tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post9152076021385662068..comments2023-12-28T02:11:22.501+00:00Comments on The Streatham & Brixton Chess Blog: C92: 84 - 95Tom Chivershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09850710685193416732noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-20165451243682804862016-02-24T20:50:27.803+00:002016-02-24T20:50:27.803+00:00How do you feel about your point that despite know...<i>How do you feel about your point that despite knowing the theory to move 17, you never got to play it past move 12?</i><br /><br />Interesting question. I was initially going to say it didn’t help that much, but thinking about it looking back on a few very old games - at the end of 1990 I had three games in around 10 days that had White playing 12 Bc2 instead of 12 a4 - you can see the influence of playing through the K-K games. There’s quite a bit of ... Nd7 and ... c5-c4 aiming for ... Nd7-c5-d3.<br /><br />THere’s also the broader point that if you only knew the moves ... Bb7 and ... Re8 you wouldn’t necessarily associate them with the plan of attacking e4 by giving up the centre with ... exd4. That would probably seem a risky thing to do if you didn’t know it had superGM backing. In all three of those all student games I played this plan and I got very good positions. I scored +1 =2 -0 against opposition that was 20-25 points above me in rating. And one of the draws I should have played on at the end as well.<br /><br />I think it’s probably fair to say that knowing the theory helped me play those games to some extent. I wouldn’t go so far as to say (B) though.<br /><br /><br /><br />All this reminds me that I didn’t ever answer your comment on last week’s post. I’ll do that now.Jonathan Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00293162543015231439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-9610089418516744622016-02-23T22:09:27.170+00:002016-02-23T22:09:27.170+00:00How do you feel about your point that despite know...How do you feel about your point that despite knowing the theory to move 17, you never got to play it past move 12?<br /><br />a) At amateur level, opening knowledge is not a priority as you'll probably win/lose the game due to a tactical or strategic error in the middle game, therefore it's better to concentrate on tactics or middle game understanding<br />b) Despite never getting to play all your lovely theory, it still stood you in good stead, as you instinctively knew where to put your pieces, what pawns to push, what plan to adopt etc.<br />c) The truth is probably somewhere between a and b.Niallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02930494998720038967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-8088599078399538212016-02-22T10:13:05.576+00:002016-02-22T10:13:05.576+00:00Indeed, Roger. Chess has changed and very forcing...Indeed, Roger. <a href="http://www.streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/chess-has-changed.html" rel="nofollow">Chess has changed</a> and very forcing lines seem to be out of fashion at the top. Party because of engine ambush, and partly, perhaps, because they’ve now been analysed to a definitive result?<br /><br />I’m sure you’re right about grasping underlying ideas and themes rather than studying specific variations. I’m quite sure that was also true in 1990 when I was playing the Zaitsev as well.Jonathan Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00293162543015231439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-15752616199598971062016-02-22T08:34:20.265+00:002016-02-22T08:34:20.265+00:00In recent years, I have developed a different appr...In recent years, I have developed a different approach. The popularity of h3 and d3 anti-Marshalls means that Black is under no direct tactical threat. Therefore it can be up to Black to find the optimum squares for pieces and the most sensible regrouping. I think Black needs to be able to play .. g6 to keep the b1-d2-f1-g3 Knight out of f5, therefore h6 is possibly wrong so as to be able to play .. g6 without incurring weak g and h pawns. <br /><br />There's a whole family of related systems going under the handles of Zaitsev, Breyer, Smyslov, Keres, Chigorin even and I think it better to study the underlying ideas in width rather than particular sharp variations in depth. GMs have gone off the ultra-sharp, not least because of the dangers of engine ambush which perhaps even 1990s theory demonstrated.<br /><br />RdCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com