, etc). In the past I might have left the bishop to fend for itself, or backed it with Rb8, but I've grown wary of hanging pieces, whether or not the way to them is blocked, hence Qc7 (which admittedly looks ugly, especially with Bd6 to follow).

As white, there are any number of ways he could have improved his opening, starting with having a plan, and moving on to not exposing his Queen too early, but I didn't exactly take full advantage of it either. Oh well, the fruits of not having played much chess for years.

Your sacrifice seemed more than just interesting until I asked Fritz 10 what he thought. He answered me Qxg5!!, and I have to agree. As long as you don't have the diagonal the attack is not that powerful.

Look:
17. Qg5 Nf3+ (I guess that's what you intended to play)
18. gxf3 Rhg8
19.Ng7 Nf5
20. Kh1 Rxg7
21. Qh5 Qe5
22. Qh3 Rg6
23. Rg1 Rh6
24. Qf1 Ne7
25. Nd2 Qh5
26. Rg2
And black give up because there's no more attack...

Ouch.

Another mistake, Qxe7 would have won easily. And you should have played Kg6.

19. Qxe7 Bxe4

and I felt I had some kind of compensation, probably not in absolute terms, but certainly enough to make him think awhile, with possession of the long diagonal, 2 pawns and a knight bearing on his kingside, and open files for my rooks. 20.Bc2 would have had me in trouble though, dividing my bishop between its duties of protecting the knight and blocking the a8 square.

White tried to close the game but made it far more difficult to protect their Kh5 and gave an excellent position to your knight in e3.

Hence my joyful hop to c4, looking at e3. Having been the victim of such pawn structures in the past, I've grown less fond of defensively pushing my pawns than I used to be (once being mated with a full castled fianchetto position, but without the bishop, and being mated by a knight on h6 with his bishop controlling the diagonal and my "protective" rook blocking my escape route), but tend to prefer creative arrangements of my pieces, preferably with my opopnent's pawns blocking the way. Hence his voracious pawn grabbing on the queenside was right to my taste. At the very least, I don't waste time creating pawn structures that are going to be wrecked anyway.

Hehe, he didn't see things coming. Rf2 was obviously better. For the rest of the game, although he did not defend well, your attack was pretty unstoppable, good game (especially as it was a "rapid game") !

Thanks for that. I've never been a good speed player, being somewhat slow of thought and action, but playing with that clock limit gives scope for silly attacks such as this to give birth to pretty endings, so the few good games compensate IMHO for my many losses.

[Harry Lime]

It's pretty obvious that your opponent didn't know the Sicilian Defence, open or closed variants & his defence was weak overall but still a very tidy finish especially considering the time restraints. Personally I'm terrible at Blitz chess, you would beat me easily.

This seems like the right place to post chess games so I crave your indulgence to peruse my fastest victory in a rated game. This was a league match against a rival Chess club. I nearly fell off my chair at the opening as up until Black's 6th move it duplicates one of the most famous games in Chess history, unfortunately my opponent's move was inferior to Count Isouard's.

1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 d6
3.d4 Bg4
4.dxe5 Bxf3
5.Qxf3 dxe5
6.Bc4 f6
7.Qb3 Nc6
8.Bf7+ Kd7
9.Qe6#

Here is the Morphy-Count Isouard game. A shining brilliance in Chess annals. Played at the Paris Opera House in 1858, to a backdrop of 'The Marriage of Figaro'. Morphy annihilates his host, mating him with his last two pieces.

1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 d6
3.d4 Bg4
4.dxe5 Bxf3
5.Qxf3 dxe5
6.Bc4 Nf6
7.Qb3 Qe7
8.Nc3 c6
9.Bg5 b5
10.Nxb5 cxb5
11.Bxb5+ Nbd7
12.O-O-O Rd8
13.Rxd7 Rxd7
14.Rd1 Qe6
15.Bxd7+ Nxd7
16.Qb8+ Nxb8
17.Rd8#

[pannonian]

The Opera game is probably one of the most beautiful in the history of chess, for the ideas behind it and the simple elegance of its execution. I find the Immortal to be rather cluttered in comparison.

This wasn't a rated game, but I was pleased to have been able to execute a textbook, though lesser known, mate. Recognise this?

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 d6
3. Bc4 Bg4
4. Nc3 g6
5. Nxe5 Bxd1
6. Bxf7+ Ke7
7. Nd5#

Also, I've done the Phillidor a few times, but IIRC I've come a cropper every time I tried to replicate the rook for knight sac as in the Opera game - my enthusiasm outweighs my judgement and skill, unfortunately.

My best win was against a 165 in a simultaneous, in a style I rather enjoyed - letting him pound my defences before shocking him with a counterattack. I'll post that later if I can find it. Post some more of yours that you can find.

[Harry Lime]

Your game reminds me a lot of the famous 16th Century? Greco game.

1.e4 e5
2.Bc4 Nf6
3.d4 Nxe4
4.dxe5 Nxf2
5.O-O Nxd1
6.Bxf7+ Kd7
7.Bg5#

Anyway another of my mediocre contributions:

A Club Championship match. My opponent used a crazy opening which I didn't know at all (Openings are probably the strongest part of my game) & a very swift finish.

1.e4 b6
2.d4 Bb7
3.Nc3 Nf6
4.Bd3 Nc6
5.e5 Nxd4
6.exf6 Bxg2
7.Qg4 Nxc2+
8.Bxc2 Bxh1
9.fxg7 Rg8
10.gxf8 (Promoted to Queen)+ Kxf8??
11.Bh6+ Black resigned, the white Queen mates very quickly.

[Feliks]

That second game was a good one. His opening was a franchetto, and I run into that one way too often. Not that it's particularly hard to counter (you did well by taking the middle), but it's just so boring and static that I feel like I've played the same game again and again against an opponent who only uses that. I think they hope that you move your b or g pawns so they can snag your rook. It almost never works.

[Harry Lime]

Yes I agree it's a weak opening especially at the level most players are. In that game he got my rook but paid a heavy price for it. I think the move that won the game for me was Qg4 (simultaneously attacking 2 pieces & with threats on the Kingside). He thought about that for a long time.

[pannonian]

4...Nc6 was a dumb move, taking away his Bishop's hold on the d5 square, which he needed to keep open for his f6 knight should you push e5. A case of someone having learned some opening ideas (fianchettos, etc.), but without knowing how to apply them to a game as part of a plan.

Talking about that, here's an example of someone doing all the sensible things one should do in an opening - developing pieces, not moving pieces more than once in the opening, fianchetto, castling, etc. Then you have me, fixing al my pawns on the same coloured squares, moving pieces multiple times, moving back to the back row even, not castling, etc. Unfortunately for mt opponent, while his development may have looked nice in isolation, it had little relevance to the board, while I knew what I was trying to do, and was unafraid of looking bad in the process. A lesson that a bad plan is better than no plan.

White: pannonian

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Nce2 c5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Bf4 Qc7 8.
c3 b6 9. a3 Bb7 10. g3 Be7 11. Neg1 O-O 12. Bd3 Qd8 13. h4 Re8 14. Ng5 h6
15. Bh7+ Kf8 16. Nxf7 Kxf7 17. Qh5+ Kf8 18. Bxh6 Nf6 19. exf6 Bxf6 20. Bg5
Ne7 21. Nf3 cxd4 22. cxd4 Qc7 23. O-O e5 24. Bxf6 gxf6 25. dxe5 fxe5 26.
Nxe5 Ng8 27. Qf5+ 1-0

I missed 25. Qh6+ Kf7 26. Ng5#, but my opponent didn't have much appetite either for the King hunt that was about to ensue. And all because he missed one fo the main ideas of the French: 3...Bb4.

PS. That pretty mate I posted above was Legal's mate.

[Feliks]

4...Nc6 was a dumb move, taking away his Bishop's hold on the d5 square, which he needed to keep open for his f6 knight should you push e5. A case of someone having learned some opening ideas (fianchettos, etc.), but without knowing how to apply them to a game as part of a plan.

I've used 4... Nc6 occasionally back when I experimented with that opening (it's really popular in my area, for some reason). The "point" is to conceal the bishop's moves for a while, inviting your opponent to move valuable material onto squares where the bishop could attack if unobstructed (or more desirably move one of their knight pawns, thus giving an opportunity to take the rook). Then, you would move that knight to threaten an enemy piece, thus creating a fork. It works most of the time against week players, but you can really get yourself screwed over if your opponent is somewhat good.

I don't love fianchettos as openings, they're not nearly aggressive enough and set you up for a defensive game, which is usually destructive. I like to start with my pawns supported by my knights, I might fianchetto somewhere in the midgame if I haven't brought my bishops into play yet, but it depends on how things develop.

[pannonian]

I've used 4... Nc6 occasionally back when I experimented with that opening (it's really popular in my area, for some reason). The "point" is to conceal the bishop's moves for a while, inviting your opponent to move valuable material onto squares where the bishop could attack if unobstructed (or more desirably move one of their knight pawns, thus giving an opportunity to take the rook). Then, you would move that knight to threaten an enemy piece, thus creating a fork. It works most of the time against week players, but you can really gt yourself screwed over if your opponent is somewhat good.

Hard experience taught me that, if I ever want to allow the e pawn forward, I'd better have an escape route handy for the f6 knight. Planning for forks and other tactical coups is usually a bad idea in openings - either your opponent stumbles into one and you take it, or you plan as though he's not fool enough to fall into it. I say that as someone who's not played e5 in response to e4 for a very long time, going through various phases of luring the pawns forward.

I don't love fianchettos as openings, they're not nearly aggressive enough and set you up for a defensive game, which is usually destructive. I like to start with my pawns supported by my knights, I might fianchetto somewhere in the midgame if I haven't brought my bishops into play yet, but it depends on how things develop.

I like fianchettos and defensive games. However, it's vital not to be wholly defensive, but to always plan for pawn breaks somewhere along the line. Fianchettoing a bishop allows for some wonderful coups, using the bishop as a defensive lynchpin that foils the opponent's attack, while it supports an attack on the opposite side of the board. It's especially effective if you've castled on opposite sides, as it turns into a contest of nerve - how long can one attack before one has to attend to one's defence.

[Feliks]

I often consider myself to be "winning" if I have a considerable amount of pawns on the opponents side. I sacrifice bishops for knights early on if it gets my opponents pawns double-backed and then I generally just try to suffocate them by moving my lines forward. If I'm not playing offensively, I'll always end up losing.
Forcing a pawn to their side or making them sacrifice heavily to prevent it, that wins games for me. I often can't see many opportunities for early mates, my endgame is trash. But hell, I fight for material tooth and nail.

[Harry Lime]

Here's the PGN game of a correspondence game I've been playing on ChessHere.
Although my opponent was rather weak the mate is particularly nice. There's just something so deliciously ironic about being mated by a pawn .

1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 f6 3. f4 exf4 4. Nf3 c6 5. Bc4 Nh6 6. d4 Qc7 7. O-O b5 8. Bb3 b4 9. Ne2 g5 10. e5 d5 11. exf6 Nf7 12. Nxg5 Bd6 13. Nxf7 Qxf7 14. Nxf4 Bxf4 15. Bxf4 Nd7 16. Qe2+ Kf8 17. Bh6+ Kg8 18. Qg4+ Qg6 19. f7# 1-0

[pannonian]

My best win was against a 165 in a simultaneous, in a style I rather enjoyed - letting him pound my defences before shocking him with a counterattack. I'll post that later if I can find it. Post some more of yours that you can find.

Found it. The club champion, rated BCF 165, was playing against all comers. I was rated 116 at the time. As per custom, he is White, and I am Black.

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Be7 8.
Qf3 O-O 9. Bc4 b5 10. Bb3 Bd7 11. O-O-O b4 12. Nce2 Qa5 13. g4 Nc6 14. Bxf6
gxf6 15. h4 Nxd4 16. Nxd4 Rfc8 17. g5 Ba4 18. gxf6 Bxf6 19. Rhg1+ Kh8 20.
e5 dxe5 21. fxe5 Bxe5 22. Qxf7 Bxb3 23. axb3 Qa1+ 24. Kd2 Qxb2 25. Ke2 Bxd4
26. Rd2 Rf8 27. Qd7 Bxg1 0-1

I missed 27...Rf2+, and either 28. Ke1 Qc1+ 29. Rd1 Qe3#, or 28. Kd3 Qc3+ 29. Ke4 Qe3#, but the text move was enough to prompt a resignation.

[Harry Lime]

Very well played pannonian although I'm glad you didn't play like that against me .

It is a very sharp variation, I've got another game somewhere against a chap who used to play the Najdorf all the time & caused me endless problems until I finally cracked it. I'll see if I can dig it out.

[pannonian]

Instantchess, 25 mins each. Copy into a blank textfile, change the extension to .pgn, then open it with something like Winboard.

[White "Arthur Sandmeier"]
[Black "pannonian"]
[Event "InstantChess"]
[WhiteElo "1186"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ICCause "2"]
[ICEcause "3"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+ Nc6 4.Nc3 a6 5.Bc4 e6 6.Qe2 Nf6 7.O-O Be7 8.d3 b5 9.Bb3 Bb7 10.d4 c4 11.Rd1 cxb3 12.cxb3 Qc7 13.a4 O-O 14.Ng5 Rfe8 15.Qd3 g6 16.Qg3 Rac8 17.Qh3 Bf8 18.Bf4 e5 19.dxe5 Nxe5 20.Nd5 Bxd5 21.Rxd5 Qd7 22.Rad1 Qxh3 23.Nxh3 Nxd5 24.exd5 Rc2 25.Ng5 Rec8 26.b4 Rxb2 27.g3 Rcc2 28.Be3 Ra2 29.axb5 axb5 30.Bd4 Ng4 31.h3 Nxf2 32.Bxf2 Rxf2 33.Ne4 Rfc2 34.Nf6+ Kh8 35.h4 Re2 36.Rf1 Rg2+ 37.Kh1 Rh2+ 38.Kg1 Rag2# 0-1

[Harry Lime]

You made hard work of that, pann

I've never seen White have a good game from the Closed Sicilian & this guy seemed to like giving up material for no compensation.