Vote Chess game 1: the post snort'em

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

I see little analysis done here so I'll get it started. I will stick with what I said before. I think playing the closed Sicilian, while not necessary a mistake, per se, allowed black to equalize almost immediately in most variations.

Here are some moves that might have improved the chances of both sides:

Lots of material here. Thanks, very interesting. I'll take up just a few of the points you've made.

[...]
13. d4 (vs. g4) by white. g4 was a clear error. Most variations that I looked at had white's king side overly exposed within 10-15 moves. White needs to work on extracting his queen so that he can better mobolize his forces and possibly swap off black's dangerous b7 bishop. Black's follow up move of 13 ... f5 was excellent and exploited the error relatively quickly. Had white moved 13. d4, he could have followed 13 ... f5 with 14. e5 threatening to swap off black's dangerous bishop.

I am in complete agreement with this. I pushed for us to play 13.g4 myself but regret doing so now. The hope was that we could try to gain space on the kingside and then attack there, but we did not anticipate the strength of Black's subsequent central pawn moves. 13.d4 was indeed the right choice in my opinion.

[...]
15. c4 (vs. c3) by white. c3 was likely the most costly error of the game by white. He needs more space and needs to prevent black from opening up with the eventual d5 and c4 pawn advances. I believe had white played c4 here, the sides were dead even. Black cannot easily open up the center and advance his pawns.

The move c2-c4 was advocated in particular by henryzz at various points but strongly rejected by me. Perhaps it would indeed have been the best move by move 15 when we were already in some trouble and needed to contain Black's central pawn advance, but I disliked it at the time because of the weaknesses on the dark squares on the queenside which it would produce. I felt that Black's g7 bishop needed its scope limiting.

16. Qc2 (vs. Qb3) by white. Avoids the tempo gained by black with 16 ... c4. White continues to allow black to open up his position and close down white's position.

We wanted to actively encourage ...c4. We felt that Black could get a virtually winning position with the push ...d5-d4 if the black c-pawn was still on c5.

[gd_barnes]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

The move c2-c4 was advocated in particular by henryzz at various points but strongly rejected by me. Perhaps it would indeed have been the best move by move 15 when we were already in some trouble and needed to contain Black's central pawn advance, but I disliked it at the time because of the weaknesses on the dark squares on the queenside which it would produce. I felt that Black's g7 bishop needed its scope limiting.

Although the dark squares would be somewhat weak after a c4 advance, you still have a dark squared bishop that ultimately can help. Black's g7 bishop threatens little for a very long time. It's the b7 bishop that is more concerning in the long run. Mainly, preventing the central pawn advance by playing c4 is paramount at this point.

Originally Posted by Brian-E

We wanted to actively encourage ...c4. We felt that Black could get a virtually winning position with the push ...d5-d4 if the black c-pawn was still on c5.

That's reasonable. I had only considered Qb3 to be a minor inaccuracy but after looking over a possible d4 move by black, Qb3 and Qc2 seem close to equal in strength as the best for white at this point. Really, it's difficult to say whether allowing black to play c4 or d4 was worse for white.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

8 ... d5 (vs. Nd4) by black. Immediately threatens the fork at d4 and forces white to either move the c3 knight or e3 bishop,

How would Black proceed if 9. Bxc5 were the e3 bishop move after 8 ... d5 ?

13. < snip > g4 was a clear error.

Agree. One shouldn't initiate a Kingside expansion when the center is still so mobile. Why loosen up While's King's defensive position now? Black doesn't have any glaring Kingside defensive weakness to target.

(Also, see following post about square weaknesses.)

White needs to work on extracting his queen

Agree.

Compare 13. c4 instead.

15. c4 (vs. c3) by white. c3 was likely the most costly error of the game by white.

Well, c3 does relieve White's QR from guard duty. ;-)

I think 13. g4 was far costlier. Compare White's move selection possibilities for move 15 after 13. c4 instead of 13. g4.

16. Qc2 (vs. Qb3) by white. Avoids the tempo gained by black with 16 ... c4.

I think you mean 17. Qc2 (vs. Qb3) and 17 ... c4.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

Although the dark squares would be somewhat weak after a c4 advance,

Some of the best advice I got from a higher-rated player was that (1) square weaknesses of any type only matter if your opponent can actually take advantage of them, and (2) if you're attacking your opponent's square weaknesses (or at least the ones nearer his King), he may have little time for attacking your square weaknesses.

Black's g7 bishop threatens little for a very long time. It's the b7 bishop that is more concerning in the long run.

Yes -- which one points at White's King position?

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Some of the best advice I got from a higher-rated player was that (1) square weaknesses of any type only matter if your opponent can actually take advantage of them, and (2) if you're attacking your opponent's square weaknesses (or at least the ones nearer his King), he may have little time for attacking your square weaknesses

Black could exploit the dark squares by opening up the queenside starting with ...b5, maybe sacrificing a pawn if necessary, and then aiming to invade on the queenside (especially via b2) with rooks and queen.

The theme is well known from the Benko Gambit.

[henryzz]

Gary, it seems to me that you have paid huge attention to the first game here. Would you be interested in joining the second game?

[henryzz]

Originally Posted by henryzz

Gary, it seems to me that you have paid huge attention to the first game here. Would you be interested in joining the second game?

cheesehead, the same goes for you. You would be very welcome to join us in playing the second game.

If either of you are worrying about time, all this requires is preferably 30 minutes every 1.5 weeks. It doesn't add up to much really. If you are busy for a move the rest of the team will handle it.

[Brian-E]

Seconded and seconded. Gary and Richard, you are both clearly serious chess enthusiasts who would make valuable additions to either team.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by henryzz

cheesehead, the same goes for you. You would be very welcome to join us in playing the second game.

Okay, I'll join, but warning: I'll probably be absent a while in the near future.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Okay, I'll join, but warning: I'll probably be absent a while in the near future.

Great news!
Various people undoubtedly have planned absences coming up. That will be something for both teams to take account of when we start the second game.

[henryzz]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Great news!
Various people undoubtedly have planned absences coming up. That will be something for both teams to take account of when we start the second game.

And part of the reason why as many players as possible is useful.