Annotated chess game

I once did but not for a good reason, though. I threatened cheapo tactics when, as noted in a different annotation, I studied TA doing it with his blitz Q sacs. Of course, I was being a kibitzer there since I was criticized for good reason. And, it definitely resulted in bad play, but my attitude which later helped me keep a job was not giving up. In fact, based on how you described, yours was better. This is where I tried that kind of thing for the last time, until TA and exchanged pm's, in a very friendly way. gameknot.com That was in regards to being way out of book, in that game. So, that was the 3rd annotation that I posted in mine in an annotation, for Joann's memory. That was, in her win against a much stronger player named Martin. Then, it was her accomplishment, change of username, and what things went into mine during that frame. If we're to look at it from a different perspective, I think that Joann and I were friends for the wrong reason, as well, I hate to say. As we both had goals, and her's was very similar to most chess players. But, mine was different and it was one that, little did I realize, would make other unhappy due to my lack of experience.

Of the two, which one of the ratings count more? I don't know since I have neither, so it's based on ELO, in my case.

Excellent question, and I am not sure of the answer, but I gather ECF ratings will be changed from three digit numbers to 4 digit numbers, to come in line with the rest of the world.

I know that it's normal to accept. And, for someone like you, at expert level, I would expect it. But, for someone like me, without much experience, my model would be that if you accept the QG, you're one brave person. I remember accepting it once with bad luck. That's why, after the first time, I walked away from the QGA and played the Slav Defense which I like even more.

I think it is more usual to decline it.

It absolutely. And, trying to get the work out the in, I had to pretend again to not see how and think about how I counter it. But, even if we gave up the B or N, the R would still go. It's interesting, but a better cheapo tactic then the one that I mentioned at the intro of this annotation. However, I wouldn't have overlooked the cheapo tactic, but it would also be for the wrong reason. As the only reason that I'd play 3.Nf3 would be to develop, as my idea would be to get things out and castle. But, I don't know how useful that idea would be here as I generally don't know when it's safe to castle. For me, it would still be easy to castle at once because it seems good and then go wrong, even if, something isn't immediately en-prise or there's no mate to speak of.

I would've played 3...Nf6, but I like this move even more. I don't think that my reason is very good, though, as it is the other center pawn that helps control the center. But, I'm sure there's a lot more to it because of how difficult things get in this game given how complex chess really is.

Nice! I would be surprised, but elyhim mentioned something in the QGA with the B to get the pawn back.

I really like how it's going here.

I'd be thinking the same as black. And, when it comes to castling, my gut always tells me to castle short. But, there are also time where it's better to castle long. I just don't know when that's better.

As would I, and with it, you have the same idea since this is what you're about to do.

I can relate to that because of why Nadjorf is added to the Sicilian. That is, with the one move that makes it the Nadjorf Sicilian of 5...a6 since Jack made me learn it.

I like this and don't know when to apply it since it controls the center. But, when it was the Spanish Opening, this would come shortly after the Berlin Defense since that's a time that white castles early, like the 4th move. And, this is generally played, from what I remember, by move 5. Then again, I might not have gotten this exact, which of it, then it's played on move 6, instead.

As would I.