|
|
|
24. Rbd1
|
?
Maybe thinking he could move his bishop out of the way and trade a rook for a rook and a pawn.. good for me if he chooses to do that. I could see no other dubious motives behind this move so I ignored it. |
 
|
| |
|
|
24... Bc5+
|
this is an attempt to get him to move his King around and hopefully put it in front of something again since I screwed up the last attempt. |
|
| |
|
|
25. Kf4
|
It works.. |
|
| |
|
|
25... h5
|
here I have a couple of mean ideas.
1) restrict the number of squares his King can move to. I assumed that he would probably try to start getting his King out of the way of trouble and I would be able to bring my bishop down to e7 and start giving him a headache.
2)A more evil plan and trap was to try and bait him into Ktg5 which has the potential of Ktf7 to fork my two rooks.. unfortunantly, if he took the bait a simple Rk(h8)f8 would pin his Kt to his King letting me get a free Kt
2a) in the even that he saw the trap (and probably would) there was also the possibility that from Ktg5 he would move Kte6 which forks my bishop and D rook and also prevents me from moving to f1 in order to check. If he chooses that path all sorts of heartache awaits him. |
|
| |
|
|
26. Ng5
|
surprisingly, it appears as if he has taken the bait. |
|
| |
|
|
26... Bf2
|
this is a sort of long way around to protect the h4-e8 diag. I know that he will probably move his Rook to f1, but regardless this was just a way to postpone his Kt move and give me some initative.
also, after thinking about it I had decided that he would probably take the safer looking of the two choices with his Kt.. that being Kte6. Being that I had a good plan for that, I wanted to get my bishop out of the fork situation. |
|
| |
|
|
27. Ref1
|
as expected. |
|
| |
|
|
27... Bh4
|
this was my real intention with the bishop. |
|
| |
|
|
28. Nxe6
|
With my bishop there to help him, he chooses the better looking of the two moves... Unfortunantly for him, this was not a surprise to me. |
|
| |
|
|
28... Rde8
|
This Pins his Kt to his Pawn meaning that he will either lose his pawn or his Kt. Thanks to my h5 pawn he can not get into any position where he can protect c6his pawn and once he moves out of the way I can move ... Rkxe5 which puts my rook in the center of the board gaurded by my Kt at c6.
Out of the squares that he can move his Kt only 7 are available to him:
f4 is occupied by his King, so he can't move there
g5 leads to bxKt Kxb.. an even exchange
d4 leads to Ktxkt
c5 leads to PxKt7
capture the pawn on c7 will lead to KxKt
d8 and f8 lead to the obvious RkxKt
and g7 lets him attack my e rook (temporarily)
This leads me to assume that he will move to g4 in order to avoid trading his Kt for anything whether it's equal or not. One of the advantages I've noticed about this strategy is that it sort of has a nice momentum that can be built from it in the sense that the move pieces that you trade off, the more and more reluctant your oppenent becomes when it comes to trading meaning that often they spend more time trying to save their few remaining pieces then they do attacking. |
|
| |
|
|
29. Be1
|
Strangely he chooses none of his options and instead elects to move his bishop to e1 which attacks my bishop and exposes my pawn to attack from his rook.
Another interesting thing I find about this strategy is that often your opponent will not realize what you are doing and think that you are in the same mindset as he (trying to save what few pieces you have left).
This move obviously says that he has no idea what it is I'm doing. |
|
| |
|
|
29... Rxe6
|
I sih I had some idea why I did this. I think at the time I was thinking I could trade a Kt for a bishop, but obviously my better move would have been Bxe1 followed by White's Rook capture of e1 and then I could have taken the Kt and been up by three more points.
This was a dumb move on my part and it made the rest of the game a little more difficult. |
|
| |
|
|
30. Bxh4
|
he of course takes my bishop.. and I suceed in getting my kt for bishop trade, but it cost me a quicker win because I could have had a Bishop for a Bishop and a Kt trade. |
|
| |
|
|
30... Rxe5
|
and now I take his pawn putting me back at my 3 advantage. |
|
| |
|
|
31. Rfg1
|
attacking my weak g6 pawn. |
|
| |
|
|
31... Rg8
|
protecting my weak pawn |
|
| |
|
|
32. Rxd3
|
and he gets my pawn.. now I'm down to 2, but I had already figured out a way to get his bishop and rook. |
|
| |
|
|
32... Rf8+
|
Check. thanks to my h5 pawn (which was moved to restrict the King's movement he can only move to g3. |
|
| |
|
|
33. Kg3 g5
|
This gets me his bishop as he can not run away and will probably capture my pawn just get something and I will retake with my e5 rook which will put him in check meaning he will have to move out of the way and I can take his rook.
White resigned at this point.
In the last annotation I did involving this strategy I was not actively pursuing the win this way, I was only *willing* to do it if I had to. This game is closer to the original annotated game by andydufresne that has inspired me to look at chess from this angle in that from early on in the game my main focus was to trade off material in order to turn my intial material lead into a win.
Comments are appreciated! :) |
|
| |
|
