During this next tournament game, my opponent and I chart our own path early on, outside of what is covered in opening books. But it's not really new ground, once you start looking in the databases. In what is ostensibly a rather offbeat sideline of a Caro-Kann Two Knights, you can find super-GM level games by Carlsen and Topalov on the Black side, which are given below. (And the next Commentary game to be posted will feature a very recent game in the same line, from the 2019 Women's Candidates tournament.)
These days, especially with Carlsen as a model, players seem less obligated to try to duel for a theoretical advantage in main lines, although there's still a lot of opening theory that continues to evolve. I used to have an unhelpful attitude towards opening "deviations", thinking that they should always be punished. Now, I think it's more important to know the key elements of an opening position, both static and dynamic, which will then be your guide - regardless of whether the line you're in is popular or even known. Analyzing your own games when you enter unfamiliar territory is always a good learning experience, since both your knowledge base and insights should grow as a result.
In this game, the main insight for me from Carlsen's different choice on move 5 is how to take advantage of White's Qe2 blocking the standard bishop development. Later on, the queen's early sally on the kingside also offers opportunities for Black on the queenside. I decide to follow a more aggressive plan with opposite-side castling, which offered the clear idea of advancing pawns on the kingside to pressure White. This isn't done in the most effective way, and I also miss some key ideas repeatedly (...Qd5!?), which I'll remember for the future. There's a lot of back-and-forth and White was dangerous in the endgame, but I finally managed to get a draw. My opponent was rated about 100 points above me, so not a bad outcome of an interesting game.
These days, especially with Carlsen as a model, players seem less obligated to try to duel for a theoretical advantage in main lines, although there's still a lot of opening theory that continues to evolve. I used to have an unhelpful attitude towards opening "deviations", thinking that they should always be punished. Now, I think it's more important to know the key elements of an opening position, both static and dynamic, which will then be your guide - regardless of whether the line you're in is popular or even known. Analyzing your own games when you enter unfamiliar territory is always a good learning experience, since both your knowledge base and insights should grow as a result.
In this game, the main insight for me from Carlsen's different choice on move 5 is how to take advantage of White's Qe2 blocking the standard bishop development. Later on, the queen's early sally on the kingside also offers opportunities for Black on the queenside. I decide to follow a more aggressive plan with opposite-side castling, which offered the clear idea of advancing pawns on the kingside to pressure White. This isn't done in the most effective way, and I also miss some key ideas repeatedly (...Qd5!?), which I'll remember for the future. There's a lot of back-and-forth and White was dangerous in the endgame, but I finally managed to get a draw. My opponent was rated about 100 points above me, so not a bad outcome of an interesting game.
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.