[Event "PC2 12/7/11 23:45"]
[Site "Palm Handheld"]
[Date "2011.07.12"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Southall, Chris"]
[Black "NN"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/2pn1pbp/1p1p1np1/pP2p3/2P5/2N1PN2/PB1PBPPP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 10"]
[PlyCount "26"]
1.. d4 {Chris says: "Move 10 was where I wasn't sure what to do. I had
developed my minor pieces and felt like I needed to challenge black's solid
Jonathan had a frustrating game recently, where his hopes of an interesting game with chances to win came to nothing. Have a play through this one and have see what you think.
"We perceive after a careful consideration of the evolution of the chess mind that such evolution has gone on, in general, in a way quite similar to that in which it goes on with the individual chess player, only with the latter more rapidly." -- Richard RETI
Charlie sent me this game for comment. I thought it would be interesting for us both to annotate. If you would like to join in, please assign each move of Black a symbol:
! = almost certainly the best move
!? = a good move among alternatives
?! = probably not the best move
? = clearly wrong
I was at the WECU Easter Congress in Exmouth today for the final round (news at http://chessdevon.co.uk/), and heard from Bill Frost that Brian Gosling has written a book about the problems of Dorset composer John Brown. And I thought if I hadn't heard about it, then perhaps you haven't too.
At the beginning of the game the forces stand in
equilibrium.
Correct play on both sides maintains this equilibrium and leads
to a drawn game.
Therefore a player can win only as a consequence of an error
made by the opponent. (There is no such thing as a winning
move.)
As long as the equilibrium is maintained, an attack, however
skilful, cannot succeed against correct defence. Such a defence
will eventually necessitate the withdrawal and regrouping of the
attacking pieces and te attacker will then inevitably suffer
disadvantage.
There was a long-running argument on the UseNet rec.games.chess
newsgroups earlier this year,
basically around the idea that "chess is tactics, and club
players should study nothing but tactics" (or 90%
tactics).
More recently I got a video by Nigel Davies called Dirty
Tricks which offered a complete repertoire
for a club player. In every line, there was at least one huge
smelly pit for the opponent to fall into, or some other hope of
I don't like doing so many sessions on Openings, because we all
play different ones, but while Rex was asking me about the English
it occurred to me that I have played more English Opening games
than any other over the last 15-20 years, but I have never tried to
teach anybody about it. So I sat down and tried to put together
this session.
I immediately realised why it wasn't such a natural thing
to do, because the damn thing is so diffuse and complex. [I
wouldn't dream of doing a session which I had narrowed down to
"1.d4", even less so if there were vast transpositional