+- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Members Only (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-16.html)
+--- Forum: Online Correspondence Games (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-24.html)
+--- Thread: 07/03/2012 - C.Sreeves vs A.Burnett (/thread-214.html)
Re: 07/03/2012 - C.Sreeves vs A.Burnett - andyburnett - 09-03-2012
[pgn]1.c4 e5
2.g3 Nc6
3.Nc3 g6
4.Bg2 Bg7
5.d3 d6
6.e4 h5
7.h4 Nd4
8.Nce2 Ne6
9.Nf3 Nf6[/pgn]
Spoiler here>> Now it's time to stop and think properly! 9. My first thoughts are that I'm sure I've faced this move before, and I'm also trying to recall a game between Jonathan Grant and Colin McNab from the Scottish many years ago.
John Shaw annotated it for Scottish Chess magazine, and I spent a fair bit of time looking at John's suggested improvement for white (who lost) and felt black was doing fine regardless. It was in a line something like 9...Ne7 10. 0-0 0-0 11. d4 cxd4 12. Nfxd4 c5 but I get the feeling that can't be quite right - John's improvement was a Rc1 move and I can't quite see where it would occur?!!?
Anyway, I will have to depend on myself rather than my memory now, so I have a choice between 9...Ne7 and 9...Nf6. I'm favouring the latter of these as it puts pressure on e4 (should white try to break in the centre with d4) and it also aims at the g4 square (hitting any bishop on e3, and eyeing up the dark squares in general after ...c6 and possibly ...Qb6 if the right situation arises).
My first analysis of 10. d4 (or 10.0-0 0-0 11.d4) in reply leads me to believe I can play 10/11...Nxe4 safely, so I think I will stick with that rather than get distracted by half-remembered analysis from years ago! <<Spoiler here
Re: 07/03/2012 - C.Sreeves vs A.Burnett - andyburnett - 09-03-2012
Just an update on my previous note...
Spoiler here>> I had a wee think about the J.Grant-C.McNab game while preparing my lunch and I think it must have continued something like 9...Nge7 10.0-0 0-0 11. d4 exd4 12. Nxd4 a6 (to prepare ...c5 followed by ...b5 without allowing Nb5) 13. Be3 c5 14. Nxe6 Bxe6 then possibly 15. b3!? (offering the exchange) when John recommended instead 15. Rc1!?
I'm sure someone will post the actual game and I will see it when my game with Clement is over : )
Anyway, I guess I should concentrate on the move I've actually played. <<Spoiler here
Re: 07/03/2012 - C.Sreeves vs A.Burnett - Clement Sreeves - 12-03-2012
1.c4 e5
2.g3 Nc6
3.Nc3 g6
4.Bg2 Bg7
5.d3 d6
6.e4 h5
7.h4 Nd4
8.Nce2 Ne6
9.Nf3 Nf6
10.0-0
![[Image: 3pdddls8d0o4s.png]](http://www.chessvideos.tv/bimg/3pdddls8d0o4s.png)
Spoiler here>> So much for that prediction. Anyway pretty obvious move again, now after 10...0-0 my plan is to go 11.Ng5, I'll go into more detail when (if is probably a better word) that position comes up <<Spoiler here
Re: 07/03/2012 - C.Sreeves vs A.Burnett - andyburnett - 12-03-2012
[pgn]1.c4 e5
2.g3 Nc6
3.Nc3 g6
4.Bg2 Bg7
5.d3 d6
6.e4 h5
7.h4 Nd4
8.Nce2 Ne6
9.Nf3 Nf6
10.0-0 a5[/pgn]
Spoiler here>> OK, I'm tempted to just castle immediately, but it's always useful to see if there is an alternative. White might simply play b4 next move, so I could play 10...a5 here to forestall it (with the typical idea 11.a3 a4 which stymies his queenside expansion).
However, 11.d4 might be playable instead now that his king is tucked away and mine isn't - there might be tactical problems with me taking on e4 then. I need to look at a couple of variations after 10...a5 11.d4. Ok, I don't see any real danger there after 11...Nxe4, so I think I'll throw in 10...a5 because it's quite useful to secure some q-side space and the c5-square too.
I expect something like 11. Qc2 then 11...0-0 12.d4 or maybe even 12.Ng5 looking to exchange the knights and play Bg5!? I'm not sure, but I think my position is healthy enough and flexible enough for the time being. <<Spoiler here
Re: 07/03/2012 - C.Sreeves vs A.Burnett - Clement Sreeves - 12-03-2012
1.c4 e5
2.g3 Nc6
3.Nc3 g6
4.Bg2 Bg7
5.d3 d6
6.e4 h5
7.h4 Nd4
8.Nce2 Ne6
9.Nf3 Nf6
10.0-0 a5
11.b3
![[Image: 3bbw4uqg2jwgc.png]](http://www.chessvideos.tv/bimg/3bbw4uqg2jwgc.png)
Spoiler here>> No more guessing. The opening is basically over so let's take stock. My g2 bishop and f3 knight are both reasonably placed. My knight on e2 isn't a very good piece, but I don't see any obvious place it should aim for. It's a bit better on c3 but I don't think that's the most important thing at the moment. My bishop on c1 still needs to find a good square. The big problem is that due to the inclusion of h4-h5, Be3 can always be hit by Ng4. Perhaps it can go to g5 if the Ne6 moves, or maybe I can develop it on the long diagonal, either b3-Bb2 or Bd2-Bc3.
In terms of plans, I think neither side really wants to play on the kingside, since as I mentioned earlier pushing the f-pawn 2 squares leads to a massive weakening of the g4/g5 square. For me, there seems to be 2 options possible: playing d4, or attempting to gain space on the queenside with a3-b4 at some point. Well, I don't like 11.d4 at all- after exd4 12.Nfxd4 0-0 Black seems to have a very nice King's Indian position, while White's pieces are clumsy. Which explains the text move, going for the second plan. I have to start with b3, because on 11.a3 a4 would be annoying. Now I also have the option of putting my bishop on b2.
By the way, now Ng5 would be pointless because he can just reply Nc5, and I don't have b4 to drive the knight away.
In terms of evaluation, I'm thinking Black is completely fine here. I'm not totally sure what went wrong, I guess that's why I am a 1.e4 player :S <<Spoiler here
Re: 07/03/2012 - C.Sreeves vs A.Burnett - andyburnett - 12-03-2012
[pgn]1.c4 e5
2.g3 Nc6
3.Nc3 g6
4.Bg2 Bg7
5.d3 d6
6.e4 h5
7.h4 Nd4
8.Nce2 Ne6
9.Nf3 Nf6
10.0-0 a5
11.b3 0-0[/pgn]
Spoiler here>> Ok, 11.b3 is a normal sort of move here, no direct challenge so I should just castle now. After 11...0-0 12. a3 c6 13. Bb2 then 13...Qb6 is interesting (with the idea of ...Nc5), or if 13. Rb1 I will look at 13...c5 (this needs some serious thought, as it may just weaken too many squares... d5 AND b5... but in certain specific positions it will be a good idea) <<Spoiler here
Re: 07/03/2012 - C.Sreeves vs A.Burnett - andyburnett - 12-03-2012
Are we allowed to move pieces around on the board as we analyse? I haven't yet, but forgot to even ask! Andy
Re: 07/03/2012 - C.Sreeves vs A.Burnett - Alan Tate - 12-03-2012
Definitely not :-P
Re: 07/03/2012 - C.Sreeves vs A.Burnett - Clement Sreeves - 12-03-2012
Thinly veiled brag?
Well I have, so feel free!
Re: 07/03/2012 - C.Sreeves vs A.Burnett - andyburnett - 12-03-2012
Haha! Not bragging, just don't have a chess set where I work! (Alan Minnican brought a replica of the Fischer-Spassky 1972 board and clock to my hotel last week for our club championship game. Unfortunately I took on the role of Spassky
)Rumour has it that Mr Tate doesn't own a chess set either?! Care to comment on that Alan?