wrote:
The actual game, at 2 minutes + 12 seconds time controls. At fast
time controls, humans sometimes press an attack too hard, hoping to
exhaust their opponent's clock.

Neither side ever had an attack in the game you quote. And the whole
point of playing with increments is to avoid running out of time.


1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.e3 Bb4 5.Qc2 e4? 6.Nxe4 O-O 7.a3 Nxe4
8.axb4 Re8 9.b5 Nb4 10.Qb3 c5 11.bxc6 a5

Correct here is 11... Nxc6. It's a theme that crops up from time to
time and is well worth knowing.


12.cxb7 Bxb7 13.d3 Nc5 14.Qc3 Bc6 15.d4 Na4 16.Qd2 Be4? 17.Rxa4 Bb1

An odd-looking move.


18.Rxb4!

I don't think that's worth a ! -- I'd give it a ?! or, more likely,
just a plain ?. You've sacrificed the exchange for a pawn and the
right to castle: I don't see the value in that and nor does Fritz 8,
which scores the position as +3.91 to 14 ply after 18.Rxb4 and
+4.66/15 after 18.Be2: in other words, it sees no significant
difference between the positions other than material.


18... axb4 19.Bd3

Surely, 19.Qxb4 ?


19... b3? 20.Bxb1 Ra1 21.Bd3 1-0


Dave.

--
David Richerby Flammable Slimy Hi-Fi (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a music system but it's covered in
goo and it burns really easily!

On 28 Sep 2006 07:41:08 -0700, "Patrick"
wrote:

Anyhow, I hate letting all this hardware and software go to waste.
Years ago, when CM3000 was new, I bought a book called "Mastering the
Chessmaster"--a user guide that told how to make the most of the
software. I could use something like that for today's Chessmaster (or
Fritz).

See:

http://www.chesscentral.com/lopez/gu...uter-chess.htm

-- Steve Lopez

David Richerby wrote:
wrote:

Neither side ever had an attack in the game you quote. And the whole
point of playing with increments is to avoid running out of time.

Increments are great... I don't like winning via wood-pushing. Black
thought he had an attack. I was content to win material by defending.

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.e3 Bb4 5.Qc2

Book: English Opening / Four Knights

5...e4? 6.Nxe4

5...e4? is a mistake. The e4-square had two attackers and three
defenders.

6...O-O 7.a3 Nxe4 8.axb4 Re8 9.b5 Nb4

The obvious recapture was 8.Qxe4 Re8 9.Qc2 Bc5. I decided on 8.axb4 Re8
9.b5 Nb4 because I get the bishop pair (imbalance) and Black has more
chances to go wrong. The doubled b-pawns didn't look like trouble here.

10.Qb3 c5 11. bxc6 a5

Correct here is 11... Nxc6. It's a theme that crops up from time to
time and is well worth knowing.

Yup, that would have saved him a pawn.

12.cxb7 Bxb7 13.d3 Nc5 14.Qc3 Bc6 15.d4 Na4 16.Qd2 Be4?? 17.Rxa4 Bb1

With 16...Be4??, he must have been planning Nc2+. If Black prepared
with Nb6 first, his combination might have been effective.

An odd-looking move.

17...Bb1 seems like a waiting move--he probably didn't know how to
continue. 17...Nc2+ would have meant no castling. 17...Rb8 or 17...Qb6
would have respectable moves bringing his army closer to the action.

18.Rxb4!

I don't think that's worth a ! -- I'd give it a ?! or, more likely,
just a plain ?. You've sacrificed the exchange for a pawn and the
right to castle: I don't see the value in that and nor does Fritz 8,
which scores the position as +3.91 to 14 ply after 18.Rxb4 and
+4.66/15 after 18.Be2: in other words, it sees no significant
difference between the positions other than material.

I thought of the sacrifice as an immediate way to clarify the win.
18.Rxb4?! axb4 19.Bd3 Bxd3 20.Qxd3 Ra1 21.O-O. I sacrifice my rook for
his knight, ability to exchange bishops, ability to castle, and a few
easy follow-up moves worth 30-45 seconds on the clock.

At the end of the sequence I have extra time, a solid position, two
extra pawns, and two minor pieces for his rook which I could hold even
against a class B player.

You're right, ! fits better than ?!. Crafty suggests 18.Be2 Nc2+ 19.Kf1
Nb4 20.Na1 Na2 21.Bd3 Bxd3 22.Nxd3 Nxc1. As a result, White is two
pawns and a piece up.

18... axb4 19.Bd3?!

Surely, 19.Qxb4 ?

I figured I had enough material and wanted to simplify the position.

19... b3?? 20.Bxb1 Ra1 21.Bd3 1-0


Dave.

wrote:
You're right, ! fits better than ?!. Crafty suggests 18.Be2 Nc2+ 19.Kf1

Or rather, ?! fits better than !.

-- likesforests

---
Become a Chess Expert
http://likesforests.blogspot.com/

wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
I don't think that's worth a ! -- I'd give it a ?! or, more likely,
just a plain ?. [...]

I thought of the sacrifice as an immediate way to clarify the win.
18.Rxb4?! axb4 19.Bd3 Bxd3 20.Qxd3 Ra1 21.O-O. I sacrifice my rook
for his knight, ability to exchange bishops, ability to castle, and
a few easy follow-up moves worth 30-45 seconds on the clock.

The extra time on the clock could be pretty important in a 2-12 game,
yes. I'd forgotten to take that into account. And, as you say, the
position is still comfortably won.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Old-Fashioned Moistened Drink (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a refreshing juice beverage
but it's moist and perfect for your
grandparents!