In this game, the divergence comes quite early (3. g4) and is aggressive in nature, so had to be taken seriously; passive moves that diverge from standard "book" ones are obviously less of a threat. I responded unevenly to the challenge and would have benefited from playing more according to opening principles, as shown in the annotations. Among other things, I should have focused more on checking tactics in the openings (a recent theme) and concentrating on development and a central breakthrough once my opponent's king was stranded in the center. Despite a flash of brilliance (moves 22-23) which should have led to a win, I let the game slip away and also missed a chance to win the resulting king and pawn endgame. All in all, a very uneven performance, but I also give credit to my opponent, who played significantly stronger than his rating.
21 May 2016
Annotated Game #158: Openings that aren't as bad as you think
The next tournament game features a provocative opening from my opponent (White), which however unusual, was not in fact bad. This is a common theme in tournament play, where it can be easy to underestimate your opponent based on an unfamiliar or goofy-looking opening choice. This can be as early as the opening move (1. b4!?) or, as in the below game, an early divergence. These lines need to be evaluated critically and carefully and not simply dismissed as inferior, especially if your opponent has experience playing their pet lines.
In this game, the divergence comes quite early (3. g4) and is aggressive in nature, so had to be taken seriously; passive moves that diverge from standard "book" ones are obviously less of a threat. I responded unevenly to the challenge and would have benefited from playing more according to opening principles, as shown in the annotations. Among other things, I should have focused more on checking tactics in the openings (a recent theme) and concentrating on development and a central breakthrough once my opponent's king was stranded in the center. Despite a flash of brilliance (moves 22-23) which should have led to a win, I let the game slip away and also missed a chance to win the resulting king and pawn endgame. All in all, a very uneven performance, but I also give credit to my opponent, who played significantly stronger than his rating.
In this game, the divergence comes quite early (3. g4) and is aggressive in nature, so had to be taken seriously; passive moves that diverge from standard "book" ones are obviously less of a threat. I responded unevenly to the challenge and would have benefited from playing more according to opening principles, as shown in the annotations. Among other things, I should have focused more on checking tactics in the openings (a recent theme) and concentrating on development and a central breakthrough once my opponent's king was stranded in the center. Despite a flash of brilliance (moves 22-23) which should have led to a win, I let the game slip away and also missed a chance to win the resulting king and pawn endgame. All in all, a very uneven performance, but I also give credit to my opponent, who played significantly stronger than his rating.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments and ideas on chess training and this site are welcomed.
Please note that moderation is turned on as an anti-spam measure; your comment will be published as soon as possible, if it is not spam.