Monday, March 28, 2005
Circle 2 Complete; Circle 2 Review
Circle two is complete. I am now reviewing the exercises that I've missed. I am trying to see why the combination works as it does. I hope to finish this review this week.

Which brings me to why soving them had been very hard. The moves of a usual combination are forcing. It is very much predictable what the opponents response is. But the deeper you get into a combination, the larger the choice of opponents response, And the harder it is to predict them. To give a simple example, lets say we have a 4-move combination the first two of which is forced. But on the third move, the opponent have three possible replies. If we unfortunately pick the false move, we could end up analyzing deeper and deeper and see no solution. This happens very commonly. I would analyze a line and look up to see my 10min has passed. Of course after seeing the solution, we may say "Ah, its so simple" but when solving it, it is not so.

Some of the knights have opening repertoire already. I do not have one, and I am sorely tempted to have it also. And since Botvinnik said that it is advisable to stick to three opening system, I am thinking of adopting these lines

White Side
1. e4 - Ruy lopez - I've already tried to map this once before, so it would be wasteful to drop all those analysis. This is also a mainline opening with lots of theory so if I ever wanted to buy references I wont have problems. And most importantly, nezh plays this line so if its good enough for him, its good enough for me
Black Side
2. Againts e4 - Ruy lopez - The goal is to master both sides of this opening
3. Against d4 - Kings Indian - Analyzing the games of nezhmetdinov, and seeing his KID after KID slaughtering the opponents had made a believer out of me.

What no gambits? We'll contrary to expectations, I am not a gambit type of player. My play is overly wild and excessive as it is and using gambits maybe courting disaster a little too much. More importantly, Nezh does not use gambits. And so if its not good enough for him, its not good enough for me =>
But I may not start a remotely serious study of these soon. I have to finish the circles first. Mostly, I think I will get a general idea about them by continuing to play thru Nezhmetdinovs games. I play thru his games everyday and try to understand the attacking ideas contained therein. In this way, I hope to synthesize my newfound tactical ability with the principles of correct attacking play.
posted by Nezha at 10:44 PM | Permalink |


  • At 4:49 AM, Blogger Temposchlucker

    This is also a mainline opening

    Of course mainline openings are good. Maybe the best.
    For years I have played the sicilian Najdorf with black.
    When I came in a chesscafe where a lot of non-clubplayers played, almost everybody knew the first 5-8 moves from this line with white. Purely by imitation (what is good enough for a grandmaster is good enough for them they must have thought:-). So I said to myself: this is idiot. After playing 8 moves I still cannot tell if I'm playing against a grandmaster or a patzer.
    So I decided to play openings that are a little more exotic.
    Now I know at move 2-3 if I play against a tourist. And can get advantage in a far earlier state than in mainline openings.
    As IM Sipke Ernst said to me: below rating 2000 games are decided by tactics. Every opening is playable.

  • At 7:45 AM, Blogger CelticDeath

    Gambits don't fly very well at the master level and better anyway. After I complete my tactics training, I plan to begin transitioning my own opening repertoire to mimic that of my own, personal chess hero, Alexander Alekhine. He was also one of the best attacking players, and I don't believe he had much use for gambits, either.

  • At 6:08 PM, Blogger Don Q.

    Congrats on finishing Circle Two!

  • At 2:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous

    Nezhmedinov didn't use gambits? Hmm. I seem to remember a fine game of his in the Two Knights Defence, in the 4.Ng5 variation. I seem to recall Black is a P down in that one, which would make it a gambit, no?