|
|
1. e4 e5 2. d3 d5 3. f3
|
In my opinion, f3 blocks the knight on g1 from developing close to the center of the board, which is a general goal in the opening of a game. It also reserves the number of squares the queen could travel on.
On the other hand, you have provided plenty of support/control of the e4 space by playing that move, which I think might have given me some trouble or something to think about later on. I don't remember right now. |
  1 comment
|
| |
|
|
3... Nf6
|
Part of my reason for playing that is to develop my pieces and to gain some control of the center spaces on the board. I anticipated that you might kill my d5 pawn, and I preferred to get your pawn in return with my knight rather than my queen. Part of that is because I like the position of my knight on d5. It seems a little awkward for you to chase away. If you killed my pawn, and I killed yours back on d5 with my knight, you would have two options of trying to attack my knight in his new position. One would be pawn to c3, which would put your d3 pawn in an awkward position of having to defend two pawns while having no pawn support of his own. The other option would have been your knight to c3. I would have taken that knight with mine, and I believe you would have taken mine back with your b3 pawn. That wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for either of us, but it would give you double pawns (two in front of each other), and it would leave your a2 pawn isolated (no comrade pawns in the adjacent lane), which is usually a weak position for a pawn.
Another thing that came to my mind is, if you take my d5 pawn, and I take yours with my knight, you would not be able to attack my knight with your bishop on f1, because you blocked it with your d3 pawn. I don't think that was necessarily a problem, but I tend to not want to block my bishops by putting pawns on e3 or d3. On the other hand, there are many people and situations where that does happen, so I try not to hold onto that too strongly. It's something I keep in mind, though.
|
1 comment
|
| |
|
|
4. exd5 Nxd5 5. Ne2
|
I think that's a pretty good move, in that you're developing your knight. If you bring your other knight to c3, that would make for a decent "knight tag team" where they're both supporting each other. It seems to make it safer for your b knight to come to c3, so that if I kill it with my d5 knight, you could kill my knight with your e knight instead of a pawn, which would give you a better position.
Something I would keep in mind in this position is that the knight on e2 blocks the e2 space from both the bishop and the queen from moving htere, and I would probably try to find an opening for the f1 bishop. Possibly by playing g3 at some point, or re-opening the e2 space later if the opportunity arises. It would depend on how the play goes. |
|
| |
|
|
5... Nc6
|
Part of the reasoning was to develop my knight and gain more control of the center spaces e5 and d4, and on a milder level hoping to keep your d3 pawn from advancing to d4. I believe at this point I didn't necessarily prevent that opportunity entirely. |
|
| |
|
|
6. Nbc3
|
At this point, the first thought that jumps to my head is, should I take your knight with mine? I don't want to, because it would help your other knight make room for your bishop, in my opinion. On the other hand, I do like the location of my knight, and wouldn't want you to sacrifice your knight for mine. |
|
| |
|
|
6... Bb4
|
I felt that this would protect my knight from being killed by yours because your knight is pinned to your king. You took care of that, though, in your next move. |
|
| |
|
|
7. Bd2
|
Now I'm wondering, should I just let those pieces be where they are? All those bishops and knights grouped up together. I can't necessarily see any gain in position for myself by attacking. On the other hand, if I don't, I anticipated that you would take my knight, I'd take it back with my queen, you might take my bishop with yours, I'd take it with my knight. Then, you might attack my knight which would then be on b4 with your pawn on c3, I would be forced to retreat, and you would then possibly have a somewhat upper hand by forcing me to retreat and then moving again. Another reason why I think attacking my then-to-be knight on b4 with your c2 pawn is good is because it simultaneously opens way for your queen to move towards c2/b3/a4, should you choose to play it in that direction. |
|
| |
|
|
7... Nxc3
|
For the previous reasons (at least, in part), I chose to attack instead of wait for you to attack. I didn't foresee any necessarily better position for myself as a result of the sacrifice, but preferred it to the alternative. |
|
| |
|
|
8. bxc3
|
I was taken by surprise in that move, because I was expecting you to respond either with your bishop or your knight. I think any of the three possible responds could have been fine and I don't know which one would be best, although having played the one you did, I think your move might have been better. Regardless of what the best move was, I could say that I was taken by surprise by this move, and being taken by surprise is usually not a good sign in chess, even if it's not a hugely impactful move. This move reminded me to stay alert.
Although on some level, a part of me is saying "that gives him double pawns, and leaves his a2 pawn isolated", another part is saying, that's a pretty clever pawn structure. It paves way for you to move your d3 pawn towards d4 if you choose to do so. It also controls both d4 and b4, which were previously potential spaces for my knight to travel to. It's a good reminder for me not to be biased against doubled pawns, which manytimes comes in handy. And your a2 pawn, although isolated, still isn't necessarily in a bad position, because he's still supported by your a1 rook, which I believe doesn't need to be moving anytime this soon in the game, anyway.
Although whether or not this would create an awkward situation for your a2 pawn later in the game because it's dependent on a stronger piece to keep it safe (rather than any pawn), I can't say for sure....it's something I wonder about, though.
Now i'm thinking, what should I do with my bishop? My first reaction was to be indignant and drive my bishop further into the board by bringing it to a3. I don't see how that could be benificial, except in that it blocks your a2 pawn from moving (called a "blockade"), which might not be so bad, actually.
Other considerations I had were bringing my bishop back to d6 or e7, but for some reason, in my experience, bishops on d6 (or e6 for the white bishop) usually ended up awkwardly for me. I was never quite able to put my finger on why, and it's definitely not a rule or something I read anywhere, just a feeling I developed, and I have no idea whether or not it makes sense.
I didn't want to put my bishop on e7 because I was preferring to keep the diagonal from d8 to h4 open for my queen. It still wouldn't have necessarily been a bad move, in my opinon, because it creates a line of bishop action on that diagonal, while supported by my queen.
I liked bishop to a5, because my bishop would be pretty safe there because you have no more pawns that could attack it on that lane, and because if you ever chose to move your c pawn, you would need to consider whether or not you were ok with my sacrificing my bishop for yours. Also, if you chose to move your bishop from d2 or your knight from e2, you would require keeping the other piece in place to defend that pawn from my bishop. I don't know for certain that I'm not reading too much into things and that my analysis makes sense, but bottom line for me was it seemed like the best avai |
1 comment
|
| |
|
|
8... Ba5
|
Although I had liked my knight and his position, I found some relief in him clearing the D-lane for the queen to place more pressure against your d3 pawn against moving forward. I don't know why I keep focusing on that, but for some reason that's where my mind goes. |
|
| |
|
|
9. c4
|
At this point, I felt like I had one of two options. Either I could trade bishops, or move my bishop to b6. I preferred not to keep my bishop there, because if you took it, I'd have to bring my knight to the wall, and because of the knight's limitation of movement I tend not to want to bring them to walls unless there's a better reason. The second option would be to bring my bishop to b6. I don't know why I chose to trade bishops over that move. I don't think I was clear with myself on which of the two moves I preferred at the time I played it, either. |
1 comment
|
| |
|
|
9... Bxd2+ 10. Qxd2 Nd4
|
I don't know what I was hoping for exactly by moving that knight. I think I wanted either to tempt you to take it with your knight, which I could then take with my queen. You would be compelled to protect your rook, and while you do that I would gain a bit of momentum to continue developing my position, probably either by developing my Bishop on c8 or castling myself. Another option you might have had after we trade knights is for you to have played c3 to threaten my queen while protecting your rook (the computer analysis suggested rook to b1 as a means of protecting it). Not sure where I would have gone from there if you played c3, but it might have distracted me by putting me on the defensive.
I was anticipating that you might attack my knight with c3 at this point, at which point I'd play knight to f5 or e6, I think. I believe part of the reason I wanted to move my knight around was to make room for my c6 pawn. |
1 comment
|
| |
|
|
11. Nxd4 Qxd4 12. O-O-O Qa1#
|
|
1 comment
|
| |
(1392)
Log in